查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論自由貿易區內反傾銷法之廢除=Phasing Out Anti-Dumping Laws Within the Free Trade Areas |
---|---|
作 者 | 林彩瑜; | 書刊名 | 經社法制論叢 |
卷 期 | 22 1998.07[民87.07] |
頁 次 | 頁229-276 |
分類號 | 558.2 |
關鍵詞 | 自由貿易區; 反傾銷法; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 反傾銷稅之採行將妨礙自由貿易區免除關稅的本質。反傾銷措施不但對自由貿易 區域內消除限制之貿易產生不利的影響,亦將構成該市場新的貿易障礙。 GATT 第 24 條要 求自由貿易區域成員間對大部分商品貿易之所有重要限制應予消除,就自由貿易區域成立之 旨論之,解釋上,應涵括反傾銷稅。本文旨在探討自由貿易協定下,反傾銷法與競爭法整合 之模式及其實施要件。 1983 年「澳洲紐西蘭密切經濟關係協定」在生效 7 年後, 澳紐二國間的反傾銷行動自 1990 年 7 月 1 日即予廢除,並代之以競爭法之規範。 易言之,二國政府同意修正其競爭 法,將市場力不當使用的禁止規定以「域外適用」的方式擴張適用至 Trans-Tasman 貿易。 惟澳紐二國仍各自保有立法權及完整而獨立的司法體系,並存有實體法之差異。政策的關切 重點不再是跨國界的差別取價及對生產者的實質損害,代之者係透過掠奪性目的對競爭過程 的潛在損害為規範。 歐洲經濟區內的反傾銷措施在「歐洲經濟區協定」生效同時即予廢除,而無任何過渡期。惟 該協定有關傾銷條款(第 26 條)之適用除限縮至締約國的原產品外,亦僅限於「共同體既 有體制」完全整合該協定之法規範圍。且除非另有協定,傾銷條款之適用不得損害締約國針 對第三國欲規避反傾銷措施、平衡稅及針對歸因於第三國不法商業行為之措施採取因應。因 此,會員國間的反傾銷行動仍有採行的可能。此外,由於「歐洲經濟區協定」除了若干制度 面的規定外,基本上係承襲共同體在基本條約、施行細則及案例法所規定的競爭法規,故會 員國須完全執行其競爭規則以反制引起共同體市場損害的傾銷行為。 北美自由貿易區「雙邊審查小組」之設制,係提供會員國另一選擇:即可在通常的內國司法 審查機制或審查小組二者間擇一適用。審查小組雖具有超國家的架構,然其所審查者係內國 法。審查小組除依據行政程序中所獲紀錄外,亦必須適用該內國法院對反傾銷╱平衡稅案件 的審查基準及一般法律原則作出認定。審查小組之決定除影響會員國行政機關的作為外,並 可使市場進入更具確定性。又北美自由貿易協定亦設有競爭政策及私人商業行為之條款,承 認此領域的規範將有助於完成協定的目標。特別是一常設性的貿易暨競爭工作小組將就「自 由貿易區內競爭法及競爭政策與貿易關係間的相關議題」作出建議。此或可為北美自由貿易 區努力朝向整合反傾銷及競爭法之證明。 由區域性貿易協定之經驗可知,廢除反傾銷法的前提係以建立共同的競爭法規範為要件。特 別是競爭法整合之範圍並不限於掠奪價格及差別取價的議題上,而係宜共同適用一完整、可 執行的競爭法體系以反制任何的跨國界貿易限制行為。而各會員國欲達成競爭法之協定,則 須以達成相同的經濟標準及共享類似的社會性要件為前提。區域性貿易協定以競爭法取代反 傾銷法之作法,可視為多邊貿易協定的試階石,其所反映出的國際趨勢與影響,值得觀察。 |
英文摘要 | Antidumping duties intervenes with the hitherto duty free character of the free-trade area concerned. Antidumping measures can thus not only complicate and adversely affect the restriction-free nature of trade in that area, but also can constitute new trade hindrances in the market and result in detrimental effect. The GATT article 24 of free trade area definition requires that all important restrictions to most trade goods be eliminated between the constituent territories in that area, for the purpose of free-trade agreement, on interpretation, shall including antidumping duties. This article made below builds upon the experience of the main regional agreements with attempts by countries to negotiate the abolition of antidumping measures in favour of the application of laws on restrictive business practices (or competition). Three main models to regulate competition and antidumping measures within regional economic arrangements will be reviewed and analyzed deeply. The first model is found in the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement (Trans-Tasman CER), which established a free-trade area where antidumping measures were phased out gradually in institutionalizing the extraterritorial application of domestic competition laws. Jurisdiction over the market source of the business practice has been extended to cover any market in Australia, New Zealand, of Australasia. The member states, however, still maintain their full sovereignty and independence. The second model is the European Economic Area (EEA). In this pattern, antidumping measures within the EEA were abolished with the entry into force of the Agreement, without any transitionary period. The abolition of antidumping actions is made possible by the adoption of Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA, which are perfect duplications of articles 85 and 86 of the EEC Treaty, as well as by the introduction of the direct effect in favour of private litigants through the acquis communantaire. The third model the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), in contrast, does not imply common antitrust rules or enforcement, and continue to allow for antidumping for internal trade flows. In NAFTA, however, a dispute-settlement mechanism--the binational review panel--was created to ensure the fair application of the antidumping by each national authority. NAFTA member state will replace national judicial review of final antidumping duty determination with binational panel review. More importantly, the mandate to consult on the potential for reliance on a substitute system of rules for dealing with unfair transborder pricing practices is future work. Experiences obtained in the regional integration context demonstrate that for antidumping to be replaced by antitrust enforcement, the markets concerned should be indeed contestable. In other words, abolition of antidumping not only requires concurrent agreement to eliminate trade and investment restrictions (free market access) , but also harmonization--or at least co-ordinated application of competition laws and policies. Although international agreement on the abolition of antidumping is difficult to achieve in the multilateral context, the international trend and impact reflected from regional setting will be the steps of the multilateral trade. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。