Study On Determination Of Public Body Of SCMA

Many countries have launched anti subsidy investigation against China, especially in recent years since China has joined the WTO, which has seriously weakened the competitive advantage of our country in the international trade market. The identification of "Public body" is a prerequisite of determining the existence of subsidies, therefore in the countervailing investigation, how to judge whether an entity is "public body" is highly significant. But due to the fact that national legislation and WTO rules of law does not give a clear identification about "public body", in the field of practical cases, WTO members still have different ideas about this issue in the field of practical cases.In 2011, WTO Appellate Body formally announced the report on " the double countermeasure dispute case " that "government control theory" put forward by the panel of experts was denied by the appellate body, while the Chinese point of view on the conclusion is sustainable. But we should still keep mind sober and vigilant while in the joy. We should find significant legal risks of relevant legal judgment in the report of Appellate Body. If we ignore these legal risks, then it will increase the possibility of China’s state-owned enterprises and banks being identified to “public body” in the future international disputes. This paper titled as “the identification of “public body” in the Anti Subsidy Rules", describing and discussing the identification of “public body” in the WTO and the main trading countries.Based on the previous similar cases like the “double countermeasure dispute” case of WTO, this paper probe and contrast operating standards and procedures of "public institutions" of the world’s major developed countries, such as Canada, the United States and the European Union, etc., analyzing and sorting out the two mosttypical analysis methods, such as "government control" and "government function". The panel of experts adopted the first method to identify the “public body” in the DS379 case while the appellate body applied 他 he later method. The United States does not have the immutable identification method and different methods are applied in different cases. The typical methods are such as "most equity analysis", "five factor analysis method" and so on. In the end of the paper summed up the experiences based on the integration of these standards and put forward our own proposal, hoping to make our own attributions to improving the level of debating skills of our country and helping them better respond to lawsuits of our country. At the same time, this paper drew the conclusion that the reason that why China’s export products were frequently encountered countervailing investigations was that some developed countries rushed to initiate anti-subsidy investigation using stringent standards to identify public institutions against China without sufficient evidence and regardless of the principle of fair trade. In this regard, China should not blindly keep silence, but in time to show attitude, actively respond to lawsuits against them, make efforts to change the dilemma of the state-owned enterprise and banks in the countervailing investigation, and called for a more lenient standard in the determination of the public institutions in the international community.This paper begins with the latest case of DS437, then focuses on D379 and respectively illustrates the views on identifying "public institutions" of China, the United States, the expert group and the Appellate Body. What’s more, this paper integrates and analysis ideas of all parties and reaches my own ideas; Chapter two mainly compares the main two identification standards of the WTO on "public institutions", such as "government control" and "government function", carefully elaborates and analyzes two standards; Chapter three comparatively analyzes the identification standards and specific ways and procedures of public institutions adopted by major developed countries like the United States, Canada and the European Union, probes the handling situation of these countries and areas in specific cases, evaluates its practices and draws valuable experiences from their practices which leads to the following specific recommendations; in Chapter four, the author briefly introduces domestic Countervailing Law, focuses on explaining the specific provisions on "public institutions", and points out that the deficiencies in our country and puts forward own proposals on how to improve the responding ability of our country in the future.International trade is complicated and changeable and every country has its own different situation. It is difficult for the international community to achieved consensus on identification of the "public body” in short period of time. However, this does not have an impact on us actively taking the initiative to pay attention to and solve the problem. Hoping on the basis of discussion of WTO and relevant cases and summarizing the practice experience of major countries, this paper can put forward useful suggestions, help China’s state-owned enterprises and state-owned banks get out of the dilemma, march towards the world, and promotes the healthy and orderly development of our country’s economy of foreign trade.