倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译(可编辑)

倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译（可编辑）

倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译

外文翻译

原文

Dumping and Anti-dumping Measures

Material Source: international economics,July1984 Author: Richard

Senti Zurich

In recent times, the number of dumping actions has shown a striking

correlation with the respective level of economic activity, The

following observations convey an overall picture of the dumping actions

currently pending and the anti-dumping measures implemented, and look

into the current problems faced by the international anti-dumping system.

For years, dumping actions have been at the centre of discussions in

the trade negotiations between the US, Canada, Japan and the member

countries of the EC. At the end of 1977, there were twenty dumping

actions in progress in the USA. Tension eased in 1978 following the

introduction of the trigger price system to regulate steel imports On

confirmation of the modified cost criterion in the US Trade Act of 1979,

the US steel firms once again took action against the EC steel producers.

In 1980, the trigger price system briefly became temporarily inoperative

but was applied again the same year with added force. evertheless, more

dumping

actions followed,particularly in the years 1981 and 1982 At the

beginning of 1983, the GATT Committee on Anti-Dumping Questions

published a summary of theanti-dumping proceedings instituted during

recent years in the USA, EC, Finland, Canada, Austria and Sweden,the

provisional and definitive counter-measures and the price agreements

reached cf. Table 1.

The majority of actions are directed at the industrialised nations

and only a few against the developing countries. either withdrawn

actions nor those which resulted in a negative decision are included in

these figures.

Table 2 shows between which trade partners dumping negotiations took

place during the years 1981/82, i.e. which countries instituted

proceedings and which were sitting in the dock as far as was reported to

GATT.

US Anti-Dumping Legislation as a Basis

In 1945, immediately after the end of the war, the US State

Department published the first proposals for a newworld trade order.

According to these proposals, the members of an international trade

organisation still to be created should, among other things,undertake

"to 188 subscribe to a general definition of the circumstances under

which anti-dumping and countervailing duties may properly be applied to

products imported from other members".

Only a year later, the Americans submitted the Charter for the

Creation of an International Trade Organisation containing concrete

suggestions on the anti-dumping settlement s which were later adopted by

the Havana Charter s and GATT without undergoing significant alterations.

Both the basic concept and many individual provisions are in line with

the American antidumping legislation of that time.

The first US anti-dumping provisions are to be found in the Revenue

Act of 1916. 7 According to this law, the Americans imposed something

akin to a fine 8 if 1 imports were offered in the USA at a lower price

than in the country of origin and 2 as a result American industry was

exposed to serious danger intent to destroy or injure. The two criteria

"underpricing" and "infliction of damage" were later adopted by the

actual anti-dumping laws of 1921 and 19309 and still apply today

following the supplements and refinements made in 1974 and 1979.

According to American Law of 1921 and 1930, dumping has occurred if

the goods are offered more cheaply in the USA than on the home market

price criterion. - Or, where there are no sales on the home market, if

the goods are offered more cheaply in the USA than in a third country

modified price criterion. - In case no sales are offered outside the

country of destination, if the goods are exported below the costs of

manufacture in the producing country cost criterion.

The legal amendments of 1974 and 1979 brought with them an extension

of the cost criterion to cover cases in which the domestic sales

prices in the country of origin no longer cover the costs of

productionOrigin of GATT Provisions and Anti-Dumping Convention

In discussions surrounding the reshaping of the world trading system,

12 several delegates demanded going beyond the US regulation of price

dumping of that time and incorporating service, exchange-rate and social

dumping. Service dumping revolves around freight costs, i.e. the

cheapening of exports by way of dumped transport services. Exchange-rate

dumping is the cheapening of exports in the form of parity guarantees

and foreign exchange allowances. 13 Social dumping is constituted in

cases where products from prison camps or prisons find their way onto

the world market at prices with which private entrepreneurs cannot

compete. The negotiating delegations finally agreed on the price dumping

in line with the US proposal.

There were initial differences of opinion regarding the extent of

the damage necessary for counter-measures to be taken. Must serious,

material or indeterminate injury occur before counter-measures can be

taken? Does the difference between domestic price and export price have

to reach certain at least 5 % of the domestic price

before counter-measures can be justified? Can serious injury caused be

responded to with something like a punitive measure? Must the approval

of the ITO or of the contracting parties to GATT be obtained before

counter-measures

are taken? The formulation finally agreed upon states that

countermeasures may only be taken if the contracting party

establishes "that the effect of the dumping.., is such as to cause or

threaten material injury to an established domestic industry, or is such

as to retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry". TM

In 1955, Article VI of GATT was supplemented the first and only

amendment to the GATT wording on dumping to the effect that in cases

where delay might cause "damage that would be difficult to repair",

immediate measures are permitted without the need to seek the prior

consent of the contracting parties to GATT. 15

The dumping question experienced a revival during the Kennedy Round

between 1964 and 1967. TheAmericans had tried to include also non-tariff

barriers in the trade talks. Subsequently, they realised much to their

annoyance that the negotiating parties werespotlighting the very

barriers to trade which applied in the USA, above all the US anti-

dumping law. After brief hesitation, the Americans attempted to turn the

antidumping controversy in their favour with the help of a detailed

regulation. Thus emerged the Anti-Dumping Code of 1967 which, although

it ties the Americans' hands in many a procedural question, otherwise

hitsparticularly hard at Canada and Great Britain.

Canada's anti-dumping legislation up to that time did not conform to

GATT in that the taking of anti-dumping measures was not bound to the

precondition of economic damage. Also in Great Britain - according

to the American view- anti-dumping measures at that time were being

misused for the protection of the domestic economy. From the US

perspective, the advantages associated with the Anti-Dumping Code

outweighed the resultant disadvantages which it was felt had to be

accepted.

The "Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General

Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-Dumping Code" is dated 30th June,

1967.16 During the Tokyo Round, the 1967 Anti-Dumping Code underwent a

two-fold amendment: firstly, there was the question of demarcation vis-

a-vis the Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties which was in the

process of formation; 17 secondly, changes were made to the existing

agreement in terms of ascertainment of damage Art. 3: 1-4, the

privileged position of the developing countries Art. 13 and

consultations, arbitration and settlement of disputes Art. 15. 18 The

currently valid agreement on anti-dumping was reached on 12th April 1979

in Geneva. ~9 Wherever the antidumping agreement is mentioned in the

following, reference is being made to the currently valid version of

1979.

Definition of Dumping

In imitation of the American legal system of the 20s and 30s, GATT

speaks of dumping when products of the same kind "of one country are

introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal

value of the products". Hence,dumping means that the "normal" domestic

value of an article exceeds its export value. How does GATT define

the "normal" domestic value? When is a product "of the same kind" when

compared with another? How should we interpret export value?

The "normal" value of an article is undercut according to Art. VI:I

of GATT "if the price of the product exported from one country to

another a is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of

trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the

exporting country, or b in the absence of such domestic price, is less

than either i the highest comparable price for the like product for

export to any third country in the ordinary course of trade, or ii the

cost of proddction of the product in the country of origin plus a

reasonable addition for selling cost and profit".

Differences in terms and conditions of sale, varying taxation and

other differentials influencing the price are to be given "due"

consideration. On the other hand, however, if export prices are lower

because of the reimbursement of domestic duties and by way of

the reimbursement of VAT, this does not, according to GATT, constitute

dumping which would justify counter-measures. The "normal" domestic

value is taken to be exclusive of duties and taxes The GATT definition

of dumping applies to all countries which are signatories to GATT -

apart from one important exception. The US anti-dumping law contains

divergent and partly narrower provisions than GATT in two specific areas:

Should the export product come to be sold in the country of origin,

GATT says that dumping is to be determined according to the price

criterion irrespective of the extent of the costs of manufacture.

According to American law, however, the costs of manufacture can also be

taken into consideration as well as the domestic price. The cost

criterion shall apply in cases where there is good reason to suppose

that the domestic price remains lower than the costs of manufacture for

substantial quantities of merchandise over a relatively long period of

time In this way, the Americans succeed in shielding the market from

merchandise which has been falsely priced as a result of any production

cost contributions, or in taxing them with anti-dumping duties. They

refute the GATT contravention of which they are accused with the

argument that GATT talks in terms of "normal" domestic prices. ormal

prices, however, cannot be lower than costs of manufacture over longer

periods. This is why, in the case of price undercutting over longer

periods, the cost criterion should be applied In applying the cost

criterion, the export prices are, according to GATT, to be compared with

the cost of production "plus a reasonable addition for selling cost and

profit". The addition for profit "shall not exceed the profit normally

realised on sales of products of the same general category in the

domestic market of the country of origin". By way of contrast, the US

anti-dumping law defines the costs taken as a basis for comparison as

follows: 1 material and

production costs, 2overheads of not less than 10 % of the material

and production costs, 3 profit margin of not less than 8 % of the costs

mentioned in points 1 and 2, and 4 packing and loading expenses as

defined under b, price.

When are goods described as being of the same kind? The American

proposal of 1 946 for the creation of a world trade organisation spoke

of the "like" and "similar" products. 26 During the subsequent

negotiations it was decided to limit the definition to "like" products,

products which are identical, homogeneous In practice, however, this

terminology proved to be impracticable. Slight divergences of quality or

differing forms or colourings do not rule out competition nor hence the

possibility of dumping. To make allowance for this fact, the Anti-

dumping Code holds that such goods are also included which "although not

alike in all respects, have characteristics closely resembling those of

the product under consideration"

译文

倾销与反倾销措施

资料来源: 国际经济学,1984年7月 作者:Richard Senti Zurich

在最近的时代,倾销行动的次数已经呈现出与各自的经济活动水平显着

相关性,以下意见反映了目前未决诉讼和反倾销措施实施的总体情况,并查看到

当前面临的国际反倾销制度问题。

多年来,倾销行动已在中,美,加拿大,日本和欧盟成员国的贸易谈判中成

为讨论的中心。截至1977年底,共有二十个国家在美国倾销行动的进展范围之

内。在1978年,随着触发价格体系以规管进口钢材,紧张局势有所缓和。

关于在1979年美国贸易法案修改成本的确认标准,美国钢铁公司再次发生了一

起针对欧盟钢铁生产商的行动。 1980年,触发价格体系变得简单,但暂时无法工作,

同年再次应用与补充力量。然而,随后发生了更多的倾销行为,特别是在1981年和

1982年。

在1983年开始,关于反倾销问题上,关贸总协定委员会公布了这一期间,美国,

欧共体,芬兰,加拿大,奥地利和瑞典,临时和最终关于反措施和价格方面达成的协议

(见附表1)。

大多数倾销的行动都是针对工业化国家,只对少数发展中国家。表2显示了在

1981/82年贸易伙伴之间关于倾销谈判的情况,即哪些国家提起诉讼的,哪些是被诉

讼的(据据关贸总协定的报道)。

美国反倾销立法的基础:

1945年,战争结束后,美国国务院立即发表了一台有关贸易秩序的第一批建议。

根据这些建议,一个国际贸易组织的成员仍然要创建应,除其他事项外,承诺在一般

定义下,反倾销和反补贴税可以适当地适用于从“其他成员的进口产品”。

仅仅一年后,美国人提出了为国际贸易创造一个有组织能具体解决反倾销问题

的宪章,后来通过哈瓦那章程的,没有经历关贸总协定显着的变化。无论是基本概念

和许多个别条款,都是为了以合美国当时的反倾销法例。

第一个美国反倾销条款是在1916年的税收法案中被确立的。 根据这项法律,

美国人强加一个类似于的条例。如果进口了比美国国内价格低的产品

(意图破坏或伤害),美国相关行业会面临严重的危险。这两个标准“抑价“和

“施加的损害”,后来通过实际反倾销案例在1921年和1930成为法律,在1974年

和1979年作出补充和改进,仍适用继今天。

根据美国1921年和1930年法,如果有以下情况说明倾销已经发生:

如果进口的商品比美国国内市场的价格更便宜(价格标准)。

如果货物在国内市场上没有销售,在美国比在第三国更便宜(修改价格标准)。

如果货物销售到目的地国家,货物出口价格低于在生产国制造成本(成本标

准)。制造费用是在此基础上计算材料和生产成本的确切数据,以及间接费用和利润

计算。

1974年和1979年带来的法律修正案,一个标准的成本扩展到包括案件中,国内

销售价格(在原籍国)不再支付生产成本。

关贸总协定条款的起源与反倾销公约:

在讨论中围绕重塑世界的交易系统的重心,一些代表要求将美国以外的价格倾

销,应及时调控并结合服务,汇率和社会倾销。服务倾销围绕货运,即由倾销的方式

出口掉价运输服务。汇率倾销是在降价的出口担保形式的平价和外汇津贴。 社会

倾销在构成产品的情况下,从战俘营或监狱到世界市场上的价格的方式与这些民

营企业家无法竞争。该谈判代表团最后商定的价格倾销与美国的建议路线达成一

致。

在对于何种损害程度有必要作出反对措施的意见上存在着初步分歧。必须认真

指出的是,在反对措施实施以前,应明确有哪些材料以及发生了哪些不确定的伤害。

是否国内价格与出口的价格之间的差异一定要达到一定的量(比如至

少是国内价格的百分之五)才采取的反对措施才是合理的呢?这些严重的损害是

否可以用惩罚性的方法来回应?一定要获得WTO的批准或者是关贸总协定的缔约方

才能采取预先反倾销措施吗?最后该组织同意了各方可以建立预先反倾销措施,但前

提是缔约方的一方有:“如果这种倾销行为„„对国内企业造成了实质性损害或者威

胁,或者造成国内产业物质上损失的”的规定。

1955年,关贸总协定第六条进行了补充(即第一个也是唯一修正案的措辞上关贸

总协定倾销),在某些情况下延迟可能造成“损害将难以修复”的影响,允许立即采

取措施,而不需要寻求关贸总协定的缔约双方的事先同意。

反倾销问题经历了一次1964年和1967年之间的肯尼迪回合的复兴。美国人曾

试图在贸易谈判中把非关税贸易壁垒包括在内。随后,他们意识到谈判各方都主张

把非关税贸易壁垒应用在美国,首先是美国反倾销的法律。短暂的犹豫之后,美国人

试图把它们与一个详规合并起来用以帮助赞成反倾销的争议。

加拿大的反倾销立法在那个时间不符合关贸总协定在没有造成经济损失的前提

下采取反倾销措施的规定。根据美国的观点,反倾销措施被滥用是为了保护当时国

内的经济。从美国的角度来看,随着反倾销代码相关联的优势压倒了它被认为必须

要接受由此产生的弊端。

在1967年的6月30号,关贸总协定第六条“关于关税和贸易(反倾销守则)的

协定形成并开始执行。在东京会谈上,对于1967年的反倾销守则做了两个方面的修

订:首先,是关于补贴和反补贴税,在形成过程中的代号这些问题上的划界;第二,在

损害的确定,仲裁和争端的解决等问题进行了修改。关于反倾销,目前有效的协议是

在1979年4月12日在日内瓦举行的会议上达成的。以下提到的反倾销协定,都是

1979年达成的有效协议。

倾销的定义:

效仿美国二三十年代的法律系统,关贸总协定在定义反倾销时,谈到了同类产品

是指“一个国家到另一个国家商推出以低于正常价值的产品”。因此倾销的定义是

指国内正常价值超过出口价值。关贸总协定是如何定义“正常“的国内价值的呢?

一个产品什么时候能被定义为同类产品呢?我们应该如何理解出口价值呢?反倾销对

于“正常”的字面意思就是廉价销售。关贸总协定第六条规定“在正常贸易过程,

如果从一国出口产品的价格比另一个国家同类产品的价格低,则存在倾销的现象。

在销售条款和条件中,不同的税收对价格的差异影响将被给予“适当“的考

虑。另一方面,根据关贸总协定,如果出口价格是由于国内关税和其他税(例如增值

税)的偿还较低,这证明将构成倾销。 “正常”的国内价值与关税和税款有关。

关贸总协定的倾销的定义适用于签署关贸总协定的所有国家-除了一个重要的

例外?美国。美国反倾销的法律包含两个比关贸总协定条款窄的具体领域。

根据关贸总协定,如果出口产品在原产国销售,倾销要确定相应的价格标准,这

与制造成本无关。但是根据美国法律,制造成本以及国内价格也可以考虑。这样一

来,美国人成功地屏蔽那些冒充有生产成本的价格或者已经征过反倾销税的商品的

市场。

按照关贸总协定,出口价格应该是生产成本合理加上增加的销售成本和利润。

附加利润不得超过通常于同在原产国国内市场销售的普通类产品实现的利润。通过

对比,美国反倾销的法律定义为基础采取比较费用如下:(1)材料和生产成本;(2)不

低于10%的材料和生产成本;(3)利润率不低于第一条和第二条加起

来的成本的百分之八(4)包装及装载根据离岸价的价格来计算。

那怎样的产品被定义为同类产品呢?1946年美国根据世贸组织提到的类似和相

同产品的定义,决定了把同类,质量相同的产品定义为类似产品。

然而在实践中,这一术语被证明是行不通的。质量或形式不同的产品不排除竞

争和倾销的可能性。为了弥补这一点不足,反倾销守则认为,这些在各方面虽然不一

样,有特的极为相似的产品也应列入同类产品中。