學術產出-國科會研究計畫
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 世貿組織之中國汽車零件案與我國相關行政法院判決之研究 其他題名 The Case of China-Auto Parts (WTO DS339,340,342) and Relevant Decisions by Taiwan`s Adminstrative Courts 作者 楊光華 貢獻者 國立政治大學國際貿易學系
行政院國家科學委員會關鍵詞 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;整車特徵
China-Auto Parts; WTO; WCO; Harmonized System; essential character ofauto vehicle日期 2009 上傳時間 22-六月-2012 09:49:29 (UTC+8) 摘要 在 WTO 有關稅則分類的案例中，2008 年12 月上訴裁決才出爐的中國──汽車零件案並非首例，過去的歐盟──電腦設備案（WT/DS62, 67, 68）以及歐盟──雞塊案（WT/DS269, 286）均屬之，只不過歐盟在兩案中之所以被質疑為違反GATT: II 關稅拘束之義務，是因為原告聲稱歐盟將系爭產品重新歸類，導致原先適用較低稅率之產品必須改適用較高稅率1；然而中國──汽車零件案所牽涉之問題較前述兩案卻複雜得多。儘管同樣與稅則分類有關，但中國對汽車零件之稅則分類所取決的是卻是進口「後」特定事件的發生，亦即進口之汽車零件須待生產者將之組裝成整車後，才由生產者依管理辦法第28 條之規定依整車稅率向海關納稅申報。中國雖辯稱這樣的管理辦法是為確保關稅法之執行，亦即如世界關務組織之解釋準則所規定的，具有整車特徵之進口零件分類時應視為整車，自應依照整車稅率課徵關稅，但爭端裁決機構基於：該稅賦係於進口後才產生、且是由生產者而非進口者負擔、同時該稅捐之課徵又取決於零件之使用方式而非單純進口事實，因而認定中國對進口汽車零件所課之稅捐並非GATT:II 之關稅而是GATT:III 之內地稅，故需判斷的是該措施有無違反國民待遇，而非涉關稅拘束問題。這樣的裁決從法理而言雖無不妥，但卻使得進口汽車零件如何才會被認定具有整車特徵的問題，亦即關稅稅則分類之核心問題並未獲終局解決；而中國援引 GATT:XX(d)一般例外以為抗辯的部分，又因中國未善盡舉證責任，也使得以此款作為打擊逃漏關稅措施之正當化事由的可能性仍有待日後的檢驗。對照這樣的發展，我國高雄高等行政法院最近數件有關進口汽車零件改依整車稅率課徵關稅之案件，即顯得有探討之必要，因為當事人主張既然中國──汽車零件案之裁決不利於中國之立場，則我國財政部改依全車稅率課其進口零件一節即有違我國在WTO 之國際義務。本研究從中國──汽車零件案出發，特別檢視小組裁決中未獲上訴機構審查之「備位判斷」部分2，以了解小組在該部分對關稅稅則分類之分析，特別是有關「整車特徵」之認定是否得作為我國行政法院未來判決之參考，同時進一步思索所謂「實質課稅」原則是否因中國──汽車零件案而受到任何影響，以作為未來類似案件處理之依據。在「電腦設備案」，原告聲稱歐盟將過去歸類為「資料自動處理器」之網路設備及多媒體電腦改歸類為電信設備及電視接收器以致關稅變相提高，但WTO 裁決機構最後判定原告並未如其所主張的，對歐盟應將上述品目歸為「資料自動處理器」享有「合法期待」，因此歐盟並未違反GATT:II 義務。至於在「雞塊案」，由於歐盟修改冷凍去骨雞塊之定義，使之亦包括「鹽醃」內容，致使原可享有一般鹽醃肉品低稅率之鹽醃雞塊改歸類於冷凍雞塊項下而適用較高之稅率，歐盟雖主張原鹽醃肉品之定義不僅需以鹽調理，尚還滿足防腐保存之要求，惟裁決機關利用維也納條約法公約所列之解釋方法檢視「鹽醃」之意涵後，並無法獲得歐盟所主張之論斷，故認為歐盟之稅則修正致使鹽醃雞塊被課高於歐盟原承諾稅率一事有違其在GATT:II 下之義務。 2 因為原告之備位請求，小組也另外假設，若中國對汽車零件課徵的稅捐可被認為是關稅時，則中國對整車特徵之認定是否有違GATT:II 關稅拘束之要求？小組對此所作之判斷即為此處所謂的「備位判斷（alternative finding）」，但上訴機構認為此種備位判斷，是小組惟恐有關內地稅之認定被上訴機構判定有所違誤而預作準備，如今上訴機構既不認為小組有關內地稅之判斷有誤，則當然毋須審查小組這方面的備位判斷。是以吾人亦無從得知上訴機構就這部分小組判斷的立場。
The Case of China-Auto Parts is not the first WTO case ever dealing with the issue of tariff classification. Both the cases of EC-Computer Equipments (WT/DS62, 67, 68) and EC-Chicken Cuts (WT/DS269, 286) deal with it, too. Nonetheless, the reason for EC to be accused therein of violation of tariff binding under GATT: II was that EC had been alleged to reclassify the disputed product under a different heading so that a higher tariff had been applied thereto. The issues in China-Auto Parts were somehow more complicated. Tariff classification was also involved, but the classification was not made until after certain events occurred subsequent to importation. In other words, the imported auto parts were not charged of any duty unit a manufacturer uses them to assemble an auto vehicle, and the manufacturer doing so pursuant to Article 28 of the Administrative Rules is obliged to pay to the Customs a charge applicable to a complete auto vehicle. China argued that the measure was to secure the compliance of the Customs Law because as the GIR of the WCO provides for, auto parts with the essential character of an auto vehicle shall be classified as a completed auto vehicle and subject to tariff applicable to the latter. However, based on the facts that (1) the obligation to pay the charge accrues internally after the auto parts enter the border and have been assembled into a motor vehicle, (2) the charge is imposed on auto manufacturers not importers, and (3) the charge is imposed based on how the imported auto parts are used, not based on the auto parts as they enter, both the Panel and the Appellate Body deemed the levy was an “internal charge” under GATT: III instead of an “ordinary customs duty” under GATT: II, and therefore the issue was not tariff binding but national treatment. Such ruling has no error in its legal reasoning but does not solve the problem of tariff classification, i.e., how to determine when auto parts have the essential character of an auto vehicle. On the other hand, China failed its burden of proof in the case when it cited GATT: XX (d) as defense. Therefore, whether tariff reclassification aimed at countering tariff circumvention can be justified under GATT: XX (d) requires further examination in future cases. In light of the above development, several recent decisions held by our Kaohsiung Administrative Courts merit discussion, which related to the cases where the Ministry of Finance classified some auto parts under the heading of auto vehicles and imposed thereon higher tariff. The obligor argued that the Ministry of Finance failed to comply with the WTO rules given that the ruling of China-Auto Parts was not in favor of China’s position. This Study analyzes the reasoning of China-Auto Parts, especially the alternative finding of the Panel, which was not reviewed by the Appellate Body but addressed the issue of tariff classification by examining the “essential character” test employed by the Chinese authorities. With such focus, the Study seeks to identify the possible reference that the alternative finding may provide for Taiwan’s administrative courts, and on the hand, explores if the principle of “Substance over Form” has ever been affected by the ruling of China-Auto Parts aiming at setting clearer guidance for future cases.關聯 基礎研究
學術補助
研究期間:9808~ 9907
研究經費:556仟元資料類型 report dc.contributor 國立政治大學國際貿易學系 en_US dc.contributor 行政院國家科學委員會 en_US dc.creator (作者) 楊光華 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 22-六月-2012 09:49:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 22-六月-2012 09:49:29 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 22-六月-2012 09:49:29 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/53135 - dc.description.abstract (摘要) 在 WTO 有關稅則分類的案例中，2008 年12 月上訴裁決才出爐的中國──汽車零件案並非首例，過去的歐盟──電腦設備案（WT/DS62, 67, 68）以及歐盟──雞塊案（WT/DS269, 286）均屬之，只不過歐盟在兩案中之所以被質疑為違反GATT: II 關稅拘束之義務，是因為原告聲稱歐盟將系爭產品重新歸類，導致原先適用較低稅率之產品必須改適用較高稅率1；然而中國──汽車零件案所牽涉之問題較前述兩案卻複雜得多。儘管同樣與稅則分類有關，但中國對汽車零件之稅則分類所取決的是卻是進口「後」特定事件的發生，亦即進口之汽車零件須待生產者將之組裝成整車後，才由生產者依管理辦法第28 條之規定依整車稅率向海關納稅申報。中國雖辯稱這樣的管理辦法是為確保關稅法之執行，亦即如世界關務組織之解釋準則所規定的，具有整車特徵之進口零件分類時應視為整車，自應依照整車稅率課徵關稅，但爭端裁決機構基於：該稅賦係於進口後才產生、且是由生產者而非進口者負擔、同時該稅捐之課徵又取決於零件之使用方式而非單純進口事實，因而認定中國對進口汽車零件所課之稅捐並非GATT:II 之關稅而是GATT:III 之內地稅，故需判斷的是該措施有無違反國民待遇，而非涉關稅拘束問題。這樣的裁決從法理而言雖無不妥，但卻使得進口汽車零件如何才會被認定具有整車特徵的問題，亦即關稅稅則分類之核心問題並未獲終局解決；而中國援引 GATT:XX(d)一般例外以為抗辯的部分，又因中國未善盡舉證責任，也使得以此款作為打擊逃漏關稅措施之正當化事由的可能性仍有待日後的檢驗。對照這樣的發展，我國高雄高等行政法院最近數件有關進口汽車零件改依整車稅率課徵關稅之案件，即顯得有探討之必要，因為當事人主張既然中國──汽車零件案之裁決不利於中國之立場，則我國財政部改依全車稅率課其進口零件一節即有違我國在WTO 之國際義務。本研究從中國──汽車零件案出發，特別檢視小組裁決中未獲上訴機構審查之「備位判斷」部分2，以了解小組在該部分對關稅稅則分類之分析，特別是有關「整車特徵」之認定是否得作為我國行政法院未來判決之參考，同時進一步思索所謂「實質課稅」原則是否因中國──汽車零件案而受到任何影響，以作為未來類似案件處理之依據。在「電腦設備案」，原告聲稱歐盟將過去歸類為「資料自動處理器」之網路設備及多媒體電腦改歸類為電信設備及電視接收器以致關稅變相提高，但WTO 裁決機構最後判定原告並未如其所主張的，對歐盟應將上述品目歸為「資料自動處理器」享有「合法期待」，因此歐盟並未違反GATT:II 義務。至於在「雞塊案」，由於歐盟修改冷凍去骨雞塊之定義，使之亦包括「鹽醃」內容，致使原可享有一般鹽醃肉品低稅率之鹽醃雞塊改歸類於冷凍雞塊項下而適用較高之稅率，歐盟雖主張原鹽醃肉品之定義不僅需以鹽調理，尚還滿足防腐保存之要求，惟裁決機關利用維也納條約法公約所列之解釋方法檢視「鹽醃」之意涵後，並無法獲得歐盟所主張之論斷，故認為歐盟之稅則修正致使鹽醃雞塊被課高於歐盟原承諾稅率一事有違其在GATT:II 下之義務。 2 因為原告之備位請求，小組也另外假設，若中國對汽車零件課徵的稅捐可被認為是關稅時，則中國對整車特徵之認定是否有違GATT:II 關稅拘束之要求？小組對此所作之判斷即為此處所謂的「備位判斷（alternative finding）」，但上訴機構認為此種備位判斷，是小組惟恐有關內地稅之認定被上訴機構判定有所違誤而預作準備，如今上訴機構既不認為小組有關內地稅之判斷有誤，則當然毋須審查小組這方面的備位判斷。是以吾人亦無從得知上訴機構就這部分小組判斷的立場。 en_US dc.description.abstract (摘要) The Case of China-Auto Parts is not the first WTO case ever dealing with the issue of tariff classification. Both the cases of EC-Computer Equipments (WT/DS62, 67, 68) and EC-Chicken Cuts (WT/DS269, 286) deal with it, too. Nonetheless, the reason for EC to be accused therein of violation of tariff binding under GATT: II was that EC had been alleged to reclassify the disputed product under a different heading so that a higher tariff had been applied thereto. The issues in China-Auto Parts were somehow more complicated. Tariff classification was also involved, but the classification was not made until after certain events occurred subsequent to importation. In other words, the imported auto parts were not charged of any duty unit a manufacturer uses them to assemble an auto vehicle, and the manufacturer doing so pursuant to Article 28 of the Administrative Rules is obliged to pay to the Customs a charge applicable to a complete auto vehicle. China argued that the measure was to secure the compliance of the Customs Law because as the GIR of the WCO provides for, auto parts with the essential character of an auto vehicle shall be classified as a completed auto vehicle and subject to tariff applicable to the latter. However, based on the facts that (1) the obligation to pay the charge accrues internally after the auto parts enter the border and have been assembled into a motor vehicle, (2) the charge is imposed on auto manufacturers not importers, and (3) the charge is imposed based on how the imported auto parts are used, not based on the auto parts as they enter, both the Panel and the Appellate Body deemed the levy was an “internal charge” under GATT: III instead of an “ordinary customs duty” under GATT: II, and therefore the issue was not tariff binding but national treatment. Such ruling has no error in its legal reasoning but does not solve the problem of tariff classification, i.e., how to determine when auto parts have the essential character of an auto vehicle. On the other hand, China failed its burden of proof in the case when it cited GATT: XX (d) as defense. Therefore, whether tariff reclassification aimed at countering tariff circumvention can be justified under GATT: XX (d) requires further examination in future cases. In light of the above development, several recent decisions held by our Kaohsiung Administrative Courts merit discussion, which related to the cases where the Ministry of Finance classified some auto parts under the heading of auto vehicles and imposed thereon higher tariff. The obligor argued that the Ministry of Finance failed to comply with the WTO rules given that the ruling of China-Auto Parts was not in favor of China’s position. This Study analyzes the reasoning of China-Auto Parts, especially the alternative finding of the Panel, which was not reviewed by the Appellate Body but addressed the issue of tariff classification by examining the “essential character” test employed by the Chinese authorities. With such focus, the Study seeks to identify the possible reference that the alternative finding may provide for Taiwan’s administrative courts, and on the hand, explores if the principle of “Substance over Form” has ever been affected by the ruling of China-Auto Parts aiming at setting clearer guidance for future cases. en_US dc.language.iso en_US - dc.relation (關聯) 基礎研究 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 學術補助 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 研究期間:9808~ 9907 en_US dc.relation (關聯) 研究經費:556仟元 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;整車特徵 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) China-Auto Parts; WTO; WCO; Harmonized System; essential character ofauto vehicle en_US dc.title (題名) 世貿組織之中國汽車零件案與我國相關行政法院判決之研究 zh_TW dc.title.alternative (其他題名) The Case of China-Auto Parts (WTO DS339,340,342) and Relevant Decisions by Taiwan`s Adminstrative Courts en_US dc.type (資料類型) report en
