A One-Two Punch on Zeroing: US–Zeroing (EC) and US–Zeroing (Japan)
A One-Two Punch on Zeroing: US–Zeroing (EC) and US–Zeroing (Japan)
复制标题
归零的一击两拳：美国归零（欧共体）和美国归零（日本）
DOI：
10.1017/s1474745608004114
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Edwin A. Vermulst
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomas J. Prusa;Edwin A. Vermulst
摘要本文研究了在美国归零(EC)和美国归零(日本)这两个争端中提交上诉机构的问题。这两起争端的核心问题都涉及美国商务部的归零做法。与世贸组织以前涉及归零的争端相比，这两起案件中的索赔范围都要广泛得多。支持这一做法的两个理由是：(A)归零做法多年来一直是一种标准的行政做法，(B)《反倾销协定》没有明确禁止这种做法，因此必须尊重国家当局。虽然上诉机构在第2.4.2条《协定》的主要方法下以及在各种审查中禁止使用归零的做法可以说是正确的，但我们认为，上诉机构认为归零违反了第2.4条《协定》，而且可能不符合第2.4.2条的例外方法，这一点有些过头。最后，虽然审计委员会发现审查中的归零违反了第2.4.2条《反兴奋剂协定》，但我们认为，如果反垄断委员会将其不一致的调查结果限制在第9.3条《反兴奋剂协定》内，则更为可取。
Abstract This paper examines issues that came before the Appellate Body in two disputes, US–Zeroing (EC) and the US–Zeroing (Japan). The core issue in both the disputes involves the US Department of Commerce's practice of zeroing. The scope of the claims in both cases was considerably broader than in the previous WTO disputes involving zeroing. The two arguments in support of the practice were that (a) the practice of zeroing has been a standard administrative practice for many years and (b) the Antidumping Agreement does not clearly prohibit it and hence deference must be given to national authorities. While, the Appellate Body was arguably correct in prohibiting the use of zeroing under the main methods of Article 2.4.2 AD Agreement as well as in various reviews, we consider that it overreached in considering zeroing to be in violation of Article 2.4 AD Agreement and possibly as inconsistent with Article 2.4.2, exceptional method. Finally, while the AB found zeroing in reviews violated Article 2.4.2 AD Agreement, we believe it would have been preferable for the AB to have limited its findings of inconsistency to Article 9.3 AD Agreement.