The comparative analysis of Price Undertakings under the U.S., the EU, and Taiwan’s Anti-dumping law

目前，有3件反傾銷案採行價格具結措施，包括原產於中國之毛巾，鞋靴及冷軋不銹鋼等涉案產品。財政部於鞋靴反傾銷案接受82家具結廠商，每季海關人員須監督該等具結廠商履行具結情形，爰該具結措施已造成龐大之行政負擔。本文檢視台灣價格具結實體程序及實務做法後，發現部分做法似不符合反傾銷協定或國際慣例。 歐盟於1981年至2001年時期，經常使用具結措施，但自2006年以來，使用具結措施之頻率急劇下降。美國較常採自願出口限制（數量限制），而較少使用價格具結措施。本文藉由相關文獻說明實施價格具結之經濟福利效果，並探討歐盟與美國有關價格具結相關法律與實務做法、歐盟近年來較少採價格具結之原因及歐盟接受或拒絕價格具結措施之理由等，該等研究分析將提供予台灣反傾銷調查之主管機關參考。Currently, there are 3 anti-dumping cases settled by using price undertakings including the subject products of towel, certain footwear and cold-rolled stainless steel originating in China or Korea. Among which, Taiwan’s investigating authorities even accepted price undertakings offered by 82 Chinese exporters of certain footwear. Such measure has already caused the considerable administrative burden in monitoring respect. After examining the practices of Taiwan's price undertaking cases, some procedural and substantive aspects seem inconsistent with Anti-Dumping Agreement or international customary practices. Price undertakings were frequently used by the EU during the period from 1981 to 2001, but the frequency has declined sharply since 2006. The U.S. has taken many voluntary export restrictions, but rarely used price undertakings to settle anti-dumping cases. This paper will explore the law and practice of the EU and the U.S. regarding price undertakings. It will also illustrate the reasons for decreasing use of price undertakings, and the grounds for accepting or rejecting price undertakings in the EU anti-dumping proceedings. In addition, this paper will use the relevant literature to elaborate the economic welfare of price undertakings. Finally, it will offer suggestion as the reference for Taiwan's investigating authorities