2002年6月WTO对欧盟贸易政策审议-中国政府的问题和评论(英文)
WTO Trade Policy Review of EU
Comments and Questions from China
July 24-26, 2002
SPS
According to article 5.1 and 5.6 of SPS Agreement, SPS measures shall be based upon assessment of risks and shall not be more trade-restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of SPS protection. We therefore believe that the imposition of a full-scale ban on all animal products from a WTO member or WTO members by EU on the evidence identified only in certain products (e.g. Commission Decision 2002/69/EC of 30 January 2002 concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China) is inconsistent with SPS provisions. This measure constitutes discrimination again specific members as animal products from some members are treated differently from those from others. Its application is incoherent to the import and export of animal products. The EU’s observance to the principles of both MFN and National Treatment is thus called into question and there appears to be a tendency that the measures taken under SPS considerations are being abused by EU as a means for trade protectionism.
We have noticed that “Regulatory activities … are subject, where appropriate, to the obligations assumed by the EU and the Member States under the WTO agreement on TBT and SPS agreement”(Page 39, Para.44 of Secretariat Report). We would like to invite the EU to clarify the justification of its above-mentioned measure in the context of SPS Agreement, in particular Article 5.1 and 5.6.
TBT
Article 2.2 and Article 2.8 of TBT agreement state that“ technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfillment would create.” and “Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics.” In view of the provisions, it is our belief that the EU adoption of the Lighters-Child-resistance for lighters - Safety Requirements and Test Methods, which makes the installation of child-resistance device compulsory for any lighter with a customs valuation or ex-factory price under EUR 2.00 a discrimination against the products affected by the measure. The price-based safety requirements is questionable in terms of its scientific basis and constitutes a hidden barrier to normal trade which is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of TBT agreement.
We would like EU to explain the rationale of its measure in relation to the WTO TBT Agreement, and request early abolishment of the measure.
As the most affected party by the CR criteria, we are gravely concerned with the matter. We have noticed that revision process of the Standard was initiated by EU in early July, and we welcome the move. We would like to positively take part in the process in a way that will help make criteria scientific and fair and acceptable to all interested parties.
EU Enlargement
China is taking note of the on-going enlargement process of EU. We hope that an expanded EU should facilitate free trade and avoid adverse effects on its trade relations with any other WTO members. We would like to ask EU to explain its plan on how to offset the negative effects to its trading partners as a result of the enlargement.
Recalling the previous enlargement of EU, some compensatory issues remain unsettled between certain WTO members and the EU because their market access to EU was seriously damaged as a result of EU’s last enlargement. We hope these issues can be addressed without any further delay on the side of EU.
Anti-Dumping
We believe trade remedies including the anti-dumping measures are legitimate only if they are consistent to the WTO rules and conducive to fair trade and normal competition order. There are some questionable aspects, as to the determination of market status in EU’s anti-dumping regime. We would like EU to explain to the meeting the 5 criteria utilized in the determination of market economy status for enterprises of some WTO members, including China in AD investigation, in particular: their justification under WTO Agreements and how to avoid discrimination in their applications.
Quantitative Restrictions
1. Textiles
More than 7 years have elapsed since the ATC was put into effect. Many textile products are now still subject to the serious import quotas by EU which greatly impairs the market access opportunities legitimately expected through the implementation of ATC by textile exporting members including China.
We would like to urge the EU to respond positively the request of the textiles developing producing members and accelerate their implementation of the ATC.
2. As we know, EU still maintains most stringent quantitative restrictions on the products from certain WTO members including China. We would like to request clarification as to whether EU has any specific plan in place to implement its relevant commitments to phase out these restrictions in accordance with their commitments.
Comments and Questions from China
July 24-26, 2002
SPS
According to article 5.1 and 5.6 of SPS Agreement, SPS measures shall be based upon assessment of risks and shall not be more trade-restrictive than required to achieve their appropriate level of SPS protection. We therefore believe that the imposition of a full-scale ban on all animal products from a WTO member or WTO members by EU on the evidence identified only in certain products (e.g. Commission Decision 2002/69/EC of 30 January 2002 concerning certain protective measures with regard to the products of animal origin imported from China) is inconsistent with SPS provisions. This measure constitutes discrimination again specific members as animal products from some members are treated differently from those from others. Its application is incoherent to the import and export of animal products. The EU’s observance to the principles of both MFN and National Treatment is thus called into question and there appears to be a tendency that the measures taken under SPS considerations are being abused by EU as a means for trade protectionism.
We have noticed that “Regulatory activities … are subject, where appropriate, to the obligations assumed by the EU and the Member States under the WTO agreement on TBT and SPS agreement”(Page 39, Para.44 of Secretariat Report). We would like to invite the EU to clarify the justification of its above-mentioned measure in the context of SPS Agreement, in particular Article 5.1 and 5.6.
TBT
Article 2.2 and Article 2.8 of TBT agreement state that“ technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfillment would create.” and “Wherever appropriate, Members shall specify technical regulations based on product requirements in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics.” In view of the provisions, it is our belief that the EU adoption of the Lighters-Child-resistance for lighters - Safety Requirements and Test Methods, which makes the installation of child-resistance device compulsory for any lighter with a customs valuation or ex-factory price under EUR 2.00 a discrimination against the products affected by the measure. The price-based safety requirements is questionable in terms of its scientific basis and constitutes a hidden barrier to normal trade which is inconsistent with the relevant provisions of TBT agreement.
We would like EU to explain the rationale of its measure in relation to the WTO TBT Agreement, and request early abolishment of the measure.
As the most affected party by the CR criteria, we are gravely concerned with the matter. We have noticed that revision process of the Standard was initiated by EU in early July, and we welcome the move. We would like to positively take part in the process in a way that will help make criteria scientific and fair and acceptable to all interested parties.
EU Enlargement
China is taking note of the on-going enlargement process of EU. We hope that an expanded EU should facilitate free trade and avoid adverse effects on its trade relations with any other WTO members. We would like to ask EU to explain its plan on how to offset the negative effects to its trading partners as a result of the enlargement.
Recalling the previous enlargement of EU, some compensatory issues remain unsettled between certain WTO members and the EU because their market access to EU was seriously damaged as a result of EU’s last enlargement. We hope these issues can be addressed without any further delay on the side of EU.
Anti-Dumping
We believe trade remedies including the anti-dumping measures are legitimate only if they are consistent to the WTO rules and conducive to fair trade and normal competition order. There are some questionable aspects, as to the determination of market status in EU’s anti-dumping regime. We would like EU to explain to the meeting the 5 criteria utilized in the determination of market economy status for enterprises of some WTO members, including China in AD investigation, in particular: their justification under WTO Agreements and how to avoid discrimination in their applications.
Quantitative Restrictions
1. Textiles
More than 7 years have elapsed since the ATC was put into effect. Many textile products are now still subject to the serious import quotas by EU which greatly impairs the market access opportunities legitimately expected through the implementation of ATC by textile exporting members including China.
We would like to urge the EU to respond positively the request of the textiles developing producing members and accelerate their implementation of the ATC.
2. As we know, EU still maintains most stringent quantitative restrictions on the products from certain WTO members including China. We would like to request clarification as to whether EU has any specific plan in place to implement its relevant commitments to phase out these restrictions in accordance with their commitments.
智能问答
