Analysis To The Case Of US Vs PRC On Coated Free Sheet Paper

Of the United States on China's Coated Freed Sheet Paper countervailing investigation, which will bring China to face more anti-subsidy investigations, not only the United States but the European Union, Australia and other major trading partners will be first to follow suit, China will face unprecedented anti-subsidy investigations pressure. Therefore, the attention and study in the United States Commerce Department in the case by the theory and practice of reform and change have strong guidance and instructions to China's current anti-subsidy policy study, which will offer opportunity to China's fundamental innovation from anti-dumping measures to the countervailing measures. The paper use the comprehensive analysis method, briefly introduced the basic facts of the case, a detailed analysis of the countervailing case involved several legal issues, thereby triggering thinking. Specifically, the text is divided into five chapters:Chapter one introduces the basic facts of the case. October 31, 2006, New Page Paper Group of the United States submit their applications to the Department of Commerce on the coated paper in the country of origin (Coated Free Sheet Paper) to take anti-dumping and countervailing investigations. November 20, 2006, the Commerce Department investigates. December 1, 2006, the Department of Commerce choose two of the nation's largest exporters Jindong Paper Co., Ltd., Jiangsu and Shandong Chenming Paper Group as a mandatory respondent to the survey. December 4, 2006, the Department of Commerce issued a countervailing duty questionnaire to the Chinese Government and the two companies. December 15, 2006, the United States International Trade Commission ruled that China's export subsidies and dumping of coated paper to the United States domestic industries caused substantial damage and the threat of damage. December 2006 to February 2007, the Chinese Government, Jindong Paper and Chenming Paper were submitted to the United States Department of Commerce on the survey questionnaire and supplementary questionnaire respondents. January 9, 2007, China's Ministry of Commerce to the United States Court of International Trade against requirements promulgated temporary injunction prohibiting the United States Government in China countervailing investigations claim. March 29, 2007, the United States Court of International Trade ruled that the right to consider whether the United States Department of Commerce on Chinese enterprises initiated countervailing investigations. March 30, 2007, the Commerce Department said on the coated paper originating in China to countervailing preliminary ruling, the preliminary ruling was as follows: Adjudication Shandong Chenming Paper 10.90 percent tax subsidies, Jiangsu Jindong Paper 20.35 percent and others 18.16 percent. October 18, 2007, the United States Department of Commerce on the coated paper originating in China to anti-dumping and countervailing investgation, convicted of Jiangsu Jindong Paper subsidy rate of 7.4 percent, dumping rate of 21.12 percent. Shandong Chenming Paper subsidy rate of 44.25 percent, dumping rate of 99.65 percent, Shandong Chenming withdrawal of the anti-dumping lawsuits, they have been the reunification of China by the United States Department of Commerce dumping duty 99.65 percent.Chapter two introduces the alleged subsidies by the United States whether or not it has specificity. The so-called subsidy-specific is that subsidies to the members of the Government under the jurisdiction of one or certain businesses or industries or certain regions, especially the provision. Such concessions are other enterprise or industry or region can not be obtained or higher than that of other enterprises or industries or regions enjoy treatment. In other words, if the organs of government subsidies granted or the organ is based on the law explicitly stipulates that only a certain enterprises, certain industries, a business group or industrial group or a particular region can be subsidies, the subsidy is to the subsidies, and subsidies granted if the organs of government or the authorities based on the law provides clear criteria or conditions, and is neutral, and not a business or special offers, and is purely economic in nature and the equal application, as long as meet these criteria or conditions of the enterprises can automatically receive subsidies, the subsidy is not the sex of. In that case, the United States accused China in fact constitute a sexual, but certainly did not provide sufficient evidence. Judging from the current situation of the WTO case, no sexual successful defence of the case did not exist, but this does not mean that there is no possibility on the defence of non-exclusive sexual. We can pay close attention to the Airbus subsidies involved in the case between the United States and the European Union, particularly the defence of the EU.Chapter three introduces approach whether it was appropriate used by the United States, which advocates the Bank of China constitute subsidized rate . In that case, the United States does not adopt China's banking benchmark lending rate is violation of the relevant agreement. Even so, if the third-party data can be applied, the United States should choose a member of the situation closer to the China, rather than simply taking the weighted average approach. Canadian softwood lumber to the United States may be the case for the defence, which allows the use of data in the northern border provinces to determine the subsidies, instead of using Canada's private domestic producer price. However, we can see the difference, the United States arbitrary use of the 37 countries weighted average lending rates as a third party data. This approach can not be supported by the practice of WTO cases. In addition, the Appellate Body did not confirm the choice of the United States in the softwood lumber case is reasonable. Therefore, we in this case the United States chooses the reasonableness of the benchmark can still defend.Chapter four introduces countervailing whether it is applicable to non-market economy countries. United States domestic legislation and case does not explicitly require the subsidy does not apply to non-market economy countries. The Chinese side believes that the United States Federal Court in George Town Iron and Steel Company established the countervailing measures do not apply to non-market economy country's judicial precedent. However, the case has not made it absolutely clear that countervailing measures can not be applicable to it. Thus, from the Court's ruling can not draw such a clear thesis. This case makes the United States violated its practice, but there is no legal obstacle. First, the United States domestic subsidies have been revised. Secondly, according to the judgement of the Court of the United States, the Commerce Department departed from past practice is acceptable, if it can provide a reasonable explanation for this. Thus, the United States has rights to apply countervailing measures to China.Chapter five introduces the thinking triggered by the case. This chapter discusses the future of China's foreign trade will face the test of countervailing investigation, which should be adapted to China's current policy of subsidies and the Law on Commercial Banks of the relevant provisions to actively seek full market economy status. China should not take non-market economy status as a protective umbrella so as to avoid the application of anti-subsidy laws, but should strive for full market economy status and positively deal with countervailing measures taken by developed countries.