WTO-S414案例(包含上诉机构裁判要旨的翻译)

Summaryofthedisputetodate

back

to

topThesummarybelowwasup-to-dateat20

November

2012本摘要于2012年11月20日进行了更新。ConsultationsComplaintbytheUnitedStates.美方诉求On15September2010,theUnitedStatesrequestedconsultationswithChinawithrespecttomeasuresimposingcountervailingdutiesandanti-dumpingdutiesongrainorientedflat-rolledelectricalsteel(“GOES”)fromtheUnitedStatesassetforthinMinistryofCommerceofthePeople'sRepublicofChina(“MOFCOM”)NoticeNo.21[2010],includingitsannexes.

ThesubsidythatChinadeterminedtoconferabenefitarethe“BuyAmerica”provisionsoftheAmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009andalsoStategovernmentprocurementlaws.

2012年9月15日美国要求就中国商务部对进口自美国的晶粒型平板轧材电工钢采取的反补贴和反倾销措施（第21号[2012]公告及其附录）与中国进行磋商。中国认为2009年美国复兴与再投资法和各州政府采购法中规定的“购买美国”条款构成反补贴调查对象的补贴行为。TheUnitedStatesallegedthatChinaappearstobeactinginconsistentlywithitsobligationsunder:美国声称中国貌似违反了以下文件中规定的义务：Articles10,11.2,11.3,12.3,12.4.1,12.7,12.8,15.1,15.2,15.5,19,22.2(iii),22.3and22.5oftheSCMAgreement,

Articles1,3.1,3.2,3.5,6.9and12.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement;and

ArticleVIoftheGATT1994.On11February2011,theUnitedStatesrequestedtheestablishmentofapanel.

Atitsmeetingon24

February2011,theDSBdeferredtheestablishmentofapanel.2011年2月11日，美国要求成立专家组。在其2011年2月24日的会议中，争端解决机构（DSB）建立了一个专家组。

PanelandAppellateBodyproceedings专家组与上诉机构审理过程Atitsmeetingon25March2011,theDSBestablishedapanel.

TheEuropeanUnion,Honduras,India,Japan,KoreaandViet

Namreservedtheirthirdpartyrights.Subsequently,ArgentinaandSaudiArabiareservedtheirthirdpartyrights.

On10May2011,thepanelwascomposed.On19

September2011,theChairmanofthepanelinformedtheDSBthatthetimetableadoptedbythepanelafterconsultationswiththeparties,envisagesthatthefinalreportshallbeissuedtothepartiesbyMay2012.Thepanelexpectstoconcludeitsworkwithinthattime-frame.2011年3月25日的会议上，争端解决机构建立了一个专家组。欧盟、洪都拉斯、印度、日本、韩国和越南保留了其第三方权利。相应地，阿根廷与沙特阿拉伯保留里其第三方权利。2011年5月10日，专家组成立。2011年9月19日，专家组主席通知争端解决机构称，根据专家组经过与当事各方磋商采纳的时间表，预计将于2012年5月发布其最终报告。专家组估计可以在时间框架内完成其工作。On15June2012,thepanelreportwascirculatedtoMembers.2012年6月15日，专家组报告向成员国发布。Summaryofkeyfindings关键结论摘要

Thisdisputeconcernedmeasuresimposingcountervailingandanti-dumpingdutiesongrainorientedflat-rolledelectricalsteel(“GOES”)fromtheUnitedStates.

ThemeasureswereimposedbyChina'sMinistryofCommerce(“MOFCOM”)andtheUnitedStatesclaimedthattheywereinconsistentwithChina'scommitmentsandobligationsundertheAnti-DumpingAgreement,theSCMAgreementandtheGATT1994.

本争端涉及进口自美国的晶粒型平板轧材电工钢（GOES）的反补贴和反倾销税措施。该措施由中国商务部实施，而美国声称这些措施与中国在反倾销协议、SCM协议以及GATT1994下的承诺和义务不符。TheUnitedStates'claimswithrespecttoinitiationofcertaincountervailingdutyinvestigations美国关于启动特定反补贴税调查的主张

TheUnitedStatesclaimedthatChinaactedinconsistentlywithArticles11.2and11.3oftheSCMAgreementbecauseMOFCOMinitiatedcountervailingdutyinvestigationsinto11programmeswithoutsufficientevidencetojustifythis.

ThePanelconcludedthattheobligationuponMembersinrelationtothesufficiencyofevidenceinacountervailingdutyinvestigationfindsexpressioninArticle11.3oftheSCMAgreement,whichprovidesthataninvestigatingauthoritymustassesstheaccuracyandadequacyoftheevidenceinanapplicationtodeterminewhetheritissufficienttojustifyinitiation.

ThePanelreacheditsconclusionsbyreferencetotherequirementsfor“sufficientevidence”setforthinArticle11.2,butdidnotconsideritnecessarytoreachseparateconclusionsunderthisprovision.

Withrespecttoeachofthe11programmesatissue,thePanelconcludedthatChinahadactedinconsistentlywithArticle11.3oftheSCMAgreement.美国声称中国采取的措施违反了SCM协议第11.2条和第11.3条，因为中国商务部并没有足够的证据来支持其在11个项目中启动反补贴税调查。专家组的结论是在SCM协议第11.3条中明确规定了成员国在采取反补贴税调查时有义务提供足够的证据，这就要求调查机构在确定是否足以启动调查时，必须评估证据的精确性和充分性。专家组通过引用第11.2条中规定的“充分证据”原则而得出此结论，但并没有考虑在此条规定下得出其它结论的必要性。对涉案的11个项目中的每一个项目经过审查后，专家组的结论是中国采取的行动违反了SCM协议第11.3条。TheUnitedStates'claimswithrespecttothenon-confidentialsummaries美国方关于非保密信息摘要的主张

TheapplicantsforinitiationsoughtandobtainedfromMOFCOMconfidentialtreatmentinrelationtoanumberofcategoriesofinformation.

TheUnitedStatesclaimedthatMOFCOMactedinconsistentlywithArticles12.4.1oftheSCMAgreementand6.5.1oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementbyfailingtorequiretheapplicantstosubmitadequatenon-confidentialsummariesoftheinformation.

ThePanelupheldtheUnitedStates'claim.

ThePanelconcludedthatthepurportedsummariesdidnotprovideareasonableunderstandingofthesubstanceoftheinformationsubmittedinconfidence.

申请启动调查的经营者从中国商务部寻求并获得了多个领域的信息的保密待遇。美国声称，中国商务部没能要求申请人提交足够的非机密信息摘要，这违反了SCM协议第12.4.1条以及反倾销协议第6.5.1条。专家组支持美国这一主张。专家组的结论是，要义总结（purportedsummaries）无法让人合理理解其以保密形式提交的信息的实质。TheUnitedStates'claimwithrespecttopublicnoticeofthecalculationsusedtodeterminethedumpingmargins美方关于公告决定倾销幅度的计算方式的主张

TheUnitedStatesclaimedthatMOFCOMdidnotdisclosethedataandcalculationsitusedtoarriveatthedumpingmarginsforthetworespondentcompaniesandthatthiswasinconsistentwithArticle12.2.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement.

ThePanelrejectedtheUnitedStates'claim.

ThePanelcouldnotfindwithinthetextofArticle12.2.2anobligationtoincludeintherelevantpublicnoticeorseparatereporttheconfidentialdataandcalculationsunderlyingadumpingmargin.

9.

TheUnitedStateschallengedMOFCOM'sfindingthatthedumpedandsubsidizedimportshadsignificantpriceeffects.

TheUnitedStatescontendedthatMOFCOM'sanalysisofthesepriceeffectswasconclusory,failedtoreflectanobjectiveexaminationoftheevidence,andwasnotbasedonpositiveevidence.

ThePanelupheldtheUnitedStates'claims,findingthatChinahadactedinconsistentlywithArticles3.1and3.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement,andArticles

15.1and15.2oftheSCMAgreement.美国反对中国商务部决定，称所谓的倾销和补贴进口品不存在重大价格效应。美方主张，中国商务部关于价格效应的分析没有依据，未能反映对证据的客观审查，也不是基于直接证据。专家组支持美方主张，认为中国的行为违反了反倾销协议第3.1条和第3.2条，以及SCM协议第15.1和15.2条。

TheUnitedStatesalsoclaimedthatChinadidnotdisclosetheessentialfactssupportingitspriceeffectsanalysisanddidnotofferanadequateexplanationforitspriceeffectsfindings,inviolationofArticles6.9and12.2.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementand12.8and22.5oftheSCMAgreement.

ThePanelalsoupheldtheseclaims.美方还声称，中国没有披露支持其价格分析的关键事实，也没有对其价格效应结论进行充分解释，这违反了反倾销协议第6.9和12.2.2条以及SCM协议第12.8和22.5条。专家组支持这些主张。TheUnitedStates'claimswithrespecttoMOFCOM'scausationanalysisTheUnitedStatesclaimedthatMOFCOM'scausationanalysiswasinconsistentwithArticles3.5oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementand15.5oftheSCMAgreement,onthebasisthatMOFCOMerroneouslyconcludedthattherapidincreaseinthecapacityofthedomesticGOESindustryduringtheperiodofinvestigationcouldnothavebeenacauseofinjurytothedomesticindustry.

TheUnitedStatesalsoclaimedthatMOFCOM'sanalysiswasinconsistentwithArticles3.1oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementand15.1oftheSCMAgreementbecauseitdidnotcomplywiththe“objectiveexamination”and“positiveevidence”requirementsembodiedinthoseprovisions.

ThePanelupheldtheUnitedStates'claims.美方声称，中国商务部的因果分析违反了反倾销协议第3.5条和SCM协议第15.5条，其依据是中国商务部错误地得出如下结论：在调查期间国内GOES产业的容量的快速增长不可能是造成国内产业损害的原因。美方还声称，中国商务部的分析违反了反倾销协议第3.1条和SCM协议第15.1条，因为这违反了这些规定中所体现的“客观审查”和“直接证据”原则。专家组支持美方这一主张。TheUnitedStatesalsoclaimedthatChinaactedinconsistentlywithArticles6.9and12.2.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementand12.8and22.5oftheSCMAgreement,onthebasisthatChinafailedtodisclosetheessentialfactssupportingitsanalysisanddidnotprovideanadequateexplanationforitscausationfindings.

ThePanelupheldtheseclaims.美方还声称，中国的行为违反了反倾销协议第6.9条和12.2.2条，以及SCM协议第12.8条和第22.5条，因为中国未能披露支持其分析的关键事实，也未能提供对其因果分析的充分解释。专家组支持这一主张。On20July2012,ChinanotifiedtheDSBofitdecisiontoappealtotheAppellateBodycertainissuesoflawandlegalinterpretationscoveredinthepanelreport.On18September2012,theChairoftheAppellateBodyinformedtheDSBthatduetothetimerequiredforcompletionandtranslationofthereport,theAppellateBodywouldnotbeabletocirculateitsreportwithinthe60dayperiod.

ItwasestimatedthattheAppellateBodyreportwouldbecirculatednolaterthan18October

2012.On18October2012,theAppellateBodyreportwascirculatedtoMembers.Summaryofkeyfindings关键结论摘要China’sappealwaslimitedtothePanel’sfindingsinrelationtoMOFCOM’spriceeffectsfindingandtherelateddisclosureofunderlyingfacts.

ChinaclaimedthatthePanelerredintheinterpretationandapplicationofArticle3.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementandArticle15.2oftheSCMAgreementinfindingthatChinaactedinconsistentlywithArticles3.1and3.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementandArticles15.1and15.2oftheSCMAgreement.

ChinaalsoclaimedthatthePanelerredinfindingthatChinaactedinconsistentlywithArticles6.9and12.2.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreement,andArticles

12.8and22.5oftheSCMAgreement,inrelationtoMOFCOM’sfinaldisclosure,andpublicnoticeandexplanation,ofthefactsunderlyingitspriceeffectsfinding.中国对专家组结论的上诉限于与中国商务部价格效应调查及相关潜在事实相关的部分。中国声称专家组在解释和应用反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条时错误地认定中国违反了反倾销协议第3.1和3.2条以及SCM协议第15.1和15.2条。中国还声称专家组错误地认定中国违反了反倾销协议第6.9条和第12.2.2条以及SCM协议第12.8条和第22.5条，这与中国商务部的最终披露文件以及涉及与其价格效应调查相关的潜在事实的公告、解释相关。TheAppellateBodyupheldthePanel’sfindingthatMOFCOM’spriceeffectsfindingwasinconsistentwithArticles3.1and3.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementandArticles15.1and15.2oftheSCMAgreement.

TheAppellateBodyinterpretedArticle3.2oftheAnti-DumpingAgreementandArticle15.2oftheSCMAgreementasrequiringaninvestigatingauthoritytoconsidertherelationshipbetweensubjectimportsandthepricesofthelikedomesticproductssoastounderstandwhetherthevolumesand/orpricesofsubjectimportsprovideexplaintheoccurrenceofsignificantdepressionorsuppressionofdomesticprices.

LikethePanel,theAppellateBodyrejectedChina’sinterpretationthatArticles3.2and15.2merelyrequireaninvestigatingauthoritytoconsidertheexistenceofpricedepressionorsuppression,anddonotrequiretheconsiderationofanylinkbetweensubjectimportsandthesepriceeffects.上诉机构支持专家组的结论，认为中国商务部的价格效应调查结论违反了反倾销协议第3.1和3.2条以及SCM协议第15.1和15.2条。上诉机构将反倾销协议第3.2条和SCM协议第15.2条解释为：要求调查机构考虑主题进口品与相似国内产品价格之间的关系，以便理解主题进口品的数量和/或价格是否能够解释国内价格发生的显著萧条（significantdepressionorsuppression）。与专家组相同，上诉机构驳回了中国将第3.2条与第15.2条解释为只要求调查机构考虑价格萧条的存在、不要求考虑任何主题进口品与这种价格效应之间关系的说法。WithregardtothePanel’sapplicationofthelegalstandardunderArticles3.2and15.2,readtogetherwithArticles3.1and15.1,theAppellateBodyfoundthatthePanelwascorrecttoconcludethatMOFCOM’sfindingastothe“lowprice”ofsubjectimportsreferredtotheexistenceofpriceundercutting,andthatMOFCOMreliedonthisfactortosupportitsfindingofsignificantpricedepressionandsuppression.TheAppellateBodyalsofoundthatthePaneldidnotimproperlydisregardtheparallelpricetrendsofsubjectimportsanddomesticproducts,ortherolethattheincreaseinthevolumeofsubjectimportsplayedinMOFCOM’spriceeffectsfinding.

AlthoughtheAppellateBodyconsideredthatthePaneldidnotproperlyexaminetheeffectofapolicyaimingatundercuttingdomesticprices,itfoundnobasistoreversethePanel’spriceeffectsfindinginthiscase.

Moreover,theAppellateBodyfoundthatthePaneldidnotactinconsistentlywithitsdutytomakeanobjectiveassessmentunderArticle11oftheDSU.通过与3.1条和地15.1条放在一起解读，上诉机构对专家组对第3.2条和第15.2条下法律标准的适用进行了审查，认为专家组得出的的结论是正确的：中国商务部的结论认为主题进口品的“低价”与价格消减现象的存在有关系，而中国商务部以此因素为依据来支持其显著萧条（significantpricedepressionandsuppression）的结论。上诉机构还发现专家组没有不适当地忽略主题进口品与国内产品的平行价格趋势，或者说主题进口品的数量的增长在中国商务部的价格效应结论中扮演的角色。虽然上诉机构认为专家组没有适当地审查旨在消减国内价格的政策的作用，但是它认为驳回本案中专家组关于价格效应的结论是没有依据的。此外，上诉机构认为专家组根据第11条对争端解决机构进行客观评价的行为没有违反其职责。TheAppellateBodyupheldthePanel’sfindingthatChinaactedinconsistentlywithArticle6.9oftheAnti-DumpingAgree