美国337条款的性质、适用与应对

发布时间：2018-05-11 01:04

本文选题：美国337条款 + 贸易救济措施　；参考：《南京大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：337条款是美国《1930年关税法》第337节的简称,现被汇编在《美国法典》第19卷第1337节。337条款题为“进口贸易中的不公平行为”,主要针对两类不公平行为,一类是侵犯美国知识产权的不公平竞争方法或行为,另一类是除知识产权之外的不公平竞争方法或行为。实际适用中,337条款已逐渐演变保护美国有效的、可执行的知识产权的行为。依据337条款对进口产品发起的不公平竞争方法或行为的调查简称为337调查。该条款是一套完整的制度,从程序和实体两方面系统地规定了不公平竞争方法或行为的认定、调查程序与相应的救济措施。资料显示,我国已成为337条款的重灾国,连续6年位居337调查涉案国家(地区)的首位。美国如此频繁地运用337条款已构成对其国内产业的过度保护,对我国出口至美国的产品设置了贸易壁垒,对国际贸易造成不合理的限制。截止2010年8月,中国已成为美国第一大进口来源地、第二大贸易伙伴。可以预见中国在相当长的一段时间内仍然会遭受大量的337调查。因此有必要对337条款进行研究,思考我国政府、行业协会、企业相应的应对机制。美国国际贸易委员会自1972年开始受理有关337条款的案件以来,至今审理完毕和正在审理的案件已达768件。本文较以往研究337条款的文章不同之处在于主要从已有案例着手展开分析。本文除前言与结论外共分四个部分：前言部分简要概括美国适用337条款的现状与我国遭受337调查的现状,表明研究该条款的必要性。第一部分“337条款的立法沿革与主要内容”。337条款的立法沿革表明该条款经过历次修改后,其主管机关——国际贸易委员会的权力逐渐扩大,使其可以灵活运用自由裁量权保护国内产业。现行有效的337条款的主要内容为其保护国内产业提供了法律基础。第二部分“337条款的法律性质以及该条款与GATT/WTO的关系”。该部分首先从贸易救济措施的构成要件与目的角度认定337条款属于贸易救济措施范畴,但这并不妨碍其对国内产业的过度保护。紧接着从GATT1947时期两个案例入手,分析之所以专家小组对两个案件作出截然不同的裁定,是因为对GATT 1947第3条与第20条之间的关系有不同理解。因此,有必要分析第3条与第20条之间的关系。两条款之间的关系是应该先分析采取的措施是否符合第3条规定的国民待遇原则,如果认定不符之后,再分析此种不符是否可以援引第20条的例外规定。分析之后认定337条款因违反了GATT 1947项下第3条的规定,并且该不符不能援引第20条一般例外的规定。虽然专家小组报告通过之后,美国在1994年《乌拉圭回合协议法》对337条款进行了相应修改,但并没有对违反国民待遇原则的实质部分进行相应修改,故该条款仍然违反国民待遇原则。并且从国际贸易委员会已裁决的案例中涉案企业的类型进行分析,认定337条款对国际贸易造成不合理的限制。第三部分“337条款在具体适用中的解读”。首先国际贸易委员会在适用中对不公平竞争方法或行为作宽泛的解释,将尽可能多样的行为纳入其管辖范围。除此之外,国际贸易委员会为保护国内产业,在具体涉及知识产权的案件中不断扩大“国内产业”要求的认定范围。337条款虽然明确规定了发布普遍排除令的适用条件,但在具体适用中又发展出一些标准,而这些标准多样且具有不确定性。另外,该条款虽然规定在提供救济措施时要考虑公共利益因素,但到目前为止因衡量公共利益因素后而拒绝提供救济的案件很少。337条款规定的公共利益包括“对公共健康和福利、美国经济的竞争状况、美国类似产品或直接竞争产品的生产状况和美国消费者状况”。在具体案件中,国际贸易委员会明确表示这几项要素的重要程度是不一样的,它首先考虑的是公共健康与福利,其次是消费者的状况,最后才是美国经济的竞争状况。但在另外的案件中又明确违反了这一顺序。所以,解读337条款构成要件可以看出,国际贸易委员会在认定是否违反337条款方面拥有较大的自由裁量权,目的是为了保护国内产业。第四部分“我国应对337调查的法律应对机制思考”。该部分从我国遭受337调查的具体情况角度阐述337调查已对我国出口至美国的产品设置了贸易壁垒。分析我国现有的法律规定,认为现阶段可以运用《对外贸易法》、《对外贸易壁垒调查规则》的规定发起贸易壁垒调查以遏制我国频繁的遭受337调查的现状。另外,从政府角度来讲,一方面要抓紧出台应对337调查的指南或意见,鼓励我国企业积极参与应诉,另一方面要充分运用现有的法律法规规定的措施应对337调查。从行业协会角度来看,其可以为企业及时收集信息和出具咨询意见。从企业方面来看,首先应积极参与应诉,积极寻求和解或提出有效抗辩。但更为重要的是要加强自主创新,拥有自主知识产权是关键。最后是结论部分。共有四个结论：一是337条款是贸易救济措施而非贸易制裁；二是337条款违反GATT第3条国民待遇原则的规定,也不适用第20条一般例外的规定；三是实践中,国际贸易委员会拥有较大的自由裁量权,灵活地运用337条款保护国内产业,对国际贸易造成不合理的限制；四是在现阶段我国频繁遭受337调查的情况下,政府、行业协会和企业应联合予以应对。
[Abstract]:Article 337 of the U.S . C. 搂 1337 . 337 , entitled " unfair acts in import trade " , is compiled in U.S . C. 搂 1337 . 337 , entitled " unfair competition in import trade " , which is primarily directed against two types of unfair behaviors , one of which is an unfair competition method or act that violates U.S . intellectual property rights . In practice , 337 articles have gradually evolved to protect American effective and enforceable intellectual property rights . This article is a complete system that systematically sets out the identification , investigation procedures and corresponding relief measures for unfair competition methods or acts .

In August 2010 , China has become the first largest source of import and second largest trading partner in the United States . As of August 2010 , China has become the first largest source of import and second largest trading partner in the United States . As of August 2010 , China has become the first largest source of import of the United States , and the second largest trading partner . Therefore , it is necessary to study 337 articles to reflect on the corresponding coping mechanisms of our government , trade associations and enterprises .

Since 1972 , the United States International Trade Commission has received 768 cases since its inception in 1972 . There have been 768 cases currently before and under review . This article differs from previous article 337 in that the analysis is initiated mainly from existing cases . In addition to the preface and conclusion , there are four parts :

The preface briefly summarizes the status quo of the 337 clauses in U.S . A. and the status quo of 337 investigation in China , and shows the necessity of studying the clause .

The legislative evolution of the first part " 337 " and the legislative evolution of the main content " . 337 shows that the power of the competent authority of the International Trade Commission is gradually expanded after successive amendments , so that it can flexibly use the discretionary power to protect the domestic industry . The main contents of the current effective 337 clauses provide legal basis for the protection of domestic industries .

It is necessary to analyze the relationship between Article 3 and Article 20 . However , it is necessary to analyze the relationship between Article 3 and Article 20 .

In addition , the International Trade Commission , while providing relief measures , has clearly expressed the importance of public health and welfare , U.S . economic competition , U.S . similar products or direct competitive products .

From the perspective of the government , we should take an active part in responding to the 337 investigation . On the other hand , we should actively take an active part in responding to the 337 investigation . From the perspective of the industry association , we should actively participate in the prosecution and actively seek reconciliation or propose an effective defense . But more importantly , we should strengthen the independent innovation and have independent intellectual property rights .

Finally , there are four conclusions : one is that 337 articles are trade remedies and non - trade sanctions ;
Article 337 is in violation of the provisions of Article 3 National Treatment Principles of GATT and does not apply to the provisions of general exceptions to Article 20 ;
Third , in practice , the International Trade Commission has greater discretion to protect domestic industries with 337 articles flexibly and unreasonable restrictions on international trade ;
Fourth , in the present stage of our country ' s frequent 337 investigation , the government , trade associations and enterprises should jointly handle them .

【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D971.2;DD912.29

【参考文献】