FEDERATION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 13 страница

350. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted, that since 2006, the auctioning method of distributing part of the TRQs volumes had not been used and that the entirety of the volume of products subject to TRQs was distributed between importers in accordance with their historical shares in imports. A new entrant had to import the meat under the out-of-quota duty rate to be included later in the list of historical importers.

351. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that TRQs applied in the Russian Federation, whether by the competent CU Body or authorities of the Russian Federation, would not be allocated through auctioning. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

352. Some Members expressed concern that implementation by the Russian Federation of the different price or quality-based definitions for High Quality Beef (HQB) set-out in Russia's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods could lead to discrimination between like products. Those Members stressed that the Russian Federation should ensure that application of the HQB definitions set-out in the relevant section of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Russian Federation on Goods did not discriminate against like products imported from any Member. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that it did not intend to apply the definitions of HQB to discriminate against imports of like products. Furthermore, the Russian Federation confirmed that its customs service would be in a position to verify the quality and value of products claiming to be classified as HQB in accordance with the definitions included in the relevant section of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Russian Federation on Goods and would ensure that like products imported from any Member were accorded treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products imported from any other Member, as provided in the GATT 1994. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

353. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the Russian Federation will develop a national definition of High Quality Beef within 18 months of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. In response to requests for assurances from some Members, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would give positive consideration to recognizing High Quality Beef of other Members as falling under such national definition, provided it met the criteria of the national definition, and, thus, would accord to such High Quality Beef of other Members treatment no less favourable than that accorded to like products originating in any other Member. The Working Party took note of these commitments.

354. Noting that the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" prohibited access under TRQs from being granted to products originating from MFN suppliers, some Members requested confirmation of whether the Russian Federation also intended to provide legal authorisation for using TRQs to regulate general imports or if this would be limited to GSP imports. These Members required a more precise understanding of the methods of allocation and other aspects of the system that the Russian Federation intended to adopt in this field. In addition, some Members also requested that the Russian Federation enact amendments to the Tax Code to ensure MFN access to the system of TRQs.

355. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that provisions of Article 36.1 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993, and Article 2 of the CU Agreement of 12 December 2008, neither prohibited access under TRQs being granted to products originating from MFN suppliers, nor limited use of TRQs to GSP imports.

356. Recalling discussions in the Section "Import Licensing" of this Report, Members of the Working Party requested the Russian Federation to provide additional information on current import licensing requirements for imports of poultry, beef, and pork.

357. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in accordance with Government Resolution No. 1111, an entity that had imported products covered under the TRQ during the previous year had the right to receive an in-quota allocation under the TRQ for the next year, based on the percentage of imports of such entity in the previous year. Upon receipt of an application from an entity with a TRQ allocation, the MIT would issue a licence for importation of beef, pork and poultry within the allocated volumes. The licenses for importation of such products in 2011 were issued from 27 December 2010 until 31 December 2011, and were valid from 1 January until 31 December. An application for an import licence would be processed within five days. He confirmed that import licenses were not transferable, but noted that unused import licenses would be reallocated. Importers that had received a share of the quota based on historical trade shares could apply for a licence by 1 August for TRQs on beef, pork and poultry. Applications submitted after that date would not be accepted. Importers would receive a licence after submission of an application for the licence, a copy of a certificate confirming that the applicant was registered by a regional tax authority as a tax-payer and a copy of an import contract. Import licenses would be issued for particular volume of products. A fee of RUB 2,600 was charged for each licence. This fee was not reimbursed in the event the importer did not use the licence. In response, some Members of the Working Party stated that the system described did not work well in practice, and made it extremely difficult to actually export poultry, beef, and pork to the Russian Federation. These Members believed that use of historical suppliers was particularly problematic as many had been one-time shippers and no longer were participants in the market. The TRQ regime of the Russian Federation had created quota reserves for certain Members, reduced pre-TRQ access for other Members and eliminated equal opportunities to all Members to supply their products and was, therefore, a clear departure from the MFN principle. They noted that, under the previous regime, many importers received quota allocations so small that they were not economically viable (in some instances, importers were given quota allocations as low as 10 kilograms). They also noted that no mechanism for re-allocation of unused licenses had been developed in advance of the introduction of this system, and it did not appear that full utilization of the quotas and tariff rate quotas, which already contemplated reduced imports, would be possible. These Members enquired about how the Russian Federation kept track of how much of the quota allocations had actually been used and how the Russian Federation provided information on a weekly basis on actual quota fill during the quota period. Some Members also noted that suppliers situated geographically distant from the Russian Federation experienced additional difficulties due to shipping time.

358. Some Members expressed concern that the TRQ regime that the Russian Federation applied under the CU, did not appear to allocate any in-quota volume to new entrants. It appeared that an importer newly entering the market had to import at the over-quota rate which acted to limit the quantity of imports. Thus, in subsequent years, this importer would qualify only for a small in-quota allocation, since allocations were based on imports over the previous year. In their view, this did not provide sufficient flexibility in the market.

359. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that, in 2003, when the TRQ had been introduced, distribution of quotas had been based on the historical shares of main suppliers of the Russian Federation for the respective products in the years 1999 to 2001, which were the years immediately preceding the year when the decision to introduce the TRQs for beef and pork and special safeguard quotas for poultry had been taken (2002), and for which information was available. He confirmed that the supplying Members were invited to consult with his Government about country-specific allocation of quotas. Some of these consultations had been successfully concluded and their results had been implemented. The representative of the Russian Federation noted also that the Russian Federation took note of the concerns of the Working Party Members and amended the TRQ administration mechanism in a timely manner. In his view, now it worked effectively and allowed for the full utilization of quotas and TRQs (see Table 40).

360. Members also noted that the Veterinary Service of the Ministry of Agriculture required that importers obtain an import permit, in addition to veterinary and sanitary certification requirements (and now the import licence), to be able to import beef, pork, and poultry into the Russian Federation. Those Members considered that those import permits were also subject to the disciplines of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Members noted that, in January 2003, the Veterinary Service abruptly cancelled existing import permits for beef, pork, and poultry and established a new system for issuing import permits. Members noted that no information had been published or provided to Working Party participants on the new requirements for obtaining import permits.

361. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that veterinary permits were granted to all importers who had at their disposal technical possibilities necessary to guarantee the safety of products in conformity with veterinary standards. The same procedure (veterinary permits) was maintained for Russian operators in case of inter-regional trade. He added that this procedure was applied not only to goods under TRQs, but also to other goods subject to veterinary control, and that it was described in the Section "Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" of this Report.

362. Noting that the TRQ system of the Russian Federation appeared to violate several provisions of the GATT 1994, including Articles I, XI and XIII, some Members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that it would terminate the TRQs on meat products and replace them by a single tariff applied on an MFN basis for all Members.

363. The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the parameters and mechanism of allocation of TRQs were the subject of bilateral market access negotiations and their results would be duly reflected in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the TRQ mechanism set-out in Section I-B of Part I of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation contained the following parameters for TRQs on beef, pork and poultry: in-quota tariff rates, out-of-quota tariff-rates, quantities eligible for the in-quota tariff rates and country-specific allocations of those eligible quantities. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, in implementing TRQs, the Russian Federation would apply WTO-consistent procedures that provide for allocations to new importers. These procedures would operate in a predictable, transparent and timely manner.

364. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that:

1. If on 1 September of each quota year 30 per cent or more of a country-specific allocation of a tariff rate quota for meat had not been either contracted or imported, any unused quantity would be re-allocated on 15 September of the same quota year provided that:

(i) the Russian Federation had consulted with the Member holding a country-specific TRQ for meat and they had agreed whether the conditions of paragraph 1 had been established, prior to any such re-allocation; such mandatory consultations were to be held between 1 - 10 September of the quota year in question. In the course of the consultations requested by the Russian Federation, the Member holding a country-specific TRQ allocation could only object to re-allocation if it could demonstrate that at least 70 per cent of its allocation had been contracted or already imported. The outcome of such consultations would be made publicly available by the Russian Federation by 12 September of the quota year in question;

(ii) the Russian Federation's request for consultations had been substantiated by the Russian Federation supplying 15 days in advance of the consultations full information on the volume of meat covered by licences delivered (licences based on existing contracts) and imports in order to fully justify its request for the consultations; and

(iii) the re-allocated quantity would be made available to all WTO Members, including the Member with the original country-specific TRQ allocation and other Member country-specific TRQ allocation holders, provided the latter had filled their allocation.

2. During such consultations the effects of any sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) measure on commercial transactions would be examined.

3. Should the expectation of the Russian Federation be that there would be a need for re-allocating a country-specific TRQ, the Russian Federation would provide full information on the volume of meat covered by licences delivered (licences based on existing contracts) and imports to the concerned Member holding a country-specific TRQ allocation by 30 June of the quota year in question. Such information would also be provided by the Russian Federation at any other time, upon such Member's written request. Within the period from 30 June to 31 August, such information would also be provided, upon request, by the Russian Federation to WTO Member suppliers of products subject to the relevant country-specific TRQ.

4. By 15 July of the quota year the Russian Federation would make the information of its intention to consider launching consultations with a Member holding a country-specific TRQ allocation publicly available.

5. In exceptional circumstances where a major shortfall in filling an "Other countries" TRQ was expected, the Russian Federation could launch consultations. Such consultations would be held to consider whether as of 15 September in any quota year a country-specific TRQ holder, provided it had filled its own allocation, could also have access to the "Other countries" TRQ in question. Consultations would be held with the five largest suppliers to the Russian Federation under the "Other countries" TRQ over the last five years. Any other eligible supplier to the "Other countries" TRQ which had expressed an interest could also join the consultations. By 15 July and in any case at least 15 days before the actual consultations, the Russian Federation would make publicly available notice of its intention to consider launching such consultations. This public information would include the factual basis and supporting documents necessary for these consultations. The outcome of such consultations would be made available to the WTO Members by the Russian Federation within two days of the conclusion of any consultations held on the basis of this provision.

6. A decision to re-allocate a TRQ could only apply within the quota year in which the decision was taken.

7. No meat tariff quotas listed in Section I-B of the Russian Federation's Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods would be reallocated except in accordance with these requirements.

The Working Party took note of these commitments.

365. Members and the Russian Federation agreed that the particular arrangements described in paragraph 364 above were without prejudice to the WTO rights and obligations of Members (and the Russian Federation after its accession) holding country-specific allocations in respect of TRQs which were not subject to those arrangements.

366. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, import TRQs applied in the Russian Federation would be administered, whether by the competent Bodies of the CU or by authorities of the Russian Federation, in a manner that is consistent with the GATT 1994 and other relevant WTO Agreements, including the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and the Agreement on Agriculture. The Working Party took note of this commitment.

Other Duties and Charges

367. 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.

368. 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.

369. 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

370. 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.

371. 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.

372. 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 373 and 374 below.

373. Chapter 33.1 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation provided for three types of fees, i.e.:

(i) customs clearance;

(ii) customs escort of goods; and

(iii) 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.:

(iv) customs fees for execution of actions associated with release of goods (hereinafter referred to as "customs duties for customs operations");

(v) customs fees for customs escort; and

(vi) customs fees for storage in governmental warehouses.

374. 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 100,000 <*> per customs declaration and that rates of customs clearance fees were established by the Government.

--------------------------------

<*> As of 22 October 2011 the exchange rate was RUB 31.34 per 1 USD.

375. 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 1153 to 1156 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 was not permitted. Customs fees for storage at the warehouse for temporary storage or at the customs warehouse of the customs authorities varied based on the weight of the goods stored per day in storage, and increased if the storage space were specially arranged and equipped for storage of certain types of goods. The rates for relevant fees were listed in Table 20.

376. 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 445 and 460 of the Section "Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas and Import Licensing Systems" of this Report.

377. 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 240 USD). 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 6,500 USD in declared value, were collected at a minimum rate of RUB 500 (approximately 15 USD). 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 3,200 USD. 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 1,000,000 USD) 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".

378. 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 was not required for the goods. These provisions, 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).