JOB/AG/164  
 
31 July 2019  
(19-5041) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
TARIFF IMPLEMENTATIO N ISSUES – COMPLEX T ARIFFS  
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES  
The following communication , dated 29 July 2019, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.1.  In July 2018, the United States submitted a formal communication to the World Trade 
Organization (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  locking 
in tariff reductions for agriculture can contribute further to global welfare.  
1.2.   The US communication summarized analysis in six areas of the market access pillar where 
further analysis of Members ' current implementation of tariffs should be considered 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) special agricultural 
safeguards (SSGs), and (vi) regional/preferential trade agreements.  
1.3.  In this communication, th e United States analy ses Members ' submitted tariff schedules, WTO 
tariff profiles, and World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS) data.1 This analysis considers the 
prevalence of complex tariffs2 by Member, product group3, and development status4 with particular 
focus on the top 20 largest agricultural exporters and top 20 largest agricultural importers in 2017 
(henceforth referred to as LATMs).5  
1.4.  While Members ' have generally provided greater transparency on agricultural tariffs than on 
other agr iculture -related issues, a number of problems related to transparency of agricultural tariffs 
remain, including:  
• Bound tariff schedules that are provided in outdated HS nomenclature;  
• Bound tariff schedules that do not correspond to the Member 's most recent schedule of 
applied rates;  
                                                
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 Centre, and United Nations Statistical Division.  
2 Of particular note for analysis of complex tariffs is the l ack of ability to compare relative rates of 
protection across different types of complex tariffs due to the difficulties and complexities associated with 
calculating AVEs. As a result, this submission is focused on the prevalence and types of complex tarif fs that 
exist.  
3 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). 
4 Development status is based on self -designation. Use of a Member's self -designated development 
status should not be taken as agreement with the self -designation.  
5 Top 20 importers and top 20 exporters of agricultural goods (by value): Argentina; A ustralia; Brazil; 
Canada; Chile; China; Egypt; the European Union; Hong Kong, China; India; Indonesia; Japan; 
Korea,  Republic of ; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Philippines; the Russian Federation; Singapore; 
South  Africa; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; the United States and Viet Nam.  JOB/AG/164  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • Applied tariff schedules submitted to the WTO that are out of date;  
• Applied tariff rates submitted that are in a different tariff format than the bound rate 
(e.g. ad valorem  vs. specific) ; 
• Absence of tariff concordance inf ormation for Members ' tariff schedules;  
• Lack of ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) data for non -ad valorem  tariffs, including complex 
tariffs;  
• Tariffs applied at different (HS) line levels for each Member;  
• 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 continues to urge Members to ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to 
market access are up to date and accurate. This includes notifications made through the 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 agricu ltural 
tariffs.  
Background: Forms of Tariffs  
1.6.  Regardless of whether a tariff is bound or applied, on preferential or MFN basis, the tariff can 
take several forms. The most common is an ad valorem  tariff, calculated based on a certain 
proportion of the valu e of the product (in percentage terms). By its nature, an ad valorem  tariff 
increases the absolute level of duty collected the higher the price of the import. Ad valorem  duties 
have some positive attributes. Since it is a simple percentage, an ad valorem  duty can be easy to 
understand. As the same percentage is applied regardless of value, ad valorem  duties are neutral 
across low and high -priced products. Finally, another reason Members choose to designate a tariff 
in ad valorem  terms is that ad va lorem  duties tend to maintain a constant degree of protection for 
domestic producers during periods of changing prices since revenues are proportionate to values, at 
all price levels. Tariffs expressed in ad valorem  terms (e.g. 5%) may be the easiest for e xporters to 
understand, but in some cases, may pose enforcement challenges for customs officials.  
1.7.  Many Members ' tariff schedules also include a variety of non-ad valorem  (NAV) tariffs. NAV 
tariffs are commonly categorized into two categories: simple and co mplex. Simple NAV tariffs 
typically take the form of specific tariffs, which are calculated on the quantity of the good being 
imported. As a fixed monetary duty per unit of the imported product (e.g. 100 Euro/kg), a specific 
tariff is relatively easy to ap ply and administer, particularly to standardized commodities and staple 
products where the value of the dutiable goods cannot be easily observed.  
1.8.  The degree of protection a specific tariff affords domestic producers varies inversely with 
changes in import  prices. Members may choose this method in order to provide domestic producers 
more protection during a business recession, when cheaper products are purchased or at other times 
when prices of commodities decrease. Conversely, when prices rise the protecti ve effect of a specific 
tariff declines.  
1.9.  In certain cases, Members may decide to use complex tariffs, which include mixed tariffs, 
compound tariffs, and other tariffs (e.g. formulaic measures with minimum import prices, price 
bands, such as variable import  levies, gate price mechanisms). While there may be certain benefits 
to the importing country of applying such tariffs (e.g. more certain tariff revenues and targeted 
protection of particular sectors), complex tariffs can also lead to additional administra tive burden, 
less transparency, and uncertainty for exporters in knowing the cost of importing their products.  
1.10.   Mixed tariffs are expressed as a conditional choice between an ad valorem  and a specific tariff, 
depending on which generates the most or least r evenue (i.e. 30% or USD1 per kg, whichever is 
higher). For example, Chinese Taipei uses mixed tariffs for certain tree nuts; the Russian Federation 
uses such methodology for citrus fruit; and Thailand uses mixed tariffs on processed vegetables and 
fruit. M ixed tariffs allow Members more certainty on the level of tariff revenue that is expected in 
the face of changing prices and value of imports.  
1.11.   Similarly, compound tariffs include both ad valorem  and a specific component. In this type of 
tariff, a specific  duty is added to or subtracted from an ad valorem  duty (e.g. 5% + USD2/kg). These 
types of tariffs, like mixed tariffs, provide Members more certainty on the level of tariff revenue that JOB/AG/164  
 
- 3 - 
 
  is expected in the face of changing prices, value and volume of impo rts. Some examples of 
compound tariffs include tariffs on prepared foods, breads, and processed grain products imported 
into Turkey, various dairy products imported into Japan, and tobacco imported into Malaysia.  
1.12.   In certain cases, Members may choose to ap ply other tariffs that may be based on other 
factors such as the physical quantities that may be expressed in ways that are difficult to determine 
without laboratory equipment. For example, the European Union charges duties on many processed 
food products based on the product 's content of milk protein, milk fat, starch, and sugar. As a result, 
products that other Members might consider equivalent for tariff classification purposes would each 
receive a different rate of duty in the EU depending on the mix of  ingredients. Some Members, 
including Canada, charge duties on certain alcoholic beverages based on the quantity of ethyl alcohol 
present. As another example, Japan uses a gate price system that imposes a minimum import price 
on pork imports where importer s must pay the difference between the shipment 's value and the 
established minimum price.  
1.13.   Besides revenue, complex tariffs may be aimed at controlling competition from imports and 
limiting competition for domestic producers. Often , this is accomplished by  ensuring imports do not 
enter the domestic market at prices below domestic market prices. By blocking consumers ' access 
to price competition – i.e., restricting imports and allowing high -priced domestic products to remain 
competitive – these measures can distort trade flows. While simple specific tariffs have the virtue of 
predictability, they may disproportionately tax low priced imports.  
Analysis  
1.14.   As a result of the Uruguay Round in 1995, multiple Member accessions since the formation of 
the WTO, and nat ional tariff reforms over the last 20 years, many countries ' average applied tariffs 
were reduced, and in some cases simplified. Research has indicated that more than 90% of the 
welfare gains from trade over 1990 -2010 are a consequence of the reduction in MFN tariffs; with 
additional gains from total liberalization particularly benefiting Emerging/Developing countries.6 
Following the growth of regional trade agreements, Members have grown to believe that tariffs are 
no longer a major problem for internation al trade, nor for the trade of developing countries. The 
reality does not support such belief. In 2017, the average applied rate for all WTO Members ' 
agricultural tariff lines was 14.9 %, representing a 10 % decrease in applied agricultural tariffs over 
a 10-year period.7 However, bound tariffs, as the United States showed in its recent submission, 
remain much higher on average for all WTO Members.8  
1.15.   More than a decade after the full implementation of all Uruguay Round concessions, a 
substantial number of complex tariffs remain which, as mentioned above, provide for high levels of 
protection and negatively affect international trade in agriculture, including exports from developing 
countries. These effects of complex tariffs will only be aggravated as trade  between Members 
continues to increase.  
1.16.   In 2017, the most recent year for which data is available, the global value of imports of 
agricultural products totalled more than USD869.5 billion.9 This figure represents a 7% growth 
(by value) from the previous ye ar 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 
approxima tely 56 % (or USD489.3 billion) 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 USD67.1 billion) of global imports.  
                                                
6 Statistic cited by Joe Glauber , Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute 
from academic literature. The WTO Symposium on the Agriculture Policy Landscape , 13 June 2018. 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/agric_e/symposium_ag_policy_landscape_e/s2_glauber.pdf . 
7 Data is available for 150 WTO Members  only, including 28 members 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/tariff_profiles08_e.pdf . 
8 JOB/AG/147.  
9 Data is based on 2017 IHS GTA import figures (acc essed 27  August  2018). As data for several 
Members was unavailable, world export data was used to determine the approximate value of imports.  JOB/AG/164  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Figure 1: Growth of Global Agricultural Imports, 2008 -2017  
 
1.17.   Seventy  (70) Members have bound some portion of their tariffs in NAV terms and a total of 
96 Members chose to apply some tariffs in NAV terms that are either simple (specific tariffs) or 
complex (compound, mixed, or other tariffs) in 2017.10 Based on WTO Member -submitted data, it 
appears that 33 developing and developed Members (including China, Colombia, Indonesia, 
South  Africa and Turkey) have been utilizing NAV tariffs for product lines that were bound in simple 
terms.11 For the 96 Members that apply NAV tariffs, NAV duties make up an average of 9% of their 
applied agricultural tariff schedules. Some Members ' NAV share of tariff lines is as high as 
70% (e.g. Switzerland). For another eight  Members, applied tariffs in NAV terms consist of at least 
20% of their agricultural goods tariff schedule.12 Of 101 developing Members, 53 use NAV duties. 
On average, these duties comprise of 5.6 % of these Members ' agricultural tariff schedule. 
Forty-three  (43) developed Members apply NAV duties. On average, these duties comprise a larger 
share (20.4 %) of these Members ' agricultural tariff schedule (Figure 2) . 
1.18.   NAV tariffs comprised on average 9.9 % of all LATMs ' schedules. A number of these Members, 
includin g Switzerland, the United States , the European Union, Thailand, the Russian Federation, 
South Africa, Japan and Canada use NAVs well in excess of the average for all WTO Members 
(Figure  3). However, this picture overrepresents the number of complex tariffs applied given that 
WTO data on NAVs include simple tariffs, such as specific rates.13 Analysis of LATMs most recent 
applied tariff schedules shows that 64 % of all NAV duties were specific t ariffs (Figure  4). Mixed tariffs 
comprised, on average, 24 % of NAVs and compound tariffs made up another 10 %. Other tariffs 
accounted for the remaining 2 %.14 
                                                
10 WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2018, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles18_e.pdf . 
11 The United States notes that this discrepancy may be due to methodology for applied and bound 
schedules that are in different Harmonized System nomenclature. The United States encour ages the WTO 
Secretariat and Members to examine the issue further. All 33 Members that appear to fall into this situation are 
Armenia, Kingdom of Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Central African Republic, China, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Eswatini, Ghana, Grenada, Indonesia, Kenya, the State of Kuwait, Lesotho, Maldives, 
Montenegro, Namibia, Nepal, Oman, Peru, Qatar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Seychelles, South  Africa, 
Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Zambia.  
12 WTO, World Tariff Profiles 2018, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles18_e.pdf . 
13 The United States is focusing on LATMs, as the collection and analysis  of the agricultural tariff lines for 
all 164 Members is not feasible given the amount of lines involved and the agriculture -related and 
transparency issues that were described earlier in the submission.  
14 Data is based on 2016 -2018 Members’ agricultural t ariff schedules. Accessed on IDB database in 
November 2018.  
Fruit Vegetable and PlantsOilseeds, Fats and OilsCereals and PreparationsBeverages and TobaccoAnimal ProductsOther Agricultural Products Coffee 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/164  
 
- 5 - Figure 2: Non-Ad Valorem  Tariffs  – (% of Agricultural Tariff Schedule), 2017  
 
 
 
 
 
 
0102030405060708090100NAV Duties (%  of Ag. Schedule)
Bound
Applied
Developing Bound
Developing Applied
Developed BoundJOB/AG/164  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Figure 3: Non-Ad Valorem  Tariffs (% of Bound and Applied Agricultural Tariff Schedule)  
for 20 Largest Importers and Exporters, 2017  
 
 
1.19.   Nevertheless, complex tariffs remain an important component of some Members ' tariff 
schedules.  Complex tariffs made up 31 % of the Russian Federation 's applied agricultural schedule, 
23% of Thailand 's applied schedule, 15 % of the European Union 's applied sc hedule and 14 % of 
Canada 's applied schedule  (Figure 5) .15 
Figure 4: Applied Tariffs  – (% of LATMs MFN Applied Ag. Schedule)  
 
                                                
15 Numbers may vary slightly from 2018 WTO Tariff Profiles due to the difference of methodology 
(i.e. HS-6 vs. HS-8 level nomenclature) and possible updates in Members schedules.   
0102030405060708090Percent
Bound Applied
Developing Bound Developing Applied
Developed Bound Developed Applied
WTO Bound  WTO Applied
Ad-Valorem
88%
Specific
63%Mixed
24%
Compound
10%
Other
2%Non Ad -
Valorem
12%JOB/AG/164  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 5: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Applied Agricultural Schedules  
 
 
1.20.   The agricultural product group with the highest proportion of complex tariffs in LATMs tariff 
schedules is the dairy product group (Figure 6) . On average 19 % of the dairy product lines in LATMs 
applied schedules had complex tariffs.  Complex tariffs make up a large portion of South Africa 's 
(69%), Russia n Federation' s (56 %), and Canada 's (49 %) dairy product lines in their respective 
applied tariff schedules.  Coffee and tea products had the second highest proportion of complex 
duties, but significantly less than dairy products.  An average of 8 % of LATMs tariffs for coffee and 
tea were complex.  Complex tariffs, including other tariffs, are widely used by the European Union 
(51% of the product lines), Turkey (48 % of the product lines), and the United States (30% of the 
product lines).  On the other han d, 98% of the tariffs for cotton were expressed in ad valorem  terms 
and no Member made use of complex tariffs.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Figure 6: Tariff Types by Product Group – (as % of total product group lines in applied 
tariff schedules), LATMs, 2016 -2018  
 
 
1.21.   On average, comple x tariffs on agricultural goods made up 4 % of LATMs applied agricultural 
tariff schedule.  This accounted for approximately 6 % of the trade.16 The low rates may mean that 
exporters find complex tariffs burdensome and avoid exporting products to Members that charge 
these types of duties.  However, while these shares of trade may seem insignificant, in 2017, the 
import value of 6 % of agricultural products coming into top agricultural trading economies was 
approximately USD42.1 billion.17 Lines with complex tariff s for animal products accounted for 11 % 
of the animal product imports.  Sugar and confectionary and dairy products imported under lines 
with complex tariffs accounted for 8 % of the product group imports.  More than two -thirds of dairy 
products imported into the Russian Federation and South Africa seemed to come in at lines that 
have complex tariff duties (Figure 7) . It appears that developing Members who export agricultural 
goods to LATMs face a slightly larger share of complex tariffs (5.4 % versus 4.5 % for developed 
Members).  However, it is important to point out that the import value may include goods entering 
at a simpler or duty -free rate under a preferential or free trade agreement, General System of 
Preferences (GSP), or other tariff progra ms. 
                                                
16 Trade data for Viet  Nam was not available at the time the analysis was conducted. Preferential rates 
where duty free access or a simple tariff is operational is not taken into account in this analysis due to the 
complexities of collecting and availability  of relevant information.  
17 GTIS. Trade data for Viet  Nam was not available at the time the analysis was conducted.   
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Dairy
ProductsCoffee, Tea Sugars &
Conf.Animal
ProductsCereals &
PrepsBeverages
& TobaccoAll Product
GroupsFruit,
Vegetables,
PlantsOilseeds,
Fats & OilsOther
Agricultural
ProductsCottonPercent
Ad-Valorem Specific Mixed Compound OtherJOB/AG/164  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Figure 7: Tariff Types Incurred by Importers of LATMs  – (% of Product Group Import 
Value), 2017  
 
Conclusion  
1.22.   This paper constitutes the United States'  attempt to provide a deeper understanding of the 
tariff treatment faced by Members.  In its analysis, the United States has found that complex tariffs 
are prevalent in all major agricultural product groups (with an exception of cotton).  In addition, 
complex tariffs can be found in both developed and developing Members, large and small trading 
economies.  However, complex tariffs are more prevalent in developed Members and large trading 
economies than most developing Members and smaller trading economies.  
1.23.   Improving access to customers contributes to the likelihood that farmers get better prices for 
their pro ducts and in turn the more production they can undertake.  Similarly, expanding access to 
more producers benefits consumers who have more choice and competition when seeking supplies.  
More open and transparent markets contribute to greater productive effici encies, particularly for 
value chains, and foster competition that spurs investment and technological innovation.  
1.24.   The United States again notes the issues of transparency.  It requests that the Secretariat 
continue to compile information and that Members en sure that all WTO notifications relevant to 
market access are up to date and consider what other data could improve Members ' knowledge.  
1.25.   The United States will continue its own analysis of the areas specified in the July  2018 
submission (JOB/AG/141) and loo ks forward to constructive engagement from other Members.  
  
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%
Animal
ProductsDairy Products Sugars and
confectioneryFruit,
vegetables,
plantsBeverages and
tobaccoCereals and
preparationsAll Product
GroupsCoffee, tea Other
agricultural
productsOilseeds, fats
& oilsCottonPercent
Ad-Valorem Specific Mixed Compound OtherJOB/AG/164  
 
- 10 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
Animal Products  
Figure 8: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Animal 
Products (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 9: Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs , Animal Products (% of Product Group 
Imports), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 11 - 
 
  Dairy Products  
Figure 10: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Dairy 
Products (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
Figure 11 : Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Dairy Products (% of 
Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Fruit, Vegetables, Plants  
Figure 12: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Fruits,  
Vegetables, and Plant Products (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 13: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Fruit, Vegetable, and Plant 
Products (% of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Coffee and Tea  
Figure 14: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Ag ricultural Schedules, Coffee 
and Tea Products (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 15: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Coffee and Tea Products (% 
of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Cereals and Preparations  
Figure 16: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Cereals 
and Preparations (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 17: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Cereals and Preparations (% 
of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Oilseeds,  Fats & Oils  
Figure 18: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, 
Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 19: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils (% 
of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Sugars and Confectionary  
Figure 20: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Sugars 
and Confectionary (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 21: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Sugar and Confectionary (% 
of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Beverages and Tobacco  
Figure 22: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, 
Beverages and Tobacco (%  of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 23: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Beverages and Tobacco (% 
of Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Figure 24: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Cotton 
(% of Applie d Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 25: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Cotton (% of Product Group 
Import Value), 2017  
 
 
  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad ValoremJOB/AG/164  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Other Agricultural Products  
Figure 26: Types of Tariffs in LATMs Most Recent Applied Agricultural Schedules, Other 
Ag. Produc ts (% of Applied Tariff Lines)  
 
 
Figure 27: Types of Tariffs Incurred by Importers in LATMs, Other Ag. Products (% of 
Product Group Import Value), 2017  
 
 
 
__________  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad-Valorem
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Percent
Other Compound Mixed Specific Ad Valorem