中國加入世界貿易組織時(shí)承諾,在對中國企業(yè)進(jìn)行反傾銷(xiāo)調查時(shí),可以繼續將中國視為非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟國家對待,最長(cháng)不超過(guò) 15 年,這就是入世承諾的“非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟條款”。據此,很多國家仍然視中國為非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟國家,在進(jìn)行反傾銷(xiāo)調查時(shí),不承認中國企業(yè)的國內銷(xiāo)售價(jià)格和成本數據,采用替代國價(jià)格認定中國企業(yè)的正常價(jià)值。但是,這些國家在不采納中國企業(yè)國內銷(xiāo)售價(jià)格作為正常價(jià)值的同時(shí),繼續認為中國企業(yè)的出口完全受?chē)铱刂?,因此不給予中國企業(yè)單獨稅率,只給整個(gè)國家一個(gè)統一稅率。
本文試圖從目前的法律規定中對單獨稅率問(wèn)題進(jìn)行分析,論證其是否合法。筆者認為,根據WTO 的相關(guān)規定,以及中國加入世貿組織的法律文件,在單獨稅率問(wèn)題上目前美國和歐盟的法律規定和做法與WTO 規定不符。
?
一、WTO 框架下的法律淵源
?
關(guān)于非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟待遇和單獨稅率問(wèn)題,在 WTO 法律框架下,可以援引的法律淵源包括WTO 法律文本和中國加入世界貿易組織法律文件(相關(guān)條文附后)。
?
WTO 法律文本中涉及非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟問(wèn)題的條款有 GATT 1947 第 6 條及其注釋和補充規定,以及《反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)議》中的個(gè)別條文。
從 WTO?的法律條文上看,對于非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟國家,在進(jìn)行價(jià)格比較時(shí),滿(mǎn)足一定條件的,可以認定出口價(jià)格與中國國內價(jià)格嚴格比較不適當,可以采用替代國的價(jià)格確定中國產(chǎn)品的正常價(jià)值。從法律條文的含義來(lái)看,該條文主要說(shuō)的是如何確定中國產(chǎn)品正常價(jià)值的問(wèn)題。GATT?1947?第?6?條規定:“…the?price?of?the?product?exported?from?one?country?to?another?is?less than the comparable price,?in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption?in?the?exporting?country…”該條注釋的表述為:“…importing?contracting?parties may find it necessary to take into account the possibility that a strict comparison with domestic?prices?in?such?a?country may?not?always?be?appropriate.”GATT?1947?第 6 條及其注釋和補充規定中的用詞為“可比價(jià)格”(comparable?price)或“與國內價(jià)格嚴格比較”(a?strict?comparison with?domestic?prices),即主要說(shuō)的都是在確定出口價(jià)格的可比價(jià)格——也就是正常價(jià)值——的時(shí)候可以對非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟國家采取不同的方法。此條文并未涉及如何認定出口價(jià)格問(wèn)題,未允許調查機關(guān)可以不使用出口國企業(yè)的出口價(jià)格。(反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)議第 2.1?條和第 2.2?條文字表述與 GATT1947?第 6 條相同)
而反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)議第6.10條規定:“The authorities shall, as a rule, determine an individual?margin?of dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the product under investigation.”按照此條規定,調查機關(guān)應當對每一個(gè)企業(yè)確定一個(gè)單獨的傾銷(xiāo)幅度,不能對整個(gè)所有中國企業(yè)給一個(gè)統一稅率。
?
中國加入WTO 法律文件的法律條文中,其文字表述也只涉及如何認定正常價(jià)值,不涉及如何認定出口價(jià)格的問(wèn)題。中國加入 WTO 法律文件中涉及非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟問(wèn)題的條款有中華人民共和國加入議定書(shū)第 15 條,和中國加入工作組報告書(shū)第 150、151 段。這些條款表述中, 只是論述可以進(jìn)行嚴格比較的條件,即不使用出口國國內價(jià)格確定正常價(jià)值的條件,不涉及對出口價(jià)格的認定。
中國加入議定書(shū)第?15?條規定:“(a)????In?determining?price?comparability?under?Article?VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the importing WTO Member shall use either Chinese prices or costs for the industry under investigation or a methodology that is not based on a?strict?comparison?with?domestic?prices?or?costs?in?China?based?on?the?following?rules:”“(i)?If the producers under investigation can clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to the manufacture, production and sale of that product, the importing WTO Member shall use Chinese prices or costs for the industry under?investigation in determining price comparability; (ii) The importing WTO Member may use a methodology that is not based on a strict comparison with domestic prices or costs in China?if the producers under investigation cannot clearly show that market economy conditions prevail in the industry producing the like product with regard to manufacture, production and sale of that product.”中國加入工作組報告書(shū)第 150 段也是同樣的文字表述。
在對上述條文中的“comparable?price”,“price?comparability”和“a?strict?comparison?with domestic prices”進(jìn)行解釋時(shí),能否意味著(zhù)不涉及出口價(jià)格的確定,只涉及正常價(jià)值的確定呢?可以分析涉及“comparable price”的 WTO 爭端解決機制的案例來(lái)得出答案。目前,有兩個(gè)的案例涉及此問(wèn)題,印度訴歐盟床單案(EC?– Bed Linen)和韓國訴美國不銹鋼板案(US?–?Stainless?Steel)。
歐盟床單案對反傾銷(xiāo)協(xié)議第 2.4.2 條中的“comparable”進(jìn)行了解釋。第 2.4.2 條規定: “…the existence of margins of dumping during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable?export transactions or by a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis.”WTO 專(zhuān)家組對此條中的“comparable”解釋為:“The?ordinary?meaning?of?the?word?‘comparable’?is?‘a(chǎn)ble?to?be?compared’.?‘Comparable export transactions’ within the meaning of Article 2.4.2 are, therefore, export transactions that are able to be compared. …”(Appellate Body Report on EC – Bed Linen, paras.?56-58)
美國不銹鋼案中,WTO?專(zhuān)家組對?2.4.2?條中涉及“comparable”的條文解釋為“Article?2.4.2 provides that the existence of dumping shall normally be established ‘on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export transactions’. The inclusion of the word ‘comparable’ is in our view highly significant, as in its ordinary meaning it indicates that a weighted average normal value is not to be compared to a weighted average export price that includes non-comparable export transactions. It flows from this conclusion that a Member is not required to compare a single weighted average normal value to a single weighted average export price in cases where certain export transactions are not comparable to transactions that represent the basis for the calculation of the normal value.”(Panel Report on US – Stainless Steel, paras.?6.111-6.114)
上述專(zhuān)家組在解釋第 2.4.2 條中的“comparable”時(shí),論述的是“comparable”后面的內容能否與“comparable”前面的內容進(jìn)行比較,以及如何比較的問(wèn)題。第 2.4.2 條文字為“all?comparable ?export ?transactions”,因此,專(zhuān)家組論述的是“comparable”后面的“export transactions” 能否與“ comparable” 前面的正常價(jià)值進(jìn)行比較的問(wèn)題, 也即如何確定“comparable”后面的“export transactions”問(wèn)題,不是如何確定“comparable”前面的正常價(jià)值的問(wèn)題。
因此,從上述專(zhuān)家組的論述中可以得出結論,在WTO 法律框架下,對涉及非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟條款進(jìn)行解釋涉及“comparable” 時(shí),均是如何確定“comparable”后面的正常價(jià)值的問(wèn)題, 不涉及如何認定“comparable”前面的出口價(jià)格問(wèn)題。
?