論歐盟反傾銷法共同利益規範之演進與未來發展

Legal Analysis of Community Interest Test and Its Future Development in the European Union Anti-dumping Law

10.6416/SLR.200801.0151

林江峰(Chiang-Feng Lin)

歐盟 ； 反傾銷規範 ； 反傾銷稅 ； 共同體利益 ； 使用者 ； 消費者 ； 競爭利益 ； 成本效益分析 ； 利害關係人 ； EU ； anti-dumping law ； anti-dumping duty ； Community interest ； user ； consumer ； cost-benefit analysis ； competing interests ； interest parties

東吳法律學報

19卷3期（2008 / 01 / 01）

151 - 212

繁體中文

歐盟反傾銷法規定主管機關在課徵反傾銷稅條件之一切條件－傾銷、損害及因果關係－具備時，仍須進行「共同體利益」檢測後，亦即須經檢視反傾銷稅對其他不同競爭利益（例如使用者及消費者等）之影響後，始可決定是否課徵反傾銷稅。但在實務上反傾銷主管機關甚少以共同體利益為由否決反傾銷措施之採行，因而遭到相關利害關係人之非議，對此，歐盟執委會於最近在政策上亦考量對現行共同利益規範予以適度調整與修正，以因應現今變動之全球化商業環境，以期真正兼顧不同競爭利益之平衡。據此，本文將剖析歐盟反傾銷法共同體利益同競爭利益之標準與作法，及對各利害關係人在共同體利益評量應如何維護其應有利益予以建議，並就共同體利益未來可能修正發展方向予以分析。本文並發現執委會對不同競爭利益之檢測，仍有一定之脈絡與標準，然為免除共同體利益檢測成為保護主義工具之質疑，及有助於歐盟企業因應現今變動的經濟環境，共同體利益規範應考量修正納入強制性之成本效益分析，並規定共同體利益評量應指出最適切之反傾銷措施模式以平衡共同體之不同競爭利益，以真正符合共同體利益。

Where the facts as finally established show that there is dumping and injury caused thereby, the EU Anti-dumping Law requires the Authority to examine Community interest before it decides to impose anti-dumping measures. The Community interest test means the Authority can impose anti-dumping measures only after it has evaluated the impact of anti-dumping duty on different competing interests, e.g., user industry and consumer. However, only few cases have been determined by the Commission not to impose anti-dumping measures on the ground of Community interest. Therefore, the Community interest test has been argued as disguised protectionism tool for Community industry. Thus, the article intends to explore these practical criteria of the Commission in assessing different competing interests in Community interest test as well as the possible amendment of Community interest regulation. To serve this purpose, this article will discusses the development of Community interest test and substantive and procedural requirements of Community interest test will be also analyzed. In addition, this article will examine recent anti-dumping cases to explore the rules and criteria of evaluating different competing interests in Community interest test by the Commission. The ways of different interest groups to defend their rights in the process of Community interest test will also be suggested. Possible direction of revising of current Community interest test will be further analyzed. This article finally concludes the discretion of the Commission in Community interest test is not unlimited but has criteria and rules. The Commission has been also approaching cost-benefit analysis on anti-dumping measures, particularly its negative impact on different competing interests in several cases recently. The Commission has to stand on fair basis to evaluate different competing interests in Community interest test as well as to create a good anti-dumping policy to assist European enterprises to cope with the dynamic economic environment. Amendment of Community interest regulation to including mandatory cost-benefit analysis and requiring a specified appropriate modality of anti-dumping measures to balance different competing interests is therefore in need for the EU.

1. BAEL,BELLIS(2004).VAN, ANTI-DUMPING AND OTHER TRADE PROTECTION LAWS OF THE EC.Hague:kluwer.
2. Bellis,Jean-Francois,Vermulst,Edwin,Waer,Palul(1989).Further Changes in the EEC Anti-Dumping Regulation: A Codification of Controversial Methodologies,23(2),21-34.
3. Bronckers,Marco C.E.J.(1996).Rehabilitating Antidumping And Other Trade Remedies through Cost-Benefit Analyses,30(5),5-37.
4. Corr,Christopher F.(1997).Trade Protection in The New Millennium: The Ascendancy of Antidumping Measures.18 NW. J. INT`L L. BUS..
5. CZAKO,JUDITH,HUMAN,JOHANN,MIRANDA,JORGE(2003).A HANDBOOK ON ANTI-DUMPING INVESTIGATIONS.New York:Cambridge University Press.
6. Dider,Pierre(2001).The WTO Anti-Dumping Code and EC Practice Issues for Review in Trade Negotiations,35(1),33-54.
7. DINAN,DESMOND(1999).AN INTRODUCTION TO EUROPEAN INTEGRATION.Hampshire:Macmillan.
8. EU(2006).European Parliament.Brussels:
9. EU(2006).New Strategy Put EU Trade Policy at Service of European Competitiveness and Economic Reform.Brussels:
10. EU-Commission of the European Community,Commission Staff Working Document(2005).Annex to the 23rd Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the Community`s Anti-dumping.Anti-subsidy and Safeguard Activities.
11. GIANNAKOPOULOS,THEMISTOKLIS K.(2004).SAFEGUARDING COMPANIES` RIGHTS IN COMPETITION AND ANTIDUMPING/ ANTI-SUBSIDIES PROCEEDINGS.Hague:Kluwer.
12. Hayes-Renshaw,Fiona,Aken,Wim Van,Wallace,Helen(2006).When and Why the EU Council of Ministers Votes Explicitly,44(1),161-194.
13. Hoekman,Bernard,Mavroidis,Petros(1996).Dumping.Antidumping and Antitrust,30(1),27-52.
14. JACKSON,JOHN H.,VERMULST,EDWIN A.(1989).ANTIDUMPING LAW AND PRACTICE.Michigan:University of Michigan Press.
15. Kommerskollegium(2005).National Board of Trade.Treatment of the ``Community Interest`` in EU Antidumping Investigations.
16. Lockett,James K(1987).EEC Antidumping Law and Trade Policy After Ballbearings II: Discretionary Decision Masquerading as Legal Process?.8 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS..
17. Maclean,Robert M.,Eccles,Richard J.(1999).A Change of Style Not Substance: The Community's New Approach Towards the Community Interest Test in Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy Law.36 COMMON MARKET LAW REV..
18. Sapir,Andre(2006).Some Ideas for Reforming the Community Anti-dumping Instrument.Paper Produced at the request of Commissioner Mandelson for the Expert Seminar on Trade Defence Instruments.
19. STEELE,KEITH(1996).ANTI-DUMPING UNDER THE WTO: A COMPARATIVE REVIEW.London:Kluwer.
20. Stegemann,Klaus(1985).Anti-dumping Policy and the Consumer,19(5),466-484.
21. VERMULST,EDWIN(2005).THE WTO ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT.New York:Oxford University Press.
22. Vermulst,Edwin(2005).The 10 Major Problems With the Anti-dumping Instrument in the European Community,39(1),105-113.
23. VERMULST,EDWIN A.(1987).ANTIDUMPING LAW AND PRACTICE IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY.Oxford:North-Holland.
24. Vermulst,Edwin,Driessen,Bart(1997).New Battle Lines in the Antidumping War-Recent Movements on the European Front,31,135-157.
25. Wellhausen,Marc(2001).The Community Interest Test in Antidumping Proceedings of the European Union.16 AM. U. INT'L L. REV..
26. Wenig,Harald(2005).The European Community`s Anti-Dumping System: Salient Features,39(4),787-794.
27. WTO(2005).Public Interest.Paper from Chile; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Korea, Rep. of; Norway; Switzerland; the Separated Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and Thailand.
28. WTO(2006).Economic Effects of Anti-dumping Measure.Paper from Hong Kong, China; and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.
29. Yu,Lei(2002).Rule of Law or Rule of Protectionism: Anti-Duping Practices toward China and the WTO Dispute Settlement System.15 COLUM. J. ASIAN L..
30. 王泰銓(1997)。歐洲共同體法總論。台北:三民書局。
31. 王泰銓、楊菀林(1995)。歐洲共同體反傾銷法之研究（上）。進口救濟論叢，6，167-200。
32. 李貴英(1997)。論歐洲共同體之反傾銷法。中原財經法學，3，45-63。
33. 林彩瑜(1997)。論內國反傾銷程序公共利益條款之訂定。進口救濟論叢，11，139-180。
34. 陳麗娟(1996)。歐洲共同體新反傾銷法之研究。美歐月刊，11(2)，73-91。
35. 蔡麗照(2000)。歐盟反傾銷政策之理論與實務－探討我國業者因應之道（上）。貿易調查專刊，5，331-377。