WT/REG339/2  
 
21 March 2014  
(14-1797)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
 FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND TURKEY 
(GOODS) 
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 The following communication, dated 19 March 2014, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the Republic of Korea and Turkey.  
 This document reproduces the questi ons addressed to the Parties and the 
responses submitted.  
_______________ 
 
Questions from the delegation of Canada 
 
1.1.  Paragraph 2.5, page 5, it is noted that  the Parties agreed to begin negotiations on 
trade in services and investment after the en try into force of the Agreement on Trade in 
Goods (1 May 2013) and to conclude these nego tiations within a year. Could the Parties 
please provide an update on the status of these negotiations and indicate whether they 
are on track to conclude on schedule? 
 After the entry into force of the Agreement on Trade in Goods (1 May 2013),  the Parties held 
two full rounds of negotiations on trade in services and investment and one inter-sessional 
meeting on investment. The Parties will also have a full round meeting between 1-4 April 2014. If 
possible, the Parties aim to conclude the negotiations before the end of this year.  
1.2.  Paragraph 2.5, page 5, Canada would be most grateful to learn more about the 
scope of commitments and modalities being used  by the Republic of Korea and Turkey to 
negotiate the service and investment chapters. 
 Although it is not possible to reveal the details of the negotiations before their conclusion, 
the Parties may report that good progress has already been achieved.  
1.3.  Paragraph 3.1, page 6, the Parties agre e to reduce or eliminate customs duties on 
originating goods of the other Party in accord ance with its Schedule included in Annex 2 
of the Agreement (Article 2.4). Subparagrap hs 1(a) to (i) of Annex 2 defines each 
staging category except staging category "N S". Could the Republic of the Republic of 
Korea and Turkey define the te rms of staging category "NS"? 
 As explained in subparagraph 7 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Trade in Goods, tariff lines 
marked with "NS" will not be subject to standstill  obligations under Article 2.5 of the Agreement on 
Trade in Goods. This means the Parties will be fr ee to raise customs duties above the base rates 
specified in their respective schedules.  
 1.4.  Paragraph 3.13, page 10, both the Repu blic of Korea and Turkey have established 
tariff rate quotas (TRQ) on trade agreements with other parties. Could they explain why 
no TRQ has been established under this bilateral agreement?  
In every FTA, concession structures are shaped by the demands and offers of the Parties. In 
the course of Korea-Turkey FTA negotiations, neither Party tabled a demand for TRQ for any 
product. Therefore, TRQs were not employed due to lack of interest in such a system.  WT/REG339/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.5.  Paragraph 3.2, page 6, Article 2.5 of  the Agreement on Trade in Goods establishes 
that "…neither Party shall increase any existing customs duty, or adopt any new 
customs duty, on an originating good of th e other Party…" Could the Republic of Korea 
and Turkey clarify if Article 2.5 applies to products in category "E", but not to those in 
"NS"? If this is the case, could they provid e the rationale for exempting from stand-still 
obligations products from catego ry "NS" and not category "E"? 
 " NS" and "E" are two different categories. As summ arized in the question itself, for tariff 
lines marked with "E", the Parties assume standstill obligations; i.e., the Parties shall not raise 
customs duties above the base rates as specified in their respective schedules. In other words, for the goods under category "E", the Parties have bo und their customs duties at the rates specified 
and assumed no obligation to reduce them. 
 On the other hand, for tariff lines marked with "NS", the Parties do not assume standstill 
obligations. Accordingly, tariff lines marked with "NS" will not be subject to standstill obligations under Article 2.5 of the Agreement on Trade in Good s. This means the Parties will be free to raise 
customs duties above the base rates specified in their respective schedules. 
 In this perspective, the goods under category "NS" are deemed more sensitive than those 
under "E", and the Parties have opted to retain th e right to regulate tariff policy regarding these 
goods. 
1.6.  Paragraph 4.7, page 14, it is noted that the Parties established a Joint Committee 
charged, inter alia , with supervising the work of all committees, working groups, and 
other bodies established under the FTA. Coul d the Parties please indicate whether any 
committees, working groups, and other bodies have been established so far and, if so, in 
which areas?  
 "The Committee on Trade in Goods", "the Customs Committee" and "the Committee on 
Outward Processing Zones on the Korean Peninsula" were established so far under the FTA.  
 1.7.  Paragraph 4.19, page 17, the Repub lic of Korea-Turkey FTA does not include 
provisions on government procurement. Do Turkey and the Republic of Korea foresee 
expanding their FTA in the future to includ e commitments in government procurement? 
 Provisions on government procurement are not included in the Korea-Turkey FTA. However, 
according to Article 1.4 of the Framework Agr eement of the Korea-Turkey FTA, government 
procurement is an area which may be concluded in the context of the Korea-Turkey FTA in the 
future.  
Questions from the delegation of the European Union 
 
Background information 
 
1.8.  Could the Parties give an overview on the state of the play of the negotiations on 
trade in services and investments?  
 After the entry into force of the Agreement on Trade in Goods (1 May 2013),  the Parties held 
two full rounds of negotiations on trade in services and investment and one inter-sessional 
meeting on investment. The Parties will also have a full round meeting between 1-4 April 2014.  
  Although it is not possible to reveal the details of the negotiations before their conclusion, 
the Parties may report that good progress has already been achieved.  
 PROVISIONS ON TRADE IN GOODS  
Safeguard mechanisms 
 1.9.  With reference to Chapter 4 – Section A "Bilateral Safeguard Measures", could the 
Parties define who would be the "compete nt authority" in case of a safeguard 
investigation?   WT/REG339/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
   In case of a safeguard investigation, the competent authority is the Directorate General of 
Imports of the Ministry of Economy for Turkey and the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy for 
Korea.  
 
Subsidies and State-aid 
 
1.10.  Could the Parties explain why they deci ded to exclude subsidies from the scope of 
the Agreement? 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures are covered by Section C: Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Trade Goods under Korea- Turkey FTA. In addition, Korea and Turkey are 
both bound by the rules and principles esta blished by the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures. 
Intellectual property rights  
 
1.11.  With reference to IPR, could the Partie s submit more details on the protection of 
undisclosed information? In particular, what ki nd of regime is provided for between the 
two Parties? 
 The Korea-Turkey FTA does not provide a specif ic provision on the protection of undisclosed 
information. Therefore, the protection of undiscl osed information among the Parties is subject to 
TRIPS. There exists no other international ag reement between Korea and Turkey regarding the 
protection of undisclosed information.  
 
Question from the delegation of the Sepa rate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu 
 
Trade environment 
 
1.12.  According to paragraph 1.4, page  3, of the WTO Secretariat's Factual 
Presentation, during the period 2010-2012, Turkey's four largest export product 
categories were textiles, base metals, mach inery and vehicles, while the Republic of 
Korea's four largest export product catego ries consisted of machinery, vehicles, 
minerals and base metals.  
 We would like to ask whether the Republic of Korea encountered any domestic 
problems or difficulties among its industri es concerning textiles and stainless steel 
during the FTA negotiation process between the two Parties. 
  Korea's domestic industries did not raise serious concerns with regard to the FTA negotiation 
with Turkey. 
Question from the delegation of Thailand 
 
Turkey 
 1.13.  Paragraph 3 .11, Table 3.4 shows Turkey's tari ff liberalization by HS section. The 
lines not subject to liberalization ten years af ter the Agreement's entry into force fall in 
HS Sections I -IV and VI.  
 In Table 3.4 there are no tariff lines which remain dutiable in Section VI. 
Therefore, we would like Turkey to clarify whether there are any tariff lines not subject 
to liberalization ten years after the Agreemen t's entry into force in HS Section VI?  
  There is a mistake in the report. There are no tariff lines in HS Section VI (chapters 28 to 38) not subject to liberalization ten years after the Agreement's entry into force.  
 
__________