FEDERATION TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 32 страница

- an observer of the:

- Fisheries Committee of OECD, 1961;

- Group on Cereals, Animal Feeds and Sugar of Committee for Agriculture of OECD; and

- Group on Meat and Dairy Products of Committee for Agriculture of OECD.

He added that the Russian Federation was currently party to 32 bilateral and multilateral inter-governmental Agreements with third countries on food hygiene, safety, sanitary or phytosanitary measures. The list of these Agreements is in Annex 4.

(e) Regime for Trade in Products Subject to Veterinary Control

849. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Commission had issued several decisions which provided the basis for the legal framework for protection of animal and human health. CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011), established the legal basis for veterinary measures in the Customs Union and entered into force on 1 July 2010. CU Commission Decision No. 317 established a list of goods that could be subject to veterinary control, and adopted provisions on: (i) veterinary inspection at the customs border of the Customs Union; (ii) regulations on a single system of joint inspections of facilities and sampling of goods; (iii) veterinary requirements for goods subject to veterinary control; and (iv) the common form of veterinary certificates for movement within the Customs Union. The Common Sanitary-Epidemiological and Hygiene Requirements to Goods Subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological Control (supervision), as contained in CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 622 of 7 April 2011), established sanitary requirements, including maximum residue levels for controlled goods.

850. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that in addition to the laws described in paragraph 815, the following domestic normative legal acts were still in effect to the extent that they did not contradict CU Agreements or CU Commission Decisions: Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices" (as last amended by Federal Law No. 394-FZ of 28 December 2010), relating to protection of animal and human health and implementation of sanitary and veterinary measures, Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety of Food Products" (as last amended by Federal Law No. 394-FZ of 28 December 2010), relating to activities performed by the State veterinary authorities, Government Resolution No. 830 of 29 October 1992 "On Regulations of the State Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation for Protection of the Russian Territory Against Importation of Infectious Animal Diseases from Abroad", Government Resolution No. 706 of 19 June 1994 "On Regulations on State Veterinary Surveillance in the Russian Federation" (as last amended by Government Resolution No. 295 of 16 April 2001), Government Resolution No. 1263 of 29 September 1997 "On Regulations on the Procedure for Examination of Low Quality or Hazardous Food Inputs and Products, their use and Destruction" (as last amended by Government Resolution No. 295 of 16 April 2001), Government Resolution No. 987 of 21 December 2000 "On State Surveillance and Control in Ensuring Quality and Safety of Food Products", Government Resolution No. 26 of 18 January 2002 "On the State Registration of Feedstuffs Received from Genetically Modified Organisms" (as last amended by Government Resolution No. 422 of 14 July 2006) (with relevant amendments), Government Resolution No. 60 of 2 February 2006 "On the Provisions of Carrying Out of Social and Health Monitoring", Government Resolution No. 303 of 16 May 2005 "On Enactment of the Division of Authority of Federal Executive Agencies in the Field of Maintenance of Biological and Chemical Safety of the Russian Federation" (as last amended by Government Resolution No. 50 of 4 February 2011), Government Resolution No. 310 of 26 May 2006 "On the Rules of Animals Alienation and Withdrawals of Livestock Products at Liquidation of the Centres of Especially Dangerous Animal Diseases", "Regulations on Subdivision of State Veterinary Surveillance in Processing and Storage Enterprises of Animal Products" approved by the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation (No. 13-7-2/173 of 14 October 1994) (issued by the MOA), and Order of the MOA No. 422 of 16 November 2006 "On approval of rules of organizational management on issuing of accompanying documents" (as last amended by Order of the MOA No. 84 of 9 March 2010).

(i) Import Permits for Goods Subject to Veterinary (Sanitary) Control

851. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that since July 2010, the legal framework for the import permit regime of the Customs Union was set-out in Section VI of the Regulation on Veterinary Controls at the Customs Border of the Customs Union, adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 317. This Regulation sets-out the following principles:

- Imports into the CU of certain goods subject to veterinary controls must have an import permit issued by the competent authority of the CU Party which was the point of destination for the imports; and

- The permit was valid for a calendar year, for quantities which are specified in the permit.

The permit was issued taking into account the epizootic situation of the place of production and where there was a registry of enterprises authorised to export the relevant goods to the territory of the CU, whether the enterprise was on that list of enterprises.

852. The representative of the Russian Federation added that CU Parties were creating a common information data system of external and internal trade of the CU Parties which would be used for issuance of veterinary import permits and accounting for commodities subject to veterinary control (surveillance). An importer could obtain an import permit from Rosselkhoznadzor through the ARGUS information system. The importer was provided with an access code to this information system and could enter all data related to his/her request directly into ARGUS. For imports of agricultural live animals and fodder <*> for them, the Chief Veterinary Officer of the subject of the Russian Federation for the territory of destination would be consulted on whether to issue the import permit. The importer would receive a printable electronic copy of the permit via ARGUS or via the Chief Veterinary Officer of the subject of the Russian Federation, and in case of application, via ARGUS, the import permit was delivered electronically through ARGUS.

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

<*> The references to "feed" and "fodder" as used in the sub-section "Regime for Trade in Products Subject to Veterinary Control" of this Report refer only to those products which are subject to veterinary control as provided for in the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control as set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 317 as amended by CU Commission Decisions No. 810 of 23 September 2011 and No. 830 of 18 October 2011.

853. Currently, Belarus and the Russian Federation used the common automated information system ARGUS, and Kazakhstan used its own system. However, until the common electronic system for issuance of import permits for goods subject to control was put in place, the CU Parties would follow the procedures specified in their respective national legislation, i.e., import permits would be issued by the national competent authorities (including through ARGUS), but were recognised by the other CU Parties as allowing importation of products into the CU territory. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that other CU Parties knew that import permits had been issued for certain goods because a copy of the import permit was made available to the border entry point indicated in the permit.

854. Some Members noted that the import regime in the Russian Federation, and the CU, included a requirement to obtain an import permit from the veterinary authorities for goods subject to veterinary (sanitary) control and expressed concern about the consistency of this requirement with the WTO Agreement. These Members questioned the reason for requiring an import permit, in particular when other measures such as veterinary certificates and declarations of conformity were also required. In the view of these Members, an import permit should be automatic and impose no additional SPS requirements. In their view, the Russian Federation used import permits to limit imports rather than as a SPS measure. In addition, Russian officials sometimes refused to issue import permits for arbitrary reasons based on unpublished criteria and the amount of time taken to issue a permit was not predictable. These Members also expressed concern that this regime resulted in more stringent requirements on imported products as compared to domestic or CU products, in violation of the principle of non-discrimination. Members noted that these import permits specified quantities of imports. In the view of these Members, specifying a quantity in the permit could not be justified on safety grounds.

855. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that import permits were purely an SPS measure. He further explained that an import permit could be requested for any amount of goods and that the amount requested could not be the basis for refusing to issue the permit. Import permits had three functions: first, to ensure that the importer was in a position to handle the imported goods in a safe manner that complied with domestic, e.g., quarantine requirements; second, to take into account the epizootic situation of the exporting country; and third, to ensure that specific conditions, adapted to the epizootic situation of the exporting country, were met at the time of importation. The first function was not discriminatory since the conditions required to be met by the operator were also checked in case of internal trade within the CU territory. The second function was that of a legal instrument to block or restrict imports in case of dangerous animal disease outbreaks in the exporting country. The third function could be used, for example, to require certain imported animal products from countries with a specific epizootic situation to be processed in designated facilities. In this case, import permits would be granted only to those importers who were able to channel the consignments to such facilities. Import permits also optimized logistics for importers and provided a means to coordinate activities of regulatory agencies.

856. As concerns the procedure for issuance of import permits, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that this procedure was applied to importation of goods subject to State veterinary control in accordance with Law No. 4979-1, CU Commission Decision No. 317, and the Unified Rules of the State Veterinary Supervision for International and Interstate (between CIS countries) Transportation of Livestock Cargoes, approved by Decision of Inter-governmental Council of CIS for Cooperation in Veterinary Sector of 5 November 2003. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that an importer received an import permit from Rosselkhoznadzor by submitting an application in electronic form through ARGUS. To import live agricultural animals and feed for them, Rosselkhoznadzor would request an opinion from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation that was the planned destination for the animals or feed. After the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation signed an import permit for live agricultural animals and feed for them, the importer and customs officials at the border could use ARGUS to verify the import permit. This permit was issued free of charge, signed by the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation, and was valid for a period of a calendar year.

857. In response to further questions from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that an import permit allowed an importer to import multiple consignments from the establishment identified in the permit. Some Members also queried whether an importer was required to identify all sources of exported product, including, inter alia, quantities and shipment routes. They sought confirmation that the importer could choose alternative sources of product or alternative routes during the calendar year of validity of the permit. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, if during the calendar year of validity of the import permit, the importer decided to import products from another source (country, enterprise); the importer needed to apply for a new import permit. The route of importation as well as points of crossing the Russian border could be changed following an application from the importer notifying these changes with a reference to the permit already issued.

858. In response to a question from some Members regarding plans for the adoption of a CU common permit, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that currently no such plans existed. However, the Russian Federation planned to have a special form of permit (provisionally named a general permit or Form 1) at the national level as of the fall of 2011. A new administrative regulation on issuing permits for import to, export from, and transit through the Russian Federation adopted by the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) No. 404 of 7 November 2011 "On Adoption of Administrative Regulation of the Federal Service on Veterinary and Phytosanitary Control on Provision of State Service on Issuance of Authorizations for Imports to the Russian Federation and Exports from the Russian Federation, as well as Transit within its Territory of Animals, Products of Animal Origin, Medicines for Veterinary Use, Feeds and Feed Additives for Animals" (hereinafter: the administrative regulation) provided for such permits and set-out how such a permit would be administered. Rosselkhoznadzor would issue this general import permit and it would be valid for one calendar year. The general import permit of the Russian Federation would be valid for importation only into the territory of the Russian Federation.

859. A Member of the Working Party asked whether the Inspector in the subject of the Russian Federation had the authority to refuse to submit a petition to Rosselkhoznadzor for an import permit. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, the administrative regulation provided that the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation no longer had a role in filing, granting or refusing to grant an import permit, except for live agricultural animals and feed for them, in which case Rosselkhoznadzor obtained an opinion from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation that was the planned destination for the animals or feed. A Member asked the justification for this specific procedure applied to live agricultural animals and feed for them. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that, for live agricultural animals and feed for them, the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation had to assess and provide a reasoned opinion on whether appropriate quarantine facilities were available at the point of destination.

860. A Member of the Working Party asked whether the period for issuance of an import permit commenced with the filing of the application in ARGUS either directly or through an authorised third person. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this period commenced from the date of registration of the hard copy of an application for a permit as an incoming document, or from the date at which an application was filed in ARGUS. Another Member asked about the methods for communicating information on whether an import permit had been issued. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that the term "telephone message" in the "Import Procedures for Products of Animal Origin" document, referred to the transmission of a permit by telephone, in which case a Rosselkhoznadzor official would read out the permit over the telephone. He further added that the permit could be transmitted by telephone, fax or electronic mail.

861. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that permits to import were required and issued for certain controlled goods, in accordance with the Common list of goods subject to veterinary control, approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010, and non-registered medicinal (pharmaceutical) products for veterinary use. The administrative regulation also provided that a wide range of individuals, enterprises, and their representatives could apply for a permit.

862. Some Members requested information on the changes to the current import permit procedure provided for in the administrative regulation. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the main changes from the current regime were as follows:

(a) shortening the maximum time period for issuance of permits from 30 days to 20 days;

(b) introducing a legal basis for the registration of permits using the ARGUS Information system;

(c) decreasing the number of products that require the registration of permits so as that import into, export from, and transit through the Russian Federation are not required for:

(i) feed additives for cats and dogs, as well as prepared feed for cats and dogs heat-treated (temperature not less than 70 °C above zero, for a time not less than 20 minutes) in a package;

(ii) all kinds of terrestrial and aquatic animals or their parts that have undergone a full taxidermy treatment, upon presentation of documents confirming their retail purchase; and

(iii) hunting trophies originating from regions with safe disease situation (specified in paragraph 3 of Chapter 38 of the Common Veterinary (Veterinary-Sanitary) Requirements to the Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance), approved by the of CU Commission Decision No. 317 as of 18 June 2010), as well as originating from regions with an unsafe situation in respect of specified diseases, but which have been processed (disinfected) in accordance with the rules of the country of the hunting trophy, which was confirmed by a veterinary certificate;

(d) clarifying the list of reasons for denial of permits' issuance taking into consideration the requirements of CU Commission Decisions;

(e) introducing the notion of a "General Permit" which was issued based on a risk assessment for certain sectors in a particular country and allowed any importer to import any volume of the controlled goods from that country. The administrative regulation also defined the list of products that could be subject to a general permit, which included: animal products for human consumption, industrially manufactured, in consumer packaging labelled by a manufacturing enterprise, food additives of animal origin, palaeontology, entomology, artefacts, collectibles treated in a manner that ensures the destructions of pathogens, products transferred for purposes other than business so that an importing individual can house small domestic and decorative animals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic organisms in the amount of up to 5 heads/items (dogs, cats in the amount of 2 - 5 heads). With that, a female mammal, a cat with kittens, a dog with puppies until the end of the weaning period, a female nesting bird with chicks, until the end of the period when chicks are fed by parents, and so on are considered one head;

(f) including the procedures for introducing amendments into a previously issued permit;

(g) including criteria and procedures for suspending and cancelling a previously issued permit;

(h) clarifying the data required in the application for a permit, which varied depending on the type of product; and

(i) making the period for which the permit was valid more precise, i.e. while the total period of validity remained as one calendar year, the administrative regulation specified that animals could be imported in the territory of the Russian Federation before 1 February of the year following the year for which the permit was issued if the animal had been put in quarantine before 31 December of the year for which the permit was issued. For other products requiring a permit, such products could be imported into the Russian Federation during the year following the year for which a permit was issued if the veterinary certificate for these products was issued before 31 December of the year for which the permit was issued.

863. In response to a request for information on obtaining an import permit under the new administrative regulation, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the annex to the administrative regulation listed the information that was required in an application by type of product and whether the permit was for import, export, or transit. The administrative regulation listed information required for permits to import (1) live animals and animal genetic material, (2) feed and feed additives, (3) fish and seafood and their derivatives, (4) controlled goods containing hazardous biological agents, and (5) other controlled goods. Although there were some common elements of information required, such as the name of the importer and consignee, and exporter information, each form specified specific additional information for each type of good that the applicant had to provide.

864. Some Members noted, that under the MOA Order No. 1 of 9 January 2008, only a permit issued by the Chief Veterinary Officer of a subject of the Russian Federation was required for the following products: (a) Small domestic animals which belong to citizens (not more than two animals); or (b) Industrially-produced products of animal origin that have undergone thermal treatment, prepared products made from raw materials of animal origin, factory-processed, prepared in conformity with the requirements of the standards and regulations when they are imported from countries that are subject to obligatory declaration by the World Animal Health Organization (hereinafter: infectious animal diseases), and on which no limits have been placed; and that the Russian Federation had stated its intention to eliminate this requirement. However, under CU Commission Decision No. 317, for products in category (b), instead of removing the requirement for an import permit, the authority to issue the import permit was transferred to Rosselkhoznadzor. Members expressed concerns that the CU Commission Decision went in the wrong direction. They saw no scientific justification or risk basis for requiring import permits for these and other products now subject to this requirement. These Members sought the elimination of the requirement for an import permit for these and other products.

865. In response the representative of the Russian Federation stated that pursuant to the administrative regulation, the products in category (b) in paragraph 864 could be subject to the proposed Form 1 (general permit) and that importing pursuant to a general permit did not impose any extra burden on the importer since such permits were simply announced and did not require individual applications. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that a country was recognized as safe from infectious animal diseases based on OIE information.

866. Some Members requested further information on the procedures and criteria for suspending and/or cancelling an import permit and whether such action was subject to administrative review and appeal. These Members stated that procedures and criteria needed to be consistent with international standards, recommendations and guidelines with regard to reasons for suspension and cancellation of an import permit and allowing corrective action and further monitoring. Members also asked for information on the transparency of the processes of suspending and cancelling import permits, including notification of the competent authority of the exporting country and the relevant establishment.

867. In response the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the administrative regulation included the following criteria for taking a decision to suspend an import permit:

(a) if the applicant had violated the legislation of the Russian Federation and the CU in the field of veterinary medicine during import, export and transit of controlled goods revealed as the result of surveillance of the applicant's premise on the territory of the CU conducted by the Service;

(b) repeated non-compliances as established by the results of laboratory analysis of the CU Common veterinary (veterinary-sanitary) requirements, approved by the CU Commission Decision of 18 June 2010, maintained for specific types of products under surveillance; or

(c) un-corrected non-compliances of the requirements of the CU or Russian Federation detected during a previous surveillance in the territory of a third country, if the Regulation of a common system of joint inspections of sites and sampling goods (products), subjected to veterinary control (supervision) did not prescribe other actions (e.g. warning of competent authority of the third country).

868. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the competent authorities in the Russian Federation would notify the competent authorities of the exporting country of any non-compliances described in paragraph 867 above and provide a reasonable period of time to address those non-compliances. If a decision was taken to suspend an import permit, the competent authority of the Russian Federation would notify the competent authority in the exporting country that the product from the relevant establishment could not be imported into the Russian Federation without additional laboratory testing over a period of three months for not more than ten batches. The importer or exporter could request additional laboratory testing of the relevant product over a period of three months for not more than ten batches, if the importer or exporter agreed to pay for such testing. Such a request should describe other actions that were or could be taken to address the non-compliance. A decision to suspend an import permit would be based on the criteria described above and would not be put into effect if additional testing was requested or if measures were taken to address the non-compliance. In addition to these criteria, an import permit could be suspended if the competent authorities of the Russian Federation received information from the OIE about an outbreak of a particularly serious disease in a particular exporting country or several countries; or from the central veterinary authority of the exporting country of problems with infectious animal diseases or the inability to meet the requirements and standards of the Russian Federation and the Customs Union; or from the State veterinary authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation and other authorities regarding the systematic involvement of the applicant in violations of the legislation of the CU and of the Russian Federation in the field of veterinary medicine. A decision to suspend would indicate the time period for suspension of the import permit.

869. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the criteria for taking a decision to cancel an import permit were: (i) violations by the applicant of the legislation of the Russian Federation and the CU in the field of veterinary medicine revealed as the result of surveillance of the premise of the applicant on the CU territory conducted by the Service; and (ii) repeated non-compliances as established by the results of laboratory analysis of the CU Common Veterinary (Veterinary-Sanitary) Requirements, approved by the CU Commission Decision of 18 June 2010, maintained for specific types of products under surveillance or un-corrected non-compliances of the CU or non-Russian requirements detected during previous surveillance in the territory of a third country if the regulation of a common system of joint inspections of establishments and sampling goods (products), subjected to veterinary control (supervision) did not prescribe other actions (e.g. warning of competent authority of the third country). If a decision is taken to cancel an import permit, the competent authority of the Russian Federation would notify the competent authority in the exporting country that the product from the relevant establishment cannot be imported into the Russian Federation without additional laboratory testing over a 60-day period. The importer or exporter could request additional laboratory testing of the relevant product over a 60-day period, if the importer or exporter agreed to pay for such testing. Such a request should describe other actions that were or could be taken to address the non-compliance. In addition to these criteria, an import permit could be cancelled if the competent authorities of the Russian Federation received information from the OIE about an outbreak of a particularly serious disease in a particular exporting country or several countries; or from the central veterinary authority of the exporting country of troubles for infectious animal diseases or the inability to meet the requirements and standards of the Russian Federation and the Customs Union; or from the State authorities (other than the veterinary services) of violations of the legislation of the CU or the Russian Federation on import of controlled goods related to non-correspondence of veterinary documents with goods that are being imported. A decision to cancel an import permit would be based on the criteria described above and would not be put into effect if additional testing was requested or if measures were taken to address the non-compliance.