二、欧盟做法与WTO 的相关规定

欧盟法律中涉及非市场经济国家单独税率问题的条款为 384/96  规则第 9.5  条：“An anti-dumping duty shall be imposed in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of a product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury, except as to imports from those sources from which undertakings under the terms of this Regulation have been accepted. The Regulation imposing the duty shall specify the duty for each supplier or, if that is impracticable, and in general where Article 2(7)(a) applies, the supplying country concerned.”其中第 2(7)(a)即为非市场经济国家的规定。

欧盟的此条规定与WTO 反倾销协议第 9.2 条非常相似。WTO 反倾销协议第 9.2 条规定：

“When an anti-dumping duty is imposed in respect of any product, such anti-dumping duty shall be collected in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of such product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury, except as to imports from those sources from which price undertakings under the terms of this Agreement have been accepted. The authorities shall name the supplier or suppliers of the product concerned. If, however, several suppliers from the same country are involved, and it is impracticable to name all these suppliers, the authorities may name the supplying country concerned. If several suppliers from more than one country are involved, the authorities may name either all the suppliers involved, or, if this is impracticable, all the supplying countries involved.”

欧盟条文与 WTO 反倾销协议条文的区别为，WTO 反倾销协议中只允许当一个国家的

出口企业众多，列出全部出口企业的名单不现实的时候，可以只列出出口国的名字。（If, however, several suppliers from the same country are involved, and it is impracticable  to name all these suppliers, the authorities may name the supplying country concerned.）即只有满足“列出全部出口企业的名单不现实”这个条件之后，才可以不列出每一个出口企业的名单。而WTO 反倾销协议 9.2 条中没有规定什么构成“impracticable”。欧盟则在其法律中加入了“涉及非市场经济国家的情况”这个条件，或者说欧盟法律将“impracticable”解释为在非市场经济国家情况下，列出每一出口企业的名单是不现实的。

欧盟将“impracticable”解释为是非市场经济国家的情况，是否符合 WTO 的规定呢？ 这将涉及如何认定“impracticable”的问题。WTO 反倾销协议第 6.10 条有关于“impracticable” 的规定：“The authorities shall, as a  rule,  determine an individual  margin of dumping for each known exporter  or  producer  concerned of the product  under investigation. In cases where the number of exporters, producers, importers or types  of products involved is so large as to make such a determination impracticable, the authorities may limit their examination either to a reasonable number of interested parties or products by using samples which are statistically valid  on the basis of information available to the authorities at the time of the selection, or to the largest percentage of the volume of the exports from the country in question which can reasonably be investigated.”从此条文中可以看出，出口商数量众多，可以认定为为每一个出口商计算倾销幅度是“impracticable”。

美国 Merriam-Webster 词典中关于“impracticable”的解释为：“1: IMPASSABLE: incapable of being passed, traveled, crossed, or surmounted. 2: not practicable: incapable of being performed or accomplished by the means employed or at command.”其中第二个解释更适合本条款：“根据要求或者采用某种方法不能进行或者不能完成”因此，根据词典的解释“impracticable” 应当理解为是：“操作上不可能，或者无法进行”。

欧盟法律规定的在非市场经济国家情况下，列出每一出口商的名字，或者为每一出口商计算单独的倾销幅度，能否构成 WTO 法律意义下的“impracticable”呢？按照欧盟的立法原意，不能为非市场经济国家的出口企业确定单独的倾销幅度，是担心非市场经济国家的出口企业全部为国家垄断，如果为每一出口企业确定不同的倾销幅度，可能会导致规避。这种理由并不是操作上是否可能或者是否无法进行的问题，而是是否合理或者是否公平的问题。

笔者认为，认定在非市场经济国家情况下，列出每一出口商的名字，或者为每一出口商计算单独的倾销幅度，能否构成 WTO 法律意义下的“impracticable”，只能依据 WTO 法律条文来认定，不能由各成员随意解释。特别是涉及非市场经济国家问题时，只能依据 WTO 法律条文和中国入世法律文件中的相关法律条文进行认定。WTO 反倾销协议第6.10 条仅说明出口商数量众多可以构成“impracticable”。GATT 1947 第 6 条及其注释和补充规定，以及中国入世法律文件中关于中国非市场经济问题的规定均只涉及如何认定正常价值，没有涉及如何认定出口价格，也没有关于什么情况构成“impracticable”的认定。

另外，欧盟法律援引的WTO 反倾销协议第 9.2 条，是自第一个反倾销协议——肯尼迪回合反倾销协议——以及其后的东京回合反倾销协议延续下来的，基本没有变化。肯尼迪回合反倾销协议第8 条（b）规定：“When an anti-dumping duty is imposed in respect of any product, such anti-dumping duty shall be levied, in the appropriate amounts in each case, on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of such product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury. The authorities shall name the supplier or suppliers of the product concerned. If, however, several suppliers from the same country are involved, and it is impracticable to name all these suppliers, the authorities may name the supplying country concerned. If several suppliers from more than one country are involved, the authorities may name either all the suppliers involved, or, if this is impracticable, all the supplying countries involved.”东京回合反倾销协议的规定与此基本相同。肯尼迪回合和东京回合反倾销协议中都没有关于抽样的规定，因此此条的目的，应该是指出口企业数量众多，列出每一出口企业名单不现实（也就是WTO 反倾销协议中需要进行抽样的情况），调查机关可以只列出出口国。在乌拉圭回合中增加了关于抽样的规定，也保留了此条文。从谈判历史上看，此条似与非市场经济问题无关。