antidumping

美国控告中国倾销的理由：

China doesn

’

t have a market economy status

Background:

Throughout the past 30 years, major economic reforms have been

implemented in China;in

2001, China’s accession to the World Trade

Organization (WTO) was a major step, since it enabled the country to

formally join the globalised world. But China entered the WTO without

market economy status (MES), meaning that other countries can easily

use the WTO international settlement body in antidumping procedures

against Chinese firms. Since joining the WTO, Chinese authorities

have repeatedly attempted to gain this status, arguing that considerable

progress has been made in dealing with dumping, and that the transition

process from a planned to a market economy (ME) has been considerable.

Further discussion is necessary with regards to international trade,

in particular the dumping allegations. According to Lamy (2004), in the

case of transition econom

ies, ‘‘it is

presumed that prices and costs are

influenced by State interference and therefore the investigating authorities

use the prices and costs of companies in a third country with a market

economy as a benchmark’’; China would like to be granted the

MES, just

like Russia in 2002, in order to avoid having to prove in individual cases

that the country was not dumping goods on foreign markets. Another

major point which explains why China is not granted MES is that, when

joining the WTO, the country agreed to be

qualified as an ‘‘economy in

transition’’ for a period of fifteen years.

中国反倾销的措施和影响：

Background:

China is by far the most notorious target of antidumping (AD) litigation for

most of its major trading partners. China assumes 15.8% of more than 2700

antidumping investigations initiated globally during the period from 1995

–

2004.

Recently, however, China has started using AD instruments actively,

especially after its accession to the WTO in November 2001. According to the

WTO report, China initiated 30 antidumping investigations in 2002 and 27

cases in 2004. During the 3 years between 2002 and 2004, China was the

third leading country in initiating AD investigations (79 cases) following India

(148 cases) and the US (98 cases). This increasing rate of AD filings has

raised substantial concerns of China becoming an intensive user of AD

(

Messerlin, 2004

).

China's antidumping activities

China

first promulgated antidumping regulations i

n 1997. With its accession

to the WTO they were modified in February 2002 to comply with WTO rules.

The new regulations significantly improved China's anti-dumping regime to

the extent that they are now almost in- line with WTO standards (

Wang and

Shengxing, 2002

). Though China's antidumping regulations are similar to the

standard rules,

Messerlin (2004)

points out four striking features: lack of

detail, inclusion of protectionist biases inherent in the WTO antidumping

provisions, complexity of coordination among administrative agencies, and

the inclusion of Article 56, which states that “where a country (region)

discriminatorily imposes antidumping measures on the exports from the

People's Republic of China, China may, on the basis of the actual situations,

take corresponding measures against that country (region).” This provision

opens the possibility of China using antidumping regulations as a retaliatory

instrument. To coordinate the administrative functions of antidumping

agencies, the Chinese government revised its regulations in 2004. Therefore,

the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) is currently the sole competent authority

with regard to antidumping in China.

The first AD case pursued by Chinese authorities

was filed in December

1997 against imports of newsprints from the US, Canada, and the Republic

of Korea. Since 2001 the number of cases initiated has increased

remarkably: China filed 30 cases in 2002 and 27 in 2004.

Fig. 1

presents the

trends in China's use of antidumping investigations.

Full-size image

(12K)

Fig. 1.

China's antidumping activities.

View Within Article

The imposition of AD duties usually expires after 5 years from the date of

entry into force. However, many countries have extended that period through

a review clause that can be initiated upon request by any party interested.

China's antidumping regulations also provide for this type of review and it

has begun to carry out antidumping reviews from 2001 as original AD duties

expired. Hence, it is expected the total number of AD measures in force will

further increase in the future.

As is shown in

Table 1

, the main countries targeted by China are Korea,

Japan, the US, and the EU: the share of these four countries in the total

number of AD initiations by Chinese authorities is over 70%. This is likely

due to the rapid increase of imports from these countries. As

Blonigen (2005)

reveals, higher import penetration leads to greater AD activity. Imports from

Korea and Japan, for example, increased about 527% and 120%,

respectively, during the period 1998

–

2004.

Table 1. Regional distribution of AD cases initiated by China (1997

–

2004).

Country

Korea

Japan

USA

EU

Row

Total

No. of AD initiations

25

21

18

16

31

111

(Share)

(22.5%) (18.9%) (16.2%)

(14.4%)

(27.9%)

(100%)

Source: annual report of AD (WTO).

View Within Article

Table 2

shows the AD duties levied on firms. Average provisional duties

amount to 33.8%, whereas the maximum duty is 144%. These are

conspicuously high levels, considering that the Chinese most-favored-nation

(MFN) tariff on industrial products is on average only 9.7%. Given the

prohibitively high level of AD duties, AD activities are effective in significantly

hindering imports from targeted countries.

Table 2. AD duties imposed on firms (1997

–

2004).

Min.

Average

Std. D.

Max.

33.8

24.5

28.2

25.1

144.0

144.0

Provisional

0

Affirmative 0

Source: annual report of AD (WTO).

View Within Article

CHINA'S ANTIDUMPING CODE: ADOPTING

Motivated by the need to compensate for reduced barriers and led by a

community of officials, lawyers, and industry representatives, China has

adopted rules and procedures that are largely consistent with the requirements

of the WTO. What makes China's AD regime appear protectionist is not how

much it diverges from, but rather how closely it approaches international

practices.

define dumping and provide the guidelines for determining whether dumping

has occurred, and the institutions and procedures by which cases are handled

CHINA'S ANTIDUMPING PROCEDURES: NEW ROLES FOR STATE AND SOCIETY

Because of the potential benefits to domestic industry, it is not surprising that

China has adopted the principles and rules of the global AD regime. Less

expected, though, is the extent to which the government has been willing to

modify the process by which trade disputes and policy are handled. These

changes are inconsistent with perspectives that stress either a dominant role

for elites or an autonomous bureaucracy that strictly follows the law. Nonstate

actors are central to the entire process.

In the past, foreign economic policy was strictly a government concern. Trade

and investment authorities, in consultation with other ministries and the senior

political elite, determined which sectors and products to protect and by what

means. Those decisions were not open to systematic influence from Chinese

enterprises, not to mention foreign industry. In the case of fair trade disputes,

by contrast, the government acts in response to complaints lodged by

domestic industry. The Chinese government's role has switched from that of

advocate to that of arbiter; even if it prefers to play advocate, it must at least

maintain the pretense of being evenhanded. The division of labor within the

government in China also mirrors that of other WTO members. Once the

authorities accept a case, they launch investigations into whether there has

been dumping and whether the dumping caused the injury claimed by the

applicants. China copied the American system in having these two elements of

the case investigated by separate agencies. The Ministry of Foreign Trade and

Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) Fair Trade Bureau for Imports and Exports

has investigated dumping, whereas the State Economic and Trade

Commission (SETC) Industry Injury Investigation Bureau has examined the

injury claim. Although these bureaus were placed under the new Ministry of

Commerce in March of 2003, their respective responsibilities have remained

the same.

一、

目前中国遭遇反倾销的现状

(

一

)

遭受反倾销 的次数急剧增加

自

20

世纪

90

年代开始，世界平均每

6

—

7

起反倾销和

保障措施案件中，就有一起针对中国产品，中国已成为被外

< /p>

国提起反倾销指控最多的国家。截至

2009

年底，中国共受到

19

个国家和 地区发起的

101

起反倾销和保障措施调查，涉案

金额近

116

．