日本財団 図書館

共通ヘッダを読みとばす


Top > 産業 > 運輸.交通 > 成果物情報

2002年度欧州造船政策動向調査

 事業名 造船関連海外情報収集及び海外業務協力事業
 団体名 シップ・アンド・オーシャン財団  


A. INTRODUCTION
On 24 October 2000, the Committee of European Union Shipbuilders Associations ("CESA") lodged a complaint pursuant to Articles 3 and 4 of Council Regulation 3286/941 (the Trade Barriers "TBR" Regulation) in order to eliminate certain alleged Korean trade practices which adversely affect Community sales of commercial vessels. The complaint concerned adverse trade effects and injury suffered by Community shipbuilders resulting from subsidies granted to, or otherwise benefiting, Korean shipbuilding companies by the Republic of Korea in violation of Articles 3and 5 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("ASCM"). The Commission after consulting with the Member States in the framework of the TBR Committee initiated the investigation on 2 December 20002.
 
The Korean shipbuilding enterprises claimed to have benefited from subsidies included:
 
- Samho Heavy Industries (previously called Halla Engineering and Heavy Industries)
-
Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine Engineering (previously called Daewoo Heavy
Industries)
- Hyundai Heavy Industries
- Hyundai Mipo
- Samsung Heavy Industries
- Hanjin Heavy Industries & Constuction Co
- Daedong Shipbuilding Co.
 
The original TBR report
The Commission's TBR investigation report was presented to the Member States Advisory Committee on 8 May 2001. The investigation showed that Korea has granted substantial amounts of subsidies, mainly through export schemes by the state owned Korean Export-Import Bank (KEXIM) and debt forgiveness and debt-to-equity swaps by government owned or government controlled financial institutions. The following shipyards were found to be the main beneficiaries: Halla Engineering and Heavy Industries (now called Samho Heavy Industries), Daedong Shipbuilding Co., and Daewoo Heavy Industries (now called Daewoo Shipbuilding Marine Engineering).
 
Furthermore there was evidence that the subsidies in question were causing adverse effects to EU industry within the meaning of the WTO Subsidies Agreement and were, therefore, actionable.
 
With regard to the KEXIM programmes, KEXIM and the shipyards have not provided information on the terms of the loans or the rate of the premia. In these circumstances Article 8.7 of the Regulation provides for findings to be made on the basis of facts available which may include information contained in the complaint.
 
In particular, the complaint alleged that the Kexim financing and guarantee schemes confer a "benefit" on Korean shipbuilders because they provide financial support (interest on loans and premium rates) on more advantageous terms than they would otherwise be able to obtain in the Korean financial market. Furthermore, although the GOK has admitted that the above schemes provide support contingent upon exportation of goods, it has failed to produce evidence to demonstrate that the schemes are not prohibited under footnote 5 of Article 3.1(a) of the ASCM. In addition, the European Commission has already found certain Kexim export programmes to constitute countervailable export subsidies in two countervailing investigations into steel wire.3
 
On the basis of facts available, the original report had considered that the GOK has granted export subsidies under certain KEXIM schemes to all Korean shipyards which are prohibited under Article 3 of the ASCM.
 
The Commission stated that it would immediately pursue the matter with the Korean authorities in order to obtain the immediate withdrawal of the subsidies or the removal of the adverse effects and that unless such a solution was achieved amicably within the next few weeks, the Commission would proceed with the initiation of a procedure within the framework of the WTO.
 
The current report
In parallel, however, the Commission stated that it would continue its investigation into the export subsidy schemes on which the Korean authorities and shipyards did not supply crucial information and that a further report on these schemes as well as on their impact would be released in due course.
 
During the first stage of the examination, the Commission services gathered information on the Korean legislation and contested practices, on the product subject to investigation, on the Korean and Community industries and on injury and the adverse trade effects claimed by the complainant. This information has been collected from:
 
- Commmity producers and their association (CESA);
- Korean authorities;
- Korean producers;
- Korean financial institutions;
- Other third parties (shipbrokers).
 
Moreover, verification visits took place in the European Community (February 2001) and Korea (March 2001). During the visit to Korea the Commission had the opportunity to meet the relevant Korean authorities, financial institutions and Korean producers of the product subject to the investigation.
 
The affected products are commercial vessels for international commerce, including,
more specifically:
 
- bulk carriers
- container ships
- oil tankers
- product and chemical tankers
- passenger and RO/RO feffies
- liquefied gas carriers
- other cargo vessels
- other non-cargo vessels(including offshore units)
- cruise ships

1 OJL 349 of 31.12.94
2 OJC 345 of 2 December 2000.
3 Commission Regutations 618/1999 and 619/1999 of 23 March 1999 (OJL79).







サイトに関するご意見・ご質問・お問合せ   サイトマップ   個人情報保護

日本財団会長笹川陽平ブログはこちら



ランキング
注目度とは?
成果物アクセスランキング
753位
(32,233成果物中)

成果物アクセス数
13,398

集計期間:成果物公開〜現在
更新日: 2020年5月23日

関連する他の成果物

1.Shipbuilding in Japan 2002
2.東南アジア造船関連レポート21
3.米国テロ事件後の海事セキュリティ対策の動向
4.中国造船業の概況<2001年>
5.米国における船舶のバリアフリー化推進に関する調査
6.米国のエネルギー政策が海事産業に与える影響に関する調査
7.米国における船舶のクリーン推進システム開発プロジェクトに関する調査
8.米国における造船関係研究開発助成制度の実施状況と成果活用等に関する調査
9.英国における統合的海洋管理政策に関する基礎調査
10.WTO加盟後の中国造船・舶用工業に関する調査
11.中東地域造船需要動向調査
12.タイ国におけるモーダルシフトに伴う新規造船需要に関する調査?実現に向けて?
13.船舶解撤の新たな進展と今後の展望
14.中国の造船・舶用工業政策に関する調査
15.海運・造船における電子商取引の現状と展望
16.中国造船業の概況(華北)
17.欧州における船舶からの排出ガス削減対策に関する動向調査
18.東南アジア造船関連レポート22
19.東南アジア・オセアニア地域における旅客船参入手法に関する調査
20.「海と船の企画展」統一ポスター
  [ 同じカテゴリの成果物 ]


アンケートにご協力
御願いします

この成果物は
お役に立ちましたか?


とても役に立った
まあまあ
普通
いまいち
全く役に立たなかった


この成果物をどのような
目的でご覧になりましたか?


レポート等の作成の
参考資料として
研究の一助として
関係者として参照した
興味があったので
間違って辿り着いただけ


ご意見・ご感想

ここで入力されたご質問・資料請求には、ご回答できません。






その他・お問い合わせ
ご質問は こちら から