JOB/AG/147  
 
9 November 2018  
(18-7045) Page: 1/38 
Committee on Agriculture  
Special Session  Original: English  
 
TARIF F IMPLEMENTATION ISS UES – BOUND VERSUS APPLIE D TARIFFS  
COMMUNICATION FROM T HE UNITED STATES  
The following communication, dated 2 November 2018, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States .  
 
_______________  
 
 
1.1.    In July 2018, the United States submitted a formal communication to the World Trade 
Organization (JOB/AG/141) noting the need for more agricultural trade to improve global welfare, 
help producers, and address the challenges of sustainably feeding a growing  world population. The 
communication also noted that tariffs remain much higher in the agricultural sector than in other 
sectors, the contribution agricultural tariff reductions have made to the welfare gains from trade, 
and that locking -in agricultural ta riff reductions can contribute further to global welfare.   
 
1.2.   The US communication identified six agricultural tariff -related issues warranting further 
analysis: (i) bound versus applied tariffs, (ii) complex tariffs, (iii) high tariffs (e.g., tariff peaks) , 
(iv) issues with tariff rate quotas (TRQs), (v) special agricultural safeguards (SSGs), and 
(vi) regional/preferential trade agreements.  
 
1.3.     In this communication, the United States aims to provide a deeper understanding of the tariff 
treatment faced by M embers ' agricultural products and an analysis of the differences between bound 
and applied agricultural tariffs. The US analysis uses tariff schedules submitted by Members to the 
WTO, WTO World  Tariff P rofiles, and World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS) d ata.1 This analysis 
considers the issue of tariff overhang by Member, product group2, and development status3 with 
particular focus on 2017 's top 20 largest agricultural exporters and top 20 largest agricultural 
importers (these large agricultural trading Members are henceforth referred to as LATMs) .4  
 
1.4.   While Members ' have generally provided greater transparency on agricultural tariffs than on 
other agriculture -related issues, a number of transparency issues with respect to agricultural tariffs 
remain, incl uding:  
 
• Bound tariff schedules that are out of date;  
• Bound tariff schedules that do not correspond to the Member 's most recent schedule 
of applied rates;  
• Applied tariff schedules submitted to the WTO that are out of date;  
• Applied rates submitted with a di fferent format than the bound rate (e.g., ad valorem  
vs. specific);  
                                                
1 WITS is a collaboration between the World Bank and the United Nations Conference on Trade and 
Development in consultation with the WTO, International Trade Centre, and United Nations Statistical Division.  
2 This communication uses product categories first defined in the Tokyo Round and adapted for the 
Harmonized System in the Uruguay Round. The product group breakdown in this publication is provided in  the 
2017 WTO World Tariff Profiles (p age 32).   
3 Development status is based on self -designation. Use of a Member 's self-designated development 
status should not be taken as agreement with the self -designation.  
4 Top 20 importers and top 20 exporters of agricultural goods (by value): Argentina;  Australia;  Brazil;  
Canada;  Chile;  China;  Chinese Taipei ; Egypt;  European Union;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Indonesia;  Japan; 
Republic of Korea;  Malaysia;  Mexico;  New Zealand;  Philippines;  Russian Federation;  Singapore;  South Africa;  
Switzerland;  Thailand;  Turkey; Ukraine;  the United States;  and Viet Nam.   JOB/AG/147  
 
- 2 - 
 
  • Absence of tariff concordance information for some Members ' schedules;  
• Lack of ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) data for non -ad valorem  tariffs, including 
complex tariffs;  
• Tariffs applied at different (HS) line levels for each Member;  
• Use of arbitrary letters or symbols to denote a tariff;   
• Published tariff schedules containing rate differences with corresponding schedules 
available on Members ' official publication website(s).  
 
The United St ates urges Members to ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are 
up to date and accurate. This includes Integrated Data Base (IDB) notifications, as well as 
notifications of regional trade agreements. Resolution of the transparency iss ues noted above will 
facilitate even greater Member understanding of the situation with respect to agricultural tariffs and 
tariff overhang.  
Analysis  
1.5.   In 2016, the global value of imports of agricultural products totalled more than 
US$815.2  billion.5, 6 The largest imported product group was "fruits, vegetables, and plants ", 
followed by "oilseeds, fats, and oils ", and "cereals and preparations " (Figure 1). Together these three 
product groups accounted for approximately 56 % (or US$457.2 billion) of gl obal imp orts by value 
in 2016. " Sugar and confectionary ", "dairy products ", and "cotton " were the least traded product 
groups in 2016, totalling approximately 7 % (or US$60.6 billion) of global imports.  
Figure 1: Share of Agricultural Imports, by Value, in 2016  
 
                                                
5 The import values in this paper may include goods imported at a lower or duty -free rate under 
preference program mes or free trade agreement, or other tariff reducing mechanism.  
6 Data is based on 2016 IHS GTA import figures  (accessed 27  July 2018). As Viet Nam data was 
unavailable, world export data was used to determine the approximate value of imports going into Viet Nam.  
Fruits, 
Vegetables, 
and Plants
20%Oilseeds, Fats 
and Oils
19%Cereals and 
Preparations
17%Beverages & 
Tobacco
12%
Animal 
Products
10%
Other 
8%
Coffee & Tea
7%
Sugar & Conf.
3%Dairy
3% Cotton
1%Total : $815.2 Billion JOB/AG/147  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6.   As noted in the analysis submitted by the United States in JOB/AG/141, the average bound 
rate for WTO Members' agricultural tariff lines was 54.7 % compared to an average applied rate of 
14.5% in 2016.7 
 
1.7.   Some Members have bound agricultural tariffs substant ially higher than their applied 
agricultural tariffs. However, other Members ' applied agricultural tariffs are at or close to the bound 
rate – in most instances the average bound agricultural tariff rate for these Members was less than 
25%. Approximately 3 5% of Members, of which nearly all are developing countries, had water in 
their agricultural tariffs exceeding the average for all Members ' agricultural tariffs.8 While developed 
Members tend to have much less water in their tariffs than developing Members , a number of 
developing Members have very little water as well (Figure 2).  
Figure 2: Bound Versus Applied Tariffs  
 
1.8.   To illustrate this further, it is useful to consider the situation of LATMs (Figure 3). These 
Members, on average, maintained applied tariff rates of 16.7 %, which is approximately one -half of 
the 32.9 % average of their bound tariff rates. On average, LATMs have significantly less water in 
their tariffs (on average 16 percentage points) than do all WTO Members (on average 40 percentage 
points). However, some of the largest traders, such as India, Malaysia, Indonesia, Egypt, South 
Africa, and Mexico, had an average level of water greater than 30 percentage points. On the other 
hand, the Republic of Korea;  the European Union;  China;  Hong Kon g, China;  Chinese Taipei ; the 
Russian Federation;  Canada;  and the United States all had water of less than one percentage point.  
  
                                                
7 Data is available for 150 WTO Members, including 28 members of the European Union. WTO, World 
Tariff Profiles 2017, pages 16 -21, https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/tariff_profiles17_e.pdf . These 
countries' rates were used to calculate the averages in paragraph 1.8.   
8 Water or tariff overhang is defined as the difference between Members ' bound and applied rates.  
0255075100125150175200
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200Applied Rate
Bound Rate
Developing Developed Bound = Applied"Water " or Tariff 
OverhangJOB/AG/147  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Figure 3: Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
1.9.   Looking at bound versus applied tariffs for particular product  groups, we see less variation 
than between Members, with water ranging from 37 to 44 percentage points for different groups 
(Figure 4). The "Beverages and tobacco " product group had the highest average bound tariffs 
(76.7 %), applied tariffs (32.6 %), and w ater level (44.1 %). "Dairy products " and "‘animal products " 
also had relatively high bound and applied tariffs compared to the average of all product groups. 
Conversely, the "oilseeds, fats, and oils ", "Other Agricultural Products " and "cotton " groups had the 
lowest average applied tariffs, with rates below 10 %. 
Figure 4: Bound and Applied MFN Rates by Product Group, 2016  
 
 
020406080100120Percent
Bound Applied
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO Applied
0102030405060708090
Beverages
& TobaccoDairy
ProductsAnimal
ProductsSugars &
Conf.Cereals &
PrepsAll Product
GroupsFruit,
Vegetables,
PlantsOilseeds,
Fats & OilsCoffee, Tea Other CottonPercent
Bound Applied
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.10.    Water in Members' tariffs permits Members to modify tariff rates in response to domestic and 
international market conditions without n otice. Water in Members' schedules due to high bound 
tariffs, however, also contributes to market uncertainty. A comparison of LATMs ' 2016 applied 
schedules (or latest submitted schedule using HS2012 nomenclature) to the one submitted in 2012 
(or earliest submitted schedule using HS2012 nomenclature) at the eight digit level shows that over 
an approximately five year period, 20 Members had changed at least one applied tariff rate for an 
agricultural product, and that in total, applied rates had been changed  on at least 1,712 agricultural 
tariff lines.9 Thailand changed more than a quarter of its agricultural tariffs during this time frame. 
Switzerland, Viet Nam, Mexico, Indonesia, and Turkey also made changes to at least 10 % of their 
agricultural tariffs (Fi gure 5). Trade under lines subject to tariff increases in the covered five -year 
period was worth an average of US$13.7 billion per year. Increases on lines with significant imports 
occurred in India (largely for "oilseeds, fats and oils " products). Trade u nder lines subject to tariff 
decreases in the covered five -year period was worth an average of US$18.4 billion per year. 
Decreases on lines with significant imports occurred in the EU (for "fruit, vegetable, and plant 
products " and " cereals and preparation s"), Mexico (for " animal products "), and India (for "fruit, 
vegetable, and plant products ") (Figure 6).10 
Figure 5: Change in HS8 Tariffs for Largest Importers and Exporters, 2012 -2016  
 
                                                
9 Data analysis was done at the HS -8 level for each Member using 2012 and 2016 applied  tariff schedule 
submissions where possible. 2013 tariff schedule submissions were used as the base year for Argentina, Egypt, 
Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, the Philippines, and Turkey. 2014 tariff schedule submissions were used as the 
base year for Chinese Taipei and Ukraine. The analysis uses 2015 instead of 2016 for Ch ina. The Russian 
Federation was not included in tariff change analysis as it was in the process of implementing WTO accession 
commitments.  
10 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis. 
US$3 billion worth of annual imports where tariff direction could not be determined is not included in the 
calculations.  
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%ThailandSwitzerlandViet NamMexicoIndonesiaTurkeyEgyptIndiaBrazilPhilippinesArgentinaKorea, Republic ofEuropean UnionSouth AfricaCanadaUkraineChinaJapanChinese TaipeiUnited States of AmericaAustraliaChileMalaysiaNew ZealandHong Kong, ChinaSingapore
Percent of Agricultural Tariff Lines AffectedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Figure 6: Average Annual Value of All Agricultural Imports with Tariff  Changes, 
2012 -2016  
 
1.11.    The figures outlined above only capture a snapshot of two points in time. In reality, Members  
with a certain level of water sometimes change their applied tariffs multiple times a year. For 
example, in January 2016, Egypt raised import tariffs on a wide range of agricultural products, 
including fruits, to encourage domestic production and curb a b allooning trade deficit.11 In November 
of the same year, Egypt raised import tariffs for 53 lines of food and agricultural products, including 
several fruits that were subject to the prior tariff increases.12 India provides another example as 
between January  2012 and December 2016, India changed the tariff rate for several leguminous 
plants, as well as plant and vegetable oils, more than once. Over the period, the tariff rate for crude 
ground -nut oil, for example, fluctuated between zero % and 100 %, (increasi ng from zero % to 100 % 
before decreasing to 7.5 % several years later). In 2017 -2018, within a span of four months, India 
changed its tariff rates on several leguminous vegetables three times (Figure 7).13 
                                                
11 https://www.reuters.com/article/us -egypt -economy -tariffs/egypt -sharply -increases -customs -duties -
as-it-seeks -to-curb-imports -idUSKBN13T0DN  
12 WTO Egypt TPR Report (WT/TPR/S/367), page 48, 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/s367_e.pdf , Egypt' s Presidential Decree No. 25/2016 and 
Presidential Decree No. 538/2016 . 
13 According to customs notifications available on India' s Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs 
http://www.cbic.gov.in/Customs -Notifications . 
10,000 5,000 0 5,000 10,000IndiaSwitzerlandEgyptJapanBrazilMexicoCanadaIndonesiaChinaKorea, Republic OfSouth AfricaArgentinaTurkeyEuropean UnionThailandThe PhilippinesUkraineChinese TaipeiUnited States of America
Millions of USDValue of Imports with a 
Reduction in TariffsValue of Imports with an 
Increase in TariffsJOB/AG/147  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Figure 7: Tariff Changes in India, 2017 -2018  
 
1.12.    The d isproportionate amount of water maintained by some Members may have other 
unintended consequences as well. In the Uruguay Round, participants agreed that developed 
countries would cut agricultural tariffs by an average of 36 %, in equal steps over six years . 
Developing countries would cut agricultu ral tariffs by an average of 24%  over ten years.  If a new 
WTO negotiating round were held today and Members agreed to a Uruguay Round -type of average 
reduction commitment, only 47 Members would be required to decrease their average  applied 
agricultural tariffs.14 15 (Figure 8) The other 71 Members would h ave to reduce their level of water, 
but not their applied rates.16 The average bound rate for all Members ' agricultural goods would fall 
from 54.7 % to 45.1 %. The average applied rate for all Members ' agricult ural goods would fall from 
14.5%  to 14 %. As a res ult, the level of water currently maintained in Members ' agricultural tariffs 
would significantly impact the practical effect of any new negotiation that were to result in bound 
rate cuts of a size similar to those that occurred in the Uruguay Round . 
                                                
14 The calculations are conducted in the paper based on a requirement of a 36% cut in average tariff 
rather than applying the Uruguay Round modality of an average cut of 36% due to the complexity of the formula. 
As a result, the overall cuts calculated in thi s paper may be even more than what would actually be negotiated.   
15 The number includes 28 Members  comprising the EU.  
16 Based on Uruguay Round, LDCs would not have to reduce their tariff levels.  
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%Percent
Peas (07131000) Chickpeas (07132000)
Beans (07133100) Pigeon Peas (07136000)
Lentils (07134000)JOB/AG/147  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Figur e 8: Effect of Uruguay Round -Type Cuts on Bound and Applied MFN Rates for 
LATMs, 2016  
 
 
Conclusion  
1.13.    Water is prevalent in all major agricultural product groups. In addition, although differences 
between bound and applied rates occur for both developed and developing Members and large and 
small trading economies, the level of water is larger for developing Members and smaller trading 
economies than it is for most developed Members and large trading economies.  
 
1.14.    The United States also notes the issues of tran sparency specified in the beginning of the 
paper. The United States once again, requests the Secretariat to compile information and that 
Members ensure that all WTO notifications relevant to market access are up to date. The 
United  States further urges Members to consider what other data could improve Members' 
knowledge.  
 
1.15.    The United States invites other Members to provide their views and own analysis with respect 
to the matters covered in this communication and the other areas speci fied in the July 2018 
submission (JOB/AG/141).  
 
1.16.    The United States will continue its own analysis of the identified areas specified in the 
July 2018 submission (JOB/AG/141) and looks forward to constructive engagement from other 
Members.  
 
 
 
_______________  
  
020406080100120Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate Avg. Developing Bound
Avg. Developing Applied Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO Applied Bound Rate after Uruguy Round CutJOB/AG/147  
 
- 9 - 
 
  APPENDIX  
Animal Products  
1.17.    In 2016, the "animal products"  group accounted for more than US$81.9 billion of global 
imports.17 For the same year, developing Members, on average, had an applied rate lower than the 
average of developed Members (e.g., 17.2 % vs. 27.4%) (Figure 9) . However, the level of water was 
significant for both Member groups with developing and developed Members ' having average bound 
rates of 61.3% and 58.3% , respectively. Amongst LATMs , the average applied rate for " animal 
products " was 19.6 % and the average bound rate was 34 %. These Members import ed US$77.5 
billion, comprising 95%  of all "animal product"  imports in 2016.  
Figure 9: "Animal Products" Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
1.18.    While only a few Members applied "animal product " tariffs at the bound level, five Members 
(Bangladesh, Lesotho, Nigeria, Iceland and Norway), had water in their animal product tariffs 
exceeding 125 percentage points, including two developed Members (Iceland and Norway) with 
water exceeding 200 percenta ge points. Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Iceland, and Morocco had the 
highest applied rates; exceeding 50 % (Figure 11) . 
 
1.19.    Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of the LATMs, India, Mexico, 
Indonesia, and South Africa had the highest level  of water. The Russian Federation;  Hong Kong , 
China; the United States;  Chinese Taipei ; the European Union;  and Thailand had the lowest amount 
of water. A comparison of the 2012 and 2016 applied tariff s chedules of LATMs found that ten 
Members had changed their applied tariffs in this category, with changes affecting a total of 97 tariff 
lines: decreases occurred on lines with US$1.2 billion worth of average annual imports and increases 
occurred on lines with US$0.6 billion in average annual imports  (Figure  10).18 Mexico decreased 
tariffs for 32 lines in this category, with an average decrease of 88 percentage points. Mexico' s 
reductions had a significant effect on poultry product imports, covering poultry product lines with an 
average of US$1.2 billion worth  of imports annually; 28 % of Mexico's annual imports of " animal 
products ". During the same period, Indonesia increased tariffs for 22 processed meat product lines 
by an average of 25 percentage points. This potentially affected US$0.2 billion worth of impo rts 
annually or 2 % of Indonesia' s annual imports of "animal products ".  
                                                
17 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Animal  products " incorporate HS Chapter 1, 
Chapter 2 and HS 1601 and 1602.  
18 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
020406080100120140Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Figure 10: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Changes, "Animal Products ", 
2012 -2016  
 
 
 
1,500 1,000 500 0 500ChinaSouth AfricaEuropean UnionIndonesiaBrazilTurkeyThailandThe PhilippinesMexico
Millions of USDValue of Imports with a 
Reduction in TariffsValue of Imports with 
an Increase in Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 11 - Figure 11: "Animal Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Fruits, Vegetables, and Plants  
1.20.   In 2016, " fruit, vegetable, and plant products " were the largest agricultural product group 
imported, accounting for more than US$162.5 billion of global imports (20 % of agricultural 
imports).19 Developing Members, on average, had an applied rate higher than the average of 
developed Members (e.g., 15.4 % vs. 10.4 %) (Figure 12) . The level of water was also more 
pronounced for developing Members than developed Members with the average bound rate of 58.6 % 
for developing Members compared to the bound rate of 20.1 % for developed Members. Amongst 
LATMs, the ave rage applied rate was 13.6 % and the average bound rate was 28.9 %. These Members 
imported US$151.6 billion, comprising 93 % of all "fruit, vegetable and plant product " imports in 
2016.  
Figure 12: "Fruits, Vegetables, and Plant Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for 
LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.21.   Most Members had bindings greater than applied rates for "fruit, vegetable, and plant 
products ". While only a few Members applied tariffs at the bound level, three of the Members, 
(Lesotho, Bangladesh, and Ni geria), had water in their fruit, vegetable, and plant product tariffs 
exceeding 125 percentage points. Only two developed Members, Norway and Iceland, had a tariff 
overhang greater than the WTO Member average. Republic of Korea was the only Member with 
applied rates over 50 % for the product group (Figure 14) . 
1.22.   Developing Members also had higher levels of water than developed Members. Of all LATMs, 
Malaysia, India, and Indonesia had the highest level of water. Chinese Taipei ; Japan;  Hong Kong,  
China; and Chi na had the lowest amount of water. A comparison of LATMs ' past applied  tariff 
schedules has found that 17 Members had changed their applied tariffs in this category, with changes 
affecting a total of 419 tariff lines. The number of tariff line changes was more than four times that 
for "animal products ". The average annual value of imports potentially affected was also significantly 
higher: decreases occurred on lines with US$9.3 billion worth of average annual imports and 
increases occurred on lines with US$2.6 billion of average annual imports.20 (Figure 13) Thailand 
decreased 111 of its tariffs in this category, with an average decrease of 15 percentage points 
(potentially affecting US$0.3 billion worth of imports annually or 20 % of its annual imports of "fruit, 
vegetable, and plant products "). During the same period, Egypt increased 88 of its tariffs on most 
types of fruit and certain plant products by an average of 10 percentage points (potentially affecting 
                                                
19 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Fruit, Vegetable, and Plant " produc ts 
incorporate HS Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 13, Chapter 14, HS 1105 -1106, HS 2001 -2008, HS 0601 -0603, 
and HS 1211.  
20 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
020406080100120Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 13 - 
 
  US$0.5 billion worth of imports annually or 44 % of its annual imports of " fruit, vegetable, and plant 
products "). 
Figure 13: Average Annual Value o f Imports with Tariff Changes, " Fruit, Vegetables, and 
Plant Products "', 2012 -2016  
 
 
 
 
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2,000IndiaJapanEgyptSwitzerlandArgentinaSouth AfricaBrazilTurkeyMexicoIndonesiaChinese TaipeiUkraineUnited States of AmericaThe PhilippinesThailandEuropean Union
Millions of USDValue of Imports with a 
Reduction in TariffsValue of Imports with 
an Increase in Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 14 - Figure 14: "Fruit, Vegetables, and Plant Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Cereals and Preparations  
1.23.   In 2016, "cereals and preparations " product group accounted for more than US$139.4 billion 
of global imports.21 Developing Members, on average, had an applied rate lower than the average 
of developed Members (e.g., 14.1 % vs. 14.4 %) (Figure 15) . Similarly, the level of water was 
significant for both Member groups, although the amount of water for developed Members havin g 
an average bound rate of 33.7%  was less than that of developing Members havin g an average bound 
rate of 59.1% . For LATMs, th e average applied rate was 20.2%  and the average bound rate was 
35.8%. These Members imported US$111.9 billion, comprising 80 % of all goods in the "cereals and 
preparations " product group in 2016.   
Figure 15: "Cereals and Preparations " Bound and Applied MFN R ates for LATMs, 2016  
 
1.24.   Members had bindings greater than applied rates for " cereals and preparations " product 
group. However, only a few Members apply tariffs at the bound level. Five of the Members, (Lesotho, 
Bangladesh, Norway, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe), ha d water in their cereals and preparations product 
tariffs exceeding 125 percentage points. As with the "animal product " group, only two developed 
Members, Norway and Iceland, had a tariff overhang greater than the WTO Member average. 
Republic of Korea was the only developing Member with applied rates over 50 % for the product 
group (187.1 %) (Figure 17) . 
1.25.   Developing Members also had higher levels of water than developed Members for this product 
group. Of all the LATMs, India, South Africa, Indonesia, and Mexic o had the highest level of water. 
Hong Kong, China; Ukraine;  Russian Federation;  and the United States had the lowest amount of 
water. A comparison of LATMs ' past applied  tariff schedules has found that 11 Members had changed 
their applied tariffs in this category, with changes affecting a total of 543 tariff lines. Switzerland 
increased tariffs for 162 of its tariff lines (potentially affecting US$0.8 billion worth of impo rts 
annually or 40 % of its annual imports of "cereals and preparations "). Turkey decreased tariffs, over 
the same period, for 104 of its tariff lines (potentially affecting US$0.6 billion worth of imports 
annually or 16 % of its annual imports of "cereals a nd preparations "). Altogether, an average of US$3 
billion worth of annual imports of " cereals and preparations " product group had a decrease in tariffs 
and an annual average of US$2.7 billion worth of the product group had an increase in tariffs. 
                                                
21 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 2 0 July 2018). "Cereal and preparation " products incorporate 
HS Chapter 10,  Chapter 19, HS 0407 -0410, HS 1101 -1104, HS 1107 -1109, HS 2102 -2106, HS 2209 . 
 
020406080100120140160180200Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Although the European Union had 8 lines that saw a decrease in tariff levels, the value of annual 
imports potentially affected was US$547 million  (Figure 16).22 
Figure 16: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Changes, "Cereals and 
Preparations ", 2012 -2016  
 
 
 
 
                                                
22 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
1,000 500 0 500 1,000SwitzerlandMexicoBrazilKorea, Republic ofIndonesiaArgentinaSouth AfricaThailandTurkeyEuropean Union
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction 
in TariffsValue of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 17 - Figure 17: " Cereal and Preparations Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils 
1.26.   In 2016, " oilseeds, fats, and oils " product group accounted for more than US$155.4 billion of 
global imports.23 For the same year, developing Members had an average applied rate of 10.1 %, 
just above the average applied rate of developed Members of 7.2%. The level of water in the product 
group was also more pronounced for developing Members than developed Members with the bound 
rate 57.4 % compared to the bound rate of 20 % for developed Members (Figure 18) . For LATMs, the 
average applied rate was 10.1 % and the average bound rate was 27.8 %. These Members importe d 
US$143.6 billion, consisting 92%  of all goods in the " oilseeds, fats, and oils " product group in 2016.  
Figure 18: "Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils" Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
1.27.   Member s had bindings greater than applied rates for "oilseeds, fats and oils " product group. 
However, as in the case of other product groups, only a few Members applied tariffs at the bound 
level. Six of the Members, (Bangladesh, Colombia, India, Lesotho, Nigeri a, and Zimbabwe), had 
water in their oilseeds, fats, and oil s product tariffs exceeding 125 p ercentage points. Similarly to 
"animal products " and " cereals and preparations " product groups, only two developed Members, 
Iceland and Norway, had a tariff overhang greater than the WTO Member average. Republic of Korea 
also had the highest applied rate (40.7 %) for the product group (Figure 20) . 
1.28.   Developing Members also had significa ntly higher levels of water than developed Members for 
this product group. Of all the LATMs, India, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa had the highest level 
of water. Hong Kong, China;  the United States;  China;  and the European Union had the lowest 
amount of water. A comparison of LATMs ' past applied  tariff schedules has found that ten Members 
had changed their applied tariffs in this category, with changes affecting a total of 221 tariff lines. 
India increased tariffs for 35 of its tariff lines (potentiall y affecting US$5.1 billion worth of imports 
annually or 46 % of their annual imports of "oilseeds, fats, and oils "). Turkey decreased tariffs, over 
the same period, for 104 of its tariff lines (potentially affecting US$0.43 billion  worth of imports 
annually  or 9%  of their annual imports of " oilseeds, fats, and oils "). Altogether, an average of US$1 
billion worth of imports of " oilseed s, fats, and oils " product group had a decrease in tariffs and 
US$5.3 billion worth of the product group had an increase in ta riffs.24 Of the four product groups, 
"oilseeds, fats, and oil s" was the only product group to see more goods (by value) potentially affected 
by an increase in tariffs than a decrease  (Figure 19).  
                                                
23 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). " Oilseeds, fats and oils" products incorporate HS 
1201-1208, HS Chapter 15 (except 150410, 150420), HS 2304 -2306, HS 3823 . 
24 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of t he analysis.  
020406080100120140160180Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 19 - 
 
  Figure 19: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Change s, "Oilseeds, Fats, and 
Oils", 2012 -2016   
 
 
 
2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000IndiaTurkeyArgentinaSwitzerlandUkraineBrazilMexicoThailand
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction 
in TariffsValue of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 20 - Figure 20: "Oilseeds, Fats, and Oils" Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 21 - 
 
  Dairy Products  
1.29.   In 2016, the "dairy products " group accounted for more than US$24.9 billion of global 
imports.25 For the same year, developing Members, on average, had an applied rate significantly 
lower than the average of developed Me mbers (e.g., 18.4 % vs. 49.3 %) (Figure 21) . However, the 
level of water was significant for both Member groups with developing and developed Members ' 
having average bound rates of 58.3 % and 82.9 %, respectively. Amongst LATMs , the average applied 
rate for " dairy products " was 34.4 % and the average bound rate was 50 %. These Members imported 
US$20.9 billion, consisting 84 % of all "dairy product " imports in 2016.   
Figure 21: " Dairy Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.30.   Again, only a few Members applied " dairy product " tariffs at the bound level. Six Members, 
(Iceland, Norway, Lesotho, Israel, Bangladesh, and Nigeria), had water in their dairy product tariffs 
exceeding 125 percentage points. Canada had the highest applied rate (248.9 %), followed by Turkey 
(135.9 %), Switzerland (133.2 %), Norway (120.9 %), and Iceland (86.6 %) (Figure 23) . 
1.31.   Developing Members had slightly more water than developed Members. Of all the LATMs, 
South Africa, Indonesia, and Mexico had the highest level of water. Russian Federation;  Hong Kong,  
China;  Ukraine;  the United States;  Chinese Taipei ; China;  and Thailand had no water. A comparison 
of the 2012 and 2016 applied tariff schedules, finds that LATMs had changed their applied tariffs in 
this category, with changes af fecting a total of 53 tariff lines: decreases occurred on lines with 
US$1.1 billion worth of average annual imports and increases occurred on lines with US$17.6 million 
in average annual imports  (Figure 22) .26 Mexico decreased the tariffs for 8 lines by an average of 
45 percentage points, including on cheese (potentially affecting US$1 billion worth of imports 
annually or 60 % of its annual imports of "dairy products "). During the same period, Switzerland 
increased tariffs for 6 lines affecting yogurt and sour cream by an average of 38 Fr./100 kg 
(potentially affecting US$0.4 billion worth of imports annually or 4 % of its annual imports of "dairy 
products ").  
                                                
25 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Dairy products " incorporate HS 0401 -0406.  
26 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
050100150200250300Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Figure 22 : Average Annual Value o f Imports with Tariff Changes, " Dairy Products ", 
2012 -2016  
 
 
 
1,500 1,000 500 0 500SwitzerlandThe PhilippinesTurkeyMexico
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction Value of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 23 - Figure 23: " Dairy Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 24 - 
 
  Coffee, Tea  
1.32.   In 2016, the "coffee and tea " product group accounted for approximately US$58.9 billion of 
global imports.27 For the same year, developing Members, on average, had an applied rate higher 
than the average of developed Members (e.g., 15.9 % vs. 7.1 %) (Figure 21) . The level of water was 
also more pronounced for developing Members than developed Members with the aver age bound 
rate of 58.4 % for developing Members compared to the bound rate of 11.4 % for developed 
Members. Amongst the LATMs, the average applied rate for "coffee and tea " products was 15 % and 
the average bound rate was 30.7 %. These Members imported US$57.1  billion consisting 97 % of all 
"coffee and tea " imports in 2016.   
Figure 24: " Coffee and Tea " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.33.   As with other product grou ps, only a few Members applied " coffee and tea " tariffs at the bound 
level. Four Members, (Lesotho, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and Nigeria), had water in their coffee and 
tea product tariffs exceeding 125 percentage points. Republic of Korea had the highest applied rate 
(56.4 %), followed by India (56.3 %), and Thailand (45.3 %) (Figure 26) . 
1.34.   Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of all the LATMs, India, South 
Africa, Mexico, and Turkey had th e highest level of water. China;  Hong Kong, China; the European 
Union;  the United States;  Chinese Taip ei; Japan;  and Canada had no water. A comparison of the 
2012 and 2016 applied tariff schedules of LATMs  found that seven  Members had changed their 
applied tariffs in this category, with changes affecting a total of 125 tariff lines; decreases occurred 
on lines with US$0.4 billion worth of average annual imports and increases occurred on lines with 
US$0.5 billion in average annual imports  (Figure 25) .28 Mexico decreased the tariffs for 13 lines 
(coffee and cocoa products) by an average of 29 percentage points  (potentially affecting US$0.2 
billion worth of imports annually or 30 % of its annual imports of " coffee and tea "). During the same 
period, Switzerland increased tariffs for 36 lines affecting mostly chocolate preparations by an 
average of 25 Fr./100 kg (p otentially affecting US$0.3 billion worth of imports annually or 18 % of 
its annual imports of " coffee and tea " products).  
                                                
27 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Coffee and Tea " incorporate HS 0901 -0903, 
HS Chapter 18 (except HS 1802), HS 2101.  
28 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
020406080100120140Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 25 - 
 
  Figure 25: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Changes, "Coffee and Tea ", 
2012 -2016  
 
 
 
400 200 0 200 400SwitzerlandIndonesiaArgentinaKorea, Republic ofThailandTurkeyMexico
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction in 
TariffsValue of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 26 - Figure 26: " Coffee and Tea " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 27 - 
 
  Sugars and Confectionery  
1.35.   In 2016, the "sugar and confectionery " product group accounted for approximately US$26.4 
billion of global imports.29 For the same year, developing Members, on average, had an applied rate 
higher than the average of developed Members (e.g., 15.7 % vs. 10.1 %) (Figure 27) . The level of 
water was m ore pronounced for developing Members than developed Members with the average 
bound rate of 62.4 % for developing Members compared to the bound rate of 23.9 % for developed 
Members. Amongst the LATMs , the average applied rate for " sugars and c onfectionery " products 
was 17.8%  and the average bound rate was 38% . These Members imported US$21.2 billion, 
comprising 80 % of all " sugars and confectionery " imports in 2016.   
Figure 27: "Sugars and Confectionery " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.36.   Once aga in, only a few Members applied " sugars and confectionery " tariffs at the bound level. 
Five Members, (Niger, Lesotho, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria), had water in their sugar and 
confectionary product tariffs exceeding 125 percentage points. Turkey had the highest applied rate 
(93.4 %), followed by Thailand (42.6% ) (Figure 29) . 
1.37.   Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of all the LATMs, India, 
Mexico, South Africa, and Indonesia had th e highest level of water. China;  Hong Kong, China;  the 
United States;  and Ukraine had no water. A comparison of the 2012 and 2016 applied tariff schedules 
of LATMs found that nine Members had changed their applied tariffs in this category, with changes 
affecting a total of 130 tariff lines; decreases occurred on lines with US$0.6 billion worth of average 
annual imports and increases occurred on lines with US$0.6 billion in average annual imports  
(Figure  28).30 Mexico decreased the tariffs for 5 lines (other sugars) by an average of 75 percentage 
points (potentially affecting US$0.5 billion worth of imports annually or 55%  of its annual imports 
of "sugars and confectionery "). During the same period, Egypt increa sed tariffs for 27 lines affecting 
cane sugar by an average of 14 percentage points (potentially affecting US$0.4 billion worth of 
imports annually or 93 % of its annual imports of "sugars and confectionery "’ products).  
                                                
29 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Sugars and confectionery " incorporates 
HS Chapter 17.  
30 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis. 
Canada had tariffs change affecting 5 lines but the direction is unknown.  
020406080100120140Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 28 - 
 
  Figure 28: Average Annual Value of I mports with Tariff Changes, "Sugars and 
Confectionery ", 2012 -2016  
 
 
 
1,000 500 0 500EgyptSwitzerlandIndonesiaThe PhilippinesTurkeyThailandMexico
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction in 
TariffsValue of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 29 - Figure 29: "Sugars and Confectionery " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Beverages and Tobacco  
1.38.   In 2016, the " beverages and tobacco " product group accounted for approximately US$96.3 
billion of global imports.31 For the same year, developing Members, on average, had an applied rate 
higher than the average of developed Members (e.g., 35.5 % vs. 14.8 %) (Figure 30) . The level of 
water was more pronounced for developing Members than developed Members with  the average 
bound rate of 86.2%  for developing Members c ompared to the bound rate of 18%  for developed 
Members. Amongst the LATMs, the average applied rate for "beverages  and tobacco " products was 
52.8%  and the average bound rate was  85.5% . Both the average applied rate and bound rate were 
the highest of any product group. These large trading Members imported  US$89.4 billion, comprising 
93% of all "beverages and tobacco " imports in 2016.   
Figure 30: "Beverages and Tobacco " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.39.   Only a few Members applied " beverages and tobacco " tariffs at the bound level. Nine 
Members, (Myanmar, Brunei Darussalam, Singapore, Lesotho, Bangladesh, Egypt, Malaysia, Niger, 
and Nigeria), had water in their beverages and tobacco product tariffs exce eding 125 percentage 
points. Egypt had the highest applied rate (803 %), followed by Fiji (137.1 %) and Malaysia (90.1 %) 
(Figure  32). 
1.40.   Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of all the LATMs, Singapore, 
Egypt, Malaysia, and South Africa had  the highest le vel of water. China; Hong Kong, China; the 
United States;  European Union;  and Russian Federation had no water. A comparison of the 2012 
and 2016 applied tariff  schedules of LATMs found that eight  Members had changed their applied 
tariffs in this category, with changes affecting a total of 220 tariff lines; decreases occurred on lines 
with US$0.5 billion worth of average annual imports and increases occurred on lines with US$0.5 
billion in average annual imports  (Figure 31) .32 Brazil decreased the tariffs for a single line (wine) 
by 7 percentage points (potentially affecting US$0.3 billion worth of imports annually or 29%  of its 
annual imports of "beverages and tobacco "). During the same period, it i ncreased tariffs for 2 lines 
affecting mostly ethyl alcohol by an average of 20 percentage points (potentially affecting US$0.27 
billion worth of imports annually or 28%  of its annual imports of "beverages and tobacco " products).  
                                                
31 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Beverages and Tobacco " incorporates HS 2009, 
HS 2201 -2208, HS Chapter 24.  
32 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
01002003004005006007008009001000Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Figure 31: Average Annual Value o f Imports with Tariff Changes, " Beverages and 
Tobacco ", 2012 -2016  
 
 
 
400 200 0 200 400BrazilIndonesiaEgyptArgentinaThailandTurkeyIndia
Millions of USDValue of 
Imports with a 
Reduction in Value of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 32 - Figure 32: "Beverages and Tobacco " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Cotton  
1.41.   In 2016, the "cotton " product group accounted for approximately US$9.2 billion of global 
imports, and was the least traded product group.33 For the same year, developing Members, on 
average, had an applied rate slightly higher than the average of developed Members (e.g., 3.9 % vs. 
0.5%) (Figure  33). The level of water was more pronounced for developing Members than developed 
Members with the average bound rate of 51 % for developing Members co mpared to the bound rate 
of 2.4%  for developed Members. Amongst the LATMs, the average applied rat e for "cotton" products 
was 2.6%  and the average bound rate was 16.7% . Both the average applied rate and bound rate 
were the lowest of any product group. These large trading Members impor ted US$8.8 billion, 
comprising 95%  of all "cotton " imports in 2016.   
Figure 33: "Cotton " Bound and Applied MFN Rates for LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.42.   Only a few Members applied "cotton " tariffs at the bound level. Three Members, (Lesotho, 
Bangladesh, and Nigeria) had water in their cotton product tariffs exceeding 125 percentage points. 
China had th e highest applied rate (18 %), followed by Zambia, Tajikistan, and Tonga (15 %, all) 
(Figure 35) . 
1.43.   Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of all the LATMs, India, South 
Africa, Brazil, and Mexico had the highest level of water. Hong Kong, C hina; the United States;  
Ukraine;  the European Union;  Chinese Taipei ; Japan;  New Zealand;  Switzerland;  and Russian 
Federation had no water. A comparison of the 2012 and 2016 applied tariff schedules of LATMs found 
that only one Member, Brazil, had changed (decreased by 4 percentage points) the tariffs for 2 tariff 
lines affecting cotton with US$0.03 billion worth of annual imports.34 In con trast to other product 
groups, " cotton " products were not as affected by changes in tariffs as other products  (Figure 31).  
                                                
33 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Cotton " incorpora tes HS 5201 -5203.  
34 Figures do not include data from Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
020406080100120Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Figure 34: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Changes, "Cotton ", 2012 -2016  
 
 
40 30 20 10 0Brazil
Millions of USDValue of Imports 
with a Reduction 
in TariffsValue of 
Imports with 
an Increase 
in Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 35 - Figure 35: "Cotton " Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
 
JOB/AG/147  
 
- 36 - 
 
  Other Agricultural Products  
1.44.   In 2016, the "other agricultural products " product group accounted for approximately 
US$60.3 billion of global imports.35 For the same year, developing Members, on average,  had an 
applied rate slightly higher than the average of developed Members (e.g., 7.5 % vs. 4.7 %) 
(Figure  36). The level of water was more pronounced for developing Members than developed 
Members with the average bound rate of 51.3 % for developing Members c ompared to the bound 
rate of 10.4 % for developed Members. Amongst the LATMs, the average applied rate for "other 
agricultural products " was 5.9 % and the average bound rate was 17.8 %. These large trading 
Members import ed US$53.7 billion, comprising 89%  of all "other agricultural product " imports in 
2016.   
Figure 36: "Other Agricultural Products " Bound and Applied MFN Rates LATMs, 2016  
 
 
1.45.   Only a few Members applied " other agricultural product " tariffs at the bound level, and three 
Members had water in their other agricultural product tariffs exceeding 125 percentage points. India 
had the highest applied rate (22.3% ), followed by Tunisia (21.6 %), Republic of Korea (20.3 %), and 
Norway (19.8 %) (Figure 38) . 
1.46.   Developing Members had more water than developed Members. Of the LATMs, India, 
Indonesia, Argentina, and Mexico had the hi ghest level of water. Hong Kong, China and Chinese 
Taipei had no water. While Japan, Canada, Russian Federation, China, and the United States had 
water of less than 1 percentage point. A comparison of the 2012 and 2016 applied tariff schedules 
of LATMs found that 12 Members had changed their applied tariffs in this category, with changes 
affecting a total of 230 tariff lines: d ecreases occurred on lines with US$1 billion worth of average 
annual imports and increases occurred on lines with US$0.5 billion worth of average annual 
imports.36 Thailand decreased tariffs for 122 lines in this category (including animal feed and flours, 
meals, and pellets of meat) with an average decrease of 7 percentage points. The value of imports 
potentially affected was US$0.5 billion worth of imports annually (or 40 % of Thailand’s annual 
imports of "other agricultural products "). During the same peri od, Argentina increased tariffs for 
                                                
35 2016 IHS GTA import value (accessed 20  July 2018). "Other Agricultural Products " incorporate 
HS Chapter 5 (except HS 0508, HS 051191), HS 0604, HS 0904 -10, HS 1209 -1210, HS 1212 -1214, HS 1802, 
HS 230110, HS 2302 -2303, HS 2307 - 2309, HS 290543 -290545, HS 3301, HS 3501 -3505, HS 380910, 
HS 382460, HS  4101-4103, HS 4301, HS 5001 -5003, HS 5101 -5103, HS 5301 -5302.  
36 Figures do not include data fro m Viet Nam, which was not available at the time of the analysis.  
020406080100120Percent
Bound Rate Applied Rate
Avg. Developing Bound Avg. Developing Applied
Avg. Developed Bound Avg. Developed Applied
Avg. WTO Bound Avg. WTO AppliedJOB/AG/147  
 
- 37 - 
 
  1 animal feed line by 12 percentage points. The tariff line encompassed US$0.05 billion worth of 
imports annually (or 16 % of Argentina’s annual imports of " other agricultural products ") (Figure 37) .  
Figure 37: Average Annual Value of Imports with Tariff Changes, "Other Agricultural 
Products ", 2012 -2016  
 
 
 
 
650 150 350IndiaChinaTurkeyArgentinaSwitzerlandBrazilEgyptCanadaMexicoKorea, Republic ofThailand
Millions of USDValue of 
Imports with a 
Reduction in Value of Imports 
with an Increase in 
Tariffs 
  JOB/AG/147  
 
- 38 - Figure 38: "Other Agricultural Products" Bound and Applied MFN Rates, 2016  
 
 
__________