WTOS414案例包含上诉机构裁判要旨的翻译.docx

1、WTOS414案例包含上诉机构裁判要旨的翻译WTO-S414案例(包含上诉机构裁判要旨的翻译)DArticles 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 24February 2011, the DSB deferred the establishment

2、 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 VietNam reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, Argenti

3、na and Saudi Arabia reserved their third party rights. On 10 May 2011, the panel was composed. On 19September 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

4、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 cir

5、culated 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 Chinas Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM

6、”) and the United States claimed that they were inconsistent with Chinas 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 res

7、pect 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

8、 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 evi

9、dence 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 resp

10、ect 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1

11、1.2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 ca

12、tegories 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 Sta

13、tes 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 summ

14、aries）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 res

15、pondent 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 a

16、nd calculations underlying a dumping margin. 美国声称中国商务部没有披露其计算被告两公司倾销幅度的数据及其计算方式，这违反了反倾销协议第12.2.2条。专家组驳回了美方的这一主张。专家组从第12.2.2条的文本中找不到在相关公告或单独的报告中包含用于计算倾销幅度的机密数据和计算方式的义务。The United States claim with respect to public notice of the findings and conclusions leading to MOFCOMs benefit determination under

17、the government procurement statutes 5.The United States claimed that MOFCOM did not adequately explain, in either the preliminary or final determinations, why the exclusion of foreign producers from the competitive bidding process under the United States Government procurement statutes led to the co

18、nclusion that the resulting prices were not market prices for the purposes of the benefit determination. According to the United States, this was inconsistent with Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel rejected the United States claim. The Panel held that Article 22.3 does not discipline the

19、substantive adequacy of an investigating authoritys reasoning. In the Panels view, MOFCOM included in its public notice the findings and conclusions on matters of law that it considered material, and also referred to the material facts it was relying upon to reach those conclusions.美国声称中国商务部没有在初裁或终裁

20、中充分说明，为什么从美国政府采购条例规定的招标过程中排除了外国生产者这一事实可以得出结论说因为有补贴所以其最后价格不是市场价格。美方主张，这一行为违反了SCM协议第22.3条。专家组驳回了美方主张。专家组认为第22.3条没有要求调查机构说理的实质充分性。专家组的观点是，中国商务部在其公告中包含了与其认为重要的法律问题相关的发现和结论，也参考了其赖以得出这些结论的关键事实。The United States claims with respect to the use of facts available 美国关于可用事实的使用的主张6.The United States brought a n

21、umber of claims regarding MOFCOMs resort to facts available in calculating certain dumping and subsidy rates. Although the Panel rejected the United States claim that MOFCOM improperly resorted to facts available to calculate the subsidy rates for the two known respondent exporters, the Panel conclu

22、ded that the manner in which MOFCOM applied facts available was inconsistent with Article 12.7 SCM Agreement.针对中国商务部凭借的计算特定倾销和补贴率的可用事实，美国提出了一系列主张。虽然专家组驳回了美国关于中国商务部不适当地使用了计算两被告出口商补贴率的可用事实的主张，专家组仍然认为中国商务部应用该可用事实的方式违反了SCM协议第12.7条。7.The Panel upheld the United States claim that China had acted inconsist

23、ently with Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement because MOFCOM improperly resorted to facts available in calculating the dumping and subsidy rates for exporters that were unknown to it. 专家组支持美国的主张，认为中国违反了反倾销协议第6.8条及其附件II的第一段以及SCM

24、协议第12.7条，因为中国商务部不适当地使用了相关事实来计算其不了解的出口商的倾销率和补贴率。8.The United States also brought claims under Articles 6.9, 12.2 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 12.8, 22.3 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, arguing that China did not disclose the essential facts, or provide in sufficient detail in

25、its final determination the findings and conclusions leading to the application of facts available to “unknown” United States exporters. The Panel upheld the United States claims in this regard. 美国还根据反倾销协议第6.9、12.2.2条以及SCM协议第12.8、22.3和22.5条认为，针对导致将可用事实用于“未知的”美国出口商的发现和结论，中国在其终裁中没有披露关键事实，也没有提供足够的细节。专家

26、小组支持了美方的这一主张。The United States claims with respect to MOFCOMs price effects analysis 9.The United States challenged MOFCOMs finding that the dumped and subsidized imports had significant price effects. The United States contended that MOFCOMs analysis of these price effects was conclusory, failed to

27、 reflect an objective examination of the evidence, and was not based on positive evidence. The Panel upheld the United States claims, finding that China had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement.美国反对中国商务部决定，称所谓的倾销

28、和补贴进口品不存在重大价格效应。美方主张，中国商务部关于价格效应的分析没有依据，未能反映对证据的客观审查，也不是基于直接证据。专家组支持美方主张，认为中国的行为违反了反倾销协议第3.1条和第3.2条，以及SCM协议第15.1和15.2条。10.The United States also claimed that China did not disclose the essential facts supporting its price effects analysis and did not offer an adequate explanation for its price effec

29、ts findings, in violation of Articles 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 12.8 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel also upheld these claims.美方还声称，中国没有披露支持其价格分析的关键事实，也没有对其价格效应结论进行充分解释，这违反了反倾销协议第6.9和12.2.2条以及SCM协议第12.8和22.5条。专家组支持这些主张。The United States claims with respect to MOFCOMs

30、causation analysis11. The United States claimed that MOFCOMs causation analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, on the basis that MOFCOM erroneously concluded that the rapid increase in the capacity of the domestic GOES industry during

31、the period of investigation could not have been a cause of injury to the domestic industry. The United States also claimed that MOFCOMs analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 15.1 of the SCM Agreement because it did not comply with the “objective examination” a

32、nd “positive evidence” requirements embodied in those provisions. The Panel upheld the United States claims.美方声称，中国商务部的因果分析违反了反倾销协议第3.5条和SCM协议第15.5条，其依据是中国商务部错误地得出如下结论：在调查期间国内GOES产业的容量的快速增长不可能是造成国内产业损害的原因。美方还声称，中国商务部的分析违反了反倾销协议第3.1条和SCM协议第15.1条，因为这违反了这些规定中所体现的“客观审查”和“直接证据”原则。专家组支持美方这一主张。12. The United States also claimed that China acted inconsistently with Articles 6.9 and 12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 12.8 and 22.5 of the SCM Agreement, on the basis that China failed to disclose the essential facts supporting its a