论美国对华“双反”措施中的双重救济问题——评美国反倾销和反补贴措施案WTO争端解决机构裁决

On the Issue of Double Remedies in America’s Concurrent Imposition of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties against China:Comments on DSB’s Rulings on US-Definitive Antidumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China

2011年3月,WTO争端解决机构发布并通过了上诉机构裁决报告,推翻了专家组在双重救济问题上的意见,认定美国商务部对中国出口产品同时征收反倾销和反补贴税的做法造成了双重救济,与其所承担的义务不符。在裁决报告中,上诉机构指出了确定反补贴税"适当金额"所应考虑的有关因素,这为今后各国的反补贴措施实践提供了更为清晰的行为准则。双重救济问题产生的直接原因是运用非市场经济方法计算倾销幅度,根本原因是WTO协议条文间的冲突。上诉机构有关双重救济问题的裁决澄清了可能存在的疑惑,维护了公平正义,为今后协调一致解释WTO条文和各国权利义务起了重要的指引作用,指明了WTO司法实践的前进方向。

In March,2001,Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization issued and adopted the Appellant Body report.The report reversed the panel ruling on the issue of double remedies,holding that the United States of America’s concurrent imposition of antidumping and countervailing duties against China constituted double remedies,which was inconsistent with its WTO obligations.In this report,the Appellant Body pointed out the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the " appropriate amounts",which provided the members with clearer guidance on the imposition of countervailing measures.The direct reason for the occurrence of double remedies is the application of " NME methodology" in calculating of dumping margins, while the underlying reason giving rise to the issue of double remedies is the conflict of different stipulations under WTO agreements.The legal interpretation the AppeUant Body had made in its ruling clarified some of the possible ambiguities in this regard,which would sure serve as a guiding example to show how to interpret the rights and obligations under WTO agreements in a coherent and consistent manner.