一般通用之掠奪性訂價認定標準，係由Areeda及Turner1975年所提出之成本檢定法。當商品售價低於平均變動成本 (AVC)，且造成社會資源誤用時，法院即可判定該具市場優勢地位之事業係從事掠奪性訂價行為且有壟斷市場之意圖。為瞭解Areeda- Turner成本檢定法之可行性，本文嘗試利用經濟部之「83年工業生產成本調查」資料，以試算各產業廠商產品別的AVC，俾瞭解AVC在試算過程中所可能碰到的問題與涉及的相關因素。實證結果相當支持美國Easter­brook法官之補償檢定原則，本研究發現合理的掠奪性訂價判斷標準不應只機械式地以產品售價是否低於當期AVC為判定基準，而是應同時考慮系爭市場上是否存有進入障礙，而使該具市場優勢地位之廠商得以預期未來其可以獨占利潤之方式來回收其因目前採掠奪性低價競爭所造成之損失；倘市場進入障礙不足以使該獨占利潤得以長久維持，即可證明其並無掠奪及獨占該市場之意圖及能力。

　　　　　The Cost-Based-Test proposed by Areeda and Turner (1975) has been widely used by the juridical case since 1970s. Any price below AVC which is likely to cause the misallocation of the resources might be considered to be predatory and an unlawfully attempt to monopolize by the court. In order to justify the feasibility of the Cost-Based-Test, this paper uses the data of The Survey on the Production Cost of the Industry (1994) of MOEA to compute the AVC for each main products in manufacturing industry in Taiwan. The evidence supports the Recoupment Test proposed by the Judge Easterbrook and indicates that criteria of the predatory pricing cannot be exclusively decided by if the price is merely below AVC. We also have to consider if there is an entry barrier which fabricates the anticipation of the predominant firm that the loss caused by the predatory pricing practices could be recouped by the monopoly rent in the future. If the entry barriers cannot sustain an ever-lasting monopoly rent, the predominant firm could defend that they do not have both the intention and the ability to monopolize the market.