查詢結果分析
相關文獻
- 論美國關於補貼及平衡稅之認定、方法與實踐--WTO歐體民營化補貼案之啟示
- WTO「美國對加拿大進口軟木材課徵確定平衡稅」一案之評析
- 論公司與董事間之非常規交易與利益衝突--淺釋日本商法第二百六十五條的規定
- 論董事與公司間交易之規範
- 我國關係人交易行為規範與財務報表表達之研究
- 國際資本對憲法上工作權的衝擊--臺灣加入「世界貿易組織」和菸酒公賣局改制效應
- 生物遺傳資源之取得與利益分享之國際法發展趨勢
- [裁判簡評]非常規交易是否包括「假交易」?/最高院101臺上5291判決
- 人權與立法--以著作權法的立法過程為例
- 真真假假(假假真真)、假作真時真亦假非常規交易罪本質之辯證/最高院104臺上1003判決、最高院104臺上1365判決
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論美國關於補貼及平衡稅之認定、方法與實踐--WTO歐體民營化補貼案之啟示=On the United States' Determinations, Methodologies and Practice Regarding Subsidies and Related Countervailing Duties: Lessons from the WTO EC-Privatization Subsidies Case |
---|---|
作 者 | 李貴英; | 書刊名 | 經社法制論叢 |
卷 期 | 38 民95.07 |
頁 次 | 頁1-48 |
分類號 | 558.2 |
關鍵詞 | 世界貿易組織; 補貼及平衡措施協定; 財務補助; 利益; 接受者; 民營化; 伽瑪法; 同一實體法; 常規交易; 公平市價; WTO; SCM agreement; Financial contribution; Benefit; Recipient; Privatization; The gamma methodology; The same person methodology; Arm's-length transaction; Fair market value; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | SCM協定規定課徵平衡稅應符合三項基本要件:第一、進口產品受補貼;第二、導致進口國生產同類產品之國內產業受損害;第三、損害與受補貼之進口間有因果關係。「歐體民營化補貼」案之焦點在於前述第一項要件,亦即補貼之認定,尤其是補貼「利益」之認定。在「歐體民營化補貼」案中,上訴機構同意小組之見解,亦即按常規交易與公平市價所完成之民營化通常會消除來自先前授與國營企業一次性財務補助利益之剩餘部分。不過上訴機構不同意按常規交易與公平市價所完成之民營化必然且總是產生此一結果。此外,本案上訴機構支持小組裁定同一實體法違反補貼及平衡措施協定有關初始調查、行政檢討與落日檢討之規定。本文擬就本案相關問題予以探討。 |
英文摘要 | The SCM Agreement provides that countervailing duties may be imposed on imported goods provided that three basic conditions are fulfilled, namely: (i) imported products are subsidized: (II) there is injury to the domestic industry producing the like products; and (III) there is a causal link between the subsidized imports and the injury. The focus of EC - Privatization Subsidies is mainly concerned with the fulfilment of the first condition, i.e. the determination of subsidization and in particular that of a "benefit". The Appellate Body in this dispute agreed with the Panel that privatization at arm's length and at fair market price will usually extinguish the remaining part of a benefit bestowed by a prior, non-recurring financial contribution. However, it disagreed with the Panel that this result will necessarily and always follow from every privatization at arm's length and for fair market value. Furthermore, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the “same person” methodology violates the SCM Agreement provisions covering the original investigations, administrative reviews and sunset reviews. This Article aims at discussing some interesting aspects of this case. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。