基于反倾销应诉的成本核算问题探讨
|
摘要
随着对外贸易的快速发展,我国越来越多的出口企业遭受到国际反倾销的制裁。我国连续多年成为国际反倾销的头号目标国,其原因是多方面的,其中一个很重要的原因是我国出口企业对反倾销应诉不力。面对未来更加严峻的国际反倾销形势,在反倾销应诉过程中如何维护自身权益,是当前中国出口企业最关心的问题,也是学术界所关注的问题。然而,反倾销并不是普通的法律诉讼,而是发生在既定法律程序之下的会计制度纷争。在反倾销的背后有一个完整的会计学框架,包括反倾销提起、反倾销调查、反倾销应诉,而这当中有很多事项都会涉及会计学的专业问题,需要从会计学的角度进行认定。面对反倾销诉讼日益加剧的形势,会计必须加强为反倾销服务的功能。大力推进反倾销会计理论研究,对于充实和丰富会计理论,促进会计学科建设,促进市场经济的健康有序发展具有重要意义。
随着学者对于反倾销问题的深入研究,会计信息,特别是成本会计信息在反倾销中的重要地位得到越来越多的学者及涉诉企业的肯定。很多遭遇反倾销败诉的企业都是由于企业自身的成本核算体系不健全,成本核算方法不科学、不合理,当遭遇反倾销诉讼时企业不能提供可信、可采的产品成本信息。本文将以此为切入点,在反倾销这个大环境下研究我国企业现有的成本核算体系的不当之处,并且根据美国及欧盟反倾销调查机构对成本的调查要求,有针对性地提出相应的对策。
本文主要采用规范研究的方法,注重多学科的互动,把法学、经济学与管理学等学科相结合,并在研究相关理论的基础上结合实践经验。全文共分为五个部分。
第一部分为引言,主要介绍了文章的研究背景及意义,国内外文献综述,文章的研究方法及思路,本文的基本框架。
第二部分介绍了反倾销应诉和成本核算的基本理论。首先对反倾销应诉中相关的基本概念进行了介绍和定义,包括倾销、反倾销、反倾销应诉、产品成本、正常价值、出口价值、倾销幅度等。然后介绍了世界上主要的反倾销调查机构(美国和欧盟),并对其调查程序进行了简要的概述。
第三部分为我国企业反倾销应诉成本核算存在的问题及原因分析。首先,从应对反倾销诉讼的角度指出了我国企业成本核算问题,例如：①相关的成本资料准备不足,由于多数企业尚未建立反倾销会计,平时又不注重相关资料的积累,就会使得应诉中相关资料不足,无法为被诉方提供有力的抗辩资料。②现有的成本资料的可信性差。在反倾销诉讼中,可靠和经得起查证的会计举证才是唯一能说明中国出口企业成本信息的方法。然而目前中国企业提供的会计资料却常常因为不符合国际通行做法而被西方国家驳回。之后,分析了这些问题产生的原因。这些原因有：第一,产品成本理念的差异；第二,反倾销应诉会计信息平台的缺乏；第三,新会计准则执行层面的弱化；第四,企业内部控制制度的不健全。
第四部分首先介绍了美国与欧盟在反倾销调查中对正常价值的推定,之后主要介绍该两大调查机构对涉诉产品成本调查的要求,通过分析其调查目的,为今后企业从成本核算角度应诉反倾销提供基础和平台。
第五部分分针对前面的问题,通过对产生问题的原因分析和借鉴国外经验,提出了四点建议,分别是：第一,构建反倾销导向的成本核算体系；第二,建立反倾销应诉会计信息平台；第三,完善我国新会计准则的执行机制建设；第四,建立反倾销导向的内部控制体系。
应诉反倾销的会计问题对于企业来说是一个比较复杂而且操作性很强的课题,本文虽对相关的问题进行了探讨和分析,但囿于篇幅和学识,许多方面有待于反倾销实践的检验和修正,有待于进一步深入研究!
With the rapid growth of export trade, more and more products made in China are charged with dumping by international world. There are various reasons that China has been the first target country of anti-dumping for several years in the world, and one of the most important reasons is that our enterprises respond to anti-dumping weakly. Facing the more rigorous international anti-dumping situation in future, how to protect the rights and interests is the problem about which export enterprises concern most, and it is also the problem about which scholars concern most. However, the anti-dumping litigation is common, and occurs in the accounting system under the legal procedures. In the anti-dumping accountancy, there is a complete framework including anti-dumping, anti-dumping investigation, anti-dumping lawsuits. There are many issues involving accounting major problems the need the angle of accounting. According to the increasing anti-dumping litigations, accounting for anti-dumping service must be strengthened. Vigorously promote anti-dumping accountancy theories research, to enrich and rich accounting theory, promote accounting discipline construction and promote the healthy and orderly development of the market economy has important significance.
With the development of academic research on anti-dumping problems, the important status of accounting information, especially cost-related accounting information, has been accepted by more and more researchers and relevant enterprises. Many enterprises usually lose anti-dumping lawsuits because of the imperfection of cost accounting system and unreasonable and unscientific ways of cost accounting. Therefore, when faced with anti-dumping lawsuits, enterprises are not able to provide reliable and available cost information of products. This paper, taking the above as a breakthrough point, researches the disadvantages of existing cost accounting systems of China enterprises based on the general anti-dumping situation, and depending on the cost-investigating requirements from USA and European Union anti-dumping authorities, gives recommendations pertinently.
The paper mainly adopts the standard research methodology, pays attention to the interaction of multiple disciplines, combining the Law, the Economics, the Management and the other disciplines, and follows the principle of combining theories with practices. The paper is divided into five parts.
Part one is the introduction, mainly about the background and significance of research, bibliography, and research methods and ideas, framework.
Part two introduces the fundamental theories of anti-dumping litigation-responding and introduces the fundamental theories of cost accounting. First, some relevant conceptions in anti-dumping lawsuits are defined, including dumping, anti-dumping, anti-dumping litigation-responding, product cost, normal value, export price, dumping margin and etc. Then this part introduces the main anti-dumping authorities (the America and the European Union), and the overview of the anti-dumping investigation procedures.
Part three is the problems of cost accounting in the anti-dumping litigation-responding and the reasons. First, this part analyzes the cost accounting problems from the perspective of anti-dumping, for example,①the lack of preparation of related cost information. Accounting information related to lack of preparation. Since the majority of anti-dumping corporate accounting has not yet been established, usually without emphasis on the accumulation of relevant information will be made in responding to relevant information is not sufficient for the defendant to provide a powerful defense information.②xisting general accounting information poor. In the anti-dumping proceedings, reliable and able to verify the accounting burden of proof to show that China is the only export enterprises cost information approach. However, at present, Chinese enterprises provide accounting information is often not in line with international common practices by Western countries rejected. Meanwhile, this part also pointed out the deep reasons of these problems. The reasons are:firstly, the differences of the concept of the product cost; secondly, the lack of anti-dumping litigation-responding accounting information platform; thirdly, accounting Principle execution for the low level; fourthly, the imperfect of the internal control system.
Part four firstly introduces the rules about how to get the normal value by the American anti-dumping authorities and the EU anti-dumping authorities. And then mainly introduces the requirements on the product cost of both two anti-dumping authorities. Through the analysis of the investigation purposes, it provides foundation and platform for the anti-dumping lawsuits from the cost accounting angle in the future.
Through the analysis of the causes and the requirements of the main anti-dumping authorities, part five puts forward four suggestions, respectively is:Firstly, the establishment of anti-dumping oriented cost management system; secondly, the construction of the anti-dumping litigation-responding accounting information platform; thirdly, perfected the execution mechanism construction of the new Accounting Principle; and fourthly, the establishment of the anti-dumping oriented internal control system. The accounting of anti-dumping is a complex and practicing issue. Limited by length and learning, what is discussed and studied in this thesis need to be examined and corrected in future anti-dumping practice!
随着学者对于反倾销问题的深入研究,会计信息,特别是成本会计信息在反倾销中的重要地位得到越来越多的学者及涉诉企业的肯定。很多遭遇反倾销败诉的企业都是由于企业自身的成本核算体系不健全,成本核算方法不科学、不合理,当遭遇反倾销诉讼时企业不能提供可信、可采的产品成本信息。本文将以此为切入点,在反倾销这个大环境下研究我国企业现有的成本核算体系的不当之处,并且根据美国及欧盟反倾销调查机构对成本的调查要求,有针对性地提出相应的对策。
本文主要采用规范研究的方法,注重多学科的互动,把法学、经济学与管理学等学科相结合,并在研究相关理论的基础上结合实践经验。全文共分为五个部分。
第一部分为引言,主要介绍了文章的研究背景及意义,国内外文献综述,文章的研究方法及思路,本文的基本框架。
第二部分介绍了反倾销应诉和成本核算的基本理论。首先对反倾销应诉中相关的基本概念进行了介绍和定义,包括倾销、反倾销、反倾销应诉、产品成本、正常价值、出口价值、倾销幅度等。然后介绍了世界上主要的反倾销调查机构(美国和欧盟),并对其调查程序进行了简要的概述。
第三部分为我国企业反倾销应诉成本核算存在的问题及原因分析。首先,从应对反倾销诉讼的角度指出了我国企业成本核算问题,例如：①相关的成本资料准备不足,由于多数企业尚未建立反倾销会计,平时又不注重相关资料的积累,就会使得应诉中相关资料不足,无法为被诉方提供有力的抗辩资料。②现有的成本资料的可信性差。在反倾销诉讼中,可靠和经得起查证的会计举证才是唯一能说明中国出口企业成本信息的方法。然而目前中国企业提供的会计资料却常常因为不符合国际通行做法而被西方国家驳回。之后,分析了这些问题产生的原因。这些原因有：第一,产品成本理念的差异；第二,反倾销应诉会计信息平台的缺乏；第三,新会计准则执行层面的弱化；第四,企业内部控制制度的不健全。
第四部分首先介绍了美国与欧盟在反倾销调查中对正常价值的推定,之后主要介绍该两大调查机构对涉诉产品成本调查的要求,通过分析其调查目的,为今后企业从成本核算角度应诉反倾销提供基础和平台。
第五部分分针对前面的问题,通过对产生问题的原因分析和借鉴国外经验,提出了四点建议,分别是：第一,构建反倾销导向的成本核算体系；第二,建立反倾销应诉会计信息平台；第三,完善我国新会计准则的执行机制建设；第四,建立反倾销导向的内部控制体系。
应诉反倾销的会计问题对于企业来说是一个比较复杂而且操作性很强的课题,本文虽对相关的问题进行了探讨和分析,但囿于篇幅和学识,许多方面有待于反倾销实践的检验和修正,有待于进一步深入研究!
With the rapid growth of export trade, more and more products made in China are charged with dumping by international world. There are various reasons that China has been the first target country of anti-dumping for several years in the world, and one of the most important reasons is that our enterprises respond to anti-dumping weakly. Facing the more rigorous international anti-dumping situation in future, how to protect the rights and interests is the problem about which export enterprises concern most, and it is also the problem about which scholars concern most. However, the anti-dumping litigation is common, and occurs in the accounting system under the legal procedures. In the anti-dumping accountancy, there is a complete framework including anti-dumping, anti-dumping investigation, anti-dumping lawsuits. There are many issues involving accounting major problems the need the angle of accounting. According to the increasing anti-dumping litigations, accounting for anti-dumping service must be strengthened. Vigorously promote anti-dumping accountancy theories research, to enrich and rich accounting theory, promote accounting discipline construction and promote the healthy and orderly development of the market economy has important significance.
With the development of academic research on anti-dumping problems, the important status of accounting information, especially cost-related accounting information, has been accepted by more and more researchers and relevant enterprises. Many enterprises usually lose anti-dumping lawsuits because of the imperfection of cost accounting system and unreasonable and unscientific ways of cost accounting. Therefore, when faced with anti-dumping lawsuits, enterprises are not able to provide reliable and available cost information of products. This paper, taking the above as a breakthrough point, researches the disadvantages of existing cost accounting systems of China enterprises based on the general anti-dumping situation, and depending on the cost-investigating requirements from USA and European Union anti-dumping authorities, gives recommendations pertinently.
The paper mainly adopts the standard research methodology, pays attention to the interaction of multiple disciplines, combining the Law, the Economics, the Management and the other disciplines, and follows the principle of combining theories with practices. The paper is divided into five parts.
Part one is the introduction, mainly about the background and significance of research, bibliography, and research methods and ideas, framework.
Part two introduces the fundamental theories of anti-dumping litigation-responding and introduces the fundamental theories of cost accounting. First, some relevant conceptions in anti-dumping lawsuits are defined, including dumping, anti-dumping, anti-dumping litigation-responding, product cost, normal value, export price, dumping margin and etc. Then this part introduces the main anti-dumping authorities (the America and the European Union), and the overview of the anti-dumping investigation procedures.
Part three is the problems of cost accounting in the anti-dumping litigation-responding and the reasons. First, this part analyzes the cost accounting problems from the perspective of anti-dumping, for example,①the lack of preparation of related cost information. Accounting information related to lack of preparation. Since the majority of anti-dumping corporate accounting has not yet been established, usually without emphasis on the accumulation of relevant information will be made in responding to relevant information is not sufficient for the defendant to provide a powerful defense information.②xisting general accounting information poor. In the anti-dumping proceedings, reliable and able to verify the accounting burden of proof to show that China is the only export enterprises cost information approach. However, at present, Chinese enterprises provide accounting information is often not in line with international common practices by Western countries rejected. Meanwhile, this part also pointed out the deep reasons of these problems. The reasons are:firstly, the differences of the concept of the product cost; secondly, the lack of anti-dumping litigation-responding accounting information platform; thirdly, accounting Principle execution for the low level; fourthly, the imperfect of the internal control system.
Part four firstly introduces the rules about how to get the normal value by the American anti-dumping authorities and the EU anti-dumping authorities. And then mainly introduces the requirements on the product cost of both two anti-dumping authorities. Through the analysis of the investigation purposes, it provides foundation and platform for the anti-dumping lawsuits from the cost accounting angle in the future.
Through the analysis of the causes and the requirements of the main anti-dumping authorities, part five puts forward four suggestions, respectively is:Firstly, the establishment of anti-dumping oriented cost management system; secondly, the construction of the anti-dumping litigation-responding accounting information platform; thirdly, perfected the execution mechanism construction of the new Accounting Principle; and fourthly, the establishment of the anti-dumping oriented internal control system. The accounting of anti-dumping is a complex and practicing issue. Limited by length and learning, what is discussed and studied in this thesis need to be examined and corrected in future anti-dumping practice!
引文
①孙凤英.论出口企业设立反倾销应诉会计的必要性[J].财会纵横,2002,(8)：62
①苏君,陶艳娟.反倾销会计研究[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：24-28.
①《美国法典》第19卷第1677条A款B款,《欧盟反倾销条例》第3条第2款、第9款
①中国贸易救济信息网:http://www.cacs.gov.cn/cacs/anjian/anjianshow.aspx?strl=5&articleId=68009
①颜延.法律背后的会计理念一一从反倾销法涉及的会计问题看会计对法律的影响[J].会计研究,2004,(2)：64-67
①自联合国《环境会计和报告的立场公告》。
①张泽平.国际反倾销法与我国会计制度[J].国际贸易问题,2002,(8)：60-64
②中国注册会计师协会.审计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
③孙芳城,梅波,杨兴龙.内部控制、会计信息质量与反倾销应对[J].会计研究,2011,(9)：47.54
①谢盛纹,张其镇审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：264
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007.(12)：264
[1]财政部,审计署,证监会,银监会,保监会.企业内部控制基本规范[J].中国农业会计,2008,(6)：33-37
[2]胡险峰.中国亟待建立反倾销会计保护机制——“反倾销与会计”论坛在北京举办[J].对外经贸财会,2005,(12)：3-4.
[3]李传双.反倾销应诉中成本会计应对策略研究[J].财会月刊(会计版)2008,(1)：14-16.
[4]刘爱东.会计准则趋同对我国企业应对反倾销影响的调查分析[J].会计研究,2008,(9)：33-38.
[5]刘爱东,赵金玲.我国企业应对反倾销的会计联动机制研究——理论框架与研究构思[J].会计研究,2010,(12)：24-28.
[6]刘凯旋,孙凤英.反倾销法理规则与会计证据[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2009.
[7]刘蕊.反倾销中涉诉产品成本核算问题探讨[J].会计之友,2009,(31)：47-49.
[8]刘玉廷.中国企业会计准则体系：构架、趋同与等效[J].会计研究,2007,(3)：2-8.
[9]潘煜双.如何界定反倾销调查中的“生产成本”概念[J].嘉兴学院学报,2004,(11)：34-36.
[10]潘煜双.反倾销应诉会计理论与实务[M].上海：上海财经出版社,2007.
[11]潘煜双.反倾销调查中的会计问题[J].上海立信会计学院学报,2008,(6)：23-28.
[12]任冬梅.基于反倾销的出口企业会计核算问题研究[J].会计之友,2010,(25)：80-81.
[13]世贸组织网站：http://www.wto.org.
[14]苏君,陶艳娟.反倾销会计研究[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：24-28.
[15]孙芳城,梅波,杨兴龙.内部控制、会计信息质量与反倾销应对[J].会计研究,2011,(9)：47-54
[16]孙凤英.反倾销的会计学研究[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2004.
[17]孙凤英.反倾销应诉中的会计问题研究[J].会计研究,2008,(11)：42-47.
[18]孙铮,刘浩,李琳.贸易救济会计——理论与实务(第1版)[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2004.
[19]孙铮,刘浩.反倾销会计研究中的若干问题辨析[J].会计研究,2005,(1)：67-95.
[20]王仲兵.应诉反倾销会计——理论框架与运作实务[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006.
[21]吴国灿.出口企业建立反倾销会计信息系统的设想[J].当代财经,2004,(7)：127-129.
[22]谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
[23]闫明杰.会计准则趋同背景下的反倾销应对[J].财会月刊,2009,(12)：16-17.
[24]颜延.反倾销司法会计[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[25]颜延.法律背后的会计理论——从反倾销法涉及的会计问题看会计对法律的影响[J].会计研究,2004,(2)：64-67.
[26]杨仕辉.反倾销的国际比较、博弈与我国对策研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2005
[27]袁磊.反倾销会计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[28]张敦力,汪佑德,万俊杰.基于反倾销应诉的成本核算体系研究[J].广西财经学院学报,2006,(4)：21-25.
[29]张泽平.国际反倾销法与我国会计制度[J].国际贸易问题,2002,(8)：60-64
[30]中国反倾销反补贴保障措施网上图书馆：http://www.wtolaw.gov.cn.
[31]中国贸易救济信息网数据库：http://www.cacs.gov.cn.
[32]中国注册会计师协会.审计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
[33]周友梅.试论反倾销会计的若干问题[J].当代财经,2003,(11)：109-113.
[34]周友梅.应诉欧美反倾销的会计举证[J].上海会计.2003,(12)：12-13
[35]周友梅.“中国制造”的成本优势与国际反倾销的会计应对[J].国际贸易问题,2004,(10)：65-69.
[36]Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations [M]. New York:Prentice Hall,1995
[37]Anderson, James E.. Domino Dumping Ⅱ:Anti-dumping [J]. Journal of International Economics vol.35(1993):133-150.
[38]Aradhna Aggrawa. Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping [J]. A Worldwide Perspective,2003,(10):113-115
[39]Bollom, William J. & Donald R Simons. The Use of Accounting Data in Anti-dumping Cases:A Public Policy Perspective [J], Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,18.
[40]Canning, John B. Cost Production and Market Price[J], The Accounting Review. 1931(6):161-164.
[41]Corinne M. Krupp, Susan Skeath. Evidence on the Upstream and Downstream Impacts of Anti-dumping Cases[J]. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2002(13):163-178.
[42]Davis, Mark David & Jeffery Allen May. Recent Stitches in the Department of Commerce's Cost of Production Analysis:The MMF Sweaters Anti-dumping Case and Commerce's Treatment of Interest Expense[J]. George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics,1991(25):115-130.
[43]Davies, Stephen W. & Anthony J. McGuiness. Dumping at Less than Marginal Cost [J]. Journal of International Economics, vol.12(1982):169-182.
[44]Elsevier, The Discretion and Determining of Dumping through Accounting [J]. The Accounting Review,2009,(7):14-38
[45]Gabrielle Marceau. Anti-dumping and Anti-trust in Free-trade Areas[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1994.
[46]Kaplan, Gilbert B, Lamarck, Lynn G. Park, Marie. Cost Analysis Under The Anti-dumping Law [J]. The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics,1988.
[47]Kaplan, Gilbert B, Lynn G Kamarck & Marie Parker. Cost Analysis Under the Anti-dumping Law[J]. George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics, 1991(21):357-418.
[48]Michael P. Gallaway, Bruce A. Blonigen Joseph E. Flynn. Welfare Costs of the U.S. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Laws[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1999(49):211-244.
[49]Robert W. McGee. Some Ethical Issues for Accountants in Anti-dumping Trade Cases:An Examinations of Recent Case Studies with Emphasis on Latin America[J], Working Paper 96.1,1996.
[50]Robert W. McGee, Yeomin Yoon. Anti-dumping and the People's Republic of China: Five Case Studies[J], Working Paper 98.2,1998.
[51]Robert W McGee, Galina G Preobragenskaya. Some Accounting and Technical Problems with Anti-dumping Trade Cases involving Transition Economies:A Russian Study[A]. Presented at the 8th International Conference on Global Business and Economic Development, Guadalajara, Mexico[C], January 2004:7-10.
[52]U.S.DOC:http://www.commerce.gov/
[53]Verrill, Charles Owen. Nonmarket Economy Dumping:New Directions in Fair Value Analysis [J].The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 1988.
①苏君,陶艳娟.反倾销会计研究[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：24-28.
①《美国法典》第19卷第1677条A款B款,《欧盟反倾销条例》第3条第2款、第9款
①中国贸易救济信息网:http://www.cacs.gov.cn/cacs/anjian/anjianshow.aspx?strl=5&articleId=68009
①颜延.法律背后的会计理念一一从反倾销法涉及的会计问题看会计对法律的影响[J].会计研究,2004,(2)：64-67
①自联合国《环境会计和报告的立场公告》。
①张泽平.国际反倾销法与我国会计制度[J].国际贸易问题,2002,(8)：60-64
②中国注册会计师协会.审计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
③孙芳城,梅波,杨兴龙.内部控制、会计信息质量与反倾销应对[J].会计研究,2011,(9)：47.54
①谢盛纹,张其镇审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：264
①谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007.(12)：264
[1]财政部,审计署,证监会,银监会,保监会.企业内部控制基本规范[J].中国农业会计,2008,(6)：33-37
[2]胡险峰.中国亟待建立反倾销会计保护机制——“反倾销与会计”论坛在北京举办[J].对外经贸财会,2005,(12)：3-4.
[3]李传双.反倾销应诉中成本会计应对策略研究[J].财会月刊(会计版)2008,(1)：14-16.
[4]刘爱东.会计准则趋同对我国企业应对反倾销影响的调查分析[J].会计研究,2008,(9)：33-38.
[5]刘爱东,赵金玲.我国企业应对反倾销的会计联动机制研究——理论框架与研究构思[J].会计研究,2010,(12)：24-28.
[6]刘凯旋,孙凤英.反倾销法理规则与会计证据[M].北京：中国经济出版社,2009.
[7]刘蕊.反倾销中涉诉产品成本核算问题探讨[J].会计之友,2009,(31)：47-49.
[8]刘玉廷.中国企业会计准则体系：构架、趋同与等效[J].会计研究,2007,(3)：2-8.
[9]潘煜双.如何界定反倾销调查中的“生产成本”概念[J].嘉兴学院学报,2004,(11)：34-36.
[10]潘煜双.反倾销应诉会计理论与实务[M].上海：上海财经出版社,2007.
[11]潘煜双.反倾销调查中的会计问题[J].上海立信会计学院学报,2008,(6)：23-28.
[12]任冬梅.基于反倾销的出口企业会计核算问题研究[J].会计之友,2010,(25)：80-81.
[13]世贸组织网站：http://www.wto.org.
[14]苏君,陶艳娟.反倾销会计研究[J].北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2004,(2)：24-28.
[15]孙芳城,梅波,杨兴龙.内部控制、会计信息质量与反倾销应对[J].会计研究,2011,(9)：47-54
[16]孙凤英.反倾销的会计学研究[M].长沙：湖南教育出版社,2004.
[17]孙凤英.反倾销应诉中的会计问题研究[J].会计研究,2008,(11)：42-47.
[18]孙铮,刘浩,李琳.贸易救济会计——理论与实务(第1版)[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2004.
[19]孙铮,刘浩.反倾销会计研究中的若干问题辨析[J].会计研究,2005,(1)：67-95.
[20]王仲兵.应诉反倾销会计——理论框架与运作实务[M].北京：经济科学出版社,2006.
[21]吴国灿.出口企业建立反倾销会计信息系统的设想[J].当代财经,2004,(7)：127-129.
[22]谢盛纹,张其镇.审计学[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社.2007,(12)：263
[23]闫明杰.会计准则趋同背景下的反倾销应对[J].财会月刊,2009,(12)：16-17.
[24]颜延.反倾销司法会计[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[25]颜延.法律背后的会计理论——从反倾销法涉及的会计问题看会计对法律的影响[J].会计研究,2004,(2)：64-67.
[26]杨仕辉.反倾销的国际比较、博弈与我国对策研究[M].北京：科学出版社,2005
[27]袁磊.反倾销会计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2004.
[28]张敦力,汪佑德,万俊杰.基于反倾销应诉的成本核算体系研究[J].广西财经学院学报,2006,(4)：21-25.
[29]张泽平.国际反倾销法与我国会计制度[J].国际贸易问题,2002,(8)：60-64
[30]中国反倾销反补贴保障措施网上图书馆：http://www.wtolaw.gov.cn.
[31]中国贸易救济信息网数据库：http://www.cacs.gov.cn.
[32]中国注册会计师协会.审计[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社,2007
[33]周友梅.试论反倾销会计的若干问题[J].当代财经,2003,(11)：109-113.
[34]周友梅.应诉欧美反倾销的会计举证[J].上海会计.2003,(12)：12-13
[35]周友梅.“中国制造”的成本优势与国际反倾销的会计应对[J].国际贸易问题,2004,(10)：65-69.
[36]Adam Smith. The Wealth of Nations [M]. New York:Prentice Hall,1995
[37]Anderson, James E.. Domino Dumping Ⅱ:Anti-dumping [J]. Journal of International Economics vol.35(1993):133-150.
[38]Aradhna Aggrawa. Patterns and determinants of anti-dumping [J]. A Worldwide Perspective,2003,(10):113-115
[39]Bollom, William J. & Donald R Simons. The Use of Accounting Data in Anti-dumping Cases:A Public Policy Perspective [J], Journal of Accounting and Public Policy,18.
[40]Canning, John B. Cost Production and Market Price[J], The Accounting Review. 1931(6):161-164.
[41]Corinne M. Krupp, Susan Skeath. Evidence on the Upstream and Downstream Impacts of Anti-dumping Cases[J]. North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 2002(13):163-178.
[42]Davis, Mark David & Jeffery Allen May. Recent Stitches in the Department of Commerce's Cost of Production Analysis:The MMF Sweaters Anti-dumping Case and Commerce's Treatment of Interest Expense[J]. George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics,1991(25):115-130.
[43]Davies, Stephen W. & Anthony J. McGuiness. Dumping at Less than Marginal Cost [J]. Journal of International Economics, vol.12(1982):169-182.
[44]Elsevier, The Discretion and Determining of Dumping through Accounting [J]. The Accounting Review,2009,(7):14-38
[45]Gabrielle Marceau. Anti-dumping and Anti-trust in Free-trade Areas[M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1994.
[46]Kaplan, Gilbert B, Lamarck, Lynn G. Park, Marie. Cost Analysis Under The Anti-dumping Law [J]. The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics,1988.
[47]Kaplan, Gilbert B, Lynn G Kamarck & Marie Parker. Cost Analysis Under the Anti-dumping Law[J]. George Washington Journal of International Law & Economics, 1991(21):357-418.
[48]Michael P. Gallaway, Bruce A. Blonigen Joseph E. Flynn. Welfare Costs of the U.S. Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Laws[J]. Journal of International Economics, 1999(49):211-244.
[49]Robert W. McGee. Some Ethical Issues for Accountants in Anti-dumping Trade Cases:An Examinations of Recent Case Studies with Emphasis on Latin America[J], Working Paper 96.1,1996.
[50]Robert W. McGee, Yeomin Yoon. Anti-dumping and the People's Republic of China: Five Case Studies[J], Working Paper 98.2,1998.
[51]Robert W McGee, Galina G Preobragenskaya. Some Accounting and Technical Problems with Anti-dumping Trade Cases involving Transition Economies:A Russian Study[A]. Presented at the 8th International Conference on Global Business and Economic Development, Guadalajara, Mexico[C], January 2004:7-10.
[52]U.S.DOC:http://www.commerce.gov/
[53]Verrill, Charles Owen. Nonmarket Economy Dumping:New Directions in Fair Value Analysis [J].The George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 1988.