WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONTN/MA/W/10/Add.1
8 January 2003
(03-0038)
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:  English
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS
Second Submission by India
Addendum
The following document, dated 30 December 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of India.
_______________
Introduction
1. India expects  that the market access negotiations will significantly improve the market access
of developing countries through the reduction in tariffs and non-tariff barriers in particular in productsof export interest to developing countries. This would be in keeping with the development theme of
the Doha Declaration which has sought to place the needs and interests of developing countries at the
heart of the Doha Work Programme. In turn India will be willing to make its full  contribution to the
tariff liberalization process, in conformity with the Doha Mandate.
2. In its first submission, circulated in Document  TN/MA/W/10 dated 22
 October, 2002, India
had offered its preliminary thoughts in carrying fo rward the Doha mandate for the negotiations.   The
paper had inter alia  drawn attention to the various elements of the mandate, as seen from a developing
country perspective, and emphasized that the negotiations this time should bring forth substantial
gains to developing countries. Following further consideration, as also after extensive  domestic
consultations with the various concerned stakeholders, India makes this second submission, proposing
certain specific modalities for the negotiations.
Approach
3. In proposing these modalities, India’s approach has been guided by the essential elements of
the Doha Mandate which require that in the negotiations it is important to ensure that  :
(a) Tariff peaks, tariff escalation, high tariffs and non-tariff measures, in particular in products of
export interest to developing countries , are effectively dealt with. Tariff peaks imposed by developed
countries are often concentrated in products that are of export interest to developing countries such as
in textiles and clothing; leather, rubber, footwear and travel goods; transport equipment; fish and fishproducts; etc. That most developed countries’ tariffs for such items increase with the level of
processing of such products and that such products  are often excluded from preferential tariff schemes
such as GSP,  is well documented;
(b) The approach should fully integrate the “l ess than full reciprocity” concept in reduction
commitments.  Formulae effectively seeking  to drastically reduce the tariffs generally prevailing in a
developing country schedule while being comparatively less demanding on developed countryTN/MA/W/10/Add.1
Page 2
counterparts will not be in keeping with the mandate even if they are sought to be projected as
harmonising tariff levels, which in any case is not a specific objective in the Doha Declaration;
(c) It must be recognized that for many developing countries customs tariffs contribute
significantly to government revenue and are necessary for meeting critical developmentalexpenditure. Accordingly any customs tariff re duction commitments by such countries will
necessarily have to have flexibilities in conformity with its programs for restructuring of
governmental revenue sources;
(d) The fiscal, developmental, strategic and other needs of developing countries should be fully
taken into account as required inter alia by paragraph 3 (c) of Article XXVIII bis of GATT 1994. The
approach decided upon must allow a developing country to calibrate its market access commitmentsin accordance with its economic, social and political imperatives; and
(e) Special needs of economic development of developing countries including where there are
labour intensive small scale enterprises should be kept in view.
Specific Proposals on Modalities
4. India proposes the following modalities for the tariff negotiations:
(a) For tariff lines already bound, reductions should be undertaken only from bound levels and
not from applied rates.
(b) The method of reduction in existing tariff bindings for bound items should consist of:
(i) A simple percentage cut on bound tariffs of each Member, with a higher percentage
to be set for developed countries than the percentage set for developing countries.
Such a reduction method  will be in conformity with the mandate requiring “less than
full reciprocity in reduction commitments” by developing countries.  Even, under this
approach, developing countries which generally have higher tariffs will be making
significant reductions in absolute terms.
(ii) Members shall not impose tariff on any product in excess of three times its average
tariff. The average for this purpose shall be calculated after effecting the tariff
reduction as per (i) above. This will effectively address the issue of peak tariffs and
tariff escalation, in particular on products of export interest to developing countries.
(iii) In determining the reduction to be effected by developing countries their dependence
on customs tariff for revenue i.e. percentage contribution of customs tariff in theoverall revenue collected by a government may also be a factor that has to be kept in
view.
(iv) Flexibility to be available to developing countries to decide on the actual bindings on
some tariff lines as a special and differential measure while still maintaining the
percentage reduction on an average basis as per (i) above.
(c) Unbound tariff lines being generally more sensitive, greater flexibilities are to be provided for
these items including as follows:
(i) For unbound tariff lines, developing countries should have the flexibility to bind them
at levels generally above the higher of the bound rates prevailing for bound items in a
country’s tariff schedule; and
(ii) While product coverage shall be comprehensive and without a priori  exclusions i.e.,
no sector as such may be excluded from the negotiations, developing countries shouldTN/MA/W/10/Add.1
Page 3
have the flexibility not to bind certain unbound tariff lines still considered
domestically highly sensitive or strategically important.
(d) Supplemental ‘zero for zero’ or ‘tariff harmonisation’ proposals to be kept to a minimum
since they impose onerous obligations on developing countries.  Even in the limited sectors wheresuch approaches may be  agreed upon, including if such an approach is agreed to for environmental
goods, flexibilities such as:
(i) higher harmonised tariff  level for developing countries;
(ii) greater credit for tariff reductions by developing countries; and
(iii) longer implementation periods,
…would need to be incorporated to  suitably take account of developing country
interests;
5. As for implementation period or staging, the precedent set in the Uruguay Round may be
followed and developing countries should be  permitted to implement the tariff commitments
undertaken over a longer period, than that by developed countries. The actual duration will also
depend on the extent of commitments undertaken. For developing countries it should extend up to a
10 year period.
6. Several developing countries have reduced and bound their tariffs since the Uruguay Round,
including through participation in the ITA. Credit for such autonomous liberalisation of tariffs should
be given.
7. The use of specific duties is an important issue. Consensus needs to be built on how to deal
with this matter.
8. On non-tariff barriers, India is not making any further suggestions at this stage to what is
already contained in TN/MA/W/10.  It will be appropriate to revert to this issue after the process of
identification of NTMs is completed, for which the Chairman has already indicated 31 January, 2003
is the date by when members have to submit the list of NTMs faced by them.
9. On environmental goods, India would make further submissions once a consensus on how
NGMA should proceed further on this matter is reached.
__________