一、贸易救济法律制度是保护公平贸易顺利发展的重要手段
贸易救济法律制度是指对不公平贸易行为进行限制和调整的法律规范的总称。整体来看，在贸易救济法律制度中，反倾销、反补贴和保障措施的发展最为完善，具有重要意义。根据WTO有关协定，反倾销和反补贴是针对不公平贸易的补救措施，保障措施是WTO允许的在没有遭受不公平贸易情况下使用的贸易救济措施。采取反倾销、反补贴和保障措施等贸易救济措施，能在一定程度上起到限制进口、保护国内相关产业、为该产业的调整提供一个较长的缓冲期、增加财政收入甚至促进经济复苏等作用。
在国际贸易的发展过程中，各国政府都会采取一些战略性贸易政策。战略性贸易政策是指政府通过某种干预手段改变或者维持不完全竞争企业利益的某种战略行为，使国际贸易朝着有利于本国获取最大利益的方向转变。战略性贸易政策的基本目的是，通过政府行为改变国际贸易中的竞争结果，达到扩大本国企业利润、把别国企业的超额利润转变成本国的收入、促进本国出口或者扶持本国相关产业发展的目的。[1]
传统上，战略性贸易政策主要是通过征收关税、提供出口补贴和数量限制等措施来扶持本国的产业,提高竞争优势,在市场上占领更大的市场份额。GATT经历了八轮贸易谈判后,关税大幅度降低，一些补贴也不允许使用，这对成员方战略性贸易政策措施的使用起到了限制作用。[2]
WTO在限制传统的战略性贸易政策措施的同时，为了实现贸易自由化的目的，又允许各国在必要时，可以采取贸易救济措施，合理保护本国的市场。实践证明，上述贸易救济制度，特别是其中的反倾销、反补贴和保障措施通过限制进口，使本国相关产业免受外来的不良冲击和损害，保护本国市场和相关产业等手段，对促进贸易自由化，保护贸易公平发展已经发挥了巨大作用。
二、存在的问题
尽管贸易救济措施已经和正在发挥巨大作用，但从WTO贸易救济制度来看，还存在以下一些问题。因此，如何使WTO体制允许的贸易救济措施发挥应有的合理效用是值得认真研究的问题。
其一，WTO贸易救济制度没有具体规定该制度所涉及的全部内容，目前各制度中有较明确规定的只有反倾销、反补贴和保障措施三个主要协定，其他内容仍然停留在条款形式，这在一定程度上会影响贸易救济制度作用的整体发挥水平。
其二，即使是反倾销、反补贴和保障措施协定也存在条文简单、内容笼统以及用语模糊等明显缺陷，许多重要内容也是原则规定。成员方在不违反这些原则性规定的情况下可以根据自身需要进行立法，典型的如反倾销法中的出口价格的确定方法，许多发达国家可以针对非市场经济的国家采用不同的方法却不违反WTO反倾销协定的规定。中国因此受到的影响比较大。但需要特别指出的是，为了解决这一问题，中国在加入WTO谈判中作了最大努力，使得WTO成员承诺，在中国加入WTO 15年后，将完全取消目前在对中国出口产品进行反倾销调查时使用第三国替代价格的做法。而在此过渡期内，WTO成员仍可以对中国出口产品使用替代国价格计算倾销幅度，但是，只要接受调查的生产企业能够证明，其出口产品是在市场经济条件下生产的，则WTO成员应遵守WTO《反倾销协定》，采用被调查产业的国内生产成本计算倾销幅度。另外还有针对中国的特别保障措施也体现了对中国的不公平待遇。
其三，由于一些国家对贸易救济措施的滥用，使得该制度在一定程度上已演变成为一些国家政府用来实施战略性贸易政策的手段。近年来，国际社会与贸易救济有关的案件越来越多，在一定程度上就是这种趋势的体现。
其四，由于贸易救济制度中仍存在着诸如磋商、补偿（保障措施中的制度）等诸多限制因素，其作用的发挥存在一定的困难，导致了一些逃避多边贸易纪律约束的“灰色区域措施”的产生，如自动出口限制等，这都严重损害并威胁到WTO实施贸易救济制度目的的实现。
Case Study
UNITED STATES - CUSTOMS BOND DIRECTIVE
FOR MERCHANDISE SUBJECT TO
ANTI-DUMPING/COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
Report of the Panel
Symbol: WT/DS345/R
Doc#: 08-0735
Date: 29/02/2008
Complaints: India
Respondent: the United States
Background and Facts
Introduction
On 6 June 2006, India requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes （“the DSU”）, Article ⅩⅫ:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 （the “GATT 1994”）, Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article Ⅵ of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 （the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”） and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures （the “SCM Agreement”） with respect to certain measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp from India. India and the United States held consultations, which failed to resolve the dispute.
On 13 October 2006,India requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article ⅩⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement.
At its meeting on 21 November 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body （the “DSB”） established a Panel pursuant to the request of India in document WT/DS345/6, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.
Brazil, China, the European Communities, Japan, and Thailand reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.
On 4 September 2007, the Panel issued the Descriptive Part of its Panel Report. The Interim Report was issued to the parties on 9 October 2007 and the Final Report was issued to the parties on 13 November 2007.
Factual Aspects
This dispute concerns the implementation of the enhanced continuous bond requirement （hereafter the “EBR”） by the United States and its application to certain frozen warmwater shrimp imported from India. India presents claims both as such and regarding its application.
On 9 July 2004, US Customs and Border Protection （hereafter “US Customs”） amended its existing bond requirements to include new guidelines specific for “covered cases” within “special categories” of merchandise. The EBR has been imposed pursuant to the Customs Bond Directive 99-3510-004 on Monetary Guidelines for Setting Bond Amounts issued on 23 July 1991 （the “1991 Customs Bond Directive”）, as amended by the Amendment to Bond Directive 99-3510-004 for Certain Merchandise Subject to Antidumping/Countervailing Cases （hereafter the “July 2004 Amendment”）, the document entitled “Clarification to July 9 2004 Amended Monetary Guidelines for Setting Bond Amounts for Special Categories of Merchandise Subject to Antidumping and/or Countervailing Duty Cases” （hereafter the “August 2005 Clarification”）, the document entitled“Current Bond Formulas” posted by US Customs on its website on 24 January 2005 （hereafter“Current Bond Formulas”）, and the Notice published in the United States Federal Register entitled Monetary Guidelines for Setting Bond Amounts for Importations Subject to Enhanced Bonding Requirements （hereafter the “October 2006 Notice”）. The July 2004 Amendment, the August 2005 Clarification, the document Current Bond Formulas and the October 2006 Notice is referred to collectively as the “Amended CBD”. US Customs has identified as a primary objective of the directive, “continued vigilance … to ensure collection of all appropriate anti-dumping and countervailing duties.” On 1 February 2005, US Customs implemented the EBR with respect to all imports of certain frozen warmwater shrimp subject to anti-dumping duties （hereafter “subject shrimp”）. Prior to 1 February 2005, the United States had also sent notices to 33 importers beginning on 6 August 2004, of which 12 importers furnished enhanced bonds. To date, “agriculture/aquaculture merchandise” is the only merchandise designated as a “special category” and “shrimp covered by anti-dumping or countervailing duty cases” is currently the only “covered case” designated within the agriculture/aquaculture category.
According to the United States, the EBR in combination with cash deposits is imposed to ensure payment of anti-dumping or countervailing duties under its retrospective duty assessment system.
Following the application of the EBR, subject shrimp importers have faced significantly higher security obligations than previously to enter merchandise.
India Requests：
India requests the Panel to find that the laws, rules and regulations of the United States that authorize the imposition of the EBR and the instruments comprising the Amended CBD are inconsistent as such with the provisions of Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, SCM Agreement, the WTO Agreement.
For the same reasons,India also requests the Panel to find that the EBR as applied to imports of shrimp from India is inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, of the GATT 1994.
Accordingly,India requests that the Panel recommend to the DSB in accordance with Article 19.1 of the DSU that the United States brings its measures into conformity with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994 within a reasonable period of time.
Conclusion and Recommendations
1. The Panel reject India's claims that the laws, rules and regulations of the United States that authorize the imposition of the EBR and the instruments comprising the Amended CBD are inconsistent as such with the provisions of Articles 1, 7.1（iii）, 7.2, 7.4, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3 （including 9.3.1）, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 17.1（c）, 17.2, 17.4, 19.2, 19.3, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; Articles Ⅵ:2 and Ⅵ:3 of the GATT 1994; and the Ad Note thereto.
2. The Panel uphold India's claims that:
（i） the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India is inconsistent with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the Ad Note; that
（ii） the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping order is inconsistent with Article 7.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and that
（iii） the United States violated Article 18.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.6 of the SCM Agreement because it failed to notify the Amended CBD to the Anti-Dumping and SCM Committees;
3. The Panel decline to rule separately on India's claims that:
（i） the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India prior to the imposition of the anti-dumping order is inconsistent with Articles 7.1（iii）, 7.4 and 7.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; that
（ii） the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India is inconsistent with Articles Ⅰ:1, Article Ⅱ:1（a） and （b）, Ⅹ（3）（a）, Ⅺ:1 and ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994; and that
（iii） the laws, rules and regulations of the United States that authorize the imposition of the EBR and the instruments comprising the Amended CBD are inconsistent as such with Articles Ⅰ:1, Article Ⅱ:1（a） and （b）, Ⅹ（3）（a）, Ⅺ:1 and ⅩⅢ of the GATT 1994
4. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, The Panel concludes that to the extent the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to India thereunder.
5. Article 19.1 of the DSU is explicit concerning the recommendation a panel is to make in the event it determines that a measure is inconsistent with a covered agreement:
It shall recommend that the Member concerned bring the measure into conformity with that agreement.
6. The Panel therefore recommend that the United States bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT 1994.
Questions:
1. Was the application of the EBR to subject shrimp from India consistent with Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement？And why？
2. Why did the Panel reject India's claims that the laws of the United States at issue were inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement？
【复习思考题】
1.贸易救济措施的含义和主要类型。
2.倾销的确定及救济措施。
3.补贴与反补贴制度的主要内容。
4.试述保障措施法律制度的实施条件。
5.如何理解和评价WTO贸易救济制度？
[1] 苑涛：《解读WTO“贸易救济措施”》，http://www.WTO-znufe.com.cn/articleshow.asp?ContentId=1676，2012年2月25日访问。
[2] 王晶：《WTO贸易救济措施与战略性贸易政策》，载《世界贸易组织动态与研究》，2006（10）。