二、歐盟做法與WTO 的相關規定
?
歐盟法律中涉及非市場經濟國家單獨稅率問題的條款為?384/96??規則第?9.5??條：“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)即為非市場經濟國家的規定。
歐盟的此條規定與WTO 反傾銷協議第 9.2 條非常相似。WTO 反傾銷協議第 9.2 條規定：
“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.”
歐盟條文與 WTO 反傾銷協議條文的區別為，WTO 反傾銷協議中只允許當一個國家的
出口企業眾多，列出全部出口企業的名單不現實的時候，可以只列出出口國的名字。（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.）即只有滿足“列出全部出口企業的名單不現實”這個條件之后，才可以不列出每一個出口企業的名單。而WTO?反傾銷協議?9.2?條中沒有規定什么構成“impracticable”。歐盟則在其法律中加入了“涉及非市場經濟國家的情況”這個條件，或者說歐盟法律將“impracticable”解釋為在非市場經濟國家情況下，列出每一出口企業的名單是不現實的。
歐盟將“impracticable”解釋為是非市場經濟國家的情況，是否符合?WTO 的規定呢？ 這將涉及如何認定“impracticable”的問題。WTO?反傾銷協議第?6.10?條有關于“impracticable” 的規定：“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.”從此條文中可以看出，出口商數量眾多，可以認定為為每一個出口商計算傾銷幅度是“impracticable”。
美國?Merriam-Webster?詞典中關于“impracticable”的解釋為：“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.”其中第二個解釋更適合本條款：“根據要求或者采用某種方法不能進行或者不能完成”因此，根據詞典的解釋“impracticable” 應當理解為是：“操作上不可能，或者無法進行”。
歐盟法律規定的在非市場經濟國家情況下，列出每一出口商的名字，或者為每一出口商計算單獨的傾銷幅度，能否構成 WTO 法律意義下的“impracticable”呢？按照歐盟的立法原意，不能為非市場經濟國家的出口企業確定單獨的傾銷幅度，是擔心非市場經濟國家的出口企業全部為國家壟斷，如果為每一出口企業確定不同的傾銷幅度，可能會導致規避。這種理由并不是操作上是否可能或者是否無法進行的問題，而是是否合理或者是否公平的問題。
筆者認為，認定在非市場經濟國家情況下，列出每一出口商的名字，或者為每一出口商計算單獨的傾銷幅度，能否構成?WTO?法律意義下的“impracticable”，只能依據?WTO?法律條文來認定，不能由各成員隨意解釋。特別是涉及非市場經濟國家問題時，只能依據 WTO 法律條文和中國入世法律文件中的相關法律條文進行認定。WTO 反傾銷協議第6.10 條僅說明出口商數量眾多可以構成“impracticable”。GATT?1947?第?6?條及其注釋和補充規定，以及中國入世法律文件中關于中國非市場經濟問題的規定均只涉及如何認定正常價值，沒有涉及如何認定出口價格，也沒有關于什么情況構成“impracticable”的認定。
另外，歐盟法律援引的WTO 反傾銷協議第 9.2 條，是自第一個反傾銷協議——肯尼迪回合反傾銷協議——以及其后的東京回合反傾銷協議延續下來的，基本沒有變化。肯尼迪回合反傾銷協議第8?條（b）規定：“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.”東京回合反傾銷協議的規定與此基本相同。肯尼迪回合和東京回合反傾銷協議中都沒有關于抽樣的規定，因此此條的目的，應該是指出口企業數量眾多，列出每一出口企業名單不現實（也就是WTO 反傾銷協議中需要進行抽樣的情況），調查機關可以只列出出口國。在烏拉圭回合中增加了關于抽樣的規定，也保留了此條文。從談判歷史上看，此條似與非市場經濟問題無關。