Members of the Working Party on the Acces sion of the Russian Federation to the WTO 
 
 
   Attached is the second revision of the Draft Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
 
 This document reflects the current state of work  and will necessarily evolve  in line with future 
meetings, and following the submission of additional materials and requests for further clarification.   
  The paragraphs in brackets refer to commitmen ts that members of the Working Party  have 
requested from the Russian Federa tion in the process of accession. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 
    
 
     
 
    
 
     
 
   03-2827 
 
   
RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
27 May 2003 
 
 (03-2827) 
Working Party on the Accession 
of the Russian Federation  
 
 
 
DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON THE  
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Revision  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page i 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Introduction................................................................................................................... .........................1 
Documentation Provided......................................................................................................... ..............1 
Introductory Statements ........................................................................................................ ...............1 
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE ...................................................3 - Fiscal and Monetary Policies ................................................................................................. ..3 
- Foreign Exchange and Payments System ...............................................................................5 
- Investment Regime............................................................................................................ ......14 
- State Ownership and Privatization .......................................................................................17 - Pricing Policies ............................................................................................................. ...........21 
- Competition Policy........................................................................................................... .......27 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AN D ENFORCING POLICIES .................................................29 
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; ..........................................29 
Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign 
trade;......................................................................................................................... ...............29 
Division of authority between cent ral and sub-central governments..............................................29 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ................................................................................36 Registration requirements for import/export operations.................................................................36 
Alcoholic beverages............................................................................................................ ..................38 
Pharmaceuticals ................................................................................................................ ...................39 
Precious ston es/metals ......................................................................................................... ................41 
Other licensing requirements................................................................................................... ...........42 
Import Regulations ............................................................................................................. .................46 
- Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff............................................................................46 
- Ordinary Cu stoms Duties...................................................................................................... .48 
- Tariff Quotas ................................................................................................................ ...........50 
- Tariff Exemptions ............................................................................................................ .......53 
- Other Duties and Charges..................................................................................................... .54 
- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered..............................................................................54 
- Other Fees................................................................................................................... .............55 
Application of Internal Taxes on Imports ....................................................................................... ..57 
- Excise Taxes................................................................................................................. ............57 
- Value Added Tax .............................................................................................................. ......59 
Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas...........................................61 
Import Licensing Systems ....................................................................................................... ............63 
- Customs Valuation............................................................................................................ ......68 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page ii  
 
- Rules of Origin .............................................................................................................. ..........72 
- Other Customs Formalities.................................................................................................... 77 
- Pre-shipment  Inspection...................................................................................................... ...79 
- Trade Remedy  Measures........................................................................................................ 80 
Export Regulations ............................................................................................................. .................85 
- Export Duties................................................................................................................ ...........85 
- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas..............................87 
- Export Licensing Procedures.................................................................................................8 8 
- Export Financing, Subsidy and Promotion Policies ............................................................91 - Other Customs Formalities.................................................................................................... 93 
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods ............................................................94 
- Industrial policy, including subsidy policies.........................................................................94 Technical Regulations and Standards, Incl uding Measures Taken at the Border with 
Respect to Imports ............................................................................................................. .....97 
- Technical Barriers to Trade.................................................................................................. .97 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ................................................................................106 
- Trade-related Investme nt Measures (TRIMs) ...................................................................115 
State-trading enterprises ("STEs")............................................................................................. .....120 
- Free Zones and Special Economic Zones............................................................................124 - Government Procurement....................................................................................................128  
- Regulation of Trade in Transit ............................................................................................130  
- Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products ..............................................132 
- Trade in Ci vil Aircraft...................................................................................................... ....133 
- Textiles ..................................................................................................................... ..............134 
TRADE-RELATED INT ELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) ..................................135 
General........................................................................................................................ ........................135 
- Copyright and Related Rights .............................................................................................136 
- Trademarks ................................................................................................................... ........137 
- Geographical Indications ..................................................................................................... 137 
- Inventions and Industrial Designs.......................................................................................138 - Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection.......................................................................139 - Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits ................................................................................139 
- Requirements on undisclosed information, including trade secrets and test data..........139 
- Enforcement .................................................................................................................. ........140 
- Criminal Measures............................................................................................................ ....140 
- Criminal Procedures.......................................................................................................... ...140 
- Border Me asures.............................................................................................................. .....141  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page iii 
 
 
- Civil and Administrative Proce dures and RemediesLaw Remedies and 
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... ........141 
TRADE-RELATED SE RVICES REGIME ....................................................................................145 
Policies Affecting Tr ade in Services ........................................................................................... ......145 
TRANSPARENCY ................................................................................................................... .........152 
- Publication of Information on Trade ..................................................................................152 
- Notifications................................................................................................................ ...........153 
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS..........................................................154 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .....................156 
 
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 1 
 
 
Introduction  
1. The Government of the Russian Federation applied for accession to the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) in June 1993.  At its meeting on 8 July 1993, the GATT Council 
of Representatives established a Working Party to examine the application of the Government of the Russian Federation to accede to GATT 1947 under Article XXXIII of the General Agreement.  
Following the entry into force of the WTO Agr eement on 1 January 1995, and in pursuance of the 
decision adopted by the WTO General Council on  31 January 1995, the GATT 1947 Working Party 
was transformed into a WTO Accession Workin g Party under Article XII of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO.  The terms of re ference and the membership of the Working Party 
are reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS/1/Rev.[…]. 
2. The Working Party met on 17-19 July 1995, 4-6 December 1995, 30-31 May 1996, 
15 October 1996, 15 April 1997, 22-23 July 1997, 9-11 December 1997, 29 July 1998, 
16-17 December 1998, and 25 May 2000 under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. W. Rossier (Switzerland) and on 18 December 2000, 26-27  June 2001, 23-24 January 2002, 25 April 2002, 
20 June 2002, … December 2002, … January 2003, 6 March 2003, 10 April 2003 and […] under the 
Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. K. Bryn (Norway). 
Documentation Provided 
3. The Working Party had before it, to serve as a basis for its discussions, a Memorandum on the 
Foreign Trade Regime of the Russian Federati on (L/7410), supplements to the Memorandum on the 
regime in the areas of Trade-Related Investment Measures (WT/ACC/RUS/5), Trade in Services 
(WT/ACC/RUS/6), Trade-Related Aspects Of Inte llectual Property Rights (WT/ACC/RUS/7), as well 
as questions submitted by Working Party member s on the foreign trade regime of the Russian 
Federation together with replies thereto and othe r information provided by the Russian authorities 
listed in document WT/ACC/RUS/11/ Rev[…] and legislative texts a nd other documentation listed in 
Annex I. 
Introductory Statements 
4. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that his Government had been an 
observer to GATT 1947 since January 1992 when the Russian Federation continued the former USSR 
observer status. In this capacity , the Russian Federation had witnessed the successful conclusion of 
the Uruguay Round and followed its implementation  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 2  
 
5. In this context, he noted that his Governme nt was confronted with a number of important 
tasks in the social, institutional, macroeconomic an d investment fields. In particular, the Russian 
Federation had to overcome the decline in the sta ndards of living of its population resulting from the 
economic and financial crisis of  1998. This could be only achieved through policies aimed at 
stimulating growth in the country's GDP by im proving economic productivity, and expanding sources 
of investments..  In his Government's view, this  would also require the maintenance of a set of 
policies which could adequately develop comp etitive domestic markets for goods, services and 
capitals and enhance the role of sm aller and medium size enterprises.    Accordingly, since requesting 
accession to the GATT and afterwards to the WTO,  the Russian Federation had undertaken an 
unprecedented process of reform of its economy progressively adopting laws and regulations 
consistent with WTO multilateral rules and disci plines.  This process was primarily aimed at 
establishing the conditions for a dynamic market ec onomy in the Russian Federation based on a stable 
and predictable legislative framework capable of sustaining long term econom ic growth and ensuring 
improvements in the standards of living and we lfare of the Russian population as well as in the 
modernization of the Russian Federation's productio n capacity, and its international competitiveness. 
The government of the Russian Federation had set a cl ear list of programs, policies and priorities that 
had as their central goal rendering the Russian Fede ration a better, more competitive and rewarding 
place in which to work and do business.  It was cl ear that the growing interdependence of national 
economies, global integration of ma rkets and linkage between trade fl ows and investment required the 
Russian Federation to adjust its trade, financia l and investment legislation to WTO rules and 
disciplines. 
6. Members of the Working Party welcomed the Russian Federation's application for accession 
to the WTO and underscored the importance of a rapi d integration of the Russian Federation into the 
multilateral trading system, both for the benefit of  the Russian Federation and the world trading 
system as a whole.  To this end, members considered that the enactment of relevant legislation 
consistent with WTO requirements and of provi sions for its implementation was essential to the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, in orde r to ensure that Russia could be an effective 
participant in the WTO from the first day of its me mbership.  Members of the Working Party equally 
stressed the need for completing the negotiations  on commercially viable terms which should be 
mutually beneficial to the Russian Federation and WTO Members. 
7. The Working Party reviewed the economic polici es and foreign trade regime of the Russian 
Federation and the terms of a draft Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  The views expressed by members of the Working Party on the various as pects of the Russian Federation's foreign trade 
regime, and on the terms and conditions of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO are 
summarized below in paragraphs […] to […].     WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
Economic Policies 
- Fiscal and Monetary Policies 
8. Members of the Working Party requested that the Russian Federation provide information on 
its fiscal and monetary policies, taxation system , developments in the state budget and plans for 
further changes and reform.   
9. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that current economic policies 
in the Russian Federation were aimed, inter alia , at "de-bureaucratization" of the economy, including 
elimination of unnecessary and burdensome administrative barriers, improvement of competition and investment attractiveness of the country, as well as at the achievement of its fiscal and monetary 
stability.  In particular, the Russian Federation st ated that current monetary policy was aimed at 
creating sustainable economic growth.  This objectiv e was basically being achieved by controlling 
money supply, maintaining a floati ng exchange rate for the national currency, and consolidating gold 
and foreign exchange reserve assets.  All these actions were accompanied by measures directed at liberalizing foreign exchange regulations.  
10. Noting the above statement, some members of th e Working Party considered that the Central 
Bank of Russia (CBR) in its conduct of monetary po licy continued to rely unduly on management of 
the exchange rate and foreign r eserves and on depository operations rather than on more standard 
tools, such as refinancing and interest rate  management.  These members asked the Russian 
Federation to further comment on these issues.  
11. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration firstly noted  the detailed description 
of the CBR's activities contained in the following secti on on foreign exchange and payments systems.   
He noted, that under Article 3 of the Federal La w «On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
(the Bank of Russia)» the responsibilities of the Bank  of Russia were:  protection and stabilization of 
the ruble; development and strengthening of the banking system of the Russian Federation and 
providing for the effective and sustainable payment system’s functioning.  A key feature of the CBR was its independence, as demonstrated by its status  as a special public institute, with exclusive right 
for money emission and organization of monetary  circulation. The functions and authorities, 
anticipated under the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Federa l Law «On the Central 
Bank of the Russian Federation (the Bank of Ru ssia)», are executed by the Bank of Russia 
independently of federal executive bodies, government bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation and local authorities.  The independence of the Bank of Russia was reflected in Article 75 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 4  
 
of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and also  in the Articles 1 and 2 of the Federal Law «On 
the Central Bank of the Russian Federation (the Ba nk of Russia).  The representative of the Russian 
Federation further added that the main monetary po licy objective of the Government of the Russian 
Federation and the CBR in 2002 was the control over the money emission thus leading to reduction of 
inflation.  At the end of 2002, the consumer price index was 115.1% (as compared to 2001), 3.5% lower than the rate recorded in 2001.   Increase in gold and foreign exchange reserves  amounted to 
48,2 billion USD at the end of 2002,  the monetary  base increased during the same year in nominal 
terms by  32% (40,2% in 2001).  
12. In response to questions concerning the instru ments used by the CBR, the representative of 
the Russian Federation noted that the main instru ments of control over monetary indicators were 
deposit operations, other measures towards tighteni ng an extra-money supply (REPO auctions, in 
particular) and interventions of the CBR in the curre ncy market.    The CBR also regulated interest 
rates on deposit operations.  Interest rates were se t taking into account factors such as the overall 
condition of the Russian economy, inflation and tre nds in different sectors of the money market.   
Repetitive  Favourable foreign economic conditions in recent years, coupled with high prices for 
Russian exports, led the CBR to purchase foreign curren cy so as to retain a competitive exchange rate 
for the ruble.   
13. He further added that for 2003, the CBR would focus on sterilisation and liquidity 
instruments, including mandatory reserves, re curring monetary opera tions conducted on fixed 
conditions (discount windows) as well as operations in the open market.  Short and mid term 
instruments such as deposits, direct and reve rse REPO, currency demand, lombard loans and 
overnight credits would be used.  Long term inst ruments used would be trade in foreign currency, 
setting of refinancing rates, changes to reserve re quirements and the trading of government securities. 
14. He noted that general budgetary policy was describ ed in the Direction of the Government of 
the Russian Federation no. 910-r of 7 July 2001 "O n the Programme of Socioeconomic Development 
of the Russian Federation with a View to the Me dium-Term Perspective".  Key policy objectives 
were:  the improvement and measuring of the eff ectiveness of expenditure-based budgetary policy;  
creation of a system for management of state asset s and liabilities to add flexibility to current policy 
and properly control debt;  improving the transparency  of the budgetary procedures;  and the reform 
of the tax system to improve e quitability, transparency and lowe r the tax burden on businesses.   
15. Concerning the tax system of the Russian Fe deration, the representative of the Russian 
Federation noted that the current forms of taxation in the Russian Federation were established by the 
Law of the Russian Federation no 2118-1 of 27 December 1991 "On the Basic Principles of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
Taxation System in the Russian Federation".  Th at Law distinguished between Federal Taxes, 
Regional Taxes, and Local Taxes.  He noted that Fe deral taxes comprised;  value-added tax, excise 
tax, uniform social tax, securities transaction tax,  customs duty, royalty tax for use of natural 
resources and extraction of minerals, profit tax imposed on legal persons, income tax imposed on 
natural persons, state duties, succession and gift ta x, tax on use of the words "Russia", "Russian 
Federation", gambling tax, water use tax,  
16. The representative of the Russian Feration further recalled that his country’s monetary policy 
was undergoing a process of gradual changes in line with systemic economic and social reforms. The 
basic direction of such evolution was to achieve  a balanced monetary system free of unnecessary 
restrictions and constraints for domestic and foreign economic operators. In this context, he described 
the basic elements of the evolving foreign exchange  and payments system in the following section.   
- Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
17. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that, as a member of the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF) since 1992, his country followe d internationally accepted monetary rules.  The 
national currency - the Ruble (equal to 100 Kopeks) - was convertible to foreign currencies on the 
basis of current market rates.  Pursuant to th e commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation 
under Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund on 1 June 1996 
imposing an obligation to avoid limitations on pa yments and transfers under current international 
transactions without the approval of the Fund, and pu rsuant to Article 6 of Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 
9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation and Currency Control"1, current currency operations were 
performed by residents and non-residents without any limitations.  No multiple exchange rates were 
maintained, but a single exchange rate based on the ma rket.  Capital transactions were subject to the 
regulative procedures of the CBR. These transacti ons could require permissions of the CBR, or 
notifications to the CBR, or could be conducted freely. Permissions and notifications did not 
constitute unnecessary barriers to trade. The pro cedures were transparent and publicly available 
through normative acts published by the CBR. Th e number of capital operations requiring the 
permissions by the CBR was constantly being re duced and superseded by simple notification 
procedures or free execution.   
18. Members of the Working Party noted their concer ns in relation to certain foreign exchange 
control and regulatory measures in force, includi ng restrictions on foreig n exchange retention, 
restriction on the ability to obtain or retain forei gn exchange for payments purposes, restrictions on 
the rights of residents to acquire and hold foreig n exchange and to have account in foreign banks, 
                                                      
1 All legislative texts can be cross-referenced in Annex I to this draft Working Party Report. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 6  
 
pre-payment requirements for imports, and the ac quisition charge of one per cent levied on the 
purchase of foreign exchange.  This informati on should include details on the nature of the 
requirements in place, their legal basis, their pur pose and WTO justification, the circumstances that 
led to their introduction and whether these circumst ances still existed, and the Russian Federation's 
plans to eliminate restrictions which were still in place. 
19. In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that a draft law "On Currency 
Regulation and Control" had b een submitted to the Duma on 31 December 2002.  That draft law 
proposed to liberalise current currency legislati on by freeing current exchange transactions and 
provide a definitive list of capital movement operations.   
20. He noted that pending passage of that new legislation, five CBR Directives exchange 
restrictions remained in place.  Those Directiv es were CBR Nos. R-469 of 1.10.02 and 1265 of 
31.03.03).  These restrictions exclusively covered transactions involving capital flow which were not 
regulated by the WTO Agreement and in resp ect to which the Russian Federation had no 
commitments under its international agreements.  These restrictions were gradua lly being abolished.  
The restrictions still maintained were connected fi rst and foremost with the necessity to prevent the 
illegal outflow of capital from the country and to combat money-laundering practices, in line with 
joint efforts of the world financial community, thr ough international financia l organizations, including 
the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF).  These restrictions, however, did not 
limit the ability of service providers to offer a serv ice or to be established in the territory of the 
Russian Federation in line with WTO requirements. 
21. Current foreign exchange regulation and foreign exchange control were maintained to prevent 
unapproved capital transfers from the Russian Federa tion.  In this regard, the CBR was currently 
taking further steps in order to improve the system of control on timely and full transfer of export 
revenue returned to the country and on payment fo r goods which were imported into the territory of 
the Russian Federation on prepayment conditions.  The CBR was also strengthening control measures 
to enable the detection of fictitious foreign exchange  operations by residents to increase the efficiency 
on the transfer of foreign currency to off-shore z ones.  These measures we re provided in the CBR 
Directive No. 500-U of 12 February 1999 "On Enha ncing the Currency Control by Authorized Banks 
over the Lawfulness of Their Clients' Currency Tran sactions and on the Procedure for the Application 
of Sanctions to Authorized Banks for Breach of the Currency Legislation". He further added that  the 
procedure for the acquisition of foreign currency on th e internal currency market by physical and legal 
entities resident in the Russian Federation was esta blished under Article 4 of  Federal Law No. 3615-1 
of 9 October 1992 "On Curre ncy Regulation and Currency Control".  Purchase of foreign currency by 
resident legal entities to make pre-payments under import contracts for the delivery of goods was to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
be made in accordance with the requirements of CBRDirective N 1223-U of 17.12.02. “On Specificity 
of Purchases by Resident Legal Entities of Foreign Exchange for Russian Cu rrency on the Internal 
Exchange Market to Make Payments under Agreem ents for the Import of Goods into the Russian 
Federation".  Payments to non-residents for the perfo rmance of works, the rendering of services or the 
transfer of results of intellectual activity w as established under CBR Dir ective No. 721-U of 30 
December 1999  "On the Procedure for the Purchase by R esident Legal Entities of Foreign Currency 
to Make Payments for the Performance of Works, th e Rendering of Services or the Transfer of Results 
of Intellectual Activity".  Existing currency legislati on did not restrict the rights of resident physical 
persons to acquire foreign currency on the intern al currency market.  Procedures for purchase and sale 
of foreign exchange within the Russian Federation were specified in the Instruction No. 383 of 20 
October 1998 of the Bank of Russia "On Procedure of Conducting Operations to Buy and Sell Foreign 
Exchange in the Internal Currency Market by Resident Legal Entities".  The purchase of foreign 
exchange to cover business trip e xpenses was regulated by the Provision of the Bank of Russia No. 62 
of 25 June 1998 "On the Procedure of Purchase a nd Delivery of Foreign Currency to cover Business 
Expenses".   
22. Several members stated that that the tax of one  per cent on the purchase of foreign currency in 
cash was inconsistent with the non-discriminatory provisions of Article III and the requirements of 
Article XI of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture to eliminate 
unjustifiable restrictions on exports. The provision that subjected purchases of foreign exchange for 
payments made 90 days prior to importation  to the tax, and all formalities, fees and requirements 
associated with the implementation of that provision ,  also discriminated against imports from more 
distant countries and accordingly was inconsistent w ith the provisions of Article I of GATT 1994.  
The mandatory requirement applicable to exporte rs of products from the Russian Federation to 
convert 50 per cent of their foreign exchange earni ngs into domestic currency was inconsistent with 
the requirement of Article XI of GATT 1994 to eliminate unjustifiable restrictions on exportation. 
Insofar as this requirement impeded the use of fore ign exchange earnings for subsequent importation, 
it was also inconsistent with non-discrimination requirements of Article III of GATT 1994 and Article 
4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  Some members further noted that the requirement in 
question was especially burdensome for small importe rs and could therefore heavily inhibit trade. 
23. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 120-FZ 
"On the Tax on the Purchase of Foreign Legal Tenders and Instruments Denominated in Foreign Currency" of 21 July 1997, as subsequently amende d, introduced a tax in the amount of one per cent 
of the amount of foreign currency cash acquired by phy sical persons (not applicable to legal entities).  
He noted that on 31 December 2002, the Federa l Law No. 193_FZ "On invalidation of  Certain 
Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Tax on the Purchase of Foreign Currency and Payment WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 8  
 
Documents Expressed in Foreign Currency", had entere d into force, thereby repealing that one per 
cent tax effective from  1 January  2003 In resp onse to further questions from members of the 
Working Party the representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that  legisla tion under Article 6:5 of 
the Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "O n Currency Regulation and Currency Control" 
imposed  a mandatory requirement for resident lega l entities to sell on the internal currency market 50 
per cent of the entire amount of currency reve nue received from non-residents currency revenue on 
the internal currency market (75 per cent prior to August 2001).  The following foreign currency 
revenue from non-residents was exempt from the  mandatory sale requirement: 
- non-residents' contributions to charter capitals; 
- income (dividends) obtained from participation in capital; 
- revenue from the sale of securities (shares, bonds); 
- income (dividends) from securities (shares, bonds); 
- contracted loans (deposits, holdings); 
- amounts received as repayment of loans (deposits, holdings) granted, including 
accrued interest; 
- receipts in the form of charitable donations; 
- foreign currency acquired by residents on the internal currency market; 
- foreign currency payments made from funds  remaining following the mandatory sale 
of a part of export revenue; 
- pre-payment amounts returned by non-residents under unfulfilled import contracts. 
24. In response to requests for further clarificati ons the representative of the Russian Federation 
noted that the list of foreign earnings not subject to  mandatory sale was contained in the Directive of 
the Bank of Russia of 29 June 1992 No. 7 "List of Foreign Exchange Earnings not subject to 
Mandatory Sale", as well as Directive of the Bank of Russia No. 383 of 21 June 2000.  This applied to 
all foreign currency  revenue -  ex port of goods, works, services and the results of intellectual activity. 
The sale took place on the internal cu rrency market at the ma rket exchange rate of foreign currencies 
to the Ruble on the internal currency market on the date  of the sale.  Prior to the mandatory sale of the 
part of the currency revenue, resident legal en tities were entitled to make payments in foreign 
currency for the transportation, insurance and forw arding of cargoes to non-residents and residents, 
and to pay in foreign currency for all customs form alities, export customs duties and commissions to 
authorized banks.  He further recalled that th e 31 December 2002 draft law submitted to the Duma 
"On Currency Regulation and Contro l" provided that the CBR could determine the maximum level of 
mandatory sale of currency in the internal market by residents.  The maximum level could not exceed 
30% of the total currency revenue, and could be less.  The limita tions could only be imposed in 
particular circumstances and would expire on 1 January 2007.   
25. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that currently, the opening of foreign 
currency accounts in non-resident banks by physical persons  and legal entities, was regulated by 
Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Curren cy Regulation and Currency Control".  Article  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
5.2 of that law permitted residents (physical pe rsons and legal entities) to open foreign currency 
accounts in non-resident banks in accordance w ith the procedure established by the CBR in 
Instruction No. 100-I of 29 August 2001, "On Resi dent Physical Persons' Accounts in Banks Outside 
the Russian Federation".  That Instruction  provide d that resident natural persons could open accounts 
in non-resident banks functioning in OECD a nd FATF member-countries.  Funds from these accounts 
could not be used to conduct entrepreneurial activ ity without permission from the CBR.  Physical 
persons had to inform the tax authorities at their place  of residence of the opening and closure of such 
accounts. 
26. He further noted that currently legal entiti es could open accounts in foreign currency in 
non-resident banks on the basis of permissions issued by the CBR.  He further noted that CBR Directive No. 200-P of 16 October 2002 "On the Pr ocedure for Opening and Keeping Accounts in 
foreign currency outside the Russian Federati on under International C onstruction Agreements" 
permitted resident legal entities lacking CBR pe rmission for payments under international 
construction agreements to open acco unts in banks located outside the Russian Federation in countries 
which currencies are not freely convertible  Directive No. 1010- U of 3 August 2001 listed the foreign 
states and territories in which Russian residents could open such accounts (intention to open such 
accounts must be pre-notified to the CBR).  Reside nt legal entities (except credit and budget entities) 
could open accounts outside Russia without seeking th e permission of the CBR, if the accounts were 
used to service their representativ e offices abroad (Directive of the Bank of Russia No. 201 -R of 16 
October 2002" On the procedure for opening and keep ing of accounts in foreign currency outside the 
Russian Federation for servicing the operation of th eir representative offices abroad"). Legal entities 
could only open foreign currency accounts in non-resident banks to make payments under 
international construction agreem ents as provided for under CBR Di rective No. 1010-U of 3 August 
2001, "On the List of Foreign States (Territories) and their Non-Freely Convertible Currencies, in 
which Residents May Open Accounts Outside the Russian Federation to Make Payments Under 
International Construction Agreements ". He further noted that  pursua nt to Article 10 of  Federal Law 
No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Currency Regu lation and Currency Control" currency control 
proceeded mainly along the following lines:  (i ) determining whether a currency transaction was 
consistent with the legislation in force and whethe r all required licenses and permits were available;  
(ii) control of compliance by residents with thei r obligations to the state nominated in foreign 
currency, as well as their obligations in respect of the sale of foreign exchange on the internal market 
of the Russian Federation;  (iii) control of legitimacy  of payments in foreign currency;  (iv) control 
over full and accurate record and accounting of cu rrency operations, and ope rations performed by 
non-residents in Russian currency for the primar y purpose of controlling that foreign exchange WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 10  
 
revenues return to Russian Federation and monito ring the outflow of foreign exchange from the 
country under prepayment arrangements. 
27. He confirmed that there were no subsidies on purchases and sales of foreign exchange. There 
were no restrictions for residents to buy foreign currencies on the domestic exchange market to meet 
their payment commitments on current transactions.  Foreign currencies to pay capital transactions 
could also be obtained on the domestic market on c ondition that the requirement of the CBR was met.  
The requirement in the case of prepayment to be transferred under contracts for imports made it 
compulsory for residents to deposit an amount in Rubles equal to 20 per cent of the sum used for 
buying foreign currency for the purpose of prepayment in an authorized bank.  Their requirement was regarded by the Russian authorities as a means to avoid illicit capital flight as the Russian 
Government made substantial paym ents to service its external debt and needed adequate currency 
control measures to check unauthorized outflow of cap ital, and it did not appl y to residents' purchases 
of foreign currencies required to pay for the impor t of goods already delivered in the country.  
Moreover, pursuant to Article 149 of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, sale and 
purchase of foreign currency in cash or without cash transfer (including mediation services for sale 
and purchase of foreign currency) were not subject to taxation. 
28. In response to concerns raised by members of  the Working Party about the trade effects of 
currency regulations in force, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the draft Federal 
law "On Currency Regulation and Control" subm itted to the Duma on 31 December 2002 provided 
that residents could freely open accounts based in the territories or states which were members of the 
OECD or Financial Action Task Force on Mone y Laundering (FATF). Opening of accounts with 
banks that were not members of the FATF would re main subject to CBR permission.  Restrictions 
provided for in the draft laws would be eliminated on 1 January 2007.   
29. In response, members of the Working Party re iterated their concerns that the measures 
currently in place continued to  i nhibit trade.  Those members were of the view that the measures 
restricted the Russian Federation's market for a number of products of interest and continued to 
impede market access. In response, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that the draft 
Law of 31 December 2002 would eliminate many of the concerns registered by members.  
Notwithstanding those pending reforms, he noted that the retention of mandatory sales of part of 
export earnings was a measure directed towards accumu lation of currency reserves, so as to ensure the 
stability of the internal currency market and ensu re that the Russian Federation could fulfil its 
international financial obligations.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
30.  Some members also stated that the requirement to deposit domestic currency equal in value 
to the foreign currency purchased to pay for pu rchase of imports was inconsistent with the 
non-discrimination provisions of Article III and XI of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture.  For these reasons, sever al members urged the Russian Federation to 
consider the use of other methods to avoid illicit cap ital flight. Those members also stated that they 
considered that the measures being implemented we re neither IMF approved nor consistent with the 
obligations contained in Article VIII of the GAT T 1994.  Those members noted that the measures 
continued to have a negative impact upon imports.  The recently abolished 1% tax had operated as a 
de facto additional charge upon imports.  The manda tory surrender requirements effectively increased 
import transaction costs, and the import prepayment requirements unnecessarily tied up capital of importers that could be used to purchase additiona l imports.  Those members requested the Russian 
Federation to eliminate all such requirements by the date of its accession to the WTO and to enter a 
commitment not to have recourse to such measures after accession. 
31. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that under  Part 5 Article 6 
of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 3651- 1 of 9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation and 
Currency Control" 50 per cent  of  earnings generated from exports  of goods, services and results of 
intellectual activity were subject to mandatory sale through authorized banks on the internal exchange 
market at market exchange rates. In his opinion, the sale of a part  of currency revenue, which was also 
used by a number of WTO Members, was not a measure leading to discrimination of non-residents 
and internal market protection subject to Ar ticle III of GATT 1994, because it regulated the 
operations of all resident legal entities. This m easure was also not related to imposition of any 
quantitative restrictions on imports in the sense of Article XI of GATT 1994 or protection of domestic 
producers since after sale of current revenue, th e exporter had a possibility of acquiring foreign 
currency on internal currency mark et, necessary for payment for imports, without restrictions.  This 
requirement was an important instrument guarantee ing the stability of foreign exchange market and 
the predictability of the Ruble exchange rate dy namics, and a means of mobilization of currency 
resources required to fulfil foreign payments ob ligations. The Russian Government considered it 
premature to abandon this requirement at this st age.  The requirement to make a deposit for the 
purpose of purchasing foreign currencies for prep ayment of imports was a mandatory enabling 
condition for purchase of foreign cu rrency in the internal exchange  market. It was not, however, 
intended to restrict rights and lawful interests of r esidents bat rather to control and restrain currency 
outflow from the country. This requirement was ap plicable only in case of advance payments beyond 
90 days. Otherwise, foreign currencies destined to pay capital transactions might be freely obtained by 
residents on the domestic currency market. Similarl y, no additional deposit was required for purposes 
of settlements between residents in case of payments  through letter of credit, bank guarantee, or where WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 12  
 
a risk insurance was available in  respect on non-return of export exchange earnings.  In response to 
further questions he noted that draft Federal la w "On Currency Regulation and Control" submitted to 
the Duma on 31 December 2002 provided that settle ments and transfers related to foreign trade 
activity that had a settlement period of 180 day or  less were to be classi fied as current foreign 
exchange transactions, meaning that such transactions were free of any limitations. 
32. In response to further queries concerning th e advance payment requirements under import 
contracts, the representative of the Russian Federati on stated that neither legislation or regulatory acts 
of the CBR required non-residents to complete deli very within 90 days fro m the date of advance 
payment by a resident, or otherwise restrict thei r right to make longer-term contracts.  Russian 
currency law required that transfers which did not exceed 90 days were classified as current currency 
operations and were performed freely without any limitations and did not require a permit by the 
CBR.  Those that took longer than 90 days were classified as operations involving capital flow thus 
requiring an appropriate permit issued by the CBR An importer who found  that 90 days would be 
exceeded could apply for a permit before the end of the 90 day period.  In response, members of the Working Party stated that it was extremely difficult, in fact, to be able to obtain permission from the 
CBR within 90 day period from the advance payment because of many documents required for 
applying for extension, especially reference letters  from the Tax Authority and the authorized banks 
of the Russian Federation (shown in Table 1-V).  Therefore those members requested Russia to 
eliminate the relevant regulation as soon as possible.The representative of the Russian Federation 
further explained that CBR's regulations requiring shipment of goods within 90 days of payment of 
invoice were non-discriminatory and could not cause in terruption of transactions as modern means of 
transport made 90 days a sufficient time for deliver y of goods to the Russian Federation from virtually 
any geographical location in the world. On th e contrary, this requirement facilitated currency 
transactions as transactions of 90 days duration were qualified for current  operations and did not 
require CBR's authorization.  Further, gradual liber alization of currency regulation and control was 
being envisaged by his authorities. A massive refo rm was under way to improve existing legislation 
relating to currency regulation.  On 31 December a draft law Law "On Currency Regulation and 
Currency Control" was submitted to the Duma.  The enactment of that draft Law after its adoption 
would bring the legislation of the Russian Federati on into conformity with international requirements 
on capital movements.   
33. While recognizing the liberalization efforts undertak en by the Russian Federation in this field, 
several members further considered it useful to be provided with an opportunity to review the content 
of the new package of banking laws and informa tion on the banking reform policy recently promoted 
by the Russian authorities.  Some members of th e Working Party requested that  Russia eliminate 
those foreign exchange requirements prior to or upon accession.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
34. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that the new Draft Federal Law “On 
foreign exchange control and fore ign exchange regulation”, which w as being considered by the State 
Duma and underwent the first reading therein on 14 March 2003. This draft legislation foresaw a 
further substantial liberalization of Russia’s mone tary policy with more predictable conditions for 
exporters and importers. Thus, curre nt exchange transactions were to  be conducted on a more free 
basis providing that the period of time between the date  of payment and the date of factual entry to the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation or export from the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation of goods, works, services,  information, intellectual prope rty results, including exclusive 
rights on them, do not exceed 180 days.  
35. He noted that residents and non-residents ca rrying out foreign exchange operations in the 
Russian Federation would have the right to: 
- be acquainted with inspection acts issued  by the bodies and agents of currency 
control; 
- appeal decisions of bodies and agents of  foreign exchange control and related 
officials; 
- require a compensation for damages resulte d from illegal actions of bodies and agents 
of foreign exchange control. Capital opera tions would not be restricted with the 
exception of some operations, provided for in Articles 8 and 9 of the draft law, which 
can be introduced with a view to avoid: 
- considerable decrease in gold and foreign currencies reserves; 
- sharp fluctuation of exchange rate of  currency of the Russian Federation; 
- weakening of balance of payments stability. 
 
36. He recalled that in accordance with the draf t Federal Law, non-residents could freely buy 
foreign exchange on the internal exchange market  of the Russian Federation for  Russian currency 
received as a result of their current operations. N on-residents could also freely buy Russian currency 
on the internal exchange market of the Russian Federation for foreign exchange received from their 
current operations.   The draft Federal law establishe d that mandatory sale by residents of a part of 
their export earnings in foreign exchange is set  by the CBR; the level of mandatory sale cannot be 
higher than 30%.   In accordance with the draft Federal Law, residents could freely open foreign 
exchange accounts with banks outside the Russian Fe deration in foreign states which are members of 
the OECD or of the FATF (Financial Actions Task Force).  
37. Concerning statements by members that certain r estrictions on currency transactions were not 
approved by the International Monetary Fund, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that 
the CBR had no official evidence from the IMF that measures in question infringed Russia’s 
commitments under the Articles of Agreement of the IMF.  
[to be completed] WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 14  
 
- Investment Regime  
38. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that the current policy of his Government 
in this area was particularly directed at creating the conditions to promote the expansion of domestic 
and foreign investments, and also the formation of  transparent and stable rules in the conduct of 
economic activities. 
39. The basic legal texts relating to the activities of foreign investors were set forth in the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted on  12 December 1993; the Civil Code Part One, 
No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 (as amended on 20 February, 12 August 1996, 8 July 1999, 16 April, 15 May 2001) and Part Two, No. 14-FZ of 26 January 1996 (as amended on 
12 August 1996, 24 October 1997, 17 December 1999); a nd a number of other legislative acts. Those 
legislative acts provided proper guaranties for the pr otection of foreign investors' rights and interests 
and advantageous conditions for fo reign investors and enterprises which intended to invest in the 
Russian Federation respecting its domestic investment  legislation and relevant international treaties 
signed by the Russian Federation.  
40. In response to questions by some members, he  added that the adoption of the Land Code of 
the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of  25 October 2001), together with a number of 
legislative acts on "debureaucratization" (Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Specific Types of Activity", as well as Federal Law 178-FZ on Amending the Law on Licensing Specific Kinds of Activities dated 26 November 1998), Federal Law No. 134-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On the Protection of Legal Entities' and Individual Entrepreneurs' Rights in the Case of Exercise of 
State Control (Supervision)", and the Tax Code of the Russian Federation significantly contributed to 
the formation of a favourable investment climate and facilitated the activity of Russian and foreign 
companies in the Russian market. 
41. In response to questions concerning the 2001 Land Code and the 2002 Agricultural Land Law 
the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the new Land Code of the Russian Federation 
(Federal Law of October 25, 2001, No. 136-FZ) pr ovided that foreign natio nals and foreign legal 
persons could acquire leasehold over land.  Articl es 22, 27, 65 and 66 of the Land Code and relevant 
decisions of the President of the Russian Federati on (as related to national security issues) governed 
the fixing of the purchase price and other conditions of sale.  The purchase of land for construction 
purposes was subject to Articles 27, 28 of the Land C ode.  He noted that for national security regions, 
foreign nationals and foreign lega l persons could not hold land in  border territories designated by 
President of the Russian Federation in accordance w ith federal laws on State Border of the Russian  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
Federation, or in closed administrative areas and ot her territories of the Russian Federation specially 
appointed by federal law.   
42. In response to further questions, the represen tative of the Russian Federation noted that 
foreign nationals and foreign le gal persons that already owned buildings, constructions and/or 
facilities located on a land plot owned by another pers on or the state, could benefit from a preemptive 
right of purchase or lease in respect of such la nd plot, unless the Land Code or decisions of the 
President of the Russian Federation or Head of th e Security Council prohibited the purchase or lease 
of those land plots.    
43. Concerning commercial transactions in agricultu ral land, the representative of the Russian 
Federation noted that Federal Law No. 101-FZ of Ju ly 24, 2002 "On Commercial Transactions in 
Agricultural Land" permitted leasehold by foreign nationals, foreign legal persons and legal entities 
with of more than 50% foreign owned shares.  
44. In response to further questions concerning the ta x regime and special concessions to attract  
foreign investors, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federatio n was the responsible authority to form and 
implement the investment policy of the Russian Fede ration.  As of May 2003, the Russian Federation 
had concluded 57 bilateral investment  treaties (BITs). In respect of investors and their investments, all 
BITs contained, inter alia , provisions on national treatment a nd MFN with exemptions, guaranties 
against expropriation and reimbursement of losses, free transfer of profits and dispute settlement 
procedures.  
45. He noted that in accordance with the existing legislation, investment incentives for foreign 
investors could be established for the purposes of social and economic development of the Russian 
Federation.  These incentives could include the fo llowing incentives if the volume of investment was 
greater than US $ 100 million:    
VAT exemption:  
- For goods (with the exception of those subject to  excise taxes) included in the fixed assets and 
imported by foreign investors as contributions to  the charter (share) capital of organizations 
(enterprises) with foreign investments. Article  150.1.7 of Part II of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation. 
- VAT exemption for goods (with the exception of goods and mineral resources subject to 
excise taxes) brought into the Russian Federation as aid (assistance) free of charge. Article 150.1.1 of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation. 
Profit tax exemption: 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 16  
 
- Resources allocated by enterprises for the fina ncing of capital investments in production 
(including by way of equity participation) a nd for the repayment of bank loans obtained and 
used for those purposes, including interest on such loans.  Federal Law of the Russian 
Federation No. 13-FZ of January 10, 1997 "C oncerning the Introduction of Changes and 
Amendments to Law of the Russian Federation "Concerning Tax on the Profit of Enterprises 
and Organizations" (Article 6.1.a of Law of  the Russian Federati on "Concerning Tax on the 
Profit of Enterprises and Organizations").  When  combined with other exemptions provided 
for by the legislation of the Russian Federa tion, this exemption may not reduce the actual 
amount of tax (calculated without tax benefits) by more than 50 %.  (Article 6.7 of Law of the 
Russian Federation "Concerning Tax on the Profit of Enterprises and Organizations") 
- Monetary resources received by enterprises free of charge from foreign investors for the 
financing of capital investments in production on  condition that they were used within one 
year of the time of receipt.  Federal Law of  the Russian Federation No. 62-FZ of March 31, 
1999 "Concerning the Introduction of Changes and Amendments to Law of the Russian Federation "Concerning Tax on the Profit of Ente rprises and Organizations" (Article 2.6 of 
Law of the Russian Federation "Concerning Tax on the Profit of Enterprises and 
Organizations") 
- Profits earned from a newly established production (except for production facilities 
established within the framework of trading, pr ocurement and sale, and intermediary activities 
of organizations) shall not be subject to ta xation for its payback period, but not exceeding 
three years.  Federal Law of the Russian Federation No. 62-FZ of March 31, 1999 
"Concerning the Introduction of Changes and Ame ndments to Law of the Russian Federation 
"Concerning Tax on the Profit of Enterprises and Organizations" (Article 6.6 of Law of the 
Russian Federation "Concerning Tax on the Pr ofit of Enterprises and Organizations"). A 
newly established production shall be deemed to be a production facility singled out as a 
separate structural sub-division on the basis of  new (acquired or built) production capacity 
worth over 20 million rubles provided the existenc e of a feasibility study agreed upon with 
the State executive government bodies of cons tituent entities of the Russian Federation. A 
production facility set up on the basis of production capacity acquired as a group of assets shall not be deemed to be a newly established production. (Article 6.6 of Law of the Russian 
Federation "Concerning Tax on the Profit of Enterprises and Organizations"). 
Excise tax exemption:
 
- Goods which were deemed to be excisable  goods in Russia (except for passenger cars), 
imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation according to project 
documentation for the performance of work unde r production sharing agreements. Article 206 
of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation as amended by Federal Law No. 166-FV 
of December 29, 2000. 
Customs duties exemption:  
- Goods which were to be imported into the cu stoms territory of the Russian Federation as a 
foreign founding party's contribution to the charter (pooled) capital on condition that those 
goods: 
- were not excisable goods; 
- were classified as property, plant and equipment; 
- were imported within the time-limits es tablished by foundation documents for the 
formation of the charter (pooled) capital. 
- Decree No. 883 of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 23, 1996, "Concerning 
Import Duty and Value Added Tax Exemptions for Goods Imported by Foreign Investors as 
Contributions to Charter (Pooled) Capital of Enterprises with Foreign Investments".  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
- Goods imported into the customs territory of  the Russian Federation, including goods 
imported for under leasing arrangements, for the performance of work under a production 
sharing agreement, in accordance with a program  of such work or with an expense budget 
approved pursuant to the procedure established by said agreements, or exported from that 
territory in accordance with the terms of said agreement. Federal Law No. 32-FZ of February 
10, 1999 "Concerning the Introduction of Changes and Amendments to Legislative Acts of 
the Russian Federation Arising Out of Fe deral Law "Concerning Production Sharing 
Agreements" (Article 12). 
 
46. He further noted that in accordance with th e Federal Law No. 160-FZ dated 9 July 1999 “On 
Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation (as am ended on 25 July 2002), the property of a foreign 
investor or a business entity with foreign investme nt could not be subject to seizure, including 
nationalization, requisition, except for the cases a nd reasons determined by a federal law or 
international treaty of the Russian Federation. On pa yment of taxes provided by the legislation of the 
Russian Federation, a foreign investor had a ri ght to freely use the revenues and profits on the 
territory of the Russian Federation for reinves ting or any other purpose not contradicting the 
legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as th e right to export without hindrance any revenues, 
profits, and other legally acquired money sums in  foreign currency from the Russian Federation in 
connection to investment made. A foreign investor could acquire stock and other securities of Russian 
business entities and state securitie s in accordance with legislati on of the Russian Federation on 
securities. 
- State Ownership and Privatization  
47. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the legislative basis for privatization 
consisted of Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December  2001 "On Privatization of State and Municipal 
Property", and the related implementing legislation.  
48. Privatization of State enterprises were execute d pursuant to the following basis legal acts: 
- the State Program of "Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian 
Federation" (approved by Presidential D ecree No. 2284 of 24 December 1993, as 
amended on 14 March 1996, 6 October 1997, 15 July 1998, 25 July, 1 August 2000, 
3 April 2002); 
- Basic Provisions of the State Program of "Privatization of State-Owned and 
Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Fede ration after 1 July 1994" (approved by 
Presidential Decree No. 1535 of 22 July 1994 as amended on 16 April 1998, 25 January 1999);    
 - the Conception of Management of State Property and Privatization in the Russian 
Federation (approved by Government D ecision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999, as 
amended on 29 November 2000).  
 - Article 192 of the Budget Code of the Ru ssian Federation, which provided for annual 
draft Privatization Programme to be s ubmitted by the Government of the Russian 
Federation together with a draft law On the Federal Budget to the State Duma.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 18  
 
49. He further added that pursuant to Fe deral Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 "On 
Privatization of State and Municipal Property"  property classified under federal laws as a 
non-alienable object of civil rights (an object exempt from privatization) - natural resources, 
budgetary funds, defense facilities and objects, sanitary and epidemiological services, etc. - and also 
property that could only be in state or municipal ow nership as established by fe deral laws could not be 
privatised.   
50. He further noted that government privatization policy was aimed at a structural reform of the 
Russian economy and at developing its private sector by expanding the scope of privatization.  This 
policy also provided for:  the formation of budge t revenues; minimization of federal budget costs of 
public property management; encouragement of inve stment in the production sector of the Russian 
economy; improved opportunities for medium and small busin ess participation in the privatization by 
means of diversifying the instruments of priva tization of State and municipal property; and the 
consolidation of real properties by means of at taching land plots to the property privatized. 
Privatization in the Russian Federation was based on the principles of transparency and predictability 
of privatization procedures, equal treatment of a ll purchasers of state and municipal properties and 
transparent procedures of state authorities and local administrations.   
51. Some members of the Working Party requested a li st of the enterprises that were not liable to 
privatization, pursuant to Federal Law No. 178- FZ of 21 December 2001 "On Privatization of State 
and Municipal Property", as well as an indication of the economic significance of those enterprises.   
52.  The representative of the Russian Federation further noted that unitary enterprises in the 
Russian Federation were of the following types (i n accordance with the Federal Law of 14 November 
2002, No. 161-FZ «On State and Municipal Enterprises"):   
- unitary enterprise based on the right of econo mic management – federal state enterprise and 
regional state enterprise of the Russian Federation (hereinafter the state enterprise ), municipal 
enterprise; 
- unitary enterprise based on the right of operational management  – federal budget-supported 
enterprise, regional budget-supported enterprise of the Russian Federation, municipal budget-
supported enterprise (hereinafter the budget-supported enterprise ). 
 
53. Only the Government of the Russian Fede ration or federal executive authorities could 
establish a federal unitary enterprise pursuant to legisl ation.  In response to further questions he noted 
that procedures for allocating and managing property assigned to a unitary enterprise were determined 
by the Government of the Russian Federation, the empowered regional state authorities of the Russian 
Federation and local administrations.   In the event of bankruptcy of a unitary enterprise, the persons  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
having responsibility for the actions of the unitary enterprise, may bear subsidiary liability for the 
obligations of the enterprise where the pr operty of the debtor is insufficient.  
54. In response, members of the Working Party noted that the eight categories of activity 
justifying categorization as a unitary enterprise were extremely broad in scope.  Those members 
sought additional information concerning whether those categories of activity were closed to 
competition, the implications upon disciplines such  as WTO subsidies provisions or on the Russian 
Federation's commitments on distribution services.  Members of the Working Party also requested 
information on the share of import and export trad e enjoyed by unitary enterprises, together with 
information on the current status of the 435 un itary enterprises earmarked for privatization. 
55. Some members requested additional informati on on the criteria applied by local government 
authorities in deciding whether to permit foreign partic ipation in particular privatizations and, if so, 
under what conditions.  In this context, clarificati ons on the nature of the relationship between local 
and the national regulatory framewo rk were sought.  These members also required more information 
on the scope and future of the Russian Federation' s privatization efforts and more information on 
those enterprises which would not be privatized. In  particular, a clarification was sought regarding 
state-owned sectors which were excluded from foreign participation in privatization. 
56. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 178-FZ 
of 21 December 2001 "On Privatization of State and Municipal Property" did not itself contain any restrictions concerning foreign participation in pr ivatization, but required mandatory compliance with 
the restrictions established by other legal acts.  The State Program of Privatization of State and 
Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federati on (approved by Presidential Decree No. 2284 of 
24 December 1993) provided that the Government of  the Russian Federation and governments of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation were entitled to defi ne the terms of foreign i nvestor participation in 
the privatization of facilities and objects of the defe nse industry, the oil and gas industry, mining and 
processing of ores of strategic materials, precious and semiprecious stones, precious metals, 
radioactive and rare-earth minerals, certain  objects and facilities in transportation and 
communications (federally owned and privatized  at a decision of the Russian Federation 
Government), when making the decision on privatiza tion.  In each instance a regulatory legal act 
should be adopted. According to the State Program of  Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises 
in the Russian Federation, the privatization decisi on and authorization of fo reign participation for 
retail and wholesale enterprises, public catering
2 and consumer services3, as well as of small 
                                                      
2 Public catering – restau rants, fast-food enterpri ses and other eating places. 
3 Consumer services – includes hairdressing saloons, dry-cleaner's, repair of householder equipment, 
shoe repair, etc. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 20  
 
enterprises in industry, constructi on, and automobile transportation, which were the subjects of 
municipal ownership, were to be made by local  administrations. Privatization of State property 
maintained by the subjects of the Russian Federati on and of municipal property was governed by the 
Russian Federation legislation on privatization. 
57. In response to requests from members for inform ation on the current progress in privatization, 
he further stated that 90,947 enterprises had been  privatized between 1993 and 2001 (Table 2).  He 
also provided information concerning privatization by  sectors (Table 3).  He noted that according to 
the Common Russian Classifier of Sectors of the Economy (approved by Decision No. 21/97 of Gosstandard of the Russian Federation on 29 Oc tober 1997, as amended on 15 January, 31 August 
1999, 15 February 2000) "Industry" included fishing and mining, and wood-processing, 
timber-processing and cellulose and paper producing industries as a single category. Forestry 
(forestation, forest regeneration) was a separate se ctor of economy and pertained to "Other areas of 
economy".  According to the Conception of Manageme nt of State Property and Privatization in the 
Russian Federation (approved by Government Decision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999 only such 
enterprises could be maintained in the form of Fe deral State unitary enterprises which complied with 
the criteria stipulated in Government Decisi on No. 1348 of 6 December 1999 "On Federal State 
Unitary Enterprises Based on the Right of Economic Jurisdiction (maintenance of national defense 
and national interest, solution of social goals)".  According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation, the unitary en terprise was recognized as a commercial organization, not endowed 
with the right of ownership to the property, allotte d to it by the property owner.  Only State and the 
municipal enterprises were set up in the form of unitary enterprises. 
58. He further noted that according to the national statistics, in 2001, the State sector (i.e. State 
unitary enterprises and joint-stock companies more th an 50 per cent owned by the State) in all sectors 
of economy accounted for 13.4 per cent of the total production of goods and services (and 14.1 
per cent in 2000), 9.7 per cent of the total industr ial production and services, and 13.2 per cent of the 
total agricultural production (Annual Report On Deve lopment of State Sectors of Economy in the 
Russian Federation in 2001, Goskomstat) 
59. . Members of the Working Party requested add itional information on the percentage of trade 
accounted for by state owned firms.  The repres entative of the Russian Federation provided the 
information contained in Table 3.  In response, so me members of the Working Party stated that in 
many situations a shareholding of as low as 25% co uld amount to effective control, and, accordingly, 
requested information on the economic activity of companies with 25% or greater government 
shareholding.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
60. Members of the Working Party invited the Ru ssian Federation to enter a commitment to 
report on developments in its progr am of privatization as long as the privatization program was in 
existence and on other issues related to any ongoing  economic reforms releva nt to its obligations 
under the WTO. 
61. [The representative of the Russian Federa tion confirmed the readiness of the Russian 
Federation to ensure the transparency of its ongoing privatization program and to keep WTO 
Members informed of progress in the reform of its economic and trade regime.  He stated that his 
Government would provide annual reports to WTO Me mbers (along the lines of that provided to the 
Working Party) on developments in its program of  privatization as long as the privatization program 
was in existence.  He also stated that his Gove rnment would provide annual reports on other issues 
related to economic reforms as relevant to its obligations under the WTO while the Russian 
Federation was still in the process of reforming its economy.] 
[to be completed] 
- Pricing Policies 
62. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the main objective pursued by his 
authorities was to introduce the principle of free ma rket price formation based on supply and demand 
in the economic field.  Therefore, prices in most  sectors of the Russian economy were determined 
freely by market forces.  Presidential Decree No. 221 of 28 February 1995 "On Measures to 
Streamline the State Regulation of Prices (tariffs )" (as amended on 8 July 1995) and Government 
Resolution No. 239 of 7 March 1995 "On Measures to Streamline the State Regulation of Prices 
(Tariffs)"  (as amended on 8 February, 15 Ap ril, 31 July 1996, 30 June 1997, 30 July, 
28 December 1998, 6 February, 7 May, 16 June, 20  August 2001), established the main principles of 
the state regulation of prices (tariffs) on the domestic  market of the Russian Federation, carried out by 
the Government of the Russian Federation, fede ral authorities and sub-federal bodies of executive 
power for those goods and services comprehensively listed in Tables 4-6.  Regulatory legal acts 
issued by federal executive bodies concerning state regulation of prices for goods and services were subject to mandatory official publication.  All deci sions by the Government of the Russian Federation 
concerning state regulation of prices and tariffs, including those for services of natural monopolies, 
were published in "Rossiiskaya Gazeta". 
63. He noted that contract prices for goods and servi ces subject to state price regulation delivered 
on the territory of the Russian Federation were fixe d by enterprises independently, subject to market 
conditions and the current regulatory provisions regardless of whether they  were sold to  domestic or  
foreign purchasers.  Contract prices for exports of goods and services subject to state price regulation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 22  
 
from the territory of the Russian  Federation were also fixed by enterprises depending on market 
conditions.  However, in sectors where natural m onopolies existed (transpor tation of oil and oil 
products along main pipelines; transportation of gas along main pipelines; transfer of electric heat and 
power;  transportation by rail;  services of trans port terminals, sea and river ports and airports;  
services of generally accessible electric
4 and postal communication services) and in the case of 
products purchased exclusively or mainly by the St ate such as defense products, pricing was based on 
production costs and established in a way which ex cluded any possible abuse by the producer/supplier 
of its monopoly position.  The procedures and princi ples used for fixing prices of goods and services 
regulated by the State differed depending on the type of goods or services.  For some goods a minimum price level was fixed (e.g. for alcoholic  beverages above 28 proof) while for others a 
maximum price level was settled (e.g. in railway trans portation).  In addition, in the case of air, road 
and river transport services involving competing gr oups of carriers, the carriers themselves had the 
right to set their own prices within established profit margins.   
64. Members of the Working Party sought  furt her clarifications on the mechanisms for 
determination of State controlled prices and their relation to international prices .   
65. In reference to the Russian Federation's descr iption of certain "natural" monopolies, some 
members requested additional information on whether prices charged by natural monopoly suppliers of goods and services differed depe nding on whether they were sold  for domestic consumption.  
Those members also requested information on the pr icing of certain services associated with the sale 
of goods – such as those related to goods destined fo r export rather than for domestic consumption.   
66. Some members also sought additional inform ation on the Russian Federation's announcement 
of efforts to unify its domestic and foreign operating tariffs for railways, as well as a status report on 
developments.   
67. A member requested further clarification on th e grounds for fixing the minimum price level 
of vodka, liquor products and other alcohol stronger  than 28 proof.  That member also asked the 
Russian Federation to explain how this practice c ould be in compliance with the Agreement on the 
Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.   
68. Some members asked whether gas liquids and co ndensate, e.g. those used for petrochemical 
feed stocks, were also included in the list of items under price control.   
                                                     
 
4 The term "electric" refers both to the descriptio n of power supply and to telecommunication services.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
69. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that the following elements were 
considered in determining the prices for products and services of natural monopolies5: the 
cost-effectiveness of their production including the expenses of production (marketing) of products 
and services;  taxes and other payments;  the cost  of fixed production assets;  the requirement of 
investment for reproduction purposes;  depreciation charges;  estimated profits;  remoteness of different consumer groups to the pr oduction site of products and services;  adequacy of the quality of 
the products;  and services produced and marketed to the consumer demand.  In response to other 
enquiries, he said that the communication services which were regulated on the domestic market of the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Antim onopoly Policy and Entrepreneurship Support of the 
Russian Federation (approved by Government Resolution No. 715 of 11 October 2001 "On 
Developing the Mechanism of the State Regulation of Tariffs on Communications Services”), were as 
follows: 
- domestic correspondence (post cards, letters, parcels); 
- domestic cable services; 
- long-distance calls provided for registered subscribers: 
- spreading and broadcasting of national television channels; 
- providing access to telephone line regardless of th e subscriber line type (cable line or 
cable free (radio) line); 
- local calls provided for registered subscribers.   The charge for the local calls includes: 
- when the telephone services are provided upon subscription -  the rental fee for the 
permanent use of the subscriber line regardl ess of its type and for the use of the local 
telephone line regardless of th e telephone talk duration; 
- when payment for the telephone services is made by time - the rental fee for the 
permanent use of the subscriber line regard less of its type and the variable payment 
for the use of the local telephone line depe nding on the duration of the telephone talk 
counted in the tariffing units; 
- the provision of the cellular networks and va lue-added networks shall not be part of 
the natural monopoly, market principles of pricing are employed in the formation of the prices for these services; 
- liquefied gas and gas condenser are included in the list of goods, the prices for which 
are regulated by the state. 
70. He confirmed that minimum prices on vodka, liquor  products and other alcohol stronger than 
28 proof related only to the internal sale (at the retail level) of domesti cally produced and imported 
products, and did not discriminate against importe d products.  This measure had no bearing on the 
customs valuation of the imported product.  
                                                     
 
5 Under Russian legislation in force " the term "natural monopoly" (which applies to both goods and 
services) means a specific market where demand is driven more effectively in the absence of competition as a 
result of special technological aspects of this market (where  substantial decrease of production costs per unit  
takes place, if the volume of output  grows), whereas outputs produced by the  subjects of natural monopoly 
cannot be substituted by other products, while the demand on this market composed of the subjects of natural monopoly depends to a lesser extent on the price change  than the demand on other markets. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 24  
 
71. Regarding price controls applied at the sub -regional level, some members of the Working 
Party  enquired about the legal basis and scope of au thority to apply price controls at this level, and 
about whether these measures were actually reviewed by the federal authorities.   
72. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that regional governments regulated 
prices for products and services classified as local natural monopolies.  These included gas and solid 
fuel sold to the population, transportation of passe ngers and luggage by all means of public transport 
in municipal transport networks, communal serv ices to households, water supply, and sewerage 
services.  At the regional government level, prices fo r electrical energy provided by regional electrical 
companies  were also regulated, as well as prices for all means of commuter passenger transportation 
(except railways), communal services for the popul ation (including rent), and public utilities.  
Decisions on pricing taken at fede ral level by bodies authorized to regulate the activity of natural 
monopolies were compulsory for the regional executiv e bodies and local executive authorities.  State 
regulation of prices for goods and services provided by local natural monopolies was carried out by regional executive bodies independently to the exte nt provided by current regulatory provisions, 
taking into account recommended prices approved by federal executive bodies. 
73. Noting that the Russian Federation had indicated that discriminatory pricing for transportation 
on railway freight could be eliminated by 1 Marc h 2002, some members asked the Russian Federation 
if this measure had been implemented as planned.   These members expected the Russian Federation  
to treat all import and export cargoes on the same basis as domestically produced goods, in line with 
the national treatment requirements of Article III, a nd to make a commitment to this in the Working 
Party Report. 
74. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that his authorities were 
prepared to introduce the same pricing schem e on import-export cargoes as it was for domestic 
products. He added that in August 2001 the first st age of unification for railway freight rates was 
implemented with the transition to payment for export and import cargoes shipped through Russian 
ports based on Price List No. 10-01 tariffs of the Mi nistry of Railways.  Competent federal authorities 
were preparing the second stage of this tariff unifi cation which would extend Price List 10-01 tariffs 
to export and import cargoes shipped through Russian  border land checkpoints. This would eliminate 
the existing differentiation in pricing for export a nd import cargoes shipped through Russian ports and 
border land checkpoints and domestically circulated cargoes.   
75. In response, some members of the Working Part y stated that Russia should specify how and 
when it proposed to complete the elimination of th e current discrimination vis a vis export cargoes.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
Those members expressed concern that differen tial rates continued to be charged for rail 
transportation of cargoes for export by land border crossings. 
76. Some members of the Working Party also expressed strong concerns about the trade 
distortions caused by State controls on the pricing of  energy for domestic consumption (whether in the 
form of gas, oil or electricity).  The effect of these controls was to depress prices for domestic 
industrial users and to lead to a very wide differe ntial between the price pa id by domestic industrial 
users and the price paid by export customers as well as the world market price.  This price differential 
was in the order of as much as six to one for gas, five to one for electricity and f our to one for oil.  For 
example, the price of natural gas to domestic  industry was around US$15 per 1,000 cubic metres, 
compared to an average export pr ice at the Russian Federation's western borders in 2001 of US$116 
per 1,000 cubic metres.  Even in the oil market, whic h was more deregulated, the price of crude oil on 
the domestic spot market was around US$5 per barre l in January/March 2002 when the prevailing 
world price was around US$20.  These price comparis ons were independent of any price variations 
resulting from differences in internal taxation rates.  The negative effects of the price differential were 
also potentially amplified by other factors such as non-payment by domestic consumers.  This dual 
pricing contributed to an indirect subsidization of Russian industrial producers, as they do not have to 
pay a full market price for their energy inputs.  This situation had implications for the ability of 
imported goods to compete on the Russian market and could lead to a displacement of member 
products from third country markets. Moreover, the non-market pricing of such inputs rendered price 
comparisons in trade defence investigations (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy) problematic.   
77. Those members also noted that as a result of th e non-market pricing of such inputs, Russian 
exports of "downstream" intermediate or finish ed goods, particularly of products that are 
energy-intensive such as fertilizer or metals, c ould take place at prices below their normal value, 
leading to the possibility that they could face anti-dumping or countervailing actions in export 
markets.  These members recognized that this was an area wh ere the Russian Federation had begun a 
process of regulatory reform, which could not be ac hieved overnight, and also understood that the 
Russian Federation could wish to maintain cont rols on the price of energy sold for domestic 
household consumption.  But they considered th at the opportunity of WTO accession should be taken 
to tackle the negative impact of dual pricing in fa vour of manufacturing industry at its source.  They 
further considered that the progressive phasing-out of these subsidies - together with the phasing-out 
of export duties applied on associated products and a broader regulatory reform in the energy sector - 
would also benefit the wider economy of the Russi an Federation by allowing for a more rational 
resource allocation and stimulating greater investment and competitiveness. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 26  
 
78. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed, referring to the internal price of natural 
gas, that the basic principle of pricing establishm ent was to ensure economically justified production 
and costs, which also included costs of investme nts done or planned, and reasonable profits. That 
methodology was uniform and applied to all ga s consumers without exceptions, exemptions, 
discounts or preferences, except those situat ed in the remote geographical locations. 
79. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that underground resources within the 
territory of the Russian Federation, including subs oil domain and mineral resources contained therein, 
energy and other resources,  were the property of the State.  Gas, o il and electricity were pertaining to 
the sovereign rights of the Russian Federation.  In response to the concerns raised by some members 
concerning  the "dual pricing" of gas, he noted that  the price of gas to domestic industrial price of gas 
was fixed, whereas gas for export was not.   He furt her added that  his Government was of the view 
that this matter was not  regulated by the WTO Ag reement.   Regarding the views of  some members 
of the Working Party that the fixing of the pri ce of gas  could imply an element of indirect 
subsidization of Russian industrial producers because  those consumers did not pay a free market price 
for their energy inputs, he noted his Government's  view that this did not constitute a   subsidy 
pursuant to the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.    
80. He further noted that Order No. 12/1 of the Federal Energy Commission of 24 March 1999 
"On Granting a 50 per cent Reduction of Prices of Gas to Enterprises which Produce Chemical 
Fertilizers, Chemical Protection for Plants and Ra w Materials for Production Thereof, in 1999" had 
been repealed in the course of that year and sin ce there were no other legal provisions that provided 
for similar price reductions for industries.  Presently, the pricing of gas was determined by a Resolution  of the Federal Energy Commission of the Russian Federation № 8/9 dated February 6 
2002 (Methodology of Determining Tariffs for S upply and Marketing Services provided by Gas 
Distribution Organizations). Tariffs were set at  a level that permitted gas producers to recoup 
economically justified expenses and sufficient profit.   This methodology was applied uniformly.  He 
further noted that fertilizer industry consumers, in particular, are part of the group with the biggest 
amount of gas consumption – more than 100 000 m
3 per year as they buy gas for further processing.  
He noted that the prices of electricity were re gulated in a similar way, pursuant to Federal Law № 41-
FZ of April 14 1995 “On state regulation of tariffs on electric and thermal power in the Russian 
Federation.  In that case the prices of electrical ener gy provided by regional electrical power-plants to 
the regional market were fixed both to industrial an d household consumers.  At a later stage he noted 
that the pricing of electricity to commercial consumers was undergoing reform (although, like gas 
prices charged to individual household consumers rema ined fixed for reasons of social protection).   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
81. In relation to members' concerns about the dispar ity between the price of gas sold to industrial 
consumers in the Russian Federati on and the world price of gas, the representative of the Russian 
Federation stated that the export prices for gas were  not regulated and were established on the basis of 
supply and demand in the importing country.  He was of the view that there was no “world market 
price” for gas, and noted that for gas shipped to Eu rope, shipment and transport reflected up to 80 per 
cent of the landed price.   The price of gas for inte rnal consumption was fixed at a level that permitted 
recovery of cost and an amount for profit.   
82. Members of the Working Party noted that di scussions in the Working Party had served to 
clarify the pricing of gas.  However, those member s remained concerned that the fixed price for gas 
used by industrial consumers was not fixed at a level that permitted a gas supplier to fully and 
properly recover all costs and an amount for profit.  
83. The representative of the Russian Federation co nfirmed that in his Government’s view 
nothing in the current system of price regulation of energy products violated rules of the WTO 
Agreements as they were applied by WTO Members. 
84. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed the Russian Federation would apply 
price controls on products [and services] contai ned in Tables […], and any similar measures, 
[including dual pricing,] that are introduced or re introduced in future, in a WTO consistent manner, 
and take account of the interests of exporting memb ers as provided for in Article III:9 of GATT 1994.  
From the date of accession, the Russian Federation will publish lists of goods and services subject to 
State price controls in its Official Gazette, includi ng the list in Tables […] and any changes from that 
list.] 
[to be completed] 
- Competition Policy 
85. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that his authorities attached great 
importance to competition policy, and closely followed the activities of the WTO Working Group on 
the interaction between trade and competition polic y.  The basic goal of competition policy in the 
Russian Federation was to create a favourable c limate for enterprises, and the facilitation of 
competition and efficient  functioning  of the  markets by preventing, restraining and eliminating 
monopolistic and anti-competitive practices among econom ic operators.  To this end, the Russian 
Federation had adopted and mainta ined a number of legislative acts implementing its competition 
policy. The existing Russian legislation, consistent  with international norms, contained all the basic WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 28  
 
elements of state supervision and control over ag reements (Concerted Actions ) of economic operators 
which could affect competition on the commodity and financial services markets.   
86. In response to requests for further informa tion from members of the Working Party, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  any anti-competitive market structure and unfair 
business practices that impeded competition were s ubject to the anti-monopoly laws.  The Russian 
Federation had adopted the following legislation:   Federal Law No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 "On 
Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activit y on Commodity Markets" (as amended on 
24 June 1992, 25 May 1995 and 2 January 2000);  Federal Law  No. 2-FZ of 9 January 1996 "On 
Making Amendments and Supplements to Fede ral Law No. 2300-1 of 7 February 1992 "On 
Consumers Rights Protection" and the Code of the RSFSR On Administrative Offences" (as amended on 17 December 1999) and Federal Law No 117-FZ of 23 June 1999 "On Protection of Competition 
in the Financial Services Market".  In his view Russian legislation already in force contained all 
necessary elements for state supervision and cont rol over arrangements and practices of economic 
operators that adversely effected competition, ab use of dominant position on the market by economic 
operators, and led to economic concentration. 
87. He further added that the main functions of th e Ministry of Anti-competitive Practices were  
to introduce legislative initiatives in the fiel d of anti-monopoly activity, the development and 
introduction of measures required to de-monopolise production and distribution, the monitoring of 
compliance with anti-monopoly requirements in the establishment, reorganization and liquidation of 
economic enterprises.  The Ministry also cond ucted preliminary reviews and controls over 
establishment and mergers, affiliation and associ ation of commercial or ganizations, monitored 
transactions concerning the obtaining of shares or interests in commercial organization and  the 
acquisition by a group or individual of ownership of fixed or  intangible assets of another person. 
These responsibilities were exercised through prio r approval or notification by antimonopoly organs. 
He added that under Article 71.g of the Constituti on of the Russian Federation, regional authorities 
did not have jurisdiction over competition policy. 
88. At a later stage he further noted that The Law of the RSFSR No.948-1 of 22 March 1991 (in 
the edition of 09 October 2002) “On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on 
Commodity Markets” determined organizational and legal basis of prevention and cutting up 
monopoly activity and unfair competition on commodity markets in the Russian Federation as well as 
restriction on competition by federal executive bodi es, governmental bodies of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation, local government, other authori ties or organizations vested with functions or 
rights of said bodies of power.  Subjects that held  a dominant position on the market were prohibited 
from actions (non-actions) that could result in prev ention, restriction or elimination of competition  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
and (or) limitation of interests of other managing subj ects.   He noted that action taken in breach of 
the law or failure to execute an order of the an timonopoly authority, would  be regarded as grounds 
for their liquidation.  Violation of the antimonopoly legislation by officials of the federal executive 
bodies, the executive bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation, local government, and other 
bodies and organizations vested with functions un der the legislation as well as by natural persons, 
including individual entrepreneurs, could lead to civil, administrative or criminal liability.  
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES  
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; 
Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign trade; 
Division of authority between central and sub-central governments  
89. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in accordance with the Constitution, 
State power in the Russian Federation was exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Federal Assembly (the Council of the Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and the courts of the Russian Federa tion.  The competence of each body of power was 
defined in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation respectively.   
90. The President of the Russian Federation was the H ead of State.  He determined the guidelines 
of domestic and foreign policies of the State.  Pendi ng resolution of a matter by the appropriate court,  
the President had the right to suspend the opera tion of acts of the executive power bodies of the 
"subjects"6 of the Russian Federation if they were not in compliance with the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation, federal laws and internati onal commitments of the Russian Federation.   
91. Executive power in the Russian Federation was ex ercised by the Government of the Russian 
Federation.  The Government ensured the implementa tion in the Russian Federation of a single trade, 
financial, credit and monetary policy, including  the establishment of the customs tariff;  the 
implementation of foreign policy;  and the implemen tation of measures required to ensure the rule of 
law. 
92. The Federal Assembly (the Parliament of the Russian Federation) was the representative of 
the legislative authority in the Russian Federation.  It consisted of two chambers - the Council of the 
Federation and the State Duma.  The Council of the Federation included two representatives from 
each subject of the Russian Federation: one from th e legislative and one from executive body of state 
                                                      
6 Proceeding from Article 5 (1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the term "subjects" of the 
Russian Federation includes republics, regions, oblast,  cities of federal importance, autonomous regions and 
autonomous areas.  Article 65 of the Constitution contained the exhaustive list of  "subjects" of the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 30  
 
power.  The composition of the Council of the Fe deration was also determined by Federal Law 
No. 113-FZ of 5 August 2000 "On the Order of Forma tion of the Council of th e Federation of Federal 
Assembly of the Russian Federation".  The State Du ma consisted of 450 deputie s elected for a term of 
four years.  The composition of the State Duma  was determined by Federal Law No. 121-FZ of 
24 June 1999 "On Election of Deputies to the State Duma of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 12 April and10 July 2001).  Both chambers were i nvolved, inter alia, in the adoption of the federal 
laws on federal budget, federal taxes and dues, fina ncial, currency, credit, customs regulation and 
monetary issues, ratification and denunciation of in ternational treaties and agreements of the Russian 
Federation. 
93. The right of legislative initiative was vested with  the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Members of the Council of the Federation, the Depu ties of the State Duma, the Government of the 
Russian Federation, and the legislative bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  The right of 
legislative initiative was also vest ed in matters under their jurisdiction with the Constitutional Court 
of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Superior Court of 
Arbitration of the Russian Federation.  
94. He further noted that the Russian legal system was comprised of federal  legal acts and legal 
acts of the subjects of the Russi an Federation (sub-federal and re gional governments).  The federal 
legal system consisted of the Constitution; federal constitutional laws; federal laws; decrees and 
resolutions of the President of the Russian Federati on; resolutions and orders of the Government of 
the Russian Federation; and acts of federal executive authorities
7.  The legal system of the subjects of 
the Russian Federation consisted of their resp ective constitutions (in the case of Republics,) or 
charters (in the case of  other subjects of the Russi an Federation);  laws a nd other legal acts.  The 
Constitution had overriding power and was applicable  throughout the entire territory of the Russian 
Federation.  All federal legal acts and legal acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation were 
required to be in conformity with the Constitutio n.  Federal constitutional laws regulated matters 
issues directly provided for under the Constitution of the Russian Federation.  Federal laws regulated 
areas of joint competence between the Russian Federation and its regions. The Constitution reserved 
certain subject matters to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and others to the joint 
jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and its subjects (Article 72).   
                                                      
7 Acts of federal executive authorities (i.e. acts whose bi nding effect extends to all of the territory of the 
Russian Federation) are as follows and limited to: reso lutions, orders, rules, instructions, regulations and 
decisions. Recommendations, letters, telegrams, teletype messages are not regulatory legal acts (Order No. 217 
of the Ministry of Justice of July 14, 1999). Such act s have recommendatory character only and are intended for 
use within the relevant ministry or department.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
95. He further noted that Presidential decrees and resolutions did not prevent the Federal 
Assembly from enacting a law covering the same s ubject matter, although the scope of such law 
would not have to be limited to it.   Government resolutions and orde rs (subsidiary legislation) were 
issued pursuant to and in furtherance of the Cons titution, federal constitutiona l laws, federal laws and 
Presidential decrees and resolutions.  The requireme nt for such resolutions and orders were, as a 
general rule, provided for in the relevant enabling law, decree or resolution.  Those legislative acts 
were also binding throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation and might be appealed in 
court.  Acts of federal executive authorities were issued on the basis of and furtherance of federal 
laws, presidential decrees and resolutions, and Govern ment resolutions and orders.  Those acts should 
be in compliance with the relevant enabling  provisio ns.  They had an auxiliary and detailing function.  
International treaties contracted by the Russian Federation were conclude d by appointed federal 
authorities on behalf of the Russian Federation.   Following their official acknowledgement, 
ratification and approval, international treaties we re binding throughout the entire territory of the 
Russian Federation.  In accordance with Article 15  of the Constitution, if the event of a conflict 
between Russian Federation domestic law and an inte rnational treaty to which Russia was a party, the 
provisions of the international treaty would pr evail to the extent of the conflict.   
96. Members of the Working Party noted concerns in relation to the non-WTO consistent actions 
of certain regional governments, often in the face of Federal legislation.  In addition, members of the 
Working Party requested clarification of the ability of the central Government to take the initiative 
and responsibility for overruling or removing any WT O-inconsistent measures taken by subjects of 
the Russian Federation.  Some members of the Wo rking Party requested a specific commitment from 
the Russian Federation that international treaties woul d be strictly observed throughout its territory.   
97. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that a special mechanism had 
been established to monitor and ensure that the legi slation and practice of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation complied with federal laws. On 6 October 1999 Federal Law No. 184-FZ "On General 
Principles of the Organization of the Legislative Representative and Executive Authorities of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation" had been enacted.  The Public Prosecutor's Office 
administered the law.  Once a complaint regarding the action or policy  of a subject of the Russian 
Federation was lodged, the Public Prosecutor was em powered to seek an order or declaration from the 
Supreme Court or an appropriate lower body of the concerned subject invalidating the legislation or 
practice complained of , in case such legislation or practice was inconsistent with respective federal 
legislation or international treaties of the Russian  Federation.  Presidential Decree No. 849 of 13 May 
2000 "On the Authorized Representative of the Pr esident of the Russian Federation in a Federal 
District" empowered a presidential representative in a federal district to propose the suspension of acts 
of executive authorities of the subjects of the Russi an Federation that contravened the Constitution, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 32  
 
federal laws or international commitments of the Ru ssian Federation.   Similarly, Presidential Decree 
No. 1486 of 10 August 2000 "On Supplementary Measur es to Provide Integrity of Legal Treatment in 
the Russian Federation" created a federal registry of the legal acts of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation.  All legal acts enacted by the subjects of the Russian Federation were notified to the 
federal Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federa tion within 7 days of enactment for scrutiny and 
review.  If the legislation was found to be inconsiste nt with federal laws, the Legislative Department 
of the Ministry of Justice could draft a presidentia l decree suspending the operation of the legislation, 
or seek an order from the Constitution Court of th e Russian Federation together with proposals for 
reconciling or rectifying the conflict.  Acts or parts thereof determined by the Court to contravene the 
Constitution became invalid.He further noted that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian 
Federation, the Constitution itself and federal laws  had supremacy over the whole territory of the 
Russian Federation.  The bodies of state authority,  the bodies of local self-government, officials, 
private citizens and their associations were to ob serve the Constitution of the Russian Federation and 
laws.  Besides, according to Federal Law No. 101 FZ of 15 July 1995 "On International Treaties of 
the Russian Federation",  the international trea ties of the Russian Federation were subject to 
conscientious execution in accordance with the conditions of the intern ational treaties themselves, the 
norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, this Law and any other 
legislative acts of the Russian Federation.  This La w also contained rules on  ensuring the execution of 
the international treaties of the Russian Federatio n by the President and the Government of the 
Russian Federation, federal bodies of the executive aut hority, bodies of state authority of the relevant 
subjects of the Russian Federation. 
98. Members of the Working Party thanked the re presentative of the Russian Federation and 
sought confirmation concerning the uniform applica tion of WTO provisions throughout the territory 
of the Russian Federation as well as an on sub-central  entities.  More information was also sought on 
the hierarchy of legislative acts in the Russian Fede ration, together with an explicit statement on the 
status of international agreements like the WTO vi s-à-vis Russian law and whether the Protocol of 
Accession to WTO was deemed to be a "treaty" fo r this purpose, and a description of how, in legal 
terms, the protocol package would be ratified a nd WTO rules and commitments implemented in the 
Russian Federation.  Further information was re quired on whether there were any areas relating to 
matters under WTO provisions wher e sub-federal entities might have exclusive jurisdiction.  A 
clarification was therefore needed on whether the authorities of the Russian Federation would be required to submit the approved protocol package to  sub-central entities for their approval in the 
ratification process. 
99.  The representative of the Russian Federation further noted that according to Article 3 of 
Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On Stat e Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
amended on 8 July 1997, 10 February 1999), foreign tr ade in the Russian Federation was regulated by 
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal la ws and other legal acts of the Russian Federation 
and by the international treaties to which the Russia n Federation was a party.  Article 6 of said Law 
provided for, inter alia , the jurisdiction of the Russian Federati on to form the concept and strategy of 
the development of foreign trade relations and the basic principles of the foreign trade policy;  to 
ensure the economic security and protection of th e economic sovereignty an d economic interests of 
the Russian Federation, as well as the economic intere sts of the subjects of the Russian Federation and 
of the Russian persons;  and to conclude intern ational treaties in the field of foreign economic 
relations. 
100. He recalled that Federal Law 1999 No. 4-FZ of 2 January 1999 "On Co-ordination of 
International and Foreign Economic Ties of the S ubjects of the Russian Federation" provided the 
subjects, inter alia , with the right to negotiate and concl ude agreements with their partners on 
international and foreign economic ties.  Such agreem ents could not contradict  federal legislation and 
the international commitments of the Russian Fe deration.  The Law made it compulsory for the 
subjects to notify the appropriate federal authorities before entering into negotiations, and set forth a 
procedure of prior approval of the draft agreed text of the agreement by the appropriate federal 
authorities.  The agreements concluded by the subjec ts of the Russian Federa tion were not considered 
international treaties.   
101.  The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the right to conclude international 
treaties fell within the jurisdiction of the Russian Fe deration.  But if an international treaty of the 
Russian Federation affected issues falling within the jurisdiction of the subjects of the Russian 
Federation, such a treaty should be concluded in co -ordination with relevant bodies of the interested 
subjects of the Russian Federation.  This provisi on was contained in Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 
July 1995 "On international treaties of the Russian Federation".  As regards international treaties of 
the Russian Federation affecting issues falling within  the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation 
and the subjects of the Russian Federation, the Law established that federal bodies of executive power 
should send the main provisions or the draft of a  treaty to the state power bodies of the interested 
subject of the Federation.  Proposals received from the subjects were considered in the course of 
preparation of the draft of the international treaty.   
102. Some members of the Working Party stated that in many cases sub-federal entities of the 
Russian Federation did not respect international ag reements concluded by the Russian Federation and 
requested that the Russian Federa tion enter a commitment to ensure that sub-federal entities act in 
strict conformity with Federal Law 1999 No. 4-FZ of 2 January 1999 "On Co-ordination of 
International and Foreign Economic Ties of the S ubjects of the Russian Federation". Other members WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 34  
 
of the Working Party requested information on th e status that the WTO Agreement would have under 
Russian law after accession. 
103. In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that once ratified, the Russian 
Federation's Protocol of Accession to the WTO would have the status of an international treaty and 
would become an integral part of the legal system of the Russian Federation.  Article 7 of the Civil 
Code of the Russian Federation provided that inte rnational agreements of the Russian Federation had 
direct effect in regard to relations regulated by civil law except where such international agreements 
required a national act to be passed for their en forcement.  Consequently, the provisions of an 
international agreement should apply throughout the territory of the Russian Federation after 
ratification. 
104. In response to further questions  from members of the Working Party, he noted that judicial, 
legislative and executive power were all exercised se parately.  The  judicial system of the Russian 
Federation was regulated by the Federal Constitu tional Law, No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 "On 
Judicial System of the Russian Federation"; No. 1-FKZ of 21 February 1 994 "On Constitutional Court 
of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 8 February 2001) a nd No. 1-FKZ of 28 April 1995 "On 
Arbitration Courts in the Russian Federation".  J udicial power was exclusively exercised by courts 
manned by judges, juries, and arbitrators duly appoint ed under constitutional, civ il, administrative and 
criminal court proceedings.  .  Justice was equal fo r all. Courts should not favour any agency, person 
or otherwise complainant based on nationality, sex, race, language, political convictions or any other 
grounds unless established by federal laws.  He further noted that the rates of state fees for claims or 
other statements or complaints submitted to the cour ts of general jurisdiction or to arbitration courts 
were established in Federal Law  No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Fees". 
105. The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r stated that the judicial system comprised 
federal courts, constitutiona l courts and district courts.  Judge ments, rulings, orders, summons and 
other lawful communications issued by the c ourts were binding upon all persons, entities or 
governmental authorities throughout the whole territory of the Russian Federation.  Failure to comply 
with a court judgement, or any other act of contempt for the court, was a breach of federal law.  The 
rules of civil procedure in federal courts of gene ral jurisdiction were set out in the Civil Procedure 
Code of the Russian Federation.  Procedures for the settlement of disputes by arbitration courts were 
set out in the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation No. 70-FZ of 5 May 1995.  
106. In response,  members of the Working Part y requested  detailed  information on the 
availability of administrative appeal s, as well as  the availability of appeals to an independent tribunal 
or judicial review. Those members also requested th at the Russian Federation ensure that the central  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
Government would monitor and take active steps to ensure that measures taken by sub-central 
authorities or other subjects of the Russian Fe deration such as WTO or  Protocol commitment 
inconsistent legislation, actions or non-uniform a pplication would be brought into conformity with 
Russia's obligations under the WTO Agreement prom ptly, particularly when such measures were 
notified to the central government by a WTO Member or other interested party.     Those members noted that a right of appeal to an independent trib unal or judicial review should be provided to all 
participants in the Russian Federation economy.    
107. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration replied that any decision by the state 
authorities, local administrations, community associati ons or officials could be appealed to a court 
with jurisdiction.  In the case of appeals against ad ministrative action or inaction, at the discretion of 
the complainant, an appeal could also be addressed to either the Government or a Government agency 
controllingbody responsible for the decision.    He noted, also that appeals against the decision of a 
lower court were also possible.  He reiterated th at the person aggrieved by the decision could decide 
whether to pursue an administrative review or court procedures.   
108. In response to inquiries concerning administrative appeals of customs matters, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  the procedure for appealing against decisions, 
action or inaction of the customs authorities ("deci sions"), as well as decisions of customs officers, 
was provided in the Customs Code of the Russian  Federation. A person wa s permitted to appeal 
against a decision of a customs body if that person's rights or statutorily defined interests had been 
violated.  Appeals could be lodged with a superior customs office of the Russian Federation or with a 
supervising customs officer.  
109. In response for additional information on the ty pes of appeal mechanism available and the 
standing of an aggrieved party, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Article 405 of 
the existing Customs Code of the Russian Federation,  provided that any person could lodge an appeal 
against a decision of the customs authorities of th e Russian Federation and their officers, if such 
person (i) reasonably believes that their rights and lawf ul interests have been infringed, and (ii) where 
the conduct complained of affects such  person directly and personally.   
110. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
procedure for appealing against decisions of tax bodies  and actions or omissions of their officers was 
regulated by the Tax Code of the Russian Federa tion.  Decisions issued by tax bodies, as well as 
actions and omissions by their officers, could be app ealed to a supervising officer or a court, either 
simultaneously or consecutively.  An appeal was required to be determined within one month from 
the date of lodging the appeal.  The tax body was re quired to take a decision within one month, and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 36  
 
the decision on the appeal was required to be notified to the person lodging the appeal within 3 days 
after the decision was taken.  Fees for appeals s ubmitted to courts were set out in Federal Law  
No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Fees". 
111. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement should be applied uniformly throughout the Russian Federation's customs territory and 
other territories under the Russian Federation's contro l within its state border, including in regions 
engaging in border trade or frontier traffic, speci al economic zones, and ot her areas where special 
regimes for tariffs, taxes and regul ations were established.  He added that, when informed of a 
situation where WTO provisions were not being ap plied or were applied in a non-uniform manner, 
central authorities would act to enforce WTO provisions without requiring affected parties to petition thought the courts.] 
112. [The representative of the Russian Federati on also confirmed that in matters involving 
international trade subject to WTO provisions, his authorities would provide judicial, arbitral or administrative recourse to an independent tribunal or judicial review, in conformity with WTO 
obligations, including, but not restricted to, Article X:3(b) of GATT 1994, and relevant provisions in 
the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of  Intellectual Property Rights and the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services.]  
[to be completed] 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS Registration requirements for import/export operations  
113. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that his government did not restrict the 
right of persons and entities to import or export, ex cept for reasons of national security and protection 
of public order.  He noted that the elimination of  the State monopoly in foreign trade was proclaimed 
by Presidential Decree No. 213 of 15 November  1991 "On Liberalisation of Foreign Economic 
Activity on the Territory of the Russian Soviet  Federal Socialist Re public" (as amended on 27 
October 1992) under which all enterprises were gi ven the right to carry out foreign economic 
activities, whatever their form of ownership.  This  principle was further embodied in the Civil Code 
and the Constitution of the Russian Federation.  He also conformed that there were no plans to place 
restrictions on the number of importers and exporters.   
114. Several members noted that laws and regulations relating to the right to trade in goods (also 
referred to as "registration requirements" or "activ ity licensing") should not restrict imports in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
violation of the general prohibition on quantitative restrictions as under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, 
nor should they discriminate against imported goods in violation of the non-discriminatory provisions 
of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  Furthermore, fees an d charges levied on the right to import should be 
limited to the cost of services rendered as under Article VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994, and taxes and 
charges on the right to trade in imported goods shoul d not lead to discrimination in favour of like 
domestic products as required by  Article III:2 of GATT 1994. 
115. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation recalled that all activity licensing 
requirements in foreign trade on the territory of th e Russian Federation were set out in Federal Law 
No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On the State Regula tion of the Foreign Trade Activity" (amended 
8 July 1997, 10 February 1999).  Article 2 of this la w stipulated that foreign trade activity could be 
carried out both by Russian as well as foreign par ticipants in foreign trade activities.  Foreign 
participants in foreign trade activities were legal entities or natural persons recognized as such by the 
law of foreign states. If foreign companies or natural persons carried out foreign trade activity 
(exportation or importation) as foreign participants of foreign trade activity, they did not need to be 
registered or have any investments in the Russian Federation.  The Russian participants in foreign 
trade activities were Russian juridical entities or na tural persons who had obtained state registration as 
juridical entities or individual entreprene urs in accordance with the Russian law. 
116. He further clarified that the draft law “On th e Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity” was elaborated to reflect the latest  changes in Russia’s legal system, namely, adoption 
of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, th e Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and the 
implementing legislation.  This law would replace the current Federal Law No.157-FZ of 13 October 
1995 “On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity” making amendments which are vital in determining the terms of participa tion of foreign and domestic companies in the civil procedures, in 
particular, in their access to market, and the nature  and forms of relationship between the state and 
business. The draft law also incorporated relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, GATS, and 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. In resp onse to further questions concerning registration 
requirements for engaging in entrepreneurial activ ity  the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that the registration of legal entities and natural persons as individual entrepreneurs was 
governed by Article 51 of the Civil Code and Pr esidential Decree No. 1482 of 8 July 1994 "On 
Streamlining of State Registration of Enterprises a nd Entrepreneurs in the Territory of the Russian 
Federation" and Federal Law No.129-FZ of 8 A ugust 2001 "On State Registration of Juridical 
Persons". The registration of a legal entity required th e submission of an application, the charter of the 
legal entity in question approved by its founders, a documentary confirmation of   deposition of no less 
than 50 per cent of the charter capital of the firm  with the respective bank, and a certificate of 
payment of state duty in the amount of  2000 Rubles.  The registration of a natural person as an WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 38  
 
individual entrepreneur required an applicati on Sand a document confirming the payment of the 
registration charge of 100 Rubles.  Denial of re gistration could be appealed through a judicial 
procedure. The registration act permitted the enterpri se/individual entrepreneur to engage in economic 
activity, including foreign trade activity. The above -mentioned principles were contained in the 
Federal Law No.129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Re gistration of Juridical Persons" entered into 
force on 1 July 2002 and regulated registration of th e establishment, reorganization or liquidation, and 
introduction of amendments to instituting documents  of legal entities as well as and the conduct of the 
State Registry of legal persons. The Federal La w No.129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration 
of Legal Persons" did not contain any restrictions  or discrimination for foreign founders of legal 
persons. In order to ensure transparency in regist ration under the provisions of Article 4 of the Federal 
Law No.129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Registrati on of Legal Persons" the Ministry of Tax and 
Charges Collection of the Russian Federation should follow up the State Register containing 
information on establishment, reorganization and liquidation of legal entities and other respective 
information. This information should be published a nd placed on web-site of the Ministry of Tax and 
Charges Collection of the Russian Federation ( www.nalog.ru) and renewed on a monthly basis. 
117. He further noted that Article 10 of the Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On the State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (amendments of 8 July 1997, 10 February 1999) established 
that all Russian participants of foreign trade activities were permitted to undertake foreign trade 
activity, regardless of the form of their property and without any additional special permission or 
activity licence.  This rule had only three excep tions:  alcoholic beverages, pharmaceuticals, and 
precious stones/metals. 
Alcoholic beverages 
118. He noted that the first exception aimed at protecting human life and health and proper 
collection of internal taxes was related to im portation and exportation of  alcoholic beverages. 
Pursuant to Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 22 Novemb er 1995 "On State Regulation of Production and 
Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol -Containing Products" (as amended on 7 January 
1999), natural persons and legal entities wishing to do business in these areas needed to obtain an 
activity license in the agencies of the Ministry of  Tax and Charges Collection. The activity license 
was issued for the purchase, stor age and exports of ethyl alcohol; purchase, storage and export of 
alcohol products; export of alcohol products; impo rts, storage and deliveries of ethyl alcoholic; 
import, storage and deliveries of alcohol products; imports, storage and supplies of alcohol-containing 
products. Conditions and re quirements to be fulfilled by the enterprises and entrepreneurs were 
stipulated in Articles 18 – 21 of the said Law. W ith regard to exports a nd imports, an additional 
license is required issued by the same body. Th e above law established two kinds of export/import  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
licenses: general license and licen se for a single contract. The general license to import/export was 
issued only to organizations with the paid-up auth orized capital of no less than 40 thousand federal 
statutory minimal wages and which had been perform ing deliveries of alcoholic products for at least 
one year (while having the turnover of imported alco holic products of at least 50 thousand deciliters 
over one year in equivalent to absolute alcohol). These licenses were issued for a term of up to three 
years. Single contract license was issued for a term of  up to five months to or ganizations to export and 
import alcoholic and alcohol contai ning edible products amounting to  no more than 500 deciliters in 
equivalent to absolute alcohol with their custom s value not exceeding 100 thousand federal statutory 
minimal wages. Licensing fees provided by Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 8 January 1998 "On Charges for 
Issuance of Licenses for Production and Turnover of  Ethyl Alcohol, Alcohol Containing – Products" 
are shown in Table [7]. 
119. He further added that  an annual volume of  imported alcoholic products (except for wines, 
cognac items and beer) were not permitted to ex ceed 10 per cent of the overall annual volume of 
alcoholic products sold on the territory of the Ru ssian Federation.  The share of alcoholic products 
with not more than 15 per cent of ethyl alcohol content of the volume of the final product shall 
constitute at least 60 per cent of the overall annua l volume of alcoholic products imported into the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation. 
Pharmaceuticals 
120. Referring to the second exception, he said that acco rding to the Federal Law 86-FZ of 22 June 
1998 "On Medicines", the right to import pharmaceu ticals was enjoyed by Russian participants in 
foreign economic activities, who had a licence for the production or wholesale trade of  these goods.  
Pursuant to Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Types of Activity", 
the licensing requirement in respect of pharmaceutical activity and production of medicines was due to the overall requirement of license availability in  all types of activity that might cause damage to 
rights, lawful interests and health of Russian na tionals and where regulation was only possible in the 
form of licensing.  Once a company obtained an activity  licence, it would be eligible for the receipt of 
import  licenses each time it wished to import or export goods subject to licensing. In accordance with 
Article 15 of Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Activities", a fee of 
1,300 Rubles (about US$40) was charged for the issuing of each licence.  The limitation of the 
number of companies importing and exporting certain pr oducts could be done by virtue of federal law 
only. In absence of such a law no authority  had the right to take such measures. 
121. He further explained that in accordance with  the Federal Law 86-FZ, as well as the Federal 
Law 128-FZ “On Licensing of Selected Business  Activities” foreign enterprises (producers and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 40  
 
wholesalers) were entitled to import/export pharmaceu ticals to/from the territory of the Russian 
Federation subject that they had their representativ e offices in Russia, registered as legal persons, 
granted license for their type of activity (pharm aceutical production or distribution) and granted 
license for imports (there were no statutory export licensing requirements). They were subject to the 
same uniform procedures as provided under Govern ment Resolution No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 
"On Imports into and Exports from the Russian  Federation of Medicines and Pharmaceutical 
Substances. 
122. Regarding importation of pharmaceuticals, he noted that foreign-owned firms enjoyed the 
same rights as Russian firms in the Russian Fede ration and could obtain an activity licence under the 
same scheme.  Foreign-owned firms which were not established in the Russian Federation should 
have their own representative office
8 in the Russian Federation.  If th is was the case, these firms could 
also apply for an import licence.   
123. In response to the statement that sole domestic  and foreign practitioners were not permitted to 
export pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation, some  members of the Working Party also requested 
information on whether sole practitioners were permitted to manufacture pharmaceuticals in Russia.  
In addition, those members also noted that th e fee for each importation was burdensome, delayed 
imports and unnecessarily added to the expenses of importation, and appeared to be a revenue 
measure.    
124. He recalled that under Article 21 of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines" 
sole domestic and foreign practitioners were not pe rmitted to export pharmaceuticals to the Russian 
Federation. In accordance with the same law, impor ts of medicines into Russian Federation were only 
allowed to enterprises that produced medicines; wh olesale traders of medicin es; academic research 
organizations; institutions, laboratories for developm ent, study and control of  quality, effectiveness 
and safety of medicines, subject to permission of the federal medicine control agency for import of the 
relevant consignment of medicines; foreign en terprises producing medicines and foreign wholesale 
traders of medicines provided they had representative o ffices in Russia. All applicants for a licence to 
import medicines had to undergo an uniform pr ocedure as provided under Government Resolution 
No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 "On Import into and Export from the Russian Federation of 
Medicines and Pharmaceutical Substances".  
125. Some members of the Working Party requested the Russian Federation to confirm that the 
ability to request an activity licen se for trade in pharmaceuticals w as reserved to Russian Federation 
                                                      
8 In accordance with Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Russian Fede ration the representative office is 
a detached division of legal entity, located elsewhere than  its business address, which represents and protects the 
interests of such legal entity.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
firms and to explain what that meant in practice for foreign-owned firms in the Russian Federation, 
foreign exporting firms not established in the Russian Federation, and domestic or foreign 
practitioners seeking to export pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation. 
126. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that  foreign enterprises 
intending to import pharmaceuticals into the territo ry of the Russian Federation were required to 
establish a representative office of the company on the territory of the Russian Federation; and 
- register as a legal person on the territory of the Russian Federation; 
- hold a license for the relevant type of activity (pharmaceutical production or distribution) 
pursuant to provisions of 128-FL; 
hold a license for pharmaceutical import to the territo ry of the Russian Federation; He further noted 
that there were no statutory licensing requirements for pharmaceutical exports from the territory of the 
Russian Federation. Precious stones and metals 
127. The representative of the Russian Federation, referring to the third exception concerning 
precious stones and metals, noted that there were no statutory licensing or quantitative requirements 
for imports of these goods to the territory of  the Russian Federation. All documentation and 
procedures for exports or imports of these goods we re to be completed at the dedicated customs 
checkpoints. Exports of platinum and platinum gr oup metals, non-refined nuggets of precious metals  
were subject to the quota allocated by the Govern ment of the Russian Federation in accordance with 
the Decrees of the President of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2002, No. 1373 “On 
Approval of Regulation on Import to and Export from the Russian Federation of Natural and Cut 
Diamonds” and of June 21, 2001, No. 742 “On the Procedure of Import to and Export from the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and Gemston es”. The quota requirement was also extending to 
exports of non-ferrous metals cont aining precious metals (copper, lead, zinc concentrates). Exports of 
uncut natural diamonds was subject to quota wh ere such exports was performed by the mining 
companies (except for diamonds unfit for use in jewe lry and –3+2 classes, ‘bort’ and ‘drilling’ types), 
or from state depositaries of precious metals a nd gemstones of the Russian Federation Regions 
(Yakutia, Magadan Region).   
128. He further noted that the exportation of unpr ocessed precious metals was prohibited in the 
Russian Federation. In accordance with the Presiden tial Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On the 
Procedure of Importation into and Exportation fro m the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones", export licensing was mandatory for exports of  refined pl atinum and metals of 
platinum group in form of ingots, plates, powder and granules; unprocessed precious metals WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 42  
 
(excluding natural pieces of metals not subject to refining ); unprocessed gold and silver (only refined 
in form of ingots, plates, powder and granules as well as gold used to produce coins); natural 
processed and unprocessed precious stones; minera ls (only unique amber pieces); mineral and 
secondary raw materials containing precious metals, including concentrated ores and residuals of non-
ferrous metals and their semi-ma nufactures.  Export licenses for precious metals and precious stones 
were issued under Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On the Procedure of Importation 
into and Exportation from the Russian Federati on of Precious Metals and Precious Stones". For 
issuance of an export license, the following procedur es were required: (i) authorization of the CBR or 
credit institutions licensed by the CBR to perform op erations with precious metals (the Federal Law 
No. 395-1 of 2 December 1995 “On Banks and Banking” ); (ii) for exports of precious stones and 
precious metals – registration certificate of the Su pervision Committee (the Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 
26 March 1998 "On Precious Metals and Precious Stones");  (iii) for exports of ores of non-ferrous 
metals containing precious metals – conclusion of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of 
Industry and Science regarding the practicability an d feasibility of commercial recovery of precious 
metals (the Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 Ju ne 2001, "On the Procedure of Importation into and 
Exportation from the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and Precious Stones").  
129. Some members requested further clarification on whether the Russian Federation maintained 
any restrictions or requirements other than tariffs  on the importation of precious metals and stones, 
notably whether imports of these products were also restricted by licensing, or whether it was 
necessary to import them through specific custom s posts as was the case with diamond exports.  
These members also expressed concerns in relati on to export requirements for precious stones and 
metals.   
130. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that the export of uncut natural diamonds 
was subject to  quota when the  export was perfo rmed by the mining companies (except industrial 
diamonds), or from state depositaries of precious me tals and gemstones of the Russian Federation 
Regions (Yakutia, Magadan Region). 
Other licensing requirements 
131. Some members required additiona l information concerning the future elimination of activity 
licensing requirements relative on areas such as phar maceuticals, natural gas, electricity, alcoholic 
beverages, metals and precious stones. These member s sought clarifications regarding the steps taken 
by the Russian authorities to bring existing practices  into consistency with WTO requirements. Noting 
that the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation (SCC) 
had recently made efforts to limit the number of  both importing and exporting firms engaged in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
international trade of certain products, these member s further requested an explanation on the reasons 
for these limitations and the legal basis upon which they might be taken for both domestic and foreign 
trading firms.  
132. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that the above-mentioned 
principles contained in the Federal Law No.129- FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration of 
Juridical Persons" entered into force on 1 July 2002.    That law regulated registration, establishment, 
reorganization or liquidation of legal entities as we ll as and the conduct of the State Registry. The 
Federal Law No.129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Re gistration of Legal Pers ons"  did not contain 
any restrictions or discrimination for foreign founde rs of legal persons.  The registration was effected 
solely by federal bodies.  The lists of documents ne cessary for the registration of a new legal entity as 
well as of an entity under reorganiza tion were stipulated in Article 5 of the Law on State Registration 
(application, description of the organizational form , address, copies of instituting documents, and the 
charter capital) and were exhaustive.  Subjects of the Russian Federation had no rights to impose the 
requirements on legal or natural pe rsons that might affect their rights to engage in importation or 
exportation of goods. 
133. He further noted that in order to ensure tr ansparency of registration procedures under the 
provisions of Article 4 of the Federal Law No. 129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration of 
Legal Persons",  the Ministry of Tax and Charg es Collection of the Russian Federation was required 
to follow up the State Register containing information on establishment, reorganization and 
liquidation of legal entities and othe r respective information. This information should be published, 
placed on web-site of the Ministry of Tax a nd Charges Collection of the Russian Federation 
(www.nalog.ru) and renewed monthly at least. 
134. At a later stage, and in response to questions concerning plans for reform of the system of 
activity licensing, the represenativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the draft law “On the 
Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity” had been drafted to reflect the latest 
changes in Russia’s legal system, namely, adoption of  the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the 
Tax Code of the Russian Federation, and the impl ementing legislation.  This law would replace the 
current Federal Law No.157-FZ of 13 October 1995 “On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity” 
making amendments which are vital in determining th e terms of participation of foreign and domestic 
companies in the civil procedures, in particular, in  their access to market, and the nature and forms of 
relationship between the state and business. The draft law also incorporated relevant provisions of the 
GATT 1994, GATS, and Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 44  
 
135. Concerning questions on licensing related to expo rt or import of natural gas and electricity, 
the representative of the Russian Federation st ated that there were no export/import licenses 
requirements for these products.   He noted, how ever, that the licensing requirements governing 
access to pipelines or other distribution network were not applied so as to restrict the volume of gas and oil exported from the territory of the Russian Fe deration.  The Ministry of Energy of the Russian 
Federation issued activity licenses to legal entities a nd individual entrepreneurs.   The activity licences 
were granted for a five-year term. The effectiv e term of the licence could be extended on the 
licensee's application in accordance with the lic ence re-making procedure (the Decision of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 637 of  August 28, 2002 “On Licensing Activities in the 
Field of Operation of Electric Grids and Thermal Grids, the Transportation, Storage Processing and 
Sale of Oil, Gas and the Products of Processing Thereof”). Under the Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 
August, 2001 “On Licensing of Specific Types of  Activity” the following types of activity were 
subject to licensing:  
- the operation of oil and gas production facilities; 
- the processing of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products thereof; 
- the transportation of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the storage of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the sale of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
- the activity of operating gas networks. 
 
136. Some members expressed concern over the restric tive consequences of the current system of 
activity licensing for the sale of alcoholic bevera ges.  Information was requested on the Russian 
Federation's intention to introduce ne w legislation in this area.  Noting that the fees charged for the 
right to trade in imported alcoholic beverag es greatly exceeded those charged for domestic 
distribution or export, these members felt that more detail was also required on  this and on any other 
activity licensing fees associated with importation.   In particular, members sought information on any plans for establishment of a state monopoly on alcoholic beverages.  
137. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that, in order to improve the 
system of import licensing in the Russian Federation,  the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the 
Russian Federation had passed in the first reading and was currently preparing for the second reading 
a draft federal law "On Amending the Federal Law On Charges for Issuance of Licenses and Right for 
Production and Marketing of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcohol Containing and Other Alcoholic Products".  This 
draft law was designed to provide a unified rate of  the licensing charge (500 minimum wages) for the 
right of production, storage and sale of alcoholic  products, the right to export ethyl alcohol and 
alcoholic products and the right to purchase ethyl alcohol, alcohol-containing and alcoholic products 
for import, storage and wholesale.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
138. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation recalled his earlier statements on 
registration requirements, and further stated that  such requirement for export contracts had been 
originally introduced by Government Resolution No. 758 of 1 July 1994 "On Measures to Improve 
the State Regulation of Export of Goods and Services", and had now been repealed by Government 
Resolution No. 300 of 21 March 1996 "On Recognizing as Invalidated Certain Decisions of the Government of the Russian Federation on the Issu e of Registering Contracts in the Export of 
Commodities".  Registration of import contracts had ne ver been practiced in the Russian Federation.  
Thus the Russian Federation did not maintain any speci al registry of import or export contracts.  He 
also confirmed that his authorities had no plans to restore such registration in any form.  He further stated that the subjects of the Russian Federati on had no rights to impose requirements on legal or 
natural persons that might affect their rights to  engage in importation or exportation of goods. 
139. Some members of the Working Party stated th at  the Russian Federation should undertake the 
following commitments in this ar ea: the Russian Federation would guarantee that no restrictions 
would be maintained on the right to trade in goods except as would be consistent with WTO 
provisions and that all laws and re gulations relating to trading righ ts would be applied in a manner 
consistent with relevant WTO obligations.  Specifi cally, the Russian Federation should confirm that 
no restrictions would be maintained on the rights of  individuals and enterprises, including those with 
foreign participation, to import and export goods in to the customs territory of the Russian Federation 
except as would be consistent with provisions of  the WTO Agreement.  Nor would individuals and 
firms be restricted in their ability to import and ex port based on their registered scope of business.  
The criteria for registration and enrolment in the St ate Register of legal pe rsons would be generally 
applicable and published in the Official Gazette, al ong with any further changes.  Without prejudice to 
other relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, th e Russian Federation should ensure that any laws 
and regulations relating to the right to trade in goods  would not restrict imports of goods in violation 
of the general prohibition on quantitative restric tions under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, nor should 
they discriminate against imported goods in viol ation of the non-discriminatory provisions under 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  Any associated fees, taxes and charges should also be limited to the approximate cost of services rendered and their appl ication should not lead to  discrimination in favour 
of like domestic products.  The Russian Federation s hould ensure full national treatment in respect of 
all laws, regulations and requirements concerni ng internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use of imported alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol. 
[to be completed] WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 46  
 
Import Regulations  
- Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff 140. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that the Russian Federation had been an 
active member of the World Customs Organization (W CO) even before gaining full membership to it 
on 8 July 1993.  The Russian Federation had also joined the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Syst em on 1 January 1997. Federal Law No. 5003-1 
of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as amended 7 August, 25 November and 27 December 1995, 
5 February 1997, 10 February 1999, 4 May 1999 and 27 May 2000) and the Customs Code currently 
constituted the legal framework for th e customs regime of the Russian Federation.  The right of appeal 
against decisions of Customs w as ensured, inter alia, by Articles 17 and 404-419 of the Customs 
Code.  The Customs Code had been applied with  minor changes since 1993.  The existing Law “On 
Customs Tariff” and the draft chapter “Customs Duty  and Customs  Fees” of Part II of the Tax Code 
of the Russian Federation dealt with customs tari ff regulation of import and export of goods, and 
determination of the basis for calculation of cust oms duties and other customs payments (customs 
value of goods) consistently with the rules and disciplines of GATT (WTO).  Customs administration 
and customs procedures were governed by the  Customs Code of the Russian Federation.   
141. Members of the Working Party stressed that pending enactment of the new Customs Code 
and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code, it was not po ssible to assess whether the provisions contained 
therein would be in conformity with WTO requirement s.  They considered that the Russian Federation 
should provide a description of changes to customs regulations, procedures a nd practices which would 
follow the enactment of the new Customs Code and Ch apter 27 of the Tax Code, together with copies 
in a WTO working language of all relevant implem enting instruments in this area. Noting that there 
appeared to be proposals before the Duma for revising Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 on Customs Tariff (amendments of 7 August, 25 N ovember, 27 December 1995, 5 February 1997, 10 
February, 4 May 1999 and 27 May 2000, several me mbers further asked the Russian Federation to 
explain how these proposals related to the new Custom s Code and Chapter 25.1 of the new Tax Code.  
142. Some members expressed concern regarding a pos sible inconsistency in the application of 
relevant provisions by regional customs authoriti es and stressed the need to ensure uniform and 
transparent implementation of customs regulations throughout the entire territory of the Russian 
Federation. Many members also sought a clarifi cation on Customs Order No. 25 of 25 January 2001 
and other related orders of the SCC which limited  the numbers of customs land checkpoints for goods 
imported from 14 countries, including a number of ASEAN countries.  Noting that ten out of these 14 countries were WTO members, these members reque sted a commitment from the Russian Federation  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
that this particular order and othe r related orders would be repelled and would no t be introduced in the 
future. 
143. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that Customs Order 
No. 25 of 25 January 2001 was abolished by virtue  of Customs Order No. 517 of 24 May 2002.  He 
reiterated that his Government did not intend to s ubmit draft laws for member's scrutiny as it was not 
required under the WTO Agreements and also contradi cted the established practice of legislative work 
in his country.  But for the sake of  transparency he explained that the new draft Customs Code of the 
Russian Federation was based on generally accepted  international rules, including the Kyoto 
Convention 2000.  To prevent that customs au thorities could use their own discretion in 
decision-making, the vast majority of provisions of th e draft Customs Code were of direct application.  
To ensure transparency, the draft Customs Code  provided that the authorities concerned should 
publish legal acts of customs regulations in the official publications.  The draft Customs Code 
contained detailed provisions related to WTO rules and disciplines in particular those to protect 
intellectual property rights, and was drafted in a manner to comply with the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  The draft contained improved provisions on right of appeal so as to ensure compliance of 
customs administrations and their officers with le gislative requirements in their decision-making, 
action or inaction.  Right of appeal might be exer cised through lodging a complaint with the superior 
customs administrations and/or through judicial procedures..   
144. At a later stage the representa tive of the Russian Federation clarified that in October 2002 the 
Government of the Russian Federation had presented to the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of 
the Russian Federation a draft chapter 25.1 “Customs  Duties and Customs  Fees” to be incorporated 
into Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Fe deration. That draft chapter provided methods of 
determination of the basis for calculation of cust oms duties and other customs payments (customs 
value) in accordance with the provisions of Ar ticle VII GATT and the Agreement on Implementation 
of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. At a later stage, the Government 
decided to withdraw these legislative proposals and to introduce provisions related to customs 
valuation into the Law on Customs Tariff. Respec tive amendments to the latter law were being 
introduced. 
145. He recalled that the draft Customs Code contained a list of customs payments, a list of 
persons to make these payments, as well as the le gal grounds for avoidance of such payments.  The 
draft code also stipulated the grounds for de ferment of payments a nd making payments in 
installments.  The draft also provided a list of ci rcumstances when deferment of payments and making 
payments in installments would  not be excluded.    The draft code established the right of the 
participant of foreign trade activity when securi ng a customs payment to use any kind of security WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 48  
 
envisaged by the code, provided that the security u sed was also recognized by the customs authority 
as reliable.  
146. He further recalled that the draft code provide d a detailed description of the procedure for the 
recovery of unpaid customs payments.   The draft code also set out the mechanism for recovery of 
overpaid or over-recovered customs payments.  The customs authority was required to inform the 
payer of  the overpaid or over-recovered customs pa yments within one month of the detection of the 
overpayment or over-recovery.  
147. He further recalled that the draft Customs Code provides detailed provisions which comply 
with the WTO rules also including those related to  the protection of intellectual property rights and 
the rules of origin.   
148. The Russian Federation undertook bilateral market access negotiations on goods with 
members of the Working Party.  The results of t hose negotiations were contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods and fo rmed Annex 1 to the Draft Protocol. 
- Ordinary Customs Duties 
149. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the structure of the Russian 
Federation's customs tariffs was regulated by Federal Law No. Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On 
Customs Tariff" (as amended 7 August, 25 Novemb er and 27 December 1995, 5 February 1997, 
10 February and 4 May 1999, 27 May 2000).  Tari ff rates could be changed by government decisions 
based on proposals by the Governmental Comm ission on Customs and Tariff Policy and Trade 
Remedies Measures, also taking into account the Ru ssian Federation' s international commitments. 
150. Government Resolution No. 1560 of 27 December 1996 had introduced a commodity 
description and classification system based on HS 96, replacing as from 1 January 1997 the HS 92 previously used.  A new commodity description a nd classification system entered into force on 1 
January 2002 based on HS 2002.  The customs tariff consisted of 11,032 tariff lines.  The significant 
majority of tariff items were subject to ad valorem  tariffs; 1,515 tariff items were subject to 
compound (mixed) rates ( ad valorem  and specific duties); and 76 tariff items were subject to specific 
rates (apples, chocolate, beer and strong alcoholic  beverages). The ad valorem rates and ad valorem 
equivalents of combined and specific rates ranged fr om 0 to 30 per cent, except for ethyl alcohol and 
beer. 
151. Tariff rates (Tables 8 and 9) were established fo llowing the basic criteria that (i) tariffs were 
the major trade policy measure applied to protect do mestic industrial and agriculture production; (ii)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 49 
 
 
tariffs were considered measures of both trade a nd fiscal policy; (iii) tariffs were a function of 
economic development, in particular, the technologi cal restructuring of the economy. The most recent 
version of the Customs Tariff of the Russian Fe deration was introduced by Government Resolution 
No. 148 of 22 February 2000 (as amended on 27 N ovember 2000) and contained MFN rates of import 
customs duties for all 11,032 tariff lines.  The rate s of customs duties applicable to the products 
originating from the countries with which the Russian Federation did not apply MFN treatment 
amounted to the double of MFN rates.  The import customs duties applicable to products eligible for 
tariff preferences and originating from countries enjo ying the Russian Federation' s GSP scheme were 
levied at the level of 75 per cent of the MFN ra tes (except for raw sugar where a tariff rate quota 
mechanism was used). 
152. Government Resolution No. 886 of 27 Novemb er 2000 substantially revised downwards and 
leveled out the customs duties (in approximately 3, 500 tariff positions out of 11,032).  As a result, 
customs tariffs for nearly all goods categories were  grouped under broader he adings (raw materials, 
semi-finished products, finished products, foodstuffs) with duty levels of 5, 10, 15 and 20 per cent, 
respectively.  These changes, which took effect on 1 January 2001, were aimed at liberalization of 
imports of modern technologies and machinery in to the Russian Federation, countering illegal 
practices at customs and improving the effectiveness of customs payment collection. 
153. He confirmed that there were no tari ffs for non-agricultural products whose ad valorem  
equivalent was higher than 30 per cent and that fu ture GSP schemes would continue to provide a tariff 
rate equal to 75 per cent of the corresponding MFN rate .  Following the request of some members, he 
stated that that a new commodity description and classification system based on HS 2002 which entered into force on 1 January 2002 was available in  the WTO Secretariat in the English language in 
electronic format.  He also stated that, on request, members could have the lists of the Russian Federation's MFN partners and GSP recipients. 
154. Noting the above statements, some members asked  the Russian Federation to clarify whether 
the expected changes to the cust oms legislation would also exclude the possibility to apply double 
MFN tariff rates to goods originating from WTO members, thereby ensuring conformity with the requirements of Article I of GATT 1994.  Those me mbers considered that this issue required a 
substantive response, as the maintenance of dou ble-tariffs to WTO members was unjustified and 
discriminatory. 
155. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation acknowledged that goods imported 
from some WTO Members were subject to double MF N tariff rates in the Russian Federation.  He 
stated that the problem of non-MFN tariff rates to goods originating from very few WTO Members WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 50  
 
resulted from the absence of bilateral trade agreemen ts between Russia and those WTO Members.  He 
stated that following  accession to the WTO Russia in tended to apply  provisions relevant for MFN 
treatment, in accordance with its rights and obligat ions under the WTO agreement. In response to 
further questions he noted that the following WTO Members were currently subject to double MFN 
tariff rates: Antigua and Barbuda, Bahrain, Barb ados, Belize, Brunei Daru ssalam, Central African 
Republic, Côte d’Ivoire, Democrat ic Republic of the Congo, Domini ca, Dominican Republic, Estonia, 
Fiji, Guatemala, Haiti, Hong Kong (China), Lesot ho, Macao (China), Malawi, Maldives, Namibia, 
Niger, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, and the 
United Arab Emirates. 
- Tariff Quotas 
156. Many members expressed concerns regarding the Russian Federation's intention to have 
recourse to TRQs, particularly on products curre ntly subject to tariffs only.  These members 
considered that the introduction of new TRQs would be a step backward from trade liberalization that 
should be expected by acceding to the WTO.  Th ey requested a description of the current and 
prospective legal authority for auctioning licenses an d quotas in the Russian Federation and noted that 
any method of allocating quotas or licenses should be consistent with WTO provisions, notably 
Articles II, XI, and XIII of GATT 1994, the Agreem ent on Import Licensing Procedures and Article 4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Several members al so stressed that, if TRQs were to be introduced, 
the Russian Federation must ensure that these TRQs would preserve existing levels of trade, provide 
annual growth and would be limited in time.  In any case, full details of tariff quota administration 
measures should be provided in order to assess their WTO conformity. 
157. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that the Federal Law No. No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" provided the gene ral legal framework for the establishment of 
tariff rate quotas (TRQs). The TRQs were currently ap plied with regard to imports of the following 
goods for safeguarding interests of Russian agricultural producers:  
1. White sugar (from the 20
th of July 2002) for imports originating from developing 
countries – GSP beneficiaries (Legal authority - Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 15 of July 2002 N 536). For 2003, TRQ amounted to 3, 950,000 tons;  
2.  Beef (from the 1
st of April 2003) (Legal authority - Resolution of the Government of 
the Russian Federation dated 23 of January 2003 N 49). For 2003 (9 months), TRQ amounted to 315,000 tons;  
3.  Pork (from the 1
st of April 2003) (Legal authority - Resolution of the Government of 
the Russian Federation dated 23 of January 2003 N 50). For 2003 (9 months), TRQ  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 51 
 
 
amounted to 337, 500 tons. The Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation was the body responsib le for TRQs administration and was 
issuing non-automatic licenses to that effect . For white sugar, TRQ was distributed 
among importers by auctioning at a stock exch ange. For beef and pork, 90% of TRQs 
were distributed by issuing licenses to im porters based on their representative imports 
over last three years.  
He further added that since TRQs were a new regul atory instrument for his country, there could be 
changes in administration methods to achieve the e ffective use of TRQs. At a later stage he further 
added that the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation was the body 
responsible for the administration of TRQs and the i ssue of non-automatic licenses to that effect. For 
white sugar, TRQs were distribut ed among importers by auctioning at a stock exchange. For beef and 
pork, 90% of TRQs were distributed by issui ng licenses to importers based on their current 
representative imports.   
158. Several members stated that to the extent that the auction charg es associated with the 
allocation of TRQs exceeded the Russian Federation's tariff bindings, they would be inconsistent with 
the Russian Federation's obligations under Article II of the GATT, and allocation of quotas without 
regard to Articles XI and XIII would also violate WTO provisions.  These members sought a 
commitment from the Russian Federation that any fe es charges or revenues collected must not exceed 
the bound rate of duty established for the product concerned.  Some members asked the Russian Federation to provide further information of the f ees paid on raw sugar auctions of the TRQs under 
Government Resolutions No. 572 of 27 July 2000 "On the Tariff Regulation of Raw Sugar Imports" 
and No. 622 of 23 August 2001 "On the Tariff Re gulation of the Import of Raw Sugar and White 
Sugar in 2002", as well as the fill rate.  Some member s also maintained that the auctioning method of 
TRQs was not fully consistent with GATT 1994 and di scriminated against those members that did not 
provide export subsidies. 
159. Noting that Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 Ma y 1993 "On Customs Tariff" prohibited access 
under TRQs from being granted to products or iginating from MFN supp liers, some members 
requested confirmation of whether the Russian Federa tion also intended to provide legal authorization 
for the use of TRQs to regulate general imports or  if this would be lim ited 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 inde nted to adopt in this field.   
160. Some members requested a clarification on whethe r the notion that only "Russian participants 
in foreign economic activities could participate in TRQ auctions included foreign-owned firms 
established as Russian juridical persons.  These me mbers also requested a confirmation that there 
were no eligibility requirements to participate in TR Q auctions that would fa vour local production, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 52  
 
such as requirements to enter into contracts to  purchase domestic product or to provide domestic 
producers with inputs.  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.   
161. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration replied that the notion of "Russian 
participants of foreign economic activities" include d foreign-owned firms established as Russian legal 
persons.  He also confirmed that there were no elig ibility requirements to participate in TRQ auctions 
that would favour local production. 
162. Recalling discussions in the "Import Licensing" section of this Draft Report below, members 
of the Working Party requested that Russia provide  additional information on new import licensing 
requirements, announced in January 2003, for imports  of poultry (to allocate quotas  in the context of 
taking a safeguard action), and of beef and pork (through establishment of de facto tariff rate quotas).    
163. In response, and recalling discussions in the "Import Licensing" section of this Draft Report 
below  the representative of the Russian Federati on stated that  the safeguard-quota measures for 
poultry on 1 May 2003, an importer was required to obtain an import license from MEDT, as well as a separate import permit from the Ministry of Agriculture in order to import under  quota for poultry.  
Most of the import licences would be issued to historical importers based on average imports from 
2000- 2002, with a portion reserved for new entrants.   
164. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that import licences were not 
transferable, but noted that unused import licences would be reallocated.  According to information 
published on MEDT's website on 4 March 2003, importers that had received a share of the quota 
based on  historical trade shares could apply for a license by 20 March 2003 for TRQs on beef and pork, and quota on poultry, as described below.  App lications submitted after th at date would not be 
accepted.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion reported that import licences would be issued 
starting 1 April the same day the TRQs for beef a nd pork became effective.  He further stated that 
import licences for importers that had received an allocation through the auctioning system would be 
issued between 1 June and 1 December 2003.  Im porters would receive a licence after submission of 
an application for the licence  and a copy of a certif icate confirming that the applicant was registered 
by a regional tax authority as a tax- payer.  Import licences would be issued for each commercial 
contract and would be valid until 31 December 2003.  A fee of 3,000 rubles was charged for each 
licence, and would not be reimbursed in the ev ent the importer did not use the license.   
165. In response, members of the Working Party stated  that the system described did not work well 
in practice, and, in effect, made it extremely difficu lt to actually export poultry, beef, and pork to the 
Russian Federation.  Use of historical suppliers wa s particularly problematic as many had been one-  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 53 
 
 
time shippers and no longer were participants in the market.  As a consequence, many importers 
received quota allocations so small that they we re not economically viable (in some instances, 
importers were given quota allocati ons as low as 10 kilograms), and only a very small portion of the 
total quotas was being held for new entrants.  They also noted that no mechanism for re-allocation of 
unused licenses had been developed in advance of th e introduction of this new system, and it did not 
appear that full utilisation of the quotas and tari ff- rate quotas, which already contemplated reduced 
imports, would be possible.  Members also noted that suppliers situated a long distance from the 
Russian Federation experienced additional difficulties due to shipping time.   
166. Members also noted that the Ministry of Ag riculture’s Veterinary Service required that 
importers obtain an import permit, in addition to veterinary and sanitary certification requirements 
(and now the import license), to be able to import beef , pork, and poultry into the Russian Federation.  
Those import permits were also subject to the di sciplines 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 estab lished a new system for issuing import permits.  
Members noted that no information had been publis hed or provided to Working Party participants on 
the new requirements for obtaining import permits.   
167. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that importers would be 
required to present an import license from MEDT as a precondition to import  This requirement also applied for imports of products that would be used for further processing or into retail sale. 
[to be completed] 
Tariff Exemptions 
168. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that exemptions from the payment of 
customs duty could be granted only in accordance w ith the provisions of Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff", and not on any ad hoc basis.  Article 35 of this Law established 
the list of goods which were not subject to customs duties, such as goods in transit; items imported by 
foreign diplomatic and consular offices in the Ru ssian Federation in accordance with their needs and 
requirements for official purposes; articles for persona l use when travelling abroad; goods destined for 
disaster relief and humanitarian purposes; industr ial and other equipment related to foreign 
investment, etc. Exemptions could be also gran ted under Articles 36 and 37 of the said Law  on the 
basis of tariff rate quotas; tari ff preferences; free trade agre ement and GSP scheme.  Tariff 
exemptions other than those provided for in the c ontext of a free trade agreement or GSP scheme were 
applied on a MFN basis. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 54  
 
169. Some members noted that certain tariff exemptions  granted currently or in the recent past for 
investment purposes (automobiles and PSA projects) or to promote domestic industry (aircraft) 
continued to be of concern.  Members noted that  those measures were discussed in the sections on 
"TRIMS" and "Industrial Subsidies" in this Draf t Report.  Members, however, requested additional 
information on any such provisions contained in the draft Customs Code. 
- Other Duties and Charges 
170. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the Russian Federation did not at 
present apply any duties and charges (ODCs) within  the meaning of Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.  
Noting this statement, several members asked the Ru ssian Federation to bind at zero all such ODCs in 
its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods.  
171. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
not apply other duties and charges on imports other than ordinary customs duties from the date of 
accession, and that any such charges applied to im ports after accession would be in accordance with 
WTO provisions.  He further confirmed that the Ru ssian Federation would not list any other charges 
in its Schedule under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, binding such charges at zero.] 
- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
172. The representative of the Russian Federation said that fees for customs services (Table 10) 
were established in accordance with Article 110 of the "Customs Code", which contained the list of 
such fees.  These fees and charges were related to the approximate cost of the services rendered.  
Revenues generated by those fees  were remitted to the general revenues of the State budget. 
173. Several members noted that although the in formation provided above was helpful, a 
description on how the Russian Federation intended to modify its current regime was necessary as the 
Russian Federation had indicated its intention to revise its import fee structure and that this was 
provided for in the new draft "Customs Code".  Noting that under the present Code, fees charged for 
customs clearance were calculated on an ad valorem  basis,  these members questioned  how they 
would relate to the cost of services rendered and st ressed their expectation that the Russian Federation 
should meet the relevant obligations provided for in GATT 1994. 
174. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that in accordance with the draft 
legislation considered by the Parliament, fees a nd charges levied for customs services related to 
importation or exportation w ould be reduced to two types: a customs charge for customs clearance; 
and a customs charge for customs escort of goods .  The fees charged would be calculated as fixed  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 55 
 
 
sums, corresponding to the value of rendered service.  In addition, he noted that the draft Customs 
Code reduced the operations on which customs fees were imposed.  Customs fees were not permitted 
to exceed the approximate cost of the expenses of the customs authorities for performing certain 
operations.  A simplified procedure for customs regi stration was also to be established under the new 
Code for importers and exporters who perform their actions in full conformity with the established 
procedure. Customs clearance was to be completed w ithin 3 days (as opposed to 10 days at present).  
- Other Fees 
175. Some members requested clarification on any possible discriminatory aspect involved in the 
application of port user fees between  foreign and domestic users.  
176. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the port fees used in commercial 
seaports (Tables 13(a) and 13(b)) of the Russian Fe deration had been approved by the Ministry of 
Transport on 21 July 1995.  The port-charges include : tonnage, (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of 
vessel conventional capacity, separately for each  fetching into the port and sailing from it), 
beaconnage (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conventional capacity upon each fetching into 
the port and its transit passing.  Exempted from th e light dues are vessels calling for refuge to perform 
an emergency repair and the vessels of group "D".  Vessels of groups "E" and "G" are exempted from 
the beaconnage dues unless they perform cargo handling and operations of commercial nature at the 
port), canal dues (to be collected for 1 cubic metr e of vessel conventional capacity upon each pass of 
canal in one direction), wharfage (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conventional capacity for 
each day of vessel being alongside.  The wharfage  dues are collected from vessels staying alongside 
the berth.  For the vessels of groups "A", "B" and "H" wharfage dues are charged per 1 m3 of the 
conventional volume of the vessel for each day of the vessel's stay alongside th e berth.  The time of 
stay at a berth is rounded off upward to one-half of the day.  For the vessels of groups "C", "D", "E", 
"F" and "G" berth dues are charged per 1 m3 of the conventional volume for each call), anchor dues 
(to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conven tional capacity for each hour of anchorage in the 
outer or inner harbour in excess of 12 hours.  Incomp lete hour of anchorage shall be considered as a 
complete hour of anchorage), ecological dues, pilo tage dues, navigation dues.  Port-charges were 
collected in commercial seaports of the Russian Fede ration, irrespective of their form of organization, 
legal status and pattern of ownership, from Russi an and foreign vessels and floating facilities on the 
basis of non-discrimination principle. 
177. He further noted that the state duty applicable  (Table 11) for the processing of imports or 
exports by customs and for other purposes related to  trade was established in accordance with Federal 
Law No. 226-FZ of 31 December 1995 "On introducing th e amendments and additions to the law of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 56  
 
Russian Federation on the state duty" (with am endments and additions  of 20 August 1996; 
19 July 1997; 21 July 1998; 13 April 1999).  The state duty was to be collected for the performance of 
legally valid actions or for the issue of documents by  the bodies or by the official persons authorized 
for this purpose and only in a few ca ses required by the legislation.  
178. Regarding state duties, several members questioned again how an ad valorem  state duty for 
the attestation of agency agreements and for accep ting money and securities in deposit could relate to 
the cost of the service rendered.  They also request ed clarification on whether these duties applied in 
the act of importation or exportation, and what so rts of customs documents required a stamp tax.  
Regarding fees that were applied only to imports  for requirements which would normally apply to 
both imported and domestic products, such as standards certification or vehicle taxes, these members also noted that these fees were not consistent w ith Article III of GATT 1994 and should be revised or 
eliminated prior to accession.  Clarification was also  requested regarding the nature of the services 
rendered by the additional customs charge for customs clearance, and on the precise meaning of legally signification action "for performing other notary actions" or "for the performance of the 
technical work for the making of the documents".   
179. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that pursuant to Law of the 
Russian Federation of 9 December 1991, No. 2005-1 "On State Duty", "legally significant actions"  
were the following actions forming grounds for levy of state duty: 
- statements of claim and other claims and complaints filed with courts of general 
jurisdiction, arbitration courts and the Co nstitutional Court of the Russian Federation; 
- notarial acts by notaries public employed by notary offices or duly authorized 
officials of executive authorities, local ad ministrations and consular offices of the 
Russian Federation; 
- state registration of vital records and othe r legally significant actions performed by 
vital statistics offices; 
- issuance of documents by courts, instituti ons and agencies for consideration and 
issuance of documents associated with acqui sition of Russian citizenship (national 
status) or denunciation thereof and performan ce of other legally significant actions. 
180. Referring to consular fees, he noted that in  accordance with the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations (1963) and Consular Articles provi sions (1976), the main objective of the consular 
offices was the protection of rights and legal intere sts of Russian citizens and legal persons abroad. 
Consular offices of the Russian Federation collected  fees for the issuance of documents of legal 
significance to Russian natural persons or legal entiti es constantly or temporarily residing or located 
in foreign countries, as well as to citizens of foreig n states, foreign legal entities, persons without 
citizenship. Acts performed by the Russian consular  offices included those related to passport and visa  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 57 
 
 
matters, citizenship, certification a nd notarization of documents, power of attorney notarization. None 
of these acts were directly related to exports or imports of goods.  
181. Noting the statement above, some members expr essed concern about the charging of fees for 
consular purposes that were connected with importa tion (Table 12) at a lower rate from certain 
countries where the service was performed (the Bal tic countries and CIS countries) as this practice 
would be in violation of Article I of GATT 1994 an d should be eliminated prior to accession.  Other 
members of the Working Party expressed concern a bout the discriminatory application of consular 
fees by sub-federal entities, apparently in contrave ntion of Russian Federati on legislation.  Those 
members requested that the Russian Federation ente r a commitment to apply a uniform consular fee 
policy to all and to eliminate current discr iminatory practices prior to accession.   
182. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that any fees and charges for services rendered listed in Tables […] or introduced in the future 
would only be applied in conformity with the relevant obligations of GATT 1994, and that any 
application of fees and charges by the Russian Fede ration for services rendered or in connection with 
importation or exportation would be in accordan ce with the relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreement, in particular Articles VIII and X of GATT 1994, from the date of accession.  He further 
confirmed that, after accession, information regardi ng the application and the level of any such fees, 
revenues collected and their use, would be provided to WTO Members upon request.]  
Application of Internal Taxes on Imports - Excise Taxes 
183. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that excise taxes on certain products were 
differentiated between imported and domestically -produced goods until Janua ry 1997.  Federal Law 
No. 12-FZ of 10 January 1997 "On Excise Tax" unified  excise tax rates for imported and domestic 
products. In pursuance of Chapter 22 ("Excise Tax" ) of the Tax Code (Federal Law No. 110-FZ of 
24 July 2002 "On the Introduction of Chapter 22 Into  Force"), excise tax rates for imports and those 
for domestic products were identical and brought into  conformity with Article III of GATT 1994.  The 
products subject to excise taxes and to respec tive tax rates were enumerated in Table 14. 
184. He further noted that two categories of products only (natural gas and partly cigarettes) were 
subject to ad valorem  rates.  The tax base for calculating excise tax for those products was the selling 
price exclusive of VAT for domestic products and the sum of their customs value and the payable customs duty exclusive of VAT for the ad valorem pa rt of excise tax for imported cigarettes.  Natural 
gas imported to the Russian Federation was free fr om excise tax.  If excisable goods were placed WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 58  
 
under customs treatment of transit, bonded ware house, re-export, processing under the customs 
control, free customs area,  bonded  warehouse, destruction and refusal in favour of the State the 
excise tax was not paid.  Products for which zero le vel excise tax was indicated were included in the 
list of excisable goods only for more effective stat e monitoring of their turnover.  Excise taxes had 
been applied differently to Russian trade with CIS countries than to trade with non-CIS countries.  But 
as from 1 July 2001, when Chapter 22 of the Tax Code entered into force, excise taxes were levied in 
a uniform manner based on the principle of country of  destination, except for trade relations with the 
Republic of Belarus, where excise taxes were charge d based on the country of origin principle, by 
virtue of Article 27 of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus of  
8 December 1999 “On the Creation of a Union State”. 
185. He further noted that the Union States maintain ed a uniform principle in respect of levying 
indirect taxes irrespective of the actual location of th e taxpayer within its territory. In this regard and 
pursuant to Article 13 of Federal Law No. 118-FZ of  August 5, 2002 “On Enacting Part II of the Tax 
Code of the Russian Federation and Amending Cert ain Tax Acts of the Russian Federation”, the 
amount of excise tax payable on excisable goods or iginating in and imported from the Republic of 
Belarus was reduced by the amount of excise tax paid in the country of origin.  
186. Several members expressed appreciation for the comprehensive listing of excise taxes and 
other information on their application to domes tic and imported goods.  They noted that the 
differentiation of excise tax rates within specific cat egories of alcoholic beve rage, e.g., for different 
types of beer, wine, and spirits, might have a de facto  discriminatory effect on imports. At a later 
stage members sought confirmation that any differential in the rates of excise tax applied to alcoholic 
beverages had been eliminated.   
187. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that differentiation of excise 
tax rates applied to specific categories of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and spirit) was based on the 
principle of harmonizing the applied rate with the concentration of pure alcohol in those beverages 
and was not having a discriminatory effect on imports.  For example, Russian produced wines 
(fortified wines) were subjected to the highest  excise rates in comparison with imported wines 
(natural wines). 
188. Noting that when excise taxes were collected  on imports from CIS countries there was still a 
deduction from the charge for excise taxes applie d in the exporting CIS country, some members 
maintained that this could violate Article I of GATT 1994.    
189. Noting further that differential rates of excise  tax were levied on natural gas depending on 
whether it was sold in the Russian Federation fo r export to other CIS countries (15 per cent), or  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 59 
 
 
whether it was for export to other countries (30 per cent), some members felt that this practice should 
be brought  in conformity with the WTO upon accessi on.  Moreover, a more detailed clarification was 
needed on the national treatment implications of calculating excise taxes on imports on the customs 
value plus the total of customs duties and levi es payable, while the excise taxes on domestically 
produced goods were based on actual value only.  Furthermore, members sought a commitment that 
full conformity with WTO provisions should be ensu red by the Russian Federation in the application 
of excise taxes as from the date of accession to the WTO. 
190. Concerning the inclusion of the customs duty in the taxable base for the purposes of the 
value-added tax and excise taxes levied on imports of goods to the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation, the representative of the Russian Federa tion stated that this requirement of the Russian 
legislation was consistent with the pr actice of implementation of the GATT 1994. 
191. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther added that ad valorem excise tax was 
applied only on natural gas produced in Russia.  Ex cise tax was not levied on natural gas imported to 
Russia.  The excise tax established in the Russian Fe deration for natural gas was a  royalty paid to the 
state by gas extracting companies.   This royalty ha d  no influence either on the level of export prices 
for gas or on the export flows of gas.   Accordingly, in his view, the current method of levying excise 
tax on natural gas was in compliance with WTO rules and disciplines.   He also added that the ad 
valorem part of combined rate of excise tax for cigarettes was equal to one per cent.  The 
methodology of accruing the tax basis described in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 could not hamper 
imports.  The new scale of excise tax was provided  in Table 14. 
- Value Added Tax 
192. Some members requested confirmation that VAT  was now applied in an uniform manner to 
all domestic and imported products a nd that from 1 July 2001 this was also the case with respect to 
CIS countries.  Clarification was also requested on whether the same principle applied to imports and 
exports of energy products such as gas and oil.  A member requested clarification concerning the 
different VAT treatment of ice-cream produced fr om milk and dairy products (10 per cent) and 
ice-cream produced from fruits and berries (20 per cent).  
193. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that, in accordance with Chapter 21 of 
the Tax Code (Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 and Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 
5 August 2000 "On Introduction of Part Two of the Tax Code") VAT was applied in an uniform 
manner to almost all domestic and imported products on the basis of country of destination principle, 
and that also was the case with CIS countries as from 1 July 2001.  The only exception related to 
bilateral trade with Belarus, where VAT was levied on the country of origin.  As for the exportation of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 60  
 
crude oil and natural gas, VAT would be levied on the country of destination also with respect to 
bilateral trade with CIS country from the year 2004 or 2005.  
194. Noting that that the application of domestic ta xes to Belarus was still based on the country of 
origin, some members asked the Russian Federatio n to indicate how, and in what time-frame, the 
Russian Federation intended to proceed to convert its taxation system with Belarus.  These members 
also asked a list, by HS tariff lines, of oil and g as import items for which the level of application of 
VAT continued to be based on the country of origin .  They further requested the Russian Federation 
to provide a more precise timetable for unifying appl ication of VAT on all products on the basis of the 
country of destination. 
195. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation 
and Belarus were the parties of the bilateral Tr eaty "On the Creation of the Union State" of 8 
December 1999 leading, inter alia , to the formation of a unique economic space based on the unified 
legislation.  The work was being done to address the issue of taxation within this unique economic 
space.  He further stated that the only difference in the exportation of crude oil and natural gas (HS 
2709 and 2711.21, respectively) to CIS countries in comparison with the exportation of these products 
to other countries was that VAT was not reimbursed to Russian exporters in the case of export to CIS 
countries.  
196. He noted that VAT was levied at a single rate  of 20 per cent with some exemptions listed in 
Tables 15(a) and 15(b).  All these exemptions were  applied in non-discriminatory manner both to 
domestic output and imports of si milar products. Also exempt fro m VAT were goods placed under the 
customs treatment of transit customs warehouse; re-export; duty free shop; processing under customs control; free customs zone; free warehouse; destruct ion and refusal in favour of the State. The tax 
base for the imposition of VAT included excise taxes, if any. For imported goods customs duties were 
also included in the tax base. 
197. Referring to the list of VAT exemptions listed in Table 15(a), some members noted that a 
reference was made therein that 'sale of products of own manufacture of orga nizations engaged in the 
production of agricultural products which generate 70 per cent and mo re of the overall share of 
incomes from the sale in the total sum of their incomes' were ex empted from VAT. They asked to 
know which were the products in question and whether imports of similar products did also qualify 
for exemption and, more generally, how the ex emption of domestic agricultural output from VAT 
could be justified under Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  Noting that fish caught on the high seas by 
Russian registered vessels  were also VAT exem pted, these members further inquired whether this 
exemption was extended to imported fish products as well.  Some members also inquired whether the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 61 
 
 
provision for VAT exemption for certain agricultural producers, or producers in any other sector, also 
applied where output was bartered for goods or services or used as payment in kind for discharging 
financial obligations to financial institutions or other creditors.  If that was the case, these members 
requested full details on the legal basis for such  goods and services being deemed to satisfy the 
relevant criteria for VAT exemption.  
198. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that, in the case of fish caught on the 
high seas by Russian registered vessels, the VAT  collec tion resulted from the fact that fish so caught   
was considered to be Russian produced fish and, as su ch, its delivery into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation did no constitute an importation.   These goods were thus not subject to VAT when 
imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation but were subject to VAT when the first 
transaction was performed.   
199. In response to the concerns of members of the Working Party concerning VAT exemption for 
agricultural products of some producers, he furthe r explained that these products substituted payments 
for the job of natural persons employed by those pr oducers.  Such a form of payments was used in 
agricultural sector by entities in critical situation w ith no actual money either to pay salaries or VAT 
when paying for the job of employed persons by agricultural products.  There were few such cases.  
The agricultural products at issue were unprocessed  products of plant growing and cattle breeding 
(meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruits etc.).  This provision was not applied to the cases when the output 
of the above mentioned producers was bartered for goods  or services, or used as payment to reimburse 
financial obligations to financial institutions or other creditors.  
200. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its domestic taxes,  including VAT, excise taxes, and other taxes 
applied to goods including those listed in Table [… ] and paragraphs […], would be applied in 
compliance with Articles I and III of GATT 1994,  in a non-discriminatory manner to imports 
regardless of country of origin and to domestica lly produced goods, without exceptions, regardless of 
regional destination of goods.] 
Quantitative Import Restrictions, in cluding Prohibitions and Quotas  
201. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation did not 
maintain any quantitative import restrictions, prohibiti ons or quotas within the purview of Article XI 
of GATT 1994.  He noted that the only exception had been the temporary ban on importation of ethyl alcohol enforced under Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Temporary Ban on Ethyl 
Alcohol Imports" which was terminated on 31 December 2001.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 62  
 
202. He further said that Article 13 of Federa l Law No. 173-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State 
Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethy l Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing 
Products" restricted imports of distilled spirits to no more than 10 per cent of alcohol sales in the 
Russian Federation. Within this quota, not less than  60 per cent of imports must contain 15 per cent of 
alcohol or less.  He noted, however, that the provisi ons of that Article had never been implemented. 
203. Noting the Russian Federation's statement con cerning the lifting of the temporary ban on 
imports of ethyl alcohol, some members requested  clarification on whether the Russian authorities  
considered that imports of ethyl alcohol could s till be affected by Government Resolution No. 1292  
of 3 November 1998 "On the Approval of Rules for the Issuance of Quotas for the Manufacture of 
Ethyl Alcohol from All Types and Special Permits for Its Delivery" (date to be supplied).  As this 
Resolution seemed to contemplate placing quotas on deliveries by domestic producers, the issue 
remained as to whether the Russian Federation even tually planned to place quotas on imports.  As for 
the reference to a law in force, but not applied, that  restricted imports of distilled spirits to no more 
that 10 per cent of the Russian market and stipulated  that within this quota at least 60 per cent of 
imports must contain 15 per cent of alcohol or l ess, some members requested a clarification as to 
whether the Russian authorities actuall y intended to repeal this law. 
204. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the rules of putting quotas 
on production of ethyl alcohol from all types of raw materials, methylated spirits and alcohol-containing solutions had been recognised as invalid and inapplicable by Resolution of the 
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 16 May 2001 No. GKPI 2001-7 83 "On Recognition as 
Invalid and Inapplicable the Rules on Putting Q uotas on Production of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcohol-
Containing Solution, Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation".  The 
rules of issuance of special permits for delivery (re lease) of ethyl alcohol produced from all types of 
raw materials, methylated spirits and alcohol-cont aining solutions had been recognised as invalid and 
inapplicable by Resolution of the Supreme Cour t of the Russian Federation of 23 November 2000 
No. GKPI 00-1251 "On Recognition as Invalid and Ina pplicable the Rules of  Issuance of Special 
Permits for Delivery (Release) of Ethyl Alcohol Produced from All Types of Raw Materials, Methylated Spirits and Alcohol-Containing Solutions , Approved by the Resolution of the Government 
of the Russian Federation".  No quotas on imported alcoholic products was planned in future.  He 
further confirmed that the provisions of Article  13 of Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 
"On State Regulation of Production and Tu rnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol-Containing Products" had never been applie d and no agency in the Russian Federation was 
appointed to oversee its implementation.  Fede ral Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 was going 
to be amended.  The proposals on such amendments was being drafted contempl ating abandonment of  
import and export licensing of this type of activity by the Ministry of Taxes and Levies of the Russian  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 63 
 
 
Federation.  He later noted that even after the draft law “On Making Amendments and Supplements to 
the Federal Law   “On State Regulation of Produc tion and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol-Containing Products”, currently in the State Duma (still preparing for a second reading), was 
passed, it would not repeal Federal Law 171-FZ.  The  draft law would make a number of 
amendments to the existing law, including elimina tion of import quota and introduction of automatic 
import licensing, which were inte nded to achieve WTO compliance. 
205. He further noted that in 2003 the Russian Fede ration, following the requisite investigation, 
introduced safeguard measures in the form of im port quota (Governmental Resolution of Russian 
Federation № 48 of January 21, 2003 “On measures to protect the poultry farming of the Russian 
Federation”) for the period of 4 years on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen poultry under HS 0207, 
including boneless poultry (HS 02 0714100 and 0207271000) on the basi s of Articles 4 and 6, the 
Federal Law № 63-FZ  of April 14, 1998 “On the measures for protection of the economic interests of 
the Russian Federation in foreign trade in goods”.  This quota was administered by issuance of non-
automatic licenses by the Ministry of Economic Deve lopment and Trade”, as described in the "Tariff 
Rate Quotas" section of this Draft Report.   Th e amount of quota was as follows: 2003 (9 months) – 
744,000 tons; 2004 – 1,050,000 tons; 2005 – 1, 050,000; 2006 (3 months) – 306,000 tons. 
[to be completed] 
Import Licensing Systems  
206. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that his country's import licensing system 
(Tables 16(a) and 16(b)) was established in Article  19 of Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 
"On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activities".  Articles 12 and 15 of this law stipulated that 
procedures for the importation of precious stones, precious metals, and nucle ar materials should be 
established by Presidential Decrees, while proce dures for the importation of goods affecting the 
Russian Federation's national security interests and fo r the fulfillment of its international agreements 
were under the responsibility of the Government of  the Russian Federation.  Government Resolution 
No. 1299 of 1 October 1996 "On Rules of Conduct of  Auctions and Tenders on Sale of Quotas in 
Cases of Introduction of Quantitative Restrictions  and Licensing of Exported and Imported Goods, 
Works and Services in the Russi an Federation" (as amended on 27 January 1997, 2 February, 14 
March and 29 December 1998), introduced a uniform procedure for the licensing of imports, making 
the Russian practices in this field consistent with the relevant provi sions of GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
207. The purpose of the licensing regime was to mon itor and control imports of goods which, for 
various reasons, were classified as sensitive for the Russian Federation and the international WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 64  
 
community.  Import licenses in force were jus tifiable under Articles XX and XXI of GATT 1994 and 
the corresponding provisions of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures as, in 
accordance with Federal Law No. 157-FZ, licenses were required for the purpose of fulfilling 
international agreements; ensuring state security; the protection of human, animal and plant health; 
the protection of the environment; and the mainte nance of public morals.  Licenses were generally 
issued by the Ministry for Economic Developm ent and Trade.  In the case of weapons and 
ammunitions licenses were issued by the Ministry  of Defense.  The licensing regime applied to 
imports from all countries, including imports from CIS countries. 
208. Several members of the Working Party expressed  concern regarding the Russian Federation's 
statement that a justification to support the app lication of non-automatic import licenses for products 
listed in Table 16(a) might be found under Article  XX of GATT 1994. These members felt that more 
explanation was necessary to understand how the pr ovisions in the chapeau of Article XX would be 
met.  They noted that, while import licensing might  be an appropriate mechanism to administer 
certain controls, the justification for these controls , as well as the specifics of the import licensing 
procedures used to administered them, needed in  all cases to be fully in accordance to WTO 
provisions, including those on non-discrimination.  For example, some members noted that 
pharmaceutical licensing requirements were extr emely burdensome and constituted a significant 
problems for their exporters.  A major obstacle w as that pharmaceuticals had to be re-registered 
periodically, e.g. once every four years, and this re-registration was not automatic, often resulting in 
firms losing their current licence and being unable to import products for a period of time.  In 
addition, the Ministry of Health processing of the application was often slow and occasionally a 
barrier to receipt of the permit.  Some members argued that the prior authorizations required for 
importation of goods subject to Hygienic Assessm ent and Mandatory Certification could act as 
disguised barriers to trade or might not be applie d uniformly to imports and domestic output.  Some 
members asked more detail information on how the Ru ssian authorities considered that each of the 
requirements of Article 1 and 3 of the Agreemen t on Import Licensing Procedures had been met in 
relation to non-automatic import licensing in th e administration of its TRQ for raw sugar 
(HS 1701.11). 
209. In response, the Representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation had 
no intention to limit the quantity and value of imports, except as provided for in international 
conventions such as the Montreal Protocol or Basel Convention.  Import licenses for glucose syrup had been of a temporary surveillance char acter, issued to gather trade data.  
210. He added that Government Resolution No. 158 0 "On the Introduction of Amendments and 
Addenda to the Regulations on the Procedure for Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 65 
 
 
Services) in the Russian Federation" that enfor ced import or export licensing had been issued on 
29 December 1998, and after that the list of goods su bject to import or export licence regime had been 
amended on several occasions with a view to mini mizing the number of products concerned.  The 
most recent Decision No. 560 of 26 July 2001 "On the Abolishment of the Licensing of the Import of 
White Sugar to the Russian Federation" removed wh ite sugar from the list of products requiring an 
import license. Licence applications were submitted to two administrative bodies only.  The amount 
and type of information to be submitted was s tipulated in Government Resolution No. 1299 of 
31 October 1996 which described the procedures for a pplication, and contained copy of the import or 
export contract, copy of the charter of the applicant,  copy of the certificate for the state registration 
approval of the federal agency responsible for the specific sensitive goods (for non-automatic licence 
only) and activity licence (for strong alcoholic bevera ges only).  The validity of the licence was, as a 
rule, no more than 12 months but could be ex tended upon request of the licence holder.  An 
administrative fee of 3,000 Rubles was charged for each import or export licence.  For issuance of preliminary permits for imports of pharmaceutical products the Ministry of Health charged fees of 
0.05 per cent of the contract value of the goods. App lications could only be rejected if any of the 
above-mentioned documents would no t be available, or the information submitted by the applicant 
was false, or the importer or exporter did not fu lfil the conditions stipulated in international 
conventions for specific goods.  A licence was required to  be issued within 25 days after the complete 
set of documents had been submitted.  
211. Several members took issue with the Russian Fe deration's stated intention of not limiting the 
quantity and value of imports, except as provided for in international conventions such as the 
Montreal Protocol or Basel Convention as the current application of licensing requirements to products such as pharmaceuticals, sugar, alcoholic  beverages, precious stones and metals clearly 
operated to restrict imports.  They requested the Ru ssian Federation to explai n how these restrictions 
would be modified or eliminated to meet WTO requirements.  
212. Noting that for alcoholic beverages, import li censes were only issued where the applicant 
already had an activity licence, some members felt  that additional explanation was necessary on the 
rationale for this apparent double requirement.  Th ey also required information on the number of 
licenses issued every year and on how many of these were currently in force.  These members 
expected the Russian Federation to make a comm itment that any import licenses on ethyl alcohol, 
alcoholic drinks and pharmaceutical products should be granted automati cally on the basis of a regime 
compatible with WTO requirements, including Ar ticle 2 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  Some members noted their understanding that activity licensing for precious stones and 
metals had been eliminated on 11 Febr uary 2001 by Federal Law No. 128-FZ. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 66  
 
213. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that there were no quantitative 
restrictions on import of ethyl alcohol and  al coholic  beverages.  Fe deral Law No. 171-FZ of 22 
November 1995 "On State Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol-Containing Products" empowered the Ministry of Taxation with the control over turnover of  
production on the territory of the Russian Federation and issued licenses to legal entities registered on 
the territory of the Russian Federation for the fo llowing activities: import, storage and deliveries of 
Alcoholic Products. There were two kinds of licenses : one-time ( for a single contract) and general.   
214. He noted that a one-time license was valid for a term of up to 6 months and for a particular 
quantity of alcoholic products.  A general license  was only issued after an examination of an 
organization's activities under previously issued one- time licenses.   A genera l license was valid for  
up to 3 years.  Pursuant to Federal Law No . 157 FZ of 13 October 1995 "On State Regulation of 
Foreign Trade Activity", and Government Resolutions  of the Russian Federation No. 77 of 28 January 
1997 and No. 114 of February 02 1998, the Minist ry for Economic Development and Trade issued 
licenses for import of strong alcoholic beverages (of an  alcoholic strength of >28% Vol. - only vodka 
and competing alcoholic beverages were subject to licensing according to HS code of Russia).  He 
further noted that the Ministry of Economic Devel opment and Trade of the Ru ssian Federation  issued 
the licenses automatically upon receipt of the followi ng documents:   an application for the license, 
copy of the contract, a copy of a certificate confirmi ng that the applicant was registered by a regional 
tax authority as a tax-payer.  In his view, the import licensing of alcoholic  products was undertaken 
for purposes  consistent with the requirements of Article XX (c) of the GATT 1994.  
215. Regarding Government Resolution No. 1539 "O n the importation in and the exportation from 
the Russian Federation of Medicaments and Phar maceutical Substances", some members indicated 
that  Paragraph 2 of that resolution appeared to suggest that foreign manufacturers must have offices 
in the Russian Federation in order to obtain an im port license.  They requested clarification as to 
whether this would imply that foreign manufacturer s of pharmaceuticals should have an office in the 
Russian Federation to obtain a license to import, and not ed that in this case such a requirement would 
be WTO inconsistent with WTO provisions.  In addition, they asked the Russian Federation to 
elaborate on the purpose of these requirements, partic ularly in the case of licensing products such as 
flavourings and dual use precursor chemicals, and on whether they require the examination of every 
contract to import.  Those members also recalle d the concerns raised under section "Registration 
requirements for import/export operations",  of this Draft Report (above).   
216. Noting further that pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concern over certain Russian 
import licensing requirements (for instance if the molecule unique to the pharmaceutical had not 
changed periodic renewal of licenses appeared unnecessary and could be e xpensive and burdensome  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 67 
 
 
to industry), some members asked whether such requirements were equally applied or not to similar 
domestic products, as they could constitute a violatio n of Article III of GATT 1994.  Noting also that 
some pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concer n that the administration of licenses at MOH and 
MEDT did not presently meet WTO requirements such as transparency, fees for services rendered, processing within a reasonable timeframe and forbearance on minor documentation errors, these members requested clarification on the steps that th e Russian Federation intended to take to ensure 
that the administration of import licenses would conf orm to WTO requirements. In this regard, some 
members asked the Russian Federation to explain ho w the 0.05 per cent administrative fee charged by 
the MOH for issuing permits to import pharmaceutical  products was consistent with the requirements 
of Article VIII of GATT 1994.  
217. Some members requested additional clarification on the status of any legislative initiative in 
the Russian Federation which could be designed to  restrict imports of pharmaceuticals having 
domestic analogues.  These members felt that, if adopted , this legislation could be inconsistent with 
the provisions of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994.  They asked the Russian Federation to confirm 
that activity licenses would be made available to all registered companies (domestic or foreign) which 
satisfied government regulatory criteria.  They noted that this would not prevent the Russian 
Federation from operating state-trading enterprises or applying controls on imports and exports for 
example for purposes of human health, as long as th ese were applied in a manner consistent with 
relevant WTO obligations.  Noting further that the Russian Federation had acknowledged that the 
current law concerning pharmaceuticals (Federal Law No. 86 "On medicines" of 22 June 1998) was 
inconsistent with the new draft Foreign Trad e and Import/Export Licensing Laws, some members 
expected that this law would be amended or rep ealed to ensure WTO conformity by the date of 
accession. 
218. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that there were no plans in the Russian 
Federation to introduce new legi slatione which could be designed to restrict imports of 
pharmaceuticals having domestic substitutes.  Activity licences were made available to all registered 
companies (domestic or foreign) which satisfied  government regulatory criteria. Moreover, if a 
foreign company was not registered it could nevert heless get the required import licence if it had a 
representation office in the Russian Federation.  He  also added that, by way of legislative and 
regulatory development, work was currently be ing done to modify procedures for imports of 
pharmaceutical substances and medicines into the Russian Federation. He also referred to his 
explanations under section "Registration requi rements for import/export operations" above. 
219. Some members of the Working Party stated that  their traders had experienced difficulties with 
other Ministries or institutions charging extra fees in connection with impor tation permits based upon WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 68  
 
the contract value of the goods.  Those member s requested that Russia enter a commitment to 
eliminate all non-WTO consistent measures upon its accession to the WTO.   
220. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
eliminate from the date of accession, and would no t introduce, reintroduce or apply, quantitative 
restrictions on imports or other non-tariff measure s such as quotas, bans, permits, prior authorization 
requirements, licensing requirements or other require ments or restrictions having equivalent effect 
that could not be justified under the provisions of the WTO Agreem ents.  The import licensing regime 
from the date of accession would be fully in accord ance with all relevant provisions of the WTO, 
including the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures.  He further confirmed that the legal 
authority of the Government of the Russian Fede ration to suspend imports or to apply licensing 
requirements that could be used to suspend, ban or  otherwise restrict the quantity of trade would be 
applied from the date of accession in conformity w ith the requirements of the WTO, in particular 
Articles III, XI, XII, XIII, XIX, XX and XXI  of GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreements on 
Agriculture, the Application of Sanitary and Ph ytosanitary Measures, Import Licensing Procedures, 
Safeguards, Technical Barriers to Trade and the Understanding on Balance-of-payments Provisions of 
GATT 1994.] 
[to be completed] 
- Customs Valuation  
221. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the basic provisions relating to 
customs valuation practices in the Russian Federa tion were contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" and Government  Resolution No. 856 of 5 November 1992 "On the 
Procedure of Customs Valuation of Products Imported into the Territory of the Russian Federation".  
The rules for determining customs values were based on the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.  All six methods of customs valuation applied were 
based on the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 a nd 8 of that Agreement.  Moreover, in line with the 
provisions of Article 17 of the same Agreement,  the State Customs Committee of the Russian 
Federation (SCC) had been implementing a special t echnique of customs control which was aimed at 
preventing gross under-invoicing of customs value, such as the use of false documents stating a 
clearly understated contractual price in the performance of customs formalities. 
222. Members of the Working Party noted that specifi c issues of concern in this area included the 
use of de facto fixed import prices for some goods, the need to include more precise provisions for valuation of imports possibly involvi ng related parties, and the inclus ion of the Interpretative Notes to 
the Agreement in legal text.  They reiterated that any use of minimum or arbitrary valuation methods,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 69 
 
 
even if intended to address a specific problem, mu st be eliminated prior to accession and replaced 
with procedures meeting WTO requirements. 
223. Several members further noted that the legisla tion currently applied did not appear to fully 
implement Article 13 of the Agreement on the Im plementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 which 
provided for a guarantee system allowing an importer to withdraw goods from customs pending final determination of the customs value if he provided sufficient guarantee.  This was a critical provision 
as it ensured that customs procedures did not, in themselves, block imports. These members sought a 
confirmation that relevant Customs decisions, e.g ., Orders and Letters, and the decisions of local 
customs authorities, that traders ne eded to be able to review and understand, would be made available 
for this purpose to traders and other interested pa rties promptly and at reasonable cost.  Information 
was also required on how SCC and its regional office s, published and/or made available their rulings 
and other information for importers and exporters. 
224. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the procedure for 
publication and making effective regulatory legal act s of the federal executive authorities (including 
SCC) was governed, in particular, by Presidential Decree No. 763 "On the Procedure for Publication 
and Taking Effect of Acts of the President of th e Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and Regulatory Lega l Acts of Federal Executive Authorities" of 23 May 1996; 
Government Resolution No. 1009 "On the Approval of  the Rules for Preparing the Normative Legal 
Acts of the Federal Bodies of the Executive Power and Their State Registration" of 13 August 1997; 
and the Order of the Ministry of Justice No. 217 "On the Approval of the Explanations on the 
Application of the Rules for the Preparation of Normative Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of 
Executive Power and Their State Registration" of 14 July 1999;.  Normative legal acts of SCC (e.g. 
acts with a binding effect throughout the territo ry of the Russian Federation) included only its 
regulations, orders, rules, instru ctions, dispositions and administra tive decrees.  Briefings, letters, 
telegrams, teletype letters were not considered as normative legal acts but acts which could only have 
recommendatory character and be used internally for the sole purpose of a state body.  Normative 
legal acts of SCC were subject to mandatory publi cation with the exception of acts or parts thereof 
constituting state secrets or confidential information.  Exhaustive lists of such information and data 
had been approved by various Presidential decr ees. The official organs for publication were 
Rossijskaya Gazeta and the Bulletin of Regul atory Acts of Federal Bodies published by 
Yuridicheskaya Literatura publishing house of the President's Administration edited monthly since 
1998.  Regulatory legal acts of SCC subject to state registration with the Ministry of Justice became 
enforceable only after they had been regi stered and officially published.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 70  
 
225. Noting that the Russian Authorities had menti oned a special technique of customs control 
recently introduced by SCC in order to preven t under-invoicing of customs value, some members 
requested clarification on the modalities of application and legal justification of  this special technique. 
226. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration said that this technique entrusted the 
decision-making authority of the customs bodies with the task of checking the truth and accuracy of 
the stated value of products.  The relevant cust oms bodies were vested with certain functions to 
control customs value, and those situations in which such functions could be performed were 
specified and the operational procedures of the cu stoms bodies at the various levels (custom-house, 
regional customs authority, SCC staff) defined. This technique was not meant to replace the applicable Russian legislation  on customs valuation based on the use of the transaction value as a 
main method of customs valuation.  This technique might also enable the cu stoms authorities to more 
effectively respect the provisions of Article 13 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VII of GATT 1994 as it simplified the proce dures and criteria used to decide whether the 
stated transaction value could have been understated.   He also noted that further details on special 
techniques of customs control were c ontained in document WT/ACC/RUS/28. 
227. He noted that actions by SCC could be appeal ed in accordance with th e procedure established 
by the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, notably under Article 407 which required that the 
initial appeal should be filed with the higher cust oms administration of the Russian Federation, and 
Article 416 which stipulated that should this appeal be turned down, the importer could further appeal 
to a court.  The draft Chapter 25.1 of the Tax Code entitled "Customs Duty and Customs Charges" 
contained requirements ensuring consistency of cust oms valuation procedures with the provisions of 
the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 and referred members of the 
Working Party to his statement in the section "C ustoms Regulation" of this Draft Report.   
228. He further explained that the Chapter 25.1 of the draft Tax Code “Customs Duty and Customs 
Fees” which the government eventually planned to incorporate into the Law on Customs Tariff would 
establish a predictable and transparent regime in this  area.  The draft was elaborated with regard to 
Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 
1994.  The draft set forth the transaction value as the primary basis for the customs valuation of 
imported goods and introduced sub sequent application of other me thods of customs valuation, 
concepts and definitions of the Agreement on Impl ementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994.  The 
application of other methods would be in full confor mity with the Customs Valuation Agreement.  In 
response to further requests from members, the repre sentative of the Russian Federation stated that the 
interpretative notes annexed to the Customs Valuati on Agreement would not be included in a  federal 
law, but implemented at the level of the government.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 71 
 
 
229. Noting the reference to the new Tax Code a nd the Customs Code, several members again 
considered that further information on the proposed  new legislation in this area was needed.  In 
particular, those members reiterated ongoing concerns  related to the current administration of the 
Customs system, such as the inconsistency of the current legislation with WTO and other norms, the 
inconsistent application of legisla tion, and the consequent lack of predictability and certainty.  Those 
members requested that the Russian Federation detail the further adjustments that would be made in 
order to  bring the Russian Federation Customs la w and practice into full conformity with WTO and 
other requirements.  They noted that existing procedures in the WTO Agreement that facilitate 
importation were important benef its for WTO Members and should be introduced by the Russian 
Federation upon accession.   Members also reiterated the importance of ensuring that aids to application of the Customs Valuation Agreement such as the Interpretative Notes and Decisions on 
Carrier Media be enshrined in the new legislation.  
230. Members of the Working Party also repeated th eir concerns about the special techniques of 
customs control to prevent commercial valuation fraud.   In particular, members sought information on 
how the special technique was applied, to what pr oducts, such as flat glass, and how that system 
would be eliminated.   Members also requested  further information on how the requirements of 
Article 13 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 would be met. 
231. Members of the Working Party requested inform ation on how Russia’s customs regime would 
address the right to import merchandise under bond.  They also requested information use of 
transaction value in related party transactions, the determination customs value under transaction 
value, the value of identical merchandise, deductive value, and the fallback method.   
232. Members of the Working Party also request ed that the Russian Federation supply the 
Working Party with a translation, in a WTO Work ing language, of the recently enacted Chapter 25.1 
of the Customs Code.   In addition, members sought  a commitment that the new legislation would be 
fully implemented so as to secure complete co mpliance with the WTO Agreements, noting, in 
particular, the continuing practices of the State Cu stoms Committee with regard to minimum prices.   
233. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply its customs valuation laws, re gulations and practices in full c onformity with the relevant WTO 
provisions, including the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VII of GATT 1994, from the date 
of accession without recourse to any transition period.  [He further confirmed that, in determining the 
value of imports, the Russian Federation would ap ply the provisions on the Treatment of Interest 
Charges in Customs Value of Imported Goods a nd for the Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing 
Software for Data Processing Equipment.] In accord ance with these latter provisions, only the cost of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 72  
 
the carrier medium itself would be accounted for in the customs value.  He also confirmed that the 
Russian Federation had eliminated the use of minimum import prices and reference prices for 
determining the value of imports, and that the Russian Federation would not use any form of 
minimum value, reference price, or fixed valua tion schedule establishing the value of imports and 
exports nor would apply duties and taxes from the date of accession. He added that, as an international 
agreement, the provisions of the WTO Agreemen t on the Implementation of Article VII of GATT 
1994 would supersede domestic law after accession.]   
[to be completed] 
- Rules of Origin 
234. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the Russian Federation was closely 
following the work of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the WTO regarding 
harmonization for non-preferential rules of origin.  In accordance with the provisions of Federal Law 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff", the principles for determining the country of origin 
of goods were based on internationa l practices.  The procedures for determining the country of origin 
of goods were established pursuant to this Law. Goods  originated from a country if they were wholly 
made in that country or substantially transformed  in accordance with criteria set forth in the Law.  
The country of origin of goods might also be understood to mean a group of countries, customs 
unions, a region or a part of a country, if this was necessary to identify them with a view to 
determining the origin of goods.  The provisions of Federal Law No. 5003-1 which related to the 
determination of the country of origin of goods , reflecting international practices and implementing 
the recommendations of the Kyoto Convention, were in corporated in the draft of the new version of 
the Customs Code of the Russian Federation.  
235. He further noted that a customs authority might  request a certificate of origin in order to 
confirm that the goods originated from a particular count ry.  This applied, in particular with respect to 
goods originating from countries which benefit from the National GSP Scheme; to goods of which the 
importation from a given country was regulated by  quantitative restrictions (quotas) or by other 
methods for the regulation of foreign economic activ ities;  if this was envisaged by international 
agreements, to which the Russian Federation was a party, as well as by Russian legislation on 
environmental protection, public health, protection fo r the rights of Russian consumers, public order, 
state security and other vital inte rests of the Russian Federation;  and, in cases where data about the 
origin of the goods were absent in the documents  submitted for customs cl earance or the Russian 
customs agency had reason to believe that the declar ed data about the origin of the goods were not 
trustworthy. In the event that the importer did not seek a preferential regime and the origin of goods  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 73 
 
 
could e confirmed by indirect indicators (marking, information on the origin contained in shipping 
documentation, etc.) there might be no mandatory requirement to submit a certificate of origin. In 
these cases, where MFN treatment ex isted with the exporting country, customs duties were charged at 
the Customs Tariff rates. Otherwise, customs duties were charged at double the rate.    
236. He stated that the certificate of origin was exp ected to clearly prove th at the goods in question 
were originating from the country of issuance, and should contain a written statement by the 
consignor that goods satisfied the respective criteri a of origin, and written confirmation by the duly 
authorized body of the exporting country which had issued the certificate that the data indicated 
therein were true and correct.  The certificate of origin should be submitted alongside the customs 
declaration and other documents presented for custom s clearance.  If doubts existed about the validity 
of a certificate or the accuracy of the data indicated  therein, including the data about the country of 
origin of goods, the Russian cust oms agency might approach the organizations that had issued the 
certificate or other authorities of the country indicated  as the country of origin of goods with a request 
for supplementary or clarifying data.  Goods w ould not be regarded as originating from a given 
country until a duly executed certificate of origin or requested data were submitted. Failure to submit 
a duly executed certificate or data about the origin of goods would not constitu te grounds for refusal 
to clear such goods across the customs border.  Goods of which the origin had not been clearly 
established should be cleared after the payment of customs duties at the non-MFN rates of the Russian 
Customs Tariff.   
237. He further stated that the determination of the origin of goods originating from developing 
countries eligible for the system of preferences maintained by the Russian Federation was governed 
by the "Rules of Origin of Goods Originating fro m Developing Countries for the Purposes of Tariff 
Preferences under the General Preferences System" in corporated in the Agreement of the CIS states of 
12 April 1996 "On Rules of Origin of Goods Orig inating from Developing Countries for the Purposes 
of Tariff Preferences under the General Preferences Sy stem".  As for the rules of origin within free 
trade agreements, the additional criteria of direct purchase were used. In respect of goods originating 
from CIS countries, he said that the Russian Federa tion adhered to the "Rules of Origin of Goods" 
approved by the Council of Heads of CIS Governme nts on 30 November 2000.  The above rules were 
developed pursuant to the internationa l practice of determination of origin. 
238. Noting that the rules of origin provisions contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" did not appear to fully reflect the requirements of the WTO Agreement, several members of the Working Part y felt it essential to ensure that the new draft 
Customs Code would provide revised rules of or igin consistent with WTO provisions.  These 
members also requested a clarification on whether these new laws would cover both preferential and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 74  
 
non-preferential rules of origin.  Noting further that goods of which the origin had not been clearly 
established were cleared through customs only after pa yment of customs duties at a rate double that in 
the Customs Tariff, some members asked the Russi an Federation to clarify whether in such cases it 
was possible to submit a certificate of origin subse quent to customs clearance and, if origin was 
subsequently satisfactorily established, whether ex cess duties were then refunded.  Some members 
also expressed concerns and requested a clarif ication regarding the consistency with the WTO 
Agreement on Rules of Origin of the Russian stated pr actice that "the country of origin could also be 
understood to mean a group of countries, customs uni ons, a region or part of a region, if this was 
necessary to identify them with a view to  determining the origin of goods".   
239. Several members indicated a particular interest in the provisions concerning the right to 
request an origin determination from the Governme nt prior to shipment, and requested a commitment 
that these provisions should be a pply in line with the requirement s of Article 2(h) and Annex II, 
paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  In addition, they also indicated that Russia' s preferential rules of origin for CIS should fully reflect the interim rules of Annex II of the 
Agreement].  In this regard, these members request ed clarification on whether the "Decision of the 
Council of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Independent States on the Rules for the 
Determination of a Country of Goods' Origin" of 24 September 1993 would currently meet these 
requirements, and a commitment was sought as to their implementation upon accession.  Some members also asked a clarification on whether cu stoms procedures did include any guarantee system 
which allowed release of goods pending determination of preferential origin and how did any 
associated rectification procedure (subsequent refund or recovery of customs duties) actually operate.  
240. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Articles 393 to 396 of the 
currently applied Customs Code provided that cust oms authorities were entitled to issue a provisional 
decision with respect to the origin of goods, prio r to import of these goods into the territory of the 
Russian Federation.  To further develop these provisions, the State Customs Committee (SCC) had 
prepared and would shortly introduce a "Regulation on the procedure for taking preliminary decisions 
with respect to the country of origin of goods".  He added that with regard to compliance with the 
requirements of Article 2(h) and Annex II, paragr aph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
Articles 393 – 396 of the existing Customs Code of the Russian Federation provided for the 
possibility of preliminary (prior to shipment) origin determination by customs administrations.  In furtherance of these Articles the State Customs Committee had prepared and would soon pass a 
Regulation on the procedure for origin determination prior to shipment. 
241. In response, some members of the Working Party requested that the Russian Federation 
provide the Working Party with specific and upd ated information on the new Rules of Origin  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 75 
 
 
provisions contained in the new Customs Code, rele vant implementing regula tions, with particular 
attention to the requirements of Article 2(h) and Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules 
of Origin.   Those members also requested info rmation on whether Russia’s preferential rules of 
origin for the FTAs with CIS, Yugoslavia, EAEC, or other such agreements, reflected the interim 
rules of the WTO Agreement in Annex II of the Agreement.    
242. Some members reiterated the importance of pr oblems regarding the customs regulation and 
simplification of border control measures and necessity  of bringing all these in consistencies into full 
conformity with WTO rules.  Some members also stated that the Russian Federation had not provided 
satisfactory responses to problems concerning the admi nistration of certificates of origin, which had 
serious economic consequences for some members national economy.  Those members therefore, 
sought a commitment from the Russian Federation to  prevent the illegal flow of smuggled goods from 
its territory and to remove all customs formaliti es which represented hidden barriers to trade and 
major trade distorting measures, prior to its accession to the WTO. 
243. One member reiterated that th e Decrees of the State Cust oms Committee of the Russian 
Federation No 961-r dated 4 October 2001 and No  1002 dated 19 October 2001 ran counter to the 
provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federati on, particularly Article 15 which stated that: ”if 
an international treaty to which the Russian Federati on is party provides for other rules than those set 
forth by Russian Federation domestic law, the rules of the international treaty should apply”.   That 
member was of the view that those Decrees of th e State Customs Committee violated the provisions 
of the bilateral agreement between this member a nd the Russian Federation on Customs Check Points, 
and should immediately be eliminated to ensure the consistency with the requirements of that bilateral 
agreement.   
244. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the new draft Customs 
Code of the Russian Federation contained provisi ons to fully reflect the requirements of the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin and  defined the country of origin of a particular product as either the 
country where the product was produced wholly or  was subject to sufficient transformed in 
accordance with the criteria established by the draft code or the procedure determined by the draft 
code the two of them complying with the Agreement on the Rules of Origin. 
245. He further noted that the draft code supp lied an exhaustive list of goods, which were 
considered to be produced wholly in the country.  The Draft  Code  established the criteria of sufficient 
transformation and listed the operations which did no t satisfy those criteria, but in a non-exhaustive 
manner, additions could be made by the G overnment of the Russian Federation.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 76  
 
246. He noted that in the event that goods were supplied in a dismantled or not assembled state 
over several shipments, when due to the industria l or transportation problems it is impossible to 
deliver the whole lot at one time; or when the lot of goods was divided to parts by mistake, the draft 
established a number of peculiarities to assist in de termining the country of origin of goods (the 
indicated goods could, at the discretion of th e importer, be considered as one shipment).  
247. Concerning the application of preferences, he noted that the  Draft  Code provided that the 
Government of the Russian Federation could establis h a procedure for the application of criteria of 
substantial re-make for particular goods for a par ticular country to whom the Russian Federation 
grants tariff preferences.  He al so noted that the document confirming the country of origin of goods 
would be the Certificate on the origin of goods  or the Declaration on the origin of goods. 
248. He further noted that the draft Code provided that when the origin of goods could not be 
determined and when the goods were not prohibited from importation to the Russian Federation, those  
goods would be released upon payment of customs duties at the rates applied to countries that did not enjoy MFN treatment.   In the event of a tariff prefer ence, if the certificate of origin did not meet the 
established form or if the customs authorities detect ed an irregularity or fraud in relation to the 
certificate, and the declarer had submitted other documents in confirmation of that assertion, the 
goods would not be granted tariff preferences and woul d instead be subject to customs duties at the 
MFN rates.   He noted that in the event that the certificate was accepted, MFN treatment or tariff 
preferences would be applied to the goods for one year after the adoption of the customs declaration 
by the customs authority.    
249. He further noted that the new draft Customs C ode of the Russian Federation, which passed 
the final reading in the State Duma and was expected  to enter into force shortly, defined the country 
of origin of a particular product as either the c ountry where the product was produced wholly or was 
subject to sufficient re-make in accordance with th e criteria established by the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin. The draft code established the cases when it  was mandatory to provide the certificate of the 
origin of goods. In other cases, customs authorities would have the right to require to provide the 
certificate on origin only when there was a motivat ed reason to believe that the information on the 
country of origin of goods was false. 
250. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession the 
Russian Federation's laws and regulations on rul es of origin for both MFN and preferential trade 
would be applied in conformity with the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, including the provisions of Annex II, and that th ese provisions would be established in the Russian 
Federation's legal framework. He further confirmed that , in line with the requirements of Article 2(h)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 77 
 
 
and of Annex II, paragraph 3(d), both for non-preferen tial and preferential rules of origin, its customs 
authorities would provide an assessment of the orig in of the import and outline the terms under which 
such an assessment would be provided upon the request  of an exporter, importer or any person with a 
justifiable cause. According to the provisions of  the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin specified 
above, any request for such an assessment would be accepted even before trade in the goods 
concerned had began, and any such assess ment would be binding for three years.] 
- Other Customs Formalities 
251. Several members stressed that the simplif ication of border controls and customs 
documentation necessary for importation in the Russi an Federation would have a favorable impact 
through reduced costs and improved efficiency for Ru ssian traders.  In response, the representative of 
the Russian Federation stated that customs formaliti es in use in the Russian Federation were applied 
in accordance with the internationally accepted ru les and were based on the Kyoto Convention.  
252. Noting that his country was experiencing a huge volume of uncontrolled entry of smuggled 
goods from the Russian Federation which seriously in jured its domestic market, a member asked the 
Russian authorities to clarify how they intended to fully control the Russian Federation's customs 
border in its entirety to prevent exit of smuggled goods from Russian territory continuing to damage 
small and vulnerable neighbouring countries.  This member believed that import regulations imposed 
by the Russian Federation on imports of certain ty pes of products (wine and wine products, petroleum 
products, tobacco products, chicken meat etc.) wh ich authorized only certain check-points often 
located away from the exporting countries, even in the case of neighbouring countries, to handle these 
goods, represented hidden impediments to trade.  He  therefore requested that  the Russian Federation 
ensure these requirements be removed or significantly simplified. 
253. One member of the Working Party said that  his authorities had identified a number of 
measures that raised concerns in this area.  Under State Customs Committee Orders No. 155 of 
14 February 2001 "On the Procedure for Coordina tion of Decisions to Release Goods for Free 
Circulation" and No. 949 of 31 December 1999 on "Amending Order No. 258 of the SCC of 26 April 1996 (in the wording of Order No. 43 of the SCC of  31 January 1997 and with the Amendments and 
Additions of 10 March 2000) certain goods that qua lified as high-risk (e.g. certain foodstuffs) were 
not released for free circulation without the specific approval of a higher customs authority.  The 
process of obtaining such approval can last from one  to two weeks.  Under rules introduced in 
October 2001 by the North Western Customs Authority , shipments of "risk products" (a wide group 
of products including coffee, furniture, tyres a nd washing machines) were subject to burdensome 
documentary requirements, including in relationship to the ownership of the vehicle transporting the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 78  
 
goods.  The Russian Federation had also imposed r estrictions that require customs clearance for 
certain goods, including textiles, clothing and el ectrical products, to take place only on border 
crossings with certain Asian countries as well as in  ports and airports.  Consequently such items 
originating in Asia could not longer be exported to  the Russian Federation via this member's customs 
territory.  As well as raising concerns in relation to conformity with WTO requirements on trade in 
transit, these decrees made it possi ble for companies exporting to th e Russian Federation to use raw 
materials from the Far East for sub-contracting and subsequently created a barrier to business 
cooperation.  The cumulative effect was that expor ters to the Russian Federation face unpredictable, 
non-transparent, lengthy and generally burdensom e customs procedures for imported goods at the 
point of entry into the Russian Federation's customs territory.  Appropriate checks on imported goods might be called for to ensure that the Russian Fede ration's regulatory requirements were respected, but 
such measures should not be applied in a heavy- handed or non-transparent way.  Those members 
considered that Russia should enter a commitme nt to respect standard WTO requirements of 
transparency, predictability and uniform application in this regard.    
254. Another member said that his authorities had con cerns with the practice used by the Russian 
Federation customs bodies in respect of the transp ort companies of this member. He noted that 
country-specific restrictive customs procedures we re incompatible with WTO provisions, notably 
those in Articles I and VIII of GATT 1994. This me mber requested the Russian  Federation to ensure 
that these and other country specific measures rela ting to customs procedures would be brought in 
fully conformity with the WTO requirements prior to accession. 
255. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that measures mentioned by members, 
including the designation of customs clearance of pa rticular goods to certain border customs points, 
were aimed to increase predictability and accuracy of  customs procedures for traders and transporters, 
not to act as a hidden or unnecessary restriction to trade, bearing in mind the following factors: (1) 
unprecedented length of Russia’s borders; and (2) insu fficient resources available at present to equip 
all border customs points with all necessary equipm ent and storage facilities. These procedures were 
in accordance with the Interna tional Convention on the Simplificat ion and Harmonization of Customs 
Procedures (Kyoto 2000), in particular, with its Sp ecific Annex A, Chapter 1. Russia expected that 
gradually the majority of border customs points will be prepared to process all goods crossing the 
border and is ready meanwhile to address construc tively and to the extent possible any specific 
commercial concerns of  members with a view to facilitating trade flows. 
256. Members of the Working Party stated that they  expected the Russian Federation to undertake 
a commitment that upon accession all regulations, fo rmalities and requirements connected with the 
importation of goods, including in relation to sta tistical control, customs clearance, documents,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 79 
 
 
documentation and certification, inspection and an alysis, and any changes to these regulations, 
formalities and requirements would be published suffi ciently in advance and applied in a uniform, 
impartial and reasonable manner across the customs te rritory of the Russian Federation, consistent 
with WTO requirements, including Articles VIII and X of GATT 1994.  Customs regulations, formalities and requirements should al so be applied and operated in a fashion consistent with WTO 
requirements.  They noted that industry and expor ters had regular experi ence of inconsistencies 
between administrative decisions taken by the Russian Federation authorities and the prevailing 
Russian Federation legislation.  Moreover, incons istencies appeared to exist between the general 
legislative framework and subsidiary regulations a nd administrative guidance issued by the Russian 
Federation government bodies (such as SCC).  Furthe rmore, administrative orders issued by SCC 
were sometimes issued as 'secret orders' and thei r contents were not publicized to traders.  
[to be completed] 
- Pre-shipment Inspection   
257. Noting that the Russian authorities had stated th at the Russian Federation did not require any 
inspection services prior to shipment, members of th e Working Party asked the Russian Federation to 
undertake a commitment indicating that if such services should be employed in the future, they would 
conform to WTO provisions in their operations, e.g., in the application of fees for services rendered, 
observance of other WTO requirements in customs processing, and in providing right of appeal to the Government.   
258. Some members of the Working Party request ed information on whether the Russian 
Federation planned to introduce pre-shipment inspec tion.  Those members further stated that although 
the WTO Agreement did not preclude recourse to pre- shipment inspection subject to meeting a range 
of requirements, some members believed that this  would be a backward step and expressed their 
preference to see the Russian Federation engaging cust oms reforms that would address problem areas.  
Some members stated that the use of pre-ship ment inspection services could gradually erode a 
country's ability to perform certain services itself.  Those members asked whether the government of the Russian Federation would take steps to ensure that any fees or other formalities imposed by any 
pre-shipment inspection entity would be fully in c onformity with WTO rules, such as the Agreements 
on TBT, SPS, Article VIII and the Agreement on Cust oms Valuation..  Those members also sought 
assurances that the traders would have available a right of appeal (both administrative and judicial, as described above in this Draft Report) from any decisi ons of the pre-shipment inspection entity.  Those 
members also requested information on the e xpected duration of any such measure.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 80  
 
259. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that if a pre-shipment inspection 
system would be introduced in the future, it woul d be temporary.  The Government of the Russian 
Federation would take responsibility to ensure that  the operations of any pre-shipment inspection 
companies it retained would meet the requirement s of the WTO Agreements, in particular the 
Agreements on Pre-shipment  Inspection, Import Li censing Procedures, Customs Valuation, Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade.  He further confirmed that charges and 
fees applied by such companies would be consistent  with Article VIII of GATT 1994, and that such 
system would comply with the due process and transparency requirements of the WTO Agreements, in particular Article X of GATT 1994, and the Ag reement on the Implementation of Article VII of 
GATT 1994.]  
- Trade Remedy Measures 
260. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ 
of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Econom ic Interests of the Russian Federation with 
Respect to Foreign Trade in Goods" provided the le gal framework to safeguard the country's balance 
of payment In accordance with this law, and due  to particular balance of payment difficulties, 
Government Resolution No. 791 of 17 July 1998 "O n Introduction of an Additional Import Duty" had 
introduced a special import surcharge at a rate of 3 per cent ad valorem  applied to all tariff items.  
Government Resolution No. 235 of 27 February 1999  had eliminated the import surcharge effectively 
from 1 March 1999. 
261. Some members noted that the application of a tariff surcharge by the Russian Federation, 
based on the mentioned provisions of Federal Law No. 63-FZ, might not be consistent with WTO 
provisions. They asked additional information on the circumstances foreseen in Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ which would trigger the use of an import surcharge measure and the type of measures that 
could be used.  Some members further asked wh ether import surcharges would be authorized under 
any of the new customs laws, notably the amendmen ts to the Customs Tariff Law, the new Customs 
Code, and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code.  In  this regard, these members sought a commitment 
confirming that as from the date of accession the Russian Federation would apply any such measures, 
either for BOP or other purposes, in full conformity with WTO provisions.  
262. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation asked members to clarify their 
concerns with respect to any possible inconsistenc y of the provisions of Federal Law No. 63-FZ  with 
WTO requirements.  He stated that Article 15 of  Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 provided, 
for the purposes of maintaining the equilibrium of th e balance of payments of the Russian Federation, 
the Government could adopt a decision to impose a temporary limitation on the imports of goods.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 81 
 
 
The limitation of the imports of goods could be im plemented by means of introducing an import quota 
or other measures for a term required to restore th e equilibrium of the balance of payments of the 
Russian Federation with due regard to the interna tional obligations of the Russian Federation. He 
further noted that the monitoring of the implementation of any quota or other imports restriction measures applied pursuant to Article 15 of the Law was the responsibility of the federal body of 
executive power specified in Article 3 of the presen t Federal Law.  Any decision on the imposition of 
limits on the imports of goods in the case specified under Item 1 of the Article 15 was required to be 
made on the proposal of the Central Bank of the Ru ssian Federation or of federal bodies of executive 
power as approved by the Central Bank of the Russi an Federation.  The measures permitted were 
required to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.  Accordingly, in his view, there was no inconsistency between the provisions  of Federal Law No. 63-FZ with WTO requirements, i.e. Article 
XII of GATT 1994 and the Understanding on that Article.   
263. Several members considered that, given the overlapping authorities of Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ and the Russian Federation's intention to establish separate specialized legislation on trade 
remedies, a commitment was required from the Russia n Federation that the provisions of Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ that addressed trade remedies, including those applied for balance-of-payments purposes, 
would be replaced by other legal provisions that c onform to relevant WTO provisions, in particular 
the WTO Agreements on Safeguards, Antidumping, and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and 
Article XII of GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Balance of  Payments Provisions of GATT 
1994.   
264. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated further that Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 
14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Foreign 
Trade in Goods" established current rules of procedures for the application, conduct of investigation 
and the imposition of safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures as well as other 
regulations of exports and imports, including measu res for safeguarding the balance of payments.  
Under this law, anti-dumping, safeguards and co untervailing measures could be introduced only 
following an investigation showing evidence of substantially increased, dumped or subsidized 
imports, serious or material injury to domestic industry or threat of such injury and causality between 
these developments.  The measures could only be in  place for a limited period of time necessary to 
eliminate the injury. Government Regulations  Nos. 183 and 184 of 16 February 1999 "On the 
Peculiarities of the Determination of a Significant Da mage to a Branch of the Russian Economy as a 
Result of Dumping Imports" and "On the Peculiariti es of Determining a Significant Damage of a 
Branch of the Russian Economy when a Foreign St ate (an Alliance of Fore ign States) Subsidizes 
Goods Imported to the Russian Federation as Well as the Amount of the Subsidy" and No. 274 of 
11 March 1999 "On the Regulations  for Conducting Investigations Prior to the Introduction  of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 82  
 
Special Protective Measures, Anti-Dumping Measures or Compensatory Measures" established 
procedures for investigations as well as for determ ination of injury.  A new draft Federal Law "On 
Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures" had been prepared by the Government with 
the objective of introducing full conformity with the relevant WTO provisions in these areas.  This 
new law would be submitted to the State Duma shortly.  
265. Concerning anti-dumping, several members noted that the description of the current 
legislation provided by the Russian authorities did not  appear to ensure consistency with relevant 
WTO provisions.  In particular, investigations see med to be limited to injury and causality aspects 
without requiring a proper determina tion of dumping, while any measures applied would be expected 
to remain in place for "a limited period of time necessary to eliminate injury", thus not necessarily 
complying with the five-year maximum duration provided for measures undertaken under the WTO  
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
266. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration also noticed that a new draft Federal 
Law "On Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Counterva iling Measures" had been prepared by the 
Government with the objective of achieving full c onformity with the relevant WTO provisions.  The 
draft Federal Law makes more precise the terminology  in these areas in complia nce with the rules and 
provisions of WTO. Thus the draft provides a clea rly distinction between th e serious and material 
injury.  The new Law expanded the government’s authority on the initiation and investigation phase 
of the inquiry.  The draft defined an actionable s ubsidy in full consistency with WTO provisions.  The 
definition of the dumping margin corresponded to Ar ticle 2 of the Agreement on implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994. The draft set a five-year maximum duration for antidumping and 
countervailing measures and eight-year for safeguards.  He further added that the new law would be 
applied upon entry into force.   Any investigation commenced prior to the entr y into force of the new 
law would be conducted under the existing law.    
267. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
main improvements contained in the draft law vis- a-vis the existing Federal law were the detailed 
description of the investigation pr ocedure and concepts such as increased imports, dumping, subsidies 
serious and material injury, threat  thereof, causal link, the definition of Russian industry, and other 
matters.  Several provisions of the draft law were directed at improving the mechanism of 
introduction, application, reconsideration and cancellation of safeguard, antidumping and 
countervailing measures.  The provisions determining the procedure for the  application of safeguard, 
antidumping and countervailing measures (including tem porary duties, and securities) were framed in 
a more detailed and intelligible manner.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 83 
 
 
268. He further noted that the draft law empowere d the responsible federal executive body (once 
an investigation had been undertaken pursuant to the draft law) to  propose the application of 
safeguard, antidumping or countervailing measures.  It also permitted the responsible authority to 
propose their introduction, review and cancellation.   Following such a proposal, the decision to 
impose a measure would be taken by the G overnment of the Russian Federation.   
269. At a later stage, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that at the end of January 
2002, the Government of the Russian Federation ha d approved and introduced the draft law to the 
State Duma.  The draft law was passed by State Duma in the first  reading on 14 of March 2003.   
270. Concerning safeguards, some members felt th at more information was required on the 
measures currently in place or under consideration by the Russian authoriti es before any assessment 
of their WTO compatibility could be effectively made. 
271. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that in accordance with 
Articles 8 and 11 of the Federal Law No. 63-FZ, i nvestigations should be primarily devoted to 
determination of injury, causation aspects and dumpe d imports.  In particular, Article 11 established 
that the maximum duration of antidumping measures should be of five years, in conformity with 
WTO requirements.  
272. Noting that new legislation was being prepared in these areas, including a new law "On 
Additions and Amendments to the Federal Law "On Protection of Economic Interests of the Russian 
Federation in Foreign Trade in Goods", some member s felt that the Working Party should be given an 
opportunity to review the content and coverage  of the draft laws as well as any implementing 
regulations so as to determine their conformity w ith the requirements of the WTO Agreement.  As it 
was apparent that the Russian Federation intended to make recourse to such measures to regulate 
trade, members also stressed the importance of  devising an appropriate commitment that should 
confirm the full conformity of the new Law and re gulations and their modalities of application with 
relevant WTO Agreements. 
273. The representative of the Russian Federation, referring to the queries from members, noted  
that the purpose of the new draft Federal Law "On Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures" to ensure full conformity with the relevant WTO provisions in these important and 
sensitive areas.   
274. Some members of the Working Party requested  the Russian Federation to confirm that, 
notwithstanding Article 18.3 of the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
the Russian Federation would apply the provisions of  the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 84  
 
of the GATT 1994 to proceedings under Article 9.3, including the calculation of margins of dumping, 
in connection with anti-dumping measures adopted befo re the entry into force of the Draft Protocol 
("existing measures"), to reviews of existing meas ures initiated under Article s 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3 
pursuant to requests made on or after the entry into force of the Draft Protocol (any review of an 
existing measure of Article 11.3 would be initiate d no later than five years from its date of 
imposition), and provide the type of  judicial review described in Article 13 of the  Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 with  regard to proceedings under Article 9.3 and 
reviews under Articles 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3.   
275. Some members of the Working Party further requ ested the Russian Federation to confirm that 
the Russian Federation would provide the type of judicial review described in Article 23 of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measur es with regard to reviews under Articles 19.3, 
21.2 and 21.3; to ensure that all investigations in itiated and measures imposed in the area of trade 
defence instruments (i.e. anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures) were fully consistent 
with WTO requirements upon accession; and to ensure that  all relevant legislation in place at the time 
of accession or implemented in the future was in full  conformity with the relevant provisions of the 
relevant WTO Agreements. 
276. Noting the assurances given by the representativ e of the Russian Federation that the new 
legislation on trade defence instruments, some members of the Working Pa rty requested that the 
Russian Federation detail its plans for the elimination of currently applied measures that might not 
meet the requirements of the WTO Agreements and the GATT 1994 after implementation of the new 
legislation.   
277. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that many members of the 
WTO currently maintained WTO-inconsistent trade  remedy  measures against exports from the 
Russian Federation.  He noted that the Russian Federation expected that upon its accession to the 
WTO, all such measures by Members would  be brou ght  into conformity with the WTO Agreements 
and the GATT.   
278. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
not apply such measures until it has notified and implemented laws in full conformity with the 
relevant WTO provisions, including Articles VI  and XIX of GATT 1994 and the Agreement on the 
Implementation of Article VI, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  After such legislati on was implemented, the Russian Federation would 
only apply any anti-dumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguard measures in full conformity with WTO provisions.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 85 
 
 
Export Regulations 
- Export Duties  279. Several members of the Working Party noted th at the Russian Federation maintained export 
restrictions in the forms of export tariffs, export quotas and export licensing.  These members were concerned that these measures might restrict trad e without justifiable grounds.  They therefore 
requested the Russian Federation to apply all such  measures in conformity with WTO provisions.  
280. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that export duties, ranging from three to 
50 per cent, had been imposed mainly for fiscal purpo ses and, in very few cases (raw hides and skins, 
scrap and waste of non-ferrous metals) to ensure th e availability of materials essential to the domestic 
industry and to prevent shortages in domestic suppl y.  Export duties were applied on an MFN basis 
except for goods exported to members of the Cust oms Union. All changes in export duties were 
published officially.  Exported goods were exempt from VAT (except for crude oil and natural gas 
exported to CIS countries).  The Russian Federation maintained the same customs fees on exportation 
as on importation.  At a later stage and in respon se to requests from members of the Working Party, 
the representative of the Russian Federation provided a complete list of export duties of the Russian 
Federation in Annex I of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add.2. 
281. Several members stressed that export duti es acted as indirect subsidies to domestic 
down-stream users and could thus distort internati onal trade.  They requested the Russian Federation 
to provide a comprehensive listing of export duti es by HS-number together with the applied duty 
rates.  Noting that the Russian Federation was preparing new legislation on import and export 
licensing and on application of standards and the certi fication of imports, these members felt that this 
information should be updated when that legisla tion would be in a more advanced form.  Noting 
further that VAT exemption on exports of oil and natural gas was slated to  expire in 2004, some 
members suggested that the Russian Federation's plans on the revision of its export tariff regime 
should be reflected in the draft Report. 
282. Noting that the Russian Federation had argued that  export duties were levied mainly for fiscal 
purposes, some members expressed concerns that the e ffect of these duties was to discriminate against 
foreign buyers and to raise the level of the expor t 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 lose relative competitiveness on the global market for downstream pr oducts 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 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 86  
 
non-ferrous metals and scrap.  These members expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to phase out export duties under modalities a nd a timetable would need to be established.  
The Russian Federation should also commit that ex port duties would not be applied on other products 
and that, once eliminated, export duties on products  currently affected would not be reintroduced. 
Some members also requested the Russian Federati on to reduce the number of products subject to the 
export duties, especially the products with higher value added (e.g. a coni ferous bonded wood), so 
that the negative impact in trade in such produc ts with higher value added could be minimised. 
283. In response, some members of the Working Party stated that Russia shoul d describe its future 
plans in conjunction with application of export tariffs, VAT, and excise changes to exports.  In 
particular, those members sought confirmation that Russia removed some export duties and information on Russia’s plans in this regard.  In  light of recent improvements in the economic 
situation in the Russian Federation, those memb ers enquired whether the export taxes were still 
necessary to deal with external debt.  Members also  sought clarification as to whether Russia was still 
levying VAT on any exported products, and certain difficulties encountered by traders in using the 
current VAT export refunds procedure.  Some memb ers of the Working Party, however, stated that 
they considered that export duties could play a role as a legitimate tool of trade policy.  
284. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that export duties played an 
import fiscal and regulatory role in the Russian Federation.  Export duties payable on a limited number of goods were introduced as a temporary measu re to respond to a sharp plunge of the Ruble in 
August of 1998 which gave the exporters a significan t edge in the form of  additional income over 
sales of goods on the domestic market to satisfy its i mmediate needs.   He noted that export duties did 
not affect the price at which a commodity was pur chased.  Export permitted the Russian Federation to 
replenish the Budget (which was also required to perform Russia’s international financial 
commitments) and a trade remedy to protect Russian consumers, i.e. addressed both social and 
economic needs.  
285.   He further observed that export duties we re permitted under WTO rules, and that many 
members of the WTO applied export duties as an inst rument of trade policy.  In this regard, his 
country considered that the request of several me mbers that Russia establish a timetable for phase out 
of export duties completely was excessive. 
286. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply from the date of accession export restrictio ns, in particular export duties and VAT, on a 
non-discriminatory basis vis-à-vis all WTO Members without any exemptions.]  
[to be completed]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 87 
 
 
- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas 
287. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that many export bans or export quotas 
had been abolished since 1996.  He noted that Ar ticle 15 of Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 
1995 "On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity " allowed for the imposition of export quotas in 
exceptional cases to ensure essential national interest s of the Russian Federation and implementation 
of its international commitments.  There was no spec ial registration of export contracts or registration 
or nomination of exporting companies (special exporters ).  According to Article 19 of this law, a ban 
on exports could be introduced by special federal laws only. 
288. Noting this statement, some members asked deta ils on the export restrictions abolished in 
1996 and on any other export restriction which mi ght have been abolished since 1996.  These 
members also asked a clarification regarding th e reference to "essential national interests" as a 
justification for export quotas and any possible re lation of this referenc e with relevant WTO 
provisions that referred to essential security interest. 
289. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that according to Article 19 of 
the Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On St ate Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", a 
ban on exportation or importation could only be introduced by Federal Law and for reasons of 
national interest, which consisted of: 
- sustaining public morals and public order; 
- protection of life and health of people, animals and plants and environment on the 
whole; 
- preservation of cultural heritage of peoples of the Russian Federation; 
- protection of cultural values from illegal expor tation, importation or transfer of title; 
- necessity to prevent exhaustion of irreproducib le natural resources, provided that such 
measures are accompanied by a proportionate decrease of domestic production and consumption; 
- national security of the Russian Federation; 
- protection of financial position in foreign trade and maintenance of payment balance 
equilibrium of the Russian Federation; 
- performance of international commitments of the Russian Federation.   
290. Some members of the Working Party noted th at quantitative export restrictions, including 
quotas, bans and non-automatic licensing restrictions  were prohibited by the GATT unless specifically 
justified.  Those members also requested add itional information on the prohibition on export of 
unprocessed precious metals and stones, the quantitative restrictions on export of natural gas (and the 
consistency of both measures with the requirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994), and a list of all 
quantitative restrictions eliminated since 1996.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 88  
 
291. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
abide by WTO provisions in respect of non-automatic export licensing requirements and export 
restrictions and would eliminate upon accession a ll non-automatic licensing requirements and export 
restrictions, unless they could be specifically justified under WTO provisions.] 
- Export Licensing Procedures 
292. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that export licensing procedures in 
operation in the Russian Federation were the same as import licensing in that they were regulated by 
Government Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 199 6 "On the Procedure for Conducting Tenders and 
Auctions for Distribution of Quota upon Introduc tion of Quantitative Restrictions and Licensing of 
Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in th e Russian Federation".  The most sensitive goods 
were subject to non-automatic li censing.  A limited number of goods was subject to automatic 
licensing for the purpose of monitoring of trade flows (Tables 17(a) and 17 b). 
293. Several members of the Workign Party expressed  concerns about the export licensing regime, 
whilst noting that the Russian Federation did not pr esently apply any export q uotas.  Those  members 
considered that a system of non-automatic expor t licensing however applied to a wide range of 
products and that such measures had the potential to be applied in a manner contrary to the general 
prohibition of quantitative restrictions on export pr ovided under Article XI of GATT 1994.  In the 
case of precious metals and stones, the legislation pr oviding for export licensing made the issue of an 
export licence for certain products subject to a quot a (Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 
"On the Procedure of Importation into and Expor tation from the Russian Federation of Precious 
Metals and Precious Stones").  Under that Decree,  exports of platinum were permitted under licence 
within quantitative limits, while exports of precious  metals waste and scrap are prohibited.  While a 
rationale could exist for the application of cer tain controls on exports  under the relevant GATT 
exceptions clauses (including Articles XX and XXI), fo r example in respect of the exports of dual use 
goods, hazardous products, endangered species etc, the ra tionale for such controls on the exports of 
other goods, particularly pharmaceuticals, precious metals and stones other than gold and silver was 
less clear.  Automatic licensing, which was alread y applied for exports of raw hides and skins, 
provided a mechanism to monitor export flows, if this was considered desirable.  However, as 
discretionary controls on these par ticular products are unlikely to meet the relevant criteria of the 
GATT exceptions clauses, it was essential that any li censing regime should be genuinely automatic, in 
order to avoid restrictions on trade. 
294. Several members also requested more information on the procedures followed and fees 
charged in connection with the issuance of export li censes.  They requested confirmation that any fees  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 89 
 
 
charged on exports related to the cost of service rendered in accordance with WTO provisions.  Some 
members questioned whether the restrictions on pr ecious metals and stones, semi-precious stones, 
objects made thereof, certain alloys, semi-fabricates,  ores, concentrates and wastes could be justified 
under the WTO provisions invoked by the Russian au thorities.  These members considered that the 
Russian Federation should provide full explanation of  the measures applied on these products that the 
Russian Federation was seeking to justify unde r Article XV:9(b) of GATT 1994, including a 
description of each measures and their legal basis;  the bodies involved in applying those measures 
including details of their responsibilities; the produc ts affected by each measure; the export licensing 
procedures applicable, including details of any r estrictions on eligibility for export licenses, other 
terms and conditions associated with their issuance, and the procedural aspects of the issuance of such 
licenses; the provisions of the Russian Federation's exchange arrangements with the IMF currently in 
force that required the Russian Federation to adopt  or maintain the measures applied by means of 
non-automatic export licensing that the Russian Federation was seeking to justify under Article 
XV:9(b) of GATT 1994; and the Russ ian Federation's plans to eliminate all measures applied by 
means of non-automatic export licensing that might  be required under those arrangements at the 
conclusion of their term. 
295. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the issuance procedure 
for export licensing was regulated by Government  Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 "On the 
Procedure for Holding Tenders and Auctions for the Sale of Quotas When Introducing Quantitative 
Restrictions and Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in the Russian 
Federation", and the corresponding charges were re gulated by Order No. 363 of 6 August 1999 of the 
Ministry of Trade of the Russian Federation "O n Approval of Regulation on Fixing the Charges for 
Issuance, Reissuance and Extension of Licenses fo r Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services), 
Certificates of Barter Transactions".  Work was currently being conducted in the Russian Federation 
to bring national export licensing legislation into  accordance with WTO disc iplines.  Specifically, 
Federal Law No. 157-FZ, "On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" was being re-edited.  
Following its adoption, corresponding amendments will be made to the Government Resolution 
No. 1299 of 31 October 1996, "On the Procedure for Holding Tenders and Auctions for the Sale of 
Quotas When Introducing Quantitative Restrictions  and Licensing the Export and Import of Goods 
(Works, Services) in the Russian Federation".   
296. He further noted that work was being conduc ted to bring the Russian Federation export 
licensing for precious metals and stones into accord ance with WTO disciplines.   Specifically, a draft 
regulatory document had been prepared on the in troduction of amendments to Presidential Decree 
No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On the Procedure of Importation into and Exportation from the Russian 
Federation of Precious Metals and Precious Stones".  Further, inter-agency consultations were being WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 90  
 
held to make new amendments to the same De cree to reduce the number of licensed goods and 
remove bans on the export of certain types of goo ds.  In addition, a Presidential Decree had been 
drafted on the procedure for the import and export of raw natural diamonds, aimed at the future 
liberalization of international trade involving th is category of goods. He also referred to the 
information contained in the section "R egistration of import/export operations". 
297. Concerning queries by members of the Working Party on export licensing of medicines and 
pharmaceuticals, he noted that pursuant to Govern ment Resolution No. 854 of 06 November 1992,  
the export of medicine raw materials subject to th e issue of a licence by the Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federation in agreement with the Ministry of Health of the 
Russian Federation and the Ministry of Natural Re sources of the Russian Federation.  This measure 
was applied to protect national interests, in cluding both safeguarding animal and vegetable 
environment and the need to protect non-renewabl e natural resources.  He noted, however, that the 
Ministry of Economical Development and Trade had prepared a draft Government Resolution on 
excluding of aforesaid category of products from the list of products subject to licensing. 
298. Some members of the Working Party noted that the Russian Federation had applied 
restrictions on the number of customs checkpoints authorized for the export of specific products, for 
example metal scrap.  In addition to creating poten tial delays and bottlenecks and adding to shipment 
costs, these members were concerned that such restrictions could also act as de facto  trade barriers.  
They asked the Russian Federation to provide an update on steps being taken to increase the number 
of customs checkpoints authorized for the export of specific products, such as metal scrap and forestry 
products.  These members were also concerned th at licensing requirements that govern access to 
pipelines or other distribution networ ks could operate in a manner so as to restrict the volume of oil 
and gas exported from the Russian Federation, and c ould be inconsistent with the requirements of 
Article XI of the GATT 1994.  Management of th ese pipelines was typically the responsibility of a 
State monopoly (Transneft for oil and Gazprom and its affiliate Gazexport for natural gas).  This 
situation raised questions of compatibility with WTO requirements, including Article XI of GATT 
1994.  They requested the Russian Federation to pr ovide further information on the operation of these 
regimes, including on the regime for e xport licensing of energy products.   
299. The representative of the Russian Federation said that there were no licensing requirements 
that govern access to pipelines or other distribution ne twork so as to restrict the volume of gas and oil 
exported from the territory of the Russian Federati on. He also confirmed that there were no export 
licenses requirements for these products.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 91 
 
 
300. In response, members of the Working Party stated they continued to have concerns in relation 
to the licencing of access to oil and gas pipelines for export products.  They reiterated their request for 
additional clarification concerning the statement th at no licencing requirements operated to limt or 
govern access to pipelines or other distribution networ ks in a way that restricted the volume of gas 
and oil exported.  Members of the Working Party also asked the Russian Fe deration to undertake a 
commitment that the Russian Federation would el iminate any quantitative or restrictive licensing 
measures on exports that could not be justified under the WTO Agreements by the date of accession 
and that any such measures applied in future would be in conformity with WTO provisions. 
301. Concerning questions from members on other expo rt restraints, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that trade agreements in specific sectors concluded with several WTO 
Members and falling into the definition of "voluntary  export restraint agreements", covered different 
products such as steel and steel products, certain fer tilizers, textiles and sport weapons.  As it was not 
the intention of the Russian Federation to continue  these agreements which were not in conformity 
with WTO provisions, the Russian Federation intended to propose to its other parties either to bring 
them into conformity with the WTO or to terminat e them as from the date of the Russian Federation' s 
accession to the WTO. He also stated that acce ss to pipelines was considered by the Russian 
Federation to be an issue covered by the provisions of the GATS.   
- Export Financing, Subsidy and Promotion Policies 
302. Members of the Working Party stressed the need  to continue efforts to clarify whether 
benefits provided to certain exporting industries in  the Russian Federation would constitute prohibited 
export subsidies. In particular, some members re quested more information regarding the price and 
availability of natural gas to certain export indust ries vis-à-vis the price and availability to other 
commercial entities within the Russian Federation.   Those members noted the discussions in the 
section entitiled "Pricing Policies" above in this Draft Report, and reiterated that they did not consider 
that the pricing of gas was commercially based.   
303. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that his authorities had not identified 
any export subsidies that would follow within the purview of prohibited export subsidies under the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement. 
304. Some members noted that the Russian Federati on was developing a comprehensive draft Law 
on State Aids that should address these issues and that deal comprehensively with subsidies, i.e., those 
provided for as "revenues foregone" through tax and tari ff exemptions or special pricing policies, as 
well as those provided for in the budget.  These me mbers requested that the Russian Federation  
revise its domestic law/regulations with a view to  elimination of all pr ohibited industrial export WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 92  
 
subsidies from the date of accession.  Those memb ers also requested the Russian Federation to 
describe export and import substitution subsidies, both at  federal and sub-federal levels.  In addition, 
those members sought information on  the subsidy-like  effect of price and availability of natural gas 
to export industries, both in terms of world prices and the price and availability to other commercial 
entities within the Russian Federation.   
305. The representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that the above-mentioned term 
'special pricing policies' was inaccurate and had a wide sense not covered by existing WTO rules.  He 
further stated that the Russian Federation maintained  no prohibited industrial subsidies.  .  He stressed 
that availability and prices for natural gas were not contingent upon the expor t performance,  and were 
based on the non-discrimination principle.  He furthe r characterized the pricin g of gas  as being based 
on commercial considerations.  . 
306. Some members of the Working Party asked to what extent loans provided under Government 
Resolution No. 538 of (date to be supplied) "O n Provisions of Budgetary Loans to Finance the 
Implementation of High-Return Contracts for Produ ction and Supply of Products, Including Export 
Supplies" of 15 May 1999 were contingent upon export performance, and requested clarification 
whether that Resolution had been repealed.  Some  members of the Working Party also noted that 
certain subsidy programs, such as production shar ing agreements, incentives to the automotive and 
civil aircraft industry appeared to constitute prohi bited export subsidies per Article 3(1)(b) of the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.   In addition, aspects of certain rail freight 
tariffs also appeared to conflict with Article 3(1 )(a) of that Agreement.  Members of the Working 
Party requested that the Russian Federation eliminat e all such programs from the date of accession.  
Some members of the Working Part y also requested updated informa tion on subsidies to the coal 
industry, in particular whether any of these subs idies were linked to production and whether any of 
the subsidies contingent upon export performance.  Members also requested detailed information on 
the draft Law on State Aids.   
307. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the draft law "On State 
Aid" was currently being prepared.   The draft law set conditions for the grant and use of state aid.  "State aid" was defined as direct transfer of financial resources, issuance of  loan guarantees, revenue 
foregone by the state (tax advantages, soft loans), provision of goods or services by the government 
other than general infrastructure, other forms of reve nue and prices support.   The draft also prohibited 
certain types of state aid, such as those conditional on exportation or import substitution. 
308. In relation to questions concerning supports to  the coal industry he noted that any such 
supports were carried out in accordance with the prog ram of restructuring of the coal sector aimed at  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 93 
 
 
acceleration of transfer to non-subsidised activities,  enforcement of government control and higher 
effectiveness of use of state resources.  No expo rt subsidies of any kind within the definition of 
Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Coun tervailing Measures were available to the coal 
industry.   
309. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would not maintain subsidies, including export subsidies which met the definition 
of a prohibited subsidy, within the meaning of  Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, and Article XVI of th e GATT 1994 and that it would not introduce such 
prohibited subsidies in the future, and that export financing and other export promotion policies would 
be operated in conformity with WTO provisions.  He  further confirmed that this commitment covered 
subsidies at all levels of government, including exemptions, reductions, deferrals of forgiveness of 
taxes and duties to enterprises which were conti ngent upon export performance.  He also confirmed 
that the Russian Federation would not invoke any of the provisions of Articles 27, 28 or 29 of the Agreement of Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.] 
[to be completed] 
- Other Customs Formalities 
310. A member of the Working Party expressed concer n about the Russian Federation's practice of 
maintaining only a very limited number of custom s checkpoints authorized for exportation of certain 
products and also the practice to close promptly certain customs checkpoints, thus creating serious 
impediments to trade. Some members of the Worki ng Party requested further clarification on the SCC 
Decree No. 1002 of 19 December 2001 "On Appointing Exportation Check-Points" which stipulated 
the customs clearance checkpoints that might be used for exportation of certain timber products by rail or road.  A member noted th at this Decree had been provisionally amended on 14 January 2002 to 
include customs clearance checkpoints at its country  borders with the Russian Federation and asked 
whether the Russian Federation intended to make a definitive amendment to SCC Decree No. 1002 so 
as to avoid possible trade distorting effects.  Anot her member asked an information on the sorts of 
timber products covered by the Russian measures and a clarification on whether this restricted use of checkpoints for exports would al so cover additional products. 
311. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that SCC Order No. 1002 of 
19 October 2001 "On Appointing Exportation Check-P oints" for certain types of timber products 
(codes of Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of Russia: from 4401 10 000 0 
fuel wood in the form of logs and lumber; 4403;  from 4404 chopped wood, piles and spiles, sharpened WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 94  
 
but not length sawed; 4406; 4407; 4409) currently did not apply as provided for by a special 
instruction of SCC  of 11 February 2002 No. TF-3705-3713. 
312. Other members of the Working Party raised concerns about SCC Order No. 1219 "On 
Defining Places for the Customs Formalization and E xport of Ferrous and Non- Ferrous Metals Scrap 
and Wastes" of 27 December 2000 which provided that  non-ferrous and ferrous metal scrap could be 
exported only through the seaports of the Russian Fe deration.   Those members requested the Russian 
Federation to ensure that these and other measures related to exportation would be brought in full 
conformity with WTO provisions upon accession. 
313. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that SCC Order No. 1219 
1219 "On Defining Places for the Customs Formaliza tion and Export of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous 
Metals Scrap and Wastes"  of 27 December 2000 (as amended on 5 July, 21 December 2001 and 
9 April 2002) was enacted to bring into order th e shifting across the customs border of the Russian 
Federation of the scrap and the wastes of ferr ous and non-ferrous metals  exported out of the 
boundaries of the customs territory of the Russian Fede ration.  This Order contained a wide list of sea 
points (61 points) for crossing the customs borde r of the Russian Federation to export above 
mentioned commodities.  He stressed that the provisi ons of this Order were not to applied to the 
above-mentioned commodities exported out of the cust oms territory of the Russian Federation by rail 
transport through the crossing points defined by this Order (21 points).  In the view of the Russian Federation the above-mentioned me asures constituted neither serious impediments to trade nor 
violation of WTO rules. 
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods 
- Industrial policy, including subsidy policies 
314. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that under current Russian legislation the 
following types of state support (financial contribution) were available:  (i) direct transfers of 
budgetary funds, including those under federal targeted  and investment programs;  (ii) grants and 
subventions (earmarked grants) to regions;  (iii) budgetary loans, credits and guarantees;  and (iv) 
deferred payments and exemptions with respect to pa yable taxes.  Tariff preferences with respect to  
goods and services produced by natural monopolies could also be granted by decisions of federal and 
regional tariff regulating authorities.  Total state support averaged US$12 billion a year, including 
US$10 billion from the federal budget (average data for 1997-1999).  Support was accorded both at 
federal and regional levels.  Direct  transfers constituted th e main element of state support to industrial 
production sector (around 40 per cent).  Such support was concentrated in the coal mining industry 
and it was mainly targeting social and restructuring needs.  The remaining amount of direct transfers  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 95 
 
 
was provided for under federal targeted programs,  38 per cent of which destined to programs 
(projects) associated with the development of industrial production. At pr esent, no budget subsidies 
existed in the Russian Federation which c ould be considered as export subsidies. 
315. He added that financial contribution to the regi ons of the Russian Federation did not directly 
related to the development of industrial production, but was aime d at reducing re gional financial 
disparities.  The bulk of transfers was provided on the basis of objective indicators characterizing 
social situation in the regions (82.5 per cent of the total amount).  The rest was paid for deliveries of 
supplies of food and fuel to Far North areas (11.5 pe r cent) and special ("closed ") territorial areas.  
The same forms of state support to industrial prod uction sectors were used by the subjects of the 
Russian Federation.  Such support mostly aimed at the financial rehabilitation of enterprises, 
resolution of social problems, and reimbursement of  losses.  Less than 6 per cent of the total amount 
of support was destined to production development. 
316. Noting that WTO rules on subsidies covered st ate benefits given through revenues foregone, 
(such as tax exemptions) as well as those financed  through budgetary allocations, some members felt 
that the Russian Federation appeared to address the i ssue of prohibited subsidies (notwithstanding that 
export subsidies could also be administered as ta x concessions), but did not address that of other 
industrial subsidies that should be notified under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  They requested upda ted information on the Russian Federation's 
comprehensive draft law on State Aids, including a description of its purpose, scope and provisions, 
and an indication of when it might be implemente d. Some members asked details regarding current 
subsidies paid to the coal sector and other sector al sectors such as the automobile and aircraft 
industries as well as the Russian Federation's plans to  eliminate them. These members also questioned 
whether or not budget subsidies currently exis ted in the Russian Federation which could be 
considered export subsidies (whilst noting the sect ion "Export Financing, Subsidy and Promotion 
Policies" above in this Draft Report).  
317. Several members asked the Russian Federation to confirm that any subsidy programs would 
be administered in line with the WTO Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, whether 
at the national, sub-national, regional or local le vel, and that upon accession all necessary information 
on programs to be notified, if such programs ex isted, would be provided to the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in accord ance with Article 25 of the Agreement. 
318. In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that the provision of subsidies 
in the Russian Federation was regulated by budget legi slation and tax legislation.  The preparation of 
the specific legislation regulating provision of s ubsidies (the State Aid Law) was still under way and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 96  
 
being re-drafted.  The new legislation would cover all potential subsidies subject to WTO rules, but 
would unlikely interfere with the Tax Code.  The fina l draft legislation should be fully consistent with 
respective WTO regulations, including the ban on the prohibited industrial export subsidies under 
WTO rules.   
319. Concerning questions on the coal industry, the representative of the Russian Federation 
further added that per the resolution of the Govern ment of 03.12.1997 No/1523 "On state financing of 
restructuring of the coal industry" the main direc tions of current supports were measures to enhance 
social security of employees and secure conditi ons of work in coal mining and liquidation of 
particularly loss-making mines.  No resources were a llocated for export subsidies. He stated that those 
directions would be retained in the future.  In document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 he provided details 
of the amounts of the subsidies paid between 2000 and 2002. He further noted that since 2002 the 
federal budget did not provide production supports.  
320. In response to further questions he noted that  pursuant to Decision No. 538 of 15 May 1999 
of the Government of the Russian Federation "O n Provisions of Budgetary Loans to Finance the 
Implementation of High-Return Contracts for Produ ction and Supply of Products, Including Export 
Supplies” loans equal to 50.0 million rubles ha d been granted from the federal budget to OAO 
"Rostselmash" in 1999.  In 2000-2002 that Decisi on was not in force and no funds were granted from 
the federal budget.  In the 2001 – 2002 federal budge t federal credit arrangements were provided on a 
competitive basis for realization of investment projec ts in coal industry.  Thereupon the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian Federation had concluded ag reements, in the amount of 1,234 billion rubles, 
on investment projects in the coal industry on a co mpetitive basis.  In the period 2001 – 2002 426,8 
million rubles was actually used: in 2001 – 80 million rubles, and in 2002 – 346,8 million 
rubles.Some members stated that the Russian Fede ration should  recognize that tariff preferences or 
natural monopoly pricing could constitute a subs idy under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  These members asked the Russian Federation to provide a description of 
the existing pricing mechanisms and any reforms unde r way to bring domestic prices for oil, natural 
gas and electricity closer to world market prices.  In particular, those members requested that the 
Russian Federation provide details of the recent refo rms of the pricing of electricity to commercial 
consumers.   
321. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation pointed out that his authorities 
continued to believe that tariff preferences or na tural monopoly pricing did not constitute a subsidy 
under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Count ervailing Measures.  Regarding domestic prices 
for oil, natural gas and electricity, he referred to  his statement in the section "Pricing Policies"  
(above) of this Draft Report.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 97 
 
 
322. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that for a ll federal and regional 
subsidy measures identified, the Russian Federation would revise its domestic law or regulations to 
eliminate prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures from the date of accession.  He further confirmed that the Russian Federation would, upon accession, grant no subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over 
imported goods in the meaning of Article 3: 1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that this commitment woul d cover subsidies at all levels of government, 
including exemptions, reductions, deferrals or fo rgiveness of taxes and du ties to enterprises which 
were contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over imported goods.  He also 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would admini ster any subsidy programs in place or established 
after accession in conformity with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
and that all necessary information on programs be notified (if such pr ograms existed) and be provided 
to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing M easures in accordance with Article 25 of the 
Agreement upon entry into force of the Russian Federation's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.] 
[to be completed] 
Technical Regulations and Standards, Including Measures Taken at the Border with Respect to 
Imports 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
323. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that the State Committee of the Russian 
Federation for Standardization and Metrology (Gosst andart of Russia) was the federal authority for 
standardization, metrology and certification matter s.  Gosstandart acted directly or through its 
subordinate centres for standardization, metrology and certification and state inspectors, performing 
surveillance over technical regulations  and providing uniformity in the units of measure.  The task of 
developing State standards of the Russian Federati on, and of participating in the development of 
international and regional tec hnical regulations and standard s, was fulfilled by technical 
standardization committees.  
324. The legal framework for the regulation of matte rs pertaining to standardization, metrology 
and certification was established under the following legislative acts: Federal Law No. 5154-1 of 10 
June 1993 "On Standardization" (as amended and supplemented on 27 December 1995);  Federal Law 
No. 4871-1 of 27 April 1993 "On Provision of Un iformity of Units of Measure"; Federal Law 
No. 5151-1 of 10 June 1993 "O n Certification of Products and Services" (as amended and 
supplemented on 27 December 1995, 2 March, and 31 July 1998); Federal Law No. 2300-1 of 
7 February 1992 "On Protection of Consumer  Rights" (as amended and supplemented of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 98  
 
17 December 1999);  Government Resolution No. 1 00 of 12 February 1994 "On Organization of 
Works in Standardization, Provision of Uniformity of  Units of Measure, Certification of Products and 
Services";  Government Resolution No. 113 of 2 February 1998 "On Certain Measures to Improve 
Systems of Ensuring Quality of Products and Services"; Government Resolution No. 1212 of 
1 November 1999 "On Development of a Uniform System of Classification and Encoding of Technical and Economic and Social Information";  Government Resolution No. 26 of 11 January 
2000 "On Federal System of Cataloguing Produc ts Procured for Federal State Needs"; and 
Government Resolution No. 514 of 6 July 2001 "O n Accreditation of Organizations Performing 
Assessment of Conformity of Products, Production Processes and Services to the Existing Quality and 
Safety Requirements". 
325. Under that legislative framework, products im ported into the territory of the Russian 
Federation should meet technical, pharmacological, sa nitary, veterinary, phytosanitary and ecological 
standards and requirements determined by the Russian  Federation.  In partic ular, imports of products 
into the territory of the Russian Federation were rest ricted if the products in question did not meet the 
legislative requirements; they did not have a certific ate, marking or a corresponding sign in the cases 
envisaged by federal laws and other legal acts of th e Russian Federation; or they were banned for use 
as harmful consumer goods. 
326. The Russian authorities determined the nomenclature of products and services subject to 
mandatory certification in the Russian Federation.  Products subject to mandatory certification were 
listed in Government Resolution No. 1013 of 13 August 1997 (as amended on 24 May 2000) "On the 
Approval of the List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification and the List of Works and Services 
Subject to Mandatory Certification" (as amended on  24 May 2000).  Gosstandart was in charge of 
organizing and implementing mandatory certification re quirements. In cases envisaged by legislative 
acts of the Russian Federation with respect to certain types of products, this task could be entrusted to 
other governmental bodies of the Russian Federati on.  The forms of mandatory certification of 
products were determined by Gosstandart or ot her authorized governmental bodies of the Russian 
Federation with due regard to est ablished international practices.  Government Resolution No. 287 of 
29 April 2002 "On the Amendments to the List of G oods Subject to Mandatory Certification, to the 
List of Works and Services Subject to Mandatory Certification and to the List of Products Whose 
Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity Decl aration" substantially reduced the list of goods 
subject to mandatory certification. 
327. He noted that work on mandatory certification of goods in the GOST R certification system 
was currently conducted by foreign certification authorities and test laboratories accredited in 
accordance with the established procedure, as we ll as by Russian authorities and laboratories.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 99 
 
 
Certification authorities and test laboratories were accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC Guideline 5 
and ISO/IEC Standard 17025, the procedure being uniformly applicable to Russian and to foreign 
certification authorities and laboratories.  The list of accredited certification authorities and test 
laboratories was published on Gosstandart's webpage, at www.gost.ru. 
328. The list of goods for which safety might be c onfirmed by declaration of conformity was 
provided in Government Resolution No. 766 of 7 July 1999 "On Approval of the List of Products 
Whose Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity  Declaration". Conformity of products subject 
to mandatory certification could be confirmed by a conformity certificate issued by certification authorities, or a declaration of conformity regist ered with the certification authority.  Such a 
certificate should be submitted to customs authorities together with the cargo customs declaration, and 
was necessary to obtain permission for importing the products in question into the Russian Federation.  
The recognition of certificates issued by the suppl ying country was carried out by reference to 
interstate agreements and intern ational certification systems to which the Russian Federation had 
acceded.  The fees connected to certification of products and services, including certification tests, were payable as provided for under the certifica tion rules "Payment for Works Involved in 
Certification of Products and Services" issued by the Ministry of Finance and registered with the 
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.  The Appeal Commission of Gosstandart was regulated 
by its charter and had been set up for the purpose of considering complaints by users concerning the 
performance of certification authorities, testing laboratories (centres), certification experts and 
applicants, monitoring, use of conformity mark, issuance, suspension and cancellation of certificates, 
licenses, and other related issues.   
329. He noted that all work related to conform ity with the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS was 
conducted under the provisions of the Inter-Agency Program of Measures to Ensure Compliance with 
the Requirements of the WTO Agreement on TBT and the WTO Agreement on SPS.  Gosstandart, 
jointly with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, had drafted 
measures aimed at further harmonizing the existi ng legislation with the requirements of WTO 
Agreements on TBT and SPS.  The draft framework law implementing these measures provided the following main approaches based on the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TBT:  (i) issues of 
safety and quality of products would be regulated by legal acts, i.e. technical regulations providing 
binding specifications with respect to goods and their production processes;  (ii) national standards 
would be developed, as a rule, pursuant to an inte rnational counterpart as voluntary standards;  (iii) 
conformity confirmation procedures would be rec onciled with international rules and would be a 
constituent part of a technical regulation, provi ding the producer with a choice of different 
confirmation schemes depending on the degree of poten tial danger of the products;  (iv) legislative 
support would be obtained through a single enquiry point open to customers, including international WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 100  
 
customers, and containing all available documents  and documents in progress;  (v) the draft law 
provided that the cost of mandatory conformity confirmation would be based on uniform rules of 
price fixation for identical or similar products and on the basis of uniform principles reflecting the 
actual value of incurred expenses.  The require ments of technical regulations, standards and 
procedures of mandatory conformity confirmation we re applied in the Russian Federation uniformly 
to Russian and imported goods. 
330. He further stated that, after the adoption of th is law, his authorities intended to examine the 
adjoining legislation and, if necessary, define th e ensuing amendments. In addition, in 2002 his 
authorities intended to issue federal laws "On Ac creditation" and "On Cataloguing".  Simultaneously, 
draft state standards would be developed based on the direct application of corresponding international standards.  Voluntary application of such state standards should ensure compliance with 
the requirements of technical regulations.  As techni cal regulations for various types of products were 
also being developed and taking effect, all state st andards (both existing and newly developed) would 
be transformed to non-binding instruments by re vision, cancellation or adoption of new standards. 
331. He also recalled that, for the purposes of impl ementing the provisions of the WTO Agreement 
on TBT, which required harmonizati on of national standards with th eir international counterparts, 
since 1997 and subject to state standardization plans, his authorities had developed and implemented state standards, over 50 per cent of which were  already harmonized with their international 
counterparts.  The overall level of  harmonization of domestic standard s with international standards 
was currently about 35 per cent.  While the draft framework law was not yet operational, Gosstandart 
was working on the exclusion of certain types of products from the range of goods subject to mandatory certification, and on the reclassification of  certain types of products so as to allow their 
conformity confirmation by a declaration of conform ity (quality system certificate, tests protocol of 
the accredited laboratory).  The Single Enquiry Point contemplated under the WTO Agreements on 
TBT and SPS had been established to provide the Russian and foreign customers with access to 
Russian legal provisions, standards, rules and conf ormity confirmation procedures. The enquiry point 
was located within Gosstandart of the Russi an Federation at the following address: 
Russian Federation 
4, Granatniy Pereulok,  103001, Moscow e-mail : ENPOINT@VNIIKI.RU website – http://www.ricwto.ru Tel/Fax: (007 095) 230 25 98 
332. At a later stage he noted that in order to im plement the requirements of the WTO Agreements 
on TBT and SPS with respect to the notification of  draft regulatory documents, GOST R 1.13-2001  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 101 
 
 
"State Standardization System of the Russian Federation - The Procedure for Preparation of 
Notifications of Draft Regulatory Documents" had been enacted and published in November 2001.  
This regulation provided the framework requireme nts and procedures for filling in the notification 
forms with respect to draft regulatory document s produced pursuant to WTO Agreements on TBT and 
SPS.  Since 2000, Gosstandart had published a regul ar (quarterly) "Newsletter (Vestnik) of the 
Russian Enquiry Point", which contained such re gulatory documents and reference materials as 
required by the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS.  Draft documents were also published in the 
Newsletter.  In order to provide an adequate leve l of transparency on any measures taken, a web-page 
was created on the Internet by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and Gosstandart 
(http://www.gost.ru/) containing plans for development of standards, draft laws, other draft regulatory 
acts, and other required documents pursuant to WT O Agreement on TBT.  During 2002, this page 
would be supplemented with documents  and information in English.   
333. Several members noted that, so far, the Russi an authorities had provided a general outline of 
current elements of the Russian Federation's system  of standards and certification, without including 
detailed information on the required institutional arrangements.  The Russian Federation's effort to 
amend the current system in order to ensure eff ective and ongoing complianc e with TBT obligations 
also remained to be reviewed.  In this regard, these members asked the Russian Federation to provide 
an updated checklist on steps currently under ways in  the Russian Federation to implement the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade including copies of the latest draft legislation in this area.  
Noting further that the Russian authorities were in the process of developing new or amended laws on 
Standardization, Metrology, and Conformity A ssessment whose provisions would address a number 
of the concerns expressed by the Working Party w ith the Russian Federation's current TBT regime, 
many members felt that this new additional legi slation might go a long way towards reforming the 
present system to prevent unnecessary technical barri ers to trade.  Concerns, however, remained 
regarding the level of harmonization of domestic standards with international standards as the current 
35 per cent level was considered far too low.  In th is regard, these members asked to be informed on 
the respective international standards that woul d serve as e reference for the harmonization of 
domestic standards and whether there were an y relevant product sectors where the respective 
domestic standards would not be subject to harmonization with international standards. 
334. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that ISO, IEC MSE, EEC UN, 
the Codex Alimentarius, European norms and the internationally accepted ASTM and BAE standards 
were used as basic international standards.  The draft law "On F undamentals of Technical Regulation 
in the Russian Federation"  took into account the provisions of the Code of Good Practice.  This draft 
law did not envisage industry standards as standardiz ation documents.  Therefore, upon the adoption 
of the law, all existing industry standards must be  adopted either as national standards or as standards WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 102  
 
of research-technology and public organizations.  Subj ects of the Russian Federation had no standards 
of their own. 
335. Some members asked for a description on how the new legislation would address concerns 
such as the need for clarity in th e Russian Federation' s legislation on TBT, for additional horizontal 
guidance to authorities on their development and a pplication of technical regulations, for additional 
transparency and enhanced due process regulations , and for action to bring fees for conformity 
assessment services into line with WTO provisions. Other examples of measures which required 
further description included establishing a clear dis tinction between compulsory technical regulations 
and voluntary standards, ending the coexistence of various categories of so-c alled 'standards' and the 
existence of compulsory elements in the standard s (with no exceptions), aligning with international 
standards (unless there were justified exemptions) a nd participating in international standards bodies, 
assuring openness and transparency in the drafting of t echnical regulations, standards, etc., and clearly 
defining the products subject to mandatory certifi cation while assuring proportionality in conformity 
assessment measures and consistency of certifi cation procedures applied to the same products. 
336. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the recently enacted law 
"On Fundamentals of Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation"  set forth that the federal 
technical regulation authority should confirm and pub lish in its official publication a list of national 
standards ensuring compliance with the requirements of technical regulations, so the voluntary application of state standards would lead to an assu mption of conformity to technical regulations.  He 
further noted that this  law envisaged a seven-year transitional period during which all mandatory 
requirements of standards must be transferred into technical regulations, and standards transferred to 
the voluntary category.  Under this draft, the princi ple of using international standards as a framework 
for developing national standards applied equally to all types of goods with the exception of cases 
where this was impossible due to special climactic or geographical conditions, and as a result of 
technical or technological differences.  
337. Some members considered that the Russian Fede ration should further describe its intentions 
to clarify and institutionalize the responsibilities of the various national agencies in implementing the 
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,  including the designation of an authority 
responsible for overall implementa tion and, more generally, the practical arrangements in place to 
ensure compliance of measures covered with WTO re levant provisions.  These members also sought a 
commitment that the Russian Federation woul d implement the WTO Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade upon accession.  They also sought to  obtain relevant information and commitments 
by the Russian Federation regarding adherence of  standards setting bodies to Annex 3 of the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and comp liance of sub-federal bodies with the provisions  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 103 
 
 
of this Agreement.  Some members expressed conc erns that the Russian Federation was seeking a 
seven year transition period to reach full confor mity with the Agreement on TBT.  Those members 
stated that such a long period was difficult to accep t in the absence of specific and detailed plans for 
ensuring full conformity by the end of that period.   
338. Members of the Working Party noted the importance of a fully WTO compliant TBT regime.  
They noted that despite the detailed and extensive concerns transmitted to the Russian Federation (in 
particular in document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29, 32 a nd 33) the current situation on reform of the 
TBT regime was unclear.  Those members reiterate d that a non-compliant TBT regime could have a 
very adverse direct impact upon market access concessions.   
339. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation clarified that the new law was 
consistent with, and had already enacted into Russian domestic law the requirements of the TBT 
Agreement.  The above-mentioned seven year "t ransition" period concerned a maximum period for 
the program for modification of all existing standard s and regulations into full conformity with the 
new law.  In response to further concerns, he expl ained that the new law was a framework or enabling 
act that established a new (WTO consistent) regime  for TBT.  Many thousands of individual standards 
had been created under the previous framework and re quired repeal or modification.  Until that work 
was completed it was necessary to maintain some of th e prior standards in order to ensure that a legal 
vacuum did not result.   
340. In response to further requests for a compre hensive description of the newly established 
regime and the authorities responsible for its im plementation, the representative of the Russian 
Federation provided a detailed ch ecklist on TBT requirements and compliance by Russia in document 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/13/Rev.4 of 17 March 2003 as well as Checklists of Technical Barriers to 
Trade and Sanitary and Phytosanita ry Issues in the Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO – 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/13/Rev.3 of 18 Octo ber 2002, and Annexes 1 and 2 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29/Add.1 of 21 January 2003.   
341. He also noted that under the new regime, th e State Committee of the Russian Federation for 
Standardization and Metrology (G osstandart of Russia) would be the federal authority for 
standardization, metrology and certification matters.  Gosstandart of Russia acted directly or through 
its subordinate centres for standardization, me trology and certification and state inspectors, 
performing surveillance functions in respect of St ate standards and providing uniformity in the units 
of measure.  
342. He noted that the new regime had been es tablished by the Fede ral Law “On Technical 
Regulation” No. 184-FZ signed into law by the Presi dent of the Russian Federation on 27 December WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 104  
 
2002 provides the new legal framework for tec hnical regulations, standards and conformity 
assessment systems. The Federal Law provided the following main approaches based on the 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on TBT: (i) issu es of safety and quality of products would be 
regulated by legal acts, i.e. technical regulations providing binding specifications with respect to 
goods and their production processes wh ich would take the form of a law, a Government resolution, 
or, in exceptional cases, a Presidential decree, and be  based on the applicable international standards 
as required by paragraph 2.4 of the TBT Agreement; (ii) national sta ndards would have the status of 
voluntary standards and be developed, as a gene ral rule, based on the corresponding international 
counterpart;  (iii) conformity procedures would be reconciled with internati onal rules and would be 
included in a technical regulation providing the producer with a choice of different conformity schemes depending on the degree of potential danger of the products;  (iv) information support would 
be done through a single enquiry point open; (v) the Federal Law provided the main principles of 
assessment of the cost of conformity assessment  system. The method for calculating the cost of 
mandatory conformity assessment was determined by the Government of the Russian Federation and 
was based on uniform fees rules for identical or similar products irrespective of the country and/or 
place of origin or the identity of the appli cant. The Federal Law provided a mechanism for 
development and adoption of technical regula tions including notification procedures.  
343. He further noted that the new Federal Law also foresaw the implementation of the rules of the 
Code of Good Practice (of the TBT Agreement) in  standardisation. Standards of the Russian 
Federation Regions and indus try (sectoral) standards were not addressed in the said Law. All existing 
sectoral standards would be transformed into nationa l standards or standards of organizations during 
the transition period (7 years) provided by the Law. During this transitional period requirements as regards production, produ ction processes, exploitation, storage, transportation, sale and utilization 
established by the normative acts of the Russian Fe deration and government agencies are subject to 
obligatory implementation only to the extent to meet the following goals: 
- protection of life or health of people, property of physical or legal persons, state or municipal 
property, 
- protection of environment, life or health of animals and plants 
- prophylactics of activities which may violate inte rests of consumers (art. 46.1 of the Law) 
 
344. He further noted that in accordance with the new Federal Law, produc ts imported into the 
territory of the Russian Federation were to me et technical, pharmacological, sanitary, veterinary, 
phytosanitary and ecological standards and requireme nts determined by the Russian Federation.  In 
particular, imports of products into the territory of the Russian Federation were restricted, if the 
products in question did not meet the legislative re quirements; were not accompanied by a certificate, 
did not bear the required marking in the instances envi saged by federal laws and other legal acts of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 105 
 
 
Russian Federation; or were banned for use as harmful consumer goods.  Products subject to 
mandatory certification were listed in Gove rnment Resolution No. 1013 of 13 August 1997 (as 
amended on 24 May 2000) "On the Approval of the List  of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification 
and the List of Works and Services Subject to Mandatory Certification" (as amended on 24 May 2000).  Mandatory certification was performed by th e Gostandart and other relevant governmental 
bodies of the Russian Federation. The Russian Fede ration applied  technical  regulations, standards 
and conformity confirmation procedures e qually to Russian and imported products. 
345. In response to concerns raised by members about the current system for recognition of 
certificates of conformity issued by exporting countries,  he also stated that recognition of certificates 
issued by the supplying countries was granted based  on interstate agreemen ts and international 
certification systems to which the Russian Federation had acceded.  The fees for certification of 
products and services, including certification t ests, were payable as provided for under the 
certification rules "Payment for Works Involved in Certification of Products and Services" approved 
by Gosstandart of Russia upon agreement with the Ministry of Finance and registered with the 
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Wo rk on mandatory certification of goods in the GOST 
R certification system was conducted by duly accredited foreign certification authorities and test 
laboratories, as well as by Russian authorities and laboratories.  Certification authorities and test laboratories were accredited in  accordance with ISO/IEC Guideline 5 and ISO/IEC Standard 17025, 
the procedure being uniformly applicable to Russian and to foreign certification authorities and 
laboratories.  The list of accredited certificati on authorities and test laboratories was posted on 
Gosstandart's webpage, at www.gost.ru. The Appeal Commission was formed at Gosstandart for the 
purpose of considering complaints from users concer ning actions of certification authorities, testing 
laboratories (centres), certification experts and applic ants relating to certification, monitoring, use of 
conformity mark, issuance, suspension and cancellation of certificates, licenses, and other related 
issues.  
346. Regarding requirements on forgery-proof marks fo r electric appliances, a member noted that 
on 30 December 1998 the Ministry of Trade and Goss tandard had issued Instruction No. 200/30 (title 
to be supplied) under which manufacturers of these pr oducts were required to affix a conformity mark 
on their products, importers and/or dealers were required to affix a registration information mark on 
the box (to be purchased in advance from each re gional Trade Inspection Department), and sellers 
and/or retailers were required to affix a registration information mark on each product.  As a result, 
this member maintained that foreign manufacturers were obliged to purchase three different kind of 
marks for their products, resulting in an unnecessary burden for their business.  He requested the 
Russian Federation to eliminate th ese requirements as soon as possible. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 106  
 
347. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade from the date of 
accession without recourse to any transition period.] 
[to be completed] 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
348. Referring to sanitary measures, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the 
Department on State Sanitary and Epidemiological Surveillance ("Gossanepidnadzor") of the Ministry 
of Health (MOH) was the federal executive aut hority in charge of ensuring sanitary and 
epidemiological well-being of the population.  Prot ection of human health was currently regulated by 
Federal Law No. 5487-1 of 23 June 1993 "Fundament als of Health Legislation of the Russian 
Federation";  Federal Law  No . 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-
Being of the Population"; Government Resolution No . 554 of 24 July 2000 approved "Regulations of 
the State Sanitary and Epidemiol ogical Service of the Russian Federation" and "Regulations on State 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Standardization";  an d terms and provisions of other federal laws and 
resolutions of the Government of the Russian Fede ration concerning provision of safety of goods and 
products for human health and environment (e.g. Fe deral Laws "On Environmental Protection";  "On 
Consumer Rights Protection";  and "On Quality and Safety of Food Products").  Under the current 
legislation, goods produced by domestic manufactur ers and sold on the territory of the Russian 
Federation should comply with sanitary norms and hygiene standards. Sanitary norms and hygiene 
standards for foodstuffs should be science-based.  L eading scientific-research in stitutes of the Russian 
Academy of Medical Sciences, departments of me dical colleges and other interested institutions 
should participate in their development. Existing sanitary rules and hygiene standards for foodstuffs 
should be harmonized with directives and recommen dations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
Under the legislation, an applicant had the right to appeal a decision of Gossanepidnadzor through 
administrative or judicial procedures.  The proce dure for sanitary-and-epidemiological examination of 
products, types of products and for issuing a sanitary -and-epidemiological report on the conformity of 
products with state sanitary-and-epidemiological  rules and norms were established under the 
Procedure for Conduct of a Sanitary-and-Epidemio logical Examination of Products, approved by 
MOH Order №325 of August 15, 2001 with  amendments and additions approved by the Order №84 
of March 18, 2002. This Order contained a list of  products subject to sanitary-and-epidemiological 
examination.  A sanitary and epidemiological repor t ascertaining the conformity of products was valid 
throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 107 
 
 
349. He further noted that all products produced in and imported into the territory of the Russian 
Federation for distribution to the population and/or  use in industrial production, agriculture, civil 
construction development, for tr ansport requiring direct human involvement, or for private and 
household use, had to conform to the requirements of sanitary and epidemiological rules, norms and hygienic standards (Articles 13, 15, 16 of Fede ral Law No. 52-FZ).  Such conformity should be 
confirmed by a sanitary-epidemiological approval or a registration certificate.  A sanitary and 
epidemiological report was not confirmation of  conformity of products and goods with the 
requirements of sanitary legislation (this was the r esponsibility of the producer or supplier), but only a 
statement that the certain type of product was in c onformity with the sanitary legislation, under strict 
implementation of established requi rements and rules during production, transportation, storage and 
sale of products.  As a rule, hygienic assessment of imported products had to be performed prior to 
delivery of products into the territory of the Russi an Federation.  Imports of products that had not 
passed a prior hygienic assessment procedure had to be subjected to hygienic examination resulting in 
a hygienic report valid for such particular consignm ent only.  At a later stage, he noted that In 
accordance with the Federal Law "On Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation" dated 
December 27, 2002 № 184-FZ all  mandatory  requirements would be set forth in technical regulations 
(general and specific ones). Corresponding amendm ents and additions would be made to the 
legislative acts in force be in compliance with this Federal Law.” 
350. He further noted that Government Resolu tion No. 987 of 21 December 2000, "On State 
Surveillance and Control in Ensuring the Quality a nd Safety of Foodstuffs" distinguished between the 
functions of the authorities and institutions of the State Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation 
and the State Sanitary and Epidemiological Serv ice of the Russian Federation for the conduct of 
expert reviews of animal products.  A sanitary and epidemiological conclusion on imported goods was 
confirmation of their conformity with the requireme nts of sanitary legislation.  When goods were 
exported, the State Veterinary Service of the Ru ssian Federation should certify that animal products 
were safe from a veterinary viewpoint and complied with veterinary norms and requirements.  The 
veterinary certificate could not be duplicated. 
351. The representative of the Russian Federation emphasized that Federal Laws No. 52-FZ of 30 
March 1999, "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellb eing of the Population", No. 29-FZ of 2 January 
2000, "On Quality and Safety of Foodstuffs", Gove rnment Resolution No. 988 of 21 December 2000, 
"On the State Registration of New Foodstuffs, Ma terials and Items" imposed uniform requirements 
when conducting state registration of new foodstuffs , materials and items newly developed and first 
produced in the territory of the Russian Federati on (Russian goods), and for goods imported into the 
Russian Federation for the first time.  State registration of imported foodstuffs was under the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 108  
 
competence of the MOH.  Approval of the MOA was required only for approval of a specific product 
of animal origin. 
352. He further noted that a registration certificate wa s issued for any type of product for the whole 
period of industrial production in the case of Russian products, or the period of supplies in the case of 
imported products.  State registration of potentiall y hazardous substances and types of products was 
performed by the MOH and, in the case of new f ood products of animal origin, by the MOH in 
conjunction with the MOA (Government Resolution No. 262 of 4 April 2001 "On State Registration 
of Certain Types of Products Presenting Potential Threat for Human Life and Health and Certain 
Types of Products First Imported to the Territory of the Russian Federation";  Government Resolution 
No. 987 of 21 December 2000 "On State Surveillan ce and Control in Ensuring Quality and Safety of 
Food Products";  and Government Resolution No.9 88 of 21 December 2000 "On State Registration of 
New Food Products, Materials and Items").  Lists of products subject to state registration were 
attached to the above Resolutions.  Requirements a nd criteria with respect to safety of products for 
human health and the environment pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 of Federal Law No. 52-FZ were implemented by state sanitary and epidemiological rules and norms 
which were regulatory legal acts and binding on a ll citizens, individual entrepreneurs and legal 
entities.  All regulations within the territory of  the Russian Federation were implemented through 
federal rules approved and enacted by the MOH.   
353. He further specified that pursuant to Article 14 of Federal Law No. 52-FZ, chemical, 
biological substances and certain types of produc ts presenting potential human hazards were allowed 
for production, transportation, procurement, storage, sale and use only after their state registration based on the results of research, tests and examination.  Federal Law No. 52-FZ (Article 43) also provided that chemical and biological substances no t previously industrially produced or used, and 
preparations thereof presenting potential human thr eat, certain types of products presenting potential 
human threat, and certain types of products in cluding food products imported into the Russian 
Federation for the first time should be subject to st ate registration.  State registration of the above 
substances and types of products was based on an assessment of the thr eat presented by the substances 
and certain types of products for human life and health and environment according to regulatory 
documents and assessment guidelines approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.  
Federal Law No. 109 of 19 July 1997 "On Safe Use of Pesticides and Agrochemicals", and other 
regulatory acts subsequently approved, determined th e procedure of State Registration in the territory 
of the Russian Federation.  This procedure include d a mandatory toxic-hygienic expert review of 
pesticides and agrochemicals to be carried out by the MOH on the basis of a thorough assessment by 
scientific research institutions appointed by th e MOH. The list of pesticides and agrochemicals  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 109 
 
 
permitted or prohibited for use was drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) as approved by 
the MOH. 
354. He also said that all regulatory legal acts rela ted to sanitary measures had to be published in 
official press organs: Rossiyskaya Gazeta (the Russian Newspaper), the Bulletin of regulatory acts of Federal Executive Authorities of the Administrati on of the President of the Russian Federation 
(Presidential Decree № 763 of May 23, 1996 "On the Procedure for Publication and Taking Effect of 
Acts of the President of the Russian Federation,  the Government of the Russian Federation, and 
Regulatory Legal Acts of Federal Executive Author ities"); the Bulletin of regulatory documents and 
guidelines of Gossanepidnadzor of the Ministry of H ealth; and various specialized scientific journals 
and manuals (Nutrition Care, Health Care at Work Place, Radiation Hygienics, Toxicology Newsletter, etc.). Draft sanitary rules were published in the "Newsletter of the Russian Enquiry Point" 
and specialized journals. Regulatory documents took e ffect not earlier than three months after their 
approval, unless a direct threat to human health  and life was involved.  A Russian TBT and SPS 
Enquiry Point had been set up and was functioning , supplying all relevant information on SPS issues 
as noted in paragraph […]. Under the Federal law "On Technical Regulation in the Russian 
Federation", legislative and administrative proce dures would be revised, specified and improved in 
accordance with the Inter-Agency Programmme for 200 2-2005 to ensure full compliance with the 
requirements of the Agreement on Technical Barrier s to Trade and Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 
355. Referring to veterinary measures, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that the 
Federal executive body in charge of veterinary control over imports of animal products was the 
Ministry of Agriculture (its Veterinary Departme nt composing the State Veterinary Service).  The 
procedures of the State Veterinary Service were regulated by Federal Law № 4979-1 of May 14, 1993 
"On Veterinary Service" (with amendments), as well as the Government Resolution № 830 of October 
29, 1992 on "Regulations on the State Veterinary Se rvice of the Russian Federation for Protection of 
the Russian Territory Against Importation of Inf ectious Animal Diseases from Abroad"; Government 
Resolution № 706 of June 19, 1994 on "Re gulations on State Veterinary Surveillance in the Russian 
Federation"; Government Resolution № 1263 of September 29, 1997 on "Regulations on the 
Procedure for Examination of Low Quality or Hazardous Food Inputs and Products, Their Use and 
Destruction"; "Regulations on Divi sion of Functions of State Veteri nary Surveillance in Processing 
and Storage Enterprises of Animal Products" № 13-7-2/173 of October 14, 1994 approved by the 
Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian  Federation; Instruction "On the Procedure for 
Issuance of Veterinary Accompanying Documents for Cargoes Controlled by the State Veterinary 
Surveillance Agency" № 13-7-2/871 of April 12, 1997 approved by the Ministry of Agriculture; the 
Government Resolution № 987 of December 21, 2000 "On State Surveillance and Control in Ensuring WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 110  
 
Quality and Safety of Food Products" and the Deci sion of the Government of the Russian Federation 
№ 26 of January 18, 2002 "On the State Regi stration of Foodstuffs Received from Genetically 
Modified Organisms”. 
356. He further said that the Russian Federation accepted veterinary certificates for all types of 
animal products with the state veterinary services of most exporting countries. Imports of animal 
products under approved veterinary certificates was not a mandatory procedure. In the absence of 
approved veterinary certificates, animal products  were exported to the Russian Federation under 
general veterinary certificates. The actual impor t conditions were contai ned in the veterinary 
certificate. The list of products subject to cont rols by the State Veterinary Service (letter 
No. 13-8-01/3009 of 16 May 2000) of the Veterinary  Department had been compiled in accordance 
with the Goods Nomenclature of Foreign Econom ic Activity and only included those items which 
may be a source of infectious animal diseases or pois oning, and threaten the life and health of animals 
and people.  International cooperation in the fiel d of veterinary was carried out on the basis of 
bilateral cooperation agreements and the Code of the International Epizootics Office (IEO). For 
imports and transit of animal a nd animal products regulated by th e Convention on International Trade 
in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), an additional  permit from the CITES 
agency in the exporting country was required (in the Russian Federation the CITES agency was the 
Ministry of Natural Resources). Imports and exports  of pedigree animals required additionally an 
"extract from the state registry of selection achieveme nts allowed for use, with respect to the imported 
pedigree animals" for imports, and  "confirmation of compliance with the requirements with respect to 
protection of patent holder rights with respect to the exported pedigree animals" for exports, signed by 
the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Fe deration. Imports of veterinary preparations were 
regulated by Government Resolution № 1539 of December 25, 1998 "Regul ations on Imports into and 
Exports from the Russian Federation of Medicines a nd Pharmaceuticals". Imports of products subject 
to veterinary controls were restricted to d esignated cross-border checkpoints at railway and car 
stations, at seaports, airports and other sp ecially equipped places open for international 
communications and having cross-border veterinary  checkpoints installed. New legislation and 
regulations concerning veterinary measures were published in the journals "Veterinary Science and 
Practice", "Veterinary Newspaper", the newspape r "Veterinary Consultant", and other special 
publications. 
357. Pursuant to the requirements of bilateral agreem ents for cooperation in veterinary matters, and 
also pursuant to the Code of the International Ep izootics Office (IEO) and by virtue of Federal Law 
No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices" , pre-shipment inspection was carried out on 
raw meat products that had not undergone ther mal treatment, and was implemented under the 
supervision of representatives of the Veterinary Department.  For those countries that had not agreed  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 111 
 
 
veterinary certificates with the Russian Federation,  import of cargoes was governed by "Veterinary 
and Sanitary Requirements for Imports into the Russi an Federation of Cargoes Controlled by the State 
Veterinary Service", approved by the Chief State Ve terinary Inspector of the Russian Federation and 
letter No.13-8-01 of 23 December 1999 issued by the MOA.  Bilateral agreements on the presence of Russian veterinary inspectors to supervise the fulf illment of Russian Veterinary Service requirements 
when delivering meat to the Russian Federation ha d been reached with a number of countries with 
unfavorable epizootic situations w ith regard to infectious animal diseases.  In these cases the Russian 
Veterinary Inspector took a decision on delivery of a specific meat shipment to the Russian Federation 
taking into account the epizootic situation, conditions  of processing and storage of meat in Russia, and 
prevents delays at border crossings and the shipment’s return to the exporting country. 
358. Imports of controlled cargoes into the Russian Federation were restricted to designated 
cross-border checkpoints at railway and car stations, at seaports, airports and other specially equipped 
places open for international communications a nd having cross-border veterinary checkpoints 
installed.  To be able to bring controlled cargoes (as imports or in tr ansit) regulated by the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of W ild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in addition to the 
above documents the owner of the cargo needed to have a permit from the CITES agency in the 
exporting country (in the Russian Federation the CITES agency was the Ministry of Natural Resources). 
359. International transit of cargo controlled by the State Veterinary Service through the Russian 
Federation was conducted in accordance with the provi sions of the International Epizootics Office’s 
International Veterinary Code.  Written authorizati on from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the 
Russian Federation was not required for internationa l transit of raw produce and products of animal 
origin through Russia.  When crossing the border of the Russian Federation the cargo was inspected 
by the State Veterinary Inspector of the appropria te cross-border surveillance veterinary checkpoint 
and, if requirements of integrity of packaging, conformity of labeling to  transport documents and 
existence of the exporting country’s original veteri nary certificate were fulfilled, a "transit permitted" 
stamp was placed on the original veterinary certificat e upon import to Russia.  International transit of 
live animals through the Russian Federation require d written authorization from the Chief Veterinary 
Inspector of the Russian Federation, on the basis of a request from the central veterinary authority of 
the importing country, indicating the points of impor t, export, route, stops, transfers and animal 
feeding sites. 
360.   Referring to phytosanitary measures, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation noted that 
policies and regulations on plant qua rantine were determined by the Mi nistry of Agriculture(its State 
Service for Quarantine of Plants and regional in spections or Rosgoskara ntin). Import quarantine WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 112  
 
permits were issued under the Government Resolution № 268 of April 23, 1992 "On State Service for 
Quarantine of Plants in the Russian Federati on", as amended and supplem ented by Government 
Resolution № 1143 of October 1, 1998. The list of products  subject to phytosanitary controls in 
accordance with the Goods Nomenclature of th e Foreign Economic Activity of the Russian 
Federation, was provided in the "Nomenclature of  Main Types of Products, Cargoes and Materials 
(Goods) Subject to Quarantine, for which imports  into and exports from the Russian Federation 
required authorization by the agencies of the Stat e Service for Quarantine of  Plants of the Russian 
Federation", approved by the regulation of the Mini stry of Agriculture on March 19, 1999 (and 
amended on December 25, 2001). 
361.  He further said that for imports of seeds a nd planting stock, import quarantine permits were 
issued by State Service for Quarantine of Plants of the Russian Federation (Rosgoskarantin). Imports 
of fresh vegetables, fruits and a number of other prod ucts was subject to quarantine permits issued by 
regional inspections of the Rosgos karantin. Imports and exports of  plant seeds required additionally 
an "extract from the state registry of selection achievements allowed for use, with respect to the 
imported plant seeds" for imports, and  "confirmation of compliance with the requirements with 
respect to protection of patent holder rights with  respect to the exported plant seeds" for exports, 
signed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. An application for a quarantine permit had to state the product in questio n, the country of origin, the country of exports, 
volumes, timeframe for collection, destinations and cross-border checkpoints for imports of such 
products subject to quarantine (Government Resolution № 268 of April 23, 1992 "On State Service 
for Quarantine of Plants in the Russian Fede ration"). An import quarantine permit indicated ad hoc  
phytosanitary requirements for each consignment of products subject to quarantine (including the 
product type, order of its usage and sale), and re quired that each consignment be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate confirming phytosanitary qua lities of the product. A phytosanitary certificate 
was also required from agencies of the state service in charge of the quarantine of plants in the 
exporting country. Phytosanitary measures maintained by the Russian Federation met the recommendations and principles of the Internati onal Plant Protection Convention (Rome, 1997), to 
which the Russian Federation was a party, as well as those  of the European and Mediterranean Plant 
Protection Organization (to which he Russian Fe deration (USSR) was a member since 1957 and an 
executive member since 1997). The Federal Law"On Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation" 
dated December 27, 2002 № 184-FZ contained provisions to use scientific grounds for phytosanitary 
measures taking into account international principles (sta ndards) in this field. To ensure transparency 
of phytosanitary measures in the Russian Federation,  the support unit of the Ministry of Agriculture 
was operating within the single national information center (Enquiry Point) functioning at the 
Gosstandart of Russia.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 113 
 
 
362. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that his government was of the view that 
Russia's sanitary and phytosanitary measures were intended solely for the purpose of protecting the 
health of human, animal and plant life, and not to  create unnecessary technical barriers to trade or to 
protect domestic producers.  Under the Federal Law "On Technical Regulation in the Russian 
Federation" dated December 27, 2002 № 184-FZ, all requirements of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (such as predictability, transparency, scientific-
based regulations, risk assessment, preparation of noti fication, non-discrimination, use of international 
standards, procedures of implementing of new regul ations) become mandatory norms for the Russian 
Federation in this area. 
363. Noting that the information provided above c onstituted a useful compendium of current 
practice in the Russian Federation, members of the Working Party felt that this information was still 
insufficient to assess to what extent  the current regime was consistent with WTO provisions.  More 
information on currently applied phytosanitary m easures was also required.  In this connection 
members stressed that lack of clarity in the way in  which the Russian Federation proposed to ensure 
that its SPS regime, as in case of any other NTMs, could prevent bilateral market access negotiations 
being effectively pursued.  While recognizing th at the Russian Federation was taking steps to 
strengthen its SPS regime and bring it into complian ce with WTO rules, members further considered 
that there was still substantial work ahead for the Russian Federation to develop a predictable, 
transparent, and science-based regulatory system th at would ensure due legal process and sustained 
adherence to international obligatio ns.  In practice this could be achieved by achieving compliance 
with WTO obligations, particularly regarding the following principles of the SPS Agreement:  
transparency of measures through information to other WTO Members;  consistency, coherency and 
proportionality of measures;  non-discriminatory nature of measures, including the need for 
requirements affecting imports not to be more restrictive than t hose affecting domestic production;  
adoption of international standards set by Codex, OIE and IPPC for import rules (the rules must be 
based on transparent scientific risk assessment in case  they go beyond the international standards, or 
where no international standards exist);  applica tions of the principles of regionalisation; and, 
acceptance of certificates and other guarantees give n by a third country (including the European 
Union) competent authorities as the basis for impor ts.  Members stressed that the Russian Federation 
needed to bring its legislative and regulatory procedures into compliance with WTO requirements, 
and provide the necessary legislative acts and doc umentation to demonstrate how these current 
deficiencies would be addressed.  They considered that an update of the Russian Federation SPS 
Action Plan would be particularly helpful at this stage of work.  More info rmation was also sought on 
the inspection procedures and associated charges in fo rce in relation to import of poultry meat and red WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 114  
 
meat as that available indicated that the effect of  recently introduced measures had made the testing 
procedures in the country of export more burdensome and had raised the charges levied on imports.   
364. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation provided deta iled information on the 
current and planned SPS regime in notes “Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Regulation in the Russian 
Federation” circulated to the Working Party as Job No. 366, Non-Paper of 18 January 2002,  
“Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es” submitted by the Russian Federation  - Job No. 2560.3, Non 
Paper No. 26 of 1 April 2003, and Checklists of Technical Barriers to Trade and Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Issues in the Accession of  the Russian Federation to the WTO – 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/13/Rev.3 of 18 October 2002, as well as Annexes 1 and 2 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29/Add.1 of 21 January 2003. 
365. In response, some members of  the Working Party stated that they required additional 
information on new legislation in order to determ ine how key aspects of the SPS Agreement would be 
met.  Those members requested that the Russian Federation explain how the any measures were 
applied only to the extent necessary to protect hum an, animal or plant life and health, and the conduct 
of risk assessment in that regard.  Those member s noted that insufficient explanation had been 
provided for the multiple certification requirement s were currently applied to animal products 
imported into the Russian Federation in terms of th e requirements of Article 2 of the Agreement on 
SPS.  Those members also raised concerns with re spect to measures (such as testing or conformity 
assessment) applied to imports that were more restrictive than measures applied to domestic 
production, despite similar or identical conditions, in  apparent inconsistency with the requirements of 
Article 2.3 of the Agreement on SPS, for example,  in relation to certification required of dairy 
products.    Some members of the Working Party also  sought additional clarifications of the steps that 
would be taken by the Russian Federation to ensu re that it met the transparency and notification 
requirements of the Agreement on SPS from the date of accession to the WTO.  Those members noted 
that their concerns related also to insufficient or inadequate periods for notification of new or 
amended measures, which in effect did not allow time for producers to adjust to new conditions.  
Those members also repeated their concerns that the Russian Federation did not meet the 
requirements of Article 6 of the Agreement on SPS.  Those members noted, in particular, that Russia 
continued to make the export of some products conditional upon testing for diseases that were not 
prevalent in the exporting Member's territory, for ex ample with respect to exports of requirements for 
national registration and full-time monitoring of the production of wool exported from certain WTO 
Members.   
366. Some members raised concerns about the as sessment of risks of certain measures, for 
example the use of salt as a preservative for fish expo rts.  Those members also raised concerns about  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 115 
 
 
the lack of policies to accept equivalent measure s of WTO Members, or that in certain cases the 
Russian Federation required frequent access to insp ection and testing establishments within the 
territory of WTO Members.   
367. Members of the Working Party sought a commitment that the Russian Federation would fully 
apply the WTO Agreement on SPS upon accession.   
368. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all obligations un der the WTO Agreement on Sanitary an d Phytosanitary Measures from the 
date of accession without rec ourse to any transition period.] 
[to be completed] 
- Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)  
369. In response to questions from members of th e Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation said that Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Foreign Investment in the 
Russian Federation" did not provide for measures inc onsistent with the requirements of Articles III or 
XI of GATT 1994 nor measures which corresponded to  the illustrative list of TRIMs contained in 
Article 2, paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement on TR IMs.  The Law provided that information on all 
measures affecting foreign investors should be p ublished and authorised the Government and local 
entities to grant foreign investors a favourable regi me, taking into consideration the general economic 
interest of the Russian Federation.  Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 30 December 1995 (as amended on 7 
January 1999, 18 June 2001) "On Production Sharing" contemplated that foreign investors which took 
part in production sharing schemes in the Russian  Federation should place some proportion of their 
orders from locally produced goods.  Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 Februa ry 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making", and Government Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making" provided  for customs and other preferences for those 
investments in the automotive in dustry that exceeded the established ceiling.  Four investment 
agreements had been signed on the basis of these acts.  
370. In response to further questions concerning sp ecific areas such as the aircraft sector, he 
confirmed that Government Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues of Regulation of 
Temporary Imports of Foreign Made Aircraft" supe rseded Government Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 
1998 "On Additional Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in Russia" and terminated full exemption from customs duties and taxes for temporar y import periods for foreign aircraft, spare parts 
and engines and simulators.  Proposals were also being discussed in the Russian Government on the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 116  
 
reduction of import customs duty rates for foreign ma de aircraft imported to the Russian Federation, 
and foreign made spare parts and components require d for domestic civil aircraft, equivalents of 
which were not produced in the Russian Federation. 
371. Members felt that the information on TRIMs pr ovided above did not fully address the issues 
that had been raised regarding the measures in place,  particularly with respect to production  sharing 
agreements and the investment-promoting legisla tion for the automotive sector for which a fuller 
description was still required. Several members felt that additional information was needed, 
particularly on relevant WTO requirements relatin g to investment provisions provided for in the 
amendments to the Law No. 19-FZ on "Production Sh aring Agreements" adopted on 7 January 1999.  
More information was also required on the workings  of the Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 February 
1998 "On Attracting Additional Investments to Pr omote the Automobile Industry", Government 
Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for the 
Development of the Domestic Automotive Industr y", and Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 
"On Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation". 
372. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that Presidential Decree 
No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for the Development of 
the Domestic Automobile Industry"  contained pr ovisions on state support of large-scale projects for 
the creation and development of production capacity  for the manufacture of modern vehicles and 
parts.  To implement this Decree, Government  Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for the Developm ent of the Domestic Automobile Industry" was 
adopted.  In this Resolution the Government appr oved regulations on features of the legal regulation 
of a bonded warehouse customs regime, the procedur e for determining the country of origin of 
vehicles and parts during their export from the bonded warehouse territory with features of the legal 
regulation of a customs regime and their import to the remaining territory of the Russian Federation, 
as well as the procedure for determining quantitative rest rictions for the application of features of the 
legal regulation of a bonded warehouse customs regi me and the share of expenditure made on the 
territory of the Russian Federation in the produc tion costs of the final product.  Federal Law 
No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation" defined the basic 
guarantees of foreign investors' rights to investments and income and profit obtained therefrom, and 
conditions of foreign investors' entrepreneurial activity  in the territory of the Russian Federation.  This 
Federal Law did not contain any measures classified under the TRIMs illustrative list. 
373. At a later stage he provided the following add itional information.  The Law of the Russian 
Federation of December 30, 1995, No. 225-FZ «On Production Sharing Agreements» set out the legal 
framework for relations arising in the course of Ru ssian and foreign investment in search, exploration  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 117 
 
 
and mining of minerals in the Russian Federation.  A "production sharing agreement" was a contract 
in which the Russian Federation provides to a busine ss, in consideration for a compensation and for a 
limited term, exclusive rights to perform search, expl oration and mining of minerals in a subsoil plot 
specified in such agreement and any related works,  and the investor undertakes to perform the said 
works at own risk and expense.  The rights and obligations of the parties to a production sharing 
agreement were governed by civil law. 
374. He further noted that the Federal Law «O n Production Sharing Agreements» had been 
amended and supplemented twice by federal laws of January 7, 1997 , No. 19-FZ, and of June 18, 
2001, No. 75-FZ.  The Federal Law of January 7, 1999, No. 19-FZ, introduced the requirement that 
the terms of the tender or auction must provide for participation of Russian legal entities in the 
implementation of the agreement to such extent (in such proportion) as determined by the 
Government of the Russian Federation and compet ent executive authorities of the Russian Federation 
regions (Article 7).  The Law also required the par ties to provide as a condition of the agreement that 
no less than the specified portion of mining and processing (if envisaged by the agreement) technologies purchased by the investor must be produ ced on the territory of the Russian Federation.   
375. In response to further concerns regarding th e compatibility of certain measures with the 
Agreement on TRIMS, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that  the State Duma of the 
Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation had been presented with a draft federal law amending 
and supplementing Article 7 of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation «On Production Sharing 
Agreements».  That draft law provided that a certa in value of orders (as a percentage of total 
investment) for equipment, machinery and supplies purchased by the investor during the periods of time or phases of work provided by the agreement for geological exploration, mining, processing or 
transportation of minerals must be placed with Ru ssian legal entities.   The law also provided that a 
limited period of time be allowed for preparation and signing of a PSA, currently proposed as 2-year 
period for negotiation and signing of an agreement.  The draft also provided for mandatory official 
publication of details of the participants, project value, taxes and payments.  In addition, a new 
scheme would be established to divi de production into profit and compen satory values.  All taxes and 
levies, including profit tax and royalt y tax would be replaced with a single tax payable by the investor. 
The draft law provided a more detailed procedure for transfer of rights and obligations under a PSA in 
the event of reorganisation of the participating le gal entities.   At a later stage he informed the 
Working Party that the State Duma had passed the draft in its  second  reading.  
376. Concerning investments in the petrochemical sector, he recalled that Resolution of the 
Government of the Russian Federation of August 30, 2001, No. 1155-r appointed the State Unitary 
Enterprise «Russian Foreign Economic Associat ion «Zarubezhneft» and OJSC «Oil Company WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 118  
 
Rosneft» as organisations authorised to assist prot ection of the interests of the Russian Federation in 
the preparation and implementation of production shar ing agreements in respect of subsoil plots and 
deposits of hydrocarbons measures affecting import or export by private businesses.   Agreements 
currently in force were the Production sharing agreement on Chayvinskoe, Odoptinskoe and Arkutun-
Daginskoe oil and gas-condensate fields (Sakha lin-1), Production sharing agreement on Piltun-
Astokhskoe and Lunskoe oil and g as fields (Sakhalin-2), Production sharing agreement on oilfield 
development and oil production on Haryaginskoe  oilfield, Project "Samotlorskoe field". 
377. Concerning requests for information on the au tomotive sector, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that 4 investment agreem ents had been concluded pursuant to Presidential 
Decree No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Attrac ting Additional Investments to Promote the 
Automobile Industry" and the Government Reso lution No. 413 of 23 Ap ril 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for the Developmen t of the Domestic Automotive Industry".  They 
were a Finance and Industry Holding «Doninvest» for the production development on SK «Taganrog car plant »;  with the Russian-French firm JSK «Avtoframos»;  with Russian-American firm SK 
«Ford Vsevolzhsk»;  and with Russian-Italian firm SK Nizhegorod Motors.    All those agreements 
providd for establishing of car assembling units in the Russian Federation by the companies 
«Daewoo», «Renault»; «Ford Motors» (US) and «FIA T» respectively.  He further added that a 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Fede ration of July 16, 2002, No. 978-r had approved the 
Development Concept of the Russian Car-Making Indus try (hereinafter the Concept).  The Ministry 
of Industry and Science of the Ru ssian Federation and the Ministry of Economic Development of the 
Russian Federation jointly with the affected fede ral executive authorities ha d been instructed to 
develop a plan of measures to implement the mid- term Development Concept of Car-Making Industry 
(2202 – 2004) and submit it within 2 months to the G overnment of the Russian Federation (the plan of 
measures had not yet been approved).    
378. He noted that the Development Concept defined the goals, tasks and priorities of the sectoral 
development to satisfy the requirement of the domestic market, devel op production capacities, 
increase export of motorcars and ensure national security.  The Concept covered the period until 
2010.The objectives of the Concept were to create an  environment congenial to development of the 
Russian car-making industry, its integration w ith the international car-making, and improved 
effectiveness of production of modern competitive motorcars satisfying the needs of the population 
and the economic actors.   The Concept had as a goal the improvement in competitiveness of 
motorcars through institutional changes, developmen t of production of hi-tech component parts and 
materials, application of state standards compatible  with international requirements, improvement of 
R&D and labour components.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 119 
 
 
379. Following questions from members of the Work ing Party concerning changes to the duty 
rates on imported cars, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that decisions on setting the 
level of the customs tariff on imports of motor ve hicles would take account of the need to protect 
domestic producers with a view to successfully implementing the investment programmes of the 
enterprises of the sector and  supplying the domestic market with competitive products.  The Concept assumed that the present import customs duty rates fo r new cars and used cars up to 7 years of age 
would be unchanged for a seven-years transition peri od.  That transition period should be sufficient 
for the Russian Federation to improve domestic pr oduction so that it may become competitive on the 
domestic and foreign markets.  Special attention would be given to creating capacities to produce 
competitive hi-tech automobile components.  
380. In response to further questions, he noted that  customs duties could be reduced for certain 
types of vehicles that were not produced domesti cally provided that their characteristics corresponded 
to international norms.    Customs duties for imported components and ma terials for industrial 
assembly of cars would be optimised.  This would allow reducing the cost of such cars and stimulating development of assembly facilities in Ru ssia.   It was proposed to reduce customs duties 
for car-making technologies that were not produced in  the Russian Federation.  He further noted that 
it was also proposed to provide assistance to the domestic car industry in the following ways: 
- to create new production facilities to manufactur e automobile components in the existing and 
future federal target programmes; 
- to develop a Russian-Byelorussian program for development of diesel car-making for 2003 – 
2008; 
- to assist the development of a financial leasing system in production and distribution of public 
use motorcars; 
- to assist implementation of investment project s in the territory of the Russian Federation 
involving foreign car-makers; 
- to introduce an insurance system of motorcar s and civil liability based on the age of cars; 
- to reduce the rates of customs duties for technol ogies, components, aggregates, blocks, details 
and parts that are not produced in the Russian Federation; 
- to raise import customs duties for motorcar s and buses with a long operational life; 
- to level out customs duties for legal entities a nd individuals for the purpose of import to the 
customs territory of the Russian Fede ration of used motorcars;  and  
to purchase domestic motorcars for government needs. 
381. While noting that existing programs might be terminated or modified, several members 
requested confirmation that the Russian Federation would eliminate any existing TRIMs upon accession.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the Russian Federation would eliminate and would not  maintain any measures inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement on Trade-related Investment Meas ures (TRIMs), and would apply this Agreement 
without recourse to any transition period.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 120  
 
[to be completed] 
State-trading enterprises ("STEs") 
382. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that his authorities considered that 
only five state-trading enterprises in the Russian Fe deration were required to be notified pursuant to 
the notification requirements of Article XVII of GATT 1994.  Those enterprises and the product/products for which had have special powers or  privileges were:  Russian joint stock company 
(RJSC) Gazprom – natural gas; Russian joint st ock company (RJSC) UES of Russia – electricity; 
Joint stock company (JSC) Rosugol – coal (dissolv ed in November 1997); Joint stock company (JSC) 
Diamonds of Russia-Sakha (ALROSA) – raw na tural diamonds; and State enterprise (SE) 
Almazyuvelir Export Foreign Trade Association – raw natural diamonds.  In the view of the Russian 
Government, there were no other enterprises in the Russian Federation, either state-owned or 
privately-owned, which had been granted such excl usive or special rights, or privileges including 
statutory or constitutional powers in the exercise of which their purchases or sales might influence the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  The ente rprises, which had been gran ted exclusive or special 
rights or privileges in the exercise of which they in fluenced, through their purchase or sales, the level 
or direction of imports or exports, made thei r purchases and sales on the basis of commercial 
considerations. 
383. Some members of the Working Party noted that in relation to Alrosa's sales of raw diamonds 
for exports, arrangements seemed to be in place th at were expressly designed to deprive foreign 
enterprises of an opportunity to compete for particip ation in those sales.  Th ese members maintained 
that this practice would be inconsistent with th e provisions of Article XVII:1(b) of GATT 1994. In 
response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration maintained that export deliveries of raw 
diamonds from the Russian Federation were executed on the basis of commercial contracts concluded 
between Alrosa and foreign enterprises. The State di d not interfere into the substance and form of 
these contracts.    At a later stage the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that Presidential 
Decree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 “On the endorseme nt of regulation on imports in and exports 
from the Russian Federation of rough natural diam onds and cut diamonds” (entered into force on 6 
February 2003) had abolished all exclusive rights of  Alrosa. Thus Alrosa did not retain any exclusive 
or special privileges.  
384. Some members noted concerns about the activities of state-owned telephone company 
Svyazinvest, in particular that it had used its infl uential market position to require its Russian cable 
suppliers to procure optical fiber from a single supp lier as a reward for that  supplier’s agreement to 
produce cable in Russia at a later date.   Those me mbers were of the view that such conduct was not  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 121 
 
 
consistent with GATT Article XVII.   Accordingly,  those members requested information on whether 
there were plans to restructure or to permit private control of Svyazinvest.   
385. In response to the concerns about special  privileges accorded to Svyazinvest, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated th at Svyazinvest was a company operating in the 
telecommunication sector, thus subject to GATS provisions and Russia’s specific commitments in the area of services.     
386. Some members of the Working Party request ed additional information on the special 
privileges accorded "unitary enterprises".  Some members of the Working Party stated that the 
Russian Federation should consider entering a commitm ent to ensure that the requirements of Article 
XVII of the GATT 1994 were fully met from the date of accession. 
387. In response to further questions concerning " unitary" enterprises the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that those enterprises were  not state trading enterprises as they operated as 
commercial enterprises, and did not enjoy any privile ges in the sense of Article XVII of GATT 1994.  
388. Some members were particularly concerned that the commercial practices followed by the 
Russian state-trading enterprises, in particular Gazprom (51% government owned) and Alrosa, could 
not be regarded as being based on commercial cons iderations.  Specifically, sales for export were 
subject to controls in relation to quantity and price, and the sale of gas for domestic industrial 
consumption was at prices levels  considerably below those applie d for export which were linked to 
the prevailing would market price.  Artificially low domestic energy prices could also lead to indirect 
subsidisation of downstream industries and to export s of value-added intermed iate and finished goods 
at prices below their normal value.  In this contex t, those members noted that the cost of producing 
natural gas for GAZPROM, had been estimated to  be approximately $41 per tcm compared to 
controlled domestic prices of $16 per tcm.   In  light of these facts, those members requested an 
explanation as to how GAZPROM was selling in th e domestic market “solely in accordance with 
commercial considerations”  as required by Article XVII:1(b) of the GATT.  Those members also 
noted that Gazprom, or its subsidiaries appeared to also be a participant in the fertilizer industry.   
389. The representative of the Russian Federation replied, that the prices and quanities for 
deliveries of gas for exports were those which were negotiated between supplier and buyer. As 
regards prices for internal consumption, they were  established at the level which reflected  supply and 
demand, where any increase of price could lead to in ability of consumers to pay and hence to decrease 
sales with respective fall of profits for suppliers. He  also mentioned that similar approaches towards 
regulation of prices for gas were used by WTO members. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 122  
 
390. Some members of the Working Party further stat ed that in addition to the significant trade 
distortion which these pricing practices could cause, they were concerned that current prices to 
domestic industrial customers could take place at rat es that did not ensure "adequate remuneration" as 
provided for under Article 14(d) of the WTO Ag reement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
and thus would confer a benefit to  domestic industrial users.  Accordingly, in the absence of further 
information, it was difficult to understand the assertio n that those enterprises operated on the basis of 
commercial considerations.  More generally, member s observed that this situation gave rise to 
questions as regards its compatibility with WTO requi rements, not only in relation to Article XVII but 
also in relation to Articles XI and XVI of GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  These members invited the Russian Federation to provide further 
information on the operation of these enterprises, pa rticularly as regards the manner in which prices 
were set for the export of natural gas and diamonds, and how those pricing structures were consistent 
with the suggestion that those enterprises operated under commercial considerations.  In response, the 
representatives of the Russian Federation noted that  gas prices and tariffs on gas transportation 
services, or their marginal levels were set at the rate that ensured: 
- Cost-recovery of economically valid costs asso ciated with gas extraction, transportation, 
processing, distribution and supply (sale); 
- Incorporation into regulated prices of all tax es and other mandatory payments pursuant to the 
Russian Federal law; 
- Valid profit gains; - Investment – corporate owners` of funding possibilities regarding gas supply networks, 
extending gas recovery operations, gas pipelin es, and underground gas storage facilities; 
- Meeting solvent gas demand – attaining a ba lance of buyers' and gas suppliers' economic 
interests; 
- As primary data for calculating gas prices and gas transportation tariffs, an estimated output 
of goods/services and projected total receipts were used. 
 391. Some members requested further information on the role of marketing enterprises such as 
Exportkhleb, Prodintorg, and Roskhleboprodukt in  agricultural trade, and a description of the 
legislation that had specifically ended the special  rights and privileges that these organizations had 
traditionally received as monopoly trade or marketing entities.  These members also asked further information on the extent to which the Russian Federation's agricultural trade was still conducted 
through inter-governmental agreements betwee n the Russian Federation and other countries, 
especially CIS countries, and on whether any gove rnment-to-government barter arrangements were 
still in place. 
392. Regarding trade in agricultural products, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that under Government Resolution No. 1224 of 26 September 1997 "On the Foundation of the State 
Unitary Enterprise – the Federal Agency for Food Ma rket Regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Food of the Russian Federation", the Federa l Agency for Food Market Regulation had replaced  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 123 
 
 
the Federal Food Corporation with a modified in stitutional and legal framework.  The Agency's 
mission included, inter alia , the monitoring of agricultural product markets, promotion of 
competition, assisting in commodity purchases in the agricultural market, and acting as a state 
customer (procuring organisation) to maintain the current food reserves of the Russian Government.  
Purchases of products and commodity interventions were to be performed not by the Agency, but 
exclusively by business entities selected  through public tende rs.  Thus the Agency did not impact on 
export or import trade.  He confirmed that some  enterprises (Roshleboproduct and Roscontract) had 
been granted exclusive and special rights in 1993-1994 in the context of bilateral barter trade with 
some CIS countries performed under the framework of special intergovernmental agreements for 
those calendar years.  Such exclusive rights expired completely on 31 December 1995 where the agreement mentioned above also expired and were never resumed.  At the present time the Russian 
Federation did not conduct barter trade with any of the CIS countries.   
393. Several members requested further information regarding a recent government resolution that 
imposed licensing requirements on procurement, processing, storing, and marketing of grain and grain products for state needs, as well as on production of most grain products (bread, flour, etc.), and a 
clarification on the purpose of these licenses and on  whether both foreign and domestic companies 
were subject to them.  Concerning reports that 150 bankrupt grain facilities (mills, storage facilities, 
etc.) had been reverted to state control, some me mbers requested clarification on how this process was 
being implemented and what role the Government  would play in the operation and management 
decisions of these facilities.  In addition to listing state-trading enterprises, these members also asked 
a confirmation that, upon accession, the Russian Federation's state-trading enterprises would be 
administered and operated in conformity with WTO provisions, including Article XVII and the 
Understanding. 
394. Responding to questions concerning the functions  of the five enterprises which could be 
described as state trade enterprises,  the representative of the Russian Federation referred members to 
the detailed information containe d in documents WT/ACC/RUS/18 and 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add.2.  He further noted that a full list of functions and the working 
procedure of the federal agency for the regulation of the food market was enclosed to Government 
Resolution No. 1224 of 26 September 1997 "On the Foundation of the State Unitary Enterprise – the 
Federal Agency for Food Market Regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian Federation".  Government Resolution No. 414 of 13 June 2002 "On Approval of the Regulation of 
Licensing of the Storage of Grain and Products R eceived as a Result of Its Remaking" approved the 
provision on the licensing of the storage of grain an d products received as a result of its remaking.  
The major aim of the introduction of the provisi on stated was for legal persons and individual 
entrepreneurs to observe the rules of the storage of grain and other produc ts. Government Resolution WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 124  
 
No. 414 had also invalidated the former Governme nt Resolution No. 43 of 22 January 2002 "On 
Licensing of Purchase, Remaking, Storage and Realiz ing of Grain and Products Received as a Result 
of Its Subsequent Remaking Which is Meant fo r State Needs on Production of Bread, Macaroni, 
Flour, Groats and Other Grain Foods".  He also stat ed that statements on reverting 150 bankrupt grain 
facilities to state control were unfounded. 
395. Members of the Working Party stated that they expected the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the practices of existing state-trading enterprises and other enterprises enjoying special or exclusive 
privileges would be brought into line with relevant WTO requirements as from the date of accession.  
Purchases and sales by such enterprises, whether of  state-owned, state-invested or enjoying any 
special or exclusive privileges (including practi ces such as state orders, purchases for state needs, 
state-designated trading, state goods distribution,  government-to-government agreements for the 
supply/purchase of products, dual pric ing of energy and state mandated counter-trade and barter, and 
dual pricing of energy), should be based sole ly on commercial considerations, without any 
government influence or application of discriminatory measures. 
396. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its laws and regulations governing the trading activities of 
state-owned enterprises and other enterprises with special or exclusive privileges (including practices such as state orders, purchases for state needs, st ate-designated trading, state goods distribution, 
government-to-government agreements for the su pply/purchase of products, and state-mandated 
counter-trade and barter), including those listed in paragraphs […], in conformity with WTO 
provisions, including Article XVII of GATT 1994, th e Understanding on Article VII of GATT 1994, 
and the Understanding on Article VIII of the GATS.  He further confirmed that the Federal Agency 
for Food Market Regulation, established un der Government Resolution No. 1224 of 
27 September 1997 did not provide domestic support nor export subsidies in any form. He also 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would notif y enterprises falling within the scope of Article 
XVII no later than upon accession, and would observe  the obligations of non-discrimination and 
application of commercial c onsiderations for trade tran sactions for these enterprises.] 
[to be completed] 
- Free Zones and Special Economic Zones 
397. The representative of the Russian Federati on noted that, although Russian legislation 
provided for the establishment of free-trade zones, such zones had never become significant in terms 
of the Russian Federation's trade regime.  Actua lly only one Special Economic Zone (SEZ) was 
operative due to the specific geographical location of  the Kaliningrad region.  This SEZ was directly  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 125 
 
 
administered by the regional authorities. Unde r Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 January 2000 "On The 
Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Re gion" (as amended on 27 December 2000) all goods 
(excluding goods covered by quantita tive restrictions), imported in to the Kaliningrad Region were 
exempted from customs duties and payments (excluding charges).  Under Article 7 of Federal Law No. 13 of 22 January 1996 –FZ "On a Special Econom ic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", goods 
manufactured in the Special Economic zone and export ed to other countries or transported to the rest 
of the Russian Federation should be exempt from customs duties and other charges payable upon the 
customs registration of goods (except customs fees ).  The goods stated should not be subject to 
economic policy measures (measures on non-tariff stat e regulation of foreign trade).  Goods imported 
to the Special Economic Zone from other countries and then transported to the rest of the Russian Federation as well as to the territory of the Custom s union (except goods which have been recycled in 
the Special Economic Zone and are considered to ha ve been manufactured in this zone), should be 
subject to import customs fees and other fees payable upon the customs registration of goods. 
Economic policy measures could be implemented to the goods stated. Under Federal Law No. 13 of 
22 January 1996 –FZ "On a Special Economic Zone in  the Kaliningrad Region", Russian and foreign 
investors and entrepreneurs were granted privileg es under fiscal law of the Russian Federation and the 
legislation of the Kaliningrad Region.  The administration of the Kaliningrad Region with the agreement of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank of the Russian 
Federation should have the right to set privileges for Russian and foreign banks in regard to their work 
on the carrying out of the federal state program of  the development of the Special Economic Zone.  
No value added tax should be levi ed on profits from transportatio n services, loading and unloading 
services, reloading and storage in the course of the transportation from the Special Economic Zone to 
the rest part of the customs territory of the Russi an Federation and from the rest part of the customs 
territory to the Special Economic Zone. 
398. The legislation in force (Federal Law No. 150-FZ of 27 December 2000 "On the Federal 
Budget for 2001", as amended on 24 March and 8 August 2001) abrogated the excise and VAT 
exemptions for imports of excisable goods under fr ee customs zone regime of the territory of the 
Kaliningrad SEZ in the year 2001.  However, if such goods were later exported to other regions of the 
Russian Federation, customs import duties were payable in full, with the exception of goods 
processed or deemed to have been processed in  the Kaliningrad Region.  Under Federal Law 
No. 13-FZ of 22 January 1996 "On the Special Econom ic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", a product 
was deemed to be manufactured in the Special Econ omic Zone provided that the value added in the 
processing amounted to no less than 30 per cent, or  no less than 15 per cent in electronics and 
sophisticated home appliances, and its processing resulte d in a change of the HS code of such product 
according to the customs classification.  The procedure for determining a product as originating from WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 126  
 
the special economic zone was established by a Joint Resolution of the Administration of 
Kaliningrad Region and the SCC of Russia No. 296-r/01-14/1365 of 31 December 1998 "On 
Approval of the Procedure for Determination of  Goods as Originating from the Special Economic 
Zone of Kaliningrad Region", registered by the Ministry of Justice in Regulation No. 1892 of 
9 July 1999.   
399. Current legislation also provided for the estab lishment of SEZs in the Magadan region and in 
Nakhodka, but that these zones were not yet ac tive.  The Free Economic Area "Nakhodka" was 
formed in October 1990, as the Russian Federation's first free economic area.  Its free economic 
regime was regulated by Resolution of the RSFSR Supreme Council of 24 October 1990 "On 
Creation of a Free Economic Zone Centred on th e Town of Nakhodka in Primorsky Krai", and 
Government Resolution No. 1033 of 8 September 1994 "On Certain Measures of Development of the 
Free Economic Zone of Nakhodka".  Exports and im ports of goods to and from the Free Economic 
Area "Nakhodka" were regulated by the ordinary customs regime. Magadan Special Economic Zone 
was created under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone in 
Magadan Region", and Law of Magadan Region No. 80-FZ of 5 July 1999 "On Changing the 
Administrative and Territorial Structure of Magada n Region".  The procedure for determining that 
goods originated from the Special Economic Zone  in Magadan Region wa s provided under Order 
No. 829 of 30 November 1999 of the SCC "On the Pr ocedure for the Determination of the Origin of 
Goods from the Special Economic Zone in th e Magadan Region", and the "Guidelines for 
Determining Goods as Originating from the Special  Economic Zone in Magadan Region" contained 
in a joint Letter of the State Customs Committ ee and the Administration of Magadan Region 
No. 01-11/10593 of 25 April 2000.  The territory of  Magadan Region was a free customs zone, which 
meant that foreign goods were imported to the territo ry of the Special Economic Zone free of customs 
duties and taxes.  Foreign goods exported from the te rritory of Magadan Region within or outside of 
the customs territory of the Russian Federation we re liable to customs duties in full amount. Foreign 
goods undergoing a certain amount of processing a nd which would qualify for the definition of 
sufficient processing, were deemed to be Russian goods and were not liable to import customs duties 
and other taxes when entering the rest of the custom s territory of the Russian Federation.  The criteria 
of sufficient processing of goods in the Special  Economic Zone were as follows: change of 
commodity classification (HS code); implemen tation of certain production and technological 
operations sufficient  for the goods to be deemed to originate from the Speci al Economic Zone;  and 
change of cost of goods, provided the value adde d by processing amounted to no less than 30 per cent 
of the goods (no less than 15 per cent for electronics or sophisticated home appliances).  Tax and 
customs benefits were to be maintained until 31 December 2014 – the last effective date of the Law 
"On the Special Economic Zone of Magadan Region".    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 127 
 
 
400. Members of the Working Party requested furthe r information in order to assess whether the 
existing free zone in Kaliningrad, or those provided for in additional legislation, might pose certain 
WTO-consistency problems, notably whether incen tives granted to firms establishing in the SEZs 
were or would be based on export performance or lo cal content requirements. Issues raised in this 
connection concerned the basis on which goods manufact ured in Kaliningrad were deemed to have 
transformed imported inputs sufficiently to eliminat e the need to pay the duties and taxes exempted 
when the inputs were imported, and what other bene fits, if any, in terms of tax exemptions, were 
available to firms that locate there.  A descripti on of the provisions for firms located in the special 
economic zones of Magadhan and Nakhodka was also requested.  
401. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation informed members of the Working 
Party that Federal Law No. 176-FZ of 24 Dece mber 2002 "On the Federal Budget for 2003" had 
abrogated the excise and VAT exemptions for impor ts of excisable goods under free customs zone 
regime of the territory of the Kaliningrad SEZ in th e year 2003.  However, if such goods were later 
exported to other regions of the Russian Federation, customs import duties were payable in full, with 
the exception of goods processed or deemed to have been processed in the Kaliningrad Region. 
402. A member supported the Russian Federation in respect of efforts made to maintain and 
strengthen the Kaliningrad SEZ, having in mind th e geographical specificity of the region. He 
expressed his authorities' expectation that the acc ession of the Russian Federation to the WTO would 
maintain and not weaken the benefits of this  SEZ which were vital for the overall economic 
development of the region. 
403. Regarding the special economic zone of Ma gadhan the representative of the Russian 
Federation said that under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of  31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone 
in the Magadan Region" firms operating in this sp ecial economic zone shoul d be partially exempt 
from taxes. The stated provision was valid until 31 December 2005.  From 1 January 2006 to 31 
December 2014 firms should be exempt from taxes on profits which was further invested in the 
development of production and the social sphere on the territory of the Magadan Region.  Foreign 
made goods acquired by those firms for their needs and used on the territory of the Magadan Region 
should be exempt from import customs duties and other charges (except customs fees) payable upon 
the customs registration of goods in the procedure determined by SCC.   
404. Members stressed that the Russian Federation s hould revise its domestic laws and regulations 
to eliminate any measures in place in the Russian  Federation's free zones or other special economic 
areas that were not in conformity with WTO provi sions upon accession, in particular incentives tied to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 128  
 
export requirements, other subsidies, and TRIMs, so  as ensure enforcement of its WTO obligations in 
those zones.   
405. Members asked that the Russian Federation shou ld consider entering a commitment to apply 
normal customs formalities on goods from the zones sold elsewhere in the Russian Federation, 
including the application of tariffs and taxes upon accession.   
406. [The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that any free zones or other special 
economic areas authorized in the Russian legislati on, including those in paragraphs […], would be 
administered in conformity with WTO provisions , and that the Russian Federation would ensure 
enforcement of WTO provisions in the zones.  The right of firms to establish and operate in these 
areas would not depend on export performance, trade bala ncing, or local content criteria.  In addition, 
goods produced in these areas under provisions that exempt import from tariffs and certain taxes 
would be subject to normal customs formalities when  entering the rest of the Russian Federation, 
including the application of tariff and taxes.]  
[to be completed] 
- Government Procurement  
407. Members of the Working Party invited the Russi an Federation to provide information on its 
government procurement practices in particular on the existing procurement regime at both federal 
and sub-federal levels. Some members also express ed interest in a commitment from the Russian 
Federation to become an observer to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurements and to 
initiate negotiations for accession to this Agreement upon accession.   
408. The representative of the Russian Federation repl ied that "procurement for state needs"  
(Russian legislation did not contain the term "gove rnment procurement") was governed in the Russian 
Federation by the following regulatory acts: the Civ il Code of the Russian Federation; Federal Law 
No. 53-FZ of 2 December 1994 "On procurement and deliveries of agricultural goods, raw materials 
and foods for the state needs"; Federal Law No . 60-FZ of 13 December 1994 "On procurement of 
goods for federal state needs" (as amended on 19 June 1995, 17 March 1997, and 6 May 1999); 
Federal Law No. 597-FZ of 6 May 1999 "On tenders for placement of orders for deliveries of goods, 
performance of works and provision of services for state needs"; Presidential Decree No. 305 of 
8 April 1997 "On priority measures to prevent co rruption and reduce budget expenses in the course of 
organisation of procurement of goods for stat e needs"; and Government Resolution No. 1222 of 
26 September 1997 "On goods to be procured for st ate needs without conducting tenders (auctions)" 
(as amended on 25 June 1998, 3 September 1999, and 9 January 2001).  The principles and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 129 
 
 
procedures for formation, placement and fulfilment of orders for procurement and delivery of goods 
for state needs contained in the above-mentioned act s had been elaborated taking into consideration 
the provisions of UNCITRAL Model Law "On proc urement of goods (works ) and services" thereby 
corresponding to international practices in this fiel d. The regime for procurement for state needs was 
transparent and non-discriminatory, provided for appellate procedures and was applied in a uniform 
manner both at federal a nd sub-federal levels. 
409. Members requested further information on the status  of proposed new legislation in this area, 
in particular on the draft federal law "On the Purchases and the Deliveries of Products for State 
Needs".  In addition, information was also require d on the involvement of the Russian government in 
barter trade, noting the legal basis for this as well.   
410. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that required information was 
contained in the legislative acts noted in the preceding paragraphs and asked for clarification as to 
what additional information was ne eded in this area, taking into account that this was an issue 
regulated by WTO plurilateral agreement.  He not ed however, that a federal law "On the Purchases 
and the Deliveries of Products for State Needs" had been submitted to the Government of the Russian 
Federation on December 9 2002.   The draft law was directed at the achieving the following aims:  
creation of basic statutory legal act, which regulates procurement for state needs;  ensuring transparency of “procurement fo r state needs” mechanism; stimulation of fair competition and budget 
economy;   elimination of possibilities of abusive pr actice;  formation of the “procurement for state 
needs” legislation of the Russian Federation.  
411. He further noted that the draft federal law w ould eliminate certain restrictions upon the for 
participation by foreign suppliers in the deliveries of  products for state needs.  Clearer regulations for 
the conduct of all bids and purchases were established.   The draft law would apply to all purchases 
and deliveries of products, made on the territory of the Russian Federation at the expense of federal 
budget, budgets of the subjects of the Russian Fede ration, off-budget funds of the Russian Federation 
and of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  The draft law would also ensure transparency of the 
mechanism of procurement of products for public  needs and stimulate good competition and effective 
use of budgetary funds.   He further added that th e draft federal law covere d all product procurements 
and deliveries on the territory of the Russian Federa tion financed with the funds of the Federal Budget 
of the Russian Federation, regional budgets and non-budgetary funds of the Russian Federation and 
Russian Federation Regions.  
412. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed the intention of the Russian 
Federation to join the WTO Agreement on Govern ment Procurement and to notify the Committee on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 130  
 
Government Procurement to this effect at the time of its accession to the WTO and ensure that by this 
date, its public contracting entities would award contracts in a transparent manner according to 
publish laws, regulations and guidelines.  He al so confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
request observership in the Agreement on Government  Procurement at the time of its accession to the 
WTO and would initiate negotiations for member ship in the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement by tabling an Appendix 1 offer within [… time] of accession.  He confirmed that, if the 
results of the negotiations were satisfactory to th e interests of the Russian Federation and the other 
Members of the Agreement, the Russian Federation would complete negotiations for membership in 
the Agreement within [y time] thereafter.] 
[to be completed] 
- Regulation of Trade in Transit 
413. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that, at present, transit of commodities 
through the territory of the Russian Federation was free from the levy of fees, customs duties, VAT and excise tax.  The Russian Federation granted free dom of transit through its territory as prescribed 
by Article V of GATT 1994 as well as on the basis of international treaties to which it was party to.  
The only charges levied were those for transporta tion commensurate with administrative expenses or 
with the cost of services rendered. 
414. Several members of the Working Party noted  that a sufficient description of Russian 
provisions on transit was still required to confirm whether the Russian Federation's policies for trade 
in transit were in conformity with WTO provisions,  in particular Article V of GATT 1994.  Concerns 
were raised on the SCC Order No. 631 of 2 July 2001 "On the Application of Order of the State 
Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 25 of 15 January 2001" which appeared to provide 
for measures inconsistent with WTO requirements in  this area.  Questions were asked regarding the 
circumstances under which the Russian Federation might  currently impede transit of other countries' 
exports through its territory; the charges for transit es cort and the reasons for their application; and the 
provisions for the transit of goods of dual usag e. Some members expressed concerns about the 
practice of the application of specific customs proced ures by the Russian authorities in respect of this 
member's transport companies.  Th at member noted that country-speci fic restrictive transit procedures 
were incompatible with WTO provisions, notably Articles I and V of GATT 1994.  He requested the 
Russian Federation to ensure that these and any othe r country-specific measures of transit procedures 
would be brought into conformity with WTO requirements upon accession. Other members of the 
WTO asked that the Russian Federation identify how  it would eliminate WTO-inconsistent measures, 
such as State Customs Committee Order number 631 of  27 August 2001.  Those members asked that  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 131 
 
 
Russia ensure that all WTO obligatio ns to provide for freedom of transit (and associated disciplines 
on for example fees and charges) would be applied to  all products and irrespective of the form that 
transit may take (eg road, rail, air, pipeline or ot her fixed infrastructure).  Those members noted, in 
particular, concerns with regard to certain trans it arrangements for energy products such as oil and 
gas. 
415. In response to questions on the ban on transit ove r the territory of the Russian Federation, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that aircrafts carrying armaments, military equipment, 
military property were forbidden to cross the territo ry of the Russian Federation by transit without 
making a landing on the territory of the Russian Fede ration.  Import to, export from, and transit of 
explosives for industrial purposes by juridical persons  over the territory of the Russian Federation as 
part of the accompanied or unaccompanied luggage a nd handle luggage, and their cargo shipment to 
natural persons' addresses was also  forbidden.  Apart from that, there was a set of special rules on 
transit of narcotics, substances with psychotropic e ffects, poisons and the substances given in tables I 
and II of the "Convention of the United Nations Orga nization Against Illegal Circulation of Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances" of 1988.  These rules co mplied with the norms of international law. 
416. With regard to concerns of some WTO member s related to the SCC Order No. 631 of 2 July 
2001 "On the Application of Order of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 25 of 15 January 2001" he confirmed that that Order had been abolished by the SCC Order No.517 of 24 
May 2002.   
417. In response to further questions concerning diffe rent rules and practices applied to products 
shipped through the territory of the Russian Federa tion under different methods of transport, he noted 
that Russian legislation provided freedom of transit  (in respect of fees and charges) to all products  
irrespective of the form that transit may  take as it is required in the SCC Instruction “On Levy of 
Customs Duties for Customs Legalization (adopted by the SCC Order No.1010 of 9 November 2000). Customs duties were not levied on the goods, transfe rred through the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation in accordance with the provisions of Chapte r 6 of The Customs Code of the Russian 
Federation regulating the transit customs régime, and under the terms of the intergovernmental 
agreements and international agre ements of the Russian Federation. In respect of customs duties 
applied to transit by air, water and pipeline, no  charges are levied on the goods treated under the 
transit customs régime, if the customs body of departure concurrent with the customs body of 
assignment.    
418. He further noted that the new draft Customs C ode provided that the terms of transit of goods 
from outside Russia would be the same as the terms of tr ansit for internal customs transit.  Article 6 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 132  
 
the draft Customs Code established that internal customs transit required the the permission of the 
customs body that regulated the region of delivery.   Permission would be granted upon the observance 
of following requirements:   the goods were not pr ohibited imports;  and any applicable frontier and 
other forms of control had been conducted for the imported goods.  Permissions and (or) licenses were 
granted sent on goods, if all documentation required under Article 43 of  Draft Customs Code was 
provided, if the goods were sufficiently identified, appropriate transport was used and customs seals 
and stamps were affixed.  He noted that payment of any customs duties was regulated by Chapter 35 
of Draft  Customs Code. 
419. He further noted that upon departure of the goods  from the customs territory of Russia, the 
carrier or expeditor must present the declaration concerning the cargo. If the goods and seals were intact and all needed information (as defined by re levant international agreements such as the TIR 
Carnet and the Agreement on Uniform Conditions of  Transit through the Territories of the Customs 
Union) was contained, permission to leave the terr itory would be granted.  He further noted that 
Article 46 of the draft stated that the customs escort of goods was to be required only in certain specified cases, when other measures (the paym ent of a security for any customs duties) was 
insufficient. 
420. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all its laws and regulations governing transit operations and w ould act in full conformity with 
the provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular Article V of GATT 1994.] 
- Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products 
421. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the key long-term objectives of the 
Russian agricultural sector were the establishmen t of an effective and competitive agro-industrial 
production and the provision of a sufficient degree of  food security for the Russian population.  These 
objectives required a comprehensive program of polic y measures of both a short-term and a long-term 
nature.  Pursuant to the Protocol No. 25 of 27 Ju ly 2000 on "Priority Trends of Agri-Food Policy of 
the Government of the Russian Federation for 20 01 – 2010", approved by the Government on 27 July 
2000, the Russian agricultural sector needed first and foremost to a ddress the problems that had been 
accumulated over the years preceding the reform an d during the reform, and notably the sectoral 
imbalance of prices and revenues which was a majo r adverse factor in agrarian production, low 
profitability, and the development of a material base.   
422. He described the current priorities of the agro -food policy and the agrarian reform in the 
Russian Federation and provided detail on agricultu ral support measures and policies falling under the 
green and amber boxes defined under the WTO Agreem ent on Agriculture.  He said that, taking into  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 133 
 
 
account such factors as the geography of agricultu ral production in the Russian Federation, its vast 
territory, actual state of development of transpor tation system and infrastructures supporting exports 
of agricultural products, use of export subsidies by  some of the Russian Federation's major partners 
and also the prevailing conditions for competitio n on world agricultural markets, the Russian 
Government came to the conclusion that export subsidies consistent with the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture could also be used.  Therefore, the Ru ssian Federation intended to reserve its right to use 
export subsidies subject to: (a) agreed reductions with WTO Members over a fixed period of time;  
and (b) the results of the on-going WTO negotiations on agriculture. 
423. Members noted that a more comprehensive and up-to-date submission of the Russian 
Federation's agricultural support policies was still requi red.  They stressed that such information was 
needed in order to establish a detailed description of  the Russian Federation's agricultural policies on 
which appropriate commitments could be determin ed.  While recognising the possibility of having 
recourse to "amber box" measures under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, several members 
considered that in determining its requirements and level of commitments the Russian Federation 
should give emphasis to the use of "green box" measures that could achieve the desired reform 
objectives pursued by the Russian Federation in th e field of agriculture.  Some members further 
argued that in the current context they considered  it inappropriate for any country to accede to the 
WTO with export subsidy commitments.  These members stressed the need that the Russian 
Federation should bind its export subsidies at zero.  In this respect, these memb ers also stressed that 
the disciplines contained in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture on export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes needed to be a pplied by the Russian Federation so as to avoid 
circumvention of the commitment not to provide export subsidies. 
424. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that by the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would not maintain or introdu ce any export subsidies on agricultural products.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.]  
425. The Russian Federation's concessions on agricu ltural tariffs, and commitments on domestic 
support and on export subsidies for agricultural products were contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods annexed to the Draft Protocol.  
- Trade in Civil Aircraft   
426. Some members of the working Party asked that the Russian Federation enter a commitment to 
join the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft upon accession.  Members of the Working Party also 
requested that the Russian Federation implemen t the agreement without exceptions and without 
recourse to any transitional period, and that the Ru ssian Federation should ensure that all internal WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 134  
 
taxes would be applied to the sale or lease of civil aircraft in a non-discriminatory fashion between 
imported and domestically produced goods and between goods imported from third countries. 
427. Some members of the Working Party also requested that Russia provide additional 
information on its current activities, e.g., licensing and tariff suspensions, that might operate to 
increase market access in Ru ssia for aircraft.  In response, the re presentative of the Russian Federation 
stated that the degree of exploitation of the manuf acturing facilities in the aviation industry in the 
Russian Federation did not exceed 10–15 per cent.  As  a result, most enterprises of the aviation sector 
suffered losses, thus substantially limiting th e possibilities of financing the procedures for 
modernization of the facilities, introduction of modern manufacturing and servicing technologies.  
Over 50 per cent of the currently operated technological and experimental equipment required renewal.  The integrated corporate structures est ablished in the aviation sector cannot remedy the 
situation due to the shortage of their revenues. He  noted that Government Resolution No. 574 dated 2 
August 2001 had cancelled investment incentives (exe mption from customs duties and taxes) in this 
sector.    He further recalled that Governme nt Resolution No. 574 of  2 August 2001 "On Certain 
Issues of Regulation of Temporary Imports of Fore ign Made Aircraft" had superseded Government 
Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1 998 "On Additional Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in 
Russia".   
428. In response to several members request for a co mmitment by Russia to join the Agreement on 
Trade in Civil Aircraft upon accession, he stated that  the current situation of the aviation sector made 
it impossible for the Russian Federation to join the Agreement On Trade in Civil Aircraft and 
implement its requirements. 
- Textiles 
429. Some members noted that upon its accession to the WTO, the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) would also become relevant for the Russian Federation.  
In this connection, a member said that its bila teral quotas on imports from the Russian Federation of 
certain textile and clothing produc ts would become the starting-point for further liberalisation under 
the terms of that Agreement.  In order to ensure an  orderly transfer to this new status and to guarantee 
the benefits of ATC trade liberalisation for Russi an exports, that member sought an appropriate 
commitment in the Draft Report. 
430. Another member of the Working Party stated that the quantitative restrictions on imports 
maintained by WTO Members on textiles and cl othing products originating from the Russian 
Federation that were in force on the date prior to the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO should be notified to the Textiles monitoring Body (TMB) by the members maintaining such  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 135 
 
 
restrictions and would be applied for the purposes of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing.  Thus, for the purpose of the Russian Fe deration's accession to the WTO, the phrase "day 
prior to the date of entry into force of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing" should be deemed to 
refer to the day prior to the date of accession of th e Russian Federation to the WTO.  To this base 
level the increase in growth rates provided for in Ar ticles 2.13 and  2.14 of the Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing should be applied, as appropriate, in the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing from the 
date of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO. 
431. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation raised concern in respect of the 
application of the provisions of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and stated 
that this issue required further clarification. 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) General 
432. The representative of the Russian Federation said that, in his view, the national system of 
protection of intellectual property rights complied w ith the basic international standards adopted in 
this field, including  the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The Constitution of the 
Russian Federation determined the basic political trends  in the field of intellectual property in Russia. 
Article 44, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guaranteed freedom of literary, 
artistic, scientific, technical and other types of creative and educational activity and provided their 
legal protection.  The whole system of the Russian  legislation in force supported the implementation 
of that constitutional right.  A number of interna tional agreements signed by the Russian Federation 
constituted an integral part of this system.  Purs uant to Article 1 of the Federal law No.96-FZ of 24 
July 2002 “On Enforcement of  Arbitration Pro cedure Code of the Russian Federation”, the new 
Arbitration Procedure Code No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 on "Arbitration Procedure Code" entered into 
force on 1 September 2002.  The civil, administra tive and criminal procedures of protection of 
intellectual property rights were stipulated by the following laws: the Patent Law, the Law “On 
Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods”, the Law “On Copyright and 
Related Rights”, the Law “On Legal Protection of Topologies and Integrated Microcircuits”, the Law 
“On Legal Protection of Computer Programs and Databases". 
433. He further noted that his country was a member of the World Intellectual Property 
Organization since 1970 and was a party mostly to a ll the treaties which had defined internationally 
agreed basic standards of intellectual property protection in each country. Specifically, it concerned international conventions mentioned in Article 1:3, including footnote 2, of the TRIPS Agreement.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 136  
 
434. He also confirmed that the Russian Federation was a party to "Paris Convention" (the Paris 
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Propert y);  "Paris Convention (1967)" (the Stockholm Act 
of this Convention of 14 July 1967);  "Berne Conve ntion" (the Berne Convention for the Protection of 
Literary and Artistic Works);  "Ber ne Convention (1971)" (the Paris Ac t of this Convention of 24 July 
1971);  "Rome Convention" (the In ternational Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers 
of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations, a dopted at Rome on 26 October 1961).  He also 
added that the Federal law No.82-FZ of 9 Ju ly 2002 "On Amendments to the Law "On Legal 
Protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circ uits" reflected the provisions of the "Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Ci rcuits" (IPIC Treaty) refers to the Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, adopted at Washington on 26 May 1989.  
435. Commenting on specific aspects of ongoing legislative work in the area of TRIPS and in 
response to specific inquiries by members of the Working Party members, the representative of the 
Russian Federation provided the following information.   
- Copyright and Related Rights 
436. He further added that , the provisions of the Russian legislation on copyright (including those 
relating to protection of computer programs and datab ases) were in conformity with the provisions of 
the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary  and Artistic Works (including Article 6 bis) and 
the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  In particular, the Russian legislation 
protected not only personal non-proprietary rights of au thors, such as authorship right, right to name, 
publication right, right to protect reputation of the author, but also property rights of authors which 
could be inherited.  Thus copyrigh ts were valid during the life of the author and during 50 years after 
his/her death.  In certain cases stipulated by th e law, the term for protection was calculated on the 
basis of other dates ( for instance from the date of latest death of a co-author where a work had been 
created in co-authorship).  The draft law under cons ideration by the Duma intended to extend the term 
for protection to 70 years after the death of the au thor. At the same time, further to the declaration 
made by the Government of the Russian Federation when joining the Bern Convention, the provisions 
of the latter did not applied to literary and artis tic works which were of public property when the 
Convention came into force for the Russian Federati on.  In accordance with Article 28 of Federal Law 
No. 3531-1-FZ of 9 July 1993 "On Copyright and Re lated Rights", works for which the term of 
copyright had elapsed as well as works which had never been protected in the Russian Federation 
were considered to have become public property.  The Russian authorities intended to further amend 
this law so as to bring it in full conformity with the respective requirements  of the Bern Convention 
and WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  He further noted that Russia had become a party to the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers,  Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 137 
 
 
Organizations (1961) on 26 May 2003 with the fo llowing reservations: non-ap plication of phonogram 
criteria (in accordance with paragraph 1(b) of Artic le 5 of the Convention; protection of broadcasting 
in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention; non-application and limitation of 
protection under Article 12 of the Convention with regard to phonograms. 
- Trademarks 
437. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the provisions of the Russian 
legislation relating to the protection of trademarks  and service marks conformed to the provisions of 
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial  Property and the relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on TRIPS, including those which governed  protection of well-known marks with respect 
to non-homogeneous goods. Those provisions were included in the Federal law No. 166-FZ of 11 
December 2002 "On Amending the Law "On Trad emarks, Service Marks and Appellations of 
Origin". The updated Russian legislation in for ce allowed for protection of well-known trademarks. 
The legal basis was Articles 2, 7, 19.1, 19.2 of the Law No. 3520-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Or igin" as well as the Regulation of Rospatent  No. 
38 of 17 March 2000 “On Establishing Rules of  Recognizing a Well-Known Trademark in the 
Russian Federation”. The Law included the definiti on of a well-known trade-mark which was based 
on the provisions of the updated law and totall y conformed to the Joint Recommendation on the 
Provisions of the Protection for Well-Known Trade Marks of the Paris Union Assembly and General 
Assembly of WIPO. The legislation did not requ ire the registration of well-known trademarks.  
Nevertheless, any trademark claimi ng to be well-known should be rec ognized as such by a competent 
authority, i.e. the Higher Patent Chamber of Rosp atent. This procedure for granting protection was 
fully consistent with the Paris Convention.  The prov isions of criminal and civil legislation applicable 
to "ordinary" trademarks were also applicable  to well-known trademarks. Among the remedies taken 
were recognition of the right, prevention of infri ngement, compensation of  losses, criminal and 
administrative liability. 
- Geographical Indications 
438. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that prior to 1992, geographical 
indications in the Russian Federation were protect ed mostly by considering any false geographical 
indications as a form of unfair competition or a violation of consumer rights (this was done by 
antitrust -antimonopoly- agencies or courts respectively).  Since 1992 one important category of geographical indications - appellations of origin - was accorded special protection through their State 
registration in line with the procedure set forth in the Federal Law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 
"On Trademarks, Service Marks a nd Appellations of Origin".  Protection for such types of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 138  
 
geographical indications was provided for unde r Article 6 of the said law which prohibited 
registration of trademarks containing indicati ons of the place of production of goods as well as 
trademarks containing false indications or indications which might mislead the customer as to the 
identity of the producer of goods.  Protection of ap pellation of origin existed for all kind of goods – 
food and manufactured goods alike.  According to Article 47 of the same law, the right to register an appellation of origin in the Russian Federation was gr anted to persons and legal entities of those states 
that provided similar rights to Russian persons and legal entities. 
439. In response, some members of the Working Pa rty stated that they considered that the 
registration and protection of appella tions of origin should be based on the requirements of the TRIPS 
Agreement, and not according to whether mutual bilateral recognition agreements existed.   
440. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her stated that the provisions ensuring the 
protection of geographical indications in the Russ ian Federation complied w ith the Paris Convention 
for the Protection of Industrial Property and th e relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
TRIPS. The amendments made to the Law of th e Russian Federation No.3520-1 of 23 September 
1992 "On Trademarks, Service Mark s and Appellations of Origin" were consistent with those 
provisions of the Agreement on TRIPS related to ad ditional protection of geographical indications of 
wines and spirits, and extended to the geographical  indications protected by the WTO members. 
National treatment envisaged by the Law was restricted  by the reciprocity principle. According to that 
principle, the right for the registration in the Russi an Federation of the appella tion of origin of goods 
was granted to legal entities and individuals from those states which provided similar rights to 
Russian individuals and legal entities. The pro cedure for the application for registration of 
appellations of origin by forei gners was similar to a number of  other countries where registration 
systems were implemented. 
- Inventions and Industrial Designs 
He further added that overall,  the provisions of Federal Law No. 3517-FZ of 23 September 1992 (as 
amended on 7 February 2003) "Patent Law of the Ru ssian Federation on the protection of inventions 
and industrial designs" were in c onformity with the Paris Conventi on and the relevant provisions of 
the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.   The law "On amendments to the Patent Law of the Russian 
Federation" reflected the provisions of Article 31 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS by extending the 
scope of currently existing provisions on "compulsory licensing".  Under this draft law, a patent might 
not be obtained in relation to the following: plant va rieties, animal breeds, solutions violating social 
interests or humanitarian and moral principles. This amendment corresponded to Article 27.3 of the 
WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  Under the Patent Law in force, the validity term of patents for all kind  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 139 
 
 
of inventions was 20 years, starting from the date  when the application was submitted. This term 
corresponded to the relevant provisions of Article  33 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS. Moreover, 
the amendment to this law provided for the possi bility of extending such term for pharmaceutical 
products (medicines), pesticides and agricultural chem icals, if their use had been based on a consent 
of an authorized state body. In these cases, the ge neral 20 year term might be extended for up to 5 
years.  The Patent law also established civil, ad ministrative and criminal liability for illegal use of 
patents, inventions and industrial designs.  
- Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection  
441. Plant varieties and animal breeds were protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 5605-1 FZ of 6 August 1993 "On Selection Attain ments".  The provisions of this Law, in the 
Russian Federation's view,  were in conformity  with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS and the UPOV 
Convention (International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants) to which the Russian 
Federation became a member in 1998. 
- Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
442. Layout designs of integrated circuits we re protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 3526-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Legal Protection of  Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits".  In 
general, the provisions of this Law were in c onformity with the provisions of the Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circu its (Washington Treaty).  In addition, the Federal 
Law No. 82-FZ of 9 July 2002 "On amendments to th e Law "On Legal Protection of Layout Designs 
of Integrated Circuits" contained provisions aimed at satisfying the requirements of the Agreement on 
TRIPS which were additional to those of the Washington Treaty. 
- Requirements on undisclosed information,  including trade secrets and test data 
443. Protection of undisclosed information, as in Section 7 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, was 
ensured in the Russian legislation by virtue of Article  139 of the Civil Code.  In particular, this article 
stipulated legal protection of undisclosed inform ation which constituted official or commercial 
secrets, including information related to products yet to  be patented.  In addition, the acquisition, use, 
or disclosure of scientific, technical, production, or commercial information, including commercial 
secrets, without the owner's consent were not pe rmitted by virtue of Ar ticle 10 of Federal Law 
No. 948-1 of 23 March 1991 "On Competition and R estriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity 
Markets".  The provisions of the above-mentioned la ws prohibited the use of undisclosed information 
without the consent of the right holder.  All these provisions were applicable to the protection of 
confidential (undisclosed) information related to pharmaceutical and argochemical products WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 140  
 
containing new chemical substances.  Following the opi nion of the Ministry of Health of the Russian 
Federation the term of six years was sufficient to protect undisclosed information obtained during 
clinical tests of new medicines.  In the event that protection of undisclosed information could 
endanger the human life and health such information could be published before  the expire of this 
term. 
- Enforcement 
- Criminal Measures 
444. Since 1999 there had been a special department  dealing with intellectual property crimes 
within the Main Economic Crime Division of the Mini stry of Interior (and its regional departments).  
As for criminal sanctions, the Criminal Code of  13 June 1996 included three articles specifically 
dealing with intellectual property: Article 146 (Cop yright and Related Rights Violations); Article 147 
(Patents Violations); and Article 180 (Trademark Violations).  While copyright violations were 
punishable by fines and imprisonment, for other in tellectual property violations no imprisonment had 
been provided until December 2001 where a new para graph was introduced to the Criminal Code 
providing for liability for illegal use of trademarks. In addition to fines, this paragraph stipulated that 
sanctions up to five years of imprisonment.  Article  146 of the Criminal Code (as amended on 8 April 
2003) reinforced criminal liability for illegal use of objects of copyright and related rights as well for 
purchase, storage, transportation of counterfeited wo rks of art or phonograms for the purpose of their 
sale in large quantities . This new legislation increase d the penalty up to 5 years of imprisonment with 
or without confiscation of property. 
445. Since intellectual property crimes were not c onsidered to be "grave" crimes, enforcement 
bodies used other articles of the Criminal Code wh ere appropriate such as sm uggling, consumer fraud, 
etc.  Confiscation of illegal goods, materials and equipment used for their manufacturing was not 
directly stipulated under Articles 146, 147 and 180 of the Criminal Code.  It was normal practice, 
however, to confiscate these goods and machinery as ma terial evidence.  For the illegal copies, the 
right holder could request to take them. For machin ery, the matter had to be decided by courts.  
Concerning the Superior Arbitration Court's practice, the Court issued a decision on confiscation and destruction in cases where the right holder did not requ est the goods to be transferred to him.  Where a 
court did not order confiscation of  illegal goods in civil proceedings, the right holder might appeal. 
- Criminal Procedures 
446. In accordance with the legislation in force,  the enforcement bodies had no responsibility for 
discovering or identifying criminal violations.  Sinc e intellectual property violations were within the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 141 
 
 
category of private accusation, criminal procedure could not be initiated without a complaint by the 
right holder.  The time limits for investigation in  accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code was 
initially 10 days and 30 days for the final decision in complex cases.  Normally, the statement that the 
goods were counterfeit was made by th e right holder.  Official state examination might be done by the 
Centre for Expertise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the request from an anti-trust or law enforcement body and on the basis of a relevant court order, Rospatent experts provided an opinion regarding a 
trademark, invention or another intellectual propert y issue.  An investigator, prosecutor or court 
would then make a decision based on the results of the examination.  The examination initiated by the 
law enforcement bodies was free of charge.   
 
- Border Measures 447. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that Article 10 of the Customs Code 
referred intellectual property protection to the comp etence of the Customs authority. Since 1998, the 
State Customs Committee accepted applications from right holders for the customs measures.  The 
following documents had to be presented: confirmati on of the intellectual property rights, power of 
attorney (when necessary) and information on the violation (description of goods) as well as any 
additional information available from the right holder.  The Code of Administrative Offences in force 
since 1 July 2002 introduced administrative liability for import of goods violat ing intellectual property 
rights. 
In response to concerns of members the representa tive of the Russian Federation stated that with 
regard to ex officio  authority, a new Code of Administrative Offences had been in force since 1 July 
2002.  That Code provided administ rative responsibility for imports of  goods infringing IPRs in its 
Articles 4.10 and 7.12. In accordance with the Chap ter 28 (Articles 28.2 and 28.3) of this Code, 
customs authorities upon their own initiative, if they had acquired prima facie evidence, could initiate 
an administrative investigation in this case. In th e course of such investigation, customs authorities 
were authorized to suspend the release of suspected goods, seek from  the right holder any information 
that may assist them in the investigation. A ll persons concerned had the right to familiarize 
themselves with the record of the case, as well as submit explanations and comments, which were 
attached to the record of the case. The suspension of the release of  suspected goods normally lasted 
one month (a period prescribed for the administrati ve investigation) and could be extended for a 
further period, but not more than for six months.  
- Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 142  
 
448. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that remedies currently available under 
the Civil Code included confirmation of rights;  prohibition of actions violating rights;  imposing 
fines;  compensation of damages caused to the righ t holder;  and compensation of income received by 
the infringer and statutory compensation. The last  two measures were available only for copyrights. 
Regarding claims for damages and assessment of damages, civil law cases provided for the general 
principle of full recovery of damages.  The amount  of damage was calculate d in accordance with the 
general norms of the Civil Code based on the pr ices of corresponding legitimate goods adjusted for 
actual damage and forgone profit of the right holder.  As for the statutory compensation, it was initially defined by the plaintiff who had the burde n to prove the fact of damage caused without 
calculating the amount.  It was further assessed by the court based on the nature of infringement, 
income received by the infringer and other releva nt facts.  The final decision on the amount of 
compensation rested with the court. Regardi ng provisional measures under Article 90 of the new 
Arbitration Procedure Code, the arbitration court c ould issue an order for preliminary injunction based 
on the plaintiff's petition.  Such measures should be aimed at securing the clai m. Provisional measures 
included: prohibition of infringing actions, arrest  of property including back accounts, seizure of 
documents and other evidence.  The judge handling the case should make a decision the next day after 
the petition was filed without the representatives of the parties.   
449. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that a new Code of Administrative 
Offences was in force since 1 July 2002. Article s 7.12, 7.28 and 14.10 of this Code established 
administrative liability for violation of copyrights an d related rights, rights regarding inventions and 
industrial designs, trademarks, service marks and a ppellation of origin. The administrative sanctions, 
in addition to fines, included confiscation of  counterfeit products. In addition, anti-monopoly 
legislation provided certain sanctions that were administered directly by the Ministry of Anti-monopoly Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship. Any business entity whose rights of 
intellectual property were violated by another busine ss entity could apply to the Ministry to start the 
proceedings against the offender.  The Ministry could issue a decision imposing fines or demanding 
certain actions or prohibiting infringing actions.  The procedure normally took between one and two 
months, and in complicated cases between three and six months. The new Arbitration Procedure Code 
of the Russian Federation which came into fo rce on 1 September 2002 introduced new preliminary 
safeguard measures applied prior to submitting a st atement of claim (Article 99). The safeguards 
complied with the provisions of Ar ticle 44 of the Agreement on TRIPS. 
450. In response to questions concerning appeals processes in intellectual property matters, he 
further noted that the Appellate Chamber of Rosp atent heard disputes arising out of use of objects 
protected by the Russian laws regulating intellectual property issues (Articles 13, 19.2, 28, 29, 34, 42, 
42.1 of Law of the Russian Federation of Septem ber 23, 1992, No. 3520-1 «On Trademarks, Service  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 143 
 
 
Marks and Appellations of Origin of Goods» (as amended by Federal Law No. 166-FZ of December 
11, 2002), Articles 21, 29 of Patent Law of th e Russian Federation No. 3517-1 of September 23, 
1992).     
451. He further noted that the Appellate Ch amber performed the following functions: 
- Considered objections to refusals to issue patent for an invention, industrial design or 
certificate for utility model or to accept an application for trademark, service mark or appellation of origin based on the results of a formal examination. 
- Considered objections to refusals to issue pate nt for an invention, industrial design or to 
register a trademark, service mark, appellation of origin and/or to grant the right to use an 
appellation of origin, based on an  on the merits examination of applications and examination 
of the designations applied for. 
- Considered objections from individuals and legal entities against issuance of patents for 
inventions, industrial designs and certificates for utility models in violation of existing 
Russian copyright certificates for inventions  and certificates for industrial designs, and 
against registration of trademarks, service ma rks, appellations of origin, and issuance of 
certificate for the right to use appellations of origin. 
- Based on the results of hearings of the above ob jections held in accordance with the Rules of 
Hearing Objections by the Appellate Chambe r, the Appellate Chamber passes a decision. 
- Provided confidentiality of hearings of an y objections by the Appellate Chamber. 
- Prepared publication of its results in the official press organs of Rospatent. 
- Performed registration of documents confirming payment of fees required by law for lodging 
an application with the Appellate Chambe r and for an act thereof by the Chamber. 
 
452. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 3520-1 of September 23, 1992 «On Trademarks, Service Marks and Appellations of Origin of 
Goods» (as amended by Federal Law No. 166-FZ of December 11, 2002) provided for the creation of 
Patent Dispute Chamber within the federal execu tive authority (Rospatent) for consideration of 
applicable objections, complaints, applications and petitions. The Patent Dispute Chamber will be 
created based on the Appellate Chamber of Rospatent. 
453. He further noted that pursuant to Article 43. 1 of the Law «On Trademarks, Services Marks 
and Appellations of Origin of Goods), the decisions  of the Patent Dispute Chamber and the procedure 
for consideration of disputes  were  determined by the federal executive authority for intellectual 
property (Rospatent). The procedure for lodging obj ections and applications to the Patent Dispute 
Chamber and the procedure for their consideration  were determined by Rospatent. Decisions of the 
Patent Dispute Chamber  were  subject to approval by the Chief Officer of Rospatent,  took  effect from 
the date of their approval and  could  be appealed in court in accordance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 144  
 
454. Noting all the above, members of the Working Party sought a commitment that the Russian 
Federation would be in compliance with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, including its enforcement 
provisions, as from the date of accession, without  recourse to transitional arrangements.   
455. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply fully the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property 
Rights (TRIPS) from the date of accession to the WT O, including provisions for enforcement, without 
recourse to any transitional period.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation would provide effective 
protection against unfair commercial use of undisclosed  test or other data submitted to authorities in 
the Russian Federation, in support of applications  for marketing approval of pharmaceutical or of 
agricultural chemical products which utilised new chem ical entities, for a period of at least six years 
from the date on which the Russian Federation gr anted marketing approval to the person submitting 
the data.  He also confirmed that the Patent Law would be amended to better specify the legal 
framework for decision-making with respect to i ssuance of compulsory licenses (this amendment 
would put the Patent Law in  conformity with th e requirements Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement);  
the Draft Law on Trademarks would bring the Russian  legislation in this area in conformity with 
TRIPS requirements (including immediate publicati on after registration, additional protection for 
well-known trademarks against bad faith registra tion and use on dissimilar goods, and additional 
protection against trademarks registration containing geographical indications); the draft law on the introduction of amendments and addenda to Fe deral Law "On Legal Protection of Topologies of 
Integrated Circuits" would implement all the TRI PS requirements in this area and would ensure the 
granting of protection against articles embodying an  integrated circuit containing an unlawfully 
reproduced topography; the draft federal law on intr oduction of amendments a nd addenda to Federal 
Law "On Legal Protection of Computer Progra mmes and Databases" would make clear its 
relationship, as 'lex specialis' to the Copyright la w and that the Russian Federation would implement 
all TRIPS obligations with respect to Computer so ftware and Databases; the draft federal law on 
introduction of amendments and a ddenda to Federal Law "On copyri ght and related rights" would 
introduce amendments that will allow the application "in toto" of the provisions of Article 18 of the 
Berne Convention to foreign works and phonograms, including the granting of retroactive protection 
to foreign works or phonograms; and that current  revisions of Criminal Code and the Criminal 
Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of Arbitration Procedure and the Customs 
Code would allow for the correct implementation of Articles 41-61  of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS 
and the enforcement by the Russian Federa tion of intellectual property rights.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 145 
 
 
TRADE-RELATED SERVICES REGIME 
Policies Affecting Trade in Services 456. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the Russian market for services began 
to develop only in the first part of the 1990s, following the domestic process of economic reforms, 
privatisation and liberalisation of the whole system  of the Russian Federation's economic relations.  
The development of services market had led to a substantial increase of its share in national GNP, 
reaching about 55 per cent in 2000 (28 per cent in 19 91).  Although the Russian Federation's share in 
world trade in services was not yet significant, the contribution of services to the country's total trade 
was not negligible (in 2000, the Russian Federation' s share of trade in services in the world' s trade in 
services was just over 1 per cent). The balance of foreign trade in services was traditionally negative 
for the Russian Federation, with exports amounti ng to US$9,632 million and imports amounting to 
US$17,412  million in 2000 (data based on the Balance of Payments).  
457. He further stated that the reform of the Ru ssian economy during the last decade called into 
being new services sectors as well as contributed to the development of existing ones.  At the same time, be they old or new, services providers in some sectors operated within insufficient regulatory 
and institutional framework and suffe red from an unstable market struct ure.  As "infant industries', 
those services sectors were liable to positive and ne gative economic and social variations that could 
have a serious impact on the economy as a whole.  
458. He noted that t economic developments in ser vices were supported by the legislative process. 
Many laws and regulations were adopted to establis h a legal framework for provision of services in 
general (such as the Civil Code or the law on foreign investments) or in specific sectors.  However, 
the dynamism of services markets was still not ad equately reflected by the domestic regulatory 
system. As an example, the Russian banking crisis  in August 1998 was particularly associated with 
inadequate approaches to, and lack of effective prudential arrangements in, the established banking 
activities following the extreme dependence of the dom estic financial system from the situation in 
short-term foreign capital markets. For the purposes of creating a favourable economic and 
investment climate, including in the sphere of services, the Russian Federation had embarked on a series of measures to reduce restraints on the economy involving streamlining of the procedures of 
company registrations, downsizing the list of types of activities subject to licensing and a reduction of 
the frequency of inspections of enterprises. It coul d be expected that regulatory framework of the 
Russian Federation governing the services sector would,  at the same time, be subject to frequent 
adaptations and improvement in light of expe rience and of progress made in building national 
capacity to supply services on a competitive basis. In  the view of the Russian authorities this WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 146  
 
possibility did not contradict GATS provisions which recognized the right of Members to regulate and 
to introduce new regulations on the supply of services within their territories in order to meet national 
policy objectives.   
459. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed members of the Working Party that  
the existing legal framework rendered some types of services subject to licensing.   Legislative reform 
was however underway to resolve restraints on th e service economy.  Some of the laws, which had 
been passed in regard to this reform were:  Federal Law No. 129 – FZ of 8 August 2001 "On State 
Registration Of Juridical Persons";  Federal Law No. 128 – FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing Of 
Certain Types Of Activities"; and Federal Law No. 134 – FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Protection Of 
Rights Of Juridical Persons And Individual Entrep reneurs In The Procedure Of Inspection Conducted 
by the State".  The foregoing laws were meant to ease the procedure of the registration of juridical 
persons by the state, reduce substantially the num ber of activities to be licensed and reduce the 
frequency of enterprise inspections.   
460. He further noted that the Russian Federation ex ercised its sovereign rights over subsoil and 
mineral resources, underground resources within the territory of the Russian Federation, including 
subsoil domain and mineral resources contained therei n, energy and other resources.  Subsoil areas 
could not be subject to purchase, sale, gift, inhe ritance, deposit, pledge or any other form of 
alienation.  In this context, the Russian Federa tion was developing a market environment capable of 
creating favourable conditions for enterprise operation, capital and t echnology inflow and 
encouraging access to the subsoil and natural resour ces on the basis, inter alia, of production sharing 
and concession agreements.  
461. Several members of the Working Party stressed the need for more information on the Russian 
Federation's progress towards establishing the requi red inquiry point and other transparency and 
procedural requirements for complying with the GA TS.  These members requested confirmation that, 
in services sectors requiring licensing, foreign natu ral and juridical persons needing activity licenses 
could obtain them on the same terms as Russian na tural and juridical persons.  Some members noted 
that the Russian Federation had used the "infant i ndustry" argument to justify a certain level of 
protection to its services sector and asked how the Russian Federation would implement measures in 
this regard, considering that the GATS did not contemplate any safeguards mechanism.  
462. Regarding the banking sector, some members expressed concern that the two largest 
commercial banks in the Russian Federation (Sberb ank and Vneshtorgbank) were currently owned by 
the CBR.  Taken together these two banks held a dominant position on the Russian market and their 
ownership by the CBR created a clear potential conf lict of interest with the CBR's prudential and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 147 
 
 
other tasks.  While welcoming the information on plans to divest the CBR holdings in commercial 
banks, these members invited the Russian Federation to indicate a firm date by when the ownership of 
these banks and their commercial activities would be legally and in practice separated from the CBR.  
In addition, these members expressed further concern about the distortions of competition created by the unlimited (i.e. 100 per cent) state guarantee given to deposits in accounts held with Sberbank.  No 
state guarantee at all existed for deposits held in  accounts with other banks, whether Russian or 
foreign.  As this would foster  equal conditions of competition in  the Russian banking sector and 
would help improve the solidity and functioning of the financial sector more generally, these members 
expected that the Russian Federation would commit by  an agreed timeframe to divest or bring under 
the responsibility of another branch of government the commercial activities of the CBR and to ensure 
that there was no discrimination between establishe d banks as regards the guarantee of deposits.  One 
member of the Working Party expressed concern ove r the current regulations of the CBR regarding 
qualification of certain countries as off-shore zon es and other discriminatory measures in the banking 
sector and requested the Russian Federation to bring these regulations in conformity with 
internationally recognized practices. 
463. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation provi ded additional information on 
the Sberegatel'ny Bank, Vneshtorgbank and the system of guaranteeing personal deposits.  The 
Sberegatel'ny Bank of the Russian Federation (Sbe rbank) was a credit organization which played a 
leading role in the personal deposits market.  In  the near future, the CBR intended to retain its 
controlling stake in Sberbank since issues of the CBR 's withdrawal from its capital and changes of the 
structure of its shareholders were closely connected to the creation of a system of guaranteeing deposits and with prospects for the entry of Sberbank  into such a system.  Sberbank's participation in 
the system of guaranteeing deposits had already been  deemed feasible.  The issue of the conditions 
and procedure for its entry would be resolved as the draft Federal Law "On Guaranteeing the 
Repayment of Deposits of Physical Persons in Ba nks of the Russian Federation" was developed.  
Article 8 of the re-edited version of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 July 2002, "On the Central Bank of 
the Russian Federation (the Bank of Russia)", established that the CBR would withdraw from Vneshtorgbank's capital prior to 1 January 2003.  Thereafter, the issue of the sale of a part of 
Vneshtorgbank's shares to international financia l organisations and private investors would be 
considered. 
464. He added that the CBR participated in the cap itals of the following credit organisations 
created on the territories of foreign states: Donau-bank AG, Vienna; East-West United Bank, 
Luxemburg; Commercial Bank for Northern Europe  – Eurobank, Paris; the Moscow National Bank 
Ltd., London; Ost-West Handelsbank AG, Frankf urt-on-Main.  Under th e Federal Law "On the 
Central Bank of the Russian Federa tion (the Bank of Russia)", the CBR's participation in the charter WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 148  
 
capitals of these banks was reduced or alienated in  the procedure and deadlines determined by the 
CBR as approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. 
465. The Government of the Russian Federation and the CBR assumed that the creation of an 
effective system of guaranteeing citizens' deposits  would enable public confidence in the banking 
sector to be regained would allow banks' resource base  to be broadened, incl uding the financing of the 
real economy, and would strengthe n competition on the market of a ttracting personal deposits.   The 
reliability of the system of guaranteeing deposits wa s of principal importance.  The Government of 
the Russian Federation, jointly with the CBR, was preparing, for introduction to the State Duma, a 
draft federal law, envisaging the following provisions: 
- only financially stable banks whose status  had been assessed using internationally 
acknowledged approaches might be admitted to the system of guaranteeing deposits; 
- the system of guaranteeing deposits would be  created in two stages.  Following the 
adoption of the Federal Law "On Guaran teeing Physical Persons' Deposits", a 
transitional period (Stage 1) would be  introduced, envisaging banks' voluntary 
inclusion in the system.  Banks not included in the system would retain the right to 
attract deposits from physical persons; 
- Stage 2 would commence upon the expiry of a year following the transfer of credit 
organisations to international accounting and financial reporting standards.  At this 
stage, banks attracting deposits from physical persons will be obliged to participate in 
the system of guaranteeing deposits.  Those banks not included in the system would 
be deprived of the right to work with physical persons' funds. 
466. Regarding the construction sector, some members of the Working Party noted that services 
suppliers to the Russian market were subject to multiple approvals for each single aspect of their 
operation and that the procedural requirements for obtaining these approvals were generally 
non-transparent and applied in an non-consistent manner over time and in different geographic areas 
of the Russian Federation.  Those members asked  how the new legislative acts that the Russian 
Federation intended to enact on "debureaucratisa tion" would ensure that domestic regulations 
concerning construction-related activities would be  no more burdensome that necessary to guarantee 
the quality of the service and would not constitute unn ecessary barriers to trade in this area.  They 
further asked whether these new legislative act s would also establish any principles for the 
administration of these regulations, in particular en suring consistency of implementation in the entire 
territory of the Russian Federation, and what legal procedures would be availabl e to services suppliers 
who wished to appeal against administrative decisions. 
467. In response to questions he noted that constr uction services were jointly regulated by  the 
Russian Federation and subjects of the Russian Federation.  The basic normative acts on the regulation of the provision of services in the sphe re of construction include d:  Civil Code of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 149 
 
 
Russian Federation;  provision "On Licensing Of Wo rks Of Mounting, Repairing And Servicing Of 
Anti-Fire Equipment Of Buildings And Construc tions" (approved by Government Resolution No. 373 
of 31 May 2002);  provision "On licensing of works on the design of buildings and constructions of 
the 1st and 2nd levels in accordance with the state-set standards" (approved by Government 
Resolution No. 174 of 21 March 2002);  and provision s "On licensing of works on the construction of 
buildings and constructions of th e 1st and 2nd levels of liability in accordance with the state-set 
standards" (approved by Government Resolu tion No. 174 of 21 March 2002)These normative acts 
were applied uniformly on the whole territory of th e Russian Federation.  The procedure for filing of 
an appeal against decisions made by the state aut horities, local administration, public unions and 
individuals in authority was described  in paragraphs 19 and 20 of document 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add 2. 
468. Regarding the energy sector, some members noted that the Russian Federation had so far 
made no commitments on mining, oil drilling and pi peline services. In this regard, these members 
requested details of the relationship, if any, be tween the lack of any co mmitments in these activities 
and the exercise of the Russian Federation's sovere ign rights over its subsoil and mineral and energy 
resources.  They further asked a clarification on the Russian Federation's intentions in respect of the 
development of a market environment in relation to the provision of mining, oil-drilling and pipeline 
services and whether these would be consistent with  the role that the Russian Federation saw for the 
conclusion of production sharing agreem ents and concession arrangements.  
469. One member of the Working Party expressed de ep concern over the Russian Federation's 
maintenance of a discriminatory regime with regard to the supply of services on the Russian 
Federation's services' market by his country's nationa ls residing in different regions of his country, 
under the mode of supply –"commercial presence" a nd "movement of natural persons". A member 
requested the Russian Federation to make the necess ary adjustments in order to avoid discriminatory 
treatment and to allow all his nati onals to provide services on the Russian  market on an equal footing.   
470. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated th at the nature and origin of 
this situation was due to complicated historical factors.  The Russian Federation felt that the settlement to those problems which were outside the WTO, could be achieved through bilateral  
negotiations and was prepared to take  all possible steps in this regard. 
471. Another member requested confirmation regard ing the Russian Federation's intention to 
introduce international accounting standards (IAS) a dopted by the International Accounting Standards 
Board (IASB) for banks by 1 January 2004 and for a ll listed companies by 1 January 2005.  That 
member asked the Russian Federation to confirm this  information and indicate the steps by which it WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 150  
 
intended to achieve this objective.  He also requ ested the Russian Federation to provide information 
on the actual application of IAS by Russian companie s.  Another member asked whether the financial 
measures described by the Russian Federation in re lation to currency regulatio ns and controls were 
not already covered by Article XII of the GATS and paragraph 2 of the Annex on Financial Services. 
472. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that in the services sectors inscribed in 
the Russian Federation's Schedule of Specific Co mmitments, WTO Members' nationals who were 
services suppliers should be accorded treatment no l ess favorable than that provided for under the 
terms, limitations and conditions and subject to qualifications specified in its Schedule as it was 
provided by GATS.  He also noted that the re quirement for establishing a GATS enquiry point was 
being addressed.  He further noted that the Russi an Federation had a limited number of bilateral 
agreements related to debt settlements and tec hnical assistance measures resulting from agreements 
on legal assistance which contained some preferentia l provisions.  The Russian Federation understood 
that WTO provisions should not be construed as preventing the Russian Federation implementing 
these bilateral agreements for the period of their validity.  For the purpose of the protection of 
interests of investors, depositors and policy-holde rs, the protection of national currency of the Russian 
Federation and also for the purpose of ensuring the st ability and integrity of the financial system, the 
Russian Federation did not exclude the possibility of  applying measures affecting currency regulation 
and currency control and any transaction involving in struments of the internal debt of the Russian 
Federation and raising credits or loans at internati onal financial markets by issuance and placement of 
bonds and other issue-grade securities outside the territory of the Russian Federation. 
473. Referring to several horizontal measures of regulation, he noted that those measures were 
described in the note “Some Horizontal Aspects of  Regulation of Trade in Services”, Job No. 8245, 
Non Paper No. 15 of 16 October 2002services consider ed as public utilities could be subject to public 
monopolies or exclusive rights granted to private opera tors.  Public utilities existed in sectors such as 
utility services, related scientific and technical consulting services, services on obligatory independent 
technical testing, appraisals, examinations and analysis, environmental services, health services, 
transport services and services auxiliary to all modes of transport.  Exclusive rights on such services 
could be granted to private operators, for instan ce operators with concessions from bodies of state 
power and local self-governmental bodies, subject  to specific services obligations.  These services 
were universal and were supplied on the basis of pu blic contract.  These measures were applied on 
non-discriminatory basis with respect to foreign services suppliers. 
474. He stated that the policy of the Russian  Federation in preserving, developing, and 
disseminating culture, required  an authorization with respect to the acquisition of control over a 
juridical person of the Russian Fede ration related to the cultural herita ge of Russian Federation and/or  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 151 
 
 
being a cultural property of the peoples of the Russ ian Federation.  Also the number of services 
suppliers and scope of their ope ration could be limited on non-discriminatory basis on the specially 
protected territories.   
475. He noted that for the purpose of the protec tion and preservation of indigenous persons and 
exiguous ethnic communities, measures directed at the protection and preservation of the territories of the traditional habitation of these group could be a pplied, and preferences to these group could be 
granted with respect to their traditional economic activity on the territory of their traditional 
habitation. 
476. For the purpose of national security reasons, the Russian Federation could use measures to 
regulate economic and entrepreneur activities with r espect to trade in services, including possession, 
use and disposal of land, natural resources and im movable property, entry and/or permanent stay of 
physical persons could be limited or prohibited within the border zones and closed administrative 
areas.  Such measures were not aimed at discrimination of the foreign suppliers of services.   
477. Members of the Working Party stated that they  expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee transparency of licen sing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures as well as of other authori sation requirements, in particular with respect 
to obtaining, extending, renewing, denying and te rminating licences and other approvals required to 
provide services in the Russian Federation's market and appeals of such actions. The Russian Federation's licensing procedures and conditions should  not in themselves act as a barrier to market 
access and should not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  The Russian Federation should 
publish a list of authorities responsible for authoris ing, approving or regulating those service sectors 
in which The Russian Federation makes specific co mmitments and the Russian Federation's licensing 
procedures and conditions. Members also expected th e Russian Federation to make a commitment to 
guarantee that for those services that would be in cluded in the Russian Federation's Schedule of 
Specific Commitments, relevant regulatory authoritie s would be separated from, and not accountable 
to, any service suppliers they regulate. Members fu rther expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee that foreign service s uppliers remain free to choose their partners. 
478. [In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that with respect to 
transparency of licensing requirements and proce dures, qualification requirements and procedures as 
well as other authorization requirements, the Ru ssian Federation would make commitments in 
accordance with GATS and as provided for under the te rms, limitations and conditions and subject to 
qualifications specified in its Schedule.] WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 152  
 
479. The Russian Federation undertook market access negotiations in services with members of 
the Working Party.  The Russian Federation's commi tments in services are contained in the Schedule 
of Specific Commitments, reproduced in Annex … to the Draft Protocol.  
[to be completed] 
TRANSPARENCY 
- Publication of Information on Trade 480. Members of the Working Party requested a de scription of the legal authorization to 
implement Article X of the GATT 1994 and the othe r transparency provisions required under WTO 
Agreements together with a confirmation that th ese provisions would be applied upon accession.  A 
clarification was particularly sought on where the Russian Federation' s laws, decrees, resolutions, 
orders, letters, etc. were published to fulfill th e requirements of Article X of the GATT 1994 and the 
transparency provisions in other WTO Agreements, including GATS and TRIPS. 
481. Some members of the Working Party stated th at access to customs regulations and decrees 
was vital for traders attempting to import and export.  In this regard, those members noted that there 
were currently over 4,500 customs regulations and "i nstructions".   Access to the published versions 
of those provisions was very difficult, and the State Customs Committee did not provide them to 
importers (or Embassies) upon request.   Those members requested that Russia elaborate how it was approaching this issue, e.g., the  need to facilitate  access to customs regulations and other subsidiary 
legislation, and to  simplify the current system of customs regulations in the draft Customs Code. 
482. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that in accordance with Article 15.3 of 
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, laws a nd other regulatory acts relating to human rights, 
freedom and duties were subject to official publicati on.  This provision was developed in Federal Law 
No. 5-FZ of 14 July 1994 "On the Procedures of P ublishing and Entering into Force of Federal 
Constitutional Laws, Federal Laws, Acts passed by the Chambers of the Federal Assembly"; and 
Presidential Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the Procedures of Publication and Entering into 
Force of the Acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Normative Legal Acts of the Fe deral Executive Bodies". According to Article 4 of 
the said federal law, the date of publication of a federal constitutional law,  federal law or an act 
passed by the Chambers of the Federal Assembly shoul d be the date of the first publication of their 
full text in the "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", "Rossi yskaya Gazeta" or in the digest 'Sobraniye 
Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii ". Federal constitutional laws, federal laws and acts of the 
Chambers might also be published in other press organs and brought to general knowledge through  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 153 
 
 
media, distributed to state authorities, official s, enterprises, establishments and organisations, 
transmitted via communication channels or distributed in machine-readable formats.  
483. He added that in accordance with paragraph 2 of the said Presidential Decree, acts of the 
President of the Russian Federation and acts of the Government of the Russian Federation were 
subject to official publication in the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" and in the digest 'Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii" within ten days after their signing. Distribution of the acts of 
the President and the Government in a machine-readab le form by the scientific and technical centre of 
legal information "Systema" was also deemed to constitute an official publication. Moreover, in 
accordance with paragraph 9 of the same Presidential Decree, regulatory legal acts of the federal bodies of executive power related to human rights, fr eedom and duties or establishing the legal status 
of organisations or acts of inter-departmental natu re were subject to official publication in the 
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" within three days of their re gistration, and also in the "Bulletin of Normative 
Acts of the Federal Bodies of Executive Power" published by the publishing house "Yuridicheskaya 
Literature" of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation.  This Bulletin was 
distributed in a machine-readable form by "Systema". 
484. He later noted that  in accordance with Govern ment Resolution No. 98 of 12 February 2003 
“On Access to Information on Activities of the G overnment of the Russian Federation and Federal 
Executive Bodies”, all Federal executive bodies were required to ensure public access to information 
with regard to laws, Presidential decrees, govern ment resolutions, as well as their own regulations, 
orders, rules, instructions, etc., including by placing this information on the Internet.    
485. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession all 
laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial d ecisions and administrative rulings of general 
application related to trade would be publishe d promptly in a manner that fulfils the WTO 
requirements, including Article X of GATT 1994. As such, no law or regulation related to 
international trade would become effective prior to such publication in one or more official 
publication specifically identified for this purpose from the date of accession.  He also confirmed that 
the Russian Federation would observe the transpar ency requirements of the GATS, particularly 
Article II, from the date of accession.] 
[to be completed] 
- Notifications 
486. Members of the Working Party noted that all me mbers of the WTO were obliged to  provide 
notifications to the various subsidiary bodies of the WTO, pursuant to the covered Agreements.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 154  
 
Members of the Working Party requested  a specifi c commitment that the Russian Federation would 
provide, as from the date of accession, initial notif ications for all WTO Agreements, and that 
regulations subsequently enacted by the Russian Federation which would give effect to the laws 
enacted to implement any of the WTO Agreements would also conform to the requirements of that 
Agreement.   
487. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that upon accession, the Russian 
Federation would submit all initial notifications re quired by any Agreement constituting part of the 
WTO Agreement.  Any regulations subsequently enac ted by the Russian Federa tion which gave effect 
to the laws enacted to implement any Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement would also 
conform to the requirements of that Agreement.] 
[to be completed] 
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS 
488. Members of the Working Party noted that it was customary to provide a detailed description 
of the scope, nature, and status of all preferential ar rangements.  This was required to ensure that the 
value of MFN commitments negotiate d in the schedules would be known to all parties.  They felt that 
the Russian Federation should consider how to im prove the information needed in this regard. 
489. The representative of the Russian Federation said that, in accordance with the Russian 
Federation's bilateral agreements on free trade with CIS countries and the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, the importation of nearly all goods (i ncluding agricultural products) originating from 
these countries into the customs territory of the Russi an Federation was not subject to customs duties.  
Such preferences were granted on the basis of a certif icate of origin, provided that the exporter was a 
resident of the exporting country.  He added that a number of agreements, aimed at a step-by-step 
formation of a customs union, had been signed be tween the Russian Federation and the Republic of 
Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic  of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. These 
agreements had been transformed into a single "A greement on the Establishment of the Eurasian 
Economic Community" taking effect on 30 May 2001.  Pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, a 
customs tariff common for the Russian Federation,  Belarus, Kazakhstan a nd Tajikistan would be 
gradually formed within a five year period.  Th e Agreement provided for possible extension of the 
timeframe for formation of the Common Customs Ta riff beyond the original five-year period. This 
process would fully take into account the future commitments of the Russian Federation as a WTO 
member, including, inter alia, the provisions of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of the 
GATS.  He provided a detailed listing and analysis of all such agreements in Annexes 3 and 4 of 
document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/29/Add.1, pages 4-6.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 155 
 
 
490. Members of the Working Party required furthe r clarification on how the Russian Federation 
intended to ensure compliance between its pr ocess of accession to the WTO and its commitments 
undertaken in the framework of the Customs Union,  notably with respect to the establishment of a 
common external tariff considering that a Customs Union country was already member of the WTO. 
Some Members sought fuller explanation of the r easons why MFN exemptions would be needed in 
the Russian Federation's GATS Schedule if, as the Ru ssian Federation had claimed, the customs union 
arrangements would be in conform ity with Article V of the GATS. Another member enquired whether 
the Russian Federation would confirm that preferenti al access to exports of other CIS countries to the 
Russian market was limited to exporters resident in the exporting country as, if this was the case, this 
provision would be inconsistent with WTO obligations.  
491. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that nothing in its agreements 
on creation of customs union limited its ability to acced e to the WTO in accord ance with its rules and 
to implement WTO commitments upon accession. Russia would submit new proposals on its MFN 
exemptions list, which would take account of concerns of WTO Members. The purpose of that list was to ensure a possibility of implementation of preferential agreements covering some services 
sectors until all agreements between respective count ries will comply with requirements of Article V 
of the GATS.  The residency requirement for free trade between CIS countries was necessary for the 
effective implementation of those preferential agreemen ts and did not have practical effects for trade. 
492. Members of the Working Party sought a comm itment that the Russian Federation would 
observe Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS in its participation in trade 
agreements, and would ensure that the provisi ons of these WTO Agreements for notification, 
consultation and other requirements concerning fr ee trade areas and customs unions were met upon 
accession, and that any subsequent legislation or regulations enacted or altered under these 
agreements would remain consistent  with the provisions of the WTO.  More specifically, the Russian 
Federation should notify its Free Trade Areas, Cust oms Union, and Economic Union Agreements for 
review by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) upon accession.   
493. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that his Government would observe 
the provisions of the WTO including Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS in its 
participation in trade agreements, and would ensure  that the provisions of  these WTO Agreements for 
notification, consultation and other requirements  concerning free trade areas and customs unions of 
which the Russian Federation was a member were met from the date of accession.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation would, upon accession, submit notifications and copies of its Free Trade Area 
and Customs Union Agreements to the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).  He 
further confirmed that any legislation or regulations  required to be altered under its Trade Agreements WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 156  
 
would remain consistent with the provisions of th e WTO and would, in any case, be notified to the 
CRTA during its examination of the same.] 
Conclusions 
[to be completed]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 157 
 
 
Table 1:  
 
Currency Restrictions on Current Curre ncy Operations identified by the  
IMF Expert Group Report on the Basis of Interviews Conducted  
with the Russian Federation authorities under Article IV  
(Exchange Arrangement) of the IMF Agreements  
 
 This table is to be replaced by the mo st recent data from the Executive Board of the 
International Monetary Fund meeting of  2 May 2003  - 2003 Article IV Consultation with the Russian 
Federation (to be submitted). 
 
 
  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 158  
 
Table 2:  Progress in Privatization of Enterprises of State 
 
and Municipal Ownership Within 1993-2001  
 
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
No. of privatized 
enterprises of 
state and 
municipal 
ownership 42,924 21,905 10,152 4,997 2,743 2,129 1,536 2,274 2,287
Including those by the form of property 
Federal 7,063 5,685 1,875 928 374 264 104 170 125
Subjects of the 
Russian 
Federation  9,521 5,112 1,317 715 548 321 298 274 231
Municipal 26,340 11,108 6,960 3,354 1,821 1,544 1134 1830 1,931
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 159 
 
 
Table 3:  Progress in Privatization of Enterprises of State  
and Municipal Ownership Concerning Specific Areas of Activity Within 1993-2001  
 
Area of activity 1993-2001 
Industry 
- electric energy 21,915 
194 
Agricultural Sector 1,842 
Transport  
- railway  
- auto road  - pipeline  
- maritime transport 
- internal waterways  - air transport  
- loading, unloading and expeditious services 3,242 
57 
2,529 
5 
44 
104 
67 
93 
Communications  Construction  
Wholesale trade 
Retail  trade 
Public catering Housing and related services  
Services to the population  
Health care and other types of social care  Public education  
Culture and art  
Science  Other areas of economy 206 
8,182 
1,653 
25,505 
5,137 3,037 
1,940 
356 278 
331 
654 
16,669 
Total 90,947 
Source : Annual Report On Development of State sector of Economy in the Russian Federation in 2001, 
Goskomstat. 
 
Table 3.1  Figures on methods of privat ization of Federal property in 2000  
Number of shares packages of Fede ral property enterprises sold 320 
On auction 248 
On particularized auction 13 
On tender 32 
In other ways 27 
US$11 billion. 
Table 3.2:  Volume of Production of Goods and Services,   
produced by State-Owned Enterp rises in specific areas in 2000  
2000  
Share of production by state enterprises in total volume of 
production (goods and services), produced in a sector of economy, 
% 
Industry 10.1 
Agriculture 13.6 
Communication services  14.9 
Construction 10.6 
Retail trade 2.3 
Catering 10.0 
Services, offered to the population 16.0 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 160  
 
2000  
Share of production by state enterprises in total volume of 
production (goods and services), produced in a sector of economy, 
% 
In that number: 
Services of passenger transport 40.4 
Communication services 7.7 
Consumer services 2.4 
Culture services 1.7 
Health services 4.1 
Education services 13.6 
Printing 52.5 
 
Table 3.3:  Most important types of agricultural products produced by  
State-Owned Enterprises in specific areas in 2000  
Products Share of production by state enterprises in total volume of 
production by agriculture enterprises, % 
Grain 6.9 
Sugar beet (factory) 4.1 
Oil-bearing crops 4.2 
    Including sunflower 3.6 
Potatoes 11.8 
Vegetables 13.6 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 161 
 
 
Table 4:  List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption for Which Prices are  
Regulated by the Government of the Russ ian Federation and Federal Executive Bodies  
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
271121 Natural gas (excluding as sold 
to the population) The Federal Energy Commission 
271111 
271129 
 Accompanying oil gas and 
stripped dry gas9, casing-head 
gas (sold to gas processing plants for further processing), 
liquefied gas for household 
needs (excluding as sold to the population) The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on agreement with the Ministry of 
Energy and the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian Federation Setting of fixed prices of 
the limit level 
2844 Nuclear fuel cycle products  The Ministry of Nuclear Power 
of the Russian Federation  
271600 Electric power and heat po wer The Federal Energy Commission Fixed tariffs or their limit 
levels 
9301 
9307 871000 Products for defence purposes The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the Russian Federation Setting of fixed or 
approximate prices 
7101- 
7103 
 Raw diamonds and precious 
stones The Ministry of Finance of the 
Russian Federation on 
agreement with the Ministry of Economic Development and 
Trade of the Russian Federation Setting of the fixed price 
9021 Prosthetic and orthopaedic 
appliances The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on submission of the Ministry of 
Labour and Social Development 
and the Ministry of Finance of 
the Russian Federation  Setting of the profitability 
limit level 
2208 Vodka, liquor products and 
other alcohol products 
stronger than 28 proof, produced in the territory of the 
Russian Federation or 
imported into the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation. The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on submission of the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the minimum 
price 
2208 Ethyl alcohol from raw 
eatables produced on the territory of the Russian 
Federation The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade on submission of the ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the minimum 
price 
7131 Transportation of crude oil 
and oil derivatives by trunk 
pipelines The Federal Energy Commission Setting of the maximum 
limit level 
                                                      
9 Excluding gas sold by the gas producer organizations not being affiliated to the Russian Joint-Stock 
Company Gazprom, the joint-stock comp anies Yakutgazprom, Norilskgazprom and 
Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegaz and also the gas sold to the populace and housing construction cooperatives. 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 162  
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
7112 741 Transportation of cargoes, 
railway loading and unloading 
operations The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
services 
71111 
7112 Transportation of passengers, 
baggage, cargoes and mail by 
railway transport (except 
suburban traffic) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
services 
741 Loading and unloading 
operations in ports, port duties The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation on submission of the 
Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level 
745 Charges for passage through 
internal waterways by vessels 
flying foreign flags The Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation on 
agreement with The Ministry of Finance of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
profitability limit level 
74610 74110 4190 Aircraft, passengers and 
cargoes services in airports The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level 
74590 Ice-breaking fleet service The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on 
submission of the Ministry of 
Transport of the Russian Federation and on agreement 
with the Ministry of Finance of 
the Russian Federation  Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
profitability limit level 
74620 Aeronavigation services of 
aircraft on the routes and on airfields The Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation (the Federal Aviation Service) Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level 
7511 
752 
7524 Certain postal and electronic 
communication services, 
communication services in respect of broadcasting of 
programmes of Russian state 
TV and radio organizations The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff  
75111 
75112 Domestic postal items: letters, 
post cards, parcels (only for 
State Post office) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7522 
75232 Domestic telegram (only for 
State Post office) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
75212 Provision of a long-distance 
telephone link (connection) through an automatic or 
manually operated 
switchboard irrespective of a type device used by 
subscribers The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 163 
 
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
7541 Provision of trunk telegraph 
and telephone 
communications channels to 
organizations funded by corresponding budgets The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7524 Distribution and broadcasting 
of All-Russia television and 
radio programs The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7521 Provision of access to the 
telephone network irrespective 
of the type of lines employed 
by subscribers (wire or wireless lines) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
75211 Provision of a local telephone 
link (connection) to registered 
subscribers The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 164  
 
Table 5:   List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption for Which Prices are 
 
Regulated by the Government of the Russia n Federation and Sub-Fe deral Executive Bodies  
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
271112 Natural gas distributed to the 
population and building 
cooperative societies The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
271111 Liquefied gas distributed to 
the population for household 
purposes (except gas to refuel 
motor vehicles) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
271600 Electric power and heat 
power  Regional Power Commissions 
on agreement with the Federal 
Energy Commission 
2701 2704 Solid fuel, furnace fuel for 
household use and kerosene 
distributed to the population The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of fixed prices or 
their limit level 
3001- 
3006 Mercantile markups on prices 
for medicines and goods of 
medical designation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the amount of 
mercantile mark-ups 
931 933 Social services supplied to 
the population of the Russian Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Setting of the amount limit 
of the mercantile mark-ups 
931 933 Social services guaranteed by 
the State and supplied to 
elderly citizens and invalids 
of the Russian Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation  
71211 Transportation of passengers 
and baggage by all types of 
public transport, including 
urban, subway and suburban transport (except railway 
transport) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
operations 
9703 Funeral services The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation 
9401 
18000 Water supply and sewage 
systems services The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
82101 82201 Payments for public utilities 
by the population The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Determining the amount of 
mercantile mark-ups 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 165 
 
 
Table 6:  List of Services for Internal C onsumption for which the Sub-FederalExecutive  
Bodies have the right to introduce regional regulations over prices (tariffs) and markups  
 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
622 Marketing and 
mercantile markups on 
prices for products and 
commodities distributed 
in the Far North areas or territories of equivalent 
status with limited cargo 
delivery periods The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
6310 642 Markups for products 
(commodities), distributed to public 
catering enterprises 
affiliated with secondary 
schools, vocational 
schools, secondary specialized and higher 
educational institutions The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Setting of the amount limit 
of the mercantile mark-ups 
6222 Mercantile markups for 
baby food (including 
food concentrates) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the profitability 
limit level  
71112 Transportation of 
passengers and baggage 
by suburban railway 
transport (upon agreement with the 
Ministry of Railways of 
the Russian Federation), and provided that the 
losses resulting from 
tariff regulation are reimbursed from the 
respective budget of the 
subjects of the Russian 
Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation on agreement with 
the Ministry of Railway Transport of the Russian 
Federation 
71213 71221 Transportation of 
passengers and baggage 
by motor transport along intra-regional and 
inter-regional routes 
(inter-republican routes within the Russian 
Federation), including 
taxi The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
731 7221 Local transportation of 
passengers and baggage 
by local airlines and river 
transport The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the tariffs and 
fees for loading and 
unloading operations WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 166  
 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
7211 7212 
7221 
7222 731 
732 Transportation of 
cargoes, passengers and 
baggage by sea, river and 
air transport in the Far North areas and the 
territories of equivalent 
status The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
operations 
7113 
741 Services rendered on 
branch lines by 
enterprises of the 
industrial railway transport and other 
subjects  The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
limit level 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 167 
 
 
  
 
 
Table 7:  Licensing fees structure for manufacturing, storage,  
wholesale, exportation and importation of alcoholic beverages (updated) 
 
Types of Activity Licence fees 
(in minimum wages) Equivalent in Rubles 
Manufacturing and wholesale of alcoholic 
beverages 500 225,000 
Exportation of alcoholic beverages 100 or 500 45,000 or 225,000 
Importation, storage and wholesale of 
alcoholic beverages 1,000 or 15,000 450,000 or 6,750,000 
 
 
Table 8:  Tariff structure  
 
Tariff rate (per cent) Number of tariff items 
0 46 
5 3,989 
10 1,890 
15 3,120 
20 1,824 
25 108 
30 5 
above 30 50 
  
Table 9:   Tabulation of the trade weighted average customs tariff rates
 
 
Year Percentage 
1995 16.0 
1996 17.7 
1997 13.3 
1998 12.8 
1999 11.7 
2000 11.4 
2001 11.1 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 168  
 
Table 10:  Fees and charges for customs services rendered related to im portation or exportation 
(updated)  
Description of Se rvice Rendered/ 
Purpose of Fees Rate Applied 
Customs charge for customs clearance 0.1 per cent of the customs value of the goods in 
Rubles 
Additional customs charge for customs clearance 0.05  per cent of the customs value of goods in 
foreign currency  
Customs charges for storage of goods in temporary storage warehouses, where the goods to be placed 
before the customs clearance,  
- the same in specially designed  warehouses 
- in customs warehouses for goods placed 
 under the customs warehouse regime  
 
 
0.02 Euro/kg of gross weight for every 24 hrs 0.03 Euro/kg of gross weight for every 24 hrs 
0.04 Euro/kg of gross weight  
and 3 Euro/vehicle per every 24 hrs 
Customs charges for cust oms escort of goods 
a) for each motor and rail way vehicle utilized either 
for the transportation of goods or which moves under 
its own power to be used as a commodity  - for the distance up to 50 km 
- for the distance from 50 to 100 km 
- for the distance from100 to 200 km - for the distance over 200 km  
 
 
 20 minimum wages  
30 minimum wages  
40 minimum wages  60 minimum wages  
Payment for the information and consultation US$0.2-50  depending upon the amount the 
information provided and short notice 
Payment for taking preliminary decision on 
classification of goods according to HS codes five minimum wages (500 Rubles) 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 169 
 
 
Table 11:   State duties related to imports and exports (updated)  
Service rendered/type of Fees and Charges Rates applied10 
For committing notary actions by the notaries of the 
state notary's offices or by  official persons of the 
executive power bodies, the bodies of local self-government and of the consular institutions 
authorised for this and also for their compiling the 
drafts of the documents and issuing the copies and duplicates of the documents, the state duty shall be 
levied in the following amounts:  
1. for the attestation of ag reements the subject of 
which is subject to evaluation 1.5 per cent of the value of the agreement but at 
least 50 per cent of the minimal wage 
2. for the attestation of agency agreements 0.5 pe r cent of the amount of  obligation undertaken 
but at least 30 per cent of the minimal wage 
3. for the certification of other warrants 20 per cent  of the minimum wage  
4. for effecting a captain's protest 15-fold minimum wage  
5. for testifying to the correctness of a document's 
translation from one language into another 10 per cent of the minimum wage per 1 page of  the 
document's translation 
6. for accepting in deposit of moneys and  securitie s  0.5 per cent of accepted monetary sum and the 
value of securities 
7. for testifying to the correctness of the copies of 
other documents and of the extracts from 
documents 1 per cent  of the minimum wage per 1 page 
8. for testifying to the authenticity of the signature: 
-  on applications and on other documents  (with the exception of the bank cards)  
-  on bank cards (from every person and on every 
document)  
 5 per cent of the minimum wage  
 
1 minimum wage  
9. for the issue of duplicates of the documents, kept 
in the cases of the state notary's offices, executive 
power bodies and consular institutions 50 per cent  of the minimum wage  
10. for the performance of the technical work  of 
preparation of the above documents (print, editing, check of texts)  two per cent of the minimal wage per page 
 
                                                      
10  As of 1 May 2002, the minimum wage was  roughly US$14.50  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 170 Table 12:  Consular Fees  
Rates applied (US$) Documents and acts, for which  
consular fees are collected CIS countries and Baltic countries Other countries 
Fees for certification and notarization of documents  
For certification of each document 3 30 
Power of attorney notarization  
For power of attorney authorizing the use and 
command of property, including motor vehicles, as 
well as carrying out the lending operations:  6 60 
For confirming other powers claimed by an 
individual 2 20 
For notarization of:  
Agreements subject to evaluation: 5% of the amount specified in the agreement, but no less 
than US$1.  5 % of the amount specified in the agreement, but no 
less than US$10.  
For authentication of signature: 1 10 
For authentication of copies of instruments and extracts from instruments  1.5 15 
For authentication of photostats:  6 
For issuing the extracts from, or copies of, 
instruments kept in the files of consular offices (for one page) 1.5 15 
 If less than one page of text of an extract from, or a copy 
of, instrument is issued, the collected fee shall correspond 
to the same for a full page.  Minimum fee for this act: 
30 
For making an executive inscription 2% of the collected amount, but no less than  US$0.5. 2% of the collected amount, but no le ss than  US$5.  
 For processing the documents 
certifying the fact of purchasing the motor vehicles 
or motorcycles 1% of value of the given 
transport facility assessed by mercantile 
business,  but no less 
than US$10.  Translation with simultaneous notarization of its 
correctness for each page: 
   For translations from foreign 
languages into Russian 20 
   For translations from Russian 
into foreign languages 35   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2
 Page 171Rates applied (US$) Documents and acts, for which  
consular fees are collected CIS countries and Baltic countries Other countries 
   For certification of 
correctness of a translation made without participation of 
consular office for each page 15 
   For typing the documents 5 
Consulage for consular service of sea- and air-craft  
 Executing the protest by 
master 5 Executing the protest by 
master 50 
 Issuing the certificate of 
loading or unloading 
operations with a vessel flying 
a foreign flag, as well as 
certifying other shipping documents 10 Issuing the certificate of 
loading or unloading 
operations with a vessel 
flying a foreign flag, as well 
as certifying other shipping documents 100 
 Issuing the temporary 
certificate confirming the right 
to fly a flag of the Russian 
Federation or ownership of vessel 15 Issuing the temporary 
certificate confirming the 
right to fly a flag of the 
Russian Federation or ownership of vessel 150 
 Prolongation of the term of 
validity of vessel documents 
and processing the logbooks 3 Prolongation of the term of 
validity of vessel documents 
and processing the logbooks 30 
 Notarization of various 
certificates and applications; 
issuing the cargo certificate; 
adding crew Members to a crew list, or removing them 
from it 3 Notarization of various 
certificates and applications; 
issuing the cargo certificate; 
adding crew Members to a crew list, or removing them 
from it 30 
 Gluing the additional sheets in 
crew list or logbook 2 Gluing the additional sheets 
in crew list or logbook 20 
 Notarization of sanitary 
certificate 3 Notarization of sanitary 
certificate 30 
 Executing a protocol of 
salvaging the wrecked or 
stolen vessel 2.5 Executing a protocol of 
salvaging the wrecked or 
stolen vessel 25 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 172  
 
 Table 13(a):  Port Fees used in Commercial Seaports of 
 
the Russian Federation Group Classification of Vessels  
 
Group of 
vessels Vessels and floating facilities 
A Foreign-going cargo vessels and facilities,  including non-self propelled ones.  
B Coastal-traffic cargo vesse ls and facilities, including non-self propelled ones. 
C Foreign-going inter-port ferries. Foreign-going passenger ships.  
D Coastal-traffic inter-port ferrie s. Coastal-traffic passenger sh ips. Ice breakers not operated 
day-to-day or rented by port sea administration (or seaport administration). 
E Lighters on board the lighter-aboard ship; warships; hospital ships; sports vessels; private 
yachts; technical vessels used for deepening wo rks in ports; vessels of local port fleet, 
shipyards or ASPTR/LRN; ice breakers operated day-to-day by port sea administration (or seaport administration) and not rented by them.  
F Transit vessels; vessels touching at a port forcedly, for damage repairs, quarantine needs or 
custom house and frontier formalities, as well as  the vessels undergoing performance trial.  
G Service vessels; research ships; surveying vessels.  
H Fishing and other vessels of a fish industry department.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 173 
 
 
 Table 13(b): Port Fees used in Commercial Seaports of the Russian Federation  
 
Port US$ Port US$ 
1. Tonnage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventio nal capacity, separately for each fetching into the port 
and sailing from it.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.270 Taganrog 0.140 
Sochi 0.285 Tuapse 0.250 
  Other ports 0.184 
Baltic basin  
Vyborg 0.200 Kaliningrad 0.170 
Vysotsk  0.220 Other ports 0.210 
Saint Petersburg  0.240   
North basin  
Arkhangelsk  0.230 Naryan-Mar 0.240 
Amderma  0.218 Onega 0.216 
Kandalaksha  0.216 Tiksi 0.216 
Mezen  0.216 Kh atanga 0.216 
Murmansk  0.230 Other ports 0.216 
Arctic and Far East basin  
Anadyr  0.175 Pevek 0.175 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin  0.279 Provideniya 0.210 
Beringovskiy  0.175 Petropavlovsk-Ka
mchatsky 0.175 
Boshnyakovo  0.234 Poronaysk  0.248 
Vladivistok  0.223 Posyet 0.205 
Vostochny  0.223 Uglegorsk  0.234 
Vanino  0.210 Ust-Kamchatsk  0.175 
Korsakov  0.220 Kholmsk   0.223 
Krasnogorsk  0.225 Shakhtyorsk  0.234 
Magadan  0.175 Egvekinot  0.265 
Nakhodka  0.223 Other ports  0.175 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.223   
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur  0.225   
Caspian basin  
Makhachkala 0.150 Other ports  0.112 
Astrakhan (Olya) 0.120   
2. Beaconage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity upon each fetching into the port and its 
transit passing.   Exempted from the light dues are vesse ls calling for refuge to perform an emergency repair and the vessels of 
group "D". Vessels of groups "E" and "G" are exempt ed from the beaconage dues  unless they perform cargo 
handling and operations of commercial nature at the port.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.025 Taganrog 0.025 
Sochi 0.025 Tuapse 0.025 
  Other ports 0.025 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.025 Kaliningrad 0.025 
Vysotsk 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Saint Petersburg 0.025   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.025 Naryan-Mar 0.025 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 174  
 
 Port US$ Port US$ 
Amderma 0.025 Onega 0.025 
Kandalaksha 0.025 Tiksi 0.025 
Mezen 0.025 Kh atanga 0.025 
Murmansk 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.025 Pevek 0.025 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin 0.025 Provideniya 0.025 
Beringovskiy 0.025 Petro-pavlovsk-Ka
mchatskiy 0.025 
Boshnyakovo 0.025 Poronaysk 0.025 
Vladivostok 0.025 Posyet 0.025 
Vostochny 0.025 Uglegorsk 0.025 
Vanino 0.025 Ust-Kamchatsk 0.025 
Korsakov 0.025 Kholmsk 0.025 
Krasnogorsk 0.025 Shakhtyorsk 0.025 
Magadan 0.025 Egvekinot 0.025 
Nakhodka 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.025   
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur  0.025   
Caspian basin 
Makhachkala 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Astrakhan 0.025   
3. Canal dues  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventiona l capacity upon each pass of canal in one direction.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Taganrog 0.072 Tuapse 0.009 
Sea of Azov – Don River Canal  0.216   
Baltic basin 
Kaliningrad 0.075 Saint Petersburg 0.070 
Vyborg 0.045   
Vysotsk 0.025   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.196 Naryan-Mar 0.299 
Mezen 0.159 Onega 0.299 
Far East basin 
Vostochny  0.011 Nikolaevsk-on-Am
ur 0.050 
Kholmsk 0.011   
Caspian basin 
Volga River – Caspian Sea Canal   Makhachkala 0.016 
Astrakhan 0.790   
Astrakhan (Olya) 0.480   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 175 
 
 
  
Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
Port for vessel being 
alongside, with 
load handling 
operations  
carried out 
 
US$ for all other cases 
 
US$ US$ 
4. Wharfage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity for each day of vessel being alongside. 
The wharfage dues are collected from vessels staying alongside the berth. For the vessels of groups "A", "B" 
and "H" wharfage dues are charged per 1 m3 of the conventional volume of the vessel for each day of the 
vessel' s stay alongside the berth. The time of stay at a berth is rounded off upward to one-half of the day. 
For the vessels of groups "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G" berth dues are charged per 1m3 of the conventional 
volume for each call. 
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk  
- for bulk-carriers  0.0022 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers 0.0045 0.0015  
Sochi 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Taganrog 0.0063 0.0021 0.0044 
Tuapse  
- for bulk-carriers 0.0021 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers  0.0042 0.0014  
Other ports 0.0040 0.0014 0.0044 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0051 0.0017 0.0040 
Vysotsk 0.0056 0.0019 0.0040 
Kaliningrad 0.0070 0.0023 0.0040 
Saint Petersburg 0.0031 0.0010 0.0040 
Other ports 0.0040 0.0013 0.0040 
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0062 0.0021 0.0050 
Kandalaksha 0.0180 0.0060 0.0050 
Murmansk 0.0049 0.0016 0.0050 
Naryan-Mar 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Tiksi 0.0072 0.0024 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0100 0.0033 0.0050 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0079 0.0027 0.0070 
Vanino 0.0046 0.0015 0.0060 
Vladivostok 0.0054 0.0018 0.0060 
Vostochny 0.0130 0.0043 0.0060 
Korsakov 0.0190 0.0063 0.0060 
Magadan 0.0056 0.0018 0.0070 
Nakhodka 0.0049 0.0016 0.0060 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0148 0.0049 0.0060 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0184 0.0061 0.0060 
Pevek 0.0113 0.0038 0.0070 
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 0.0121 0.0040 0.0070 
Posyet 0.0113 0.0038 0.0060 
Provideniya 0.0068 0.0024 0.0070 
Kholmsk 0.0190 0.0063 0.0070 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 176  
 
 Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
Port for vessel being 
alongside, with 
load handling 
operations  
carried out 
 
US$ for all other cases 
 
US$ US$ 
Egvekinot 0.0103 0.0034 0.0070 
Other ports 0.0097 0.0032 0.0060 
Caspian basin 
Astrakhan 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Makhachkala 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0146 0.0048 0.0044 
5. Anchor dues  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventiona l capacity for each hour of anchorage in the outer or 
inner harbor in excess of 12 hours. Incomplete hour of anchorage shall be considered as a complete hour of 
anchorage.      
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.0001 Taganrog 0.0001 
Sochi 0.0001 Tuapse 0.0001 
  Other ports 0.0001 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0001 Kaliningrad 0.0001 
Vysotsk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Saint Petersburg 0.0001   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0001 Naryan-Mar 0.0001 
Amderma 0.0001 Onega 0.0001 
Kandalaksha 0.0001 Tiksi 0.0001 
Mezen 0.0001 Khatanga 0.0001 
Murmansk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0001 Pevek 0.0001 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin 0.0001 Provideniya 0.0001 
Beringovskiy 0.0001 Petropavlovsk-Ka
mchatskiy 0.0001 
Boshnyakovo 0.0001 Poronaysk 0.0001 
Vladivostok 0.0001 Posyet 0.0001 
Vostochny 0.0001 Uglegorsk 0.0001 
Vanino 0.0001 Ust-Kamchatsk 0.0001 
Krasnogorsk 0.0001 Kholmsk 0.0001 
Magadan 0.0001 Shakhtyorsk 0.0001 
Nakhodka 0.0001 Egvekinot 0.0001 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0001   
Caspian basin 
Makhachkala 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Astrakhan 0.0001   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 177 
 
 
   
Table 14: Excise taxes (updated)  
Types of excisable goods Tax rate 
1. Ethyl alcohol made of all types of raw materials  16 Rubles 90 Kopeks per 1 litre of 
absolute ethyl 
2. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol over 25 
per cent (except for wines) and alcohol containing products 114 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
3. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol from 9 to 25 
per cent inclusive (except for wines) 84 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
4. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol up to 9 per cent inclusive (except for wines) 58 Rubles 60 Kopeks per 1 litre of 
absolute ethyl alcohol contained in excisable goods 
5. Non-traditional fortified wines 75 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
6. Champagne and sparkling wines 10 Rubles 50 Kopeks per 1 litre 
7. Natural non-traditional non-fortified wines 4 Rubles per 1 litre 
8. Natural wines (except for non-traditional non-fortified wines) 2 Rubles per 1 litre 
9. Wines (except for natural wines, natural non-traditional and/or 
non-fortified, natural non-traditiona l non-fortified wines, sparkling 
and champagne wines) 47 Rubles 50 Kopeks per litre of 
absolute ethyl alcohol contained in 
excisable goods 
10. Beer with normative (standard) volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol up 0,5 per cent inclusive 0 Ruble per 1 litre 
11. Beer with normative (standardized) volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol  over 0,5 per cent up to 8.6 per cent inclusive 1 Ruble 40 Kopeks per 1 litre 
12. Beer with normative (standardized) volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol over  8.6 per cent 4 Rubles 60 Kopeks per 1 litre 
13. Pipe tobacco 522 Rubles per 1 kg 
14. Smoking tobacco, except for tob acco utilized as raw material to 
produce tobacco articles 214 Rubles per 1 kg 
15. Cigars 13 Rubles per 1 piece 
16. Cigarillos 143 Rubles per 1,000 pieces 
17. Cigarettes with filter 50 Ru bles per 1,000 pieces plus 5% 
18. Non-filter cigarettes, mouthpiece cigarette s 19 Rubles per 1,000 pieces plus 5% 
19. Cars with engine power up to 67.5 Kw  (90 hp) inclusive 0 Rubles per 0.75 kWh ( 1 hp) 
20. Cars with engine power up over 67.5 Kw  (90 hp) and up to 
112.5 Kw  (150 hp) inclusive 13 Rubles per 0.75 Kwt ( 1 hp) 
21. Cars with engine power over 112.5 Kw  (150 hp), motorcycles 
with engine power over 112.5 Kw (150 hp) 129 Rubles per 0.75 Kwt ( 1 hp) 
22. Motor gasoline with octane value up to "80" inclusive 2190 Rubles per 1 ton 
23. Motor gasoline with other octane values 3000 Rubles per 1 ton 
24. Diesel fuel 890 Rubles per 1 ton 
25. Virgin  petrol  0 Rubles per 1 ton 
26. Oil for diesel and (or) carburetors (injector) engines 2440 Rubles per 1 ton 
27. Natural gas sold on the territory of the Russian Federation 15 per cent 
28. Natural gas sold to member states of the  Commonwealth of 
Independent States 15 per cent 
29. Natural gas sold from the territory of the Russian Federation 
(except for the CIS member states) 30 per cent 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 178  
 
 Table 15(a):  List of goods exempt from VAT on the territory of the Russian Federation
 
1.  major, vital medical equipment 
2.  prosthetic and orthopedic items, raw materials and articles for their manufacture and semi-finished 
products for such items 
3.  facilities, including motor vehicles, materials which may be used exclusively for disability prevention 
or the rehabilitation of the disabled 
4.  spectacles (except sunglasses), lenses and spectacle frames (except sunglasses frames) 
5.  foodstuffs directly produced by student and school canteens, other educational establishments' 
canteens, medical organisations' and pre-school establishments' canteens, and sold in such 
establishments, and foodstuffs directly produced by public catering organisations and sold to such 
canteens or the establishments described 
6.  postage stamps (except collectable stamps), stamped postcards and envelopes, lottery tickets for 
lotteries held upon the decisi on of the authorised body 
7.  coins made of precious metals (except collectable coins) constituting the currency of the Russian 
Federation or of foreign states 
8.  goods placed under the custom s regime of duty-free shops 
9.  goods (works, services), except excisable goods a nd excisable minerals, sold (performed, rendered) as 
part of the granting of free aid (assistance) by the Russian Federation under the Federal Law "On Free Aid (Assistance) of the Russian Federation and the Introduction of Amendments and Addenda to 
Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Taxes and on Provision of Preferential Payment 
Terms in Respect of Payments to  State Non-Budgetary Funds in Co nnection with Free Aid (Assistance) 
of the Russian Federation" 
10.  the sale of entrance tickets and subscriptions fo r theatrical and spectator, cultural and entertainment 
events, amusements in zoos and cu lture and relaxation parks, excursion tickets and passes, the form of 
which has been approved in the established procedure as blank forms for which strict records are kept 
11.  the sale of programs at performances  and concerts, catalogues and booklets 
12.  the sale (transfer for personal n eed) of religious articles and religio us literature (in accordance with the 
list approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by religious organisations (associations), produced and sold by religious orga nisations (associations), organisations owned by 
religious organisations (associations), and companie s whose charter (reserve) capital consists entirely 
of contributions from religious organisations (associations), as part of religious activities, except 
excisable goods and minerals, and the organization and holding by such organisations of religious rites, 
ceremonies, prayer meetings or other cult activities 
13.  the sale (including the transfer, performance, rendering for personal needs) of goods (except excisable 
goods, minerals and mineral deposits, and other goods under the list to be approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by Russian public organisations of disabled persons), works, 
services (except brokers' and other in termediary services) produced and sold: 
by public organisations of disabled persons (including those created as unions of public organisations of disabled persons), no less than 80 percent of Members of which are the disabled and their lawful 
representatives; 
organisations whose charter capital consists entirely of contributions by the public organisations of disabled persons described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, if the number of disabled 
persons on the payroll constitutes no less than 50 percent, and their share in the salary fund no less than 
25 percent; 
institutions, the sole owners of the property of wh ich are the public organisations of disabled persons 
described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, created for educational, cultural, therapeutic, physical exercise and sport, scientific, informational and other social purposes, and to render legal and 
other assistance to the disabled, disabled children and their parents; 
health treatment (industrial) workshops in antituberculous, psychiatric, psycho-neurological institutions, public social protection or social rehabilitation establishments 
14.  the sale of articles of folk craf t of recognized artistic value (except excisable goods), samples of which 
have been registered in the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 179 
 
 
 15.  the sale of ore, concentrates and other industrial products containing precious metals, scrap and waste 
from precious metals for the manufact ure of precious metals and refining; the sale of precious metals 
and gems by taxpayers (except those described in Article 164:1:6 of the present Code) to the State Fund 
of Precious Metals and Gems of the Russian Federation, of gems for raw materials (except uncut 
diamonds) for treatment to enterprises, regardless of their forms of ownership, for subsequent sale for export; the sale of gems for raw materials and cut [gems] to specialised foreign economic 
organisations, the State Fund of Precious Metals an d Gems, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
and banks; the sale of precious metals from the Stat e Fund of Precious Metals and Gems of the Russian 
Federation to specialised foreign economic organisations, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
and banks, and of precious metals in ingots by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and banks, provided that such ingots remain in one of the certified vaults (the State Vault of Valuables, the Vault 
of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation or bank vaults) 
16.  the sale of uncut diamonds to refining enterprises of all forms of ownership 
17.  the internal sale (transfer, performance, rendering for internal needs) by penitentiary system 
organisations and institutions of goods produced by  such organisations and institutions (works 
performed, services rendered) 
18.  the charitable transfer of  goods (performance of works,rendering of  services), free of charge under the 
Federal Law "On Charitable Activity and Charity Organisations', except excisable goods 
19.  the sale of entrance tickets, the form of which has been approved as blank forms for which strict 
records are kept, by physical exer cise and sport organisations for sport and spectator events held by 
such organisations; the rendering of services for the leasing of sports facilities for holding such events 
20.  the sale of home-grown produce of organisations engaged in producing agricultural products, the share 
of income from the sale of which in the total amount of revenue constitutes no le ss than 70 percent, as 
in-kind compensation, in-kind issuances for remune ration of labor, and for catering for employees 
engaged in the agricultural work 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 180  
 
 Table 15(b):  List of goods taxed on the territory of the 
 
Russian Federation  at the VAT rate of 10 percent  
 
1 Foodstuffs : 
 
− livestock and poultry on a live weight basis; 
− meat and meat products (except gourmet products: tenderloin, veal, tongue, sausage goods – 
high quality smoked, high-quality smoked semi-dry, freshly seasoned, high-quality stuffed; 
smoked pork, lamb, beef and veal products, poultry meat – balyk, carbonade, neck, gammon, pastroma, sirloin; baked pork and beef; preserved foods – ham, bacon, carbonade and jellied 
tongue); 
− milk and dairy products (including dairy i ce cream, except ice cream made from fruits and 
berries, fruit and edible ice); 
− eggs and egg products; 
− vegetable oil; 
− margarine; 
− sugar, including raw sugar; 
− salt; 
− grain, compound feed, feed mix, grain waste; 
− oilseeds and products of their processing (coarsely cut, oil cake); 
− bread and bakery products (including rich, rusk and roll articles); 
− cereal; 
− flour; 
− pasta; 
− live fish (except valuable species: white salm on, Baltic Sea and Far East salmon, sturgeon 
(beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet), salmon, trout (except sea trout), nelma, dog 
salmon, king salmon, coho salmon, muksun, omul, Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira); 
− seafood and fish products, including refrigerated, frozen fish and other types of processed fish, 
herring, conserves and preserves (except gourmet types: caviar from sturgeon and salmon; white 
salmon, Baltic Sea salmon, sturgeon – beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet; salmon; nelma cold-smoked backs and flanks; dog salmon, king salmon lightly-salted, medium-salted 
and semuzh-pickled; backs of cold-smoked dog-salmon, king salmon and coho salmon, flanks of 
dog-salmon and flanks of cold-smoked king salmon; backs of cold-smoked muksun, omul, Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira; pickled canned fillet slices of Baltic Sea and Far East 
salmon; crabmeat and sets of cooked and frozen individual crab sticks; lobster); 
− baby and diabetic foodstuffs; 
− vegetables (including potatoes)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 181 
 
 
 2 Children's goods : 
 
− knitwear articles for newborn babies and children of nursery, pre-school, junior and senior 
school age groups: outer knitwear articles, clot hing knitwear articles, legwear garments, other 
knitwear articles: gloves, mittens, hats; 
− garments, including articles made from sheepskin and rabbit (including articles made from 
sheepskin and rabbit with leather pieces) for newb orn babies and children of nursery, pre-school, 
junior and senior school age groups, outer garments (including dresses and suits), underwear, 
headwear, clothing and articles for newborn ba bies and children of a nursery age.  The 
provisions of this paragraph do not apply to garments made of natural leather and fur, except from sheepskin and rabbit; 
− footwear (except sport footwear): bootees, pre-sc hool, school; felt; rubber: for nursery children, 
children's, school; 
− children's beds; 
− children's mattresses; 
− prams; 
− school exercise books; 
− games; 
− plasticine; 
− pencil cases; 
− counting sticks; 
− school abacuses; 
− school diaries; 
− drawing books; 
− sketchbooks; 
− folders for exercise books; 
− covers for textbooks, di aries, exercise books; 
− cards containing figures and letters; 
− diapers 
3 Periodical printed publications, except periodical printed publications of an advertising or erotic 
nature 
4 Books connected to education, science and culture, except books of an advertising or erotic nature 
5 Medical goods of domestic and foreign origin: 
medicines, including drug substances, including of internal pharmacy production; 
articles for medical use.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 182  
 
 Table 16(a): List of goods subject to non-automatic import licensing
 
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO 
Reference 
Nuclear substances and 
articles made thereof 2844 40, including as parts of 
devices and equipment by subgroups 
9022 12 000 0, 9022 13 000 0, 
9022 14 000 0, 
9022 19 000 0, 9022 21 000 0, 
9022 29 000 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Art. XXI (b) (I) 
Explosive substances, 
pyrotechnics 2904 20 100 0 
3601 00 000 0, 3602 00 000 0 
3603 00 
3604 General 
exemptions Article XX (b)(ii) 
Precious stones List National 
interests  
Drugs, substances with 
psychotropic effects; 
virulent substances and 
toxic substances Nomenclature and quota General 
exemptions 
 
International commitments Article XX (b) 
Information protection 
devices (including 
encryption devices, components for encryption 
devices and encryption 
software packages), regulatory documentation 
and specifications 
(including developer and user documentation) 8471, 
8543 89 950 0 
8473 30 8543 90 800 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) 
Medicines and 
pharmaceutical products 
used for medical treatment 2904-2909, 2912-2942 00 000 0, 
3001, 3002, 3003, 3004,  
3006 30 000 0, 3006 60 General 
exemptions  Art. XX (b)  
Medicines used for 
veterinary purposes List General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) 
Ozone destroying 
substances and products 
containing such substances List General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Hazardous wastes 
(Basel Convention) Lists  General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Plant protection chemicals 3808 (only plant protection 
substances) General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) 
Ethyl alcohol 2207 10 000 0, 2207 20 000 0, 
2208 90 910 0, 2208 90 990 0 General 
exemptions 
National 
interests Art. XX (b) 
Vodka 2208 60 General 
exemptions Art. XX (b)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 183 
 
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO 
Reference 
Strong liquors  (over 28 proof) 2208 90 110 0,  
2208 90 190 0, 
2208 90 330 0, 
2208 90 380 0, 2208 90 410 0, 
2208 90 450 0, 
2208 90 480 0,  2208 90 520 0, 
2208 90 570 0,  
2208 90 690 0, 2208 90 710 0, 
2208 90 740 0, 
2208 90 780 0 General 
exemptions 
 Article XX(b) 
Sturgeon species of fish 
and products made there of 
including caviar ex.030199190, ex.030269190, 
ex.030270, ex.030379190, 
ex.030380, ex.030410190, 
ex.030410910, ex.030420190, ex.030490100, ex.030520, 
ex.030530900, ex.030549800, 
ex.030559900, ex.030569900, ex.051191900, ex.160419910, 
ex.160419980, ex.160420900  
(all-only sturgeon species of fish), 160430100 General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b)  
Special devices for 
unauthorised obtaining of 
information, subject to export and import licensing List General 
exemptions  Article XX(a) 
Nuclear materials, 
equipment, special 
non-nuclear materials and technologies subject to 
export control List 06 Presidential Decree No. 202 
as amended and supplemented from 
time to time, including Presidential Decree No. 412 of 11 April 2001  International 
commitments 
 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i) 
Products of military 
designation 9301-9307, 8710 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 184  
 
 Table 16(b):  List of Goods subject to automatic import licensing
 
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO reference 
Carpets and textile 
flooring originating 
from EC 5702 (except 5702 20 000 0,  
5702 39 900 0, 5702 49 900 0),  
5703, 5704, 5705 00 
Raw sugar 1701 11 
Starch treacle 1702 30 990 1 Monitoring of 
trade flows WTO Agreement on 
Import Licensing 
Procedures, articles 1 
and 2 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 185 
 
 
 Table 17(a):  Goods subject to non-automatic export licensing  
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Nuclear substances and products 
made thereof 2844 40 
9022 12 000 0 
9022 13 000 0 9022 14 000 0 
9022 19 000 0 
9022 21 000 0 9022 29 000 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) 
Explosive substances, pyrotechnics 2904 20 100 0 
3601 00 000 0 
3602 00 000 0 3603 00 
3604 General 
exemptions Article XX (b) 
Precious metals and gems List Protection of  
unique natural resources  
Drugs, substances with psychotropic 
effects; virulent substances and toxic 
substances Nomenclature and 
quota International 
commitments Article XX (b) 
Information protection devices 
(including encryption devices, components for encryption devices 
and encryption software packages) 8471, 
8543 89 950 0 8473 30 
8543 90 800 0 Exemptions for 
national security considerations Article XXI (a) 
Ozone destroying substances and 
products containing such substances List International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Hazardous wastes 
(Basel Convention) Lists  International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Wildlife, ivory, horns, hooves, corals 
and similar products  List General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments,  Art. XX (b) 
Pharmaceutical raw materials of 
animal and vegetable origin 0206 10 100 0,  
0206 22 000 1,  0206 29 100 0,  
0206 30 200 1,  
0206 30 300 1,  
0206 30 800 1, 
0206 41 200 1,  0206 41 800 1, 
0206 49 200 1,  
0206 49 800 1, 0206 80 100 0,  
0206 90 100 0,  
0507,  0510 00 000 0, 
1211,  
1212 20 000 0, 1302 (except  
1302 19 300 0), 
3001, 3002  General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 186  
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Fish, crustaceans, shell-fish and other 
invertebrates, spawn, milt (roe) of 
sturgeon, salmon and ordinary fish 
species (live only) 0301, 0306, 
0307, 
0511 91 901 1, 
0511 91 901 9, 0511 91 902 0 General 
exemptions Article XX (b) 
Collectible materials in mineralogy 
and paleontology 9705 00 000 0, 
7103 10 000 0, 
7103 99 000 0, 7105 10 000 0, 
7105 90 000 0, 
7116 20 110 0, 7116 20 190 0 General 
exemptions 
  Article XX (f) 
Refined gold and silver List General 
exemptions Article XX(c) 
Sturgeon species of fish and products 
thereof including caviar  International 
commitments Art. XX (b)  
Non-ferrous metals ores containing 
precious metals 2603 00 000 0,  
2604 00 000 0, 2607 00 000 0, 
2608 00 000 0, 
2609 00 000 0,  2617, 
2620 19 000 0,  
2620 20 000 0, 2620 30 000 0,  
2620 90 100 0, 
2620 90 300 0,  2620 90 400 0, 
2620 90 500 0,  
2620 90 700 0, 2620 90 800 0,  
2620 90 990 0, 
2621 00 000 0, 7401, 
7402 00 000 0, 
7501, 
7801 99 100 0  
Measure against smuggling  
Special devices for unauthorised 
obtaining of information, subject to 
export and import licensing List Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
Chemicals, equipment and 
technologies which may be used for 
production of chemical weapons and 
are subject to export control  List 01 Presidential 
Decree No. 1082 of 
28 November 2001 
No. 621-RP of 7 December 1994 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) 
Human, animal and plant pathogens, 
genetically modified 
microorganisms, toxins, equipment and technologies, subject to export 
control  List 02 Presidential 
Decree No. 1004 of 
8 August 2001 No. 298-RP of 
14 June 1994 General 
exemptions Article XX(b) 
Equipment and materials of dual 
purposes and technologies used in 
nuclear industry subject to export control List 03 Presidential 
Decree No. 228 of 
21 February 1996 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 187 
 
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Equipment, materials and 
technologies which may be used in 
creation of rocket weapons List 04 Presidential 
Decrees No. 1005 of 
8 August 2001, 
No. 1194 of  16 August 1996 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
Goods and technologies of dual 
purpose subject to export control List 05 Presidential 
Decrees No. 1268 of 
August 26, 1996  Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i) 
Nuclear materials, equipment, special 
non-nuclear materials and technologies subject to export control List 06 Presidential 
Decree No. 202 as amended and 
supplemented from 
time to time, including Presidential 
Decree No. 412 of 
11 April 2001 Exemptions for 
national security considerations 
 
International commitments Article XXI(b)(i) 
Goods and technologies of dual 
purpose and other devices controlled 
under resolutions of the UN Security 
Council for exports to Iraq and subject to notification or ban List 24 Presidential 
Decrees No. 972 of 
2 September 1997 International 
commitments Article XXI(b) 
Products of military designation 9301-9307, 8710 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 188  
 
 Table 17(b): Goods subject to automatic export licensing
 
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT reference 
Cattle hides  
Sheep hides 
Other unprocessed hides and skins 4101, 4102, 4103 Monitoring of 
trade flows  
Timber of valuable types of wood List Monitoring of 
trade flows  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 189 
 
 
 ANNEX I  
List of Laws and Regulations Available to the Working Party  
 
A list of laws and their availability in th e Secretariat is available through document 
WT/ACC/SPEDC/RUS/25/Rev.1/Add.1. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 190  
 
 Draft Decision 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Decision of […]  
 
 
 The Ministerial Conference, 
 
 Having regard to  paragraph 2 of Article XII and paragr aph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Orga nization (the "WTO Agreement"), and the 
Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and X II of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization agreed by the General Council (WT/L/93),  
 Taking note  of the application of the Russian Federation for accession to the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trad e Organization dated 9 December 1994, 
 
 Noting  the results of the negotiations directed toward the establishment of the terms of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO Agreement and having prepared a Draft Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation,  
 Decides  as follows: 
  The Russian Federation may accede to the WT O Agreement on the terms and conditions set 
out in the Draft Protocol annexed to this Decision. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 191 
 
 
 DRAFT PROTOCOL  
ON THE ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Preamble  
 
 The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO "), pursuant to the approval 
of the General Council of the WTO accorded und er Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organizati on (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO Agreement "), and the 
Russian Federation,  
  Taking note
 of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO Agreement reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS …, dated … (hereinafter referred to as the 
"Working Party Report"),   Having regard
 to the results of the negotiations on the accession of the Russ ian Federation to the 
WTO Agreement,  
  Agree
 as follows: 
 
PART I -  GENERAL 
 1. Upon entry into force of this Protocol pursua nt to paragraph 8, the Russian Federation accedes 
to the WTO Agreement pursuant to  Article XII of that Agreement and thereby becomes a Member of 
the WTO.  
 
2. The WTO Agreement to which the Russian Fe deration accedes shall be the WTO Agreement, 
including the Explanatory Notes to that Agreement, as  rectified, amended or ot herwise modified by such 
legal instruments as may have entered into force before the date of entry into force of this Protocol.  This 
Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred  to in paragraph … of the Working Party Report, 
shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.  3. Except as otherwise provided for in pa ragraph … of the Working Party Report, those 
obligations in the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement that are to be 
implemented over a period of time starting with the entry into force of that Agreement shall be WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 192  
 
 implemented by the Russian Federati on as if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into 
force. 
 
4. The Russian Federation may maintain a measure inconsistent with paragraph 1 of Article II of the GATS provided that such a measure was recorded in  the list of Article II Exemptions annexed to this 
Protocol and meets the conditions of the A nnex to the GATS on Article II Exemptions. 
 
PART II - SCHEDULES 
 5. The Schedules reproduced in Annex I to th is Protocol shall become the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitm ents annexed to the General Agr eement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(hereinafter referred to as the "GATT 1994") and the Schedule of Specific Co mmitments annexed to the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as "GATS') relating to The Russian Federation.  The staging of the concessions a nd commitments listed in the Schedules shall be 
implemented as specified in the releva nt parts of the respective Schedules. 
 
6. For the purpose of the reference in paragraph 6( a) of Article II of GATT 1994 to the date of that 
Agreement, the applicable date in respect of th e Schedules of Concession s and Commitments annexed 
to this Protocol shall be the date of  entry into force of this Protocol. 
 
PART III - FINAL PROVISIONS 
 7. This Protocol shall be open for acceptance, by  signature or otherwise, by the Russian Federation 
until …. 
 
8. This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the day upon which it shall have been accepted by the Russian Federation.  
 
9. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO.  The Director-General 
of the WTO shall promptly furnish a certified copy of this Protocol and a not ification of acceptance by 
the Russian Federation thereto pursuan t to paragraph 9 to each Member  of the WTO and to The Russian 
Federation.    
 This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Ar ticle 102 of the Charter 
of the United Nations.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
 Page 193 
 
 
  
 Done at … this … day of … in a single copy in the English, French and Spanish languages, 
each text being authentic, except that a Schedule  annexed hereto may specify that it its authentic 
in only one of these languages. 
 
_______________ 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.2 
Page 194  
 
 ANNEX I 
 
  
SCHEDULE – THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Authentic only in the … language. 
 
  
 
Part I - Goods 
 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS[…]) 
 
 
  
Part II – Services 
 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS/[…] 
 
 
 
__________