國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
60
長時間及大規模地干預；受調查國貨幣之實質有效匯率相對『18 個月』之均衡 實質有效匯率被低估至少 5%……」，2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案則將根本性 匯率失調定義為「實質有效匯率……被顯著及持續地低估……」，顯示在此二法 案之法條用語中皆認為根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形必須長期且穩定維持在 低估狀況，可知美國法案所欲制裁者為「長期」壓抑幣值之情形。
第一節 財務補助
2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案皆未修正 1930 年關稅法有關財務補助之定義，故此二法案欲將他國根本性匯率低估或匯 率失調問題視為可課徵平衡稅之補貼之前提要件為仍須符合 SCM 協定就財務補 助之定義。如第貳章所述，1930 年關稅法所謂之「財務補助」可分為三大類：
第一大類是會員境內有政府或任何公立機構提供財務補助者，並可細分為四種形 式；第二大類是存有 GATT 1994 第 16 條所指任何形式之所得補貼或價格維持者；
第三大類為政府提供給付予募集基金之機構，或委託或指示一民營機構提供財務 補助，且其做法與政府通常做法實際上並無差異者
211。而第一大類之四種形式財 務補助分別為： （i）政府措施涉及資金之直接移轉，例如補助金、貸款及投入股 本，或潛在之資金或債務直接移轉，例如貸款保證； （ii）政府拋棄或未催繳原已 屆期應繳納之稅收，例如租稅抵減之財務獎勵；（iii）政府提供一般基本設施以 外之商品或勞務；或（iv）收購商品
212。以 1930 年關稅法對照 SCM 協定關於財 務補助之定義，可知兩者所使用之文字極為相似，且在其文字中並不存在任何有 關他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形即該當財務補助之用語，因此就本質上而 言，1930 年關稅法關於財務補助之定義並不違反 WTO 規範。
211 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(B).
212 Id. § 1677(5)(D).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
61
以下將繼續檢視 1930 年關稅法關於財務補助之定義適用於他國根本性匯率 低估或匯率失調之情形是否仍符合 WTO 規範，惟在此有一先決條件為財務補助 必須由政府或任何公立機構所提供，或委託或指示一民營機構提供，且其做法與 政府通常做法實際上並無差異，故以下將先判定 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案 與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形是否 屬政府或公立機構，或受委託之民營機構所採取之措施。依 2010 年公平貿易貨 幣改革法案條文中有關「一國政府或其領域內任何公立機構……曾於一或多個外 匯市場上進行長時間及大規模地干預……」及 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所 稱「發行該當根本性匯率失調貨幣之當事國……」等用語，可知 2010 年公平貿 易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案皆認為他國根本性匯率低估或 匯率失調情形是由該國政府或公立機構所採取之措施。一般而言，一國匯率相關 事務通常由貨幣主管機關負責，而貨幣主管機關屬於政府組織一部分，故屬 SCM 協定所稱之「政府」應無疑義。然構成 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年 貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形之當事國之貨幣主 管機關可能主張外匯市場干預乃指派其他單位操作，而非貨幣主管機關親自執行，
此時則須判斷該單位是否屬 SCM 協定所稱之「公立機構」。依前一章中美國雙 反案之上訴機構對於「公立機構」之解釋，若有法律或其他法律文件明確表示賦 予某單位「政府權能」 ，亦即明確指派該單位去執行政府所交派之事務，即可直 接認定該單位屬於 SCM 協定所稱之「公立機構」 。且即使有不構成「公立機構」
之可能，亦會構成所謂「受政府之委託或指示進行匯兌交易，且其做法與政府通
常做法實際上並無差異」之情形，此部分將於後續分析 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改
革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形是
否構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1)條第 iv 種形式之財務補助時一併討論。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
62
確立 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他 國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形可能屬政府或公立機構所採取之措施後，以下 將探討以 SCM 協定第 1.1 條所規定之財務補助形式套用於他國根本性匯率低估 或匯率失調之情形是否符合 WTO 之規範。本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革 法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形 有極大可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1)條第 iii 種形式及第 iv 種形式之財務補助，
而較不可能構成第 1.1(a)(1)條第 i、ii 種形式及第 1.1(a)(2)條之財務補助。
以下將先解釋 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法 案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形較不可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1) 條第 i、ii 種形式之財務補助之原因。Benjamin B. Caryl 曾於其文章中主張匯率 失調國之出口商將出口賺取之外幣透過貨幣主管機關所訂之低估匯率換取本幣，
因而獲得較匯率未受低估時更多之本幣，此過程無疑似政府以直接移轉資金予出 口商之方式提供財務補助
213。然此種觀點將導致任何匯率受到低估之國家皆有提 供此種財務補助之虞，而其顯然並非 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨 幣匯率監督改革法案之目的。如前所述，因 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案所關 切之他國根本性匯率低估情形為「一國政府或其領域內任何公立機構在『18 個 月』內曾於一或多個外匯市場上進行長時間及大規模地干預；受調查國貨幣之實 質有效匯率相對『18 個月』之均衡實質有效匯率被低估至少 5%……」 ，2011 年 貨幣匯率監督改革法案則將根本性匯率失調定義為「實質有效匯率……被顯著及 持續地低估……」，顯示在此二法案之法條用語中皆認為根本性匯率低估或匯率 失調情形必須長期且穩定維持在低估狀況，然在資金直接移轉此種財務補助形式 中並無「長期且穩定」之概念，只要政府於任一時間有此作為即已足。儘管可能
213 Benjamin B. Caryl, Is China’s Currency Regime a Countervailable Subsidy? A Legal Analysis under the World Trade Organization’s SCM Agreement, 45 J.W.T. 187, 195-196 (2011).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
63
有論者認為在該長期且穩定之低估階段亦有所謂資金移轉效果，然此為政府於外 匯市場大量購買美金使得本幣價值受到低估，因而間接產生廠商或個人將美元兌 換為本幣時會獲得較政府未為該措施前更多本幣之效果，不同於以往 WTO 關於 資金直接移轉之相關案例乃政府直接移轉資金予廠商之措施。基於上述理由，此 二法案所謂之根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形較不可能構成資金之直接移轉。至 於此二法案所謂之根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形亦不可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1)條第 ii 種形式之財務補助之原因為，該形式之財務補助為政府拋棄應收 之稅收，顯與法案所稱之根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形較無關聯。故 2010 年 公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低 估或匯率失調情形不可能構成前述兩種形式之財務補助。
2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根 本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形亦不可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(2)條之財務補助
（即 GATT 1994 第 16 條所指任何形式之所得補貼或價格維持） 。由於 WTO 尚未 有任何案例討論「所得補貼」之意義，有認為當匯率失調國政府將出口商賺取之 外幣以低估之匯率兌換為本幣時，出口商可換得比其在原先市場匯率下更多之本 幣，此時即有「所得補貼」之意味。而 WTO 於某些涉及農產品之案例中曾出現 類似「價格維持」之概念，即政府以高於全球市價之價格購買農產品，若將此概 念套用於匯率失調情形，亦可謂政府以高於市場匯率之價值購買外幣
214。此是因 政府為維持本幣價值之低估，必須大量購買外幣或拋售本幣，此舉將導致外幣價 值高於市場價值，本幣價值低於市場價值，因此產生類似「價格維持」之情形。
然此兩種觀點亦顯然落入前述「資金直接移轉」之謬誤，因匯率並不須「長期且 穩定」維持在低估狀態即可產生所得補貼與價格維持之效果，亦即只要匯率一受 到低估而不論持續多長時間或低估多少幅度，皆會產生所得補貼之效果，或者政
214 Benjamin B. Caryl, supra note 213, at 199.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
64
府一旦大量購買外幣或拋售本幣亦會造成價格維持之效果。故綜上所述，2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率 低估或匯率失調情形亦不可能構成 GATT 1994 第 16 條所指任何形式之所得補貼 或價格維持。
本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所 謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形有極大可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1)條 第 iii 種形式之財務補助之原因為，政府人為的干預外匯市場及採取必要的沖銷 手段以防止匯率波動，類似政府以提供服務之方式給予財務補助。如前所述 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案皆認為根本性匯率低 估或匯率失調情形必須一國之貨幣長期且穩定維持被低估之狀態，因此於該期間 該國之匯率即相對穩定，此情形似乎等同提供規避匯率風險之服務，且使用此種 服務者亦無須支付任何費用，故相當可能構成政府以提供服務之方式給予財務補 助。惟欲使此說法成立之前提為該服務必須非「一般基礎設施」 。WTO 尚未有任 何案件解釋「服務」與「一般基礎設施」之意義，有論者認為一國之外匯交易市 場乃由政府建立、維持與管理，故應屬於一般基礎設施，此外，政府干預外匯市 場之現象普遍存在於中西方國家，此乃政府權能之行使應不屬 SCM 協定所欲管 轄之範圍
215。僅管本文亦肯認防止匯率過度波動乃政府職責，因此應屬「一般基 礎設施」 ，然一國若構成 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督 改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形，表示其乃長期且持穩地使匯 率低估，此行為恐已超出維持貨幣市場正常運作所必須，故已不屬於一般基礎設 施之範圍。因此本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督 改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形極有可能落入「服務」之範疇，
故有可能構成此種形式之財務補助。
215 韓龍，人民幣匯率的國際法問題，頁 224，2010 年。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
65
最後，本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革 法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形亦可能構成 SCM 協定第 1.1(a)(1) 條第 iv 種形式之財務補助。由於符合 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年 貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形之當事國可能主張 其國內一般匯兌交易通常是於一般商業銀行辦理，而非貨幣主管機關，此時即須 判定該商業銀行是否為「受政府之委託或指示進行匯兌交易，且其做法與政府通 常做法實際上並無差異」之情形。若依前一章所引之 WTO 案例分析，此類型之 財務補助包含五種要件，分別為： （i）政府委託或指示；（ii）委託或指示之對象 為民營機構； （iii）執行第一大類財務補助形式之一種或多種職務；（iv）該職務 通常歸屬政府；及（v）民營機構之做法與政府通常做法實際上並無差異者。其 中「委託」或「指示」應為一種明確及肯定的行為，像是委任或命令。以我國《銀 行法》及中國《中華人民共和國商業銀行法》為例，兩者皆有要求商業銀行若欲 經營外匯業務必須取得貨幣主管機關許可之規定
216，此種許可即為一種明確及肯 定的行為，因此當一商業銀行可辦理外匯交易即可視為是受政府「委託」或「指 示」 （符合要件 i），而商業銀行為一民營機構（要件 ii），因提供長期且穩定受低 估之匯率構成提供避險之服務（要件 iii），而此外匯服務須獲得貨幣主管機關許 可才得由商業銀行執行顯示該職務為通常歸屬政府（要件 iv），商業銀行提供長 期且穩定受低估之匯率構成提供避險之服務與貨幣主管機關之通常做法亦不會 有所差異（要件 v）。故本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣 匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形亦可能構成命令或 指示民營機構所為之財務補助。
綜上所述，本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督 改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形含有一國匯率必須長期且穩
216 如我國《銀行法》第 4 條及中國《中華人民共和國商業銀行法》第 3 條。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
66
定維持在低估狀況之意味，因此較可能構成政府（或委託民營銀行）提供規避匯 率風險之服務此種形式之財務補助。且此二法案皆未修正 1930 年關稅法有關財 務補助之定義，而關稅法就財務補助之定義又同於 SCM 協定，可推知美國國會 亦認為依現行關稅法或 SCM 協定對於財務補助之定義即可適用於法案中所謂他 國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調之情形。
第二節 受有利益
有關「受有利益」要件，2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案增訂當生產系爭產 品之母國貨幣與出口交易所獲得之外國貨幣有匯兌之情形，且該母國貨幣被根本 性低估時，則現行被低估之匯率與實質匯率之差異即視為有「受有利益」之情事
217
，而 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案雖未修正關稅法中有關利益授予之要件，
但訂有關於匯率低估利益之計算方式。有關匯率低估利益之計算方式，2011 年 貨幣匯率監督改革法案規定若受調查國家之貨幣存在一般貨幣匯率失調，主管機 關應採用總體經濟平衡法及均衡實質匯率法兩者所得匯率之簡單平均數與每日 官方匯率進行比較，以衡量匯率低估利益
218。而若受調查國家之貨幣被列為應對 之採取優先行動者，主管機關應將生產者或出口者之本國貨幣的中期均衡匯率與 每日官方匯率進行比較，以衡量匯率低估所得之利益
219。前述之計算若可依 IMF 匯率議題諮商小組準則所訂之方法為之，則應依該方法計算
220。由兩法案之規定 可看出其皆認為只要受調查國之貨幣匯率在一定期間內低於實質匯率（或均衡匯 率） ，即視為「受有利益」 。而比較基準必須選擇實質匯率（或均衡匯率）之原因 可推測因該國外匯市場受政府操縱，已無市場價格可作參考，因此必然須找尋一 替代基準。故欲判定此兩法案針對「受有利益」要件新增之規定其本身是否符合
217 H.R. 2378, 111th Cong. § 2(a)(3) (2010).
218 S. 1619, 112th Cong. § 10(b) (2011).
219 Id.
220 Id.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
67
WTO 規範，須視其使用之替代比較基準（即實質匯率或均衡匯率）是否為 WTO 規範所接受。依上一章所提美國軟木案 IV 之上訴機構針對 SCM 協定第 14 條前 言之解釋，會員可採用任何合理之方法計算補貼接受者所獲利益，只要該方法符 合第 14 條所訂之四項準則，且於相關會員之國內法律或施行之行政規章中規定 之，並對每一個別案件之適用皆為透明且經充分說明即可，因此本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案皆已明白規定其對於 補貼接受者於他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形所獲利益之計算方式，故該規 定本身應無違反 WTO 規範之虞。
至於他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調是否使使用該匯率之個人或企業「受有 利益」，依前一章所提加拿大民用航空器案之小組與上訴機構之解釋，必須視接 受者是否因該財務補助而獲得優於其原先在市場上所能取得之資源條件。因本文 於第一節中已判定 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法 案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形構成政府提供避險服務此種形式之 財務補助，因此須接續比較使用該匯率之個人或企業於政府提供該服務下是否較 政府未提供該服務時獲得利益或更具優勢地位。一般而言，涉及匯兌交易之個人 或企業會因匯率波動導致資產損失，在無政府提供規避匯率風險之服務時，個人 或企業會自行透過與交易對手擬訂協議將匯率鎖定在一固定匯率或一區間，或操 作衍生性金融商品等方法規避匯率風險，而該些方法或多或少皆須付出成本，因 此若該服務由政府提供，且個人或企業並不須針對該服務付出對價，即相對較政 府未提供該服務時更具有利益。此外，依照 SCM 協定第 14（d）條之規定，政 府提供……勞務……，除係以低於適當之報酬提供……者外，不應視之為授與利 益
221，由於 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所定 義之他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調皆為政府主動干預匯率市場所致，使用該匯
221 Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, Art. 14(d).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
68
率之個人或企業並不須向政府支付報酬，符合該條文所稱政府以低於適當之報酬 提供勞務，故可視為授與利益。因此本文認為，2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案 與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案將他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形適用於
「受有利益」之規定，並不違反 WTO 之規範。
第三節 特定性
有關「特定性」要件，2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監 督改革法案皆增訂一額外條件為：在進行補貼調查中，若發現該補貼同時提供於 不涉及出口之產業，不得僅以該事實認定該補貼非以出口實績為條件
222。該二法 案增訂此條件之原因為匯率乃任何人皆可自由取得，並不限於出口產業甚至任一 產業。由於 SCM 協定之條文內容並未闡明當一補貼同時涉及不涉及出口之產業 是否仍構成出口補貼，因此可否為此認定，實為公平貿易貨幣改革法案增訂之「具 特定性」要件本身可否符合 WTO 協定之關鍵。依美國外國銷售公司稅務處理案
（US — FSC），上訴機構認為美國雖依境外所得免稅法（ETI）給予境外公司免 除稅收之優惠，然其對境內涉及出口之公司亦同樣給予免課所得稅之做法，仍構 成對出口產業之補貼
223。是以本文認為，在 WTO 之協定下，並無認定當一補貼 同時涉及無關出口之產業時，即不構成出口補貼之意思，因此美國此二法案針對
「特定性」所增訂之條件其本身應不違反 WTO 之規範。
至於他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調構成政府提供避險服務之情形可否適 用於 WTO 關於補貼須具有特定性之規定，本文認為須視該國使匯率受到低估或 失調是否屬禁止性補貼。從 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監
222 H.R. 2378, 111th Cong. § 2(b); S. 1619, 112th Cong. § 11(c).
223 Article 21.5 Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted January 29 2002, ¶ 119.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
69
督改革法案針對「特定性」所增訂之額外條件可看出，此二法案已預知他國根本 性匯率低估或匯率失調構成政府提供避險服務之情形欲落入一般特定性（即法律 上或事實上僅針對特定之區域或企業等）之範疇有相當之困難，因匯率一經銀行 公告，任何人皆可使用該匯率並獲得避險利益，顯然並無「法律」限定取得該匯 率之資格，亦很難證明「事實上」僅有少數企業可取得該匯率，因此除非此種匯 率低估或失調情形構成禁止性補貼，始能符合「特定性」要件。而禁止性補貼又 可分為出口補貼與進口替代補貼，以下本文將分別分析 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改 革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所稱之他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調 情形是否有構成此兩種補貼之可能。
出口補貼又分為法律上或事實上以出口實績為條件所提供之補貼，所謂法律
上以出口實績為條件必須如上一章中加拿大汽車案之上訴機構所提在構成該補
貼措施之相關立法、規章或其他法律文書上明確表示須以出口實績為條件，或由
該法律文書仍可明顯推知該補貼措施是以出口為條件之情形存在，而事實上以出
口實績為條件者則必須有事實證明補貼之提供與實際或預期之出口或出口盈餘
有密切之聯結。如前段所述，匯率乃任何人皆可自由取得，故政府不太可能於法
律文書上規定須具有一定出口實績者始可使用該匯率，因此須繼續判定政府低估
匯率是否為事實上以出口實績為條件所為之措施，此時一國政府低估匯率之意圖
即相當重要。如前一章所述，小組於先前之案例認為只要與補貼之授予或維持有
關之事實皆應被考量在內，包含補貼本身之條款及在何種情況下授予或維持該補
貼。惟須注意的是，SCM 協定所規範者為補貼是以預期出口為條件而非提供補
貼之政府是否對出口有所期待，兩者不應互相混淆，亦即不能因政府提供一補貼
並期待其會有益於出口，即代表該補貼是以預期出口為條件。因此「匯率低估有
利於出口」之理論在此即不適用，因其等同政府壓低匯率並期待對出口有幫助，
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
70
此理由並不能理所當然地將匯率失調視為事實上以出口實績為條件之禁止性補 貼，關鍵在於必須找出一政府低估匯率是為意圖發展出口或提升出口盈餘之事實，
例如政府官員曾發表言論認為本幣貶值是為保護出口產業或本幣升值將導致出 口產業崩潰或瓦解，或具有公信力之數據顯示該國匯率波動與出口餘額有極高之 關聯性。Benjamin B. Caryl 於其文章中亦支持此種觀點，尤其最常遭受操控匯率 指控之中國其國家主席亦曾於第六屆中歐企業高峰會中公開要求歐美等國勿再 對人民幣升值施壓，否則將導致中國大部分出口企業破產
224，顯然中國認為維持 匯率低估對保護其出口產業是必要之手段，故就該事實即可認為中國低估匯率有 構成事實上以出口實績為條件之禁止性補貼之可能。儘管有論者認為中國低估匯 率亦有維持經濟穩定等作用，而不單只是為出口實績
225，然 1930 年關稅法第 1677
（5A） （B）條所使用之文字為「以出口實績為單一條件或數條件之一」，表示只 要出口實績為政府低估匯率之意圖之一即構成此條款之違反。故綜上所述，本文 認為一國之匯率失調是否構成禁止性出口補貼必須視該國將匯率維持低估之意 圖是否與出口實績間有密切關聯。
進口替代補貼亦有「法律上」與「事實上」之區別，同樣地，匯率乃任何人 皆可自由取得，政府不太可能以法律規定必須使用國內產品取代進口產品者始可 使用該匯率，因此本文以下僅分析 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣 匯率監督改革法案所稱之他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調情形是否可能構成「事 實上」之進口替代補貼。以一般之認知而言，匯率低估對該國之出口有利而對進 口不利，因此自美國進口之產品減少將使消費者轉向使用國內產品。然事實上該 情況很難完全成立，因受美國指控為根本性匯率低估或匯率失調之國家其匯率通 常僅相對美國或少數幾國受到低估，很難相對全世界其他國家之匯率皆受到低估，
224 Benjamin B. Caryl, supra note 213, at 212, n.124.
225 Matthew R. Leviton, Is It a Subsidy? An Evaluation of China's Currency Regime and Its Compliance with the WTO, 23-25 (2005).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
71
因此即使受指控之當事國其國內自美國進口之產品減少，該產品仍可能由其他國 家進口，不一定即會完全被國內產品取代。是以本文認為，2010 年公平貿易貨 幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失 調情形只有在相當特定之情況下始可能構成進口替代補貼。
第四節 小結與建議
總結本章所述，本文認為 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率 監督改革法案針對 1930 年關稅法有關補貼之定義所為之修正，其條文本身並不 違反 WTO 規範，且於適用上亦有可能使該二法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯 率失調之情形構成出口補貼或進口替代補貼，然前者之關鍵為受指控國之政府使 其匯率受到低估之意圖為何，後者則受限於進口品與國內產品之替代率計算。
惟值得注意者，以一國政府低估匯率之意圖判定其是否是以出口實績為條件，
將可能使該國政府產生鑽漏洞之心態，而使美國法案於適用上遭遇困難。蓋即使 該國符合美國 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所 稱之根本性匯率低估或匯率失調，只要該國不表明該措施是為保護出口產業或促 進出口成長，似乎即可能不構成「事實上以出口實績為條件」，則在此情況下美 國即無法將其認定為出口補貼。
上述情形似乎亦點出純粹以國際貿易法學之角度去討論一特定議題是否有 其侷限性，而應同時考量該議題對經濟所產生之影響。申言之，若恰好存在一情 況為一國之根本性匯率低估或匯率失調於國際貿易法學之分析上因無證據顯示 該國干預匯率之目的是為提升出口，而無法構成出口補貼，然於經濟學之分析上 卻顯示該國干預匯率有提供補貼之效果，此時兩者間之衝突即格外須受到重視。
又或者在探討是否構成進口替代補貼之情況，若缺乏經濟之分析而僅單憑法律文
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
72
字，亦相當難以準確判定是否存在進口替代效果。尤其就目前而言，WTO 之案
例多半未伴隨經濟學之佐證，極有可能發生事實上嚴重損害他國利益卻未遭受國
際貿易法制裁或者事實上並未損害他國利益卻遭受國際貿易法制裁之謬誤，而此
種謬誤對於美國本身或受美國指控為根本性匯率低估或匯率失調國而言，皆顯失
公平。因此本文建議美國或該些受指控之國家皆應提倡以經濟學之分析輔佐國際
貿易法學之裁決，始能獲致對雙方皆較客觀且公平之結論。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
73
第陸章 結論
匯率低估一向被視為以鄰為壑之政策，尤以美國而言，其主要貿易對手國──
中國長期受操縱匯率所詬病，造成美國貿易巨額赤字及國內嚴重之失業問題，然 國內現行之匯率法案──1988 年匯率與國際經濟政策協調法案卻無法有效防止他 國持續操縱匯率，美國國會遂積極提出改革法案以針對此問題擬定有效之制裁手 段。而所有改革法案中最終獲得國會多數支持者僅有 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革 法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案，此二法案之共通點為皆欲將他國匯率低 估或失調之情形視為可課徵平衡稅之補貼。
匯率低估究竟是否構成補貼之問題在國際貿易學及經濟學界早已爭執許久。
本文無論從 Staiger 及 Sykes 兩位學者使用的兩國兩財模型，或由過往 WTO 案例 之小組及上訴機構對於補貼定義之解釋為基礎，分析 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革 法案與 2011 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案所謂他國根本性匯率低估或匯率失調是否 構成補貼，結果皆未獲致絕對肯定之結論，亦即兩者皆認為僅有在相當特定之情 況下匯率低估始可能構成補貼。
惟值得注意者，本文於分析 2010 年公平貿易貨幣改革法案與 2011 年貨幣匯
率監督改革法案與 WTO 規範之合致性過程中發現，探討匯率低估是否構成禁止
性補貼此一問題必須倚靠經濟學之輔助。如前所述，本文無論由經濟學或國際貿
易法學之角度皆無法絕對肯認匯率低估一定構成禁止性補貼，則若恰好存在一情
況為單憑法律文字之分析認為某國之匯率低估情形構成禁止性補貼並受到美國
或 WTO 之制裁，然透過經濟學之研究卻獲致相反之結論，對於受到制裁之國家
而言顯失公平；反之，若實際上美國之貿易額確實因該國低估匯率而遭受巨大衝
擊，然法律分析卻不認為該國構成禁止性補貼而未受到制裁，則亦有違 WTO 爭
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
74
端解決機制保護會員利益之宗旨。因此本文期待未來美國或遭受美國指控為根本
性匯率低估或匯率失調之國家，皆能積極提倡以經濟學之分析輔佐國際貿易法學
之裁決，以有效維護自身利益。
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
75
參考文獻
一、中文文獻
1. 韓龍，人民幣匯率的國際法問題（簡體字版），法律出版社（中國，北京），
2010。
2. 羅昌發，國際貿易法，2 版，2010。
二、英文文獻
（一）期刊及其他資料
1. Ahn, Dukgeun, Is The Contemporary Chinese Exchange-Rate Regime
“WTO-Legal”? (2010), at http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/4867.
2. Bagwell, Kyle & Robert W. Staiger, An Economic Theory of GATT (June 1998).
3. Bergsten, C. Fred, Currency Misalignments and the US Economy, P
ETERSONI
NSTITUTE FORI
NTERNATIONALE
CONOMICS(2007), at
http://www.iie.com/publications/testimony/testimony.cfm?ResearchID=735.
4. Caryl, Benjamin B., Is China’s Currency Regime a Countervailable Subsidy? A
Legal Analysis under the World Trade Organization’s SCM Agreement, 45 J.W. T.
187 (2011).
5. H
ENNING, C. R
ANDALL, A
CCOUNTABILITY ANDO
VERSIGHT OFUS E
XCHANGER
ATEP
OLICY(2008).
6. Leviton, Matthew R., Is It a Subsidy? An Evaluation of China's Currency Regime
and Its Compliance with the WTO (2005).7. Mattoo, Aaditya & Arvind Subramanian, Currency Undervaluation and
Sovereign Wealth Funds: A New Role for the World Trade Organization, 32 THEW
ORLDE
CONOMY1135 (2009).
8. Siegel, Deborah E., Legal Aspects of the IMF/WTO Relationship: the Fund’s
Articles of Agreement and the WTO Agreements, 96 AM. J. I
NT’
LL. 561 (2002).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
76
9. Staiger, Robert W. & Alan O. Sykes, ‘Currency manipulation’ and world trade, 9 W
ORLDT
RADER
EVIEW583 (2010).
10. Staiger, Robert W. & Alan O. Sykes, Currency Manipulation and World Trade: a
Caution, in The US-SINOC
URRENCYD
ISPUTE: N
EWI
NSIGHTS FROME
CONOMICS, P
OLITICS ANDL
AW109 (Simon Evenett ed., 2010).
11. Sullivan, John V., How Our Laws Are Made, U.S. G
OVERNMENTP
RINTINGO
FFICE(2007), at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CDOC-110hdoc49/pdf/CDOC-110hdoc49.pdf.
12. U.S. D
EPARTMENT OF THET
REASURY, R
EPORT TO THEC
ONGRESS ONI
NTERNATIONALE
CONOMIC ANDE
XCHANGER
ATEP
OLICY(Apr. 1989- Nov.
2012).
（二）WTO 文件
1. Appellate Body Report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R and WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19 June 2000.2. Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian
Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999.3. Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain
Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August2001.
4. Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Anti-Dumping and
Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China, WT/DS379/AB/R,adopted 25 March 2011.
5. Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty
Determination with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada,WT/DS257/AB/R, adopted 17 February 2004.
6. Article 21.5 Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping
Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/AB/RW,adopted 24 April 2003.
7. Article 21.5 Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
77
Sales Corporations”, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted 29 January 2002.
8. Article 21.5 Appellate Body Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign
Sales Corporations, WT/DS108/AB/RW, adopted January 29 2002.9. Article 21.5 Panel Report, United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales
Corporations”, WT/DS108/RW, adopted 29 January 2002.10. Panel Report, Australia – Automotive Leather II, ¶ 9.56; Panel Report, Canada –
Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/R, adopted 20August 1999.
11. Panel Report, Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather, WT/DS126/R, adopted 16 June 1999.12. Panel Report, Brazil – Export Financing Program for Aircraft, WT/DS46/R, adopted 20 August 1999.
13. Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic
Random Access Memory Chips from Korea, WT/DS299/R, adopted 3 August2005.
14. Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 April 2005.
15. Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with
respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS257/R, adopted 17February 2004.
16. Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies, WT/DS194/R, adopted 23 August 2001.
17. Panel Report, United States – Preliminary Determinations with Respect to
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS236/R, adopted 1 November2002.
18. WTO, Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance, The Relationship between
Exchange Rates and International Trade: a Review of Economic Literature,WT/WGTDF/W/57, 27 September 2011.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
78
附錄一 1988 年匯率與國際經濟政策協調法案
SUBCHAPTER I—EXCHANGE RATES AND INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY COORDINATION
§ 5301. Short title
This subchapter may be cited as the ‘‘Exchange Rates and International Economic Policy Coordination Act of 1988’’.
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3001, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1372.) REFERENCES IN TEXT
This subchapter, referred to in text, was in the original ‘‘this subtitle’’, meaning subtitle A (§§
3001–3006) of title III of Pub. L. 100–418, which enacted this subchapter and amended section 225a of Title 12, Banks and Banking. For complete classification of subtitle A to the Code, see Tables.
§ 5302. Findings
The Congress finds that—
(1) the macroeconomic policies, including the exchange rate policies, of the leading industrialized nations require improved coordination and are not consistent with long-term economic growth and financial stability;
(2) currency values have a major role in determining the patterns of production and trade in the world economy;
(3) the rise in the value of the dollar in the early 1980’s contributed substantially to our current trade deficit;
(4) exchange rates among major trading nations have become increasingly volatile and a pattern of exchange rates has at times developed which contribute to substantial and persistent imbalances in the flow of goods and services between nations, imposing serious strains on the world trading system and frustrating both business and government planning;
(5) capital flows between nations have become very large compared to trade flows, respond at times quickly and dramatically to policy and economic changes, and, for these reasons, contribute significantly to uncertainty in financial markets, the volatility of exchange rates, and the development of exchange rates which produce imbalances in the flow of goods and services between nations;
(6) policy initiatives by some major trading nations that manipulate the value of their currencies in relation to the United States dollar to gain competitive advantage continue to create serious competitive problems for United States industries;
(7) a more stable exchange rate for the dollar at a level consistent with a more appropriate and sustainable balance in the United States current account should be a major focus of
‧
(8) procedures for improving the coordination of macroeconomic policy need to be strengthened considerably; and
(9) under appropriate circumstances, intervention by the United States in foreign exchange markets as part of a coordinated international strategic intervention effort could produce more orderly adjustment of foreign exchange markets and, in combination with necessary macroeconomic policy changes, assist adjustment toward a more appropriate and sustainable balance in current accounts.
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3002, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1372.)
§ 5303. Statement of policy
It is the policy of the United States that—
(1) the United States and the other major industrialized countries should take steps to continue the process of coordinating monetary, fiscal, and structural policies initiated in the Plaza Agreement of September 1985;
(2) the goal of the United States in international economic negotiations should be to achieve macroeconomic policies and exchange rates consistent with more appropriate and sustainable balances in trade and capital flows and to foster price stability in conjunction with economic growth;
(3) the United States, in close coordination with the other major industrialized countries should, where appropriate, participate in international currency markets with the objective of producing more orderly adjustment of foreign exchange markets and, in combination with necessary macroeconomic policy changes, assisting adjustment toward a more appropriate and sustainable balance in current accounts; and
(4) the accountability of the President for the impact of economic policies and exchange rates on trade competitiveness should be increased.
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3003, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1373.)
§ 5304. International negotiations on exchange rate and economic policies (a) Multilateral negotiations
The President shall seek to confer and negotiate with other countries—
(1) to achieve—
(A) better coordination of macroeconomic policies of the major industrialized nations;
and
(B) more appropriate and sustainable levels of trade and current account balances, and exchange rates of the dollar and other currencies consistent with such balances; and (2) to develop a program for improving existing mechanisms for coordination and improving the functioning of the exchange rate system to provide for long-term exchange
‧
rate stability consistent with more appropriate and sustainable current account balances.
(b) Bilateral negotiations
The Secretary of the Treasury shall analyze on an annual basis the exchange rate policies of foreign countries, in consultation with the International Monetary Fund, and consider whether countries manipulate the rate of exchange between their currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing effective balance of payments adjustments or gaining unfair competitive advantage in international trade. If the Secretary considers that such manipulation is occurring with respect to countries that (1) have material global current account surpluses; and (2) have significant bilateral trade surpluses with the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury shall take action to initiate negotiations with such foreign countries on an expedited basis, in the International Monetary Fund or bilaterally, for the purpose of ensuring that such countries regularly and promptly adjust the rate of exchange between their currencies and the United States dollar to permit effective balance of payments adjustments and to eliminate the unfair advantage. The Secretary shall not be required to initiate negotiations in cases where such negotiations would have a serious detrimental impact on vital national economic and security interests; in such cases, the Secretary shall inform the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate and of the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of Representatives of his determination.
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3004, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1373.)
CHANGE OF NAME
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Banking and Financial Services of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub.
L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Banking and Financial Services of House of Representatives abolished and replaced by Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred from Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
NEGOTIATIONS ON CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES
Section 1124 of Pub. L. 100–418 provided that:
‘‘(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—
‘‘(1) the benefit of trade concessions can be adversely affected by misalignments in currency, and
‘‘(2) misalignments in currency caused by government policies intended to maintain an unfair trade advantage tend to nullify and impair trade concessions.
‘‘(b) NEGOTIATIONS.—Whenever, in the course of negotiating a trade agreement under this subtitle [subtitle A (§§ 1101 to 1125) of title I of Pub. L. 100–418, see Tables for classification], the President
‧
is advised by the Secretary of the Treasury that a foreign country that is a party to the negotiations satisfies the criteria for initiating bilateral currency negotiations listed in section 3004(b) of this Act [22 U.S.C. 5304(b)], the Secretary of the Treasury shall take action to initiate bilateral currency negotiations on an expedited basis with such foreign country.’’
§ 5305. Reporting requirements (a) Reports required
In furtherance of the purpose of this chapter, the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board, shall submit to the Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate, on or before October 15 of each year, a written report on international economic policy, including exchange rate policy. The Secretary shall provide a written update of developments six months after the initial report. In addition, the Secretary shall appear, if requested, before both committees to provide testimony on these reports.
(b) Contents of report
Each report submitted under subsection (a) of this section shall contain—
(1) an analysis of currency market developments and the relationship between the United States dollar and the currencies of our major trade competitors;
(2) an evaluation of the factors in the United States and other economies that underlie conditions in the currency markets, including developments in bilateral trade and capital flows;
(3) a description of currency intervention or other actions undertaken to adjust the actual exchange rate of the dollar;
(4) an assessment of the impact of the exchange rate of the United States dollar on—
(A) the ability of the United States to maintain a more appropriate and sustainable balance in its current account and merchandise trade account;
(B) production, employment, and noninflationary growth in the United States;
(C) the international competitive performance of United States industries and the external indebtedness of the United States;
(5) recommendations for any changes necessary in United States economic policy to attain a more appropriate and sustainable balance in the current account;
(6) the results of negotiations conducted pursuant to section 5304 of this title;
(7) key issues in United States policies arising from the most recent consultation requested by the International Monetary Fund under article IV of the Fund’s Articles of Agreement; and
(8) a report on the size and composition of international capital flows, and the factors contributing to such flows, including, where possible, an assessment of the impact of such flows on exchange rates and trade flows.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
82
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3005(a), (b), Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1374.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original ‘‘this title’’, meaning title III of Pub. L.
100–418, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1372, which enacted this chapter and section 262q of this title, amended sections 225a, 635, 635i–3, 1843, and 3912, of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and enacted provisions set out as notes under section 262q of this title and sections 635, 635i–3, and 1841 of Title 12. For complete classification of title III to the Code, see Tables.
CHANGE OF NAME
Committee on Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs of House of Representatives treated as referring to Committee on Banking and Financial Services of House of Representatives by section 1(a) of Pub.
L. 104–14, set out as a note preceding section 21 of Title 2, The Congress. Committee on Banking and Financial Services of House of Representatives abolished and replaced by Committee on Financial Services of House of Representatives, and jurisdiction over matters relating to securities and exchanges and insurance generally transferred from Committee on Energy and Commerce of House of Representatives by House Resolution No. 5, One Hundred Seventh Congress, Jan. 3, 2001.
§ 5306. Definitions
As used in this subchapter:
(1) Secretary
The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(2) Board
The term ‘‘Board’’ means the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
(Pub. L. 100–418, title III, § 3006, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1375.)
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
83
附錄二 2003 年舒默法案
S 1586 IS
108TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION
S. 1586
To authorize appropriate action if the negotiations with the People's Republic of China regarding China's undervalued currency and currency manipulation are not successful.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES S
EPTEMBER5, 2003
Mr. SCHUMER (for himself, Mr. BUNNING, Mrs. DOLE, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. GRAHAM of South Carolina, and Mr. BAYH) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
A BILL
To authorize appropriate action if the negotiations with the People's Republic of China regarding China's undervalued currency and currency manipulation are not successful.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The currency of the People's Republic of China, the yuan, is artificially pegged at a level significantly below its market value. Economists estimate the yuan to be undervalued by between 15 percent and 40 percent or an average of 27.5 percent.
(2) The undervaluation of the yuan makes exports from the People's Republic of China less expensive for foreign consumers and makes foreign products more expensive for Chinese consumers. The effective result is a significant subsidization of China's exports and a virtual tariff on foreign imports, leading the People's Republic of China to enjoy significant trade surpluses with its international trading partners. The United States trade deficit with China has widened from $57,000,000,000 in 1998 to $103,000,000,000 in 2002, resulting in an aggregate deficit with China of over $396,000,000,000 for that 5-year period.
‧
(3) China's undervalued currency and the United States trade deficit with the People's Republic of China is contributing to significant United States job losses and harming United States businesses. In particular the United States manufacturing sector has lost over 2,600,000 jobs since March 2001, which accounts for approximately 90 percent of the total United States job losses.
(4) The Government of the People's Republic of China has intervened in the foreign exchange markets to hold the value of the yuan within an artificial trading range. China's foreign reserves are estimated to be over $345,000,000,000 as of June 2003, and have increased at a level higher than that of any other country.
(5) China's undervalued currency and the Chinese Government's intervention in the value of its currency violates the spirit and letter of the world trading system of which the People's Republic of China is now a member.
(6) The Government of the People's Republic of China has failed to promptly address concerns raised by the United States and the international community regarding the value of its currency.
(7) Article XXI of the GATT 1994 (as defined in section 2(1)(B) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(1)(B)) allows a member of the World Trade Organization to take any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests. Protecting the United States manufacturing sector is essential to the interests of the United States.
SEC. 2. NEGOTIATIONS AND CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE CURRENCY VALUATION POLICY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding the provisions of title I of Public Law 106-286 (19 U.S.C. 2431 note), on and after the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, unless a certification described in subsection (b) has been made to Congress, in addition to any other duty, there shall be imposed a rate of duty of 27.5 percent ad valorem on any article that is the growth, product, or manufacture of the People's Republic of China, imported directly or indirectly into the United States.
(b) CERTIFICATION.—The certification described in this subsection means a certification by the President to Congress that the People's Republic of China is no longer manipulating the rate of exchange between its currency and the United States dollar for purposes of preventing an effective balance of payments and gaining an unfair competitive advantage in international trade. The certification shall also include a determination that the currency of the People's Republic of China is valued in accordance with accepted market-based trading policies.
(c) NEGOTIATIONS.—Beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the United States Trade Representative, shall begin negotiations with the People's Republic of China to ensure that the People's Republic of China adopts a process that leads to a market-based system of currency valuation.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
85
附錄三 2007 年貨幣匯率監督改革法案
S 1607 RS
Calendar No. 293
110TH CONGRESS1ST SESSION
S. 1607
To provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES J
UNE13, 2007
Mr. BAUCUS (for himself, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. HATCH, Mrs.
CLINTON, Mr. OBAMA, Mr. KERRY, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. SALAZAR, and Mr.
ROCKEFELLER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance
J
ULY31, 2007
Reported by Mr. BAUCUS, with an amendment
A BILL
To provide for identification of misaligned currency, require action to correct the misalignment, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2007'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY.—The term `administering authority' means the authority referred to in section 771(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(1)).
(2) AGREEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT.—The term `Agreement on Government Procurement' means the agreement referred to in section 101(d)(17) of the
‧
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(17)).
(3) COUNTRY.—The term `country' means a foreign country, dependent territory, or possession of a foreign country, and may include an association of 2 or more foreign countries, dependent territories, or possessions of countries into a customs union outside the United States.
(4) EXPORTING COUNTRY.—The term `exporting country' means the country in which the subject merchandise is produced or manufactured.
(5) FUNDAMENTAL MISALIGNMENT.—The term `fundamental misalignment' means a significant and sustained undervaluation of the prevailing real effective exchange rate, adjusted for cyclical and transitory factors, from its medium-term equilibrium level.
(6) FUNDAMENTALLY MISALIGNED CURRENCY.—The term `fundamentally misaligned currency' means a foreign currency that is in fundamental misalignment.
(7) REAL EFFECTIVE EXCHANGE RATE.—The term `real effective exchange rate' means a weighted average of bilateral exchange rates, expressed in price-adjusted terms.
(8) SECRETARY.—The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(9) STERILIZATION.—The term `sterilization' means domestic monetary operations taken to neutralize the monetary impact of increases in reserves associated with intervention in the currency exchange market.
(10) SUBJECT MERCHANDISE.—The term `subject merchandise' means the merchandise subject to an antidumping investigation, review, suspension agreement, or order referred to in section 771(25) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(25)).
(11) WTO AGREEMENT.—The term `WTO Agreement' means the agreement referred to in section 2(9) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(9)).
SEC. 3. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY AND CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES.
(a) REPORTS REQUIRED.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than March 15 and September 15 of each calendar year, the Secretary, after consulting with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Advisory Committee on International Exchange Rate Policy, shall submit to Congress, a written report on international monetary policy and currency exchange rates.
(2) CONSULTATIONS.—On or before March 30 and September 30 of each calendar year, the Secretary shall appear, if requested, before the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives to provide testimony on the reports submitted pursuant to paragraph (1).
(b) CONTENT OF REPORTS.—Each report submitted under subsection (a) shall contain—
(1) an analysis of currency market developments and the relationship between the United
‧
States dollar and the currencies of major economies and trading partners of the United States;
(2) a review of the economic and monetary policies of major economies and trading
(2) a review of the economic and monetary policies of major economies and trading