Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/97121
|
| Title: | 美國歐盟及台灣價格具結措施之比較分析
The comparative analysis of Price Undertakings under the U.S., the EU, and Taiwan’s Anti-dumping law |
| Authors: | 張瑞紋
Chang, Jui Wen |
| Contributors: | 莊奕琦
Chuang, Yih Chyi
張瑞紋
Chang, Jui Wen |
| Keywords: | 價格具結
中止協議
反傾銷
Price Undertaking
Suspension Agreement
Anti-Dumping |
| Date: | 2015 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-06-01 13:56:02 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 目前，有3件反傾銷案採行價格具結措施，包括原產於中國之毛巾，鞋靴及冷軋不銹鋼等涉案產品。財政部於鞋靴反傾銷案接受82家具結廠商，每季海關人員須監督該等具結廠商履行具結情形，爰該具結措施已造成龐大之行政負擔。本文檢視台灣價格具結實體程序及實務做法後，發現部分做法似不符合反傾銷協定或國際慣例。
歐盟於1981年至2001年時期，經常使用具結措施，但自2006年以來，使用具結措施之頻率急劇下降。美國較常採自願出口限制（數量限制），而較少使用價格具結措施。本文藉由相關文獻說明實施價格具結之經濟福利效果，並探討歐盟與美國有關價格具結相關法律與實務做法、歐盟近年來較少採價格具結之原因及歐盟接受或拒絕價格具結措施之理由等，該等研究分析將提供予台灣反傾銷調查之主管機關參考。
Currently, there are 3 anti-dumping cases settled by using price undertakings including the subject products of towel, certain footwear and cold-rolled stainless steel originating in China or Korea. Among which, Taiwan’s investigating authorities even accepted price undertakings offered by 82 Chinese exporters of certain footwear. Such measure has already caused the considerable administrative burden in monitoring
respect. After examining the practices of Taiwan`s price undertaking cases, some procedural and substantive aspects seem inconsistent with Anti-Dumping Agreement or international customary practices.
Price undertakings were frequently used by the EU during the period from 1981 to 2001, but the frequency has declined sharply since 2006. The U.S. has taken many
voluntary export restrictions, but rarely used price undertakings to settle anti-dumping cases. This paper will explore the law and practice of the EU and the U.S. regarding price undertakings. It will also illustrate the reasons for decreasing use of price undertakings, and the grounds for accepting or rejecting price undertakings in the EU anti-dumping proceedings. In addition, this paper will use the relevant literature to elaborate the economic welfare of price undertakings. Finally, it will offer suggestion as the reference for Taiwan`s investigating authorities. |
| Reference: | References
1. About the European Commission. Retrieved from: http://ec.europa.eu/about/index_en.htm
2. An introduction to anti-dumping and other EU trade law measures. Retrieved from:
http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/knowledge/publications/26849/an-introduction-to-anti-dump
ing-and-other-eu-trade-law-measures
3. Armin Steinbach (2014). Price Undertakings in EU Anti-dumping Proceedings – an Instrument
of the Past? Journal of Economic Integration, Vol.29 No.1, 165~187. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.11130/jei.2014.29.1.165
4. Bernard Hoekman(1998). Free Trade and Deep Integration: Antidumping and Antitrust in
Regional Agreements
5. Bibek Debroy，Debashis Chakraborty (2007): Anti-dumping: Global Abuse of a Trade Policy
Instrument.
6. Belderbos, Vandenbussche & Veugelers (2002). Antidumping duties, undertakings, and foreign
direct investment in the EU. Page 1-44
7. Christoph Herrmann, Bruno Simma, Rudolf Streinz (2015). Trade Policy between
Law, Diplomacy and Scholarship. Page 389.391
8. Edmond McGovern (2015). EU Anti-Dumping and Trade Defense Law and Practice. Page 112
9. Estela Montado (2006). The determinants of Price Undertakings in the EU, London School of
Economics. Page 1-35
10. Edwin Vermulst (1999). Competition and Anti-dumping: Continued Peaceful Co-existence?
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=200616
11. Frank Montag (2015). European Yearbook of International Economic Law-Price Undertakings in
Anti-dumping Law: Recent Trends and Considerations from a Competition Law Perspective.
Page 377-393
108
12. Francesco Perone (1995). Settlement of Anti-Dumping Cases by Price Undertaking: The
European Community and United States Practice. Institute of Comparative Law McGiIl
University, Montreal
13. Greg Mastel (1998). Antidumping Laws and the U.S. Economy. Page 13-14.
14. Ishikawa, J., & Miyagiwa, K. (2007). Price undertakings, VERs, and foreign direct investment:
The case of foreign rivalry. Page 1-28
15. Judith Czako, Johann Human and Jorge Miranda (2003). A Handbook on Anti-Dumping
Investigations
16. Moore, Michael O. (2005), VERs and Price Undertakings under the WTO. Page1-32
17. Meredith Crowle (2003). An introduction to the WTO and GATT. Page 52
18. Official Journal of the European Union.
Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/oj/direct-access.html
19. Prusa, Thomas (1992), “Why are so Many Antidumping Petitions Withdrawn?” Journal of
International Economics, 33, pp. 1-20.
20. Shih-Jye Wu, Yang-Ming Chang, Hung-Yi Chen (2013). Antidumping duties and price
undertakings: A welfare analysis. International Review of Economics and Finance. Retrieved
from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2013.05.013
21. The commissioners (2014-2019). Retrieved from:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019_en
22. The European Commission website. Retrieved from:
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/actions-against-imports-into-the
-eu/anti-dumping/index_en.htm
23. Tharakan, P. K. M. (1991). The political economy of anti-dumping undertakings in the European
Communities. European Economic Review 35. 1341-1459.
24. Tavares de Araujo, José (2001), Legal and economic interfaces between antidumping and
competition policy, Division of International Trade and Integration, United
Nations, Santiago, Chile, December.
25. The official website of the European Parliament. Retrieved http://www.europarl.europa.eu/
109
26. Trade Defense Statistics of European Union. Retrieved from
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/cfm/doclib_results.cfm?key=anti-dumping%20statistics
27. United States Department of Commerce.
Retrieved from: http://enforcement.trade.gov/agreements/index.html
28. U.S. Antidumping Manual Chapter 17: Terminations and Suspensions of Investigations
29. U.S. Antidumping Manual Chapter 25: Five-Year (“Sunset”) Review
30. Veugelers, R. and Hylke Vandenbussche (1999), European Antidumping Policy and the
Profitability of National and International Collusion, European Economic Review, 43, 1-28.
31. Vandenbussche (1995). World Competition. Law and Economic Review, 55-74.
32. Van Bael and Bellis (2011), EC Anti-Dumping an Other Trade Defense Instruments, 5th
edn., Alphen aan den.
33. Vandenbuscche, H., & Wauthy, X. (2001). Inflicting injury through product quality: How
European antidumping policy disadvantages European producers. European Journal of Political
Economy, 17, 101–116.
34. Wilfried Pauwels and Linda Springael (2002). The Welfare Effects of a European Anti-Dumping
Duty and Price-Undertaking Policy. Atlantic Economic Journal , Vol. 30, issue 2, Pages 121-135
35. WTO Technical Information on anti-dumping.
Retrieved from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_info_e.htm
36. Yan Luo (2010). Anti-Dumping in the WTO, the EU and China: The rise of legalization in the
trade regime and its consequences. Rijn, Kluwer Law International. Page 131.
37. Zanardi, Maurizio (2004), Anti-Dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha? The World
Economy, Wiley Blackwell, Vol.27 No.3, Pages 425.
38. 19 CFR 351.208 - Suspension of investigation
39. 19 CFR 351.209- Violation of Suspension Agreement.
40. 19 CFR 351.218- Sunset Reviews under Section 751(c) of the Act
41. 中華經濟研究院(台灣WTO 中心)(2007):研析各國如何確保反傾銷措施之有效執行 |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
亞太研究英語碩士學位學程(IMAS)
100926014 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0100926014 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [亞太研究英語博/碩士學位學程(IDAS/IMAS)] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 601401.pdf | | 3139Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 112 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
