论文部分内容阅读
美国对外贸易区委员会早在1952年就已经发布命令,授权成立对外贸易区分区,但一直存在着诸多的争议。1968年,阿姆科钢铁公司起诉商务部部长思坦斯等人,要求法院判决委员会批准授权设立分区的决定非法,并宣告无效。在围绕着建造船舶合法性、委员会命令的避税效应、分区公共设施的属性以及委员会命令的事实认定等焦点展开辩论后,地区法院驳回阿姆科公司的起诉,并得到了二审法院的支持。除支撑法院做出判决的法律条款之外,1934年法的立法意图、对外贸易区的功能拓展以及对外贸易区委员会的自由裁量权等三个因素是法院判决的深层次原因,值得我国上海自贸区参考与借鉴。
As early as 1952, the United States Foreign Trade Zone Commission had already issued an order authorizing the establishment of a zone of foreign trade, but there have been many controversies. In 1968, Amcor Steel sued Minister of Commerce Sitans et al., Asking the court to adjudicate the committee’s decision to authorize the establishment of a sub-district illegally and declared invalid. After debating around such issues as the legitimacy of the ship’s construction, the tax avoidance effect of the order of the Commission, the nature of the zoning public facilities, and the factual confirmation of the Commission’s order, the district court dismissed the prosecution of Amcor and obtained the support of the court of second instance. In addition to the legal provisions that support the court’s decision, the three factors of the legislative intent of the 1934 Act, the function expansion of the foreign trade zone, and the discretion of the Foreign Trade Zone Committee are the deep-seated reasons for the court’s decision. Trade Area Reference and Reference.