Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/133218
|
| Title: | 「WTO墨西哥對自歐體進口橄欖油實施確定平衡措施」之研究 |
| Authors: | 魏杏芳
Wei, Hsin-Fang |
| Contributors: | 法律系 |
| Date: | 2010-12 |
| Issue Date: | 2020-12-22 09:44:08 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本文主要針對墨西哥對自歐體進口的橄欖油課徵平衡稅之緣由、實 施過程以及其所引發之貿易法上爭端進行探討。2003 年3 月12 日，墨 西哥公司Fortuny de México, SA de CV 向墨西哥政府申請對自歐體(主要 來自西班牙和義大利)進口的橄欖油課徵平衡稅。2003 年7 月2 日，墨西 哥經濟部接受Fortuny 之申請案並展開調查。同年7 月4 日，墨西哥依據 《補貼暨平衡稅措施協定》第13.1 條規定請求歐體進行諮商，該諮商於 2003 年7 月17 日在墨西哥市舉行。墨西哥在2003 年7 月16 日公布展 開調查決議。2006 年12 月7 日，歐體依據《爭端解決規則與程序瞭解 書》第4.7 條及第6.2 條、《1994 年關稅暨貿易總協定》第23 條、《補貼 暨平衡稅措施協定》第4 條及第30 條及《農業協定》第19 條，請求成 立小組，採用標準授權條款作成建議或裁決。爭端國間之爭點，包括： 調查前諮商程序是否符合《補貼暨平衡稅措施協定》第13.1 條、在《農業協定》下被控訴國展開平衡稅調查是否適當、調查程序中利害關係人 就機密資料提供非機密摘要的適法性、被控訴國揭露其據以決定採取確 定措施所考量事實是否已履行相關義務、調查期間是否已逾越許可期 限、是否應採用「移轉分析法」、本案所涉墨西哥國內產業是否符合「國 內產業」定義，以及國內產業損害認定之「積極證據」及「客觀審查」 等。期藉由本案例之論述，提供國內農產品作為掌握訴訟技巧、預防爭 端發生、證據保全以及應對策略等之參考。
This study attempts to explore the effects triggered by the controversy of Mexico definitive countervailing measures on olive oil from the European Communities, through introducing the facts, reasons and implementation process of this case. On 12 March 2003, the Mexican company Fortuny de México, SA de CV ("Fortuny"), filed an application for the imposition of countervailing duties on olive oil originating in the European Communities (mainly from Spain and Italy). On 2 July 2003, the Minister of Economy signed a resolution accepting the application and initiating the investigation. On 4 July 2003, Mexico invited the European Communities to consultations pursuant to Article 13.1 of the SCM Agreement. On 11 July 2003, the European Communities sent a letter accepting the invitation. The consultations took place in Mexico City on 17 July 2003. The Initiation Resolution was published in the Official Journal on 16 July 2003. On 7 December 2006, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 30 of the SCM Agreement, and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Arguments between two parties, Mexico and European Communities, include: whether or not the consultation before the initiation of the olive oil investigation contrary to Article13.1 of the SCM Agreement, whether or not inconsistent with Article 13(b)(i) of the Agreement on Agriculture by initiating a countervailing duty investigation on imports of an agricultural product (olive oil) , whether or not to meet the requirement relating to the interested parties’ non-confidential summaries of confidential information submission under Article 12.4.1 of the SCM Agreement, whether or not to meet the obligation of informing the interested Members and interested parties of the "essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures under Article 12.8 of SCM Agreement, whether or not to meet the time limit of the investigation of Article 11.11 of SCM Agreement, whether or not to adopt pass-through analysis, whether or not to meet the definition of domestic industry, and positive evidence and reasonable and adequate explanation of injury determination. For reference purpose, by virtue of this study to get the understanding in respect of dispute skills improvement, prevention of the incurrence of disputes, and the evidence assured, etc. |
| Relation: | 貿易調查叢刊, 21:2, 27-63 |
| Data Type: | article |
| Appears in Collections: | [法律學系] 期刊論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | | 0Kb | HTML2 | 335 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
