RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/AG/R/36
21 October 2003
(03-5550)
Committee on Agriculture
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 25 SEPTEMBER 2003
Note by the Secretariat1
1. The Committee on Agriculture held its thirty-sixth regular meeting on 25 September 2003
under the chairmanship of Dr. Magdi Farahat of Egypt.  The agenda of the meeting as contained in
WTO/AIR/2165 was adopted.
PART I:  T HE REVIEW PROCESS
A. M ATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS UNDER THE REFORM
PROGRAMME :  ARTICLE 18.6
(a) Canada:  Ecuador – Non-issuance of import licences
2. Canada expressed concern about Ecuador's failure to issue import licences to Canadian
exporters of pork and beef.  Canada sought clarification from Ecuador on this matter, in particular asto when the issuing of import licences would be resumed. 
3. Ecuador responded that no administrative, technical or sanitary obstacles were in place
preventing Canadian imports of beef or pork and that there was no evidence that authorizations for
pork import licences had been denied to Canadian exporters.  In accordance with reports from the
Ecuadorian Ministry of Agriculture, to date, sanitary permits had been granted for Canadian pork
imports totalling 930 tonnes, which was within the normal range in terms of the trade with Canada.
During February 2003, the authorities processed applications for Canadian pork imports from DimaTrading Corporation and Export Packers Company and in the following months authorized imports
from those companies and from Export Packers Limited and Eastern Packing House, for such
products as chops, fat, liver, fillet, loin, ribs, rind and trimmings.  Ecuador underlined that in 2003
international pork prices, especially of Canadian origin, had increased considerably.  Ecuadorian
importers had therefore preferred to import pork from Chile because of advantages in terms of priceand transport logistics.
4. Canada also sought an explanation as to why Ecuador had not provided a prior notification for
the suspension of imports.  Ecuador responded that as the national authorities had not issued any
administrative, technical or sanitary regulation restricting Canadian pork imports, there was no need
to notify the WTO.  Ecuador reiterated that at no time had import licences of pork imports fromCanada been suspended.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/AG/R/36
Page 2
(b) Canada:  United States – Farm Security and Rural Investment (FSRI) Act 2002
5. Canada sought clarification from the United States regarding its intention and time-frame for
submitting Table DS:2 notifications with respect to any new or modified exempt measures adopted
under the FSRI Act 2002.  Canada noted that the US President had signed this Act into law on
13 May 2002.
6. As a preliminary response the United States indicated that the FSRI Act 2002 was still in the
process of being implemented.  Many of the implementing regulations were still being drafted and
others had not yet appeared in the Federal Register for comments.  The United States undertook to
provide a more detailed response at a later stage.
(c) European Communities:  United States – Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Farmers
7. The EC noted that the Trade Act of 2002 established a new support programme called the
"Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Farmers"  that provided US$90 million annually for both
technical assistance and cash benefits to producers from fiscal year 2003 through 2007.  The EC
inquired as to how the US would notify this new programme.
8. The United States noted that no payments would be made under this new programme until
2004.  The programme would be notified at the appr opriate time.  Moreover, the United States was
confident that it would continue to meet its WTO obligations.
9. The EC requested that the US provide timely up-front information on its intentions to notify
this measure.  Australia inquired as to what products would be eligible for payments.  Australia also
sought information on the guidelines for payment as well as the United States' intentions with respect
to  classifying the programme in its Table DS:1 notification.
(d) United States:  China – Tariff Quota Administration, Export Subsidies and Value-Added Tax
Policies
Tariff quota administration
10. The United States stated that on 31 July 2003, China had published draft revisions to the
Interim Rules on Agricultural Tariff-Rate Quota Administration  for comment.  There were several
improvements in the draft Rules from the prior meas ures:  for example, the draft Rules eliminated the
separate tariff quota for processing trade, i.e. imports of goods that must be processed and re-
exported.  However, the United States remained concerned that the draft Rules still provided for
restrictions relating to processing trade and, in particular, application of out-of-quota tariffs and other
penalties when a processing trade enterprise sold agricultural goods without approval in the domestic
market that were imported pursuant to a tariff quota allocation.  In the view of the United States,
imported agricultural goods should be eligible for sa le in the domestic market without any restriction
as to end-use.  The United States sought clarification as to whether under the finalized revisions to the
Rules, application of in-quota tariff rates would not be subject to the condition that the finished
product be exported.
11. China confirmed that in the revised Interim Measures on the Administration of Import Tariff
Rate Quota for Agricultural Products  the provisions in Article 21 of the prior Rules that had been
eliminated that stipulated:  "In case they (enterprises engaged in business of processing trade) fail to
process and re-export within the time-frame, they shall, within 30 days after expiration of the contract
of processing trade proceed with the procedures of cancellation of the contract.  The Customs shall
impose tariff duties at out-of-quota rate."  The application of in-quota rates would not be subject to the
condition that the finished products must be exported.G/AG/R/36
Page 3
12. The United States sought clarification with regard to the consistency of restrictions, whereby
goods imported pursuant to valid tariff quota certificates were subject to out-of-quota tariff rates or
other penalties because they were not processed and re-exported, with China's tariff bindings, national
treatment obligations and other WTO obligations.  China responded that Article 27 of the revised
Rules provided for penalties against enterprises engaged in the business of processing trade that soldimported bonded materials and components or products thereof without permission in the domestic
market.  According to China’s policies on processing trade, imports under processing trade were
bonded.  Such bonded materials and components and products thereof were not permitted for
domestic sale and had to be re-exported.  Violations constituted tariff evasion and were subject to
penalties.  Enterprises that wanted to sell imported materials and components or products thereof, had
the option of importing under the general trade channel and pay the applicable tariff, rather than under
processing trade with the preferences for bonded imports.
13. The United States was also concerned about a lack of transparency in tariff quota
administration, including the lack of information re garding tariff quota holders.  In the headnote of
China's schedule with respect to tariff quotas, China had committed to provide information on entities
that received tariff quota allocations.  China responded that the administrative agency for tariff quotas
would request that enterprises applying for tariff quotas for agricultural products for 2004 shouldconfirm whether they would provide basic business information.  After the allocation was completed,
the administrative agency would make available the relevant information of those enterprises that had
expressed their prior consent.
14. The United States requested the following information for each tariff quota product for 2002
and 2003 (year-to-date):  (i) the volume of tariff quotas requested, both for initial allocation and forreallocation;  (ii) the volume of tariff quota requests denied;  (iii) the composition of tariff quota
holders by nature of enterprise (state-owned enterprise, foreign-invested enterprise, etc.);  (iv) fill
rates;  (v) the amount of any goods entered at the out-of-quota tariff;  and (vi) time taken to grant
tariff quota.   In response, China provided information in the form of a table  (see Attachment on
page 23).
15. The United States also sought clarification regarding the steps China was taking to ensure that
tariff quotas were allocated in commercially viable shipping quantities.  In particular, the United
States requested information for 2003 regarding the minimum quantity of an individual quantity of an
individual tariff quota allocation for each tariff quota product, and any minimum quantities
established for 2004.  China responded that in reallocating the returned quota in September, the
administrative agency for tariff quotas would allocate the quotas mainly to those enterprises that had
obtained relatively small quotas in the initial allocation and had high fill rates.  In 2003, the minimumquantity of an individual quantity of an individual tariff quota allocation for tariff quota products was
as follows:  wheat, 132 tonnes;  corn, 7 tonnes;  rice, 114 tonnes;  soybean oil, 500 tonnes;  rape seed
oil, 1,000 tonnes;  palm oil, 300 tonnes;  sugar, 5 tonnes;  cotton, 200 tonnes;  wool and wool tops,
200 tonnes.  When allocating the tariff quotas of major agricultural products for 2004, the
administrative agency would set the minimum amount s (unless the applied amount was less than the
minimum amount), which would be no less than those for 2003.
Export subsidies
16. With respect to export subsidies, the United States requested the following price information
for corn for 2002 and 2003 (year-to-date), on a monthly basis:  (i) government grain bureauprocurement prices;  (ii) representative domestic market prices;  (iii) government grain bureau sales
prices to trading companies for sale in the domestic market;  (iv) government grain bureau sales prices
to trading companies for sale in export mark ets;  and (v) trading company export prices.G/AG/R/36
Page 4
17. The United States sought clarification as to whether domestic corn producers benefited from
guaranteed government grain bureau prices for all of their production.  Furthermore, the United States
asked whether corn prices paid to domestic producer s by the government grain bureau, or corn prices
paid to the government grain bureau by traders or other purchasers, varied depending on whether the
corn was intended for sale on the domestic market or exported, and in the affirmative, what therepresentative prices of each type of transaction were and whether there were written government
regulations or policies that established such price differentials.
18. The United States also requested the following volume information for 2002 and 2003 (year-
to-date), on a monthly basis:  (i) government grain bureau sales of corn to trading companies for sale
in the domestic market;  (ii) government grain bure au sales of corn to trading companies for sale in
export markets;  and (iii) corn that trading companies exported.
19. Lastly, the United States sought clarification as to how China had been able to export
substantial quantities of corn in 2003, when domestic market prices had been higher than export
prices.
20. China responded that the Law on Agriculture and the Regulation on Grain Purchase set forth
that the principle for the determination of the protective price would be decided by the State Council,
while the level, scope and implementation rules of the protective price were within the jurisdiction ofthe provincial governments.  The rationale for setting the protective price was to safeguard the
interests of farmers and stabilize the production of grain.  The price would be at set at such a level that
the production cost would be covered and appropriate economic returns for farmers be guaranteed.
Given China’s vast territory, differentiation in the moisture and quality existed, which resulted in
different purchasing prices.  In principle, the level of the purchasing price would be set on the basis ofthe actual status of the corn.  Since 1998, the freeing-up of corn purchases had been accelerated.  The
scope of corn purchases under the protective price had been narrowed and the purchasing channels
had been broadened.  Until now, purchases of corn in most regions were not within the scope of
protective purchases (corn purchased under protective price amounted to approximately 10 per cent of
the total);  corn purchased beyond the scope of purchases under protective prices were made byenterprises at market prices.  Moreover, since 1998, the domestic market for corn had been
completely opened up.  The sales price was decided under market conditions by the enterprises.
Value-added tax policies
21. The United States sought clarification as to whether domestic corn and imported corn were
subject to the value-added tax, and if so, at what rate and whether the policy was the same with
respect to other agricultural commodities.   China responded that it levied value-added tax ondomestic corn and imported corn, at the rate of 13 per cent ad valorem.  The same rate was applied to
other agricultural commodities.
22. The United States asked whether exports of corn were entitled to a value-added tax rebate,
and if so, at what rate and whether the policy was the same with respect to other agricultural
commodities.  China responded that it rebated value-added tax to exported corn at a rate of 13 percent.  Other agricultural commodities could also bene fit from the rebate policy, but at a different rate.
23. Australia, Canada and the EC expressed an interest in the matters raised by the United States
and the EC indicated that it might revert to some of the issues at a future meeting.G/AG/R/36
Page 5
B. R EVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
(a) Notifications in respect of which questions have been raised  in advance of the issuance of the
convening airgram
24. The Committee reviewed the following notifications as listed in the agenda:
(i) on the administration of tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:1):  from
Hungary (HUN/31) and Poland (POL/57);
(ii) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Brazil (BRA/19), Bulgaria (BGR/9), European Communities (EEC/45), Japan
(JPN/82) and Slovak Republic (SVK/38);
(iii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Japan (JPN/83);
and
(iv) relating to domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):  from Dominican Republic
(DOM/4/Rev.1 and DOM/8) and Slovenia (SVN/25).
25. Specific points raised with respect to the notifications listed above and the responses thereto
are summarized in Part I of the Annex to this report.
(b) Notifications subject to review in respect of which no questions have been raised in advance
26. The Committee took note of the following notifications, which had been circulated in advance
of the date on which the notice convening the present meeting was issued but in respect of which no
questions had been raised by that date under the Committee's Working Procedures:
(i) relating to imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2):  from
Dominican Republic (DOM/7), and United States (USA/48);
(ii) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Iceland
(ISL/23) and Uruguay (URY/25);
(iii) in the context of domestic support commitments  (Table DS:1):  from Cuba (CUB/23),
Guatemala (GTM/26), Poland (P OL/58) and Urug uay (URY/26);
(iv) relating to new or modified domestic support measures exempt from reduction
(Table DS:2):  from European Communities (EEC/47) and Guatemala (GTM/27);
and
(v) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Georgia (GEO/3),
Iceland (ISL/17/Rev.1 a nd ISL/22/Rev.1), Myanmar (MYN/3), Chinese Taipei
(TPKM/10) and Uruguay (URY/24).
(c) Notifications circulated or made available after the notice convening the meeting was issued
27. The following notifications were subject to prelim inary review and are to be reverted to at the
next meeting for substantive review in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Committee's Working
Procedures (G/AG/1):G/AG/R/36
Page 6
(i) in the context of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3 to MA:5):  from Czech Republic
(CZE/49) and Romania (ROM/18);
(ii) in the context of domestic support commitments (Table DS:1):   from Slovenia
(SVN/25/Corr.1);
(iii) on export subsidy commitments (Tables ES:1 to ES:3):  from Jordan (JOR/4);  and(iv) on export prohibitions and restrictions (Table ER:1):  from Bulgaria (BGR/10).
(d) Points concerning notifications raised at previous meetings
28. There was no discussion under this agenda item.
(e) Counter notifications under Article 18.7 of the Agreement
29. The Committee took note that no counter-notifications had been received under Article 18.7
of the Agreement.
(f) Deferred replies to questions raised under the Review Process
30. The deferred replies received from Chinese Taipei regarding its Table MA:2 notification
(TPKM/6) and its Table MA:3 notifications (TPKM/7 and TPKM/9) are summarized in Part II of the
Annex to this report.
(g) Overdue notifications
31. The Committee took note of the room document, dated 24 September 2003, made available
by the Secretariat showing the current status of compliance with the notification obligations.
(h) Addenda to Table MA:1 notifications
32. The Chairman recalled that the WTO Ministerial Conference in Doha had endorsed the
recommendation that the Committee keep under review the implementation of the December 2000
Decision of the General Council on the administration of tariff quotas (paragraph 1.1 of WT/L/384
refers).  The understanding was that this decision should not place undue new burdens on developingcountries (paragraph 14 of WT/GC/M/62 refers).
33. The Committee took note that the following Members administering tariff quotas had
submitted the requisite Table MA:1 Addenda:  Australia (AUS/1/Add.1);  Canada (CAN/2/Add.2,
6/Add.1, 10/Add.1, 19/Add.1 and 45);  Czech Republic (CZE/Rev.1/Add.1);  European Communities
(EEC/1/Add.2, 3/Add.1, 14/Add.1 and 15/Add.1);  Hungary (HUN/1/Add.1, 5/Add.1, 8/Add.1,
13/Add.1 and 18/Add.1);  Japa n (JPN/1/Add.1, 8/Add.1, 23/Add. 2 and 57/Add.1);  Latvia
(LVA/1/Add.1);  New Zealand (NZL/1/Add.1); No rway (NOR/1/Add.1); Sl ovenia (SVN/1/Add.1);
Switzerland (CHE/13/Add.4);  Thailand (THA/38/A dd.1); and the United States (USA/2/Add.3 and
34/Add.1).
34. The Chairman urged those Members administering tariff quotas which had not yet done so to
provide Addenda to their Table MA:1 notifications in accordance with the General Council Decision
in WT/L/384.G/AG/R/36
Page 7
PART II:  O THER MATTERS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE COMMITTEE
A. I MPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 10.2 OF THE AGREEMENT ON AGRICULTURE , ON THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONALLY AGREED DISCIPLINES TO GOVERN THE PROVISION OF
EXPORT CREDITS , EXPORT GUARANTEES OR INSURANCE PROGRAMMES
35. Argentina stated that without prejudice to the disciplines in Article 10 of the Agreement on
Agriculture in respect of circumvention of ex port subsidy commitments, the establishment of
additional and specific disciplines on export credit, guarantee and insurance programmes was still an
outstanding implementation issue resulting from the Agreement on Agriculture of the Uruguay
Round.  Therefore, Argentina requested that this item be retained on the agenda of this Committee.
The EC supported the statement by Argentina.
B. I MPLEMENTATION OF THE MARRAKESH NFIDC D ECISION
36. The Chairman recalled that the General Council, at its meeting on 24-25 July, had approved
the recommendations in the Committee's report on agricultural implementation-related matters
(G/AG/16 and paragraph 169 of WT/GC/M/81 refe r).  With reference to the recommendation
concerning the review of the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility and the Compensatory Financing
Facility of the IMF in 2003, the Chairman drew atte ntion to the statement of Mrs. Anne O Krueger as
the representative of the IMF at the Cancún Ministerial Conference (WT/MIN(03)/ST/20), in which
she indicated that the IMF was prepared to undertake a new trade initiative to make financial
assistance available to developing countries that faced the prospect of a challenging adjustment to theimpact of multilateral trade reform.  An elaborated proposal would be presented in the coming
months.  It was suggested that the Secretariat invite a representative of the IMF at the November
meeting, on the occasion of the annual monitoring  exercise of the NFIDC Decision, to inform the
Committee about the IMF initiative.  With referen ce to the recommendation that the World Bank and
other relevant international organizations inform the Committee on the possibility of usingcommodity price risk management instruments to help  stabilize the food import bills of the LDCs and
NFIDCs, the Committee took note that the Chairman of the General Council intended to write to the
World Bank and other organizations to draw their attention to this matter.
37. The EC stressed the importance of this issu e within the Committee and welcomed the IMF
initiative.  The EC also noted that there was a need to continue discussions on this issue.
C. T
RANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (WT/L/432).
38. The Committee held its second annual review under paragraph 18 of the Protocol of
Accession of the People's Republic of China.  The advance questions submitted to China by the
United States and Chinese Taipei are set out in documents G/AG/W/59 and G/AG/W/60, respectively.
(i) Statement by China
39. China stated that it attached great importan ce to the commitments made in the WTO and that
in order to better respond to questions and comments from Members during the review, its delegation
included representatives from various ministries, including the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of
Agriculture and the Ministry of Commerce.
40. In line with Article 18.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, China had provided the Committee
with information on tariff quota administration (Table MA:1 notification, see G/AG/N/CHN/2) as
well as the relevant regulations thereof, including the Circular on Re-allocation of Tariff Rate Quota
for Import of Important Agricultural Products in 2003  and the Implementation Rules on Allocation ofG/AG/R/36
Page 8
Tariff Rate Quota for Import of Important Agricultural Products (G/AG/W/61 refers) .  China had also
notified the imports of agricultural products under tariff quotas in 2002 (Table MA:2 notification, see
G/AG/N/CHN/3) and in the first half of this ye ar, it had notified the Committee on Market Access
regarding the operation of state trading of some agricultural products.  Interim Measures on
Administration of Tariff Rate Quota for Import of Agriculture Products  would be notified as soon as
they were translated into English.
41. As regards implementation of commitments, China stated that it had reduced tariffs by 7.2 per
cent this year from an average of 18.1 per cent to 16.8 per cent.  In addition, tariff and other quotas
had been fully allocated in a timely manner pursuant to governing laws and regulations.  In China's
view, this ensured uniformity, transparency, fairness, non-discrimination, stability and predictability
of its trade regime.
42. Concerning tariff quota administration, China stated that pursuant to its commitments, an
application for tariff rate quota for import should be made during 15 to 30 October of each year
(application period), unless the allocation was made on a "first-come, first-served" basis.  China added
that one month prior to the application period, the quota administration authorities published the total
amount of tariff quota for import in the following year, as well as the criteria for application. 
Governmental agencies with authorization would submit the qualified applications to the tariff quotaadministrative authorities and the quota would be allocated to end-users before 1 January of each
year.  China ensured the Committee that these procedures were strictly followed in the tariff quota
allocation of agricultural products in 2003.
43. The application period for re-allocation of tariff quotas was 1 to 15 September of each year,
unless allocations were made on a "first come, first served" basis.  One month prior to the applicationperiod, quantity and criteria for the re-allocation of tariff quotas would be published by administrative
authorities.  On 11 August 2003, the State Development and Reform Commission and the Ministry of
Commerce had issued a joint Circular concerning Re-allocation of Tariff Rate Quota for Import of
Important Agricultural Products  which stipulated that unused quota returned before 20 September
would be re-allocated to users. 
44. China considered that the experience over the past year had demonstrated that the tariff quota
administration worked well. China had simplified the application procedures, reduced import costs
and facilitated trade of agricultural products.  China added that Chinese companies were satisfied in
this regard.  Moreover, the Chinese Government had not taken any measures in the form of
administrative rules or guidance that were inconsistent with WTO obligations or might result in
discrimination against agricultural imports.  In China's view, this ensured an effective opportunity of
market access for imports.
45. Concerning the revisions to the administrative rules regarding tariff quota allocation, China
stated the Chinese authorities, i.e. the Minist ry of Commerce, the State Development and Reform
Commission and the General Customs Administration, had amended the Interim Measures on
Administration of Tariff Rate Quota for Import of Agricultural Products  enacted by the former State
Planning Commission in January 2002, taking into ac count the questions and concerns raised during
the last review and suggestions made by Chinese companies.  The following amendments were made:
all tariff quotas should be allocated before 1 January of each year; tariff quotas for processing trade
should no longer be reserved;  tariff quota certificates should no longer have A and B types but there
should be one certificate;  the administration procedure was simplified by removing notice of tariff
quota;  tariff quota certificates should be sent to enterprises directly before 1 January of each year, andenterprises should make their customs declaration by presenting the certificate.
46. China envisaged that the Interim Measures on Administration of Tariff Rate Quota for Import
of Agricultural Products  as amended would be enacted in September 2003.  The Implementing RulesG/AG/R/36
Page 9
on the Allocation of Tariff Rate Quota for Impo rt of Important Agricultural Products in 2004 , which
was formulated in line with the Interim Measures on Administration of Tariff Rate Quota for Import
of Agricultural Products as amended would be published before 30 September 2003.
47. As of 1 January 2003, China had eliminated the administration of export quotas for sugar and
garlic.  In 2003, the following ten agricultural products were subject to the administration of exportquota licences:  rice, corn, wheat, cotton, tea, timber, rush and its products, pigs (for export to Hong
Kong, China and Macao, China), cattle (for export to Hong Kong, China and Macao, China), live
chicken (for export to Hong Kong, China and Macao, China).  A quota for export of rush and its
products was subject to bidding.  China added that upon its accession to the WTO it had notified the
above products that were subject to export quota licences.
48. China informed the Committee that in 2003 it continued to carry out state trading
administration on rice, corn and cotton, in line with Article XVII of GATT 1994 and commitmentscontained in its Protocol of Accession.
49. China recalled that its maximum Amber Box domestic support was set at 8.5 per cent which
was lower than the de minimis  for developing countries set at 10 per cent.  China pointed out that it
had taken the exceptional step among WTO Members of substantially reducing import tariffs on
agricultural products and at a fast pace.  China's tariff quota commitments were significant and asregards export subsidies, domestic support and market access in agricultural products, China's
commitments were more substantial than those of many other WTO Members, including developed
countries.
50. Concerning quarantine of agricultural products, China stated that in formulating and
implementing SPS measures, China strictly abided by the SPS Agreement and all other WTO rules,especially the science-based and transparency principles.  Since 1999, China had identified several
cases of soybean epidemic in imports shipped from the United States.  China had notified the US
authorities nine times, but no improvement had been made on the part of the United States.  For the
time being, China had not banned any foreign companies to export soybeans to China.  China hoped
that the US authorities would take strict quarantine measures with respect to its exports of soybean toChina so as to ensure soybean shipments were free from this epidemic or any other diseases.
51. The experience over the past months of this year demonstrated that China had been
complying with its WTO commitments and made great efforts in fulfilling its obligations to facilitate
market opening and trade development.  China recalled that 17 WTO Committees had successfully
completed China's transitional reviews last year.  China considered that the reviews had been positive
and provided useful platforms for necessary clarification and a frank exchange of views.  
52. China also underlined that it was a developing country with a less-developed agriculture.
Annual income for 900 million farmers was less than US$300 per head and 30 million farmers were
living in deep poverty.  China therefore hoped that WTO Members would take a long-term and
realistic perspective when reviewing the implementation of China's commitments. 
(ii) Follow-up questions and/or comments by Members and China's responses thereto
53. The United States stated that it was concerned about plans announced in August 2003 by
China's State Administration for Quality, Supervis ion, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) to suspend
soybean imports from four US companies along with companies from Argentina and Brazil.
According to AQSIQ, this action was based on dete ctions of phytophthora soya (commonly known as
soybean rust) in shipments of soybeans beginning in the spring of 2003.  The United States soughtclarification as to why AQSIQ had delayed the announcement of its plans from spring to August and
why the announcement did not set a date on which the suspension would become effective.  TheG/AG/R/36
Page 10
United States inquired whether China had conducted a risk assessment in accordance with the
requirements of the SPS Agreement, what the results of the assessment were and how suspending
shipments of soybeans from the companies in question would address the identified risk.  The United
States also considered that the presence of soybean rust in soybeans was ubiquitous in many parts of
the world including China, hence China's action was unjustifiably discriminatory.
54. China responded that it had discovered soybean rust in the US shipments but so far China had
not and was not planning to take any actions to suspend US or other Members' exports of soybeans to
China.  China was seeking solutions to solve this problem and suggested that discussions continue at a
technical level.
55. Chinese Taipei underlined that as one of the major trading partners of China, it attached great
importance to the annual Transitional Review.  In its submission (G/AG/W/60), Chinese Taipei had
raised concerns regarding transparency in tariff quota administration and sought information on thetariff quota fill rate by product, average quota amount available to each quota holder, and criteria for
making allocation decisions.  Chinese Taipei also inquired whether information concerning quota
holders had been made public and by what kind of means.  With reference to China's responses to
similar questions posed by the United States under Article 18.6 of the Agreement, Chinese Taipei
noted China's efforts to meet its accession commitments, especially in the area of market access andtariff quota administration.
56. With reference to the document G/AG/W/60 containing the questions from the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, China stated that the title of the delegation
of the Separate Customs Territory was wrongly phrased as "the Permanent Mission".  In the view of
China, such designation was not in compliance w ith the principles as set out in the Chairman's
statement (C/M/259) of the GATT Council on 29 September 1992, which was the agreed
understanding of the Members of the GATT (WTO).  China was not in a position to address this kind
of document before the issue of title was resolved.
57. The United States recalled that it had expressed concerns at this meeting under Article 18.6 of
the Agreement regarding China's tariff quota administration and had sought clarification with respectto possible export subsidies on corn and possible discriminatory value-added tax policies.  The United
States attached great importance to these issues.  It requested that the minutes of the discussion along
with the US questions and China's responses be atta ched to, or incorporated by reference, into the
Committee's report on the Transitional Review to the Council for Trade in Goods.  For a summary of
the discussion on the matter "United States:  China – Tariff Quota Administration, Export Subsidies
and Value-Added Tax Policies" raised under Article 18.6 of the Agreement, see paragraphs 10 to 23
above.
58. The EC noted China's efforts at improving transparency and providing a greater level of detail
in its responses to questions.  The EC encourag ed China to submit an addendum to its Table MA:1
notification.  In the view of the EC, this would provide Members with important information as well
as help China explain in more detail the administration of its tariff quotas.
(iii) Report to the Council for Trade in Goods
59. With respect to the Committee's report on the Tr ansitional Review to the Council for Trade in
Goods, the Committee took note that the Chairman would submit a short and factual report on his
own responsibility (to be circulated as G/AG/18).  The report would make reference to all relevant
documents submitted in the context of the review as well as the substantive discussion held under thisagenda item as reflected in the Summary Report of this meeting by the Secretariat.G/AG/R/36
Page 11
D. M ATTERS RAISED UNDER "OTHER BUSINESS "
(a) Date of Next Meeting
60. The next regular meeting of the Committee on Agriculture will be held on
20 November 2003.  The airgram convening the meeting and containing the draft agenda will beissued on Monday, 10 November 2003.
(b) Provisional Schedule of Meetings for 2004
61. According to the Committee's rules of procedures, regular meetings of the Committee shall be
held in March, September and November.  The Committee took note that the question of whether
there is a need for an additional regular meeting in June 2004 would be determined by the Chairman
following the March meeting in consultation with Members.  The Committee took note of the
provisional schedule of meetings for 2004, on the basis that the dates for each regular meeting wouldcontinue to be confirmed at the preceding meeting of the Committee.  Moreover, the following
schedule may need to be re-visited, at the appropriate stage, in light of other developments:
25 March  (Thursday)
[17 June  (Thursday)]
23 and 24 September  (Thursday and Friday)18 November  (Thursday).G/AG/R/36
Page 12
ANNEX
Page
Part IReview of notifications by the Committee on Agriculture on
25 September 2003
(i) administration of tariff and other quot a commitments (Table MA:1):  Hungary
(HUN/31) and Poland (POL/57);13
(ii) imports under tariff and other quota commitments (Table MA:2): Brazil
(BRA/19), Bulgaria (BGR/9), Eur opean Communities (EEC/45), Japan
(JPN/82) and Slovak Republic (SVK/38);15
(iii) use of the special safeguard (Tables MA:3-MA:5):  Japan (JPN/83); 18
(iv) domestic support commitments (Table DS:1): Dominican Republic
(DOM/4/Rev.1 and DOM/8) and Slovenia (SVN/25).19
Part II Deferred replies to questions raised at previous meetings
(i) relating to tariff quota fill:  TPKM/6 (G/AG/R/35, pages 16-17); 21
(ii) relating to the use of the special sa feguard:  TPKM/7 and TPKM/9 (G/AG/R/35,
pages 19-20).21G/AG/R/36
Page 13
ANNEX – PART I
Review of notifications by the Co mmittee on Agriculture on 25 September 2003
Summary of specific points raised and responses thereto
Table MA:1 Notifications
Hungary     G/AG/N/HUN/31 Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Inquired as to the necessity for the
introduction of the requirement to lodge deposits toaccess the quota for "bovine animals and meat".This instrument was introduced in 1995 for some
TQs, including bovine animals and meat, as notifiedmost recently in G/AG/N/HUN/18/Add.1 from 2002.The aim of deposits is to ensure that applications
reflect genuine import interest, facilitating quota fill.
Requested an indication of the time-frame forreimbursement of these deposits.Applicants have to pay a reimbursable deposit to the
account of the Agricultural and Rural Development
Agency (ARDA).  A bank certificate needs to beattached to the quota application, verifying transfer ofsaid deposit.  To receive a reimbursement, applicantsare required to prove that they have imported at least80% of the quantity obtained.  The ARDA will re-
transfer the amount of the deposit within 10 working
days.  If an applicant is unable to utilize a part or thewhole of the quantity issued, a proportionate amountof the deposit is returned on request within 20working days unless there is a reason of force
majeure  for not utilizing the quota.
If the quota request is rejected, the deposit is
automatically returned to the applicant.  Similarly, ifapplicants receive a reduced quantity, a proportionateamount of the deposit is returned automatically.  The
deadline for returning the deposit is 10 working days.
Requested further details on the reduction coefficient
that is applied if the quantities for which applicationshave been received exceed the quantities available?A reduction coefficient is applied to the quantities
requested corresponding to the rate of over-application.  Each applicant receives the quantity forwhich he has submitted an application as reduced by
the coefficient in a uniform way.G/AG/R/36
Page 14
Poland     G/AG/N/POL/57  Tariff Quota Administration   (Table MA:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand – Requested further details on
"security" payments implemented on all TQs listed.
Whether deposits are refundable and, if so, the time-frame for reimbursement.Confirmed.  If 95% or more of requested licence is
utilized the refund is 100%.  If utilization is between
5 and 95%, the refund is calculated according to that
percentage.  Utilization below 5% is non-refundable.The time-frame for reimbursement is up to 21 daysafter provision of import documentation to theadministration.
Whether applied to 100% of the TQ volume, or only
once a certain fill threshold is reached.Confirmed the application to 100% of the TQ
volume.
Sought an explanation as to why they are considered
necessary bearing in mind that the rates are high for
some securities (e.g. 350 €/t applied to butterrepresents approximately 30% of the world price forthat product.)Designed to encourage interested applicants.  It is
expected that larger quantities will be allocated per
licence and that fill rates will be improved.G/AG/R/36
Page 15
Table MA:2 Notifications
Brazil    G/AG/N/BRA/19     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Canada – Recalled that at the June 2003 meeting, the
EC had asked Brazil about progress of thenegotiations on the elimination of the TQ for wheat.Noted an interest in knowing where the results of the
negotiations have been reflected.
Requested details which suggest that an agreement
has been reached.Referred to the statement at the June 2003 meeting
that in the course of the negotiations conducted since1996, concerns over possible losses arising from theelimination of the quota were dispelled in view of(a) the total liberalization of the wheat trade in Brazil;and (b) the fact that the current levels of import
(averaging 6-7 million tonnes/year) render the quota
meaningless.
The present applied rate for wheat in Brazil is 10%,
with a bound rate of 55%.
Capital has not yet advised of a specific document
concerning the conclusion of negotiations.
Follow-up comment by Canada:  Reiterated its beliefthat the issue had not been settled and that concerns
remained.  Noted that the applied rate of 10% was infact higher than the in-quota rate of 0% which hadbeen eliminated.  Indicated its intention to revisit the
question at a later date.
Follow-up comment by EC:  Reiterated its interest in
this issue and indicated that it would continue tomonitor the situation.
Bulgaria     G/AG/N/BGR/9     Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Explanation sought for low fill rates (less
than 10%) for a range of commodities in the 4 yearsreported, including maize for forage and variousconfectionery items, and zero fill rates on others,including dried beans (07133900 and 07135000),
tomato ketchup.The import regime for products subject to TQs is
fully transparent and is based on the principle of first-come, first-served. No administrative obstacles toimports exist.
TQ fill rates are influenced by the market.  Imports
depend on supply and demand factors.  The reasons
for low fill rates vary between products.  Some can
be explained by low demand due to a good harvest(i.e. for wheat, barley and maize in the period 2000-2002) or other reasons.
Has Bulgaria considered the necessity of retaining a
tariff quota on these items?Eventual modifications to the current import regime
are subject to negotiation.G/AG/R/36
Page 16
European Communities     G/AG/N/EEC/45      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Explanation sought for the underfill
of TQs for feed grains (sorghum) and non-grain feeds(manioc, sweet potatoes, bran and other millingresidues, malt sprouts and barley screenings, otherpreparations used in anim al feed), fruit (oranges,
citrus fruit hybrids, fresh apricots), orange juice,
swine meat, and wheat.The trend towards underfill for many of the products
mentioned can be explained by the impact of on-going reform.  Furthermore all feed products aresubstitutable and can be incorporated into feedrations in different proportions depending on priceand availability. Many of these "non-grain or grain
substitutes", were available at lower domestic prices,
or from alternative competitive sources such asRussia and the Ukraine (for wheat and barley).These factors also indirectly explain underfill of the
pork TQ.
With respect to specific products:Sorghum feed grain:  as indicated in footnote (1) of
EEC/45, the total quota quantity is to be reduced by
imports of cereal substitutes, corresponding to104,668 tonnes in 2002.  The limited quantityimported under the remaining quota was due to a lack
of interest from traders.
As a consequence of the 1992 and later reforms of
the cereals sector there is generally less demand forimported non-grain animal feed.
Manioc and sweet potatoes:  increasing supply of
competitive animal feed on the internal market;
developments in traditional supplier countries
reducing supply.
Bran and other milling residues:  lack of interest from
importers.
Malt sprouts, barley screenings and other
preparations used in animal feed:  sufficient supply at
competitive prices on the internal market.Oranges, citrus fruit hybrids, and fresh apricots:
sufficient supply at competitive prices on the internal
market.
Orange juice:  sufficient supply at competitive prices
on the internal market;  shift in consumer preferences
away from concentrated product to fresh products.
Meat of swine:  as in previous years, sufficient
supply at competitive prices on the internal market.Wheat:  The out-of-quota import duty rate was zero
during the whole period notified, hence there was no
need to use the tariff quota.G/AG/R/36
Page 17
Japan      G/AG/N/JPN/82      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Explanation sought for the absence of
the following scheduled TQs:
- the pooled quota for cheese intended for use as
materials for processed cheese (HS0406.10.010,
HS0406.40.010, HS0406.90.010)
- the quantity stipulated by a Cabinet Order for corn
starch manufacture, for feeding purposes, and for themanufacture of corn flakes, ethyl alcohol, or distilledalcoholic beverages (HS1005.90.091,
HS1005.90.095, HS1005.90.092)
- the pooled quota for malt (HS1107.10.011,
HS1107.10.021, HS1107.20.010)
- the pooled quota for molasses for manufacturing
alcohol (HS1703.10.091.0, HS1703.90.010.0)
- the molasses quantity stipulated by a Cabinet Order
for use in manufacturing glutamic acid, yeast, lysine,
5’-ribonucleotide, etc. (HS1703.90.020.3)
- the quantity stipulated by a Cabinet Order for food
preparations containing cocoa for manufacture ofchocolate (HS1806.20.210)
- the tomato puree and paste quantity stipulated by a
Cabinet Order for manufacture of tomato ketchup andother tomato sauces (HS2002.90.211.2,
HS2002.90.221.5)
- the pooled quota for canned pineapple
(HS2008.20.111.2, HS2008.20.211.4).Japan's notifications regarding tariff and other quota
commitments are fully in line with the requirement(G/AG/2 refers) to notify the implementation of
commitments recorded in the Schedule.
For the products mentioned, scheduled commitments
were made only on tariff rates (Section I-A), not on
quota volumes.
The TQs in question are therefore the result of
voluntary tariff remission for certain volumes ofrespective imports within the scheduledcommitments.  It is Japan's understanding that it is
not required that these voluntary-based TQs be
notified to this Committee.
Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/38      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
United States – Reasons requested for low fill rates
for most items.Imports under bilateral preferential quotas are not
included in the figures relating to quota fill, nor areimports from partners in the Customs Union, i.e. theCzech Republic.  In some cases these imports are
even higher than the tariff quota volumes.
In some cases, consumer preferences for competitive
domestic production explains underfill.  Furthermore,most domestic companies are under foreignownership, preferring to supply the domestic market
with their products and have no interest in importing.
It is underlined that no action has been undertaken by
the Slovak authorities to limit tariff quota fill.G/AG/R/36
Page 18
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Japan     G/AG/N/JPN/83     Price-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA:4)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Australia – Food preparations containing groats,
meal, pellets… (HS 1901.90.179)
With reference to the transparency requirements set
out in Article 5.7, requested:
- the current c.i.f. import price (including sources)
- the duty levied (including calculation method)The price-based SSG is invoked against each
individual freight.  To avoid the disclosure ofconfidential information concerning individual
traders' commercial activities, Japan does not make
public the import price, the amount of extra dutyimposed by the invocation of price-based SSG.However, the average c.i.f. price in January-July
2003 was 914 yen/kg. ("Japan's Trade Statistics").
The method of calculation of the additional duty
levied on the product is prescribed in Article 5.5(c) ofAoA;  that is the difference between the import priceand the trigger price is greater than 40% but less than
or equal to 60% of the trigger price.
Beans other than beans of species …
(HS 0713.39.227)
Noted that the calculation of the average referenceprice must be calculated for all three years of the
reference period and that a price in one year of thereference period is not indicative of a 3-year price
trend, and does not conform to the intent of Article 5.
With reference to the transparency requirements set
out in Article 5.7, requested:
- the current c.i.f. import price (including sources)
- the duty levied (including calculation method).The difficulty in finding an appropriate reference
price in 1986 and 1987 is due to the fact that there
were no actual imports of these products in thoseyears and because it is unf easible to estimate the
reference price of this tariff line that consists ofseveral types of beans.  Because of these technical
limitations, the 1998 c.i.f. price is used as the trigger
price.
To avoid the disclosure of confidential information
concerning individual traders' commercial activities,
Japan does not make public the import price, the
amount of extra duty imposed by the invocation ofprice-based SSG.  However, the average c.i.f. price inJanuary-July 2003 was 99 yen/kg. ("Japan's Trade
Statistics").
The method of calculation of the additional duty
levied on the product is prescribed in Art. 5.5(d) of
AoA; that is the difference between the import priceand the trigger price is greater than 60% but less thanor equal to 75% of the trigger price.G/AG/R/36
Page 19
Table DS:1 Notifications
Dominican Republic   G/AG/N/DOM/4/Rev.1 and DOM/8      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia – Annex 2, Paragraph 12 – Payments under
environmental programmes
Explanation sought for increased payments under the
"Natural resource development" programme since
1999, peaking at DR $1.4 billio n in 2001.
Confirmation sought of compliance with the criteria
set out in Annex 2, para. 12.The figure for 2001 appears particularly high because
the Dominican Ministry of the Environment wasestablished that same year, and the amount inquestion therefore includes this institution's entirebudget, plus the funds for all the programmes that theMinistry will be implementing.  In this regard, it is
important to note that the aforementioned funds do
not concern the agricultural sector exclusively,although unfortunately it is not possible to give abreakdown of figures for that year.  Confirmed thatthese programmes fulfil the criteria set out inAnnex 2, paragraph 12 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
Slovenia     G/AG/N/SVN/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Green Box
Australia - Annex 2, Paragraph 13 – Regional
assistance programmes
Noted the change in the description of the regional
assistance programme.  Inquired whether this is anew programme or an alteration to the existingprogramme.  If so, suggestion that a Table DS:2
notification be submitted.
Explanation requested of the term "convention
programme".Regional assistance programmes relate to payments
for disadvantaged regions.  There are no newmeasures in this field.
The correct wording should be "conversion
programmes" as per AMS tables of previous years.This has been corrected in documentG/AG/N/SVN/25/Corr.1.
Blue Box
Explanation sought for the aggregation of Blue Boxpayments, instead of by commodity as previously
notified.Payments based on fixed area and yields relate to all
arable crops, and livestock payments are made on a
fixed number of head.
Explanation sought for the reasons behind the
increase in livestock payments by almost €15 millionfrom the previous year and confirmation thatpayments have been made on a fixed number of head
of livestock.The level of payments has increased on a fixed
number of head.G/AG/R/36
Page 20
Slovenia     G/AG/N/SVN/25      Domestic Support (Table DS:1)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Amber Box
Product-specific AMS - Supporting Table DS:5
Information sought regarding the level of wheat
production under "eligible production" for 2002.Wheat production in 2002 amounted to
174,868 tonnes.
Non-product-specific support – Supporting
Table DS:9
The description for "A. Non-product-specific inputsubsidies" includes reference to "renovation of hop
gardens, asparagus gardens, strawberry gardens and
orchards…"Inquired how these payments fulfil the requirementthat non-product-specific support payments notbenefit any one producer group or product?Renovation refers to operations such as the removal
of stones, preparation of soil and building of fences
and the like.  Farmers decide what kind of vegetables,
fruits or hops they will grow.
Follow-up comment by Australia:  Remainedunconvinced about the non-product-specific nature ofpayments as certain producers were eligible for them
whereas others such as producers of livestock or field
crops were not.  Encouraged Slovenia to re-notify thepayments as product-specific AMS.Deferred reply:  It is true that livestock breeding is
not involved in this area.  However, this measure
relates to all plant growing activities.G/AG/R/36
Page 21
ANNEX – PART II
Deferred Replies to Questions Raised at Previous Meetings
Table MA:2 notifications
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/6      Tariff Quota Fill (Table MA:2)
(G/AG/R/35, pages 16-17 refer)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
New Zealand:  Some TQs involve several tariff lines
("basket quotas", e.g. chicken, pork offals, and liquid
milk).  Confirmation sought that in practice, volumesare not specified for individual tariff lines withinsuch basket quotas, so that importers are free toimport the entire quantity of a single tariff line if they
choose.Confirmed.  For example, an importer can fill its
quota by freely choosing to import any of, or a
combination of, the 17 product lines listed under theTQ for liquid milk.
Follow-up questions by New Zealand:  Clarificationsought as to how these rules had worked in practice
considering that the system had been in place for a
year.  With respect to the SSG, sought assurances thatno additional duties were applied to trade entering at
the in-quota rate.Measures for ensuring the SSG does not apply to
minimum access opportunities are as follows:
- an early warning is given on the Internet and in
other publications when the import volume hasreached 90% of the SSG trigger volume;
- when the import volume reaches the trigger volume,
for those importers holding a valid quota certificate,
only the in-quota tariff rate will be applied.  On the
contrary, if the importation is without a valid quotacertificate, additional out-of-quota duties will beapplied pursuant to Article 5.
Tables MA:3 to MA:5 Notifications
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/7     Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA: 3)
(G/AG/R/35, page 19 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Follow-up comment by New Zealand:  Sought
clarification as to how Chinese Taipei ensures
compliance with Article 5 of the AoA.Measures for ensuring the SSG does not apply to
minimum access opportunities are as follows:
- an early warning is given on the Internet and in
other publications when the import volume hasreached 90% of the SSG trigger volume;
- when the import volume reaches the trigger volume,
for those importers holding a valid quota certificate,
only the in-quota tariff rate will be applied.  On the
contrary, if the importation is without a valid quotacertificate, additional out-of-quota duties will beapplied pursuant to Article 5.G/AG/R/36
Page 22
Chinese Taipei     G/AG/N/TPKM/9     Volume-Based Special Safeguard (Table MA: 3)
(G/AG/R/35, page 20 refers)
Points raised by other Member s Response by Notifying Member
Follow-up comment by New Zealand:  Sought
clarification as to how Chinese Taipei ensures
compliance with Article 5 of the AoA.Measures for ensuring the SSG does not apply to
minimum access opportunities are as follows:
- an early warning is given on the Internet and in
other publications when the import volume has
reached 90% of the SSG trigger volume;
- when the import volume reaches the trigger volume,
for those importers holding a valid quota certificate,only the in-quota tariff rate will be applied.  On thecontrary, if the importation is without a valid quotacertificate, additional out-of-quota duties will be
applied pursuant to Article 5.G/AG/R/36
Page 23
Attachment
Data provided by China under Article 18.6 of the Agreement on Agriculture concerning the
matter of
United States:  China – Tariff Quota Administration, Export Subsidies and Value-Added Taxes
(i) Volume of tariff quotas requested for initial allocation and reallocation:
2002
Initial allocation
(ten thousand tonnes)Reallocation
(ten thousand tonnes)
Wheat 2,500 11.26
Corn 3,425 0
Rice 555 6.21
Soybean oil 1,070 33.4
Rape-seed oil 417 8.5
Palm oil 1,177 225
Sugar 774 37
Cotton 67 2.675
2003
Initial allocation
(ten thousand tonnes)Reallocation
(ten thousand tonnes)
Wheat 1,696 6.5
Corn 2,187 11.012
Rice 486 9.2
Soybean oil 1,071 233.07
Rape-seed oil 326 21.2
Palm oil 1,192 345.39
Sugar 601 3.4
Cotton 129 51.4602
(ii) Volume of tariff quota requests denied:
2002
Initial allocation
(ten thousand tonnes)Reallocation
(ten thousand tonnes)
Wheat 1,678 0
Corn 2,860 0
Rice 196 0
Soybean oil 838 0
Rape-seed oil 339 0
Palm oil 947 225
Sugar 658 37
Cotton 35 0G/AG/R/36
Page 24
2003
Initial allocation
(ten thousand tonnes)Reallocation
(ten thousand tonnes)
Wheat 831 0
Corn 1,554 0
Rice 108 0
Soybean oil 809 233.07
Rape-seed oil 234 0
Palm oil 942 345.39
Sugar 486 2.19
Cotton 93 51.4497
(iii) Composition of tariff quota holders by nature of enterprise
Such statistics are not available.
(iv) Tariff quota fill rates
2002
(%)2003 (Jan.-Aug.)
(%)
Wheat 7.5 2.4
Corn 0.17 0
Rice 5.9 4.1
Soybean oil 34.6 32.3
Rape-seed oil 8.9 6
Palm oil 70.6 60.8
Sugar 67.1 30.1
Cotton 21.6 72.8
Wool 72.2 36.6
Wool tops 62.1 24.5
(v) Amount of any goods entered at the out-of-quota tariff
The amount of goods entered at the out-of-quota rate for each product is zero.
(vi) Time taken to grant tariff quota allocations
The time taken to grant tariff quota allocations of agricultural products is one month, i.e. from
1 December to 31 December.
__________