메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류
인문학
인문학 일반 역사학 철학 종교학 어문학 기타 인문학
사회과학
사회과학 일반 경영학 관광학 교육학 군사학 문헌정보학 법학 사회학 신문방송학 심리과학 정치외교학 지리학 행정학 경제학 무역학 인류학 기타 사회과학
자연과학
자연과학 일반 물리학 생물학 생활과학 수학·통계학 천문학 지구과학 화학 기타 자연과학
공학
공학 일반 건축공학 기계공학 산업공학 재료·에너지공학 전기전자공학 조선해양공학 화학공학 컴퓨터학 기타공학
의약학
의학 일반 간호학 수의학 약학 한의학 기초의학 임상의학 기타 의약학
농수해양학
농수해양학 일반 농학 수산학 식품과학 임학 축산학 해상운송학 기타 농수해양학
예술체육학
예술 일반 디자인 미술 미용 사진 음악학 의상 체육 공연매체예술 기타 예술체육학
복합학
학제간연구 과학기술학 뇌인지과학 기술정책 기타 복합학

ENG

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
법무부 국제법무정책과 통상법률 통상법률 제70호
발행연도
2006.8
수록면
171 - 196 (26page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
This dispute concerns the application by the United States of the so-called "제로잉" methodology in anti-dumping proceedings, including proceedings for the imposition of anti-dumping 조치s, for the collection of anti-dumping duties, and for certain types of reviews. The three main substantive legal issues addressed by the Panel and Appellate Body were: (1) Is "‘모델별 제로잉’" permitted in certain original investigations cited by the European Communities? (2) Is the "practice or methodology" of "‘모델별 제로잉’" in original investigations inconsistent with WTO rules? And (3) is "‘단순 제로잉’" permitted in certain administrative reviews (i.e., U.S. duty assessment procedures)? The Panel found the use of "‘모델별 제로잉’" to be inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 and this finding was not appealed. As to the "practice or methodology" of "제로잉," the Panel considered that the DOC's " 제로잉" methodology constitutes a "norm" that couldbe subject to WTO dispute settlement and it then concluded that this methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 when used in original investigations. The Appellate Body upheld these conclusions, under slightly modified reasoning. The finding that this methodology can be challenged has important implications. If the "제로잉" methodology itself could not be challenged, investigating authorities could maintain "제로잉" as an unwritten rule that they would follow in each case, and affected Members would then have to bring claims against each instance of "제로잉" in individual WTO disputes. Finally, there was a claim against the use of "‘단순 제로잉’" in certain administrative reviews (i.e., duty assessment procedures). The Panel majority agreed with the United States and concluded that the Article 2.4.2 prohibition on 제로잉 does not apply to administrative reviews, and thus it found that 제로잉 in administrative reviews does not violate Article 2.4.2. (In addition, the European Communities also claimed that "‘단순 제로잉’" in administrative reviews violates the "fair comparison" requirement of Article 2.4. The Panel rejected this claim as well.) By contrast, the Appellate Body took a very different approach to this issue. Rather than worry about the relationship between Article 2.4.2 and Article 9.3, the Appellate Body concluded that the AD Agreement and GATT Article VI dictate that dumping margins exist only for the "product as a whole" throughout the AD Agreement, including Article 9.3. As a result, it found, 제로잉, which does not take into account the "product as a whole," was not permitted in the administrative reviews at issue. Appellate Body's conclusion and its reasoning seems somewhat cursory for such an important issue. In some ways, the Appellate Body's reasoning on this issue does not seem very convincing. A key part of the reasoning seems to focus on the italicized words "products" and "product." However, it certainly could be argued that "products" and "product" as used in the provisions at issue could refer to either the entire group of imported products or to sales of individual products. This is especially so given the special AD Agreement standard of review set out in Article 17.6(ii). Regardless, the Appellate Body's interpretation is clear, and the only issue now will be how it applies to other specific types of 제로잉 that have not yet been addressed explicitly. There are still a number of different types of 제로잉 and types of anti-dumping proceedings that remain to be judged in terms of whether 제로잉 is permitted. In most situations, the Appellate Body's strong condemnation here seems likely to lead to a similar finding of violation. For example, in the transaction-to-transaction comparison recently addressed in the Final Lumber AD Determination, Article 21.5 panel report (in the context of an original investigation), it certainly seems probable that the Appellate Body will reach the conclusion that the 제로잉 at issue is prohibited. This conclusion could apply to other calculation methods that do not take into account the product "as a whole" as well.
#fair comparison #dumping margin #강행법규 #공정한 비교 #덤핑 마진 #관행 #재량법규 #제로잉 #zeroing

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청
참고문헌이 DBpia에서 서비스 중이라면, [참고문헌 신청]을 통해 등록해보세요

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

WTO 반덤핑 협정(Anti-Dumping Agreement)상 덤핑마진 산정 방식 관련 분쟁 사례 연구 : 제로잉(zeroing)을 중심으로
조영진 통상법률 2009 .10
WTO 한미 세탁기 분쟁(US-Washers)에 대한 고찰 : 표적덤핑에서의 제로잉을 중심으로
조영진 국제경제법연구 2017 .03
제로잉(Zeroing)에 대한 WTO 紛爭解決 結果 및 DDA 規範協商에서의 論議 動向 硏究
김희상 통상법률 2005 .02
WTO 반덤핑협정하의 제로잉 효과와 적법성 : 미국–오렌지주스 사건을 중심으로
김철수 ,  하충룡 통상정보연구 2014 .06
WTO 반덤핑마진 산정시 ‘zeroing'관행의 검토 : 미국의 덤핑마진산정에 대한 법, 규제와 방법에 관한 사건을 중심으로
성재호 ,  이길원 국제경제법연구 2006 .12

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2017-360-002329142