Canada – Certain Measures Affecting

1、Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry ZHANG YUNSHANArguments of Japan1Arguments of Japan1(a)The Duty Waiver relates to a customs duty within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994责任豁免涉及关税在我的文章的含义：1关贸总协定1994(b)The Duty Waiver is an advantage within the meaning of Article I:1

2、of the GATT 1994责任豁免是在我的文章的含义的优势：1关贸总协定1994(c)The products at issue are like products发行的产品是“喜欢”产品(d)The advantage is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating in all WTO Members这种优势是不符合立即和无条件地喜欢在所有世贸组织成员的产品(e)The advantage accorded to the products originating in parti

3、cular WTO Members has not been accorded to like products originating in the territories of all WTO Members对原产于特别世贸组织成员的产品的优势没有被给予像原产于世界贸易组织成员领土的产品Arguments of Japan 2 Arguments of Japan 2 The Duty Waiver is inconsistent with Canadas MFN obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because the advan

4、tage, i.e. removal of customs duty, is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating in the territories of all other Members. 义务的放弃与加拿大的贸易最惠国待遇义务的文章我不一致：1关贸总协定1994因为优势，即去除关税，不立即无条件地给予所有喜欢源自其他成员领土的产品。 Arguments of Japan 3 Arguments of Japan 3 To assess any inconsistency wi

5、th Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 评估的文章我任何不一致：1关贸总协定1994(i)Does the Duty Waiver relate to a customs duty within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994? 责任豁免是否涉及海关税在我的文章的含义：1关贸总协定1994？(ii)Is the Duty Waiver an advantage within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994? 责任豁免的优势在文章的意义我:1 1994年关贸总协

6、定的?(iii)Are the products at issue like products? 产品问题“喜欢”呢?(iv)Has the advantage accorded to the products originating in particular WTO Members been accorded immediately and unconditionally to all like products originating in the territories of all other WTO Members?特别是世贸组织成员国的产品有没有受到“立即和无条件”的产品，这些产

7、品都是原产于其他世贸组织成员国的产品吗？Arguments of Japan 4Arguments of Japan 4 like products The determination of whether products are like must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the light of all relevant facts and circumstances. Relevant factors include physical characteristics, end-uses, consumer tastes and ha

8、bits, and price. 根据所有相关事实和情况，确定产品是否“喜欢”，必须以个案为基础进行评估。相关因素包括身体特征，最终用途，消费者的口味和习惯，和价格。Arguments of the European Arguments of the European CommunitiesCommunities 1 1(a) The measures confer an advantage covered by Article I:1这些措施赋予了一个“优势”的文章I：1(b) The automobiles imported by the beneficiaries are like th

9、e automobiles imported by non-beneficiaries由受益人进口的汽车是“像”非受益者进口的汽车(c) The Tariff Exemption benefits mainly imports from the United States and Mexico关税豁免的好处主要来自美国和墨西哥的进口Arguments of the European Arguments of the European CommunitiesCommunities 2 2the Tariff Exemption is inconsistent with GATT Article

10、I:1 in that de facto it provides an advantage to imports of automobiles originating in the United States and Mexico vis-vis imports of like products originating in other Members.关税豁免与GATT文章I不符：1，事实上它提供了一个优势，进口汽车原产于美国和墨西哥对可见进口原产于其他成员的产品一样。Canadas response 1 Canadas response 1 The complainants have fa

11、iled to meet their burden of proof 投诉人未能满足他们的举证责任The Motor Vehicles Tariff Order (MVTO) and Special Remission Orders(the SROs ) provide MFN treatment for products 汽车关税为（mvto）和特殊减免订单（SROs）为产品提供最惠国待遇Canadas response 2 Canadas response 2 As a matter of fact and of law, Canadas tariff regime applicable

12、to automotive products is fully consistent with the letter and spirit of Article I. Moreover, if any advantage is accorded to Canadas NAFTA partners, this would be perfectly legitimate because the NAFTA creates a free-trade area within the meaning of Article XXIV of GATT 1994.作为一个事实和法律，加拿大的关税制度适用于汽车

13、产品与信和第一条而且精神完全一致，如果任何优势给予加拿大的北美自由贸易区的合作伙伴，这将是完全合法的，在北美自由贸易协定创造了GATT 1994第24条的意义的自由贸易区。Canadas response 3-The MVTO and the SROs provide Canadas response 3-The MVTO and the SROs provide MFN treatment for products MFN treatment for products Article I by its terms forbids discrimination based on origin

14、of the product. That the treatment relates to products is clear from the text of the Article, and it is confirmed by the negotiating history.1 Moreover, it has been recognized by a recent WTO Panel.2 A Member may therefore legitimately treat products differently, so long as the distinction in treatm

15、ent is based on criteria other than national origin. Thus distinctions based on activities of importing manufacturers do not offend Article I. 文章以其条款禁止歧视的基础上的产品的原产地。，治疗涉及产品是从文章的文字，它是由谈判历史证实。 1 此外，它已被最近的WTO专家组的认可。 2 的成员可能因此合法地对待不同的产品，只要在治疗的区别是基于其他国家原产地标准。因此，区别的基础上的进口生产商的活动不会冒犯第一条。Canadas response 4-C

16、anadas response 4-The MVTO and the SROs The MVTO and the SROs provide MFN treatment for productsprovide MFN treatment for productsThe complainants concede there is no de jure violation of Canadas MFN obligation 起诉方承认没有法理违反加拿大最惠国的义务 The complainants contention that there is de facto violation of Cana

17、das MFN obligation cannot be sustained信访人提出的论点,实际上违反了加拿大的最惠国义务不能持续 The complainants contentions that the MVTO and SROs do not extend MFN treatment unconditionally are without merit信访人提出的论点,MVTO和自律监管不延长无条件最惠国待遇是没有价值的Canadas response 5Canadas response 5The complainants concede there is no de jure viol

18、ation of Canadas MFN obligation起诉方承认没有法理违反加拿大最惠国的义务Both Japan and the European Communities concede that the MVTO and SROs provide for MFN treatment on their face. Japan states: Ostensibly, the Auto Pact manufacturers are permitted to import motor vehicles of any national origin The European Communit

19、ies is equally categorical: On its face, the Tariff Exemption is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally with respect to all imports of automobiles by the beneficiaries, irrespective of their country of origin. The MVTO 1998 provides explicitly for MFN treatment. Moreover, none of the SROs limits

20、the sources from which vehicles may be imported duty free.日本和欧洲共同体承认MVTO和自律监管提供最惠国待遇在他们的脸上。日本:“表面上看,汽车协议允许制造商进口机动车辆任何国籍的“欧洲经济共同体是同样直言:“表面上,关税豁免非歧视性的,因为它同样适用于对所有进口汽车的受益者,无论他们的母国。“MVTO 1998提供了明确的最惠国待遇。此外,没有自律监管限制车辆的来源可能是免税进口。Canadas response 6Canadas response 6The complainants contention that there is

21、 de facto violation of Canadas MFN obligation cannot be sustained 信访人提出的论点,实际上违反了加拿大的最惠国义务不能持续The allegation of the European Communities is that an illegal advantage is granted de facto to US and Mexican products. The Japanese claim is that the MVTO and SROs grant a de facto advantage to Swedish and

22、 Belgian products without extending it to Japanese products. The fact that the complainants allegations are so markedly different suggests that neither theory has any basis in fact. 欧洲共同体的指控是一个非法优势是事实上的美国和墨西哥的产品。日本声称是MVTO和自律监管给瑞典和比利时产品实际优势没有扩展到日本产品。投诉者的指控的事实明显不同表明理论都没有任何事实依据。First, the ECs allegatio

23、n, even if true, cannot assist the European Communities in this case. This is because any advantage that may be accorded to the United States or Mexico, Canadas NAFTA free-trade partners, would in any event be exempted from Article I disciplines by virtue of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. 首先,欧盟的指控,即

24、使真的,不能在这种情况下协助欧洲共同体。这是因为任何优势,可能会给予美国或墨西哥,加拿大的北美自由贸易协定的自由贸易合作伙伴,将在任何情况下免除文章我学科由于1994年关贸总协定第二十四条。than the Treaty of Rome requires. 罗马条约的要求。In contrast to the European Communities, Japan recognised that it has no legitimate complaint under Article I as regards treatment of the United States and Mexico.

25、 Indeed, Japan correctly reached the conclusion that the real benefits from the MVTO and the SROs flow to products imported from countries other than the United States and Mexico. Japan provided data indicating that vehicles from Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea and Japan en

26、joy duty-free access to the Canadian market.与欧洲经济共同体,日本承认它没有合法投诉条我至于对待美国和墨西哥。事实上,日本正确地得出结论,真正的受益MVTO和自律监管流产品从美国和墨西哥以外的国家进口。日本提供数据表明车辆从瑞典、比利时、英国、德国、南韩和日本正享受着免税进入加拿大市场。In any event, the important question is not how many Japanese and European vehicles qualify for MFN treatment; it is whether they qual

27、ify under the same terms as the products of all other WTO Members. The short answer is that they do.在任何情况下,重要的问题是没有多少日本和欧洲汽车享受最惠国待遇;这是他们是否合格的产品在同等条件下其他WTO成员。简短的回答是他们做的。Canadas response 6Canadas response 6The complainants contention that there is de facto violation of Canadas MFN obligation cannot be

28、 sustained 信访人提出的论点,实际上违反了加拿大的最惠国义务不能持续The allegation of the European Communities is that an illegal advantage is granted de facto to US and Mexican products. The Japanese claim is that the MVTO and SROs grant a de facto advantage to Swedish and Belgian products without extending it to Japanese prod

29、ucts. The fact that the complainants allegations are so markedly different suggests that neither theory has any basis in fact. 欧洲共同体的指控是一个非法优势是事实上的美国和墨西哥的产品。日本声称是MVTO和自律监管给瑞典和比利时产品实际优势没有扩展到日本产品。投诉者的指控的事实明显不同表明理论都没有任何事实依据。First, the ECs allegation, even if true, cannot assist the European Communities

30、 in this case. This is because any advantage that may be accorded to the United States or Mexico, Canadas NAFTA free-trade partners, would in any event be exempted from Article I disciplines by virtue of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. 首先,欧盟的指控,即使真的,不能在这种情况下协助欧洲共同体。这是因为任何优势,可能会给予美国或墨西哥,加拿大的北美自由贸易协定的自

31、由贸易合作伙伴,将在任何情况下免除文章我学科由于1994年关贸总协定第二十四条。than the Treaty of Rome requires. 罗马条约的要求。In contrast to the European Communities, Japan recognised that it has no legitimate complaint under Article I as regards treatment of the United States and Mexico. Indeed, Japan correctly reached the conclusion that th

32、e real benefits from the MVTO and the SROs flow to products imported from countries other than the United States and Mexico. Japan provided data indicating that vehicles from Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea and Japan enjoy duty-free access to the Canadian market.与欧洲经济共同体,日本

33、承认它没有合法投诉条我至于对待美国和墨西哥。事实上,日本正确地得出结论,真正的受益MVTO和自律监管流产品从美国和墨西哥以外的国家进口。日本提供数据表明车辆从瑞典、比利时、英国、德国、南韩和日本正享受着免税进入加拿大市场。In any event, the important question is not how many Japanese and European vehicles qualify for MFN treatment; it is whether they qualify under the same terms as the products of all other W

34、TO Members. The short answer is that they do.在任何情况下,重要的问题是没有多少日本和欧洲汽车享受最惠国待遇;这是他们是否合格的产品在同等条件下其他WTO成员。简短的回答是他们做的。Canadas response 7Canadas response 7The complainants contentions that the MVTO and SROs do not extend MFN treatment unconditionally are without meritmeasures such as import-licensing regi

35、mes, tariff-rate quotas and end-use requirements that provide advantages all have the effect of limiting the number of eligible importers and are nonetheless perfectly consistent with WTO obligations. There is no basis whatsoever under the GATT 1994 or any other WTO Agreement for a claim that the pr

36、ivate commercial relationships of importers entitled to an advantage can, by themselves, form the basis for a violation of Article I:1 of GATT 1994.GATT and WTO cases have made it abundantly clear that Article I prohibits treatment that discriminates between like products on the basis of nationality

37、. Panel Report on Belgian Family Allowances, supra note 276; Panel Report on EEC Beef from Canada, supra note 282. Thus, the proper test of whether the imposition of a condition or criterion infringes Article I is whether that condition or criterion is both (a) insufficient to afford a basis to distinguish the products as not “like”, and (b) of a nature that results in discriminatory import treatment on the basis of the nation