外国留学生办理海关手续须知
海关总署
外国留学生办理海关手续须知
海关总署
须知
第一条 入境
外国留学生来华入境时，应填写旅客行李申报单一式二份，其中一份由海关盖印后交留学生收存备查。申报单上注有“△”记号的物品，出境时应复带出境。
第二条 免税
（一）外国留学生携带入境自用的一般生活、学习用品，在合理数量范围内免税进口；
（二）获准来华学习一年以上的外国留学生准许免税进口供自用的手表一只、照相机一架、8ｍｍ电影摄影机一架、电冰箱一台、洗衣机一台、电风扇一台、单录机一架、手提式收录机一架、播放机一架、打字机一台、计算器一个、电视机一台、自行车一辆。
（三）外国留学生在华期间邮寄托运进口的自用物品、进口税额在人民币三十元以下的，享受免税优待；超出三十元的，交纳超出部分的税款。＊
第三条 进口物品的限制
（一）小汽车、摩托车、录像机、录像摄影机、音响组合未经海关批准，不准进口。
（二）其他未列名的耐用消费品，经海关审核确属自用且数量合理的，应完税进口。
第四条 《进口物品登记证》的使用
来华学习一年以上的外国留学生到学校报到后，可持本人护照、居留证件、学生证（或所在院校证明）和入境时经海关签章的“旅客行李申报单”向主管海关申请领取《进口物品登记证》，属于本须知第二条（二）所列物品，海关凭《登记证》免税放行。《登记证》应妥善保管。
外国留学生变更学校，应向原发证海关申明。
第五条 外币、金银、珠宝、文物的管理
外国留学生带进的外币、金银珠宝饰物数量不限，但应如实向海关申报，携带出境时，以申报单登记的数量为限。带出在中国境内购买的金银饰品，必须向海关交验中国人民银行印制的特种发货票。带出在中国境内购买的文物，应向海关申报，海关凭文物的鉴定标志（或文物出口证明
）以及文物外销发货票查核放行。
第六条 短期出入境
外国留学生在华学习期间短期去国外或港澳地区休假所携旅途生活用品，海关免税放行。如携带本须知第二条（二）列名的物品出境应向海关报明，以便返回时海关凭以免税放行；新购进的应向海关申报，属免税范围的，由海关在《进口物品登记证》上登记，超出免税品种或限量的，
经海关核准予以征税放行。
第七条 过境物品的管理
外国留学生如在离华前从香港等地运进耐用消费品准备回国时携带出境，应按过境物品办理手续。进口的物品不得提取，应在海关监管下复运出境。物品存放仓库期间，应按规定交纳保管费。
第八条 进口物品的出售
不准私自将经海关放行的物品在中国境内出售给任何单位和个人，只准售予当地政府指定的外货收购部门，免税进口的物品应由收购部门按章补税。违犯此规定，海关按章处理。
第九条 出境
外国留学生学习结束离华时，所带的自用物品在合理数量范围内免税放行。注＊：根据海关总署规定，1985年12月起，外国留学生从国外和港、澳寄进的邮包的免税额分别为50元和30元；超出的，征超出部分税款。
1984年7月19日
Chapter Ⅲ
Initiation of Panel Procedures
OUTLINE
Section One Role of Consultations: Art. 4
I The Importance of Consultations
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
Section Two Establishment of Panels: Art. 6.2
I Introduction
II Indication of Consultations Process
III Identification of “the specific measures at issue”
IV Provision of “a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint”
V Concluding Remarks
Section Three Terms of Reference of Panels: Art. 7
I Introduction
II Effect of Consultations on Terms of Reference of Panels
III The “matter referred to the DSB”
Section Four The Mandate of Compliance Panels: Art. 21.5
I Introduction
II Clarification of “measures taken to comply”
III Perspective of Review under Art.21.5
IV Examination of the New Measure in Its Totality and in Its Application
Section Five Third Party Rights : Art. 10
I Introduction
II Generic Third Party Rights: Interpretation of Art. 10.3
III Extended Third Party Rights: Exercise of Panels’ Discretion
IV Summary and Conclusions
Section One
Role of Consultations: Art. 4
The procedures for consultations under the WTO, significantly different from the procedures for good offices, conciliation or mediation as prescribed in Art. 5 of the DSU which remains voluntary options if the parties to the dispute so agree, remains a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process as embodied with text of Art. 4 of the DSU. However, as to be shown below, there is something to be clarified so as to understand appropriately the role of consultations under the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
I The Importance of Consultations
The practice of GATT contracting parties in regularly holding consultations is testimony to the important role of consultations in dispute settlement. Art. 4.1 of the DSU recognizes this practice and further provides that: “Members affirm their resolve to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the consultation procedures employed by Members.” A number of reports made by panels or by the Appellate Body under the WTO have recognized the value of consultations within the dispute settlement process.
As noted by a panel, Members’ duty to consult concerns a matter with utmost seriousness: “Compliance with the fundamental obligation of WTO Members to enter into consultations where a request is made under the DSU is vital to the operation of the dispute settlement system. Article 4.2 of the DSU provides that ‘[e]ach Member undertakes to accord sympathetic consideration to and afford adequate opportunity for consultation regarding any representations made by another Member concerning measures affecting the operation of any covered agreement taken within the territory of the former’. Moreover, pursuant to Article 4.6 of the DSU, consultations are ‘without prejudice to the rights of any Member in any further proceedings’. In our view, these provisions make clear that Members' duty to consult is absolute, and is not susceptible to the prior imposition of any terms and conditions by a Member.” 1
Another panel addresses the essence of consultations, and they rule there that: “Indeed, in our view, the very essence of consultations is to enable the parties gather correct and relevant information, for purposes of assisting them in arriving at a mutually agreed solution, or failing which, to assist them in presenting accurate information to the panel.”2
The Appellate Body confirms panels’ rulings in this respect. For example, the Appellate Body stresses those benefits afforded by consultations to the dispute settlement system in Mexico-HFCS（DS132）（21.5）as: “[…] Through consultations, parties exchange information, assess the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases, narrow the scope of the differences between them and, in many cases, reach a mutually agreed solution in accordance with the explicit preference expressed in Article 3.7 of the DSU. Moreover, even where no such agreed solution is reached, consultations provide the parties an opportunity to define and delimit the scope of the dispute between them. Clearly, consultations afford many benefits to complaining and responding parties, as well as to third parties and to the dispute settlement system as a whole.”3
II Issues Concerning the “adequacy” of Consultations
As noted above, the procedures for consultations remain a mandatory first step in the dispute settlement process under the WTO. However, does it mean that there is a requirement for the adequacy of consultations before initiating a panel proceeding?
With regard to this issue, on the one hand, the Panel on Alcoholic Beverages (DS75/DS84) finds that, “the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations”, the Panel Report reads in pertinent part:4
“In our view, the WTO jurisprudence so far has not recognized any concept of ‘adequacy’ of consultations. The only requirement under the DSU is that consultations were in fact held, or were at least requested, and that a period of sixty days has elapsed from the time consultations were requested to the time a request for a panel was made. What takes place in those consultations is not the concern of a panel. The point was put clearly by the Panel in Bananas III, where it was stated:
‘Consultations are […] a matter reserved for the parties. The DSB is not involved; no panel is involved; and the consultations are held in the absence of the Secretariat. While a mutually agreed solution is to be preferred, in some cases it is not possible for parties to agree upon one. In those cases, it is our view that the function of a panel is only to ascertain that the consultations, if required, were in fact held. […]’
