By+lan+Xinzhen
On March 27， the World Trade Organization （WTO） released a panel report on the case of Chinas appeal against the U.S. amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930. The panel supported Chinas claim of being unfairly subjected to “double remedy”taxation and found that the U.S. Department of Commerce had failed to take the necessary actions to avoid the imposition of such taxation in the 25 anti-dumping and countervailing cases it made against China from 2006 to 2012.
The United States has thus been found to be in violation of the WTO rules. Shen Danyang， spokesman of the Ministry of Commerce（MOFCOM）， said on the same day that China welcomes such a decision.
He said this case involves more than $7.2 billion each year and touches upon an enormous trade benefit for China. He added that China hopes the United States will respect the WTOs ruling and change its abusive use of trade remedy measures as soon as possible to ensure an environment of fair competition for Chinese enterprises.
The United States， through its amendment to the Tariff Act （also referred to as the GPx Bill） on March 13， 2012， backdated and authorized its investigative institutions to levy countervailing tax on “non-market economy countries” from November 20， 2006， but such actions were not found to be in clear violation of WTO rules. Shen claimed that China is disappointed by this decision.
Shen said that China is assessing the panel report， and will do the follow-up work according to WTO dispute settlement procedures.
At his speech delivered on September 17， 2012 on Chinas appealing to the WTO concerning the amendment， Shen emphasized that China has repeatedly reiterated on different occasions that it resolutely objects to abuse of trade remedy rules and trade protectionism and will firmly exercise its rights as a WTO member to protect the legitimate interests of its domestic industries. China hoped the United States would be able to rectify its misdeeds through negotiation under the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO and properly address Chinas claims.
On April 8， China filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the WTO Panel Report.
According to the appellate procedures of the WTO， panel reports must be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body within 60 days of their circulation to WTO members， unless a party decides to appeal. If China or the United States appeals the panel report， the settlement body will make a final decision in three or four months.endprint
Zhang yansheng， Secretary General of the Academic Committee of the National Development and Reform Commission， said the current state of the worlds economic recovery is still fragile. Therefore， the actions of obeying WTO rules， opposing trade protectionism and safeguarding a fair trade environment are all more necessary than ever and a common responsibility for large trade nations such as China and the United States. He claimed the United States had abused trade remedy measures， and hoped the U.S. Department of Commerce will correct its wrongdoing in a timely manner， thus fostering a good environment for international trade.
the case
Since 2006， without proper legal foundations， the United States has nonetheless initiated more than 30 anti-subsidy investigations into China. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that the U.S. Department of Commerce had no right to make an anti-subsidy investigation into nonmarket economy countries according to the Tariff Act of 1930， the United States rapidly passed an amendment to the act in March 2012， clearly authorizing the department to take anti-subsidy measures against non-market economy countries and allowing it to retrospectively include all anti-subsidy investigations made from November 20， 2006 onward into the scope of its application. Such a practice was challenged and opposed by China at the time.
Shen said at his speech on September 17， 2012 that despite the lack of any domestic legal basis， the United States went ahead and initiated anti-subsidy investigations into China anyway， and then retrospectively confirmed the validity of those investigations through the GPx Bill. Such a practice put Chinese enterprises into an uncertain legal environment， breaching rules in respect of transparency， due process and other aspects under the oversight of the WTO.
On September 17， 2012， China made a request for consultations with the United States regarding the GPx Bill， under the dispute settlement mechanism of WTO， officially initiating the organizations procedure for conflict resolution. This dispute involved 26 anti-dumping and countervailing measures from November 2006 to March 2012 made by the U.S. Department of Commerce against 24 categories of Chinesemade products.
In accordance with the WTOs dispute settlement rules， China and the United States held consultations and exchanged views in Geneva on November 5， 2012.
Shen said this case， involving many categories of products of a large value and challenging two systematic U.S. trade remedy issues， namely“double remedy” and the GPx Bill， has attracted widespread attention from the international community.endprint
The WTO panel backed China on its challenge on “double remedy.” It established that the U.S. Department of Commerce simultaneously imposed anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties against Chinese exports. When it decided to collect anti-dumping duties， it adopted the surrogate country system of non-market economy， with export subsidy factors already being considered， thus causing “double remedy” against export subsidies.
However， the WTO didnt support Chinas claim that the GPx Bill was inconsistent with WTO rules. Two of the three panel members held that the bill neither enhanced the duties nor added import burdens， but the other member disagreed with them. China expressed disappointment at this decision.
Better use of rules
yang Guohua， Deputy Director of the MOFCOMs Department of Treaty and Law， said that as Chinas exports grow， trade frictions are unavoidable， so China should look on the WTO decision from a rational perspective. The key point is how to settle the disputes. Legal resolution led by the WTO is an appropriate way to settle international trade disputes， because it is reasonable， peaceful， predictable and conducted using a set of rules.
Since entering the WTO in 2001， China has brought 12 suits to the organization and was sued for 19 cases， according to yang. China has learned to use the WTO-led way to resolve trade frictions with other countries， he said.
However， sometimes， China has no alternative but to become involved in litigation with the United States. As the trade volume between the two countries continues to grow， the United States has been more reliant on trade protectionism， and unfair trade barriers have become one of the biggest obstacles to exporting “made-inChina” products.
There are many reasons for the United States to rely on trade protectionism. Some Chinese media have contended the major reasons are economic and political in nature. A Peoples Daily Overseas Edition report on March 31 said that economic recovery in the United States is not yet steady， and with regard to protecting its domestic industries and employment rate， the country considers its trade deficits with China an eyesore. However， it is intensifying restrictions on hi-tech exports to China. In the meantime， some U.S. politicians are increasingly turning bilateral trade issues into political ones. When the U.S. economy is faced with a problem， they tend to make China a “scapegoat.”
Wang Li， a researcher with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation under the MOFCOM， said that while China had become the worlds biggest goods trading nation， it had also become a major target and victim of global trade frictions. “If China doesnt launch counterattacks， the cost for the United States to conduct such anti-dumping and countervailing investigations will be zero. If Chinese companies and the government actively respond to the actions， the cost for the United States to launch such investigations will be very high，” Wang said.
He elaborated that the Chinese Government and industrial associations and companies must be active in responding to litigation and conduct effective bilateral consultations. They must also formulate a strategy for litigation， changing China from a major victim of trade frictions into a “powerful protector of its own rights.” Not only will this active attitude reduce their losses， but it may also ensure that the United States is more prudent in making trade decisions in the future.
In the case against the U.S. Tariff Act amendment， China sued the United States for undertaking “double remedy” taxation on 24 types of products within the same lawsuit， a measure which can save costs and achieve better results， showing that China has become more flexible in protecting its legitimate rights and interests by using WTO rules.endprint
根据您访问的内容，您可能还对以下内容感兴趣，希望对您有帮助：