近年來，世界貿易組織（WTO）體系下的反傾銷措施已被廣泛作為消除不公平貿易競爭之合法救濟手段；然而，隨著國際貿易全球化發展及跨國供應鏈分工日益深化，受反傾銷措施限制之廠商為維持其比較利益與市場競爭力，往往利用反傾銷措施之先天漏洞，透過「變更原產地」或「變更產品型態」之方式規避反傾銷措施之適用。此類規避行為不僅大幅削弱反傾銷措施之救濟效果，亦使進口國國內產業持續深陷於不公平貿易競爭之困境。儘管規避問題日益嚴重，WTO現行制度對於「規避行為」之規範，迄今仍未建立統一且明確之多邊法律架構。
鑒於WTO未有統一之反規避制度，本篇論文即以此一WTO長期懸而未決之貿易議題作為研究核心，進行深入探討。本文以施行多年之美國與歐盟之反規避制度作為主要研究對象，並綜合運用文獻分析法、比較分析法及法學解釋方法作為本文之研究方法，研究內容除先將廠商規避反傾銷措施之行為進行法律定性，以及比較WTO有關反規避制度草案與美歐反規避制度之差異，而後以美歐現行反規避制度為主軸，剖析美歐反規避制度與現行WTO規則的合致性，進而透過法律價值理念進行反規避制度必要性之分析，最後總結本文的研究發現，並提出我國是否應建立反規避制度及制度內容之建議。

In recent years, anti-dumping measures under the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework have been widely adopted as legitimate remedies against unfair trade practices. However, with the globalization of international trade, firms often circumvent such measures by changing the country of origin or altering product forms to maintain their comparative advantage and market competitiveness. These circumvention practices not only undermine the effectiveness of anti-dumping measures but also continue to expose domestic industries in importing countries to unfair competition. Despite the growing severity of this issue, the WTO has yet to establish a unified and explicit multilateral legal framework governing circumvention practice.
Given the absence of a unified anti-circumvention regime under the WTO, this thesis examines the anti-circumvention regimes of the United States and the European Union. Employing literature analysis, comparative analysis, and legal interpretation methods, it analyzes the legal nature of circumvention practices, provides a comparative study of the anti-circumvention frameworks under the WTO draft proposals alongside the U.S. and EU regimes, evaluates the consistency of unilateral anti-circumvention measures with WTO rules, and assesses the necessity of anti-circumvention regimes. Finally, this study offers actionable recommendations on whether and how Taiwan should establish its own anti-circumvention regime.

壹、 中文部分
一、 專書
1. 李貴英、林彩瑜、黃立（2009），《WTO國際貿易法論》，四版，臺北市：元照出版有限公司。
2. 林彩瑜（2013），《WTO制度與實務：世界貿易組織法律研究（三）》，二版，臺北市：元照出版有限公司。
3. 陳清秀（2018），《稅法總論》，十版，臺北市：元照出版有限公司。
4. 陳敏（2019），《稅法總論》，初版，臺北市：陳敏發行 : 新學林經銷。
5. 羅昌發（2010），《國際貿易法》，二版，臺北市：元照出版有限公司。
二、 期刊文獻
1. Sandrine Maljean-Dubois（許耀明譯）（2008），〈「與實務隔絕」這幽魂：世界貿易組織規則與其他國際法與原則之關係為何？〉，《興大法學》第3期，頁127-143。
2. 林永樂（2006），〈論「規避」的必然性與「反規避」的正當性〉，《貿易政策論叢》第6期，頁47-91。
3. 林鳳、邱郁茹（2020），〈從美國對越南及馬來西亞抗腐蝕鋼品反規避調查案解析規避行為之認定標準〉，《貿易政策論叢》第32期，頁99-140。
4. 黃忠正（2013），〈論Radbruch公式〉，《政大法學評論》第132期，頁115-162。
5. 張南薰（2017），〈歐盟反傾銷法中之反規避措施之研究〉，《問題與研究》第56卷第4期，頁61-86。
6. 黃源浩（2018），〈納稅者權利保護法施行後之稅捐規避〉，《財稅研究》第47卷第1期，頁122-142。
7. 蕭振寰（2005），〈認識WTO的反傾銷規範與回合談判的進展〉，《貿易政策論叢》4期，頁75-101。
8. 顏慧欣、林江峰（2008），〈反傾銷制度反規避規範與案例分析〉，《貿易政策論叢》第9期，頁1-72。
9. 羅昌發（1991），〈論美國反傾銷及平衡稅法中之「反規避」規定〉，《進口救濟處理委員會專輯》第1期，頁177-208。
10. 羅培方（2016），〈歐盟確保反傾銷措施救濟效果之特殊調查—反規避及反吸收調查之法規與實踐〉，《貿易政策論叢》第26期，頁51-108。
三、 碩士論文
1. 劉芳祝，非優惠性原產地規則之調和－兼論原產地規則於反傾銷反規避之運用，政治大學法學院碩士在職專班，2015年6月。
2. 魏永康，美臺反傾銷法之比較研究，政治大學法學院碩士在職專班，2023年1月。
貳、 西文部分
一、 專書
1. Bowman, Gregory W., Covelli, Nick, Gantz, David A. and Uhm, Ihn Ho (2010). Trade remedies in North America. Wolters Kluwer International.
2. Baere, Philippe De, du Parc, Clotilde and Van Damme, Isabelle (2021). The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement: A Detailed Commentary. Cambridge University Press.
3. Mastel, Greg. 1998. Antidumping Laws and the U.S. Economy. London: Routledge.
4. Müller, Wolfgang, Khan, Nicholas and Scharf, Tibor (2009). EC and WTO Anti-Dumping Law: A Handbook (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
5. Sundaram, Jae (2022). WTO Law and Policy: A Political Economy Approach. Routledge.
6. Van Bael, Ivo and Bellis, Jean-François (2011). EU Anti-Dumping and Other Trade Defence Instruments (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer International.
7. Van den Bossche, Peter and Zdouc, Werner (2022). The Law and Policy of the World Trade Organization: Text, Cases, and Materials (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
8. Yu, Yanning (2008). Circumvention and Anti-Circumvention Measures: The Impact on Anti-Dumping Practice in International Trade. Wolters Kluwer International.
二、 專書論文
1. Borowski, Martin (2024). Gustav Radbruch’s Theory of Legal Obligation, in Theories of Legal Obligation 99-122, edited by Deryck Beyleveld and Stefano Bertea. Springer.
2. Hidehiko Adachi (2023). Radbruch, Gustav, in Handbook of the History of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy Volume 3: From Ross to Dworkin and Beyond 243-249, edited by Gianfrancesco Zanetti, Mortimer Sellers & Stephan Kirste. Springer.
3. Terence P. Stewart and Amy S. Dwyer (2010). Antidumping: Overview of the Agreement (Chapter 6), in Law and Economics of Contingent Protection in International Trade 197-263, edited by Kyle W. Bagwell, George A. Bermann and Petros C. Mavroidis. Cambridge University Press.
三、 期刊文獻
1. Bello, Judith H., Holmer, Alan F. and Till, Barbara E. (1990). Anticircumvention Measures: Shifting the Gears of the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws. International Lawyer, 24: 1: 207-224.
2. Bhala, Raj (1995). Rethinking Antidumping Law. George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, 29: 1: 1-144.
3. Brugger, W. (1996). Concretization of Law and Statutory Interpretation. Tulane European and Civil Law Forum, 11: 207-250.
4. Billa, Bhumika (2018). Strategising Protectionism: An Analysis of India’s Regulation of Anti-Dumping Duty Circumvention. Trade, Law and Development, 10:2: 417-447.
5. Choi, Chang Hwan (2023). Is an Anti-Circumvention System of Anti-Dumping Duty Needed? Evidence from the Korea Import Case. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, 18: 277-308.
6. Choi, Chang Hwan (2023). New Trade Remedy Methodologies and Multidimensional Responses: Towards Anti-Circumvention of Dumping. International Commerce and Information Review, 25: 4: 185-216.
7. Crochet, Victor and Zhou, Weihuan (2023). Preventing the Anti-Circumvention Instrument from Undermining Development Through Investment. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 72: 3: 601-634.
8. Duong, Anh Son and Tran, Vang-Phu (2022). Allocation of Anti-Dumping Duty Under WTO Laws—Experience from US-Offset Act. International Journal of Law, 8: 2: 150-156.
9. Forganni, Antonella and Reed, Heidi (2019). Circumvention of Trade Defence Measures and Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics, 155: 6: 29-40.
10. Holmer, A. F., Bello, J. H. and Zinski, P. A. (1990). Closing the Loopholes: 1988 Trade Act Amendments to the Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, 16: 2: 207-234.
11. Holmes, Simon (1995). Anti-Circumvention: Legitimate Defence or Just Another Protectionist Ploy?. International Trade Law and Regulation, 1: 5: 186-188.
12. Janzen, Bernd G. and Broussard, Jean-Rene (2014). New Directions in the Perennial Struggle to Detect and Fight the Evasion of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 9: 1: 35-43.
13. Kobayashi, Tomohiko (2014). Revisiting the Role of Anti-Circumvention Provisions under the WTO Agreement: Lessons for East Asia. Korean Journal of International and Comparative Law, 2: 2: 139-163.
14. Kreier, Jesse, Coskun, Seref and Yano, Hiromi. (2016). Anti-Circumvention in the Multilateral System: Plus ça Change. Global Trade and Customs Law, 11: 11-12: 461-472.
15. Kobayashi, Tomohiko (2021). Can We Secure Consistency Between Rules of Origin and Measures to Prevent Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Measures Under the WTO Framework? —With Special Focus on the Recent Administrative and Judicial Cases in the U.S. —. Public Policy Review (Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance, Japan), 16: 5: 1-24.
16. Kang, Sungjin (2024). Korea’s Introduction of Anti-circumvention Inquiry in the Antidumping Investigation. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 19: 10: 617-626.
17. Liu, Xuepeng and Shi, Huimin (2019). Anti-Dumping Duty Circumvention through Trade Rerouting: Evidence from Chinese Exporters. The World Economy, 42: 5: 1427-1466.
18. Matsushita, Mitsuo (2010). Some International and Domestic Antidumping Issues. Asian Journal of WTO and International Health Law and Policy, 5: 249-268.
19. Moulis, Daniel (2016). Anti-Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Measures: Law and Practice of Ten World Trade Organization Members – Australia. Global Trade and Customs Law, 11: 11-12: 479-486.
20. Ngangjoh-Hodu, Yenkong (2011). Relationship of GATT Article XX Exceptions to Other WTO Agreements. Nordic Journal of International Law, 80: 2: 219-234.
21. Ostoni, Lucia (2005). Anti-Dumping Circumvention in the EU and the US: Is There a Future for Multilateral Provisions under the WTO?. Fordham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law, 10: 2: 407-438.
22. Puccio, Laura and Erbahar, Aksel (2016). Circumvention of Anti-dumping: A Law and Economics Analysis of Proportionality in EU Rules. Journal of World Trade, 50: 3: 391-416.
23. Primadista, Tagara and Runturambi, Arthur Josias Simon (2022). The Analysis of Trade Circumvention, Threats and Risk to the Duties and Functions of the Directorate General of Customs and Excise (DJBC) Indonesia. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute: Humanities and Social Sciences, 5: 1: 5693-5703.
24. Pistikou, V. and Ketsetsidis, A. (2024). How Does the Level of the Anti-Dumping Duty Affect the Trade Re-Routing Phenomenon?. Intellectual Economics, 18: 2: 329-359.
25. Prasetyo, Adi and Wirdyaningsih (2025). The Urgency of Anti-Circumvention Arrangements in Indonesia: A Comparative Analysis with the United States and Islamic Law Perspectives. Jurnal Hukum dan Ekonomi Islam, 24: 1: 31-50.
26. Rosen, Stuart M. and Husisian, Gregory (1995). Anti-Dumping and Anti-Circumvention: The New US Regime. International Trade Law and Regulation, 1: 5: 194-195.
27. Ruessman, Laurent (2001). Implications of the WTO 1916 Act Decision: Part 2: National Anti-circumvention Legislation Revisited. International Trade Law and Regulation, 7: 6: 157-166.
28. Ruessmann, Laurent and Beck, Jochen (2020). Enforcement of EU TDI Measures: Addressing the Challenges of the 21st Century. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 15: 9: 423-434.
29. Spicer, Margaret, Clarke, Peggy and Horlick, Gary (2016). Anti-Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Measures: Law and Practice of the United States. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 11: 11-12: 536-541.
30. Vermulst, Edwin (2016). Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Measures: Law and Practice of the European Union. Global Trade and Customs Journal, 11: 11-12: 499-507.
31. Willems, A. R. and Natens, Bregt (2016). What's Wrong with EU Anti-Circumvention Rules and How to Fix It?. Journal of International Economic Law, 19: 2: 497-514.
32. Zhou, Weihuan (2016). Circumvention and Anti-Circumvention: Rising Protectionism in Australia. World Trade Review, 15: 3: 495-522.
四、 網路文獻
1. Crochet, Victor and Zhou, Weihuan, The Anti-Circumvention Instrument: Another Roadblock on the Investment Development Path?, CTEI Working Paper: 1-37 (Jan. 12, 2023). Retrieved from https://repository.graduateinstitute.ch/record/300999 (last visited: May 2, 2026).
2. Li, Yao Amber, Yeaple, Stephen R. and Zhao, Tengyu, Import Sourcing Response to Anti-Dumping Investigations: Evidence from Chinese Firms, Unpublished Working Paper: 1-47 (Apr. 11, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.furusawa.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/APTS/APTS2021/Zhao,Tengyu.pdf (last visited: May 2, 2026).
3. Vermulst, Edwin, EU Anti-Circumvention Rules: Do They Beat the Alternative?, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/57: 1-19 (July 2015). Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2637796# (last visited: May 2, 2026).
4. Dunn, Chase, Shookman, Jamie, Nagarajan, Nithya, Lagvilava, Tamari, Josan, Hardeep and Roll, Michael, Circumvention, Evasion, and Enforcement of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders Before Commerce and Customs: Statutory Frameworks, Recent Trends, and the Interplay between EAPA and Circumvention Regimes, Paper Presented at the 22nd Judicial Conference of the United States Court of International Trade (Oct. 2024). Retrieved from https://www.cit.uscourts.gov/sites/cit/files/CIT22_Circumvention%2CEvasion%2CEnforcement_Antidumping_Countervailing_Orders.pdf (last visited: May 2, 2026).
5. Frontier Economics, Economic Research into the Circumvention of Trade Remedies, Paper for the UK Trade Remedies Authority: 1-158 (Nov. 2022). Retrieved from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6374d3118fa8f577123c068e/Economic_Research_into_the_Circumvention_of_Trade_Remedies.pdf (last visited: May 2, 2026).
6. Barbaglia, Luca, Croux, Christophe and Wilms, Ines, Detecting Anti-dumping Circumvention: A Network Approach, Unpublished Working Paper: 1-18 (July 2022). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361949325_Detecting_Anti-dumping_Circumvention_A_Network_Approach (last visited: May 2, 2026).
五、 碩士論文
1. Olsson, Henrik. 1999. Circumvention of EC Anti-Dumping Measures (Master thesis, Lund University). Retrieved from https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/1560968 (last visited: May 2, 2026).
六、 官方文件
1. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders on Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells, Whether or Not Assembled Into Modules, From the People's Republic of China: Final Scope Determination and Final Affirmative Determinations of Circumvention With Respect to Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, 88 FED. REG. 57,419 (Aug. 23, 2023).
2. Appellate Body Report, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw Materials, WTO Docs. WT/DS394/AB/R, WT/DS395/AB/R, and WT/DS398/AB/R (Jan. 30, 2012, adopted Feb. 22, 2012).
3. Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WTO Docs. WT/DS136/AB/R & WT/DS162/AB/R (Aug. 28, 2000, adopted Sept. 26, 2000).
4. Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WTO Docs. WT/DS217/AB/R & WT/DS234/AB/R (Jan. 16, 2003, adopted Jan. 27, 2003).
5. Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand, WTO Docs. WT/DS343/AB/R & WT/DS345/AB/R (July 16, 2008, adopted Aug. 1, 2008).
6. Appellate Body Report, United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, WTO Docs. WT/DS2/AB/R (Apr. 29, 1996, adopted May 20, 1996).
7. Certain Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From the Republic of Korea and Taiwan: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 83 FED. REG. 37,785 (Aug. 2, 2018).
8. Corrosion-Resistant Steel Products From Taiwan: Initiation of Anti-Circumvention Inquiries on the Antidumping Duty and Countervailing Duty Orders, 84 FED. REG. 43,581 (Aug. 21, 2019).
9. GATT Panel Report, European Economic Community – Regulation on Imports of Parts and Components, GATT Doc. L/6657 (Mar. 22, 1990), BISD 37S/132 (adopted May 16, 1990).
10. GATT, Report of the Acting Chairman of the Informal Group on Anti-Dumping, Measures to Prevent Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Duties, art. 12, GATT Doc. MTN.GNG/NG8/W/83/Add.5 (July 23, 1990).
11. GATT, Trade Negotiations Committee, Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, GATT Doc. MTN.TNC/W/35/Rev.1 (Dec. 3, 1990).
12. United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, DS322.
13. WTO, Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, Topic 1 – What Constitutes Circumvention? Paper by the United States, WTO Doc. G/ADP/IG/W/2 (Oct. 8, 1997).
14. WTO, Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, Topic 1 – What Constitutes Circumvention? Paper by the European Community, WTO Doc. G/ADP/IG/W/6 (April 22, 1998).
15. WTO, Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, Topic 1 – What Constitutes Circumvention? Paper by Japan, WTO Doc. G/ADP/IG/W/15 (Oct. 30, 1998).
16. WTO, Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention, Topic 1 – What Constitutes Circumvention? Paper by the Republic of Korea, WTO Doc. G/ADP/IG/W/17 (May 28, 1999).
17. WTO, Draft Consolidated Chair Texts of the AD and SCM Agreements, WTO Doc. TN/RL/W/213 (Nov. 30, 2007).
18. WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, Proposed Provision of Anti-Circumvention: Statement of China; Hong Kong, China; Pakistan, WTO Doc. TN/RL/W/216 (Feb. 12, 2008).
19. WTO, Negotiating Group on Rules, Submission on Circumvention – Communication from the United States, WTO Doc. TN/RL/GEN/71 (Oct. 14, 2005).