中文翻译请点击这里

HERE WE GO AGAIN

This blog has been analyzing for more than four years legal disputes over whether the U.S. Department of Commerce (“Commerce”) may apply countervailing duties (“CVDs”) to imports from non-market economies (“NMEs”), particularly China.  Our first comments were posted October 21, 2009 (“U.S. Court Decision Ought To Change Chinese Thinking “Revised and Expanded”).  Since then, we have been following closely the “GPX” line of cases.  The latest development, a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“the Federal Circuit”) on March 18, 2014, arose as a direct result of GPX, but in a different case, Guangdong Wireking Housewares & Hardware Co., Ltd. v. United States (“Wireking”).

SUMMARIZING THE PERTINENT HISTORY

The history of the GPX line of cases is set out by Elliot J. Feldman and John Burke in Testing the Limits Of Trade Law Rationality: The GPX Case and Subsidies in Non-Market Economies which appeared in the American University Law Review in May 2013.  The story began with Commerce’s 2006 decision to apply CVDs to China, notwithstanding its contrary administrative practice of more than 20 years.  After several years of administrative and judicial proceedings, the Federal Circuit in December 2011 found that Commerce’s application of CVDs to China, while Commerce still treated China as an NME, was contrary to the law as it existed at that time.  The U.S. Congress reacted by enacting new legislation explicitly authorizing Commerce to impose CVDs on imports from NMEs, retroactive to 2006.  The new law also instructed Commerce to reduce the antidumping duties applied to imports from NMEs when antidumping and CVD duties imposed on those goods otherwise would be double-counted. However, the double-counting provision was to apply only to investigations started after March 13, 2012.

GPX International Tire challenged the constitutionality of the new law, contending it (1) retroactively changed the outcome of the GPX case after the Federal Circuit had issued its December 2011 decision, in violation of the ex post facto clause of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution (holding parties liable to a law that did not exist when they committed the alleged offense); and (2) created a special rule applicable only to GPX and to a few other cases in which Commerce may impose both CVD and antidumping duties on the same merchandise from an NME without attempting to avoid double-counting, thereby violating the Constitution’s  equal protection clause (which guarantees all similarly situated parties the same treatment under the law). 

The Federal Circuit dismissed the ex post facto argument in the GPX case because the Court had not yet issued its mandate when Congress enacted the new law.  (The court’s decision does not become final until it issues a “mandate.”  Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “[t]he court’s mandate must issue 7 days after the time to file a petition for rehearing expires, or 7 days after entry of an order denying a timely petition for panel rehearing, petition for rehearing en banc, or motion for stay of mandate, whichever is later.”  Because the U.S. Government petitioned for a rehearing in the GPX case, the Federal Circuit had not yet issued its mandate in that case when the new law came into effect on March 13, 2012.) However, the Federal Circuit concluded that there might be merit in the second Constitutional argument, concerning the equal protection clause, and remanded the case, on May 9, 2012, to the U.S. Court of International Trade (“CIT”).  The Federal Circuit instructed the CIT to make “a determination of the constitutionality of the new legislation and for other appropriate proceedings.” 

The CIT found, in its GPX VII decision of January 7, 2013, that the new law is constitutional, but remanded the case to Commerce to address certain calculation issues.  Commerce recalculated the CVD rate and issued its redetermination on remand on April 16, 2013.  The CIT then upheld Commerce’s remand determination in its GPX VIII decision, issued on October 30, 2013. 

GPX and several other parties appealed to the Federal Circuit on January 2, 2014, filing a brief on March 18, 2014 that challenged the portion of the new law that imposes CVDs on a retroactive basis.  They argued that this retroactivity violates the due process and ex post facto clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

THE IMPERTINENT OUTCOME

Wireking, which involves certain kitchen appliance shelving and racks imported from China, is a case similarly situated with a limited number of other cases caught between the retroactive application of the authorization to apply CVDs to NMEs, and the prospective application of the instruction to cure double-counting.  Guandong Wireking, like GPX, challenged the constitutionality of applying the new law on a retroactive basis, claiming that such retroactivity violates the ex post facto, equal protection and due process clauses (assuring that persons cannot be deprived of property without proper notice and an opportunity to be heard) of the U.S. Constitution. 

On March 12, 2013, the CIT, in Wireking, concluded that, even if the new law were retroactive, it did not violate the ex post facto, due process or equal protection clauses.  Unlike in GPX, there were no other issues to be resolved in Wireking.  Therefore, the constitutionality of the new law was ripe for appeal to the Federal Circuit in Wireking, ahead of GPX.  Guangdong Wireking appealed the ex post facto issue to the Federal Circuit, but abandoned the other constitutional claims.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Guangdong Wireking that the new law is retroactive.  It also reaffirmed that its December 2011 decision in GPX was a correct interpretation of the countervailing duty law as it existed at that time and, consequently, the legislation Congress passed in 2012 represented a change in the law that Congress applied retroactively.

Having decided that the new law is, as Guangdong Wireking complained, retroactive, the Court then needed to decide whether such retroactivity was punitive, or merely remedial.  The retroactive application of criminal statutes and other laws that are punitive is prohibited by the ex post facto clause, but laws that are not punitive may be applied retroactively without violating the U.S. Constitution.

The Federal Circuit found the new law not to be punitive because: (1) Congress’ purpose was to modify the civil regulatory scheme, not to impose punishment; (2) the new law does not stray from the remedial nature of trade duties generally; and (3) “Wireking has not shown, let alone by the clearest proof, that the absence of a retrospective double counting provision negates the law’s predominantly remedial impact.”  Having found that the new law is not punitive, the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that the new law applying CVDs to NMEs on a retroactive basis does not violate the U.S. Constitution.

THERE WILL BE MORE

There will be at least one more chapter in the GPX story.  GPX itself is now back at the Federal Circuit challenging the constitutionality of legislation that GPX claims violates the ex post facto and due process provisions of the Constitution. 

The Federal Circuit’s decision in Wireking should doom GPX’s ex post facto claim, but Wireking left unresolved whether the new law violates the due process clause.  The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “[n]o person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  GPX argues that the legislation authorizing CVDs on imports from NMEs is a new tax being applied retroactively without notice to the affected importers and with harsh and oppressive effects deprived it of property without due process of law.  The CIT disagreed with this argument in its GPX VII decision, finding that GPX failed to meet its burden to show that Congress did not have a rational basis for passing the new legislation or that GPX had a vested interest in not having the CVD law applied to its imports.  The Federal Circuit should resolve this issue later this year or early next year in a decision that would become GPX IX.

Were the Federal Circuit to find the law constitutional under the due process clause, the decision may conclude the GPX story.  CVD orders on goods from NMEs would continue to apply, regardless whether investigations began or orders were imposed before or after March 13, 2012.  Were the Federal Circuit to find the law unconstitutional, however, there would be at least one more chapter to write, as GPX and other companies affected by the retroactive application of the new law seek to have those CVD orders revoked based on the Federal Circuit’s decision. 

Even were the Federal Circuit to overturn the CIT and agree with GPX that the new law violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, that decision would apply only to the GPX case and the few other cases in which Commerce applied CVDs to imports from NMEs between November 20, 2006, and March 13, 2012. The due process argument, which is the only question still to be resolved by the Federal Circuit, is limited to the duties imposed as a result of CVD investigations initiated between the two effective dates.  The authority to impose CVDs on cases initiated since March 13, 2012 will remain secure and final under U.S. law.

对本案的关注

本博客过去四年多里一直关注就美国商务部是否可向非市场经济体出口品征收反补贴税而展开的一系列案件。2009年10月21日我们刊登了第一篇分析文章《美国法院裁决改变中国思维》。此后，我们持续跟踪分析GPX公司系列案件。这一领域的最新进展是美国联邦巡回区上诉法院于2014年3月18日在另一相关案件中做出关键裁决。

追溯历史

本所律师费德门博士和Burke律师在2013年5月出版的《美国大学法学研究》上发表了《探索贸易法逻辑限制：GPX案件和非市场经济体补助》一文。案件起源于美国商务部于2006年改变20多年来的惯例，决定向中国实施反补贴法。经过多年行政以及法律行动，上诉法院于2011年12月裁定美国商务部在视中国为非市场经济体的同时对中国产品征收反补贴税不合法。美国国会随即通过法案，授权美国商务部向非市场经济体出口至美国的产品征收反补贴税，并可追溯执行至2006年。同时，这一法案要求美商务部在同时向非市场经济体出口征收反补贴、反倾销税（双反税率）时，削减反倾销税，否则将被视为重复征税。但是，重复征税条款只适用于2012年3月13日后展开的双反调查。

GPX国际轮胎公司就这一法律是否符合美国宪法提出质疑：（1）美国联邦巡回区上诉法院已经于2011年12月做出裁决，但这一法案追溯至2006年，违反了宪法第一章第9款追溯（ex post facto）条款（法律尚不存在，涉案方却需要面对法律指控、承担法律责任）；（2）该法案设置了只适用于GPX等个别案件的特殊条款，即在2012年3月13日前展开调查的案件中向非市场经济体出口征收双反税率时无需避免双重征税。因而违背了宪法中一视同仁给予保护的条款（这一条款旨在确保处于同等状态下的各方受到法律公平对待）。

联邦上诉法院驳回了ex post facto条款指控，因为当国会通过该法案时，上诉庭尚未发出责令——mandate。（法院裁决只有在发布责令后才正式生效，详见上诉庭法规第41(b)条。美国政府在裁决发布后７天内就要求重新审理GPX案，因此上诉法院在法律生效日——2013年３月１３日尚未下达责令。）但是上诉法院认为GPX的第二项指控可能合理，因此于５月９日向美国国际贸易法庭（CIT）发布责令。上诉法院责令美国国际贸易法庭就新法案以及相关案件是否符合美国宪法重新审判。

CIT于2013年1月7日在GPX VIII 案中裁定认为新法案符合美国宪法，但同时责令美国商务部重新计算某些产品的惩罚性关税税率。美国商务部审核了反补贴税率，并于同年4月16日发布修正后的裁决。CIT在2013年10月30日发布的裁定中支持商务部修正后的裁决。

GPX及其他多家企业于2014年1月2日向联邦巡回区上诉法院上诉，其3月18日递交的诉状指出新法案中追溯式征收反补贴税违反宪法。上诉方认为这种追溯式征税违背了美国宪法中的追溯条款。

不恰当的结果

广东伟经日用五金制品有限公司（Wireking）生产销售厨房柜架，和GPX一样面临被征收反补贴税、但却不能免受双重征税困扰的困境。因此，广东伟经（Wireking）也针对新法案追溯征税是否合法展开上诉工作，声称这违反了宪法追溯征税、同等保护以及正当程序（未经正当通知和申诉，不可剥夺任何法人财产）条款。

CIT于2013年3月12日就广东伟经案发布裁决，裁定即使新法案追溯适用于法律生效前的案件，这并不代表这一法案违背了宪法追溯征税、同等保护以及正当程序条款。和GPX案件不同，广东伟经案中不包括其他待而未决的问题。因此，该案已经时机成熟，可以上诉至美国联邦巡回区上诉法院。广东伟经选择仅针对追溯征税进行上诉。

上诉法院同意广东伟经认为2012年法案是追溯征税这一观点。其次，该法院也认同该院2011年12月的GPX案裁决正确解释了当时存在的反补贴法。因此2012年法案中包含的、向自2006年以来出口的产品征收反补贴税这一条款代表了法律变革。

虽然法院认同广东伟经提出的2012年法案是追溯征税这一观点，法院需要进一步裁定这种追溯征税是惩罚性、还是补偿性。宪法追溯条款明令禁止追溯性使用刑事条例或其他惩罚性法规，但是追溯性使用非惩罚性法规并不违背美国宪法。

上诉法院认为这一法案并非惩罚性，因为（1）国会的目的是为了修改民事法律体系，并非为了惩罚某人；（2）整体而言，新法律并没有改变惩罚性关税的补偿性质；（3）“广东伟经并未出示证据证明缺乏避免追溯性双重征税条例就彻底改变了该法案的补偿性质”。

绵绵无绝期

至少GPX案还有续章。目前GPX再次上诉，要求联邦上诉法院裁定2012年贸易法案违背了宪法追溯征税和正当程序条款。

上诉法院在广东伟经（Wireking）一案中就追溯征税做出的裁决使得GPX案仅剩下2012年贸易法案是否违背了宪法第五修正案正当程序条款这一争议。GPX认为新法案授权向非市场经济体出口的商品征收反补贴税是追溯征收新的惩罚性关税，但却未能提前通知受影响的进口商，是未经正当程序、残酷剥夺他们的财产。CIT在GPX VII裁定中否定了这一观点，指出GPX未能提供证据证明美国国会通过这一法案时缺乏逻辑基础，也未能证明其涉案利益。上诉法院将会在今年或明年就此案做出裁决，即案例法GPX IX.

如果上诉法院认为2012年贸易法没有违背正当程序条款，那么这一裁定将为一系列GPX案画上句号。无论反补贴调查开始日期或是反补贴令的发布日期是在2012年3月13日之前或是之后，针对非市场经济体产品发布的反补贴令都将有效。如果上诉法院认为2012年贸易法案违背了宪法，那么这一系列案件至少将再续写一章——GPX及其他受法案影响企业将会要求美国商务部根据上诉法院裁决废止反补贴令。

即使上诉法院同意GPX的观点——新贸易法案违背了正当程序条款，并驳回CIT裁决，上诉法院的裁决也仅适用于GPX等在2006年11月20日至2012年3月13日期间面临美国商务部反补贴调查的企业。正当程序条款是这一系列案件中唯一悬而未决的问题，但这一条款仅适用于在这期间开始的反补贴调查。2012年3月13日后展开的反补贴调查享受新法律保护，不受这些案件影响。

翻译：朱晶