學術產出-期刊論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 實質課稅？看世貿組織「中國──汽車零件案」與我行政法院相關判決 其他題名 Substance over Form?A Study of the “China – Auto Parts” Case of the WTO and the Relevant Decisions of Taiwan’s Administrative Court 作者 楊光華
Yang, Connie Guang-Hwa貢獻者 國貿系 關鍵詞 中國汽車零件案 ; 世貿組織 ; 世界關務組織 ; 國際商品統一分類制度 ; 成車主要特性 ; 整車特徵
China-auto parts case ; World trade organization ; WTO ; World customs organization ; WCO ; The harmonized commodity description and coding system ; HS ; Essential character of a motor vehicle日期 2009-12 上傳時間 6-十月-2010 11:17:51 (UTC+8) 摘要 本文檢視「中國——汽車零件案」之裁決報告以瞭解中國於本案敗訴之原因，並藉以釐清WTO裁決機構（包括審理該案之爭端解決小組及上訴機構）於判定中國敗訴之同時，是否亦否定了中國辯護時所主張之「實質課稅」原則的適用。另一方面，因為國內高雄高等行政法院「成運汽車案」之原告援引「中國——汽車零件案」之小組期中報告卻未獲採納，故本文也進一步檢視我國海關用以判斷零件是否具有成車「主要特性」之標準，以確定是否符合「中國——汽車零件案」之裁決。本文發現「中國——汽車零件案」之小組並非否定「實質課稅」原則，而只是不採納中國所主張：HS連同其解釋準則係設計來防止所謂的關稅規避的看法。小組強調後者之行為涉及經濟考量，並非在技術層次決定貨品名稱之前者得以處理。再者，從小組的觀點，若依中國所言，將「汽車（成車）」一詞解釋為包含分批進口以組裝成車之零件，則會損及WTO/GATT之宗旨與目的，亦即市場開放之互惠安排的確定性及可預測性。這種見解似乎吻合實質課稅原則不應濫用而違反租稅法律主義的普遍看法。換言之，出口國對於中國於其關稅表所為之關稅減讓所享有之合法期待應予以保障。此外，「中國——汽車零件案」之小組雖認知沒有任何清楚的標準是HS締約國在判定「主要特性」時所必須加以遵循者，但當其檢視中國管理辦法中所訂之成車及總成「主要特性」標準時，因為其總是考慮「汽車（成車）」或「總成」一詞所在之上下文——即HS（包含其解釋準則）是否允許此種判定，是以也等於就「主要特性」之判定揭櫫了某些準則。依小組之看法，不僅以一定總成之組合作為認定標準不妥，蓋以裝有引擎之底盤為例，將會永遠被視為成車，而不符合HS解釋準則一要求列入有該中間產品名稱之節的規定；同時，以價值百分比作為標準亦同樣不當，蓋依價值百分比標準會使主要特性之決定不必然限定於同批進口零件之評估，而有違HS解釋準則二（甲）之原則，遑論價值百分比標準與其他判定標準間更欠缺邏輯之一貫性。一言以蔽之，根據「中國——汽車零件案」，用以判定進口零件為完整物品之「主要特性」標準不得背離HS解釋準則之原則。本文最後分析我國高雄高等行政法院「成運汽車案」，發現海關得用以判定是否具整體物品「主要特性」之標準中，恰含有根據「中國——汽車零件案」小組報告，必然會導致相關規則違反之價值百分比標準。儘管於系爭案件中，海關似僅適用HS解釋準則而未援引該標準，但並非因此就毫無問題，畢竟該標準仍明定於我國關稅法施行細則第二十七條第二項第三款中。衡諸「中國——汽車零件案」小組之論理，上述條款似有加以檢討之必要，以防止未來對手國根據該款規定質疑我國海關對於成車「主要特性」之認定。
This article examines the panel and Appellate Body reports of the “China – Auto Parts” case to find out the reasons why China lost so as to clarify whether the WTO adjudicating body, including the panel of this case and the Appellate Body, which held China for violation, ever denied the application of the “substance over form” doctrine, which China asserted as defense in this case. On the other hand, the plaintiff of the “Cheng – Yun Auto” case in the Kaohsiung Higher Administrative Court of Taiwan cited the panel’s interim report of the “China – Auto Parts” case but was dismissed. Therefore, this article further examines the criteria applied by Taiwan’s Customs in determining whether imported auto parts have the “essential character” of a complete motor vehicle in order to verify the consistency of these criteria with the ruling of the “China – Auto Parts” case.This article finds that the panel of the “China – Auto Parts” case did not deny the “substance over form” doctrine; rather, it dismissed China’s allegation that the HS, including the interpretative rules, was designed to prevent the so-called circumvention of duties. The panel emphasized that the latter practices involved economic consideration and could not be accommodated by the former, a classification rule, which determines the Nomenclature at a technological level. Moreover, in the panel’s view, to interpret the term “motor vehicles” as China suggested, to include parts imported in multiple shipments for assembly into a motor vehicle could undermine the very object and purpose of the GATT/WTO, which is to maintain the security and predictability of the reciprocal market access arrangements. Such a view seems to coincide with the prevalent concept that the “substance over form” doctrine cannot be abused for the “tax according to law” principle. In other words, the legitimate expectation of the exporting countries derived from the tariff concessions made by China in its Schedule should be respected.In addition, despite the fact that the panel of “China– Auto Parts” case recognized that there are no clear criteria that the Contracting Parties to the HS Convention are obliged to apply for the essential character determination, the panel somehow set up some guidelines the-reof as it always considered whether the context of “motor vehicles” or “assemblies,” i.e., the HS including the Interpretative Rules, permitted such determination when it examined the essential character test embo-died in China’s regulation. In the panel’s view, not only the criterion to deem particular auto part/assembly combination a “motor vehicle” in-appropriate because intermediary products, to take chassis fitted with engines for example, would always be regarded as complete products inconsistently with GIR 1, which requires classification to be deter-mined according to the terms of the headings. The value criterion is also inappropriate because it does not necessarily confine the essential cha-racter determination to the assessment of auto parts imported in a single shipment and therefore is inconsistent with the principle of GIR 2(a), not to mention the lack of coherency between such a criterion and the others. In short, the “essential character” test to deem imported parts as a complete product shall be compatible with the principle of the HS General Interpretative Rules.Finally, this article analyzes the “Cheng – Yun Auto” case of the Kaohsiung Higher Administrative Court. It finds that the tests that the Customs may apply to determine the essential character of a complete product happen to include the value criterion, which would necessarily lead to a violation of relevant rules according to the panel report of the “China – Auto Parts” case. Although in the “Cheng –Yun Auto” case, the Customs seemed to apply only GIR of the HS to its determination without reference to the value criterion, the problem did not go away because after all Article 27: 2(3) of the Implementation Rules of the Customs Law explicitly provides for such criterion. Taking into account the rationale of the panel in the “China – Auto Parts” case, the statutory criterion warrants review so as to prevent trading partners from chal-lenging the Customs’ determination of essential character in the future based on such a provision.關聯 法學評論, 109 ,135-184 資料類型 article dc.contributor 國貿系 en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊光華 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Yang, Connie Guang-Hwa - dc.date (日期) 2009-12 en_US dc.date.accessioned 6-十月-2010 11:17:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 6-十月-2010 11:17:51 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 6-十月-2010 11:17:51 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/45947 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本文檢視「中國——汽車零件案」之裁決報告以瞭解中國於本案敗訴之原因，並藉以釐清WTO裁決機構（包括審理該案之爭端解決小組及上訴機構）於判定中國敗訴之同時，是否亦否定了中國辯護時所主張之「實質課稅」原則的適用。另一方面，因為國內高雄高等行政法院「成運汽車案」之原告援引「中國——汽車零件案」之小組期中報告卻未獲採納，故本文也進一步檢視我國海關用以判斷零件是否具有成車「主要特性」之標準，以確定是否符合「中國——汽車零件案」之裁決。本文發現「中國——汽車零件案」之小組並非否定「實質課稅」原則，而只是不採納中國所主張：HS連同其解釋準則係設計來防止所謂的關稅規避的看法。小組強調後者之行為涉及經濟考量，並非在技術層次決定貨品名稱之前者得以處理。再者，從小組的觀點，若依中國所言，將「汽車（成車）」一詞解釋為包含分批進口以組裝成車之零件，則會損及WTO/GATT之宗旨與目的，亦即市場開放之互惠安排的確定性及可預測性。這種見解似乎吻合實質課稅原則不應濫用而違反租稅法律主義的普遍看法。換言之，出口國對於中國於其關稅表所為之關稅減讓所享有之合法期待應予以保障。此外，「中國——汽車零件案」之小組雖認知沒有任何清楚的標準是HS締約國在判定「主要特性」時所必須加以遵循者，但當其檢視中國管理辦法中所訂之成車及總成「主要特性」標準時，因為其總是考慮「汽車（成車）」或「總成」一詞所在之上下文——即HS（包含其解釋準則）是否允許此種判定，是以也等於就「主要特性」之判定揭櫫了某些準則。依小組之看法，不僅以一定總成之組合作為認定標準不妥，蓋以裝有引擎之底盤為例，將會永遠被視為成車，而不符合HS解釋準則一要求列入有該中間產品名稱之節的規定；同時，以價值百分比作為標準亦同樣不當，蓋依價值百分比標準會使主要特性之決定不必然限定於同批進口零件之評估，而有違HS解釋準則二（甲）之原則，遑論價值百分比標準與其他判定標準間更欠缺邏輯之一貫性。一言以蔽之，根據「中國——汽車零件案」，用以判定進口零件為完整物品之「主要特性」標準不得背離HS解釋準則之原則。本文最後分析我國高雄高等行政法院「成運汽車案」，發現海關得用以判定是否具整體物品「主要特性」之標準中，恰含有根據「中國——汽車零件案」小組報告，必然會導致相關規則違反之價值百分比標準。儘管於系爭案件中，海關似僅適用HS解釋準則而未援引該標準，但並非因此就毫無問題，畢竟該標準仍明定於我國關稅法施行細則第二十七條第二項第三款中。衡諸「中國——汽車零件案」小組之論理，上述條款似有加以檢討之必要，以防止未來對手國根據該款規定質疑我國海關對於成車「主要特性」之認定。 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) This article examines the panel and Appellate Body reports of the “China – Auto Parts” case to find out the reasons why China lost so as to clarify whether the WTO adjudicating body, including the panel of this case and the Appellate Body, which held China for violation, ever denied the application of the “substance over form” doctrine, which China asserted as defense in this case. On the other hand, the plaintiff of the “Cheng – Yun Auto” case in the Kaohsiung Higher Administrative Court of Taiwan cited the panel’s interim report of the “China – Auto Parts” case but was dismissed. Therefore, this article further examines the criteria applied by Taiwan’s Customs in determining whether imported auto parts have the “essential character” of a complete motor vehicle in order to verify the consistency of these criteria with the ruling of the “China – Auto Parts” case.This article finds that the panel of the “China – Auto Parts” case did not deny the “substance over form” doctrine; rather, it dismissed China’s allegation that the HS, including the interpretative rules, was designed to prevent the so-called circumvention of duties. The panel emphasized that the latter practices involved economic consideration and could not be accommodated by the former, a classification rule, which determines the Nomenclature at a technological level. Moreover, in the panel’s view, to interpret the term “motor vehicles” as China suggested, to include parts imported in multiple shipments for assembly into a motor vehicle could undermine the very object and purpose of the GATT/WTO, which is to maintain the security and predictability of the reciprocal market access arrangements. Such a view seems to coincide with the prevalent concept that the “substance over form” doctrine cannot be abused for the “tax according to law” principle. In other words, the legitimate expectation of the exporting countries derived from the tariff concessions made by China in its Schedule should be respected.In addition, despite the fact that the panel of “China– Auto Parts” case recognized that there are no clear criteria that the Contracting Parties to the HS Convention are obliged to apply for the essential character determination, the panel somehow set up some guidelines the-reof as it always considered whether the context of “motor vehicles” or “assemblies,” i.e., the HS including the Interpretative Rules, permitted such determination when it examined the essential character test embo-died in China’s regulation. In the panel’s view, not only the criterion to deem particular auto part/assembly combination a “motor vehicle” in-appropriate because intermediary products, to take chassis fitted with engines for example, would always be regarded as complete products inconsistently with GIR 1, which requires classification to be deter-mined according to the terms of the headings. The value criterion is also inappropriate because it does not necessarily confine the essential cha-racter determination to the assessment of auto parts imported in a single shipment and therefore is inconsistent with the principle of GIR 2(a), not to mention the lack of coherency between such a criterion and the others. In short, the “essential character” test to deem imported parts as a complete product shall be compatible with the principle of the HS General Interpretative Rules.Finally, this article analyzes the “Cheng – Yun Auto” case of the Kaohsiung Higher Administrative Court. It finds that the tests that the Customs may apply to determine the essential character of a complete product happen to include the value criterion, which would necessarily lead to a violation of relevant rules according to the panel report of the “China – Auto Parts” case. Although in the “Cheng –Yun Auto” case, the Customs seemed to apply only GIR of the HS to its determination without reference to the value criterion, the problem did not go away because after all Article 27: 2(3) of the Implementation Rules of the Customs Law explicitly provides for such criterion. Taking into account the rationale of the panel in the “China – Auto Parts” case, the statutory criterion warrants review so as to prevent trading partners from chal-lenging the Customs’ determination of essential character in the future based on such a provision. - dc.language.iso en_US - dc.relation (關聯) 法學評論, 109 ,135-184 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 中國汽車零件案 ; 世貿組織 ; 世界關務組織 ; 國際商品統一分類制度 ; 成車主要特性 ; 整車特徵 - dc.subject (關鍵詞) China-auto parts case ; World trade organization ; WTO ; World customs organization ; WCO ; The harmonized commodity description and coding system ; HS ; Essential character of a motor vehicle - dc.title (題名) 實質課稅？看世貿組織「中國──汽車零件案」與我行政法院相關判決 zh_TW dc.title.alternative (其他題名) Substance over Form?A Study of the “China – Auto Parts” Case of the WTO and the Relevant Decisions of Taiwan’s Administrative Court - dc.type (資料類型) article en
