Geum.ru

WT/acc/rus/70 wt/min(11)/2

Вид материалаДокументы
Подобный материал:
1   ...   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   ...   75
- Ordinary Customs Duties
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that from 1 January 2010, the legal basis for the customs tariff of the Russian Federation was the Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of 25 January 2008 between the Governments of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (hereafter: Agreement on Customs Regulation), as elaborated in the Common External Tariff of the CU (CET), and approved in Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On the Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC (hereafter: Decision No. 18). Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union between the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" (hereafter: Decision No. 130), tariff rates were set by the CU Commission. Furthermore, the rules for common CU tariff preferences to developing and least-developed countries were elaborated in the Protocol on the Provision of Tariff Preferences of 12 December 2008 (hereafter: Protocol on Tariff Preferences).
  2. According to the Agreement on Customs Regulation, the CU Commission could issue decisions determining CET tariff rates. These CU Commission decisions were based on the results of negotiations among the CU Parties. As from 1 January 2010, the CU Parties had no authority to change import customs duty rates unilaterally. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that all exemptions from the CET for each CU Party were provided for in the unified list of tariff exemptions as described in Sections "Tariff Exemptions" and "Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)" of this Report.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that tariff decisions would normally be taken by the CU Commission by a two thirds qualified majority of votes, except for sensitive products (the 5,012 specified tariff lines included in Table 15) on which consensus was required. Consensus might also be required in other cases specified in the agreements comprising the legal basis of the CU. He added that within the Russian Federation, the Government Commission for Economic Development and Integration was responsible for establishing the position of the Russian Federation on customs and tariff policies, including the development of proposals to the other CU Parties to set or change import duty rates for consideration at the meetings of the CU Commission as provided for in Article 4 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation>
  5. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the CET was based on the 2007 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of the World Customs Organization (WCO). This System had originally been introduced in the Russian Federation on 1 January 2007 by Government Resolution No. 718 to replace the HS 2002 System previously used. In 2007-2009, the commodity nomenclature of the Russian Federation had been further modified beyond the HS 2007 6-digit level. The present CET Code nomenclature differed from the system of the Russian Federation introduced on 1 January 2007.
  6. Some Members requested that the consolidated results of the tariff negotiations with Members be converted from HS 1996 to the tariff nomenclature applicable in the Russian Federation at the time of its accession to the WTO. They also requested that concordance tables for each change of the tariff nomenclature from HS 1996 to the latest nomenclature being applied by the Russian Federation (i.e., HS 1996 to HS 2002 to HS 2007 to the CET Code nomenclature) be provided to Members for information and to permit verification of the accuracy of the conversion of the results of bilateral tariff negotiations into the final consolidated Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation.
  7. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation would ensure that Members were provided with the information necessary to verify commitments in the nomenclature it applied on the date of accession.
  8. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that currently the CET consisted of 11,170 tariff lines. A significant majority of tariff lines (9,208) were subject to ad valorem duties and 216 tariff lines were subject to specific duties. The ad valorem rates and ad valorem equivalents of combined and specific rates ranged from 0 to 30 per cent, except for:
    • live swine (ex HS 0103);
    • beef, pork and poultry imported in excess of certain amounts (out-of-quota meat) (ex HS 0201, 0202, 0203 and 0207);
    • caviar (HS 1604 30 100);
    • sugar (HS 1701 11, 1701 12, 1701 91, 1701 99);
    • beer and ethyl alcohol (HS 2203, 2207, 2208 90 910 0, 2208 90 990 0);
    • used truck tractors older than five years (HS 8701 20 901 3);
    • used buses older than five years (ex HS 8702 10 192 1, 8702 10 199 1, 8702 90 192 1, 8702 90 199 1);
    • used passenger motor cars (ex HS 8703);
    • used trucks older than five years (ex HS 8704); and
    • furniture with a cost lower than €1.8 per 1 kg (HS 9403 50 000 1, 9403 60 100 1, 9403 60 900 1).

Examples of tariff items that were subject to specific rates were apples, chocolate, beer, and strong alcoholic beverages.
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the remaining 1,746 tariff items in the CET were subject to combined duties. He explained that combined (mixed) duties were expressed in terms of alternative rates, one as an ad valorem rate and the other as a specific rate that served as a minimum rate of duty, e.g., 5 per cent, but no less than €1 per kilogram. Either the ad valorem duty rate or the specific duty rate was applied depending exclusively on the customs value of the good. Combined tariff rates were applied to: live swine, meat, certain species of fish, fermented or acidified milk and cream, whey, butter and cheeses, bird's eggs, flowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, bananas, citrus fruits, coffee and tea, rice, malt and starches, preserved vegetables, plant oils, sausages and other preparations of meat, juices, tea and coffee extracts, yeasts, food preparations not elsewhere specified (ex HS 2106), waters and ethyl alcohol, preparations used in animal feeding, cigars and cigarettes, sodium sulphides, resorcinol and its salts, maleic anhydride, bleaches and soap, dextrin and modified starches, plastics and articles thereof, tyres of rubber, leather and fur articles, articles of paper and paperboard, nonwovens, carpets and textile floor coverings, coated fabrics, textiles, footwear, headgear, artificial flowers, ceramic products, imitation jewellery, aluminium and articles thereof, tin and articles thereof, apparels, home electronics, cars, watches and furniture.
  2. In response to comments of some Members that, combined (mixed) and specific rates should be replaced by ad valorem duties upon the accession of the Russian Federation, in order to increase transparency and reduce distortions in trade, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the CET ensured a similar effective rate for the ad valorem and specific alternatives of combined rates. He also informed Members that the combined (mixed) rates were subject to bilateral tariff negotiations and their results would be reflected in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments for Goods of the Russian Federation.
  3. As a result of these negotiations, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that for goods subject to a combined duty (for example, in the form of 5 per cent, but not less than 2 €/kg), it would be ensured, whether by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, that the ad valorem equivalent of the specific duty rate for each tariff line, calculated based on the average customs value, would be no higher than the alternative ad valorem duty rate for that tariff line in the Schedule of the Russian Federation in accordance with the following provisions:
    • On an annual basis, it would be determined, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, whether it was necessary to reduce the applied specific duty rate to ensure that it was no higher than the applied ad valorem duty rate;
    • This calculation would be done two months before the end of each calendar year, beginning in the first calendar year after the date of the accession of the Russian Federation;
    • Data for the calculations would be from a three-year period, determined by taking trade data from a recent five-year representative period and excluding data for years with the highest and lowest trade for that period;
    • Data on trade with countries or territories with which the Russian Federation had a Customs Union or free trade agreement would be excluded from the calculation; and
    • Data would be drawn from the Official Customs Statistics of the Russian Federation notified to the WTO Integrated Database (IDB) unless such data was unavailable. In such case, IDB and COMTRADE data would be used.

The Russian Federation would inform Members of the results of these calculations on a tariff line basis and, if the results showed that it was necessary to reduce the specific duty rate alternative, this reduction would be made and would go into effect automatically, beginning on 1 January of the year following the calculation. In no case would the applied duty (whether expressed in ad valorem or specific terms and whether determined by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU) exceed the bound rate of the combined duty. If, after reductions based on the annual re calculation and changed circumstances, the specific duty rate alternative became significantly lower than ad valorem alternative rate of duty, the Russian Federation reserved the right to modify permanently the form of the duty to a purely ad valorem duty, at a level that complied with the binding for the relevant tariff line. The Working Party took note of these commitments.
  1. According to Article 1 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation, the main objectives and purposes of the CET were: (i) to rationalise the structure of the import of goods to the common customs area of the Parties; (ii) to maintain a rational proportion of imported and exported goods on the territory of the common customs area of the Parties; (iii) to create conditions for progressive changes in the structure of manufacturing and consumption of goods in the CU; (iv) to protect the economy of the CU from unfavourable influence from foreign competition; and (v) to provide conditions for effective integration of the CU into the world economy.
  2. Some Members expressed concerns that the aforementioned objectives (ii), (iii) and (iv) could be used to introduce WTO incompatible import or export tariff restrictions which could discriminate against foreign goods and asked for an explanation. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, in his view, most countries used tariffs to secure favourable conditions for the development of their domestic industry and agriculture by establishing higher duty rates on goods that were sensitive to competition with imported goods and that duties could be used to maintain a positive trade balance as well as a balanced trade structure, meaning that a positive trade balance could be secured not only through export of raw materials and semi-finished products. He confirmed that only WTO compatible tariff measures would be used by the Russian Federation and the competent CU bodies from the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.
  3. Some Members expressed concerns that paragraphs 2 and 7 of CU Commission Decision No. 130 could allow the application of import duties in a discriminatory manner, either vis-à-vis third countries or in relation to certain imports exempted from duties for investment projects. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that all import tariffs were applied by the Russian Federation in a non-discriminatory manner vis-à-vis third countries on the basis of trade and cooperation agreements, except if otherwise provided for under regional trade agreements or the CU Generalised System of Trade Preferences. Exemptions from the CET within the framework of investment projects were described in Sections "Tariff Exemptions" and "Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)" of this Report, as appropriate.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that in accordance with the Agreement on Customs Regulation and the Protocol on Tariff Preferences, the Russian Federation applied the common CU Scheme of Tariff Preferences for developing and least-developed countries (CU GSP Scheme), which was based on the GSP scheme in force in the Russian Federation before 1 January 2010. Lists of developing countries beneficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme (Table 16), least developed countries beneficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme (Table 17) and goods originating and imported from developing and least-developed countries subject to the CU GSP Scheme (Table 18) were established by Decision No. 18 and adopted by Decision No. 130. Under the CU GSP Scheme, the import duties applicable to products eligible for tariff preferences and originating from developing countries were at the level of 75 per cent of the MFN duty rates and from least-developed countries at the level of zero per cent.
  5. In response to a question by one Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that tariff preferences for goods originating from developing or least-developed countries that were subject to the CU GSP Scheme would be granted if the goods were purchased in that country from a resident of the country. Such goods had to be delivered directly or in transit through third countries to the territory of the CU, without them being put into free circulation in those third countries in case of transit. As provided for in the Annex to the CU Agreement on Rules for Determining the Origin of Goods from Developing and Least Developed Countries of 12 December 2008, goods were also considered purchased in the country of origin if they were purchased at an exhibition or fair.
  6. In response to requests from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, upon its accession to the WTO, the GSP Scheme for developing and least-developed countries would be applied, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  7. In response to a question of a Member regarding extension of "Duty-free and Quota-free" provisions as a part of the commitment made to Least-developed countries at the WTO 6th Ministerial Conference, that took place in Hong Kong in 2005, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this Declaration would be implemented, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, from the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.
  8. In response to questions concerning the functioning of world-price contingent tariffs for imported raw cane sugar, a system that had been introduced by Resolution No. 720 of 29 November 2003 "Regarding Tariff Regulation of Import of Raw Sugar and White Sugar in 2004" and that had entered into force on 1 January 2004 and that was now applied pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 131 of 27 November 2009 "Concerning Tariff Regulation of Sugar Import to the Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic Community", the representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation was both a sugar-producing and a sugar-importing country. Beet sugar production was important from an agricultural and social point of view. The world-price contingent tariff system aimed at maintaining the profitability of the beet sugar industry of the Russian Federation. A minimum profitability of 10 to 12 per cent was considered necessary to ensure the development of this sector. Taking into account the average cost of production of white beet sugar in the Russian Federation (US$420 per tonne), the variations of cane sugar world prices (between US$100 and US$300 per tonne), the customs duty applied to imported cane sugar was set at between US$140 and US$270 per tonne. Every month, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation monitored the evolution of the raw cane sugar world prices and calculated the average price for the two previous months. The customs duty was established on the basis of the data presented to the Ministry as of the first day of the month following the receipt of the data. This procedure was transparent, predictable and automatic.
  9. Some Members noted that the system of world price-contingent rates of import duty for raw cane sugar of HS sub-heading 1701.11 that had replaced the tariff rate quota on 1 January 2004 was a measure of a kind required to be eliminated in the Uruguay Round and was prohibited under Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. These Members called for its elimination prior to the date of accession. These Members also noted that, from 1 January 2004, the Russian Federation specified in its customs tariff schedule a series of tariff lines at the 10-digit level for raw cane sugar. The 10-digit tariff lines established different import duties according to the average monthly price in US dollars on the New York Commodity and Raw Materials Exchange. The Members noted that such a system would provide the means for the continuous and automatic adjustment of the import tariff on raw cane sugar of the Russian Federation, thereby impeding the transmission of world prices to the domestic market and preventing opportunities for competition in the market of the Russian Federation. Certain Members reserved their position in relation to this system of tariffs which they considered incompatible with Russia's WTO obligations. These Members expressly reserved the right to pursue this issue pursuant to the WTO Agreement including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
  10. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in his view, the Russian Federation's sugar regime was in compliance with the WTO Agreement and noted that price-based duty rates were widely used by WTO Members. He also informed Members that the Russian Federation confirmed its intention to consider the reform of its tariff regime for sugar in 2012, with a view to its further liberalisation in conformity with the WTO Agreement. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  11. In response to requests from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would submit its Information Technology Agreement (ITA) Schedule to the ITA Committee for verification, in accordance with ITA procedures, in order to enable the Russian Federation to join the ITA when it became a WTO Member. The Working Party took note of this commitment.
  12. The Russian Federation undertook bilateral market access negotiations on goods with Members of the Working Party. The results of these negotiations were contained in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods and form Annex I to the Protocol of Accession.

- Tariff Exemptions
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that from 1 January 2010, the legal basis for granting tariff exemptions on goods imported into the CU could be found in the Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of 25 January 2008 between the Governments of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (hereafter: Agreement on Customs Regulation). Articles 5 and 6 of this Agreement provided a framework for a unified CU list of tariff exemptions. Article 8 authorised the CU Commission to establish the unified lists. More specific provisions regarding the CU unified list of tariff exempted goods and the implementation of the Agreement on Customs Regulation in this area were elaborated in the Inter governmental Council Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" (hereafter: Decision No. 18) and the CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union between the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" (hereafter: Decision No. 130). The Agreement and Decisions also provided for other exemptions or reductions from the Common External Tariff (CET) rates, e.g., tariff concessions for investment purposes (further described in Section "Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)" of this Report), tariff preferences for developing and least-developed countries (further described in Section "Ordinary Customs Duties"), tariff rate quotas (further described in Section "Tariff Quotas"), and special limited derogations for individual CU Parties from the CET as elaborated in the Protocol on Conditions and Procedure for Use in Exceptional Cases of the Rates of Import Customs Duties other than Common Customs Tariff Rates of 12 December 2008 (hereafter: Protocol on Exceptions from the CET).
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation said that prior to 1 January 2010, Articles 34 and 35 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended on 28 June 2009) provided the Government the authority to grant tariff exemptions and established the list of categories of goods which were not subject to customs tariffs. These authorities were transferred to the CU Commission on 1 January 2010. He added that appropriate amendments to the Customs Tariff Law and the Federal Law "On Foreign Trade Regulation" of the Russian Federation to confirm these were being developed. Resolutions of the Government formerly issued in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Law also had provided for some tariff exemptions. These legal instruments either were in the process of being terminated or amended in accordance with CU Decisions. The corresponding draft legislation was being developed by the Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation added that Article 6 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation provided for the unified list of CU-wide exemptions from the customs tariff rates for the following categories of goods: (i) means of transport of international shipments of freight, baggage and passengers, and goods that maintain them; (ii) products of fishing operations owned or leased by entities and individuals of the CU Parties; (iii) goods imported for official or personal use by third countries' diplomats; (iv) currency and securities in accordance with the Parties' national legislation; (v) goods imported as humanitarian or disaster aid; (vi) goods imported as assistance (including technical assistance) and charity from third countries and international organizations; (vii) goods covered by import customs regimes which call for such duty exemption; (viii) goods imported by individuals for their own use, in accordance with customs regulation legislation; and (ix) goods subject to government expropriation by the CU Parties as provided for in their legislation.
  4. In response to concerns from Members regarding MFN treatment in respect of space equipment, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 191-FZ of 10 November 2006 "On Amending Article 35 of the Law of the Russian Federation on the Customs Tariff and Article 150 of Part Two of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation" had introduced duty free access for space equipment on an MFN basis. He further noted that, after 1 January 2010, Article 5 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation provided that goods imported within the framework of international cooperation of the CU Parties, including the Russian Federation, in the field of research and exploration of space, and also within the agreements regarding services in spacecraft launch and the goods imported for research and use in the exploration of space and spacecraft launch could be exempted from tariffs. The specific list of above-mentioned goods to be exempted was approved by CU Commission Decision No. 727 of 22 June 2011.
  5. Responding to questions from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement Customs Regulation, tariff exemptions (or lower duties) also could be established for goods imported as a contribution to the charter capital of an investment approved by national legislation.
  6. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the CU Parties could amend the provisions of the Agreement on Customs Regulation through separate Protocols to the Agreement. The CU Commission was authorised by this Agreement and Decision No. 18 to operate the CET, including the authority to add or remove goods from this list of exemptions by a two thirds vote upon request of a CU Party or on its own initiative. A consensus vote was required, if a CU Commission Decision would modify the unified list of exemptions concerning "sensitive products" defined by the CU Parties, or where consensus was specifically required in accordance with provisions of a separate CU legal act.
  7. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Article 6 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation also provided that goods could be exempted from the customs duty within the framework of customs regimes provided for in relevant customs legislation e.g., the CU Customs Code. Article 80 of the CU Customs Code listed the situations when customs duties need not be paid, which reflected circumstances faced by customs officials in the course of customs processing. These circumstances included: (i) when it was provided for in accordance with the legislation of the CU Parties (e.g., CU Commission Decision No. 130 or the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation") or the provisions of the CU Customs Code; (ii) when customs duties had already been paid or when the amount owed was less than €2; (iii) when goods were exempted from customs duties during the period of validity of such an exemption and when fulfilling the conditions, under which such exemption was granted; (iv) when goods were placed under customs procedures (regimes) not providing for such payment; (v) when the total customs value of goods, imported by one person on one invoice did not exceed €200; (vi) when goods had been destroyed or irretrievably lost as a consequence of an accident, force majeure, or as the result of natural deterioration under normal transportation and storage prior to their release; (vii) when goods had been converted into property of a CU Party in accordance with its national legislation; and (viii) when goods were not released.
  8. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Exceptions from the CET, the CU Commission could decide that a lower or higher duty rate than the CET would be applied by one of the CU Parties, if one of the following exceptional circumstances existed: (i) such a measure was a necessary condition for the development of industries of that CU Party; (ii) the CU Party concerned faced an acute shortage of goods; (iii) such a measure was necessary to address the socially relevant needs of the population of the concerned CU Party; or (iv) to address the needs of production, which depended largely on traditional imports from third countries and could not be implemented through the production of this or similar goods in the CU. Article 4 of this Protocol provided that the CU Commission Decisions, in these cases, were adopted by consensus and that a different tariff rate by one CU Party could be applied for no longer than six months, unless extended, following the relevant procedures foreseen in the Protocol. The list of all tariff exemptions granted under the Protocol on Exceptions from the CET and currently applied by the individual CU Parties was included in Table 19.
  9. Some Members noted that certain tariff exemptions granted currently or in the past for investment purposes (automobiles and Production Sharing Agreements (PSA) projects) or to promote domestic industry (aircraft) continued to be of concern. These Members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation to use its authority to grant such exemptions in conformity with WTO provisions. A Member noted, in particular, that the future WTO obligations of the Russian Federation required the Russian Federation to provide MFN treatment and to waive the import duties applied to certain imports of space equipment, and also required the Russian Federation to confirm that discriminatory tariff exemptions for aircrafts had been terminated.
  10. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that further information on the tariff exemptions granted currently or in the past by the Russian Federation for investment purposes were discussed in the Sections on "Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)" and "Industrial policy, including subsidy policies" of this Report. Goods imported to be used in work and operations specified in Product Sharing Agreements were exempted from the import tariff, pursuant to Point 9 of Article No. 346.35 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation which remained in effect until the CU Commission issued a Decision in respect of goods imported under PSAs. Tariff exemptions for aircraft had been terminated in the Russian Federation, but were being considered on a temporary basis in the context of requests by certain CU Parties for imports of certain large commercial aircraft. These tariff exemptions had not yet been approved or implemented.
  11. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the Russian Federation, at this time, did not utilize any other tariff exemptions than those described in this and other relevant Sections of this Report.
  12. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that no later than from the date of accession any tariff exemption for space equipment would be provided on an MFN basis. The Working Party took note of this commitment.