國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程雙語(yǔ)(第2版)

國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程（雙語(yǔ)（第2版）ChapterOneCaseStudyforaBriefIntroductiontoInternationalTrade國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例PartOneSelectedAnalysisofCase第一部分案例精選Case1US-IndiaWoolFabricDisputeCaseDescription:TheUnitedStatesimposedinterimprotectionmeasures,fromApril18th,1995,torestrictimportsofwoolfabricformen’sandwomen’sshirtsfromIndia.Beforethemeasures’implementation,theUnitedStatesandIndiahaddiscussedthepossiblyseriousdamagetoU.S.domesticenterprisesresultingfromtheimportofwoolfabricformen’sandwomen'sshirts.Thetwosidesdidnotreachasatisfactorysolution.SoIndiasubmittedthecasetotheWorldTradeOrganizationforsettlement.Question:WilltheUnitedStatesremovetheinterimprotectionmeasures?1案例美—印羊毛織物摩擦案案情介紹:1995418毛制品—男女式襯衣可能解決辦法，印度就把案件提交給世貿(mào)組織解決。問(wèn)題:美國(guó)會(huì)撤銷過(guò)渡性保護(hù)措施嗎,Answer:Inexaminingthefacts,theexpertsgroupfoundthattheUnitedStatesdidnotreviewalltheeconomicvariableslistedinArticleVIoftheAgreementonTextilesandClothing,whendeterminingwhetherimportincreasewilldamageitsdomesticenterprises.Whendeterminingthecausallinkbetweendetrimentofdomesticenterprisesandtheincreasedimports,allthesevariablesmustbetakenintoaccount.TheUnitedStatesalsodidnotanalyzewhetherthedamagewasduetochangesincustomerpreferencesortechnicalupgradeasrequiredbytheprovision.Thegroup國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)concludedthattheinterimprotectionmeasuresimplementedbytheUnitedStateswerecontrarytotheAgreementonTextilesandClothingobligations.TheUnitedStatesfollowedtheresolutionsoftheexpertsgroupandremovedtheinterimprotectionmeasures.TheAgreementonTextilesandClothingrequiresdiscriminatoryrestrictionsonimportsoftextilesandclothingshouldberemovedgraduallyinthe10-yearperiod,thecompletingdateisJanuary1st,2005.Althoughtheprotocolaimstopromotetheliftingoftheserestrictions,itallowsimportingcountriestoadopttransitionalmeasuresofprotectiontorestrictimportsifimportsofcertaintypesoftextileproductsbringa“seriousriskofharm,orconstitutearealthreat”todomesticfirmsproducingthesameproducts.ArticleVIoftheagreementlistedsomeeconomicfactors(forexample,production,productivity,capacityutilization,inventories,marketshare,exports,wages,employment,domesticmarketprices,profitsandinvestmentchanges).Injudgingwhethertheincreaseofimportswillcauseanydamage,thesefactorsmustbetakenintoaccount.Theagreementfurtherprovidesthatifseriousdamageoractualthreatiscausedbyotherfactors,suchastechnicalupdatesorcustomerpreferenceschanges,protectionmeasuresshallnotbeenforceable.回答:時(shí)，美國(guó)6國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)和增那樣審查對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)企業(yè)的損害是不是顧客喜好變化或技術(shù)更新的結(jié)果。因而，專家組得出結(jié)論，美國(guó)實(shí)施臨時(shí)性保護(hù)措施，違背了《紡織品與服裝協(xié)議》規(guī)定的義務(wù)。美國(guó)執(zhí)行了專家組的決議，撤銷了過(guò)渡性保護(hù)措施?！都徔椘放c服裝協(xié)議》要求對(duì)進(jìn)口紡織品和服裝進(jìn)行歧視性限制的國(guó)家在10年期限內(nèi)逐200511限制，但是如果構(gòu)成了實(shí)際威6諸多經(jīng)濟(jì)因素(例如，產(chǎn)量、生產(chǎn)效率、產(chǎn)能的利用、庫(kù)存、市場(chǎng)份額、出口、工資、就業(yè)、國(guó)內(nèi)市場(chǎng)價(jià)格、利潤(rùn)和投資方面的變化)，在決定增加進(jìn)口是否會(huì)引起損害時(shí)，這些因素都必須考慮進(jìn)去。協(xié)議還進(jìn)一步規(guī)定，如果嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或?qū)嶋H威脅是由其他因素引起的，例如，技術(shù)更新或顧客喜好的變化，此類保護(hù)措施不得強(qiáng)行實(shí)施。Case2WhetherornotGATThasbeenViolatedCaseDescription:CountryAnotifiesCountryBthatCountryBisforbiddentoexportmuttontoCountryA.Thereasonisthatmuttonhormonecontentexceedstheallowedamount,whichwillaffectpeople’shealth.Afterinvestigation,CountryBfindsoutthatthemuttonhormonecontentisassameamountasthatinCountryA,andCountryBalsogetstheinformationthatCountryAisunceasinglyimportingthesimilarqualitymuttonfromCountryC.TheCountryBbelievesthatCountryAhasviolatedtheGATTprinciplesandtheirbenefits第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例havebeenviolated.CountryArefutesthattheyadoptthemeasureswhichdonotviolatetheGATTprinciples,butbelongtothegeneralexceptiontobepermitted.Questions:1(DoyouthinkCountryAhasviolatedtheGATTprinciples?Whatkindofprinciples?Why?2(DoyouthinkCountryA’srebuttalisright?Why?2GATT案例是否違反了規(guī)則案情介紹:ABB民的身體健康。B，AB蒙含量是一樣的。還發(fā)現(xiàn)，A國(guó)還不斷從C國(guó)進(jìn)口同樣質(zhì)量的羊肉。B國(guó)認(rèn)為A國(guó)違反了GATT原則，他們的利益受到了侵害。A國(guó)反駁，他們采取的措施是不違反DATT原則的，是屬于一般例外所允許的。問(wèn)題:1(A國(guó)的做法是否違反了GATT的原則,違反了哪條原則,為什么,2(A國(guó)反駁的理由對(duì)不對(duì),為什么,Answer:1(CountryA’sprocedurehasviolatedthemost-favorednationtreatmentprincipleofGATT.Themost-favorednationtreatmentprinciplemeans:Amembergivesthepreferentialbenefitsincustomsdutyorotheraspectstoanothermember’sanyimportednativeproducts,andmustgiveunconditionallytothesameimportedproductsoriginatinginothermembers.Theessenceofthemost-favorednationtreatmentprinciplerequeststheWTOmembersnottotakethediscriminationtreatmenttothosesameproductsimportedfromorexportedtodifferentmembercountriesintheimplementationpreferentialbenefitorthelimitaspect.Thisisthemultilateraltraderulecornerstoneandalsothemultilateraltradingsystemlivelihoodlegalbase.2(CountryA’srebuttalisnotright.Aboutgeneralexception,theitem1ofArticle20inGATTstipulates:Thenecessarymeasuresthatthecontractingpartyadoptsinordertosafeguardthepeople’shealthandthesafetyofplantandanimallifebelongtothegeneralexception.CountryAnotonlyallowstosellthemuttonthathasthesamequalitywiththemuttonfromCountryB,butalsoimportsthesamequalitymuttonfromCountryC.Soitcannotusethegeneralexceptionclause.回答:1(A國(guó)的做法違反了GATT的最惠國(guó)待遇原則。最惠國(guó)待遇原則含義是:一成員就任何一項(xiàng)原產(chǎn)于另一成員的進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品給予另一成員在關(guān)稅或其他方面的優(yōu)惠，必須立即無(wú)條件地給予原產(chǎn)于其他成員相同或類似的進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品。國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)最惠國(guó)待遇原則的本質(zhì)是要求WTO成員不得對(duì)來(lái)自或出口到不同成員國(guó)的相同或類似的進(jìn)出口產(chǎn)品在實(shí)施優(yōu)惠或限制方面實(shí)行歧視待遇，它是多邊貿(mào)易規(guī)則的基石，也是多邊貿(mào)易體制賴以生存的法律基礎(chǔ)。2(A國(guó)反駁的理由不對(duì)。關(guān)于一般例外，GATT201命健康所必需的措施，屬于一般例外。A國(guó)一方面在自己國(guó)內(nèi)允許銷售同樣質(zhì)量的羊肉，另一方面又進(jìn)口C國(guó)同樣質(zhì)量的羊肉。所以，不可以引用一般例外條款。Case3MisunderstandingCausedbyCulturalDifferencesCaseDescription:InNovember1998,theGermanyDaimler-Benz’sacquisitionofoneofthethreeU.S.automakers,ChryslerCorporation,wasthoughtbytheworldmediaasthe“marriageofheaven”.Daimler-BenzAG,whichisoneofthestrongestcompaniesofGermany,isknowntotheworldasthebrandownerof“Mercedes”.ChrysleristhebiggestamongthethreeU.S.automakersinmakingprofitsandisthemostefficientcompany.ItwasbelievedthatthiswasthemostpowerfulcombinedstrengthacrosstheAtlanticanditwouldbearidetobeaninvinciblegiantattheworldautomarket.Whowouldhavethought,however,thatthis“hopefulandpowerfulmarriage”didnotseemtobehappy.Mergersandacquisitionsfailedtoachievethedesiredgoalofthecompany.By2001,thecompany’slossamountedto2billionU.S.dollars.Itsstockpriceswerewaydown,andlaidoffitsstaff.Thecompany’srunninghasbeeninaverydifficultsituation.Question:Whydidgoodprospectsturnouttobeafailure?3案例因文化差異而引發(fā)的誤解案情介紹:199811司，被全球輿論界譽(yù)為“天作之合”。戴姆勒-奔馳公司是德國(guó)實(shí)力最強(qiáng)的企業(yè)，是揚(yáng)名世界的“梅賽德斯”品牌的所有者。克萊斯勒則是美國(guó)三大汽車制造商中盈利能力最強(qiáng)、效率最高的公司。人們認(rèn)為，這宗跨越大西洋的強(qiáng)強(qiáng)聯(lián)合定會(huì)成就一個(gè)馳騁世界汽車市場(chǎng)，所向無(wú)敵的巨無(wú)霸。然而誰(shuí)會(huì)想到，這樁“婚姻”似乎并不美滿，并購(gòu)后并沒(méi)有實(shí)現(xiàn)公司預(yù)期的目標(biāo)。到2001年，公司的虧損額達(dá)到20億美元，股價(jià)也一路下滑，并且裁減員工，公司的發(fā)展一直都很艱難。問(wèn)題:為什么美好預(yù)期結(jié)果卻失敗了,Answer:第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例TheexpertsbelievethatculturaldifferencesbetweenthetwocompaniesatdifferentsidesoftheAtlanticcompaniesaremaincauseswhythemergerturnsouttobeafailure.Daimler-BenzCEOSchremppfailedtorealizethatthereweremanydifferencesinorganizationalstructure,paysystem,orthecorporateculture.SohewouldadoptthemanagementmethodsusuallyusedinGermanytorunthenewlymergedcorporation.Inmanagementsystem,mostofthemembersintheboardareGermans.Buthewouldsaytothemediathatthemergerisamergerofequals,whichmadetheChryslerU.S.employeesnotknowwhattodo.Furthermore,SchremppfiredChryslerCEOwhowasaM&AIntegrationManagerduringthattimeshortlyafterthemerger.AllthisledChrysleremployeestogeneratethefeelingofhostility.Asaresult,alotofgoodAmericandesignersandseniormanagerslefttoFord,GeneralMotorsorotherautocompanies.Inthisway,itisnothardtounderstandwhymergeroncetobeknownasthe“themergeroftheperfectmatch”atlastturnsouttobeafailure.回答:的沖突是勒-奔馳公司的CEO施倫普一開(kāi)始沒(méi)有意識(shí)到兩家企業(yè)無(wú)論在組織結(jié)構(gòu)、薪酬制度，還是企業(yè)文化上都有很大差異，他卻采用德國(guó)的完全控制方式把克萊斯勒當(dāng)成一個(gè)部門來(lái)看待。在公司管理制度上，董事會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)成員都是以德國(guó)人為主。但是，他卻在媒體上說(shuō):“這是一次平等的合并?！边@使克萊斯勒的美國(guó)員工無(wú)所適從。再加上，施倫普在企業(yè)合并不久就解雇了作為并購(gòu)整合經(jīng)理的克萊斯勒總裁，使克萊斯勒員工產(chǎn)生敵對(duì)情緒，許多優(yōu)秀的美國(guó)設(shè)計(jì)師、高級(jí)管理人員紛紛離職投奔福特、通用汽車或其他汽車公司。這樣，也就不難理解為什么這次一開(kāi)始被稱為“天作之合”的并購(gòu)最后如此失敗。Case4WhySpanishBurnedChineseShoesCaseDescription:Elche,atowninSpainbecamethefocusoftheglobalonSeptember14th,2004,becausethevalueofnearly10,000,000dollars“madeinChina”shoeshadbeenburnedbyalocalillegalgroup.ThiswasthefirstseriousviolationofChineselegalrightsontradeinthehistoryofSpain.Question:WhydidtheincidenthappentoChineseshoes?4案例為什么西班牙人要燒毀中國(guó)鞋案情介紹:20049141000造”鞋被當(dāng)?shù)夭环瘓F(tuán)燒毀而變成了全球關(guān)注的焦點(diǎn)。這是西班牙有史以來(lái)第一起嚴(yán)重侵犯華商合法權(quán)益、野蠻排斥華人的暴力事件。問(wèn)題:為什么會(huì)發(fā)生此次火燒中國(guó)鞋的事件呢,國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)Answer:Ononehand,Chineseshoesmanufacturersdonotcomplywithlocalbusinesshours,theyalsoopendoorsonSundayandholiday,particularlyforlonghourseachdayandsometimesevenunloadingworkisdoneatmidnight.Suchactsarenotonlycontrarytothelocalbusinesstraditionsbutalsonotallowedbyitslaw.Ontheotherhand,theChinesemanufacturersarelackofpublicawarenessandsocialresponsibility.Theycontactwiththelocalsocialintegration,butunwillingtoparticipateinlocalcommunityactivitiesandreturnforthelocalcommunity.Theylooklikelivingin“acountryofislands”.WenzhouwhichistheearliestforerunnerofChinesemarketeconomyreliesonflexiblemeasuresanddosenotobservetherulesofwalkingafineline,buttakesboldadventureofthenaturaldisposition.ThishasbeendeeplyimplantedinthesoulofWenzhouandevenbecomesasocialcultureinChina.ThatisquitedifferenttoSpainwheretheSpanishareaccustomedtorules.DespitetheextraordinaryabilityofmanufacturerstodefeattheircounterpartsinSpain,troublescausedbyconflictsofdifferentcultureswoulddefeatthemselves.回答:特別是每天長(zhǎng)時(shí)間開(kāi)門營(yíng)業(yè)，有時(shí)候甚至在午夜裝卸貨物。這種行為不僅不符合當(dāng)?shù)氐膫鹘y(tǒng)貿(mào)易習(xí)慣，而且也違反了當(dāng)?shù)氐姆?。另一方面，中?guó)制造商的公共意識(shí)和社會(huì)責(zé)任感淡薄。他們接觸了當(dāng)?shù)厣鐣?huì)，但不愿在當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)參與活動(dòng)，以及回饋當(dāng)?shù)厣鐓^(qū)。他們就像生活在一個(gè)“獨(dú)立王國(guó)”。溫州作為中國(guó)市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)最早的先行者，依賴于靈活方式，不遵守當(dāng)?shù)匦幸?guī)，采取的是大膽冒險(xiǎn)的做法。而這一點(diǎn)已經(jīng)深深根植于溫州商人的靈魂中，甚至已成為一種中國(guó)社會(huì)文化。而西班牙完全不是這樣，西班牙人習(xí)慣以規(guī)則為活動(dòng)基礎(chǔ)。盡管生產(chǎn)商們有非凡能力擊敗西班牙的同行，但是文化之間的沖突所造成的麻煩同樣能夠帶來(lái)不可小視的麻煩。Case5AnimalProtectionCaseCaseDescription:Seaturtleswererankedasthehighestlevelprotectedendangeredrareanimalsin“ConventiononInternationalTradeEndangeredSpeciesofWildFaunaandFlora”in1970s.Inthepast,seaturtlesmanslaughterduringshrimptrawlingwasthenumber1threattothesurvivaloftherareanimal.Inordertoprotectrareseaturtles,theU.S.Congresspassed“EndangeredSpeciesAct”in1973,allkindsofpossession,processingandhurtbymistakenlyshrimptrawlformarineturtleswerelistedasillegal.In1989,theUnitedStatesaddedonemorearticleintheAct—Article609inordertoencourageothercountriestouseTED—turtleescapedevice.Thisdevicecanhelptoenhancetheshrimpcatch,andalsotoenablethestrayedturtlestoescapefromtheshrimpnets(escaperateof第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例97%).ThemeaningofthearticlewastopromotetheuseofTEDinothercountriestoimprovethedegreeofprotectionofseaturtles.Incertainseaareas,ifacountry’sshrimpnetwasnotequippedwiththeTED,oracountryfailedtoreachthestandardsoftheUnitedStatestoprotectseaturtles,theUnitedStateswouldbantheimportsofwildshrimpandshrimpproductscapturedbythatcountry.In1996,theUnitedStatesextendedthisprohibitiontoallcountries,whichtriggeredtradedisputes.Morethan20countriescomplaintswithWTO,askingtheWTOorasthethirdpartytointervene.ComplainingpartybelievedthattheU.S.legislationtoprotectseaturtlesdeservedrecognitionandsupport,butiftheUnitedStatesprohibitedimportsofshrimpproductscapturedfromcountrieswithoutsimilarlegislation,itconstitutedaunilateralactiontoapplydomesticlawglobally,whichendangeredthemultilateralfreetradeprinciplesandinjuredothercountries.Question:Whatisyouropinion?5案例動(dòng)物保護(hù)案例案情介紹:2070別保護(hù)的瀕危珍稀動(dòng)物。以往，海洋拖網(wǎng)捕蝦作業(yè)中對(duì)海龜?shù)恼`殺是這一珍稀動(dòng)物生存的最大威脅。為了保護(hù)珍稀的海龜，美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)在1973年通過(guò)的《瀕危物種法案》中將各種占有、加工和為海洋拖網(wǎng)捕蝦所誤害的海龜視為非法。1989年，美國(guó)在這一法案的修正中又增加了推動(dòng)其他國(guó)家使用既能夠提升海蝦捕獲量，又能使誤入捕蝦網(wǎng)的海龜?shù)靡蕴由?逃生率97%)的海龜排離器(TED)的條款(即609條款)。該條款的含義是，推動(dòng)其他國(guó)家使用TED提高海龜?shù)谋Ｗo(hù)程度。在一定的海域內(nèi)，如果某國(guó)的捕蝦網(wǎng)上沒(méi)有使用海龜排離器，或沒(méi)有達(dá)到美國(guó)保護(hù)海龜?shù)臉?biāo)準(zhǔn)，美國(guó)將禁止從該國(guó)進(jìn)口捕獲的野生蝦及蝦類制品。1996年，美國(guó)又將這一禁止擴(kuò)大到所有國(guó)家，由此引發(fā)了貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)議，20多個(gè)國(guó)家向世貿(mào)支持，但若其國(guó)內(nèi)法律域外適用的單邊行為，危害了多邊自由貿(mào)易的原則，并給其他國(guó)家造成了損失。問(wèn)題:你的觀點(diǎn)是什么,Answer:TheexpertcommitteeestablishedbytheTradeDisputeSettlementBodyrejectedthereportandsupportingevidencefrommanyoftheworldanimalprotectionandenvironmentorganizations,anddecidedthattheUnitedStateslostthecase,anditsArticle609violatedtheprincipleoffreetradeintheworld.TheU.S.wasnotallowedtorefertotheGATTexceptionarticle“effectiveprotectionofexhaustiblenaturalresources”anditsArticle609mustbemodified.TheU.S.didnotaccepttherulingandlodgedanappeal.InOctober1998,theWTO’sAppellateBodyrejectedtheexpertcommittee’sopinion,statingthatthecommitteeshouldnotrefusethereportandevidencefromother國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)internationalorganizations,andtheUnitedStatescouldrefertothe“exhaustiblenaturalresources”principle,butintheimplementationofitsarticle,thereweresomeunreasonablearbitrarydifferentialtreatmentwhichwascontrarytothespiritofGATT.Thekeyofthiscaseiswhetherit’slegalfortheUnitedStatestoadopttradesanctionstostrengthenenvironmentalprotection.Anotherquestioniswhetherenvironmentprotectionhasbecomeanotherformoftradebarriers.Nowadays,peopleallknowthatthemaintenanceoftheworldtradeliberalizationisanimportanttaskofWTO,thepolicyobjectivesofWTOaretoadvocatefreetrade,andopposememberstatestotakeunilateraltraderestrictivemeasurestoachieveotherpolicyobjectives.Inordertoachieveitspolicyobjectives,WTOcoversmanyareas,andwiththeeconomicdevelopment,theareastouchedbyWTOwillbemoreextensive.Environmentandtradeissueisoneofthenewtopics.回答:貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)議解決機(jī)構(gòu)成立的專家組拒絕了世界許多動(dòng)物保護(hù)與環(huán)保組織提供的佐證意見(jiàn)(協(xié)助報(bào)告)，判定美國(guó)敗訴，其609條款違背了世界自由貿(mào)易原則，不能援引GATT中“有效保護(hù)可耗竭天然資源”的例外條款，必須予以修改。經(jīng)美國(guó)上訴，1998年10月，世貿(mào)組織報(bào)告，美國(guó)援于武斷，違背了GATT的精神。這個(gè)案例的關(guān)鍵是，美國(guó)采用貿(mào)易交叉制裁來(lái)強(qiáng)化環(huán)境保護(hù)是否合法，而問(wèn)題的另一方界貿(mào)易的自由采取單方面的貿(mào)易限制措施來(lái)達(dá)到貿(mào)易之外的政策目標(biāo)。為了達(dá)到其政策目標(biāo)，WTO制約著許多領(lǐng)域，并隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展向更多的領(lǐng)域擴(kuò)展，環(huán)境與貿(mào)易問(wèn)題就是其中的一個(gè)新議題。Case6SouthKoreaLiquorTaxCaseCaseDescription:AccordingtotheKorealiquortaxlaw,SouthKorealevied35%taxonthedomesticsoju,whiletaxonotherimportsdistilledspirits(whiskey,vodka,rum,etc.)was100%.EUandU.S.believedthatSouthKoreaviolatedArticle2inSectionIIIofGATT1947—thenationaltreatmentprovisionsofthedomestictax.Thekeyissueinthiscasewastodeterminewhetherthewhiskey,vodkaandotherdistilledspiritswerethesameproductsasthetraditionalKoreansoju.AccordingtoArticle2inSectionIIIofGATT,onlywhenthetaxfortheimportedproductishigherthanthesamedomesticproducts,isitconsideredaviolationofthenationaltreatmentprinciple.Fordifferentproducts,ofcourse,differenttaxistakenforgranted.Inpreparationstage,theSouthKoreaattorneyconsultedtheJapaneseexperts(Japanhadasimilarcasebefore)whatkindofpersonswassuitabletobetheexpertsofthiscase.Japangaveaverypracticalsuggestion:Sincethecasewasaboutalcohol,theexpertsshouldbepeoplewhodrinkalcohol.Theycouldtellthedifferencebetweenwhiskeyandsoju.Inaddition,Koreabelievedthatin第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例ordertoprovethesojuandwhiskeywerenotthesameproducts,thepricedifferenceshouldbeidentified.Whiskeywas12timesexpensivethansoju.Inaccordancewiththegeneralrulesofanti-trustlaw,sincethepricegapbetweenthetwoproductswassohuge,theywerenotcompetitiveandreplaceable(andthusnotthesameproducts).SouthKoreabelievedthatiftherewasanexpertwithanti-trustbackgroundinthegroup,thisexpertwouldbeabletoprovethatthetwoproductswerenotidentical.SouthKoreaalsopreparedmaterialsfromallaspects.Forexample,theyfoundaveryconvincingevidencefromapublicationbyEU—HowtoExportFoodtoSouthKorea.Thisbookexplainedthesignificantdifferencesbetweensojuandwhiskeyandotherliquor.Inaddition,theSouthKoreapaidattentiontoeverydetail.Forexample,inordertoovercomelanguagedifficultiesinhearing,theycarefullypreparedwrittenmaterialsandansweredallquestionsaccordingtothewrittenmaterials.TheSouthKorealostthecase.Question:Whatcanwelearnfromthiscase?6案例韓國(guó)酒稅案案情介紹:根據(jù)韓國(guó)酒稅法，韓國(guó)對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)燒酒征收35%的稅，而其他進(jìn)口蒸餾酒(威士忌、伏特加、100%GATT19473款，即國(guó)內(nèi)稅酒是否是相同GATT32況下才可以援引此款。如果不是相同產(chǎn)品，征收不同的稅是理所當(dāng)然的。在準(zhǔn)備中，韓國(guó)律師特意向日本咨詢(日本曾有過(guò)類似的案件)什么樣的人適合作為該的是酒類，專為，為了證明燒酒和威士忌等不是相同產(chǎn)品，可以從價(jià)格差價(jià)上入手。威士忌比燒酒要貴倍。按照反壟斷法的一般規(guī)則，存在如此巨大價(jià)格差距的兩種產(chǎn)品是不構(gòu)成競(jìng)爭(zhēng)性和替代性的(進(jìn)而不是助于從相同產(chǎn)一本當(dāng)時(shí)歐盟酒和威士忌等言的困難，認(rèn)真準(zhǔn)備了書(shū)面材料，所有問(wèn)題的回答均按書(shū)面材料進(jìn)行。但是，最終還是韓國(guó)敗訴。問(wèn)題:從該案例中我們可以吸取哪些教訓(xùn),Answer:EventhoughSouthKoreaaccumulatedagreatdealofpracticalexperienceswhichhelpedthemtohandleotherinternationaltradedisputes,unfortunately,itlostthecase.Chineseenterprises國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)experiencedanumberofbilateraldisputes,however,ourprofessionalexperienceandabilityanenotenough.Fromthiscasewelearnthatlearninghowtoutilizetradedisputesettlementmechanismapriorityforus.回答:幫助，但很遺憾，最終還是韓國(guó)敗訴。中國(guó)企業(yè)遭受過(guò)許多貿(mào)易糾紛，但是，我們實(shí)戰(zhàn)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)和能力還是不夠的。該案例給我們的啟示是學(xué)會(huì)使用貿(mào)易爭(zhēng)端解決機(jī)制是當(dāng)務(wù)之急。Case7KodakvsFujiCaseDescription:Thecasehappenedunderextremeconditions—theUruguayRoundnegotiation.Japanpromisedtoreduceitsimporttariffofcolorandblack-whitefilmtozero,meaningthatforeigncompetitors,suchastheU.S.KodakcanenterintotheJapanesemarketwithoutanybarriers.FujiandKodakaretheworld’stwodominantplayersinthefilmindustry.InJapanesemarket,Kodakhadbeenlookingforopportunitiestobeattheopponentallthetime.Inthemarketaccessissues,it’sdifficultforKodaktofindfaultwithJapan.SohowdidKodaktouseWTOrulestofindabreakthroughtodefeatopponents?KodakutilizedtheArticle1inSection23ofGATT.TheUnitedStatesclaimedthatJapandidnotviolateWTOobligationsofaparticularprovisionandtheJapaneseachievedtariffreductioncommitmentinpreviousroundsofnegotiations.However,theJapaneseGovernmentadoptedmeasuresonfilmsalesanddistribution.Accordingly,theUnitedStatesrightsandbenefitsgeneratedfromKennedyRound,TokyoRoundandtheUruguayRoundabouttariffconcessionshadbeenimpairedordeprived.ThisiscontrarytoArticle1inSection23ofGATT.Specifically,theUnitedStateshasaccusedJapanforrestrictingdistribution,encouragingandpromotingtheJapanesefilmmarketsystem’stransitionfromvariety-branddepartmentstore-sellingtoasingle-trade-markfranchisingsystem,whichrestrictedthesalesofimportedfilmsandhamperedKodakmarketdevelopmentcapacity.TheUnitedStateslostthecase.Question:WhydidtheUnitedStateslosethecase?7案例柯達(dá)對(duì)富士案情介紹:故事發(fā)生在一個(gè)極端的背景條件下，烏拉圭回合。日本對(duì)彩色和黑白膠卷的進(jìn)口關(guān)稅承諾降到零，即外國(guó)產(chǎn)品，如美國(guó)柯達(dá)進(jìn)入日本市場(chǎng)已經(jīng)不存在任何障礙。富士和柯達(dá)是世界上膠卷業(yè)的兩個(gè)霸主，在日本市場(chǎng)上，柯達(dá)每時(shí)每刻都在尋找機(jī)會(huì)擊敗對(duì)手。在市場(chǎng)準(zhǔn)入問(wèn)題上，柯達(dá)很難挑剔日本。那么如何利用WTO規(guī)則尋找打敗對(duì)手的突破點(diǎn)第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例GATT231WTO義務(wù)條款，售的措施，卻來(lái)的好處正在喪失或減損，這一點(diǎn)違背了GATT第23條1款。具體地說(shuō)，美國(guó)指責(zé)的日本限制流通的措施，鼓勵(lì)并促進(jìn)了日本膠卷市場(chǎng)銷售體制從多種商標(biāo)的大商場(chǎng)出售轉(zhuǎn)變到單一商標(biāo)的專賣銷售，從而制約了進(jìn)口膠卷的銷售能力，妨礙了美國(guó)在該案中敗訴。問(wèn)題:為什么美國(guó)會(huì)在該案中敗訴,Answer:Thiscaseillustratesthatevenwithzerotariff,companiesstillcanusetherules,likeKodakdid,togainmarketshare,or,likeFuji,toresisttheimpact.WTOPanelbelievedthattodeterminewhetheraparticularsituationwouldbepredicableduringthenegotiationsprocess,theeasiestwaywastojudgewhetherthesituationhademergedbeforeorafterthenegotiation.Japanhadpresentedsufficientmaterialstoprovethatbeforethenegotiationprocess,themonopolymarketingsystemhadalreadyexisted.回答:這一案例說(shuō)明，即使在零關(guān)稅下，企業(yè)依然需要像柯達(dá)那樣運(yùn)用規(guī)則爭(zhēng)取市場(chǎng)，也能夠像富士那樣運(yùn)用規(guī)則抵制沖擊。WTO否可以預(yù)見(jiàn)，充分的材料證明了在談判過(guò)程中，專賣銷售體制已經(jīng)存在。Case8HowtoDealwiththeDisputesaccordingto“TheUnitedNationsConventiononContractsfortheInternationalSaleofGoods”CaseDescription:CountryAbusinessmanwillberesoldprimaryproductsimportedfromothercountries,tocountryBbusinessmenoffer,countryBbusinessmenwiredtoacceptanoffer,requiredtoprovidecertificateoforiginatthesametime.Twoweekslater,CountryAbusinessmanfromcountriesbusinessmanreceivedBL/C,ispreparingtoshipthegoodsasstipulatedintheL/C,informedthecommodityinspectionauthorities,becauseoftheirgoodsforthegoods,cannotissueAcertificateoforigin.ThecountryBbusinessman,pleasecanceltheL/Cbycablerequiredtoprovidethecertificateoforiginintermsofrejected,socontroversial.CountryAbusinessmanisputforward,it’sneveragreedtoprovidethecertificateoforiginrequirement,nosuchobligationaccordancewiththelaw,whilecountryBhavetheobligationtoadheretothecountryAbusinessman.Question:TestaccordingtotheUNconventionontheinternationalsaleofgoods(bothcountriesare2第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例8案例根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷售合同公約》解決貿(mào)易糾紛案案情介紹:AB，B受發(fā)盤，同時(shí)要求提供產(chǎn)地證。兩周后，AB按信用證規(guī)定發(fā)運(yùn)貨物，獲商檢機(jī)構(gòu)通知，因該貨非本國(guó)產(chǎn)品，不能簽發(fā)產(chǎn)地證。經(jīng)電請(qǐng)國(guó)商人取消信用證中要求提供產(chǎn)地證的條款，遭到拒絕，于是引起爭(zhēng)議。A國(guó)商人提出，其對(duì)提供產(chǎn)地證的BA問(wèn)題:試根據(jù)《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷售合同公約》(雙方所在國(guó)均為締約國(guó))的規(guī)定，對(duì)此案作出裁決。Answer:Acontractordefaultshallberesponsibleforcompensation.thecountryAandcountryBarepartiestotheUnitedNationsconventionontheinternationalsaleofgoods,becausethetwosidesdidnotruleoutandintheapplicationoftheconvention,thecaseshallbehandledaccordingtoprovisionsoftheconvention.AbusinessuponreceiptofB,toacceptitsoffertomakeconditionsattached,nottomentionanydissent,accepteffectively,Amerchantshallhavetheobligationtoprovidethecertificateoforigin.opentheL/CBcontractorhasacceptedaccordingtoitsconditions,andafterAdealertoacceptL/Cwithoutcomplaint,andreadytoperformthedeliveryofthel/c,duetothecommodityinspectionauthoritiesafternothis,thishasnothingtodowithBtrader,constituteAdefault.回答:A商違約，應(yīng)當(dāng)負(fù)責(zé)賠償。AB國(guó)，由于雙方對(duì)《公約》的適用未作排除和保留，本案應(yīng)按《公約》規(guī)定辦理。AB效，A商應(yīng)負(fù)有提供產(chǎn)地證的義務(wù)。B，A備履行BAPartTwoCaseExercise第二部分案例思考題1(Onceaveryhighlevelofvice-presidentfromtheUnitedStateswenttodosomebusinessinBahrainfrequently,acountrythatcanallowalcoholtocomeinorgooutofthestate.Laterhewas國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)senttotheneighboringcountry—Qatartocarryoutanundatedlong-termnegotiation.Basedonthefaithofsuccess,heputtwobottlesofbrandyinhisbackpackandwasreadytocelebratethesuccesswithhiscolleaguesaftertheceremony.Butasanunexpectedresult,hewasnotonlydrivenawayimmediatelybyamandevotionaltothecustomintheMuslimcountry,butalsomadethecompanyanunpopularenterprise.Inaddition,thecompanygainedtheserioustreatmentthatthevice-presidentofthecorporationwasneverabletoreturntoQatar,sayingnothingaboutmakingthetrade.Question:Pleaseillustratethereasonwhythevice-presidentfailed.美國(guó)曾經(jīng)有一位很高級(jí)別的副總裁經(jīng)常出入巴林—一個(gè)準(zhǔn)許酒精進(jìn)出的國(guó)家。他后來(lái)兩瓶白蘭地在國(guó)家里的一個(gè)還被這個(gè)國(guó)家指令:永不能重返該國(guó)。問(wèn)題:請(qǐng)說(shuō)明這位副總裁失敗的原因。2(OnceaNorthernCaliforniamakerboughtatextilemachinerycompanywhichwasnearBirminghamtoopentheEuropeanmarket.Notlongaftertakingoverthecompany,theU.S.managerwantedtocorrectaproductionproblemabouttheteatimeintheafternoon.InUK,eachpersoncouldhaveahalf-hourforafternoontea,andatthattimeeachworkercoulddrinksomegrapewinethatwascontainedbylarge-ouncecontaineraccordingtotheirowntaste.Butthemanagementproposedtocuttheteatimeto10minutes.TheUnionsagreedtotrybutfailed.AMondaymorningafterthoseworkersmaderiotsandwindowswerebroken.Theyclamoredwhentheadministrativestaffarrivedatthefactory.Atlastthepolicewerecalledtomaintainorder.Thenthecompanyinstalledanautomaticstallteamachineimmediately.Workersjusttoputcupsonthewatervalvesunderthestandardandthenamountofdrinkwillbepoured.Thissmallcontainerreplacedthefive-ouncecup.AlltherulesweresetupaccordingtothewilloftheAmericans.Theirproposalwasoriginallytorequestemployeestomakegreatercontributiontothecorporation.Buttheresultwas:thecompanywentworseandworse.Finally,thecompanyendedinfailure.Question:Pleaseillustratethereasonofthefailure.一個(gè)北加利福尼亞廠商收購(gòu)一個(gè)英國(guó)伯明翰市附近的一所紡織機(jī)器公司，希望借此能打題，就是下午會(huì)按他獨(dú)特的的休息。工會(huì)行政管理人員動(dòng)販茶機(jī)。工五盎司的杯。對(duì)工作作出更第一章國(guó)際貿(mào)易簡(jiǎn)介案例大貢獻(xiàn)。但結(jié)果卻是:工廠此后的生產(chǎn)再也沒(méi)有回復(fù)到以前，最后，該公司以倒閉告終。問(wèn)題:請(qǐng)說(shuō)明公司失敗的原因。3(AChineseCompanyAofferedtoanAustralianCompanyB,sellingthemabatchofsomegoods.Besidessomenecessarytransactiontermsandconditionsweresetoutclearlyintheoffer,theofferalsoindicatedthatthepaymentwasmadebysightL/CandthedeliverywastobemadewithintwomonthsafterreceiptoftheL/C.CompanyBrepliedintheirletterthattheycouldaccepttheoffer,butaskedforimmediatedelivery.However,CompanyAdidn’tgiveanyanswertothisletter.ThenpresentlyCompanyBopenedtheletterofcreditatsight,andindicated“immediateshipment”.Duringthattimethemarketingpriceforthegoodswasrisinggreatly.SoCompanyArefusedtodeliverthegoodsandwithdrewtheL/Cimmediately.Question:IsitrightforCompanyAtodolikethat?Isthereanybusinessrelationshipbetweenthetwocompanies?AB交易條件外，發(fā)盤表明，以即期信用證付款，收到信用證后2個(gè)月內(nèi)交貨。B商在發(fā)盤有效期內(nèi)回電，AB證，并注明“立即裝運(yùn)”。當(dāng)時(shí)該貨物的國(guó)際市場(chǎng)價(jià)格大幅上漲，A公司拒絕交貨，并立即退回信用證。問(wèn)題:A雙方之間是否存在合同關(guān)系,4(ANorwegiancustomerboughtabatchofplastichairpinsfromaChinesemanufacturer,butrequiredthatthetrademarkofthesegoodsshouldadoptthebuyer’strademark,andinthepackaging“MadeinChina”wouldnotbemarked.Questions:CantheChinesemanufactureraccepttheconditions?CantheChinesemanufacturersellthegoodsdirectlytoothercustomersinthesameplaceoncethebuyerrefusestotakedeliveryofthegoods?Why?上不得注問(wèn)題:中國(guó)廠商可否接受客戶的條件,客戶,為什么,5(Thereisanorigindeliverycontract,whichsells10tonsoffreshlychee,worthofUSD150,000.ThecontractstipulatedthatthebuyermustsendrefrigeratedcontainertruckstothefarmstopickupthegoodswithintheperiodofMay25th~31st.Despiterepeatedurgingoftheseller國(guó)際貿(mào)易實(shí)務(wù)案例教程(雙語(yǔ))(第2版)partytosendtrucks,thesellerdidnotgetanyanswerfromthebuyeruntilJune7th.Inthiscase,thesellerhadtosellthegoodstoanotherbuyeronJune8thandgotthepaymentofonlyUSD100,000.Question:Inthiscircumstance,whatproblemdoesthesellerorthebuyerhaveseparately?有一產(chǎn)地交貨合同，出售新鮮荔枝10噸，總值150000美元。合同規(guī)定買方必須在5月25日至31日之間派冷藏集裝箱車到產(chǎn)地接運(yùn)貨物。賣方雖多次催促對(duì)方派車，但直至6月768新買主，價(jià)款只有100000美元。問(wèn)題:在此情況下，賣方與買方各有什么問(wèn)題,6(Americanagriculturalproducers,aswellasthe