论美国对华反补贴“不利可得事实”规则的滥用——以两起新能源反补贴案为例

The Abuse of “Adverse Facts Available” in US CVD Investigations against China: A Case Study of Two Clean Energy CVD Rulings

"不利可得事实"是美国商务部对华反补贴调查经常使用的一种证据规则,此种规则通过借口中国政府"未能尽全力配合调查、提供资料",从而在缺乏确凿证据、且实体规则不利于美国的情况下推定补贴成立。在2012年的两起新能源反补贴案中,美国就曾借用此规则,先后规避"公共机构认定"、"电力、土地补贴"、"出口信贷补贴"等问题当中多项实体规则。由于WTO缺乏相应规则、WTO裁决并无案外效力,我国在WTO体制下难以获得有效的救济;同时,由于美国司法审查的消极性,在美国法院诉讼同样无济于事。此问题的解决,一方面依赖世界各国对"不利可得事实"滥用的危害有清醒认识并共同改进规则;另一方面,具体到新能源问题,应推动国家间谈判与磋商,以期通过合作而非对抗达到共赢。

＂Adverse facts available＂ is a shift of burden of proof adopted by the US Department of Commerce and is liberally used in CVD investigations against China. By the excuse of ＂China＇s failure to cooperate to the best of its capacity＂ , positive findings of subsidy could be established in spite of the lack of affirmative evidence and unfavorable substantive rules. In two CVD investigations against China＇s clean energy products in 2012, ＂adverse facts available＂ was adopted in order to circumvent the substantive rules of public body determinations, electricity and land subsidies and export credit subsidies. It＇s difficult to get effective remedies under DSB because there＇s no detailed rule governing the use of ＂AFA＂ , and that WTO dispute settlement decisions only apply at a case-by-case level. Moreover, owing to the passive attitude of US courts, domestic redress in the US also proved fruitless. The solution of this problem, on the one hand, lies in the global cooperation of countries who have come to a mutual understanding about the harms of AFA proliferation, and on the other hand, lies in the clean energy sector itself. The abuse of AFA stems from the escalation of trade conflicts. Consequently, if possible, a solution to this scramble by negotiation is more effective than an outright trade war.