Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes
OUTLINE
Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
(ii)General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body
Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:
“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’
关于加强证券投资基金信息网上披露有关工作的通知
上海证券交易所
关于加强证券投资基金信息网上披露有关工作的通知
各基金管理有限公司:
为加强证券投资基金信息网上披露工作,便于投资者及时、完整地获取证券投资基金相关信息,根据中国证监会的有关要求,现就证券投资基金信息网上披露事宜通知如下:
一、自本通知发布之日起,各基金管理有限公司在与本所联系刊登或报备下列文件时,应同时向本所上市部提交相应的电子文件(包括word文件和据此转换成的pdf文件,下同):
1、基金发行公告
2、招募说明书
3、上市公告书
4、基金契约
5、基金托管协议
6、扩募说明书和扩募办法公告
7、中期报告
8、年度报告
9、基金投资组合公告
10、基金份额变动公告及其他临时公告
二、基金管理有限公司在报送电子文件时,可以采用录入磁盘并专人送达的方式,也可直接邮至本所上市部专用信箱:list@sse.com.cn。
三、各基金管理有限公司应将本通知发布之前已经披露的上述全部文件的电子文本录入磁盘,于2001年中期报告披露之前交至本所上市部。
四、若基金管理有限公司召开持有人大会修改基金契约,基金管理有限公司应在基金持有人大会通过契约修订案五个工作日内,将修订后的基金契约在本所网站披露。
五、在本所网站披露电子文件时,基金管理有限公司应向本所提交确认函,相关电子文件内容与书面文件内容应完全一致,并承担内容差错的责任。
六、本所负责将各基金管理有限公司提供的上述电子文件在本所网站(网址为http://www.sse.com.cn)上披露。本所建议各基金管理有限公司同时在自己的网站上披露所有已在本所网站披露的内容。
七、本通知自发布之日起实施。
附件:上网披露电子文件格式制作要求
上海证券交易所
2001年7月27日
附件
上网披露电子文件格式制作要求
一、电子文件使用Word编辑文档,编辑格式如下:
1、Word中文文档以中文简体字体存储;
2、页面的纸张大小设为“A4”,方向设为“纵向”;
3、报告正文字体设为“宋体”,字号设为“小四号”,表格内容字体不小于“小五号”字体;
4、正文行间距设为单倍行距。
二、对已经编辑好的word文件利用Adobe公司专用软件转换成pdf格式的文件。pdf文件中不能放置图像文件,文件大小不能超过1兆。
三、Word文件和据此转换成的pdf文件一并在公告刊登前交本所。
四、本所将按有关程序把公司制作的pdf文件直接上网,对文件内容概不负责。
五、文件类型必须在文件名中体现出来,文件名中必须包含基金代码、文件类型。
六、文件制作咨询电话:021-68804743、68815375。