| [⑧] See the GOC?s case brief (April 17, 2008) (“GOC?s CB”) at page 9.
[⑨] See Georgetown Steel Applicability Memorandum at page 4.
[⑩] SeeFinal Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary, 67 FR 60223 (September 25, 2002), and accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at pages15 and 17 (“Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary”).
[11] The GOC and GWSP cite to Carbon Steel WireRod from Poland; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 49 FR 19374, 19375 (May 7, 1984).
[12] 51 See Memorandumfrom Shauna Lee-Alaia and Lawrence Norton to David M. Spooner Regarding CountervailingDuty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People’s Republic ofChina - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion areApplicable to China’s Present-Day Economy, at pages 5 and 10 (March 29, 2007)(“Georgetown Steel Memo”).
[13] See Post-Preliminary Analysis.
[14] See Post-Preliminary Analysis; see also Laminated WovenSacks from China: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 72FR 67893, 67905-09 (Dec. 3, 2007) (“Sacks from the PRC”); see also Certain NewPneumatic Off-the-Road Tires from the PRC: Preliminary Affirmative CVDDetermination, 72 FR 71360, 71367-70 (Dec. 17, 2007) (“Tires from the PRC”).
[15] See ZZ PipePreliminary Calculation Memorandum at attachments 1 and 4.d.
[16] See Notice of Final Results of FirstAntidumping Administrative Review: Low Enriched Uranium From France,69 FR46501, 46505 (August 3, 2004) (“Uranium from France AD Final Results”).
[17] See,e.g., Sections 701 and 771(5) and (5A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”).
[18] Seealso Section 701(b) of the Act (providing the definition of “SubsidiesAgreement country”).
[19] SeeCarbon Steel Wire Rod from Poland; Final Negative Countervailing DutyDetermination, 49 FR 19374 (May 7, 1984); Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Czechoslovakia; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 49 FR 19370 (May 7,1984)(“Czech Wire Rod”).
[20] See Georgetown Steel Applicability Memorandum.
[21] 801 F.2d at 1318.
[22] SeeChevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,842-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). See Georgetown Steel, 801 F.2d at 1318 (emphasis added).
[23] SeeGov?t of the People?s Republic of China v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 1282 (citing Georgetown Steel, 801 F.2d at 1318).
[24] See,e.g., Section 771(5) and (5A) of the Act.
[25] 22U.S.C. § 6943(a)(1)
[26] 22U.S.C. § 6901(8).
[27] 22U.S.C. § 6941(5).
[28] See22 U.S.C. § 6941(5).
[29] 5U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A).
[30] See,e.g., SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-03 (1947) (Chenery Corp.) (“thechoice made between proceeding by general rule or by individual, ad hoclitigation is one that lies primarily in the informed discretion of theadministrative agency”).
[31] See Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. at 203.
[32] 5U.S.C. § 553
[33] See,e.g., Budd Co., Wheel & Brake Div. v. United States, 746 F. Supp. 1093 (CIT 1990).（支持美国商务部不必采用规则制定的方式修改自己的通胀方法“因为其以记录在案的案例解释了自己的决定，没有剥夺原告在行政程序法案下的程序公平”）；Sonco Steel Tube Div. v. United States, 694 F. Supp. 959, 966 (CIT 1988)（从出口商的销售价格中推论所获利润是否合适的裁决不要求正式的规则制定程序）。
[34] CheneryCorp., 332 U.S. at 203. See Gov?t of the People?s Republic of China v. United States, 483 F. Supp. 2d at 1282.
[35] SeeCeramica Regiomontana, S.A. v. United States, 10 C.I.T. 399, 404-05, aff?d, 810 F.2d 1137 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
[36] See Georgetown Steel Applicability Memorandum.
[37] SeeGSA, S.R.L. v. United States, 77 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1359 (citing SAA at 892)
[38]比如，中国政府援引波兰的碳钢圆盘案称，通过该案，美国商务部创设了对非市场经济体比如中国不适用反补贴法的有约束力的规则。在此案中，美国商务部分析了苏联模式的经济，并审查了反补贴法是否可以被适用。在分析了波兰的市场运行之后，美国商务部解释到：存在非市场经济体制的实质性特点，这使得用市场标准衡量非市场经济是不理性的。此背景不允许我们将非市场经济政府的行为定性为补助或赠与。美国商务部以当时的经济为基础做出了自己的裁决。See Carbon Steel Wire Rodfrom Poland; Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination, 49 FR 19374 (May7, 19 84).
[39] Id.; see also Czech Wire Rod.
[40]SeeInitiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation: Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts andWheel Locks From the People?s Republic of China, 57 FR 877 (Jan. 9, 1992) (Lug Nuts fromthe PRC). The Department ultimately rescinded the CVD investigation on thebases of the AD investigation, the litigation, and a subsequent remand determination,concluding that it was not a market-oriented industry. See Rescission ofInitiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation and Dismissal of Petition:Chrome-Plated Lug Nuts and Wheel Locks from the People?s Republic of China, 57 FR10459 (Mar. 26, 1992).
[41] GeneralIssues Appendix, 58 FR at 37261.
[42] GOCCase Brief at 9.
[43] Seegenerally Georgetown Steel Applicability Memorandum.
[44] Seee.g. Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187.
[45] Id., 500 U.S. at 186-87 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
[46] Seee.g. Sulfanilic Acid from Hungary, 67 FR 60223.
[47] Seee.g. Georgetown Steel Applicability Memorandum.
[48] Seee.g. CFS from the PRC at Issues and Decision Memo, Comments 3 & 6.
[49] See GeorgetownSteel Memorandum at page 5.
[50] See id., andAugust 30 Memorandum at page 22.
[51] SeeDepartment?s Response to Comment 7,below.
[52] See 19CFR 351.511(a)(2)(ii).
[53] SeeFinal Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination: Coated Free Sheet Paperfrom Indonesia, 72 FR 60642 (October 25, 2007) (“CFS from Indonesia”) and the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum at “GOI’s Provision of StandingTimber for Less Than Adequate Remuneration” and Comments 11 and 12.
[54]参见臧立《WTO法律体系下实施“双反”措施的合法性研究——由“美国对华铜版纸案”引发的思考》，《法商研究》2008年第1期.
[55] 参阅李仲平、李炼《反补贴是适用于非市场经济国家的法律思考》，《广西经济管理干部学院学反》2006年第1期
[56]参见李炼《加拿大对华反补贴案的启示与对策选择》，《商场现代化》2006年5月上旬刊.
4/4 首页 上一页 2 3 4 |
