|Abstract: ||中國自2001 年11 月加入WTO 以來，挾持其低廉勞資的優勢，產品席捲全世界，使其與各國的貿易關係大為緊張；WTO 紡品協定於2004 年底落日後，中國紡織品更是大量湧入各國市場，使得中國入會議定書第16 條所賦予各國之過渡性權利──即得針對中國產品單獨採取防衛──有了上演的舞台。臺灣因為不少傳統產業外移至中國，進而回銷臺灣，使得留在臺灣之生產者所面臨之中國產品衝擊更加添了一份特殊色彩。臺灣自2005 年底起由毛巾業者首先發難，除了示威抗議外，亦於2006 年申請進口貿易救濟；不久，政府亦依職權發動反傾銷調查。雙軌進行之救濟程序，以及於價格調查中，需處理之中國非市場經濟的問題、以及被調查廠商聲稱其並未傾銷而是進口商高價低報所引發之關稅估價問題，愈發使問題複雜化，遑論尚有政治之角力，以及媒體之推波助瀾。本計畫從法律的觀點，分析WTO（包括中國入會議定書）及國內相關規定，比較「針對中國產品之特別防衛」以及「反傾銷」兩者在本質、程序時間之長短、要件之該當性、救濟內容（包括實施年限、得否重覆實施）、附件條件（如逐步自由化、補償對手國）、先行諮商義務等方面之差異。冀從這些客觀差異，探究對救濟之及時性、受創產業所獲調適期長短之影響，以及對其他產業之衝擊（若中國採取撤回等值減讓之措施）。同時為檢驗部分對政府措施批評之允當性，亦進一步探討反傾銷價格具結後，如何確保具結者之義務履行，以及歐美實務如何認定中國之非市場經濟體制、如何確認產品價格。最後除了建議未來面臨其他傳統產業請求針對中國產品輸入進行救濟時應有之因應外，亦提出制訂對中國產品開放市場時產業政策應納入之考量。|
Since November 2001 when China acceded to the World Trade Organization, Chinese products taking the advantage of cheap labor have spread over the worl market. The trade relation of China with the other countries therefore has become tense. Moreover, after the Textile and Clothing Agreement of the WTO sunset at the end of 2004, China’s textiles products further surged into the other countries’market. Taiwan certainly was not immune from such impact. Its traditional manufacturing industry in such a flood of China’s cheap products suffered even more. The local towel manufacturing industry took the lead in 2005 filing with the Ministry of Economic Affairs for trade remedy, which is a type of country-specific safeguard that China agreed to the other WTO members in Section 16 of its Accession Protocol. In 2006, for the same industry, the Ministry of Finance also self-initiated an anti-dumping investigation pursuant to its authority. Although Taiwan finished both proceedings, it did not apply safeguards against China-made towel. Instead it imposed an anti-dumping duty with a rate over 204% in September 2006 for five years, which started from June 1, 2006 . There have been many comments on the case, for example, some suspecting that applying antidumping duty in lieu of safeguards is simply because the Ministry of Economic Affairs was afraid of China’s retaliation, while some arguing that treating China as a non-market economy in effect let Chinese towel markers easily off the hook. The Study from the legal perspective analyzes the WTO rules, including China’s WTO Accession Protocol, and Taiwan’s relevant regulations in order to identify the differences between China transitional product-specific safeguard (Article 16 of China Accession Protocol) and antidumping against a non-market economy, in terms of (1) the conditions for application, (2) the applicable measures, including the length of application, the possibilities for renewal, and (3) the requirements that need to be fulfilled, such as adjustment plan for gradual liberalization, compensation, and prior consultation, etc. Through the above analysis and discussion, the study assessed the appropriateness of the way Taiwan’s Administration deals with case. In addition to the above comparison, because (1) at the beginning of the investigation, some alleged that towel importers under-invoiced instead of dumped, and on the other hand, (2) some criticized price-undertaking, which was finally allowed in this case, created loophole and reduced the effect of the remedy, the Study also explores the possible link between antidumping and custom frauds as well as how to effectively monitor price-undertaking by enhancing cooperation between the Customs and internal tax levy. Given trade remedy is the last resort, the Study not only recommends the approach in dealing with the call for trade remedy against China’s imports in the future, but also suggests factors taken into account upon formulating industry policy.