The United States To China "double Reverse" Measures Of Wto Compliance

From2007, the United States and other WTO members reversed the long-standing policy of not imposing countervailing duties on non-market economics (NMEs), which usually resulted in the concurrent application of antidumping duties and countervailing duties (Double application). This new trade remedy measures became the heaviest burden faced by the Chinese export enterprises. China considers that the double application constitute double discrimination against China since on one hand, in the anti-dumping field, China is treated as an NME and all the anti-dumping duties are counted on the basis of the data of the third country which could not reflect the real dumping margin, on the other hand, in the countervailing field, China could no longer be exempted from the application of countervailing duties as an NME. China further argues that the double application will lead to double remedy by offsetting twice on the related domestic subsidies and therefore breach the WTO rules.In the fact, the double application against China is different from that against the market counties. To determine whether this new trade remedy measure is consistent with the related WTO rules must always take this key problem into consideration. After clarifying the general rules, this article will focus on two special issues:the premise issue, whether a WTO member could apply countervailing duties against an NME and the key issue, whether the double application against China will lead to double remedy.The distinguish between the double remedy on the export subsidiary and the domestic subsidiary is the logical start of this article. Then the research will continue along two main directions. One of the them is to study the development of the related WTO rules and the domestic rules of the United States and to interpret the rules properly, while the other direction is to instruct the series of cases happened between China and the United States before both the disputes settlement body of WTO and the domestic courts of the United States. Both of the analysis will point to the fundamental conclusion that this new trade remedy measure is not consistent with the applicable WTO rules since there is a kind of general double remedy. Finally, some comments on the current situation and certain suggestions in relation to the future actions might be taken by China will be given.