비시장경제 상품에 대한 상계관세 부과와 관련한WTO 체제에서의 법적 쟁점 연구: 이중구제 조치 관련 미국-중국 간 분쟁 사례를 중심으로 = An Analysis of Countervailing Duties on Products from Non-Market Economies under the WTO Law - with Focus on US-China Disputes over the Double Remedies issue

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Double remedy, or double counting, refers to circumstances in which the concurrent imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the same imported products results, at least to certain extent, in the offsetting of the same subsidization twice. It is likely to occur when a non-market economies(NME) methodology is used to calculate the margin of dumping.
Against this backdrop, this paper addressed the concept and practice of double remedy. Then, it presents the jurisprudential history of the US of the imposition of countervailing duties on products from NME, and explores the WTO dispute between China and the US. It carefully examines the reasoning deployed by panel and the Appellate Body.
In 2007, the United States reversed its long-standing policy of not imposing countervailing duties on products from NME, and concurrently imposed anti-dumping and countervailing duties on numerous products from China. China brought a case against the US challenging their practice, most notably, the double remedy issue. Although the WTO panel rejected China's claim, the Appellate Body ruled that double remedies are inconsistent with Article 19.3 of the Agreement of Subsidies and Countervailing Measures(ASCM), and the investigating authority should ensure that the same subsidy would not be offset twice. Although the Appellate Body's ruling was appropriate in preventing an unreasonable practice, it opened the door for further disputes involving double remedies, as it did not tell what exactly investigating authorities are expected to do in establishing the appropriate amount of countervailing duties to be imposed.

국문 초록 (Abstract)

본 논문은 동일한 상품에 대하여 동시에 진행된 반덤핑조사와 상계조사를 바탕으로 반덤핑관세와 상계관세를 부과할 때 발생할 수 있는 이중구제의 문제점을 검토하였다. 이를 위하여 이중구제의 개념과 관련 WTO 규범을 살펴보고, 미국 상무부가 중국산 수입품에 반덤핑관세와 상계관세를 동시에 부과하면서 발생한 이중구제 조치에 대한 미국 국제무역법원(Court of International Trade: CIT)과 연방항소법원의 판결을 검토하고 미국-중국 간 WTO 분쟁에서의 패널과 상소기구의 판정을 분석하였다. WTO　패널은 보조금 협정의 조항이 이중구제의 문제를 규율하지 않는다는 입장이었으나, 상소기구는 중국의 상품에 대하여 상계관세와 함께 비시장경제 방식으로 산정된 반덤핑관세를 부과한 미국의 조치가 이중구제에 해당하며, 사안별로 적절한 금액의 상계관세를 부과하도록 규정한 보조금 협정 제19조3항 등에 위반된다고 판결하였다.
상소기구의 판결을 통해 이중구제가 가지는 문제점을 어느 정도 타개한 것은 긍정적이나 수입국 조사당국이 수출국의 보조금이 상품 가격에 어느 정도 영향을 미치는지를 입증할 의무가 있다고 해석하면서 조사당국의 조사, 분석, 및 입증이 어느 정도로 구체적이고 상세하게 이루어져야 하는지에 대하여서는 아무런 지침을 제공하지 않는 점이 다소 우려스럽다. 특히, 상소기구가 원칙적으로 이중구제의 문제는 수출보조금의 경우 발생하지만 국내보조금인 경우에도 비시장경제 방식으로 덤핑마진을 계산하거나, 시장경제 국가로부터의 상품에 대하여 덤핑마진을 산정하는 경우에도 국내시장가격 대신 구성정상가격을 사용하면 예외적으로 발생할 수 있다고 하였기 때문에 이중구제의 문제가 발생할 여지가 상당히 넓어졌다. 결국 비시장경제 방식으로 계산된 반덤핑관세와 상계관세를 동시에 부과하는 수입국 조사당국의 조치가 제19조3항에 부합하는 것으로 판정받기 위해서 구체적으로 어떠한 방식으로 덤핑마진을 계산하여야 하는지는 아마도 향후 수년에 걸친 수차례의 분쟁을 통하여서 조금씩 윤곽이 드러날 것으로 전망되는데, 사안의 중요성을 감안하여 WTO 반덤핑위원회와 보조금위원회에서 이중구제가 가지는 법적, 경제적 문제점과 영향을 면밀히 검토하여 향후 유사한 분쟁의 발생을 방지할 수 있도록 동 문제를 기술적 제도적으로 접근하여 해결 방안을 모색할 필요가 있는 것으로 판단된다.

참고문헌 (Reference)

• 1 "http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm"
• 2 "WTO 보조금 협정"
• 3 "WTO 반덤핑 협정"
• 4 Thomas J. Prusa, "United-States-Definitive Anti-Dumping and Counvervailing Duties on Certain Products from China: Passing the Buck on Pass-through" 12 (12): 197-225, 2013
• 5 Appellate Body Report, "United States-Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China" 2011
• 6 Panel Report, "United States-Definitive Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China" 2011
• 7 Joost Pauwelyn, "Treaty Interpretation or Activism? Comment on the AB Report on United States - ADs and CVDs on Certain Products from China" 12 (12): 235-, 2013
• 8 "Tool Steel from the Federal Republic of Germany: Correction to Early Determination of Anti-Dumping Duty" Department of Commerce 51 : 10071-, 1986
• 9 "The EU Treatment of NME in Antidumping Proceedings, Kommerstollegium"
• 10 "Stainless Steel Wire Rod from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review" Department of Commerce 69 : 19153-, 2004
• 11 "Section 772(c)-(d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended"
• 12 "Public Law 112-99, 126 Stat. 265"
• 13 "Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization" 2001
• 14 "Potassium Chloride from the Soviet Union: Rescission of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation and Dismissal of Petition" Department of Commerce 49 : 23428-, 1984
• 15 "Potassium Chloride from the German Democratic Republic: Rescission of Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation and Dismissal of Petition" Department of Commerce 49 : 23428-, 1984
• 16 "Low Enriched Uranium from France: Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review" Department of Commerce 69 : 46501-, 2004
• 17 "Georgetown Steel Co. v. United States, 802 F.2d. 1308"
• 18 "GATT 1947부속서"
• 19 GPX International Tire Corp, "Fed. Cir. 2011" 2011
• 20 GPX International Tire Corp, "Court of International Trade" 2010
• 21 GPX International Tire Corp, "Court of International Trade" 2009
• 22 GPX International Tire Corp, "Court of International Trade" 2008
• 23 Department of Commerce, "Countervailing Duty Investigation of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China - Whether the Analytical Elements of the Georgetown Steel Opinion are Applicable to China's Present-Day Economy, Memorandum" 2007
• 24 "Continental Steel Co. v. United States, 9 C.I.T 340, 614 F. Supp. 548"
• 25 "Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 72 : 17484-, 2007
• 26 "Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 72 : 17484-, 2007
• 27 "Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's Republic of China: Amended Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 72 : 17484-, 2007
• 28 "Coated Free Sheet Paper from People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 72 : 60645-, 2007
• 29 "Coated Free Sheet Paper from People's Republic of China: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 72 : 60645-, 2007
• 30 International Trade Commission, "Coated Free Sheet Paper from China" Indonesia and Korea (Final), Publication 3695-, 2007
• 31 International Trade Commission, "Coated Free Sheet Paper from China" Indonesia and Korea (Final), Publication 3695-, 2007
• 32 "Certain Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review" Department of Commerce 62 : 18390-, 1997
• 33 "Carbon Steel Wire Steel from Czechoslovakia: Final Negative Countervailing Duty Determination" Department of Commerce 49 : 19372-, 1984
• 34 "Article VI Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties"
• 35 "Article VI Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties"
• 36 "Article 32 Other Final Provisions"
• 37 "Article 31 General Rule of Interpretation"
• 38 "Article 10 Application of Article VI of GATT"
• 39 "Annex I Notes and Supplementary Provisions"
• 40 "19.4 No countervailing duty shall be levied on any imported product in excess of the amount of the subsidy found to exist, calculated in terms of subsidization per unit of the subsidized and exported product. (emphasis added)"
• 41 "19 U.S.C. § 1677f-1 and Section 777A of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended"
• 42 "19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c) and Section 773(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended"
• 43 "19 U.S.C. § 1677a(c)(1)(C) and Section 772(c)(1)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended"
• 44 "19 U.S.C. § 1677(18) and Section 771(18) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended"