WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/MA/W/10/Add.3
10 April 2003
(03-1972)
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:  English
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Communication from India
Addendum
The following document, dated 9 April 2003, has been received from the Permanent Mission
of India.
_______________
1. The Secretariat has circulated a note captioned “Formula approaches to tariff negotiations –
Secretariat simulations using members’ tariff concessions”.  The results of simulations have been
tabulated to illustrate the impact of different formulae on members’ tariff.  The note by the Secretariat
is contained in document Job(03)/67.   It provides a comparison of the final bound rates before and
after application of the different formulae.  A separate table gives the percentage reduction in tariffs
under different formulae.
2. It would be recalled that India, in its proposal contained in document TN/MA/W/10/Add.2,
had suggested different reduction coefficients for developed and developing members.  As an
example, India had suggested reduction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.33 for developed and developing
Members respectively.  This proposal was made keeping in view the specific provision in the Doha
mandate on less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments by developing members.
3. The table circulated by the Secretariat reflects the results of the application of both the
reduction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.33 for all members.  This gives an incomplete picture, since it was
India’s intention that developed Members would have to reduce tariffs by 50% while developing
Members would have to reduce their tariffs by 33%.  It is understood that the Secretariat has given the
results of simulations using both the coefficients in respect of all the members since there is no list ofdeveloping members, which has been approved by the WTO members.
4 It would be useful to have a comparison of revised tariff levels and percentage reductions in
tariff, using the appropriate coefficients proposed by India.  This is important since many members
would be taking a considered view on the different formulae approaches, based on how theseformulae would impact on their own tariffs and their market access opportunities.  Accordingly, India
has chosen a sample of developing and developed countries to demonstrate correctly the impact of its
own formula.  Results of this are given in the tables at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’.  India has used the
revised tariff and reduction percentages from the Secretariat’s note.  Only in respect of the columns
reflecting the impact of India’s formula, an adjust ment has been made to take into account the status
of the member – whether developing or developed – and the appropriate coefficient used.  We hope
the members will find this information useful.TN/MA/W/10/Add.3
Page 2
Annexure - A
Table 1:  Simple averages of final bound duties before and after application of formulae
 
New averages by proposal
NameBinding
coverage
(percent)Non ad
valorem
duties
(percent)Simple
average China
B = 1China
B = 3European
CommunitiesIndia Korea USA
Argentina 100.0 0.0 31.8 15.6 16.7 11.1 21.3 19.9 6.3
Australia 96.5 0.1 11.0 4.5 5.5 4.8 5.1 7.6 3.1
Bangladesh 3.0 0.0 35.7 16.1 17.2 11.1 23.0 18.6 5.8
Barbados 97.6 0.0 73.0 36.8 37.8 15.0 48.8 24.8 7.2
Botswana 96.0 0.0 16.1 7.5 8.5 6.7 10.8 11.5 4.3
Brazil 100.0 0.0 30.8 15.1 16.2 10.8 20.6 19.6 6.2
Canada 99.7 0.4 5.3 2.1 3.1 2.8 2.6 3.7 2.3
European
Communities 100.0 0.7 3.9 1.7 2.6 2.2 1.9 2.9 1.4
Guinea 29.6 0.0 10.0 4.7 5.7 4.9 6.7 7.7 2.7
Indonesia 96.1 0.0 35.6 17.6 18.6 11.8 23.8 20.2 6.3
Jamaica 100.0 0.0 42.5 20.6 21.6 13.1 28.5 19.7 6.2
Japan 99.6 3.6 2.3 0.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.5 0.7
Kenya 1.6 0.0 54.8 26.8 27.8 13.9 36.7 22.6 6.9
Malaysia 81.2 0.2 14.9 7.0 7.9 6.2 10.0 11.1 3.2
Nigeria 6.9 0.0 48.8 24.3 25.3 13.9 32.7 22.4 6.8
Norway 100.0 2.6 3.1 1.1 2.0 1.8 1.4 2.0 1.0
Sri Lanka 28.3 1.1 19.3 8.4 9.5 7.4 12.9 11.6 4.0
Thailand 70.9 21.1 24.2 11.5 12.6 9.1 16.2 17.0 5.5
United States 100.0 5.0 3.2 1.1 2.0 1.7 1.4 2.0 1.0
Venezuela 100.0 0.0 33.1 16.7 17.7 11.4 22.2 20.5 6.4
Zambia 4.1 0.0 42.7 21.3 22.3 13.1 28.6 21.8 6.7
 Source: Secretariat calculations based on CTS dataTN/MA/W/10/Add.3
Page 3
Annexure - B
Table 2:   Percentage reductions of simple averages of final bound duties after application of
formulae
 
Reductions in percent
Name China
B = 1China
B = 3European
CommunitiesIndia Korea USA
Argentina 50.9 47.5 65.1 33.0 37.5 80.1
Australia 59.1 49.6 56.4 53.4 30.6 71.7
Bangladesh 54.8 51.8 69.0 35.6 48.0 83.6
Barbados 49.5 48.2 79.4 33.1 66.0 90.1
Botswana 53.1 47.4 58.3 33.2 28.6 73.1
Brazil 50.8 47.4 64.8 33.0 36.5 79.7
Canada 61.3 41.2 47.2 51.9 30.9 57.5
European
Communities57.0 33.9 45.0 51.1 27.2 65.5
Guinea 52.9 42.9 50.7 33.4 22.6 72.5
Indonesia 50.6 47.7 66.9 33.0 43.1 82.2
Jamaica 51.6 49.2 69.2 33.0 53.8 85.3
Japan 62.8 34.1 43.1 53.7 33.7 68.3
Kenya 51.1 49.3 74.6 33.0 58.8 87.5
Malaysia 53.2 47.1 58.3 33.0 25.8 78.2
Nigeria 50.3 48.2 71.5 33.0 54.2 86.0
Norway 64.9 36.9 43.6 55.0 36.7 68.4
Sri Lanka 56.3 50.9 61.7 33.3 39.6 79.1
Thailand 52.5 48.1 62.6 33.2 29.7 77.4
United States 64.4 39.1 45.9 56.5 37.1 68.9
Venezuela 49.6 46.6 65.6 33.0 38.0 80.6
Zambia 50.2 47.8 69.4 33.0 49.0 84.3
  Source: Secretariat calculations based on CTS data.
__________