發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-08-27 13:20

【摘要】：2010年4月17日，應(yīng)歐洲高級(jí)紙張生產(chǎn)商協(xié)會(huì)（CEPIFINE）的申請(qǐng)，歐盟對(duì)原產(chǎn)于中國(guó)的銅版紙進(jìn)行反補(bǔ)貼立案調(diào)查。而之前，歐委會(huì)已對(duì)中國(guó)輸歐銅版紙發(fā)起了反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查，2011年5月14日，歐盟就對(duì)華銅版紙反傾銷(xiāo)反補(bǔ)貼（簡(jiǎn)稱“雙反”）案做出終裁，對(duì)中國(guó)出口歐盟的銅版紙企業(yè)征收8%-35.1%的反傾銷(xiāo)稅率和4%-12%的反補(bǔ)貼稅率。按照歐盟規(guī)定，兩項(xiàng)征稅期均為5年。本案是歐盟對(duì)華第一次采取反補(bǔ)貼措施，也是歐盟第一次對(duì)華采取“雙反”措施同時(shí)也是歐盟第一次對(duì)“非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)國(guó)家”在“雙反”措施中整合適用從低征稅的規(guī)則。由于歐盟是我國(guó)第一大出口貿(mào)易伙伴，中歐之間貿(mào)易往來(lái)頻繁，所以對(duì)此案進(jìn)行深入探討和分析有著重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 筆者在瀏覽了大量的中英文網(wǎng)站和圖書(shū)資料的基礎(chǔ)上，采取理論分析與實(shí)證分析相結(jié)合的方法,從國(guó)際法和歐盟國(guó)內(nèi)法兩個(gè)層面，對(duì)歐盟對(duì)華采取反補(bǔ)貼措施是否合法，同時(shí)采取“雙反”措施是否合法合理，以及歐盟在“雙反”措施中采用從低征稅規(guī)則是否合理進(jìn)行分析,在對(duì)目前國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者提出的應(yīng)對(duì)國(guó)外反補(bǔ)貼策略進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上，結(jié)合本案提出建議對(duì)策，希望為我國(guó)今后應(yīng)對(duì)類似的問(wèn)題提供參考。 本文分為三個(gè)部分，沿著案情介紹、案件分析、建議與對(duì)策的思路進(jìn)行。 第一部分為案件情況簡(jiǎn)介，分為三個(gè)小節(jié)，包括對(duì)案情的概述，案件的特點(diǎn)和影響，并總結(jié)出案件爭(zhēng)議雙方主要觀點(diǎn)以及案件的焦點(diǎn)。 第二部分的案件分析是文章的核心部分，分為三個(gè)小節(jié)，分別圍繞對(duì)中國(guó)產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行反補(bǔ)貼措施的合法性，對(duì)中國(guó)同時(shí)采取反補(bǔ)貼、反傾銷(xiāo)措施的合法性合理性以及歐盟對(duì)華反傾銷(xiāo)反補(bǔ)貼中采取從低征稅規(guī)則的合理性展開(kāi)分析，以法律制度和法學(xué)理論對(duì)案件的合法性與合理性做出判斷。 第三部分是本案引發(fā)的對(duì)策及其建議，在對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)學(xué)者的研究成果進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上，，結(jié)合本案，從中國(guó)政府和企業(yè)兩個(gè)角度提出應(yīng)對(duì)類似案件的對(duì)策建議。
[Abstract]:On April 17, 2010, at the application of the European Association of Advanced Paper Manufacturers (CEPIFINE), the European Union launched a countervailing investigation into coated paper originating in China. Before that, the European Commission had launched an anti-dumping investigation on Chinese coated paper exported to Europe. On May 14, 2011, the European Union made a final ruling on the anti-dumping countervailing case against China's coated paper (referred to as "double countervailing"). China exports to the European Union coated paper enterprises imposed 8-35. 1% anti-dumping duty rate and 4-12% countervailing duty rate. Under EU rules, both taxes are five years old. This case is the first time that the EU has taken countervailing measures against China, and the first time the EU has taken "double countervailing" measures against China, and also the first time that the EU has applied the rules of low taxation to "non-market economy countries" in the "double countervailing" measures. As the EU is China's largest export trading partner and the Sino-European trade exchanges are frequent, it is of great practical significance to conduct in-depth discussion and analysis of this case. On the basis of browsing a large number of Chinese and English websites and books and materials, the author adopts the method of combining theoretical analysis with empirical analysis, and from the two aspects of international law and EU domestic law, whether it is legal to take countervailing measures to China by the EU. At the same time, whether it is legal and reasonable to take "double countervailing" measures, and whether it is reasonable for the European Union to adopt the rule of low taxation in the "double reaction" measures, is based on the analysis of the foreign countervailing strategies put forward by domestic scholars at present. According to this case, the author puts forward some suggestions, hoping to provide reference for our country to deal with similar problems in the future. This article is divided into three parts, along with the case introduction, case analysis, suggestions and countermeasures. The first part is a brief introduction of the case, which is divided into three subsections, including an overview of the case, the characteristics and impact of the case, and summarizes the main views of both parties to the case and the focus of the case. The second part of the case analysis is the core part of the article, divided into three sections, respectively around the legitimacy of countervailing measures on Chinese products, countervailing to China at the same time, This paper analyzes the legitimacy of anti-dumping measures and the rationality of EU antidumping and countervailing measures against China from the perspective of low taxation rules, and judges the legality and reasonableness of cases by legal system and legal theory. The third part is the countermeasures and suggestions caused by the case, on the basis of the analysis of the domestic scholars' research results, combined with this case, from the perspective of the Chinese government and enterprises to put forward countermeasures and suggestions to deal with similar cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 武長(zhǎng)海;;歐盟對(duì)華新貿(mào)易壁壘值得關(guān)注[J];對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào)實(shí)務(wù);2008年03期

2 歐福永;馮素華;;淺議歐盟反補(bǔ)貼調(diào)查程序[J];文史博覽;2006年08期

3 蔣小紅;歐共體反補(bǔ)貼立法與實(shí)踐[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2003年01期

4 曹和平;王宏;;美加對(duì)華適用反補(bǔ)貼法及中國(guó)的對(duì)策[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2008年04期

5 茍大凱;;從“歐盟對(duì)華銅版紙反傾銷(xiāo)反補(bǔ)貼措施”案看從低征稅規(guī)則的適用[J];法學(xué);2011年08期

6 張蹇;;美國(guó)實(shí)施“雙反”措施的法律依據(jù)探析[J];南京大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2009年02期

7 李煉;;加拿大對(duì)華反補(bǔ)貼案的啟示與對(duì)策選擇[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2006年13期

8 武長(zhǎng)海;美國(guó)反補(bǔ)貼法的中國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)[J];WTO經(jīng)濟(jì)導(dǎo)刊;2005年09期

9 馮素華;;歐盟反補(bǔ)貼條例對(duì)我國(guó)的啟示[J];中共鄭州市委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2010年05期

10 ;歐盟對(duì)中國(guó)銅版紙征收關(guān)稅 英印商叫苦[J];福建紙業(yè)信息;2010年24期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 段圣娟;國(guó)外對(duì)華反補(bǔ)貼及我國(guó)應(yīng)對(duì)策略[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：2207418