S414中国上诉(译).doc

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 世界贸易组织WT/DS414/523 July 2012 (12-4026)Original: EnglishCHINA - COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL STEEL FROM THE UNITED STATES中国针对进口自美国的电工钢进行的反倾销和反补贴调查案Notification of an Appeal by China 中方上诉通知under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review依据争端解决的规则和程序备忘录第16.4条和第17条以及上诉审查工作程序第20(1)条规则The following notification, dated 20 July 2012, from the Delegation of the Peoples Republic of China, is being circulated to Members._1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, the Peoples Republic of China hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report in China - Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-Rolled Electrical Steel from the United States (WT/DS414) (Panel Report). Pursuant to Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, China is simultaneously filing this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.依据争端解决的规则和程序备忘录以及上诉审查工作程序第20(1)条规则，中华人民共和国兹通知争端解决机构，中方决定就专家组报告中国针对进口自美国的电工钢进行的反倾销和反补贴调查案（简称“专家组报告”）（WT/DS414）所涉及的某些法律和法律解释问题向上诉机构提出上诉。根据上诉审查工作程序第20(1)条规则，中国向同时向上诉机构书记处也提交了此通知。2. The measures at issue in this dispute imposed countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (GOES) from the United States. An application for the initiation of an anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigation was filed by Chinese petitioners, alleging the existence of countervailable subsidies and dumping margins that caused or threatened to cause injury to the domestic Chinese industry. The Ministry of Commerce for the Peoples Republic of China (MOFCOM) issued an affirmative final determination in each of these investigations. MOFCOM calculated ad valorem subsidy rates of 11.7% and 12% for the respondent companies, and dumping margins of 7.8% and 19.9%. Furthermore, MOFCOM determined that the domestic industry was suffering from material injury, and that the injury was caused by the dumped imports of GOES from Russia and the dumped and subsidized imports of GOES from the United States. MOFCOM made these determinations in its final determination, Final Determination 2010 No. 21 (10 April 2010).本案争议的措施为对进口自美国的电工钢进行的反倾销和反补贴调查。中国申请人申请启动反倾销和反补贴调查，声称存在非法补贴（countervailable subsidies）和倾销幅度引起或威胁引起对中国国内产业的损害。中国商务部对这两个调查发布了肯定性的终裁决定。中国商务部计算出被告的几个公司（respondent companies）的按价补贴率为11.7%和12%，倾销幅度为7.8%和19.9%。此外中国商务部认定国内产业正在遭受实质损害，而该损害是由于进口自俄罗斯的电工钢的倾销和进口自美国的电工钢的倾销加补贴造成的。中国商务部在其终裁（终裁2012第21号（2012年4月10日）中作出此认定。3. The issues that China raises in this appeal relate to the Panels findings and conclusions in respect of the consistency of the challenged measures with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement).中国在此上诉中提出的问题涉及专家组针对被诉措施是否符合反倾销协议和SCM协议的发现和结论。4. For the reasons stated below, and as will be developed in its submissions and oral statements to the Appellate Body, China appeals the following errors of law and legal interpretation contained in the Panel Report and requests the Appellate Body to reverse or modify the related findings and conclusions of the Panel. In doing so, China makes five specific claims, delineated below and to be detailed in its submissions to the Appellate Body.1基于以上陈述的原因，以及在即将向上诉机构提交的书面和口头陈述中所充分说明的原因，中国就专家组报告中包含的下列法律和法律解释错误提出上诉，并请求上诉机构驳回或修正专家组的相关发现和结论。为此，中国提出五项具体主张，具体陈述如下并在向上诉机构提交的文件中作出细致说明。5. First, China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panels interpretation of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement as it relates to MOFCOMs discussion of the existence of adverse price effects. In particular, the Panel erred in interpreting the phrase the effect of from Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement as meaning that an authority must demonstrate that adverse price effects were caused by dumped or subsidized imports.2 In doing so, the Panel did not consider the text, context, and object and purpose of those provisions and those agreements.3首先，中国请求上诉机构审查专家组对反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条作出的解释，因为这关系到中国商务部对存在不良价格效应的论证。特别是，专家组错误地解释了反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条中“的效应”这个短语，将其解释为调查机关必须证明不良价格效应是由倾销或补贴的进口品引起的。在作出此解释时，专家组没有考虑文本、上下文以及这些协议和协议中的这些规定的目的。6. Second, China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panels application of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement as it relates to MOFCOMs final determinations with respect to price effects.4 The Panels application of the legal standard erred in several fundamental aspects.5 The Panels errors of law and legal application include:其次，中国请求上诉机构审查专家组对反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条，因为其与中国商务部终裁中涉及价格效应的部分有关。专家组在法律标准的适用上在若干根本方面出现了错误。专家组的法律和法律适用错误包括：(a) The Panel erred in interpreting MOFCOMs final determinations in a manner that caused the Panel to apply the obligations of Article 3.2 and Article 15.2 to facts not found by MOFCOM. Rather than apply the legal standard to MOFCOMs final determinations as written, the Panel examined findings never made by the authority and instead ignored or dismissed key factors that MOFCOM had discussed in its determinations.6专家组错误地解释了中国商务部的终裁，致使专家组将第3.2条和15.2条的义务应用到了中国商务部未发现的事实上。专家组不是针对已经写出的内容对中国商务部的终裁适用法律标准，而是审查该机关未作出的结论，如此则忽略或摒弃了中国商务部在其决定（初裁和终裁）中讨论的关键因素。(b) The Panel erred in requiring specific methodologies to satisfy the obligations of Article 3.2 and Article 15.2.7 Instead of deferring to the discretion of the authority when considering price effects, the Panel imposed several methodological requirements for evaluating price effects that do not exist in the text of the agreements and were not raised by the parties to the underlying investigation.专家组错误地要求以具体的方法来满足第3.2条和15.2.7条的义务。专家组在审查价格效应时不是慎重考虑调查机关的报告，而是针对价格效应的评估提出了若干方法要求，而这些要求在协议文本中并不存在，在调查中各当事方也没有提出这种要求。7. Third, China seeks review by the Appellate Body under Article 11 of the DSU of how the Panel proceeded in this dispute. The Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in conducting its analysis of price depression and price suppression by failing to conduct an objective assessment of the matter. Specifically, the Panel misinterpreted a fundamental MOFCOM finding of fact, the result of which caused the Panel to find MOFCOMs price depression and price suppression findings inconsistent with Article 3.2 and 15.2.8 In doing so, the Panel also erred in failing to consider the totality of the evidence. The Panel approached individual pieces of evidence in isolation instead of addressing the ways in which MOFCOMs evidence interrelated.9 Ultimately, the Panel erred in failing to focus on the MOFCOM decision as written. The Panel went beyond the rationale contained in the determination itself and relied upon the interpretation advocated by the United States and the Panels own new price effects analysis.10第三，中国请求上诉机依据争端解决谅解备忘录审查专家组在本案中的工作程序。专家组在分析价格萧条（price depression and price suppression）时违反了争端解决谅解备忘录第11条，没能就该问题进行客观的评价。具体而言，专家组错误地解读了中国商务部的一个基本的事实认定，这一误读导致专家组认定中国商务部的价格萧条结论违反了第3.2条和第15.2.8条。与此同时，专家组还错误地未能考虑证据的整体性。专家组孤立地审查单个证据，没有认识到中国商务部的证据是相互关联的。最终，专家组错误的忽视了中国商务部的书面决定。专家组将该决定本身包含的基本原理置之不理，而依赖于美国提倡的解读以及专家组自己对价格效应的分析。8. Fourth, China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panels finding that China acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 12.8 of the SCM Agreement regarding the disclosure of essential facts relating to MOFCOMs price effects analysis.11 The Panels finding rested entirely on its erroneous understanding of the legal obligations of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement.12 The Panel adopted a misguided understanding of essential facts13 because the Panel misunderstood the underlying obligations at issue.第四，中国要求上诉机构审查专家组关于中国的行为违反了反倾销协议第6.9条和SCM协议第12.8条项下关于中国商务部价格效应分析应当披露关键事实的义务的结论。专家组的结论完全基于其对反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条项下的法律义务的错误理解。专家组错误地理解了“关键事实”，因为它误解了本案中的潜在义务。9. Fifth, China seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panels finding that China acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 22.5 of the SCM Agreement regarding the public notice and explanation of MOFCOMs price effects analysis.14 As with Chinas fourth claim, this Panel finding rested entirely on the Panels erroneous understanding of the legal obligations of Article 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 15.2 of the SCM Agreement.15 In light of a proper interpretation of Article 3.2 and Article 15.2, MOFCOM adequately provided public notice of its findings regarding the existence of price depression and price suppression.第五，中国要求上诉机构审查专家组中国违反反倾销协议第12.2.2条和SCM协议第22.5条项下关于公告义务及中国商务部解释其价格效应分析的义务的结论。正如中国第四项主张所述，专家组在此问题上的