WTO_S414案例(包含上诉机构裁判要旨的翻译)

Summary of the dispute to date back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at 20 November 2012 本摘要于2012年11月20日进行了更新。

Consultations

Complaint by the United States. 美方诉求

On 15 September 2010, the United States requested consultations with China with respect to measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States as set forth in Min istry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (“MOFCOM”) Notice No. 21 [2010], including its annexes. The subsidy that China determined to confer a benefit are the “Buy America” provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and also State government procurement laws.

2012年9月15日美国要求就中国商务部对进口自美国的晶粒型平板轧材电工钢采取的反补贴和反倾销措施（第21号[2012]公告及其附录）与中国进行磋商。中国认为2009年美国复兴与再投资法和各州政府采购法中规定的“购买美国”条款构成反补贴调查对象的补贴行为。

The United States alleged that China appears to be acting inconsistently with its obligations under:

美国声称中国貌似违反了以下文件中规定的义务：

∙Articles 10, 11.2, 11.3, 12.3, 12.4.1, 12.7, 12.8, 15.1, 15.2, 15.5, 19, 22.2(iii), 22.3 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, ∙Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

∙Article VI of the GATT 1994.

On 11 February 2011, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 February 2011, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

2011年2月11日，美国要求成立专家组。在其2011年2月24日的会议中，争端解决机构（DSB）建立了一个专家组。

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings专家组与上诉机构审理过程

At its meeting on 25 March 2011, the DSB established a panel. The European Union, Honduras, India, Japan, Korea and Viet Nam reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, Argentina and Saudi Arabia reserved their third party rights. On 10 May 2011, the panel was composed. On 19 September 2011, the Chairman of the panel informed the DSB that the timetable adopted by the panel after consultations with the parties, envisages that the final report shall be issued to the parties by May 2012. The panel expects to conclude its work within that

time-frame.

2011年3月25日的会议上，争端解决机构建立了一个专家组。欧盟、洪都拉斯、印度、日本、韩国和越南保留了其第三方权利。相应地，阿根廷与沙特阿拉伯保留里其第三方权利。2011年5月10日，专家组成立。2011年9月19日，专家组主席通知争端解决机构称，根据专家组经过与当事各方磋商采纳的时间表，预计将于2012年5月发布其最终报告。专家组估计可以在时间框架内完成其工作。

On 15 June 2012, the panel report was circulated to Members.

2012年6月15日，专家组报告向成员国发布。

Summary of key findings关键结论摘要

1. This dispute concerned measures imposing countervailing and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States.The measures were imposed by China's Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”) and the United States claimed that they were inconsistent with China's commitments and obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994.

本争端涉及进口自美国的晶粒型平板轧材电工钢（GOES）的反补贴和反倾销税措施。该措施由中国商务部实施，而美国声称这些措施与中国在反倾销协议、SCM协议以及GATT1994下的承诺和义务不符。

The United States' claims with respect to initiation of certain countervailing duty investigations 美国关于启动特定反补贴税调查的主张

2. The United States claimed that China acted inconsistently with Articles 11.2 and 11.3 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM initiated countervailing duty investigations into 11 programmes without sufficient evidence to justify this. The Panel concluded that the obligation upon Members in relation to the sufficiency of evidence in a countervailing duty investigation finds expression in Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement, which provides that an investigating authority must assess the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence in an application to determine whether it is sufficient to justify initiation. The Panel reached its conclusions by reference to the requirements for “sufficient evidence” set forth in Article 11.2, but did not consider it necessary to reach separate conclusions under this provision. With respect to each of the 11 programmes at issue, the Panel concluded that China had acted inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the SCM Agreement.

美国声称中国采取的措施违反了SCM协议第11.2条和第11.3条，因为中国商务部并没有足够的证据来支持其在11

个项目中启动反补贴税调查。专家组的结论是在SCM协议第11.3条中明确规定了成员国在采取反补贴税调查时有义务提供足够的证据，这就要求调查机构在确定是否足以启动调查时，必须评估证据的精确性和充分性。专家组通过引用第11.2条中规定的“充分证据”原则而得出此结论，但并没有考虑在此条规定下得出其它结论的必要性。对涉案的11个项目中的每一个项目经过审查后，专家组的结论是中国采取的行动违反了SCM协议第11.3条。

The United States' claims with respect to the non-confidential summaries 美国方关于非保密信息摘要的主张

3. The applicants for initiation sought and obtained from MOFCOM confidential treatment in relation to a number of categories of information. The United States claimed that MOFCOM acted inconsistently with Articles 12.

4.1 of the SCM Agreement and 6.

5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to require the applicants to submit adequate non-confidential summaries of the information. The Panel upheld the United States' claim. The Panel concluded that the purported summaries did not provide a reasonable understanding of the substance of the information submitted in confidence.

申请启动调查的经营者从中国商务部寻求并获得了多个领域的信息的保密待遇。美国声称，中国商务部没能要求申请人提交足够的非机密信息摘要，这违反了SCM协议第12.4.1条以及反倾销协议第6.5.1条。专家组支持美国这一主张。专家组的结论是，要义总结（purported summaries）无法让人合理理解其以保密形式提交的信息的实质。

The United States' claim with respect to public notice of the calculations used to determine the dumping margins 美方关于公告决定倾销幅度的计算方式的主张

4. The United States claimed that MOFCOM did not disclose the data and calculations it used to arrive at the dumping margins for the two respondent companies and that this was inconsistent with Article 12.2.2 of the

Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel rejected the United States' claim. The Panel could not find within the text of Article 12.2.2 an obligation to include in the relevant public notice or separate report the confidential data and calculations underlying a dumping margin.