专向性补贴的认定——以澳大利亚大麦案为例  

Identification of Specific Subsidy—Taking the Australian Bar-ley Case as an Example

作　　者：祝兴雯 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学国际法学院,上海

出　　处：《争议解决》2022年第2期267-273,共7页Dispute Settlement

摘　　要：我国商务部依据《反补贴条例》认定澳大利亚三项目构成专向性补贴,于2020年5月19日裁定对澳大利亚的大麦产业征收反补贴税。2020年12月16日澳大利亚将该案诉至WTO。本文以WTO项下《SCM协定》为依据,依据协定第1条从构成财政资助、存在授予利益论证构成补贴;依据协定第2条论证该补贴具有事实上的专向性。检验我国商务部认定三补贴项目为专向性补贴的裁定与《SCM协定》规定一致,不存在澳大利亚认为的不恰当确定补贴存在的情况。According to the Anti-subsidyRegulations, China’s Ministry of Commerce decided that the three projects inAustralia constituted specific subsidies, and on May 19th, 2020, it ruled toimpose anti-subsidy tax on the barley industry in Australia. On December 16th,2020, Australia brought the case to WTO. Based on SCM Agreement under WTO, thispaper argues that it constitutes subsidies from the aspects of financialassistance and existence of granted benefits according to Article 1 of theAgreement. According to Article 2 of the Agreement, it is demonstrated that thesubsidy is in fact exclusive. Test that the ruling of China’s Ministry ofCommerce that the three subsidy items are specific subsidies is consistent withthe provisions of SCM Agreement, and there is no improper determination of theexistence of subsidies that Australia thinks.

关 键 词：补贴 《SCM协定》 专向性补贴 

分 类 号：F75[经济管理—国际贸易]