The Legal Analysis Of European Union-Countervailing Measures On Certain Polyethylene Terephthalate From Pakistan

At present,the subsidy problem in international trade in goods is an important part of the international trade system and also a difficult point.On the one hand,subsidies have become one of the main policies of modern national governments seeking economic growth and social development;On the other hand,in a globalized environment,one country’s subsidy policy may affect international trade and bring negative effects to other countries.In view of this,governments have formulated anti-subsidy measures to restrict subsidy in international trade.However,countervailing measures may also be abused to become de facto non-tariff barriers and covert forms of new trade protectionism.The World Trade Organization has established a relatively reasonable order of international subsidies and countervailing rules through a series of rules.Since China replaced Japan as the world’s second largest economy in 2010,the countervailing investigations initiated by other WTO members against China have increased.Especially since President Trump came to power,the U.S.has changed its trade policy with China,and the Sino-U.S.trade war has intensified.In this case,the legal issues of the disputes between Pakistan and the EU involve the interpretation and application of GATT1994,the Understanding on Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures,the Agreement of SCM and its annexes,which has a strong significance for the improvement of China’s duty drawback system theoretically and practically.In addition to the introduction,this thesis is divided into five parts.The first part is case introduction,mainly from the background and development of the case,then summarizing the contradictions between the two parties to find out the legal issues.The second part mainly focuses on " whether the expiry of the countervailing measures is bound by articles 3,6 and 7 of the DSU".By analyzing the facts,claims of the two parties and conclusion of the Panel and Appellate Body of WTO,this part aims to find the essence of this issue.In the end,the author comes to a conclusion of this issue.The third part mainly focuses another issue of the dispute in this case,namely: " whether the Manufacturing Bond Scheme violates Article 1.1(a)(1)(ii)and Annex I of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures".According to the relevant facts and the demands of both parties to the dispute,the author summarizes the main contents of the the DSB reports,clarifies whether the financial contribution in the form of government revenue forgone otherwise due should be a subsidy,and then further explores whether there exists excessremission under Pakistan’s domestic MBS and whether the scheme constitutes a prohibited subsidy.In the end,the author expresses her own thoughts.The fourth part mainly focuses on the last issue of the dispute in this case,namely: "whether the causation analysis of the EU is in violation of Article 15(5)of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures." On the basis of observing the method of EU causation analysis,the main arguments of two parties to the dispute are therefore concluded.By reading the DSB reports,the author further explore the meaning of Article 15(5)of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.Finally,the author demonstrates her own views.The fifth part is the enlightenment to China.Based on the current situation in China,this part is elaborated in two aspects: the enlightenment of perfecting China’s drawback system and the enlightenment of China’s response to countervailing investigations.