/cursos-% 22% E4 % B8 % 8E % E5 % 8F % B8 % E6 % B3 % 95% E6 % 9C % BA % E6 % 9E % 84% 22% E6 % AF % 94% E8 % BE % 83% E7 % A0 % 94% E7 % A9 % B6 % E5 % 9B % BD % E9 % 99% 85% E7 % A0 % 94% E8 % AE % A8 % E4 % BC % 9A % E7 %
WTO anti-dumping agreement and the Court's Judicial Review Power
Dumping is an economic behavior in international trade, which is defined in WTO 1994 Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (hereinafter referred to as the Anti-dumping Agreement) as "the export price of a product exported from one country to another country in the normal course of trade is lower than the comparable price of similar products to be consumed in the exporting country, that is, it enters the business of another country at a price lower than its normal value". Anti-dumping, on the other hand, is a kind of government behavior, which mainly means that the importing country takes measures such as raising tariffs to limit the dumping behavior of the importing country in order to protect its own economic interests or the interests of its own production enterprises. ...
Judging from the current situation of international trade, European and American countries take anti-dumping measures and levy anti-dumping duties on many export products and enterprises in China, ranging from various daily necessities to various small commodities. These are the "superior products" of China enterprises. In China, however, there are few anti-dumping cases, and there are no cases of judicial review caused by administrative departments taking or not taking anti-dumping measures. After China's accession to the WTO, international trade will increase dramatically. How to follow the w to anti-dumping agreement, establish the rules system of judicial review, and give full play to the role of judicial review in protecting domestic economic interests and international trade freedom is an increasingly important issue. The author will focus on the judicial review power of the court in the article.
Article 13 (judicial review) of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement stipulates: "Members whose domestic legislation includes provisions on anti-dumping measures may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 1 of this Agreement, specifically request the judicial, arbitration or administrative court to promptly review the administrative act of the final ruling or review decision, which should be completely independent of the one responsible for making the ruling or reviewing the decision. In addition to providing judicial review in anti-dumping agreement, WTO also provides similar provisions in Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Article 6 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), Article 32 of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and Article 4 of the Agreement on Pre-shipment Inspection, which are mainly derived from GATT provisions. Article 10 (3) (b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade stipulates that "in order to quickly check and correct administrative acts related to customs affairs, contracting States shall maintain or establish judicial, arbitration or administrative courts or procedures as soon as possible. Such courts or procedures should be independent of the institutions responsible for administrative implementation, and their decisions should be implemented by these institutions, except that importers appeal to higher courts or courts within the prescribed appeal period, and serve as guidelines for future implementation; However, if the central authorities of these institutions have sufficient reasons to believe that their decisions conflict with established legal principles or are inconsistent with the facts, they can take steps to review the matter through another procedure. " Literally, WTO stipulates three subjects of judicial review: judicature, arbitration and administrative court. As the provisions of WTO anti-dumping agreement on the subject of judicial review and its right of judicial review are not very clear, some scholars believe that in China, the right of judicial review should not be exercised by the court, but by other administrative organs or administrative organs that have made anti-dumping acts.
The author believes that these views are not in line with the principle of WTO judicial review. According to the provisions of WTO anti-dumping agreement, China should make clear the court's judicial review power on anti-dumping actions (including actions and omissions).
WTO anti-dumping agreement does not exclude the principle that the court has the right of final judicial review.
In any country ruled by law, the court has the final power to conduct judicial review of administrative acts. The famous Black Law Dictionary explains the concept of judicial review in this way: "Judicial review refers to the power of the court to review the decisions of another government department or another level of government. An appeal filed by an administrative agency to the court to review facts or laws or both. It also means that the court of appeal reviews the decision of the court of first instance or the intermediate court of appeal. " The interpretation of Blake's law dictionary represents the common understanding of Anglo-American law. Mr. Wang Mingyang believes that "in the United States, judicial review refers to the court's examination of whether the laws enacted by Congress are in conformity with the Constitution and whether the actions of administrative organs are in conformity with the Constitution and laws". In Britain, judicial review usually refers to the infringement of citizens' rights and interests by administrative organs, and requests the high court to review the legality of the latter two acts according to its traditional supervision power over lower courts and administrative organs.
Of course, judicial review does not specifically refer to the review of administrative actions by ordinary courts in common law countries (in the United States, anti-dumping judicial review cases are under the jurisdiction of international trade courts, and the court of appeal is the federal court of appeal, that is, ordinary courts), but also includes the review of administrative actions by administrative courts. Such as Germany, France and other European continental law countries. In Germany, ordinary courts have no jurisdiction over any administrative affairs, and administrative affairs are under the jurisdiction of special courts, namely administrative courts. Therefore, in Germany, judicial review refers to the administrative court's review of the administrative power exercised by the administrative organ. In France, the administrative court also has the power of judicial review. In the view of European civil law countries, administrative courts are strictly an organic part of judicial organs and exercise national judicial power together with other courts. Like ordinary courts, administrative courts are independent of administrative organs.
Whether in common law countries or European continental law countries, courts have the power to conduct judicial review of administrative acts. Then, why are the three parallel subjects of judicial review stipulated in the WTO anti-dumping agreement, which is led by western developed countries? There are two reasons to explain this problem. First of all, in the constitutional systems of some WTO members, the courts have no power to conduct judicial review of administrative acts. With regard to judicial review in these countries, Article 10, paragraph 3 (c) of GATT has made a supplementary provision: "If the procedure implemented in the territory of a Contracting State on the date of signing this Agreement can actually provide an objective and fair inspection of administrative acts, even if this procedure is not completely or formally independent of the institution responsible for administrative implementation, the provision in paragraph (b) of this paragraph does not require its cancellation or replacement. If requested, the Contracting State that implements this procedure shall provide all Contracting States with detailed information about this procedure so that they can decide whether this procedure meets the requirements of this provision. " According to this provision, an institution that can objectively and fairly review administrative acts is not necessarily an unqualified subject, even if it is not completely independent of the judicial institution that made the administrative act, or is not independent of the institution that made the administrative act in form. Whether the subject and procedure of such inspection conform to the provisions of paragraph 3 (b) of Article 10 shall be decided by all States parties. This provision is mainly based on the disunity of judicial, administrative and arbitration systems in the State party. In some countries, it is necessary to allow an independent administrative agency or arbitration agency to make the final decision in a transitional way instead of the court. However, this does not mean that in countries where the courts have judicial review power, the judicial review power of the courts on anti-dumping acts can be excluded. Second, administrative actions based on WTO norms have strong administrative professionalism. WTO stipulates the review procedure of independent administrative organs, which embodies the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies in administrative law of many countries. The independent "administrative court" stipulated by WTO can be understood as the administrative court of European continental law countries and the administrative court of Anglo-American law countries. Although the administrative court in common law is considered as a part of the administrative department of the government, it enjoys its own legal status. When American administrative organs adjudicate administrative disputes according to formal hearing procedures, they are essentially an administrative court. Their decisions are still supervised by ordinary courts. In this respect, the United States is the same as Britain, but it is different from the administrative courts of European civil law countries. From the formal point of view, the administrative courts in common law countries are only relatively independent, but from the legal relationship, they are completely independent of the institutions that make administrative decisions and are subject to judicial review by the courts. In common law countries, jurists do not understand the subject of WTO's provisions on judicial review in parallel, but at different levels, that is, interested parties involved in anti-dumping actions can seek relief from the administrative court, and if they are dissatisfied with the ruling of the administrative court, they can seek judicial relief from the court again. The difference between the two is that the administrative court can review the rationality of administrative decisions, while the court can only review the legitimacy; The review by the administrative court is preliminary, while the conclusion of the court review is final.
Under the legal framework of our country, the judicial review power of the court on WTO anti-dumping behavior should be clarified.
Strictly speaking, judicial review is a concept of constitutional law and administrative law. In many countries, judicial review includes two aspects: first, the court reviews the legislative acts of the legislature, which is usually called unconstitutional review; Second, the court conducts judicial review of administrative acts. The judicial review in WTO anti-dumping agreement mainly refers to the latter. Judicial review is an important legal system in modern democratic political countries, and it is also a legal system in which a country's courts review the behavior of other state organs in exercising public power and relieve citizens' rights. China's Administrative Procedure Law has established the basic principles for courts to examine the legality of specific administrative acts. With the promulgation of the Administrative Procedure Law, a systematic and complete judicial review system has been established. The operation of judicial review system is an important symbol of the development degree of a country's democratic system and human rights protection system. According to the provisions of China's administrative procedure law, citizens, legal persons or other organizations have the right to bring an administrative lawsuit to the court if they think that the specific administrative acts of administrative organs and their staff infringe upon their legitimate rights and interests. At the same time, the Administrative Procedure Law also stipulates the scope of accepting cases in administrative litigation and other conditions for bringing a lawsuit. When judging whether anti-dumping actions should be subject to judicial review by the court, we should fully consider the provisions of China's judicial review code, namely the Administrative Procedure Law.
(1) Anti-dumping is a specific administrative act. According to the regulations of WTO anti-dumping agreement, a country's anti-dumping administrative authority should investigate foreign imported products after receiving the application from domestic industries, determine the damage degree of domestic industries, and decide whether to take anti-dumping measures against foreign industries. Anti-dumping investigation procedures include appeal, filing, investigation and adjudication. The three acts of the competent administrative organ can be subject to judicial review. The first is the decision not to launch an investigation. Anti-dumping investigations are generally based on anti-dumping applications filed by domestic industries claiming to be damaged by dumping. According to the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, the anti-dumping application should meet certain conditions, such as "if the domestic output supporting the application is less than 25% of the total output of similar products in domestic industries, no investigation should be initiated". The second is the decision to suspend or terminate the investigation. According to the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, once the competent administrative organ confirms that there is not enough evidence of dumping or damage to justify continuing the investigation, it shall reject the application and terminate the investigation as soon as possible. The third is to make a preliminary administrative ruling and a final administrative ruling. According to the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, the administrative authorities can make a preliminary administrative ruling on dumping or injury on the basis of investigation. On the basis of the preliminary ruling, the administrative authorities may take temporary measures and price commitment measures. The final administrative ruling means that the competent administrative organ finally confirms that the imported products are dumped and cause damage, and makes a ruling to levy anti-dumping duties. These three behaviors are in line with the basic characteristics of specific administrative acts in both content and form.
(2) The interested parties involved in anti-dumping actions have the qualification of litigation subject. The anti-dumping behavior stipulated by WTO anti-dumping agreement generally involves two subjects: one is the domestic industry or its representative who filed the anti-dumping application; The second is the industries of exporting countries accused of dumping. Under certain conditions, the litigant may also be a third-country enterprise damaged by dumping. Usually, it is the industry of the exporting country accused of dumping that requests judicial review. WTO anti-dumping agreement stipulates that the parties may seek judicial review, which is very important for protecting the interests of the parties, especially those who are subject to anti-dumping duties, and preventing the anti-dumping administrative organs from abusing their power. This is a major breakthrough in the history of international anti-dumping legislation. In our country, it is also in line with the provisions of the administrative procedure law to allow the importing country's industry to have the qualification of litigation subject. China's administrative litigation law stipulates that foreigners, stateless persons and foreign organizations shall enjoy the same litigation rights and obligations as Chinese citizens and organizations when conducting administrative litigation in China. As WTO anti-dumping agreement is an international treaty, the provisions on judicial review are mainly applicable to the procedures for exporting countries to seek judicial relief. If the domestic industry refuses to accept the decision of the anti-dumping administrative authority not to investigate, suspend or terminate the investigation, it may seek judicial relief according to the administrative procedure law.
Of course, anti-dumping actions may also involve other people with legitimate interests. According to Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, these parties may bring an administrative lawsuit according to law. Paragraph 1 1 of Article 6 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement stipulates that "interested parties" as mentioned in this Agreement shall include: (a) exporters or foreign producers or importers under investigation, or chambers of commerce or trade associations whose majority members are producers, exporters or importers of this product. Governments of exporting countries. (c) producers of similar products of importing members, or chambers of commerce and trade associations whose majority of members are producing similar products in the territory of importing members. In addition to the list listed above, this list does not exclude the inclusion of domestic or foreign parties among stakeholders. "The stakeholders in the anti-dumping acts stipulated in the WTO anti-dumping agreement are basically the same as the' legal stakeholders' stipulated in the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court, but whether the exporting government can become the plaintiff in administrative litigation is a new issue worthy of study. China's "Administrative Procedure Law" stipulates that citizens, legal persons or other organizations may bring administrative proceedings, without excluding domestic governments or administrative organs that have legal interests in specific administrative acts. In administrative litigation cases, it is common for local governments and administrative organs to participate in litigation as plaintiffs. In WTO anti-dumping agreement, the "member governments of exporting countries" represent the economic interests of exporting countries' industries in anti-dumping judicial review cases, so they can also become plaintiffs in administrative litigation as litigation representatives and request the courts of importing countries to conduct judicial review.
(3) There is no legislative obstacle for the court to exercise the right of judicial review. The relationship between WTO rules and domestic legislation is a very complicated issue, and there are also problems of conflict and choice in the relationship between WTO anti-dumping agreement and domestic legislation. Domestic legislation prohibits courts from exercising judicial review power over anti-dumping acts, which is often regarded by some scholars as an important reason to support their claims. On 1997, the State Council, China issued the Regulations on Anti-dumping and Countervailing in People's Republic of China (PRC) (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The regulations stipulate that the relevant administrative departments in China may make a preliminary ruling or a final ruling on the establishment of dumping. "If dumping is finally ruled to be established, and thus the domestic industry is damaged, anti-dumping duties may be levied in accordance with the prescribed procedures, and the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation shall make an announcement. The imposition of anti-dumping duties shall be put forward by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and decided by the the State Council Customs Tariff Commission, and shall be implemented by the customs ". For example, in August 2000, China's Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation and the State Economic and Trade Commission made the "Final Ruling on the Anti-dumping Investigation of Imported Polyester Film Originated in South Korea", which used the concept of "final ruling". However, it cannot be concluded that the "final ruling" excludes judicial review by the court. It is worth noting that WTO anti-dumping agreement expressed the final administrative decision in English (literally translated as final decision), but this is only the final decision in the administrative procedure. WTO anti-dumping agreement also stipulates that interested parties may request judicial review of anti-dumping acts.
The difference between "Regulations" and WTO anti-dumping agreement is that it does not stipulate that interested parties can bring administrative proceedings. The Administrative Procedure Law also does not clearly stipulate that administrative proceedings can be brought against anti-dumping acts. On this basis, some people think that the regulation excludes judicial review by the court. The author believes that this view lacks legal basis. There are two reasons. First, the first paragraph of Article 11 of the Administrative Procedure Law stipulates that citizens, legal persons or other organizations may bring administrative proceedings against eight specific administrative acts. Although items (1) to (7) do not include anti-dumping acts, item (8) of this paragraph stipulates that citizens, legal persons or other organizations may bring administrative proceedings if they "think that administrative organs have infringed upon other personal rights and property rights". Therefore, just because the anti-dumping behavior is not listed in the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Law on the scope of accepting cases, it cannot be denied that it is actionable. Second, even if the "final ruling" stipulated in the Regulations does not refer to the final ruling of administrative procedures, judicial review cannot be ruled out. According to Article 12 of the Administrative Procedure Law, the specific administrative act finally decided by the administrative organ must be prescribed by law. The "law" here is a narrow concept, which only refers to the normative documents formulated and adopted by the National People's Congress or the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC). The judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court also clearly stipulates this. This interpretation of the Supreme Court conforms to the basic principles of the Administrative Procedure Law. The exclusion of judicial review can only be decided by the legislature through legislation. If administrative organs (the State Council is also an administrative organ) are allowed to rule out judicial review by making administrative regulations or administrative rules, it is not in line with the principle of power restriction and the spirit of the rule of law.
Judicial review by the court is irreplaceable. When discussing the subject of judicial review, it is necessary to make it clear that the anti-dumping agreement of WTO stipulates that administrative and arbitration institutions can become the subject of judicial review on the premise that the courts in specific countries do not have the power of judicial review. However, there is still a view that in China, judicial review should also be conducted by an independent administrative body. The existence of this view is related to the authority and low trust of judicial review in China courts. However, the court dignity equivalent to the rule of law can not be achieved by giving up power. This is an irreplaceable important reason for judicial review in China courts. The second reason is that it is doubtful whether there is an independent administrative adjudication body in China. If the judicial review by the court is excluded, but in order to comply with the provisions of WTO, the final ruling of anti-dumping should be reviewed by an independent administrative adjudication body. Legal affairs departments in the State Council or the State Council cannot be qualified institutions. First of all, the State Council is the superior administrative organ that makes the final anti-dumping ruling, not an independent institution. Second, the actual review institutions in the State Council are the legal departments of the State Council, and these institutions can only conduct review through reconsideration procedures. However, the reconsideration procedure in China is obviously not the judicial review procedure called by WTO. The third reason is that the court is fully capable of judicial review. Although anti-dumping is a special administrative act, it cannot be a reason to exclude judicial review by the court. Because any administrative act is administrative professional for the court, but it can be reviewed. The key is not that the judges of the court have strong relevant administrative professional knowledge, but the neutrality of judicial procedures and the judge's legal judgment ability. The court's power of judicial review cannot be abandoned because of the professionalism of administration. China's new patent law gives the court the right to conduct judicial review of patent administrative acts, which is an important symbol that the value of judicial review by the court has been recognized again.
On China's Anti-dumping Judicial Review System
The judicial review of anti-dumping in China lacks specific legal norms.
Since the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of China decided on 1997 12 to formally initiate an anti-dumping investigation on newsprint originating in the United States, Canada and South Korea, the relevant authorities in China have been constantly questioned about the judicial review of anti-dumping cases. Dumping means that the export price of imported products is lower than its normal price. When dumping causes damage to the domestic industry of the importing country, the importing country may decide to impose anti-dumping duties on imported products in order to protect its own industry and domestic market. Anti-dumping measures are protective measures allowed by the World Trade Organization. ...
1in may 1997, at the second meeting of the China working group of the world trade organization, the government of China promised that the administrative rulings of governments at all levels in China would allow judicial review. China's current anti-dumping regulations, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Regulations, do not clearly stipulate the issue of judicial review, but this does not mean that there is no judicial review procedure in China. In fact, according to the provisions of China's administrative procedure law, because the administrative decision made by the administrative organ on anti-dumping cases involves the property rights of the parties, the parties have the right to bring corresponding administrative proceedings; Moreover, the trial of administrative litigation cases is conducted by the people's court, which conforms to the provisions of the Anti-dumping Law 1994 that the institution conducting judicial review should be independent of the institution conducting anti-dumping investigations. However, there is no clear stipulation in the law as to which specific anti-dumping administrative decisions the parties can file, who can file a lawsuit, which court should accept such cases, or whether a special court should be set up to accept them, which is also a controversial issue for all parties.
Two, WTO and the norms of judicial review of anti-dumping in Europe and America
Article 13 of WTO 1994 Anti-dumping Code stipulates that in order to quickly review the final ruling and administrative actions related to the administrative reconsideration decision stipulated in Article1KLOC-0/of this Agreement, each member country that has stipulated anti-dumping measures in its domestic legislation shall have judicial, arbitration or administrative institutions or procedures. The institution or procedure shall be independent of the competent authority responsible for dispute adjudication or reconsideration. This provision of judicial review is conducive to protecting the interests of the parties, especially those who are subject to anti-dumping duties, and is a meaningful breakthrough in international anti-dumping legislation. At the same time, this provision is also mandatory. With the replacement of GATT by the World Trade Organization, all WTO members must implement this clause in their anti-dumping legislation.
Compared with the principles of anti-dumping code, the relevant laws and regulations in the United States are more specific. At present, the anti-dumping investigation and determination of anti-dumping duties in various countries are generally the responsibility of administrative organs, but some implement the dual-track system and some implement the single-track system. The United States chose the former, and the administrative agencies in charge of anti-dumping affairs are the Ministry of Commerce (to determine whether dumping has occurred) and the International Trade Commission (to determine whether there is damage). The United States believes that anti-dumping rulings are essentially administrative rulings and belong to administrative actions rather than judicial actions. According to the relevant laws of the United States, all administrative actions should be subject to judicial review in principle to prevent administrative organs from abusing administrative power. Before the revision of 1974 US Trade Law, only American importers had the right to request the Customs Court (the predecessor of the US International Trade Court) to review the cases that the Ministry of Finance (at that time, the Ministry of Finance identified dumping) ruled as dumping. As for the dumping cases rejected by the Ministry of Finance, judicial review is not allowed. 1974 after the revision of the law, domestic manufacturers and wholesalers in the United States also have the right to bring a lawsuit to the court within 30 days after receiving the notice of negative ruling from the Ministry of Finance. 1979 promulgated the Trade Agreement Law, which is dedicated to judicial review. Article 100 1 in Chapter V of the Customs Law is amended, and article 5 16A is added. Since then, the judicial review of anti-dumping cases has implemented new procedural provisions and become more formal.
Judicial review organ. According to the American anti-dumping law, the International Trade Court (Note: The International Trade Court was formerly the Customs Court, and was renamed according to the American Customs Law 1980. It consists of nine judges, who are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Senate and with the consent of the Senate, and the chief judge is appointed by the President. General cases are tried by a single judge appointed by the Chief Justice, and major cases are tried by a collegial panel of three judges. The International Trade Court located in new york City may, according to regulations, hold its session in any court in the United States or any federal court in China, but it usually holds its session in a major port in the United States. The International Trade Court conducts jury trials and has all the common law and equity powers enjoyed by district courts, including compensation orders and injunctions. Its jurisdiction includes all civil lawsuits caused by import business and various civil lawsuits filed by the US government. —— Excerpted from Case Analysis of Economic and Trade Disputes between the United States and China, edited by Gong Baihua, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1, 107,1May 996. ) has exclusive jurisdiction over anti-dumping cases. If the parties refuse to accept the judgment of the International Trade Court, they can also appeal to the Federal Circuit Court (the former US Customs and Patent Appeals Court), or even be tried by the US Supreme Court through the order of adjusting the volume. (Note: See Anti-dumping and WTO: Impact on China, pages 25 and 26, published in World Trade Journal,No. 1, 98. Decisions involving Canadian products can be submitted to the expert group in the US-Canada Free Trade Agreement for review.
Contents of judicial review. Anti-dumping decisions that can be subject to judicial review are divided into two categories, and each category has different review standards. According to Article 5 16A(a)( 1) of the US Customs Law, the following intermediate decisions are subject to judicial review:
(1) The decision of the Ministry of Commerce not to initiate an investigation.
(2) The decision of the Ministry of Commerce that the case is particularly complicated.
(3) If the Ministry of Commerce or the International Trade Commission refuses to examine the agreement to stop the investigation or the decision made according to the change of circumstances according to Article 75 1(b) of the Customs Law, these decisions will be rejected.
(4) The International Trade Commission initially denied the damage decision.
(5) The Ministry of Commerce initially denied the dumping decision.
The review standard of the above cases is whether the court judges whether the decision of the administrative organ is arbitrary, willful, abusive or illegal. If the answer is yes, the original decision will be abandoned and sent back to the relevant authorities for a new decision. If the answer is no, the plaintiff's complaint will be dismissed.
As for the second type of decision, according to Article 5 16 A(a)(2) of the Customs Law, it includes the following items:
(1) The final affirmative decision of the Ministry of Commerce or the International Trade Commission.
(2) The final negative ruling of the Ministry of Commerce or the International Trade Commission.
(3) The administrative reconsideration decision made in accordance with Article 75 1, except for Item (3) of the first category mentioned above.
(4) The decision of the Ministry of Commerce to stop the investigation according to the agreement reached by the exporters.
(five) the decision of the International Trade Commission on whether the agreement completely eliminates the damage.
The standard of review of the above decision is whether the decision is not supported by sufficient evidence or whether it is illegal. The judicial review of the case by the International Trade Court only examines the legal basis and does not re-investigate the facts. (Note: Refer to Huang Qingyuan's American Trade Law-How to Deal with American Trade Protectionism, first edition 198 1 1, pp. 9 1 ~ 96. )
Initiator of judicial review. Any interested party who refuses to accept the anti-dumping ruling may bring a lawsuit to ask the competent authority for judicial review of the ruling. The so-called stakeholders mainly include:
1. Foreign manufacturers, producers, exporters, American importers or business associations, most of whose members are importers of the products under investigation;
2. The government of the country that produces or manufactures the product;
3. Manufacturers, producers or wholesalers of similar products in the United States;
4. Legally established trade unions or workers' groups, representing American industries that produce and sell similar products;
The Chamber of Commerce and Industry and most of its members are manufacturers, producers or wholesalers of similar products.
Generally speaking, all parties with the above legal qualifications can join the lawsuit filed by others, and the parties who file the lawsuit shall notify all interested parties.
The process of judicial review. If the parties file a lawsuit against the above award, they must file a lawsuit within 30 days after the award is published in the Federal Register. In the course of litigation, interested parties may apply to the court for an injunction to prohibit the customs clearance of imported products. When deciding whether to issue an injunction, the court mainly considers the following factors:
1. The plaintiff may win;
2. If the injunction is not issued, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable losses;
3. Issuing the ban conforms to the requirements of public policy;
4. The advantages of issuing a ban outweigh the disadvantages, that is, the loss caused by not prohibiting customs clearance will be greater than the loss caused by the ban.
If the court decides that the plaintiff wins the case after judicial review, the case will be sent back to the Ministry of Commerce and the International Trade Commission for re-investigation and a new ruling. The judgment of the International Trade Court was published in the Federal Gazette within 10 days. (Note: See Anti-dumping Law and Practice in Western Countries, edited by Wang, China Foreign Economic Relations and Trade Press, 1996, 1 version. )
The judicial review procedure of the United States International Trade Court often takes several years, and the international trade court usually takes 20 months to review a case. Half of the cases will be returned to the Ministry of Commerce or the Committee for retrial after review, and it will also take six or seven months. The Ministry of Commerce and the Committee believe that the judicial review by the court will not greatly change their conclusions.
Judicial review in eu. (Note: This part refers to "Anti-dumping and Countervailing Law: European Community" by Dr. J.F. Beseler and A.N. Williams, page 24 1-258, published by Sweet Maxwell Ltd in 1986. The latest EU anti-dumping rule is1Rules of the Council of the European Communities on Resisting Dumping of Imported Products by Non-European Community Member States promulgated in February, 1994. However, this rule does not specify the terms of judicial review, and the legal basis of judicial review lies in the relevant provisions of the European Community Treaty. According to Article 177 of the European Treaty, the European Court of Justice has the power to make a preliminary ruling on the validity and interpretation of European institutional laws. When the court or arbitration tribunal of any member country hears a case, if the parties have interests on the same plane,