| On 3 September 2016,the Twelfth Standing Committee of the National People's Congress approved the People's Republic of China's entry the WTO tariff concession schedule amendment,it indicates the implementation of the relevant regulations of the WTO in our country by practical action.With the rapidly growing economy,the tariff concession policy has an impact on the inequality of wealth and income.The extent of tariff treatment of certain agricultural and manufacturing products is not high,and the structure of the tariff measures is complex.Russia's WTO commitments in agriculture largely avoided the domestic agricultural and manufacturing products suffered from the impact of the international market,and Russia is very perfect agricultural and manufacturing products protection policy,such as different agricultural and manufacturing products take different protection and subsidy policies,thus,it brings the three tariff concessions measures.Against these measures,the European Union put forward consultation with Russia under the WTO Dispute Settlement Body(DSB).At last DSB set up the Panel to hear the case.In 8 May 2016,the Panel released the report.This paper is based on the case that Russia-Tariff Treatment of Certain Agricultural and Manufacturing Products.According to European Union's specific claims,it will deeply analyze the correspondences between Russia's tariff treatment measures and Article 2.1 of the GATT1994,finally further analyze the enlightenment to China.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the full text is composed of five main parts.The first part introduces the case,elaborated the background of the case,to discuss the development process of the dispute,summed up the focus of controversy between the EU and Russia,it is pointed out Russia's tariff concession measures has exceeded its concession,put forward the claims about the twelve measures in violation of Article 2.1 GATT1994.The second part of is the consistency between the ad valorem duty measures of Russian and Article 2.1 of GATT1994,discuss Russian's ad valorem duty measures from the dispute in measures and applied duty rates at issue,it is pointed out that the Russian duty rate does not exceed the its obligations of WTO,proposed the establishment of the Panel,these rates did not really implement.The third part of is the consistency between the relevant combined duty measures of Russian and Article 2.1 of GATT1994,discuss Russian's relevant combined duty measuresfrom the dispute in measures?applied duty rates at issue?ceiling mechanism,it is pointed out that the Levy of relevant combined duty rate instead of ad valorem duty rate can not be regarded as a violation of Article 2.1 of GATT1994,proposed that the combined duty rate in this case should be consistent with the specified of the Russian's concession schedule.The fourth part of is the consistency between the systematic duty variation of Russian and Article 2.1 of GATT1994,discuss Russian's systematic duty variation measures from the dispute in measures?applied duty rates at issue?conclusion on the SDV,it is pointed out that the twelfth measures are not written in separate written measures,proposed the evidence from the European Union fails to prove the existence of the twelfth measures and therefore violate the provisions of GATT1994.The fifth part is the enlightenment to China,this part from explanations in this case,finding what can help the solution of the case that European Union — Measures Affecting Tariff Concessions on Certain Poultry Meat Products.then putting forward some suggestions such as determined the scope of tariff concession for agricultural and manufacturing products,optimized the tariff structure of agricultural and manufacturing products and improved the role of tariff regulation to avoid trade friction and promote the development of China's agricultural and manufacturing products in the international environment about an increasing contradiction between China's agricultural and manufacturing products and international trade.The main conclusions are as follows: the Panel identified the Russian ad valorem duty and combined duty measures in violation of the Article 2.1 of the GATT1994,for the systematic duty variation,the Panel cannot determine the "measures",therefore it does not violate the provisions of GATT1994. |
PDF Full Text Request