herve leger sale WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and th

2n2sale160ad

WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and the Court's judicial review

Dumping (Dumping) is the kind of economic behavior in international trade, WTO States, the export price of the product in the normal course of trade, lower than the exporting countries to domestic consumption of similar products at comparable prices, ie, less than its normal value in order to enter another country's business. The anti-dumping (Anti-dumping) is a government action, mainly refers to the importing countries to protect their own economic interests or the interests of domestic producers, tariffs and other measures taken to increase the importing countries to limit the dumping of papers from China Union order ... ... . From the current international trade situation, the United States and Europe to China a number of export products and enterprises to take anti-dumping measures, anti-dumping duties, from all kinds of daily necessities to the wide range of commodity and so on, which is what Chinese enterprises edge products. But in China, there are few anti-dumping cases, the administrative departments to take or not take anti-dumping measures in cases arising from judicial review yet to come. China's accession to WTO, international trade will increase dramatically, how to follow the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], establish a system of rules of judicial review, judicial review and give full play to protect their economic interests and the role of freedom of international trade is an increasingly important issue. I will be in the text focuses on the right of judicial review the court. WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement Article XIII (Judicial Review) provides: for judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or through legal proceedings, the prompt review, the court or legal proceedings shall be completely responsible for making independent decisions or review decisions of the authorities. twenty-three and Countervailing Measures Agreement, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) Article VI, the Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) thirty-second article pre-shipment inspection agreement made in Article IV provisions substantially the same, These provisions are mainly from the General Agreement on Tariffs (GATT) requirements. GATT Article X, paragraph 3 (b) provides that or procedures shall be independent outside agency responsible for administrative enforcement, and their decisions, in addition to the provisions of the importer to appeal to a higher court or tribunal other than a complaint, to be implemented by these institutions, and as guidelines for future implementation; but If the central competent authority of these institutions have good reason to believe that their decisions and established principles of law in conflict or inconsistent with the facts, it can take steps to bring this issue to be checked by another program. Literally, WTO provides for judicial review of the main three: judicial, arbitration, administrative court. WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement because the subject of judicial review and judicial review provisions are not very clear, some scholars believe that in our country, should not exercise the right to judicial review by the court, and by other acts of the executive to the anti-dumping or the final review anti-dumping actions to a final review of administrative agencies. My opinion, these views with the WTO principle of judicial review does not match. According to the provisions of WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the courts should be clear in our anti-dumping practices (including the acts and omissions) of judicial review. WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement do not exclude the right of judicial review the Court has the final principle of in any rule of law, courts have the final administrative action has the right to judicial review. Well-known Black's Law Dictionary (Black'sLawDictionary) is explained the concept of judicial review: review findings of fact or law, or review of both. also refers to the Court of Appeal reviewed the trial court or intermediate appellate court's ruling. Mr. Wang Mingyang,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], In the UK, judicial review usually refers to the rights and interests of citizens against administrative organs are to request the High Court and lower courts under its administrative authority with the traditional right of supervision of the legality of the behavior of the latter two were examined. , Of course, judicial review does not specifically refer to the ordinary courts of common law countries the review of administrative action, (in the U.S. anti-dumping cases of judicial review jurisdiction by the Court of International Trade, Court of Appeal Federal Court of Appeal, which is the ordinary courts) ,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], including the Administrative Court review of administrative acts. Such as Germany, France and other European civil law countries is the case. In Germany, the ordinary courts do not have any jurisdiction over administrative matters (jurisdiction), administrative law matters by the special court that the Administrative Court (theadministrativecourt) jurisdiction. Thus, in Germany, the Administrative Court for judicial review is the review of the administrative organ to exercise the executive power. In France, the Administrative Court also has power of judicial review. Civil law countries in Europe, it seems, the Administrative Court is strictly an integral part of the judiciary, they exercise together with other countries in the Court of jurisdiction. Like the ordinary courts as administrative courts, and administrative authorities are independent of each other. Both common law countries or the European civil law countries, courts have judicial review of administrative acts right. Why, then, under the auspices of the Western developed countries, resulting in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for judicial review of the main body of the three tied it? There are two reasons to explain this problem. First, some WTO members in the constitutional system, the Court does not have judicial review of administrative acts right. The problem of judicial review in these countries, GATT Article X, paragraph 3 (c) supplementary provisions were made, Even if this program is not all or formally independent of outside agencies responsible for the administration to implement this subsection (b) of this article does not request to cancel it or replace it. If a State Party to implement such a program is requested, the Contracting Parties shall provide detailed information about this program to all States Parties decide whether such procedures meet the entry requirements. According to which administrative acts can be objective and impartial review body, if not completely independent of the judiciary to make administrative act, or in the form of an administrative act is not independent of the body, not necessarily the main failure . This review whether the subject and the procedures of Article X, paragraph 3 (b) of this article, the decision by the Contracting Parties. This provision is mainly based on the State party's judicial, administrative and arbitration system is not uniform. In some countries allow the administrative agency or by an independent arbitration body transitional alternative to the final court ruling, there is a certain need. This does not mean the right of judicial review in the courts of the country has, the court can rule out the anti-dumping actions against the right of judicial review. Second, WTO norms based on the administrative administrative acts involving highly specialized, WTO provides an independent review process of administrative agencies, administrative law in many countries reflects the exhaustion of administrative remedies principle. WTO set forth in separate The common law even though the administrative tribunal is considered to be part of government administration, but to enjoy their own legal status. U.S. administrative authority pursuant to a formal administrative adjudication hearing procedure dispute, in essence, an administrative court. Their ruling is still subject to general supervision of the court. In this respect the same as the U.S. and the UK, and European civil law countries with different administrative court. From the formal point of view, common law countries, the administrative tribunal has only relative independence, but legal relations, completely independent of the administrative decisions of the institutions,[link widoczny dla zalogowanych], and to accept the Court's judicial review. In common law countries, WTO jurists are the main provisions relating to judicial review of the understanding without parallel, but different levels of understanding that the interested parties involved in anti-dumping administrative courts can seek relief against the decision of the Administrative Tribunal , can then seek the court's judicial relief. The difference is that the Chief Administrative Tribunal to review the reasonableness of the decision problem, and the court can only examine the question of legality; the Administrative Tribunal of the review is preliminary, and the court's review of conclusions of the nature of a final decision. In our legal framework, should be clear on the WTO anti-dumping practices court right of judicial review in the strict meaning

相关的主题文章：

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]

[link widoczny dla zalogowanych]