Geum.ru

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

Вид материалаДокументы
Подобный материал:
1   ...   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   ...   75

- Other Customs Formalities
  1. Several Members stressed that the simplification of border controls and customs documentation necessary for importation in the Russian Federation would have a favourable impact through reduced costs and improved efficiency for Russian traders.
  2. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the policy of his Government was aimed at creating favourable conditions for trade facilitation, including customs formalities. To that end, customs formalities in the Russian Federation were being brought into compliance with the internationally accepted rules, in particular, with the Revised Kyoto Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures. A number of such improvements had been established with the implementation of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003, i.e., the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, on 1 January 2004. Further efforts to streamline and harmonize customs formalities had occurred with the entry into force of the CU Customs Code, on 1 July 2010, and with additional domestic legislation in the form of Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010 "On Customs Regulation" and Federal Law No. 394-FZ of 28 December 2010 "On the Transfer of Certain Types of Controls to Customs". The maximum clearance period was reduced from 72 to 24 hours. These Laws replaced Federal Law No. 61-FZ, except for Article 357.10 that stipulated the right of the Government to introduce rates of fees for customs clearance and established the current authority of the FCS in the area of customs clearance and customs checkpoints.
  3. One Member of the Working Party noted that, under State Customs Committee Order No. 155 of 14 February 2001 "On the Procedure for Coordination of Decisions to Release Goods for Free Circulation" and Order No. 949 of 31 December 1999 "On Amending Order No. 258 of the SCC of 26 April 1996" (in the wording of SCC Order No. 43 of 31 January 1997 and, as amended on 10 March 2000) certain goods that qualified as "high-risk" (e.g., certain foodstuffs) were not released for free circulation without the specific approval of a higher customs authority. The process of obtaining such approval could last from one to two weeks. Under rules introduced in October 2001 by the North Western Customs Authority, shipments of "risk products" (a wide group of products including coffee, furniture, tyres and washing machines) were subject to burdensome documentary requirements, including in relationship to the ownership of the vehicle transporting the goods. The Russian Federation had also imposed restrictions that required customs clearance for certain goods, including textiles, clothing and electrical products, to take place only on borders with certain Asian countries as well as in certain ports and airports. Consequently, such items originating in Asia could no longer be exported to the Russian Federation via the customs territory of that Member. As well as raising concerns in relation to conformity with WTO requirements on trade in transit, these Orders made it impossible for companies, exporting to the Russian Federation, to use raw materials from the Far East for sub-contracting and, subsequently, created a barrier to business cooperation. The cumulative effect was that exporters to the Russian Federation faced unpredictable, non transparent, lengthy and generally burdensome customs procedures for certain imported goods at the designated customs checkpoints of entry into the territory. Checks on imported goods should not be applied in such a heavy-handed or non-transparent manner. These Members considered that the Russian Federation should enter a commitment to respect standard WTO requirements of transparency, predictability and uniform application in this regard.
  4. Another Member said that his authorities had concerns with the practice used by the Russian Federation customs bodies in respect of the transport companies of this Member. He noted that country-specific restrictive customs procedures were incompatible with WTO provisions, notably those in Articles I and VIII of the GATT 1994. This Member requested the Russian Federation to ensure that these and other country-specific measures, relating to customs procedures, would be brought in to full conformity with the WTO requirements, prior to accession.
  5. In response to concerns from Members regarding the designated customs entry checkpoints, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that, pursuant to Article 156 of the CU Customs Code and Article 193 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, the Government of the Russian Federation had the right to designate customs entry checkpoints for certain categories of goods and could establish certain places for entry at the border in compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation regarding the State border. These measures were necessary and were not intended to complicate import processing. He explained that the measures mentioned by Members, including the designation of customs entry checkpoints for particular goods and at certain border customs checkpoints, were aimed to assure accurate classification and valuation of the goods and to increase predictability and accuracy of customs procedures for traders and transporters. They were not intended to act as a hidden or unnecessary restriction to trade, bearing in mind insufficient resources to equip all border customs checkpoints with the necessary equipment and storage facilities. He also mentioned that respective restrictions and procedures were in accordance with the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Revised Kyoto Convention, 1999), in particular, with its Specific Annex A, Chapter 1, according to which national legislation specified the places at which such goods could enter the territory of the Russian Federation.
  6. With regard to the designated customs checkpoints for import declaration, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that his Government paid substantial attention to the implementation of legislative and practical measures aimed at the creation of stable and predictable conditions for implementation of customs formalities. After the entry into force on 1 January 2004 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, the number of legislative acts establishing restrictions on places of declaration of goods was reduced by two thirds and amounted to twelve at that time, as compared with 34 in mid-2003. He added that a Plan on Further Phasing out Restrictions in Respect of Specific Customs Points for the Declaration of Specific Types of Goods had been prepared and implemented. By October 2005, another four SCC Orders "On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for the Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had been abolished by the MEDT Order No. 347 of 23 December 2004, namely: SCC Order Nos. 1049, 1050, and 1051 of 19 September 2003, and SCC Order No. 1540 of 25 December 2003. Also, SCC Order No. 1443 of 11 December 2003 "On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for the Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had been abolished by MEDT Order No. 128 of 13 June 2005 and MEDT Order No. 68 of 4 April 2005 "On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for the Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had been abolished by MEDT Order No. 193 of 17 August 2005. The representative of the Russian Federation added that SCC Order No. 155 of 14 February 2001 "On the Procedure for Coordination of Decisions to Release Goods for Free Circulation" mentioned in paragraph had been invalidated by SCC Order No. 28 of 5 August 2002. He explained that the release of goods was now governed by Chapter 28 of the CU Customs Code, as elaborated in Section 25 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ (Articles 218 to 223).
  7. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that these measures had resulted in the gradual elimination of product categories of goods from the list of those subject to declaration for import at the designated customs checkpoints. The customs checkpoints designated for the purpose of customs declaration of certain goods for import were established throughout the customs territory of the country in proximity to respective international transport infrastructure or regions of major consumption or processing of imported products. This process of simplification and liberalization would be accelerated under the trade regime of the Customs Union.
  8. The representative of the Russian Federation added that, after implementation of the
    above-mentioned Plan, only a limited number of categories of goods remained subject to customs declaration and/or entry at the designated customs checkpoints. By 1 January 2011, the list of goods subject to such restrictions of the place of declaration and/or entry had been reduced to include only the following goods: (i) poultry meat and poultry offal for food (HS Code 0207), which was permitted only at sea and air checkpoints if, the country of origin>
  9. Currently, in accordance with Article 190 of the CU Customs Code and Articles 10.4 and 205 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, the FCS was authorised to designate specific customs checkpoints for the declaration of specific types of goods in order to ensure the effectiveness of control over the observance of the customs legislation, only if it was necessary to use specialised equipment and/or special knowledge to perform customs formalities, in respect of such goods as cultural valuables, goods of precious metals, weaponry, military material and ammunition, radioactive and fission materials, and other certain kinds of goods; or if it was necessary to accelerate the release of goods, such as express cargo, exhibition samples, goods imported to or exported from exclusive economic zones, etc. (Article 205 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ). In case a customs declaration was submitted to a different customs checkpoint than that designated, the customs declaration would be denied.
  10. In response to the concern of a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation added that the policy of its customs authorities was to establish such customs checkpoints close to places where goods, such as precious stones and metals destined for exhibitions were mostly sold, exhibited, consumed or used otherwise. For example, designated customs checkpoints for the clearance of goods for exhibitions were functioning directly in the premises of the biggest exhibition centres in Moscow or St. Petersburg.
  11. A Member asked whether the public was permitted to comment on the categories of goods designated for special treatment or on the development of such special methods, prior to implementation. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that Article 53 of Federal Law No. 311 FZ provided for the possibility of holding consultations and other procedures with the FCS, aimed at ensuring transparency with regard to matters relating to Customs Union legal acts, and other matters within the competence of national customs authorities.
  12. Members of the Working Party also noted that the industry and exporters had regular experience of inconsistencies between administrative decisions taken by the authorities of the Russian Federation and the prevailing legislation of the Russian Federation. Moreover, inconsistencies appeared to exist between the general legislative framework and subsidiary regulations and administrative guidance issued by the Government bodies of the Russian Federation (such as the FCS). They expected the Russian Federation to undertake a commitment that, upon accession, all regulations, formalities and requirements connected with the importation of goods, including in relation to statistical control, customs clearance, documents, documentation and certification, inspection and analysis, and any changes to these regulations, formalities and requirements would be published promptly and, in any case, sufficiently in advance of its entry into force and would be applied in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner across the customs territory of the Russian Federation, consistent with WTO requirements, including Articles VIII and X of the GATT 1994. Customs regulations, formalities and requirements should also be applied and operated in a fashion consistent with WTO requirements.
  13. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation referred to Sections "Customs Regulations and Procedures" and "Transparency" of this Report. He added that the provisions of normative legal acts of the Federal executive body charged with customs affairs were not to conflict with the provisions of customs legislation and other legal acts of the CU or normative legal acts of the Russian Federation and/or should not establish requirements, bans and restrictions not envisaged by customs legislation and other legal acts of the CU and normative legal acts of the Russian Federation.
  14. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that Table 13 and Table 14 were comprehensive lists of the categories of goods currently subject to measures requiring their declaration and/or entry at designated customs checkpoints. He further confirmed that if any such measures were contrary to the WTO Agreement, they would be eliminated as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO and that future measures concerning the declaration and/or entry of specific categories of goods at designated customs checkpoints, whether introduced, re introduced or applied pursuant to national legislation, CU Agreements, or other CU legal acts, would be consistent with the WTO Agreement. Furthermore, he confirmed that, from the date of accession, all laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application connected with the importation of goods, including those relating to statistical control, customs clearance, documentation and certification, inspection and analysis, and any changes to these laws, regulations decrees, decisions, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application whether introduced, reintroduced, or applied by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU would be published promptly and posted on the official websites of the responsible governmental bodies in such a manner as to enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them and that the Russian Federation would also publish the names of the governmental bodies responsible for administering them. Further, he confirmed that the Russian Federation would administer these laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner throughout its territory, as required by the WTO Agreement. He further confirmed that the Russian Federation would not apply country specific customs procedures in a manner inconsistent with the WTO Agreement, including Articles I and X of the GATT 1994, and would apply the principles of non-discrimination and transparency within the meaning of these Articles. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

- Preshipment Inspection
  1. Noting that the authorities of the Russian Federation had stated that the Russian Federation did not currently require any inspection services prior to shipment, but had been considering, at some point, recourse to such measures, Members asked the Russian Federation to explain its laws and regulations authorizing the employment of preshipment inspection and to undertake a commitment indicating that, if such services should be employed in the future, they would conform to WTO provisions in their operations, e.g., in the application of fees for services rendered, observance of other WTO requirements in customs processing, and in providing right of appeal to the Government.
  2. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Article 7 of the Agreement on Common Measures for Non-Tariff Regulation with Regard to Third Counties, signed on 25 January 2008 (hereafter: Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation), authorised the imposition of non tariff regulatory measures on the basis of national interests, inter alia, to implement national laws not in conflict with international agreements. The CU Agreement on the Introduction and Application of Measures Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods on a Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries of 25 January 2008 (hereafter: CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade) implemented the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and authorised the CU Commission to introduce non-economic measures affecting goods in foreign trade from third countries on the basis of proposals from the CU Parties. Pursuant to Article 6 of the latter Agreement, the Russian Federation could propose to introduce preshipment inspection. If the CU Commission rejected the proposal, such measures could be imposed unilaterally for up to six months, as provided for in Article 8 of the Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade.
  3. He added that, in conformity with the provisions of these CU Agreements, if the Russian Federation decided to introduce preshipment inspection with respect to certain goods, Article 28 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of the State Regulation of the Foreign Trade Activity" (as amended on 2 February 2006) authorised the creation of such a regime, and laid down the objectives and conditions thereof. Federal Law No. 164-FZ provided that preshipment inspection could be introduced for a period not exceeding three years. He noted that the Russian Federation had no current plans to introduce a preshipment inspection scheme.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, if a preshipment inspection scheme were to be introduced in the future, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, its operation would be in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection, and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, inter alia, in respect of the due process and transparency requirements of the WTO Agreement, in particular Article X of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 and confidentiality of data received would be ensured. In addition, it would be ensured by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU that charges and fees for preshipment inspection would comply with Article VIII of the GATT 1994, that preshipment entities would establish and maintain appeals procedures as foreseen by Article 2.21 of the WTO Agreement on Preshipment Inspection, and that that scheme would not constitute an undue and additional burden on exporters to or importers of goods into the Russian Federation. Further, he confirmed that the duration of any such scheme would be limited to three years and that importers and exporters would not be precluded from challenging facts found and findings made by preshipment inspection entities as part of administrative appeals against decisions of the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU where such decisions were based on those facts or findings. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

- Balance of payments
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, from 1 January 2010, the legal basis for applying non-tariff measures on goods to address the situation of the balance-of-payments (BOP) of the country could be found in the CU Agreement on Common Measures for Non-Tariff Regulation with Regard to Third Countries of 25 January 2008 (hereafter: CU Agreement On Non-Tariff Regulation). More specific provisions regarding the implementation of the CU Agreement on Non Tariff Regulation in this area were elaborated in the CU Agreement on Introduction and Application of Measures Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods on a Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries (hereafter: CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade) of 9 June 2009. Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation provided that measures limiting foreign trade in goods may be imposed with a view to protecting the external financial situation and maintaining a steady balance of payments. Article 9 of that Agreement and Articles 7 to 9 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade further provided the conditions for the CU as a whole and, in exceptional circumstances, for individual CU Parties unilaterally to introduce trade restrictive measures to protect the external financial position and maintain the balance of payments. Previously, Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation with Respect to Foreign Trade in Goods" and, later Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" had provided such authority. In accordance with Federal Law No. 63-FZ, and due to particular balance-of-payment difficulties, Government Resolution No. 791 of 17 July 1998 "On Introduction of an Additional Import Duty" had introduced a special import surcharge at a rate of 3 per cent ad valorem applied to all tariff items. Government Resolution No. 235 of 27 February 1999 "On Amending Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 791 of 17 July 1998 'On Introduction of an Additional Import Duty'" had eliminated the import surcharge from 1 March 1999.
  2. Noting the repeal of the balance-of-payments measure in 1999, some Members asked whether similar import surcharges would be authorised under any CU legislation other than the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, e.g., the CU Customs Code or 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" of the Interstate Council on Common Customs Tariff Regulations, or under national legislation of the Russian Federation. In this regard, these Members sought a commitment confirming that, as from the date of accession, any such measures for BOP purposes would be applied in full conformity with relevant WTO provisions.
  3. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and the Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, provided for the application of non-tariff measures for BOP purposes with regard to imported goods. One or more CU Parties could propose the adoption of such non-tariff measures to the CU Commission. If the CU Commission rejected the proposal, such measures could be imposed unilaterally for up to six months as provided for in Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade. With regard to services, Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", provided for restrictions on trade in services for BOP purposes. He confirmed that there were no other provisions in CU Agreements or in the legislation of the Russian Federation that dealt with BOP measures on goods or services.
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that restrictions on goods could be implemented by means of introducing an import quota or other non-tariff measures for a term required to restore the balance-of-payments of the Russian Federation. He further noted that, should such measures be imposed, the Government would designate a Federal executive body responsible for the implementation of these measures. With regard to services, BOP measures would be implemented through restrictions on trade in services.
  5. Some Members expressed concern that a mechanism for the application of tariffs or other price-based measures to safeguard the balance of payments of the Russian Federation, as provided for in the WTO Understanding on the Balance-of-Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994 and Article XII of the GATT 1994,>
  6. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation>
  7. In response to a Member who noted that the WTO Understanding on Balance-of-Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994 imposed an order of priority of measures, the representative of the Russian Federation said that since only non-tariff measures could be applied, no order of priority vis à-vis the use of priced based measures was specified in the CU Agreements or national law.
  8. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that any measure to safeguard its balance of payments, whether taken by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, would be in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular, the Understanding on the Balance-of-Payments Provisions of the GATT 1994 and Article XII of the GATT 1994. The Working Party took note of these commitments.