WTDS379R04Word文件下载.docx

WTDS379R04Word文件下载.docx

《WTDS379R04Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《WTDS379R04Word文件下载.docx（21页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

WRITTENSUBMISSIONOFCHINA

（24August2009）

I.INTRODUCTION

1.ThissubmissionpresentsChina'

srebuttaltotheargumentsadvancedbytheUnitedStatesinitsfirstwrittensubmissionandatthefirstmeetingofthePanelindefenceofthemeasuresunderchallengeinthisproceeding.ThissubmissionalsoincorporatesChina'

scommentsontheUnited 

States'

answerstothequestionsposedbythePanelfollowingthefirstmeeting.

II.COMMERCE'

S"

PUBLICBODY"

FINDINGSINTHEFOURCVDINVESTIGATIONSUNDERCHALLENGECANNOTBERECONCILEDWITHAPROPERAPPLICATIONOFTHEINTERPRETIVEPRINCIPLESOFTHEVIENNACONVENTIONTOARTICLE1.1（A）

（1）OFTHESCMAGREEMENT

2.Initsfirstsubmission,theUnitedStatesconfirmedthatCommerceappliedaperseruleofmajoritygovernmentownershiptodeterminewhetherSOEswerepublicbodies.ItnowoffersthesameperserationaletodefendCommerce'

streatmentofSOCBsaspublicbodies,eventhoughthiswasnottherationaleadoptedbyCommerceintheunderlyinginvestigations.

3.ThefirstissuebeforethePanelwithrespecttotheinterpretationoftheterm"

publicbody"

iswhethertheUnitedStates'

perserulecanbesustainedwhentheterm"

isinterpretedinaccordancewiththeprinciplessetforthinArticles31-33oftheViennaConvention.Chinasubmitsthatthisisnotaclosequestion,asevidencedbythevirtualabsenceofthird-partysupportfortheUnitedStates'

extremeposition.AsChinahasshown,theterm"

mustbeinterpretedtomeananentitythatexercisesauthoritythathasbeenvestedinitbythegovernmentforthepurposeofperformingfunctionsofagovernmentalcharacter.

4.Initsfirstwrittensubmission,Chinasetforthanumberofdefinitionsoftheadjective"

public,"

thecommonthemeofwhichwasthatwhenusedwiththenoun"

body,"

itconveyedthemeaningofactingonbehalfofanationorcommunityasawhole,andundertheauthorityoforofficiallyonbehalfofthenationorcommunityasawhole.However,theUnitedStatesarguesthatbecauseonegeneraldefinitionofpublicis"

theoppositeofprivate,"

andonedefinitionof"

private"

is"

providedorownedbyanindividualratherthantheStateorapublicbody"

that"

ifanentityisownedbythestate…suchentitycanbe'

apublicbody'

undertheSCMAgreement."

5.Fromthisflawedsyllogism,theUnitedStatesthenmakestheinterpretativeleapthatbecauseapublicbodycanbeownedbythegovernment,it"

isanentitythatisownedbythegovernment."

Needlesstosay,themerefactthattheterm"

mayincludewithinitsscopeanentityownedbythegovernmentdoesnotsupporttheUnitedStates'

categoricalrulethatsuchentitiesnecessarilyarepublicbodiesinallcircumstances.

6.TheequallyauthenticSpanishandFrenchtextsofArticle1.1alsorefutetheordinarymeaninginterpretationadvancedbytheUnitedStatesandunequivocallysupporttheoneproposedbyChina.InArticle1.1（a）

（1）oftheSCMAgreement,wheretheEnglishtextusestheterm"

theFrenchtextusestheterm"

organismepublic,"

andtheSpanishtextusestheterm"

organismopú

blico."

TheFrenchterm"

public"

andtheSpanishterm"

pú

blico"

eachcarriesaconnotationof"

governmental"

.

7.ItisinstructivetoconsidertheAppellateBody'

sinterpretationoftheterm"

governmentagency"

inCanada–Dairy.Inthisdecision,theterms"

and"

organismepublic"

areexpresslyequatedwiththeEnglishterm"

governmentagency,"

whichtheAppellateBodyinterpretedtomean"

anentitywhichexercisespowersvestedinitbya'

government'

forthepurposeofperformingfunctionsofa'

governmental'

character"

.Itfollowsthatwhentheidenticalterms–"

–areusedinArticle1.1（a）

（1）oftheSCMAgreement,theyshouldbegiventhesamemeaning.Apublicbody,likeagovernmentagency,thereforemustbe"

governmentalcharacter'

"

8.ThesecondissuebeforethePanelistheUnitedStates'

persistentrejectionoftherelevanceoftheILCDraftArticles.TheUnitedStatesisunabletoexplainawaywhatitcharacterizesasthemany"

unhelpful"

casesendorsingthegeneralpropositionthattheILCDraftArticlesareanappropriateinterpretativetoolwheninterpretingthecoveredagreementsgenerally,ortheAppellateBody'

sexpressrelianceonthemwheninterpretingArticle1.1（a）

（1）oftheSCMAgreementinparticular.Accordingly,theUnitedStateseffectivelyhasconcededthatthequestionbeforethePanelisnotwhethertheILCDraftArticlesshouldinformthePanel'

buthowtheyshoulddoso.Onthissubject,theUnitedStatesliterallyhashadnothingtosay.

9.Incontrast,ChinahasdemonstratedthattheattributionoffinancialcontributionstoMembersunderArticle1.1oftheSCMAgreementwhentheyareprovidedby

（1）"

agovernment"

（2）any"

publicbodywithintheterritoryofaMember"

or（3）a"

privatebody"

thatis"

entrustedordirected"

bygovernment,closelyparallelsthethreecategoriesofattributionsetforthinArticles4,5,and8,respectively,oftheILCDraftArticles.TheonlylogicalinferenceisthatArticle1.1oftheSCMAgreementwasdraftedagainstthenormativebackgroundformedbythecustomaryinternationallawrulesonattributionknowntoallMembersoftheWTO.TheAppellateBody'

srelianceontheCommentarytoILCDraftArticle8wheninterpretingthemeaningoftheterm"

entrustsordirects"

inArticle1.1（a）

（1）（iv）oftheSCMAgreementisanunambiguousconfirmationofthisreality.

10.TheUnitedStates'

interpretationoftheterm"

fliesinthefaceofeachofthesecustomaryrulesofinternationallawcodifiedintheILCDraftArticles.Conversely,theseprovisionsunambiguouslysupporttheinterpretationoftheterm"

advancedbyChinaonthebasisofordinarymeaning,contextandobjectandpurpose.

11.Chinawillnotdwellonthefinalissue–Commerce'

sinputsubsidyfindingsinrespectofpurchasesfromprivatetradingcompanies–becauseCommerce'

sunlawfulconclusionthatSOEsarepublicbodieswithinthemeaningofArticle1.1oftheSCMAgreementrendersallofitsinputsubsidydeterminationsunlawful.ChinawilljustnotetwoadditionalbasesforconcludingthatCommerce'

sfindingswithrespecttopurchasesfromprivatetradingcompanieswereinconsistentwiththeUnited 

obligationsunderthecoveredagreements.First,intheCWPandLWRinvestigations,Commercereliedon"

factsavailable"

todeterminetheamountofHRSpurchasedfromtheprivatetradingcompaniesthatallegedlyhadbeenproducedbySOEs,eventhoughitdidnotseeksuchinformationfromtherespondentsintheinvestigations.TheUnitedStateshasessentiallyconcededthatindoingso,CommerceactedinconsistentlywithArticles12.1and12.7oftheSCMAgreement.Needlesstosay,subsidyfindingspredicatedonanunlawfulresorttofactsavailablecannotstand.

12.Second,CommercemadenofindingsintheCWP,LWRorOTRinvestigationsthattheprivatetradingcompaniesthemselveshadmadeafinancialcontributionwithinthemeaningofArticle 

1.1.AsChinapreviouslyhasdemonstrated,absentafindingofentrustmentordirection,therewasnobasisforCommercetoconcludethattheproducersunderinvestigationpurchased"

government-providedgoods"

whentheyacquiredinputsfromthetradingcompanies.

13.Forallofthesereasons,thePanelshouldfindthattheUnitedStates'

perseruleofmajoritygovernmentownershipisinconsistentwiththeproperinterpretationoftheterm"

.WithoutavalidfindingthattheSOEsandSOCBswerepublicbodies,Commerce'

sfinancialcontributionfindingsineachofthefourCVDinvestigationswithrespecttotheallegedprovisionofinputsandloansareinconsistentwithArticle1.1oftheSCMAgreement.

III.COMMERCE'

SDETERMINATIONSOF"

BENEFIT"

INTHEFOURCVDINVESTIGATIONSUNDERCHALLENGEVIOLATETHEUNITEDSTATES'

OBLIGATIONSUNDERTHECOVEREDAGREEMENTS

14.TheUnitedStates'

statementsatthefirstmeetingofthePanelanditsanswerstoPanelquestionshaveusefullyclarifiedtheissuesbeforethePanelwithrespecttowhetherCommerce'

sbenefitdeterminationsinthefourCVDinvestigationsunderchallengewereconsistentwiththecoveredagreements.

15.First,theUnitedStates'

defenceofCommerce'

sinputandlandbenefitcalculationsarepredicatedontheremarkableassertionthataninvestigatingauthorityhasnolegalobligationunderArticle14（d）oftheSCMAgreementtoperformananalysisestablishingthatprivatepricesaredistortedbeforeresortingtoout-of-countrybenchmarks.

16.ThisistantamounttoafrontalassaultononeofthecentraltenetsoftheAppellateBody'

sdecisioninUS–SoftwoodLumberIV.AstheAppellateBodyemphasized,therejectionofprivatepricesaspotentialbenchmarksispermissibleonly"

whenithasbeenestablishedthatthoseprivatepricesaredistorted,becauseofthepredominantroleofthegovernmentinthemarketasaproviderofthesameorsimilargoods."

Thatdetermination,inturn,"

mustbemadeonacase-by-casebasis,accordingtotheparticularfactsunderlyingeachcountervailingdutyinvestigation."

17.Second,consistentwithitsflawedlegalinterpretationofArticle14（d）,theUnitedStatesnowconcedesthatCommercereliedonnothingmorethanthepu