M23_Contracts(2010)

Incoterms 2010 全目录INCOTERMS2010相对于INCOTERS2000的主要变化 (2)INCOTERMS2010 ...................................................... ................................................. (2)RULES FOR ANY MODE OR MODES OFTRANSPORT (3)EXW ................................................................ ........................................................................3FCA ................................................................ .........................................................................7CPT ................................................................ .......................................................................11CIP ................................................................ ........................................................................15DAT ................................................................ ......................................................................21DAP ................................................................ .......................................................................25DDP ................................................................ .......................................................................29RULES FOR SEA AND IINLAND WATERWAYTRANSPORT (33)FAS ................................................................ .......................................................................33FOB ................................................................ .......................................................................37CFR ................................................................ .......................................................................41CIF ................................................................ ........................................................................46一、【国际贸易术语解释通则】全名为“international rules for the interpretation of trade terms”简称为“international commercialterms"(以下简称INCOTERMS)，宗旨是为国际贸易中最普遍使用的贸易术语提供一套解释的国际规则，以避免因各国不同解释而出现的不确定性，或至少在相当程度上减少这种不确定性。

*CHAPTER 2(Core Chapter)COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGEANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1. The mercantilists believed that the way for a nation to become rich and powerful was toexport more than it imported. The resulting export surplus would then be settled by an inflow of gold and silver and the more gold and silver a nation had, the richer and more powerful it was. Thus, the government had to do all in its power to stimulate th e nation’s exports and discourage and restrict imports. However, since all nations could not simultaneously have an export surplus and the amount of gold and silver was fixed at any particular point in time, one nation could gain only at the expense of other nations. The mercantilists thus preached economic nationalism, believing that national interests were basically in conflict.Adam Smith, on the other hand, believed that free trade would make all nations better off.All of this is relevant today because many of the arguments made in favor of restricting international trade to protect domestic jobs are very similar to the mercantilists arguments made three or four centuries ago. That is why we can say that “mercantilism is alive and well in the twenty-fi rst century”. Thus we have to be prepared to answer anddemonstrate that these arguments are basically wrong.2. According to Adam Smith, the basis for trade was absolute advantage, or one country beingmore productive or efficient in the production of some commodities and other countries being more productive in the production of other commodities.The gains from trade arise as each country specialized in the production of the commodities in which it had an absolute advantage and importing those commodities in which the nation had an absolute disadvantage.Adam Smith believed in free trade and laissez-faire, or as little government interference with the economic system as possible. There were to be only a few exceptions to this policy of laissez-faire and free trade. One of these was the protection of industries important for national defense.3. Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage is superior to Smith’s theory of absolute advantagein that it showed that even if a nation is less efficient than or has an absolute disadvantage in the production of all commodities with respect to the other nations, there is still a basis forbeneficial trade for all nations.The gains from trade arise from the increased production of all commodities that arises when each country specializes in the production of and exports the commoditiesof its comparative advantage and imports the other commodities.A nation that is less efficient than others will be able to export the commodities of itscomparative advantage by having its wages and other costs sufficiently lower than in othernations so as to make the commodities of its comparative advantage cheaper in terms of the same currency with respect to the other nations.4. a. In case A, the United States has an absolute and a comparative advantage in wheat andthe United Kingdom in cloth. In case B, the United States has an absolute advantage (so that the United Kingdom has an absolute disadvantage) in both commodities. In case C, theUnited States has an absolute advantage in wheat but has neither an absolute advantage nor disadvantage in cloth. In case D, the United States has an absolute advantage over theUnited Kingdom in both commodities.b. In case A, the United States has a comparative advantage in wheat and the UnitedKingdom in cloth. In case B, the United States has a comparative advantage in wheat and the United Kingdom in cloth. In case C, the United States has a comparative advantage in wheat and the United Kingdom in cloth. In case D, the United States and the United Kingdom havea comparative advantage in neither commodities.5. a. The United States gains 1C.b. The United Kingdom gains 4C.c. 3C < 4W < 8C.d. The United States would gain 3C while the United Kingdom would gain 2C.6. a. The cost in terms of labor content of producing wheat is 1/4 in the United States and 1 inthe United Kingdom, while the cost in terms of labor content of producing cloth is 1/3 in the United States and 1/2 in the United Kingdom.b. In the United States, Pw=$1.50 and Pc=$2.00.c. In the United Kingdom, Pw=£1.00 and Pc=£0.50.7. The United States has a comparative disadvantage in the production of textiles. Restrictingtextile imports would keep U.S. workers from eventually moving into industries in which the United States has a comparative advantage and in which wages are higher.8. Ricardo’s explanation of the law of comparative is unacceptable because it is based on thelabor theory of value, which is not an acceptable theory of value.The explanation of the law of comparative advantage can be based on the opportunity cost doctrine, which is an acceptable theory of value.9. The production possibilities frontier reflects the opportunity costs of producing bothcommodities in the nation.The production possibilities frontier under constant costs is a (negatively sloped) straight line.The absolute slope of the production possibilities frontier reflects or gives the price of the commodity plotted along the horizontal axis in relation to the commodity plotted along the vertical axis.10. a. See Figure 1.1.b. In the United States Pw/Pc=3/4, while in the United Kingdom, Pw/Pc=2.c. In the United States Pc/Pw=4/3, while in the United Kingdom Pc/Pw=1/2.d. See Figure 1.2.The autarky points are A and A' in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively.The points of production with trade are B and B' in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively.The points of consumption are E and E' in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively. The gains from trade are shown by E > A for the U.S. and E' > A' for the U.K.ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1. a. Increasing opportunity costs arise because resources or factors of production are nothomogeneous (i.e., all units of the same factor are not identical or of the same quality) and not used in the same fixed proportion or intensity in the production of all commodities.This means that as the nation produces more of a commodity; it must utilize resources that become progressively less efficient or less suited for the production of that commodity. As a result, the nation must give up more and more of the second commodity to release justenough resources to produce each additional unit of the first commodity (i.e., it facesincreasing costs).b. In the real world, the production frontiers of different nations will usually differ becauseof differences in factor endowments and technology.2. a. See Figure3.1.b. The slope of the transformationcurve increases as the nationproduces more of X and decreasesas the nation produces more of Y.These reflect increasingopportunity costs as the nationproduces more of X or Y.3. a. See Figures 3.2a and 3.2b.b. Nation 1 has a comparative advantage in X and Nation 2 in Y.c. If the relative commodity price line in autarky has equal slope in both nations. This is rare.4. a. See Figures 3.3a and 3.3 b. Points B and B’ are the production points in Nations 1 and 2,respectively, with specialization and trade and E and E’ are the consumption points.b. Nation 1 gains by the amount by which community indifference curve III (point E) isabove indifference curve I (point A). Nation 2 gains to the extent that community indifference curve III’ (point E’) is above indifference curve I’ (point A).5. a. The equilibrium-relative commodity price in isolation is the relative price that prevailsin the nation without trade or in autarky.b. The equilibrium-relative commodity price in isolation for the commodity plotted alongthe horizontal axis is given by the (absolute) slope of the tangent of the production frontier and the community indifference curve at the point of production and consumption in thenation in isolation.c. The nation with the lower equilibrium relative commodity price in isolation or autarkyhas a comparative advantage in the commodity measured along the commodity axis and a comparative disadvantage in the commodity measured along the vertical axis.6. a. Nation 1 is better off at point E’ than at point A’ because point E’ is on higher communityindifference curve III than at point A, which is on lower community indifference curve I.b. Nation 1 consumes less of commodity Y at point E’ (40Y) than at point A’ (60Y) becauseP Y/P X is much higher at point E’ (P B’ =1) than at point A’ (P A’ =1/4, the inverse of P X/P Y=4).7. a. The reason for incomplete specialization under increasing costs is that as each nationspecializes in the production of the commodity of its comparative advantage, the relative commodity price in each nation moves toward each other (i.e., become less unequal) until they are identical in both nations. At that point, it does not pay for either nation to continue to expand the production of the commodity of its initial comparative advantage. This occurs before either nation has completely specialized in production.b. Under constant costs, each nation specializes completely in production of thecommodity of its comparative advantage (i.e., produces only that commodity). The reason is that since it pays for the nation to obtain some of the commodity of its comparativedisadvantage from the other nation, then it pays for the nation to get all of the commodity of its comparative disadvantage from the other nation (i.e., to specialize completely in the production of the commodity of its comparative advantage).8. See Figure 3.5 (Please disregard Figure 3.4, which shows how to derive the demand andsupply curve for commodity X for Nation 1 and Nation 2 that are used to show how theequilibrium relative commodity price is determined with trade – a topic that is covered inAppendix A3.1.Nations 1 and 2 have identical production frontiers (shown by a single curve) but different tastes (indifference curves). In isolation, Nation 1 produces and consumes at point A and Nation 2 at point A’. Since P A < P A’, Nation 1 has a comparative advantage in X and Nation2 in Y.With trade, Nation 1 specializes in the production of X and produces at B, while Nation 2 specializes in Y and produces at B’ (which coincides with B). By exchanging BC = C’E’ of X for CE = C’B of Y with each other (see trade triangles BCE and B’C’E’), Nation 1 ends up consuming at E on indifference curve III (higher than indifference curve I at point A) and Nation 2 consumes at on indifference curve III’ (higher than indifference curve I’ at po int A’).9. a. If the terms of trade of a nation improved from 100 to 110 over a given period of time, theterms of trade of the trade partner would deteriorate by about 9 percent over the same period of time [(100-110)/110 = -0.09 =0.9%].b. A deterioration in the terms of trade of the trade partner can be said to be unfavorable to thetrade partner because the trade partner must pay a higher price for its imports in terms of its exports.c. This does not necessarily mean that the welfare of the trade partner has decreased becausethe deterioration in its terms of trade may have resulted from an increase in productivity that is shared with the other nation.10. It is true that Mexico's wages are much lower than U.S. wages (they are about one fifth of theaverage wage in the United States), but labor productivity is much higher in the United Statesand so labor costs are not necessarily higher than in Mexico. In any event, trade can still be based on comparative advantage.*CHAPTER 4(Core Chapter)THE HECKSCHER-OHLIN AND OTHER TRADE THEORIES ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1. a. The Heckscher–Ohlin (H-0) theorem postulates that a nation will export thosecommodi ties whose production requires the intensive use of the nation’s relativelyabundant and cheap factor and import the commodities whose production requires theintensive use of the nation’s relatively scarce and expensive factor. In short, the relatively labor-rich nation exports relatively labor-intensive commodities and imports the relatively capital-intensive commodities.b. Heckscher and Ohlin identify the relative difference in factor endowments amongnations as the basic determinant of comparative advantage and international trade.c. The H-O Theory represents an extension of the standard trade model because itexplains the basis for comparative advantage (classical economists, such as Ricardo hadassumed it) and examines the effect of international trade on factor prices and incomedistribution (which classical economists had left unanswered).2. See Figure 4.1.3. a. The factor–price equalization theorem postulates that international trade will bringabout the equalization of the returns to homogeneous or identical factors across nations.b. The Stopler-Samuelson theorem postulates that free international trade reduces the realincome of the nation’s relatively scarce factor and increases the real income of the nation’s relatively abundant factor.c. The specific-factors model postulates that the opening of trade (1) benefits the specificfactor used in the production of t he nation’s export commodity, (2) harms the specific factor used in the production of the nation’s import-competing industry, and (3) leads to anambiguous effect (i.e., it may benefit or harm) the mobile factor.d. Trade acts as a substitute for the international mobility of factors of production in itseffect on factor prices. With perfect mobility, labor would migrate from the low-wagenation to the high-wage nation until wages in the two nations are equalized. Similarly,capital would move from the low-interest to the high-interest nation until the rate ofinterest was equalized in the two nations.4. a. The Leontief paradox refers to the original Leontief’s finding that U.S. importsubstitutes were more K-intensive than U.S. exports. This was the opposite of what the H-O theorem postulated.b. The Leontief paradox was resolved by including human capital into the calculationsand excluding industries based on natural resources. Recent research using data on many sectors, for many countries, over many years, and considering that countries couldspecialize in a particular subset or group of commodities that were best suited to theirspecific factor endowments, provides strong support for the H-O theorem.c. The Hecksher-Olhin theory remains the centerpiece of modern trade theory for explaininginternational trade today. To be sure, there are other forces (such as economies of scale,product differentiation, and technological differences across countries) that provide additional reasons and explanations for some international trade not explained by the basic H-O model.These other trade theories complement the basic H-O model in explaining the pattern ofinternational trade in the world today.5. International trade with developing economies, especially newly industrializing economies(NIEs), contributed in two ways to increased wage inequalities between skilled and unskilled workers in the United States during the past two decades. Directly, by reducing the demand for unskilled workers as a result of increased U.S. imports of labor-intensive manufactures and, indirectly, by speeding up the introduction of labor-saving innovations, which furtherreduced the U.S. demand for unskilled workers. International trade, however, was only asmall cause of increased wage inequalities in the United States. The most important causewas technological change.6. a. Economies of scale refer to the production situation where output grows proportionatelymore than the increase in inputs or factors of production. For example, output may morethan double with a doubling of inputs.b. Even if two nations were identical in every respect, there is still a basis for mutuallybeneficial trade based on economies of scale. When each nation specializes in theproduction of one commodity, the combined total world output of both commodities will be greater than without specialization when economies of scale are present. With trade, each nation then shares in these gains.c. The new international economies of scale refers to the increase in productivity resultingfrom firms purchasing parts and components from nations where they are made cheaper and better, and by establishing production facilities abroad.7. a. Product differentiation refers to products that are similar, but not identical.Intra-industry trade refers to trade in differentiated products, as opposed to inter-industry trade in completely different products.b. Intra-industry trade arises in order to take advantage of important economies of scale inproduction. That is, with intra-industry trade each firm or plant in industrial countries can specialize in the production of only one, or at most a few, varieties and styles of the same product rather than many different varieties and styles of a product and achieve economies of scale.c. With few varieties and styles, more specialized and faster machinery can be developedfor a continuous operation and a longer production run. The nation then imports othervarieties and styles from other nations. Intra-industry trade benefits consumers because of the wider range of choices (i.e., the greater variety of differentiated products) available at the lower prices made possible by economies of scale in production.*CHAPTER 5(Core Chapter)TRADE RESTRICTIONS: TARIFFSANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1. a. See Figure 5.1.b. Consumption is 70X, production is 50X and imports are 20X.c. The consumption effect is –30X, the production effect is +30X, the trade effect is –60X,and the revenue effect is $30 (see Figure 5.1).2. a. The consumer surplus is $250 without and $l22.50 with the tariff (see Figure 5.1).b. Of the increase in the revenue of producers with the tariff (as compared with theirrevenues under free trade), $22.50 represents the increase in production costs and another $22.50 represents the increase in rent or producer surplus (see Figure 5.1).c. The dollar value or the protection cost of the tariff is $45 (see Figure 5.1).3.The dollar value or the protection cost of the tariff is $45 (see Figure 5.2).4.The dollar value or the protection cost of the tariff is $45 (see Figure5.3).5. The optimum tariff is the tariff that maximizes the net benefit resulting from theimprovement in the nation’s terms of trade against the negative effect resulting fromreduction in the volume of trade.6. a. When a nation imposes an optimum tariff, the trad e partner’s welfare declines becauseof the lower volume of trade and the deterioration in its terms of trade.b. The trade partner is likely to retaliate and in the end both nations are likely to losebecause of the reduction in the volume of trade.7. Even when the trade partner does not retaliate when one nation imposes the optimum tariff,the gains of the tariff-imposing nation are less than the losses of the trade partner, so thatthe world as a whole is worse off than under free trade. It is in this sense that free trademaximizes world welfare.8. a. The nominal tariff is calculated on the market price of the product or service. The rateof effective protection, on the other hand, is calculated on the value added in the nation. It is equal to the value of the price of the commodity or service minus the value of theimported inputs used in the production of the commodity or service.b. The nominal tariff is important to consumers because it determines by how much theprice of the imported commodity increases. The rate of effective protection is important for domestic producers because it determines the actual rate of protection provided by thetariff to domestic processing.9. a. Rates of effective protection in industrial nations are generally much higher than thecorresponding nominal rates and increase with the degree of processing.b. The tariff structure of developed nations is of great concern for developing nationsbecause it discourages manufacturing production in developing nations.10. If a nation reduces the nominal tariff on the importation of the raw materials required toproduce a commodity but does not reduce the tariff on the importation of the finalcommodity produced with the imported raw material, then the effective tariff rates willincrease relative to the nominal tariff rate on the commodity.*CHAPTER 6(Core Chapter)NONTARIFF TRADE BARRIERS ANDTHE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PROTECTIONISMANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1. a. An import quota will increase the price of the product to domestic consumers, reducethe domestic consumption of the good, increase domestic production, and result in aprotection or deadweight loss to the economy.b. The effects of an import quota are identical to those of an equivalent import tariff,except that with a quota the government does not collect a tariff revenue (unless it auctions off import quotas to the highest bidder). The import quota is also more restrictive than an equivalent import tariff because foreign producers cannot increase their exports bylowering their prices.2.By penciling in D”X in Figure 1, we can see that the effects of the import quota are:P x=$2.00 and consumption is 60X, of which 40X are produced domestically and 20X areimported; by auctioning off import licenses, the revenue effect would be $20.3.The effects of an export quota of 20X are identical to those of an import quota of 20X or a100 percent import tariff on commodity X, except that the revenue effect is collected by the exporters, rather than by the domestic importers or their government.7. a. The infant-industry argument postulates that temporary protection may be justified inorder to allow a developing nation to develop an industry in which it has a potentialcomparative advantage. Temporary trade protection is then justified to establish and protect the domestic industr y during its “infancy” until it can grow and meet foreign competition.For this argument to be valid, however, protection must be temporary and the return in the grown-up industry must be sufficiently high to also offset the higher prices paid bydomestic consumers of the commodity during the period of infancy.b. The infant-industry argument must be qualified in several important ways to beacceptable. First, this argument is more justified for developing nations (where capitalmarkets may not function properly) than for industrial nations. Second, it is usuallydifficult to identify which industry or potential industry qualifies for this treatment, andexperience has shown that protection, once given, is difficult to remove. Third, and most important, what trade protection (say in the form of an import tariff) can do, an equivalent production subsidy to the infant industry can do better.8. a. According to strategic industrial trade policy a nation can create a comparativeadvantage (through temporary trade protection, subsidies, tax benefits, and cooperativegovernment–industry programs) in a high-technology field deemed crucial to future growth in the nation.b. There are also serious difficulties in carrying strategic industrial and trade policies.First, it is extremely difficult to pick winners (i.e., choose the industries that will contribute significantly to growth in the future). Second, if most leading nations undertake strategictrade policies at the same time, their efforts are largely neutralized. Third, when a country does achieve substantial success with a strategic trade policy, this comes at the expense of other countries (i.e., it is a beggar-thy-neighbor policy), which are, therefore, likely to retaliate. Faced with all these practical difficulties, even supporters of strategic trade policy grudgingly acknowledge that free trade is still the best policy, after all.*CHAPTER 7(Core Chapter)ECONOMIC INTEGRATIONANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS1.If Nation A imposes a 100 percent ad valorem tariff on imports of commodity X fromNation B and Nation C, Nation A will produce commodity X domestically because thedomestic price of commodity X is $10 as compared with the tariff-inclusive price of $16 if Nation A imported commodity X from Nation B and $12 if Nation A imported commodity X from nation C.2. a. If Nation A forms a customs union with Nation B, Nation A will import commodity Xfrom Nation B at the price of $8 instead of producing it itself at $10 or importing it fromNation C at the tariff-inclusive price of $12.b. The formation by Nation A of a customs union with Nation B leads to trade creationonly because Nation A replaces the domestic production of commodity X at Px=$10 with tariff-free imports of commodity X from Nation B at Px=$8.3.If Nation A imposes a 50 percent ad valorem tariff on imports of commodity X fromNation B and Nation C, Nation A will import commodity X from nation C at thetariff-inclusive price of $9 instead of producing commodity X itself or importing it from Nation B at the tariff-inclusive price of $12.4. a. If Nation A forms a customs union with Nation B, Nation A will import commodity Xfrom Nation B at the price of $8 instead of importing it from Nation C at the tariff-inclusive price of $9.b. The formation by Nation A of a customs union with Nation B leads not only to tradecreation but also to trade diversion because it replaces lower-cost imports of commodity X of $6 (from the point of view of Nation A as a whole) with higher priced imports ofCommodity X from Nation B at $8.Specifically, Nation A's importers do not import commodity X from Nation C because the tariff-inclusive price of commodity X from Nation C is $9 as compared with the no-tariff price of $8 for imports of commodity X from Nation B. However, since the government of Nation A collects the $3 tariff per unit on imports of commodity X fromNation C, the net effective price for imports of commodity X from Nation C is really $6 for Nation A as a whole.5. a. See Figure 7.1.b. The net gain from the trade-diverting customs union shown in Figure 1 is given byC'JJ'+B'HH'-MJ'H'N. As contrasted with the case in Figure 7-1 in the text, however, the sum of the areas of the two triangles (measuring gains) is here greater than the area therectangle (measuring the loss). Thus, the nation would now gain from the formation of acustom union. Had we drawn the figure on graph paper, we would have been able tomeasure the net gain in monetary terms also.6. A customs union that leads to both trade creation and trade diversion is more likely to leadto a net positive welfare gain of the nation joining the union (1) the smaller is the relative inefficiency of the union member in relation to the non-union member and (2) the higher is the level of the tariff imposed by the customs union on the non-union member.7.The dynamic benefits resulting from the formation of a customs union are (1) increasedcompetition, (2) economies of scale, (3) stimulus to investment, and (4) better utilization of economic resources. These are likely to be much more significant than the static benefits.8.See Figure 7.2. The formation of the customs union has no effect.。

乐税智库文档财税法规商务部2010年第21号公告--对原产于美国和俄罗斯的进口取向电工钢反倾销调查及原产于美国的进口取向电工钢反补贴调查的最终裁定【标 签】进口取向电工钢,反倾销调查,反补贴调查【颁布单位】商务部【文 号】商务部2010年第21号公告【发文日期】2010-04-10【实施时间】2010-04-11【 有效性 】全文有效【税 种】关税征收管理 根据《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》的规定，商务部于2009年6月1日发布立案公告，决定对原产于美国和俄罗斯的进口取向性硅电钢（即取向电工钢）进行反倾销调查；同日，根据《中华人民共和国反补贴条例》的规定，商务部发布立案公告，决定对原产于美国的进口取向性硅电钢进行反补贴调查。

取向性硅电钢（以下称被调查产品）归在《中华人民共和国进出口税则》税则号：72251100和72261100。

商务部对原产于美国和俄罗斯的进口被调查产品是否存在倾销和倾销幅度、原产于美国的进口被调查产品是否存在补贴和补贴金额、被调查产品是否对中国国内取向性硅电钢产业造成损害和损害程度以及倾销、补贴与损害之间的因果关系进行了调查。

根据调查结果和《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》第二十四条、《中华人民共和国反补贴条例》第二十五条的规定，商务部于2009年12月10日发布初裁公告，认定原产于美国和俄罗斯的进口被调查产品存在倾销，原产于美国的进口被调查产品存在补贴，中国国内取向性硅电钢产业受到了实质损害，而且倾销、补贴与损害之间存在因果关系。

初步裁定后，商务部继续对原产于美国和俄罗斯的进口被调查产品是否存在倾销和倾销幅度、原产于美国的进口被调查产品是否存在补贴和补贴金额、被调查产品是否对中国国内取向性硅电钢产业造成损害和损害程度以及倾销、补贴与损害之间的因果关系进行调查。

现本案调查结束。

根据调查结果，并依据《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》第二十五条和《中华人民共和国反补贴条例》第二十六条的规定，商务部做出最终裁定（见附件）。

商务部公告2010年第23号――对原产于美国和欧盟的进口非色散位移单模光纤进行反倾销立案调查【法规类别】倾销与反倾销【发文字号】商务部公告2010年第23号【发布部门】商务部【发布日期】2010.04.22【实施日期】2010.04.22【时效性】现行有效【效力级别】XE0303商务部公告（2010年第23号）对原产于美国和欧盟的进口非色散位移单模光纤进行反倾销立案调查中华人民共和国商务部于2010年3月19日正式收到江苏法尔胜光子有限公司、烽火藤仓光纤科技有限公司、富通集团有限公司、江苏亨通光纤科技有限公司、成都中住光纤有限公司和中天科技光纤有限公司代表国内非色散位移单模光纤产业提交的反倾销调查申请，申请人请求对原产于美国和欧盟的进口非色散位移单模光纤进行反倾销调查。

商务部依据《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》有关规定，对申请人的资格、申请调查产品的有关情况、中国同类产品的有关情况、申请调查产品对国内产业的影响、申请调查国家的有关情况等进行了审查。

同时，商务部就申请书提供的涉及倾销、损害及倾销与损害之间的因果关系等方面的证据进行了审查。

申请人提供的初步证据表明，申请人江苏法尔胜光子有限公司、烽火藤仓光纤科技有限公司、富通集团有限公司、江苏亨通光纤科技有限公司、成都中住光纤有限公司和中天科技光纤有限公司在2006年、2007年、2008年、2009年非色散位移单模光纤产量之和占同期中国大陆同类产品总产量的50％以上，符合《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》第十一条、第十三条和第十七条有关国内产业提出反倾销调查申请的规定。

同时，申请书中包含了《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》第十四条、第十五条规定的反倾销调查立案所要求的内容及有关证据。

根据上述审查结果及《中华人民共和国反倾销条例》第十六条规定，商务部决定自2010年4月22日起对原产于美国和欧盟的进口非色散位移单模光纤进行反倾销立案调查。

现将有关事项公告如下：一、立案调查及调查期自本公告发布之日起，商务部对原产于美国。

FREE ON BOARD 船上交货FOB (insert named port of shipment) Incoterms 2010 船上交货（…指定装运港）GUIDANCE NOTE 序言This rule is to be used only for sea or inland waterway transport.该术语仅适用于海运或内河运输。

“Free on Board” means that the seller delivers the goods on board the v essel nominated by the buyer at the named port of shipment or procures the goods already so delivered. The risk of loss of or damage to the goods passes when the goods are on board the vessel, and the buyer bears all costs from that moment onwards.“Free on Board”是指当卖方在指定的装运港将货物运至买方指定的船上或取得已按此送交的货物，即完成交货。

当货物已运至船上时，货物灭失或损坏的风险发生转移，买方自那时起承担一切费用。

The seller is required either to deliver the goods on board the vessel or to procure goods already so delivered for shipment. The reference to “procure” here caters for multip le sales down a chain (‘string sales’), particularly common in the commodity trades.卖方必须将货物运到船上或取得已按此送交准备发运的货物。

Designing and Manufacturing an Appropriate Technology Shredder in a Developing CountryJeffrey P. WeissAn Engineering Project submitted to the faculty of the School of Engineering in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Masters of Manufacturing Systems Engineering degreeUniversity of St. ThomasSt. Paul, MinnesotaDecember 2005AbstractThe focus of this project was to redesign a simple manual shredding machine used to shred breadfruit for the Republic of Haiti. A breadfruit shredder previously designed by a student senior design team was used as the basis for this project. The objective was to apply manufacturing principles, such as Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA), to simplify and reduce the cost of this machine so that it would be more accessible to poor farmers in Haiti. Each part of the shredder was examined using the DFMA methodology to determine if it could be eliminated or redesigned to simplify it while still making a quality product that met the performance criteria. The limitations of manufacturing a product in a developing country were also taken into consideration and played a key role in the outcome of the design. The result was a design that had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, easier to clean, simpler to build in a developing country, used materials that were more commonly available, and cost less to make.Revised Tommy Breadfruit ShredderAcknowledgementsI would like to acknowledge and send my sincerest thanks to my Project Committee of Dr. Camille George, Dr. Fred Zimmerman, and Mr. John Walker. They contributed numerous ideas during both the project phase and during the writing process. This resulted in a much better product that will hopefully improve the lives of people around the world. Dr. George also spent a great deal of time correcting and critiquing the writing of someone who was unaccustomed to writing in the academic thesis style.Many other people also lent a voice to the project during the research and design review phases. This would include Karl Mueller, Bruce Humphrey, Hank Garwick, Dave Elton, John Schevenius, Gary Olmstead, Fred Hegele, Pat O'Malley, Troy Pontgras, Yvonne Ng, and Clay Solberg. These people took the time to help and offered ideas that had previously been missed, resulting in a better product.I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Mike Hennessey at the University of St. Thomas and the work of five of his undergraduate students. Justin Jackelen, Michael Boston, Angela Wachira, Keli Lais, and Matt Ellision took on the task of turning the revised breadfruit shredder drawings into computer animated Solidworks models. This contributed greatly to the visual understanding of the project and presentation. They also provided the fabrication prints that accompany this paper.Table of ContentsChapter I: Introduction (1)The Haitian Situation (2)Breadfruit (3)The Tommy Shredder (5)The Beneficiaries (5)Project Motivation (6)Chapter II: Research and Prior Work (7)UST Senior Design Team Work (7)Literature Search (9)Compatible Technology, International (11)Institutional Libraries (15)Research and International Organizations (15)Expert Inquires (17)Chapter III: Project Proposal (18)Project Objectives (18)Alternative Methods (20)Project Constraints (21)Project Budget (23)Financial Justification (23)Chapter IV: Findings and Results (24)Redesign Process (25)Design for Manufacture and Assembly Process (25)Alternative Designs (29)Design Reviews (30)Design Modifications (33)Fabrication Lessons (38)Design Variations (40)Shredder Blade Project (41)Testing the Redesigned Shredder (45)Redesign Results (47)Schedule (50)Final Budget (51)Chapter V: Discussion and Ramifications (52)Project Dissemination (52)Implementing the Shredder in Developing Countries (53)Project Obstacles (54)Bibliography: (57)Appendices (60)Appendix 1: Revisions 1 and 2 (60)Appendix 2: Revisions 3 and 4 (61)Appendix 3: Revisions 5 and 6 (62)Appendix 4: Revision 7 and 8 (63)Appendix 5: Breadfruit Shredder Exploded Layout (64)Appendix 6: Bill of Materials – Breadfruit Shredder (65)Appendix 7: Frame Plate Fabrication (67)Appendix 8: Drive Shaft Fabrication (69)Appendix 9: Feeder Tube Fabrication (70)Appendix 10: Blade Mount Fabrication (71)Appendix 11: Shredder Press Weight Fabrication (73)Appendix 12: Shredder Assembly Instructions (74)Appendix 13: Original Project Schedule (77)Appendix 14: Revised Project Schedule (78)Appendix 15: Preliminary Sketch by John Walker (79)Appendix 16: Contributions by Karl Mueller (80)Appendix 17: Drawing #001 – Frame Plate (82)Appendix 18: Drawing #002 – Drive Shaft (83)Appendix 19: Drawing #003 – Feeder Tube (84)Appendix 20: Drawing #004 – Drive Shaft Bearing (85)Appendix 21: Drawing #005 – Handle (86)Appendix 22: Drawing #006 – Blade Mount (87)Appendix 23: Drawing #007 – Center Divider (88)Appendix 24: Drawing #008 – Center Divider Spacer Tube (89)Appendix 25: Drawing #009 – Shredder Press Weight (90)Table of FiguresFigure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005) (3)Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree () (4)Figure 3: Senior Design Team Shredder (8)Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit Shredder (13)Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive Mechanism (14)Figure 6: Original Tommy Shredder Exploded View (28)Figure 7: Handle/Drive Shaft Changes (34)Figure 8: Drive Shaft Bearing Changes (35)Figure 9: Frame Plate Changes (35)Figure 10: Center Divider Changes (36)Figure 11: Blade Mount Changes (37)Figure 12: Combined Feeder Tube Hoop and Spacer (38)Figure 13: Alignment of Bushing Supports (39)Figure 14: Wooden Bushing Variation (41)Figure 15: Shredder Blade Profile Die, Profile Punch, and Hole Template (43)Figure 16: Fabricated Blade (45)Figure 17: The Revised Tommy Shredder (48)Table of TablesTable 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005) (2)Table 2: Proposed Budget (23)Table 3: Shredder Punch Hole Test (44)Table 4: Final Budget (52)Chapter I: IntroductionThis project will focus on redesigning for manufacture a simple breadfruit shredder for the Republic of Haiti. As one of the poorest nations in the Western hemisphere, Haiti is a country that lacks a stable government, education system, manufacturing base, or infrastructure. Malnutrition is a problem to the extent that the United States Department of State estimated that the child malnutrition rate was 22 percent in 2000(). Breadfruit is a natural food resource that is underutilized because it rots quickly and is difficult to store using traditional methods. Drying breadfruit can extend its shelf life and this process is best done when the shreds are even and consistent.A simple manual shredder was developed to produce consistent shreds for the inhabitants of Haiti by a group of senior engineering students at the University of Saint Thomas (UST) in conjunction with Compatible Technology International (CTI), an international non-profit organization. The student version of the shredder was designed and tested and found to meet all of the criteria that they had established. Despite meeting the requirements, the machine had the potential to be optimized to better reflect the manufacturing capabilities available in a developing country. This paper will document the redesign process and look at the manufacturing principles that drove this process. The end result was a machine that was simpler to build with the basic machine tools that would normally be found in a developing country such as Haiti, used materials that were more commonly available, had a reduced number of parts, was more robust, was easier to clean, and had a reduced cost.The Haitian SituationHaiti is considered to be the poorest and most destitute country in the Western hemisphere (CIA Fact Book, 2005). A majority of its population lives in poverty and relies on subsistence farming for survival. It has a long history of political upheaval and unrest since it gained its independence from France in 1804. The rotation of various governments and civil wars has hindered investment in the country and led to high unemployment and dismal living conditions for its inhabitants. The education system is broken or non-existent and there has been an exodus of knowledge from the island as people flee the dire conditions and turmoil.Table 1: Haiti Facts (CIA Fact Book, 2005)Population (Estimate, 2004): 8,121,622Land Area: 27,750 sq kmAverage Life Expectancy: 53 yearsPopulation Below Poverty Line: 80%Percentage of Population in Agriculture: 66%Unemployment Rate (no formal job): 66%Average Literacy Rate: 52%Figure 1: Map of the Republic of Haiti (CIA Fact Book, 2005)Most of the original Haitian forests have been cut down for fuel and the desire to cultivate more land. The weak governments have been unable or unwilling to confront this problem and it has continued unchecked. This deforestation has resulted in massive land erosion in the mountainous country and a net loss of arable land (CIA Fact Book, 2005). Breadfruit trees are abundant throughout the island and are one of the few trees that have survived the deforestation process.BreadfruitBreadfruit is an important food source and has become a staple for the inhabitants of warmer islands in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean. It has some nutritional value anda high starch content (Adebowale, 2005). Typical ways of preparing breadfruit are grilling, roasting, adding it to soups, and mashing.Figure 2: Fruit of the Breadfruit Tree ()One of the unique properties of breadfruit is its limited shelf life. Once it ripens and comes off of the tree, it will last between one and three days ( ). The breadfruit trees of Haiti produce fruit twice a year for a three week period (six weeks per year). Much of the fruit rots on the ground because of the inability to consume it all for the short time that it is in season (Capecchi, 2005). Typical preservation methods for fruit, such as canning, can be done but these value-adding processes are not common in Haiti and will increase the price of the food. A more economical way of preserving the breadfruit needed to be developed to utilize its potential to alleviate long-term hunger on the island.The Tommy ShredderThe development of a breadfruit harvesting process was taken on by two groups of senior mechanical engineering students as their Senior Design Projects in the 2003-2004 academic year. The first team attempted to devise a solar drier to quickly dehydrate the shredded breadfruit. The drying project showed that the shredded fruit could be successfully air-dried with an optimal shred size of ½” wide (Emiliusen, Mauritzen, McGruder, and Torgerson, 2004). The dried product can be stored for up to a year.The second team worked on developing a small, economical shredder that could efficiently and quickly process the breadfruit down into shreds so that it could be dried (Anderson, Fox, Rick, and Spah, 2004). The concept and methodology for the basic shredder design was done by the senior design team as was the testing to prove out the final design and will not be repeated in this paper. The purpose of this project was to examine and simplify the design, focusing primarily on its manufacturability.The BeneficiariesThe target beneficiaries of this shredder will be women’s cooperative groups based in Haiti. CTI, whose mission is to bring appropriate technologies to help increase food supplies and storage capacities in the developing world, has been working with the Methodist Church missions in Haiti on preserving breadfruit. Dried breadfruit can be ground into flour and local CTI volunteers have created several recipes using this breadfruit flour as the bulk material. UST teamed up with CTI to develop a simple shredder that could be used to shred the breadfruit. The goal of this joint project was tocreate a shredder that was simple to use and economical to manufacture so that local versions could be bought with micro-loans managed by the Methodist Church of Haiti. CTI also planned on helping set up a program to buy the shredded/ground breadfruit and process it into a cereal for Haitian school children (Capecchi, 2004). The plan was to take a resource, preserve it and add value, and then process it to create a commercial good. The objective of this undertaking is to give the women’s co-ops a starter model shredder that would allow them to generate some income from a readily available raw material.This shredder is also capable of processing a variety of different produce. There have been inquiries into its ability to shred cassava, sweet potatoes, and red peppers. The alternative uses of the shredder will not be explored here but the final design for this project will be made readily available and has potential uses worldwide. It will also be submitted to appropriate technology journals to broaden its dissemination.Project MotivationThe author of this master’s engineering project has spent time in developing countries and realized that there are often raw materials that are not fully utilized and exploited. The people generally lack the knowledge to manufacture items in large volumes and have limited manufacturing equipment, start-up money, a reliable source of power, or an infrastructure to transport the goods (Obi, 1999). However, these people are extremely creative and will adapt what they have on hand to work in almost any situation (Humphrey, 2005). The motivation for this project was to help the people develop theirown economy and hopefully raise their standard of living. This project will not only benefit the women of Haiti, it will help the local machine shops, provide work at the processing plant, and give the children of Haiti a stable, year around diet.Chapter II: Research and Prior WorkThe research for this project consisted of searching major journals, books on manufacturing in developing countries, contacting major research libraries, and personal contacts with experts in various fields. Many avenues for help were explored to gather information to improve the final design. The research phase of this project found that the work done by the UST senior design team was one of the few to address the issue of constructing a simple shredder for manufacture and use in a developing country.UST Senior Design Team WorkThis project is based on the work previously done by a University of Saint Thomas (UST) senior engineering design team whose goal was to develop the original breadfruit shredder based on the needs of the country of Haiti and the criteria established by Compatible Technology, International (CTI). The purpose of the original project was to “find the most efficient means of mechanically shredding breadfruit to best prepare the fruit for the drying process” (Anderson et al, 2004). The team developed concepts and tested many different methods of shredding the breadfruit and the mechanical actuators that would be needed for each prototype. The concepts were evaluated and ranked and the team chose the method best suited for their needs. The ‘Tommy Shredder’ developedby the student senior design team is shown in Figure 3 and their paper can be found on the UST website at /cmgeorge/breadfruit_shredder/.Figure 3: Senior Design Team ShredderThe senior design team had originally planned on testing the shredder in its target environment of Haiti but that country was not accessible at the time due to political unrest. A prototype shredder was built and brought to the Caribbean island of St. Vincent where there was an ample supply of breadfruit and established contacts. On the island of St. Vincent, the design was field-tested using breadfruit and the results recorded. The shredder met all of the target criteria established by CTI and the design team. It produced an average shred rate of 200 pounds/hour and cost less than $100 dollars U.S. to build (Anderson et al, 2004). This shredder became the baseline for the current project.Literature SearchA literature search done using the Compendex database at the University of Minnesota found several articles that were possibly related or relevant to the design of the breadfruit shredder. These articles were retrieved and analyzed with the result being that a majority were not related or did not contain information relevant to the design of an appropriate technology machine. Many of the applicable articles are referenced throughout this paper while those with less relevance to the project are cited in this section.In ‘Functional Properties of Native, Physically and Chemically Modified Breadfruit (Artocarpus Artilis) Starch’, Adebowale, Olu-Owolabi, Olawumi, and Lawal (2005) dealt with extracting starch from breadfruit. In the ‘Rediscovery of Local Raw Materials: New Opportunities for Developing Countries’, El-Mously (1997) discussed ways that developing countries could use local, undervalued resources to reduce their dependence on foreign imports. Breadfruit would be an undervalued resource on most Caribbean islands but the article did not provide information that would be relevant to the design of a shredder or this project. In the ‘Framework for Selecting and Introducing Appropriate Production Technology in Developing Countries’, Bruun and Mefford (1996) looked at working with the culture and education of developing countries when setting up a production facility. These are issues that will not be dealt with in this paper. In the ‘Role of Materials in Developing Countries’, Villas-Boas (1990) discussed the lack of use of new, high-tech materials in developing countries due to their cost and availability. Every effort was made to design the shredder using only common materials that would typicallybe available in a poor, developing country. In the ‘Supplier Selection in Developing Countries: a Model Development’, Motwani, Youssef, Kathawala, and Futch (1999) discussed issues involving selecting or qualifying vendors to produce a product. This will be the responsibility of the organization having the shredder built, and is beyond the scope of this project.A search of the Internet using the Google – Advanced Scholar provided more papers that had some relevance. Thakur, Varma, and Goldey (2001) in the ‘Perceptions of Drudgery in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry Operations: A Gender Analysis From Haryana State, India’ discusses the fact that women in developing countries spend much more time working in agriculture than men and the tasks given to them are more monotonous and tedious. The article supports the need for a device like the breadfruit shredder that has the potential to lift them out of that situation. In ‘A Framework for Implementing Appropriate Manufacturing Systems in Developing Economies’, Obi (1999) looked for explanations on why the Industrial Revolution passed by most developing countries and explored ways that these countries can start utilizing their vast manpower resources. He discusses the need to change workers attitudes. Finally, in ‘Meeting a Pressing Need’, Hynd and Smith (2004) discuss a simple oilseed ram press as an appropriate technology device for small scale extracting of oil from seeds and nuts. They examine some of the cultural issues that were associated with implementing the oilseed ram. The insights of this article could be used as a guide for undertaking the next phase of the shredder project; implementation into the Haitian culture. They briefly talk about some of themanufacturing difficulties, such as poor quality, associated with producing goods in a developing country.The best book relating to appropriate technology equipment used in developing countries is the ‘Appropriate Technology Sourcebook’ compiled by Darrow and Saxenian (1993). It is considered ‘The Bible’ by people in the appropriate technology field, such as those at CTI (Humphreys, 2005). The book is a resource listing appropriate technology machine books and papers that are available for purchase from other sources. It does not contain any designs of its own, but it does give a brief description of the contents of the papers and designs that are available for order. A search of this book and the updated website did not reveal any designs for manual shredders or grinders(/atnetwork/atsourcebook/index).Compatible Technology, InternationalCompatible Technology, International (CTI) () is an excellent local resource for dealing with appropriate technology in developing countries and has extensive connections throughout the world. It is an organization dedicated to using simple devices to improve food production and storage in the third world. They are a stakeholder in the design and development of the original shredder. The director of CTI is Bruce Humphreys who granted an interview on issues dealing with manufacturing in developing countries (2005). Some of the key points that he brought up were:Manufacturers in developing countries do not necessarily build parts to a fabrication print. Everything is custom and will look similar to what is desired,but is not quite the same.Creativity is not rewarded in many cultures and there is a desire to continue doing things the old way.Expectations in quality and standards will probably not be met. They do not typically produce to the same quality as is expected in the U.S.There are cultural norms and practices that will be slow to change and may not be overcome. This would primarily relate to the target market of women. Womentend to not use machines, thus the design must be easy to use and relatively toolfree.These assertions by Mr. Humphrey were reinforced in other literature relating to the topic (Obi, 1999).Hank Garwick and Dave Elton are the two CTI volunteers who are most closely tied into the Haiti mission. They have made several trips to Haiti on humanitarian missions associated with both CTI and the Methodist Church. The two offered insight into the Haitian mindset, manufacturing capabilities in Haiti, and experience in shredding breadfruit. Their comments on the manufacturing capabilities in Haiti were that “we would be lucky to find someone who could read a print, and even if they can they probably won’t follow it” (Garwick, 2005).Garwick and Elton were not satisfied with the work of the UST senior design team and continued to develop the shredder after the senior design team’s project ended. They made several small modifications to the design, built a prototype, and brought it down to Haiti to be tested (Fig. 4). The Garwick/Elton version of the shredder did not work as well as intended and did not produce the desired shred rate found by the UST engineering team (Garwick, 2005). It is unclear why this was the case. Several of the better design changes that they made to their shredder were incorporated into the current shredder design. These would include the sheet metal center divider and ideas on the retainer for the shredding blade.Figure 4: Garwick/Elton Breadfruit ShredderGarwick and Elton believed strongly that the prime power for the operation of the shredder should be a leg driven bicycle type mechanism instead of the current hand powered crank. Figure 5 shows a bicycle drive assembly that they added to a shredder (Garwick, 2005). This project is focused on producing a shredder for the poorest of people in Haiti and it was felt that a bicycle type mechanism would significantly add to the cost of the machine while making it unnecessarily complex. It is expected that this shredder will only be fully utilized for several weeks a year during the breadfruit harvest and would not justify the higher cost. The current design is one such that a bicycle type drive could be added to the shredder at a later date if desired by the user.Figure 5: Garwick/Elton Bicycle Drive MechanismInstitutional LibrariesThe United States Military Academy at West Point has an extensive library relating to military manuals and papers. The U.S. military routinely performs operations in developing countries and the units typically tasked with helping the local population are the Civil Affairs units and the Special Operations Forces. These units are often involved in nation building and community development and have close contact with the people. Daniel Prichard, a research librarian at the library, was contacted about any pamphlets, articles, or papers that the library may have on a shredder or appropriate technologies in developing countries. Mr. Prichard found nothing relevant at the Academy’s library (Prichard, 2004).A search of the University of St. Thomas’s and the University of Minnesota’s library systems found no books or on-site literature that was relevant to the design of the breadfruit shredder.Research and International OrganizationsThe Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute is an organization based in Hawaii whose mission is “to promote the study and use of Breadfruit for food and reforestation”( ). It tracks and propagates the 120 known varieties of breadfruit found on the islands of the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. Dr. Diane Ragone, director of the Hawaiian Breadfruit Institute, was contacted regarding the shredding of breadfruit and the possible existence of similar devices. Dr. Ragone responded that she had not heard of any similar processing methods for breadfruit. Her primary concern for this wasthat the latex found naturally in breadfruit would ‘gum-up’ the machine and clog the shredding blade (Ragone, 2005). This issue was raised with Hank Garwick of CTI and he stated that most of the latex in breadfruit was found in the skin. The skin is removed before processing so this did not appear to be a concern for the shredder. The field tests in St. Vincent by the senior engineering student team did not report any excessive latex build up on the blades.The International Research Development Centre (IRDC) is a Canadian based organization whose purpose is ‘to build healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous societies’ (www.irdc.ca ). An e-mail was sent to IRDC explaining the project and asking about any information that they might have on shredders. The response was a link to their website which brought up nothing of value. A similar search of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) provided no additional information ().Research was done with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to see if there were requirements or recommendations for the food industry regarding food processing equipment or the components used in them. The purpose was to find out which materials were considered “Food Grade” and suitable for food contact. The goal is to make the shredder as sanitary and safe as possible regardless of the standards that may be present in a developing country. It was found that the FDA does not keep a list of recommended materials, but has established a list of requirements that manufactures must meet in order to state that it is a material approved for food contact. The premise of therequirements are that if any of the material could ‘migrate’ to the food, it must not pose a threat to humans (FDA, 1999).Expert InquiresThe Minneapolis/St. Paul area is home to several large food producing companies such as General Mills. Food Safety personnel at General Mills were contacted to ask about standards for their food production equipment and any suggestions that would help to make the shredder more sanitary and suitable for food contact. These inquiries covered guidelines that are typical of the food processing industry. Gary Olmstead, Food Safety Instructor at General Mills stated that equipment should be durable and easy to clean (Olmstead, 2005). General Mills avoids having any pieces of equipment over the product because of the risk of parts falling into the food. Fred Hegele, also part of food safety at General Mills, was concerned about the durability of any plastics used in the equipment. He emphasized that the machine cannot have any recessed pockets or hard to clean areas. These would trap bacteria and make it unsafe and unsanitary (Hegele, 2005). John Schevenius, a former General Mills Engineer and founder of CTI, was contacted about suggestions for the shredder. Although he was familiar with the breadfruit program, he could not offer any suggestions for improvement (Schevenius, 2005).The research done here showed that there is a lack of availability of information regarding the design of an appropriate technology machine. The design methodology varies from organization to organization and no standardized process appears to have been completed and published in a major journal regarding the topic. Appropriate。

世界贸易组织的装船前检验协议《装船前检验协议》是乌拉圭回合所达成的非关税壁垒协议之一，它制约着对国际贸易形成障碍或者造成干扰的装船前检验活动。

装船前检验是国际贸易必不可少的一个过程，可以促进国际贸易的正常进行。

装船前检验是指在商品出口地的关境内对用户政府领土出口的商品的数量、质量、价格（包括外汇汇率和融资条件）以及关税税则分类进行的一切有关活动。

核实的依据是进出口双方在交易合同中所确立的内容，用以保证商品的数量、质量、价格和关税税则分类符合交易合同的要求，从而确保双方利益不受损害。

因此，装船前检验在国际贸易中有积极的促进作用，但同时也有可能成为贸易保护主义和贸易歧视的一种手段。

比如某些国家就为某些商品的装船前检验规定了过分复杂的手续，进行不必要的拖延或者针对不同的贸易对象执行差别待遇，阻碍或者扰乱国际贸易的正常进行。

为了进一步推动世界贸易自由化进程，关贸总协定乌拉圭回合多边贸易谈判的各参与方制定了《装船前检验协议》。

该协议旨在消除装船前检验执行过程中不必要的延误或者歧视性差别待遇，并保证装船前检验机构的工作程序和有关法规高度透明。

为了体现无歧视原则，该协议规定进口商所在国的检验机构必须保证检验所采用的程序和标准客观公正；用户政府必须确保装船前检验按照交易双方在交易合同中确定的数量和质量标准进行，进口方政府对所有成员方的出口商都要给予相同的待遇，就同一种进口商品检验必须就同一标准执行。

为了体现国民待遇，该协议要求进口国政府要保证对来自国外的进口商品进行装船前检验时采用和本国一致的标准和程序，不能对进口商品要求高，对本国同类商品要求低；用户国政府应确保所有的装船前检验活动均在商品出口方的关境内进行，用户政府不得随意干涉检验活动或者否认签发的检验结果。

同样，该协议也规定了用户政府要保持检验活动的透明度，主要为：用户国政府要保证有关装船前检验机构对其出口商提供一切必要信息，以便出口商有章可循，比如检验的具体程序和标准、出口商应有的权利和如何申诉等；用户国政府要督促检验机构成立查询处，方便出口商获取信息；协议生效后，各成员方要公布本国与装船前检验有关的法规和行政规定，以后若有任何修改变动，都要及时公布。

• for CIF terms— 1941年美国对外贸易定义修订本Revised AmericanForeign Trade Definitions 1941• Ex point of origin, FOB, FAS, C&F, CIF, Ex dock— 2010年国际贸易术语解释通则International Rules forthe Interpretation of Trade Terms (Incoterms 2010)•by International Chamber of Commerce, ICCIncoterms● Incoterms 1936● Revised in 1953, 1967, 1976, 1980, 1990, 1999, 2000● Incoterms 2010— 2000年9月27日颁布— 2011年1月1日生效— Group E: EXW•启运departure— Group F: FCA, FAS, FOB•主运费未付main carriage unpaid— Group C: CFR, CIF, CPT, CIP付至•主运费已付main carriage paid— Group D: DAT, DAP, DDP•到达arrival买卖双方的义务• A. 卖方义务— A1. 提供符合合同的货物—A2. 许可证、核准及手续增加了与安全有关的清关手续(这主要是考虑到美国“9.11”事件后对安全措施的加强。

为与此配合，出口商在某些情形下必须提前提供有关货物接受安全扫描和检验的相关信息)— A3. 运输和保险合同— A4. 交付货物— A5. 风险转移— A6. 费用划分— A7. 通知买方— A8. 交货凭证、运输单据或具有同等效力的电子信息— A9. 检验、包装、标记— A10. 其他义务卖方要帮助对方提供包括与安全有关的信息和单据，并因此而向受助方索偿因此而发生的费用(如在EXW项下，卖方协助买方办理出口清关等，也包括为另一方清关而获得必要单据所涉及的费用。