Geum.ru

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

Вид материалаДокументы
Подобный материал:
1   ...   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   ...   75

- Other Duties and Charges
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, from 1 January 2010, duties on imports were applied in accordance with the Agreement on Common Measures of Tariff and Customs Regulation of 25 January 2008, the Interstate Council Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union," and CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union." These provisions empowered the CU Commission to establish and change the customs tariffs of the CU Parties, including the Russian Federation, as described in Section "Ordinary Customs Duties" of this Report. No other duties and charges were authorised. Therefore, he confirmed that the Russian Federation did not apply any duties and charges of any kind within the meaning of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
  2. Noting this statement, several Members asked the Russian Federation to bind at zero all such Other Duties and Charges (ODCs) in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods and to undertake a commitment that it would not apply such measures except in conformity with WTO obligations.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the Russian Federation had bound all tariffs in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the GATT 1994 (reproduced in Annex 1 to the Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation). He confirmed that the Russian Federation would from the date of accession to the WTO not apply other duties and charges within the meaning of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and had bound such other duties and charges at zero in relation to all goods. These bindings were recorded in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Russian Federation annexed to the GATT 1994. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered

- (a) Customs Fees
  1. Several Members asked for a description of the currently applied regime of customs fees, introduced in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 (as last amended on 27 November 2010), which had entered into force on 1 January 2004. Noting that, under the previous system, fees charged for customs clearance had been calculated on an ad valorem basis, these Members questioned how the fee structure of the current system related to the cost of services rendered and stressed their expectation that the Russian Federation must comply with the relevant obligations provided for in the GATT 1994. They also sought information on the regime of customs fees that would apply under the CU Customs Code and the national legislation of the Russian Federation implementing the CU Customs Code.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, pursuant to Article 30 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as last amended on 27 December 2009), all payments collected on exports and imports of goods which were neither customs duties nor other taxes were not to exceed the approximate cost of services rendered nor be a means of protection of goods of Russian Federation origin or of taxation for fiscal purposes. Revenues generated by these fees were remitted to the general revenues of the State budget.
  3. He further noted that, before the adoption of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, there were six types of fees and charges for services rendered levied in relation to importation or exportation: (i) customs clearance fees; (ii) fees for storage; (iii) fees for customs escort; (iv) fees for consultations; (v) fees for adopting a preliminary decision by the customs official; and (vi) fees for the participation in customs auctions. These fees and charges were replaced under the Customs Code that came into effect on 1 January 2004. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that Article 72 of the CU Customs Code left the authority for the application of customs fees to the CU Parties. From 1 January 2011, Article 130 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" would establish the customs fee regime of the Russian Federation within the framework of the Customs Union. Until then, the provisions of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 6 December 2007) and Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental Principles of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as last amended on 27 December 2009), to the extent that they did not conflict with the CU Agreement on Customs Regulation and the CU Customs Code, continued to apply. The customs fees that were currently charged and those that came into effect on 1 January 2011 were as follows and as described in paragraphs and below.
  4. Chapter 33.1 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation provided for three types of fees, i.e.:
      1. customs clearance;
      2. customs escort of goods; and
      3. storage of goods in government customs warehouses.

Article 123 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" provided for the same three types of fees, but described as follows, i.e.:

      1. customs fees for execution of actions associated with release of goods (hereinafter referred to as "customs duties for customs operations");
      2. customs fees for customs escort; and
      3. customs fees for storage in governmental warehouses.
  1. Article 357.10 of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 6 December 2007) and Article 130 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" established the rates of those fees for customs escort and storage of goods in government warehouses and provided that the amount of customs fees for customs clearance (for customs operations) must be limited to the approximate value of services of customs authorities and must not exceed RUB 100,0006 per customs declaration and that rates of customs clearance fees were established by the Government.
  2. In response to specific questions of some Members about the requirements and procedures of customs escort, the provisions regulating storage of goods under customs control, and the relevant fees, the representative of the Russian Federation replied that these requirements and procedures were described in paragraphs to of the Section "Regulation of Trade in Transit" of this Report. Customs escort could be provided as a mandatory service for certain specific goods in transit through the territory of the Russian Federation and all other goods in transit to their declared destination in the Russian Federation after entering the customs territory of the CU through one of the other CU Parties. The purpose of such escort was to ensure that the same goods arrived at the final customs point in one of the CU Parties or exited the customs territory of the CU on their way to their final destination in a third country. Article 130 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" set fees for such customs escort based on the length of journey escorted for each motor transport vehicle and each unit of railway rolling stock. A flat fee was charged for escort of each sea, river or air vessel. If the storage of imported or exported goods, prior to customs clearance was required, government customs warehouses were available to importers and exporters for storage of their goods, including cases when their storage at other, privately owned warehouses>
  3. In response to further comments by some Members, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that detailed information on import licensing fees was provided in paragraphs and of the Section "Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas and Import Licensing Systems" of this Report.
  4. As for the first category of fees, "customs clearance fees" or "fees for customs operations", the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Government Resolution No. 863 of 28 December 2004 "On the Rates of the Customs Fees for the Customs Clearance of Goods" (as last amended on 20 December 2010) had been adopted in order to implement the provisions of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 6 December 2007). This Government Resolution established flat rates of fees for eight categories of customs declarations, some of which depended on the value of goods declared in a single declaration. The fees authorised in Article 130 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" would be established after its enactment and implementation. The rates of fees were listed in Table 20. He added that this scale provided for rates not exceeding RUB 7,500 (which corresponded approximately to US$240). This represented approximately 85 per cent of customs declarations in 2009, as reported by the customs statistics. The fees for small consignments of goods, i.e., where the customs declaration, list goods up to RUB 200,000 or approximately to US$6,500 in declared value, were collected at a minimum rate of RUB 500 (approximately US$15). The maximum rate, provided for both by the Customs Code of the Russian Federation and in the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" was RUB 100,000 per customs declaration, or approximately US$3,200. Under the current regime, this amount was levied only for customs clearance of consignments of goods where the customs declaration lists goods, exceeding RUB 30,000,000 (or US$1,000,000) in declared value. Such consignments were normally exceptionally large and required additional attention in the customs clearance process. Customs clearance fees were applied at equal rates to imports and exports from all origins and destinations. In Government Resolution No. 863 of 28 December 2004 "On the Rates of the Customs Fees for the Customs Clearance of Goods" (as last amended on 20 December 2010), special minimal rates (RUB 250-500 per customs declaration) were provided for the customs clearance of some other particular categories of goods:

- goods, transported by railway transport under the customs regime of international customs transit;
    • securities in foreign currency, which were brought into the customs territory of the Russian Federation;
    • goods for personal, home and family needs not related to the entrepreneurial activity, except for passenger cars classified in commodity positions of HS Codes 8702 and 8703; and
    • for customs registration of a customs declaration repeated for the same products under the same customs regime; as listed in Table 20.

He added that customs clearance of certain categories of goods was exempted from customs fees as established by the provisions of Article 357.9 of the Customs Code and in Article 131 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation".
  1. One Member asked whether the customs clearance fees were applied only to merchandise trade (e.g., not to travellers or goods entering the Russian Federation as personal items) for the service rendered by the customs service of import and export processing of the Russian Federation. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the customs clearance fees were levied only when a written customs declaration was required to be presented (those cases were established in the Customs Code and in the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation") and, correspondingly, customs authorities were required to provide a service. Thus, customs fees for the customs clearance were not levied in those cases when an exemption from the payment of the customs fees for the customs clearance was provided for (see the provisions of Article 357.9 of the Customs Code and Article 131 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation") and/or a declaration in written form>inter alia, covered most cases when the goods were transferred by physical persons for personal, familial, household, or any other needs unrelated to pursuits of entrepreneurial activities. If customs clearance of such goods required a written declaration, and they did not fall under the list of exemptions, a flat fee in amount of RUB 250 was to be paid (see Table 20).
  2. One Member asked about the rates of fees applied to the customs clearance of goods shipped by postal services or express delivery services. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that according to the exemptions listed in Article 357.9 of the Customs Code and Article 131 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation", customs fees for customs clearance were not chargeable in respect of goods forwarded in international postal items unless a declaration was required in written form and the said goods were declared by lodging a separate customs declaration (i.e., if the declared value of transferred goods exceeded RUB 10,000). In the latter cases, the rate of customs fees for customs clearance of goods amounted to RUB 250 as regards the goods, assigned for personal, family, household or other activities not connected with entrepreneurial activity, which were sent to a physical person (item (d), Table 20); if the goods were considered to be commercially traded, the relevant fee according to the scale listed in Table 20 was applied. He added that there were no differences provided for by the legislation in this matter, in respect of the treatment of foreign postal services, including express delivery operators, and the post service of the Russian Federation. In particular, there were no special exemptions for goods sent via the post service of the Russian Federation.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled that when the current system of the customs clearance fees was introduced, it was intended that this system would be consistent with the requirements of the WTO Agreement, including Article VIII of the GATT 1994 and not burdensome for the participants in foreign trade.
  4. Some Members, however, insisted that this system had some features that were not consistent with the provisions of Article VIII of the GATT 1994. One Member noted that high value declarations would incur a customs clearance fee of nearly US$3,500, an amount that could not be considered to be limited in amount to the approximate cost of services rendered. In addition, goods whose customs clearance may not require much handling or that used electronic format or other simplified methods for filing declarations could be subject to the same fees as similarly valued goods that required additional services. Finally, because customs clearance operations were funded from the State budget of the Russian Federation, and revenues from the fees were remitted to the State budget, it was difficult to establish that such revenues were used only for customs clearance operations. This Member requested that the Russian Federation amend its legislation to address these concerns and to establish a WTO-compliant system of customs clearance fees.
  5. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Customs Code mandated that the level of customs fees, including customs clearance fees, not exceed the cost of services rendered and that total revenues from customs clearance fee collections in 2009 accounted for only 25 per cent of the cost of customs clearance operations that year. He expected that further development of trade facilitation measures and expansion of enhanced customs clearance and control technologies would lead to decreased cost of services rendered in connection with customs clearance. He also confirmed that, prior to the date of accession, his Government would amend the system of customs clearance fees, i.e., reduce the maximum level for the customs clearance fee to the RUB equivalent of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) amount equal to RUB 30,000 as of the date of accession and establish lower fixed fees for the customs clearance of goods using electronic format or other simplified methods for filing declarations, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular, of Article VIII of the GATT 1994. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

- (b) Other Fees
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation said that other fees applied to imports or to the act of importation included: (i) port user fees; (ii) State duties; and (iii) consular fees. He confirmed that the Tax Code provided for the non-discriminatory application of State duties (Article 3 of Federal Law No. 146-FZ of 31 July 1998 "Part I of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 17 July 2010). State duties could not be applied differently because of social, racial, national, religious or any other type of criteria, and the establishment of differential taxes and fees for the same purpose was prohibited.
  2. The list of port fees applied in the Russian Federation was established in Federal Law No. 261-FZ of 8 November 2007 "On Seaports in the Russian Federation and on Amending Particular Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation". Port fees used in the particular seaports of the Russian Federation had been approved by the Order of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation No. 187 of 17 December 2007 "On Approval of Port Fees Collected in Seaports of the Russian Federation" Table 21 and Table 22. These port fees were collected per 1 gross tonne of vessel conventional capacity, stated in International Measuring (classification) Certificate, according to provisions of the International Convention on Tonnage of 1969 and, included the following: tonnage (to be collected for each arrival into the port and departure from it), beaconage (to be collected for each arrival into the port, departure and transit through port harbourage), canal fees (to be collected upon each pass of canal on arrival, departure and transit through port harbourage), ecological fees (to be collected in ports, providing facilities for collection of wastes of all types, except ballast water), pilotage fees (to be collected for out-of-port pilotage through fairways and channels (for miles) and in-port pilotage and (for operations)), navigation fees (to be collected for each arrival into the port and departure from it), and, ice-breaker fees (to be collected for each arrival into the port, departure and transit through port harbourage with dependence on the season of the year). General provisions for port fees collection and their maximum rates were established in the Order of the Federal Service on Tariffs No. 522-t/1 of 20 December 2007 (particularities of collection of specific fees in each port were provided in Annex 10(b)), Port fees were collected by the authorities of the commercial seaports of the Russian Federation on a non-discriminatory basis from Russian and foreign vessels and floating facilities, irrespective of their legal organizational form, legal status and pattern of ownership.
  3. State duties were collected in accordance with Chapter 25.3 of Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 "Part II of Tax Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 28 December 2010). The provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation related to State duties entered into force on 1 January 2005. The Law of the Russian Federation No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Duty", which previously regulated the application of State duties, had been abolished. Pursuant to Article 333.16 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, State duties were levied for the performance of legally significant actions, i.e., notary actions, including the issuance of documents, copies and duplicates, except for actions carried out by consular offices and only in the cases foreseen in the legislation. The list of applicable State duties was reproduced in Table 23.
  4. Several Members again questioned how an ad valorem State duty for the attestation of agency Agreements and for accepting money and securities in deposit could relate to the cost of the service rendered. They also requested clarification of whether these duties applied to the act of importation or exportation, and what sorts of customs documents required a stamp tax. Regarding fees that were applied to imports for requirements, such as standards certification or vehicle taxes, these Members also noted that to the extent that these fees were inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994, they should be revised or eliminated prior to accession. Clarification was also requested regarding the precise meaning of legally significant action "for performing other notary actions" or "for the performance of the technical work for the making of the documents".
  5. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, pursuant to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, State duties had to be paid only if so required under Chapter 25.3 of the Code. Mandatory customs operations and procedures, such as authentication of customs documents, attestation of agency Agreements and acceptance of money and securities in deposit by customs bodies did not require any payment of a State duty. Concerning the meaning of legally significant actions, he said that, according to Chapter 25.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, legally significant actions were:
    • statements of claim and other claims and complaints filed with courts of general jurisdiction, arbitration courts, justice courts and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation;
    • notarial acts by public notaries employed by notary offices or duly authorised officials of executive authorities, local administrations;
    • State Registration of acts of civil status and other legally significant actions performed by vital statistics offices; and
    • issuance of documents by courts, institutions and agencies for consideration and issuance of documents associated with acquisition of Russian citizenship (national status) or denunciation thereof and performance of other legally significant actions.
  1. Referring to consular fees, he noted that in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and Consular Articles provisions (1976), the main objective of the consular offices was the protection of rights and legal interests of Russian citizens and legal entities abroad. Consular offices of the Russian Federation collected fees for the issuance of documents of legal significance to Russian natural persons or legal entities constantly or temporarily residing or located in foreign countries, as well as to citizens of foreign states, foreign legal entities, and persons without citizenship. Acts performed by the consular offices of the Russian Federation included those related to passport and visa matters, citizenship, certification and notarization of documents, and power of attorney notarization. None of these acts were directly related to exports or imports of goods and their fees were applied on a reciprocal basis.
  2. Noting the statement above, some Members sought clarification from the Russian Federation on whether consular fees were levied on consular operations involving importation or exportation. In particular, they asked the Russian Federation to confirm whether any requirement existed for authentication of customs documentation by overseas Russian Federation consulates prior to exportation. Some Members expressed concerns about the charging of fees for consular purposes that were connected with importation (see Table 24) at a lower rate from certain countries where the service was performed (the Baltic countries and CIS countries) as this practice would be in violation of Article I of the GATT 1994 and should be eliminated prior to accession. Other Members of the Working Party expressed concern about the discriminatory application of consular fees by Sub Federal entities, apparently in contravention of the legislation of the Russian Federation. The same Members requested that the Russian Federation enter into a commitment to apply a uniform consular fee policy to all and to eliminate current discriminatory practices prior to accession.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that his Government imposed no requirement for the issuance of consular invoices or certificates for exports to the Russian Federation, nor for the authentication of customs documentation required for importation. He confirmed that consular fees were charged only by the consular offices of the Russian Federation. No consular offices were established by Sub-Federal entities and no consular fees were applied at Sub-Federal level. He also noted that the consular fees listed in Table 24 were not connected with the type of consular acts covered by Article VIII:4(a) of the GATT 1994, and were not in any way directly related to exportation or importation. These acts were covered by bilateral consular treaties and performed mainly in respect of Russian citizens and Russian legal entities. In his view, such bilateral treaties, providing for differential treatment for consular services on a reciprocal basis, were common among WTO Members.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the lists of fees and charges for customs services, port fees used in commercial seaports and State duties that could be applied in the context of international trade listed in Table 20, Table 21, Table 22, Table 23, Table 24 were comprehensive as of the date stated in each table.
  5. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession, ensure that any fees and charges imposed on or in connection with importation and exportation, including those discussed in paragraphs , , , , , , , and or introduced in the future, would be applied in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular Articles VIII and X of the GATT 1994. He further confirmed that, from the date of accession, all laws and regulations regarding the application and level of any such fees and charges would be published. Further, upon receipt of a written request of a concerned Member, the Russian Federation would provide to that Member information on the revenue collected from a specific fee or charge and on the costs of providing the associated services. The Working Party took note of these commitments.