关于下达经国务院批准的《关于审批临时减免关税的若干问题的请示》的通知
海关总署
关于下达经国务院批准的《关于审批临时减免关税的若干问题的请示》的通知
海关总署
我署会同财政部制定的《关于审批临时减免税的若干问题的请示》已报经国务院批准，现随文下达。现就执行该《请示》中应注意的问题，通知如下：
一、临时减免税是《海关进出口税则》的补充调节手段，因此，我们使用这一经济杠杆时必须十分慎重，严加控制。对于各部门申请临时减免税的项目，必须经过详细调查核实，如确有必要予以临时减免税的，才可予以转报，并附送调查报告（包括申请减免税单位的财政经济情况，申
请减免税理由，减免税金额，本关调查意见）。如果调查不实，因而造成国家税收重大损失的，将追究有关单位领导人的责任。
二、对于进口小轿车、旅行车、家用电器、烟、酒、饮料等，原则上不再批准临时减免税，对各类减免税申请各关不要再转报总署核批。
三、对于进口专门供救灾的物资，受灾地（市）县如向当地海关申请时，可告其向省、自治区、直辖市人民政府报告，再由省、区、市政府统一转报我署和财政部、国家税务局联合审批。
四、凡指定使用部门或指定用途的临时减免税货物，如需转让或移作他用，涉及税款在三十万元（包括进口关税和代征税）以内的，由主管海关审批；在三十万元及其以上的，报总署审批。但批准转让或移作他用，都应按规定补税。
五、临时减免税申请的调查转报，由各直属海关统一办理，下属海关一律不办理临时减免税。
附件：关于审批临时减免关税的若干问题的请示
当前，关税作为调节进出口的经济手段的作用，日益突出。由于我国经济体制改革正在深化，价格体系尚未完全理顺，现行《税则》规定的税率很难照顾到各个方面，需要通过临时减免税作适当调节。一九八七年七月一日起实施的《中华人民共和国海关法》第四十二条规定：“临时减
征或者免征关税，由海关总署或者海关总署会同国务院财政部门按照国务院的规定审查批准”，为了完善立法，严格减免税管理，正确运用临时减免税这一经济杠杆，促进生产的发展，保证国家财政收入，并使审批工作规范化，我们建议对审批临时减免关税作出如下规定：
一、受理范围：
（一）从发展中国家或者其他国家进口货物，由于政治性照顾或者其它特殊原因，进价较高，经营单位亏损过多的；
（二）为发展边境贸易而必需进口的货物，成本过高的；
（三）老、少、边、穷地区进口必需的生产资料或特殊生活用品，由于进价过高难以承受的；
（四）进口物资专门用于救灾的；
（五）与境外单位科研合作项目中，由对方无偿提供的专用车辆、仪器、设备、化学试剂等；
（六）其他特殊情况需要给予临时减免税的。
二、审批原则：
（一）充分考虑各方面的情况，做到政策上大体平衡。
（二）一般应掌握一事一批，当年实施，如跨年度的，从批准之日起半年内有效。
三、审批权限：
（一）一次减免税税额（含进口调节税）在人民币五十万元及以下的由海关总署审批；五十万元以上的，由海关总署会同财政部审批。
（二）进口小轿车、旅行车、家用电器、烟、酒、饮料等国家限制进口物品的临时减免税，以及涉及政策原则问题的临时减免税，由海关总署和财政部联合报国务院审批。
四、申请程序：
申请人应在货物进出口前向当地海关或主管海关提出书面申请，写明理由，随附必要的资料及证明，由有关海关报海关总署审批。属于中央和国务院各部门的，直接向海关总署申请。
经批准临时减免税的货物，由海关总署负责将品种、数量、金额、进出口口岸通知有关海关执行。
五、管理原则：
凡指定使用部门或指定用途的临时减免税货物，如需转让或移作他用，应报经海关总署批准，并按规定予以补税。
1989年7月24日
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.’
