RESTRICTED  
  
WT/ACC/KAZ/75  
 
13 May 2013  
(13-2450)  Page: 1/45  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
ACCESSION OF KAZAKHSTAN 
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 
 The following submission, dated 6 May 2013, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of Kazakhstan. 
 
 
_______________ WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
II.  ECONOMIC PO LICIES .......................................................................................... 3  
-  Investment Regime ............................................................................................ 3  
-  State Ownership, State-Trading Entities and Privatization.................................. 3  
-  (b) State-owned and State-controlled Enterprises, Enterprises with Special and  
Exclusive Privilege .............................................................................................. 3  
-  Pricing Policies ................................................................................................... 8  
III.  FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES ...................................... 9  
-  Powers of Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of Government .............. 9  
-  Framework of the Customs Union among the Republic of Kazakhstan, the 
Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus ............................................... 11  
(c)  The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council .......................................................... 11  
(i)  Transparen cy .................................................................................................... 11  
IV.  POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ........................................................... 12  
-  Registration Requirements for Im port and Export Operations .......................... 12  
A.  IMPORT REGU LATIONS ..................................................................................... 12  
-  Ordinary Custom s Duties .................................................................................. 12  
-  Tariff Rate Quotas ............................................................................................. 14  
-  Application of Internal  Taxes to Imports .......................................................... 16  
-  Quantitative Import Restrictions, includ ing Prohibitions, Quotas and Licensing 
System s ............................................................................................................ 18  
-  Customs Valu ation ............................................................................................ 20  
-  Anti-dumping, Countervailing Duty  and Safeguar d Regimes ............................. 21  
B.  EXPORT REGU LATIONS ..................................................................................... 24  
-  Customs Tariffs, Fees and Charges for Services Rendered, Application of 
Internal Taxes to Exports ................................................................................. 24  
C.  INTERNAL POLICIES AFFECTIN G FOREIGN TRADE IN GOODS ........................... 26  
-  Industrial Policy, in cluding Subs idies ............................................................... 26  
-  Technical Barriers to Trade, St andards and Certification .................................. 27  
(a)  Legal Frame work .............................................................................................. 27  
(c)  Technical Regulations, International an d National Standards, and Conformity 
Assessment Proc edures .................................................................................... 30  
-  (i) Technical Re gulations .................................................................................. 30  
-  (iv) Disposition of Mandatory National Standards of Kazakhstan ..................... 32  
-  (v) Conformity Assessment Procedures  including the Accreditation of 
Conformity Assessm ent Bodies ......................................................................... 32  
(d)  Transparen cy .................................................................................................... 34  
-  Trade-Related Invest ment Measures ................................................................ 34  
-  Government Pr ocurement ................................................................................. 41  
V.  TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUA L PROPERTY REGIME ........................................ 43  
-  Patents ............................................................................................................. 43  
-  Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 44  
VIII. TRADE AGREEMENTS ......................................................................................... 45  
 WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 3 - 
 
  II. ECONOMIC POLICIES 
- Investment Regime Question 1 Paragraph 57 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 de scribes a number of changes to the list 
of priority activities that can benefit from investment incentives. In this regard how is 
legal certainty guaranteed to the investors th roughout the changes of these lists?  Apart 
from taxation, are there other consequences of the old lists becoming void or being 
modified, for the investors concerned by those projects?  
Answer: 
Legal certainty to investors is guaranteed by the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 373-II 
"On Investments" of 8 January 2003 (hereinafter - the Law).  According to the paragraph 3 of 
Article 4 of the Law, the Republic of Kazakhstan gu arantees stability of the terms and conditions of 
contracts concluded between investors and state bodies, except for contracts that are amended by mutual consent of the parties.  These guarantees for investors do not extend to (i) amendments to 
the legal acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan and/or their entry into force, nor to amendments 
made to international agreements that change the terms and conditions of import, production, and sale of excisable goods; (ii) amendments and ad denda to Kazakhstan's legislation introduced for 
national security, environmental safety, public health and morality purposes. 
Thus, investors are guaranteed legal certainty by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and 
any modification made into the list of priority activities or consequences of the list becoming void do not affect concluded investment contracts.  
- State Ownership, State-Tradin g Entities and Privatization 
- (b) State-owned and State-controlled Enterprises, Enterprises with Special and 
 Exclusive Privilege 
Question 2 
We believe that this section would profit fr om the inclusion of information provided in 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72, specifically, informat ion contained in the responses to 
Questions 8-10, 15 and 19.   
- The request for a transition for the elim ination of Samruk-Kazyna's local content 
requirements requires better background information on this huge component of 
Kazakhstan's economy. 
- For example, WT/ACC/KAZ/72 makes it cl ear that the JSCs with government 
ownership in Samruk-Kazyna are of a comple tely different nature than other such 
JSCs—something not made clear in the text of the Working Party Report. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will incorporate the information from  Answers to Questions 8-10, 15 and 19 into the 
next revision of the Draft Working Party Report. 
Question 3 
Paragraph 93 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Based on the information in the 
r e s p o n s e  t o  Q u e s t i o n  1 9  o f  W T / A C C / K A Z / 7 2 ,  p l e a s e  c l a r i f y  i n  t h e  t e x t  t h a t  i n  accordance with Article 35 of the Law "On Joint Stock Companies", the Government, as 
the single shareholder, selected the board of directors of Samruk-Kazyna. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan will incorporate the information from An swer to Question 19 into the next revision of 
the Draft Working Party Report. 
Question 4 
Paragraph 94 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Please provide information on the other 
major firms held by Samruk-Kazyna ("Kazpost", "Samruk-Energo", "National Atomic Company 'Kazatomprom'", "Kazakhstan Engineering", "Air Astana", and 
"Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia").   
Answer: 
Paragraph 94 of the document WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9 /Rev.7 already contains information of JSC 
"National company "Kazpost".  
We suggest including brief information on the following companies of "Samruk-Kazyna" into 
paragraph 94 bis.: 
 94 bis.  The JSC "Samruk-Energo" operated in the following spheres:  production of electric 
and heating energy, transmission and distri bution of electric energy, coal mining, 
reconstruction, extension and construction of en ergy-related facilities.  The "National Atomic 
Company "KazAtomProm" was engaged in the foll owing activities:  geological exploration, 
uranium extraction, production of nuclear fuel cycle products, construction of reactors, 
nuclear power plants, nonferrous metals industry and building of constructional materials.  The "National Company "Kazakhstan Engineering" was a holding company managing enterprises related to production of good s and services for national defence and 
law-enforcement purposes.  The JSC "Air Astana" was an airline company which rendered air 
transportation services in international and local directions.  The LLP "Samruk-Kazyna 'Pharmacia'" was a single distributor of pharmaceuticals within the framework of the 
Government's programme providing guaranteed  free medical treatment to the population. 
Question 5 Paragraph 95 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Please add information in this section 
from the response to Questi on 15 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72, i.e.: 
- that the procurement contracts, conclu ded by "Samruk-Kazyna" companies, must 
contain the local content provisions which were indicated by a supplier in his/her 
tender offer or price quotation;  
- that there are several factors affecting te nder results:  conformity with technical 
requirements, proposed price for goods and services, and the share of local content in goods or services;  
- that all "Samruk-Kazyna" subsidiaries ar e engaged in commercial activities, except 
for "Kazakhstan Engineering" an d "Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia";  
- that "Kazakhstan Engineering" produces goods for the national defence purposes; 
and  
- that "Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia" cond ucts procurement of pharmaceuticals, 
medical equipment and materials which ar e distributed to public hospitals and 
polyclinics for provision of guaranteed free  medical treatment to population by the 
State.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will incorporate the information from An swer to Question 15 into the next revision of 
the Draft Working Party Report. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Question 6 
Paragraph 101 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  The responses to Questions 12 and 13 
of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 state that neither KazAgroProduct nor KazAgroFinance have local 
content requirements in their procurement.   
- How is that possible as they are part  of a national holding company KazAgro 
holding?   
- Are they not subject to the same laws and requirements as Samruk-Kazyna, which 
DOES have local content requir ements for its procurement? 
Answer: 
Apparently, the question refers to Answer s to Questions 13 and 14 in the document 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72, as the Answer to Question 12 re fers to information on the companies within 
"Samruk-Kazyna".   
1. Procurement of goods and services with in the JSC "KazAgroProduct" and the JSC 
"KazAgroFinance" are conducted in accordance with their own procurement rules. 
"KazAgroProduct" conducts its procurement of goods and services in accordance with the 
Procurement Rules approved by the Decision of the Board of Directors of 18 April 2011. 
"KazAgroFinance" conducts its procurement of goods and services in accordance with the 
Procurement Rules approved by the Decision of the Board of Directors of 4 April 2011.  
2. In the Answer to Question 13 in the document WT/ACC/KAZ/72 regarding purchases by 
"KazAgroProduct" of specialized transport and te chnological equipment for processing and storage 
of agricultural and livestock products, Kazakhstan  explained that since 2007 there were no such 
purchases. Therefore, there were no local conten t requirements applied for those particular types 
of purchases.  
The Procurement Rules of "KazAgroProduct" provide for application of a conditional price 
discount in total of up to 20% for locally produced goods and services in tender procurements. 
Procurements exceeding 4000 monthly calculation indices1 shall be conducted via tender.  
3. The Procurement Rules of "KazAgroFinance" provide for application of a conditional price 
discount in total of up to 20% for locally produced goods and services in tender procurements. 
Procurements exceeding 4000 monthly calculation indices shall be conducted via tender.  
However, according to the Procurement Rules,  procurement of agricultural machinery and 
equipment for subsequent leasing to agricultural producers is conducted based on applications 
from farmers, as indicated in the Answer to Question 14 in the document WT/ACC/KAZ/72. 
Therefore, conditional price discounts foreseen for tender procurements are not applied to purchases of agricultural machinery and equipm ent for subsequent leasing to agricultural 
producers.  
4. The Procurement Rules of both "KazAgroProduct" and "KazAgroFinance" stipulate 
exemptions from application of a conditional price discount in the purchases of:  
a) services related to storage, processing and transportation of purchased agricultural 
products and processed agricultural products;  
b) agricultural animals and pedigree cattle of domestic and foreign selections. 
It should be noted that the share of local cont ent in the procurement of "KazAgroProduct" and 
"KazAgroFinance" is insignificant. For instance, in 2012 "KazAgroProduct" purchased goods for the 
amount of 24.5 million tenge, of which local co ntent composed around 2.5 million tenge or 10%. 
In 2012, "KazAgroFinance" purchased goods for the amount of 48.6 billion tenge, of which local 
content constituted only 2 billion tenge or 4.2%.    
                                               
1 One monthly calculation index (MCI) is equal to  1,731 tenge.  4,000 MCIs are equal to around 
US$46,160.  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Taking into account the information presented above, Kazakhstan proposes to change 
paragraphs [100] and [101] of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 as follows: 
 100. The JSC "KazAgroProduct" had been established in 2001 with the objective to support 
domestic producers of livestock products.  The company was engaged in (i) procurement, 
storage, processing and the sale of livestock, raw materials and livestock products in the 
domestic market and for export; (ii) importation of agricultural and livestock products for further processing and sale; and (iii) purchase (including importation) of specialised 
transport, technological equipment for processi ng and storage of agricultural and livestock 
products for the company's needs or for sale.  The company conducted import and export operations alongside private companies in a competitive environment and its share was less t h a n  1 %  o f  t h e  t o t a l  v o l u m e  o f  m e a t  p r o d u c e d  i n  K a z a k h s t a n .   I n  r e p l y  t o  a  s p e c i f i c  
question, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that "KazAgroProduct" conducted its 
procurement of goods and services in accordan ce with the Procurement Rules approved by 
the Decision of the Board of Directors of 18 April 2011.  The Procurement Rules provided for 
application of a conditional price discount in total of up to 20% for locally produced goods 
and services in tender procurements.  Procurements exceeding 4,000 monthly calculation 
indices2 should be conducted via tender.  She further added, that since 2007 there were no 
purchases of specialized transport and technological equipment for processing and storing of 
agricultural and livestock products.  Therefor e, there were no local content requirements 
applied for those particular types of purchases.  
 101. The JSC "KazAgroFinance" was established to implement the State policy of creating a 
competitive and export-oriented agricultural sector through rendering financial services and 
provision of agricultural machinery and equipment under financial leasing schemes.  "KazAgroFinance" purchased agricultural machinery in the domestic and international 
markets for subsequent leasing to farmers.  In the sphere of foreign economic activity, 
"KazAgroFinance" was engaged in importation of agricultural machinery, equipment, and 
animals, and had no monopoly or any other exclusive rights or privileges in this sphere.  
The Government did not regulate the prices, the volume or the types of agricultural 
machinery or equipment purchased by the comp any.  All such decisions were made by 
"KazAgroFinance" in accordance with available financial resources and based on applications from agricultural producers with the specificat ion of the type of machinery they planned to 
lease from "KazAgroFinance".  The Government determined only the interest rates in leasing 
schemes and other financial support programmes of "KazAgroFinance" funded from the State budget, and did not regulate the interest rates for its financing activities funded from 
other sources.  In reply to a question, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
"KazAgroFinance" conducted its procurement of goods and services in accordance with the 
Procurement Rules approved by the Decision of  the Board of Directors of 4 April 2011.  
The Procurement Rules provided for application of a conditional price discount in total of up 
to 20% for locally produced goods and serv ices in tender procurements.  However, 
procurement of agricultural machinery and equipment for subsequent leasing to agricultural 
producers was conducted based on applications from farmers.  Therefore, conditional price 
discounts foreseen for tender procurements were not applied to the purchases of agricultural 
machinery and equipment for subsequent leasing to agricultural producers. 
Question 7 
The response to Question 20 of WT/ACC/KAZ/ 72 states that KazAgroFinance purchases 
agricultural equipment for leasing.   
- Please state in the text whether any port ion of these purchases are subject to local 
content requirements.   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan suggests including the following information into paragraph [101] of the document 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  
                                               
2 One monthly calculation index (MCI) is equal to 1,731 tenge. 4000 MCIs are equal to around 
US$46,160.  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 7 - 
 
   101. The JSC "KazAgroFinance" was established to implement the State policy of creating a 
competitive and export-oriented agricultural sector through rendering financial services and provision of agricultural machinery and equipment under financial leasing schemes.  "KazAgroFinance" purchased agricultural machinery in the domestic and international 
markets for subsequent leasing to farmers.  In the sphere of foreign economic activity, 
"KazAgroFinance" was engaged in importation of agricultural machinery, equipment, and 
animals, and had no monopoly or any other exclusive rights or privileges in this sphere.  The 
Government did not regulate the prices, the volume or the types of agricultural machinery or 
equipment purchased by the company.  All such  decisions were made by "KazAgroFinance" 
in accordance with available financial resources and based on applications from agricultural producers with the specification of the type of machinery they planned to lease from 
"KazAgroFinance".  The Government determined only the interest rates in leasing schemes 
and other financial support programmes of "KazAgroFinance" funded from the State budget, and did not regulate the interest rates for its financing activities funded from other sources.  
In reply to a question, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that "KazAgroFinance" 
conducted its procurement of goods and services in accordance with the Procurement Rules 
approved by the Decision of the Board of Di rectors of 4 April 2011.  The Procurement Rules 
provided for application of a conditional price discount in total of up to 20% for locally 
produced goods and services in tender procur ements. However, procurement of agricultural 
machinery and equipment for subsequent leasing to agricultural producers was conducted 
based on applications from farmers.  Therefore, conditional price discounts foreseen for 
tender procurements were not applied to the purchases of agricultural machinery and 
equipment for subsequent leasing to agricultural producers.  
Question 8 
Paragraph 103 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  This commitment covers both 
companies held by Samruk-Kazyna and SOEs  whose procurement is regulated by the 
Law No. 303, "On Procurement".  Procurement in both cases is subject to local content 
requirements, which is inconsistent with th is commitment for enterprises operated in 
the commercial sphere.  It requires purc hases and sales by these firms based on 
commercial considerations fr om the date of accession. 
- How does Kazakhstan intend to deal with this inconsistency? 
Answer: 
Currently, the Government is developing amendments to the legislation on government 
procurement with the purpose to exclude procurem ents made by State enterprises and enterprises 
with State participation procuring goods and services for commercial sale (resale) from the 
coverage of the Law No. 303 "On Government Procurement" of 21 July 2007.  
Local content provisions were introduced into the Procurement Rules of the National Welfare Fund 
"Samruk-Kazyna" in 2009 as part of the Government efforts to overcome negative impact of the 
global financial crisis of 2008-2009 on economic gr owth of the country.  In particular, the local 
content provisions were aimed at stabilization of the social and economic situation in 27 single industry towns of Kazakhstan and maintaining jobs in the enterprises, including small and 
medium-sized businesses, which formed the core business activity of these towns.  Taking into 
account that goods and services produced by en terprises in single industry towns that are 
struggling with high level of unemployment, were oriented at purchases made by the National 
Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" and its companies, Ka zakhstan is requesting a transitional period 
that would be sufficient for adjustment of local producers to new conditions.  It should be noted that approximately 17% of the urban population of  Kazakhstan live in single industry towns.  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Question 9 
At the last meeting of the Wo rking Party, the representative of Kazakhstan informed 
that the legislation on the public procur ement by companies owned/controlled by the 
"Samruk-Kazyna" Fund (which provides for local content requirements) is currently 
being reviewed with a view to ensure its WTO-consistency.   
- Could Kazakhstan please circulate the dr aft legislation and succinctly describe its 
main provisions?  
Answer: 
Currently, the new Procurement Rules of the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" are still 
being developed within the Fund and its subsidiaries, and finalization of this process will require a certain period of time.  Kazakhstan will share the draft document with the Working Party Members 
upon its approval within the Fund. 
- Pricing Policies Question 10 
Please incorporate information from the response to Question 21 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 into this chapte r of the draft Working Party Report:   
- that the Government regulates prices of  gasoline, diesel and liquefied petroleum 
gas, used by households, as part of social policy aimed at reduction of retail prices 
of socially important products;  
- that gas prices, charged by market part icipants with dominant or monopolistic 
position, except for wholesale prices, are su bject to notification and regulation of 
price increase in accordance with Ar ticles 7.1 – 7.4 of the Law No. 272-I 
"On Natural Monopolies and Regulated Markets" of 9 July 1998; and  
- that these measures are introduced in order to prevent unfair price increases on 
utility services for households and stabilize situation on the domestic market of oil 
and gas products, in particular to curb high inflation in the country. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will incorporate the information fr om Answer to Question 21 of the document 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 into the next revision of the Draft Working Party Report as following: 
 110.   In reply to the question from a Memb er regarding the regulation of energy prices, 
especially gas prices, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that, according to Law 
"On Gas and Gas Supply" No. 532-IV of 9 January 2012, her Government had established 
maximum wholesale prices for liquefied petroleu m gas on the domestic market based on the 
proposal of the Ministry of Oil and Gas.  In accordance with the Law No. 272-I "On Natural 
Monopolies and Regulated Markets" of 9 July 1998, retail prices for oil products and gas 
charged by market participants with dominant  or monopolistic position on the relevant 
market were regulated by the Agency on Regulation of Natural Monopolies. Companies with 
dominant or monopolistic position submitted to the Agency notification on the proposed 
price increases for oil products and gas along with the relevant justification material.  The proposed price was subject to the approval  by the Agency based on the results of the 
price expertise conducted in accordance with Article 7-2 of Law No. 272-I, which regulated 
price setting in regulated markets, as described in paragraph [105] of the Report.  
These measures had been introduced in order to prevent unfair price increases on utility 
services provided for households and stabilize the situation on the domestic market of oil 
and gas products, in particular to curb high inflation in the country.  She added that the 
Government regulated prices of oil products and gas used by households as part of social 
policy aimed at stabilization of retail prices for socially important products. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 9 - 
 
  III. FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
- Powers of Executive, Legislative an d Judicial Branches of Government 
Question 11 Paragraph 152 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 states that:  "The President appointed 
and could dismiss the members of the Govern ment (including the Prime Minister, the 
Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Defence, Inte rnal Affairs and Justice and Heads of State 
Committees), the Heads of diplomatic missions,  higher Officers of the Armed Forces, the 
Chairperson and two members of the Constitutional Council, the Chairperson and 
two members of the Central Election Commi ttee, the Chairperson and two members of 
the Accounting Committee for Control Over the Implementation of the Republican 
Budget, 15 Deputies of the Senate, chairperso ns and judges of local and other courts, 
the Prosecutor General, the Chairperson of the National Security Committee, the State 
Secretary, the Chairperson of the National Bank, and Akims. 
- Are any of these appointments subject to  approval by the Majilis or the Senate? 
Answer: 
According to Article 44 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the following persons are 
appointed by the President with the approval of the Senate: 
- The Prosecutor General; 
- The Chairperson of the National Security Committee; - The Chairperson of the National Bank. 
The Prime Minister is appointed by the President upon a pproval by the majority vote of the Majilis.     
Question 12 
Paragraph 155 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7  states that the Government was 
organised and chaired by the Prime Minister .  The Government was accountable to the 
President and to the Parliament. 
- In what specific ways is the Gove rnment "accountable" to the Parliament? 
Answer: 
According to Article 13 of the Constitutional Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan as of 
18 December 1995 No. 2688 "On the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan", the Government: 
- annually submits to the Parliament the draft Law "On the Republican Budget" for approval; 
- reports to the Parliament on the implementation of the Republican Budget; 
- provides expertise on draft Laws which envisage cuts of state revenues or increase of state 
expenditures; 
- replies to the requests made by Members of the Parliament; 
- upon request made by the Parliament, Members of the Government report on the activity of 
their authorities.  
Question 13 
Paragraph 157 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 st ates that the governmental authority 
in Kazakhstan was divided between centra l and regional (local) governments.   
- Would not it be better to say that the governmental authority was administered at 
both the central and regional level?  Akim s are subject to presidential appointment 
and dismissal.  This is hardly "divided" government. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Answer: 
Paragraph 157 was revised accordingly.  
 157. The representative of Kazakhstan noted that the governmental authority in 
Kazakhstan was administered at both the central and regional level.  Local governmental 
power was divided between representative bodi es called Maslikhats and executive bodies 
called Akimats.  Akimats were local executive bodies.  These were headed by Akims - representatives of the President and the Go vernment - who (i) administered the local 
executive bodies; (ii) ensured the implementati on of State policy on the relevant territory; 
and (iii) ensured the coordinated functioning of all territorial branches of the central State 
bodies.  Akims also fulfilled the functions of a local public administration and were responsible for the social and economic de velopment of the administered territory.  
She further noted that local governments had (i) partial autonomy to regulate 
region-specific economic relations; (ii) a regional (local) administrative system; (iii) authority to make provisions for the development of business activities; (iv) the right to 
conclude concession contracts; (v) the authority to monitor the local budget; and (vi) the 
obligation to coordinate foreign trade-related issues. 
Question 14 
Paragraph 163 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 co ntains an extra statement, "except as 
otherwise provided in the Protocol of Accessi on of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the 
WTO."  This does not appear in other applicants' commitments. 
- What does this mean?  When was this added?  What other provisions of the 
Protocol are being referred to? 
Answer: 
This statement was a technical mistake and will  be deleted from paragraph 163 of the Working 
Party Report. 
163. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement would be applied uniformly throughout the territory of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, including in regions engaging in frontier traffic, special economic zones and 
other areas where special regimes for tariffs, taxes and regulations could be established, except as otherwise provided in the Protocol of  Accession of the Republic of Kazakhstan to 
the WTO.  She added that, in order to ensure compliance with provisions of the WTO 
Agreement any individual or entity could brin g to the attention of the authorities of the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan or competent Customs Union body cases of non-application or non-uniform application of provisions of the WTO Agreement in the 
Republic of Kazakhstan.  Such cases would be referred promptly to the responsible 
authorities without requiring the affected party to petition through the courts, and when non-application or non-uniform application actually existed, the authorities of the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan or a competent Customs Union body would act 
promptly to address the situation, consistent with the laws and international obligations of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The individual or entity notifying the authorities of the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan or a competent Customs Union body would be 
informed promptly in writing of any decision and action taken.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments.] WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 11 - 
 
  - Framework of the Customs Union among th e Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian 
Federation and the Republic of Belarus 
(c) The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council Question 15 
Paragraph 168 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  How does the Supreme Eurasian 
Economic Council make its decisions, i.e., by  majority, qualified majority, consensus?  
Please provide this information in this section when discussing decision-making. 
Answer: 
The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council makes its decisions by consensus. This information will 
be incorporated into the Working Party Report.  
 168.   The representative of Kazakhstan ex plained that the Supreme Eurasian Economic 
Council was the supreme Body of the CU, which pursuant to the Agreement dated of 
18 November 2011, exercised the powers of the Interstate Council of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and perfor med the following functions: 
- defined the strategy and objectives of formation and further development of the 
Customs Union and took decisions on its realisation; 
- took decisions on issues of common interest to CU Parties and the EurAsEC 
member-States; 
- defined the list of international treaties  comprising the legal framework of the CU; 
- took decisions on entry into force of the CU agreements forming the legal basis of the 
CU;   
- took decisions on issues related to integration of the customs territories of the 
EurAsEC member-States into a single customs territory in accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on the Formation of the CU; 
- approved the structure of the Eurasian Economic Commission; 
- appointed the Chairman of the Eurasian Economic Commission; - approved the rules on procedures of the Eurasian Economic Commission; 
- upon request of one of the CU Parties,  reconsidered decisions of the Eurasian 
Economic Commission where one of the CU Parties objected to the decision; 
- reconsidered decisions of the Eurasian Economic Commission at the request of one or 
more CU Parties; 
- considered, upon request, proposals of the Eurasian Economic Commission which 
failed to collect the number of votes necessary to adopt them; 
- nominated candidates to the Court of the EurAsEC for the hearing of the cases 
concerning CU issues to the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the EurAsEC;  
- gave recommendations to and requested information from the Inter-Parliamentarian 
Assembly of the EurAsEC and the Court of the EurAsEC on CU issues. 
The Supreme Eurasian Economic Council made its decisions by consensus. 
(i) Transparency 
Question 16 We thank Kazakhstan for restoring the tr ansparency commitment (paragraph 204) we 
requested in WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/71 and again in WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/72 in the text of 
this section.   
- We would like to see it stay in the text. 
Answer: 
This text will stay in Paragraph 204 of the draft Working Party Report. Kazakhstan has made minor 
editorial changes in the text (underlined). WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 12 - 
 
   204.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 308 
"Decision-Making at the Commission of the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010 had been amended to establish and put into effect a mechanism for publication of proposed CU legal acts covered under paragraph [812] of the "Trans parency" section of this  Report before their 
adoption and to provide a reasonable period of  time for Members and interested persons to 
provide comments to the competent CU Body, which was authorised to take these 
comments into account in its consideration of the proposed draft legal act.  Moreover, from 
the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, pursuant to this mechanism, no CU legal act 
covered under paragraph [813] of the "Transparency" section of this Report will become effective prior to publication as provided for in the applicable provisions of the WTO Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
IV. POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
- Registration Requirements for Import and Export Operations Question 17 
In accordance with the applicable legislat ion foreign natural persons, including legal 
residents, are prohibited to engage in privat e entrepreneurial activity in the Republic of 
Kazakhstan. 
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Private Entrepreneurship (No. 124-III ZRK of 
31 January 2006, with subsequent amendments ), in the Article 1, Item 3 defines 
individual entrepreneur as the citizen of the Republic of Kazakhstan or Kazakh national living abroad (oralman).  The provision of Ar ticle 7, paragraph 11, expressly states that 
it is prohibited to natural persons, with th e exception of citizens of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan or Kazakh nationals living abro ad (oralman) to engage in individual 
entrepreneurship.  
Furthermore, Kazakhstan does not enforce th ese provisions in respect of citizens of 
certain countries, including the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic.  
A Member finds these provisions and practi ces to be violating fundamental WTO rules 
and disciplines. 
How and when Kazakhstan intends to abolish this prohibition and discriminatory 
practices, which violate fundamental WTO rules and disciplines? 
Answer: 
The issues of employment of natural persons, such  as individual entrepreneurs, are not regulated 
by the WTO Multilateral Trade Agreements.  With in the framework of the ongoing WTO accession 
negotiations, as any other acceding country, Kazakhstan is undertaking commitments under the 
GATS in its Services Schedule on regulation of entry and stay of foreign qualified personnel such 
as Intra-Corporate Transferees and Business Visitors.  Thus, Kazakhstan does not violate any fundamental WTO rules and disciplines in this regard. 
Kazakhstan is ready to hold bilateral consultati ons with this Member with regard to the above 
issue.  The Government of Kazakhstan has sent the relevant letter to the Government of this Member.   
A. IMPORT REGULATIONS 
- Ordinary Customs Duties 
Question 18 Paragraph 243 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  The response to Question 34 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 states that "Dur ing the process of codification of the 
regulatory base of the Customs Union, the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 13 - 
 
  will initiate the amendments on exclusion of the relevant provision of Article 1 from the 
Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of 25 January 2008 to the 
Eurasian Economic Commission". 
- Has this been done?  Or is the objective "to protect the Customs Union's (CU) 
economy from unfavourable in fluence from foreign competition" still contained in 
Article I of the CU Agreement "On Co mmon Customs and Tariff Regulations of 
25 January 2008"?   
- Please add the amendment of this Agreem ent to the Legislative Action Plan so 
that we may monitor when it will be done. 
Answer: 
As stated in our previous reply, Kazakhstan has initiated the exclusion of the objective "to protect 
Customs Union's economy from unfavourable influence from foreign competition" from Article 1 of 
the CU Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of 25 January 2008 (hereinafter - the CU Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation)to the Eurasian Economic 
Commission.  
As a result of the consideration, it has been decided to eliminate this provision during codification 
process of the regulatory base of the Customs Union, which is expected to be completed by 
May 2014.  
Kazakhstan will include the amendment to the CU Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff 
Regulation into the Legislative Action Plan accordingly. 
Question 19 
Paragraph 248 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  This paragraph needs to be updated, to 
take into consideration that Kazakhstan is cu rrently applying its tariff rates in HS 2012.   
Answer: 
Currently, according to the CU Commission Decision No. 850 "On New Version of the Common 
Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of the Customs Union and Common External Tariff of the Customs Union" of 18 November 2011, the Common External Tariff (CET) of 
the Customs Union is based on the Harmonization Description and Coding System 2012 
(HS 2012).  
Therefore, paragraph 248 shall be amended as follows:  248.  The representative of Kazakhstan adde d that, from 1 January 2010, CET applied tariff 
rates had been established in the Common Tariff Nomenclature of the Foreign Economic 
Activity of the Customs Union, which had been based on the HS 2007 nomenclature, as provided for in the Agreement "On Common Tariff Nomenclature of Foreign Economic 
Activity of the EurAsEC" adopted on 11 June 2003.  As of January 2012, according to the 
CU Commission Decision No. 850 "On Ne w Version of the Common Commodity 
Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of the Customs Union and Common External 
Tariff of the Customs Union" of 18 November 2011, Kazakhstan applied CET tariff rates 
based on the HS 2012 nomenclature. WTO tariff negotiations were conducted in the 
HS 2002 nomenclature, reflecting the tariff nomenclature Kazakhstan was using at the time 
these negotiations commenced. Based on the results of bilateral market access negotiations 
on goods, the WTO Secretariat had converted th e consolidated Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments of the Republic of Kazakhstan into the HS 2007 nomenclature. 
Question 20 
Paragraph 249 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  This paragraph should be updated, 
including references to the scope of ad valorem  rates, which in some cases are 80% 
(e.g., the out of quota rate for poultry). WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Answer: 
Paragraph 249 states that ad valorem  rates range from 0 to 30%, except for a limited number of 
products, including meat:  beef, pork and poultry, towards which CU Parties apply tariff rate 
quotas, where in-quota rates are established at  the level between 0 and 25%, and out-of-quota 
rates are between 50 and 80%. 
Question 21 Paragraph 250 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  We seek clarification on Kazakhstan's 
response to Question 35 of WT/ACC/KAZ/ 72, i.e., whether the statement "Upon 
accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan will fully comply with its tariff commitments" means 
that Kazakhstan's accession will ensure that the CU CET reflects th e actual commitments 
of Kazakhstan, or if the rates on approxim ately 300 CET tariff lines not consistent with 
Russia's CET commitments will be maintained? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan confirms that upon accession to the WTO, the CU CET will be brought into compliance 
with Kazakhstan's tariff commitments, with regard to the entire commodity nomenclature, in 
accordance with the results of the ongoing "adjustm ent" negotiations aimed at unification of tariff 
commitments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
Question 22 
Paragraph 256 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  This is a standard commitment.  
We note the inclusion of additional langua ge to this commitment.  We are concerned 
that the timeline proposed by this addition al language will make it impossible for 
Kazakhstan to join the ITA when it become s a WTO Member, since its ITA schedule will 
not yet be circulated, much less verified. 
- Kazakhstan's commitment is to join the ITA at the time of accession.  That means 
that the ITA draft schedule must be ci rculated, verified, an d approved by the 
ITA Committee prior to the point, i.e., pr ior to finalization of Kazakhstan's WTO 
Goods schedule.   
- In addition, Kazakhstan's ITA schedule should be in the ratification package 
submitted to its Parliament.  Otherwise, Kazakhstan may ratify a schedule that 
does not reflect their ITA commitments. 
Answer: 
In order to join the Information Technology Agreement upon its accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan 
has started verification of the final version of the ITA Schedule of the Russian Federation.  
As soon as the verification process is completed,  Kazakhstan will submit its ITA Schedule to the 
ITA Committee prior to finalization of  Kazakhstan's WTO Goods Schedule.  
Hence, Kazakhstan's ITA Schedule will be incorporated into the WTO Goods Schedule, which will 
be submitted as part of the ratification package to the Parliament. 
- Tariff Rate Quotas 
Question 23 Paragraph 288 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  The response to Question 41 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 indicates that notwithstanding the 
establishment of TRQ volumes for 2013, no allocation of licenses has yet been made.  
This happened in 2012 as well.  This woul d appear to be inconsistent with the 
CU Agreement on the Rules of Licensing and Kazakhstan's domestic legislation. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 15 - 
 
  - Please provide information for the draft Wo rking Party report that clearly lays out 
what Kazakhstan intends to do to implem ent its own legislation on TRQ allocation 
and bring its regime into line with the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
Paragraph 289 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7  states that:  "The delay (in TRQ 
allocation in 2012) was caused due to prob lems related to the accuracy of customs 
statistics".   
- Is this the same cause for the delay in 2013?  Will that be the same reason given 
in 2014?   
- Please provide specific information in th e draft Working Party Report on what is 
Kazakhstan doing to improve the situation. 
- If we do not receive adequate resolution of this problem, we will need additional 
commitment language in the report laying  out the specific timeline of actions 
Kazakhstan will take on an annual basis to  ensure that this now chronic violation 
of the Import Licensing Procedures Agr eement is not continued after accession. 
Answer: 
As stated at the 15th Working Party Meeting (20 March 2013, Geneva), the delays in allocation of 
tariff rate quotas at the Stage 1 of 2013 were caused due to the reason that Kazakhstan increased 
the volumes of tariff rate quotas on meat from 100 to 110 thousand tones, which required the 
adoption of the relevant decision at the EEC level.  
Regarding delays in 2014, it should be noted, th at such delays will depend on accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO.  Thus, sooner accession to the WTO will allow Kazakhstan to approve the 
commitments on TRQ volumes agreed within the WTO, both at the EEC and national level in advance. 
Currently, the amendments are planned to be introduced to the Rules for Allocation of Volumes of 
Tariff Rate Quotas on Import of Certain Kinds of Meat between Participants of the Foreign Economic Activity, approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
No. 269 of 24 March 2011.  The proposed amendmen ts will concern reduction of the timelines for 
approval of the draft resolution on allocation of tariff rate quotas by the government agencies of Kazakhstan. 
The following information shall be added to paragraph 290: 
 290. A Member expressed concern regarding delays in allocating the 2012 TRQ volumes 
and that this delay was precluding trade.  This Member reported that according to industry sources, the Government Resolution allocating the quota volumes had not been signed.  
The Member requested information on when th e Resolution would be signed and requested 
that the situation be resolved quickly to allo w for trade.  Further, the Member requested 
assurances that these types of delays would no t occur in the future.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan replied that Government Resolution No. 1085 on allocated TRQs volumes for the 
year 2012 had been signed on 24 August 2012.  The delay was caused due to problems related to the accuracy of customs statistics.  She further stated that in order to prevent 
such delays in future, the amendments on redu ction of timeframes for consideration of the 
draft resolution on allocation of TRQ volumes were planned to be introduced to the Rules for 
Allocation of Volumes of Tariff Rate Quotas  between Participants of Foreign Economic 
Activity.  The representative of Kazakhstan recalled that the Trade Committee of the Ministry 
of Economy and Budget Planning of the Repub lic of Kazakhstan was the authorised body 
issuing import licenses for beef, pork, or poultry under TRQs.  The Customs Control Committee had to report to the Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning quarterly on the 
actual volume of imported beef, pork, and poultry respectively.   
Question 24 Paragraph 294 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  We note two commitments.  We do not 
agree that the changes creating the first alte rnative are acceptable.  The second text is WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 16 - 
 
  more complete and reflects the original co mmitment text.  We support this commitment, 
with the internal brackets removed, as follows:  
 294.  [The representative of Kazakhst an confirmed that from the date of 
accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO, im port TRQs applied in Kazakhstan would 
be administered, whether by the competent Bodies of the CU or by authorities of 
Kazakhstan, in a manner that was consistent with the GATT 1994 and other relevant WTO Agreements, including the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures and the Agreement on Agricult ure.  [She further confirmed that, in 
implementing TRQs, Kazakhstan would provide for allocations under the TRQs in 
commercially viable quantities and would provide opportunity for new entrants seeking access to in-quota allocations und er the TRQ.]  If Kazakhstan allocated 
TRQs on a country-specific basis, it woul d provide for a transparent, predictable, 
and timely reallocation mechanism that allows for full utilisation of TRQs by 
WTO Members.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.]   
Answer: 
It should be noted that regulatory base of th e Customs Union and the national legislation of 
Kazakhstan, regulating allocation of tariff rate quotas, do not provide for the term "commercially 
viable quantities".  Therefore, the meaning of "commercially viable quantities" proposed to be 
included in the commitment text is not clear and could lead to different interpretations of this term by WTO Members and, consequently, to disputes in future.  
Therefore, Kazakhstan would prefer not to include this term into the commitment text.  
Kazakhstan would also appreciate if the interested WTO Members would provide their own 
definition of the term "commercially viable quantities" for further consideration by Delegation of Kazakhstan. 
Question 25 
In the answer to Question 39 in document  WT/ACC/KAZ/72, Kazakhstan indicates that 
it is "considering the possibility to allocate  10% of the established TRQ volume for new 
entrants".  We would apprecia te receiving an update on th is process as soon as it 
becomes available. 
Answer: 
Currently, the mechanism for allocation of tariff rate quotas for "new entrants" is being developed 
by the Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning in  cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture.  
As soon as this mechanism is developed and approved by the Government of Kazakhstan, Kazakhstan will provide the relevant information to the Working Party Members.   
- Application of Internal Taxes to Imports 
Question 26 Paragraph 316 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  We are not sure what "alternative WTO 
compatible agricultural subsidy scheme" Kaza khstan has in mind, nor what "gradually" 
means in operational terms.   
- Please provide, for the Working Party report, more information on the proposed 
replacement scheme and a well-defined co mmitment in the report and Protocol 
covering how it will be applied.   
- We are consulting on the transition re quested by Kazakhstan to remove this 
discriminatory measure. 
Paragraph 322 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Please lay out in the Working Party 
Report how the interim phasing out of the VAT exemption will be accomplished.   WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer: 
During the requested three-year transitional period Kazakhstan plans to introduce amendments 
into the Tax Code in order to exclude provis ions that provide for the VAT preferences for 
agricultural producers and processors.  Instead, Kazakhstan plans to introduce direct subsidies for 
agricultural producers and processors.  These direct subsidies are aimed at compensating the 
losses that agricultural producers and processors will incur from the elimination of the VAT preferences.  Thus, it is envisaged at this stage that the total value of direct subsidies will 
approximate the total value of the currently provided VAT preferences.  
The following information will be added in to the text of the Working Party Report: 
 316. In response, the representative of Kazakhstan stated that around 46% of 
Kazakhstan's population lived in rural areas an d almost one third of the working population 
was engaged in agricultural production.  Along with this, over 93% of agricultural producers 
were households and small farms that lacked financial and technical resources.  Thus, existing VAT preferences for agricultural produc ers and processors played an important role 
in addressing social challenges and ensuring food safety, and as such formed an integral 
part of Kazakhstan's agricultural support system.  At the same time the Government of Kazakhstan planned to reform the VAT preferen ce for agricultural producers and processors 
by introducing alternative WTO compatible agricultural subsidy scheme.  In this regard, a 
three-year transitional period was required to phase-out the VAT preferences and implement 
an alternative WTO compatible agricultural subsidy mechanism.  In particular, Kazakhstan planned to introduce direct subsidies for agricultural producers and processors.  The direct 
subsidies were aimed at compensating the losses that agricultural producers and processors 
would incur from the elimination of the VAT pr eferences.  Thus, it was envisaged at this 
stage that the total value of direct subsidies would approximate the total value of the 
currently provided VAT preferences.  These measures would ensure smooth transition that 
would allow Kazakhstan to minimize the negative consequences for domestic agricultural 
producers and processors benefiting from the currently applied VAT preferences.   
Question 27 
In paragraph 313 of document WT/ACC/SPEC /KAZ/9/Rev.7, Kazakhstan requests "a 
three-year transitional period" to "phase -out the VAT preferences, and develop and 
gradually implement an alternative WTO comp atible agricultural subsidy mechanism".  
We would request additional information on the nature of the transitional period and the 
planned agricultural subsidy me chanism, more specifically: 
 (a) Would the VAT preferences for ag riculture producers and processors be 
gradually phased-down during the three-ye ar transition or would it remain at 
current levels and simply be eliminat ed upon the expiry of the requested 
transition period? 
 (b) What type of "direct subsidies for agricultural producers and processors" will 
be introduced to replace the VAT preferences?  Will these subsidies meet the criteria of Annex 2 of the WT O Agreement on Agriculture? 
Answer: 
During the requested three-year transitional period Kazakhstan plans to introduce amendments 
into the Tax Code in order to exclude provis ions that provide for the VAT preferences for 
agricultural producers and processors.  The VAT preferences will not be gradually phased-down, 
but they will be eliminated upon the expira tion of the requested transitional period.  
Instead of the VAT preferences, Kazakhstan plans to introduce direct subsidies for agricultural 
producers and processors.  These direct subsidies are aimed at compensating the losses that 
agricultural producers and processors will incur fr om the elimination of the VAT preferences.  Thus, 
it is envisaged at this stage that the total value of direct subsidies will approximate the total value of the currently provided VAT preferences.  Kazakh stan, at this point, also foresees that these 
direct subsidies would be aimed at reducing the cost of production for agricultural producers and WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 18 - 
 
  processors, and therefore, they would be classified as Amber box subsidies in accordance with the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.    
- Quantitative Import Restrictions, incl uding Prohibitions, Quotas and Licensing 
Systems 
Question 28 
We have provided the Kazakhstan delegati on with drafting suggestions for these 
sections. 
Answer: 
The drafting suggestions will be incorporated in to the next revision of the draft Working Party 
Report, as follows: 
 241. In reply to a specific question, the representative of Kazakhstan said that domestically 
produced special technical devices had to undergo the same approval procedure at the 
Committee on National Security as imported special technical devices.  An activity licence was required for "development and manufacturi ng" and "repair and distribution" of special 
technical devices.  She confirmed that the term "distribution" in this case did not include 
importation as a separate action, but that importers of special technical devices were required to hold one of the other actively licenses due to the sensitivity of the goods.  
Previously, an activity licence had been issued within 45 days.  However, pursuant to the 
Law No. 461-IV "On Amendments and Addenda to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Issues of Improvement of Permissible System" of 15 July 2011, the period for issuing an activity licence had been reduced to 15 days.  Activities subject to 
licensing were listed in the last column of Annex 14. 
 336. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that in addition to the CU Agreements and 
Commission Decisions, the national legislation of Kazakhstan continued to apply to the 
extent that it did not contradict the CU Agreements, EEC Decisions and other CU legal acts.  
Kazakhstan's national legislation in this area included the Law No. 214 "On Licensing" of 11 January 2007, as amended by the Law No. 400-IV "On Amendment and Addenda to 
Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the Issues of Trade Activity 
Regulation" of 26 January 2011 and the Law No. 461-IV "On Amendments and Addenda to Certain Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Improvement of the Regulatory 
Approval System" of 15 July 2011 (hereina fter:  the Law "On Licensing"), and the 
Government Resolution No. 578 "On Certain Issues on Import and Export Licensing of 
Goods" "On Approval of Rules on Export and Im port Licensing, Including Licensing of Goods 
Subject to Export Controls, and Rules on Automatic Import Licensing of Certain Goods, 
Validation of Qualification Requirements for Lice nsing Activities and Approval of the List of 
Goods Subject to Export and Import Licens ing" of 12 June 2008, as amended by the 
Resolution of the Government of Kazakhstan No. 1320 of 17 October 2012 (hereinafter:  the 
"Resolution No. 578"); 
 351. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that in order to obtain an import licence 
for certain goods, the importer was required to have an activity licence.  The Law "On Licensing" provided a complete list of activi ties subject to licensing.  Activity licensing 
requirements were established for:  (i) national security reasons; (ii) implementation of 
State monopoly functions; (iii) strengthening the rule of law; or (iv) protection of the environment, property, and the life and health of citizens.  Goods for which an activity 
licence was required in order to obtain an import licence were indicated in the last relevant 
column of Annex 14.  
Conclusion 
 384. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
quantitative restrictions on imports, such as quotas, bans, permits, prior authorisation requirements, licensing requirements or other requirements or restrictions having equivalent effect that could not be justified under the provisions of the WTO Agreement would be WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 19 - 
 
  eliminated and not introduced, re-introduced or applied, whether by the Republic of 
Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU.  From the date of accession, any such requirements or restrictions on imports, whether applied by the Republic of Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU, would be in conformity with the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement.  She confirmed that the administrative procedures of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan for the operation of its import licensing regime and their application would, from the date of accession, be in compliance with all relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, 
including the Agreement on Import Licensing Pr ocedures.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments.] 
Question 29 Paragraph 328 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  The response to Question 59 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 appears to state that the CU Parties that have joined the WTO do not 
intend to bring the Agreement on Non-Ta riff Regulation into conformity with 
WTO provisions.   
- Please clarify.   
- In light of the treaty status of these Agreements for CU Parties, i.e., they 
supersede domestic legislation, we belie ve think that any language in these 
Agreements that provides for something that is not WTO consistent should be 
changed.   
- We seek amendment of the CU legislation. 
Answer: 
In accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on Functioning of the Customs Union in the Framework 
of the Multilateral Trading System, CU Parties are required to adopt measures to align the CU legal 
framework with the WTO Agreements, including commitments undertaken upon accession by the 
CU Parties.  Meanwhile, provisions of the WTO Agreements shall prevail over the corresponding 
CU Agreements and Decisions.  
Pursuant to the Decision No. 21 of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council "On Realization of 
Basic Directions of Integration" of 19 Decemb er 2012, the CU Parties are in the process of 
codification of CU treaties and regulations, including the Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation. Relevant amendments, aimed at bringing CU legal framework with Kazakhstan's WTO commitments, will be incorporated into the draft codified document by 1 May 2014. 
Question 30 
Paragraph 369 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  The response to Question 70 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 states "Amendment to the CU Regulation "On the Order of Entry into 
the Customs Territory of the Customs Union an d Removal of the Customs Territory of the 
Customs Union of Encryption (cryptographic) Means" is in the final stage of approval 
between the CU Parties". 
- When can we expect to see these amendments? 
- If it is not already enacted, please place this on the legislative action plan list.   
Answer: 
The amendment is still in the process of approval  between the CU Parties. The Regulation "On the 
Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union and Removal of the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union of Encryption (c ryptographic) Means" is planned to be amended 
mid-2013.  The Amendment is placed on the Legislative Action Plan of Kazakhstan. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Question 31 
Paragraph 384 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Please confirm that this commitment 
covers STDs.   
Answer: 
Commitment stipulated in paragraph 384 of the draft Working Party Report with regard to 
compliance with all relevant provisions of the WT O Agreement, including the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures, covers all goods imports of which are subject to non-tariff regulation within 
the CU.  The List of Goods Subject to Bans and Restrictions on Importation and Exportation by 
Parties of the Customs Union of the Eurasian Economic Community in Trade with Third Countries, approved by the Decision No. 134 of Commission Co llegium "On Normative Legal Acts in the Area 
of Non-tariff Regulation" of 16 August 2012, includes STDs.  
- Customs Valuation 
Question 32 Paragraph 396 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  What is the general time-frame for 
processing appeals to a senior official? 
Answer: 
The general time-frame for processing appeals to a senior official is described in paragraph [398] 
of the draft Working Party Report. 
 398. … According to Article 8 of Law No. 221 "On Procedure of Review of Natural and 
Juridical Persons' Requests" of 12 January 2007, requests of natural and juridical persons, 
which did not need the customs official to obtain information from other State bodies or their 
officials, had to be reviewed within 15 calendar days.  Requests that required a customs 
official to obtain information from other State bodies and their officials had to be reviewed 
within 30 calendar days.  The term could be prolonged for no more than 30 calendar days. 
The reference in paragraph [396] to paragraph [398] has been deleted due to a technical error.  
The reference to paragraph [398] in paragraph [396] will be restored in the next revision of the 
draft Working Party Report, as following:   
 396.  Concerning the right of appeal, she said  that Article 9 of the CU Customs Code and 
Article 17 of the Customs Code of Kazakhstan provided for the right of appeal and stated 
that any person had the right to appeal against decisions made by the customs bodies, actions (inaction) of the customs body or its officials in accordance with procedures and 
time-frames established by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  In accordance 
with Article 12 of Law No. 221 "On Order of Re view of Requests of Natural and Juridical 
Persons" of 12 January 2007, the decisions of  authorities (State and local Government 
bodies), and the actions (inaction) of official s, could be appealed to a senior official.  
The general time-frame for processing appeals to a senior official was described in 
paragraph 398 of this Report.   In cases wher e there was no senior official, or where the 
appellant did not agree with the decision of th e senior official, the appellant could appeal 
directly to the court without exhausting all avenues of administrative appeal.  This principle was also confirmed in Article 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Kazakhstan of 13 July 1999.  In this case, appeals had to be resolved in the court within one month, as 
stipulated in Article 174 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Kazakhstan of 13 July 1999.  Thus, 
importers could appeal against decisions made by the customs body to a senior customs official or to the court.  No penalty was attached to the choice to appeal. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 21 - 
 
  - Anti-dumping, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Regimes 
Question 33 In Question 79 of WT/ACC/KAZ/71, we requ ested more information on Kazakhstan's 
(and as appropriate, the Customs Union's) outstanding Trade Remedy cases and on how 
Kazakhstan and its CU Partners intend to ensure that these cases are reviewed for 
consistency with the WTO Agreement.  
- Please provide a list of current CU trad e remedy investigations, indicating the 
CU Party that requested the investigatio n and the prospective timelines for their 
completion. 
Answer: 
All the trade remedy measures applied in the Customs Union, and Kazakhstan particularly, have 
been introduced in accordance with the WTO Agre ements.  Kazakhstan ensures the consistency of 
the trade remedy measures applied in the Republic  of Kazakhstan and the Customs Union with the 
WTO Agreements by taking the commitment envisaged in paragraph [463]:  "The representative 
of Kazakhstan also confirmed that, from the date of WTO accession of the Kazakhstan, any 
interested party could request the initiation of a review of any trade remedy measure, applied on 
the date of accession or adopted subsequently, on the basis of an investigation or review launched 
before the WTO accession of Kazakhstan, identifying the elements of that measure, which were, in 
their view, not consistent with the above-mentioned WTO Agreement". 
The Agreement "On Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures to the 
Third Countries in the Transitional Period" of 19 November 2010 (hereinafter – the Transitional 
Period Agreement) also provides that after the application of anti-dumping, safeguard or 
countervailing measures interested parties may request a review of the measure in accordance with the Agreement on Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures to the 
Third Countries between the Republic of Bela rus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation of 25 January 2008 (hereina fter – the Agreement of 25 January 2008). 
The requested list of the ongoing CU trade remedy investigations will be provided in the 
paragraph (iv) of Annex 16. 
Question 34 Paragraph 447 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Please provide in the text the legal 
authority that provides protection of co nfidential information in trade remedy 
investigations. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes to add information describing protection of confidential information in the 
trade remedy investigations to paragraph [447] as follows:   
 447. In response to the request by a Member  to provide legal authority that provides 
protection of confidential information in trade remedy investigations, the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that confidential information provided by the interested parties to the 
investigating authority was protected by internal regulations of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission, Article 37 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008 and the Protocol on the Order 
on Submission to Authority Conducting the Investigation the Information including 
Confidential Information for the Purposes of Safeguards, Anti-dumping and Countervailing 
Investigations of 19 November 2010.  In particular, Article 37 of the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 stipulated that confidential information could not be disclosed without 
permission of the interested party which submitted the information.  Interested parties 
providing confidential information also had to provide a non-confidential summary of the 
information.  She further added that in accordance with Article 37 of the CU Agreement of 
25 January 2008, a person responsible for the disclosure of the confidential information WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 22 - 
 
  provided to the Commission was legally responsible in accordance with the legislation of the 
country hosting the Commission (currently hosted by the Russian Federation). 
Question 35 Paragraphs 460-462 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 provide information on changes to 
some of Kazakhstan's domestic legislation on  trade remedies (e.g., the legal instruments 
listed in paragraph 432).  However, it does not appear that there is any information in 
the text of this section as to the current relationship between Kazakhstan's domestic 
legislation and the relevant CU legal in struments in applying trade remedies. 
- Please include information in the text of  this section describing how Kazakhstan's 
domestic legislation interacts with CU legal instruments in the application of 
trade remedies in Kazakhstan. 
Answer: 
The requested information will be added to paragraph [462] follows:  
 "462.  Several important changes had been introduced to the Law No. 337-1 "On Safeguard 
Measures for Domestic Market upon Importation of Goods".  Namely, the definitions of key 
terms used in the law – such as domestic industry, serious injury and threat of serious injury – had been modified in accordance with the definitions of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  The procedure for the application of provisional safeguard measures and, in 
particular, refund procedures had also been adjusted.  Opportunities would be provided to all interested parties to present evidence and express their views.  A provision that 
envisaged progressive liberalization of safeguard measures after their first year of 
application had been added.  The representative of the Republic of Kazakhstan noted that 
provisions of the national laws and regulations on trade remedy measures applied in 
Kazakhstan to the extent that they did not contradict to the CU Agreement of 
25 January 2008." 
Question 36 
We would seek a clarification concerning page 341 - Annex 16, where the trade remedy 
measures applied are listed.  Measure No. 8 "Stainless steel tubes" was extended for an 
additional two years (i.e. period of app lication should run until November 2014) 
according to our best knowledge.  Could Kazakhstan please confirm? 
Answer: 
The safeguard measure on imports of stainless steel tubes was extended for additional two years 
by the EEC Collegium Decision No. 143 of 23 August  2012.  The decision was based on the results 
of the sunset review conducted in accordan ce with the Agreement of 25 January 2008 on 
Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures to the Third Countries 
between the Republic of Belarus, the Republic  of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation.  
Please find the updated list of currently applied trade measures attached in Annex 16.   
Question 37 
A Member requests clarificat ion concerning the following: 
This Member has concerns as regards the Law No. 337-1 of 28 December 1998 
"On Measures to Protect the Domestic Market  from Imports" and urges Kazakhstan to 
bring it in compliance with the WTO. 
Answer: 
Currently, application of trade measures within the Customs Union is regulated by the CU 
Agreement "On Application of Safeguard, Anti-dum ping and Countervailing Measures to the Third 
Countries between the Republic of Belaru s, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Russian Federation" of 25 January 2008 (hereinaft er – the Agreement of 25 January 2008), which 
was brought in compliance with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GA TT 1994 and WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  At the same time, Kazakhstan is in the process of revision of the 
following national legal acts:  Law No. 337-1 of "On Safeguard Measures for Domestic Market upon 
Importation of Goods" of 28 December 1998, Law No. 421-1 "On Anti-Dumping Measures" of 13 July 1999 and Law No. 441-1 "On Subsidies and Countervailing Measures" of 16 July 1999 with 
the purpose of bringing it into conformity with the CU Agreement of 25 January 2008 and the 
relevant WTO Agreements.  
Question 38 We would like to point out paragraph 1 of Article 37 of the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 on Application of Safegu ard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures in Respect of Third Countries betw een the Republic of Belarus, Republic of 
Kazakhstan and Russian Federation, which states  that confidential information is not to 
be disclosed without permission from the in terested party submitting it, unless under 
circumstances provided by the national law of  ea c h P a rty.   T hi s  M ember r eque s t s  t he 
Republic of Kazakhstan to clarify under wh ich circumstances confidential information 
can be disclosed according to the Kazakhstan legislation? 
Answer: 
The provisions of the CU Agreement of 25 Janua ry 2008 have been amended by the Protocol of 
18 October 2011 on Amendments and Addenda to the CU Agreement of 25 January 2008. 
According to paragraph 1 of Article 37 of the amen ded CU Agreement, confidential information is 
not disclosed without permission of the interested party submitting it.  Therefore, the provision of 
the CU Agreement of 25 January 2008 on disclosing confidential information in the circumstances 
envisaged by the national legislation of the CU Pa rties has been eliminated by the Protocol and is 
no longer effective.  
Question 39 
This Member expresses concern about applic ation of safeguard measures to certain 
products by the Republic of Kazakhstan.  Th is Member considers that maintaining such 
measures contradicts the existing Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 337-1 of 
28 December 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Domestic Market from Imports", 
Article 13a of the Free Trade Agreement of 15 April 1994 as amended on 2 April 1999 
and provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
This Member requests the Republic of Kazakhstan to undertake the following 
commitment:  "The representative of Kaza khstan said that the Resolution of the 
Government of Kazakhstan No. 1055 of 14 September 2011 would be revoked before 
accession to the WTO.  The Working Party took note of this commitment". 
Answer: 
The safeguard measure on chocolates was introduced by the Resolution of the Government of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1055 of 14 September 2011 for a period of three years and expires on 
24 September 2014.  The measure is being applied by  Kazakhstan on the basis of the investigation 
carried out in compliance with the national and the CU legislation.  In the course of the 
investigation, the increased imports of chocolates were detected to cause a serious injury to the domestic industry.  
Taking into account that the measure does not contradict to the WTO rules, Kazakhstan is not 
ready to accept the proposed commitment.  As previously stated, Kazakhstan is ready to conduct bilateral consultations with this Member on the issue.  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Question 40 
This Member also expresses concern about the principle applied to the expedited 
reviews that led to the extension of the measures applied by the CU.  As the review established that producers in the CU accounting for not less than 25% of total 
production in the CU supported the measur e, this measure was extended in the CU. 
Since such an application of measures does not meet the requirements of the Agreement 
on Safeguards, this Member requests the Republic of Kazakhstan to undertake the 
following commitment:  "The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that the measures 
applied on the territory of the Republic of  Kazakhstan after such expedited reviews 
would be brought in full conformity with the Agreement on Safeguards.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment". 
Answer: 
The increased imports and existence of injuries wa s proved in the course of investigations that 
were carried out at the national level prior to extension of the currently applied trade remedy 
measures in the territory of Kazakhstan.  The domestic industry criteria of 25% constitute a 
substantial part of CU producers in the underst anding of the CU Agreement of 25 January 2008.  
Hence, application of such measures does not contradict the requirements of the WTO Agreement 
on Safeguards. 
In addition, according to Article 2 of the CU Agreement "On Application of Safeguard, 
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures to the Third Countries between the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation in the Transitional Period" of 
19 November 2010, upon application of the anti-d umping, safeguard or countervailing measures 
by the CU parties, interested parties may request a sunset review of the measures in accordance with the Agreement of 25 January 2008.  
The measures applied on the territory of the Cust oms Union on the basis of the expedited reviews 
do not contradict to the WTO rules, Kazakhstan is therefore not ready to accept the proposed 
commitment.  Taking into account that the decisions to apply the measures based on expedited 
reviews were taken by the Eurasian Economic Commission, this Member could request initiation of 
sunset reviews of the concerned measures by the EEC.   
B. EXPORT REGULATIONS - Customs Tariffs, Fees and Charges for Serv ices Rendered, Application of Internal 
Taxes to Exports 
Question 41 We note that paragraph 471 of WT/ACC/SP EC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 has been redrafted and 
wish to highlight that the new wording is unfortunate.  Indeed the EU-Kazakhstan 
bilateral agreement on export duties did no t in itself provide for non-MFN treatment. 
Furthermore, this Agreement expired on 31 December 2006 and has not been replaced.  
Kazakhstan is kindly requested therefore to amend the following paragraphs of the draft 
Working Party Report as follows:   
 466.  The representative of Kazakhstan sa id that Kazakhstan applied export duties 
on an MFN basis.  However, exports under the free trade regime between members 
of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and under the bilateral free trade 
agreements in force with all other CIS co untries were exempt from the payment of 
export duties, except for Moldova.  At the same time, in accordance with a 
multilateral FTA signed by the CIS countri es (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the 
Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, the Russian Fe deration, Tajikistan and Ukraine) on 
18 October 2011, Kazakhstan had reserved the right to apply export duties for 
exports of certain goods to other part ies of the Agreement, except for the 
CU member-States.  Upon its entry into  force, the new Agreement would replace 
bilateral FTAs of the CIS countries with Kazakhstan (for more details please see WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 25 - 
 
  the section "Trade Agreements").  She fu rther noted that the Agreement between 
Kazakhstan and the European Union on Tr ade in Certain Steel Products approved 
by the Government Resolution No. 467 of 6 June 2007, of 2005 had abolished 
customs duties, charges or any similar me asures on exports of ferrous scrap and 
waste to the EU falling under heading 7 204 of the EU Combined Nomenclature 
(paragraph 3, Article 2). 
470.  With respect to application of export duties to CIS countries, the 
representative of Kazakhstan stated that  export duty exemptions applied to CIS 
countries were applied in accordance  with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.  
In particular, the volume of Kazakhstan's exports to CIS countries subject to export duties was less than 1% of the total volume of goods exported to CIS 
countries.  She held the view that Kaza khstan's participation in FTAs was in 
compliance with Article XXIV:8(b) sinc e the duties were eliminated on 
substantially all the trade between the FTA' s participants.  As regards exports of 
non-ferrous scrap to the European Union,  she noted that the bilateral Agreement 
between Kazakhstan and the European Unio n on Trade in Certain Steel Products 
had expired, without replacement, on 31 December 2006.   
471.  She furthermore confirmed that, upon  Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, 
the provision of the bilateral agreement between Kazakhstan and the European 
Union providing for the non-MFN treatment of its ferrous scrap exports to the 
European Union would be invalidated an d full MFN treatment of such exports 
would be applied. In her view, export duties were a legitimate trade policy 
instrument which was not prohibited by the WTO Agreements. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will reflect the proposed changes in the draft Working Party Report as follows: 
 466.  The representative of Kazakhstan said that Kazakhstan applied export duties on an 
MFN basis.  However, exports under the free trade regime between members of the 
Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) and under the bilateral free trade agreements in 
force with all other CIS countries were exempt from the payment of export duties, except for Moldova.  At the same time, in accordance  with a multilateral FTA signed by the CIS 
countries (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, the 
Russian Federation, Tajikistan and Ukraine) on 18 October 2011, Kazakhstan had reserved 
the right to apply export duties for exports of certain goods to other parties of the Agreement, except for the CU member-State s.  Upon its entry into force, the new 
Agreement would replace bilateral FTAs of the CIS countries with Kazakhstan (for more 
details please see the section "Trade Agreemen ts").  She further noted that the Agreement 
between Kazakhstan and the European Union on  Trade in Certain Steel Products approved 
by the Government Resolution No. 467 of 6 June 2007, approved by the Government 
Resolution No. 738 of 19 July 2005 had abolished customs duties, charges or any similar 
measures on exports of ferrous scrap and waste to the EU falling under heading 7204 of the 
EU Combined Nomenclature (paragraph 3, Article 2). 
 470.  With respect to application of export duties to CIS countries, the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that export duty exemptio ns applied to CIS countries were applied in 
accordance with Article XXIV of the GATT 1994.  In particular, the volume of Kazakhstan's 
exports to CIS countries subject to export duties was less than 1% of the total volume of 
goods exported to CIS countries.  She held the view that Kazakhstan's participation in FTAs was in compliance with Article XXIV:8(b) since the duties were eliminated on substantially 
all the trade between the FTA's participants.  In  her view, export duties were a legitimate 
trade policy instrument which was not prohibited by WTO Agreements.  With regard to 
exports of ferrous scrap to the European Un ion, she noted that the bilateral Agreement 
between the Republic of Kazakhstan and the European Union on Trade in Certain Steel 
Products, which was providing for non-MFN treatment of Kazakhstan's ferrous scrap exports 
to the European Union, had expired, wi thout replacement, on 31 December 2006. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 26 - 
 
   471.  She furthermore confirmed that, upon Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, the 
provision of the bilateral agreement between Kazakhstan and the European Union providing 
for the non-MFN treatment of its ferrous scrap exports to the European Union would be 
invalidated and full MFN treatment of such expo rts would be applied.  In her view, export 
duties were a legitimate trade policy instrument which was not prohibited by the 
WTO Agreements. 
C. INTERNAL POLICIES AFFECT ING FOREIGN TRADE IN GOODS 
- Industrial Policy, including Subsidies 
Question 42 We are reviewing Kazakhstan's Subsidy Noti fication and a number of its development 
plans.  We are working with Kazakhstan bila terally to clarify specific programmes that 
we have identified as needing further review.   
- We reserve our rights to return to this issue later, to request any necessary 
legislative changes to eliminat e prohibited subsidies.   
Paragraph 518 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  In Question 79 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72, we 
asked for the elaboration of Members langua g e  i n  t h i s  p a r a g r a p h .   W e  r e p e a t  o u r  
request.   
- Please add the following:  "... WTO SCM Agreement.  Kazakhstan should provide 
specific assurances that none of its the fi nancial benefits offered to exporters in its 
development programmes would support specific export growth performance 
targets.  This Member requested... ." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has included the Members concern (underlined) in paragraph 516 of the 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7: 
 516.  A Member asked Kazakhstan to provide more information on the "Programme on 
Investment Attraction, Special Economic Zone Development and Export Promotion in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014", includin g information on the eligibility criteria for 
companies to receive incentives under this programme, focusing on export promotion 
programmes.  The Member also expressed concer n that the Programme listed as one of its 
tasks the "financial backing of exporters" and two of its target indicators set to be reached 
by 2015 as:  (i) ensuring the export of at leas t 50% of the increased output of the SEZs and 
(ii) increasing non-primary exports by at least 40%.  The Member sought specific 
assurances that none of the financial backing of exporters in this or Kazakhstan's other 
development programmes was intended to ensure or support the attainment of specific 
export performance targets of the recipient firms.  
We will include Kazakhstan response in paragraph 517 (strike-out/underlined):  
 517.  The representative of Kazakhstan replied that most of the measures aimed at 
promoting investments and exports envisaged in the Programme did not represent a subsidy 
in accordance with the definition provided in the SCM Agreement.  These measures included:  (i) activities to assess the effectiveness of measures undertaken by the Government to improve the business climate; (ii) improvemen t of customs and border service activities; 
(iii) improvement of conditions of stay of foreign labour on the territory of Kazakhstan; 
monitoring the relevant government authorities'  work with investors; (iv) development of 
legal acts; (v) service support for exporters; (vi) organization of trade missions and fairs 
abroad; (vii) publishing brochures and books on  Kazakhstan's producers and their products.  
She further explained that "financial backing of  exporters" in the Programme referred to the 
state support of financing export operations through the Export Credit Insurance Corporation 
"KazExpoGarant" described in paragraph [515].  The target indicators:  "to ensure the 
export of at least 50% of the increased output of the SEZs" and "to increase non-primary WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 27 - 
 
  exports by at least 40%", set to be reached by 2015, did not involve export subsidies.  
These were general targets for implementation of the programme, and as such, they were not used as a condition for a particular subsid y measure.  She added that the main purpose 
for establishing SEZs was the diversification of the economy through facilitating production 
of high value-added goods.  Therefore, st ate support measures provided within SEZs 
included tax and customs duty preferences aimed at attracting investments and stimulating production that were not contingent upon export performance. Detailed description of 
preferences applied in SEZs was provided in the section "Free Zones, Special Economic 
Zones".  The representative of Kazakhstan further noted that subsidies envisaged in 
Kazakhstan's development programmes were not contingent upon export performance, and, 
thus, could not be considered as prohibited export subsidies.  The representative of 
Kazakhstan further confirmed that preferences stipulated in Kazakhstan's development 
programmes, including the "Programme on Investment Attraction, Special Economic Zone 
Development and Export Promotion in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014", were not 
contingent upon export performance, therefor e, they did not represent prohibited export 
subsidies. 
- Technical Barriers to Trade, Standards and Certification 
(a) Legal Framework 
Question 43 Question 82 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 requests that Kazakhstan provide copies of all the new 
relevant EEC Council and Collegium Decisions and consequent regulations that regulate 
standardization, technical regulations and conf ormity assessment in the Customs Union.   
- We are not looking for copies of the technical regulations, rather of the 
CU Commission legal instruments regulating  the technical regulating process.   
- Could Kazakhstan please provide (a) a comprehensive list of the new 
legal instruments, and (b) copies or the lo cation of copies already provided, of the 
relevant CU Commission legal inst ruments for Working Party review?  
E.g., EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 of 25 December 2012. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will provide copies of the following relevant CU Commission, EEC Council and 
Collegium Decisions on technical regulation with the next submission of documents to the 
WTO Secretariat: 
1. The EEC Collegium Decision No. 306 "On the Regulation on Procedures for Development and 
Approval of Lists of International and Regional  Standards, and in their Absence – National 
(State) Standards of CU member-States, that Ensure Compliance with Technical Regulations 
of the CU and Necessary for Conducting Co nformity Assessment" of 25 December 2012; 
2. the EEC Council Decision No. 103 "On the Schedule for Development of Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union for 2012-2013" of 23 November 2012;  
3. the EE С Council Decision No. 102 "On Amendments into the Unified List of Products in 
Respect of which Mandatory Requirements are be Established within the Customs Union" of 23 November 2012;  
4. the CU Commission Decision No. 621 "On the Regulation on the Application of Model 
Schemes of Conformity Assessment (Confirmat ion) in the Technical Regulations of the 
Customs Union" of 7 April 2011;  
5. the CU Commission Decision No. 526 "On the Un ified List of Products in Respect of which 
Mandatory Requirements are Established within  the Framework of the Customs Union" of 
28 January 2011;  
6. the EEC Collegium Decision No. 294 "On the Regulation on the Procedures for Importation to 
the CU Territory of Goods (Products) in Respect of which Mandatory Requirements are Established within the Customs Union" of 25 December 2012;  
7. the EEC Collegium Decision No. 161 "On the Consultative Committee on Technical 
Regulation, Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" of 18 September 2012;  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 28 - 
 
  8. the EEC Collegium Decision No. 245 "On the dr aft Protocol on Introduction of Amendments 
into the Agreement on Uniform Principles of Technical Regulation" of 4 December 2012;  
9. the EEC Collegium Decision No. 226 "On Recognizing Some of the Decision of the 
CU Commission as Repealed with Regard to Adoption of Declaration of Conformity of 
Products to Mandatory Requirements of a Common Form within the CU" of 
13 November 2012; and 
10. Resolution of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 321 "On Recommendation on Model 
Structure of the Technical Regulation of the EurAsEC" of 21 October 2006.  
Question 44 Paragraph 522 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev .7 states that:  "In Kazakhstan, 
a declaration of conformity for goods manufac tured outside of Kazakhstan could be done 
under Law No. 603 "On Technical Regulation " of 9 November 2004 (hereafter - Law 
"On Technical Regulation"). 
- Does this facility still exist?  What is  its relationship to the requirements of 
CU Decision No. 620?   
- How will it be affected by the amendments to CU Decision 620 that will allow 
foreign manufacturers located outside the territory of the Customs Union to 
demonstrate the conformity of products imported into the territory of the CU 
through the use of declaration of conformity of a common CU form? 
Answer: 
Amendments into Decision No. 620 provided for a possibility for foreign manufacturers located 
outside the CU territory to demonstrate the conformi ty of products imported into the CU territory 
through the use of declaration of conformity of a common CU form.  This amendment did not affect the possibility for foreign manufactures to issue declaration of conformity in accordance with 
national legislation of the CU Parties (i.e. in Kazakhstan - in accordance with the Law No. 603 "On 
Technical Regulation").  Currently, in accordance  with Decision No. 620, depending on where the 
product is going to be circulated – in Kazakhstan or the CU, at the applicants choice, conformity of 
goods produced by foreign manufacturers located outside the CU territory could be demonstrated 
either through the use of declaration of conformity of the CU common form, or declaration of conformity in accordance with the national legislation of the CU Party. 
Question 45 
Paragraph 524 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  We are very concerned that the 
commitment language in this paragraph was eliminated and replaced with descriptive 
language.  We seek restoration of the commitment, as follows: 
 "The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that in order to comply with the WTO 
TBT Agreement, and in particular Articl e 2.1 thereof, that the discriminatory 
treatment had been eliminated through the amendment of CU Commission 
Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Un ified List's Update with Regard to 
Products Subjected to Mandatory Confor mity Assessment (Confirmation) within 
the Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", to ensure that 
foreign manufacturers not located within the territory of the CU would be able to 
demonstrate the conformity of the products imported into the territory of the 
CU through use of declarations of conformity using the CU common form.  The Working Party took note of this commitment." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees to reintroduce the commitment with some technical editions: 
 524.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that in order to comply with the WTO 
TBT Agreement, and in particular Article 2. 1 thereof, discriminatory treatment had been 
eliminated through the amendment of the CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to  Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Assessment (Confirmation) within the Framew ork of the CU with Issuance of Single 
Documents" approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010, to ensure 
that foreign manufacturers not located within the territory of the CU would be able to 
demonstrate the conformity of the products imported into the territory of the CU through 
use of declarations of conformity using the CU common form.  The Working Party took note 
of this commitment] 
Question 46 
Paragraph 526 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Pl ease clarify in the text the difference 
between the Unified List in CU Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011, and the Unified List 
updated in CU Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011?   As appropriate, please make it clear 
that Decision No. 620 updates Decision No. 526. 
Answer: 
The following description will be added into the text: 
 526 bis.  A Member asked Kazakhstan to clarify the difference between the Unified List 
approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 and the Unified List approved by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 526.  The Representative of Kazakhstan replied that the Unified List approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 was provisionally applied in order to 
ensure free movement of goods on the CU terri tory until adoption of relevant CU technical 
regulations.  It included products for which CU countries:  
- established similar mandatory requirements;  
- used similar conformity assessment schemes; 
- used similar or comparable testing and measurement methods.  
In accordance with the Explanatory Notes to the Unified List approved by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 620, for products included in the list, at the applicant's choice, 
certificates of conformity and declarations of conformity of a common CU form or certificates 
of conformity and declaration of conformity issu ed according to the national legislation of the 
CU Parties could be used.  Products included  into the Unified List approved by the CU 
Commission Decision No. 620 could move freely on the entire CU territory if they had 
undergone conformity assessment procedures in  one of the CU Parties and the following 
conditions were met: 
- certificates of conformity or declarations of conformity of a common CU form were 
issued;  
- the certifying body was included into the Unified Register of Certification Bodies and 
Testing Laboratories of the CU;  
- the testing laboratory was included into th e Unified Register of Certification Bodies 
and Testing Laboratories of the CU.  
Products not included in the Unified List a pproved by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 
were subject to mandatory conformity assessmen t (confirmation of conformity) according to 
the national legislation of the Customs Union Parties.  Products for which Customs Union technical regulations were adopted had to be ex cluded from the Unified List approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 620.  She further explained that the Unified List approved by 
the CU Commission Decision No. 526 included  product groups for which CU technical 
regulations had to be developed. For products in cluded into the Unified List approved by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 526, for which no relevant CU technical regulations had been 
yet enforced, CU Parties applied national technical regulations.  However, the CU Parties 
could not apply national technical regulations to products not included in the Unified List approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 526. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 30 - 
 
  (c) Technical Regulations, International and National Standards, and Conformity 
Assessment Procedures 
- (i) Technical Regulations Question 47 
Paragraph 539 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Per the response to Question 91  of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72, please add, "… 2006, whic h was still used even though technical 
regulations were not developed throug h EurAsEC institutions, because no 
recommendation on the model structure of the technical regulations has been adopted 
within the CU." 
We also suggest that the information in the response to Question 83  of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72, i.e., that "Cu rrently, EurAsEC does not play any role in technical 
regulation for the Customs Union.  Develo pment of EurAsEC technical regulations has 
been suspended by the Decision of th e EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 575 of 
19 October 2011.  Now, only CU technical regu lations are being developed," be added to 
this paragraph in the appropriate location. 
Answer: 
The proposed additions will be made in the text as follows: 
539.  The CU technical regulations were adopted only with the purpose of:  protecting 
human, animal and plant life or health, property, and the environment; ensuring energy efficiency and resource saving; preventing practices that might mislead consumers (Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles).  The CU 
Parties were not allowed to adopt CU technical regulations for any other purposes.  
CU technical regulations established requirements for products and product-related processes, in particular:  maintenance, operation, storage, transportation, realisation and 
utilisation, as well as identification rules and conformity assessment forms and schemes, 
and could also contain requirements for terminology, packaging, labelling and SPS requirements.  CU technical regulations ha d to be developed in accordance with 
recommendations on a model structure laid down in Resolution of the Interstate Council of 
the EurAsEC No. 321 of 21 October 2006, which was still used even though technical 
regulations were not developed through the EurAsEC institutions, because no 
recommendation on the model structure of the technical regulations had been adopted 
within the CU."  The representative of Ka zakhstan affirmed that Article 4.4 of the 
CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles established that the relevant 
international standards and other documents (i.e., rules, directives and recommendations or 
any other documents accepted by international standardizing organizations) would be used 
as the basis for elaboration of CU technical regulations, except in cases where such documents were absent, or did not conform to the purposes of the technical regulations of 
the Customs Union, in particular, due to climatic and geographical factors or technological 
and other particularities.  The CU Commission Decision No. 527, which stipulated regulations for development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of technical regulations on the territories of the CU Parties, had been replaced by a new regulation adopted by the EEC 
Council Decision No. 48.  The new Regulation stipulated in more detailed way provisions on 
development of draft technical regulations, including public consultation procedures, 
preparation of draft technical regulations with due account of comments and proposals 
provided during public consultations.  She further noted that currently the EurAsEC did not 
play any role in technical regulation for the Customs Union.  Development of EurAsEC 
technical regulations had been suspended by th e Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council 
No. 575 of 19 October 2011.  Now, only CU technical regulations were being developed. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Question 48 
Paragraph 540 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:   - Please lay out in this paragraph the full ro le, if any, RK Law No. 603 plays in laying 
out the responsibilities of the TR developer.   
- Please outline, somewhere in the te xt, all of the responsibilities of the 
development of TRs before/before they are transferred to the Commission for 
drafting. 
Answer: 
The following information will be added into the text: 
 548 bis.  In response to a Member's request to explain the full role that the Law No. 603 
"On Technical Regulation" played in laying ou t the responsibilities of the developer of 
technical regulation, the representative of Kazakhstan explained that the Law "On Technical 
Regulation" No. 603 contained general provisions on development of technical regulations. In accordance with the Law, state bodies authorised to establish mandatory rules and norms 
had to prepare proposals on development, amendment or cancellation of technical 
regulations taking into account proposals of interested parties, and had to submit them to the authorised body on technical regulation.  The Law stipulated the following obligations of 
the developer of technical regulation: 
- to publish notifications about the development of draft technical regulations, 
amendments and (or) addenda, or cancellation of technical regulations, in the official publications and public information system not later than a month after the beginning 
of development of draft technical regulati ons,  amendments and (or) addenda, or 
cancellation of technical regulations; 
- to organize public discussions of draft technical regulations; 
- to revise draft technical regulations taking into account received  comments;  
- to publish technical regulations in the official publication of the authorised body and 
public information system; 
- to provide answers to comments received during the public consultation to the 
interested parties at their request. 
Question 49 Paragraph 550 bis. of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Th e response to Question 131 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/71 states that "In Kazakhstan, te chnical requirements in the fields of 
telecommunication and nuclear energy are subject to the Law "On Technical 
Regulations" of 9 November 2004." 
- Please include this information in paragraph 550 bis with any other information 
from the response to Question 131 of WT/ACC/KAZ/71 that is necessary to establish that conformity in these sectors is regulated by Law No. 603. 
Answer: 
The following paragraph will be added into the text: 
 550 bis.  In response to a specific question, the Representative of Kazakhstan explained that 
in Kazakhstan technical requirements in the fields of telecommunication and nuclear energy 
were subject to the Law on Technical Regulation of 9 November 2004.  The mandatory 
requirements to products and (or) the processe s of their life cycle were established in the 
following national technical regulations:  
- in the field of nuclear energy:  "Nuclear and Radiation Safety of Nuclear Power Plants", 
approved by Government Resolution No. 683 of 1 July 2010; "Nuclear and Radiation 
Safety of Nuclear Research Facilities", approved by Government Resolution of No. 684 WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 32 - 
 
  of 1 July 2010; "Nuclear and Radiation Safe ty", approved by Government Resolution 
No. 768 of 30 July 2010. 
- in the field of telecommunications:  "General Requirements for Safety, Functional and 
Technical Requirements for Telecommunication Equipment During Search Operations", 
approved by Government Resolution No. 805 of 6 August 2010.  
- (iv) Disposition of Mandatory Na tional Standards of Kazakhstan 
Question 50 
Paragraph 559  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  A qualification has been added to this 
commitment paragraph.  This does not need  to be included.  Please remove it. 
Answer: 
In order to ensure compliance with the TBT Agreement Kazakhstan modified the commitment 
language using the exact wording of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement and made a reference to the 
TBT Agreement.  We believe that the reference to the TBT Agreement does not cause a problem in this commitment, but rather it ensures that the provisions of the TBT Agreement would be 
respected.   
- (v) Conformity Assessment Procedures in cluding the Accreditation of Conformity 
Assessment Bodies 
Question 51 
Paragraph 567  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 states that "the CU Parties had 
developed a draft Agreement establishing the types of administrative violations in the 
sphere of technical regulation and the application of sanitary, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary measures."   
- When was this done, what is it, and when do we get a chance to see it? 
Answer: 
Currently, the draft Agreement on Harmonisation of Legislations of member-States of the 
Customs Union with Regard to Establishment of Administrative Liability for Violation of Requirements of Legal Basis of the Customs Union in the Field of Technical Regulation, Application 
of Sanitary, Veterinary-Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures is undergoing internal approval 
procedures in the CU Parties.   
The draft Agreement establishes the major approaches and principles for harmonisation of 
legislations of the CU Parties in terms of establishment of administrative liability for violation of 
requirements of the CU legislation in the field of  technical regulation and SPS measures, as well as 
procedures to taking administrative actions against prosecutors.  
We will translate the draft Agreement and pr ovide it to the Working Party Members.   
Question 52 
Paragraph 569  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  We reserve on the insertion of 
"… and/or any CU Party…" in this commitment te xt.  This is Kazakhstan's commitment.   
- Article 5.4 of the TBT Agreement extends to the WTO Member, which has the 
responsibility of conforming to WTO.  There should not be any exclusion for CU Parties for this commitment. 
- If we have misunderstood, please clarify. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer: 
In the Customs Union conformity assessment procedures are established in the CU technical 
regulations and applied in the CU Parties for all pr oducts subject to conformity assessment.  Thus, 
international standards on the basis of which these conformity assessment procedures are 
developed shall be applicable not only in Kazakhstan, but in all CU Parties.  
Question 53 Paragraph 581  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  This is a major change in the text of the 
commitment.  Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012, is the Regulation on Development, 
Adoption, Amendment and Cancellati on of Technical Regulations. 
EEC Collegium Decision No. 306 of 25 December 2012, is the Regulation on Procedures 
for Development and Approval of Lists of In ternational and Regional Standards, and in 
their Absence – National (State) Standard s of CU member-States, that Ensure 
Compliance with Technical Regulations of  the CU and Necessary for Conducting 
Conformity Assessment. 
- Please explain the difference and inte rrelationship of these two Decisions. 
- Please add the following text:  "… No. 48 of 20 June 2012, Regulation on 
Development, Adoption, Amendment and Ca ncellation of Technical Regulations 
for… ."   
- Is the information in this paragraph fu lly descriptive of all that EEC Decision 
No. 306 provides for? 
Answer: 
Decision No. 48 of 20 June 2012 establishes proc edures for development, adoption, amendment 
and cancellation of CU technical regulation.  The Reference to Decision No. 48 is incorrect, because this Decision does not contain procedures for development of rules and methods for ensuring 
compliance with CU technical regulations.  Proced ures for development of such rules and methods 
have been adopted by the separate EEC Collegium Decision No. 306 "On the Regulation on Procedures for Development and Approval of Lists of International and Regional Standards, and in 
their Absence – National (State) Standards of CU  member-States, that Ensure Compliance with 
Technical Regulations of the CU and Necessary for Conducting Conformity Assessment" of 25 December 2012.  This commitment paragraph describes the provisions of the EEC Decision No. 306. 
Question 54 
Paragraph 587  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  
- Please update the information in this paragraph concerning Kazakhstan's 
participation in ILAC and IAF, e.g., per the response to Question 128 in 
WT/ACC/KAZ/71. 
Answer: 
The information in paragraph 587 corresponds to our answer to Question 128 in WT/ACC/KAZ/71 
and will be updated as follows:  587.  In addition, in 2010 the National Center of Accreditation (hereinafter - NCA) had 
become full member of ILAC and had signed the Multilateral Agreement on Recognition of 
Testing Results (ILAC MRA).  In continuation of the work in this direction, on 
3 February 2011 the NCA had signed an agreemen t with ILAC on the use of ILAC MRA mark.  
The NCA concluded the licence agreements on use of ILAC MRA Laboratory Mark, on the 
basis of which the contracts on the use of a combined MRA Laboratory Mark were concluded.  
This MRA Mark signified that a laboratory issuing a testing report, a certificate of 
calibration/verification or other document, was accredited by the NCA, which was signatory 
of the ILAC MRA.  To date, 62 contracts with laboratories had been concluded.  The NCA was WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 34 - 
 
  also a full member of the "Pacific Accreditation Cooperation" (PAC) organization, which was 
a regional organization of the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), and a signatory to the PAC Multilateral Agreement on Products (MLA).  Membership in these organizations provided the basis for acceptance of test, inspection and calibration data issued by laboratories 
accredited by other ILAC and PAC members.  Moreover necessary procedures to join the IAF 
as a full member and join IAF Multilateral Agreement (MLA) had been completed.  The application was sent to the IAF Secretariat in 2012 and it would be considered in 
October 2013 at the IAF General Assembly.  In future, the NCA planned to continue its 
activity on joining multilateral agreements of the above-mentioned organizations in other 
areas. 
(d) Transparency 
Question 55 
Please add the information on CU Parties' enquiry points in the reply to Question 99 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 to this section. 
Answer: 
The following paragraph will be added into the text: 
 592 bis.  In response to a Member's question on notification procedures in the CU, the 
representative of Kazakhstan explained that taking into account that CU members acceded 
to the WTO separately, each of them had separate obligations on notification.  Thus, Kazakhstan and CU Parties that were also WTO members, in accordance with their commitments, would have to notify all draft CU technical regulations.  The notified drafts 
would be identical and have the same deadlines for comments.  All comments received from 
third countries would be sent by the CU members to the EEC.  The EEC had to process all the comments, publish them on the official website of the Commission and forward them to 
developer of the draft technical regulations (rel evant competent authority of the CU Party).  
Thus, the process established within the CU ensured that there was no duplication in considering the comments received on draft documents. 
Question 56 
Please indicate why Kazakhstan cannot comp ly with the request in Question 100 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 for confirmation of receipt of comments in its technical regulation 
process. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will confirm receipt of comments whenever comments are received from 
WTO Members on notified legislation.  
In accordance with the EEC Decision No. 48 information on acceptance or justification of 
non-acceptance of comments received will be published on the official website of the EEC.  
- Trade-Related Investment Measures 
Question 57 
P a r a g r a p h  1  o f  J O B / A C C / 3 1 / R e v . 2 :   P l e a s e  a d d :   " a n d  i n  t h e  r e q u i r e m e n t s  f o r  
procurement by other state owned enterpri ses in the Law on Procurement, No. 303 
(referred to in the Chapter on  Government Procurement)". 
- Paragraph 16 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  Plea se confirm that the TRIMs described in 
this section and the local content requir ements for procurement by SOEs and by 
firms in the National Welfare Holding Co mpany "Samruk-Kazyna" are the only local 
content requirements on goods enforced in law in Kazakhstan except for those 
applied by the government in its pr ocurement for immediate or ultimate WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 35 - 
 
  consumption in governmental use and not otherwise for resale or use in the 
production of goods for sale. 
Answer: 
The provision has been incorporated into paragraph 1.  
The following entities must apply local content requirements for procurement of goods:  
1. Subsurface users operating under subsurface use contracts concluded with the Government 
in accordance with the Law No. 291-IV "On Subsurface and its Use" of 24 June 2010 and Rules for 
Purchases of Goods, Works and Services in Performance of the Subsurface Use Operations, 
approved by the Government Resolution No. 1139 of 28 November 2007; 
2. Joint-stock companies and limited liability partnerships, 50% or more of shares owned by 
the Government, in accordance with the Law No. 303-III "On Government Procurement" of 
27 July 2007; 
3. The National Managing Holding - the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" in accordance 
with the Law No. 550-IV "On the National Welfar e Fund" of 1 February 2012 and the Rules for 
Procurement of Goods, Works and Services by th e NWF "Samruk-Kazyna", approved by the Board 
of Directors 26 May 2012;  
4. The National Managing Holding "KazAgro", the JSC "National Info- Сommunication Holding 
'Zerde'", the JSC "National Scientific and Technological Holding 'Parasat'" and national companies, 
that do not belong to national managing holdings or national holdings in accordance with the Model Rules of Procurement of Goods, Works an d Services Conducted by National Managing 
Holdings, National Holdings, and National Compan ies, approved by the Government Resolution 
No. 787 of 28 May 2009.   
The local content requirements apply to procurements conducted through open tender procedures 
only.  
The reply was incorporated into the text in paragraph 1 as following:  
"1.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that Kazakhstan applied local content 
requirements, in the form of preferences for purchase of locally produced goods, with a view 
to diversifying the national economy.  In accordance with Kazakhstan's legislation, local 
content requirements applied in procurement of goods by subsurface users within the framework of investment contracts in the oil and gas and mining sectors , in the automotive 
sector, in procurement of the National We lfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna", the National 
Managing Holding "KazAgro", the JSC "National Info-Communication Holding 'Zerde'", the 
JSC "National Scientific and Technological Holding 'Parasat'" and national companies, that do 
not belong to national managing holdings or national holdings (referred to in the Chapter on 
State Ownership, State-Trading Entities and Privatization) and in procurement by other state 
owned enterprises under the Law No. 303 "On Government Procurement" (referred to in the 
Chapter on Government Procurement). 
Question 58 
Please add the subheading "TRIMs in the Oil and Gas and Mining Sectors", preceding 
paragraph 2 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2. 
Answer: 
The subheading "TRIMs in the Oil and Gas and Mi ning Sectors" has been added into the text 
preceding paragraph 2 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2. WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Question 59 
Paragraph 6 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  Please add information to the section on fines 
levied on firms that do not meet their loca l content requirements, the legal authority and 
mechanism for their application, and any right of appeal.   
- Please include the following text:  "At a recent Forum on Local Content in the Oil 
and Gas Sector held 14 February in Astan a, the Ministry of Oil and Gas' Executive 
Secretary Kanatbek Safinov stated that local content in 2012 totalled 12.2% for 
goods, 49% for works, and 66.8% for services.  He added that subsoil users not 
compliant with their contractually obligat ed local content requirements received 
fines of US$2.3 million in 2012, double the amount collected in 2011." 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees with the comment.  However, in order to maintain the structure and flow of the 
text, the requested information has been included into paragraph 4 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2 as follows:  
 "4. The procedure on purchase of goods made by subsurface users was specified in the 
Government Resolution No. 1139 "On Approval of Rules for Purchases of Goods, Works and Services in Performance of the Subsurface Use Operations" of 28 November 2007.  In a 
tender process, the winner of competitive bi d was determined on the basis of the lowest 
price in accordance with paragraph 62, Articl e 3 of this Resolution.  Preferences were 
granted to local producers of goods only when  they fully met all the requirements of the 
bidding process and submitted documents that confirmed the local origin of goods.  
The representative of Kazakhstan clarified that local content in goods was defined as a 
percentage value of domestic materials and inputs used in the value of finished goods produced on the territory of Kazakhstan
3.  The local origin of goods was verified with 
certificate "CT-KZ" issued by the Chamber of Commerce of Kazakhstan.  For example, 
in 2012, the share of local content in the total value of goods procured by subsurface users 
within the framework of investment contracts reached 12.6%4.  Tender procedures had to 
take place in Kazakhstan.  Both national an d foreign investors were equally entitled to 
participate in the bidding process.  In her view, such provisions were non-discriminatory and introduced an opportunity for imported goods.  However, not all subsurface users were fully 
compliant with their contractual obligations on local content, which could result in penalties 
or termination of contracts.  In 2012, subsurfa ce users paid over US$2.3 million in penalties, 
including US$1.2 million with respect to purchases of goods."  
Question 60 
Paragraph 6 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  We under stand that amendments to the Subsoil and 
Subsoil Use Law are scheduled for submissi on to the government in April.   
- Could Kazakhstan explain what these will be?  Could they be added to the 
Legislative Action Plan? 
- Will the oil and gas industry stakeholders that will be affected by the amendments 
be contributing to their development, e. g., through a discussion of their possible 
impact on their productivity? 
Answer: 
1. A draft law on amendments to the Law "On Subsurface and Its Use" is aimed at the 
following: 
                                               
3  The goods of Kazakhstan's origin were determined  according to the Rules on Determining the Country 
of Origin of Goods, Drafting and Issuing Expertise Acts on Origin of Goods and Issuing a Certificate of Origin of 
Goods adopted by the Resolution of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 1647 of 22 October 2009.
 
4  In 2012, the total procurement of goods made by subsurface users was equal to 758.3 billion tenge,  
including goods of Kazakhstan's origin in  the amount of 95.2 billion tenge. 
 WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 37 - 
 
  - improvement of the institution of trust management of the contracted territory 
- regulation of issues aimed at prevention of oil spill into the marine environment; 
- setting a time-frame for subsurface users to address violations; - determining an authorised body in charge of economic assessment of feasibility studies; 
- establishment of a uniform mechanism of creation and operation of liquidation funds;  
- establishment of the competence of the Minist ry of Oil and Gas on drawing up of protocols 
and (or) review and imposition of administrati ve penalties in the area of subsurface use; 
- improvement of norms related to priority right of the State for subsurface areas and fields of 
strategic importance; 
- introduction of field development audit of compliance of subsurface users with the project 
documentation. 
Taking into account that the draft amendments are not related to the issues addressed in the 
TRIMs or other chapters in Kazakhstan's Working Party Report, Kazakhstan did not include them into the Legislative Action Plan. 
2. Upon completion of interagency review, the draft law will be discussed with the Association 
of subsurface users which represents the interests of all investors in energy sector, including oil and gas industry.   
Question 61 
Paragraph 9 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  In  the previous version of this text 
(JOB/ACC/31/Rev.1), Kazakhstan stated that:  "In accordance with Article 50 of the 
Law No. 291-I, the tender offers for obtain ing rights to use subsoil for exploration, 
extraction, combined exploration and extraction, inter alia , had to contain the following 
proposals:  (i) obligations regarding Kazakh stani content in personnel, which had to 
increase to the extent of implementation of trainings thereof; (ii) obligations on 
education of Kazakhstani personnel; and (iii)  Kazakhstani content in purchasing goods, 
works, and services required for implementati on of the contract.  All these provisions 
had to be included into the subsurface use contracts". 
We request that this text reinserted. 
Answer: 
The text is reinserted.  Question 62 
Please add the subheading:  "TRIMs in the Automotive Sector", preceding paragraph 11 
of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan has added the subheading into the text.  Question 63 Paragraph 14 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  Please co nfirm in the text that the recent auto 
assembly and production contracts signed wi th Toyota and Peugeot are not included in 
the auto assembly programme referred to in paragraph 11. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan added the following text into paragraph 14 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  
"In response to a specific question, the representative of Kazakhstan clarified that industrial 
assembly of Peugeot and Toyota automobiles was launched under the existing industrial assembly agreement with "AgromashHolding", which would expire on 1 July 2018." WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 38 - 
 
  Question 64 
Paragraph 15 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  Please a dd:  "... nor enforce contract provisions 
that contained such measures." at the en d of paragraph 15 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan amended the paragraph as follows:   "15.  Some Members considered that the requirement to use domestically produced products 
was inconsistent with the WTO TRIMs Agreement.  These Members added that this 
requirement also appeared to constitute prohib ited export subsidies under Article 3.1 of the 
WTO SCM Agreement.  These Members asked Kazakhstan to explain how it intended to bring existing legislation and existing contracts into conformity with WTO requirements.  These Members sought a commitment from Kazakhstan that, from the date of 
WTO accession, it would not maintain measures that would be in conflict with the 
WTO TRIMs Agreement nor enforce contract provisions that contained such measures." 
Question 65 
Paragraph 17 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, 
from the date of the accession of Kazakhstan  to the WTO, Kazakhstan would ensure that 
all laws, regulations and other measures app lied in Kazakhstan that were related to 
issues covered by this section, …].   
This is not sufficiently comprehensive.  Please  replace "related to issues covered by this 
sector" with the following:  "that were with in the scope of the WTO Agreement on Trade 
Related Investment Measures (TRIMs Agreement),". 
Paragraph 17 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, 
from the date of the accession of Kazakhstan  to the WTO, Kazakhstan would ensure that 
all laws, regulations and other measures app lied in Kazakhstan that were related to 
issues covered by this section, whether adop ted by Kazakhstan or the competent bodies 
of the CU, would be consistent with the prov isions of the WTO Agreement, including the 
WTO Agreement on Trade-Rela ted Investment Measures, ex cept for measures applied 
under investment contracts concluded prior to [the date of accession of Kazakhstan to 
the WTO] …].  
- We believe that this date should be 31 December 2012. 
Paragraph 17 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [… The representative of Kazakhstan also 
confirmed that from [the date of accession  o f  K a z a k h s t a n  t o  t h e  W T O ] ,  K a z a k h s t a n  
would not conclude any new investment contra cts with investors in any sector, or renew 
any existing investment contracts, that co ntained provisions inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement, including the TRIMs Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 
- We believe that this date should be 31 December 2012. 
- We suggest the following redrafting in  order to focus the commitment on the 
measures in the contracts, not on the contracts themselves: 
Kazakhstan would not include in conclude an y new investment contracts concluded with 
investors in any sector, or in the renew of  any existing investment contracts, that 
contained provisions that are inconsistent  with the WTO Agreement, including the 
TRIMs Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under  investment contracts concluded prior to 
[the date of accession of Kazakhstan to the WTO] …].   WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 39 - 
 
  - We believe that this date should be 31 December 2012. 
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under  investment contracts concluded prior to 
[the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO] under the provisions of Law 
No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced [by xxxx] [after the expiration of the initial 
duration of the contracts …]. 
- We suggest the following redrafting to bring the commitment to the date of 
expiration, not "after." but "... as of the date of expiration ...". 
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under  investment contracts concluded prior to 
[the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO] under the provisions of Law 
No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced [by xxxx] [after the expiration of the initial 
duration of the contracts or af ter expiration of the …].   
- Please replace with "... as of  the date of expiration ...". 
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under  investment contracts concluded prior to 
[the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO] under the provisions of Law 
No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced [by xxxx] [after the expiration of the initial 
duration of the contracts or af ter expiration of the [10]-year transitional period starting 
from …]. 
- We are not prepared to agree to a 10 year transition.    
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [The repr esentative of Kazakhstan confirmed that 
all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under  investment contracts concluded prior to 
[the date of accession of Kazakhstan to  the WTO] under the provisions of Law 
No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced [by xxxx] [after the expiration of the initial 
duration of the contracts or af ter expiration of the [10]-year transitional period starting 
from the date of accession to the WT O, whichever takes place sooner.]   
- Please insert "Kazak hstan's accession ...". 
Paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/Rev.2:  [… She further confirmed that all 
WTO-inconsistent measures applied in accord ance with investment contracts concluded 
prior to [the date of accession of Kazakhst an to the WTO] under the provisions of Order 
No. 113 would be eliminated by [1 July 2018]. 
- We believe that this date should be 31 December 2012. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees with the proposed edits of paragraphs [17] and [18].  However, Kazakhstan 
would like to continue discussions on the transitional period and the cut-off date for the investment contracts.  
In order to maintain the consistency of the use of terminologies "investment contracts" and 
"industrial assembly agreements" and taking into account that discussions on transitional period are still continuing, Kazakhstan proposes to change paragraphs [17] and [18] as follows: 
 "17. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, from the date of its accession to 
the WTO, Kazakhstan would ensure that all laws, regulations and other measures applied in 
Kazakhstan that were within the scope of  WTO TRIMs Agreement, whether adopted by 
Kazakhstan or the competent bodies of the CU, would be consistent with the relevant 
provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the TRIMs Agreement, except for measures 
applied under investment contracts concluded prior to [the date of Kazakhstan's accession to 
the WTO] [31 December 2012] under the provisions of the Law No. 291-IV, and industrial WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 40 - 
 
  assembly agreements concluded under the provisions of the Order No. 113 prior to [the date 
of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO] [31 December 2012].  The representative of 
Kazakhstan also confirmed that from [the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO] 
[31 December 2012], Kazakhstan would not include in any new investment contracts or 
industrial assembly agreements concluded with investors in any sector, or in the renew of 
any existing investment contracts or industrial assembly agreements, provisions inconsistent 
with the relevant provisions of the WTO Ag reement, including the TRIMs Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
 18. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that all WTO-inconsistent measures 
applied under investment contracts concluded prior to [the date of Kazakhstan's accession to 
the WTO] [31 December 2012] under the provis ions of the Law No. 291-IV would cease to 
be enforced  [by xxxx] [as of the date of expirati on of the initial duration of the contracts or 
as of the date of expiration of the [X]-year transitional period starting from the date of 
Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, whichever takes place sooner].  She further confirmed 
that all WTO-inconsistent measures applied in accordance with industrial assembly 
agreements concluded prior to [the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO] 
[31 December 2012] under the provisions of the Order No. 113 would be eliminated by 
[1 July 2018].  [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that with respect to the 
measures applied under the industrial assembly  agreements pursuant to the Order No. 113 
and under the investment contracts pursuant to the Law No. 291-IV concluded prior to [the 
date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO] [31 December 2012], Kazakhstan would engage 
in consultations with interested WTO Members no later than [1 July 2016] and [[X Date], 
respectively], regarding WTO consistent measures that could be applied, and notify WTO Members of any measures planned to replace WTO-inconsistent measures at least 
six months prior to the adoption of any new measures.]  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments.]" 
Question 66 
With regard to paragraph 18 of JOB/ACC/31/R ev.2:  We have a legal and procedural 
question. Could Kazakhstan kindly explain how all WTO-inconsistent measures applied 
under investment contracts under the provisions of Law No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced? Would the future amendment of Law No. 291-IV make only the 
WTO-inconsistent parts of measures of the contracts ineffective?   
Answer: 
Kazakhstan requests a transitional period to phase out the WTO-inconsistent measures applied in 
existing subsurface use contracts under the provisions of the Law No. 291-IV.  These measures 
will cease to be enforced through: 
(i) introduction of the amendments to the Law No. 291-IV, which would remove the provisions 
of the Law, stipulating the WTO TRIMs Agreement inconsistent measures with regard to 
procurement of goods by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO; 
(ii) signing supplementary agreements with subsurface users which would remove from the 
contracts the WTO TRIMs Agreement inconsistent measures with regard to procurement of goods 
and replace them with the WTO TRIMs Agreement co nsistent alternative measures by the date of 
expiration of the transitional period.   
The reply was incorporated into the text by adding a new paragraph at the end of subsection  
"TRIMs in the Oil and Gas and Mining Sectors": 
 "10 bis.  A member asked to explain how all WTO-inconsistent measures applied under 
investment contracts under the provisions of Law No. 291-IV would cease to be enforced 
and whether the future amendment to the Law No. 291-IV would make only the 
WTO-inconsistent parts of measures of the contracts ineffective. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan requested a [X]-year transitional period starting from 
the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO to phase out the WTO-inconsistent measures 
applied in existing subsurface use contracts under the provisions of Law No. 291-IV.  WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 41 - 
 
  These measures would cease to be enforced through:  (i) introduction of the amendments to 
the Law No.291-IV aimed at removing WTO TR IMs Agreement inconsistent measures with 
regard to procurement of goods by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO; and (ii) signing supplementary agreements with subsurface users, which would remove from 
investment contracts WTO TRIMs Agreement inconsistent measures with regard to 
procurement of goods and replace them with WTO TRIMs Agreement consistent measures by 
the date of expiration of the [X]-year transitional period starting from the date of 
Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO."  
- Government Procurement Question 67 Kazakhstan reports in WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7, both in the FRAMEWORK section 
and the TRADE AGREEMENTS section of the report, that the Agreement on State 
(Municipal) Procurement within the Single  Economic Space came into effect on 
1 January 2012, requiring that Kazakhstan grant national treatment for government 
procurement to other CU Part ies from 1 January 2014.   
- Please provide this and other informatio n on this Agreement in the Government 
Procurement section of the report, updati ng the relevant information that is 
supposed to be in this section. 
- Please provide a copy of the Agreemen t in translation to the Working Party. 
Answer: 
The requested information will be reflected in the section "Government procurement" as follows:   
 "644 bis.  In response to the question of a Member on whether there would be a common 
EEC procurement regime for state and (or) m unicipal procurement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that the Agreement on State (Municipal) Procurement had become 
effective on 1 January 2012 within the Single Economic Space.  The Agreement provided 
that Kazakhstan would grant national treatment for government procurement to other SES Parties from 1 January 2014 on a reciprocity basis. 
Question 68 
Paragraph 635  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Plea se incorporate the response to 
Question 16 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 into this section, i.e.,  
- that The Agreement on Government (Municipal) Procurement enacted on 
1 January 2012 as part of the legal framew ork of the Single Economic Space covers 
procurement conducted by republican bodies, local executive bodies, budget-funded organizations, including st ate agencies as well as other entities 
specified by the legislation of the SES Party; and  
- that according to Article 1 of the Agreement, the SES Parties have the right to 
exempt in their national legislation, st ate enterprises and enterprises with state 
participation from the sc ope of the Agreement. 
Answer: 
We incorporated the response to Question 16 into the section "Government procurement" as 
follows: 
 "644 bis.  In response to the question of a Member on whether there would be a common 
EEC procurement regime for state and (or) m unicipal procurement, the representative of 
Kazakhstan stated that the Agreement on State (Municipal) Procurement had become 
effective on 1 January 2012 within the Single Economic Space.  The Agreement provided 
that Kazakhstan would grant national treatment for government procurement to other SES Parties from 1 January 2014 on a reciprocity basis.  The Agreement covered 
procurement conducted by state bodies, budg et-funded organizations, including state WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 42 - 
 
  agencies as well as other entities specified by the legislation of the SES Party.  According to 
Article 1 of the Agreement, the SES Parties had the right to exempt in their national 
legislation, state enterprises and enterprises with state participation from the scope of the 
Agreement".  
Question 69 
Concerning the right to exempt state enterprises and enterprises with state 
participation from the sc ope of the Agreement: 
- Please indicate whether Kazakhstan has exempted or intends to exempt its state 
enterprises and other enterprises with st ate participation from coverage of the 
Agreement on Government (Municipal) Procurement. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan intends to exempt its state enterprises and other enterprises with state participation 
from coverage of the Agreement on Government (Municipal) Procurement. 
Question 70 
Please include the rest of the information in the response to Question 16 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/72 in this section, i.e.:  
-  t h a t  t h e  G o v e r n m e n t  o f  K a z a k h s t a n  i s  currently developing amendments to the 
Law "On Government Procurement" with the purpose to exclude procurements 
made by state enterprises and enterprises with state participation producing goods and services for the purpose of comme rcial sale (resale) from the national 
treatment regime stipulated by the SE S Agreement and to bring the national 
legislation into compliance with the WTO definition of government procurement; 
and  
- that relevant amendments to the legislat ion of Kazakhstan regulating government 
procurement will be enacted during Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO. 
Answer: 
We included the rest of the information to Question 16 in this section as follows: 
 "648 bis.  The Government of Kazakhstan was developing amendments to the legislation 
on government procurement with the purpos e to exclude procurements made by state 
enterprises and enterprises with state participation procuring goods and services for the purpose of commercial sale (resale) from the coverage of the Law No. 303 "On Government 
Procurement" of 21 July 2007.  The relevant am endments to the legislation of Kazakhstan 
regulating government procurement would be enacted by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO". 
Question 71 
Please include in the text of this section of the Working Party report the information 
provided in the response to Question 17  of WT/ACC/KAZ/72, i.e., that the provisions of 
the Law No. 303-III "On Government Procurement" of 21 July 2007 do not apply to the 
National Welfare Fund Samruk-Kazyna and its subsidiaries. 
Answer: 
The requested information is already given in paragraph 637 of the section "Government 
procurement" as follows:  
 637.  "The representative of Kazakhstan noted that pursuant to the Law No. 303, 
government procurement was defined as purchases made by customers of goods and WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 43 - 
 
  services5 essential for their operation, performance of State functions or customer's 
statutory activity, conducted in accordance with Law No. 303 and civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, except for the services purchased from natural persons under employment contracts or from natural persons not involved in entrepreneurial activity, on 
the base of paid services contracts, in the framework of fulfilment of State tasks and 
contributions, including contributions to the capital stock of newly established juridical persons.  Customers are State bodies, State agencies, as well as State enterprises
6, juridical 
persons and any affiliates thereof, with 50 or more per cent of voting shares held by the 
Government, except for national managing holdings, national holdings, national managing 
companies and national companies, and their affiliated entities, including the National 
Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna", which was a national managing holding". 
V. TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME 
Question 72 Regarding document WT/ACC/KAZ/73:  The copy of Kazakhstan's Copyright Law 
provided for review is dated "as amended" on 10 July 2009.  We note, however, that the 
WIPO website states that this version has been superseded by a version enacted in January 2012, and posts a Russian version of that law. 
- Could Kazakhstan provide updated versions  of all its IPR laws, in translation?  
Clearly the ones listed in WT/ACC/KAZ/73  have been revised since they were 
submitted. 
- Please provide a copy, in translation of  the Law "On Amendments and Addenda to 
Legislative Acts of the Republic of Kaza khstan on Intellectual Property" (dated 
January 2012).  
- Please submit to the Working Party for review the draft legislation implementing 
Kazakhstan's commitment on undisclosed data exclusivity.  
Answer: 
Please find updated versions of the Copyright Law, Trademarks Law, Patent Law, Draft Law on 
Undisclosed Data and the Law "On Amendments and A ddenda to Legislative Acts of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan on Intellectual Property" (dated January 2012) attached to this submission. 
Question 73 Has Kazakhstan submitted to the Working Pa rty the legislation that implements the 
WIPO Internet treaties?  If not, please prov ide it.  If it has been submitted, please 
identify where we can find it. 
Answer: 
The WIPO Internet treaties are implemented in the Copyright Law attached to this submission. 
- Patents  Question 74 
Paragraph 749  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Has the information from the reply to 
Question 104 of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 been approp riately incorporated in this section? 
                                               
5 The term "services" included both "services" and "works" as those terms were used in the legislation 
of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
6 State enterprises are defined in the Section "State ownership, State Trading Entities and 
Privatization". WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Answer: 
Reply to Question 104 will be incorporated in paragraph 749 of the Section on Requirements on 
Undisclosed Information, including Trade Secrets and Test Data: 
 749.  [The representative of Kazakhstan confir med that all agricultural chemicals, including 
mineral fertilizers, were subject to registration  in Kazakhstan.  In accordance with the Law 
No. 302 "On Safety of Chemical Products" of 21 July 2007, mineral fertilizers had to be 
registered not as agricultural products but chemical products.  Pesticides and poisons had to 
be registered in accordance with the Government Resolution No. 1396 "On Approval of the 
Rules on Registration and Production Testing and State Registration of Pesticides" of 
30 November 2011.  Specifically, under the Law No. 302 "On Safety of Chemical Products" 
of 21 July 2007 and the Government Resoluti on No. 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on 
Registration and Production Testing and State Registration of Pesticides" of 
30 November 2011, registration requirements for chemical products, pesticides and poisons were the same for every applicant and did not permit the reliance on undisclosed data 
developed or submitted by another applicant to obtain product registration.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments]. 
- Enforcement 
Question 75 
Paragraph 171(9)  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7 refers to the Agreement on Common 
Principles of Regulation in the Sphere of Pr otection of Intellectua l Property Rights.   
- Please provide a copy of th is Agreement in translation. 
Answer: 
Please find a copy of the Agreement of the SES on  Common Principles of Regulation in the Sphere 
of Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of 9 December 2010 attached to this submission. 
Question 76 
Paragraph 765  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7: states th at the fee for recordation of an 
intellectual property right requ ired a minimum security of €10,000.  That security is 
considerable and could deter rights holders from participating in the Customs record, 
especially where there is more than one right to be registered.  
- Please address this concern and disc uss the possible reduction of the fee. 
Answer: 
The most widespread form of meeting this obligati on is an insurance guarantee, i.e., a contract 
between an insurance company and an applicant.  In accordance with the contract, insurance company guarantees payments to compensate for property damage.  The real expenses of the 
applicant for signing such contract will not be higher than from 4 to 7% of the security sum. 
Insurance guarantee is required for each application, but the application can cover unlimited 
trademarks and objects of copyright.  No paymen t is required for submission and examination of 
the application and implementation by the customs authorities of border measures.   WT/ACC/KAZ/75 
 
- 45 - 
 
  VIII. TRADE AGREEMENTS 
Question 77 Paragraph 818  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:   
- Please clarify that the "the Agreement on Free Trade Area of 18 October 2011" is 
among the CIS. 
- Should not the SES be included in the list? 
Answer: 
The clarification on participants to the Agreement on Free Trade Area on 18 October 2011 and 
amendments concerning inclusion of the SES Agreem ents in paragraph [818] will be provided in 
the next revision of the draft Working Party Report as follows:  
 818.  The representative of Kazakhstan noted that Kazakhstan had free trade agreements with 
other CIS countries, Georgia and Serbia, and along with the Republic of Belarus and the 
Russian Federation had created a Customs Union.  At the moment these agreements included:  
bilateral Free Trade Agreements with CIS Parties; a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with 
Georgia; a bilateral Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Serbia; the Agreement on the 
Creation of Free Trade Area between CIS count ries of 15 April 1994; the Agreement on Free 
Trade Area of 18 October 2011, signed by eight CIS member-States7, the Agreement on the 
Customs Union between the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and the Republic of 
Belarus of 20 January 1995; the Agreement on the Customs Union and Single Economic Space of 26 February 1999 and the subsequent Treaty on  the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic 
Community with the Russian Federation, the Republics of Belarus, the Republic of Tajikistan 
and the Kyrgyz Republic of 10 October  2000 (as amended by the Protocol of 6 October 2007); 
the Agreement on the Establishment of the Single Economic Space with Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation of 19 September 2003; the Treaty on the Establishment of Common 
Customs Territory and the Formation of the Customs Union of 6 October 2007 between the 
Republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation, and 17 agreements establishing a 
legal basis for the Single Economic Space (h ereinafter – SES) between the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation that entered into force as of 
1 January 2012.  Implementation of the Trea ty on the Establishment of Common Customs 
Territory and the Formation of the Customs Un ion of 6 October 2007 had been initiated on 
1 January 2010 among the Republics of Kazakhst an, Belarus and the Russian Federation with 
the establishment of the Common External Tariff (CET), adoption of the Customs Union (CU) 
Customs Code and the establishment of the CU institutions. The full list of Kazakhstan's trade agreements is contained in Annex 21. 
Question 78 
Paragraph 826  of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.7:  Inform ation on specific issues covered 
by the SES Agreements, like industrial subsid ies, government procurement, intellectual 
property protection, Services, Natural Mono polies (SOEs), technical regulation, etc. 
should be included in their relevant specif ic chapters of the Working Party Report, in 
addition to being listed here. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan took note of this comment. Informat ion on the respective SES Agreements will be 
included in relevant chapters of the draft Working Party Report. 
 
__________  
                                               
7 The Agreement was signed by the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Moldov a, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan 
and Ukraine.