RESTRICTED  
  
WT/ACC/KAZ/72  
 
27 February 2013  
(13-1077)  Page: 1/75  
Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan  Original: English  
 
   
ACCESSION OF KAZAKHSTAN 
 
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND REPLIES 
 
 The following submission, dated 21 February 2013,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Kazakhstan. 
  
_______________ WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
-  Monetary and Fi scal Policy ...................................................................................... 3  
-  Foreign Exchange and Payments ............................................................................. 3  
-  Investment Regime ................................................................................................. 4  
-  State-ownership, State-trading Enterprises, and Privatization ................................ 7  
-  Pricing Poli cies ...................................................................................................... 20  
-  Competition Policies .............................................................................................. 22  
III. FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING PO LICIES ........................................ 23  
(d) The Eurasian Economic Commission ...................................................................... 23  
(i) Transparen cy ........................................................................................................ 25  
IV. POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ............................................................... 26  
-  Registration Requirements for Import Export Operations ..................................... 26  
-  Ordinary Customs Duties ....................................................................................... 27  
-  Tariff Rate Quotas ................................................................................................. 28  
-  Fees and Charges for Services Rendered ............................................................... 34  
-  Application of Internal Taxes to Imports ............................................................... 35  
-  Excise taxes .......................................................................................................... 38  
-  Quantitative Restrictions and Import lic ensing ..................................................... 40  
-  (a) Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas .............. 40  
-  (b) Import Li censing ............................................................................................. 40  
-  Customs Valu ation ................................................................................................ 46  
B. EXPORT REGU LATIONS ......................................................................................... 47  
C. INTERNAL POLICIES AFFECTING FOREIGN TRADE IN GOODS ............................... 47  
-  Industrial Policy, In cluding Subs idies ................................................................... 47  
-  Technical Barriers to Trade, Standards and Certification ....................................... 51  
V. TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME ............................................. 61  
VI. POLICIES AFFECTING TR ADE IN SERVICES ........................................................... 62  
VIII. TRADE AGREEMENTS ............................................................................................. 64  
ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... . 70 
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... . 72 
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... . 73 
 WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 3 - 
 
  - Monetary and Fiscal Policy 
Question 1 
Paragraph 16 describes the VAT system.  Please  include information on who, in general, 
is not required to register for VAT, e.g., sm all firms.  Please give information on the 
threshold in actual current value as we ll as "minimum incomes" if applicable. 
Answer: 
In accordance with the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan the mandatory registration for VAT 
payment does not apply to: 
1. Individual entrepreneurs, juridical persons of Kazakhstan and non-residents 
conducting business through branches or representative offices, whose annual turnover is less than 30,000 MCI (i.e. small business).  
In 2013, MCI equalled to KZT 1,731 or US$11.5, thus 30,000 MCI equalled to US$345,000. 
2. State institutions; 
3. Structural divisions (branches, represen tative offices) of juridical persons of 
Kazakhstan; 
4. Entities subject to tax on gambling, fixed tax and single land tax; 
We revised paragraph 16 as follows: 
"16. The new Tax Code provided for a number of tax reductions.  The corporate income 
tax rate had been reduced from 30% to 20%.  Since 1 January 2009, VAT had been 
decreased from 13% to 12%.  The following persons were required to register for VAT payment in Kazakhstan:  (i) individual entrepreneurs; (ii) juridical persons of Kazakhstan except for government institutions; and (iii) non-residents conducting business in 
Kazakhstan through branch or representative office.  In accordance with the Tax Code the 
mandatory registration for VAT payment did not apply to:  (i) state institutions; 
(ii) structural divisions (branches, representative offices) of juridical persons of 
Kazakhstan; (iii) entities subject to tax on gambling, fixed tax and single land tax; 
(iv) individual entrepreneurs, juridical persons of Kazakhstan and non-residents conducting 
business through branches or representative offices in Kazakhstan, whose annual turnover 
was less than 30,000 MCI (i.e. small business).  In 2013 MCI equalled to KZT 1,731 or 
US$11.5, thus 30,000 MCI equalled to US$345,000." 
- Foreign Exchange and Payments 
Question 2 
Paragraphs 42 and 43:  these paragraphs requir e revision in line with the clarifications 
offered in the responses to Questions 2, 3,  and 4 of WT/ACC/KAZ/71.  Please make the 
revisions. 
Answer: 
We revised the text in line with the clarifications  provided in the responses to Questions 2, 3, and 
4 of WT/ACC/KAZ/71 as follows: 
"40. The representative of Kazakhstan replied that, in accordance with Law No. 57, 
since 11 August 2009 the licensing regime (authorisation procedure) of currency transactions and retail trade had been fully canc elled.  At present, licensing requirements 
were applied only to exchange transactions with foreign currency in cash by exchange 
offices and authorised banks.  Kazakhstan provided annual reports on its currency regime WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 4 - 
 
  to the IMF.  The IMF had never deemed Kazakhstan's regime inconsistent with the IMF 
Agreement and, in particular, with Article VIII of the Agreement.  The registration and 
notification requirements were maintained for statistical monitoring of external 
liabilities/revenues of Kazakhstan and further submission of the relevant data to the 
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank .  The requirement to register or notify 
the National Bank on currency transactions is outlined in paragraphs 41 and 42.  
42. The representative of Kazakhstan note d that only residents were required to 
register major transactions of capital flow s and provide timely notice to the NBRK.  
Residents were required to register transactions related to capital flow, which provided for 
the receipt of assets (funds) in an amount exceeding US$500,000 or for the transfer of capital (tangible assets) from Kazakhstan in an amount exceeding US$100,000.  She added that, in accordance with Law No. 57, the following transactions of residents 
with non-residents were subject to registration with the NBRK:  (i) commercial credits 
exceeding 180 days, except for foreign trade contracts, which were subject to export-import currency control as described in paragraph [408] of this Report; (ii) direct 
investments; (iii) financial loans for more than 180 days, including financial leasing; (iv) acquisition of an exclusive right to intellectual property objects; and (v) transfer of money or another property in fulfilment of obligations as a participant of a joint 
partnership.  The NBRK registration or no tification requirements extended only to 
residents.  Non-residents investing directly in Kazakhstan could further export their investments and incomes without any restrictions.  Registration of contract on currency transaction could only be refused in cases when (i) the submission contained unreliable 
information or did not include all information required in accordance with Law No. 57; and 
(ii) the transaction does not comply with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The provisions of Article 8 of Law No. 57 were the only conditions under which transactions 
could not be registered.  If a resident submitted the complete set of required documents 
which was in compliance with the legislation of Kazakhstan, the authorised bank would not 
have the grounds to refuse the registration.  Already registered transactions could not be 
abrogated or nullified by the NBRK.   
43. The representative of Kazakhstan added that the registration regime required the 
resident to submit to the NBRK a copy of the contract based on which the currency transaction would be carried out, as well as application form, identification documents and 
documents confirming incurrence, performanc e and discharge of liabilities under the 
currency contract.  The notification regime required the submission of information on already conducted currency transactions.  As part of liberalization reform of currency 
transaction regime, the registration requirement for certain number of currency 
transactions had been replaced by the notifica tion requirement.  Residents were required 
to notify currency transactions related to:  (i) capital movements involving the inflow of 
property (funds) in an amount exceeding the equivalent of US$500,000; (ii) transfer of 
funds (tangible assets) from Kazakhstan in an amount exceeding the equivalent of US$100,000 and (iii) payments/transfers by residents to non-residents and/or by non-residents to residents under financial derivatives transactions, as well as for payments 
related to export, import of works and services in amounts exceeding the equivalent of 
US$100,000.  The notification regime covered:  (i) the bank's own transactions, including financial loans and direct investments; (ii) securities transactions carried out on the basis 
of a brokerage services agreement concluded with a resident broker (notification by a 
broker); (iii) transactions with derivative financial instruments; (iv) acquisition of real estate; (v) opening of foreign bank accounts by residents; and (vi) transfer of property in 
trust (monetary funds and tangible assets)." 
- Investment Regime Question 3 Paragraphs 50-53:  Please include the informat ion in the responses to Question 6 in this 
narrative, i.e., that the "Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 373 "On Investments" of 
8 January 2003 does not establish local content or export performance requirements as measures of State support for investments". WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Answer: 
The information in the responses to Question 6 is included in paragraph 51 of the section 
"Investment regime" of the draft Working Party Report.  
Question 4 Prior to paragraph 56, please identify that this part of the text covers "Investment 
preferences". 
Paragraphs 56 - 61:  The responses to Questi ons 7 to 14 clarify Kazakhstan's regime on 
investment and other preferences availabl e for firms operating in "priority" or 
"strategic" sectors of the economy and the legislation under which they are granted, 
their duration and expiration.  More of th e information included in these responses 
needs to be included in the text of th e draft Working Party Report, including the 
provision of more clarity and detail. 
Please revise these paragraphs to deal with  the issues developed in the responses to 
these questions. 
Answer: 
We have incorporated the requested information into the revised draft Working Party Report.  Question 5 Paragraph 68:  If this is a commitment pa ragraph, where is the commitment sentence 
stating that "The Working Party ta kes note of these commitments?" 
Answer: 
The commitment sentence stating that "The Working Party took note of these commitments" is 
included to the paragraph 66 of the Section "Inves tment regime" of the draft Working Party Report 
of Kazakhstan. 
Question 6 As indicated in the Report, the Law "On Su bsurface and Subsurface Use" gives the 
Kazakhstan government the priority right to  subsurface utilization, when sold by the 
current holder, with no discrimination be tween foreign and domestic investors.  
Are there any conditions under which the government would purchase the rights to 
subsurface utilisation? 
Answer: 
In accordance with the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 291-IV "On Subsurface and 
Subsurface Use" of 24 June 2010 (the Law), if subsurface user intended to alienate the subsurface 
use right (a part thereof) and/or an object related to subsurface use rights1, the State has a 
priority right to purchase the subsurface use right (a part thereof) and/or an object related to subsurface use rights.  
                                               
 1 Object related to subsurface use rights means participating interests (shareholdings) in a legal entity 
holding the subsurface use right, as well as in a legal entity which may directly and/or indirectly determine, and/or influence on, decisions adopted by such subsurface user if the principal activity of that legal entity is 
related to subsurface use in the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
 Objects related to subsurface use rights also include securities evidencing the title to shares or 
securities convertible into shares of a legal entity holding a subsurface use right as well as a legal entity who may directly and/or indirectly determine, and/or influence on, the decisions adopted by such a subsurface user if the principal activity of such le gal entity is related to subsurface use in the Republic of Kazakhstan. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 6 - 
 
  The priority right of the State to purchase the subsurface use right and/or an object related to 
subsurface use rights is exercised by national managing holding, national company, or state 
authority, authorised by the Government of Kazakhstan for such purchase (the authorised state 
body).   
The decision on acquisition of alienable subsurface use right and/or an objects related to 
subsurface use right by national managing holding, national company, or authorised state body is 
taken by the competent authority on behalf of the Government of Kazakhstan.  
The Law "On Subsurface and Subsurface Use" does not provide any conditions under which the 
Government would purchase the subsurface use rights. 
The Law establishes the following procedures fo r exercising a priority right by the State: 
A person that intends to alienate a subsurface use right (a part thereof) and/or an object related 
to subsurface use rights shall submit an application to the competent authority. 
1. Within 20 business days from the receipt of the application, the competent authority shall 
submit the application and required documents for consideration of the Interdepartmental Commission for the Exercise of the Priority  Right of the State (hereinafter - the 
Interdepartmental Commission). 
2. Within 30 business days from the date of receipt of required documents, the 
Interdepartmental Commission proposes relevant recommendation on the acquisition (or 
refusal of acquisition) by the State of the alienable subsurface use right (a part thereof) 
and/or objects related to subsurface use rights. 
If the Interdepartmental Commission issues recomm endation on acquisition by the State of the 
alienable subsurface use right (a part thereof) an d/or an object related to subsurface use rights, 
such recommendation is delivered to the competent authority. 
3. The decision of the competent authority is delivered to the national managing holding or 
the national company or the state body authorised by the Government of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan for acquisition. 
4. After receipt of the decision of the compet ent authority, the national managing holding, 
the national company or the authorised state body shall initiate negotiations with the 
subsurface user or the owner of the object related to subsurface use rights. 
The national managing holding, the national comp any or the state body shall acquire the alienable 
subsurface use right (a part thereof) and/or an object related to subsurface use rights on the terms that are not worse than those offered by other applicants. 
The period for the acquisition of subsurface use right (a part thereof) and/or an object related to 
subsurface use rights shall not exceed 6 months from the date of the decision is made. 
Question 7 
What would be the government's purpose in purchasing such rights, and what would it 
do after obtaining them? 
Answer: 
In accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, subsurface and minerals 
contained therein is a property of the State. State ownership of subsurface is one of the basic principles of the State sovereignty  of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The State provides access to 
subsurface on the basis, terms and to the exte nt stipulated by the Law of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan No. 291-IV "On Subsurface and Subsurface Use" of 24 June 2010 (the Law).  The Law 
establishes the priority right of the State to purchase subsurface use rights and/or an object related to these rights. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Thus, pursuant to the Article 12 of the Law, in order to preserve and increase the energy resources 
of the country, in a newly and previously executed contracts for subsurface use, except for 
contracts on ground water and commonly-occurring natural resources, the State shall have the 
priority right over any other party to the contract or participants of the legal entity holding the subsurface use right and other persons for the acquisition of the subsurface use right (a part 
thereof) and/or an object related to subsurface use rights to be alienated.  
Along with that, in accordance with the Articl e 22 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
No. 527-IV "On National Security" of 6 January 2012, national security interests are mandatory for 
consideration upon:  (i) conclusion of (amending) contracts for the use of strategic resources of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan; (ii) enforcement and mo nitoring these contracts, as well as (iii) in 
decision-making by a government agency on granting or refusing to issue permits for partial or complete transfer of subsurface use rights to another person and on granting or refusing 
authorisation to alienate shares in a legal entity that has the subsurface use right. 
Therefore, taking into account that the subsurface sector represents a strategic sector of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, the Government of Kazakhstan  by exercising its priori ty rights to purchase 
the subsurface use rights, aims to secure state interests in this strategic sector.  
By purchasing the subsurface use rights, the State can exercise the rights as a subsurface user 
through the national managing company JSC "Sov ereign Wealth Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" or the 
national company JSC National Company "KazMunaiGaz".  In their turn, these companies may 
perform any civil law transactions, which are not prohibited by the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to conduct subsurface use operations, sale, lease and other commercial activities.  
- State-ownership, State-trading Enterprises, and Privatization 
Question 8 
Paragraph 72:  Please clarify if the "Nationa l Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan" is 
actually the National Welfare Fund.   
- If so, please clarify in this paragraph (a s stated in the response to Question 16 of 
WT/ACC/KAZ/71) that none of the firms in the fund are state-enterprises and 
that they are all either "state-owned" (50%  or more state equity) or "firms with 
state participation."   
- Please indicate the proportion of each  (equity/participation) in the holdings. 
- Is "republican state property" always "s tate-owned" or are there "JSCs and LLPs 
with state participation?" 
Paragraph 82:  this paragraph states that the Government of Kazakhstan exercises of 
control or management of the activity of joint-stock companies and limited liability 
partnerships with State participation throug h shareholder influence, commensurate with 
its portfolio investment. 
- What does that mean in practice?  Does  the Government exercise any control or 
management "of the activity of "joint -stock companies and limited liability 
partnerships with State participation, whose shares in full or in part were owned 
by the State." 
- It states "JSCs/LLPs with majority (i.e. 50% or more) State ownership were 
considered as State-controlled enterprises."  Does that mean the same thing as 
"state enterprises," whether or not the firm's property is technically 
state-owned? 
Paragraph 84:  this paragraph states that "t he representative of Kazakhstan emphasized 
that the Government's role in the decisi on-making process and activities of State 
enterprises, as well as JSCs/LLPs with Stat e participation was strictly defined by the 
legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 8 - 
 
  - What does that mean in practice?  We do not have any description anywhere of 
what is "defined" in Kazakhstan legislatio n.  What is in the paragraph does not 
provide this information. 
Paragraph 88:  this paragraph states that "T he representative of Kazakhstan explained 
that a number of companies with 50% or more State participation in equity were 
included in the portfolio of the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna", a national 
managing holding.  The Fund had been es tablished with the objective to improve 
corporate governance in national companie s and enhance the competitiveness of the 
national economy.  Independent ownership also allowed the firms and enterprises to 
operate more as commercial entities and ge nerate their own profits.  The sole founder 
and shareholder of the Fund was the Governme nt of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which 
managed the Fund exclusively through fulfill ing the competences of the shareholder and 
through representation in the Board of Dire ctors. The Government of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan did not interfere into the day-to-day activities of the Fund".   
- What is a "national management holding" ?  Is it a state-owned holding company? 
- What are "national companies"?  Are they state enterprises, state-owned 
companies, or state controlled companies? 
- What does "fulfilling the compet ences of the shareholder" mean? 
- Please add that the Prime Minister of Ka zakhstan chairs the Board of Directors. 
Paragraph 91:  this paragraph states "The F und managed its subsidiaries in accordance 
with Law No. 415 "On Joint Stock Companies"  of 13 May 2003.  Interactions between 
the Government, including Government agen cies, and the Fund were conducted in 
accordance with Law No. 550-IV "On the Nati onal Welfare Fund" of 1 February 2012, 
other regulatory legal acts of the Repub lic of Kazakhstan, and the Memorandum on 
Cooperation between the Government of th e Republic of Kazakhstan and the Fund 
"Samruk-Kazyna".  Procurement of goods and services by the Fund, and organizations, 
in which the Fund directly or indirectly owned 50% or more of the voting shares (rights 
of participation), was conducted in accordance  with the Rules of Procurement, approved 
by the Board of Directors of the Fund on 26 May 2012. …  The Rules stipulated criteria 
for the evaluation of bids and provided for the application of conditional price reduction 
in total of up to 20% for locally produced goods and services". 
- Please provide more information on participation by the Government of 
Kazakhstan in the management of Sa mruk-Kazyna and indicate any other 
participation by governmental enti ties in the board of directors. 
- Please clarify if the requirement for local content in procurement for 
Samruk-Kazyna was initiated with the May 2012 Rules of Procurement.    
- Please indicate if any earlier statutor y or other requirements for local content 
procurement existed and include legal citations and description of that 
information in the next Working Party Report revision. 
- Please clarify what, if any, portion of Samruk-Kazyna's holdings are not "directly 
or indirectly owned 50% or more" by th e holding company and indicate this in 
the draft Working Party Report text. 
Answer: 
The National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan, described in paragraph [72] of the draft Working 
Party Report, is a separate entity from the National Fund Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna". 
The National Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan  was established by the Decree of the President 
No. 402 of 23 August 2000 with the objective to en sure stable socio-economic development of the 
State through reduction of dependence of the national economy on oil sector and adverse impacts 
of external factors. According to Article 21 of the Budget Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 
No. 95-IV of 4 December 2008 (hereinafter-Budget Code), the National Fund fulfils both saving and stabilization functions.  The National Fund represents assets of the State in the form of WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 9 - 
 
  financial assets, and other property, except intangible assets2, accumulated on the Government's 
account at the National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
According to Article 22 of the Budget Code, receipts into the National Fund consist of the following:  
1. Direct taxes collected from organizations of the oil sector (except taxes collected by local 
budgets): corporate income tax; excess profit tax; mineral extraction tax; export rent tax; 
bonuses; Kazakhstan's share received under production sharing agreements; additional 
payment of subsurface users, operating activity under production sharing agreements;   
2. Other receipts from operations, conducte d by companies of the oil sector (except 
payments collected by local budgets), including payments received as a result of breaching 
the terms of oil contracts; 
3. Receipts from privatization of state proper ty in republican ownership engaged in mining 
and processing sectors;  
4. Receipts from selling land plots for agricultural purposes.  
According to Article 23 of the Budget Code, the Nati onal Fund of the Republic of Kazakhstan could 
be used for the following purposes: 
(i) in the form of the guaranteed transfer from the National Fund into the Republican 
budget; 
(ii) for covering of expenses related to the management by the National Fund and 
conducting of annual audit. 
Investment revenues from the management by the National Fund proceed from investments of the 
financial assets of the National Fund into financial instruments, except for intangible assets.   
The National Welfare Fund is the national managing holding "Samruk-Kazyna", established in the 
form of the joint-stock company with 100% participation of the State.  Its activities are regulated 
by the Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan No . 415 "On Joint Stock Companies" of 13 May 2003 
and No. 550-IV "On the National Welfare Fund" of 1 February 2012, and other legislative acts of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan.  "Samruk-Kazyna" was established with the objective to improve 
corporate governance in companies, whose shares or rights of participation were previously owned by the state.  
The following table illustrates the proportion of equity share in the major companies of the 
National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna"
3: 
No. List of the major comp anies that belong to 
"Samruk-Kazyna" The proportion of equity share in 
the companies within the  National 
Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" 
(on 31 December 2012) 
1 "National atomic company "KazAtomProm"  100% 
2 "KEGOC"  100% 
3 "Kazakhstan Engineering"   100% 
4 "Kazakhstan Temir Zholy"  100% 
5 "Samruk-Energo"  94.73% 
6 "Air-Astana"  51% 
7 "Kazakhtelecom"  51% 
8 "KazMunaiGaz"  100% 
9 "KazPost"  100% 
10 "Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia" 100% 
                                               
2 Intangible assets include goodwill, trade-marks,  title and publishing ri ghts, computer software, 
licenses and franchises, copy right, patents and other rights on indust rial property, rights on services and 
exploitation, formulae, models, sketches and samples.   
3 According to the data from the Consolidated Fi nancial Statement of "Samruk-Kazyna" for year 2011.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 10 - 
 
   
According to paragraph 5, Article 8 of the Law No. 413-IV "On State Property" of 1 March 2011, 
the State can establish the following juridical persons: 
(i) state enterprises; and 
(ii) joint stock companies and limited liability partnerships with state participation.   
(i) State enterprises are established by the Government or local executive bodies to 
render state services with the objective to address socio-economic needs of the society and the State. 
- The State is responsible for the liabilities of state enterprises.  
- The property assigned to state enterprises entirely belongs to the State.  
The Government has a right to dispose the property of state enterprises.   
- The property is indivisible, e.g. ca nnot be distributed among employees of 
the state enterprise or alienated by them.  
- Transactions aimed at disposal of st ate property require the approval of 
the competent authority. 
- State enterprises are prohibited to conclude transactions not related to the 
subject or purpose of their activity, assigned by the Government or local 
executive bodies.  
Annex [22] of the draft Working Party Report describes the list of spheres where State enterprises 
could be established.  Typical examples of State enterprises are given in the answer to 
Question 16 of document WT/ACC/KAZ/71:  
1. The Kazakh Research Institute of Oncology and Radiology; 
2. The Almaty Regional Centre of Sanitary-Epidemiological Expertise; 
3. The Military-Technical School of the Ministry  of defense of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 
4. The Koktal Refining Factory of  Parent Forms of Corn Seeds; 
5. The Shardary Fish Hatchery; 
6. The Republican State of Correction of He aring of the Ministry of Labor and Social 
Protection; 
7. The Centre for Ensuring Safety of Flights of  the Committee of Civil Aviation of the Ministry 
of Transport and Communications of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 
8. The National Opera and Ballet Theatre after K. Baisseitova; 9. The Central State Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan; 
10. The Kazakh National University after Al-Farabi.   
(ii) Joint stock companies (JSCs) and limited liability partnerships (LLPs) with State 
participation are the companies with the shares or equity, partly or fully, belonging 
to the Government.  JSCs and LLPs are not State enterprises due to the following: 
The property of joint stock companies and limited liability partnerships does not belong to the 
State.  
- The Government does not have a right to dispose their property.  
- The degree of control over operations of the JSCs and LLPs is limited to 
competencies of the Government to act as a shareholder or participant.  Thus, even if 100% of shares or rights of participation of JSCs and LLPs entirely belong 
to the State, they operate as private companies. 
1. According to Article 171 of the Law "On State Property" depending on proportion of State's 
shares/rights of participation, the JSCs and LLPs are divided into two categories:  
(a) state-controlled joint stock companies and limited liability partnerships, in the 
charter capital of which the State owns controlling portfolio of shares (rights of participation), i.e. more than 50% of the voting shares (rights of participation); 
(b) JSCs and LLPs with non-dominant share of participation of the State.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 11 - 
 
  With regard to state-controlled JSCs and LLPs, th e Government's role is defined as the following: 
- The Government does not have a right to dispose the property of JSCs or LLPs under state 
control (50% or more State equity/participation).  
- The State owns only portfolio of shares (rights of participation) that allows the Government 
to participate in management of the companies as an ordinary shareholder (participant) in 
accordance with the procedures established by the Law "On Joint Stock Companies", 
"On Limited and Additional Liability Partnerships".  
- Joint stock companies or limited liability partnerships are not restricted to engage in 
commercial activity and may dispose their property independently.  
2. The Law "On State Property" also provides for the possibility to establish state-controlled 
joint stock companies in the following forms:  
(a) national managing holding; 
(b) national holding; 
(c) national company.  
(a) National managing holding is a joint stock company, the founder and sole shareholder of 
which is the Government of the Republic of Ka zakhstan (sub-paragraph 32, Article 1 of the 
Law "On State Property").  National managing holdings are established for effective management of shares (rights of participation in charter capital) of the national 
development institutions, national companies and other juridical persons.  
There are two national managing holdings in Kazakhstan:  "National Welfare Fund 
"Samruk-Kazyna" and "National Managing Holding "KazAgro".  
(b) National holding is a joint stock company, the founder and sole shareholder of which is the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan , established for effective management of 
shares of national companies and other joint stock companies and rights of participation in the charter capital of limited liability partners hips (sub-paragraph 35, Article 1 of the Law 
"On State Property").  
There are three national holdings in Kazakhstan: "National Info-Communication Holding 
"Zerde", National Scientific-Technological Holding "Parasat", National Medical Holding. 
(c) National company is a joint stock company, established by a decision of the Government of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan or local executiv e bodies, controlling portfolio of shares of 
which belongs to the State, national managing holding, or national holding, and which operates in spheres, that form the basis of the national economy, or established for 
promoting the development of economy of the regions (socio-entrepreneurial corporations) 
(sub-paragraph 34, Article 1 of the Law "On State Property").  
National companies, controlling shares (50% and more) of which belong to national 
managing holdings (such as "Samruk-Kazyna" and "KazAgro"), and national holdings (such 
as "Zerde", "Parasat", National Medical Holding) are not state-controlled JSCs.  However, national companies controlling shares of which does not belong to national managing 
holdings or national holdings are state-controlled. Here are examples of state-controlled 
national companies: socio-entrepreneurial corporations established in the regions, JSC "National Company "Astana Expo-2017",  JSC "National Company "Kazakhstan Garysh Sapary", JSC "National Company "Aktau International Marine Trade Port", non-commercial 
JSC "Holding  "Kasipkor".  
With respect to national managing holdings, national holdings, national companies
4 and 
other state-controlled JSCs and LLPs, the Government exercises the following competences 
(Article 11 of the Law "On State Property"):  
                                               
4 Excluding national companies which belong to th e national managing holdings "Samruk-Kazyna" and 
"KazAgro", and national holdings such as "Zerde".  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 12 - 
 
  1. Takes decisions on establishment, reorganization, change of the title and 
liquidation of a company; 
2. Determines the procedure of elaboration,  approval, monitoring and evaluation of 
the development strategies and plans; 
3. Determines the procedure for elaboration and reporting on implementation of the 
development strategies and plans.  
Thus, the major difference between state enterprises and joint stock companies/limited 
liability partnerships with State participation on the part of the Government is the degree 
of control over operations of the enterp rises and right to dispose their property. 
The following diagram illustrates types of juridi cal persons that could be established by the 
State: 
 
3. The National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" is a national managing holding with 100% of 
shares owned by the State.  
- The Government is not accountable for liabilities of companies under the 
"Samruk-Kazyna" and is not authorised to dispose the property of companies 
under the "Samruk-Kazyna" Fund.  
- The companies within the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" are neither 
"state enterprises", nor companies with state participation since their shareholder is the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna", and not the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
- The following national companies are under the "Samruk-Kazyna" national 
managing holding: "National Company "KazMunaiGaz", "KEGOC", "Kazpost", 
"National Atomic Company "Kazatomprom", "National Company "Kazakhstan Temir 
Zholy", "Kazakhtelecom", "National Company "Kazakhstan Engineering", National 
Mining Company "Tau-Ken Samruk", "National Geological Prospecting Company "Kazgeology".   
- The Government does not interfere into day-to-day activities of Samruk-Kazyna 
and its subsidiaries.  
- The Government exercises its competencies vis-à-vis  Samruk-Kazyna through the 
competencies of a shareholder and representation in the Board of Directors.  
The Fund, in turn, interacts with its companies through exercising competencies of 
shareholder and the Fund's representation in their Boards of Directors.   
In accordance with Article 7 of the Law "On the National Welfare Fund" the Government exercises 
the following exclusive competencies of the so le shareholder of the National Welfare Fund 
"Samruk-Kazyna": 
1. Approval and introduction of amendments  and addenda to the Charter of the Fund; WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 13 - 
 
  2. Approval of the Annual Financial Statement of the Fund; 
3. Approval of the Development Strategy of the Fund and introduction of amendments and 
addenda to the Strategy; 
4. Voluntary reorganization and liquidation of the Fund; 5. Decisions on increase of number of authorised  shares of the Fund or changing the type of 
unallocated authorised shares of the Fund; 
6. Determination of the term of office of the Board of Directors of the Fund, election of its 
members and early termination of their office; 
7. Sale of the shares of the daughter companie s, determined by the sole shareholder of the 
Fund, and transfer of these shares into trust management; 
8. Decisions on liquidation, reorganization of daughter companies, determined by the sole 
shareholder of the Fund; 
9. Appointment and early termination of office of the Chairman of the Board; 
10. Distribution of net income for the reporting financial year, payment of dividends on 
ordinary shares and approval of the amount of dividends per one ordinary share of the 
Fund; 
11. Decisions on non-payment of dividends on ordi nary shares in cases, stipulated by the Law 
"On Joint Stock Companies"; 
12. Dividend Policy of the Fund; 
13. Approval of the decision of the Board of Directors of the Fund, on the price, quality, 
structure of placement of shares of companies within the Fund, offered on the stock market for the purposes of implementing a deci sion of the Government of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan;    
14. Purchase and sale of shares of banks, and transfer thereof to trust management; 15. Approval and introduction of amendments  into the Code of Corporate Governance; 
16. Other issues according to the Law "On the National Welfare Fund" and (or) Charter of the 
Fund.  
The mechanism of checks and balances provided for by corporate governance rules, including 
presence of Independent Directors (up to 50% of the total members of the Boards of Directors) 
allows the Fund's subsidiaries to operate as commercial entities. Strategic decisions of the Fund's companies are made from the perspective of increasing their long-term value, effective management of assets and are protected from direct interference of the Government.  
The local content requirements were introduced in to the Rules of Procurement of "Samruk-Kazyna" 
approved by the Decision of the Board of Directors of 18 November 2009 in accordance with the Law "On the National Welfare Fund" of 13 February 2009.  The Rules introduced conditional price 
discounts for domestically produced goods - up to 20% and services - up to 10%, offered in the 
course of open tendering.  
In accordance with the new Law "On the Nati onal Welfare Fund" of 1 February 2012, new 
Procurement Rules of the Fund were approved by  the Decision of the Board of Directors of 
26 May 2012.  The Rules introduced additional local content provisions; in particular, conditional price discount to tender bids of domestic producers developing new productions (up to 15%).  
The Procurement Rules do not apply to companies where the Fund directly or indirectly owns less 
than 50% of shares (rights of participation).  
4. With respect to the Prime-Minister's compet ence, please see the proposed addition into 
paragraph [88]: 
 88. The representative of Kazakhstan explained that a number of companies with 50% 
or more State participation in equity had been included in the portfolio of the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna", a national managing holding.  The Fund was established 
with the objective to improve corporate governance in national companies and enhance 
the competitiveness of the national economy.  Independent ownership also allowed the firms and enterprises to operate more as commercial entities and generate their own profits. The sole founder and shareholder of the Fund was the Government of the Republic 
of Kazakhstan, which managed the Fund exclus ively through fulfilling the competences of 
the shareholder and through representation in the Board of Directors.  The Prime-Minister WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 14 - 
 
  of Kazakhstan ex officio chairs the Board of Di rectors.  The Government of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan did not interfere into the day-to-day activities of the Fund.   
Question 9 
Paragraph 75 states "Samruk-Kazyna" had a pproved the programme on the sale of 
minority shares of the national company "Kaz transoil" on the stock market – the "Halyk 
IPO"."   
- What percentage of shares are author ised for sale and how many have been 
sold?  What are the implications of this sale in terms of management control?  
- Please explain what "Kaztransoil" is and does? 
Answer: 
The "Halyk IPO" is a programme of initial public offering of minority shares for sale on the 
stock-market.  The title "Halyk" implies that these shares will be offered to citizens of Kazakhstan, 
who have the priority right of purchase, and pension funds of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  It was 
approved in July 2011 by the Board of Directors of the National Welfare Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" and Government Resolution in September 2011.  "KazTransoil" was the first company within the 
framework of "Halyk IPO" to offer its minority shares in December 2012 on the Kazakhstan Stock 
Exchange.  
Kazakhstani citizens, owning the shares, will be able to participate in management of the national 
companies by voting on the general shareholder m eetings. They will also have a right to receive 
dividends, which will be paid from the net income of the company. Pension funds will also have a possibility to make long-term investments.   
In overall, 10% minus one share of the authoris ed common shares of "KazTransOil" were placed 
on the stock market.  Around 80% of these shares were sold to more than 34,000 citizens of 
Kazakhstan.   
"KazTransOil" is a subsidiary of the National Company "KazMunaiGaz" which transports crude oil 
and oil products through the main pipelines.  
Question 10 Paragraph 83 states that the Government of  Kazakhstan does not at present own a 
"golden share" of any joint stock company.   
- Does that mean that there is no provis ion in any JSC laws or by-laws currently 
that provide for such a golden share? 
- Do the JSC laws or by-laws currently in clude provisions for the government to 
own a "golden share"? If so, please iden tify the provisions and the kinds of 
actions that are authorised.  
Answer: 
Paragraph 5, Article 13 of the Law "On Joint Stock Companies" provides for the possibility to 
introduce a "golden share".  One "golden share" could be established by the statutory meeting or decision of the sole shareholder.  A "golden shar e" does not participate in the formation of the 
charter capital and earns no dividends.  The owner of a "golden share" has the veto right on 
decisions of the general shareholder meetings, of the Board of Directors and executive body on the 
issues, determined by the Charter of the comp any.  The veto right is non-transferrable. 
Question 11 
Paragraph 85:  The statistics in the paragrap h are of no value to the Working Party.  
We have no basis for evaluating the concep t of "Gross Value Added".  We cannot accept 
the response to Question 17 which implies it  is beyond Kazakhstan's ability to produce WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 15 - 
 
  information on the participation of state an d state-owned and controlled enterprises in 
the Kazakh economy in generally understood terms. 
- Please translate all information provid ed into GDP or similar concepts using 
estimates. 
- Specifically, taxes are significant in the evaluation of the impact of extractive 
firms in national production.  Why were th ey deducted?  Please put them back in 
the total and produce a new number. 
- Specifically, GDP covers the total va lue of goods and services produced.  
Why would the cost of goods and services procured in the process of production 
be netted out?  Please put it back and produce a new number. 
Paragraph 89 states that "Based on the data  presented in the Consolidated Financial 
Statement of the Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" for 2011, the share of the Fund's total 
revenues in Kazakhstan's GDP stood at appr oximately 16%.  Based on the net revenue 
calculated through deducting the production cost of goods and services sold from its 
total revenue for 2011, the share of the companies included into the portfolio of the 
Fund "Samruk-Kazyna" collectivel y accounted for 4.5% of GDP". 
- GDP covers the total value of goods and services produced.  Why would the cost 
of goods and services procured in the pr ocess of production be netted out in the 
calculation of GDP?  Presumably, it is part of the value of the final output. 
- What portion of GDP would be accounted for if GDP were calculated as the total 
value of goods and services produced by Samruk-Kazyna' firms and its own 
activities as a portion of Kazakhstan's GDP? 
Answer:  
In accordance with the methodology of the Syst em of National Accounts (SNA), implemented by 
the Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan on St atistics (hereinafter – Statistics Agency), Gross 
Value Added is calculated at the level of economy sectors as a difference between output of goods 
and services and intermediate consumption.  The term "Gross" indicates that the parameter 
includes the cost of fixed capital consumed during the production process.  Under SNA 
methodology, output is calculated in basic prices , i.e. output does not include taxes subject to 
payment, but includes subsidies received by producers.   
In accordance with the SNA methodology, applie d by the Statistics Agency of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the most important parameters of the 
System of National Accounts, characterizing the ulti mate result of production activity of resident 
economic units.  The SNA was developed by five international organizations – the United Nations, the IMF, OECD, the World Bank and the European Commission. 
GDP could be calculated by three methods, which correspond to different stages of reproduction –
production method, consumption method and income method. GDP by production approach is calculated as a sum of Gross Value Added of all resident producers in basic prices plus portion of 
taxes on products minus subsidies on products.  
Therefore, the GDP is calculated by the following formula:  GDP = the sum of Gross Value Added in basic prices, plus all taxes on products, minus all 
subsidies on products.  
According to the data presented by the Statistics Agency of the Republic of Kazakhstan the share 
of State property in GDP was 9.1 %.  
According to data provided by the Statistics Agen cy, the share of "Samruk-Kazyna" in GDP in 2011 
was 7.2%.   
Based on the clarifications provided by the Statis tics Agency on the share of "Samruk-Kazyna" in 
GDP we suggest the following amendments into paragraph [89]: WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 16 - 
 
  89. "Based on the information provided by the Statistics Agency of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan, the share of "Samruk-Kazyna" in Kazakhstan's GDP in 2011 was 
7.2%.  There were no immediate plans for the privatization of 
"Samruk-Kazyna"'s holdings.   
Question 12 
Paragraphs 89-90 previously contained info rmation on parts of Samruk-Kazyna:   
- We need a listing and a description of  the major components of Samruk-Kazyna 
in the Working Party Report text.  We co unt on Kazakhstan to produce that for 
the next revision. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes to include the following paragraphs after paragraph [90]:   [90 bis] The "National Company "Kazakhtelecom" was an operator of fixed-line telephony 
services, which rendered traffic transit services providing connection between operating 
networks of countries bordering with Kazakhstan.  The "National Company "Kazpost" provided public postal services, including, delivery, distribution and mailing of periodicals, 
cash transactions in settlements, and mailing of registered letters within geographical 
boundaries of the Republic of Kazakhstan.   
[90ter] The "National Company "Kazakhstan Temir Zholy" provided main railway network 
services, cargo transportation services in domestic and import-export routes and 
passenger transportation services.  The "National Company "KEGOC" provided electric power transmission services via national electricity grid; technical traffic control services; regulation and reservation of electric power, electric power production-consumption 
balance management.  
Question 13 Paragraph 96 states that "KazAgroProduct ... was engaged in the ... purchase (including 
importation) of specialized transport, te chnological equipment for processing and 
storage of agricultural and livestock prod ucts for company's needs or for sale".  
Are there any local content requirements for these purchases? 
Answer: 
There are no local content requirements in th e purchases of "KazAgroProduct" discriminating 
imported products over domestic products.  Since 2007, "KazAgroProduct" does not purchase specialized transport and technological equipment.  The procurements had been conducted in 
accordance with the legislation on government procurement.  Local content requirements did not 
apply to these purchases.  
Question 14 
Paragraph 97:  The response to Question 20 of WT/ACC/KAZ/71 states that "There are 
no preferences for agricultural machinery pr oduced by companies from Kazakhstan or 
other Customs Union member-States in procur ements made for the purposes of leasing 
by "KazAgroFinance". 
- Does KazAgroFinance sell agricultural machinery?  If so, are there any local 
content requirements or preferences involved in the purchasing or in the terms of these sales? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Answer: 
"KazAgroFinance" purchases agricultural machiner y and equipment for subsequent leasing, based 
on applications of farmers, including imported ones. "KazAgroFinance" does not sell agricultural 
machinery.  Therefore there are no local cont ent requirements or preferences involved in 
purchases or in the terms of such sales.  
Question 15 
Paragraph 98:  We need more information in  this section of the Working Party Report: 
- Describing how the local content requir ements in the procurement contracts of 
these firms are structured in terms of scope and duration; 
- Clarifying which firms are engaging in commercial activities and distinguishing 
them from those that are conducting  business for the government; and  
- Kazakhstan's commitment to elimin ate these practices upon accession. 
This information is relevant to dealin g with the commitment in paragraph 99. 
Answer:  
Paragraph 98 describes the issue of state monopoly on importation/exportation of goods, which is 
not related to local content requirements in procurements of "Samruk-Kazyna" companies. 
Apparently, the question refers to paragraph 91 of the draft Working Party Report, which describes procurements of "Samruk-Kazyna".  
The procurement contracts, concluded by "Samru k-Kazyna" companies, shall contain the local 
content provisions which were indicated by a supplier in his/her tender offer or price quotation.  "Samruk-Kazyna" signs a contract with a supplier who receives the lowest conditional price, as a result of application of conditional price discounts, provided that the technical requirements of 
tender documentation had been met.  Thus, there are several factors affecting tender results:  
conformity with technical requirements, proposed  price for goods and services, and the share of 
local content in goods or services.  
All "Samruk-Kazyna" subsidiaries are engaged in commercial activities, except for "Kazakhstan 
Engineering" and "Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia".  "K azakhstan Engineering" produces goods for the 
national defence purposes.  "Samruk-Kazyna Pharmacia" conducts procurement of 
pharmaceuticals, medical equipment and materials which are distributed to public hospitals and 
polyclinics for provision of guaranteed free medical treatment to population by the State.   
Question 16 Paragraph 98:  In its response to Question 22,  Kazakhstan confirms that there is a legal 
requirement for purchasing preferences for domestically produced goods in 
Kazakhstan's government procurement law as it applies to purchases by State 
enterprises and enterprises with State partic ipation, and that this is not "government 
procurement" as defined by the WTO.  Furthe r, the response to Question 30 states that, 
"the Agreement on State (Municipal) Procurem ent within the Single Economic Space has 
become effective on the 1 January 2012.  Agreement provides that Kazakhstan will 
grant national treatment for government procurement to other parties from 
1 January 2014.  Other parties will grant national treatment to Kazakhstan in 
January 2014 respectively.  The Russian Federation and Belarus have already granted national treatment regime to each ot her for government procurement.   
- Does this mean that from 1 January 2014, the local content restrictions and 
preferences as they apply to purchases by State enterprises and enterprises with State participation that are not "gover nment procurement" as defined by the 
WTO will not be applied to imported g oods from the Russian Federation and 
Belarus (i.e., such imports will receive national treatment) and that such WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 18 - 
 
  purchases of goods imported  from other countries, in cluding WTO Members, will 
not receive national treatment in this regard?  
- Kazakhstan should amend its legislatio n prior to accession to ensure that 
purchases by state owned and state controlled enterprises not meeting the WTO definition of government procurement ar e not subject to any such local content 
restrictions, i.e., are made in conformity wi th the provisions of Articles I, II, III, 
and XI of the WTO Agreement and the commitment in paragraph 99 of the draft Working Party Report. 
Answer: 
The Agreement on Government (Municipal) Procurement enacted on 1 January 2012 as part of the 
legal framework of the Single Economic Space covers procurement conducted by republican bodies, local executive bodies, budget-funded orga nizations, including state agencies as well as 
other entities specified by the legislation of the SES Party. 
According to Article 1 of the Agreement, the SES Parties have the right to exempt in their national 
legislation, state enterprises and enterprises with state participation from the scope of the 
Agreement. 
Therefore, the Government of Kazakhstan is 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 commercial sale (resale) from the national tr eatment regime stipulated by the SES Agreement 
and to bring the national legislation into compliance with the WTO definition of government procurement.  Relevant amendments into the legislation of Kazakhstan regulating government 
procurement are envisaged to be enacted by the time of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO. 
Question 17 The Report states that "Independent owne rship also allowed the firms and enterprises 
to operate more as commercial entities and ge nerate their own profits.  The sole founder 
and shareholder of the Fund was the Govern ment of the Republic of Kazakhstan".  
Could Kazakhstan further elaborate on "ind ependent ownership" when the sole founder 
and shareholder of the Fund was the Gove rnment of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
Answer: 
"Independent ownership" implies strict differentia tion between competences of the Government as 
a shareholder and a state regulator.     
Articles 12 and 13 of the Law No. 550-IV "On the National Welfare Fund" of 1 February 2012 
stipulate that the Government shall not interfere in to day-to-day activities of the National Welfare 
Fund "Samruk-Kazyna".  
Interaction of the Government with companies wi thin the Fund is performed through transparent 
mechanisms of corporate governance.  In particular, the Government interacts with the Fund through representation in the Board of Directors.  
Independent directors constitute up to 50% of th e total consolidated number of Directors of the 
Fund's companies.  This mechanism of checks and balances provided for by corporate governance rules, allows the Fund's subsidiaries to operate as commercial entities.  Strategic decisions of the 
Fund's companies are protected from direct inte rference of the Government and made from the 
perspective of business development.  The provisions of the Law No. 303-III "On Government 
Procurement" of 21 July 2007 do not apply to the Fund and its subsidiaries.  
Question 18 
The paragraph also states that "the Fund ha s been established with the objective to 
improve corporate governance in national companies and enhance the competitiveness WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 19 - 
 
  of the national economy".  Could Kazakhstan provide the size of the initial capitalisation 
and current capitalisation of the Fund, an d inform whether the Fund has invested 
overseas and intends to do so in the future? 
Answer: 
Publicly available financial data of the Fund is presented on its official website at the following link:  
http://www.sk.kz/section/3511?lang=en.  
The Fund was created by merging the JSC "Samru k" and JSC "Kazyna" on the 3 November 2008, 
therefore the size of the initial capitalization on 31 December 2008 equals to 3,929,719 mln. 
tenge.  Current capitalization of the (equity capi tal of the shareholder on 30 June 2012) equals to 
5,075,195 mln. tenge.  
To date of 30 June 2012 the Fund has the following overseas investments: - Investments into daughter companies KGF IM, KGF Management, KGF SLP (100% 
ownership); 
- Investments into equities (financial a ssets):  Kazakhmys PLC (11% ownership).  
Question 19 
The paragraph also states that "the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan did not 
interfere with the day-to-day activities of th e Fund".  Could Kazakhstan elaborate on the 
selection process for the Board of Directors,  and provide relevant information about the 
current Directors? 
Answer: 
Selection into the Board of Directors is performed on the basis of provisions outlined in the Law 
"On Joint Stock Companies" of 13 May 2003 and the Law "On the National Welfare Fund".  
In accordance with Article 35 Law "On Joint Stock Companies", the Government, as a single 
shareholder, has an exclusive competence to select members of the Board of Directors.  
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Law "On the National Welfare Fund", the Board of Directors consists of 
the Chairperson and members, elected by the sing le shareholder.  The Prime-Minister of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan is the Chairperson ex offi cio.  The Board of Directors is formed from the 
Cabinet members, CEO, independent directors and other persons.  Number of the Directors is 
defined by the Charter of the Fund provided that the number of independent directors is not less 
than two fifths of the total number of the Board of Directors.   
The criteria and procedure for selecting independent directors are set in sub-paragraph 20 of 
Article 1 of the Law on Joint Stock Companies and Rules of Selecting Independent Directors.  
In particular, independent directors could not be: 
- affiliated with the given joint stock company, and shall not be affiliated with the affiliated 
persons of the given joint stock company within the last three years prior to election; 
- in subordination with an executive of the given joint stock company or organizations - 
affiliated persons of the given joint stock company within the last three years prior to election; 
- a civil servant; 
- a representative of the shareholder on the m eetings of the bodies of the given joint stock 
company within the last three years prior to election, and; 
- did not participate as an auditor in auditing of the given joint stock company within the 
last three years prior to election. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Question 20 
We note from paragraph 97 that KazAgro Financ e is involved in purchasing agricultural 
equipment for subsequent lease to farmers.   Could Kazakhstan please provide draft 
subsidies notification regarding these activi ties of KazAgroFinance under Article 25 of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures? 
Answer:  
KazAgroFinance purchases agricultural equipment for agricultural support only.  KazAgroFinance 
purchases agricultural machinery and equipment based on applications of farmers where they 
indicate preferred type of machinery or equipment, including imported ones.  The measure is not 
aimed at supporting agricultural machinery producers of Kazakhstan but to support farmers through providing leasing of agricultural equi pment and machinery at preferential terms.  
Therefore provisions of the Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures do not cover 
leasing activity of KazAgroFinance.  The preferen tial terms under which these leasing operations 
take place are taken into account in the calculations of the agricultural domestic support measures.  
- Pricing Policies 
Question 21 Paragraph 110 states that "the Government regu lated the price of gas, in particular the 
wholesale domestic prices for liquefied petrol eum gas, and retail domestic prices for oil 
products and gas charged by ma rket participants with dominant or monopolistic position 
on the relevant market".  Could Kazakhstan further elaborate on this market interference, and policy objectives  behind this price regulation? 
Answer: 
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.  
Gas prices, charged by market participants with dominant or monopolistic position, except for 
wholesale prices, are subject to notification and expertise of price increase in accordance with 
Articles 7-1 – 7-4 of the Law No. 272-I "On Natural Monopolies and Regulated Markets" of 
9 July 1998.  These measures are introduced in or der 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. 
Question 22 
In the paragraph, it is stated that "trans portation of gas via pipelines for domestic 
consumption and crude oil via main pipelines  was subject to regulation as natural 
monopolies.  The regulated tariffs for transp ortation of gas and oil were based on a 
"cost plus reasonable profit" principle.  Coul d Kazakhstan elaborate on what is meant by 
"reasonable profit"? 
Answer: 
"Reasonable profit" is a profit (net income minus taxes) which a company, whose services are 
subject to state regulation as natural monopoly, is entitled to receive in order to cover maintenance costs of its assets, i.e. costs of renewal and modernization of production assets.  
"Reasonable profit" is determined as a profit margin multiplied by the value of assets used by a 
company, whose services are subject to state re gulation as natural monopoly, when rendering 
regulated services.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Profit margin is determined as weighted average value of different types of assets operated by the 
company (equity capital, borrowed capital, effective tax rate).  Value of assets used by a company, 
whose services are subject to state regulation as natural monopoly, when rendering regulated 
services is determined as aggregate cost of long term assets (fixed assets and intangible assets) and net working capital (current assets minus current liabilities).  
Question 23 
The government Ministry of Oil and Gas allo cates available quotas among Kazakhstan's 
exporters proportionally to the volume of their production.  If a company plans to 
increase its production, it has to apply fo r additional quotas, which become available 
when another company gives up its quotas or the Russian Federation provides additional 
transit capacity.  Under these circumstance s, how does a new exporter obtain its 
quotas?  
Answer: 
It should be noted that the term "quota" in paragraph [113] is used notionally.  In other words, 
the term "quota" in paragraph [113] is not used as an instrument of foreign trade regulation, but 
as means of ensuring fair and equitable access to the main pipeline for oil exporters. 
A new exporter obtains access to oil transportation on equal terms with current exporters, in 
accordance with Articles 24 and 25 of the Law No. 20-V "On the Main Pipeline" of 22 June 2012. 
The access is granted on a non-discriminatory manner based on applications received by the 
Ministry of Oil and Gas from exporters depending on technical capacities of the main pipeline.   
According to paragraph 1, Article 24 of the Law "O n the Main Pipeline" the owner or operator of 
the pipeline should ensure equal conditions of granting access to main pipeline transportation 
services to all exporters.    
A Timetable of Oil Transportation is developed taking into account oil transportation agreements 
with the owner/operator of the main pipeline and oil exporter.  Exporters should indicate in the 
applications the volume and shipment period of oil subject to transportation via main pipeline.  
The Ministry of Oil and Gas confirms with the operator as to available technical capacities and approves the Timetable of Oil Transportation.  Technical capacity shall be confirmed by the 
operator within one day upon request by the Mini stry of Oil and Gas.  If additional technical 
capacity is not available, the exporter could use other means for oil transportation, such as railway transportation.  
Question 24 
Are there any regulations that apply to the allocation of quotas for new exporters? 
Answer: 
The regulation on distribution of available tran sportation volumes (quota) are applied equally to 
new and old  exporters, i.e. companies producing crude oil in Kazakhstan.  
In order to receive access to main pipeline, new players have to sign a subsurface use contract 
with the Government of Kazakhstan, i.e. to  become subsurface user in Kazakhstan.  
The Timetable of Oil Transportation is developed in accordance with the Rules of Formation of the 
Timetable of Oil Transportation by Main Pipe lines, approved by the Government Resolution 
No. 1274 of 8 October 2012.    
Question 25 
Under the current system, would it be de trimental for new players to conduct oil 
production and export business in Kazakhstan? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Answer: 
Access to transportation of oil via main pipeline  for new exporters is provided under the same 
conditions as for currently operating sub-surfac e users.  Therefore, there are no detrimental 
conditions for new players to be engaged in oil production and export produced oil from Kazakhstan. 
Taking into account stated above, Kazakhstan proposes to introduce changes into paragraph 113 
as follows: 
The Ministry of Oil and Gas allocated availabl e transportation quotas among Kazakhstan's 
companies producing crude oil proportionally to the volume of their production depending on the 
available transport capacities of the main pipeline in Kazakhstan and transit capacity provided by 
the Russian Federation.  Applications from producers had to indicate the production volume and destination for the transportation of crude oil.  Once the volume of quota was agreed upon, the 
exporter had to sign an Oil Transportation Agreement with the main pipeline operator - 
KazTransOil.  In negotiations on the annual transit quotas with the Russian Federation, the Government of Kazakhstan took into account the forecasted needs for crude oil transportation of 
all Kazakhstan's companies.  To date, all requests for transportation of crude oil had been met and 
there had been no shortage of quotas.  Thus, quotas were allocated to both domestic and foreign-invested companies producing crude oil in Kazakhstan on a non-discriminatory basis.  
Question 26 
Question 23 (WT/ACC/KAZ/71):  Please explicit ly identify the Agency on Regulation of 
Natural Monopolies of the Republic of Kaza khstan in the Working Party text as the 
authorised body for regulating retail prices  of gas supplied to consumers by regulated 
market participants with dominant or monopolis tic position in the relevant markets.    
Answer: 
The Agency on Regulation of Natural Monopolies of the Republic of Kazakhstan is the authorised 
body for regulating retail prices of gas supplie d to consumers by regulated market participants 
with dominant or monopolistic position in the relevant market.  
Kazakhstan proposes the following edits into paragraph [106]: 
106. In reply to a specific question from a Member regarding the regulation of energy 
prices, especially gas prices, the representative  of Kazakhstan said that, according to Law 
No. 532 IV of 9 January 2012 "On Gas and Gas Supply", her Government had established maximum wholesale prices for liquefied petrol eum gas on the domestic market, based on a 
proposal of the Ministry of Oil and Gas.  Regulation of retail prices for oil products and gas 
charged by market participants with dominant or monopolistic position on the relevant market was under the competence of the Agen cy on Regulation of Natural Monopolies.  
In accordance with Law No. 272-I, companies with dominant or monopolistic position 
submitted information on proposed price increases for gas to the Agency, accompanied by relevant justification materials.  The proposed price was approved on the basis of the 
results of a "price expertise" carried out by the Agency.  The price expertise was conducted 
in accordance with Article 7-2 of Law No. 272-I, which regulated price setting in regulated markets, as described in paragraph [101] of the Report. 
- Competition Policies 
Question 27 
Could Kazakhstan please explain the re asons behind the amendments made in 
paragraph 135? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Answer: 
The amendments into paragraph 135 were introduced in order to clarify that monopolistic activity 
is restricted, but not prohibited.  Monopolistic types of activities, restricted by the Law, are the 
following:  (i) anticompetitive agreements of market participants, (ii) anticompetitive coordinated actions of market participants, and (iii) ab use of dominant or monopolistic position.  
Taking into account the request for clarification, Kazakhstan proposes to make additions into 
paragraph 135 as follows: 
"Asked to clarify the differences between the concepts of dominant or monopolistic position 
and monopolistic activity, the representative of Kazakhstan replied that the concept of 
monopolistic activity was broader than the concept of dominant or monopolistic position.  Monopolistic activity was an activity or acti ons performed by a market participant, while 
dominant or monopolistic position was a characteristic of a market participant, defined by 
its market share.  According to sub-paragrap h 4 of Article 26 of the Constitution of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan, monopolistic activity was regulated by the law.  Market participants with dominant or monopolistic position had to observe restrictions set-out in 
Law No. 112-IV "On Competition".  Hence, monopolistic activity was restricted, but not 
prohibited.  Monopolistic types of activities, restricted by the Law "On Competition", are 
described in paragraph [133]." 
III. FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
(d) The Eurasian Economic Commission Question 28 This section does not reflect most of the information in the responses to Questions 28, 
29, and 30-37.  Unless this information can be identified in other sections of the Working 
Party Report, we request that it be reflected in this section. 
Answer:  
We have revised the section Framework for making and enforcing policies and have included 
requested information.  New paragraphs 173-178 were included: 
173. "A Member asked to explain how the Commission interacted with Kazakhstan's 
domestic law authorities in the following areas:  sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary 
measures, technical barriers to trade, any other areas where special committees or commissions reporting to the EEC Collegium had been established to administer trade related authorities.  The representative of Kazakhstan explained that in the field of 
technical regulation, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures Kazakhstan's 
national authorities actively participated in drafting CU Agreements and regulations through special mechanisms established by CU legislation.  In particular, the Сonsultative 
Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(hereafter:  the Consultative Committee) was a special consultative body that represented a platform for consultations among representa tives from the CU member-States.  Within 
the framework of the Consultative Committee Kazakhstan's relevant authorities 
participated in preparing proposals on draft CU  regulations on TBT and SPS, including draft 
technical regulations; conducted expertise of CU legal acts, etc.   
In particular, according to the CU procedures, dr aft CU technical regulations were developed by 
CU Parties.  A CU Party responsible for the development of draft technical regulation designated a 
State body responsible for development of the draf t technical regulation.  The State body prepared 
draft technical regulation and, taking into account proposals from the competent authorities of the 
CU Parties, formed a working group on the deve lopment of the draft technical regulation.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 24 - 
 
  In general, all CU legal acts on TBT, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures had to be 
reviewed and approved by relevant national auth orities prior to their adoption by the Eurasian 
Economic Commission. 
With regard to other areas, according to Arti cle 19 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic 
Commission Collegium had the right to establish consultative bodies.  At the present time 
Collegium established the following consultative bodies: 
- Consultative Committee on Natural Monopoly; 
- Consultative Committee on Transport and Infrastructure; 
- Consultative Committee on Trade; 
- Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Veterinary, Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures; 
- Consultative Committee on Tax Policy and Administration; 
- Consultative Committee on Customs Regulation; 
- Consultative Committee on Electro Power; - Consultative Committee on Oil and Gas; 
- Consultative Committee on Industry; 
- Consultative Committee on Agricultural Sector; - Consultative Committee on Statistics; 
- Consultative Committee on Macroeconomic Policy; 
- Consultative Committee on Migration Policy; - Consultative Committee on Entrepreneur Issue; - Consultative Committee on Intellectual Property; 
Consultative committees prepared proposals to th e Collegium and developed drafts of agreements 
and regulations.  Consultative committees consiste d of representatives of state bodies of each SES 
Party and independent experts. Chairman and Secretary of the Committee were EEC 
representatives.  Therefore, Parties, through thei r representatives, participated in the decision 
making process of the EEC. 
174. In response to the question whether there would be a common EEC procurement 
regime for "state and (or) municipal procurement", the representative of Kazakhstan 
replied that the Agreement on State (Municipal) Procurement became effective on the 1 January 2012 within the Single Economic Space.  The Agreement provided that Kazakhstan will grant a national treatment for government procurement to other SES 
Parties from 1 January 2014 on a reciprocity basis.  
175. A Member asked what was the scope of the EEC competency in "mutual trade in 
services and investments" and if it covered services and investments between SES Parties 
and third countries.  The representative of Ka zakhstan explained that trade in services and 
investments between the SES Parties were regulated by the Agreement on Trade in 
Services and Investments enacted as of 1 January 2012.  The main objective of the 
Agreement was to promote and liberalize trade in services between the SES Parties, to 
create common principles and rules for mutual trade in services and create favourable investment climate within the SES.  The Agr eement did not regulate trade in services and 
investments between SES Party and third countri es, and also did not provide the EEC with 
the authority to regulate services and investments between the SES Parties or with the 
third countries.  
176. A Member asked to clarify the meaning of the phrase "safety and protection of 
intellectual activity and means of individual ization of goods, works and services" in the 
Article 3 of Treaty on the EEC and weather it encompassed protection of intellectual 
property rights generally, or only trademarks.  Also this Member asked to clarify the 
authority of the EEC in intellectual property protection beyond border control.  
The representative of Kazakhstan stated that in accordance with the Treaty on the EEC, the EEC conducted general supervision over implementation of the Agreement on Common 
Principles of Intellectual Property Rights Protection.  The Agreement established common 
principles of copyright, trademark and patent  regulation within the SES.  Currently, the 
EEC had not been given any authority in intellectual property protection beyond border control.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 25 - 
 
  177. In response to the request of the Member  to elaborate on the scope of authority of 
the EEC in "labour migration" and in "financial markets (banking, insurance, foreign 
exchange market, stock market)", the represen tative of Kazakhstan clarified that the 
Agreement on the Legal Status of Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families was 
enacted within the SES on 1 January 2012.  The Agreement regulated procedures related 
to labour activity of migrant workers and so cial protection of migrant workers (medical 
assistance and social insurance), who were citizens of the SES Parties.  The EEC was responsible for general supervision over implementation of the provisions of the 
Agreement as in the case of all 17 Agreemen ts establishing the legal framework of the 
SES.  The Consultative Committee on migration policy was established in order to develop proposals on establishment of a unified legal regime on employment of citizens of the SES Parties and the formation of a common immigration policy legal framework. 
178. Regarding the scope of authority of th e EEC in "financial markets" (banking, 
insurance, foreign exchange market, stock market)", the representative of Kazakhstan explained that the following Agreements regula ting financial markets were in force within 
the SES as of 1 January 2012:  the Agreement on Trade in Services and Investments and 
the Agreement on Free Movement of Capital and the Agreement on Coordinated Principles 
of Monetary Policy.  The Agreement on Trade in Services and Investments contained Annex 
on Financial Services, which provided for stage-by-stage harmonization of national 
legislation of the SES Parties in banking, insurance services and securities market.  The Agreement on Free Movement of Capital was aimed at creating conditions in the financial markets of the SES Parties with the purpose to ensure a free movement of capital 
and develop mutually beneficial cooperation in the financial sector.  The Agreement on 
Coordinated Principles of Monetary Policy was aimed at ensuring free movement of goods, 
services and capital within the SES Parties.  The Agreement established a number of 
measures to be taken by the Parties in order to conduct a coordinated monetary policy. 
These agreements did not delegate the EEC the authority to regulate financial markets of the SES Parties.  
(g) Decision Making within the Customs Union Bodies 
179. In accordance with Article 5 of the Treaty on the Eurasian Economic Commission of 
18 November 2011, the Commission within its authority took decisions mandatory for 
implementation by the Parties.  Decisions of the Commission consisted of decisions made 
by the Council and the Collegium and were included in the legal framework of the 
Customs Union and the Single Economic Space, and were directly applicable in the territories of the CU Parties.  The Council of the Commission and the Collegium of the 
Commission adopted decisions and recommendations of the Commission within their 
powers." 
(i) Transparency 
Question 29 
The commitment paragraph on transparency within the Customs Union (last seen in 
paragraph 137 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.3) has been deleted and should be restored.  While we understand that the mechanism previously described in that 
paragraph may have been adopted and thus some elements of this paragraph may need 
revision, we believe th at eliminating the commitment altoge ther causes other problems.   
We want to see the following text in the next edition of the Working Party Report: 
xx. The representative of Kazakhstan co nfirmed that CU Commission Decision 
No. 308 "Decision-Making at the Commi ssion 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 […] of the 
"Transparency" section of this Report before their adoption and to provide a 
reasonable period of time for Member s and interested persons to provide 
comments to the competent CU Body.  All such Bodies are authorised to take 
these comments into account in to consideration of such proposed legal act.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Moreover, from the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, pursuant to this 
mechanism, no CU legal act covered under  paragraph [  ] of the "Transparency" 
section of this Report will be come effective prior to publication as provided for in 
the applicable provisions of the WTO Agr eement.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment. 
We request the placement of this draft co mmitment in the text of the Working Party 
Report, in brackets if necessary. 
Answer:  
According to your request the following paragraph was included into the Transparency chapter of 
the section Framework for making and enforcing policies: 
190. 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 […] of the "Transpa rency" 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.  Such a Body is authorised to take these 
comments into account in to consideration of such proposed legal act.  Moreover, from the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO, pursuant to this mechanism, no CU legal act 
covered under paragraph […] 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 Export Operations 
Question 30 Please change the heading as follows to matc h the heading in Quantitative Restrictions: 
Goods with Encryption Technology Products  containing cryptographic capabilities, 
including goods with containing encryption  technology and special technical devices 
Answer: 
The heading is modified as proposed for the next  submission of the draft Working Party Report. 
Question 31 Please delete the heading that refers to ST Ds, as follows: (d)  Special Technical Devices 
(STDs) 
Answer: 
The heading is deleted as proposed for the next  submission of the draft Working Party Report. 
Question 32 
Paragraph 227:  Please restore the last sent ence of this paragraph:  "The list of 
activities subject to activity licens ing is provided in Annex 5(c)".   
If Annex 5(c) is to be replaced, we will need  more specific information than a "yes" or 
"no" for a column named "activity licence" in Annex 14.   
- We need information on activity lic ence requirements for importation or 
exportation, i.e., either import/export ac tivity licenses, or activity licenses for WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 27 - 
 
  production, distribution, storage, etc., that are necessary for importation or 
exportation for each category of goods; and  
- Information on who issues the activity licenses. 
Answer: 
Annex 14 is supplemented with the specific information as required.  Annex 5(c) is deleted.  
Question 33 
Please add the following heading prior to the last paragraph in the chapter:  Conclusion. 
Answer: 
The heading is added as proposed for the next submission of the draft Working Party Report. 
- Ordinary Customs Duties Question 34 We note Kazakhstan's answer to our Qu estion 45 in document WT/ACC/KAZ/71 on 
Article 1 of the Agreement on Ordinary Cust oms and Tariff Regulations.  Can Kazakhstan 
please clarify how Article 1 will be "brought into compliance with the provisions of the 
WTO during the process of codification of the regulatory base of the Customs Union"? 
Answer: 
During the process of codification of the regulato ry base of the Customs Union, the Government of 
the Republic of Kazakhstan 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. 
Question 35 The response to Question 47 is unclear.  The Russian Federation's WTO rates for 
300 tariff lines are bound at ad valorem  rates.  If these rates were implemented in the 
CU CET, they would be ad valorem  rates, i.e., "X%".  Instead, they are mixed duties, 
established at the level of "X% but no less than Y euros per unit".  Depending on the 
value of the good, the resulting applied tariff rate could exceed the bound rate.  If, as 
the response to Question 47 states, the " ... commitments, undertaken by one of the 
CU Parties as a condition of its accession to the WTO, became part of the legal system of 
the Customs Union ..." the rates currently applied do not meet that requirement. 
- Under what authority were these 300 ra tes established, as they are not the 
commitments undertaken in the Russian Federation's WTO schedule of goods 
commitments?  
- Will Kazakhstan commit to implement its WTO tariff obligations, as approved by 
the Ministerial Conference, in the CET exactly as negotiated? 
Answer: 
In accordance with the Agreement on Common Customs and Tariff Regulation, the CU Parties 
apply Common External Tariff of the Cust oms Union (hereinafter – the CU CET).   
Upon accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, amendments to the CU CET were introduced 
based on the tariff commitments of the Russian Federation within the WTO.  When setting the 
combined duty rates on the tariff lines, towards which commitments in ad valorem  rate have been 
undertaken, the Russian Federation explained that introduction of the specific rates at the level not exceeding the ad valorem  rate, corresponds to the commitments of the Russian Federation upon 
accession to the WTO.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Upon accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan will fully comply with its tariff commitments. 
Question 36 
The response to Question 48 states that "Kaz akhstan will submit its ITA Schedule to the 
ITA Committee for verification in accordance with the ITA procedures upon its accession 
to the WTO." 
- This is not workable.  In order to "join" the ITA upon accession, as Kazakhstan 
has committed, it must have its ITA sc hedule reviewed and approved by the 
ITA Committee in advance of accession.  
- Kazakhstan should prepare its draft ITA schedule now and submit it for 
consideration by the ITA Committee prior to conclusion of WP deliberations.  Only 
in this way Kazakhstan will be a member of the ITA upon accession. 
- We cannot conclude negotiations wi thout this issue being resolved.   
Answer: 
Currently, the work on development of the ITA Sc hedule is being conducted by Kazakhstan.   
Taking into account that the CU Parties conduct a common customs and tariff policy, Kazakhstan's 
ITA Schedule should be agreed within the framework of the Customs Union.  
Kazakhstan will submit its ITA Schedule to the ITA Committee upon completion of the coordination 
procedures with other CU Parties by the time of its accession to the WTO. 
- Tariff Rate Quotas 
Question 37 Paragraph 266 states that TR Qs currently are applied to imports of beef, pork and 
poultry.  We understand that there is also a TRQ on certain whey and whey product tariff 
lines in the Common External Tariff (CET) of the Customs Union due to the Russian 
Federation's commitments.   
- Is it the intent of Kazakhstan to introduce a TRQ for whey products?  
- Has the EEC published the volumes for the whey TRQ volumes?  
- Please update the text to include this information. 
Answer: 
According to the Treaty on Functioning of the Cu stoms Union within the Multilateral Trade System 
of 19 May 2011, the commitments of the CU Parties undertaken within the accession to the WTO became a part of the legal base of the Customs Union.  In this regard, the commitments of the Russian Federation on introduction of tariff rate qu otas on milk whey have also been incorporated 
to the legal base of the Customs Union. 
Thus, the EEC Decision No. 229 "On List of Produc ts, towards which Tariff Rate Quotas, and the 
Volumes of Tariff Rate Quotas for Import of thes e Products to Territories of the member-States of 
the Customs Union and Common Economic Space, for 2013 are established" of 
20 November 2012, establishes tariff rate quotas for import of milk whey. 
Currently, the assessment of Kazakhstan's needs in milk whey is being conducted by the 
Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The TRQ volumes for milk whey for the Republic of 
Kazakhstan have been established at zero level until the assessment of Kazakhstan's needs in milk whey is completed by the Government of Kazakhstan.  
It should be noted that in-quota and out-of-quota rates are insignificantly different and constitute 
10 and 15%, respectively. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Question 38 
Paragraph 268 describes the EEC method of establishing the volume for TRQs as the 
difference between the volume of consumptio n and the volume of production of like 
product on the CU common customs territory.  It  goes on to explain how if production is 
determined to be equal to consumption, no TRQ would be established.  As certain 
members of the Customs Union seek to increa se their domestic production of some of 
the key products covered by TRQs, this allows  the potential for reduced TRQ volumes.   
- How do Kazakhstan and the CU intend  t o  e n s u r e  t h a t  M e m b e r s  h a v e  a n  
opportunity to access the Customs Union market for these products?    
- Please explain the meaning of the last sentence of paragraph 268 and give an 
example:  "However, if the production volume of the like product was equal to 
the volume of consumption of the product or exceeded it in one of the CU Parties, 
such difference was not considered when allocating the TRQ volume for the 
common customs territory of the CU". 
Answer: 
Tariff rate quota is allocated if there is a positive difference between production volume and the 
volume of consumption (i.e. consumption exceed production).  In case, this difference is negative, i.e. production exceeds consumption, there is no need to implement tariff rate quotas. 
I t  s h o u l d  b e  n o t e d ,  t h a t  i n  t h e  a b s e n c e  o f  t a r i f f  r a t e  q u o t a ,  s u p p l i e r s  c a n  i m p o r t  m e a t  a t  t h e  
out-of-quota rates.  Thus, reduction of the level of tariff rate quota does not prohibit imports of meat using out-of-quota import duty rates. 
Regarding the last sentence of paragraph 268, it should be noted that if the difference between 
production and consumption of a product subject to TRQ in one of the CU Parties is zero, this does 
not affect the TRQ volumes of other CU Parties.  
Question 39 
Paragraph 271 describes an allocation system fo r TRQs that does not provide part of the 
TRQ for new entrants.  In addition, it confirms that such provisions do not now exist in Kazakhstan's legal implementation of its TRQs.   
- We have made the request to Kazakhst an on several occasions to amend the 
Government Resolution establishing the mechanism for allocating TRQs.  The WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures requires that such provision be made.   
- In order to conclude this part of th e negotiations, Kazakhstan must amend its 
legislation to ensure that new entrants are granted the right to supply within the 
TRQ.  We would encourage Kazakhstan to  set aside a percentage of the TRQ for 
new entrants and to align its TRQ admini stration mechanism with the provisions 
of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
Answer: 
Currently, Kazakhstan is considering the possibility to allocate 10% of the established TRQ volume 
for new entrants.  The Government resolution will be amended as soon as the administration mechanism for the new entrants is developed and approved within the Government of Kazakhstan. 
Question 40 
Paragraph 272:  We are concerned by the explanation provided in this paragraph 
regarding "economically viable quantities" and the fact that Government Resolution 
No. 269 does not contain such a provision.  The text does not explain how the 
mechanism ensures that commerc ially or economically viable  quantities are allocated, WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 30 - 
 
  but only states that the volume is alloca ted based on what the supplier requested.  
What happens if suppliers' total quantities reques ted exceed the volume to be allocated?    
Separately, it is stated that the supplier cannot request a volume exceeding the share 
set by the Government.  How does the government set that level? 
Answer: 
The volume of tariff rate quota is allocated between historical suppliers according to the following 
scheme:  
1. a supplier imports meat; 
2. a supplier submits the customs declaration of the imported meat; 
3. customs bodies of Kazakhstan record the declaration of this supplier in the common 
electronic database; 
4. customs bodies send the common electronic database, including information on meat 
suppliers to the Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning,  
5. the Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning calculates the market share of each importer 
within the total volume of import,  
6. the Ministry of Economy and Budget Planning allocates annual volume of tariff rate quota 
between suppliers in proportion to the market share of each supplier (i.e. if the volume of 
meat imported by supplier A under both in-quo ta and out-of-quota regimes has constituted 
2%, then, the supplier A is allocated 2% of the total volume of tariff rate quota). 
The supplier is eligible to import its in-quota share by several consignments.  In this case, the 
licence shall be issued for the requested volume of meat, but it shall not exceed the volume of tariff rate quota allocated to the given supplier.  The supplier can import meat over the allocated 
TRQ volume, but on the out-of-quota rate. 
Question 41 Paragraphs 273 and 274 explain that the alloca tion of the TRQs takes place in 2 stages, 
the first by 31 December.  The text furthe r elaborates on the concerns by Members 
regarding the delays in the allocation of the TRQs that occurred in 2012.   
- Has the Stage 1 allocation that was to have occurred on 31 December 2012 taken 
place?   
Members had requested that Kazakhstan take  steps to ensure that delays would not 
occur in the future.   
- What steps has Kazakhstan taken to ensure  that delays in the allocation process 
will not occur? 
Paragraph 275:  Please provide the EEC Decisi on that announced the TRQ allocations for 
2013 and provide an updated table reflecting the volumes for 2013.   
Paragraph 276:  In addition to the concerns elaborated in this paragraph, we are also 
concerned with the imposition of a reduction of the TRQ volume for poultry for Kazakhstan in 2013.  Reducing Members access to the market during accession 
negotiations is contrary to the spirit of these negotiations. 
Answer: 
The volume of tariff rate quota on poultry at the level of 100,000 tonnes was allocated to 
Kazakhstan by the EEC Decision No. 229 of 20 November 2012.  However, Kazakhstan initiated 
the increase of this volume to the previous level of 110,000 tonnes. 
As soon as the EEC Decision will be adopted, th e Resolution of the Government of Kazakhstan on 
allocation of TRQs for the Stage 1 of 2013 will be issued. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 31 - 
 
  The copy of the relevant EEC Decision has been submitted to the Secretariat. 
Question 42 
Paragraphs 279-280:  We are extremely concer ned with the changes that were made to 
the commitment in this part of the Working Party text: 
- In the revision to WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6, paragraph 277 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.5 was divided into two paragraphs, 279 and 280; 
- Paragraph 279 of WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6  appears no longer to be part of 
the commitment.   
- Part of the remaining text was eliminated. 
- The commitment for this section has shrunk to the sentence in paragraph 280 of 
WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6.   
We strongly object to these changes with out the agreement by Members and without 
any sort of notation in the document that changes to the commitment paragraph had 
been made.  We seek firm assurances that this will not occur in the future. 
Please reunify paragraphs 279 and 280 into a single commitment paragraph and restore 
the deleted language, in bracke ts if necessary, as follows: 
"279. The representative of Kazakhstan  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 Agricultur e.  280.  [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 utilization of TRQs by 
WTO Members.  The Working Party took note of these commitments." 
- Kazakhstan should make the changes in it s TRQ regime necessary to bring it into 
conformity with the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, as outlined in the commitment, prior to adoption of the terms of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO by the Working Party. 
- This will be necessary to conclude negotiations. 
Answer: 
Regarding paragraphs 279 and 280, Kazakhstan proposes the following language: 
279. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in implementing TRQs, 
Kazakhstan would apply WTO-consistent procedures that provide for allocations to new importers.  In case, if Kazakhstan decides to allocate TRQs on a country-specific basis, it 
would provide for a transparent, predictable and timely reallocation mechanism that allows 
for full utilization of TRQs by WTO Member s.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 280. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, 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 Agriculture.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Question 43 
We remain concerned about Kazakhstan's ex pansion of the use of tariff rate quotas 
(TRQs) in 2010, which represent a step backwa rds from the previous offers and detracts 
from the trade liberalization that should be expected by acceding to the WTO.  We also 
remained concerned about various aspects of the implementation of the TRQs.   
We note that language from paragraph 279, in which Kazakhstan commitment to 
providing in-quota access in commercially viab le quantities, including to new entrants, 
has been deleted.  Could Kazakhstan plea se explain why this reference has been 
deleted?  Our clear preference  is for its reinstatement. 
Paragraph 265 still appears to allow for the in troduction of TRQs on a wide range of 
other agricultural products, which would be contrary to WTO rules.  Can Kazakhstan 
confirm that no other products will be su bject to TRQs, and can this commitment be 
reflected in writing. 
Answer: 
In accordance with the Treaty on Functioning of  the Customs Union within the Multilateral Trade 
System of 19 May 2011 (hereinafter – the Treaty), upon accession to the WTO, the commitments 
undertaken by the Russian Federation as a condition of its accession, on issues related to the competence of the Customs Union, were incorporat ed into the trade policy/legal framework of the 
CU. 
I t  s h o u l d  b e  n o t e d ,  t h a t  u p o n  a c c e s s i o n  t o  the WTO, the Russian Federation undertook the 
commitment on application of tariff rate quotas on  import of beef, pork, poultry and milk whey.  
In this regard, according to the provisions of the Treaty, the Decision of the EEC Collegium 
No. 229 of 20 November 2012, which has established the tariff rate quotas on import of milk 
whey, was adopted. 
Therefore, Kazakhstan, as of 1 January 2013, has introduced TRQ to imports of milk whey, which 
was duly reflected in the Draft Working Party Report. 
Regarding the commitment text, we propose the following language: 
279. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, in implementing TRQs, 
Kazakhstan would apply WTO-consistent procedures that provide for allocations to new 
importers.  In case, if Kazakhstan decides to allocate TRQs on a country-specific basis, it would provide for a transparent, predictable, and timely reallocation mechanism that allows for full utilization of TRQs by WTO Members.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.] 
280. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that from the date of accession of 
Kazakhstan to the WTO, 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 Agriculture.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
Question 44 The response to Question 55 (which asks about the status of Section 1-B of Part 1 of the 
Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on  Goods of Kazakhstan) states that this 
documents "... is being developed taking in to account the commitments made by the 
Russian Federation on TRQs for agricultural products". 
- What does that mean, operationally? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Answer: 
The Section 1-B of Part 1 of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of 
Kazakhstan will be ready for submission based on the results of bilateral negotiations of 
Kazakhstan with WTO Members, which are not yet finalized.  
Our previous reply to Question 55 meant the need for conducting additional consultations with 
WTO Members within the "adjustment" process with  the purpose to harmonize out-of-quota rates 
for poultry, committed by Kazakhstan in bilateral negotiations with certain Members, and the commitments of the Russian Federation undertaken upon accession to the WTO. Consultations 
with WTO Members will be also needed to reflect TRQs in the commitments of Kazakhstan for 
other meat products (beef and pork) and milk whey, towards which Kazakhstan is currently applying tariff rate quotas as part of the Customs Union. 
Question 45 
We reiterate our position that Kazakhstan is reneging on its bilateral agreement by 
introducing TRQs.  In our view Kazakhstan has not yet done enough to address our concerns. 
We note that Kazakhstan's answer to Questi on 58 on why beef quotas are administered 
differently to other quotas (no a first come, first served basis), Kazakhstan states that 
this is due to the low amount of allowable in-quota imports (20 tonnes a year) making it 
impossible to determine historical suppliers. 
Assuming Kazakhstan applies TRQs that a llow access in commercial quantities upon 
accession, will quota allocation for beef cont inue to be administered in this way? 
Answer: 
As of 1 January 2010, with the introduction of the TRQ mechanism for beef in Kazakhstan, the 
volume of TRQ for fresh or chilled beef (HS 0201) has been established at the level of 20 tonnes.  
The volumes of import of fresh or chilled beef ar e provided in Table 1.  The average volume for 
three years preceding the year of introduction of tariff rate quotas is 18.9 tonnes. 
Table 1.  The volumes of import of fresh or chilled beef (HS 0201) for 2005-2012 
 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 
Import of fresh or 
chilled beef (HS 02 01), tonnes 1.1 0.2 19 33.2 4.5 0 0 0 
 
Due to the fact that fresh or chilled beef is perishable, the specific conditions and the appropriate 
temperature have to be met during their transportation.  
It should be noted that from the date of introduction of TRQ, no imports to Kazakhstan of fresh or 
chilled beef did take place, and, as a result, the volume of 20 tonnes had not been utilized. Therefore, due to the absence of history of suppliers  for imports of fresh or chilled beef, a different 
TRQ administration mechanism has been established for products under HS 0201, i.e. "first come, 
first served" method.  
Question 46 
The response to Question 59 did not provid e a clear answer to the Member's concern 
that there would not be bound TRQ volumes incl uded in the Kazakhstan Goods Schedule.   
- Please provide more information on Kaza khstan's intentions on this point.  
Our understanding has been that the EEC will incorporate the WTO commitments WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 34 - 
 
  of the Customs Union Parties, including TRQ volumes, into the TRQ allocations 
made by the EEC.  Is that correct?   
Answer: 
In response to Question 59, it should be noted th at the bound volumes of tariff rate quotas will be 
included in Part 1-B of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan upon completion of bilateral negotiations on this issue. 
According to the Treaty on Functioning of the Cu stoms Union within the Multilateral Trade System 
of 19 May 2011, the commitments of the CU Parties undertaken upon accession to the WTO are 
incorporated to the trade policy/legal base of the Customs Union. 
Indeed, when allocating TRQs within the framework of the Customs Union the commitments of the 
CU Parties undertaken upon accession to the WTO, including TRQ volumes are taken into account.  
Thus, in August 2012, the EEC Decision increased the TRQ volumes of the Russian Federation to 
the level established in the Schedule of the Concessions and Commitments of the 
Russian Federation.  The TRQ volumes for the Russian Federation for 2013 were established in accordance with the WTO commitments of the Russian Federation.  
Upon accession to the WTO, the commitments of the Republic of Kazakhstan will also be 
incorporated into the TRQ allocation made by the EEC. 
- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
Question 47 
Could Kazakhstan please clarif y whether the preliminary deci sions on the classification 
of goods and the methodology used for identifying the origin and customs value of goods mentioned in paragraph 282 are binding? 
Answer: 
Pursuant to Article 81 of the Customs Code of  Kazakhstan, the preliminary decisions on the 
classification of goods and on the country origin of goods are binding and valid for three years. 
Question 48 
How often and on what grounds the customs cl earance fees levied as a fixed amount per 
declaration (paragraph 283) are subject to change?  How will be communicated these 
potential changes? 
Answer: 
Customs clearance fees levied as a fixed amount per declaration are not often subject to change. 
Fixed fees for customs declaration were initially established by the Government Resolution No. 669 
"On Adoption of Customs Fee Rates Levied by Cu stoms Bodies" of 8 July 2003 at the amount of 
€50 for the main list of goods in the customs decl aration, and at €20 for every additional list.  
The customs fees have been increased only in 2011 as specified in paragraphs 283-284 of the 
Working Party Report.  
According to paragraph 3 of Article 115 of the Customs Code of Kazakhstan, the amount of 
customs clearance fees levied shall not exceed th e actual costs incurred by customs bodies during 
the customs clearance process.  
Customs clearance fees are adopted by the Resolu tion of the Government of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan.  All Government Resolutions, including relevant updates (changes), are officially published.  More information concerning official publication can be found in the Section "Publication WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 35 - 
 
  of Information on Trade".  Customs clearance fees  are also published on www.customs.kz – official 
website of the Customs Control Committee of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  
- Application of Internal Taxes to Imports 
Question 49 Paragraph 290, for the sake of clarificatio n, please add the following additional 
information to paragraph 290: 
"290. These CU Protocols and the Agreement established that imports among 
CU Parties would be subject to excise  and value-added taxes (VAT) and that 
exports among CU Parties would be exempt ed from excise taxes and (or) subject 
to VAT at a zero rate applied by the ex porting Party, provided that documentary 
confirmation of the fact of the export  was submitted to the importing Party's 
customs officials and that the tax author ities of the importing CU Party possessed 
information confirming tax payment to the budgets of the  exporting CU Party for 
these goods ...". 
Answer: 
We propose to add clarification into the text in the following way: 
290. The above-mentioned CU Protocols and the Agreement established that imports 
among CU Parties would be subject to excise and value-added taxes (VAT) and that 
exports among CU Parties would be exempted fr om excise taxes and (or) subject to VAT at 
a zero rate applied by the exporting Party, provided that documentary confirmation of the 
fact of the export and payment of indirect taxes (VAT and excise taxes) to the budget of 
the importing CU Party was submitted to the exporting Party's tax authorities. 
Question 50 
Paragraph 296 states that under a simplifie d tax system, "small businesses" did not 
have to register to pay VAT to the budget if their turnover was "small," i.e., less than 
3,000 MCI and paid an alternative tax instead.  Please indicate the value in US$, Euros, 
or Tenge of the current VAT threshold of 3,0 00 MCI.  Is this simplified system open to 
farmers with similar small turnover? 
Answer: 
First, we would like to indicate, that there is a technical mistake in the text:  the annual turnover 
threshold is 30,000 MCI. 
In accordance with the Tax Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan small businesses, including 
farmers, whose annual turnover is less than 30,000 MCI do not have to register as VAT payers.  
In 2013, MCI equals to 1,731 tenge or US$11.5.  Thus 30,000 MCI approximately equals to 
US$345,000. 
Question 51 
Paragraph 298, concerning the 70% VAT pa yment exemption for "peasant farms": 
- How are such "peasant farms" identifi ed and certified as eligible for this 
alternative tax system?   
- How are they distinguished from other fa rms for the purpose of eligibility for this 
preference?  Is there a revenue threshold?   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 36 - 
 
  Answer: 
The regime described in paragraph 298 is applicable to peasant farms producing, processing and 
selling their own agricultural products and prod ucts of aquaculture, except for production, 
processing and marketing of goods subject to excise tax (i.e. cigarettes, tobacco, ethyl alcohol, and alcoholic beverages). 
Under the regime, peasant farms pay "single land tax" (set at 0.1 to 0.5% of the assessed value of 
the land) which replaces the following taxes:  individual income tax, land tax and charges for its use, property tax, transport tax, and value-added tax.  
The basic eligibility criteria is that peasant farm s shall own land plots on the basis of property 
rights and (or) land use rights.  There is no actual revenue threshold.  The peasant farms wishing to use this regime shall submit an application to local tax authorities not later than 20 February of the year they wish to start applying the regime.  Along with the tax application, peasant farms 
provide copies of:  1) title and identification docume nts for land plots, notarized or verified by rural 
executive bodies; 2) acts of determination of estimated value of land plots issued by the authorised state body for land administration, no tarized or verified by rural executive bodies. 
The tax authorities shall take a decision on application of the special tax regime within three 
working days from the application date. 
Question 52 
Paragraph 299:  Concerning the 70% VAT paym ent exemption for "judicial persons that 
produced, processed, and sold their own agricultural produce." 
- How are such "judicial persons" identifi ed and certified as eligible for the 70% 
exemption?   
- Can the customers of these "judicia l persons" be "processors of primary 
agricultural products" and therefore also eligible for their own 70% VAT 
exemption upon further sale?    
Answer: 
To be eligible for the tax regime described in paragraph 299 juridical persons shall: 
- produce agricultural products, products of aquaculture with the use of land, process and 
sell these products of own production; 
- produce animal products and poultry products  (including breeding) in a full cycle of 
production (starting from rearing), beekeeping, aquaculture (fish farming) and the processing and marketing of these products of own production. 
Processors of primary agricultural products that are eligible for 70% VAT exemption may be the 
customers of the juridical persons producing agricultural products that have their own 70% VAT exemption. 
In order to use this special tax regime agricultural producers shall submit tax application to the 
local tax authorities not later than 10 December in the year preceding the year when the special tax regime is to be applied.  Along with the tax application, agricultural producers provide copies of 
title and identification documents for land plots notarized or verified by rural executive bodies.  
The tax authorities shall take a decision on application of the special tax regime within three working days from the application date. 
Question 53 
Paragraph 300:  Concerning the 70% VAT payment exemption for "to processors of 
primary agricultural products:" WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 37 - 
 
  The text states that "She explained that al most 97% of domestic agricultural producers 
that supplied their products to processors of  agricultural primary products were small 
farmers and households with annual turnover of less than 30,000 MCI, i.e. they were not 
VAT payers.  This meant that in the abse nce of the preference, the processors would 
have to pay larger amounts of VAT than in the normal situation, because they had no 
VAT to deduct when they calcul ated VAT payable to the budget." 
- Is this threshold of 30,000 MCI in turnover reserved for small farmers, or is it 
available to "small businesses" with  the same level of turnover?  
- If so, how is this related to the simplif ied tax system described in paragraph 296? 
- Please indicate the value in US$, Euros, or Tenge. 
- Is not the absence of "VAT to deduct " the case for any processors/producers 
purchasing inputs from small firms (w hether or not prim ary agricultural 
producers) whose turnover is beneath th e threshold for registering for VAT?  
- Is not this the case in all VAT-type indirect tax systems with a threshold for 
registration?   
- How are processors of primary agricultur al products unique?  Does Kazakhstan 
have a similar preference for processor s of goods produced by other small 
businesses? 
Answer: 
The threshold of 30,000 MCI in a nnual turnover for VAT payment exemption is applied for all small 
businesses, including farmers.  
Under the simplified tax system described in paragraph 296 peasant farms pay "single land tax" 
(set at 0.1 to 0.5% of the assessed value of the la nd).  Farms that chose to use this tax regime do 
not have to register as VAT payers.   
In 2013, MCI equals to 1,731 tenge or 11.5 US Dollars, thus 30,000 MCI equals to 
345,000 US Dollars. 
Absence of "VAT to deduct" is indeed the case for any processors/producers purchasing inputs 
from small firms whose turnover is lower than the threshold for registering for VAT.  However, one 
of the peculiarities of agricultural sector in Kazakhstan is that the majority of the agricultural 
products are produced by small households, and not by big farms.  Thus, processors mostly purchase agricultural products from producers who are not VAT payers.  Kazakhstan does not have similar preferences in other sectors of the economy. 
Question 54 
Paragraph 302:  The 70% VAT exemption fo r farm producers and processors using 
domestic agricultural products for inputs di scriminates directly against imported like or 
similar products in a manner prohib ited by Article III of the GATT 1994. 
- How does Kazakhstan intend to change th is system to make it WTO-compatible?   
- Kazakhstan has requested a transition until 2020 to eliminate or revise the 
programme.   
- We suggest that the programme be elimin ated in a more timely fashion, but are 
unable to consider any transitional arra ngements unless we know precisely how 
this system will change.   
- We will expect any such change to be (a) fully described in the WP text and 
(b) enacted in law prior to accession, ev en if implementation is delayed in a 
transition.   
Answer: 
Around 46% of Kazkahstan's population lives in rural areas and almost one third of the working 
population are employed in agricultural producti on.  Along with this, over 93% of agricultural 
producers are households and small farms that lack financial and technical resources.  In this WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 38 - 
 
  regard, existing VAT preferences for agricultural producers and processors play an important role 
in addressing social challenges and ensuring food safety, and as such, form an essential part of 
Kazakhstan's agricultural support system.  
Against the above background, Kazakhstan requests a three-year transitional period to phase-out 
the VAT preferences for agricultural producers an d processors.  During the transitional period, 
Kazakhstan intends to introduce amendments into the national legislation in order to gradually 
abolish existing VAT preferences and develop alternative WTO compatible agricultural subsidy mechanism.  In particular, Kazakhstan plans to introduce direct subsidies for agricultural producers 
and processors.  These measures will ensure smooth transition that will allow to minimise negative 
consequences for domestic agricultural producers and processors benefiting from the currently applied VAT payment preferences. Relevant Chapte r of the Draft Working Party Report will be 
revised accordingly.   
Question 55 
We appreciate Kazakhstan's commitment in paragraph 302 to phase-out VAT 
preferences for agricultural producers and pr ocessors.  Could Kazakhstan please provide 
a detailed explanation of how this will be ac hieved – how long a transition period is 
being sought?  How would VAT preferences be phased-out during the proposed transition period?  What type of alternativ e subsidy mechanism is being considered to 
be put in place of the VAT preference? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan requests a three-year transitional  period to phase out the VAT preferences for 
agricultural producers and processors.  During this period Kazakhstan intends to introduce 
amendments into the national legislation in order to gradually abolish existing VAT preferences 
and, at the same time, to develop and implement alternative WTO compatible agricultural subsidy mechanism.  In particular, Kazakhstan plans to introduce direct subsidies for agricultural producers 
and processors.  These measures will ensure smooth transition that will allow to minimise negative 
consequences for domestic agricultural producers and processors benefiting VAT preferences currently applied.  
- Excise taxes 
Question 56 Paragraph 306:  Please describe the customs regime of "duty-free trade" and why this 
allows for the non-application of excise taxe s on otherwise excisable goods, and please 
cite the domestic or Customs Union legisl ation that provides for this treatment. 
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 4, Article 299 of the CU Tax Code, excisable goods imported to the 
Customs Union are exempt from excise taxes pr ovided that they are placed under customs 
procedures which provide for excise tax exemption in accordance with the customs legislation of the Customs Union and (or) the customs legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, except for the 
customs procedure for release for domestic consumption. 
In accordance with Article 302 of the CU Custom s Code, duty-free trade is the customs procedure  
under which goods are sold at retail duty-free shop s to individuals leaving the customs territory of 
the Customs Union or foreign diplomatic representative offices, representative offices of 
international organizations equivalent to them, consular establishments as well as diplomatic 
agents, consular officials and members of their families living with them, without payment of customs duties and indirect taxes (VAT and excise taxes) and without application of any non-tariff 
regulation measures.  Thus, all goods placed under this regime are exempt from payment of excise 
taxes.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 39 - 
 
  Question 57 
Paragraph 307:  Please place in brackets the text added to the commitment language for 
this section, as noted below: 
307. [The representative of Kazakhstan  confirmed that, from the date of 
accession, Kazakhstan would apply its do mestic taxes and exemptions thereof, 
including VAT, excise taxes, and other ta xes, in a non-discriminatory manner in 
compliance with Articles I and III of th e GATT 1994[, except for VAT preferences 
for agricultural producers and processors described in paragraphs 299 and 300.  
The Republic of Kazakhstan would bring these VAT preferences into conformity 
with the WTO rules by 1 January 2020.  She added that during this period, the scope of the exemption would not be increa sed, either in terms of coverage or 
level of exemption].  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment.] 
Answer: 
We will add the brackets to the text as proposed.  We note that the text of the commitment has 
been modified in the following way: 
 307. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
Kazakhstan would apply its domestic taxes and exemptions thereof, including VAT, excise taxes, and other taxes, in a non-discriminatory manner in compliance with Articles I and 
III of the GATT 1994 [, except for VAT preferences for agricultural producers and 
processors described in paragraphs 299 and 300.  The Republic of Kazakhstan would bring 
these VAT preferences applied to agricultural  producers and processors into conformity 
with the WTO rules upon expiration of the three-year transitional period starting from the 
Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO.  She added that during this period, the scope of the 
exemption would not be increased, either in terms of coverage or level of exemption ].  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
Question 58 
Paragraph 307 states that "the Republic  of Kazakhstan would bring these VAT 
preferences (for domestic ag riculture producers and proce ssors) into conformity with 
the WTO rules by 1 January 2020 ".  We are of the view that  this provides a specific 
benefit to domestic agriculture producers wh ich could amount to a form of domestic 
support and potentially a discriminatory tax against imports of agricultural goods.  
The Green Box provides for alternate ways of  Kazakhstan to encourage its agriculture 
sector to increase produc tion, without the use of tr ade-distorting subsidies. 
- Could Kazakhstan please explain how th is measure would be consistent with 
WTO commitments, including how it would be notified? 
- Could Kazakhstan please elaborate on plans for bringing these VAT preferences 
into compliance with WTO commitments, and in particular Article III of the 
GATT 1994. 
- Could Kazakhstan further explain what po licy objectives were considered when 
determining that this form of non-WT O compliant VAT preferences should be 
maintained until 2020? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan requests a three-year transitional  period to phase out the VAT preferences for 
agricultural producers and processors.  During this period Kazakhstan intends to introduce amendments into the national legislation in order to gradually abolish existing VAT preferences 
and, at the same time, to develop and implement alternative WTO compatible agricultural subsidy 
mechanism.  In particular, Kazakhstan plans to introduce direct subsidies for agricultural producers and processors.  These measures will ensure smooth transition that will allow to minimise negative 
consequences for domestic agricultural producers and processors benefiting VAT preferences 
currently applied. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 40 - 
 
  - Quantitative Restrictions and Import licensing 
- (a) Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas 
Question 59 
Paragraph 313  states that pursuant to Article 3 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff 
Regulation, quantitative import restrictions  could be introduced on agricultural or 
fishery products imported into the CU in a ccordance with Article XI:2 of the GATT 1994 
when conditions for CU Parties' domestic good s met the criteria of that GATT provision.  
As discussed in paragraph 314 however,  Article XI:2 of the GATT 1994 has been 
superseded by Article 4.2 of the WTO Agre ement on Agriculture and Kazakhstan has 
confirmed its intent to abide by the provisions  of Article 4.2 after its WTO Accession.   
- Has the Customs Union moved to amend the provisions of the Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Regulation to ensure its cons istency with WTO provisions in this 
regard, i.e., with the provisions of Arti cle 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture? 
- If not, what is the legal status of Ar ticle 3 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff 
Regulation in light of the provisions  of Treaty on Functioning of the 
Customs Union within the Multilateral Tr ade System, which came into force on 
22 August 2012? 
Answer: 
In accordance with Article 2 of the Treaty on Functioning of the Customs Union in the Framework 
of the Multilateral Trading System, provisions  of the WTO Agreements, including commitments 
undertaken upon accession  by the CU Parties, would automatica lly prevail over the corresponding 
CU Agreements and Decisions until they are brough t in line with the WTO Agreements.  Therefore, 
obligations of a CU Party under the WTO Agreements, including compliance with the provisions of 
Article 4.2 the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, pr evail over Article 3 of the CU Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Regulation.  
The provisions of the Treaty on Functioning of the Customs Union in the Framework of the 
Multilateral Trading System are described in deta ils in paragraphs [191-192] of the draft Working 
Party Report.  
- (b) Import Licensing 
Question 60 Paragraph 321:  Kazakhstan has indicated that the name of Government Resolution 
No. 578 ("On Approval of Rules on Export and Import Licensing, Including Licensing of 
Goods Subject to Export Controls, and Rules on Automatic Import Licensing of Certain 
Goods, Validation of Qualification Requirements  for Licensing Activities and Approval of 
the List of Goods Subject to Export and Impo rt Licensing") should be changed, since  
(a) it has been amended to exclude author ity concerning the rules on export and 
import licensing, including licensing of g oods subject to export controls, and the 
rules on automatic import licensing of certain goods; and  
(b) these issues are now addressed under the Agreement "On the Rules of Licensing 
in the Area of Foreign Trade in Goods", signed on 9 June 2009 in the framework of the Customs Union.   
The new name is Government Resolution No . 578 "On Certain Issues on Import and 
Export Licensing of Goods" of 12 June 200 8 (hereinafter:  "Resolution No. 578"), as 
indicated in the revised text of the draft Working Party Report. 
- Please clarify why, if the Resolution has been amended, why that is not indicated 
in the title?  Why is it necessary to give it a new name?  Has its date been 
changed?  If not, why not? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 41 - 
 
  - What happened to the "Validation of Qu alification Requirements for Licensing 
Activities and Approval of the List of  Goods Subject to Export and Import 
Licensing" included in the original title?   Have these aspects of authority been 
excluded from the new/revised Go vernment Resolution as well?  
- In either case, may we see a translation of this Resolution?   
Answer: 
Within the framework of the CU the rules on impo rt and export licensing are stipulated in the 
Agreement "On the Rules of Licensing in the Area of Foreign Trade in Goods", signed on 
9 June 2009.  In order to bring the national legislation into compliance with the above-mentioned 
Agreement, the Resolution of Government of Kaza khstan No. 578 "On Approval of Rules on Export 
and Import Licensing, Including Licensing of G oods Subject to Export Controls, and Rules on 
Automatic Import Licensing of Certain Goods, Validation of Qualification Requirements for 
Licensing Activities and Approval of the List of Goods Subject to Export and Import Licensing" of 
12 June 2008 (hereinafter:  the GR No. 578) has been amended by the Resolution of the 
Government of Kazakhstan No. 1320 "On Amendm ent and Addenda to the Resolution of the 
Government of Kazakhstan No. 578 "On Approval  of Rules on Export and Import Licensing, 
including Licensing of Goods Subject to Export Co ntrols, and Rules on Automatic Import Licensing 
of Certain Goods, Validation of Qualification Requ irements for Licensing Activities and Approval of 
the List of Goods Subject to Export and Import Licensing" of 12 June 2008", which was adopted on 
17 October 2012 (hereinafter:  the GR No. 1320).  
By the GR No. 1320 the Rules on Export and Impo rt Licensing, Including Licensing of Goods 
Subject to Export Controls, and Rules on Automatic Import Licensing of Certain Goods have been 
excluded from the GR No. 578.  Therefore, the title of the GR No. 578 has been changed as the 
following:  "On Certain Issues on Import and Export Licensing of Goods". 
Amended GR No. 578 approved: 
- "Qualification Requirements Necessary for Import and Export Licensing of Goods"; 
- "The List of Goods Subject to Export and Import Licensing"; - "Forms of Applications for Li censes and (or) their Annexes"; 
- "Forms of Licenses and (or) their Annexes. 
Translation of the revised GR No. 578 will be provided as soon as possible.  For clarity, we propose the following text of paragraph 321 of the draft Working Party Report: 
321. The representative of Kazakhstan explaine d 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 Law No. 214 "On Licensing" of 
11 January 2007, as amended by 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 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 (hereinafter:  the Law "On Licensing"), and Government Resolution No. 578 "On Approval of Rules on Export and Import Licensing, Including Licensing of Goods Subject to Export Controls, and Rules on Automatic Import Licensing of 
Certain Goods, Validation of Qualification Requirements for Licensing Activities and 
Approval of the List of Goods Subject to Expo rt and Import Licensing" of 12 June 2008, as 
amended by the Resolution of the Government  of Kazakhstan No. 1320 of 17 October 2012  
(hereinafter:  "Resolution No. 578"). 
Question 61 Paragraph 331:  The response to Question 69 states that "Import licensing requirements 
for ethyl spirits and alcohol products have been eliminated as of 22 August 2012." WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 42 - 
 
  - For clarity, please amend the te xt of paragraph 331, as follows: 
331. Non-automatic import licenses were issued by the Ministry of Industry 
and New Technologies, except for im port licenses for narcotic drugs, 
psychotropic substances and their precursors  that were issued by the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs; import licenses for ozon e-depleting substances that were issued 
by the Ministry of Environment Protecti on; and import licenses for human organs 
and tissues, blood and its components that were issued by the Ministry of Public 
Health.  In accordance with CU Commi ssion Decision No. 747 of 16 August 2011 
"On Amendments to Normative Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of 
Non-Tariff Regulation in Relation to Ethyl Spirits and Alcoholic Products" 
(hereinafter:  "CU Commission Decision  No. 747"), upon accession of any 
CU Party to the WTO, non-automatic import  licensing requirements to spirits and 
alcohol products would be eliminated and replaced by automatic licensing 
requirement.  At this stage, however, a ll automatic import licensing requirements 
for ethyl spirits and alcohol products ha d been eliminated was not applied in 
Kazakhstan as of 22 August 2012.  In case  of application of the automatic import 
licence in the future, the "authorised body" would be the Tax Committee of the 
Ministry of Finance of th e Republic of Kazakhstan. 
Answer: 
The sentence is amended as proposed for the next  submission of the draft Working Party Report. 
Question 62 Paragraph 336:  Please restore the last sentence  of this paragraph, "The list of activities 
subject to activity licensing is provided in  Annex 5(c) (see section on "Registration 
Requirement for Import and Export Operations")." 
If Annex 5(c) is to be replaced, we will need  more specific information than a "yes" or 
"no" for a column named "activity licence" in Annex 14   
- We need information on activity lic ence requirements for importation or 
exportation, i.e., either import/export ac tivity licenses, or activity licenses for 
production, distribution, storage, etc., that are necessary for importation or 
exportation for each category of goods; and  
- Information on who issues the activity licenses. 
Answer: 
Annex 14 is supplemented with the specific informat ion as requested.  Annex 5 (c) is deleted.  
Question 63 Concerning "(iii)  Products containing cr yptographic capabilities, including goods 
containing encryption technology":  please provide the Working Party with a copy of the 
regulations setting out the process for getting these licenses. 
Answer: 
Translation of the following documents have been provided to the WTO Secretariat:  - The CU 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 (cryptographic) 
Means approved by the Decision of the Collegium of the Commission No. 134 of 
16 August 2012; 
- Government Resolution No. 440 "On Approval of Qualification Requirements for Licensing 
Activity on Development and Sale (including Another Transfer) of Means of Cryptographic 
Protection of Information" of 10 April 2012. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 43 - 
 
  Question 64 
Paragraph 342 states that the "Law No. 429 on  Regulation of Ethyl Spirits and Alcohol 
Products would be amended to reflect the changes in licensing regime applied to 
imports of ethyl spirits and alcohol products."   
- Please revise the text of this paragrap h to confirm that the Law will be amended 
by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO. 
- Please provide the enacted legislation co nfirming that this has occurred prior to 
conclusion of Working Party deliberations. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following revision of paragraph 342: 
"… In response to a question from a Member, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed 
that the Law No. 429 on Regulation of Ethyl Spirits and Alcohol Products would be 
amended to reflect the changes in licensing regime applied to imports of ethyl spirits and 
alcohol products [by the date of Kazakhstan's accession to the WTO]…". 
Question 65 
Before paragraph 352:  STDs contain encryption, so should be included in the title to this 
section.  Please edit the subheading on prod ucts containing cryptographic capabilities to 
include reference to STDs, as follows: 
"- (iii) Products containing crypto graphic capabilities, including goods 
containing encryption technology  and special technical devices" 
Answer: 
The subheading is edited as proposed for the ne xt submission of the draft Working Party Report. 
Question 66 
Paragraph 352:  Please edit this text to us e a shorter definition of special technical 
devices.   
352.   The representative of Kazakhstan explained that within the framework of 
the CU, since 1 January 2010 import s of certain products containing 
cryptographic capabilities (goods containi ng encryption technology, listed in 
Annex 15(a)) previously not subject to im port licensing now were covered by the 
licensing regime and included in the Common List.  Special technical devices 
designed for the clandestine intercepti on or extraction of information for 
unauthorised obtaining of information (S TDs) (listed in Annex 15(b)) remained 
on the Common List and were to be subject to import licensing.  
Answer: 
Kazakhstan proposes the following revision of paragraph 352: 
352. The representative of Kazakhstan explai ned that within the framework of the CU, 
since 1 January 2010 imports of certain products containing cryptographic capabilities (goods containing encryption technology, listed in Annex 15(a)) previously not subject to 
import licensing now were covered by the licensing regime and included in the Common 
List.  Special technical devices designed for the clandestine interception or extraction of information (listed in Annex 15(b)) were included to the Common List and remained to be  
subject to import licensing.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Question 67 
Paragraph 354:  We agree to redr aft this paragraph as follows: 
354. The representative of Kazakhstan ex plained that, prior to 1 January 2010, 
Kazakhstan had required only an activity  licence to imported goods containing 
encryption technology; pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1160 "On 
Approval of Licensing Rules and Qualific ation Requirements for Activity in the 
Sphere of Development and Sale (inclu ding other Transfer) of Devices for 
Cryptographic Protection of Informatio n" of 30 November 2007, no import 
licence had been required as had been  established by Government Resolution 
No. 1160 "On Approval of Licensing Rules and Qualification Requirements for 
Activity in the Sphere of Development and Sale (including other Transfer) of 
Devices for Cryptographic Protection of Information" of 30 November 2007.  ...". 
Answer: 
The text is redrafted for the next submission of the draft Working Party Report as proposed by the 
Working Party Member. 
Question 68 
New paragraph 354 bis (old paragraph 368 ):  As we discussed bila terally, this paragraph 
should be moved to follow paragraph 354 an d precede paragraph 355 because STDs are 
first mentioned in paragraph 352.  The general commitment in paragraph 355 about 
applying the WTO rules on import licensing applies to STDs as well, because, as the 
Working Party Report of the Russian Fede ration makes clear, anything on the 
CU Common List subject to import licensing is subject to the WTO rules, so moving the 
description of STDs here does not create a ne w commitment, but clarifies the other one.   
We agree to delete referenc e to domestic legislation. 
Answer: 
Similarly to paragraph 472 of the Working Party Report of the Russian Federation, paragraph 355 
covers only goods containing encryption technology.  STDs are not discussed in the Russian Working Party Report, except for in Table 28 - Common List of Goods that are Subject to Non-
Tariff Measures and defined as "2.17 Special devices for unauthorised obtaining of information".  
Likewise, the Russian Federation did not take a specific commitment on STDs.   
Kazakhstan considers that paragraph 368 should remain as it will provide the context for 
interpretation of the general commitment of paragraph 369 with respect import licensing 
procedures of STDs.    
Question 69 Annex 15(c) is the list of products subject to notification, and should be changed to 
Annex 15(b).   
368354 bis. In response to a question from  a Member, the representative of 
Kazakhstan explained that the importat ion of STDsspecial technical devices 
designed for obtaining information in an unauthorised manner (Section 2.17 of 
the Common List) was regulated by the CU  Agreements and Decisions listed in 
the first paragraph of this section, and in  particular the Regulation "On the Order 
of Importation to the Customs Territory  of the Customs Union and Exportation 
from the Customs Territory of the Custom s Union of the Special Technical Devices 
Designed for the Clandestine Interception or Extraction of Information", and the 
following domestic legislation:  the Or der of the National Security Committee 
Chairman No. 8 "On Approval of the Guide lines on Organization of the Work of 
National Security Authorities of the Repu b l i c  o f  K a z a k h s t a n  i n  t h e  S p h e r e  o f  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 45 - 
 
  Licensing of Special Technical Devices fo r Operative-Investigation Activity" of 
15 February 2008.  The list of STDs specia l technical devices subject to import 
licensing was contained in Annex 15(cb).  CU agreements regulating the licensing 
of special technical devices superseded Kazakhstan's national legislation.  
STDs Special technical devices were de fined as special software and technical 
products containing hardware or softw are features designed only for the 
clandestine interception or extraction of  audio-, video- and other information as 
well as devices designed to detect th e technical channels of leakage of 
information.  In response to a Memb er's question, the representative of 
Kazakhstan confirmed that special techni cal devices differed from cryptographic 
devices by their intended purpose and use.   Cryptographic devices were designed 
to protect confidential information wh ereas special technical devices were 
designed to obtain information clandestin ely.  She further confirmed that devices 
designed for open use, but which as a re sult of modification, unintended use, or 
some other way, could be used for clande stine interception of information, for 
example voice recorders or normal surve illance cameras, were not considered to 
be special technical devices. 
Answer: 
The text is redrafted as proposed for the next submission of the draft Working Party Report. Question 70 Paragraph 358:  When will the CU/EEC regu lations on goods containing encryption 
technology be amended to include paragraph 12 on "mass market goods"?   
Answer:  
Amendment to the CU 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 
(cryptographic) Means" is in the final stage of appr oval between the CU Parties.  The definition of 
"mass market goods", as defined in Annex 15(c) of the draft Working Party Report, will be incorporated into the CU Regulation in the near future.  
Question 71 
Paragraph 365  should refer to paragraph 362, no t to paragraph 361, as follows: 
365. To obtain an import licence, along with standard set of documents 
indicated in Article 3.3 of the CU Agreement on Licensing, an applicant had to 
submit to the authorised body a conclusion (described in paragraph 3612) issued 
by the National Security Committee on the permissibility of importing the specific 
encryption product.  ...". 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan amended the text as proposed for th e next submission of the draft Working Party 
Report. 
Question 72 
Paragraph 368:  Please move paragrap h 368 to follow paragraph 354 (as a new 
paragraph 354 bis), so that the definition of a sp ecial technical device is in the 
appropriate place.  We also have some other small edits to this section, which we will 
provide to you.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 46 - 
 
  Answer: 
We do not agree to move paragraph 368 to follow paragraph 354 since we prefer to keep 
description of STDs licensing regime in one place in order to make the clear difference between 
goods containing encryption technology and STDs.   Please refer to the answer to Question 68 above. 
Question 73 
Paragraph 370:   We agree to delete a separate commitm ent for STDs provided that it is 
made clear that STDs are covered with everyt hing else in the Common List that requires 
an import licence and is subject to the Import Licensing rules.  Discussion of STDs is not 
separate and there is no distinct commitm ent, but STDs are part of the general 
commitment on products with cryptographic capabilities. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan considers that import licensing regime of STDs are covered by the general 
commitments specified in paragraph 369 of the draft Working Party Report as long as STDs are subject to import licensing.  
However, Kazakhstan disagrees that STDs fall into the same category as goods with encryption 
technology. As described in paragraph 368, STDs and goods with encryption technology serve different purposes.  In addition, STDs are a limited category of non-commercially traded goods, 
since they are supplied only to law enforcement an d national security bodies.  None of the newly 
acceded countries has taken a specific commitment on STDs.  
- Customs Valuation Question 74 
Paragraph 391  states that EEC Decision of the Co llegium No. 202 approving "The Rules 
on Application of Transaction Value of Identical (Method 2) and Similar Goods 
(Method 3)" of 30 October 2012, has implemen ted the Interpretive Notes not covered in 
other CU legal instruments.  Please provide a copy for the Working Party. 
Answer: 
Translation of the Decision of the EEC Collegium No. 202 approving "The Rules on Application of 
Transaction Value of Identical (Method 2) and Similar Goods (Method 3)" of 30 October 2012 is 
attached to this submission. 
Question 75 The response to Question 172 states that Kazakhstan proposes to replace Annex 5(c) 
with updated information in Annex 14.  
Annex 5(c) and Annex 14:  if Annex 5(c) is to be replaced, we will need more specific 
information than a "yes" or "no" for a colu mn named "activity licence" in Annex 14   
- We need information on activity lic ence requirements for importation or 
exportation, i.e., either import/export ac tivity licenses, or activity licenses for 
production, distribution, storage, etc., that are necessary for importation or 
exportation for each category of goods, and  
- Information on who issues the activity licenses. 
Answer: 
Annex 14 is supplemented with the specific informat ion as requested.  Annex 5(c) is deleted.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 47 - 
 
  B. EXPORT REGULATIONS 
Question 76 
Paragraph 456:  For clarity, please edit this paragraph as follows: 
456. She furthermore confirmed that, upon Kazakhstan's WTO accession, the 
provision of the bilateral agreement between Kazakhstan and the European 
Union providing for the non-MFN treatment of its non-ferrous scrap exports to 
the European Union would be invalidated and 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: 
The Agreement concluded between the European Un ion and the Republic of Kazakhstan, provides 
granting of MFN treatment with regard to export of scrap of ferrous metals.  Therefore, the 
proposed amendments will be introduced to paragraph 456 as follows:  
"456. 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 exports would be applied.  In her 
view, export duties were a legitimate trade policy instrument which was not prohibited by the WTO Agreements."   
Question 77 We note Kazakhstan's answer to our question  on the scheduling of export duties under 
Question 88 in document WT/ACC/KAZ/71. 
We reject Kazakhstan's assertion that "exp ort duties applied by Kazakhstan do not 
affect the price at which an exported commo dity … is purchased abroad" and therefore 
do not distort international trade.  Export duties artificially inflate the price at which an 
exporter must sell goods overseas in order to  make a profit, and therefore make exports 
less competitive than selling to the domestic market. 
- Can Kazakhstan please expl ain how it will schedule its export levies so as to 
avoid distortion of the domest ic and international market? 
- Could Kazakhstan provide further details  on the policy objectives behind the 
application of these levies? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan imposes export duties on a limited amount of products, such as oil and oil products, 
scrap of ferrous and non-ferrous metals, animal fur and wool.  It should be noted that export duties applied by Kazakhstan are imposed for fiscal purposes. 
It should be noted that Kazakhstan (as in case of  the Russian Federation),  upon accession to the 
WTO, will be undertaking the commitment on binding levels of export duties, which will be reflected in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
C. INTERNAL POLICIES AFFECT ING FOREIGN TRADE IN GOODS 
- Industrial Policy, Including Subsidies Question 78 Paragraphs 501-502:  Neither the response to Question 94 in document 
WT/ACC/KAZ/71 nor the Working Party text addr esses the problematic issues identified WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 48 - 
 
  in the "Investment Attraction, Special Economic Zone Development and Export 
Promotion in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2010-2014" Programme, issued in 
accordance with the Strategic Development Pl an till 2020.  Specifically, no response is 
given to the observation that the Programm e lists as one of its Programme Tasks the 
"financial backing of exporters" and two of its target indicators as (1) ensuring the 
export of at least 50% of the increased outp ut of the SEZs by 2015 and (2) increasing 
non-primary exports by at least 40% by 2015.  The cost to the Republican Budget of this 
programme is indicated as 4.7 billion KZT. 
- What is the purpose of "target indi cators" except to measure whether the 
support has met its target?   
- We seek specific assurances that none of the financial backing of exporters in 
this or Kazakhstan's other development programmes is intended to ensure or 
support the attainment of specific expo rt performance targets of the recipient 
firms. 
Answer: 
(i) "Financial backing of exporters" means state support of financing export operations 
through the Export Credit Insurance Corporation "KazExpoGarant" and includes the following instruments: 
- Export credit insurance 
Export credit insurance provides protection against risks of non-fulfilment of financial obligation by 
a foreign purchaser when exporter sells its products/services at the deferred payment conditions. The insurance covers commercial risks (insolvency of a foreign buyer, foreign buyer's failure to 
meet its obligations under the insured contract) and political risks (risk of non-payment by foreign 
buyers due to currency issues, political unrest, war, expropriation). 
Insurance can cover up to 90% of losses due to political risks and up to 80% due to commercial 
risks. The insurance premium is determined individu ally based on evaluation of the country risks, 
the risks associated with foreign counterpart and credit terms. 
- Insurance of bank guarantees  
The KazExportGarant insures bank guarantees issu ed for exporters on their obligations to supply 
their products and services, such as tender guarantees, advance payment and performance guarantees. Insurance covers up to 95% of sum of  the guarantee. The basic insurance rate varies 
depending on the country risks category and guarantee period.  
- Export trade financing (export credits) 
Export credits are available for exporters that have a contract with foreign buyer on "accréditif" 
payment terms, where exporter's bank acts as a co nfirming bank.  Export credits can be provided 
for up to one year.  Interest rates for export credits are calculated based on OECD Commercial 
Interest Reference Rate (CIRR). 
These export financing instruments are provided in line with international practices, including the 
OECD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits.  Thus, they are compliant with the rules 
of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervail ing Measures and do not represent prohibited 
export subsidies. 
Moreover, the Programme envisages state support measures aimed at export promotion.  
This includes, service support of exporters an d partial reimbursement of expenses born by 
companies engaged in industrial and innovative ac tivity for promoting their products and services 
abroad. 
Service support for exporters includes a number of  services aimed at development and support of 
medium and small businesses in their foreign trade activities.  These services include: WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 49 - 
 
  - Marketing and analytical assistance on export markets; 
- Provision of trade information on market conditions of the importing country; 
- Training of entrepreneurs on foreign trade promotion activities; 
- Dissemination of information among  foreign customers about Kazakhstan's products; - Organization of launch events for promoting trademarks of Kazakhstani producers; 
- Establishment of trade missions, forums, both in Kazakhstan and abroad; 
- Search for potential buyers of Kazakhstan's products.   
Service support is available for Kazakhstan's producers exporting or planning to export their 
products abroad. 
The service support cannot be considered as a prohibited subsidy because the scheme does not 
involve financial contribution by the Government to specific enterprises or industries that is contingent upon export performance.  
Partial reimbursement of expenses born by companies engaged in industrial and innovative activity 
for promoting their products and services abroad is provided in accordance with the rules approved by Government Resolution No. 1017 of 2 August 20 12.  The scheme provides for compensation of 
expenses only for promoting goods included into the list of products adopted by this Resolution. 
The following expenses can be partially compensated: 
- Marketing research (consultancy services); 
- Advertising costs (publishing brochures, videos, advertising and website development) 
- Participation in foreign exhibitions (entry fees, stand rental charges, etc.), - Maintenance of overseas representative,  - Training of specialists abroad or at ho me through recruitment of foreign experts; 
- Registration of products and trademarks abroad.    
The Government reimburses 50% of eligible export promotion expenses. It should be noted, that the scheme was developed based on an international expertise, including 
the experience of WTO founding members. 
Reimbursement of export promotion expenses do es not fall under the category of prohibited 
export subsidies.  Article 3.1 (a) of the SCM Agreement prohibits subsidies contingent, in law or in 
fact, whether solely or as one of several other conditions, upon export performance, including 
those illustrated in Annex I. 
Under the scheme, subsidy is provided to industrial companies for promoting their products and 
services abroad.  In order to be eligible to re ceive reimbursement a company has to carry out one 
of the listed export promotion activities for pr oducts included into the List annexed to the 
Resolution No. 1017.  The aim of the subsidy is to promote Kazakhstan's products in global 
markets.  At the same time there is no requirement for these companies to export certain amount 
of their products.  Thus, the conditions for receiving the subsidy are not contingent upon export 
performance.  It should also be noted that foot note 4 in Article 3 of the SCM Agreement states 
that "the mere fact that a subsidy is granted to enterprises which export shall not for that reason 
alone be considered to be an export subsidy within the meaning of this provision". 
(ii) The target indicators set to be reached by 2015:  "ensure the export of at least 50% of the 
increased output of the SEZs" and "increasing non-primary exports by at least 40%" does not involve export subsidies.  These are general targ ets set for the implementation of the programme, 
and not for a particular subsidy measure.   
The main purpose for establishing SEZs is diversification of the economy through facilitating 
production of high value-added goods.  Therefor e, state support measures provided within SEZ 
include tax and customs duty preferences that are aimed at attracting investments and stimulating 
production.  These subsidies are not contingent upon export performance, and, thus, are not prohibited export subsidies.  Detailed description of preferences applied in SEZs is provided in 
Chapter "Free Zones, Special Econ omic Zones".  The stated targets can be achieved through such WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 50 - 
 
  instruments as service support for exporters and financing export operations, which do not 
represent prohibited export subsidies as expl ained above and in our previous answers.   
In general, subsidies envisaged in Kazakhstan's  development programmes are not contingent upon 
export performance, and, thus, cannot be considered as prohibited export subsidies.  
Question 79 
Please revise paragraph 503 to reflect these concerns, as follows: 
503. A Member asked Kazakhstan to co nfirm that it would eliminate all 
prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the WTO SCM Agreement 
and Article XVI of the GATT 1994, at a ll levels of Government, which were 
contingent upon export performance or th e use of domestic over imported goods 
as of the date of accession.  Kazakhstan  was also asked to confirm that it would 
administer any subsidy programmes in plac e or established after accession at all 
levels of Government in conformity wi th the WTO SCM Agreement.  Kazakhstan 
should provide specific assurances that no ne of its the financial benefits offered 
to exporters in its development progra mmes would support specific export 
growth performance targets.  This Memb er requested Kazakhstan to provide a 
draft of its subsidies notification funder  Article 25 of the WTO SCM Agreement to 
the Working Party for review, noting that  it would be difficult to conclude 
discussions on this section without it. 
We suggest changes to the draf t commitment text as follows: 
504. [The representative of Kazakhstan  confirmed that, except as otherwise 
provided in the Working Party Report , upon accession, Kazakhstan would 
eliminate all subsidies programmes, including development programmes 
providing benefits for exporting firms, administered within its territory falling 
within the scope of Article 3.1 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures or modify th ese programmes so that any subsidy 
provided would not be contingent, de jure  or de facto,  upon exportation or the 
use of domestic over imported goods.   She also confirmed that any subsidy 
programme in place or established afte r accession within the territory of 
Kazakhstan would be administered in conformity with the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  In addition, the Republic of Kazakhstan 
would provide a subsidies notification prep ared in accordance with Article 25 of 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Co untervailing Measures to the Committee 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures upon entry into force of Kazakhstan's 
Protocol of Accession.  She also confirme d that Kazakhstan would not invoke any 
of the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  The Working Part y took note of these commitments.] 
Answer: 
There are no development programmes in Kazakhstan that provide prohibited export subsidies. 
Thus, we think the proposed commitment language  "including development programmes providing 
benefits for exporting firms" is redundant.   
We agree with the inclusion of the words " de jure or de facto ".  At the same time we propose to 
modify the sentence in the following way: 
"The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that, except as otherwise provided in the 
Working Party Report, upon accession, Kazakhstan would eliminate all subsidy 
programmes administered within its territory falling within the scope of Article 3.1 of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or modify these programmes so that any subsidy provided would not be contingent, de jure  or de facto , upon export 
performance, or on the use of domestic over imported goods." WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 51 - 
 
  Question 80 
In light of the information provided on Kaza khstan's extensive programmes of industrial 
subsidization, we clearly need to see as soon as possible a draft notification on 
Subsidies as outlined in Article 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to the Working Party for review. 
- We request Kazakhstan to circulate it  prior to the next WP meeting.   
- If it is not provided prior to the next Working Party meeting, we do not believe 
there should be any further Working Part y meetings until it is prepared and 
circulated. 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan will circulate the draft Subsidies Notification prior to the next Working Party meeting. - Technical Barriers to Trade, Standards and Certification 
Question 81 
Does this text reflect all changes that ha ve taken place in the system based on the 
change of the CU Commission to the EEC (Council and Collegium), e.g., in 
paragraphs 518 to 521?   
Answer: 
Yes, the text reflects all the changes that have ta ken place in the CU technical regulation system in 
connection with replacement of the CU Commission with the EEC. 
Question 82 Does the Working Party have copies of all the new relevant EEC Council and Collegium 
Decisions and consequent regulations that  regulate standardization, technical 
regulations and conformity assessment in the Customs Union?  If not, please provide 
them. 
Answer: 
A new Schedule for Development of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union for 2012-2013 
was adopted by the EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012 (see Annex 1).  
Question 83 
We need a substantive response to Question 104.  Does EurAsEC retain any role in 
technical regulation for the Customs Union?  If so, what is it? 
Answer: 
Currently, EurAsEC does not play any role in technical regulation for the Customs Union. 
Development of EurAsEC technical regulations has been suspended by the Decision of the EurAsEC 
Interstate Council No. 575 of 19 October 2011. Now, only CU technical regulations are being developed.  
Question 84 
Paragraph 510  states "that CU Commission Decision No. 319 also determined the criteria 
for inclusion of conformity assessment bodies  and testing laboratories into the Unified 
Register". WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 52 - 
 
  - Is there a reason that the "unified register" is not identified here, on first 
reference, by its full name, i.e., "the Unified Register of Certification Bodies and 
Testing Laboratories of the Customs Union"? 
Answer: 
This is just a technical error.  The full name of the Unified Register of Certification Bodies and 
Testing Laboratories will be added into the paragraph. 
Question 85 Paragraph 511:  What is the difference betw een "(i) ... the Unified List of Products 
approved by CU Commission Decision No . 526)"; and  "(ii) the Unified List";? 
Answer: 
There are two separate lists of products used within the CU: 1. "The Unified List" in this paragraph refers to the Unified List of Products Subject to 
Mandatory Conformity Assessment within the CU with Issuance of Conformity Documents 
of a Common Form approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 as amended by the CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 (hereinafter - the Unified 
List approved by Decision No. 620).  This list is provisionally applied in order to ensure free 
movement of goods on the CU territory until adop tion of relevant CU technical regulations.  
As stated in Kazakhstan's replies to Question 97 in the document WT/ACC/KAZ/71, the Unified List 
approved by Decision No. 620 includes products for which CU countries: 
- established similar mandatory requirements; 
- use similar conformity assessment schemes; - use similar or comparable testing and measurement methods. 
In accordance with the Explanatory Notes to the Unified List approved by Decision No. 620, for 
products included in the list, at the applicant's choi ce, certificates of conformity and declarations of 
conformity of a common CU form or certificates of conformity and declaration of conformity issued 
according to the national legislation of the CU Member States could be used. 
Products included into the Unified List approved by Decision No. 620 can move freely on the entire 
CU territory if they have 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 is included into the Unified Register of Certification Bodies and Testing 
Laboratories of the CU; 
- the testing laboratory is included into the Unified Register of Certification Bodies and 
Testing Laboratories of the CU. 
The following regulations are applied to the goods included in the Unified List approved by Decision 
No. 620: 
- Rules and Regulations on the Use of St andard Schemes of Conformity Assessment 
(confirmation of conformity) with the Requirements of the CU Technical Regulations; 
- Unified forms of documents on conformity assessment (confirmation of conformity) 
(declaration of conformity with CU TR, certificate of conformity with CU TR); 
- Rules and Regulations on a Common Mark of Product Circulation at CU the Market. 
Products not included in the Unified List approv ed by Decision No. 620 are subject to mandatory 
conformity assessment (confirmation of conformity) according to the national legislation of the 
Member States of the Customs Union. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 53 - 
 
  Products for which Customs Union technical regulations are adopted shall be excluded from the 
Unified List approved by Decision No. 620 
2. The Unified List of Products in Respect of which Mandatory Requirements Could be 
Established within the Framework of the Customs Union, approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 526 of 28 January 2011 (hereinafter – the Unified List approved by Decision No. 526), includes 
61 product groups for which CU technical regulations shall be developed.  
After entry into force of technical regulations of the Customs Union, they are directly applicable, 
and relevant national requirements established by  the legislation of the CU Parties will not be 
applied.  
For products included into the Unified List approv ed by Decision No. 526 for which no relevant CU 
technical regulations has been enforced, national technical regulations are applied.  The CU Parties shall not at the national level maintain mandatory requirement to products not included in the 
Unified List approved by Decision No. 526. 
Question 86 Paragraph 512:  What happened to the "1 tec hnical regulation which was planned to be 
enacted by the end of 2012"?  What is looking possible for 2013?   
What is the status of "the draft EEC Collegium Decision "On the Schedule for 
Development of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union for 2012-2013" [which] 
was being developed" when WT/ACC/ SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6, was circulated? 
Answer: 
1. The Technical regulation "On Requirements for Automobile and Aviation Gasoline, Diesel 
and Marine Fuel, Jet Fuel and Heating Oil" entered into force on 31 December 2012 in 
accordance with the CU Commission De cision No. 826 of 18 October 2011.  
2. In 2013, 13 technical regulations will enter into force: 
- On Safety of Machinery and Equipment – 15 February 2013; 
- On Safety of Equipment for Works in Ex plosive Environments - 15 February 2013; 
- On Safety of Elevators - 15 February 2013; 
- On Safety of Low-Voltage Equipment – 15 February 2013; 
- Electromagnetic Compatibility of Equipment -15 February 2013 ; 
- On Safety of Devices Operating on Gaseous Fuels -15 February 2013; - On Food Safety - 1 July 2013; - On Safety of Food Additives, Flavourings and Processing Aids - 1 July 2013; 
- On Safety of Certain Types Of Specialized Food Products, Including Dietary 
Therapeutic And Preventive Nutrition - 1 July 2013; 
- Technical Regulation for Food Products in Terms of their Labelling - 1 July 2013; 
- Technical Regulation for Juice Products - 1 July 2013; 
- Technical Regulation for Oil and Fat Products - 1 July 2013; - On Safety of Grain – 1 July 2013 
3. The Schedule for Development of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union for 
2012-2013 was adopted by the EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012.  The schedule envisages development of 29 CU technical regulations.  Kazakhstan is responsible for development of 7 draft techni cal regulations. English translation of the 
Decision No. 103 is attached to this submission.  
Question 87 Paragraph 512 states that 47 products had not been identified as priority products for 
development and adoption of CU technical regulations.  Could Kazakhstan please 
elaborate on the selection of th ese products as priority ones? WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 54 - 
 
  Answer: 
The List of 61 products was established by the CU Commission Decision No. 526 "On Unified List of 
Products, towards which Mandatory Requirements are Established within the Framework of the 
Customs Union" of 28 January 2011.  These products were identified based on the level of risk that 
these products pose to human live and (or) health, environment, animal and plant live and/or 
health.  
Forty-seven products from the List have been selected for development of priority technical 
regulations based on the criteria related to the vo lume of mutual trade in these products between 
the CU Parties. 
Question 88 Paragraph 513 states "For determining prod ucts to be included into the list, the 
CU Parties assessed the risk (potential haza rd) that these products posed to human live 
and (or) health, environment, animal and plant live and/or he alth.  All concerned 
parties, including businesses, were consulte d during the process.  New products could 
be added into the list if new risks were identified. 
Please be more specific.  Precisely and operationally, how does the CU develop new 
products for the Unified List, i.e.: 
- what CU and EEC institutions are involved,  
- how are decisions made and by whom, and  
- how, as necessary, are it ems removed from the list? 
Answer: 
The unified list of products for which mandat ory requirements are established within the 
Customs Union is formed on the basis of proposals from CU Parties, including stakeholders and 
business community, as well as proposals of the Eurasian Economic Commission.  The CU Parties determine products to be included into the list based on the assessment of risk that these products 
pose to human life and/or health, life and/or health of animals and plants, and the environment.  
In forming the Unified List, the CU Parties mainly focus on mutually traded products. 
A draft consolidated list of goods in respect of which mandatory requirements shall be established 
within CU, prepared by the Department of Technical Regulation and Accreditation of the EEC on 
the basis of proposals from the CU Parties, is circulated to the Parties for review.  When approved by the CU Parties, the draft list is considered by the Consultative Committee on Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary an d Phytosanitary Measures.  Upon endorsement of 
the Committee, the draft list shall be submitted to the EEC Collegium and then to the EEC Council 
for approval.  Similar procedures are used to intr oduce amendments into the Unified List (inclusion 
and exclusion of products into/from the Unified List). 
It should be noted, that the Unified List of Products in Respect of which Mandatory Requirements 
are Established within the CU, adopted by the CU Commission  Decision No. 526, was amended by 
the EEС Council Decision No. 102 of 23 November 2012. 
In particular, six product groups have been added into the Unified List: 
- Liquefied petroleum gas used as fuel; 
- Materials contacting with human skin; - Products intended for civil defence and protection of natural and man-made disasters; 
- Oil, prepared for transportation and use; 
- Combustible natural gas, prepared for transportation and use; - Mainline pipelines for transportation of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons. 
The following product group has been excluded from the Unified List: WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 55 - 
 
  - Alternative fuels. 
Thus, at present, the Unified List includes 66 product groups. 
Question 89 
Paragraph 514  states that "It was expected that  by 31 December 2012 the Eurasian 
Economic Commission would have adopted all 47 priority CU technical regulations which 
would enter into force no later than 15 Februa ry 2015, after a transitional period which 
allowed producers, importers, and export ers to become acquainted with the new 
technical regulations prior to application of th e relevant CU technical regulation.  By that 
date, all other national mand atory technical requirements applied on the territory of 
CU Parties would be replaced by CU technical regulations or would no longer be applied.  
Paragraph 512 states, however, that "To date, of 47 CU tec hnical regulations stipulated 
in CU Commission Decision No. 492, 31 te chnical regulations have been adopted, 
including 7 technical regulations which en tered into force in 2012 and 1 technical 
regulation which was planned to be enacted by the end of 2012". 
- Clearly, the original plan is no longer viable.  Please clarify this information and 
give a realistic timeline for action on te chnical regulations, including a revised 
date for being "in force." 
Answer: 
To date, 31 CU technical regulations have been  adopted (out of 47 CU technical regulations 
envisaged in the Schedule adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010).  Eight technical regulations have entered into force in 2012.  The remaining 23 technical regulations will enter into force not later than 15 February 2015:  in 2013 - 13 technical 
regulations, in 2012 – 7 technical regulations, and in 2015 – 3 technical regulations. 
Out of 47 CU technical regulations 16 CU technica l regulations that have not yet been developed 
were included into the new Schedule for Development of Technical Regulations of the 
Customs Union for 2012-2013 adopted by the EEC Council Decision No. 103 of 23 November 2012.  
The schedule envisages development of 29 CU techni cal regulations. Kazakhstan is responsible for 
development of 7 draft technical regulations.  Th e English translation of the Decision No. 103 has 
been submitted to the WTO Secretariat.  
Question 90 Paragraph 515 lists a number of pieces of do mestic legislation enacted prior to the 
establishment of the Customs Union intended to bring Kazakhstan's technical regulation 
regime "into conformity with the Law "On Te chnical Regulation" and provisions of the 
TBT Agreement."  These included: 
- Law No. 209 "On Amendments and Addenda into Certain Legislative Acts of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan on Issues of Te chnical Regulation" of 29 December 2006 
which had introduced amendments to 33 Laws.   
- Four new laws--"On Toys Safety", "On Sa fety of Chemical Products", "On Safety 
of Machinery and Equipment" and "On Food Safety".   
- Two Laws In the area of accreditation:   Law No. 61-IV "On Accreditation in the 
Field of Conformity Assessment" of 5 July 2008 and Law No. 62-IV 
"On Amendments and Addenda in Certain Legislative Acts on the Issues of 
Accreditation" of 5 July 2008.   
Paragraph 516  states that the Law on Technica l Regulations was "substantially 
replaced" with CU Agreements and other CU  Acts, including CU Commission Decisions, 
but certain provisions remained in effect to the extent they did not conflict with CU legal 
provisions, and lists these areas of the regime. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 56 - 
 
  - Please elaborate on the status of  the other Kazakh legislation after 
1 January 2010. 
Answer: 
According to paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Agreement on Common Principles and Rules of 
Technical Regulation, the relevant mandatory requirements established by national legislations of 
the CU Parties shall not be applied on the territories of the CU Parties from the date of entry into 
force of relevant CU technical regulations. 
In order to implement this provision, national technical regulations for products concerned are 
repealed by a Government Resolution.  The List of national technical regulations that have been 
repealed due to adoption of CU technical re gulations was provided in the Annex 1 of the 
WT/ACC/KAZ/71 of 23 November 2012.  
It should be noted that the national legislations in  the field of technical regulation is being brought 
into compliance with the CU legislation.  In particular, in order to bring national legislation into 
compliance with the Customs Union legislation the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Amendments and Additions to Some Legislat ive Acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on 
Technical Regulation and Metrology" was adopted on 10 July 2012.  The Law has introduced 
amendments and addenda into 8 Codes and 22 Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan.  The detailed 
information on the Law was presented in answer  to Question 99 in document WT/ACC/KAZ/71 of 
23 November 2012.  
The Law "On Toys Safety" is applied to the extent that it does not contradict the CU technical 
regulation "On Toys Safety".  The Remaining Laws "On Safety of Chemical Products", "On Safety of 
Machinery and Equipment" and "On Food Safety" are in force pending the enforcement of relevant 
CU technical regulations.   
With regard to the laws in the field of accreditation, as described in paragraph 516 of the draft 
Working Party Report (WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6 of 27 November 2012), accreditation is still 
regulated and administered at the national level.  Thus, the Law "On  Accreditation in the Field of 
Conformity Assessment" of 5 July 2008 is still in force and regulates accreditation activities carried 
out in Kazakhstan.  
Question 91 
Paragraph 523 states that "CU technical regula tions had to be developed in accordance 
with recommendations on a model structure la id down in Resolution of the Interstate 
Council of the EurAsEC No. 321 of 21 October 2006."  Is this still the case?  Why would 
this be so if EurAsEC no  longer was responsible for CU technical regulations 
development? 
Answer: 
In accordance with paragraph 3, Article 4 of the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of 
Technical Regulations in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 18 November 2010, technica l regulations of the Customs Union shall be 
developed in accordance with the Recommendations on the Model Structure of the Technical 
Regulations of the EurAsEC adopted by the Resolution of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 321 of 27 October 2006.  
Due to the fact that currently, no recommendation on the model structure of the technical 
regulations has been adopted within the CU, although EurAsEC technical regulations are no longer 
developed, the CU Parties use recommendat ions developed within the EurAsEC.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 57 - 
 
  Question 92 
Paragraph 524 states that the CU regime requ ires that CU Parties proposing technical 
regulations must designate a State body responsible for development of the draft 
technical regulation, i.e., the Developer of the draft technical regulation.   
- Please identify this State body, or bodi es, in Kazakhstan's technical regulation 
regime in this paragraph, and provide the legal citation authorising this in 
Kazakhstan's case.  
- As necessary, define the criteria  for selection of a "Developer". 
Answer: 
The "Developer", i.e. the state body responsible for development of technical regulations, is 
designated by the CU Party responsible for develo ping the given technical regulation.  The state 
body is selected taking into account the relevant competence of the state body in the sphere 
where the technical regulation is planned to be developed.  
The Committee on Technical Regulation and Metrol ogy under the Ministry of Industry and New 
Technologies of the Republic of Kazakhstan deve lops a draft document On Designation of State 
Bodies Responsible for Development of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union.  The draft 
document is sent to state bodies for approval and is adopted by the Protocol of the Commission on the Issues of Technical Regulation and Metrology established by the Government Resolution 
No. 558 of 12 June 2010.   
To date, Kazakhstan has develope d 7 CU technical regulations: 
- On Safety of Grain – the Ministry of Agriculture; 
- On Safety of Elevators – the Ministry on Emergency Situations;  
- On Requirements to Automotive and Aviation Petrol, Diesel Fuel, Fuel for Jet Engines and 
Fuel Oil – the Ministry of Oil and Gas; 
- On Safety of Products of Light Industry – th e Ministry of Industry and New Technologies; 
- On Safety of Products of Dietary, Special and Medicinal and Prophylactic Nutrition; On 
Safety of Food Additives, Flavourings and Pr ocessing Aids, On Safety of Explosives and 
Products on their Basis – the Ministry of Health. 
Question 93 
The response to Question 27 states that "CU Commission competence covered issues 
related only to Customs Union, while Eura sian Economic Commission (EEC) expands its 
competency to Single Economic Space (SES) issues  as well".  It goes on to list provisions 
of the "Agreement on Uniform Rules and Pr inciples of Technical Regulation" that 
delegated the following functions to the EEC: 
- approval of the unified list of prod ucts in respect of which mandatory 
requirements are established within the framework of the Customs Union, and of 
the procedure of its maintenance; 
- approval of the plans for developm ent of technical regulations of the 
Customs Union; 
- adoption, amendment and cancellation  of technical regulations of the 
Customs Union; 
- adoption of the list of the internationa l and regional standards (and in their 
absence of national standards) the vo luntary compliance with which ensures 
compliance with CU technical regulation; 
- approval of the common forms of conformity assessment (confirmation) 
documents (declaration of conformity  with technical regulations of the 
Customs Union, certificate of conformi ty with technical regulations of the 
Customs Union); 
- establishment of the procedure for development, adoption, amendment and 
cancellation of technical regulations of the Customs Union; WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 58 - 
 
  - approval of the Common Mark of Circul ation of Products on the Markets of the 
member-States of the Customs Union; and 
- approval of the regulation on the Common Mark of Circulation of Products on the 
Markets of the Member states of the Customs Union and the procedure for its 
use. 
Please reflect this information in the draft Working Party Report text. 
Answer: 
This information is reflected in paragraph 518 of the draft Working Party Report 
(WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6 of 27 November 2012). 
Question 94 What is the status of technical regu lations adopted under EurAsEC auspices? 
Answer: 
Up to date no EurAsEC technical regula tion have been adopted or enforced.  
Question 95 The response to Question 111 reports on the status of amendments to CU Decision 
No. 620 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. 
- Please report on progress and indicate whether these amendments have been 
ratified and implemented. 
Answer:  
EEC Collegium Decision No. 226 "On Recognizing Some  of the Decision of the CU Commission as 
Repealed with Regard to Adoption of Declarat ion of Conformity of Products to Mandatory 
Requirements within the CU of a Common Form" of 13 November 2012 has introduced amendments into the CU Commission Decision No. 620 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard 
to Products Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment (Confirmation) within the Framework of 
the CU with Issuance of Documents of a Common Form, approved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010" of 7 April 2011. 
According to these amendments declarations of conformity using the CU common form now could 
be used for demonstrating the conformity of produc ts imported into the territory of the CU from 
third countries. The following provision has been added into the Explanatory note to the Unified List: 
"For products supplied from third countries, certificates of conformity or declarations of 
conformity in accordance with the legislation of the Member State of the Customs Union or certificates of conformity or declarations of co nformity of a single form shall be issued".  
Question 96 
Paragraph 510 states that a new regulation go verning the importation of products listed 
on the CU Unified List was being developed.  The response to Question 112 describes its 
purpose.  Please incorporate this information in to the text of the Working Party Report.   WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 59 - 
 
  Answer:  
The information on the new regulation governing importation of products listed on the CU Unified 
List has been incorporated in paragraph 511 of the draft Working Party Report 
(WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6 of 27 November 2012). 
Question 97 
Paragraph 532 states that CU Parties (i ncluding Kazakhstan) cannot establish 
"additional mandatory requirements at the nati onal level other than those established in 
the technical regulations of the Customs Union" .  However, it goes on to describe the 
provisions of the Law on Technical Regu lations that provide for such mandatory 
requirements.  It is not clear what is meant by this.  Please clarify. 
Answer: 
The Law on Technical Regulation provides for development of national technical regulations. 
Development of national technical regulations has been suspended with the beginning of 
development of CU technical regulations in 2011.  At the same time, for those products, for which 
no CU technical regulation has been enforced, national technical regulations are applied.  Thus, 
provisions of the Law on Technical Regulation provide the legal basis for existing national technical 
regulations that are still in force, due to the abse nce of corresponding CU technical regulations.   
Question 98 
Paragraphs 542-543:  Please edit these paragraphs along the following lines: 
542. In response to a request from Ssome Members for  strongly encouraged 
Kazakhstan to bring its standards and technical regulations system into 
compliance with WTO requirements prior to  WTO accession,.  Tthe representative 
of Kazakhstan replied that Kazakhstan  was currently considering making the 
commitment contained in the following paragraph.   
543. [The representative of Kazakhstan confirmed that upon  accession to the 
WTO, relevant international standards or  relevant parts thereof would be used 
for the development of technical regulati ons, unless they were ineffective or 
inappropriate means for the fulfilment of  the legitimate safety objectives.  
She further confirmed that from the date  of accession, Kazakhstan would ensure 
that all laws, regulations, and other me asures within the scope of the WTO TBT 
Agreement, such as technical regulation s, standards, and conformity assessment 
procedures, applied in Kazakhstan complie d with the provisions of the WTO TBT 
Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
544. In reply, the representative of  Kazakhstan said She added that 
Kazakhstan, jointly with other CU Partie s, was actively working on development 
of technical regulations which would replace WTO-inconsistent mandatory 
standards. ..." 
Answer:  
Kazakhstan agrees to make the proposed changes into the draft Working Party Report.  At the 
s a m e  t i m e  w e  i n f o r m  y o u  t h a t  t h e  l a s t  s e n t e n c e  o f  p a r a g r a p h  5 3 4  s t a r t i n g  w i t h  " S h e  f u r t h e r  confirmed that from the date of accession…" has been moved to paragraph 581 in the last version 
of the Working Party Report WT/ACC/SPEC/KAZ/9/Rev.6 of 27 November 2012. 
Question 99 
Transparency (paragraphs 575 – 581):  we acknowledge that Kazakhstan is committed 
to fulfil its notification obligations to the WT O on not only the Kazakh national technical 
regulations but also on proposed technical regulations of the Customs Union (CU).  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 60 - 
 
  According to the regulatory practice of the Customs Union, its members share the 
workload of drafting legislation that is applicable to the entire CU territory.  
Our understanding is that whenever a CU tec hnical legislation is drafted and agreed by 
all CU Members both the Russian Federation an d Kazakhstan will notify it to the WTO.  
We would however request further details on  how it will be ensured that the double 
notification practice of the same pieces of legislation will not create confusion. 
Answer: 
As provided in paragraph 575 of the Working Party Report, for administrative reasons, the 
CU Parties have created their own Information Centres (Enquiry Points) on TBT/SPS.  Taking into 
account that the CU members accede to the WTO separately, each of them will have separate obligations on notification.  Thus, both the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan, in accordance with their commitments, have to notify all draft CU tec hnical regulations.  The notified drafts will be 
identical and have the same deadlines for comments.  Hence, WTO Members will just need to send 
the same comments to the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan.  All the comments received from third countries are sent to the EEC.  The EEC shal l process all the comments, publish them on the 
official website of the Commission and forward them to developer of the draft technical regulations 
(relevant competent authority of the CU Party).  Thus, the process established within CU ensures 
that there is no duplication and confusion in considering the received comments.   
Question 100 
Whenever comments are received from WTO Me mbers on notified legislation, it would 
be highly appreciated that Kazakhstan confir ms their receipt and also replies to each of 
the comments with explanation in case of non-acceptance. 
Answer: 
According to paragraph 9 of the Regulation on the Procedure for Development of Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union, approved by the EEC Council Decision No. 48, all comments 
and proposals received from interested parties of the Customs Union and third countries, shall be 
published by the Eurasian Economic Commission (her einafter – the EEC) on the official website of 
the EEC upon their receipt. 
The EEC shall send all comments and suggestions to developer of draft technical regulation 
(relevant competent authority of the CU member ) upon completion of the public discussion.  
The developer of draft technical regulation shall review the draft technical regulation and related 
documents taking into account the comments and suggestions.   
For each comment and proposal included into the summary of comments the developer of the 
draft technical regulation shall specify information on its acceptance or justification for its rejection. 
The EEC shall ensure inclusion of all comments and proposals received during public discussion 
into the summary of comments and their subsequent  publication on the official website of the EEC. 
Question 101 
Kazakhstan should make all efforts to alig n its standards to international standards 
where these exist. 
Answer: 
The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 603 "On Technical Regulation" of 9 November 2004 
stipulates the priority use of international standards.  Thus, Article 4.5 of the Law provides that 
standards of international organizations shall be applied as a basis for development of national WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 61 - 
 
  standards, except for the cases when such standa rds are insufficient or ineffective for meeting the 
objectives established by the Law.  
As provided in paragraph 545 of the Working Party Report, national standards of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan which contradict the WTO requirements are being reviewed with a purpose to harmonize them with international standards.   
To date, 3,323 out of 4,627 national standards (72%) have been harmonized with international 
standards. 
Furthermore, in its Working Party Report, Kazakhstan undertakes commitment that upon accession 
all standards currently in force in the Republic of Kazakhstan containing mandatory requirements 
will be applied in compliance with the WTO TBT Agr eement.  In case of their inconsistency with the 
provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement, such standa rds will be modified in accordance with the 
procedure established by the Decision No. 48.  
V. TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME 
Question 102 Paragraph 689:  Does Kazakhstan have an y non-MFN arrangements with any other 
CIS countries (i.e., other than Uzbekistan, th e Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Georgia) 
or with CU Parties in the area of intellectual property protection?  If  so, will Kazakhstan 
revise these as well to remo ve preferential provisions? 
Answer: 
Kazakhstan does not have any non-MFN arrangements with any other CIS countries or CU Parties 
in the area of intellectual property protection. 
Question 103 
Paragraph 731:  As we agreed bilaterally, the words "in Kazakhstan" should be included 
in the text of this paragraph with reference to the date of marketing approval, to avoid 
unfair commercial use issues:  
731. [In response, the representative of Kazakhstan confirmed ... .  She further 
confirmed that Kazakhstan's laws did no t permit others to rely, directly or 
indirectly, on undisclosed test data deve loped or submitted by another to obtain 
marketing approval/registration in Kazakh stan, and that upon its accession to 
the WTO, Kazakhstan would adopt measur es to provide for the protection of 
undisclosed information and test data, in compliance with Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, providing that und isclosed information and test data 
submitted to obtain marketing approv al/registration in Kazakhstan, i.e., 
registration of pharmaceutical produc ts, which utilise new chemical entities, 
would have a period of at least six year s of protection against unfair commercial 
use starting from the date of grant of ma rketing approval in Kazakhstan.  During 
this period ... The Working Party took note of these commitments.]  
In addition, in order to adopt measures "upon accession", that would provide for 
"registration of pharmaceutical products, which utilise new chemical entities, [and] 
would have a period of at least six years of protection against unfair commercial use 
starting from the date of grant of market ing approval in Kazakhstan" Kazakhstan will 
need to enact appropriate legislation in advance. 
- Please ensure that the Working Party has reviewed this legislation prior to 
completion of its work. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 62 - 
 
  Answer: 
Kazakhstan agrees with proposed amendment to the text of the Working Party Report.  Draft law 
implementing the data exclusivity commitment w ill be submitted for the next Working Party 
meeting. 
Question 104 
Paragraph 733:  We appreciate the addition of commitment text.  We remain interested 
in having a response to Question 164 conc erning what "chemical products" used as 
agricultural chemicals in Kazakhstan, are not required to be registered.  
- Could Kazakhstan please provide this information? 
- In addition, could Kazakhstan provide the text of the relevant sections of the Law 
"On the Safety of Chemical Products" an d the Decree "On the Approval of the 
Rules on the Registration and Producti on Testing and State Registration of 
Pesticides"?   
Answer: 
All agricultural chemicals, including mineral fertilizers, are subject to registration in Kazakhstan.  
The only clarification made in the draft Working Party Report is that in accordance with the Law 
"On the Safety of Chemical Products" (see Annex 2) they must be registered not as agricultural products but chemical products.  Pesticides and poisons must be registered in accordance with the 
Government Resolution "On Approval of the Rule s on Registration and Production Testing and 
State Registration of Pesticides" (see Annex 3).   
VI. POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES Question 105 
We have noted a new revision in paragraph 7 71.  While the previous version of the draft 
Working Party Report read "leasing and provision of access to cable channels and technological facilities for connecting tele communications networks to the universal 
telecommunications network", the current versio n states that:  "lease or use of cable 
channels and other basic facilities technologically related to connecting 
telecommunication networks with telecomm unication of common use".  We preferred 
the previous text and consider that the re visions make the text more ambiguous and 
leave room for broader interpretations.  We  would like to hear the rationale behind 
these changes. 
Answer: 
The language in paragraph 771 has been correcte d due to inaccurate translation of the terms 
stipulated in legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the previous text of the draft Working Report.   
1. The term "telecommunication of common use" , stipulated in the Law of the Republic of 
Kazakhstan "On Communications", has been incorrectly translated as "universal telecommunications network".  We changed the text in accordance with the national 
legislation.  
2. The language "cable channels and facilities for connecting telecommunications networks" 
has been changed to "cable channels and facilities technologically related to connecting telecommunication networks".  The meaning contained in the previous text implied that 
services on lease or use of cable channels and other basic facilities were subject to 
regulation as natural monopoly only when their purpose was to connect telecommunication networks with telecommunication networks of common use.  However, in accordance with 
paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 272-I "On Natural 
Monopolies and Regulated Markets" of 9 Ju ly 1998 (the Law), the sphere of natural WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 63 - 
 
  monopoly covers services on lease and use of cable channels not only for connecting with 
telecommunication networks of common use but for other purposes, such as connecting to 
Internet, expansion of service area, as well. 
Moreover, the same language is provided in the Annex 4 (List of Services Provided by Natural 
Monopolies) to the draft Working Party Report. 
Question 106 
We thank Kazakhstan for the replies it has provided to our request for amendments to 
paragraphs 781 and 782 (688 and 689 in the previous version).  We however still 
maintain those requests.   
Indeed, in its replies, Kazakhstan suggests that the existing law mirrors the requested 
commitment.  And indeed, if a time-frame is es tablished already in existing law, there is 
no reason not to replicate that in the Working Party Report.  This would at least give 
legal guarantees to third country service supp liers that the law will not be changed in 
this respect following Kazakhstan's accession. 
Answer: 
This Member is asking to delete the words "within the period specified in official procedures or, if 
no time period was specified" in paragraph 781 which states the following "Relevant authorities would review and make a decision on granting or denying a license within the period specified in 
official procedures or, if no time period was sp ecified, without undue delay".  Therefore, this 
Member is asking Kazakhstan to have the following language:  "Relevant authorities would review 
and make a decision on granting or denying a licence without undue delay". 
This Member is insisting that this language would at least give legal guarantees to third countries 
service suppliers that the law will not be changed in this respect following Kazakhstan's accession 
to the WTO.  
However, we consider that the commitment text proposed by this Member does not provide 
certainty to third countries service suppliers in terms of issuance of a licence and could be 
differently understood and interpreted by the licenser and an applicant.  While the proposed commitment text contained in draft Working Party Report of Kazakhstan does clearly stipulate that 
the time-frame for granting a licence will be specified in the legislation, and in case it is not, the 
decision on licence would be made without undue delay.  
Moreover, all recently acceded to the WTO countries have indicated that the time-frame for 
issuance of a licence would be established in their legislation and countries would comply with 
those terms (Ukraine, paragraph 489; Viet Nam, paragraph 507; China, paragraph 308; the 
Russian Federation, paragraph 688).  
Therefore, the commitment text contained in Kazakhstan's draft Working Party Report is a 
standard commitment text on the terms of issuance of a licence undertaken by all recently 
acceded WTO Members.  
Question 107 
Also, given that Kazakhstan's existing legisl ation provides for the possibility of a review, 
Kazakhstan should feel more than comforta ble adding this commitment to the Working 
Party Report.  This is all the more true as the provision of a legal guarantee to service 
suppliers that did not receive a licence to se ek a review forms an integral part of the 
rule of law.  We therefore request to in sert a possibility for review, in line with 
Article VI:2 (a).  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 64 - 
 
  Answer: 
This Member suggested Kazakhstan to take th e following commitment "Kazakhstan will offer 
judicial, arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures which provide, at the request of an 
affected service supplier, for the prompt review of , and where justified, appropriate remedies for, 
administrative decisions such as the denial of a licence". 
In its reply, Kazakhstan has indicated, that in accordance with Article 46 of the Law of the Republic 
of Kazakhstan "On Licensing", if a licence is not issued within the timeframe established by the Law or the applicant considers the denial to issue a licence as unreasonable, an applicant has the 
right to appeal to the court in accordance with th e legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan (Civil 
Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).  
The legislation of Kazakhstan does not establish a special timeframe for the review of applications 
on denial of a licence.  Terms and procedures for the review of decisions such as the denial of a 
licence are established in the Civil Procedure Code, which means that terms and procedures are 
common as for any other cases reviewed by the court.  
Article VI of the GATS, paragraph 2 a), provides that "Each Member shall maintain or institute as 
soon as practicable judicial, arbitral or administra tive tribunals or procedures which provide, at the 
request of an affected service supplier, for the pr ompt review of, and where justified, appropriate 
remedies for, administrative decisi ons affecting trade in services."  
At the same time, paragraph 2 b) of this Article provides, that the provisions of sub-paragraph (a) 
shall not be construed to require a Member to institute such tribunals or procedures, where this would be inconsistent with its constitutional structure or the nature of its legal system.  
Thus, establishment of arbitral or administrative tribunals or procedures which provide, at the 
request of an affected service supplier, for the pr ompt review of, and where justified, appropriate 
remedies for administrative decisions such as the denial of a licence is inconsistent with the legal system of Kazakhstan.  
In addition, we would like to note that the Working Party Reports of the Russian Federation, 
Viet Nam, Ukraine, China and Saudi Arabia do not contain such commitments.  
VIII. TRADE AGREEMENTS 
Question 108 
Paragraph 801:  Please include reference to  and legal citation for the new Free Trade 
Agreement among CIS members signed on 18 October 2011.   
Answer: 
The reference to the Agreement on Free Trade Area  on 18 October 2011 in paragraph [801] will be 
provided in the next revision of the draft Working Party Report as follows:  
801. 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 countries of 
15 April 1994; the Agreement on Free Trade Ar ea of 18 October 2011, 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 su bsequent 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 WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 65 - 
 
  Economic Space with Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation of 19 September 2003; 
and 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.  Implementation of the latter Treaty had been initiated on 1 January 2010 among the Republics of Kazakh stan, 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 agreem ents is contained in Annex 21. 
Question 109 
Paragraph 804:  Please update information on  the establishment of the Single Economic 
Space among Kazakhstan, the Russian Federati on, and Belarus.  In addition, please 
draw on information in the responses to Question 27. 
Answer: 
On 1 January 2012, 17 agreements establishing a legal basis for the Single Economic Space 
(hereinafter – SES) between the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Belarus and the 
Russian Federation have entered into force.  
The SES Agreements provide a legal framework for harmonization of legislation of the SES Parties 
in the spheres of government support to industrial  and agricultural sectors, public procurement, 
access to services provided by natural monopolies, provision of fair competition, trade in services, 
movement of natural persons, investments, etc.  
The Agreements are aimed to create conditions for conducting a coordinated trade and economic 
policy between the SES Parties with overall objective to provide a level playing field for 
competition among businesses of the SES member-States. 
Brief information on the key objectives of the SES Agreements is provided below: 1. The Agreement on Coordinated Macroeconomic Policy stipulates key principles and 
guidelines for conducting coordinated macroeconomic policies.  In particular, the 
Agreement establishes following quantitative pa rameters that have to be followed by the 
SES Parties: 
- annual state budget deficit shall not exceed 3% of GDP; 
- public debt shall not exceed 50% of GDP; - inflation rate of the SES Party shall not exceed 5 percentage points from the level 
of inflation rate of the other SES Party that has the lowest level of prices. 
2. The Agreement on Coordinated Principles of Monetary Policy defines common principles of 
monetary policy and envisages measures to be taken by the SES Parties to conduct 
coordinated monetary policy.  The purpose of the Agreement is to improve efficiency of 
reciprocal payments in national currencies between the entities involved in foreign trade 
activity of the SES Parties, which will strengthen their national currencies and increase liquidity of national currency markets. 
3. The Agreement on Common Rules and Principles of Competition establishes common 
principles of competition to prevent and proh ibit anti-competitive agreements and unfair 
competition within the SES and violations of the common competition rules on transboundary markets
5. 
4. The Agreement on Common Rules for Granting Industrial Subsidies establishes uniform 
rules for granting subsidies in line with the WTO norms.  The Agreement also stipulates 
                                               
5 According to the Decision of the Supreme Eurasi an Economic Council No. 9 of 19 December 2012 the 
market is considered as a transboundary market if geog raphical boundaries of the market cover territories of 
two or more SES Parties. WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 66 - 
 
  procedures for approval of national government support programs before their 
implementation by EEC as of 2017.  
5. The Agreement on Common Rules of State Support of Agricultural Sector provides rules for 
granting subsidies to producers of agricultural goods.  The Agreement establishes 
classification of agricultural subsidies, which divides domestic support measures into three 
categories:  
(i) subsidies that do not distort trade – the "green box" subsidies in WTO language – 
are allowed without limitations; 
(ii) subsidies that create serious trade distortion (export subsidies), stipulated in 
illustrative list provided in the Annex to the Agreement, shall be prohibited in mutual trade; 
(iii) all measures of domestic support except above-mentioned measures fall under the 
"amber box".  The volume of these subsid ies shall not exceed 10% of gross value 
of agricultural production of the SES Party.  However, after the SES Party joins the WTO, its commitment within the WTO shall prevail. 
6. According to the Agreement on State (Municipal) Procurement, the SES Party shall accord 
national treatment in its public procurement to goods and services rendered by the other 
SES Parties.  The SES Parties have a right to  impose exemptions from national treatment 
subject to the approval by EEC.  The Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus have 
offered national treatment to goods and services originating from their countries as of 1 January 2012.  The Republic of Kazakhstan shall provide national treatment to Russian 
and Belarusian suppliers on a reciprocal basis as of 1 January 2014. 
7. The Agreement on Common Principles of Regulation in the Sphere of Protection of 
Intellectual Property Rights establishes commo n principles of copyright, trademark and 
patent regulation within the SES.  The Ag reement is aimed at enhancing intellectual 
property protection within the SES and preventing trade in counterfeit products. 
8. According to the Agreement on Trade in Se rvices and Investments the SES Parties shall 
provide national treatment to services and in vestments of the other SES Parties except for 
those services, which they have listed in their Lists of Exemptions.  The Agreement 
establishes that the SES Parties shall make efforts to harmonize their national legislation regulating services sectors and simplify licensing regime with objective to facilitate free movement of services and capital between the SES Parties. 
9. The Agreement on Free Movement of Capital establishes general principles for free 
movement of capital and is aimed at enhancing information exchange between the SES 
Parties. The Agreement is aimed at harmonization of national legislation of the SES Parties 
in the spheres of financial services, including banking, insurance, and service of the 
professional participants of securities market. 
10. The Agreement on the Legal Status of Mi grant Workers and Members of Their Families 
regulates procedures related to labour activi ty of migrant workers, citizens of the SES 
Parties, and their social protection.  Accordin g to the Agreement migrant workers, citizens 
of the SES member-States, do not require to ob tain a work permit in the other SES Party. 
The Agreement also states that a migrant work er, citizen of the SES Parties, may postpone 
its migration registration in the other SES Party up to 30 days. 
11. The Agreement on Coordinated Principles on Counteraction to Illegal Labour Migration from 
Third Countries envisages information exchange on detected illegal migrant workers and 
indicated channels of illegal labour migration, and exchange of national normative legal 
acts on counteraction to illegal labour migration from third countries.  The Agreement is aimed at improving efficiency of national migration services. 
12. The Agreement on Common Principles and Ru les of Regulation of Activities of Natural 
Monopolies defines basic principles and rules of regulation of activities of natural 
monopolies.  These rules provide for non-discriminatory access to services rendered by 
natural monopolies of the SES Party to consumers from the other SES Parties.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 67 - 
 
  The provisions of the Agreement cover serv ices provided by natural monopolies, in 
particular, services of main railway networks, transportation services of oil and oil products 
by main pipelines, services of production and/ or distribution of electric power, including 
technical dispatching of delivery into the network and consumption of electric power. 
13. The Agreement on Regulation of Access to the Services of Railway Transport, including 
Basics of Tariff Policy is aimed at providing non-discriminatory access for consumers of the 
other SES Parties to the railway transportation services of the SES Party and balancing 
economic interests of consumers and railway transportation service suppliers of the SES 
Parties.  As of 1 January 2015 the Parties shall provide access to infrastructure for railway 
transportation service suppliers of the other SES Parties. 
14. The Agreement on Uniform Rules and Principles of Technical Regulation envisages 
development of common CU technical regulations that are directly applied on the entire 
CU customs territory.  According to the Agreement the SES Parties shall ensure circulation 
of the products compliant with requirements  of the CU technical regulations in their 
territories without application of additional mandatory requirements other than 
requirements stipulated in the CU technical regulations to such products and without any 
additional procedures of conformity assessment (confirmation).  The Agreement establishes a uniform list of products, for which mandatory requirements can be 
established within the framework of the Customs Union.  The SES Parties oblige not to 
impose any mandatory requirements in relation to products not included in the uniform list. 
15. The Agreement on Rules of Access to Servic es of Natural Monopolies in the Sphere of 
Electro Energy, including Basics of Pricing and Tariff Policy establishes principles for 
providing access to services of natural monopolies producing and distributing electric 
energy and practical measures to ensure effective interstate transmission of electricity. 
16. The Agreement on Organization, Management, Functioning and Development of Common 
Markets of Oil and Oil Products stipulates basic principles and measures aimed at 
establishing common markets of oil and oil products of the SES Parties and promoting 
competition on these markets. 
17. The Agreement on Rules of Access to the Serv ices of Natural Monopolies in the Sphere of 
Gas Transportation, including Basics of Price an d Tariff Formation envisages principles and 
measures to be taken by the SES Parties to establish access to their gas transportation 
networks for the other SES Parties.  
Question 110 Paragraph 812 concerning the new CIS-wide mult ilateral FTA:  the text states, "The new 
Agreement would create a uniform legal stru cture based on WTO rules".  How will that 
be accomplished?  Are there legal provisions that would require it?  Please describe the 
provisions of the new CIS-wide FTA.  
Answer: 
The Agreement envisages provisions confirming the obligations of the Parties of the Agreement to 
comply with the WTO rules.  Some provisions contain citations and references to the GATT 1994 and other WTO Agreements related to trade in goods.  
For instance, the Agreement stipulates the following key principles based on WTO rules:  
- provision of national treatment for goods imported from the other Parties; 
- provision of freedom of transit  through the territories of the Parties within the meaning of 
Article V of the GATT 1994;  
- general elimination of quantitative restrictions according to Article XI of the GATT 1994; - prohibition of subsidies contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over 
imported goods; and  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 68 - 
 
  - application of trade remedies, SPS and TBT me asures in accordance with the WTO rules, 
etc. 
Most specifically, Article 5 of the Agreement stipulates that the Parties will provide each other 
national treatment according to Article III of the GATT 1994.  
In accordance with the Article, the Parties are committed to apply internal taxes, laws, regulation 
and requirements affecting the sale of imported products in a non-discriminatory manner to 
prevent protection to domestically-produced goods.  
According to Article 10 of the Agreement, the Parties shall not maintain or grant subsides 
prohibited under Article 3 of SCM Agreement.  The Parties that maintain prohibited subsidies have 
committed to phase-out such measures after expiration of the transitional period stipulated in the Agreement.  
Under the Agreement, the Republic of Kazakhstan reserved the right to maintain its local content 
requirements in:  (i) purchases of subsoil users, and enterprises partially or fully controlled by the 
government, until these measures are phased out in accordance with Kazakhstan's commitments upon accession to the WTO; (ii) preferences gr anted under the free warehouse regime and special 
economic zones till 1 January 2017, and (iii) ta riff preferences granted under agreements on 
industrial assembly concluded in accordance with the Order of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Industry and Trade No. 113 of 11 June 2010 – till 31 December 2020.  
Question 111 
Is this agreement considered an extension of the previous CIS-wide FTA of 
15 April 1994?  What is the status of the 199 4 agreement in light of the new multilateral 
CIS FTA? 
Answer: 
The new Agreement of 18 October 2011 was conclude d with the view to replace previous CIS-wide 
multilateral FTA of 15 April 1994.  As described in paragraph 809, the Agreement of 15 April 1994 
has not been fully implemented, as the establishm ent of a CIS-wide free trade area has not been 
completed.  The 1994 Agreement has become an overall framework agreement, and CIS member-States have built free trade areas based on bilateral agreements.  Therefore, the new 
Agreement has been signed in 18 October 2011 with objective to establish free trade among the 
CIS member-States, signatories to the Agreement, based on the principles and provisions of the 
WTO rules.  
According to Article 23 of the new Agreement, the 1994 FTA Agreement ceased to apply in 
relations between members of the new Agreemen t. The bilateral agreements on free trade 
concluded between these members will be also replaced by the new Agreement of 18 October 2011.  
However, the 1994 FTA Agreement as well as bila teral FTAs remain in force in trade relations 
between the Parties of the new Agreement of 18  October 2011 and the CIS member-States that 
have not signed the new Agreement or those CIS members that had signed but had not yet 
ratified the new Agreement of 18 October 2011.  
Question 112 Please indicate the status of implementation of the new CIS-wide FTA. Answer: 
The Agreement of 18 October 2011 had entered in to force in the following countries on the 
following dates: 
- the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine – 20 September 2012, WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 69 - 
 
  - the Republic of Armenia – 17 October 2012, 
- the Republic of Kazakhstan – 8 December 2012, and 
- the Republic of Moldova – 9 December 2012.  
To date, two other signatories to the new Agreemen t – the Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan – have 
not completed the ratification procedures to make the agreement enforced in their countries. 
Question 113 
Paragraph 813:  please update inform ation on the FTA with Montenegro. 
Answer: 
The FTA between the Republic of Kazakhstan and Montenegro has not been signed yet.  
The FTA negotiations between the Republic of Ka zakhstan and Montenegro were launched in order 
to unify Kazakhstan's trade regime with the trade regimes of the other CU Parties.  It should be noted that as soon as Montenegro becomes a member of the EU, its FTAs with third countries will 
be revisited.  Taking into account Montenegro's accession process to the EU and absence of 
bilateral trade, the FTA negotiations at the moment are not actively pursued by both sides.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 70 - 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Schedule for Development of Technica l Regulations of the Customs Union 
in 2012 - 2013 
No. Name of technical regulations of the 
Customs Union * Developer Term for 
submission to the 
Eurasian Economic 
Commission Item number in 
the Common 
List **** 
1 On Informing Consumers about 
Energy Efficiency of Electrical Energy Consuming  Devices Russian Federation IV quarter 2012 
 2 
 
2 On Safety of High-Pressure 
Equipment  Republic of Kazakhstan IV quarter 2012 5 
3 On Safety of Chemical Products Russian Federation IV quarter 2012 43 
4 On Safety of Alcoholic Products Russian Federation IV quarter 2012 54 
 
5 Technical Regulation on Tobacco 
Products Russian Federation IV quarter 2012 57 
6 On Safety of Amusement Rides Russian Federation I quarter 2013 8 
7 
 On Safety of Buildings and Facilities, 
Construction Materials and Manufactures Russian Federation I quarter 2013 
 21, 22 
 
8 On Requirements of Fire Security 
Devices and Firefighting Equipment  Russian Federation I quarter 2013 
 38, 39  
 
9  On Safety of Synthetic Detergents 
and Household Chemicals Republic of Kazakhstan I quarter 2013 
 44, 45  
 
10 On Safety of Paint Materials Republic of Kazakhstan I quarter 2013 
 46  
 
11 On  Requirements to Fertilizer Republic of Belarus I quarter 2013 
 47  
 
12 On Safety of Meat and Meat Products Republic of Kazakhstan I quarter 2013 
 53  
 
13 Technical Regulations on Milk and 
Milk Products Russian Federation I quarter 2013 
 53  
 
14 On Safety of Fish and Fish Products Republic of Kazakhstan I quarter 2013 
 53  
 
15 On Safety of Feed and Feed Additives Republic of Kazakhstan I quarter 2013 
 55  
 
16 On Requirements to Systems and 
Metering Devices of Water, Gas, Heat, Electricity Russian Federation II quarter 2013 
 51  
 
17 On Requirements to Measuring 
Equipment of Oil and Oil Product Russian Federation II quarter 2013 
 52  
 
18 On Safety of Products in Contact with 
Food  Russian Federation III quarter 2013 
 1, 2, 32, 36  
 
19 On Requirements to Energy 
Efficiency of Electrical Energy Consuming  Devices Eurasian  Economic 
Commission III quarter 2013 
 2  
 
20 On Safety of Play Equi pment  Eurasian Economic 
Commission III quarter 2013 
 8  
 
21 On Restriction of Use of Hazardous 
Substances in Electrical and Electronic Products Republic of Belarus IV quarter 2013 
 2 
 
22 On Safety of (tube stock) Rolling 
Stock of Underground Railway Russian Federation IV quarter 2013 
 16  
 
23 On Safety of Railway Transport, 
Trams Russian Federation IV quarter 2013 
 17  
 
24 On Safety of Medical Pr oducts** Eurasian Economic 
Commission - 40  
 
25 On Safety of Poultry and its Produc ts Russian Federation IV quarter 2013 
 53  
 
26 On the Safety of Potable Water, 
Bottled Euraisan Economic 
Commission IV quarter 2013 
 53  
 WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 71 - 
 
  No. Name of technical regulations of the 
Customs Union * Developer Term for 
submission to the 
Eurasian Economic 
Commission Item number in 
the Common 
List **** 
27 On Requirements to Water Systems 
of Water Treatment *** Russian Federation IV quarter 2013 
 53  
 
28 On Requirements to Coals and their 
Products Republic of Kazakhstan IV quarter 2013 
 60  
 
29 On Requirements to Liquefied 
Petroleum Gas for Use as Fuel Russian Federation IV quarter 2013 
 61 
 
* Name of technical regulations of the Custom s Union can be changed during the process of 
development. 
**Subject to adjustment upon adoption of Agreem ent on a Common Policy in the Field of Medical 
Devices.  
*** Regarding the clarification of object of regulation.  **** Common List of Products for which Mandatory Requirements are established in the 
Customs Union, approved by Decision of the Cu stoms Union No. 526 of 28 January 2011 (as amended by 
Decision of the Council of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 102 of 23 November 2012) 
Note: Approved by Decision of the Council of  the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 103 of 
23 November 2012 WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 72 - 
 
  ANNEX 2 
Extract from Law No. 302-III of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Safety of Chemical 
Products" of 21 July 2007 
Article 12. Registration of the chemical products 
1. The applicant (manufacturer, supplier, and importer) shall be obliged to register 
the chemical products.  
2. The chemical products not registered in accordance with the legislation the 
Republic of Kazakhstan are not permitted to be used.  WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 73 - 
 
  ANNEX 3 
Extracts from Government Resolution No . 1396 "On Approval of the Rules on 
Registration and Production Testing and State Registration of Pesticides" of 
30 November 2011. 
4. State registration of the pesticides (toxic chemicals)  
38. State registration of pesticides (toxic chemicals) shall be granted under condition 
of submission of registration and producti on tests, toxicological assessment of the 
pesticides (toxic chemicals), provision of registration file and approval of the 
authorised bodies in the field of health and environmental protection. 
39. For the state registration of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) the registrant 
(applicant) shall submit to the authorised  body up to 30 November of the current 
year the registration file in Kazakh or Russian languages, including: 
1. application from the registrant (applicant) for the state registration of the 
pesticide (toxic chemical) according to the form in Annex 6 to these Rules; 
2. reports on the results of registration  and production tests of the pesticide 
(toxic chemical) according to the form in Annex 4 to these Rules; 
3. reports on residual quantities of pesticide (toxic chemical) in crop 
production and environmental objects according to the form in Annex 7 to 
these Rules; 
4. act of production inspection of the pesticide (toxic chemical) according to 
the form in Annex 5 to these Rules; 
5. information on pesticide (toxic chemical) according to the form in Annex 2 
to these Rules; 
6. reports on toxicological and hygien ic assessment of the active substance 
and formulation of the pesticide (toxic chemical) (submission of the results 
of research from the research organizations authorised to implement these 
works in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine is 
allowed); 
7. reports on hygienic assessment of hazard of the pesticide (toxic chemical) 
(submission of the results of research from the research organizations 
authorised to implement these work s in the Russian Federation, the 
Republic of Belarus, Ukraine is allowed); 
8. sanitary and hygienic research of working conditions in the production and 
application of the pesticide (toxic chemical) (submission of the results of 
research from the research organizations authorised to implement these 
works in the Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine is 
allowed); 
9. reports on toxicological and fishery assessment of the pesticide (toxic 
chemical) (submission of the results of research from the research 
organizations authorised to implement these works in the Russian 
Federation, the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine is allowed); 
10. reports on environmental and toxicological assessment of the pesticide 
(toxic chemical) (submission of the results of research from the research 
organizations authorised to implement these works in the Russian 
Federation, the Republic of Belarus, Ukraine is allowed); 
11. reports on veterinary and sanitary, ecological and toxicological assessment 
of the pesticide (toxic chemical) for bee-farming and livestock breeding 
(submission of the results of research from the research organizations 
authorised to implement these work s in the Russian Federation, the 
Republic of Belarus, Ukraine is allowed); 
12. analytical method for the determination of the active substance in pesticide 
(toxic chemical).  Registrant shall execute the adaptation of the method for 
the conditions within the Republic of Kazakhstan (already adapted method 
is allowed to be submitted); 
13. methodological guidelines on definition of the residual quantities of 
pesticide (toxic chemical) in crop production and environmental objects WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 74 - 
 
  (already adapted method in the Russian Federation, the Republic of 
Belarus and the Republic of Kazakhstan is allowed to be submitted) in 
accordance with Chapter D1 (paragraph 21) according to the form in 
Annex 2 to these Rules; 
14. methodological guidelines on determination of residual quantities of 
pesticide (toxic chemical) in the air of working area (already adapted 
method is allowed to be submitted) in accordance with Chapter D1 
(paragraph 21) according to the form in Annex 2 to these Rules; 
15 standards of the pesticide (toxic ch emical) content in crop production and 
in the environmental objects (maximum allowable level of the pesticide 
(toxic chemical) in crop production, maximum allowable concentration of 
the pesticide (toxic chemical) in water of the reservoirs of sanitary and 
domestic purpose, maximum allowable concentration of the pesticide (toxic 
chemical) in the air of working area, approximate pesticide (toxic chemical)  
exposure in the air of working area and in the atmospheric air, the 
maximum allowable concentration of the pesticide (toxic chemical) in soil 
(approved by the authorised body in the field of health care of the Republic 
of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and the Republic of Belarus); 
16. approval from the authorised body i n  t h e  f i e l d  o f  h e a l t h  c a r e  o n  s t a t e  
registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical); 
17. approval of the authorised body in the field of environmental protection on 
state registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical); 
18. standard of organization (technical conditions) for the production 
(formulation) of the pesticide (toxic chemical) drafted according to the 
requirements of the state body on technical regulation and metrology, 
recipe of the formulation, copy of the licence agreement on the 
manufacturing (formulation) of the pesticide (toxic chemical) (for the 
products manufactured in the CIS countries and the Republic of 
Kazakhstan); 
19 document certifying the permission for production of the pesticide (toxic 
chemical) and its active ingredients issued by the manufacturer of the 
pesticide (toxic chemical) (legalized in the established order for the foreign 
manufacturers of the pesticide (toxic chemical), a notarized copy in case of 
lack of the original version for verification of the local producers of the 
pesticide (toxic chemical); 
20 passport of the pesticide (toxic chemical) safety, designed by the 
manufacturer of the pesticide (toxic chemical); 
21 recommendations for transportation, storage, application and detoxication 
of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) in accordance with the form in Annex 8 
to these Rules; 
22. sample of the container label containing the information in state and 
Russian languages in accordance with the form in Annex 9 to these Rules. 
40. All registration materials submitted for registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical) shall 
not be subject to disclosure.  Authorised bo dy shall create the conditions providing for 
confidentiality of the registration materials submitted by the registrant(s) in accordance 
with the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. 
In case the registrant (applicant) has refuse d to execute the state registration of the 
pesticide (toxic chemicals) all registration materials shall be returned to the registrant 
(applicant) upon his written request. 
41. The authorised body shall review the registration materials for the pesticide (toxic 
chemical) and make a decision within sixty (60)  calendar days from the date of submission 
of the registration file.  During this period, the registrant is allowed to submit the missing 
registration materials. 
42. Based on the reviewed registration materials the conclusion of the authorised body shall be 
prepared with one of the following decisions: 
1. to register the pesticide (toxic chemical); WT/ACC/KAZ/72 
 
- 75 - 
 
  2. to reject state registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical). 
Authorised body shall notify the registrant (a pplicant) in writing about the decision on the 
state registration of the pesticide (toxic chemicals) within 10 calendar days from the date 
of the decision. 
43. Following the decision taken, the authorised body shall finalize the registration certificates 
for the pesticide (toxic chemical) in the established form with the appropriate levels of 
protection in the form according to the Annex 10 to these Rules.  The original registration 
certificate shall be issued to the registrant (applicant) or authorised person who has the 
relevant power of attorney.  A copy of the registration certificate for the pesticide (toxic 
chemical) shall be stored in the authorised body. 
44. Registered pesticide (toxic chemical) shall be included into the list of the pesticides (toxic 
chemicals) as addendum.  Date and state registration number of the registration or 
re-registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical) shall be recorded in the register of the 
pesticides (toxic chemicals) and listed in the list of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) and its 
supplements.  The register of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) shall be conducted by the 
authorised body in hard and soft copy. 
45. The authorised body shall confirm the list of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) and (or) 
addendums to the list by the relevant order, and publish it on the Internet site of the 
Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Kazakhstan and shall publish it in hard copy as 
well. Soft and hard copies of the list of the pesticides (toxic chemicals) and addendums to 
the list have equal legal force. 
46. The list of the pesticides (toxic chemicals)  and amendments to the list of the pesticides 
(toxic chemicals), containing known active ingredients shall as well have the name of the 
active ingredients manufacturer. 
47. Validity of the registration certificate for the pesticides (toxic chemicals) shall be 10 years. 
Upon the expiry of the validity period, it is necessary to provide re-registration considering 
the changes in requirements for state registra tion of the pesticides (toxic chemicals). 
48. Temporary registration of the pesticide (toxic chemical) for the period of at most 2 years is 
allowed, in case it is used for control of certain harmful and hazardous pests and 
quarantine objects in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the distribution of which 
in accordance with the phytosanitary forecast may worsen the phytosanitary situation, and 
there is no pesticide (toxic chemical) of th e required purpose, but there are positive 
recommendations of research institutions and there is a registration of this pesticide (toxic 
chemical) in the CIS in accordance to the similar sphere of application (in the same crop, 
and against the same pest). 
In the future the state registration of this pe sticide (toxic chemical) shall be executed in a 
mandatory order.  For state registration of the specified pesticide (toxic chemicals) for the 
period up to 10 years, it is necessary to conduct the registration and production tests of 
the pesticide (toxic chemicals) and its toxicological assessment with further submission of 
the conclusions from the authorised bodies in  the healthcare and environmental protection.   
__________