Canada – Certain Measures Affecting

1、Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry ZHANG YUNSHANArguments of Japan1Arguments of Japan1(a)The Duty Waiver relates to a customs duty within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994責(zé)任豁免涉及關(guān)稅在我的文章的含義：1關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1994(b)The Duty Waiver is an advantage within the meaning of Article I:1

2、of the GATT 1994責(zé)任豁免是在我的文章的含義的優(yōu)勢(shì)：1關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1994(c)The products at issue are like products發(fā)行的產(chǎn)品是“喜歡”產(chǎn)品(d)The advantage is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating in all WTO Members這種優(yōu)勢(shì)是不符合立即和無(wú)條件地喜歡在所有世貿(mào)組織成員的產(chǎn)品(e)The advantage accorded to the products originating in parti

3、cular WTO Members has not been accorded to like products originating in the territories of all WTO Members對(duì)原產(chǎn)于特別世貿(mào)組織成員的產(chǎn)品的優(yōu)勢(shì)沒(méi)有被給予像原產(chǎn)于世界貿(mào)易組織成員領(lǐng)土的產(chǎn)品Arguments of Japan 2 Arguments of Japan 2 The Duty Waiver is inconsistent with Canadas MFN obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because the advan

4、tage, i.e. removal of customs duty, is not accorded immediately and unconditionally to like products originating in the territories of all other Members. 義務(wù)的放棄與加拿大的貿(mào)易最惠國(guó)待遇義務(wù)的文章我不一致：1關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1994因?yàn)閮?yōu)勢(shì)，即去除關(guān)稅，不立即無(wú)條件地給予所有喜歡源自其他成員領(lǐng)土的產(chǎn)品。 Arguments of Japan 3 Arguments of Japan 3 To assess any inconsistency wi

5、th Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 評(píng)估的文章我任何不一致：1關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1994(i)Does the Duty Waiver relate to a customs duty within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994? 責(zé)任豁免是否涉及海關(guān)稅在我的文章的含義：1關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定1994？(ii)Is the Duty Waiver an advantage within the meaning of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994? 責(zé)任豁免的優(yōu)勢(shì)在文章的意義我:1 1994年關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)

6、定的?(iii)Are the products at issue like products? 產(chǎn)品問(wèn)題“喜歡”呢?(iv)Has the advantage accorded to the products originating in particular WTO Members been accorded immediately and unconditionally to all like products originating in the territories of all other WTO Members?特別是世貿(mào)組織成員國(guó)的產(chǎn)品有沒(méi)有受到“立即和無(wú)條件”的產(chǎn)品，這些產(chǎn)

7、品都是原產(chǎn)于其他世貿(mào)組織成員國(guó)的產(chǎn)品嗎？Arguments of Japan 4Arguments of Japan 4 like products The determination of whether products are like must be assessed on a case-by-case basis in the light of all relevant facts and circumstances. Relevant factors include physical characteristics, end-uses, consumer tastes and ha

8、bits, and price. 根據(jù)所有相關(guān)事實(shí)和情況，確定產(chǎn)品是否“喜歡”，必須以個(gè)案為基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行評(píng)估。相關(guān)因素包括身體特征，最終用途，消費(fèi)者的口味和習(xí)慣，和價(jià)格。Arguments of the European Arguments of the European CommunitiesCommunities 1 1(a) The measures confer an advantage covered by Article I:1這些措施賦予了一個(gè)“優(yōu)勢(shì)”的文章I：1(b) The automobiles imported by the beneficiaries are like th

9、e automobiles imported by non-beneficiaries由受益人進(jìn)口的汽車(chē)是“像”非受益者進(jìn)口的汽車(chē)(c) The Tariff Exemption benefits mainly imports from the United States and Mexico關(guān)稅豁免的好處主要來(lái)自美國(guó)和墨西哥的進(jìn)口Arguments of the European Arguments of the European CommunitiesCommunities 2 2the Tariff Exemption is inconsistent with GATT Article

10、I:1 in that de facto it provides an advantage to imports of automobiles originating in the United States and Mexico vis-vis imports of like products originating in other Members.關(guān)稅豁免與GATT文章I不符：1，事實(shí)上它提供了一個(gè)優(yōu)勢(shì)，進(jìn)口汽車(chē)原產(chǎn)于美國(guó)和墨西哥對(duì)可見(jiàn)進(jìn)口原產(chǎn)于其他成員的產(chǎn)品一樣。Canadas response 1 Canadas response 1 The complainants have fa

11、iled to meet their burden of proof 投訴人未能滿(mǎn)足他們的舉證責(zé)任The Motor Vehicles Tariff Order (MVTO) and Special Remission Orders(the SROs ) provide MFN treatment for products 汽車(chē)關(guān)稅為（mvto）和特殊減免訂單（SROs）為產(chǎn)品提供最惠國(guó)待遇Canadas response 2 Canadas response 2 As a matter of fact and of law, Canadas tariff regime applicable

12、to automotive products is fully consistent with the letter and spirit of Article I. Moreover, if any advantage is accorded to Canadas NAFTA partners, this would be perfectly legitimate because the NAFTA creates a free-trade area within the meaning of Article XXIV of GATT 1994.作為一個(gè)事實(shí)和法律，加拿大的關(guān)稅制度適用于汽車(chē)

13、產(chǎn)品與信和第一條而且精神完全一致，如果任何優(yōu)勢(shì)給予加拿大的北美自由貿(mào)易區(qū)的合作伙伴，這將是完全合法的，在北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定創(chuàng)造了GATT 1994第24條的意義的自由貿(mào)易區(qū)。Canadas response 3-The MVTO and the SROs provide Canadas response 3-The MVTO and the SROs provide MFN treatment for products MFN treatment for products Article I by its terms forbids discrimination based on origin

14、of the product. That the treatment relates to products is clear from the text of the Article, and it is confirmed by the negotiating history.1 Moreover, it has been recognized by a recent WTO Panel.2 A Member may therefore legitimately treat products differently, so long as the distinction in treatm

15、ent is based on criteria other than national origin. Thus distinctions based on activities of importing manufacturers do not offend Article I. 文章以其條款禁止歧視的基礎(chǔ)上的產(chǎn)品的原產(chǎn)地。，治療涉及產(chǎn)品是從文章的文字，它是由談判歷史證實(shí)。 1 此外，它已被最近的WTO專(zhuān)家組的認(rèn)可。 2 的成員可能因此合法地對(duì)待不同的產(chǎn)品，只要在治療的區(qū)別是基于其他國(guó)家原產(chǎn)地標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。因此，區(qū)別的基礎(chǔ)上的進(jìn)口生產(chǎn)商的活動(dòng)不會(huì)冒犯第一條。Canadas response 4-C

16、anadas response 4-The MVTO and the SROs The MVTO and the SROs provide MFN treatment for productsprovide MFN treatment for productsThe complainants concede there is no de jure violation of Canadas MFN obligation 起訴方承認(rèn)沒(méi)有法理違反加拿大最惠國(guó)的義務(wù) The complainants contention that there is de facto violation of Cana

17、das MFN obligation cannot be sustained信訪(fǎng)人提出的論點(diǎn),實(shí)際上違反了加拿大的最惠國(guó)義務(wù)不能持續(xù) The complainants contentions that the MVTO and SROs do not extend MFN treatment unconditionally are without merit信訪(fǎng)人提出的論點(diǎn),MVTO和自律監(jiān)管不延長(zhǎng)無(wú)條件最惠國(guó)待遇是沒(méi)有價(jià)值的Canadas response 5Canadas response 5The complainants concede there is no de jure viol

18、ation of Canadas MFN obligation起訴方承認(rèn)沒(méi)有法理違反加拿大最惠國(guó)的義務(wù)Both Japan and the European Communities concede that the MVTO and SROs provide for MFN treatment on their face. Japan states: Ostensibly, the Auto Pact manufacturers are permitted to import motor vehicles of any national origin The European Communit

19、ies is equally categorical: On its face, the Tariff Exemption is non-discriminatory, as it applies equally with respect to all imports of automobiles by the beneficiaries, irrespective of their country of origin. The MVTO 1998 provides explicitly for MFN treatment. Moreover, none of the SROs limits

20、the sources from which vehicles may be imported duty free.日本和歐洲共同體承認(rèn)MVTO和自律監(jiān)管提供最惠國(guó)待遇在他們的臉上。日本:“表面上看,汽車(chē)協(xié)議允許制造商進(jìn)口機(jī)動(dòng)車(chē)輛任何國(guó)籍的“歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體是同樣直言:“表面上,關(guān)稅豁免非歧視性的,因?yàn)樗瑯舆m用于對(duì)所有進(jìn)口汽車(chē)的受益者,無(wú)論他們的母國(guó)?！癕VTO 1998提供了明確的最惠國(guó)待遇。此外,沒(méi)有自律監(jiān)管限制車(chē)輛的來(lái)源可能是免稅進(jìn)口。Canadas response 6Canadas response 6The complainants contention that there is

21、 de facto violation of Canadas MFN obligation cannot be sustained 信訪(fǎng)人提出的論點(diǎn),實(shí)際上違反了加拿大的最惠國(guó)義務(wù)不能持續(xù)The allegation of the European Communities is that an illegal advantage is granted de facto to US and Mexican products. The Japanese claim is that the MVTO and SROs grant a de facto advantage to Swedish and

22、 Belgian products without extending it to Japanese products. The fact that the complainants allegations are so markedly different suggests that neither theory has any basis in fact. 歐洲共同體的指控是一個(gè)非法優(yōu)勢(shì)是事實(shí)上的美國(guó)和墨西哥的產(chǎn)品。日本聲稱(chēng)是MVTO和自律監(jiān)管給瑞典和比利時(shí)產(chǎn)品實(shí)際優(yōu)勢(shì)沒(méi)有擴(kuò)展到日本產(chǎn)品。投訴者的指控的事實(shí)明顯不同表明理論都沒(méi)有任何事實(shí)依據(jù)。First, the ECs allegatio

23、n, even if true, cannot assist the European Communities in this case. This is because any advantage that may be accorded to the United States or Mexico, Canadas NAFTA free-trade partners, would in any event be exempted from Article I disciplines by virtue of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. 首先,歐盟的指控,即

24、使真的,不能在這種情況下協(xié)助歐洲共同體。這是因?yàn)槿魏蝺?yōu)勢(shì),可能會(huì)給予美國(guó)或墨西哥,加拿大的北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定的自由貿(mào)易合作伙伴,將在任何情況下免除文章我學(xué)科由于1994年關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定第二十四條。than the Treaty of Rome requires. 羅馬條約的要求。In contrast to the European Communities, Japan recognised that it has no legitimate complaint under Article I as regards treatment of the United States and Mexico.

25、 Indeed, Japan correctly reached the conclusion that the real benefits from the MVTO and the SROs flow to products imported from countries other than the United States and Mexico. Japan provided data indicating that vehicles from Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea and Japan en

26、joy duty-free access to the Canadian market.與歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體,日本承認(rèn)它沒(méi)有合法投訴條我至于對(duì)待美國(guó)和墨西哥。事實(shí)上,日本正確地得出結(jié)論,真正的受益MVTO和自律監(jiān)管流產(chǎn)品從美國(guó)和墨西哥以外的國(guó)家進(jìn)口。日本提供數(shù)據(jù)表明車(chē)輛從瑞典、比利時(shí)、英國(guó)、德國(guó)、南韓和日本正享受著免稅進(jìn)入加拿大市場(chǎng)。In any event, the important question is not how many Japanese and European vehicles qualify for MFN treatment; it is whether they qual

27、ify under the same terms as the products of all other WTO Members. The short answer is that they do.在任何情況下,重要的問(wèn)題是沒(méi)有多少日本和歐洲汽車(chē)享受最惠國(guó)待遇;這是他們是否合格的產(chǎn)品在同等條件下其他WTO成員。簡(jiǎn)短的回答是他們做的。Canadas response 6Canadas response 6The complainants contention that there is de facto violation of Canadas MFN obligation cannot be

28、 sustained 信訪(fǎng)人提出的論點(diǎn),實(shí)際上違反了加拿大的最惠國(guó)義務(wù)不能持續(xù)The allegation of the European Communities is that an illegal advantage is granted de facto to US and Mexican products. The Japanese claim is that the MVTO and SROs grant a de facto advantage to Swedish and Belgian products without extending it to Japanese prod

29、ucts. The fact that the complainants allegations are so markedly different suggests that neither theory has any basis in fact. 歐洲共同體的指控是一個(gè)非法優(yōu)勢(shì)是事實(shí)上的美國(guó)和墨西哥的產(chǎn)品。日本聲稱(chēng)是MVTO和自律監(jiān)管給瑞典和比利時(shí)產(chǎn)品實(shí)際優(yōu)勢(shì)沒(méi)有擴(kuò)展到日本產(chǎn)品。投訴者的指控的事實(shí)明顯不同表明理論都沒(méi)有任何事實(shí)依據(jù)。First, the ECs allegation, even if true, cannot assist the European Communities

30、 in this case. This is because any advantage that may be accorded to the United States or Mexico, Canadas NAFTA free-trade partners, would in any event be exempted from Article I disciplines by virtue of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994. 首先,歐盟的指控,即使真的,不能在這種情況下協(xié)助歐洲共同體。這是因?yàn)槿魏蝺?yōu)勢(shì),可能會(huì)給予美國(guó)或墨西哥,加拿大的北美自由貿(mào)易協(xié)定的自

31、由貿(mào)易合作伙伴,將在任何情況下免除文章我學(xué)科由于1994年關(guān)貿(mào)總協(xié)定第二十四條。than the Treaty of Rome requires. 羅馬條約的要求。In contrast to the European Communities, Japan recognised that it has no legitimate complaint under Article I as regards treatment of the United States and Mexico. Indeed, Japan correctly reached the conclusion that th

32、e real benefits from the MVTO and the SROs flow to products imported from countries other than the United States and Mexico. Japan provided data indicating that vehicles from Sweden, Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany, South Korea and Japan enjoy duty-free access to the Canadian market.與歐洲經(jīng)濟(jì)共同體,日本

33、承認(rèn)它沒(méi)有合法投訴條我至于對(duì)待美國(guó)和墨西哥。事實(shí)上,日本正確地得出結(jié)論,真正的受益MVTO和自律監(jiān)管流產(chǎn)品從美國(guó)和墨西哥以外的國(guó)家進(jìn)口。日本提供數(shù)據(jù)表明車(chē)輛從瑞典、比利時(shí)、英國(guó)、德國(guó)、南韓和日本正享受著免稅進(jìn)入加拿大市場(chǎng)。In any event, the important question is not how many Japanese and European vehicles qualify for MFN treatment; it is whether they qualify under the same terms as the products of all other W

34、TO Members. The short answer is that they do.在任何情況下,重要的問(wèn)題是沒(méi)有多少日本和歐洲汽車(chē)享受最惠國(guó)待遇;這是他們是否合格的產(chǎn)品在同等條件下其他WTO成員。簡(jiǎn)短的回答是他們做的。Canadas response 7Canadas response 7The complainants contentions that the MVTO and SROs do not extend MFN treatment unconditionally are without meritmeasures such as import-licensing regi

35、mes, tariff-rate quotas and end-use requirements that provide advantages all have the effect of limiting the number of eligible importers and are nonetheless perfectly consistent with WTO obligations. There is no basis whatsoever under the GATT 1994 or any other WTO Agreement for a claim that the pr

36、ivate commercial relationships of importers entitled to an advantage can, by themselves, form the basis for a violation of Article I:1 of GATT 1994.GATT and WTO cases have made it abundantly clear that Article I prohibits treatment that discriminates between like products on the basis of nationality

37、. Panel Report on Belgian Family Allowances, supra note 276; Panel Report on EEC Beef from Canada, supra note 282. Thus, the proper test of whether the imposition of a condition or criterion infringes Article I is whether that condition or criterion is both (a) insufficient to afford a basis to distinguish the products as not “l(fā)ike”, and (b) of a nature that results in discriminatory import treatment on the basis of the nation