中美两国之间关于同时征收反补贴税和反倾销税,进而可能导致双重救济的争议,将反补贴税金额的确定问题推向了风口浪尖。在这场争议中,两国主管机关以补贴金额确定反补贴税金额的传统做法受到质疑。关于反补贴税金额的确定问题存在两种相互竞争的学说:资源有效配置说以补贴金额为标准,竞争权利保障说则以损害为标准来确定反补贴税的金额。尽管存在差异,但这两种学说均遵从契合性原则。但WTO《补贴与反补贴协定》的法律框架和核心概念并不支持契合性,而是要求主管机关征收“适当”金额的反补贴税。因此,主管机关应当从反补贴措施所体现的矫正正义着手,依补贴类型的不同确定补贴的可谴责性,并结合损害情况最终确定“适当”金额的反补贴税。 The controversy between China and the United States on the simultaneous collection of countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties, which in turn may lead to double relief, has pushed the issue of determining the amount of countervailing duties to the forefront. In the controversy, the traditional methods of determining the amount of countervailing duties by the competent authorities of the two countries at subsidized amounts have been questioned. There are two kinds of competing theories about the determination of the amount of countervailing duties: the effective allocation of resources refers to the amount of subsidies as the standard, and the protection of competition rights says that the amount of countervailing duties is determined on the basis of the damage. Despite these differences, both doctrines adhere to the principle of compatibility. However, the legal framework and core concepts of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures do not support the compatibility. Instead, it requires the competent authorities to impose a “proper” amount of countervailing duty. Therefore, the competent authority should proceed from the corrective justice embodied in countervailing measures, determine the condemnability of subsidies according to the types of subsidies, and finally determine the countervailing duty of “appropriate ” in light of the damage.