【正文】 應(yīng)訴費(fèi)用巨大，單個(gè)企業(yè)難以承受的困難。對(duì)獲得勝訴者，可給予適當(dāng)?shù)慕?jīng)濟(jì)獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。，對(duì)反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查方施加壓力近年來(lái)，我國(guó)不斷地遭受世界各國(guó)不公正的反傾銷(xiāo)指控與制裁，使得對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)一再受到影響。而在國(guó)內(nèi)來(lái)看，我國(guó)的各個(gè)企業(yè)卻同樣承受著來(lái)自國(guó)外各行業(yè)的傾銷(xiāo)沖擊。在這雙重打壓之下，我國(guó)對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)受到的影響是可想而知的。這種情況使我國(guó)逐漸認(rèn)識(shí)到規(guī)范、合理地使用反傾銷(xiāo)措施，可以正當(dāng)?shù)木S護(hù)我國(guó)企業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益。在別國(guó)對(duì)我們進(jìn)行傾銷(xiāo)時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)積極應(yīng)對(duì)，從而打壓國(guó)外對(duì)華傾銷(xiāo)與反傾銷(xiāo)的囂張氣焰，濫用反傾銷(xiāo)手段的情況也將得到有效控制。面對(duì)國(guó)際市場(chǎng)日趨激烈的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)態(tài)勢(shì)及國(guó)外頻繁對(duì)我聚酯短纖反傾銷(xiāo)的嚴(yán)峻形勢(shì)，相關(guān)企業(yè)要加快結(jié)構(gòu)調(diào)整和產(chǎn)業(yè)升級(jí)，提高技術(shù)設(shè)備水平；要加強(qiáng)自主創(chuàng)新，加大研發(fā)投入，努力提升產(chǎn)品的核心競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力；要加強(qiáng)產(chǎn)業(yè)規(guī)劃，加大產(chǎn)業(yè)鏈的優(yōu)化整合力度，實(shí)行差別化發(fā)展，不斷提高產(chǎn)品附加值。只有這樣，化纖行業(yè)才能實(shí)現(xiàn)可持續(xù)發(fā)展。，積極應(yīng)訴在做國(guó)際貿(mào)易出口時(shí)，出口貿(mào)易企業(yè)應(yīng)關(guān)注當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)的走向，熟諳當(dāng)?shù)胤?。以備出口地發(fā)起反傾銷(xiāo)調(diào)查以提案。我國(guó)出口企業(yè)要提高反傾銷(xiāo)的主動(dòng)性，提高自我保護(hù)意識(shí)。同時(shí)熟悉反傾銷(xiāo)的知識(shí)，提高應(yīng)訴意識(shí)以及能力。我國(guó)企業(yè)要經(jīng)常地對(duì)國(guó)外市場(chǎng)進(jìn)行調(diào)研工作，特別要對(duì)進(jìn)口國(guó)同類(lèi)產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)商的產(chǎn)銷(xiāo)狀況、經(jīng)營(yíng)狀況和行業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)狀況等，從而可以檢測(cè)出進(jìn)口國(guó)生產(chǎn)商是否有反傾銷(xiāo)的動(dòng)向，從而在可能提出反傾銷(xiāo)申訴之前，提前做好準(zhǔn)備工作，以免對(duì)突如其來(lái)的反傾銷(xiāo)申訴措手不及，做到防患于未然。就對(duì)內(nèi)外貿(mào)單據(jù)分類(lèi)歸檔，內(nèi)外貿(mào)成本分開(kāi)獨(dú)立核銷(xiāo)，各類(lèi)費(fèi)用不可混在一起。對(duì)各類(lèi)憑證一定整理到位，從采購(gòu)原料到生產(chǎn)出成品出口直至貨款到帳過(guò)程中產(chǎn)生的各種費(fèi)用明細(xì)賬單都分類(lèi)記賬。外貿(mào)相對(duì)于內(nèi)銷(xiāo)來(lái)說(shuō)涉及更多的流程，包括海關(guān)，國(guó)稅，外匯管理局，銀行等不同部門(mén)，組織機(jī)構(gòu)，產(chǎn)生的各種單據(jù)，憑證，費(fèi)用類(lèi)別也更多。所以外貿(mào)業(yè)務(wù)單據(jù)必須保存完整，每筆業(yè)務(wù)下的產(chǎn)生的費(fèi)用憑證必須明確，相關(guān)費(fèi)用憑證需要復(fù)印留底，使每筆業(yè)務(wù)成本、利潤(rùn)都有據(jù)可查。出口企業(yè)應(yīng)加強(qiáng)信息管理制度，注重本企業(yè)生產(chǎn)資料的手機(jī)和保存，以防止反傾銷(xiāo)方調(diào)查，以便在國(guó)外相關(guān)機(jī)構(gòu)來(lái)調(diào)查時(shí)可以迅速，準(zhǔn)確的拿出單據(jù)，對(duì)其提出的在價(jià)格，成本相關(guān)方面的要求，予以準(zhǔn)確的回復(fù)，給其留下良好的影響。隨著國(guó)際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的日益激烈，出口商品要具有其競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)，就要不斷提高產(chǎn)品質(zhì)量，提升產(chǎn)品檔次，做好對(duì)國(guó)外市場(chǎng)的調(diào)研工作，優(yōu)化市場(chǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)，學(xué)會(huì)使用商標(biāo)、包裝、公關(guān)、廣告等非價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)手段，從而使產(chǎn)品由單一化逐漸轉(zhuǎn)變成為高技術(shù)含量、高附加值形態(tài)。出口產(chǎn)品競(jìng)爭(zhēng)應(yīng)該從價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)為主向以質(zhì)量、技術(shù)、服務(wù)等非價(jià)格競(jìng)爭(zhēng)為主轉(zhuǎn)變。同時(shí)，我國(guó)出口企業(yè)要?jiǎng)?chuàng)立自己的國(guó)際市場(chǎng)，制定有力的政策措施，在繼續(xù)美國(guó)、歐盟、日本等發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家之間的貿(mào)易往來(lái)之外，鼓勵(lì)開(kāi)拓亞非拉市場(chǎng)，實(shí)行市場(chǎng)多元化戰(zhàn)略。從而避免“雞蛋放在一個(gè)籃子里”的情形的出現(xiàn)，降低了貿(mào)易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，從而減少了反傾銷(xiāo)問(wèn)題的發(fā)生率。我國(guó)出口企業(yè)應(yīng)提高產(chǎn)品技術(shù)含量，發(fā)展新產(chǎn)品，區(qū)別于國(guó)外當(dāng)?shù)厥袌?chǎng)產(chǎn)品。同時(shí)對(duì)外貿(mào)易業(yè)務(wù)拓展不能局限于一個(gè)市場(chǎng)，需多點(diǎn)開(kāi)花，對(duì)每個(gè)市場(chǎng)的法律政策變化需要及時(shí)了解，對(duì)重點(diǎn)市場(chǎng)的市場(chǎng)信息，行業(yè)信息更需要及時(shí)把握，如有法律政策方面的變化就需要及時(shí)調(diào)整市場(chǎng)營(yíng)銷(xiāo)方面的對(duì)策。我國(guó)企業(yè)要走市場(chǎng)多元化、分散化的道路，從而避免出口市場(chǎng)的過(guò)分集中而導(dǎo)致反傾銷(xiāo)。低于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手的成本而不是最低成本，這一戰(zhàn)略的優(yōu)點(diǎn)是能夠快速占領(lǐng)市場(chǎng)份額，而在于進(jìn)入國(guó)外市場(chǎng)容易被認(rèn)定為反傾銷(xiāo)。出口企業(yè)需要誠(chéng)信，避免信息誤導(dǎo)。同時(shí)，創(chuàng)品牌的本質(zhì)圍繞提高質(zhì)量，利用科技發(fā)展核心技術(shù)提高競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力，這種差異化競(jìng)爭(zhēng)通常很難復(fù)制，從而避免企業(yè)進(jìn)入低價(jià)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。只有這樣，出口企業(yè)才能在殘酷的市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中得以生存和發(fā)展。 6 結(jié)束語(yǔ)改革開(kāi)放以來(lái)，中國(guó)出口在很多方面都處在被動(dòng)的地位，即使是在加入WTO之后，也并未對(duì)我國(guó)的外貿(mào)市場(chǎng)帶來(lái)很大的機(jī)遇，挑戰(zhàn)卻連連不斷。由于商品的交換而產(chǎn)生了貿(mào)易，國(guó)與國(guó)之間商品的交換就是對(duì)外貿(mào)易。而在貿(mào)易中由于一國(guó)的原因而造成的傾銷(xiāo)，進(jìn)口國(guó)就有權(quán)利去申訴，抵制這一不正當(dāng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為，從而使得本國(guó)相關(guān)產(chǎn)業(yè)得到有效保護(hù)。但是在越來(lái)越多的反傾銷(xiāo)案例中，真正的傾銷(xiāo)案件少之又少，更多國(guó)家已經(jīng)把反傾銷(xiāo)作為產(chǎn)業(yè)保護(hù)主義的一個(gè)手段，使得濫用情況頻發(fā)，每年的反傾銷(xiāo)案件不斷增加，而中國(guó)這塊肉餅更是成為了各國(guó)反傾銷(xiāo)的主要針對(duì)國(guó)。本文從江陰海倫化纖公司的印度尼西亞對(duì)原產(chǎn)自中國(guó)的聚酯短纖反傾銷(xiāo)案例引出，分析外國(guó)對(duì)江陰化纖產(chǎn)業(yè)反傾銷(xiāo)的特點(diǎn)，擴(kuò)展到我國(guó)化纖產(chǎn)業(yè)，并深入地研究后找到相關(guān)原因，并給出了應(yīng)對(duì)措施。在其中最重要的則是中國(guó)的“非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)”，這是諸多國(guó)家對(duì)我國(guó)實(shí)施反傾銷(xiāo)申訴屢試不爽的金鑰匙，而我國(guó)也在不斷地去努力擺脫這一現(xiàn)狀。而另一方面中國(guó)的對(duì)外貿(mào)易體制不夠健全，沒(méi)有完整的傾銷(xiāo)與反傾銷(xiāo)的相關(guān)法律政策，使得企業(yè)對(duì)反傾銷(xiāo)概念不夠了解，等到申訴到來(lái)時(shí)為時(shí)已晚。綜上所述，國(guó)外對(duì)華反傾銷(xiāo)的情況在短時(shí)間內(nèi)不會(huì)改變，但是我國(guó)政府和企業(yè)要積極地去應(yīng)對(duì)，抵制不正當(dāng)?shù)姆磧A銷(xiāo)申訴，從而使濫用反傾銷(xiāo)手段得到有效控制，使得我國(guó)外貿(mào)經(jīng)濟(jì)能夠良性發(fā)展下去。49參考文獻(xiàn)[1] 和反傾銷(xiāo)規(guī)則初探[J].金山企業(yè)管理,2001,(02)[2][J].中國(guó)市場(chǎng),2011.(06)[3][J]. 蚌埠黨校學(xué)報(bào), 2004,(04)[4]中國(guó)企業(yè)應(yīng)如何應(yīng)對(duì)歐盟的反傾銷(xiāo)政策[J]. 現(xiàn)代焊接, 2001,(01)[5][J]. 當(dāng)代經(jīng)濟(jì)(下半月), 2007,(01) [6][J]. 湖北水利水電職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào), 2010,(04)[7][J].China39。s Foreign Trade,2011,(02)[8][J].經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊,2011,(06)[9][J].合作經(jīng)濟(jì)與科技,2010,(03)[10][J].探索者學(xué)刊,2002,(01)[11][J].探索者學(xué)刊,2002,(01)[12][J].財(cái)經(jīng)政法資訊,2006,(01)[13][J].學(xué)術(shù)問(wèn)題研究,2005,(01)[14]、印度反傾銷(xiāo)制度規(guī)則比較[J].商業(yè)時(shí)代,2011,(07)[15]、國(guó)別分布與產(chǎn)品結(jié)構(gòu)1995～2008[J].國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索,2010,(01)[16]廖良美,[J].商業(yè)時(shí)代,2004,(30)[17][J].黑龍江對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào),2007,(08)[18][J].財(cái)貿(mào)研究,2006,(01)[19]“非市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)”條款之困境[J].研究生法學(xué),2007,(01)[20][J].法商研究,2007,(04)[21][J].法制與社會(huì),2006,(20)[22]周顯志,[J].國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)探索, 2003,(01)[23]Uwe Dulleck,WTO39。s Antidumping Rule and the Protection of Incumbents,Journal of International Trade amp。 Economic Development,Vol. 14,No. 2,229239,June 2005[24]Reid Bolton, AntiDumping and DistrustReducing AntiDumping Duties under the . Through Heightened Scrutiny,SelectedWorks,July 2010英文原文AntiDumping and Distrust: Reducing AntiDumping Duties under the . Through Heightened ScrutinyII. LEGAL CAPACITY AND ANTIDUMPING DUTIESAs the above section demonstrated, there are a host of problems with the way antidumping duties are assessed. What can explain the striking lack of plaints against many antidumping duties? One potential explanation is that decisions to impose antidumping duties are based on market power—a form of realpolitik where smaller market members fear angering larger market members. Yet this hypothesis has been discredited in favor of the idea of legal capacity. Legal capacity can not only predict which counties will impose antidumping duties, but even more importantly, it can predict which country will be targeted by the duties and whether or not the targeted country will challenge the antidumping duties in front of the .39。s dispute settlement body.Legal capacity can be defined as the institutional, financial, and human resources available to pursue a case. This characteristic is important for . members due to the increasing judicialization of international trade dispute settlement and the large amount of time, energy, and expertise required to initiate a dispute in front of the . and see it through to conclusion. The average length of time between identifying the violation, researching the appropriate arguments, filing a plaint, engaging in consultations, arguing in front of a panel and then in front of the appellate body is 15 months. These cases also require legal fees in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars.Legal capacity is not political power and does not correspond to the cleavage between developing and industrialized countries. While many developing countries do have low legal capacity and tend to avoid the .39。s dispute settlement system, other developing country members of the ., such as China, India, and Brazil, nonetheless can defend their interests in . litigation due to the size of their economy notwithstanding their low . per capita.Over the last decade, numerous studies have examined the effect of legal capacity on . dispute settlements and found that those countries with the most sophisticated legal capacity have been the ones least targeted by antidumping measures as well as the most likely to dispute (and therefore win, since most plaints against antidumping duties end favorably) challenges to disputed antidumping duties. This evidence suggests that the most important factor in creating a trademaximizing . is not inherently endogenous to the countries themselves, but rather related to the plexity of the . dispute settlement system and the resources required to navigate it.For example, research shows that low capacity countries are the most frequent targets of antidumping duties and are least likely to challenge those duties. This