The Study Of Issue On Specificity Of Subsidy In The Case Of “United States — Countervailing Duty Measures On Certain Products From China”

This paper picks the case of United States — Countervailing Duty Measures on Certain Products from China( DS437) which results from 17 countervailing duty investigation by Department of Commerce of the U. S. On products exported to the U. S. from China from the year 2007 to 2012. But before it, the panel and appellate body has found that countervailing duty investigations by Department of Commerce of U.S. on certain products from China inconsistent with Agreement of Subsidy and Countervailing Measures. However, the U.S. still conducts unlawful countervailing duty investigations on Chinese products.Focusing on whether the determination of de facto specificity of subsidy by Department of Commerce of U.S. is insistent of article 2.1 of SCM Agreement, the paper includes four chapters. Chapter one is the case summary. It first introduces the leading cause of the case, then its procedures like consultation, the establishment of the Panel and the Appellant Body in WTO and finally a brief outline on the relating arguments of the all case and determinations of the Panel and the Appellant Body separately. Chapter two is the main part which analyzes three issues relating de facto specificity, that is whether the application of specificity in law proceeds the application of de facto specificity, the interpretation and application of “subsidy programme” and the identification of “ the jurisdiction of the granting authority ”. This chapter is subdivided to three parts which separately clarifies the clue of analyze and holding point to each argument from the Panel and the Appellant Body. The first two arguments is the most important ones of this paper. As to the first argument, both of the Panel and the Appellant Body thinks that de facto specificity can be directly applied. However, the author holds that the investigating authority must first prove that the subsidy is not specific in law and then the principle of de facto specificity is applicable. For the interpretation and application of “subsidy programme”, the author considers that neither of the Panel and the Appellant Body succeeds in pointing out the relations among each subsidy belonging to one programme. Such relations is about the time and level of it, the beneficiary and the bad effect to the economy. Considering the third issue, the author agrees with the opinion of the Panel and the Appellant Body that the application of de facto specificity needs to identify the “ granting authority” and its ” jurisdiction” in the chapeau of the article 2.1. Chapter three talks about the current situation of countervailing legal system in China and the improving suggestion. The author aims to put forward the ideas of adding de facto specificity into article 4 of the countervailing regulation from the aspect of this case. The last part concludes.