您的位置: 首页 » 法律资料网 » 法律法规 »

交通部


关于调整交通战备储备器材租赁费标准的通知
1994年5月25日，交通部

各省、自治区、直辖市交通厅（局），北京市公路局，上海、天津市政工程局，长江航务管理局，上海、张家港、南通港务局，第一公路工程总公司：
自交通部下发《交通战备储备器材管理办法》（交计发〔1992〕57号）以来，各省、自治区、直辖市交通厅（局）普遍加强了储备器材的维护保管和租赁使用的管理工作。通过有偿使用，取得了一定的经济效益。
目前，随着价格体制的改革，钢材价格放开，战备钢桥维护成本和损坏部件更新费用上涨幅度很大，原来规定的储备器材租赁费标准相对显得过低，不足以弥补由于使用所造成的损耗和管理费用的开支，不利于战备储备器材的维护保管。为此，部决定对战备储备器材（包括钢桥、特种工具、浮箱、绑扎器等）的租赁使用费标准进行调整。现通知如下：
一、各省、自治区、直辖市交通厅、局（均为代部储备主管单位），可以根据本地区的实际情况，以有利于战备储备器材的维护保管和开发利用为原则，根据市场价格自行调整租赁费标准，但不应低于104元／吨．月。
二、各代部储备主管单位应按以上原则制定各种器材、构件的租金标准，并报部备案。
三、各单位仍要按照交计发〔1992〕57号通知的规定，进一步加强管理，必须严格执行动用报批程序和年报制度，不得擅自动用战备器材。
四、要建立健全维护保管制度和租赁使用资金帐目，收取的租金要严格按规定的开支范围使用，并按规定的比例上缴。
各单位对储备器材管理工作有何意见和建议或好的管理方式、办法，请报部战备办公室。


Chapter VII
Special Rules for Anti-dumping Disputes

OUTLINE

Section One Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB
I Introduction
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(ii) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III General Legal Basis for Claims against Legislation as Such
IV Special Rules for Claims against Anti-dumping Legislation as Such
(i) Introduction
（ii）General Legal Basis under Art. 17 of the AD Agreement
(iii) Understanding of Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
(iv) Extensive Basis in Context
(v) A Summary
Section Two Ad hoc Standard of Review for Anti-dumping Disputes
I Introduction
II Special Standard of Review under the AD Agreement: in General
(i) Ad hoc Approaches to Domestic Determination: Art. 17.6
(ii) Relationship between Art. 11 of the DSU and Art. 17.6 of the AD Agreement
(iii) A Summary Guiding
III Scope of Review of Fact-findings: Art. 17.5(ii) of the AD Agreement
(i)Overview of the GATT Practice
(ii)Concerned Rulings in Reports Issued by WTO Panels
(iii)Tentative Remarks: Guidance from the Appellate Body





Section One
Recourse of Anti-dumping Disputes to the DSB

I Introduction
Compared to the legally fragmented previous GATT dispute settlement system, the new WTO dispute settlement system is an integrated system with much broader jurisdiction and less scope for “rule shopping” and “forum shopping”. However, according to Art. 1.2 of the DSU which states in part that, “[t]he rules and procedures of this Understanding shall apply subject to such special or additional rules and procedures on dispute settlement contained in the covered agreements as are identified in Appendix 2 to this Understanding”, many covered agreements under the WTO jurisdiction continue to include special dispute settlement rules and procedures. Such special rules and procedures are listed in Appendix 2 to the DSU. And in this chapter, we will focus on such special dispute settlement rules concerning anti-dumping disputes, i.e. Arts. 17.4 through 17.7 of the Anti-dumping Agreement (‘the AD Agreement’).
An analysis of the DSB practice suggests a separate contribution of this chapter to this book, merited by dispute settlement proceedings in the anti-dumping field. In this chapter, the author focuses on the two main issues repeatedly raised, as preliminary or procedural issues, during dispute settlement regarding anti-dumping. One is the issue of recourse of anti-dumping disputes to the DSB, which deals mainly with Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement; the other one is the issue of standard of review in anti-dumping areas, which runs most on Art. 17.6, including Art. 17.5(ii), of the AD Agreement. And in this section we will focus on the first one. In this respect, Arts. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement states:

“17.4 If the Member that requested consultations considers that the consultations pursuant to paragraph 3 have failed to achieve a mutually agreed solution, and if final action has been taken by the administering authorities of the importing Member to levy definitive anti-dumping duties or to accept price undertakings, it may refer the matter to the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”). When a provisional measure has a significant impact and the Member that requested consultations considers that the measure was taken contrary to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 7, that Member may also refer such matter to the DSB.
17.5 The DSB shall, at the request of complaining party, establish a panel to examine the matter based upon:
(i) a written statement of the Member making the request indicating how a benefit accruing to it, directly or indirectly, under this Agreement has been nullified or impaired, or that the achieving of the objectives of the Agreement is being impeded, and
(ii) …”
II Sufficiency of Panel Request under the AD Agreement
Generally, as noted in previously, it is only where the provisions of the DSU and the special or additional rules and procedures of a covered agreement cannot be read as complementing each other that the special or additional provisions are to prevail. A special or additional provision should only be found to prevail over a provision of the DSU in a situation where adherence to the one provision will lead to a violation of the other provision, that is, in the case of a conflict between them. Then the author means to get down to the issue of whether these provisions cited above limits panel request under the AD Agreement to somehow other than those required by Art. 6.2 of the DSU.
In Mexico-HFCS (DS132), the dispute involves the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping measure by the Mexican Ministry of Trade and Industrial Development (SECOFI) on imports of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States. Mexico argues that the United States' request for establishment of this Panel is not consistent with the requirements of Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 and 17.5(i) of the AD Agreement, and therefore argues that the Panel must terminate the proceeding without reaching the substance of the United States' claims.
(i) Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement
In considering the alleged failure to assert claims under Art. 6.2 of the DSU and Art. 17.4 of the AD Agreement, the Panel rules that: 1
“[W]e note first that the Appellate Body has stated that Article 6.2 of the DSU and Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement are complementary and should be applied together in disputes under the AD Agreement. It has further stated that: ‘the word “matter” has the same meaning in Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as it has in Article 7 of the DSU. It consists of two element: The specific “measure” and the “claims” relating to it, both of which must be properly identified in a panel request as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU.’