eement.”
　　WithregardtothewholeArt.17.6oftheDSU,asruledbytheAppellateBodyinMexico-HFCS(recoursetoArticle21.5oftheDSUbyUS)(DS132),“[w]erecentlyexaminedthisstandardofreviewinUnitedStates-Hot-RolledSteel.InourReportinthatcase,weobservedthat,pursuanttoArticle17.6(i),‘thetaskofpanelsissimplytoreviewtheinvestigatingauthorities’’establishment’and’evaluation’ofthefacts’.UnderArticle17.6(ii),panelsmust‘determinewhetherameasurerestsuponaninterpretationoftherelevantprovisionsoftheAnti-DumpingAgreementwhichispermissibleundertherulesoftreatyinterpretationinArticles31and32oftheViennaConvention’.TherequirementsofthestandardofreviewprovidedforinArticle17.6(i)and17.6(ii)arecumulative.Inotherwords,apanelmustfindadeterminationmadebytheinvestigatingauthoritiestobeconsistentwithrelevantprovisionsoftheAnti-DumpingAgreementifitfindsthatthoseinvestigatingauthoritieshaveproperlyestablishedthefactsandevaluatedthosefactsinanunbiasedandobjectivemanner,andthatthedeterminationrestsupona‘permissible’interpretationoftherelevantprovisions.”9
　　
　　IIIScopeofReviewofFact-findings:Art.17.5(ii)oftheADAgreement
　　PursuanttoArt.17.6(i)oftheDSU,panels’approachinadisputeistodeterminewhethertheestablishmentofthefactsbytheinvestigatingauthoritiesoftheimportingMemberisproperandwhethertheirevaluationofthosefactsisunbiasedandobjective.Wheretheestablishmentofthefactsisproper,panelsmustexaminewhethertheevidencebeforetheinvestigatingauthoritiesoftheimportingMemberinthecourseoftheirinvestigationandatthetimeoftheirdeterminationsissuchthatanunbiasedandobjectiveinvestigatingauthorityevaluatingthatevidencecouldhavedetermineddumping,injuryandcausalrelationship.
　　InconnectionwithpanelsassessmentofthefactsofthematterunderADAgreement,Art.17.5(ii),withwhichArt.17.6(i)shallberead,statesthattheDSBshallestablishapaneltoexaminethematterbasedupon:“thefactsmadeavailableinconformitywithappropriatedomesticprocedurestotheauthoritiesoftheimportingMember.”ThisseemstorelatetoallofthefactsmadeavailabletotheauthoritiesoftheimportingMember.However,doesitmeanthatacomplainantWTOmembermaynotraisenewclaimsinadisputesettlementproceedingundertheADAgreementwheresuchclaimshadnotbeenraisedbeforethenationalinvestigatingauthorities?
　　Whatevermaybeitssubstantivemerits,Art.17.5(ii)doesnotoffermuchofaguidelineinthisregard.Thentheauthormeanstoexplorebelowsomeaspectsoftheadmissibilityissue,particularindisputesrelatingtoanti-dumping.
　　(i)OverviewoftheGATTPractice
　　Withregardtothequestionoftheraisingofnewevidenceinadisputesettlementproceedingconcerninganti-dumping,itcameupinthreecasesundertheTokyoRoundAnti-dumpingCode:US-StainlessSteel(ADP/47of20August1990),US-Cement(ADP/182of7September1992),US-Salmon(ADP/87of30November1992).10
　　InUS-StainlessSteel,thepaneldidnotdeemitnecessarytodealwiththeUSclaimtothateffect.InUS-Cement,theUSclaimedthatMexicoshouldbeprecludedfromraisingtheissueof“standing”ofthepetitionersandtheissueofcumulationofMexicanandJapaneseimports,astheseissueshadnotbeenraisedduringtheadministrativeproceedings.ThepanelrejectedtheUSclaim,itconsideredthat:“ifsuchfundamentalrestrictionontherightofrecoursetotheAgreement’sdisputesettlementprocesshadbeenintendedbythedraftersoftheAgreement,theywouldhavemadeexplicitforit”.However,thepaneladded“thematterexaminedbythepanelwouldhavetobebasedonfactsraisedinthefirstinstance,inconformitywiththeappropriatedomesticprocedures,intheadministrativeproceedingsintheimportingcountry”.
　　InUS-Salmon,theUSraisedthepreliminaryobjectionthattwoissuesraisedbyNorwaybeforethepanelhadnotbeenraisedinthenationaladministrativeproceedingsintheUS;accordingtotheUStheseissuesthereforenotadmissibleintheproceedingsbeforethepanel.Thepanelrejectedthisclaimonthegroundthatthedisputesettlementprovisionsofthe(TokyoRound)Anti-dumpingCode(Article15)didnotofferanybasisforrefusingtoconsideraclaimbyapartyinadisputesettlementmerelybecausethesubjectmatteroftheclaimhadnotbeenraisedbeforetheinvestigatingauthoritiesundernationallaw.Thepanelnotedhowever,thatitsconclusion“didnotimplythatinreviewingthemeritsofaclaimapanelshouldnottakeaccountofwhetherornottheissuestowhichtheclaimrelateswereraisedbeforetheinvestigatingauthoritiesinthedomesticanti-dumpingdutyproceeding”.
　　ThepracticalconclusionseemstobethatthepanelsbeforewhichthisissuewasraiseddidconsiderGATTdisputesettlementproceedingsasquiteindependentfromnationalproceedings,inthesensethattheydidnotconsiderthemselvesboundtoremainwithinthelimitsofthecaseasbroughtbefore,anddealtby,nationaladministrativeauthorities.Whilethisisprobablytobewelcomed,someoftheargumentsputforwardinsupportofthecontraryviewarenotwithoutmeritandarelikelytocomeupinanotherguise.11Astobeshownbelow,evenpanelscalledbytheDSBhaveissuedcontradictoryreportsinthisrespect.
　　(ii)ConcerningRulingsinReportsIssuedbyWTOPanels
　　WithregardtoArt.17.5(ii)oftheADAgreement,thePanelinEC-BedLinen(DS141)rulesthat,it“doesnotrequire,however,thatapanelconsiderthosefactsexclusivelyintheformatinwhichtheywereoriginallyavailabletotheinvestigatingauthority.Indeed,theverypurposeofthesubmissionsofthepartiestothePanelistomarshaltherelevantfactsinanorganizedandcomprehensiblefashioninsupportoftheirargumentsandtoelucidatetheparties’positions”.12
　　However,contradictingtherulingabove,thePanelinUS-Hot-rolledSteel(DS184)takestheimplicationsofArt.17.5(ii)oftheADAgreementasthebasisofevidentiaryrulingsandrefusetoacceptnewevidencethatisnotbeforethedomesticinvestigatingauthoritiesatthetimeofdetermination,theyrule:13
　　“ApanelisobligatedbyArticle11oftheDSUtoconduct‘anobjectiveassessmentofthematterbeforeit’.Inthiscase,wemustalsoconsidertheimplicationsofArticle17.5(ii)oftheADAgreementasthebasisofevidentiaryrulings…Itseemscleartousthat,underthisprovision,apanelmaynot,whenexaminingaclaimofviolationoftheADAgreementinaparticulardetermination,considerfactsorevidencepresentedtoitbyapartyinanattempttodemonstrateerrorinthedeterminationconcerningquestionsthatwereinvestigatedanddecidedbytheauthorities,unlesstheyhadbeenmadeavailableinconformitywiththeappropriate

上一页  [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]  下一页