Geum.ru

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

Вид материалаДокументы

Содержание


2. Export Regulations
Подобный материал:
1   ...   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   ...   75

2. Export Regulations

- Export Duties
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that export duties were levied pursuant to Article 3 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended on 3 December 2008). The CU Agreement of 25 January 2008 "On Export Duties with regard to Third Countries" did not provide for unified export tariffs and export tariff regulation. Thus, after the establishment of the Customs Union, export duties remained subject to regulation at the national level.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that export duties were applied on an MFN basis with the exceptions described in this Section. Goods exported to Parties of the Treaty on the Customs Union and Single Economic Space of 26 February 1999 (the Republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic) were exempted from application of export duties.
  3. The representative of the Russian Federation further informed Members that, taking into account the provisions of the Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and, in accordance with the Government Resolution No. 291 of 30 April 2010 "On Rates of Export Customs Duties on Gas delivered from the Territory of the Russian Federation to the Territory of Ukraine", a special regime of export duties on natural gas had been established with respect to Ukraine. According to this Resolution, a certain volume of natural gas (up to 40 billion cubic metres per year, since 2011 until 2019, inclusive) exported from the Russian Federation to Ukraine could be exempted from export duties. The export duty on natural gas, exported from the Russian Federation to Ukraine, above this volume (that is, above 40 billion cubic metres per year, during the period from 2011 to 2019, inclusive) was determined based on Government Resolution No. 795 of 23 December 2006 "On the Establishment of the Rates of the Export Customs Duties on Goods Exported from the Territory of the Russian Federation beyond the Borders of Countries that are Parties to Agreements on Customs Union".
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Russian Federation applied export duties to goods exported to other CIS countries with which the Russian Federation had concluded Free Trade Agreements. All changes in export duties were published officially.
  5. One Member expressed concern that the Russian Federation applied different export duties to oil produced in the Eastern Siberian fields and in Caspian fields, on the one hand, and oil produced in the rest of the country, on the other. Under Resolution No. 1110 of 24 December 2010 "On Approval of Rates of Export Duties on Crude Oil and Certain Types of Goods Produced from Crude Oil Exported outside the Territory of the Russian Federation and the Territories of States - Members of the Customs Union", the applied export duty for oil produced in the above-mentioned fields was US$117.5 per tonne, whereas the duty for oil produced in other fields was US$317.5 per tonne. This Member noted that, due to the existing transmission infrastructure, the oil with a lower export duty>de facto discrimination between oil exports on the basis of the country of destination. Furthermore, this Member noted that a slight chemical difference between these two types of crude oil, produced in the Russian Federation, might not be sufficient to consider that these two types of crude oil were not like products. This Member requested the Russian Federation to eliminate any existing unjustified discriminatory practices with regard to applied export duties for crude oil and to undertake a commitment to apply export duties in a non-discriminatory manner, in conformity with Article I of the GATT 1994.
  6. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that in 1998 export duties had been imposed on raw materials and semi-finished goods, mainly for fiscal purposes, and now ranged from 3 to 50 per cent, with a few exceptions where higher export duties were applied. In very few cases (oil seeds, raw hides and skins), export duties had been imposed to ensure greater availability of raw materials for the domestic industry. Export duties on non-ferrous and ferrous metals waste and scrap (and those in the guise of other products, e.g., used axle-boxes) had been imposed to address problems of environmental protection.
  7. The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that, over the last few years, the overall number of products subject to export duties had been reduced four times, from 1,200 to 310 tariff lines.
  8. In response to requests from Members of the Working Party, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that export duties were subject to regular review (the latest changes to Government Resolution No. 795 of 23 December 2006 "On the Establishment of the Rates of the Export Customs Duties on Goods Exported from the Territory of the Russian Federation beyond the Borders of Countries that are Parties to Agreements on Customs Union" had been made on 12 November 2010). Export duties were also the subject of bilateral tariff negotiations with some Members.
  9. Several Members of the Working Party were of the view that export duties acted as indirect subsidies to domestic downstream users and, thus, could distort international trade. Noting that the Russian Federation had argued that export duties were levied mainly for fiscal purposes, some Members expressed concerns that the effect of these duties was to discriminate against foreign buyers and to raise the level of the export price so that third-country producers encountered their own difficulties of supply for the products concerned; suffered from increased production costs resulting from higher input or energy costs; and/or faced a situation where they lost relative competitiveness on the global market for downstream products, as a result of the indirect price support given to domestic Russian producers competing in the same markets. This was particularly the case, as a result of export duties on minerals, petrochemicals, natural gas, raw hides and skins, ferrous and non-ferrous metals and scrap. Some Members also expressed a concern that export duties on certain products, notably, wood and ferrous and non-ferrous metals, were being used to distort investment decisions in processing industries and gave companies, which were producing in the Russian Federation, a cost advantage. These Members requested the Russian Federation to make a commitment to phase-out export duties under an established timetable describing specific modalities. The Russian Federation should also commit that export duties would not be applied on other products and that, once eliminated, export duties on products, currently affected, would not be re-introduced. In particular, some Members were concerned that the introduction of new export duties, or their re-introduction after elimination, created considerable uncertainty as to the reliability of supplies of certain raw materials from the Russian Federation. Some Members also requested the Russian Federation to reduce the number of products subject to export duties, especially the products with higher value added (e.g. a coniferous bonded wood), so that the negative impact in trade in such products could be minimized.
  10. Some Members of the Working Party also stated that the Russian Federation should describe its future plans, in conjunction with its application of export duties, VAT, and excise charges to exports. In particular, those Members sought confirmation that the Russian Federation had removed some export duties, and information on plans in this regard. In light of improvements in the economic situation in the Russian Federation, those Members enquired whether the export taxes were still necessary to deal with external debt. Some Members sought clarification on the increase of export duties on oil and natural gas and expressed concern about the potential impact of such measures on prices. Some Members of the Working Party stated, however, that they considered that export duties could play a legitimate role as a tool for trade policy.
  11. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that certain export duties continued to play an important fiscal role in the Russian Federation. He noted that, in most cases, export duties did not affect the price at which an exported commodity (i.e. natural gas, oil, oil products, non-ferrous metals) was purchased abroad. He further noted that the level of export duties on crude oil and oil products was linked to the world price of crude oil and, therefore, fluctuated accordingly. They were being revised monthly, according to paragraph 14, point 4 of Article 3 of Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff". As for the 30 per cent export duty on natural gas, he explained that this export duty had replaced the pre-existing excise taxes on natural gas, which were eliminated (see Section "Excise Taxes"). Export duties of a fiscal nature permitted the Russian Federation to replenish the budget (which was also required to comply with the international financial commitments of the Russian Federation).
  12. Export duties of a regulatory nature were used to influence the volume of exports and address both problems of environmental protection and economic needs. These duties concerned, for instance, such goods as non-ferrous scrap, which were mainly destined for exportation, as there was hardly any domestic demand (especially, for aluminium and nickel scrap). He further explained that the export duty was also linked to the need to prevent illegal production of non-ferrous scrap and was considered the most effective way to curb this phenomenon, as it made exports of those products unprofitable or, substantially, reduced profitability. He added that his Government was considering other means to address this problem, such as a licensing mechanism to monitor exports. He stated that, in his view, export duties could not be considered as a subsidy in the sense of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.
  13. As for the export duty rates on raw timber (HS 4403), which were increased several times since the beginning of 2007, the purpose of this measure was to accelerate the restructuring of the wood and paper industry of the Russian Federation and to address environmental concerns. Certain Members expressed doubts about the existence of environmental concerns that would justify this measure. Concerning timber, the latest changes to export duties were made by Resolution No. 442 of 16 June 2010 "On the Rates of Export Customs Duties Related to Certain Types of Timber, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries that are Members of CU Agreements". According to this Resolution, the export duty rate for a small group of "other" precious woods was reduced from €100 per cubic metre to 25 per cent or not less than €15 per cubic metre.
  14. In the non-ferrous metals sector, export duties on copper cathode and unalloyed nickel (HS Codes 7403 11 00 and 7502 10 00) were increased to 10 per cent (from zero for copper and from 5 per cent for nickel) following Resolution No. 893 of 12 November 2010 "On the Rates of Export Customs Duties related to Copper Cathode, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries that are Members of CU Agreements" and Resolution No. 893 of 12 November 2010 "On the Rates of Export Customs Duties related to Unalloyed Nickel, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries that are Members of CU Agreements".
  15. The representative of the Russian Federation further observed that export duties were permitted under WTO rules, and that many Members of the WTO applied export duties as an instrument of trade policy. In this regard, his Government considered that the request of several Members that the Russian Federation established a timetable to completely phase-out export duties was excessive.
  16. In response to the request of a Member to eliminate export duties on ferrous scrap and copper cathode well in advance of accession, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that export duties were the subject of bilateral negotiations and their results would be duly reflected. This Member indicated that it had accepted the invitation to engage in bilateral negotiations with the Russian Federation to reduce its export duties on the above-mentioned products, in the context of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. In its view, the results of these negotiations, which could be found in Table 31, would form part of the balance of commitments and concessions in the terms of accession of the Russian Federation. This Member emphasized that, if the Russian Federation subsequently increased these export duties above the commitment level, it would disturb the balance of concessions established in the bilateral and multilateral negotiations for WTO accession, and this Member would have the right to take appropriate action to re-balance the concessions. Some other Members stated that this was without prejudice to their views in respect of the status and legality of export duties in the framework of the WTO Agreement.
  17. As noted above, the Russian Federation undertook bilateral tariff negotiations on export duties with some Members of the Working Party. The tariff concessions and commitments resulting from these negotiations were contained in Part V of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation, which formed Annex 1 to the Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that Table 32 of this Report included all export duties applied by the Russian Federation.
  18. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would implement, from the date of accession, its tariff concessions and commitments contained in Part V of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation. Accordingly, products described in Part V of that Schedule would, subject to the terms, conditions or qualifications set-forth in that Part of the Schedule, be exempt from export duties in excess of those set-forth and provided therein. The representative of the Russian Federation further confirmed that the Russian Federation would not apply other measures having an equivalent effect to export duties on those products. He confirmed that, from the date of accession, the Russian Federation would apply export duties in conformity with the WTO Agreement, in particular with Article I of the GATT 1994. Accordingly, with respect to export duties and charges of any kind imposed on, or in connection with exportation, any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted by the Russian Federation to any product destined for any other country shall be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product destined for the territories of all other WTO Members. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would, from the date of accession to the WTO, administer export tariff rate quotas (TRQs) in a manner that is consistent with the WTO Agreement and in particular the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

                - Application of VAT Refund to Exports
  1. In response to a question by a Member about the regulations relevant to VAT refund, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the refund of VAT was made in accordance with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No.117-FZ dated 5 August 2000, last amended on 7 March 2011). He reaffirmed that the implementation of VAT refund would be made promptly and properly within the period specified under the relevant laws and regulations.

- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas
  1. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, from 1 January 2010, the legal basis for the application of export restrictions, including prohibitions and quotas, on goods exported to third countries from the CU could be found in: (i) EurAsEC Board of Heads of States Decision No. 19 of 27 November 2009 and the Agreement on Common Measures of Non-Tariff Regulation in respect of Third Countries, signed on 25 January 2008 (hereafter: CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation); (ii) the Agreement on the Procedure of Introduction and Implementation of Measures, Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods, on the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries (hereafter: CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade), signed on 9 June 2009; and (iii) the Agreement on Licensing Procedures in the Sphere of Foreign Trade in Goods, signed on 9 July 2009 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Licensing). As a consequence, decisions to impose non-tariff measures on exports from the CU Parties to third countries would be taken by the CU Commission. The CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 27 November 2009 "On a Single Non-Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" approved the Common List of Goods that are Subject to Non-Tariff Measures (see Table 28), which also came into force on 1 January 2010. The representative of the Russian Federation explained, that, prior to the establishment of the CU, the imposition of non-tariff measures on exports was governed by Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as amended on 2 February 2006). He noted that this legislation would remain in effect, to the extent provided for in the CU legislation. In addition, separate CU Agreements (referred to in Section "Export Licensing Procedures") set-out the circumstances in which exports of precious metals and stones, as well as mineral raw materials were subject to bans or quantitative restrictions.
  2. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, according to Article 3 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, the export of goods from the Russian Federation, being a CU Party, was carried out without quantitative limitations, except to prevent or reduce a critical shortage of foodstuffs or other goods considered essential for the domestic market. According to Article 7 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, and in accordance with Federal Laws and international treaties, non-tariff measures could be imposed on exports from the Russian Federation, if those measures: (i) were necessary to maintain public morals or law and order; (ii) were necessary to protect the life or health of citizens, environment, life or health of animals and plants; (iii) were related to the import or export of gold or silver; (iv) were applied to protect cultural valuables and heritage; (v) were required to prevent the exhaustion of irreplaceable natural resources and implemented simultaneously with curtailment of the domestic production or consumption associated with the utilization of irreplaceable natural resources; (vi) were linked to a limitation of export of domestic raw materials to provide sufficient quantity of such materials for the domestic manufacturing industry in periods when domestic prices for such materials were kept lower than world prices, as the result of a stabilization plan implemented by the Government; (vii) were essential to acquire or distribute goods in case of their general or local shortage; (viii) were essential to comply with international obligations; (ix) were essential to ensure the defence of the country and security of the State; and (x) were necessary to ensure the observance of regulatory legal acts not contravening international commitments and related to the application of the Customs Law, preservation of the environment, protection of intellectual property, and other legal acts.
  3. He further stated that, pursuant to Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, the CU Commission was authorised to apply quantitative export restrictions and prohibitions to fulfil the obligations of a CU Party under international sanctions regimes or to protect the external financial situation and safeguard the balance of payments (see Section "Balance of payments" of this Report). To meet these situations, the CU Commission was authorised to apply quantitative export restrictions or grant exclusive licenses to import or export based on proposals from a CU Party. Such measures would be implemented in accordance with Federal Laws of the Russian Federation and the international Agreements to which the Russian Federation was a party. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the list of general exceptions stipulated in Articles 7 and 8 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulations was exhaustive and no other document within the CU provided for such exceptions. He further explained that although the imposition of export restrictions>
  4. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as of 1 January 2010, pursuant to Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and Article 1 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, the authority to impose non-tariff measures on exports from a CU Party to third countries was transferred from the individual Parties to the CU Commission. A proposal to apply a non-tariff measure could be filed by a Party or the CU Commission, and the CU Commission was required to make its determination within 30 days from the date the proposal was submitted. The decision, if positive, would come into force 45 days after the date of publication. Such non-tariff measures would be applied to goods destined for third countries, and applied equally to exports to all countries.
  5. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that under Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, and pursuant to the procedures set-forth in the latter Agreement, a CU Party could unilaterally impose temporarily a non-tariff measure, if such a measure was aimed at: (i) the observance of public morality, law and order; (ii) defence and security; (iii) protection of life or health of the citizens, environment, life or health of animals and plants; (iv) protection of cultural values and cultural heritage; (v) protection of intellectual property; (vi) prevention of the exhaustion of irreplaceable natural resources; or (vii) prevention or reduction of the critical shortage in the domestic market of food or other goods essential for the domestic market. He further noted that the CU Parties would amend the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade to allow a CU Party to impose unilaterally a non-tariff measure on a temporary basis if such measure was aimed at the protection of the external financial position and safeguarding the balance of payments. Furthermore, based on its "national interest" a CU Party could, pursuant to Article 6.1 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, request the CU Commission to impose non tariff measures on exports. If the CU Commission rejected the proposal, the CU Party could, under Article 6.7 of that Agreement, impose such measures unilaterally, in conformity with Articles 8 through 10 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade. Under these Agreements, unilateral measures could be imposed for only six months. The CU Parties, not imposing the non tariff measure, were to take the necessary steps to prevent the exportation of the subject good(s) from the CU Party applying the non-tariff measures to third countries. CU Parties, not applying the measure, were to require licenses and/or permits for exportation of the subject goods from their respective territories.
  6. Some Members noted that quantitative export restrictions, including quotas, bans and non automatic licensing restrictions were prohibited by the GATT 1994, unless specifically justified, and requested the Russian Federation to list (identifying by HS tariff number) and justify any current export bans or quantitative restrictions in place. These Members also requested additional information on exports of unprocessed precious metals and stones, the quantitative restrictions on the export of natural gas and the ban on exports of grain (and the consistency of these measures with the requirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994). Concerning gas, they noted that, as provided for in Federal Law No. 69-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Gas Supply in the Russian Federation" and noted in the most recent OECD Economic Survey, Gazprom was required to supply the domestic market. They considered this to be a de facto restraint on exports. Members also asked the Russian Federation to provide a list of all quantitative restrictions eliminated since 1996 and to clarify the reference to "essential national interests", as a justification for export quotas and any possible relation of this reference to relevant WTO provisions that referred to essential security interest.
  7. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, pursuant to Government Resolutions No. 599 of 5 August 2010 and No. 654 of 30 August 2010, the temporary ban on grain exports was applied due to the severe drought conditions that had sharply reduced the 2010 harvest of the Russian Federation, in order to prevent critical shortages of food for human and animal consumption, which would occur, unless steps were taken to maintain domestic supplies. He further explained that the Russian Federation would terminate the export ban in accordance with the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, unless it was justified under the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, and the CU Commission decided that all CU Parties would apply the export ban.
  8. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that upon accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation would apply such quantitative export restrictions, in accordance with Article XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.