欧盟对华反倾销与中国的策略选择——基于欧盟对华彩电反倾销案例的分析

近年来,随着我国对外贸易出口的迅速增长,欧盟已经成为中国最大的贸易伙伴,然而,日益增长的欧盟对华反倾销诉讼直接阻碍了中欧经贸关系的发展。本文在分析欧盟对华反倾销现状和特点的基础上,以欧盟对华彩电反倾销案为例进行分析,并从政府和企业两个层面提出了应对欧盟反倾销的总体策略。     

欧盟对华光伏产品反倾销中“公共利益”的考量——基于法经济学视角的研究

在WTO成员中,欧盟反倾销法的"公共利益"条款规定比较全面,欧盟对华光伏产品的反倾销调查也充分考量了"公共利益",旨在平衡各成员国的产业利益。本文从法经济学的视角,分别从反倾销使倾销的负外部性内部化以及卡尔多-希克斯改进下的欧盟公共利益的角度,分析征收反倾销税后关税的有效保护率,同时建立了一个反倾销贸易保护的标准博弈模型来分析欧盟对华光伏产品征收反倾销税对其公共利益的影响。我国在反倾销博弈中应充分利用欧盟的"公共利益"条款,积极参与多哈回合反倾销谈判,同时提升光伏产业自身竞争力。     

中欧贸易摩擦呈增长趋势

自1979年欧盟对华发起第一起反倾销调查案以来,反倾销措施就一直是欧盟对华采取的最主要的贸易救济手段。在进入新世纪后的十年间,欧盟对华反倾销立案数波动比较剧烈,其间随着欧盟东扩和中国对欧贸易顺差的持续扩大,欧盟对华反倾销掀起了一个高潮。     

从会计角度论欧盟对我国制鞋业的反倾销

我国是世界上最大的鞋类生产和出口国,而欧盟是我国第二大鞋制品出口市场。但是,从2005年开始欧盟对我国的制鞋企业开始有计划的反倾销,使得我国的制鞋企业受到重大的打击。本文通过对欧盟反倾销法的理解和认识,从会计角度分析制鞋业面对反倾销时存在的内部和外部的问题,并提出制鞋企业可从会计方面实施的对策。     

企业如可应对欧盟反倾销调查

欧盟鞋反倾销调查正在紧张进行，这是近年来中国出口企业遭受的国外对华反倾销重大案件之一，一百多家中国企业参加了应诉。面对如此众多的应诉企业和堆积如山的调查问卷答卷，欧委会动用了4个办案组，对13家被抽样公司进行了全程序调查和实地核查。但遗憾的是，13家被抽样企业的市场经济地位均被否定，这是在近年来欧盟对华反倾销调查中所罕见的。下一步，欧委会将对被抽样企业做出怎样的裁决，未被抽样的企业命运又将如何，中国的企业将如何进一步寻求法律保护，中国皮鞋对欧盟市场出口的出路何在？很多法律问题已经引起政府、行业、企业、律师、媒体等多方面的关注和思考。     

中欧贸易摩擦呈增长趋势

自1979年欧盟对华发起第一起反倾销调查案以来，反倾销措施就一直是欧盟对华采取的最主要的贸易救济手段。在进入新世纪后的十年闻，欧盟对华反倾销立案数波动比较剧烈，其间随着欧盟东扩和中国对欧贸易顺羞的持续扩大，欧盟对华反倾销掀起了一个高潮。     

愈挫愈勇全力应对消除"非市场经济地位"歧视

2006年10月4日，在经过长达半年之久的漫长等待之后．欧盟对华鞋产品反倾销诉讼案终于落下帷幕。由于欧盟鞋类制造商普遍认为欧盟贸易委员曼德尔森提议以”配额斗关税”的方式了结中国皮鞋案过于宽容．最终的结果是，从10月7日起，欧盟对来自中国和越南产地的皮鞋分别征收165％和10％的反倾销税．为期两年。在这场不公正的裁决中，欧盟如愿以偿地实现了自己的目标，     

国外对华反倾销的经济与政治动因

中国是世界上遭遇反倾销诉讼最多的国家,以反倾销为手段的贸易保护已经成为制约中国对外贸易可持续发展的巨大障碍。本文重点分析对华反倾销的成因,探究进口国宏观经济和政治因素对反倾销行为的影响。研究发现:各国对华反倾销立案的宏观经济与政治动因存在显著的差异性。本文揭示了各国对华反倾销立案的内在动因,得出了具有价值的比较研究结论。     

评欧盟对中国反倾销政策的变化

欧盟反倾销法曾将中国等十几个国家明确列为非市场经济（non－marketeconomy），对来自这些非市场经济国家的进口商品的倾销实行的是类比国标准（analogUecountry）。而在今年4月27日，在卢森堡举行的欧盟外长理事会正式同意了欧盟委员会去年12月16日提出的建议，在欧盟反倾销政策方面不再将中国列入非市场经济，并将修改有关政策。这一政策的变化对我国将产生许多方面的影响。一、欧盟原有对中国反倾销政策存在的问题1．“非市场经济”定义不清欧盟反倾销法有关“非市场经济”国家的条款以及其体现的类比国际准，来源于GATT的有关规定，…     

中国光伏企业遭迄今最大贸易调查 将现残酷洗牌

欧盟委员会近日发布公告,正式对中国光伏电池发起反倾销调查,这是迄今对我国最大规模的贸易诉讼,涉案金额超过200亿美元。专家称,欧盟认定反倾销行为的可能性较大,中国光伏企业将遭受比美国对华光伏"双反"更严重的打击("双反",即反倾销税和反补贴税的统称),2—3年内行业将进入洗牌煎熬期。欧盟正式对华光伏反倾销调查涉案金额史上最大欧盟是世界上最大的太阳能产品市场,每年能消费世界太阳能产能的6成。据相关统计数据显示,我国的光伏产品大部分依赖出口,每年产能的7成都销往欧洲市场。     

Antidumping and tariff Jumping: Japanese firms’ DFI in the European union and the United States

Antidumping and Tariff Jumping: Japanese Firms’ DFI in the European Union and the United States. — The relationship between EU and US antidumping measures and direct foreign investment (DFI) is examined through a micro-econometrical analysis of Japanese firms’ plant establishments in the electronics industry. After controlling for firm and industry capabilities, market size, transport cost, and product cycle effects, antidumping actions are found to have a substantial positive effect on Japanese DFL EU antidumping is roughly twice as likely to lead to tariffjumping DFI as US antidumping, which is ascribed to marked differences in antidumping procedures. Tariff jumping makes antidumping ineffective in combatting anticompetitive behaviour by foreign firms and may result in increased market concentration.     

欧盟对中国出口的皮鞋实施反倾销措施的原因分析

加入WTO后我国成为受欧盟反倾销调查最多的国家,也是欧盟被实施反倾销措施最多的国家,对中国出口产生非常重要的影响。文章分析认为欧盟对我国皮鞋实施反倾销措施是因为:欧盟皮鞋进口的配额取消导致欧盟皮鞋进口增加;欧盟制鞋工业的衰落;欧中贸易逆差的扩大;欧盟东扩后南欧成员为了扩大贸易转移效应采取贸易保护措施和中国皮鞋出口企业的经营者素质和经营能力偏低等原因造成。对中国应对欧盟反倾销提供参考意见。     

欧盟反倾销对我国产业的影响:以焦炭为例

1999年的中欧焦炭案是欧盟对华反倾销案中的一个特例。本文收集了该案发生前后我国焦炭产业及其上下游产业的相关数据,着重分析欧盟反倾销对我国被诉产业及其上下游产业的影响。结果表明:欧盟对我国焦炭实施反倾销的负面影响比较小,同时,基于环保方面的考虑,我国应该对焦炭的出口予以限制。     

The trade depressing and trade diversion effects of antidumping actions: The case of China

China is by far the main target of antidumping (AD) litigation for most of its major trading partners. Recently, however, China itself has started using AD instrument intensively and was, in fact, the third leading country in initiating AD investigations between 2002 and 2004. This paper empirically investigates the impact of China's AD activities on trade by employing the system GMM estimator. The empirical results show that AD protection has significant trade depressing and trade diversion effects. These findings are consistent with Prusa [Prusa, T.A., 2001. On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping, Canadian Journal of Economics 34, 591–611.] and Brenton [Brenton, P., 2001. Anti-dumping policies in the EU and trade diversion, European Journal of Political Economy 17, 593–607] that investigate the trade effects of AD actions in the US and EU, respectively.     

The welfare effects of U.S. antidumping duties

Antidumping duties are among the most frequently used nontariff barriers to trade. Despite this, empirical analysis of the welfare effects of antidumping duties has been very limited. This paper helps close this gap by computing the welfare effects of 30 U.S. antidumping duties. These effects are computed using a Dixit-Stiglitz type model of preferences in conjunction with data from the International Trade Commission. The paper finds that the import relief provided by antidumping duties is small in comparison to the losses imposed on U.S. consumers.     

The economic and strategic motives for antidumping filings

The Economic and Strategic Motives for Antidumping Filings. — This paper looks at worldwide antidumping activity during the last two decades. We examine the motives for AD filings by countries in an attempt to identify whether economic or strategic concerns are driving the recent upsurge in AD use. We begin by providing a comprehensive overview of the data on cases initiated in the 1980–1998 period. We then use nonparametric methods to identify motivations for the use of antidumping and find considerable support for strategic motivations. This suggests that the rise in AD activity cannot be solely explained by an increase in unfair trading practices.     

Antidumping jumping: Reciprocal antidumping and industrial location

Antidumping Jumping: Reciprocal Antidumping and Industrial Location. — Antidumping policies are often justified as legitimate actions by governments in their efforts to protect domestic producers from unfair foreign competition. The authors investigate the impact of antidumping rules on firms’ production decisions as to how much and where to produce. Antidumping measures may have unforeseen effects if they induce direct foreign investment and consequently increase domestic competition. The authors therefore focus on location choice and consider the strategies of national governments attempting to advance the interests of their citizens through antidumping legislation. The analysis also has implications for the effects of market integration policies, such as Europe 1992.     

基于反倾销税实施的经济效应分析

反倾销是针对倾销的存在而实施的,是WTO允许其成员国用于保护国内企业和市场,抵制进口产品不正当竞争的主要行政手段之一。反倾销税作为世界各国广泛采用的反倾销主要措施,应服务于发展本国经济,增进国家整体福利水平,而非局限于保护进口竞争产业。因此,慎用反倾销税这项措施,对其经济合理性作出判断,是值得世界各国深入研究的问题。     

Does antidumping stimulate FDI? Evidence from Japanese firms in the UK

Does Antidumping Stimulate FDI? Evidence from Japanese Firms in the UK. — This paper explores which factors influence the number of Japanese firms in the UK and the level of employment and fixed assets in those firms, at a highly disaggregated sector level. We are interested in whether trade policy has had a role to play in the entry and expansion of Japanese firms. The results give some support to the hypothesis that antidumping action has acted as an incentive for Japanese direct investment in the UK. However, it has a relatively modest effect —antidumping cases can explain a maximum of 8 per cent of the expansion in employment by existing Japanese firms in the UK, while they appear to have no influence on the arrival of new firms.     

Is European antidumping protection against Central Europe too high?

Is European Antidumping Protection against Central Europe Too High? —In this paper, the author finds that the average level of European antidumping protection against Central Europe in 1985-1990 was by 14 to 20 percentage points too high. Her simulation results on the Central European antidumping cases show only ‘de minimis’ injury margins. Hence, the European Commission would have dismissed all European antidumping complaints against Central European imports and no antidumping measures would have been imposed. In view of these results, the author feels that European antidumping legislation and its implementation seriously undermine the credibility of the Association Agreements recently signed between the European Union and the countries of Central Europe.