JOB/AG/167  
 
24 October 2019  
(19-7055) Page: 1/29 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
TARIF F IMPLEMENTATION ISS UES – TARIFF PEAKS  
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES OF AME RICA 
The following communication, dated 23 October 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States of America .  
 
_______________  
 
 
1.1.  In July 2018, the United States of America submitted a formal communication to the World 
Trade Org anization (JOB/AG/141) noting the need for more trade to improve global welfare, help 
producers, and address the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing world population. The 
communication also noted that tariffs remain much higher in the agricultural sector than in other 
sectors, tariff reductions have contributed to the welfare gains from trade in agriculture, and that 
locking -in tariff reductions for agriculture can contribute further to global welfare.  
1.2.  The US communication identified and provided s ummarized analysis in six areas of the market 
access pillar where further analysis of Members' current implementation of tariffs should be 
considered and discussed by Members in order to better understand Members' current tariff regimes. 
The areas included : (i) bound versus applied tariffs, (ii) complex tariffs, (iii) tariff peaks, (iv) issues 
with TRQs, (v) agricultural safeguards (SSGs), and (vi) regional/preferential trade agreements.  
1.3.  In this communication, the United States of America aims to provide a deeper understanding 
of the tariff treatment, primarily focusing on tariff peaks faced by Members using Members ' 
submitted tariff schedules, WTO tariff profiles, and World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS) data.1 
This analysis considers the distribution of  tariff peaks by Member, product group2, and development 
status3 with particular focus on the top 20 largest agricultural exporters and the top 20 largest 
agricultural importers in 2017.4  
1.4.  While Members' have generally provided greater transparency on agri cultural tariffs than on 
other agriculture -related issues, a number of problems related to transparency of agricultural tariffs 
remain, including:  
• Applied tariff schedules submitted to the WTO that are out of date;  
• Several Members have never published any applied tariff schedule to the WTO;  
• Absence of tariff concordance information for Members ' tariff schedules;  
• Lack of ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) data for non -ad valorem  tariffs, including 
complex tariffs;  
• Tariffs applied and notified at different (HS) line  levels for each Member;  
 
1 WITS is a collaboration between the World Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development in consultation with the WTO, International Trade Center, and United Nations Statistical Division.  
2 This communication uses product categories first defined in the Tokyo Round and adapted for the 
Harmonized System in the Uruguay Round. The product group breakdown in this publication is provided in the 
2018 WTO World Tariff Profiles (page 32).  
3 Development st atus is based on the WTO convention of self -designation.  
4 The top 20 traders identified using by value, for 2017 according to IHS GTA (accessed 20  June 2018) 
include: Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  Canada;  Chile;  China;  Egypt;  European Union;  Hong Kong, Ch ina; India;  
Indonesia;  Japan;  Korea, Republic of; Malaysia;  Mexico;  New Zealand;  Philippines;  Russian Federation;  
Singapore;  South Africa;  Switzerland;  Thailand;  Turkey; Ukraine;  United States of America and Viet Nam.   JOB/AG/167  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • Use of arbitrary letters or symbols to denote a tariff;   
• Published tariff schedules containing rates different than corresponding schedules 
available on Members ' official publication website(s) . 
 
1.5.  The United States of America conti nues to urge Members to ensure that all WTO notifications 
relevant to market access are up to date and accurate. This includes Integrated Data Base (IDB), 
as well as notifications of regional trade agreements. Resolution of the transparency issues noted 
above will facilitate even greater Member understanding of agricultural tariffs.  
1.6.  The United States of America invites other Members to provide their views and own analysis.  
Analysis  
1.7.  As a result of the Uruguay Round in 1995, the multiple Member accessions since the formation 
of the WTO, and the national tariff reforms in the last 20 years, average tariffs of many countries 
were reduced to relatively low levels. Along with the growth of regional trade agreements, there has 
been a widespread belief  for a long time that tariffs are no longer a major problem for international 
trade, nor for the trade of developing countries. In 2017, the average applied rate for all WTO 
Members' agricultural tariff lines was 14.9 %; a 10 % decrease in applied agricultural tariffs over a 
10-year period.5 
1.8.  However, these multilateral and unilateral reforms in bound and applied tariff rates have not 
been applied equally to all agricultural tariffs. WTO Members have continued to provide high lev els 
of protection for certain, often sensitive, tariff lines at levels well in excess of the Members ' average 
bound and applied tariff rates. These tariff peaks could negatively affect international trade in 
agriculture, including exports from developing c ountries, inhibiting the welfare gains that come from 
trade.  
1.9.  In 2017, the global value of imports of agricultural products totalled more than USD 869.5 
billion.6 The figure represents a 7 % growth (by value) from the previous year and 75 % growth over 
a 10-year period. The largest imported product group was "fruits, vegetables, and plants ", followed 
by "oilseeds, fats, and oils ", and "cereals and preparations " (Figure 1). Together these three product 
groups accounted for approximately 56 % (or USD 489.3 billi on) of global imports by value in 2017. 
"Sugar and confectionary ", "dairy products ", and "cotton " were the least traded product groups in 
2017, totalling approximately 7 % (or USD 67.1 billion) of global imports.   
 
5 Data is available for 150 WTO Members only, including 28 member  States  of the European Union. 
WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2018, pages 14 -19, 
https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles18_e.pdf  and WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2008, 
pages 8 -13, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tar iff_profiles08_e.pdf . AVE tariffs were included in 
calculating maximum and average bound and applied rates.  
6 Data is based on 2007 -2017 IHS GTA import figures (accessed 27  August  2018). As Viet Nam data 
was unavailable, world export data was used to deter mine the approximate value of imports going into 
Viet Nam.  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Figure 1: Growth of Global Agricultural Imp orts, 2008 -2017  
 
 
1.10.   Despite the increasing agricultural trade, Members bound tariffs in agriculture can exceed 
more than 1,000 % and some Members apply tariffs at a very high level across an entire sensitive 
sector. In 2017, amongst all WTO Members, 18 Members have bound tariffs that exceed 500 % 
(Figure 2) . Of these 18 Members, eight Members also apply tariffs in excess of 500 % (Malaysia; 
Egypt; Switzerland; Norway; Korea, Rep ublic of; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Japan and Fiji). On 
average across all Members, the average maximum bound tariff is four times larger than the average 
bound tariff (i.e., 235 % versus 55 %) and the average ma ximum applied rate is almost 11 times 
higher than the average applied rate tariff (i.e., 157 % versus 14.9 %). Developed Members, having 
an applied rate of 292 % and an average maximum bound rate of 317 %, have significantly higher 
maximum rates than developin g countries that have an average maximum applied rate of 135 % 
and an average maximum bound rate of 222 %. Fruit Vegetable and PlantsOilseeds, Fats and OilsCereals and PreparationsBeverages and TobaccoAnimal ProductsOther Agricultural ProductsCoffee and TeaDairy ProductsSugar and ConfectioneryCotton
$0$100$200$300$400$500$600$700$800$900$1,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Billions of USD
Fruit Vegetable and Plants Oilseeds, Fats and Oils Cereals and Preparations
Beverages and Tobacco Animal Products Other Agricultural Products
Coffee and Tea Dairy Products Sugar and Confectionery
Cotton 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 4 - Figure 2: Maximum  Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Egypt
Malaysia
Norway
Switzerland
Thailand
Singapore
Brunei Darussalam
Korea, Republic of
Japan
Botswana
Eswatini
South Africa
Namibia
Iceland
Israel
Myanmar
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Fiji
Chinese Taipei
European Union
Canada
Georgia
United States of America
WTO Developed Country Members
Maldives
India
Morocco
Panama
Mexico
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Tajikistan
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
All WTO Members
Costa Rica
Colombia
Turkey
WTO Developing Country Members
Solomon Islands
Antigua and Barbuda
Indonesia
Vanuatu
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Jordan
Nepal
Oman
Qatar
Seychelles
United Arab Emirates
Pakistan
Nicaragua
Lesotho
Grenada
Tunisia
Niger
Bangladesh
Sri Lanka
El Salvador
Kyrgyz Republic
Zimbabwe
Dominica
Nigeria
Viet Nam
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Zambia
Malawi
Mauritius
Tanzania
Belize
The Gambia
Samoa
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Rwanda
Benin
Burkina Faso
Yemen
Mozambique
Dominican Republic
Ghana
Chile
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Ecuador
Uganda
Philippines
Togo
Chad
Moldova, Republic of
Mongolia
Guinea
Mali
Haiti
Peru
China
North Macedonia
Côte d'Ivoire
Angola
Cambodia
Gabon
Ukraine
Brazil
Uruguay
Montenegro
Guinea-Bissau
New Zealand
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cuba
Argentina
Paraguay
Senegal
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Australia
Suriname
Tonga
Albania
Armenia
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.11.   Of the largest importing and exporting Members of agricultural products, the average 
maximum bound rate of 403 % was not only well in excess of their average bound rate of 33 %, but 
significantly higher than the developed, developing, and WTO Member average maximum bound 
rates as well. Eight of the top agricultural trading economies have bound rates above 500 %.7 
Argentina and Hong Kong, China were the only countries where the average maximum bound rates 
were close to the average bound rates. Similarly, the average maximum applied rate for the largest 
agricultural trading economies of 294 % was much higher than their average applied rate of 4.8 %, 
as well as the developing and WTO Member average maximum applied rates. Five of the top 
agricultural trading economies have applied rates above 500 %. Egypt, Malaysia and Switzerland 
have maximum agricultural applied rate s above 1,000 %. While the Republic of Korea and Japan 
have maximum applied rates of 837 % and 736 %, respectively (Figure  3). 
Figure 3: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, 2017  
 
 
 
1.12.   The agricultural product groups with the highest maximum bound and ap plied rates among 
all WTO Members are beverage and tobacco products, followed by cereals and preparations, fruits, 
vegetables, and plants, animal products and dairy products. For example, Republic of Korea cereals 
and vegetable products (namely ginseng and  cassava) exceed 800%, Japanese rice exceeds 600%, 
Canadian animal and dairy products exceed 400%, and US tobacco products, and EU sugar beets 
exceed 300%. Only "cotton " had an average maximum applied rate below 25 % (Figure 4) . 
 
7 These countries include Egypt; Korea, Republic of; Malaysia; Singapore; South Africa; Thailand; Japan 
and Switzerland.  01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Figure 4: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates by Product Group, All Members, 2017  
 
1.13.   Tariffication of former quantitative restrictions and similar non -tariff protection measures 
resulted in extremely high rates for MFN trade. Some of the tariff lines with the highest bound and 
applied  tariffs are out of quota rates for tariff rate quotas (TRQs) that were created to safeguard 
traditional trade flows while creating new minimum access opportunities for the trade of all WTO 
Members. Although these TRQs do create new trading opportunities, generally, the volume of the 
tariff quotas is too limited to provide for the intended outcome.8   
1.14.   In addition to the range of the tariff levels, the frequency of tariffs over 50 % is another factor 
that needs further examination. In 2017, applied tariffs over 50 %, on average, made up 
approximately 2.2 % of all WTO Members ' agricultural tariff lines, accounting for 3 % of all agricultural 
imports. For developing Members, applied tarif fs over 50 %, on average, made up 1.8 % of their 
agricultural tariff lines and accounted for 2.9 % of their agricultural imports. For developed Members, 
applied tariffs over 50 % made up 4.7 % of their agricultural tariffs and accounted for 4.1 % of their 
agricu ltural imports. When considering the largest trading agricultural economies, applied tariffs 
over 50 % on agricultural goods made up 4 % of the agricultural tariff lines and accounted for 5 % of 
their agricultural imports  (Figure 5) .9,10 
 
8 UNCTAD/WTO Joint Study , TD/B/COM.1/14/Rev.1, 28  January 2000 
https://unctad.org/en/docs/c1d14r1.en.pdf . 
9 Data is available for 150 WTO Members only, including 28 member  States of the European Union. 
WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2018, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles18_e.pdf . 
10 The tariff frequency distribution of several Members does not add up to 100 %, as shown in the WTO 
World Tariff Profiles calculations. The caus es for these small discrepancies are not clear.  020406080100120140160180200
Beverages
& TobaccoCereals &
PrepsFruit,
Vegetables,
PlantsAnimal
ProductsAll Product
GroupsOther
Agricultural
ProductsOilseeds,
Fats & OilsDairy
ProductsCoffee, Tea Sugars &
Conf.CottonPercent
Average Maximum Bound Rate Average Maximum Applied Rate
Avg. Max. WTO Bound Rate Avg. Max. WTO Applied RateJOB/AG/167  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 5: Percent of A gricultural Lines per Applied Tariff Level, LATMs, 2017  
  
1.15.   While these numbers may seem insignificant, in 2017, the import value of 5 % of agricultural 
products coming into top agricultural trading economies was approximately USD 33.4 billion.11 
Additionall y, the WTO definition of high tariff or "tariff peak "12 encompasses a broader range of tariffs 
that significantly increase the tariff lines and value of imports affected. Under such definition, in  
2017, applied tariffs considered tariff peaks, on average, made up approximately 31.2 % of all WTO 
Members agricult ural tariff lines and accounted for 26.5 % of all agricultural imports. For developing 
Members, tariff peaks, on average, made up 34 % of their agricultural tariff lines and accounted for 
28.2% of their agricultural imports. While for developed Members, tari ff peaks made up 14.4 % of 
their agricultural tariffs and accounted for 16.9 % of their agricultural imports (Figure  6). When 
considering the largest trading agricultural economies, tariff peaks on agricultural goods made up 
24% of the agricultural tariff li nes and accounted for 18 % (or USD 120.2 billion) of the group 's 
agricultural imports.13 It is important to point out that the import value may include goods entering 
at a lower or duty free rate under a preferential or free trade agreement, General System o f 
Preferences (GSP), or other reducing tariff mechanism.  
Conclusion  
1.16.   In its attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the tariff treatment faced by Members, 
the United States of America has found that tariff peaks are prevalent in all major agricultural  
product groups (with an exception of cotton). In addition, tariff peaks can be found in both developed 
and developing Members, large and small trading economies. The tariff range is larger for developed 
Members and large trading economies than most develo ping Members and small trading economies. 
The same can be said in regards to the frequency of tariffs above 50 %. When considering the WTO 
definition of "tariff peaks " however, developing Members and large agricultural trading economies 
have higher frequenc y of tariff peaks than developed Members and small trading economies.  
 
11 GTIS.  
12 The WTO defines a "tariff peak " as relatively high tariffs, usually on "sensitive " products, amidst 
generally low tariff levels. For industrialized countries, tariffs of 15% and above  are generally recognized as 
"tariff peaks " (https://www.wto.org/english /thewto_e/glossary_e/tariff_peaks_e.htm ). 
13 GTIS.  0%20%40%60%80%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15Tariff Level (%):
WTO Member Average:
Developing Member Average:
Developed Member Average:JOB/AG/167  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.17.   Improving access to customers contributes to the likelihood that farmers get better prices for 
their products and in turn the more production they can undertake. Similarly, expanding ac cess to 
more producers benefits consumers who have more choice and competition when seeking supplies. 
More open markets contribute to greater productive efficiencies, particularly for value chains, and 
foster competition that spurs investment and technolog ical innovation.  
1.18.   The United States of America again notes the issues of transparency as specified in the 
beginning of the paper. It requests the Secretariat to continue compiling information noted in this 
submission and Members to ensure that all WTO notif ications relevant to market access are up to 
date and consider what other data could improve Members' knowledge.  
1.19.   The United States of America will continue its own analysis of the other identified areas 
specified in the July 2018 submission (JOB/AG/141) an d looks forward to constructive engagement 
from other Members.   
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 9 - Figure 6: Percent of Agricultural Lines per Tariff Level for all WTO Members, 2017  
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Tunisia
India
Sri Lanka
Burundi
Tanzania
Kenya
Rwanda
Uganda
Chad
Turkey
Gabon
Central African Republic
Mozambique
Zambia
Thailand
Madagascar
Ecuador
Bangladesh
Malawi
Ghana
Côte d'Ivoire
Burkina Faso
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Mali
Niger
Senegal
The Gambia
Togo
Benin
Nigeria
Korea, Republic of
Dominican Republic
Morocco
Angola
Samoa
Zimbabwe
Guyana
Jamaica
Grenada
Jordan
Suriname
Pakistan
Dominica
Vanuatu
Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Haiti
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Viet Nam
Mexico
Norway
Chinese Taipei
Saint Kitts and Nevis
China
WTO Developing Country Members
All WTO Members
The FYR of Macedonia
Iceland
Egypt
Switzerland
Cambodia
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Maldives
Namibia
Eswatini
Lesotho
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Botswana
South Africa
Fiji
European Union
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Japan
Montenegro
Ukraine
Yemen
Israel
Cuba
Argentina
Brazil
Uruguay
WTO Developed Country Members
Paraguay
Philippines
Nepal
El Salvador
Moldova, Republic of
Indonesia
Seychelles
Canada
Malaysia
Costa Rica
Panama
Oman
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Russian Federation
Myanmar
United States of America
Kazakhstan
Nicaragua
Tonga
Colombia
Kyrgyz Republic
Solomon Islands
Mongolia
Tajikistan
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait, the State of
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Qatar
Mauritius
Georgia
Armenia
Australia
Singapore
Albania
Brunei Darussalam
Chile
Hong Kong, China
Macao, China
New Zealand
PeruPercent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15
 > 50 15 <= 50 0<=15Tariff Level (%)
WTO Member Average:
Developing Member Average:
Developed Member Average:
Individual Member:JOB/AG/167  
 
- 10 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
Animal Products  
Figure 7: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, 2017  
 
Figure 8: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Animal 
Products, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 11 - Figure 9: Maximum  Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Animal Products, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Switzerland
Norway
Iceland
Canada
Maldives
Morocco
Japan
Panama
Mexico
Turkey
Costa Rica
Colombia
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Nicaragua
Niger
Oman
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Israel
WTO Developed Country Members
Tunisia
Malaysia
Myanmar
El Salvador
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Dominica
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Antigua and Barbuda
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
European Union
All WTO Members
Belize
Solomon Islands
The Gambia
Kazakhstan
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Pakistan
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Samoa
Dominican Republic
Ghana
WTO Developing Country Members
Korea, Republic of
Ecuador
Chad
Egypt
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Togo
Uganda
Benin
Gabon
Mali
Nepal
Angola
Brazil
Uruguay
Vanuatu
Brunei Darussalam
Indonesia
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Montenegro
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Chinese Taipei
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Fiji
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Viet Nam
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
North Macedonia
Central African Republic
Jordan
Madagascar
Moldova, Republic of
Peru
Senegal
Yemen
United States of America
Chile
China
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Seychelles
New Zealand
Albania
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Ukraine
Australia
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Kyrgyz Republic
Tajikistan
Georgia
Singapore
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Dairy Products  
Figure 10: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Dairy Products, 2017  
 
 
Figure 11: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Dairy 
Products, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules . 01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 13 - Figure 12: Maximum  Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Dairy Products, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Switzerland
Iceland
Japan
Norway
Canada
Malaysia
Israel
European Union
Thailand
Indonesia
Bangladesh
Lesotho
WTO Developed Country Members
Turkey
Tunisia
Korea, Republic of
Colombia
Panama
Mexico
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
United States of America
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Myanmar
The Gambia
Dominica
Antigua and Barbuda
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Belize
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Grenada
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Pakistan
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Ghana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
All WTO Members
Costa Rica
Chinese Taipei
Morocco
Solomon Islands
Chad
Rwanda
Togo
Uganda
WTO Developing Country Members
Oman
Ecuador
Nicaragua
Peru
Vanuatu
Egypt
Benin
Gabon
Mali
Sri Lanka
Dominican Republic
Angola
Brazil
Uruguay
Niger
Nepal
Brunei Darussalam
Montenegro
Fiji
El Salvador
Russian Federation
North Macedonia
Philippines
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Botswana
Viet Nam
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
Moldova, Republic of
Chile
Maldives
Central African Republic
Jordan
Madagascar
Senegal
Yemen
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Georgia
Kazakhstan
Australia
Qatar
Samoa
Haiti
China
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
New Zealand
United Arab Emirates
Albania
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Kyrgyz Republic
Tajikistan
Ukraine
Singapore
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Seychelles
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Fruit, Vegetables  and Plants  
Figure 13: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Fruits, Vegetables and 
Plants, 2017  
 
 
Figure 14: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Fruit, 
Vegetables and Plants, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 15 - Figure 15: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Fruits, Vegetables  and Plants, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Switzerland
Malaysia
Thailand
Korea, Republic of
Norway
Israel
Iceland
Japan
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Mexico
Chinese Taipei
Antigua and Barbuda
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Niger
Tunisia
Grenada
Pakistan
European Union
WTO Developed Country Members
Colombia
Myanmar
Dominica
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Turkey
United States of America
Malawi
Zambia
All WTO Members
Mauritius
Tanzania
WTO Developing Country Members
Belize
The Gambia
Oman
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Yemen
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Dominican Republic
Ghana
Jordan
Panama
Solomon Islands
Chad
Egypt
Rwanda
Togo
Uganda
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Vanuatu
North Macedonia
Nicaragua
Benin
Gabon
Mali
Nepal
Indonesia
Philippines
Sri Lanka
Angola
Brazil
Uruguay
El Salvador
Brunei Darussalam
Montenegro
Haiti
Seychelles
Costa Rica
Morocco
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Fiji
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Viet Nam
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Samoa
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
New Zealand
Maldives
Ecuador
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Peru
Senegal
China
Georgia
Australia
Chile
Tajikistan
Moldova, Republic of
Albania
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Ukraine
Kyrgyz Republic
Canada
Qatar
United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Singapore
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Coffee and Tea 
Figure 16: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Coffee and Tea, 2017  
 
Figure 17: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Coffee 
and Tea, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules . 01002003004005006007008009001,000Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 17 - Figure 18: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Coffee and Tea, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Switzerland
Korea, Republic of
Norway
Canada
Myanmar
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Grenada
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Turkey
Mexico
Tunisia
Dominica
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Japan
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
Iceland
The Gambia
WTO Developed Country Members
Antigua and Barbuda
Belize
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Yemen
Ghana
Thailand
All WTO Members
Panama
Solomon Islands
Chad
Rwanda
Togo
Uganda
WTO Developing Country Members
Colombia
El Salvador
Malaysia
Egypt
Benin
Gabon
Mali
Indonesia
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Sri Lanka
Angola
United States of America
Costa Rica
Niger
Nepal
Brunei Darussalam
Philippines
Nicaragua
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Dominican Republic
Vanuatu
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Fiji
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Haiti
Viet Nam
Samoa
Brazil
Uruguay
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
Morocco
North Macedonia
China
Maldives
Ecuador
Chinese Taipei
Central African Republic
Jordan
Madagascar
Peru
Senegal
Israel
Chile
Seychelles
New Zealand
Kazakhstan
Qatar
European Union
Montenegro
Albania
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Ukraine
Georgia
Australia
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Moldova, Republic of
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Kyrgyz Republic
Tajikistan
Russian Federation
Singapore
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Cereals and Preparations  
Figure 19: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Cereals and Preparations, 
2017  
 
Figure 20: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Cereals 
and Preparations, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV ra tes for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 19 - Figure 21: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Cereals and Preparations, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001000
Egypt
Korea, Republic of
Switzerland
Japan
Singapore
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Myanmar
Norway
Iceland
Chinese Taipei
Malaysia
Maldives
Canada
Israel
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Tunisia
Niger
Qatar
Colombia
Morocco
Mexico
Fiji
WTO Developed Country Members
Turkey
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Indonesia
Dominica
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Solomon Islands
All WTO Members
WTO Developing Country Members
Malawi
Zambia
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Mauritius
Tanzania
The Gambia
Belize
Grenada
Antigua and Barbuda
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Yemen
Benin
Nepal
Seychelles
Ghana
Dominican Republic
Costa Rica
Panama
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Chad
Rwanda
Togo
Uganda
Viet Nam
Jordan
El Salvador
Oman
Thailand
Ecuador
Peru
Russian Federation
Vanuatu
China
North Macedonia
Gabon
Mali
Sri Lanka
Nicaragua
Angola
Brazil
Uruguay
European Union
Brunei Darussalam
Philippines
Haiti
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Montenegro
United States of America
Samoa
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
Chile
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Georgia
New Zealand
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Kazakhstan
Albania
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Ukraine
Moldova, Republic of
Kyrgyz Republic
Tajikistan
Australia
United Arab Emirates
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Oilseeds, Fats and Oils 
Figure 22: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Oilseeds, Fats and Oils, 2017  
 
Figure 23: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level LATMs, Oilseeds, 
Fats and Oils, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 21 - Figure 24: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates,  Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Malaysia
Korea, Republic of
Japan
Norway
Chinese Taipei
India
Switzerland
Mexico
Morocco
Colombia
Canada
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Tunisia
Grenada
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Iceland
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Myanmar
United States of America
European Union
Dominica
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Thailand
Israel
Malawi
Zambia
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Mauritius
Tanzania
WTO Developed Country Members
The Gambia
Belize
All WTO Members
Pakistan
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Benin
Rwanda
Ghana
Antigua and Barbuda
WTO Developing Country Members
El Salvador
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Solomon Islands
Chad
Togo
Uganda
Turkey
Egypt
Indonesia
Nepal
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Gabon
Mali
Nicaragua
Angola
Philippines
Niger
Sri Lanka
Guinea-Bissau
Costa Rica
Montenegro
Fiji
Dominican Republic
Vanuatu
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Guinea
Ecuador
Viet Nam
Brazil
Uruguay
Samoa
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
North Macedonia
Chile
Maldives
Panama
Jordan
Peru
China
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Ukraine
Yemen
Haiti
Seychelles
Russian Federation
New Zealand
Brunei Darussalam
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Moldova, Republic of
Tajikistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Australia
Georgia
Singapore
Albania
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Sugars and Confectionary  
Figure 25: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Sugars and Confectionary, 
2017  
 
Figure 26: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Sugars 
and Confectionary, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules . 01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 23 - Figure 27: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Sugars and Confectionary, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Norway
Korea, Republic of
Myanmar
Mexico
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Niger
Iceland
Switzerland
Morocco
India
Dominica
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Panama
Chinese Taipei
Turkey
Japan
Colombia
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
The Gambia
Belize
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Tunisia
Grenada
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Antigua and Barbuda
Nicaragua
Viet Nam
Ghana
Chile
Indonesia
Thailand
European Union
Dominican Republic
WTO Developing Country Members
Rwanda
Solomon Islands
Chad
Togo
Uganda
Philippines
All WTO Members
WTO Developed Country Members
Moldova, Republic of
El Salvador
Peru
United States of America
Kazakhstan
Benin
Egypt
Nepal
Gabon
Mali
Angola
Russian Federation
Sri Lanka
China
Ukraine
Brunei Darussalam
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Guinea-Bissau
Fiji
Vanuatu
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cambodia
Cuba
Guinea
Haiti
Israel
Brazil
Uruguay
Argentina
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Paraguay
Malaysia
North Macedonia
Maldives
Jordan
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Kyrgyz Republic
Yemen
Samoa
Seychelles
Mongolia
Suriname
Tonga
Qatar
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Oman
United Arab Emirates
New Zealand
Tajikistan
Armenia
Côte d'Ivoire
Australia
Canada
Georgia
Montenegro
Singapore
Albania
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Beverages and Tobacco  
Figure 28: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Beverages and Tobacco, 
2017  
 
Figure 29: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, 
Beverages and Tobacco, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for  analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 25 - Figure 30: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates,  Beverages and Tobacco, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Egypt
Brunei Darussalam
Malaysia
Singapore
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Myanmar
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Fiji
Norway
Switzerland
Georgia
United States of America
Maldives
Korea, Republic of
Canada
Israel
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Tajikistan
Solomon Islands
Vanuatu
Bangladesh
Lesotho
Niger
Nepal
Bahrain, Kingdom of
Jordan
Seychelles
Qatar
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda
Thailand
WTO Developing Country Members
Sri Lanka
All WTO Members
Turkey
European Union
Kyrgyz Republic
India
Dominica
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Tunisia
Indonesia
WTO Developed Country Members
Colombia
Viet Nam
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
The Gambia
Belize
Samoa
Pakistan
Grenada
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Yemen
Ghana
Panama
Rwanda
Chad
Togo
Uganda
Nicaragua
Benin
Mali
Guinea
Mongolia
El Salvador
Mexico
China
Côte d'Ivoire
Moldova, Republic of
Gabon
Costa Rica
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Cambodia
North Macedonia
Iceland
Ukraine
Angola
Brazil
Philippines
Montenegro
New Zealand
Haiti
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Dominican Republic
Guinea-Bissau
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cuba
Uruguay
Argentina
Paraguay
Morocco
Peru
Ecuador
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Chile
Australia
Suriname
Tonga
Albania
Armenia
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Cotton  
Figure 31: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Cotton, 2017  
 
Figure 32: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Cotton, 
2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for analytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 27 - Figure 33: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Cotton, 2017  
01002003004005006007008009001,000
Bangladesh
Lesotho
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda
Dominica
Belize
Grenada
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Colombia
Ghana
Solomon Islands
Rwanda
Chad
Togo
Uganda
Israel
Tunisia
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Benin
Mali
Gabon
Angola
Brazil
WTO Developing Country Members
Niger
Sri Lanka
All WTO Members
Mexico
Costa Rica
Fiji
Nepal
Indonesia
Nicaragua
Guinea
El Salvador
China
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Guinea-Bissau
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cuba
Myanmar
Vanuatu
Bahrain, Kingdom of
The Gambia
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Argentina
Paraguay
Morocco
Yemen
Maldives
Peru
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Pakistan
Chile
Brunei Darussalam
Tajikistan
Viet Nam
Mongolia
Ecuador
Suriname
Tonga
United States of America
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Qatar
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Samoa
Côte d'Ivoire
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Armenia
Turkey
Georgia
Iceland
Singapore
Jordan
Kyrgyz Republic
Panama
Philippines
Canada
Cambodia
Egypt
Malaysia
Thailand
Ukraine
Albania
WTO Developed Country Members
Korea, Republic of
Australia
Norway
Switzerland
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Seychelles
European Union
Moldova, Republic of
North Macedonia
Montenegro
New Zealand
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Maximum Applied Rate Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/167  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Other Agricultural Products  
Figure 34: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, LATMs, Other Agricultural Products, 
2017  
 
Figure 35: Percent of Agricultural Lines (HS -8 Level) per Tariff Level for LATMs, Other 
Agricultural Products, 2017  
 
Note:  Duty-free non -Ad Valorem  (NAV) rates are counted as AV rates for anal ytical purposes.  
Source:  Members ' Applied Schedules .01002003004005006007008009001,000 Percent
Max. Bound Max. Applied
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines
Non Ad-Valorem >50 15<=50 0<=15 Tariff Level (%): 
  JOB/AG/167  
 
- 29 - Figure 36: Maximum Bound and Applied MFN Rates, Other Agricultural Products, 2017  
 
__________  01002003004005006007008009001,000
Bangladesh
Lesotho
WTO Developed Country Members
India
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Malawi
Zambia
Mauritius
Tanzania
All WTO Members
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Antigua and Barbuda
Dominica
Belize
Grenada
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Guyana
Jamaica
Kenya
Kuwait, the State of
Mozambique
Colombia
Ghana
WTO Developing Country Members
Solomon Islands
Rwanda
Chad
Togo
Uganda
Israel
Tunisia
Botswana
Eswatini
Namibia
South Africa
Benin
Mali
Gabon
Angola
Brazil
Niger
Sri Lanka
Mexico
Costa Rica
Fiji
Nepal
Indonesia
Nicaragua
Guinea
El Salvador
China
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of
Guinea-Bissau
Bolivia, Plurinational State of
Cuba
Myanmar
Vanuatu
Bahrain, Kingdom of
The Gambia
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Uruguay
Argentina
Paraguay
Morocco
Yemen
Maldives
Peru
Central African Republic
Madagascar
Senegal
Pakistan
Chile
Brunei Darussalam
Tajikistan
Viet Nam
Mongolia
Ecuador
Suriname
Tonga
United States of America
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of
Qatar
Oman
United Arab Emirates
Samoa
Côte d'Ivoire
Lao People's Democratic Republic
Armenia
Turkey
Georgia
Iceland
Singapore
Jordan
Kyrgyz Republic
Panama
Philippines
Canada
Cambodia
Egypt
Malaysia
Thailand
Ukraine
Albania
Korea, Republic of
Australia
Norway
Switzerland
Kazakhstan
Russian Federation
Seychelles
European Union
Moldova, Republic of
North Macedonia
Montenegro
New Zealand
Chinese Taipei
Japan
Hong Kong, China
Macao, ChinaPercent
Maximum Bound Rate Applied Rate
Max. Developing Bound Max. Developing Applied
Max. Developed Bound Max. Developed Applied
Max. WTO Bound Max. WTO Applied