| 摘要: |
| “不利可得事实”是美国商务部对华反补贴调查经常使用的一种证据规则，此种规则
通过借口中国政府“未能尽全力配合调查、提供资料”，从而在缺乏确凿证据、且实
体规则不利于美国的情况下推定补贴成立。在2012年的两起新能源反补贴案中，美国
就曾借用此规则，先后规避“公共机构认定”、“电力、土地补贴”、“出口信贷补
贴”等问题当中多项实体规则。由于WTO缺乏相应规则、WTO裁决并无案外效力，
我国在WTO体制下难以获得有效的救济；同时，由于美国司法审查的消极性，在美国
法院诉讼同样无济于事。此问题的解决，一方面依赖世界各国对“不利可得事实”滥
用的危害有清醒认识并共同改进规则；另一方面，具体到新能源问题，应推动国家间
谈判与磋商，以期通过合作而非对抗达到共赢。 |
| 关键词: 不利可得事实 反补贴 新能源 法律规避 贸易保护 |
| DOI： |
|
| 基金项目:吉林省社科基金项目“吉林省汽车产业国际化的法律风险防范”（2014BS14）、吉林大学种子基金项目“补
贴与反补贴法律新动向的国际政治解读”（2012BS035）。 |
|
| The Abuse of “Adverse Facts Available” in US CVD Investigations againstChina: A Case Study of Two Clean Energy CVD Rulings |
| ZHAO Hai-le |
|
| Abstract: |
| “Adverse facts available” is a shift of burden of proof adopted by the US Department of Commerce
and is liberally used in CVD investigations against China. By the excuse of “China’s failure to cooperate to the
best of its capacity”, positive findings of subsidy could be established in spite of the lack of affirmative evidence
and unfavorable substantive rules. In two CVD investigations against China’s clean energy products in 2012,
“adverse facts available” was adopted in order to circumvent the substantive rules of public body determinations,
electricity and land subsidies and export credit subsidies. It’s difficult to get effective remedies under DSB because
there’s no detailed rule governing the use of “AFA”, and that WTO dispute settlement decisions only apply at a
case-by-case level. Moreover, owing to the passive attitude of US courts, domestic redress in the US also proved
fruitless. The solution of this problem, on the one hand, lies in the global cooperation of countries who have come to
a mutual understanding about the harms of AFA proliferation, and on the other hand, lies in the clean energy sector
itself. The abuse of AFA stems from the escalation of trade conflicts. Consequently, if possible, a solution to this
scramble by negotiation is more effective than an outright trade war. |
| Key words: Adverse Facts Available CVD clean energy circumvention protectionism |
