WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
9 November 2011 
 (11-5791) 
Working Party on the Accession 
of the Russian Federation  
 
 
 
DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON THE  
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Revision 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page i 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Introduction .................................................................................................................. .......................... 1  
Documentation Provided ........................................................................................................ ............... 1  
Introductory Statements ....................................................................................................... ................ 2  
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE ................................................... 3  
-  Fiscal and Monetary Policies .................................................................................................. . 3 
-  Foreign Exchange and Payments System ............................................................................... 7  
-  Investment Regime.............................................................................................................. .... 14 
-  Privatization and Enterprises that are State-Owned or –Controlled, Enterprises 
with Special or Exclusive Privileges ...................................................................................... 20  
-  (a) Privatization ............................................................................................................. .......... 20 
-  (b) Enterprises that are State-Owned or -Controlled, Enterprises with Special or 
Exclusive Privileges .......................................................................................................... ....... 25 
-  Pricing Policies .............................................................................................................. .......... 35 
-  Competitio n Policy ............................................................................................................ ...... 45 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES ................................................. 47  
-  Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government ............................... 47  
-  Framework of the Customs Union among the Russian Federation, the Republic 
of Kazakhstan and the Republic of Belarus ......................................................................... 52  
-  (a) Legal Framework Establishing the Customs Union ...................................................... 52  
-  (b) Customs Union Structure and Competency in the Area of Trade ............................... 54  
-  (c) The Interstate Council of EurAsEC................................................................................. 54  
-  (d) The EurAsEC Court .........................................................................................................  55 
-  (e) The Customs Union Commission ..................................................................................... 60  
-  (f) The Secretariat of the Cu stoms Union Commission ....................................................... 61  
-  (g) Decision Making within the Customs Union Bodies ...................................................... 61  
-  (h) Areas of Customs Union Commission Competency ....................................................... 62  
-  (i) Transparency .............................................................................................................. ........ 63 
-  (j) Implementation of WTO Commitment s under the Customs Union Regime ............... 64  
-  Government entities responsible for maki ng and implementing policies affecting 
foreign trade; Right of Appeal ............................................................................................... 66 
-  Division of authority between cent ral and sub-central governments ................................. 71  
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS ................................................................................ 76  
-  Registration requirements for import/export operations .................................................... 76  
-  (a) Alcoholic beverages ....................................................................................................... .... 81 
-  (b) Pharmaceuticals ........................................................................................................... ..... 88 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page ii  
 
  -  (c) Goods with Encryption Technology ................................................................................. 90  
-  (d) Precious stones and metals ............................................................................................... 91 
-  (e) Other licensing requirements ........................................................................................... 93  
1.  Import Regulations ............................................................................................................ ..... 95 
-  Customs Regulations and Procedures ................................................................................... 95  
-  Ordinary Customs Duties ..................................................................................................... 1 05 
-  Tariff Exemptions ............................................................................................................. .... 112 
-  Tariff Quotas ................................................................................................................. ........ 116 
-  Other Duties a nd Charges .................................................................................................... 1 24 
-  Fees and Charges for Se rvices Rendered ............................................................................ 125  
-  Customs Fees .................................................................................................................. ....... 125 
-  Other Fees .................................................................................................................... .......... 130  
-  Application of Internal  Taxes on Imports .......................................................................... 133  
-  (a) Excise Taxes .............................................................................................................. ....... 134 
-  (b) Value Added Tax ........................................................................................................... .. 138 
-  Quantitative Import Restrictions, includi ng Prohibitions and Quotas and Import 
Licensing Systems ............................................................................................................. .... 142 
-  (a) Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibitions and Quotas ...................... 142  
-  (b) Import Licensing Systems .............................................................................................. 147  
-   (i) Sugar .................................................................................................................... ............ 152  
- 
 (ii) Alcoholic beverages and Alcohol-Containing Products .............................................. 152  
-   (iii) Pharmaceuticals ........................................................................................................ .... 153 
-   (iv) Products with Encryption Technology ........................................................................ 157  
-  Customs Valuation ............................................................................................................. ... 162 
-  Rules of Origin ............................................................................................................... ....... 177 
-  Other Customs Formalities .................................................................................................. 18 5 
-  Preshipment Inspection ........................................................................................................  191 
-  Balance of payments ........................................................................................................... .. 192 
-  Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures.................................................... 194  
-  (a) Transitional Regime ....................................................................................................... . 195 
-  (b) Regime established Under the Agreement of 25 January 2008 .................................. 201  
2.  Export Regulations ............................................................................................................ ... 211 
-  Export Duties ................................................................................................................. ........ 211 
-  Application of VAT Refund to Exports .............................................................................. 217  
-  Quantitative Export Restrictions, In cluding Prohibitions and Quotas ............................ 217  
-  (a) Precious stones and metals ............................................................................................. 22 0  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page iii 
 
 
  -  Export Licensing Procedures ............................................................................................... 224  
-  Other Customs Export Formalities ..................................................................................... 229  
3.  Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods .......................................................... 233  
-  Industrial policy, includi ng subsidy policies ....................................................................... 233  
-  Technical Barriers to Trade ................................................................................................. 2 39 
-  (a) Legal Framework ........................................................................................................... . 239 
-  (b) Institutions .............................................................................................................. ......... 244  
-  (c) Technical Regulations, International and National Standards, and 
Conformity Assessment Procedures .................................................................................... 249  
-  (i) Technical Regulations ..................................................................................................... . 249 
-   (ii) Technical requirements not subject to Federal Law No. 184-FZ .............................. 257  
-   (iii) Voluntary National and International Standards ...................................................... 264  
-   (iv) Disposition of Mandatory National Standards of the Russian Federation .............. 268  
-   (v) Transparency and Notification ..................................................................................... 271  
-  (vi) Conformity Assessment Procedures including the Accreditation of 
Conformity Assessment Bodies ............................................................................................ 274  
-  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ................................................................................ 289  
-  (a) General Regulatory Framework for Trade in Agricultural Products and 
Compliance with WTO SPS Obligations ............................................................................ 289  
-  (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulation  of Trade in Agricultural Products ......... 291  
-  (i) Customs Union Authorities ............................................................................................. 291  
-  (ii) National Authorities ..................................................................................................... ... 293 
-  (c) Development of Technical Regulati ons/Mandatory Requirements on SPS ............... 297  
-  (d) Participation in International Organizations in the SPS Sphere ................................ 304  
-  (e) Regime for Trade in Products Subject to Veterinary Control .................................... 306  
-  (i) Import Permits for Goods Subject to Veterinary (Sanitary) Control ......................... 307  
-  (ii) Transit through the Russian Federation of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
(Sanitary) Control ............................................................................................................ ..... 317 
-  (iii)  Veterinary Certificates ................................................................................................ . 320 
-  (iv) Establishment Approval through Systems Audits, Guarantees and 
Inspections ................................................................................................................... .......... 326  
-  (v) Resident Inspectors ....................................................................................................... .. 338 
-  (f) Importation of Products Subject to Quarantine Control ............................................. 338  
-  (g) Protection of Human Health .......................................................................................... 346  
-  (h) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement ........................................................................................................... 3 54 
-  (i) Harmonization with International Standards and Norms ........................................... 354  
-   (ii) Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................... .... 363 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page iv  
 
  -   (iii) Regionalization ........................................................................................................ ...... 366 
-   (iv) Equivalence ............................................................................................................. ....... 367 
-   (v) Non-discrimination ....................................................................................................... .. 370 
-  (i) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations ........................................ 372  
-  (j) Proportionality, Necessity, and Reasonableness ........................................................... 378  
-  (k) Issues Related to Irregularities or Fraud ...................................................................... 380  
-  (l) Conclusion ................................................................................................................ ......... 380  
-  Trade-Related Investment  Measures (TRIMs) .................................................................. 381  
-  Special Economic Zones ....................................................................................................... 392 
-  Government Procurement .................................................................................................... 408  
-  Regulation of Trade in Transit ............................................................................................ 414  
-  Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products .............................................. 421  
-  Trade in Civ il Aircraft ....................................................................................................... ... 427 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLE CTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) .................................. 431  
1.  General ....................................................................................................................... ............ 431  
-  Participation in international treaties ................................................................................. 439  
2.  Standards concerning availability, scope and use of intellectual property rights ........... 441  
-  Copyright and Related Rights ............................................................................................. 441  
-  Trademarks .................................................................................................................... ....... 447 
-  Geographical Indications ..................................................................................................... 451 
-  Industrial Designs and Patents ............................................................................................ 455  
-  Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection ....................................................................... 457
 
-  Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits ................................................................................ 458  
-  Requirements on undisclosed information, in cluding trade secrets and test data .......... 458  
-  Responsible Au thorities ....................................................................................................... . 463 
3.  Enforcement ................................................................................................................... ....... 464 
-  General provisions ............................................................................................................ .... 464 
-  Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies ......................................................... 464  
-  Border Measures ............................................................................................................... .... 468 
-  Criminal Measures.............................................................................................................. .. 474 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES ......................................................................... 482  
TRANSPARENCY .................................................................................................................. .......... 500  
-  Publication of Information on Trade .................................................................................. 500  
-  Notifications ................................................................................................................. .......... 506  
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS .......................................................... 507  
CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... ............. 515   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page v 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 517  
ANNEX 2 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 547  
ANNEX 3 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 735  
ANNEX 4 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 738  
ANNEX 5 ....................................................................................................................... ..................... 740  
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 1 
 
 
  Introduction 
1. The Government of the Russian Federation a pplied for accession to the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) in June 1993 (see document:  L/7243 of 14 June 1993).  At its 
meeting on 16-17 June 1993 the GATT Council of Representatives established a Working Party 
(see Minutes of Meeting of GATT Council, document:  C/M/264 of 14 July 1993), to examine the application of the Government of the Russi an Federation to accede to the GATT 1947 under 
Article XXXIII of the General Agre ement.  Following the entry into force of the WTO Agreement on 
1 January 1995, and in pursuance of the d ecision adopted by the WTO General Council on 
31 January 1995, the GATT 1947 Working Party was transformed into a WTO Accession Working 
Party under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.  The terms of reference 
and the membership of the Working Party are reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS/1/Rev.[28]. 
2. The Working Party met on 17-19 July 1995, 4-6 December 1995, 30-31 May 1996, 
15 October 1996, 15 April 1997, 22-23 July 1997, 9-11 December 1997, 29 July 1998, 16-17 December 1998, and 25 May 2000 under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. W. Rossier (Switzerland), on 18 December 2000, 26-27 J une 2001, 23-24 January 2002, 25 April 2002, 
20 June 2002, 18 December 2002, 30 January 2003 , 6 March 2003, 10 April 2003, 10 July 2003 and 
30 October 2003, under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. K. Bryn (Norway), and on 5 February 2004, 
2 April 2004, 16 July 2004, 23 March 2006 and [...] under the Chairmanship of 
H.E. Mr. S. Jóhannesson (Iceland). 
Documentation Provided 
3. The Working Party had before it, to serve as a basis for its discussions, a Memorandum on the 
Foreign Trade Regime of the Ru ssian Federation (L/7410), supplem ents to the Memorandum on the 
regime in the areas of Trade-Related Investment Measures (WT/ACC/RUS/5), Trade in Services (WT/ACC/RUS/6), Trade-Related Aspects of Inte llectual Property Rights (WT/ACC/RUS/7), as well 
as questions submitted by Members of the Worki ng Party on the foreign trade regime of the 
Russian Federation together with replies thereto and other information provided by the Russian 
authorities listed in documents WT/ACC/RU S/2; WT/ACC/RUS/4 and Addendum 1; 
WT/ACC/RUS/9 and Addenda 1, 2 and 3; WT/ACC/RUS/11/Rev.[15]; WT/ACC/RUS/13 and 
Addendum 1; WT/ACC/RUS/14; WT/ACC/RU S/17 and Addendum 1; WT/ACC/RUS/23 and 
Addendum 1; WT/ACC/RUS/25; WT/ACC/RU S/30 and Addendum 1; WT/ACC/RUS/38 and 
WT/ACC/RUS/46 and legislative texts and other docum entation listed in Annex 1.  From March 2006 
to [xxx November 2011], the Working Party on th e Accession of the Russian Federation functioned WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 2  
 
  informally.  In this period, working documentation was circulated informally under the JOB document 
symbol.  The complete list of these JOB numbe red documents is cont ained in Annex 5. 
Introductory Statements 
4. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that his Government had been an 
observer to GATT 1947 since January 1992 when the Ru ssian Federation continued the former USSR 
observer status.  In this capacity, the Russian Federation had witnessed the successful conclusion of 
the Uruguay Round and followed its implementation. 
5. In this context, he noted that his Government was confronted with a number of important 
tasks in the social, institutional, macroeconomic  and investment fields.  In particular, the 
Russian Federation had to overcome the decline in the standards of living of its population resulting 
from the economic and financial crisis of 1998.  Th is could be achieved only through policies aimed 
at stimulating growth in the GDP of the country  by improving economic productivity, and expanding 
sources of investments.  In the view of his Govern ment, this would also require the maintenance of a 
set of policies which could adequately devel op competitive domestic markets for goods, services and 
capitals and enhance the role of smaller and medium  size enterprises.  Acco rdingly, since requesting 
accession to the GATT and afterwards to the WTO,  the Russian Federation had undertaken an 
unprecedented process of reform of its economy, progressively adopting laws and regulations 
consistent with WTO multilateral rules and disci plines.  This process was primarily aimed at 
establishing the conditions for a dynamic market ec onomy in the Russian Federation based on a stable 
and predictable legislative framework capable of sustaining long term economic growth and ensuring 
improvements in the standards of living and we lfare of the Russian population as well as in the 
modernization of the production capacity of th e Russian Federation, and its international 
competitiveness.  The Government of the Russian Federation had set a clear list of programmes, 
policies and priorities that had, as their central goa l, rendering the Russian Federation a better, more 
competitive and rewarding place in wh ich to work and do business.  It was clear that the growing 
interdependence of national economies, global integr ation of markets and linkage between trade flows 
and investment, required the Russian Federation to  adjust its trade, financial and investment 
legislation to WTO rules and disciplines. 
6. Members of the Working Party welcomed the application for accession to the WTO of the 
Russian Federation and underscored the importance of  a rapid integration of the Russian Federation 
into the multilateral trading system, both for the benefit of the Russian Federation and the world 
trading system as a whole.  To this end, Members considered that the enactment of relevant legislation, consistent with WTO requirements, a nd of provisions for its implementation was essential  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 3 
 
 
  to the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO,  in order to ensure that the Russian Federation 
could be an effective participant in the WTO from the first day of its membership.  Members of the 
Working Party equally stressed the need for co mpleting the negotiations on commercially viable 
terms which should be mutually beneficial to the Russian Federation and WTO Members. 
7. The Working Party reviewed the economic po licies and foreign trade regime of the 
Russian Federation and the terms of a Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  The views expressed by 
Members of the Working Party on the various aspects of the foreign trade regime of the 
Russian Federation, and on the term s and conditions of the accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO are summarized below in paragraphs 8 to [1449]. 
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
- Fiscal and Monetary Policies 8. The representative of the Russian Federation said that current economic policies in the 
Russian Federation were aimed, inter alia , at "de-bureaucratization" of the economy, including 
elimination of unnecessary and burdensome administrative barriers, improvement of competition and investment attractiveness of the country, as well as at the achievement of its fiscal and monetary 
stability.  The monetary policy of the Russian Fede ration was intended, in particular, to achieve a 
balanced monetary system, free of unnecessary restri ctions and constraints for domestic and foreign 
economic operators, and to creat e favourable preconditions for sustainable long-term economic 
development.  This objective was being achieved by reducing inflation to the projected level, as the 
fundamental monetary policy target, and implementi ng a policy of managed floating exchange rate of 
the national currency.  All these activities were accompanied by measures to liberalize foreign 
exchange regulations.  
9. Pursuant to the legislation of the Russi an Federation, the Central Bank of the 
Russian Federation (Bank of Russia or CBR) wa s responsible for deve loping and conducting a 
uniform monetary and credit policy in co-operation w ith the Government of the Russian Federation.  
The status, purposes, functions, and powers of the Bank of Russia were regulated by Federal Law 
No. 86-FZ of 10 July 2002 "On the Central Bank of th e Russian Federation (Bank of Russia)" (as last 
amended on 25 November 2009).  Decisions on the i ssues of monetary and credit policy were taken 
by the Board of Directors and the Monetary a nd Credit Policy Committee of the Bank of Russia.  
In addition, the consideration of a number of topi cs related to the activities of the Bank of Russia was 
included in the competence of the National Banking C ouncil, particularly, the examination of the draft 
"Monetary Policy Guidelines" for the next calendar year.  The representatives of the Government of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 4  
 
  the Russian Federation were Members of the Na tional Banking Council and they participated in 
meetings of the Board of Directors of the Bank of Ru ssia with a right of advisory vote.  The Chairman 
of the Bank of Russia, or one of his deputies, on his behalf, participated in meetings of the 
Government of the Russian Federation.  Pursuant to  legislation of the Russian Federation, the Bank of 
Russia and the Government of the Russian Federa tion were required to inform each other about 
intended actions of national importanc e; they coordinated their policy and held regular consultations.  
For matters related to the issuance of Govern ment notes and the repayment of debt of the 
Russian Federation, the Bank of Russia consulted the Ministry of Finance. 
10. In response to a Member who noted that in its conduct of monetary policy the CBR continued 
to rely unduly on management of the exchange ra te and foreign reserves and on depository operations 
rather than on more standard monetary instruments,  such as refinancing and interest rate management, 
the representative of the Russian Federation sai d that the CBR used all available monetary 
instruments and methods apart from those mentioned by some Members.  To achieve the monetary 
policy objectives and to respond more quickly and e ffectively to any changes in money and credit, 
including inter-bank interest rates fluctuations, the CBR actively used market instruments, combining 
operations of medium and long-term sterilisation of temporarily free funds, with operations to 
provide, when necessary, liquidity to banks which he lped the CBR to maintain balanced and relatively 
stable conditions on the money market.  The appl ication of instruments and methods of monetary 
regulation was based on the combination of regu lar market-based auctions and operations with 
standing facilities.  Monetary instruments and methods were adjusted depending on the economic 
situation, in compliance with the legal framework .  In accordance with Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 
10 July 2002, the principal instruments and methods of the monetary policy of the CBR were the following: 
- interest rates on the operations of the CBR; 
- ratios of the required reserves deposited with the CBR (the reserve requirements); - open market operations;  - refinancing of credit institutions; - currency interventions; 
- the issue of bonds on its own behalf; and 
- setting targets for money supply growth. 
11. Taking into consideration the predictable situation of liquidity in the banking sector, the CBR 
was seeking to use an optimum set of instrument s for providing and absorbing liquidity and for 
enhancing their availability to the credit or ganizations throughout all regions of the 
Russian Federation.  To absorb free banking liquidity , the CBR held regular de posit auctions to attract 
funds from credit institutions for four weeks and three months.  To absorb free funds of credit  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 5 
 
 
  organizations for a longer period, the CBR held au ctions on issuing its own bonds for a term of 
seven months and six month put options.  For th e purpose of absorbing excess liquidity, the CBR also 
used outright sales of government bonds from its portfo lio at market yields without an obligation of 
reverse re-purchase.  
12. In addition to using market instruments to sterilize liquidity, the CBR preserved permanent 
access windows for credit institutions to place thei r free funds on deposit with the CBR.  The CBR 
conducted deposit operations on standa rd terms and conditions at a fi xed interest rate through the 
Reuters Dealing System and MICEX (Moscow Inte rbank Currency Exchange) System of electronic 
lot trading (SELT).  Interest rate policy of the Ba nk of Russia was aimed at narrowing the spread of 
interest rates on its operations in the monetary market.  The upper limit of interest rate was being 
progressively lowered as inflation was slowing down.   To reduce the high level of excess banking 
sector liquidity, the Bank of Russia took steps to control money supply growth by more actively using 
sterilisation instruments.  At times, banks were in need of additional liquidity.  Under these 
circumstances, the CBR provided fu nds to credit institutions on a market basis through direct repo and 
Lombard auctions for two weeks.  In addition,  the CBR extended to banks intra-day overnight 
settlement loans and Lombard loans at fixed inte rest rate for seven days, backed by federal 
government and local government securities, bonds i ssued by corporate entities, residents of the 
Russian Federation, mortgage bonds, CBR obligati ons (OBR) and obligations of international 
financial organizations.  Credit institutions also had the opportunity to receive liquidity through 
foreign exchange swaps arranged with the CBR.  An  important monetary policy instrument used by 
the CBR was currency interventions (foreign excha nge outright sales and purchases) in the exchange 
and over-the-counter segment of the domestic fore ign exchange market.  To manage their own 
liquidity, credit institutions actively used  averaging of required reserves.   
13. Under the Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 July 20 02, the CBR was required to annually submit 
to the State Duma draft "Guidelines for the Common  State Monetary Policy for the coming year" no 
later than 26 August, and the same but approved doc ument, no later than 1 December.  He added that 
pursuant to The Monetary Policy Guidelines for 2010 the ultimate aim of the monetary policy 
implemented by the CBR was the reduction of infl ation.  The CBR had developed a monetary 
programme with the objective to monitor monetary indicators on their compliance with the projected 
inflation level.  The Monetary Policy Guidelin es for 2010 could be found on the website of the CBR 
(www.cbr.ru). 
14. Turning to the question of budgetary policy,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
noted that, by its Order No. 38-R of 19 January 2006, the Government of the Russian Federation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 6  
 
  adopted the Medium-term Program of Economic and Social Development of the Russian Federation 
(2006-2008), which established key directions of activities of the Government of the 
Russian Federation for that period, aimed at ensuri ng the realization of strategic goals such as the 
enhancing of well-being of popula tion and the reduction of poverty on the basis of dynamic and sound 
economic growth and improved competitiveness.  A ccording to the aforementioned document, during 
that period, the Government of the Russian Fe deration would carry out well-balanced budgetary 
policy, maintain substantial international reserves, as well as ensure the formation of the Stabilization 
Fund of the Russian Federation.  The document al so acknowledged the need for the implementation 
of measures of conservative budgetary and monetary polic y.  It was noted that, in the mid-term period 
reduction of the positive balance of the current acc ounts of balance of payments was expected.  
15. With regard to the fiscal policy of the Russian  Federation, he noted that the main Federal 
bodies responsible for defining and conducting the fi scal policy of the Russian Federation were the 
Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation (MED) and the Ministry of Finance of 
the Russian Federation.  The Federal Tax Servi ce was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian Federation.  Pursuant to the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 506 of 30 September 2004 (as last amended on 15 June 2010), the Federal 
Tax Service was the federal executive body in char ge of overseeing the proper implementation of 
legislation related to taxes and fees (monitoring of proper calculation, fullness and timeliness of 
obligatory payments to the relevant budget; of ma nufacturing and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcohol 
and tobacco products; and observance of monetary legislation within the competence of the tax 
bodies).  In its activities, the Federal Tax Servic e of the Russian Federation was guided by the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation, Customs Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003, as last amended on 28 Ju ly 2008), Tax Code of the Russian Federation 
(as last amended on 30 July 2010), Federal constitutional laws, Federal laws, Acts of the President of 
the Russian Federation and the Government of the Ru ssian Federation, interna tional agreements of the 
Russian Federation, normative acts of the Ministry  of Finance of the Russian Federation and the 
Statute of the Federal Tax Service approved by  the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 506 of 30 September 2004 (as last amended on 15 June 2010). 
16. He added that the current forms of taxation in  the Russian Federation were established by the 
Tax Code of the Russian Federation.  That Code di stinguished between federal taxes, regional taxes, 
and local taxes.  He noted that Federal taxes comp rised:  the value-added tax; excise tax; royalty tax 
for use of natural resources and extraction of mi nerals; profit tax imposed on legal persons; income 
tax imposed on natural persons; State duties; fees for the use of fauna objects and objects of water 
bio-resources; and, water use tax.  Pursuant to the Tax Code, regional taxes comprised:  the property  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 7 
 
 
  tax imposed on organizations; transport tax; and, ga mbling tax.  Local taxes and fees comprised:  the 
land tax; and, property tax imposed on individuals.   
17. In 2009, the activity of the CBR was aimed mostly at minimizing the negative effect of the 
world economic crisis on the Russian economy.  Th e crisis had led to the sharp drop of the GDP 
(7.9 per cent in 2009), considerable devaluati on of the national currency and significant capital 
outflow (US$57 billion in 2009).  The CBR managed to  suppress the devaluation of the ruble through 
the large-scale currency interventions and interest  rates policy.  Stability of the banking sector was 
supported by the measures aimed at increasing its capitalization and liquidity, as well as readjusting 
the credit institutions facing financial difficulties.  In 2010, as the critical phase of the crisis was 
coming to the end and the Russian  economy was recovering, the use of special anti-crisis measures 
was being reduced.  The reduction of CBR interventi ons and increase of the ruble exchange rate 
flexibility were expected to contribute to increasing th e role of the interest rate policy of the CBR.  
Based on the experience gained during the crisis period, the CBR was going to strengthen financial 
stability including, inter alia,  through improving the requirements with respect to risk management of 
the credit organizations. 
- Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
18. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that his country had been a Member of 
the International Monetary Fund (IMF), since 1992.  The national currency, the ruble (RUB, equal to 
100 Kopeks), was convertible to foreign currenci es on the basis of current market rates.   
19. Members of the Working Party noted their concer ns in relation to certain foreign exchange 
control and regulatory measures in force, including restrictions on foreig n exchange retention, 
restrictions on the rights of residents to acquire and hold foreign exchange and to have accounts in 
foreign banks, pre-payment requirements for imports , and the 1 per cent tax levied on the purchase of 
foreign currency by natural persons.  They requested  information on the nature of the requirements in 
place, their legal basis, their purpose and WTO jus tification, the circumstances that led to their 
introduction and whether these circumstances still existe d, and the plans of the Russian Federation to 
eliminate restrictions which were still in place. 
20. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation stated that the CBR exercised 
control over timely and full transfer of export ear nings to the country and over making payments for 
goods imported to the territory of the Russian Fe deration under pre-payment terms.  The CBR also  
exercised control to enable the detection of fic titious foreign exchange operations by residents in 
off-shore zones.  Enhanced requirements in r espect of establishing correspondent relations and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 8  
 
  forming reserves were imposed on operations perform ed by authorised banks with resident banks 
registered in off-shore zones.  The requiremen ts differed depending on the group and the off-shore 
zone they related to.  Relevant requirements and the classification of off-shor e zones were defined in 
the Instructions of the CBR No. 1317-y of 7 August 2003 "On the Procedure for Establishing 
Correspondent Relations Between Aut horised Banks and Non-Resident Banks Registered in the States 
and in the Territories Granting Preferential Taxa tion Treatment and (or) not Envisaging Disclosure 
and Provision of Information in  Performing Financial Operations  (in Off-Shore Zones)" (as last 
amended on 8 February 2010) and No. 1584-y of 22  June 2005 "On Establishing and the Amount of 
the Reserve for Operations Performed by Crediting Organizations with Residents of  Off-Shore Zones". 
21. The representative of the Russian Federati on further explained some of the main 
characteristics of the new currency regulation enacted by Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 
10 December 2003 "On Currency Regulation and Currency Control" (Federal Law No. 173-FZ).  
22. Federal Law No. 173-FZ, which had entered in to force on 18 June 2004 (as last amended on 
22 July 2008), aimed at the implementation of the single State currency policy and stability of the 
currency of the Russian Federation, while at the sa me time ensuring the progressive liberalization of 
the foreign exchange legislation of the Russian Fede ration.  One of the main features of the regulation 
had been a shift from the previous principle "everything is forbidden except what  is permitted by law" 
to "everything is permitted except what is forbidde n by law".  This trend had been reflected in 
Articles 7 and 8 of Federal Law No. 173-FZ, wh ich had established a closed list of currency 
operations pertaining to capital movement subject to sp ecial regulation.  Outside this list, all currency 
transactions had been conducted without restrictions .  At the same time, Federal Law No. 173-FZ had 
provided for a clear and balanced distribution of powers between the Government of the Russian Federation and the CBR in the field of re gulation of currency transactions pertaining to 
capital movement.  Pursuant to Article 7 (which ha d been in force until 1 July 2006) of Federal Law 
No. 173-FZ, the Government of the Russian Federa tion had been responsible for regulating currency 
transactions pertaining to capital movement connect ed with foreign trade operations.  The joint 
competence of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Bank of  Russia had covered 
transactions connected with the purchase by reside nts of share fractions, deposits, shares in legal 
entities' property (authorised or ownership capita l, share fund of cooperative society) from 
non-residents or with entering deposits under simple partnership contracts signed with non-residents.  
The powers of the CBR in the sphere of regulatio n of currency transactions pertaining to capital 
movement had been extended to operations related to granting and raising of credits and loans; 
operations with securities denominated in Russian or  foreign currency (inc luding related payments,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 9 
 
 
  transfers and performance of obligations), and operati ons of credit organizations .  Article 8 of Federal 
Law No. 173-FZ had been in force until 1 January 2007. 
23. Federal Law No. 173-FZ had also established an  exhaustive set of instruments which could 
have been used by the Government of the Ru ssian Federation and the Central Bank to regulate 
currency transactions pertaining to capital movement:  (a) temporary reservation of a part of the currency transaction amount; and, (b) requirement to  use special bank accounts in authorised banks. 
24. The representative of the Russian Federation further stated that currency transactions 
pertaining to capital movement listed in Articles 7 and 8 of Federal Law No. 173-FZ had been subject 
to restrictions only for the purpose of preventing substantial reductions in gold and foreign currency 
reserves; addressing sharp fluctuations of exchange ra te of currency of the Russian Federation, as well 
as for maintaining the stability of balance of pa yments (Article 6 of Federal Law No. 173-FZ).  
25. He further noted that Federal Law No. 173-FZ ha d introduced a "negative list" approach:  if 
the procedures for currency transactions and for using bank accounts (including the requirement of 
special bank accounts) were not establishe d by the State bodies for currency regulation 
(the Government of the Russian Federation and the Bank of Russia) within th e scope of this Federal 
Law, currency transactions could be carried out, accounts could be opened and transactions through 
the accounts could be carried out without restrictions.   
26. Federal Law No. 173-FZ had also stipulated that  State bodies for currency regulation were not 
to introduce more than one reservation requirement with respect to each particular type of currency 
transactions simultaneously.  The CBR established the procedures for the reservation and return of the 
reservation amount.  The amount of reservation was re quired to be deposited in Russian currency.  
Residents and non-residents calculated the amount of the reservation themselves.  The reservation amount for a foreign currency transaction was calculate d at the official CBR rate as of the date the 
amount of the reservation was entered.  Early return of the total or part of the reservation amount had 
been authorised in cases stipulated by Federal Law No. 173-FZ.  Interest had not been charged for the 
amounts of reservation deposited in accounts of author ised banks or the CBR.  According to Federal 
Law No. 173-FZ, reservation requirements and use of special bank accounts had been in force until 1 January 2007. 
27. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that, pursuant to Article 7 
(which ceased to be effective as of 1 July 2006) of Federal Law No. 173-FZ, the Government of the 
Russian Federation could use the above-mentioned instruments to regulate currency transactions 
pertaining to capital movement connected with forei gn trade operations in the following situations:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 10  
 
  (i) delayed payment for exported goods, specified in Sections XVI, XVII and XIX of the Commodity 
Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Activity fo r the period exceeding three years (HS Codes 
84-89, 93); (ii) delayed payment for the period above  five years for building and construction works 
performed by residents outside the territory of th e Russian Federation and also for delivered goods 
necessary for performance of these works; (iii) delayed payment (due from a non-resident to a 
resident) for more than 180 calendar days in conn ection with realization of foreign trade activity; 
(iv) granting commercial credits by residents to non -residents for more than a 180 calendar day period 
as an advance payment regarding the realization of foreign trade activity; (v) granting commercial 
credits by residents to non-residents for a peri od exceeding three years in the form of advance 
payment for import of goods, specified in Sections XVI, XVII and XIX of the Commodity Nomenclature for Foreign Economic Activity.  In these situations the Government of the 
Russian Federation had the authority to introduce a temporary reservation requirement of 50 per cent 
of the currency transaction amount, with such measure in effect for a maximum of two years.  In the 
situations designated in paragra phs 3 and 4 of Article 7 of Fede ral Law No. 173-FZ (iii and iv 
respectively in the above list of situations), the currency reservation requirement would not apply, if 
the payment was guaranteed by an irrevocable letter of credit covered for the account of payer; a bank 
guarantee issued by a bank situated outside the te rritory of the Russian Federation, given for the 
benefit of the resident; an insurance contract; or, a bill drawn by a non-resident for the benefit of the 
resident and guaranteed by a bank outside the terr itory of the Russian Federation.  In 2005, the 
Government of the Russian Federation had partially exercised its powers in the field of regulation of 
currency transactions pertaining to capital moveme nt between residents and non-residents, having 
established reservation requirements with respect to currency transactions by residents mentioned in 
paragraphs 4 and 7 of Article 7 of Federal Law No . 173-FZ.  It had issued the following acts to that 
effect: 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 204 of 11 April 2005 "On the 
Procedure for Making Settlements and Transfers in Acquisition of Stakes, Deposits, Shares in 
Property (Authorised or Share Capital, Share Fund of Cooperative) of Legal Entities by 
Residents from Non-Residents, in Entering Cont ributions by Residents Under Contracts of 
Simple Partnership with Non-Residents"; and 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 302 of 16 May 2005 "On the 
Procedure for Making Settlements and Transf ers Between Residents and Non-Residents 
When Granting of Commercial Credits by Residents to Non-Residents for the Term Longer 
than 180 Calendar Days as an Advance Paymen t Regarding Realization of Foreign Trade 
Activity". 
 
 In view of the absence of economic preconditions for further maintenance of the reservation 
requirements as an instrument of regulation of  capital currency transactions, the above-mentioned  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 11 
 
 
  normative acts of the Government of the Russian Fe deration had been deemed null and void, effective 
from 1 July 2006.  
28. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
CBR had introduced five different categories of special accounts to be used by residents and non-residents while carrying out currency transactions .  These related to granting and raising credits 
and loans and operations with securities denominated  in Russian or foreign currency (including 
related payments, transfers and performance of ob ligations).  Transfers and write-offs from these 
accounts had been subject to a different temporary reservation rate (varying from 3 per cent of the total transaction amount for 365 calendar days to 50  per cent for 15 calendar days) depending on the 
category of special account.  The procedures for using special accounts and reservation requirements 
had been set up by normative acts of the CBR (In structions No. 116-i of 7 June 2004, No. 114-i of 
1 June 2004, Directive No. 1465-u of  29 June 2004).  These requirements had entered into force on 
1 August 2004.  By its Directives No. 1540-u of 29 December 2004 and No. 1674-u of 29 March 2006, the CBR further reduced currency reservation rates.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that the prevalent macr oeconomic situation in the Russian Federation 
characterized by a high level of currency reserves, absence of sharp fluctuations of an exchange rate 
of national currency, and stability of the balan ce of payments had created an opportunity for 
cancellation of restrictions stipulated by Fe deral Law No. 173-FZ (reservation requirements and 
requirements for using special bank accounts).  Norm s of Federal Law No. 173-FZ that had enabled 
the Government of the Russian Federation a nd the Bank of Russia to introduce reservation 
requirements had been in force until 1 July 2006.   Thereupon, the Bank of Russia had issued the 
Directive No. 1689-u of 29 May 2006 "On Invalida tion of Some Normative Acts of the Bank of 
Russia" according to which all normative acts of  the Bank of Russia pertaining to reservation 
requirements had been deemed null and void from 1 July 2006.  Norms of Federal Law No. 173-FZ 
regarding the requirement to use special bank acc ounts had been in force until 1 January 2007 with 
the view to ensure the smooth transition from the sy stem of special accounts to the use of traditional 
accounts and to lessen the attendant burden on the author ised banks and their clients.  To that effect, 
by its Directive No. 1688-u of 29 May 2006 "On Cancellation of the Requirement to Use Special 
Bank Accounts for Some Types of Currency Transac tions and on Invalidatio n of Some Normative 
Acts of the Bank Of Russia", the Bank of Russia had allowed residents and non-residents to use 
during the transitional period between 1 July 2006 an d 1 January 2007 both types of accounts (special 
and traditional).  Starting from 1 January 2007, all normative acts of the Bank of Russia pertaining to 
the use of special bank accounts had been deemed  null and void (paragraph 3 of the Directive 
No. 1688-u of 29 May 2006). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 12  
 
  29. He added that pursuant to Article 21 (which ha d been in force until 1 July 2006) of Federal 
Law No. 173-FZ, residents had been bound to sell a pa rt of their foreign currency earnings at a rate 
not exceeding 30 per cent of the amount on the inte rnal currency market.  The mandatory surrender 
requirement had been in force until 1 January 2007.   The mandatory surrender requirement set by the 
CBR had been 25 per cent in 2003 (CBR Directive No . 1304-u of 9 July 2003) and had been lowered 
to 10 per cent in 2004 in an effort to further lib eralize foreign exchange (CBR Directive No. 1520-u of 
26 November 2004).  The CBR had established the list of foreign currencies subject to obligatory sale 
through the internal currency market of the Ru ssian Federation.  Foreign currency revenues not 
subject to mandatory surrender requirements (est ablished by paragraph 3 of Article 21 which had 
been valid until 1 January 2007) had included: 
- the amount of foreign currency received by the Government of the Russian Federation, 
federal executive bodies authorised by the la tter, by the CBR from transactions and deals 
being carried out by them (or on their behalf and/ or at their expense) within the scope of their 
competence; 
- the amount of foreign currency derived by authorised banks from bank transactions and other 
bargains with non-residents; 
- residents' foreign currency earnings within th e limits of the amount necessary to fulfil their 
obligations under credit and loan contracts signe d with non-resident entities acting on behalf 
of foreign governments as well as with reside nts of OECD or Financial Action Task Force 
(FATF) country members for a period exceeding two years; and 
- the amount of foreign currency derived from tran sactions involving the transfer by residents 
of external emissive securities (rights to external emissive securities). 
30. Some Members noted that there had been three specific restrictions on the use of foreign 
exchange that had had a negative impact upon im ports and had engaged WT O obligations.  As the 
application of these restrictions had not been sp ecifically approved by the IMF, these Members asked 
the Russian Federation to eliminate them by the date of its accession to the WTO and to enter a 
commitment not to have recourse to these measures after accession: 
1. The 1 per cent tax that had been levied on  the purchase of cash foreign currency operated as a 
de facto  additional charge upon imports and had b een inconsistent with the provision of 
Article III on non-discrimination, Article VIII on charges covering the cost of services rendered, and the requirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994, as well as Article 4 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which envisaged e limination of unjustifiable restrictions to 
export.   
2. The provision that purchase of foreign curre ncy for making advance payments for imports 
required opening a deposit in the currency of th e Russian Federation, as well as all formalities 
fees and requirements which were to be obser ved pursuant to the provision, tied up capital of 
importers that could be used to purchase add itional imports.  It was inconsistent with the 
non-discrimination provisions of Article III as we ll as the provisions of Article XI of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  They had been 
discriminatory also in respect of imports fro m more distant countries, and, thus, had not 
complied with the provisions of Article I of the GATT 1994.  For these reasons, several  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Members urged the Russian Federation to consid er the use of other methods to avoid illicit 
capital outflow.   
3. The mandatory requirement to transfer 25 pe r cent of the currency earnings to the domestic 
currency that had applied to exporters of  the production from the Russian Federation 
effectively increased import transaction costs, and had not complied with the requirement of 
Article XI of the GATT 1994 on the eliminat ion of unjustifiable export restrictions. 
Furthermore, due to the fact that that requi rement hindered the use of the currency earnings 
for subsequent entry, it had been also incons istent with non-discrimination requirements of 
Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture .  Some Members further noted that the 
discussed requirement had been especially burdens ome for smaller importers and could, thus, 
make trade payments more difficult. 
 
31. In addition, Members noted in response to the statement by the representative of the 
Russian Federation that such measures had been necessary to ensure accumulation of foreign currency 
reserves, that these measures had been no longer needed.  The foreign exchange reserves of the 
Russian Federation had been at record high levels, equi valent to 50 per cent of external debt and more 
than six months of import cover.  Finally, the ba lance of payments position of the Russian Federation 
had improved dramatically since these controls had be en imposed in 1998 during the financial crisis. 
32. In response to comments by Members, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation stated that 
the 1 per cent tax levied on the amount of fore ign currency in cash purchased by natural persons 
(not applicable to juridical persons) established by Federal Law No. 120-FZ of 21 July 1997 "On the 
Tax Levied on Purchase of Foreign Currency Not es and Payment Documents in Foreign Currency" 
(with subsequent amendments) had been abolishe d on 1 January 2003 by Federal Law No. 193-FZ of 
31 December 2002.  As for the prior import depos it requirement, introduced by the CBR Directive 
No. 1223-u of 17 December 2002, it had been eliminated pursuant to the CBR Directive No. 1394-u of 18 March 2004 and had ceased to exist on 18 Ap ril 2004.  Concerning the mandatory surrender 
requirement stipulated by Article 21 of the Law th at had authorised the Bank of Russia to establish a 
maximum 30 per cent rate of obligatory sale of the amount of currency proceeds of residents through 
the internal currency market, this provision of the Law had ceased to exist on 1 January 2007.  
Already in 2006, the Bank of Russia had lowe red surrender requirements down to zero per cent 
(Directive of the Bank of Russia No. 1676-u of 29 March 2006 "On Introducing Amendments to the Instruction of the Bank of Russia No. 111-u of 30 March 2004 'On the Mandatory Sale of a Portion of 
Currency Proceeds on the Domestic Currency Market of  the Russian Federation'").  As for concerns 
expressed earlier by some Members in relation to rest rictions on the rights of residents to acquire and 
hold foreign exchange and to have accounts in foreign banks, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that these concerns had been addressed, since u nder the current foreign 
exchange legislation, there were no restrictions on the rights of residents to acquire and hold foreign 
exchange.  The opening of accounts in foreign and national currency by residents and non-residents, 
on the territory of the Russian Federation, was carried  out without any restricti ons.  As to the accounts WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 14  
 
  of residents in the banks located outside the te rritory of the Russian Federation, starting from 
1 January 2007, they were opened freely in any c ountry, with the subsequent notification to the 
Federal Tax Service by the holder.  
33. Replying to a Member who enquired about the re quirement for Russian residents to obtain an 
advance approval from the Ministry of Finance of  the Russian Federation to convert rubles into 
foreign currency to make related payments of more than US$10,000 to a non-resident under a services 
contract, the representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that this measure, which had been 
introduced by the CBR Directive No. 721-u of 30 December 1999, had been abolished on 11 April 2004 pursuant to the CBR Direc tive No. 1388-u of 26 February 2004. 
34. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that if the Russian Federation 
introduced restrictions on foreign exchange or pa yments such restrictions would be applied in 
conformity with WTO requirements.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Investment Regime 
35. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the current policy of his Government 
in this area was directed to creation of conditions  to promote the expansion of domestic and foreign 
investments, and also to the formation of transp arent and stable rules in the conduct of economic 
activities.  He added that the MED of the Russi an Federation was the authority responsible for 
formulating and implementing the investment policy of the Russian Federation.   
36. The basic legal provisions relating to the ac tivities of investors were set-forth in the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation adopted on  12 December 1993; the Civil Code Part One 
No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 and Part Two No. 14- FZ of 26 January 1996 (as last amended on 
27 July 2010); relevant international treaties to which the Russian Federation was a party, and a 
number of other legislative acts:  Federal Law No. 39-FZ of 25 February 1999 " Оn Investment 
Activity in the Russian Federation Pursued in the Fo rm of Capital Investments" (as last amended on 
23 July 2010), Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Foreign Investments in the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 29 April 2008), Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 
8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as last 
amended on 2 February 2006), whic h provided guarantees for the protection of investors' rights and 
interests, and Federal Law No. 57-FZ of 29 April 2008  "On the Order of Inves ting by Foreign Persons 
in Companies Having Strategic Importance for the Ensuring of the Defence of the Country and the 
Security of the State".   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 15 
 
 
  37. In response to questions by some Members of th e Working Party, he added that, in his view, 
the Land Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of 25 October 2001, as last 
amended on 22 July 2010), together with a numbe r of legislative acts on "de-bureaucratization" 
(Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licen sing of Specific Types of Activity" (as last 
amended on 27 July 2010), Federal Law No. 129-FZ  of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration of 
Juridical Persons and Individual Entrepreneurs" ( as last amended on 27 July 2010), Federal Law 
No. 294-FZ of 26 December 2008 "On the Protection of Legal Entities' and Indi vidual Entrepreneurs' 
Rights in the Case of Exercise of State Control (S upervision) and Municipal Control") and the Tax 
Code of the Russian Federation had significantly contributed to the formation of a favourable 
investment climate and facilitated the investment activity of Russian and foreign companies in the 
Russian market. 
38. In response to further questions by some Members of the Working Party concerning 
conditions for attraction of foreign investors, the representative of th e Russian Federation stated that 
Article 4.1 of Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1 999 ensured a legal basis for provision of national 
treatment for foreign investors' activity. 
39. He further noted that, in accordance with the Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999, the 
property of a foreign investor or a commercial le gal entity with foreign investment could not be 
subject to forced seizure, including nationalization,  or requisition, except for the cases and reasons 
determined by a Federal law or international treaty of the Russian Federation.  If nationalization of 
property took place, Article 8 of this Law provided that the value of the nationalized property would 
be reimbursed to a foreign investor.  Foreign inv estors had the right to freely use the revenues and 
profits (which had been obtained from the investment  made in the Russian Federation) in the territory 
of the Russian Federation for any purpose, including re-investment, as long as such use did not contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation.  A foreign investor could acquire stocks and other 
securities of Russian commercial organizations and St ate securities, in accord ance with the respective 
legislation.  In some cases, investments and re-i nvestments by foreign investors could be limited or 
prohibited under the Russian legislation, including in  cases mentioned in paragraphs [47] and [49] of 
this Report. 
40. One Member asked what compensation would be available to foreign investors in case of 
seizure and/or expropriation.  The representative of  the Russian Federation explained that the details 
concerning compensation available to foreign investor s were provided for in the respective bilateral 
Agreements for the Promotion and Reciprocal Pr otection of the Investments referred to in 
paragraph [45] of this Report. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 16  
 
  41. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her informed Members of the Working Party 
that foreign investors, other than those inves ting in non-commercial organizations, could transfer 
abroad unhampered their profits and other sums of  money in foreign currency lawfully gained in 
connection with previously made inve stments.  He noted that this right to transfer funds abroad did 
not affect any obligations a foreign investor ma y have under the relevant legislation of the 
Russian Federation, including tax legislation, crim inal legislation, and legislation on bankruptcy.  
He also explained that non-commercial organizations  could not, by definition, have profit-making as 
their principal goal, and that such organizations in cluded those described in paragraph [1361] of this 
Report.  
42. He also noted that, in accordance with tax and customs legislation of the Russian Federation, 
foreign investors could be granted certain privileges.   Tax privileges, according to Article 150 of the 
Tax Code, comprised exemption from taxation of t echnology equipment and parts and spare parts for 
such equipment, imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation, as a contribution to the 
assessed capital of companies.  As to customs pr ivileges, they were listed in the Government 
Resolution No. 883 of 23 July 1996 "On Import Du ty and Value Added Tax Exemptions for Goods 
Imported by Foreign Investors as Contributions to Charter (Pooled) Capital of Enterprises with 
Foreign Investments" as following:  
- Products imported to the customs territory of  the Russian Federation as contribution to the 
assessed capital were free from customs duties un der the condition that the products were:  
not excisable; related to the main productive funds; and, imported within the period defined 
by the constituent documents for assessed capital foundation. 
 
43. In addition, the possibility of granting other cu stoms and tax privileges to foreign investors 
performing priority investment projects (more th an RUB 100 million) was provided for by Federal 
Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999.  The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that the 
Russian Federation was pursuing the establishmen t of special economic zones (SEZs) which were 
aimed primarily at fostering high technology indu stries; expanding sources of investments; and, 
promoting the development of tourism and transportati on infrastructure.  He noted that the Section of 
the Report "On Special Economic Zones" (star ting at paragraph [1091] ) provided additional 
information on the establishment and opera tion of SEZs in the Russian Federation.   
44. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation said, that some 
investment privileges had been granted in the fiel d of the car and aircraft industries (those in the 
sector of aircraft had been abolished) which were described in the Section "Trade-Related Investment 
Measures" (TRIMs) (see para graphs [1072 and 1087]).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 17 
 
 
  45. In response to other questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation added that the 
Russian Federation accorded protect ion of foreign invest ment through international treaties.  
In particular, up to October 2010 the Russian Federation was a Party to  70 bilateral investment treaties 
(BITs) (49 of them were in force).  In respect of  investors and their investments, BITs contained, 
inter alia , provisions on national treatment and MFN tr eatment with exemptions; guarantees in case of 
expropriation and rules for compensation of losses; and, on free transfer of revenues and profits and 
dispute settlement procedures. 
46. The representative of the Russian Federation adde d that a wide range of investment projects 
was open to foreign investors.  Information on  investment projects was widely available, inter alia , 
from the Chamber of Commerce of the Russian Fede ration and the Russian Union of Entrepreneurs 
and Industrialists (Employers).  To  obtain detailed information concer ning investment projects in the 
Russian Federation, foreign investors could also make an inquiry to the Federal body of executive 
power responsible for investment policy (current ly, the MED of the Russian Federation), regional 
bodies of executive power, and also trade representati ons of the Russian Federation abroad, providing 
information on the possible fields and scope of investment activity and other terms of possible 
investment projects. 
47. In response to concerns of some Members of the Working Party related to restrictions for 
foreign investors, the representative of the Russian Federation replied that Article 4.2 of Federal Law 
No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 provided that restricti ons of activity of foreign investors could be 
established only by federal laws and only to the exte nt, it would be necessary, to achieve the purposes 
of defending the bases of the constitutional order, mo ral, health, rights and legal interests of other 
persons and ensuring the defence and the security of the State.  These provisions of Article 4 of the Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July  1999 were in line with Article  55 of the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation and Article 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which could also serve 
as a legal basis for establishment of restrictions of ac tivity of all investors, both Russian and foreign.  
Security-related restrictions were applied, inter alia , by virtue of the Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 3297-1 of 14 July 1992 "On a Closed Administ rative-Territorial Area" (as last amended on 
27 December 2009), which set-forth certain restricti ons including restrictions on entrepreneurial and 
economic activities; Article 15.3 of  the Land Code of the Russian Federation which provided that 
foreign natural persons and foreign legal entities could not own land within the border territories 
designated by the President of the Russian Federa tion pursuant to the federal legislation on State 
Border of the Russian Federation and in other special ly defined territories of the Russian Federation in 
accordance with Federal laws.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 18  
 
  48. Some Members of the Working Party asked about  the rules governing investments in sectors 
considered of strategic importance in the Russian Federation.  They requested information about the 
nature of possible restrictions and the procedures for their implementation.  Some Members expressed 
concerns about the lack of clarity of specific provisions pertaining to investments in the energy sectors and underlined the need to have clear and tr ansparent rules providing stability and clarity. 
49. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation explained that the Federal Law 
No. 57-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On the Order of Inv esting by Foreign Persons in Companies Having 
Strategic Importance for the Ensuring of the Defence of the Country and the Security of the State" 
established the general framework for regulation of foreign persons' participation in the capital of 
enterprises engaged in activities having strategic importance for national defence and security.  
This Federal Law covered 42 sectors.  The screening pr ocedures, intended to review transactions that 
may threaten the national security of the Russian Federation and thus not be  approved, were applied 
when a foreign person intended to acquire control over  such an enterprise.  Th e thresholds when such 
control was considered to exist we re established at the level of 50 per cent of participation in the 
capital of such a  strategic enterprise or 10 per cent in case an  enterprise was engaged in the use of 
land plots of federal importance.  In cases where the intended participation in the capital of such an 
enterprise was by a foreign State, the thresholds for initiation of a screening review were reduced to 
25 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively.  The repr esentative of the Russian Federation also explained 
that to implement this Federal Law, the Gove rnment of the Russian Federation had adopted 
Resolution No. 510 of 6 July 2008 "On the Governmental Commission on the Control of Foreign 
Investments in the Russian Federation".  The Governmental Commission established by this 
Resolution decided whether a foreign investor shall be  granted an authorization for the transaction to 
be accomplished.  By the end of 2009, the Gove rnmental Commission had considered more than 
30 applications.  Two refusals had been made so far.  In accordance with Article 11 of the said 
Federal Law, the denial of approval by the Commissi on might be appealed in the Supreme Arbitration 
Court of the Russian Federation. 
50. Subsequently, on 28 April 2008, the Law of the Russian Federation No. 2395-1 of 
21 February 1992 "On Subsoil" was amended making foreign investment s in the capital of the legal 
persons, engaged in activities within the subsoil la nd plots of federal importance, subject to the 
procedures of authorization estab lished under Federal Law No. 57-FZ. 
51. Some Members expressed concern about the pote ntial conflicts between decisions taken as a 
result of the screening procedure, described above , and the commitments of the Russian Federation 
under the GATS.  These Members asked how the Russian Federation would avoid such conflicts.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 19 
 
 
  52. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation explained that, as followed from 
Article 15.4 of the Constitution of the Russian Fe deration, in case of conflict between the provisions 
of Federal Law No. 57-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On the Order of Investing by Foreign Persons in 
Companies Having Strategic Importance for the En suring of the Defence of the Country and the 
Security of the State" and the obligations under an international agreement of the Russian Federation, 
such as the GATS, the obligations under an interna tional agreement would apply.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation further explained that  all legal acts taken pursuant to Federal Law 
No. 57-FZ, including decisions resulting from the screen ing process, must be in compliance with this 
Law and, as described above, with the interna tional obligations of the Russian Federation. 
53. The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r explained that this Federal Law regulated 
issues connected with foreign investors or a group of persons including foreigners making 
investments in the form of purchasing stocks (sha res) constituting the charter capital of companies 
having strategic importance for ensuring the defence of  the country and the security of the State, as 
well as with making transactions resulting in fore ign investors or a group of persons including 
foreigners establishing control over such companies.   However, according to Article 2.6 of Federal 
Law No. 57-FZ, the Law did not apply to such issu es if they were connected with making foreign 
investments and were covered by duly ratified inte rnational agreements with participation of the 
Russian Federation.  The issues connected with maki ng foreign investments in the sphere of technical 
military cooperation of the Russian Federation with foreign States were regulated in accordance with 
the legislation of the Russian Federa tion on technical military cooperation. 
54. In reply to the questions of some Members of  the Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation added that, in accordance  with the provisions of the Law of the 
Russian Federation No. 4730-1 of 1 April 1993 "On St ate Border of the Russian Federation" (as last 
amended on 31 May 2010), the boundary territories we re defined within border zones and/or within 
wards adjacent to them.  The border zones were , as a rule, established within the territory of 
5 kilometres (within a ward, city ) adjacent to the State Border on land, to the sea coast of the 
Russian Federation, to the Russian banks of the bor der rivers, lakes and other basins and within the 
territories of the islands of these basins. 
55. Noting that "as a rule", border zones were es tablished within 5 kilometres adjacent to a 
border, a Member asked if there were any exceptions  to this "rule" for determining border zones.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that the bounds of each border 
zone were established by the Orders of the Fe deral Security Service of the Russian Federation 
No. 75-85 of 2 March 2006, No. 149-157 of 14 April 2006, No. 237-250 of 2 June 2006, No. 275-286 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 20  
 
  of 16 June 2006, No. 193 of 17 April 2007, No. 273 of 27 May 2007, No. 355 of 10 July 2007, and 
No. 473 of 20 September 2007.  
56. In response to the questions of some Member s of the Working Party related to rights of 
foreigners concerning possession of land, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Land Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of 25 October 2001) stipulated 
conditions of use, purchase and sale of land and pr ovided that foreign natio nals and foreign legal 
entities could acquire property rights and leasehold ove r land, with the exception of cases established 
by the land legislation of the Russian Federati on (mentioned in paragraph [47] of this Report). 
57. In response to further questions, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that, in 
accordance with Article 35 of the Land Code, owne rs of buildings, constr uctions and/or facilities 
located on a land plot owned by another person or th e State, could benefit from a pre-emptive right of 
purchase or lease in respect of such land plot, unless the Decrees or Resolutions of the President of the 
Russian Federation prohibited the pur chase or lease of those lands.  This rule was applied regardless 
of national identity.  
58. Concerning commercial transactions in agri cultural land, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 24 July 2002 "On Commercial 
Transactions in Agricultural Land" (as last am ended on 8 May 2009) permitted leasehold by foreign 
natural persons, foreign legal entities and legal entities with fo reign participation exceeding 
50 per cent for a period of up to 49 years.  He a dded that, after the end of the 49-year period of the 
lease of land for agricultural purpose, the lessee could make a new contract for another term.  
While the contract for a new term was made on standa rd basis, the lessee had a right of priority in 
making a contract for a new term. 
- Privatization and Enterprises that are State-Owned or –Controlled, Enterprises with 
Special or Exclusive Privileges 
- (a) Privatization 
59. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members of the Working Party that, 
since 1993, privatization had been carried out as provided for in legislation on privatization of State and Municipal Property.  He also informed Memb ers of the Working Party that the basics of the 
regulation of privatization in the Russian Federa tion were established by the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation and Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21  December 2001 "On Privatization of State and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 21 
 
 
  Municipal Property" (as last amended on 22 Nove mber 2010).  Other legal acts, relative to the 
regulation of privatization, included, inter alia , the following:   
- Article 217 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; 
- The Budget Code of the Russian Federation - Federal Law No. 145-FZ of 31 July 1998;  
- Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Fo reign Investment in the Russian Federation" 
(as last amended on 29 April 2008); and 
- The Conception of Management of State Propert y and Privatization in the Russian Federation 
(approved by Government Resolution No. 1024 of 9 September 1999, as last amended on 
29 November 2000). 
60. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that, in accordance with the 
Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001, "privati zation of state and municipal property" was a 
form of alienation of property owned by the Russian  Federation (hereinafter:  referred to as "federal 
property"), the regions of the Russian Federation, or municipal entities to natural and/or juridical 
persons that required payment to the owne r of the property being privatized.  
61. Some Members of the Working Party expressed co ncerns regarding the transparency of the 
privatization process in the Russian Federation, as we ll as concerns regarding restrictions related to 
privatization and, specifically, restrictions on foreig n participation in privati zation provided for in the 
legislation of the Russian Federation.  In respon se to the questions from Members, the representative 
of the Russian Federation informed Members that privatization of State and Municipal Property was 
based on the principles of transparency and predicta bility of privatization procedures.  He further 
added that privatization for each year was carried out  on the basis of a plan.  The Government of the 
Russian Federation annually endorsed the fore cast of Federal Property Privatization Plan 
(Programme) for a respective year.  The Forecast Plan (Programme) contained a list of Federal State 
unitary enterprises, federally-owned shares of open joint-stock companies, and other federal property 
to be privatized in that year.  The programmes of  privatization as well as decisions on the conditions 
of privatization (as long as they were approved by the normative acts of the relevant executive 
authorities) were subject to publication in the sources of official information1. 
62. Regarding the prohibitions and restrictions on the privatization process, the representative of 
the Russian Federation stated, that according to the Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2011, 
some property could not be privatized, because it could be owned only by the State or municipal 
Governments and federal laws stipulated that some  property and objects could not be subject to any 
                                                      
1 The source of official information was, inter alia , "Rossiiskaya Gazeta" (Ru ssian Gazette) founded by 
the Government of the Russian Federation.  Its right to publish official documents was determined by the 
Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 14 June 1994 "On the Order of Publishing and Coming into Effect of Federal Constitutional Laws, Federal Laws and Acts of the Chambers of the Federal Assembly" (as amended on 
22 October 1999). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 22  
 
  form of transaction.  Property and objects which could not be privatized  consisted, among other 
things, of mineral wealth, forest fund, water resour ces, air space, resources of the continental shelf, 
territorial waters and sea economic zones of th e Russian Federation, bud getary and non-budgetary 
funds, currency and other reserves, objects of historic  and cultural heritage of  federal value, property 
passed over to State unitary enterprises (SUEs) a nd state institutions involved in the turnover of 
narcotics and psychotropic substances, nuclear st ations and enterprises producing special nuclear and 
radio-nuclear materials, nuclear weapons, as well as property of the enterprises performing scientific 
research and development works in the above-menti oned areas, and property permanently used to 
provide social services, including orphanages.  The alienation of these types of property to any natural 
and/or juridical persons was prohibited. 
63. In response to the specific questions of some Members in regard to joint-stock companies 
(JSCs) and enterprises of strategic significance, the representative of the Russian Federation clarified, 
that shares of "strategic" JSCs and "strategic" en terprises could be offered for privatization and be 
included in the plan (programme) of privatization by decision of the President (i.e., a Presidential Decree based on a proposal initiated by the Government). 
64. "Strategic" enterprises and JSCs were defined as follows: 
- Federal State unitary enterprises manufactur ing products (performing works, providing 
services) of strategic importance for ensuring the defensive capability and security of the 
State, protecting the morals, health, rights and lawful interests of citizens of the 
Russian Federation (strategic enterprises); and  
- Public joint-stock companies whose shares were in federal ownership and the participation of 
the Russian Federation in the management thereof ensured the strategic interests of the State, 
the defensive capability and security of the State,  protection of the morals, health, rights and 
lawful interests of citizens of the Russian Federation (strategic JSCs). 
65. The current list of strategic enterprises was established by Presidential Decree No. 1009 of 
4 August 2004 (as last amended on 26 June 2010).  The amende d list contained 231 strategic 
enterprises and 212 JSCs.  In response to a qu estion from a Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the specific percen tage of state-ownership of shares in a public 
joint-stock company was not stipulated and currently  the percentage of stat e-ownership varied from 
100 per cent to 34 per cent.  The representative of the Russian Federation further informed Members 
that, in accordance with Article 5 of the Fe deral Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001, the 
participation of some categories of persons (Russian  as well as foreign) could be restricted by other 
Federal laws for the purposes of de fending the constitutional order, morals, health, the rights and legal 
interests of other persons, and ensu ring the defence and security of the State.  These provisions were 
in line with Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russi an Federation and Article 1 of the Civil Code of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the Russian Federation which could also serve as a legal framework for establishing restrictions on 
ownership by Russian as well as foreign persons.  Thus, the Law of the Russian Federation  
No. 3297-1 of 14 July 1992 "On a Closed Administrative-Territorial Area" (as last amended on 
23 December 2003) stipulated that only citizens of the Russian Federation permanently residing in the 
territory of Closed Administrative-Territorial Area a nd juridical persons located and registered in that 
territory, could participate in the privatization of  the State or Municipal Property located on that 
territory and engage in transactions with it.  These rules were set with a view to providing a special 
regime of safe functioning and keeping State secrets in the territory of such areas. 
66. In response to further questions of some Me mbers of the Working Party with regard to 
restrictions on foreign participation in priv atization of land, the representative of the 
Russian Federation added that there were no specific  conditions for foreign investors set-out in the 
legislation on privatizati on, concerning participation in the priv atization programme other than those 
that applied to domestic investors.  Furthermore, Federal Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 established equality of rights of all customers in the process of privatization.  However, certain 
limitations on foreign ownership were provided for by Russian legislation regulating different areas of 
economic relations.  Such limitations were required to  be observed in the process of privatization.  
The representative of the Russian Federation gave the example of the Land Code of the Russian Federation, providing that foreign citizen s, persons without any citizenship, and foreign 
juridical persons could not own land plots when such land plots were situated in border territories, the 
list of which was set by the President of the Russian Federation in accordance with the federal 
legislation on State border of the Russian Federa tion.  Additional information on this issue was 
discussed in the Section "Investment Regime" of this Report. 
67. Some Members of the Working Party requested  information on progress achieved in the 
privatization process and the percentage of trade accounted for by State-owned firms.  
These Members noted that, in many situations, a shareholding of as low as 25 per cent could amount 
to effective control, and, accordingly, requested  information on the economic activity of companies 
with 25 per cent or greater Government sharehol ding.  Some Members requested updated information 
on the current privatization programmes of the Govern ment of the Russian Federation.  Responding to 
this request, the representative of the Russian Fede ration informed Members that the Privatization 
Plan (Programme) for the current period was est ablished by the "Forecast Plan (Programme) for 
Federal Property Privatization and the main directi ons of the Federal Property Privatization for 2011 
and 2013" which had been approved by the Order of the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 2102-r of 27 November 2010.  This Programme was available on the website of the Government 
of the Russian Federation (www.gov.ru).  The Progr amme contained a list of 809 JSCs belonging to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 24  
 
  the Russian Federation for which shares were put up for sale in 2011-2013 as well as 114 Federal 
State unitary enterprises, planned to be privatized in  2011-2013.  It was planned, in particular, to put 
up for sale 7.58 per cent minus one share of Sberbank, 100 per cent of the United Grain Company 
(by 2012) and 50 per cent minus one share of Rosagroleasing (but no sooner than in 2013). 
68. The representative of the Russian Federation further informed Members that a total of 
1,863 enterprises had been privatized between 2005 and 2009 (see [Table 1]).  He also provided 
additional information concerning privatization by sect ors, reflected in [Table 2].  Regarding recent 
years, the representative of the Russian Federatio n provided information contained in [Table 3], 
[Table 4] and [Table 5].  As a result of the priv atization process, the number of Federal State unitary 
enterprises came to 3,765 on 1 January 2009, and the number of JSCs with the participation of the 
Russian Federation came to 3,337 by the same date.  Among these JSCs, 1,858 had 100 per cent of 
their shares owned by the Russian Federation; 200 JSCs had from 50 to 100 per cent of their shares 
owned by the Russian Federation; 510 had from 25 to  50 per cent Russian Federation ownership; and 
769 JSCs had less than 25 per cent of their shares owned by the Russian Federation.  
69. The possibility of the State to use a special right was provided for in Federal Law No. 178-FZ 
of 21 December 2001.  A decision to use/stop using this special right ("golden share") might be 
adopted by the Government of the Russian Federa tion or bodies of the Russian regions when the 
property complexes of unitary enterprises were priva tized or when a decision was made to exclude a 
JSC from the list of strategic JSCs, irrespective of the number of shares owned by the State.  
When the decision to use the "golden share" had been taken, the Government of the 
Russian Federation or the bodies of the Russian regi ons appointed the respective representatives to the 
board of directors (supervisory board) of a JSC in  question.  Such representatives had the right to 
attend the general meeting of shareholders the same  as the representatives of ordinary shareholder, 
with a right of veto when the general meeting voted on the following decisions: 
- Amending the statute of the joint-stock company or endorsing the statute of the public JSC in 
a new wording; 
- Re-organizing the open JSC; - Liquidating the open JSC, appointing a liquidation commission and endorsing interim and 
final liquidation balance sheets; 
- Altering the amount of authorised capital of the open JSC; or - Accomplishing large-scale transactions and transactions in the accomplishment of which 
there was an interest (as specified in th e Federal Law "On Joint-Stock Companies"). 
70. As regards the general mechanism of partic ipation of the Russian Federation in the 
management of State-owned shares of the JSCs, th e representative of the Russian Federation informed 
Members that it continued to be through representati ves of the State participating in the managerial  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 25 
 
 
  bodies of the JSCs.  The rules for managing shares of JSCs owned by the State were stipulated by the 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 738 of 3 December 2004 "On the 
Management of Federal Owned Shares of Joint-Stoc k Companies and the Use of the Special Right for 
Participation of the Russian Federation in Mana gement of Open Joint-Stock Companies (Golden 
Share)" (as last amended on 1 December 2009).  
71. Members of the Working Party invited the Russi an Federation to enter into a commitment to 
report on developments in its progr amme of privatization as long as the Privatization Programme was 
in existence and on other issues related to any o ngoing economic reforms relevant to its obligations 
under the WTO. 
72. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed the readiness of the 
Russian Federation to ensure the transparency of it s ongoing Privatization Programme.  He stated that 
his Government would provide a nnual reports to WTO Members (along the lines of the information 
provided to the Working Party) on developments in its programme of privatization as long as the 
Privatization Programme was in existence.  Th e Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- (b) Enterprises that are State-Owned or -Controlled, Enterprises with Special or 
Exclusive Privileges 
73. In response to the concerns of some Members of the Working Party about the possibility of 
the Government to control and influence the activity  of State-invested JSCs, the representative of the 
Russian Federation answered that the legislation of the Russian Federation did not provide for the 
possibility of the Government (State) exercising spec ial control or special management of the activity 
of those companies, where the Russian Federation or  municipal authority-owned shares.  As a general 
rule, when a State or municipal authority held shar es of the JSC, it worked as an ordinary shareholder 
and enjoyed the rights and took the liabilities under the standard rules for shareholders stipulated by 
the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Federal Law No. 208-FZ of 26 December 1995 
"On Joint-Stock Companies" (as amended on 27 December 2009).  Thus, except as explained in 
paragraph [69] of this Report, State or municipa l authorities participated in the management and 
activity of the JSC along with other shareholders under the same rules irrespective of the share of 
stock in State ownership. 
74. Responding to the questions of some Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
also clarified the issue of SUEs and the mechanism of  their management by the State.  He said that the 
legal status and activity rules of SUEs were provide d by the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and 
Federal Law No. 161-FZ of 14 November 2002 "On Stat e and Municipal Unitary Enterprises" (as last WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 26  
 
  amended on 1 December 2007).  He added that a SUE was a commercial organization, not endowed 
with the right of ownership to the property, allotte d to it by the property owner.  These Laws provided 
that the property of the SUE must be owned by  the Russian Federation, a Russian region or a 
municipality.  In its commercial activity, a SUE was acting in the same way as other commercial 
organizations, except for transactions aimed at the di sposition of the property of the SUE (sales, lease, 
transfer as bond security, giving of credits, etc.), where the approval of the property owner was 
required by law.  This special requirement resulte d exclusively from the need to preserve property of 
the owner (the State, the municipality) and constitu ted the difference between a SUE and other types 
of legal persons.  In respect to unitary enterprises,  the State had the same rights and obligations as an 
ordinary corporate founder, being subject to comm on rules of the civil legislation, which did not 
accord any special rights or possibility of contro l or rights to manage the activity of unitary 
enterprises to the state/municipal entity.  SUEs existed and acted alongside other forms of legal 
persons, on the basis of principles and rules common to all commercial organizations, stipulated in 
civil legislation, and self-organized their activities. 
75. Summarizing the information on the possibility of State control over the activities of SUEs 
and State-invested JSCs, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that governmental 
influence and guidance of the decisions and activiti es of SUEs as well as state-invested JSCs was 
strictly defined by the legislation of the Russian  Federation as indicated above.  The Constitution of 
the Russian Federation guaranteed the equality of all forms of property (i.e., private, State, or 
municipal) thus ensuring that the principle of non-discrimination would be  observed regarding the 
companies and enterprises of different forms of pr operty rights.  It also prevented enterprises from 
activity aimed at monopolization an d unfair competition, thus giving a sound guarantee that State 
enterprises and State-invested JSCs would not act in a manner to distort the competitive environment.  He further noted that according to Article 50 of th e Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Russian 
juridical persons were divided into commercial and non-commercial organizations.  Commercial 
organizations were those ai med at deriving profits as the main goal of their activity and that SUEs and 
state-invested JSCs were one of the forms of co mmercial organizations alongside with other types of 
commercial organizations with this goal.  The st atus of the SUEs and state-invested JSCs as 
commercial organizations pre-defined the freedom of their own market behaviour which was 
implemented through the respective operational decisions and conclusion of commercial transactions of 
any kind in accordance with customary busines s practice and legislation in force.  
76. In addition, the representative of the Russi an Federation presented statistical data  
(see [Table 6]), in his view, demonstrating that th e actual participation of State enterprises in the 
economy, as well as in international trade was relatively  small.  The proportion attributed to the State  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 27 
 
 
  enterprises had been declining st eadily over the previous years and this trend was expected to 
continue.  In industrial and agricultural produc tion, the share accounted for by State enterprises 
amounted to approximately 10 per cent, while the share of exports and imports was negligible.  
Responding to a question of a Member, the representa tive of the Russian Federation explained that 
State participation in the gas production sector was higher than in other sectors.  In 2009, Gazprom, 
which was 51 per cent owned by the State, had an 84 per cent share of the total gas production in the 
Russian Federation.  Due to its exclusive right to export gas, Gazprom had a 100 per cent share of gas 
exports from the Russian Federation. 
77. Some Members requested further information on the role of marketing enterprises such as 
Exportkhleb, Prodintorg, and Rosk hleboprodukt in agricultural trade, and a description of the 
legislation that had specifically ended the special  rights and privileges that these organizations had 
traditionally received as monopoly trade or marketi ng entities.  These Members also asked for further 
information on the extent to which the agricultura l trade of the Russian Federation was still conducted 
through inter-governmental agreements between  the Russian Federation and other countries, 
especially CIS countries, and on whether any govern ment-to-government barter arrangements were 
still in place. 
78. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that some enterprises (Roschleboproduct 
and Roscontract) had been granted exclusive and special rights in 1993 and 1994 in the context of 
bilateral barter trade with some CIS count ries performed under the framework of special 
inter-governmental agreements for those calenda r years.  Such exclusive rights had expired 
completely on 31 December 1995 when the agreemen ts expired and had never been resumed.  
The Government of the Russian Federation had not concluded any bilateral barter trade agreement 
with Governments of other countries, including CIS countries.   
79. Regarding the concerns of some Members in r espect of the special export regime for wheat 
exported to Ukraine, the representative of th e Russian Federation stated that a special 
Inter-governmental Agreement on export supplies of  wheat to Ukraine from August to October 2003 
had been concluded in August 2003 in view of a dverse weather conditions in Ukraine in 2003.  
This Agreement did not concern barter trade.  Unde r this Agreement, the SUE "Federal Agency on the 
Foods Market Regulation" (FFMA) had been aut horised to supply wheat on terms and in quantities 
provided for by the Agreement.  However, this authority of FFMA had expired upon termination of 
the supply periods, as defined in the Agreement.   
80. A Member was concerned that FFMA appeared to  operate the grain intervention system of 
the Russian Federation and maintained grain reser ves, exclusively and at the behest of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 28  
 
  Government, using State funds, which would appear to be an exclusive right that had a noticeable 
impact on prices.  In response, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that under 
Government Resolution No. 1224 of 26 Septem ber 1997 "On the Foundation of the State Unitary 
Enterprise - the Federal Agency for Food Market Regul ation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food 
of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on  15 June 1998), the FFMA had replaced the Federal 
Food Corporation with a modified institutional and legal framework.  A full list of activities of the 
FFMA was contained in Government Resolution No. 12 24.  Pursuant to this Resolution, the Agency 
was a commercial organization established in order to meet social needs and earn a profit.  Its main 
activities included, in particular: 
- Monitoring the current state of  the agricultural, raw materials,  and foodstuffs market, creating 
a system providing informational support to market entities, analysing and forecasting the situation on the market; 
- Boosting competition in purchase and sale of agricultural products, raw materials, and 
foodstuffs; 
- Organizing and carrying out purchase and sale -related intervention in order to promote 
stability on the market of agricultural products, raw materials, and foodstuffs; 
- Ensuring guarantees in carrying out operations  with agricultural products, raw materials and 
foodstuffs; and 
- Performing the functions of the state purchaser  on establishing the operative reserve of the 
Government of the Russian Federation and pe rforming deliveries to polluted territories. 
81. Organizing and carrying out purchase and sale-re lated intervention in order to promote 
stability on the market of agricultural products, ra w materials, and foodstuffs were regulated by 
Government Resolution No. 580 of 3 August 2001  "On Approving the Rules of Exercising State 
Purchase and Sale Intervention for the Regulati on of the Market of Agricultural Products, Raw 
Materials, and Foodstuffs" (as amended by Gove rnment Resolutions No. 500 of 28 September 2004, 
No. 431 of 15 July 2005 and No. 157 of 23 March 2006).  According to this Resolution, State 
purchases of agricultural products, raw materials, and foodstuffs (hereafter:  referred to as agricultural 
products) were carried out for building of the Federa l Food Intervention Fund.  Purchases and sales of 
agricultural products to/from this fund were aimed at  regulation of agricultural products markets.  
The reserves of the intervention fund had been r ecognised as Federal property.  Purchase and sales 
interventions were to be carried out by a State agent selected on competitive basis by the agricultural 
sector regulator of the Russian Federation.  The ag ent acted for a commission fee.  The interventions 
themselves were carried out through a commodity exchange auction.  FFMA was approved as an agent for carrying out purchase and sales interventio ns in 2001, 2002 and 2005, by Government Order 
No. 1501-r of 13 November 2001, by Government Resolution No. 756 of 11 October 2002, and by the 
Order of the Ministry of Agriculture No. 80 of 14 May 2005, respectively.  According to Order of the 
Territorial Administration of the Federal Agen cy for State Property Management in Moscow  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 29 
 
 
  No. 1345 of 28 December 2006, FFMA2 was privatized and acted as a Joint-Stock Company Agency 
for the Food Market Regulation.  In 2008, the Mi nistry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation 
selected FFMA on a tender basis as an agent for gr ain interventions, in accordance with Government 
Resolution No. 580 of 3 August 2001.   
82. The Open Joint-Stock Compan y Agency for the Food Market Regulation, which was 
100 per cent owned by the State, was renamed th e "United Grain Company", in accordance with 
Presidential Decree No. 290 of 20 March 2009.  Some federally-owned shares of the companies were 
transferred as a contribution to the authorised cap ital of the United Grain Company in order to cover 
the emission of additional shares.  While the St ate currently owned 100 per cent of shares of the 
United Grain Company, there was a plan to privatize the United Grain Company by 2012.  In 2009, grain interventions were executed by the United Grai n Company on a tender basis.  In addition to 
engaging in grain interventions, the mission of the United Grain Company was to increase grain 
elevator capacity, increase domestic grain trade a nd exports, and to develop the transport and port 
infrastructure of the grain market of the Ru ssian Federation.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that United Grain Company continued to act as an agent for state 
purchase and merchandise interventions for a commi ssion, as stipulated in Government Resolution 
No. 580 of 3 August 2001 "On Approving the Ru les of Exercising State Purchase and Sale 
Intervention for the Regulation of the Market of Agricultural Products, Raw Materials, and 
Foodstuffs".  He further explained that all the purchase and merchandise interventions were carried 
out through a commodity exchange.  A participant ha d to confirm its sphere of activity (as "grain 
producer" to take part in purchase interventions a nd as "livestock breeder", "producer of forage for 
livestock", "flour-and-cereals industry company" or "livestock breeder and plant grower (composite 
agriculture)" to take part in merchandise interven tions.  A participant also had to go through an 
accreditation process, involving payment of an accreditation fee, making a guarantee deposit and 
providing the documents specified in the Bi dding Procedure established in accordance with 
Government Resolution No. 580 of 3 August 2001  "On Approving the Rules of Exercising State 
Purchase and Sale Intervention for the Regulati on of the Market of Agricultural Products, Raw 
Materials, and Foodstuffs". 
83. Several Members requested further informati on regarding a Government resolution that 
imposed licensing requirements on procurement, processi ng, storing, and marketing of grain and grain 
products for State needs, as well as on production of most grain products (bread, flour, etc.), and 
                                                      
2 FFMA was established in accordance with Government Resolution No. 1224 of 26 September 1997 
"On the Foundation of the State Unitary Enterprise - the Federal Agency for Food Market Regulation by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian Federation". WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 30  
 
  clarification of the purpose of these licenses and on whether both foreign and domestic companies 
were subject to them.  Concerning reports that 150 bankrupt grain facilities (mills, storage facilities, 
etc.) had reverted to State control, some Members requested clarification on how this process was 
being implemented and what role the Government  would play in the operation and management 
decisions of these facilities.  
84. In reply, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Government Resolution 
No. 414 of 13 June 2002 "On Approval of the Regula tion of Licensing of the Storage of Grain and 
Products Received as a Result of its Processing" approved the provision on licensing of storage of grain and products received as a result of its pro cessing.  Government Resolution No. 414 had also 
invalidated former Government Resolution No. 43  of 22 January 2001 "On Licensing of Purchase, 
Remaking, Storage and Realizing of Grain and Products Received as a Result of its Subsequent 
Processing which is meant for State Needs on Prod uction of Bread, Macaroni, Flour, Groats and 
Other Grain Foods".  He added that statements on the reversion of 150 bankrupt grain facilities to 
State control were unfounded.  Government Reso lution No. 414 was abolished on 14 December 2006, 
and thus, licensing of storage of grain and pr oducts received as a result of its processing was 
abolished as well. 
85. With regard to granting an exclusive right to import or export goods, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, pursuant to Ar ticle 4 of the Agreement On Common Measures of 
Non-Tariff Regulation in Respect of Third Coun tries of 25 January 2008, the Customs Union 
Commission (CU Commission), on proposal by a member, decided on the designation of certain 
goods to be subject to exclusive imports/exports right .  Foreign trade in such goods was subject to 
import or export licensing and customs clearance of such goods was provided on the basis of an 
exclusive licence, which was issued by the co mpetent authority of the CU Party (in the 
Russian Federation, the Ministry of Industry and Tr ade of the Russian Federation (MIT)).  Exports of 
natural gas from the territory of the Russian Federa tion were subject to an exclusive right enjoyed by 
Gazprom Group, pursuant to Federal Law No . 117-FZ of 18 July 2006 "On Export of Gas". 
86. In response to a question from some Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that while the CU Commission designated th e goods subject to the measure in question, the 
national authorities established the specific enterpri se that was granted the exclusive right, as well as 
rules for its operation within its territory.  He sai d that under Article 26 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 
8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of the State Regulation of the Foreign Trade Activity", an 
exclusive right to export and/or import certain types of goods could be granted to some organizations.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 31 
 
 
  The list of organizations (as well as types of goods) to which such rights should be granted should be 
determined by Federal laws.  
87. Pursuant to Article 26 of Federal Law No . 164-FZ of 8 December 2003, enterprises which 
had been granted exclusive or special rights or privileges to export and/or import certain types of goods were required in their purchases or sales, involving either imports or exports, to act on the basis 
of the principle of non-discrimination and in  accordance with commercial considerations.  
Non-compliance with the provisions of Article  26 or the Agreement on Common Measures of 
Non-Tariff Regulation in Respect of Third Countri es of 25 January 2008, could be considered as an 
abuse of dominant position or as act of unfair competition and therefore would be subject to proceedings in accordance with the Code on Admi nistrative Offences of the Russian Federation and 
Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On Protection of Competition". 
88. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that his authorities considered that 
only the enterprises of the Gazprom Group (natural g as) were enterprises having special or exclusive 
privileges with respect to export.  The mentione d enterprises, while making their purchases and sales 
involving exports or imports, acted consistently w ith the principle of non-discrimination and, in 
particular, they were guided by in these purchases and sales solely by commercial considerations.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that Gazprom will be notified as an STE in 
accordance with Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  The exclusive right of Almazyuvelir Export Foreign Trade Association (for operations in raw materials containing platinum and platinum group 
metals) had been abolished in accordance with th e Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation No. 268 of 30 March 2009.  Detailed information on th ese enterprises was contained in 
document WT/ACC/RUS/18 and Corr.1.  
89. Some Members raised questions concerning "uni tary" enterprises and their role in export 
and/or import of goods.  In response the representa tive of the Russian Federation stated that, by 
definition, "unitary" enterprises ope rated as commercial enterprises.  Addressing specific concerns of 
some Members about the way in which enterprises i nvolved in export/import of ethyl spirits might be 
exercising their  exclusive rights, the representative of the Russian Federation explained as follows.  
According to Article 9 of Federal Law No. 171- FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State Regulation of 
Producing and Turnover of Ethyl Spirit, Alcoholic and Spirit Containing Production" (as last amended 
on 5 April 2010), only unitary enterprises or JSCs  where the State possessed no less than 51 per cent 
of the shares were entitled to export and import ethyl spirit if they had appropriate licenses for 
carrying out such activity.  However, this provisi on of the Federal Law had been abolished by an 
amendment of 21 July 2005. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 32  
 
  90. Some Members were particularly concerned that the pricing practices followed by Gazprom 
(majority State-owned, with 50.002 per cent share co ntrolled by the State), could not be regarded as 
being based on commercial considerations.  Specifica lly, sales for export were subject to controls in 
relation to quantity and price, and the sale of gas for domestic industrial consumption was at a price 
level considerably below that a pplied for exports, which were linke d to the prevailing world market 
price.  Artificially low domestic energy prices could al so lead to indirect subsidization of downstream 
industries and to exports of value-added intermedia te and finished goods at prices below their normal 
value.  In this context, those Members noted that  the cost of producing na tural gas for Gazprom was 
significantly higher than the regulated domestic pr ice.  In light of these facts, those Members 
requested an explanation as to how Gazprom was selling on the domestic market "solely in 
accordance with commercial considerations", as requi red by Article XVII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
Those Members noted that Gazprom, or its subsidia ries, also appeared to be a participant in the 
fertilizer industry.   
91. Some Members of the Working Party noted that the implication that the regulated price for 
gas was determined in accordance with supply and de mand or that Gazprom determined the levels of 
internal calculated prices did not appear to be bor ne out by the facts.  These Members asked for a 
description of the domestic pricing of Gazprom and de livery of natural gas, based on historical usage 
and how firms dealt with shortfalls of State-allocated natural gas at the regulated price.  In addition to 
the significant trade distortion which the pricing practices of Gazprom could cause, these Members 
were concerned that current prices to domestic indus trial customers could take place at rates that did 
not ensure "adequate remuneration", as provided fo r in Article 14(d) of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and thus would confer a benefit to domestic industrial users.  
Accordingly, in the absence of further informa tion, it was difficult to understand the assertion that 
Gazprom operated on the basis of commercial cons iderations.  More generally, Members observed 
that this situation gave rise to questions as rega rds its compatibility with WTO requirements, not only 
in relation to Article XVII, but also in relati on to Articles XI and XVI of the GATT 1994 and the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  These Members invited the Russian Federation to provide further information on the operation of Gazprom and its subsidiaries, 
particularly as regards the manner in which prices  were set for natural gas, and how those pricing 
structures were consistent with the suggesti on that those enterprises operated under commercial 
considerations.  
92. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the export price for gas 
was not regulated by the Government; the prices for deliveries of gas for exports were those 
negotiated between supplier and buyer.  Contrary to th e price of exported gas, the price of gas sold to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 33 
 
 
  domestic industrial consumers was regulated, except for gas purchased at its source; gas for new 
industrial customers; any increased quantity of gas supplied by Gazprom to its existing customers, and 
for gas from producers other than Gazprom which was unregulated.  Those producers (other than 
Gazprom) held a share of around 20 per cent in th e volume of gas transported through the pipeline 
system of Gazprom, which was the only system of pipelines for long-distance transportation of gas in 
the Russian Federation.  Unregulated prices were est imated to be generally 30 per cent higher than the 
regulated price. 
93. Additional relevant information on regulated prices of gas for in ternal consumption (including 
methodology of price-setting, principles and statisti cal data) was provided in the Section "Pricing 
Policies" of this Report.  
94. Some Members requested clarification of the current role of Alrosa in the activities of 
diamond production and export, its rights to export diamonds to the world market or sell its products 
domestically, as well as whether other companies enjoyed the same rights as Alrosa, and if so, what rights and on what basis.  Members also asked whether Alrosa and other selected companies enjoyed 
rights to import polished diamonds on favourable terms, on the condition that those diamonds 
originated from their own production of raw diam onds.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation said that Presidential D ecree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 "On the 
Endorsement of Regulation on Imports in and Expor ts from the Russian Federation of Raw Natural 
Diamonds and Cut Diamonds" (which had entered into force on 6 February 2003 and amended on 
10 March 2009) had abolished Preside ntial Decree No. 740 and thereby all exclusive rights of Alrosa.  
This Decree was the basic regulation of export and import of raw natural diamonds and cut diamonds.  
In accordance with the procedure established by said Decree:   
- Exportation of natural diamonds (both cut an d raw) with the exception of unique natural 
diamonds, diamonds recovered from multi-crystal diamond coated tools, waste from any type 
of diamonds processing, diamond concentrat e, diamond dust and diamond powders, was 
carried out by any natural diamonds mining enterprises
3 on the basis of export licenses 
without quantitative restrictions.  
- Exportation of diamonds recovered from multi-cr ystal diamond coated tools, waste from any 
type of diamonds processing, diamonds concen trate, diamonds dust and diamonds powders 
could be carried out by natural diamonds mi ning enterprises; the SUE "Almazyuvelirexport" 
Foreign Trade Association under contracts with the owners of natural diamonds; enterprises 
producing brilliants; and, enterprises producing products and articles from natural diamonds. 
No export licence was needed. 
                                                      
3 Mining enterprises were organizations engaging in the mining of natural diamonds in the territory of 
the Russian Federation under a licence for Subsoil used for the mining of natural diamonds.  Issuance of these licenses were regulated by the Russian Subsoil Law (Law of the Russian Federation No. 2395-1 of 
21 February 1992 "On the Subsoil" as amended on 27 December 2009). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 34  
 
  - Exportation of brilliants could be carried out by enterprises producing brilliants (with respect 
to their own products); organizations e ngaged in the wholesale of precious stones 
(organizations registered with the bodies of federal assay supervision which engaged, in 
accordance with the objectives stat ed in their corporate charte rs, in purchases of diamonds 
and their wholesale to other participants in  the market); the SUE "Almazyuvelirexport" 
Foreign Trade Association.  No export licence was needed. 
95. Consequently, since November 2002, neither the JSC "Almazy Rossii - Sakha"(Alrosa), nor 
any other exporter of natural diamonds and/or bril liants enjoyed any exclusive rights or privileges 
with regard to the exportation of brilliants and diamonds.  Regarding impor t of polished diamonds, 
Decree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 provided that the conditions of import were equal for all 
participants in foreign trade activity, i.e., without quantitative restrictions or requirement of a licence. 
96. Asked about the State-invested airline Aerofl ot, the representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members that while the State owned 51 pe r cent of the shares of Aeroflot, it did not enjoy 
any special or exclusive rights in the exercise of which Aeroflot might influence through its purchases 
or sales the level or direction of imports or exports. 
97. Some Members of the Working Party requested additional information on the actions of the 
Russian Federation to restructure and consolidat e its domestic aviation industry.  These Members 
noted that the Russian Federation held an 81.75 pe r cent share in the authorised capital of the United 
Aircraft-Construction Corporation.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation referred 
Members to the information set-out in paragraph [ 1196] of the Section "Trade in Civil Aircraft" of 
this Report.   
98. Members of the Working Party stated that they expected the Russian Federation to ensure that 
the practices of State-owned, State-controlled ente rprises and enterprises enjoying special or exclusive 
privileges would be brought into line with relevant WTO requirements as from the date of accession.  
These Members asked for confirmation that, upon accession, purchases and sales by such enterprises, 
whether State-owned, State-invested or enjoying an y special or exclusive privileges, would be based 
solely on commercial considerations, without an y Government influence or application of 
discriminatory measures.   
99. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation had State-
owned and State-controlled enterprises that operated in the commercial sphere.  
The Russian Federation also had enterprises with ex clusive or special privileges with regard to 
conducting commercial activity.  He further confirmed that from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, such enterprises, when engaged in commercial activity, would make 
purchases, which were not intended for governmental u se, and sales in international trade in a manner  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 35 
 
 
  consistent with applicable provisions of the WTO Ag reement.  He confirmed in particular, that such 
enterprises would make such purchases and sales in accordance with commercial considerations, 
including price, quality, availability, marketability, a nd transportation, and woul d afford enterprises of 
other WTO Members adequate opportunity in conf ormity with customary business practice, to 
compete for participation in such purchases or sales.  He also confirmed that within the scope of the 
services commitments of the Russian Federation, in cluding the limitations, set-out in its Schedule of 
Specific Commitments on Services, the rights and obligations of the Russian Federation under the 
GATS, and the regulatory measures of the Russian  Federation covered by the WTO Agreement, 
including pricing regulations, and without prejudice to such commitments, rights, obligations, and measures that are consistent with these commitmen ts, rights and obligations, the Russian Federation 
would ensure that such enterprises would act in accordance with the provisions set-out in this 
paragraph.  He also confirmed that, upon accession, the Russian Federation would notify enterprises 
falling within the scope of the Understanding on Article XVII of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments. 
- Pricing Policies 
100. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that, although prices in most sectors 
of the Russian economy were now determined freely by  market forces, in certain sectors, prices were 
regulated by the State.  Presidential Decree No . 221 of 28 February 1995 "On Measures to Streamline 
the State Regulation of Prices (Tariff)" (as last amended on 8 April 2003) an d Government Resolution 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995 "On Measures to Streamline th e State Regulation of Prices (Tariffs)" (as last  
amended on 29 October 2010) established the main prin ciples of State price (tariffs) regulation in the 
domestic market of the Russian Federation.  Price regulation was implemented by the Government of 
the Russian Federation, Federal authorities and Sub-Federal bodies of executive power for the goods 
and services listed in [Table 7], [Table 8] and [Table 9].  Normative legal acts issued by Federal 
executive bodies concerning State regulation of prices for goods and services were subject to official 
publication, and all resolutions by the Governme nt of the Russian Federation, concerning State 
regulation of prices and tariffs, including with respect to natural monopolies, were published in 
"Rossiiskaya Gazeta". 
101. Members of the Working Party sought clarifications on the mechanisms for determining 
State-controlled prices and their relation to market and international prices and whether such prices, 
when charged by State-owned  or State-controlled enterprises, we re in accordance with commercial 
considerations.  The representative of the Russian  Federation replied that the Federal Service for 
Tariffs, being the main Federal authority empowered  to exercise State pric e regulation, developed WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 36  
 
  detailed principles (methods) for price regulation in di fferent sectors, such as electric power and heat 
power, oil and gas transportation through main pipeli nes, etc.  All authorities engaged in regulating 
prices were required to use these principles (meth ods) for establishing prices.  These principles 
(methods) took into account the following elements in de termining prices:  (i) the cost effectiveness of 
the production of the sector, including the production (marketing) expenses; (ii)  taxes and other 
payments; (iii) the cost of fixed production assets; (iv) the demand for investment for reproduction 
purposes; (v) depreciation charges; (vi) estimated profits; (vii) remoteness of different consumer 
groups to the production site; and (viii) adequacy of  quality.  Compliance with decisions of the 
Federal Service for Tariffs was obligatory for all operators.  Regarding State-owned  and 
State-controlled enterprises, the representative of  the Russian Federation referred to Presidential 
Decree No. 221 requiring that prices (tariffs) regulated  by the State must be applied in the domestic 
market of the Russian Federation by all enterp rises and organizations, ensuring therefore, that 
State-owned  or State-controlled enterprises were subject to common rules in this regard. 
102. A Member requested further clarificati on of whether the Government of the 
Russian Federation was fixing the minimum price le vel of vodka, liquor produc ts and other alcohol, 
stronger than 28 per cent volume.  That Member al so asked the Russian Federation to explain how 
this practice could be in compliance with the Agre ement on the Implementation of Article VII of the 
GATT 1994.  
103. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that the minimum prices for 
vodka, liquor products and other alcohol stronger than  28 per cent volume related only to the internal 
sale at the retail level of domestically-produced a nd imported products, and had not been applied in a 
discriminatory manner between domestically-produced  and imported products.  This measure had 
been introduced in order to protect Russian  consumers from sales of low quality counterfeited 
alcoholic products at distressed prices.  He confir med that this measure had no bearing on the customs 
valuation of the imported product.  He noted that Order No. 29n of 20 April 2010 "On Establishing 
and Introducing of the Minimum Price for the Liq uor Products and other Alcohol Stronger than 
28 per cent volume (excluding Vodka) for Retail Sale since 1 June 2010" had been issued by the Federal Service of the Russian Fe deration for alcohol market regulation and was the current basis for 
regulating prices of these goods. 
104. In reply to a question from a Member of th e Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that government purch ases of agricultural products were undertaken at 
pre-announced administered prices in order to provi de market price support to domestic producers.  
These purchases were only for rye and milling wheat (i n 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005); for rye, wheat,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 37 
 
 
  corn and barley in 2008; and for wheat, rye and barley in 2009.  He confirmed that no price 
regulations were applied that could prevent imports  of any like product mentioned in this paragraph 
from being supplied at a price below that of the domestic product. 
105. In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party, th e representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the reference pri ce for raw cane sugar at the New York Commodity 
Exchange was used to calculate the rate of impor t duty and did not represent a reference price for the 
pricing of raw cane sugar in the market of the Russian Federation.  
106. Regarding price controls applied at the sub-regional level, some Members of the 
Working Party enquired about the legal basis and scope  of authority to apply price controls at this 
level, and whether these measures were actua lly reviewed by the Federal authorities. 
107. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that regional governments were 
authorised to regulate prices (tariff) for some goods and services, upon agr eement with the Federal 
Government.  Government Resolution No. 239, refe rred to above, defined whether price regulation 
fell within the jurisdiction of regional or Federal Governments.  Respective information regarding the 
jurisdiction of regional governments over price regula tion was provided in [Table 8] and [Table 9].  
In addition, according to Presidential Decree No. 22 1, the Government of the Russian Federation was 
required to coordinate the activity of the regi onal governmental bodies in State price (tariff) 
regulation. 
108. In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party, th e representative of the 
Russian Federation further clarified that Sub-Fede ral executive bodies, currently, did not have any 
powers to regulate prices, including imposing mark-up restrictions, for any agricultural product and, 
accordingly, did not maintain or apply such regulations.  
109. In response to a specific question of one Me mber of the Working Party concerning the 
"Programme for Federal Budget Compensation of 30 per cent for Mineral Fertilizer and Chemical 
Plant Protection Product Costs", the representati ve of the Russian Federation explained that, 
according to that Programme, ceiling prices were only in effect during the year 2001 and that the Ministry of Agriculture and Sub-Federal bodies a pplied mark-up restrictions on, and fixed service 
charges, relating to the sale of mineral fertilizers and chemical plant protection products supplied to 
agricultural producers under this programme.  No programmes of this kind had been adopted or 
maintained since then. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 38  
 
  110. Some Members sought additional information on the announcement of the Russian Federation 
of efforts to unify its domestic and foreign operating tariffs for railways, as well as a status report on 
developments.  Noting that the Russian Federation had indicated that discriminatory pricing for 
transportation on railway freight could be elimin ated by 1 March 2002, some Members asked the 
Russian Federation if this measure had been impl emented as planned.  These Members expected the 
Russian Federation to treat all import and export car goes, as well as cargoes in transit, on the same 
basis as domestically-produced goods, in line with th e national treatment requirements of Article III, 
as well as the requirements of Artic les V and XI of the GATT 1994 and to make a commitment to this 
effect in the Working Party Report. 
111. Some Members of the Working Party also stat ed that the Russian Federation should specify 
how and when it proposed to complete the elimination of the current discrimination vis-à-vis  export, 
import and transit cargoes.  Those Members also e xpressed concerns that differential rates continued 
to be charged for rail transportation of cargoes for export by land border crossings. 
112. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that his authorities were 
prepared to introduce the same pricing scheme on ta riffs for import cargoes as for domestic products.  
He added that, in August 2001, the first stage of unification for railway freight tariffs had been 
implemented with the transition to payment for import and export cargoes shipped through 
Russian ports, based on tariffs in Price List No. 10-01 by the Federal Energy Commission.  
These measures eliminated the existing differentiati on in pricing for import cargoes shipped through 
Russian ports and domestically transported cargoes.   Competent Federal authorities were preparing 
the second stage of this tariff unification, which woul d extend tariffs in Price List No. 10-01 to import 
cargoes shipped through border land checkpoints of the Ru ssian Federation.  He also stated that, in his 
view, there was no inconsistency between Article XI of the GATT 1994 and the existing system of 
higher tariffs for railway tran sportation of exported goods.  
113. As far as railway tariffs for cargoes in transit were concerned, he was of the view that the 
issue of transit was adequately dealt with in Article V of the GATT 1994. 
114. He further added that one of the goals of struct ural reform of the railway sector was a gradual 
transition to market-based pricing in competitive sectors, economic sectors where several juridical 
persons competed under equal conditions.  R esponding to questions from Members of the 
Working Party regarding the next stage of tariff unification, the representative of the 
Russian Federation said that, currently, the levellin g of tariffs was being implemented through the 
gradual increase of tariffs fixed in Price List No. 10-01,  up to the value of tariffs for transportation of 
import cargoes shipped through border land checkpoints  of the Russian Federation.  Two steps of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 39 
 
 
  such increase had been undertaken in 2005, by 5.4 and 12.8 per cent.  The increase had been 
27.9 per cent in 2006; 12.8 per cent in 2007; and, 10.9 per cent in 2008.  By the end of 2009, around 
87 per cent (by volume) of railway traffic (other than  traffic in transit) for all types of cargoes was 
subject to equalized tariffs.  In 2010, the equalizatio n of tariffs continued with respect to goods, such 
as ferrous metals and ores, chemical  industry products, grain, and fertilizers.  In response to a question 
from a Member, the representative of the Russian Fede ration clarified that the Orders of the Federal 
Service for Tariffs No. 338-T/3 and No. 386-T/ 1 of 7 December 2010 "On Amending Price List 
No. 10-01 Tariffs on Cargo Transportation and In frastructure Services Prov ided by the Russian 
Railways" provided for further equalization of railwa y tariffs, including tariffs for transportation of 
chemicals, metals, and energy products. 
115. Having considered the discussion in the Working Pa rty, in particular as to the applicability of 
Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994, the representa tive of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
products imported into, and products destined for ex portation or sold for export from the territory of 
the Russian Federation would, no later than 1 July 2013, be accorded treatment no less favourable 
with regard to the application of all rail transpor tation charges (including basic charges, surcharges 
and rebates) than like, directly competing or s ubstitutable products tran sported between domestic 
locations, and no less favourable treatment dependi ng on whether the imported or exported products 
enter or exit the territory of the Russian Federati on by land or through a port or depending on their 
origin or destination.  The representative of the Russian Federation further confirmed that, over the 
period between the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO and 1 July 2013, the 
Russian Federation would gradually reduce the ex isting differences between, on the one hand, rail 
transportation charges applicable to products impor ted into, and products destined for exportation or 
sold for export from, the territory of the Russian Fe deration and, on the other hand, rail transportation 
charges applicable to like, directly competing or substitutable products tr ansported between domestic 
locations, as well as the existing differences in ra il transportation charges for imported and exported 
products depending on whether they enter or exit the territory of the Russian Federation by land or 
through a port or depending on th eir origin or destination.  These commitments would not prevent the 
application of differential internal transporta tion charges, which are based exclusively on the 
economic operation of the means of transport a nd not on the national origin of the product.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
116. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that railway transportation charges on 
traffic in transit would be in conformity with th e provisions of Article V of the GATT 1994 and other 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.  Th e Working Party took note of this commitment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 40  
 
  117. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that regulated railway tariffs for 
transit of goods and changes to them would be publ ished before their entry in to force.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment. 
118. In response to questions from some Members c oncerning electricity prices, the representative 
of the Russian Federation noted that such prices  were regulated in a similar way as gas prices, 
pursuant  to Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 14 April 1995 "On State Regulation of Tariffs on Electric and 
Thermal Power in the Russian Federation" (as  last amended  on 27 July 2010), prices for electrical 
energy provided by regional electrical power-plant s to the regional market were fixed both for 
industrial consumers and households.  He added that the setting of prices of electricity supplied to 
industrial consumers was being re formed (although, like for gas, electricity prices charged to 
individual households would remain fixed for reasons  of social protection).  The concept of the 
reform aimed at de-monopolization and development of competition in the energy sector had been 
approved by Government Regulation No. 526 of 11 July 2001 "On Reforming the Electricity Sector in 
the Russian Federation" (as amended on 1 February 2005). 
119. As a result of the reform, it was planned to create in the Russian Federation a competitive 
electricity energy market through two groups of measures.  The first one was aimed at unbundling 
transportation, dispatching management compan ies and those engaged in generation, sale and 
technical maintenance.  The part of the latter co mpanies were subject to privatization programmes, 
while another part, such as companies engaged in transportation and dispatching management 
activities, remained under governmental control (both in terms of ownership and in terms of price 
control).  The second type of measures was perfo rmed with the view to decrease governmental 
involvement in price control, in respect of those ar eas of the electricity energy sector where relevant 
market regulations were applied.  This goal had been reached with the launch, in 2003, of the 
deregulated electricity market.  The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that 
the amount  of electricity sold on the  deregulated market, by  the end of 2010,  had increased to  around  
80 per cent of electricity  sold 
on the market of the Russian Federation.  Conditions of sale of 
electricity at regulated prices were provided for in Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 109 of 26 February 2004 "O n Establishment of the Price in Respect of 
Electrical and Heat Energy" and Order of the Fe deral Service for Tariffs (FST) No. 199-e/6 of 
15 September 2006 "On Approval of the Methodological  Procedures for Calculation of the Tariffs for 
Electrical Energy and Power Under Sales Contracts at Regulated Tariffs (Prices) on Wholesale Market".  Energy companies and industrial cons umers, which could include steel and fertilizer 
producers, bought such electricity sold at unregulated price.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 41 
 
 
  120. Some Members of the Working Party asked whether gas liquids and condensate, e.g. those 
used for petrochemical fe ed stocks, were also included in th e list of items under price control.  
These Members expressed strong concerns about the trade distortions caused by State controls on the 
pricing of energy for domestic consum ption (whether in the form of gas, oil or electricity).  The effect 
of these controls was to depress prices for domestic i ndustrial users, which could lead to a very wide 
differential between the price paid by domestic industrial users and the price paid by export 
customers, as well as the world market price.  Ot her Members noted that the price for natural gas was 
below the full cost of production, including a reasona ble profit, and was therefore inconsistent with 
commercial considerations.  Referring to natural g as, these Members considered  that the fact that 
industrial producers of the Russian Federation did not have to pay the full market price for their 
energy inputs, including gas, especially, in energy-i ntensive industries and in industries that used gas 
as an input (rather than an energy source) constitute d an unfair competitive advantage.  This situation 
had implications for the ability of imported goods to compete on the market  of the Russian Federation 
and could lead to a displacement of Member pr oducts from third country markets.  In addition, 
exports of "downstream" intermediate or finished  goods of the Russian Federation, particularly, of 
products that were energy-intensive, such as fer tilizers or metals, could take place at prices below 
their normal value or at subsidized prices, lead ing to the possibility of facing anti-dumping or 
countervailing actions in export markets. 
121. The same Members recognised that this was an  area where the Russian Federation had begun 
a process of regulatory reform, which could not be  achieved overnight.  They understood that the 
Russian Federation could wish to maintain cont rols on the price of energy sold for domestic 
household consumption.  Those Members also stressed that increases in the price of natural gas could 
lead to a return of the non-payment problem.  Members considered that the opportunity of 
WTO accession should be taken to tackle the nega tive impact of dual pricing in favour of 
manufacturing industry, at its source.  They consider ed that the regulatory reform in the energy sector 
would also benefit the wider economy of the Russi an Federation by allowing for a more rational 
resource allocation and stimulating greater investment and competitiveness. 
122. Members of the Working Party noted that di scussions in the Working Party had served to 
clarify the pricing of gas.  However, these Member s remained concerned that the regulated price for 
gas used by industrial consumers was not fixed at  a level that permitted a gas supplier a full and 
proper recovery of all costs and an amount for profit.  According to certain studies of the costs required for production and sustainability of the produc tion of natural gas, domestic regulated prices 
did not cover the full long-run marginal cost of prod ucing natural gas of Gazprom.  They requested a WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 42  
 
  confirmation from the Russian Federation that gas suppliers would act on the basis of commercial 
considerations, based on full recovery of costs and a reasonable profit.  
123. In response to the questions from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that underground resources within the territo ry of the Russian Federation, including subsoil 
domain and mineral resources contained therein, ener gy and other resources, were the property of the 
State.  The Russian Federation exercised its sovereign rights over the resources.  He added that the 
current practice of regulation of energy and natu ral gas prices in the Russian Federation was not 
different from similar practices of many WTO Memb ers, who continued to regulate energy prices.  
Similar to the practice of other countries, en ergy and natural gas price regulation in the 
Russian Federation was aimed at prevention of  abuse of monopoly position and protection of 
consumers' interests from monopoly price increases.  In response to a question from a Member  
concerning the amount of gas sold on the deregulated market by the end of 2010, the representative of 
the Russian Federation explained that such data was not available. 
124. Responding to concerns expressed by some  Members, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, in his view, th e existing pricing system did not create an unfair 
competitive advantage, nor a countervailable "speci fic subsidy" in terms of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, as this mechan ism did not grant any benefit to any enterprise 
or group of enterprises, or industry or groups thereof or specific sectors since it was equally applied to 
all sectors.  This principle was unambiguously provided for by the legislation of the  
Russian Federation.  In particular, operators enga ged in providing services under conditions of natural 
monopolies were obliged, in accordance with Artic le 8 of Federal Law No . 147-FZ of 17 August 1995 
"On Natural Monopolies" (as last amended on 25 December 2008), to provide services subject to 
price regulation in accordance with that Law, on non-discriminatory conditions according to the requirements of anti-monopoly legislation.  Lega l acts establishing the methodology of energy and 
natural gas price-setting, namely, Resolution  of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1021 
of 29 December 2000 "On the State Regulation of G as Prices and Gas Transportation Services Tariffs 
on the Territory of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on  23 July 2009) (natural gas) and Order 
of the FST No. 20-e/2 of 6 August 2004 (as last amended on 31 December 2009), (electric energy), 
were applied equally throughout the whole territory  of the Russian Federation (including remote 
locations).  These Acts did not provide for any in dustry-specific exceptions, exemptions, discounts or 
preferences.  The representative of the Russian Federation also noted that the methodology for the 
calculation of gas prices was officially published a nd transparent.  Responding to a specific statement 
of one Member about the possibility to export " downstream" intermediate or finished goods at 
subsidized prices, the representative of the Russian Fe deration raised his objection.  In his view, such  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 43 
 
 
  kind of statement by a Member was misleading since it suggested that the Russian Federation applied 
export subsidies, which was not the case in  respect to any industrial products.  
125. In response to a question from a Member re garding the Order of the Federal Energy 
Commission No. 12/1 of 24 March 1999 "On Granting a 50 per cent Reduction of Prices of Gas to Enterprises which Produce Chemical Fertilizers, Chem ical Protection for Plants and Raw Materials 
for Production thereof, in 1999", the representative of the Russian Federation clarified that it had only 
been in effect during the year 1999 and that there were no other legal provisions that provided for 
similar price reductions for any other industries.  He further added that Gazprom had an ownership 
interest in certain Russian fertilizer  companies.  The regulated price paid by the fertilizer companies, 
in which Gazprom had an ownership interest, was the same as the price paid by other industrial 
consumers which purchased similar quantities of gas in like circumstances. 
126. Elaborating on the issue of internal price of natural gas, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the basic principle of price-setting was to ensure economically viable 
production and recovery of costs, including, inter alia , the cost of production, overheads, financing 
charges, transportation, maintenance and upgrad e of extraction and distribution infrastructure, 
investment in the exploration and development of new fields done or planne d, and reasonable profits. 
127. In relation to concerns from Members about the disparity between the price of gas sold to 
industrial consumers in the Russian Federation and the world price of gas, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that gas export prices we re not regulated and were established on the basis 
of supply and demand in the importing country.  He was of the view that there was no 
"world market price" for gas, and noted that fo r gas shipped to Europe, costs of shipment and 
transport reflected a substantial part of the landed price.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
reiterated that the price of gas for internal consumption by industrial consumers in the 
Russian Federation was fixed at an  average level of US$80 per thousand cubic meters (in 2010) that 
secured recovery of estimated costs (around US$ 64 per thousand cubic mete rs in 2010) and an 
amount for profit. 
128. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that his Government was guided by 
the Energy Strategy of the Russian Federation for the period up to the year 2030, which provided for 
an increase in natural gas prices.  He noted that dur ing the last nine years, the gas price had increased 
from US$19.3 (in 2001) up to US$80 (in 2010).  The final price for gas could differ depending on the region, since the transportation arm had an impact on the final price levels. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 44  
 
  129. Some Members noted that the Government of the Russian Federation had issued Resolution 
No. 333 of 28 May 2007 "On Improving State Regulation of Gas Prices".  These Members requested 
additional information on the Resolution and the intentions of the Russian Government for 
implementing this Resolution.   
130. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that his Government 
intended to modify State regulation of gas pri ces and develop market pricing principles for the 
domestic gas market, with the objective of benefiti ng the economy of the Russian Federation.  In the 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Fede ration No. 333 of 28 May 2007, the Government of 
the Russian Federation directed the Federal executive body, responsible for State regulation of prices, 
to develop a formula which ensured equal return on  gas supplies to the international and domestic 
markets.  This formula was used to  inform participants in the gas market of the price that would have 
been applied to gas produced by Gazprom and its a ffiliates, if the formula had been in effect.  
The relevant government bodies would submit proposal s as to the advisability of implementing State 
regulation of gas transportation tariffs instead of State regulation of wholesale gas prices and 
application of the formula to determine wholesal e prices for the gas produced by Gazprom and its 
affiliates under contracts to all consumers (other th an the population, i.e., individual households). 
131. Members welcomed the steps taken by the Russian Federation towards modifying the 
regulation of gas prices in the Russian Federation.  Su ch action, in their view, would be beneficial to 
Gazprom and ensure a stable supply of gas to  the domestic and international markets.  
They encouraged the Russian Federation to move forward in accordance with the Resolution of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 333 of 28 May 2007 to improve the State regulation of gas 
prices as soon as possible. 
132. In response to the concerns expressed, the represen tative of the Russian Federation stated that 
upon accession, producers/distributors of natural gas in  the Russian Federation would operate, within 
the relevant regulatory framework, on the basi s of normal commercial considerations, based on 
recovery of costs and profit.  He confirmed that  the policy of his Government was to ensure, upon 
accession, that these economic operators, in respect of their supplies to industrial users, would recover 
their costs (including the cost of production, overheads, financing charges, transportation, 
maintenance and upgrade of extraction and distributi on infrastructure, investment in the exploration 
and development of new fields) and would be able to  make a profit, in the ordinary course of their 
business.  He added that his Government would cont inue to regulate price supplies to households and 
other non-commercial users, based on considerations of domestic social policy.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 45 
 
 
  133. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply pri ce controls on products and services contained in [Table 7],  
[Table 8] and [Table 9] and any similar measures that would be introduced or re-introduced in the 
future, in a manner consistent with the WTO Agreem ent.  He further confirmed that price control 
measures on goods would take account of the inte rests of exporting Members, as provided for in 
Article III:9 of the GATT 1994.  Price control meas ures would not be used for purposes of affording 
protection to domestic production of goods, or to  impair the service commitments of the 
Russian Federation.  The representative of the Russ ian Federation also confirmed that the lists of 
goods and services subject to State price controls in [Table 7], [Table 8] and [Table 9] were comprehensive, and that, from the date of acces sion, the Russian Federation would publish in the 
Rossiiyskaya Gazeta notice of any ch anges in the coverage of goods or services that were subject to 
price controls.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Competition Policy  
134. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that his authorities attached great 
importance to competition policy, and had closely followed the activities of the WTO Working Group 
on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Poli cy.  The basic goal of competition policy in the 
Russian Federation was to create a favourable c limate for enterprises, and the facilitation of 
competition and efficient functioning of the mark ets by preventing, restraining and eliminating 
monopolistic and anti-competitive pr actices among economic operators.  
135. Legislative framework for realization of competition policy and prevention of 
anti-competitive practices was set-out in the Federa l Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On Protection 
of Competition" (as last amended on 5 April 2010), the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the 
Code on Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which established civil, admini strative and criminal liability for infringement of 
the anti-monopoly legislation.  
136. In response to requests from Members of the Working Party for further information, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  any anti-competitive market structure and unfair 
business practices, including infringement of intellect ual property rights, that impeded competition, 
were subject to this anti-monopoly legislation.  In  his view, Russian legislation already in force 
contained all necessary elements for State supervis ion and control over arrange ments and practices of 
economic operators that adversely affected compe tition, abuse of dominant position on the market by 
economic operators and led to econo mic concentration.  In response to the request of some Members 
of the Working Party, he provided information on the relationship between anti-competitive behaviour WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 46  
 
  and infringement of intellectual property rights in  the Section "Trade-Related Intellectual Property 
Regime" (see paragra phs [1260] and [1288]). 
137. He further added that the Federal Anti-M onopoly Service (FAS) was the Federal body 
authorised to carry out the State policy on fac ilitating development of commodity markets and 
competition, control over execution of antitrust legislation, as well as prevention and suppression of monopolistic activity, undue competition and other activities restricting competition.  The main 
functions of the FAS were to in troduce legislative initiatives in the field of anti-monopoly activity and 
to investigate and ensure compliance with legisla tion in the sphere of competition in the commodity 
markets, defence of competition in the financial services market, activities of subjects of natural 
monopolies, and advertising.  The FAS also re viewed anti-monopoly aspects of establishment and 
mergers, share transactions and acquisitions.  According to the provisions of anti-monopoly 
legislation and, in order to perform the above -mentioned functions, the FAS could initiate and 
conduct administrative cases, take decisions and i ssue prescriptions to participants of business 
activities that were obligatory for such participants .  The action by the FAS could be triggered upon 
initiative of the FAS or by requests of State bodies or  legal and natural persons .  He noted that, under 
Article 71(g) of the Constitution of the Russian  Federation, regional authorities did not have 
jurisdiction over competition policy.  
138. He further noted that the Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On Protection of 
Competition" concerned the barring of monopoly activity and unfair competition, as well as 
anti-competitive behaviour, by Federal Executive bodies and governmental bodies of the subjects of 
the Russian Federation.  Violation of the anti-m onopoly legislation by officials of the Federal 
Executive bodies, the Executive bodies of the subjects  of the Russian Federation, local governments, 
and other bodies and organizations, vested with functions of the above-mentioned bodies under the 
legislation, as well as by natural persons, including in dividual entrepreneurs, could lead to civil, 
administrative or criminal liability. 
139. In response to questions from Members of th e Working Party, he added that Federal Law 
No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 covered also the relatio ns connected with protection of competition and 
prevention of monopolistic activity and unfair compe tition, and in which fore ign legal persons were 
participating.  In this respect, this Law provided for the similar application of the regulations to 
Russian and foreign legal persons. 
140. In order to eliminate unfair competition, the FAS provided extensive protection of rights to all 
participants of commodity markets.  Most case s of unfair competition uncovered by FAS of the 
Russian Federation and its regional divisions relate d to infringement of intellectual property rights  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 47 
 
 
  and, in particular, to the illegal use of trademar ks.  Detailed information on the implementation of 
anti-monopoly legislation and administrative and judi cial cases was available on the official website 
of the anti-monopoly body:  www.fas.gov.ru. 
141. He added that online information about decisions  of the Government in any field, including 
competition, could be found on the official websit e of the Government of the Russian Federation 
(www.government.ru).  Information on decisions of the FAS was available on the FAS website 
(www.fas.gov.ru).  Decisions of the Government a nd FAS, which were issued as normative legal acts, 
applicable throughout the Russian Federation, were  published in official periodicals (see the Section 
"Transparency" of this Report). 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
- Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government 142. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, in accordance with its Constitution, 
State power in the Russian Federation was exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Federal Assembly (the Council of the Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the 
Russian Federation, and the Courts of the Russi an Federation.  The competence of each body of 
power was defined in Chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, 
respectively.  In response to further questions fro m Members of the Working Party, he noted that 
judicial, legislative, and executive power was exercised independently. 
143. A system of federal executive bodies had been established by Presidential Decree No. 314 of 
9 March 2004 "On the System and Structure of th e Federal Executive Bodies" (as last amended on 
12 May 2008) in pursuance of ongoing administra tive reform.  The System introduced Federal 
ministries, Federal services, and Federal agencies as  Federal executive bodies with different spheres 
of competence.  Federal ministries were respons ible for determining State policy, preparing 
legislation in related fields, and coordinating and c ontrolling the activity of Federal services and 
Federal agencies under their authority.  Federal ser vices exercised control and supervision in related 
fields of activity, performed special functions rela ted to national defence, St ate security, defence of 
the State borders of the Russian Federation, fight ag ainst crime, and, public safety.  Federal agencies 
rendered State services managing State-owned propert y, as well as law-enforcement, except functions 
related to control and supervision. 
144. The judicial system of the Russian Federati on was regulated by Federal Constitutional Laws 
No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 "On Judi cial System of the Russian Fe deration" (as last amended on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 48  
 
  27 December 2009), No. 1-FKZ of 21 July 1994 "O n Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" 
(as last amended on 28  December  2010), and No. 1-FKZ of 28 April 1995 "On Courts of Arbitration 
in the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 30  April  2010).  Judicial power was exclusively 
exercised by courts, manned by judges, juries, an d arbitrators duly appointed under constitutional, 
civil, administrative and criminal court procedur es.  In accordance with the Federal Constitutional 
Law "On Judicial System of the Russian Federation", the domestic court system in the 
Russian Federation consisted of the Constitutional Cour t of the Russian Federati on, Federal Courts of 
General Jurisdiction, Federal Arbitration Courts  and relevant courts in the subjects of the 
Russian Federation.  Judgments, rulings, orders, su mmons and other lawful communications issued by 
the courts were binding upon persons, entities or governmental authorities throughout the whole 
territory of the Russian Federation.  Justice was equa l for all.  Courts were not to favour any agency, 
person or other complainant based on nationality, sex, race, language, political convictions or any 
other grounds unless otherwise established by Federal law.  Failure to comply with a Russian court 
judgment, or any other act of contempt of a Russian court, was a breach of Federal law.  The rules of civil procedure in Federal courts of general jurisd iction were set-out in the Civil Procedure Code of 
the Russian Federation No. 138-FZ of 14 Novemb er 2002 (as last amended on 6 April 2011).  
Procedures for the settlement of disputes by arbitr ation courts were set-out in the Arbitration 
Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 (as last amended on 
6 April 2011).  The representative of the Russian Federation further noted that the State fees for 
claims or other statements or complaints submitte d to the courts of general jurisdiction or to 
arbitration courts were establis hed in Chapter 25.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation 
(Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000, as last amended on  7 March 2011).  He also added that, 
in accordance with Law of the Russian Federati on No. 2202-1 of 17 January  1992 "On the Public 
Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" (as la st amended on 7 February 2011), the Office of the 
Public Prosecutor was a single Federal system of authorities responsible for ensuring overall 
observance of the Constitution of the Russian Fede ration and all legal acts  by federal and regional 
governments.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that the general authority of the 
High Courts (the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the High Arbitration Court of the 
Russian Federation) to give guidance to the Courts  of the Russian Federation on applying domestic 
laws was stipulated in the Constitution of the Ru ssian Federation (Articles 126-127).  High Courts had 
the authority to issue guiding resolutions on the interpretation and application of the legislation, and that such resolutions had binding fo rce in respect to all lower cour ts of their respective judicial 
branch.  He further noted that such resolutions  could be adopted only by  plenary sessions of the 
Supreme Court or the High Arbitration Court, or by a joint plenary session of those high courts, in 
contrast to individual judgments pronounced by judi cial benches (collegiums) of those High Courts.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 49 
 
 
  Responding to questions from Member s, he explained that the binding force of the Plenum resolutions 
of the High Arbitration Court was provided for in  Article 13(2) of the Federal Constitutional Law 
No. 1-FKZ of 12 April 1995 "On Arbitration Courts", whereas the similar status of the Supreme Court 
plenary resolutions was established by the C onstitutional Law No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 
"On Judicial System of the Russian Federation" ( as last amended on 27 Decemb er 2009) (Article 19).  
He further explained that the plenary resolutions no rmally either interpreted an important legislative 
act or provided guidelines for the decisions of the cour ts in a specific field of law.  He noted that 
judges were to apply interpretations of the plenar y resolutions in all cases involving the subject matter 
of such resolutions. 
145. The President of the Russian Federation was the Head of State.  He determined the guidelines 
of domestic and foreign policies of the State.  Pendi ng resolution of a matter by the appropriate court, 
the President had the right to suspend the operation of acts of the bodies of executive power of the 
"subjects"4 of the Russian Federation, if the President believed they were not in compliance with the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation, Federal laws, and international commitments of the 
Russian Federation.  In response to a ques tion from a Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that this authority related only to the bodies of executive power of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation and not to bodi es of executive power of the Federal Government. 
146. Executive power in the Russian Federation wa s exercised by the Government of the 
Russian Federation.  The Government ensured the implementation, in the Russian Federation, of a 
single trade, financial, credit and monetary polic y, including the implementation of foreign policy, 
and the implementation of measures required to ensure the rule of law. 
147. The Federal Assembly (the Parliament of the Russian Federation) constituted the legislative 
authority in the Russian Federation.  It consisted of two chambers - the C ouncil of the Federation and 
the State Duma.  The Council of the Federation in cluded two representatives from each subject of the 
Russian Federation:  one from the legislativ e and one from executive body of State power.  
The composition of the Council of the Federation wa s also determined by Federal Law No. 113-FZ of 
5 August 2000 "On the Order of Formation of the Council of the Federation of Federal Assembly of 
the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 15  November 2010).  The State Duma consisted of 
450 deputies elected for a term of four years.  Th e composition of the State Duma was determined by 
Federal Law No. 51-FZ of 18 May 2005 "On Election of Deputies to the State Duma of Federal 
                                                      
4 Proceeding from Article 5(1) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the term "subjects" of the 
Russian Federation includes republics, regions, oblast, and cities of federal importance, autonomous regions and 
autonomous areas.  Article 65 of the Constitution contained the exhaustive list of "subjects" of the 
Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 50  
 
  Assembly of the Russian Federation" (as last amen ded on 23 February 2011).  Both chambers were 
involved, inter alia , in the adoption of the Federal laws on Federal budget, Federal taxes and duties, 
financial, currency, credit, customs regulation a nd monetary issues, and ra tification and denunciation 
of international treaties and agreem ents of the Russian Federation. 
148. The right of legislative initiative with regard to domestic legislation was vested with the 
President of the Russian Federation, the Members of the Council of the Federation, the Deputies of 
the State Duma, the Government of the Russian Fe deration, and the legislative bodies of the subjects 
of the Russian Federation.  The right of legisla tive initiative was also vested, in matters under their 
competence, with the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the 
Russian Federation, and the High Arbitration  Court of the Russian Federation.  
149. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her added that the domestic legal system of 
the Russian Federation comprised Federal legal acts and legal acts of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation.  The Federal legal system of the Russian Federation consisted of the following 
hierarchy of normative provisions:  (i) the Constituti on; (ii) Federal constitutio nal laws; (iii) Federal 
laws; (iv) decrees and resolutions of the President  of the Russian Federation and resolutions and 
orders of the Government of the Russian Federa tion; and (v) acts of Federal executive authorities.
5  
Normative legal acts of Federal executive authorities (i .e., acts whose binding effect extended to all of 
the territory of the Russian Federation) included r esolutions, orders, rules, instructions, regulations 
and decisions.  Recommendations, letters, telegrams,  and teletype messages sent by authorities were 
not normative legal acts (Order No. 88 of the Minist ry of Justice of 4 May 2007).  Such acts had a 
recommendatory character only and were intended for use within the relevant executive body.  
The legal system of the subjects of the Russian Fe deration consisted of their respective constitutions 
(in the case of Republics), or charters (in the case of  other subjects of the Russian Federation); laws 
and other legal acts.  The Constitution of the Russian Federation had overriding power and was 
applicable throughout the entire territory of the Russ ian Federation.  All Fede ral legal acts  and legal 
acts of the subjects of the Russian Federation were re quired to be in conformity with the Constitution.  
Federal constitutional laws regulated matters dire ctly provided for under the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation.  Federal laws, inter alia,  regulated areas of joint competence of the 
Russian Federation and its subjects. 
                                                      
5 As discussed in detail in paragraph [157], CU Commission Decisions, including those promulgating 
CU regulations and other CU measures had the status in the domestic law of the Russian Federation corresponding to the form of Federal normative legal act that the competent authority of the Russian Federation 
was authorised to issue before the CU Parties transferre d competency to regulate the matter to CU Bodies.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 51 
 
 
  150. He further noted that Presidential decrees and resolutions did not prevent the Federal 
Assembly from enacting a law covering the same subj ect matter.  If a conflict existed between a law 
and any other normative legal act, including a Presidentia l decree or resolution, the law would prevail.  
Government resolutions and orders (subsidiary legislation) were issu ed pursuant to and in furtherance 
of the Constitution, Fede ral constitutional laws, Federal laws a nd Presidential decrees and resolutions.  
The requirement for such resolutions and orders we re, as a general rule, provided for in the relevant 
enabling law, decree or resolution.  Those legi slative acts were also binding throughout the entire 
territory of the Russian Federation and might be appealed in court.  Acts of Federal Executive 
Authorities were issued on the basis of and in furt herance of federal laws, presidential decrees and 
resolutions, and Government resoluti ons and orders.  Those acts needed to be in compliance with the 
relevant enabling provisions.  They ha d an auxiliary and detailing function. 
151. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in accordance with 
Article 15.4 of the Constitution of the Russian  Federation, international treaties of the 
Russian Federation formed an integral part of the le gal system of the Russian Federation.  He stated 
that international treaties contracted by the Russi an Federation were conc luded on behalf of the 
Russian Federation (interstate treaties), on behalf  of the Government of the Russian Federation 
(inter-governmental treaties), or on behalf of the federal bodies of executive power (treaties of 
inter-ministerial nature), in accordance with Articles 12 and 13 of Fe deral Law No. 101-FZ of 
15 July 1995 "On International Treaties of the Russian  Federation".  Once a treaty entered into force, 
through ratification or otherwise, it was binding a nd enforceable throughout the entire territory of the 
Russian Federation.  While an international tr eaty did not prevail over the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation or Federal cons titutional laws, in accordance with Ar ticle 15 of the Constitution, 
in the event of a conflict, international treaties pr evailed over domestic Federa l laws adopted prior to 
or after entry into force of the treaty.  He expl ained that once the Russian Federation ratified its 
Protocol of Accession, which included the WTO Agreement and other commitments undertaken by 
the Russian Federation as part of the terms of accessi on to the WTO, it became an integral part of the 
legal system of the Russian Federation.  The ju dicial authorities of the Russian Federation would 
interpret and apply its provisions.  Thus, international treaties of the Russian Federation, in respect of 
which consent of the Russian Federation to be bound by  such treaty had been expressed in the form of 
a Federal law (as would be the case with the Prot ocol of Accession of the Russian Federation), had 
priority in application over both prior and sub sequent Federal laws, as well as all subordinate 
regulatory acts (Decrees and Regulations of the President, Resolutions and Regulations of the 
Government, acts of Federal Executive bodies).  If th e court of highest resort determined that a 
domestic provision, other than the Constitution or a Federal constitutional law,  was inconsistent with 
an international treaty of the Russian Federation,  such provision was deemed not applicable and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 52  
 
  enforceable.  No further action to nullify the provisi on was required, and the body responsible for the 
issuance of such provision would have an obligatio n to launch procedures to bring it into conformity 
with that international treaty. 
152. According to Article 30 of Federal Law No . 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 "On International 
Treaties of the Russian Federation" (as last ame nded on 1 December 2007), such  treaties were subject 
to publication:  interstate or inter-govern mental treaties were published in "Sobraniye 
Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii" and treaties of inter-ministerial nature were published in the 
official editions of the respective government bodies. 
153. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, in accordance with Government 
Resolutions No. 437 of 5 June 2008 (as last ame nded on 6 April 2011) and No. 438 of 5 June 2008 
(as last amended on 24 March 2011), the Ministry  of Economic Development (the MED) of the 
Russian Federation and the Ministry of Industry and Trade (the MIT) of the Russian Federation were 
the Federal executive bodies responsible for State regulation of foreign trade. 
- Framework of the Customs Union among the Russian Federation, the Republic of 
Kazakhstan and the Republic of Belarus 
- (a) Legal Framework Establishing the Customs Union 
154. The representative of the Russian Federati on informed Members that, in 2007, the 
Russian Federation, the Republic of Belarus (Belar us), and the Republic of Kazakhstan (Kazakhstan) 
had concluded the Treaty on the Establishment of the Common Customs Territory and the Formation 
of the Customs Union of 6 October 2007 (hereinafter:  Treaty on the Formation of the CU).  With the 
objective of forming a Customs Union, the Russi an Federation, Belaru s, and Kazakhstan had 
concluded a number of international treaties and, pursuant to the Protocol on Rules on Entry into 
Force of International Treaties aimed at the Form ation of the Legal Basis of the Customs Union, 
Withdrawal from them, and Accession to them of 6 October 2007 (hereinafter:  Protocol of 
6 October 2007), the EurAsEC Interstate Council (the Supreme Body of the Customs Union) 
determined the list of international agreements constituting the legal basis of the Customs Union 
within the EurAsEC.  This list of international ag reements was set-out in Interstate Council Decision 
No. 14 of 27 November 2009, and these agreements  and others subsequently agreed by the 
Russian Federation, Belarus, and Kazakhstan through the end of 2009, constituted the legal basis for a 
Customs Union, and formed a single undertaking, i.e., withdrawal from any of these agreements automatically resulted in withdrawal from all of  these agreements.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that these Agreements laid out a framework for progressively increasing  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 53 
 
 
  economic cooperation among entities of the CU Parti es, starting with plans for the unification of 
foreign trade, customs policies, and trade remedi es; and initiating cooperati on between the financial 
and banking systems; cooperation in social and hum anitarian areas; and cooperation in the field of 
legal regulation.  Additional agre ements could be added to the sing le undertaking upon decision of the 
Interstate Council (see [Table 10] for the current lis t of agreements constituting a single undertaking).  
On 27 November 2009, the EurAsEC Interstate Co uncil approved the Common External Tariff (CET) 
of the Custom Union, as well as the Treaty on the Customs Union Customs Code.  
On 1 January 2010, a Customs Union (CU) between the Russian Federation, Belarus, and Kazakhstan 
became operational.  The CET and a number of basic agreements and protocols on tariff and 
non-tariff regulation also came into force on 1 Janua ry 2010.  The CU Customs Code entered into 
force in the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan on 1 July 2010 and for Belarus on 6 July 2010.  
He noted that the CU Parties were still engaged in concluding new treaties and agreements within the 
framework of the CU (hereinafter:  CU Treaties or CU Agreements) and were implementing them through an ongoing process of regional integration. 
155. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the Treaty on the Formation of 
the CU required CU Parties to establish unified regul ation of foreign trade activities in line with their 
obligations arising from CU Treaties and through ha rmonization of standards and rules envisaged by 
bilateral agreements on the unified regulation of fo reign trade activities.  The Treaty on the Formation 
of a Customs Union also specified that the CU Part ies' unified regulation of foreign trade activity and 
coordinated decision making on the simultaneous in troduction of changes or amendments to such 
regulation would include the following areas: 
- tariffs on foreign trade; 
- non-tariff measures for trade with third countries; - unified customs regulation and customs procedures; and - establishment of a unified regime for trade with third countries. 
 This Treaty and other international agreements  forming the legal basis for the CU established 
the principles and timing for achieving the objective of unified regulation of foreign trade activities. 
156. Members requested that the Russian Federation provide more information on the hierarchy of 
legislative acts in the Russian Federation, in  particular taking into  account CU Agreements, 
CU Commission Decisions, and other CU legal acts.  
157. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Agreements, once they 
entered into force, were international treaties of th e Russian Federation, and, with the exception of the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation and Federal c onstitutional laws, would prevail, in the event of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 54  
 
  a conflict, over the provisions of Federal laws and other normative legal acts in the 
Russian Federation.  With regard to CU Commission Decisions, he explained that the status of such 
Decisions in the legal system of the Russian Federation corresponded to that which the Decision 
would have had, if it had been adopted by the Fe deral Executive Body responsible for regulating the 
subject matter at the moment when the CU Commi ssion was delegated the relevant authority.  
Thus, the place of a CU Decision in the domestic legal hierarchy of the Russian Federation could 
differ, depending on the Federal body previously compet ent to take the relevant decision.  He further 
explained that CU regulations, rules and other measures were adopted pursuant to a CU Commission Decision and, thus, the same method for determining the status of the measure in the domestic legal 
hierarchy of the Russian Federation applied.  Finally , he explained that the authority of the President, 
described in paragraph [145], also applied to acts of  the subjects of the Russian Federation that were 
not in compliance with CU Agreements, CU Co mmission Decisions, and other CU legal acts. 
- (b) Customs Union Structure and Competency in the Area of Trade 
158. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that the following bodies were 
responsible for the implementation of the CU Ag reements and further development of the CU: 
- the Interstate Council of EurAsEC, which had tw o boards:  the Board of Heads of States and 
the Board of Heads of Governments.  Sessions of the Board of Heads of States were to be 
held not less than once a year; sessions of the Board of Heads of Governments were to be 
held not less than twice a year; 
- the EurAsEC Court; 
- the CU Commission; and  
- the Secretariat of the CU Commission. 
- (c) The Interstate Council of EurAsEC 
159. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC was the supreme Body of the CU and performed the following functions: 
- defined the strategy and objectives of formati on and further development of the CU and took 
decisions on its realization; 
- decided on issues of common interest to the EurAsEC Member States, and CU Parties; 
- defined the list of international treaties compri sing the legal framework of the CU, i.e., those 
included in [Table 10]; 
- took decisions on entry into force of the CU agre ements forming the legal basis of the CU;   
- decided issues related to integration of the cu stoms territories of the EurAsEC Member States 
into a single customs territory in accordance with  Article 2 of the Treaty on the Formation of 
the CU; 
- approved the structure of the CU Commission; 
- appointed the Chairman of the CU Commission; 
- approved the rules of procedure of the CU Commission;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 55 
 
 
  - approved the budget of the CU Commission and considered the report on its fulfilment;  
- reconsidered decisions of the CU Commission wh ere one of the CU Parties objected to the 
decision, upon request of this Party; 
- reconsidered decisions of the CU Commission at the request of one or more CU Parties; 
- considered, upon request, proposals to the CU Commission which failed to collect the number 
of votes necessary to adopt them; 
- nominated candidates to the Court of the Eu rAsEC for the hearing of the cases concerning 
CU issues to the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the EurAsEC; and 
- gave recommendations to and requested informa tion from the Inter-Parliamentarian Assembly 
of the EurAsEC and the Court of the EurAsEC on CU issues. 
160. Members welcomed the information regarding th e competency of the Interstate Council and 
noted that the Interstate Council had the authority to define the list of international treaties that might 
comprise the legal basis of the CU.  In that re gard, some Members requested information on the 
criteria used to define which treaties would be includ ed on this list.  In response, the representative of 
the Russian Federation explained that the Intersta te Council determined th e list of international 
treaties comprising the legal basis of the CU, wh ich consisted of two pa rts:  Part 1 - those 
international treaties effective with in the framework of the EurAsEC; and Part 2 - those international 
treaties aimed at the completion of the formati on of the legal basis of the CU.  The second list 
constituted the single undertaking of each CU Party.   He noted that neither of these lists were 
exhaustive and that agreements coul d be added to both of these lists.  There were no special criteria 
for identifying the treaties to be included in these lists.   
161. Members also noted that the Interstate Counc il was authorised to give recommendations to 
the EurAsEC Court and requested information on the nature of those recommendations.  The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that, in accordance with Article 5 of the 
Statute of the Court, the Interstate Council presente d the judges nominated to serve on the Court to the 
Interparliamentary Assembly of the EurAsEC which fo rmally appointed them.  This was the only type 
of recommendation that the Interstate Council was aut horised to provide to or regarding the EurAsEC 
Court. 
- (d) The EurAsEC Court 
162. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that, on 5 July 2010, the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC adopted Resolution No. 502 adopting the Statute of the Court of the EurAsEC (hereafter:  EurAsEC Court).  In addition to establishing the EurAsEC Court, the Statute of 
the Court established the competency of the Court a nd procedures to be applied in the context of the 
Customs Union.  He explained that pursuant to Article  13 of the Statute, the Court was authorised to:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 56  
 
  - ensure uniform application of the EurAsEC Treaty and other treaties in force within the 
framework of the EurAsEC, including CU Ag reements and decisions taken by the EurAsEC 
bodies, including the CU bodies; 
- consider disputes of an economic nature, i.e ., non-political, arising between the Parties on the 
implementation of decisions of the bodies of th e EurAsEC, and treaty provisions in force in 
the framework of the EurAsEC; and  
- interpret provisions of international treaties in force within the framework of the EurAsEC, 
and the decisions of the EurAsEC bodies. 
 In connection with the formation of the Customs Union, the EurAsEC Court: 
(a) considered cases on compliance of acts of the bodies of the CU with the international treaties 
constituting the legal basis of the CU; 
(b) examined cases on challenging the decisions, actions (inaction) of CU bodies; 
(c) interpreted the international treaties that made up the legal basis of the CU, and the acts 
adopted by the CU Interstate Council and CU Commission;  
(d) resolved disputes between the CU Commission and CU Parties, as well as between 
CU Parties on fulfilment of their commitments , taken within the framework of the Customs 
Union; and  
(e) considered other disputes, as provided in in ternational agreements constituting the framework 
of the EurAsEC and the CU. 
 The representative of the Russian Federation explained that in the cases specified in  
sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (d) above, the Court could not consider the case, unless the matter had 
been submitted to the CU Commission previously.  However, if the CU Commission did not act on 
the matter within two months, the case could then be referred to the Court.  The Court was required to 
issue its decision within 90 calendar days after recei pt of the case.  If a case involved a CU Decision, 
that decision continued to operate during the case.  
163. The representative of the Russian Federation unde rlined that the competence of the EurAsEC 
Court was defined solely by the provisions of Artic le 13 of the Statute of the Court.  The EurAsEC 
Court did not have jurisdiction to opine directly on the WTO obligations of a Party and the Court 
could not rule on compliance with such obligations.  He also noted that the competence of the Court 
could be enlarged or limited only if it was prescr ibed directly by an international agreement 
constituting part of the legal framework of the CU (see paragraph [154]).  The Treaty on the 
Functioning of the Customs Union in the Framework of the Multilateral Trading System (hereafter:  
Treaty on the Multilateral System) was such a Treaty.   Under this Treaty, from the date of accession 
of any CU Party to the WTO, the provisions of th e WTO Agreement, as set-out in its Protocol of 
Accession, including the commitments undertaken by  that CU Party as part of the terms of its 
accession to the WTO, which related to matters that the Parties had authorised CU Bodies to regulate in the framework of the CU, as well as to the legal relationships regulated by the international treaties 
constituting the legal framework of th e CU, became an integral part of  the legal framework of the CU.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 57 
 
 
  As such, these provisions were part of the single und ertaking and were CU Agre ements that were part 
of the single undertaking for each CU Party (see paragr aph [185]).  Since, this Treaty was part of the 
legal framework of the CU, an infringement by a CU Party or a CU Body of such rights and 
obligations under the Treaty to the extent that they were a part of the legal framework of the CU could 
be challenged by a CU Party, or the CU Commis sion before the EurAsEC Court in accordance with 
the Statute of the Court.  In addition, economic ope rators could assert breach es of the provisions of 
the above-mentioned Treaty in the EurAsEC Court (see paragraph [186]). 
164. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the Statute establishing the EurAsEC 
Court also authorised the Court to issue advisory opinions on the application of the international treaties of the EurAsEC and the CU, as well as decisi ons of their respective Bodies.  Such opinions 
were issued at the request of the Parties, or the bodies of EurAsEC or the CU, or the highest judicial 
authorities of the Parties, and were in the nature of a recommendation. 
165. With regard to who could apply to have the Court hear a case, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that with regard  to cases involving the CU, cases could be brought 
before the Court based on an application submitted by: 
- a Party to the Customs Union; 
- bodies of the Customs Union; and 
- economic operators. 
 Further, on 9 December 2010, EurAsEC Me mber States signed the Treaty on Judicial 
Recourse to the EurAsEC Court of the Economic Op erators on Disputes within the Framework of the 
CU and Peculiarities of the Judicial Procedure on Them, approved by the Decision of the Interstate 
Council of EurAsEC No. 534 of 9 December 2010 (h ereinafter:  Treaty on Judicial Recourse).  
This Treaty was being applied provisionally and w ould formally go into effect once three EurAsEC 
Members had ratified it.  Under the Treaty on Judici al Recourse, economic ope rators of CU Parties 
and of third countries were able to bring actions to the EurAsEC Court to:  
- challenge the acts of the CU Commission, i.e., decisions of the CU Commission, which were 
binding and affected the rights and lawful inte rests of economic operators in the field of 
entrepreneurial and other economic activities, or the individual provisions of such acts; and  
- challenge the actions (inaction) of the CU Commission.  
 The grounds to challenge acts of the CU Commission, or their individual provisions, or any 
action (inaction) of the CU Commission were their non-compliance with international treaties 
concluded within the framework of the CU, which r esulted in the violation of the rights and lawful 
interests of economic operators in the field of en trepreneurial and other ec onomic activities, provided WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 58  
 
  for by those international treaties.  He further e xplained that the EurAsEC Court would not consider 
applications to bring an action, if the decision of  the Court on a previously considered case regarding 
the same subject and based on the same grounds was in effect.  He further explained that a decision of 
the Court could be reviewed due to  newly-discovered circumstances.  
166. The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r explained that, in the Treaty on Judicial 
Recourse the EurAsEC, Member States had created an  appeals chamber within the EurAsEC Court.  
A party to the case had the right to appeal the decisi on of a panel of judges to the Appeals Chamber of 
the Court.  The Appeals Chamber consisted of judg es of the Court from the CU Parties, which had not 
participated in the panel that had taken the decisi on that was being appealed.  The decision of the 
Appeals Chamber was the final decision in the case and could not be appealed.   
167. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that with regard to disputes of an 
economic nature arising between the Parties on th e implementation of decisions of EurAsEC bodies, 
treaty provisions in force in the framework of the EurAsEC, and cases in connection with the CU, the 
decisions of the Court were binding on the Parties to the dispute.  The decision of a panel of judges, if 
not appealed, entered into force 15 days after the date  of its pronouncement.  Decisions of the Appeals 
Chamber were effective on the date of pronouncemen t.  In accordance with Article 20.2 of the Statute 
of the Court, its decisions were to be implemente d within the time-frame specified by the Court.  
If the decision of the Court was not implemented wi thin the time-frame specified by the Court, any 
CU Party to the case could apply to the Interstate Co uncil of EurAsEC (Heads of State) for a decision 
on implementation.  In cases involving an economic  operator where the CU Commission failed to 
implement the decision of the EurAsEC Court, th e economic operator had the right to file an 
application to the Court on introduction of measure s on the execution of said decision.  The Court was 
obliged, within 15 days from receipt of the app lication from the economic operator, to address the 
Interstate Council at the level of Heads of Governme nts with a request to take a decision on the issue. 
168. Members thanked the representative of the Ru ssian Federation for the information on the 
EurAsEC Court and requested additional information on the operation of this Court.  Members asked 
whether the EurAsEC Court had the authority to provide compensation to the economic operators, if the Court found that certain CU acts violated CU or WTO rules.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, under paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the Treaty on Judicial Recourse, 
the EurAsEC Court did not consider claims for da mages.  As to the competence of the EurAsEC 
Court on the matters relating with  the WTO, see paragraph [170]. 
169. Members noted that the highest judicial authorities of a CU Party had the right to refer certain 
issues falling under the legal framework of the CU  to the EurAsEC Court for interpretation.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 59 
 
 
  Members asked whether these interpretations would bind the national legal authorities or would they 
be recommendations to the national court.  These Members also asked if economic operators or 
WTO Members would have a right to request that  the EurAsEC Court issue an interpretation of 
CU Agreements and CU Commission acts including on their compatibility with the WTO commitments of the Russian Federation.   In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that Article 20.1 of the Stat ute of the Court stipulated that rulings on issues 
covered by paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article 13 of the Statute were binding on the Parties to the dispute.  
Paragraph 4 covered interp retation of the international treati es comprising the legal basis of the 
CU and of decisions of its bodies.  With re gard to the rights of economic operators and 
WTO Members, he noted that Article 3 of the Trea ty on Judicial Recourse  established a procedure 
under which the highest judicial authority of a CU Party could apply to the EurAsEC Court for an 
opinion regarding the implementation of internationa l treaties concluded within the framework of the 
CU and the acts of the CU Co mmission affecting the rights and lawful interests of economic 
operators, if these issues significantly affected in substance the consideration of the case.  
The national judicial authorities were required to apply for an opinion, if the decision of the national 
court could not be appealed, and provided that  the issues on which an opinion was requested 
significantly affected in substance the considera tion of the case, and the Court had not previously 
delivered opinions on similar issues.  Under the ex isting regulation of the CU the economic operators 
or WTO Members did not have a right to request th at the EurAsEC Court issue an interpretation of 
CU Agreements and CU Commission acts including on their compatibility with the 
WTO commitments of the Russian Federation.  As to the competence of the EurAsEC Court on the 
matters relating with the WTO,  see paragraphs [162 and 163]. 
170. Members noted that Article 26 of the Statute of  the EurAsEC Court provided for issuance of 
advisory opinions and asked whether such opinions c ould relate to the consis tency of CU Agreements 
or CU Commission Decisions with the WTO Agreement and related commitments.  
The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that, in accordance with Article 26 of the 
Statute of the EurAsEC Court, the national Supreme Court of a CU Party could ask the EurAsEC Court to provide an advisory opinion in respect of  implementation of CU le gal acts.  Subsequently, 
the national Supreme Court could reflect this opini on in a Resolution of the Plenum which would be 
taken into account by lower national courts.  The representative of the Russian Federation noted that 
such opinions of the EurAsEC Court could relate  to the consistency of CU Agreements or 
CU Commission decisions with the WTO Agreement and related commitments of each Party of the CU as it was prescribed in the Treaty on the Functi oning of the Customs Union in the Framework of 
the Multilateral Trading System (see also paragra ph [163] on the matters relating with the WTO). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 60  
 
  171. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the Decision of the Interstate Council 
of EurAsEC at the level of Heads of State No. 16 of 27 November 2009 established the Experts 
Council of the Supreme Body of the CU and also ad opted regulations on the operation of the Experts 
Council.  The Interstate Council Decision No. 69 of 9 December 2010 appointed the members of the 
Experts Council.  Economic operato rs could apply to the Experts Council for an opinion on whether a 
CU Commission Decision complied with an internati onal treaty that was part of the legal framework 
of the CU.  If the Experts Council accepted an a pplication, a Conciliation Commission was formed to 
examine the issue and to provide an opinion to the CU Commission on whether the CU Commission 
Decision conformed with the legal basis of the CU and, if the CU Decision did not conform, 
recommendations on revising the CU Decision.  The CU Commission was required to inform the Interstate Council (Board of Heads of Governme nt) of the opinion of the Experts Council and the 
results of the consideration by the CU Commission of that opinion. 
- (e) The Customs Union Commission 
172. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the CU Commission was the 
permanent regulatory Body of the CU.  The CU Commission performed the following functions: 
- implemented decisions taken by the supreme body of the CU; 
- monitored the implementation of the internati onal treaties forming the CU (see [Table 10] and 
[Table 11]); 
- worked out recommendations for the supreme body of the CU on issues of development and 
functioning of the CU (jointly with national governments); 
- ensured, within its competence, the implemen tation of international treaties constituting the 
legal basis of the CU (see [Table 10]); 
- provided assistance to CU Parties in dispute se ttlements within the CU before the appeal was 
sent to the Court of the EurAsEC; 
- interacted, within its competence, with th e State authorities of the CU Parties; and 
- performed the functions of the depositary of  the international treaties forming the CU. 
 The rules of procedure and terms of refere nce for the functions of the CU Commission in 
certain spheres of activity were determined by separate international agreements between the 
CU Parties.  He explained that the CU Commissi on consisted of representatives of the Governments 
of the CU Parties, each of them operating on th e basis of the mandate i ssued by their respective 
Government.  Currently, Deputy Prime Ministers represented the Governments of the CU Parties in the CU Commission.  As of 1 January 2010, the representative of the Russian Federation held the 
Chairmanship of the Commission for a two-year term.  The post of Chair of the Commission was 
subject to rotation on the basis of a Decisi on of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 61 
 
 
  - (f) The Secretariat of the Customs Union Commission 
173. The Agreement on the Secretariat of the CU Commission authorised the Secretariat of the 
CU Commission to: 
- prepare draft decisions of the Interstate Council of the CU;  
- prepare informational materials and draft recommendations for these bodies; - monitor the implementation by the CU Parti es of CU agreements and implementation of 
decisions taken by the Interstate Council of the CU, as well as by the CU Commission;  
- monitor and analyse trade legislation of the CU Parties; - prepare drafts of CU agreements and ot her documents required to develop the CU; 
- cooperate with the executive bodies of the CU Parties; and - publish the decisions taken by the Inte rstate Council of the CU, as well as the 
CU Commission in the official journal. 
174. Some Members noted that the Secretariat of the CU Commission (CU Secretariat) was 
authorised to monitor and analyse trade legislati on of the CU Parties.  These Members asked whether 
this analysis would include compliance with the WT O obligations of a CU Party.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation stated that, after its  accession to the WTO, the commitments of the 
Russian Federation would be part of its legal fr amework of the Russian Federation and, thus, the 
Secretariat of the CU Commission was authorised to monitor and analyse trade legislation with regard 
to its compliance with these commitments.   
- (g) Decision Making within the Customs Union Bodies  
175. In accordance with Article 7 of the Treaty on the Commission of the Customs Union of 
6 October 2007, the decisions of the CU Commission  were binding on CU Par ties.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation explained that, if pursuan t to a CU agreement, the CU Commission was the 
competent authority to impose certain trade m easures, a CU Commission decision was required for 
these measures to be imposed.  A decision of the In terstate Council of the EurAsEC determined the 
timing of the transfer of powers from the national level to the CU Commission.  In accordance with 
the Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsE C No. 15 of 27 November 2009, all CU Commission 
Decisions that had binding effect under Article 7 of the Treaty on the Commission of the CU were 
directly applicable in the CU Parties.  He  recalled that CU Commission Decisions had the 
corresponding legal effect of acts adopted (issued) by  those state bodies or officials of the CU Party 
that were competent to regulate the relevant issue at the time that the relevant power was transferred 
from the domestic regulators of the CU Party to  the CU Commission.  Thus, if a CU Commission 
Decision related to a matter that would have been d ealt with by a ministry under the national law of a 
CU Party, the CU Decision would have the status of a Ministerial action in the national law of that 
CU Party.  Similarly, if a CU Commission Deci sion related to a matter previously subject to a WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 62  
 
  Government Resolution, the CU Commission Decision would have that status under the national law 
of the CU Party.  CU Parties were to ensure th e implementation of CU Commission Decisions within 
their respective territories. 
176. CU Commission decisions were normally taken by a qualified (two-thirds) majority of votes.  
The CU Commission could also take decisions by consensus when the international treaties 
comprising the legal basis of the CU provided for a decision by consensus.  Currently, the CU Parties 
had the following share of votes:  Russian Federa tion - 57 per cent; Kazakhs tan - 21.5 per cent; and 
Belarus - 21.5 per cent.  If a proposal under consid eration by the CU Commission failed to obtain the 
required number of votes, a CU Party or the CU Co mmission could refer the matter to the Interstate 
Council for decision.  If a CU Party disagreed with an adopted decision of the CU Commission, the Interstate Council (Board of Heads of State) w ould reconsider the decision upon written request of 
that CU Party and take a final decision by co nsensus.  Any CU Party had the right to seek 
reconsideration of a CU Decision by the Interstate  Council.  The CU Commission could also issue 
recommendations of non-obligatory nature.  
- (h) Areas of Customs Union Commission Competency 
177. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the international agreements 
comprising the legal basis for the CU stipulated  those areas in which the CU Commission would 
assume competence from the CU Parties.  CU Agre ements themselves normally specified whether the 
normative provisions set-out in the agreement app lied directly in each CU Party, including the 
Russian Federation.  The CU Parties were con tinuing to negotiate and conclude international 
agreements, the EurAsEC Interstate Council continue d to adopt required decisions on timing for entry 
into force of these agreements and the CU Parti es continued their work on adopting necessary national 
laws and other normative legal acts to implement th e CU treaties and decisions of the CU Bodies.  
He further explained that any provisions of the agreements concluded earlier by the CU Parties and 
resolutions of governing bodies that did not conflict  with the Agreement on the Establishment of the 
EurAsEC continued to be in force.  At some ti me, the Interstate Council would take a decision, as 
called for in the Treaty on the Formation of th e CU on the Establishment of the Common Customs 
Territory and the Completion of the Formation of the Customs Union.  
178. The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members that further information on 
the respective competency of CU Bodies and the national authorities of CU Parties, as well as the 
legal basis for the CU Bodies and CU Parties on specific WTO-related issues was set-out in the relevant sections of this Working Party Report.  He  noted that the Russian Federation had undertaken  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 63 
 
 
  commitments in those sections that ensured that  the WTO obligations of the Russian Federation 
would be fully implemented, including in t hose areas where the CU Bodies had competency.  
- (i) Transparency 
179. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that proposals for the introduction, 
amendment, or elimination of a CU measure were prepared by the interested CU Party in accordance 
with its national legislation.  This  CU Party consulted with interested stakeholders on the proposal as 
provided for in its applicable nati onal legislation.  He also informed Members that such proposals by 
another CU Party, once submitted to the Russian Fe deration for consideration, would be promptly 
made subject to public consultations in the same way as proposal s prepared by the 
Russian Federation.  In accordance with Artic le 12 of the Agreement on Introduction and 
Implementation of Measures Concerning Trade in Goods in the Common Customs Territory in 
Respect of Third Countries of 9 June 2009, organiza tions or individual entrepreneurs of a CU Party 
might also provide their comments within the procedure of the development of draft CU decision on introduction, implementation, and abolishment of no n-tariff measure, concerning trade in goods with 
third countries.  Furthermore, in cases when an inte rnational treaty of a CU Party with a third country 
provided for consultations, organizations and entrep reneurs of such a country could present their 
views to that CU Party with regard to the proposal  consistent with the procedure stipulated by the 
provisions of the relevant international treaty.  
180. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the date when a Decision of the 
CU Commission was published on the CU website was the basis for determining the date of entry into 
force of that decision.  Specifically, Decisions of the CU Commission, which were obligatory, rather 
than recommendations, entered into force not earlier  than 30 days after the date of publication on the 
CU website.  He explained that, additionally, CU  Parties were to ensure the publication of all 
CU Commission decisions in their respective dedica ted national official journals, as well as in the 
СU official journal, stating the date of entry into force of a decision, which was determined based on 
the date of its publication on the CU website.  In the Russian Federation, decisions of the 
CU Commission were posted on the website www.tsouz .ru within two working days from the date of 
their adoption.  
181. Members expressed concerns regarding transparen cy, and also noted that it appeared that 
neither CU Agreements, nor CU Commissi on Decisions, including those promulgating 
CU Regulations and other acts, provided WTO Me mbers and interested persons of WTO Members 
with the right to consult with and provide views di rectly to CU Bodies.  This deficiency raised 
concerns about whether CU Agreements and procedures complied with WTO requirements.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 64  
 
  These Members requested that the Russian Federa tion explain how it intended to implement its 
commitments under paragraphs [ 1426] and [1427] in cases where a CU Body was responsible for 
proposing or adopting CU legal acts, incl uding CU decisions, or other measures. 
182. With regard to concerns raised by Members a bout transparency and access to CU Bodies, the 
representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that nothing precluded WTO Members from providing comments directly to the CU Commission and other CU Bodies.  He noted that the 
Russian Federation invited views from Member s on proposals that it was presenting to the 
CU Commission and other CU Bodies. 
183. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that CU Commission Decision 
No. 308 of 18 June 2010 "Decision-Making at the Commission of the Customs Union", would be amended to establish and put into effect a mech anism for publication of proposed CU legal acts 
covered under paragraph [1426] before  their adoption and to provide a reasonable period of time for 
Members and interested persons to provide commen ts to the competent CU Body.  Such a Body 
would be authorised to take these comments into acc ount in its consideration of such proposed legal 
act.  Moreover, pursuant to this mechanism, no CU  legal act covered under paragraph [1427] would 
become effective prior to publication as provide d for in the applicable provisions of the 
WTO Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- (j) Implementation of WTO Commitments under the Customs Union Regime 
184. Based on information provided by the representa tive of the Russian Federation and Members' 
consideration of CU Agreements  and other documentation that th e Russian Federation had made 
available to the Working Party, Members raised a number of questions and c oncerns about provisions 
of CU Agreements and issues where it appeared th at CU Bodies had or shared competency with 
CU Party national authorities.  Members questioned how the Russian Federation would ensure that it 
could implement and comply with WTO provisions  on those issues where CU Bodies were the 
competent authorities.  Members also requested ad ditional information regarding the status of the 
WTO Agreement within the CU legal system.  They  asked for confirmation that the WTO Agreement 
would be an international treaty for the CU and pa rt of the single undertaking for all CU Parties.  
Members also sought assurances that in case of a conflict, the WTO Agreement would always prevail 
over provisions of CU Agreements and CU Comm ission Decisions and other measures adopted by 
CU Bodies, including those in effect prior to the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO.  Members also requested information on how the Russian Federation would ensure that future 
CU international treaties and CU Commission Decisi ons would comply with the WTO obligations of 
the Russian Federation.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 65 
 
 
  185. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the CU Parties had concluded a 
Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs Union in The Framework of the Multilateral Trading 
System of 19 May 2011 (Treaty on the Multilateral Syst em) which had been ratified by all CU Parties 
as of 8 November 2011.  This interstate CU Tr eaty entered into force in accordance with the 
provisions of the Protocol on the Rules of Entry into Force of International Treaties Comprising the Legal Basis of the Customs Union.  According to  the Treaty on the Multilateral System, from the date 
of accession of any CU Party to the WTO, the prov isions of the WTO Agreement, as set-out in its 
Protocol of Accession, including the commitments unde rtaken by that CU Party, as part of the terms 
of its accession to the WTO, which related to matter s that the Parties had authorised CU Bodies to 
regulate in the framework of the CU, as well as to th e legal relationships regulated by the international 
treaties constituting the legal framework of the CU, b ecame an integral part of  the legal framework of 
the CU.  As such, these provisions were part of th e single undertaking and were CU Agreements that 
were part of the single undertaking for each CU Party.   Under this Treaty, CU Parties were obligated 
when making an international treaty in the framework of the CU to ensure that the CU agreement was 
consistent with the WTO commitments of each CU Party.  Similarly, when CU Bodies adopted and 
applied CU acts, those acts had to comply with  those commitments.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation further explained that the right s and obligations of the Parties resulting from the 
WTO Agreement, as they were set-out in the Protocol of Accession of each Party, including the commitments undertaken by each Party as part of the terms of its accession to the WTO and that 
became a part of the legal framework of the CU co uld not be subject to abrogation or limitation by 
decision of CU Bodies, including the EurAsEC Court or by an international treaty of the Parties.  
When another CU Party became a WTO Member, th e rights and obligations of that Party under the 
WTO Agreement also became an integral part of th e legal framework of the CU.  He explained that 
WTO provisions which regulated the creation and functioni ng of the CU also applied.  He noted that a 
CU Party that was not a WTO Member could deviate from provisions of the WTO Agreement in 
certain cases.  When that Party became a WTO Member, however, any deviation from the WTO Agreement would be allowed only as specifically  provided for in the terms of accession to the 
WTO of that Party.  Finally, the CU Parties were  required to adopt measures to adjust the CU legal 
framework and decisions of CU Bodies to comply w ith the WTO Agreement as set-out in the Protocol 
of Accession of each Party.  Until those measures we re adopted, other CU treaties and decisions of 
CU Bodies would apply only to the extent that th ey complied with the WTO Agreement.  Thus, the 
rights and obligations of a CU Party under the WT O Agreement would override prior and future 
CU Agreements and Decisions of CU Bodies.  
186. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Treaty on the Multilateral 
System was a CU treaty and part of the domestic legal framework of each CU Party.  As such, the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 66  
 
  national courts would apply the provisions of the Tr eaty.  He also confirmed that the Treaty on the 
Multilateral System, established obligations on CU Pa rties and CU Bodies regarding the commitments 
undertaken by each Party as part of the terms of its accession to the WTO and that became part of the 
legal framework of the Customs Union.  Thus, an infringement of such rights and obligations by a 
CU Party or a CU Body could be challenged by a CU Party, or CU Commission before the EurAsEC 
Court.  In addition, economic operators could assert breaches of the provisions of the Treaty on the 
Multilateral System in the EurAsEC Court, as provided  for in Article 13 of the Statute of the Court 
and in the Treaty on Judicial Recourse.  
187. Members also expressed concern regarding CU Commission competency, since it did not 
appear that CU Parties had granted any CU Body th e authority to negotiate or conclude agreements 
notwithstanding provisions of CU Agreements  that called for a common CU document, 
e.g., veterinary certificates.  In some cases, re quirements were in place that traders from Members 
could not meet because of the absence of common documents or standards. 
188. The representative of the Russian Federation r esponded that Decisions of the CU Commission 
were being developed that would establish proce dures for implementing CU requirements, including 
those requiring coordination of negotiations between CU Parties and third countries.  
These procedures would be adopted and applied so th at they did not operate to restrict trade and 
would comply with WTO requirements.  
- Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign 
trade; Right of Appeal 
189. Members noted that a right of appeal to an i ndependent tribunal or judicial review should be 
provided to all (economic ope rators) entities, engaged in economic activity with the 
Russian Federation and that various WTO Agreements  explicitly required that a right of appeal be 
provided.  These Members sought a commitment that a right of appeal would be provided, whether 
the Russian Federation or a CU Body was the competent authority.  Members raised several questions 
regarding the scope of authority of the EurAsEC C ourt, how this Court would function, and its role 
with regard to the domestic judicial system of  the Russian Federation and implementation of the 
international obligations of the Russian Federa tion.  As a threshold matter, Members sought 
confirmation that the WTO Agreement would be cons idered to be a Treaty of the EurAsEC and that 
the obligations of a CU Party under the WTO Ag reement would always prevail over those in 
CU Agreements and CU Commission Decisions now in effect, as well as those agreements and decisions adopted after the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.  Members also requested  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 67 
 
 
  information on how the EurAsEC Court and the na tional courts of the Russian Federation would 
interact.   
190. Members asked whether the supreme judicial bodies of the Russian Federation were required 
to take EurAsEC opinions and interpretations into  account in the domestic judicial system of the 
Russian Federation and whether these bodies would i ssue guidance to the lower courts in all cases 
where the EurAsEC Court interpreted CU Treaties and CU Commission Acts.  Members also 
requested information on how the appeal process  would operate when national authorities were 
responsible for some aspects of a measure, e.g ., conducting a trade remedy investigation, and a 
CU Body was responsible for taking the decision on wh ether to apply the measure.  If issues covered 
by CU provisions were appealable in national cour ts, could such issues be appealed to the EurAsEC 
Court as well, and if not in first instance, th en after exhaustion of national court appeals. 
191. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that the EurAsEC Court and 
the national judicial system of the Russian Fede ration were independent.  The Treaty on Judicial 
Recourse and the Statute of the Court provided that the highest judicial authority of the Russian Federation was authorised to apply to the EurAsEC Court for an opinion on interpretation of 
certain international treaties through procedures desc ribed in paragraph [169].  The EurAsEC Court, 
however, did not serve as an appeals court from the national judicial system.  The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, in accordance with the Statute of the EurAsEC Court, the national 
Supreme Court of a CU Party could ask the EurAsEC Court to provide an advisory opinion in respect 
of implementation of CU legal acts.  Subsequent ly, the national Supreme Court could reflect this 
opinion in a Resolution of the Plenum which would be taken into account by all lower national courts. 
192. Members also requested information on the ava ilability of administrative appeals, in the 
Russian Federation.  Those Members also requested  that the Russian Fede ration ensure that the 
central Government would monitor and take active st eps to ensure that measures taken by sub-central 
authorities or other subjects of the Russian Federati on, such as WTO-inconsistent legislation, actions 
or non-uniform application, would be brought in to conformity with the obligations of the 
Russian Federation under the WTO Agreement promp tly, particularly when such measures were 
notified to the Federal Government by a WTO Member or other interested party.   
193. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that, pursuant to Article 46 of 
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, decisi ons and actions (or inactions) of bodies of State 
authority and local governments, public associations and officials might be appealed to the national  
court with appropriate jurisdiction.  In case of app eals against administrative action or inaction, at the 
discretion of the appellant, an appeal could also  be addressed to either the Government or a WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 68  
 
  Government agency overseeing the administrative body  responsible for the decision (Article 33 of the 
Constitution of the Russian Federation).  He also added that the person aggrieved by the decision 
could decide whether to pursue an administrative re view or court procedures.  In case of judicial 
procedure, appeals of a decision of a lower court were also possible.  He further added that the 
legislation of the Russian Federation provided the o pportunity to use administrative procedures before 
appealing to a court.  The right of appeal to judici al and administrative procedures, in case of violation 
of civil rights of natural and le gal persons, was also foreseen by Article 11 of the Civil Code. 
Article 18 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ "On the Funda mentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade" 
also provided the right of any participant in fore ign trade to appeal to a court or administrative 
procedure (in cases foreseen by the legislation) against a decision, action (or inaction) of a State authority (or its officer), if, in his view, his rights or  legal interests had been violated by such decision, 
action (or inaction). 
194. Further, the representative of the Russian Fede ration noted that Fede ral Law No. 59-FZ of 
2 May 2006 "On the Procedure for Consideration of  Appeals of Citizens" established the general 
procedure for dealing with appeals and complaints  brought by persons (Russi an and foreign persons) 
to the bodies of State authorities and local governments concerning the realization or violation of their 
rights and legal interests, violations of laws or  other normative legislative acts or decision, action 
(or inaction) of State or local authorities or official s.  The Federal Law did not restrain the right to 
appeal of persons on behalf of associ ations and entities.  According to this Federal Law, the appeal or 
complaint should be addressed to a concrete authority  or an official and made in written form signed 
by the applicant.  The appeal or complaint was to be registered upon receipt by the authority within 
three days.  From the moment the appeal was regi stered, the authority had 30 days (fixed term) to 
address the applicant with reasoned answer in wri tten form and/or to take actions aimed at the 
restoration or defence of the violated rights and legal interests of the person.  The control of 
observance of these procedures was carried out by bodies of State authorities, local governments and 
officials, responsible for analysing the incoming appeals and complaints and taking measures to 
prevent and eliminate the cause of violation of rights  and legal interests of persons.  The Federal Law 
provided the right of persons (applicants) to compla in about decisions taken in consequence of the 
appeal or about any action (or inaction) in connection with the consideration of the appeal in 
administrative and/or judicial manner.  In case of viol ation of rights and legal interests by decisions or 
actions (or inactions) of bodies of State authorities,  local governments and officials, the person had 
the right to compensation of losses and moral damage.  The Federal Law also stipulated the responsibility of State officials for violating the provis ions of this Law.  He added that the procedure 
provided by the Federal Law was free of charge.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 69 
 
 
  195. In response to requests for additional informati on on the types of appeal mechanism available 
and the standing of an aggrieved party, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that 
Section 3 of the Federal Law on Customs Regulati on, No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010 (hereinafter:  
Law No. 311-FZ), included detailed provisions on the right of appeal on cust oms-related matters.  
Article 36 provided that any person could lodge an a ppeal against any resolution, action or in action, 
if such resolution, action or in action, violated, in the opinion of such person, his rights, freedoms or 
legal interests, or created any obstacles for implementa tion of such rights, or legal interests or illegally 
imposed any obligation on him.  The right of appeal could not be waived.  
196. The procedure for appeals in respect of decisi ons, action (inaction) of the customs authorities 
and their officers was set-out in Section 3 of Law No. 311-FZ applied to any decisions, action (inaction) of the customs authorities and their o fficers, unless a special procedure was provided.  
Under Article 38 of Law No. 311-FZ, appeals were to  be lodged with the superior customs authority 
directly, or through the customs authority whose d ecision, action (inaction) was appealed against.  
Appeals against decisions or actions (inacti ons) of Federal executive bodies, competent for 
customs-related matters, were to be lodged with that Federal executive body.  Appeals could be 
lodged to a court simultaneously or consecutively to  an administrative procedure.  They could be 
lodged within three months from the date the appella nt knew or should have known of a violation of 
the appellant's rights, freedoms or legal interests, the creation of obstacles for implementation of such 
rights, freedoms or interests, or the illegal impositio n of any obligation on the appellant; or from the 
date the term expired for the customs authority to adopt a resolution or take an action.  Article 40 
provided for the extension of the time for submitting appeals. 
197. Article 49 of Law No. 311-FZ provided a simplifie d procedure for bringing an administrative 
appeal of decisions or actions (inactions) taken by a customs officer at a customs checkpoint concerning shipment of goods thro ugh the border, which did not ex ceed RUB 1.5 million in value and 
(or) one vehicle.  This involved an oral claim to a superior customs officer.  Such appeals were dealt 
with by immediate ruling.  The simplified appeal procedure did not preclude the appellant lodging an 
appeal via the standard procedure.   
198. Administrative appeal procedures were simila r to those envisaged by Law No. 311-FZ, except 
they would be taken under the Code of Administra tive Offences.  Appeals could be lodged within 
ten days after receipt of a copy of the decision a ppealed against and were required to be processed 
within ten days from the date of lodging the app eal.  Pursuant to Article 37 of Law No. 311-FZ, the 
appeal mechanism provided for in that Law did not apply  to decisions in respect of the Code of 
Administrative Offences No. 195-FZ of 30 December 2001 (as last  amended on 14 July 2008).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 70  
 
  Appeal decisions issued by the customs authority co uld be appealed against to the superior customs 
authority or court, or arbitration court.   
199. In response to further questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that the 
procedure for appealing against decisions of tax bodies and actions or inaction of their officers was 
regulated by the Tax Code of the Russian Federa tion.  Decisions issued by tax bodies, as well as 
actions and inaction  by their officers, could be appealed to a supervising officer or a court, either 
simultaneously or consecutively.  An appeal was required to be determined within one month from 
the date of lodging the appeal.  The tax body was re quired to take a decision within one month, and 
the decision on the appeal was required to be not ified to the person lodging the appeal within 
three days after the decision was taken. 
200. As regards appeals and complaints in the sphere of technical regulations (including 
SPS issues), the representative of the Russian Federa tion explained that, under the CU, there was a 
common system of Technical Regulations, including on SPS matters, and thus the EurAsEC Court had jurisdiction over appeals covered by the rele vant CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, 
including those promulgating CU Regulations and ot her CU measures.  With regard to decisions, 
actions or inaction of the authorised bodies of the Russian Federation related to technical regulation, 
including SPS issues, he explained that legal measure s were in place to allow appeals to be made via 
the independent judicial system against any decisions of the relevant authorities of the 
Russian Federation (and non-governmental bodies dele gated to take such decisions) and to ensure 
corrective action was taken, in accordance with decision by the Court, when a complaint was justified.  
The relevant authorities were authorised to estab lish their own procedures for filing a complaint or 
requesting an appeal in the area of certification and conformity assessment.  These procedures reflected common principles of dealing with appeal s and complaints brought to the authorities of 
executive power of the Russian Federation by natu ral or legal persons (e.g., the requirement to 
address the applicant with a reasoned an swer and in written form within a  fixed term (normally 
30 days); control of addressing the appeal by superi or authority and the Government, etc.).  He noted 
that, pursuant to Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 Dece mber 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last 
amended on 28 September 201 0), non-acceptance by the authorities of a voluntary certification could 
be appealed via judicial procedure.  With regard to mandatory conformity certification, an applicant 
could lodge a complaint with the accreditation au thorities against unlawful actions of certification 
authorities and accredited testing laboratories (centres).  
201. Further, regarding appeals and complaints in the field of intellectual property rights, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that the legislation of the Russian Federation provided  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 71 
 
 
  for the enforcement of intellectual property rights through judicial and administrative procedures.  
In particular, in accordance with the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, commercial  secrets, 
copyright and related rights were protected by court.  As for the other intellectual property rights, the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation provided the opportunity to appeal to a court, as well as to the Patent Disputes Chamber of Rospatent.  The proce dure for lodging objections and applications to the 
Chamber and the procedure for their consideration we re determined by Order of Rospatent No. 56 of 
22 April 2003 "On the Rules of Filing Objections a nd Applications and the Consideration thereof by 
the Patent Disputes Chamber" (as last  amended on 11 December 2003).  Decisions of the Patent 
Dispute Chamber could be appealed in cour t in accordance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation.  More detailed informati on on this issue was contained in the Section 
"Trade-Related Intellectual Property Regime".   
202. In response to questions concerning fees for appeal procedures, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that judicial procedure of appeal was subject to State duties set-out in 
Chapter 25.3 of the Tax Code of the Russian Fede ration.  Appeal in administrative procedure, 
generally, was free of charge, with few exceptions.  For example, administrative procedure of appeal 
in the field of intellectual property rights was subject  to a duty, in accordance with the Civil Code of 
the Russian Federation.  He further explained that j udicial appeal fees were applied in connection with 
exercise of judicial power by courts.  Administrativ e procedures' fees were applied in connection with 
exercise of executive power by Governmental bodies. 
- Division of authority between central and sub-central governments 
203. The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation provided an exhaustive list of matters to which the Russian Federation had an 
exclusive competence (Article 71) and a list containi ng matters subject to the joint competence of the 
Russian Federation and its subjects (Article 72).  Those matters not contai ned in these lists were 
regarded as the ones to which the subjects had comp etence.  The laws and other normative legal acts 
by the subjects of the Russian Federation adopted outside the competence of the Russian Federation 
or of the joint competence of the Russian Federa tion and the subjects of the Russian Federation must 
not contradict the Federal laws.  Within the jo int competence of the Russian Federation and its 
subjects, in case of a conflict between a Federal law and any normative legal act issued by a subject of 
the Russian Federation, the Federal law would prevail. 
204. Members of the Working Party sought confirmation concerning the uniform application of 
WTO provisions throughout the territory of the Russi an Federation, as well as by sub-central entities.  
These Members also sought further information on wh ether there were any areas relating to matters WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 72  
 
  under WTO provisions where sub-federal entities might  have exclusive competence.  Those Members 
also requested further clarification on whether the authorities of the Russian Federation would be 
required to submit the approved Protocol Package to sub-central entities for their approval in the 
ratification process.   
205. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther noted that, according to Article 3 of 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On th e Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity" (as last  amended on 8 December 2010), foreign trade in the Russian Federation was 
regulated by the Constitution of the Russian Fede ration, Federal laws and other legal acts of the 
Russian Federation and by the international Treatie s to which the Russian Federation was a party.  
He also added that Chapter II of this Law est ablished competence of the Federal and Regional 
authorities in foreign trade.  Article 6 of said Law provided for, inter alia , the competence of the 
Russian Federation to form the concept and strategy of the development of foreign trade relations and 
the basic principles of the foreign trade policy; to ensure the economic security and protection of the 
economic sovereignty and economic interests of the Russian Federation, as well as the economic 
interests of the subjects of the Russian Federation a nd of Russian natural and juridical persons; and to 
conclude international Treaties in the field of foreign economic relations.   
206. He further noted that, if an international tr eaty of the Russian Federation affected issues 
falling within the competence of the subjects of th e Russian Federation, such a treaty was to be 
elaborated in co-ordination with relevant bodies of the interested subjects of the Russian Federation.  
This provision was contained in Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July 1995 "On International Treaties 
of the Russian Federation".  As regards interna tional treaties of the Russian Federation affecting 
issues falling within the joint competence of th e Russian Federation and the subjects of the 
Russian Federation, the Law established that Federa l bodies of executive power were to send the main 
provisions or the draft of a treaty to the State power bodies of the interested subject of the 
Russian Federation.  Proposals received from th e subjects were considered in the course of 
preparation of the draft of the international treaty. 
207. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled that Federal Law No. 4-FZ of 
4 January 1999 "On Co-ordination of International and Foreign Economic Ties of the Subjects of the 
Russian Federation" provided the subjects of the Russian Federation, inter alia , with the right to 
negotiate and conclude Ag reements with their partners on inte rnational and foreign economic ties.  
Such Agreements could not contradict the Federal legislation and the international commitments of 
the Russian Federation.  The Law made it compul sory for the subjects to notify the appropriate 
Federal authorities before entering into negotiations , and set-forth a procedure for prior approval of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 73 
 
 
  the draft agreed text of the Agreement by the appropriate Federal authorities.  The Agreements 
concluded by the subjects of the Russian Federati on were not considered international treaties. 
208. One Member expressed its doubts regarding measures that the Russian Federation had 
maintained since 2008 with regard to trade with this  Member.  In this Member's view, these measures 
were inconsistent with various  provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the transparency 
provisions of Article X of the GATT 1994, the requirement to administer trade "in a uniform, 
impartial and reasonable manner" set-out in Artic le X:3 of the GATT 1994, and the requirement for 
uniform application of measures set-out in Article XXIV:1 of the GATT 1994.  Further, this Member 
noted that Article I of the GATT 1994 required that "any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity 
granted by" the Russian Federation to any product or iginating in or destined for that Member's 
territory be accorded immediately and unconditionall y to products imported from or exported to all 
other WTO Members.  In this Member's view, th e Russian Federation had maintained measures that 
were inconsistent with the obligations that Ru ssia would assume as a WTO Member.  This Member, 
therefore, requested that the Russian Federa tion eliminate these measures and comply with 
WTO requirements. 
209. The representative of the Russian Federation took note of this Member's concerns.  He stated 
that in his view measures in trade with that Member  were applied in conform ity with the bilateral free 
trade agreement and were in line with its domest ic legislation and with the WTO Agreement.  
That representative further referred that Member to the obligations that the Russian Federation would 
comply with from the date of the accession of th e Russian Federation to the WTO, including those 
commitments referred to in paragraphs 1426 , 1427 and 1428 relating to transparency and 
paragraph 214 related to unifo rm application of the Russia n Federation's trade regime.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that in the future the Russian Federation 
would have the WTO Agreement as the legal basis of its trade with this Member in such a manner to 
ensure full consistency with WTO rules, including Articles I, X, and XXIV of the GATT 1994, and to 
respect its specific WTO obligations and commitme nts.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
210. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that on 9 November 2011 the 
Russian Federation had concluded an agreement w ith this Member establishing a mechanism of 
customs administration and monitoring of all trade in goods that enters or exits specific pre-defined 
trade corridors.  The mechanism consists of (a) an  electronic data exchange system; and, (b) an 
international monitoring system.  One Member co nfirmed that the agreement reached with the 
Government of the Russian Federation establishe d a satisfactory system to address his concern WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 74  
 
  inter alia  through the assistance and participation of the neutral third party to facilitate the operation 
of the agreement.  These statements were noted by the Working Party. 
211. Members of the Working Party expressed concerns  in relation to non-WTO consistent actions 
of certain regional governments, often in the face of relevant Federal legislation.  In addition, 
Members of the Working Party requested clarificati on of the ability of the central government to take 
the initiative and responsibility for overruling or removing WTO-inconsistent measures taken by 
subjects of the Russian Federation.  Some Memb ers of the Working Party requested a specific 
commitment from the Russian Federation that inte rnational treaties would be strictly observed 
throughout its territory. 
212. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that a special mechanism had 
been established to monitor and ensure that the legislation and practice of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation complied with Federal laws .  On 6 October 1999, Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
"On General Principles of the Organization of the Legislative (Representative) and Executive 
Authorities of State Power of the Subjects of the Russian Federation" (as last  amended on 
28 December 2010) had been enacted.  The Office of  the Public Prosecutor administered the Law.  
Following a complaint regarding the action or policy of  a subject of the Russian Federation, the Public 
Prosecutor could seek an order or declaration from th e Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or an 
appropriate body of the concerned subject invalida ting the legislation or practice complained of, on 
the basis that the legislation or practice was inc onsistent with respective Federal legislation or 
international treaties of the Russian Federation.  In accordance with Article 253 of the Civil Procedure 
Code of the Russian Federation, when the court (i ncluding the Supreme Court) determined that the 
legal act subject to a dispute or part thereof cont radicted a Federal law or other legal act that has 
higher legal force, the disputed legal act was considered  invalid in whole or in part from the date of its 
adoption, unless otherwise specified by the court in its decision.  Presidential Decree No. 849 of 
13 May 2000 "On the Authorised Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in a 
Federal District" (as last  amended on 7 September 2010) empowered  a Presidential representative in a 
Federal district to propose the suspension of act s of executive authorities of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation that contravene d the Constitution, Federal laws or  international commitments of 
the Russian Federation.  Similarly, Presi dential Decree No. 1486 of 10 August 2000 
"On Supplementary Measures to Provide Integrity of Legal Treatment in the Russian Federation" 
(as last  amended on 18 January 2010) created a Federal registry of the legal acts of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation.  All legal acts enacted by the subjects of the Russian Federation were notified to 
the Federal Ministry of Justice of the Russian Fede ration within seven days of enactment for scrutiny 
and review.  If the legislation was found to be inc onsistent with Federal laws or with international  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 75 
 
 
  commitments of the Russian Federation, including th e obligations of the Russian Federation under the 
WTO Agreement and CU Agreements, the Legislative Department of the Ministry of Justice could 
draft a presidential decree suspending the operati on of the legislation, or seek an order from the 
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation togeth er with proposals for reconciling or rectifying 
the conflict.  Acts or parts thereof determined by the Court to contrave ne the Constitution became 
invalid as from the date of their adoption.   
213. He further noted that, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, 
the Constitution itself and Federal laws had s upremacy over the whole territory of the 
Russian Federation.  The bodies of State authority,  the bodies of local governments, officials, private 
persons and their associations were required to ob serve the Constitution of the Russian Federation and 
its laws.  Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July  1995 "On International Treaties of the 
Russian Federation" contained rules ensuring the execution of the international treaties of the 
Russian Federation by the President and the G overnment of the Russian Federation, Federal 
Executive bodies, and bodies of State authority of the relevant subjects of the Russian Federation. 
214. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement would be applied uniformly througho ut the territory of the Russian Federation, 
including in regions engaging in frontier traffic, special economic zones and other areas where special 
regimes for tariffs, taxes and regulations could be established.  He added that, in order to ensure 
compliance with provisions of the WTO Agreement any individual or entity could bring to the 
attention of the authorities of the Government of the Russian Federation or competent CU Body cases 
of non-application or non-uniform application of provisions of the WTO Agreement in the 
Russian Federation.  Such cases would be referre d promptly to the responsible authorities without 
requiring the affected party to petition through th e courts, and when non-ap plication or non-uniform 
application actually existed, the authorities of the Government of the Russian Federation or a 
competent CU Body would act promptly to addre ss the situation, consistent with the laws and 
international obligations of the Russian Federation.  The individual or entity notifying the authorities 
of the Government of the Russian Federation or a competent CU Body  would be informed promptly 
in writing of any decision and action taken.  Th e Working Party took note of these commitments. 
215. The representative of the Russian Federation also  confirmed that with respect to matters 
subject to the WTO Agreement, his authorities would provide the right for independent review in conformity with WTO obligations, including but not restricted to, Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994, and relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 76  
 
  Rights (TRIPS) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments. 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
-  Registration requirements for import/export operations 
216. The representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that, generally, neither the 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, nor the national legislation of the Russian Federation 
restricted the right of any Russian enterprise to import goods into or export goods from the 
Russian Federation, however, exceptions could be pr ovided for in CU Agreem ents and Decisions and 
the Federal laws of the Russian Federation.  He  noted that the State monopoly on foreign trade had 
been eliminated by Presidential Decree No. 213 of 15 November 1991 "On Liberalization of Foreign 
Economic Activity on the Territory of the Russian S oviet Federal Socialist Republic" (as amended on 
27 October 1992).  This principle wa s further embodied in Article 1 of the Civil Code and Article 8 of 
the Constitution.   
217. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, from 1 January 2010, the 
principal requirements for importing goods into  and exporting goods from the Russian Federation 
were found in the Customs Code of the Cust oms Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan 
(hereafter:  "CU Customs Code"), the Agreemen t on Common Measures of Non-tariff Regulation in 
Respect of Third Countries, signed on 25 January 2008 (hereafter:  "CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation"), the Agreement on the Introduction an d Application of Measures Concerning Foreign 
Trade in Goods on the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries, signed on 
9 June 2009 (hereafter:  "CU Agreement on M easures Concerning Foreign Trade"), and the 
Agreement on Licensing in the Area of Foreign Merchandise Trade of 9 July 2009 (hereafter:  "CU Licensing Agreement").  The proce dure for the importation of specific products, such 
as products with cryptographic capabilities, precious stones and precious metals, and medicines and 
pharmaceutical ingredients, were set-out in CU Co mmission Regulations.  Specific Sections in this 
Working Party Report relating to the import and expo rt regimes of the Russian Federation, provided 
descriptions of the provisions of these CU Ag reements, CU Commission Decisions, and other 
CU legal documents, including requirements for non-automatic import or export licenses and/or 
automatic licenses (permits).  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, pursuant to 
these CU Agreements, Decisions, and Regulations , the authorised body of each CU Party was 
responsible for issuing non-automatic import and e xport licenses and/or automatic licenses (permits), 
as well as activity licenses.  The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On th e Fundamentals of the State Regulation of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 77 
 
 
  Foreign Trade Activity" (as last amended on 2 February 2006), Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 
27 November 2010 "On Customs Regulation" and Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On Licensing of Specific Types of Activity" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) addressed the 
general requirements for engaging in import/export operations in the Russian Federation.   
218. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that, according to Article 10 of 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ, any Russian or foreign pe rson could be engaged in carrying out foreign 
trade activity (import and export).  The right to carry  out foreign trade activity could be restricted only 
in circumstances specified under internatio nal agreements, including CU Agreements, 
CU Commission Decisions, or Federal legislation.   Export and import operations, as such, did not 
require an activity licence.  On the other hand, an activity licence to engage in production or 
distribution of certain products (such as alc ohol, pharmaceuticals, and goods with encryption 
technology) was required to obtain a licence to import these products.  (Detailed information 
concerning export/import operations fo r alcoholic beverages, pharmaceuticals, goods with encryption 
technology, and precious stones and metals was provided [in paragraphs 219 to 275]). 
219. Several Members noted that laws and regulati ons relating to the right to trade in goods, 
"registration requirements" or "activity licensing"  must not be more burdensome than necessary and, 
thus, restrict imports in violation of the ge neral prohibition on quantitative restrictions under 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, nor should they disc riminate against importe d goods in violation of 
the provisions of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  Fu rthermore, fees and charges levied on the right to 
import must be limited to the cost of ser vices rendered as under Article VIII:1(a) and 
Article VIII:4(c) of the GATT 1994, and internal tax es or other internal charges on the right to trade 
in imported goods must not lead to discrimination in favour of like domestic products as required by 
Article III:2 of the GATT 1994. 
220. In response to requests for further informati on on registration requirements for engaging in 
economic activity (that included import and ex port operations), the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that requirements for registration as a legal person/individual 
entrepreneur were strictly a matter of the national le gislation of a CU Party and this situation was not 
expected to change.  In the Russian Federation, re gistration of legal persons  and natural persons, as 
individual entrepreneurs, was governed by Article  51 of the Civil Code and Federal Law No. 129-FZ 
of 8 August 2001 "On State Registration of Juridical Persons and Individual Entrepreneurs" (as last 
amended on 27 July 2010).  Registration was carried out by the Federal Tax Service.  Refusal of State 
Registration was governed by Article 23 of Federa l Law No. 129-FZ and could be appealed in a  
Court.  He explained that registration enabled le gal persons/individual entrep reneurs to engage in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 78  
 
  economic activity, including foreign trade activity (import and export).  The legislation of the 
Russian Federation did not contain any restrictions or  discrimination against fo reign founders of legal 
persons.  In response to a specific question of one Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation clarified that, even though so me specific requirements for registration of legal 
persons with foreign founders we re formally different from requirements for registration of legal 
persons with founders being Russian  persons (e.g., with respect to  the type of documents to be 
provided by an applicant), such requirements did not constitute actual discrimination against such 
legal persons with foreign founders.   
221. To register, legal persons were required to  submit the following documents, listed in 
Article 12 of Federal Law No. 129-FZ:   
 an application based on the form establis hed by Government Resolution No. 439 of 
19 June 2002 (as last amended on 9 March 2010); 
 the decision whereby the legal person had been fo rmed, in the form of minutes, Agreement or 
any other document in compliance with th e legislation of the Russian Federation; 
 the constitutive documents of the legal person (originals or notarized copies); 
 for foreign legal persons, an extract from the regist er of legal persons of the country of origin 
or another equally effective proof of the legal status of a foreign legal entity being a founder; 
and 
 a certificate of payment of State duty in the amount of RUB 4,000. 
Under Federal Law No. 129-FZ, registration of a natural person as an individual entrepreneur 
required the following documents: 
 an application based on the form approved by the Government of the Russian Federation; 
 for citizens of the Russian Federation, a copy of the identification document of the natural 
person (i.e. passport - Presidentia l Decree No. 232 of 13 March 1997); 
 for foreign and stateless persons, a copy of the document established by Federal Law or 
recognised under an international Agreement of  the Russian Federation as the identification 
document (identification documents were listed in Article 10 of Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 
25 July 2002 "On the Legal Position of Foreign Citizens in the Russian Federation" (as last 
amended on 4 December 2007); 
 a document confirming the right to reside in the Russian Federation; and 
 a document confirming the payment of a RUB 800 registration charge.   
Pursuant to Article 9 of the Law, no document, other than those listed in the Law (as indicated 
above) - could be requested for registration.   
222. Some Members expressed concern that the requirement of the Russian Federation for 
enterprises to have a location in the Russian Federa tion, established in accordance with the legislation 
of the Russian Federation, and natura l persons to have the right to reside in the Russian Federation in 
order to register as a Russian enterprise or indivi dual entrepreneur, was overly burdensome in the case  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 79 
 
 
  where the enterprise or individual entrepreneur sought only the right to declare the import or export of 
goods and, thus, restricted imports or exports. 
223. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the requirement to be 
registered in the Russian Federation, in accordan ce with established conditions, was necessary to 
ensure proper implementation of customs legislation,  including its provisions on conditional release of 
goods into the territory of the Russian Federation and post-control that permitted accelerated customs 
procedures at the entry and d estination customs checkpoints. 
224. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her added that these documents were to be 
submitted to the registration body directly or coul d be sent by mail with a list of enclosures.  
The application presented to the registering body re quired the notarized signature of an authorised 
person (the applicant).  The date of submissi on of the documents for State Registration was 
considered to be the date when they were received by the registration body.  A receipt note was to be 
issued to the applicant to confirm that the documen ts had been received from him.  The note was to be 
issued on the day the documents were received by the registration body.  In any case, including cases 
in which the registration body received documents sent by mail, a receipt note was to be sent the next 
(working) day following the date of receipt of the documents by the registration body, at the postal 
address indicated by the applicant.  The registra tion body ensured the recording and storing of all 
documents submitted for registration purposes. 
225. Registration was to be carried out  within five working days afte r the date the documents were 
received by the registration body.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation also added that, 
according to Article 23 of Federal Law No. 129-FZ of 8 August 2001 (as last amended on 
27 July 2010), registration might be refused only in the following cases: 
- failure to submit the documents required for registration purposes; 
- submitting of documents to an improper registration body;  - in case the legal entity was in the process of liquidation; - failure to notarize documents, when it was required; 
- when the application of the State Registration was signed by an unauthorised person; 
- withdrawal of all members of a limited liability company from that company; or - inconsistency of the name of th e legal entity with Federal laws. 
A decision to refuse to grant registration was to be carried out in not later than five working 
days and to be forwarded to the applicant, with a delivery notice.  This action or inaction, within the 
required time, could be appealed to the agency or through the National Court.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 80  
 
  226. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that an "Authorised Economic Operator" w as a legal entity of a CU Party that met certain 
conditions, set-forth in Article 39 of the CU Cust oms Code, including providing a guarantee for the 
payment of customs duties and taxes, a history of  engaging in foreign economic activity, the absence 
of unfulfilled obligations or debts to the customs authority, the absence of administrative offences in 
the year prior to the application date, the availa bility of sufficient record-keeping procedures, and 
compliance with other relevant requirements of the CU Party under which the entity was established.  
On the specific issue of the absence of administrati ve offences in the prior year, he noted that the 
status of an "Authorised Economic Operator" could not be refused on the basis of minor 
administrative offences.  According to Article 41 of the CU Customs Code and Article 86 of Law 
No. 311-FZ, an Authorised Economic Operator enjo yed simplified and expedited customs procedures, 
including those concerning goods in transit.  Au thorised economic operator status and access to 
simplified procedures applied in the territory of  the CU Party which granted that status.  
The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that the CU Commission could decide 
that certain products could not be subject to the simplified procedures set-out in Article 41 of the 
CU Customs Code, however, the CU Commission had not taken such a decision to date. 
227. In response to further questions from Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that the Government, in respect of measures affecting trade in goods with other 
WTO Members, would continue its policy of mainta ining an expeditious process for registering legal 
entities and individual entrepreneurs and applying tr ansparent and predictable requirements that were 
not burdensome to satisfy.  He added that the Russian Federation would not apply registration 
requirements to limit the possibility for legal persons or individual entrepreneurs (foreign or domestic) 
to engage in importing and exporti ng, and that once registered in the Russian Federation, a legal 
person or individual entrepreneur could import or export products as  described in this Report.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that the Russian Federation would not make 
the procedures or overall requirements to register as a legal person or individual entrepreneur more 
burdensome than necessary, would not discriminate between foreign and domestic applicants in 
approving requests for registration and would also comply with other applicable provisions of the 
WTO Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
228. In order to ensure transparency in registrati on, in accordance with Article 4 of Federal Law 
No. 129-FZ, the Federal Tax Service of the Russian  Federation was responsib le for supervising the 
State Register, which contained information on th e establishment, reorganization and liquidation of 
legal persons and other respective da ta.  According to Article 6 of the above Law, this information 
was available to any interested person upon requ est under the conditions established by the Law.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 81 
 
 
  This information was also posted on the website  of the Federal Tax Service (www.nalog.ru) and 
updated on a monthly basis. 
229. Noting that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Federal Customs Service of the 
Russian Federation had in the past made effort s to limit the number of both importing and exporting 
firms engaged in international trade of certain pr oducts, some Members requested an explanation of 
the reasons for these limitations and the legal basi s upon which they might be taken for both domestic 
and foreign firms importing or exporting.  
230. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that there were no limitations 
on the number of either importing or exporting firms engaged in international trade in the 
Russian Federation and there were no plans to introduce such limitations in future.   
- (a) Alcoholic beverages 
231. Some Members expressed concern over the rest rictive consequences of the current activity 
licensing system for the sale of alcoholic beverages.   They requested information on the intention of 
the Russian Federation to introduce new legislation in  this area.  Noting that the fees charged for the 
right to import alcoholic beverages greatly exceed ed those charged for domestic distribution or 
export, these Members felt that more detail was also required on this and on any other activity 
licensing fees associated with importation.  In pa rticular, these Members sought information on any 
plans for establishment of a State monopoly on alcoholic beverages. 
232. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 
22 November 1995 "On State Regulation of Producin g and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol-Containing Products" (as last amended on 5 April 2010) established the legal basis for 
production and turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcoholi c products (wine, alcoholic beverages, ethyl 
drinkable alcohol) and alcohol-containing products  (alcohol-containing edible and non-edible 
products).  He added that, previously, according to this Law, a specific requirement of licensing of 
export/import activity with those goods  had existed.  However, this requirement had been abolished 
upon the entry into force of Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 21 July 2005, amending Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ. 
233. A Member asked the Russian Federation to sp ecify the requirements to obtain an activity 
licence related to alcohol.  It expressed a concern that certain requirements updated in 
December 2010, such as, technical conditions for storage of alcohol, warehouse requirements (safety 
rules, anti-fire structures, humidity conditions and te mperature, etc.), applied by the Federal Service WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 82  
 
  for the Regulation of Alcohol (FSR) some of wh ich differed from one type of alcohol product to 
another, were difficult to meet, and were applied in an inconsistent manner.  This Member noted that 
these requirements were over-burdens ome and could constitute a discriminatory and/or unjustifiable 
restriction on trade under the WTO Agreement.  
234. In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that these updated 
requirements were designed to create adequate condi tions for storage and distribution of alcohol and 
alcoholic products, ensuring the quality and safety of  the products and the safety of persons engaged 
in operation of warehouses.  In his view, these requirements were not overly burdensome and were applied on a non-discriminatory basis. 
235. Some Members noted that the Russian Federati on continued to require an activity licence to 
engage in producing or distributin g alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol in order to obtain a licence 
to import these products.  This requirement limited the companies that could import to those engaged 
in producing or distributing alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol in the Russian Federation.  
Furthermore, a requirement to obtain both the im port licence, which could only be issued if an 
operator had obtained an activity licence, and the activity licence itself led to a cumbersome double 
licensing situation for foreign operators putting th em at a disadvantage as compared to domestic 
producers.  One Member urged the Russian Federa tion to eliminate this double licensing requirement, 
and noted that any such requirements, if maintained, would have to comply with the WTO Agreement.  
236. The representative of the Russian Federation answ ered that the elimination of the specific 
activity licence for imports and exports, mentioned in paragraph [232], already simplified the 
licensing procedures in the area of trade in alcoholic  products.  This change led to a system whereby 
activity licenses were required only for doing business, i.e., producing, distributing and storing alcoholic beverages and ethyl alc ohol (the product coverage of the activity licensing system was listed 
in [Table 12]), such licenses were valid for no mo re than five years and whereby while no specific 
activity licence would be needed for import/export activities, an activity licence for producing, distributing and storing alcoholic beverages and et hyl alcohol was necessary to obtain a licence to 
import or to export these products.  He confirmed that  the licensing system did not have any turnover 
requirement.  Conditions and requirements to be  fulfilled by legal persons and individual 
entrepreneurs to get an activity licence to engage  in producing, distributing and storing covered 
alcohol products were stipulated in Federal La w No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 (as last amended 
on 5 April 2010).  Pursuant to Resolution No. 154 of  24 February 2009, activity licenses were issued 
by the FSR and were required to be issued within  30 days after submission of the complete set of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 83 
 
 
  documents.  Under the draft FSR Administrative Regul ation, operators were allowed to apply for a 
renewal of their existing activity licence not earlier th an 60 days before the date of its expiration.  
In accordance with Federal Law No. 171-FZ, the FSR was required to conclude its consideration of 
the application for renewal of an activity licence with in 15 calendar days from the date of receipt of 
the application and to issue and notify the applican t in writing of its decision within three calendar 
days after the FSR concluded its considerations.  In response to a question from some Members, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained th at if, for whatever r eason, the activity licence 
expired while the renewal application was pending,  the FSR would require a new application, but 
would not charge a new fee.  However, the goods  stored under the terms of the expired activity 
licence would become illegal from the date of e xpiration of the licence and subject to seizure. 
237. Some Members expressed serious concerns that  applicants for activity licence renewal that 
had complied with all the legal requirements, but ne vertheless had not been granted a renewal, were 
subject to penalties including seizure of their goods, a nd did not have effective legal recourse and that 
these measures as applied were open to abuse and unreasonably restricted access to the market. 
238. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that, in his view, the current 
procedure for the renewal of an activity licence did not constitute a restriction on trade, nor was the 
renewal process overly burdensome.  The FSR could re fuse to issue a licence onl y on the basis of the 
criteria set-out in paragraph 9 of Article 19 of Federal Law No. 171-FZ and could not refuse to issue 
or renew a licence on the basis of minor documentati on errors.  An applicant was not subject to any 
penalties upon the expiration of the activity licence.  If the applicant fulfilled the requirements for an 
activity licence and acted in accordance with other relevant provisions of the legislation of the 
Russian Federation, the applicant would be granted an activity licence and actions and/or inaction by 
the FSR could be challenged in Court. 
239. In response to a question from a Member th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that in cases where an existing activity li cence expired, but an application for renewal was 
pending, an import licence issued to the same opera tor would remain valid until the end of its term 
albeit not operational until the issuance of the re newed activity licence.  In such cases, the operator 
would not be required to seek a new import licence if the previously issued import licence had not 
expired.  That is, the import licence would not be  automatically considered null and void upon the 
expiration of the related activity licence.  
240. One Member asked for confirmation that the pe riod for which an activity licence was issued 
or renewed would not be restricted  on the grounds that the applicant did not hold a lease on its storage 
facilities for the full duration of the requested period. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 84  
 
  241. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation explaine d that Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ stipulated the exhaustive list of document s which were required for the application for an 
activity licence.  In accordance with Article 19.17  of the Federal Law the activity licence can be 
renewed for the period requested by the applicant, bu t not more than five years.  Neither Federal Law 
No. 171-FZ, nor other legal acts contained the requi rement for the applicant to provide a lease 
contract on storage facilities valid within the term of validity of an activity licence.  He further 
confirmed that the FSR would only undertake actions  in conformity with the Federal Law.     
242. One Member emphasized that th e Russian Federation should ensure full national treatment in 
respect of all laws, regulations and requirements concerning internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use of imported alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol. 
243. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the non-automatic import licensing  requirements were explained in the Section 
"Quantitative Import Restrictions, including Prohibi tions and Quotas and Import Licensing Systems" 
of this Report and repeated that, from the date of  the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, 
non-automatic import licensing for alcoholic bevera ges would be eliminated and replaced by an 
automatic licensing procedure wher eby licenses would be issued upon submission of the appropriate 
and complete documentation. 
244. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that, taking into account the 
specificity of the alcohol market, i.e., potential dang er of low-quality alcohol products for the health 
of people, the Government of the Russian Federa tion imposed the following requirements to alcohol 
products, which were applied in a non-discriminat ory manner towards domestic and foreign-made 
products: 
- marking of alcoholic products containing mo re than 9 per cent specific volume of ethyl 
alcohol by excise stamps, which were  available for foreign exporters; 
- registering of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products  and alcohol-containing products in the Unified 
Federal Automatic Information System; and 
- mandatory labelling of every unit of alcoholic beverages with a warning inscription about the 
negative effect of alcohol for the health. 
245. Some Members noted the electronic system for the control of alcoholic products, the Unified 
Federal Automatic Information System (UFAIS), wh ich was linked to the mandatory use of excise 
duty stamps, had caused problems when the system w as introduced and disrupted trade.  While noting 
that these initial problems had been rectified, Me mbers expressed continuing concerns about the 
excessive reporting requirements which obliged importe rs to produce detailed reports about the use of 
every single excise duty stamp.  Members noted  that this mandatory requirement was very  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 85 
 
 
  burdensome and questioned the need for it.  Member s also expressed concern that domestic producers 
were  not subject to the same requirements.  In res ponse, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that as of 8 January 2009, according to G overnment Resolution No. 522 of 25 August 2006 
(as last amended on 9 March 2010), importers  and domestic producers had the same reporting 
requirements related to stamps for alcoholic be verages.  Furthermore, Members requested a 
confirmation that the excise stamps issued under an  activity licence would continue to remain valid 
also, if that licence was renewed.  Members also asked about the intention of the authorities of the 
Russian Federation to introduce a new excise duty stam p which would need to be applied in addition 
to the stamp introduced already ("second stamp"). 
246. Some Members also asked about mandatory guarantees required for imported products in 
accordance with Order No. 663 of the Federal Custom s Service, dated 13 April 2009.  They expressed 
concern about the fixed guarantee levels set-out in this document which were in many cases excessive 
compared to the actual customs payments due.  They  also raised concerns about the reimbursement 
periods of these excessive payments, which were often very lengthy and caused significant economic 
losses to the operators.  Further, some Members ask ed about the requirement for a second guarantee 
concerning the delivery of goods.   
247. In response to the question of some Members about the basic guarantee required for imported 
products, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the requirements regarding basic 
guarantees were established by Order No. 663 of the Fe deral Customs Service.  Pursuant to the Order, 
the fixed amount of basic guarantees was se t in accordance with Article 88.4 of the 
CU Customs Code.  Pursuant to Article 88.1, the amount of guarantee of customs payment was calculated on the basis of the sums of the customs duties and taxes payable in the CU Party where the 
goods were to be released for domestic consum ption or export.  If the goods entered the 
Russian Federation under customs transit to anot her CU Party, the amount of the guarantee of 
payment was determined on the basis of the amount of the customs duties and taxes payable in the 
CU Party in which the goods would be released or  from which they would be exported, but the 
guarantee amount would be no less than the customs du ties and taxes that would be paid if the goods 
were released in or exported from any other CU Pa rty.  Where the sum of payable customs duties and 
taxes could not be exactly calculated due to the non-provision to the customs body of exact 
information on the nature of the goods, their name, quantity, country of origin and customs value at 
the time the guarantee payment was assessed, the amount  of the guarantee of payment was to be set 
on the basis of the highest rates of customs duties a nd taxes, the value of goods and/or their natural 
physical characteristics (quantity, weight, volume and other characteristics) which could be assessed 
on the basis of available data.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 86  
 
  248. Further, he confirmed that Government al Resolution No. 699 of 24 October 2007 
"On Amending Governmental Resolution No. 866 of 31 December 2005" had abolished the double 
bank guarantee on imported alcohol pr oducts.  He confirmed that, c oncerning guarantees and deposits 
for imports of alcoholic products, no additional doc uments, such as "transit guarantee certificates" or 
other requirements, were necessary for the importa tion of alcoholic products.  As regards some 
concern from Members on the limitation of the number of banks that could provide guarantees to 
importers and on the cap on the value of guarante es that could have been provided by banks, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained that these provisions were imposed to secure customs payments and interest payable at the clear ance of goods for free circulation and they were not 
aimed at indirect protection of domestic products.  He added that both foreign and domestic producers 
could provide guarantees issued by only those banks which had been included in the list of 
banks-participants of the system of insured account s and that there was no discrimination on the basis 
of origin of an operator in issuing the guarantees by these listed banks.  He a dded that, pursuant to 
Article 62 of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 Ju ly 2002 "On the Central Bank of the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 26 Ap ril 2007), the Bank of Russia could set special 
standards for banks in order to ensure stability of  credit organizations.  The maximum level of risks 
for each borrower was limited by one of these standards. 
249. In reply to the question about the UFAIS syst em, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that the UFAIS system had been introduced  by amendments to Federal Law No. 171-FZ with 
the aim of establishing better control upon the alc oholic products which were distributed in the 
territory of the Russian Federation and preventi ng the introduction of counterfeit products into the 
market.  This informational system contained information provided by the enterprises performing 
production and distribution of ethyl alcohol, alc oholic products and alc ohol-containing products.  
According to the rules of the functioning of the sy stem, established by Resolution of the Government 
of the Russian Federation No. 522 of 25 Augus t 2006 (as last amended on 9 March 2010), the 
information about the products subject to import and about the company which would distribute the 
products in the territory of the Russian Federation (taxpayer identification number, information about 
the activity licence and, if appropriate, on the im port licence), was provided to the customs authorities 
in electronic form.  In response to a question from a Member concerning the impact of the creation of 
the Customs Union on the UFAIS system, the repr esentative explained that the excise duty stamps 
and the UFAIS system were specific to the Russian  Federation, and that alcoholic products from 
Kazakhstan and Belarus were treated as imports for the purpose of the UFAIS system.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 87 
 
 
  250. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that excise stamps already issued under an activity licence would remain valid and could 
continue to be used if that activity licence was renewed. 
251. The representative of the Russian Federation under lined that there were currently no plans to 
introduce additional requirements concerning a second excise duty stamp and if such a requirement 
were introduced, it would be non-discriminatory and otherwise consistent with WTO requirements.  
He further confirmed that any excise stamp requi rement would be applie d consistent with the 
WTO Agreement.  He also added that the Russian  Federation would apply th e requirements regarding 
the guarantees in a manner consistent with the WT O Agreement, including by ensuring that the 
guarantees would not significantly exceed the actual payments due.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments. 
252. In response to the question of some Members about the regulation of import to the 
Russian Federation of denaturized substances and denaturized alcohol-containing products, the 
representative of the Russian Federation said that, si nce 1 July 2007, the production and sale of such 
products (including import) was limited to those which were specified in the list established by 
Government Resolution No. 401 of 25 June 2007 ( as last amended on 31 October 2009) implementing 
Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 that  had entered into force on 9 December 1995 
(as amended on 29 December 2006).  
253. In response to the question of some Members concerning State monopoly on alcohol, he 
informed that Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 Nove mber 1995 "On State Regulation of Producing and 
Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and Al cohol-Containing Produc ts" (as amended on 
1 December 2007) envisaged the possibility of establishing a State monopoly for manufacture and (or) turnover of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and alcohol-containing products in the territory of the Russian Federation.  Similarly, the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Re gulation envisioned the 
possibility of an exclusive licence to import certain products to be granted by the CU Commission.  
However, neither the establishment of a State m onopoly nor the grant of an exclusive import licence 
was anticipated at this time.  
254. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that licensing fees were provided for in 
the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (see [Table 12]).  The Code was designed to provide a unified 
licensing fee rate for the right of production,  storage and sale of alcoholic products.  
The representative of the Russian Federation furt her stated that discriminatory fees on imported 
products in relation to licensing procedures had been eliminated. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 88  
 
  - (b) Pharmaceuticals 
255. Some Members requested additional information concerning the future elimination of activity 
licensing requirements as a condition for impor tation in the area of pharmaceuticals and sought 
clarifications regarding the steps taken by the au thorities of the Russian Federation to bring existing 
practices into consistency with WTO requirements.  
256. The representative of the Russian Federation said that in order to protect human and animal 
life and health, the right to import pharmaceuticals, including veterinary drugs, was granted to the 
following Russian entities, including foreign-inve sted enterprises, registered as a Russian legal 
person, in accordance with Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 12 April 2010 "On the Circulation of 
Medicines":   
- enterprises manufacturing pharmaceuticals, whic h imported pharmaceutical products for their 
own manufacturing of pharmaceuticals; 
- wholesale enterprises of pharmaceuticals;  - research and development institutes and laborat ories, which carried out development research 
and quality control, effectiveness, and safety of pharmaceuticals;  
- foreign developers and foreign producers of  pharmaceuticals for clinical trials, State 
Registration of pharmaceuticals, inclusion of pha rmaceutical substances in the State registry 
of pharmaceuticals and quality control of them  under the permission of the authorised body; 
and 
- medical organizations for the provision of medical assistance to certain patients.   
257. Pursuant to Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 Au gust 2001 "On Licensing of Specific Types of 
Activities" (as last amended on 28 September 2010), the activity licensing in respect of pharmaceuticals, including veterinary drugs, was ma intained because of potential damage of such 
activity to human or animal life and health.  Li censes for the production or distribution of these goods 
were issued for a period of five years.  In accordance with Article 15 of Federal Law No. 128-FZ, a 
fee of RUB 2,600 was charged for the issuing of  each activity licence for pharmaceutical activity, 
e.g., production of pharmaceuticals, including veterinary drugs, and for activities in distribution of 
pharmaceutical products for medical purposes.  
258. Some Members of the Working Party requested the Russian Federation to confirm that the 
ability to request an activity licen ce for trade in pharmaceuticals w as reserved for Russian Federation 
firms and to explain what that meant in practice for foreign-owned firms in the Russian Federation, 
foreign exporting firms not established in the Russian  Federation, and domestic or foreign individual 
entrepreneurs seeking to export pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation.  They asked the 
Russian Federation to confirm that activity licen ses would be made available to all registered 
companies (domestic or foreign).  They noted that  this would not prevent the Russian Federation from  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 89 
 
 
  operating State-trading enterprises or applying c ontrols on imports and exports for example for 
purposes of human health, as long as these were app lied in a manner consistent with relevant 
WTO obligations.  
259. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation recalled that foreign legal persons 
intending to import pharmaceuticals, including vete rinary drugs, into the territory of the Russian 
Federation were required to register as a legal pe rson of the Russian Federation to hold a licence to 
engage in the relevant type of pharmaceutical activity  (production, distribution) in the territory of the 
Russian Federation, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Law No. 128-FZ and to acquire import 
licenses from the Ministry of Industry and Trade. 
260. Members continued to express concerns regard ing these requirements.  An importer had to 
obtain an activity licence to engage in producti on or distribution of pharmaceuticals in the 
Russian Federation as a condition for receiving an impor t licence.  The criteria applied to obtain these 
activity licenses did not relate to importation and requiring an importer of pharmaceuticals to meet the requirements to produce or wholesale pharmaceuticals in the Russian Federation could limit imports of these goods.  
261. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, under Article 48 of Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 12 April 2010 "On the Circulation of Me dicines", domestic and foreign natural persons 
were not permitted to import pharmaceuticals, includi ng veterinary drugs, to the Russian Federation.  
Some Members of the Working Party requested information on whether natural persons were 
permitted to manufacture pharmaceuticals in the Russian  Federation.  Those Members noted that the 
fee for each importation was burdensome, delayed im ports and unnecessarily added to the expenses of 
importation, and appeared to be a revenue meas ure.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that under Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of 
Specific Types of Activities" (as last amended on 30 September 2010) and according to Government 
Resolution No. 684 of 3 September 2010 "On Re gulations on Licensing of the Manufacturing of 
Pharmaceuticals" the manufacturing of pharmaceutical s in the Russian Federation could not be carried 
out by natural persons.  Regarding importation of ph armaceuticals, he noted that legal persons with 
foreign participation (including fully foreign-owne d legal persons) enjoyed the same rights as other 
Russian legal persons in the Russian Federation and could obtain the required activity licence under 
the same conditions. 
262. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that activity licenses were made 
available to all companies register ed in the Russian Federation as le gal entities (including those with 
foreign participation and those entirely owned by foreigners), which satisfied government regulatory WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 90  
 
  criteria.  He further noted that the Rules of Im port and Export of Medicines Registered in the 
Russian Federation (approved by Government Reso lution No. 438 of 16 July 2005 "On the Procedure 
for Importation and Exportation of Medicines fo r Medical Purposes"), Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 
12 April 2010 "On the Circulation of Medici nes", as well as the CU Agreements listed in 
paragraph [217], CU Commission Decision No. 132, a nd, more specifically, by the Regulations on the 
Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of th e Customs Union of Medicines and Pharmaceutical 
Ingredients, defined the procedure for importa tion/exportation of medicines and pharmaceutical 
substances registered in the Russian Federation.  The representative of the Russian Federation also 
recalled the information contained in the Secti on on "Quantitative Import Restrictions, including 
Prohibitions and Quotas and Import Licensing Syst ems" regarding acquisition of licenses for the 
importation of pharmaceuticals. 
- (c) Goods with Encryption Technology 
263. Some Members noted that the Russian Federati on also required an activity licence to engage 
in production or distribution of certain goods with encryption technology.  Moreover, the Russian Federation required that applicants for a licence to import certain goods with encryption 
technology also had an activity licence to distribute or produce goods with encryption technology 
(see paragraphs [471] to [487] of the Section "Qua ntitative Import Restrictions, Including Prohibitions 
and Quotas, and Import Licensing Systems").  These Members expressed their continued concern that 
the requirement to have an activity licence as a condition for obtaining an import licence was an 
unjustifiable restriction on imports. 
264. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation recalle d the sensitivity of the goods 
that were subject to the import licensing requirement and noted that many WTO Members regulated trade in goods with encryption technology.  He noted, however, that pursuant to Government 
Resolution No. 957 "Approving Regulations on Licen sing of Specific Types of Activities Related to 
Encryption (Cryptographic) Products" of 29 Dece mber 2007, certain goods containing encryption 
technology were exempt from the activity licensing requirements contained in those regulations.  
He further noted that, pursuant to the CU Regul ations 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, of 1 December  2009, and as described in paragraphs [471] to 
[487] of the Section "Quantitative Import Restric tions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas, and Import 
Licensing Systems" of this Report, many goods c ontaining encryption technology no longer required 
an import licence.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 91 
 
 
  - (d) Precious stones and metals 
265. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that, as of 1 January 2010, the procedures 
for the import and export of precious stones and metals  were set-forth in the CU Regulations "On the 
Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic 
Community and the Export from the Customs Territory  of the Customs Union within the Eurasian 
Economic Community Precious Metals, Precious Stones and Commodities Containing Precious 
Metals" ("Precious Stones and Metals Regulati ons"), adopted by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 132 on 27 November 2009.  Pursuant to these Re gulations, those products listed in sections 2.9 
and 2.10 of the Common List attached to Decision No. 132 (see [Table 28]) were subject to licensing requirements.  Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Pr ecious Stones and Metals Regulations, an activity 
licence to carry out operations with precious metals  or stones was required in order to export precious 
metals and stones (excluding diamonds) from the CU; similarly, under paragraph 24 of the Precious 
Stones and Metals Regulations, the export for proc essing of precious metals and gemstones could be 
carried out only by legal persons or individua l entrepreneurs who hold an activity licence.   
The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r noted, however, that Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 
8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Specific Types of Activities" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010) had abolished the activity licen sing requirement for trade of precious metals, 
precious stones, and jewellery containing precious metals and precious stones, although an activity 
licence was required to obtain a licence to export.    
266. Further the representative of the Russian Fede ration noted that according to Presidential 
Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Importation into and Exportation from the 
Russian Federation of Precious Metals and Preci ous Stones" (as amended on 11 January 2007), there 
were no statutory licensing or quantitative requireme nts for imports of precious stones and metals to 
the territory of the Russian Federation.  Moreover,  precious stones and metals had been removed from 
the list of currency valuables, pursuant to Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 
"On Currency Regulation and Currency Control" ( as last amended on 22 July 2008), excluding data 
on extraction, transfer, and consumption of precious  stones and metals from the list of State Secret 
Data, in accordance with Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 11 November 2003 "On Amending Article 5 of 
the Federal Law of the Russian Federation On St ate Secrets" and Presidential Decree No. 243 of 
3 March 2005 "On Amendments to the List of State Secret Data, Approved by Decree of the President 
of the Russian Federation No. 1203 of 30 Nove mber 1995".  These amendments simplified the 
procedure for performing transactions with precious stones and metals, made these transactions more transparent and removed a number of restrictions in the turnover of precious metals and precious 
stones, such as restricted rights of legal entities w ith respect to ownership and disposal of this WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 92  
 
  category of goods.  In addition, Presidentia l Decree No. 1137 of 20 September 2010 "On the 
Adoption of the Regulation on Import to the Russian Federation from the Countries not party to the 
Customs Union of the EurAsEC and Export from the Russian Federation to such Countries of 
Precious Metals, Stones, and Raw Ma terials Containing Precious Metals"  abolished quantitative 
export restrictions for platinum and platinum group metals and raw diam onds; allowed exports of 
ferrous metals materials containing precious meta ls and removed the ban for export of scrap and 
wastes; and permitted the future liberalization of international trade involving these goods, waste of 
precious metals, ores and concentrates of precious metals, and unprocessed precious metals.  These amendments were also aimed at abolishing quantitative restrictions for export of natural 
diamonds for mining subjects and di amonds of 10.8 carats and more, if these natural diamonds were 
obtained by foreign persons from mining subjects at  the auctions carried out in accordance with the 
legislation of the Russian Federation.  Decree No. 1137 of 20 September 2010 also provided that the 
exportation from the Russian Federation under the customs regime of export of natural diamonds 
(except for unique natural diamonds and the natura l diamonds of the form "board" and "drilling" 
regardless of their sizes and degrees of processi ng, sieve diamonds of "-3+2" classes and lower 
classes), refined platinum and metals of platinum group in the form of bullions, plates, powder and 
granules, and also nuggets of the precious metals, the raw precious metals, ores and concentrates of 
precious metals, the raw goods containing precious metals, scrap and wast e products of precious 
metals could be carried out without quantitative restrictions on the basis of export licences, as 
provided for in the sections 2.9 and 2.10 of the Common List attached to Decision No. 132 
(see [Table 28]) which were issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation.  
267. Some Members requested further clarification on whether the Russian Federation maintained 
any restrictions or requirements other than tariffs  on the importation of precious metals and stones, 
notably whether imports of these products were also restricted by import licensing, or whether it was 
necessary to import them through customs checkpoi nts designated for declaration of such goods as 
was the case with diamond exports.  These Members also expressed concerns in relation to export 
requirements for precious stones and metals.   
268. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that imports of precious 
stones and precious metals and products containing precious stones and precious metals were subject 
to customs tariff only.  He added that imports  of precious metals, precious stones and jewellery  must 
be carried out through custom checkpoints designat ed for declaration of such goods (Presidential 
Decree No. 1137).  These designated customs checkpoi nts were properly equipped with specialists 
qualified in the area of precious metals and preci ous stones.  These checkpoints were part of the 
customs system of the Russian Federation.  He also added that mentioned procedures were in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 93 
 
 
  accordance with the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs 
Procedures (Kyoto 2000), in particular, with its Specific Annex A, Chapter 1, according to which 
national legislation specified the places at which su ch goods might be introduced into the Customs 
territory. 
- (e) Other licensing requirements 
269. Some Members expressed concerns in relati on to licensing requirements governing access to 
oil and gas pipelines or other distribution networ ks for export products which could operate in a 
manner so as to restrict the volume of oil and gas exported from the Russian Federation, and could be 
inconsistent with the requirements of Article  XI of the GATT 1994.  They requested the 
Russian Federation to provide further informati on on the operation of these regimes, including on the 
regime for export licensing of energy products. 
270. Concerning questions on licensing related to im port or export of electricity and import of 
natural gas, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that there were no export/import 
licenses requirements for these products.  
271. He added that Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 18 July 2006 "On Export of Gas" had established 
the exclusive right to export natural gas from th e Russian Federation to the organization being the 
owner of the unified gas supply system and its branch  companies.  He noted that the information of 
the gas export licensing regime was contained in the Section "Export Licensing Procedures" of this Report.  
272. He added that according to Federal Law No . 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of 
Specific Types of Activity" (as last amende d on 28 September 2010), there were no licensing 
requirements for the following types of activity:  
 the operation of oil and gas production facilities; 
 the sale of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
 the processing of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products thereof; 
 the transportation of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; 
 the storage of oil, gas and oil/gas processing products; and 
 the activity of operating gas networks. 
273. The representative of the Russian Federation recalled his earlier statements on registration 
requirements, and further stated that such requi rements for export contracts had been originally 
introduced by Government Resolution No. 758 of 1 July 1994 "On Measures to Improve the State 
Regulation of Export of Goods and Services" (as last amended on 8 December 2010), and had been WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 94  
 
  repealed by Government Resolution No. 300 of 21 March 1996 "On Recognizing as Invalidated 
Certain Decisions of the Government of the Russian  Federation on the Issue of Registering Contracts 
in the Export of Commodities".  Registration of import contracts had never been required in the 
Russian Federation, and the Russian Federation did not maintain any special mandatory registry of 
import or export contracts.  He also confirmed th at his authorities had no plans to introduce such 
registration in any form in future.  He further stat ed that the subjects of the Russian Federation were 
not permitted to impose requirements on legal or na tural persons that might affect their rights to 
engage in importation or exportation of goods. 
274. Some Members of the Working Party stated th at the Russian Federation should undertake the 
following commitments in this area:  the Russian Federation would guarantee that no restrictions would be maintained on the right to trade in  goods except as would be consistent with 
WTO provisions and that all laws a nd regulations relating to trading ri ghts in the Russian Federation, 
whether adopted by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, and would be applied 
in a manner consistent with relevant WTO obliga tions.  Specifically, the Russian Federation should 
confirm that no restrictions would be maintain ed on the rights of individuals and enterprises, 
including those with foreign participation, to impor t and export goods into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation except as would be consistent  with provisions of the WTO Agreement.  
Nor would individuals and firms be restricted in their ability to import and export based on their registered scope of business.  The criteria for regist ration and enrolment in the State Register of legal 
persons would be generally  applicable and published in the O fficial Gazette, along with any further 
changes.  Without prejudice to other relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, the Russian Federation should ensure that any laws and re gulations relating to the right to trade in goods 
would not restrict imports of goods in violation of  the general prohibition on quantitative restrictions 
under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, nor should they discriminate against imported goods in 
violation of the provisions of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  Any associated fees, taxes and charges 
should also be limited to the approximate cost of services rendered and their application should not 
lead to discrimination in favour of like domestic pr oducts.  In particular, Members requested that in 
respect of imports of alcohol, pharmaceutical s, and goods with encryption capability, the 
Russian Federation eliminate the requirement to obtain an import licence and/or an activity licence as 
a pre-condition for import or export. 
275. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
application of all laws, regulati ons and other measures affecting importation or e xportation of goods, 
whether by the Russian Federation or the competen t bodies of the CU, would be in conformity with 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 95 
 
 
  and Articles I, III, VIII, and XI of the GATT 1994.  Addressing the concerns of some Members about 
the current regulation of impor tation of alcohol, pharmaceutical s and products with encryption 
technology, which required issuance of an import licence and/or activity licence as a pre-condition for 
importation, as set-out in paragraphs [236, 259, 477 to 481], he confirmed that, upon its accession to 
the WTO, the Russian Federation would ensure that the person who had the right, according to 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions or Russi an legislation, to declare the imported goods 
would be permitted to pay relevant customs duties, fees and charges in connection with importation of 
alcohol, pharmaceuticals or products with encryptio n technology without presenting an import and/or 
activity license(s) to the customs authorities, and that these goods would be pe rmitted to be withdrawn 
from the territory of the customs ch eckpoint for the purpose of free circulation in the territory of the 
Russian Federation by the holder of the respective import and/or activity licenses.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments. 
1. Import Regulations 
- Customs Regulations and Procedures 
276. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that the Russian Federation had been an 
active participant at the World Customs Organizati on (WCO), even before gaining full Membership 
on 8 July 1993.  The Russian Federation had also joined the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System on 1 January 1997, as well as the Customs Cooperation Council, the ATA Carnet, and the Nairobi  and Istanbul Conventions.  His Government 
had also joined the International Convention on  the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs 
Procedures (Revised Kyoto Convention, 1999). 
277. Members asked the Russian Federation to provide a description of the  customs regime in 
effect in the Russian Federation, including Custom s Union legal acts, together with copies of all 
relevant implementing instruments in a WTO working language.   
278. The Representative of the Russian Federation not ed that, as of 1 July 2010, CU Agreements, 
CU Decisions and other CU legal documents, in particular the CU Customs Code, as amended by the 
Protocol on the Amendment, and Addition of the Treaty on the Customs Code of the Customs Union of 27 November 2009, signed on 16 April 2010, had provided the legal framework for the customs 
regime of the Russian Federation and other CU Parties.  Pursuant to these CU legal acts, customs 
regulation was also provided by the domestic legisla tion of CU Parties.  In the Russian Federation, 
this domestic legislation was Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010 "On Customs 
Regulation".  These legal acts had replaced the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 96  
 
  21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended on 3 December 2007) and Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the Ru ssian Federation", which had entered into force 
on 1 January 2004, as the legal basis for the customs regime of the Russian Federation.  He further 
explained that Article 357.10 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation and provisions of the 
Law on Customs Tariff continued to be in effect to  the extent that they did not conflict with the 
CU Customs Code or Federal Law No. 311-FZ.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the CU Customs Code was based on generally accepted international rules, including 
the Revised Kyoto Convention.  The CU Custom s Code was the principal legal document that 
governed customs administration and customs pro cedures, including the rights and responsibilities of 
national customs authorities, importers, and exporters .  It contained detailed provisions related to 
customs control, operations, payments, and various  types of customs "procedures" (e.g., release for 
domestic use, export, re-importation and re-exporta tion, inward and outward processing, temporary 
importation or exportation, use of customs warehou ses, duty free trade/shops, destruction of goods 
and rejection in favour of the State).  The CU Cu stoms Code also established the right of appeal 
against customs decisions and addressed WTO rules and disciplines on the protection of intellectual 
property rights at the border, customs valuation,  customs fees, special economic zones, trade in 
transit, and rules of origin.  He noted that a dditional provisions on these issues were found in other 
CU Agreements and Decisions (as outlined in the specific Sections of this Report covering these 
issues).  Further details relating to customs issu es were set-out in Federal Law No. 311-FZ, notably 
concerning specific rules for the application of cu stoms procedures in the Russian Federation which 
were not fully covered in the CU Customs Code.   
279. In response to a question from some Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
noted that the customs bodies in the Russian Federa tion constituted a single Federal system and that 
their functions were established and authorised by  the provisions of the CU Customs Code, Federal 
Law No. 311-FZ and provisions of previous domestic laws  that remained in effect.  He noted that, in 
accordance with Government Decision No. 459 of 26  July 2006 "On the Federal Customs Service" 
(as last amended on 15 June 2010), the Federal Customs Service (FCS) was the authorised Federal 
executive body, which carried  out the functions of:  elaboration of State policy and the 
implementation of legal regulation (i ncluding CU Decisions); control a nd supervision in the sphere of 
the customs system; as well as the functions of a currency control agent and special functions of 
fighting smuggling and other crimes and administra tive offences.  The activity of the FCS was 
directly subordinated to the Government of the Russian Federation. 
280. He added that pursuant to Article  4 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, the Government of the 
Russian Federation and its executive bodies (e.g., the FCS) could issue, within the limits of their  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 97 
 
 
  respective competence and in cases clear ly defined by the CU Customs Code and related legal acts as 
well as legal acts of the Russian Federation, normativ e legal acts pertaining to customs matters.  
The President could also issue a decree on these matters.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that FCS orders cove red procedural issues concerning the activities of 
customs authorities and the majority of these orders we re of an administrative or procedural nature.  
Other CU legal acts and national laws and measures that directly regulated foreign trade in goods 
were referred to in other relevant Sections of this Report, including  "Registration Requirements for 
Import/Export Operations", "Other Customs Forma lities", and "Customs Valuation".  The main 
functions of the FCS were set-out in the Regula tion "On the Federal Customs Service", which had 
been approved by Government Decision No. 459 of 26 July 2006 "On the Federal Customs Service" 
(as last amended on 15 June 2010).  
281. The CU  Customs Code and Federal Law No. 311-FZ also contained a number of provisions 
giving the Customs authorities of the Russian Fede ration the power to issue normative legal acts 
pertaining to the form of documents to be used in  customs affairs, procedures for inter-departmental 
co-operation, co-operation with foreign customs authorities, customs statistics, as well as other 
matters not related to the imposition of any obligatio n on participants in foreign trade activities or the 
definition of their rights.  The Customs author ities did not have any power to establish customs 
administration principles, conditions of customs c ontrol or any regulation regarding a question of 
principle.  He added that the vast majority of provisions of the CU Customs Code and other 
CU Agreements and Decisions relating to customs issues were of direct application, removing the 
element of FCS discretion from many customs operations 
282. The CU Customs Code established the right of appeal with regard to customs issues in 
Article 9.  Articles 36-49 of Federal Law No. 311- FZ, contained detailed provisions on the right of 
appeal, so as to ensure compliance of national customs administrations and their officers with 
requirements in their decision-making, including ac tion or inaction.  Right of appeal could be 
exercised through lodging a complaint with the hier archal superior customs administrations and/or 
through judicial procedures (for further deta ils, see the Section "Framework for Making and 
Enforcing Policies" of this Report).  To ensure  transparency, Article 51 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ 
also required relevant authorities to publish lega l acts of customs regulations in the official 
publications.  
283. Pursuant to Article 181  of the CU  Customs Code, a customs declaration had to be presented at 
the time of presentation of the goods to Customs authorities at the point of destination in the customs territory of the Russian Federation, i.e., wh en placed under one of the customs procedures,  other than WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 98  
 
  the customs procedure of customs transit, specified in Article 202, or at the day of completion of 
customs transit procedure, if imported goods were not declared at the point of destination.  According 
to Article 193 of the CU Customs Code, if the goods were not produced to the customs authority, 
which had registered the customs declaration, or to the other customs authority specified by the 
customs legislation of the member state within 30 calendar days from the day following the day of its registration or if the prohibitions and restrictions  were introduced since th en, the customs authority 
shall refuse to release such goods .  Goods placed under the transit procedure were declared in 
accordance with Article 182 of the CU Customs Code .  The representative of the Russian Federation 
added that Articles 38 to 41 of the CU Custom s Code and Articles 85 to 96 of Federal Law 
No. 311-FZ provided for special simplified cu stoms formalities for "Authorised Economic 
Operators," i.e., persons who met the requirements listed in Article 39 and Ar ticle 87, respectively, 
including: 
- provision of guarantee for the payment of customs duties and taxes (amount varies); 
- performance of foreign economic activities for at least one year; - absence of tax arrears or unfulfilled obligation to  pay customs payments, interest, or penalties; 
absence of repeated (two or more) customs admi nistrative offences during the previous year; 
- absence of a record of conviction for economic  criminal offenses by the chief officers and 
employees conducting customs operations under the simplified procedures;   
- use of an accounting system in their commercia l documents for the foreign trade activity that 
enabled customs authorities to compare the inform ation contained in such documents with the 
information presented to customs authorities in the process of customs clearance; and 
- if the authorised economic operator exercises temporary storage of goods, compliance with 
the requirements for this status found in  Article 89 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ. 
284. A Member expressed concern that the procedures for registration of importers for the special 
simplified customs formalities referred to in para graph [283] were quite cumbersome and that it 
would take several months to obtain authorization for such registration.  The Member requested the 
Russian Federation to make a commitment to simplif y the above procedures and to shorten the period 
required for issuing the above authorization.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation 
noted that the Russian Federation would continue its  policy for the development of the procedures of 
special simplified customs formalitie s with respect to bona fide partic ipants of foreign economic trade 
in the framework of the require ments established by Article 39 of the CU Customs Code and 
Article  88 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ with a view to increasing the effectiveness of the procedures of 
special simplified customs formalities. 
285. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that the CU Customs Code 
also provided for the maximum period that goods c ould be kept in temporary (bonded) storage.  
According to Chapter 25 of the CU Customs Code  and Section 23 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, goods 
under customs registration could be placed in tempor ary storage warehouses, prior to their release by  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 99 
 
 
  the customs authorities.  Temporary storage warehouses were owned by Russian legal persons, 
possessing operable storage facilities that could be used for ensuring the safety of goods, provided 
that the warehouse owner could present financial guarantees, and was ready to assume responsibility 
for the goods in favour of the owner.  Customs aut horities could also operate such storage facilities.  
In some cases, goods could also be temporarily stored in the warehouse of the importer (Articles 200 
and 201 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ).  Temporary stor age of goods was limited to two months from 
the date following the date of registration by the customs authorities, a period that could be extended 
for a maximum of two more months, if customs cl earance had not been concluded.  According to 
Article 170 of the CU Customs Code, the CU Commi ssion was authorised to determine a shorter term 
of storage for particular categories of goods.  Item s in the process of international postal exchange and 
luggage from passenger aircrafts that had not been co llected could be held in temporary storage for up 
to six months.  Upon expiration of the temporary st orage period, the goods, that had not been placed 
under the customs procedure, were detained and subject to seizure  for sale or  destruction, as  provided  
for in Chapter 2 of the CU Customs Code.  Nevert heless, the sum resulting from the sale of the goods 
would be kept for three months after the sale,  during which it could be returned to the owner, upon 
request and after deduction of the customs charges, taxes and other expenses pertaining to the storage 
and sale of the goods.  The representative of the Ru ssian Federation referred Members to the Section 
"Regulation of Trade in Transit" of this Report for information on customs escort. 
286. He further stated that Article 70 of the CU Cu stoms Code set-out a list of customs payments 
(import duty, export duty, value added and excise taxes, customs fees and, as necessary, safeguard, 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties  on imported goods).  Article 186 of the CU Customs Code 
specified those persons who could be responsible for declaration of goods and payment of customs 
payments, and the legal grounds for exemption of pe rsons or products from such payments was found 
in Article 80 and 81 (for further informati on on tariff exemptions, see the Section "Tariff 
Exemptions"; and on customs fees, see the Section "Fees and Charges for Services Rendered" of this 
Report).  The CU Customs Code also authorised deferment of payments and making payments in 
instalments.  Articles 132 to 136 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010 "On Customs 
Regulation"  stipulated the grounds for deferment of paym ents and provided a list of circumstances in 
which they were permitted.  Articles 89 to 90 of  the CU Customs Code set-out the mechanism for 
remission of overpaid or over-recovered cust oms payments from the customs authorities, 
supplemented by Articles 147 to 149 of Federa l Law No. 311-FZ.  The customs authority was 
required to inform the payer of the  overpaid or over-recovered customs payments within one month of 
the detection of the overpayment or over-recovery .  Articles 91 to 93 of the CU Customs Code 
provided for the recovery of unpaid customs paymen ts to the customs authorities, and Articles 150 to 
160 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ detailed the procedures to be used.  Chapter 28 of the CU Customs WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 100  
 
  Code also specified the procedures and time-fram es for releasing goods (Articles 195 to 201).  
Pursuant to Article 196 of the CU Customs Code, the customs authority had to take a decision on 
release of the goods not later than one working da y from the date of registration of the customs 
declaration, unless specifically prov ided for elsewhere in the CU Cu stoms Code, e.g., as provided for 
in Article 331, concerning intellectual property pr otection.  According to Article 186.2 of the 
CU Customs Code, in case of a preliminary custom s declaration, a decision on the release of the 
goods was required to take one working day from the date of presentation of the goods to the customs 
authority registering the declaration. 
287. The representative of the Russian Federation also  noted that if, when examining a customs 
declaration and any other documents or data, cust oms authorities discovered any signs suggesting that 
the information stated by the d eclarant might contain fictitious details influencing the amount of 
dutiable payments or that the declared inform ation had not been properly evidenced, customs 
authorities could conduct an additi onal examination to accurately determine the necessary payments.  
If the examination could not be c onducted within the time limits provided for the release of goods 
from customs control, the goods could be released upon presentation of a guarantee for the duty 
payments in the amount of the customs payments that might be additionally charged as a result of 
additional examination (Article 69 of the CU Customs Code). 
288. The declarant, when securing a customs payment,  had the right to use any kind of security 
envisaged by the CU  Customs Code (Article 86), provided th at the customs authority recognised, 
depending on the circumstances of each particular case, the reliability of the secu rity used.  In such 
case, the declarant was advised in writing of the am ount required.  Article 196 further provided that 
the goods must be released no later than one day following the date of registration of the customs 
declaration.  Article 220 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ stated that this term could be prolonged until  a 
security for customs payment was provided.  Artic le 85 of the CU Customs Code provided for cases 
in which the security for customs payment was re quired and Article 86 specified the methods of 
providing a security for customs payment.   The declarant could choose which method to use.  
These methods included:  (i) a personal guarantee, in cluding a surety bond; (ii) a payment in cash at 
the desk of the cashier or transfer of funds to th e account of the customs office at the Federal Treasury 
(cash deposit); (iii) a bank guarantee; or (iv) a mo rtgage of goods and other property.  Each method 
was described in detail in Articles 140  to 146 of Federal  Law No. 311-FZ (further information on the 
implementation of Article 13 of  the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VII of the 
GATT 1994 was provided in the Section "Customs Re gulations and Procedures" of this Report).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 101 
 
 
  289. Some Members expressed concern that the one-day time period for examining and clearing 
goods allowed under Article 196 was subject to excep tions provided by the CU Customs Code and 
Federal Law No. 311-FZ,  stating that this could unnecessarily hold up goods in clearance.  
In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation explained that even before  the maximum 
time period had been reduced from three business days (under Federal Law No. 61 of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the Russian Federation" ) to only one day, as provided for by the 
CU Customs Code, over 90 per cent of goods were cleared within one day or less. 
290. Some Members expressed concerns regarding po ssible inconsistencies in the application of 
customs laws and regulations by regional customs authorities and stressed the need to ensure uniform 
and transparent implementation of customs regul ations throughout the entire territory of the 
Russian Federation.  Many Members also sought a clarification of Customs Order No. 25 of 
15 January 2001 "On the Checkpoints for Entry into th e Territory of the Russian Federation of Certain 
Categories of Goods" and other relate d orders of the SCC, which limited the number of customs land 
checkpoints for goods imported from 14 countries, including a number of ASEAN countries.  Noting that a number of these 14 countries were WTO Members, these Members requested:  (i) confirmation 
from the Russian Federation that this particular orde r and other related orders had been repealed; and 
(ii) a commitment that they would not be re-introduced in the future.   
291. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation said that the uniform application of 
customs procedures was required by Article 7 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, which provided for the 
uniform application of customs legislation by all customs bodies in the territory of the 
Russian Federation.  Concerning the authority to  limit the numbers of customs checkpoints for goods, 
pursuant to Article 190 of the CU Customs Code , Articles 10.4 and 205 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, 
the customs authorities could designate customs ch eckpoints for declaration of imports and exports, 
respectively.  He added that Customs Order No . 25 of 15 January 2001 had been abolished by 
Customs Order No. 517 of 24 May 2002 "On  the Invalidation of Certain Legal Acts of the State 
Customs Committee of Russia".  Further inform ation on the designation of certain customs 
checkpoints for importation and exportation of goods  was provided in the Section "Other Customs 
Formalities" of this Report and in [Table 13] and [Table 14].   
292. He also noted that the Government had the right to carry out the analysis of acts and decisions 
of customs bodies and abolish them in case they we re inconsistent with the requirements of the 
international treaties of the Russian Federation, including WTO obligations, CU Agreements, other 
CU legal acts, national  legislation and other normative acts of th e Russian Federation.  He also added 
that any normative legal act regarding customs affa irs could be declared void through a judicial WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 102  
 
  procedure (he referred to the Sub-Section "Right of Appeal" of the Section "Framework for Making 
and Enforcing Policies" of this Report).  The repr esentative of the Russian Federation also explained 
that, pursuant to Article 104 of the CU Custom s Code, Article 25 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ 
provided  that the State would reimburse the losses incurred by persons as a result of damage caused 
by illegal resolutions, actions (omissions) of o fficials and other employees of customs authorities 
within the framework of fulfilment of office or la bour duties by them, e.g., the untimely adoption, 
entry into force, and/or publication of a legal act whose adoption was stipulated by the normative 
legal acts of the Russian Federation or as a result of inaccurate information circulated by Customs 
authorities under the procedure set-out by the Federal legislation. 
293. Members asked the Russian Federation to pr ovide information on how the FCS and its 
regional offices published and/or made their rulings and other information available to importers and 
exporters.  They noted that the FCS had sometimes issued administrative orders or taken decisions 
which were directly relevant for traders without making their contents known to traders or without 
publishing them.  They asked the Russian Federation to explain how the customs reform would ensure 
that all legal acts were published and how all othe r decisions and information relevant to traders 
would be made publicly available.  Members al so sought a confirmation that relevant Customs 
Decisions, e.g. Orders and Letters , and decisions of local customs authorities that traders and other 
interested parties needed to be able to review a nd understand, would be made available promptly and 
at reasonable cost.   
294. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that, pursuant to Article 10 of 
the CU Customs Code, CU Agreements and other CU legal acts relating to customs issues would be 
available free of charge and published in its offici al and other printed publications, as well as through 
television, radio, information technology, and thro ugh other means.  Furthermore, all FCS legal acts 
were to be made public, according to Article 51 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ.  The CU Commission, as 
well as the customs authorities of the CU Parties, we re required to ensure free access to information 
on their official websites on CU legal acts related to customs issues.  The customs authorities were 
also obliged to consult with interested persons on customs matters, and, upon written request of such 
interested persons, to provide information in writte n form as soon as possible, but not later than the 
date fixed in the legislation of the CU Parties.  For the Russian Federation, Article 8 of Federal Law 
No. 311-FZ provided that normative legal acts pertaining to customs had to be formulated in such a way, that a clear understanding by every person of hi s/her rights and obligations would be ensured.  
Furthermore, Article 51 also required customs authorities to provide access to draft legal acts, as well as to amendments and supplements to normative legal acts,  in the area of customs, to the extent that it 
did not impede effectiveness of customs control.  In addition, Article 15 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 103 
 
 
  of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental Principles of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" 
provided the possibility of holding consultations and other procedures, aimed at ensuring transparency 
when carrying out the normative legal regulation of foreign trade activity.  In particular, the 
above-mentioned procedures were to be carried out when preparing a draft normative legal act dealing 
with the right to conduct foreign trade activity.  In a limited number of cases, authorities could avoid consultations, if such consultations  would entail a delay in the adoption of a normative legal act of the 
Russian Federation affecting the right to conduct fore ign trade activity which might inflict substantial 
damage to the interests of the Russian Federation. 
295. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that normative legal acts of the FCS 
(e.g., acts with a binding effect throughout the terr itory of the Russian Federation) regulated customs 
procedures and customs requirements, customs rules, and the formats of customs documents.  
In response to concerns from Members with respect to unpublished documents, such as 
determinations of the FCS and its regional offi ces or "secret orders", the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the only time this oc curred was in the case of certain legal acts destined 
for internal use of customs authorities.  These acts could only pertain to customs officers' activities in 
relation to goods imported to or exported from the te rritory of the Russian Federation illegally, or to 
internal security of the FCS.  In accordance with  Article 8.4 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, such acts 
could not contradict rules set by laws, presi dential or governmental acts, or orders of 
Federal Executive bodies, nor provi de any additional obligations for participants in foreign trade 
activities.  These acts were also meant to ensure the proper implementation of customs legislation.  
Issued in the form of orders, briefings, letters , telegrams, teletype letters, these acts were not 
considered as normative legal acts, but as acts, wh ich could only have a recommendatory character 
and be used internally for the sole purpose of a Stat e body.  In particular, "customs letters" containing 
recommended import valuations were sent to custom s posts, to assist officials in assessing the value 
of certain imports.  Such recommendations were not mandatory, were not published and were not 
intended to be used as substitutes for the transaction value.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation also noted that, pursuant to  Government Decision No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 
"On the Approval of the Rules for Preparing the No rmative Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of the 
Executive Power and their State Registration" (as last amended on 15 May 2010), a Federal Executive 
authority was prohibited from issuing normative legal acts in the form of letters.  Further information 
on the operation of the risk management system and on the nature and scope of risk profiles were 
given in the Section "Customs Va luation" of this Report.   
296. In response to further questions from Members of the Working Party concerning "secret 
orders", the representative of the Russian Federa tion added that the procedure for publication and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 104  
 
  making effective regulatory legal acts of Federal Executive Authorities was governed, in particular, 
by Presidential Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On th e Procedure for the Publication and the Entry 
into Force of the Acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the 
Russian Federation and the Normative Legal Acts  of the Federal Executive Bodies"; Government 
Decision No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 "On the Approva l of the Rules for Preparing the Normative 
Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of the Executiv e Power and their State Registration"; and Order 
No. 88 of 4 May 2007 "On the Approval of Explana tions on the Application of Rules for Preparing 
the Normative Legal Acts of Federal Executive Powe r Bodies and on their State Registration" of the 
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. 
297. In regard to normative legal acts of the FCS, such acts were subject to mandatory publication 
pursuant to Article 15.3 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with the exception of acts or 
parts thereof constituting State secrets.  An exhaustiv e list of such information had been approved by 
the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5485-1 of 21 July 1993 "On State Secrets".  The official 
organs for publication were Rossiis kaya Gazeta and the Bulletin of Re gulatory Acts of Federal Bodies 
published by Yuridicheskaya Literatura publishing house of the Administration of the President, 
issued monthly since 1998.  Normative legal acts of the FCS subject to State Registration with the 
Ministry of Justice became enforceable only after th ey had been registered and officially published. 
298. The FCS, in addition to official government pub lication, was required to publish all of its 
normative legal acts in its own official publicati ons, the Customs Bulletin and Customs Gazette, as 
provided in Article 51 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ.  He added that the FCS had its own internet 
website where the necessary info rmation related to its activity, adopted normative legal acts and 
comments formulated on these texts were available (www.customs.ru).  The FCS also published the 
explanatory documents.  Legal in formation reference systems were also easily accessible on the 
internet.  Further information on legal requirement s for the publication of legal acts was given in 
paragraphs [1408] to [1428] of the Secti on on "Transparency" of this Report. 
299. The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r stated that, as provided for in Article 52 
of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, customs authorities were  responsible for providing advisory services to 
all interested persons with regard to customs i ssues such as classification and valuation and other 
issues within their competence.  Such services were to be delivered as quickly as possible, and no 
later than one month from the date of receipt of the enquiry. 
300. A Member invited the Russian Federation to ma ke available an Englis h-language version of 
its customs website (www.customs.ru) as a means of  facilitating access to information on the customs 
system of the Russian Federation to Member s.  In response, the representative of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 105 
 
 
  Russian Federation informed Members that  documents in English could be found on 
http://eng.customs.ru/. 
301. In response to a question from a Member con cerning the possibility for a foreign entity to 
import goods into the Russian Federation, the re presentative of the Russian Federation noted that 
Chapter 27 of the CU  Customs Code (in particular, Articles 186 to 194) specified the rights and 
obligations of persons, including foreign persons not registered as a Russian juridical entity or 
individual entrepreneur, to impor t goods, into the Russian Federation and perform all necessary 
customs procedures, including payment of customs duties and charges.  Additional provisions were 
contained in Article 210 of Federa l Law No. 311-FZ.  Further discussions on this issue could be found 
in the Section "Registration requirements for import/e xport operations" of this Report.  He also stated 
that a foreign person, importing goods into the Ru ssian Federation, could also place the goods under 
the regime of a bonded warehouse.  In that case, cu stoms duties were to be paid at the moment of 
releasing the goods to free circulation in the territory of the Russian Federation by the person who would pick up the goods and take the legal responsibility for them. 
302. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that no law, regulation, or 
administrative rulings of general application, including customs measures, giving effect to the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 (Cus toms Valuation Agreement), 
would be enforced before it was published.  Th e Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Ordinary Customs Duties 
303. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that from 1 January 2010, the legal 
basis for the customs tariff of the Russian Fe deration was the Agreement on Common Customs and 
Tariff Regulation of 25 January 2008 between th e Governments of the Republic of Belarus, the 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (hereafter:  Agreement on Customs Regulation), 
as elaborated in the Common External Tariff of the CU (CET), and approved in Decision No. 18 of 
27 November 2009 "On the Common Customs Tari ff Regulation of the Customs Union of the 
Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federati on" of the Interstate Council of 
the EurAsEC (hereafter:  Decision No. 18).  Pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs and Tariff Re gulation of the Customs Union between the 
Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan a nd the Russian Federation" (hereafter:  Decision 
No. 130), tariff rates were set by the CU Commission.   Furthermore, the rul es for common CU tariff 
preferences to developing and least-developed coun tries were elaborated in the Protocol on the 
Provision of Tariff Preferences of 12 December 2008 (hereafter:  Protocol on Tariff Preferences). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 106  
 
  304. According to the Agreement on Customs Re gulation, the CU Commission could issue 
decisions determining CET tariff rates.  These CU Commission decisions were based on the results of 
negotiations among the CU Parties.  As from 1 Ja nuary 2010, the CU Parties had no authority to 
change import customs duty rates unilaterally.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation further 
explained that all exemptions from the CET for each CU Party were provided for in the unified list of 
tariff exemptions as described in Sections "Tar iff Exemptions" and "Trade-related Investment 
Measures (TRIMs)" of this Report. 
305. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that tariff decisions would normally 
be taken by the CU Commission by a two thirds qu alified majority of votes, except for sensitive 
products (the 5,012 specified tariff lines included in  [Table 15]) on which consensus was required.  
Consensus might also be required in other cases speci fied in the agreements comprising the legal basis 
of the CU.  He added that within the Russian Federation, the Government Commission for Economic 
Development and Integration was responsible for establishing the pos ition of the Russian Federation 
on customs and tariff policies, including the developmen t of proposals to the other CU Parties to set 
or change import duty rates for consideration at  the meetings of the CU Commission as provided for 
in Article 4 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation. 
306. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that the Federal Customs 
Service of the Russian Federation was not authori sed to change import tariff levels, or introduce a 
specific method of calculation thereof, by other means (such as recommendati ons, letters, "instructive 
letters", telegrams, or teletype messages) than as set-out in the CU Customs Code, the CU Agreement 
on Customs Valuation, the CU Agreement on Co mmon Rules of Origin of Goods, relevant 
CU Commission decisions, and international agreemen ts to which the Russian Federation was a party 
and the normative legal acts of the Russian Fe deration concerning customs and tariff matters. 
307. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that the CET was based on 
the 2007 Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (HS) of the World Customs 
Organization (WCO).  This System had originally  been introduced in the Russian Federation on 
1 January 2007 by Government Resolution No. 718 to replace the HS 2002 System previously used.  
In 2007-2009, the commodity nomenclature of the Russian Federation had been further modified 
beyond the HS 2007 6-digit level.  The present CET Code nomenclature differed from the system of 
the Russian Federation introduced on 1 January 2007. 
308. Some Members requested that the consolidat ed results of the tariff negotiations with 
Members be converted from HS 1996 to the tariff nome nclature applicable in the Russian Federation 
at the time of its accession to the WTO.  They also  requested that concordance tables for each change  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 107 
 
 
  of the tariff nomenclature from HS 1996 to th e latest nomenclature being applied by the 
Russian Federation (i.e., HS 1996 to HS 2002 to HS 2007 to the CET Code nomenclature) be 
provided to Members for information and to permit verification of the accuracy of the conversion of 
the results of bilateral tariff negotiations into the final consolidated Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation.   
309. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that the Russian Federation 
would ensure that Members were provided with th e information necessary to verify commitments in 
the nomenclature it applied on the date of accession. 
310. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that currently the CET consisted of 
11,170 tariff lines.  A significant majority of tariff lines (9,208) were subject to ad valorem  duties and 
216 tariff lines were subject to specific duties.  The ad valorem  rates and ad valorem  equivalents of 
combined and specific rates ranged from 0 to 30 per cent, except for:   
- live swine (ex HS 0103); 
- beef, pork and poultry imported in excess of certain amounts (out-of-quota meat) 
(ex HS 0201, 0202, 0203 and 0207); 
- caviar (HS 1604 30 100); 
- sugar (HS 1701 11, 1701 12, 1701 91, 1701 99); 
- beer and ethyl alcohol (HS 2203, 2207, 2208 90 910 0, 2208 90 990 0); 
- used truck tractors older than five years (HS 8701 20 901 3); 
- used buses older than five years (ex HS 8702  10 192 1, 8702 10 199 1, 8702 90 192 1, 
8702 90 199 1); 
- used passenger motor cars (ex HS 8703); 
- used trucks older than five years (ex HS 8704); and  
- furniture with a cost lower than €1.8 per 1 kg (HS 9403 50 000 1, 9403 60 100 1, 
9403 60 900 1). 
 Examples of tariff items that were subject to specific rates were apples, chocolate, beer, and 
strong alcoholic beverages. 
311. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the remaining 1,746 tariff items 
in the CET were subject to combined duties.  He explained that combined (mixed) duties were 
expressed in terms of alternative rates, one as an ad valorem  rate and the other as a specific rate that 
served as a minimum rate of duty, e.g., 5 per cent, but no less than €1 per kilogram.  Either the 
ad valorem  duty rate or the specific duty rate was app lied depending exclusively on the customs value 
of the good.  Combined tariff rates were applied to:  live swine, meat, certain species of fish, 
fermented or acidified milk and cream, whey, bu tter and cheeses, bird's eggs, flowers, tomatoes, 
cucumbers, bananas, citrus fruits, coffee and tea, rice, malt and starches, preserved vegetables, plant 
oils, sausages and other preparations of meat, juices,  tea and coffee extracts, yeasts, food preparations WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 108  
 
  not elsewhere specified (ex HS 2106), waters and ethyl  alcohol, preparations used in animal feeding, 
cigars and cigarettes, sodium sulphides, resorcinol  and its salts, maleic anhydride, bleaches and soap, 
dextrin and modified starches, plastics and articles th ereof, tyres of rubber, leather and fur articles, 
articles of paper and paperboard, nonwovens, carpets and textile fl oor coverings, coated fabrics, 
textiles, footwear, headgear, artificial flowers, ceramic products, imitation jewellery, aluminium and 
articles thereof, tin and articles thereof, apparels , home electronics, cars, watches and furniture.   
312. In response to comments of some Members that , combined (mixed) and specific rates should 
be replaced by ad valorem  duties upon the accession of the Russian Federation, in order to increase 
transparency and reduce distortions in trade, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that 
the CET ensured a similar effective rate for the  ad valorem  and specific alternatives of combined 
rates.  He also informed Members that the combin ed (mixed) rates were subject to bilateral tariff 
negotiations and their results would be reflected in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments for 
Goods of the Russian Federation. 
313. As a result of these negotiations, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
for goods subject to a comb ined duty (for example, in the form of 5 per cent, but not less than 2 €/kg), 
it would be ensured, whether by the Russian Fede ration or the competent bodies of the CU, that the 
ad valorem  equivalent of the specific duty rate for each tariff line, calculated based on the average 
customs value, would be no higher than the alternative ad valorem  duty rate  for that tariff line in the 
Schedule of the Russian Federation in accordance with the following provisions: 
- On an annual basis, it would be determined, whether by the Russian Federation or by the 
competent bodies of the CU, whether it was necessary to reduce the applied  specific duty rate 
to ensure that it was no higher than the applied ad valorem  duty rate; 
- This calculation would be done two months before the end of each calendar year, beginning 
in the first calendar year after the date of the accession of the Russian Federation; 
- Data for the calculations would be from a three- year period, determined by taking trade data 
from a recent five-year representative period and excluding data for years with the highest 
and lowest trade for that period; 
- Data on trade with countries or territories with  which the Russian Federation had a Customs 
Union or free trade agreement would be excluded from the calculation; and 
- Data would be drawn from the Official Custom s Statistics of the Russian Federation notified 
to the WTO Integrated Database (IDB) unless such  data was unavailable.  In such case, IDB 
and COMTRADE data would be used. 
 The Russian Federation would inform Members of the results of these calculations on a tariff 
line basis and, if the results showed that it was nece ssary to reduce the specific duty rate alternative, 
this reduction would be made and would go into effect automatically, beginning on 1 January of the 
year following the calculation.  In no case would the applied duty (whether expressed in ad valorem  
or specific terms and whether determined by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 109 
 
 
  CU) exceed the bound rate of the combined duty.  If, after reductions based on the annual 
re-calculation and changed circumstances, the speci fic duty rate alternative became significantly 
lower than ad valorem  alternative rate of duty, the Russian Federation reserved the right to modify 
permanently the form of the duty to a purely ad valorem  duty, at a level that complied with the 
binding for the relevant tariff line.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
314. According to Article 1 of the Agreement on Customs Regulation, the main objectives and 
purposes of the CET were:  (i) to rationalise the structure of the import of goods to the common 
customs area of the Parties; (ii) to maintain a rational proportion of impor ted and exported goods on 
the territory of the common customs area of the Pa rties; (iii) to create conditions for progressive 
changes in the structure of manufacturing and consumption of goods in the CU; (iv) to protect the economy of the CU from unfavourable influence from foreign competition; and (v) to provide 
conditions for effective integration of the CU into the world economy. 
315. Some Members expressed concerns that the afor ementioned objectives (ii), (iii) and (iv) could 
be used to introduce WTO incompatible import or export tariff restrictions which could discriminate 
against foreign goods and asked for an explanatio n.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that, in his view, most countries used tariffs to secure favourable conditions for the 
development of their domestic industry and agricultu re by establishing higher duty rates on goods that 
were sensitive to competition with imported goods and that duties could be used to maintain a positive 
trade balance as well as a balanced trade structure,  meaning that a positive trade balance could be 
secured not only through export of raw materials and semi-finished products.  He confirmed that only 
WTO compatible tariff measures would be used by the Russian Federation and the competent CU bodies from the date of the accession of  the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
316. Some Members expressed concerns that para graphs 2 and 7 of CU Commission Decision 
No. 130 could allow the application of import duties in a discriminatory manner, either vis-à-vis  third 
countries or in relation to certain imports ex empted from duties for investment projects.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confirme d that all import tariffs were applied by the 
Russian Federation in a non-discriminatory manner vis-à-vis  third countries on the basis of trade and 
cooperation agreements, except if otherwise provided for under regi onal trade agreements or the 
CU Generalised System of Trade Preferences.  Ex emptions from the CET within the framework of 
investment projects were described in Sections "Tariff Exemptions" and "Trade-related Investment 
Measures (TRIMs)" of this Report, as appropriate. 
317. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that in accordance with the 
Agreement on Customs Regulation and the Protocol on Tariff Preferences, the Russian Federation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 110  
 
  applied the common CU Scheme of Tariff Preferen ces for developing and least-developed countries 
(CU GSP Scheme), which was based on the GSP schem e in force in the Russian Federation before 
1 January 2010.  Lists of developing countries be neficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme [(Table 16)], 
least-developed countries beneficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme [(Table 17)] and goods originating and imported from developing and least-developed countries subject to the CU GSP Scheme [(Table 18)] 
were established by Decision No. 18 and adopted by  Decision No. 130.  Under the CU GSP Scheme, 
the import duties applicable to products eligible fo r tariff preferences and originating from developing 
countries were at the level of 75 per cent of the MFN duty rates and from least-developed countries at 
the level of zero per cent.  
318. In response to a question by one Member, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that tariff preferences for goods originat ing from developing or least-developed countries 
that were subject to the CU GSP Scheme would be granted if the goods were purchased in that 
country from a resident of the country.  Such goods ha d to be delivered directly or in transit through 
third countries to the territory of the CU, without them being put into free circulation in those third 
countries in case of transit.  As provided for in the Annex to the CU Agreement on Rules for 
Determining the Origin of Goods from Developing and Least Developed Countries of 
12 December 2008, goods were also considered purc hased in the country of origin if they were 
purchased at an exhibition or fair. 
319. In response to requests from Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that, upon its accession to the WTO, th e GSP Scheme for developing and least-developed 
countries would be applied, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, 
in conformity with the relevant provisions of th e WTO Agreement.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment. 
320. In response to a question of a Member regard ing extension of "Duty-free and Quota-free" 
provisions as a part of the commitment made  to Least-developed countries at the WTO 6
th Ministerial 
Conference, that took place in Hong Kong in 2005, the representative of the Russian Federation stated 
that this Declaration would be implemented, whet her by the Russian Federation or by the competent 
bodies of the CU, from the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
321. In response to questions concerning the functi oning of world-price contingent tariffs for 
imported raw cane sugar, a system that had been introduced by Resolution No. 720 of 
29 November 2003 "Regarding Tariff Regulation of Import of Raw Sugar and White Sugar in 2004" 
and that had entered into force on 1 January  2004 and that was now applied pursuant to 
CU Commission Decision No. 131 of 27 November  2009 "Concerning Tariff Regulation of Sugar  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 111 
 
 
  Import to the Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic Community", the 
representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation was both a sugar-producing 
and a sugar-importing country.  Beet sugar productio n was important from an agricultural and social 
point of view.  The world-price contingent tariff system aimed at maintaining the profitability of the beet sugar industry of the Russian Federation.  A minimum profitability of 10 to 12 per cent was 
considered necessary to ensure the development of this sector.  Taking into account the average cost 
of production of white beet sugar in the Russian Fe deration (US$420 per tonne), the variations of cane 
sugar world prices (between US$100 and US$300 pe r tonne), the customs duty applied to imported 
cane sugar was set at between US$140 and US$270 pe r tonne.  Every month, the Ministry of 
Economic Development of the Russian Federation monitored the evolution of the raw cane sugar 
world prices and calculated the average price for the two previous months.  The customs duty was 
established on the basis of the data presented to the Ministry as of the first day of the month following 
the receipt of the data.  This procedure w as transparent, predictable and automatic.  
322. Some Members noted that the system of world price-contingent rates of import duty for raw 
cane sugar of HS sub-heading 1701.11 that had re placed the tariff rate quota on 1 January 2004 was a 
measure of a kind required to be eliminated in th e Uruguay Round and was prohibited under Article 4 
of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  These Members called for its elimination prior to the date of 
accession.  These Members also noted that, from 1 Ja nuary 2004, the Russian Federation specified in 
its customs tariff schedule a series of tariff lines at the 10-digit level for raw cane sugar.  The 10-digit 
tariff lines established different import duties accordi ng to the average monthly price in US dollars on 
the New York Commodity and Raw Materials Excha nge.  The Members noted that such a system 
would provide the means for the continuous and auto matic adjustment of the import tariff on raw cane 
sugar of the Russian Federation, thereby impeding the transmission of world prices to the domestic market and preventing opportunities for competition in the market of the Russian Federation.  
Certain Members reserved their position in relation to this system of tariffs which they considered 
incompatible with Russia's WTO obligations.  Th ese Members expressly reserved the right to pursue 
this issue pursuant to the WTO Agreement including the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and 
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. 
323. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in his view, the Russian Federation's 
sugar regime was in compliance with the WTO Agr eement and noted that price-based duty rates were 
widely used by WTO Members.  He also inform ed Members that the Russian Federation confirmed 
its intention to consider the reform of its tariff re gime for sugar in 2012, with a view to its further 
liberalisation in conformity with the WTO Agreem ent.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 112  
 
  324. In response to requests from Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would s ubmit its Information Technology Agreement (ITA) 
Schedule to the ITA Committee for verification, in  accordance with ITA procedures, in order to 
enable the Russian Federation to join the ITA when it became a WTO Member.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
325. The Russian Federation undertook bilateral market access negotiations on goods with 
Members of the Working Party.  The results of th ese negotiations were contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods and form  Annex I to the Protocol of Accession. 
- Tariff Exemptions  
326. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that from 1 January 2010, the legal basis 
for granting tariff exemptions on goods imported into the CU could be found in the Agreement on 
Common Customs and Tariff Regulation of 25 Ja nuary 2008 between the Governments of the 
Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan a nd the Russian Federation (hereafter:  Agreement 
on Customs Regulation).  Articles 5 and 6 of this  Agreement provided a framework for a unified 
CU list of tariff exemptions.  Article 8 authorised  the CU Commission to establish the unified lists.  
More specific provisions regarding the CU uni fied list of tariff exempted goods and the 
implementation of the Agreement on Customs Regul ation in this area were elaborated in the 
Inter-governmental Council Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff 
Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic  of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation" (hereafter:  Decision No. 18) and the CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 
27 November 2009 "On Common Customs and Tariff Re gulation of the Customs Union between the 
Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan a nd the Russian Federation" (hereafter:  Decision 
No. 130).  The Agreement and Decisions also provi ded for other exemptions or reductions from the 
Common External Tariff (CET) rates, e.g., tariff concessions for investment purposes (further 
described in Section "Trade-related Investment Measu res (TRIMs)" of this Report), tariff preferences 
for developing and least-developed countries (furt her described in Section "Ordinary Customs 
Duties"), tariff rate quotas (further described in  Section "Tariff Quotas"), and special limited 
derogations for individual CU Parties from the C ET as elaborated in the Protocol on Conditions and 
Procedure for Use in Exceptional Cases of the Ra tes of Import Customs Duties other than Common 
Customs Tariff Rates of 12 December 2008 (hereaf ter:  Protocol on Exceptions from the CET). 
327. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that prior to 1 January 2010, Articles 34 
and 35 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5 003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last 
amended on 28 June 2009) provided the Government the authority to grant tariff exemptions and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 113 
 
 
  established the list of categories of goods which were not subject to customs tariffs.  These authorities 
were transferred to the CU Commission on 1 January 2010.  He added that appr opriate amendments to 
the Customs Tariff Law and the Federal La w "On Foreign Trade Regulation" of the 
Russian Federation to confirm these were being devel oped.  Resolutions of the Government formerly 
issued in accordance with the provisions of the Cu stoms Tariff Law also had provided for some tariff 
exemptions.  These legal instruments either were in  the process of being terminated or amended in 
accordance with CU Decisions.  The corresponding draft legislation was being developed by the 
Federal Customs Service of the Russian Federation. 
328. The representative of the Russian Federation added that Article 6 of the Agreement on 
Customs Regulation provided for the unified list of CU-wide exemptions from the customs tariff rates 
for the following categories of goods:  (i) means of transport of international shipments of freight, 
baggage and passengers, and goods that maintain them; (ii) produc ts of fishing operations owned or 
leased by entities and individuals of the CU Parties;  (iii) goods imported for official or personal use 
by third countries' diplomats; (iv) currency an d securities in accordance with  the Parties' national 
legislation; (v) goods imported as humanitarian or disaster aid; (vi) goods imported as assistance 
(including technical assistance) and charity from third countries and intern ational organizations; 
(vii) goods covered by import customs regimes which call for such duty exemption; (viii) goods 
imported by individuals for their own use, in acco rdance with customs regulation legislation; and 
(ix) goods subject to government expropriation by the CU Parties as provided for in their legislation.   
329. In response to concerns from Members rega rding MFN treatment in respect of space 
equipment, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that Federal Law No. 191-FZ of 
10 November 2006 "On Amending Article 35 of the Law of the Russian Federation on the Customs 
Tariff and Article 150 of Part Two of the Tax Code  of the Russian Federation" had introduced duty 
free access for space equipment on an MFN basis.  He further noted that, after 1 January 2010, 
Article 5 of the Agreement on Customs Regula tion provided that goods imported within the 
framework of international cooperation of the CU Parties, including the Russian Federation, in the 
field of research and exploration of space, and also within the agreements regarding services in spacecraft launch and the goods imported for resear ch and use in the exploration of space and 
spacecraft launch could be exempted from tariffs.  The specific list of above-mentioned goods to be 
exempted was approved by CU Commission Decision No. 727 of 22 June 2011. 
330. Responding to questions from Members, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that, in accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement Customs Regulation, tariff exemptions (or lower WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 114  
 
  duties) also could be established for goods importe d as a contribution to the charter capital of an 
investment approved by national legislation.  
331. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that the CU Parties could 
amend the provisions of the Agreement on Custom s Regulation through separate Protocols to the 
Agreement.  The CU Commission was authorised by  this Agreement and Decision No. 18 to operate 
the CET, including the authority to add or remove go ods from this list of exemptions by a two thirds 
vote upon request of a CU Party or on its own in itiative.  A consensus vote was required, if a 
CU Commission Decision would modify the unified list of exemptions concerning "sensitive products" defined by the CU Parties, or where con sensus was specifically required in accordance with 
provisions of a separate CU legal act. 
332. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that Article 6 of the Agreement on 
Customs Regulation also provided that goods could be exempted from the customs duty within the 
framework of customs regimes provided for in rele vant customs legislation e.g., the CU Customs 
Code.  Article 80 of the CU Customs Code listed the situations when customs duties need not be paid, 
which reflected circumstances faced by customs officials in the course of customs processing.  
These circumstances included:  (i) when it was provid ed for in accordance with the legislation of the 
CU Parties (e.g., CU Commission Decision No. 130 or  the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation") or 
the provisions of the CU Customs Code; (ii) when customs duties had already been paid or when the 
amount owed was less than €2; (iii) when goods were exempted from customs duties during the 
period of validity of such an exemption and when fulfilling the conditions, under which such 
exemption was granted; (iv) when goods were  placed under customs procedures (regimes) not 
providing for such payment; (v) when the total cu stoms value of goods, imported by one person on 
one invoice did not exceed €200; (vi) when goods had been destroyed or irretrievably lost as a 
consequence of an accident, force majeure , or as the result of natural deterioration under normal 
transportation and storage prior to their release; (v ii) when goods had been converted into property of 
a CU Party in accordance with its national legisl ation; and (viii) when goods were not released. 
333. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members that in accordance with Article 2 of the Protocol on Exceptions from the CET, the 
CU Commission could decide that a lower or higher duty rate than the CET would be applied by one 
of the CU Parties, if one of the following exceptiona l circumstances existed:  (i) such a measure was a 
necessary condition for the development of industries of  that CU Party; (ii) the CU Party concerned 
faced an acute shortage of goods; (iii) such a measu re was necessary to address the socially relevant 
needs of the population of the concerned CU Party; or (iv) to address the needs of production, which  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 115 
 
 
  depended largely on traditional imports from third countries and could not be implemented through 
the production of this or similar goods in the CU.  Article 4 of this Protocol provided that the 
CU Commission Decisions, in these cases, were adopted  by consensus and that a different tariff rate 
by one CU Party could be applied for no longe r than six months, unless extended, following the 
relevant procedures foreseen in the Protocol.  Th e list of all tariff exemptions granted under the 
Protocol on Exceptions from the CET and currently applied by the individual CU Parties was included 
in [Table 19]. 
334. Some Members noted that certain tariff exemp tions granted currently or in the past for 
investment purposes (automobiles and Production Shar ing Agreements (PSA) projects) or to promote 
domestic industry (aircraft) continued to be of concern.  These Members sought a commitment from 
the Russian Federation to use its authority to grant such exemptions in conformity with 
WTO provisions.  A Member noted, in particular, that the future WTO obligations of the 
Russian Federation required the Russian Federation to provide MFN treatment and to waive the import duties applied to certain imports of space e quipment, and also required the Russian Federation 
to confirm that discriminatory tariff exempti ons for aircrafts had been terminated.   
335. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that further information on the tariff 
exemptions granted currently or in the past by the Russian Federation for investment purposes were 
discussed in the Sections on "Trade-related Invest ment Measures (TRIMs)" and "Industrial policy, 
including subsidy policies" of this Report.  Good s imported to be used in work and operations 
specified in Product Sharing Agreements were exempt ed from the import tariff, pursuant to Point 9 of 
Article No. 346.35 of the Tax Code of the Russian  Federation which remained in effect until the 
CU Commission issued a Decision in respect of goods imported under PSAs.  Tariff exemptions for 
aircraft had been terminated in the Russian Fede ration, but were being considered on a temporary 
basis in the context of requests by certain CU Partie s for imports of certain large commercial aircraft.  
These tariff exemptions had not yet been approved or implemented. 
336. The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members that the Russian Federation, 
at this time, did not utilize any other tariff exemptions  than those described in this and other relevant 
Sections of this Report. 
337. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that no later than from the date of 
accession any tariff exemption for space equipmen t would be provided on an MFN basis.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 116  
 
  - Tariff Quotas 
338. Some Members expressed concerns regarding the decision of the Russian Federation, in 2002, 
to have recourse to tariff rate quotas (TRQs), particul arly on products that were previously subject to 
tariffs only.  These Members considered that the in troduction of TRQs had been a step backward from 
the trade liberalization that should be expected by acceding to the WTO and that, in their view, a 
tariff-only regime would be preferable as it would allow for the market to select suppliers that 
provided the best combination of price, quality, and stable offer of goods.  They requested a 
description of the current and prospective legal au thority for introducing TRQs and determining the 
rules for allocating quota shares among importers as  well as any related licensing procedures in the 
Russian Federation and in the CU.  Members noted that any method of allocating quotas or licenses 
must be consistent with WTO provisions, notably Articles I, II, VIII, X, XI, and XIII of 
the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Import Licensing Pr ocedures and Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Several Members also stressed that th e Russian Federation had to ensure that any TRQs 
would preserve existing levels of trade, provide annu al growth and would be limited in time.  In any 
case, full details of tariff quota administration me asures should be provided in order to assess their 
conformity with WTO provisions.  
339. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, pursuant to the provisions of 
Article 8 of the Agreement on Common System of Customs Regulation of 25 January 2008, 
the CU Commission was the competent authority to introduce TRQs and to determine the rules for 
allocation of in-quota volumes.  The Agreement on Conditions and Mechanism of Implementation of 
Tariff Rate Quotas (hereafter:  TRQ Agreement) w as signed by the CU Parties on 12 December 2008, 
and entered into force on 1 January 2010.  
340. Article 2 of the TRQ Agreement set-out the lega l basis for establishing TRQs within the CU.  
Both the allocation of quotas among the CU Parties and the method of quota allocation among 
importers within the CU were subject to approval by the CU Commission.  The TRQ Agreement 
specifically provided that the method of allocation of shares in the quota among importers must be non-discriminatory.  Article 5 of the TRQ Agreemen t set-out the general non-discrimination principle 
in allocation of TRQs amongst importers based on th eir form of ownership, place of registration or 
position in the market.  In the Russian Federati on, TRQ allocations could be distributed amongst 
foreign-owned as well as Russian-owned firms estab lished as Russian legal entities, as well as natural 
persons registered as individual entrepreneurs.  If the CU Commission decided to establish a TRQ, the 
Decision would stipulate the period of its implem entation.  In cases when country-specific TRQs 
(CSTRQs) were allocated, the Commission would info rm all interested countries about the volume of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 117 
 
 
  their respective CSTRQs.  The CU Commission published information on the global volume of the 
TRQ and the period of its implementation, in- an d out-of-quota rates, and its allocation among 
exporting countries.  The allocation of CSTRQs w as based on results of consultations with major 
suppliers, i.e., those supplying at least 10 per cent of imports, or on trade statistics for a previous 
representative period, which was normally three years.  The Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended on 8 December 2010), which 
established the general legal framework for the establishment and administration of TRQs at the 
national level, was in force, but the relevant provi sions of the CU agreements prevailed in case of 
contradiction (according to Article 38 of that Law). 
341. The representative of the Russian Federati on further explained that each year the 
CU Commission established the list of goods subj ect to TRQs, the volume of TRQs, and whether 
CU Bodies or national bodies acting under national la w would be responsible for the administration of 
TRQs.  The respective list of such goods for th e year 2011 and TRQ volumes were established by 
CU Commission Decision No. 505 of 18 November  2010.  These TRQs covered pork, poultry and 
bovine meat (see [Table 39]).  By that Decision,  the CU Commission also determined that, in the 
year 2011, the TRQs in the CU Parties would be administered by the Governments of the CU Parties 
in accordance with national legislation.  In the Russian Federation the rules on administration of TRQs for the year 2011 were set-out in Gove rnment Resolution No. 1111 of 24 December 2010, 
implementing CU Commission Decision No. 505 in the Russian Federation. 
342. The representative of the Russian Federation further informed Members that customs 
clearance of goods subject to TRQs was carried out on the basis of a licence issued by the competent 
authority in the relevant CU Party.  The licence would be issued on the basis of an application 
submitted by an importer who had been a llocated a share of the in-quota volume. 
343. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that necessity to establish TRQs on impor ts of beef, pork and poultry was caused by the 
need to create favourable conditions for the deve lopment of respective domestic industries which 
substantially suffered from increased imports.  He noted that a two-level (in-quota and out-of quota) 
tariff had been applied to imports of beef (HS 0201 and HS 0202) and pork (HS 0203) 
since April 2003.  From 1 January 2006, the safegua rd quota on poultry was converted into a TRQ.  
TRQs provided an opportunity to import a certain qua ntity of frozen, fresh and chilled beef, pork and 
poultry per year at a lower duty.  In response to  a question from a Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that, currently there was no intention of the CU Parties to establish CU-wide 
TRQs in place of current national TRQs. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 118  
 
  344. Concerning the TRQ for sugar, he noted that this TRQ had been applied in the 
Russian Federation from 2001 to 2003 to imports of raw sugar originating from GSP beneficiaries.  
He added that the TRQ on raw sugar had been elim inated pursuant to Government Resolution No. 720 
of 29 November 2003.  Currently, raw sugar im ports were subject to import tariffs only. 
345. A Member of the Working Party said that it c onsidered the elimination of the preferential 
tariff rate quota on raw cane sugar mentioned in  paragraph [344] on 31 December 2003 to be a 
positive step given that this measure had represented an increase in the level of import restriction on 
previous levels.  This Member, however, consider ed that a backward step had been taken on 
1 January 2004 by the replacement of the tariff quota not with a single rate of import duty but a world-price contingent import tariff, which was a m easure of a kind required to be eliminated in the 
Uruguay Round and prohibited under Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
346. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that this kind of duty did not 
differ from ordinary customs duties, and, thus was subject to bilateral tariff negotiations.  He added 
that such types of rates were widely used  by WTO Members.  He referred Members to 
paragraph [321] of the Section "Ordinary Custom s Duties" of this Report for further details. 
347. Regarding the TRQs on beef, por k and poultry, the representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members that the quantities allowed fo r importation under the TRQ regime in 2011, as 
established by the CU Commission Decision No. 505, we re reproduced in [Table 40].  Imports in 
excess of these amounts were subject to a higher du ty.  The distribution of quotas within TRQs on 
beef, pork and poultry was based on the historical shar es of main suppliers of the Russian Federation.  
He noted that high-quality beef had been excl uded from the TRQ regime pursuant to Government 
Resolutions.  
348. Pursuant to Government Resolution No. 111 1 of 24 December 2010, the Ministry of 
Economic Development of the Russ ian Federation was the body respons ible for the distribution of 
in-quota volumes within the TRQs.  The Ministry of Industry and Trade (the MIT) of the 
Russian Federation was the body responsible for issuing non-automatic licenses for imports under 
TRQs.   
349. Regarding the previously existing practice of distributing the TRQs by auctioning, some 
Members requested a clarification of whether the Russian Federation or the CU intended to use 
auctioning of TRQs in the future.  If so, these Memb ers requested a confirmation that there would be 
no legal requirements to participate in TRQ auc tions that could favour local production, such as 
requirements to enter into contracts to purchase domestic products or requ irements to provide  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 119 
 
 
  domestic producers with inputs.  Several Members stat ed that, to the extent that any auction charges 
associated with the allocation of TRQs exceeded th e tariff bindings of the Russian Federation, they 
would be inconsistent with the obligations of the Russian Federation under Article II of 
the GATT 1994.  In addition, auctioning fees were in consistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, as they increased the effe ctive price of importation to the equivalent price of imports at 
the out-of-quota rate and could, therefore, be cons idered a "similar border measure", as referred to in 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement.  The existence of mi nimum auction prices would also violate Article 4.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture as they would ser ve as a minimum import price by placing a floor 
under the auction price.  They also noted that allo cation of quotas without regard to Articles XI and 
XIII of the GATT 1994 would violate WTO provisions.  These Members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that any fees, charges or  revenues collected from auctioning TRQ volumes 
would not exceed the bound rate of duty established fo r the product concerned.  Some Members also 
maintained that the auctioning method for dist ributing TRQs was not fully consistent with 
the GATT 1994 and discriminated against those Memb ers that did not provide export subsidies. 
350. In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation noted, that since 2006, the 
auctioning method of distributing part of the TRQs volumes had not been used and that the entirety of 
the volume of products subject to TRQs was distri buted between importers in accordance with their 
historical shares in imports.  A new entrant had to  import the meat under the out-of-quota duty rate to 
be included later in the list of historical importers. 
351. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that TRQs applied in the 
Russian Federation, whether by the competent CU Body or authorities of the Russian Federation, 
would not be allocated through auctioning.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.  
352. [Some Members expressed concern that implementation by the Russian Federation of the 
different price or quality-based definitions for High Quality Beef (HQB) set-out in Russia's Schedule 
of Concessions and Commitments on Goods could lead to discrimination between like products.  
Those Members stressed that th e Russian Federation should ensure  that application of the HQB 
definitions set-out in the relevant section of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Russian Federation on Goods did not discriminate against like products imported from any Member.  
In response, the representative of th e Russian Federation confirmed that it did not intend  to apply the 
definitions of HQB to discriminate against im ports of like products.  Furthermore, the 
Russian Federation confirmed that its customs serv ice would be in a position to verify the quality 
and 
value of products claiming to be classified as HQB in accordance with the defin itions included in the 
relevant section of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments of the Russian Federation on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 120  
 
  Goods and would ensure that like products imported from any Member were accorded treatment no 
less favourable than that accorded to like products  imported from any other Member, as provided in 
the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of this commitment.] 
353. [The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the Russian Federation 
will develop a national definition of High Quality B eef within 18 months of the date of accession of 
the Russian Federation to the WTO.  In response to requests for assurances from some Members, the 
representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would give positive 
consideration to recognizing High Quality Beef of other Members as falling under such national 
definition, provided it met the criteria of the natio nal definition, and, thus, would accord to such 
High Quality Beef of other Members treatment no le ss favourable than that accorded to like products 
originating in any other Member.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.] 
354. Noting that the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs 
Tariff" prohibited access under TRQs from being granted to products originating from MFN 
suppliers, some Members requested confirmation of whether the Russian Federation also intended to 
provide legal authorisation for using TRQs to regulat e general imports or if th is would be limited to 
GSP imports.  These Members required a more prec ise understanding of the methods of allocation 
and other aspects of the system that the Russian Federation intended to adopt in this field.  In addition, 
some Members also requested that the Russian Fe deration enact amendments to the Tax Code to 
ensure MFN access to the system of TRQs.   
355. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation informed Members that provisions 
of Article 36.1 of the Law of the Russian Federa tion No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993, and Article 2 of the 
CU Agreement of 12 December 2008, neither prohibited access under TRQs being granted to 
products originating from MFN suppliers, nor  limited use of TRQs to GSP imports. 
356. Recalling discussions in the Section "Import Licensing" of this Report, Members of the 
Working Party requested the Russian Federation to  provide additional information on current import 
licensing requirements for imports of poultry, beef, and pork. 
357. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that, in accordance with 
Government Resolution No. 1111, an entity th at had imported products covered under the TRQ 
during the previous year had the right to receive an in-quota allocation under the TRQ for the next 
year, based on the percentage of imports of such entity in the previous year.  Upon receipt of an 
application from an entity with a TRQ allocation, the MIT would issue a licence for importation of beef, pork and poultry within the allocated volumes.   The licenses for importation of such products in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 121 
 
 
  2011 were issued from 27 December 2010 until 31 December 2011, and were valid from 1 January 
until 31 December.  An application for an import li cence would be processed within five days.  
He confirmed that import licenses were not transfer able, but noted that unused import licenses would 
be reallocated.  Importers that had received a share of the quota based on historical trade shares could 
apply for a licence by 1 August for TRQs on beef, pork  and poultry.  Applicati ons submitted after that 
date would not be accepted.  Importers would receive a licence after submission of an application for 
the licence, a copy of a certificate confirming that the applicant was registered by a regional tax 
authority as a tax-payer and a copy of an import contract.  Import licenses would be issued for particular volume of products.  A fee of RUB 2,600 was charged for each licence.  This fee was not 
reimbursed in the event the importer did not use th e licence.  In response, some Members of the 
Working Party stated that the system described di d not work well in practice, and made it extremely 
difficult to actually export poultry, beef, and po rk to the Russian Federation.  These Members 
believed that use of historical suppliers was pa rticularly problematic as many had been one-time 
shippers and no longer were participants in the market.  The TRQ regime of the Russian Federation 
had created quota reserves for certain Members, reduced pre-TRQ access for other Members and 
eliminated equal opportunities to all Members to su pply their products and was, therefore, a clear 
departure from the MFN principle.  They noted that, under the previous regime, many importers 
received quota allocations so small that they we re not economically viable (in some instances, 
importers were given quota allocations as low as 10 kilograms).  They also noted that no mechanism 
for re-allocation of unused licenses had been developed in advance of the introduction of this system, 
and it did not appear that full utilization of the quotas and tariff rate quotas, which already contemplated reduced imports, would be possible.  These Members enquired about how the Russian Federation kept track of how much of th e quota allocations had actually been used and how 
the Russian Federation provided information on a weekly basis on actual quota fill during the quota 
period.  Some Members also noted that suppliers situated geographically distant from the 
Russian Federation experienced additional difficulties due to shipping time.  
358. Some Members expressed concern that the TRQ regime that the Russian Federation applied 
under the CU, did not appear to allocate any in-quota  volume to new entrants.  It appeared that an 
importer newly entering the market had to import at the over-quota rate which acted to limit the 
quantity of imports.  Thus, in subsequent years, this importer would qualify only for a small in-quota 
allocation, since allocations were based on imports over the previous year.  In their view, this did not 
provide sufficient flexibility in the market.   
359. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that, in 2003, when the TRQ had been 
introduced, distribution of quotas had been based on th e historical shares of main suppliers of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 122  
 
  Russian Federation for the respective products in  the years 1999 to 2001, which were the years 
immediately preceding the year when the decision to introduce the TRQs for beef and pork and 
special safeguard quotas for poultry had been taken (2002), and for which information was available.  
He confirmed that the supplying Members were i nvited to consult with his Government about 
country-specific allocation of quotas.  Some of th ese consultations had been successfully concluded 
and their results had been implemented.  The repr esentative of the Russian Federation noted also that 
the Russian Federation took note of the concerns of the Working Party Members and amended the 
TRQ administration mechanism in a timely manner.  In his view, now it worked effectively and 
allowed for the full utilization of quotas and TRQs (see [Table 40]).   
360. Members also noted that the Veterinary Service of the Ministry of Agriculture required that 
importers obtain an import permit, in addition to veterinary and sanitary certification requirements 
(and now the import licence), to be able to import beef , pork, and poultry into the Russian Federation.  
Those Members considered that those import permit s were also subject to the disciplines of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Members noted that, in January 2003, the 
Veterinary Service abruptly cancelled existing import permits for beef, pork, and poultry and 
established a new system for issuing import permits.   Members noted that no information had been 
published or provided to Working Party participan ts on the new requirements for obtaining import 
permits. 
361. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that veterinary permits were 
granted to all importers who had at their dispo sal technical possibilities necessary to guarantee the 
safety of products in conformity with veterinary standards.  The same procedure (veterinary permits) 
was maintained for Russian operato rs in case of inter-regional trade.  He added that this procedure 
was applied not only to goods under TRQs, but also to other goods subject to veterinary control, and 
that it was described in the Section "Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" of this Report. 
362. Noting that the TRQ system of the Russian Fede ration appeared to violate several provisions 
of the GATT 1994, including Articles I, XI and XIII, some Members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that it would terminate the TRQs on meat products and replace them by a single tariff applied on an MFN basis for all Members.   
363. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that the parameters and 
mechanism of allocation of TRQs were the subject of bilateral market access negotiations and their 
results would be duly reflected in the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the 
Russian Federation.  In response to a ques tion from a Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the TRQ mechanism set-out in Section I-B of Part I of the Schedule  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 123 
 
 
  of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of th e Russian Federation contained the following 
parameters for TRQs on beef, pork and poultry:  in-quota tariff rates, out-of-quota tariff-rates, 
quantities eligible for the in-quota tariff rates and country-specific allocations of those eligible 
quantities.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed that, in implementing TRQs, the 
Russian Federation would apply WTO-consistent pr ocedures that provide for allocations to new 
importers.  These procedures would operate in a predictable, transparent and timely manner.   
364. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that: 
1. If on 1 September of each quota year 30 per cent or more of a country-specific allocation of a 
tariff rate quota for meat had not been either contracted or imported, any unused quantity 
would be re-allocated on 15 September of the same quota year provided that: 
 (i)  the Russian Federation had consulted with the Member holding a country-specific 
TRQ for meat and they had agreed whethe r the conditions of paragraph 1 had been 
established, prior to any such re-allocation; such mandatory consultations were to be 
held between 1-10 September of the quota year in question.  In the course of the consultations requested by the Russ ian Federation, the Member holding a 
country-specific TRQ allocation could onl y object to re-allocation if it could 
demonstrate that at least 70 per cent of its allocation had been contracted or already 
imported.  The outcome of such consultati ons would be made publicly available by 
the Russian Federation by 12 September of the quota year in question; 
 (ii) the Russian Federation's request for c onsultations had been substantiated by the 
Russian Federation supplying 15 days in adva nce of the consultations full information 
on the volume of meat covered by licen ces delivered (licences based on existing 
contracts) and imports in order to fully ju stify its request for the consultations; and 
 (iii) the re-allocated quantity would be made  available to all WTO Members, including the 
Member with the original country-sp ecific TRQ allocation and other Member 
country-specific TRQ allocation holders, provi ded the latter had filled their allocation. 
2. During such consultations the effects of any sanitary or phytosanitary (SPS) measure on 
commercial transactions would be examined. 
3. Should the expectation of the Russian Fede ration be that there would be a need for 
re-allocating a country-specific TRQ, the Russian  Federation would provide full information 
on the volume of meat covered by licences delivered (licences based on existing contracts) 
and imports to the concerned Member holding a country-specific TRQ allocation by 30 June 
of the quota year in question. Such information would also be provided by the Russian Federation at any other time, upon such Member's written request.  Within the period 
from 30 June to 31 August, such information would also be provided, upon request, by the Russian Federation to WTO Member suppliers  of products subject to the relevant 
country-specific TRQ.  
4. By 15 July of the quota year the Russian Federation would make the information of its 
intention to consider launchi ng consultations with a Member holding a country-specific TRQ 
allocation publicly available. 
5. In exceptional circumstances where a major shor tfall in filling an "Other countries" TRQ was 
expected, the Russian Federation could launch c onsultations.  Such consultations would be 
held to consider whether as of  15 September in any quota year a country-specific TRQ holder, 
provided it had filled its own a llocation, could also have access to the "Other countries" TRQ 
in question.  Consultations would be held  with the five largest suppliers to the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 124  
 
  Russian Federation under the "Other countries" TRQ over the last five years.  Any other 
eligible supplier to the "Other countries" TRQ wh ich had expressed an interest could also join 
the consultations.  By 15 July and in any case at least 15 days before the actual consultations, 
the Russian Federation would make publicly ava ilable notice of its intention to consider 
launching such consultations.  This public info rmation would include the factual basis and 
supporting documents necessary for these consulta tions.  The outcome of such consultations 
would be made available to the WTO Members by  the Russian Federation within two days of 
the conclusion of any consultations held on the basis of this provision.
 
6. A decision to re-allocate a TRQ could only appl y within the quota year in which the decision 
was taken. 
7. No meat tariff quotas listed in Section I-B of the Russian Federation's Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods would be reallocated except in accordance with 
these requirements.    
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
365. Members and the Russian Federation agreed that  the particular arrangements described in  
paragraph [364] above were w ithout prejudice to the WTO rights and obligations of Members 
(and the Russian Federation after its accession) hold ing country-specific allocations in respect of 
TRQs which were not subject to those arrangements. 
366. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that from the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, import TRQs applied in the Russian Federation would be 
administered, whether by the competent Bodies of th e CU or by authorities of the Russian Federation, 
in a manner that is 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. 
- Other Duties and Charges 
367. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, from 1 January 2010, duties on 
imports were applied in accordance with the Agre ement on Common Measures of Tariff and Customs 
Regulation of 25 January 2008, the Interstate Council Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 
"On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union," and CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union."  
These provisions empowered the CU Commission to est ablish and change the customs tariffs of the 
CU Parties, including the Russian Federation, as d escribed in Section "Ordinary Customs Duties" of 
this Report.  No other duties and charges were authorised.  Therefore, he confirmed that the 
Russian Federation did not apply any duties and charges of any kind within the meaning of 
Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 125 
 
 
  368. Noting this statement, several Members asked th e Russian Federation to bind at zero all such 
Other Duties and Charges (ODCs) in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods and to 
undertake a commitment that it would not apply such measures except in conformity with 
WTO obligations. 
369. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that the Russian Federation had bound 
all tariffs in its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments annexed to the GATT 1994 (reproduced 
in Annex 1 to the Protocol of Accession of th e Russian Federation).  He confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would from the date of accessi on to the WTO not apply other duties and charges 
within the meaning of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and had bound such other duties and charges at zero in relation to all goods.  These bindings were  recorded in the Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments of the Russian Federation annexed to the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment. 
- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
- Customs Fees 
370. Several Members asked for a description of the currently applied regime of customs fees, 
introduced in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, 
Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 (as last amended on 27 November 2010), which had entered 
into force on 1 January 2004.  Noting that, under the previous system, fees charged for customs clearance had been calculated on an ad valorem  basis, these Members questioned how the fee 
structure of the current system related to the cost  of services rendered and stressed their expectation 
that the Russian Federation must comply with the relevant obligations provided for in the GATT 1994.  They also sought information on th e regime of customs fees that would apply under 
the CU Customs Code and the national legisla tion of the Russian Federation implementing the 
CU Customs Code. 
371. The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that, pursuant to Article 30 of 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity" (as last amended on 27 December  2009), all payments collected on exports and 
imports of goods which were neither customs du ties nor other taxes were not to exceed the 
approximate cost of services rendered nor be a mean s of protection of goods of Russian Federation 
origin or of taxation for fiscal purposes.  Revenues generated by these fees were remitted to the general revenues of the State budget. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 126  
 
  372. He further noted that, before the adoption of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, 
there were six types of fees and charges for servi ces rendered levied in re lation to importation or 
exportation:  (i) customs clearance fees; (ii) fees fo r storage; (iii) fees for customs escort; (iv) fees for 
consultations; (v) fees for adopting a preliminary deci sion by the customs official; and (vi) fees for the 
participation in customs auctions.  These fees and charges were replaced under the Customs Code that 
came into effect on 1 January 2004.  The represen tative of the Russian Federation explained that 
Article 72 of the CU Customs Code left the author ity for the application of customs fees to the 
CU Parties.  From 1 January 2011, Article 130 of  the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" would 
establish the customs fee regime of the Russian Federation within the framework of the Customs 
Union.  Until then, the provisions of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 6 December 2007) and Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 
8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental Principles of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" 
(as last amended on 27 December 2009), to the extent that they did not conflict with the CU Agreement on Customs Regulation and the CU Cu stoms Code, continued to apply.  The customs 
fees that were currently charged and those that came into effect on 1 January 2011 were as follows 
and as described in paragraphs  [373] and [374] below.  
373. Chapter 33.1 of the Customs Code of the Russian  Federation provided for three types of fees, 
i.e.: 
(i) customs clearance;  
(ii) customs escort of goods; and 
(iii) storage of goods in government customs warehouses. 
Article 123 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulat ion" provided for the same three types of 
fees, but described as follows, i.e.:  (iv) customs fees  for execution of actions associated with release of goods (hereinafter referred to 
as "customs duties for customs operations"); 
(v) customs fees  for customs escort; and 
(vi) customs fees for storage in governmental warehouses. 
374. Article 357.10 of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of  28 May 2003 "Customs Code of the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 6 Dece mber 2007) and Article 130 of the Federal Law 
"On Customs Regulation" established the rates of t hose fees for customs escort and storage of goods 
in government warehouses and provided that th e amount of customs fees for customs clearance 
(for customs operations) must be limited to the a pproximate value of services of customs authorities  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 127 
 
 
  and must not exceed RUB 100,0006 per customs declaration and that rates of customs clearance fees 
were established by the Government.  
375. In response to specific questions of some Me mbers about the requirements and procedures of 
customs escort, the provisions regulating storage of  goods under customs control, and the relevant 
fees, the representative of the Russian Federation re plied that these requireme nts and procedures were 
described in paragraphs [1153] to [1156] of the S ection "Regulation of Trade in Transit" of this 
Report.  Customs escort could be provided as a ma ndatory service for certain specific goods in transit 
through the territory of the Russian Federation a nd all other goods in transit to their declared 
destination in the Russian Federation after entering the customs territory of the CU through one of the 
other CU Parties.  The purpose of such escort was to  ensure that the same goods arrived at the final 
customs point in one of the CU Parties or exited th e customs territory of the CU on their way to their 
final destination in a third country.  Article 130 of  the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" set fees 
for such customs escort based on the length of j ourney escorted for each motor transport vehicle and 
each unit of railway rolling stock.  A flat fee was charged for escort of each sea, river or air vessel.   
If the storage of imported or exported goods, prior to customs clearance was required, government 
customs warehouses were available to importers an d exporters for storage of their goods, including 
cases when their storage at other, privately owne d warehouses was not permitted.  Customs fees for 
storage at the warehouse for temporary storage or at the customs warehouse of the customs authorities 
varied based on the weight of the goods stored per da y in storage, and increas ed if the storage space 
were specially arranged and equipped for storage of certain types of goods.  The rates for relevant fees 
were listed in [Table 20]. 
376. In response to further comments by some  Members, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that detailed info rmation on import licensing fees was provided in 
paragraphs [445] and [460] of th e Section "Quantitative Import Rest rictions, including Prohibitions 
and Quotas and Import Licensing Systems" of this Report.  
377. As for the first category of fees, "customs clearance fees" or "fees for customs operations", 
the representative of the Russian Federation st ated that Government Resolution No. 863 of 
28 December 2004 "On the Rates of the Customs Fees for the Customs Clearance of Goods" 
(as last amended on 20 December 2010) had been a dopted in order to implement the provisions of 
Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003  "Customs Code of the Russian Federation" (as last amended 
on 6 December 2007).  This Government Resolution est ablished flat rates of fees for eight categories 
of customs declarations, some of which depended on the value of goods declared in a single 
                                                      
6 As of 22 October 2011 the exchange rate was RUB 31.34 per US$1. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 128  
 
  declaration.  The fees authorised in Article 130 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" would 
be established after its enactment and implementation.   The rates of fees were listed in [Table 20].  
He added that this scale provided for ra tes not exceeding RUB 7,500 (which corresponded 
approximately to US$240).  This represented approx imately 85 per cent of customs declarations in 
2009, as reported by the customs statistics.  The f ees for small consignments of goods, i.e., where the 
customs declaration, list goods up to RUB 200,000 or approximately to US$6,500 in declared value, 
were collected at a minimum rate of RUB 500 (a pproximately US$15).  The maximum rate, provided 
for both by the Customs Code of the Russian Federation and in the Federal Law "On Customs 
Regulation" was RUB 100,000 per customs declara tion, or approximately US$3,200.  Under the 
current regime, this amount was levied only for cu stoms clearance of consignments of goods where 
the customs declaration lists goods, exceeding RUB 30 ,000,000 (or US$1,000,000) in declared value.  
Such consignments were normally exceptionally larg e and required additional attention in the customs 
clearance process.  Customs clearance fees were app lied at equal rates to imports and exports from all 
origins and destinations.  In Government Resolu tion No. 863 of 28 December 2004 "On the Rates of 
the Customs Fees for the Customs Clearance of Goods" (as last amended on 20 December 2010), 
special minimal rates (RUB 250-500 per customs declaration) were provided for the customs 
clearance of some other particular categories of goods: 
- goods, transported by railway transport under th e customs regime of international customs 
transit; 
- securities in foreign currency, which were brought into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation; 
- goods for personal, home and family needs not re lated to the entrepreneurial activity, except 
for passenger cars classified in commodity  positions of HS Codes 8702 and 8703; and 
- for customs registration of a customs declara tion repeated for the same products under the 
same customs regime; as listed in [Table 20]. 
He added that customs clearance of certain categories of goods was exempted from customs 
fees as established by the provisions of Article 357. 9 of the Customs Code and in Article 131 of the 
Federal Law "On Customs Regulation". 
378. One Member asked whether the customs cleara nce fees were applied only to merchandise 
trade (e.g., not to travellers or goods entering the Russian Federation as personal items) for the service 
rendered by the customs service of import and export processing of the Russian Federation.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Federa tion recalled that the customs clearance fees were 
levied only when a written customs declarati on was required to be presented (those cases were 
established in the Customs Code and in the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation") and, 
correspondingly, customs authorities were required to provide a service.  Thus, customs fees for the 
customs clearance were not levied in those cases wh en an exemption from the payment of the customs  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 129 
 
 
  fees for the customs clearance was provided for (see the provisions of Article 357.9 of the Customs 
Code and Article 131 of the Federal Law "On Cust oms Regulation") and/or a declaration in written 
form was not required for the goods.  These provisions, inter alia , covered most cases when the goods 
were transferred by physical pers ons for personal, familial, household,  or any other needs unrelated to 
pursuits of entrepreneurial activities.  If cust oms clearance of such goods required a written 
declaration, and they did not fall under the list of exemptions, a flat fee in amount of RUB 250 was to 
be paid (see [Table 20]). 
379. One Member asked about the rates of fees app lied to the customs clearance of goods shipped 
by postal services or express delivery services.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that according to the exemptions listed in Article 357.9
 of the 
Customs Code and Article 131 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation", customs fees for 
customs clearance were not chargeab le in respect of goods forwarded in international postal items 
unless a declaration was required in written form and the said goods were declared by lodging a separate customs declaration (i.e., if the declared  value of transferred goods exceeded RUB 10,000).  
In the latter cases, the rate of customs fees for cu stoms clearance of goods amounted to RUB 250 as 
regards the goods, assigned for personal, family, h ousehold or other activities not connected with 
entrepreneurial activity, which were sent to a physical  person (item (d), [Table 20]); if the goods were 
considered to be commercially traded, the relevant  fee according to the scale listed in [Table 20] was 
applied.  He added that there were no differences pr ovided for by the legislation in this matter, in 
respect of the treatment of foreign postal services, including express delivery operators, and the post 
service of the Russian Federation.  In particular, there were no special exemptions for goods sent via 
the post service of the Russian Federation. 
380. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that when the current system of the 
customs clearance fees was introduced, it was intended that this system would be consistent with the 
requirements of the WTO Agreement, including Article VIII of the GATT 1994 and not burdensome 
for the participants in foreign trade. 
381. Some Members, however, insisted that this syst em had some features that were not consistent 
with the provisions of Article VIII of the GATT 1994.  One Member noted that high value 
declarations would incur a custom s clearance fee of nearly US$3,500, an amount that could not be 
considered to be limited in amount to the approximate cost of servi ces rendered.  In addition, goods 
whose customs clearance may not require much hand ling or that used electronic format or other 
simplified methods for filing declarations could be su bject to the same fees as similarly valued goods 
that required additional services.  Finally, because customs clearance operations were funded from the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 130  
 
  State budget of the Russian Federation, and revenues from the fees were remitted to the State budget, 
it was difficult to establish that such revenues we re used only for customs clearance operations.  
This Member requested that the Russian Federati on amend its legislation to address these concerns 
and to establish a WTO-compliant system of customs clearance fees. 
382. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Customs Code 
mandated that the level of customs fees, including  customs clearance fees, not exceed the cost of 
services rendered and that total revenues from cust oms clearance fee collections in 2009 accounted 
for only 25 per cent of the cost of customs clearance operations that year.  He expected that further 
development of trade facilitation measures and expa nsion of enhanced customs clearance and control 
technologies would lead to decreased cost of services rendered in connection with customs clearance.  
He also confirmed that, prior to the date of a ccession, his Government would amend the system of 
customs clearance fees, i.e., reduce the maximum level for the customs clearance fee to the RUB 
equivalent of Special Drawing Rights (SDR) amount  equal to RUB 30,000 as of the date of accession 
and establish lower fixed fees for the customs clea rance of goods using electronic format or other 
simplified methods for filing declarations, to ensure compliance with the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement, in particular, of Article VIII of  the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments. 
- Other Fees 
383. The representative of the Russian Federation said th at other fees applied to imports or to the 
act of importation included:  (i) port user fees; (ii) State duties; and (iii) consular fees.  He confirmed 
that the Tax Code provided for the non-discriminatory application of State duties (Article 3 of Federal 
Law No. 146-FZ of 31 July 1998 "Part I of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 
17 July 2010).  State duties could not be applie d differently because of social, racial, national, 
religious or any other type of criteria, and the estab lishment of differential taxes and fees for the same 
purpose was prohibited. 
384. The list of port fees applied in the Russian Federation was established in Federal Law 
No. 261-FZ of 8 November 2007 "On Seaports in th e Russian Federation and on Amending Particular 
Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation".  Po rt fees used in the particular seaports of the 
Russian Federation had been approved by the Order of the Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation No. 187 of 17 December 2007 "On A pproval of Port Fees Collected in Seaports of 
the Russian Federation" [Table 21] and [Table 22].   These port fees were collected per 1 gross tonne 
of vessel conventional capacity, stated in International Measuring (classification) Certificate, according to provisions of the International C onvention on Tonnage of 1969 and, included the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 131 
 
 
  following:  tonnage (to be collected for each arri val into the port and departure from it), beaconage 
(to be collected for each arrival into the port, de parture and transit through port harbourage), canal 
fees (to be collected upon each pass of canal on arrival, departure and transit through port 
harbourage), ecological fees (to be collected in por ts, providing facilities for collection of wastes of all 
types, except ballast water), pilotage fees (to be collected for out-of-port pilotage through fairways 
and channels (for miles) and in-por t pilotage and (for operations)), na vigation fees (to be collected for 
each arrival into the port and departure from it), and, ice-breaker fees (to be collected for each arrival 
into the port, departure and transit through port harbourage with dependence on the season of the 
year).  General provisions for port fees collection and their maximum rates were established in the Order of the Federal Service on Tariffs No. 522-t/1 of 20 December 2007 (particularities of collection 
of specific fees in each port were provided in A nnex 10(b)),  Port fees were collected by the 
authorities of the commercial seaports of the Russian Federation on a non-discriminatory basis from 
Russian and foreign vessels and floating facilities, irr espective of their legal organizational form, legal 
status and pattern of ownership. 
385. State duties were collected in accordance with  Chapter 25.3 of Fede ral Law No. 117-FZ of 
5 August 2000 "Part II of Tax Code of the Russi an Federation" (as ame nded on 28 December 2010).  
The provisions of the Tax Code of the Russian Federa tion related to State duties entered into force on 
1 January 2005.  The Law of the Russian Fede ration No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State 
Duty", which previously regulated the application of  State duties, had been abolished.  Pursuant to 
Article 333.16 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, State duties were levied for the 
performance of legally significant actions, i.e., notary actions, including the issuance of documents, 
copies and duplicates, except for actions carried out  by consular offices and only in the cases foreseen 
in the legislation.  The list of applicable  State duties was reproduced in [Table 23]. 
386. Several Members again questioned how an ad valorem  State duty for the attestation of 
agency Agreements and for accepting money and secur ities in deposit could relate to the cost of the 
service rendered.  They also requested clarifica tion of whether these duties applied to the act of 
importation or exportation, and what sorts of  customs documents required a stamp tax.  
Regarding fees that were applied to imports for requirements, such as standards certification or 
vehicle taxes, these Members also noted that to th e extent that these fees were inconsistent with 
Article III of the GATT 1994, they should be revised  or eliminated prior to accession.  Clarification 
was also requested regarding the precise meaning of legally significant action "for performing other 
notary actions" or "for the performance of the tec hnical work for the making of the documents".   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 132  
 
  387. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that, pursuant to the Tax Code 
of the Russian Federation, State duties had to be paid only if so required under Chapter 25.3 of the 
Code.  Mandatory customs operati ons and procedures, such as auth entication of customs documents, 
attestation of agency Agreements and acceptanc e of money and securities in deposit by customs 
bodies did not require any payment of a State duty.  Concerning the meaning of legally significant actions, he said that, according to Chapter 25.3 of the Tax Code of the Russi an Federation, legally 
significant actions were: 
- statements of claim and other claims and complain ts filed with courts of general jurisdiction, 
arbitration courts, justice courts and the C onstitutional Court of the Russian Federation; 
- notarial acts by public notaries employed by no tary offices or duly authorised officials of 
executive authorities, local administrations; 
- State Registration of acts of civil status and other legally significant actions performed by 
vital statistics offices; and 
- issuance of documents by courts, institutions and agencies for consideration and issuance of 
documents associated with acquisition of Russian  citizenship (national status) or denunciation 
thereof and performance of other legally significant actions. 
388. Referring to consular fees, he noted that in accordance with the Vienna Convention on 
Consular Relations (1963) and Consular Articles provisions (1976), the main objective of the consular 
offices was the protection of rights and legal intere sts of Russian citizens and legal entities abroad.  
Consular offices of the Russian Federation collect ed fees for the issuance of documents of legal 
significance to Russian natural persons or legal entiti es constantly or temporarily residing or located 
in foreign countries, as well as to c itizens of foreign states, foreign legal entities, and persons without 
citizenship.  Acts performed by the consular offices of the Russian  Federation included those related 
to passport and visa matters, citizenship, certifica tion and notarization of documents, and power of 
attorney notarization.  None of these acts were dir ectly related to exports or  imports of goods and their 
fees were applied on a reciprocal basis.  
389. Noting the statement above, some Members s ought clarification from the Russian Federation 
on whether consular fees were levied on consular operations involving impor tation or exportation.  
In particular, they asked the Russian Federation to confirm whether any requirement existed for 
authentication of customs documentation by ov erseas Russian Federation consulates prior to 
exportation.  Some Members expressed concerns ab out the charging of fees for consular purposes that 
were connected with importation (see [Table 24])  at a lower rate from certain countries where the 
service was performed (the Baltic countries and CIS c ountries) as this practice would be in violation 
of Article I of the GATT 1994 and should be elimin ated prior to accession.  Other Members of the 
Working Party expressed concern about the discrim inatory application of consular fees by 
Sub-Federal entities, apparently in contravention of the legislation of the Russian Federation.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 133 
 
 
  The same Members requested that the Russian Fede ration enter into a commitment to apply a uniform 
consular fee policy to all and to eliminate cu rrent discriminatory practices prior to accession. 
390. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that his Government imposed no 
requirement for the issuance of consular invoices or certificates for exports to the Russian Federation, 
nor for the authentication of customs documentatio n required for importation.  He confirmed that 
consular fees were charged only by the consular offices of the Russian Federation.  No consular 
offices were established by Sub-Federal entities and no consular fees were a pplied at Sub-Federal 
level.  He also noted that the consular fees listed in [Table 24] were not connected with the type of 
consular acts covered by Article VIII:4(a) of the GATT 1994, and were not in any way directly 
related to exportation or importation.  These acts we re covered by bilateral consular treaties and 
performed mainly in respect of Russian citizens and Russian legal entities.  In his view, such bilateral 
treaties, providing for differential treatment for consular services on a reciprocal basis, were common 
among WTO Members. 
391. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the lists of fees and charges for 
customs services, port fees used in commercial seaports and State duties that could be applied in the 
context of international trade listed in [Table 20], [Table 21], [Table 22], [Table 23], [Table 24] were 
comprehensive as of the date stated in each table.   
392. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would, 
from the date of accession, ensure that any f ees and charges imposed on or in connection with 
importation and exportation, including those discussed in paragraphs [357, 373, 445, 460, 463, 481, 
563, and 663] or introduced in the future, would be applied in conformity with the relevant provisions 
of the WTO Agreement, in particular Articles V III and X of the GATT 1994.  He further confirmed 
that, from the date of accession, all laws and regula tions regarding the appli cation and level of any 
such fees and charges would be published.  Furthe r, upon receipt of a written request of a concerned 
Member, the Russian Federation would provide to th at Member information on the revenue collected 
from a specific fee or charge and on the costs of providing the associated services.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
- Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
393. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, as from 1 January 2010, the legal 
framework governing the application of indir ect taxation on imports (and exports) among the 
CU Parties was contained in the Agreement on the Pr inciples of Indirect Tax Collection at Export and 
Import of Goods, Performing Work and Renderi ng Services in the Customs Union, signed on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 134  
 
  25 January 2008, and as amended by the Protocol on Amending the Agreement On the Principles of 
Collection of Indirect Taxes on Exports and Im ports of Goods, Performi ng Works and Rendering 
Services in the Customs Union of 11 December 2009 (hereafter:  Protocol on Amending the 
Agreement on Indirect Tax on Exports and Imports).  It s provisions were elaborated in the Protocol on 
the Order of Levying of Indirect Taxes in View of Performance of Works and Rendering Services in 
the Customs Union of 11 December 2009, and the Protocol on the Procedure of Collection of Indirect 
Taxes and on the Mechanism of Carrying Ou t the Control over their Payment while 
Exporting/Importing Goods in the Customs Union, signed on 11 December 2009. 
394. These CU Protocols and the Agreement establishe d that imports among CU Parties would be 
subject to excise and Value Added Taxes (VAT) and that exports among CU Parties would be 
exempted or taxed at a zero rate, provided that documentary confirmati on of the fact of the export was 
submitted and that the tax authorities of the CU Pa rties possessed information confirming tax payment 
to the budgets of other CU Parties for these goods.  The Agreement also confirmed that the rate of 
duty of these indirect taxes applied to imports would not exceed the rate applicable to domestic goods.  
The Agreement on Indirect Tax on Exports and Impor ts (as amended) provided that application of 
indirect taxes on imports into Special Economic Zones (SEZs) would be established in a separate 
CU Treaty.  Article 70 of the CU Customs Code, adopted on 27 November 2009, and implemented on 
1 July 2010, confirmed that CU Parties' customs services (the FCS in the Russian Federation) would 
collect VAT and excise taxes on imports into the Cu stoms Union from third parties.  Articles 72, 73, 
and 75 stated that the levels, method of collection and taxable base for these taxes on imports were 
determined by the national legislation of the CU Parties.  Thus, to a large extent, the national 
legislation of the Russian Federation determining th e application of indirect taxes to imports and 
exports, prior to 1 January 2010, continued to apply. 
- (a) Excise Taxes 
395. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the legal framework for excise 
taxation in the Russian Federation was provided in Chapter 22 (Excise Tax) of the Tax Code 
(Federal Law No. 110-FZ of 24 July 2002 "On the Introduction of Chapter 22 into Force").  It set the list of products, which were subject to excise taxes a nd tax rates (see [Table 25]).  In pursuance of the 
above-mentioned Act, excise tax rates for imports and those for domestic products were identical. 
396. He further noted that Article 193.1 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation provided that 
excise taxes were applied on the basis of specifi c rates for all types of excisable goods, excluding 
cigarettes with filters, non-filter cigarettes, and mouthpiece cigarettes.  For these tobacco products 
combined tax rates applied, consisting of both a specific and an ad valorem  tax rate.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 135 
 
 
  Currently, ad valorem  tax rates were not applied in respect of other excisable goods.  The tax base for 
calculating the ad valorem  alternative for the excise tax for cigarettes was the ex-factory price 
exclusive of VAT for domestic products and the duty paid customs value exclusive of VAT for 
imported cigarettes. 
397. If excisable goods were placed under customs treatments of transit, bonded warehouse, 
re-export, processing under customs control, free cust oms area, destruction and refusal in favour of 
the State, the excise tax did not have to be paid .  Products for which a zero level excise tax was 
indicated (e.g., beer with an alcohol content less than  or equal to 0.5 per cent)  were included in the list 
of excisable goods only for the effective State monitoring of their turnover.  
398. In respect of further concerns of some Members related to the principle of levying excise 
taxes on imports from CIS countries, including other CU Parties, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that from 1 July 2001,  when Chapter 22 of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation had entered into force, excise taxes had been levied in a uniform manner on all 
imports, based on the country of destination principle,  except for Belarus.  As from 1 February 2005, 
on the basis of the Agreement of 15 Septembe r 2004 between the Russian Federation and the 
Republic of Belarus, the country of destination prin ciple was also applied to imports from Belarus.  
This principle was extended to the Customs Uni on with Kazakhstan and Belarus on 1 January 2010, 
in accordance with the Agreement on Indirect Tax on Exports and Imports for which Chapter 7 of the 
CU Customs Code confirmed these principles for taxation of imports from third countries.   
399. Some Members noted that excise taxes on imports of automobiles were applied on the basis 
of the engine capacity, which was an unjustified di scrimination against trade in similar products.  
Members also sought information on an announced pros pective application of a similar discriminatory 
excise tax on agricultural machinery on the same b asis.  In their view, these measures were not in 
conformity with WTO provisions, e.g., Articles I, III, XI of the GATT 1994.  
400. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that the excise tax on automobiles was 
being applied on the basis of engine capacity.  It was aimed at the taxation of Russian consumers of 
luxury cars and taking into account the environmenta l concerns and that it constituted a usual and 
normal measure.  The measure was not aimed at discrimination against particular countries or 
manufacturers, as such, luxury and powerful cars we re produced in the Russian Federation too.  
He also noted that excise tax rates for imported and domestic products were equal under Article 193 
of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation.  Reasoni ng from the preceding, he stated that, in his view, 
excise tax on imports of automobiles had no discr iminatory effect on imports.  He added that WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 136  
 
  agricultural machinery had never been subject to excise taxes and that the Russian Federation had no 
intention of introducing excise taxes on agricultural machinery.  
401. Some Members requested additional informati on on how the Russian Federation calculated 
the single payment that natural persons importing motorcars paid in place of the customs duty, VAT and excise tax. 
402. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the calculation of single payment 
was regulated by Chapter 23 of the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, as elaborated by the 
Government Resolution No. 718 of 29 November  2003 "On the Approval of the Regulation on the 
Application of the Uniform Ra tes of the Customs Duties and Taxes With Respect to Goods 
Transferred Across the Customs Border of the Ru ssian Federation by Natu ral Persons for Personal 
Use" and based on the uniform rates set in th e above-mentioned Resolution.  According to 
Article 360.4 of the CU Customs Code, the applicati on of customs duties, taxes, and customs fees on 
goods imported by physical persons for personal use and al so terms of their payment were governed 
by the Agreement on the Order of Transportation of Goods through the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union by Physical Persons for Personal Purposes and on Performance of Operations, signed 
on 18 June 2010.  Based on these provisions, there had been no changes to the regime of the 
Russian Federation in calculating a single import pa yment for physical persons importing motorcars.  
403. The rates applied under this regime were diffe rentiated, depending on the age of the cars, 
within three categories:  (i) new ones from the date of the production of which not more than three 
(full) years passed; (ii) used ones from the date of  production of which not less than three, but not 
more than seven (full) years passed; and (iii) u sed ones from the date of production of which more 
than seven (full) years passed.  The Government Re solution provided that imports by natural persons 
of motor cars into the customs terr itory of the Russian Federation were  subject to a single payment, 
which replaced the customs duty, VAT and excise tax.  The amount of such single payments was 
approximately equal to the sum of customs duty, VAT and excise tax.  
404. Several Members expressed appreciation for the comprehensive listing of excise taxes and 
other information on their application to domestic an d imported goods in [Table 25].  They noted that 
the differentiation of excise tax rates within speci fic categories of alcoholic beverages, e.g., for 
different types of beer, wine, and spirits, might have a de facto  discriminatory effect on imports.  
In addition, a higher excise tax was levied on al coholic beverages containi ng more than 28 per cent 
alcohol by volume.  At a later stage, Members sought confirmation that any differential in the rates of excise tax applied to alcoholic beverages had been  eliminated, and sought information on how the 
Russian Federation intended to eliminate these me asures and bring its excise tax regime on alcohol  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 137 
 
 
  and alcoholic beverages into c onformity with the WTO Agreemen t.  Furthermore, on alcoholic 
beverages, some Members sought clarificati on regarding the excise warehouses of the 
Russian Federation and whether this would be exte nded to imported products.  They considered that 
an extension to imported products would create a ba rrier to trade and could have a discriminatory 
result.   
405. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the differentiation of 
excise tax rates applied to specific categories of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and spirits) was 
based on the principle of harmonizing the applied ra te of taxation with the concentration of pure 
alcohol in those beverages and, therefore, these taxes were not having a discriminatory effect on 
imports.  For example, Russian-produced wines (fortif ied wines) were subjected to the highest excise 
rates in comparison with imported wines (n atural wines).  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Fe deration would not apply any system of excise 
taxation to imported alcoholic products  that would be discriminatory. 
406. With respect to the excise warehouses for al coholic beverages, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, in accordance with Federal Law No. 107-FZ "On the Alteration of 
Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation an d on the Invalidation of Certain Legislative Acts", 
the regime of excise warehouses for excisable goods  had not been applied since 1 January 2007.  
407. Noting further that differential rates of excise  tax were levied on natural gas depending on 
whether it was sold in the Russian Federation for export to other CIS countries (15 per cent), or 
whether it was for export to other countries (30 per cent), some Members felt that this practice was 
discriminatory and asked how the Russian Federation would bring it into conformity with WTO rules 
upon accession.  
408. The representative of the Russian Federation clar ified that the excise tax on sales of natural 
gas had been eliminated as of 1 January 2004 and replaced by a 30 per cent export duty (see Section 
on "Export Duties").  
409. Some Members also asked for a detailed clarif ication on the national treatment implications 
of calculating excise taxes on imports on the customs value plus the total of customs duties and levies 
payable, while the excise taxes on domestically produced goods were based  on actual value only.  
Members sought the elimination of these practic es and a commitment from the Russian Federation 
that full conformity with WTO provisions would be en sured in the application of excise taxes, as from 
the date of accession to the WTO. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 138  
 
  410. In response to concerns about the inclusion of the customs duty in the taxable base for the 
excise taxes levied on imports of goods to the customs territory of the Russian Federation, 
the representative of the Russian Federation stated th at this requirement of the legislation of the 
Russian Federation was consistent with the pr actice of implementation of the GATT 1994 and the 
only excisable products partially subject to ad valorem  rates were cigarettes.  All other were subject to 
specific rates. 
- (b) Value Added Tax 
411. Some Members requested confirmation that th e Value Added Tax (VAT) was now applied in 
a uniform manner to all domestic and imported products and that this was also the case with respect to 
CIS countries, including the other CU Parties.  Cl arification was also requ ested on whether the same 
principle applied to imports and exports of energy products such as gas and oil.  A Member requested 
clarification concerning the different VAT treatme nt of ice-cream produced from milk and dairy 
products (10 per cent) and ice-cream produ ced from fruits and berries (18 per cent).  
412. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation replied that, in accordance with 
Chapter 21 of Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 A ugust 2000 "Part II of Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 30 July 20 10) and Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 5 August 2000 
"On Introduction of Part II of the Tax Code", VAT  was applied in a uniform manner to all domestic 
and imported products on the basis of the country of d estination principle, and that it had also been the 
case with CIS countries since 1 July 2001, except for bilateral trade with the Republic of Belarus.  
As from 1 February 2005, on the basis of the Agreement of 15 September 2004 between the 
Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus, the country of destination principle was also applied 
on imports from the Republic of Belarus.  An a ppropriate provision was included in Article 2 of 
Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 18 August 2004 "O n Amending Part II of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation and Other Legislative Acts of th e Russian Federation", bringing the legislation of 
the Russian Federation into conformity with the abov e Agreement.  This was confirmed for Parties to 
the Customs Union with the implementation, on 1 January 2010, of the Agreement on Indirect Tax on 
Exports and Imports and, for imports from third co untries, in Chapter 7 of the CU Customs Code.  
An exhaustive list of basic food products and prod ucts for children subject to 10 per cent VAT was 
adopted by Government Regulation No. 908 of 31 December 2004.  Ice-cr eam produced from fruits 
and berries was not included in the list as it was not a basic dairy product. 
413. He noted that, according to the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, VAT was levied at a 
single rate of 18 per cent for most products.  However, according to Articles 149 and 164 of the 
Tax Code, for some goods, the rates of zero per cent and 10 per cent were applied.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 139 
 
 
  The comprehensive list of these goods was presented in [Table 26] and [Table 27].  All these rates and 
exemptions were applied in a non-discriminatory manner both to domestic a nd imported goods.  Also, 
according to Article 151 of the Tax Code, goods placed under the specified customs regimes of 
transit; customs warehouse; re-export; duty free sh op; processing under customs control; free customs 
zone; free warehouse; destruction and refusal in favour of the state, and movement of stores 
(e.g., fuel-on-board means of transport for consum ption during the trip), were exempt from VAT.  
The tax base for the imposition of the VAT included ex cise taxes, if any.  For imported goods, the tax 
base for the imposition of the VAT also included customs duties. 
414. Referring to the list of VAT exemptions listed in [Table 26], some Members noted that a 
reference was made therein that "sale of products of own manufacture of orga nizations engaged in the 
production of agricultural products which generate  70 per cent and more of the overall share of 
incomes from the sale in the total sum of their in comes" were exempted from VAT.  They enquired 
about the products in question and whether imports of similar products also qualified for exemption 
and, more generally, how the exemption of domestic  agricultural output from VAT could be justified 
under Article III:2 of the GATT 1994.  Noting that fi sh caught in the high seas by Russian registered 
vessels were also VAT exempted, these Members fu rther enquired whether this exemption was 
extended to imported fish products as well.  Some  Members also enquired whether the provision for 
VAT exemption for certain agricultural producers, or producers in any other sector, also applied 
where output was bartered for goods or services or used as payment in kind for discharging financial 
obligations to financial institutions  or other creditors.  If that w as the case, these Members requested 
full details on the legal basis for such goods and ser vices being deemed to satisfy the relevant criteria 
for VAT exemption.  
415. The representative of the Russian Federation replie d that, in the case of fi sh caught in the high 
seas by Russian registered vessels, the VAT collection resulted from the fact that fish so caught were 
considered to be Russian produced fish and, as su ch, its delivery into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation did not constitute an importati on.  These goods were thus not subject to VAT 
when brought to the customs territory of the Russian  Federation, but were subject to VAT when the 
first transaction had been performed.   
416. In response to the concerns of Members concer ning VAT exemption for agricultural products 
of some producers, he further explained that under Article 149:3(20) of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation these products substituted payments  for the job of natural persons employed by 
the producers, if 70 per cent or more of own income of such producers was generated from the sale of the agricultural products of their own manufacture.   Such form of payments was used in the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 140  
 
  agricultural sector by entities in critical situations  with no actual money either to pay salaries or VAT 
when paying for the job of employed persons by  agricultural products.  This VAT exemption was 
widely used in the 1990s, but its usage had since d eclined to negligible levels.  The agricultural 
products at issue were unprocessed products of pl ant growing and cattle breeding (meat, fish, eggs, 
vegetables, fruits, etc.).  This provision was not applied to the cases when the output of the above-mentioned producers was bartered for goods  or services, or used as payment to reimburse 
financial obligations to financia l institutions or other creditors. 
417. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the VAT exemption under 
Article 149:3(20) of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation exempting certa in domestic agricultural 
products from payment of the VAT would be eliminat ed as from the date of accession.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment. 
418. Members also noted that discriminatory appli cation of the VAT existed in the automotive 
sector.  Used cars imported by individuals were not charged a VAT or excise tax.  They also noted that the VAT was applied on an arbitrary basis on medical equipment, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.  These measures were not in c onformity with Article III of the GATT 1994.  
Some Members also expressed concern about th e practice of the customs authorities of the 
Russian Federation to apply the previously existi ng VAT rate of 20 per cent (now 18 per cent) to 
imports of pharmaceutical products instead of the sp ecial VAT rate of 10 per cent introduced by the 
Tax Code and sought confirmation fro m the Russian Federation that this  practice had been abolished.  
In addition, these Members sought clarification on the application of the maximum VAT on imports 
of pharmaceutical products for clinical trials rath er than the reduced rate provided for by law.  
In addition to a discriminatory VAT (20 or 18 per cent instead of 10 per cent), which customs tended 
to apply in the absence of a special permit from the Ministry of Health, these Members stated that the 
Part II of the Tax Code allowed for exemptions and asked the Russian Federation to consider VAT 
exemption of these products as they were not for resale.  
419. As regards the application of VAT in th e automotive sector, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that Government  Resolution No. 718 of 29 November 2003 "On the 
Approval of the Regulations on the Application of the Uniform Rates of the Customs Duties and 
Taxes with Respect to Goods Transferred across th e Customs Border of the Russian Federation by 
Natural Persons for Personal Use" pr ovided that in respect of imports by natural persons of motor cars 
into the customs territory of the Russian Fede ration a single payment could be applied, which 
accumulated the customs duty, VAT and excise tax.  The authority of the Russian Federation in the 
context of the Customs Union to apply this regime to imports of automobiles by physical persons for  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 141 
 
 
  their own use had been confirmed by Article 360.4 of the CU Customs Code and by the Agreement on 
the Order of Transportation of Goods through the Customs Border of the Customs Union by Physical 
Persons for Personal Purposes and on Performan ce of Operations, signed on 18 June 2010, as 
described in paragraph [402] above. 
420. He added that the application of the single pa yment in question was not an option for a natural 
person who imported a car under the procedure of th e release of goods for domestic consumption 
(i.e., with possibility of resale).  In this case, the general order of calculation and payment of customs 
duties and taxes would be implemented.  If a pers on imported a car for personal use, however, that 
person had to make a lump-sum payment, the amount  of which was to be based on the uniform rate 
set in the Resolution.  The amounts of payments  under the two above-mentioned procedures were 
practically similar, i.e. for the same vehicle the sum of duty, VAT, and excise tax made under the first 
procedure would be similar to the amount of th e payment made in a lump sum under the second 
procedure. 
421. On the application of VAT on pharmaceutical products and medical equipment, as well as 
products for clinical trials, the representative of th e Russian Federation explained that such products 
had to be registered in the Ministry of Health as  pharmaceutical products and medical equipment to be 
eligible for the reduced VAT rate.  The VAT rate was zero per cent for the products included in the 
exhaustive list of the products of high importance adopted by the Government Resolution No. 19 of 
17 January 2002, the list of medical products in tended for rehabilitation of invalids adopted by 
Government Resolution No. 998 of 21 December 2 000, the list of medical products intended for 
production of immunobiological substances adopt ed by Government Resolution No. 283 of 
29 April 2002, the list of spectacle lens and sp ectacle frames (except for sunglasses) adopted by 
Government Resolution No. 240 of 28 March 2001, the VAT rate was zero per cent.  For other 
registered pharmaceutical products and medical equipm ent, as well as products for the clinical trials 
registered in the Ministry of Health, the VAT rate was 10 per cent.  In the absence of such 
registration, these products were subject to the gene ral VAT rate of 18 per cent.  In addition, since 
1 January 2008, Articles 164.2(4) and 164.5 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation had provided 
that medical products for clinical studies registered in the Ministry of Health were subject to the 
reduced excise tax rate of 10 per cent. 
422. Some Members of the Working Party noted that space equipment originating in some 
countries faced, at a minimum, a 20 per cent (now 18 per cent) VAT, while those from other countries 
enjoyed an exemption from the VAT.  They indi cated that this was inconsistent with the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 142  
 
  MFN provisions in Article I of the GATT 1994 and s ought the immediate application of equivalent 
VAT treatment to all space equipment re gardless of its country of origin. 
423. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that there had been some cases of 
exemptions from levying VAT on space equipm ent, resulting from bilateral agreements.  
Since November 2007, the MFN VAT rate applicab le to space equipment had been zero per cent, 
according to Article 164 of the Tax Code (see [Table 26]).  
424. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, 
the Russian Federation would apply its internal ta xes 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.  In particular, the representative of  the Russian Federation confirmed that from the 
date of accession the Russian Federation would a pply VAT for space equipment on an MFN basis.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- Quantitative Import Restrictions, includi ng Prohibitions and Quotas and Import 
Licensing Systems 
- (a) Quantitative Import Restrictio ns, including Prohibitions and Quotas  
425. The legal authorization for the application of quantitative import restrictions in the 
Russian Federation was contained in agreements established in the Customs Union (CU) with 
Kazakhstan and Belarus.  By Decision No. 19 of 27 November 2009 of the CU Interstate Council, the 
Agreement on Common Measures of Non-Tariff Regulati on in Respect of Third Countries, signed on 
25 January 2008 (hereafter: "CU Agreement on Non- Tariff Regulation"), and the Agreement on the 
Procedure of Introduction and Impl ementation of Measures, Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods, on 
the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Th ird Countries (hereafter: "Agreement on Measures 
Concerning Foreign Trade"), signed on 9 June  2009 took effect on 1 January 2010.  As a 
consequence, decisions to impose non-tariff measures  on third-country imports into the CU would be 
taken by the CU Commission.  Prior to the est ablishment of the CU, the imposition of non-tariff 
measures was governed by Chapter 5 of the Federal Law No. 164-FZ.  According to the 
CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regula tion, non-tariff measures could include quantitative restrictions, 
exclusive import or export licenses, or automatic lice nses (permits) or non-automatic licenses.  By its 
Decision No. 132 of 27 November 2009, the CU Co mmission approved the Common List of Goods 
that are Subject to Non-Tariff Measures (see [T able 28]), which also came into force on 
1 January 2010.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 143 
 
 
  426. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that, in his view, the Russian Federation 
did not maintain any quantitative import restricti ons, prohibitions or quotas within the meaning of 
Article XI of the GATT 1994, nor was any such meas ure in place in the CU.  Imports of goods were 
free of any quantitative restrictions imposed prev iously pursuant to Article 21 of Federal Law 
No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental s of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity" (as last amended on 7 April 2010).  Under the CU, import restrictions could be applied 
pursuant to Article 7 of the CU Agreement on N on-Tariff Regulation and in accordance with Federal 
laws and international treaties of the Russian Fede ration, if those measures:  (i) were necessary to 
maintain public morals or law and order; (ii) were necessary to protect the life or health of citizens, 
environment, life or health of animals and plants; ( iii) were related to the import or export of gold or 
silver; (iv) were applied to protect cultural valuab les and heritage; (v) were required to prevent the 
exhaustion of irreplaceable natural resources and impl emented simultaneously with curtailment of the 
domestic production or consumption associated with th e utilization of irreplaceable natural resources; 
(vi) were linked to a limitation of export of domest ic raw materials to provide sufficient quantity of 
such materials for the domestic manufacturing indust ry in periods when domestic prices for such 
materials were kept lower than world prices as the result of a stabilization plan implemented by the 
government; (vii) were essential to acquire or di stribute goods in case of their general or local 
shortage; (viii) were essential to comply with the international obligations; (ix) were essential to 
ensure the defence of the country and security of the state; and (x) were necessary to ensure the 
observance of regulatory legal acts not contraveni ng international commitments and related to the 
application of the customs law, preservation of th e environment, protection of intellectual property 
and other legal acts.  
427. In addition, pursuant to Article 3 of the CU  Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, quantitative 
import restrictions could be introduced on agricultu ral or fishery products imported into the CU in 
accordance with Article XI:2 of the GATT 1994 when  such measures were necessary to:  (i) reduce 
the production or sale of similar domestic goods; ( ii) reduce the production or sale of domestic goods 
that could be directly replaced with imported goods unless there was a large-scale production of similar domestic goods; (iii) remove from the mark et a temporary surplus of similar domestic goods 
by providing the available surplus of such goods to so me groups of consumers either free of charge or 
at prices inferior to market prices; (iv) remove  from the market a temporary surplus of domestic goods 
that may be directly replaced with imported goods unless there was a large-scale production of similar 
domestic goods by providing the available surplus of such goods to some groups of consumers either 
free of charge or at prices inferior to market pr ices; and (v) limit the production of products of animal 
origin whose production was dependent upon impo rted goods, provided the production of similar 
domestic goods was negligible.  In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 144  
 
  Russian Federation explained that "domestic good" in this context meant a good produced in any 
CU Party. 
428. Referring to the statement of the representative of  the Russian Federation in paragraph [427], 
a Member enquired whether any import restrictions  under Article XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994 had been 
or were being applied.  This Member requested  the Russian Federation to enter a commitment to 
comply with Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, which had superseded Article XI:2(c) 
of the GATT 1994, as from the date of its accessi on and to remove any measures that could be 
inconsistent with that Article.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said no import 
restrictions under Article XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994 were being applied under either the existing 
legislation of the Russian Federation or CU Commiss ion Decisions.  He further stated that, from the 
date of accession, the Russian Federation would comply with Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
429. He further stated that, pursuant to Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, 
the CU Commission was authorised to apply quantitativ e import restrictions and prohibitions to fulfil 
the obligations of a Party under international sancti ons regimes or to protect the external financial 
situation and safeguard the balance of payments (see Section on "Balance of payments" of this 
Report).  To meet these obligations, the CU Commi ssion was authorised to apply quantitative import 
restrictions or grant exclusive licenses to import or export based on proposals from the CU Parties.  
Such measures would be taken in accordance with th e Federal Laws of the Russian Federation and the 
international Agreements to which the Russian Fede ration was a Party.  In response to a question from 
a Member, the representative of the Russian Federati on explained that the list of general exceptions 
stipulated in Articles 7 and 8 of the CU Agre ement on Non-Tariff Regula tion was exhaustive and no 
other document within the CU provided for such exceptions.  
430. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that, as of 1 January 2010, pursuant to 
Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regul ation and Article 1 of the Agreement on Measures 
Concerning Foreign Trade, the authority to impo se non-tariff measures in the CU on third-country 
imports was transferred from the individual Parti es to the CU Commission.  A proposal to apply a 
non-tariff measure could be filed by a Party or the CU Commission, and the CU Commission was 
required to make its determination within 30 days from the date the proposal was submitted, and the 
decision would come into force within 45 days from the date of publication.  Any non-tariff measure 
was applied to goods originating in third countries,  and applied equally to imports from all countries. 
431. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that under Article 9 of the CU Agreem ent on Non-Tariff Regulation and Article 8 of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 145 
 
 
  Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, a nd pursuant to the procedures set-forth in the 
latter Agreement, a CU Party could unilaterally impose temporarily a non-tariff measure if such a 
measure was aimed at:  (i) the observance of public morality, law and order; (ii) defence and security; 
(iii) protection of life or health of the citizens, environment, life or health of animals and plants; 
(iv) protection of cultural values and cultural he ritage; (v) protection of intellectual property; 
(vi) prevention of the exhaustion of irreplaceable na tural resources; (vii) prevention or reduction of 
the critical shortage in the domestic market of food or other goods that were essential for the domestic 
market; or (viii) protection of the external fi nancial position and safeguarding the balance of 
payments.  Furthermore, Articles 6.1 and 7.1 of the Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign 
Trade provided further grounds to introduce unilatera l non-tariff measures with a view to protecting 
national interests or external financial position as well as safeguarding the balance of payments.  
Such a unilateral measure could be imposed for only six months.  The CU Parties not imposing the 
non-tariff measure were to take the necessary step s to prevent the importation of the subject goods 
into the Party which unilaterally applied the non-tariff measure. 
432. Noting the statement of the representative of the Russian Federation that measures applied on 
the basis of Article 7 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation were justifiable under 
Articles XX and XXI of the GATT 1994 and other respective provisions of the WTO Agreement, some Members stated that certain elements of that Article, such as paragraph 6, reached beyond 
grounds provided for under the GATT, in par ticular Articles XX and XI.  The same Members 
requested a commitment that Article 7 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tari ff Regulation, whether 
applied by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would be in conformity with 
the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.   
433. In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that, in his view, Article 7 of 
the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation was in  conformity with Article XX (j) of the 
GATT 1994.  He also confirmed that measures applie d on the basis of Article 7 of the CU Agreement 
on Non-Tariff Regulation would be in conform ity with the relevant provisions of the 
WTO Agreement, whether applied by the Russian  Federation or the competent bodies of the CU. 
434. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
recalled that the temporary ban on the importati on of ethyl alcohol enforced under Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Temporary Ban on Et hyl Alcohol Imports" had been terminated on 
31 December 2001.  He further said, that Article  13 of Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 
"On State Regulation of Producing and Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing 
Products", which had restricted impor ts of distilled spirits to no more than 10 per cent of alcohol sales WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 146  
 
  in the Russian Federation, was repealed on 1 January 2006 by Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 
21 July 2005 "On Amending the Federal Law on the State Regulation of Producing and Turnover of 
Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic Products and Alcohol-Con taining Products and on Declaring as no Longer 
Valid Some Provisions of the Federal Law on th e State Regulation of Producing and Turnover of 
Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic Products and Alcohol-Containing Products".  
435. Noting the statement of the representative of th e Russian Federation concerning the lifting of 
the temporary ban on imports of ethyl alcohol, some  Members requested clarification of whether the 
Russian authorities considered that imports of ethyl alcohol could still be affected by Government Resolution No. 1292 of 3 November 1998 "On the Approval of Rules for the Issuance of 
Quotas for the Manufacture of Ethyl Alcohol from A ll Types of Raw Materials and Special Permits 
for Its Delivery" (as amended on 16 May 2001).  As  this Resolution seemed to contemplate placing 
quotas on deliveries by domestic producers, the question remained as to whether the 
Russian Federation eventually planned to place quotas on imports. 
436. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the rules of putting quotas 
on production of ethyl alcohol from all types of raw materials, methylated spirits and 
alcohol-containing solutions had been recognised as invalid by Resolution of the Supreme Court of 
the Russian Federation No. GKPI 2001-783 of 16  May 2001 "On Recognition as Invalid and 
Inapplicable the Rules on Putting Quotas on Produc tion of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcohol-Containing 
Solution", approved by Government Resolution No. 1292 of 3 November 1998.  The rules of issuance 
of special permits for delivery (release) of ethyl alcohol produced from all types of raw materials, 
methylated spirits and alcohol-containing solutions had been recognised as invalid and inapplicable 
by Resolution of the Supreme Court No. GKPI 00-1251 of 23 November 2000 "On Recognition as 
Invalid and Inapplicable the Rules of Issuance of  Special Permits for Delivery (Release) of Ethyl 
Alcohol Produced from All Types of Raw Material s, Methylated Spirits and Alcohol-Containing 
Solutions", approved by the Resolution of the G overnment of the Russian Federation No. 1292 of 
3 November 1998. 
437. He further noted that according to Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On Amending 
the Federal Law on the State Regulation of Producti on and Circulation of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic 
Products and Alcohol-Containing Products and on Decl aring as no Longer Valid Some Provisions of 
the Federal Law on the State Regulation of Producti on and Circulation of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic 
Products and Alcohol-Containing Products", the restriction on distilled spirits mentioned in 
Article 13, Point 2 of Federal Law No. 171-FZ of  22 November 1995 "On the State Regulation of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 147 
 
 
  Production and Circulation of Ethyl Alcohol, Al coholic Products and Al cohol-Containing Products" 
was no longer valid. 
438. Noting that the Russian Federation did not exclude the possible introduction of a State 
monopoly on the distribution of alcoholic products , and that CU Regulations provided that the 
CU Commission could issue an exclusive impor t licence for such enterprises, some Members 
requested the Russian Federation to ensure that, in the event of such introduction, it would not create a 
disguised restriction on imports of alcoholic produc ts into the Russian Federation, nor would it create 
unduly burdensome procedures for imports.  In resp onse, the representative of  the Russian Federation 
referred to paragraph [253] of the Section "Regis tration requirements for import/export operations" of 
this Report. 
439. Some Members expressed concerns about measur es applied by the Russian Federation that, in 
their view, restricted trade in beef, pork, and poultry meat and products.  These Members requested 
information on the basis for these measures and on when  they would be terminated.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation informed the Members that, for the purpose of ensuring the 
conditions for the stable development of the Russi an production of poultry, beef and pork meat, and 
products thereof, on the basis of Government Reso lution No. 1111 of 24 December 2010 "On Import 
of Beef, Pork and Poultry Meat in 2011", a nd taking into account Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 
8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental Principles of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" and 
the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21  May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as last amended 
on 28 June 2009), the Government  had approved the list of goods and volumes of their importation 
into the Russian Federation from 2010 to 2012.  These quotas were administered by issuance of non-automatic licenses by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, as described in the Section "Tariff 
Quotas" of this Report.  Earlier safeguard import quotas had been converted into TRQs on 
1 January 2006, as described in the Section "Tariff Quotas" of this Report.   
- (b) Import Licensing Systems 
440. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that, from 1 January 2010, the legal basis 
for the import licensing system in the Russian Federation was established in the Agreement on 
Common Measures of Non-Tariff Regulation in Respect of Third Countries, signed on 
25 January 2008 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation), the Agreement on the 
Introduction and Application of Measures Concer ning Foreign Trade in Goods on the Common 
Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries (hereafter: CU Agreement on Measures Concerning 
Foreign Trade), signed on 9 June 2009, and the Agreement on Licensing in the Area of Foreign Merchandise Trade of 9 July 2009 (hereafter:  CU Licensing Agreement) and the Agreement on the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 148  
 
  Regime and Implementation of Tariff Quotas as of 12 December 2008.  The purpose of the licensing 
regime was to monitor and contro l imports of goods which, for various reasons, were classified as 
sensitive by the CU Parties and/or by the intern ational community.  By CU Commission Decision 
No. 132 of 27 November 2009 "On a Single Non-Ta riff Regulation of the Customs Union of the 
Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" 
(hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 132), the CU Commission approved the Common List of 
Goods that might be subject to Non-Tariff Measures (hereafter:  Common List, see [Table 28]), which 
came into force on 1 January 2010.   For the Russian Federation, in  addition to the products already 
subject to such requirements, wines, vitamins and a number of radio-electronic products became 
newly subject to non-tariff measures as a result of  CU Commission Decision No. 132.  The procedure 
for the importation of specific products, such as products with cryptographic capabilities, precious 
stones and precious metals, and medicines and pharmaceutical ingredients, were set-out in 
CU Commission regulations.  The authorised body of  each CU Party was responsible for issuing and 
monitoring the implementation of non-automatic lice nses and/or automatic licenses (permits).   
441. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that in addition to the CU Agreements 
and Commission Decisions, national legislation of  the Russian Federation, including Federal Law 
No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental s of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity" (as last amended on 7 April 2010) and Government Resolution No. 364 of 9 June 2005 
"On the Approval of the Regulations for Licensing in the Area of Foreign Trade in Goods and on 
Creating and Keeping a Federal Data Bank of Issued  Licenses", continued to regulate the application 
of the licensing regime in the Russian Federation.   For example, Federal Law No. 164-FZ established 
the conditions and procedures for applying supervisi on of export and/or impor t of certain kinds of 
goods.  Similarly, Federal Law No. 164-FZ set-forth th e procedures for applying for an import licence 
or permit.  In cases where a licence and/or permit application was not approved, the right of the 
importer to appeal the decision was regulated by the national legislation of the CU Parties.  In the 
Russian Federation, the right to appeal was regulat ed by the Regulations for Licensing in the Area of 
Foreign Trade in Goods ratified by Government  Resolution No. 364 (par agraph 18), according to 
which "decisions and actions of the authorised body responsible for issuing licenses could be appealed 
according to the stipulated procedure".  
442. Some Members requested information on whether an import licence or permit issued by one 
CU Party would allow importation of the good into a ll CU Parties or would importation be limited to 
the Party issuing the licence or permit.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 149 
 
 
  443. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that an import licence or 
permit authorised the licensee or permit holder to impor t the relevant good into only the CU Party that 
issued the licence or permit; the licence or permit di d not authorize the licensee or permit holder to 
import the relevant good into other CU Parties.  He  further explained that the licence or permit did, 
however, give the licensee/permit holder the right to transit the good through the territory of the other 
CU Party to the territory of the Party that issued the licence or permit.   
444. According to Article 5 of the CU Agreem ent on Non-Tariff Regulation, licensing was 
required:  (i) in the event of temporary quantitativ e restrictions on imports of certain types of goods; 
(ii) to regulate the importation of certain goods fo r reasons of national security, health, safety or 
environmental protection; (iii) to grant an exclusive right to import certain goods; or (iv) to carry out 
international obligations.  Import licenses were also required to regulate the importation of goods 
subject to tariff rate quotas.  The type of non-tariff restrictions and the list of goods subject to these 
restrictions were established by the CU Commission.   The current list of such goods was set-out in 
[Table 28].  The CU Commission could decide to add or remove goods from th is list upon request of a 
CU Party or on its own initiative. 
445. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that according to the CU Licensing 
Agreement, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (the  "authorised State body of executive power" in the 
Russian Federation) issued three types of licenses:  one time, general, and exclusive.  One time 
licenses were issued to applicants on the basis of a foreign trade contract relating to goods subject to 
import licensing.  One time and general licenses we re issued to applicants upon a decision of the 
authorised body of the Russian Fe deration.  Both types of licenses granted the right to import certain 
types of goods subject to licensing in the quantit y determined by the licence and were valid for 
one year or, for goods with respect to which provisi onal quantitative restrictions had been introduced, 
until 1 January of the following calendar year.  Ex clusive licenses gave the applicant the exclusive 
right to import certain types of goods.  The goods subj ect to exclusive licenses were to be decided by 
the CU Commission, but until now exclusive import licences had not been issued in the 
Russian Federation.  Under the CU Licensing Agr eement, licenses were issu ed within 15 working 
days after submission of the complete set of documen ts.  These documents consisted of an application 
for licence, an electronic copy of the application, a copy of the contract, a copy of a certificate 
confirming that the applicant was registered with a regional tax authority as a tax-payer, a copy of the 
activity licence (if applicable) and other documents, as  required.  The fee charged for the issuance of a 
licence was reduced from RUB 3,000 to RUB 2,600.  Renewal of a licence would be subject to a fee of RUB 200. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 150  
 
  446. A Member requested clarification regarding the respective powers of the CU Commission and 
national level governments in relati on to general and exclusive licenses.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that in accordance with  paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the CU Licensing 
Agreement, exclusive licenses were issued by author ised bodies of the CU Parties in cases stipulated 
by the Decision of the CU Commission.  He further explained that, in accordance with the 
CU Commission Decision No. 168 of 27 November 2009, the competent national authority 
(the Ministry of Industry and Trade, in the case of  the Russian Federation) issued exclusive licenses 
for import or export to foreign trade participants, and the CU Commission, consistent with a Decision 
of the CU Interstate Council, issued general licen ses.  In accordance with CU Decision No. 168, until 
the CU Parties ratify the "Procedure of Licence Suspension and Expiration", the CU Commission was to base its decisions regarding suspension and expi ration of licenses on the national legislation of each 
CU Party. 
447. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that proprietary and/or confidential info rmation contained in an import licence application 
would be protected under the applicable laws of the Russian Federation. 
448. The authorised body of the Russian Federation had the right to terminate or suspend an import 
licence in the case of a change in the constituent documents of the licen see registered as a legal entity 
(a change of the organizational-legal form, name , or its location) or a change in the passport 
information of the licensee being a natural person.   In such circumstances, the CU Licensing 
Agreement provided that the licensee was to request  that the authorised body terminate the existing 
licence, and register a new licence.  In order to register a new licence, the licensee was required to 
submit a new application and documen ts confirming the above-mentioned change(s).  In case of loss 
of the licence, the licensee was entitled to a dupl icate licence, which would be issued within 
five calendar days from the date of submission of  the request explaining the causes and circumstances 
of the loss of the licence.  The licence holder wishing to renew a licence had to submit a new 
application, along with the full set of required documents.  
449. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that according to the CU Licensing 
Agreement, permits were issued by the authorised body of the Russian Federation without restriction 
to all applicants.  Permits were issued within th ree working days from the date of the submission of 
the draft permit in a format approved by the Commi ssion, and remained valid until the end of the 
calendar year in which they were issued.  No othe r documents were required for issuance of a permit. 
450. A Member requested clarification of whether a CU Party must apply automatic import 
licenses  to all goods on the Common List of Goods across the CU.  The representative of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 151 
 
 
  Russian Federation explained that automatic licen sing was carried out in respect of goods whose 
export/import was subject to supervision.  The list of  goods subject to supervision was stipulated by 
the CU Commission.  Goods subject to supervisio n were included into the Common List of Goods, 
but not all goods included into the Common List were  subject to automatic licenses.  In some cases, 
the requirement for permit was stipulated in th e Regulations on the procedure for import/export 
attached to each section of the Common List of Goods. 
451. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
responded that no goods were currently subject to  automatic-licensing except for goods containing 
encryption technology, as described in paragraph [481]. 
452. Import licenses were generally issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the 
Russian Federation, based on "conclusions" issued by the relevant competent authorities following an 
"expert examination" of the good.  In the cas e of weapons, ammuniti ons and dual-purpose goods, 
however, licenses were issued by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation.  The licensing 
regime was applied to imports from all non-CU  countries, including imports from CIS countries 
without discrimination as regards to the country of origin. 
453. Several Members of the Working Party expressed concern regarding the justification of the 
Russian Federation for the application of non-au tomatic import licenses pursuant to Article XX of 
the GATT 1994 for products listed in [Table 28].  These Members requested additional explanation to 
understand how the provisions in the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994 would be met.  
They noted that, while import licensing might be an  appropriate mechanism to administer certain 
controls, the justification for these controls, as well as  the specifics of the import licensing procedures 
used to administer them, needed  in all cases to be fully in accord ance with WTO provisions, including 
those on non-discrimination.  
454. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that neither the 
Russian Federation, nor the competent bodies of the CU intended to limit the quantity and value of 
imports by means of import licenses, except as provid ed for in international conventions such as the 
Montreal Protocol or the Basel Convention or fo r the implementation of other measures justified 
under the WTO Agreement.  He added that, in hi s view, the application of non-automatic import 
licenses for the products listed in [Table 28] wa s in conformity with Articles XX and XXI of 
the GATT 1994.  
455. Several Members replied that the current app lication of licensing requirements to products 
such as pharmaceuticals, sugar, goods with encr yption technology and alcoholic beverages clearly WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 152  
 
  operated to restrict imports.  They requested the Russian Federation to describe the legal basis for 
these measures and to explain how these restrictions would be modified or eliminated to meet 
WTO requirements.   
-  (i) Sugar 
456. Some Members asked for more detailed in formation on how the Russian authorities 
considered that each of the requirements of Articles 1 and 3 of the WTO Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures had been met in relation to non -automatic import licensing in the administration 
of its TRQ for raw sugar (HS 170111). 
457. The representative of the Russian Federation responded that the TRQ on raw sugar 
(HS 170111) had been eliminated pursuant to  the Government Resolution No. 720 of 
29 November 2003 and the Government Reso lution No. 757 of 18 December 2003 "On the 
Abolishing of the Licensing of the Import of Raw Sugar to the Russian Federation" had removed raw 
sugar from the list of products requiring an import li cence.  He added that pursuant to Government 
Resolution No. 782 of 17 July 1998 (as amended on 18 December 2003), imports of starch treacle had 
required licensing.  This measure, however, had had a temporary surveillance character, had been 
taken in order to collect trade data that could be  used, if necessary, to justify possible measures aimed 
at regulating imports, and was abolished since 1 Jan uary 2007 by Government Resolution No. 700 of 
20 November 2006.  At the current time, the Russi an Federation does not require import licensing for 
the importation of raw sugar. 
-  (ii) Alcoholic beverages and Alcohol-Containing Products 
458. Noting that for alcoholic beverages and alc ohol-containing products, import licenses were 
only issued where the applicant already had an ac tivity licence, some Member s requested information 
on the rationale for this apparent  duplicative requirement.  They also required information on the 
number of licenses issued every year and how many of these were currently in force.  These Members 
requested the Russian Federation to make a co mmitment that any import licenses on ethyl alcohol, 
alcoholic drinks, alcohol-containing products ( as well as on pharmaceutical products, and products 
with encryption technology, which had a similar syst em) would be granted automatically on the basis 
of a regime compatible with WTO requirements, including Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures. 
459. Some Members expressed concerns about the need for specific licensing requirements for 
certain types of alcoholic products.  Specifically, they asked about the rationale for the mandatory  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 153 
 
 
  licensing requirement for wines and certain alcohol ic beverages exceeding 28 per cent volume, such 
as vodka and tequila.  Members also expressed concer ns about disruption in the issuing of these 
licenses in the course of the change of responsibility within the Government of the Russian Federation 
for the licenses in question.   
460. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation said that, pursuant to the 
CU Agreements listed in paragraph [440], as well as СU Commission Decision No. 132 and the 
"Regulations of the Order of Import of Ethyl Alcohol and Alc oholic Products to the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union", imports of ethy l alcohol, wines, and so me alcoholic beverages 
exceeding 28 per cent volume (vodka and other white dis tilled alcoholic beverages) as listed in [Table 
28] were subject to import licensing in the Russian Fe deration.  Licenses were issued by the Ministry 
of Industry and Trade upon receipt of the documents  listed in paragraph [445] of this Report, 
including a copy of the import contract.  In his view, import licensing of alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages was undertaken for purposes consistent with the requirements of Article XX(b) of 
the GATT 1994.  However, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the 
non-automatic import licensing requirement for alcoho lic beverages would be eliminated and replaced 
upon accession by an automatic licensing procedur e whereby licenses would be issued upon 
submission of the appropriate and complete docum entation as described above.  At present, fees 
charged for the issuance of all types of import licen ce amounted to RUB 2,600.  The representative of 
the Russian Federation noted that acco rding to Order No. 1212 of the Ministry of Industry and Trade 
of the Russian Federation of 30 December 2009"On the Distribution of Authorities in the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation and its Territorial Bodies for Issuing the Licenses and 
other Permissive Documents for the Implementati on of Export-Import Operations with Particular 
Types of Goods", vodka was in the list of goods subject to licensing procedures and there were no additional licensing requirements for vodka. 
-  (iii) Pharmaceuticals 
461. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the importation of medicines and 
pharmaceutical ingredients was governed by the CU Ag reements listed in para graph [440], as well as 
by Decision No. 132, and more specifically by th e "Regulations On the Order of Entry into the 
Customs Territory of the Customs Union of Medici nes and Pharmaceutical Ingredients", as well as 
relevant domestic legislation, i.e., Government R esolution No. 438 of 17 July 2005 "On the Order of 
Importation and Exportation from the Russian Federa tion of Pharmaceuticals for Medical Use" and 
Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 12 April 2010 "On the Circulation of Medicines".  Some Members noted that pharmaceutical licensing requirements were ex tremely burdensome and constituted a problem for WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 154  
 
  their exporters.  A major obstacle was that pharm aceuticals had to be re-registered periodically, 
e.g., once every four years, and this re-registra tion was not automatic, often resulting in firms losing 
their current licence and being unable to import produ cts for a period of time.  Regarding Government 
Resolution No. 438 "On the Procedure of Importation in and the Exportation from the Russian Federation of Pharmaceuticals for Medical Use", some Members indicated that paragraph 2 of that Resolution appeared to suggest that forei gn manufacturers were required to have offices in the 
Russian Federation in order to obtain an import licen ce.  They requested clarification as to whether 
this requirement would imply that foreign manufact urers of pharmaceuticals must have an office in 
the Russian Federation to obtain a licence to import,  and noted that in this case such a requirement 
would be inconsistent with WTO provisions.  In  addition, they asked the Russian Federation to 
elaborate on the purpose of these requirements, partic ularly in the case of licensing products such as 
flavourings and dual use precursor chemicals, and on whether they required the examination of every 
contract to import.  Members also expressed concerns regarding treatment of imports when there were differences between the quantity shipped and that listed in the contract.  In some cases, small 
disparities had resulted in a refusal to permit import even of the contracted amount.  Members also 
requested information on possible expedited pr ocedures to obtain licenses for any significant 
coverage.  The same Members also recalled the concerns raised under the Section "Registration 
Requirements for Import/Export Operations" of this Report. 
462. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, in his view, import 
licensing of pharmaceuticals was justified by Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 and was aimed at 
implementing the  policies of the Government in the field of human and animal life and health protection. 
463. He further explained that, currently, in acco rdance with the Federal Law No. 61-FZ "On the 
Circulation of Medicines" of 12 April 2010 , and Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On Licensing of Specific Types of Activities" (as amended on 14 July 2008), to import 
pharmaceuticals into the territory of the Russian Federation, foreign en terprises that were producers or 
wholesalers could be registered as legal persons on the territory of the Russian Federation (described 
in paragraph [256] of this Report) , and granted a licence for relevant  type of activity (pharmaceutical 
production or distribution), and a licence for importation.  The issuance of a licence for 
pharmaceutical wholesale or production allowed the legal entity to obtain a licence for importation of medicines.  The fee charged fo r the issuance of the licence to import/export medicines amounted to 
RUB 1,300.  He also noted that foreign enterprises were subject to the same uniform procedures as 
provided under Government Resolution No. 438 of 16 July 2005 "On the Procedure for Importation 
and Exportation of Medicines for Medical Purpo ses".  In response to a question from Members,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 155 
 
 
  regarding future requirements to obtain and present import and/or activity licenses in connection with 
importation of pharmaceuticals, the representative of the Russian Federation referred Members to 
paragraph [275] and the requireme nts and procedures that would apply to pharmaceuticals, alcohol 
and goods with encryption technology from the date of the accession of the Ru ssian Federation to the 
WTO.  As regards concerns from Members in resp ect of the periodic re-registration requirement, the 
representative of the Russian Federation noted that  according to the registration procedure of the 
Ministry of Health and Social Development, the fi rst registration of a pharmaceutical in the territory 
of the Russian Federation was valid for five years.  However, when the registration was renewed there 
were no restrictions on the duration of validity of th at registration and in that case a temporary loss of 
the licence due to re-registration was not possibl e. The representative of the Russian Federation 
further explained that the validity of the first re gistration would be automatically prolonged until the 
re-registration procedure was completed to avoi d any interruptions in delivery to the market .  
In response to a question from a Member, the repres entative of the Russian Federation confirmed the 
five-year limit period applied to the first registration of each producer in the Russian Federation.   
464. Noting the concerns expressed by Members regarding the treatment of imports when there 
were differences between the quantity shipped and that listed in the c ontract, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the quantity shi pped could be smaller than that listed in the 
contract, but not larger.  In the latter case, cu stoms clearance would be refused for the amount 
exceeding that in the contract. 
465. One Member requested clarification of the re quirements for importing products for testing 
purposes related to obtaining regist ration and approval for circulation of pharmaceuticals in the 
Russian Federation.  This Member requested information on whether a representative office, for 
example, could import products into the Russian Federation for such purposes without obtaining an 
activity licence or import licence.  
466. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that, under the new Law, a 
product imported into the Russian Federation for tes ting and examination related to its registration as 
a pharmaceutical in the Russian Federation was cons idered to be a non-registered pharmaceutical.  
In accordance with Government Resolution No. 771 of 29 September 2010 "On the Rules of Importation of Pharmaceutical Products for Medical U se into the Territory of the Russian Federation", 
the import of certain amounts of non-registered pharmac euticals, necessary for clinical trials, or with 
the view of their State Registration, or non-regi stered pharmaceutical products used for medical 
treatment of certain patients were allowed under pe rmission of the Ministry of Health and Social WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 156  
 
  Development of the Russian Federation.  Thus, a representative office could import such products for 
testing and examination without obtaining an activity licence or import licence. 
467. Noting further that pharmaceutical exporte rs had expressed concerns over certain 
Russian import licensing requirements (for instance, if  the molecule unique to the pharmaceutical had 
not changed, periodic renewal of licenses app eared unnecessary and could be expensive and 
burdensome to the industry), some Members asked whether such requirements were equally applied 
to similar domestic products, as the failure to do so could constitute a violation of Article III of 
the GATT 1994.  Noting that some pharmaceutical  exporters had expressed concerns that the 
administration of licenses by the Ministry of Health and Social Development and the Ministry of Industry and Trade did not presently meet WTO requi rements, such as transparency, fees for services 
rendered, processing within a r easonable time-frame and forbearan ce on minor documentation errors, 
these Members requested clarification on the steps th at the Russian Federation intended to take to 
ensure that the administration of import licenses woul d conform to WTO requirements.  In this regard, 
some Members asked the Russian Federation to explain how the 0.05 per cent administrative fee charged by the Ministry of Health and Soci al Development for issuing permits to import 
pharmaceutical products was consistent with the requirements of Article VIII of the GATT 1994.  
468. Some Members also requested add itional clarification of the status of any legislative initiative 
in the Russian Federation, which could operate to restrict imports of pharmaceuticals having domestic 
analogues.  These Members felt that, if adopted, such  legislation could be inconsistent with the 
provisions of Articles III and XI of the GATT 1994.  Noting further that the Russian Federation had 
acknowledged that the Law concerning pharmaceuti cals (Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 
"On Medicines") was inconsistent with the new Foreign Trade Law and Import/Export Licensing 
Resolution, some Members expressed their expectati on that this Law would be amended or repealed 
to ensure WTO conformity by the date of accession. 
469. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that the Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 
22 June 1998 "On Medicines" had recently been re placed by Law No. 61-FZ of 12 April 2010 "On the 
Circulation of Medicines".  This new Law was inte nded to achieve WTO compliance.  He also added 
that there were no plans in the Russian Federation to  introduce new legislation, which could operate to 
restrict imports of pharmaceuticals, including vete rinary drugs, having domestic substitutes.  Activity 
licences to engage in production or wholesale were made available to all registered companies (domestic or foreign owned) wh ich satisfied government regulatory criteria.  For issuance of 
preliminary permits for imports of  pharmaceutical products, the Ministry of Health and Social 
Development of the Russian Federation (or Rosselkhoz nadzor in cases of veterinary drugs) did not  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 157 
 
 
  now levy any charge or fees.  Consultations and pr eparation of the documents for examination of an 
application were done by the Federal State Unita ry Enterprise "The Information and Methodical 
Centre on Expertise, Registration and Analysis of  the Turnover of Medicines for Medical Purposes" 
of the Federal Health and Social Development S upervision Service.  The cost of the services was 
determined according to the Civil Code of the Ru ssian Federation on the basis of the volume of 
performed work as agreed by the parties to the co rresponding contract.  A preliminary permit issued 
by the Federal Health and Social Development Supe rvision Service of the Ministry of Health and 
Social Development of the Russian Federation or Rosselkhoznadzor in cases of veterinary drugs was 
the ground for issuing an import licence.  He also re ferred to his explanations under the above Section 
on "Registration Requirements for Import/Export Opera tions" of this Report.  As regards concerns 
from Members on conformity of administration of li censes by the Ministry of Health and Social 
Development of the Russian Federation and th e Ministry of Industry and Trade of the 
Russian Federation with WTO requirements (such as transparency, fees for services rendered, processing within a reasonable time-frame and fo rbearance on minor documentation errors), the 
representative of the Russian Federation noted that  information on this issue was contained in 
paragraphs [193] and [200] of the Section "Government Entities Responsible for Making and 
Implementing Policies Affecting Foreign Trade; Right  of Appeal".  Responding to the question of a 
Member, in respect of differences in application of regulations relevant for implementation of safety and other types of controls in respect of impor ted and domestic products, he  explained that, such 
differences were caused by the fact that imported goods were subject to controls at the point of 
customs clearance and domestic goods at productio n sites, but such differences had not created 
different burdens for importers and domestic pr oducers and hence, had not caused protection to 
domestic production.  Answering a question by a Member on the consistency of the 0.05 per cent 
administrative fee, charged by the Ministry of Hea lth and Social Development for issuing permits to 
import pharmaceutical products, he stated that this fee had been abolished. 
470. Some Members of the Working Party stated that their traders had experienced difficulties 
with other Ministries or institutions charging extr a fees in connection with importation permits based 
upon the contract value of the goods.  Those Member s requested that the Russian Federation enter 
into a commitment to eliminate all such non- WTO consistent measures upon its accession to the 
WTO.   
-  (iv) Products with Encryption Technology 
471. Some Members requested information on the application by the Russian Federation of 
requirements for importation of goods containing en cryption technology.  These Members noted that WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 158  
 
  most countries did not limit imports of these products  and questioned the need and justification for 
licensing, in particular, non-automatic licensing of commercially traded, mass-market goods, and 
goods that were covered under the Information Technology Agreement (ITA).  Members expressed 
concern that such licensing requirements could nu llify or impair the market access commitments on a 
wide-range of products of undertaken by the Russian Federation.  Members stat ed that, to the extent 
that the Russian Federation intended to establish or  apply licensing requirements, such requirements 
should apply only to products that clearly presente d a threat to security.  In such cases, licensing 
procedures should be applied in a non-discr iminatory manner and comply with all 
WTO requirements. 
472. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, prior to 
1 January 2010, the Russian Federation administered a system of import licensing of all goods, which 
contained encryption technologies.  Since that date, the CU Agreements listed in paragraph [440] and 
CU Commission Decision No. 132, and 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", dated 1 De cember 2009, and national regulation set-out the 
requirements for importing goods with encryption tec hnology.  He confirmed that any procedures or 
requirements relating to licensing imports of goods containing encryption technology, whether by the 
Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, would be applied on a non-discriminatory basis and in conformity with the relevant provision s of the WTO Agreement, in particular, Articles I 
and III of the GATT 1994, and that procedures related to the notification, evaluation, approval, and 
licensing of goods containing encryption technology, would be transparent and predictable and would 
not impose unreasonable or burdensome requirement s on such goods.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
473. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that, in order to facilitate trade, 
the Russian Federation would develop and apply an in terim system of regulation of goods containing 
encryption technology.  Under this interim system , all encryption products would be divided into 
three groups:  (i) certain goods containing encryp tion technology could be imported without any 
formalities related to encryption; (ii) other goods w ith encryption technology would be subject to a 
one-time notification requirement; and, (iii) a categor y of goods with encryption technology would be 
subject to an expert evaluation and require an import licence.  This import licence would be issued by the Ministry of Industry and Trade, based on a "conc lusion" issued by the ex ecutive body in the field 
of national security of the CU Party (the Federa l Security Service in the Russian Federation), 
following an "expert examination".  He noted th at other formalities, such as customs or those  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 159 
 
 
  necessary to implement technical regulations would c ontinue to apply in respect of imports of all 
these goods. 
474. In response to a request by one Member to clarify the meaning of the wording "without any 
formalities related to encryption" in paragraph [ 473], the representative of the Russian Federation said 
that such formalities were underst ood as the formalities concerning the goods listed in [Table 29] and 
described in the second and subsequent sentences of paragraph [477], and the formalities listed in 
paragraph [481] concerning the goods , which were subject to import licensing and expert evaluation. 
475. In response to the request of the same Member to clarify what "formalities" not related to 
encryption could be applied to goods with en cryption technology, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted, that such formalities could relate to the requirements resulting from 
application of the legislation on customs regulation,  technical regulation, intellectual property rights, 
and other legal acts, which were usually applied w ith respect to the imported goods or goods designed 
for internal circulation in the market.  He added that all goods with encryption technology 
(not specially designed or modified for military use) de-controlled by the Wassenaar Arrangement by 
means of Category 5, Part 2, would be allowed to be imported "without an y formalities related to 
encryption". 
476. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the conditions for importation of 
goods containing encryption technology, subject to curre nt and any future exemptions, indicated in all 
of the Notes to Category 5, Part 2 "Information Security" of the Wassenaar Arrangement Dual Use 
List, whether imposed by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the Customs Union, 
would not be more restrictive than those in effect  as of 18 November 2006.  In response to a question 
from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation added that mobile phones currently 
legally sold at the retail level in the Russi an Federation were included among such goods.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
477. With respect to goods falling into the categori es set-out in [Table 29], the representative of 
the Russian Federation confirmed that, within the fra mework of the interim system, any restrictions 
existing before 1 January 2010 would be eliminat ed and no new restrictions, such as experts 
evaluations, approvals, and licenses, for the importati on of those goods would be adopted or applied, 
whether by the Russian Federation or the competen t bodies of the CU.  He further informed Members 
that within the framework of the interim system, importation of goods in the categories set-out in 
[Table 29] would be permitted based on a one-time subm ission of a notification.  To comply with this 
requirement, the manufacturer of the good would subm it a completed paper copy of a form containing 
information specified in [Table 30].  Further, th e representative of the Russian Federation confirmed WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 160  
 
  that no licenses would be required, whether by the Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of 
the CU, for imports into the Russian Federation of  goods with encryption technologies, included in 
[Table 29], and the exemptions set-out in paragr aph [476].  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
478. Addressing a request from a Member, he confirmed that all goods with encryption technology 
released by future Wassenaar Arrangement Category 5, Part 2 "Information Security" de-controls 
would be allowed to be imported "without any formal ities related to encryption".  Goods subject to a 
notification requirement, in accordance with paragraph [477] were listed in [Table 29].  In accordance 
to a question from a Member, the representative of th e Russian Federation explained that, consistent 
with Wassenaar practice, the regulating country (t he Russian Federation) would determine which 
goods qualified as "mass market goods", as defined in [Table 29].  He added that the data to be 
submitted for a "one-time notification"  application were listed in [Table  30].  He confirmed that, if a 
good had been imported subject to the "one-time notif ication" process, that good would not be subject 
to any other notifications by any parties importing that good.  The information on goods approved for 
import through the "one-time notification" process woul d be available to the public on the websites of 
the Federal Security Service. 
479. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that, if proprietary information was s ubmitted in the notification, and the manufacturer 
identified that information as proprietary, that information would be protected.  Confirmation of 
notification would be automatic, unless the manufacturer or its authorised representative in the 
Russian Federation were contacted within ten wo rking days after submission of the notification 
regarding its compliance with the requirements, including whether the product was correctly subject 
to notification, as set-out in paragraph [477].  In the Russian Federation, the Federal Security Service 
would maintain a public internet site where such confirmations would be pos ted.  Any importer or 
shipper could rely on a releva nt confirmation.  Once a good was notified and confirmed, an 
importer/shipper would only be required to indicate that the good appears on the internet site in the 
relevant customs declaration.  He further explaine d that this notification procedure was intended to 
facilitate the entry of the goods lis ted above and would not result in any delays or additional approval 
procedures. 
480. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that goods that had been subject to 
examination under import procedures related to encryp tion, prior to the establishment of this interim 
system, and, which were covered by the categories set-out in [Table 29], would be automatically  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 161 
 
 
  posted on the internet site without making the notific ation set-out in paragraph [477].  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
481. For goods containing encryption technology that need an import licence, the representative of 
the Russian Federation confirmed that, within the framework of an interim system, such goods would 
need to undergo expert evaluation and approval only once.  If an expe rt evaluator needed additional 
information for its evaluation, it would be required to notify the manufacturer or his authorised 
representative in the Russian Federation and request su ch information within ten working days of the 
application.  Manufacturers would not be obligated to submit source code and failure to submit such 
code alone, would not result in de nial of an application.  After the good was approved, the same good, 
or a good used for the same purpose with identical encryption, could be imported into the Russian Federation with a licence issued in a manner consistent w ith Article 2 of the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  The time period for completing import licensing 
procedures, including the time required to obtain an experts' evaluation, to receive approval and the 
import licence, would not exceed three months.  Fees  for experts' evaluations and licensing would be 
transparent and based on the costs of services re ndered.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
482. In response to a question from a Member, in respect of the expert evaluation process, 
i.e., requirements regarding information related to  encryption algorithm, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that the information re garding respective requirements was described in 
paragraph [481].   
483. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
engage interested Members in a review of the opera tion of this interim system.  The purpose of this 
review would be to clarify and re fine procedures for notification, c onfirmation, and licensing of goods 
with encryption technology and, where possible, to further improve and expand  the products covered 
under paragraph [476] and [Table 29].  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
484. In response to a question from a Member about the timing of the review, the representative of 
the Russian Federation informed that , at the current stage, it was not possible to define the timing of 
the conversion from the interim system to the pe rmanent one, as it depended on the effectiveness of 
the interim system and on the scope of the ques tions emerging within the process of the interim 
system application. 
485. Members welcomed the information on the regulation of goods containing encryption 
technology.  These Members, however, expressed co ncerns about how the Russian Federation would WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 162  
 
  ensure that goods not containing encryption tec hnology would be excluded from any requirements 
relating to importation of goods containing such tec hnology.  In their view, goods that did not contain 
encryption technology should not be subject to a ny encryption-related require ments or formalities.  
Further, the Russian Federation should not require an activity licence for the importation of:  (i) goods 
containing encryption technology that were not subj ect to requirements or formalities related to 
encryption; and (ii) goods subject only to notification requirements.   
486. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that goods that did not contain 
encryption technology would not be subject to any encryption-relate d requirements or formalities.  
He further confirmed that activity licenses would not be required as a condition for importation of 
goods that were not subject to requirements or fo rmalities related to encryption and goods subject 
only to notification requirements.  The Wo rking Party took note of these commitments. 
487. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
quantitative restrictions on imports, such as quotas, ba ns, permits, prior authorization requirements, 
licensing requirements or other requirements or restric tions having equivalent effect that could not be 
justified under the provisions of the WTO Agre ement would be eliminated and not introduced, 
re-introduced or applied, whether by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU.  
From the date of accession, any such requirements or restrictions on imports, whether applied by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would be in conformity with the provisions of 
the WTO Agreement.  He confirmed that the admi nistrative procedures of the Russian Federation for 
the operation of its import licensing regime and their application would, from the date of accession, be 
in compliance with all relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Customs Valuation 
488. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the basic provisions relating to 
customs valuation principles and policies in the Ru ssian Federation were contained in the Agreement 
on the Determination of Customs Value of Goods , Transferred Across Customs Border of the 
Customs Union of 25 January 2008 (hereafter in this  Section:  the CU Agreement) and the Customs 
Code of the Customs Union, adopted on 27 Nove mber 2009 (hereafter: the CU Customs Code).  
The CU Agreement and the CU Customs Code ente red into effect in the Russian Federation on 
1 July 2010.  Prior to 1 July 2010, customs clearan ce and control in the Russian Federation, including 
customs valuation, had been carried-out in accordan ce with national legislation, principally the Law 
of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 19 93 "On Customs Tariff" (a s amended by Federal 
Law No. 144-FZ of 8 November 2005) (hereafter:  the Customs Tariff Law) and the former Customs  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 163 
 
 
  Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003).  The CU Agreement 
specified those areas that were to be implem ented through national legislation.  For the 
Russian Federation, this legislation was principally Part III of the Customs Tariff Law.  In other cases 
the CU Agreement applied directly as law.  Provi sions of the Code No. 195-FZ of 30 December 2001 
"On Administrative Offences of the Russian Federati on", and the "Arbitration Procedural Code of the 
Russian Federation" No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 rela ted to customs valuation also continued to apply 
after 1 July 2010.  Additional legal provisions for customs valuation were found in the Federal Law 
"On Customs Regulation" and in ot her related national legal acts. 
489. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in accordance with 
Article 1.3 of the CU Agreement, the relevant  provisions of the CU Agreements and national 
legislation were based on the provisions of the WT O Agreement on Implementa tion of Article VII of 
the GATT 1994 (hereafter: CVA) and that it was the inte nt of his Government to fully implement that 
Agreement.  All six methods of customs valuation applied were based on the provisions of Articles 1, 
2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the CVA, including most of the provisions of the Interpretative Notes.  In particular, Article 2 and Article 4.1 of the CU Agreement established that  the "Customs valuation 
of imported goods shall be, as a matter of principle, based on the price of transaction with these 
goods..." and "The customs value of goods imported to the Common Customs Area of the Customs Union was the price of the respective transaction, i. e., the price actually paid or payable for these 
goods sold for export to the country of importation to  the Common Customs Area of the Customs 
Union...".  The provisions of Articles 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 of the CVA were also incorporated in 
these documents and implemented by the provisions of  the national law of the Russian Federation.  
The rest of the Interpretative Notes would be inco rporated either in Ministerial Orders (e.g., the 
Ministry of Finance) or in a decision of the CU Commission.  In his view, the CU Agreements and the existing and prospective national le gislation laid out a predictable and transparent regime on customs 
valuation and, once fully implemented, would es tablish the customs valuation regime of the 
Russian Federation in conformity with the CVA.   
490. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the methods of valuation provided for 
in the CVA other than the transaction value were co ntained in Articles 6 to 10 of the CU Agreement 
and Articles 19 to 24 of the Customs Tariff Law. 
491. He noted that Article 10 of the CU Agreemen t and Article 24 of the Customs Tariff Law 
provided for the use of the fall-back method.  If th e customs value of the imported goods could not be 
determined under the provisions of Articles 4 and 6 to 9 of the CU Agreement (Articles 19 to 23 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 164  
 
  the Customs Tariff Law), the customs value would be  determined using reas onable means consistent 
with the principles and general provisions of the CU Agreement. 
492. The methods of customs valuation used under the fall-back method were generally the same 
as those provided by Articles 19 to 23 of the Custom s Tariff Law and consistent with the provisions 
of Articles 4 and 6 to 9 of the CU Agreement; howev er, these methods were to be applied with some 
flexibility.  For example, the following was allowed: 
a. determination of customs value could be based on the transaction value of identical or similar 
goods produced in the country other than the count ry of production of the goods being valued;  
b. in determining customs value using the transaction value of identical or similar goods, a 
reasonable flexibility was allowed in respect of  the interpretation of the requirement of 
Articles 6 and 7 of the CU Agreement and Articles 20 and 21 of the Customs Tariff Law that the identical or similar goods should be exported at or about the same time as the goods being 
valued, as a rule, up to 90 days;  
c. customs values of identical or similar imported goods already determined under the 
provisions of Articles 8 and 9 of the CU Ag reement and Articles 22 and 23 of the Customs 
Tariff Law could be used in determining customs value; and 
d. in determining customs value using the de ductive method, the "90 days" requirement 
established by paragraph 3 of Article 8 of the CU Agreement and paragr aph 3 of Article 22 of 
the Customs Tariff Law could be administered fl exibly (in accordance with the Interpretative 
Note to Article 7.3(c) of the CVA). 
493. The representative of the Russian Federation also  noted that the customs value of exports was 
determined in accordance with paragraph 2 of Ar ticle 13 and Article 14 of the Customs Tariff Law, 
Article 112 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regul ation" and Government Resolution No. 500 of 
13 August 2006 "On the Procedure of Determination of Customs Value of Goods, Conveyed across 
the Customs Border of the Russian Federation" ( as amended by Government Resolution No. 772 of 
2 October 2009).  This Resolution approved: 
- "Rules of Determination of Customs Value of Imported Goods in Cases of their Illegal 
Conveyance across the Customs Bord er of the Russian Federation"; 
- "Rules of Determination of Customs Value of Imported Goods in Cases of Damage of Goods 
owing to an Accident or force majeure "; and 
- "Rules of Determination of Customs Value of Goods, Exported from the Customs Territory of 
the Russian Federation".  
 He also noted that these Acts had been am ended on the basis of the provisions of the 
CU Agreement and had been provided to the Working Party.  
494. The representative of the Russian Federation also  pointed out that, pursuant to the provisions 
of the "Rules of Determination of Customs Value of Goods, Exported from the Customs Territory of 
the Russian Federation", the determination of customs value of exported goods was made in 
accordance with the methods stated in Articles 4 and 6 to 9 of the CU Agreement.  If the exported  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 165 
 
 
  goods were not subject to any duties, a custom s value was not determined and declared.  
The procedures for declaration and control of custom s value of exported goods were stipulated by the 
competent Federal body in accordance with the Federal Customs Service Order No. 932 of 
27 September 2006 and of Federal Customs Se rvice Order No. 2417 of 16 April 2008.  
495. The representative of the Russian Federation adde d that, in accordance with Article 2 of the 
CU Customs Code, the term "customs territory of importation", as defined in Article 15.2 of the CVA, 
was the Common Customs Area of the Customs Union, consisting of the territories of the Republic of 
Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, and the Ru ssian Federation, as well as artificial islands, 
installations and other objects located beyond the terr itory of CU Members in respect of which those 
CU Members enjoy exclus ive jurisdiction.  Article 3 of th e CU Agreement confirmed that goods 
"produced" in the customs territory (including id entical or similar goods) included those extracted, 
raised, or manufactured, as defined in Article 15.1 of  the CVA.  Concerning the definition of "goods 
of the same class or kind" found in Article 15.3 of  the CVA, he confirmed that the term used in 
Article 3 of the CU Agreement, i.e., that these goods  belong to "one or the same group of goods or a 
line of commodities, which are manufactured in th e framework of a certain economic activity", has 
the same meaning as referred to in the CVA.  Th ese provisions continued to be implemented through 
the Customs Tariff Law.    
496. A Member expressed concern regarding the treatment of related parties and noted, in this 
regard, that Article 4.4 of the CU Agreement, requiring the imported good in such cases to meet 
certain price benchmarks.  This did not appear to be  consistent with either Interpretative Note 1 to 
Article 1.2(a) and (b) of the CVA or with Article 4. 3 of the CU Agreement.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation responded that, in accordance with Article 4.3 of th e CU Agreement, the fact that 
the buyer and the seller were related should not in itself be grounds for regarding the transaction value 
as unacceptable.  In such case, the circumstances surrounding the sale should be examined.  If on the 
basis of information, presented by the declarant or received by the customs administration by other 
means, signs that such relationship had influe nced the price were discovered, the customs 
administration should inform the declarant in written form about such signs.  The declarant was then 
entitled to demonstrate to the customs administration th at the relationship did not influence the price.  
He also noted that, in a sale between related pe rsons, the transaction value also should be accepted 
whenever the declarant demonstrated that such  value closely approximated one of the following 
occurring at or about the same time: 
- the transaction value in sales to unrelated buyers of identical or similar goods for export to the 
Russian Federation; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 166  
 
  - the customs value of identical or similar goods as determined under the provisions of 
Article 8 of the CU Agreement; or 
- the customs value of identical or similar goods as determined under the provisions of 
Article 9 of the CU Agreement. 
497. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that from the date of accession, in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement on Implemen tation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, the 
Russian Federation would accept two means of estab lishing the acceptability of a transaction value 
between related parties, i.e., the analysis of the circumstances surrounding the sale, as well as the 
demonstration by the declaring party that the tran saction value closely approximates the "test value" 
indicated by the customs administration.  He added that the provisions of Article 8.3 of the CVA that 
require that additions to the price paid or payabl e would be made only on the basis of "objective and 
quantifiable data" were implemented in Article 5.3 of the CU Agreement which refers to "reliable and 
computable information".  The representative of  the Russian Federation also confirmed that 
Article 8.1 of the CU Agreement and Article 22 of the Customs Tariff Law provided that the priority 
of application of Articles 8 and 9 of the CU Ag reement (corresponding to Articles 5 and 6 of the 
CVA) was determined at the request of the impor ter, in accordance with Article 4 of the CVA.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
498. In addition, the representative of the Russi an Federation confirmed that, pursuant to 
Article 1.2 of the CU Agreement, Article 70 of the CU Customs Code, and Articles 117 and 123 of 
the Federal Law on Customs Regulation, customs pa yments included:  import customs duty; export 
customs duty; value-added tax levied upon importati on of goods into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation; excise tax levied upon importation of goods into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation; and customs fees.  Chap ter 16 of the Administrative Code of the 
Russian Federation provided that the valuation provis ions of customs legislation would also be used 
in the determination of fines applied to imports or  exports in the case of administrative liability for 
violations of the customs legislation. 
499. Members thanked the Russian Federation for its explanations of the provisions of 
CU Agreements and Protocol and its national legislation that implemented the CVA, which appeared 
to address many of their concerns.  However, some additional aspects of the CVA did not appear to be 
reflected in the CU documents.  These included de ficiencies related to:  (i) acceptance of a related 
party transaction value and the circumstances of sale t est; (ii) the right to a written explanation as to 
how the customs value was determined; (iii) the es tablishment of a publication requirement for the 
exchange rate used in valuation; (iv) confidentia lity requirements for data provided; (v) the right of 
appeal "without penalty" to a judicial authority; and (vi) the publication of all laws, regulations,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 167 
 
 
  judicial decisions and administrative rulings of gene ral application.  The CU Agreement and Protocol 
and national implementing legislation also appeared to lack a provision for the acceptance of 
paragraph 2 of Decision No. 4.1 of the Technical  Committee on Customs Valuation, which provided 
that the "Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing So ftware, for Data Processing Equipment" should be 
based on the value of the media, and Decision No. 3. 1 "On the Treatment of Interest Charges in the 
Customs Value of Imported Goods". 
500. Members also noted that the CU Agreement did not appear to contain adequate provision for 
the use of a guarantee system, including use of a surety bond, to allow clearance of goods through 
customs if the final determination of customs value had been delayed, as required by Article 13 of the 
CVA.  In addition, many of the Interpretative Not es, contained in Annex 1 of the CVA which was an 
integral part of that Agreement, were not fully reflected in any of the CU or national legislation 
provided by the Russian Federation for Working Part y review.  Members sought assurances that these 
deficiencies would be addressed and corrected in further amendments to national laws or in 
implementing regulations.   
501. Members sought a commitment that the CU Agreement and Protocol, and the national 
legislation of the Russian Federation on customs valu ation would be brought into full conformity with 
the provisions of the GATT 1994 and the CVA and that  the relevant laws, re gulations and practices 
would be fully consistent with the relevant WTO provisions, as from the date of accession.  They further asked the Russian Fe deration to commit not to use minimum values, reference prices or 
fixed valuation schedules to establish the customs value of imports.  
502. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation said that provisions concerning the 
acceptance of a related party transaction value and th e circumstances of sale test had been included 
partially in Article 4.3 of the CU Agreement.  Implementation was addressed in Article 19 of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 Ma y 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as amended on 
3 December 2007).  The remainder of the provisions would be implemented through a 
CU Commission decision or additional national regulation prior to accession.  Terms such as identical goods, similar goods, and related par ties were used as described in Article 15 of the WTO Customs 
Valuation Agreement, and their definitions could be found in Article 3 of the CU Agreement.  
Regarding the publication of the exchange rate, he noted that the requirements of Article 9 of the 
WTO Customs Valuation Agreement had been integr ated in Article 78 of the CU Customs Code.  
Pursuant to this Article, customs authorities of the relevant CU Party were required, for the 
calculation of customs duties and taxes and the determ ination of customs value, to use the exchange 
rate established in accordance with the national legi slation of this CU Member.  In the case of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 168  
 
  Russian Federation, this was accomplished by paragr aph 15 of Article 4 of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 
10 July 2002 "On the Central Bank of the Russi an Federation" (as amended by Federal Law 
No. 216-FZ of 22 September 2008) and the "Order of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation" 
(as amended on 26 April 2007).  According to these measures, the Central Bank fixed and published 
the official exchange rate of foreign currencies with  respect to the Ruble, and the information could be 
accessed on the Internet (www.cbr.ru).  
503. Concerning confidentiality requirements (Article 10 of the CVA), he noted that Article 8 of 
the CU Customs Code prescribed the measures customs authorities should take to protect information 
provided to them for customs purposes.  In additio n, Article 114 of the Fe deral Law on the Customs 
Regulation provides that "…a customs body and declarant may exchange information provided that the requirements to protect commercial secrets stated in the legislation of the Russian Federation are 
fulfilled".  Article 13 of Federal Law No. 98- FZ of 29 July 2004 "On Commercial Secrets" 
established requirements for all government authorities and bodies to ensure the protection of confidential information presented to them by le gal persons or individual entrepreneurs.  
This included information provided by declarants fo r customs purposes, including valuation.  He also 
confirmed that the exceptions to confidentialit y were limited to judicial proceedings.  
504. The obligations of the Russian Federation with  respect to Article 12 of the WTO Customs 
Valuation Agreement were dealt with in Article 10 of the CU Customs Code which stipulates that all 
acts of customs legislation were to be published in  official or other publications as well as via TV, 
radio and information technologies.  The CU Commission was to provide free access for persons 
concerning CU legislation published in official pub lications or on official internet websites.  
Article 51 of the Federal Law "On the Customs Regulation" provides that a competent customs Federal body and other customs authorities were to ensure free and gratuitous access to the 
information about legal acts in force in the sphere of customs affairs.  Customs bodies were to ensure 
access to the information concerning draft legal acts as well as to the information about amendments 
to them not entered into force except for the case s when such preliminary notice would impede the 
fulfilment of customs control or reduce its effect iveness.  In accordance wi th the Statute of the 
EurAsEC Court, all its rulings were to be publishe d in official sources of the EurAsEC Court, the 
EurAsEC, the CU and CU Parties.   
505. In response to a question from a Member in respect of who could declare goods and the 
obligations and rights of the declarant with rega rd to a declaration, the representative of the 
Russian Federation referred to Chapter 27 of the CU  Customs Code, in particular Articles 179 through  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 169 
 
 
  194 that described customs declaration of goods, including who could declare goods and the rights 
and obligations of the declarant.   
506. In response to a question from a Member in r espect of the availability of advanced ruling on 
customs valuation, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the current legislation of 
the Russian Federation did not envisage the adopti on of any preliminary decision, i.e., advanced 
ruling regarding customs value.  The customs value of the goods was determined by the declarant and 
declared to the customs authorities at the instance of the goods declaration. 
507. He added that Article 4.7 of the CU Agreemen t reflected the provisions of Decision No. 3.1 
"On the Treatment of Interest Charges in the Cu stoms Value of Imported Goods" of the Technical 
Committee on Customs Valuation, which provided that the amount of interest charges would not be included in the customs value.  This principl e was implemented in the State Customs Committee 
(SCC) Letter No. 01-06/22236 of 18 June 2004 "O n the Determination of the Customs Value of 
Goods, Imported in Accordance with Foreign Trade Ag reements of Different Types".  Paragraph 2 of 
Decision No. 4.1 "On the Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software, for Data Processing Equipment" of the Technical Committee on Cust oms Valuation was reflected in SCC Letter 
No. 0315/12632 of 18 April 1999 "On the Customs C ontrol over the Intellectual Property Objects" 
and in SCC Letter No. 15-14/8524 of 17 March 2006 "On the Customs Clearance of the Information 
Transmitted through the Internet".  These provided that  the customs valuation for imports of data or 
software for computers should be based on the value of  the carrier media only.  Copies of the relevant 
texts had been provided to the Working Party.  In response to this information, a Member noted that 
the Russian Federation considered SCC Letters to be recommendations, and that their provisions were 
not legally binding.  He requested that the provisi ons of Decision No. 3.1 a nd paragraph 2 of Decision 
No. 4.1 be implemented in a binding legal instrume nt, for example in the Federal Law "On Customs 
Regulation" or in a Ministerial Order or other forms of customs regulation.   
508. In response to a question from a Member rega rding the implementation of Decision No. 6.1 
"On Customs Valuation Regarding Cases Where Cust oms Administrations Have Reasons to Doubt 
the Truth or Accuracy of the Declared Value", th e representative of the Russian Federation noted that 
the procedure, envisaged by Articles 68 and 69 of th e CU Customs Code fully reflected the provisions 
of the above-mentioned Decision.  In case the cust oms authorities discover signs suggesting that the 
information on customs value of the goods stated by  the declarant might contain fictitious details, the 
customs office performed additional measures of c ontrol, including inspection of the documents 
and/or goods.  Release of the goods was permitte d by customs on condition of presentation of a 
guarantee of the dutiable payments.  For confirmation of the stated information, the declarant, upon WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 170  
 
  request of the customs authorities, provided add itional documents, information and explanations.  
He added that the declarant had the right to prove the correctness of the selected method of 
determination of the customs value of the goods an d the authenticity of the information presented to 
the customs authorities.  In circumstances where the transaction value was rejected, the customs 
authority proposed to the declarant to determin e the customs value of the good by using another 
method.  In such situations, the customs authoriti es and the declarant could hold consultations with 
regard to the method applicable for the determinati on of the customs value of the goods.  Notably, the 
customs value was determined by the customs au thority by proceeding se quentially through the 
methods of the determination of the customs valu e of the goods, as confirmed in Article 1 of the 
CU Agreement.   
509. In response to concerns from Members regardi ng the deficiencies in the CU Customs Code 
and the legislation of the Russian Federation c oncerning a guarantee system, he said that the 
requirements of Article 13 of the CVA were reflecte d in Article 11 of the CU Agreement, Articles 85 
to 88 of the CU Customs Code and Chapter 16 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation".  
According to Article 69 of the CU Customs Code, if the procedure for the determination of goods 
customs value had not been carried-out within the time terms prescribed for the goods release, the said 
goods would be released against the guarantee of th e declarant to disburse the dutiable payments.  
The goods would be released once customs duties we re paid or a sufficient guarantee was posted.  
Pursuant to Article 196 of the CU Customs Code, the customs authority had to take a decision on 
release of the goods no later than one working day from the date of acceptance of a customs 
declaration, as long as the submission included a ll of the requisite documents and information 
required by customs legislation of the Russian Federati on.  In practice, more than 90 per cent of goods 
cleared Customs within one day or less, and steps were being taken to reduce the actual time periods 
further.  The representative of the Russian Federati on also noted, that, if during the examination of a 
customs declaration and any other documents or data, customs authorities discovered:  (i) any signs 
suggesting that the information stated by the d eclarant of goods containe d fictitious information 
influencing the amount of dutiable payments; or (ii) that proper supporting evidence had not been 
provided for the declared information, customs au thorities were required to release the goods based on 
the presentation of a guarantee for dutiable payments for the amount of customs payments that might 
be additionally charged as a result of additional examin ation.  In that case, the goods must be released 
no later than in one day following the date that a guarantee for dutiable payments was presented.  
(Article 69 of the CU Customs Code and Article 137 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation").  
510. In response to a question from a Member re garding the purpose of the guarantee, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that guarantees of payments of customs duties and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 171 
 
 
  taxes were required in certain cases prescribed by the CU Customs Code and by other customs 
legislation of the Russian Federation, includi ng the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation".  
In particular, this included the following cases: 
- transportation of goods in accordance wi th the procedure of customs transit; 
- if goods were put under the customs procedure of processing of goods beyond the customs 
territory; 
- conditional release of goods; and 
- change of time-frames for payment of customs duties, taxes if international treaties or 
legislation of the CU Parties provide for that.  
511. He also noted that the amount of the guarant ee of payment of customs duties and taxes was 
determined by the customs authorities, as prescribed  by Article 137 of the Federal Law "On Customs 
Regulation".  Customs authorities were required to notify the declarant in writing of the amount required for the guarantee.  The amount of a guarant ee was determined in each particular case on the 
basis of the information at the disposal of cu stoms authorities and corresponded to the difference 
between the ultimate amount of customs duties for which the goods might be liable and the sum paid 
by the declarant on the basis of the declared cust oms value.  The amount of guarantee calculated by 
the customs authorities was based on the information at their disposal on identical and similar goods.  
In accordance with Article 86 of the CU Customs Code, the guarantee could take the form of:  
(i) a personal guarantee including surety  bond; (ii) a payment in cash at the cashier's desk or transfer 
of funds to the account of the customs office at the Federal Treasury (cash deposit); (iii) a bank 
guarantee; or (iv) a mortgage of goods and othe r property (see paragraph [288] of the Section 
"Customs Regulations and Procedures" of this Report).   
512. The representative of the Russian Federation also  noted that, pursuant to Article 141 of the 
Federal Law "On Customs Regulation", the custom s authorities accepted as the guarantee a bank 
guarantee issued by a bank or an insurance company.   These included firms regi stered in the Register 
of Banking Organizations and Other Credit Organi zations.  With regard to acceptance by customs 
authorities of bank guarantees in order to guarantee payment of customs duties, the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian Federation determined the maximum amount of a bank guarantee and the 
maximum amount of all concurrent bank guaran tees issued by the same bank (and/or insurance 
company) for inclusion of these sums into the Re gister of Banks and Other Credit Organizations. 
513. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in 2008, the share of goods released 
into free circulation upon presentation of guarantee of payment of customs payments that might be additionally levied as a result of customs valuation control, constituted about 1 per cent of trade.  
The Federal Customs Service did not place obstacles to  the use of guarantees to facilitate customs WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 172  
 
  release of imports.  He noted that goods could be declared during the 30 days prior to actual 
importation.  In some cases, this process reduced the need for the application of the system of 
guarantees of the Russian Federation, as described in paragraphs [510] to [512].   
514. With respect to Article 14 of the WTO Agre ement on Implementation of Article VII of the 
GATT 1994, which stated that the Interpretative Not es in Annex I form an integral part of the 
WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that the provisions of  many of the Interpretative Notes were already 
reflected in the CU Agreement and implemented al ong with other provisions of the WTO Agreement 
on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994 in  the Customs Tariff Law, and the CU Customs 
Code.  The remaining notes would be implemented eith er in Ministerial Orders (e.g., the Ministry of 
Finance) or in a decision of the CU Commission.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
implement all of the Interpretative Notes in A nnex I to the WTO Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VII of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
515. A Member also asked if the requirements of  Article 16 of the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement were contained in existing legislation,  e.g., that upon written request, the importer would 
have the right to a written explanation as to how th e customs value was determined.  He also noted 
that the customs authority could ask for additiona l explanations from the declarant and should offer 
him the opportunity to comment in case a declared customs value gave rise to doubt. 
516. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration pointed out that all above-mentioned 
provisions were reflected in Article 11 of the CU  Customs Code.  Customs bodies were required to 
consult the interested parties free of charge on the issues concerning the legislation of the CU or other 
issues in the competence of customs authorities in the determination of customs value.  On the written 
request of an interested party, a customs body mu st provide information in written form as soon as 
possible, but not later than the date stated in the national legislation of the CU Members.  In the case 
of the legislation of the Russian Federation, that period was 30 days. 
517. In response to a question from a Member about  the option of using a "green corridor" scheme 
in the customs legislation of the Russian Federati on, he noted, that Article 38 of the CU Customs 
Code and Article 86 of the Federal Law "On Cust oms Regulation" provided for special simplified 
customs formalities to hasten cust oms clearance for persons who meet the requirements established by 
the Code.  He stated that these provisions were descr ibed in paragraph [283] of the Section "Customs 
Regulations and Procedures" of this Report.  He  added that to speed up the process of customs 
clearance and the application of the principle of selectivity, within the framework of a risk 
management system, the Federal Customs Service (hereafter:  FCS) planned to identify certain  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 173 
 
 
  bona fide  participants in foreign economic trade, in r espect of which the FCS might apply particular 
forms of customs control, which were done on the basis of the results of risk analysis, after release of 
the goods. 
518. Noting that the Russian Authorities had describ ed a special technique or technology of 
customs control, introduced by the FCS in order to  prevent under-invoicing of customs value, some 
Members expressed concerns that this method could be used as a form of administratively applied 
valuation.  They requested clarification of the modalities of application, the products to which it 
applied, such as electronic goods, hous ehold appliances, and flat glass, and the legal justification for 
the use of this special technique.  In their vi ew, the use of minimum prices for the purposes of 
customs valuation or arbitrary valuation methods to select goods for additional customs procedures, 
even if intended to address a specific problem, would have to be eliminated prior to accession and 
replaced with procedures meeting WTO requirements.  They consequently asked the 
Russian Federation to clarify how and when that system would be eliminated or changed.   
519. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the special technique of 
customs valuation had been used with respect to the valuation of certain imported products (described 
in documents WT/ACC/RUS/28 and WT/ACC/ SPEC/RUS/33) aimed at preventing gross 
under-invoicing of customs value through the use of false documents including a clearly understated 
contractual price, which, in his view, was in line with Article 17 of the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement.  The special technique, which, in fact, meant the delegation of authority for the 
verification of customs value to different leve ls of customs offices, depending on the price 
characteristics of the goods, originally had been  implemented pursuant to SCC Order No. 755 of 
30 June 2004 "On Measures for Stre ngthening of Control of Customs Value".  The special technique 
was abolished by FCS Order No. 909 of 30 September 2005.  He added that pursuant to Article 10 of 
the CU Agreement and Article 24 of the Customs Tariff Law, it had been confirmed that minimum 
prices were not applicable for customs valuation purposes. 
520. Referring to the statement by the Russian Federa tion that minimum prices were not applicable 
for customs valuation purposes, some Members noted that minimum customs values were applied to a 
wide range of products, such as automobiles, tex tile products, carpets, beef, soda ash and electric 
products.  These Members asked the Russian Federation to confirm that application of minimum 
customs values would be terminated and that th e system of minimum customs values for household 
appliances in each character of these products, as we ll as in each place of manufacturers' headquarters 
would be amended.  In response, the representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that, in 
accordance with Article 17 of the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement and Article 5.3 of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 174  
 
  CU Agreement, declared customs value and data presented, were to be based on authentic, 
computable information supported by documentary proof.  The procedure of the verification was 
determined by the respective orders of the Federal Cu stoms Service.  This legislation also established 
that minimum prices were not applicable for customs valuation purposes.   
521. Other Members of the Working Party noted that  specific issues of concern in the area of 
customs valuation, included the use of de facto  fixed import prices for some goods and the methods of 
risk management applied by the Russian Federation in the area of customs valuation, including the 
practice of the customs authorities of the Russian Fede ration "at the central level" of issuing what was 
known as customs "letters" to customs officials set ting out indicative prices for imported products.  
This Member asked the Russian Federation to conf irm that risk management measures, including 
customs "letters", would not be used, in law or in  fact to establish the value of imported or exported 
goods; would not be based exclusively on import or  export statistics; nor be applied in a manner 
which would discriminate, in law or in fact, between the trade of different WTO Members.  
In addition, this Member asked the Russian Federa tion to confirm that traders would be entitled to 
appeal decisions on customs valua tion, where such valuation was made, in law or in fact, by the 
application of indicative prices set-out in customs "letters" or other risk management measures.  
Another Member stated that, should the Russian Fe deration establish a valuation database, as part of 
its risk management system, it should be based on the provisions of the World Customs Organization (WCO) Guidelines, and operated in conformity with the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement.   
522. In response to a question from a Member, the re presentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that the customs authorities of the Russian Fede ration did not apply indicative prices as reference 
prices for customs valuation.  The customs aut horities of the Russian Federation used the risk 
management system in valuation control in full confor mity with WTO rules.  Pursuant to Article 94 of 
the CU Customs Code, and Article 161 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation", customs 
control, including customs valuation control, w as based on the main principles of selectivity and 
sufficiency, i.e., the customs authorities applied only a minimal set of those forms of customs control, 
which were sufficient to ensure compliance with th e CU Customs Code and the customs legislation of 
the Russian Federation.  In selecting the relevant forms of customs control procedures, including in 
the area of customs valuation, customs authorities used, inter alia , risk management systems.  
The risk management system was used only for preventing breaches of the CU Customs Code and 
customs legislation of the Russian Federation, as follows:  (i) recurring breaches; (ii) breaches that 
were predicated on evasion of dutiable payments in  considerable amounts; (iii) breaches that infringed 
on the State security; (iv) protection of human lif e and health; (v) protection of the environment; 
(vi) violations of the customs law of the Customs Union; and/or (vii) the legislation of the Member  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 175 
 
 
  States of the Customs Union, whose observa nce was vested in customs authorities.  
Applying methods of risk analysis, customs aut horities selected certain categories of goods, which 
were subject to more thorough control.  This  control could include documentary checking, 
examination of goods, request of additional docum ents, information or explanations from the 
declarant, and post-customs control.  Article 99 of the CU Customs Code and Article 164 of the 
Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" provided for " post-release control".  One form of such control 
was known as "customs revision" or "post-clear ance audit".  The customs authorities of the 
Russian Federation performed customs revisions to ve rify the authenticity of information stated in 
customs declarations and the other documents su bmitted in the process of customs clearance by 
comparing the details contained in such documen ts with the accounting and reporting information, 
accounts, and other information provided by the d eclarant.  The procedures for a customs revision 
were described in Article 99 of the CU Cust oms Code and Article 161 of the Federal Law 
"On Customs Regulation". 
523. The representative of the Russian Federation added that Customs authorities were not limited 
to using test value as the only risk indicator.  In de tecting risks in the area of customs valuation they, 
in particular, used the following risk indicators:  (i) profile and compliance records of traders; 
(ii) sufficiency and reliability of documents; ( iii) description of goods; (iv) route and method of 
transportation; (v) terms of payment and scheme of settlement; etc.   
524. He stated that about 25 per cent of 11,000 commodity items of the HS Code of the 
Russian Federation were currently covered by risk pr ofiles, a pre-determined combination of risk area, 
and risk indicators, based on information which ha d been gathered, analysed and categorized, as well 
as guidelines on taking appropriate measures to prevent or  minimize the risk.  A risk profile was a risk 
assessment tool.  Such goods were usually those mo st heavily taxed.  He stressed that information 
contained in risk profiles or information letters , was not legally binding on customs officials and 
could not be used to determine the customs valu e, replace the transaction price of imported goods, or 
used as a method of valuation or as a mechanism fo r determining the minimum prices.  Government 
Resolution No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 "On the Appr oval of the Rules for Preparing the Normative 
Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of the Executiv e Power and their State Registration" prohibited 
issuance of normative legal acts in the form of lett ers.  Divergence between the test values in these 
sources and the declared value of the goods could - where corroborated by insufficient or doubtful 
information on the value of goods, their qualitative char acteristics, or the conditions of the underlying 
sales transaction provided in the accompanying docu ments - entail a more thorough investigation by 
the Customs authorities of the declared value, a pplying controls such as those described above.  
However, any decision on customs valuation could on ly be taken in accordance with the provisions of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 176  
 
  the basic legislation of the Russian Federation in  force, which, in his view, complied with the 
provisions of the WTO Agreement.  He also pointed out that the FCS of the Russian Federation 
conducted continuous monitoring of the efficiency  of use by customs officials of price-related 
information, and that price information was cons tantly updated depending on changes in market 
conditions. 
525. The representative of the Russian Federation added that appeal procedures for customs 
matters were authorised by Article 9 of the CU  Customs Code, and regulated by the Federal Law 
No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010 "On Customs Regula tion", Code No. 195-FZ of 30 December 2001 
"On Administrative Offences", and the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation (No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002).  Specifically, Article  36 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" 
stipulated that, in case the declarant disagreed w ith a decision, action or inaction by a Customs 
authority, the declarant could challenge any decision or action (inaction) of a customs body or its 
officer, if in the opinion of this person such action (inaction) or decision violated the rights or legal 
interests of this person or impede their realiz ation or impose an illeg itimate responsibility.  
This included the right to appeal the decision, as i ndicated both at the higher Customs authority and at 
the Court or Arbitration Court.  In the context of  such an appeal, the declarant could contest the 
decision on customs valuation, inter alia , on the grounds that the Customs authority had used 
indicative price information contained in risk ma nagement measures, such as "customs letters" to 
determine customs value of goods, rather than the va luation methods laid down in Articles 4 to 10 of 
the CU Agreement and Articles 19 to 24 of the Customs Tariff Law.  He confirmed that the Court 
could issue a binding decision requiring that the FC S or the relevant Customs body and its officials 
provide the Court, prior to its decision, with all relevant documents that were used in making the 
decision, including "customs letters", for review and,  in this case, the declarant would have access to 
the documents provided to the Court. 
526. He emphasized that the lodging of a compla int with the Customs authorities against a 
decision, action (inaction) by the Customs authority or  its official did not rule out the possibility of the 
simultaneous or subsequent lodging of a complaint of a similar content with a court or arbitration 
court (Article 37 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation").  Не confirmed that, in all cases, an 
importer, i.e., the owner of the goods, had the right  to appeal a decision, action or inaction of a 
Customs authority regarding a determination of cust oms value without penalty to a judicial authority 
and that the decision on appeal must be provided in  writing.  He also stated  that, in accordance with 
Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federati on, everyone was guaranteed the right of judicial 
appeal to protect one's rights and freedoms.  Deta iled information on the right of appeal was also 
provided in the Section "Framework for Making and Enforcing Policies" of this Report.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 177 
 
 
  527. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would, 
from the date of accession, apply its customs va luation laws, regulations  and practices, including 
those to prevent under-valuation of goods, in conf ormity with the WTO Agreement, including 
Article I of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreemen t on Implementation of Article VII of the 
GATT 1994.  Accordingly, the Russian Federation w ould not use any form of minimum value, such 
as reference prices, or fixed valuation schedul e for customs valuation of goods.  Additional 
procedures and controls to prevent under-valuatio n of goods would be applied only where strictly 
necessary to address genuine risks of under-valuation, duly established through the application of risk 
management, and risk management, would not be based exclusively, or predominantly on price 
information (whether based on trade statistics, information from exporters or other sources).  
Additional procedures and controls to preven t under-valuation of goods, including requests for 
additional information, would be a pplied due to a divergence between the declared value of goods and 
price information for specific categories of goods (established by, or otherwise available to, the 
Customs authorities of the Russian Federation) onl y if, exceptionally, the divergence was sufficiently 
large to raise justified doubts about the correctness of the declared value.  Decisions on customs 
valuation could be appealed on the grounds that th ey were, in law or in fact, based on minimum 
values, a fixed valuation schedule or reference pric es for specific categories of goods established by, 
or otherwise available to, the Customs authorities of the Russian Federation, rather than on the 
valuation principles and methods as laid down in the CU Agreement, the CU Customs Code and 
implementing legislation of the Russian Federati on, or the WTO Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VII of the GATT 1994.  He further confirmed that, in determining the value of imports, the 
Russian Federation would apply the provisions of paragraph 2 of Decision No. 4.1 of the Committee 
"On Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing Software  for Data Processing Equipment" and Decision 
No. 3.1 "On the Treatment of Interest Charges in  Customs Value of Imported Goods".  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
- Rules of Origin 
528. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that from 1 July 2010, the 
Russian Federation applied rules of origin to impor ts pursuant to Chapter 7 of the CU Customs Code 
and Chapter 10 of the Federal Law on Customs Re gulation (No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010).   
Non-preferential rules of origin and their application were governed by the provisions of the Agreement on Common Rules for Determining the Country of Origin of Goods of 25 January 2008, including the Rules of Determination of the Country of Origin (hereafter: CU Agreement on Rules of Origin), the CU Customs Code, and the Federa l Law on Customs Regulation.  These instruments 
closely followed the work of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the WTO regarding the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 178  
 
  application and harmonization of non-preferential rules of origin.  The principles for determining the 
country of origin of goods were based on international practices and implemented the 
recommendations of the revised Kyoto Convention, wh ich came into force in 2006.  Article 58.3 of 
the CU Customs Code provided that the determination of the country of origin must be carried out in 
accordance with international treaties of the Member  States of the Customs Union, which defined the 
procedure of determining the country of origin of go ods.  He further stated that the determination of 
the origin of goods originating from developing countries and eligible for the system of preferences 
maintained by the Russian Federation was governed by the Agreement on Rules of the Origin of 
Goods, Originating from Developing and Least-dev eloped Countries of 12 December 2008, including 
the Rules Determining the Origin of Goods  from Developing and Least-developed Countries 
(hereafter: CU Agreement on Rules of Origin  for Developing and Least-developed Countries 
(LDCs)). The customs procedures for determining th e country of origin of goods established pursuant 
to the CU Customs Code replaced those contained in the Customs Code of the Russian Federation 
(Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003).  The releva nt provisions of Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 5003-1 of May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" were superseded, with the exception of Articles 3 and 
36, which remained in effect in respect of app lication of MFN customs duties rates and provision of 
tariff preferences, respectively. 
529. Members of the Working Party sought to ensure  that the CU Agreements and Customs Code 
and the Federal Law on Customs Regulation provided for rules of origin that complied with the 
WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin.  Several Members requested further information and 
clarification from the representative of the Russian Federation on how these measures established preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.  Members also expressed the view that the 
requirement of the Russian Federation that imports of non-MFN origin were subject to twice the MFN 
tariff rate, if MFN origin could not be initially pr oven, was unduly burdensome,  given that after the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, goods originating in a only a small number of 
countries could originate from non-MFN trading partners.  These Members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that it would assess th e MFN rate on all goods originating from countries 
enjoying MFN duty rate from the date of the acc ession to the WTO of the Russian Federation.  
They also noted that goods, whose origin had not been clearly established,  were cleared through 
customs only after payment of customs duties at a double MFN rate of the customs tariff.  Some Members asked the Russian Federation to cl arify whether in such cases it was possible to 
submit a certificate of origin or other proof sub sequent to customs clearance and, if origin was 
subsequently satisfactorily established, whether ex cess duties were then refunded.  Some Members 
also expressed concerns about the consistency with  the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin of the 
provisions of the CU Customs Code and the CU Ag reement on Rules of Origin providing that "the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 179 
 
 
  country of origin could also be understood to mean a group of countries, region or part of a country, if 
this was necessary to identi fy them, with a view to determining the origin of goods."  They observed 
that the WTO Agreement referred to a "country" of or igin, not to groups of countries or regions, or 
part of a country and they requested a clarification of the meaning of these provisions and specific examples of how and under what circumstances the origin of a good could be ascribed to a region or part of a country.  These Members requested conf irmation from the Russian Federation that these 
provisions would be applied in full conformity with the WTO Agreement.   
530. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the option of 
specifying a region or part of a country was app lied in cases where it was necessary to define the 
origin of the goods as such.  So far it had been ap plied within the procedure of implementation of 
trade defence measures. 
531. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that, pursuant to Article 58 of the 
CU Customs Code, goods were recognised as origina ting from a specific country, if they were wholly 
made in that country or substantially transfor med in accordance with criteria set-forth in the 
CU Agreement on Rules of Origin and CU Commission decisions.  The country of origin of goods 
could also be a group of countries, a customs union, a region, or a part of a country, if the exact 
country of origin within the group of countries was difficult or could not be determined.  Under those 
circumstances, the relevant group of countries, customs union, or, if necessar y to identify origin, a 
region or part of a country could be considered as the country of origin of the goods.  The basic 
criterion for substantial transformation for non-pr eferential goods was the shift in the tariff 
classification of the good on the level of at least one of the first four digits, as prescribed by 
paragraph 4 of the Rules of Determination of the Country of Origin annexed to the CU Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Determination of the Country of Origin supplied an exhaustive list of the kinds of goods which could be produced whol ly in a country.  Paragraph 5 
included an illustrative list of operations which di d not satisfy the criteria for production of a good 
within a country.  Other criteria of sufficient tr ansformation could be established exclusively by the 
CU Commission, as set-out in paragraph 6.  
532. The representative of the Russian Federation also  explained that, in the event that goods were 
supplied in a dismantled or unassembled state over several shipments - when it was impossible to 
deliver the whole lot at one time due to producti on or transportation problems or when the lot of 
goods had, by mistake, been divided into parts - pa ragraphs 8 and 9 of the CU Rules of Determination 
of the Country of Origin established a number of sp ecific rules to assist in determining the country of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 180  
 
  origin of goods (e.g., the indicated goods could, at the discretion of the importer, be considered as one 
shipment).  
533. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in accordance with 
Article 62 of the CU Customs Code, when goods were brought into the customs territory of the 
Customs Union, a document must be shown to confirm the country of origin of the goods, if the Russian Federation (or other CU Party) granted pref erential tariffs to the country of origin of the 
goods under the Protocol on Common System of Tariff Preferences of Customs Union, signed on 
28 January 2008, or other international treaties a nd agreements of the Russian Federation (or other 
CU Party) or the legislation of the Russian Fede ration.  The CU Customs Code also established cases 
where certificates of origin were mandatory or wh ere the customs authorities had the authority to 
require that a certificate of origin be provided.  Th is authority existed when there was reasonable basis 
to believe that the information initially provided on  the country of origin of the relevant goods was 
false.  Currently, a certificate of origin (either the "A" Document attached to the Annex to the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin of Goods from De veloping and Least-developed Countries or, for CIS 
preferences, the ST-1 document) was required.  Goods were considered as originating from a 
developing or least-developed country subject to ta riff preferential treatment when they were fully 
produced in such a country.  He added that Part III of Annex I of the Agreement on Rules of Origin of 
Goods from Developing and Least-developed Countri es provided that CU Parties could establish a 
procedure for the application of criteria of substan tial transformation for countries eligible for tariff 
preferences, based on the determination that th e value of inputs used in the production process 
originating from countries not covered by preferen tial treatment or of unknown origin did not exceed 
50 per cent of the total declared value.  He also not ed that Part VI of Annex I provided the terms for 
application of the rules of direct purchase and di rect shipping for granting preferential tariffs.  
He further informed Members that the provisions of Article 111 of the Law "On Customs 
Regulation", which stipulated the procedure for issuan ce of the assessment of origin of goods, was, in 
his view, in full conformity with Article 2(h) of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin and Article 3 
(d) to (f) of Annex II to the said Agreement, and that  the provisions of Article 3(g) of the Annex were 
reflected in Articles 8 and 10 of the CU Customs Code. 
534. He added that, pursuant to Article 63 of  the CU Customs Code, MFN treatment was granted, 
if the country of origin was declared and accepte d as being a country receiving MFN tariff treatment.  
For MFN treatment no certificate of origin was required.   Where MFN treatment existed in respect of 
the country of origin, customs duties were charge d at the MFN rates.  The CU Customs Code also  
provided that customs duties were charged at the double rate only when the customs authorities 
actually had evidence  that the goods at issue had originated from a country in respect of which the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 181 
 
 
  Russian Federation did not apply MFN treatment.  These goods could enter the Customs Union, but a 
security would have to be provided for the payment of customs duties at the double MFN rates, until 
the origin of the goods could be established. 
535. He stated that when the certificate of orig in or other proof was accepted, MFN treatment 
would be applied for one year after release of th e goods and the importer coul d recover the difference 
in the duties paid.  Customs duties were reimbursed within one year from the date of over-payment of 
customs duties upon the submission, by the payer, of  a request, as provided for in Chapter 13 of the 
CU Customs Code.  Such a request had to be submitte d to the customs office to which duties had been 
paid. 
536. He further noted that, pursuant to Article 63.1 of the CU Customs Code, if the customs 
authorities had no indication that a good was originating from a country in respect of which the 
Russian Federation did not apply MFN treatment, cu stoms duties would be charged at the MFN tariff 
rate irrespective of the availability or absence of a certificate of origin. 
537. The representative of the Russian Federation added that, pursuant to Article 61 of the 
CU Customs Code, the certificate of origin of goods  constituted documentary proof of the country of 
origin of goods issued by the competent body or organization of a given country or of the country of 
exportation of the said goods, if the country of exportation issued such certificates based on the information obtained from the country of origin of such goods.  According to Article 62 of the CU Customs Code the certificate was required only  in cases where tariff preferences were claimed.  
The certificate of origin was to be submitted with the customs declaration and other documents 
presented for customs clearance.  If the certificat e of origin of goods was not properly executed 
(e.g., there were violations of the Customs Uni on requirements for its design and/or completion, as 
contained in Annex II to the Agreement on Rul es for Determining the Origin of Goods from 
Developing and Least Developed Countries of 12 December 2008); the customs authorities had the 
authority to accept or deny the certificate as a basi s for granting tariff preferences.  Pursuant to 
Section VIII of the CU Agreement on Rules of Or igin of Developing and Least-developed Countries, 
in case of reasonable doubts in respect of authenticity of the certificate or information contained in it, 
the customs authorities could lodge a request with  the competent bodies or organizations in the 
country that had issued the certificate of orig in to provide additional documentary proofs.  
The customs authorities could also request additiona l documentary proofs or clarifications for the 
purpose of carrying out spot checks.  Such spot checks, however, must not impede the process of 
customs clearance of goods based on the information of their country of orig in declared during the 
customs formalities in respect of these goods.  He also  stated that, when the certificate of origin or WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 182  
 
  other proof was not accepted, MFN treatment woul d be applied until the origin of the goods was 
established. The importer could recover the difference in the duties paid for a period of one year from 
the date of over-payment upon the submission, by  the payer, of a request, as provided for in 
Chapter 13 of the CU Customs Code.  Such a requ est had to be submitted to the customs office to 
which duties had been paid. 
538. As for the rules of origin for goods traded within the Customs Union and/or goods covered by 
Free Trade Agreements between the Russian Federation and other CIS Members, the representative of 
the Russian Federation explained that the Russian Fe deration applied the "Rules of Origin of Goods" 
approved by the Council of Heads of CIS Govern ments on 30 November 2000 (hereafter: Decision of 
30 November 2000) and the Agreement of the CIS States of 12 April 1996 "On Rules of Origin of Goods Originating from Developing Countries for the Purposes of Tariff Preferences under the 
General Preferences System".  These rules had been developed pursuant to the international practice 
for determination of origin.  Additional criteria of  direct purchase were used, along with requirements 
that the exporter be established legally in a Pa rty to the CIS Free Trade Agreement (as originally 
provided for in the Decision of the Heads of Gove rnment of other CIS Count ries of 18 October 1996).  
Currently, there were no other arrangements for the de termination of the country of origin of goods 
within the framework of the Customs Union, th e Eurasian Economic Community, or the CIS.  
This situation would change when the Agreem ent of the CIS States of 20 November 2009 on the 
Rules of Origin in the CIS entered into force and replaced the rules of origin established earlier by the 
Decision of 30 November 2000 for all CIS Members.   
539. Concerning Free Trade Arrangements of the Russi an Federation with Serbia and Montenegro 
(and in the future, with any other countries not Member s of the CIS), he noted that the rules of origin 
for these preferential arrangements were contai ned in the Free Trade Agreements themselves. 
540. Members sought clarification of the requirement  that the exporter be a legally established 
resident in a Party to a CIS Free Trade  Agreement, and asked, if corporate registration would satisfy 
that requirement, or whether there were other criteria that must be satisfied. 
541. In response to the request for additiona l information, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that, as for the requireme nt that the exporter be legally established in a 
Party to the CIS Agreement there were not any other criteria apart from registration. 
542. Several Members also requested information on th e right to request an origin determination 
prior to shipment, and requested a commitment that  these provisions be applied in line with the 
requirements of Article 2(h) and A nnex II, paragraph 3(d) of the WT O Agreement on Rules of Origin.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 183 
 
 
  They sought information on where these provisions coul d be found in the Agreements of the Customs 
Union that governed the application of the rules of origin and the  customs legislation of the 
Russian Federation.  They also indicated that th e preferential rules of origin for CIS countries and 
other preferential trade agreements to which the Russian Federation belonged should fully reflect the 
interim rules of Annex II of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin.  In this regard, these Members 
requested clarification of whether the Decision of the Council of the Governments of the 
Commonwealth of Independent States on the Rules of  Origin of Goods of 30 November 2000 or the 
provisions of the CU Agreements on Rules of Or igin and on Rules of Origin for Developing 
Countries and LDCs  met these requirements, and sought a commitment as to their implementation in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin upon the accession to the WTO of the 
Russian Federation.  Some Members also asked fo r a clarification of whether customs procedures 
included any guarantee system which allowed release of goods pending determ ination of preferential 
origin and how any associated rectification proce dure (subsequent refund or recovery of customs 
duties) actually operated.  These Members further in quired whether provisions existed in the customs 
laws of the Russian Federation for the protection of confidential informati on supplied for the purpose 
of application of the rules of origin. 
543. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that, pursuant to Article 111 
of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation" (N o. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010), the Federal 
Customs Service could make a preliminary decision on the country of origin of goods.  He informed 
Members that information on guarantee systems was in the "Customs Valuation" and "Customs 
Regulations and Procedures" Sections of the Repo rt.  As for confidentiality of information, he 
explained that Article 8 of the CU Customs C ode established confidentiality requirements for all 
information presented by declarants for customs pu rposes.  That Article provided that the customs 
authorities "…shall not disclose, use for personal purposes or transfer the information containing 
state, commercial, banking, tax, or other legally protected secrets, and other confidential information 
to third parties, including public authorities, except in cases stipulated by this Code and/or the laws of 
the Member States of the Customs Union."  Specific provisions on confidentiality of data were contained in Article 13 of Federal Law No. 98-FZ  of 29 July 2004 "On Commercial Secrets", which 
obligated Government authorities and bodies in the Russian Federation to ensure the protection of 
confidential information presented to them by legal pe rsons or individual entrepreneurs.  He stated 
that, in his view, the CU Customs Code, other intern ational agreements and th e national legislation of 
the Russian Federation described in this Section cont ained provisions to fully reflect the requirements 
of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 184  
 
  544. Members of the Working Party thanked the repr esentative of the Russian Federation for this 
information, but noted that neither the CU Cu stoms Code nor the CU Agreements and Rules 
providing for the application of rules of origin appeared to provide for a time period of no later than 
150 days after a request for issuing a preliminary decision on the origin of a product had been submitted, provided that all requi red information had been submitted.  They requested that the 
representative of the Russian Federation identify the requirements implementing Article 2(h) and 
Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin be identified in CU Agreements  
or decisions and  the customs legislation of the Russian Fe deration.  Those Members also requested 
information on whether Custom Union and  the preferential rules of origin for the FTAs of the 
Russian Federation with CIS, EAEC, the Single Econ omic Space, or other such Agreements, reflected 
the interim rules of the WTO Agreement in A nnex II of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  
545. Concerning the requirements of Article 2(h)  and Annex II, paragraph 3(d) of the 
WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, the representativ e of the Russian Federation explained that, in 
accordance with Article 58 of the CU Customs C ode, customs authorities of a CU Party had the 
authority to make preliminary decisions in respect of  country of origin in the order stipulated by its 
national legislation.  In the Russian Federation,  these requirements currently were reflected in 
FCS Order No. 906 of 23 July 2008 "On the Appr oval of the Regulations on the Procedure for 
Provision by the FCS of the State Service of Taking Preliminary Decisions on the Classification of a Commodity in Accordance with Commodity Classifi cation of Foreign Economic Activity and on the 
Country of Origin of a Commodity".  In addition, preliminary decisions on the origin of a product had 
to be taken within 90 days from the date of receipt  of a request by an interested party by the customs 
body, in accordance with the Article 111 of the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation", No. 311-FZ 
of 27 November 2010, which became effective on 27 D ecember 2010.  The request needed to contain 
information sufficient to make such a decision.  Preliminary decisions were valid for three years 
unless they were changed, withdrawn or terminated.  After the entry into force of the Federal Law on 
Customs Regulation, a new FCS order for making a preliminary decision in respect of country of origin in line with the provisions of Ar ticle 111 would be deve loped and applied. 
546. One Member reiterated that the Orders of  the State Customs Committee (SCC) of the 
Russian Federation No. 961-r of 4 October 2001 and No. 1002 of 19 October 2001 ran counter to the 
provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation,  particularly, Article 15 which stated that "if 
an international treaty to which the Russian Federa tion is party provides for other rules than those  
set-forth by Russian Federation domestic law, the ru les of the international treaty should apply".  
That Member was of the view that those Orde rs of the State Customs Committee violated the 
provisions of the bilateral agreement between this  Member and the Russian Federation on Customs  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 185 
 
 
  Check Points, and should immediatel y be eliminated to ensure the c onsistency with the requirements 
of that bilateral agreement.   
547. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that the Orders of the State 
Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 961-r of 4 October 2001 and No. 1002 of 
19 October 2001 had been abolished.   
548. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, 
measures on rules of origin, whether adopted by the Russian Federation or  the competent bodies of 
the CU, would be applied in the Russian Federa tion in conformity with the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, and would refl ect the interim rules in Annex II to that 
Agreement, including the provisions for transparency, right of appeal, and notifications to the WTO Committee on Rules of Origin.  He further conf irmed that, consistent with the requirements of 
Article 2(h) and of Annex II, para graph 3(d), both for non-preferential and preferential rules of origin, 
customs authorities would provide an assessment of  the origin of goods subject to import upon the 
request of an exporter, importer or any person with a justifiable cause and issue the assessment no 
later than 150 days after a request provided that  all necessary elements had been submitted.  
According to the provisions of the WTO Agreemen t on Rules of Origin, any request for such an 
assessment would be accepted before trade in  the goods concerned had begun, and any such 
assessment would be valid for three years provided th at the facts and conditions, including the rules of 
origin, under which they had been made remain comp arable.  He further confirmed that the practice of 
using "double MFN" rates as the default tariff rates for imports of undeterminable origin had been 
eliminated.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Other Customs Formalities 
549. Several Members stressed that the simplif ication of border controls and customs 
documentation necessary for importation in the Russian  Federation would have a favourable impact 
through reduced costs and improved efficiency for Russian traders. 
550. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the policy of his 
Government was aimed at creating favourable co nditions for trade facilitation, including customs 
formalities.  To that end, customs formalities in  the Russian Federation were being brought into 
compliance with the internationally accepted rules, in particular, with the Revised Kyoto Convention 
on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures.  A number of such improvements 
had been established with the implementation of Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 28 May 2003, i.e., the 
Customs Code of the Russian Federation, on 1 Ja nuary 2004.  Further efforts to streamline and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 186  
 
  harmonize customs formalities had occurred with the entry into force of the CU Customs Code, on 
1 July 2010, and with additional domestic legisl ation in the form of Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 
27 November 2010 "On Customs Regulation" a nd Federal Law No. 394-FZ of 28 December 2010 
"On the Transfer of Certain Types of Controls  to Customs".  The maximum clearance period was 
reduced from 72 to 24 hours.  Th ese Laws replaced Federal Law No. 61-FZ, except for Article 357.10 
that stipulated the right of the Government to  introduce rates of fees for customs clearance and 
established the current authority of the FCS in the area of customs clearance and customs checkpoints. 
551. One Member of the Working Party no ted that, under State Customs Committee 
Order No. 155 of 14 February 2001 "On the Proce dure for Coordination of Decisions to Release 
Goods for Free Circulation" and Order No. 949 of  31 December 1999 "On Amending Order No. 258 
of the SCC of 26 April 1996" (in the wording of SCC Order No. 43 of 31 January 1997 and, as 
amended on 10 March 2000) certa in goods that qualified as "high-risk " (e.g., certain foodstuffs) were 
not released for free circulation without the specific approval of a higher customs authority.  The process of obtaining such approval could last fro m one to two weeks.  Under rules introduced in 
October 2001 by the North Western Customs Authority , shipments of "risk products" (a wide group 
of products including coffee, furniture, tyres a nd washing machines) were subject to burdensome 
documentary requirements, including in relationship to the ownership of the vehicle transporting the 
goods.  The Russian Federation had also imposed r estrictions that required customs clearance for 
certain goods, including textiles, clothing and electrical products, to take place only on borders with 
certain Asian countries as well as in certain ports a nd airports.  Consequently, such items originating 
in Asia could no longer be exported to the Russian  Federation via the customs territory of that 
Member.  As well as raising con cerns in relation to conformity with WTO requirements on trade in 
transit, these Orders made it impossible for compan ies, exporting to the Russian Federation, to use 
raw materials from the Far East for sub-contracting and, subsequently, created a barrier to business 
cooperation.  The cumulative effect was that expor ters to the Russian Federation faced unpredictable, 
non-transparent, lengthy and generally burdensome  customs procedures for certain imported goods at 
the designated customs checkpoints of entry into the territory.  Checks on imported goods should not be applied in such a heavy-handed or non-transpar ent manner.  These Members considered that the 
Russian Federation should enter a commitment to respect standard WTO requirements of 
transparency, predictability and uniform application in this regard.  
552. Another Member said that his authorities had concerns with the practice used by the 
Russian Federation customs bodies in respect of the transport companies of this Member.  He noted 
that country-specific restrictive customs procedur es were incompatible with WTO provisions, notably 
those in Articles I and VIII of the GATT 1994.  Th is Member requested the Russian Federation to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 187 
 
 
  ensure that these and other country-specific measu res, relating to customs procedures, would be 
brought in to full conformity with th e WTO requirements, prior to accession. 
553. In response to concerns from Members regard ing the designated customs entry checkpoints, 
the representative of the Russian Federation noted th at, pursuant to Article 156 of the CU Customs 
Code and Article 193 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, th e Government of the Russian Federation had the 
right to designate customs entry checkpoints for certain categories of goods and could establish 
certain places for entry at the border in complian ce with the legislation of the Russian Federation 
regarding the State border.  These measures were necessary and were not intended to complicate import processing.  He explained that the measures mentioned by Members, including the designation of customs entry checkpoints for particular goods and at certain border customs checkpoints, were 
aimed to assure accurate classification and valuatio n of the goods and to increase predictability and 
accuracy of customs procedures for traders and transporters.  They were not intended to act as a 
hidden or unnecessary restriction to trade, bearing in mind insufficient resources to equip all border customs checkpoints with the necessary equipment a nd storage facilities.  He also mentioned that 
respective restrictions and procedures were in acco rdance with the International Convention on the 
Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Pr ocedures (Revised Kyoto Convention, 1999), in 
particular, with its Specific Annex A, Chapter 1, according to which national legislation specified the 
places at which such goods could enter th e territory of the Russian Federation. 
554. With regard to the designated customs checkpoints for import declaration, the representative 
of the Russian Federation stated that his Government  paid substantial atten tion to the implementation 
of legislative and practical measures aimed at the creation of stable and predictable conditions for 
implementation of customs formalities.  After the entry into force on 1 January 2004 of the Customs 
Code of the Russian Federation, the number of legislative acts establishing restrictions on places of declaration of goods was reduced by two thirds and amounted to twelve at that time, as compared 
with 34 in mid-2003.  He added that a Plan on Furt her Phasing out Restrictions in Respect of Specific 
Customs Points for the Declaration of Specific Typ es of Goods had been prepared and implemented.  
By October 2005, another four SCC Orders "On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for the 
Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had be en abolished by the MEDT Order No. 347 of 
23 December 2004, namely:  SCC Order Nos. 104 9, 1050, and 1051 of 19 September 2003, and SCC 
Order No. 1540 of 25 December 2003.  Also, SCC Order No. 1443 of 11 December 2003 "On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for th e Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had 
been abolished by MEDT Order No. 128 of 13 Ju ne 2005 and MEDT Order No. 68 of 4 April 2005 
"On Establishing Specific Customs Checkpoints for th e Declaration of Specific Types of Goods" had 
been abolished by MEDT Order No. 193 of 17 August 2005.  The representative of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 188  
 
  Russian Federation added that SCC Order No. 155  of 14 February 2001 "On the Procedure for 
Coordination of Decisions to Release Goods for Free Circulation" mentioned in paragraph [551] had 
been invalidated by SCC Order No. 28 of 5 August 2002.  He explained that the release of goods was 
now governed by Chapter 28 of the CU Customs Code, as elaborated in Section 25 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ (Articles 218 to 223). 
555. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that these measures had resulted in the 
gradual elimination of product cat egories of goods from the list of those subject to declaration for 
import at the designated customs checkpoints.  The customs checkpoints designated for the purpose of 
customs declaration of certain goods for import we re established throughout the customs territory of 
the country in proximity to respective internatio nal transport infrastructure or regions of major 
consumption or processing of imported products.  Th is process of simplification and liberalization 
would be accelerated under the trade regime of the Customs Union.   
556. The representative of the Russian Federation added that, after implementation of the  
above-mentioned Plan, only a limited number of cate gories of goods remained subject to customs 
declaration and/or entry at the designated customs checkpoints.  By 1 January 2011, the list of goods 
subject to such restrictions of the place of declar ation and/or entry had been reduced to include only 
the following goods:  (i) poultry meat and pou ltry offal for food (HS Code 0207), which was 
permitted only at sea and air checkpoints if, the country of origin was not connected with the 
Russian Federation by means of land transporta tion, meat and meat by-products used as food 
(HS Code 02); (ii) goods subject to excise tax (certain alcohol and tobacco products, certain 
automotive goods); (iii) alcohol products origin ating in the Republic of Moldova; (iv) goods 
transported by pipelines and electric power grids;  (v) certain wood products (HS Codes 4401, 4403, 
4404, 4406, 4407); (vi) goods trans ported by international mail; (vii) goods for exhibitions; 
(viii) goods transported by air; (ix) precious stones and metals (HS Codes 9101, 9102, 9103, 9105, 
9111, 9112); (x) banknotes, securities, and coin s (HS Codes 4907 00 300 0, 4907 00 900 0, 
7118 90 000 0); (xi) fissionable and radio-active materials (HS Codes 2612, 2844 and HS Code 
8401 30 000); (xii) goods subject  to temporary admission; and (xiii) diplomatic correspondence and 
goods, conveyed by certain categories of foreign persons.  He also not ed that a comprehensive list of 
categories of goods currently subject to measures requiring declaration for import and/or entry at 
designated customs checkpoints was reflected in [Tab le 13] and [Table 14].  The Russian Federation 
expected that, gradually, goods crossing the border could be declared at the majority of customs checkpoints rather than at the designated customs checkpoints, and that the Russian Federation was 
ready to constructively address, in the meantime, to  the extent possible, any specific concerns of 
Members with a view to facilitating trade flows.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 189 
 
 
  557. Currently, in accordance with Article 190 of th e CU Customs Code and Articles 10.4 and 205 
of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, the FCS was authorised to designate specific customs checkpoints for the 
declaration of specific types of goods in order to  ensure the effectiveness of control over the 
observance of the customs legislation, only if it was necessary to use specialised equipment and/or 
special knowledge to perform customs formalities, in  respect of such goods  as cultural valuables, 
goods of precious metals, weaponr y, military material and ammunition, radioactive and fission 
materials, and other certain kinds of goods; or if it was necessary to accelerate the release of goods, 
such as express cargo, exhibition samples, goods im ported to or exported from exclusive economic 
zones, etc. (Article 205 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ) .  In case a customs declaration was submitted to 
a different customs checkpoint than that designa ted, the customs declaration would be denied. 
558. In response to the concern of a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation added 
that the policy of its customs authorities was to establish such customs checkpoints close to places 
where goods, such as precious stones and metals destin ed for exhibitions were mostly sold, exhibited, 
consumed or used otherwise.  For example, d esignated customs checkpoints for the clearance of 
goods for exhibitions were functioning directly in th e premises of the biggest exhibition centres in 
Moscow or St. Petersburg.   
559. A Member asked whether the public was perm itted to comment on the categories of goods 
designated for special treatment or on the deve lopment of such special methods, prior to 
implementation.  The representative of the Russian Federation replied that Ar ticle 53 of Federal Law 
No. 311-FZ provided for the possibility of holding cons ultations and other procedures with the FCS, 
aimed at ensuring transparency with regard to matters relating to Customs Union legal acts, and other matters within the competence of national customs authorities.  
560. Members of the Working Party also noted that the industry and exporters had regular 
experience of inconsistencies between administra tive decisions taken by the authorities of the  
Russian Federation and the prevailing legisla tion of the Russian Federation.  Moreover, 
inconsistencies appeared to ex ist between the general legisla tive framework and subsidiary 
regulations and administrative guidance issued by the Government bodies of the  Russian Federation 
(such as the FCS).  They expected the Russian Federation to undertake a commitment that, upon 
accession, all regulations, formalities and require ments connected with the importation of goods, 
including in relation to statistical control,  customs clearance, documents, documentation and 
certification, inspection and analysis, and any changes to these regulations, formalities and 
requirements would be published promptly and, in any case, sufficiently in advance of its entry into 
force and would be applied in a uniform, impartia l and reasonable manner across the customs territory WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 190  
 
  of the Russian Federation, consistent with WTO requirements, including Articles VIII and X of the 
GATT 1994.  Customs regulations, formalities and re quirements should also be  applied and operated 
in a fashion consistent with WTO requirements. 
561. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation referred to  Sections "Customs 
Regulations and Procedures" and "T ransparency" of this Report.  He added that the provisions of 
normative  legal acts of the Federal executive body charge d with customs affairs were not to conflict 
with the provisions of customs legislation and othe r legal acts of the CU or normative legal acts of the 
Russian Federation and/or should not establish require ments, bans and restrictions not envisaged by 
customs legislation and other legal acts of the CU and normative legal acts of the Russian Federation. 
562. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that [Table 13] and [Table 14] were 
comprehensive lists of the categories of goods currently subject to measures requiring their 
declaration and/or entry at designated customs chec kpoints.  He further confirmed that if any such 
measures were contrary to the WTO Agreement, they  would be eliminated as of the date of accession 
of the Russian Federation to the WTO and that fu ture measures concerning the declaration and/or 
entry of specific categories of goods at desi gnated customs checkpoints, whether introduced, 
re-introduced or applied pursuant to national legi slation, CU Agreements, or other CU legal acts, 
would be consistent with the WT O Agreement.  Furthermore, he confirmed that, from the date of 
accession, all laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of 
general application connected with the importation of goods, including those relating to statistical 
control, customs clearance, documentation and certif ication, inspection and analysis, and any changes 
to these laws, regulations decrees, decisions, judici al decisions and administrative rulings of general 
application whether introduced, reintroduced, or ap plied by the Russian Federation or the competent 
bodies of the CU would be published promptly and posted on the official websites of the responsible governmental bodies in such a manner as to enable  governments and traders to become acquainted 
with them and that the Russian Federation would also publish the names of the governmental bodies 
responsible for administering them.  Further, he confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
administer these laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial decisions and administrative rulings of general application in a uniform, impartial and r easonable manner throughout its territory, as required 
by the WTO Agreement.  He further confirmed that the Russian Federation would not apply 
country-specific customs procedures in a manner in consistent with the WTO Agreement, including 
Articles I and X of the GATT 1994, and would apply the principles of non-discrimination and transparency within the meaning of these Artic les.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 191 
 
 
  - Preshipment Inspection  
563. Noting that the authorities of the Russian Fede ration had stated that the Russian Federation 
did not currently require any inspection services prior to shipment, but had been considering, at some 
point, recourse to such measures, Members asked the Russian Federation to explain its laws and 
regulations authorizing the employment of presh ipment inspection and to undertake a commitment 
indicating that, if such services should be empl oyed in the future, they would conform to 
WTO provisions in their operations, e.g., in the application of fees for services rendered, observance 
of other WTO requirements in customs processing,  and in providing right of appeal to the 
Government. 
564. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that Article 7 of the 
Agreement on Common Measures for Non-Tariff Regula tion with Regard to Third Counties, signed 
on 25 January 2008 (hereafter:  Agreement on Non- Tariff Regulation), authorised the imposition of 
non-tariff regulatory measures on the basis of national interests, inter alia , to implement national laws 
not in conflict with international agreements.  Th e CU Agreement on the Introduction and Application 
of Measures Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods on a Common Customs Territory in Respect of 
Third Countries of 25 January 2008 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign 
Trade) implemented the CU Agreement on Non-Tari ff Regulation and authorised the CU Commission 
to introduce non-economic measures affecting goods in  foreign trade from third countries on the basis 
of proposals from the CU Parties.  Pursuant to Article 6 of the latter Agreement, the 
Russian Federation could propose to introduce pr eshipment inspection.  If the CU Commission 
rejected the proposal, such measures could be impos ed unilaterally for up to six months, as provided 
for in Article 8 of the Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade.    
565. He added that, in conformity with the provisions of these CU Agreements, if the 
Russian Federation decided to introduce preshipme nt inspection with respect to certain goods, 
Article 28 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 Dece mber 2003 "On the Fundamentals of the State 
Regulation of the Foreign Trade Activity" (as amende d on 2 February 2006) authorised the creation of 
such a regime, and laid down the objectives a nd conditions thereof.  Federal Law No. 164-FZ 
provided that preshipment inspection could be intr oduced for a period not exceeding three years.  
He noted that the Russian Federation had no cu rrent plans to introduce a preshipment inspection 
scheme. 
566. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, from the date of accession, if a 
preshipment inspection scheme were to be introduced in the future, whether by  the Russian Federation 
or by the competent bodies of the CU, its operati on would be in conformity with the relevant WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 192  
 
  provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection, and the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994, inter alia , in respect of the due 
process and transparency requirements of the WTO Agreement, in particular Article X of the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VII of the GATT 1994 and 
confidentiality of data received would be ensured.   In addition, it would be ensured by the 
Russian Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU that charges and fees for preshipment 
inspection would comply with Article VIII of the GATT 1994, that preshipment entities would 
establish and maintain appeals procedures as fore seen by Article 2.21 of the WTO Agreement on 
Preshipment Inspection, and that that scheme w ould not constitute an undue  and additional burden on 
exporters to or importers of goods into the Russi an Federation.  Further, he confirmed that the 
duration of any such scheme would be limited to th ree years and that importers and exporters would 
not be precluded from challenging facts found and fi ndings made by preshipment inspection entities 
as part of administrative appeals against decisions of the Russian Federation or the competent bodies 
of the CU where such decisions were based on those facts or findings.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
- Balance of payments 
567. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that, from 1 January 2010, the legal basis 
for applying non-tariff measures on goods to address th e situation of the balance-of-payments (BOP) 
of the country could be found in the CU Agre ement on Common Measures for Non-Tariff Regulation 
with Regard to Third Countries of 25 January 2008 (hereafter:  CU Agreement On Non-Tariff 
Regulation).  More specific provisions regardi ng the implementation of the CU Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Regulation in this area were elabor ated in the CU Agreement on Introduction and 
Application of Measures Concerning Foreign Trade in Goods on a Common Customs Territory in 
Respect of Third Countries (hereafter:  CU Agre ement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade) of 9 
June 2009.  Article 8 of the CU Agreement on No n-Tariff Regulation provided that measures limiting 
foreign trade in goods may be imposed with a view to protecting the external financial situation and 
maintaining a steady balance of payments.  Article  9 of that Agreement and Articles 7 to 9 of the 
CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade further provided the c onditions for the CU as 
a whole and, in exceptional circumstances, for indi vidual CU Parties unilaterally to introduce trade 
restrictive measures to protect the external financ ial position and maintain the balance of payments.  
Previously, Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63- FZ of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the 
Economic Interests of the Russian Federation with Respect to Foreign Trade in Goods" and, later 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity" had provided such authority.  In  accordance with Federal Law No. 63-FZ, and due to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 193 
 
 
  particular balance-of-payment difficulties, Gove rnment Resolution No. 791 of 17 July 1998 
"On Introduction of an Additional Import Duty" had in troduced a special import surcharge at a rate of 
3 per cent ad valorem  applied to all tariff items.  Government Resolution No. 235 of 
27 February 1999 "On Amending Resolution of the G overnment of the Russian Federation No. 791 of 
17 July 1998 'On Introduction of an Additional Impo rt Duty'" had eliminated the import surcharge 
from 1 March 1999. 
568. Noting the repeal of the balance-of-payments measure in 1999, some Members asked whether 
similar import surcharges would be authorised under any CU legislation other than the CU Agreement 
on Non-Tariff Regulation and the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, e.g., the 
CU Customs Code or Decision No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common Customs Tariff 
Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic  of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation" of the Interstate Counc il on Common Customs Tariff Regulations, or under 
national legislation of the Russian Federation.  In this regard, these Members sought a commitment 
confirming that, as from the date of accession, any such measures for BOP purposes would be applied in full conformity with relevant WTO provisions.  
569. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Regulation and the Agreement on Measur es Concerning Foreign Trade, provided for the 
application of non-tariff measures for BOP purposes w ith regard to imported goods.  One or more 
CU Parties could propose the adoption of such non-tariff measures to the CU Commission.  If the 
CU Commission rejected the proposal, such meas ures could be imposed unilaterally for up to 
six months as provided for in Article 8 of the CU  Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade.  
With regard to services, Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Ac tivity", provided for restrictions on trade in services for BOP 
purposes.  He confirmed that there were no other provis ions in CU Agreements or in the legislation of 
the Russian Federation that dealt with BOP measures on goods or services.   
570. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that restrictions on goods could be 
implemented by means of introducing an import quota or other non-tariff measures for a term required 
to restore the balance-of-payments of the Russian Federation.  He further noted that, should such 
measures be imposed, the Government would design ate a Federal executive body responsible for the 
implementation of these measures.  With regard to services, BOP measures would be implemented through restrictions on trade in services.  
571. Some Members expressed concern that a mechan ism for the application of tariffs or other 
price-based measures to safeguard the balance of pa yments of the Russian Federation, as provided for WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 194  
 
  in the WTO Understanding on the Balance-of-P ayments Provisions of the GATT 1994 and 
Article XII of the GATT 1994, was not foreseen in  the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, the 
Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade or any other CU Agreement or regulation of the 
Russian Federation.  Furthermore, these Member s noted that the Agreement on Common System of 
Customs Regulation of 25 January 2008 did not perm it the Russian Federation to take unilateral tariff 
measures to safeguard its  balance of payments. 
572. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the 
Russian Federation was not permitted to take uni lateral tariff measures and that there was no 
mechanism to apply tariffs or other price-based me asures to safeguard the balance-of-payments of the 
Russian Federation. 
573. In response to a Member who noted that the WTO Understanding on Balance-of-Payments 
Provisions of the GATT 1994 imposed an order of pr iority of measures, the representative of the 
Russian Federation said that since only non-tariff m easures could be applied, no order of priority 
vis-à-vis  the use of priced-based measu res was specified in the CU Agreements or national law. 
574. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that any measure to safeguard its 
balance of payments, whether taken by the Russian  Federation or by the competent bodies of the CU, 
would be in conformity with the relevant provi sions of the WTO Agreement, in particular, the 
Understanding on the Balance-of-Payments Provi sions of the GATT 1994 and Article XII of 
the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures   
575. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the following legal acts regulated 
anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures in the Russian Federation:  (i) the Protocol of 
17 February 2000 on the Mechanism of Applicati on of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Countervailing 
Measures in Trade of the Member States of the Customs Union as between the Republics of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz  Republic and the Russian Federati on (hereafter in this Section:  
the Protocol); (ii) Agreement of 25 January 20 08 on Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and 
Countervailing Measures in Respect of Third Countries between the Republics of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation (hereafter:  Agreement of 25 January 2008); (iii) the Decision 
of the Commission of the Customs Union No. 191 of 26 February 2010 "On the Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures in the Territory of the Customs Union of 
Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" (hereafter:  Commission Decision No. 191); and, 
(iv) the following national legislation:  Federa l Law No. 165-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Safeguards,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 195 
 
 
  Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures Applie d to the Imports of Goods", as amended by 
Federal Law No. 280-FZ of 30 December 2006 "On Amending the Federal Law On Safeguards,  
Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures Applied to  Imports of Goods"; Government Resolution 
No. 546 of 13 October 2004 "On Adopting the Rules on Calculation of the Amount of Specific Subsidy of a Foreign State (Union of Foreign States)  and on the Invalidation of Certain Acts of the 
Government of the Russian Federation Regulating Issues of Application of Safeguards, Antidumping 
and Countervailing Measures". 
576. The representative of the Russian Federati on further noted that the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 entered into force on 1 July 2010 between its Parties, and would be directly 
applicable in the territory of the Russian Fede ration, after the expiration of the transitional 
arrangement that was set-out in the Agreemen t On Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and 
Countervailing Measures to the Third Countries in Tr ansitional Period (hereafter:  the Transitional 
Agreement) and Federal Law No. 165-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Safeguards, Antidumping and 
Countervailing Measures Applied to Imports of Goods".  During the transitional period, the 
provisions of the national regulations  would apply to the extent they did not contradict the Agreement 
of 25 January 2008.  Upon the expiration of the tr ansitional period, nationa l regulations would be 
abolished.  The investigations ongoing on the date of the entry into force of the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 were to be continued in accordance w ith the new rules and the national regulations to 
the extent those regulations did not contradict that Agreement.  Therefore, if the national industry met 
the criteria of the industry of the Customs Union sti pulated by the Agreement,  the investigation would 
be continued, otherwise it would be terminated. 
- (a) Transitional Regime 
577. The representative of the Russian Federation inform ed Members that the Ministry of Industry 
and Trade of the Russian Federation was the na tional investigating authority, for safeguards, 
anti-dumping and countervailing investigations.  Duri ng the transitional period provided for in the 
Transitional Agreement signed on 19 Novemb er 2010, the national authority of the 
Russian Federation would continue ongoing investig ations and -would conduct new trade remedies 
investigations in the Russian Federation upon the request of the domestic industry of the Customs 
Union.  However, all decisions to impose, extend,  review or terminate trade remedy measures would 
be taken by the CU Commission on the basis of a proposal from the Government of the CU Party that carried out the investigation.  After the transitiona l period investigations would be carried out at the 
CU level by a single designated competent authority under a request of the CU industry or upon the own initiative of the competent authority. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 196  
 
  578. During the transitional period, economic dis putes and other cases connected with the 
safeguard, anti-dumping and counter vailing measures (including cases challenging normative legal 
acts and decisions, actions or inactions of the author ities and officials) would still be considered by 
courts of arbitration of the Russian Federation in accordance with the order stipulated in the 
Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation. 
579. Since national laws of the Russian Federation would continue to apply during the transition 
period, several Members expressed concerns th at Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 
"On Measures to Protect of the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Foreign Trade in 
Goods" did not secure full conformity of the Russi an Federation with relevant WTO provisions.  
In particular, investigations seemed to be limite d to injury and causality aspects without requiring a 
proper determination of dumping, while any measures applied would be expected to remain in place 
for "a limited period of time necessary to eliminate injury". 
580. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 165-FZ 
of 8 December 2003 "On Safeguards, Anti-dumping and Countervailing Measures Applied to Imports 
of Goods" had been enacted with the objectiv e of introducing full conformity with the 
WTO Agreement.  This Law, which had ente red into force on 15 December 2003, replaced the 
relevant provisions of Federal Law No. 63- FZ of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the 
Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Foreign Trade in Goods" (with minor exceptions, 
such as paragraph 26 of Article 2 and Articles 6.5, 24 and 25).  The regulations originally written for 
the previous legislation had been partly included in the new Law and the new Government Resolution 
No. 546 of 13 October 2004 "On Adopting the Ru les on Calculation of the Amount of a Specific 
Subsidy of a Foreign State (Union of Foreign States)  and on the Invalidation of Certain Acts of the 
Government of the Russian Federation Regulating I ssues of Application of Safeguards, Anti-dumping 
and Countervailing Measures" (hereafter:  Government Resolution No. 546).  He further noted that 
Federal Law No. 165-FZ had been  amended by Federal Law No . 280-FZ of 30 December 2006 
"On Amending Federal Law 'On Safeguards, Anti- dumping and Countervailing Measures Applied to 
Imports of Products'". 
581. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that Federal Law No. 165-FZ 
established procedures for trade remedies investig ations, and imposition of safeguards, anti-dumping 
and countervailing measures.  Under this Law, anti-dumping and countervailing measures could be 
imposed only following an investigation showing evid ence of dumped or subsidized imports, material 
injury to a domestic industry, threat of such injury  or material retardation of the establishment of an 
industry ("material injury") and causality between the dumped or subsidized imports and material  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 197 
 
 
  injury.  Safeguard measures could be imposed only following an investigation showing evidence of 
substantially increased imports, serious injury or threat of serious injury ("serious injury") and 
causality between the increased imports and serious injury.  The measures could only be in place for 
up to five years for anti-dumping and countervaili ng measures and four years for safeguards.  
The period of an application of anti-dumping and countervailing measures could be extended if a 
review of the measures showed that the expiry of the measure was likely to lead to a recurrence of 
dumping, subsidization and injury.  The period of  application of a safeguard measure could be 
prolonged up to the maximum period not exceeding eight years in whole (including the period of 
application of any provisional measure, the period of initial application and any extension thereof) 
when the investigation authority determined, follow ing a review investigation to remedy or prevent 
injury, the prolongation of the measure was require d and there was evidence that the industry was 
adjusting to changing market conditions.  The decision on prolongation of the safeguard measure 
would be taken by the Government of the Russian Fe deration, based on the results of the investigation 
authority report, and the measure prolonged must not be  stricter than the initial one.  The Law brought 
the terminology in these areas into compliance with the rules and provisions of the WTO.  It provided 
a clear distinction between serious and material inju ry and expanded the Authority of the Government 
in the initial and main phase of investigation.  In hi s view, the Law defined actionable subsidies in full 
consistency with WTO provisions.  In a similar ma nner, the definition of dumping contained in the 
Law corresponded to Article 2 of the WTO Agreem ent on Implementation of Article VI of the 
GATT 1994.  
582. Other main improvements contained in Federal Law No. 165-FZ vis-à-vis  Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ were the detailed description of the inves tigation procedure and concepts such as increased 
imports, dumping, subsidies, serious and material injury, causal link, the definition of domestic 
industry, and other matters.  Several provisions  of Federal Law No. 165-FZ were directed at 
improving the mechanism of imposition, review and termination of safeguard, anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures.  The provisions determining the procedure for the application of safeguard, 
anti-dumping, and countervailing measures (including provisional duties and securities) were framed 
in a more detailed and intelligible manner.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed 
that the same standards would be maintained in an y investigation carried out either by the competent 
authorities of the Russian Federation or competent bodi es of the CU from the date of entry into force 
of the Agreement of 25 January 2008. 
583. Federal Law No. 165-FZ empowered the res ponsible Federal executive body (once an 
investigation had been undertaken pursuant to th is Law) to propose the imposition of safeguard, 
anti-dumping or countervailing measures.  It also pe rmitted the responsible authority to propose their WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 198  
 
  review and termination.  Before the entry into force of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, following 
such proposals, the decision to impose, review or terminate a measure would be taken by the 
Government of the Russian Federation.  Accord ing to Federal Law No. 165-FZ, an anti-dumping or 
countervailing measure could be terminated by deci sion of the Government of the Russian Federation 
when the review of the measure est ablished that the measure was not  needed for the elimination of 
material injury caused by dumped or subsidized im ports and that there was no likelihood that such 
injury would occur again if the measure was term inated.  Under the Agreement of 25 January 2008, 
such decisions were taken by the CU Commission.  Federal Law No. 165-FZ stipulated also the rules 
concerning cases where the Government of the Russi an Federation could decide to increase the pace 
of liberalization of a safeguard measure or to withdraw it.  After the transitional period, the 
CU Commission would have similar authority to in crease the pace of liberalization of a safeguard 
measure or to withdraw it. 
584. Noting that Article 35(4) of Federal Law No . 165-FZ appeared to limit the extent of 
information disclosed on the findings of safeguard investigations to "key conclusions" and that 
Article 35(5) of Federal Law No. 165-FZ appeared to  limit the extent of information disclosed on the 
findings of anti-dumping and countervailing inves tigations to "an explanation of the final 
determination", a Member expressed concerns about the consistency of Article 35 with Article 3 of 
the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping and 
Article 22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  This Member invited 
the Russian Federation to address these issues in legislation.  This  Member also observed that 
Article 6.9 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping was not reflected in the mentioned Law and requested the Russian Federation to implement the cont ent of this Article in legislation.  A Member 
further noted that Article 9 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ, regarding the application of safeguard 
measures, only partly reflected Article 5.2(b) of  the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, since it omitted 
to state the obligation of the Ru ssian Federation to hold consultations with Members on allocation of 
quotas in the occurrence of disproportionate imports.  This Member invited the Russian Federation to 
enter into a commitment reflecting that the provi sions of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards would 
be fully respected upon WTO accession and that  in the event of such a situation, 
the Russian Federation would hold consultations  under Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards with supplying Members. 
585. Some Members noted that Federal Law No. 165- FZ did not incorporate Annex I or Annex II 
of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping concerning Procedures for On-The-Spot Investigation and Best Information Available and asked, if the Ru ssian Federation would address these issues in its 
legislation.  Another Member asked, with regard to Article 12.6 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 199 
 
 
  and Countervailing Measures and Article 6.7 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping, how the 
administering authority of the Russian Federatio n determined the accuracy of the information 
submitted by domestic and foreign parties.  That Memb er also noted that the amended Parts 3 and 5 of 
Article 35, while providing more detail regarding what must be included in preliminary and final 
determinations, as provided under Ar ticle 12 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping and Article 22 
of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Counterva iling Measures, did not detail the procedures for 
interested parties to provide comments in the c ourse of the investigation process, as provided under 
Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumpi ng and Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
586. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that Articles 35(4) and 35(5) of 
Federal Law No. 165-FZ, as amende d by Federal Law No. 280-FZ,  were applied in a manner 
consistent with Article 3 of the WTO Agreem ent on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures by 
disclosure of findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law; with Article 12 
of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping, notably by disclosure of all relevant information on the 
matters of fact and law and, r easons which had led to the impos ition of final measures or the 
acceptance of a price undertaking; and with Artic le 22 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures notably by disclosure of all relevant information on the matters of fact and 
law and, reasons which had led to the imposition of  final measures or the acceptance of undertakings.  
He further confirmed that the issue of incorpora tion of Annex I and Annex II of the WTO Agreement 
on Anti-dumping concerning Procedures for On-the -Spot Investigation and Best Information 
Available had been addressed in the pr ovisions of Federal Law No. 165-FZ.   
587. In respect of the issue on the determination of  accuracy of the information available, he 
responded that Federal Law No. 280-FZ, which am ended Federal Law No. 165-FZ, addressed all of 
these points in accordance with the WTO Agreement.  In particular, Articles 25.12, 28.2, 28.3, 29.1 of 
Federal Law No. 165-FZ, as amended by Federal Law No. 280-FZ, were devoted to the determination 
of accuracy of the information submitted by domes tic and foreign parties by means of additional 
procedures in the course of investigation.  These artic les, in his view, were in full conformity with 
WTO provisions.  He added that, under Federa l Law No. 165-FZ, as amended by Federal Law 
No. 280-FZ, and consistent with Article 6 of th e WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping and Article 12 of 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, interested pa rties were able to 
provide comments at any stage of the investigatio n and meet with the investigating authority upon 
request.  He further responded that the amended part 4 of Article 28 of the Law obligated the 
investigating authority, prior to the submission to the Government of the Russian Federation of a 
report making proposals as to the final results of the investigation, to provide all interested parties a WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 200  
 
  non-confidential version of that report in sufficient time  so that all interested parties had a meaningful 
opportunity to comment on the essential facts and defend their interests. 
588. A Member noted that Federal Law No. 280- FZ, which amended Federal Law No. 165-FZ, 
provided that foreign exporters and producers, whic h had not had an individual margin calculated, 
would receive the "highest (calculated) rate".  Th is Member asked whether this would apply to cases 
where the investigating authority must sample and could not review a ll cooperating parties.  
The Member then noted that Article 9.4 of th e WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping required that a 
weighted average be used in situations where th ere were administratively too many respondents to 
calculate an individual rate for each. 
589. The Representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 280-FZ, which 
amended Federal Law No. 165-FZ, addressed  these concerns in accordance with the 
WTO Agreement.  Specifically, in cases where foreign exporters or producers of the dumped imports 
were not selected for the calculation of an i ndividual dumping margin, but had submitted requested 
information (e.g., sales information for the purposes of  selecting the sample of exporters or producers 
for whom individual dumping ma rgins would be calculated)  within time limits ascertained for its 
consideration, the representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that the anti-dumping duty 
would not exceed the weighted average dumping marg in, which was established with respect to the 
selected foreign exporters or producers of the dumped imports.   
590. A Member pointed out that Article 16.3 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ did not contain all the 
provisions of Article 9 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
In particular, it did not foresee the possibility of a newcomer review according to Article 9.5 of the 
WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  This Member further noted 
that Article 13.3 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Safeguards, Anti-dumping and 
Countervailing Measures applying to imports of Prod ucts" did not seem to requi re that consideration 
must be given to whether price-undercutting was "signi ficant" or that the effects of imports were to 
depress prices to a "significant" degree, or pr event price increases, which otherwise would have 
occurred to a "significant" degree, as required by Article 3.2 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping.  This Member finally noted that Ar ticle 6.1 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ provided the 
possibility for the Russian Federation to impose safe guard measures when imports rose in relation to 
domestic consumption.  However, Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards only allowed the 
imposition of safeguard measures when imports rose in  absolute terms or in relation to domestic 
production.  He also pointed out that Article 8 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ did not contain any 
reference to the existence of "critical circumstan ces" before the imposition of provisional safeguard  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 201 
 
 
  measures, as provided by Article 6 of the WTO Agre ement on Safeguards.  This Member invited the 
Russian Federation to take up all these issues in its legislation. 
591. The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that, in his view, Federal Law 
No. 280-FZ, which amended Federal Law No. 165- FZ, addressed all of these points in accordance 
with the WTO Agreement.  He confirmed that, from the date of accession, WTO requirements would be met in applying anti-dumping, countervailing a nd safeguard measures in the Russian Federation, 
whether by the competent authority of the Russian Federation or by the competent body of the CU.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
592. A Member posed questions to the Russian Federation regarding the regional industry 
provisions provided under Russian law.  Specifically , this Member asked whether the law of the 
Russian Federation prohibited the assessment of  duties on less than a country-wide basis.  
This Member noted that Article 4.2 of th e WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping only allowed 
country-wide application of duties without limitati on if:  (i) an opportunity to cease exporting at 
dumped prices was provided; and (ii) duties could not be levied on only the products of the specific 
producers supplying the region in question.  The representative of the Russian Federation responded 
that the Constitution of the Russian Federation effe ctively prohibited the collection of duties on less 
than a country-wide basis and that Parts 3 and 4 of Article 33 of Federal Law No. 165-FZ contained 
provisions regarding the regional industry provisi ons that fully corresponded to provisions of 
Article 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping.  
- (b) Regime established Under the Agreement of 25 January 2008  
593. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the provisions of the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 provided the principles for CU Par ties (the Russian Federation, the Republics of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan) to apply trade remedies w ith regard to third countries.  Principles for 
applying trade remedies between the Russian Fede ration, the Republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan and 
Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic we re stipulated in the Protocol of 17 February 2000, which was in 
force as between the three CU Pa rties until the creation of a single customs territory on 1 July 2010 
and was currently no longer applied in their mutual trade. 
594. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Commission Decision 
No. 191 of 26 February 2010 provided that, from 1 July 2010, all final decisions with respect to 
application of common trade remedies in the Russi an Federation and the Republics of Kazakhstan and 
Belarus would be taken by the Commission of the Customs Union.  During the transitional period, 
decisions were taken on the basis of a proposal from the Government of one of the CU Parties that WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 202  
 
  carried out the investigation, as described in the pre ceding part of this section.  After the transition 
period, decisions related to the introduction, review  or termination of trade remedies would be taken 
by the CU Commission on the basis of a proposal fro m the single designated competent authority of 
the CU following the investigation.  The procedural  rules for trade remedy measures would be set-out 
in a separate CU Regulation.  The decisions of the CU Commission would be applied by all Parties to the CU, within the whole territory of the CU, to the imports of relevant third countries. 
595. Upon the entry into force of the Agreemen t of 25 January 2008, in all trade remedy 
investigations, the domestic industry was defined as :  (i) all producers of a like product (for the 
purposes of the anti-dumping and countervailing inv estigation); (ii) a like product or directly 
competitive product (for the purposes of safeguard inv estigation) in the CU Parties; or (iii) those 
producers who constituted not less than 25 per cent of  the whole production volume in the CU Parties, 
respectively.  Similarly, the relevant import was th e import into the entire single customs territory of 
the CU. 
596. One Member expressed concern that, under the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, an 
investigating authority was obligated to examin e the degree of support for, or opposition to, the 
application for the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties prior to the initiation of an 
investigation.  Specifically, an application must  be supported by those domestic producers whose 
collective output constituted more than 50 per cent of the total production of the like product 
produced by that portion of the domestic industr y expressing either support for, or opposition to, the 
application and that no investigation was to  be initiated when domestic producers, expressly 
supporting the application accounted for less than 25 per cent of total production of the like product, 
produced by the domestic industry.  This Member  asked how the Russian Federation intended to 
comply with its obligations in this regard with resp ect to:  (i) measures in place in the territory of only 
one of the CU Parties prior to the date of the en try into force of the Agreement of 25 January 2008; 
(ii) ongoing investigations on the date of the en try into force of this Agreement; and (iii) new 
investigations after the entry into force of this Agreement.   
597. The representative of the Russian Federation r esponded that in accordance with paragraph 2 
of Article 29.3 of the Agreement of  25 January 2008, the application must be submitted together with 
the evidence of support of such application on the part of producers of a like product in the 
CU Parties.  The following evidence of the supp ort of such application would prove sufficient:  
(i) documents verifying that the production share of the like product by producers in the CU Parties, 
who supported the application, consti tuted not less than 25 per cent of the total production volume of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 203 
 
 
  like product in the CU Parties; and (ii) documents  verifying that the production volume of the like 
product by producers in the CU Parties, who suppor ted the application, c onstituted more than 
50 per cent of the production volume of the like pro duct by producers in the CU Parties, who have 
expressed support or opposition to the application.  
598. He further explained that all these issues would also be addressed in the Transitional 
Agreement signed on 19 November 2010.  The meas ures, which were in place in the national 
territories were subject to the expedited reviews,  before application of these measures on the Common 
Customs territory.  These reviews were to be conduc ted in conformity with the new rules and the 
national regulations to the extent those regul ations did not contradict the Agreement of 
25 January 2008.  The investigations ongoing on the da te of the entry into force of this Agreement 
were to be continued in accordance with the same pr inciples.  Therefore, if the national industry met 
the criteria of the industry of the Customs Union, stipulated by the Agreement of 25 January 2008, the 
investigation would be continued or, following a review, the application of an existing national 
measure would be extended to the Common Customs te rritory, otherwise it would continue to be in 
force within the territory of the party, which app lied the original measure until the termination date 
without right to review in order to prolong the measur e.  In respect of new investigations, they could 
be initiated on behalf of the industry of the Custom  Union or on the own initiative of the competent 
body and conducted on the same principles. 
599. Concerning the concept of threat of material injury, a Member referred to the provisions of 
the Agreement of 25 January 2008 that did not seem to require that the change in circumstances, 
which would create a situation in which the dumping or the provision of subsidies would cause injury, 
must be clearly foreseen and imminent, and asked the representative of the Russian Federation to 
clarify the application of this c oncept by the Russian Federation.  In response, the representative of 
the Russian Federation stated that the Agreement of 25 January 2008 provided that the determination 
of the threat of material injury was to be based  only on economic evidence.  Injury to a domestic 
industry of the CU Parties, as a result of the dum ped or subsidized importe d products, was to be 
established based on the results of the analysis of  the volume of the dumped or subsidized imported 
products, its effect on the prices of like products in the market of the CU Parties and domestic 
producers of the like products in the Custom Union,  etc.  All facts should be foreseen and imminent. 
600. A Member pointed to paragraph 4 of Article 37 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, which 
stated that the CU Commission and other parties having access to confidential information, during the 
investigation, were liable for ma king the confidential information pub lic, as provided for by the laws 
of the country where the competent body had th e seat, and asked to explain this provision.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 204  
 
  This Member further asked the representative of the Russian Federation to clarify how this provision 
was consistent with paragraph 2 of Article 37 of the Agreement of  25 January 2008 and Article 6.5.1 
of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 12.4.1 of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res, which made clear that the responsibility 
for providing public summaries of confidential data rest ed with the interested party that provided the 
confidential data.  Moreover, this Member asked  the representative of the Russian Federation to 
explain who would have access to confidential info rmation during the inves tigation, and how the 
CU Commission would ensure that the confidential data of a party was protected.  Another Member 
asked the representative of the Russian Federati on to explain how the Russian Federation would 
ensure that information provided on a conf idential basis was not disclosed to others.  
601. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation reiterated that the CU Commission 
was liable for making confidential information pub lic and that the interested parties providing 
confidential information were requi red to provide a non-confidential summary.  He further noted that 
the competent authority, which conducted a trad e remedy investigation, must have access to 
confidential information, and that this information would be protected by internal regulations of the 
CU Commission, Article 37 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, and the Protocol on the Order on 
Submission to Authority Conducting the Investigation the Information including Confidential Information for the Purposes of Safeguards, Anti- dumping and Countervailing Investigations, signed 
on 19 November 2010.  He stated that, in the Russian Federation, protection of confidential 
information was provided for in Article 727 of the Civil Code. 
602. A Member asked the representative of the Russi an Federation to explain how it would ensure 
that the information provided during the course of a trade remedy investigation would be used only 
for the purpose of that investigation.  The repres entative of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
information provided during a trade remedy investig ation would be used only for the purpose of that 
investigation. 
603. A Member requested the Russian Federation to  ensure that, non-confidential summaries 
provided sufficient detail and understanding of the confidential information,  in accordance with the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.  The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, 
in accordance with Article 37 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, inter ested parties providing 
confidential information must also provide a non- confidential summary ther eof.  These summaries 
must be in sufficient detail to permit a reasonabl e understanding of the substance of the information 
submitted in confidence.  If the competent body find s that the reasons presented by the interested 
party did not warrant classifying the presented informa tion as confidential, or that the interested party,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 205 
 
 
  who failed to present a non-confidential summary of  the confidential information also failed to 
provide evidence to support the claim that the information was not susceptible of summary, or 
presented evidence that did not support the claim that the information was not susceptible of 
summary, the competent body could disregard such information.  In his view, these provisions fully complied with Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Impl ementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and 
Article 12.4 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. 
604. A Member requested the representative of the Russian Federation to clarify whether 
non-confidential case files would be made available to  the general public, as well as interested parties, 
and to explain how the public files would be accessed (e.g., public reading room, online).  
This Member further asked the representative of the Russian Federation to explain any limitations 
placed on access to non-confidential information submitted to or issued by the CU Commission 
during the course of trade remedy proceedings.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that these issues would be addressed in a CU Commission internal regulation. 
605. A Member asked the representative of the Russian  Federation to explain how, under the new 
regime introduced upon the entry into force of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, the transparency 
and due process provisions of the Agreement on Im plementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailin g Measures, and the Agreement on Safeguards 
would be complied with, in the conduct of trade reme dy investigations.  In particular, this Member 
asked the representative of the Russian Federation to describe what opportunities interested parties 
would have to comment on and make arguments pe rtaining to decisions made by the CU Commission 
and positions taken by other parties in the proceedin gs.  Furthermore, this Member wanted to know 
what procedures would be put in place to ensure that interested parties would have sufficient 
opportunities to defend their interests throughout the course of the investigation.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated, th at the competent authority must ensure the 
publication of the notification concerning the imposition of the provisional and definitive  
anti-dumping, countervailing or safeguard measures.  Such notification must consist of all relevant 
non-confidential information and facts, which formed the basis for the decision.  Interested parties 
would be permitted to comment on the decisions by the competent authority, within the corresponding 
period of time.  He further confirmed that inte rested parties were permitted to comment on the 
decisions by the competent authority within the corresponding period of time, envisaged in the 
Transitional Agreement.  Also paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 30 of the Agreement of 
25 January 2008 stipulated that, upon request of any  interested party, the competent authority must 
allow for consultations on the issues under investiga tion.  The information s ubmitted in written form 
by any interested party, as evidence related to the investigation, would be provided in writing to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 206  
 
  participants in the investigation by the competen t authority with due regard to the protection of 
confidential information.  The competent authority w ould give the participants in the investigation an 
opportunity to examine the other information used in the course of the investigation, which was 
related to the investigation and was not confidentia l.  Based on the written requests from an interested 
party, the competent authority must conduct hearings .  During the hearings, interested parties would 
have the right to present their position orally. 
606. A Member referred to paragraph 5 of Article  30 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008 which 
stated that interested parties could register to pa rticipate in trade remedy investigations, and enquired 
whether this registration requirement would be specifi ed in the initiation notice.  This Member further 
asked the representative of the Russian  Federation to clarify the implica tions, if an interested party did 
not register and whether such non-registration woul d preclude an interested party from defending its 
interests throughout the remainder of the investiga tion.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the registration requirements for an in terested party must be specified in the initiation 
notice and, that reasonable efforts would be made to notify all interested parties on the registration 
requirements and that all interested parties would be  given sufficient time to register.  He further 
explained that interested parties would be deemed as non-cooperative, if they did not respond to their 
questionnaire, within the period specified in the qu estionnaire, or within a longer period, if it was 
granted in response to a request from the interested  party.  Relevant information would be sent to 
registered interested parties only and the duty rate  for non-cooperating partie s would be determined 
on the basis of facts available from other sources. 
607. A Member asked for confirmation that the comments and arguments presented by interested 
parties throughout the course of the investigation would be addressed by the competent authority and 
requested an explanation of the manner in wh ich the competent authority would do this.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that all comments and arguments must be 
addressed to the competent authority in writing a nd would be taken into consideration in the 
investigations. 
608. A Member referred to paragraph 3 of Article 30,  paragraph 2 of Article  39 and paragraph 2 of 
Article 40 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, wh ich stated that decisions pertaining to trade 
remedies would be published by the CU Commission in the "official print publication" and asked the 
representative of the Russian Federation to identify the official journal and/ or national newspapers, 
which would publish decisions pertaining to trade re medy proceedings.  This Member also enquired 
whether such decisions would also be made available online.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that the decisions pe rtaining to trade remedies would be published in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 207 
 
 
  the official publication of the CU Parties.  Moreove r, the decisions were required to be published on 
the website of the competent authority.  Besides,  in accordance with Articles 29.11 and 39.2 of the 
Agreement of 25 January 2008, the competent aut hority must notify in writing the exporting country 
on the imposition of an anti-dumping or countervailing measure and about any other decision concerning application of a trade remedy measure. 
609. A Member referred to paragraph 7 of Article 7 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008, which 
stipulated that the CU Commission might impo se a special duty or safeguard on imports of 
agricultural products without conducting a prior inv estigation and asked the representative of the 
Russian Federation to describe the conditions in  which such an action would be warranted.  
This Member also enquired how the CU Commission would ensure that such an action was consistent 
with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, which require d an investigation to find serious injury, or 
threat of serious injury, to the domestic industry, pr ior to the application of a measure, or consistent 
with Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture .  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that paragraph 7 of Artic le 7 related to special safeguard measures in respect of agricultural 
products, which were introduced in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  
In accordance with this Article, a special duty on agricultural products might be imposed only if the 
growth of imports of the product to the single cust oms territory of the Parties' State surpassed the 
baseline levels.  Specific conditions for determination of baseline level were stipulated in paragraph 8 
of Article 7 of the Agreement of 25 January 2008. 
610. A Member noted that Article 10 of the Agre ement of 25 January 2008 described the way 
sampling was used to determine the dumping margin  and asked whether the selection of exporters, 
producers and importers was made in consultation with and with the consent of the exporters, 
producers or importers concerned.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation informed Members 
that, in accordance with the provisions of Article 10. 8 of this Agreement, in  cases when the competent 
body concluded that it was impracticable to dete rmine the individual margin of dumping for every 
exporter and/or producer of the product due to a la rge number of exporters, producers or importers of 
the product, types of products invol ved, or for any other reason, it could restrict the determination of 
the individual margin of dumping, either to a re asonable number of interested parties or by using 
samples of the product from every exporting count ry which were, as far as the competent body was 
aware of, statistically valid on the basis of informatio n available to the competent body, at the time of 
selection, and could be examined without any disr uptions in the course of the investigation.  
He further confirmed that the selection of expor ters, producers and importers would be made in 
consultation with and with the consent of the exporters, producers or im porters, as it would be 
provided for in future CU administrative regulation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 208  
 
  611. A Member noted that paragraph 11 of Article  10 and paragraph 4 of  Article 16 of the 
Agreement of 25 January 2008 stated that the "all ot hers" rate or duty would be based on the highest 
margin of dumping determined during the inve stigation and asked the representative of the 
Russian Federation to explain why the CU chose to ma ke an adverse inference (i.e. the highest margin 
of dumping) in setting the "all others" rate, as oppo sed to choosing a more neutral method (e.g., the 
weighted-average margin of all participating resp ondents).  Furthermore, this Member asked the 
representative of the Russian Federation to expl ain how this methodology was consistent with 
Article 9.4 of the Agreement on Implemen tation of Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
612. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, if the competent authority found that 
an interested party had failed to cooperate for the purpose of the investigation, the competent 
authority could use an inference that was adverse to the interests of that interested party.  
The competent authority could also determine the dumping margin on the basis of any other 
information at its disposal, including the wei ghted-average margin of all participants.  
613. The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that, if an interested party cooperated, 
but was not selected for the calculation of an individual dumping margin, the anti-dumping duty 
applied would be applied in accordance with Artic le 9.4 of the Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VI of the GATT 1994.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
614. Noting the information given by the represen tative of the Russian Federation on the new 
legislation on trade defence instruments, so me Members of the Working Party asked the 
representative of the Russian Federation to explain what would happen to the trade remedies imposed 
by the Government of the Russian Federation to third countries, not Members to the CU under the 
regime applicable in the Russian Federation, pr ior to the entry into force the Agreement of 
25 January 2008.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained, that an Expert 
Group established under the CU Commission D ecision No. 339 of 17 August 2010 "On the 
Application of Safeguard, Anti-dumping and Counterv ailing Measures in the Territory of the Customs 
Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Russian Fede ration" had elaborated a new expedited review 
mechanism for the individual measu res of the Russian Federation, as well as those of the Republics of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan, which were also stipulated in the Transitional Agreement.  According to this 
mechanism, the expedited reviews would be conducte d by the investigating authority of the party, 
which applied the original measure, in order to  determine whether the existing national measure 
should be applied in the single customs territory of th e CU or be terminated.  The sole criteria used in 
this review would be the determination of the shar e of domestic producers in the investigation, as if 
such an investigation would have been conducte d in respect of the whole CU.  If the review  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 209 
 
 
  established the producers in the CU, accounting for no t less than 25 per cent of total production in the 
CU, which would have supported the measure, this measure would be applied in the single customs 
territory of the CU.  The decision, to apply the meas ure in the single customs territory of the CU, was 
taken by the CU Commission, upon the proposal of the Government whose competent authority had conducted the investigation.   
615. Some Members of the Working Party expressed serious concern about the sole principle 
applied in the expedited reviews, as presente d by the Russian Federation, and invited the 
Russian Federation to enter into a commitment to conduct a full review of the measures currently applied in its territory that might not meet the requirements of the WTO Agreement, including with 
regard to whether measures should be applied throu ghout the CU or terminated.  Interested parties 
should be properly informed about the possibility of  such reviews and reviews should be initiated, 
upon the respective requests of interested parties.  Th e results of these reviews would then be the basis 
for extending the application of measures to th e CU, or terminating the relevant measure. 
616. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, from the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, interested parti es could request the initiation of reviews of trade 
remedy measures imposed by the Russian Federation or  applied in the Russian Federation pursuant to 
a decision of the CU Commission, identifying the elements of the measures, which were not consistent with the WTO Agreement.  He stated that he expected that Russian exporters, after 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, c ould also request reviews of measures currently 
applied by WTO Members against Russian products.  One Member replied that, in its trade remedy 
administration, Russian exporters were presently pe rmitted to ask for reviews of existing measures 
and that such reviews had been regularly conducte d.  This Member further stated that Russian 
exporters would also be able to ask for reviews, after the accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO, and that such reviews would continue to be conducted. 
617. In respect of transmission of functions to c onduct trade remedy investigations from national 
authorities to the CU Commission, the representative of the Russian Federation noted, that it would 
happen when:  (i) a relevant unit was formed in the supra-national body; (ii) methodological 
documents in respect of trade remedy procedures  and calculations were worked out in order to 
develop the Agreement of 25 January 2008, in cluding the arrangements on protection of the 
confidential data on a supra-nationa l level; and (iii) the supra-national statistic base in respect of 
internal and external trade was elaborated.  The decision to transfer the function to conduct trade 
remedy investigations from national authorities to  a supra-national body would be taken by the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC.  Until then, trad e remedy investigations would be conducted by WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 210  
 
  national authorities on behalf of the industry of the Customs Union, as it was stipulated in the 
Agreement of 25 January 2008. 
618. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that every administrative decision, 
action or inaction of the authorities and officials of the Russian Federation in charge of investigations, 
impositions, reviews, termina tions or applications of trade remedies in the Russian Federation, could 
be referred for "judicial review".  He said that be fore 1 July 2010, judicial review in these cases was 
regulated by Federal Law No. 165-FZ.  In accordance with Article 36 of that Law, economic disputes 
and other cases regulated by this Law (including cases challenging normative legal acts and decisions, actions or inactions of the state authorities and official s) were considered by the courts of arbitration.  
The judicial procedure of the hearing of disputes by the courts of arbitration was regulated by Federal 
Law No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 "Arbitration Procedural  Code of the Russian Federation".  It provided 
for the judicial procedure to protect the right s and legal interests of economic operators.  
In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 27 of this  Code, courts of arbitration considered disputes 
within their jurisdiction, to which:  (i) Russi an organizations; (ii) Russian physical persons; 
(iii) foreign organizations; (iv) foreign physical pe rsons; (v) stateless persons  involved in commercial 
activity; or (vi) organizations with foreign invest ments, could be parties, unless otherwise provided 
for by an international treaty of the Russian Federation.  
619. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that decisions of the Commission of 
the Custom Union were supposed to be consider ed by the EurAsEC Court.  Currently, norms 
regulating appeals to decisions of CU bodies were s tipulated in the Statute of the EurAsEC Court.  
The Statute of the EurAsEC Court was adopted by the EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 502 
of 5 July 2010.  The competence of the EurAsEC Court was broadened by the new Statute and now covered issues within the CU, as provided for by the Protocol on the Amendment of the Treaty 
Establishing the EurAsEC", adopted on 7 October 2007.   In particular, the Statute provided for the 
right of the economic operator in the CU Parties to bring a case against the decisions of the 
CU Commission to the EurAsEC Court (paragraph 2,  Article 14).  In accordance with the Statute, 
recourse to the Court by the economic operators and peculiarities of the judicial procedure were determined by the international treaty (paragra ph 3, Article 14).  Such treaty was the Treaty on 
Judicial Recourse to the EurAsEC Court of th e Economic Operators on Disputes within the 
Framework on the CU and Peculiarities of the Judici al Procedure on them, approved by the Decision 
of the Interstate Council of the EurAsEC No. 534 of 9 December 2010 (as described in 
paragraph [162]).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 211 
 
 
  620. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
compliance with the provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the Agreement on Safeguards, 
whether by the competent authorities of the Russi an Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, 
would be ensured.  He further confirmed that the Russian Federation would notify and implement, 
upon accession, all appropriate laws and regulations  applicable in the Russian Federation in 
conformity with the provisions of these Agreemen ts.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
further confirmed that any trade remedy measur e applied on the date of WTO accession of the 
Russian Federation and any trade remedy measure pr ocedure launched before the date of accession as 
well as any trade remedy measure resulting there from, whether by the competent authority of the 
Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would be consistent  with the relevant 
WTO Agreement, as of the date of accession.  He also confirmed that all interested parties, as defined 
in the relevant WTO Agreement, would have acces s to any non-confidential information that was 
relevant to any trade remedy measure applied on the date of WTO accession of the Russian Federation, or adopted subsequently, on th e basis of an investigation or review launched 
before its accession.  The representative of the Russi an Federation also confirmed that, from the date 
of WTO accession of the Russian Federation, any in terested party could request the initiation of a 
review of any trade remedy measure, applied on th e date of accession or adopted subsequently, on the 
basis of an investigation or review launched before the WTO accession of the Russian Federation, 
identifying the elements of that measure, which were, in their view, not consistent with the 
above-mentioned WTO Agreement.  In addition,  and with respect to the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards, he confirmed that the Russian Federa tion would, in particular, hold consultations under 
Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards with supplying Members and disclose information 
as provided for by Article 3 of that Agreement.   He further confirmed that information in 
anti-dumping investigations would also be disclosed , as provided for in Articles 6.9 and 12 of the 
WTO Agreement on Anti-dumping and, in the case of countervailing investigations by Articles 12.3 
and 12.8 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures , whether by the 
competent authorities of the Russian Federation or  competent bodies of the CU.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments. 
2. Export Regulations 
- Export Duties 
621. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that export duties were levied pursuant to 
Article 3 of the Law of the Russian Federati on No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 212  
 
  (as last amended on 3 December 2008).  The CU Ag reement of 25 January 2008 "On Export Duties 
with regard to Third Countries" did not provide for unified export tariffs and export tariff regulation.  
Thus, after the establishment of the Customs Union,  export duties remained subject to regulation at 
the national level. 
622. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that export duties were applied on an 
MFN basis with the exceptions describ ed in this Section.  Goods exported to Parties of the Treaty on 
the Customs Union and Single Economic Space of 26  February 1999 (the Republics of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the Kyrg yz Republic) were exempted from application of export duties. 
623. The representative of the Russian Federation further informed Members that, taking into 
account the provisions of the Free Trade Agreemen t between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, 
and, in accordance with the Government Resoluti on No. 291 of 30 April 2010 "On Rates of Export 
Customs Duties on Gas delivered from the Territory of the Russian Federation to the Territory of 
Ukraine", a special regime of export duties on na tural gas had been established with respect to 
Ukraine.  According to this Resolution, a certain vol ume of natural gas (up to 40 billion cubic metres 
per year, since 2011 until 2019, inclusive) exported fro m the Russian Federation to Ukraine could be 
exempted from export duties.  The export duty on natural gas, exported from the Russian Federation 
to Ukraine, above this volume (t hat is, above 40 billion cubic metres per year, during the period from 
2011 to 2019, inclusive) was determined based on Government Resolution No. 795 of 
23 December 2006 "On the Establishment of the Rates of the Export Customs Duties on Goods 
Exported from the Territory of the Russian Federa tion beyond the Borders of Countries that are 
Parties to Agreements on Customs Union". 
624. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that the Russian Federation applied export 
duties to goods exported to other CIS countries w ith which the Russian Federation had concluded 
Free Trade Agreements.  All changes in export duties were published officially. 
625. One Member expressed concern that the Russian Federation applied different export duties to 
oil produced in the Eastern Siberian fields and in Caspian fields, on the one hand, and oil produced in 
the rest of the country, on the other.  Under Resolution No. 1110 of 24 December 2010 "On Approval 
of Rates of Export Duties on Crude Oil and Ce rtain Types of Goods Produced from Crude Oil 
Exported outside the Territory of the Russian Fede ration and the Territories of States - Members of 
the Customs Union", the applied export duty for oil produced in the above-mentioned fields was 
US$117.5 per tonne, whereas the duty for oil produ ced in other fields was US$317.5 per tonne.  
This Member noted that, due to the existing transm ission infrastructure, the oil with a lower export 
duty was not equally available to all WTO Members and this export duty differentiation could result  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 213 
 
 
  in a de facto  discrimination between oil exports on the basis of the country of destination.  
Furthermore, this Member noted that a slight chemical difference between these two types of crude 
oil, produced in the Russian Federation, might not be sufficient to consider  that these two types of 
crude oil were not like products.  This Member re quested the Russian Federation to eliminate any 
existing unjustified discriminatory practices with rega rd to applied export duties for crude oil and to 
undertake a commitment to apply export duties in a non-discriminatory manner, in conformity with 
Article I of the GATT 1994. 
626. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that in 1998 export duties had been im posed on raw materials and semi-finished goods, 
mainly for fiscal purposes, and now ranged from 3 to 50 per cent, with a few exceptions where higher 
export duties were applied.  In very few cases (oil seeds, raw hides and skins), export duties had been 
imposed to ensure greater availability of raw materi als for the domestic industry.  Export duties on 
non-ferrous and ferrous metals waste and scrap (and  those in the guise of other products, e.g., used 
axle-boxes) had been imposed to address problems of environmental protection. 
627. The representative of the Russian Federation also  explained that, over the last few years, the 
overall number of products subject to export duti es had been reduced four times, from 1,200 to 
310 tariff lines. 
628. In response to requests from Members of th e Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation informed Members that export duti es were subject to regular review (the latest 
changes to Government Resolution No. 795 of 23 December 2006 "On the Establishment of the Rates 
of the Export Customs Duties on Goods Exported from the Territory of the Russian Federation beyond the Borders of Countries that are Parties to Agreements on Customs Union" had been made on 
12 November 2010).  Export duties were also the s ubject of bilateral tariff negotiations with some 
Members. 
629. Several Members of the Working Party were of the view that export duties acted as indirect 
subsidies to domestic downstream us ers and, thus, could distort international trade.  Noting that the 
Russian Federation had argued that export duties were levied mainly for fiscal purposes, some 
Members expressed concerns that the effect of these duties was to discriminate against foreign buyers 
and to raise the level of the export price so that third-country producers encountered their own 
difficulties of supply for the products concerned;  suffered from increased production costs resulting 
from higher input or energy costs; and/or faced a situation where they lost relative competitiveness on 
the global market for downstream products, as a result  of the indirect price support given to domestic 
Russian producers competing in the same markets.  This was particularly the case, as a result of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 214  
 
  export duties on minerals, petrochemi cals, natural gas, raw hides a nd skins, ferrous and non-ferrous 
metals and scrap.  Some Members also expressed a concern that export duties on certain products, 
notably, wood and ferrous and non-fe rrous metals, were being used to distort investment decisions in 
processing industries and gave companies, which we re producing in the Russian Federation, a cost 
advantage.  These Members requested the Russian Federation to make a commitment to phase-out 
export duties under an established timetable describ ing specific modalities.  The Russian Federation 
should also commit that export duties would no t be applied on other products and that, once 
eliminated, export duties on products, currently affect ed, would not be re-introduced.  In particular, 
some Members were concerned that the introductio n of new export duties, or their re-introduction 
after elimination, created considerable uncertainty  as to the reliability of supplies of certain raw 
materials from the Russian Federation.  Some Me mbers also requested the Russian Federation to 
reduce the number of products subject to export du ties, especially the products with higher value 
added (e.g. a coniferous bo nded wood), so that the negative impact in trade in such products could be 
minimized. 
630. Some Members of the Working Party also stat ed that the Russian Federation should describe 
its future plans, in conjunction with its appli cation of export duties, VAT, and excise charges to 
exports.  In particular, those Members sought conf irmation that the Russian Federation had removed 
some export duties, and information on plans in this  regard.  In light of improvements in the economic 
situation in the Russian Federation, those Members enquired whether the export taxes were still 
necessary to deal with external debt.  Some Me mbers sought clarification on the increase of export 
duties on oil and natural gas and expressed concern about the potential impact of such measures on 
prices.  Some Members of the Working Party stated , however, that they considered that export duties 
could play a legitimate role as a tool for trade policy. 
631. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that certain export duties 
continued to play an important fiscal role in the Russian Federation.   He noted that, in most cases, 
export duties did not affect the price at which an  exported commodity (i.e. natural gas, oil, oil 
products, non-ferrous metals) was purchased abroad.  He further noted that the level of export duties 
on crude oil and oil products was linked to the worl d price of crude oil and, therefore, fluctuated 
accordingly.  They were being revised monthly, acco rding to paragraph 14, po int 4 of Article 3 of 
Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff".  As for the 30 per cent export duty on natural gas, he explained that this export duty had replaced the pre-existing 
excise taxes on natural gas, which were eliminated (see Section "Excise Taxes").  Export duties of a 
fiscal nature permitted the Russian Federation to re plenish the budget (which was also required to 
comply with the international financial commitments of the Russian Federation).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 215 
 
 
  632. Export duties of a regulatory nature were used to influence the volume of exports and address 
both problems of environmental protection and economic needs.  These duties concerned, for 
instance, such goods as non-ferrous scrap, which we re mainly destined for exportation, as there was 
hardly any domestic demand (especially, for aluminiu m and nickel scrap).  He further explained that 
the export duty was also linked to the need to pr event illegal production of non-ferrous scrap and was 
considered the most effective wa y to curb this phenomenon, as it made exports of those products 
unprofitable or, substantially, reduced profitability.  He added that his Government was considering 
other means to address this problem, such as a licen sing mechanism to monitor exports.  He stated 
that, in his view, export duties could not be considered as a subsidy in the sense of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  
633. As for the export duty rates on raw timber (HS 4403), which were increased several times 
since the beginning of 2007, the purpose of this me asure was to accelerate the restructuring of the 
wood and paper industry of the Russian Federa tion and to address environmental concerns.  
Certain Members expressed doubts about the existence of environmental concerns that would justify 
this measure.  Concerning timber, the latest ch anges to export duties were made by Resolution 
No. 442 of 16 June 2010 "On the Rates of Export Customs Duties Related to Certain Types of 
Timber, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries th at are Members of CU Agreements".  According 
to this Resolution, the export duty rate for a small group of "other" precious woods was reduced from €100 per cubic metre to 25 per cent or not less than €15 per cubic metre. 
634. In the non-ferrous metals sector, export duties on copper cathode and unalloyed nickel 
(HS Codes 7403 11 00 and 7502 10 00) were increased  to 10 per cent (from zero for copper and from 
5 per cent for nickel) following Resolution No. 893 of 12 November 2010 "On the Rates of Export Customs Duties related to Copper Cathode, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries that are Members of CU Agreements" and Resolution No. 89 3 of 12 November 2010 "On the Rates of Export 
Customs Duties related to Unalloyed Nickel, Exported Beyond the Borders of Countries that are 
Members of CU Agreements". 
635. The representative of the Ru ssian Federation further observed that export duties were 
permitted under WTO rules, and that many Members of the WTO applied export duties as an 
instrument of trade policy.  In this regard, his Government considered that the request of several 
Members that the Russian Federation established a timetable to completely phase-out export duties 
was excessive. 
636. In response to the request of a Member to e liminate export duties on ferrous scrap and copper 
cathode well in advance of accession, the representati ve of the Russian Federation noted that export WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 216  
 
  duties were the subject of bilateral negotiati ons and their results would be duly reflected. 
This Member indicated that it had accepted the invita tion to engage in bilate ral negotiations with the 
Russian Federation to reduce its export duties on th e above-mentioned products, in the context of the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.  In  its view, the results of these negotiations, which 
could be found in [Table 31], would form part of  the balance of commitments and concessions in the 
terms of accession of the Russian Federation.   This Member emphasized that, if the 
Russian Federation subsequently increased these expor t duties above the commitment level, it would 
disturb the balance of concessions established in  the bilateral and multilateral negotiations for 
WTO accession, and this Member would have the right  to take appropriate action to re-balance the 
concessions.  Some other Members stated that this was without prejudice to their views in respect of 
the status and legality of export duties in  the framework of the WTO Agreement. 
637. As noted above, the Russian Federation unde rtook bilateral tariff negotiations on export 
duties with some Members of the Working Party.   The tariff concessions and commitments resulting 
from these negotiations were contained in Part V of the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods of the Russian Federation, which formed Annex 1 to the Protocol on the Accession of the 
Russian Federation.  The representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that [Table 32] of this Report 
included all export duties applied by the Russian Federation. 
638. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
implement, from the date of accession, its tariff c oncessions and commitments contained in Part V of 
the Schedule of Concessions and Commitments  on Goods of the Russian Federation.  
Accordingly, products described in Part V of that Schedule would, subject to the terms, conditions or 
qualifications set-forth in that Part of the Schedule, be exempt from export duties in excess of those set-forth and provided therein.  The representative of  the Russian Federation further confirmed that 
the Russian Federation would not apply other measur es having an equivalent effect to export duties on 
those products.  He confirmed that, from the date  of accession, the Russian Federation would apply 
export duties in conformity with  the WTO Agreement, in particular with Article I of the GATT 1994.  
Accordingly, with respect to export duties and char ges of any kind imposed on, or in connection with 
exportation, any advantage, favour, privilege or im munity granted by the Russian Federation to any 
product destined for any other country shall be acco rded immediately and unconditionally to the like 
product destined for the territories of all othe r WTO Members.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Fede ration would, from the date of accession to the 
WTO, administer export tariff rate quotas (TRQs)  in a manner that is consistent with the 
WTO Agreement and in particular the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 217 
 
 
  - Application of VAT Refund to Exports 
639. In response to a question by a Member about the regulations relevant to VAT refund, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained that the refund of VAT was made in accordance 
with the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No.117-FZ dated 5 August 2000, last 
amended on 7 March 2011).  He r eaffirmed that the implementati on of VAT refund would be made 
promptly and properly within the period specifi ed under the relevant laws and regulations. 
- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas  
640. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that, from 1 January 2010, the legal basis 
for the application of export restrictions, including prohibitions and quotas, on goods exported to third 
countries from the CU could be found in:  (i) EurA sEC Board of Heads of States Decision No. 19 of 
27 November 2009 and the Agreement on Common Measu res of Non-Tariff Regulation in respect of 
Third Countries, signed on 25 January 2008 (her eafter: CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation); 
(ii) the Agreement on the Procedure of Introduc tion and Implementation of Measures, Concerning 
Foreign Trade in Goods, on the Common Customs Terr itory in Respect of Third Countries (hereafter:  
CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade), signed on 9 June 2009; and (iii) the 
Agreement on Licensing Procedures in the Sphere of  Foreign Trade in Goods, signed on 9 July 2009 
(hereafter:  CU Agreement on Licensing).  As a c onsequence, decisions to impose non-tariff measures 
on exports from the CU Parties to third coun tries would be taken by the CU Commission.  
The CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 27 Novemb er 2009 "On a Single Non-Tariff Regulation of 
the Customs Union of the Republic of Belarus, Re public of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation" 
approved the Common List of Goods that are Subject to Non-Tariff Measures (see [Table 28]), which 
also came into force on 1 January 2010.  The repres entative of the Russian Federation explained, that, 
prior to the establishment of the CU, the impos ition of non-tariff measures  on exports was governed 
by Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the Fundamentals of State Regulation of 
Foreign Trade Activity" (as amended on 2 February 2006).  He noted that this legislation would 
remain in effect, to the extent provided for in  the CU legislation.  In addition, separate 
CU Agreements (referred to in Section "Export Li censing Procedures") set-out the circumstances in 
which exports of precious metals and stones, as well as mineral raw materials were subject to bans or 
quantitative restrictions. 
641. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that, according to Article 3 of 
the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, the ex port of goods from the Russian Federation, being 
a CU Party, was carried out without quantitative li mitations, except to prevent or reduce a critical 
shortage of foodstuffs or other goods considered essential for the domestic market.  According to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 218  
 
  Article 7 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regul ation, and in accordance with Federal Laws and 
international treaties, non-tariff measures could be imposed on exports from the Russian Federation, if 
those measures:  (i) were necessary to maintain public  morals or law and order; (ii) were necessary to 
protect the life or health of citizens, environment,  life or health of animals and plants; (iii) were 
related to the import or export of gold or silver; (i v) were applied to protect cultural valuables and 
heritage; (v) were required to prevent the e xhaustion of irreplaceable natural resources and 
implemented simultaneously with curtailment of the domestic production or consumption associated 
with the utilization of irreplaceable natural resource s; (vi) were linked to a limitation of export of 
domestic raw materials to provide sufficient quantity of such materials for the domestic 
manufacturing industry in periods when domestic pri ces for such materials were kept lower than 
world prices, as the result of a stabilization plan implemented by the Government; (vii) were essential 
to acquire or distribute goods in case of their genera l or local shortage; (viii) were essential to comply 
with international obligations; (ix) were essential to ensure the defence of the country and security of 
the State; and (x) were necessary to ensure the ob servance of regulatory legal acts not contravening 
international commitments and related to the app lication of the Customs Law, preservation of the 
environment, protection of intellect ual property, and other legal acts. 
642. He further stated that, pursuant to Article 8 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation, 
the CU Commission was authorised to apply quantitative export restrictions and prohibitions to fulfil the obligations of a CU Party under international sanct ions regimes or to protect the external financial 
situation and safeguard the balance of payments (s ee Section "Balance of payments" of this Report).  
To meet these situations, the CU Commission was aut horised to apply quantitative export restrictions 
or grant exclusive licenses to import or export base d on proposals from a CU Party.  Such measures 
would be implemented in accordance with Fede ral Laws of the Russian Federation and the 
international Agreements to which the Russian Fede ration was a party.  In response to a question from 
a Member, the representative of the Russian Federati on explained that the list of general exceptions 
stipulated in Articles 7 and 8 of the CU Agreemen t on Non-Tariff Regulations  was exhaustive and no 
other document within the CU provided for such ex ceptions.  He further explained that although the 
imposition of export restrictions was not provided  for under Article 7 of the CU Agreement on 
Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, the CU Par ties would amend the CU Agreement on Measures 
Concerning Foreign Trade to include the authority to apply export restrictions in appropriate situations.   
643. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that, as of 1 January 2010, pursuant to 
Article 9 of the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regu lation and Article 1 of the CU Agreement on 
Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, the authority to impose non-tariff measures on exports from a  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 219 
 
 
  CU Party to third countries was transferred from the individual Parties to the CU Commission.  
A proposal to apply a non-tariff measure could be filed by a Party or the CU Commission, and the 
CU Commission was required to make its determin ation within 30 days from the date the proposal 
was submitted.  The decision, if positive, would come into force 45 days after the date of publication.  
Such non-tariff measures would be applied to goods destined for third countries, and applied equally 
to exports to all countries. 
644. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that under Article 9 of the CU Agreem ent on Non-Tariff Regulation and Article 8 of the 
CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trad e, and pursuant to the procedures set-forth in 
the latter Agreement, a CU Party could unilaterally impose temporarily a non-tariff measure, if such a 
measure was aimed at:  (i) the observance of public morality, law and order; (ii) defence and security; 
(iii) protection of life or health of the citizens, environment, life or health of animals and plants; 
(iv) protection of cultural values and cultural he ritage; (v) protection of intellectual property; 
(vi) prevention of the exhaustion of irreplaceable natu ral resources; or (vii) prevention or reduction of 
the critical shortage in the domestic market of f ood or other goods essential for the domestic market.  
He further noted that the CU Parties would am end the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning 
Foreign Trade to allow a CU Party to impose unila terally a non-tariff measure on a temporary basis if 
such measure was aimed at the protection of th e external financial position and safeguarding the 
balance of payments.  Furthermore, based on its "n ational interest" a CU Party could, pursuant to 
Article 6.1 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign Trade, request the 
CU Commission to impose non-tariff measures on e xports.  If the CU Commission rejected the 
proposal, the CU Party could, under Article 6.7 of that Agreement, impose such measures unilaterally, 
in conformity with Articles 8 through 10 of the CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign 
Trade.  Under these Agreements, unilateral meas ures could be imposed for only six months.  
The CU Parties, not imposing the non-tariff measure, were to take the necessary steps to prevent the 
exportation of the subject good(s) from the CU Party applying the non-tariff measures to third 
countries.  CU Parties, not applying the measure , were to require licenses and/or permits for 
exportation of the subject goods from their respective territories.   
645. Some Members noted that quantitative expor t restrictions, including quotas, bans and 
non-automatic licensing restrictions were prohibited by the GATT 1994, unless specifically justified, and requested the Russian Federation to list (iden tifying by HS tariff number) and justify any current 
export bans or quantitative restrictions in pl ace.  These Members also requested additional 
information on exports of unprocessed precious metals  and stones, the quantitative restrictions on the 
export of natural gas and the ban on exports of grain (and the consis tency of these measures with the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 220  
 
  requirements of Article XI of the GATT 1994).  Con cerning gas, they noted that, as provided for in 
Federal Law No. 69-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Gas S upply in the Russian Federation" and noted in 
the most recent OECD Economic Survey, Gazprom was required to supply the domestic market.  
They considered this to be a de facto  restraint on exports.  Members also asked the Russian Federation 
to provide a list of all quantitative restrictions el iminated since 1996 and to clarify the reference to 
"essential national interests", as a justification fo r export quotas and any possible relation of this 
reference to relevant WTO provisions that referred to essential security interest.   
646. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that, pursuant to Government 
Resolutions No. 599 of 5 August 2010 and No. 654 of 30 August 2010, the temporary ban on grain 
exports was applied due to the severe drought conditi ons that had sharply reduced the 2010 harvest of 
the Russian Federation, in order to prevent cr itical shortages of food for human and animal 
consumption, which would occur, unless steps were ta ken to maintain domestic supplies.  He further 
explained that the Russian Federation would te rminate the export ban in accordance with the 
CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation and th e CU Agreement on Measures Concerning Foreign 
Trade, unless it was justified under the relevant  provisions of the WTO Agreement, and the 
CU Commission decided that all CU Parties would apply the export ban.   
647. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that upon accession to the WTO, the Ru ssian Federation would apply such quantitative 
export restrictions, in accordance with Article  XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 12 of the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture.   
- (a) Precious stones and metals 
648. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that, as of 1 January 2010, the procedures 
for the import and export of precious metals and st ones were set-forth in the Regulations "On the 
Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic 
Community and the Export from the Customs Territory  of the Customs Union within the Eurasian 
Economic Community of Precious Metals, Preci ous Stones and Commodities Containing Precious 
Metals" (hereafter in this Section:  the Regula tions) adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 
of 27 November 2009.  Pursuant to  these Regulations, those products lis ted in section 2.9 and 2.10 of 
the Common List attached to Decision No. 132 of 27 November 2009 (see [Table 28]) were subject to 
licensing requirements.  In addition, the relevant  provisions of the Presidential Decree No. 1137 of 
20 September 2010 as well as the Agreement on Licens ing, continued to apply, as provided in the 
Regulations on Precious Stones and Metals.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 221 
 
 
  649. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther stated that the exportation from the 
Russian Federation under the customs regime of expor t of natural diamonds (except for unique natural 
diamonds and the natural diamonds of the form " board" and "drilling", regardless of their sizes and 
degrees of processing, sieve diamonds of "-3+2" cl asses and lower classes), refined platinum and 
metals of platinum group in the fo rm of bullions, plates, powder and granules, and also nuggets of the 
precious metals, the raw precious metals, ores and concentrates of precious metals, the raw goods, 
containing precious metals, scrap and waste produc ts of precious metals was implemented without 
quantitative restrictions on the basis of the licenses,  which had been given out by the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade (MIT) of the Russian Federation.   He explained that Presidential Decree No. 742 
of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure for Importation into and Exportation from the Russian Federation 
of Precious Metals and Precious Stones" and Pr esidential Decree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 
"On Regulations on Importation to the Russi an Federation and Exportation from the 
Russian Federation of Natural Diamonds and Cut Diamonds" had been amended.  These amendments 
abolished quantitative export restri ctions on natural diamonds, unwrought  platinum and metals of the 
platinum group and raw materials, containing preci ous stones, and removed bans on the export of 
certain types of goods, such as wastes and scraps  of precious metals; precious metals ores and 
concentrates. 
650. With regard to procedures for exporting precious stones and precious metals, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained th at information on the formalities for obtaining an 
export licence was provided in the Section "Export Li censing Procedures" of this Report.  He also 
explained that all documentation a nd procedures for exports or impor ts of these goods were to be 
completed at specific customs checkpoints (see Sect ions "Other Customs Formalities (Import)" and 
"Other Customs Export Formalities" of this Report). 
651. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that the Russian Federation had eliminated all quant itative restrictions on exports of precious stones 
and metals, and that it had brought its national legislation on export restrictions for precious metals 
and stones into accordance with WTO disciplines.  Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 
"On the Procedure for Importation into and Expor tation from the Russian Federation of Precious 
Metals and Precious Stones" (as amended on 11  January 2007) had abo lished quantitative export 
restrictions and export licensing of articles made of precious stones and meant for industrial-technical 
purposes; precious metals in the form of products and articles; as well as articles of precious stones and natural pearls and coins.  Presidential De cree No. 1373 of 30 Novemb er 2002 "On Regulations on 
Importation to the Russian Federation and Expor tation from the Russian Federation of Natural 
Diamonds and Cut Diamonds" had abolished the need to obtain a licence to export  cut diamonds.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 222  
 
  Under Presidential Decree No. 1373, agents engage d in the manufacturing of cut diamonds were 
entitled to export and/or remove from customs treatment for processing outside the customs territory 
up to 15 per cent of the value of natural diamonds, they had purchased within the year from agents of 
natural diamonds' extraction or the State Fund of  Precious Metals and Precious Stones of the 
Russian Federation.  The MIT issued licenses for the exportation of natural diamonds.  Presidential 
Decree No. 26 of 11 January 2007 "On Improvement of State Regulation for Importation into the 
Russian Federation and Exportation from the Russi an Federation of Precious Metals and Precious 
Stones" had abolished export quota requirement s for precious metals, unprocessed natural diamonds, 
as well as the prohibition for exportation of precious metals ores and concentrates, wastes and scraps 
of precious metals and unprocessed precious metals. 
652. A Member of the Working Party sought informa tion about matters relating to the Regulations 
on Precious Stones and Metals, other than measures applied to facilitate th e participation of the 
Russian Federation in the Kimberley Process.  Information was sought on:  the registration requirements applied to organizati ons involved in the production, domestic or foreign sale of those 
products; whether any legal or natura l person, domestic or foreign, ha d the right to freely engage in 
the exportation, or the domestic purchase for expor t sale, of precious metals and precious stones 
produced in the Russian Federation; whether owne rs of precious metals and precious stones could 
freely sell any amounts of those products, they owned, to any intending exporter; the re-importation requirement for processed diamonds applied to exports  of raw diamonds up to 15 per cent of the value 
of raw diamonds purchased during the current year; and the date of termination of the export quota 
provided to Alrosa.  The Member also requested th e elimination of all quantitative export restrictions 
and other restrictions on the exporta tion of precious metals and preci ous stones without an appropriate 
WTO justification by the date of accession, includi ng all export bans, export quotas, restrictions on 
the right to export, export reporting requirements, re-importation requirements in relation to foreign 
processing of domestic raw diamonds, unjustifiable cu stoms checkpoint requirements and the right of 
first purchase of Gokhran of precious metals and pr ecious stones produced in the Russian Federation, 
and sought a commitment by the Russian Federation not to introduce or re-apply such measures after 
accession and to only apply measures relating to or  in connection with the exportation of these 
products, where justified, under and in conformity  with WTO provisions.  The Member, moreover, 
urged the Russian Federation to consider monitori ng exports of precious metals and precious stones 
through the adoption of automatic licensing, as alternative to export registration, reporting requirements, and other restrictions. 
653. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that the information concerning persons 
who had the right to engage in the exportation of precious metals and precious stones produced in the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 223 
 
 
  Russian Federation, and the registration requireme nts for them were contained in the Section 
"Registration Requirements for Import/Export Opera tions" of this Report.  The Regulations on 
Precious Stones and Metals, as well as Presidential D ecree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Form of 
Import and Export on the Territory of the Russian Federation of Precious Meta ls and Precious Stones" 
and Presidential Decree No. 1373 of 30 November  2002 "On Approval of the Regulations on Import 
into the Territory of the Russian Federation and Ex port from the Territory of the Russian Federation 
of Natural Diamonds and Brilliants" formed the lega l basis for these issues.  He added that all 
organizations, which were involve d in operations with precious stones and metals, had to be 
registered at State inspections of assay (Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998).  A mandatory requirement for registration entailed reporting to the fiscal authorities of the Russian Federation. 
654. In accordance with paragraph 14 of the Regul ations on Precious Stones and Metals, legal 
entities and individual entrepreneurs that had le gal possession of the precious stones and metals, and 
were authorised to carry out operations with preci ous stones or metals, or their agents, may export 
precious stones and metals (excluding diamonds) from the CU, in accordance with the laws of the 
Russian Federation.  Similarly, under paragraph 24 of the Regulations on Precious Stones and Metals, 
the export for processing of precious metals and gems tones might be carried out only by legal persons 
or individual entrepreneurs who held an activity  licence.  The regulations further established 
minimum pricing requirements for diamonds as well as raw precious metals, ores and concentrates of 
precious metals, and prohibited the exportation of  raw materials for further processing only upon the 
finding from the CU Party that the raw materials c ould not be processed within the CU.  In response 
to the question from some Members, the representativ e of the Russian Federation explained that the 
export quota of Alrosa had been eliminated in Pr esidential Decree No. 1137 of 20 September 2010.  
He further informed Members, that the prohibiti on on exports of raw materials for further processing 
under the condition, that such materials could not be processed in the territory of the CU, applied only 
to goods, exported under the customs procedure of  the processing beyond the CU customs territory.  
According to the above-mentioned customs pro cedure, goods were exported from the customs 
territory without any restrictions and payments  under condition that products processed from these 
raw materials would be re-imported to  the customs territory of the CU. 
655. The representative of the Russian Federati on added that Federal Law No. 90-FZ of 
18 July 2005 "On Amending of Legislative Acts of  the Russian Federation", amended Federal Law 
No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "On Pr ecious Metals and Precious Stones", in accordance with the new 
legislation, namely, Federal Law No. 173-FZ of  10 December 2003 "On Currency Regulation and 
Currency Control" and Federal Law No. 164-FZ of  8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity".  Under Fe deral Law No. 173-FZ, precious stones and metals WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 224  
 
  were not recognised as currency valuables.  Furt hermore, pursuant to Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 
11 November 2003 "On Amending Ar ticle 5 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On State 
Secrets'", and Presidential Decree No. 243 of 3 Ma rch 2005 "On Amendments to the List of State 
Secret Data, Approved Decree of the Preside nt of the Russian Federation No. 1203 of 
30 November 1995", data on extraction, transfer, c onsumption of precious stones and metals had been 
excluded from the list of State secret data.  The am endments simplified the procedure for performing 
transactions with precious stones and metals, a nd made these transactions more transparent. 
- Export Licensing Procedures 
656. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that, as with import licensing, as of 
1 January 2010, the legal basis for the export licensing system in the Russian Federation was 
established in:  (i) the Agreement on Common Measu res for Non-Tariff Regulation in Respect of 
Third Counties, signed on 25 January 2008 (hereafte r:  CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation); 
(ii) the Agreement on the Introduction and Appli cation of Measures Concerning Foreign Trade in 
Goods on the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries, signed on 9 June 2009 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Measures Concerni ng Foreign Trade); and (iii) the Agreement on 
Licensing in the Area of Foreign Merchandise Trad e of 9 July 2009 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on 
Licensing).  The CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 27 November 2009 approved the Common List of Goods that might be subject to non-tariff measures (see [Table 28]), including those subject to export licensing, which also came into force on 1 January 2010.   
657. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that in addition to the CU Agreements 
and Commission Decisions, national legislation of  the Russian Federation, including Federal Law 
No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental s of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity" (as amended on 2 February 2006), and Reso lution No. 364 of 9 June 2005 "On the Approval 
of the Regulations for Licensing in the Area of Foreign Trade in Goods and on Creating and Keeping 
a Federal Data Bank of Issued Licenses", continued to regulate the application of the licensing regime 
in the Russian Federation.  For example, Fede ral Law No. 164-FZ established the conditions and 
procedures for applying supervision of export and/ or import of certain kinds  of goods.  Similarly, 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ set-forth the procedures fo r applying for an export licence or permit.  
658. The most sensitive goods were subject to n on-automatic licensing (Table 33).  Among the 
goods subject to non-automatic licenses, were goods with cryptographic capabilities, governed by the 
Regulations of 27 November 2009 "On the Order of En try into the Customs Territory of the Customs 
Union and Removal of the Customs Territory of the Customs Union of Encryption (Cryptographic) Means", and mineral raw materials, governed by Re gulations "On the Order of Exportation of Mineral  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 225 
 
 
  Raw Materials from the Customs Territory of th e Customs Union", adopted by CU Commission 
Decision No. 132.  A limited number of goods were s ubject to automatic licensing for the purpose of 
monitoring trade flows (see [Table 28]).  He conf irmed that [Table 28] was comprehensive and that 
there were no other exports subject to licensing requirements at this time.   
659. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that according to the CU Licensing 
Agreement, the Ministry of Industry and Trade (h ereafter:  authorised state body of executive power 
in the Russian Federation) issued th ree types of licenses:  (i) one-time; (ii) general; and (iii) exclusive.  
One-time licenses were issued to applicants on the basis of a foreign trade contract relating to goods 
subject to export licensing.  One-time and general licenses were issued to applicants, upon decision of 
the authorised body of the Russian Federation.  Bo th types of licenses granted the right to export 
certain types of goods, subject to licensing, in th e quantity determined by the licence and were valid 
for one year or, for goods with respect to whic h provisional quantitative restrictions had been 
introduced, until 1 January of the following calendar year.  Exclusive licenses gave the applicant the 
exclusive right to export certain types of goods.  Th e goods subject to exclusive licenses were to be 
decided by the CU Commission; the holders of an exclusive licence would be designated by the 
authorised body of each CU Party.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation noted that, in 2007, 
prior to the establishment of the CU export licensing  regime, Gazprom had been granted an exclusive 
export licence that was effective in the territory of  the Russian Federation.  He explained, however, 
that until now, no CU exclusive export licenses ha d been issued in the Russian Federation.  
The territorial application of a CU exclusive e xport licence was currently being negotiated by the 
CU Parties. 
660. One-time and general licenses were issued by th e Ministry of Trade and Industry, with the 
exception of licenses for the exportation of military products and goods that could be used to create 
weapons of mass destruction, means of transpor tation of such weapons, and other armament and 
defence technology, which were delivered by the Mi nistry of Defence of the Russian Federation.  
Licenses were issued upon receipt of the following documents:  (i) an application for the licence; 
(ii) an electronic version of the application; (iii) a copy of the contract; (iv) a copy of a certificate 
confirming that the applicant was registered by a re gional tax authority as a tax-payer; (v) a copy of 
the activity licence, if applicable; a nd (vi) other documents, as required. 
661. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, if the good in question was 
subject to a quota, export licenses would be require d.  Pursuant to Government Resolution No. 1299 
of 31 October 1996, tender announcements for quota a llocations had to be published in mass media 
("Rossiiyskaya Gazeta", "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", etc. ), at least 30 days prior to the date of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 226  
 
  tender.  Information on tenders, au ctions and procedures for holding te nders and auctions for the sale 
of a quota were published on the website of  the Ministry of Economic Development 
(www.economy.gov.ru).  Additional information w as provided in the Section "Import Licensing 
Systems" of this Report.   
662. Several Members of the Working Party expressed  concerns about the export licensing regime 
of the Russian Federation, whilst noting that th e Russian Federation did not presently apply many 
export quotas.  The same Members considered th at a system of non-automatic export licensing, 
however, applied to a wide range of  products and that such measures had the potential to be applied in 
a manner contrary to the general prohibition of qu antitative restrictions on exports, provided for in 
Article XI of the GATT 1994.  In the case of pr ecious stones and metals, the legislation on export 
licensing was applied to certain products listed in [Table 28], as provided for in Presidential Decree 
No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the Procedure of Importation into and Exportation from the 
Russian Federation of Precious Metals and Precious Stones".  Pursuant to the Decree, exports of 
platinum were permitted under licenses within quant itative limits.  While a rationale could exist for 
the application of certain controls on ex ports under the relevant GATT exception clauses 
(including Articles XX and XXI of the GATT 1994), for example, in respect of the exports of dual 
use goods, hazardous products, endangere d species, etc., the rationale for such controls on the exports 
of other goods, particularly pharmaceuticals, preci ous stones and metals, other than gold and silver, 
was less clear.   Automatic licensing, which was already app lied for exports of raw hides and skins, 
provided a mechanism to monitor export flows, if this was considered desirable.  However, as 
discretionary controls on these particular products we re unlikely to meet the relevant criteria of the 
exceptions clauses of the GATT 1994, it was essentia l that any licensing regime be genuinely 
automatic in order to avoid restrictions on trade.   
663. Several Members also requested more information on the procedures followed and fees 
charged in connection with the issuance of export li censes.  They requested confirmation that any fees 
charged on exports were related to the cost of ser vices rendered, in accordance with WTO provisions.  
Some Members questioned whether the restrictions  on precious stones and metals, semi-precious 
stones, objects made thereof, certain alloys, semi- fabricates, ores, concentrates and wastes could be 
justified under the WTO provisions invoked by the authorities of the Russian Federation.  
These Members considered that the Russian Federati on should provide a more detailed explanation of 
the measures applied to these products that the Russian Federation was seeking to justify under 
Article XV:9(b) of the GATT 1994, including:  (i) a description of each measure and its legal basis; 
(ii) the bodies involved in applying those measur es, including details of their responsibilities; 
(iii) the products affected by each measure; (iv) the export licensing procedures applicable, including  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 227 
 
 
  details of any restrictions on eligibility for expor t licenses, and other terms and conditions associated 
with their issuance; (v) the provisions of the exch ange arrangements of the Russian Federation with 
the IMF, which were currently in force and require d the Russian Federation to adopt or maintain the 
measures applied by means of non-automatic export licensing that the Russian Federation was seeking 
to justify under Article XV:9(b) of the GATT 1994; and (vi) the plans of the Russian Federation to 
eliminate all measures applied by means of non- automatic export licensing that might be required 
under those arrangements at the conclusion of their term.   
664. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the Register of Licensed 
Goods in the Russian Federation was available on the official website of the MIT (www.minpromtorg.gov.ru), which contained:  (i) the code of the goods, according to the Commodity Nomenclature of the Russian Federation; (ii) the basis for licensing; (iii) the Federal enforcement 
authority responsible for licensing; and (iv) the re ference to the normative act defining the order of 
licensing.  According to Government Resolu tion No. 364 of 9 June 2005 "On the Approval of 
Regulations about the Order of Licensing in the Sp here of Foreign Trade in Goods and about the 
Order of Formation and Conducting Federal Bank of the Given Licences in the Sphere of Foreign 
Trade", the fee for the issuance of the licence was RUB 1,000, the fee for re-issuance was RUB 100 
and the fee for the processing of the applicati on for issuance of the licence was RUB 300.   
665. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that work w as on-going to bring 
national and CU export licensing provisions into conformity with WTO disciplines.  Federal Law 
No. 157-FZ "On the State Regulation of Foreign Tr ade Activity" had been replaced by Federal Law 
No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamental s of State Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity".  This Federal Law, which had been adopted on 8 December 2003, came into force on 
15 June 2004.  Corresponding amendments would be  made to Government Resolution No. 364 of 
9 June 2005 "On the Approval of Regulations about the Order of Licensing in the Sphere of Foreign 
Trade in Goods and about the Order of Forma tion and Conducting Federal Bank of the Given 
Licences in the Sphere of Foreign Trade".  Further work was required on, inter alia , the Agreement on 
Non-Tariff Regulation and the Regulations on Precious Stones and Metals.   
666. He further noted that work was also being c onducted to bring the export licensing regime for 
precious stones and metals of the Russian Fe deration in accordance with WTO disciplines.  
Specifically, Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June  2001 "On the Procedure of Importation into and 
Exportation from the Russian Federation of Precious  Metals and Precious Stones" and Presidential 
Decree No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 "On Regulati ons on Importation to the Russian Federation 
and Exportation from the Russian Federation of Natural Diamonds and Cut Diamonds" had been WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 228  
 
  amended, taking due account of other international co mmitments, relevant for trade in natural and cut 
diamonds.  In this regard, the Russian Federation ha d replaced the licensing restrictions on exports of 
precious stones, diamonds, and metals with an automatic licensing regime.  These amendments 
reduced the number of licensed goods and removed bans and other quantitative restrictions on the 
export of certain types of goods, as well as providing for future liberalization of international trade 
involving this category of goods.  The representati ve of the Russian Federation also noted, that 
documents required for the issuance of a licence in cluded:  (i) for exports of precious stones and 
metals, a certificate of special registration in the State Assay Chamber of the Ministry of Finance 
(Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "On Pr ecious Metals and Precious Stones") and for 
crediting organizations, an authorization of the Cent ral Bank or of a credit institution, licensed by the 
Central Bank to perform operations with pr ecious metals (Federal Law No. 395-1 of 
2 December 1990 "On Banks and Banking Activ ities", as amended on 27 July 2010); and 
(ii) for exports of ores of non-ferrous metals cont aining precious metals, a decision of the Ministry of 
Finance and the Ministry of Industry and Energy  regarding the practicability and feasibility of 
commercial recovery of precious metals (Presi dential Decree No. 742 of  21 June 2001 "On the 
Procedure of Importation into and Exportation fro m the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones").  Concerning queries by Members of the Working Party on export licensing of medicines and pharmaceuticals, the representativ e of the Russian Federation explained that, 
previously, under Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines" (as amended on 
18 December 2006), pharmaceuticals, which included raw materials for the manufacture of 
pharmaceuticals, could be exported only by legal persons having a licence for the production or 
wholesale trade of these goods, and pursuant to Go vernment Resolution No. 854 of 6 November 1992 
(as amended on 27 November 2006), exports of raw ma terials for the manufactur ing of medicines had 
been subject to an export licence issued by the MI T, in coordination with the Federal Service for 
Supervision in the Sphere of Healthcare and So cial Development of the Russian Federation.  
Under the CU Agreement on Non-Tariff Regulation,  export licensing was permitted, in accordance 
with national legislation, for only those pharmac euticals listed in section 2.12 of [Table 28].  
Raw materials for manufacturing pharmaceuticals we re not included in the list, and thus, export 
licensing of these materials was not provided for.  He further explained, that under Federal Law 
No. 61-FZ of 12 April 2010 "On Circulation of Medi cines", no restrictions were placed on the export 
of pharmaceuticals from the Russian Federation.  Finally, Government Resolution No. 854 continued 
to apply only to the extent that it did not conflict w ith CU Decisions, and thus, did not provide a basis 
for restricting the exports of raw materials for the manufacture of medicines.   
667. In response to questions regarding licensing requirements in the field of energy, the 
representative of the Russian Federation clarifie d that Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 18 July 2006  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 229 
 
 
  "On Export of Gas" applied to the gas (Commod ity Classification of Foreign Economic Activity of 
the Russian Federation codes:  2711210000 and 27111 10000) produced at all types of fields of 
hydrocarbon raw materials and transported in the g aseous or liquefied state.  Federal Law No. 117-FZ 
established that the exclusive right to export gas (and respective licenses) would be granted to the 
organization being the owner of the unified gas s upply system or to its 100 per cent subsidiary.  
The MIT was responsible for issuing the licence for the export of gas.   
668. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed, that, from the date of accession, 
quantitative restrictions on exports or restrictions on the sale for expor t of goods, such as quotas, bans, 
permits, prior authorization requirements, licensing requirements (including the requirements listed in 
[Table 33]), domestic market supply requirements or  measures having equivalent effect that could not 
be justified under the provisions of the WTO Agre ement, would be eliminated and not introduced, 
re-introduced or applied, whether by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU.  
He further confirmed that discretionary authority to temporarily ban exports or otherwise restrict 
exports, including under provisions of the Agreement on Licensing, the Precious Stones and Metals Regulations, or Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" whether exerci sed by the Russian Federation or the competent 
bodies of the CU, would be applied from the date of accession in conformity with the provisions of 
the WTO Agreement.  He also confirmed that , if the Russian Federation took recourse to 
Article XX(i) of the GATT 1994, with respect to any measures, whether applied by the 
Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, restricting exports of domestic materials 
necessary  to ensure essential quantities of such material s to a domestic or CU processing industry, 
such measures would not operate to increase the e xports of or the protection of such industry.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
669. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the conditions that had led to the 
need to protect its exchange position had signifi cantly improved and that the IMF arrangements had 
terminated.  In light of these developments, the Russian Federation would ensure, from the date of 
accession, that the export licensing regime for pr ecious stones and metals, semi-precious stones, 
objects made thereof, certain alloys, semi-fabricat es, ores, concentrates and wastes, whether adopted 
and applied by the Russian Federation or th e competent CU body, was consistent with 
WTO requirements.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- Other Customs Export Formalities 
670. Members of the Working Party expressed concern about the practice of the 
Russian Federation of maintaining only a very lim ited number of customs checkpoints designated for WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 230  
 
  declaration and exportation of certain products, for example, timber products such as logs, and metal 
scrap, and also the practice to cl ose promptly certain customs checkpoints, thus creating serious 
impediments to trade.  Some Members requested further clarification on the State Customs 
Committee  (SCC) Order No. 1002 of 19 October 2001 "O n Appointing Exportation Checkpoints" 
which stipulated the customs cl earance checkpoints (now referred  to as "customs checkpoints for 
declaration") that might be used for exportation of  certain timber products by rail or road.  A Member 
noted that this Order had been provisionally amended on 14 January 2002 to include customs 
checkpoints for declaration  at its country borders with the Russi an Federation and asked whether the 
Russian Federation intended to make a definitive amendment to SCC Order No. 1002, so as to avoid 
possible trade distorting effects.  Another Memb er asked for information on the sorts of timber 
products covered by measures of the Russian Federation  and a clarification on whether the restricted 
use of customs  checkpoints for  declaration  of exports would also c over additional products.  
Members also raised concerns about SCC Orde r No. 1219 of 27 December 2000 "On Defining Places 
for the Customs Formalization and Export of Ferro us and Non-Ferrous Meta ls Scrap and Wastes", 
which provided that non-ferrous and ferr ous metal scrap could be declared and  exported only through 
the seaports of the Russian Federation.  These Memb ers were concerned that, in addition to creating 
potential delays and bottlenecks and adding to shipme nt costs, such restrictions could also act as 
de facto trade barriers.  They asked the Russian Federa tion to provide additional information on these 
and other restrictions on which customs checkpoints could be used to declare and to export these 
products, to update the Working Party on steps being taken to increase the number of customs 
checkpoints authorised for the declaration and  export of specific products such as metal scrap and 
timber products, and to ensure that these and ot her measures related to e xportation would be brought 
in full conformity with WTO provisions upon accession. 
671. One Member expressed concern about the limitation of customs checkpoints for exit and for 
declaration of certain products, specifically for w ood.  This Member asked about the implementation 
of Federal Customs Service (FCS) Order No. 1327 of 10 December 2002 "On Import Duty Rates".  
This Member noted that those measures must be based on justifiable reasoni ng and impede rightful 
trade flows as little as possible by ensuring a su fficient number of designated customs checkpoints 
relative to the importance of the trade flows,  taking into account the geographic situation. 
672. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the policy of his Government was 
to base identification of designated customs chec kpoints on the provisions of the International 
Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Revised Kyoto Convention, 1999), in particular, its Specific Annex A, Chapter 1.  He further stated that, pursuant to 
Article 190 of the CU Customs Code, Article s 10.4 and 205 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 231 
 
 
  27 November 2010 "On Customs Regulation", the FCS was authorised to designate specific customs 
checkpoints for the declaration of specific types of goods  for export for the purpose of ensuring the 
effectiveness of control over the implementation of  customs legislation.  The grounds for establishing 
such points were the same as those for imports, wh ich were specified in paragraph [553] of the 
Section "Other Customs Formalities for Imports".  He also noted that a comprehensive list of 
categories of goods currently subject to measur es requiring declaration at designated customs 
checkpoints was reflected in [Table 13] and [Table 14]. 
673. In response to the specific concerns expressed by some Members, the representative of the 
Russian Federation said that the selection of design ated customs checkpoints for the declaration of 
wood for export, listed in FCS Order No. 1327 of  10 December 2002 "On Import Duty Rates", was 
based on the following criteria:  (i) availability of equipment necessary for cust oms control in respect 
of specified goods; (ii) conditions of transport infrastructure; and (iii) existing flows of trade in 
specified goods.  He added that the said Order had been amended by FCS Order No. 362 of 
2 April 2008, and the list of designated customs check points for export declaration had been extended, 
based on the same criteria, up to 139 checkpoints.  He further stated that the FCS Order No. 1327 was 
superseded by the FCS Order No. 801 of 20 April 2010 "On Checkpoints for Declaration of Certain 
Types of Goods", which also envisaged the list of  139 authorised checkpoints for declaration of wood 
for export.   
674. He added that SCC Order No. 1002 of 19 October 2001 "On Appointing Exportation 
Checkpoints" for certain types of timber products (Codes of Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign 
Economic Activity of Russia:  from 4401 10 0000 fuel wood in the form of logs and lumber; 4403; from 4404 chopped wood, piles and spiles, sharpene d but not length sawed; 4406; 4407; 4409) had 
been invalidated by Order of the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) No. 105 of 25 May 2005 
"On the Invalidation of some Legal Acts of the State Customs Committee of Russia".  In addition, 
SСС Order No. 1219 of 27 Dece mber 2000 "On Defining Places for the Customs Formalization and 
Export of Ferrous and Non-Ferr ous Metals Scrap and Wastes" had been invalidated by S СС Order 
No. 98 of 28 January 2004.   
675. Pursuant to Law of the Russian Federation No . 4730-1 of 1 April 1993 "On the State Border 
of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on  31 January 2010), State border checkpoints were 
established by international agreements of the Russian Federation or by the Government, upon 
proposal of Federal executive bodies; or upon proposal of the subjects of the Russian Federation, as approved by the border guard agencies and fron tier troops and the other Federal executive bodies 
concerned, taking into account the interests of adjacent and other foreign states.  According to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 232  
 
  Article 162 of the CU Customs Code and Article 195 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, goods and vehicles 
could depart from the territory of the Russian Fede ration at State border checkpoints or at other places 
established in compliance with the legislation on th e State border of the Russian Federation during the 
customs bodies' working hours.  The provisions of Article 162 of the CU Customs Code, however, did 
not extend to goods carried by sea (river) vessels and aircraft crossing the CU customs territory without stopping at a port or an airport located in the CU customs territory, as well as to the goods 
transported by pipeline and power lines/electricity transmission lines.  Each exit checkpoint from the 
territory of the Russian Federation had a custom s office responsible for accepting notifications of 
departure of goods and means of transport (suc h as vessels, lorries, or railway cars) from the 
CU customs territory, formalizing the completion of customs transit procedure, accepting customs 
declarations, and performing customs operations necessary for the departure of goods and means of 
transport and other customs operations. 
676. With regard to the designated customs exit checkpoints, the representative of the 
Russian Federation added that, according to Article  195 of Federal Law No. 311-FZ, the Government 
of the Russian Federation had the right to designate  customs exit checkpoints for certain categories of 
goods and could establish certain places for exit at the border in compliance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation regarding the State border.   
677. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that [Table 13] and [Table 14] were 
comprehensive lists of the categories of goods currently subject to measures requiring their 
declaration and/or exit at designated customs  checkpoints.  He further confirmed that, if any such  
measures were contrary to the WTO Agreement, they  would be eliminated as of the date of accession 
of the Russian Federation to the WTO and that futu re measures concerning the declaration and/or exit 
of specific categories of goods at designated customs  checkpoints, whether introduced, re-introduced 
or applied pursuant to national legislation, or CU  Agreements or other CU  Legal Acts, would be 
consistent with the WTO Agreement.  Furthermore, he confirmed that from the date of accession all 
laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial d ecisions and administrative rulings of general 
application connected with the exportation of goods, including those related to statistical control, 
customs clearance, documentation, and any change s to these laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, 
judicial decisions and administrative rulings of ge neral application, whether introduced, re-introduced 
or applied by the Russian Federation or the comp etent bodies of the CU, would be published promptly  
and posted on the official websites of the res ponsible governmental bodies in such a manner as to 
enable governments and trader s to become acquainted with  them and that the Russian Federation  
would also publish the names of the governmental  bodies responsible for administering them.  
Further, he confirmed that the Russian Federation would administer these laws, regulations, decrees,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 233 
 
 
  decisions, judicial decisions and administrative ruli ngs of general applicati on in a uniform, impartial 
and reasonable manner throughout its territory as required by  the WTO Agreement.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods 
- Industrial policy, including subsidy policies 
678. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the provision of subsidies in the 
Russian Federation was regulated by budget, tax, customs, and anti-monopoly (competition) 
legislation.  Under the relevant legislation,  the following types of State support (financial 
contributions) were available to a recipient:  (i) direct transfers of budgetary funds, including those 
under Federal-targeted and investment programmes; (ii) budgetary loans, credits, and guarantees; and 
(iii) postponements of payments of or exemptions  from taxes and customs duties.  Subsidies were 
being provided both at the Federal and Sub-Federal levels.  In response to questions from Members, 
the representative of the Russian Federation stat ed, that, except as otherwise stated in the 
Working Party Report, his authorities had not identif ied any subsidies prohibited under Article 3 of 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures provide d at any level of government 
in the Russian Federation.  The Russian Federa tion had submitted a "Notification on Industrial 
Subsidies Granted from the Federal Budget of th e Russian Federation" and a "Notification of 
Industrial Subsidies Allocated from the Budgets of the Subjects of the Russian Federation" for the 
year 2002 circulated to Members of the Working Party in WT/ACC/RUS/52 of 25 May 2005 and 
WT/ACC/RUS/51 of 23 May 2005, respectively, and additional information in documents 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 of 20 February 2003,  and WT/ACC/RUS/57 of 27 June 2008. 
679. State support to the industrial sector of the Russian economy was mainly provided under 
Federal-targeted programmes.  Direct transf ers from the Federal budget or a regional budget to 
industries were also available.  For details, he referred to Notifications on Industrial Subsidies 
Granted within the Territory of  the Russian Federation, provid ed to Members in documents 
WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 and WT/ACC/RUS/57.  In r esponse to questions of some Members about 
support to the coal industry, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that under the 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1523 of 3 December 1997 "On State 
Financing of Restructuring of the Coal Industr y" there were RUB 595.6 million (US$20 million) 
provided in the years 2001 to 2005.  This Governmental Order was replaced by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No . 840 of 24 December 2004 (as amended on 
22 October 2007) "On the List of Measures for th e Coal Industry Restructuring".  Under this 
Governmental Resolution, State support to the coal  industry had been provided mainly to enhance WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 234  
 
  social security of employees, secure safe work  conditions in coal mining and liquidate major 
loss-making mines.  No prohibited subsidies of any kind within the definition of Article 3 of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res were available to the coal industry.   
680. He added that the principles and mechanisms for granting export credits and export credit 
guarantees were foreseen in the Concept of Develo pment of Financial Support (Guarantees) of Export 
of Industrial Products in the Russian Federation,  adopted under Order of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 1493-r of 14 October 2003.  The Concept envisaged procedures for granting:   
- state guarantees against political and commerc ial risks arising during implementation of 
export contracts with foreign importers.  St ate guarantees could only be provided if the 
Government of the foreign importer had provi ded counter-guarantees, or the contract was 
concluded with a sovereign buyer or the bank- creditor had provided credit to the foreign 
country.  Under certain circumstances, counte r-guarantees were not obligatory, e.g., if the 
foreign buyer had an investment-grade rating and was a resident of a country with an 
investment-grade sovereign rating; 
- export credits including supplier credit; and 
- partial compensation of interest rates of export credits including supplier credits. 
 
681. Funding of export credits, guarantees, and partial compensation of credit stakes were 
envisaged in the Federal Budget.  The total sum of  the State export guarantees issued in 2005 to 2009 
was US$990 million, of which US$282 million was issued in 2009.  Also in 2009, export credits were 
provided in the total amount of RUB 55 billion (US $1.8 billion) and partial compensation of credit 
stakes for the total amount of US$300 million.  A mechanism for granting credits and guarantees 
compliant with the rules and norms of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which incorporates by reference the OE CD Arrangement on Officially Supported Export 
Credits, was being elaborated in fu rtherance of the Concept.    
682. A Member asked about more recent developmen ts with respect to this mechanism.  
This Member also inquired how premiums were de termined and if there was mechanism to ensure 
that the premiums were sufficient to cover l ong term operating costs and losses of the programme. 
683. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that "Eximbank of Russia" 
(Joint-Stock Company) had been designate d as an agent for the Government of the 
Russian Federation in providing State financial (guarantee) support for industrial exports, and the 
terms of its functioning were stipulated in th e Agreement between the Ministry of Finance and 
Eximbank of Russia No. 01-01-06/04-28 on Performing the Functions of an Agent of State financial 
(guarantee) Support for Industrial Exports of 22 Ap ril 2006, which was replaced by the Agreement 
No. 01-01-06/04-102 of 28  May 2009.  The possibility of issuing State guarantees was examined by 
the Committee of Directors of JSC "Eximbank of Russi a" based on the ability of the exporter to meet  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 235 
 
 
  repayment commitments, financial performance and sufficiency of th e loan coverage.  
Positive findings of the bank in respect of exporters were not directed by the authorities of the 
Russian Federation.  Commission rates for bank guarantees were estimated on the basis of an 
agreement between JSC "Eximbank of Russia" and a principal.  In accordance with the tariff of 
commission rates of the Bank, the minimum level of commission rate for bank guarantees was set at the level of 0.15 per cent of the guarantee amount, but the actual rate, which was charged, depended 
on a risk assessment that was carried out for each recipient. 
684. In response to requests from some Members for information on prohibited subsidies, both at 
the Federal and Sub-Federal leve ls of governments, the represen tative of the Russian Federation 
replied that, according to the Budget Code of the Russian Federation, budget funds were provided to 
recipients with the purpose specified in the draf ts of both Federal and re gional budgets, which were 
also examined and approved by Federal authoriti es.  The Federal Service for Financial and Budget 
Surveillance and Federal Treasury, subordinated to the Ministry of Finance, ensured that budget funds 
were properly allocated.  Provision of State aid w ithin the entire territory of the Russian Federation 
was regulated by Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26  July 2006 "On Protection of Competition" 
(as amended on 5 April 2010).  According to this Fe deral Law, funds could be granted in accordance 
with a relevant Federal law; a relevant re gional law establishing the regional budget for the 
corresponding financial year; or a local law of the same kind.  Funds also could be granted from a 
reserve fund (federal, regional, or local) in case of emergency situations, arme d conflicts, or execution 
of anti-terrorist operations.  In all other cases, State aid could only be granted upon a preliminary 
written permission of the anti-monopoly authorit y, for the following goals, as provided by the 
Federal Law: 
- support of activities of people living in the Far North and similar territories; 
- carrying out of fundamental scientific research; - protection of the environment; - development of culture and preservation of the cultural inheritance; 
- agricultural production; 
- support of small enterprises engaged in high-priority activities; - social services provided for the population; and - social support of jobless citizens. 
685. The Sub-Federal Governments of the Russian Federation generally pr ovided the same forms 
of State support to industrial production sectors as did the Federal Government.  Such support was 
mostly aimed at the financial rehabilitation of enterprises, resolution of social problems, and 
reimbursement of losses.  For details, he referred to  the Notifications on Industrial Subsidies Granted 
within the Territory of the Russian Federa tion, circulated to Members in documents 
WT/ACC/RUS/52, WT/ACC/RUS/51, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/31 and WT/ACC/RUS/57. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 236  
 
  686. The representative of the Russian Federation str essed that in accordance with the principles 
established by the budget and anti-monopoly legislati on of the Russian Federation, including those 
related to the respective responsibilities of the Fe deral and Regional Authorities, the Ministry of 
Finance and the Federal Antimonopoly Service ensure d that the subsidies provided both on Federal 
and Sub-Federal levels were  consistent with the national legisla tion and international commitments of 
the Russian Federation.  He added that, acc ording to Order of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 1505-r of 19 October 1998 (as amended of 23 July 2001), the executive 
authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federati on reported on a regular basis (quarterly) the forms 
and amounts of industrial and agricultural subsidi es, granted from the regional budgets, specifying its 
purposes, to the Ministry of Economic Developmen t of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian Federation and the Ministry  of Agriculture of the Russian Federation.  
This allowed the Federal Authorities to control th e conformity of the subsidies, granted by the 
regional governments, with all Fede ral legislation and the obligations  under international treaties of 
the Russian Federation. 
687. Some Members of the Working Pa rty asked to what extent loan s at below market interest 
rates provided under Government Resolution No . 538 of 15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary 
Loans to Finance the Implementation of High- Return Contracts for Production and Supply of 
Products, Including Export Supplies" were con tingent upon export performance, and requested 
clarification whether that Resolution had been rep ealed.  Some Members of the Working Party also 
noted that certain subsidy programmes, such as production sharing agreements and other programmes 
for the automotive, farm equipment, and civil aircra ft industry appeared to provide subsidies, which 
constituted prohibited subsidies pursuant to Article  3.1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  In addition, aspects of cer tain rail freight tariffs, as well as programmes for 
the consumer goods industry and textile industry also  appeared to conflict with Article 3.1(a) of 
that Agreement.  Members of the Working Party re quested that the Russian Federation eliminate all 
such programmes from the date of accession.   
688. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that pursuant to Government Resolution 
No. 538 of 15 May 1999 "On Providing Budgetary Loans to Finance the Implementation of 
High-Return Contracts for Production and Supply of  Products, Including Export Supplies" loans equal 
to RUB 50.0 million had been granted from the Fe deral Budget to OAO "Rostselmash" in 1999.  
Since 2000, that Resolution had not been applied and no funds had been granted from the Federal 
Budget.  He further stated that production-sh aring agreements and the automotive programmes 
established under Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 Fe bruary 1998 "On Additiona l Measures to Attract 
Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making", and Government Resolution No. 413 of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 237 
 
 
  23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car 
Making" and the Resolution of the Government of  the Russian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 
"On Introduction of Amendments to the Customs Tari ff of the Russian Federation with Respect to the 
Spare Parts Imported with Aim of Industrial Assemb ling", Joint Order No. 73/81/58n of the Ministry 
of Economic Development, the Ministry of Industr y and Energy of the Russian Federation and the 
Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation of 15 April 2005  "On Approval of the Order, Defining 
the Term "Industrial Assembling" (as ame nded on 24 December 2010 by Joint Order 
No. 678/1289/184n) and Establishing Conditions for Its A pplication to Imports to the Territory of the 
Russian Federation of Car Parts for Motor Ve hicles (Tariff Positions 8701-8705) and Their 
Components" were discussed in the Section "Trade-R elated Investment Measur es" of this Report.  
Regarding civil aircraft programmes, he referred to  the information in the Section "Trade in Civil 
Aircraft" of this Report.  As to the issue of certain rail freight tariffs, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that this issue, from hi s view, was not connected with a violation of any 
provision of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures.  He added that railway 
tariffs were addressed in the Section "Pricing Policies" of this Report. 
689. Concerning "OAO Rosagroleasing", a Russian ag ricultural equipment leasing company, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained that the open Joint Stock Company Rosagroleasing 
had been established in February 2001 to supp ort agricultural producers using the new national 
system of agricultural leasing.  He mentioned that  the activity of this entity was described in the 
Section "Polices Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricu ltural Products" of this Report.  In addition the 
representative of the Russian Federation noted that under Government Resolution No. 90 of 4 February 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture provided  loans to farmers at an interest rate below the 
market rates for the purchase of farm machinery ma nufactured in the Russian Federation.  In 2009, 
the total funding of the programme for purchase of such farm machinery was RUB 1,200 million 
(US$40 million).   
690. Some Members noted that the loan programme of the Ministry of Agriculture for farm 
machinery was limited to purchases of domestica lly-produced farm machinery.  These Members 
expressed concerns regarding this limitation and so ught a commitment that any programme that the 
Russian Federation made available would comply  with WTO requirements and would not provide 
subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic rath er than imported products and would not otherwise 
discriminate against imported products . 
691. Some Members expressed concerns regard ing subsidies granted under Government 
Resolution No. 1194 of 31 December 2009 to private persons purchasing automobiles, and in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 238  
 
  particular with regard to the limitations of this programme to automobiles produced in the 
Russian Federation.  These Members sought a commitmen t that, in the future, any programme that the 
Russian Federation made available would comply  with WTO requirements, would not provide 
subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic rath er than imported products and would not otherwise 
discriminate against imported products. 
692. Some Members expressed concerns regarding s ubsidies granted to those purchasing or leasing 
civil aircraft in the Russian Federation and, in par ticular, on the limitations of this programme to civil 
aircraft produced in the Russian Federation.  These Members sought a commitment that, in the future, 
any programme that the Russian Federation made available would comply with WTO requirements 
and would not discriminate against imported products.  These Members also referred to the discussions and commitment undertaken by the Russian Federation in relation to civil aircraft in the 
Section on "Trade in Civil Aircraft" of this Report. 
693. Some Members noted that the Ministry of I ndustry and Trade loan programme for consumer 
goods and textiles industries on technical retooling, reportedly, was contingent upon the export of the 
subsidised products.  These Members sought a commitment that any programme that the 
Russian Federation made available in the future  would comply with WTO requirements and would 
not provide subsidies contingent upon the export of  the subsidised goods and would not discriminate 
against imported products. 
694. In response to concerns from some Members about the loan programme for consumer goods 
and textiles industries referred to in paragraph [ 693], the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that, in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 993 of 29 December 2007, the programme was neither in law nor in fact contingent upon export performance. 
695. Some Members stated that the Russian Fe deration should recognise that the government 
regulation of natural monopoly prices could c onstitute a subsidy under the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  These Memb ers asked the Russian Federation to provide a 
description of the existing pricing mechanisms a nd any reforms under way to bring domestic prices 
for oil, natural gas and electricity closer to market prices.  In particular, those Members requested that 
the Russian Federation provide details of the recent re forms of the pricing of electricity to commercial 
consumers.   
696. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation pointed out that his authorities 
continued to believe that the government regulatio n of natural monopoly prices did not constitute a  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 239 
 
 
  subsidy under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies a nd Countervailing Measures.  Regarding domestic 
prices for oil, natural gas and electricity, he refe rred to the information provided in the Section 
"Pricing Policies" of this Report.   
697. Several Members asked the Russian Federation to  confirm that all subsidy programmes at all 
levels of government would be administered in  line with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that, upon accession, a ll necessary information on all subsidies 
programmes at all levels of gove rnment would be notified to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures in accordance with Artic le 25 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.   
698. The representative of the Russian Federation co nfirmed that, except as otherwise provided in 
the Working Party Report, upon accession, the Russi an Federation would eliminate all subsidies 
programmes administered within its territory falling within the scope of Article 3 of the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res or modify these programmes so that any 
subsidy provided would not be contingent upon ex portation or the use of domestic over imported 
goods.  He also confirmed that any subsidy programme  in place or established after accession within 
the territory of the Russian Federation would be administered in conformity with the 
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res.  In addition, the Russian Federation 
would provide a subsidies notification in accord ance with Article 25 of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures to the WTO Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures as provided in paragraph [1430].  He also  confirmed that the Russian Federation would not 
invoke any of the provisions of Articles 27 and 28 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The Working Pa rty took note of these commitments. 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
- (a) Legal Framework 699. The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members of the Working Party that 
the legal framework of his country for technical  regulations, standards and conformity assessment 
systems was governed by internatio nal agreements of the EurAsEC
7 and of the CU8, by other 
EurAsEC and CU Acts, and the national legislation of  the Parties to these agreements.  He noted that 
the legal framework outlined in th ese Agreements and Acts required certain products circulating in 
the territories of the EurAsEC and CU Parties resp ectively to meet established mandatory technical, as 
                                                      
7 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyz Republic, and Tajikistan. 
8 Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Belarus. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 240  
 
  well as sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), requirements.  In particular, trade (including both 
importation and circulation in the domestic market) in products in the territory of the 
Russian Federation could be restricted or banned if the products in question did not meet these 
requirements.  The CU Parties, all of whom also were members of EurAsEC, had agreed to harmonize their policies and regulatory systems in the area  of technical regulation within the established 
EurAsEC system and sought to confirm and to in tensify their cooperation in this area within the 
framework of the CU.  The goal of this harmonizat ion was to ensure uniform requirements for the 
circulation of goods within the territo ries of the CU Parties in the area of technical regulation, realized 
through common technical regulations that had been developed using procedures established in 
conformity with CU or EurAsEC Acts adopted as international agreements or decisions among the 
participating EurAsEC and CU Parties.  These tec hnical regulations were applied directly in the 
territories of the CU Parties, and no separate nationa l legislation was necessary.  The provisions of the 
EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other EurAsEC a nd CU Acts were based on the WTO Agreement 
on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), a nd technical regulations were applied with the 
purpose of protecting the life and (or) health of hum ans, property, environment, animal and plant life 
and (or) health, and preventing actions that might mislead consumers, as well as for the purpose of 
ensuring energy efficiency and saving resources.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation 
emphasized that technical regulations adopted a nd applied within the EurAsEC and CU were not 
adopted for any other purposes.  
700. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the legal basis for the common policy 
was the EurAsEC Agreement on the Basics of Ha rmonization of Technical Regulations of the 
Member States of the Eurasian Economic Community of 24 March 2005 (hereafter:  EurAsEC Agreement on Basics of Technical Regulation Harmonization) and the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008 (hereafter:  EurAsEC Agreement on Technical 
Regulation Policy Coordination), as well as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation 
of 18 November 2010 (hereafter:  CU Agreemen t on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles); 
Regulation on Development of Technical Regula tions of Eurasian Economic Community, approved 
by EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 17 August 2008, Regulation on Development of 
Technical Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community; and CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, Regulation on Development, Adopt ion, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union (CU Commiss ion Decision No. 527).  These Agreements and 
Decisions established the main instruments of the common policy applied in the Russian Federation in 
the following areas:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 241 
 
 
  - harmonization of national legislation in the area of technical regulation; 
- development and adoption of technical regula tions of the CU and of EurAsEC stipulating 
mandatory and binding requirements for th e goods subject to technical regulation; 
- implementation of common procedure on developm ent of technical regulations in the territory 
of each CU and EurAsEC Party; 
- harmonization of standards and the implementa tion of relevant international standards as a 
basis for the elaboration of technical regulations; 
- implementation of common forms and rules for conformity assessment; - conducting conformity assessment (confirmation) of products or prod uct-related production 
processes, installation, set-up, operation (use), storage, carrying (transportation), sale and 
disposal, including testing and certification; as well as  
- accreditation and/or designation of certifica tion (conformity confirmation) bodies and 
accreditation of test laboratories (centres) participating in the process of mandatory confirmation of conformity. 
701. He added that the CU Agreement on the Ci rculation of Goods Subject to Mandatory 
Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territo ry of Customs Union of 11 December 2009 
(hereafter:  CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity  Assessment) provided for development of a list 
of goods for which it was possible to issue a certifi cate and to register a declaration of conformity 
assessment using a common form during the trans ition period, until the adoption of CU technical 
regulations.  The CU Agreement on Mutual Recogniti on of Accreditation of Certification (Conformity 
Assessment) Bodies and Test Laboratories (Centres)  Performing Work on Conformity Assessment of 
11 December 2009 (hereafter:  CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies) 
established the principles for a common CU system  of mutual recognition of accreditation, the 
responsibilities of the accreditation bodies of the CU Parties, and general principles of accreditation, 
pending the gradual replacement of this mutual re cognition system by the adoption and application of 
common EurAsEC and CU technical regulations by the CU Parties. 
702. Responding to questions from Members on the relationship between EurAsEC and 
CU technical regulations and inte rnational standards, the represen tative of the Russian Federation 
affirmed that Article 5.2 of the EurAsEC Agre ement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination 
and Article 4.4 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Te chnical Regulation Principles established that the 
relevant international standards,  and other documents (i.e., rules,  directives and recommendations or 
any other documents accepted by international st andardizing organizations) would be used as the 
basis for elaborating the EurAsEC and CU tech nical regulations, except in cases where such 
documents were absent, or did not conform with the purposes of the technical regulations of the 
Customs Union, in particular, due to climatic a nd geographical factors or technological and other 
particularities.  CU Commission Decision No . 527 which provided for regulations for the 
development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of  technical regulations on the territories of the 
CU Parties, was amended and improved by CU Commission Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 242  
 
  "Amendments to the Regulations on the Developmen t, Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of the 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 606).  
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 "O n Technical Regulation in the Customs Union" 
(hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 319) establis hed the CU Unified List of Products for which 
it was possible to use a certificate or to register a declaration of conformity assessment using a CU common form or national form during the transition period until the adoption of CU technical regulations.  This list was replaced by CU Co mmission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the 
Unified List's Update with Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) within the Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010.  In accordance with Explanatory Note 1, paragraph 2 to the list of products adopted by CU Commission Decision No. 620, a declaration of 
conformity based on the CU common form could not be used for goods produced by foreign 
manufacturers located outside the territory of the CU.  However, CU Commission Decision No. 620 
still provided for the possibility of using a certific ate of conformity for such goods based on the 
CU common form.  In the Russian Federation, a declaration of conformity for goods manufactured outside of the Russian Federation could be done under Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 
"On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (hereafter in this Section:  
Federal Law No. 184-FZ).  CU Commission Decision No. 319 also determined the criteria for the 
inclusion of conformity assessment bodies and test labor atories into a Unified Register of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories of the Customs Uni on (hereafter:  the CU Unified Register) and 
established the rules for the formation and maintenan ce of the Unified List and Unified Register by 
the national authorised bodies.  CU Commission D ecision No. 319 also establis hed the regulations for 
the importation of products listed on the CU Unifie d Register.  Article 4 of the CU Agreement on 
Uniform Technical Regulation Principles provided that  technical regulations could only be developed 
for goods on the Unified List of 61 "risky" produc ts in respect of which mandatory requirements 
(technical regulations) could be established in the fra mework of the Customs Union.  The list of 61 
products was approved by CU Commission Decisi on No. 526 of 28 January 2011 "On the Unified 
List of Products, in Respect of Which Mandatory Requirements are Established in the Frame of the 
Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Deci sion No. 526).  This list could be expanded by 
subsequent CU Commission Decisions if new risk s were identified.  Of these 61 products, 47 had 
been identified for priority attention in the deve lopment and adoption of CU technical regulations.  
However, in instances where EurAsEC technical re gulations also had been adopted, the EurAsEC 
technical regulations prevailed to the extent that th ey duplicated the CU technical regulations in whole 
or in part.  Schedules for the development of prio rity EurAsEC and CU technical regulations that 
would establish the desired harmonized regime we re provided in the EurAsEC Interstate Council  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 243 
 
 
  Decision No. 521 of 19 November 2010 "the Schedul e of Development of EurAsEC First-Priority 
Technical Regulations" (hereafter:  EurAsE C Interstate Council Decision No. 521) and 
CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010 "On Schedule of Development of Priority 
Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission Decision No. 492), respectively, with a view to their developmen t during 2011.  CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 
7 April 2011 "On the Regulation on the Application of Model Schemes of Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) in the Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (hereafter:  CU Commission 
Decision No. 621), established common forms and regula tions on the application of model conformity 
assessment schemes to ensure compliance with the requirements of technical regulations of the Customs Union.  The CU Commission had also approved a draft Agreemen t submitted for approval 
by the CU Parties establishing types of administrative violations and charges for the violations in the 
sphere of technical regulation and the applicati on of the sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary 
measures.  Once CU or EurAsEC technical regulations  came into effect, they would be applied with 
direct effect, and relevant national requirements, est ablished by laws of the CU or EurAsEC Parties, 
would no longer be applied in the territories of those Parties.  Additional certification among the 
CU Parties would no longer be necessary.  It w as expected that, by 31 December 2012, the 
CU Commission would have adopted all of the 47 priority CU technical regulations which would 
enter into force no later than 31 December 2014, afte r a transitional period before application of the 
relevant CU technical regulations to allow producer s, importers, and exporters  to become acquainted 
with the new technical regulations.  By that date , all other national mandatory technical requirements 
applied on the territory of CU Pa rties would be replaced by CU technical regulations or would no 
longer be applied.  Notification of when implemen ted CU technical regulati ons superseded national 
technical regulations would be pos ted on the MIT website and in the official journal of Rosstandart, 
the Herald.  Certificates of conformity issued unde r national mandatory technical requirements before 
entry into force of relevant CU or EurAsEC techni cal regulations could be used for the full term of 
their validity. 
703. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that these EurAsEC and CU Agreements 
and the EurAsEC and CU Acts implementing the CU policy on technical regulation substantially had 
replaced Federal Law No. 184-FZ as the overall legal framework for technical regulations, standards, 
and conformity assessment systems in the Russi an Federation with the establishment of the 
CU regime on 1 January 2010.  Certain provisions  of Federal Law No. 184-FZ remained in effect, 
however (to the extent they did not conflict w ith CU and EurAsEC Agreements and EurAsEC and 
CU Acts, including CU Commission Decisions).  Th e development and application of standards, 
conformity assessment, state control and supervision,  metrological control, and liability issues in the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 244  
 
  Russian Federation would continue to be admi nistered on the national level under the CU and 
EurAsEC regimes, with regard to the following issues: 
- national standards within the meaning of th e TBT Agreement (development, adoption) and 
standards organizations;  
- sets of rules;  
- state control and supervision (inspection) to  ensure compliance with the requirements of 
technical regulations; 
- assurance of uniformity of measurements; - violations of technical regulations and wit hdrawal of products from the domestic market;  
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certificates of 
conformity assessment and declarations of confor mity, including national part of the Unified 
Register of certificates and declarations;  
- operation of the national aspects of developing and maintaining the system of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories (centres) of the CU, including accreditation and national part 
of the Unified Register of certification bodies and testing laboratories;  
- voluntary conformity assessment;  - rights and obligations of applicants in th e field of mandatory conformity assessment;  
- coordination of the activities, positions and pr ocedures of the Government in the field of 
technical regulation; 
- procedures for the determination of liability in the case of violation of technical regulations 
and sanctions therefore until the decision to transfer these issues to the CU was made; 
- providing required transparency; and  - financing in the field of technical regulation.  
Other EurAsEC and CU Acts a nd domestic legislation pertai ning to standards, technical 
regulations, and conformity assessment in the Russi an Federation were listed in Annex 3 to the 
Report.   
704. A Member noted that the Russian Federation continued to adopt mandatory phytosanitary 
measures under its national law on plant quarantine, th rough measures that were not considered to be 
technical regulations.  This Member requested an explanation of this practice.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained that  technical regulations applied only to matters 
related to the life and health of humans and animal s.  Since phytosanitary measures related to plant 
life and health they were not considered to be technical regulations, but were purely SPS measures 
and were adopted under procedures that ensu red transparency and compliance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement. 
- (b) Institutions 
705. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that draft technical regulations were 
developed in the participating countries using in ternal procedures before being proposed by the 
authorised national bodies in the field of technical regulation to the designated EurAsEC or CU bodies for harmonization, further review, and adoption as provided for in the relevant international  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 245 
 
 
  agreements or CU decisions.  For EurAsEC, th e Commission for Technical Regulation and Sanitary, 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures in Trade of  the EurAsEC Integration Committee (hereafter:  
the EurAsEC Commission for Technical Regulation), through the authorised national bodies of the 
EurAsEC Parties, coordinated the Parties' effo rts on the development of technical regulations, 
including sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  After publishing a draft technical regulation and 
collecting public comments, the EurAsEC Integra tion Committee then forwarded the agreed draft 
technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate C ouncil for adoption as an Agreement as provided for 
in Article 3 of the EurAsEC Agreement on T echnical Regulation Harmonization.  In the 
CU framework, this coordination and transparency role was fulfilled by the Coordination Committee 
on Technical Regulation, Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Measures (hereafter:  the CU Coordination 
Committee) which received draft technical regulations from the authorised bodies of the CU Parties, 
coordinated the development of a draft text and r esolved disputes concerning it among the CU Parties' 
authorities.  The Coordination Committee, with the a ssistance of the CU Commission Secretariat, then 
circulated the draft technical regulation for public  review and comment and prepared analysis and 
recommendations on the draft technical regulati ons before forwarding the proposals to the 
CU Commission for adoption through decisions.  As set-out in Article 6.1 of the EurAsEC Agreement 
on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination and Article 7.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform 
Technical Regulation Principles, Mandatory Assessme nt (Confirmation) of Conformity (Compliance) 
of Products with Requirements of the EurAsEC a nd CU Technical Regulations, was confirmed by a 
declaration of compliance or certification that was issued by a certification body listed in the Unified 
Register, based on tests performed by accredited labo ratories and testing centres.  Among CU Parties, 
unified conformity assessment procedures were established in the technical regulations on the basis of model schemes of conformity assessment.   
706. Concerning accreditation of conformity assessment bodies:  accreditation enabled a 
conformity assessment body included in the Unifie d Registry to issue documents on conformity 
assessment within the area of its accreditation that  would be accepted within the territory of the 
Russian Federation as well as the rest of the CU.  Articles 2 and 3 of the CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity Assessment, established the responsibility of the CU Parties' accreditation 
bodies to conduct comparative examinations (peer assessment) of procedures in the bodies of other 
CU Parties and to implement, where possible, re levant international standards in the national 
accreditation system; to maintain the national Register of accredited certification bodies and laboratories; and, to consider complaints from en terprises connected with an accredited certification 
body or laboratory.  Article 4 authorised the CU Commission to create and maintain the Unified List 
of Products for which it was possible to issue a certif icate and to register a declaration of conformity 
assessment using a common form during the trans ition period, until the adoption of CU technical WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 246  
 
  regulations (CU Commission Decision No. 620).  The CU Commission also was charged to create 
common forms for the certification and declaration of conformity; the Unified Register of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories at the level of the CU; and the Unified Register of certificates of 
conformity and declarations of conformity.  CU Commission Decision No. 319 established these 
facilities and the regulations for their maintenance.  In contrast, EurAsEC did not maintain either a 
Unified Register of certification bodies and testing la boratories or a Unified List of Products subject 
to technical regulations and mandatory conformity assessment at the Community level.  Therefore, 
each EurAsEC Party determined the products subjected  to mandatory confirmation of conformity with 
respect to EurAsEC technical regulations.  The sa me situation currently existed with certification 
bodies and test laboratories.  With time, as the CU and EurAsEC systems of technical regulation evolved, it was expected that the EurAsEC Intersta te Council would adopt the CU Unified Register of 
accepted certification bodies and laboratories, but currently, each EurAsEC Party determined its own 
list of certification bodies and laboratories. 
707. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the Federal Agency for Technical 
Regulation (formerly Gosstandart and now know n as Rosstandart) currently was the State body 
responsible for accreditation within the GOSTR co nformity assessment system which was the most 
widely applicable system in the Russian Federa tion.  There were 15 other Federal Ministries and 
agencies responsible for accreditation in the mandato ry sphere in specific areas:  the Ministry for 
Emergency Situations (accreditation of bodies carrying out certification of fire fighting equipment):  
Rostehnadzor; Rosgeldor; Rosreestr; and Ro spotrebnadzor.  In accordance with the 
Presidential Decree of the Russian Federation No. 86 of 24 January 2011 "On Single National System 
of Accreditation" (hereafter:  Presidential De cree No. 86) a single national accreditation body under 
the authority and control of MED would be estab lished and would replace bot h Rosstandart and the 
other existing accreditation bodies in the Russian Federation by the end of 2011.  This Body would 
accredit conformity assessment bodies in accordance with ISO/IEC, Guideline 2, Guideline 65 and 
ISO/IEC Standard 17000, Standard 17011, and St andard 17025 that would perform conformity 
assessment procedures related to CU and EurAsEC tec hnical regulations.  He noted that the order of 
determination of fees for the accreditation proce dures currently was established by the accreditation 
bodies themselves; however it was planned that a single order would be created when the single 
national accreditation body was established. 
708. The representative of the Russian Federation al so informed Members of the Working Party 
that, in accordance with Governme nt Resolution No. 438 of 5 June 2008 "On the Ministry of Industry 
and Trade of the Russian Federation", the MI T was the national executive authority in the 
Russian Federation responsible for the development and elaboration of national policy in the area of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 247 
 
 
  technical regulation, including standardization, conformity assessment procedures (including testing 
and certification) and for coordinating the develo pment of technical regulations.  MED was the 
national executive authority in the Russian Federati on responsible for the deve lopment, elaboration of 
national policy and legal regulation in the area of accreditation (Presidential Decree No. 86).  
Rosstandart was the national authorised body on st andardization of the Russian Federation, pursuant 
to Government Resolution No. 294 of 17 June 2 004 "On the Federal Agency for Technical Regulation 
and Metrology" (as last amended on 6 April 2011) (hereafter:  Government Resolution No. 294).  
Rosstandart was authorised (pursuant to Government Resolution No. 294), inter alia , to carry out 
expert assessment of national standa rds; publish notifications about deve lopment of drafts of technical 
regulations (which were required to  contain, pursuant to Article 7(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the 
rules and forms of the conformity assessment pro cedures to comply with such regulations) and 
national standards; develop a programme for the ela boration and approval of na tional standards; carry 
out accreditation procedures with respect to conf ormity assessment bodies within the area of its 
responsibility until the establishment of the single na tional accreditation body (for further details, see 
paragraph [802] below); and, ex ecute the functions of the nati onal body on standardization.  
Rosstandart also maintained the national informa tion database containing technical regulations and 
standards, the list of goods subject to mandatory  conformity assessment, as well as the following 
registers of:  conformity declarations that had p assed registration; certificates that had been issued; 
registered systems of voluntary certification; a nd on ensuring the unity of measurements on the 
territory of the Russian Federation, as provi ded for in Government Resolution No. 248 of 
6 April 2011 "On Amendments to the Regulations of the Federal Agency on Technical Regulation 
and Metrology", and CU Commission Decision No. 319.   Rosstandart also carried out the publication 
of the technical regulations.  A detailed descripti on of the current responsibilities of the CU Bodies 
and Federal Executive authorities were given in [Table 37]. 
709. One Member of the Working Party asked a qu estion regarding the responsibilities of MIT in 
carrying out the CU harmonized regime:  which or ganizational measures had been taken to avoid a 
conflict of interest between its accreditation, certif ication, standardization and regulatory tasks.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Federa tion stated that MIT did not perform certification, 
standardization and accreditation activities.  He al so explained that Article 3 of Federal Law  
No. 184-FZ as well as Article 3 of the CU Agreem ent on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation Bodies 
prohibited any person or body from perform ing certification and accreditation activities 
simultaneously (these activities must always be perfo rmed by different entities).  MIT was responsible 
for developing national policy in the area of t echnical regulation and metrology in accordance with 
EurAsEC and CU Agreements and EurAsEC and CU Acts as well as for supervising the development 
of draft technical regulations.  Pursuant to Presi dential Decree No. 86, MED developed policy in the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 248  
 
  area of accreditation, and would, from the end of 2011, oversee the single national accreditation body 
that would be responsible for accreditation and inspection of bodies that performed conformity 
assessment in the Russian Federation, for national,  CU, and EurAsEC technical regulations and for 
the remaining mandatory national standards.  Obli gatory certification of compliance for products 
circulated on the territory of the Russian Federati on was carried out by separate legal entities (legal 
persons, e.g. Joint Stock Companies).  These conf ormity assessment bodies must either be accredited 
by the single national accreditation body, or by si milar national authorities in other CU Parties and 
included in the CU Unified Register.  He noted that  use of the term "body" in respect of these entities 
was the result of international practice, and did not mean that these entiti es were governmental or 
administrative bodies.  
710. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the Sub-Commission on 
Technical Regulation of the Governmental Commi ssion on Economic Development and Integration, 
created in accordance with G overnment Resolution No. 1166 of 30 December 2009 "On the 
Governmental Commission on Economic Development and Integration", was an inter-ministerial 
body, which was responsible for coordinatio n of the Federal Executive bodies of the 
Russian Federation regarding implementation of po licy in the field of technical regulation.  
The Sub-Commission included representatives of all relevant Federal Executive authorities, involved 
in technical regulation procedures (for further details, see [Table 37]).   
711. A separate group, the Public Board on Techni cal Regulation, which was established in 
accordance with the Order of the Ministry of Indu stry and Trade of the Russian Federation No. 84 of 
26 January 2011 (as last amended on 27 May 2011 ) (Order No. 84), was empowered to submit 
recommendations and proposals to MIT aimed at improving technical regulation.  The Board was 
organized as a forum for interested representatives  of business, science, academia, government, and 
other fields to discuss matters related to technical  regulations.  Any person representing the interests 
of domestic or foreign companies or a public organization (including business associations) 
established in the Russian Federation could apply for membership.  There were no requirements for 
citizenship or residence, as stipulated by the provisions of Order No. 84.  The recommendations and 
proposals of the Board were regarded only as advi ce.  Although it was an independent body, the 
Board closely cooperated with relevant CU and Federal Executive bodies, as well as scientific, 
research, and other organizations, on a regular basis.   The Board also organized and held additional 
public consultations on draft techni cal regulations.  MIT performed onl y the secretarial functions of 
the Board.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 249 
 
 
  712. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that pursuant to national, CU and 
EurAsEC mechanisms for consultatio n with the public (including interested persons from countries 
not Members of the EurAsEC and CU) would be maintained from the date of accession in conformity 
with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement to  inform and consult with, on an ongoing basis, 
CU and EurAsEC bodies, government agencies and ministries (at the national and sub-national 
levels), and private sector interests on the deve lopment and application of  technical regulations, 
standards, including sets of rules, and conformity assessment procedures to be applied on the territory 
of the Russian Federation.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- (c) Technical Regulations, International and National Standards, and Conformity 
Assessment Procedures  
-  (i) Technical Regulations 713. The EurAsEC Agreements on the Basics of Technical Regulation Harmonization and on 
Technical Regulation Policy Coordination; the CU Agreements on Uniform Technical Regulation 
Principles, on Mandatory Conformity Assessme nt, and on Mutual Recognition of Accreditation 
Bodies; and Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided for th e implementation of the following principles 
based on the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement:  
- Application of non-discrimination and a nati onal treatment regime.  Technical regulations 
were to be applied in the same manner and to  the same extent irr espective of the country 
and/or place of origin of products, the nature a nd details of the transactions and/or natural or 
legal persons (Article 7(6) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ).  
- Elimination of technical barriers to trade. Requirements of technical regulations must not 
create any barriers to business activity beyond the levels necessary to achieve legitimate 
objectives, such as the protection of human life or  health, property, environment, life or health 
of animals and plants, and prevention of actions that might mislead consumers (Article 5.1 of 
the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regula tion Policy Coordination); as well as for the 
purpose of ensuring energy efficiency and r esource saving (Articles 6(1) and 7(2) of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ and Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical 
Regulation Principles); and removing unnecessary rest rictions in mutual trade (Article 2.1 of 
the Agreement on the Basics of Technical Regulation Harmonization).  
- Harmonization of technical regulations with rele vant international standards.  (Articles 7(8) 
and 7(9) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, Articl es 5.2 and 10 of the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Technical Regulation Policy Coordination, Articles 4.4 and 4.5 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, CU  Commission Decision No. 625 as amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 July 2011).  
- Harmonization of conformity assessment procedures with releva nt international standards, 
relevant guides, or recommendations issued  by international standardizing bodies. 
- Harmonization and voluntary application of standa rds.  Standardization must be carried out 
according to the principle of use of a releva nt international standard as the basis for 
development of a national standard, except where such documents do not comply with 
purposes of adoption of technical regulations, in cluding due to the effects of climatic and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 250  
 
  geographic factors or technology problems.  (Article 12 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and 
Article 8.1(d) of the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination).  
- Transparency in the development of technical regulations and standards (Articles 9 and 9.1 of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ), CU Commission Deci sion No. 527, and EurAsEC Interstate 
Council Decision No. 1175):  Any legal or natural person, foreign or domestic, or 
governmental or non-governmental body may act as the developer of a draft technical 
regulation.  A notification about the developm ent of a draft technical regulation must be 
published in the print media of Rosstandart, on the official websites of the government body on technical regulation (MIT), the CU Commission or EurAsEC, as relevant at an early appropriate stage in its development.  The no tification must contain information on name and 
object of the technical regulation; object characteristics in relation to which the requirements 
had been developed, with a summary of the purpose of the technical regulation.  
The notification would specify whether the requirements being developed, differed from 
relevant international standards or obligatory requirements valid in the territory of the 
Russian Federation and would indicate the sour ce of information on the draft technical 
regulation, i.e., the name of the developer of  the given draft technical regulation, as well as 
his contact information for the receipt of wr itten comments from interested persons and the 
last day for the submission of comments.  The dr aft technical regulation would be available to 
interested persons as of the date of publicati on of this notification.  The developer was 
required to supply, upon demand, any interested  person with a copy of the draft technical 
regulation.  The payment for providing the copy was not to exceed the cost of its issuance.  
The developer was required to carry out a p ublic consultation on the draft technical 
regulation, consolidate written comments receive d from interested persons, provide responses 
to comments received and update the draft tec hnical regulation taking into account the written 
comments received.  The developer was required to save the written comments received from 
interested persons up to the date of entry into  force of the technical regulation, and, upon 
request, to hand them over to representatives of the government bodies of the Parties on 
technical regulation (e.g., in Russia, MIT) a nd the CU Commission or the Interstate Council 
of EurAsEC as relevant.  In all cases, expert examination of a draft technical regulation was carried out by an Expert Commission on technical regulation, composed of, inter alia , 
representatives of relevant government bodies , research institutions, self-regulated 
organizations, public associations of entrepreneur s and consumers.  Meetings of the Expert 
Committee were held in open session, and its conclusions and recommendations must be 
subject to mandatory publication in the prin t media of Rosstandart and in the public 
information system in electronic digital form.  The procedure for the publication of such conclusions and the amount of charge for their publication was established by the 
Government of the Russian Federation.  The pe riod for public discussion of the draft technical 
regulation - from the date of publication of th e notification about development of the draft 
technical regulation up to the date of publica tion of the notification about completion of the 
public discussion - could not be less than two m onths.  The notification about completion of 
public discussion on the draft technical regulation had to be published in the print media of 
Rosstandart and on the official websites of the government body on technical regulation 
(MIT) and the CU Commission and the EurAsEC, as relevant, in electronic form.  
The notification about completion of the public discussion would include the sources of 
information on the draft technical regulation, the list of written comments received from interested persons, responses to comments received, and the name of the developer of the draft technical regulation, along with his/her contact information.  From the date of 
publication of the notification about completion of the public discussion, the updated draft 
technical regulation and the list of written commen ts received would be available to interested 
persons (Article 9 of Fede ral Law No. 184-FZ, CU Commission Decision No. 527, EurAsEC 
Intestate Council Decision No. 1175).  The Russi an Federation would provide notification of 
the development of a draft technical regulation in accordance with Article 2.9 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 251 
 
 
  - Natural and legal persons also could propose draft technical regulations to MIT for the 
Ministry to decide whether development of the technical regulation was reasonable.  In case of a positive decision, MIT would submit a proposal to develop a technical regulation to the CU Commission or EurAsEC, as appropriate.  Procedures for development of a technical 
regulation were set-out in CU Commission D ecision No. 527 or EurAsEC Interstate Council 
Decision No. 1175 respectively. 
- Establishment of conformity assessment procedures (including the criteria by which the 
Russian Federation designated or otherwi se recognised conformity assessment bodies and 
their results) was according to the following pr inciples:  non-discrimination between domestic 
and imported products and among s uppliers of imported products, both in terms of procedures 
and in terms of fees; proportionality of proce dures to the level of risk; transparency and 
predictability of the procedures; and protection of confidentiality. 
- Recognition of conformity assessment results in accordance with international treaties of the 
Russian Federation and other international arra ngements:  Documents of the confirmation of 
compliance and reports of research (tests) and measurement of products , obtained outside the 
Russian Federation, could be recognised in acco rdance with the international treaties of the 
Russian Federation (Article 30 of Federa l Law No. 184-FZ and Article 5 of the 
CU Agreement on Mandatory Conformity Assessme nt) and other international arrangements.  
Currently, the Russian Accredita tion Body Association of Analytical Centres "Analitica" 
(AAC Analitica) was a member of the Inte rnational Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation 
(ILAC) and a signatory to the ILAC Arrangement with regard to standards.  Once the single 
national accreditation body of the Russian Federation was established, as expected by 
30 June 2012, it intended to join  ILAC which would facilitate re cognition of the results of the 
assessments of the laboratories and assessment bodies accredited by ILAC Members.  Before this occurs, the Russian Federation w as ready to conclude bilateral and multilateral 
arrangements with interested WTO Members, in cluding recognition of results of activity of 
third-country certification bodies.  
- Technical regulations were to contain requi rements in terms of performance of product 
characteristics or their related processes or production methods, including design criteria  (including testing), producti on, construction, assembly (set-up), operation, storage, 
transportation, realization and utilization, as we ll as rules of identification, forms, schemes 
and procedures of assessment (confirmation) of compliance, rules for identifying the 
requirements for terminology, packing, marki ng or labelling rules and their application and 
reclamation, rather than requirements regard ing design or descriptive characteristics, except 
where the purposes of adopting such technical  regulations could not be achieved in the 
absence of requirements in respect of design and d escriptive characteristics in view of the risk 
of damage (Article 7(4) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ; Article 2.2 of the EurAsEC Agreement 
on the Basics of Technical Regulation Harmoniza tion; and Article 4.3 of the CU Agreement 
on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles). 
714. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would, 
from the date of accession, ensure that all technical  regulations, standards, and conformity assessment 
procedures applied in the territory of the Russian Fe deration would continue to respect the principles 
set-out in paragraph [713] above, and the provisions  set-out in the WTO TBT Agreement, such as 
transparency, non-discrimination and national treat ment.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
715. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, from the date of accession, its 
Federal Governmental Bodies would prepare and apply all technical regulations, including those WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 252  
 
  adopted by the competent bodies of the EurA sEC and the CU, in accordance with the 
WTO Agreement, in particular with the provisions of Article 2 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  He also 
confirmed that the Federal government would take su ch reasonable measures as may be available to it 
to ensure compliance by local governmental and non-governmental bodies with the provisions of Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, as provided for in Article 3.1 of the WTO TBT Agreement, and 
would act in accordance with other provisions of Article 3 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
716. Members thanked the representative of the Russi an Federation for this explanation of the 
revised regime of the Russian Federation for developing technical regulations, standards and 
conformity assessment systems as provided for in EurAsEC and CU Agreements, in other EurAsEC 
and CU Acts, and in Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  So me Members requested clarification that these 
international agreements and other CU and EurAsEC Acts, some of whic h were directly applied in the 
Russian Federation, and Federal Law No . 184-FZ met other requirements of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  With respect to the purposes of technical regulation noted in Federal Law No. 184-FZ, as well as in the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination and 
the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles, some Members noted that some of 
the fundamental purposes, in particular protecti on of property, set-out in the Law and these 
Agreements were not contained in the illustrative list  of legitimate objectives in Article 2.2 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  In response, the representativ e of the Russian Federation explained that with 
respect to the aim of protecting property, this purpos e related to matters such  as regulations governing 
fire codes for warehouses, which were typically unoccupied. 
717. In response to a question from a Member about co nsistency of the provisions of Article 7.4 of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ with the relevant provi sions of the WTO TBT Agreement in terms of 
establishing requirements of design characteristics of products, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that Article 5.1 of th e EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation Policy 
Coordination and Article 4.2 of the CU Agreem ent on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles 
established the purposes for which technical regulations applied on the territory of the Russian Federation could be established.  This  would preclude requirements for the design and 
descriptive characteristics of a product, unless it w as clear, after taking into account the risk of 
potential harm, that design and descriptive characteris tics were necessary to attain the goals of the 
technical regulation, as indicated in these provisions.  These provisions, in his view, were fully consistent with the provisions of Ar ticle 2.8 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 253 
 
 
  718. With respect to elimination of barriers to trade (business activity), Members sought 
assurances that the Russian Federation would consider, inter alia , available scientific and technical 
information, related to processing technology or intended end-uses of products and the risks that 
non-fulfilment of such legitimate objectives w ould create when assessing whether legitimate 
objectives had been met, and would ensure that  Rosstandart and the EurAsEC and CU bodies 
involved in the preparation of technical regulations would consider these factors as well.  With respect 
to adoption of technical regulations, where tec hnical regulations were required and relevant 
international standards existed or their completi on was imminent, Members sought confirmation that 
the Russian Federation would use such standards, or  the relevant parts of them, as a basis for its 
technical regulations, and would ensure that EurA sEC and CU bodies adopting technical regulations 
applied on the territory of the Russian Federation wo uld do so as well, except when such international 
standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the 
legitimate objectives pursued, for inst ance because of fundamental climatic or geographical factors or 
fundamental technological problems.   One Member reiterated that the Russian Federation should only 
seek exceptions to international standards where th ere was a legitimate reason to do so (as envisaged 
by the WTO TBT Agreement).  
719. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration referred to para graph [702] of this 
Report.  Article 4.4 of the CU Agreement on Un iform Technical Regulation Principles provided for 
the use of international standards or relevant pa rts as the basis for the development of technical 
regulations "except in cases where such documents did not conform with the purposes of the technical 
regulations of the Customs Union."  He confirme d that this provision would be interpreted and 
applied in accordance with Article 2.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement, i.e., that such international 
standards or relevant parts would be used for th e development of technical regulations unless they 
were "an ineffective or inappropria te means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued."  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
720. One Member noted, regarding transparency in the development of technical regulations and 
standards, that, according to Article 2.9.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement, the Russian Federation 
should, upon request, provide to other Members, particulars or copies of the proposed technical 
regulations, and that the supply of the copies must be  free of charge.  In response, the representative 
of the Russian Federation explained that, accordi ng to provisions of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the 
developer of a technical regulation was required to provide copies of drafts of technical regulations 
upon payment of a fee that could not be more than th e cost of producing the copy.  He noted that this 
provision did not relate to the obligation of the Russian Federation to provide drafts of technical 
regulations to WTO Members as required under the WTO TBT Agreement.  Accordingly, the Single WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 254  
 
  Enquiry Point on TBT would provide drafts of techni cal regulations at the request of a WTO Member 
free of charge.  He added that existing drafts of technical regulations in preparation by EurAsEC and 
CU bodies already were publicly available free of ch arge in digital electronic form on the EurAsEC or 
CU Commission websites respectively and at the we bsite of Rosstandart.  The 24 national technical 
regulations of the Russian Federation, already ad opted under the process provided for in Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ, also were available on the website of Rosstandart. 
721. In response to a question from a Member about av ailability of draft technical regulations in 
languages other than Russian, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as a rule, 
the drafts were available in the language in whic h they had been developed for adoption, i.e., in 
Russian.  However, the right of the developer to provi de to interested persons copies of drafts also in 
any other languages was not restricted. 
722. Another Member asked the Russian Federation to  provide a more detailed explanation of the 
procedure of development and adoption of techni cal regulations in the Russian Federation.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that the development, adoption, 
amendment and cancellation of technical regulations  of the CU and EurAsEC were carried out in 
accordance with Articles 9 and 9.1 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, CU Commission Decision No. 527, 
and EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 1175.   
723. In response to questions by some Members con cerning ongoing activity of the Government of 
the Russian Federation aiming at implementation of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the representative of 
the Russian Federation informed Members of th e Working Party that the Government of the 
Russian Federation had adopted the Program of De velopment of Technical Regulations, approved by 
Order No. 1421-r of 6 November 2004 (as last am ended on 9 March 2010). The Program, reviewed 
annually, eventually developed 49 draft national technical regulations and ultimately adopted 24 
national technical regulations by the end of 2010, with a special focus on the priority technical 
regulations that had been listed in Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  The Program had been replaced when 
the Russian Federation agreed with Kazakhstan a nd Belarus to establish the harmonized system of 
technical regulation within the CU described in pa ragraphs [699] to [706] of this Report, and the 
development of technical regulations in the Russian Federation from that time focused on the 
development and adoption of the list of priority tech nical regulations contained in EurAsEC Interstate 
Council Decision No. 521 and CU Commission Decision No. 492.  These priority technical regulations were listed in [Table 36]. 
724. The representative of the Russian Federation c ontinued to explain th at under the CU any 
domestic or foreign physical or legal person or governmental or non-governmental body could  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 255 
 
 
  develop a draft technical regulation.  Such pers on or entity was required to publish a notice on the 
development of the draft technical regulation an d then to provide for a public consultation and 
comment on the draft, in accordance with the requ irements, described in paragraph [705] above.  
In addition, third-country interested parties coul d provide comments on draft technical regulations 
proposed by any of the EurAsEC or CU Parties, as es tablished in Article 6 of the EurAsEC Interstate 
Council Decision No. 1175 and Article 7 of the CU  Commission Decision No. 527, respectively.  
After the public consultation process, the draft wa s submitted to the national body responsible for 
technical regulation policy (MIT) which approved it.   Responding to a question on how draft technical 
regulations, not based on international standards, could be revised prior to application, he stated that 
the applicable laws and acts specified the priori ty use of international standards as the basis for 
technical regulations and that the technical re gulation developer was required to provide his 
assessment on how the draft was consistent with intern ational standards in his notification of the draft 
for public comment.  The technical regulation devel oper was also required to identify the standards 
used in constructing the draft technical regulati on.  When the national authorised body received 
comments provided by the public on these materials,  it forwarded them to the relevant expert 
commission established in accordan ce with Article 9.9 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and described in 
paragraph [713].  This commission included an equal number of experts representing government 
bodies, academia and business/consumers associations .  The meeting of the relevant commission was 
public and its decisions were publicly availabl e.  The commission would take into account the 
requirement to use international standards and, if necessary, urge appropriate changes.  The resulting 
draft was submitted to the national authorised body which forwarded it to the CU Commission.  The CU Commission in turn placed the draft techni cal regulation, a notice on how it was developed, 
and an explanatory note on its own official websit e and on the official websites of the authorised 
bodies for technical regulation of the other CU Par ties.  Interested domestic and foreign legal and 
natural persons (including those from non-members of the CU) could submit their comments and 
suggestions on the draft technical regulations to th e authorised body of the CU Party that proposed it 
and to the Secretariat of the CU Commission.  The period for comments was at least 60 days following the publication of the first draft of the tec hnical regulations by a CU body.  He noted that 
government bodies submitted draft technical regulati ons and other documents to the CU Commission 
for adoption and that any amendments to  a technical regulation were adopted within the same 
procedure.   
725. One Member invited the Russian Federation to co nfirm that "trade impact" was part of the 
risk assessment included in the summary submitted by the developer of the draft technical regulation. 
In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that the developer was obliged to 
compose this summary objectively.  Thus, if so me of the comments received from the interested WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 256  
 
  persons contained information on "trade impact", this  must be included in the summary.  In addition, 
MED was responsible for carrying ou t an assessment of the impact on trade of the draft technical 
regulations, pursuant to Government Resolution No. 437 of 5 June 2008 "On the Ministry of 
Economy of the Russian Federation".  The trade im pact assessment of MED was forwarded to the 
Government of the Russian Federation and used as pa rt of the analysis by the Government on whether 
to approve the draft technical regulation. 
726. One Member requested further information on th e operations of the expert commission of the 
Russian Federation and the CU Committee on Technical  Regulation with regard to the nature of the 
reviews these bodies would conduct and any systematic  regulatory impact analysis that would be 
performed on each technical regulation proposal.  This  Member asked for explanation and assurances 
that proper mechanisms were in place at each stage to ensure conformity of draft regulations with 
rights and obligations under the WTO TBT Agreement.  It also asked how the meetings and decisions 
of the expert commissions and the CU Committee on Technical Regulation were made public and 
whether they were accessible to interested internati onal, as well as domestic, parties.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  the commissions of experts were empowered to 
provide expert evaluations of draft technical regul ations and proposals regarding their adoption, but 
the decision on what to submit to the CU Committee on Technical Regulation for coordination and review at the CU level was taken by the MIT.  Such decisions could take into account expert 
commission proposals.  The expert commission would review the draft of a technical regulation and 
other relevant information, including all comments regarding the draft, received from the interested 
persons.  Regarding the mechanism of ensuring conform ity of draft regulations with the provisions of 
the WTO TBT Agreement, he noted that the expert commissions, supervised by the MIT, were to act 
in conformity both with Federal Law No. 184-FZ and with the relevant EurA sEC and CU Agreements 
and other CU Acts which reflected the provisions  of the WTO TBT Agreement.  Specifically, these 
bodies were obliged to include in their evaluations  the founded conclusions regarding the compliance 
of the drafts with the legislation of the Russi an Federation and international norms and rules, 
including the WTO TBT Agreement.  The meetings of the expert commissions were open to the 
public, and their decisions were published in the official journal of Rosstandart.  
727. One Member asked whether, in those cases wh ere the draft technical regulation differed from 
international standards, the Russian Federation ha d a policy requirement that regulators justify a 
deviation from the international standard.  In res ponse, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that, according to the provisions of Article  9.7 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and CU Commission 
Decision No. 527, the procedure required that the cases  of deviations from the international standards  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 257 
 
 
  must be specifically justified in the findings suppor ting the adoption of the draft technical regulation, 
which must accompany the draft wh en it was submitted for adoption. 
728. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
comply with all obligations of the WTO TBT Agre ement, including those related to not creating 
unnecessary obstacles to trade.  In addition, he conf irmed that from the date of accession, relevant 
international standards, guides and recommendations as described in paragraph [747] would be used 
as the basis for technical regulations, whether deve loped by the Russian Federation or developed and 
adopted by the competent bodies of the CU as provided for by the WTO TBT Agreement.  To this end, the Russian Federation would ensure that any exceptions to the use of international standards 
found in Federal Law No. 184-FZ or in EurAsEC a nd CU Agreements and ot her relevant EurAsEC 
and CU Acts corresponded to the exceptions  permitted under the WTO TBT Agreement.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
-  (ii) Technical requirements not subject to Federal Law No. 184-FZ  
729. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that in accordance with the provisions on 
technical regulation of the EurAsEC and CU Ag reements and EurAsEC and CU Acts, mandatory 
technical regulations and mandatory conformity asse ssment procedures applied on the territory of the 
Russian Federation, could only be established by D ecisions of the EurAsEC Interstate Council and the 
CU Commission, respectively.  National technical regulations  established by Federal Laws, 
Government Resolutions, and Presidential Decrees w ould be replaced by these instruments.  In a few 
areas, however, mandatory requirements for product s were laid out in domestic laws of the 
Russian Federation.  For example, there were ex emptions concerning requirements connected with 
ensuring the integrity and sustainable functioning  of the national communications network of the 
Russian Federation and the use of the radio freque ncy spectrum or with ensuring national security 
(for instance, procurement of defence products) in cluding nuclear safety, which were regulated by 
other legislation such as Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 "On Communications," (as last 
amended on 7 February 2011) (hereafter:  Law No. 126-FZ), Federal Law No. 170-FZ of 
21 November 1995 "On the Use of Atomic Energy" (as last amended on 27 December 2009), and 
Federal Law No. 3-FZ of 9 January 1996 "On Radiati on Safety of the Population" (as last amended on 
23 July 2008).  In his view, such legislation was applied in conformity with the provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement. 
730. In addition, Articles 1(3) and 1(4) of Fede ral Law No. 184-FZ provided that social and 
economic, organizational, sanitary and hygienic , medical and preventive, and rehabilitation 
requirements in the sphere of labour protection; application of measures on prevention of the onset WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 258  
 
  and spread of mass infectious diseases of humans, prevention and treatment of human diseases with 
the exception of requirements regarding medicines,  medical equipment and food products which thus 
were not excluded from the coverage of the Law;  and application of measures on protection of soil, 
air, and bodies of water at resorts, tourist destina tions, and places for mass public recreation, were 
exempted from the coverage of Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  Those requirements were regulated by 
other domestic legislation, such as the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5487-1 of 22 July 1993 
"The Basis of the Legislation of the Russian Fe deration on the Protection of Health of Citizens 
(as amended on 28 September 2010); "Water Code of  the Russian Federation" adopted by Federal 
Law No. 74-FZ of 3 June 2006 (as amended on 28 December 2010); "Forest Code of the Russian Federation" adopted by Federal Law No. 200-FZ of 4 December 2006 (as amended on 
29 December 2010); and Federal Law No. 96-FZ of  4 May 1999 "On the Protection of Atmospheric 
Air" (as amended on 27 December 2009).  These requirements typically did not concern the 
elaboration, enactment, and implementation of ma ndatory requirements for product characteristics or 
their related processes or production methods, incl uding processes of design (including survey), 
production, construction, assembly ( setup), operation, storage, transportation, sale, and reclamation.  
Mostly, these requirements provided for norms of  human activity (economic or non-economic), 
including rules of use of natural objects (for exam ple, regulations for construction work in the 
proximity of bodies of water or establishing responsibility for pollution of air and water; in specific areas connected with risks for human, animal or plant life and health.  He reiterated that the 
requirements with respect to medicines, medical e quipment, and food products  were not covered by 
the exemptions and thus were subject to the provi sions of the relevant Eu rAsEC and CU Agreements 
and other EurAsEC and CU Acts  and Federal Law No. 184-FZ. 
731. While this statement was considered as helpfu l to clarify the question of exceptions from the 
scope of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, some Member s asked how these exceptions were addressed in 
EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts.  They asked if the mandatory 
requirements established in these laws were consid ered to be technical regulations within the 
provisions of the relevant EurAsEC and CU Agr eements and EurAsEC and CU Acts.  They also 
expressed the concern that, at least in some cases,  these exceptions could nevertheless relate to the 
elaboration, enactment and implem entation of mandatory requirement s for product characteristics or 
their related processes or production methods outsi de established regulatory norms that observed 
WTO provisions.  Furthermore, these Members asked whether, if this were to be the case, the applicable legislation would contain sufficient guarantees that the principles of transparency, 
non-discrimination, and predictability as well as ot her principles of the WTO TBT Agreement would 
be fully respected when the rele vant normative legal acts were elaborated, enacted, and implemented.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 259 
 
 
  732. Concerning the relationship of the technical a nd other requirements for goods exempted from 
the coverage of Federal Law No. 184-FZ with CU Agreements and other CU Acts establishing the 
legal framework for technical regulation in th e territory of the CU Parties and with the 
WTO TBT Agreement, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that in areas where 
mandatory requirements were not covered under Federal Law No. 184-FZ, e.g., sustainable 
functioning of the national communications networ k and nuclear equipment, or CU and EurAsEC 
Agreements and Acts, these goods we re regulated by specific national legislation.  While specific 
safety issues could be covered by technical regulations (e.g., safety to humans using 
telecommunications or nuclear equipment), other issues like system compatibility in telecommunications, labour safety requirements, and security aspects of nuclear products were 
managed separately.  Not all mandatory requirements c ould be considered to be technical regulations.  
Current plans called for amendments to be made in the first half of 2012 to 51 laws containing such 
mandatory requirements.  These amendments would clearly define those requirements that were technical regulations, and those that were not, even if they had a mandatory character.   
733. In response to the questions of some Members in respect to specific features of technical 
regulation in the communication sector, the represen tative of the Russian Federation noted that the 
requirements connected with ensuring the integr ity and sustainable functioning of the national 
communications network of the Russian Federation were established and governed by the legislation 
of the Russian Federation on communication.  Purs uant to Article 41 of Federal Law No. 126-FZ, 
conformity assessment was mandatory for telecommunication equipment used in public 
telecommunication networks, as well as for indus trial telecommunication networks and special 
telecommunication networks if they were connected to  public networks.  He noted that, in his view, 
this requirement was in compliance with the provi sions of the Annex on Telecommunications to the 
WTO GATS (Item 5.e), which provided for the right of WTO Members to establish conditions on 
access to and use of public telecommunications ne tworks which were necessary to protect the 
technical integrity of those networks.  Conformity  of this telecommunication equipment to technical 
regulations adopted by regulatory legal acts of the Federal Executive authority responsible for 
communications could be confirmed by mandatory  certification or conformity declaration.  
Communications equipment also was subject to th e following technical regulations:  the technical 
regulation on low voltage equipment, the techni cal regulation on electromagnetic compatibility and 
the technical regulation on machines and equi pment security.  The list of telecommunication 
equipment subject to mandatory certification wa s approved by Government Resolution No. 896 of 
31 December 2004 "On Approval of the List of Communication Equipment Subject to Mandatory 
Certification".  According to Item 2 of that Resolution, telecommunication equipment subject to 
mandatory certification was excluded from the list of goods subject to mandatory confirmation of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 260  
 
  conformity at the moment of its importation to the te rritory of the Russian Federation.  He also noted 
that the Ministry of Telecommunications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation 
(MinComSvyaz) did not establish mandatory requireme nts for the products not included in the above 
mentioned list. 
734. He further stated that the Government of th e Russian Federation had adopted some normative 
legal acts aiming at implementation of Federal Law No. 126-FZ, namely Government Resolutions 
No. 165 of 29 March 2005 "On Approval of Rules of  Accreditation of Certification Bodies and Test 
Laboratories (Centres) Engaged in Certification Testing of Communication Equipment" (as last 
amended on 4 May 2010) and No. 214 of 13 April 2005 "On Adoption of Rules for Organization and 
Performance of Compulsory Verification of Conf ormity of Communication Equipment" (as last 
amended on 13 October 2008).  Since these requir ements, technical regulations, and the other 
normative legal instruments existed for the technical  regulation of telecommunications equipment in 
each of the CU Parties already, presently it was not planned to develop a unified technical regulation related to communication equipment within the Customs Union. 
735. One Member requested clarification as to whethe r the Federal Executive authority responsible 
for communications also established any requirements for the equipment used in private networks.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that MinComSvyaz did not establish 
technical requirements to the equipment used in  telecommunications networks which were not 
connected to the national telecommunications network. 
736. In response to a question by a Member about  the plans of the Russian Federation to 
implement the APEC TEL Mutual Recognition Arrangement on conformity assessment for telecommunications equipment the representative of the Russian Federation explained that according 
to Article 41.2 of Federal Law No. 126-FZ th e documents on conformity confirmation of 
telecommunications equipment, as well as the results of the tests of the communication equipment, 
shall be accepted in accordance with international treaties of the Russian Federation (see also the 
description of the relevant general provisions of  Federal Law No. 184-FZ and the CU Agreement on 
Mandatory Conformity Assessment in paragraph [713]  above).  He noted, however, that the APEC 
TEL Mutual Recognition Arrangement was a regional in itiative rather than an international treaty to 
which the Russian Federation was a party.  In this c ontext, the provisions of this arrangement did not 
currently have a binding character for the Russian  Federation and would not  be implemented in 
connection with the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
737. Some Members expressed concern that Federa l Law No. 126-FZ did not contain enough 
guarantees that the elements of transparency and predictability of the WTO TBT Agreement would be  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 261 
 
 
  fully respected, namely, when the normative legal acts  were drafted and approved.  Furthermore, they 
considered that Federal Law No. 126-FZ did not pr ovide for sufficient guarantees that the current 
system of conformity assessment, according to which all information technology and 
telecommunications equipment were subject to mandatory certification and to certificates of a limited validity period (maximum 36 m onths), would be revised.  These Members requested the 
Russian Federation to take commitments that it woul d take measures to facilitate trade in information 
technology and telecommunications equipment products by addressing these concerns by the time of 
its WTO entry. 
738. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that his Government would base all 
normative legal acts defining technical requirements for communications equipment and elaborated in 
accordance with Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 "On Communications" (as last amended on 
23 February 2011) on the principles of transparency, non-discrimination, and predictability of the 
EurAsEC Agreement on Implementation of Coordinate d Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January  2008, the CU Agreement on Uniform Principles 
and Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic  of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation of 18 November 2010, a nd Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 
"On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010).  To that purpose, prior to the 
date of accession, a Government Resolution woul d be adopted, which would require that "normative 
legal acts" of MinComSvyaz must comply with the transparency and all other principles set-forth in 
the WTO TBT Agreement for the adoption of normati ve legal acts.  The Russian Government would 
also limit the scope of application of these "normati ve legal acts" to technology-neutral regulation of 
legitimate public interest objectives as defined in the WTO TBT Agreement and the Annex on 
Telecommunications in the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  He added that, 
by the end of 2015, mandatory requirements for telecommunication equipment used in or connected 
to public networks would be limited to those re quirements of technical regulations adopted in 
accordance with the relevant EurAsEC and CU Agreem ents on technical regulation.  However, where 
duly justified, mandatory requirements in order to ensure integrity, stability, and security of operation 
of the national communications network could be main tained.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
739. In response to a question from Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that, until relevant technical regulations  are adopted, sanitary and phytosanitary regulations 
would be applied in accordance with the provisi ons of Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 
"On Quarantine of Plants" (as last ame nded on 28 December 2010) and Law of the 
Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices" (as last amended on WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 262  
 
  28 December 2010) and, to the extent that these laws and matters regulated by these laws were 
covered by the WTO TBT Agreement, these laws, regulations, and any measures taken pursuant to 
them would be applied only to the extent that they complied with that Agreement.  Similarly, until the 
adoption of technical regulations with respect to nuclear and radiological safety, current nuclear and 
radiological safety technical regulations would be applied in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 170-FZ of 21 November 1995 (as last amended on 27 December 2009) "On the use of Atomic 
Energy" and Federal Law No. 3-FZ of 9 January 1996 "On Radiation Safety of the Population" 
(as last amended on 23 July 2008) and, to the exte nt that matters regulated by these laws were covered 
by the WTO TBT Agreement, these laws, regulations, and any measures taken pursuant to them would be applied only to the extent that they comp lied with that Agreement, without prejudice to the 
obligations of the Russian Federation under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and 
other international agreements in the nuclear sphere.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
740. Concerning safety and security requirements for civil aircraft, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the Russian Fede ration was a Party to the CIS Intergovernmental 
Agreement on Civil Aviation and use of Airspace .  In accordance with Government Resolution 
No. 367 of 23 April 1994, "On Improvement of the Ce rtification System and of the Order of Accident 
Investigation in Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation", the Russian Federation delegated its 
certification authority concerning the airworthiness of civil aircraft to the Interstate Aviation 
Committee (IAC) that operates under the auspices of th at Agreement.  The IAC was authorised to act 
as the Federal Executive body of the Ru ssian Federation for this purpose, and inter  alia, to certify 
types of aircraft and components, and to accredit other organizations that conduct certifications.  
Pursuant to Government Resolution No. 316 of 7 April 1995, "On Amendm ents to Government 
Resolution No. 367 of 23 April 1994", the IAC was also authorised, on behalf of the 
Russian Federation, to conduct negotiations for reci procal acceptance of certification of safety of 
types of aircraft for civil aviation.  Other majo r activities of the IAC included the development and 
harmonisation of aviation rules and standards among th e Parties to the Agreement; the certification of 
aeronautical repair facilities, aerodromes, and airw ays equipment; and the in vestigation of accidents 
involving civil aircraft. 
741. The representative of the Russian Federation al so commented that, in his view, the civil 
aviation certification requirements used by the IAC, including airworthiness requirements and certification procedures, were harmonized with  corresponding norms and procedures of the 
United States of America (FAR - Federal Av iation Regulation) and the European Union 
(CS - Certification Specifications) and also corr esponded to standards and recommended practices of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 263 
 
 
  Annex 8 to the Convention on International Civil Av iation.  This, according to the representative of 
the Russian Federation, was confirmed by an a udit conducted by the International Civil Aviation 
Organization (ICAO) carried out on the Russian Federa tion.  He emphasised, that this harmonization 
had allowed for the conclusion of more than 30 in ter-governmental and international agreements in 
the field of acceptance of airworthiness approvals of  civil aircraft with all major manufacturers of 
civil aircraft.  
742. Some Members of the Working Party recalled that civil aircraft certification requirements 
were a type of "technical regulation", as defined in  the WTO TBT Agreement, and that the procedures 
for ensuring conformity with these requirements were "conformity assessment procedures" as defined in the WTO TBT Agreement.  Members of the Wo rking Party stated that they expected the 
Russian Federation to ensure compliance with the WTO TBT Agreement with respect to the 
preparation, adoption, and appli cation of technical regulations a nd conformity assessment procedures 
for civil aircraft. 
743. Some Members also noted their view that in some ongoing cases, the process of civil aircraft 
certification carried out by the IAC had lacked transp arency and predictability, which raised concerns 
for those aircraft producers of those Members seeking aircraft certification in the Russian Federation.  
These Members considered that the Russian Federa tion should ensure that all civil aircraft 
certification and conformity assessment proce dures were carried out in an expeditious, 
non-discriminatory, transparent, fair and objective ma nner, based on technical criteria only, in order to 
ensure that its certification and conformity assess ment procedures did not operate as an unnecessary 
barrier to trade. 
744. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that upon accession to the WTO, the 
civil aircraft certification requirements and conformity assessment procedures applied in the Russian Federation would comply with all releva nt provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement.  
In particular, he confirmed that these civil airc raft requirements would be prepared, adopted, and 
applied in a non-discriminatory manner and would not  be more trade restrictive than necessary.  
The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r confirmed, that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that upon its accession to the WTO, the procedures for assessing conformity with these 
certification requirements, as carried out by the Russi an Federation and the IAC,  were applied equally 
to all like aircraft regardless of origin, and were ca rried out expeditiously and in a transparent manner.  
The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r confirmed that any fees for the certification 
procedures would be imposed equitably for assessing th e conformity of products of Russian or foreign WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 264  
 
  origin in accordance with the provi sions of Article 5.2.5 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  The Working 
Party took note of these commitments. 
745. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that all technical requirements 
applied to goods on the territory of the Russian  Federation, including those applied as technical 
regulations as provided for in Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical 
Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) and other domestic  legislation and the relevant 
EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts, to the extent that they corresponded 
to the definition of a "technical regulation" unde r the WTO TBT Agreement, would comply with the 
principles of the WTO TBT Agreement, relating in particular to transparency, predictability, and 
avoiding the creation of unnecessary obstacles to trade.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
-  (iii) Voluntary National and International Standards 
746. Article 13 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ envisaged the following types of voluntary standards 
within the meaning of the WTO TBT Agreement to be used in the Russian Federation:  
- national standards;  
- rules, norms and recommendations in the sphere of standardization;  
- classifications applied in accordance with the est ablished procedure, all-Russian classifiers of 
technical-and-economic and social information;  
- standards adopted by organizations (standards of enterprises, scientific, technical, engineering 
institutions and other societies),  
- sets of rules, (voluntary documents, elaborat ed and approved by the Federal Executive bodies 
regarded as related to the standardization area);  
- international standards, regional standards, regi onal sets of rules, standards of foreign states 
and sets of rules of foreign states registered with the Federal Inform ation Fund of Technical 
Regulations and Standards; and  
- duly certified Russian translations of internati onal standards, regional standards, regional sets 
of rules, standards of foreign states and sets of  rules of foreign states accepted for account by 
Rosstandart.   
 Sub-national standards were not envisaged under the Federal Law.  
747. The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that standards, guides, and 
recommendations developed according to the principles set-out in the Decision of the WTO Committee on Principles for the Developmen t of International Standards, Guides and 
Recommendations with Relation to Articles 2, 5 and Annex 3 (G/TBT/1/Rev.8, Section IX of 
23 May 2002) of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, were regarded by the 
Russian Federation as international standards that could be used for the development of national 
standards.  Chapter 3 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ also provided the basis for the implementation of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 265 
 
 
  the rules of the Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption, and Application of Standards 
(Annex 3 of the WTO TBT Agreement).  He recalled that, since 1997, authorities of the 
Russian Federation were involved in the annual deve lopment and implementation of new standards.  
The level of harmonization of nati onal standards in force with international standards was currently 
about 47 per cent. 
748. He further informed Members of the Working Party that Government Resolution No. 266-r of 
28 February 2006 "On the Approval of the Concept of Development of a National Standardization 
System in the Russian Federation" had promoted the progressive harmonization of national with international standards and encouraged  due application of international standards.  It also encouraged 
the State authorities to co-operate with the busin ess community in drafting new national standards, 
aiming at the development of international trade relati ons and elimination of barriers to trade.  All of 
these activities would continue under the framework  established for standardization, technical 
regulation, and conformity assessment by CU a nd EurAsEC Agreements and other EurAsEC and 
CU Acts.  
749. Some Members of the Working Party emphasize d the importance of applying international 
standards and harmonizing national standards with in ternational standards.  They recalled efforts 
made by the Russian Federation under Federal Law No. 184-FZ to bring its regime on standards, 
technical regulations, and conformity assessment pr ocedures into conformity with WTO provisions.  
They sought assurances that under the new regime based on EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other 
legal acts compliance with national standards would be voluntary and requested that the 
Russian Federation complete the process of harmoniza tion with international standards as quickly as 
possible.  In the event that the national standards of the Russian Federation differed from international 
standards, these Members sought confirmation that any national standards would be prepared, adopted 
and applied in accordance with the Code of Good Practice set-out in Annex 3 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement and any current national standard s that were not consistent with the criteria 
set-out in the Code would be replaced. 
750. In response to questions from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
reiterated that Federal Law No. 184- FZ had established the main principles of the Russian system of 
standardization and technical regul ation with its implementation in 2003, and these principles, in his 
view, had complied with the provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement.  According to Article 12 of the 
Law, standards were applied voluntarily.  Both  Federal Law No. 184-FZ and the CU Agreement on 
Uniform Technical Regulation Principles established the following principles for the development and 
harmonization of standards: WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 266  
 
  - voluntary application of documents (standar ds) in the sphere of standardization;  
- elaboration of standards with maximum acc ount of interested parties' interests;  
- application of an international standard as th e basis for elaboration of a national standard, 
except when such standards were irrelevant to  the purposes of demonstrating compliance with 
technical regulations, including due to the e ffects of climatic and geographic factors or 
technology problems;  
- inadmissibility of creating obstacles to the manufacture and circulation of products, 
performance of works and rendering of services to a greater degree than it was minimum 
needed for the attainment of the goals specified in Article 11 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ;  
- inadmissibility of the establishment of sta ndards conflicting with established technical 
regulations; and 
- provision of conditions for unified application of standards.  
751. In response to a question from a Member about the procedure for elaboration and approval of 
national standards, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the rules of elaboration and 
approval of voluntary standards were set-out in Article 16 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  The national 
body for standardization (Rosstandart) was required to elaborate and approve the programme for the 
elaboration of national standards and ensure pub lic availability of this programme.  Any person 
(including foreigners) could act as the developer of  a national standard.  Th e developer must submit 
the notification of the elaboration of a national st andard to the national body for standardization, 
which must then publish it in the public informatio n system in digital electronic form and in the 
publication of the Federal Executive body for techni cal regulation.  The notification must contain 
information about provisions in the draft national standard that differed from the provisions of the 
respective international standards.  The developer of a national standard must provide interested 
persons access to the draft, including providing a copy  of the draft national standard to an interested 
person on request at charges that did not exceed th e cost of its manufacture.  The developer must 
finalise the draft national standard taking account of any comments by interested persons obtained in 
written form, hold public consultation on the draf t national standard, and compile a list of any 
comments received, with a brief outline of their cont ent and of the results of the consultation and, 
present this list to the national body for st andardization and the technical committees for 
standardization.  The time limit for public consultation must not be less than two months, at the end of 
which the national body for standardization w ould publish a notice that the period for public 
consultation had ended.  Inter ested persons must be provided access to the final draft national 
standard and to the list of comments. 
752. He further stated that the draft national standa rd together with the list of comments received 
on the draft must be presented by the developer to  the technical committee for standardization which 
then organized examination of the draft.  Taki ng account of the results of the examination, the 
technical committee for standardization was required to prepare a proposal, together with a statement 
of reasons, on approval or rejecti on of the draft national standard.  Th is proposal must be sent together  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 267 
 
 
  with the draft standard, the list of comments, and th e results of the examination to the national body 
for standardization, which must then take a decisi on on adoption or rejection of the draft standard and 
publish the relevant notification in its official publ ication in digital electronic form within 30 days 
from the day of approval of the national standard .  The procedure established for development and 
approval of national standards also was to  be used to amend national standards. 
753. He further explained that in the case of lack  of national standards applicable to certain 
requirements of technical regulations or objects of  technical regulation, sets of rules could be 
elaborated as a means of ensuring compliance with requirements of the technical regulations for product characteristics or their related processes or production methods, including processes of design (including survey), production, construction, assembly (setup), operation, storage, transportation, sale, 
and reclamation, as described in Articles 2 and 16(10) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  Sets of rules were 
documents of standardization that were applie d on a voluntary basis in line with the aims and 
principles set-out by Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  Sets of rules were rules that were approved by the 
Federal Executive bodies within the limits of thei r authority and did not di ffer from national standards 
by their character or result, but by their form at.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
considered that both national standards (issued afte r 1 July 2003) and sets of rules were standards, 
i.e., voluntary, as that term was defined by the WTO TBT Agreement. 
754. Elaboration and approval of sets of rules would be carried out by the Federal Executive 
bodies within the limits of their authority.  Draf t sets of rules would be published in the public 
information system in digital electronic form at least two months prior to their approval.  
The procedure for the elaboration and approval of sets of rules was established by the Government of 
the Russian Federation according to the provisions of  Article 16 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ related to 
the respective procedures set for the elaboration of national standards, in Government Resolution 
No. 858 of 19 November 2008 "On Order on Devel opment and Adoption of Set of Rules".  
755. In response to a question from one Member about different time-frames  mentioned in 
paragraphs  [752] and [799], the representative of the Russian Federation explained that those 
time-frames related to two different procedures.   The time-frame of 30 days mentioned in 
paragraph [752] was relevant to the time peri od between adoption of a national standard and 
publication of the relevant public notice.  Time-frames  mentioned in paragraph [799] were relevant to 
the procedure of elaboration and a doption of technical rules (methods of measurement, etc.) if such 
rules were necessary for implementation of a technical regulation; the two time periods related to technical regulations together must be observed within the 180-day minimum time period between the 
adoption of a technical regulation and its entry into force. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 268  
 
  756. The representative of the Russian Federation confirme d that the definition of "sets of rules" in 
Article 2 of the Law on Technical Regulation had been  amended to make clear that sets of rules have 
the same goals and are subject to the same pr inciples and procedures as were established for the 
adoption of WTO TBT Agreement compatible standards.  Furthermore, Article 16.10 of the Law on Technical Regulation would be applied so that set s of rules were adopted through procedures that 
were at least as transparent as the procedures set- out in Article 16.3 through 16.6 of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010) and that such sets of rules w ould be used as a voluntary means of demonstrating 
compliance with technical regulations.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
-  (iv) Disposition of Mandatory National Standards of the Russian Federation 
757. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that Federal Law No. 184-FZ and the new 
framework for standards and technical regulation set -out in EurAsEC and CU Agreements and other 
EurAsEC and CU Acts were based on WTO provisions.  According to  Article 7(2) of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ, Article 2.2 of the EurAsEC Agreemen t on Common Technical Regulation Policy and 
Article 4 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Tec hnical Regulation Principles, requirements for 
products and related processes of production, assembly, set-up, operation (use), storage, 
transportation, realization and utilisation, as well as rules of identification (labelling), forms, schemes 
and procedures of assessment (confirmation) of co mpliance, where they were to remain mandatory, 
must be contained in technical regulations beari ng in mind the principle that requirements should not 
be more trade restrictive than to fulfil a legitimate objective.  These technical regulations were applied 
directly throughout the territory of the Russian Fe deration and could be modified only by introducing 
amendments and supplements to the corresponding technical regulation, according to EurAsEC and 
CU Commission decisions.  Any provision that relate d to the application of the relevant technical 
regulation and was not included in that technical  regulation was not mandatory.  Russian national 
standards containing mandatory requirements were to have been reviewed and replaced with technical 
regulations by 1 July 2010.  While that deadline was no longer operational, Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
still provided that national standards applied prior to 1 July 2003 containing mandatory requirements 
would stay in force, but only to the extent that th ey did not contradict the principles set-out in the 
Law, and which complied with the principles of the WTO TBT Agreement.  No additional national 
standards containing a mandatory requirement had been adopted in the Russian Federation after 
1 July 2003, only technical regulations were developed and adopted according to Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ.  The exceptions to this general rule were  described in paragraphs [731] to [745].  If any 
problems arose from the application of national st andards with mandatory requirements, connected 
with the inconsistency of the nati onal standard with the provisions of the Law, a procedure set-out in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 269 
 
 
  Article 46 of the Law for amending the national sta ndard without waiting until it was replaced with a 
technical regulation consistent with the interna tional obligations of the Russian Federation.   
758. He also explained that Federal Law No. 184- FZ had required replacement of all national 
standards containing mandatory requirements with technical regulations prior to 1 July 2010.  
Because of technical, organizational and other diffi culties this deadline had b een eliminated, but all 
remaining national standards containing mandatory  requirements would be replaced by EurAsEC and 
CU technical regulations as part of the CU tec hnical regulation harmonization process, based on the 
work plan and timetable for adoption of priority  technical regulations found in CU Commission 
Decision No. 492 and EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521. 
759. One Member indicated that it would like to see a firm commitment to the completion of the 
process of converting the national standards of the Russian Federation with mandatory requirements 
into technical regulations from the date of accessi on.  It noted that the WTO TBT Agreement covered 
three types of measures:  standards which were voluntary and technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures that were linked to technical regulations which were mandatory.  Furthermore, 
prior to commencing the process of WTO accession,  the Russian Federation had developed national 
standards, some of which contained mandatory requ irements.  This Member further noted that both 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ and EurAsEC and CU Agre ements and other EurAsEC and CU Acts on 
technical regulations foresaw the completion of th e process of converting standards with mandatory 
requirements into technical regulations.  This Memb er requested that the Russian Federation confirm 
a specific date for completing this process. 
760. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, pending their replacement by 
EurAsEC and CU technical regulations, national sta ndards issued by the Federal Executive authorities 
prior to 1 July 2003, which contained mandatory re quirements were in force only to the extent that 
they ensured:  protection of human life or health, property of natural and le gal persons, and State or 
municipal property; protection of the environment and of animal and plant life or health; prevention of 
deceptive practices and energy efficiency (all of wh ich were set-out in Article 6.1 of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ, the EurAsEC Agreement on Techni cal Regulation Policy Coordination and the 
CU Agreement on Technical Regulation Principles) .  Further, such national standards, were 
considered by his Government to be "technical re gulations" as that term was defined in Annex 1 of 
the WTO TBT Agreement.  In addition, 24 tech nical regulations had been established under the 
provisions of Federal Law No. 184-FZ.  
761. The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that any concerns of interested parties 
and Members regarding compatibility of such mandatory requirements with the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 270  
 
  WTO TBT Agreement would be duly and effectively addressed in the framework of mechanisms and 
procedures provided for in the legislation of the Ru ssian Federation and in CU and EurAsEC technical 
regulations.  He added that info rmation about the opportunities offe red by these procedures would be 
made available to interested parties and Members, inter alia , through the Enquiry Point on TBT.  
The representative of the Russian Federation also  confirmed that imports of goods for which no 
mandatory requirements were in force would be allo wed without being required to satisfy formalities 
related to establishing compliance with technical re gulations.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
762. In response to a question from a Member i nquiring whether amendments to mandatory 
requirements in CU and EurAsEC techni cal regulations would be reviewed vis-a-vis  their consistency 
with the WTO TBT Agreement, the representative of the Russian Federation responded that the 
consistency of such amendments and draft tec hnical regulations with the WTO TBT Agreement 
would be verified for their consistency with the WTO TBT Agreement, including through testing their 
consistency with the relevant pr ovisions of CU and EurAsEC Agre ements and Acts.  Item 20 of 
CU Commission Decision No. 527 provided that proc edures on amendments were the same as for the 
adoption of technical regulations and, in his vi ew, were compliant with the provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  
763. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that an applicant (Russian or foreign 
person) could request consideration of amendments to a mandatory requirement and/or rules for its 
application with the aim of bringing the mandatory requirement and/or rules for its application into 
compliance with CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts, in accordance with the procedures 
established by CU Commission Decision No. 527 and si milar provisions of EurAsEC.  Such a request 
also could be addressed to the government agency that  had jurisdiction in a particular regulatory area.  
In such case, the agency would study the matter and present its opinion and, if relevant, a proposal on 
an amendment to the national body on standardization,  i.e. Rosstandart.  Finally, the representative of 
the Russian Federation explained that it was possible at any time to challenge in court any mandatory 
requirements within the scope of technical regul ations established under Federal Law No. 184-FZ or 
CU and EurAsEC technical regulations if such require ments did not comply with the criteria set-out in 
the Law or in CU and EurAsEC Agreements.  
764. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that an applicant could use an 
international or regional or forei gn standard for purposes of confirmati on of conformity.  To this end, 
the applicant needed to submit to Rosstandart a translation into Russian of such standard.  
Rosstandart considered this standard within 45 days  with the relevant technical committee in this area  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 271 
 
 
  (see paragraph 5 of Article 44 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ), and provided a reasoned conclusion in 
terms of the possible application of the standa rd that the applicant submitted for purposes of 
confirmation of conformity.  If the use of this  standard was possible, it was included in the 
corresponding list of documents used for confirmati on of conformity and to the Information Fund of 
Standards.  Where required, the CU Commission included the foregoing standard in the list of 
standards which were in use for confirmation of  conformity, as provided for in CU Commission 
Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, Regulatio n on Development, Adoption, Amendment and 
Cancellation of Technical Regulations of the Cust oms Union.  He also stated that Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ provided for review of standards whic h were in use for purposes of confirmation of 
conformity at least once every five years (Article 16.5 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ). 
765. The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that all standards currently in force in 
the Russian Federation containing mandatory require ments would be applied in compliance with the 
WTO TBT Agreement from the date of accession.  In  case of their inconsiste ncy with the provisions 
of the WTO TBT Agreement, such standards would be modified in accordance with the procedures 
set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 527 of  28 January 2011, Regulation on Development, 
Adoption, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical  Regulations of the Customs Union and national 
legislation.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation w ould fulfil all requirements of the WTO TBT 
Agreement, including those on notifications, as of th e date of accession.  The Working Party took note 
of this commitment. 
-  (v) Transparency and Notification 
766. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that all technical regulation proposals woul d be published in the public information system 
of the Russian Federation, the CU and the EurAsEC in digital form at least 60 days prior to their 
adoption.  Neither Federal Law No. 184-FZ nor CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Acts on 
standardization or technical regulation defined or  limited the number or character of interested 
persons who could submit commentary or suggesti ons to drafts of technical regulation.  
CU Commission Decision No. 527 explicitly provided for participation of all interested persons.  
Draft amendments would be revised  after taking into account the comments of interested persons.  
He also noted that the relevant international agre ements and other legal acts  did not provide for any 
restrictions for foreign persons to participate in the public review of draft technical regulations as 
interested persons.  In accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 527, interested persons 
including persons from third countries could submit their proposals and remarks on drafts of CU and EurAsEC technical regulations to the relevant na tional authorities as determined by the Government, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 272  
 
  to the CU Party-developer of the technical regula tion, to the CU Commission or to the Integration 
Committee of the EurAsEC (in the event of the technical regulation of EurAsEC), as relevant.  
Proposals would be considered and upon the review there would be prepared a summary of comments 
on the draft of the technical regulation and a deci sion on each of them, including reasons for such 
decisions.  
767. The Federal Executive body authorised by the G overnment to be responsible for the draft 
technical regulation would send the list of comments  received from all these sources in written form 
to the commission of experts which was elaborati ng the amendments, at least 30 days prior to 
adoption of the amendments.  The commission of e xperts would consist of the representatives of the 
respective Federal Executive body, other interested  Federal Executive bodies, research institutions, 
self-regulating organizations, public associations of entrepreneurs and consumers.  The decision on 
the amendment of the draft technical regulation in conformity with the comments and/or referral of 
the draft technical regulation to CU or EurA sEC bodies for further review, harmonization and 
approval or rejection would be made  by the Federal body responsible for development of the technical 
regulation on the basis of documents presented by the commission of experts.  
The WTO TBT Committee would be notified when draft technical regulations were circulated for 
comment domestically and when amendments to  national standards were proposed.  He assured 
Members of the Working Party that this procedure would operate with the aim of securing effective 
and timely consideration of proposals on draft techni cal regulation proposals and amendments to draft 
technical regulation proposals.  
768. In response to a Member inquiring whether th e comment period would be initiated only when 
notified, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that this 60 day period was not a specific 
"comment period" but a minimum allowed time-fr ame between publication of the draft and the 
publication of notification of the end of the comme nt period.  The commission of experts initiated 
their review after this period had concluded.  However, the CU Commission considered initial 
comments collected by the Federal Executive as  well as any other comments received during 
examination of the draft.  He explained that an additional period of comment was provided for in the 
process of development and/or adoption of CU and EurAsEC technical regulations, as provided for in 
CU Commission Decision No. 527 and in other CU and EurAsEC Acts.  
769. In response to some Members' questions concer ning matters of transparency in the area of 
technical regulation, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that the Federal Data Bank of Technical Regulations and Standards had been 
established to perform all information procedures, including WTO notifications.  It also contained  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 273 
 
 
  information on all remaining national technical regulations and national standards containing 
mandatory requirements that were in force.  He al so informed Members that a Single Enquiry Point, 
as contemplated under the WTO TBT Agreement and the WTO SPS Agreement, was operative within 
this structure, providing access to Russian regulations , standards, rules, and conformity assessment 
procedures, as well as drafts of respective documen ts.  Rosstandart was the enquiry point and its 
website and e-mail address were the following:  http://www.gostinfo.ru; and enpoint@gostinfo.ru.  
When national technical regulations were fully re placed with technical regulations established in 
accordance with relevant CU and EurAsEC Agreemen ts and Acts, a new Single Enquiry Point would 
be established for the CU and EurAsEC.  
770. Since December 2003, "Newsletter (Vestnik) of Technical Regulation" was published by 
Gosstandart (afterwards by Rosstandart).  This was an official publication, which contained all 
domestic notifications on the de velopment and outcome of public  consultations on technical 
regulations, conformity assessment procedures, and standards, reports of expert commissions on 
technical regulations, draft legislative acts, and other regulatory legal docum ents in the area of 
technical regulation.  The CU Commission website , www.tsouz.ru, was the point of publication for 
such documents related to the development, adopti on, and application of CU technical regulations.  
For EurAsEC technical regulations, the website was www.evrazes.com/en.   
771. Some Members expressed a concern that unde r the CU Commission Decision No. 620, as 
described in paragraph [702], foreign manufacturers not located in the territory of the CU, in contrast 
to manufacturers located within the territory of the CU, did not have the option to use declarations of 
conformity based on the CU common form.  To th ese Members, this constituted discrimination in 
breach of the TBT Agreement.  These Members sought  a commitment that the Russian Federation, by 
the date of accession, would eliminate this discriminatory treatment.  
772. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that in order to comply 
with the WTO TBT Agreement, and in particular Ar ticle 2.1 thereof, the said discriminatory treatment 
would be eliminated by the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO through the amendment of CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to Products Subjected to Mandatory Conf ormity Assessment (Confirmation) within the 
Framework of the CU with Issuance of Single Documents", approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 319 of 18 June 2010 to ensure that foreign ma nufacturers 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 us ing the CU common form.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 274  
 
  - (vi) Conformity Assessment Procedu res including the Accreditation of 
Conformity Assessment Bodies 
773. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, under Federal Law No. 184-FZ, 
the cost of mandatory conformity assessment would be paid by the applicant.  Furthermore, the cost 
of obligatory confirmation of compliance  was to be determined regardless of the country and/or place 
of their origin or of the persons acting as applic ants.  He confirmed that the cost incurred by a 
conformity assessment body formed the basis for determ ining the cost to the applicant.  The elements 
that would typically be considered by a conf ormity assessment body in  the territory of the 
Russian Federation in determining fees included the costs of labour, any necessary materials or 
equipment, and tests, as well as other usual costs a nd profits typical to commercial practices in this 
sphere.  The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that, under Article 19(1) of Federal 
Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Tec hnical Regulation" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010) (hereafter:  Law No. 184-FZ), th e procedures for the obligatory confirmation of 
compliance must be organized and applied in accordance with the principle of minimizing time 
duration and cost to the applicant.  The elements and procedures for determining cost to the applicant 
were indicated by guidelines established by the national standardization body and, pursuant to 
Article 23.4 of Law No. 184, applied equally to im ported and domestic products.  The applicant had 
the right to apply to court to seek compliance w ith these provisions, including cases when Federal or 
local government or non-governmental measures or t hose of the CU or EurAsEC were concerned.  
He also noted that the provisions of Law No. 184-FZ as a whole reflected the principle of uniform 
application of the Technical Regulation system a nd of the rules of conformity assessment, regardless 
of the country of origin of the products or  the nationality of conformity assessment bodies.  
Article 23(4) of Law No. 184-FZ specifically provided th at the cost to be paid for work on obligatory 
conformity assessment of goods would be established re gardless of the country and/or place of their 
origin, or the origin of the persons applying for conformity assessment.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
774. In response to a question of a Member, whethe r conformity assessment bodies could generate 
profit from the fees they charge or whether they were  limited to cost recovery only, the representative 
of the Russian Federation replied that conform ity assessment bodies were commercial organizations 
and may generate profit.   
775. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the issues of liability for releasing 
to the market, products which did not meet the requ irements of technical regulations (including the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 275 
 
 
  judicial procedure of coercive retraction of produc ts; liability of certification bodies, accredited testing 
laboratories and their employees) were described in Articles 36 to 42 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ. 
776. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that recognition of conformity 
assessment certificates issued in foreign countries w as carried out in line with interstate agreements 
and international certification systems to which th e Russian Federation had acceded and, in such 
cases, did not require the conclusion of a mutual re cognition or other agreement.  Those interstate 
agreements and international certification system s to which the Russian Federation had acceded and 
for which the Russian Federation recognised the r esults of conformity confirmation procedures, 
included the Geneva Agreement of 1955 on Mechani cal Vehicles, Brussels Convention on Reciprocal 
Recognition of Proof Marks of Handguns and Cartridges, IEC Quality Assessment System for Electronic Components (IECQ), IEC System for Conformity Testing and Certification of Electrical 
Equipment (IECEE), and IEC Scheme for Certifica tion to Standards for Electrical Equipment for 
Explosive Atmospheres (IECEx).  For importation and transit of goods regulated by the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild  Fauna and Flora (CITES), a permit issued by a 
CITES agency in the exporting country was accepte d.  Recognition of results of conformity 
assessment procedures was done through accreditati on of foreign certification bodies within the 
national mandatory certification system based on Mu tual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) and would 
be the responsibility of the single national accreditati on body once this was established.  Its first task 
would be to secure membership in ILAC.  Member ship would provide the basis for accepting the 
results of conformity assessment procedures of conformity assessment bodies accredited by other 
ILAC members.  But even before joining ILAC, th e Russian Federation was ready to start preparation 
of bilateral and multilateral arrange ments with interested Members, including recognition of results of 
activity of certification bodies.  The procedur es for recognising foreign conformity assessment 
documents (i.e., documents for the confirmation of compliance and reports of examination (tests) and 
measurements of products) were al so determined on the basis of re levant multilatera l and bilateral 
agreements on mutual recognition of certificates and schemes of conformity.  CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 established such  schemes, including scheme No. 9 which addressed 
the recognition of certificates of conformity of third-country conformity assessment bodies.  In other 
cases, due to differences in requirements for the products and procedures of accreditation of 
certification bodies adopted in the Russian Federati on compared to some other countries, foreign 
certificates were not recognised.  
777. A Member requested information on the agreemen ts or arrangements (mu ltilateral, plurilateral 
or bilateral) that the Russian authorities or c onformity assessment bodies were party to, that would 
facilitate the mutual recognition of certificates of co nformity.  In response, the representative of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 276  
 
  Russian Federation noted that the list of multil ateral and bilateral agreements to which the 
Russian Federation was a party, including those c ontaining provisions on mutual recognition, was 
available at www.gost.ru, as was the list of accepta ble conformity assessment bodies and the Unified 
Register of conformity assessment bodies accepted by the CU Parties. 
778. A Member asked whether these lists would be made publicly available in any other 
languages.  In response, the representative of th e Russian Federation stated that upon accession, the 
Russian Federation would officially notify these agr eements in accordance with the provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement on notification, in one of the WTO official languages. 
779. Some Members of the Working Party requested cl arification of the basis for acceptance of the 
results of conformity assessment procedures done  in WTO Members, in particular on how the 
Russian Federation would implement Article 6.1 of  the WTO TBT Agreement.  They also sought 
confirmation that interstate agreem ents, international treaties, and international certification systems 
to which the Russian Federation had acceded include d the WTO Agreement.  Members noted that the 
Russian Federation ratified the EurAsEC Agreemen t on Technical Regulation Policy Coordination, 
Article 9.2 of which stated that "the documents  of conformity assessment (confirmation) received 
outside the common customs area, including documents  regarding test results  and products imported 
for distribution within the common customs area, sh all be recognised, only in case all States of the 
Parties have acceded to the relevant interna tional treaties".  They also noted that the 
Russian Federation had confirmed that, in practice,  this meant that the documents of conformity 
assessment received outside the common customs area would be recognised only in cases where a 
mutual recognition agreement was applied between CU Parties and the relevant foreign state.  
They asked the Russian Federation to explain how the provisions of Article 6 of the WTO TBT Agreement, i.e., that WTO Members shall ensure, whenever possible,  that the results of 
conformity assessment procedures in other WTO Members were accepted, even when those 
procedures differed from their own, provided they we re satisfied that those procedures offered an 
assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to their own 
procedures, could be implemented in light of  the EurAsEC Agreement on Technical Regulation 
Policy Coordination. 
780. With respect to accreditation, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the 
main principles of the organization of the current syst em of accreditation were set-out in Article 31 of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ and would continue to be  implemented until the establishment of a single 
national accreditation body in 2012.  Pursuant to this Law and Government Resolution No. 163 of 
24 February 2009 "On Accreditation of Certifica tion Bodies and Testing Laboratories Carrying out  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 277 
 
 
  the Work on Conformity Assessment" (as amended on 17 June 2010) foreign certification bodies and 
laboratories operating in the mandatory sphere c ould not be accredited in the Russian Federation. 
Similarly, according to the CU Commission Decision No. 319 foreign certification bodies and 
laboratories could not be included into the CU Un ified List of accredited bodies.  However, pursuant 
to Article 30 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the Russ ian Federation was able to accept the results of 
foreign conformity assessment bodies and similar pr ovisions were incorporated in CU Commission 
Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011.  When the single national accreditation body of the 
Russian Federation joined ILAC, acceptance of the results of c onformity assessment bodies accredited 
by other ILAC members would be facilitated.  
781. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that accreditation of certification 
bodies and test laboratories, according to the provisio ns of Article 31 of Fede ral Law No. 184-FZ, was 
voluntary and organised in conformity with the principles set-out in that Article, which included 
requirements for the certification body and/or test la boratory to provide free access to its rules for the 
accreditation of certification bodies and test la boratories, to establish its independence and 
competence, not to restrict competition, and to prov ide equal access for all applicants to accreditation.  
Any limitations which could adversely affect or impede the recognition of these accredited bodies in 
the different regions of the Russian Federation were  prohibited.  Therefore, anybody accredited by the 
Russian Federation to conduct conformity assessment wa s recognised anywhere in the territory of the 
Russian Federation and with the implementation of the CU Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs 
Union In Compliance with Customs Union Pa rty Commitments under the Multilateral Trading 
System, would be recognised in the territory of th e other CU Parties as well.  Further, as noted in 
paragraph [709], neither Federa l Law No. 184-FZ nor the CU Agreement on Mutual Recognition of 
Accreditation Bodies permitted the same entity to engage in both certification and accreditation 
activities.  The rules of accreditation and list of th e accreditation bodies, including submissions to the 
CU Unified Register of conformity assessment  bodies were set by the Government of the 
Russian Federation, as further described in paragraphs [702] and [709]. 
782. One Member requested the Russian Federation to provide a list, in English, of the 
certification bodies authorised to provide the GOST R certification for electronic/electrical 
(including IT), mechanical and chemical produ cts.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that such list was avai lable on the website of Rosstandart, www.gost.ru but 
not yet in English. 
783. One Member of the Working Party noted that accreditation of conformity assessment bodies 
in a foreign country by an accreditation body fulfilling the requirements of ISO 17011, should be WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 278  
 
  sufficient.  In response, the representativ e of the Russian Federation stated that,  in his view, all of the 
accreditation procedures in the Russian Federation  were based on standard ISO 17011, which  
set-out guidelines for accreditation bodies.  Thus , simplifying accreditation procedures and avoiding 
re-accreditation could be accomplished, inter alia , through the agreements on mutual recognition of 
accreditation bodies, if the relevant accreditation body was a signatory of the ILAC Arrangement or the IAF Multilateral Agreement or the relevant c onformity assessment body participates for example, 
in an IEC scheme.  He emphasized that one Russian  accreditation body, the Association of Analytical 
Centres "Analitica" (AAC Analitica), was a signato ry to the ILAC Arrangement in the voluntary 
sphere and that the single national accreditation body of the Russian Federation intended to become a 
Member of ILAC after its establishment. 
784. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the WTO Agreement 
was an international treaty within the mean ing of Article 30 of Fe deral Law No. 184-FZ of 
27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) 
(Law No. 184-FZ).  Thus, it was possible under La w No. 184-FZ for the Russian Federation to accept 
the results of conformity assessment procedures done in WTO Members on the basis of, and in 
compliance with, Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Ag reement, without requiring the conclusion of a 
mutual recognition or other agreement.  The accepta nce of such results throughout the CU would be 
established by the CU Treaty on the Functioning of  the Customs Union in Compliance with Customs 
Union Party Commitments under the Multilateral Tradi ng System.  Therefore, from the date of its 
accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation would ensure, whenever possible, that results of 
conformity assessment procedures of conformity assessment bodies located in other WTO Members were accepted, provided that th e Russian Federation was satisfied, as provided in Article 6.1 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement, that those procedures offere d an assurance of conformity with applicable 
technical regulations or standards equivalent to  the own procedures of the Russian Federation.  
The representative of the Russian Federation also c onfirmed that as provided in Article 6 of the WTO 
TBT Agreement, such acceptance also  could, for example, be achieved through the membership of the 
single national accreditation body of the Russian Federation, once established, in ILAC and the 
International Accreditation Forum (IAF) and signing  of the ILAC Arrangement, which would build 
confidence in the adequacy and technical competen ce of the conformity assessment bodies of third 
countries accredited by other ILAC and IAF member s, including acceptance of the results of such 
conformity assessment bodies, conclusion of a Mutu al Recognition Agreement and other appropriate 
means.  The Working Party to ok note of these commitments. 
785. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that in accordance with the authority 
conferred in Article 31(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, the current list of accredited certification  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 279 
 
 
  bodies and test laboratories was published on the Rosstandart website (www.gost.ru).  
The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the accreditation bodies certified 
pursuant to Article 31(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Technical 
Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) would be replaced by a single national 
accreditation body by 30 June 2012, and the name a nd other information on th is Body would be duly 
published along with the accredited bodies listed in the CU Unified Register, on the Rosstandart 
website (www.gost.ru) and the website of the CU Commission (www.tsouz.ru), respectively.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
786. In response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that the development of draft technical regulations could proceed in parallel with the development of 
draft national standards.  When developing techni cal regulations, the Russian Federation would use 
relevant international standards, or  the relevant parts thereof, as a b asis, in accordance with Article 2.4 
of the WTO TBT Agreement.  Before a technical regulation entered into force, Rosstandart, as the 
national standardization body, must approve and pu blish in a publication of the Federal Executive 
Body for technical regulation (Newsletter (Vestni k) of Technical Regulation) and in the public 
information system in digital electronic form (www. gost.ru) the list of national standards and (or) sets 
of rules, the voluntary application of which resu lts in compliance with the requirements of the 
approved technical regulations.  The requirements of  the particular technical regulation for which 
voluntary compliance with national standards and (o r) sets of rules established compliance with the 
technical regulation, could be indicated in th e national standards and (or) sets of rules.  
The application of national standards and (or) set s of rules on a voluntary basis would suffice to 
establish compliance with the requirements of th e corresponding technical regulations.  In case 
national standards and (or) sets of rules were a pplied for compliance with the requirements of the 
technical regulations, the assessment of compliance with the requirements of the technical regulations 
could be carried out on the basis of confirmation of  compliance with the national standards and (or) 
sets of rules.  These procedures were also relevant in terms of the CU system.  Article 6 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation Principles stated that "the Commission shall 
approve the list of international a nd regional standards, and in the absence thereof - national standards 
of the CU Parties - voluntary application whereof ensures observance of requirements of the adopted 
technical regulations of the Customs Union and th e methods of establishing conformity with CU 
technical regulations".  
787. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, depending on the technical 
regulation at issue, documents establishing comp liance with the requirements of the technical 
regulation could include a supplier's own evidence,  such as declaration of conformity with the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 280  
 
  relevant technical regulation, t est reports, and other documents as  relevant, in accordance with the 
legislation of the Russian Federation, CU a nd EurAsEC Agreements and other EurAsEC and 
CU Acts, or the results of conformity assessmen t procedures that the Russian Federation may accept 
pursuant to Article 6.1 of the WTO TBT Agreem ent.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
788. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that, Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided 
that until corresponding technical regulations had come  into effect, the Government would approve a 
unified list of products that would be subject to ob ligatory certification, and a unified list of products, 
that would be subject to declaration of conformity, and would supplement these lists every year. In addition, these lists had formed the basis for the contribution of the Ru ssian Federation to the 
Unified List compiled by the CU Commission, in  accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 319. 
789. He confirmed that the Russian Federation would review not only its lists  of products subject 
to obligatory certification or declaration of conformi ty, but all the technical regulations applied on the 
territory of the Russian Federation, including CU  and EurAsEC technical regulations, on an ongoing 
basis to ensure that they remain ed necessary to achieve the desire d legitimate objective, in accordance 
with Article 2.3 of the WTO TBT Agreement.  Tec hnical regulations would not be maintained if the 
circumstances or objectives givi ng rise to their adoption no long er existed or if the changed 
circumstances or objectives could be addressed in a less-restrictive manner.  The Working Party took 
note of the commitments. 
790. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that, pursuant to Article 24(1) 
of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and Article 7.2 of th e CU Agreement on Uniform Technical Regulation 
Principles, persons submitting a conformity declarati on had to be registered in the Russian Federation 
or in one of the CU Parties, respectively, as le gal persons or individual entrepreneurs, who were 
producers or sellers, or who were representing a fo reign producer.  In the latter case, a contract 
establishing delegation of authority to apply for conf ormity of the products to technical regulations 
and liability for non-conformity of the delivered produc ts was required.  Pursuant to Article 46(4) of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ and the CU Agreement on Un iform Technical Regulation Principles, until 
the corresponding technical regulations  had come into effect only produ cers or persons resident in one 
of the CU Parties representing a foreign producer could declare conformity on the basis of its own 
proofs (i.e., the declaration of conformity of a manufacturer or supplier).  Importers could do so for foreign goods they imported into the Russian Fede ration based on a contract for that importation.  
791. Some Members expressed concerns about the requirement that, in the case of imports, the 
person submitting a conformity declaration was re quired to supply a contract including certain  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 281 
 
 
  conditions when this was not required for submissi on of a conformity declaration for domestically 
produced articles.  This additional requirement rais ed concerns about national treatment and that the 
decision on whether to provide the conformity decl aration would be based on conformity with the 
contract, including provisions  on quality, rather than technical regulations.  These Members requested 
that the Russian Federation eliminate the requirement to submit a contract and to ensure that conformity assessment was for compliance with technical  regulations and not the terms of a contract.  
792. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained th at Article 24(1) of 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ did not require that the contract contain provisions on the safety of goods which would then be subject to conformity assessment.  The purpose for requiring a contract was to 
establish existence of the contractual obligation of  the foreign supplier to the person who represented 
such supplier to ensure that the imported goods wo uld be in conformity with applicable technical 
regulations, and that the person who represented su ch supplier would assume liability for any injury 
resulting from non-conformity with technical regulations .  He added that the authorities of the 
Russian Federation did not influence or interfere  in the economic and le gal relations between 
entrepreneurs in respect of terms of contract. 
793. Some Members expressed concern that the provi sions imposing liability on local suppliers for 
goods not meeting the technical regulations or sta ndards-related-requirement s implied that the goods 
manufacturer would be forced to share proprietary and confidential information with the local supplier 
in order for the latter to exercise its right of de fence before the court.  They noted that the 
manufacturer was the only entity which was ultimate ly responsible for the non-conformity of the good 
with the technical regulations or standards and, thus , should have the right to stand before the court in 
defence of conformity claims. 
794. In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that a foreign 
manufacturer, who intended to participate in a dis pute between a person who represented its interests 
in the Russian Federation and a consumer who had suffered damages due to the product it had 
produced, was entitled to do so in accordance with Ar ticle 43 of the Civil Procedural Code of the 
Russian Federation.  Under this Article such produc er would be qualified as a "third party who does 
not submit a separate claim" in case the outcome of the dispute could affect its rights and obligations 
as regards any party of the dispute.  In accordance with the said Article such producer could also be 
involved in the case as a "third party who does not su bmit a separate claim" at the request of any party 
to the dispute or at the initiative of the Court.  Therefore, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the manufacturer of the product(s), being the entity possessing the most complete information that could provide evidence on complia nce of the good(s) with applicable technical WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 282  
 
  regulations, would be entitled to demonstrate directly to competent judicial and administrative 
authorities the conformity of the good(s).  He also explained that the following provisions of the 
Federal Law of 29 July 2004 No. 98-FZ "On Commercia l Secrets", in particular Articles 10 and 14 
thereof that provided for measures that ensured security of the information constituting commercial 
secret as well as criminal, civil and administrativ e liability of the persons responsible for illegal 
disclosure of that type of information, furthe r specified in Article 13.14 of the Code of the 
Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, Article 183 of the Criminal Code of the 
Russian Federation, and Article 1472 of the Civil C ode of the Russian Federation, guaranteed that 
confidential and proprietary information would be fully protected. 
795. He further stated that, pursuant to Article 24(2), (3), and (4) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, 
when declaring conformity on the basis of th e applicant's own proofs and those obtained with 
participation of a third party, an applicant, at his own choice and in addition to providing his own 
proof: 
- could include in evidentiary materials the reports of research (tests) and measurements carried 
out in an accredited test laboratory (centre); and 
- could submit the certificate of quality system, in relation to which there was provided for the 
control (supervision) of certification body, which has issued the given certificate, over 
certification object. 
796. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that the certificate of a quality system 
may be used together with other proofs when as sessing the supplier's declaration for any products, 
except for the case when technical regulations stipulat ed for such products another form of conformity 
assurance.  The contents of the documentary evidence  were to be determined by a particular technical 
regulation.  
797. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that, in respect of mandatory certification, 
Federal Law No. 184-FZ provided that certification schemes applied for certification of products 
would be determined in the relevant technical regulations and not by the certification authority 
(Article 25(1)).  The duration of validity of confor mity certificates and conformity declarations were 
to be established in the relevant technical regulati on.  Further, according to Article 27 of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ, products whose compliance with the re quirements of technical regulations had been 
confirmed in accordance with the procedure stipul ated by Federal Law No. 184-FZ must be labelled 
with the mark of circulation on the market.  The applicant must label products with the mark of 
circulation on the market on his own, by any method (way) suitable for him.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 283 
 
 
  798. Some Members noted that there did not appear to be a commitment to ensure that regulatory 
authorities allow a reasonable period of time between the final publication of a conformity assessment 
procedure and its entry into force so that su ppliers can adapt.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation replied that Article 7(10)  of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002, 
"On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) (Federal Law No. 184-FZ) 
provided that final technical regulations would not en ter into force earlier than six months after their 
official publication.  He clarified that the rules of  conformity to a technical  regulation generally would 
be contained within the regulation itself.  In this context, the reference to "technical regulations" in 
Article 7(10) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ referred to conformity assessment procedures as well; thus, 
there would be no less than six months between the official publication of a conformity assessment procedure and its entry into force.  He confir med that Article 7(2) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
provided that the requirements of technical regulations  must not be applied so as to create obstacles to 
trade to a greater extent than n ecessary to achieve the aims set-out in Article 6(1) of Federal Law 
No. 184-FZ.  The Working Party took note of the commitment. 
799. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that, in cases where a positive 
assurance of conformity with technical regulations  was required and technical rules and methods for 
ensuring compliance with technical regulations (i.e ., elements of conformity assessment procedures, 
defining the methods of research, tests, measurements,  or selection of samples that could be used to 
comply with the technical regulations) were not included in a technical regulation, such rules and 
methods would be developed in accordance with CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 
28 January 2011, Regulation on Development, Adopt ion, Amendment and Cancellation of Technical 
Regulations (CU Commission Decision No. 527).  He confirmed that CU Commission Decision No. 527 provided for the placement of such rules and methods in digital electronic form not later than 
90 days before the day of their adoption, approve d by the CU Commission not later than 60 days 
before the entry into force of the relevant t echnical regulation and pub lished on websites of the 
CU Commission and of MIT (www.tsouz.ru and www.minpromtorg.gov.ru/eng, respectively).  
He added that these rules were to be based on relevant guides or recommendations issued by international standardizing bodies, in accordance with Article 5.4 of the WTO TBT Agreement, and 
would define the methods of research, tests, measure ments, or selection of samples that may be used 
to comply with the technical regulations.  The ru les must, where possible, list a choice of compliance 
methods and, in order to ensure compliance wi th Article 5.1.2 and other provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement, conformity assessment procedures would not be more strict or be applied more strictly than necessary to give adequate c onfidence that products conform with the applicable 
technical regulations, taking account of the risks non-c onformity would create.  He confirmed that the 
above-mentioned rules would not create a bigger impe diment to business activ ity than was necessary WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 284  
 
  to fulfil the goals that are speci fied in Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on Uniform Principles and 
Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation of 18 November 2010.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
800. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that pursuant to Article 29(1) of Federal 
Law No. 184-FZ, customs clearance of products subj ect to mandatory conformity assessment required 
submission of a conformity certificate or a conformity declaration registered with the authorised body.  
Such a certificate or a conformity declaration was submitted to customs authorities together with the 
customs declaration, and was necessary to obtain pe rmission to import the products in question into 
the Russian Federation.  Lists of products requiri ng mandatory certification, including the HS Codes, 
were to be approved on the basis of technical regul ations by the Government.  Currently, the national 
list of products subject to mandatory certificati on or declaration of conformity was provided in 
Government Resolution No. 982 of 1 December 2009 "On the Approval of the Single List of Goods 
Subject to Mandatory Certification and Single List of Goods whose Conformity may be Confirmed by 
Conformity Declaration" (as last amended 13 N ovember 2010).  He noted that 24 current national 
technical regulations in effect in the Russian Fe deration also included the list of goods subject to 
mandatory certification or declaration of conform ity.  He further recalled that, since 1999, a wide 
range of products subject to mandatory certifica tion had been consequently transferred to the 
conformity declaration procedure (in accordance wi th amendments to the a bove regulations, provided 
by Government Resolutions No. 287 of 29 April 2002, No. 72 of 10 February 2004, No. 775 of 
17 December 2005, and No. 982 of 1 December 2009) .  According to preliminary assessments, upon 
entry into effect of all envisaged technical regula tions, approximately 60 per cent of goods would be 
subject to conformity declaration and 40 per cent to conformity certification.  CU and EurAsEC 
Agreements and Acts also had established the Unifie d Register of declarations of conformity and 
certification accepted within the CU.  The Unified Li st of Goods subject to mandatory certification 
and confirmation by conformity declaration was contained in CU Commission Decision No. 620.  
801. In response to concerns of one Member in resp ect of transparency of mandatory requirements 
which were currently applied to imported goods a nd would stay in effect until the adoption of the 
relevant technical regulations, the representative of  the Russian Federation informed Members of the 
Working Party that a unified list of products subj ect to mandatory certification and certification of 
conformity, adopted in accordance with Ar ticle 46(3) of Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 
27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulation" (as last amended on 28 September 2010) 
(Law No. 184-FZ), as well as in accordance with CU  Agreement on Circulation of Goods Subject to 
Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the Customs Territory of Customs Union of 
11 December 2009 and CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 2011, "On the Unified List  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 285 
 
 
  of Products, in Respect of which Mandatory Requi rements are Established in the Framework of the 
Customs Union" was available at the website www.minpromtorg.gov.ru and the CU Commission 
website www.tsouz.ru.  These lists were legally bind ing.  The Unified List of Goods established by 
CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 "On the Unified List's Update with Regard to 
Products Subjected to Mandatory Conformity Asse ssment (Confirmation) Within the Framework of 
the CU" with issuance of single documents, a pproved by CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 
18 June 2010 indicated particular  national standards and/or thei r parts which defined mandatory 
requirements for such goods and would stay in fo rce until the relevant CU and EurAsEC technical 
regulations entered into force.  He emphasized that the national list would be duly revised and updated 
in accordance with the procedures provided for by Ar ticle 46(3) of Federal La w No. 184-FZ, i.e. upon 
adoption of new technical regulations or updating of  existing national standards due to developments 
of technologies.  Interested parties and Members woul d be able to participate in such updating, in 
accordance with the procedures described in paragra ph [766].  The Unified List would be amended in 
accordance with normal CU Commission procedures.  He stated that in his view such lists would be 
an effective mechanism ensuring th e transparency of mandatory requirements and facilitation of trade. 
802. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that documents (national standards 
and others) relevant to goods subject to mandatory  certification and declaration of conformity were 
developed in accordance with Government Resolu tion No. 982 of 1 December 2009 "On Approval of 
the Single List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Ce rtification and Single List of Goods Subject to 
Conformity Confirmation Procedures by means of Conformity Declaration" and published on the 
website of Rosstandart.  Rosstandart, the successor of Gosstandart, was in charge of accreditation.  The procedures of conformity confirmation of produc ts determined before 1 July 2003 by Rosstandart 
or other governmental bodies of the Russian Federa tion, in conformity with  established international 
practices, would remain in effect until the issuance of CU or EurAsEC technical regulations or would 
be eliminated if the relevant technical regulati on was eliminated or transformed into a voluntary 
standard.  Since the entry into force of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, mandatory assessment of conformity 
with technical regulations has been governed excl usively by the relevant provisions of the Law, 
specifically Articles 20 (Forms of Compliance C onfirmation) and 23 (Obligatory Confirmation of 
Compliance).  The provisions of technical regul ations containing the conformity assessment 
procedures used in respect of particular products mu st be in compliance with those Articles and with 
the relevant CU and EurAsEC Agreements and Eu rAsEC and CU Acts.  He noted that work on 
mandatory certification of goods was currently co nducted by Russian authorities and laboratories 
accredited by Rosstandart and other accreditation bo dies in accordance with the established procedure 
and later, after the new CU Sy stem was developed, by a singl e national accreditation body.  
This single national accreditation body would be so lely responsible for the accreditation of assessment WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 286  
 
  bodies.  In response to the request of a member, th e representative of the Russian Federation said that 
a list of certification bodies accredited to provide  the GOST R certification for electronic/electrical 
(including information technology), mechanical and chemical products had been provided on the 
website of Rosstandart:  www.gost.ru. 
803. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the Russian Federation would, 
from the date of accession, ensure that centr al government bodies use existing (or soon-to-be-
completed) relevant guides or recommendations, or the relevant parts of them, issued by international 
standardization bodies as a basis for their confor mity assessment procedures, except where, as 
provided for in Article 5.4 of the WTO TBT Agreem ent, such guides or recommendations or relevant 
parts of them are inappropriate for the Russian Fe deration.  In addition, he confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would in accordance with Artic les 7 and 8 of the WTO TBT Agreement, from the 
date of accession, take all reasonable measures to ensure that local government bodies and 
non-governmental bodies within its territory to the extent that they operated conformity assessment 
procedures, complied with the respective provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement.  He also confirmed 
that in accordance with Article 5.1.2 of the WTO TB T Agreement, in respect of products subject to 
mandatory certification the conformity assessme nt procedure provided for in CU and EurAsEC 
Agreements and Acts would not be more  strict or be applied more stric tly than was necessary to give the 
Russian Federation adequate confiden ce that products conformed to the applicable technical regulations 
or standards.  He confirmed that the products su bject to mandatory certification set-out in the 
CU Unified List described in paragr aph [801] would be defined in accordance with the provisions of the 
TBT Agreement, including the provi sions of Article 5.1.2 thereof.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments. 
804. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would, 
from the date of accession, ensure that a procedure was maintained to review complaints concerning 
the operation of conformity assessment procedures and ensure that corrective actions were taken in 
response to justified complaints in accordance w ith the requirements of Article 5.2.8 of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
805. In response to a question from a Member re garding the number of products subject to 
mandatory certification, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that, as more low risk 
products would become subject to supplier's declar ation of conformity, the overall number of products 
currently subject to mandatory certification could be e xpected to decline in future compared to today. 
806. In response to the question from one Member regarding the perspectives of transferring 
electronic equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity, the representative of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 287 
 
 
  Russian Federation noted that, while taking a decision of transferring of particular types of electronic 
equipment to the sphere of declaration of conformity , the factor of risk to cause harm is considered.  
Taking into account that electronic equipment, wh ich was intended for non-professional users (those 
not having special education), carried elevated ri sk, currently such products should be subject to 
certification, in accordance with the existing norms  of technical regulation based on international 
rules.  Electronic equipment such as computers a nd audio-visual equipment,  intended for professional 
users, would be subject to declaration of conform ity.  He stated that the Russian Federation would 
seek and duly consider a position of interested WT O Members regarding changes of the form of 
conformity assessment (certification) for electronic equipment such as television (TV), audio-visual (AV) and personal computers, within the procedures described in paragraph [724].  He also explained 
that the Russian Federation would pe rmanently conduct a review of products under certification, with 
the purpose to expand the scope of products under declaration of conformity, on the base of new data, 
provided, inter alia , by manufacturers.  In addition, he st ated that in accordance with the adopted 
CU technical regulation on safety of low-voltage equi pment (which regulated also electrical safety of 
TV, AV and personal computers) the validity of cer tificates was extended from three to five years. 
807. In response to a request from a Member regardi ng automatic extension of the term of validity 
of automobile-type approval, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that, according to 
the technical regulation on Safety of Wheeled Ve hicles, adopted by the Russian Federation, for 
extension of the term of validity of automobile-typ e approval, analysis of the changes affecting the 
safety of the vehicle should be done.  If there we re no such changes, the automobile-type approval 
would be extended without additional tests.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation assumed 
that such approach, aimed at simplification of au tomobile-type approval procedure, complied with the 
provisions of the WTO TBT Agreement.  The represen tative of the Russian Federation stated that the 
same approach, as described above in this para graph, would be reflected in the corresponding 
technical regulation of the Customs Union which was currently under development. 
808. In response to the request of a Member to eliminate duplicative certification requirements 
applied to industrial products, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the 
Russian Federation abolished the duplicative certifi cation requirement for industrial products on 
1 July 2010, and that it would seek to ensure th at such duplicative certification requirements would 
not be contained in any future CU technical regulations. 
809. In response to questions from some Members c oncerning matters of transparency in the area 
of technical regulation, the representative of th e Russian Federation informed Members of the 
Working Party that the Federal Data Bank of Technical Regulations and Standards had been WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 288  
 
  established to perform all information procedures, including WTO notifications.  He also informed 
Members that within this structure a Single Enquiry Point, as contemplated under the 
WTO TBT Agreement and the WTO SPS Agreement, were operative, providing access to, technical 
regulations, standards, rules, and conformity asse ssment procedures applied on the territory of the 
Russian Federation, as well as drafts of respectiv e documents.  Rosstandartinform, a State Unitary 
Enterprise, was the enquiry point and its webs ite and e-mail address were the following:  
http://www.gostinfo.ru; enpoint@gostinfo.ru. 
810. In response to a question from a Member about the mandatory labelling requirement for 
GMO products, the representative of the Russian Federa tion stated that this requirement, in his view, 
complied with the legitimate objective of prev enting deceptive practices, as provided for by 
Article 2.2 of the WTO TBT Agreement and reflected in Article 6.1  of Federal Law No. 184-FZ and 
Article 4.2 of the CU Agreement on the Common Po licy on Technical Regulations.  This requirement 
did not restrict entering of products containing GMOs  into the market of the Russian Federation.  
It did not require from the producer any special labelling for a product containing GMOs but rather 
just a listing of the GMOs amongst other elements of the product's content.  Furthermore, this 
requirement applied in the same manner to many WTO Members and there was no definitive 
provision in the WTO legislation establishing that it was inconsistent with the WTO rules. 
811. Some Members expressed concern about th e statement by the representative of the 
Russian Federation that a mandatory labelling re quirement for GMO products "complied with the 
legitimate objective of 'preventing deceptive pract ices'".  In the view of these Members, such 
mandatory labelling was itself deceptive, because it incorrectly implied that products made from 
GMOs were not as safe as comparable, non-GMO produc ts.  One Member stated that it did not share 
the opinion of the Russian Federation that mandatory  special labelling for a product containing GMOs 
complied with WTO TBT legislation and would like  this labelling requirement to be removed. 
812. Some Members noted that quality manageme nt systems based on ISO 9000 should be 
recognised without Mutual Recognition Agreemen t.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that the Russian Federa tion considered quality management systems as 
voluntary certification systems.  This was a sphere that was not regulated.  Thus, authorities may not 
persuade anybody to recognise such systems, rather  they could take actions promoting and facilitating 
voluntary recognition of such systems, inter alia  by means of Mutual Recognition Agreements, 
concluded on a voluntary basis.  Furthermore, qua lity management systems on particular kinds of 
products, based on ISO 9000, were recognised within  the international ISONET system, and this 
practice took place in the Russian Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 289 
 
 
  813. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would ensure that all laws, regul ations, and other measures within the scope of the 
WTO TBT Agreement, such as technical regulations, standards, and conformity assessment 
procedures, applied in the Russian Federa tion complied with the provisions of the 
WTO TBT Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - (a) General Regulatory Framework for Trade in Agricultural Products and 
Compliance with WTO SPS Obligations 
814. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the legislative basis for the regulation 
of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) regime in the Russian Federation was established by the 
following:  Eurasian Economic Community (EurAs EC) and Customs Union (CU) Agreements; and, 
EurAsEC and CU Decisions:  The EurAsEC Agreemen t on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in 
the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008, the 
EurAsEC Agreement on Establishing the EurAsEC In formative System in the Field of Technical 
Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es of 12 December 2008, the CU Agreement on 
Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 (as last am ended by Decision of the Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), the CU Agreem ent on Veterinary and Sanitary Measures of 
11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Inte rstate Council of EurAsEC Decision No. 39 of 
21 May 2010), Decision of the Interstate C ouncil of the EurAsEC No. 83 of 19 May 2011 
"On Entering into Force of Protocols of 21 May 2010 in the Sphere of Implementation Sanitary,  
Veterinary-and-Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure s", the CU Agreement on Plant Quarantine of 
11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Decision of  the Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 
21 May 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union" (as l ast amended by CU Decisions No. 342  of 17 August 2010, 
No. 455 of 18 November 2010, and No. 622 of 7 April 2011), CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 
18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in  the Customs Union" (as last 
amended by CU Decision Nos. 342 of 17 A ugust 2010, 455 of 18 November 2010, 623 of 
7 April 2011, and 724 of 22 June 2011), CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 
"On Veterinary Measures", CU Commission Decision No. 455 of 18 November 2010 adopted 
"The Unified List of Dangerous and Quarantin e Diseases of Animals of the Customs Union", 
CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 "O n Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates on 
Imported Goods Subject to Veterinary Control in to the Customs Union Territory", CU Commission 
Decision No. 624 of 7 April 2011 "On the Regula tion on the Procedure of Development and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 290  
 
  Maintenance of the Register of Companies and Persons which Carry out Production, Reprocessing 
and (or) Storing Products Subject to Veterinary Cont rol (Surveillance) and Imported into the territory 
of the Custom Union", CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 "On Assurance of Plant 
Quarantine in the Customs Union" (as last amended by CU Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010), CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "O n Harmonization of CU Legal Acts in the Field 
of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measure s with International Standards" as amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 June 2011; CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 
22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, Recommendations, and Guidelines", 
CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Regulation on Common System of Joint 
Inspections of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products),  Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", 
CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Common Veterinary 
(Veterinary And Sanitary) Requirements Applicable  to the Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)", CU Commission Decision No. 832 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the 
Forms of Common Veterinary Certificates for the Importing to the CU Customs Territory of the 
Controlled Goods from Third Countries"; CU Commission Decision No. 831 of 18 October 2011 
"On Amendments to the Common List of Goods S ubject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)", 
CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 20 11 "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary or 
Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk Assessment". 
815. In addition, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the following Federal laws 
remained in effect to the extent that they did not contradict the CU Agreements and CU Commission 
Decisions:  Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December  2003 "On the Basis of Regulation of Foreign 
Trade Activity" (as last amended on 8 December 2010), Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 
14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Pr actices" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment 
entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal La w No. 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 "On Quarantine of 
Plants" (as last amended on 28 December 2010; this  amendment entered into force on 29 June 2011), 
Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Qua lity and Safety of Food Products" (as last 
amended on 28 December 2010; this amendment en tered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal Law 
No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epid emiological Well-being of the Population" 
(as last amended on 28 December 2010; this amendm ent entered into force on 29 June 2011), Federal 
Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On Tec hnical Regulation" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010), Federal Law No. 88-FZ of 12 June 2008 "On Technical Regulations for Milk 
and Milk Products" (as last ame nded on 22 July 2010), and corr esponding secondary normative legal 
acts, e.g. Order of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) No. 404 of 7 November 2011 "On Adoption of 
Administrative Regulation of the Federal Servi ce on Veterinary and Phytosanitary Control on 
Provision of State Service on Issuance of Authorizations for Imports to the Russian Federation and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 291 
 
 
  Exports from the Russian Federation, as well as Transit within its Territory of  Animals, Products of  
Animal Origin, Medicines for Veterinary u se, Feeds and Feed Additives for Animals".  
The representative of the Russian Federation stated th at, in his view, the provisions of these laws did 
not violate the provisions of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures (WTO SPS Agreement).  The representative of  the Russian Federation noted that a new law 
"On Plant Quarantine" was being drafted and had been posted on the MOA website for public 
comment.  It was expected that this draft law w ould be presented to the Duma and enacted in 2011.  
The plan was for it to enter into effect on 1 Jan uary 2012.  Similarly, a new law on veterinary 
practices was also being prepared.  Finally, he noted that his Governme nt had provided detailed 
information on the implementation of WTO SPS oblig ations in the domestic regulatory system in 
document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/36/Rev.1 of 11 July 2011.  
- (b) Competent Authorities for the Regulati on of Trade in Agricultural Products 
-  (i) Customs Union Authorities 
816. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that within the CU institutional 
framework for regulating in the sphere of SPS me asures, the role of the CU Commission was to 
coordinate the developmen t and implementation of SPS measures by  CU Parties, which involved their 
respective sanitary, veterinary, and phytosanitary au thorities.  The CU Commission laid out common 
general principles and adopted common safety requireme nts for goods marketed within the territory of 
the Customs Union.  These safety requirements cove red sanitary and epidemiological, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary regulations that governed production and trade of the CU. 
817. The representative of the Russian Federa tion further explained that pursuant to 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 (as amended by CU Commission Decision 
No. 431 of 14 October 2010 and last amended by  CU Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010), the 
CU Commission had established a Coordination Co mmittee on Technical Regulation and Application 
of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measu res (Coordination Committee).  The Coordination 
Committee was composed of nine me mbers, three from each CU Party at the deputy minister level, 
and ensured that the competent authorities of the CU  Parties adopted agreed decisions in the area of 
technical regulation and application of SPS measure s.  The main objectives of the Committee were: 
- ensuring coordinated activities of the Competent Bodies of the CU Parties, as well as 
consideration of issues arising in the process of implementation of the policy in the area of technical regulation and application of sanita ry, veterinary and phytosanitary measures; 
- analysing issues, related to the assessment of the status of and the ways to improve 
CU technical regulations and application of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures 
within the CU; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 292  
 
  - ensuring implementation of CU Agreements and CU Acts, involving or related to establishing 
technical regulations for the protection of life and health of humans, property, the 
environment, and life and health of animals and plants; 
- monitoring and preparation of analytical mate rials and proposals in the area of technical 
regulation and application of sanitary, veterina ry and phytosanitary measures within the CU; 
- preparing relevant recommendations and draf t decisions on the issues of introduction, 
implementation, modification or termination of  technical regulations and application of 
sanitary, veterinary and phytosanita ry measures within the CU; and 
- considering unresolved differences between the Competent Bodies of the Parties in respect of 
draft technical regulations and other acts rela ted to technical regulation and application of 
sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures within the CU. 
818. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the CU Parties were preparing a draft CU Commission Decision on harmonising 
sanctions to be taken in cases of non-compliance of economic operators with CU Agreements and 
CU Commission Acts.   
819. The Coordination Committee had established a senior level Expert Group on "Technical 
Regulation and Application of SPS measures" that me t as needed and six expert groups that focused 
on the following issues related to techni cal regulation, including SPS matters:   
- Working Group on sanitary measures; 
- Working Group on veterinary-and-sanitary measures; 
- Working Group on phytosanitary measures; 
- Working Group on harmonisation of the sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements; - Working Group on development and applica tion of common methods of determination of 
antibiotics residues in milk and dairy products; and 
- Working Group on harmonisation of the CU Par ties' legislation on penalties for violation of 
SPS legislative requirements. 
 Pursuant to the Regulations of the Coordi nation Committee, each of these Working Groups 
reported directly to the Coordination Committee.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that the Coordination Committee could create add itional working groups.  The composition of these 
working groups was established by Decision of the Executive Secretary of the CU Commission 
(Decision No. 1 of 18 November 2010, last ame nded by Decision No. 5 of 7 March 2011).  
The number of members of these working groups was not limited, and the members were appointed 
by the competent Ministries of each CU Part y.  The Secretariat of the CU Commission was 
responsible for organizing the work of the CU  Commission, CU Coordination Committee and its 
working groups and provided informational and tech nical assistance to these bodies.  The Secretariat 
included a Department responsible for technical re gulations, sanitary and phytosanitary measures.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 293 
 
 
  -  (ii) National Authorities  
820. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that within the Russian Federation, the 
sanitary authority was the Federal Supervisory Serv ice for Protection of Customers Rights and Human 
Well-Being ("Rospotrebnadzor"), under the jurisd iction of the Ministry of Health and Social 
Development of the Russian Federation (MOH).  The Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) was the 
competent authority with regard to veterinary and phytosanitary issues.  The MOA was directly 
responsible for the marketing authorisation (includi ng safety assessment) in the Russian Federation of 
pesticides, agro chemicals and veterinary medicina l products.  The MOA also was responsible for the 
marketing authorisation (including safety assessment) of feed additives and the MOH was responsible 
for the marketing authorisation (including safety assessment) of food additives.  Both the MOH and 
the MOA were responsible for ensuring that SPS m easures adopted at national level complied with 
the corresponding SPS norms adopted at the CU level.   
821. Rospotrebnadzor shared operational authorit y for ensuring food safety with the Federal 
Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary Supe rvision ("Rosselkhoznadzor") which was under the 
jurisdiction of the MOA.  Point 2 of the Regulations  "On State Surveillance and Control in sphere of 
Ensuring in Food Safety and Food Quality" (ad opted by Government Resolution No. 987 and 
Government Resolution No. 1009 of 14 December 2009), set out the respective authorities of Rosselkhoznadzor and Rospotrebnadzor  and the implementation of the respective authority of each 
service was set-out in its regulations (availabl e at:  http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/laws/11.html and 
http://www.rospotrebnadzor.ru/federal_service/functi on).  Rosselkhoznadzor was responsible for the 
implementation of CU and domestic SPS measures rela ted to animal health, quarantine and protection 
of plants, use of pesticides and agrochemical s, antibiotics residues in non-processed food products, 
measures applicable in the production of feed for th e protection of animal and human health and also 
protection of humans from diseases common to people and animals.  In particular, Rosselkhoznadzor 
was responsible for enforcing measures related to  plant and animal health and life as well as food 
safety at the border of the territory of the Russian Federation, when such measures were to be applied 
on a routine basis, including monitoring of imported goods for residues of pesticides, veterinary drugs 
and contaminants.  Rosselkhoznadzor was responsible  for ensuring the conformity of goods imported 
into the Russian Federation (e.g., as regards residues of pesticides or veterinary medical products) to 
applicable sanitary and phytosanitary requirement s and was authorised to reject non-compliant 
consignments or to prescribe appropriate measures to mitigate a sanitary or phytosanitary risk with 
regard to imported goods.  Officials of Ros potrebnadzor, however, carried out sanitary and 
epidemiological evaluation of goods at the borde r in the cases specified in paragraph [971].  
Rospotrebnadzor was authorised to adopt emergenc y measures related to food safety concerns, such WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 294  
 
  as import bans or import restrictions, in which case,  such emergency measures would be implemented 
by Rospotrebnadzor officials or the customs services of the relevant CU Party or other law 
enforcement agencies, as provided for by the nationa l legislation relevant fo r emergency situations.  
Rosselkhoznadzor also participated in the activ ities of the CU Coordination Committee Working 
Groups under the CU Secretariat, including regard ing the implementation of CU Decision No. 319 as 
amended by Decision No. 431 and the Regulati on of the Coordination Committee on Technical 
Regulation and Application of Sanitary, Ve terinary and Phytosanitary Measures of 
17 November 2010.  The State Veterinary Se rvice was subordinated to Rosselkhoznadzor.  
822. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that Rospotrebnadzor was 
responsible for performing sanitary and epidemiol ogical assessments pursuant to an administrative 
procedure which was done prior to circula tion of controlled goods on the CU market.  
This assessment confirmed that the subject goods co nformed to the requirements of CU and domestic 
sanitary measures.  Article 2 of the CU Agr eement on Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 
provided that the national governments of the CU Parties maintained the authority to carry out 
sanitary control measures to prevent the importation into the customs territory of the CU and the 
circulation of regulated goods which were dange rous to human life and health and the human 
environment.  Rospotrebnadzor exercised this authority according to the CU Regulation "On the 
Procedure for Carrying out of State Sanitary-Epide miological Supervision (Control) over Persons and 
Transport Vehicles Crossing the Customs Border of the Customs Union".  Article 51 of the Federal 
Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Ep idemiological Well-Being of the Population" 
and Article 21 of the Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality  and Safety of Food 
Products" authorised the Head of Rospotrebnadz or and territorial bodies in regions of the 
Russian Federation to suspend or ban the production, storage, transportation, circulation and importation of food commodities, food additives, food products, water a nd other materials and 
products in contact with those goods.  He noted that CU Commission Decision No. 299 required State 
Registration of categories of goods on the Unified List of goods subject to State Registration.  The representative of the Russian Federation indi cated that, after the establishment of the CU, 
the number of products subject to sanitary and ep idemiological evaluation had been reduced by 
80 per cent.  He informed Members that furthe r information on the sanitary and epidemiological 
assessment and State Registration was provided in paragraphs [958] to [960] of this Section. 
823. One Member asked whether authorities of th e Russian Federation or CU Bodies certified 
imports of the Russian Federation or whether th e Russian Federation recognized exporting countries' 
certification as valid.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that CU Parties' 
recognition of the export veterinary or phytosanitary  certificates of an exporting country for import of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 295 
 
 
  animal or plant products took into account the type of imported product and in particular the level of 
risk associated with a particular type of product.  Requirements for different types of imported goods 
were set-out in certain Chapters of CU Common Ve terinary Requirements.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 317, the competent 
CU Bodies were authorised to accept guarantees fro m the competent authorities of exporting countries 
that the relevant goods complied with CU veterinary  and sanitary requirements.  The representative of 
the Russian Federation also explained that the CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 607 of 
7 April 2011, establishing Common Forms of export certificates for categories of products requiring 
such certificates.  He stated that if other requireme nts related to export of goods subject to veterinary 
control were met, CU Parties would recognise vete rinary certificates from any third country if such 
certificates were in line with the 40 CU common forms of veterinary certificates for export to the CU.  
He also explained that the CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 
"On Veterinary Measures" which au thorised the CU Bodies to negotiate and adopt export certificates 
with requirements that differed from the CU commo n form and specific CU Common Requirements if 
the exporting country made a substan tiated request prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such an export 
certificate.  The decision also provided that bila teral export certificates initialled by one of the 
CU Parties before 1 July 2010, as well as any subseque nt amendments to such certificates agreed with 
the authorised body of such CU Party, would remain  valid for exports from the relevant country into 
the customs territory of the CU until an export certif icate was agreed with a CU Party based on the 
agreed positions of the other CU Parties.  Bila teral export certificates initialled by one of the 
CU Parties between 1 July 2010 and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation 
of relevant goods only in the territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificate until a bilateral 
export certificate was agreed with other CU Part ies based on the agreed positions of the other 
CU Parties.   
824. Some Members expressed concern as regards the overlap of measures required by the 
Russian Federation to confirm the conformity of goods with CU and national food safety measures:  
through veterinary export certificates, declarations of conformity, certificates of conformity, listing of 
establishments authorised to export to the CU, import permits, and State Registration.  
These Members questioned the utility of such repe ated, multiple and overlapping requirements to 
verify conformity with requirements.  In their view, it was burdensome, unnecessary and trade-restrictive to maintain together a declara tion of conformity or other forms of conformity 
assessment and export certificate or additional requirements.  Members requested that the 
Russian Federation eliminate this redundancy.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 296  
 
  825. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation explained that Government 
Resolution No. 1009 of 14 December 2009 set-out the respective competencies of Rosselkhoznadzor 
and Rospotrebnadzor.  Rosselkhoznadzor was res ponsible for veterinary (veterinary-sanitary) 
supervision (control) of goods wh ich could be dangerous for animal  health.  Rospotrebnadzor was 
responsible for control of safety of food products  and other production for securing of human health.  
In his view, there were not repeated and overlappi ng confirmation of conformity to requirements of 
safety under State Registration and veterinary certif ication.  The purpose of State Registration was 
confirmation of food safety for human health and its conformity with the Common  sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements for products subject to sanitary-epidemiological supervision (control).  The period of validity of cer tificate of State Registration was not limited.  
Veterinary certificates, however, confirmed the abse nce of diseases dangerous for animals, including 
common diseases for animal and human and veterinary certificates were issued for every batch of 
goods.  Most goods subject to State Registration, su ch as those products subject to a treatment, which 
based on scientific evidence, eliminated microbiol ogical contamination excep t for prions, would not 
be subject to veterinary certification from the date of entry into force of the CU Technical Regulation 
on food safety.  The list of goods subject to veteri nary control would be am ended to reflect these 
exemptions from certification.   
826. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that Rosselkhoznadzor exercised 
authority in relation to veterinary and sanita ry issues when goods were imported into the 
Russian Federation so as to avoid duplication of effort s.  He noted that veterinary certificates included 
both veterinary and sanitary requirements and th at only one veterinary-sanitary document was 
required to cross the border.  He further explained that State Registration of controlled goods applied 
both to domestically produced and imported goods and applied only to a lim ited number of products.  
With regard to goods for which the CU curren tly required both a veterinary certificate and a 
declaration of conformity, he confirmed that the CU Parties, pursuant to CU technical regulations, 
currently under development, would require only  one document, as specified in each technical 
regulation, to confirm the confor mity of products with CU requir ements.  For example, the draft 
Technical Regulation on food safety provided that on ly veterinary certificates would be required for 
non-processed animal products, while only a declaration of conformity or State Registration 
certificate would be required for products, that ha ve undergone a treatment which based on scientific 
evidence, eliminated contamination.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
827. In response to a question from a Member, the re presentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that neither Gosstandart nor its successor, th e Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and 
Metrology, had regulatory responsibility in the sphere of SPS measures.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 297 
 
 
  - (c) Development of Technical Regulations/Mandatory Requirements on SPS  
828. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that CU Parties were engaged in the 
elaboration of mandatory requirements for products  within the system of technical regulations 
adopted pursuant to the EurAsEC Agreements on the Basics of Harmonization of Technical 
Regulations of the Eurasian Economic Community Members of 24 March 2005 and 
on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008; as we ll as the Agreement on Uniform Principles and 
Rules of Technical Regulation in the Republic of Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the 
Russian Federation of 18 November 2010; the Rules of the Development of the Technical 
Regulations, approved by EurA sEC Interstate Council Decision No. 1175 of 17 August 2008, 
Regulation on Development of Technical Regula tions of Eurasian Economic Community; and 
CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011 "Regulation on Development, Adoption, 
Amendment and Cancellation of Technical Regulations of the Customs Union" (as amended by 
CU Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011).   
829. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the aim of the ongoing legislative 
and implementation work in the CU and the Russian  Federation was to ensure harmonization with the 
standards, guidelines, and recommendations of th e World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), an d the Codex Alimentarius (Codex).  This work, 
in his view, would ensure full compliance of th e SPS regime of the Russian Federation, whether 
measures were adopted in the context of the EurAsE C, CU or domestically, with the requirements of 
the WTO SPS Agreement from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.   
830. He added that the approaches towards harm onization of CU measures and the Russian 
domestic regulation of sanitary and phytosanita ry issues with the standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations of these international organi zations were defined in the framework of 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and pa rticipation of the Russian Federation in the 
activities of the relevant international organizati ons.  He explained that CU Commission Decision 
No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of  International Standards, Guidelines and 
Recommendations", provided that:  in cases in wh ich the CU Commission or the national authorities 
had not established mandatory requirements in the veterinary, or phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygienic sphere, the CU Par ties would apply standards, recommendations and 
guidelines of the OIE, IPPC, and the Codex Alimenta rius (Codex) respectively.  Similarly, if CU 
veterinary, phytosanitary and sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory requirements in effect 
in the territory of the CU were more stringent th an relevant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, in the absence of scientific justifi cation of risk to human, animal, or plant life or WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 298  
 
  health, relevant international standards, guidelines,  and recommendations, or parts thereof, would be 
applied.  
831. Some Members asked the Russian Federati on to provide details on the EurAsEC and 
CU processes for elaborating SPS Technical Regul ations and whether EurAsEC requirements would 
supersede or replace CU and national requirements.  
832. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that draft technical regulations, including 
those related to SPS, were developed in the partic ipating countries using internal procedures before 
being proposed by the authorised national bodies.  For the Russian Federation, the MOA or the MOH, 
as assigned by the Government of the Russian Federa tion, proposed SPS technical regulations to the 
designated EurAsEC or CU bodies for harmonization, further review, and adoption as provided for in 
the relevant international agreements or CU d ecisions.  For EurAsEC, the Commission for Technical 
Regulation and Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanita ry Measures in Trade of the EurAsEC Integration 
Committee (the EurAsEC Commission for Technical Regulation), through the authorised national 
bodies of the EurAsEC Parties, coordinated the Pa rties' efforts on the development of technical 
regulations, including sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  After publishing a draft technical 
regulation and collecting public comments, the Eu rAsEC Integration Committee then forwarded the 
agreed draft technical regulation to the EurAsEC Interstate Council for adoption as an Agreement as 
provided for in Article 3 of the EurAsEC Agreemen t on Technical Regulation Harmonization.  In the 
CU framework, this coordination and transparency role was fulfilled by the Coordination Committee 
on Technical Regulation (the CU Coordination Comm ittee) which received draft technical regulations 
from the authorised bodies of the CU Parties, coordina ted the development of a draft text and resolved 
disputes concerning it among the authorities of the CU Parties.  The Coordination Committee, with the assistance of the CU Commission Secretariat, th en circulated the draft technical regulation for 
public review and comment and prepared analys is and recommendations on the draft technical 
regulations before forwarding the proposals to th e CU Commission for adoption through decisions. 
833. The representative of the Russian Federation also  explained that, under the CU, any domestic 
or foreign natural or legal pers on or governmental or non-governme ntal body could develop a draft 
technical regulation.  Such person or entity was required to publish a notice on the development of the 
draft technical regulation and then to provide for a public consultation and comment on the draft, in 
accordance with the requirements, described in paragra ph [721].  In addition, third-country interested 
parties, including foreign governments, could pr ovide comments on draft technical regulations 
proposed by any of the EurAsEC or CU Parties, as es tablished in Article 6 of the EurAsEC Interstate 
Council Decision No. 1175 and Article 7 of the CU  Commission Decision No. 527, respectively.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 299 
 
 
  After the public consultation process, the draft w as submitted to the national body, for SPS matters 
this was the MOA or the MOH as assigned by th e Government of the Russian Federation.  
Responding to a question on how draft technical regul ations not based on international standards, 
recommendations or guidelines could be revised prior to application, he stated that the applicable laws 
and CU acts specified the priority use of interna tional standards, recommendations and guidelines, as 
the basis for technical regulations and that the t echnical regulation develope r was required to provide 
his assessment on how the draft was consistent with international standards in his notification of the 
draft for public comment.  The technical regulati on developer was also required to identify the 
standards, recommendations and guidelines, used in  constructing the draft technical regulation.  
When the national authorised body received comments provided by the public on these materials, it forwarded them to the relevant expert commission established in accordance with Article 9.9 of Law 
No. 184-FZ and described in paragraph [721].  This  expert commission included an equal number of 
experts representing government bodies, academia an d business/consumers associations.  The meeting 
of the relevant expert commission was public and its  decisions were publicly available.  The expert 
commission would take into account the requirement to use international standards, recommendations 
and guidelines, and, if necessary, ur ge appropriate changes.  The resulting draft was submitted to the 
national authorised body which forwarded it to the CU Commission.  The CU Commission in turn placed the draft technical regulation, a notice on how  it was developed, and an explanatory note on its 
own official website and on the official websites of the authorised bodies for technical regulation of 
the other CU Parties.  Interested domestic and fo reign legal and natural pers ons (including those from 
non-members of the CU), including foreign governments, could submit their comments and suggestions on the draft technical regulations to th e authorised body of the CU Party that proposed it 
and to the Secretariat of the CU Commission.  The period for comments was at least 60 days following the publication of the first draft of the te chnical regulation by a CU Body.  He noted that 
government bodies submitted draft technical regulati ons and other documents to the CU Commission 
for adoption and that any amendments to  a technical regulation were adopted within the same 
procedure.   
834. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that a schedule outlining the 
development of priority technical regulations of the CU had been adopted by CU Commission 
Decision No. 492 of 8 December 2010.  Under this schedule, as of 4 July 2011, SPS technical regulations governing grain, juice products, oil and fat products, and milk and milk products were 
under inter-governmental consideration; SPS tec hnical regulations governing food safety and 
labelling of food products, had completed public discussion as of 4 July 2011; SPS technical 
regulations governing meat and m eat products, the safety of dietetic  food and special food and healthy 
and dietary meals, on safety of food supplements, on safety of feed stuffs and feed additives were still WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 300  
 
  under public discussion and an SPS technical regulation on fish and fish products was expected to be 
placed under public discussion shortly.  SPS technical regulations on tobacco products and the safety 
of alcoholic beverages were still under development.  He further explained that a schedule outlining 
the development of EurAsEC priority technical re gulations had been adopted by Decision of the 
EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 521 of 19 Nove mber 2010.  Included in this schedule were 
SPS technical regulations on grain, food safety, labelling of food products , tobacco products, juice 
products, oil and fat products, milk  and milk products, honey and produc ts of bee-farming, and on the 
safety of bottled water.  Members of the Working Pa rty asked for clarification as regards the overlap 
between the CU priority technical regulations an d the EurAsEC priority technical regulations.  
The representative of the Russian Federation explaine d that a choice had been made to focus on the 
adoption of CU technical regulations, since the CU  procedure for adoption of technical regulations 
was faster.  These CU technical regulations woul d then be used as a basis to propose technical 
regulations covering these products at EurAsEC le vel.  While many of the proposed technical 
regulations had been put on the CU website for public comments or would be placed on that website 
once developed, some technical regulations, such as the technical regulations for milk and milk 
products and grain, fat and oils, and juice ha d been placed only on the EurAsEC website.  
Some Members raised concerns regarding whethe r there had been a meaningful opportunity to 
provide comments on those technical regulations .  Members of the Working Party asked for 
clarification of the legal provisions applicable in the Russian Federation if technical regulations with 
diverging provisions covering the same product were adopted at CU and at EurAsEC level.  Members 
of the Working Party also asked whether the draf t technical regulations on honey and bottled water 
safety, to be developed by the Kyrgyz Republic fo r adoption at EurAsEC level, which are not planned 
to be adopted at CU level, will be applicab le to exports to the Russian Federation.  
835. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that EurAsEC Technical 
Regulations superseded Technical Regulations of th e Customs Union.  He explained that technical 
regulations on honey and bottled water safety, to be developed by the Kyrgyz Republic for adoption at 
EurAsEC level, would be applicable to exports to the Russian Federation, as well as to circulation of 
the mentioned goods in the territory of the CU.   
836. The representative of the Russian Federation ex plained that it was expected that the 
CU Commission would have adopted the 47 priority CU technical regulations, including those related 
to SPS matters, by 31 December 2012, and that all of these technical regulations would enter into 
force no later than 31 December 2014, after a transi tional period to allow producers, importers, and 
exporters to become aware of and comply with th e new technical regulations.  Notification of when 
EurAsEC or CU Technical Regulations entered into force and superseded national technical  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 301 
 
 
  regulations would be posted on the website of the CU or EurAsEC as appropriate.  In response to a 
question from a Member of the Working Party, the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that no new national technical regulations  were being developed.  However, mandatory 
national requirements were still being developed on phytosanitary issues.    
837. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Agreements, once they 
entered into force, were international treaties of th e Russian Federation, and, with the exception of the 
Constitution and Federal Constitutional Laws of the Russi an Federation, would prevail, in the event of 
a conflict, over the provisions of Federal laws and other normative legal acts in the 
Russian Federation (whether adopted before or after the CU Agreement).  With regard to 
CU Commission Decisions, he explained that such decisions had the legal status in the Russian 
domestic legal system corresponding to that which the decision would have had if adopted by the 
Federal Executive body which had b een competent to regulate the subject matter at the moment when 
the CU Commission was delegated the relevant author ity.  He explained that the Russian Federation 
did not repeal a national law when CU acts applie d, but these were amended to comply with the 
CU act.  Pending this alignment,  domestic SPS measures continued to apply in so far as they did not 
conflict with the CU act.  
838. Some Members expressed concern about the ove rlap of CU and national SPS measures and 
the continued adoption of SPS measures at the national le vel in the CU Parties.  As an example, they 
mentioned SanPiN 2.3.2.1078-01, wh ich had been regularly amended, including after the formation of 
the CU, on matters (such as Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)) which were dealt with at CU level.  
These Members noted that these amendments were, not necessarily with a view to harmonise national 
requirements with CU requirements.  In their view, this resulted in uncertainty regarding application 
and compliance with SPS measures and placed a signifi cant burden on trade, possibly in violation of 
the WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, continued deve lopment and application of domestic measures 
in each of the CU Parties could result in a lack of harmonization of requirements and increased burden 
on trade within the territory of the CU.  Th ese Members requested information from the 
Russian Federation regarding precisely which SPS me asures would apply in the Russian Federation 
and throughout the territory of the CU.  These Memb ers also requested information on when domestic 
authorities would cease developing and applying dom estic SPS measures.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that national SPS measu res, when in conflict with CU SPS acts, would 
not apply to the extent of the conflict.  He specif ied that as regards matters covered by CU acts, the 
Russian Federation would cease adopting amendmen ts of national SPS measures, for purposes other 
than alignment of national measures with CU acts, at  the latest by 1 January 2012.  Until that date, a 
transitional period allowed the adoption of nationa l measures when preparatory technical work had WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 302  
 
  started before 1 July 2010.  Th ese national measures were applicable  only in so far as they did not 
contradict CU acts.  Some Members asked if alig nment of national measures with CU acts had to 
occur within a specified time period,  and if so, what period applied.  In response, he explained that 
there was no specified time period for such alignment. 
839. Some Members asked the Russian Federati on to describe the exact delineation of 
competences between the CU and the nationa l authorities.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation responded that the CU Commi ssion had responsibility for establishing specific 
product requirements, except in the area of phytosanit ary requirements.  This meant that for veterinary 
and sanitary control, the CU Commission had establis hed a list of goods that could be subject to 
veterinary requirements, and a common list of g oods subject to unified sanitary requirements.  
There was one unified process for control of tran sfers of these products between CU Parties, 
i.e., within the territory of the CU, and control at  the external CU border.  The CU Commission had 
also established unified procedures for inspecti on of facilities.  Furthermore, guidelines for 
conducting inspections of establishments would be ad opted by the CU Commission by the date of the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO which would then supersede relevant domestic 
normative legal acts.  With regard to phytosanita ry measures, the CU Commission established the list 
of products subject to phytosanitary contro l; however, national bodies established specific 
phytosanitary requirements, related to the phyt osanitary situation in that CU Party.   
840. With regard to other issues, where the national bodies retained authority to regulate, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explaine d that national bodies established requirements in 
respect of processes for manufacturing products domestically and penalties in the respective 
administrative code for violation of SPS requirements.   National authorities also developed strategies 
for coping with animal diseases; adopted temporar y SPS measures, i.e., emergency measures, in the 
cases of receipt of justified information about  danger of imported goods; established sanitary 
requirements for organization of work activity of comp anies in the sphere of services; aligned national 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygiene requirement s with CU requirements; and agreed on 
sanitary-safety zones (i.e., norms related to wa ter safety and applicable only domestically).  
With regard to phytosanitary issues, national aut horities established phytosanitary requirements, the 
list of quarantine pests, domestic quarantine zon es and accredited laboratories for plant health 
analyses. 
841. He further explained that this division of co mpetence between the CU and national authorities 
could evolve with the harmoniza tion of requirements at the CU level and how the CU Parties 
addressed these issues.  Competence would be delegated to the CU as part of this process.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 303 
 
 
  The representative of the Russian Federation referre d, as an example, to CU Decision No. 454 of 
18 November 2010, which adopted a plan of priority  actions, aimed at harmonization of quarantine 
and phytosanitary measures of CU Parties within th e period of 2011 to 2012.  According to this plan, 
a CU common list of quarantine pests and CU co mmon phytosanitary requirements for regulated 
products were planned to be de veloped and to enter into force on 1 January 2013.  Thus, the 
competence for these norms would be transferred from national authorities to CU bodies at this time.   
842. The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the process of harmonization of 
national laws with CU acts on SPS matters was taking place at the same time and in a parallel process 
to adoption of CU Commission decisions on SPS matters .  He further clarified that, at the national 
level, the Russian Federation had new draft laws on veterinary practice and on plant quarantine.  
The draft law on plant quarantine had been devel oped and was expected to enter into force on 
1 January 2012.  The Russian Federation intended to  submit the draft veterinary law to the Duma so 
that it would be enacted and enter into force in 20 12.  The draft veterinary law regulated issues not 
under the competence of the CU such as the powers of the veterinary authorities, structure of the 
veterinary service, program of epizootic measure s on the Russian territory and accreditation of 
persons (e.g., veterinarians).  The draft law refe renced the relevant CU requirements where the 
CU had competence.  The representative of th e Russian Federation explained that under the 
CU Agreement on Plant Quarantine of 11 December 2009 (as last amended by the Decision of the 
Interstate Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010)  phytosanitary requirements were adopted at 
the national level.  The draft phytosanitary law sti pulated the respective authority/competencies of the 
national authorities, which included rules for a pplying phytosanitary measures, requirements for 
quarantine zones, storage, and transportation within  quarantine zones, and provisions on research and 
testing for products subject to quarantine measures in the Russian Federation.   
843. Some Members noted that several documents called GOST or MUK appeared to contain 
SPS requirements; however, these documen ts did not appear to be lega l requirements as some of them 
had not been registered by the Ministry of Justi ce in the Russian Federation.  These Members asked 
the Russian Federation to confirm that unregistered  documents could only be considered as guidelines 
and could not be used to impose restrictive measu res on trade if the requirements set-out in these 
documents were not met.  In particular, these Memb ers asked the Russian Federation to confirm that 
there were no legal requirements that set a compul sory frequency of self-checks at the level of the 
producing establishments for residues or microbiological levels in food.   
844. In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that GOST were 
non-binding recommendations.  He stated that comp liance with MUKs were internal guidelines and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 304  
 
  compliance with these guidelines was mandatory only for State control bodies and those bodies within 
the Russian Federation conducting State sanitary-epi demiological control and other types of State 
control.  He noted that GOST a nd MUK documents were being update d on a regular basis taking into 
account current amendments in legislation and the technical base (capabilities for testing).  He confirmed that there were no binding require ments on how often the producing establishment had 
to test for residues or microbiological levels in its  product.  He noted that an inspector could ask for 
documents regarding such testing for informationa l purposes to establish that there was a plan of 
control of these issues.  Some Members expressed co ncerns that an establishment could be considered 
as non-compliant on the basis of a non-binding guid eline and asked whether the Russian Federation 
would implement the Codex Guidelines "For the Design and Implementation of National Regulatory 
Food Safety Assurance Programme Associated with the use of Veterinary Drugs in Food Producing 
Animals" CAC/GL/71-2009, which recognised the monitoring done at a national level, and by a food 
producing establishment.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that it would 
implement these Codex Guidelines as of the date of  its accession to the WTO.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
845. Some Members also noted that the techni cal regulations and secondary normative acts 
containing limitative standards did not take  into account the corresponding standards, 
recommendations and guidelines of international or ganizations or the methodology recommended by 
such organizations to set such standards.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that these technical regulations and secondary normative acts related to sanitary and veterinary 
issues would be based on the corresponding st andards, recommendations and guidelines of 
international organizations. 
- (d) Participation in International Organizations in the SPS Sphere 
846. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Russian delegation always 
participated in OIE regular meetings and general s essions.  Russian delegations also took part in IPPC 
and Codex meetings, and Russian experts were i nvolved in the elaborati on of new international 
standards on sanitary and phytosanitary measur es, in particular, in the framework of: 
- Codex Committee on Nutrition and Food for Sp ecial Dietary Uses (Germany, 2003, 2004, 
2005, 2009, 2010); 
- Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contam inants (Holland, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2002, 
2004, 2005, 2009, 2011); 
- Codex Committee on Food Hygiene (USA, 2004, 2005); 
- Codex Committee on Methods of Analysis  and Sampling (Hungary, 2005, 2009); 
- Codex Committee on Food Contaminants (China, 2007, Holland, 2011)  - Codex Committee on Fats and Oils (2011);  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 305 
 
 
  - Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (2011); and 
- Other similar meetings.  
 The list of International Standards for Ph ytosanitary Measures (I SPM) in the Russian 
language was available at the MOA website  (http://www.fsvps.ru/fsvps/laws/class/10/44). 
847. The representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed the commitment of the 
Russian Federation to the development and applic ation of international standards on sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures through membership of and active participation in the activities of Codex 
Alimentarius, OIE and IPPC.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
848. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the Russian Federation was: 
- a party to the: 
- International Plant Protection Conventio n (IPPC) (Rome, 1951, edition of 1997); 
- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora 
(CITES) from 3 March 1973; and  
- Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) from 5 June 1992; 
- a member of the: 
- World Animal Health Organization, prev iously Office International des Epizooties 
(OIE) from 1927; 
- Codex Alimentarius Commission from 1961; 
- World Health Organization;  
- European and Mediterranean Organi zation on Quarantine of Plants, 1957; 
- UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) from 29 July 2006; and - International Sugar Organiza tion (ISO), from 7 January 2003; 
- a participant in the: 
- Common Fund for Commodities (CFC), from 10 July 1987; and 
- International Grains Council (IGC), from 1 July 1995;  
- an observer of the: 
- Fisheries Committee of OECD, 1961; 
- Group on Cereals, Animal Feeds and Sugar of Committee for Agriculture of OECD; 
and  
- Group on Meat and Dairy Products of  Committee for Agriculture of OECD. 
 He added that the Russian Federation was cu rrently party to 32 bilateral and multilateral 
inter-governmental Agreements with third countries on food hygiene, safety, sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures.  The list of these Agreements is in [Annex 4]. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 306  
 
   
- (e) Regime for Trade in Produc ts Subject to Veterinary Control 
849. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Commission had issued 
several decisions which provided the basis for th e legal framework for protection of animal and 
human health.  CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 "On the Application of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Uni on" (as last amended by CU Commission Decision 
No. 724 of 22 June 2011), established the legal basi s for veterinary measures in the Customs Union 
and entered into force on 1 July 2010.  CU Co mmission Decision No. 317 established a list of goods 
that could be subject to veterinary control, and ad opted provisions on:  (i) veterinary inspection at the 
customs border of the Customs Union; (ii) regulati ons on a single system of joint inspections of 
facilities and sampling of goods; (iii) veterinary requir ements for goods subject to veterinary control; 
and (iv) the common form of veterinary certific ates for movement within the Customs Union.  
The Common Sanitary-Epidemiological and Hygiene Requirements to Goods Subject to  
Sanitary-Epidemiological Control (supervision), as c ontained in CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 
28 May 2010 "On the Application of Sanitary Measu res in the Customs Union" (as last amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 622 of 7 April 2011), established sanitary requirements, including maximum residue levels for controlled goods.   
850. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that in addition to the laws described in 
paragraph [815], the following domestic normative legal act s were still in effect to the extent that they 
did not contradict CU Agreements or CU Comm ission Decisions:  Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practic es" (as last amended by Federal Law No. 394-FZ 
of 28 December 2010), relating to protection of an imal and human health and implementation of 
sanitary and veterinary measures, Federal Law No . 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety 
of Food Products" (as last amended by Federal Law No. 394-FZ of 28 December 2010), relating to 
activities performed by the State veterinary au thorities, Government Resolution No. 830 of 
29 October 1992 "On Regulations of the State Vete rinary Service of the Russian Federation for 
Protection of the Russian Territory Against Importa tion of Infectious Animal Diseases from Abroad", 
Government Resolution No. 706 of 19 June 1994 "On Regula tions on State Veterinary Surveillance in 
the Russian Federation" (as last amended by G overnment Resolution No. 295 of 16 April 2001), 
Government Resolution No. 1263 of 29 Septem ber 1997 "On Regulations on the Procedure for 
Examination of Low Quality or Hazardous Food Inputs and Products, their use and Destruction" 
(as last amended by Government Resolution No . 295 of 16 April 2001), Government Resolution 
No. 987 of 21 December 2000 "On State Surveillance and Control in Ensuring Quality and Safety of 
Food Products", Government Resolution No. 26 of  18 January 2002 "On the State Registration of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 307 
 
 
  Feedstuffs Received from Genetically Modified Organisms" (as last amended by Government 
Resolution No. 422 of 14 July 2006) (with relevant  amendments), Government Resolution No. 60 of 
2 February 2006 "On the Provisions of Carrying Out of Social and Health Monitoring", Government 
Resolution No. 303 of 16 May 2005 "On Enactment of  the Division of Authority of Federal Executive 
Agencies in the Field of Maintenance of Biological and Chemical Safety of the Russian Federation" 
(as last amended by Government Resolution No. 50 of 4 February 2011), Government Resolution 
No. 310 of 26 May 2006 "On the Rules of Animals Alienation and Withdrawals of Livestock 
Products at Liquidation of the Centres of Especia lly Dangerous Animal Diseases", "Regulations on 
Subdivision of State Veterinary Surveillance in Processing and Storage Enterprises of Animal Products" approved by the Chief State Veteri nary Inspector of the Russian Federation 
(No. 13-7-2/173 of 14 October 1994) (issued by the MOA), and Order of the MOA No. 422 of 
16 November 2006 "On approval of rules of organi zational management on issuing of accompanying 
documents" (as last amended by Order of the MOA No. 84 of 9 March 2010). 
-  (i) Import Permits for Goods Subject to Veterinary (Sanitary) Control 
851. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that since July 2010, the legal 
framework for the import permit regime of the Cu stoms Union was set-out in Section VI of the 
Regulation on Veterinary Controls at the Customs Border of the Customs Union, adopted by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 317.  This Regulation sets-out the following principles:  
- Imports into the CU of certain goods subject to  veterinary controls must have an import 
permit issued by the competent authority of th e CU Party which was the point of destination 
for the imports; and 
- The permit was valid for a calendar year, for quantities which are specified in the permit.  
 
 The permit was issued taking into account the epizootic situation of the place of production 
and where there was a registry of enterprises authorised  to export the relevant goods to the territory of 
the CU, whether the enterprise was on that list of enterprises.  
852. The representative of the Russian Federation added that CU Parties were creating a common 
information data system of external and internal trade of the CU Parties which would be used for 
issuance of veterinary import permits and accountin g for commodities subject to veterinary control 
(surveillance).  An importer could obtain an  import permit from Rosselkhoznadzor through the 
ARGUS information system.  The importer was provi ded with an access code  to this information 
system and could enter all data related to his/he r request directly into ARGUS.  For imports of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 308  
 
  agricultural live animals and fodder
9 for them, the Chief Veterinary Officer of the subject of the 
Russian Federation for the territory of destination would be consulted on whether to issue the import 
permit.  The importer would receive a printable electronic copy of the permit via ARGUS or via the 
Chief Veterinary Officer of the subject of the Ru ssian Federation, and in case of application, via 
ARGUS, the import permit was delivered electronically through ARGUS. 
853. Currently, Belarus and the Russian Federati on used the common automated information 
system ARGUS, and Kazakhstan used its own syst em.  However, until the common electronic system 
for issuance of import permits for goods subject to  control was put in place, the CU Parties would 
follow the procedures specified in their respective national legislati on, i.e., import permits would be 
issued by the national competent authorities (incl uding through ARGUS), but were recognised by the 
other CU Parties as allowing importation of products into the CU territory.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that other CU Partie s knew that import permits had been issued for 
certain goods because a copy of the import permit was made available to the border entry point indicated in the permit. 
854. Some Members noted that the import regime in  the Russian Federation, and the CU, included 
a requirement to obtain an import permit from the veterinary authorities for goods subject to 
veterinary (sanitary) control and expressed concern a bout the consistency of this requirement with the 
WTO Agreement.  These Members questioned the reason for requiring an import permit, in particular when other measures such as veterinary certificates and declarations of conformity were also required.  
In the view of these Members, an import permit should be automatic and impose no additional 
SPS requirements.  In their view, the Russian Fede ration used import permits to limit imports rather 
than as a SPS measure.  In addition, Russian officials sometimes refused to issue import permits for arbitrary reasons based on unpublished criteria and th e amount of time taken to issue a permit was not 
predictable.  These Members also expressed concern that this regime resulted in more stringent 
requirements on imported products as compared to domestic or CU products, in violation of the 
principle of non-discrimination.  Members noted that these import permits specified quantities of imports.  In the view of these Members, specifying a quantity in the permit c ould not be justified on 
safety grounds.   
855. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that import permits were 
purely an SPS measure.  He further explained that an import permit could be requested for any 
                                                      
9The references to "feed" and "fodder" as used in  the sub-section "Regime for Trade in Products 
Subject to Veterinary Control" of this Report refer only to those products which are subject to veterinary control 
as provided for in the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control as set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 317 as amended by CU Commission Decisions No. 810 of 23 September 2011 and No. 830 of 
18 October 2011.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 309 
 
 
  amount of goods and that the amount requested could not be the basis for refusing to issue the permit.  
Import permits had three functions:  first, to ensu re that the importer was in a position to handle the 
imported goods in a safe manner that complied with  domestic, e.g., quarantine requirements; second, 
to take into account the epizootic situation of the exporting country; and third, to ensure that specific 
conditions, adapted to the epizootic  situation of the exporting country, were met at the time of 
importation.  The first function was not discriminator y since the conditions required to be met by the 
operator were also checked in case of internal tr ade within the CU territory.  The second function was 
that of a legal instrument to block or restrict imports in case of dangerous animal disease outbreaks in the exporting country.  The third function could be used, for example, to require certain imported 
animal products from countries with a specific epiz ootic situation to be processed in designated 
facilities.  In this case, import permits would be gr anted only to those importers who were able to 
channel the consignments to such facilities.  Impor t permits also optimized logistics for importers and 
provided a means to coordinate activities of regulatory agencies. 
856. As concerns the procedure for issuance of import permits, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that this procedure w as applied to importation of goods subject to State 
veterinary control in accordance with Law No. 4979-1, CU Commission Decision No. 317, and the 
Unified Rules of the State Veterinary Supervisi on for International and In terstate (between CIS 
countries) Transportation of Livestock Cargoes, a pproved by Decision of Inter-governmental Council 
of CIS for Cooperation in Veterinary Sector of 5 November 2003.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that an importer re ceived an import permit from Rosselkhoznadzor by 
submitting an application in electronic form through ARGUS.  To import live agricultural animals and feed for them, Rosselkhoznadzor would request an opinion from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector 
of the subject of the Russian Federation that was the planned destination for the animals or feed.  
After the Chief Veterinary Inspector of the Ru ssian Federation signed an import permit for live 
agricultural animals and feed for them, the importe r and customs officials at the border could use 
ARGUS to verify the import permit.  This permit wa s issued free of charge, signed by the Chief State 
Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation,  and was valid for a period of a calendar year. 
857. In response to further questions from Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that an import permit allowed an impor ter to import multiple consignments from the 
establishment identified in the permit.  Some Memb ers also queried whether an importer was required 
to identify all sources of exported product, including, inter alia , quantities and shipment routes.  
They sought confirmation that the importer could ch oose alternative sources of product or alternative 
routes during the calendar year of validity of th e permit.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that, if during the cale ndar year of validity of the import permit, the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 310  
 
  importer decided to import products from another so urce (country, enterprise); the importer needed to 
apply for a new import permit.  The route of importation as well as points of crossing the Russian 
border could be changed following an application from the importer notifying these changes with a 
reference to the permit already issued. 
858. In response to a question from some Member s regarding plans for the adoption of a 
CU common permit, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that currently no such plans 
existed.  However, the Russian Federation planned to have a special form of permit (provisionally 
named a general permit or Form 1) at the national level as of the fall of 2011.  A new administrative 
regulation on issuing permits fo r import to, export from, and transit through the Russian Federation 
adopted by the Order of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) No. 404 of 7 November 2011 "On Adoption of Administrative Regulation of the Federal Service on Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Control on Provision of State Service on Issuance of Authorizations for Imports to the 
Russian Federation and Exports from the Russian Federa tion, as well as Transit within its Territory of 
Animals, Products of Animal Origin, Medicines fo r Veterinary Use, Feeds and Feed Additives for 
Animals" (hereinafter:  the administrative regulati on) provided for such permits and set-out how such 
a permit would be administered.  Rosselkhoznadzor  would issue this general import permit and it 
would be valid for one calendar year.  The genera l import permit of the Russi an Federation would be 
valid for importation only into the territory of the Russian Federation.    
859. A Member of the Working Party asked whet her the Inspector in the subject of the 
Russian Federation had the authority to refuse to  submit a petition to Rosselkhoznadzor for an import 
permit.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, the administrative 
regulation provided that the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation 
no longer had a role in filing, granting or refu sing to grant an import permit, except for live 
agricultural animals and feed for them, in whic h case Rosselkhoznadzor obtained an opinion from the 
Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the subject of the Russian Federation that was the planned 
destination for the animals or feed.  A Member as ked the justification for this specific procedure 
applied to live agricultural animals and feed for th em.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
replied that, for live agricultural animals and feed fo r them, the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the 
subject of the Russian Federation had to asse ss and provide a reasoned opinion on whether 
appropriate quarantine facilities were available at the point of destination.   
860. A Member of the Working Party asked whether the period for issuance of an import permit 
commenced with the filing of the application in ARGUS  either directly or through an authorised third 
person.  In response, the representative of the Russ ian Federation stated that this period commenced  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 311 
 
 
  from the date of registration of the hard copy of an  application for a permit as an incoming document, 
or from the date at which an application was f iled in ARGUS.  Another Member asked about the 
methods for communicating information on whether an import permit had been issued.  
The representative of the Russian Federation responde d that the term "telephone message" in the 
"Import Procedures for Products of Animal Origin" document, referred to the transmission of a permit 
by telephone, in which case a Rosselkhoznadzor offici al would read out the permit over the telephone. 
He further added that the permit could be tran smitted by telephone, fax or electronic mail.   
861. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that permits to import were required 
and issued for certain controlled goods, in acco rdance with the Common list of goods subject to 
veterinary control, approved by the CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010, and 
non-registered medicinal (pharmaceutical) products for veterinary use.  The administrative regulation 
also provided that a wide range of individuals, en terprises, and their representatives could apply for a 
permit. 
862. Some Members requested information on the ch anges to the current import permit procedure 
provided for in the administrative regulation.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that the main changes from the cu rrent regime were as follows:  
(a) shortening the maximum time period for i ssuance of permits from 30 days to 20 days; 
(b) introducing a legal basis for the registration of permits using the ARGUS Information system; 
(c) decreasing the number of products that require the registration of permits so as that import 
into, export from, and transit through the Russian Federation are not required for:  (i) feed additives for cats and dogs, as we ll as prepared feed for cats and dogs 
heat-treated (temperature not less than 70ºC above zero, for a time not less than 
20 minutes) in a package; 
(ii) all kinds of terrestrial and aquatic animals or their parts that have undergone a full 
taxidermy treatment, upon presentation of  documents confirming their retail 
purchase; and 
(iii) hunting trophies originating from regions with safe disease situation (specified in 
paragraph 3 of Chapter 38 of the Comm on Veterinary (Veterinary-Sanitary) 
Requirements to the Goods Subject to Vete rinary Control (Surveillance), approved by 
the of CU Commission Decision No. 317 as of 18 June 2010), as well as originating 
from regions with an unsafe situation in resp ect of specified diseases, but which have 
been processed (disinfected ) in accordance with the rules of the country of the 
hunting trophy, which was confirmed by a veterinary certificate; 
(d) clarifying the list of reasons for denial of permits' issuance taking into consideration the 
requirements of CU Commission Decisions; 
(e) introducing the notion of a "General Permit" which was issued based on a risk assessment for 
certain sectors in a particular country and a llowed any importer to import any volume of the 
controlled goods from that country.  The admini strative regulation also defined the list of 
products that could be subject to a general permit, which included:  animal products for 
human consumption, industrially manufactur ed, in consumer packaging labelled by a 
manufacturing enterprise, food additives of animal origin, palaeontology, entomology, 
artefacts, collectibles tr eated in a manner that ensures the d estructions of pathogens, products WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 312  
 
  transferred for purposes other than business so that an importing individual can house small 
domestic and decorative animals, birds, reptil es, amphibians, and aquatic organisms in the 
amount of up to 5 heads/items (dogs, cats in the amount of 2-5 heads).  With that, a female 
mammal, a cat with kittens, a dog with puppies un til the end of the weaning period, a female 
nesting bird with chicks, until the end of the peri od when chicks are fed by parents, and so on 
are considered one head; 
(f) including the procedures for introducing am endments into a previously issued permit; 
(g) including criteria and procedures for suspe nding and cancelling a previously issued permit; 
(h) clarifying the data required in the appli cation for a permit, which varied depending on the 
type of product; and 
(i) making the period for which the permit was valid  more precise, i.e. while the total period of 
validity remained as one calendar year, the admi nistrative regulation specified that animals 
could be imported in the territory of the Russi an Federation before 1 February of the year 
following the year for which the permit was issu ed if the animal had been put in quarantine 
before 31 December of the year for which the pe rmit was issued.  For other products requiring 
a permit, such products could be imported into the Russian Federation during the year 
following the year for which a permit was issu ed if the veterinary certificate for these 
products was issued before 31 December of the year for which the permit was issued. 
 
863. In response to a request fo r information on obtaining an import permit under the new 
administrative regulation, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that the annex to the 
administrative regulation listed the information that was required in an appli cation by type of product 
and whether the permit was for import, export, or  transit.  The administrative regulation listed 
information required for permits to import (1) live animals and animal genetic material, (2) feed and 
feed additives, (3) fish and seafood and their de rivatives, (4) controlled goods containing hazardous 
biological agents, and (5) other controlled goods.  Although there were some common elements of 
information required, such as the name of the impor ter and consignee, and exporter information, each 
form specified specific additional information for each type of good that the a pplicant had to provide.  
864. Some Members noted, that under the MOA Order No. 1 of 9 January 2008, only a permit 
issued by the Chief Veterinary Officer of a subject of the Russian Federation was required for the following products:  (a) Small domestic animals which belong to citizens (not more than two 
animals); or (b) Industrially-produced products of  animal origin that have undergone thermal 
treatment, prepared products made from raw material s of animal origin, factory-processed, prepared 
in conformity with the requirements of the standa rds and regulations when they are imported from 
countries that are subject to obligatory declara tion by the World Animal Health Organization 
(hereinafter:  infectious animal diseases), and on which no limits have been placed; and that the 
Russian Federation had stated its intention to  eliminate this requirement.  However, under 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, for products in category (b), instead of removing the requirement for an import permit, the authority to issue the import permit was transferred to Rosselkhoznadzor.  
Members expressed concerns that the CU Commi ssion Decision went in the wrong direction.  
They saw no scientific justification or risk b asis for requiring import permits for these and other  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 313 
 
 
  products now subject to this requirement.  These Members sought the elimination of the requirement 
for an import permit for these and other products.  
865. In response the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that pursuant to the 
administrative regulation, the products in category (b) in paragraph [864] could be subject to the 
proposed Form 1 (general permit) and that importin g pursuant to a general permit did not impose any 
extra burden on the importer since such permits were  simply announced and did not require individual 
applications.  In response to a question from a Me mber, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that a country was recognized as safe from infectious animal diseases based on OIE 
information. 
866. Some Members requested further information on the procedures and criteria for suspending 
and/or cancelling an import permit and whether such action was subject to administrative review and 
appeal.  These Members stated that procedures and cr iteria needed to be consis tent with international 
standards, recommendations and gui delines with regard to reasons for suspension and cancellation of 
an import permit and allowing corrective action and further monitoring.  Members also asked for 
information on the transparency of the pro cesses of suspending and cancelling import permits, 
including notification of the competent authorit y of the exporting country and the relevant 
establishment.   
867. In response the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the administrative 
regulation included the following criteria for taki ng a decision to suspend an import permit:  
(a) if the applicant had violated the legislation of the Russian Federation and the CU in the field 
of veterinary medicine during import, export an d transit of controlled goods revealed as the 
result of surveillance of the applicant's premi se on the territory of the CU conducted by the 
Service; 
(b) repeated non-compliances as established by the results of laboratory analysis of the 
CU Common veterinary (veterinary-sanitary) requirements, approved by the CU Commission 
Decision of 18 June 2010, maintained for speci fic types of products under surveillance; or  
(c) un-corrected non-compliances of the requirements of the CU or Russian Federation detected 
during a previous surveillance in the territory of a third country, if the Regulation of a common system of joint inspections of sites and sampling goods (products), subjected to veterinary control (supervision) did not prescr ibe other actions (e.g. warning of competent 
authority of the third country). 
868. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that the competent authorities 
in the Russian Federation would notify the compet ent authorities of the exporting country of any 
non-compliances described in para graph [867] above and provide a reasonable period of time to 
address those non-compliances.  If a decision was take n to suspend an import permit, the competent 
authority of the Russian Federation would notify the competent authority in the exporting country that WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 314  
 
  the product from the relevant establishment could not be imported into the Russian Federation without 
additional laboratory testing over a period of thr ee months for not more than ten batches.  
The importer or exporter could re quest additional laboratory testi ng of the relevant product over a 
period of three months for not more than ten batche s, if the importer or exporter agreed to pay for 
such testing.  Such a request should describe other actions that were or could be taken to address the 
non-compliance.  A decision to suspend an import permit would be based on the criteria described 
above and would not be  put into effect if additional testing w as requested or if measures were taken to 
address the non-compliance.  In addition to these crit eria, an import permit could be suspended if the 
competent authorities of the Russian Federation r eceived information from the OIE about an outbreak 
of a particularly serious disease in a particular exporting country or several countries; or from the central veterinary authority of th e exporting country of problems w ith infectious animal diseases or 
the inability to meet the requirements and standa rds of the Russian Federation and the Customs 
Union; or from the State veterinary authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation and other 
authorities regarding the systematic involvement of the applicant in violations of the legislation of the 
CU and of the Russian Federation in the field of veterinary medicine.  A decision to suspend would 
indicate the time period for suspension of the import permit. 
869. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that the criteria for taking a 
decision to cancel an import permit were:  (i) viola tions by the applicant of the legislation of the 
Russian Federation and the CU in the field of veterinary medicine revealed as the result of 
surveillance of the premise of the applicant on th e CU territory conducted by the Service; and 
(ii) repeated non-compliances as established by the r esults of laboratory analysis of the CU Common 
Veterinary (Veterinary-Sanitary) Requirements,  approved by the CU Commission Decision of 
18 June 2010, maintained for specific types of products under surveillance or un-corrected 
non-compliances of the CU or non-Russian requirement s detected during previous surveillance in the 
territory of a third country if the regulation of a common system of joint inspections of establishments 
and sampling goods (products), subjected to veteri nary control (supervision) did not prescribe other 
actions (e.g. warning of competent authority of the th ird country).  If a decision is taken to cancel an 
import permit, the competent authority of the Russian Federation woul d notify the competent 
authority in the exporting country that the product from the relevant establishment cannot be imported 
into the Russian Federation without  additional laboratory testing ove r a 60-day period.  The importer 
or exporter could request additional laboratory testin g of the relevant product over a 60-day period, if 
the importer or exporter agreed to pay for such tes ting.  Such a request should describe other actions 
that were or could be taken to address the non-complia nce.  In addition to these criteria, an import 
permit could be cancelled if the competent authoriti es of the Russian Federation received information 
from the OIE about an outbreak of a particularly serious disease in a particular exporting country or  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 315 
 
 
  several countries; or from the central veterinary authority of the exporting country of troubles for 
infectious animal diseases or the inability to m eet the requirements and standards of the Russian 
Federation and the Customs Union; or from the State authorities (other than the veterinary services) of 
violations of the legislation of the CU or the Ru ssian Federation on import of controlled goods related 
to non-correspondence of veterinary documents with  goods that are being imported.  A decision to 
cancel an import permit would be based on the crit eria described above and would not be put into 
effect if additional testing was requested or if measures were taken to address the non-compliance.  
870. Some Members asked the Russian Federation to confirm that its import permit system would 
comply with OIE rules, i.e., permits would not be refused on grounds not recognised by the OIE for the animal diseases concerned.  Further, with regard  to the discovery of unauthorised substances in 
cargos, the Russian Federation would comply with the principle of applying an SPS measure only to 
the extent necessary to protect human or animal lif e and health.  In the view of these Members, a 
refusal to issue import permit after single findings of non-compliances with no immediate risk for the consumer would not comply with this principl e.  The Russian Federation confirmed that its 
procedures for considering applications for import permits would comply with these two principles.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
871. In response to these concerns, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that, 
from the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the grounds for refusing an import 
permit would be limited to:  
(a) the introduction of restrictions with regard  to separate countries (or regions of countries), 
including:  due to the situation when the country (or region) was not free from infectious 
animal diseases; 
(b) imposition of temporary suspension on the individual exporter or  group of exporters; 
(c) the imposition of restrictive measures (quara ntine) in the Russian Federation, which is 
planned to import or through which a ro ute passes of supervised products; and 
(d) in cases where a registry exists and there is  requirement for an establishment to be included 
on a registry of enterprises, the absence of the relevant establishment on the registry. 
 
 Moreover, if an application was signed by an unauthorised person or if the application 
included false data, the application will not be processed. 
872. Some Members expressed concern that the gr ounds for refusing an import permit for any 
foreign countries for which non-compliance had been detected was not transparent and discriminated 
against imported products.  Members underlined th e necessity of mechanisms to prevent these 
restrictions from being more restrictive than necessary and for ensuring their transparency and 
possibility for exporters to appeal. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 316  
 
  873. In response to a question from a Member concer ning the procedure by which an applicant for 
an import permit could appeal the denial of  an application, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the new nationa l regulation would also include procedures for 
administrative appeal of the denial of an import perm it.  He also noted that these actions or inactions 
could also be appealed to the Court as described in the Section "Framework for Making and Enforcing 
Policies". 
874. A Member also raised concerns that Fede ral Customs Service Order No. 1283 limited the 
ports through which meat and meat  products could be cleared.  In  particular, that Member sought  
information on whether the Russian Federation woul d consider less trade restrictive measures.  
In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation stated that the Order  was not an 
SPS measure, but related to customs administration and referred Members to paragraphs [561] to 
[566] for a discussion of this issue.  He noted that  the Order was being amended to permit ports in the 
Baltic and Vladivostok Customs areas to again be ap proved for the entry of meat and meat products.  
In response to further questions from Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that CU Acts did not include provisions limiting ports of entry for meat and meat products 
and referred Members to paragraph [680] and [Table 13] and [Table 14] for information on authority 
to designate checkpoints through which meat  and meat products could be cleared. 
875. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that minor documentation errors which did not alter the basic data contained in the 
document were not a basis for refusing an import pe rmit.  The legal circumstance that served as 
grounds for starting this administrative procedur e for revocation of an import permit was the 
discovery of systematic (e.g., liable to administra tive or criminal prosecution) violations, by the 
importer of the regulated cargo, of CU Decisi ons and other CU Acts and the laws of the 
Russian Federation in the field of veterinary medici ne (including the presentation of forged veterinary 
documents or the discovery of inconsistency be tween the presented documents and the regulated 
cargo).  Furthermore, he confirmed that the reasons  for suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an 
import permit would be consistent with interna tional standards, recommendations, and guidelines and 
the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment. 
876. Further, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the import permit regime applicable to goods subject to veterinary and quarantine c ontrol would be operated under CU Decisions, other CU Acts, and 
provisions of the law of the Russian Federation th at were published and available to the public and 
that these measures would be developed and app lied in compliance with the WTO Agreement.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 317 
 
 
  The representative of the Russian Federation also confirmed that information requirements for the 
purposes of applying for an import permit would be  limited to what was necessary for appropriate 
approval and control procedures and that any requi rements for control, inspection and approval of 
individual specimens of a product were limited to wh at is reasonable and necessary as provided for in 
Annex C of the WTO SPS Agreement.  Moreover, he  confirmed that his government would maintain 
and notify the public of a clearly defined procedur e under which an applicant for an import permit 
could appeal the suspension, cancellation, or refusal of an application, have that appeal adjudicated, 
and receive a written response explaining the reasons  for the final decision and any further action 
required to obtain a permit.  The Worki ng Party took note of these commitments. 
- (ii) Transit through the Russian Fede ration of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
(Sanitary) Control 
877. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the restrictions of the 
Russian Federation and the CU on the transit of goods  subject to veterinary/sanitary control through 
the territory of the CU, including the Russian Federa tion were not in accordance with OIE standards, 
norms, and recommendations.  In the view of these Members, the Russian Federation refused the 
transit of goods for arbitrary reasons.  In addition,  the time-limits for granting permission to transit 
and the appeal process related to a refusal to pe rmit transit were unclear.  These Members sought a 
commitment from the Russian Federation that it wo uld develop and apply SPS measures affecting the 
transit of products subject to veterinary contro l through the territory of the Russian Federation in 
compliance with the OIE and the WTO SPS Agreemen t.  In light of the CU, Members requested 
detailed information on the rules and procedur es that would apply to goods subject to 
veterinary/sanitary control in transit through the CU.  
878. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that, since 1 July 2010, the 
legal framework for the issuance of transit permit wa s set in Decision No. 317 of the CU Commission, 
in Chapter VII of the "Regulation on the Single Syst em of Veterinary Control at the Customs Border 
of the Customs Union".  The principles set at CU level were the following: 
- A transit permit was required only for transit of live animals and raw materials of animal 
origin.  The transit permit was issued by th e CU Party whose territory was the first entry 
point; 
-  Veterinary control of controlled goods at entr y points was carried out after the submission of 
a waybill and (or) veterinary certificate; 
-  After completion of documentary control, vete rinary inspection of animals was carried out, 
including:  identification numbers of animals were  compared (tattoos, chips, ear tags, stamps, 
etc.) with numbers indicated in veterinary cer tificates, conditions of carriage were verified, 
and the condition of animals and possibility of their further transportation were examined; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 318  
 
  -  Examination during transit of controlled goods  (except for animals) was performed only by 
state regulatory authorities at a checkpoint or in the presence of information about non-conformity of controlled goods to the declared goods; 
-  According to the results of monitoring, the Border Control Inspection Post Officer made a 
decision and put a stamp on the shipping documents and on the veterinary certificate, in 
accordance with the form of Annex No. 3:  "Tra nsit enabled" or "Transit prohibited", and at 
the point of exit from the customs territory of  the CU, a stamp "Transit Completed", then 
assured it by the seal and signature, indicating such Officer's name and initials; 
-  All necessary data was entered in the register of transit in the form in accordance with Annex 
No. 9 of that Regulation and entered into the system of electronic records; and 
-  The owner of the controlled goods, who recei ved the permit of trans it of controlled goods 
through the territory of the CU, had to comply  with the veterinary legislation of the CU. 
 
879. Some Members expressed concerns regarding the re quirement that controlled goods in transit, 
which had been inspected and were conveyed un der seal, had to comply with CU veterinary 
requirements.  From these Members' perspective, th is requirement could not be justified as a safety 
measure and restricted trade with third countries. 
880. The representative of the Russian Federation noted concerns from Members regarding the 
requirement for controlled goods in transit to comply  with CU veterinary requirements and confirmed 
that CU Commission Decision No. 317 had been amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011 to eliminate this requirement, so that from the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, controlled goods transiting through the territory of the CU under 
customs seal would not be subject to CU veterinary requirements.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
881. Currently, at the level of the Russian Federation,  the procedure for issuance of transit permit 
was set-out in the MOA Order No. 1 of 9 January  2008 (as last amended on 26 June 2008).  This 
Order continued to apply to the extent that it di d not conflict with CU Commission Decision No. 317.  
As noted in paragraph [858], the  administrative regulation on procedur es for issuing permits to import 
into, export from, and transit through the Russian Fe deration in order to align with the Customs Union 
rules and regulations, was being de veloped.  The annex to the administrative regulation specified 
information that applicants had to provide to obtain a permit for controlled goods to transit the 
territory of the Russian Federation.    
882. A Member of the Working Party requested in formation on the treatment of "non-safe" 
countries whose animal products fulfilled the impo rt conditions established in the OIE Code, and 
whether a transit permit was also required for such  products.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that, there were two reas ons to suspend, or cancel a transit permit which 
were restrictive measures which had been introduced  by the Russian Federation against particular 
countries (regions of countries), when this country (or region)  was not free from infectious animal  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 319 
 
 
  diseases included on the list formerly known as the OIE List A, or where the importing country did 
not permit such imports.  Those measures were, in turn, to be in compliance with the OIE 
requirements.  He further stated that the Chief St ate Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation 
would provide an opinion to Rosselkhoz nadzor on whether to issue a permit for transit of live animals 
and raw materials of animal origin through the CU Parties.  The purpose of such a requirement for 
transit of live animals and raw materials of animal origin was to prevent the spread of transmissible 
diseases into the territory of the CU.  
883. Some Members sought additional information on whether importers applied for transit 
permits for individual instances of importation or (as for import permits) for trade over a period of a 
calendar year.  They also sought information on th e procedures for appeal of such decisions and any 
applicable fees.  In response the representative of the Russian Federation stated that transit permits 
were issued for a period of one calendar year.  A transit permit could be requested for any amount of 
goods and the amount requested could not be the basis for refusing the transit permit.  Such permits were issued free of charge.  If a transit permit wa s not issued, the applicant could appeal to higher 
officials/instances and/or to the Court.  Applic ants had the right to appeal against actions 
(or inactions) of the Rosselkhoznadzor officials w ithin applicable administrative or judicial 
procedures.  He repeated that the purpose of such a requirement for transit of live animals and raw materials of animal origin was to prevent the spr ead of transmissible diseases into the territory of the 
CU.   
884. A Member of the Working Party asked why it w as necessary to again control live animals that 
have been controlled by Federal authorities upon en tering the Russian territory, and which had been 
assessed as disease free and not posing any health ri sk.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that officials of the re levant State Veterinary Service of a CU Party 
conducted a single inspection of live animals in tran sit through the territory of the CU at the place 
where the animals first entered the territory of the CU.  These animals were then monitored for health 
purposes at places of rest and counted at the place of exit. 
885. The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that relevant provisions of 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, the administrativ e regulation and other measures relating to the 
transit of goods subject to veterinary control thro ugh the territory of the Russian Federation would be 
applied in compliance with the OIE Code and th e WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 320  
 
  - (iii)  Veterinary Certificates  
886. Members requested information on CU requi rements related to the development and 
implementation of veterinary certificates.  Members sought to ensure that such certificates would be 
consistent with international standards, r ecommendations and guidelines.  If the CU adopted 
veterinary certificates, Members requested informat ion on the continued validity of current bilateral 
certificates agreed with the Russian Federation.  In their view, these bilateral certificates should 
remain valid until a replacement was agreed with the CU Parties.   
887. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that 40 CU common forms of veterinary 
certificates for import into the CU territory from any third country had been adopted by 
CU Commission Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011, for each of the categories of controlled goods 
established in CU Commission Decision No. 317.  He confirmed that in accordance with 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, as last amended by CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 
22 June 2011, and CU Commission Decision No. 726  of 15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", 
veterinary certificates between exporting countries and the Russian Federation finalized prior to 
1 July 2010 would be valid at least until 1 Janua ry 2013.  Furthermore, CU Commission Decision 
No. 726 of 15 July 2011 provided that the competen t authorities of the CU Parties could negotiate and 
agree to veterinary certificates with requirements that differed from the CU common form and specific CU Common Requirements, if an exporting country made a substantiated request prior to 
1 January 2013 to negotiate such a veterinary expo rt certificate.  The decision also provided that 
bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by on e of the CU Parties before 1 July 2010, as well 
as any subsequent amendments to such  certificates agreed with the aut horised body of such CU Party, 
would remain valid for exports from the relevant count ry into the customs territory of the CU until an 
export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties.  
Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the CU Parties between 1 July 2010 and 
1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation of relevant goods, only in the 
territory of the CU Party that initialled the certifi cate, until a bilateral veterinary export certificate was 
agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other CU Parties.  While such bilateral 
veterinary export certificate could contain require ments that differed from the CU Common Form and 
Common Requirements, such certificates had to en sure the appropriate level of protection as 
determined by the CU Parties.  These new certificat es were also required to include terms, including 
provisions on the relevant product, that were no less favourable than those in an international treaty 
that was concluded prior to 1 July 2010 between a CU Party and the third country.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 321 
 
 
  888. A Member expressed concern that the CU Partie s were not recognizing the continued validity 
of existing certificates and that cases of blockages at the Russian border of consignments destined for 
Kazakhstan and accompanied by a bilateral certificat e signed with Kazakhstan prior to 1 July 2010 
had occurred.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the bilateral 
certificates that this Member had signed with K azakhstan could only be used to export product to 
Kazakhstan for circulation within th at country and noted that consi gnments were being delivered to 
Kazakhstan.  
889. Some Members expressed concern that th e CU Commission had adopted the 40 common 
forms of veterinary certificates and 38 Chapters of common veterinary requirements that did not 
conform to international standards, recommendations  and guidelines, in particular OIE standards, 
recommendations and requirements.  These Members al so raised concerns that contrary to the 
requirements of the WTO SPS Agreement, interested parties, including Members had not been 
accorded an opportunity to provide comments on these measures before they were adopted.  
The representative of the Russian Federation res ponded that CU Commission Decision No. 623 of 
7 April 2011 now provided a CU process for receiving comments from the public on proposed 
SPS measures. 
890. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that amendments of the common 
veterinary requirements and to the common forms of certificates were being prepared in parallel so as 
to ensure compatibility with inte rnational standards, recommendati ons and guidelines in particular 
OIE standards.  He confirmed that the amendments to the common veterinary requirements and to the 
common forms of certificates would enter into force simultaneously no later than the date of the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WT O.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
891. Some Members noted that the Russian Federati on had drafted proposed amendments to a few 
of the CU common veterinary requirements.  Th ese Members expressed con cerns that these proposed 
amendments were extremely limited, failed to take  into account Members' comments, were not based 
on scientific principles, could result in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination, and, most importantly, failed to bring the CU common veterinary requirement s into conformity with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines, e. g., by requiring conditions for animal diseases which were not 
listed in the OIE Code. Members noted the Russian  Federation's commitments in paragraph [890] 
regarding the CU common veterina ry requirements and common forms and expressed concerns that 
the Russian Federation would not adopt all of th e necessary amendments to achieve compatibility 
with international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions in particular OIE standards by the date WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 322  
 
  of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO or that these amendments would not enter into 
force as provided in paragraph [890].  These Member s urged Russia to engage in serious efforts, 
including through consultations with WTO Memb ers, with a view to ensure the timely 
implementation of the commitm ents in paragraph [890]. 
892. Members expressed concern regarding a mandatory requirement to use a common 
CU Veterinary Certificate.  They noted that currently, some exporting countries had veterinary 
certificates that included requirements that differed significantly from those in the common form and 
the veterinary requirements of the Russian Federati on.  These differences reflected conditions in the 
exporting country or region, in line with Article 6 of the WTO SPS Agreement and other international 
agreements.  These Members sought confirmation that  the Russian Federation and its CU partners 
would negotiate specific certificates with requi rements that could differ from the CU Common 
Requirements and that export certificates currently in effect with the Russian Federation would 
remain valid until a CU replacement  had been agreed.  Moreover, if there was no certificate governing 
trade in a regulated product, these Members sought  confirmation that an exporting country could 
negotiate a certificate with the CU Parties that  included requirements that differed from the 
CU Common Requirements. 
893. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation and its 
CU Parties would work with interested Members to negotiate veterinary certificates that included 
requirements that differed from the CU common form  and specific CU Common Requirements, if an 
exporting country made a substantiated request prior to 1 January 2013 to negotiate such a veterinary 
export certificate.  Bilateral veterinary export certif icates initialled by one of  the CU Parties before 
1 July 2010, as well as any subsequent amendments to such certificates agreed with the authorised 
body of such CU Party, would remain valid for e xports from the relevant country into the customs 
territory of the CU until an export certificate wa s agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed 
positions of the other CU Parties.  Bilateral veterinary export certificates initialled by one of the 
CU Parties between 1 July 2010 and 1 December 2010 would remain valid for import and circulation 
of relevant goods, only in the territory of the CU Party that initialled the certificate, until a bilateral 
veterinary export certificate was agreed with a CU Party based on the agreed positions of the other 
CU Parties.  These new certificates would include te rms on matters dealt within an international treaty 
that were no less favourable than the corresponding terms on that matter in such treaty that was 
concluded prior to 1 July 2010 between a Party and the relevant third country.  While such bilateral 
veterinary export certificates could contain require ments that differed from the CU Common Form 
and specific provisions of the Common Requirements, such certificates had to ensure the appropriate  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 323 
 
 
  level of protection as determined by the CU Pa rties.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
894. The Russian Federation had concluded Agreemen ts on veterinary certificates for most types 
of animal products with the veterinary services of  many exporting countries in order to facilitate trade 
in animal products.  The requirement to obtain a vete rinary certificate (i.e., the certificate adjusted for 
a particular country) of the form established by such an Agreement was not mandatory for importing 
these products into the Russian Federation.  In th e absence of such an Agreement with the exporting 
country, animal products were exported to the Russi an Federation based on th e requirements listed in 
the Letter of the State Veterinary Service of  the Russian Federation No. 13-8-01/1-1-3-7 of 
23 December 1999, which was published in its electroni c database for legal reference.  He explained 
that in the relevant veterinary certificate, the stat e veterinary service of the exporting country certified 
that the covered products fulfilled th e terms and conditions set-out in the certificate.  The certificate 
also included information on the veterinary situat ion in the exporting country at the moment of 
production and export of products a nd raw materials of animal origin  to the Russian Federation with 
regard to highly dangerous animal diseases, as relevant, such as Foot-and-Mouth disease, Rinderpest, 
and African swine fever.  The veterinary service of the exporting country would confirm the absence 
of such diseases when issuing the certificate.  Howe ver, since the formation of the Customs Union, 
the CU Common Forms of Veterinary Certificates that were set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 607, or bilateral veterinary certificates as set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of 
15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", had to be used.  In response to a question from a Member, 
the representative of the Russian Federation further e xplained that, if a third country sought to export 
to a CU Party a commodity for which veterina ry certification was required according to the 
CU Common List of Goods subject to veterinary control, but for which no CU Common Form of certificate and no CU Common Requirements existed, a bilateral certificate with the interested 
country could be developed based on a coordinated position of the CU Parties, and such a bilateral 
certificate would be based on relevant internati onal standards, guidelines and recommendations as 
provided for in CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Applica tion of International 
Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations".  If, according to the CU Common List of Goods 
subject to veterinary control, no veterinary certif ication was required for a commodity, or if the 
commodity was not included in the said CU Common  List, the Russian Federation would not require 
a veterinary certificate.  
895. Some Members stated that a veterinary certificate should not require certification of 
provisions that were not mandatory requirements unde r CU acts or in the absence of CU mandatory 
requirements, under international standards, reco mmendations, and guidelines, e.g., to certify for a WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 324  
 
  disease which was not the object of a CU act or w as not subject to the same level of surveillance 
within the CU or Russian territory as required in the certificate.  If the Russian Federation or the 
CU sought to have stricter animal health requirements than those set-out in the OIE, the 
Russian Federation or CU must demonstrate that, based on risk assessment, as well as active and passive surveillance in the Russian Federation or th e CU territory for animal diseases that could be 
present on the territory of the Russian Federation or the CU, the animal health status of the 
Russian Federation or the CU for the disease concer ned was such that it justified such stricter 
requirements.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration confirmed that veterinary certificates 
would not require certification of provisions that were not justifie d based on mandatory requirements 
applicable and surveillance carried out within the territory of the Russian Federation or the CU.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
896. Some Members asked how it was possible to expor t products to the Russian Federation in the 
absence of existing bilateral certificates:  (i) if CU  Common Veterinary Requirements were set for the 
concerned product, and (ii) if no CU Common Veterinary Requirements were set.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation answered that if CU Common Veterinary Requirements were set for the 
concerned product, the exporting country could use the CU common veterinary certificate, or could 
seek to negotiate with the CU Parties a bilateral certificate containing requirements that differed from 
those in the CU Common Veterinary Requirements to reflect the particular conditions of the exporting 
country.  In the case where no CU Common Veteri nary Requirements were set for the concerned 
product, a bilateral certificate with the interested  country could be developed based on an agreed 
position of the CU Parties, and such a bilateral cer tificate would be based on relevant international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations.  
897. With respect to the terms of veterina ry certificates, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that in compliance with the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement, 
which identified the norms and sta ndards of the OIE as the requirem ents used in the international 
trade of live animals and products of animal or igin, the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 159 of 24 March 2006 "On Implementation of the Veterinary Measures 
Regarding Importation of Live Anim als and Products of Animal Origin to the Customs Territory of 
the Russian Federation" stipulated that when impor ting live animals and products of animal origin 
into the customs territory of the Ru ssian Federation, if requirements stated in Russian legislation were 
more stringent than international veterinary re quirements, the international standards (e.g., the 
relevant provisions of the OIE Code) were to be applied.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation also stated that  in practice, the Russian Federation either brought the rules into 
conformity with OIE standards or relied upon scien tific evidence to maintain the more stringent  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 325 
 
 
  standard.  He further noted that Resolution No. 15 9 applied in the case of the Letter of the State 
Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation No. 13-8-01/1-1-3-7 of 23 December 1999, and if the 
letter applied more stringent veteri nary requirements than internati onal standards, the international 
standards would apply .  
898. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Commission Decision 
No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of International Standards, Recommendations and 
Guidelines" required that:  in cases in which no mandatory requirements on veterinary, or 
phytosanitary, or sanitary epidemiological and hygien ic requirements, had been established at CU or 
national level, the CU Parties would apply standa rds, recommendations and guidelines of the OIE, 
IPPC and the Codex Alimentarius respectively.  Similarly, if CU veterinary, phytosanitary and 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic mandatory re quirements in effect in the territory of the 
CU were more stringent than relevant internati onal standards, guidelines and recommendations, in the 
absence of scientific justification of risk to hu man, animal, or plant life or health, relevant 
international standards, guidelines, and recommenda tions, or parts thereof, would be applied. 
899. One Member noted that it would be useful to have a clarification on how this principle would 
be applied in a given case, as the operationalization of  this concept did not seem self-evident.  It also 
seemed that paragraphs [994] and [1003 ] referred to the same principle. 
900. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Decision No. 159 and 
now CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 were mandatory and, in his view, when 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 entered into eff ect, there would be a basis for application of 
international standards, recommendations and guide lines.  He invited this Member, in case it had 
particular examples of its non-implementation, to prov ide them to the Russian authorities, in order to 
address those issues. 
901. A Member of the Working Party expressed c oncern that bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) requirements set-out in existing bilateral certificates as well as in the CU common veterinary 
certificate for live cattle, did not conform to OIE sta ndards, since they respectively foresaw testing of 
animals for BSE and required the absence of a ge netic link with animals affected by BSE.  
The representative of the Russian Federation clarifie d that in respect to BSE, as of the date of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, bilateral certificates as well as the CU common 
certificates would, as provided for in the WTO Agreem ent, be in conformity with OIE standards.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 326  
 
  902. In response, a Member stated that the Russian  Federation should amend its requirements to be 
in conformity with international standards, recommendations, and guidelines in order to avoid 
confusion whilst achieving the a ppropriate level of protection.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that the harmonization of CU requirements with the international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines was being achieved, inter alia , through the work on elaboration of 
new technical regulations in the SPS sphere, as described in paragraphs  [828] to [845], and [1045] to 
[1048].  Furthermore, the CU Commission had a dopted Decisions No. 625 as amended by Decision 
No. 722 of 22 June 2011 and No. 721 of 22 June 2011 to  ensure that harmonization with international 
standards, recommendations and guidelines would be ach ieved as of the date of entry into force of 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011. 
903. One Member noted that the Russian Federation ha d adopted some veterinary certificates that 
included provisions that appeared to be inconsistent  with international standards, e.g., those of the 
OIE, and had not provided a scientific justifica tion or a risk assessment done in accordance with 
Articles 3 and 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  This  Member asked whether the Russian Federation 
was prepared to undertake modifications of these certi ficates to bring them into compliance with these 
standards and obligations. 
904. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that, if an exporting 
Member believed that the SPS requirements of the CU  or the Russian Federation resulted in a higher 
level of protection than would be achieved by meas ures based on the relevant international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, the Russian Federati on was prepared to consult with the exporting 
Member on such SPS requirements and, if necessary, would, as a result of such consultations, modify 
requirements included in the relevant certificate to  bring them into compliance with international 
standards, guidelines, or recommendations consiste nt with the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working 
Party took note of this commitment. 
- (iv) Establishment Approval through Systems Audits, Guarantees and Inspections 
905. The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that, currently, according to 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, all goods included in  the list of goods subject to veterinary control 
were subject to three requirements:  (i) the exporti ng establishment had to be included in the Registry 
of Establishments authorised to export to the CU; (ii) the good had to be accompanied by a veterinary 
certificate; and (iii) an import permit had to be i ssued for importation of goods from an establishment 
in the Registry.  In addition, these goods underwent veterinary checks at the CU border.  Members of 
the Working Party expressed concerns that the veteri nary risk associated with certain of these goods,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 327 
 
 
  such as feed of plant origin, did not justify subjecting these goods to veterinary control.  In these 
Members' view, these goods should be subject to anothe r type of control than a veterinary control.  
906. In response to a request from a Member fo r further information on the requirements and 
procedures for an establishment to be included on th e list of establishments authorised to export a 
product to the Russian Federation and the CU, the representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that, prior to 1 July 2010, establishments seeking to  export meat and poultry, meat products, fish and 
fishery products, milk and dairy products, feed and feed additives of animal origin to the 
Russian Federation had to be listed by Rosselkhozna dzor.  The listing requirements were established 
by Rosselkhoznadzor.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation expl ained that, as of 1 July 2010, 
imports of products subject to veterinary contro l, as established in CU Commission Decision No. 317, 
were required to come from establishments approved by the CU Parties and included in the Common 
Registry.  The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that this requirement now also applied 
to ready-to-eat meat products, bee-farming products , eggs, and raw materials of animal origin in 
addition to those products that had previously been required to be listed. 
907. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the CU Commission Decision 
No. 830 of 18 October 2011 amended CU Commissi on Decision No. 317 to specify, for each type of 
good included in the list of goods subject to veteri nary control, which veterinary measures (import 
permits, veterinary certificates and/or listing of est ablishments) applied to that particular good.  
In some cases, the form of veterinary control had been modified or eliminated.  For example, the 
requirement for veterinary certificates and/or impor t permits had been eliminated.  Similarly, the 
requirement for an establishment to be included in a Register had been eliminated or amended to require only the provision of the name or number of the final establishment dealing with the goods 
prior to export to the territory of the CU, whic h was included in the import permit or veterinary 
certificate.  Pursuant to CU Commission Deci sion No. 810 of 23 September 2011, certain goods on 
the list of goods subject to veterinary control were not  subject to any of the three forms of veterinary 
control mentioned above when exported to the Russian Federation.  CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, as amended by CU Commission Decisions Nos. 810 of 23 September 2011 and 830 of 18 October 2011, clearly specified those goods which were not subject to veterinary control when 
they were destined for the Russian  Federation, as reflected in [Table 41].  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that goods destined  for the Russian Federation and imported via 
another CU Party would be subjected, at the exte rnal border of the Customs Union, only to those 
veterinary measures applicable to goods impor ted directly into the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 328  
 
  908. With regard to the list of goods as set-out in [Table 41], the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that categories of good s would be added to the list of goods subject to 
veterinary control or the form of veterinary contro l applied to categories of goods on the list would be 
modified only if such action was in compliance with the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
909. Members expressed concerns that the listing requirements had been extended to many new 
commodities, such as live animals, composite produc ts containing small amounts of fishery or meat 
products, and feed of vegetable origin, and that such requirements were not based on scientific 
evidence or proportionate to the risk and would repr esent an unjustified burden on trade, and were in 
their view, inconsistent with the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, in his view, the listing requirement itself could not be a burden on 
trade.  The burden on trade could result from the application of the wrong mechanism for including an 
establishment on the Register, for example, if the required actions that had to be done by the 
competent authority of an exporting country and/or establishment were not based on a risk analysis or were more trade restrictive than necessary.  CU  Commission Decision No. 317, as amended, allowed 
the use of different mechanisms for listing establishm ents that provided the possibility of minimizing 
the application of a more burdensome process than  necessary for including an enterprise on the list by 
basing actions on the results of a risk analysis.  The representative of the Russian Federation also 
explained that the requirement to be in the Co mmon Register of establishments approved to export 
particular controlled products was a means to ensu re compliance with CU veterinary requirements.  
910. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that since 1 July 2010 and 
before completing work on creating a common we b-interface of the CU Commission's website, the 
three national lists of establishments from which impo rts were authorised were valid for imports into 
the entire CU territory (unless specified otherwise fo r specific establishments on the lists).  Currently 
these lists were available with in the following website: 
http://tsouz.ru/db/techregulation/vetm eri/Pages/Reestrorg.aspx.  If a CU  Party took a decision to add 
an establishment to its national list, the other CU Parti es had to accept this decision. As a result of this 
decision, products from such an establishment could freely circulate within the territory of the CU, 
unless specifically provided otherwise in this decisi on.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the CU Parties intended to develo p a common web-interface of the CU Register of 
establishments and a common information system so as to have a unique list of establishments that would consolidate their national lists, but exact timi ng for the development of this database could not 
be specified.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that the system would be 
functional no later than by the date of acc ession of the Russian Federation to the WTO.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 329 
 
 
  911. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that in accordance with a transiti onal period provided under CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, trade could continue from establishments not on a "list" in the Common Registry - when 
there was no requirement for such a "list" prior to 1 July 2010.  Such trade could take place on the 
basis of an import permit.  He further explained that according to point 11.3 of the CU Regulation 
"On Veterinary Checks at the CU Border and on the CU territory" (CU Commission Decision No. 317 
as amended by CU Commission Decision No. 342), a tr ansitional period for listing establishments had 
been established, for the following products:  animal s; genetic material; ap icultural products; raw 
material of animal origin (skins, fur, feather, et c.); feed additives of animal origin; feed of plant 
origin, etc., to permit trade to continue until lists  were established.  In response, some Members 
highlighted that this transitional period did not c over all commodities, such as composite products and 
gelatine, which were not subject to listing requireme nts before the entry into force of CU Commission 
Decision No. 317.  The representative of the Ru ssian Federation explained that pursuant to 
CU Commission Decision No. 317, as amended by CU  Decision No. 742 of 22 June 2011, gelatine 
and composite products had been included in the lis t of products subject to a transition period.  
In such cases, the duration of the transition period would be not less than 18 months from 
22 June 2011.   
912. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that since 1 July 2010, 
establishments could be added to the list of establis hments authorised to export to the CU following 
an on-site joint inspection conducted by the three CU  Parties or following the delivery of guarantees 
as regards conformity with the CU requirements by the exporting country, if the three CU Parties 
commonly agreed to rely on such guarantees.  In deed, as of 1 July 2010, the "Regulation of a 
Common System of Joint Inspections of Sites and Sampling of Goods (Products), Subjected to Veterinary Control (Supervision)" approved by  CU Commission Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010 
had entered into force.  This Decision ou tlined two possibilities for exporting countries' 
establishments to become eligible to export to the CU.  The first option was that the competent 
authority of the exporting country provided guar antees to the CU that the establishment met the 
requirements of the CU.  The second option wa s through a joint inspection conducted by all 
CU Parties.  He explained, however, that if a third country had never e xported products of animal 
origin to any of the CU Parties before, and wanted  to export to the CU for the first time, exporting 
establishments proposed by this third country would have to be inspected by the CU Parties before 
being added to the Register, in order to confirm the reliability of the veterinary control system of this 
country. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 330  
 
  913. Some Members asked on which basis CU Parties could decide to rely on the guarantees of the 
exporting country.  Another Member sought clarifi cation as to the processes available to exporting 
countries to have facilities added to the Common Regi stry.  In this Member's view, it was unclear 
whether both options are available to all Members.  A Member expressed concern that, in practice, the 
listing of new establishments was no longer ac cepted on the basis of written guarantees of the 
exporting country since the entry into force of the CU .  In this Member's view, the Russian Federation 
and the other CU Parties did not have the resources to carry out inspections for any new establishment 
requesting to be listed by an exporting party and some establishments, even already exporting, could 
not be listed due to this lack of resources.  In this Member's view, this represented an unjustified 
barrier to trade.   
914. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that prior to 1 July 2010, 
approximately 90 per cent of the establishments incl uded in the Russian Register were placed there 
based on guarantees provided by the competent author ities of the exporting country.  In general, the 
competent authorities of the CU Parties had to have  confidence that the competent authorities of the 
exporting country would effectively ensure that  exporting establishments in that country met 
CU requirements.  He added that more detailed cr iteria on foreign guarantees were included in the 
new Regulation "On Common System of Joint Insp ection of Objects and Sampling Goods (Products) 
Subject to Veterinary Control (Supervision)" adopted on 18 October 2011 (hereafter:  new 
Regulation) which replaced the regulation of the same name adopted on 18 June 2010. 
915. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 also allowed for joint inspections by the th ree CU Parties of all es tablishments in third 
countries that sought to be permitted to  export goods to the CU that are subject to veterinary control in 
the CU.  Inspections must be carried out on the basi s of a request by the competent authority of the 
exporting country.  He further explained that it w as possible that the repr esentatives of the other 
CU Parties could delegate their authority to an other CU Party to carry out an inspection.  
However, before an establishment could be included in the approved establishment list, all CU Parties 
had to concur. 
916. Some Members expressed concern about the pr ocess of approving an establishment by each 
of the CU Parties.  For example, one Member  of the CU could approve the addition of an 
establishment to the Registry, but th e establishment would not be added to the Registry due to a lack 
of response from the other CU Parties.  Further th ese Members expressed concern that approval, to be 
added to the Registry, was by consensus and rejec tion was subjective and did not appear to be based 
on any criteria.  These Members requested informat ion on what would constitute a valid reason for  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 331 
 
 
  refusal to be added to the Registry, by CU Parties and for other (non-auditing) CU Parties to refuse to 
list an establishment or any time-frames for such a decision.  In some Members' view, these decisions 
could be arbitrary and discriminate against Me mbers where the same conditions prevailed. 
917. Members of the Working Party expressed con cerns that the CU Regulation "On Joint 
Inspections of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control" (CU Commission Decision No. 317) was not in line with Codex Guidelines for th e design, operation, assessment and accreditation of food import and 
export inspection and certification systems (CAC/GL 26-1997), which recommended that:  
assessment activities by the importing country in th e exporting country "should concentrate primarily 
on evaluating the effectiveness of the official insp ection and certification systems rather than on 
specific commodities or establishments in order to  determine the ability of the exporting country's 
competent authority(s) to have and maintain c ontrol and deliver the required assurances to the 
importing country".  Members requested that the Ru ssian Federation amend the CU Regulation so that 
it conformed to international standards, guidelines and recommendations.   
918. In response to Members' questions and concer ns, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the new Regulation provided three wa ys for a country to have establishments located 
on its territory included on the Register of establishmen ts authorised to export.  At the request of the 
competent authorities of the third country, the CU Parties would conduct a systems audit to determine if the official system of supervision of that third country was capable of providing a level of protection at least equivalent to that provided by CU  requirements.  If this audit of the official system 
of supervision was successful, the CU Parties woul d include establishments of the audited country on 
the Register in accordance with a list of establishm ents that the competent authority of the third 
country provided to the CU Parties.  If an audit of a third country's official system of supervision was 
not carried out or was not completed or if, as a result of such audit, the third country's official system 
of supervision was not recognized as being capable to provide a level of protection at least equivalent 
to that provided by CU requirements, the CU Part ies could agree to include establishments of that 
country on the Register on the basis of joint inspections or guarantees provided by the competent 
authority of the third country.  The new Regulati on mentioned in paragraph [914] also established the 
procedures for conducting a systems audit, including pr ovisions on visits to establishments located in 
the third country.  In connection with a systems a udit, the purpose of the visit was to ensure that, 
within the framework of the third country's re gulatory system, related to production, processing, 
transporting and storage of the relevant goods, al l of the country's laws, regulations and other 
requirements on inspection and certification, which th e CU Party(s) recognised as capable to provide 
a level of protection, at least equivalent to that provided by CU requirements at the stage of analysis 
of documentation, were properly implemented.  If th e CU provided a third country the authority to list WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 332  
 
  establishments located on its territory in the Re gistry, based on guarantees, the CU Parties could 
conduct joint inspections of a representative percenta ge of establishments to check and confirm the 
operation of the third country's official system of supervision that was the basis for the guarantees.  
Establishments could also be included on th e Register based on a joint inspection of the 
establishment. 
919. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, in this Regulation, 
CU requirements were defined as international st andards, guidelines and recommendations within the 
meaning of CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Applica tion of International 
Standards, Recommendations and Guidelines", relate d to Veterinary and Sanitary Requirements for 
Goods, CU Technical Regulations for Goods, CU Co mmon Veterinary Requirements or, the different 
requirements that CU Parties have agreed with the third country in veterinary export certificates, as 
provided in CU Commission Decision No. 726 of  15 July 2011 "On Veterinary Measures", and 
mandatory national requirements for goods. 
920. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the new Regulation 
established CU procedures, including time-frames, for every aspect of organizing and taking decisions 
on systems audits, on-site visits, and including est ablishments on the Register in each of the cases 
described in paragraph [918] above.  The compet ent authorities of CU Parties were notified of 
requests for audits, requests for authorization to provide guarantees, and for joint inspections of 
establishments and invited to participate.  If a CU Party declined to participate or did not respond 
within the prescribed time, that CU Party authorised the participating CU Party or Parties to act on its 
behalf and accepted the decision of the participati ng CU Party or Parties on the relevant matter. 
921. Finally, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that the new Regulation 
authorised and provided criteria for accepting guarantees from the competent authorities of third 
countries on the compliance of goods produced by  an establishment located on its territory.  
These criteria were the following: 
-  Level of development of the competent authority of the third country; 
-  Level of justification of guarantees of the competent authority of the third country; 
- Risk of entry into and spread of pathogens of infectious anim al diseases in the third country, 
including those common to humans and animals; 
-  Epizootic situation in the third country; -  Results of monitoring tests of goods subj ect to veterinary control imported into the 
CU territory from the third country; 
-  Data from monitoring of relevant goods done by the competent authority of the third country; 
-  Compliance with CU requirements with regard  to importing relevant goods into the territory 
of the CU from the third country; and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 333 
 
 
  -  Results of inspections by the competent author ity of a CU Party or Parties of establishments 
located on the territory of the third country. 
922. Members raised concerns about the Russian Fe deration's practice of removing establishments 
from the Registry (de-listing) based on the results of  a joint inspection or monitoring of imports of 
controlled goods at the border.  The decision to de-list an establishment often did not appear to 
correspond to the observations that inspectors made at  the establishment.  In addition, de-listing an 
establishment based on a finding of non-compliance made  at the border could be disproportionate to 
the non-compliance.  Members requested that the Russian Federation provide  additional information 
regarding de-listing establishments before taking such  action and to provide a meaningful opportunity 
for the establishment to take corrective actions, as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement, before it 
was removed from the Registry. 
923. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the new Regulation 
provided for removal of an establishment from the Registry (de-listing) in only two cases:  at the request of the relevant establishment, and at th e request of the competent authority of the third 
country.  Instead of de-listing an establishment, the CU could, in line with international standards or 
based on risk assessment, temporarily suspend impor ts from the establishment and/or subject imports 
from that establishment to intensified monitoring.  Except in emergency situations, understood in the 
sense provided for in the OIE, a temporary suspen sion of imports from an establishment could be 
applied only: 
(a) upon the request of the establishment or the competent authority of the third country; or  
(b) based on repeated non-compliances with CU requirements either detected during on-site 
inspection and/or re-inspection of the establishm ent by the competent authority of a CU Party, 
or as a result of monitoring and enhanced laboratory testing of the establishment's goods, which have been notified to the competent authority of the third country, if such 
non-compliances represented a significant threat  to human or animal life and health. 
 The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
924. In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that, currently, Rosselkhoznadzor was not entitled to de-list an establishment on the basis 
of minor non-compliances with CU requirements or requirements included in the certificate not 
affecting the safety of the products, observed during on- site inspection or laboratory analysis at the 
border or based on issues which fall outside of Ross elkhoznadzor's field of competence (e.g. controls 
on potable water).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 334  
 
  925. A Member expressed concern that inspection reports were not always submitted to the 
competent authority of the exporting country be fore decisions on the listing or de-listing of 
establishments were taken.  This Member also expr essed concern that the competent authority of the 
exporting country was not given an opportunity to comment on the draft inspection report and to propose corrective actions before decisions on the de -listing or refusal to list establishments were 
taken.  
926. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, except in case of serious risks of 
animal or human health, Rosselkhoznadzor would not  suspend imports from establishments based on 
the results of on-site inspection before it had gi ven the exporting country the opportunity to propose 
corrective measures.  As required under the new Re gulation, the preliminary report would be sent to 
the competent authority of the exporting country fo r comments before the report was finalised.  He 
noted again that the CU Parties had developed criteria and reasons for a decision to suspend imports 
from an establishment.  Minor errors would not be valid grounds for suspending imports from an establishment and he reminded Members that there would be an administrative procedure for appealing such decisions as well as recourse to the courts.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
927. Regarding emergency situations, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
the decisions and procedures for the suspension of  establishments would be in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
928. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that in extraordinary cases, the 
CU Commission could take a decision to suspend a group of establishments or all establishments of a 
third country as the result of the detection of a ser ious systemic failure of the official system of 
control, as specified in the new Regulation.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that, upon taking such a decision, the CU Commission would have to provide the Competent 
Authority (CA) of the third country with the technical information and scientific justification on the 
risk detected.  The third country would be request ed to take corrective me asures within a specified 
timeframe for their adoption.  Any suspension would not be implemented before  the expiration of the 
specified timeframe.  Once the co rrective measures were taken, the CA of the third country would 
send a report on the corrective measures to the CU Commission.  The CU Commission would 
evaluate the report and it would decide if the corrective measures were effective and sufficient.  The suspension, if implemented, would be lifted with in five working days after the decision.  In case 
corrective measures were not taken or were cons idered ineffective by the CU Commission, the 
decision on a temporary suspension of imports from a group of establishments or all establishments of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 335 
 
 
  a third country could be implemented.  The represe ntative of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
such temporary suspensions would be proportionate to  the risk to human health or life and not more 
restrictive to trade than necessary, as provided in  the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took 
note of these commitments. 
929. Some Members requested clarification of the re quirements which currently needed to be met 
by exporting establishments and the criteria ch ecked by inspectors in those establishments.  
The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the following guidance documents for 
inspectors were currently in place: 
- Methodological guidance on procedures for ca rrying out inspections for fish processing 
establishments on conformity with veterinary- sanitary requirements of the Russian Federation 
and the Republic of Belarus (adopted by th e Head of Rosselkhoznadzor and the Deputy 
Minister of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Belarus on 22 September 2009); 
- Methodological guidance on procedures for carrying out inspections for slaughterhouses and 
meat processing establishments on conformity w ith veterinary-sanitary requirements of the 
Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus (adopted by the Head of Rosselkhoznadzor 
and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food of the Republic of Belarus on 22 September 2009); 
- Methodological guidance on procedures for ca rrying out inspections for milk processing 
establishments on conformity with veterinary- sanitary requirements of the Russian Federation 
and the Republic of Belarus (adopted by th e Head of Rosselkhoznadzor and the Deputy 
Minister of Agriculture and Food of the Re public of Belarus on 22 September 2009); and 
- The Regulation "On Common Order of Joint In spection and Sampling of Goods subject to 
Veterinary Control", adopted by CU Commi ssion Decision No. 317 of 18 June 2010. 
 
 He further specified that the currently applicab le requirements related to  establishments were 
contained in the following normative legal acts of the Russian Federation:   
- Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and Safety of Food Products"; 
- Federal Law No. 88-FZ of 12 June 2008 "The  Technical Regulation for Milk and Milk 
Products"; 
- Rules of Veterinary Inspection of Livest ock for Slaughter and Veterinary-Sanitary 
Examination of Meat and Meat Products (adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture of the USSR 
on 27 December 1983); 
- The Veterinary-Sanitary Rules for Establishm ents (Departments) of Poultry Processing and 
Production of Egg's Products (adopted by the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of the USSR on 6 May 1987, No. 4261-87); 
- The Instruction on Veterinary Marking (Stamping) of Meat (adopted by the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian Federation on 28 April 1994); 
- The Veterinary-Sanitary requirements on In spection Control (Supervision) of Poultry 
Processing Establishments (adopted by the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation on 16 May 2002); 
- The Instruction on Procedure and Frequency of Control of Content of Microbiological and 
Chemical Contaminants in Meat, Poultry, Eggs and Processing Products (adopted by the 
Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation on 27 June 2000); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 336  
 
  - Methodological Guidance on Laboratory Diagnostics of Trichinosis of Animals (adopted by 
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian  Federation on 28 October 1998, No. 13-7-2/1428); 
and 
- The Sanitary Rules for Establishments of Meat Industry (adopted by Ministry of Health of the 
USSR on 27 March 1986, No. 3238-85, Ministry of Milk and Meat Industry of the USSR on 
5 August 1986). 
 
 He added that these requirements and inspec tion criteria were currently under revision.  
Requirements applicable to establishments were to be included in EurAsEC and CU technical 
regulations that were currently un der development, as described in  paragraph [833].  CU inspection 
guidelines, which would be based on internationa l guidelines were curren tly being developed. 
 930. Members of the Working Party expressed concer n that the draft inspection guidelines for 
meat, poultry, fish, and dairy, which were availabl e on the website of Rosselkhoznadzor, were stricter 
than international standards, guidelines and r ecommendations, in particular they were overly 
prescriptive and in many cases would be difficult to respect in other cases than the CU context.  
Requiring establishments to meet these overly prescriptive structural and functional requirements would, in practice, preclude most non-Russian establishments from passing inspection.  Furthermore, Members highlighted that these draft guidelines did not take into account the possibility for exporting 
countries to conclude specific certificates with CU  Partners, as foreseen in CU Commission Decision 
No. 726 of 15 July 2011, and thus to be subject ed to specific requirements.  Members asked how 
equivalence could be recognised when the specific standards set in these inspection guidelines could 
not be met.   
931. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the new Regulation 
recognised the principle of equivalence.  Specifically , inspectors were instruct ed to evaluate whether 
establishments were complying with relevant CU requi rements or the relevant international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations, and in such cases,  the establishment would be considered in 
compliance with CU requirements based on the principle of equivalence.  He further explained that if 
there were cases where a CU act or mandatory national requirement was more stringent than the 
international standard, the inspector would eval uate compliance with international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations, unless a scientific ju stification for the more stringent measure, as 
provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement, had been pr esented to the competent authority of the third 
country.  The competent authority could then propos e an equivalent measure.  If an establishment was 
included on the Register based on guarantees from the competent authority of the exporting country, inspectors were bound to check and evaluate wh ether the guarantees in the export certification 
applicable were met.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 337 
 
 
  932. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that as of the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, specific guidelines on inspection that would reflect the principles of 
equivalence and reliance on international sta ndards, guidelines and recommendations, as such 
principles were described in paragraph [931], w ould be developed and adopted to ensure the 
implementation of the new Regulation by CU inspectors, in accordance with the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  Under these guidelines, inspectors would be instructed in particular to verify 
the compliance of establishments with relevant C odex Alimentarius recommended codes of practices 
such as CAC/RCP 1-1969, recommended international code of practice general principles of food 
hygiene, the CAC/RCP 58-2005 code of hygienic practice for meat, the CAC/RCP 57-2004 code of 
hygienic practice for milk and milk products, th e CAC/RCP 52-2003 code of practice for fish and 
fishery products and other relevant internationa l standards, recommendations and related texts.  
Moreover, inspectors would be provided information and training on the application of the principle 
of equivalence as provided in the WTO SPS Agreement,  in the context of the new Regulation and the 
guidelines.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
933. Some Members expressed concern that the new Regulation set-up a detailed and prescriptive 
system for auditing third-country systems for supervis ion of products subject to veterinary control, 
while it appeared that the requirements for CU Par ties and their respective establishments appeared to 
be less detailed and stringent in some respects.  These Members asked whether and how it would be 
ensured, for example, that the frequency and requireme nts related to on-site visits as applied to third 
countries and their establishments and to CU Pa rties and their establishments for purposes of 
determination and maintenance of equivalence, would be no less favourable to third countries and 
their establishments, and not discriminate against such countries or establishments. 
934. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in his view, the new 
Regulation and the procedures and requirements for the conduct of audits and inspections applied in 
respect of Members, their products or establishmen ts were in compliance with the WTO rules and 
requirements. 
935. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, by the date of the accession of 
the Russian Federation to the WTO, the new Regula tion, as described in the Working Party Report, 
would be applied in compliance with the WTO SP S Agreement, including Article 2.3 thereof, and 
the GATT 1994.  In particular, he confirmed that  the new Regulation would not arbitrarily or 
unjustifiably discriminate between Members, where id entical or similar conditions prevail, including 
between CU Parties which were Members and othe r Members, with regards to requirements for  
on-site inspections, including for purposes of dete rmination and maintenance of equivalence of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 338  
 
  systems of control of products; and that the new Regulation would not be applied in a manner which 
would constitute a disguised restriction on internatio nal trade.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
- (v) Resident Inspectors 
936. In response to some Members concerns rega rding the mechanism of resident inspectors 
existing in the Russian Federation, the representa tive of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
resident inspectors will not be mandatory for trade wi th the Russian Federation.  He informed that the 
activity of resident inspectors was aimed at securi ng formation of consignments that met CU and 
Russian veterinary requirements.  He also confir med that in the event a WTO Member requests that 
the Russian Federation maintains resident vete rinary inspectors after the accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, it would be ensure d that these inspectors would not operate in a 
manner inconsistent with the obligations of th e Russian Federation under the WTO SPS Agreement, 
relevant bilateral agreements between the Russi an Federation and respective Member, as well as 
within the framework of SPS legislation of the Ru ssian Federation.  The SPS measures, applied in 
accordance with the said legislation, would not ar bitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between 
Members where identical or similar conditions pr evail, including between the territory of the 
Russian Federation and that of other Members,  as provided for in the WTO SPS Agreement.  
The Russian Federation would also ensure that the provisions of Annex C of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, the transparency require ments of Article 7 and Annex B of the 
WTO SPS Agreement and Article X of the GATT 1994 were  respected.  To that extent, decisions by 
resident inspectors could be appealed by interested persons in the same way as decisions taken by the 
competent authority of the Russian Federation.  Fees imposed for procedures on imported products 
would be in compliance with point 1(f) of Anne x C to the WTO SPS Agreement.  However, the 
calculation of these fees would take into account  communication, transportation and other costs 
arising from differences between locations of facilities of the applicant.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
- (f) Importation of Products Subject to Quarantine Control 
937. The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the Decision of the Interstate Council 
of EurAsEC No. 30 of 11 December 2009 "On the Agreement on Plant Quarantine" (last amended on 21 May 2010) provided the legal framework for pl ant quarantine in the Russian Federation.  
This Decision stipulated that regulations must take  into account the "rules and principles" of the IPPC 
and the WTO SPS Agreement.  Customs Union plant quarantine measures were further established in 
CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010 "On Ratification of Agreement of the Customs  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 339 
 
 
  Union of the Plant Quarantine" (as last amended by Decision No. 528 of 28 January 2011).  
Decision No. 318 included the following documents: 
- The list of products under quarantine (regul ated goods, regulated articles of regulated 
products), i.e., which are subject to quarantine phytosanitary control (supervision) at the 
customs border of the Customs Union and in th e customs territory of the Customs Union; 
- Regulations on the implementation of quarantin e pest control (supervision) at the customs 
border of the Customs Union; and 
- Regulations on the implementation of quarantin e pest control (supervision) at the customs 
territory of the Customs Union. 
 
938. The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther clarified that the CU did not have 
common phytosanitary requirements and that these were developed and impl emented at the national 
level.  He informed Members that Federal Law No . 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 "On Quarantine of Plants" 
was being replaced with a new law that did not contradict the provisions of the CU established in Decision No. 318.  The representative of the Russian  Federation explained that this new law would 
establish procedures for applying phytosanitary meas ures, adopting phytosanitary measures similar to 
technical regulations and for transparency.  All dr afts would be published on the MOA website and be 
available for public comment.  Furthermore, it wa s envisioned that this new law would establish a 
procedure for determining the risk of each object su bject to quarantine control, and that appropriate 
passports (i.e., pest risk assessments) would be i ssued based on the assessment of the risk and on 
International Standards for Phytosanitary Measu res (ISPMs).  The representative of the Russian 
Federation also explained that the new draft law contained the requirements for quarantine zones, 
storage, and transportation within  quarantine zones, and established appropriate research and testing 
for products subject to quarantine measures in the Russian Federation.  According to CU Agreements 
and Russian legislation, phytosanita ry measures were to apply only to the extent necessary to prevent 
importation and acclimatization of quarantine object s in the Russian Federation.  Phytosanitary 
measures maintained by the Russian Federation were based on the recommendations and principles of the IPPC (Rome, 1951, edition of 1997) as well as t hose of the European and Mediterranean Plant 
Protection Organization.  In response to a questi on from a Member, the representative of the Russian 
Federation explained that the Russian Federation accepted phytosanitary certificates issued on the 
basis of the IPPC, including by organizations operating under the surveillance of the competent 
authority of the Government.  He explained that in accordance with the Decision of the Interstate 
Council of EurAsEC No. 39 of 21 May 2010), importa tion of products subject to quarantine control 
("regulated products") into the territory of the Ru ssian Federation would no longer require an Import 
Quarantine Permit (IQP).  
939. In reply to a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that the 
Russian Federation recognized phytosanitary certif icates issued by public officers who were WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 340  
 
  technically qualified and duly authorised by th e official National Plant Protection Organization 
(NPPO) to act on its behalf and under its control, in accordance with IPPC standards and ISPMs 
which were applicable to this particular matter. 
940. The existing list of products under quarantin e (regulated goods) that were subject to 
quarantine phytosanitary control at the customs bor der of the CU and the territory of the CU was 
divided into two groups:  (i) regulated products of high pest risk; and (ii) regulated products of low 
pest risk.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that imports of regulated products 
of high pest risk would need to be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate.  No phytosanitary 
certificate was required for imports of regulated pr oducts of low pest risk.  The list of regulated 
products with their Russian HS codes was included in CU Commission Decision No. 318.
10  
He further explained that a number of products were now excluded from the high pest risk list, such as 
raw cane sugar, beet sugar, natural sands of all ki nds, gravel, sand, fish meal, meat meal or meat 
by-products, protein concentrates, protein-vitamin concentrates and protein pre-mixes.  
941. A Member of the Working Party asked whethe r, the Russian Federation accepted imports of 
regulated goods from areas affected by certain qu arantine pests, provided that certain mitigation 
measures were applied, as provide d in relevant IPPC recommendati ons, and, if this was the case, 
whether the Russian Federation had defined which mitigation measures it accepted for each 
combination of pest and commodity.  The repres entative of the Russian Federation replied that 
mitigation measures were acceptable.  Howe ver currently, normative legal acts of the 
Russian Federation did not define which mitigat ion measures could be applied in each case.  
The Russian Federation confirmed that it was re ady to assess mitigation measures proposed by 
exporting countries within a reasonable period of time, as set-out in international standards, guidelines 
and recommendations.  
942. A Member questioned whether the basis for determining whether a regulated good was high 
or low risk was based on the recommendations of the IPPC or if a risk assessment was done to justify 
the risk determination.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the 
Russian Federation was developing a procedure for risk assessment in accord ance with the new draft 
Law "On Plant Quarantine".  The draft law provided fo r an automated system of risk management in 
the process of checking at the border.  The Russian  Federation planned on using several criteria to 
determine risk, including a risk assessment of quarantine products in terms of risk of disease 
(i.e., the phytosanitary status of the exporting country and the systems of control in the exporting country) and phytosanitary certificates from the co mpetent authorities of the exporting countries.  
                                                      
10 Available at the following website:  http://www.mcx.ru/index.html?he_id=900.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 341 
 
 
  All inconsistencies with Russian requirements would be registered in the automated system and this 
would determine whether the product could be impo rted (see paragraphs [852], [943] and [946] for 
further details).  He stated that it was expected that this system would be operational in 2013.  
943. A Member expressed concern that it did not appear  that a risk assessment had been the basis 
for determining whether a product was considered hi gh or low risk and requested further information 
on where the phytosanitary requirements were establish ed in Russian law.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that prior to the CU, phytosanitary requirements were listed on the 
IQPs.  With the CU Commission decision abolishi ng IQPs, phytosanitary requirements were now 
contained in the MOA Order No. 456 and published on the website of the Ministry.  He again noted 
that the new draft Law "On Plant Quarantine" would contain procedures on risk assessment.  He explained that the determination of whether a product was a high risk or low risk was based on a 
pest risk assessment done by at least one of the CU Parties.  According to CU Commission Decision 
No. 454, CU work on phytosanitary measures, includ ing pest risk assessments, must be completed by 
the end of 2012.  He further noted that the Russi an Federation was establishing an accreditation body 
to accredit laboratories and that these requirements were being developed by the MOA.     
944. A Member of the Working Party asked for clarif ications on the regime for imports of plants 
with soil attached.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation explained that, according to point 34 
of the MOA Order No. 456, "the plants with a lump  of basal soil from the areas, places and/or sites of 
production that are recognized to be free from quarantine pests may be imported into the 
Russian Federation subject to quarantine phyto sanitary control including mandatory laboratory 
examination of soil samples against the full range of quarantine objects that can  spread with the soil". 
He confirmed that the recognition of pest free area s or places of production under this point would be 
carried out in accordance with relevant ISPMs on the basis of a request from the NPPO of the 
exporting country.  Imports of plants with soil attach ed would be allowed, based on this recognition.  
He further confirmed that Ministerial Order No . 456 would be amended with a view to deleting 
point 35 and incorporating all relevant ISPMs whic h are applicable to this particular matter.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
945. A Member stated its concern that the Russi an Federation still required a phytosanitary 
certificate for a number of processed products, despite the internationally accepted low risk status of 
these products.  The Member also requested clarif ication as to why some products, such as sheep 
skins needed both a phytosanitary certificate and a vete rinary certificate.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that according to the CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010, 
which adopted the list of goods subject to phytosanita ry control, import to the CU territory of cattle WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 342  
 
  skins and skins from other animals (CN 4101, 4102, 4103) was carried out without phytosanitary 
certificate of the export country.  Nevertheless these products were subject to phytosanitary control at 
the border.  Currently, this meant that each shipment  went through a visual inspection, and check of 
documents.  Depending on the situation in the expor ting country, e.g., competency of the authorities 
or other factors indicating risk, sampling could be done.  The representative of  the Russian Federation 
explained that each consignment of high pest ri sk products subject to quarantine had to be 
accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate confirming that the phytosanitary state of the product 
conformed to the conditions specified in the CU a nd Russian requirements.  Phytosanitary certificates 
were issued in the exporting country by agen cies of the official National Plant Protection 
Organization.  A Member requested further inform ation on the phytosanitary certificates necessary for 
import of high risk goods.  The representative of th e Russian Federation stated that the phytosanitary 
certificate accepted was the standard IPPC certificate. 
946. The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that, in accordance with 
CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 1 January 2011, th e Governments of the CU Parties, instead of 
using an IQP system for regulated products of high pest risk, would provide official information on 
the phytosanitary requirements for imported products on the official websites of the authorised bodies 
of the CU Parties.  For the Russian Federation this  information would be available at the websites of 
Rosselkhoznadzor, the MOA and the CU, as well as in th e information system of the EurAsEC in the 
field of technical regulations, sanitary and phyto sanitary measures, and the integrated information 
system of external and mutual trade of the CU.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated 
that it was working on developing a system of public electronic notifications, at which it would be possible for all participants to see the phytosan itary requirements for all regulated products.  
This system would be organized by HS code and would also include  information on the introduction 
of temporary restrictions on imported regulated pr oducts for all countries.  This system was being 
developed by the Russian Federation, but once in place could be utilized by Belarus and Kazakhstan 
as well.  It was expected that this database w ould be operational by 1 January 2013 and accessible on 
the Internet.  
947. He stated that temporary phytosanitary measures were published on the Rosselkhoznadzor 
and the MOA websites:  www.fsvps.ru; and www.mc x.ru.  If the Russian Federation implemented 
temporary phytosanitary measures, the other CU Par ties also would need to enforce that measure.  
The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, such temporar y measures would be applied in accordance with 
international standards, and in particular the IPPC and relevant ISPMs, and that scientific justification  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 343 
 
 
  and risk assessment for such measures would be  provided to the exporting Member upon request, in 
accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement. 
948. The representative of the Russian Federation em phasised that the formation of the CU had 
introduced some amendments to the import rules for the regulated products.  Furthermore, he stated 
that the Common List of Regulated Products (M aterials, Commodities under Quarantine), Subjected 
to Quarantine Phytosanitary Control (Supervisi on) was approved by CU Commission Decision 
No. 318 of 18 June 2010, amended by CU Commi ssion Decision No. 454 of 18 November 2010 and 
had entered into force on 1 July 2010.  Accordi ng to the Regulation "On Procedure of Quarantine 
Phytosanitary Control (Supervision) at Customs Bo rder of the Customs Union" which entered into 
force on 1 July 2010, a phytosanitary certificate would be required only for import of the regulated products of high pest risk.  In accordance with th e Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC 
No. 39 of 21 May 2010, which entered into force on 19 May 2011, an IQP for regulated products was 
no longer required.  Only regulated products of high pest risk needed to be accompanied by a 
phytosanitary certificate, and for import of the regulated products of low pest risk, no phytosanitary certificate was required.  He further informed Me mbers that regulated products imported into the 
territory of the Russian Federation would have to  be in conformity with the Russian quarantine 
phytosanitary requirements, on the absence of re gulated organisms included in Order of the MOA 
No. 673 of 26 December 2007 "On Approval of List of Quarantine Objects".  Order No. 673 contained the list of pests which were not permitted in the Russian Federation.  This quarantine pest 
list applied to all countries wishing to export to the Russian Federation.  In addition to the general list 
contained in Order No. 673, Order No. 456 identifie d pests reported to be present in particular 
exporting countries.  The lists set-out in Order No. 456 were aimed only at recommending to the third 
country concerned that it focus its controls on these pests.  Third countries remained responsible for 
ensuring the absence of all quaran tine pests included in Order No. 673.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that the CU Parties were in the process of reviewing and conducting pest 
risk assessments in order to harmoni se the quarantine pest list by 1 January 2013.  Until that time, he 
explained, national quarantine p est lists would remain valid. 
949. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the application of certain 
phytosanitary measures in the Russian Federation w as inconsistent with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines.  Specifically, making certain imported products subject to 
quarantine control and temporary import restrictions for the reasons stated by the Russian Federation 
did not appear to be consistent with the IPPC  and the WTO SPS Agreement.  These Members were 
concerned that the Russian Federation considered that a pest was quarantin able solely because the 
pest did not exist in the Russian Federation and, when requested, did not provide a pest risk WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 344  
 
  assessment or technical justification for its phyt osanitary requirements.  In the view of these 
Members, this had resulted in unnecessary restrictions on trade in violation of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  These Members also noted that  the Russian Federation had identified certain 
quarantine pests, such as ambrosia trifida , for reasons that did not meet the IPPC definition for 
quarantine status and that the Russian Federation ha d blocked imports of corn  that was under contract 
for processing, because Russian officials were concerned that the corn would be used for seed.  In the 
view of these Members, significantly less trade-re strictive measures were reasonably available to 
ensure compliance and achieve the appropriate le vel of phytosanitary protection.  These Members 
also had concerns about the requirements that had to be met to lift temporary trade-restrictions.  
In their view, these requirements often resulted in  excessive periods of time when products were 
excluded from the market of the Russian Federation. 
950. A Member expressed concern that Russian  Federation inspectors conducted regular 
inspections of nurseries involved in exporting to the Russian Federation, often without cause and outside of the scope of IPPC guidelines.  The Member  stated that the IPPC did not allow for importing 
countries to inspect the nurseries in the exporting country on a routine basis, but only in specific 
cases, for example, when new trade was being establis hed or when a problem existed.  In response to 
a question of a Member, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation confirmed th at as of the date of 
its accession to the WTO, the Russian Federation, consistent with the WTO SPS Agreement, would 
not perform plant health inspections in the expor ting country on a regular basis, but would allow 
export of plants for planting based on guarantees pr ovided by the NPPO of the exporting country of a 
pest free area or pest free places of production as set -out in international standards, recommendations, 
and guidelines.  A joint inspection would take place in the case of repeated non-compliances.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
951. One Member noted that the Russian Federati on had adopted some phytosanitary measures 
that were inconsistent with international standa rds and guidelines, and had not provided a scientific 
justification or a risk assessment done in acco rdance with Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement.  
Specifically:   
(a) On the import of raw sugar, the Russian Fede ration requires the submission of a phytosanitary 
certificate for this product that is processed, for which the reasons given by the Russian Federation do not seem to be compatib le with the IPPC and WTO SPS Agreement.  
This Member asked whether the Russian Federati on was prepared to eliminate the application 
of this document as phytosanitary requirement for a product that is processed, requirements 
that must be governed by other intern ational standards (Codex Alimentarius). 
(b) On imports of leather leaf fern ( Rumohra adiantiformis ), requirements requested by the 
Russian Federation do not correspond to pests associated with this crop, which denotes the 
absence of a pest risk analysis to justify th e scientific application of those requirements.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 345 
 
 
   
952. In response to these concerns, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that when 
taking phytosanitary measures, Russian authorities followed the relevant international practice and 
provisions established in the IPPC and the WT O SPS Agreement, including conducting a risk 
assessment.  He explained that Government Reso lution No. 329 "On the National Organization for 
Quarantine and Plant Protection", named Rosselkhozna dzor as the Federal Agency responsible for 
fulfilling the duties stipulated in Article IV of the IPPC.  He confirmed that, from the date of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO,  if the phytosanitary requirements of the 
Russian Federation resulted in a higher level of pr otection than would be achieved by measures based 
on relevant international standards, recommendati ons or guidelines, the Russian Federation would 
apply its phytosanitary requireme nts in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement, in particular 
Article 3.1 of that Agreement.  He also confirmed that the authorities of the Russian Federation would 
consult with exporting Members on the measures in qu estion, if requested.  Furthermore, from the 
date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, if phytosanitary requirements applied in the 
Russian Federation resulted in a higher level of pr otection than would be achieved by measures based 
on relevant international standa rds, recommendations or guidelines, Rosselkhoznadzor would provide 
explanations of the reasons for such phytosanitary measure, including the relevant risk assessment, on 
a bilateral basis following receipt of a request fro m an exporting Member pursuant to Article 5.8 of 
the WTO SPS Agreement.  The representative of the Russian Federation also confirmed that the 
radiation certificate on import of raw sugar into the customs territory of the Russian Federation was not required by the CU or Russian legislation.   The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
953. Some Members raised concerns that CU and Ru ssian measures called for, and their officials 
applied less favourable treatment to imported products than domestica lly produced products.  
They noted that according to the CU Regulation "O n Carrying out of Phytosanitary Control" (adopted 
by CU Commission Decision No. 318 of 18 June 2010) , visual inspection (examination) of vehicles 
(bullet 4.2.), and visual inspection (examination) of regulated  products (bullet 4.3. ) were carried out at 
the crossing points of the CU border.  Furthermore,  Article 9, paragraph 5 of Law No. 99 and the new 
draft Law "On Plant Quarantine", provided that:  re gulated goods imported into the territory of the 
Russian Federation would be subject to initial St ate quarantine phytosanitary control, including 
inspection, at the crossing points of the CU a nd a second State quarantine phytosanitary control, 
including inspection, at destination in the Russi an Federation.  These Members noted that these 
products had a phytosanitary document and had been  inspected where produced.  The requirement of 
the Russian Federation for inspection when it crossed into the territory of the Russian Federation and 
then a full re-inspection for all shipments when clearing customs appeared to be unjustified for 
SPS reasons, a burden on trade, and in consistent with national treatment. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 346  
 
  954. The representative of the Russian Federation explai ned that the procedure for inspection at the 
border and at destination was not burdensome and that the Russian Federation was not inspecting 
100 per cent of shipments at the border, but was mo ving towards an inspection system based on risk.  
The representative further clarified that the pr ovisions for border control were approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 318 and were applied by all Customs Union Parties. 
955. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that in accordance with Article 29.2 
of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n Basics of Regulation of Foreign Trade 
Activity", SPS requirements must be implemented in  respect of products originating from foreign 
countries in the same way they are applied in r espect of similar products of Russian origin.  
Furthermore, according to Article 6 of the draf t Federal Law "On Plant Quarantine", phytosanitary 
requirements applied to regulated products originat ing from a foreign country in the same manner as 
they applied to the same regulated products of Russi an origin.  The appropriate level of sanitary or 
phytosanitary protection was defined as the require d level of protection established by a technical 
regulation for products produced on the territory of  the Russian Federation aimed at prevention of 
factual scientifically grounded risks.  He confirmed that CU Agreements, CU acts, and legislation of 
the Russian Federation did not and would not in  future establish additional SPS requirements for 
imported products that exceeded the requirement s established for CU or domestic products.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
- (g) Protection of Human Health 
956. The representative of the Russian Federation reminded Members that Rospotrebnadzor was 
the Federal Executive Authority in charge of implem entation of control and supervision in the sphere 
of sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the population, protection of consumer rights and the 
consumer market.  Rospotrebnadzor was under the jurisdiction of the MOH.  He further explained that 
currently the following laws and regulations regu lated the protection of human health in the 
Russian Federation:  CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 28 May 2010 (as last amended by 
CU Commission Decision No. 622 of 7 April 2011) approved the Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary-Epidemiological Supervision at the Custom s Border and Customs Territory of the Customs 
Union; the uniform sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements for products subject to 
sanitary-epidemiological supervision; common forms of documents confirming the safety of products; 
and, regulations on the implementation of sanitary and epidemiological surveillance of persons and 
vehicles crossing the customs border of the Customs Union; Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 
30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiological We ll-being of the Population" (as last amended on 
18 July 2011); the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5487-1 of 22 July 1993 "Fundamentals of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 347 
 
 
  Health Legislation of the Russian Federation"; as well as Regulations of the State Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Service of the Russian Federa tion and Regulations "On State Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Standardization" approved by Government Resolution No. 554 of 24 July 2000.  
Food safety standards were set-out in sanita ry and hygienic regulations, respectively 
SanPiN 2.3.2.1078-01 for microbiological, chemical  and radio nuclides standards, and Hygienic 
Norm G.N. 1.2.2701-10 for MRLs of pesticides in  food plant products.  The Russian Federation had 
also adopted in Federal Law No. 88-FZ of 12 Ju ne 2008 "On Technical Regulations for Milk and 
Milk Products" (as last amended on 26 July 2010), detailed quality and safety re gulations on milk and 
milk products.  He explained that these and other domestic normative legal acts remained in force to 
the extent they did not conflict with the Customs Union requirements. 
957. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that CU Commission Decision 
No. 299 established the "Common List of Goods Subj ect to Sanitary-and-Epidemiologic Supervision 
(Control) at the Customs Border and on the Custom s Territory of the Customs Union" (Part I) and 
established food safety requirements for corresponding goods.  Products produced in, or imported into 
the customs territory of the CU for distribution to  the population, use in industry, agriculture, civil 
construction development, transpor tation with direct human involvement, or for private and household 
use, had to conform to the relevant requirements of sanitary and epidemiological rules, norms, and 
hygiene regulations.  He further explained that th e conformity to the safety requirements for certain 
groups of goods was to be confirmed by a St ate Registration certificate, as provided for in 
CU Commission Decisions and domestic law.  The CU Commission had approved a list of goods for 
which State Registration certificates must be supplied during customs clearance . 
958. Some Members noted that under CU Commission Decisions, the State Registration procedure 
applied only to certain groups of goods included in the Common List in Part II of CU Commission 
Decision No. 299.  In addition, under Federal Laws  No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Well-being of the Population" and No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On the Quality and 
Safety of Food Products", and Government Resolu tion No. 988 of 21 December 2000 "On the State 
Registration of New Foodstuffs, Materials and Items", and under Federal Law No. 88-FZ, State 
Registration was required for both new foodstuffs, mate rials and items first produced in the territory 
of the CU (CU products), and produc ts imported into the territory of the CU for the first time and was 
based on sanitary and epidemiol ogical assessment.  Such an assessment was not referred to in 
CU Commission Decisions.  Members requested information on whether domestic provisions of the Russian Federation still applied, and, if so, what cr iteria were used for determining that a product was 
marketed for the first time in the territory of th e CU or the territory of the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 348  
 
  959. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Russian national 
legal acts were applied to the extent that they di d not contradict CU Commission Decision No. 299 of 
28 May 2010.  Such provisions in national law re lated to the determination of the competent 
authority, the order of involvement of organizat ions and experts into the procedure of State 
Registration, the order of appellation of refusal of State Registration, and keeping of the national part 
of the Register of State Registration Certificates.  Since CU Commission Decision No. 299 specified 
the list of products subject to State Registration, it superseded national law.  Thus, only products listed 
in CU Commission Decision No. 299 were subject to State Registration.  Thus, the representative of 
the Russian Federation explained that th e State Registration procedure applied: 
 only to certain groups of goods, which were liste d in points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 299 (these include:  mineral water, bottled drinking water packaged in containers, tonic beverages, alcoholic beverages; specia lised foodstuffs, including food 
products for children, food products for pre gnant and nursing women, dietary products; 
biologically active dietary supplements, raw ma terials for production of biologically active 
dietary supplements, organic products; foodstu ffs derived from GMO, GMO; food additives, 
flavourings, technological aids including enzymes; and food contact material); 
 only if the goods were covered by CN codes liste d in the table of Part II to the Common List 
of Goods Subject to Sanitary Controls (CU Commission Decision No. 299); and 
 if the goods were manufactured for the first time on the territory of the CU or imported for the 
first time into the CU territory, and no prior State Registration had occurred, or in cases where the introduction of CU requirements necessitate d the issuance of a new State Registration 
certificate. 
 The representative of the Russian Federation speci fied that these three cumulative criteria, to 
determine whether a State Registration certificate was re quired, were specified in the last paragraph of 
point 11 in Part II to the Common List of Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control 
("Goods specified in points 1 to 11 of the present Part, included in the following comprehensive headings of the FEACN CU, manufactured for the fi rst time on the Customs Union customs territory, 
as well as imported for the first time to the Cust oms Union customs territory, are subject to State 
Registration"). 
960. Some Members noted that points 1 to 11 of Part II of the Common List of Goods Subject to 
Sanitary and Epidemiological Control included Non-Food Products, such as disinfectants, cosmetics or hazardous chemical substances.  The representa tive of the Russian Federation clarified that 
CU Commission Decision No. 299 covered the protec tion of human health in general from risks 
derived from both food and non-food products.  
961. Some Members asked which entity should submit a request for registration.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained that the supplier/producer of the importer was  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 349 
 
 
  authorised to submit a request for registration.  A proof that the State Registration certificate had been 
obtained had to be presented at the border, for example, in the form of an electronic copy of the 
certificate or presentation of the original certificate. 
962. In response to another question from a Member , the representative of the Russian Federation 
noted that the procedure for obtaining State Re gistration was described in CU Commission Decision 
No. 299, and the rate of State duty, as prescribed by Article 333.33 point 67 of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation, was RUB 3,000. 
963. With regard to sanitary and epidemiological assessment requirements in place before the 
establishment of the CU, the representative of th e Russian Federation explained that an expert 
evaluation of the sanitary and epidemiological situ ation was conducted prior to the commencement of 
industrial production or reprocessing in the territory  of the Russian Federation, and in the case of 
imported products, prior to conclusion of the c ontract, and following a request from the exporter 
interested in supplying products to the Russian market .  The expert evaluation consisted of a review of 
the documentation submitted, additional laboratory ex amination, if necessary, and when the product 
has complied with all requirements, issuance of the positive assessment necessa ry for issuing a State 
Registration certificate.  This evaluation was carri ed out on the basis of the relevant WHO/FAO 
recommendations and guidelines.  
964. The State Registration certificat e was issued for a given type of product and was valid for 
exports from the relevant country without time limitati on, provided there had been no violations of the 
regulations during the preceding period.  If there were violations found during surveillance at the 
border, the State Registration certificate could be te mporarily revoked.  Applications for evaluations 
were to be submitted to Rospotrebna dzor or its territorial bodies.  State Registration certificates were 
valid throughout the entire territory of the CU.  For domestically produced products, sanitary and 
epidemiological surveillance was conducted by the te rritorial authorities of Rospotrebnadzor at the 
stage of distribution of products on the Russian dom estic market.  In response to questions from a 
Member of the Working Party, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the State 
Registration certificates for domestic products were also  issued for a given type of product and were 
valid for an unlimited time period.  In his view , the respective procedures and requirements did not 
discriminate between domestic and imported produc ts.  The process for issu ing a State Registration 
certificate could not exceed 30 days after application was received.  If the application was rejected, Rospotrebnadzor sent a letter to the applicant e xplaining what needed to be changed.  After 
corrections were made, the applican t could re-submit the application. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 350  
 
  965. Members expressed appreciation for the information on how the Russian Federation applied 
certain SPS measures, but continued to seek further information and assurances regarding whether the 
Russian Federation required or had a scientific b asis for measures applied to products such as 
processed foods.  In response to a question from a Me mber of the Working Party about sanitary and 
epidemiologic assessment in the framework of th e CU, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that since 1 July 2010, sanitary an d epidemiologic assessments (conclusions) were no 
longer required.  State Registration, however, was required on a different basis. 
966. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that, since 1 July 2010, a State 
Registration certificate was issued in accordance with the common CU form and was valid throughout 
the customs territory of the CU.  The certificate confirmed that the controlled goods conformed to 
CU Common sanitary and epidemiologic and hygienic  requirements.  The period of validity of the 
State Registration certificate covered the whole peri od of manufacture or delivery of controlled goods 
to the territory of the Customs Union.  He furthe r noted that sanitary and epidemiological assessment 
and certificates of State Registration issued befo re 1 July 2010 remained valid in the Russian 
Federation until 1 January 2012 and c ould be used to import goods into the customs territory of the 
CU.  As of 1 January 2012, for the importation of pr oducts included in Part II of the Common List of 
Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Control, set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 299, a new State Registration certificate had to be  obtained to confirm the conformity with CU 
sanitary and epidemiological requirements, even if they had been marketed in or imported into CU 
territory before that date.  If pursuant to CU acts,  the Russian Federation had adopted more stringent 
requirements than existed prior to the adoption of the CU requirements, a new expert evaluation had 
to be conducted in order to obtain this new State Registration certificate.  If the CU requirements were 
not more stringent than the requirements previous ly applicable in the Russian Federation, the 
procedure of issuance of such a new State Regist ration certificate was purely administrative.  The 
representative of the Russian Federation further explained that the State Registration certificate was 
harmonised among the CU Parties and that each Party recognised the right of each other Party to issue this certificate and that a State Registration certific ate would be valid throughout the territory of the 
CU.  Furthermore, he explained that the CU had instituted a transition period until 1 January 2012 for 
the CU Parties to implement the harmonised State Registration certificates. 
967. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the term "new products" meant 
products developed and industrially manufactured for the first time on the territory of the 
Russian Federation and also products  imported into the territory of the Russian Federation for the first 
time, i.e., which were not on sale in the Russian Federation before.  The absence of a prior 
State Registration indicated that the product was ne w to the market of the Russian Federation and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 351 
 
 
  State Registration was required.  He also explai ned that the producer, supplier, or importer could 
submit an application for State Registration of products. 
968. In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party about whether the evaluation 
and State Registration of products constituted a single process, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that sanitary and epidemiol ogical experts' evaluation was a part of the State 
Registration of products.  The State Registration certificate was a document that was issued on the 
basis of the evaluation of a product.  The co mponents of this process were the following:  
(i) application; (ii) evaluation; and (iii) issuan ce of the document (State Registration certificate).  
Based on a positive result on the sanitary and epidem iological experts' evaluation for the products 
subject to State Registration, a State Registration certificate was issued.   
969. Some Members expressed concern that this assessment for State Registration, which made it 
necessary to provide a set of analytical results of  microbiological tests and chemical tests on one 
selected sample of the product, w as an administrative burden with little added value as regards the 
safety of the exported products.  They asked if th is assessment procedure could be replaced by a 
declaration of conformity of the manufacturer and if so, in which cases.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation responded that State Registra tion was a form of State assessment of the 
conformity of goods, which was carried out by St ate authorities of the Russian Federation, the 
Republics of Belarus, and Kazakhstan, and was a gua rantee of independent and accurate research, and 
as a result, human safety.  CU Parties would ensure that, in the future, only one type of confirmation 
of conformity, such as State Registration or declaration of conformity, would be required for each 
product.  State Registration would be required only if  the risk associated with the product required an 
independent assessment in an authorised laboratory.  For this reason, it was not possible to replace State Registration by self-declaration of conformity in all cases.  
970. A Member of the Working Party asked whether such an independent safety assessment could 
not be obtained through official controls, applied via post-market monitoring, instead of State 
Registration.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration answered that, at present, there was no 
legal basis for carrying out such State surveillance.  The current legislation only allowed officials to 
take samples of goods on the market, if this w as justified by suspicion of non-compliance.   
971. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that officials who carried out 
sanitary-quarantine control at the border of the CU were entitled to organize sanitary-and-
epidemiologic and hygienic evaluation of controlle d goods in terms of their compliance with common 
sanitary-epidemiologic and hygienic requirements in the following cases specified in point 22 of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 352  
 
  Regulation "On the Procedure of Sanitary-Epidemiological Control (Supervision)", adopted by 
CU Commission Decision No. 299: 
- infringement of transportation conditions, inte grity of containers, stevedore barges, etc.; 
- package damage; 
- arrival of goods from countries, with unfavourab le epidemiological situation, and (or) from 
countries infected as a result of radioactive, chemical and biological accidents of areas (at revealing of exceeding admissible values of  capacity of radiation dose and superficial 
pollution by radio nuclides at transportation of  radioactive materials; dangerous cargoes in 
damaged package with signs of contents' leak), and (or) with signs of presence of rodents and 
insects; 
- receipt of information on discrepancy of  goods under control to common sanitary 
requirements; or 
- presence of information on discrepancy of goods under control declared in transport 
(transportation) and (or) commercial documents.  
 Based on the results of an examination of the goods under control, carried out by an 
accredited laboratory as specified in CU Commission D ecision No. 299, the official (a representative 
of Rospotrebnadzor), who carried out sanitary-quara ntine control, would make the decision on import 
permission or prohibition into the territory of the CU. 
972. Some Members of the Working Party requested clarification of the basis for assessing which 
countries had an unfavourable epidemiological  situation.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that this determin ation was based on information displayed on the 
website of the World Health Organization.  Othe r sources of information taken into account included 
alerts from the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, other official information from foreign 
governments, and other reliable information such as sources of information set-out in international 
medical and sanitary rules, and sources of info rmation specified in CU Commission Decision 
No. 299.  
973. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that some commodities were also 
subject to mandatory confirmation of conformity to  CU requirements.  The list of such commodities, 
which also contained references to quality standard s and quality requirements for these products, was 
approved by the Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 319 of 18 June 2010, and included the following food and feedstuffs:  (i) canned food products (fish, caviar, seafood); (ii) coffee and coffee products; (iii) tea; (iv) sugar (cane and beet);  (v) spices; and (vi) feeds for animals, including 
formula feeds, pre-mixes, protein feed additiv es, such as oilseeds meal  and cake, fish meal, 
protein-vitamin additives, dry milk for feeding a nd dry milk replacements.  Until 1 January 2011, 
confirmation of conformity for these food produc ts was carried out in accordance with national 
legislation of each CU Party.  From 1 January 20 11, the declaration of conformity was provided upon  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 353 
 
 
  assessment by the certification bodies and testing laboratories (centres) included into the Single 
Register of Certification Bodies and Testing Labo ratories (centres) of the CU.  With regard to 
feedstuffs, from 1 July 2010, self-declaration of conformity could be made on the basis of an 
assessment provided by the producer.  Foreign manufacturers, located outside the territory of the CU, could apply for a certificate/declaration of confor mity that was issued in  accordance with national 
legislation of a CU Party or for a CU unifo rm certificate of conformity, as approved by 
CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
further explained that references to quality standa rds and quality requirements with regard to products 
on the List of Commodities Subject to Mandatory Confirmation of Conformity would be revised as the CU Parties adopted CU technical regulations on specific products.  
974. Some Members expressed concern about these a dditional "quality-related" requirements for 
the importation of certain food products and feedst uffs.  These requirements did not appear to be 
related to food safety and placed an unwarranted additional burden on imports of these products.  
These Members requested the immediate elimination of  measures that were not related to the food 
safety characteristics of these products.  
975. The representative of the Russian Fe deration responded that CU Common 
Sanitary-Epidemiological and Hygiene Requirements and State Sanitary-Epidemiological Rules and Standards of the Russian Federation contained only  requirements concerning safety of foreign and 
domestic goods for human use or consumption.  He noted, however, that the Russian Federation 
considered nutritional value to be a safety issue w ith regard to dietetic and infant nutrition.  
Some Members noted that Codex had defined quality  standards for many products and that under 
Codex the issue of nutritional value pertained to the fair practices in food trade, and was not a food 
safety issue. 
976. Members of the Working Party asked for clarif ication of the difference in purpose and in 
procedure between the State Registration and the mean s of confirmation of conformity.  In response, 
the representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that "confirma tion of conformity" 
encompassed multiple means of estab lishing that a product met CU requirements and that the type of 
confirmation required, depended on  the degree of responsibility of the product in economic activity 
(level of risk).  Higher risk products were subject to  State Registration.  Products of lower risk were 
subject to confirmation of conformity either through a certificate of conformity from third-parties, or a 
declaration of conformity.  State surveillance was al so conducted.  He also noted that in future, only 
one form of confirmation would be required for a product and that this would be specified in the 
relevant technical regulations.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 354  
 
  - (h) Compliance of the SPS Regime with Specific Provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement 
-  (i) Harmonization with Int ernational Standards and Norms 
977. Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that ongoing efforts to harmonize the 
procedures of the Russian Federation for sanitary an d phytosanitary control, inspection and approval 
may not be sufficient to address concerns of Members, as comments by Members were not always 
solicited.  In the view of these Members, the decision-making process for determining harmonization 
of new measures in the Russian Federation was not  clear.  In addition, some Members expressed 
concerns that the status of work on harmonizati on was not clear, and requested information on what 
work will remain to be done after th e accession of the Russian Federation. 
978. Some of these Members also expressed concer n that the requirements of the MOH were not 
always clear, consistent with international st andards (e.g., OIE or the Codex Alimentarius) or 
sufficiently supported by scientific justification.  These Members noted that maximum residue levels 
laid down in the Russian legislation for pesticide residues and veterinary drugs, such as the MRL for 
tetracyclines which are, however, authorised in use in the Russian Federation for animals, were in 
many cases well below the levels set in the Codex Al imentarius and that the Russian Federation had 
not provided any scientific justifica tion to substantiate the deviation.  They also noted that maximum 
levels for contaminants and radio nuclides, as we ll as microbiological standards, were not set 
following methodology recommended by international guide lines.  In the view of these Members, the 
decision-making process for determining the approval  for distribution of a product on the Russian 
market was sometimes arbitrary and it appeared that the regulation of products by the MOH, 
duplicated the State Registration process, and should be eliminated.  
979. The representative of the Russian Federation resp onded that pursuant to Article 38 of Federal 
Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Ep idemiological Well-being of the Population", 
sanitary rules and safety criteria must be based on a risk assessment using, as appropriate, the results 
of scientific research and epidemiological studies,  as well as on monitoring of human health and 
harmful environmental factors.  Sanitary requireme nts were aimed at ensuring the safety of products 
and human life and health.  He asserted that all rules, criteria and requirements in respective fields 
were applied uniformly and without discrimination between domestic and imported goods, Article 38 
and the Statute on the State Sanitary and Epidemio logical Regulation approved by Resolution of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 554 of 24 July 2000 (Sections 5 and 6), required that 
international requirements and recommendations must  be analysed and used in national sanitary 
regulations and legislation to the extent it is prac ticable and reasonable to do so.  The harmonization  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 355 
 
 
  proceeded with reference to documents of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission, OIE, 
WHO recommendations, and documents of other international organizations.   
980. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that the harmonization process would be 
carried out in cooperation with the interest ed WTO Members.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation informed Members that, as rega rds MRLs of pesticides, between 2009 and 2010, 
the CU had adopted levels corresponding to the in ternational standards for 244 pesticides active 
substances in CU Commission Decision No. 622 of 7 April 2011.   
981. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the CU would apply MRLs on 
chlorothalonil, clofentezine, cyprodinil, kres oxim-methyl, iprodione, propamocarb, pirimicarb, 
thiabendazole, carbendazim, famoxadone, coppe r compounds, and lambda cyhalothrin that 
corresponded to international standa rds in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreement no later than the 
date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, and that these MRLs would be set-out in 
CU acts.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
982. As regards MRLs of veterinary drugs, the re presentative of the Russian Federation confirmed 
that MRLs for penicillins, streptomycin and bacitraci n (in rabbit meat and milk for the latter) had been 
harmonized with Codex standards and were set-o ut in Addendum 22 to SanPiN 2.3.2.1078-01. 
Furthermore, grisin was no longer authorised for u se by the MOA.  Tetracyclines MRLs had not been 
harmonised with international standards, because th e Russian Federation considered that the Codex 
levels represented a too high risk for the health of its citizens, due to large scale use of tetracyclines in 
both veterinary and human medicine.  
983. Some Members of the Working Party noted that on 31 August 2011, the Russian Federation 
had issued a report entitled "Scientific Justifi cation for Requirements for Residual Levels of 
Tetracycline Antibiotics in Foods".  These Members re viewed the report and noted that the analysis 
and procedures set-out in the report were not consis tent with international standards for conducting a 
health risk analysis, and did no t support maintaining MRLs for te tracyclines antibiotic residues in 
excess of relevant Codex standards.  The data in th e report actually supported the conclusion that even 
at the reported dietary intakes, with all foods at the maximum MRLs recommended by Codex, no 
consumer group was likely to exceed the interna tional recommendation for acceptable daily intake.  
Members also noted many methodological problems with the report.  The report, for example, did not 
include a proper identification of the risk, incorr ectly over-estimated exposures; failed to characterise 
or compare the different impacts on human health  from its recommended actions; omitted an analysis 
of variability, uncertainty, and sensitivity of its conclusions, and presented purely hypothetical 
scenarios and concerns as if they were scientific  evidence.  Members expressed concern that the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 356  
 
  report had not undergone peer review in a manner cons istent with international standards.  Thus, in 
their view, the report did not justify the maintena nce and application in the Russian Federation of 
MRLs for tetracyclines that were more stringent than  Codex standards, lacked a scientific justification 
and was not in conformity with the WTO SPS Agre ement or relevant international standards.  
These Members requested that the MRLs for tetrac yclines, applied in the Russian Federation, be 
revised to correspond to Codex standards.   
984. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the Russian Federation, before 
the date of its accession to the WTO, would provide to any interested Member scientific evidence and 
an assessment of the risk associated with tetracy clines antibiotics residues, developed in accordance 
with methods of scientific evaluation set by th e Codex Alimentarius, sufficient to justify the 
application of MRLs more stringent than those provide d for in the relevant Codex standards.  If such a 
scientific justification and risk assessment for a more stringent MRL was not provided, the MRLs for 
tetracyclines would be revised to correspond to Codex standards in national and CU acts as of the date 
of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO consistent with the provisions of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
985. Some Members noted that the Russian Federati on had maintained MRLs for tetracyclines that 
were much more stringent than international sta ndards for many years and that despite repeated 
requests to be provided any risk assessment a nd scientific justification for these stringent 
requirements, Members had not received any sci entific justification or risk assessment.  
These Members noted that it appeared that some fo rm of risk assessment was now being done and 
expressed concern regarding the timing and procedures being followed.  In the view of these Members, the risk assessment was not being done in a manner consistent with international standards, 
recommendations and guidelines for conducting such assessments.  For example, the risk assessment 
had not been subject to peer review and/or public comment.  This called into question the validity of 
the assessment. 
986. A Member of the Working Party noted that the harmonization process for MRLs of veterinary 
drugs should also include elimina tion of non-tolerance or very low tolerance in food of veterinary 
substances when these substances are authorised in use in the Russian Federation under similar 
conditions to those in place in exporting countries.  
987. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that norms for veterinary drugs were 
under revision and this work was expected to  be finalised no later than December 2011.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 357 
 
 
  988. As regards maximum levels for contaminants, the representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members that maximum levels for nitrat es in lettuce and cadmium in poppy seeds had been 
reviewed and revised in accordan ce with international recommendations and set-out in Addenda 10 
and 18 of SanPiN 2.3.2.1078-01.  These revised leve ls had been included in amendments to the 
Unified Sanitary and Epidemiological Requirement s set in CU Commission Decision No. 299.   
989. Furthermore, the representative of the Russian Fe deration confirmed that as of the date of the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the maximum levels of nitrates would be revised in 
accordance with international standards, recommenda tions, and guidelines.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. 
990. The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that radio nucleide levels and 
microbiological standards were being revised in accordance with international recommendations.  
The proposals would be transmitted to the CU Commi ssion in due course to avoid inconsistency with 
international standards as of the date of the acce ssion of the Russian Federation to the WTO.   
991. Members expressed concern about a measure (S anPiN), adopted pursuant to Federal Law 
No. 52-FZ, which would limit the use of frozen poultry meat for further processing.  These Members 
noted that similar provisions appeared to be included in a CU Commission Decision.  
Members questioned the scientific basis for this me asure and noted that no risk assessment had been 
provided to Members despite requests for the assessment. 
992. In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that these norms were operated 
as recommendations and their entering into force had been  postponed.  If the scientific justification of 
these norms would be identified as insufficient upon the date of accession of the Russian Federation 
to the WTO, they would be eliminated.  Specifi cally, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that the ban on the use of frozen poultry for the production of all types of poultry products, 
foreseen to enter into force from 1 January 2011, ha d been delayed and revised.  The ban on the use of 
frozen poultry meat in the manufacture of dietetic food, baby food and food for pregnant or 
breastfeeding women, which had been in place sin ce 1 January 2010, would be extended to gourmet 
products (pastrami, raw dried and raw smoked products).  Further, only chilled poultry meat would be 
allowed for the production of chilled semi-finished  products and products th at have not undergone 
heat treatment.  An amendment to SanPiN 2.3.2. 1078-01 introducing these changes was available on 
the website of Rospotrebnadzor.  The representative of the Russian Federation indicated that at the 
CU level, CU Commission Decision No. 299 included  a ban on the use of frozen poultry meat in the 
manufacture of dietetic food, baby food and food for pregnant or breastfeeding women (point 16 of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 358  
 
  Chapter II, Part 1 of the Uniform Sanitary a nd Epidemiological and Hygienic Requirements).  
He stated that the CU Parties would not extend this  ban to other categories of persons or products. 
993. The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that pursuant to Federal Law 
No. 52-FZ "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Well-be ing of the Population" sanitary-epidemiological 
rules and norms "Hygienic Requirements on Food Safe ty and Food Value" (SERN) had been enacted.  
SERN set up hygienic safety and value norms on food for humans, and also requirements on 
compliance with these norms for production, importation and turnover of food products.  
Furthermore, Article 2 of Federal Law No. 29-FZ "O n Quality and Safety of Food Products" provided 
for the implementation of the international norms, when they contradicted the mentioned Law.  
994. The representative of the Russian Federation also recalled that Government Resolutions 
No. 159 and No. 329 established the necessary legisla tive framework to allow for the compliance of 
Russian veterinary and phytosanitary measures with  the relevant international standards; guidelines 
and recommendations in the OIE and IPPC.  He a dded that specific provisions of international 
standards relating to procedures for State contro l and surveillance, including Codex Alimentarius, 
OIE, and IPPC were included in the draft techni cal regulations in the SPS sphere.  A Member noted 
that Government Resolution Nos. 159 and 329 relate d to the OIE and IPPC and asked if a similar 
Government Resolution had been adopted for the C odex Alimentarius.  If such a resolution did not 
exist, this Member asked when the Russian Federati on expected to adopt it.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011, in 
the absence of CU or national documents in force on the territory of the CU, establishing obligatory 
veterinary (veterinary-sanitary) requirements for live animals and products of animal origin; 
obligatory phytosanitary requirements for plan ts and plant products; obligatory sanitary-and-
epidemiologic and hygienic requirements for products of  animal origin and products of plant origin, it 
was necessary to apply standards, recommendations  and guidance of the International Office of 
Epizootics, the International Plant Prot ection Convention, and the Commission of 
Codex Alimentarius, respectively.  Furthermore,  if veterinary, phytosanitary and sanitary-and-
epidemiologic and hygienic requirements in force on th e territory of the CU were more stringent than 
relevant international standards, in the absence of sc ientific justification of risk to human, animal or 
plant life or health,  in corresponding part internati onal standards were applied. 
995. Some Members expressed concerns that, acco rding to Federal Law No. 52-FZ and also 
requirements adopted pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 299, sanitary and phytosanitary import policy of the Russian Federation, rules and le gislation appeared to be  based on the results of 
scientific research, epidemiological studies and mon itoring rather than on international standards,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 359 
 
 
  guidelines and recommendations, which were only used "t o the extent practicable".  In the view of 
these Members, Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent required that sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures be based on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist, 
except as otherwise provided for in the WTO SPS Agre ement, in Article 3.3.  These Members sought 
a commitment that the Russian Federation would respect the provisions of Article 3 of the WTO SPS Agreement and amend Federal Law No. 52-FZ and CU Commission Decision No. 299 to 
ensure compliance with the SPS provisions. 
996. A Member noted that the Russian Federation had required some sanitary and phytosanitary 
certificates that included provisions that appeared to  be inconsistent with international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations e.g., those of the OI E, Codex, IPPC, and the WTO SPS Agreement.  
This Member asked whether the Ru ssian Federation was prepared to undertake modifications of these 
certificates to bring them into co mpliance with these standards and obligations.  Members also asked 
the Russian Federation to confirm that it did not re quire the exporting country to have identical or 
very similar measures to those applied in the Russian Federation as long as the exporting Member 
demonstrated that its measures achieved the appropria te level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection 
of the Russian Federation. 
997. The representative of the Russian Federation explained that his Government had adopted 
Resolution No. 761 of 28 September 2009 "On Im plementing Harmonisation of the Russian 
Sanitary-Epidemiological, Veterinary and Phytosan itary Measures in Compliance with International 
Standards" which established a process to amend meas ures that were found to be more stringent than 
international standards.  The Resolution instructed  the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of 
Agriculture to review all legal acts establishing sanit ary-epidemiological requirements, veterinary and 
phytosanitary measures for their compliance with international (IPPC, OIE, Codex Alimentarius) 
standards and to bring them in line with such standards when the deviation was not supported by 
scientific justification.  This Resolution had been  supplemented by administrative procedures on the 
implementation of this review (Order of the M OA No. 3 of 11 January 2010 and Order of the MOH 
No. 581n of 30 July 2010).  The representative of th e Russian Federation explained that participation 
by foreign governments in bringing cases of more  stringent requirements to the attention of the 
Russian Government was welcomed and that foreig n governments could participate in the evaluation 
of the Russian measure.   
998. A Member of the Working Party expressed conc ern that requests submitted by this Party in 
the framework of Resolution No. 761 had receive d negative answers from Rosselkhoznadzor without 
scientific justification.  Thus, in the view of  this Member, Resolution No. 761 did not have the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 360  
 
  expected effect on harmonization of Russian norms with international standards and 
recommendations.  
999. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that in order to improve 
the situation, relevant authorised bodies had establis hed an internal procedure of forwarding requests 
from interested parties, including foreign government s, and had determined th e responsible divisions 
for the examination procedure.  The procedure was adopted by relevant Orders of the MOA (No. 49 
of 21 February 2011), Rosselkhoznadzor (No. 39 of  10 February 2011) and the MOH (No. 98 of 
10 February 2011, No. 378 of 29 April 2011). 
1000.  A Member indicated that, despite adoption of the said procedure, the situation remained 
alarming as most submitted comments were ignored by the Russian authorities. 
1001.  Some Members noted that CU Parties now had competence to regulate SPS measures and 
requested information on how the CU technical re gulations on SPS and other acts at the CU and 
national level would be harmonized  with international standards, guidelines, and recommendations.  
These Members expressed concern that recent draf t CU SPS technical regulations did not reflect 
international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions.  Members also requested information on 
what SPS measures would apply until such time as the CU Commission adopted SPS technical 
regulations.   
1002.  The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members of the Working Party that 
the CU Commission had adopted Decision No. 625 of  7 April 2011 "On Harmon ization of CU Legal 
Acts in the Field of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phyt osanitary Measures with International Standards".  
This CU Commission Decision created at CU level a procedure similar to Resolution No. 761 of the 
Russian Federation.  CU SPS measures that, after examination, were recognized as more stringent 
than international standards, without scientific ju stification for such restriction or risk to human, 
animal or plant life or health  would be brought into conformity with international standards.  He noted 
that foreign governments could bring measures to the attention of the CU Parties and participate in the 
examination.   
1003.  The representative of the Russian Federation furt her informed Members of the Working Party 
that in connection with implementation of CU  Commission Decision No. 625, the CU Commission 
had by Decision No. 801 of 23 September 2011, ad opted the Regulation "On the Uniform Procedure 
of Carrying Out Examination of Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Implementation of 
Sanitary, Veterinary, and Phytosanitary Measures"  which entered into effect on 29 October 2011.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 361 
 
 
  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern that the implementation procedure was 
unnecessarily burdensome and lengthy.   
1004.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion stated that once the procedure for 
implementation of the harmonization process set-out in CU Commission Decision No. 625 had entered into effect, the Russian Federation woul d start the process of aligning its procedures under 
Resolution No. 761 with the CU procedures.  
1005.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concern as regards the timing envisaged by 
the Russian Federation for harmonization of SPS measures applicable on the territory of the 
Russian Federation with international standa rds, requirements and guidelines and asked the 
representative of the Russian Federation to clarif y how the Russian Federation would ensure that 
SPS measures applied in the Russian Federation woul d be harmonized with international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations by the date of its accession to the WTO.   
1006.  The representative of the Russian Federation replie d that from the date of entry into force of 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "On Application of Inte rnational Standards, 
Guidelines and Recommendations", such internationa l standards, recommendations and guidelines, as 
provided in paragraphs [830], [894 ], [898] and [994] would be applied in the territory of the 
Russian Federation.  In accordance with this Decisi on, such standards would continue to apply unless 
the review of a measure pursuant to CU Comm ission Decision No. 625 or Government Resolution 
No. 761, as appropriate, resulted in a finding that  there was a risk assess ment and scientific 
justification that complied with the WTO SPS Agreem ent, and which justified the application of a 
standard which was more stringent than the re levant international standard.  Some Members 
expressed concerns over the fact that, pursuant to CU Commission Decision No. 773 of 16 August 2011, CU Commission Decision No. 721 would enter into force not earlier than the date of 
accession of the first CU Party to the WTO.  In r esponse, the representative of  the Russian Federation 
specified that CU Commission Decision No. 721 woul d enter into force on the date of accession of 
the Russian Federation to WTO. 
1007.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated that according to paragraph 4 of 
Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the universally-recognised norms of 
international law and international treaties and agreements of the Russian Federation were an integral 
part of its legal system.  If an international treat y or agreement of the Russian Federation established 
other rules than those envisaged by law, the rules of the international agreem ent must be applied.  
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 2 of Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On Quality and 
Safety of Food Products", if an international tr eaty of the Russian Federation established any rules WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 362  
 
  other than those stipulated by the legislation of the Russian Federation in the field of ensuring the 
quality and safety of food products, then the rules of the international treaty were to apply.  He also 
referred Members to the Section "Framework for Making and Enforcing Policies", which described 
the status of international agreements, includi ng the WTO Agreement, once the Russian Federation 
had ratified its Protocol of Accession, within the national legal system of the Russian Federation and 
within the framework of the CU.  In this regard, the representative of the Russian Federation noted the 
effect of the Treaty on the Multilateral System  in ensuring that CU Agreements, CU Commission 
Decisions, and other CU Acts were consistent with  the WTO commitments of a CU Party, including 
those under the WTO SPS Agreement.  The representativ e of the Russian Federation also recalled that 
under Article 2 of the Treaty on the Multilateral Sy stem, the CU Parties would adopt measures to 
adjust the legal framework of the CU and the decisions of its Bodies to comply with the 
WTO Agreement.  Prior to adoption of such adju stment measures, the relevant provisions of the 
WTO Agreement including those of the WTO SPS Agreement, would prevail over respective provisions of treaties concluded within the framewo rk of the CU and of decisions adopted by its 
Bodies.   
1008.  One Member requested the Russian Federation to c onfirm that, in application of Article 3.1 of 
the WTO SPS Agreement, the Russian Federation would review all of its existing sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures to ensure that, by the date of accession, th ey were based on international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations or, in th e event that the Russian Federation considered 
that international standards did not meet its appropr iate level of protection, they were scientifically 
justified in accordance with Article 3.3 of th e WTO SPS Agreement.  In cases where relevant 
scientific evidence was insufficient,  he requested that the Russian Federation confirm that it would 
comply with Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
1009.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, as of the date of accession, in 
application of Article 3.1 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent, all sanitary and phytosanitary measures, 
whether adopted by Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would be based on 
international standards, guidelines or recommenda tions as provided for in  the WTO Agreement.  
Further, the representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that measures which were not based 
on international standards, guidelines and recommendati ons, where they exist, would not be applied in 
the Russian Federation without providing Members a scientifically based justification of the 
measures, in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreem ent, including Article 3.3.  In cases where 
relevant scientific evidence was insufficient, he c onfirmed that any measure adopted, whether by the 
Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU would comply with the WTO SPS Agreement, 
in particular with Article 5.7 thereof.  In the even t that international standards were not considered to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 363 
 
 
  meet the appropriate level of protection, the Russ ian Federation would provide scientific justification 
for measures applied in the Russian Federa tion, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
-  (ii) Risk Assessment 
1010.  Some Members of the Working Party noted the requirement applied to certain goods on the 
Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control that imports come from establishments on the 
Unified Registry, as described in paragraph [907].  These Members expressed concern that applying 
this requirement to certain of the products on the Common List of Goods Subject to Veterinary 
Control was not based on science or a risk assessment.  In addition, th ere could also be a requirement 
for an establishment to be included in the Unified Registry prior to being permitted to export products 
to the territory of the CU where a veterinary cer tificate, import permit and State Registration which 
appeared to be more trade restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection of the 
CU.  Moreover, these Members recalled their concer ns about the absence of risk assessments and 
science to justify measures mainta ined by the CU and the Russian Federation that were more stringent 
than international standards, guidelines, and recommendations. 
1011.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working 
Party that as noted in paragraph [907], the CU Commission in Decision No. 810 of 23 September 2011 had amended the Common vete rinary requirements.  Pursuant to this 
CU Commission Decision and CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 certain goods 
were not subject to any of the three forms of vete rinary control when they were destined for the 
Russian Federation, as reflected in [Table 41].   The representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that, as of the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, goods would be included on the Common List of Goods Subject to Vete rinary Control only if application of veterinary 
measures was in compliance with international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or if 
science and a risk assessment justified, consis tent with the WTO SPS Agreement, subjecting a 
category of goods to veterinary me asures.  Similarly, the veterinary  measures applied to each category 
of goods would also be in compliance with intern ational standards, recommendations and guidelines 
or based on science and a risk assessment.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
1012.  With regard to risk assessments, some Members emphasized the need, in conformity with the 
WTO SPS Agreement, to comply with internationa l standards, recommendations and guidelines for 
conducting and reviewing risk assessments.  They noted the relevance and applicability of Codex 
standards:  CAC/GL-62-2007-Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application 
by National Government and CAC/GL/30-1999-Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 364  
 
  Microbiological Risk Assessments, and th e FAO document; WHO-EHC-240.5-Principles and 
Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals In F ood; Chapter 2; Risk Assessment and its Role in 
Risk Analysis.  In the view of these Members, a risk assessment should be limited to an examination 
of the measure already in place or favoured by the importing country.  It should not be distorted by preconceived views on the nature and the content of  the measure to be taken, nor should it develop 
into an exercise tailored to and carried out for the purpose of justifying decisions ex post facto . 
1013.  In the view of these Members, the conduct of a risk assessment, whether for a biological, 
chemical, or physical food safety hazard, was one pa rt of a broader effort to describe the relevance 
and understanding of scientific-based decisions.  The an alysis of risk allowed regulatory officials to 
focus finite resources on those hazards that posed the greatest risk to human health protection.  
Risk assessment provided a framework for evaluati ng food safety hazards relevant to the national 
context, predicting the likelihood of exposure to those hazards, and estimating the resulting public 
health impact associated with a wide variety of variables.  Experts involved in risk assessment, 
including government officials and subject matter experts from outside government must be objective in their scientific work and not be subject to any conf lict of interest that may compromise the integrity 
of the assessment.  These experts should be selec ted in a transparent manner on the basis of their 
expertise and their independence with regard to  the interests involved, including disclosure of 
conflicts of interest in connection with risk assess ment.  Elements of an effective assessment and 
analysis of that assessment need ed to include a public process for seeking input on the design of the 
risk assessment, documentation of those decisions, and then ensuring that the pu blic has access to the 
documentation.  A peer review process whereby subj ect matter experts provide critical analysis of the 
design features and the assumption made was recomme nded.  Such contributions through the peer 
review and public process could improve transpar ency, increase the quality of the analysis, and 
facilitate risk communication by increasing th e credibility and acceptance of the results.  
There needed to be a formal reco rd of all decisions associated w ith the risk assessment and which 
would be made available to interested independent pa rties so that other risk assessors could repeat and 
critique the work.  The formal record and summar y should indicate any constraints, uncertainties, 
assumptions, and their impact on the risk asse ssment.  Members sought assurances from the 
Russian Federation that these internationally r ecognized principles and recommendations would be 
used in risk assessments for SPS measures adopt ed and applied in the Russian Federation. 
1014.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the CU Commission had adopted 
a Decision "On Equivalence of Sanitary, Veterinary , or Phytosanitary Measures and Conduct of Risk 
Assessment, CU Commission Decision No. 835  of 18 October 2011 (hereinafter "Decision on 
Equivalence and Risk Assessment").  Under this Decision, CU Parties were required, consistent with  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 365 
 
 
  Article 5 of the WTO SPS Agreement, to ensure th at sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary measures 
were based on an assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or 
plant life or health, taking into account risk asse ssment techniques developed by the relevant 
international organizations, includi ng Codex, OIE, and the IPPC.  He further explained that the 
CU requirements for conducting risk assessments corr esponded to the provisions of Article 5 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, including a requirement that, as provided in Article 5.3 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, in assessing the risk to animal  or plant life or health and determining the 
measure to be applied for achieving the appropriate  level of sanitary, veterinary or phytosanitary 
protection from such risk, the CU Parties would take  into account as relevant economic factors:  the 
potential damage in terms of loss of production or sal es in the event of the entry, establishment or 
spread of a pest or disease, the costs of control or eradication in the territory of the Parties, and the 
relative cost-effectiveness of altern ative approaches to limiting risks. 
1015.  Recalling that phytosanitary measures were a dopted and applied at the national level, he 
added that from the perspective of the Russian Fe deration, all of its phytosanitary measures were 
applied in accordance with IPPC standards and were  based on a risk assessment.  The Federal State 
Establishment "All-Russian Centre on Plant Quarantine" (FGU "VNIIKR"; Moscow region) was 
responsible for conducting these assessments.   
1016.  In the context of the Customs Union, the re presentative of the Russian Federation explained 
that, as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the CU Commission Decision 
"On Application of International Standards, Gu idelines, and Recommendations" would ensure that 
SPS measures, applied in the Russian Federation, would be based on science and a risk assessment.  
Moreover, in the absence of scientific proofs (scientific  basis) of risk to the life or health of people, 
animals or plants, the relevant international standards, guidelines and recommendations would be 
applied in the territory of the CU.  This require d competent authorities of the CU Parties to conduct 
risk assessments to justify CU SPS requirements, in cluding in the form of technical regulations. 
1017.  The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that, numerous (more than 
200) institutions were involved in conducting risk assessments related to sanitary and veterinary 
measures.  The following institutions were responsible  for risk assessment in the SPS field:  the FGU 
"Federal Centre for Animal Health Protection"  (Vladimir) and the FGU "All-Russian Centre on 
Quality of Medicine for Animals and Feed" (M oscow), the Federal Centre of Hygiene and 
Epidemiology (which was subordinated to Rospot rebnadzor), the Federal Scientific Centre of 
Hygiene, named after А. Erisman (which was subordinated to Rospotrebnadzor), and the Scientific 
Research Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Ac ademy of Medical Science, and the All-Russian WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 366  
 
  Institute of Grain and Its Products.  He also not ed that, in accordance with Federal Law No. 184-FZ 
"On Technical Regulation", significant attention would be paid to public education programmes in the 
area of food safety.  Risk assessment for food products will be harmonize d with the standards 
recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
1018.  A Member asked whether decisions made by Ro sselkhoznadzor in its a uditing and inspection 
practices would also be based on a risk assessment to determine if detected non-compliances to some 
SPS requirements justified restrictive measures on  the products concerned, including taking into 
account some risk mitigating measures put in place by the producer or the exporting countries.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that the EurAsEC Agreement on 
Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008, CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011, 
CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June 2011 "O n Harmonization with Inte rnational Standards, 
Recommendations and Guidelines", CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 October 2011 "On Common System of Joint Inspection of Obje cts and Sampling Goods (Products) Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Supervision)", and Gove rnment Resolutions Nos. 159 and 329 of the 
Russian Federation, all required the Russian Federa tion and the competent CU Bodies, as appropriate, 
to base SPS measures, including restrictiv e measures, on an assessment of risk.  
-  (iii) Regionalization 
1019.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that Russian officials widely used the 
principle of regionalization, as defined in the WTO SPS Agreement, when deciding to take a measure.  
The Common Veterinary Requirements (each chap ter) adopted by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 317 of 18 June 2010 stipulated that the regiona lization principle was recognized.  The procedures 
for carrying out regionalization in the sphere of appl ying veterinary measures were in accordance with 
the OIE Code (Chapter 4.3. OIE, 2010).  Russian le gislation in the plant quarantine sphere was based 
on IPPC provisions and international standard s on phytosanitary measures.  Accordingly, 
regionalization applied to all impor ted regulated products.  Phytosanitary certificates were issued in 
the exporting country by agencies of the official National Plant Protection Organization.  
Regional characteristics were a factor for the purpo ses of devising phytosanitary measures for use in a 
particular region. 
1020.  The representative of the Russian Federati on added that procedures for carrying out 
regionalization in the sphere of applying veterinary measures were  in accordance with the OIE Code 
(Chapter 1.3.5).  The compliance of veterinary measures with OIE standards was accomplished through application of the Decision of the G overnment of the Russian Federation No. 159 of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 367 
 
 
  24 March 2006 "On Implementation of the Veteri nary Measures Regarding Importation of Live 
Animals and Products of Animal Origin to the Customs Territory of the Russian Federation". 
1021.  He further stated that the principle of regi onalization was applied in full accordance with 
provisions of IPPC and ISPM Nos. 1, 4, 10, 14, and 29.  This had to be respected, including in the formulation of veterinary certificates. 
-  (iv) Equivalence  
1022.  Some Members expressed concern that the Russian Federation, in its national law or through 
CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, or other CU  Acts, did not appear to apply the principle 
of measures or systems equivalence for food safety, as provided for in Article 4 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement and relevant internationa l guidelines.  Members explained that the 
WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary  Measures had issued a Decision "On the 
Implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
Measures" (G/SPS/19/Rev.2 of 23 July 2004) to make the provisions of Article 4 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement operational.  In the view of these Members, the Russian Federation needed to 
adopt a formal and effective process for the determ ination and establishment of equivalency at the 
national and CU level.  These Members requested assu rances that an effective process was in place 
for determining whether the system of sanitary or  phytosanitary measures of a WTO Member for a 
certain product or categories of products achieve d the appropriate level of protection of the 
Russian Federation or the CU and complied with the WTO SPS Agreement and relevant international 
standards.   
1023.  Members noted that equivalence could be ac complished through different measures for a 
specific product or categories of products or on a systems-wide basis.  Article 4 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement and the relevant internationals standards (i.e., those of the Codex, OIE, and 
IPPC) did not require the exporting Member to  apply the same requirements/measures as the 
importing Member, but only that the exporting Member  achieves the appropriate level of protection of 
the importing Member.  Members also stated that , under Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement, as 
explained in the Decision of the WTO SPS Co mmittee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2), equivalence can be 
accepted for a specific measure or measures related to  a certain product or categories of products, or 
on a systems-wide basis.  One Member explai ned that recognition of systems equivalence 
encompassed the recognition of the central author ity of the exporting Member as competent in 
maintaining compliance with food safety inspection system laws and regulations, including 
compliance with that exporting Members' sanita ry, veterinary and phytosanitary requirements. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 368  
 
  1024.  In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that the appropriate level 
of protection was determined by the CU bodies with  regard to sanitary and veterinary measures and 
by each CU Party on the national level with regard to phytosanitary measures, and were reflected in 
technical regulations for products produced on the territory of the CU and individual CU Parties, 
respectively.  Furthermore, the representative of the Russian Federation recalled that the 
CU Commission had adopted CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 
"On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", which provided:  
- for CU Parties to recognise equivalence if an exporting country objectively demonstrated that 
its measures achieved the appropriate level of san itary or veterinary protection of the CU or 
the appropriate level of phytosanitary pr otection of an individual CU Party;  
- the procedure to follow as regards consultations with the exporting country(ies) and relevant 
information to be provided by the exporting country(ies);  
- procedural and substantive requirements as regards the judgement on recognition of 
equivalence; and 
- the possibility of inspection, testing or audit in the exporting country(ies) upon a request by 
the CU Parties.   
 
 In addition, under the CU Commission Deci sion "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment", 
CU Parties committed to apply the same approach to  requests for national recognition of equivalence 
in the phytosanitary field addressed to individual CU  Parties.  He also noted that the CU Commission 
Decision "On Equivalence and Risk Assessment" pr ovided for the possibility for exporting countries 
to request equivalence recognition by the CU or its  Parties (depending on respective competences) of 
their control or inspection systems.  He explained that CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 October 2011 "On Equivalence and Risk Assessme nt", and all procedures necessary to apply this 
Decision, would be in effect as of the date of  accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
1025.  A Member sought clarification regarding the pr ocess to be followed, time periods and any 
review or appeal mechanisms applied in the CU and the Russian Federation for recognition of 
equivalence.  In response, the representative of th e Russian Federation stated that, the CU Decision 
"On Equivalence and Risk Assessment" foresaw the following procedure: 
- submission of a request for equivalence recogn ition to a competent authority of a CU Party, 
including, inter alia , information on the type and scope of equivalence agreement requested, 
description of product(s), measure(s) or system(s ) of control and inspections concerned, an 
evaluation of how the measure(s) or system (s) of the exporting country achieved the 
appropriate level of prot ection of the CU or a CU Party, an d information on the feasibility and 
performance of the measure(s); 
- interactions between the CU Party and th e exporting country in the context of the 
determination of equivalence; 
- prior to taking a decision on equivalence, th e CU Party would, upon request, provide to the 
requesting exporting country an explanation of the CU's or its level of protection; and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 369 
 
 
  - notification by the CU Commission or a CU Pa rty to the exporting country of its judgement 
as regards recognition of equivalence in a time ly manner and with appropriate explanation 
where it was found that the measure was not equivalent. 
 
1026.  Furthermore, the representative of the Russian Federation specified that, in applying this 
CU Commission Decision, CU Parties would fo llow international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations developed by the relevant international organizations, including the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission, the International O ffice of Epizootics and the relevant international 
and regional organizations operating within the fra mework of the International Plant Protection 
Convention.  Members noted that, as set-out in the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee, the 
importing Member had certain responsibilities:  to  provide an explanation of the objective and 
rationale of the sanitary or phytosanitary measure and identify clearly the risks that the relevant 
measure intended to address.  Moreover, the impor ting Member should indicate the appropriate level 
of protection which its sanitary or phytosanitary me asure was designed to achieve and should provide 
a copy of the risk assessment on which the sanitary or  phytosanitary measure was based.  As stated in 
the WTO Committee Decision, an importing Member was to consider the relevant information and 
experience that the sanitary and phytosanitary servi ces had on the measure(s) for which recognition of 
equivalence was requested.  A key element for consideration was the historic knowledge and 
confidence that the competent authority of the im porting Member had of the competent authority of 
the exporting Member.   
1027.  Some Members noted that CU Decision No. 607 of 7 April 2011 adopted 40 CU Common 
Forms of veterinary certificates for import into th e CU territory from any third country.  They also 
recalled that they had bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation concluded prior to the entry 
into force of the CU.  They questioned whethe r these agreements would be superseded by the 
CU Common Forms and, if so, they were concerned that the legal basis for the Russian Federation did 
not provide the possibility to apply systems equivalence as called for in Article 4 of the WTO SPS Agreement.   
1028.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Commission had 
adopted Decision No. 726 of 15 July 2011 that authorised the CU Parties to negotiate and agree to specific forms of veterinary certificates with re quirements that differed from the Common Forms of 
Veterinary Certificates and the specific pr ovisions of the CU Common Requirements with 
WTO Members that made a substantiated request  for such negotiations by 1 January 2013.  
He referred Members to paragraphs [886] to [894] for information on this issue and on the period for 
continued use of bilateral certificates.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 370  
 
  1029.  A Member of the Working Party expressed con cern that processes for the determination and 
recognition of equivalence of the measures of an exporting country with the requirements set in the 
legislation of the Russian Federation did not seem to  be operational since this Member had requested 
the recognition of equivalence with Federal La w No. 88 "On Milk and Dairy Products" without 
obtaining clear conclusions on the equivalence itself.  
1030.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the request of this Member 
would be re-evaluated in accordance with Codex Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of 
Sanitary Measures Associated with Food Inspectio n and Certification Systems (CAC/GL 53-2003).  
The Working party took not e of this commitment. 
1031.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the Russian Federation, from the 
date of its accession to the WTO, would ensure compliance with Article 4 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement.  He further confirmed that, as provided for in Article 4 of the 
WTO SPS Agreement, sanitary, veterinary, and phyto sanitary measures of other Members, even when 
they were different from measures of the Russian Federation or the CU, would be accepted as equivalent, if the exporting country objectively demonstrated that its measures achieved the 
appropriate level of SPS protecti on applied in the Russian Federation.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation also confirmed that, as of the da te of accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO, procedures for recognition and determina tion of equivalence, consistent with the 
WTO SPS Agreement, including Article 4 thereof, whether applied by the Russian Federation or 
competent bodies of the CU, would be based on re levant international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, namely the Decision of the WTO SPS Committee (G/SPS/19/Rev.2), Codex Guidelines on the Judgment of Equivalence of San itary Measures Associated  with Food Inspection 
and Certification Systems (CAC/G L 53-2003), Codex Guidelines for th e Development of Equivalence 
Agreements Regarding Food Import and Expor t Inspection and Certification Systems  
(CAC/GL 34-1999); Chapter 5.3 of the OIE Terrestrial  Animal Health Code "OIE Procedures relevant 
to the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary  and Phytosanitary Measures of the World Trade 
Organization", and ISPM 24 "Guidelines for the De termination and Recognition of Equivalence of 
Phytosanitary Measures."  The Working Party took no te of these commitments.  
-  (v) Non-discrimination 
1032.  Some Members also requested clarificati on of whether SPS measures applied in the 
Russian Federation established si milar treatment for domestic and foreign like products.  
The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that, in his view, non-discriminatory treatment 
was provided by the current legislation of the Russian Federation and CU Agreements,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 371 
 
 
  CU Commission Decisions, and other CU Acts.  CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and 
other CU Acts did not set-out separate SPS measure s for imported goods.  Sanitary-epidemiological, 
veterinary and phytosanitary rules, criteria, me asures and requirements were  applied uniformly and 
without discrimination to all foreign, CU, and domest ic products and suppliers.  He stated that in 
accordance with Article 29.2 of the Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Basics of 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", SPS require ments were implemented with respect to goods 
originating from foreign countries in the same way, th ey were applied in respect  of similar products of 
Russian origin.  CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions, and other CU Acts, as well as the current legislation of the Russian Federation in the ve terinary/sanitary sphere (Articles 1, 14, 15, 18 of 
the Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of  14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices") were 
uniform for all veterinary services of subjects of the Russian Federation and established identical 
requirements for both foreign, CU, and domestic goods  and manufacturers, including requirements for 
putting products on the domestic market.  Finally, accord ing to Article 6 of the draft Quarantine Law, 
phytosanitary requirements applied to regulated pr oducts originating from a foreign country in the 
same manner as they applied to the same re gulated products of Russian origin.   
1033.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that all SPS measures developed and 
applied in the Russian Federation, whether by th e Russian Federation or competent bodies of the CU, 
would comply with the non-discrimination provi sions of the WTO SPS Agreement, including those 
relating to the principles of national and most-fa voured nation treatment.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. 
1034.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed c oncern over the fact that imported products 
were tested in the Russian Federation for residu es of veterinary medicina l products in the VGNKI 
laboratory, which was the only laboratory equipped with the most sensitive and performing equipment 
(LC-MS/MS), whereas other laboratories performing o fficial controls in the Russian Federation, on 
domestic products, mostly used ELISA methods, whic h were less performing for confirming residues 
of antibiotics at the low levels of detection foreseen by the food safety requirements of the 
Russian Federation and the CU.  In the view of  these Members, this represented discrimination 
between domestic and imported goods.  
1035.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the draft Federal Law 
"On Veterinary Practices" provided that official c ontrol could be done only in accredited laboratories 
and that such accredited laboratories must use unified and validated methods and equipment for official control purposes.  He further confirmed th at imports could be tested in any of these accredited WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 372  
 
  laboratories.  This would, in his view, ensure uniformity of treatment.  The Working Party took note 
of these commitments. 
- (i) Transparency, Notification and Enquiry Point Obligations 
1036.  Some Members expressed concern that existing rules and changes in the SPS regimes of the 
Customs Union and the Russian Federation were not always published in draft for comment from 
interested parties before they were implemented.  In the view of these Members, neither CU bodies, 
nor Russian authorities consistently took the vi ews of interested persons and Members into 
consideration before taking regulat ory actions that affected trade.  In addition, Members expressed 
concerns that all existing mandatory requirement s for importing products to the Russian Federation 
were not readily available to them or traders.  As a result, some Members suggested that the 
Russian Federation would need to modify its procedures on notifying and seeking comments on 
measures to come into compliance with the tran sparency obligations of the WTO SPS Agreement. 
1037.  In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that, with regard to 
SPS measures of the Russian Federation, the transparen cy in the legislative process in the SPS sphere 
was provided through publication of all regulatory legal acts related to SPS measures in official 
editions of the following publications:  "R ossiiyskaya Gazeta", "Sobranie Zakonodatelsctva 
Rossiyckoy Federatsii", "The Bulletin of Regul atory Acts of Federal Executive Authorities", 
"The Bulletin of International Ag reements", "The Bulletin of Regul atory and Methodical Acts of the 
Ministry of Health and Social Development of  the Russian Federation", and "The Information 
Bulletin of the Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation".  Some SPS measures were also 
published in some non-official publications, su ch as "Veterinariya" magazine, newspapers 
"Veterinarniy Konsultant", "Veterinary Gazette" a nd "Zatschita i karantin rasteniy" (monthly edition), 
as well as in electronic database for legal reference and other special publications.  In response to a 
question from a Member, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation stated that the main official 
journals were "Rossiiyskaya Gazeta", and "Sobran ie Zakonodatelsctva Rossicyckoy Federatsii", in 
which the publication of all normative legal acts that dealt with the rights, freedoms and obligations of 
a person and citizens, including the orders of Federa l Ministries, was mandatory.  Thus, all normative 
legal acts relating to SPS measures would be  published in these two journals.   
1038.  Members of the Working Party noted that, as of 1 July 2010, the CU Commission was 
responsible for the adoption of CU SPS technical  regulations and other CU SPS documents and 
requested information regarding how transparen cy would be ensured in connection with the 
development of SPS measures and their applicati on.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the Anne x to CU Commission Decision No. 625 entitled  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 373 
 
 
  "Amendments to the Regulation on Coordination Co mmittee on Technical Regulation, Application of 
Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measu res", approved by the CU Commission Decision 
No. 319 as of 18 June 2010 provided for publication of  proposals of CU Decisions and CU legal acts 
in the SPS field, on the CU Commission website ( www.tsouz.ru), and that interested persons would 
have at least 60 days to provide comments on the pr oposals.  The CU Secretariat was required to send 
comments to the relevant working group (referred to  in paragraph [819]) for consideration.  
Furthermore, the representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that, according to point 6 of the 
Annex of CU Commission Decision No. 527 of 28 January 2011, which set a procedure for the 
development, adoption, amendment and repealing of technical regula tions of the CU, draft technical 
regulations must be published on the website of the CU and should be available for public 
consultation for at least two months.  Comments rece ived from interested parties would then be taken 
into account to amend the draft technical regulations.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed 
concern that, according to an amendment of th is procedure adopted by CU Commission Decision 
No. 606, if a draft technical regulation developed in the framework of the EurAsEC was taken as a 
basis for a technical regulation of the CU, and had already undergone a process of public consultation 
through publication of a draft on the website of the EurAsEC, the CU may decide not to organize a 
public discussion at CU level on this text.  In the view of these Members, the consultation on the EurAsEC website did not fulfil the necessary conditions of transparency since, at the time of this 
consultation, it was not clear that the draft techni cal regulation could become mandatory requirements 
also for exporters.  These Members took as an ex ample a draft Technical Regulation "On Milk and 
Milk Products", which had undergone a public cons ultation at EurAsEC level and for which the 
Russian Federation indicated that the CU did not intend to carry out a public consultation through the 
website of the CU.    
1039.  In response to a question from a Member, the re presentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that the date for entry into force of each technical  regulation was set-out in the respective technical 
regulation or the CU Commission Decision adopting th e technical regulation.  A minimum period of 
six months between the date of publi cation of a technical regulation and the date of its entry into force 
was established by the CU Commis sion Decision No. 752 of 16 August 2011, so that entities were 
able to comply with the provisi ons of a new technical regulation or amendments to a technical 
regulation.  The transition period for economic operato rs to become acquainted with and comply with 
technical regulations was establis hed after public consultation on dr aft technical regulations, in 
particular with those that would need to comply  with the technical regulation, including foreign 
producers. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 374  
 
  1040.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed c oncern that, in some cases, SPS measures of 
the Russian Federation were not laid down in legal texts, and were thus not clearly transparent.  
This was the case, for example, for rules on the listing of establishments before the entry into force of 
CU requirements, or for rules on pre-notification of shipments or for conditions according to which 
the Russian Federation implemented the CU provision allowing a list of establishments authorised to 
export to the CU member to be based on the list provided by the exporting country.  
1041.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that pre-notification of a shipment 
was to ensure that certificates were valid and not fra udulent.  He noted that pre-notification was not a 
mandatory requirement in the SPS field, but was dealt with by the customs services.  Moreover, 
information on pre-notification was posted on the Rosselkhoznadzor website (http://www.fsvps.ru). 
According to 6.12.3 of the Common Procedures of  Veterinary Control in CU Commission Decision 
No. 317, when the controlled goods were imported by sea, pre-notification on actual shipment of the 
lots to CU recipient was requested.  The pre-notif ication was presented in electronic manner by the 
veterinary service of the exporting country.  The fo rm of the pre-notification was attached to the 
Common Procedures of Veterinary Control. 
1042.  Some Members expressed serious concerns that  the pre-notification requirements could be 
expanded to apply to all products subject to veterinary control and to other modes of transport. 
The requirement that pre-notification comes from the competent authorities of the exporting country 
raised additional concerns.   In these Members' views alternative, less burdensome, and less trade 
restrictive means were available to address any concerns regarding fraudulent certificates.   
1043.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that amendments to the 
current pre-notification provisions were being cons idered.  These amendments would limit the scope 
of the pre-notification requirement to shipments of beef, pork, sheep, horse, and poultry products, 
i.e., covered goods, imported using sea transport.  These amendments would allow for the competent 
authority of a third country to provide informati on on the issuance of a veterinary certificate for the 
relevant covered goods by providing a copy of certifi cate or the information indicated in the form in 
Annex 8 to CU Commission Decision No. 317, via e-mail notification, completion of a corresponding website, or by any other means agreed between a third-country and a CU Party, taking into account 
conditions in the third-country, to the competent au thorities of the CU Parties.  The representative of 
the Russian Federation confirmed that these amendm ents as described above would be adopted and 
enter into force no later than the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
1044.  He confirmed that all information on SPS m easures and current SPS legislation could be 
found on the websites of the MOA (www.mcx.ru);  the MOH (www.mzsrrf.ru); Rospotrebnadzor  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 375 
 
 
  (www.rospotrebnadzor.ru); and the Informatio n and Methodical Centre "Expertiza" of 
Rospotrebnadzor. 
1045.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that development a nd introduction of new 
standards, animal health regulations and food safety regulations would be done in conformity with the 
rules and norms of WTO SPS Agreement.  The re presentative of the Russian Federation further 
explained that the ongoing work within the CU and EurAsEC on drafting and adopting technical 
regulations in the SPS area was aime d at fulfilling this condition.  
1046.  The representative of the Russian Federation re ferred Members to the Section "Technical 
Barriers to Trade" for a detailed discussion of th e procedures for drafting and adopting a technical 
regulation.  As explained in paragraphs [721] a nd [732], any person could become the author of a 
draft technical regulation.  The author was obliged to provide, on demand, a copy of the draft 
technical regulation.  The fees collected for providi ng of such a copy, could not exceed the expense of 
its production. 
1047.  Any stakeholder was permitted to send comments regarding the draft technical regulations 
directly to the author or to the Ministry of In dustry and Trade of the Russian Federation (MIT) in 
written form.  Contact information for the author of  the SPS-related draft technical regulations could 
be received from the MIT (Department for State Po licy in the Field of Technical Regulation and 
Uniformity of Measurements, telephone:  +7(495)  647-74-51, fax:  +7(495) 647-73-90, the MOH 
(Department for Health Protection and Sanita ry and Epidemiological Human Well-Being, 
telephone:  +7  (495) 627-24-84 fax:  +7(495) 627-24-84)  and the MOA (Department for Food and 
Food-Processing Industry and Quality of Products, te lephone:  +7(495)607-89-6 2, fax:  +7(499)975-
13-34).  Foreign stakeholders were  permitted to participate in th e development and public discussions 
of technical regulation projects.  The procedur es for development, adoption, amendment, and 
revocation of a technical regulati on, including the acceptance or rejection of the suggestions of 
interested persons, was set-out in the Law "On Technical Regulation", CU Commission Decision 
No. 527 of 28 January 2011, and was discussed in the Section "Technical Barriers to Trade".  
1048.  According to the Article 7.8 of Federal Law No. 184-FZ, and EurAsEC Agreement on 
Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008, existing inte rnational standards shall be used in full or in 
part as a basis for the elaboration of draft technical  regulations, including draft technical regulations in 
the SPS sphere.  However, if international standard s, guidelines or recommendations did not exist, or 
the proposed national regulations differed substantia lly from the relevant international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, and based on an examin ation and evaluation of available scientific WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 376  
 
  information in conformity with the relevant provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement and a risk 
assessment, CU authorities determin ed that the relevant international standards, guidelines or 
recommendations were not sufficient to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary 
protection, the proposed national SPS measure that di ffered from the relevant international standards, 
guidelines and recommendations would be adopted.  The Russian Federation would then provide the 
notification required in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agre ement.  He further confirmed that drafts of 
SPS technical regulations and other mandatory requirements would be publicly available for 
comments from all interested parti es.  The agencies involved in the preparation of the notifications 
required by the provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement, would be the MOA, the MOH and the MED, as the coordinating authority responsible for providing notifications to the WTO. 
1049.  In response to a question from Members regarding the adoption of SPS measures other than 
technical regulations, the representative of the Russian  Federation explained that the procedure for the 
development of national standards and sets of ru les was set-out in Federal Law No. 184-FZ, and 
included an opportunity for receiving and considerin g comments from the public.  The totality of all 
other draft measures was subject to consultations with  interested parties, as provided in Article 15 of 
Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On Basics  of Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity."  
He explained that the only exception to this require ment was for emergency situations, and that laws 
and measures of general applicati on relating to SPS matters were not the subject of emergencies, as 
foreseen in Article 15.  He referred Members to the Section "Technical Barriers to Trade" 
(see paragraphs [751] to [761]) for a discussion of  the procedures for adoption and application of 
national standards, and sets of rules.  As rega rds emergency measures, he confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would comply with point  6 of Annex B to the WTO SPS Agreement. 
1050.  Some Members recalled concerns regarding th e lack of available information on detailed 
conditions or requirements for the importation of  specific products, including those Members and 
establishments authorised to export to the Russian  Federation.  These Members also requested that 
when the Russian authorities denied an application fo r an import permit, they informed each applicant 
of the detailed reasons for the rejection within tw o days after the decision on refusal.  A Member 
suggested that the website should be searcha ble by HS code to increase its usefulness. 
1051.  In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration confirmed that it had made available 
to importers, as well as to third-country exporters  through a website (www. fsvps.ru), full detailed 
conditions for import of specific products.  The representative of the Russian Federation further 
confirmed that to this end, it would publish a lis t on the website of the National Enquiry Point in 
English of the products which were permitted to be imported into its territory; the countries and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 377 
 
 
  establishments authorised to export to the Russian  Federation and the territory of the CU; and the 
conditions for import.  Where an application for an import permit was denied, Rosselkhoznadzor 
would inform the applicant of the reasons for this  rejection within five days of the decision.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
1052.  In response to a question about the functioning of a national enquiry point on SPS, the 
representative of the Russian Federation informed Me mbers that the Russian Information Centre on 
Standardization, Certification and to Overcomi ng of Technical Barriers in Trade (RIC WTO 
TBT/SPS) had been operating since 1997.  In th e structure of RIC WTO TBT/SPS, there was an 
Enquiry (Dispatching) Service (National Enquiry  Point - NEP), providing the implementation of 
WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS in corpore .  The contact information (website, address/phone/fax 
numbers and e-mail) of the NEP was: 
Address:  4 Granatny per.,  
  Moscow 103001,  
  Russian Federation; 
 Telephone:  +7 (495) 332-56-28, 332-56-59, 225 61 89; Fax:   +7 (495) 332-56-59, E-mail:   enpoint@gostinfo.ru. 
Website: http://www.gostinfo.ru; 
 
1053.  The primary function of RIC WTO TBT/SPS activity  was to supply domestic authorities and 
businesses, as well as foreign trade partners of the Ru ssian Federation and the Secretariat of the WTO, 
with Russian rules, directives, and regulations rela ting to TBT and SPS, and to provide information on 
foreign national standards and certification systems.  The NEP responded to the requests of interested 
parties, provided information and documenta tion on TBT and SPS, standards, and conformity 
assessment.  The NEP published on its website  (on a month-by-month basis), the list of 
WTO Members' notifications on TBT and SPS in the Russian language 
(http://www.gostinfo.ru/show.php?/ ric_vto/reestr_yved.htm). 
1054.  In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the Russian Federation had establis hed an enquiry point authorised to provide 
information on both TBT and SPS issues.  He noted that paragraph [1052] provided detailed 
information on the enquiry point, including contact information and the services that the contact point 
could provide.  He noted that this contact point would also provide information on CU Agreements, CU Commission Decisions and other CU Acts in the spheres of TBT and SPS measures.  Prior to the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, th e Government of the Russian Federation would 
issue a resolution to implement various provisions of the WTO Agreement, including Article 7, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 378  
 
  Article 13, and Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement.   He stated that the government resolution 
would include the following major provisions:  (i) Designation of a single central government 
authority in charge of implementation of th e provisions of the WTO SPS Agreement regarding 
notification in accordance with Articles 5, 6, 7,  and 8 of Annex B; (ii) Mandatory cooperation 
between all governmental agencies in charge of im plementation of the WTO SPS Agreement and this 
central government authority in respect of issues set-out in Annex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, and 
(iii) Designation of this central government author ity as responsible for information exchanges with 
WTO Members and the Secretariat on issues relevant to the implementation of Annex B to the WTO SPS Agreement. 
1055.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation had set up 
an SPS notification authority and an SPS enqui ry point which would be notified to the 
WTO SPS Committee.  SPS measures, including those relating to inspection,  were published in 
publications, such as those mentioned in para graph [1037].  Information on all proposed 
SPS measures and those in effect, as foreseen in A nnex B of the WTO SPS Agreement, could also be 
obtained from the SPS notification authority or from th e SPS enquiry point of the Russian Federation.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
- (j) Proportionality, Necessity, and Reasonableness 
1056.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed  concern that SPS measures applied by the 
Russian Federation and other CU Parties to expor ts to the Russian Federation were not always 
proportionate to the risk identified.  These Memb ers gave the following examples of measures that 
were disproportionate or otherwise incons istent with international rules:   
- the list of goods subject to veterinary control included goods that did not represent a 
veterinary or sanitary risk which would justify submitting th ese goods to requirements for 
listing establishments on the Common Register, State Registration, import permits, and 
veterinary certificate requirements;  
- imposition of trade restrictive measures, such  as suspension of establishments or mandatory 
pre-export testing, were not reviewed and e liminated after food safety standards had been 
harmonized with international standards or when  steps had been taken to address food safety 
issues;  
- Russian Federation inspectors requesting exporti ng establishments to show the results of 
monitoring of residues of veterinary medicinal products in processed products in addition to 
the monitoring carried out on the raw materials;  
- the Russian Federation not using residue monitoring plans as a tool to manage the risk of 
exposure, as foreseen in Codex guidelines, but requesting pre-export tests;  
- the Russian Federation requesting systematic inspections of plant nurseries before allowing 
export to the Russian Federation of plants for planting, in absence of basis foreseen by the 
IPPC to have such preliminary inspection; and  
- overly detailed and unnecessar y requirements of inspectors during inspections.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 379 
 
 
   These Members recalled that the principles of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness 
were enshrined in a number of articles of the WTO SPS Agreement, such as Articles 2.1, 2.2, 5.3, 5.4, 
5.6 and Annex C thereof, and that, in their view , the Russian Federation should also modify its 
practices to make them more proportionate to the risks and reasonable.   
1057.  The representative of the Russian Federation re iterated that SPS measures, which were not 
consistent with the WTO Agreement, in particul ar with the WTO SPS Agreement, would be brought 
into compliance with the WTO Agreement, as of the date of accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO.  He also stated that, in adopting a nd implementing SPS measures, the Russian Federation 
recognized the importance of applying the principles of proportionality, necessity and reasonableness consistently with the WTO SPS Agreement.  Ho wever, any disagreements over the assessment on 
how these principles were implemented in individual cases, in his view, must be dealt with under 
appropriate WTO procedures rather th an under the Working Party Report. 
1058.  One Member expressed strong concerns that , despite repeated reassurances of the 
Russian Federation, the Russian authorities continue d to apply certain requirements which were not in 
conformity with the SPS principles of proportionalit y, necessity and reasonableness.  In particular, 
they referred to the requirement to present a safety cer tificate, including results of laboratory analysis 
for residues of pesticides, nitrates and nitrites in fruits and vegetables upon their exportation from this 
Member to the Russian Federation in cases where ther e was no violation of the relevant international 
standards of MRLs, which were also reflected in the Russian law, concerning pesticide, nitrates and 
nitrites residue levels.  This Member considered that this measure was trade restrictive, totally 
unnecessary and unjustified and was not in line with the WTO SPS Agreement.  Furthermore, this 
Member noted its concern that certain Russian author ities requested that in th e absence of these safety 
certificates, the importation of these goods could take  place provided that a laboratory analysis was 
carried out at the border upon importation, at the co st of the importer.  In this Member's view, such 
measure would have an equivalent effect to the unjustified requirement for a safety certificate.  
1059.  In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that the situation in respect of 
safety certificates as described by this Member was inaccurate and, according to the legislation of the 
Russian Federation, accompanying of the products of plant origin by the safety certificates, when 
imported into the territory of the Russian Federation, was not required.  He furt hermore noted that this 
type of measures, if introduced, would be covere d by the commitments of the Russian Federation in 
paragraphs [1060] and [1062] of this Report. 
1060.  In response to these concerns, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that all 
SPS measures, whether adopted by the Russian Fede ration or the competent bodies of the CU, would WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 380  
 
  be applied in conformity with the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  In particular these SPS measures would be 
applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health and would be not 
more trade restrictive than required to achieve th e appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary 
protection of the CU and the Russian Federation.  Finally, when determining the appropriate level of 
sanitary, veterinary, or phytosanitary protection, the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would take into account the objective to minimize negative trade effects in accordance with 
the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Working Pa rty took note of these commitments. 
- (k) Issues Related to Irregularities or Fraud 
1061.  In response to concerns expressed by some Members, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that potential measures ad opted in reaction to evidence of irregularities or 
fraud in import applications, certificates issued  by exporting Members and related documentation 
would be applied in accordance with the WTO SPS Agre ement and, in particular, be no more trade 
restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection, in 
compliance with Article 5.6 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  Such measures would, to the extent 
possible, be targeted at the specific operator or operators involved in irregularities or fraud and would 
not imply a prohibition, temporary or otherwi se, of importation of goods from a WTO Member 
unless, exceptionally, this was necessary to address the particular risk posed by such irregularities or 
fraud. 
- (l) Conclusion 
1062.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, all SPS meas ures would be developed, whether by the 
Russian Federation or the competent bodies of th e CU, and applied in the Russian Federation in 
accordance with the WTO Agreement and in partic ular, the WTO SPS Agreement.  In particular, 
SPS measures would be applied only to the extent neces sary to protect human, animal, or plant life or 
health; would be based on scientific principles and,  where they exist, on international standards, 
guidelines, and recommendations; and, would not be mo re trade restrictive than required to achieve 
the appropriate level of protection applied in the Russian Federation.  SPS measures would not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions 
prevail, including between the territory of the Ru ssian Federation and that of other Members.  
SPS measures would not be applied in a manner whic h would constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade, and would not be maintained  without sufficient scien tific evidence, except as 
provided for in Article 5.7 of the WTO SPS Agreem ent.  The Working Part y took note of these 
commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 381 
 
 
  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)     
1063.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the legal basis for preferential 
tariffs or tariff exemptions for imports of pa rts and components used in "industrial assembly" 
programmes for motor vehicles and parts and components thereof was established by the 
CU Common External Tariff (CET) (as approved by the Decision of the Inter-State Council of 
EurAsEC No. 18 of 27 November 2009 and put into effect through CU Commission Decision No. 130 
of 27 November 2009) as well as in the relevant nati onal legislation.  He further explained that the 
following national laws and regulatio ns were relevant, in his view , for the consideration of the 
question of consistency of the Russian legislati on with the provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Trade-Related Investment Measures (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO TRIMs Agreement"):  
Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 30 December 1995 "On Production Sharing Agreements" (as last 
amended on 19 May 2010); Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional Measures 
to Attract Investments for Development of Domes tic Car Making"; Resolution of the Government of 
the Russian Federation No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "O n Additional Measures to Attract Investments for 
Development of Domestic Car Making" (currently  not applied in practice but still in force); 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 "On Introduction 
of Amendments to the Customs Tariff of the Ru ssian Federation with Respect to the Parts and 
Components Imported for the Purpose of "Indus trial Assembly'" (as last amended on 
8 December 2010); Joint Order No. 73/81/58n of th e Ministry of Economic Development and Trade 
of the Russian Federation (since May 2009, Ministry of Economic Development of the 
Russian Federation), the Ministry of Industry and Energy of the Russian Federation (MIT) and the 
Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (M OF) of 15 April 2005, "On Approval of the Order, 
Defining the Term "Industrial Asse mbly" and Establishing Conditions for Its Application to Imports 
to the Territory of the Russian Federation of Parts and Components for the Manufacture of Motor 
Vehicles (Tariff Positions 8701 - 8705) and Part s and Components Thereof", as last amended on 
24 December 2010 by Joint Order No. 678/1289/184n "On Amendments to the Order Defining the 
Term "Industrial Assembly" of Motor Vehicles a nd Establishing Conditions for its Application to 
Imports to the Territory of the Russian Federati on of Parts and Components for the Manufacture of 
Motor Vehicles (Tariff Positions 8701 - 8705) and Parts and Components Thereof". 
- Production Sharing Agreements 
1064.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 
30 December 1995 "On Production Sharing Agreem ents" (as last amended on 19 May 2010, 
hereinafter referred to as "Federal Law No. 225-FZ") set-out the legal framework for relations arising WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 382  
 
  in the course of Russian and foreign investment in search, exploration and mi ning of minerals in the 
Russian Federation.  A "production sharing ag reement" was an agreement in which the 
Russian Federation provided to an investor, in cons ideration for value received and for a limited term, 
exclusive rights to perform search, exploration, and mining of minerals in a subsoil plot specified in 
such agreement and any related work, and the inv estor undertook to perform the prescribed work at 
his own risk and expense.  The rights and obligations  of the parties to a production sharing agreement 
were governed by the Russian Federation's civil law.   The term of the agreement was defined by the 
parties in compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation applicable as of the date the 
agreement was concluded.  
1065.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that, according to the Russian legislation, 
no special tax regime regarding realization of production sharing agreements was established.  
Chapter 25 of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation stipulated the order of taxation for extraction of 
natural resources.  The Provisions of Chapter 25 applied during the implementation of production 
sharing agreements.  
1066.  Pursuant to Federal Law No. 225-FZ, an agre ement whose provisions had not entered into 
force within one year after signature of the agreem ent, would be terminated on the expiry of that 
period, i.e., the special procedure for calculati ng and paying taxes and fees established by the 
Tax Code and other acts of taxation of the Russian Federation for this agreem ent would not be applied 
and this field's exploration would be realized on common terms of taxation, without recourse to 
provisions of Federal Law No. 225-FZ.   
1067.  Federal Law No. 225-FZ also contained the requi rement that the Parties must include in 
such agreements an obligation to  buy Russian technical equipment for natural resources extraction, 
their transportation and processing accounting for no l ess than 70 per cent of total cost of equipment 
and materials, purchased in each particular calendar year, for execution of works under the agreement.  
The other obligation of investors was to employ c itizens of the Russian Federation, their proportion 
being no less than 80 per cent of all employed  personnel engaged in realization of a production 
sharing agreement.  This obligation was established by  Article 7 of the Law.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation added that provisions of paragr aph 11 of point 2 of Article 7 of Federal Law 
No. 225-FZ provided that in case of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, all provisions 
that contradicted the principles of the WTO, would become invalid or would be brought into accordance with the above-mentioned pr inciples.  He also clarified, that the Federal Law in question 
had not imposed local content requirements on agreem ents concluded before its entry into force.  
Similarly, it had not changed respective provision s in such agreements, if they were there.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 383 
 
 
  In addition, the representative of the Russian Federa tion informed Members that since the adoption of 
Federal Law No. 225-FZ no new production shar ing agreements had been concluded.   
1068.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration also noted that some production 
sharing agreements had been concluded before th e entry into force of Federal Law No. 225-FZ.  
These were: 
a. Production sharing agreement on Chayvinskoe , Odoptinskoe and Arkutun-Daginskoe oil and 
gas condensing fields (Sakhalin-1).  This agreement had been concluded in 1995 and was 
valid for 25 years (extendable); 
b. Production sharing agreement on Piltun-As tokhskoe and Lunskoe oil and gas fields 
(Sakhalin-2).  This agreement had been c oncluded in 1994 and was valid for 25 years 
(extendable); and 
c. Production sharing agreement on oil-fi eld development and oil production on 
Kharyaguinskoe oilfield.  This agreement had been concluded in 1995.  It was valid for 
20 years and could be extended for a further 13 years. 
1069.  Although the agreement on exploration of the sout hern part of the Samotlorskoe oil and gas 
condensing field had been concluded between the Government of the Russian Federation, 
the Administration of Hanty-Mansijsk region and Jo int Stock Company "Samoltorneftegaz" it had not 
been implemented, and instead the normal invest ment and tax regime applied to this project. 
1070.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that Federal Law No. 225-FZ was 
applicable to agreements concluded prior to the entry into force of Federal Law No. 225-FZ only to 
the extent that the law did not conflict with the provisions of these production sharing agreements.  
The production sharing agreements that had been c oncluded prior to the entry into force of the 
Federal Law did not contain either local content or export performance requirements.  However, two 
of those agreements (Sakhalin-2 and Kharyaguins koe) contained recommendations concerning the use 
of Russian equipment, but neither agreement provided for sanctions or penalties if the investor did not follow these recommendations and did not use such equipment. 
1071.  One Member noted that in the event that any of the three production sharing agreements listed 
in paragraph [1068] were rene wed and/or extended, the Russian Federation should commit to 
eliminating any provisions which were TRIMs non-co mpliant.  This Member be lieved that this should 
be noted in paragraph [1069].  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that 
any additional commitment was redundant since this w as already covered by paragraph [1090] of this 
Report.   
- Domestic Motor Vehicle and Components Industry WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 384  
 
  1072.  The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that since 2005 the Russian Federation 
had imposed a system for attraction of investme nts for development of domestic car making.  
This system was based on the Resolution of the Go vernment of the Russian Federation No. 166 of 
29 March 2005 "On Introduction of Amendments to the Customs Tariff of the Russian Federation 
with Respect to the Parts and Components Imported fo r the Purpose of "Industrial Assembly'" (as last 
amended on 8 December 2010) (hereinafter refe rred to as "Resolution No. 166"); Joint Order 
No. 73/81/58n of 15 April 2005, "On Approval of  the Order, Defining the Term "Industrial 
Assembly" and Establishing Conditions for Its App lication to Imports to the Territory of the 
Russian Federation of Parts and Components for the Manufacture of Motor Vehicles (Tariff Positions  
8701 - 8705) and Parts and Components Thereo f" (as last amended on 24 December 2010) 
(hereinafter referred to as "Order No. 73/81/58n"); Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 "On Customs Tariff of the Russian Federation and 
Customs Nomenclature, Applied During Execution of  Foreign Economic Activity"; Resolution of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 839  of 30 December 2006 "On Introduction of 
Amendments to the Customs Tariff of the Russian  Federation with Respect to the Automobile Car 
Parts Imported for the Purpose of "Industrial Assembling" and Components and Raw materials 
Imported for the Purpose of Airplane Engines Pr oducing" (as last amended on 8 December 2010) 
(hereinafter referred to as "Resolution No. 839").  With the establishment of the Customs Union, the 
CU CET provided for preferential tariffs or tariff exemptions for imports of parts and components 
used in "industrial assembly" programmes for mo tor vehicles and parts and components thereof as 
referred to in paragraph [1063].   
1073.  The above-mentioned normative legal acts becam e the basis for investment agreements, 
replacing previously applied Presidential Decr ee No. 135 of 5 Februa ry 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for Developmen t of Domestic Car Making", and Government 
Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Add itional Measures to Attract Investments for 
Development of Domestic Car Making" that permitt ed automobile and car parts production within a 
"bonded warehouse" under special conditions.  Accord ing to available information, no agreements 
under the latter acts which were based on the system of bonded warehouse were currently in force.   
1074.  In response to a question from a Member of th e Working Party regarding Resolution No. 166, 
the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Resolution No. 166 provided for development 
by authorised government bodies of a procedure for defining the term "industrial assembly" and 
establishing rules for its application to imports of parts and components for "industrial assembly" of motor vehicles (tariff positions 8701 - 8705) and parts and components thereof.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 385 
 
 
  1075.  Pursuant to Resolution No. 166, the ME D, the MIT, and the MOF issued Order 
No. 73/81/58n.  Order No. 73/81/58n (as last  amended on 17 December 2009) established an 
investment regime (hereinafter referred to as th e "Auto Investment Program No. 1"), according to 
which the "industrial assembly" of motor vehicles w as defined as a system of batch production on the 
basis of technological processes, achieving a producti on capacity of no less than 25,000 units per year 
in double-shift operation.  Under Order No. 73/81 /58n, an investment agreement concluded by a 
Russian legal entity with the MED under Auto Investment Program No. 1 was the basis for 
importation of parts and components at preferential tariff rates for "industrial assembly" of motor vehicles and parts and components thereof.  Such an investment agreement also established specific 
commitments for the reduction over time of th e importation of the a bove-mentioned parts and 
components at preferential tariff rates for "industr ial assembly".  Most-favoured nation tariffs were 
levied on all imports above the agreed-upon level of imports qualifying for preferential tariffs or tariff 
exemptions.  The agreement established other rights and obligations of the parties, i.e., liability for 
failure to meet obligations under the agreement,  validity of the agreement (seven years - for 
enterprises already in operation and eight years - for newly established enterprises that produce motor 
vehicles; seven years - for production of engines, gearboxes and drive axles; and five years - for 
production of any other car part and component for motor vehicles), and the basis for its change and 
cancellation.   
1076.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that under Auto Investment Program 
No. 1, Russian producers of motor vehicles classi fied under HS 8701 - 8705, engaged in assembly of 
motor vehicles and parts and components thereof, qua lified for preferential tariffs or tariff exemptions 
for imports of parts and components used in th e production of those motor vehicles or parts and 
components thereof, provided they met requirements that include the following:  a planned production 
capacity of not less than 25,000 units per year and, certain production activities taking place in Russia 
(e.g., stamping and painting) not la ter than 18 months (for Russian legal entities modernising existing 
production capacities) or 30 months (for Russian legal entities establishing new production capacities) 
after the entry into force of the agreement, and imported parts and components not to exceed 
70 per cent of the value (excluding the value of  bodies for motor vehicles classified under HS 8707) 
of parts and components used in a year not late r than 54 months after meeting the above-mentioned 
requirement on performing certain production activities.   
1077.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration noted that as of 23 June 2011 
31 agreements on the assembly of motor vehicles and 44 agreements on the assembly of parts and components of motor vehicles negotiated under the sy stem of "industrial assembly" were signed under 
Auto Investment Program No. 1.  [Table 44] provi ded for an exhaustive list of agreements concluded WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 386  
 
  under Auto Investment Program No. 1.  In response to a question from a Member, the representative 
of the Russian Federation clarified that there was no legal linkage between ag reements on investments 
in "industrial assembly" of motor vehicles and agre ements on investments in "industrial assembly" of 
parts and components thereof.  In response to  another question, the representative of the 
Russian Federation informed the Members that the last agreement under Auto Investment Program 
No. 1 was signed on 22 June 2011 pursuant to the sp ecial provisions set-out in Article 3.1 of Order 
No. 73/81/58n.  He also confirmed that no other agreement under Auto Investment Program No. 1, 
including pursuant to the special provisions set-out in Article 3.1 of Order No. 73/81/58n, would be signed after 23 June 2011. 
1078.  The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that under Auto Investment Program 
No. 1, the majority of the agreements on investme nts in "industrial assembly" of motor vehicles or 
parts and components thereof had been signed befo re 2008, and that no new agreements under Auto 
Investment Program No. 1 could be  concluded after 23 June 2011.  He  noted that, as with many WTO 
Members, in 2009, the global financial crisis had caused a significant decline in the production and 
sales of motor vehicles in the Russian Federation, wh ich made it difficult for enterprises to meet their 
obligations under their respective agreements and to take advantage of the preferential tariffs or tariff 
exemptions.  Therefore, the Russian Federation w as considering extending for two years the duration 
of the tariff exemption provided to enterprises that  had concluded investment agreements under Auto 
Investment Program No. 1 to manufacture motor ve hicles or parts and components thereof in Russia 
before 1 January 2009.   
1079.  Responding to a Member's question, the represen tative of the Russian Federation explained, 
that an investor's enforceable obligations under ag reements concluded pursuant to Auto Investment 
Program No. 1, were limited to using parts and components imported under preferential tariff 
treatment only for the purpose of "industrial asse mbly"; providing documents reporting on, among 
other things, capital investments and the use of imports of parts and co mponents for "industrial 
assembly", at regular intervals; and setting-up at its plant the serial performance of operations as agreed (e.g. welding, painting, etc.).  If the inv estor failed to implement one or several of these 
obligations, the investor was given a transitional pe riod in order to come into compliance with the 
relevant provisions of the agreement.  If the in vestor failed to come into compliance during the 
transitional period, the investor had to pay MFN tariff rates on imports of parts and components of 
motor vehicles and/or parts and components thereof from the date the violations were revealed.  
In case of early termination of the agreement, MF N rates were applied from the date of such 
termination.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 387 
 
 
  1080.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that Order No. 73/81/58n had been 
amended by Joint Order No. 678/1289/184n of 24  December 2010 "On Amendments to the Order 
Defining the Term "Industrial Assembly" of Moto r Vehicles and Establishing Conditions for its 
Application to Imports to the Territory of the Russian Federation of Parts and Components for the 
Manufacture of Motor Vehicles (Tariff Positions  8701 - 8705) and Parts and Components Thereof" 
(hereinafter referred to as "Order No. 678/1289/ 184n").  Order No. 678/1289/184n provided for 
agreements with manufacturers of motor vehicl es and manufacturers of parts and components of 
motor vehicles aimed at establishing the conditions  for those manufacturers to import parts and 
components of motor vehicles and parts and components thereof at a preferential tariff rate (hereinafter referred to as "Auto Investment Progr am No. 2").  With regard to agreements to 
manufacture motor vehicles (concluded and implem ented in accordance with Annex 1 of Order 
No. 73/81/58n, as amended by Order No. 678/1289/184n), in order to have preferential tariffs apply to 
imported parts and components under Auto Investment  Program No. 2, the manufacturer had to meet 
the requirements that include, the following:  (1) to gradually establish an annual production capacity 
of 300,000 units (for Russian legal entities estab lishing new production capacities for motor vehicles 
other than trucks) or 350,000 units (for Russi an legal entities modernizing existing production 
capacities for motor vehicles other than trucks) or  30,000 units (for Russian legal entities either 
establishing new or modernizing exis ting production capacities for trucks ); (2) to engage in certain 
manufacturing operations in the Russian Federation (e .g., stamping operations); (3) to establish and/or 
modernise Research and Development centres in the Ru ssian Federation; (4) to install domestically 
produced engines and/or gear boxes into at least 30  per cent of the motor vehicles produced by this 
manufacturer in Russia (or into at least 200,000 motor vehicles if production volume exceeded 1 million units a year); and (5) to gradually reach a specified minimum average annual level of production localization in the Russian Federation.  The requirement to ensure a minimum average 
annual level of production localization was phased-i n over time until the final level of 60 per cent was 
required starting from the sixth year from the date of entry into force of the investment agreement.  
During the five preceding years, the average a nnual level of production lo calization required was 
35 per cent, 40 per cent, 45 per cent, 50 per cent a nd 55 per cent respectively (for a Russian legal 
entity modernizing existing production capacity), or 30 per cent for the fourth year and 40 per cent for 
the fifth year (for a Russian legal entity establishing new production capacities).  Order 
No. 73/81/58n, as amended by Order No. 678/1289/184n , set-out time periods for achieving each of 
the above-mentioned requirements.   
1081.  With respect to investment for the assembly of  parts and components of motor vehicles in the 
Russian Federation (concluded and implemented in accordance with Annex 2 of Order No. 73/81/58n, 
as amended by Order No. 678/1289/184n), the represen tative of the Russian Fe deration explained that WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 388  
 
  under investment agreements concluded under Auto  Investment Program No. 2, manufacturers of 
parts and components for motor vehicles had to meet  requirements that include the following:  for 
each type of part or component, to perform certain operations in the Russian Federation 
(e.g., mechanical processing), to reach a mini mum required level of average annual production 
localization, and, for certain parts and components, to use certain Russian products (e.g., for engines, 
to use Russian crankshaft, cylinder blocks and cylinder heads). 
1082.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that all agreements to manufacture 
motor vehicles under Auto Investment Program No. 2 had to be concluded and signed by 1 June 2011.  
Twelve such investment agreements had been concluded under Auto Investment Program No. 2 
(see list in [Table 42]) and no additional agreem ents with manufacturers of motor vehicles were 
authorised under Order No. 73/81/58n, as amende d by Order No. 678/1289/184n.  He further 
explained that investors who signed an investment  agreement for the same investment project, as 
indicated in [Table 42], in order to benefit from the preferential tariff treatment for imports of parts and components used in "industrial assembly", could meet the requirements set-out in paragraph 1.2, 
Annex 1 of Order No. 73/81/58n, as amended by Or der No. 678/1289/184n, collectively, i.e., despite 
their individual agreements with MED, these invest ors would not be required to meet each of those 
requirements individually but as a de facto  "consortium" as long as these investors were in such 
consortium under the same investment project.  With respect to manufacturers of parts and 
components of motor vehicles, companies with agre ements under Auto Investment Program No. 1 had 
the right to conclude agreements under Auto I nvestment Program No. 2 until 31 December 2011.  
Companies manufacturing parts and components of mo tor vehicles that did not have an agreement 
under Auto Investment Program No. 1, had the right to conclude an agreemen t under Auto Investment 
Program No. 2 until 31 December 2013.  To concl ude such an agreement, a company manufacturing 
parts and components of motor vehicles had to ha ve concluded in advance, but no later than by 
28 February 2011, a memorandum of understanding with the MED concerning its intention to 
conclude an agreement under Auto Investment Progr am No. 2, otherwise, this company could not 
conclude such an agreement.  The list of signed agreements to produce parts and components of motor 
vehicles under Auto Investment Program No. 2 as we ll as the list of companies manufacturing parts 
and components of motor vehicles having conc luded the above-mentioned memorandum of 
understanding were included in [Table 43].   
1083.  In response to a question from some Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that an important difference between Auto  Investment Program No. 1 and Auto Investment 
Program No. 2, was that Auto Investment Program  No. 2 was based on the amount of value added in 
the Russian Federation rather than the percentage of imported parts and com ponents of motor vehicles  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 389 
 
 
  that could be used.  Auto Investment Program No. 1 effectively limited the volume of parts and 
components of motor vehicles (goods) that could be imported and used in the assembly of an 
automobile to 70 per cent of all parts and co mponents (excluding the value of bodies for motor 
vehicles classified under HS 8707), thus imposing a 30 per cent local content requirement.  Auto Investment Program No. 2, took another appro ach.  Instead of limiting the percentage of parts 
and components of motor vehicles that could be im ported, Auto Investment Program No. 2 was based 
on an added value criterion that took into account a ll of the various factors that went into the 
production of a motor vehicle.  This criterion was based on the percentage of  the actual selling price 
of the automobile excluding VAT and excise tax.  While there was a requirement to produce certain 
components in the Russian Federation, a manufacturer could meet the value added criterion based on a wide range of inputs, including services, factor y operation, and other overhead expenses.  Although 
Auto Investment Program No. 2 required manufacture rs at the end of a transition period to meet a 
60 per cent added value requirement, the broad ba se for calculating value-added provided more 
flexibility to manufactures in their selection of parts and components and helped mitigate the TRIMs-inconsistent aspects of this programme.  In r esponse to a question from a Member regarding how 
much of the ex-factory price of an automobile c onsisted of the value of parts and components, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated th at, based on studies conducted in Russia and the 
United States, it was estimated that parts and co mponents accounted for approximately 50 per cent of 
the ex-factory price of an automobile.  He noted  that the ex-factory price was a price of the 
automobile located at the warehouse of the manufactur er that included VAT and other taxes and profit 
of the manufacturer. 
1084.  One Member expressed concern that the conditi ons of the Auto Investment Program No. 2 
were significantly more prescriptive and stringent as compared to the Auto Investment Program No. 1.  In this Member's view, the Auto Investment Program No. 2 would cause important 
displacement of third countries traditional suppliers to the Russian automotive market.  This Member 
requested the Russian Federation to undertake a co mmitment that WTO-incompatible elements of the 
Auto Investment Program No. 1 and Auto Investment Program No. 2 would be phased-out and no new WTO-incompatible Trade-Related Invest ment Measures would be introduced in the 
Russian Federation. 
1085.  In response to a question, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that under 
Auto Investment Program No. 2, the manufacturer was required to submit a report to the MED and the MIT confirming that imported parts and compone nts of motor vehicles and parts and components 
thereof were properly used and that the manufactur er met the other requirements of its investment 
agreement.  If a manufacturer failed to meet the re quirements set-out in the investment agreement, he WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 390  
 
  lost the right to import parts and component s under preferential tariffs until the relevant 
manufacturing process was brought into compliance with the investment agreement.  If the 
manufacturer used parts and/or components imported under preferential tariffs for purposes other than 
those specified in the investment agreement,  the agreement could be terminated and the 
most-favoured nation tariff rates would be assessed  on such parts and/or components.   
1086.  In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party about the "Concept of the 
Development of the Russian Car-Making Industry by 2020" (approved by the Order of the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation No. 319 of 23 April 2010, hereinafter referred to as 
"Order No. 319"), the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that Or der No. 319, which was 
being implemented at present, did not confer any bene fits in exchange for investment commitments.   
- Aircraft area 
1087.  In response to Members' concerns regarding the aircraft sector, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that Government Resolutio n No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues 
of Regulation of Temporary Imports of Forei gn Made Aircraft" had superseded Government 
Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1998 "On Additiona l Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in 
Russia" and had terminated the full exemption from customs duties and taxes for temporary import 
for aircraft, aircraft parts and engines and si mulators which were imported under investment 
agreements.  No investment agreements had b een concluded since the adoption of Government 
Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain I ssues of Regulation of Temporary Imports of 
Foreign Made Aircraft".  He clarified that Russian legislation did not impose local content 
requirements for the production of aircraft engi nes.  The Russian Federation confirmed that 
Government Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues of Regulation of Temporary 
Imports of Foreign Made Airc raft" was in full conformity with the provisions in the 
WTO TRIMs Agreement.  In response to a furthe r question from a Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation further explained that Resoluti on No. 839 lowered the rate of customs tariff in 
respect of components and raw materials imported for the purposes of airplane engines production irrespective of an investment agreement scheme.  Thus, in his view, this was simply a reduction in 
applied tariffs and not a measure c overed under the WTO TRIMs Agreement. 
- Diamonds 
1088.  In the response to a question from a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that his Government did not consider m easures related to the trade in diamonds to be  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 391 
 
 
  Trade-Related Investment Measures.  Informati on on special conditions for trade in diamonds was 
presented in the relevant sections of this Report. 
- Conclusion 
1089.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the use of goods produced in the 
Russian Federation accounting for 35 per cent of th e total ex-factory value of all components used 
under the Auto Investment Program No. 2 was cons idered as equivalent to the 60 per cent average 
annual level of production loca lization required in paragraph 1.2(d) of Annex 1 of Order 
No. 73/81/58n, which was calculated according to pa ragraph 1.6 of the same Annex.  Given that the 
60 per cent requirement did not appl y until the sixth year of the inv estment agreement, each year, the 
requirement to use goods produced in the Russian Federation would apply pr oportionally until that 
maximum level of local content was required.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that this equivalence would be recognized  when assessing the fulfilment by an investor of 
the requirements under paragraph 1.2(d) of Anne x 1 of Order No. 73/81/58n.  However, this 
equivalence would not exempt investors from the obligation to implement other requirements of 
Order No. 73/81/58n, including but not limited to ensuring a minimum annual production capacity, or 
creating or modernising Research and Developm ent centres, or fulfilling specific local content 
requirements such as for engines.  The Wo rking party took note of these commitments. 
1090.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, from the date of the accession of 
the Russian Federation to the WTO, the Russian Fe deration would ensure that all laws, regulations 
and other measures applied in the Russian Federation th at are related to issues covered by this section, 
whether adopted by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, would be consistent 
with the provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related 
Investment Measures, except for measures applied under Auto Investment Program No. 1 and Auto 
Investment Program No. 2 and investment ag reements concluded under these programmes - as 
described and defined in paragraphs [1072] to [ 1086].  With regard to Auto Investment Program 
No. 2, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the amount of any requirement to 
purchase or use domestically produced parts and components, would not exceed 25 per cent of the 
ex-factory price of the automobiles annually.  With  regard to manufacture of components under Auto 
Investment Program No. 2, the amount of any requirement to purchase or use domestically produced 
parts and components would not exceed 25 per cent of the total aggregate value of inputs of the manufacturer of car components annually.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would engage in consultati ons with interested WTO Members, no later 
than 1 July 2016, regarding WTO-consistent measur es that could be applied in connection with its WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 392  
 
  Auto Investment Program No. 1 and Auto Investment Program No. 2 and would notify 
WTO Members of any measures planned to replace  the WTO-inconsistent measures applied under 
these programmes at least six months prior to the adoption of such new measures.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation confirmed that all WTO-in consistent measures, including preferential tariffs 
or tariff exemptions, applied pursuant to Auto Investment Program No. 1 and Auto Investment 
Program No. 2 and agreements concluded unde r these programmes would be eliminated by 
1 July 2018.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration also confirmed that the Russian Federation 
would not conclude any new agreements with in vestors in any sector that contained provisions 
contrary to the WTO Agreement, including th e WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Investment 
Measures.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Special Economic Zones  
1091.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the establishment of special economic 
zones (SEZs) was aimed primarily at fostering high technology industries; expanding sources of investments; and, promoting the development of to urism and transportation infrastructure.  In the 
Russian Federation, Federal Law No. 116-FZ of 22 July 2005 "On Special Economic Zones in the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 25 Dece mber 2009) was the basic law on SEZs, with two 
exceptions for zones established before its enactme nt in the Kaliningrad and Magadan regions.  
These two SEZs had continued to operate on the basi s of two other laws pending expiration of the 
contracts established under the provisions of the rele vant law.  Once the contracts expired, Federal 
Law No. 116-FZ would apply in the Kaliningrad or Magadan as the case may be.  The two specific 
laws were Federal Law No. 16-FZ of 10 January  2006 "On the Special Economic Zone of the 
Kaliningrad Region and on Amending some Legislativ e Acts of the Russian Federation" (as last 
amended on 30 October 2007), (whi ch replaced Federal Law No. 13- FZ of 22 January 1996 "On the 
Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region" ); and, Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 
"On the Special Economic Zone in the Magadan Region" (as last amended on 24 November 2008).  
Thus, currently, each of these three Laws continued to be the relevant le gislation governing the 
operation of SEZs in the Russian Federation.  
1092.  Members requested further information on th e establishment and operation of the SEZs, as 
well as information to help them assess whether th e zones that could be established under Federal 
Law No. 116-FZ "On Special Economic Zone", and in  Kaliningrad and Magada n, were consistent 
with WTO requirements.  They asked how the WTO obligations of the Russian Federation would be 
enforced in the SEZs after accession, and in particular, whether Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 would be applied, and whether incentives granted to  firms, which were established in the SEZs were  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 393 
 
 
  or would be based on export performance or local content requirements.  Other issues raised by 
Members in this connection concerned the need to restore any tariffs or taxes from imported goods or 
inputs used in the manufacturing process to goods eventually exported to the rest of the 
Russian Federation or the territory of other CU Pa rties.  One Member sought information about the 
provisions of the law of the Russian Federatio n which provided that goods manufactured in 
Kaliningrad and Magadan from inputs eligible for ta riff and/or tax exemptions were considered to 
have transformed imported inputs sufficiently to eliminate the need to pay the duties and taxes 
originally exempted when the inputs were importe d.  Another Member noted that no level of 
transformation would be sufficient to eliminate the n eed to restore exempted duties and taxes, as rules 
of origin operated between countries, not parts of  countries.  These Members noted that Federal Law 
No. 116-FZ required the payment of exempted duti es and taxes when the manufactured product was 
sold to the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation.  Other Members sought information 
on what other benefits, if any, in terms of tax exem ptions or otherwise, were available to firms that 
located in the SEZs.  A description of the provisions  for firms located in Kaliningrad and Magadan 
SEZ was also requested.   
- Basic Law on SEZs 
1093.  In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation explaine d that Federal Law  
No. 116-FZ "On Special Economic Zones" had been  the legal basis for establishing SEZs on the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation since 2005.  As last amended on 25 December 2009, it 
provided for four types of SEZs:  manufacturing zon es, technological parks, recreation zones, and port 
zones.   
(a) Manufacturing SEZs were aimed at production and reprocessing of finished products.  It was 
assumed that according to respective contracts, th e investments within the first year would not 
be less than €1 million and total investment would amount to at least €3 million.   
(b) SEZs of engineering and innovation type (tec hnological parks) were aimed at creation of 
incentives for inventions and realization of new technologies.  No minimum investment 
funding was required for this type of SEZ.  
(c) Recreation zones were created in order to foster development of tourism and 
sanatorium-resort activity (construction, recons truction, and operation of travel industry 
facilities, facilities for sanatorium-resort therap y, medical rehabilitation and recreation, as 
well as tourist activity and activity related to exploitation and utiliza tion of waters, peloids 
and other natural remedial resources, including sanatorium-resort therapy, disease prevention, medical rehabilitation, recreation and industrial bottling of mineral waters).  No minimum 
investment funding was required for this type of SEZ.   
(d) Creation of port SEZs was aimed at enhancing conditions for construction and modernization 
of the infrastructure of sea ports, airports and river ports to stimulate port economic activity 
and port services, as well as the development a nd expansion of port facilities by means of 
foreign and national direct investments.    
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 394  
 
  1094.  He added that once a port SEZ was established, i nvestors could apply for residency, i.e., to be 
registered as a legal entity or individual entr epreneur as provided for in Federal Law No. 116-FZ 
eligible for a special tax regime and other conditio ns more favourable than those available to firms 
and entrepreneurs in the rest of the customs territo ry, and conclude contracts that specified the terms 
of their participation as "residents" in the zones.  According to the respective contracts, a resident of 
such an SEZ, the legal entities or individual entrepre neurs eligible for the special tax regime and other 
conditions more favourable than those available to fi rms and entrepreneurs in the rest of the customs 
territory, undertook to invest at least €10 million wh en constructing the infrastructure units of a new 
sea port, and at least €3 million when reconstructing the infrastructure units of sea, river or airport.  Residents of port SEZs also had to provide to the customs authorities guarantees for payments of 
duties and taxes.  The security for such paymen ts of duties and taxes could not be less than: 
- RUB 30 million when conducting the port-relate d activity associated with the warehousing of 
any goods along with storage of, wholesale or stock-exchange trading in them, including 
excise goods or mineral raw material; 
- RUB 10 million when conducting the port-relate d activity associated with the warehousing of 
goods which were not excise goods or mineral raw material, along with storage of or 
wholesale stock-exchange trading in them; or 
- RUB 2.5 million when conducting other port-related activity. 
 
 Firms engaged in the extraction of minerals, steelmaking or the manufacture of goods subject 
to excise taxes, with a few exceptions, including the manufacture of automobiles and motorcycles, 
could not locate in the SEZs.  The Government of the Russian Federation could define other types of 
prohibited activities in a SEZ according to the national legislation.   
1095.  The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that within the authority granted 
by Federal Law No. 116-FZ, the Government of the Russian Federation could establish SEZs, other 
than port SEZs, only on land plots that were State and municipal property.  Generally, all types of 
SEZs were established by Government Resolu tion after a tendering process, although until 
1 January 2015 and, under exceptional circumst ances, the Government could establish an SEZ 
directly, without such a process.  Except for port  zones, SEZs were established for a 20-year term 
without extension.  Port zones were established for a 49-year period, also without extension.  
Upon expiration of the 20-year period for manufact uring zones, technological parks, and recreation 
zones, and of the 49-year period for port zones,  the SEZs would be liquidated and general customs 
and a tax regime would be applied on the former territory of th e SEZs.  Under these circumstances, or 
if the time period provided for in the contract of a SEZ resident expired, imported goods which had 
been placed under the customs procedure of free customs zone would return to normal customs 
procedures within three months and would have to be exported or the exempted taxes and tariffs 
would have to be paid.  The investment goods (i .e., means of production) of residents in these  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 395 
 
 
  circumstances would be considered to be goods of the CU and payment of the previously exempted 
taxes and tariffs was not required.  Moreover,  early termination of a SEZ could occur only 
(a) to protect the life and health of the population, cultural values and the environment, or to provide 
for the defence of the country and security of the State; (b) if within a three-year period of its 
establishment there had been no agreements concluded with potential residents to operate in the zone; 
or (c) if there had been no relevant activity by resi dents within the zone for a three-year period.   
1096.  With a view to implementing the provisions  of Federal Law No. 116-FZ, pursuant to 
Presidential Decree No. 1107 of 5 October 2009, the Ministry of Economic Development (MED) 
coordinated and administered the activity of all SEZs  within the Russian Federation jointly with local 
Governments.  In addition, each SEZ established a supervisory board to register residents, to carry out 
the day-to-day administration and management of the individual zones, and to ensure that the terms of 
operation laid out in Federal Law No. 116-FZ and the individual contracts signed with residents were 
adhered to.   
1097.  The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members, that following the first 
tender conducted in accordance with Federal Law No . 116-FZ in 2005, six regi ons had been permitted 
to establish a SEZ regime:  four technological parks (in Moscow (Zelenograd) and Moscow Region 
(Dubna), Saint-Petersburg and Toms k); and, two SEZs of the manufacturing type (in Tatarstan 
(Elabuga) and Lipetsk region).  The respective Reso lutions of the Government Nos. 779-784 "On the 
Creation of these Zones" were issued on 21 D ecember 2005.  These SEZs became operative after the 
conclusion of contracts between the MED (the Fe deral Executive power body designated to manage 
the zones) and respective local Governments.  The main specialization of these zones was the 
following: 
- manufacturing of home electronics (in particul ar, refrigerators) in Lipetsk region zone; 
- manufacturing of cars and their components, a dvanced technology products in petrochemical 
sphere in Elabuga zone; 
- development of information and nuclear technologies in Dubna zone; 
- development of micro- and nano-electronics in Zelenograd zone; 
- development of advanced technology pr oducts in St.-Petersburg zone; and  
- development of new materials, bio-nanotec hnologies and medical technologies in Tomsk 
zone. 
 1098.  Subsequently, he continued, additional SEZs had been establis hed by Resolutions of the 
Government, including eight recreation zones (in Stavropol region; Kaliningrad region; Irkutsk 
region; Krasnodar region; Altai Re public; Altai region; Republic of Buryatiya; and, the North 
Caucasian Federal District), one additional manufac turing zone in Samara and three Port SEZs in 
Khabarovsk region, Ulyanovsk and Murmansk.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 396  
 
  1099.  The representative of the Ru ssian Federation emphasized that Federal Law No. 116-FZ did 
not establish any special regime for foreign investments within the SEZs that was different from the 
regime in force in the rest of the Russian territory, and foreign i nvested firms irrespective of the 
percentage of foreign participati on could be registered as residents of the zones subject to fulfilment 
of respective requirements applied on a non-discriminat ory basis to all applicants.  Once registered, 
they were equally eligible for the benefits av ailable to domestically invested residents.  
The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the provisions for registration as a SEZ 
resident were contained in Articles 12-31 of Fede ral Law No. 116-FZ.  Legal Persons intending to be 
registered as residents must submit an applicati on including information on the intended activities of 
the applicant in the SEZ, the area and type of la nd required, and the volume of capital investment 
contemplated, as well as copies of the certificate of State registration and tax registration of the 
applicant, and constituent documents.  Additional documents were required in the following cases:  
- For application on activities in port SEZs:  info rmation confirming receipt of a security for 
payment of customs duties and taxes; a copy  of the activity licence if required under the 
legislation of the Russian Federation; and,  documents supporting the data regarding 
acceptance by the customs body of security for payment of customs duties and taxes.   
- For application on activities in recreation zon es, other documents could be requested in 
accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation. 
 
 The applicant must also submit a business plan and a positive evaluation of the plan by a bank 
or other credit organization meeting criteria establishe d by the Government of the Russian Federation.  
If the SEZ managing authorities accepted the applicati on, an "Agreement on Exercising Activities" in 
the SEZ would be developed.  It was this Agreement that established the terms of the resident status 
of the applicant in the SEZ.  Failure to live up to the terms of the Agreement was grounds for 
termination of the resident status.  Details on th e development and, as necessary, termination, of the 
"Agreement on Exercising Activities" were containe d in Federal Law No. 116-FZ.  He further stated 
that an exhaustive list of documents were required for registration as a resident of an SEZ, except for 
recreation zones.   
1100.  Foreign legal entities could not become SEZ residents unless they were registered as a 
Russian commercial organization, within the muni cipal border of the territory where the SEZ had 
been established, in accordance with the national legisl ation of the Russian Federation.  Both residents 
and non-residents of SEZs could conduct business ac tivity on the territory of the SEZs, except for port 
SEZs, in compliance with laws of the Russian Fe deration (Article 10.3 of  Federal Law No. 116-FZ), 
however, only residents of SEZs could enjoy tax and other incentives (Article 37 of Federal Law 
No. 116-FZ), including exemptions from customs duti es, taxes, bans and other restrictions of 
economic character established in accordance with  the Russian legislation (e.g. trade remedy  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 397 
 
 
  measures) for the goods imported into the territory  of the SEZ under the regime of a free customs 
zone.  Such incentives would be granted automatical ly to all residents of the SEZ.  Tax incentives 
included expedited procedures for acceptance of e xpenditures for research and development activities; 
elimination of the 30 per cent limitation on transfer of losses to subsequent ta x periods; reduction of 
single social tax for the residents of technological  parks; and, a five-year exemption from land and 
property taxes.  Residents of the SEZs were not entitled to have branches and representative offices 
outside the territory of the SEZ where the resident  was registered (Article 10.4 of Federal Law 
No. 116-FZ), in order to prevent the possibility of  a SEZ resident from evading tax obligations and 
from becoming, in effect, an offshore entity that  could use the SEZ tax and tariff preferences for 
purposes not connected with legitimate activities in a SEZ.   
1101.  In response to a question from a Member, the re presentative of the Russian Federation stated 
that Federal Law No. 116-FZ did not impose any expor t performance requirements and did not restrict 
access of imported goods to the territory of the SEZs .  He explained that after the accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO, the Russian Fede ration would enforce its WTO obligations in its 
SEZs. 
1102.  The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r explained the main features of the regime 
of a free customs zone as applied to goods imported into the territory of th e SEZs, in accordance with 
the provisions of Article 37 of Federal Law No. 116-FZ.  For goods of both foreign and Russian 
origin located and used within an SEZ territory, the customs procedure of free customs zone was 
applied by the customs authoriti es in accordance with the CU Cust oms Code.  Customs duties, VAT 
and excise taxes, and non-tariff restrictions (other than prohibitions of goods  not permitted within the 
Russian Federation) were not applied to imports .  Export duties, prohibitions and restrictions, 
otherwise applied to goods exported from the Russia n Federation, were not applied to exports from 
the Russian Federation to the SEZs.  The list of goo ds subject to such exemptions was approved by 
the customs authorities for each SEZ resident, according to the declared activity of such resident.  
The goods could be imported to the territory of  manufacturing zones and technological parks under 
the regime of a free customs zone, if they were used either for production and reprocessing, or for 
technological and innovation activity respectively.   
1103.  The representative of the Russian Federation emphasized that goods imported by the residents 
of a SEZ and then released, without further processing, for free circulation into the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation were subject to import duties, VAT, and excise taxes, and if these goods had been subject to bans and other restricti ons of economic character established in accordance 
with the Russian legislation, these bans or other restrictions would again apply (as provided for by WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 398  
 
  Article 37 of Federal Law No. 116-FZ).  Article 37.19 of Federal Law No. 116-FZ also provided that 
when imported goods were used by the SEZ reside nts in a production process and the final products 
were released for free circulation into the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation, the 
import duties, VAT, and excise taxes still needed to  be paid for the imported goods that were 
incorporated in the final processed goods.  This was done without taking into  account any change in 
tariff line designation through substantial transformation, quantity of local content in the final good, 
or the value and the quantity added as a result of  processing.  In such cases, for the purpose of 
calculation of the customs duties to be paid, th e customs value and the quantity of imported goods 
being incorporated in the processed goods was determ ined as of the date of placement of the imported 
goods under the customs regime of a free customs zone or the customs value and quantity of processed goods as of the date of their release for free circulation.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation further described the legal frame work and main conditions of operation of the 
SEZs in the Magadan and in the Kaliningrad regions.  
- Kaliningrad SEZ 
1104.  The representative of the Russian Federation in formed Members that Federal Law No. 16-FZ 
of 10 January 2006 "On the Special Economic Zone  of the Kaliningrad Region and on Amending 
some Legislative Acts of the Russian Federati on" entered into force on 1 April 2006, replacing 
Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 January 1996 "On th e Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad 
Region" (as amended on 22 July 2005).  As forese en by Federal Law No. 16-FZ, the Kaliningrad SEZ 
was created for a period of 25 years.  The Kaliningrad  SEZ would cease to exist on the basis of a new 
Federal Law that would be adopted after the expira tion of this 25-year period, but would enter into 
force not earlier than one year after its official publication.   
1105.  Federal Law No. 16-FZ envisaged the functioning within the territory of the Kaliningrad 
region of a customs regime of a free customs zone.  Foreign goods were imported to and used in the 
territory of the SEZ without payment of the customs duties and taxes and were not subject to bans and 
other restrictions of an economic character esta blished in accordance with the Russian legislation 
(e.g., trade remedies).  Goods imported by the residents of the Kaliningrad SEZ and then released for free circulation into the rest of the customs territo ry of the Russian Federation were subject to import 
duties, VAT, and excise taxes, and, if these goods had b een subject to bans and other restrictions of an 
economic character, established in accordance with the Russian legislation, these bans and restrictions 
would again apply (as provided for by Article 13 of Federal Law No. 16-FZ and the Customs Code of 
the Russian Federation).  In reply to a ques tion of one Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that the excise and VA T exemptions for imports of excisable goods had  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 399 
 
 
  been suspended and, then at a later stage re-introduced.  Excisable goods could not be imported to the 
territory of the Kaliningrad SEZ under this regime.  The Government of the Russian Federation had 
the right to define other goods that could not enjoy this regime as well.  The current list of such goods 
was defined by the Resolution of the Government No . 186 of 31 March 2006 (as last amended by the 
Resolution of the Government No. 1002 as of 8 December 2010).  According to the current tax legislation (Article 181 of the Tax Code), car spar e parts and components, as well as kits for assembly 
were not considered as excisable goods.  
1106.  With the exception of some contracts concluded under Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 
22 January 1996 (see paragraph [ 1108]), Federal Law No. 16-FZ mandated that goods, processed in 
the Kaliningrad SEZ from imported products (materia ls, raw materials, components, parts) and 
released for free circulation into the rest of the Russian Federation, were subject to customs duties, 
and taxes applied to the imported goods used in ma nufacturing of the processed goods.  In such cases, 
for the purposes of calculation of the customs duties to be paid, the customs value and the quantity of 
imported goods being part of the processed goods were determined by the date of placement of the 
imports under the customs regime of a free customs zone.  The rates of such duties applied were 
determined on the basis of the country of orig in of the imported goods used in processing.  
When goods used in processing were imported from di fferent countries, the MFN rate was applied in 
case of changes to any of the first four digits of the HS code, as the result of processing, or, if the 
customs value of the goods imported from different countries was the same.  Customs duties rates for 
the country of origin of imported goods with the hi ghest customs value would be used in other cases.  
Customs clearance fees were not levied with respec t to goods imported into the Kaliningrad region, 
under the customs regime of a free customs zone, or w ith respect to products of reprocessing of those 
imported goods, released for free circulation into the rest of the territory of the Russian Federation. 
1107.  The representative of the Russian Federation further explained that both residents and 
non-residents of the SEZ could conduct business activ ity in the territory of the SEZ, however, only 
residents of the SEZ could enjoy tax and other in centives that were provided for by Federal Law 
No. 16-FZ.  In terms of investments, this Federa l Law did not establish any restrictions based on the 
origin of capital of a legal entity.  To become a SEZ resident, a legal entity had to be established in 
accordance with the Russian legislation and register ed as a resident in the Kaliningrad region; goods 
were required to be manufactured and investments ma de within the territory of the Kaliningrad SEZ; 
and, the investment project of the legal entity had to meet the requirements described below.  
In accordance with Federal Law No. 16-FZ, the following legal persons could conduct business 
activity (including investing) in the territory of Kaliningrad SEZ, but could not become SEZ residents: WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 400  
 
  - legal persons, who paid taxes according to the special tax regimes, as provided for by the Tax 
Code of the Russian Federation (for example, simp lified tax regime or tax regime related to 
the realization of production sharing agreements); and 
- financial organizations, including credit orga nizations, insurance companies and professional 
participants of a securities market.  
 The investment projects of prospective residents of the Kaliningrad SEZ were required to 
meet the following requirements:  
- be performed within the territory of the Kaliningrad region;  
- not be aimed at exploitation of crude oil and natural gas and rendering services in these 
spheres, not be aimed at manufacture of alcoholic products, tob acco goods and other 
excisable goods (except cars and motorcycles), the list of which was established by the 
Resolution of the Government No. 185, as of 31 March 2006;  
- not be aimed at wholesale and retail trade, at repair of household devices and objects of 
personal use, or  at rendering of financial services; and  
- capital investments must not be less than RUB 150 million and must be made within the time 
period not exceeding three years from the date of investors registration as a resident of SEZ. 
According to Article 9 of Federal Law No. 16-FZ, the customs regime of a free customs zone 
was applied to foreign goods importe d into and used in the territory of the Kaliningrad region by the 
juridical persons registered in the Kaliningrad re gion (regardless of whether these juridical persons 
were residents of the Kaliningrad SEZ or not).  To prevent the re-exportation of goods imported free 
of customs duties without further processing from the Kaliningrad region to the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation, customs control over goods entering the territory of the Kaliningrad region was performed by the cu stoms authorities located in the region. 
1108.  The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that for all juridical persons 
and individual entrepreneurs registered in the Kaliningrad region, which had been established and 
active under the previous Federal Law No. 13-FZ of  22 January 1996 (except those included in the 
registry of residents of SEZs, under Federal Law No. 16-FZ), a ten-year transition period, from the 
date of entry into force of Federal Law No. 16- FZ on 1 April 2006, was provided.  During the 
transition period, these legal entities would continue to enjoy the treatment envisaged by Federal Law 
No. 13-FZ.  This included exemption from expor t duties when goods were exported outside the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation.  It also provided that goods imported under the free 
customs zone regime and then released for free ci rculation into the rest of the Russian Federation 
were not subject to customs duties and taxes if they met sufficient processing criteria.  The goods 
were considered as meeting sufficient processing cr iteria, if one of the following conditions was 
fulfilled:  processing of goods resulted in a change of the HS code at a level of any of the first four 
digits, or value added of the processing operations accounted for not less than 30 per cent of the cost 
of the goods.  However, independently of these  conditions, the following operations, according to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 401 
 
 
  Federal Law No. 16-FZ, did not meet sufficient proc essing criteria:  (a) ensuring of safety of goods 
during their transportation and storage; (b) prepar ation of goods for trans portation and sales (splitting 
of the lots, packing, sorting); (c) simple assemb ly operations established by the Resolution of the 
Government No. 184 as of 31 March 2006 (as last amended on 24 May 2007); and (d) mixing of 
goods originating from different countries, if ch aracteristics of the final product did not differ 
significantly from the characteristics of the goods mi xed.  After expiration of the above-mentioned 
ten-year transition period, the provisions of Fe deral Law No. 16-FZ, governing free customs zone 
regime in the Kaliningrad SEZ, woul d apply without these reservations.  
- Magadan SEZ 
1109.  In response to requests for information on the Magadan Special Economic Zone, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  the Magadan Special Economic Zone had been 
established in accordance with Federal Law No . 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic 
Zone in the Magadan Region" (as last amended on 24 November 2008).  Provis ions of this Federal 
Law did not apply to foreign trade operations with precious metals.  This Fe deral Law would remain 
in effect until 31 December 2014, and allow th e Magadan SEZ to function until that time.  
1110.  The Magadan region was a Far North district w ith limited (three months, a year maximum) 
sea navigation possibilities, and w ithout railway and highway communi cations with other regions of 
the Russian Federation.  The basic sectors of the regional economy were gold-mining and fishery, accounting for 70-75 per cent of the total volume of i ndustrial production of the region.  More than 
90 per cent of the industrial production of the Maga dan region, except gold, was consumed in the 
region itself.  
1111.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that the establishment of a 
SEZ in this region, was primarily aimed at social and economic development of the region as a way to 
compensate for its unfavourable location.  Both r esidents (called "participants" in the Magadan SEZ) 
and non-participants of the SEZ could conduct busin ess activity in the territory of the SEZ, however, 
as with other SEZs, only registered participants  of the Magadan SEZ coul d enjoy tax and other 
incentives.  The Magadan SEZ participants had been  exempted from Federal taxes (except deductions 
made to the Pension Fund and the Social Insu rance Fund of the Russian Federation) until 
31 December 2006.  According to the amendments  enacted in December 2005, from 1 January 2007 
to 31 December 2014, participants of the Magada n SEZ would be exempted from taxes on profits 
invested in the development of production and social  sphere in the territory of the Magadan region.  
These tax incentives were granted if a SEZ participan t had a separate balance sheet for his activity in 
the territory of the SEZ.  Status as a SEZ particip ant could be granted to juridical persons and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 402  
 
  individual entrepreneurs registered in the territory of the SEZ in accordance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation that conducted their main busin ess activity and kept not less than 75 per cent of 
their key assets in the territory of the SEZ as provided by Article 3 of Federal Law No. 104-FZ.  
1112.  Federal Law No. 104-FZ, as amended, envisaged  the functioning within the territory of 
Magadan City of a customs regime, of a free customs zone, based on the activities of registered participants of the Magadan SEZ.  Foreign goods were imported into a nd used in the territory of the 
SEZ without payment of the customs duties and were not  subject to bans and other restrictions of an 
economic character established in accordance with th e Russian legislation (e.g., trade remedies).  
Similar exemptions for value-added and excise taxes had been suspended regularly since the 
establishment of the SEZ, most recently until 1 January 2012 by Federal Law No. 205-FZ of 24 November 2008.  Such imports used by partic ipants for production or their own consumption 
could be circulated in the Magadan region without paying the exempted duties.  Products produced in 
the SEZ and exported to other countries were exem pted from export duties and other fees, except 
customs clearance fees, and from pa yment of any import duties exempted on imported inputs in the 
manufacturing process.   
1113.  Goods imported by the participants of the Maga dan SEZ and then released for free circulation 
into the rest of the customs territory of the Russi an Federation without further processing were subject 
to import duties, and, if these goods had been subjec t to bans and other restrictions of an economic 
character established in accordance wi th the Russian legislation, these bans and restrictions would 
apply again.  Federal Law No. 104-FZ provided that excisable goods (defined in Article 181 of the 
Tax Code) could not be imported to the territo ry of the Magadan SEZ without payment of the 
applicable taxes.  The Government of the Russian  Federation had the right to define other goods and 
the terms or transitional periods, for which tho se goods could not enjoy this regime as well.  
Unless, they were considered to have originat ed in the Magadan SEZ, goods processed in the SEZ 
from imported products (materials, raw materials, co mponents), and released for free circulation into 
the rest of the Russian Federation, were subject to customs duties and taxes applied to the imported 
goods used in the manufacturing of the processed  goods.  In such cases, for the purposes of 
calculation of the customs duties or taxes to be paid, the customs value and (or) the quantity of 
imported goods was determined as th e date of placement of the impor ts under the customs regime of a 
free customs zone.  When customs duties were a pplied, the rates of such customs duties were 
determined on the basis of the country of origin of the imported goods used in the processing.  When 
goods used in the processing were imported from diffe rent countries, an MFN rate was applied in case 
of changes to any of the first four digits of the HS  code as a result of the processing; or, if the customs 
value of the goods imported from different countries was the same.  Customs du ties for the country of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 403 
 
 
  origin of imported goods with the highest customs value were used in other cases.  Customs clearance 
fees were not levied with respect to goods im ported into the Magadan region under the customs 
regime of a free customs zone, or with respect to products for reprocessing of those imported goods, 
released for free circulation into the rest of  the territory of the Russian Federation.  
1114.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that for juridical persons and 
individual entrepreneurs that were participants of the SEZ in the Magadan region in accordance with 
Federal Law No. 104-FZ, there were special pr ovisions that lasted until the SEZ expired on 
31 December 2014.  Participants registered in the SEZ were understood as juridi cal persons registered 
for the same benefits in the entire Magadan regi on, carrying out their ma in business activity and 
having not less than 75 per cent of their capital assets in the territory of the Magadan SEZ. Articles 6.4 and 6.6 of Federal Law No. 104-FZ provided that goods processed in the SEZ from 
imported products (materials, raw ma terials, components, parts) and considered to be originating in 
the SEZ, were not subject to any further appli cation of customs duties when released for free 
circulation into the rest of the customs territory of  the Russian Federation.  He stated that goods were 
considered to be originating from the SEZ when they  were fully produced in its territory or, if the 
imported inputs used to produce the goods met su fficient processing criteria.  The goods were 
considered as meeting sufficient processing criteri a if one of the following conditions was fulfilled:  
processing of goods resulted in a change of the HS code at a level of any of the first four digits; processing of production and technological operations , sufficient for the goods to be considered 
originating from the SEZ; or, the value added of the processing operations accounted for not less than 
30 per cent of the goods price (for electronics and sophisticated technological goods - not less than 15 per cent).  However, independent of these c onditions, the following operations, according to 
Federal Law No. 104-FZ, did not meet the criteria for sufficient processing:  (a) ensuring of safety of 
goods during their transportation and storage; (b) preparation of goods for transportation and sales 
(splitting of the lots, packing, sorting); and (c) mixi ng of goods originating from different countries, if 
characteristics of the final product did not differ significantly from the characteristics of the goods mixed.  In addition, any imports used by partic ipants of the Magadan SEZ for production or their own 
consumption could be circulated in the Magada n region without paying the exempted duties.  
1115.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that both participants and 
non-participants of the Magada n SEZ could conduct business activity in the territory of the SEZ, 
however, only participants of the SEZ could enjoy tax and other incentives, provided for in Federal 
Law No. 104-FZ.  In terms of investments, the La w did not establish any restrictions based on the 
origin of capital of a juridical person.  To b ecome a SEZ participant, a legal entity had to be 
established in accordance with the Russian legislati on and registered in the Magadan region; goods WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 404  
 
  were required to be manufactured, services to be supp lied, and investments to be made, only within 
the territory of the Magadan SEZ; the investment project of the juridical person must meet the 
requirements described below. 
 The following juridical persons could not become Magadan SEZ participants: 
- juridical persons, who paid taxes according to the special tax regimes as provided for by the 
Tax Code of the Russian Federation; and  
- financial organizations, including credit organi zations, insurance companies and professional 
participants of a securities market.  
 
 The investment projects of the prospective pa rticipants of the Magadan SEZ were required to 
meet, inter alia , the following requirements:  
 
- be performed within the territory of the Magadan region;  
- not be aimed at exploitation of crude oil a nd natural gas and provision of services in these 
spheres, not be aimed at manufacture of ex cisable goods, the list of which had to be 
established by the Government,   
- not be aimed at repair of household devices and objects of personal use, or at rendering of 
financial services; and  
- capital investments must not be less than RUB 10 million and must be made within the time 
period not exceeding three years from the date of investors registration as a participant of the 
SEZ. 
 
- The CU Agreement on SEZs 
1116.  The CU Parties had established the Agreement on Free (Special) Economic Zones on the 
Customs Territory of the Customs Union and the Customs Procedures of the Free Customs Zones of 
18 June 2010 (hereafter the CU Agreement on SEZs).  The Agreement provided the general 
framework within the CU for rules regarding the establishment and operation of new SEZs and 
extending the provisions of the Agreement to existing SEZs, including general provisions on the 
customs procedure of the free customs zone on the te rritory of SEZs, but left the specific regulations 
on the establishment, management, extension, early te rmination, types, and types of activities of SEZs 
to be determined by the national laws of the CU Parties.  National laws would also provide for the 
registration of residents of the SEZs and national au thorities would maintain a national roster of such 
residents.  He added that the said Agreement pr ovided that the CU Parties were required to send 
information on SEZ operations and the rosters of residents to the CU Commission, which in turn created and published a common CU roster of resident s.  The CU Commission had the right to decide 
what economic activities and operations could be pr ohibited within the SEZs in addition to those 
established by the CU Parties.  The CU Agreemen t on SEZs confirmed that the territories of SEZs 
were customs control zones, and that for goods pl aced in the SEZs, the customs procedure of the free 
customs zone as defined by the CU Customs Code  and the CU Agreement on SEZs was applied.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 405 
 
 
  The customs authorities of the Russian Federation we re responsible for cust oms control in the SEZ, 
according to national law, and importation by residents from and exportation by residents and 
non-residents of goods to the territory of a SEZ were  to be done only with the permission of customs 
authorities.  He further explained that the CU Agreement on SEZs was to be applied provisionally 
from 1 July 2010 (the date of entry into force of the Treaty on the Customs Code of the Customs Union) pending its formal ratification by CU Parties.   The Russian Federation had not yet ratified this 
Agreement, and therefore its provisions applied in th e Russian Federation only to the extent that they 
did not contradict the provisions of the existing national legislation. 
1117.  Article 10 of the CU Agreement on SEZs provided that goods manufactured by SEZ 
residents, registered prior to 1 January 2012, inco rporating imported inputs could, be recognised as 
Customs Union goods up until 1 January 2017, i.e., th ey could be sold into the rest of the customs 
territory of the Customs Union without paying the exempted tariffs on the imported components, if 
the imported inputs had been substantially transfor med or, met any of the following conditions listed 
in Article 19 of the Agreement on SEZs: 
a) manufacturing had changed the HS classification code  of the good at the level of any of the 
first four digits; 
b) its transformation was recognised as sufficien tly implementing a predetermined list of 
conditions, production and technological or ma nufacturing operations, necessary to be goods 
of the Customs Union;  
c) the percentage share of the value added of the cost of materials used in the manufacture had 
reached a predetermined share of the price of the final good (the rule of ad valorem  share); or 
d) the percentage share of the cost of foreign goods did not exceed a predetermined share.  
 These provisions were intended to re main in place until 1 January 2017.  
1118.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that under the CU Agreement 
on SEZs, the CU Commission was charged to decide  by consensus (a) the list of conditions and 
operations for goods manufactured in SEZs, incorporating imported goo ds that were, or were not, 
sufficient for these goods to be recognised as goods of  the Customs Union, and (b) the procedure for 
using the rule of ad valorem  share as a criterion of sufficient processing for these goods to be 
recognised as goods of the Customs Union.  The rule of ad valorem  share could not be applied to 
repairs of the goods of the Customs Union done in the SEZs.  Goods would not be recognised as 
Customs Union goods, if the transforming operations applied, did not meet the criteria for sufficient 
processing established by the CU Commission.  The national authority, as defined by the national 
legislation, carried out the determination of the stat us of the goods in accordance with the rules of the 
CU Agreement on SEZs, issued the relevant legal fi ndings and enforced them.  In the case of the 
Russian Federation, this national authority was the MED.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 406  
 
  1119.  Some Members noted that the conditions set-out  in Article 19 of the CU Agreement on SEZs 
and the elimination of any requirement for paym ent of tariffs and taxes on goods with imported 
components that met these conditions were not c onsistent with Federal Law No. 116-FZ and took note 
of the fact that the Russian Federation had not yet implemented these provisions.  They also questioned whether they met WTO requirements, in particular Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 
and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Counterv ailing Measures (ASCM).  Goods that benefited 
from the tariff and tax exemption would be competi ng with imports that were liable for full payment 
of tariffs and taxes.  This adversely affect ed the terms of competition between these goods.  
Moreover, the domestic content or substantial transf ormation requirement set-out in Article 19 of the 
CU Agreement on SEZs could be in consistent with Article 3.1(b)  of the ASCM, depending on the 
nature of the domestic content requirement and its application to a particular processing operation.  
These Members requested clarification of how the Russian Federation intended to reconcile these 
conflicts when it implemented the CU Agreement on SEZs.  They also sought confirmation that any 
use of the provisions authorising the exemption from the requirement to pay tariffs and taxes on goods, incorporating imported components, entering the territory of the Customs Union would be 
eliminated from the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
1120.  One Member also asked the Ru ssian Federation to explain how it would ensure that goods 
produced in SEZs established under the CU Agreem ent on SEZs in the territory of Kazakhstan and 
Belarus would be subjected to all customs paymen ts, including tariffs and taxes, otherwise due on 
goods produced with imported components entering the territory of the Russian Federation for free 
circulation.  That Member was concerned that goo ds, produced in SEZs of other CU Parties' that 
benefited from the tariff and tax exemption, would be competing with imports into the 
Russian Federation, that were liable for full payment of  tariffs and taxes.  This would adversely affect 
the terms of competition between these goods. 
1121.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the policy of his Government towards 
the operation of special economic zones had been established in Federal Law No. 116-FZ, however, 
during the transition periods specified in para graphs [1108] and [1114], the operation of the 
Kaliningrad SEZ and the Magadan SE Z would continue to be governed  by the provisions of Federal 
Law No. 16-FZ of 10 January 2006 "On the Special Ec onomic Zone of the Kaliningrad Region and on 
Amending some Legislative Acts of the Russian Fe deration" (as last amended on 30 October 2007) 
and Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone in the Magadan 
Region" (as last amended on 24 November 2008), resp ectively.  He further stated that while the 
CU Agreement on SEZs authorised the exemption fr om the requirement to pay tariffs and taxes on 
goods produced in the SEZs, incorporating imported components entering the customs territory of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 407 
 
 
  Customs Union, use of these provisions was not mandatory, and therefore the Russian Federation 
would not apply them. 
1122.  With regard to the tariff and tax treatment  of imports into the territory of the 
Russian Federation of goods produced in SEZs of  third countries, including CU parties, which 
incorporated components from third countries, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed 
that the Russian Federation would comply with th e relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1123.  In response to this information, Members requ ested that the Russian Federation work within 
other Customs Union Parties to modify the CU Agreement on SEZs and any relevant CU Commission 
Decisions to bring them into conformity with WTO requirements. 
1124.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, subject to the exceptions applied 
for the transition periods specified below in respect  of the goods of certain juridical persons and 
individual entrepreneurs of the Kaliningrad and Ma gadan SEZs, referred to in  paragraphs [1108] and 
[1114] of this Report, special economic zones in th e Russian Federation, incl uding those described in 
paragraphs [1093], [1104] and [ 1109] of this Report, would be  established, maintained and 
administered, whether by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies of the CU, in conformity 
with the provisions of the WTO Agreement, and th at the provisions of the WTO Agreement would be 
applied in all of the SEZs of the Russian Federation.  The right of firms to register as residents and 
operate in these zones would not be subject to expor t performance, trade balancing, or local content 
criteria requirements.  With respect to local content requirements, substantial transformation, and 
exemptions from tariffs and taxes, the goods of the juridical persons and individual entrepreneurs 
registered in the Kaliningrad SEZ, which has been  registered and active under Federal Law No. 13-FZ 
of 22 January 1996 "On the Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region" on 1 April 2006, and 
to the goods of participants registered in  the Magadan SEZ under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 
31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone in th e Magadan Region" would continue to enjoy the 
treatment described in paragraphs [1108] and [1114 ] of this Report, during the transition period 
ending on 31 March 2016 and until 31 December 2014, respectively.  He further confirmed that all 
other goods imported into the SEZs of the Russian Federation under provisions that exempt imports 
from customs tariffs and certain taxes, otherwise app licable, which were then released into the rest of 
the customs territory of the Russian Federation, woul d be subject to payment of those tariffs and taxes 
and customs formalities when entering the rest of the customs territory of the Russian Federation 
either in an unaltered form or after processing in  the SEZs, without exception, and that the Russian 
Federation would not recognise such goods as CU goods , unless they had been subject to payment of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 408  
 
  such tariffs and taxes and customs formalities at the time of their rel ease for free circulation into the 
rest of the customs territory of the Customs Uni on.  The Russian Federation would take action to 
ensure that any agreements or decisions of the Customs Union relating to SEZs would be amended to 
conform to WTO requirements.  The Work ing Party took note of these commitments. 
- Government Procurement 
1125.  Members requested information on laws, re gulations and other measures relating to 
government procurement in the Russian Federation and on the meaning of "procurement for State 
needs".  Members requested further information on th e status of the legislation in this area, in 
particular, on Federal Law No. 94-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On Placement of Orders for Deliveries of 
Goods, Performance of Works and Provision of Services for State and Municipal Needs", as last amended on 27 July 2010 (hereafter:   Federal Law No. 94-FZ).   
1126.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that "procurement for State needs" 
(the legislation of the Russian Federation did not  contain the term "government procurement") was 
governed in the Russian Federation by:  (i) the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; (ii) Federal Law 
No. 94-FZ, which had entered into force on 1 January 2006; (iii) Fe deral Law No. 53-FZ of 
2 December 1994 "On Procurement and Deliveries of  Agricultural Goods, Raw Materials and Foods 
for the State Needs" (as amended on 2 Febr uary 2006); (iv) Federal Law No. 60-FZ of 
13 December 1994 "On Procurement of Goods for Fe deral State Needs", as amended on 24 July 2007 
(hereafter:  Federal Law No. 60-FZ); and (v) Fe deral Law No. 213-FZ of 27 December 1995 "On the 
State Defence Order" (as amended on 1 December 2007).  The placement of orders for State and 
municipal needs could be provided only through the procedures set by Federal Law No. 94-FZ.  
To provide consistency of all la ws, regulations and other requireme nts relating to procurement for 
State needs with Federal Law No. 94-FZ, the ame ndments to the above-mentioned Acts had been 
made by Federal Law No. 19-FZ of 2 February 200 6 "On Amending Certain Legislative Acts of the 
Russian Federation due to the Adoption of Fede ral Law No. 94-FZ".  When Federal Law No. 94-FZ 
came into force on 1 January 2006, Federal La w No. 97-FZ of 6 May 1999 was abolished.   
1127.  The principles and procedures for formation,  placement, and fulfilment of orders for 
procurement (tendering procedures) and delivery of goods and services for State needs were set-out in 
the above-mentioned Acts.  These texts took into cons ideration international practices in this field.  
According to Federal Law No. 94-FZ, procuremen t for State needs was the sphere of Federal 
regulation, and, as stated in paragraph 2 of Article 65 of that Law, all legal acts would be applied to 
the extent they did not contradict that Law.  The legislation of the Russian Federation in this sphere  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 409 
 
 
  was aimed at the development of fair competitio n, providing openness and transparency in the 
placement of orders, and preventi on of corruption and other abuses in the placement of State orders. 
1128.  Federal Law No. 94-FZ applied to the placeme nt of orders for deliveries of products, 
performance of works and provision of services for State (at Federal and sub-federal level) and 
municipal needs, excluding those orders, the amount of which would be lower than the maximum sum of payment in cash under one transaction between legal persons allowed by the Central Bank 
(in August 2010, this amount was RUB 100,000).  Fe deral Law No. 94-FZ defined "State needs" as 
the needs of the Russian Federation for goods, work s and services necessary for the execution of the 
functions of the Russian Federation, including th e implementation of Fede ral target programmes, 
execution of international obligations of the Ru ssian Federation, includi ng implementation of 
international projects, in which the Russian Federa tion participated, as well as needs of the subjects of 
the Russian Federation for goods and services nece ssary for the execution of the functions of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation, including the implementation of regional target programmes, 
which were financed by the Fede ral budget, budgets of the subject s of the Russian Federation, and 
off-budget funds of the Russian Federation or of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  
1129.  Further the representative of the Russian Federa tion explained that, the Government of the 
Russian Federation used the instrument of Federa l target programmes in cases where a development 
task in the social or economic sphere needed the efforts of several governmental authorities, both in 
sense of authority and of resources to be invested in  order to achieve the goals.  In most cases, the 
targeted areas were those that lacked privat e investment and/or suffered from infrastructure 
constraints.  Declaring a target to be covere d by a Federal programme did not just permit the 
allocation of special budget funds, necessary to fina nce measures addressing this target, but also 
stimulated State authorities to put specific efforts in that direction, and attracted the private sector to 
invest in the targeted area with a view to enjoying benefits in the future.  Since it was one of the most 
transparent ways of allocating funds from the Fede ral budget, target programmes were considered to 
be an important instrument of long-term economic policy of the State.  The most representative programmes of this kind were connected with ro ad-building, housing, development of public 
education, other social goals (support of education of children or public health care), preservation of 
historic, cultural and natural monuments, incr easing the efficiency of State management 
(i.e., introducing IT technologies in the State institutions).   
1130.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that national treatment would be provided 
in connection with procurement for State needs, with regard to the placement of orders for 
procurement of services, or works supplied or perfo rmed by foreign suppliers, as well as of foreign WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 410  
 
  goods, if national treatment for the placement of or ders was provided in respect of Russian goods, 
works or services supplied by Russian supplie rs, by the respective foreign country. 
1131.  Pursuant to Article 4.1 of Fe deral Law No. 94-FZ, State customers could be State authorities 
of the Russian Federation, State authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation, local 
self-governmental bodies, as well as budgetary institu tions, other recipients of the money from the 
Federal budget, budgets of the subjects of the Russian  Federation or local budgets to place orders at 
the expense of budget funds.  State customers could,  on a contractual basis, involve a legal entity 
exclusively for the execution of the part of the f unctions of organising and carrying out the procedures 
for the placement of an order for purchases for St ate needs.  For example,  such an entity could 
provide technical and organizational assistance wi th carrying out a tender, preparing the tender 
documentation, publishing the information about th e tender, etc.  According to Article 6 of 
Federal Law No. 94-FZ, the State customer would select an entity to provide technical assistance 
through a placement of order, according to the pr ocedures set-up by that Law.  State customers, 
however, were the actual purchasers and were legally responsible for all aspects of the procurement. 
1132.  He added, that Federal Law No. 94-FZ provi ded two ways of placement of orders:  
(i) through the tender (in the form of competition or auction, including the e-auction); and (ii) without 
tender (in the form of requests for quotations, from th e sole supplier, or at commodity exchanges).  
The placement of orders with a sole supplier could be implemented only in cases, directly provided by 
Federal Law No. 94-FZ.  Federal Law No. 94-FZ provi ded that the request for quotations could only 
take place if:  (i) the price of State or municipal order did not exceed RUB 500,000; or (ii) in cases of 
purchases for providing life support, humanitarian ai d or liquidation of the results of emergency 
situations of natural character or the purchases for providing support for the operation of a customer 
in the territory of a foreign state, provided that a functioning market for such purchases existed in the 
territory of that foreign state.  Customers or en abled authorities were not able to place orders by 
requests for quotations for deliveries of like goods , performances of like works and provision of like 
services, if its amount exceeded RUB 500,000 in a quarter.   
1133.  Members noted that the scope of government " purchases for State needs", as provided for in 
current legislation, appeared to go beyond "procurement", as defined in Article III:8 of 
the GATT 1994 and Article XIII:1 of the GATS, i.e., products and services purchased for 
governmental purposes and not with a view to comme rcial re-sale or, with a view, to use in the 
production of goods for commercial sa le, or to use in the supply of services for commercial sale.  
Purchases for State Needs also app eared to cover more than the goods and services typically subject 
to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement.   Laws, regulations and other measures relating  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 411 
 
 
  to purchases that were outside the scope of the definitions in Article III:8 of the GATT 1994, and 
Article XIII:1 of the GATS, would not be excluded fr om the coverage of the Agreements in Annex 1 
of the Marrakesh Agreement Estab lishing the World Trade Organization.  These Members noted that 
the Law of the Russian Federation, "Purchases for St ate Need," appeared to include, in addition to 
goods for governmental purposes, i.e., direct c onsumption and support, any products or services 
needed:  (i) by the Government; (ii) to realize gove rnment goal-oriented programmes; (iii) to maintain 
State material reserves; or (iv) for export deliv eries to meet international economic commitments, 
including to honour the currency credits of the Russian Federation.  They sought confirmation that, in making purchases that would not be considered as government procurement within the meaning of 
Article III:8 of the GATT 1994 and Article XIII:1 of  the GATS, including national treatment and 
MFN requirements, would apply and that the Ru ssian Federation would ensure that goods and 
services purchased for State needs for governmental purposes, would not be re-sold in the commercial 
sphere or used in the production of goods or the supply of services for commercial sale.   
1134.  In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 94-FZ, 
which replaced Federal Law No. 60-FZ with regard to placement of orders for State and municipal 
needs, established the definition of  State needs mentioned in paragraph [1128].  Furthermore, neither 
Federal Law No. 94-FZ nor other legislation on the purchases for State needs in force contained provisions allowing procurement for State needs to  encompass purchases with the aim of commercial 
re-sale or use in production of goods or the supply of services for commercial sale.  Directly engaging 
in commercial activity did not constitute the function of the State; that was why the definition of the 
State needs elaborated in Article 3 of Federal Law No. 94-FZ referred to the execution of functions of 
the State as an aim of the purchases for State needs.  Enterprises owned by the State ran their business 
on their own, and the profit which resulted from su ch activity was subject to distribution by the 
enterprises and not by the State.  Thus, in his view , the activity of such en terprises did not constitute 
the activity of the State.  With respect to targ et programmes, the aim of these programmes was to 
resolve systemic problems in the sphere of State, social and cultural development of the Russian Federation, i.e., to achieve governmental pur poses and not to engage in commercial activity.  
1135.  Members continued to express concerns regardi ng the role of the State in the commercial 
sphere in the Russian Federation.  The practice of the Government of the Russian Federation of 
negotiating and concluding contracts for the sale of  gas appeared to be an example of where the 
Government was engaged in "comme rcial activity".  Moreover, Members noted that the Government, 
as such, was represented on the Board of Directors of many Joint-Stock Companies, and in some 
companies, exercised special rights as a share holder through the so-called "golden share".  
Thus, while engaging in commercial activity might  not be defined as a governmental purpose or WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 412  
 
  governmental function, in their view, the Government of the Russian Federation, i.e., the State, did 
engage in commercial activity. 
1136.  In response to a Member who asked whether ope rations of the Federal Agency on the Foods 
Market Regulation (FFMA) or purchases of the JSC "TVEL" for nuclear power could be considered 
purchases for State needs, the representative of the Russian Federation said that, as for the operations 
of the FFMA connected with the organization and pe rformance of State interventions of grain crops 
and, described in the Section on "State-Trading En terprises", these operations were not subject to 
regulations on government procur ement within the meaning of Article III:8(a) of the GATT 1994, but 
were commercial transactions.  As for nuclear fuel, the legislation of the Russian Federation did not 
contain any restriction on the par ticipation of foreign entities in re gard to the purchases of TVEL and 
such purchases were made based on commercial considerations. 
1137.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that, in respect of procurement of 
goods and services, including by State-owned and State-controlled enterprises, which were not 
purchased for governmental purposes, but with a view to  commercial re-sale or with a view to use for 
production of goods and supply of services for commercial sale, such purchases and sales would not 
be considered to be "government procurement"  within the meaning of Article III:8(a) of 
the GATT 1994 and XIII:1 of the GATS, and thus, the Russian Federation and the competent bodies of the CU would comply with all applicable provi sions of the WTO Agreement.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
1138.  In response to a request from a Member regard ing the involvement of the Russian Federation 
in barter trade, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the legal provisions for such 
trade could be found in Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", Presiden tial Decree No. 1209 of 18 August 1996 "On State 
Regulation of Foreign-trade Barter Transac tions" and Government Resolution No. 1300 of 
31 October 1996 "On the Measures for State Regula tion of Foreign Trade Barter Transactions".  
In response to a request from a Member for info rmation on whether barter trade was used in 
the context of purchases of goods or services for State needs, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that, there were no mo re government-to-government  barter Agreements, 
and special bilateral barter arrange ments established in the wake of  the August 1998 financial crisis, 
to provide trade in vital commodities, had lapsed. 
1139.  In response to questions about transparency in  procurement for State needs, the representative 
of the Russian Federation noted that Federal La w No. 94-FZ contained provisions providing for 
transparency of procurement of goods and services fo r State needs.  Procurement was mainly carried  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 413 
 
 
  out by open invitation to tender.  Under that Law, notices of invitations to tenders would have to be 
published 30 days before the opening of the tender in an official publication and on an internet 
website, both determined by the Government of th e Russian Federation, the supreme executive body 
of the subject of the Russian Federation, or local  authorities, respectively.  Notices of invitations 
could also be published, upon decision of the State customer, in English, in other printed mass media 
with international circulation.  Notices of invitatio ns to tenders would have to indicate the form of 
tender; the name and address of the State customer ; the subject of the State contract; the place of 
delivery of the goods, performance of the work, or supply of the services; the initial (maximum) price 
of the contract; the procedure, time-limit and plac e for delivery of the application documents for a 
tender; criteria of the place, time and date of th e evaluation of bids; and, benefits (if such were 
provided by the State customer) to the penitentia ry organizations and organizations of disabled 
persons.  The winner would be determined in accorda nce with the rules established in that Law.  
The winner would be notified in writing, within th ree days after conclusion of the tender, and the 
results of the tender, including the name of the winne r, the subject and the price of the contract, would 
be published in the official publication a nd on the official internet website.  
1140.  According to Article 16 of that Law, all the information concerning procurement was placed 
on the official website of the Russian Federati on, determined by Government Order No. 229-r of 
20 February 2006 (www.zakupki.gov.ru).  The  official website of the Russian Federation contained 
information on all of the addresses of the official websites of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  
An official website of a subject of the Russian  Federation contained information on all official 
websites of the municipal units located in the territo ry of this subject of the Russian Federation.  
The information was placed on the official websites and accessible free of charge.  
1141.  Federal Law No. 94-FZ also contained the detaile d rules for administrative appeal of actions 
(inactions) of State customers.  Such an appeal was possible to be made until the conclusion of the 
procurement contract.  After such conclusion, disput es would be dealt with by the judicial system. 
1142.  Some Members asked the Russian Federation to  enter into a commitment to become an 
observer to the WTO Agreement on Government Pr ocurement and to initiate negotiations for the 
accession to this Agreement upon accession. 
1143.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed the intention of the 
Russian Federation to join the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement and to notify the 
Committee on Government Procurement to th is effect at the time of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO and to ensure that from the date of accession, its government agencies 
would award contracts in a transparent manner according to published laws, regulations and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 414  
 
  guidelines.  He also confirmed that the Russian  Federation would request observership in the 
WTO Agreement on Government Procurement at the time of its accession to the WTO and would 
initiate negotiations for membership in the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement by tabling 
an Appendix 1 offer within four years of accessi on.  He confirmed that, if the results of the 
negotiations were satisfactory to the interests of the Russian Federation and the other Members of the 
Agreement, the Russian Federation would accede to th at Agreement.  The Working Party took note of 
these commitments. 
1144.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would ensure that its government al agencies would place orders for deliveries of 
goods and supply of services for State needs in a transparent manner, according to published laws, 
regulations and guidelines.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
- Regulation of Trade in Transit 
1145.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in his view, the Russian Federation 
granted freedom of transit through its territory, as prescribed by Article V of the GATT 1994.  
Article 31 of Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 Decemb er 2003 "On the Fundamentals of State Regulation 
of Foreign Trade Activity" (as last amended on 2 Fe bruary 2006) provided, as a basic principle, for 
freedom of transit through the territory of the Ru ssian Federation, via routes, whichever were most 
convenient for international transit,  and that no distinction was made which was based on the flag of 
the vessels, the place of origin, depart ure, entry, exit or destination,  or on any circumstances relating 
to the ownership of goods, of vessels or of other means of transport.  In such a way, freedom for 
traffic in transit to or from the terr itory of WTO Members was provided.   
1146.  He added that the basic principles of these provisions had not been affected by the 
participation of the Russian Federation in the Customs Union with Kaza khstan and Belarus.  
Operationally, however, from 1 July 2010, customs cont rol of goods, in transit through the territory of 
the Russian Federation, was based on the provisi ons of Chapter 32 of the CU Customs Code.  
The provisions of the previous Customs Code of the Russian Federation Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 
28 May 2003 (as last amended on 24 November 2008)  concerning transit control, and other relevant 
Russian Federal legislation, regulations, and SCC a nd FSC Orders, continued to apply to the extent 
they did not conflict with the CU Customs Code.  With the adoption of Federal Law No. 311-FZ of 
27 November 2010 "On Customs Regulation", the provi sions of Chapter 29 of that Law became the 
principle Russian legislation in this area, ela borating Russian procedures on trade in transit in 
accordance with the CU Customs Code.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 415 
 
 
  1147.  Specifically, Article 215 of the CU Customs Code  stated that customs transit was a customs 
procedure under which foreign goods (i.e., not Russian , Kazakhstani, or Belarusian) were transported:  
1) across the CU customs territory under customs cu stody between the point of their entry into and 
departure from the CU customs territory (i.e., if transit constituted a part of their itinerary which 
began and ended outside the boundaries of the CU cust oms territory); 2) from the point of entry into 
the CU to a customs point of entry within the CU; 3) from an internal customs point to the point of 
departure from the CU customs territory; and 4) between two customs entry points within the 
CU customs territory.  In addition, it provided th at the customs procedure of customs transit was 
applied to goods transported by international mail,  by pipelines and by power transmission lines.  
Goods in customs transit were exempted from any customs taxes and duties or application of any 
economic restrictions or prohibitions, except for:  (i) prohibitions applied to the goods listed in 
sub-section 1 of the Common List of Goods that are Subject to Non-Tariff Measures adopted by the 
CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 27 November 2009 and included in [Table 28]; (ii) SPS measures described in paragraphs [814] to [1062] of this Report; and (iii) prohibitions 
introduced by the Russian Federation regulations  implementing UN Security Council Decisions.  
Any foreign merchandise could be subject to interna tional customs transit, except goods whose transit 
was prohibited pursuant to Federal laws, other statutes and legal norms of the CU and the 
Russian Federation, as stated in paragraph [1160] , and other international treaties to which the 
Russian Federation was a party.  However, specific control procedures for goods in transit transported 
by railway on the territory of the Customs Union were defined by a separate CU Agreement, i.e., the 
Agreement on the Specificity of Customs Transit of Goods, Transported by Railway on the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union signed on 21 May 2010, and in effect since 1 July 2010.  Furthermore, as stipulated in Article 215 of the CU  Customs Code, customs transit procedure was not 
applied to the goods transported by air transport, if  the air vessel, in an international flight, performs 
an intermediate landing or a landing by necessity  (technical landing) without a partial discharging 
(unloading) of goods.  He added that customs transit could be applied to goods of CU Parties if these 
goods were transported from a point of departure in the CU to the point of entry in the CU through a 
third country.  Goods of CU Partie s originating from one CU Party, exported through the territory of 
another CU Party, were placed in the customs procedure of export and transported through the 
territory of the CU without being placed in custom s procedure of transit, unless it has otherwise been 
decided by the CU Commission.  In response to a re quest from a Member to clarify the legal basis and 
possible circumstances for placement of goods export ed from one CU Party through the territory of 
another CU Party under the transit procedure, th e representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that Article 215.5 of the CU Customs Code authori sed the CU Commission to take such decisions.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 416  
 
  1148.  Following the request of a Member for further clarification in respect of the legal basis and 
possible circumstances for placement of goods, expo rted from one CU Party through the territory of 
the other CU Party, under the transit procedure, the representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that the legal instrument that envisaged the right  of the CU Commission to introduce such a measure 
was Article 215 of the CU Customs Code, which direc tly delegated this right to the CU Commission.  
He further explained that such measures could be necessary to ensure proper implementation of 
provisions of the CU legislation that provided for necessity of control over movement of goods within 
the single customs territory of the CU (for exampl e, to ensure the implementation of unilateral 
measures introduced by a CU Party, as described in paragraphs [643] and [644]. 
1149.  He further noted that, pursuant to Article 216 of the CU Customs Code, the placement of 
goods under the customs procedure of customs transi t was allowed, if the following conditions were 
fulfilled:   1) the  import of goods  into the customs territory of the Customs Union was  not prohibited; 
2) the documents, confirming that requirements (if any) for the transport of goods through the customs  border  of the Customs Union had been fulfilled, were presented; 3)  if the goods were to be 
subject to such control at the place of arrival, the customs control and other forms of state control had 
been performed at their point of entry; 4)  the transit declaration  had been presented (i.e., the goods 
had been declared); 5) the  measures ensuring the customs transit in accordance with Article 217 of the 
CU Customs Code were fulfilled; 6)  the identification of  goods  in accordance with Article 109 of the 
CU Customs Code was ensured; and 7)  the international transport vehicle was equipped in a due 
manner, if the goods were transported under the customs seals.   According  to Article 156  of the 
CU Customs Code,  the requirement specified in point 7  of the previous sentence  did not apply to 
goods  carried by sea or river vessels or aircrafts cros sing the customs territory of the Customs Union 
without stopping at a port or airport located in the customs territory of the Customs Union, or to the 
goods transported via  pipelines and  electricity  
transmission lines. 
1150.  Several Members noted that a sufficient and detailed description of Russian and 
CU provisions on transit was still required to confirm whether the policies for trade in transit of the 
Russian Federation were in conformity with WT O provisions, in particular Article V of the 
GATT 1994.  Concerns were raised about SCC Orde r No. 631 of 2 July 2001 "On the Application of 
Order of the State Customs Committee of the Russi an Federation No. 25 of 15 January 2001", which 
appeared to provide for measures inconsistent with WTO requirements in this area.  In particular, a 
Member expressed concerns about the practice of the application of specific customs procedures by the Russian authorities in respect of the transport co mpanies of this Member.  This Member noted that 
country-specific restrictive transit procedures we re incompatible with WTO provisions, notably 
Articles I and V of the GATT 1994.  This Member re quested the Russian Fede ration to ensure that  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 417 
 
 
  these and any other country-specific measures of tran sit procedures would be brought into conformity 
with WTO requirements upon accession.   
1151.  In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that SCC Order No. 631 of 
2 July 2001 "On the Application of Order of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 25 of 15 January 2001" had been abolished by SCC Order No. 517 of 24 May 2002.   
1152.  Other Members also asked questions rega rding the circumstances under which the 
Russian Federation might currently impede transit of  other countries' exports through its territory; the 
conditions to require a guarantee of payment of custom s duties and taxes; the ch arges for transit escort 
and the reasons for their application; and, the pr ovisions for the transit of goods of dual usage.  
The same Members asked the Russian Federation to  ensure that all WTO obligations providing for 
freedom of transit (and associated disciplines deali ng with, for example, fees and charges) would be 
applied to all products.  These Members noted, in par ticular, concerns with regard to certain transit 
arrangements for energy products such as oil and gas. 
1153.  In response to these and other questions fro m Members on customs escort through the 
territory of the Russian Federation, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Article 218 
of the CU  Customs Code defined customs escort of goods as the escort, by employees of  customs  
authorities or by other organizations, in accordance with  the legislation of CU Parties, of the vehicles 
transporting the merchandise, in accordance with th e CU customs transit procedures with the purpose 
of ensuring the observance of the customs legislati on of the Customs Union.  Article 217 established 
the authority of Customs officials at the customs poi nt of departure to apply measures for ensuring the 
observance of the customs legislation of the Customs Union in customs transit, including a 
requirement for customs escort, payment of fees fo r customs support (provided for in Article 130 of 
the Federal Law "On Customs Regulation"), and/or a guarantee of payment of customs duties and taxes (provided for in Article 86 of the CU Customs Code).  Customs officials, when using the system 
of risk management, could also define or modify  the itinerary of the goods in customs transit upon 
written authorisation of the customs point of depa rture or of any other customs office, located on 
route. 
1154.  Pursuant to Article 218, Customs authorities had the right to put goods in transit under 
customs escort in the following cases:   
- defined on the basis of the risk management system; 
- upon non-presentation of guarantee of payment of customs duties and taxes; 
- due to repeated non-fulfilment by the trans port operator of the operators' obligations in 
transport of goods in accordance with the cust oms procedure of customs transit, which was WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 418  
 
  established by the resolutions, entered into le gal effect, on imposing administrative penalty 
for cases of administrative customs law infringeme nt, if at least one of the above-mentioned 
resolutions has not been fulfilled; and  
- due to non-fulfilment by the transport operator of the obligation to pay the customs taxes, 
duties in accordance with Article 227 of the CU Customs Code. 
 Further instances justifying the use of customs escort were set-out in Article 87(2) of the 
Customs Code of the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 61-FZ), e.g.,  
- in case of re-exportation of merchandise delivered  to the Russian Federation by mistake or of 
goods whose importation into the Russian Federa tion was prohibited, when the place of the 
actual crossing by such goods of the custom s border of the Russian Federation during their 
exportation did not coincide with the location of the goods;  
- when haulage of the goods subjected to the rest rictions and prohibitions under the legislation 
of the Russian Federation on the State regulation of foreign trade activity;  
- in case of lack of a customs office located at  the place of destination of the goods; and 
- if the goods were prohibited from importation or  did not have all the requisite permits and 
licenses required for their transit through the cu stoms territory of the Russian Federation and 
due to the facts that the permission for domestic  customs transit could not be issued, provided 
that the customs body authorised delivery of th e goods to the temporary storage warehouse or 
other places constituting the customs control zone.   
 These provisions would continue to apply to the extent they did not conflict with the 
CU Customs Code. 
1155.  He confirmed that these were all of the circumstances in which customs escort could be 
required, and that this list of circumstances coul d be changed through amendment of the CU Customs 
Code or establishment of conforming domestic legisla tion.  Customs escort of goods was to be carried 
out to ensure observance of applicable  customs transit  procedure.  Expenses associated with customs 
escort had to be fully reimbursed in the form of customs fees levied, in accordance with the 
Russian legislation on taxes and duties.  
1156.  Concerning customs clearance and escort fees, he noted that Article 72 of the  CU Customs 
Code authorised their application and the method  of their application, currently governed by 
Article 357 of the Customs Code of the Russian Fe deration, would be governed by the Federal Law 
"On Customs Regulation", when that legislation wa s adopted.  Goods placed under the customs transit 
regime were subject to customs clearance fees, ex cept when the customs unit of departure was the 
same as the customs unit of destination.  In th is case, goods placed under the customs transit regime 
were exempted from customs clearance fees.  This was the only exception (see Section on "Fees and 
Charges for Services Rendered").  As for customs clearance and escort fees, the rates of customs 
clearance fees were provided in Government Reso lution No. 863 of 28 December 2004 and the rates 
of escort fees in Article 357.10 of the Customs Code  of the Russian Federation.  Once implemented, 
the escort fees would be authorised  in accordance with Article 130 (in Section 14) of the Federal Law  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 419 
 
 
  "On Customs Regulation".  Escort fees were descri bed in the Section "Fees and Charges for Services 
Rendered" and listed in [Table 20] of this Report.   In addition, Chapter 14 of the Federal  Law 
"On Customs Regulation" established a single system  of fees for customs clearance procedure for 
goods crossing the CU customs border.  The same customs clearance  procedures were applied 
uniformly for import, export, or customs transit of goods and, therefore, there was a single system of 
fees for these customs clearance procedures.  Notwit hstanding the explanations, the matter of the level 
of fees and how they were established continued to be of concern.  Some Members believed that the 
service rendered in the case of transit was less th an that provided in connection with imports going 
through customs clearance. 
1157.  In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that guarantees for customs transit were regulated by Articles 85 to 88 of the CU Customs 
Code.  These provisions set-out that guarantees coul d be required to secure the fulfilment of the 
customs taxes and duties payable, unless:  a) a pro cedure for transit escort was applied; b) transit was 
conducted by a Russian authorised customs trans port operator or accredited economic operator; or 
c) customs transit was regulated by the obligations of the Russ ian Federation under international 
treaties, inter alia , the International Road Transport (TIR) Convention, that provided otherwise.  
Transit by power transmission lines, pipelines and railways were also exempt from customs 
guarantees.  The payer had the right to choose the means of guarantees:  1) payment in cash; 2) bank 
guarantee; 3) surety; 4) pledge of property; or ot her means foreseen in the national legislation of a 
CU Party.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration informed Members that Article 88 of the 
CU Customs Code outlined the ru les to assess the value of guarant ees and noted that guarantees 
would be approximated to the value of the customs taxes and duties payable.  He further explained 
that guarantees on customs transit were applied in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner and, 
in his view, were in line with the requirements of  Article V of the GATT 1994 on freedom of transit.  
1158.  Several Members of the Working Party noted that railway freight fees for transiting the 
territory of the Russian Federation were higher than  those paid for domestic destinations and asked 
the Russian Federation to provide additional in formation on this matter.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation said that  the Russian Federation was a party to the 
Agreement on International Transit Tariffs (ITT) and the Agreement on the Single Transit Tariffs 
(STT).  Thus, railway tariff rates for carrying goods  in transit were established according to the 
principles of these international Agreements a nd calculated on a non-discriminatory basis.  
Basic ceiling tariffs were calculated on the prin ciples provided for by these Agreements and the 
Members established applied tariffs below the ceiling calculated annually.  The transit tariff rates for 
same railways/destinations were unique and did not depend on the nationalit y of goods.  Generally, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 420  
 
  the transit tariff policy was mostly dependent on comp etitive capacity of international transit routes, 
crossing several countries, and the rates were estab lished by such countries jointly.  These transit 
tariffs were normally lower than export/import trans portation tariffs.  The transit tariff policy of the 
Russian Federation was transparent; all related in formation was published on the website of the 
Federal Service on Tariffs of the Russian Federation (www.fstrf.ru) and in related official editions.  
He also referred to the Section on "Pricing Policies"  where tariffs for rail transportation of goods were 
discussed.  Some Members noted th at they expected the Russian Federation to pr ovide additional 
information on principles according to which th e tariffs were established and that a further 
precision/update of the description of the elements, on the basis of which tariffs were set, needed to be 
done in connection with the railway fee discussion in the Section on "Pricing Policies" of this Report. 
1159.  One Member noted that it was unclear which agreements were being referenced in 
paragraph [1158].  This Member further noted that this Section of the Report appeared to reference 
the International Transit Tariff used in cases when  a cargo owner paid for the transportation services 
directly, as well as the "East-West" tariffs for tr ansportation through the Russian Federation to 
non-CIS European countries were determined by the CIS Rail Transport Tariff Conference.  
The agreements in question were regional arrangements for which the term "international" might be 
misleading.  It would be useful to provide additio nal references to these agreements to clarify their 
coverage, countries included, etc.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that 
the terms and  descriptions  used in paragraph [1158] correctly reflected the official title of the 
above-mentioned Agreements. 
1160.  When asked about the ban on transit over the te rritory of the Russian Federation for certain 
goods, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, pursuant to Article 152 of the 
CU Customs Code, transit (as well as importation or  exportation) of some types of goods could be 
prohibited by Federal laws, decisions of the CU Co mmission, as well as international agreements of 
the CU Parties and regulations of a CU Party implementing those international agreements.  
Currently, such prohibitions could be imposed, in  accordance with the CU Agreement on Non-tariff 
Regulation,  CU Commission Decision No. 132, and relevant decisions adopted under the Federal laws 
of the Russian Federation.  In general, such provisi ons were applied for reasons of safety, health, or 
national security.  They could not have an economic ch aracter.  In particular, transit of goods likely to 
affect human life and health and, the environment was forbidden or strictly limited.  Aircraft carrying 
armaments, military equipment, and military property were not allowed to transit the territory of the 
Russian Federation without landing.  Import to, expo rt from, and transit of explosives for industrial 
purposes by juridical persons over the territory of the Russian Federation as part of the accompanied 
or unaccompanied luggage and hand luggage and th eir cargo shipment to natural persons' addresses  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 421 
 
 
  were also prohibited.  In addition, special rules ap plied to the transit of narcotics, substances with 
psychotropic effects, poisons and substances listed in Tables I and II of the "Convention of the United 
Nations Organization against Illegal Circulation of Drugs and Psychotropic Substances" of 1988.  
For example, Article 28 of Federal Law No. 3-FZ of 8 January 1998 "On Narcotic Agents and 
Psychotropic Substances" prohibited transit of narc otic agents, psychotropi c substances and their 
precursors across the territory of the Russian Fe deration.  In order to implement Federal Law 
No. 89-FZ of 24 June 1998 "On Production and Consumption of Wastes" (as last amended on 
8 December 2008) and commitments of the Russian  Federation under the Basel Convention on 
Control Over Transborder Transportation of Danger ous Wastage and Its Removal, the Government of 
the Russian Federation issued Resolution No. 442 of 17 July 2003 "On the Transborder Transfer of 
Wastes", where Appendix 2 contained the list of dangerous wastes, banne d to be imported and 
transited across the territory of the Russian Federation. 
1161.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all its laws, regulations and other measures governing transit of goods (including energy), such 
as those governing charges for transportation of goods in transit by road, rail and air, as well as other 
charges and  customs fees imposed in connection with transit, including those mentioned in 
paragraphs [1155] and [1156] in conformity with the provisions of Article V of the GATT 1994 and 
other relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement.   The representative of the Russian Federation 
further confirmed that, from the date of accession, a ll laws and regulations re garding the application 
and the level of  those charges and customs fees imposed in connection with transit would be 
published.   Further,  upon  receipt of a written request of a con cerned Member, the Russian Federation 
would provide to  that Member  information on the revenue collected from customs fees and customs 
charges, including  those mentioned in paragraphs [1155] and [1156], and on the costs of providing the 
associated services.  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment. 
- Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products 
1162.  The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that policies in the Russian agricultural 
sector needed first and foremost to address the problems that had accumulated over the years of planned economy and notably the sectoral imbalan ce in prices and revenues, which was a major 
adverse factor in  agricultural sector; of low profitability;  and, underdevelopment of production and 
social infrastructure. 
1163.  In response to questions from some Members,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
said that the following normative legal acts had b een adopted to resolve these accumulated problems 
in the agriculture sector: WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 422  
 
  - "Major Guidelines of the Agri-Food Policy of the Russian Federation Government for the 
Years 2001-2010", approved by the Government of the Russian Federation on 27 July 2000; 
- Federal Law No. 264-FZ of 29 December  2006 "On Development of Agriculture" 
(as last amended on 24 July 2009); and 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 446 of 14 July 2007 "On the 
State Program of Development of Agricultu ral Sector and Regulation of Markets of 
Agricultural Products, Raw Materials and Food for 2008-2012".   
 
1164.  The representative of the Russian Federation also presented a detailed explanation of the 
programme provided for in Resolution No. 446.  Th is programme was a result of implementation of 
Federal Law No. 264-FZ and was to be realized at both regional and Federal levels.  The main 
objectives of the programmes provided for in Reso lution No. 446 were to ensure sustainable 
development of rural territories, increase in employment and standard of living, as well as to increase the competitiveness of Russian agricultural products on the  basis of financial stability and 
modernization of agriculture.  The implementation of the programme was financed from the Federal 
and regional budgets according to planned expenses fo r each successive three-year period on a rolling 
basis.  The representative of the Russian Federati on concluded that thus the measures provided for  in 
Resolution No. 446 were the basis for realization of key long-term policy objectives of the Russian Federation in the agricultural sector aime d at ensuring sustainable development of rural 
territories and establishing of effective and competitive agro-industrial production.   
1165.  The representative also stated that the successful realization of these measures created terms 
for stable development of agriculture, and were  the grounds for increasing the financing of those 
programmes that had no, or at most minimal, trade-distorting effect or effects on production. 
1166.  During the negotiations on accession, the Russian  Federation provided data (support levels 
and explanations of programmes)  for domestic support to agriculture, starting from the year 1989 
through most years to the period 2007-2009.  Th e Russian Federation also provided answers to 
specific questions from interested Members.  The provided data demonstrated significant decrease of 
domestic support in the Russian Federation during the period from the year 1989 to the period 
2007-2009.  
1167.  Some Members requested further informati on on implementation and the mechanisms for 
provision of subsidies at Federal a nd regional levels.  In particular, these Members wanted to know if 
the same types of subsidies were provided to a co mmodity by both Federal and regional authorities.  
In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that data concerning the sources of 
support for all programmes was presented in the Supp orting Tables of the Russian Federation, the last 
revision of which had been provided to the Worki ng Party in August 2011.  He noted that some 
support measures were impl emented only at Federal level and some only at a regional level.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 423 
 
 
  Some programmes were financed both at Federal and regional level, being financed partially from the 
regional and Federal budgets.  In any case, funds were calculated separately.  Specifically, for 
measures financed from the Federal budget, the funds could be transferred to the regional level, but 
any such transfers were included in the calculati ons as Federal level support.  The calculations for 
regional measures reflected only those measures wh ich were financed from regional budgets.  
1168.  In response to specific concerns raised by Members, the re presentative of the 
Russian Federation noted that support, under some aspects of programmes it had initially described as 
falling within the "green box" provisions, would n eed to be counted in Aggregate Measurements of 
Support (AMS).  These included:  (i) subsidies for the delivery of seeds to the disadvantaged areas; 
(ii) subsidies for provision of seeds from the Federal Fund of Seeds on free of charge basis (referring to the Programme "Creation of the Federal Fund of Seeds"); and (iii) provision of compensation for 
use of mineral fertilizers, costs for maintenance of land reclamation, and la nd amelioration systems as 
well as scheduled operational and maintenance expenditures within the "Federal Task Program on 
'Fertility'".   
1169.  In respect of the operation of the Programme "Creation of the Federal Fund of Seeds", the 
representative of the Russian Federation confirmed th at the Federal Fund of Seeds of key agricultural 
plants was formed to ensure av ailability of an adequate supply of seeds to producers affected by 
natural disasters and emergencies.  The Fund could be  used for supply of seeds to regions that did not 
produce seeds or had a limited capacity for their production.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation drew attention to the fact that in the Programme "Creation of the Federal Fund of 
Seeds", purchases by the Fund of Seeds were made at  market prices.  Within that programme, one 
element involved the above-mentioned provision of seed s on free of charge basis.  He explained that 
such free delivery of seeds shall be carried out, up on the special resolution of the Government, only in 
certain emergency situations which entailed the dev astation of the crops.  In all other cases, sales of 
seeds from the Fund were made at market prices.  In  this latter element of the Programme, the support 
in favour of agricultural producers would be in the form of a service provided by the Government.  As this measure did not fully fit the polic y-specific conditions set-out in paragraph 2 
(General services) of Annex 2 of the WTO Ag reement on Agriculture, it was classified under a 
heading "Other" in paragraph 2.  
1170.  In response to a question from a Member of the Working Party, th e representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that external referenc e prices for calculating price support for milk were 
determined on the basis of the calculation of milk e quivalent reference prices.  The calculation of the 
milk equivalent unit import value was based on trad e data of the Russian Federation relating to the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 424  
 
  volume and import unit prices of butter and skim  milk powder, taking into account technical 
conversion factors.  The representative of the Russian Federation referred Members to non-paper 
No. 36 "External Reference Prices for Milk and Ca lculations of the Aggregated Measurement of 
Support (AMS) in the Russian Federation for the Period of 1993-1995", dated 22 September 2004. 
1171.  Some Members posed questions about restructuring of debts and debts writing-off.  
The representative of the Russian Federation replied that these measures included in 
Supporting Tables had been undertaken by the Government of the Russian Federation in order to 
support agricultural producers in case they had debt s owed to the Government related to credits.  
These measures were implemented according to Fe deral Law No. 83-FZ of 9 July 2002 "On the 
Financial Recovery of the Agricultural Producers" (as last amended on 23 July 2008), (hereinafter:  
Federal Law No. 83-FZ), Laws on Federal Budget for corresponding y ears and decisions of regional 
authorities. 
1172.  Federal Law No. 83-FZ established the legal f oundations and the terms and conditions for the 
restructuring of agricultural producers' debts, c overing any debts, including debts to budgets of all 
levels of government, with a view to improving  the agricultural producers' financial condition. 
1173.  Restructuring of debts and debts writing-o ff were based upon the annual laws on Federal 
budget.  Following the recommendations of the Mini stry of Finance of the Russian Federation, 
regions of the Russian Federation annually carried out similar work with regard to agricultural 
producers.  
1174.  For the purposes of domestic support calculation, the only amount of loss of the 
Governments' revenue, caused by restructuring of de bts owed to the Government, related to credits 
provided to agricultural producers from Federal a nd regional budgets (value of accumulated debt 
including accumulated interest rates, fines and pena lties multiplied by annual average interest rate of 
the Central Bank of the Russian Federation) were taken into account.  The following debts owed to 
the Government related to credits were restru ctured:  (i) centralized credits (1992-1994); 
(ii) commodity credits (1995-1996); (iii) credits from Special Fund for soft crediting (1997-2000); and 
(iv) credits at expenses of regional budgets for spring-agricultural works and harvesting operations. 
1175.  Domestic support calculations also included debt s related to credits that were written-off on 
centralised credits over the years 1992-1994, on soft loans granted over the years 1997-2001, as well 
as on commodity credits over the years 1995-1996.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 425 
 
 
  1176.  Some Members posed questions on the operation of the system in the Russian Federation to 
provide soft credit to agro-industrial producers on concessionary terms (the "soft crediting system").  
In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration explained that, starting from 2000, a subsidy 
granting system had been implemented for partial s ubsidization of costs associated with interest 
payments on loans received by agricultural produ cers from lending institutions.  Soft credits were 
provided from the Federal Budget through compensation of the difference in interest rates on loans 
obtained from lending institutions.  Subsidies to c over the difference in interest rates on loans 
obtained from lending institutions we re provided monthly for the specified share of the refinancing 
rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. 
1177.  Some Members stated that they disagreed with Russia's classification of a number of 
programmes as being non-product-specific in nature.  These Members noted that the WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture defines "non-product-specific support"  as support provided in favour of agricultural 
producers in general.  These Members further noted th at, in their view, Russia's replies to questions 
had demonstrated that support under a number of programmes classified as non-product-specific in 
Russia's historical support tables did not provide support in favour of agricultural producers in 
general.  These programmes included:  (i) Other livestock output subsidies; (ii) Other livestock 
production subsidies; (iii) Elite seed subsidies; (iv)  Pedigree livestock subsidies; (v) Subsidising the 
establishment and care for perennial plants; (vi) Othe r plant production subsidies; and (vii) Subsidies 
for the delivery of seeds to disadvantaged areas.   
1178.  Some Members noted that the placement of these programmes in the  
non-product-specific section of Russia's historical tables shall not be construed as implying their acceptance of such classification.  Further, some  Members stressed their expectation that the 
Russian Federation would take steps to rectify the classification of its support programmes according 
to the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreemen t on Agriculture in its notifications of such 
programmes to the WTO Committee on Agriculture and in calculating its Current Total AMS. 
1179.  In response to the questions of some Members in respect of the classification of certain 
support programmes as non-product specific, the re presentative of the Russian Federation explained 
that those programmes, in accord ance with the respective resolutions of the Government, were 
designed so that any product covered by the prog rammes could be subject to the support and it was 
implemented that way.  
1180.  These programmes covered the wide range of products and, in his view, their classification as 
being non-product-specific corresponded to the cla ssification stipulated by the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 426  
 
  1181.  In respect of "Elite seed subsidies", he further explained that such subsidies were provided to 
subsidise the purchase of elite seeds of any agricu ltural plants for the purpose of reproduction of 
plants, variety turnover and renewal.  Subsidies fo r the delivery of seeds to the disadvantaged areas 
were provided for the compensation of costs of se eds for agricultural producers in the north and 
mountain areas where such seeds cannot be produced .  These programmes were not limited to the 
support of any particular product and therefore corresponded to the criterion for non-product-specific 
support set-forth in the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.    
1182.  In respect of "Other livestock output subsidi es", he further explained that these subsidies 
covered such products as bee-breeding, venison (rei ndeer meat) and fur-farming.  It included support 
for purchasing of equipment for processing of prod ucts, packing equipment, etc. "Other livestock 
production subsidies" programme was aimed at tec hnical modernisation of livestock industry (milk 
production, meat production, egg production, wo ol production and other livestock production). 
Both types of subsidies were granted by the regional authorities. 
1183.  The representative of the Russian Federation drew  the attention of the Working Party to the 
fact that share of "Pedigree livestock subsidies" in  Total non-product-specific support was very small.  
In current and future agricultural policy, the majo r tools of support for livestock and crop sector were 
soft crediting of agriculture.  In 2009, the share of this measure was about 51.3 per cent of Total 
non-product-specific support and about 45 per cent of Total AMS.  He further stated that the 
Russian Federation planned to maintain soft cred iting as the major instrument of support for the 
livestock sector.   
1184.  Some Members of the Working Party noted th at an exclusive tariff-rate was currently 
provided for transportation of agricultural products  in the Russian Federation.  These Members asked 
whether national treatment was granted when the exclusive tariff-rate was used and whether the 
exclusive tariff-rate covered bot h export and import.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that preferential tariff-r ates for transportation of agricultural cargoes were 
granted to particular goods according to special d ecisions of the responsible governmental body.  
Such decisions did not differentiate between domestic and imported goods.   
1185.  While recognizing the possibility of the Russian Federation having recourse to the  
non-exempt measures under the WTO Agreement on Ag riculture, some Members considered that 
while determining its requiremen ts and level of commitments, th e Russian Federation should give 
emphasis to the use of measures of Annex 2  that could achieve the desired reform objectives pursued 
by the Russian Federation in the field of agriculture.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 427 
 
 
  1186.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
comply with all provisions of the WTO Agreemen t on Agriculture and the commitments on domestic 
support and on export subsidies for agricultural produc ts which were contained in the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitments on Goods annexed to  the Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
1187.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the Russian Federation would, in 
addition to the commitments inscribed in Part IV , Section I, of its Schedule of Concessions and 
Commitments, ensure that, from the date of its accession to the WTO through 31 December 2017, in 
any year, the sum of all product-specific aggregate measurements of support does not exceed 30 per cent of the non-product-specific aggregate measurement of support, where the terms "product-specific aggregate measurement of suppor t", "non-product-specific aggregate measurement 
of support", "basic agricultural product" and "year" had the same meanings as in the WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1188.  Some Members stated that in view of recent  accessions to the WTO, they considered it 
inappropriate for any country to accede to the WT O with the right to use export subsidies.  
These Members stressed the need that the Russian Federation should bind its export subsidies at zero.  
In this respect, these Members also stressed that programmes on export credits, export credit 
guarantees or insurance programmes needed to be a pplied by the Russian Federation so as to avoid 
circumvention of the commitment not to provide export subsidies.
  
1189.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that by the date of accession the 
Russian Federation would bind its export subsidies at zero level.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
- Trade in Civil Aircraft 
1190.  Some Members asked that the Russian Federati on enter a commitment to join the Agreement 
on Trade in Civil Aircraft upon accession.  These Member s also requested that the Russian Federation 
implement the Agreement without exceptions and without recourse to any transitional period.  
Some Members also stated that the Russian Federati on should ensure that all internal taxes would be 
applied to the sale or lease of civil aircraft in  a non-discriminatory fashion between imported and 
domestically produced goods and between  goods imported from third countries. 
1191.  Some Members of the Working Party also re quested that the Russian Federation provide 
additional information on how its current customs re quirements for imports, e.g., licensing and tariff WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 428  
 
  suspensions, particularly with regard to its par ticipation in the Customs Union, might operate to 
increase market access in the Russian Federation for aircraft. 
1192.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that capacity utilisation for 
manufacturing facilities in the aviation industry in the Russian Federation had been improving, and now averaged 35 per cent, up from only 10-15 per cent in  2001.  At that time, most enterprises in the 
aviation sector had suffered operating losses, thus s ubstantially limiting the possibilities for financing 
the modernisation of facilities and introducing modern manufacturing and servicing technologies.  
As the situation had improved in the aviation sector  of the Russian Federation, aviation enterprises 
had secured financing to purchase and lease new equipm ent, much of it imported.  He recalled that 
Government Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "O n Certain Issues of Regulation of Temporary 
Imports of Foreign Made Aircraft " had superseded Government Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1998 
"On Additional Measures of State Support for Ci vil Aviation in Russia" and had cancelled the 
exemption from customs duties and taxes in this se ctor, but subsequently, tariff and tax exemptions 
had been made available on a case-by-case basis,  both for leasing and for purchases of imported 
aircraft.   
1193.  The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that under the Customs Union 
Common External Tariff (CU CET) the previous ta riff of the Russian Federation of 20 per cent had 
been eliminated on imports of certain small aircraft  (i.e., those with fewer than 50 seats and weighing 
less than 20,000 kg).  The CU CET was also zero per cent for imports of aircraft with 50-300 seats 
weighing 90,000-120,000 kg a nd of large aircraft, (i.e., those with more than 300 seats or weighing 
more than 120,000 kg.  Zero tariff rates applie d to both purchased aircraft and those imported 
temporarily for leasing.  The VAT of 18 per cent was normally collected on all such temporary importations (leases), but the VAT could be paid in 34 monthly instalments after importation.  For all 
other civil aircraft imports into the Russian Fede ration, the CU CET of 20 per cent was applied, but 
with a temporary exception for aircraft imported for leasing that had either 111-160 or 219-300 seats 
weighing 20,000-120,000  kg.  The leasing contracts must have entered into effect prior to 
31 December 2013 and the term of lease provided for in the contract must end by 31 December 2018.  
In these cases, pursuant to CU Commission Decision No . 411 of 20 September 2010, all such aircraft 
weighing 20,000-120,000 kg could be exempted from the VAT as well as the CU CET.  In cases 
where the term of the leasing contract extended beyond 31 December 2018, the customs procedures of temporary importation could be extended by up to 34 months.  After 31 De cember 2018, however, a 
partial exemption from customs duties and taxes w ould be applied to such goods (i.e., the fees 
equivalent to 3 per cent of the customs duties and ta xes which would be levied on such goods for each 
complete and incomplete calendar month of their stay in the customs territory of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 429 
 
 
  Russian Federation).  This exemption was also appli cable to such temporary importations of aircraft 
by Belarus and Kazakhstan.   
1194.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther explained that Belarus and Kazakhstan 
had sought additional tariff exemp tions to cover the categories not already exempted when the 
CU CET was established.  The CU Commission Deci sion No. 328 as of 16 July 2010 provided for an 
exemption from import duties for import of certain civil aircraft imported into Belarus and 
Kazakhstan prior to 1 July 2014.  This exempti on covered any aircraft we ighing between 90,000 and 
120,000 kg or weighing between 20,000 and 90,000 kg and with 51-300 seats.  It also covered imports 
of aircraft engines and aircraft-related spare part s and equipment necessary for maintenance and repair 
into all CU Parties, including the Russian Federation. 
1195.  Some Members also requested that the Russian  Federation provide information on its current 
plans of restructuring and consolidation of the domestic aviation industry.   
1196.  In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation informed Members that the 
intentions of the Government to revitalize the Russi an aircraft industry, as well as to keep and develop 
its research and development (R&D) potential, and to concentrate intellectual, industrial and financial 
resources on realization of the perspective progra mmes for aviation engineering, were defined in 
Presidential Decree No. 140 of 20 February 2006 "O n Open Joint-Stock Company 'United Aircraft-
Construction Corporation'" and the follow-up R esolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation No. 224 of 20 April 2006.  By these legal acts, the Russian Federation and shareholders of 
the Russian aircraft construction enterprises est ablished the open JSC "Un ited Aircraft-Construction 
Corporation" (UAC).  The share of the Russian Federation in the authorised capital of the UAC 
amounted to not less than 80.29 per cent.  Shares of the enterprises, which were in Federal property, 
were invested into the nominal capital of th e open JSC by the Russian Federation as assessed 
contribution.  According to Presidential Decree No. 140, the Federal SUEs "Russian Aircraft 
Constructing Corporation 'MiG'" and "The Ka zan Aviation Production Association Named after 
S.P.Gorbunov" also were transformed into open JSCs, with 100 per cent Federal ownership.  
Presidential Decree No. 140 recommended that the pr ivate shareholders of 13 large JSCs of the 
aircraft sector contribute to the nominal capital of  the UAC with their shares which amounted to 19.71 
per cent of the authorised capital.  At the en d of 2010, after the JSC the UAC had performed 
additional emission 81.75 per cent of authorised cap ital belonged to the Russian Federation, 10.6 per 
cent to the Vnesheconombank and 7.64 per cent to th e private shareholders.  The share of the 
companies joining in the UAC amounted to about tw o thirds of the overall production of aircraft in 
the Russian Federation.  The priority activitie s of the UAC were defined as development, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 430  
 
  manufacture, sale, and service of aviation engineeri ng for military and civil aircraft purposes in the 
interests of domestic and foreign states and other customers.   The role of the State in the UAC 
consisted primarily in controlling realization of pr ogrammes of development of the Russian aircraft 
industry. 
1197.  In response to questions from Members on subsid ies in the aircraft sector, the representative 
of the Russian Federation stated that the aircraft industry had been hard-hit by the financial crisis 
between 2008-2009 and a number of State-supported rescue packages had been provided to aircraft 
manufacturers.  In 2010, the authorised capital of the UAC had been increased by RUB 10 billion 
(US$312.5 million) for the restructuring of its de bts and by RUB 2.77 billion (US$86.5 million) for 
provision of subsidies on R&D programmes.  In order to offset financial risk, RUB 290 million 
(US$9 million) had been allocated in the Federal budget to partially compensate Russian aircraft 
engine producers over a period of five years for high interest rates they incurred in borrowing between 
2008-2010 for the purposes of re-equipment.  An additional RUB 709 million (US$22.1 million) had 
been allocated in the Federal budget to partially compensate companies affiliated with the UAC over a 
period of five years for high rates of interest on credits and partial compensation for lease payments 
under 2006 contracts and later on re-equipment.  Under these programmes, both Russian and foreign 
equipment was eligible for the subsidized credits or  lease arrangements.  He also added that, in 2009, 
under the Federal Specific Program "Aircraft Indus try Development," initiate d in 2005, State support 
totalling RUB 12.96 billion (US$405 million) was provided for R&D projects and RUB 6.48 billion 
(US$202.6 million) for capital investments and infrastru cture development.  He also noted that in 
order to promote competition on the domestic mark et in the area of financial conditions for the 
purchase of domestic and foreign aircraft, the Go vernment had enacted Resolution No. 466 of 
26 June 2002 "On the Framework of Partial Compensa tion to Russian Airlines of Lease Payments for 
Russian-made Aircraft due to Lease Contract s with Russian Lease Companies, and Partial 
Compensation of Rates of Credits taken in 2002-2005 in Russian Credit Organizations on Purchase of 
Russian-made Aircraft."  Under this Resolution, Russian airline companies could apply for State 
funding for partial compensation of their lease and credit payments for the purchase of domestic 
aircrafts, including guarantees and insurance.  Only  Russian-made aircraft were eligible under this 
programme.   
1198.  A Member noted that Government Resolution No. 466 appeared to encourage the purchase 
and lease of Russian-made aircraft by lowering th e leasing costs of Russian-made aircraft to 
Russian airlines.  This Member noted that the pr ogramme appeared to cons titute a prohibited subsidy 
pursuant to Article 3:1(b) of the WTO Agreem ent on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and 
asked the Russian Federation to provide more info rmation on this leasing programme.  In response,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 431 
 
 
  the representative of the Russian Federation stated  that this programme currently covered only 
Russian-made aircraft; however, prior to accessi on, the programme would be changed so that 
foreign-made aircraft would also be covered.  He explained that only Russian credit organizations 
could grant loans to leasing companies to buy ai rcraft.  Interest rates were set by the credit 
organizations themselves.  The Government support pr ovided could be up to one half of the interest 
costs incurred by the leasing co mpany in purchasing the aircraft. 
1199.  The representative of the Russian Federation furthe r stated that the current situation in the 
aviation sector prevented the Russian Federation from joining the WTO Agreement on Trade in 
Civil Aircraft and implementing its requirements. 
1200.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that Government Resolution No. 466 
would be amended prior to accession so that the purchase of foreign-made aircraft by a leasing 
company would qualify for benefits under the pr ogramme and that the programme would be 
administered in compliance with the WTO obligations  of the Russian Federation.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments. 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) 1. General 
1201.  The representative of the Russian Federati on stated that the legislation of the 
Russian Federation included civil, administrativ e, and criminal measures for the protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights.  Th e framework for civil protection of intellectual 
property, during the period from 1992 through 2007, was set-out in the Constitution of the 
Russian Federation, the Civil Code, as last amende d on 4 October 2010, the Patent Law, the Law of 
the Russian Federation "On Trademarks, Service Mark s, and Appellations of Origin of Goods", the 
Law of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Re lated Rights", the Law of the Russian Federation 
"On Legal Protection of Layout Designs of Integrat ed Circuits", the Federa l Law "On Protection of 
Competition", the Law of the Russian Federation "On Attainments in Selection", and the Federal Law 
"On Commercial Secrets".  The legal framework fo r civil protection of intellectual property rights 
beginning on 1 January 2008 was the Constitution of  the Russian Federation and the Civil Code 
(Part IV).  Other laws listed in [Table 34] se t-out certain enforcement measures for intellectual 
property rights and these laws continued to apply after 1 January 2008.  Subordinate measures, such 
as regulations and decrees, and other laws, such as the Federal Law "On Joint-Stock Companies", the 
Federal Law "On Limited Liability Companies", the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of 
Consumers' Rights", the Law of the Russian Federation "On Space Activity", the Law of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 432  
 
  Russian Federation "On Mass-Media", Federal Law "O n Architectural Activity", and other "sectoral" 
laws dealt with certain aspects of the protection of  intellectual property, but relevant provisions of 
these laws and other measures were required to be in  conformity with the Constitution and Part IV of 
the Civil Code. 
1202.  The representative of the Russian Federation also  explained to Members of the Working Party 
that the Constitution of the Russian Federation estab lished basic rights in the field of intellectual 
property in the Russian Federation.  Article 44, paragraph 1 of the Constitu tion, guaranteed freedom 
of literary, artistic, scientific, technical, and ot her types of creative and educational activity, and 
provided for legal protection of these activities.  He  further informed Members of the Working Party 
that adoption of Part IV of the Civil Code permitte d the Russian Federation to finalise codification of 
its civil legislation with the objectives of:  
- harmonizing norms on intellectual property with th e general provisions of civil legislation; 
- achieving full conformity of domestic legislati on with the international obligations of the 
Russian Federation; 
- amending the intellectual property laws of the Ru ssian Federation, to keep the most effective 
provisions of currently applied laws, while st rengthening protection where appropriate; and  
- strengthening available civil remedies to combat counterfeiting, piracy and the making 
available of pirated material over the internet, through, inter alia , introduction of the concept 
of "gross violations", which stipulated that li quidation of the legal entity that committed such 
violations, was an available remedy.  
1203.  The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the Civil Code included essential 
provisions on enforcement of intellectual property rights , in particular, remedies that were available in 
civil actions.  These remedies were of two different types.  Some remedies, such as temporary and 
permanent injunctive relief from infringement of rights or threat of such infringement, were applied 
based on the good, irrespective of a finding of infring ement.  Other remedies (compensation of losses, 
payment of damages, etc.) could be applied only based on a finding that an infringer was guilty.  
The defendant, however, had the burden of proving th e absence of guilt.  Furthermore, the Civil Code 
contained provisions on seizure of counterfeit and pi rated material and provi ded for its destruction 
based on a decision of the court.  In addition, according to the Civil Code, the equipment, other 
devices and materials used or designated for engagi ng in infringement were to be destroyed at the 
expense of the infringer.  For "gross violations", the Civil Code provided a severe remedy, liquidation 
of the infringing legal entity and withdrawal of re gistration of infringing individual entrepreneurs.  
These civil enforcement measures also applied to rele vant provisions of such laws as the Federal Law 
"On Commercial Secrets", Law of the Russian Federation "On Space Activity", the Federal Law "On Architectural Activity", the Federal Law "O n Joint-Stock Companies" and the Federal Law 
"On Limited Liability Companies."  He explained furt her, that the Civil Code entered into force as  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 433 
 
 
  from 1 January 2008, replacing, inter alia , the following laws:  the Patent Law, the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On Trademarks, Service Marks, and Appellations of Orig in of Goods", the Law 
of the Russian Federation "On Copyright and Rela ted Rights", the Law "On the Legal Protection of 
Computer Programmes and Data Bases", the Law of  the Russian Federation "On Legal Protection of 
Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits", and the Law of the Russian Federation "On Attainments in 
Selection".  Federal Law No. 231-FZ of 18 December  2006 "On Putting the Fourth Part of the Civil 
Code of the Russian Federation into Effect", as am ended on 24 July 2007, also amended the First and 
Second Parts of the Civil Code of the Russian Fe deration, the Federal Law "On Commercial Secrets", 
the Law of the Russian Federation "On Space Activit y", the Federal Law "On Architectural Activity", 
the Federal Law "On Joint-Stock Companies", the Federal Law "On Limited Liability Companies, as 
well as related provisions of other laws.  These la ws, as amended by the Law "On Putting the Fourth 
Part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation into Effect", entered into force on 1 January 2008. 
1204.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated that Part IV of the Civil Code 
implemented the most important international Ag reements on protection of intellectual property 
(TRIPS, the Berne Convention (1971), Paris Convention, etc.).   
1205.  He further noted that Chapter 69 "General provisi ons" of Part IV of the Civil Code contained 
the list of "protectable" results of intellectual ac tivity and equivalent means of individualization of 
legal persons, goods, works, services, and enterprises.   These results of intellectual activity and means 
of individualization, as particular intangible objects of protection by law, were unified in the 
Civil Code under the definition of "intellectual pr operty".  The rights, arising in connection with 
intellectual property, were named in the Civil C ode, as "intellectual property rights" and included 
personal non-property rights belonging to th e authors of creative achievements (e.g., droit de suite , 
etc.) as well as exclusive rights, which were property ri ghts, and, therefore, an object of civil turnover, 
as well as a range of other rights, which could ulti mately be related neither to the content of an 
exclusive right nor to personal non-property rights (for example, the right of following in the 
copyright). 
1206.  The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members of the Working Party that an 
exclusive right was treated in the Civil Code as the ri ght of its holder to use the result of intellectual 
activity or the means of individualization at his own discretion in any way that did not contradict the 
law.  The Civil Code also provided that the holder of  the exclusive right could dispose of it at his own 
discretion, if the Civil Code did not provide otherwise, inter alia,  in accordance with a contract to 
alienate this right to another person or to provide another pers on with the right to exploit the 
respective result of intellectual activity or respec tive mean of individualization in established forms WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 434  
 
  (i.e., on the basis of a licence).  Any of the limitations on exclusive rights could be imposed only if the 
limitation did not inflict unjustified harm to the ordi nary use of results of intellectual activity, or 
means of individualization and did not impair in an unjustified manner the legitimate rights of the 
right-holder.  Several Articles, including Article 124 1, referred to general pr ovisions on alienation of 
exclusive rights through contract and contracts on li censing, and also to cases of lapse of an exclusive 
right to other persons without  contractual relationships.  
1207.  Some Members of the Working Party requested cl arification of the scope and content of the 
term "exclusive rights" as used in Articles 1229, 1231 and other Articles of Part IV of the Civil Code.  
In particular, Members asked whethe r this term would include economic rights, such as the rights of 
remuneration provided for in Articles 11 bis and 13 of the Berne Convention, Article 12 of the 
Rome Convention and Article 15 of the WIPO Treaty on Performances and Phonograms (WPPT), 
which some Members of the Working Party consid ered to be distinct from exclusive rights.  
1208.  The representative of the Russian Federation r esponded that a right to remuneration, under 
Russian law, was considered part of an exclusive ri ght and covered by the term  "exclusive rights" as 
used in Articles 1229, 1231, and elsewhere in the Civ il Code.  In some cases the right of remuneration 
might be the only part of the exclusive right retained  by the right-holder.  He explained that the first 
paragraph of Article 1229.5 of the Civil Code stat ed that the limitations on exclusive rights were 
established by the Civil Code "in cases when the u se of the results of intellectual activities was 
permitted without the right-holders' consent, but when  they retain their rights to a remuneration shall 
be established by the present Code".  Recognizing the concerns of some Members of the Working 
Party, the representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that, from the date of accession the term "exc lusive rights" as used in Articles 1229, 1231, and 
other Articles of Part IV of the Civil Code would be interpreted and applied as including the right to 
remuneration.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1209.  Some Members of the Working Party expr essed concerns about the consistency of 
paragraph 5 of Article 1229 of the Civil Code, as it re lated to limitations on exclusive rights, with 
Articles 13, 17, and 30 of the WTO Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement 
(hereafter: WTO TRIPS Agreement) and asked for additional clarification of this provision.  
They noted that the language in paragraph 5 of Ar ticle 1229 did not correspond to any of the relevant 
Articles of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
1210.  The representative of the Russian Federation responded that Article 1229 contained only the 
general principles for limitation of exclusive right s which cover the whole sphere of intellectual 
property rights.  Thus instead of mentioning "paten ts", "trademarks", "copyright or related rights"  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 435 
 
 
  only, the provisions of Article 1229 of the Civil Co de covered all the results of intellectual activity 
and means of individualization, and all objects subj ect to protection.  The specific limitations for 
copyright, for example, were to be found in Articles 1272 to 1280 of the Civil Code.  In his view, 
those limitations did not conflict with a normal e xploitation of the work and did not unreasonably 
prejudice the legitimate interests of the right-holder.  At the same time, from a practical point of view, the Civil Code approach seemed to be more conveni ent for application, as it contained factual criteria 
for the estimation of barriers to the common course of use of the results of intellectual activity 
(or means of individualization).  He also noted that  Paragraph 3 of Article 1229.5 of the Civil Code 
stipulated that exceptions must "not impair in an unjustified manner the lawful interests of the 
right-holders".  While the interests of third parti es were not named directly, the necessity of taking 
into account the interests of third parties (consum ers and others) was based on the general principles 
of the civil law (Article 1 of the Civil Code). 
1211.  Some Members of the Working Party continued to have serious concerns about whether the 
provisions of the Civil Code on limitations on excl usive rights complied with Articles 13, 17, and 30 
of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Moreover, they expressed concerns that some of the specific 
limitations, such as those set-out in Articles 1270 (excluding temporary reproductions), 1273, and 
1306, among others, went beyond the limitati ons permitted under Article 13 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Similar concerns were expressed about the limitations on patent and trademark rights.  In these Members' view, judici al and other authorities would be making decisions 
based on the language in the Civil Code, whic h did not correspond to the language in the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement and which had not been prev iously applied.  These Members requested that 
the Russian Federation bring the limitations to  exclusive rights into compliance with the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
1212.  Recognizing the continuing concerns of some Members of the Working Party, the 
representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that Article 1229 paragraph 5 of the Civil Code 
had been amended to replace the previous language on limitations on rights with separate provisions 
that reflected the respective elements of Articles 13, 17, and 30 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement and which would relate to the correspondi ng intellectual property rights.  
1213.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed c oncerns about the provisions of Article 1244 
of the Civil Code, and requested that collecting so cieties not grant licenses of any exclusive right 
without the explicit authorisation of the right-holder. 
1214.  In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation stated that the provisions on 
regulation of organizations  providing management of copyright an d related rights on a collective basis WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 436  
 
  (Articles 1242 to 1244), were considered to be a sign ificant improvement over the previous situation.  
According to the Civil Code, the right to engage in collective management of copyright and related 
rights without the express consent of the right-holder,  was permitted only with respect to certain rights 
set-out in Article 1244.1 and could be done only through organizations that had obtained State 
accreditation to perform that activity.  Article  1244.3 permitted a government-accredited collecting 
organization to administer rights and collect compen sation for right-holders for the specific right or 
rights for which the organization had obtained accred itation without concluding a contract with the 
right-holder.  The rights subject to such collectiv e management were significantly fewer than those 
under Article 45 of the Law "On Copyright and Neighbouring Rights" of 1993, which Articles 1242 
to 1244 replaced.  Sub-paragraph 1 of Article 1244.2 provided that for each right, subject to collective 
administration, only one organization could receive accreditation.  That organization was determined 
on the basis of a tender.  The requirement for accreditation provided the opportunity for right-holders 
and the Government to control the activity of such an organization.  Article 1244 set-out an exhaustive and closed list of rights that could be su bject to collective administration without a contract 
with a right-holder.  In particular, these organiza tions were not allowed to permit the reproduction and 
distribution or other use of works over the intern et.  Moreover, a right-holder who had not signed a 
contract with an accredited organization for the admi nistration of his rights, had the right to refuse its 
services at any moment (Article 1244.4 of the Civil Code).  While other (non-accredited) organizations could engage in collective management of rights, such an organization could do so only 
on the basis of a contract concluded pursuant to Ar ticle 1242 of the Civil Code.  He further stressed 
that the Civil Code dramatically reduced the number of organizations engaged in collective 
management of copyright and rela ted rights, and significantly limited the rights subject to collective 
administration, without the right-holders' consent. 
1215.  Some Members continued to express concerns  regarding the possibility of the collective 
administration of any rights without the express cons ent of the right-holder to such management, and 
requested further amendments to Article 1244.  These Members also stressed the need to adopt 
measures to monitor and hold accountable those orga nizations engaged in collective management of 
rights to ensure that right-holders receive d the remuneration that was due to them. 
1216.  The representative of the Russian Federation not ed in response, that the possibility of 
non-contract administration of rights had been li mited to the maximum extent possible in the 
Civil Code in comparison to the previously applied Russian legislation.  He further noted that the 
sphere of collective administration of rights in the Russian Federation would be reformed steadily 
through step-by-step limitations of the sphere of non-contractual representatio n.  He confirmed also 
that the Russian Federation would adopt necessar y measures to monitor and hold accountable  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 437 
 
 
  organizations engaged in collectiv e management of rights to ensu re that right-holders received 
remuneration that was due to them. 
1217.  Members of the Working Party welcomed the progress made in limiting non-contractual 
administration of rights in the Civil Code, as well as the confirmation that the Russian Federation 
would adopt measures to monitor and hold accountabl e collecting societies so as to ensure that 
right-holders received the remuneration that was due  to them.  These Members of the Working Party 
noted that the proposed process of gradually limiting non-contractual administration of rights created 
difficulties for right-holders. 
1218.  Recognizing the continuing concerns of Memb ers of the Working Party with regard to 
management of rights without a contract with the right-holder or his/her representative, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation would review its system of 
collective management of rights in order to elimin ate non-contractual management of rights within 
five years after Part IV of the Civil Code entered into effect.  The representative of the Russian Federation further confirmed that, in resp onse to the concerns of some Members of the 
Working Party as regards measures to monitor an d hold accountable collecting societies so as to 
ensure that right-holders received the remuneration that was due to them, the Russian Federation had 
put into effect regulations necessary to apply such measures and collecting societies would be 
monitored and held accountable to right-hol ders according to the regulations of the 
Russian Federation.  The Working Pa rty took note of these commitments. 
1219.  Some Members continued to have concerns regarding the functioning of the accredited 
collecting management societies and requested additi onal information on the review of the system of 
collective management of the Russian Federati on.  In response, the representative of the 
Russian Federation informed these Members that his Government envisaged to conduct the planned 
review of the system of collecting management of rights in consultation with interested Members with 
a view to ensure that the system was implemented in full conformity with the WTO obligations of the 
Russian Federation. 
1220.  The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members of the Working Party that in 
addition to the legal framework for protection and enforcement of intellectual property in 2002, the 
Government had established a Commission for C ounteracting Infringements in the Sphere of 
Intellectual Property, its Legal Protection and Use,  to coordinate and guide the joint efforts of 
Government authorities in the field of intellectua l property protection.  In 2010, the name of the 
Commission became the Sub-commission for Techni cal Regulation and Counteracting Infringement 
in the Sphere of Intellectual Property, its Legal Protection and Use.  The Sub-commission was chaired WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 438  
 
  by the Ministry of Industry and Trade (MIT) and reported to the Committee on Economic 
Development and Integration.  The main objectiv es of the Sub-commission were to ensure the 
implementation of a unified Government policy with regard to legal protecti on and use of intellectual 
property and counteracting infringements of in tellectual property through improvements in 
enforcement, ensure effective cooperation and c oordination of activities of Federal Executive bodies, 
regional executive bodies, State and other organiza tions, and increasing international cooperation in 
this sphere.  The Sub-commission also had as its objectives:  developing proposals on improving the 
normative legal base for protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights; forming a positive 
environment for the development and protection of  intellectual property; working out measures to 
stimulate application of high technologies to producti on, and ensuring of the exchange of the results 
of intellectual activity between the military and civil spheres.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 439 
 
 
  1221.  The Sub-commission was a permanent body executing the following functions:  conducting 
complex analysis of situations existing in the fiel d of intellectual property in the Russian Federation, 
working out recommendations on prevention and suppression of the offences in the said field; 
coordinating the activities of the Federal Executive Authorities, regional executive authorities, State 
and other entities in the field of counteraction of  infringement through improvements in enforcement 
of intellectual property laws, legal protection and u se of intellectual property; examining drafts of 
Federal laws and other legal acts within the field of competence of the Commission; setting priorities 
for activities in the field of legal protection and use of the intellectual property; examining and forwarding to the Commission on Economic Developm ent and Integration, suggestions concerning 
elaboration and implementation measures aimed at r esolving issues related to legal protection and use 
of the intellectual property, particularly suggesti ons concerning the creation of an economic stimulus 
system, such as the establishment of Special Econom ic Zones, to encourage creation of intellectual 
property, assuring that enterprises in the Russian Fede ration know the benefits of creating intellectual 
property and how to commercialise their intellect ual property; examining and forwarding to the 
Government of the Russian Federation and the Pr esident of the Russian Federation, suggestions 
concerning increasing international c ooperation of the Russian Federation in the field of counteraction 
of infringement through improvements in enforc ement of intellectual property laws, its legal 
protection and use, as well as suggestions on particip ation of the Russian Federation in the appropriate 
international Agreements; assisting in the control of  implementation of Decisions of the President of 
the Russian Federation and of the Government of th e Russian Federation within the jurisdiction of the 
Sub-commission; determining the measures concerning re gulation of the transfer abroad of the results 
of the intellectual property created at expense of  the Federal budget; and, examining suggestions 
concerning regulation of the procedures of registration of results of the intellectual property created at 
expense of the Federal budget.  
- Participation in international treaties  
1222.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther noted that his country had been a 
Member of the World Intellectual Property Organi zation (WIPO) since 1970 and was a party to most 
international treaties on protection of intellectual pr operty.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation 
was a party to, inter alia , the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (Stockholm 
Act of 14 July 1967) (the "Paris Convention"); th e Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary 
and Artistic Works (the "Berne Convention"); th e International Convention for the Protection of 
Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadc asting Organizations (the "Rome Convention); 
the Madrid Agreement Concerning the Internatio nal Registration of Marks (Stockholm Act); the 
Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT); and the Singapore Trademark Law Treaty (2006).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 440  
 
  The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that the Russian Federation had acceded to the 
WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) and the WIPO Pe rformances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT) in 
February 2009, even though Article 1 of the WT O TRIPS Agreement did not require WTO Members 
to join these treaties.  He further noted that wh en the Russian Federation became a party to the 
Berne Convention, it did so with a reservation on th e application of Article 18 of the Convention.  
Further, when the Russian Federation became a pa rty to the Rome Convention on 26 May 2003, it did 
so with the following reservations:  non-applica tion of the phonogram criteria (in accordance with 
paragraph 1(b) of Article 5 of  the Convention); protection of broadcasting in accordance with 
paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention; and non-application a nd limitation of protection under 
Article 12 of the Convention with regard to phonogr ams.  A more complete list of treaties to which 
the Russian Federation was a party was provided in documents WT/ACC/RUS/29 of 
13 November 1998, WT/ACC/RUS/29/Rev.1 and WT/ACC/RUS/41 of 26 October 2000, and 
WT/ACC/RUS/64 of 3 October 2011. 
1223.  He added that despite the fact that the Russi an Federation was not a party to the Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC), adopted in Washington on 
26 May 1989, Chapter 74 of the Civil Code reflected the provisions of the IPIC Treaty.  In his view, 
the Civil Code also included provisions necessary to comply with Section 6 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
1224.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would lift 
its reservation to the Berne Convention by the time  of its accession to the WTO.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
1225.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that fees and charges for the patenting of 
inventions, utility models and indus trial designs, the registration of trademarks, service marks, and 
designation of place of origin, the granting of rights  to use designations of origin, and the official 
registration of computer programmes, databases, a nd layout designs of integrated circuits were 
collected in accordance with Council of Ministers/Government Regulation No. 793 of 12 August 1993, (as last amende d on 26 January 2007).  Legal en tities and individuals of the 
Russian Federation and of countries that were party to international Agreements on mutual payments 
in rubles (RUB) with the Russian Federation, paid du ties and fees in Russian ruble.  Legal entities and 
individuals of other countries paid duti es and registration fees in US dollars. 
1226.  Responding to the question of a Member of the Working Party, the representative of the 
Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that there were differences between fees 
applying to individuals permanently residing in the Russian Federation and Russian legal entities and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 441 
 
 
  fees applying to individuals permanently residing  outside the Russian Fede ration and foreign legal 
entities.  He confirmed that from the date of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, the 
provisions of Article 3 of the WTO TRIPS Agreem ent would be implemented without recourse to a 
transition period and in full scope.  Therefore, the above-mentioned difference in fees would be 
eliminated.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
2. Standards concerning availability, scope  and use of intellectual property rights  
- Copyright and Related Rights 
1227.  The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that copyright and related rights were 
protected under the provisions of chapters 69, 70 and 71 of the Civil Code.  Chapter 70 "Copyright" 
was based on traditional principles and provisions, re ferring to such general terms of copyright as 
objects, subjects, their authorities and warrants, terms of validity of the rights of the author, etc. 
The Chapter included provisions on software a nd databases that earlier, being the objects of 
copyright, were dealt with under the Law of the Russian Federation No. 3523-1 of 23 September 1992 
"On the Protection of Computer Programs and Databases". 
1228.  He further informed Members of the Working Party that, in his view, the provisions of 
Chapter 70 were in compliance with the WCT.  He noted that the Civil Code addressed several issues 
of particular concern to Members and right-holders, e.g., that making a copy of a recording of a computer program to PC-memory was considered as the use of the work; the possibility of application 
of technical means of protection of copyright; brin ging to the public knowledge (making available) 
was considered to be an exclusive right, and considered trends in inte rnational legal regulation in this 
field.  A number of provisions strengthened the protection of rights of authors and their heirs.  
The provisions of the Chapter determined and regul ated personal non-property and property rights of 
authors and other right-holders, and also means of disposal of the above-men tioned rights in details.  
Furthermore, the provisions of the Chapter estab lished different measures that could apply while 
litigation was ongoing (for example, prohibition of pe rformance of particular activities, seizure of 
copies of a work, equipment and materials). 
1229.  Some Members expressed concerns regarding the provision in Article 1299, which also 
applied to Article 1309 relating to "Technical Prot ection Measures."  In their view, these measures 
needed refinement to eliminat e the possibility that commercial services would develop to assist 
individuals with circumvention; and to provide ce rtainty and clarity to the consumer electronics, 
telecommunications, and computer industries that th ese provisions would not unnecessarily affect the 
products these industries sell.  Members noted th at paragraph 3 of Article 1299 referred to the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 442  
 
  remedies in paragraph 1301 and requested inform ation on whether injunctive/preventive remedies 
were available to address violations  of paragraph 2 of Article 1299. 
1230.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the reference to 
Article 1301 in Article 1299 was necessary to provide a right to compensation to the author or other 
right-holder for violations of the provisions of pa ragraph 2 as engaging in the activities specified in 
paragraph 2 was not considered to be part of an ex clusive right.  With regard to the availability of 
injunctive/preventive measures, he referred Member s of the Working Party to Article 12 of the 
Civil Code which stipulated ways of protecti ng civil rights, which include rights provided under 
Article 1299 that included the restoration of the si tuation which existed before the given right was 
violated, and the suppression of the actions that violate the right or create the threat of its violation, compensation of losses, as well as other methods stipulated in the Law.  
1231.  As regards the concerns of some Members of the Working Party that the provisions of 
Articles 1299/1309 of the Civil Code relating to tec hnical protection measures and rights management 
information would not provide the level of pr otection that the WCT and WPPT required, the 
representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that Article 1299.1 
of the Civil Code defined the term "technical me ans of protection of copyrights" as any technology, 
technical devices or their components controlling access to work, preventing, or limiting the conduct of activities, including reproduction, that were not permitted by the author or other right-holder with 
respect to the work.  The actions that were prohibite d with respect to works were listed in point 2 of 
the same Article.  These actions included, in partic ular, those that were directed at eliminating the 
limitations on use of the work, which were establishe d by application of technical means of protection 
of copyrights, and also the preparation, distribution, renting out, providing for temporary uncompensated use, import, advertising of any tech nical device or its components, and use of such 
"technical means of protection" for the purpose of obtaining a profit, or providing corresponding 
services, if as a result of such actions the use of the "technical means of protection" becomes 
impossible or these technical means cannot ensure proper protection of the aforesaid rights.  Thus, "technical means" under Article 1299.1 of the Civil Code meant "any" technologies, and the 
ban on "distribution" of those means in point 2 of  same Article covered "any" cases of granting of 
access to the "technical means", in cluding such access as a result of sale and purchase.  The inclusion 
of the provisions on the technical protection measures into the Civil Code, in his view, quite corresponded with the general requirements of Article  11 of the WCT and Article 18 of the WPPT.   
1232.  He further explained that there were no excepti ons from Article 1299.2 of the Civil Code and 
certainly it did not "cut into protection of the t echnology".  In response to the concerns about the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 443 
 
 
  scope of Article 1299.2 (2), the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, as of the date 
of the accession of the Russian Federation to the WT O, the Russian Federation would ensure that this 
provision would be interpreted and applied in a r easonable manner in respect of technical means that 
were directed to circumvent technical protection measures based on criteria such as whether the device or service was promoted, advertised or market ed for the purpose of circumvention, whether the 
device or service had a purpose or use that was of  limited commercial significance other than to 
circumvent technical means of protection, and whether the device or service was primarily designed, 
produced, adapted or performed for the purpose of permitting or facilitating circumvention of 
technical protection.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1233.  Members continued to have concerns regarding the provisions of the Civil Code on technical 
protection measures.  The language in paragraph 3 of Article 1299,  for example, would preclude a 
remedy against a commercial service that provided assistance and means to circumvent a 
technological protection measure.  In these Members'  view, violations of Article 1299 were separate 
from infringement of exclusive right in copyright or related rights and a right-holder needed to be able 
to seek a remedy against an individual or co mmercial service for circumvention of technical 
protection measures even if no copyright was infringed. 
1234.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the exception provided in 
paragraph 3 of Article 1299 had been eliminated  and no other exception had been provided.   
1235.  Recalling the statements of the Russian Federation regarding limitations on exclusive rights in 
copyright and related rights, some Members questioned whether several of the specific limitations  
set-out in Chapters 70 and 71 exceeded tho se permitted under the WTO TRIPS Agreement and 
Berne Convention.  In particular, Article 1273 cr eated a general exception that allowed reproduction 
by "citizens exclusively for personal purposes of a wo rk lawfully made public … without the consent 
of the author or other right-holder … and wit hout compensation".  Article 1306 features a similar 
provision making this and other "free use" copyright exceptions applicable in the context of related 
rights.  While Article 1273 specified six categories of  works that were not subject to this generalized 
exception, the exception was otherwise applicable to  any work "lawfully made public," and therefore 
was not limited to certain special cases.  Furt hermore, these Articles would permit reproductions in 
ways that would conflict with the normal expl oitation of works in a variety of contexts.  
These exceptions would also, in these Members' vi ew, unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests 
of the right-holder by precluding any compensation for these reproductions.  These Members were also concerned about the meaning of the term  "personal needs" as vague and overly broad. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 444  
 
  1236.  Responding to the concerns of these Members of  the Working Party on the term "personal 
needs" in Article 1273 of the Civil Code, the representative of the Russian Federation informed 
Members of the Working Party that this term c overed the use which was not connected with the 
extraction of profit. 
1237.  Members continued to express concerns regard ing this limitation on exclusive rights in 
copyright and neighbouring rights.  Actions such as posting a cinematographic work on the internet, 
without requiring payment to use the work, woul d cause considerable prejudice to the legitimate 
interests of the right-holder.  Members requested fu rther clarification of what was considered to be 
used for "personal needs" and assurances regard ing the availability of compensation for these 
reproductions. 
1238.  In response to Members' concerns and questi ons, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that Article 1273 covere d reproduction of a work only by a natural person and not by any 
form of juridical person.  There could be no distribut ion for payment.  The work must have been made 
public lawfully prior to the reproduction.  He conf irmed that Article 1273 had been amended to clarify 
that any copy must be necessary and exclusively for the personal (private) use of the copier and that 
the necessity requirement would be applied in a ma nner that would not undermine this limitation.  
The copy or reproduction could not be used in connection with entrepre neurial or commercial 
activities or circulated beyond the immediate use of the individual making the copy.  Finally, he confirmed that Article 1273 had been  amended to refer to Article 1245 of the Civil Code as applicable 
in cases of free reproduction under Article 1273.   
1239.  Continuing his description of the Civil Code, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that Chapter 71 "Related rights" consiste d of provisions dealing with the protection of the 
rights of performers, directors of plays, and conductors on the results of performances; the rights of producers of phonograms and video recordings; and al so the rights of on-air and cable broadcasting 
organizations in their programmes.  In his view, the provisions of the Civil Code relating to these 
three separate categories of exclusive rights was ba sed on and fully complied with provisions of the 
Rome Convention and the WPPT (1996).  In addition,  for the first time Russian legislation prescribed 
protection of the exclusive right of a database pr oducer in the contents of such databases.  
Although the provisions in the Civil Code in this fi eld were based on international norms for the legal 
protection of databases, these rights were treated as a related right under the Civil Code. 
1240.  The representative of the Russian Federation also  stressed that the Civil Code, for the first 
time in the Russian Federation, provided an ex clusive right for a publisher under the category of 
related rights.  The Civil Code provided a right to  the person, who had first made public a work of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 445 
 
 
  literature, science or arts, which met the requirements provided in the Civil Code regarding objects of 
copyright, but which had not been published within th e period of validity of co pyright and thus was in 
the public domain.  These provisions were based  on the norms of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, 
Berne Convention, and Rome Convention.  In his vi ew, the provisions of the Russian legislation on 
copyright (including those relating to the protectio n of computer programs and databases) were in 
conformity with the provisions of the WCT,  the WPPT, the Berne Convention (including 
Article 6 bis), and the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  
1241.  The representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members of the Working Party that, in 
particular, the Russian legislation protected not onl y personal non-proprietary rights of authors, such 
as authorship rights, right to name, publication right, right to protect the reputation of the author, but also property rights of authors which could be i nherited.  In accordance with Article 1281 of the 
Civil Code, copyright protection was provided for a work from the date it was created.  In general, 
copyrights were valid during the life of the author a nd for 70 years after his/her death.  In certain 
cases stipulated by the law, the term of protection was calculated on the basis of other dates (for instance from the date of latest death of a co -author where a work had been created by joint 
authors).  The related rights of performers were protected for 50 years from the date of first 
performance; in the case of phonograms producers, protection was provided for 50 years from the 
date of first publication or, s hould the phonogram not have been made public within 50 years of 
fixation, protection was provided for 50 years from fixation; rights of television and radio 
broadcasting organizations remained valid for 50 year s from the date of first broadcast, and the rights 
of cable television organizations remained valid for 50 years from the date of first cable transmission. 
1242.  He added that Article 1256 of the Civil Code ha d introduced national treatment in respect of 
protection of copyright and retroactive protection of works.  Previously, under Article 28 of the 1993 
Law "On Copyright and Related Rights", works which had never been protected on the territory of the 
Russian Federation were considered  as public domain and not subject to protection.  Thus, all foreign 
works published before 23 May 1973 (the date at which the Russian Federation had joined the 
Universal Copyright Convention of September 1952) we re not protected.  However, with the adoption 
of Federal Law No. 72-FZ "On Amending the Law on  Copyright and Related Rights" in 2004, this 
was remedied.  In accordance with this law a nd after 1 January 2008,  Article 1256.4 of the 
Civil Code, the Russian Federation provided protecti on to pre-existing foreign works in the territory 
of the Russian Federation, according to intern ational treaties of the Russian Federation.  
Such protection was provided for works that had not fallen into the public domain in the country of 
origin due to the expiration of the term of protecti on established in that country, and that were not in 
the public domain in the Russian Fe deration in consequence of expira tion of the term of protection WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 446  
 
  established in Federal Law No. 72-FZ "On Amendi ng the Law on Copyright and Related Rights".  
Right-holders in such works would be accorded all ri ghts in the field of copyright and related rights as 
provided for in Article 1256. 4 of the Civil Code.  
1243.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed fu rther concerns regarding the treatment of 
temporary copies in a number of Articles in the Civil Code (Articles 1270, 1317, 1324 and 1330).  These articles did not adequately provide that te mporary reproductions of works fall within the 
exclusive right of reproduction of the copyright owne r.  Article 9(1) of the Berne Convention provides 
that the exclusive right of reproduction extends to reproduction "in any manner or form."  The "Agreed statements" on Article 1(4) of the WCT and Article 7 of the WPPT provide that the reproduction right "fully applies in the digital envi ronment."  In these Members' view, providing that 
temporary reproductions were within the reproduction right was an important aspect of copyright in 
the digital environment, as the ways in which c opyrighted works were being exploited and enjoyed 
now more often than ever invol ve temporary reproductions.  
1244.  The representative of the Russian Federation res ponded that the term "reproduction" was not 
defined in the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Article 9.1 of the Berne Convention specified only that 
authors of products had the exclusive right to perm it reproduction of their products by any way and in 
any form.  Article 1270.2 sub-paragraph 1 of the Ci vil Code defined the repr oduction of a product as 
manufacturing of one or more copy of the product or its part in any material form.  In his view, it did not contradict Article 6 of the Berne Conventi on.  He also noted that Article 9.1 of the 
Berne Convention established criteria on restrictions to  the reproduction of works.  These restrictions 
were literally repeated in paragraph 2 of Article 1229.5 of the Civil Code.  
1245.  He further explained that the concept of reproduction was specified in sub-item 1 of 
Article 1270.2 of the Civil Code in such a way that along with the record of a product in a computer memory, product recorded on any electronic carrier  was also considered as a reproduction.  At the 
same time, during the modern technology process, temporary copies of products could be created.  
In his view, this situation should be excluded fro m the list of the cases requiring receiving of the 
sanction from the right-holder.  The same solution was made concerning the temporary copies arising 
during reproduction (Article 1275.2 of the Civil Code).   He considered that it was just one of those 
"special cases" which were stipulated in Article 9. 2 of the Berne Convention.  Factually, in this case, 
one had not made a full scale reproduction of a protected product, but had taken only one of 
technologically necessary stages of such reproduction.  
1246.  Members continued to express concerns regard ing the protection of temporary copies under 
the Civil Code.  In their view, the Civil Code needed to clearly state that the reproduction right  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 447 
 
 
  includes the "direct or indirect" preparation of "temporary or permanent" copies.  If a limitation or 
exception to this right was deemed necessary, it should be set-out as a limitation in specific articles of 
the Civil Code. 
1247.  In response, the Representative of the Russian Federation explained that  sub-paragraph 1 of 
Article 1270.2 of the Civil Code reflected the directiv e of the European Union.  He explained that the 
last clause of this sub-paragraph was a limited ex ception to the exclusive right to use a work as 
stipulated in the other provisions of Article 1270.2.   Of key importance was the requirement that the 
temporary copy must be for the sole purpose of la wful use or lawfully making the work available to 
the public.  The exception involved technological pr ocesses and not economic use of the work or 
copy.  Thus, the temporary copy could no t have independent economic value.   
- Trademarks 
1248.  The representative of the Russian Federation note d that protection of trademarks and service 
marks was regulated by the provisions of Chapters 69 and 76 of the Civil Code.  Chapter 76 "Rights to means of individualization of lega l entities, goods, works, services, enterprises and 
information resources" included pr ovisions concerning rights to a firm name, to a trademark and 
service mark, to a designation of the place of orig in of goods, and to a commercial designation.  
In contrast to results of intellectual activity, means of individualization were assigned only for use in commercial circulation and were protected only in  order to defend rights of entrepreneurs.   
1249.  He further noted that the rules of this Chapte r stipulated that the grounds for exclusive rights 
for the firm name appeared with State Registration of the legal entity which owned that firm name.  
Direct prohibition on disposal of the exclusive right to a firm name including by means of its alienation or the granting of the right on disposal to another person on a basis of licence contract 
(Article 1474) represented an important change in the legal treatment of firm names.  Chapter 76 also 
contained provisions concerning commercial designa tions, which in contrast to a firm name, 
individualizing a legal entity, individualized a ma nufacturing enterprise (shop, restaurant, factory 
etc.).  In accordance with the Ci vil Code norms, a commercial designation might be used not only by 
commercial organizations, but also by non-co mmercial organizations, carrying out commercial 
activity as well as by individual entrepreneurs.  Commercial designations we re not required to be 
registered and were not subject to mandatory inclusio n into the uniform State register of legal entities.  
Chapter 76 set-out general provisions on the scope of  the exclusive right to a commercial designation 
and limitations for disposal of that right.  The ri ght to use a commercial designation could be granted 
to another person only with the enterprise which used  it as an individualization (Article 1539).  In his 
view, the provisions of Chapters 69 and 76 of the Civil Code conformed to the provisions of the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 448  
 
  Paris Convention and the relevant provisions of  the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, including those 
which governed protection of well-known marks with respect to non-homogeneous goods.   
1250.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that according to Article 1477.1 of the 
Civil Code, trademarks were intended to disti nguish the goods of one producer from the goods of 
another producer by the following words:  "indica tion serving the individualization of goods of legal 
persons or individual entrepreneurs".  The concep t of "likelihood of confusion" was reflected in 
Article 1483.6 of the Civil Code by means of prohib ition of registration of trademarks" that were the 
same as, or similar to the point of confusion" w ith trademarks and other i ndications owned by other 
persons.  The rights granted to the holder of exclus ive rights to trademarks, were listed in detail in 
Article 1484.2 of the Civil Code.  Article 1484.3 of  the Civil Code prohibited use, without the 
permission of the right-holder, of indications that were similar to the trademark of the right-holder 
with respect to the goods for which the trademark wa s registered or goods of the same type, if as the 
result of such use a likelihood of confusion would arise.  According to Article 1248.1 of the Civil Code, disputes connected with the protecti on of infringed or contested intellectual rights, 
including rights to trademarks (see also Article 1226  of the Civil Code), were to be considered and 
decided by a court.  Dispute settlement procedures including provisions on the right of interested 
parties to provide their evidence on the issues in dis pute were set-out in the procedural legislation of 
the legal system of the Russian Federation.  The period for termination of protection based on non-use of the trademark (Article 1486.1 of the Civil Code) was in line with Article 19.1 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.   
1251.  The representative of the Russian Federation al so stated that the system of means of 
individualization prescribed by the Civil Code was to  permit the individualization of different subjects 
and objects of economic turnover.  The principle of " seniority" was stipulated by Article 1252.6 of the 
Civil Code and sufficiently secured interests of ri ght-holder in respect of an earlier registered 
trademark.  Moreover, Articles 1476 and 1541 of the Civ il Code stipulated parity of rights to different 
means of individualization (commercial designation, fi rm name, trademark).  It also provided precise 
provisions on the competences and interests of the respective right-holders.   
1252.  Some Members expressed concern regarding the pr ovisions of the Civil Code granting parity 
of rights as between trademarks and domain names.  They noted that these names were not recognised 
as intellectual property in the WTO TRIPS Agre ement, or under other intellectual property 
Agreements.  In these Members' view, the existence of a domain name that was not also a trademark 
could not provide a basis for denying recognition and protection of a trademark or service mark.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 449 
 
 
  Other Members expressed similar concerns that  commercial designations and firm names do not 
provide a basis for denying recognition of a trademark or service mark.  
1253.  In response to these concerns, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that 
Article 1483.9 (3) of the Civil Code had been am ended to exclude domain names.  Thus a domain 
name, the rights to which arose before the priority  date of a trademark or service mark application 
would not serve as a ground for refusal to register the trademark or service mark.  The Working Party 
took note of this commitment. 
1254.  In response to some Members' concerns rega rding firm names and commercial designations 
the rights to which arose in the Russian Federati on before the priority date of the trade mark 
application, the representative of the Russian Fe deration explained that such firm names or 
commercial designations could be the ground for refusal to register a trade mark only with respect to 
goods of the same type and if the indication was the same as or similar to the point of confusion with 
the firm name or commercial designation.  Thus, si mple registration of a firm name or commercial 
designation would not be sufficient; likeli hood of confusion would be necessary. 
1255.  In respect of well-known trademarks, the representative of the Russian Federation explained 
that Chapter 76 of the Civil Code included a defi nition of a well-known trademark, and provided for 
protection of well-known trademarks.  The Civil Co de did not require the registration of well-known 
trademarks.  Any trademark claiming to be well-know n would be recognised as such by a competent 
authority, i.e., Rospatent.  In his view, this pro cedure for granting protection was fully consistent with 
Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention.  The provisions of criminal and civil legislation applicable to 
"ordinary" trademarks were also applicable to  well-known trademarks.  Among the remedies available 
against infringers were recognition of the right, pr evention of infringement, compensation of losses, 
statutory compensation, and criminal and administrative liability.  
1256.  Some Members of the Working Party continued to have concerns regarding the requirement 
for well-known marks to apply for and be re cognised by Rospatent as well known marks.  
Article 1508 of the Civil Code requires that in  order to receive well-known mark protection, 
application must be made in a separate action befo re the Chamber of Patent Disputes of Rospatent, 
with the desired result being that the mark was then recognised and entered upon a list as being well 
known.  They cited instances where marks recogni sed as well-known in many WTO Members, and 
which enjoyed a wide reputation in the relevant se ctor of the public in the Russian Federation, had 
been denied such recognition in the Russian Federati on.  In certain instances, an affirmative decision 
by the Chamber of Patent Disputes had been overturned, sua sponte , by the Director of Rospatent. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 450  
 
  1257.  The representative of the Russian Federation responded that contesting the registration or 
termination of a legal protection of trademark before the Chamber of  Patent Disputes of Rospatent 
was a kind of preliminary consideration of disput es.  It did not prevent interested parties from 
appealing the decision of Rospatent on the status of  the mark to a court (Article 1248.2 of the Civil 
Code).  In addition, Article 1248.1 provided for judi cial consideration of disputes connected with the 
protection of infringed or contested intellectual prope rty rights and cited paragr aph 1 of Article 11 of 
the Civil Code.  Moreover, there was a judicial practice in cases that provided protection to 
well-known trademarks of foreign right-holders agai nst use by Russian infringers (for example, the 
decision of the Arbitrage Court of Moscow region on the case No. KA-A40/658-99 as of 17 March 1999).   
1258.  In accordance with the Russian legislation, an indication (sign) that was used as a trademark 
or registered trademark could be considered a well-known mark on the basis of decision of the 
Federal body responsible for intell ectual property issues that was also a basis for including of the 
well-known trademark on the List of Well-K nown Trademarks in the Russian Federation 
(hereafter:  the List). 
1259.  The representative of the Russian Federati on explained that, in his view, including a 
well-known trademark on the List was not similar to registration of trademark in the State Register of Trademarks and Service Marks of the Russian Federati on (hereafter:  the State Register).  To register 
a trademark in the State Register one should ha ve made an examination on its compliance with 
requirements stipulated by the Article 1483 of the Civil Code regarding trademarks.  There was no 
need for such examination to consider the indica tion (sign) or registered trademark as a well-known 
trademark.  A sign or registered trademark could be considered well-known in the Russian Federation 
if this sign or registered trademark, as the resu lt of intensive use had become widely known in the 
Russian Federation among the corresponding consumers w ith respect to goods of this applicant on the 
certain date.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration noted that Article 1484 of the Civil Code 
stated that the term "use" in respect of trademarks covered placement of the trademark on goods, including on labels and packaging of goods, that we re produced, proposed for sale, sold, displayed at 
exhibits and fairs, or otherwise introduced into civil commerce on the territory of the 
Russian Federation, or were kept or transported fo r this purpose, or were imported on the territory of 
the Russian Federation.  Use was also in the performance of work or rendering of services; 
exploitation of the mark in documentation connect ed with the introduction of goods into civil 
commerce, in proposals for the sal e of goods, for performance of work, and for rendering of services, 
and also in announcements, on signs, and in advertis ing.  Use could also be on the Internet, including 
in a domain name and for other means of addressing.  The term "use" in Article 1508 of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 451 
 
 
  Civil Code had the same meaning and, in his view, th is definition covered the concept of promotion in 
the sense of Article 16 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.   The competent authority considered whether 
a mark had been used intensively taking into account, inter alia , advertising budget (proved by annual 
financial reports), degree of familiarity of the ma rk to customers, and the information on countries 
where the mark was well-known.   
1260.  The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the Civil Code did not contain 
any norms that fixed the links between granting lega l protection to a trademark, which was considered 
well-known, and its inclusion on the List.  Thus, if the owner of such a trademark sued for infringement of his mark, the Court would decide if  the rights of the owner of the trademark were 
infringed independently of the fact of inclusion of  this trademark on the List.  The decision of the 
Court, however, would be limited in its effect to  the specific case.  The Working Party took note of 
this commitment. 
- Geographical Indications 
1261.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that prior to 1992, designations of the 
place of origin of goods in the Russian Federation we re protected by considering the use of false or 
misleading designations of the place of origin of go ods as a form of unfair competition or a violation 
of consumer rights (this was enforced by antitrust (antimonopoly) agencies or courts respectively).  Since 1992, designations of the place of origin of goods were accorded speci al protection under Law 
of the Russian Federation No. 3520-1 of 23 Se ptember 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin".  He further clarified that  the term "designations of the place of origin of 
goods", although translated in different ways, w ould have the exact same meaning as the term 
"geographical indications" as defined under the WT O TRIPS Agreement once the Russian Federation 
amended Article 1516 of the Civil Code.  From 1 Ja nuary 2008 the protection of designations of the 
place of origin of goods was provided for under Sec tion 3 of the Chapter 76 of  the Civil Code, which 
prohibited registration of trademarks containing indications (signs) of the place of production of 
goods as well as trademarks containing false indica tions or indications which might mislead the 
customer as to the identity of the producer of goods .  Protection of designations of the place of origin 
of goods was provided for all kinds of goods, such as food and manufactured goods, including 
handicrafts, alike.  
1262.  He further explained that the rules on legal prot ection of designations of the place of origin of 
goods were transmitted substantially to the Ci vil Code from Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 3520-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Se rvice marks and Appellations of origins of 
goods" which thoroughly regulated these objects.  Th e changes affected basically the wording and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 452  
 
  placement of certain articles in order to make th e provisions on trademarks and designations of the 
place of origin of goods consistent with comm on provisions on protection of intellectual property 
rights.  At the same time, the application of the r eciprocity principle with respect to registration of 
designations of the place of origin of goods had b een removed from the Civil Code and the possibility 
to appeal the grant of protection for designations of the place of origin of goods when the use of 
designations of the place of origin of goods coul d mislead the consumer regarding the good or its 
producer because of the existence of a trademark wh ich was protected prior to the protection of the 
designations of the place of origin of g oods (in accordance with Article 16 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement) was provided.   
1263.  Some Members of the Working Party noted that  signs containing geographical elements could 
be distinctive and thus capable of distinguishi ng the goods and services of one undertaking from those 
of another undertaking.  Such signs must be elig ible for registration as a trademark.  These Members 
expressed concern that the Civil Code did not adequate ly protect rights in trademarks with respect to 
registration of geographical indications that could be confusingly similar to the registered mark. 
1264.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the provisions ensuring the protection 
of designations of the place of origin of goods in the Russian Federation, in his view, complied with 
the Paris Convention and the relevant provisions of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  In Article 1252.6 of 
the Civil Code, which established the principle of "sen iority" for a few identical or similar to the point 
of confusion means of individualizations, designa tions of the place of origin of goods were not 
mentioned.  The representative of the Russian Fe deration further stated that the conditions of 
registration of designations of the place of origin of  goods depended, in general,  only on the fact that 
the goods produced in a particular locality had sp ecial characteristics and on the location of the 
producer of these goods in this locality (Article 15 16.1 of the Civil Code).  The provisions of the 
Civil Code would permit the holder of an earlier-in-time mark to object to the registration of a 
designation of the place of origin of goods, or request its removal from the register.  
Furthermore, registration would not be granted to  a designation of the place of origin of goods,  
inter alia , where, in light of the reputation and renown  of a trademark and the length of time it had 
been used, registration of the designation of the place of origin of goods was liable to mislead the 
consumer as to the true identity of the product a nd therefore to create a likelihood of confusion with 
an earlier-in-time trademark.  He noted that a WT O dispute settlement panel found that a similar 
approach did  not contradict provisions of Part III of the WTO TRIPS Agreement (see  WT/DS174/R).   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 453 
 
 
  1265.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed c oncerns considering th at Article 1516 of the 
Civil Code limited the definition of designations of  the place of origin of goods so that it did not 
comply with Article 22 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
1266.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working 
Party according to Article 1516.1 of the Civil Code  that "traditional" designations may be granted 
protection in cases where they contain "a modern or historical, official or unofficial, full or 
abbreviated designation" of a country, city or rura l settlement, locality, or other geographic locale and 
also a designation derived from such an indication and having become known as the result of its use with respect to goods the special characteristics of which were exclusively or mainly determined by 
the natural conditions and/or human factors charact eristic for the given geographic locale.  At the 
same time neither the WTO TRIPS Agreement, nor the Lisbon Agreement stipulated directly 
unconditional protection of any "traditional" designati on.  The definition of designation of the place of 
origin of goods to which legal protection was gran ted (Article 1516.1 of the Civil Code) included the 
condition that the designation was to be known as the result of its use.  Thus if "known" was 
understood as an abstract characteri stic, as the result of its particul ar characteristics, the respective 
designation certainly would be granted legal protec tion.  Article 1516.1 of the Civil Code also 
provided for the protection of "traditional indications" within the institute of "designation of the place 
of origin of goods" at any rate if "historical designation" of the respective place of origin was 
understood within the meaning of "traditional indica tion".  He further noted that requiring a Member 
to protect all "indirect indications" as a "designation of the place of origin of goods" in his view did 
not follow directly from the substance of Article 22.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  
1267.  In spite of the fact that the representative of the Russian Federation had clarified that the 
Russian Federation defines the term "designation of place of origin" consistently with Article 22 of 
the WTO TRIPS Agreement, some Members expressed  concerns regarding the compatibility of the 
provisions of Article 1516 of the Civil Code w ith Article 22.1 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  
According to Article 22.1, an i ndication did not necessarily have to  be a geographical place to be 
protected as a geographical indication.  A geographical indication was any kind of designation which points to a given country, region or locality and wh ich possesses a specific quality, reputation or other 
characteristics which were essentially due to a particular geographical environment, but not 
necessarily the name of a geographical place:  it may be a geographical name or an indication that was 
not a geographical name as long as the indication e vokes an association with the place of origin.  
In these Members view, this concept was wider than the concept of appellation of origin as set-out in 
the Lisbon Agreement which refers to the fact that  the appellation must be a geographical name of a 
country, region or locality. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 454  
 
  1268.  The representative of the Russian Federation responded that Article 1516.1 stipulated the 
connection between the goods and the designation of the place of origin of goods through the 
indication of "special characteristics" of the goods, which were "exclusively or mainly determined by 
the natural conditions and/or human factors characteristic for the given geographic locale".  He explained that this definition not only was not in contradiction with Article 22.1 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement, but also covered "given qua lity", "reputation" or other "characteristic" 
stipulated by this Article, noting that in Russian legal practice, the term "c haracteristic" had quite a 
wide scope.   
1269.  Recognizing the concerns of Members of the Working Party in respect of the scope of 
protection of geographical indications in the Russian Federation, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that Article 1516 of th e Civil Code had been amended to include the 
definition of geographical indications as set-out in  Article 22 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement to state 
that the term "designation of place of origin" woul d also cover the indications which identify a good 
as originating in the territory, or a region or localit y in that territory, where a given quality, reputation 
or other characteristic of the good was essentially a ttributable to its geographical origin without 
necessarily including the name of a geographical place. 
1270.  Some Members expressed concern regarding the provisions of the Civil Code on obtaining 
registration of a foreign indication of place of orig in and requested clarification of procedures that 
would apply in the case of a Member that provide d protection for geographical indications through 
means other than registration, e.g., through forms of trademarks, unfair competition laws, and other 
means. 
1271.  In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that Article 1517.2 of the 
Civil Code does not require that protection for a designation of the place of origin of goods be 
provided through registration in the country of origin  of the geographical indication.  He noted that 
some Members had implemented the TRIPS secti on on geographical indications through legislation 
on unfair competition, on the protection of certificat ion marks, implementation of norms of common 
law, and other means.  To confirm protection in th e country of origin, an applicant for protection in 
the Russian Federation could submit registration cer tificates, a court decision or other evidence 
establishing that the indication was protected in its country of origin.  The Ministry of Education and 
Science had issued Order No. 328 of 29 Oct ober 2008 which established procedures for a  
right-holder to submit such documents.  The Wo rking Party took note of this commitment.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 455 
 
 
  - Industrial Designs and Patents  
1272.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that industrial designs and patents were 
protected by the provisions of Chapters 69 and 72 of the Civil Code.  Chapter 72 "Patent Right" 
related to the legal protection of inventions, usef ul models and industrial design.  It covered the 
traditional patent law provisions, reflecting the substa nce of the Patent Law of the Russian Federation 
No. 3517-1 of 23 September 1992, including administra tive norms required for regulation of creation, 
existence, and civil turnover of patent rights, a nd which establish the procedure for State Registration 
of objects of patent rights and issue of patents.  Th e issue of the content of the exclusive right in an 
invention, useful model or industrial design and mean s of use of this right was highlighted in this 
chapter.  For the first time, the right to a patent  was determined as separate  alienable right of the 
author of the invention, useful m odel or industrial design (Article 1357). 
1273.  Under the provisions of the Civil Code, a pate nt might not be obtained in relation to the 
following:  plant varieties, animal breeds, and layout  designs of integrated microcircuits that were not 
new, or did not involve an inventive step, or were not capable of industrial a pplication, and inventions 
violating social interests or humanitarian and moral principles.  In his view, this provision 
corresponded to Article 27.3 of the WTO TRIPS Agre ement.  Under Article 1363 of the Civil Code, 
the validity term of patents for inventions was 20 y ears; for utility models was ten years; for industrial 
designs was 15 years, starting from the date when  the application was submitted.  This term 
corresponded to the relevant provisions of Article  33 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Article 1363.2 
of the Civil Code provided for the possibility of extending the term of protection for pharmaceutical 
products (medicines), pesticides and agricultural chem icals, if their use required consent of an 
authorised State body.  In such cases, the general 20 year  term could be extended for up to five years.  
The Civil Code established civil liability for illegal u se of patents, inventions and industrial designs.  
In his view, these provisions were in conformity  with the Paris Convention and the relevant 
provisions of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.   
1274.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed concerns about compliance of Articles 1239, 
1360 and 1362 of the Civil Code on compulsory licensing with the requirements of Articles 13 and 31 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Responding to those concerns, the representative of the 
Russian Federation informed Members of the Wo rking Party that the requirement prohibiting 
assignment of a compulsory licence, if there  were dependent inventions stipulated by sub-item "I (iii)" 
of Article 31 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement was c ontained in paragraph 1 of Article 1362.2 of the 
Civil Code.  He further explained that Article 136 2.2 provided that the right to use the invention 
granted on the basis of the compulsory licence, migh t not be transferred to other persons except in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 456  
 
  case of alienation of the second patent.  In his vi ew, this provision was in conformity with the 
requirement of Article 31(e) of the WTO TRI PS Agreement which said that such use was non-
assignable, except with that part of the enterprise or goodwill which enjoyed such use.  In his view, 
the second patent was a part of a goodwill which enjo yed use of the invention received on the basis of 
compulsory licence.  According to paragraph 3 of Article 1362.2, the holder of a patent for an invention or utility model that was the subject of a compulsory licence must also receive a 
cross-licence for the use of a patented invention which was dependent on the patented invention that 
was subject to the compulsory licence.  In his vi ew, this provision corresponded with the requirement 
of the Article 31(l)(ii) of the WTO TRIPS Agreement which said that the owner of the first patent was 
to be entitled to a cross-licence on reasonable terms to  use the invention claimed in the second patent.  
1275.  With respect to the requirements set-out in Article 31(c) of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, the 
representative of the Russian Federation agreed that they were not reflected in Article 1362 of the 
Civil Code and confirmed that the Civil Code had b een amended to comply with this obligation.   
1276.  Some Members of the Working Party raised questions about compliance of Article 1349 of 
the Civil Code on exclusions from patentability w ith the provisions in paragraphs 2 and 3 of 
Article 27 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  In res ponse the representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members of the Working Party that the te rm "societal interests", which was used in the 
Article 1349 of the Civil Code, in his view did not contradict Article 27.2 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Article 27.2 of the WTO TR IPS Agreement, referred to the "protection of 
morality, protection of human, animal or plant life or health, environment" in addition to "public 
order" and the same purposes were covered by the term  "societal interests" in Russian legislation.  
1277.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that Article 1349 of the Civil Code 
would be interpreted and applied in comp liance with Article 27.2 and 27.3 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.  The Working Pa rty took note of this commitment. 
1278.  Some Members of the Working Party expr essed concerns about the compliance of 
sub-paragraph 4 of Article 1359.1 of  the Civil Code with Article 30 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  
In particular, these Members considered that this  provision permitted use of any invention, utility 
model, or industrial design under conditions that in some cases could exactly correspond to the 
intended use of the invention, design or model.  In these Members' view, this exception could exceed 
what was permitted under Article 30 of the WT O TRIPS Agreement.  In responding to these 
concerns, the representative of the Russian Federa tion stated that under this exception, use of an 
invention, utility model, or industrial design wit hout right-holders' consent for the satisfaction of 
personal, family, home or other needs which were no t connected with entrepreneurial activity did not  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 457 
 
 
  constitute an infringement, if the purpose of such use was not the receipt of profit or income.  In his 
view, this exception was covered by the general provision of Article 30 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement, which permitted limited exceptions from patent rights, which "do not 
unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and, do not unreasonably prejudice the 
legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account  of the legitimate interests of third parties".  
Moreover, a patent owner who considers that his rights were unreasonably prejudiced as a result of 
use permitted by sub-point 4 of Article 1359 of th e Civil Code, might seek a remedy from the court 
for infringement of his rights. 
- Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection  
1279.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that plant varieties and animal breeds 
were protected in accordance w ith the Chapter 73 of the Civil Code, which related to objects, 
protection of which had been introduced by the Law of the Russian Federation No. 5605-1 of 
6 August 1993 "On Selection Achievements".  For th e most part, this chapter repeated the provisions 
of this Law.  However, they were modified to take into account the requirements for their 
codification.  These norms were brought into conform ity with general principles of the protection of 
intellectual rights in the Civil Code, while addressi ng specific issues related to the particularities of 
biological objects, which were the subject of protec tion of selection achievements.  In his view, these 
provisions were in conformity with  international legal instruments, such as the UPOV Convention and 
the WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
1280.  One Member of the Working Party asked the representative of the Russian Federation to 
confirm that plant variety protection would be acco rded to natural persons and legal entities of all 
WTO Members from the date of the accession.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed it. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 458  
 
  - Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
1281.  The representative of the Russian Federation said th at layout designs of integrated circuits 
were protected in accordance with the Chapter 74 of the Civil Code.  Protection for layout designs of 
integrated circuits was originally provide d under the Law of the Russian Federation of 
23 September 1993 No. 3527-1 "On lawf ul protection of integrated circuit layouts".  In his view, the 
provisions of Chapter 74 were in c onformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Intellectual Property 
in Respect of Integrated Circuits (Washington Treaty) and the relevant provisions of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement. 
- Requirements on undisclosed information,  including trade secrets and test data 
1282.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that the legislation of the 
Russian Federation contained a number of normativ e legal acts which regulated and determined the 
mechanisms for ensuring protection of undisclosed  information, namely the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation , Federal Law No. 24-FZ of 20 February 1995 "On Information, Providing and 
Protecting Information" (as amended by Federa l Law No. 15-FZ of 10 January 2003), Federal Law 
No. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004 "On Commercial Secrets"  (as last amended on 24 July 2007), as well as a 
number of regulations, in particular the Preside nt Decree No. 188 of 6 March 1997 (as last amended 
on 23 September 2005) "On Approving a List of Confidential Data".   
1283.  These measures prohibited disclosure of undisclosed information and/or its use without the 
consent of the owner.  They granted the owners a nd other eligible persons protection of their rights, 
inter alia , by prohibiting actions, which could infringe or threaten an infringement of their rights.  
These measures also provided protection for undisclosed  information that was legally required to be 
submitted to Government bodies or organizations aut horised by the Government to receive and deal 
with such information.  
1284.  According to Federal Law No. 24-FZ of 20 Fe bruary 1995 "On Information, Providing 
Information and Protection of Information", conf idential information was understood as documentary 
information, the access to which was limited in accor dance with Russian legislation.  Presidential 
Decree No. 188 of 6 March 1997 established the list of  data of a confidential character.  This list 
included:  (i) secrets of private (individuals) lives (information on the facts, events and circumstances 
of the life of a citizen allowing the identification of his/her personal identity (personal data), except 
for the information subject to dissemination in th e mass media in cases envisaged by Federal laws; 
(ii) information related to professional activity w ith limited availability acco rding to the Constitution 
of the Russian Federation and Federal laws (medical , notarial, legally privileged information, secrecy  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 459 
 
 
  of correspondence, telephone conver sations, mail, telegraph and othe r messages, etc.); (iii) State 
secrets; (iv) commercial secrets; and (v) informati on on the contents of inve ntions, utility models and 
industrial designs prior to the official publication of information about them. The protection of such 
information was guaranteed by the application of th e civil, labour (employment), administrative and 
criminal legislation.  
1285.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that Article 139 of the Civil Code 
established legal protection for undisclosed inform ation, which constituted official or commercial 
secrets, including information related to products yet to be patented.  According to Article 139 of the 
Civil Code, the information constituted an official  or commercial secret when such information had 
real or potential commercial value because it was secr et, i.e., was not known to third persons, when 
there was no free access to it, and its holder had taken steps to protect  its confidentiality.  
Russian legislation provided instruments for protection of the legal rights of the right-holder, 
including the right to put an end to activities violating his/her rights or threatening to violate them.  
1286.  Persons who obtained informati on containing official or commercial secrets by illegal means 
were obliged to compensate for any damages caused.  Employees having disclosed an official, 
commercial or other secret in violation of their la bour contract, contract, or law, and contractors 
having disclosed an official, commercial or other secret in violation of their civil contract were also liable under Articles 57 and 243 of th e Labour Code of the Russian Fe deration.  Different kinds of 
liability (administrative, criminal, etc.) could be a pplied to officials having disclosed an official or 
commercial secret, including officials who had used undisclosed information related to clinical tests 
of medicinal products without the consent of the right-holder (see the "Enforcement" section below). 
1287.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that Federal Law No. 98-FZ of 
29 July 2004 "On Commercial Secrets" (as last amended on 24 July 2007) further regulated the protection of commercial secrets, designation of in formation as commercial secrets, transfer of such 
information, and protection of its confidentiality.  This Law also defined the data that could not be 
considered a commercial secret (for example, data consisting of the constituent documents of a legal 
entity).  The Law applied to information that cont ained a commercial secret independently of the type 
of media on which it was stated.  Scientific, techni cal, technological, industrial, financial, economic 
and any other type of information (including know -how) that had real or potential commercial value 
because it was secret, i.e., it was not known to thir d persons, legal access was not freely available, and 
the holder took steps to maintain its confid entiality, would qualify as a commercial secret. 
1288.  Federal Law No. 98-FZ also provided the owne r of the information with the right and 
possibility to prevent third persons from obtaining , disclosing, or using confidential information WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 460  
 
  without his/her permission by:  (i) limiting or prohibiting access to the information containing a 
commercial secret and defining the procedure a nd conditions of access to this information; 
(ii) requiring natural persons and legal entities who had gained legal access to commercial secrets, and 
State and local authorities to which the commercial secr et had been given, to observe the obligation of 
confidentiality of the information; and (iii) prot ecting his/her rights in case of disclosure, illegal 
receipt or illegal use of the information containing a commercial secret by third persons, including the 
demand of compensation of damages caused by viol ation of rights.  If necessary, the owner of a 
commercial secret had the right to apply means and methods of technical protection of confidentiality 
of information, and other means that were  in compliance with Russian legislation. 
1289.  In addition, Federal Law No. 98-FZ contai ned provisions protecting confidentiality of 
information within the framework of labour and civil relations and when such information was 
provided to State bodies and organizations authorised by State bodies.  Article 13 of the Law required 
State and municipal authorities to create conditions  guaranteeing protection of confidentiality of 
information provided to them by juridical persons and individual entrepreneur s.  State and municipal 
officials could not disclose, or transfer such inform ation to third persons or other State and municipal 
authorities, except for cases provided by the Law, or take personal advantage of or use, for personal 
purposes, information containing a commercial secret that had become known to them in the course of 
their duties, without permission of the owner.  In case of violation of confidentiality of information, 
State and municipal officials were subject to disci plinary actions, as well as civil, administrative, and 
criminal liability in accordance with Russian legislati on.  Moreover, the acquisition, use, or disclosure 
of scientific, technical, production, or commercial in formation, including commercial secrets, without 
the consent of the owner were not permitted pursuant to Article 10 of Law No. 948-1 of 
22 March 1991 "On Competition and Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Markets". 
1290.  The representative of the Russian Federation also  explained that Chapter 75 of the Civil Code 
"Rights to Secrets of Production (know-how)," provide d detailed provisions on the legal regulation of 
this category of objects of intellectual rights.  The provisions of Chapter 75 set-out the definition of "know-how", the content of exclusive rights in it, ess ential features of contracts on alienation of rights 
to "know-how" and respective licensing contracts (Articles 1468-1469), and also relationship of 
employee and employer related to creation of "know- how".  He noted that the scope and definition of 
know-how in the Civil Code was the same as that set-out in paragraphs [1286] to [1287] above. 
1291.  The provisions of the above-mentioned laws prohibited the use of undisclosed information 
(commercial secrets or know-how) without the consen t of the right-holder.  All of these provisions 
(including the prohibition of disclosure and use of confidential (undisclosed) information without the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 461 
 
 
  permission of the owner) were applicable to the pr otection of confidential (undisclosed) information 
related to pharmaceutical and agrochemical pr oducts utilizing new chemical substances.  
These prohibitions on use made it illega l for an applicant to get marke ting approval or registration of a 
medicine/pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical th rough reliance on undisclosed test or other data of 
another person without the permission of that person.  It was also illegal for a Government official to 
rely on undisclosed information without the perm ission of the right-holder in the examination and 
approval process.  Illegal disclosure and use (inc luding unfair commercial use and reliance) by 
officials of such information would entail ci vil, administrative, and criminal penalties. 
1292.  Some Members of the Working Party expressed th eir concerns that cited legislation did not 
require the health authorities to provide a period of at least six years of protection against unfair 
commercial use starting from the date of approval of  the application and that during this period no 
person other than the person who s ubmitted such data could, without the explicit consent of the person 
who submitted the data, rely on such data in support of an application for product approval.  
They requested the Russian Federation to bring its le gislation in conformity with Article 39.3 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement and to take a commitment reflecting these requirements.  These Members 
also sought confirmation that applicants that sought to register "reproduced medicines" in the 
Russian Federation were required to submit pre-clinical  and clinical test results and other data that 
were required for registration of "original" medici nes and could not rely on  others' data without 
permission for the six-year period of protection against unfair commercial use.  
1293.  Some Members of the Working Party also express ed concerns about the transparency of the 
process for registration of medicines and requested  that the Russian Federation establish procedures 
so that an entity submitting undisclosed test data to obtain registration of a medicine in the Russian Federation would be informed if another application was filed seeking registration of a 
medicine with a similar active ingredient.  These Members sought assurances that those entities that 
had a registration or pending application for a medicine  with the same or similar active ingredient had 
an opportunity to provide information to the offi cials of the Russian Federation on whether other 
applicants had permission to use the undisclosed data  of the first applicant, and to bring to the 
attention of the officials of the Russian Federati on issues regarding the deve lopment and submission 
by a subsequent applicant of its own test data and other information.  Members also requested 
information on whether the officials of the Russian Federation would deny regi stration of medicines if 
the applicant did not provide its own data and other information and on the status of medicines that 
were improperly registered.  In particular, on whether medicines that were registered based on applications that did not include the own test data  of the applicant and other information would be 
removed from the market until such le gal requirements were satisfied.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 462  
 
  1294.  In response to questions of some Member s on prevention of unfair commercial use of 
undisclosed information provided for State Registra tion of agrochemicals, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that this informa tion was protected against disclosure and unfair 
commercial use in accordance with the Law "On Co mmercial Secrets", Civil Code, Criminal Code, 
and Code on Administrative Offences.  Moreover,  the Law "On Safe Handling with Pesticides and 
Agrochemicals" provided for the same registrati on procedures for each applicant, there were no 
abbreviated or reductive procedures for registrati on and there was no difference in the list of 
documents which each applicant was required to pr ovide or in other regi stration requirements.  
Federal Law No. 109-FZ of 19 July 1997 "On Safe  Handling with Pesticides and Agrochemicals" 
(Articles 9 and 11) required a test to be conducte d prior to the registration of each agrochemical.  
The organization authorised by the Federal authority responsible for registrati on conducted this test.  
To obtain registration, the applicant had no right to  rely on data and other information other than 
results of this test.  He confirmed that with rega rd to agricultural chemicals, the legislation of the 
Russian Federation does not permit the unauthori sed reliance on undisclosed data developed or 
submitted by another to obtain pro duct approval/registration.  The Wo rking Party took note of this 
commitment. 
1295.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation had 
enacted legislation and would adopt regulations on the protection of undisclosed information and test 
data, in compliance with Article 39.3 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, providing that undisclosed 
information submitted to obtain marketing approval,  i.e., registration of pharmaceutical products, 
would provide for a period of at least six years of protection against unfair commercial use starting from the date of grant of marketing approval in the Russian Federation.  During this period of 
protection against unfair commercial use, no person or  entity (public or private), other than the person 
or entity who submitted such undisclosed data, coul d without the explicit consent of the person or 
entity who submitted such undisclosed data rely, directly  or indirectly, on such data in support of an 
application for product approval/registration.  Notice of subsequent applicati ons for registration would 
be provided in accord with established procedures.   During the six year period, any subsequent 
application for marketing approva l or registration would not be granted, unless the subsequent 
applicant submitted his own data (or data used with  the authorization of the right-holder) meeting the 
same requirements as the first applicant, and prod ucts registered without submission of such data 
would be removed from the market until requirements were met.  Further, he confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would protect such data agains t any disclosure, except where necessary to protect 
the public or unless steps were taken to ensure that  the data were protected against unfair commercial 
use.  The Working Party took note of these commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 463 
 
 
  1296.  In response to Members' concerns about registration of "reproduced medicines", the 
representative of the Russian Federation explaine d that under Federal Law No. 61-FZ "On the 
Circulation of Medicines", the six-year prohibition on the receipt, disclosure, and use for commercial 
purposes and for applications for State Registration of medicines of information on the results of 
preclinical studies of a drug and clinical studies of a medicine set-out in Article 18 of that law also 
applied to reproduced medicines, including in ex pedited or abbreviated registration procedures.  
Further, during the six-year period, applicants to  register reproduced medicines were required to 
submit the same information on the results of clinical studies that was required of the first registrant as well as information establishing bioe quivalence and effectiveness.  
- Responsible Authorities  
1297.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that several governmental bodies were 
responsible for the regulation and enforcemen t of intellectual property rights in the 
Russian Federation, namely: 
- The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation and th e subordinate Federal 
Service for Intellectual Property, Pate nts and Trademarks (Rospatent);  
- The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation and the subordinate Federal Service for 
Supervision of the observance of the legi slation on Protection of Cultural Heritage; 
- Ministry of Communication and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation and the 
subordinate Federal Service on Supervision in  the Field of Communications, Information 
Technologies and Mass Communications;  
- The Federal Customs Service; 
- The Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation; 
- The Ministry of Health and Social Deve lopment of the Russian Federation and the 
subordinate Federal Service for Supervision of  Protection of Consumers' Rights and Human 
Welfare and Federal Service for Supervision in  the Sphere of Public Health and Social 
Development;  
- The Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation; 
- The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation;  
- The Office of the Public Prosecutor; and 
- The Federal Antimonopoly Service. 
1298.  More detailed information on Federal bodies invol ved in the regulation and enforcement of 
intellectual property rights  was provided in [Table 35].  The Courts of general jurisdiction and 
arbitration courts of the Russian Federation hear d the cases on infringement of intellectual property 
rights in accordance with the relevant procedural laws.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 464  
 
  3. Enforcement 
- General provisions 1299.  The representative of the Russian Federation not ed the importance of IPR protection to the 
creative and innovative communities of the Russian Federation and the economy of the Russian Federation, and shared with WTO Memb ers the objective of eradicating piracy and 
counterfeiting in the Russian Federation.  He stresse d that the Government of the Russian Federation 
shared the goal of strengthening enforcement of in tellectual property rights in Russia and globally.  
Further, he had stated that the legislation of the Russian Federation would fully comply with the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement upon accession to the WTO.  The respective provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation, which realized the requi rements of the TRIPS Agreement on enforcement 
issues, were listed in [Table 34]. 
- Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies 
1300.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated that preliminary and final remedies 
currently available under the Civil Code (e.g., tho se set-out in Articles 1252, 1301, 1302, 1311, 1312, 
and 1515) included confirmation of ri ghts, injunctive relief, prohibiti on of actions violating rights, 
compensation of damages caused to the right-holder,  and statutory compensation.  Regarding claims 
for damages and assessment of damages, civil law cases provided for the general principle of full recovery of damages.  The amount of damage was calculated in accordance with the general norms of 
the Civil Code based on the prices of corresponding legitimate goods adjusted for actual damage and 
forgone profit of the right-holder.  In accordance with existing legal practice, the amount of damage 
ordered by the court to be recovered by one infri nger reached RUB 75 million.  As for statutory 
compensation, it was initially defined by the plaintiff,  who had the burden to prove the fact of damage 
caused without calculating the amount.  It was furt her assessed by the court based on the nature of 
infringement, income received by the infringer and ot her relevant facts.  The final decision on the 
amount of compensation rested with court. 
1301.  He added that civil legislation also provided the possibility of confiscation and destruction of 
counterfeit and pirated products as well as confisca tion of materials and equipment used for their 
production.  Articles 1252.5 and 1302 of the Civil Code provided for confiscation, by judicial 
decision, of counterfeit and pirated copies of works of art or phonograms, and materials and 
equipment used for reproducing count erfeit and pirated copies of such works.  Confiscated counterfeit 
and pirated copies of works of art or phonograms we re subject to destruction by a decision of the 
court, or were transferred, to holders of copyri ght and related rights upon request and decision of the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 465 
 
 
  court.  According to Article 1252 of the Civil Code, illegally manufactured copies of integrated 
micro-circuits and/or of articles incorporating such integrated micro-circuits, and materials and 
equipment used for their manufacture could be confiscated, destroyed or transferred to the 
right-holder upon request as compensation for losses.  Article 1515 of the Civil Code provided for the destruction, at the expenses of the infringer, of  counterfeit goods, labels, and packaging of goods.  
In exceptional cases only, where introduction of th e goods into commerce was necessary for "societal 
interests", the infringer was required to remove the illegal trademarks from the goods, labels and 
packaging. 
1302.  He further informed Members of the Working Pa rty that according to judicial practice, the 
court would issue a decision on confiscation and dest ruction when the right-holder had not requested 
the goods to be transferred to him/her.  Should the court not order confiscati on of illegal goods in civil 
proceedings, the right-holder could appeal. 
1303.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that civil procedures against violators of in tellectual property rights would provide an effective 
method of protection for rights holders.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1304.  Some Members continued to raise concerns a bout the practice in the Russian Federation of 
leasing or otherwise using machinery and other implements owned by third parties.  In such cases, courts had not ordered confiscati on and destruction of items used to commit the infringing activity.  
These items were released and could be used to commit further acts of piracy and counterfeiting.  
These Members requested that the Russian Federati on provide for confiscation and destruction of 
machinery and other implements even if third parties owned these items. 
1305.  In response to Members' concerns, the represen tative of the Russian Federation informed 
Members that the optical disc licensing regime of th e Russian Federation had been amended to require 
as a condition to obtain or extend a licence to pr oduce optical media bearing content protected by 
copyright or related rights that the applicant own th e equipment used in the plant to produce optical 
media.  Violation of this condition would be grounds  to deny or suspend, and then immediately seek 
revocation by a court of a licence.  
1306.  Regarding provisional measures under Articles 72, and 90 through 100 of the Arbitration 
Procedure Code, the representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the 
Working Party that the arbitration court could take  a decision on application of provisional measures 
for conservation of evidence, conservation of the status quo  between the parties, prevention of 
irreparable damage to the right-holder, and preserva tion of assets for fulfilment of a future court WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 466  
 
  decision.  Provisional measures could include:  prohibition of infringing actions, preservation of 
assets, including bank accounts, monetary funds and ot her property, seizure of documents and other 
evidence.  Such provisional measures could be sough t during a trial as well as before the filing of a 
claim in cases where any delay would likely cause irre parable harm to the right-holder or there was a 
demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed.  In addition, the court had the authority to issue 
an order for a preliminary injunction based on the petiti on of the plaintiff, without participation of the 
parties.  Such measures were to be aimed at se curing the claim.  In accordance with Article 93 of 
Arbitration Procedure Code, the arbitration cour t must reach a decision on the application for 
provisional measures not later than the next day afte r the right-holder filed a petition with the court, 
and did so without notifying the parties.  Provisi ons stipulating similar measures were also provided 
in Article 64 of the Civil Procedure Code (Fed eral Law No. 138-FZ of 14 November 2002).  In his 
view, these provisions fully complied with the requirements of Article 50 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.   
1307.  With regard to administrative procedur es and remedies, the representative of the 
Russian Federation stated that Articles 7.12, 7.28 and 14.10 of the Code of Administrative Offences 
established administrative liability for violation of  copyrights and related rights, rights regarding 
inventions and industrial designs, trademarks , service marks and indications of origin.   Article 13.14 
of the Code of Administrative Offences also provi ded for administrative liability (in form of a fine) 
for offences in the field of information, includi ng disclosure of information by persons having 
received access to such information in connec tion with performance of a service or professional 
duties.   In addition to fines of up to RUB 40,000 (i .e., about US$1,300), administrative sanctions in 
case of copyright infringements included obligator y confiscation of counte rfeit and pirated products, 
materials and equipment used in their production,  and other instruments used in committing the 
administrative offence.  In accordance with Article  32.4 of the Code, confiscated products, materials, 
equipment and instruments were subject to destruction or, at the request of the right-holder, 
transferred to such right-holder. 
1308.  Members noted that cases of infringement thr ough retail outlets in the Russian Federation 
were increasingly handled under administrative authority, resulting in very small fi nes or none at all.  
While pirate products were generally confiscated, s hop operators were normally not the owners of the 
product and the latter were seldom  caught and fined.  In addition, the Code on Administrative 
Offences of the Russian Federation effectively limited the time period for the investigation of 
copyright infringements to several days, even when  a longer time was necessary to investigate such 
cases.  In their view, the Code should provide for at  least a one-month period for the investigation of 
copyright infringing cases, as it does in other cases of  administrative misdemeanours.  Members also  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 467 
 
 
  stressed the need for administra tive authorities to refer more cases, including those involving repeat 
offenders and wilful piracy and c ounterfeiting, to the appropriate authorities for initiation of criminal 
actions. 
1309.  In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that the Government of the 
Russian Federation had adopted Resolution No. 185 of 27 March 2007 "On Amendment to the Rules 
of Selling of Particular Types of Goods", which proh ibited the selling of copies of audio-visual works, 
phonograms, computer programs and data bases from st alls/kiosks.  This r esolution also established 
requirements for the information that the seller w as to provide to the consumer.  This included 
information on the producer of the goods, on technical characteristics of the media and on the respective right-holder of copyright or related rights. 
1310.  In response to questions concerning appeal processes in intellectual property matters, the 
representative of the Russian Federation explained th at Russian legislation provided for enforcement 
of intellectual property rights through both judicial  and administrative procedures.  Pursuant to 
Article 1248 of the Civil Code, rights in copyrigh t and related rights and commercial secrets were 
enforced only by the courts.  For other intellectual property rights, the Chamber of Patent Disputes of 
Rospatent also conducted an administrative disput e procedure in cases connected with submission and 
consideration of applications for the issuance of patents for inventions, utility models, industrial 
designs, achievements of breeding, trademarks, service marks, and designations of places of origin of goods, involving State Registration of these r esults of intellectual activity and means of 
individualization, and issuance of the corres ponding right-establishing documents.  These cases 
involved contesting the grant or denial of registra tion for these results and means of legal protection 
or with the termination of such protection.  These administrative decisions could be appealed to a court.  The procedure for lodging objections and a pplications to the Chamber of Patent Disputes and 
the procedure for their consideration were dete rmined by the Order of Rospatent No. 56 of 
22 April 2003 "On the Rules of Filing Objections a nd Applications and the Consideration Thereof by 
the Chamber of Patent Disputes" (as amended on 11  December 2003).  Pursuant to this Order, the 
Chamber of Patent Dispute performed the following functions:  
- Considered objections to refusals to issue a pa tent for an invention, industrial design or 
certificate for utility model or to accept an a pplication for trademark, service mark or 
appellation of origin/indication of place of origin based on the results of a formal 
examination; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 468  
 
  - Considered objections to refusals to issue a pa tent for an invention, industrial design or to 
register a trademark, service mark, designation of place of origin of goods and/or to grant the right to use a designation of place of origin of goods, based on a merits examination of applications and of desi gnations applied for; and 
- Considered objections from individuals and legal entities against issuance of patents for 
inventions, industrial designs and certificates for utility models in violation of existing 
certificates for inventions and certificates for industrial designs of Russian authors, and against registration of trademarks, service mark s, designation of place of origin of goods, and 
issued certificate to use designation of place of origin of goods.  
 Details of procedures for carrying out these func tions were also set-out in Order No. 56.  
1311.  He further added that lodging an application to the Chamber was subject to payment of a fee, 
in accordance with the Article 1249 of the Civil Code .  The rates of such a fee were established by 
Government Resolution No. 793 of 12 August 1993 (as last amended on 26 January 2007).  
1312.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would act 
effectively against acts of infringements of intellectual property rights, including by expeditious 
action, on the basis of complaints lodged by right-holders and otherwise, with the objective of eliminating such acts in the Russian Federation.  He  also confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
also pursue effective and improved application of legislation concerning the infringement of 
intellectual property rights, including the imposition of  penalties that take into account the high degree 
of public harm from such infringement, the concrete  circumstances of the crime and the objective of 
preventing future crimes.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
- Border Measures 
1313.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated  that as of 1 July 2010, border measures in 
the Russian Federation were applied pursuant to Ch apter 46 of the CU Customs Code (Articles 328 to 
334) and Section 42 of the Federal Law on Custom s Regulation (No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010).  
Consistent with the procedures set-out in Chapter 46, the customs authorities of the Russian Federation (i.e., the Federal Customs Se rvice of the Russian Federation (FCS)) were 
authorised to take action to protect intellectual prope rty rights that were included in a customs register 
maintained by the FCS and in the unified custom s register of intellectual property rights of the 
CU Parties.  In addition, the CU Customs C ode provided that, in accordance with the national 
legislation of the Russian Federation, the Russian  customs authorities were authorised to enforce 
intellectual property rights with respect to inte llectual property not included in those customs 
registers.  In this regard, Artic le 305 of the Federal Law on Customs Regulation authorised the FCS to 
take action without an application from the right- holder (i.e., pursuant to ex officio authority) in 
accordance with Section 42 of that law.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 469 
 
 
  1314.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that intellectual property rights could 
be included in the customs register of the Russian  Federation based on an application filed by the 
right-holder in accordance with the procedure a nd under the conditions established in the national 
legislation of the Russian Federation.  In order to be included in the customs register of the 
Russian Federation, the CU Customs Code required that the intellectual property right had to be 
protected in the Russian Federation.   
1315.  He explained that, in accordance with procedures established by the customs authorities of the 
Russian Federation, copyrights, related rights, trademarks, service marks and names of places of origin of goods could be included in the customs re gister of intellectual property.  The applicant was 
required to submit an application to the customs authorities to have an intellectual property right 
included on the national register and customs authorities had 30 days to decide on including the 
intellectual property right on the register.  The representative of the Russian Federation further 
explained that while no fee was charged for including an intellectual property right in the register of 
the Russian Federation, the right-holder was required to  provide a security or contract of insurance to 
cover potential liability for damages to the declarant, owner, recipient of the goods or other persons in 
connection with suspending the release of goods susp ected of violating intellectual property rights in 
the national register.  The amount of the security or the insurance must be at least RUB 300,000 
(US$10,000) and if the customs authorities did not receive confirmation of the security or insurance 
bond within the 30 day period during which the author ities were deciding on the application, customs 
authorities were authorised to refuse the application to  suspend entry of goods.  He also noted that the 
Federal Law on Customs Regulati on included grounds for removal of items from the register, 
i.e., removal at the request of the right-holder or his representative; for failure to provide the required 
security or insurance contract; termination of the pr otection of intellectual prope rty right; for failure to 
apply for enforcement of the intellectual property righ t (court, office of Public Prosecutor, Ministry of 
Internal Affairs, customs authorities) for the prot ection of his/her rights in accordance with civil, 
administrative, and criminal legislation, during the period when release of the goods has been 
suspended, to the competent authority for enfo rcement of intellectual property rights in the 
Russian Federation; and for submitting false informa tion in the application for measures to suspend 
the release of goods.  
1316.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the term of protection of an 
intellectual property right included on the national regi ster was established in the national law of each 
CU Party, taking into account the term specified by the right-holder in its application for registration, but the term of protection cold not exceed two year s from the date the intellectual property right was 
included in the register.  The right-holder could ap ply to extend the term of protection an unlimited WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 470  
 
  number of times, but each extension could not exc eed two years and could not exceed the term of 
protection for the intellectual property right in the CU Party.   
1317.  With regard to the Customs Union unified custom s register of intellectual property rights, the 
representative of the Russian Federation inform ed Members that the conditions for including 
intellectual property in the unified register and the procedure for maintaining the unified customs register were set-out in the "Agreement on the Unified Customs Union IPR Register for Member 
States of the Customs Union of 21 May 2010.  In the case of an intellectual property right included in 
the Customs Union Unified Register, the minimu m security/guarantee was €10,000.  The term of 
registration was similar to that for the national cust oms register of the Russian Federation, namely, the 
term of protection could be up to two years from th e date the intellectual property right was included 
in the register.  The right-holder could apply to ex tend the term of protection for an unlimited number 
of times, but each extension could not exceed two years and could not exceed the term of protection 
for the intellectual property right in the CU Parties. 
1318.  Under the CU Customs Code, for goods contai ning intellectual property which were included 
in the customs register of the Russian Federation or the unified CU register of intellectual property, if 
there were any signs of a violation of intellectual property rights, customs authorities were authorised 
to suspend the release of such goods for ten business days.  At the request of the right-holder or his 
representative, the customs authority could extend th e term of suspension by up to ten business days, 
provided that the right-holder or his representative ap plied to the authorised authorities for a decision 
on protection of rights of the right-holder in accordance with the national legislation of the 
Russian Federation.  Decisions to suspend the rel ease of goods and to extend the term of suspension 
had to be in writing.  The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Chapter 46 included 
provisions regarding notification of the declarant a nd the right-holder and information to be provided 
to these persons or their representatives, and requireme nts that the declarant and right-holder, or their 
representatives treat such information as confidential a nd not subject to disclosure or transfer to third 
parties and other authorities, except as prescribed in th e national law of a CU Party.  In addition, with 
the written permission of the customs authority, th e right-holder, declarant or their representatives 
could, subject to customs control, take samples a nd specimens of the relevant goods and inspect, take 
photos of or otherwise identify the goods and undertake investigations of these goods. 
1319.  When the term of the suspension expired, the goods were released under normal customs 
procedures unless documents were submitted to the customs authorities confirming the seizure, 
confiscation, or detention of the goods, or, in acco rdance with the national law of the CU Party that 
the goods were otherwise not subject to release.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 471 
 
 
  1320.  The representative of the Russian Federation also explained that the right-holder was, in 
accordance with national law, liable fo r damage caused to the declarant, owner, recipient of the goods 
containing intellectual property, resulting from susp ending the release of the goods unless there was a 
violation of rights of the right-holder.  He explai ned that the determination of a violation could be 
through administrative or judicial procedures.  
1321.  Answering the question from a Member in respect  of cases where goods being detained by the 
customs body and considered to be counterfeit had b een abandoned by the importer, the representative 
of the Russian Federation explained that in accord ance with Article 1515 of the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation in such cases the goods, except for cases of societ al interest, were subject to 
destruction upon request of the right-holder at the expense of the importer.  If the importer or the owner of the goods were not available, then, in accordance with the Article 190 of the Federal Law 
"On Customs Regulation" in the Russian Federation, the destruction was to take place at the expense 
of the Federal budget. 
1322.  Pursuant to section 306 of the Federal La w on Customs Regulation right-holders of 
trademarks, copyright and related rights, and design ations of place of origin of goods (or his/her 
representative), who had sufficient gr ounds to believe that his/her rights could be violated, could 
submit an application requesting the FCS to suspe nd the release of suspected goods that were under 
customs control.  The application had to contain information on the right-holder (and if filed by a 
representative - also information on such repr esentative); the IPR object, including documents 
establishing that the applicant had rights in the inte llectual property; the goods that, in his/her opinion, 
were counterfeit in sufficient detail to permit iden tification of the suspect goods; and the term of 
protection under the regulation that  he/she believed was needed.  Samples of the suspect goods could 
be included with the application and could serve  as confirmation of the alleged violation.  
The presentation of the application must be acco mpanied by documents confirming an obligation 
(in written form) for compensation of possible property damage to the importer, owner, or recipient of 
the goods if the goods were not found to be counterfe ited or pirated.  The application must also be 
accompanied by a document guaranteeing fulfilment of the named obligation or a by contract of insurance of the liability from the causation of da mage.  In all cases, the required amount of the 
guarantee must be not less than RU B 300,000 (US$10,000.)  The most widespread form of meeting 
this obligation was a bank guarantee,  i.e., a contract between a bank an d an applicant.  In accordance 
with that contract, the bank guaranteed payments to  compensate for property damage.  The sum of the 
real expenses of the applicant for signing such contract would amount to not higher than 3 to 7 per cent of the above-mentioned figure (not  more than approximately US$700).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 472  
 
  1323.  He further confirmed that the RUB 300,000 in surance/bank guarantee was required for each 
application, but that an application could cover unlimited trademarks and objects of copyright, and a 
guarantee was not required for each object of copyright  or trade mark or for each enforcement action 
taken relating to the object of intellectual property.   No payment was required for the submission and 
examination of the application and the implementati on by the customs authorities of border measures.  
The FCS had the right, if necessary, to check th e information provided in the application.  
Applications were considered within a month from the date they were received by the FCS.  
Objects of intellectual property rights in respect of which the FCS had decided to take measures were 
entered, free of charge, into the customs register of the Russian Federation within three days from the 
date of the FCS decision.  Information concerni ng the decision on an application and insertion of 
objects of intellectual property rights into the custom s register of the Russian Federation was to be 
sent by a FCS letter to every customs body within  one day after the decision had been made.  
1324.  A Member of the Working Party expressed the concern that, considering the risk posed by 
growing number of IPR infringements other than copyright and trademark, these provisions should also be extended to other types of IPR infringeme nts, such as infringements of designs, patents and 
plant varieties.  In response the representative of the Russian Federation noted that Article 51 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement did not require application of  border measures in respect of enforcement of 
intellectual property rights other than copyright and trademarks.  
1325.  The representative of the Russian Federation al so confirmed that the Russian Federation 
would ensure that the guarantee requested from righ t-holders to lodge a registration request with 
Customs authorities would not constitute a dissuasiv e element to the use of this instrument, as 
required by Article 53 of the WTO TRIPS Agreemen t.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
1326.  With regard to enforcement of intellectual property rights that were not included in the 
national register or the Customs Union unified regi ster, the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that, if during the performance of cu stoms formalities and customs control, customs 
authorities discovered goods potentially violating inte llectual property rights and in case of available 
information about the right-holder in the Russian Fe deration, the clearance of such goods could be 
suspended for up to seven working days.  The decision to suspend the customs clearance of goods, the 
reasons for such a decision, and the terms of the su spension had to be notified to the importer/exporter 
and to the right-holder no later than one day after the decision had been taken.  The right-holder had 
the right to take, under customs control, samples,  specimens, pictures or otherwise record the goods 
whose release had been suspended.   The customs authorities could prolong the term of suspension of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 473 
 
 
  customs clearance for up to ten working days upon request of the right-holder, provided the 
right-holder (or his/her representative) had submitte d an application to the Customs authorities.  
The decisions to suspend customs clearance were  subject to revocation on the day following the 
expiry of the term of suspension, unless a decisi on to withdraw, seize, or confiscate the goods had 
been taken before the date of expiry.  Revocation decisions were taken by the chief of the custom 
office and were notified within three days, along w ith a justification, to the higher customs body.  
The decisions could be cancelled before the in itial term upon request of the right-holder.   
1327.  The representative of the Russian Federation a dded that Russian legislation also provided 
customs authorities the right to apply for urgent m easures on suppression of IPR violations even if the 
objects of Intellectual Property were not includ ed in the national customs register or the 
Customs Union unified register.  In addition to  the provisions of the Federal Law "On Customs 
Regulation", the Code of Administrative Offe nces had introduced administrative liability for 
infringements of intellectual property rights (Article  7.12 "Infringements of Copyright and Related 
Rights, Inventive and Patent Rights" and Article 14. 10 "Illegal Use of a Trademark"), that while not 
specifically directed at border enforcement of intellectual property rights, covered, inter alia , 
intellectual property infringements found in connect ion with import-export operations and vested the 
customs authorities with the powers to exercise administrative prosecution where infringements were 
detected.    
1328.  In response to the questions of some Member s with regard to ex officio authority, 
the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the CU Customs Code and the Federal Law on 
Customs Regulation gave explicit rights to customs au thorities to take action "ex officio" to stop the 
release of goods suspected of infringing copyright , related rights, trademarks, service marks and 
designations of place of origin.  Thus, the custom s authorities were endowed with powers to fully 
exercise the function of protecting intellectual property rights in the course of export and import 
operations, both on the basis of the application of the right-holder or without one in accordance with 
the "ex officio" principle of Article 58 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  In addition, in accordance 
with Chapter 28 (Articles 28.2 and 28.3) of the Code of Administrative Offences, the customs 
authorities could upon their own initiative, if they  had acquired prima facie evidence, initiate an 
administrative investigation.  In the course of such  investigation, customs authorities were authorised 
to suspend the release of suspected goods (to ex ecute requisitioning or seize) and seek from the right-
holder any information that may assist them in the in vestigation.  All persons concerned had the right 
to familiarize themselves with the record of the case, as well as submit explanations and comments, 
which were attached to the record of the case.  The suspension of the release of suspected goods 
normally lasted one month (a period prescribed for the administrative investigation) and could be WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 474  
 
  extended for a maximum of six months.  Final deci sions on administrative offences were taken by a 
court.  
1329.  A Member of the Working Party noted that although ex officio action by Customs was 
foreseen in the law, the right-holders consistently  reported that it was not available in practice.  
This Member asked the authorities of the Russian Federation to provide information about the actual 
implementation of this rule and ensure that it w as being implemented.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Fede ration would, with the objective of strengthening 
enforcement against acts of infringements of intellectual property rights at the border of the Russian Federation, from the date of accession, encour age customs officials to use such authority in 
order better to protect intellectual property rights, su ch as copyright and related rights, trademarks and 
geographical indications.  
1330.  He further explained that criminal procedures c ould also be used in the framework of border 
procedures.  Federal Law No. 144-FZ of 12 Au gust 1995 "On Operational-Investigative Activity" 
authorizes customs authorities to carry out operationa l-investigative actions to identify, prevent and 
suppress illegal import or export of goo ds containing objects of intellectual property to and from the 
territory of the Russian Federation, and to receive and gather updates on events and actions associated 
with illegal cross-border shipment of intellectua l property, and on illegal channels through which 
counterfeit and pirated goods may be carried across th e border.  If customs authorities had reasons to 
consider that there was an element of crime in a particular case, a criminal investigation could be 
opened and the case would be treated in accordance w ith standard rules of criminal procedures. 
1331.  More generally, the representative of the Russi an Federation confirmed that intellectual 
property right-holders would be pr ovided, whether by the Russian Federation or the competent bodies 
of the Customs Union, with procedures related to border measures that complied fully with the 
relevant provisions of the WTO TRIPS Agreement (Articles 51 to 60).  The Working Party took note 
of this commitment. 
- Criminal Measures 
1332.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the Criminal Code of 13 June 1996 as 
last amended on 9 April 2007 included four articles specifically dealing with intellectual property: 
Article 146 (Copyright and Related Rights Violations);  Article 147 (Patents Violations); Article 180 
(Trademark Violations), and Artic le 183 (Illegal Receipt and Disclos ure of Information Containing 
Commercial, Tax or Bank Secrets).  The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members of the Working Party that during 2006-2007, the production of counterfeit optical discs was  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 475 
 
 
  suppressed in the Russian Federation at ten licensed pl ants and at 17 illegal plants.  Also the activities 
of six major wholesalers and 30 illegal warehouses of counterfeit optical media were stopped.  
More than 8.5 million of counterfeit CD and DVD di scs were seized for the total amount of more than 
RUB 1 billion.  In 2006, 7,423 crimes stipulated  by Article 146 (copyright infringement) of the 
Criminal Code of the Russian Fede ration were discovered, 5,126 criminal cases were sent to the court, 
criminal procedures were institute d against 3,833 persons; and, 991 cr imes stipulated by Article 180 
(trademarks violations) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation were discovered.   
1333.  The Members of the Working Party noted that im provements were needed with respect to the 
enforcement of existing laws.  For example, pena lties imposed were often suspended or at levels 
insufficient to deter further infringement.  Th ese Members emphasized the continuing need for 
additional enforcement efforts by the Government of  the Russian Federation, in particular against 
optical disc production and distribution.  In 2005, there were over 40 optical disc plants in the 
Russian Federation with production capacity far exceeding legitimate demand.  Some of these 
manufacturers of optical discs, which include d intellectual property, were located on 
Government-controlled sites.  Location on these li mited-access sites could impede enforcement 
efforts.  Members suggested that the Russian Fede ration needed to increase surprise plant inspections 
and raids, prosecute plant operators and owners w ho manufacture pirate material and impose deterrent 
criminal penalties, close plants that violate copyright  rights, and stop the exportation of pirated optical 
discs and other copyrighted materials from the Russian Federation.   
1334.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the actions of the 
Government to remove optical media plants operating on the territory of government-controlled 
military-industrial sites had been intensified.  As a result of these efforts, no optical media plants were 
operating on the territory of government-controlle d military industrial sites.  Moreover, the 
Government did not intend to lease or otherwise make  such sites available to plants producing optical 
media bearing content protected by copyright or related rights in future.  
1335.  As regards the activities of law enforcement ag encies engaging in surprise plant inspections 
and raids, he noted that in the first six months  of 2007, these agencies discovered and suppressed the 
activities of four licensed and 16 illegal plants  producing optical discs and 30 illegal warehouses 
engaged in production and distri bution of counterfeit optical media.  Eight-and-a-half million 
counterfeit CD and DVD discs, worth over RUB 1 billion were seized.  He noted that the policy of his 
Government was to ensure the continuation of effo rts to suppress effectively the illegal activities of 
enterprises engaged in the production of optical discs.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 476  
 
  1336.  While Members welcomed the results of enforc ement efforts in 2007 with regard to optical 
disc plants, some Members continued to emphasize the need for more intensive inspection efforts, in 
particular the need for un-announced inspections of plants.  They expressed concern about the decline 
in the number of inspections and prosecutions of  plants conducted during th e second and third quarter 
of 2007, while the Russian Federation reorganized  the Federal body responsible for inspection of 
optical discs (OD) plants.   
1337.  Members also noted that the Russian Federation needed to address in laws or regulations 
some issues that had arisen during attempts to en force intellectual property rights, in particular 
instances of copyright infringement.  Individuals and enterprises (legal "persons") must be held 
responsible for all their IPR infringing activities a nd subject to civil and/or criminal liabilities.  
In cases of infringement of an IPR which the owner of the IPR deemed the circumstances serious, the 
person directly responsible for the infringement shoul d be prosecuted under the re levant provisions of 
the criminal law.  Other necessary reforms include d providing for criminal  prosecution and penalties 
under the Criminal Code for aiding in copyright infringement on the Internet, including through circumvention of technological protection measures,  and criminalizing certain cam-cording activities 
(i.e., making unauthorised copies of films in theatres).  Piracy on the Internet was a serious and 
growing concern, as right owners had documented  the operation of numerous  websites based in the 
Russian Federation that offered pirated material.  Me mbers noted that with regard to internet piracy, 
there has been inadequate enforcem ent activity in the face of increasing online piracy.  For example, 
Members noted that the Russian Fe deration was one of the few countries in the region that still had 
large illegal pay-per-download sites. 
1338.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that his Government would 
ensure that facilities on the territory of governme nt-controlled military-industr ial sites would not be 
leased or otherwise made available to companies producing optical media bearing content protected 
by copyright or related rights and action was bein g taken to stop such production on these sites.  
In addition, the enforcement authorities would c ontinue to conduct repeat ed, unannounced inspections 
of all  plants licensed to produce optical media bearing cont ent protected by copyright or related rights.  
Such inspections would take place regularly, withou t prior notice, and at any time, day or night.  
If evidence of unauthorised production of optical media bearing content protected by copyright or 
related rights on a commercial scale was found, criminal proceedings would be initiated.  
Enforcement officials would also continue to conduc t actions to find and shut down unlicensed plants 
producing optical media bearing content protected by copyright or related rights, as well as actions to find and inspect warehouses that store significan t quantities of pirated and counterfeit goods.  
If pirated or counterfeit goods were found at these lo cations, the goods would be seized and retained  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 477 
 
 
  as evidence, investigations would be initiated, in cluding investigations to  determine the owner, 
distributor, and manufacturer of such goods, and prosecutions of these persons and enterprises 
initiated.  In particular, criminal proceedings would be initiated in cas es of piracy or counterfeiting on 
a commercial scale.  The Working Pa rty took note of these commitments. 
1339.  With regard to piracy on th e Internet, the representative of  the Russian Federation noted 
significant efforts on the part of the Government to shut down servers situated on the territory of 
Russia and websites that promote illegal distribution,  which included making the object of a copyright 
or related right available, of content protected by c opyright or related rights.  In the first quarter of 
2007, there were a number of large-scale opera tions to discover and suppress the functioning of 
Internet resources that were engaged in the dist ribution of unlicensed software and counterfeit 
audio-visual works and phonograms.  As a result, 166 suspected informational resources (sites) were 
discovered, including 96 sites that were opera ting from technical means of Russian-based hosting 
companies, and 70 that were operating from techni cal means of foreign-based hosting companies.  
The activity of 72 resources (sites), which were opera ting in the territory of the Russian Federation, 
was suppressed.  In the first six months of 2007, th e relevant authorities suspended the functioning of 
90 internet sites engaged in illegal distribution of  copyright and related rights objects with servers 
situated on the territory of the Russian Federati on and 38 criminal cases under Article 146 of the 
Criminal Code were instituted agai nst persons engaged in administrati on of these sites.  He confirmed 
that the Government would continue to take actio ns against the operation of websites with servers 
located in the Russian Federation that promote illegal distribution of content protected by copyright or 
related rights, such as phonograms (sound recordings) and investigate and prosecute companies that illegally distribute objects of copyright or related rights on the Internet.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
1340.  The representative of the Russian Federation reported that during 2007, 7,874 crimes 
stipulated by Article 146 of the Criminal C ode of the Russian Federation were discovered 
(up 9 per cent compared to the same period of 2006), 7,418 in a large scale, and especially large scale.  5,405 criminal cases were sent to the court (up 5 pe r cent compared to 2006), and criminal procedures 
were instituted against 4,088 pers ons (up 6.5 per cent compared to 2006).  The amount of damage 
inflicted came to RUB 1,154 billion (100 per cen t lower than 2006), and property and materials 
valued at RUB 2.44 billion was sei zed (up 162 per cent compared to 2006).  During 2007, 957 crimes 
stipulated by Article 180 of the Criminal Code of  the Russian Federation were discovered, criminal 
procedures were instituted against 154 persons.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 478  
 
  1341.  As regards the copyright infringements on the Internet, the representative of the 
Russian Federation noted that Article 146 of th e Criminal Code (as amended on 9 April 2007) 
reinforced criminal liability for illegal use of object s of copyright and related rights as well as for 
purchase, storage, transportation of counterfeited works or phonograms for the purpose of their sale 
on a commercial scale.  The penalty provided by Arti cle 146 could be up to six years of imprisonment 
and also covered the illegal use of works through po sting them on the Internet.  He confirmed that, 
according to the Civil Code, reproduction (including temporary copies on the memory of a computer) 
of copyright-protected audio-visual works without  permission of its author, was illegal except for 
cases provided in the Code (e.g., reproduction for private purposes, reproduction for court purposes).  
Moreover as of 1 September 2006, an author had the exclusive right to perform his work so that the author could control when any user would have acces s to his work in interactive mode from any place 
and at any time - the right "to make it available to  the public".  The infringement of these rights would 
be considered as illegal use and w ould entail criminal responsibility, if it was done in on a commercial 
scale. 
1342.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed further that decisions on confiscation and 
destruction of counterfeit products and equipment u sed in their production were taken within the 
framework of criminal prosecution as provided in Articles 81 and 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it was a normal practice to confiscate these goods and machinery as "material evidence".  
Criminal procedure rules (Article 81 of the Criminal  Procedure Code) were also applied with regard 
to destruction of confiscated "pirated" products.  Under this Article, items which were used as 
"instruments of crime", "preserved traces of crime", or "which could serve as a means for detecting a crime and establishing circumstances of a criminal case" were recognised  as "material evidence", filed 
to the criminal case, and could only be destroyed upon a decision of the court.  Pursuant to the 
Criminal Procedure Code, when passing sentence, a court had to decide whether to order seizure or 
destruction of "material evidence" (including goods and machinery). 
1343.  The representative of the Russian Federation stated also that under Article 147 of the 
Criminal Code, the illegal use of an invention, utilit y model or industrial design, or disclosure of the 
essence of an invention, utility model or industria l design, without the consent of its owner or 
applicant before any official publication of inform ation about them; illegal acquisition of authorship; 
or compelling of co-authorship were criminally punis hable if these acts had in flicted serious damage.  
Article 147 provided punishment by fines of up to RUB 300,000 (more than US$10,000) or up to two years of wage, salary, or any other income of th e convicted person, arrest for up to six months, or 
deprivation of liberty for up to six years.  In  accordance with Article 180, the illegal use of a 
trademark or service mark, appellation of origin , or similar designations for homogeneous goods, as  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 479 
 
 
  well as the illegal use of a special marking, desi gnating a trademark or designations of origin which 
had not been registered in the Russian Federation,  were criminally punishable if these acts had taken 
place more than once or had inflicted serious dama ge.  Article 180 provided punishment by fines of 
up to RUB 300,000 or up to two years of wage, salary, or any other income of the convicted person, arrest for up to six months, or deprivation of liberty  for up to six years.  As for Article 183 of the 
Criminal Code, it established criminal liability for the illegal receipt and disclosure of information 
containing commercial, tax, or bank secrets.  
1344.  Some Members responded that although the current  Criminal Code (Article 146) permits the 
confiscation and destruction of pirate and counterfeit goods, Article 146 does not explicitly provide 
for the confiscation and destruction of the "mac hinery" used in the making of illegal copies.  
In response, the representative of th e Russian Federation noted that the provisions of Part IV of the 
Civil Code, Civil Procedural Code, (Article 140) , Arbitration Procedural Code and Code of 
Administrative Offences provided judges with the au thority to order that materials and implements 
used to create the infringing goods be disposed of out side the channels of commerce in such a manner 
as to minimize the risks of further infringem ents (see [Table 34] for the details).   
1345.  The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the general authority to seize, 
confiscate and destroy materials and implements used to create infringing goods, was provided in 
Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code and Article 81 of the Criminal Procedural Code.  These Articles allowed for confiscation and destruction of the me ans for committing a crime.  In the context of 
piracy and counterfeiting, this would include machin ery and materials used to create the illegal goods.  
Article 104.1.1(d) of the Criminal Code stipulated  that implements, equipment and other means of 
committing a crime that belong to the defendant we re subject to seizure in accordance with the 
decision of the Court.  Article 81 of the Criminal Pr ocedure Code stipulated that the implements used 
to commit a crime were to be retained as evidence and, in accordance with the decision of the Court, 
could be seized or destroyed.  
1346.  Some Members expressed concern regarding the requirement that illegal use of a trademark 
or service mark inflict serious damage as a cond ition for punishment.  While Members appreciated 
that the Russian Federation used the market price of  legitimate goods to calculate the thresholds for 
initiating criminal procedures, in their view, these thresholds did not authorize use of criminal 
procedures in all cases that could involve wilful  trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a 
commercial scale.  These Members noted that Article 61 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement required Members to provide for criminal procedures and penalties to be applied at least in cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 480  
 
  1347.  In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that under the comments to 
Article 169 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fede ration, damage inflicted by actions specified in 
Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fede ration, was to be regarded a serious one when it 
exceeds RUB 1.5 million (US$50,000).  For copyright and related rights, the amount specified in Article 146 was RUB 50,000 (approximately US$1,700).  He further stated that, in his view, the 
application of thresholds was in conformity  with the provisions of Article 61 of the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement, as these thresholds determin ed the commercial scale of wilful trademark 
counterfeiting or copyright piracy.  He further e xplained that the application of thresholds was 
traditionally used in Russian legisl ation to separate criminal offences punishable by means of criminal 
prosecution from administrative misdemeanours.  He  further added that this clear and unambiguous 
criterion was an effective, practical tool for enforcement, as it can be implemented easily and 
contained no element of subjective evaluation.  Furt her, he noted that, if the suspected infringer had 
been found to have previously engaged in infringem ent of intellectual property rights, including in an 
administrative proceeding, under the repeat-offender provisions, the thresholds mentioned above did 
not apply.  
1348.  Recognizing Members' concerns, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that, in 
order to improve the effectiveness of enforcement me asures in the area of intellectual property rights, 
when determining the existence of a large or  especially large scope of the activity, the 
prosecutor/court would take into account that, stor age of pirated copies of works or phonograms for 
the purpose of sale was also considered to be a crim e.  Thus, application of the thresholds to the 
activity would take into account both the value of  the pirated copies of works or phonograms that 
were sold, and the value of the pirated copies in st orage.  In accordance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation, the value of pirated copies w as calculated by reference to the value of the 
corresponding legitimate products, and not by refe rence to the price of the pirated product.  
This approach of taking into account copies in storage would also apply in cases of copyright 
infringement over the Internet. 
1349.  Some Members continued to have concerns that  the threshold of the Russian Federation for 
application of criminal procedures and penalties precluded action against certain cases of wilful 
trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale.  These Members requested that 
the Russian Federation modify law and practice to  ensure that criminal procedures and penalties 
would be applied to all cases of wilful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale.  In their view, the value of the products th at were counterfeited or pirated was not always a 
good indicator of whether the counterfeiting was wilf ul or if piracy was on a commercial scale.  
Other circumstances could establish wilful trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 481 
 
 
  commercial scale.  For example, in some cases, ea ch individual act of piracy might involve a small 
amount of money, but given other conditions in the market, e.g., the number of pirated copies, or the 
existence of copies made before the release of the work, the acts were clearly on a commercial scale.  
Finding other evidence, such as a worn mould for making copies, would be another situation in which 
commercial scale piracy was evident. 
1350.  In response to concerns from Members regardi ng thresholds of the Russian Federation for 
application of criminal proce dures and penalties with regard  to cases of wilful trademark 
counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale, the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the thresholds of the Russian Fede ration in such cases would be set and applied in a 
manner that reflected the realities of the commercial market place in the Russian Federation, including 
with regards to the internet market.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1351.  The representative of the Russian Federation note d that in accordance with the legislation in 
force on intellectual property, initiating actions to address the violations set-out in Article 146, 
paragraph 1, and Article 147, para graph 1, of the Criminal Code, required the filing of a private 
complaint, and criminal procedures could not be initiated without a complaint by the right-holder 
(Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code).  Ot her intellectual property criminal offences could be 
initiated through "public accusation" and the right -holder did not need to file a complaint 
(action could be taken " ex officio ").  The time limits for investiga tion and working up of an accusatory 
act on cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of  Article 180 of the Criminal Code in accordance 
with the Criminal Procedure Code were 20 days and,  for the complex cases, 30 days from the date of 
institution of the criminal case.  This term coul d be prolonged to 12 months in the complex cases.  
Official State examination of goods seized in cr iminal cases might be done by the Centre for 
Expertise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the re quest from an anti-trust or law enforcement body and 
on the basis of a relevant court order, Rospatent experts provided an opinion regarding a trademark, 
invention or another industrial property issue.  An investigator, prosecutor or court would then make a 
decision based on the results of the examination.  The examination initiated by the law enforcement 
bodies was free of charge.   
1352.  Noting all the above, Members of the Work ing Party sought a commitment that the 
Russian Federation would be in compliance w ith the WTO TRIPS Agreement, including its 
enforcement provisions, as from the date of accession, without recourse to transitional arrangements.   
1353.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply fully the provisions of the WTO Agreement on  Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 482  
 
  Rights from the date of accession to the WTO, includi ng provisions for enforcement, without recourse 
to any transitional period.  The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES 
1354.  The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the market for services of the 
Russian Federation began to develop only in th e first part of the 1990s, following the domestic 
process of economic reforms, privatization, and liberalization of the entire economy of the 
Russian Federation. 
1355.  He further stated that the reform of the ec onomy of the Russian Federation since then had 
created new services sectors and contributed to the development of existing ones.  
1356.  He noted that economic development in servi ces was supported by the legislative process of 
the Russian Federation.  Many laws and regulations  were adopted to establish a legal framework for 
provision of services in general or in specific sect ors.  However, the domestic regulatory system had 
not kept up with the dynamism of the services markets of the Russian Federation.  As an example, the 
banking crisis in August 1998 of the Russian Federa tion was particularly associated with inadequate 
approaches to, and lack of effective prudentia l requirements for banking activities that were 
established and which resulted in extreme dependence of the domestic financial system on short-term 
foreign capital markets.  For the purposes of creati ng a favourable economic and investment climate, 
including in the sphere of services, the Russian Federation had embarked on a series of actions to reduce restraints on the economy, involving streamlining of procedures for company registration, 
downsizing the list of types of activities subject to licensing, and reduction of the frequency of 
inspections of enterprises.  It could be e xpected that the regulatory framework of the 
Russian Federation governing the services sector would be continuously subject to frequent 
adaptations and improvement in light of expe rience and of progress made  in building domestic 
capacity to supply services on a competitive basis. 
1357.  Responding to the concerns of Members, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
clarified that all normative legal acts of general appli cation pertaining to or affecting trade in services, 
including those that established or implemented procedures and requirements for licensing of service 
activities, were published in a number of official s ources.  When published, such normative legal acts 
contained information on their effe ctive date and scope of applica tion.  When a normative legal act 
did not contain any information on its effective da te, the date was determin ed by another normative 
legal act establishing rules for entry into force of sp ecific types of normative legal acts.  For example, 
according to Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 14 June 1994  "On the Order of Publishing and Coming into  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 483 
 
 
  Effect of Federal Constitutional Laws, Federal Laws, Acts of the Chambers of the Federal Assembly", 
Federal Constitutional Laws, Federa l Laws and Acts of the Chambe rs of the Federal Assembly 
became effective after ten days of their official publication, unless the law or act stated a different 
date.  Similarly, according to the Presidentia l Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the Order of 
Publishing and Coming Into Force of the Acts of  the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Government of the Russian Federation and of th e Normative Legal Acts of the Federal Executive 
Bodies", Presidential Decrees and Acts became effec tive after seven days following the day of their 
first official publication, unless the relevant decree or  act included a date.  He also explained that 
Federal Laws were published in the Official Gazette, "Rossiiskaya Gazeta".  In addition, most of these 
normative legal acts were available on the respective websites of the regulatory bodies or of the Government of the Russian Federation (www.gov. ru).  Competent authorities, responsible for 
regulation of key service sectors, had the following we bsites:  www.minfin.ru (Ministry of Finance of 
the Russian Federation), www.cbr.ru (Central Ba nk of Russia), www.fcsm.ru (Federal Service on 
Financial Markets), www.minsvyaz.ru  (Ministry of Communications of the Russian Federation ), 
www.mintrans.ru  (Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation ), www.minprom.gov.ru  (the MIT).  
1358.  In response to questions from Members on the sy stem of licensing in the sphere of services, 
the representative of the Russian Federation info rmed Members that, according to the existing 
legislation, some types of services were subject to licensing.  The fundamentals of the regulation of licensing in the area of services were provide d for in Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On Licensing of Specific Types of Activity" (hereafter:  Federal Law No. 128-FZ), and a limited 
number of other Federal Laws, re gulating individual service sectors.   Federal Law No. 128-FZ had 
been adopted in the context of the governmental programme of "debureaucratization" of the economy 
and established a unified and transparent licensing regime aimed at the removal of excessive administrative regulation and barriers to market acc ess.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
informed Members of the basic provisions of that  Law.  One of the basic licensing principles was 
ensuring the existence of a single economic space in the territory of the Russian Federation.  
For that purpose, the Government of the Russian  Federation designated the Federal Executive bodies 
responsible for licensing specific types of activity, and also determined the types of activity to be 
licensed by the executive bodies of the regions of the Russian Federation.  If an enterprise wanted to 
pursue an activity that required a licence under Federal Law No. 128-FZ and received a licence from 
the Federal Executive body or the executive body of a region of the Russian Federation it could pursue the licensed activity throughout the territory of the Russian Federation.  If authorities of a 
region of the Russian Federation issued a licence to  an enterprise to engage in an activity, the 
enterprise could engage in the licensed activity in other regions, only if it notified the licensing 
authorities in the other regions of its intent to enga ge in the licensed activity in their respective regions WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 484  
 
  before engaging in the activity.  Federal Law No . 128-FZ also defined the powers of licensing bodies, 
established the procedure for consideration of an app lication for a licence, as well as for issuance of a 
licence, and set-out the list of documents to be provi ded by an applicant.  A fee of RUB 300 charged 
for the consideration of a licence application by a licensor was abolished,  in accordance with the 
Federal Law No. 374-FZ of 27 December 2009.  A licence fee of RUB 2,600 was charged for the 
issuance of a licence to engage in activities listed in  Article 17 of Federal Law No. 128-FZ, except for 
activities connected with the gambling industry, for wh ich a fee for issuance of a licence amounted to 
RUB 10,000.  For those services that were not governed by Federal Law No. 128-FZ the amount of 
fees was different.  The list of such services was th e following:  telecommunication services; financial 
services other than insurance; distribution of ethyl spirit, alcoholic and alcohol-containing products; the use of frequencies for tele- and radio broadcasti ng; and the use of natural resources and services in 
the field of the use of nuclear energy (e.g. desi gning, construction and opera tion of nuclear plant, 
treatment of radioactive wastes).  The volume of th e licensing fees applied for the licensing of these 
services was governed by the Tax Code and the resp ective sectoral legislation.  In response to a 
specific question, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that in respect to services 
auxiliary to all modes of transport, Federal Law No. 128-FZ provided for licensing in respect to 
cargo-handling services of dangerous cargos in mariti me, railway and internal waterways transport. 
1359.  The Representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the governmental policy with respect 
to the establishment of the licensing fees reflec ted in Federal Law No. 128-FZ was not aimed to 
distort competition in the market. 
1360.  The representative of the Russian Federation clarif ied that, according to the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation, a juridical person of the Ru ssian Federation was an entity that had separate 
property under its ownership, ec onomic management, or operative administration and was liable for 
its obligations with respect to that property and that might, in its own name, obtain and exercise 
property and non-property personal rights, bear duties,  and be a plaintiff and defendant in Court.  
Juridical persons must have an independent balance sheet or budget.  Branches were not considered to 
be juridical persons of the Russian Federation, but  were a separate subdivision of a juridical person 
and could conduct all of the functions of a juridical  person or part of them.  Representative offices 
were also not considered to be juridical persons, but  were a separate subdivision of a juridical person, 
which represented the interests of the juridical pers on and exercised its protection.  In response to a 
specific question of a Member, the representative of th e Russian Federation clarified that the notion of 
juridical person referred to in this  paragraph covered also juridical persons of the Russian Federation, 
owned or controlled by natural or ju ridical persons of other Members.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 485 
 
 
  1361.  In accordance with the Civil Code of the Ru ssian Federation, a ju ridical person of the 
Russian Federation could be organized as a commerc ial organization, which ha d making profits as the 
chief goal of its activity, or as a non-profit organiza tion.  Juridical persons that were non-profit 
organizations, could be set-up in the form of State-corporations, non-commercial partnerships, 
institutions, autonomous non-profit organizations, consumer coope ratives, public or religious 
organizations (associations), charity or other funds, associations that were a group of juridical persons 
(associations and unions). 
1362.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that juridical persons of the 
Russian Federation, including those that were service suppliers of a Member established in the 
territory of the Russian Federation,  could, in accordance with Russian legislation, exercise their rights 
and bear responsibilities freely and in their own interest, inter alia , on a contractual basis.  The terms 
and conditions of the contracts were to be define d by the parties to such contracts and could not 
contradict the legislation of the Russian Federation. 
1363.  Regarding the energy sector, some Members noted that the Russian Federation had made 
rather weak commitments on services incidental to  mining and no commitments for pipeline transport 
services.  In this regard, these Members requested de tails of the relationship, if any, between the 
relative weakness of commitments for these services a nd the exercise of the sovereign rights of the 
Russian Federation over its subsoil and mineral a nd energy resources.  They further asked for a 
clarification on the intentions of the Russian Federation with respect to the development of a market 
environment for the provision of services incidental to mining and pipeline transport services, and 
whether these would be consistent with the role th at the Russian Federation saw for the conclusion of 
production sharing agreements and concession arrangements. 
1364.  In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that all natural resources of the 
Russian Federation including subsoil domain as well as mineral, energy and other resources contained 
therein were subject to sovereign rights of the Ru ssian Federation exercised with the regions of the 
Russian Federation jointly and c onstituted State property.  Subso il areas could not be subject to 
purchase, sale, gift, inheritance, deposit, pledge or a ny other form of alienation.  He referred Members 
to the Section on Trade-related Investment M easures (TRIMs) of the Working Party Report and 
Investment for information on PSA, including servi ces related obligations of such production sharing 
agreements.  
1365.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that, under th e legislation of the 
Russian Federation, State support for juridical persons  could be subject to criteria or conditions such 
as, inter alia , employment of/or provision of services to persons suffering from an unfavourable social WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 486  
 
  and economic position, entities consider ed to be of social importance, or small businesses.  Criteria in 
the legislation were applied on a non-discriminatory b asis independent of foreign participation in the 
juridical person.  
Under current legislation: 
- persons suffering from an unfavourable social  and economic position in cluded persons of 
limited abilities due to illness or age, jobless persons, orphans, pers ons suffering from low 
income, natural and other disasters, war or social conflict and other circumstances, which denied common conduct of lif e and could not be solved by these persons themselves; 
- entities of social importance included entities providing services of mutual social use and/or 
services consumption of which could be of pr incipal importance to any juridical persons 
and/or individuals, and/or entities being of key importance as a source of employment, within a respective region or economy, in general, and entities providing services, which were closely connected to the production of above-menti oned services, for example, as part of the 
technological process of such production or as a condition of production; and 
- small businesses were those commercial organizations in which the average number of 
workers did not exceed, in the reporting period, the following maximum levels:  100 in industry and construction; 80 in agriculture; 60 in the scientific and cultural sphere; 30 in 
retail trade and domestic services; and 50 in  wholesale trade and in other activities or 
branches of activity, as well as in the case of investment from juridical persons not being 
small businesses accounted for less than  25 per cent of a business' capital. 
1366.  Several Members of the Working Party str essed the need for more information on the 
progress of the Russian Federation towards esta blishing the required enquiry point and other 
transparency and procedural requirements for co mplying with the WTO GATS Agreement.  These 
Members requested confirmation that, in service sectors requiring licensing, foreign natural and 
juridical persons, needing licences, could obtain them on the same terms as Russian natural and 
juridical persons.  Some Members also noted th at the Russian Federation had used the "infant 
industry" argument to justify a certain level of protection of its service sectors and asked how the 
Russian Federation would implement measures in this regard, considering that the WTO GATS 
Agreement did not contemplate any safeguard mechanism. 
1367.  In response to these questions from Members, the representative of the Russian Federation 
informed the Working Party of the adoption of  the Presidential Decree No. 314 of 9 March 2004 
"On the System and Structure of Federal Executiv e Bodies".  In accordance with the Presidential 
Decree, "administrative reform" was realized.  The purpose of this reform was to divide the legal 
regulation functions and control/s upervision of activities between different Federal Executive bodies, 
as well as to guarantee the independence of the Federal Executive bodies from service suppliers.  
The function of elaboration of State policy and le gal regulation, in the respective spheres, was 
assigned to the ministries in accordance with thei r competence.  The function of control/supervision 
was assigned to the Federal services.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 487 
 
 
  1368.  Currently, there were certain sectors where th e Federal Executive bodies responsible for the 
regulation of the respective service sectors had th eir designated representatives using a special right 
("golden share") in the participation of th e Russian Federation and the subjects of the 
Russian Federation in the management of Joint- Stock Companies supplying services in such sectors, 
as telecommunications, transport and energy.  In a ddition, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
(hereafter:  Bank of Russia or CBR) responsible for the registration of credit organizations, the 
supervision of activities of credit organizations and the establishment of rules for activities of credit 
organizations, currently participated in the capital of Sberbank. 
1369.  A Member noted that the Russian Federation had not addressed questions from Members in 
paragraph [1366] about the establishment of an e nquiry point, as required by Article III:4 of the 
WTO GATS Agreement.  This Member believed that  this information should be included in the 
Section "Policies Affecting Trade in Services" of this Report, unless the commitment on an enquiry 
point was to be specifically addressed in the Section "Transparency" of this Report.  In response, the 
representative of the Russian Federation referre d to paragraph [1426], which contained the 
information on the enquiry point. 
1370.  Regarding the banking sector, some Members expressed concern that one of the largest 
commercial banks in the Russian Federation (Sberban k) was currently owned by the CBR.  This bank 
held a dominant position in the market of the Ru ssian Federation, and its ownership by the CBR 
created a clear potential conflict of interest with the oversight functions and other responsibilities of 
the CBR.  While welcoming the information on pl ans to divest the CBR holdings in commercial 
banks, these Members invited the Russian Federation to indicate a firm date by which the ownership 
of these banks and their commercial activities would be  legally and, in practice, separated from the 
CBR.  In addition, these Members expressed furthe r concern about the distortions of competition 
created by the unlimited (i.e. 100 per cent) State guarantee given to deposits in accounts held with 
Sberbank.  No State guarantee at all existed for deposits held in accounts wi th other banks, whether 
Russian or foreign.  In order to foster equal conditions of competition in the banking sector of the 
Russian Federation and help improve the solidity and functioning of the financial sector, more 
generally, these Members expected that the Russi an Federation would commit, by an agreed time-
frame, to divest or bring under the responsibility of another public authorit y the commercial activities 
of the CBR and to ensure that there was no discrim ination between established banks as regards to the 
guarantee of deposits.  
1371.  Some Members expressed concerns with respect to the potential conflict of interest arising 
from role of the Bank of Russia, as a supervisor y body, and its equity participation in some WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 488  
 
  commercial banks, as well as the possible distortions of competition created by the unlimited State 
guarantee given to deposits in accounts held with Sberbank.  
1372.  In response the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that, the Bank of Russia held a 
58 per cent stake in Sberbank.  The remaining shares were owned by non-governmental investors, including foreign investors. 
1373.  In the Bank of Russia, the functions with resp ect to control over Sberbank were strictly 
divided.  Management of Sberbank, as an object of  ownership, was performed by those divisions of 
the Bank of Russia that did not exercise banking supervision authority.  At the same time, banking supervision divisions applied to Sberbank the same  supervision rules and norms, as those applied to 
any other bank.  
1374.  Sberbank maintained a historically leading role  in the personal deposits' market (at present, 
about 51.5 per cent), although its share of indivi dual deposits had been gradually decreasing (in early 
2002, for example, it constituted almost 75 per cent).  Sberbank remained a socially significant bank, 
since the majority of its depositors were individua ls with low-income, primarily pensioners (retired 
people).  It was impossible to indicate a firm date by when the Bank of Russia would withdraw from 
participating as an investor in Sberbank. 
1375.  He further noted, that the issue of the partic ipation of Sberbank in the deposit guarantee 
system had already been resolved in Article 49 of Federal Law No. 177-FZ of 23 December 2003 "On Insurance of Deposits of Physical Persons in Banks of the Russian Federation", which had 
eliminated preferences for banks with participa tion of the CBR in the deposits guaranteeing system 
from 1 January 2007.  
1376.  In light of the limitations in the financial servi ces sector on foreign participation in the capital 
of an enterprise, some Members requested informat ion on the definitions of various forms of capital 
in the Russian Federation and the practical implications of these definitions. 
1377.  In response to questions from Members about the definition of various forms of capital in the 
legislation of the Russian Federation, the represen tative of the Russian Federation explained that, 
charter capital
11 was defined as the par value of the shares of  a company that were issued, pursuant to: 
(i) Articles 66, 90, 96 and 99 of Part 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; (ii) Articles 2 and 
25 of Part 1 of Federal Law No. 208-FZ of 25  December 1995 "On Joint Stock Companies"; 
(iii) Articles 2 and 14 of Part 1 of Federal Law No . 14-FZ of 8 February 1998 "On Limited Liabilities 
                                                      
11 Capital composed of instalments made by participants of the insurance company or bank.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 489 
 
 
  Companies"; (iv) Articles 11 and 18 of Federal Law No. 395-1 of 2 December 1990 "On Banks and 
Banking Activity"; and (v) provisions of the Law of the Russian Federation No. 4015-1 of 
27 November 1992 "On Organization of Insurance Ac tivity in the Russian Federation".  He further 
explained that this included shares re-purchased by th e company for re-sale or for retirement that were 
issued, but not outstanding.  For the insurance sector, operational capital was comprised of charter 
capital, reserve capital, additional capital and undistri buted profits.  He also explained that for the 
banking sector, operational capital was comprised of charter capital, emissive income12, funds of 
credit organizations confirmed by the audit (includi ng reserves) and drawn from profits of previous 
years, profits of the current and previous years confirmed by the audit, and other sources of operational capital (but not including subordinated de bt).  Thus, limits on charter capital did not 
necessarily constrain total operational capital, but c ould do so depending on the other resources of a 
particular bank. 
1378.  In response to questions from Members regard ing regulatory limits on various components of 
capital, the representative of the Russian Federation clarified that, in the banking sector, the sum of 
subordinated debt of each indivi dual bank could not exceed 50 per cent of total operational capital.  
He explained that this limit did not apply to the insurance sector. 
1379.  A Member of the Working Party asked whether pension funds and annuities were considered 
insurance products.  The representative of the Russian  Federation explained th at pension funds were 
established as juridical persons regulated separatel y from insurance by a different regulatory body.  
He further confirmed that investments in charter capital of companies that were licensed as pension 
funds would not be subject to the foreign char ter capital ratio for insurance.  Annuities were 
considered as insurance products and were provide d by insurance companies that were subject to 
insurance regulations. 
1380.  In response to a specific question of a Member, the representative of the Russian Federation 
said that the activity of self-regulatory organi zations of professional participants in the  securities 
market was subject to Federal Law No. 39-FZ of 22  April 1996 "On Securities Market".  The Federal 
Law did not establish restrictions with respect to participation of Russian juridical persons with 
foreign investments in the activity of such self-re gulatory organizations.  The representative of the 
Russian Federation further noted that Federal La w No. 39-FZ did not establish restrictions with 
respect to participation of Russian juridical pers ons with foreign investments in trading at stock 
exchanges or in clearing activity, provided that such juridical persons met the respective domestic 
                                                      
12 Difference between selling price and par value of securities multiplied by the quantity of securities of 
present issue.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 490  
 
  regulations requirements, or those applied by stoc k exchanges or clearing companies to all market 
participants.  Answering further questions of that Member, the representative of the 
Russian Federation explained that, so far, there were no measures taken by the relevant financial 
authorities of the Russian Federation to prevent tran sfers of financial information to the banks and 
other companies operating in the financial market of  the Russian Federation, or to prevent processing 
of financial information transferred from abroad, by such banks and companies. 
1381.  One Member of the Working Party expressed deep concern over the maintenance of a 
discriminatory regime in the Russian Federation with regard to the supply of services on the Russian services market by nationals of its country, r esiding in different regions of its country, under 
the mode of supply "commercial presence" and "m ovement of natural persons".  This Member 
requested the Russian Federation to make the necessa ry adjustments in order to avoid discriminatory 
treatment and to allow all his nati onals to provide services on the Russi an market on an equal footing. 
1382.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated th at the nature and origin of 
this situation was due to complicated historical factors.  The Russian Federation felt that the settlement of those problems which, were outside  the WTO, could be achieved through bilateral 
negotiations and was prepared to take all reasonable steps in this regard. 
1383.  Another Member requested confir mation regarding the intention of the Russian Federation to 
introduce International Accounting Standards (IA S), adopted by the International Accounting 
Standards Board (IASB) for banks on 1 January 2004 and for all listed companies on 1 January 2005.  
This Member asked the Russian Federation to conf irm this information and indicate the steps by 
which it intended to achieve this objective.  He also requested the Russian Federation to provide 
information on the actual application of IAS by Russi an companies.  Another Member asked whether 
the financial measures described by the Russian Fe deration, in relation to currency regulations and 
controls, were not already covered by Article X II of the WTO GATS Agreement and paragraph 2 of 
the Annex on Financial Services of the WTO GATS Agreement.   
1384.  The representative of the Russian Federation replie d that it was the plan of the Government of 
the Russian Federation to introduce IAS.  He noted that Federal Law No. 208-FZ of 
27 September 2010 "On Consolidated Financial Accounting in the Russian Federation" had  been 
adopted.  This Federal Law established the gene ral requirements on drawing up, offering, and 
publishing of the consolidated financial accounting of the company.  The company had to be a juridical person of the Russian Federation.  The provisions of the Law  were applied to credit 
organizations, insurance organizati ons and other organizations listed in a stock exchange, or securities 
market arrangers.  In accordance with the provisions of the Law, the consolidated financial accounting  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 491 
 
 
  would be drawn up under the Interna tional Financial Reporting Standards.  He also stated that, in the 
service sectors inscribed in the Schedule of Specifi c Commitments of the Russian Federation, service 
suppliers of WTO Members would be accorded treatm ent no less favourable than that provided for 
under the terms, limitations and conditions and subject  to qualifications specified in the Schedule of 
Specific Commitments on Services.  He noted th at the requirement for establishing a WTO GATS 
Agreement enquiry point was being addressed, and th at the enquiry point would be established and 
operational upon accession.  He further noted that the Russian Federation had a limited number of 
bilateral Agreements related to  debt settlements and technical assistance measu res resulting from 
Agreements on legal assistance, which contained some preferential provisions, and Agreements on 
conditions for activities on the territory of the Russi an Federation of Severniy Investitsionniy Bank 
(North Investment Bank) and Tchernomorskiy Ba nk Torgovliy i Rasvitiya (Tchernomorskiy Bank of 
Trade and Development). 
1385.  One Member suggested that the Working Part y Report be updated and include language to 
clarify plans with respect to acc ountancy standards (e.g. scope of those plans, manner in which the 
standards would be implemented and time-frame bei ng considered).  Where international standards 
had been partially adopted, further details would be required.  This Member noted that most recent 
discussions suggested that the account ancy standards applied to compan ies listed on the stock market.  
This Member further noted that he remained con cerned that the lack of compatibility of accounting 
systems would impede service providers from obtaini ng the market access that the Russian Federation 
had agreed to offer.  In response, the represen tative of the Russian Federation explained that 
information on the introduction of IAS in the Ru ssian Federation provided for in paragraph [1384] 
above constituted the quintessence of a ll new developments, at this stage. 
1386.  Concerning horizontal measures of regulation,  the representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that services, considered to be public utiliti es and referred to in the Horizontal Part of the 
Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services of the Russian Federation, could be subject to public 
monopolies or exclusive rights granted to private opera tors.  Exclusive rights to provide such services 
could be granted to private operators, for instan ce, operators with concessions from bodies of State 
power and local self-governmental bodies, subject to the specific services obligations of the 
Russian Federation.  Services considered as public  utilities were supplied on the basis of public 
contracts.  In service sectors, included the Sche dule of Specific Commitments on Services of the 
Russian Federation, Russian juridical persons with  100 per cent foreign equity participation were 
allowed to apply for these exclusive rights on e qual terms with national services suppliers.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 492  
 
  1387.  He stated that the policy of the Russian Federation in preserving, developing, and 
disseminating culture, required an authorization wi th respect to the acquisition of control over a 
Russian juridical person related to the cultural he ritage of the Russian Federation and/or being a 
cultural property of the peoples of the Russian Fede ration.  Also the number of service suppliers and 
scope of their operation could be limited on a non-discriminatory basis in specially protected 
territories.   
1388.  He noted that for the purpose of the protec tion and preservation of indigenous persons and 
exiguous ethnic communities, measures directed at the protection and preservation of the territories of the traditional habitation of these groups could be ap plied, and preferences to these groups could be 
granted with respect to their traditional economic activit y in the territory of their traditional habitation.  
For the purpose of the protection and preservation of indigenous persons  and exiguous ethnic 
communities, a special regime had been establishe d for the use of land where they traditionally 
resided and exercised economic activity.  Accordi ng to that regime, such  persons and communities 
had, inter alia , a priority right to the use of wild life and other natural resources in that land, and they 
had to give their consent to any use of natural resources in that land. 
1389.  For national security reasons the Russian Fede ration could also use measures to limit or 
prohibit economic and entreprene urial activities with respect to trade in services, including 
possession, use and disposal of land, natural re sources and immovable pr operty, entry and/or 
permanent stay of natural persons, within th e border zones and closed administrative areas. 
1390.  Responding to the concerns of some Members, the representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that commitments on "tour operator and tour agency services, CPC 7471" included services rendered for passenger travel by:  (i) tour ag encies, tour operators, and similar services; 
(ii) travel information, advice and planning services;  (iii) services related to arrangement of tours, 
accommodation, passenger and baggage transportatio n; and (iv) ticket issuance services.   
1391.  A Member noted that the Russian Federation had listed in its Schedule of Specific 
Commitments on Services discretionary authority to  impose temporary limits on foreign investment in 
the banking and insurance sectors, if foreign invest ment in those sectors exce eded a specified charter 
capital ratio.  This ratio was calculated annually an d, if foreign investment exceeded this ratio, the 
relevant regulatory authority had the discretion to take certain actions to temporarily limit further 
foreign investment.  This Member asked, if all banks  and insurance enterprises had to meet the same 
charter capital requirements and requested detailed information fro m the Russian Federation on how 
the ratio would be calculated and administered.  Noting that in the case of the banking sector, the 
regulator (the CBR) was also a stakeholder in some commercial banks, this Member sought  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 493 
 
 
  assurances that for any sector subject to this lim itation, any decisions relating to charter capital, 
including decisions on whether to act, if foreign investment in the banking  or insurance sector 
exceeded the ratio, would be made on prudential grounds  and not influenced by the participation of 
the regulator in the sector. 
1392.  In response to these questions, the representativ e of the Russian Federation confirmed that, 
with respect to the banking sector, the same charte r capital requirements applied to all banks in the 
Russian Federation, except the CBR, including State- owned banks and private banks, and that charter 
capital requirements would be applie d on a non-discriminatory basis.  He further confirmed that the 
CBR had the discretion to take certain limited actions , if foreign investments in the banking sector of 
the Russian Federation exceeded the 50 per cent ratio  calculated according to the following formula: 
(i) The numerator would consist of the total amount  of foreign (non-resident) investments in the 
charter capital of banks in the Russian Federati on, excluding all foreign investments in banks: 
(a) made prior to 1 January 2007; 
(b) privatized after the date of accession of  the Russian Federation to the WTO; and 
(c) that accounted for 51 per cent or more of charter capital of any individual bank, and 
made after 1 January 2007, and had been in place for a period of 12 years or more, 
unless thereafter annually, the CBR determined  that it was necessary to continue to 
include such foreign investments in the calculation of the 50 per cent ratio and made such determination public.  
(ii) The denominator would consist of the aggregat ed amount of total charter capital of banks in 
the Russian Federation (including all foreign inv estments, prior to 1 January 2007, all foreign 
investments in banks privatized after the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO, and any foreign investment made after 1 January 2007, including that in place for a period of 12 years or more, that accounted for 51 per cent or more of the charter capital of any 
individual bank).  
 The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that the ratio would be calculated in 
January of each year on the basis of the capital in ex istence at the end of the prior year, and that the 
ratio and supporting calculations would be made pub licly available.  He further confirmed that 
Federal financial authorities had the discretion to take certain temporary actions affecting foreign 
investments in the banking sector, if foreign inv estments exceeded the 50 per cent ratio.  Any such 
action would follow notice and consultations with interested persons, and would require that a 
determination that the ratio had been exceeded due to  new foreign investments, rather than due to a 
contraction of total capital or adjustments in charter capital, was made public.  In such circumstances, 
the only actions authorities could take would be to:  (i) stop issuance of licenses for new 
foreign-invested banks; (ii) prohibit the increas e of charter capital of existing Russian banks 
contributed by foreign investors (non-residents); an d (iii) prohibit the alienation (sale) of shares of 
existing Russian banks to foreign investors (non- residents).  He confirmed that only where the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 494  
 
  institution involved conducted co mmercial banking as its principal line of business, would it be 
subject to these adverse actions.  For example, a Russian juridical person with a commercial banking 
licence whose principal line of business was as a broker dealer would not be subject to these adverse 
actions.  The representative of the Russian Federati on further confirmed that the Federal financial 
authorities would not be able to apply measures that would, for example:  (i) prevent increases in the 
operational capital of existing foreign-invested banks;  (ii) prevent expansion of the scope or volume 
of business of such foreign-invested banks; or ( iii) prevent foreign-invested banks from opening 
internal branches (as distinct from direct branch es from abroad) within the Russian Federation.  
Should the Russian Federation choose to exercise its discretion and, subsequently, the ratio fell below 
50 per cent, the Russian Federation would withdraw  the temporary action.  The Working Party took 
note of these commitments. 
1393.  With respect to the insuran ce sector of the Russian Federation, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that charter capital requirements would be applied on a 
non-discriminatory basis.  He further confirmed that the Federal regulatory authorities had the 
discretion to take certain limited temporary actions, if foreign investments in the insurance sector of 
the Russian Federation exceeded the 50 per cent ratio  calculated according to the following formula: 
(i) The numerator would consist of the total amount  of foreign (non-resident) investments in the 
charter capital of insurers/re-insurers in th e Russian Federation, excluding all foreign 
investments in insurers/re-insurers: 
(a) made prior to 1 January 2007;  
(b) privatized after the date of accession of  the Russian Federation to the WTO; and  
(c) that accounted for 51 per cent or more of charter capital of any individual insurer/ 
re-insurer, made after 1 January 2007, and had been in place for a period of 12 years or more, unless thereafter, annually, the Fede ral financial authority determined that it 
was necessary to continue to include such  foreign investments in the calculation of 
the 50 per cent ratio and made such a determination public.  
(ii) The denominator would consist of the aggr egated amount of the total charter capital of 
insurers/re-insurers in the Russian Federation,  including all foreign investments, prior to 
1 January 2007, foreign investments in insurers /re-insurers privatized after the date of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, a ll foreign investment in internal branches, 
and foreign investment made after 1 January 2007, that had been in place for a period of 
12 years or more and that accounted for 51 per cent or more of the charter capital of any individual insurance/re-insurance company.  
 The representative of the Russian Federation al so confirmed that, after nine years from the 
date of accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, capitalization of branches of foreign 
insurers/re-insurers would be factored into the to tal amount of foreign investments in the insurance 
sector of the Russian Federation and thus would be included in the calculation of the ratio referred to 
above.  He also confirmed that, at least six months prior to the expi ration of the nine year transition  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 495 
 
 
  period, the Russian Federation would consult with  interested WTO Members on the methodology and 
amount of branch capital to be included in the calculation of the ratio. 
 The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that, the ratio  would be calculated 
in January of each year on the basis of the capital in existence at the end of the prior year, and that the 
ratio and supporting calculations would be made pub licly available.  He further confirmed that 
Federal financial authorities had the discretion to take certain temporary actions affecting foreign 
investments in the insurance sector, if foreign i nvestments exceeded the 50 per cent ratio.  Any such 
action would follow notice and consultations with interested persons, and would require that a 
determination that the ratio had been exceeded, due  to new foreign investments, rather than a 
contraction of total capital or adjustments in charter capital, was made public.  In such circumstances, 
the only actions authorities could take would be to:  (i) stop issuance of licenses for new 
foreign-invested insurers/re-insurers; (ii) prohi bit the increase of the charter capital of existing 
insurers/re-insurers contributed by foreign invest ors (non-residents); and (iii) prohibit the alienation 
(sale) of shares of existing Russian insurers/re- insurers to foreign investors (non-residents).  
Only institutions involved in commercial insurance as  their principal line of business could be subject 
to these adverse actions.  The representative of th e Russian Federation further confirmed that the 
Federal financial authorities of the Russian Fe deration would not have  the right to apply  measures that 
would, for example:  (i) prevent increases in the operational capital of existing foreign-invested 
insurers/re-insurers in the Russian Federation; (ii) prevent expansion of the scope or volume of such 
foreign-invested or wholly foreign-owned businesses; or (iii) prevent foreign-invested 
Russian insurers/re-insurers from opening branches of juridical persons of the Russian Federation 
within the Russian Federation.  Should the Russian  Federation choose to exercise its discretion and, 
subsequently, the ratio fell below 50 per cent, the Russian Federation would withdraw the temporary 
action.  The Working Party to ok note of these commitments. 
1394.  In response to a question from Members about a possible review and elimination of the 
50 per cent charter capital ratio, the representative of  the Russian Federation confirmed that, it would 
review the operation and necessity for the ratio  and implementation of temporary discretionary 
measures in the banking and insurance sectors within five years of the date of accession of the 
Russian Federation to the WTO.   
1395.  In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that an increase in charter capital of a foreign-invested Russian bank or foreign-invested 
Russian insurance company that was financed by its profits earned in the Russian Federation or 
repatriated to the Russian Federation from abroad would constitute domestic investments and only be WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 496  
 
  included in the denominator of the respective ratios.   He further confirmed that all investments by 
foreign-invested Russian juridical persons in  subsidiaries and internal branches in the 
Russian Federation were domestic, not foreign, inv estments.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
1396.  Several Members of the Working Party noted th at, the Schedule of Specific Commitments in 
Services of the Russian Federation did not include any commitment for branching in non-insurance 
financial services, and inquired wh en the Russian Federation planned to allow this common form of 
establishment.  In addition, several Members, who were also members of the Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Developm ent (OECD) noted that commitments for direct-branching in 
financial services were standard in that or ganization and that they would expect the 
Russian Federation to make full commitments to a llow direct-branching in financial services as part 
of its accession to the OECD. 
1397.  However, the representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed that the Russian Federation 
would come back to consideration of granting market access to direct  branches of foreign banks and 
companies which were professional participants of the securities markets in the context of future 
negotiations on the accession of the Russian Federation to the OECD or within the framework of the 
next round of WTO multilateral trade negotiations whichever comes earlier.  The Working Party took 
note of this commitment. 
1398.  In response to a question from a Member, th e representative of the Russian Federation 
confirmed that the 20 per cent limit on equity owners hip of "stock exchanges" would not apply to 
other kinds of trade arrangers.  Companies that were  trade arrangers other than stock exchanges that 
use such means of organizing trade on the securities market as, for example, via alternative trading 
systems (ATSs), such as electronic communications networks (ECNs), crossi ng networks or global 
agency brokers, or via internalized trades (i.e., ma tching trades internally between customers and/or 
between customers and proprietary positions) could be up to 100 per cent owned by a single investor, 
domestic or foreign.  He further confirmed that , where the 20 per cent limit on equity ownership of 
"stock exchanges" applied, it would do so equally  to foreign and domestic investors, as would any 
subsequent amendment to this limit.  The Wo rking Party took note of these commitments. 
1399.  Some Members expressed concerns about the restrictions in the offer of the 
Russian Federation on Telecommunication Services for Mode 1, cross-border supply, of satellite 
services.  While Members noted that the concerns of the Russian Federation with respect to these 
services were related to security, frequency allocati on and universal service fund contributions, these 
concerns were important to all Members.  In their view, none of these concerns should prevent a  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 497 
 
 
  Member from allowing market access for foreign sat ellite services.  In the view of these Members, 
these issues could be more appropriately addressed in  ways consistent with international practice, 
such as through the earth station licensee or through coordination at the International 
Telecommunications Union (ITU).  
1400.  The representative of the Russian Federation explained that any fo reign-licensed fixed 
satellite operator could access the market of the Russian Federation by providing capacity to a 
juridical person of the Russian Federation that  possessed a licence for telecommunications services 
issued in accordance with Ch apter 6 of Federal Law No . 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 
"On Communications".  Thus, the foreign-licensed fi xed satellite operator would not need to be both 
the operator and the licensee in the Russian Federation in order to provide services to juridical persons 
of the Russian Federation, as described above.  Th e Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1401.  The representative of the Russian Federation furt her confirmed that certain measures adopted 
or maintained by the Russian Federation would be applied in a manner that would ensure the market 
access described above.  For example, the Government  Resolution No. 88 of 1 February 2000 "On the 
Procedures of the Admission of Foreign Satellite Systems to the Russian Market" would be 
administered in a manner consistent with the mark et access commitments of the Russian Federation.  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1402.  Some Members raised other concerns a bout new requirements established in the 
Russian Federation under an Order titled "On Approv al of Requirements for PSTN Development" in 
particular, the requirement that (Public Switc hed Telephone Network) PS TN traffic might be 
connected via communications satellites controlled fro m the territory of the Russian Federation.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confir med that, consistent with its market access 
commitments, foreign fixed satellite operators w ould not be required to establish commercial presence 
in the territory of the Russian Federation for the purposes of provid ing capacity to a juridical person 
of the Russian Federation that possesses a licence for telecommunications services issued in 
accordance with Chapter 6 of Federal Law No. 1 26-FZ of 7 July 2003 "On Communications".  
The Working Party took note of this commitment. 
1403.  Members of the Working Party stated that they  expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee transparency of licen sing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures, as well as of other author ization requirements, in particular with respect 
to obtaining, extending, renewing, denying and te rminating licenses and other approvals required to 
provide services in the market of the Russian Federa tion, and appeals of such actions.  The licensing 
procedures and conditions of the Russian Federati on should not in themselves act as a barrier to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 498  
 
  market access and should not be more trade restric tive than necessary.  Th e Russian Federation should 
publish a list of authorities responsible for authoriz ing, approving or regulating those service sectors 
in which the Russian Federation had made specifi c commitments, as well as the licensing procedures 
and conditions of the Russian Federation.  Members also expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee that, for those services th at would be included in the Schedule of Specific 
Commitments of the Russian Federation, the releva nt regulatory authorities would be separated from, 
and not accountable to, any of the service suppliers they regulated.  Members further expected the 
Russian Federation to make a commitment to guarant ee that foreign service suppliers remain free to 
choose their partners.   
1404.  In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation confirmed that, upon accession, the 
Russian Federation would ensure that all normative le gal acts of general app lication pertaining to or 
affecting trade in services, as well as information on their effective date and scope of application, 
were published or made otherwise publicly av ailable.  He further confirmed that the 
Russian Federation would ensure that the names of  competent authorities that were responsible for 
issuing licenses (authorizations) for service activit ies were published or made otherwise publicly 
available.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
1405.  Without prejudice to the right of the Russian Federation to establish and apply licensing 
procedures and requirements, the representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, in sectors 
in which the Russian Federation had undertaken specific commitments, it would ensure that its 
licensing procedures were not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service, and that its 
licensing requirements directly related to eligibilit y to supply a service were not in themselves an 
unjustified barrier to the supply of the service.  He further confirmed that for those services sectors in 
which specific commitments were undertaken by th e Russian Federation in its Schedule of Specific 
Commitments, the Russian Federation would ensure that:  
(a) All licensing procedures and requirements were set-out in normative legal acts and that any 
law establishing or implementing licensing proce dures or requirements would be published no 
later than its effective date and that any ot her normative legal act that establishes and 
implements licensing procedures or requirement s would be published prior to its effective 
date;  
(b) Relevant authorities make a decision on granting/denial of a licence within the period 
specified in the relevant normative legal act or, if no time period was specified in the relevant 
normative legal act, without undue delay;  
(c) Any fees charged in connection with the filing and review of an application for a licence 
would not in themselves be a restriction on the supply of the service;  
(d) Once any period established in a normative legal act  for review of an application for a licence 
had lapsed, and on the request of an applican t, the relevant regulatory authority of the 
Russian Federation would inform the applicant of  the status of its application and whether it 
was considered complete.  If the authority requi red additional information from the applicant,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 499 
 
 
  it would notify the applicant without delay and specify the additional information required to 
complete the application.  Applicants would have the opportunity to provide the additional 
information requested and to make technical corre ctions in the application.  An application 
would not be considered complete until all information and documents specified in the 
relevant laws and regul ations were received; 
(e) The relevant regulatory authority of the Russi an Federation would make an administrative 
decision on a completed application for issuance of a licence for the supply of a financial service, and, as appropriate, approval of new pr oducts and rate changes, within a reasonable 
period of time and would promptly notify the app licant of the decision.  An application would 
not be considered complete until all informati on specified in the rele vant normative legal act 
was received.  Where it was not practicable for a decision to be made: 
 
(i) On an application to supply banking services within 180 days; and (ii) On an application to supply other financial services within 60 days. 
- The relevant regulatory authority would notify the applicant without delay; 
 
(f) On the written request of an unsuccessful applican t, a regulatory authority that has denied an 
application would, inform the applicant in writing of the reasons for denial of the application; 
however, this provision shall not be construed to require a regulatory authority to disclose 
information, where that disclosure would impede law enforcement or otherwise be contrary to 
the public interest or essential security interests; 
(g) Where an application had been denied, an a pplicant might submit a new application that 
attempts to address any prior problems for licensing; 
(h) Where approval was required, once the applicati on had been approved, the applicant would be 
informed in writing and in the time period provide d for by the relevant normative legal act or, 
if no time period was specified in the relevant normative legal act, without undue delay; and 
(i) Where an examination was required to licence professionals, such examinations would be 
scheduled at reasonable intervals.  That would not apply to qualifying examinations 
administered or offered by financial service regulators or self-regulatory bodies or organizations.  
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. 
1406.  The representative of the Russian Federation fu rther confirmed that, in those sectors where 
the Russian Federation had undertaken specific co mmitments, relevant regulatory authorities would 
not be accountable to any service suppliers they re gulated.  Further, the representative of the 
Russian Federation confirmed that in sectors in which the Russian Federation had undertaken specific 
commitments it would ensure, where practicable, that: 
- drafts of regulations of gene ral application that it proposed  to adopt were published in 
advance; 
- an opportunity to comment on such proposed re gulation was provided to interested persons 
and other Members; and 
- reasonable time between publication of the a dopted regulation and its effective date was 
allowed. 
The Working Party took no te of these commitments. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 500  
 
  1407.  The Russian Federation undertook market access negotiations in services  with Members of 
the Working Party.  The commitments of the Russi an Federation in services were contained in the 
Schedule of Specific Commitments, reproduced in Annex I to the Protocol of Accession. 
TRANSPARENCY 
- Publication of Information on Trade 
1408.  Members of the Working Party requested a description of the measures providing legal 
authorization for the Russian Federation to im plement Article X of the GATT 1994 and the other 
transparency provisions in the WTO Agreements, together with a confirmation that these measures 
would be applied upon accession.  A clarification was particularly sought on where the laws, decrees, 
resolutions, orders, letters and other measures of general  application of the Russian Federation would 
be published to fulfil the requirements of Article X of the GATT 1994, and the transparency 
provisions in other WTO Agreements, including the WTO GATS Agreement and the 
WTO TRIPS Agreement.  Because the CU Parti es and competent bodies of the CU were adopting 
international treaties, decisions and other measures related to trade, Members also requested confirmation that the CU Parties and  competent  bodies of the CU would comply with the transparency 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on matters within CU competency.    
1409.  Some Members of the Working Party stated that access to customs regulations and decrees 
was vital for traders attempting to import and export.   In this regard, those Members noted that the 
Russian Federation had over 4,500 customs regulations  and "instructions".  Access to the published 
versions of those provisions was very difficult, no twithstanding that they were considered to be 
regulatory and normative acts, legally binding and of general application, and the State Customs 
Committee did not provide them to importers (or Embassies) upon request.  Those Members recalled statements reflected in other portions of the Report, including those on customs requirements and 
rules of origin, and requested that the Russian Fe deration elaborate how it would address that issue, 
i.e., the need to facilitate a ccess to customs regulations and other subsidiary measures. 
1410.  These Members also noted that since 1 July 2010, when the Customs Union entered into 
force, CU agreements, decisions and other measures affecting trade with the CU as a whole and with 
the Russian Federation as a CU Party became relevant to Members and traders.  These Members 
requested information on when and where CU agre ements, decisions and other measures would be 
published and made available to Members and traders.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 501 
 
 
  1411.  One Member recalled its deep concerns regard ing measures that the Russian Federation had 
maintained since 2008 with regard  to trade with this Member. 
1412.  The representative of the Russian Federation took  note again of this Member's concern and 
referred to paragraph [209].  For these reasons, th e Government of the Russian Federation concluded 
a bilateral agreement with this Member  as referred to in  paragraph [210]. 
1413.  He also noted that the Russian Federation woul d transmit trade data to the Integrated Data 
Base (IDB) of the WTO.  He also noted that th e Russian Federation would participate in other 
WTO mechanisms, such as the Trade Policy Re view Mechanism and WTO Council and Committee 
reviews, and various WTO consultation procedures which would provide opportunities to exchange 
information and provide for increased transparency.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
1414.  Some Members expressed concern that CU trea ties and decisions did not appear to provide 
the opportunity for Members to consult with or provide comments to the competent CU bodies on matters affecting trade, including where provisi ons of WTO Agreements specifically required 
Members to provide drafts of measures, receive comments from Members, consult on those 
comments, and take the comments and discussi ons into account.  These Members requested a 
commitment that the Russian Federation would make dr afts of laws and other normative legal acts, as 
well as proposals/submissions to CU bodies that, if adopted, would have the effect of a normative legal act in the Russian Federation, available for interested persons, including Members, to provide 
comments prior to their adoption and that the Ru ssian Federation and the competent bodies of the 
CU would comply with the transparency require ments of the WTO Agreements on matters within 
their respective competence. 
1415.  The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that in accordance with Article 15.3 of 
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, laws a nd other regulatory acts relating to human rights, 
freedom and duties were subject to official publicati on.  This provision was developed in Federal Law 
No. 5-FZ of 14 June 1994 "On the Procedures for P ublishing and Entering into Force of Federal 
Constitutional Laws, Federal Laws, and Acts passed by the Chambe rs of the Federal Assembly" 
(as last amended on 22 October 1999); and Preside ntial Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the 
Procedures for Publication and Entering into Force of the Acts of the President of the 
Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian  Federation and the Normative Legal Acts of the 
Federal Executive Bodies" (as last amended on 28 Ju ne 2005).  According to Ar ticle 4 of Federal Law 
No. 5-FZ, the date of publication of a Federal cons titutional law, Federal law or act passed by the 
Chambers of the Federal Assembly was the date of  the first publication of their full text in the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 502  
 
  "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", "Rossiiyskaya Gazeta" or in the digest "Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva 
Rossijskoj Federatsii".  Federal c onstitutional laws, Federal laws and acts of the Chambers could also 
be published in other press sources and brought to general knowledge through media, distributed to 
State authorities, officials, enterprises, est ablishments and organi zations, transmitted via 
communication channels or distributed in machine-read able formats.  He also noted that a great deal 
of draft legislation was made available on va rious governmental and parliamentary (e.g., the 
State Duma) websites from the time it was formally  proposed to the State Duma.  The Government 
intended to continue and expand this practice. 
1416.  He added that, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Presidential Decree No. 763, acts of the 
President of the Russian Federation and of the Government were subject  to official publication in the 
"Rossiiyskaya Gazeta" and in the digest "Sobran iye Zakonodatelstva Rossijs koj Federatsii" within 
ten days after their signing.  Distribution of the acts of the President and the Government in a 
machine-readable form by the scientific and techni cal centre of legal information "Systema" was also 
deemed to constitute an official publication.  Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 8 of 
Presidential Decree No. 763, normative legal acts of Federal Executive bodies related to human rights, 
freedom and duties or establishing the legal stat us of organizations or acts of inter-agency  nature were 
subject to official publication in the "Rossiiyskaya Gazeta" within three days of their registration by  
the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation,  and in the "Bulletin of Normative Acts of the 
Federal Bodies of Executive Power" published by the publishing house "Yuridicheskaya Literatura" 
of the Administration of the President.  This Bulletin  was distributed in a machine-readable form by 
"Systema". 
1417.  He noted that, in accordance with Fede ral Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 
"On Fundamentals of State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (last amended on 2 February 2006) 
(Article 16), the Customs Code No. 61-FZ (as last  amended on 24 November 2008) (Article 24) and 
Government Resolution No. 953 of 24 November  2009 "On Ensuring Access to Information on 
Activities of the Government of the Russian Fede ration and Federal Executiv e Bodies", all Federal 
Executive bodies were required to ensure public acc ess to information with regard to laws, 
Presidential decrees, government resolutions, as well as their own regulations, orders, rules, 
instructions, recommendations, letters, telegrams, teletype messages, etc., having an impact on trade.  
Such access was provided, for example, through printed documents, databases, or placing this 
information on the Internet.  The root e-portal cont aining the references to all web pages of the State 
bodies of the Russian Federation was www.gov.ru.  Th e sites publishing documents, related to the 
international trade regulation in the Russian Federation, were:  www.president.kremlin.ru, 
www.government.ru (general governmental sites with links to particular spheres of regulation),  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 503 
 
 
  www.economy.gov.ru, www.customs.ru, www.nalog.ru (t axation), www.cbr.ru (financial services), 
www.gost.ru (standards), www.mte.gov.ru (industry an d energy sector), www.vniiki.ru (a general 
informational resource governed by a State research centre) and others.  Such documents were also 
published in the following printed publicati ons (in addition to those noted above):  Rossiyskiy 
Nalogoviy Kur`er, Nalogovaya Politika I Praktika  (documents regarding taxation); Vestnik Banka 
Rossii  (financial regulations); Vestnik Rostehregulirovaniya (documents concerning TBT); Standarti I 
Kachestvo  (documents concerning TBT); Vestnik Rossiyskogo Informacionnogo Centra  (documents 
concerning TBT); Tamozhennie  Vedomosti  (customs regulations); APK, Ekonomica, Upravlenie 
(regulations in agriculture); Intellektualnaya Sobstvennost  (regulations concerning the intellectual 
property).  He also confirmed that his Govern ment had set up operational enquiry points in 
conformity with the requirements of the WTO Agr eements on TBT and SPS.  He also confirmed that 
his Government was in the process of establishing an  operational enquiry point in conformity with the 
requirements of Article III of the WTO General Ag reement on Trade in Services.  Responding to the 
question of the Member regarding transparency issues in customs regulation, he referred to paragraphs [294, 298, 300] of the Section "Custo ms Regulations and Procedures" of this Report. 
1418.  Members requested further information on any legal requirements in the Russian Federation 
that judicial decisions pertaining to the issues covered by the GATT 1994, the WTO GATS 
Agreement and other WTO Agreements also be  published "in such a manner as to enable 
governments and traders to become acquainted with  them" prior to their entry into force.  
In particular, they asked for information on where information on laws and re gulations affecting the 
WTO GATS Agreement and Intellectual Property Pr otection might be published.  They also 
suggested that the Russian Federation consider posting the contents of "Rossiiyskaya Gazeta", 
"Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii", and "Parlamentskaya Gazeta" on the Internet to 
improve access by the general public.  While many le gal provisions existed that laws, regulations, 
decrees, instructions, etc. be published and be ava ilable approximately at the time of implementation, 
some important rulings, particularly in the area of customs activities, were not easily accessible, and there were few facilities to acquaint traders and th e general population with these provisions, prior to 
their enactment or to provide an opportunity fo r comment.  Members also expressed concerns about 
the lack of opportunity to provide comments and views on laws, regulations and other measures prior 
to their implementation. 
1419.  Members noted that in the areas of licensing of  services, it was often difficult to identify the 
responsible authorities.  Moreover the operation of  Russian agencies responsible for authorizing, 
approving or regulating services activities, whether th rough grant of licence or other approval, lacked 
transparency and procedures were often unpredictable.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 504  
 
  1420.  In response, the representative of the Russian Federation noted that Federal Law No. 128-FZ 
of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Specific Types of Activity" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010) imposed specific procedural requi rements, including criteria and time limits for 
decisions on licensing and licensing authorities, and re quirements for written notification of decisions.  
Under Federal Law No. 128-FZ licensing procedures and authorised bodies were established by 
Government Resolutions (according to Article 5 of th at Federal Law).  All acts of the Government of 
the Russian Federation were subject to official pub lication, before they came into effect, with the 
exception of acts or parts thereof constituting State secrets or confidential information.  
1421.  Members welcomed this information, but noted that the Law did not cover important sectors, 
such as activities in the field of communications, production and sale of ethyl alcohol and alcohol 
products, and market activity related to alcohol. 
1422.  In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation noted that though Federal Law 
No. 128-FZ did not cover a certain range of activ ities, including communications, production and sale 
of alcohol, etc., specific requirements on transparen cy, including criteria and time limits for decisions 
on licensing and licensing authorities, and requirement s for written notification of decisions, were 
stipulated in the special Federal Laws regula ting those types of activity, namely Federal Law 
No. 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 "On Telecommunica tions" (as last amended on 29 June 2010), 
Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On St ate Regulation on Producing and Turnover of 
Ethyl Spirit, Alcohol and Alcohol-Containing Products" (as last amended on 5 April 2010) and 
Federal Law No. 374-FZ of 27 December 2009 "On Ma king Amendments in Article 45 of Part One 
and in Chapter 25.3 of Part Two of Tax Code of the Russian Federation and Some Legal Acts of the 
Russian Federation, as well as on Acknowledgement of Expiration of the Federal Law "On Fees for 
Licensing of Activities Connected with Production and Turnover of Ethyl Spirit, Alcohol and Alcohol-Containing Products'" (as last amended on 5 April 2010).  Further, the  representative of the 
Russian  Federation recalled the commitment set-out in paragraph [1404] to publish or otherwise make 
available all normative legal acts of general applicat ion pertaining to or affecting trade in services and 
other information specified in that paragraph.   
1423.  With regard to publication of CU agre ements, CU Commission Decisions and other 
CU measures, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that all the information about the 
activities and decisions of the CU bodies was availabl e on the website www.tsouz.ru.  Decisions were 
posted on this website within two working days afte r their adoption.  He noted that the CU had a 
dedicated website and the date of publication of a measure on the website was considered to be the 
official date for determining the date of entry into  force of the measure.  Decisions of the Commission  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 505 
 
 
  of the CU of an obligatory nature did not enter into  force earlier than 30 days after the date of their 
publication on the CU website.  He also stated that  CU Parties were required to publish all decisions 
of the CU Commission in dedicated national official journals as well as the EurAsEC publications, 
stating the date of entry into force of a decision, the basis for which was the date of publication on the 
CU website. 
1424.  The representative of the Russian Federation informed Members that , in accordance with 
Article 12 of the Agreement on Introduction and Im plementation of Measures Concerning Trade in 
Goods in the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries of 9 June 2009, organizations or individual entrepreneurs of the CU Parties could provide comments, as provided for under the procedure of the development of a draft decision on introduction, implementation and abolishment of 
non-tariff measures, concerning trade in goods with third countries.  Proposals on introduction, 
amendment or elimination of a measure were prepar ed by a CU Party, in accordance with its national 
legislation.  Interested stakeholders could provi de comments on the draft proposal, in accordance with 
the national legislation of that CU Party.  In addition, in cases where a CU Party had concluded an 
international treaty with a third country that pr ovided for consultations, the government of that 
country, organizations and entrepreneurs of that co untry could present their views with regard to the 
measure in compliance with the terms of the relevant treaty.  
1425.  Some Members expressed concern that the CU agreements and other measures did not 
provide for Members and other interested persons to provide comments directly to CU bodies.  
Since CU authorities were responsible for decisi ons on matters under the WTO, Members needed to 
be provided an opportunity to consult with the competent CU authorities and provide comments to 
them on measures related to compliance w ith and implementation of WTO provisions. 
1426.  The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that from the date of accession, all 
laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial d ecisions and administrative rulings of general 
application pertaining to or affecting trade in goods , services, or intellectual property rights, whether 
adopted or issued in the Russian Federa tion or by a competent body of the CU,  would be published 
promptly in a manner that fulfils applicable requi rements of the WTO Agreem ent, including those of 
Article X of the GATT 1994, WTO GATS Agre ement, and the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  
The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation and the  competent bodies of the CU would update published resources, including 
websites, containing such measures, on a regular basis and make them readily available to WTO Members, individuals and enterprises.  To improve access to such published resources, the 
Russian Federation would establish an enquiry point which would, from the date of accession, provide WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 506  
 
  assistance to Members and other interested persons in  finding and obtaining copies, on a timely basis, 
of published versions of CU measures and those of the Russian Federation.  Such measures would be 
available to interested persons, while they were in  effect and for a reasonable period after they were 
no longer in effect.  He added that the Russian Fede ration intended to post the contents of editions of 
"Rossiiyskaya Gazeta, "Sobraniye Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii," and "Parlamentskaya 
Gazeta" on websites as well, and would keep them cu rrent.  The Working Party took note of these 
commitments. 
1427.  The representative of the Russian Federation further confirmed that, except in cases of 
emergency, measures involving national security , specific measures setting monetary policy, 
measures the publication of which would impede law enforcement, or otherwise be contrary to the 
public interest, or prejudice the legitimate commercia l interest of particular enterprises, public or 
private, the Russian Federation would publish all la ws, regulations, decrees (other than Presidential 
decrees), decisions and administrative rulings of genera l application pertaining to or affecting trade in 
goods, services, or intellectual property rights, prio r to their adoption and would provide a reasonable 
period of time, normally not less than 30 days, for Members and interested persons to comment to the 
responsible authorities before the relevant measu re was finalized or submitted to the competent 
CU bodies.  In cases where a CU body was respons ible for proposing or adopting CU legal acts, 
including CU decisions, or other measures corres ponding to those specified in the preceding sentence 
of this paragraph, the competent CU body would publish them before their adoption and a reasonable 
period would be provided for Members and interested persons to comment to the competent CU body.  
Any comments received during the period fo r commenting, whether provided to the 
Russian Federation or a competent body of the CU, would be taken into account.  The Working Party 
took note of these commitments. 
1428.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, no 
law, regulation, decree, decision or administrativ e ruling of general application pertaining to or 
affecting trade in goods, services, or intellectual property rights, whether adopted or issued in  the 
Russian Federation or by a competent body of the CU , would become effective prior to publication, as 
provided for in the applicable provisions of the WTO Agreement, including the GATT 1994, the 
WTO GATS Agreement, and the WTO TRIPS Agreement.  The Working Party took note of this 
commitment. 
- Notifications 
1429.  Members of the Working Party noted that all Members of the WTO were obliged to provide 
notifications to the various subsidiary bodies of the WTO, pursuant to the covered Agreements.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 507 
 
 
  Members of the Working Party requested a specifi c commitment that the Russian Federation would 
provide, as from the date of accession, initial notif ications for all WTO Agreements, and that the 
Russian Federation would also comply with the notification requirements of the WTO Agreements 
with regard to CU agreements and CU Comm ission decisions, as well as domestic regulations, 
decrees, decisions or administrative rulings of ge neral application, subsequently adopted by the 
Russian Federation, which implement any of the WTO Agreements.  
1430.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed that, upon the date of  accession, the 
Russian Federation would submit all initial notifica tions required by any Agreement constituting part 
of the WTO Agreement, except for the notifications  set-out in [Table 38], which would be submitted 
within the time-frame indicated in that Table.   After submitting its initial notifications, the 
Russian Federation would submit subs equent notifications in conform ity with the relevant provisions 
and procedures of the WTO Agreement.  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS 
1431.  Members of the Working Party noted that the Ru ssian Federation participated in a number of 
Preferential Trade Agreements, and that it was cu stomary to provide a detailed description of the 
scope, nature, and status of such Agreements.  This was required to ensure that the value of 
MFN commitments negotiated in the schedules would be known to all Members.  These Agreements 
currently included:  bilateral Free Trade Agreem ents with CIS Parties; a bilateral Free Trade 
Agreement with Georgia; a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (signed on 18 August 2000) with the 
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (now the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro); 
the Agreement on the Creation of Free Trade Area between CIS countries of 15 April 1994; 
the Agreement on Customs Union between the Russi an Federation and the Re public of Belarus of 
6 January 1995; the Agreement on the Customs Union of 20 January 1995 with the Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan; the Treaty on Customs Union and Single Economic Space of 26 February 1999 and the subsequent Treaty on the Establishment of the Eurasian Economic 
Community with the Republics of Belarus and Kaza khstan, Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic of 
10 October 2000 (as amended by the Protocol of 6 October 2007); the Agreement on the Creation of a 
Unified State with the Republic of Belarus of 8 December 1999; the Agreement on the Establishment 
of a Single Economic Space with Ukraine and th e Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan of 
19 September 2003; and the Treaty on the Establishment of the 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 was in itiated on 1 January 2010 
among the Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Belaru s with the establishment of a Common External 
Tariff (CET), adoption of a Customs Union (CU) Cust oms Code and establishment of CU institutions. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 508  
 
  1432.  With regard to the establishment of the Cust oms Union between the Russian Federation, the 
Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the first 
steps towards establishing this Customs Union had been  taken with the approval of the Agreement on 
the Customs Union between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus of 6 January 1995 and the Agreement on the Customs Union (between  the Russian Federation and the Republics of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan) of 20 Janua ry 1995.  He added that the Treaty on the Customs Union and 
Single Economic Space had been signed on 26 Febr uary 1999 with the Republics of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and the Ky rgyz Republic.  The Agreement foresaw the gradual creation of a 
Free-Trade Area and a Customs Union that would eventually cover not only trade in goods, but also services (national treatment with respect to acce ss to services markets, including the gradual 
elimination of existing restrictions on juridical a nd natural persons) and the movement of capital.  
In particular, the Agreement set the initial objective of  the elimination of all customs tariffs and other 
restrictions related to trade in goods betwee n the Parties, except those allowed under the 
WTO Agreement, and the establishment of a Common External Tariff.  
1433.  The representative of the Russian Federation furt her explained that in order to continue 
developing the integration process between the Russi an Federation and the Republic of Belarus, the 
Agreement on the Creation of a Unified State and the Associated Programme of Actions of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus on th e Realization of Provisions of the Agreement on 
the Creation of a Unified State had been concl uded on 8 December 1999.  The Agreement had been 
ratified by the Russian Federation on 2 January 2000.  The purpose of this Agreement was, inter alia , 
the establishment of a single economic space and the setting of a legal basis for a common market 
providing for free trade in goods and services, and free movement of capital and labour within the territory of the Parties, including equal c onditions and guarantees for business, as well as 
implementation of a common trade policy.  It also  provided for development of a single currency, a 
common pricing policy, common securities market, common taxation principles, common legislation 
on foreign investment, and unified energy, trans port and communication systems.  In practice, 
however, these objectives had not been implemented and the trade regime or granting of additional 
preferences in trade between the Russian Federation and Belarus had not been effectively modified by 
this Agreement.  
1434.  In order to continue progress towards the est ablishment of the Customs Union and Single 
Economic Space, the representative of the Russian Federation explained that the Treaty on the 
Establishment of the Eurasian Economic Community  (EurAsEC) had been signed on 10 October 2000 
and had entered into force on 30 May 2001.  On 19 September 2003, the Presidents of the 
Russian Federation, Ukraine and the Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an Agreement on  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 509 
 
 
  the Establishment of a Single Economic Space.  Part ies to the Agreement intended to promote mutual 
trade and investment on the basis of fundamental pr inciples and norms of international law, including 
WTO rules, and also to increase the competitiveness of their economies via, inter alia , the creation of 
a Free-Trade Area and possibly of a customs union.  It was intended that the Single Economic Space 
would be created by stages, taking into account the possibility of different implementation rates and levels of integration of the Parties.  Transition from one stage to another could be achieved by those 
Parties who had performed all the measures envisaged  in the previous stage.  Each Member would 
determine independently which inte gration measures it would adopt a nd the rate and degree of such 
integration.  No specific follow-on Agreements aime d at the realization of this four-party Single 
Economic Space had been concluded so far, and effort s to implement the Agreement are, at this time, 
suspended. 
1435.  Working from a List of Activities on Creating the Eurasian Economic Community for the 
years 2003-2006, the Heads of Governments of the EurAsEC authorised continued implementation of 
previously adopted decisions, conclusion of new international treaties a nd agreements, and the 
preparation of new documents.  On 6 October 2007,  the Russian Federation, and the Republics of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan conclude d the Treaty on the Establishment of the Common Customs 
Territory and the Formation of the Customs Union of  6 October 2007.  Provisions of the agreements 
concluded earlier by the contracti ng parties and resolutions of governing bodies that did not conflict 
with the Agreement on the Establishment of the EurAsEC continued to be in force.  
The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that these Agreements, and other acts
  
(see [Table 11]) subsequently agreed by the Ru ssian Federation, and the Republics of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan through the end of 2009, finalized the legal basis for a Customs Union within EurAsEC 
and laid out a framework for progressively increasing economic co-operation between entities of member countries, starting with plans for the unifica tion of foreign trade, customs policies and trade 
remedies; and, initiating co-operation between the financial and banking systems; co-operation in 
social and humanitarian areas; and co-operation in th e field of legal regulation.  The two members of 
EurAsEC not parties to these Agreements (Tajikis tan and Kyrgyz Republic) were not members of the 
operational Customs Union established by the Russi an Federation, Belarus, and Kazakhstan.  
He added that while the ultimate goals of these Agreements had not been reached yet, progress 
towards a common economic space was continuing.   
1436.  On 27 November 2009, the EurAsEC Intersta te Council (the Supreme Body of the 
Customs Union) approved the CET of the Cust oms Union, as well as the Treaty on the Customs 
Union Customs Code.  The CET and a number of basic agreements and protocols on tariff and  
non-tariff regulation came into force on 1 January 2010.   The CU Customs Code entered into force in WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 510  
 
  the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kaza khstan on 1 July 2010 and the Republic of Belarus 
joined on 6 July 2010.  The Agreements, Decisions  and national complementary customs regulations 
related to the CU Customs Code were being devel oped.  The representative of the Russian Federation 
explained that as laid out in the Treaty on the Establishment of the Common Customs Territory and Formation of the Customs Union of 6 October 2007 , the Interstate Council would take a decision on 
the establishment of the common customs territory a nd the completion of the Customs Union after the 
tasks set-out in the Treaty were completed.  Th e representative of the Russian Federation further 
noted that a detailed description of the CU trad e policies and regulations was provided for in the 
relevant Sections of this Report.   
1437.  According to the trade statistics of the Russian  Federation, the preferential trade (including 
import and export) between the Republics of Belaru s and Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation in 
the three years preceding the creation of the CU (i .e., 2007 to 2009) amounted to 99 per cent in terms 
of tariff lines and 83 per cent in 2007, 82 per cent in 2008 and 81 per cent in 2009 in terms of trade 
value of their mutual total trade.  Currently, no  import tariffs were applied in trade between the 
Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan and the Russian  Federation.  The Russian Federation did not 
apply export duties to products destined for the Re public of Kazakhstan, but maintained export duties 
on 97 per cent of its oil and oil products exporte d to the Republic of Belarus, which made up 
19 per cent of the total internal Customs Union Parties'  trade and 27 per cent of the total bilateral trade 
between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus in 2009.  While there were a number of 
items where a Common External Import Tariff rate  of the CU would only be established after a 
transition, over 95 per cent of import tariff lines in  the CET were currently harmonized.  Exceptions, 
to be phased-out, in up to five years, from the mo ment of the entry into force of the CET, included 
tariffs on pharmaceuticals, aircraft, apples, plastic s, wood pulp, paper, aluminium, certain tools, 
electrical parts, railroad equipment and scientific in struments.  Currently, the Russian Federation and 
the Republics of Belarus and Kazakhstan applied separate export duty regimes vis-à-vis third 
countries, which made up approximate ly 35 per cent of the total extern al Customs Union Parties' trade 
in 2009.  The representative of the Russian Federa tion noted that further description of the tariff 
policy of the Russian Federation was include d in Sections "Ordinary Customs Duties", 
"Tariff Quotas", "Tariff Exemptions" and "Export Duties" of this Report. 
1438.  The representative of the Russian Federation e xplained that the Customs Union was also 
moving forward with the establishment of its institu tions, i.e., the Commission, the Secretariat, the 
EurAsEC Court, and the Expert Council.  The in stitutional and legislative set-up of the CU was 
described in the Section "Framework for Making and Enforcing Policies" to the extent it was relevant 
for the trade regime of the Russian Federation and the implementation of its WTO commitments.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 511 
 
 
  1439.  The Customs Union was open to the accession of new partners, as provided for in the Treaty 
on the Establishment of Eurasian Economic Commun ity of 10 October 2000.  Prospective EurAsEC 
membership was open to any state prepared to unde rtake the obligations and fulfil the commitments 
called for in the Treaty and the other treaties in fo rce within the Community.  EurAsEC members then 
had the option of adopting the additional agreements  and protocols establishing the Customs Union as 
a single undertaking.   
1440.  Members also requested further information abou t the participation of the Russian Federation 
in the Ashkhabad Agreement.  Th e representative of the Russian Fe deration said that the Agreement 
on General Conditions and Mechanism of Support for the Production Cooperation Development of 
Enterprises and Industries of CIS Member-states - the Ashkhabad Agreement - had been signed by all 
CIS Member-states on 23 December 1993.  The Agreement had come into force in the 
Russian Federation on 1 September 1995.  The Agre ement provided for coordinated policies in the 
sphere of international specia lization and industrial co-operati on through joint projects and 
programmes, which were implemente d through annual Protocols with member states, with attached 
lists of specific products generated by the individu al participating enterprises.  The goods covered 
included components, parts, and spare parts ne cessary for the technologically interconnected 
production of final products.  The Agreement pr ovided for the tax exemption for goods imported 
according to the contracts between enterprises of  the CIS countries on industrial co-operation.  
Direct supply from an enterprise in one CIS country to  an enterprise in another CIS country within the 
framework of such industrial co-operation was a pr econdition for the exemption.  Raw materials and 
final products could not be subject to this exemp tion.  During recent years, the Agreement had been 
exercised only between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and the Russian Federation and 
Moldova, where industrial cooperation supplies had been  recorded in metallurgy, aircraft building and 
chemical industry.  Protocols for further coope ration were signed with both countries in 2010. 
1441.  Concerning CIS countries, the representative of th e Russian Federation noted that besides the 
Eurasian Economic Community, relations with the Republics of Belarus, Ka zakhstan, Tajikistan and 
the Kyrgyz Republic, and, the Customs Union relations with the Republics of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan, at present, trade and economic relatio ns between the Russian Federation and the other 
CIS countries (the Republics of Azerbaijan, Armeni a, Belarus, Georgia (which withdrew from the 
CIS in 2008), Moldova, the Republics of Kazakhs tan and Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, 
Republic of Uzbekistan and the Kyrgyz Republic) were determined by a number of multilateral and 
bilateral Agreements, most of which did no t involve trade preferences.  Over 1,000 
inter-governmental Agreements had been concluded and were in for ce.  These Agreements covered a 
wide range of issues, including taxation, educati on, public health, intellectual property protection, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 512  
 
  security and technical-military fields of cooperation.  In response to a question from a Member of the 
Working Party, he added that plans were being de veloped to establish a single agricultural market in 
the CIS area, which would be aimed at coordinati on of national agricultural policies, although at 
present no roadmap had been established to achieve this objective.   
1442.  The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that his Government believed that an 
obvious advantage of WTO Membership for CIS memb er states would be the implementation of the 
WTO requirement to bring the legislation of its  Members into compliance with WTO norms and 
rules.  As a result, trade among CIS countries was like ly to become more efficient.  When expanding 
and implementing trade and econom ic agreements with CIS countries, including the Eurasian 
Economic Community, at both multilate ral and bilateral levels, the Ru ssian Federation currently took 
due account of existing or future obligations of these countries as current or potential WTO Members.  
He also noted that Georgia, Mo ldova, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Re public of Armenia and Ukraine, 
which were parties to a number of these preferen tial agreements with the Russian Federation, had 
joined the WTO between 1998 and 2008.  He recalled that those respective Agreements had also been 
discussed in the respective accession Work ing Parties of these countries.   
1443.  A regime of free trade in goods had been est ablished between the Russian Federation and 
each individual CIS country and Georgia, based on bila teral agreements that c overed a substantial part 
of trade in goods between them.  All of these Ag reements were currently in force and fully 
operational.  In accordance with these Agreements on free trade, and similar agreements with the 
Republics of Serbia and Montenegro, the importa tion of 99 per cent of all goods (including 
agricultural products) originating from these co untries into the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation was not subject to customs duties, and 66 per cent of exports of the Russian Federation to these countries was also dut y-free.  The list of exceptions was found in  
[Table 33].  He added that efforts had been made to create a single CIS-wide free trade area when, on 
24 September 1993, CIS Member States had signed the Treaty On the Creation of the Economic 
Union, ratified by all CIS Member States, except Ukraine, who participated in the Treaty as an 
associated member.  In accordance with the provi sions of the 1993 Treaty, CIS Member states signed 
on 15 April 1994 the Agreement on Establishing a Free Trade Area.  This Agreement provided for the 
gradual elimination of customs duties, taxes and ch arges and other limitations  and obstructions to free 
movement of goods.  The Agreement had been fu rther modified by the Protocol on Amending 
the Agreement on Establishing a Free Trade Area, signed by CIS Member States on 2 April 1999.  The Protocol established that the Free Trade Area (FTA) was to be implemented via existing or future bilateral agreements and protocols on exempti ons.  He added that the 1994 Agreement and the 
1999 Protocol had been ratified by all CIS Memb er states, except the Ru ssian Federation, and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 513 
 
 
  therefore, along with the 36 basic inter-government al documents agreed under the amending Protocol, 
had not come into effect for the Russian Federation.   
1444.  More recently, the Russian Federation, along w ith the Republics of Kazakhstan and Belarus, 
had resumed collective negotiations with other CI S Member states to establish an FTA among the 
CIS Members.  Five meetings to draft the Agreem ent had been held thus far and work on the draft 
continued in 2010.  When completed and implemen ted, the new Agreement would focus on creation 
of a uniform legal structure based on WTO rules a nd regulating trade and economic relations within 
the framework of an FTA.  The draft Agreement provided for, inter alia , elimination of import 
customs duties and restrictions in mutual trade, oblig ations regulating the levels  and the application of 
export duties, coordinated appli cation of safeguard measures in mutual trade, competition and 
subsidies rules, technical barriers to trade, SPS measures, and an effective mechanism for dispute 
settlement, all with a view to making gradual pr ogress towards a common economic space.  In the 
course of the negotiations, a common list of CIS-wide tariff exceptions from the free trade regime was being discussed with a view to substantial reducti on of the number of tariff lines currently exempted 
under the bilateral CIS FTAs.  Upon its entry in to force, the new Agreement would replace the 
individual FTAs of the CIS countries with the Russian Federation and establish a CIS-wide 
preferential trade area.  It was expected that  negotiations on the new multilateral FTA would be 
finalized by the end of 2010.   The Russian Federation also hoped to conclude more agreements on 
trade liberalization on this basis in the future.  Currently, 25 countries and regional integration groups, 
including the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Syri an Arab Republic, New Zealand, and EFTA, had 
proposed to negotiate FTAs w ith the Russian Federation. 
1445.  Members inquired as to whether preferential acces s to exports of other CIS countries to the 
market of the Russian Federation was limited to export ers resident in the exporting countries as, if this 
was the case, this provision would be inconsistent with WTO obligations. 
1446.  In response, the representative of the Ru ssian Federation said that the preferential 
trade agreements concluded by th e Russian Federation had effectively led to the elimination of 
customs duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce, with the exception of duties on a 
number of exports of the Russian Federation to CIS countries not Parties to that Customs Union, in 
respect of substantially all trade between the Russi an Federation and the parties to these Agreements.  
Duties on exports of the Russian Federation of petr oleum and petroleum products existed on CU trade 
as well, except for the Republic of Kazakhstan.  W ith regard to exports from other CIS countries to 
the Russian Federation, trade preferences were grante d to goods originating in respective territories of 
parties to these preferential agreements on the basis of  a certificate of origin pursuant to the Rules of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 514  
 
  Origin of Goods adopted by the Decision of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS of 
30 November 2000, provided that the exporter was a r esident of the exporting country, i.e., a resident 
under the legislation of the exporting country party to the relevant agreement and that it had been 
shipped directly from another CIS Member.  In th e case of the Russian Federation, that meant that 
only goods exported from firms, whic h were residents of the Russian Federation, could be considered 
eligible for preferential access to other CU markets.   The residency requirement for free trade between 
CIS countries and the direct shipment requirement were necessary for the effective implementation of 
those preferential agreements, to avoid false declarat ions of origin and combat money laundering, and 
did not, in the view of the Russian Federation, have  practical effects for trade.  According to the 
statistics of the Russian Federation, preferential trad e represented 13.2 per cent of the total imports of 
the Russian Federation and 10.4 per cent of tota l exports in 2009, which included trade of the 
Russian Federation with all CIS countries, Geor gia, the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro. 
1447.  The representative of the Russian Federati on noted that an Agreement between the 
Government of the Russian Federation and the Govern ment of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 
Free Trade had been concluded on 28 August 2000.  Since the establishment of the Republics of 
Serbia and Montenegro, as separate countries in 2 006, the Free Trade Agreement has applied equally 
between the Russian Federation and these countries that had comprised the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, prior to its dissolution.  The orig inal Agreement had not been ratified by the 
Russian Federation and was still being applied provisi onally.  Article 1 of this Agreement stipulated 
that the Parties would liberalize trade in acco rdance with the provisions of the Agreement and 
WTO rules in order to create a free trade regi me.  The Agreement provided for the duty-free 
movement of goods between the Parties covering s ubstantially all trade, i.e. 99.7 per cent and 
80.3 per cent of the imports from, and 63.3 per cent and 99 per cent of the exports to the Republics of 
Serbia and Montenegro, respectively in 2009, or  about 95 per cent of the tariff positions.  
The remaining positions were on the list of exceptions  appended to the Agreemen t and were subject to 
staged duty reduction but not elimination.  On 3 April 2009, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Serbia agreed on a new schedule of exceptions from the free trade regime.  A similar agreement with the Republic of Montenegro  was developed and implemented with the 
Russian Federation, but not with the Republics of Kazakhstan and Belarus.  The Republics of Serbia 
and Montenegro were currently consulting with Cu stoms Union Parties concerning a new preferential 
trade agreement between them and those Members. 
1448.  Members of the Working Party sought a comm itment that the Russian Federation would 
observe Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 and Ar ticle V of the WTO GATS Agreement in its 
participation in trade Agreements, and would ensure  that the provisions of these WTO Agreements for  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 515 
 
 
  notification, consultation and othe r requirements concerning free trade areas and customs unions were 
met upon accession, and that any subsequent legisla tion or regulations enacted or altered under 
these Agreements would remain consistent with the provisions of the WTO.  More specifically, they 
indicated that the Russian Federation should notify its pre-existing as well as upcoming FTA, 
Customs Unions and Economic Union Agreemen ts for review by the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements (CRTA) upon accession.  In respon se, the representative of the Russian Federation 
stated that, upon accession, WTO Agreements, and in particular Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 
would apply, and constitute the legal basis within  which the Customs Union with the Republics of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan would ope rate and a Single Economic Space would be established.  
WTO provisions, to the extent that they covered th e same issues as these Agreements, would prevail 
if a conflict arose.  He further noted that the hier archy of legal acts in the Russian Federation had been 
elaborated in the Section "Framework for Maki ng and Enforcing Policies" of this Report.   
1449.  The Representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
observe the provisions of the WTO Agreement, including all requirements of Article XXIV of 
the GATT 1994 and Article V of the WTO GATS Agreemen t, in its participation in preferential trade 
agreements without any difference based on whether those agreements were already in effect on the 
date of accession or would come into effect in the future and would ensure that the provisions of the 
WTO Agreement for notification, consultation and other requirements concerning free trade areas and 
customs unions of which the Russian Federation was a member were met from the date of accession.  
He confirmed that the Russian Federation would,  upon accession, submit notifications and copies of 
its Free Trade Area and Customs Union Agreements, as well as information, including legislative and other measures, relevant to implementation of  these Agreements, to the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements (CRTA).  The Working Party took note of these commitments. 
CONCLUSIONS 
1450.  The Working Party took note of the explanati ons and statements of the Russian Federation 
concerning its foreign trade regime, as reflected in this Report.  The Working Party took note of the 
commitments by the Russian Federation in relation to  certain specific matters which are reproduced in 
paragraphs 34, 72, 99, 1 15, 116, 117, 132, 133, 183, 209, 214, 215, 227, 251, 275, 302, 313, 319, 323, 
324, 337, 351, 352, 353, 364, 366, 369, 382, 392, 417, 424, 472, 476, 477, 480, 481, 483, 486, 487, 
497, 514, 527, 548, 562, 566, 574, 591, 613, 620, 638, 668, 669, 677, 698, 712, 714, 715, 719, 728, 738, 739, 744, 745, 756, 761, 765, 772, 773, 784, 785, 787, 789, 798, 799, 803, 804, 813, 826, 844, 847, 870, 875, 876, 880, 885, 890, 893, 895, 901, 904, 908, 923, 926, 927, 928, 932, 935, 936, 944, 950, 952, 955, 981, 984, 989, 1009, 1011, 1030, 1031, 1033, 1035, 1051, 1055, 1060, 1062, 1089, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 516  
 
  1090, 1122, 1124, 1137, 1143, 1144, 1161, 1186, 1187, 1189, 1200, 1208, 1218, 1224, 1226, 1232, 
1253, 1260, 1271, 1277, 1294, 1295, 1303, 1312, 1325, 1331, 1338, 1339, 1350, 1353, 1392, 1393, 
1395, 1397, 1398, 1400, 1401, 1402, 1404, 1405, 1406, 1413, 1426, 1427, 1428, 1430 and 1449.  
The Working Party took note that these commitment s had been incorporated in paragraph 2 of the 
Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
1451.  Having carried out the examination of the foreig n trade regime of the Russian Federation and 
in the light of the explanations, commitments and concessions made by the representative of the 
Russian Federation, the Working Pa rty reached the conclusion that th e Russian Federation be invited 
to accede to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing th e WTO under the provisions of Article XII.  For 
this purpose, the Working Party has prepared the draft Decision and Protocol of Accession reproduced 
in the Appendix to this report, and takes note of the Russian Federation's Schedule of Concessions 
and Commitments on Goods (document WT/A CC/RUS/…) and its Schedule of Specific 
Commitments on Services (document WT/ACC/RUS/…) that are annexed to the Protocol.  It is 
proposed that these texts be adopted by the Eighth WTO Ministerial Conference, 
15-17 December 2011, when it adopts the report.  When the Decision is adopted, the Protocol of 
Accession would be open for acceptance by the Russian Federation which would become a Member 
30 days after it accepts the said Protocol.  The Working Party agreed, therefore, that it had completed its work concerning the negotiations for the accessi on of the Russian Federation to the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO.  
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 517 
 
 
  ANNEX 1 
Laws, Regulations and Other Info rmation Provided to the Working Party by the Russian Federation1 
- Fiscal and Monetary Policies 
1. Customs Code of the Russian Federation of  28 May 2003 No. 61-FZ (as last amended on 
30 October 2007); 
2. Tax Code of the Russian Federation – Part On e No. 146-FZ of 31 July 1998 (as amended on 
17 May 2007) and Part Two No. 117- FZ of 5 August 2000 (as amended on 
4 December 2007); 
3. Federal Law No. 55-FZ of 30 April 2008 "On am ending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adoption of the Federal Law "O n additional insurance 
premiums for the accumulative part of the la bour pension and the state support to pension 
savings' forming"; 
4. Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 26 April 200 7 "On amending the Budget Code of the 
Russian Federation, as regards the regulation of budgetary process, and on bringing some 
legislative acts of the Russian Federation into  accord with the budgetary legislation of the 
Russian Federation (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
5. Federal Law No. 240-FZ of 30 October 2007 "On amending the Federal Law "On special 
economic zones in the Russian Federation and individual legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation"; 
6. Federal Law No. 332-FZ of 4 December 2007 "On the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration for the purpose of improving of the use of 
air space"; 
7. Federal Law No. 333-FZ of 6 December 2007 "On amending the Federal Law "On fishing 
and preservation of aquatic biological res ources and some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation"; 
8. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 506 of 30 September 2004 
"On the approval of the Regulations on the Federal tax service (as amended on 
22 February 2008); 
9. Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 July 2002 "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
(the Bank of Russia)" (as amended on 26 April 2007); 
10. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 116 of 22 February 2008 
"On amending the Regulations on the Federal tax service"; 
- Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
11. Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On am ending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated certain provisions of legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with adoptio n of the Federal Law "On the procedure for 
making foreign investments into economic companies which are of strategic importance for 
ensuring the country's defence capacity and state security"; 
12. Federal Law No. 242-FZ of 30 October 2007 "O n amending Article 12 of the Federal Law 
"On currency regulation and currency control"; 
13. Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 29 June 2004 "On th e introduction of amendments to some 
legislative acts of the Russian Federation in connection with the realization of measures to 
improve State administration" (as amended on 2 October 2007); 
14. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
                                                      
1 WT/ACC/RUS/58, WT/ACC/RUS/59 and Addendum 1 and WT/ACC/RUS/60 refers (see also 
WT/ACC/RUS/48 and Addenda 1 to 11). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 518  
 
  15. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 "On currency regulation and currency 
control" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
16. Federal Law No. 193-FZ of 21 December 2002 "On declaring as no longer valid some 
legislative acts of the Russian Federation on the tax on purchase of foreign banknotes and 
foreign currency-denominated payment documents"; 
17. Federal Law No. 39-FZ of 25 February 1999 "On investment activity in the 
Russian Federation pursued in the form of capital investments" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
18. Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On fore ign investment in the Russian Federation" 
(as amended on 29 April 2008); 
19. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No. 1676-U of 29 March 2006 "On amending 
Instructions of the Bank of Russia No. 111-I of  20 March 2004 "On the obligatory sale of part 
of currency receipts on the internal curre ncy market of the Russian Federation"; 
20. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No. 1688-U of 29 May 2006 "On the repeal of the 
requirement for compulsory use of special ac counts during foreign currency operations and 
on the invalidation of particular normative acts of the Central Bank of Russia"; 
21. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No. 138 8-U of 26 February 2004 "On the adjustment 
of acts of the Bank of Russia"; 
22. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No . 1394-U of 18 March 2004 "On the invalidation 
of Direction of the Bank of Russia No. 1223-U of 17 December 2002 "On the peculiarities of the purchase of foreign currency by resident legal entities for the currency of the Russian 
Federation on the internal currency market of  the Russian Federation for the purpose of 
making payments under agreements on the impor t of goods into the Russian Federation"; 
23. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No. 1520-U of 26 November 2004 "On amending 
Instructions of the Bank of Russia No. 111-I of  30 March 2004 "On the obligatory sale of part 
of currency receipts on the internal curre ncy market of the Russian Federation"; 
24. Direction of the Central Bank of Russia No. 1317-U of 7 August 2003 "On the Procedure for 
the establishment by authorised banks of corr espondent relations with non-resident banks 
registered in states and on territories granting a privileged tax regime and/or not stipulating the disclosure and furnishing of information in the conduct of financial operations (in offshore 
zones)" (as amended on 27 December 2006); 
- Investment Regime 
25. Civil Code of the Russian Federation – Part One No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 
(as amended on 6 December 2007), Part Two No . 14-FZ of 26 January 1996 (as amended on 
6 December 2007), Part Three No. 146- FZ of 26 November 2001 (as amended on 
29 April 2008), Part Four No. 230-FZ of 18 December 2006 (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
26. Land Code of the Russian Federation No. 13 6-FZ of 25 October 2001 (as amended on 
8 November 2007); 
27. Federal Law No. 55-FZ of 30 April 2008 "On am ending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adoption of the Federal Law "O n additional insurance 
premiums for the accumulative part of the la bour pension and the state support to pension 
savings' forming"; 
28. Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On am ending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated certain provisions of legislation acts of the Russian Federation in connection with adoptio n of the Federal Law "On the procedure for 
making foreign investments into economic companies which are of strategic importance for 
ensuring the country's defence capacity and state security"; 
29. Federal Law No. 57-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On the Order of Investing by Foreign Persons in 
Companies having Strategic Importance for Ensu ring of the Defence of the Country and the 
Security of the State";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 519 
 
 
  30. Federal Law No. 332-FZ of 4 December 2007 "On the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration for the purpose of improving of the use of 
air space"; 
31. Federal Law No. 334-FZ of 6 Decemb er 2007 "On amending the Federal Law 
"On investment funds/trusts and some le gislative acts of the Russian Federation"; 
32. Federal Law No. 215-FZ of 24 July 2007 "On amending the Town-building Code of the 
Russian Federation and certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
33. Federal Law No. 19-FZ of 2 February 2006 "O n amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated cer tain provisions of legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Federal Law "On placing orders to 
supply goods, carry out works and render service s for meeting state and municipal needs" 
(as amended on 26 April 2007); 
34. Federal Law No. 266-FZ of 30 December 2006 "O n the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration in connection with the improvement of 
state control in crossing points across th e state border of the Russian Federation"; 
35. Federal Law of 8 December 2003 No. 164-FZ "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
36. Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 24 July 2002 "O n farm land turnover" (as amended on 
5 February 2007); 
37. Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On licensing of specific types of activity" 
(as amended on 6 December 2007); 
38. Federal Law No. 129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On th e State Registration of legal entities and 
individual businessmen" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
39. Federal Law No. 134-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On the protection of legal entities' and individual 
entrepreneurs' rights in the case of exercise  of state control (supe rvision)" (as amended on 
30 December 2006); 
40. Federal Law No. 39-FZ of 25 February 1999 "On investment activity in the 
Russian Federation pursued in the form of capital investments" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
41. Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On fore ign investment in the Russian Federation" 
(as amended on 29 April 2008); 
42. Law of the Russian Federation No. 4730-1 of 1 April 1993 "On the state border of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 4 December 2007); 
43. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 293 of 23 April 2008 "On the 
State regulation and control of prices (tariffs, fees) for services of natural monopolies' entities 
at transport terminals, ports, airports and for services of using the infrastructure of internal 
water ways"; 
44. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 883 of 23 July 1996 
"On exemptions from import customs duties and the value-added tax for commodities imported by foreign investors as a contribution to  the registered (shared) capital of enterprises 
with foreign investments"; 
45.
 Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 239 of 7 March 1995 
"On measures to streamline the State regula tion of prices (tariffs)" (as amended on 
23 April 2008); 
- State Ownership, Privatization and State-Trading Enterprises 
46. Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 14 April 1995 "On State regulation of the tariffs on electric and 
thermal power in the Russian Federa tion" (as amended on 4 November 2007); 
47. Federal Law No. 147-FZ of 17 August 1995 "On the natural monopolies" (as amended on 
8 November 2007); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 520  
 
  48. Decree of the President of the Russian Fede ration No. 224 of 28 February 1995 "On measures 
to improve the state adjustment of pri ces (tariffs)" (as amended on 8 April 2003); 
- Pricing Policies 
49. Federal Law No. 250-FZ of 4 November 2007 "On amending some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with implementation of measures aimed at reforming the 
unified energy system of Russia"; 
50. Federal Law No. 261-FZ of 8 November 2007 "On th e seaports in the Russian Federation and 
on the introduction of amendments into the individual legislative acts of the Russian Federation"; 
51. Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 14 April 1995 "On State regulation of the tariffs on electric and 
thermal power in the Russian Federa tion" (as amended on 4 November 2007); 
52. Federal Law No. 147-FZ of 17 August 1995 "On the natural monopolies" (as amended on 
8 November 2007); 
53. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 239 of 7 March 1995 
"On measures to streamline the State regula tion of prices (tariffs)" (as amended on 
23 April 2008); 
54. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 293 of 23 April 2008 "On the 
State regulation and control of prices (tariffs, fees) for services of natural monopolies' entities 
at transport terminals, ports, airports and for services of using the infrastructure of internal water ways"; 
55. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 722 of 30 October 2007 "On the 
introduction of an amendment into the Basic provisions on the formation and the State 
regulation of prices of gas and tariffs for transportation services on the territory of the 
Russian Federation"; 
56. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1021 of 29 December 2000 
"On State regulation of gas prices and gas trans portation services tariffs on the territory of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
- Competition Policy 
57. Code of Administrative Offences of the Ru ssian Federation No. 195-FZ of 30 December 2001 
as last amended on 6 December 2007); 
58. Federal Law of 29 April 2008 No. 58-FZ "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated certain provisions of legislation acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adoptio n of the Federal Law "On the procedure for 
making foreign investments into economic companies which are of strategic importance for ensuring the country's defence capacity and state security"; 
59. Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On pr otection of competition" (as last amended on 
29 April 2008); 
60. Law of the Russian Soviet Federative Soci alist Republic No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 
"On competition and restriction of monopoly activity on commodity markets" (as last amended on 2 February 2006); 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES 
61. Treaty on the Establishment of the Common Cu stoms Territory and the Formation of the 
Customs Union of 6 October 2007; 
62. Protocol on Rules on Entry into Force of Intern ational Treaties aimed at the Formation of the 
Legal Basis of the Customs Union, Withdrawal from Them, and Accession to Them of 6 October 2007; 
63. Treaty on the Customs Union Customs Code of 1 July 2010;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 521 
 
 
  64. Treaty On the Functioning of the Customs Union in the Framework of the Multilateral 
Trading System signed on 19 May 2011; 
65. Treaty On Judicial Recourse to the EurAsEC Court of the Economic Operators on Disputes 
Within the Framework of the CU and Peculiar ities of the Judicial Procedure on Them of 9 
December 2010; 
66. Treaty On the Commission of the Customs Union of 6 October 2007; 
67. Agreement on Introduction and Implementation of Measures Concerning Trade in Goods in 
the Common Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries  of 9 June 2009; 
68. Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC at the level of Heads of State No. 16 of 
27 November 2009; 
69. Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC at the level of Heads of State No. 69 of 
9 December 2010; 
70. Decision of the Interstate Council of EurAsEC at the level of Heads of State No. 14 of 
27 November 2009; 
71. Decision of the Interstate Council of  EurAsEC No. 15 of 27 November 2009; 
72. CU Commission Decision No. 308 "Decision-Making at the Commission of the Customs 
Union" of 18 June 2010; 
73. The Constitution of the Russian Federation; 
74. Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 95-FZ of 24 July 2002 (as last 
amended on 6 April 2011); 
75. Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation No. 138-FZ of 14 November 2002 (as last 
amended on 6 April 2011); 
76. Code of Administrative Offences of the Ru ssian Federation No. 195-FZ of 20 December 2001 
(as last amended on 14 July 2008); 
77. Civil Code of the Russian Federation Part IV No. 230-FZ of 18 December 2006 (as last 
amended on 4 October 2010); 
78. Tax Code of the Russian Federation – Part On e No. 146-FZ of 31 July 1998 (as amended on 
19 July 2011) and Part Two No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 (as last amended on  
7 March 2011); 
79. Statute of the Court of the Eurasian Economic  Community adopted by Interstate Council of 
EurAsEC Resolution No. 502; 
80. Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 2006 "On the judicial system of the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 28  December  2010); 
81. Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ of 28 April 1995 "On Arbitration Courts in the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 30  April  2010); 
82. Federal Constitutional Law No. 1-FKZ of 21 Ju ly 1994 "On the Constitutional Court of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 9 February 2011); 
83. Federal Law No. 59-FZ of 2 May 2006 "On the Procedure for Handling Applications of 
Citizens of the Russian Federation"; 
84. Federal Law of 8 December 2003 No. 164-FZ "On the Fundamental Principles of State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (as amended on 11 July 2011); 
85. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "O n Technical Regulation" (as last amended 
on 28 September 2010); 
86. Federal Law No. 113-FZ of 5 August 2000 "On the Order of Formation of the Council of the 
Federation of Federal Assembly of the Ru ssian Federation" (as last amended on 
15 November 2010); 
87. Federal Law No. 51-FZ of 18 May 2005 "On Election of Deputies to the State Duma of 
Federal Assembly of the Russian Federati on" (as last amended on 23 February 2011) 
88. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 6 October 1999 "On th e General Principles of the Organization of 
the Legislative (Representative) and Executive Bodies of State Power of the Subjects of the 
Russian Federation" (as last  amended on 28 December 2010); 
89. Federal Law No. 4-FZ of 4 January 1999 "On Coordination of International and Foreign 
Economic Relations of the Subjects of the Russian Federation"; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 522  
 
  90. Federal Law No. 101-FZ of 15 July 1995  "On the International Treaties of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
91. Federal Law No. 2202-1 of 17 January 1992 "O n the Public Prosecutor's Office of the 
Russian Federation" (as last amended on 7 February 2011); 
92. Federal Law on Customs Regulation,  No. 311-FZ of 27 November 2010; 
93. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 314 of 9 March 2004 "On the System 
and the Structure of the Federal Executive Bodies of the Russian Federation" (as last amended 
on 12 May 2008); 
94. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 849 of 13 May 2000 "On the 
Authorized Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in a Federal District" 
(as last  amended on 7 September 2010); 
95. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1486 of 10 August 2000 
"On Supplementary Measures to Provide Integrity of Legal Treatment in the Russian Federation" (as last  amended on 18 January 2010); 
96. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 437 of 5 June 2008 "On the 
Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation" (as last amended on 
6 April 2011); 
97. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation "On the Ministry of Industry and 
Trade of the Russian Federation" No. 438 of  5 June 2008 (as last amended 24 March 2011); 
98. Order of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation No. 88 of 4 May 2007 "On the 
Approval of Explanations on the Application of Rules for Preparing the Normative Legal 
Acts of Federal Executive Power Bodies and on their State Registration"; 
99. Order of the Russian Patent and Trademark Agency No. 56 of 22 April 2003 "On the Rules of 
Filing Objections and Applications and the C onsideration thereof by the Patent Disputes 
Chamber" (as amended on 11 December 2003); 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
- Registration requirements for import/export operations 100. Federal Law No. 60-FZ of 6 May 2008 "On amendi ng the Federal Law "On the legal status of 
foreign citizens in the Russian Federa tion and some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation"; 
101. Federal Law No. 301-FZ of 1 December 2007 "O n the introduction of the amendment to 
Article 2 of the Federal Law "On the State regul ation of the production and the sale of ethyl 
alcohol, alcoholic drinks and spirit-containing articles" and on the invalidation of particular 
provisions of the Federal Law "On the introd uction of amendments to the Federal Law 
"On the State regulation of the production and th e sale of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic drinks and 
spirit containing articles"; 
102. Federal Law No. 302-FZ of 1 December 2007 "On the introduction of amendments to 
Article 8 of the Federal Law "On State regula tion of the production and the sale of ethyl 
alcohol, alcoholic drinks and spirit-containing articles"; 
103. Federal Law No. 328-FZ of 4 December 2007 "On the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration on the service in military units by foreign 
nationals and persons w ith dual citizenship"; 
104. 
Federal Law No. 55-FZ of 20 April 2007 "On amending Article 26 of the Federal Law 
"On the State regulation of the manufacture a nd turnover of ethyl alcohol and alcoholic and 
alcohol-containing products"; 
105. Federal Law No. 231-FZ of 18 December 2006 "On putting into operation Part four of the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
106. Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On amending the Federal Law "On the State 
regulation of production and circulation of et hyl alcohol, alcoholic products and alcohol-
containing products and on declaring as no longer valid certain provisions of the Federal Law  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 523 
 
 
  "On the State regulation of production and circul ation of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and 
alcohol-containing products" ( as amended on 1 December 2007); 
107. Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On fees  charged for the issuance of licences for the 
pursuance of types of activity relating to the production and circulation of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and al cohol-containing products"; 
108. Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 11 November 2003 "O n amending Article 5 of the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On state secrets"; 
109. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 "On currency regulation and currency 
control" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
110. Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002 "On th e legal position of foreign citizens in the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 6 May 2008); 
111. Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On licensing specific types of activity" 
(as amended on 6 December 2007); 
112. Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On me dicines" (as amended on 18 December 2006); 
113. Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On the State regulation of the producing and 
trading volume of ethyl alcohol and alcoho lic drinks" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
114. Decree of the President of  the Russian Federation No. 460 of 8 April 2008 "On the 
introduction of amendments to some acts of the President of the Russian Federation in 
connection with the establishment of the state corporation of atomic energy "Rosatom"; 
115. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26 of 11 January 2007 "On perfecting 
the State regulation of the importation into a nd exportation from the Russian Federation of 
precious metals and precious stones"; 
116. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 243 of 3 March 2005 "On the 
introduction of amendments to the List of information items containing state secrets, approved by Presidential decree No. 1203 of 30 November 2005"; 
117. Decree of the President of the Russian Fe deration No. 232 of 13 March 1997 "On the basic 
document establishing identification cards for citizens of the Russian Federation in the 
Russian Federation"; 
118. Decree of the President of the Russian Fe deration No. 1203 of 30 November 1995 "On the 
approval of the List of data referred to the state secrets" (as amended on 8 April 2008); 
119. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 197 of 31 March 2007 "On the 
introduction of amendments to some Resolutions of the Government of the Russian 
Federation on the functioning of the single stat e automated information system of accounting 
the volume of the production and sale of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic drinks and spirit-containing products"; 
120. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 699 of 24 October 2007 "On the 
introduction of amendments to Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 866 of 31 December 2005"; 
121. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 415 of 6 July 2006 "On the 
approval of the Regulations on licensing the manufacture of medicaments" (as amended on 
19 July 2007); 
122. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 522 of 25 August 2006 "On the 
functioning of the uniform state automated in formation system for recording the volume of 
the output and turnover of ethyl alcohol, of  alcohol and alcohol-containing products" 
(as amended on 31 March 2007); 
123. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 401 of 27 June 2005 "On the 
optimization of the system of trade missions of the Russian Federation in foreign states" (as amended on 25 September 2007) 
124. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 438 of 16 July 2005 "On the 
importation and exportation of dr ugs intended for medical use"; 
125. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 758 of 1 July 1994 
"On measures to improve the State regulation of export of goods and services" (as amended 
on 27 November 2006); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 524  
 
  - Other licensing requirements 
126. Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 18 July 2006 "On gas export"; 
127. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 300 of 21 March 1996 
"On recognizing as invalidated certain resolutions of the Government of the Russian Federation on the issue of registering contracts in the export of commodities"; 
1. Import Regulations - Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff 
128. Customs Code of the Russian Federation of  28 May 2003 No. 61-FZ (as last amended on 
30 October 2007); 
129. Federal Law No. 318-FZ of 1 December 2007 "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Federal Law "On the State atomic 
power corporation "Rosatom"; 
130. Federal Law No. 321-FZ of 3 December 2007 "On the introduction of amendments to 
Article 36 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the customs tariff"; 
131. Federal Law No. 144-FZ of 8 November 2005 "On amending the Law of the Russian 
Federation "On customs tariffs"; 
132. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
133. Law of the Russian Federation No. 5485-1 of 21  July 1993 "On stat e secrets" (as last 
amended on 1 December 2007); 
134. Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On the customs tariff" (as last 
amended on 3 December 2007); 
135. Agreement "On Legal Assistance and Coopera tion of Customs Authorities of the Member 
States of the Customs Union in Criminal a nd Administrative Cases" of 5 July 2010; 
136. Agreement "On Notification and Exchange of Preliminary Information Regarding Goods and 
Vehicles Transported Across the Customs Border  of the Customs Union" of 21 May 2010; 
137. Agreement "On the Requirements for the Information Exchange Between Customs 
Authorities and Other State Authorities of the Members States of the Customs Union" of 21 May 2010; 
138. Treaty On the Customs Code of the Customs Union of 27 November 2009; 
139. Agreement "On Mutual Administrative Assistan ce of the Customs Authorities of the Member 
States of the Customs Union" of 21 May 2005; 
140. Decision of the Commission of the CU No. 354 of 17 August 2010 "On Adding into the 
Section 1.5 of the Common List of Goods, to which Prohibitions and Restrictions on 
Importation or Exportation are Applied by Members States of the Customs Union in Frames of Trade with the Third Countries"; 
141. Decision of the Commission of the CU No. 353 of 17 August 2010 "On Amending Section 
2.26 of the Common List of Goods, to which Pr ohibitions and Restrictions are Applied by 
Member States of the Customs Union in Fram es of Trade with the Third Countries"; 
142. Decision of the Commission of the CU No. 349 of 17 August 2010 "On Amending Common 
Customs Tariff of the Customs Union Regarding Details of Construction of Polyurethane"; 
143. Decision of the Commission of the CU No. 338 of 17 August 2010 "On Peculiarities of 
Sending of Goods in International Postal Items"; 
144.
 Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No . 32 of 11 December 2009 "On Administering 
of a Common Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of the Customs Union"; 
145. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 288 of 21 April 2008 
"On amending some acts of the Government of  the Russian Federation in connection with  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 525 
 
 
  establishment of the Federal agency for arrangement of the state border of the 
Russian Federation"; 
146. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 418 of 7 July 2006 "On some 
measures to realize Decree of the Presiden t of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 
No. 1313 "On the Ministry of justice of the Russian Federation"; 
147. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 459 of 26 July 2006 "On the 
Federal customs service" (as amended on 21 April 2008); 
148. Decree of the President of the Russian Fe deration No. 736 of 28 J une 2005 "On amending 
and declaring invalidated some acts of the Presi dent of the RSFSR and the President of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 10 May 2007); 
149. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 "On the 
approval of the Rules for preparing the norma tive legal acts of the federal bodies of the 
executive power and their State Registration" (as last amended on 7 July 2006); 
150. Decree of the President of the Russian Fede ration No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the Procedure 
for the publication and the entry into force of the acts of the President of the Russian 
Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and the normative legal acts of the 
federal executive bodies" (as amended on 28 June 2005); 
151. Order of the Ministry of justice of the Russian Federation No. 88 of 4 May 2007 "On the 
approval of explanations on the application of  Rules for preparing the normative legal acts of 
federal executive power bodies and their State Registration"; 
152. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Counc il No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common 
Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Uni on of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation"; 
153. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 130 of 27 November 2009 "On Common 
Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Un ion Between the Republic of Belarus, the 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation"; 
154. Agreement On Common Measures for Non-Tari ff Regulation with regard to the Third 
Countries of 25 January 2008; 
155. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Counc il No. 19 of 27 November 2009 "On Common 
Non-Tariff Regulation of the Customs Union be tween the Republic of Belarus, the Republic 
of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation"; 
156. Regulations "On the Procedure of Import on the Customs Territory of the Customs Union and 
Export from the Customs Territory of the Customs Union of Ozone-Depleting Substances and 
Products Containing Them" (adopted by the CU  Commission Decision No. 132 of November 
2009); 
157. Regulations "On the Procedure of Import on the Customs Territory of the Customs Union of 
Chemical Plant Protection" (adopted by th e CU Commission Decision No. 132 of November 
2009); 
158. Regulations "On the Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union within 
the Eurasian Economic Community and the Export from the Customs Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic  Community Precious Metals, Precious Stones 
and Commodities Containing Precious Metals(a dopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 
132 of November 2009); 
159. 
Regulations "On the Order of Exportation of  Mineral Raw Materials from the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union" (adopted  by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 
November 2009); 
160. Regulations "On the Order of the Entry into th e Customs Territory of the Customs Union of 
Medicines and Pharmaceutical Ingredients" (adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 
132 of November 2009); 
161. Regulations "On the Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union of 
Medicines Used in Veterinary Medicine" (adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 
of November 2009); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 526  
 
  162. Regulations "On the Order of Entry into the Customs Territory of the Customs Union of 
Radio Electronic Equipment and/or High Freque ncy Devices for Civilian Purpose, including 
Built-in or as Part of the Other Goods" (a dopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 
November 2009); 
163. Regulations of the Order of Import of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcoholic Products to the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union (adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 of 
November 2009); 
164. Regulations "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" (adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 of November 2009); 
165. Decision of the CU Commission No. 132 of 27 November 2009 "On a Single Non-Tariff 
Regulation of the Customs Union of the Republic  of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan and 
the Russian Federation"; 
166. Decision of the CU Commission No. 168 of  27 January 2010 "On Maintenance of 
Functioning of Unified System for Non-Tariff Regulation in Customs Union Between 
Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia"; 
167. Agreement on the Introduction and Applicati on of Measures Affecting Foreign Trade in 
Goods on a Common Customs Territory to Third Countries; 
168. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Counc il No. 18 of 27 November 2009 "On Common 
Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Uni on of the Republic of Belarus, Republic of 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation"; 
169. Decision of the CU Commission No. 130 of 27 November 2009 Minsk "On Common 
Customs Tariff Regulation of the Customs Un ion between the Republic of Belarus, the 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation"; 
170. Decision of the CU Commission No. 131 of 27 November 2009 "On Tariff Regulation of 
Sugar Import to the Territory of the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic 
Community"; 
171. List of Entities Engaged in 2010 in the Production of Motor Vehicles on the Basis of the of 
the Concept of "Industrial Assembly" in accordan ce with the Criteria Specified in Paragraph 
7.1.1 of Decision of the CU Commission No. 130 of 27 November 2009; 
172. Agreement On Common System of Customs Regulation of 25 January 2008; 
173. Protocol On Granting Tariff Concessions of 12 December 2008; 
174. Protocol On Common System of Tariff Preferences of Customs Union of 12 December 2008; 
175. Draft Law "On Customs Regulation in the Russian Federation"; 
- Ordinary Customs Duties 
176. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification 
applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
177. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 886 of 27 November 2000 
"On partial amendment of the Resolution of th e Government of the Russian Federation No. 
148 of 22 February 2000"; 
178. Protocol On Conditions and Procedure for Use in Exceptional Cases of Import Customs 
Duties other than Common Customs Tariff Rates of 12 December 2008; 
179. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification 
applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
180. Decision of the CU Commission No. 169 of 27 January 2010 On Granting of Tariff 
Concessions in the Form of the Payment of Import Customs Duties for Economic Entities 
Engaged in the Production of Motor Vehicles; 
181. Decision the CU Commission No. 196 of 26 Februa ry 2010 On Adjusting the Rates of Import 
Customs Duties of the Common Customs Tariff of the Customs Union on Polycarbonates;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 527 
 
 
  182. Agreement On the Grounds, Conditions and Pro cedure of Changes in Timing of Payment of 
Customs Duties" of 21 May 2010; 
183. Protocol On Conditions and Procedures for Use in Exceptional Cases of Import Customs 
Duties Other than Common Customs Tariff Rates of 12 December 2008; 
184. Decision of the CU Commission No. 346 of  17 August 2010"On Correction of Import 
Customs Duties of Common Customs Tariff, Rega rding Means of Closing, Made of Plastics"; 
185. Decision of the CU Commission No. 347 of 17 August 2010 "On Correction of the Rates of 
Import Customs Duties of the Common Customs Tariff of the Customs Union on Used and Restored Tires"; 
186. Decision of the CU Commission No. 348 of 17 August 2010 "On Correction of the Rates of 
Import Customs Duties of the Common Custom s Tariff of the Customs Union on Wine 
Materials"; 
- Tariff Quotas 
187. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 263 of 14 April 2008 
"On amending Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 732 of 
5 December 2005"; 
188. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 263 of 5 May 2007 
"On amending the Customs tariff of the Ru ssian Federation and Resolution of the 
Government of the Russian Federation No. 732 of 5 December 2005"; 
189. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification 
applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
190. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 732 of 5 December 2005 
"On the import of beef, pork and meat of poultry in the years 2006 – 2009" (as amended on 14 April 2008); 
191. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 626 of 14 October 2003 "On the 
exemption from the customs duty of certain goods (equipment, including accessories and 
spare parts thereof)" (as amended on 30 December 2006); 
192. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 1041 of 8 September 1994 
"On the procedure for the exemption of commod ities imported to the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation and exported from this territory for the purpose of eliminating the aftermath of accidents, catastrophes and natural calamities, from customs duties" (as amended 
on 26 July 1996); 
193. Agreement On Regime and Implementati on of Tariff Quota of 12 December 2008; 
- Tariff Exemptions 
194. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 626 of 14 October 2003 "On the 
exemption from the customs duty of certain goods (equipment, including accessories and 
spare parts thereof)" (as amended on 30 December 2006); 
195. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 414 of 11 April 1996 "On the 
procedure for granting tariff concessions on the basis of the Federal Law "On introduction of 
amendments to the Law of the Russian Fede ration "On customs tariffs" (as amended on 
17 July 1998); 
196. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 883 of 23 July 1996 
"On exemptions from import customs duties and the value-added tax for commodities 
imported by foreign investors as a contribution to  the registered (shared) capital of enterprises 
with foreign investments"; 
197.
 Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 1041 of 8 September 1994 
"On the procedure for the exemption of commod ities imported to the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation and exported from this territory for the purpose of eliminating the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 528  
 
  aftermath of accidents, catastrophes and natural calamities, from customs duties" (as amended 
on 26 July 1996); 
- Other Duties and Charges 
198. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 803 of 25 December 2006 
"On the introduction of the amendment to Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation No. 863 of 28 December 2004"; 
199. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 863 of 28 December 2004 
"On the rates of the customs fees for the customs clearance of goods" (as amended on 
25 December 2006); 
- Fees and Charges for the Services Rendered 
200. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
201. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 863 of 28 December 2004 "On 
the rates of the customs fees for the customs clearance of goods" (as amended on 25 December 2006); 
- Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
202. Federal Law No. 110-FZ of 24 July 2002 "On th e introduction of amendments and addenda 
into part two of the Tax Code of the Russian  Federation and into certain other acts of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 27 July 2006); 
203. Federal Law No. 209-FZ of 31 December 2005 "On amending the Federal Law "On the State 
regulation of the manufacture and turnover of  ethyl alcohol and alcoholic and spirituous 
products" and on invalidating certain provisions of the Federal Law "On the State regulation 
of the manufacture and turnover of ethyl alc ohol and alcoholic and spirituous products"; 
204. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 988 of 21 December 2000 
"On the State Registration of new foodstuffs , materials and articles" (as amended on 
10 March 2007); 
205. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 240 of 28 March 2001 "On the 
approval of the List of lenses and frames for spectacles (not including sunglasses) whose sale shall not be subject to value-added tax"; 
206. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 29 November 2003 
"On the approval of the Regulations on the app lication of uniform rates of the customs duties 
and taxes with respect to goods transferred across the customs border of the Russian 
Federation by natural persons for pers onal use" (as amended on 3 March 2007); 
207. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 142 of 3 March 2007 
"On amending the Regulations on the application of the uniform rates of customs duties and taxes with respect to goods transferred across the customs border of the Russian Federation 
by natural persons for personal use approved by Resolution of the Government of the Russian 
Federation No. 718 of 29 November 2003"; 
208. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 149 of 10 March 2007 "On the 
introduction of amendments to some acts of the Government of the Russian Federation"; 
209. Protocol On Amending of the Agreement 'On the Principles of Levying Indirect Taxes on 
Exports and Imports of Goods, Works, Se rvices in the CU' of 25 January 2008; 
210. Protocol On the Order of Levying of Indirect  Taxes in View of Performance of Works and 
Rendering Services in the Customs Union of 11 December 2009; 
211. Protocol On the Procedure for Levying Indir ect Taxes and the Mechanism of Control over 
their Payment for Exports and Imports of Goods in a Customs Union of 11 December 2009;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 529 
 
 
  - Value Added Tax 
212. Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 26 June 200 7 "On amending legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in as much as it concerns bri nging them in line with the Land Code of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 2 October 2007); 
213. Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 18 July 2006 "On gas export"; 
214. Federal Law No. 151-FZ of 27 July 2006 "On am ending Chapter 26 of Part Two of the Tax 
Code of the Russian Federation and declaring i nvalidated some provisions of legislative acts 
of the Russian Federation"; 
215. Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 18 August 2004 "On am ending Part Two of the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation and some other legislative ac ts of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 
27 July 2006); 
216. Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 5 August 2000 "On the en try into force of Part Two of the Tax 
Code of the Russian Federation and on the introduction of amendments into some Russian Federation legislative acts on taxes" (as amended on 30 December 2006); 
217. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 466 of 23 July 2007 "On the 
introduction of amendments to the List of th e Codes of foodstuffs in accordance with the 
All-Russia classifier of the products assessed by th e value-added tax at the tax rate of tens 
per cent during the realization, approved by  Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 908 of 31 December 2004"; 
218. ResolutionDecision of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 908 of 31 December 
2004 "On the approval of the Lists of the Cod es of the types of foodstuffs and goods for 
children imposable with value-added tax at the 10 per cent tax rate" (as amended on 23 July 
2007); 
219. ResolutionDecision of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 19 of 17 January 2002 
"On the approval of the List of major and vitally necessary medical equipment, the sale of which is not liable to the value-added tax on the territory of the Russian Federation"; 
220. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 283 of 29 April 2002 "On the 
endorsement of the List of materials for ma king medical immunobiological preparations for 
diagnostics, prevention and/or treatment of infectious diseases import of which to the customs territory of the Russian Federation is exempt ed from the value-added tax" (as amended on 
30 December 2006); 
221. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 240 of 28 March 2001 "On the 
approval of the List of lenses and frames for spectacles (not including sunglasses) whose sale 
shall not be subject to value-added tax"; 
222. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 357 of 10 May 2001 "On the 
introduction of additions to the List of technical  means, used exclusively for prophylaxis of 
disability and rehabilitation of disabled persons, the realization of which is not liable to 
value-added tax"; 
223. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 998 of 21 December 2000 
"On the approval of the List of technical applia nces used exclusively for the prophylaxis of 
disability and rehabilitation of disabled persons, the realization of which is not liable to value-
added tax" (as amended on 10 May 2003); 
- Import Licensing Systems 
224. Federal Law No. 318-FZ of 1 December 2007 "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Federal Law "On the State atomic 
power corporation "Rosatom"; 
225.
 Federal Law No. 334-FZ of 6 Decemb er 2007 "On amending the Federal Law 
"On investment funds/trusts and some le gislative acts of the Russian Federation"; 
226. Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 26 April 200 7 "On amending the Budget Code of the 
Russian Federation, as regards the regulation of budgetary process, and on bringing some WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 530  
 
  legislative acts of the Russian Federation into  accord with the budgetary legislation of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
227. Federal Law No. 231-FZ of 18 December 2006 "On putting into operation Part four of the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
228. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
229. Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On licensing of specific types of activity" 
(as amended on 6 December 2007); 
230. Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On me dicines" (as amended on 18 December 2006); 
231. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the customs tariffs of the Russian Federa tion and the commodity classification applicable 
in the conduct of foreign economic acti vity" (as amended on 5 February 2008); 
232. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 700 of 20 November 2006 
"On the abolition of the licensing of the import of starch syrup into the Russian Federation"; 
233. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 364 of 9 June 2005 
"On approval of the Regulations  on licensing in the sphere of foreign trade in commodities 
and on creating and keeping a Federa l data bank of issued licences"; 
234. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 438 of 16 July 2005 "On the 
importation and exportation of dr ugs intended for medical use"; 
235. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 757 of 18 December 2003 
"On the abolition of licensing of the import of  raw sugar into the Russian Federation" (as 
amended on 20 November 2006); 
236. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 114 of 2 February 1998 "On the 
measures for ordering the importation of alcoholic  products of certain names into the customs 
territory of the Russian Federation"; 
237. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 
"On the importation into and exportation from the Russian Federation of medicaments and 
pharmaceutical substances" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
238. Agreement On the Rules of Licensing in the Area of Foreign Merchandise Trade of 9 June 
2009; 
239. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 77 of 28 January 1997 
"On additional measures to control import of  ethyl spirits and vodka" (as amended on 
2 February 1998); 
- Customs Valuation 
240. Customs Code of the Russian Federation No . 61-FZ of 28 May 2003 (as last amended on 
30 October 2007); 
241. Federal Law No. 144-FZ of 8 November 2005 "On amending the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On customs tariffs"; 
242. Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 July 2002 "On the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
(the Bank of Russia)" (as amended on 26 April 2007); 
243.
 Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On customs tariff" (as last 
amended on 3 December 2007); 
244. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 418 of 7 July 2006 "On some 
measures to realize Decree of the Presiden t of the Russian Federation of 13 October 2004 
No. 1313 "On the Ministry of justice of the Russian Federation"; 
245. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 616 of 20 October 2006 
"On amending the Rules for determining the customs value of goods exported from the customs territory of the Russian Federation, a pproved by Regulation of the Government of 
the Russian Federation No. 500 of 13 August 2006;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 531 
 
 
  246. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1009 of 13 August 1997 "On the 
approval of the Rules for preparing the norma tive legal acts of the federal bodies of the 
executive power and their State Registration" (as last amended on 7 July 2006); 
247. Letter of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 01-06/22236 of 
18 July 2004 "On the Determination of Cust oms Value of Goods, Imported in Accordance 
with Foreign Trade Contracts of Different Types"; 
248. Agreement "On Customs Valuation of Goods Tran sferred Through the Customs Border of the 
Customs Union" of 25 January 2008; 
- Rules of Origin 
249. Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On pr otection of competition" (as amended on 
29 April 2008); 
250. Law of the Russian Federation No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On customs tariff" (as last 
amended on 3 December 2007); 
251. Law of the Russian Soviet Federative Soci alist Republic No. 948-1 of 22 March 1991 
"On competition and restriction of monopoly activity on commodity markets" (as last 
amended on 2 February 2006); 
252. Order of the Federal customs service No. 405 of 2 May 2006 "On the invalidation of some 
legal acts of the State customs committee of Russia"; 
253. Order of the State customs committee of the Russian Federation No. 920 of 22 August 2003 
"On the approval of the Regulations on the pr ocedure for making preliminary decisions on the 
classification of a commodity in accordance w ith the Commodity classification of foreign 
economic activity and on the country of origin of a commodity"; 
254. Agreement On Common Rules for Determini ng the Country of Origin of Goods of 
25 January 2008; 
255. Rules of Determination of the Country of Or igin (Annex to the Agreement on Common Rules 
for Determining the Country of Origin of Goods of 25 January 2008, see 250); 
256. Agreement on Rules of the Origin of G oods, Originating from Developing and Least-
developed countries of 12 December 2008; 
257. Rules Determining the Origin of Goods fro m the Developing and Least-developed countries 
(Annex to the Agreement on Rules of the Origin  of Goods, Originating from Developing and 
Least-developed countries of 12 December 2008, see 252); 
258. Requirements for Declarations, Certificates of Origin on the Form "A"; 
- Preshipment Inspection 
259. Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 "On th e measures for protection of the economic 
interests of the Russian Federation in foreign trade of goods" (as amended on 8 December 2003); 
- Balance of Payments 
260. Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 11 November 2003 "O n amending Article 5 of the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On state secrets"; 
261. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
262. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 "On currency regulation and currency 
control" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
263. Federal Law No. 242-FZ of 30 October 2007 "O n amending Article 12 of the Federal Law 
"On currency regulation and currency control"; 
264. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 791 of 17 July 1998 "On the 
introduction of additional import duty" (as amended on 27 February 1999); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 532  
 
  265. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 235 of 27 February 1999 
"On amending Resolution of the Government  of the Russian Federation No. 791 of 
17 July 1998 "On the introduction of additional import duty"; 
266. Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the procedure 
for the importation into and exportation from th e Russian Federation of precious metals and 
precious stones (as amended on 11 January 2007); 
267. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 243 of 3 March 2005 "On the 
introduction of amendments to the List of information items containing state secrets, approved by Presidential decree No. 1203 of 30 November 2005"; 
268. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26 of 11 January 2007 "On perfecting 
the State regulation of the importation into a nd exportation from the Russian Federation of 
precious metals and precious stones"; 
- Anti-dumping, Countervailing and Safeguard Measures 
269. Federal Law No. 163-FZ of 14 April 1998 "On th e measures for protection of the economic 
interests of the Russian Federation in foreign trade of goods" (as amended on 
8 December 2003); 
270. Federal Law No. 165-FZ of 8 December  2003 "On Safeguards, Antidumping and 
Countervailing Measures Applied to Impor ts of Products" (as last amended on 
30 December 2006); 
271. Federal Law No. 280-FZ of 30 December 2006 "O n amending the Federal Law "On special 
protective, anti-dumping and compensation measures in the import of goods"; 
272. Protocol On the Mechanism of Application of Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures in Trade of the Member States of the Customs Union of 17 February 2000; 
273. Agreement On Application of Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures in 
Respect of Third Countries of 25 January 2008; 
274. Decision of the CU Commission No. 191 of 26 Fe bruary 2010 On the Application of Safeguard, 
Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures in th e Territory of the Customs Union of Belarus, 
Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation; 
2.  Export Regulations 
275. Federal Law No. 214-FZ of 24 July 2007 "O n amending some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopt ion of the Federal Law "On amending the 
Criminal procedural Code of the Russian  Federation and the Federal Law "On the 
Procurator's office of the Russian Federation"; 
276. Federal Law No. 153-FZ of 11 November 2003 "O n amending Article 5 of the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On state secrets"; 
277. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
278. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 10 December 2003 "On currency regulation and currency 
control" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
279. Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "O n precious metals and precious stones 
(as amended on 24 July 2007); 
280. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26 of 11 January 2007 "On perfecting 
the State regulation of the importation into a nd exportation from the Russian Federation of 
precious metals and precious stones"; 
281. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 243 of 3 March 2005 "On the 
introduction of amendments to the List of information items containing state secrets, approved by Presidential decree No. 1203 of 30 November 1995"; 
282. Decree of the President of the Russian Fe deration No. 1373 of 30 November 2002 
"On endorsing the Regulations on importation into the Russian Federation and exportation  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 533 
 
 
  from the Russian Federation of rough na tural and cut diamonds " (as amended on 
11 January 2007); 
283. Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the procedure 
for the importation into and exportation from th e Russian Federation of precious metals and 
precious stones (as amended on 11 January 2007); 
284. Decision of the CU Commission No. 351 of 17 August 2010 On Introduction of Temporary 
Prohibition of Exportation of Particular Kinds of  Agricultural Goods from the Territory of the 
Russian Federation; 
285. Decision of the CU Commission No. 352 of 17 August 2010 On Volumes of Exportation of 
Gold from the Republic of Belarus in 2010 fo r Processing Outside the Customs Territory of 
the Customs Union; 
286. Agreement On Export Duties with Regard to Third Countries of 25 January 2008; 
- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas 
287. Federal Law No. 55-FZ of 20 April 2007 "On amending Article 26 of the Federal Law 
"On the State regulation of the manufacture a nd turnover of ethyl alcohol and alcoholic and 
alcohol-containing products"; 
288. Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 26 June 200 7 "On amending legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in as much as it concerns bri nging them in line with the Land Code of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 2 October 2007); 
289. Federal Law No. 214-FZ of 24 July 2007 "O n amending some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopt ion of the Federal Law "On amending the 
Criminal procedural Code of the Russian  Federation and the Federal Law "On the 
Procurator's office of the Russian Federation"; 
290. Federal Law No. 301-FZ of 1 December 2007 "O n the introduction of the amendment to 
Article 2 of the Federal Law "On the State regul ation of the production and the sale of ethyl 
alcohol, alcoholic drinks and spirit-containing articles and on the invalidation of particular 
provisions of the Federal Law "On the introd uction of amendments to the Federal Law 
"On the State regulation of the production and th e sale of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic drinks and 
spirit-containing articles"; 
291. Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On amending the Federal Law "On the State 
regulation of production and circulation of  ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and 
alcohol-containing products a nd on declaring as no longer valid certain provisions of the 
Federal Law "On the State regulation of producti on and circulation of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic 
products and alcohol-containing produc ts" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
292. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
293. Federal Law No. 69-FZ of 31 March 1999 "O n gas supply in the Russian Federation" 
(as amended on 26 June 2007); 
294. Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "O n precious metals and precious stones 
(as amended on 24 July 2007); 
295. Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On the State regulation of the production 
and trading volume of ethyl alcohol and alc oholic drinks" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
296. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 26 of 11 January 2007 "On perfecting 
the State regulation of the importation into a nd exportation from the Russian Federation of 
precious metals and precious stones"; 
297. Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion No. 742 of 21 June 2001 "On the procedure 
for the importation into and exportation from th e Russian Federation of precious metals and 
precious stones (as amended on 11 January 2007); 
298. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 263 of 14 April 2008 
"On amending Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 732 of 5 December 2005"; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 534  
 
  299. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 732 of 5 December 2005 "On 
the import of beef, pork and meat of poultry in the years 2006 – 2009" (as amended on 14 April 2008); 
- Export Licensing Procedures 
300. Federal Law No. 58-FZ of 29 April 2008 "On am ending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated certain provisions of legislation acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adoptio n of the Federal Law "On the procedure for 
making foreign investments into economic companies which are of strategic importance for ensuring the country's defence capacity and state security"; 
301. Federal Law No. 46-FZ of 8 April 2008 "On amending Article 30 of the Federal Law 
"On banks and bank activity"; 
302. Federal Law No. 20-FZ of 3 March 2008 "On amending Article  22 of the Federal Law 
"On banks and bank activity"; 
303. Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On pr otection of competition" (as amended on 
29 April 2008); 
304. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 23 December 2004 "On the Federal budget for 2005 (as amended 
on 4 November 2005); 
305. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
306. Federal Law No. 41-FZ of 26 March 1998 "O n precious metals and precious stones 
(as amended on 24 July 2007); 
307. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
308. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 364 of 9 June 2005 "On 
approval of the Regulations on licensing in the s phere of foreign trade in commodities and on 
creating and keeping a federal data bank of issued licences"; 
309. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 
"On amending the Customs tariff of the Russian  Federation with respect to motor components 
imported for industrial assembly" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
310. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 
"On the Procedure for holding tenders and au ctions for sales of quotas when quantitative 
limitations and licensing of export and import of  goods (work, services) are introduced in the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 9 June 2005); 
311. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 854 of 6 November 1992 
"On the licensing and allocation of exports and imports of goods (works, services) in the Russian Federation" (as last  amended on 27 November 2006); 
312. Federal Law No. 395-1 of 2 December 1990 "On banks and banking activities" (as last 
amended on 8 April 2008); 
- Other Customs Export Formalities 
313. Federal Law of 8 December 2003 No. 164-FZ "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
314. Law of the Russian Federation No. 4730-1 of 1 April 1993 "On the state border of the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 4 December 2007); 
315. Order of the Ministry of economic developmen t and trade of the Russian Federation No. 105 
of 25 May 2005 "On the invalidation of some legal acts of the Stat e customs committee of 
Russia";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 535 
 
 
  3.  Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods 
- Industrial Policy, including Subsidy Policies 
316. Budgetary Code of the Russian Federation No. 145-FZ of 31 July 1998 (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
317. Federal Law No. 333-FZ of 6 December 2007 "On amending the Federal Law "On fishing 
and preservation of aquatic biological res ources and some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation"; 
318. Federal Law No. 135-FZ of 26 July 2006 "On pr otection of competition" (as amended on 
29 April 2008); 
319. Federal Law No. 173-FZ of 23 Decemb er 2004 "On the Federal budget for 2005" 
(as amended on 4 November 2005); 
320. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 538 of 15 May 1999 
"On granting budgetary subsidies for the implemen tation of highly effective contracts on the 
output and on the delivery of products, in cluding for the export" (as amended on 
3 October 2002); 
321. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 413 of 23 April 1998 
"On additional measures to attract investme nts for development of domestic automotive 
industry": 
322. Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On additional 
measures for increasing investments for the development of the domestic automobile industry"; 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
323. Water Code of the Russian Federation No. 74-FZ of 3 June 2006 (as amended on 
19 June 2007); 
324. Forest Code of the Russian Federation No. 200-FZ of 4 December 2006; 
325. Federal Law No. 309-FZ of 1 December 2007 "O n amending some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in as much as it concerns modification of the term "State education 
standard" and of the structure thereof"; 
326. Federal Law No. 318-FZ of 1 December 2007 "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Federal Law "On the State atomic 
power corporation "Rosatom"; 
327. Federal Law No. 191-FZ of 21 July 2007 "On am ending Articles 9 and 19 of the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On veterinary medicine" and Article 26.3 of the Federal Law "On the 
general principles of the organization of the legislative (representative) and executive bodies 
of state power of the entities of the Russian Federation"; 
328. Federal Law No. 230-FZ of 18 October 2007 "On the introduction of amendments into 
individual legislative acts of the Russian Federa tion in connection with an improvement in the 
demarcation of powers"; 
329. Federal Law No. 65-FZ of 1 May 2007 "On amending the Federal Law "On technical 
regulation"; 
330. Federal Law No. 102-FZ of 19 June 2007 "On amending Articles 16 and 19 of the Water 
Code of the Russian Federation and Article 27 of the Land Code of the Russian Federation"; 
331.
 Federal Law No. 266-FZ of 30 December 2006 "O n the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration in connection with the improvement of 
state control in crossing points across th e state border of the Russian Federation"; 
332. Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 30 December  2006 "On quarantine of plants"; 
333. Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 20 03 "On communications" (as amended on 
29 December 2006); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 536  
 
  334. Federal Law of 8 December 2003 No. 164-FZ "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
335. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On technical regulation" (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
336. Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On the quality an d safety of food products" 
(as amended on 30 December 2006); 
337. Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of 
the population" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
338. Federal Law No. 170-FZ of 21 November 1995 "O n the use of atomic energy" (as amended 
on 1 December 2007); 
339. Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russian Federation on health protection" No. 5487-1 of 
22 July 1993 (as amended on 18 October 2007); 
340. Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of  14 May 1993 "On veterinary medicine"; 
341. Agreement On the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of Member States of 
the Eurasian Economic Community of 24 March 2005; 
342. Agreement On the Use of a Single Mark of Turnover of Products on the Market of the 
Member States of the Eurasian Economic Community of 19 May 2006; 
343. Agreement On the Movement of Goods Subject to Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the 
Customs Territory of the Customs Union of 11 December 2009; 
344. Agreement On Uniform Principles and Rules of  Technical Regulation in the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 18 November 2010; 
345. Decision of the CU Commission No. 606 "On Amendments to the Regulations on the 
Development, Adoption, Amendment and Cance llation of the Technical Regulations of the 
Customs Union" of 7 April 2011; 
346. Agreement On Implementation of Coordination Policy in the Field of Technical Relations, 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008; 
347. Agreement On Mutual Recognition of A ccreditation of Certification (Assessment 
(Confirmation of Compliance)) Bodies and Test Laboratories (Centres) that Perform Work on the Assessment (Confirmation) of Compliance of 11 December 2009; 
348. Decision of the CU Commission No. 527 On the Regulations of the Commission of the 
Customs Union in the Sphere of Technical Regulation of 28 January 2011; 
349. Decision of the CU Commission No. 526 "On Common List of Products, in Respect of which 
Mandatory Requirements are Established in the Frame of the Customs Union" of 
28 January 2011; 
350. Resolution No. 86-R of the Government of the Russian Federation of 27 January 2011; 
351. Decision of the CU Commission No. 452 "On the Strategies of Development of Unified 
System of Technical Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Measures in 2011-2015" of 18 November 2010; 
352. Decision of the CU Commission No. 457 " On the Draft of the Agreement on Harmonization 
of the Legislations of Member states of the Customs Union in terms of establishing responsibility for Violation of the Requirements of the Legislation of the Customs Union in 
the field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary , Veterinary and Phytosanitary Measures of 
18 November 2010; 
353. Decision of the CU Commission No. 453 "On th e Drafts in the Sphere of Technical 
Regulation of the Customs Union of 18 November 2010; 
354. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No . 521 "On the Schedule of Development of 
EurAsEC first-priority Technical Regulations" of 19 November 2010; 
355. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 27 of 11 December 2009 "On International 
Treaties and Other Normative Legal Acts in the Sphere of Technical Regulation in the 
Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic Community"; 
356. Decision of the CU Commission No. 149 of 11 December 2009 "On the Mutual Recognition 
of Registration Certificates on Medicines Manufacturers States - Members of a Customs Union";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 537 
 
 
  357. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No . 399 of 12 December 2008 "On the Protocol 
on Amending the Agreement on the Basis of Harm onization of Technical Regulations of the 
Member States of the Eurasian Economic Community on 24 March 2005"; 
358. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 863 of 12 December 2007 
"On the introduction of amendments to the Rules for the accreditation of certification bodies, 
testing laboratories or centres carrying certification test of communication facilities" 
359. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 272 of 19 May 2006 "On the Agreement on 
the Application of a Single Mark of Turnove r of Products on the Market of the Member 
States of the Eurasian Economic Community"; 
360. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 255 of 29 April 2006 
"On amending Resolution of the Government  of the Russian Federation No. 72 of 
10 February 2004"; 
361. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 810 of 28 December 2006 
"On the introduction of the amendment to Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 72 of 10 February 2004"; 
362. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 165 of 29 March 2005 
"On approval of the Rules for accreditation of certification bodies and test laboratories (centres) conducting certification testing of  communications facilities" (as amended on 
12 December 2007); 
363. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No . 206 of 24 March 2005 "On the Agreement 
on the Basis of Harmonization of Technical Regulation of the Member States of the Eurasian 
Economic Community"; 
364. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 775 of 17 December 2005 
"On amending Resolutions of the Government  of the Russian Federation No. 1013 of 
13 August 1997 and No. 766 of 7 July 1999"; 
365. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 214 of 13 April 2005 "On the 
approval of Regulations on the organization and performance of work of compulsory 
confirmation of compliance of communications facilities" 
366. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 609 of 12 October 2005 "On the 
approval of the Special technical regulations on the demands made on the ejections by the 
automobile technology, released into turnover on the territory of the Russian Federation, of 
harmful (polluting) substances" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
367. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 1421-r of 6 November 2004 
(as amended on 29 May 2006); 
368. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 72 of 10 February 2004 "On the 
introduction of amendments into the List of goods subject to compulsory certification, the List of products the compliance of which may be confirmed by a declaration of compliance 
and the invalidation of the List of works and services subject to compulsory certification 
(as amended on 28 December 2006); 
369. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 294 of 17 June 2004 "On the 
Federal agency on technical regulation and metrology" (as amended on 5 September 2006); 
370. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 287 of 29 April 2002 "On the 
introduction of amendments to the List of goods subject to compulsory certification, to the 
List of works and services subject to compulsory certification and to the List of products the 
compliance of which may be confirmed by the declaration of compliance"; 
371. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 766 of 7 July 1999 "On the 
approval of the List of products that are subject to the declaring of conformance and of the 
procedure for the adoption of the conformance declaration and it's registration" (as amended 
on 17 December 2005); 
372. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 1013 of 13 August 1997 "On the 
approval of the List of goods that shall be subject to obligatory certification and the List of works and services that shall be subject to  obligatory certification" (as amended on 
17 December 2005); WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 538  
 
  373. Decision of the CU Commission No. 621 "On App lication of Modal Schemes of Conformity 
Assessment (confirmation) in Technical Regulati ons of the Customs Union" of 7 April 2011; 
and 
374. Decision of the Integration Committee of EurA sEC No. 1175 "On Development of Technical 
Regulations of Eurasian Economic Community" dated 17 August 2010; 
375. Decision of the CU Commission No. 492 "On Schedule of development of priority Technical 
Regulations of the Customs Union" dated 8 December 2010. 
376. Protocol On Amending the Agreement on th e Basis of Harmonization of Technical 
Regulations of Member States of Eurasi an Economic Community" of 24 March 2005; 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
377. Federal Law No. 230-FZ of 18 October 2007 "On the introduction of amendments into 
individual legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration in connection with an improvement in 
demarcation of powers" (as amended on 1 March 2008); 
378. Federal Law No. 309-FZ of 1 December 2007 "O n amending some legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in as much as it concerns modification of the term "State education 
standard" and of the structure thereof"; 
379. Federal Law No. 266-FZ of 30 December 2006 "O n the introduction of amendments to 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fede ration in connection with the improvement of 
state control in crossing points across th e state border of the Russian Federation"; 
380. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
381. Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On technical regulation" (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
382. Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On the quality an d safety of food products" 
(as amended on 30 December 2006); 
383. Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 15 July 2000 "O n quarantine of plants" (as amended on 
30 December 2006); 
384. Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of 
the population" (as amended on 1 December 2007) 
385. "Fundamentals of the legislation of the Russi an Federation on health protection" No. 5487-1 
of 22 July 1993 (as amended on 18 October 2007); 
386. Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On veterinary medicine" 
387. Agreement On Establishing of Information Syst em of Eurasian Economic Community in the 
Field of Technical Regulations, Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2008; 
388. Agreement On Conducting Coordina ted Policy with regard to Te chnical Standards, Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008; 
389. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 149 of 10 March 2007 "On the 
introduction of amendments to some acts of the Government of the Russian Federation"; 
390. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 60 of 2 February 2006 
"On approving the Regulations on social-hygienic monitoring"; 
391. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 310 of 26 May 2006 
"On requisitioning of animals and livestock produc ts to liquidate hotbeds of very dangerous 
animal diseases"; 
392. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 159 of 24 March 2006 "On the 
application of veterinary measures in the impor tation of live animals and products of animal 
origin onto the customs territory of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
393. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 422 of 14 July 2006 "On the 
introduction of amendments to Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation 
No. 26 of 18 January 2002";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 539 
 
 
  394. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
395. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 303 of 16 May 2005 
"On division of authority between federal agencies in ensuring biological and chemical 
security of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 23 March 2006); 
396. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 
"On amending the Customs tariff of the Russian  Federation with respect to motor components 
imported for industrial assembly" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
397. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 757 of 13 December 2005 
"On amending the Customs tariff of the Russian  Federation with respect to motor components 
imported for industrial assembly"; 
398. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 26 of 18 January 2002 "On the 
State Registration of feedstuff received from genetically-modified organisms" (as amended on 14 July 2006); 
399. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 262 of 4 April 2001 "On State 
Registration of certain types of products which ca n be dangerous to man, and also of certain 
types of products which are imported to the te rritory of the Russian Federation for the first 
time" (as amended on 10 March 2007); 
400. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 987 of 21 December 2000 
"On the state supervision and control in the field of securing quality and safety of food 
products"; 
401. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 554 of 24 July 2000 
"On Adopting the Regulations on the State San itation and Epidemics Control Service of the 
Russian Federation, and Regulations on Stat e Sanitation and Epidemics Control Norms"; 
402. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 988 of 21 December 2000 
"On the State Registration of new foodstuffs , materials and articles" (as amended on 
10 March 2007); 
403. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 413 of 23 April 1998 
"On additional measures to attract investment s for development of domestic car industry"; 
404. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 706 of 19 June 1994 
"On Approval of the Regulations on State Veteri nary Supervision in the Russian Federation"; 
405. Resolution of the Government of the Russian  Federation No. 830 of 29 October 1992 "On the 
State Veterinary Service of the Russian Federa tion for Protection of the Territory of Russia 
from Importation of Transmissible Animal Diseases from Foreign States"; 
406. Order of the Ministry of agriculture of the Russian Federation No. 677 of 29 December 2007 
"On the approval of the Rules for the organi zation of veterinary supervision over the 
importation, processing, storage, carriage and realization of imported meat and raw meat 
materials"; 
407. Agreement On Agreed Policy in the Field of Technical Regulations, Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures of 25 January 2008; 
408. Agreement On Establishing of Information Syst em of Eurasian Economic Community in the 
Field of Technical Regulations, Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2009; 
409. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 28 of 11 December 2009 "On International 
Treaties and Other Legal Acts in the Sphere of Application of Sanitary Measures in the 
Customs Union"; 
410. Customs Union Agreement on Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009; 
411. Decision No. 29 of 11 December 2009 "On Interna tional Treaties and Other Legal Acts in the 
Scope of Veterinary-Sanitary Measures in the Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic 
Community"; 
412. Customs Union Agreement on Veterinary a nd Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 540  
 
  413. Decision of the EurAsEC Interstate Council No. 30 of 11 December 2009 "On International 
Treaties and Other Legal Acts in the Sphere of  Application of Phytosanitary Measures in the 
Customs Union within the Eurasian Economic Community"; 
414. Customs Union Agreement on the Plan t Quarantine of 11 December 2009; 
415. CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 "O n harmonization of CU legal acts in the 
field of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanita ry measures with international standards" 
 Attachment:  Amendments to the Regula tion on Coordination committee on Technical 
Regulation, Application of Sanitary, Veteri nary and Phytosanitary Measures approved by 
the CU Commission Decision No. 319 as of 18 June 2010 
416. CU Commission Decision No. 721 of 22 June  2011 "On application of international 
standards, recommendations and guidance"; 
417. CU Commission Decision No. 722 of 22 June 20 11 "On alteration of the Decision of the 
Commission of the Customs Union No. 625 of 7 April 2011"; 
418. CU Commission Decision No. 724 of 22 June 2011"On Amendments to the Regulation on a 
common procedure of veterinary control at the customs border of the Customs Union and the customs territory of the Customs Union"; 
419. CU Commission Decision No. 834 of 18 Oct ober 2011 "On Regulation on Common System 
of Joint Inspections of Objects and Sampling Go ods (Products), Subject to Veterinary Control 
(Surveillance)"; 
420. CU Commission Decision No. 830 of 18 October 2011 "On Amendments to the Common 
Veterinary (Veterinary And Sanitary) Require ments Applicable to the Goods Subject to 
Veterinary Control (Surveillance)"; 
421. CU Commission Decision No. 832 of 18 Octobe r 2011 "On Amendments to the Forms of 
Common Veterinary Certificates for the Impor ting to the CU Customs Territory of the 
Controlled Goods from Third Countries";  
422. CU Commission Decision No. 831 of 18 Octobe r 2011 "On Amendments to the Common 
List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control (Surveillance)"; 
423. CU Commission Decision No. 835 of 18 Oct ober 2011 "On Equivalence of Sanitary, 
Veterinary or Phytosanitary Measur es and Conduct of Risk Assessment" 
 
- Trade-related Investment Measures 
424. Federal Law No. 199-FZ of 29 December 2004 "On amending legislative acts of the Russian 
Federation in connection with the expansion of  powers of governmental bodies of the subjects 
of the Russian Federation concerning subject  matters under the joint jurisdiction of the 
Russian Federation and the subjects of the Russi an Federation and also the expansion of the 
list of the issues of local significance rela ting to municipal form ations" (as amended on 
18 October 2007); 
425. Federal Law No. 225-FZ of 30 December  1995 "On production sharing agreements" 
(as amended on 29 December 2004); 
426. Decree of the President of the Russian Federa tion No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On additional 
measures for increasing investments for developm ent of the domestic automobile industry"; 
427.
 Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 
"On the Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification 
applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (as last amended on 5 February 2008); 
428. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 166 of 29 March 2005 
"On amending the Customs tariff of the Russian  Federation with respect to motor components 
imported for industrial assembly" (as amended on 27 November 2006); 
429. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On some 
issues concerning the regulation of tempor ary import of foreign-made aircraft"; 
430. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 413 of 23 April 1998 
"On additional measures to attract investme nts for development of domestic automotive 
industry";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 541 
 
 
  431. Order of the Ministry of economic developmen t and trade of the Russian Federation, the 
Ministry of industry and energy of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of finance of the Russian Federation No. 73/81/58N of 15 Apri l 2005 "On the approval of the procedure 
determining the notion "Industrial assembly" and establishing the application of the notion in 
the importation into the territory of the Russi an Federation of motor components for the 
manufacture of motor transport vehicles of h eadings 8701 - 8705 of the CC FEA and their 
units and sets" (as amended on 11 September 2007); 
- Special Economic Zones 
432. Federal Law No. 240-FZ of 30 October 2007 "On amending the Federal Law "On special 
economic zones in the Russian Federation and individual legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation"; 
433. Federal Law No. 16-FZ of 10 Janua ry 2006 "On the special economic  zone in the Kaliningrad 
region and on amending some legislative acts of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 30 October 2007); 
434. Federal Law No. 116-FZ of 22 July 2005 "On special economic zones in the Russian 
Federation" (as ame nded on 30 October 2007); 
435. Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On th e special economic zone in Magadan region" 
(as amended on 24 July 2007); 
436. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1274 of 24 September 2007 "Issues of 
the structure of the federal bodies of exec utive power" (as amended on 20 March 2008); 
437. Decree of the President of the Russian Fede ration No. 855 of 22 July 2005 "On the Federal 
agency for the management of special econom ic zones" (as amende d on 24 September 2007); 
438. Agreement On Free (Special) Economic Zones on the Customs Territory of the Customs 
Union and the Customs Procedures of the Free Customs Zones of 18 June 2010; 
439. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 67 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the territory of the municipal entity "Maiminsky district" and municipal 
entitiy "Chemalsky district" of Republic of Altai special economic zones of tourist-and-
recreational type"; 
440. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 68 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the territory of the municipal entity "Pribaikalsky district" of Republic of Buryatia of special economic zone of tourist-and-recreational type"; 
441. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 69 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the territory of Altaisky distri ct of the Altai Territory of special economic 
zone of tourist-and-recreational type"; 
442. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 70 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the Krasnodar Territory of speci al economic zone of t ourist-and-recreational 
type"; 
443. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 71 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the Stavropol Territory of speci al economic zone of tourist-and-recreational 
type"; 
444. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 72 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the territory of Irkutsky district municipal entity of Irkutsk Region of special 
economic zone of tourist- and-recreational type"; 
445. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 73 of 3 February 2007 
"On creation in the territory of Zelenogradsky district of Kaliningrad Region of special 
economic zone of tourist- and-recreational type"; 
446. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 779 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of Moscow of sp ecial economic zone of technology-innovative 
type"; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 542  
 
  447. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 780 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of St. Peters burg of special economic zone of technology-
innovative type"; 
448. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 781 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of Dubna (Mo scow Region) of a special economic zone of 
technology-innovative type"; 
449. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 782 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of Griazinsky district of Lipetsk Region of a special economic zone of industrial-production type"; 
450. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 783 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of Tomsks of special economic zone of technology-innovative 
type"; 
451. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 783 of 21 December 2005 
"On creation in the territory of Elabuzhsky dist rict of the Republic of Tatarstan of a special 
economic zone of indus trial-production type"; 
- Government Procurement 
452. Federal Law No. 222-FZ of 24 July 2007 "On am ending the Federal Law "On the delivery of 
products for federal state needs and Artic le 12 of the Federal Law "On weapons"; 
453. Federal Law No. 257-FZ of 8 No vember 2007 "On motor roads and on road activities in the 
Russian Federation, as well as on amending certain  legislative acts of the Russian Federation" 
454. Federal Law No. 318-FZ of 1 December 2007 "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Russian Federation "On the state 
atomic power corporation "Rosatom"; 
455. Federal Law No. 19-FZ of 2 February 2006 "O n amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and declaring invalidated cer tain provisions of legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation in connection with adopti on of the Federal Law "On placing orders to 
supply goods, carry out works and render service s for meeting state and municipal needs" 
(as amended on 26 April 2007); 
456. Federal Law No. 94-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On pl acing orders to supply goods, carry out works 
and render services for meeting state and municipal needs" (as amended on 8 November 2007); 
457. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
458. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation No. 1209 of 18 August 1996 "On State 
regulation of foreign trade barter deals"; 
459. Federal Law No. 213-FZ of 27 December 1995 "O n the state defence order" (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
460. Federal Law No. 53-FZ of 2 December 1994 "On purchases and deliveries of farm products, 
raw materials and foodstuffs to meet stat e needs" (as amended on  2 February 2006); 
461. Federal Law No. 60-FZ of 13 December 1994 "On th e deliveries of products for federal state 
needs" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
462. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 1300 of 31 October 1996 
"On the measures for State regulation of foreign trade barter transactions"; 
- Regulation of Trade in Transit 
463. Federal Law No. 214-FZ of 24 July 2007 "On amen ding some legislative acts of the Russian 
Federation in connection with adoption of the Federal Law "On amending the Criminal 
procedural Code of the Russian  Federation and the Federal Law "On the Procurator's office of 
the Russian Federation";  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 543 
 
 
  464. Federal Law No. 258-FZ of 8 November 2007 "O n the introduction of amendments into 
particular legislative acts of the Russian Fe deration and the invalidation of particular 
provisions of the legislative acts of the Russian Federation on licensing individual types of activity"; 
465. Federal Law No. 3-FZ of 8 January 1998 "On na rcotic agents and psychotropic substances 
(as amended on 24 July 2007); 
466. Federal Law No. 89-FZ of 24 June 1998 "O n production and consumption waste" 
(as amended on 8 November 2007); 
467. Agreement "On the Particularities of Use of Vehi cles of International Transportation Carrying 
Passengers, as well as Trailers, Semi-Trailers , Containers and Railway Rolling Stock, 
Transporting Cargo and/or Luggage for Dome stic Transportation Within the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union" of 18 June 2010; 
468. Agreement "On the Particularities of Customs Tr ansit of Goods Transported by Rail Within 
the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" of 21 May 2010; 
469. Treaty On the Customs Code of the Customs Union of 27 November 2009; 
470. Agreement "On Peculiarities of Providing Covera ge for the Payment of Customs Duties and 
Taxes in Respect of Goods Transported Under the Customs Procedure of Customs Transit, 
Particularities of Collection of Customs Duties, Taxes and of the Procedure of Transfer of Amounts Received in Respect of Such Goods" of 21 May 2005; 
471. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 50 of 26 January 2007 
"On amending and recognizing as having lost for ce certain acts of the Government of the 
Russian Federation on the issues of the state duty" (as amended on 16 April 2008); 
472. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 500 of 13 August 2006 "On the 
procedure for determining the customs value of  goods transferred across the customs border 
of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 20 October 2006); 
473. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 442 of 17 July 2003 "On the 
trans-border transfer of waste (as amended on 26 January 2007); 
474. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 283 of 29 April 2002 "On the 
endorsement of the list of materials for maki ng medical immunobiological preparations for 
diagnostics, prevention and/or treatment of infectious diseases import of which to the customs territory of the Russian Federation is exempt ed from the value-added tax" (as amended on 
30 December 2006); 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME 
475. Civil Code of the Russian Federation - Part One No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 
(as amended on 6 December 2007), Part Two No . 14-FZ of 26 January 1996 (as amended on 
6 December 2007), Part Three No. 146- FZ of 26 November 2001 (as amended on 
29 April 2008), Part Four No. 230-FZ of 18 December 2006 (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
476. Criminal-procedural Code of the Russian Federation No. 174-FZ of 18 December 2001 
(as amended on 4 March 2008); 
477. Criminal Code of the Russian Federation No. 63-FZ of 13 June 1996 (as amended on 
6 December 2007); 
478. Labour Code of the Russian Federation No . 197-FZ of 30 December 2001 (as amended on 
18 December 2007); 
479. Federal Law No. 26-FZ of 4 March 2008 "On amen ding Article 3 of the Criminal Procedural 
Code of the Russian Federation"; 
480. Federal Law No. 202-FZ of 24 July 2007 "On the in validation of item two of Article 13 of the 
Federal Law "On the putting into effect of  Part Four of the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation"; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 544  
 
  481. Federal Law No. 234-FZ of 25 Octobe r 2007 "On amending the Law of the 
Russian Federation "On protection of consumers' rights" and Part Two of the Civil Code of 
the Russian Federation"; 
482. Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 16 October 2006 "On amending certain legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation and invalidating certain provisions of legislative acts of the Russian 
Federation in connection with the adoption of the Federal Law "On advertising" (as amended 
on 4 December 2007); 
483. Federal Law No. 231-FZ of 18 December 2006 "On putting into operation Part four of the 
Civil Code of the Russian Federation" (as amended on 24 July 2007); 
484. Federal Law No. 149-FZ of 27 July 2006 "On in formation, informational technologies and 
the protection of information"; 
485. Federal Law No. 98-FZ of 29 July 2004 "O n commercial secrecy" (as amended on 
24 July 2007); 
486. Federal Law No. 14-FZ of 8 February 1998 "On limited liability companies" (as amended on 
18 December 2006); 
487. Federal Law No. 109-FZ of 19 July 1997 "On the safe handling of pesticides and 
agrochemicals" (as amended on 16 October 2006); 
488. Federal Law No. 144-FZ of 12 August 1995 "On operational-se arch activities" (as amended 
on 24 July 2007); 
489. Federal Law No. 208-FZ of 26 December 1995 "O n joint-stock companies" (as amended on 
1 December 2007); 
490. Law of the Russian Federation No. 5663-1 of 20 August 1993 "On space activities" 
(as amended on 18 December 2006); 
491. Law of the Russian Federation No. 2300-1 of  7 February 1992 "On the protection of 
consumers' rights" (as amended on 25 December 2007); 
492. Law of the Russian Soviet Federative So cialist Republic of 22 March 1991 No. 948-1 
"On competition and restriction of monopoly activity on commodity markets" (as last 
amended on 2 February 2006); 
493. Decree of the President of the Russian Fede ration No. 188 of 6 March 1997 "On the approval 
of the List of confidential informa tion" (as amended on 23 September 2005); 
494. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 50 of 26 January 2007 
"On amending and recognizing as having lost for ce certain acts of the Government of the 
Russian Federation on the issues of the state duty" (as amended on 16 April 2008); 
495. Resolution of the Government of the Ru ssian Federation No. 185 of 27 March 2007 
"On amending the Rules for sale of certain types of goods"; 
496. Resolution of the Council of Ministers (Govern ment) of the Russian Federation No. 793 of 
12 August 1993 "On endorsement of the Regula tions for duties on patenting inventions, 
useful models, industrial designs, registration of trademarks, service marks, the names of 
goods origin, on granting the right to use the na mes of goods origin, and of the Regulations 
for the registration fees for the official registration of software, data bases and integral microcircuit topologies" (as amended on 26 January 2007); 
497. Order of the Russian patent and trademark agency No. 56 of 22 April 2003 "On the Rules of 
filing objections and applications and the c onsideration thereof by the Patent disputes 
chamber" (as amended on 11 December 2003); 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN SERVICES 
498. Civil Code of the Russian Federation - Part One No. 51-FZ of 30 November 1994 
(as amended on 6 December 2007), Part Two No . 14-FZ of 26 January 1996 (as amended on 
6 December 2007), Part Three No. 146- FZ of 26 November 2001 (as amended on 
29 April 2008), Part Four No. 230-FZ of 18 December 2006 (as amended on 
1 December 2007);  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 545 
 
 
  499. Federal Law of 29 April 2008 No. 58-FZ "On amending certain legislative acts of the Russian 
Federation and declaring invalidated certain pr ovisions of legislation acts of the Russian 
Federation in connection with adoption of th e Federal Law "On the procedure for making 
foreign investments into economic companies wh ich are of strategic importance for ensuring 
the country's defence capacity and state security"; 
500. Federal Law No. 287-FZ of 29 November 2007 "On amending the Law of the Russian 
Federation "On the organization of insurance business in the Russian Federation and some 
other legislative acts of the Russian Federation"; 
501. Federal Law No. 34-FZ of 13 March 2007 "On amending Article 11 of the Federal Law 
"On the insurance of deposits of natural pers ons in banks of the Russian Federation" and 
Article 6 of the Federal Law "On the payments by the Bank of Russia of deposits of natural 
persons in bankrupt banks not pa rticipating in the system of obligatory insurance of deposits 
of natural persons in banks of the Russian Federation"; 
502. Federal Law No. 177-FZ of 23 December 2003 "O n insuring natural persons' deposits made 
with banks of the Russian Federa tion" (as amended on 13 March 2007); 
503. Federal Law No. 164-FZ of 8 December 2003 "O n the fundamental principles of State 
regulation of foreign trade activity " (as amended on 2 February 2006); 
504. Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 20 03 "On communications" (as amended on 
29 December 2006); 
505. Federal Law No. 115-FZ of 25 July 2002 "On th e legal position of foreign citizens in the 
Russian Federation" (as amended on 6 May 2008); 
506. Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On licensing of specific types of activity" 
(as amended on 6 December 2007); 
507. Federal Law No. 129-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On th e State Registration of legal entities and 
individual businessmen" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
508. Federal Law No. 14-FZ of 8 February 1998 "On limited liability companies" (as amended on 
18 December 2006); 
509. Federal Law No. 208-FZ of 26 December 1995 "O n joint-stock companies" (as amended on 
29 April 2008); 
510. Law of the Russian Federation No. 4015-1 of  27 November 1992 "On the organization of 
insurance business in the Russian Federa tion" (as amended on 29 November 2007); 
511. Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 88 of 1 February 2000 "On the 
approval of Basic provisions of state police in distribution, use and security of the orbital 
frequency resources of the Russian Federation and Regulations on the state control of 
admission and use of foreign systems of satellite communication and broadcasting in the information (telecommunication) space of the Russian Federation"; 
TRANSPARENCY 
512. Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 21 July 2005 "On fees  charged for the issuance of licences for the 
pursuance of types of activity relating to the production and circulation of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and al cohol-containing products"; 
513. Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 20 03 "On communications" (as amended on 
29 December 2006); 
514. Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On licensing of specific types of activity" 
(as amended on 6 December 2007); 
515. Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On the State regulation of the production 
and trading volume of ethyl alcohol and alc oholic drinks" (as amended on 1 December 2007); 
516. Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 14 June 1994 "On the procedure of publishing and entering into 
force federal constitutional Laws, federal Laws, acts passed by the Chambers of the Federal 
assembly" (as amended on 22 October 1999); and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 546  
 
  517. Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 98 of 12 February 2003 
"On providing access to information on the activity of the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive authorities". 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 547 
 
 
  ANNEX 2 
Table 1 - Progress in Privatization of Enterprises of State and  
Municipal Ownership Within 2005-2009 
Year 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Number of privatized enterprises of 
state and municipal ownership1 491 444 302 260 366 
Federal 112 98 73 26 140 
Subjects of the Russian Federation  226 254 115 135 87 
Municipal 153 92 114 99 139 
 
 
                                                      
1 Not including property of federal unitary enterpri ses, whose privatization was effected by Federal 
Agency of State Property Manage ment of the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 548  
 
  Table 2 - Progress in Privatization of Enterpri ses of State and Municipal Ownership Within 2005-
2009 
Area of activity 2005-2009 
Agriculture, hunting and forestry 
Fishery 187 
4 
Mining 13 
Manufacturing, including: 
 
- Food industry, incl. beverages and tobacco products - Pulp and paper industry, printing and publishing 
- Metallurgy 
- Machinery and equipment - Electrical, electronic and optical equipment 
- Electric machines 
- Medical equipment, measurement, co ntrol, management  instruments and 
instruments for testing, optical devices, photo and motion picture 
apparatus, watches 
- Transport and transportation equipment  234 
 
33 
106 
7 
14 21 
5 
12 
 
 
9 
Power, water and gas generation and distribution 67 
Construction  136 
Trade of vehicles and motorcycles, their repair and maintenance  17 
Wholesale trade, including trade using ag ents, excluding trade of vehicles and 
motorcycles 91 
Retail trade, excluding trade of vehicles and motorcycles; repair of articles of 
private use 236 
Catering  51 
Transportation and communications, including: 
 
- land transport 
- water transport - air transport and space 
- auxiliary services 
- communications 216 
 
100 
3 6 
100 
7 
Immovable property operations, rent and other services 311 
State management, military security , mandatory social services 155 
Education 11 
Public health and social services 19 
Public utilities, other social and personal services, including: 
 
- recreation and entertainment, cultural and sports services 
- personal services  88 
 
18 
48 
Total1 1,863 
Source:   Federal Service of state statistics 
 
                                                      
1 Does not include Federal Unitary Enterprises, privatized by Russian Agency on Management of State 
Property.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 549 
 
 
  Table 3 - The Number of State Unitary Enterprises by Types of Economic Activity in 2008 - 2010 
 Federal state unitary enterprises (numbers) 
01.01.2008 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 
Non-production sector 1,151 988 1,424 
Industry and construction 1,744 776 797 
Agriculture 618 611 410 
Transport and communications 409 249 338 
Forestry 37 n/d 94 
Other 1,750 1,141 440 
Total 5,709 3,765 3,517 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 550  
 
  Table 4 - The Number of Joint-stock Companies w ith Federal Participation by Types of Economic 
Activity in 2008 - 2010 
 Joint-stock companies with federal participation (numbers) 
01.01.2008 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 
Non-production sector 638 383 1,162 
Industry and construction 695 1,817 799 
Agriculture 761 522 397 
Transport and communications 397 280 269 
Forestry n/d n/d 35 
Other 1,183 335 288 
Total 3,674 3,337 2,950 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 551 
 
 
  Table 5 - The Allotment of Federal Sh are Holding in Joint-stock Companies 
The share of federal 
participation Number of JSCs (numbers) 
01.01.2008 01.01.2009 01.01.2010 
100% 1,989 1,858 1,757 
50% to 100% 269 200 138 
25% to 50% 645 510 358 
less than 25% 771 769 697 
Total 3,674 3,337 2,950 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 552  
 
  Table 6 - Volume of Production of Goods and Se rvices, Produced by State-Owned Enterprises in 
Specific Areas in 2005-2009 
 Share of production by state enterprises in total volume 
 of production (goods and services), produced in a sector  
of economy (%) 
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Total  8.7 7.5 5.9 5.5 n/d 
Agriculture (including hunting and forestry) 12.6 11.9 10.5 9.0 n/d 
Communication services  10.3 10.4 
 9.8 10.1 n/d 
Construction 5.4 4.5 4.1 3.6 3.6 
Retail trade (except trade in 
vehicles and motorcycles); repair 
of domestic items and items of personal use 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.5 1.4 
Catering 2.2 1.6 1.4 1.8 n/d 
Manufacturing activity 8.3 5.1 4.8 4.5 5.5 
Health and social services 36.7 37.5 37.5 35.0 n/d 
Education services 69.5 66.9 66.8 66.8 n/d 
Volume of production by State-Owned Enterprises of oil and natural gas  
Oil, including ga s concentrate, 
mln. tonne   470.2 480.5 490.9 488.1 494.4 
Natural gas, bill m3  640.8 656.3 652.7 665.5 582.7 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 553Table 7 - List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption fo r which Prices are Regulated by the Government of the Russian F ederation and Federal 
Executive Bodies 
HS Code/ 
CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices Legal Act  
2711 21 Natural gas (excluding as sold to the population) The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed prices of the 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No.59 of 9 February 2008; 
Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 2711 11 
2711 29 Accompanying oil gas and stripped dry gas (excluding 
the gas sold by the producers not affiliated with the open 
joint stock company Gazprom, joint stock companies Yakutgazprom, Norilskgazprom, Kamchatgazprom, 
Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegaz and excluding gas sold to 
population and building cooperative societies), liquefied gas for household needs (excluding gas sold to the 
population) The Federal Service for 
Tariffs 
7131 Gas transportation services through truck pipelines The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of the fixed prices Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
2844 Nuclear fuel cycle products The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of the fixed prices Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
271600 Electric power and heat power generated by the entities 
supplying the electricity ener gy on the wholesale market The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Fixed tariffs, their limit levels 
and mark-up Federal Law No.35-FZ of 
26 March 2003; 
Resolution of the Government 
No. 109 of 26 February 2004; and 
Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
887 Electricity energy netw ork transmission services, 
operational dispatch control services and other services 
provided on the electric en ergy (power) markets at the 
tariffs (prices) regulated by the Federal Service for Tariffs according to the list approved by the 
Government of the Russian Federation (services of the 
commercial operator, services  for securing the system 
stability, technological joining the networks)  The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Fixed tariffs, their limit levels 
and mark-up Federal Law No. 35-FZ of 
26 March 2003; and 
Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
                                                      
1 The codes provided for in column 1 of the table are intended to  illustrate the correlation between the HS/CPC Codes and the de scription of the scope of regulate 
good/service in colu mn 2 respectively.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 554 HS Code/ 
CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices Legal Act  
3601-3603  
871000 8802 40 001 9 
8802 40 002 9 
8802 40 009 9 9301-9307 Products for defence purposes The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of fixed prices Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
7102 
7103 Raw diamonds and precious stones The Ministry of Finance 
of the Russian Federation  Setting of the fixed price Resolution of the Government 
No. 279 of 30 April 1992; and 
Resolution of the Government No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 
9021 Prosthetic and orthopaedic appliances The Ministry of 
Economic Development 
of the Russian Federation   Setting limit level of 
profitability on these goods Resolution of the Government 
No. 694of 10 July 1995.  
2208 Vodka, liquor products and other alcohol products 
stronger than 28° proof, produced in the territory of the Russian Federation or imported into the customs 
territory of the Russian Federation. The Federal Service for 
alcohol market regulation  Setting of the minimum price Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 
2207, 2208 90 910/990 Ethyl alcohol from food ra w materials produced on the 
territory of the Russian Federation The Federal Service for 
alcohol market regulation  Setting of the minimum price Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 
22 November 1995; and Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
7131 Transportation services of crude oil and oil products 
through trunk pipelines The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of fixed prices of the 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No. 980 of 29 December 2007. 
711 743 Railway transportation servic es The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed tariffs and their 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No. 643 of 5 August 2009; and Order of the Federal Energy 
Commission. 
745 Ice-breaking fleet servic e on the Northern Sea Route 
passages The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of the coefficient limit 
of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level and 
fixed prices Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995.  
7461 7462 Aero-navigation services of ai rcraft on the routes and on 
airfields The Ministry of Transport 
of the Russian Federation  Setting of the coefficient limit 
of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level and 
fixed tariffs Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995; and Order of the Ministry of 
Transport No. 110 of 
2 October 2000.  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 555HS Code/ 
CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices Legal Act  
751 
752 8412 Certain postal and electro nic communication services, 
communication services in respect of broadcasting of programmes of Russian State TV and radio 
organizations  The Federal Service for 
Tariffs  Setting of a fixed tariff  Resolution of the Government 
No. 637 of 24 October 2005. 
 Drugs included in the list of vital and essential medical 
goods The Ministry of Health 
and Social Development on agreement with the 
Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed selling prices 
of the limit level Decision of the Government of 
No. 2135-r of 30 December 2009. 
74 Services at transport te rminals, ports and airports 
provided by natural monopolies included in the list of 
natural monopolies related to services at transport 
terminals, ports and airports and controlled by the Federal Service for Tariffs The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed prices of the 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No. 293 of 23 April 2008. 
74 722 Internal waterways infrastructure us e services The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed prices of the 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 
 Services for conduct of assessment of security 
vulnerability of the transportation infrastructure and 
transport The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting of fixed prices of the 
limit level Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 
1710 
887 
881 
94 Housing and communal services (e.g., water supply and 
sewerage, drainage system services, sewage treatment 
services) The Federal Service for 
Tariffs Setting limit indices of tariffs 
growth  Resolution of the Government 
No. 239 of 7 March 1995. 
 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 556  
Table 8 - List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption fo r which Prices are Regulated by the Sub-Federal Executive Bodie s 
HS code/ 
CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulatin g body Principles of setting of the prices 
2711 Gas distributed to the population, as well as distributed to 
housing operating, organizations managing tenement buildings, 
building cooperative societies, householders societies for the population household needs The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed prices 
1710 Services for electric power transmission by the networks owned 
by territorial network organizations  The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation upon the 
agreement of the Federal Service for Tariffs Setting of fixed tariffs  within the limit levels 
of tariffs on services  for electronic energy 
transmission by the electricity networks set by the Federal Service for Tariffs 
 Heat power transmission services  Th e Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
 Heat power produced by power plants carrying out production 
by the means of electric powe r and heat power combined 
generation The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation upon the 
agreement of the Federal Service for Tariffs   Setting of fixed tariffs within the limit levels 
(highest or lowest) of tariffs on heat power 
produced by power plants carrying out production  by the m eans of electric power 
and heat power co mbined generation 
set by the Federal Service for Tariffs 
5164 7543 Technological connection to electricity networks and/or 
standardized tariff rates defining the amount of these payments 
for territorial network organizations The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of prices and/or standardized tariff 
rates  
2701- 
2704 Solid fuel, furnace fuel for household use and kerosene 
distributed to the population, managing organizations, 
householders societies, housing, housing construction or other special-purposed consumers coop eratives created with the 
purpose to satisfy the population's needs in accommodation The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
3001- 
3006 Medical goods included in the list  of vital and essential 
medical goods The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting limits of the wholesale and retail 
premium to the producers' actual sale prices for 
                                                      
1 The codes provided for in column 1 of the table are intended to  illustrate the correlation between the HS/CPC Codes and the de scription of the scope of regulate 
good/service in colu mn 2 respectively.  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 557HS code/ 
CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulatin g body Principles of setting of the prices 
912 
913 
92 
931 933 Social services supplied to the population of the Russian 
Federation by state and local institutions of social service. The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
912 
913 
92 
931 
933 Social services guaranteed by the State and supplied to elderly 
citizens and invalids of the Russian Federation The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs 
 
711 
712 
722 Transportation of passengers and baggage by all types of public 
transport, including urban, subway and suburban transport 
(except railway transport and ex cept for transportation carried 
out by local enterprises and establishments) The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs 
 
1710 887 
881 94 Housing and communal services (e.g., water supply and 
sewerage, drainage system services, sewage treatment services) The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs 
 
   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 558  
 
Table 9 - List of Services for Internal Consumption for which the Sub-Federal Executive Bodies have the Right to Introduce Regi onal Regulations over Prices 
(Tariffs) and Mark-ups 
HS code/CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulatin g body Principles of setting of the prices 
 Products and commodities distributed in the Far North areas or 
territories of equivalent stat us with limited cargo delivery 
periods The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of the amount limit of the mercantile 
mark-ups 
 Products (commodities), distributed to public catering 
enterprises affiliated with secondary schools, vocational 
schools, secondary specialized and higher educational 
institutions The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation 
 Baby food (including food concentrates ) The Executive Bodies  of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of mercantile mark-ups 
711 Transportation of passengers and baggage by suburban railway 
transport  The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation on agreement with the Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs 
 
712 Transportation of passengers and baggage by motor transport 
along intra-regional and inter-regional routes (inter-republican 
routes within the Russian Fede ration), including taxi (except 
for transportation carried out by local enterprises and 
establishments) The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
722 
73 Local transportation of passengers and baggage by local 
airlines and river transport (ex cept for transportation carried out 
by local enterprises and establishments) The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
721 
722 
73  Transportation of cargoes, passengers and baggage by sea, river 
and air transport in the Far Nort h areas and the territories of 
equivalent status The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of tariffs and fees  
711 
743 Services rendered on branch lines by enterprises of the 
industrial railway transport an d other subjects (except for the 
organizations of the Federal railway transport)  The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed tariffs  
                                                      
1 The codes provided for in column 1 of the table are intended to illustrate the correlation between the CPC Codes and the descr iption of the scope of regulate 
good/service in colu mn 2 respectively.  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 559HS code/CPC1 Description of goods and services Regulatin g body Principles of setting of the prices 
9311 
9312 
9319 Services of medical departments of sobriety  The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of fixed price  
 Goods and services provided by organizations of municipal 
complex (municipal complex organizations  The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation upon the agreement of the Federal Service for 
Tariffs   Setting of fixed tariffs  
1710 
881 
887 
94 Housing and communal services (e.g., water supply and 
sewerage, drainage system services, sewage treatment services) The Executive Bodies of the Subjects of 
the Russian Federation Setting of the amount limit of the mercantile 
mark-ups 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 560 Table 10 - International Agreements, Finaliz ing the Legal Basis of the Customs Union1 
No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the 
Agreement in the 
Russian Federation Status of the Agreement 
in Republic of Belarus Status of the 
Agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force/Number and Date of 
the Decision of the Board of 
Heads of States 
1. Treaty On the Commission of the Customs Union of 
6 October 2007 Ratified 
27 October 2008  
No. 188- FZ Ratified Ratified 10.10.2008, No. 3 
2. Treaty On the Establishment of Common Customs 
Territory and Formation of Customs Union of 6 October 2007 Ratified 
27 October 2008  No. 187- FZ Ratified Ratified 10.10.2008, No. 3 
3. Protocol On Rules on Entry Into Force of International 
Treaties Aimed at the Formation of the Legal Basis of the 
Customs Union, Withdrawal from Them and Accession to 
Them of 6 October 2007 Ratified 
27 October 2008  
No. 189- FZ Ratified Ratified 11.01.2009 
4. Agreement On Common Customs Tariff Regulation of 
25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 No. 253-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 383-3 Ratified 
18.11.08 No. 83-IV-ZRK 01.01.2010, No. 20 
5. Agreement On Export Customs Duties in Respect of Third 
Countries of 25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 
No. 254-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 384-3 Ratified 
18.11.08 
No. 81-IV-ZRK Information to be provided 
6. Agreement On Common Rules for Determining the 
Country of Origin of Goods of 25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 
No. 257-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 388-3 Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 36 
7. Agreement On Common M easures of Non-tariff 
Regulation with Regard to Third Countries of 25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 No. 255-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 386-3 Ratified 
18.11.08 No. 82-IV-ZRK 01.01.2010, No. 19 
8.  Agreement On Applica tion of Special Safeguard, 
Anti-dumping and Countervaili ng Measures in Respect of 
Third Countries of 25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 
No. 252-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 385-3 Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 37 
                                                      
1 Agreements enter into force as established by the Protocol on Entry into Force of the International Treaties Aimed at the Forma tion of the Legal Basis of the Customs Union, Withdrawal 
from its Membership and Accession Thereto of 6 October 2007, hereinaf ter referred to as the Protocol .  As provided by this Prot ocol, all international agreements from Annex 2 (with the exception 
of the Protocol which came into force after the Parties had ratifi ed it) enter into force after the Board of Heads of States or  the Board of Heads of Governments approves entry into force if the 
Depositary of Parties informs them that the Parties have accompli shed all the internal procedures necessary for this internatio nal treaty to take effect.  The purpose of this system is to ensure that 
international treaties enter into force throughout th e territory of the Customs Union simultaneously.   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 561No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the 
Agreement in the 
Russian Federation Status of the Agreement 
in Republic of Belarus Status of the 
Agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force/Number and Date of 
the Decision of the Board of 
Heads of States 
9. Agreement On Determination of Customs Value of 
Goods, Transferring Across  Customs Border of the 
Customs Union of 25 January 2008 Ratified 
22 December 2008 
No. 258-FZ Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 389-3 Ratified For Russian Federation and 
Republic of Kazakhstan. 
from 01.07.2010; 
For Republic of Belarus from 06.07.2010, No. 17 
10. Agreement On Administration of Customs Statistics of 
External and Mutual Trade in Goods of Customs Union of 
25 January 2008 Internal procedures  
fulfilled Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 390-3 Internal procedures  
fulfilled 09.06.2009, No. 13 
11. Agreement On the Principles of Indirect Tax Collection at 
Export and Import of Goods, Performing work and 
rendering services in the Customs Union of 25 January 
2008 Ratified Ratified 
9 July 2008 No. 391-3 Internal procedures 
fulfilled 01.07.2010, No. 36 
12. Agreement On Conditions and Mechanism of Tariff Rate 
Quotas of 12 December 2008 Ratified 
28 November 2009  
No. 291-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.10 No. 18 
13. Protocol On Conditions and Procedure for use in 
Exceptional Cases of Import Customs Duties, other than Common Customs Tariff Rates of 12 December 2008 Ratified 
28 November 2009  No. 288-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.10 No. 18 
14. Protocol On Provision of Tariff Preferences of 
12 December 2008 Ratified 
28 November 2009  
No. 302-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.10 No. 18 
15. Protocol On Common System of Tariff Preferences of 
Customs Union of 12 December 2008 Ratified 
28 November 2009  
No. 301-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.10 No. 18 
16. Agreement On the Order of Calculation and Paying of 
Customs Payments in Member  States of the Customs 
Union of 12 December 2008 Is not planned to enter into force as the guidelines regulated by this agreement will be specified in the 
Customs Code of the Customs Union. 
17. Agreement On the Procedure of Declaration of Goods of 
12 December 2008 Is not planned to enter into force as the guidelines regulated by this agreement will be specified in the 
Customs Code of the Customs Union. 
18. Agreement On the Procedur e of Customs Clearance and 
Customs Control of 12 December 2008 Is not planned to enter into force as the guidelines regulated by this agreement will be specified in the 
Customs Code of the Customs Union. 
19. Agreement On the Types of Customs Procedures and 
Customs Regimes of 12 December 2008 Is not planned to enter into force as the guidelines regulated by this agreement will be specified in the 
Customs Code of the Customs Union.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 562 No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the 
Agreement in the 
Russian Federation Status of the Agreement 
in Republic of Belarus Status of the 
Agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force/Number and Date of 
the Decision of the Board of 
Heads of States 
20. Protocol On Provision of Unified Implementation of Rules 
on Determination of Customs Value of Goods, 
Transferring Across Custom s Border of the Customs 
Union of 12 December 2008 Ratified Ratified Ratified 15.05.2011, No. 82 
21. Agreement On Order of Decl aration of Customs Value of 
Goods, Transferred Across  Customs Border of the 
Customs Union of 12 December 2008 Under ratification Under ratification Under ratification Is planned to come into 
force from July 2010 
22. Agreement on the Order of Provision of Control over 
Validity of Determination of Customs Value of Goods, Transferred across the Customs Border of the Customs 
Union of 12 December 2008 Under ratification Under ratification Under ratification Is planned to come into 
force from July 2010 
23. Protocol On Exchange of Information, Required for 
Determination and Control over Customs Value of Goods Between Customs Bodies of the Republic of Belarus, the 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russian Federation of 
12 December 2008 Under ratification Under ratification Under ratification Is planned to come into 
force from July 2010 
24. Agreement On Rules of Determination of Origin of Goods 
from Developing and Least-developed Countries 
of 12 December 2008 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 36 
25. Agreement On Secretaria t of the Commission of the 
Customs Union of 12 December 2008 Under ratification Under ratification Under ratification Temporarily in effect from 
the date of signing 
26. Agreement On Introduction and Implementation of 
Measures, Concerning Trade in Goods, on the Common 
Customs Territory in Respect of Third Countries of 9 June 2009 Ratified 
28.11.09  
No. 304-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.2010, No. 19 
27. Agreement On Licensing Pr ocedures in the Sphere of 
Foreign Trade in Goods of 9 June 2009 Ratified 
28.11.09  
No. 300-FZ Ratified Ratified 01.01.2010, No. 19,  
28. Protocol On Status of the Centre of the Customs Statistics 
of 9 June 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 40 
29. Treaty On the Customs Code of the Customs Union of 
27 November 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified Fo r Russian Federation and 
Republic of Kazakhstan 
from 01.07.2010; For Republic of Belarus 
from 06.07.2010  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 563No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the 
Agreement in the 
Russian Federation Status of the Agreement 
in Republic of Belarus Status of the 
Agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force/Number and Date of 
the Decision of the Board of 
Heads of States 
30. Agreement On the Circul ation of Goods Subject to 
Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the Customs 
Territory of the Customs Union of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 38 
31. Agreement On Mutual Recognition of Accreditation of 
Certification Bodies (Conformity Assessment (Confirmation)) and Test Laboratories (Centres), 
Performing Works on Conformity Assessment 
(Confirmation) of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 38 
32. Agreement On the Customs Union on Sanitary Measures 
of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 39 
33. Agreement On the Customs Union On Veterinary and 
Sanitary Measures of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 39 
34. The Agreement of the Cust oms Union On Quarantine of 
Plants of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 39
35. Protocol on 11 Decem ber 2009 On amending the 
Agreement of 25 January 2008 on Principles of Indirect 
Tax Collection at Export and Import of Goods, Performing 
Works, Rendering Services  Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 36
36. Protocol On the Control over Their Payment when 
Exporting and Importing Goods in the Customs Union of 
11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 36
37. Protocol On Order of Collection of Indirect Taxes 
Connected with Works Pe rformance, Provision of 
Services in the Customs Union of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 36
38. The Protocol on Order of Transfer of Statistical Data of 
Foreign Trade Statistics and Statistics of Bilateral Trade of 11 December 2009 Ratified Ratified Ratified 01.07.2010, No. 40 
39. The Treaty on the Functioning of the Customs Union in 
the Framework of the Mu ltilateral Trading System Ratified Ratified Ratified Upon accession of any 
CU Party to the WTO 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 564 Table 11 - List of EurAsEC Agreements, Forming Legal Basis of The Customs Union1 
No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the Agreement in 
the Russian Federation Status of the 
agreement in 
Republic of Belarus Status of the 
agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force 
1. The Agreement on Customs Union between the Russian Federation and 
the Republic of Belarus of 6 January 1995 Ratified 
No. 164-FZ of 
4 November 1995  Ratified Ratified 30 November 1995 
2. The Agreement on Customs Union of 20 January 1995 Ratified 
No. 21-FZ of 
29 January 1997  Ratified Ratified 3 December 1997 
3. The Treaty on Customs Union and Common Economical Space of 
26 February 1999 Ratified 
No. 55-FZ of 22 May 2001  Ratified Ratified 23 December 1999  
4. The Treaty on Establishment of Eurasian Economic Community of 
10 October 2000 Ratified  
No. 56-FZ of 
22 May 2001 Ratified Ratified 30 May 2001 
5. The Agreement on Unified Order of Export Control of Member States of 
EurAsEC of 28 October 2003 Ratified 
No. 277-FZ of 
29 November 2007  Ratified Ratified 21 December 2007 
6. The Protocol on Mechanism of Implementation of Special Safeguard, 
Anti-dumping and Compensatory Meas ures in Trade of Customs Union 
Member-States of 17 February 2000 internal procedures  
fulfilled internal procedures  
fulfilled internal procedures 
fulfilled  12 December 2000 
7. The Agreement on th e Fundamentals of Harmonization of Technical 
Regulations of EurAsEC Member-States of 24 March 2005 internal procedures 
fulfilled  internal procedures 
fulfilled  internal procedures 
fulfilled  17 May  2007 
8. The Agreement on Application of Common Sign of Turnover of Goods 
on the Market of EurAsEC Member-States of 19 May 2006 internal procedures 
fulfilled internal procedures 
fulfilled internal procedures 
fulfilled 5 May 2008 
9. The Protocol on International Trade Negotiations of States-Parties to 
The Agreements on Customs Unio n on Accession to the WTO of 
3 June 1997     3 June 1997 
10. The Protocol of 6 October 2007 on Amending the Treaty on 
Establishment of EurAsEC of 10 October 2000 Ratified  
No. 192- FZ of 
27 November 2008 Ratified Ratified 24 November 2008 
                                                      
1 Agreements enter into force af ter the Parties send notifications of fulfilment of  their internal procedures to the Depositary.   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 565No. Title of the International Agreement Status of the Agreement in 
the Russian Federation Status of the 
agreement in 
Republic of Belarus Status of the 
agreement in 
Republic of 
Kazakhstan Date of Entry into 
Force 
11. The Agreement on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of 
Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 
25 January 2008  internal procedures  
fulfilled. Ratified 
9 July 2008 
No. 387-3 internal procedures  
fulfilled.  4 June 2009 
12. The Agreement on Esta blishment of Information System of EurAsEC in 
the Field of Technical Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of 12 December 2008 internal procedures not yet 
fulfilled internal procedures 
fulfilled internal procedures  
fulfilled.  Information to be 
provided 
13. Protocol on Amending The Agreement on the Fundamentals of 
Harmonization of Technical Regulations of EurAsEC Member-States of 
24 March 2005 of 12 December 2008 internal procedures not yet 
fulfilled internal procedures 
fulfilled internal procedures  
fulfilled. Information to be 
provided 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 566  
 
  Table 12 - Licensing Fees Structure for Production, Storage, Purchase and Supply of Ethyl Alcohol, 
Alcoholic Products and Al cohol-Containing Products 
Types of Activity Licensing Fees 
in rubles 
Production, storage and supply of produced ethyl alcohol, including denaturates 3,000,000 
Production, storage and supply of produced alcoholic alcohol-containing products 
(excluding wine) 3,000,000
Production, storage and supply of produced wine 250,000 
Storage of ethyl alcohol, alcoholic products and alcohol-containing edible products 250,000 
Purchase, storage and supply of alcoholic products and alcohol-containing products 250,000 
Production, storage and supply of alcohol-containing non-edible products 250,000 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 567 
Table 13 - Restricting Customs Checkpoints for Certain Categories of Goods 
Restricting Customs Checkpoints for Declaration 
No. Type of Goods Normative Legal Act Comments 
1. Meat and food meat sub-products 
(HS codes 02). Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 893 
of 6 May 2010 "On the Competence of the Customs 
Bodies in respect of adoption of Custom declaration and release for free circulation of the goods 
classified in Group 02 of the Harmonized system 
imported to the territory of the Russian Federation and placed under the customs procedure of release 
for free circulation".  The reasons for introducing:  goods require special conditions 
of storage at the customs border (freezers) and customs control. 
Customs check-points are distributed throughout the Russian Federation (there are check-points in every federal 
district of Russia), depending on the volumes of imports 
coming to different regions. 
2. Alcohol products, originating from the Republic 
of Moldova and imported into the customs territory of the Russian Federation. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation 
No. 1388 of 9 November  2007 "On Places of 
Declaration of Certain Types of Goods". The reason for intr oducing:  "risky" products which need 
strengthened customs control. 
3. Goods transported through the customs territory 
of the Russian Federation by pipelines and 
electric power grids Order of the SCC of the Russian Federation 
No. 1013 of 15 September 2003 "On customs 
clearance of goods, transported through the customs territory of the Russian Federation by pipelines and 
electric power grids" (as last amended on 
24 August 2006). Establishment of special customs check-points is connected 
with the specificity of transportation of such goods. 
4. Fuel-wood, wood-scrap; wood in the rough; 
hoopwood, split poles; railway or tramway 
cross-ties of wood; wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not 
planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness 
exceeding 6mm (HS codes 4401, 4403, 4404, 4406, 4407). Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 801 
of 20 April 2010 "On Places of Declaration of 
Certain Types of Goods". The reason for introdu cing: the specificity of classification of 
such goods under HS.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 568 Restricting Customs Checkpoints for Entry or Exit 
No. Type of Goods Normative Legal Act Comments 
1. Meat and food meat sub-products of poultry  
(HS codes 0207). Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 665 of 3 November 2003 
"On the designation of certain check-points for 
entry to the customs territory of the Russian Federation of meat and meat sub-products 
of poultry". The reason for introdu cing:  the post should be specifically 
equipped. 
2.  Fuel-wood, wood-scrap; wood in the rough; 
hoopwood, split poles; railway or tramway cross-ties of wood; wood, sawn or chipped 
lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not 
planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding 6mm (HS code s 4401, 440 3, 4404, 
4406, 4407). Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 521 of 15 July 2010 "On the determination of certain check points of 
exit from the territory of the Russian Federation of 
certain types of goods". The reason for introdu cing:  the post should be specifically 
equipped. 
3. Alcohol products (HS codes 2204 - 2206 00, 
2208 except for 2208 90 910 0 and 2208 90 990 0) and tobacco products (HS codes 
2402 10 000 0, 2402 20, 2403 10, except for the 
tobacco raw materials used for manufacture of 
tobacco products) Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 74 3 of 9 December 2003 
"On establishment of de signated customs check-
points for entry to the customs territory of the 
Russian Federation of alcoholic and tobacco 
products". The reason for introdu cing:  the post should be specifically 
equipped. 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 569Table 14 - Distribution of Authorities of the Customs Bodies on Carrying out Customs Operations at Designated Customs Checkpoin ts 
No. Type of the goods Normative legal act Comments 
1. Goods transported with the use of Temporary 
Admission. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 1268 
of 7 July 2010 "On the Approval of the List of 
Customs Bodies, Authorised to Carry Out Customs 
Operations with Goods, Conveyed with the Use of ATA Carnets. The reasons for introducing:  need for special 
equipment (unified computer system registering the 
temporary imported goods) and trained staff.  In the 
future there are plans to supply all customs points with the necessary equipment and to enlarge substantially 
the number of customs offices  authorised to deal with 
ATA carnets. 
2. Goods subject to the issuance of passports of vehicles, 
passports of chassis of vehicles and passports of self-
propelled vehicles and spar e parts to them, conveyed 
by natural persons. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 1172 
of 15 December 2005 "On Es tablishing Authorities of 
the Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs Operations with the Goods, Conveyed by Natural 
Persons". The reasons for introducing:  need for special 
technical control and equipment with a unified 
computer base for registration of imported cars (including checking in Interpol database etc.). 
3. Goods subject to excise (including those subject to 
licensing, marking with excise stamps, wines and cognacs spirits, beer (inclu ding alcohol-free beer), 
goods subjected to the issu ance of passports according 
to the established procedures. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 1005 
of 28 October 2005 "On Establishing Authorities of the Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs 
Procedures with Excise Goods and Other Particular 
Type of Goods". The reason for introducing:  "risky" products which 
need strengthened customs control. 
4. Diplomatic correspondence and goods, conveyed by 
certain categories of foreign persons. Order of the SCC of the Russian Federation No. 357 
of 24 March 2004 "On Establishing Competence of 
Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs Procedures 
in Respect of Diplomatic Correspondence and Goods Conveyed by Certain Categories of Foreign Persons" 
(Registered by the Ministry of Justice of the 
Russian Federation No. 5716 of 5 April 2004) amended by SCC Order No. 681 of 17 June 2004 
"On Amending Order of the SCC of the Russian 
Federation No. 357 of 24 March 2004". The reason for introducing:  designation of certain 
offices, which are able to provide for express control 
of diplomatic goods. 
5. Goods, transported across the customs border of the 
Russian Federation by international mail (except for 
diplomatic pouch and consular valise)  Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 4 of 
11 January 2007 "On Establishing Authorities of the 
Customs Bodies located in Moscow or Sankt Petersburg in Carrying out Customs Procedures in 
Respect of Goods, Transported Across the Customs 
Border of the Russian Federation by International Mail"  The reason for intr oducing:  The goods containing in 
the international mail are no rmally cleared by customs 
offices which are situated di rectly in the post offices 
distributing international mail.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 570 No. Type of the goods Normative legal act Comments 
6. Goods, meant for demonstration at exhibitions, fairs, 
international meetings and similar actions. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 1387 
of 29 December 2006 "On Establishing Competence 
of the Customs Bodies located in Moscow or Sankt 
Petersburg in Carrying out Customs Procedures in Respect of Goods, Destined for Displaying on 
Exhibitions, Fairs, International Meetings and Other 
Such Actions and in respect of cultural valuables"  The reasons for introducing:  customs operations with 
goods destined for exhibitions are quite specific, so 
normally there are speciali zed customs units operating 
with them: besides.  Dealing with cultural valuables, temporarily imported for ex hibitions, needs especially 
well-trained personnel. 
7. Goods, transported by air Order of the FSC of the Russian Federation No. 382 of 
29 March 2007 "On Establishing Competence of the 
Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs Procedures 
in Respect of Goods Conveyed by Air". The reasons for introducing:  the customs bodies 
authorised to carry out customs procedures with goods 
transported by air, are, as a rule, located in the 
airports.  
8. Precious stones and metals (including natural 
diamonds and cut diamonds (HS codes 7102 10 000 0, 
7102 21 000 0, 7102 31 000 0), watches (cased in 
precious metals or plated with precious metals, inlaid with precious stones), watch cases and parts thereof 
(cased in precious metals or plated with precious 
metals, inlaid with precious stones), as provided for in the Presidential Decree No . 1137 of 20 September 
2010; banknotes or treasury notes, securities, coins 
(HS codes 4907 00 300 0, 4907 00 900 0, 7101, 7103, 
7116, 7117, 7118). Order of the FSC of the Russian Federation No. 489 of 
19 April 2007 "On Establishing Competence of the 
Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs Procedures 
in Respect of Preciou s Stones and Metals". The reasons for introducing:  the need for special 
technical control (measurement, assessment), which 
undermines need for special equipment and trained 
staff. 
9. Fissionable and radio-active materials, transported 
within the customs border of the Russian Federation (HS codes 2612, 2844 and HS code 8401 30 000), 
other goods containing spare parts (HS codes 2612, 
2844 and HS code 8401 30 000), as well as the equipment for their production, storage, transporting, 
measuring and corresponding documentation. Order of the FCS of the Russian Federation No. 567 of 
26 March 2009 "On Establishing Competence of the Customs Bodies in Carrying out Customs Procedures 
in Respect of Fissionable an d Radio-active Materials"  The reasons for introducing:  need for special 
equipment and treatment. 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 571 
 
 
  Table 15 - List of Sensitive Products, where Decision on the Level of Import Duties shall be taken by 
CU Commission Members Consensus1 
CET Code Description of products 
0201 Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled. 
0202 Meat of bovine animals, frozen. 
0203 Meat of swine, fresh, chilled, or frozen.  
0207 Meat and edible offal, of the poultry of Heading N° 0105, fresh, chilled, or frozen.  
0301 Live fish. 
0302 Fish, fresh or chilled, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of Heading 0304.  
0303 Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of Heading 0304.  
0304 Fish fillets and other fish meat (whether or not minced), fresh, chilled or frozen.  
0401 Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
0402 Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt, kephir and other fermented or acidified milk and 
cream, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or 
flavoured or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa. 
0405 Butter and other fats and oils derived from milk; dairy spreads. 
0406 Cheese and curd. 
0408 Birds' eggs, not in shell and egg yolks, fresh, dried, cooked by steaming or by boiling in water, 
moulded, frozen, or otherwise preserved, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
0602 Other live plants (including their roots), cuttings and slips; mushroom spawn. 
0701 Potatoes, fresh or chilled. 
0703 Onions, shallots, garlic, leeks and other alliaceous vegetables, fresh or chilled. 
0704 Cabbages, cauliflowers, kohlrabi, kale an d similar edible brassicas, fresh or chilled. 
0706 Carrots, turnips, salad beetroot, salsify, celeriac,  radishes and similar edible roots, fresh or chilled. 
0808 Apples, pears and quinces, fresh. 
0810 Other fruit, fresh. 
1006 Rice. 
1102 Cereal flours other than of wheat or meslin. 
1103 Cereal groats, meal and pellets.  
1104 Cereal grain otherwise worked (for example, hulled, rolled, flaked, pearled, sliced or kibbled), 
except rice of Heading 1006; germ of cereal s, whole, rolled, flaked or ground. 
1105 Flour, meal, powder, flakes, granules and pellets of potatoes. 
1107 Malt, whether or not roasted. 
1108 Starches; inulin. 
1507 Soya-bean oil and its fractions, whether or not refined but not chemically modified. 
1511 Palm oil and its fractions, whether or not refined, but not chemically modified. 
1512 Sunflower-seed, safflower or cotton-seed oil and fractions thereof, whether or not refined but not 
chemically modified. 
1513 Coconut (copra), palm kernel or babassu oil and fractions thereof, whether or not refined but not 
chemically modified. 
1514 Rape, colza or mustard oil and fractions thereof, whether or not refined, but not chemically 
modified. 
1517 Margarine; edible mixtures or preparations of animal or vegetable fats or oils or of fractions of 
different fats or oils of this Chapter, other than ed ible fats or oils or their fractions of Heading 1516.
1701 Cane or beet sugar and chemically pure sucrose, in solid form. 
1704 Sugar confectionery (including white chocolate), not containing cocoa. 
1806 Chocolate and other food preparations containing cocoa. 
                                                      
 1 Not all 10 digit HS codes within 4 digit HS subgroup may be included in the list. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 572  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
1901 Malt extract; food preparations of flour, meal, starch or malt extract, not containing cocoa or 
containing less than 40% by weight of cocoa cal culated on a totally defatted basis, not elsewhere 
specified or included; food  preparations of goods of Headings 0401 to 0404, not containing cocoa 
or containing less than 5% by weight of cocoa calculated on a totally defatted basis, not elsewhere 
specified of included. 
1905 Bread, pastry, cakes, biscuits and other bakers' wares, whether or not containing cocoa; communion 
wafers, empty cachets of a kind suitable for pharm aceutical use, sealing wafers, rice paper, and 
similar products. 
2001 Vegetables, fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, prepared or preserved by vinegar or acetic 
acid. 
2005 Other vegetables prepared or preserved otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid, not frozen, other 
than products of Heading 2006. 
2007 Jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut puree, and fruit or nut pastes, being cooked 
preparations, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
2008 Fruit, nuts and other edible parts of plants, otherwise prepared or preserved, whether or not 
containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or spirit, not elsewhere specified or included. 
2009 Fruit juices (including grape must) and vegetable juices, unfermented and not containing added 
spirit, whether or not containing added sugar or other sweetening matter. 
2102 Yeasts (active or inac tive); other single-cell micr o-organisms, dead (but not including vaccines of 
Heading 3002); prepared baking powders. 
2207 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of 80% or higher; ethyl alcohol and 
other spirits, denatured, of any strength. 
2208 Undenatured ethyl alcohol of an alcoholic strength by volume of less than 80%; spirits, liqueurs 
and other spirituous beverages. 
2522 Quicklime, slaked lime and hydraulic lime, other than calcium oxide and hydroxide of Heading 
2825. 
2523 Portland cement, aluminous cement, slag cement, super-sulphate cement and similar hydraulic 
cements, whether or not coloured or in the form of clinkers. 
2615 Niobium, tantalum, vanadium or zirconium ores and concentrates. 
2620 Ash and residues (other than from the manufacture of iron or steel), containing arsenic, metals or 
metal compounds. 
2707 Oils and other products of the distillation of high  temperature coal tar; similar products in which 
the weight of the aromatic constituents exce eds that of the non-aromatic constituents. 
2708 Pitch and pitch coke, obtained from coal tar or from other mineral tars. 
2710 Petroleum oils and oils obtained from bituminous minerals, other than crude; preparations not 
elsewhere specified or included, containing by weight 70% or more of petroleum oils or of oils 
obtained from bituminous minerals, these oils being the basic constituents of the preparations; used 
oils. 
2711 Petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons. 
2712 Petroleum jelly; paraffin wax, microcrystalline pe troleum wax, slack wax, ozokerite, lignite wax, 
peat wax, other mineral waxes, and similar products obtained by synthesis or by other processes, 
whether or not coloured. 
2713 Petroleum coke, petroleum bitumen and other residues of petroleum oils or of oils obtained from 
bituminous minerals. 
2801 Fluorine, chlorine, bromine and iodine. 
2804 Hydrogen, rare gases and other non-metals. 
2805 Alkali or alkaline-earth metals; rare-earth metals, scandium and yttrium, whether or not intermixed 
or interalloyed; mercury. 
2806 Hydrogen chloride (hydrochloric acid); chlorosulphuric acid. 
2809 Diphosphorus pentaoxide; phosphoric acid and polyphosphoric acids, whether or not chemically 
defined. 
2811 Other inorganic acids and other inorganic oxygen compounds of non-metals. 
2812 Halides and halide oxides of non-metals. 
2813 Sulphides of non-metals; co mmercial phoshporus trishulphide.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 573 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
2814 Ammonia, anhydrous or in aqueous solution. 
2815 Sodium hydroxide (caustic soda); potassium hydroxide (caustic potash); peroxides of sodium or 
potassium. 
2816 Hydroxide and peroxide of magnesium; oxides, hydroxides and peroxides, of strontium or barium. 
2818 Artificial corundum, whether or not chemically defined; aluminium oxide; aluminium hydroxide. 
2819 Chromium oxides and hydroxides. 
2820 Manganese oxides. 
2821 Iron oxides and hydroxides; earth colours containing 70% or more by weight of combined iron 
evaluated as Fe2O3. 
2824 Lead oxides; red lead and orange lead. 
2825 Hydrazine and hydroxylamine and their inorganic salts; other inorganic bases; other metal oxides, 
hydroxides and peroxides. 
2826 Fluorides; fluorosilicates,fluoroaminates and other complex fluorine salts. 
2827 Chlorides, chloride oxides and chloride hydroxides; bromides and bromide oxides; iodides and 
iodide oxides. 
2828 Hypochlorites; commercial calcium hypochlorite; chlorites; hypobromites. 
2829 Chlorates and perchlorates; bromates and perbromates; iodates and periodates. 
2830 Sulphides; polysulphides whether or not chemically defined. 
2831 Dithionites and sulphoxylates. 
2832 Sulphites; thiosulphates. 
2833 Sulphates; alums; peroxosulpohates (persulphates).  
2834 Nitrites; nitrates. 
2835 Phosphinates (hypophosphites), phosphonat es (phosphites), phosphates and polyphosphates 
whether or not chemically defined. 
2836 Carbonates; peroxocarbonates (percarbonates); commercial ammonium carbonate containing 
ammonium carbamate. 
2837 Cyanides, cyanide oxides, and complex cyanides. 
2839 Silicates; commercial alkali metal silicates. 
2840 Borates; peroxoborates (perborates). 
2841 Salts of oxometallic or peroxometallic acids. 
2842 Other salts of inorganic acids or peroxacids (including aluminosilicates whether or not chemically 
defined), other than azides. 
2843 Colloidal precious metals; inorganic or organic compounds of precious metals, whether or not 
chemically defined; amalgams of precious metals. 
2844 Radioactive chemical elements and radioactive is otopes (including the fissile or fertile chemical 
elements and isotopes) and their compounds; mixt ures and residues containing these products. 
2845 Isotopes other than those of Heading 2844; compounds, inorganic or organic, of such isotopes, 
whether or not chemically defined. 
2846 Compounds, inorganic or organic, of rare-earth metals, of yttrium or of scandium or of mixtures of 
these metals. 
2849 Carbides, whether or not chemically defined. 
2901 Acyclic hydrocarbons. 
2902 Cyclic hydrocarbons. 
2903 Halogenated derivatives of hydrocarbons. 
2904 Sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives of hydrocarbons, whether or not halogenated. 
2905 Acyclic alcohols and their halogented, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2906 Cyclic alcohols and their halogenated, sulp honated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2907 Phenols; phenol-alcohols. 
2908 Halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives of phenols or phenol-alcohols. 
2909 Ethers, ether-alcohols, ether phenols, ether-alcohol-phenols, alcohol peroxides, ether peroxides, 
ketone peroxides (whether or not chemically defined), and their halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2910 Epoxides, epoxyalcohols, epoxyphenols,and epoxyethers, with a three-member ring and their 
halogented, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 574  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
2912 Aldehydes, whether or not with other oxygen function; cyclic polymers of aldehydes; 
paraformaldehyde. 
2914 Ketones and quinones, whether or not with other oxygen function, and their halogenated, 
sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2915 Saturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids and thei r anhydrides, halides, pe roxides and peroxyacids; 
their halogenated, sulphonated, nitr ated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2916 Unsaturated acyclic monocarboxylic acids, cyc lic monocarbolic acids, their anhydrides, halides, 
peroxides, and peroxyacids; their halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2917 Polycarboxylic acids, their anhydrides, halides, peroxides and peroxyacids; their halogenated, 
sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2918 Carboxylic acids with additional oxygen function and their anhydrides, halides, peroxides and 
peoxyacids; their halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2919 Phosphoric esters and their salts, including lactophosphates; their halogenated, sulphonated, 
nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2920 Esters of other inorganic acids (excluding esters of hydrogen halides) and their salts; their 
halogenated, sulphonated, nitrated or nitrosated derivatives. 
2921 Amine-function compounds. 
2922 Oxygen-function amino-compounds.  
2923 Quaternary ammonium salts and hydroxides; lecithins and other phosphoaminolipids. 
2924 Carboxyamide-function compounds; amide-function compounds of carbonic acid.  
2925 Carboxyimide-function compounds (including saccharin and its salts) and imine-function 
compounds.  
2926 Nitrile-function compounds. 
2929 Compounds with other nitrogen function. 
2930 Organo-sulphur compounds. 
2932 Heterocyclic compounds with oxygen hetero-atom(s) only.  
2933 Heterocyclic compounds with nitrogen hetero-atom(s) only.  
2934 Nucleic acids and their salts whether or not chemically defined; other heterocyclic compounds. 
2936 Provitamins and vitamins, natural or reproduced by synthesis (including natural 
concentrates),derivatives thereof used primarily as  vitamins, and intermixtures of the foregoing, 
whether or not in  any solvent.  
2937 Hormones, prostaglandins, thromboxanes and leuko trienes, natural or reproduced by synthesis; 
derivatives and structural analogues thereof, including chain modified polypeptides, used primarily 
as hormones.  
2938 Glycosides, natural or reproduced by synthesis and their salts, ethers, esters and other derivatives. 
2939 Vegetable alkaloids, natural or reproduced by synthesis and their salts, ethers, esters and other 
derivatives. 
2941 Antibiotics. 
3001 Glands and other organs for organo-therapeutic uses, dried, whether or not powdered; extracts of 
glands or other organs or of their secretions for organo-therapeutic uses; heparin and its salts; other 
human or animal substances prepar ed for therapeutic or prophylac tic uses, not elsewhere specified 
or included. 
3002 Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic uses; antisera and 
other blood fractions and modified immunological products, whether or not obtained by means of biotechnological processes; vaccines, toxins, cultu res of microorganisms (excluding yeasts) and 
similar products. 
3003 Medicaments (excluding goods of Headings 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of two or more 
constituents which have been mixed together for th erapeutic or prophylactic uses, not put up in 
measures doses or in forms or packings for retail sale. 
3004 Medicaments (excluding goods of Heading 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of mixed or unmixed 
products for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, put up in measured doses (including those in the form 
of transdermal administration systems) or in forms or packings for retail sale.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 575 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
3005 Wadding, gauze, bandages and similar articles (for example, dressings, adhesive plasters, 
poultices),impregnated or coated w ith pharmaceutical substances or pu t up in forms or packings for 
retail trade for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary purposes. 
3006 Pharmaceutical good s specified in Note 4 to this Chapter. 
3202 Synthetic organic tanning substances; inorganic tanning substances; tanning preparations, whether 
or not containing natural tanning substances; enzymatic preparations for pre-tanning. 
3204 Synthetic organic colouring matter, whether or not chemically defined; preparations as specified in 
Note 3 to this Chapter based on synthetic organic colouring matter; synthetic organic products of a 
kind used as fluorescent brightening agents or as  luminophores, whether or not chemically defined. 
– synthetic organic colouring matter and preparations based thereon as specified in Note 3 to this Chapter. 
3209 Paints and varnishes (including enamels and lacquers) based on synthetic polymers or chemically 
modified natural polymers, dispersed or dissolved in an aqueous medium. 
3215 Printing ink, writing or drawing ink, and othe r inks, whether or not concentrated or solid. 
3302 Mixtures of odoriferous substances and mixtures (including alcoholic solutions) with a basis of one 
or more of these substances, of a kind used as raw materials in industry; other preparations based 
on odoriferous substances, of a kind used for the manufacture of beverages. 
3307 Pre-shave, shaving or after-shave preparations, personal deodorants, bath preparations, depilatories 
and other perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations, not elsewhere specified or included; prepared 
room deodorizers, whether or not perfumed or having disinfectant properties. 
3401 Soap, organic surf ace-active products and pr eparations for use as soap, in  the form of bars, cakes, 
moulded pieces or shapes, whether or not contai ning soap; organic surface-active agents and 
washing preparations for leather in the form of liquid or cream, in packings for retail sale, whether or not containing soap; paper, wadding, felt and nonwovens, impregnated, coated or covered with 
soap or detergent. 
3402 Organic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-active preparations, washing preparations 
(including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning preparations, whether or not containing soap, other than those of Heading 3401. 
3507 Enzymes; prepared enzymes not elsewhere specified or included. 
3805 Gum, wood or sulphate turpentine and other terpenic oils produced by the distillation or other 
treatment of coniferous woods; crude dipentene; sulphite turpentine and other crude para-cymene; 
pine oil containing alpha-terpineol as the main constituent. 
3806 Rosin and resin acids, and derivatives thereof; rosin spirit and rosin oils; run gums. 
3808 Insecticides, rodenticides, fungicides, herbicides, anti-sprouting products and plant-growth 
regulators, disinfectants and similar products, put up in forms or packings for retail sale or as 
preparations or articles (for example, sulphur-tr eated bands, wicks and ca ndles, and fly-papers). 
3901 Polymers of ethylene, in primary forms. 
3902 Polymers of propylene or of other olefins, in primary forms. 
3903 Polymers of styrene, in primary forms. 
3904 Polymers of vinyl chloride or of other halogenated olefins, in primary forms. 
3905 Polymers of vinyl acetate or of other vinyl es ters, in primary forms; other vinyl polymers in 
primary forms. 
3906 Acrylic polymers in primary forms. 
3907 Polyacetals, other polyethers and epoxide resins, in primary fo rms; polycarbonates , alkyd resins, 
polyallyl esters and other polyesters, in primary forms. 
3908 Polyamides in primary forms. 
3909 Amino-resins, phenolic resins, and polyurethanes, in primary forms. 
3911 Petroleum resins, coumarone-indene resins, polyterpenes,polysulphides, polysulphones and other 
products specified in Note 3 to this Chapter, not elsewhere specified or incl uded, in primary forms. 
3912 Cellulose and its chemical derivatives, not elsewhere specified or included, in primary forms. 
3913 Natural polymers (for example, alginic acid) and modified natural polymers (for example, hardened 
proteins, chemical derivatives of natural rubber),  not elsewhere specified or included, in primary 
forms. 
3915 Waste, parings and scrap, of plastics. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 576  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
3916 Monofilament of which any cross-sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm, rods, sticks and profile 
shapes, whether or not surface-worked but not otherwise worked, of plastics. 
3917 Tubes, pipes, and hoses, and fittings therefore (f or example, joints, elbows, flanges), of plastics. 
3918 Floor coverings of polymer materials, whether or not self-adhesive, in rolls or in the form of tiles; 
wall or ceiling coverings of polymers, as defined in Note 9 to this Chapter. 
3919 Self-adhesive plates, sheets, film, foil, tape, strip and other flat shapes, of polymer materials, 
whether or not in rolls. 
3920 Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of polymer materials, non-cellular and not 
reinforced,laminated,supported or similarly combined with other materials. 
3921 Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of polymer materials.  
3922 Baths, shower-baths, wash-basins, bidets, lavato ry pans, seats and covers, flushing cisterns and 
similar sanitary ware, of plastics. 
3923 Articles for the conveyance or packing of goods, of plastics; stoppers, lids, caps and other closures, 
of plastics. 
3924 Tableware, kitchenware, other househol d articles and toilet articles, of plastics. 
3925 Builders' ware of plastics, not elsewhere specified or included. 
3926 Other articles of plastics and articles of other materials of Headings 3901 to 3914. 
4001 Natural rubber, balata, gutta-percha, guayule, chicle and similar natural gums, in primary forms or 
in plates, sheets or strip. 
4011 New pneumatic tyres, of rubber. 
4104 Leather or leather crust of bovine (including buffalo), or equine animals, without hair on, whether 
or not split, but not further prepared. 
4202 Trunks, suit-cases, vanity-cases, executive-case s, brief-cases, school satchels, spectacle cases, 
binocular cases, camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, holsters and similar containers; 
travelling-bags, toilet bags, rucksacks, handba gs, shopping-bags, wallets, purses, map-cases, 
cigarette-cases, tobacco-pouches, tool bags, spor ts bags, bottle-cases, jewellery boxes, powder-
boxes, cutlery cases and similar containers, of leather or of composition leather, of sheeting of 
polymer or textile materials, of vulcanized fibre or of paperboard, or wholly or mainly covered 
with such materials or with paper. 
4303 Articles of apparel, clothing acce ssories and other articles of fur skin. 
4410 Particle board, oriented strand board (OSB) and similar board (for example, waferboard) of wood 
or other ligneous materials, whether or not agglomerated with resins or other organic binding 
substances. 
4411 Fibreboard of wood or other ligneous materials, whether or not bonded with resins or other organic 
substances. 
4412 Plywood, veneered panels and similar laminated wood. 
4418 Builders' joinery and carpentry of wood, including cellular wood panels, assembled parquet panels, 
shingles and shakes. 
4808 Paper and paperboard, corrugated (with or wit hout glued flat surface sheets), creped, crinkled, 
embossed or perforated, in rolls or sheets, other than paper of the kind described in Heading 4803. 
4814 Wallpaper and similar wall coverings; window transparencies of paper. 
4818 Toilet paper and similar paper, cellulose wadding or webs of cellulose fibres, of a kind used for 
household or sanitary purposes, in  rolls of a width not exceeding 36 cm, or cut to size or shape; 
handkerchiefs, cleansing tissues, towels, tablecloths, serviettes, napkins for babies, tampons, bed 
sheets and similar household, sanitary or hospital articles, articles of apparel and clothing 
accessories, of paper pulp, paper, cellulose  wadding or webs of cellulose fibres. 
4819 Cartons, boxes, cases, bags and other packing containers, of paper, paperboard, cellulose wading or 
webs of cellulose fibres; box files, letter trays, and similar articles, of paper or paperboard, of a 
kind used in offices, shops or the like. 
4820 Registers, account bo oks, note books, order bo oks, receipt books, letter pads, memorandum pads, 
diaries and similar articles, exercise-books, blotting pads, binders (loose-leaf or other), folders, file covers, manifold business forms, interleaved carbon sets and other articles of stationery, of paper or 
paperboard; albums for samples or for collections and book covers, of paper or paperboard. 
5007 Woven fabrics of silk or of silk waste.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 577 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
5101 Wool, not carded or combed. 
5102 Fine or coarse animal hair, not carded or combed. 
5103 Waste of wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, including yarn waste but excluding garneted stock. 
5105 Wool and fine or coarse animal hair, carded or combed (including combed wool in fragments). 
5106 Yarn of carded wool, not put up for retail sale. 
5107 Yarn of combed wool, not put up for retail sale. 
5108 Yarn of fine animal hair (carded or combed), not put up for retail sale. 
5109 Yarn of wool or of fine animal hair, put up for retail sale. 
5111 Woven fabrics of carded wool or of carded fine animal hair. 
5112 Woven fabrics of combed wool or of combed fine animal hair. 
5202 Cotton waste (including yarn waste and garneted stock). 
5204 Cotton sewing thread, whether or not put up for retail sale. 
5205 Cotton yarn (other than sewing thread), containing 85% or more by weight of cotton, not put up for 
retail sale. 
5206 Cotton yarn (other than sewing thread), containing less than 85% by weight of cotton, not put up 
for retail sale. 
5207 Cotton yarn (other than sewing thread) put up for retail sale. 
5208 Woven fabrics of cotton containing 85% or more by weight of cotton, weighing not more than 200 
g/m2. 
5209 Woven fabrics of cotton containing 85% or more by weight of cotton, weighing more than 200 
g/m2. 
5210 Woven fabrics of cotton, containing less than 85% by weight of cotton, mixed mainly or solely 
with man-made fibres, weighing not more than 200 g/m2. 
5211 Woven fabrics of cotton, containing less than 85% by weight of cotton, mixed mainly or solely 
with man-made fibres, weighing more than 200 g/m2. 
5212 Other woven fabrics of cotton. 
5301 Flax, raw or processed but not spun; flax tow and waste (including yarn waste and garneted stock). 
5302 True hemp (Cannabis sativa L.), raw or processed but not spun; tow and waste of true hemp 
(including yarn waste and garneted stock). 
5303 Jute and other textile bast fibres (excluding fl ax, true hemp and ramie), raw or processed but not 
spun; tow and waste of these fibres (inc luding yarn waste and garneted stock). 
5306 Flax yarn. 
5307 Yarn of jute or of other textile bast fibres of Heading 5303. 
5308 Yarn of other vegetable textile fibres; paper yarn. 
5309 Woven fabrics of flax. 
5310 Woven fabrics of jute or of other textile bast fibres of Heading 5303. 
5401 Sewing thread of man-made filaments, whether or not put up for retail sale. 
5402 Synthetic filament yarn (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including synthetic 
monofilament of less than 67 decitex. 
5403 Artificial filament yarn (other than sewing thread), not put up for retail sale, including artificial 
monofilament of less than 67 decitex. 
5404 Synthetic monofilament of 67 decitex or more and of which no cross– sectional dimension exceeds 
1 mm; strip and the like (for example, artificial stra w) of synthetic textile materials of an apparent 
width not exceeding 5 mm. 
5407 Woven fabrics of synthetic filament yarn, including woven fabrics obtained from materials of 
Heading 5404. 
5408 Woven fabrics of artificial filament yarn, including woven fabrics obtained from materials of 
Heading 5405. 
5501 Synthetic filament tow. 
5503 Synthetic staple fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning. 
5504 Artificial staple fibres, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning. 
5505 Waste (including noils, yarn waste and garneted stock) of man-made fibres. 
5506 Synthetic staple fibres, carded, combed or otherwise processed for spinning. 
5508 Sewing thread of man-made staple fibres, whether or not put up for retail sale. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 578  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
5509 Yarn (other than sewing thread) of synthetic staple fibres, not put up for retail sale. 
5510 Yarn (other than sewing thread) of artificial staple fibres, not put up for retail sale. 
5511 Yarn (other than sewing thread) of man-made staple fibres, put up for retail sale. 
5512 Woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibres, containing 85% or more by weight of synthetic staple 
fibres. 
5513 Woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibres, containing less than 85% by weight of such fibres, mixed 
mainly or solely with cotton, of a weight not exceeding 170 g/m2. 
5514 Woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibres, containing less than 85% by weight of such fibres, mixed 
mainly or solely with cotton, of a weight exceeding 170 g/m2. 
5515 Other woven fabrics of synthetic staple fibres. 
5516 Woven fabrics of artificial staple fibres. 
5601 Wadding of textile materials and articles ther eof; textile fibres, not exceeding 5 mm in length 
(flock), textile dust and mill neps. 
5602 Felt, whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated. 
5603 Nonwovens, whether or not impregnated, coated, covered or laminated. 
5604 Rubber thread and cord, textile covered; textile yarn and strip and the like of Heading 5404 or 
5405, impregnated, coated, covered or sheathed with rubber or plastics. 
5607 Twine, cordage, ropes and cables, whether or not plaited or braided and whether or not 
impregnated, coated, covered or sh eathed with rubber or plastics. 
5608 Knotted netting of twine, cordage of rope; made up  fishing nets and other made up nets, of textile 
materials. 
5701 Carpets and other textile floor coverings, knotted, whether or not made up. 
5702 Carpets and other textile floor coverings, woven, not tufted or flocked, whether or not made up, 
including "Kelem", "Schumacks", "Karamanie" and similar hand-woven rugs. 
5703 Carpets and other textile floor coverings, tufted, whether or not made up. 
5704 Carpets and other textile floor coverings, of felt, not tufted or flocked, whether or not made up. 
5801 Woven pile fabrics and chenille fabrics, other than fabrics of Heading 5802 or 5806. 
5802 Terry towelling and similar woven terry fabrics, other than narrow fabrics of Heading 5806; tufted 
textile fabrics, other than products of Heading 5703. 
5804 Tulles and other net fabrics, not  including woven, knitte d or crocheted fabrics; lace in the piece, in 
strips or in motifs, other than fabrics of Headings 6002– 6006. 
5806 Narrow woven fabrics, other than goods of Heading 5807; narrow fabrics consisting of warp 
without weft assembled by means of an adhesive (bolducs). 
5807 Labels, badges, and simila r articles of textile materials, in the pi ece, in strips or cut to shape or size, 
not embroidered. 
5808 Braids in the piece; ornamental trimmings in the piece, without embroidery, other than knitted or 
crocheted; tassels, pompons and similar articles. 
5810 Embroidery in the piece, in strips or in motifs. 
5901 Textile fabrics coated with gum or amylaceous substances, of a kind used for the outer covers of 
books or the like; tracing cloth; prepared painting canvas; buckram and similar stiffened textile 
fabrics of a kind used for hat foundations. 
5902 Tyre cord fabric of high tenacity yarn of nylon or other polyamides, polyesters or viscose rayon. 
5903 Textile fabrics impregnated, coated, covered or laminated with plastics, other than those of 
Heading 5902. 
5904 Linoleum, whether or not cut to shape; floor coverings consisting of a coating or covering applied 
to a textile backing, whether or not cut to shape. 
5906 Rubberized textile fabrics, other than those of Heading 5902. 
5911 Textile products and articles, for technical uses, specified in Note 7 to this Chapter. 
6001 Pile fabrics, including "long-pile" fabr ics and terry fabrics, knitted or crocheted. 
6002 Knitted or crocheted fabr ics, of a width not exceeding 30 cm, c ontaining by weight  5% or more of 
elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, other than fabrics of Heading 6001. 
6003 Knitted or crocheted fa brics, of a width not exceeding 30 cm, other than fabrics of Headings 6001 
or 6002.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 579 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
6004 Knitted or crocheted fabr ics, of a width not exceeding 30 cm, c ontaining by weight  5% or more of 
elastomeric yarn or rubber thread, other than fabrics of Heading 6001. 
6005 Raschel lace (including crocheted fabrics for ma nufacture of lace), other th an fabrics of Headings 
6001– 6004. 
6006 Other knitted or crocheted fabrics. 
6101 Men's or boys' overcoats, car-coats, capes, cloa ks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), wind-cheaters, 
wind-jackets and similar articles, knitted or cr ocheted, other than those of Heading 6103. 
6102 Women's or girls' overcoats, car-coats, capes, cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), wind-
cheaters, wind-jackets and similar articles, knitted or  crocheted, other than those of Heading 6104. 
6103 Men's or boys' suits, ensembles, jackets, blazers, trouse rs, bib and brace overalls, breeches and 
shorts (other than swimwear), knitted or crocheted. 
6104 Women's or girls' suits , ensembles, jackets, blazer s, dresses, skirts, divide d skirts, trousers, bib– 
and-brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimw ear), knitted or crocheted. 
6105 Men's or boys' shirts, knitted or crocheted. 
6106 Women's or girls' blouses, shirts, and shirt– blouses, knitted or crocheted. 
6107 Men's or boys' underpants, briefs, nightshirts, pyjamas, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar 
articles, knitted or crocheted. 
6108 Women's or girls' slips, petticoats, briefs, panties, nightdresses, pyjamas, negligees, bathrobes, 
dressing gowns and similar articles, knitted or crocheted. 
6109 T–shirts, singlets and other vests, knitted or crocheted. 
6110 Jerseys, pullovers, cardigans, waistcoats  and similar articles, knitted or crocheted. 
6111 Babies' garments and clothing  accessories, knitted or crocheted. 
6112 Track suits, ski suits and swimwear, knitted or crocheted. 
6114 Other garments, knitted or crocheted. 
6115 Pantyhose, tights, stockings, socks and other hosiery, including graduated compression hosiery (for 
example, stockings for varicose veins) and footw ear without applied soles, knitted or crocheted. 
6116 Gloves, mittens and mitts, knitted, or crocheted. 
6117 Other made up clothing accessories, knitte d or crocheted; knitted or croc heted parts of garments or 
of clothing accessories. 
6201 Men's or boys' overcoats, car-coats, capes, cloa ks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), wind-cheaters, 
wind-jackets and similar articles, other than those of Heading 6203. 
6202 Women's or girls' overcoats, car-coats, capes, cloaks, anoraks (including ski-jackets), wind-
cheaters, wind-jackets and similar article s, other than those of Heading 6204. 
6203 Men's or boys' suits, ensembles, jackets, blazers, trouse rs, bib and brace overalls, breeches and 
shorts (other than swimwear).. 
6204 Women's or girls' suits , ensembles, jackets, blazer s, dresses, skirts, divide d skirts, trousers, bib and 
brace overalls, breeches and shorts (other than swimwear). 
6205 Men's and boys' shirts. 
6206 Women's or girls' blouses, shirts and shirt-blouses. 
6207 Men's or boys' singlets and other vests, underpants , briefs, nightshirts, pyjamas, bathrobes, dressing 
gowns and similar articles. 
6208 Women's and girls' singlets and other vests, slips,  petticoats, briefs, panties, nightdresses, pyjamas, 
negligees, bathrobes, dressing gowns and similar articles. 
6209 Babies' garments and clothing accessories. 
6210 Garments, made up of fabrics of Headings 5602, 5603, 5903, 5906 or 5907. 
6211 Track suits, ski suits and swimwear; other garments. 
6212 Brassieres, girdles, corsets, braces, susp enders, garters and similar articles and parts thereof, 
whether or not knitted or crocheted. 
6213 Handkerchiefs. 
6214 Shawls, scarves, mufflers, mantillas, veils and the like. 
6215 Ties, bow ties and cravats. 
6217 Other made-up clothing accessories; parts of garments or of clothing accessories, other than those 
of Heading 6212. 
6301 Blankets and travelling rugs. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 580  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
6302 Bed linen, table linen, toilet linen and kitchen linen. 
6303 Curtains (including drapes) and interior blinds; curtain or bed valances. 
6304 Other furnishing articles excluding those of Heading 9404. 
6305 Sacks and bags, of a kind used for the packing goods. 
6306 Tarpaulins, awnings and sunblinds; tents; sails for boats, sailboards or landcraft; camping goods. 
6307 Other made-up articles, including dress patterns. 
6310 Used or new rags, scrap twine, cordage, rope and cables and worn out articles of twine, cordage, 
rope or cables, of textile materials. 
6403 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of leather. 
6404 Footwear with outer soles of rubber, plastics, leather or composition leather and uppers of textile 
materials. 
6405 Other footwear. 
6806 Slag wool, rock wool and similar mineral wools; exfoliated vermiculite, expanded clays, foamed 
slag and similar expanded mineral materials; mixtures and articles of heat-insulating, sound-insulating or sound-absorbing mineral materials, other than those of Heading 6811 or 6812 or of 
Chapter 69. 
6907 Unglazed ceramic flags and pavi ng, hearth or wall tiles; unglazed  ceramic mosaic cubes and the 
like, whether or not on a backing. 
6908 Glazed ceramic flags an d paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, 
whether or not on a backing. 
6909 Ceramic wares for laboratory, chemical or other technical uses; ceramic troughs, tubs and similar 
receptacles of kind used in agriculture; ceramic pot s, jars and similar articles of kind used for the 
conveyance or packing of goods.  Ceramic wares for laboratory, ch emical or other technical uses. 
6910 Ceramic sinks, wash basins, wash basin pedestals, baths, bidets, water closet pans, flushing 
cisterns, urinals and similar sanitary fixtures. 
6911 Tableware, kitchenware, other household artic les and toilet articles, of porcelain or china. 
7005 Float glass and surface ground or polished glass, in sheets, whether or not having an absorbent, 
reflecting or non-reflecting layer, but not otherwise worked. 
7009 Glass mirrors, whether or not framed, including rear-view mirrors. 
7010 Carboys, bottles, flasks, jars, pots, phials, ampoules  and other containers, of glass, of a kind used 
for the conveyance or packing of goods; preserving jars of glass; stoppers, lids and other closures, of glass. 
7013 Glassware of a kind used for table, kitchen, toilet, office, indoor decoration or similar purposes 
(other than that of Heading 7010 or 7018). 
7016 Paving blocks, slabs, bricks, squares, tiles and other articles of pressed or moulded glass, whether 
or not wired, of a kind used for building or construction purposes; glass cubes and other glass small 
wares, whether or not on a backing, for mosaics or similar decorative purposes; leaded lights and the like; multicellular or foam glass in blocks, panels, plates, shells or similar forms. 
7019 Glass fibres (including glass wool) and articles thereof (for example, yarn, woven fabrics). 
7105 Dust and powder of natural or synthetic precious or semi-precious stones. 
7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; re-melting scrap ingots of iron or steel. 
7209 Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, cold-rolled (cold-
reduced), not clad, plated or coated. 
7210 Flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or 
coated. 
7213 Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of iron or non-alloy steel. 
7214 Other bars and rods of iron or non-alloy steel, not further worked than forged, hot-rolled, hot-drawn 
or hot-extruded but including those twisted after rolling. 
7216 Angles, shapes, and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. 
7219 Flat-rolled products of stainless steel, of a width of 600 mm or more. 
7220 Flat-rolled products of stainless steel, of a width of less than 600 mm. 
7225 Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more. 
7227 Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularly wound coils, of other alloy steel.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 581 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
7228 Other bars and rods of other alloy steel; angles, shapes and sections, of other alloy steel; hollow 
drill bars and rods, of alloy or non-alloy steel. 
7304 Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles, seamless, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel. 
7305 Other tubes and pipes (for example, welded, riveted or similarly closed), with circular cross-
sections and external diameter of whic h exceeds 406.4 mm, of iron or steel. 
7306 Other tubes, pipes and hollow profiles (for example, open seam or welded, riveted, or similarly 
closed), of iron or steel. 
7408 Copper wire. 
7410 Copper foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paperboard, plastics or similar backing 
materials) of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.15 mm. 
7606 Aluminium plates, sheets and strip, of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm. 
7607 Aluminium foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paperboard, plastics or similar 
backing materials), of a thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.2 mm. 
7608 Aluminium tubes and pipes. 
8104 Magnesium and articles thereof, including waste and scrap. 
8302 Base metal mountings, fittings and similar ar ticles suitable for furnitu re, doors, staircases, 
windows, blinds, coachwork, saddlery, trunks, chests , caskets or the like; base metal hat-racks, hat-
pegs, brackets and similar fixtures; castors with mountings of base metal; automatic door closers of 
base metal. 
8309 Stoppers, caps and lids (including crown corks, screw caps and pouring stoppers), capsules for 
bottles, threaded bungs, bung covers, seals, and other packing accessories, of base metal. 
8407 Spark-ignition reciprocating or rotary internal combustion piston engines. 
8408 Compression-ignition, internal combustion piston engines (diesel or semi-diesel engines). 
8415 Air conditioning machines, comprising a motor-driven fan and elements for changing the 
temperature and humidity, including those machines in which humidity cannot be separately 
regulated. 
8418 Refrigerators, freezers and other refrigerating or freezing equipment,  electric or other; heat pumps 
other than air conditioning machines of Heading 8415. 
8424 Mechanical appliances (whether or not hand-operated) for projecting, dispersing or spraying liquids 
or powders; fire extinguishers, whether or not charged; spray guns and similar appliances; steam or 
sand blasting machines and similar jet projecting machines. 
8428 Other lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery (for example, lifts, escalators, conveyors, 
teleferics). 
8432 Agricultural, horticultural or forestry machinery for soil preparation or cultivation; lawn or sports-
ground rollers. 
8433 Harvesting or threshing machinery, including straw or fodder balers; grass or hay mowers; 
machines for cleaning, sorting or grading eggs, fruit or other agricultural produce, other than 
machinery of Heading 8437. 
8434 Milking machines and dairy machinery. 
8443 Printing machinery used for pr inting by means of plates, cylinde rs and other printing components 
of Heading 8442; other printers, copying machines and facsimile machines, whether or not combined; parts and accessories thereof. 
8450 Household or laundry-type washing machines, including machines which both wash and dry. 
8451 Machinery (other than machines of Heading 8450) for washing, cleaning, wringing, drying, 
ironing, pressing (including fu sing presses), bleaching,  dyeing, dressing, fi nishing, coating or 
impregnating textile yarns, fabrics, or made up te xtile articles and machines for applying the paste 
to the base fabric or other support used in the manufacture of floor coverings such as linoleum; machines for reeling, unreeling, folding, cutting or pinking textile fabrics. 
8452 Sewing machines, other than book-sewing machines of Heading 8440; furniture, bases and covers 
specially designed for sewing m achines; sewing machine needles. 
8455 Metal-rolling mills and rolls therefore. 
8456 Machine-tools for working any material by removal of material, by laser or other light or photon 
beam, ultrasonic, electro-discharge, electro-che mical, electron beam, ion-beam or plasma arc 
processes. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 582  
 
  CET Code Description of products 
8457 Machining centres, unit construction machines (s ingle station) and multi-st ation transfer machines 
for working metal. 
8458 Lathes (including turning centres), for removing metal. 
8459 Machine-tools (including way-type unit head machines) for drilling, boring, milling, threading or 
tapping by removing metal, other than lathes (including turning centres) of Heading 8458. 
8460 Machine-tools for deburring, sharpening, grinding, honing, lapping, polishing or otherwise 
finishing metal or cermets by means of grinding stones, abrasives or polishing products, other than gear cutting, gear grinding or gear finishing machines of Heading 8461. 
8461 Machine-tools for planing, shaping, slotting, broaching, gear cutting, gear grinding or gear 
finishing, sawing, cutting-off and other machine-tools working by removing metal or cermets, not 
elsewhere specified or included. 
8462 Machine-tools (including presses) for working metal by forging, hammering or die-stamping; 
machine-tools (including presses) for working metal by bending, folding, straightening, flattening, shearing, punching or notching; presses for working metal or metal carbides, not specified above. 
8474 Machinery for sorting, washing, crushing, grinding, mixing or kneading earth, stone, ores or other 
mineral substances, in solid (including powder or paste) form; machinery for agglomerating, 
shaping or moulding solid mineral fuels, ceramic paste, unhardened cements, plastering materials or other mineral products in powder or paste form; machines for forming foundry moulds of sand. 
8481 Taps, cocks, valves and similar appliances for pipe s, boiler shells, tanks, vats or the like, including 
pressure-reducing valves and thermostatically controlled valves. 
8482 Ball or roller bearings. 
8501 Electric motors and generators (excluding generating sets). 
8502 Electric generating sets and rotary converters. 
8504 Electrical transformers, static converters (for example, rectifiers) and inductors. 
8505 Electro-magnets; permanent magnets and articles intended to become permanent magnets after 
magnetisation; electro-magnetic or permanent magnet chucks, clamps and similar holding devices; electro-magnetic couplings, clutches and brakes; electro-magnetic lifting heads. 
8507 Electric accumulators, in cluding separators ther efore, whether or not rectangular (including 
square). 
8508 Vacuum cleaners. 
8516 Electric instantaneous or storage water heaters and immersion heaters; electric space heating 
apparatus and soil heating apparatus; electro-therm ic hair-dressing apparatus (for example, hair 
dryers, hair curlers, curling tong heaters) and hand dryers; electric smoothing irons; other electro-thermic appliances of a kind used for domestic purposes; electric heating resistors, other than those 
of Heading 8545. 
8517 Telephone sets, including telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks; other 
apparatus for the transmission or reception of voice, images or other data, including apparatus for communication in a wired or wireless network (such as a local or wide area network), other than 
transmission or reception apparatus of Heading 8443, 8525, 8527 or 8528. 
8519 Sound recording or sound reproducing apparatus. 
8521 Video recording or reproducing apparatus, whether or not incorporating a video tuner. 
8525 Transmission apparatus for radio- broadcasting or television, whet her or not incorp orating reception 
apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus; television cameras, digital cameras and 
video camera recorders. 
8528 Monitors and projectors, not in corporating television reception apparatus; reception apparatus for 
television, whether or not incorporating radio-broadcast receivers or sound or video recording or reproducing apparatus. 
8529 Parts suitable for use solely or principally with the apparatus of Headings 8525 to 8528. 
8537 Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets and other bases, equipped with two or more apparatus of 
Heading 8535 or 8536, for electric control or distribution of electricity, including those 
incorporating instruments or apparatus of Chapter 90, and numerical control apparatus, other than switching apparatus of Heading 8517. 
8539 Electric filament or discharge lamps, including sealed-beam lamp units and ultra-violet or infra-red 
lamps; arc-lamps. 
8542 Electronic integrated circuits.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 583 
 
 
  CET Code Description of products 
8544 Insulated (including enamelled or anodised) wire, cable (including co-axial cable) and other 
insulated electric conductors, whether or not fitted w ith connectors; optical fibre cables, made up of 
individually sheathed fibres, whether or not asse mbled with electric conductors or fitted with 
connectors. 
8545 Carbon electrodes, carbon brushes, lamp carbons, battery carbons and other articles of graphite or 
other carbon, with or without metal, of a kind used for electrical purposes. 
8603 Self-propelled railway or tramway coaches, vans and trucks, other than those of Heading 8604. 
8701 Tractors (other than tractors of Heading 8709). 
8702 Motor vehicles for the transport of ten or more persons, including the driver. 
8703 Motor cars and other motor vehicles principally designed for the transport of persons (other than 
those of Heading 8702), including station wagons and racing cars. 
8704 Motor vehicles for the transport of goods. 
8705 Special purpose motor vehicles, other than those principally designed for the transport of persons 
or goods (for example, breakdown lorries, crane lorries, fire fighting vehicles, concrete-mixer 
lorries, road-sweeper lorries, spraying lorries, mobile workshops, mobile radiological units). 
8708 Parts and accessories of  the motor vehicles of Headings 8701 to 8705. 
8716 Trailers and semi-trailers; other vehicles, not mechanically propelled; parts thereof. 
8802 Other aircraft (for example, helicopters, aeroplanes); spacecraft (i ncluding satellites) and suborbital 
and spacecraft launch vehicles. 
9001 Optical fibres and optical fibre bundles; optical fibre cables other than those of Heading 8544; 
sheets and plates of polarising material; lenses (including contact lenses), prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, of any material , unmounted, other than such elements of glass not optically 
worked. 
9003 Frames and mountings for spectacles, goggles or the like and parts thereof. 
9006 Photographic (other than cinematographic) cameras; photographic flashlight apparatus and 
flashbulbs other than discharge lamps of Heading 8539. 
9013 Liquid-crystal devices not constituting articles pr ovided for more specifically in other headings; 
lasers, other than laser diodes; other optical appliances and instruments, not specified or included 
elsewhere in this Chapter. 
9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including 
scintigraphic apparatus, other electro-medical apparatus and sight-testing instruments. 
9022 Apparatus based on the use of X-rays or of alpha, beta or gamma radiations, whether or not for 
medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses, including radiography or radiotherapy apparatus, X-ray 
tubes and other X-ray generators, high-tension generators, control panels and desks, screens, examination or treatment tables, chairs and the lik e.– apparatus based on the use of X-rays, whether 
or not for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses, including radiography or radiotherapy 
apparatus. 
9025 Hydrometers and similar floating instruments, thermometers, pyrometers, barometers, hygrometers 
and psychrometers, recording or not and any combination of these instruments. 
9028 Gas, liquid or electricity supply or production meters, including calibrating meters therefore. 
9401 Seats (other than those of Heading 9402), whether or not convertible into beds, and parts thereof. 
9402 Medical, surgical, dental or veterinary furniture (for example, operating tables, examination tables, 
hospital beds with mechanical fittings, dentists' chai rs); barbers' chairs an d similar chairs, having 
rotating as well as both reclining and elevating movements; parts of the foregoing articles. 
9403 Other furniture and parts thereof. 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 584  
 
  Table 16 - List of Beneficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme
1 
1. Albania 
2. Algeria 
3. Anguilla  
4. Antigua and Barbuda 
5. Antilles, the Netherlands 
6. Argentina 
7. Aruba 
8. Bahamas 
9. Bahrain, Kingdom of 
10. Barbados 
11. Belize 
12. Bermuda 
13. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
14. Bolivia, Plurinational State of 
15. Bosnia and Herzegovina 
16. Botswana 
17. Brazil 
18. British Virgin Islands 
19. Brunei 
20. Caiman Islands 
21. Cameroon 
22. Cape Verde 
23. Chile 
24. China 
25. Colombia 
26. Congo 
27. Cook Islands 
28. Costa Rica 
29. Côte d'Ivoire 
30. Croatia 
31. Cuba 
32. Dominica 
33. Dominican Republic 
34. Ecuador 
35. Egypt 
36. El Salvador 
37. Federated States of Micronesia 
38. Fiji 
39. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
40. Gabon 
41. Ghana 
42. Grenada 
43. Guatemala 
44. Guyana 
45. Honduras 
46. Hong Kong, China 
47. India 
48. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  53. Jordan 
54. Kenya 
55. Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 
56. Korea, Republic of  
57. Kuwait 
58. Lebanese Republic 
59. Libya 
60. Malaysia 
61. Marshall Islands, Republic of the 
62. Mauritius 
63. Mexico 
64. Mongolia 
65. Montenegro 
66. Montserrat 
67. Morocco 
68. Namibia 
69. Nauru, Republic of 
70. Nicaragua 
71. Nigeria 
72. Niue 
73. Oman 
74. Pakistan 
75. Panama 
76. Papua New Guinea 
77. Paraguay 
78. Peru 
79. Philippines 
80. Qatar 
81. Saint Kitts-Nevis 
82. Saint Helena 
83. Saint Lucia 
84. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
85. Serbia 
86. Seychelles 
87. Singapore 
88. South Africa 
89. Sri Lanka  
90. Suriname 
91. Swaziland 
92. Syrian Arab Republic 
93. Thailand 
94. Tokelau 
95. Tonga 
96. Trinidad and Tobago 
97. Tunisia 
98. Turkey  
99. Turks and Caicos Islands 
100. United Arab Emirates 
                                                      
1 The CU GSP Scheme was adopted by the Decision of the Board of Heads of States of EurAsEC 
No. 18 of 27 November 2009 and by the Decision of the CU Commission No. 130 of 27 November 2009.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 585 
 
 
  49. Indonesia 
50. Iraq 
51. Iran, Islamic Republic of  
52. Jamaica 
 101. Uruguay 
102. Viet Nam 
103. Zimbabwe 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 586  
 
  Table 17 - List of Least-Developed Countries Beneficiaries of the CU GSP Scheme
1 
1. Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of 
2. Angola, Republic of 
3. Bangladesh 
4. Benin 
5. Bhutan 
6. Burkina Faso 
7. Burundi 
8. Cambodia 
9. Central African Republic 
10. Chad 
11. Comoros, Union of the 
12. Democratic Republic of Eastern Timor 
13. Democratic Republic of the Congo 
14. Djibouti 
15. Equatorial Guinea 
16. Eritrea 
17. Ethiopia 
18. The Gambia 
19. Guinea 
20. Guinea Bissau 
21. Haiti 
22. Kiribati, Republic of 
23. Lao People's Democratic Republic 
24. Lesotho 
25. Liberia 26. Madagascar 
27. Malawi 
28. Maldives 
29. Mali 
30. Mauritania 
31. Mozambique 
32. Myanmar 
33. Nepal 
34. Niger 
35. Rwanda 
36. Samoa 
37. Sao Tome and Principe 
38. Senegal 
39. Sierra Leone 
40. Solomon Islands 
41. Somalia 
42. Sudan 
43. Tanzania 
44. Togo 
45. Tuvalu 
46. Uganda 
47. Vanuatu 
48. Yemen 
49. Zambia 
 
 
                                                      
1 The CU GSP Scheme was adopted by the Decision of the Board of Heads of States of EurAsEC 
No. 18 of 27 November 2009 and by CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009.  The CU Commission is currently engaged in updating this Decision, inter alia , to reflect the current list of Least-
Developed Countries established by the United Nations.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 587 
 
 
  Table 18 - List of Goods Originating and Impor ted from Developing and Least-Developed Countries 
Subject to the CU GSP Scheme1 
HS Code Descriptiona 
02 Meat and edible meat offal 
03 
(except 0305) Fish and crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic  invertebrates (except sturgeon and salmon 
and the hard roes thereof) 
04 Dairy produce; birds' eggs; natural honey; edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere 
specified or included 
05 Products of animal origin, not  elsewhere specified or included 
06 Live trees and other plants; bulbs, roots and the like; cut flowers and ornamental foliage 
07 Edible vegetables and certain roots and tubers 
08 Edible fruit and nuts; peel of citrus fruit or melons 
09 Coffee, tea, mate and spices 
1006 Rice 
11 Products of the milling industry; malt; starches; inulin; wheat gluten 
12 Oil seeds and oleaginous fruits; miscellaneous grains, seeds and fruit; industrial or medicinal 
plants; straw and fodder 
13 Lac; gums, resins and other vegetable saps and extracts 
14 Vegetable plaiting materials; vegetable products not elsewhere specified or included 
15 (except 1509, 1517 - 
1522 00) Animal or vegetable fats and oils  
16 Preparations of meat, of fish or of crus taceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates 
1801 00 000 0 Cocoa beans, whole or broken, raw or roasted 
1802 00 000 0 Cocoa shells, husks, skins and other cocoa waste 
20 (except 
2001 10 000 0, 
2009 50, 
2009 71, 2009 79) Preparations of vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants 
 
2103 Sauces and preparations therefor; mixed condiments and mixed seasonings; mustard flour 
and meal and prepared mustard 
2104 Soups and broths and preparations therefor; homogenised composite food preparations 
2401 Unmanufactured tob acco; tobacco refuse 
25 (except 2501 
00 91, 2529 21 000 0, 2529 22 
000 0) Salt; sulphur; earths and stone; plastering materials, lime and cement 
26 Ores, slag and ash 
3003 Medicaments (excluding goods of heading No. 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of two or 
more constituents which have been mixed together for therapeutic or prophylactic uses, not put up in measured doses or in forms or packings for retail sale 
32 Tanning or dying extracts, tanins and their derivatives; dyes, pigments and other colouring 
matter; paints and varnishes; putty and other mastics; inks 
3301, 3302 Essential oils; resinoids; mixtures of odoriferous substances 
3402 Organic surface-active agents (other than soap); surface-active preparations, washing 
preparations (including auxiliary washing preparations) and cleaning preparations, whether 
or not containing soap, other than those of heading No. 3401 
35 Albuminoidal substances; modified starches; glues; enzymes 
                                                      
1 The list of goods originating and imported from developing and least-developed countries subject to 
the CU GSP Scheme, was adopted by the Decision of the EurAsEC Board of Head s of States No. 18 of 
27 November 2009 and by the CU Commission Decision No. 130 of 27 November 2009.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 588  
 
  HS Code Descriptiona 
3923 Articles for the conveyance or packing of goods, of plastics; stoppers, lids, caps and other 
closures, of plastics 
4001 Natural rubber, balata, guttapercha, guayule, chicle and similar natural gums, in primary 
forms or in plates, sheets or strip 
4403 41 000 0, 
4403 49 Other wood in the rough, of tropical wood 
4407 21 -
 4407 29 Wood sawn or chopped lengthwise, ..., of  tropical wood 
4420 Wood marquetry and inlaid wood; caskets and cases for jewellery or cutlery, and similar 
articles, of wood; statuettes and other ornaments, of wood; wooden articles of furniture not 
falling in Chapter 94 
4421     Other articles of wood 
45 Cork and articles of cork 
 
46 Items of straw, of esparto or of other plaiting materials; basket ware and wickerwork 
50 Silk 
5101 Wool, not carded or combed 
5201 00 Cotton, not carded or combed 
53 Other vegetable textile fibres; paper yarn and woven fabrics of paper yarn 
56 Wadding, felt and nonwovens; special yarns; twine, cordage, ropes and cables and articles 
thereof 
5701 Carpets and other textile floor coverings, knotted, whether or not finished 
5702 10 000 0 'Kelem', 'Schumacks', 'Karamanie' and similar hand-woven rugs 
5705 00 100 0 Other carpets and other textile floor coverings, whether or not finished, of wool or fine 
animal hairb 
5808 Braids in the roll; ornamental trimmings in the roll, without embroidery, other than knitted or 
crocheted; tassels, pompons and similar articles 
6702 90 000 0 Artificial flowers, foliage and fruit an d parts thereof of other ma terials (excluding polymer 
materials); articles made of artificial flowers, foliage or fruit of other materials (excluding 
polymer materials) 
68 Articles of stone, plaster, cement, asbestos, mica or similar materials 
6913 Statuettes and other ornamental ceramic articles 
6914 Other ceramic articles 
7018 10 Glass beads, imitation pearls, imitation precious or semiprecious stones and similar glass 
small wears 
7117 Costume jewellery 
9401 51 000 0, 
9401 59 000 0 Seats of cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials 
9403 81 000 0, 
9403 89 000 0 Furniture of other materials, including cane, osier, bamboo or similar materials 
9403 90 900 0 Parts of furniture of other materials (excluding wood and metal) 
9601 Worked ivory, bone, tortoiseshell, horn, antlers, coral, mother-off-pearl and other animal 
carving material, and articles of these materials (including articles obtained by moulding) 
9602 00 000 0 Worked vegetable or mineral carving material and articles of these materials; moulded or 
carved articles of wax, of stearin, of natural gums or natural resins or of modelling pastes, 
and other moulded or carved articles, not elsewhere specified or included; worked, 
unhardened gelatine (except gelatine of heading No. 3503) and articles of unhardened 
gelatine 
9603 Brooms, brushes (including brushes constituting parts of machines, app liances or vehicles), 
hand-operated mechanical  floor sweepers, not motorised, mops and feather dusters; prepared 
knots and tufts for broom or brush making; paint pads and rollers; squeegees (other than 
roller squeegees) 
9604 00 000 0 Hand sieves and hand riddles 
9606 Buttons, press-fasteners, snap-fasteners and press-studs, button moulds and other parts of 
these articles; button blanks  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 589 
 
 
  HS Code Descriptiona 
9609 Pencils (other than pencils of heading No. 9608), crayons, pencil leads, pastels, drawing 
charcoals, writing or drawing chalks and tailors' chalks 
9614 00 Smoking pipes (including pipe bowls) and cigar or cigarette holders, and parts thereof 
9615 11 000 0 Combs, hair-slides and the like, of hard rubber or plastics 
9617 00 Vacuum flasks and other vacuum vessels, complete with cases; parts thereof other glass 
inners 
97 Works of art, collectors' items and antiques 
a In this List the goods shall be determined exclusively by the HS commodity code; the description is 
given only for convenience in use. 
b The preferential tariff shall be granted only for hand-made carpets. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 590 Table 19 - List of Import Tariff Exemptions Applied by a CU  Member (currently applied exclusively by Kazakhstan) 
HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
0808 Apples, pears and quinces, fresh: 
0808 10 - apples: 
0808 10 100 0 - - cider apples, in bulk, from  
16 September to 15 
December €0.2 per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 10 800 - - other: 
0808 10 800 1 - - - from 1 January to 31 
March €0.1 per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 10 800 2 - - - from 1 April to 30 June €0.1 per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 10 800 3 - - - from 1 July to 31 July €0.1 per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 10 800 4 - - - from 1 August to 
31 December €0.2 per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 20 - pears and quinces:  
 - - pears: 
0808 20 100 0 - - - perry pears, in bulk, from 
1 August to 31 December 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 20 500 0 - - - other 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
0808 20 900 0 - - quinces 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
3001 Glands and other organs for organo-therapeutic uses, dried, whether or not powdered; extracts of glands or other organs or  of their secretions for organo- 
therapeutic uses; heparin and its salts; other human or animal su bstances prepared for therapeu tic or prophylactic uses, not el sewhere specified or included: 
3001 20 - extracts of glands or other organs or of their secretions: 
3001 20 100 0 - - of human origin 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3001 20 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3001 90 - other: 
3001 90 200 0 - - of human origin 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
3001 90 910 0 - - - heparin and its salts 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3001 90 980 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 Human blood; animal blood prepared for therapeutic, prophylactic or diagnostic uses; antisera and other blood fractions an d modified immunological products, 
whether or not obtained by means of biot echnological processes; vaccine s, toxins, cultures of micr oorganisms (excluding yeasts)  and similar products: 
3002 10 - antisera and other blood fractions and modified immunological products, whether or not obtained by means of biotechno logical processes: 
3002 10 100 - - antisera: 
3002 10 100 1 - - - antisera against serpent's 
poison 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3002 10 100 9 - - other 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
                                                      
1 Common External Tariff of the CU Members.  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 591HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
 - - other: 
3002 10 910 0 - - - haemoglobin, blood 
globulins and serum globulins 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
3002 10 950 - - - - of human origin: 
3002 10 950 1 - - - - - factors of coagulation 
of human blood 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3002 10 950 9 - - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 10 990 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 20 000 - vaccines for human medicine: 
3002 20 000 1 - - - vaccines against German 
measles 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3002 20 000 2 - - - vaccines against 
Hepatitis B 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3002 20 000 9 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 30 000 0 - vaccines for veterinary 
medicine 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 90 - other: 
3002 90 100 0 - - human blood 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 90 300 0 - - animal blood prepared for 
therapeutic, prophylactic or 
diagnostic uses 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 90 500 0 - cultures of microorganisms 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3002 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 Medicaments (excluding goods of Heading 3002, 3005 or 3006) consisting of mixed or unmixed products for therapeutic or pro phylactic uses, put up in 
measured doses (including those in the form of transdermal administration systems) or in forms or packings for retail sale: 
3004 10 - containing penicillins or derivatives thereof, with a penicillanic acid structure, or streptomycin or their derivativ es: 
3004 10 100 - - containing, as active substances, only penicillin s or derivatives thereof with a penicillanic acid structure: 
3004 10 100 1 - - - Ampicillin trihydrate or 
ampicillin- sodium salt or 
salts of benzyl penicillin and 
compounds or carbenicillin or oxacillin or 
phenoxymethylpenicillin 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
3004 10 100 2 - - - - others, put up in 
measured doses or in forms, but not packings for retail 
sale 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3004 10 100 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 592 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3004 10 900 - - other:  
- - - put up in measured doses or in forms but not in packings for retail sale: 
3004 10 900 1 - - - - sulacillin (sultamicillin) 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 10 900 2 - - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 10 900 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 20 - containing other antibiotics: 
3004 20 100 - - put up in forms or packings for retail sale: 
3004 20 100 1 - - - Amikacin or gentamicin 
or griseofulvin or doxycyline 
or doxorubicin or kanamycin 
or fucidin acid and its sodium salt or levomycetin 
(chloramphenicol) and its 
salts or lincomycin or methacyclin or nistatin or 
rifampicin or cefazolin or 
CEP 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 20 100 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 20 900 - - other: 
3004 20 900 1 - - - base of erythromycin or 
kanamycin sulphate 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 20 900 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 32 - - containing adrenal cortical hormones, derivatives thereof: 
3004 32 100 - - - put up in forms or in packings of a kind sold by retail: 
3004 32 100 1 - - - - fluocinolon 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 32 100 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 32 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 39 - - other: 
3004 39 100 0 - - - put up in forms or in 
packings of a kind sold by retail 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 39 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 40 - containing alkaloids or derivatives thereof but not containing hormones, other products of heading 2937 or antibiotic s: 
3004 40 100 - - put up in forms or in packings of a kind sold by retail: 
3004 40 100 1 - - - caffeine and sodium 
benzoate or xantinol 
nicotinate or papaverine or pilocarpine or theobromine or 
theo-filamin 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 40 100 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 593HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3004 40 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 50 - other medicaments containing vitamins or other products of Heading 2936: 
3004 50 100 - - put up in forms or in packings of a kind sold by retail: 
3004 50 100 1 - - - other medicaments 
containing ascorbic acid 
(vitamin C) or nicotine acid 
or carboxilase or nicotinamide or pyridoxine or 
tiamin and its salts (vitamin 
B1) or cyanocobalamine (vitamin B12) 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 50 100 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 50 900 - - other: 
3004 50 900 1 - - - acetate of alpha- 
tocopherol (vitamin E) 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 50 900 2 - - - cocarboxylase or 
ascorbic acid (vitamin C) or cyanocobalamin (vitamin B 
12) 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 50 900 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 90 - other:  
- - put up in forms or in packings of a kind sold by retail: 
3004 90 110 0 - - - containing iodine or 
iodine compounds 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 90 190 - - - other:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 594 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3004 90 190 1 - - - - containing, as active 
substances, only sodium salt 
of adenosine triphosphoric 
acid (ATPh) or acetylsalicylic acid (except medicaments in 
the form of tablets covered 
with an entero soluble coating containing, as an active 
substance, acetylsalicylic 
acid), or benzocaine, or biscalcitrate (colloidal 
bismuth subcitrate), or 
verapamil, or gamma aminobutyric acid, or dibazol, 
or sodium  diclofenac, or 
dimedrol, or ibuprofen, or corvalol, or validol, or 
isosorbide dinitrate, or 
inosine (riboxin), captopril, or 
ketamin, or ketotifen, or 
clozapin, or clomifen citrate, or lidocaine, or lipoic acid, or 
lithium carbonate, or metazid, 
or metamizole (analginum), or metenamin, or 
methyluracil, or methionine,  
or metronidazole, or sodium chloride, or nafazolin, or 
nitroxoline, or nifedipine, 
(except medicaments in the form of two-layer tablets, 
with laser perforation of a  
semipermeable membrane, a polymer layer and a layer of 
an operating active substance 
- nifedipine in osmotic state), or nicetamid, or pancreat 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 90 190 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
3004 90 910 0 - - - containing iodine or 
iodine compounds 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 595HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3004 90 990 - - - other: 
3004 90 990 1 - - - - of acetylsalicylic acid 
or  paracetamol or riboxin 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3004 90 990 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 Pharmaceutical good s specified in Note 4 to this Chapter: 
3006 10 - sterile surgical catgut, similar sterile suture material s (including sterile absorbable surgical or dental yarns) and  sterile tissue adhesives for surgical wound 
closure; sterile laminaria and sterile laminaria tents; sterile ab sorbable surgical or dental haemostatics; sterile surgical or  dental adhesion barriers, whether or 
not absorbable: 
3006 10 100 0 - - sterile surgical catgut 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3006 10 300 0 - - sterile surgical or  dental  
adhesion barriers, whether or 
not absorbable 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 10 900 0 - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3006 20 000 0 - blood- grouping reagents 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 30 000 0 - opacifying preparations for 
X- ray examinations; diagnostic reagents designed 
to be administered to the 
patient 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 40 000 0 - dental cements and other 
dental fillings; bone 
reconstruction cements 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 50 000 0 - first- aid boxes and kits 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 60 - chemical contraceptiv e preparations based on hormones, other com pounds of heading 2937 or spermicides:  
 - - based on hormones or other compounds of heading 2937: 
3006 60 110 0 - - - put up in forms or in 
packings of a kind sold by 
retail 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 60 190 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 60 900 0 - - based on spermicides 10.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
3006 70 000 0 - gel preparations designed to 
be used in human or veterinary medicine as a 
lubricant for parts of the body 
for surgical operations or physical examinations or as a 
coupling agent between the 
body and medical instruments 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - other: 
3006 92 000 0 - - waste pharmaceuticals 15.0 0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 596 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3901 Polymers of ethylene, in primary forms: 
3901 10 - polyethylene having a specific gravity of less than 0.94: 
3901 10 900 0 Other polyethylene with a 
specific gravity of less than 
0.94, in primary forms  10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 20 - polyethylene having a specific gravity of 0.94 or more: 
3901 20 100 0 - - polyethylene, in one of the 
forms mentioned in Note 6b to this Chapter, of a specific 
gravity of 0.958 or more at 
23°C, containing:  - not more than 50 mg/kg of aluminium, 
- not more than 2 mg/kg of 
calcium, - not more than 2 mg/kg of chromium, - not 
more than 2 mg/kg of iron, - 
not more than 2 mg/kg of nickel, - not more than 2 
mg/kg of titanium, - not more 
than 8 mg/kg of vanadium, 
for the manufacture of 
chlorosulfonated polyethylene 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 20 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 30 000 0 - ethylene- vinyl acetate 
copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 90 - other: 
3901 90 100 0 - - ionomer resin consisting of 
a salt of a terpolymer of ethylene, isobutyl acrylate, 
and methacrylic acid 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 90 200 0 - - A- B- A block- copolymer 
of polystyrene, ethylene- butylene copolymer and 
polystyrene, containing by 
weight 35% or less of styrene, in one of the forms 
mentioned in Note 6b) to 
Chapter 39 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3901 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 597HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3902 Polymers of propylene or of other olefins, in primary forms: 
3902 10 000 0 - polypropylene 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3902 20 000 0 - polyisobutylene 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3902 30 000 0 - propylene copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3902 90 - other: 
3902 90 100 0 - - A- B- A block- copolymer 
of polystyrene, ethylene- 
butylene copolymer and 
polystyrene, containing by weight not more than 35% of 
styrene, in one of the forms 
mentioned in Note 6b) to this Chapter 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3902 90 200 0 - - polybut- 1- ene, a 
copolymer of but- 1- ene with 
ethylene containing by weight 10% or less of  ethylene, or a 
blend of polybut- 1- ene with 
polyethylene and/or 
polypropylene containing by 
weight 10% or less of polyethylene and/or 25% or 
less of  polypropylene, in one 
of the forms mentioned in Note 6b to this Chapter 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3902 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3903 Polymers of styrene, in primary forms: 
3903 20 000 0 - styrene- acrylonitrile (SAN) 
copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3903 30 000 0 - acrylonitrile- butadiene- 
styrene (ABS ) copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3903 90 - other:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 598 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3903 90 100 0 - - copolymers, solely of allyl 
alcohol with styrene, which  
have an acetyl value of not 
less than 175 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3903 90 200 0 - - brominated polystyrene, 
containing by weight 58% or 
more but not more than 71% 
of bromine, in one of the forms mentioned in Note 6b 
to this Chapter 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3903 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 Polymers of vinyl chloride or of other halogenated olefins, in primary forms: 
3904 10 00 - polyvinylchloride, not mixed with any other substances: 
3904 10 009 - - other: 
3904 10 009 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - other poly(vinyl chloride) 
3904 21 000 0 - - non- plasticised 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 22 000 0 - - - plasticised 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 30 000 0 - vinyl chloride- vinyl acetate 
copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 40 000 0 - other vinyl chloride 
polymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 50 - vinylidene chloride polymers: 
3904 50 100 0 - - copolymer of vinylidene 
chloride with acrylonitrile, in the form of expansible beads 
of a diameter of 4 
micrometres or more but not more than 20 micrometres 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 50 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - fluoropolymers 
3904 61 000 0 - - polytetrafluoroethylene 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 69 - - other: 
3904 69 100 0 - - - polyvinyl fluoride in one 
of the forms mentioned in 
Note 6b to this Chapter 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 69 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3904 90 000 0 - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 Polymers of vinyl acetate or of ot her vinyl esters, in primary forms; ot her vinyl polymers in primary forms:  
 - polyvinyl acetate:  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 599HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3905 12 000 0 - - dispersed in water 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 19 000 0 - - dispersed in water 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
- vinyl acetate copolymers 
3905 21 000 0 - - dispersed in water 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 29 000 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 30 000 0 - polyvinyl alcohols, whether 
or not containing 
unhydrolyzed acetate groups 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
- other: 
3905 91 000 0 - copolymers 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 99 - - other: 
3905 99 100 0 - - - poly(vinyl formal), in 
one of the forms mentioned in Note 6b to this Chapter, of a 
molecular weight of 10,000 
or more but not exceeding 40,000 and containing by 
weight: - 9.5% or more but 
not more than 13% of acetyl 
groups, expressed as vinyl 
acetate, - 5% or more but not more than 6.5% of hydroxy 
groups, expressed as vinyl 
alcohol 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 99 90 - - - other: 
3905 99 901 0 - - - - polyvinylpyrrolidone 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3905 99 909 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 Acrylic polymers in primary forms: 
3906 10 000 0 - polymethyl methacrylate 10, but not less 
than €0.2 
per 1 kg 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 - other: 
3906 90 100 0 - - poly[N- (3- hydroxyimino- 
1,1- dimethyl- butyl)acrylamide] 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 600 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3906 90 200 0 - - copolymers of 2- di- 
isopropylaminoethyl 
methacrylate and decyl 
methacrylate dissolved in N,N- dimethylacetamide, 
with a copolymer content of 
not less than 55% by weight 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 300 0 - - copolymer of  acrylic acid 
with 2- ethylhexyl acrylate, 
containing by weight 10% or 
more but not more than 11% of 2- ethylhexyl acrylate 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 400 0 - - copolymer of acrylonitrile 
and methylacrylate modified 
with polybutadieneacrylonitrile 
(NBR) 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 500 0 - - polymerization products of 
acrylic acid, with alkyl 
methacrylate and small 
quantities of other monomers for use as thickeners in the 
manufacture of textile 
printing pastes 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 600 0 - - copolymer of methyl 
acrylate with ethylene and a 
monomer containing a non- 
terminal carboxy group as a substituent, containing by 
weight 50% or more of 
methyl acrylate, whether or not compounded with silica 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3906 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 Polyacetals, other polyethers and epox ide resins, in primary forms; polycarbonat es, alkyd resins, polya llyl esters and oth er polyesters, in primary forms: 
3907 10 000 0 - polyacetals 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 20 - other polyethers:  
 - - polyether alcohols: 
3907 20 110 0 - - - polyethylene glycols 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
3907 20 290 0 - - - - other: 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 601HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
 - - other: 
3907 20 910 0  - - - copolymer of 1- chloro- 
2,3- epoxypropane with 
ethylene oxide 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 20 990 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 30 000 0 - epoxide resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 40 000 - polycarbonates 
3907 40 000 9 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 50 000 0 - alkyd resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 60 - polyethyl ene terephthalate: 
3907 60 200 0 - - with intrinsic viscosity of 
78 ml/g or more 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 60 800 0 - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 70 000 0 - poly(lactic acid) 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - other polyesters 
3907 91 - - unsaturated: 
3907 91 100 0 - - - liquid 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 91 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 99 - - other:  
 - - - with a hydroxyl number not exceeding 100: 
3907 99 110 0 - - - - poly(ethylene 
naphthalene- 2.6- di- 
carboxylate) 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 99 190 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
3907 99 910 0 - - - - poly(ethylene 
naphthalene- 2.6- di- 
carboxylate) 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3907 99 980 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3908 Polyamides in primary forms: 
3908 10 000 0 - polyamide - 6,- 11, - 12, - 
6.6, - 6.9, - 6.10 or – 6.12 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3908 90 000 0 - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 Amino- resins, phenolic resins, and polyurethanes, in primary forms: 
3909 10 000 0 - urea resins, thiourea resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 20 000 0 - melamine resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 30 000 0 - other amino- resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 40 000 0 - phenolic resins 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 50 - polyurethanes:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 602 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3909 50 100 0 - - polyurethane of 2.2'- (tert- 
butylimino)diethanol and 
4.4'- methylene dicyclohexyl 
diisocyanate, in the form of a solution in N,N- 
diamethylacetamide 
containing by weight 50% or more of polymer 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3909 50 900 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3910 00 000 Silicones in primary forms: 
3910 00 000 9 - other 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 Petroleum resins, coumarone- indene resins, polyterpenes, polysulphides, polysulfones and other products specified in Note  3 to this Chapter, not elsewhere 
specified or included, in primary forms: 
3911 10 000 0 petroleum resins, coumarone, 
indene or coumarone- indene resins and polyterpenes 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 90 - other:  
- - condensation or rearrangement polymerisation products whether or not chemically modified: 
3911 90 110 0 - - - poly(oxy- 1.4- 
phenylenesulphonyl- 1.4- phenyleneoxy- 1.4- 
phenyleneisopropylidene- 
1.4- phenylene) in one of the forms mentioned in Note 6b 
to this Chapter 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 90 130 0 - - - poly(thio- 1.4- 
phenylene) 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 90 190 0 - - - other 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
3911 90 910 0 - - - copolymer of p- cresol 
and divinylbenzene, in the 
form of a solution in N,N- 
dimethylacetamide containing by weight 50% or more of 
polymer 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 90 930 0 - - - hydrogenated 
copolymers of vinyltoluene and alpha- methylstyrene 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3911 90 990 0 - - - other 7.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 Cellulose and its chemical derivatives, not elsewhere specified or included, in primary forms:   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 603HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
 - cellulose acetates: 
3912 11 000 - - non- plasticised: 
3912 11 000 1 - - - - for production of 
cigarette filters 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 11 000 9 - - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 12 000 0 - - plasticised 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 20 - cellulose nitrates (including collodions):  
 - - non- plasticised: 
3912 20 110 0 - - - collodions and celloidin 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 20 190 0 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 20 900 0 - - plasticised 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - cellulose ethers 
3912 31 000 0 - carboxymethylcellulose and 
its salts 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 39 - - other: 
3912 39 100 0 - - - ethylcellulose 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 39 200 0 - - - hydroxypropylcellulose 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 39 800 0 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 90 - other: 
3912 90 100 0 - - cellulose esters 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3912 90 900 0 - - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3913 Natural polymers (for example, alginic acid) and modified natural polymers (for example, hardened proteins, chemical deriv atives of natural rubber), not 
elsewhere specified or included, in primary forms: 
3913 10 000 0 - alginic acid, its salts and 
esters 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3913 90 000 0 - other 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3914 00 000 0 Ion- exchangers based on 
polymers of heading Nos. 3901 to 3913, in primary 
forms 10.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
3916 Monofilament of which any cross- sectional dimension exceeds 1 mm, rods, sticks and profile shapes, whether or not surface - worked but not otherwise 
worked, of plastics: 
3916 10 000 0 - of polymers of ethylene 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 20 - of polymers of vinyl chloride: 
3916 20 100 0 - - of polyvinylchloride 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 20 900 0 - - other 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 90 - of other plastics: 
  - - of condensation or rearrangement polymerization products, whether or not chemically modified: 
3916 90 110 0 - - - of polyesters 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 604 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
3916 90 130 0 - - - of polyamides 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 90 150 0 - - - of epoxide resins 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 90 190 0 - - - other 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
 - - of addition polymerisation products 
3916 90 510 0 - - - of polymers of propylene 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 90 590 0 - - - other 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3916 90 900 0 - - other 10.0 5 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
3920 Other plates, sheets, film, foil and strip, of polymer mate rials, non- cellular and not reinforced, laminated, supported o r similarly combined with other materials: 
3920 20 - - of a thickn ess not exceeding 0.10 mm: 
 - of polymers of propylene:  
3920 20 210 0 - - - with biaxial orientation 10.0 0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
4701 00 Mechani cal wood pulp: 
4701 00 100 0 - thermomechanical wood 
pulp 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4701 00 900 0 - other 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4702 00 000 0 Chemical wood pulp, 
dissolving grades 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4703 Chemical wood pulp, soda or sulphate, other than dissolving grades: 
  - unbleached: 
4703 11 000 0 - - coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4703 19 000 0 - - non-coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - semi-bleached or bleached 
4703 21 000 - - coniferous: 
4703 21 000 1 - - - for the manufacture of 
filter paper*(5) 5.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4703 21 000 9 - - - other  10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4703 29 000 - - non- coniferous: 
4703 29 000 1 - - - in which cellulose fibres 
of eucalyptus wood make up 
100% from a lump of the fibre, used for manufacturing 
paper - basis of facing 
materials 7.5 0 0 CET duty rate  
4703 29 000 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4704 Chemical wood pulp, sulphite, other than dissolving grades: 
  - unbleached: 
4704 11 000 0 - - coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4704 19 000 0 - - non- coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - semi- bleached or bleached  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 605HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
4704 21 000 0 - - coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4704 29 000 0 - - non- coniferous 10.0 0 0 CET duty rate  
4809 Carbon paper, self- copy paper and other copying or transfer papers (including coated or impregnated paper for duplicator stencils or offset plates), whether or 
not printed, in rolls or sheets: 
4809 20 - self- copy paper: 
4809 20 100 0 - - in rolls 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4809 20 900 0 - - in sheets 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4809 90 000 0 - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 Paper and paperboard, coated on one or both sides with kaolin (China clay) or other inorganic substances, with or without a binder, and with no other coating, 
whether or not surface- coloured, surface- deco rated, or printed, in rolls or rectangul ar (including square) sheets, of any siz e:  
 - paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes, not containing fibres obtained by a mec hanical or chemi- mechanical 
process or of which not more than 10% by weight of the total fibre content consists of such fibres: 
4810 13 - - in rolls: 
4810 13 200 - - - paper and paperboard weighing not more than 150 g/m2, of a kind used as a base for photosensitive, heat- sens itive or electro- sensitive paper or 
paperboard: 
4810 13 200 9 - - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 13 800 - - - other: 
4810 13 800 9 - - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 14 - - in sheets with on e side not exceeding 435 mm and the other side not exceeding 297 mm in the unfolded state: 
4810 14 200 0 - - - paper and paperboard 
weighing not more than 150 g/m2, of a kind used as a 
base for photosensitive, 
heat-sensitive or electro-sensitive paper or paperboard 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 14 800 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 19 - - other: 
4810 19 100 0 - - - paper and paperboard 
weighing not more than 
150 g/m2, of a kind used as a base for photosensitive, heat-
sensitive or electro-sensitive 
paper or paperboard 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 19 900 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - paper and paperboard of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes, of which more than 10 % by weight of th e total fibre content consists of 
fibres obtained by a mechanical  or chemi-mechanical process 
4810 22 - - light- weight coated paper:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 606 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
4810 22 100 0 - - - in rolls of a width 
exceeding 15 cm or in sheets 
with one side exceeding 36 
cm and the other side exceeding 15 cm in the 
unfolded state 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 22 900 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 29 - - other: 
4810 29 300 0 - - - in rolls 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 29 800 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - kraft paper and paperboard, other than that of a kind used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes 
4810 31 000 0 - - bleached uniformly 
throughout the mass and of which more than of wood 
fibres obtained by a chemical 
process, and weighting 150 g/m2 or less 95% by weight 
of the total fibre content 
consists 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 32 - - bleached uniformly throughout the mass and of which more than 95% by weight of the total fibre content consists of wood fibres obtained by a chemical 
process, and weighing more than 150 g/m2: 
4810 32 100 0 - - - coated with kaolin 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 32 900 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 39 000 0 - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - other paper and paperboard 
4810 92 - - multi- ply: 
4810 92 100 0 - - - each layer bleached  15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 92 300 0 - - - with only one outer layer 
bleached 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 92 900 - - - other: 
4810 92 900 9 - - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 99 - - other: 
4810 99 100 0 - - - bleached paper and 
paperboard, coated with 
kaolin 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 99 300 0 - - coated with mica powder 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4810 99 900 0 - - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4811 Paper, paperboard, cellulose wadding and webs of cellulose fibres, coated, impregnated, overed, surface- coloured, surface - decorated or printed, in rolls or 
rectangular (including square) sheets, of any size, other than goods of the kind described in Headings 4803, 4809 or 4810:  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 607HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
4811 10 000 0 - tarred, bituminized or 
asphalted paper and 
paperboard 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - gummed or adhesive paper and paperboard 
4811 41 - - self- adhesive: 
4811 41 200 0 - - - of a width not exceeding 
10 cm, the coating of which consists of unvulcanised 
natural or synthetic rubber 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4811 49 000 0 - - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - paper and paperboard, coated, impregnated or covered with plastics (excluding adhesives) 
4811 51 000 - - bleached, weighing more than 150 g/m2: 
4811 51 000 1 - - - floor coatings on a base 
of paper or of paperboard, whether or not  cut to size 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4811 59 000 - - other: 
4811 59 000 1 - - - floor coatings on a base 
of paper or of paperboard, 
whether or not cut to size 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4811 60 000 0 - paper and paperboard, 
coated, impregnated or 
covered with wax, paraffin wax, stearin, oil or glycerol 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4811 90 000 0 - other paper, paperboard, 
cellulose wadding and webs 
of soft cellulose 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4812 00 000 0 Filter blocks, slabs and plates, 
of paper pulp 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4816 Carbon paper, self- copy paper and other copying or transfer papers (other than those of Heading 4809), duplicator stencil s and offset plates, of paper, whether 
or not put up in boxes: 
4816 20 000 0 - self- copy paper 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
4816 90 000 0 - other 15.0 5 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
7604 Aluminium bars, rods and profiles: 
7604 10 - of aluminium, not alloyed: 
7604 10 100 - - bars and rods: 
7604 10 100 9  - - - Other 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
7604 10 900 0 - - profiles 20, but not less 
than €4 per 
1kg 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - of aluminium alloys  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 608 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
7604 21 000 0 - - hollow profiles 20, but not less 
than €4 per 
1kg 5 10 CET duty rate  
7604 29 - - other: 
7604 29 100 - - - bars and rods: 
7604 29 100 9  - - - - Other 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
7604 29 900 0 - - - profiles 20, but not less 
than €4 per 
1kg 5 10 CET duty rate  
7605 Aluminium wire:  
 - of aluminium, not alloyed: 
7605 11 000 0 - - of which the maximum 
cross- sectional dimension 
exceeds 7 mm 10.0 0 5 CET duty rate  
7605 19 000 0 - - other 10.0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - of aluminium alloys 
7605 21 000 0 - - of which the maximum 
cross sectional dimension 
exceeds 7 mm 10.0 0 5 CET duty rate  
7605 29 000 - - other: 
7605 29 000 9   - - - Other 10.0 0 5 CET duty rate  
7606 Aluminium plates, sheets and strip, of a thickness exceeding 0.2 mm: 
  - rectangular (including square): 
7606 11 - - of aluminium, not alloyed: 
7606 11 100 0 - - - painted, varnished or 
plastic- coated 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - - - other, of a thickness of: 
7606 11 910 0 - - - - less than 3 mm 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7606 11 930 0 - - - - no less than 3 mm, but 
less than 6 mm 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7606 11 990 0 - - - - no less than 6 mm 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7606 12 - - of aluminium alloys: 
7606 12 100 0 - - - strip for venetian blinds 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
7606 12 500 1 - - - - composite panels 20, but not less 
than 2.8 euro 
per 1 kg 5 5 CET duty rate  
7606 12 500 9 - - - - other 10 5 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - - other, of a thickness of:  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 609HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
7606 12 910 - - - - - less than 3 mm: 
7606 12 910 9   - - - - - - Other 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
7606 12 930 - - - - - not less than 3 mm but less than 6 mm: 
7606 12 930 9   - - - - - - Other 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7606 12 990 0 - - - - - not less than 6 mm 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - other: 
7606 91 000 0 - - of aluminium, not alloyed 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7606 92 000 0 - - of aluminium alloys 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7607 Aluminium foil (whether or not printed or backed with paper, paperboard, plastics or similar backing materials), of a thic kness (excluding any backing) not 
exceeding 0.2 mm: 
  - not backed: 
7607 11 - - rolled but not further worked: 
7607 11 100 0 - - - of a thickness of less than 
0.021 mm 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7607 11 900 0 - - - of a thickness of not less 
than 0.021 mm, but no more than 0.2 mm 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7607 19 - - other: 
7607 19 100 0 - - - of a thickness of less than 
0.021 mm 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
 - - - of a thickness of not less than 0.021 mm but not more than 0.2 mm 
7607 19 910 0 - - - - self- adhesive 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7607 19 990 0 - - - - other 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7607 20 - backed: 
7607 20 100 0 - - of a thickness (excluding 
any backing) of less than 
0.021 mm 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
 - - of a thickness (excluding any backing) of not less than 0.021 mm but not more than 0.2 mm 
7607 20 910 0 - - - self- adhesive 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7607 20 990 0 - - - other 20.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate 
7608 Aluminium tubes and pipes: 
7608 10 000 0  - Of aluminium, not alloyed 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7608 20 - of aluminium alloys: 
7608 20 200 0  - - Welded 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
7608 20 810 - - - not further worked than extruded: 
7608 20 810 9  - - - - Other 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate  
7608 20 890 - - - other: 
7608 20 890 9  - - - - Other 20.0 5 10 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 610 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
7609 00 000 0 Aluminium tube or pipe 
fittings (for example, 
couplings, elbows, sleeves) 10.0 5 5 CET duty rate  
8467 Tools for working in the hand, pneumatic, hydraulic or with self- contained electric or non- electric motor: 
  - pneumatic: 
8467 11 - - rotary type (including combined rotary- percussion): 
8467 11 100 0 - - - metal working 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 11 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 19 000 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - with self- contained electric motor 
8467 21 - - drills of all kinds 
8467 21 100 0 - - - capable of operation 
without an external source of power 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
8467 21 910 0 - - - - electro pneumatic 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 21 990 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 22 - - saws: 
8467 22 100 0 - - - chain saws 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 22 300 0 - - - circular saws 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 22 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 - - other: 
8467 29 100 0 - - - of a kind used for 
working textile materials 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - other: 
8467 29 300 0 - - - - capable of operation 
without an external source of 
power 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - - other: 
 - - - - - grinders and sanders 
8467 29 510 0 - - - - - - angle grinders 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 530 0 - - - - - - belt sanders 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 590 0 - - - - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 700 0 - - - - - planers 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 800 0 - - - - - hedge trimmers and 
lawn edge cutters 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 29 900 0 - - - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - other tools: 
8467 81 000 0 - - chain saws 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 611HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
8467 89 000 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - parts: 
8467 91 000 0 - - of chain saws 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
8467 92 000 0 - - of pneumatic tools 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8467 99 000 - - other: 
8467 99 000 1 - - - parts of tools with the 
electric engine 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
8467 99 000 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8486 Machines and apparatus of a kind used solely or principally for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers, semicon ductor devices, electronic 
integrated circuits or flat panel displays; machines and appara tus specified in Note 9 (C) to this Chapter; parts and accessori es: 
8486 40 000 - machines and apparatus specified in Note 9(C) to this Chapter: 
8486 40 000 2 - - Photo cameras used to 
produce patterns for masks and reticles on semiconductor 
devices 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
8486 40 000 3 - - Drawing or marking- out 
instruments used to produce masks and reticles for 
patterns on semiconductor 
devices 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
8505 Electro- magnets; permanent magnets and articles intended to become permanent magnets after magnetisation; electro- magnet ic or permanent magnet chucks, 
clamps and similar holding devices; electro- magnetic couplings, clutches and brakes; electro- magnetic lifting heads: 
 - permanent magnets and articles intended to become permanent magnets after magnetisation: 
8505 11 000 0 - - of metal 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 19 - - other: 
8505 19 100 0 - - - permanent magnets of 
agglomerated ferrite 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 19 900 0 - - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 20 000 0 - electro- magnetic couplings, 
clutches (regulated or not) 
and brakes 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 90 - other, including parts: 
8505 90 100 0 - - electro- magnets 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 90 300 0 - - electro- magnetic or 
permanent magnet chucks, clamps and similar holding 
devices 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 90 500 0 - - electro- magnetic lifting 
heads 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8505 90 900 0 - - parts 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 612 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
8534 00 Printed circuits:  
- consisting only of conductor elements and contacts: 
8534 00 110 - - multiple circuits: 
8534 00 110 9 - - - multiple circuits, other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8534 00 190 0 - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8534 00 900 0 - with other passive elements 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circui ts (for example, switches, fuses, lightning 
arresters, voltage limiters, surge suppressors, plug s, junction boxes), for a voltage exceeding 1,000 V: 
8535 10 000 0 - fuses 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - automatic circuit breakers 
8535 21 000 0 - - for a voltage of less than 
72.5 kV 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 29 000 0 - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 30 - isolating switches and make- and- break switches: 
8535 30 100 0 - - for a voltage of less than 
72.5 kV 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 30 900 0 - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 40 000 0 - lightning arresters, voltage 
limiters and surge suppressors 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8535 90 000 0 - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 Electrical apparatus for switching or protecting electrical circuits, or for making connections to or in electrical circui ts (for example, switches, relays, fuses, 
surge suppressors, plugs, sockets, lamp- holders, junction boxes), for a voltage not exceeding 1,000 V; connectors for optical fibres, optical fibre bundles or 
cables: 
8536 10 - fuses: 
8536 10 100 0 - - for a current not exceeding 
10 A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 10 500 0 - - for a current exceeding 10 
A but not exceeding 63 A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 10 900 0 - - for a current exceeding 63 
A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 20 - automatic circuit breakers: 
8536 20 100 - - for a current not exceeding 63 A: 
8536 20 100 8 - - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 20 900 - - for a current exceeding 63 A: 
8536 20 900 8 - - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 30 - other apparatus for protecting electrical circuits: 
8536 30 100 0 - - for a current not exceeding 
16 A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 613HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
8536 30 300 0 - - for a current exceeding 16 
A but not exceeding 125 A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 30 900 0 - - for a current exceeding 
125 A 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - relays 
8536 41 - - for a voltage not exceeding 60 V: 
8536 41 100 0 - - - for a current not 
exceeding 2 A 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 41 900 0 - - - for a current exceeding 2 
A 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 49 000 0 - - other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 - other switches: 
8536 50 030 0 - - electronic AC switches 
consisting of optically 
coupled input and output circuits (insulated thyristor 
AC switches) 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 050 0 - - electronic switches 
including temperature 
protected electronic switches, 
consisting of a transistor and a logic chip (chip-on-chip 
technology) 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 070 0 - - electro mechanical snap- 
action switches for a current not exceeding 11 A  15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
 - - - for a voltage not exceeding 60 V 
8536 50 110 - - - - push-button switches: 
8536 50 110 9 - - - - - keyboard relays other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 150 - - - - rotary switches: 
8536 50 150 9 - - - - - rotary relays other 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 190 - - - - other: 
8536 50 190 8 - - - - - other  15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 50 800 0 - - - other  15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
 - lamp holders, plugs and sockets 
8536 61 - - lamp- holders: 
8536 61 100 0 - - - Edison lamp- holders 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 61 900 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 69 - - other:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 614 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
8536 69 100 0 - - - coaxial connectors 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 69 300 0 - - - for printed circuits 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 69 900 - - - other: 
8536 69 900 9 - - - - other  10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 70 000 - connectors for optical fibres, optical fibre bundles or cables: 
8536 70 000 1 - - of materials of subheading 
3901- 3914 20, but not less 
than €0.48  
per 1 kg 0 0 10 CET duty rate  
8536 70 000 2 - - of ceramics 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 70 000 3  - - Of ferrous metals 15.0 0 5 10 CET duty rate  
8536 70 000 4  - - Of copper 5.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 90 - other apparatus: 
8536 90 010 0 - - pref abricated elements for 
electrical circuits 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 90 100 - - connections and contact elements for wire and cables: 
8536 90 100 9 - - - connections and contact 
elements for wire and cables 
other  10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8536 90 200 0 - - checking semiconductor 
plates probes 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8603 Self- propelled railway or tramway coaches, vans and trucks, other than those of Heading 8604: 
8603 10 000 - powered from an external source of electricity: 
8603 10 000 9 - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
8603 90 000 0  - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
8604 00 000 0 Railway or tramway 
maintenance or service 
vehicles, whether or not self- propelled (for example, 
workshops, cranes, ballast 
tampers, track liners, testing coaches and track inspection 
vehicles) 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8605 00 000  Railway or tramway passenger coaches, not self- propelled; luggage vans, post office coaches and other special pur pose railway or tram way coaches, not self- 
propelled (excluding those of heading 8604) 
8605 00 000 9 - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8606 Railway or tramway goods vans and wagons, not self- propelled: 
8606 10 000 0 - tank wagons and the like 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 615HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
8606 30 000 0 - self- discharging vans and 
wagons, other than those of 
subheading Nos. 8606 10 or 
8606 20 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - other: 
8606 91 - - covered and closed: 
8606 91 100 0 - - - specially designed for the 
transport of highly 
radioactive materials 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8606 91 800 0 - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8606 92 000 0 - - open, with non- removable 
sides of a height exceeding 60 cm 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
8606 99 000 0 - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9001 Optical fibres and optical fibre bundles; optical fibre cables other than those of Heading 8544; sheets and plates of pola rising material; lenses (including contact 
lenses), prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, of any material, unmounted, other than such elements of glass not opticall y worked: 
9001 10 - optical fibres, opti cal fibre bundles and cables: 
9001 10 100 0 - - image conductor cables 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9001 10 900 - - other: 
9001 10 900 9 - - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9001 20 000 0 - sheets and plates of 
polarising material 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9002 Lenses, prisms, mirrors and other optical elements, of any material, mounted, being parts of or fittings for instruments o r apparatus, other than such elements of 
glass not optically worked:  
 - objective lenses: 
9002 11 000 0 - - for cameras, projectors or 
photographic enlargers or reducers 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9002 19 000 0 - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9002 20 000 0 - filters 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9002 90 000 0 - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9006 Photographic (other than cinematographic) cameras; photographic flashlight apparatus and flashbulbs other than discharge l amps of Heading 8539: 
9006 10 000 0 - cameras of a kind used for 
preparing printing plates or 
cylinders 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 40 000 0 - instant print cameras 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
 - other cameras  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 616 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
9006 51 000 0 - - with a through- the- lens 
viewfinder (single lens reflex 
(SLR)), for roll film of a 
width not exceeding 35 mm 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 52 000 - - other, for roll film of a width less than 35 mm: 
9006 52 000 9 - - - other 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 53 - - other, for roll film of a width of 35 mm: 
9006 53 100 0 - - - portable cameras 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 53 800 - - - other: 
9006 53 800 9 - - - - other 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 59 000 - - other: 
9006 59 000 9 - - - other 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
 - photographic flashlight apparatus and flashbulbs 
9006 61 000 0 - - discharge lamp 
("electronic") flashlight 
apparatus 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9006 69 000 0 - - other 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
 - parts and accessories 
9006 99 000 0 - - other 10.0 5 5 5 CET duty rate  
9015 Surveying (including photogrammetrical surveying), hydr ographic, oceanogra phic, hydrological, meteor ological or geophysica l instruments and appliances, 
excluding compasses; rangefinders: 
9015 10 - rangefinders: 
9015 10 100 0 - - electronic 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 10 900 0 - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 20 - theodolites and tachometers: 
9015 20 100 0 - - electronic 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 20 900 - - other: 
9015 20 900 1 - - - optical- mechanical 
theodolites 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 20 900 9 - - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 30 - levels: 
9015 30 100 - - electronic: 
9015 30 100 1 - - - laser levels 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 30 100 9 - - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 30 900 - - other: 
9015 30 900 1 - - - optical- mechanical 
levels 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate  
9015 30 900 9 - - - other 15.0 5 5 10 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 617HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
9018 Instruments and appliances used in medical, surgical, dental or veterinary sciences, including scintigraphic apparatus, ot her electro- medical apparatus and 
sight- testing instruments: 
  - electro-diagnostic apparatus (including apparatus for functional exploratory examination or for checking physiological para meters): 
9018 11 000 0 - - electro-cardiographs 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 19 - - other: 
9018 19 100 0 - - - monitoring apparatus for 
simultaneous monitoring of 2 
or more parameters 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 31 - - syringes, with or without needles: 
9018 31 100 - - - of plastics: 
9018 31 100 1 - - - - for insulin of volume 
not exceeding 2 ml 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 31 100 9 - - - other 15.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 31 900 - - - other: 
9018 31 900 1 - - - - for insulin of volume 
not exceeding 2 ml 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 31 900 9 - - - - other 15.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 32 - - tubular metal needles and needles for sutures: 
9018 32 100 0 - - - tubular metal needles 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 32 900 0 - - - needles for sutures 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 49 - - other: 
9018 49 100 0 - - - chisel, disks, drills, 
brushes used in dental drill 
engines 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 90 - other instruments and appliances: 
9018 90 200 0 - - endoscopes 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 90 500 - - transfusion apparatus: 
9018 90 500 1 - - - apparatus for taking and 
transfusion of blood, blood substitute and infusing 
solutions 15.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9018 90 700 0 - - ultrasonic lithotripters 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9022 Apparatus based on the use of X- rays or of alpha, beta or gamma radiations, whether or not for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses, including 
radiography or radiotherapy apparatus, X- ray tubes and other X-  ray generators, high- tension generators, control panels and d esks, screens, examination or 
treatment tables, chairs and the like:  
 - apparatus based on the use of X- rays, whether or not for medical, surgical, dental or veterinary uses, including radiograph y or radiotherapy apparatus: 
9022 14 000 0 - - for medical, surgical, 
dental or veterinary uses 5.0 0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 618 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
9026 Instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking the flow, level, pressure or other variables of liquids or gases (for example, flow meters, level gauges, 
manometers, heat meters), excluding instruments and apparatus of Heading 9014, 9015, 9028 or 9032: 
9026 10 - for measuring or checking the flow or level of liquids:  
 - - electronic: 
9026 10 890 - - - other: 
9026 10 890 9 - - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9026 20 - for measuring or checking pressure: 
9026 20 200 - - electronic: 
9026 20 200 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
9026 20 400 0 - - - spiral or metal diaphragm 
type pressure gauges 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9026 20 800 - - - other: 
9026 20 800 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9026 80 - other instruments or apparatus: 
9026 80 200 - - electronic: 
9026 80 200 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9026 80 800 - - other: 
9026 80 800 9 - - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9026 90 000 - parts and accessories: 
9026 90 000 9 - - other 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9027 Instruments and apparatus for physical or chemical analysis (for example, polarimeters, refractometers, spectrometers, gas  or smoke analysis apparatus); 
instruments and apparatus for measuring or  checking viscosity, porosity, expansion, surface tension or the like; instruments an d apparatus for measuring or 
checking quantities of heat, sound or light (including exposure meters); microtomes: 
9027 80 - other instruments and apparatus: 
9027 80 100 0 - - exposure meters 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9027 80 930 - - - - apparatus for performing measurements of the physical  properties of semiconductor materials or of LCD subst rates or associated insulating and 
conducting layers during the semiconductor wafer production process or the LCD production process: 
9027 80 930 1 - - - - - apparatus for 
performing measurements of 
the physical properties of 
semiconductor materials or of LCD substrates or associated  10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 insulated and conducting 
layers during the 
semiconductor wafer production process or the 
LCD production process      
9027 80 930 9 - - - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9027 80 970 0 - - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 619HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
9027 90 - microtomes; parts and accessories: 
9027 90 100 0 - - microtomes 10.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - parts and accessories: 
9027 90 500 0 - - - parts and accessories of 
subheadings 9027 20 to 9027 
80  5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9027 90 800 0 - - - of microtomes or of gas 
or smoke analysis apparatus 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9029 Revolution counters, production counters, taximeters, mileometers, pedometers and the like; speed indicators and tachomete rs, other than those of Heading 
9014 or 9015; stroboscopes: 
9029 10 000 - revolution counters, production counters, taximeters, mileometers, pedometers and the like: 
9029 10 000 1 - - for the industrial  assembly 
of motor vehicles of  HS 
8701 - 8705,  their units and aggregates 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9029 10 000 9 - - other 15.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9030 Oscilloscopes, spectrum analysers and other instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking electrical quantities, exc luding meters of Heading 9028; 
instruments and apparatus for measuring or detecting alpha, beta, gamma, X- ray, cosmic or other ionizing radiations: 
9030 10 000 0 - instruments and apparatus 
for measuring or detecting 
ionizing radiation 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 20 - oscilloscopes and oscillographs: 
9030 20 100 0 - - for use in civil aircraft 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9030 20 200 - - other, with a recording device: 
9030 20 200 9 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - - other: 
9030 20 500 0 - - - electronic 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 20 900 0 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - other instruments and apparatus, for measuring or checking voltage, current, resistance or power 
9030 31 000 0 - - multi meters without a 
recording device 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 32 000 - - multimeters, with a recording device: 
9030 32 000 9 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 33 - - other, without a recording device: 
9030 33 300 - - - electronic: 
9030 33 300 1 - - - - specialized for TV- set 
tuning 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 33 300 9 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
 - - - other:  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 620 HS codes Product description CET1 
(01.03.2010) 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 01.01.2011 01.07.2011 
9030 33 910 0 - - - - voltmeters 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9030 33 990 0 - - - - other 10.0 0 0 5 CET duty rate  
9030 39 000 - - other, with a recording device: 
9030 39 000 9 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 40 000 0 - other instruments and 
apparatus for measuring and 
checking, specially designed 
for telecommunications (for example, cross- talk meters, 
gain measuring instruments, 
distortion factor meters, psophometers) 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 - other instruments and apparatus 
9030 82 000 0 - - for measuring or checking 
semiconductor wafers and 
devices 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 84 000 - - other, with a recording device: 
9030 84 000 9 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 89 - - other: 
9030 89 300 0 - - - electronic 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9030 89 900 0 - - - other 5.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9406 00 Prefabri cated buildings: 
9406 00 310 0 - - - greenhouse 20.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
9406 00 800 9 - - - other 20.0 0 0 0 CET duty rate  
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 621 
 
 
  Table 20 - Fees and Charges for Customs Services Rendered Related to Importation or Exportation 
Description of Se rvice Rendered/ 
Purpose of Charges Rate Applied 
Customs fees for customs clearance:  
a) of goods including motor transport vehicles moved across 
the customs border of the Russian Federation with customs value of:  
Rub 200,000 and less; Rub 500; 
Rub 200,000 for 1 kopek and more, but not more than Rub 450,000; Rub 1,000; 
from Rub 450,000 rubles for 1 kopek and more, but not more than 
Rub 1,200,000; Rub 2,000; 
from Rub 1,200,000 for 1 kopek and more, but not more than 
Rub 2,500,000; Rub 5,500; 
from Rub 2,500,000 for 1 kopek and more, but not more than 
Rub 5,000,000; Rub 7,500; 
from Rub 5,000,000 for 1 kopek and more, but not more than 
Rub 10,000,000 rubles; Rub 20,000; 
from Rub 10,000,000 for 1 kopek and more, but not more than 
Rub 30,000,000; Rub 50,000; 
Rub 30,000,000 for 1 kopek and more. Rub 100,000. 
b) of goods, moved by the railway transport in keeping with the 
customs regime of international customs transit Rub 500 for each consignment of 
the goods in one invoice in one carrier 
c) of securities in foreign currency, which are brought into the customs 
territory of the Russian Federation Rub 500 for each consignment in 
one customs declaration 
d) of goods for personal, home and family needs not related to 
the entrepreneurial activity, except for passenger cars classified in commodity positions of HS Codes 8702 and 8703  Rub 250 
e) of passenger cars, classified in commodity positions of HS Codes 
8702 and 8703, which are shifted for personal, home and family 
needs Customs fees shall be calculated 
in accordance with paragraph "a" 
of the present Table 
f) of air, sea, river combined (r iver-and-sea) vessels which are moved 
as commodities in keeping with the customs regime of temporary 
importation, temporary exportation and processing (if the repair of 
such vehicles is an operation in pr ocessing), also after the completion 
of the following customs regimes: 
 i) the temporary importation by means of the re-export of goods 
brought in on a temporary basis 
 ii) the temporary exportation by means of the re-import of goods 
brought out on a temporary basis; 
 iii) the processing on customs territory by means of bringing 
products of processing (vehicles) out of the customs territory of the Russian Federation; and 
 iv) the processing outside customs territory by means of the release 
for free circulation of products of  processing (vehicles) on the 
customs territory of the Russian Federation.Rub 10,000 for each vehicle 
g) Customs fees for customs registration of a customs declaration 
repeated for the same products under the same customs regime  Rub 500 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 622  
 
  Description of Se rvice Rendered/ 
Purpose of Charges Rate Applied 
Customs charges for cust oms escort of goods: 
 a) for each motor and rail way vehicle utilized either for the 
transportation of goods or which moves under its own power to be 
used as a commodity: 
 
 - for the distance up to 50 km;  - for the distance from 50 to 100 km; 
 - for the distance from 100 to 200 km; 
 - for the distance over 200 km;  
b) for each sea, river or air craft.  
  
 
 
 
- Rub 2,000;  Rub 3,000; 
 Rub 4,000; 
-  Rub 1,000 for every 100 km, 
but not less than Rub 6,000; 
-  Rub 20,000 independently of 
the distance. 
Customs fees for the storage of goods in the customs warehouses or bonded warehouse; 
for the storage of certain types of  goods in the specially equipped 
warehouses. Rub 1 for every 100 kg of the 
weight of the goods per day; 
Rub 2 per 100 kg of the weight of 
goods per day. 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 623 
 
 
  Table 21 - Port Fees Used in Commercial Seaports of the Russian Federation by Group of Vessels 
Group of Vessels Vessels and floating facilities 
1 All vessels, except roll-on, float-on, container vessels and tankers 
2 Roll-on, bulk and container vessels 
3 Tankers  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 624  
 
  Table 22 - Port Fees Used in Commercial Seaports of the Russian Federation 
Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
 Rate, rub/1 GT 
North Basin
Arkhangelsk - Vessels with ice breaker type LU6, LU7 (under classification of Russian Sea 
Navigation Registry or their corresponding types of other classification societies) paid ice-breaker fee with coefficient 0.5; 
- Vessels, arriving to Severodvinsk from the sea or departing from Severodvinsk to the 
sea, paid ice-breaker fee accordin g to the rates of Arkhangelsk; 
- Vessels, arriving to Severodvinsk from the sea or departing from Severodvinsk to the 
sea were exempted from paying of navigation fee; 
- Ice-breaker fee in the period of winter navigation was paid by all vessels except 
science and surveying vessels, vessels on testing, vessels arriving to port due to threat 
to safety of the further travel, to life and health of the crew and passengers, without 
fulfilment of cargo and passenger operations in port; and 
- Vessels, arriving to Severodvinsk from the sea or departing from Severodvinsk to the 
sea, paid tonnage according to rates of Arkhangelsk. 
Tonnage fee  15.10 10.57 16.51 
Canal dues  16.58 11.61 18.24 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
1.15 
 
0.30  
0.81 
 
0.21  
1.27 
 
0.33 
Beaconage fee 1.25 0.88 1.37 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System  2.26 
1.10 1.58 
0.77 2.48 
1.21 
Ice breaker fee: 
11 May to 9 November 
10 November to 10 May  
10.90 
24.00  
7.63 
16.80  
11.95 
26.31 
Igarka Tonnage fee 15.10 10.57 16.51 
Kandalaksha Tonnage fee 5.50 3.85 6.01 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.75 
 
0.03  
0.53 
 
0.02  
0.82 
 
0.03 
Beaconage fee 1.22 0.85 1.34 
Mezen - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transporta tion of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 15.10 10.57 16.51 
Canal dues 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.77 
 
0.04  
0.54 
 
0.03  
0.84 
 
0.04 
Beaconage fee 1.19 0.83 1.30 
Murmansk Tonnage fee 5.50 3.85 6.01 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
0.44 
  
0.31 
  
0.48 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 625 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile. 0.08 0.06 0.09 
Beaconage fee 1.10 0.77 1.21 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 5.58 
0.77 3.91 
0.54 6.12 
0.84 
Naryan-Mar - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 15.10 10.57 16.51 
Canal dues  16.70 11.69 18.13 
Pilotage fee: Intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
Out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.88 
 
0.21  
0.61 
 
0.15  
0.95 
 
0.23 
Beaconage fee 1.26 0.88 1.37 
Onega Tonnage fee 15.10 10.57 16.51 
Canal dues  14.87 10.41 16.36 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
1.31 
 
0.31  
0.92 
 
0.22  
1.44 
 
0.34 
Beaconage fee 1.26 0.88 1.38 
Other ports of north basin Tonnage fee 8.05 5.64 8.80 
Pilotage fee: 
Intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
Out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.66 
 
0.12  
0.46 
 
0.09  
0.73 
 
0.13 
Beaconage fee 2.37 1.66 2.59 
Baltic Basin 
Vyborg - Vessels, arriving to Vyborg from Vusotsk, were exempted from payment of 
icebreaker fee. 
- From the 1 December to 30 April vessels with ice breaker type LU5, LU6 (under 
classification of Russian Sea Navigation Re gistry or their corresponding types of 
other classification societies) paid ic e-breaker fee with coefficient 0.75. 
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by:  - vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways of Russia or Saimaa 
Chanel and departing back within calendar year; 
 - vessels, arriving to port from another Russian part of the eastern part of 
Gulf of Finland; and 
 - vessels in transit, en route from th e sea to internal waterways of Russia or 
to Saimaa Chanel and back. 
Canal and pilotage fees were paid in full irre spective of the fact if the passenger and cargo 
operations or only transit through the port harborage were fulfilled.   
Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Canal dues: For vessels go towards and 
backwards from Saimaa 
Chanel. 7.50 
1.30 5.25 
0.91 8.22 
1.43 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one  
0.69  
0.48  
0.76 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 626  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
operation; 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile; and 
for vessels go towards and 
backwards from Saimaa Chanel.  
0.29 
 
0.17  
0.20 
 
0.12  
0.32 
 
0.19 
Beaconage fee 1.10 0.77 1.21 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System; and including vessels go 
towards and backwards 
from Saimaa Chanel. 0.42 
0.20 0.29 
0.14 0.46 
0.22 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 May to 30 November 
1 December to 30 April  
5.50 
13.70  
3.85 
9.59  
6.03 
15.02 
Vysotsk - Icebreaker fee was not paid by vessels arriving to Vysotsk from Vyborg.  
- From the 1 December to 30 April, vessels with ice brea ker type LU5, LU6 (under 
classification of Russian Sea Navigation Re gistry or their corresponding types of 
other classification societies) paid ic e-breaker fee with coefficient 0.75. 
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by: 
 - vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways of Russia or Saimaa 
Chanel and departing back within calendar year; 
 - vessels, arriving to port from another Russian part of the eastern part of 
Gulf of Finland; and 
 - vessels in transit, en route from th e sea to internal waterways of Russia or 
to Saimaa Chanel and back. 
Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Canal dues  2.57 1.80 3.90 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile  
0.62 
 
0.28  
0.43 
 
0.20  
0.68 
 
0.31 
Beaconage fee 1.09 0.76 1.20 
Navigation due 4.67 3.27 5.12 
Including Vessel Traffic Management System 2.00 1.40 2.19 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 May to 30 November 
1 December to 30 April  
5.50 
13.70  
3.85 
9.59  
6.03 
15.02 
Saint Petersburg - Vessels, transporting sand from the sea the Gulf of Finland in the Grand Port of St. 
Petersburg and the Passenger Port of St. Petersburg, was paid port charges at a rate 
of 0.5. 
- Vessels in route to internal waterways and back with stoppage in port for carrying 
of port formalities by authorities without fulfilment of passenger and cargo 
operations of commercial nature, were co nsidered as vessels in transit.   
- From the 1 December to 30 April vessels  with ice breaker type LU5, LU6 (under 
classification of Russian Sea Navigation Re gistry or their corresponding types of 
other classification societies) paid ic e-breaker fee with coefficient 0.75. 
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by:  - vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways of Russia or Saimaa 
Chanel and departing back within calendar year;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 627 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
 - vessels, arriving to port from another Russian part of the eastern part of 
Gulf of Finland; and 
 - vessels in transit, en route from th e sea to internal waterways of Russia or 
to Saimaa Chanel and back. 
- For the calculation of port dues ships calling at Passenger Port of St. Petersburg 
and in transit Grand Port of St. Petersburg, were exempted from payment of port 
charges in the Grand Port of St. Petersburg, with the exception of pilotage fees, 
and pay port charges in the passenger port of St. Petersburg. 
- Vessels entering the Grand Port of St . Petersburg and in transit through the 
Passenger Port of St. Petersburg, were exempted from payment of port charges to 
the passenger port of St. Petersburg, with  the exception of pilotage fees, port 
charges paid in the Grand Port of St. Petersburg. 
- For passenger ships, as second entry to th e port is considered any entry during a 
calendar year after the first entry to any of the mentioned ports. 
- Vessels, following from inland waterways through the Grand Port of St. 
Petersburg, Passenger Port of St. Petersbu rg and back with a stop at the port for 
port formalities, not involved in the port in freight and passenger operations, paid separately for tonnage for entering the po rt and exit from the port by a coefficient 
of 0.25. 
- Tonnage fee was paid in full irrespec tive of the fact of carrying cargo and 
passenger operations.  
Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 1.47 
Canal dues  4.94 3.46 1.76 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.64 
 
0.09  
0.45 
 
0.07  
0.25 
 
0.04 
Beaconage fee 0.75 0.53 0.29 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System. 5.23 
1.55 3.66 
1.09 2.02 
0.60 
Environmental fee 2.46 1.72 0.95 
Ice breaker fee: 1 May to 30 November  
5.50  
3.85  
2.12 
Primorsk - From the 1 December to 30 April ve ssels with ice breaker type LU5, LU6 (under 
classification of Russian Sea Navigation Re gistry or their corresponding types of 
other classification societies) paid ic e-breaker fee with coefficient 0.75. 
- From the 1 May to the 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by:  - vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways of Russia or Saimaa 
Chanel and departing back within calendar year; 
 - vessels, arriving to port from another Russian part of the eastern part of 
Gulf of Finland; and 
 - vessels in transit, en route from th e sea to internal waterways of Russia or 
to Saimaa Chanel and back. 
Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.51 
 
0.10  
0.36 
 
0.07  
0.56 
 
0.11 
Beaconage fee 0.64 0.45 0.70 
Navigation due: 5.90 4.13 6.47 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 628  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System. 1.55 1.09 1.70 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 May to 30 November 
1 December to 30 April  
5.50 
13.70  
3.85 
9.59  
6.03 
15.02 
Ust-Luga - From the 1 December to 30 April ve ssels with ice breaker type LU5, LU6 (under 
classification of Russian Sea Navigation Re gistry or their corresponding types of 
other classification societies) paid ic e-breaker fee with coefficient 0.75. 
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by: 
 - vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways of Russia or Saimaa 
Chanel and departing back within calendar year; 
 - vessels, arriving to port from another Russian part of the eastern part of 
Gulf of Finland; and 
 - vessels in transit, en route from th e sea to internal waterways of Russia or 
to Saimaa Chanel and back. 
For calculation of all types of fees gross capacity of roll-on vessels, used for transportation of railway stock, was multiplied by coefficient 0.4. 
Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Canal dues  3.55 2.49 3.91 
Pilotage fee: 
Intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and Out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.71 
 
0.15  
0.50 
 
0.11  
0.78 
 
0.17 
Beaconage fee 2.90 2.03 3.18 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 3.77 
1.09 2.64 
0.76 4.13 
1.19 
Ice breaker fee: 1 May to 30 November 1December to 30 April  
5.50 
13.70  
3.85 9.59  
6.03 
15.02 
Kaliningrad - Discount was provided to the vessels, not on routes, established in prescribed 
order, for tonnage and navigation fees on arrival in port within calendar year: 
 - 11 - 15 arrival (10%);  - 16 - 20 arrival (15%); and 
 - starting from 21 arrival( 20%). 
- Russian fishing vessels, fishing in Baltic sea in territorial or internal waters of the 
Russian Federation, with length less than 35.0 m. were exempted from payment of 
port fees.  
- Russian vessels on routes for fishing (from fishing) were paying fees on cabotage 
rates with coefficient of 0.6. 
- For vessels in transit, navigation fees were collected with coefficient of 0.5. 
- Cargo vessels on transfer of goods through Kaliningrad bay were exempted from 
payment of navigation, beaconage and sanitary fees; canal, tonnage and pilotage 
fees were collected with coefficient 0.3. 
- Maintenance and service vessels, providi ng services to vessels on raid without 
entering the port, were paying canal, navigation and beaconage fees with 
coefficient 0.35, pilotage fe e with coefficient - 0.5. 
- Sport and small vessels with length up to 20 m. were paying pilotage fee in the 
amount of 1000,0 rubles for every pilotage ; with length exceedin g 20 m. - 1500,0 
rubles. 
- Passenger vessels were paying port fees in full amount.  
- Roll-on and bulk vessels, going to (from) harborage N 3 and N 4 of Baltiysk, were  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 629 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
exempted from paying canal fee. 
Tonnage fee  3.45 2.76 1.04 
Canal dues       10.94 8.75 3.28 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.                 
0.30 
 
0.07  
0.24 
 
0.05  
0.10 
 
0.03 
Beaconage fee  1.05 0.84 0.32 
Navigation due               
(Vessel Traffic 
Management System)             4.71 3.77 1.41 
Environmental fee  2.64 2.11 0.79 
Other port of 
Baltic Basin Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.47 
 
0.10  
0.33 
 
0.07  
0.52 
 
0.11 
Beaconage fee 2.37 1.66 2.59 
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Eisk Tonnage fee 5.39 3.77 5.89 
 Canal dues  7.65 5.36 8.39 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; out-of-port pilotage per 
mile; and 
pilotage in the Sea of Azov to the port of Eisk, per one 
operation  
0.57 
 
0.12 
 
2.85  
0.40 
 
0.09 
 
2.00  
0.63 
 
0.13 
 
3.14 
Beaconage fee 1.10 0.77 1.21 
Ice breaker fee 9.76 6.83 10.74 
Kavkaz - For calculation of all types of fees  gross capacity of roll-on vessels, used for 
transportation of railway stock, was multiplied by coefficient 0.4. 
- Vessels, entering the port and on transit without carrying passenger and cargo 
operations was paying necessary can al and pilotage fees in full. 
Tonnage fee 4.30 3.01 4.70 
Canal dues: 
Fairways No. 50 and No. 52 of Kerch Strait 3.80 
2.17 2.66 
1.52 4.18 
2.38 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
Fairways No. 50 and No. 52 
of Kerch Strait, per one mile.  
1.54 
 
0.11  
1.08 
 
0.08  
1.70 
 
0.12 
Beaconage fee 2.15 1.51 2.36 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System, Fairways No. 50 and No. 52 
of Kerch Strait 4.62 
0.26 3.23 
0.18 5.06 
0.29 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 630  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
Novorossiysk Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.39 
 
0.11  
0.27 
 
0.08  
0.43 
 
0.12 
Beaconage fee 1.32 0.92 1.45 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 8.90 
0.57 6.23 
0.40 9.76 
0.62 
Sochi Tonnage fee 6.25 4.38 6.83 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.71 
 
0.25  
0.50 
 
0.18  
0.78 
 
0.28 
Beaconage fee 0.90 0.63 0.99 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 3.70 
0.57 2.60 
0.40 4.07 
0.62 
Taganrog Tonnage fee 6.12 4.29 6.74 
Canal dues 7.21 5.05 7.90 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; 
out-of-port pilotage per mile; and 
pilotage in the Sea of Azov, 
per one operation             
1.07 
 
0.20 
 
7.29  
0.75 
 
0.14 
 
5.10  
1.18 
 
0.22 
 
8.02 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 3.49 
1.00 2.44 
0.70 3.83 
1.10 
Beaconage fee 0.84 0.59 0.93 
Environmental fee 3.78 2.65 4.14 
Ice breaker fee: 11 December to 15 March  
19.86  
13.90  
21.77 
Azov, Rostov-na-Donu - Vessels, entering the port and on transit without carrying passenger and cargo 
operations was paying neces sary canal fees in full; 
- Vessels, arriving to port of Rostov-na-Donu and transiting through the port of 
Azov, were exempted from paying port fees in the port of Azov and pay fees in port of Rostov-na-Donu; 
- Vessels, arriving to port of Azov and transiting through the port of Rostov-na-
Donu, were exempted from paying port fees in the port of Rostov-na-Donu and 
pay fees in port of Azov; and 
- Vessels, arriving from internal waterways to the ports of Azov and Rostov-na-
Donu and back, carrying cargo operations in ports, paid navigation and beaconage 
fees separately for arrival to and leavin g from the port with coefficient 0.5. 
Tonnage fee 5.39 3.77 5.93 
Canal dues  6.05 4.24 6.66 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and out-of-port 
pilotage per mile  
0.49 
 
0.12  
0.34 
 
0.09  
0.54 
 
0.15  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 631 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
Navigation due 4.55 3.19 5.01 
Beaconage fee 0.85 0.59 0.93 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 December to 31 March  
28.27  
19.79  
31.10 
Temruk - For calculation of all types of fees gross capacity of roll-on vessels, used for 
transportation of railway stock, was multiplied by coefficient 0.4. 
Tonnage fee 4.30 3.01 4.70 
Canal dues 4.59 3.21 5.03 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
1.46 
 
0.11  
1.02 
 
0.08  
1.61 
 
0.12 
Beaconage fee 1.08 0.76 1.18 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic Management System 2.20 
0.25 1.54 
0.18 2.42 
0.27 
Tuapse Tonnage fee 4.05 2.84 4.43 
Canal dues 0.46 0.32 0.50 
Beaconage fee 1.26 0.88 1.38 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 9.27 
1.68 6.49 
1.18 10.16 
1.84 
Gelenghik, Anapa Tonnage fee 2.10 1.47 2.30 
Pilot fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.37 
 
0.10  
0.26 
 
0.07  
0.41 
 
0.11 
Beaconage fee 1.32 0.92 1.45 
Other ports of Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.40 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.33 
 
0.09  
0.23 
 
0.07  
0.36 
 
0.10 
Beaconage fee 2.37 1.66 2.59 
Caspian basin 
Astrakhan - Vessels, entering the port and on transit without carrying passenger and cargo 
operations paid necessary canal and pilotage fees in full.  Vessels, arrived in port 
from inland waterways and going back to the inland waterways in the river ports, 
paid tonnage fee with a coefficient 0.5. 
- Vessels, arriving from Olya were exempted from payment of icebreaker fee.  
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by: 
 - vessels, going from the Caspian Sea to internal waterways of Russia and 
back without carrying cargo operations in port; and 
 - fishing fleet vessels. - From the 1 December to 28 February vessels with ice breaker type LU3 and higher 
(under classification of Russian Sea Navigation Registry or their corresponding 
types of other classification societies) pa id ice-breaker fee w ith coefficient 0.75. 
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
- No navigation fee was paid by vessels: WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 632  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
 - within the limits of Streletskoe - 0 km of the Volga-Caspian Sea 
navigation canal (VCSNC) entering/leaving (from) harborage of the 
seaport Astrakhan from (in) adjacent  water objects (horns, feeders); and 
 - passing the seaport of Astrakhan from adjacent water objects (from one 
horn to another). 
- No fees were paid by vessels, maintaining means of navigation support for 
navigating safety.  
- No fees were paid by vessels, following from internal waterways to port of Olya 
and going back to internal waterways. 
Tonnage fee 8.60 6.02 9.40 
Canal dues 16.97 11.88 18.60 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.63 
 
0.05  
0.44 
 
0.04  
0.69 
 
0.06 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic Management System 4.56 
2.35 3.19 
1.65 5.02 
2.58 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 May to 30 November 
1 December to 28(29) February  
3.80 
19.39  
2.66 
13.57  
4.17 
21.26 
Olya - Vessels, arriving to port from internal waterways and going back to internal 
waterways into river ports, paid tonnage fee with coefficient 0.5. 
- Vessels, arriving from Astrakhan were ex empted from payment of icebreaker fee. 
- From the 1 May to 30 November no ice breaker fee was paid by: 
 - vessels, going from the Caspian Sea to internal waterways of Russia and 
back without carrying cargo operations in port; and 
 - fishing fleet vessels. 
- From the 1 December to 28 February vessels with ice breaker type LU3 and higher 
(under classification of Russian Sea Navigation Registry or their corresponding 
types of other classification societies) pa id ice-breaker fee w ith coefficient 0.75. 
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
- No port fees were paid by Russian fishing fleet vessels, training vessels, vessels 
purposed for performing state functions, maintenance vessels, Russian military vessels, hospital vessels, ice-breakers, hy dro-graphic vessels, coastal recreation 
vessels, working in waters of Volga-Caspian sea navigation canal and adjacent 
water objects (horns, feeders), not entering the port of Olya and not leaving to Astrakhan sea raid and back. 
- Tonnage fee from barge tugboats was collected on the sum of gross capacity of all 
elements of consisting floating objects in one single journey only for entry and 
exit from port, in which cargo operations were performed.  If the towing vessel, 
due to objective circumstances, might not submit to the dock at the same time 
more than one object, the t onnage fee is charged with th e tug for entry to and exit 
from the port only for the first object being towed. 
Tonnage fee 8.60 6.02 9.40 
Canal dues 10.18 7.13 11.16 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per  
0.60 
 
0.05  
0.42 
 
0.04  
0.66 
 
0.06  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 633 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
mile. 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 4.24 
0.29 2.97 
0.20 4.67 
0.32 
Ice breaker fee: 1 March to 30 November 
1 December to 28(29) February  
1.90 
 
9.69  
1.33 
 
6.78  
2.08 
 
10.62 
Other ports of 
Caspian basin Tonnage fee 8.60 6.02 9.43 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.53 
 
0.28  
0.37 
 
0.20  
0.58 
 
0.31 
Arctic and Far Eastern basin 
Anadyr - Vessels, arriving to the port from the rivers of the Russian Federation and leaving 
back, were paying port fees acco rding to rates of the cabotage. 
Tonnage fee 11.70 8.19 12.79 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
1.21 
 
0.55  
0.85 
 
0.39  
1.33 
 
0.61 
Beaconage fee 1.06 0.74 1.16 
Navigation due 1.64 1.15 1.81 
Aleksandrovsk-Sakhalinsk - Tonnage, beaconage, pilotage and navigation fees were also collected in points 
referred to the port of  Aleksandrovsk-Sakhalinsk (transshipment complexes), timber shipment points, and temporary points of shipment of goods according to 
rates, established for the por t of Aleksandrovsk-Sakhalinsk. 
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 6.26 4.38 6.86 
Boshnyakovo - Pilotage fee does not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 6.26 4.38 6.86 
Vanino - Passenger roll-on vessels, performing on the route Vanino-Holmsk-Vanino, 
established in the prescribed order, paid the tonnage fee only on the first entry to the port and exit from the port on e time within one calendar year. 
- No ice breaker fee was paid by vessels with ice breaker type LU3 and higher WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 634  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
(under classification of Russian Sea Navigation Registry or their corresponding 
types of other classification societies).  
- Tonnage fee was collected in adjacent to  port of Vanino transshipment complexes, 
timber shipment points and temporary points of timber shipment according to rates 
established for port of Vanino. 
Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation.  
1.12  
0.78  
1.23 
Beaconage fee 0.66 0.46 0.72 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic Management System 6.46 
0.67 4.52 
0.47 7.11 
0.73 
Environmental fee 1.50 1.05 1.64 
Ice breaker fee: 
1 April to 31 December 
1 January to 31 March  
0.55 
2.18  
0.39 
1.53  
0.60 
2.39 
Vladivostok Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.38 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.63 
 
0.48  
0.44 
 
0.34  
0.69 
 
0.53 
Beaconage fee 0.66 0.46 0.72 
Navigation due: Including Vessel Traffic Management System 6.80 
2.25 4.76 
1.58 7.45 
2.47 
Environmental fee 1.82 1.27 2.00 
Handling 
Complexes 
Bolshoy Kamen, Chazhma of the 
port of 
Vladivostok Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.38 
Vostochniy Tonnage fee 3.35 2.35 3.66 
Canal dues      1.16 0.81 1.27 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
1.42 
 
0.30  
0.99 
 
0.21  
1.56 
 
0.33 
Beaconage fee 0.82 0.57 0.90 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 8.70 
2.25 6.09 
1.58 9.54 
2.47 
Environmental fee 3.36 2.35 3.68 
De-Kastri Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation   
0.99  
0.69  
1.09 
Beaconage fee 0.40 0.28 0.44 
Navigation due 6.33 4.43 6.96 
Korsakov - Tonnage, beaconage, pilotage and navigation fees were collected in points  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 635 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
(transshipment complexes) adjacent to port Korsakov, timber shipment points and 
temporary timber shipment points, regi ons of sea surveillance, extraction and 
shipment of hydrocarbon on the seabed of Sakhalin island on rates, established for 
port of Korsakov.  
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.92 
 
0.19  
0.64 
 
0.14  
1.01 
 
0.21 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 4.00 2.80 4.39 
Handling complex "Vityaz" of the port 
Korsakov - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation.  
0.58  
0.41  
0.64 
Beaconage fee 0.54 0.38 0.59 
Navigation due 2.19 1.53 2.40 
Krasnogorsk - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 6.26 4.38 6.86 
Magadan - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
- Ice breaker was paid all year long. 
- No ice breaker fee was paid by the following:  
 - vessels, providing local transpor tation of goods along the coast; and 
 - fishing fleet vessels, except cases, when they were included in convoys 
for ice breaking pilotage or transport goods, that do not refer to water 
biological resources. 
- No vessel types were exempted from payment of ice breaker fee. 
Tonnage fee 13.24 9.27 14.57 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
1.43 
 
0.11  
1.00 
 
0.08  
1.57 
 
0.12 
Beaconage fee 1.18 0.83 1.29 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 9.75 
4.12 6.83 
2.88 10.73 
4.53 
Environmental fee 4.10 2.87 4.51 
Ice breaker fee 42.50 29.75 46.59 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 636  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
Nahodka Tonnage fee 5.76 4.03 6.30 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
1.11 
 
0.19  
0.78 
 
0.13  
2.11 
 
0.21 
Beaconage fee 0.82 0.57 0.90 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 8.70 
2.25 6.09 
1.58 9.54 
2.47 
Environmental fee 3.36 2.35 3.68 
Nikolaevsk-na-Amure Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Canal dues 0.00 0.00 0.00 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
1.21 
 
0.21  
0.85 
 
0.15  
1.33 
 
0.23 
Beaconage fee 0.15 0.11 0.16 
Navigation due 7.20 5.04 7.90 
Handling 
Complex Mys 
Lazareva of the 
port Nikolaevsk-
na-Amure Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation.  
0.86  
0.60  
0.94 
Beaconage fee 0.18 0.13 0.20 
Navigation due 6.78 4.75 7.43 
Port Olga and Handling 
complexes 
Platun, Svetlaya, Rudnaya Pristan   Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.38 
Beaconage fee 0.66 0.46 0.72 
Navigation due 3.83 2.68 4.20 
Pevek Tonnage fee 11.70 8.19 12.79 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile. 0.40 
0.27 0.28 
0.19 0.44 
0.30 
Beaconage fee 1.06 0.74 1.16 
Navigation due 0.90 0.63 0.99 
Petropavlovsk-
Kamchatskiy - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.50 
 
0.25  
0.35 
 
0.18  
0.55 
 
0.27 
Beaconage fee 0.63 0.44 0.70 
Poronaysk - Tonnage, beaconage, pilotage and navigation fees were collected in points 
(transshipment complexes) adjacent to port  Poronaysk, timber shipment points and 
temporary timber shipment points, regions of sea surveillance on the seabed of 
Sakhalin island on rates, established for port of Poronaysk. 
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 637 
 
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 3.15 2.21 3.45 
Port Posiet, 
Handling 
complex 
Slavyanka, port Zarubino Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.38 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and  
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.75 
 
0.21  
0.53 
 
0.15  
0.82 
 
0.23 
Beaconage fee 0.97 0.68 1.06 
Navigation due: 
Including Vessel Traffic 
Management System 5.70 
2.25 3.99 
1.58 6.25 
2.47 
Prigorodnoe Tonnage fee   6.75 4.73 7.38 
Navigation due 
(Vessel Traffic 
Management System) 0.98 0.69 1.08 
Provideniya Tonnage fee   11.70 8.19 12.79 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
1.42 
 
0.58  
1.00 
 
0.41  
1.56 
 
0.64 
Beaconage fee   1.06 0.74 1.16 
Environmental fee   1.86 1.30 2.04 
Navigation due   2.13 1.49 2.34 
Sovetskaya 
Gavan - Tonnage fee was also collected in points (transshipment complexes) adjacent to 
port Sovetskaya Gavan, timber shipment points and temporary timber shipment 
points, regions of sea surveillance on rates, established for port of Sovetskaya Gavan. 
Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation.  
1.57  
1.10  
1.73 
Beaconage fee 0.40 0.28 0.44 
Navigation due 6.10 4.27 6.71 
Tonnage fee 3.75 2.63 4.10 
Uglegorsk - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 4.30 3.01 4.71 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 638  
 
  Port Type of fee  All vessels, except 
roll-on, float-on, 
container vessels 
and tankers  Roll-on, bulk 
and container 
vessels  Tankers  
Holmsk - Passenger roll-on vessels, performing on the route Vanino-Holmsk-Vanino, 
established in the prescribed order, paid the tonnage fee only on the first entry to 
the port and exit from the port on e time within one calendar year. 
- Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Canal dues  0.00 0.00 0.00 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee   0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due   3.79 2.66 4.16 
Shahtersk - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.82 
 
0.16  
0.57 
 
0.11  
0.90 
 
0.18 
Beaconage fee 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Navigation due 0.77 0.54 0.84 
Egvekinot Tonnage fee 11.70 8.19 12.79 
Pilotage fee: intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and out-of-port pilotage per 
mile.  
0.90 
 
0.41  
0.63 
 
0.29  
0.99 
 
0.45 
Beaconage fee 1.06 0.74 1.16 
Navigation due 2.13 1.49 2.34 
Moskalkovo - Pilotage fee did not include payment for transportation of the pilot on board and 
off board. 
Tonnage fee 9.00 6.30 9.84 
Beaconage fee 1.31 0.92 1.44 
Other ports of Arctic and Far 
Eastern basin Tonnage fee 6.75 4.73 7.38 
Pilotage fee: 
intra-port pilotage, per one 
operation; and 
out-of-port pilotage per mile.  
0.57 
 
0.19  
0.40 
 
0.13  
0.62 
 
0.21 
Beaconage fee 2.37 1.66 2.59 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 639 
 
 
  Port Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
for vessel being 
alongside, with load 
handling operations 
carried out 
(US$) for all other cases 
(US$) (US$) 
4. Wharfage 
 
 Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity for each day of vessel being alongside.  
 The wharfage dues are collected from vessels staying alongside the berth.  For the vessels of groups "A", 
"B" and "H" wharfage dues are charged per 1 m
3 of the conventional volume of the vessel for each day of 
the vessel's stay alongside the berth. The time of stay at a berth is rounded off upward to one-half of the 
day. 
  For the vessels of groups "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G" berth dues are charged per 1m
3 of the conventional 
volume for each call. 
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk  
- for bulk-carriers  0.0022 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers 0.0045 0.0015  
Sochi 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Taganrog 0.0063 0.0021 0.0044 
Tuapse  
- for bulk-carriers 0.0021 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers  0.0042 0.0014  
Other ports 0.0040 0.0014 0.0044 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0051 0.0017 0.0040 
Vysotsk 0.0056 0.0019 0.0040 
Kaliningrad 0.0070 0.0023 0.0040 
Saint Petersburg 0.0031 0.0010 0.0040 
Other ports 0.0040 0.0013 0.0040 
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0062 0.0021 0.0050 
Kandalaksha 0.0180 0.0060 0.0050 
Murmansk 0.0049 0.0016 0.0050 
Naryan-Mar 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Tiksi 0.0072 0.0024 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0100 0.0033 0.0050 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0079 0.0027 0.0070 
Vanino 0.0046 0.0015 0.0060 
Vladivostok 0.0054 0.0018 0.0060 
Vostochny 0.0130 0.0043 0.0060 
Korsakov 0.0190 0.0063 0.0060 
Magadan 0.0056 0.0018 0.0070 
Nakhodka 0.0049 0.0016 0.0060 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0148 0.0049 0.0060 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0184 0.0061 0.0060 
Pevek 0.0113 0.0038 0.0070 
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 0.0121 0.0040 0.0070 
Posyet 0.0113 0.0038 0.0060 
Provideniya 0.0068 0.0024 0.0070 
Kholmsk 0.0190 0.0063 0.0070 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 640  
 
  Port Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
for vessel being 
alongside, with load 
handling operations 
carried out 
(US$) for all other cases 
(US$) (US$) 
Egvekinot 0.0103 0.0034 0.0070 
Other ports 0.0097 0.0032 0.0060 
Caspian basin 
Astrakhan 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Makhachkala 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0146 0.0048 0.0044 
5. Anchor dues 
 
 Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity for each hour of anchorage in the outer 
or inner harbour in excess of 12 hours.  Incomplete ho ur of anchorage shall be considered as a complete 
hour of anchorage. 
Black Sea - Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.0001 Taganrog 0.0001 
Sochi 0.0001 Tuapse 0.0001 
  Other ports 0.0001 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0001 Kaliningrad 0.0001 
Vysotsk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Saint Petersburg 0.0001   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0001 Naryan-Mar 0.0001 
amuerma 0.0001 Onega 0.0001 
Kandalaksha 0.0001 Tiksi 0.0001 
Mezen 0.0001 Kh atanga 0.0001 
Murmansk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0001 Pevek 0.0001 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin 0.0001 Provideniya 0.0001 
Beringovskiy 0.0001 Petropavlovsk-
Kamchatskiy 0.0001 
Boshnyakovo 0.0001 Poronaysk 0.0001 
Vladivostok 0.0001 Posyet 0.0001 
Vostochny 0.0001 Uglegorsk 0.0001 
Vanino 0.0001 Ust-Kamchatsk 0.0001 
Krasnogorsk 0.0001 Kholmsk 0.0001 
Magadan 0.0001 Shakhtyorsk 0.0001 
Nakhodka 0.0001 Egvekinot 0.0001 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0001   
Caspian basin 
Makhachkala 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Astrakhan 0.0001   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 641 
 
 
  Table 23 - State Duties 
Service rendered/type of Fees and Charges Rates applied 
For committing notary actions by the notaries of the 
State notary's offices or by  official persons of the 
executive power bodies, the bodies of local 
self-government and of the consular institutions 
authorised for this and also for their compiling the drafts of the documents and issuing the copies and 
duplicates of the documents, the State duty shall be 
levied in the following amounts
1:  
1. For the attestation of agreements the subject of 
which is subject to evaluation if such attestation is 
required pursuant to the Russian legislation; 0.5% of the value of the agreement but not less than 
Rub 300 and not more than Rub 20,000 
2. For the attestation of agency agreements; 0.5% of the amount of obligation undertaken but not 
less than Rub 200 and not more than Rub 20,000 
3. For the certification of other warrants; Rub 200 
4. For effecting a captain's protest; Rub 30,000  
5. For testifying to the correctness of a document's 
translation from one language into another;  
100 rubles per 1 page of the document's translation 
6. For accepting in de posit of moneys and securities if 
such acceptance is required by the Russian legislation; 0.5% of accepted monetary  sum or the value of 
securities, but not less than 20 rubles and not more than 20,000 rubles 
7. For testifying to the authenticity of the signature: 
- on applications and on other documents  
(with the exception of the bank cards); 
-  on bank cards (from every person and on 
every document);  
Rub 100  
 Rub 200  
8. for the issue of duplicates of the documents, kept 
in the cases of the State notary's offices, executive 
power bodies and consular institutions; Rub 100  
For licensing of commercial activity connected with internal sale of some specific goods: 
1. Purchase, storage and delivery of alcohol 
products; ethyl alcohol, alcohol and spirit-based 
products; Rub 500,000 
 
 
                                                      
1 Not obligatory for the importation of goods into the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 642  
 
  Table 24 - Consular Fees 
Documents and acts, 
for which consular fees are collected Rates applied (US$) 
Fees for certification and notarization of documents 
For certification of each document 30 
Power of attorney notarization 
For power of attorney authorizing the use and 
command of property, including motor vehicles, as 
well as carrying out the lending operations:  60 
For confirming other powers claimed by an individual 20 
For notarization of: 
Agreements subject to evaluation: 5% of the amount specified in the agreement, but no 
less than US$10 
For authentication of signature: 10 
For authentication of copies of instruments and extracts from instruments 15 
For authentication of Photostats: 6 
For issuing the extracts from, or copies of, instruments 
kept in the files of consular offices (for one page) 15 
 Minimum fee for this act: 
30 
For making an executive inscription 2% of the collected amount, but no less than US$5.  
 Translation with simultaneous notarization of its 
correctness for each page: 
 For translations from foreign 
languages into Russian 20 
 For translations from Russian into 
foreign languages 35 
 For certification of correctness of a 
translation made without 
participation of consular office for each page 15 
 For typing the documents 5 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 643 
 
 
  Table 25 - Excise Taxes (rates in force in 2010) 
Types of excisable goods Tax rate 
(since the 1 January till the 
31 December 2010 inclusive) 
1. Ethyl alcohol made of all types of raw materials  Rub 30.50 per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
2. Alcohol containing perfumery cosmetic goods in metal 
aerosol packing Rub 0 per 1 litre of absolute ethyl alcohol 
3. Alcohol containing household chemical goods in metal 
aerosol packing Rub 0 per 1 litre of absolute ethyl alcohol 
4. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol 
over 9% (except for natural wines) and alcohol 
containing products (except for cosmetic perfumery 
goods and household chemical goods in metal packing) Rub 210.00 per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
5. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol up 
to 9% inclusive (except for natural wines) Rub 158.00 per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
6. Champagne and sparkling wines Rub 14.00 per 1 litre 
7. Natural wines (except for sparkling and champagne) Rub 3.50 per 1 litre 
8. Beer with normative (stand ard) volume of fraction of 
ethyl alcohol up 0.5% inclusive Rub 0 per 1 litre 
9. Beer with normative (stand ardized) volume of fraction 
of ethyl alcohol over 0.5% up to 8.6% inclusive Rub 9.00 per 1 litre 
10. Beer with normative (stand ardized) volume of fraction 
of ethyl alcohol over 8.6% Rub 14.00 per 1 litre 
11. Smoking and pipe tobacco, except for tobacco utilized as 
raw material to produce tobacco articles Rub 422.00 per 1 kg 
12. Cigars Rub 25.00 per 1 piece 
13. Cigarillos Rub 360.00 per 1,000 pieces 
14. Cigarettes with filter Rub 205 .00 per 1,000 pieces plus 6.5% 
15. Non-filter cigarettes, mouthpiece cigare ttes Rub 125.00 per 1,000 pieces plus 6.5% 
16. Cars with engine power up to 67.5 Kw (90 hp) inclusive Rub 0 per 0.75 kWh (1 hp) 
17  Cars with engine power up over 67.5 Kw (90 hp) and up 
to 112.5 Kw (150 hp) inclusive Rub 23.90 per 0.75 kWh (1 hp) 
18. Cars with engine power over 112.5 Kw (150 hp), 
motorcycles with engine power over 112.5 Kw (150 hp) Rub 235.00 per 0.75 kWh (1 hp) 
22. Virgin petrol Rub 4,290.00 per 1 tonne 
23. Oil for diesel and/or carburettors (injector) engines Rub 3,246.10 per 1 tonne 
 
Tax rates for motor gasoline and diesel fuel (since the 1 January till the 31 December 2010 inclusive): 
 
Types of excisable goods Tax rate 
Motor gasoline:  
Motor gasoline with octane value up to "80" inclusive Rub 2,923.00 per 1 tonne 
Motor gasoline with other octane values Rub 3,992.00 per 1 tonne 
Diesel fuel Rub 1,188.00 per 1 tonne 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 644  
 
  Table 26- List of Goods Exempt from VAT on the Territory of the Russian Federation 
1.  Major, vital medical equipment. 
2.  Prosthetic and orthopaedic items, raw materials an d articles for their manufacture and semi-finished 
products for such items. 
3.  Facilities, including motor vehicles, materials which may be used exclusively for disability prevention or 
the rehabilitation of the disabled. 
4.  Spectacles (except sunglasses), lenses and spectacle frames (except sunglasses frames) 
5.  Foodstuffs directly produced by student and school canteens, other educational establishments' canteens, 
medical organizations' and pre-school establishments' canteens, and sold in such establishments, and 
foodstuffs directly produced by public catering organizations and sold to such canteens or the establishments described. 
6.  Postage stamps (except collectable stamps), stamped postcards and envelopes, lottery tickets for lotteries 
held upon the decision of the authorised body. 
7.  Coins made of precious metals (except collectable  coins) constituting the currency of the Russian 
Federation or of foreign states. 
8.  Goods placed under the customs regime of duty-free shops. 
9.  Goods (works, services), except excisable goods an d excisable minerals, sold (performed, rendered) as 
part of the granting of free aid (assistance) by the Russian Federation under the Federal Law "On Free 
Aid (Assistance) of the Russian Federation and the Introduction of Amendments and Addenda to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Taxes and on Provision of Preferential Payment Terms in 
Respect of Payments to State No n-Budgetary Funds in Connection with Free Aid (Assistance) of the 
Russian Federation". 
10.  The sale of entrance tickets an d subscriptions for theatrical and sp ectator, cultural and entertainment 
events, amusements in zoos and culture and relaxatio n parks, excursion tickets and passes, the form of 
which has been approved in the established procedure as blank forms for which strict records are kept. 
11.  The sale of programmes at performances and concerts, catalogues and booklets. 
12.  The sale (transfer for personal need) of religious articles and religious literature (in accordance with 
the list approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by religious organizations (associations), produced and sold by religious or ganizations (associations), organizations owned by 
religious organizations (associations), and companies whose charter (reserve) capital consists entirely of 
contributions from religious organizations (associations ), as part of religious activities, except excisable 
goods and minerals, and the organization and holding by such organizations of religious rites, 
ceremonies, prayer meetings or other cult activities. 
13.  The sale (including the transfer, performance, rendering for personal needs) of goods (except excisable 
goods, minerals and mineral deposits, and other goods under the list to be approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by Russian public organizations of disabled persons), works, 
services (except brokers' and other in termediary services) produced and sold: 
 
- by public organizations of disabled persons (including those created as unions of public 
organizations of disabled persons), no less than 80% of Members of which are the disabled and their lawful representatives; 
- organizations whose charter capital consists entirely of contributions by the public organizations of 
disabled persons described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, if the number of disabled persons on the payroll constitutes no less than 50%, and their share in the salary fund no less than 
25%; 
- institutions, the sole owners of the property of  which are the public organizations of disabled 
persons described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, created for educational, cultural, 
therapeutic, physical exercise and sport, scientific, informational and other social purposes, and to 
render legal and other assistance to the disabled, disabled children and their parents;  
- health treatment (industrial) workshops in anti-tuberculosis, psychiatric, psycho-neurological 
institutions, public social protection or social rehabilitation establishments. 
14.  The sale of articles of folk craf t of recognised artistic value (excep t excisable goods), samples of which 
have been registered in the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 645 
 
 
  15.  The sale of ore, concentrates and other industrial products containing precious metals, scrap and waste 
from precious metals for the manufacture of precious metals and refining; the sale of precious metals and 
gems by taxpayers (except those described in Article 164:1:6 of the present Code) to the State Fund of Precious Metals and Gems of the Russian Federation, of gems for raw materials (except uncut diamonds) 
for treatment to enterprises, regardless of their forms of ownership, for subsequent sale for export; the 
sale of gems for raw materials and cut gems to specialized foreign economic organizations, the State 
Fund of Precious Metals and Gems, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and banks; the sale of 
precious metals from the State Fund of Precious Metals  and Gems of the Russian Federation to specialize 
foreign economic organizations, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and banks, and of precious 
metals in ingots by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and banks, provided that such ingots 
remain in one of the certified vaults (the State Vau lt of Valuables, the Vault of  the Central Bank of the 
Russian Federation or bank vaults). 
16.  The sale of uncut diamonds to refining enterprises of all forms of ownership. 
17.  The internal sale (transfer, performance, and rend ering for internal needs) by penitentiary system 
organizations and institutions of goods produced by such organizations and institutions (works 
performed, services rendered). 
18.  The charitable transfer of  goods (performance of works, rendering of services), free of charge under 
the Federal Law "On Charitable Activity and Charity Organizations', except excisable goods. 
19.  The sale of entrance tickets, the form of which has been approved as blank forms for which strict records 
are kept, by physical exercise and sport organizations for sport and spectator events held by such 
organizations; the rendering of services for the l easing of sports facilities for holding such events 
20.  The sale of home-grown produce of organizations engaged in producing agricultural products, the share 
of income from the sale of which in the total amount of revenue constitutes no less than 70%, as in-kind 
compensation, in-kind issuances for remuneration of labour, and for catering for employees engaged in 
the agricultural work. 
21.  Goods (works, services) for space activity. 
22.  Ferrous and non-ferrous scrap and waste  (Implemented by Federal Law No. 85-FZ of 17 May 2007). 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 646  
 
  Table 27 - List of Goods Taxed on the Territory of the Russian Federation at the VAT Rate of 10 Per 
Cent 
1. Foodstuffs: 
 
 livestock and poultry on a live weight basis; 
 meat and meat products (except gourmet products: tenderloin, veal, tongue, sausage goods - high 
quality smoked, high-quality smoked semi-dry, fre shly seasoned, high-quality stuffed; smoked 
pork, lamb, beef and veal products, poultry meat - balyk, carbonnade, neck, gammon, pastrami, 
sirloin; baked pork and beef; preserved foods - ham, bacon, carbonnade and jellied tongue); 
 milk and dairy products (including dairy i ce cream, except ice cream made from fruits and 
berries, fruit and edible ice); 
 eggs and egg products; 
 vegetable oil; 
 margarine; 
 sugar, including raw sugar; 
 salt; 
 grain, compound feed, feed mix, grain waste; 
 oilseeds and products of their processing (coarsely cut, oil cake); 
 bread and bakery products (including rich, rusk and roll articles); 
 cereal; 
 flour; 
 pasta; 
 live fish (except valuable species: white salm on, Baltic Sea and Far East salmon, sturgeon 
(beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet), salmon, trout (except sea trout), nelma, dog 
salmon, king salmon, coho salmon, muksun, omul, Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira); 
 seafood and fish products, including refrigerated, frozen fish and other types of processed fish, 
herring, conserves and preserves (except gourmet types:  caviar from sturgeon and salmon; white 
salmon, Baltic Sea salmon, sturgeon - beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet; salmon; nelma cold-smoked backs and flanks; dog salmon, king salmon lightly-salted, medium-salted 
and semuzh-pickled; backs of cold-smoked dog-salmon, king salmon and coho salmon, flanks of 
dog-salmon and flanks of cold-smoked king salmon; backs of cold-smoked muksun, omul, 
Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira; pickled canned fillet slices of Baltic Sea and Far East 
salmon; crabmeat and sets of cooked and frozen individual crab sticks; lobster); 
 baby and diabetic foodstuffs; 
 vegetables (including potatoes).  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 647 
 
 
  2. Children's goods: 
 
 knitwear articles for new-born babies and children of nursery, pre-school, junior and senior 
school age groups:  outer knitwear articles, clothing knitwear articles, legwear garments, other 
knitwear articles:  gloves, mittens, hats; 
 garments, including articles made from sheepskin and rabbit (including articles made from 
sheepskin and rabbit with leather pieces) for ne w-born babies and children of nursery, pre-
school, junior and senior school age groups, outer garments (including dresses and suits), underwear, headwear, clothing and articles for new-born babies and children of a nursery age.  
The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to garments made of natural leather and fur, except 
from sheepskin and rabbit; 
 footwear (except sport footwear):  bootees, pre- school, school; felt; rubber:  for nursery children, 
children's, school; 
 children's beds; 
 children's mattresses; 
 prams; 
 school exercise books; 
 toys; 
 plasticine; 
 pencil cases; 
 counting sticks; 
 school abacuses; 
 school diaries; 
 drawing books; 
 sketchbooks; 
 folders for exercise books; 
 covers for textbooks, di aries, exercise books; 
 cards containing figures and letters; 
 diapers. 
3. Periodical printed publications, except periodical printed publications of an advertising or erotic 
nature. 
4. Books connected to education, science and culture, except books of an advertising or erotic nature. 
5. Medical goods of domestic and foreign origin: 
medicines, including drug substances, including of internal pharmacy production; 
articles for medical use.  
6. Medical products that are imported on the territory of Russian Federation and are used for clinical 
researches (since the 1 January 2008). 
 
 According to the Article 164.2(4) of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation medical products 
that are imported on the territory of Russian Federation and are used for clinical studies are subject to the reduced excise tax rate (10 per cent) since 1 January 2008.   
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 648 Table 28 - Common List of Goods that are Subject to N on-Tariff Measures (came into force on 1 January 2010) 
Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
1. Goods which transportation through the customs border of the Customs Union is prohibited 
1.1 Ozone destroying substances  
 2903 14 000 0; 
2903 19 100 0; 
2903 41  - 2903 44; 2903 45 100 0 – 2903 45 550 0; 
2903 46 Import prohibition, all CU countries (except for 
goods in transit) In accordance with 
national legislation 
1.2 Hazardous wastes  Ex. 0511 99 100 0; 
Ex. 2106 90 980 3; 
Ex. 2524; 
Ex. 2620; Ex. 2621; 
Ex. 2706 00 000 0; 
2707 91 000 0; 2707 99; 
Ex. 2710; 
2713 20 000 0; Ex. 2713 90; 
Ex. 2714 90 000 0; 
Ex. 28; Ex. 29; 
Ex. 3006 92 000 0; 
Ex. 3101 00 000 0; Ex. 3802; 
Ex. 3808; 
Ex. 3811 11; Ex. 3824; 
Ex. 3825; 
Ex. 3915; 
Ex. 3923; 
Ex. 4013; Ex. 4017 00; 
Ex. 4101 – 4103; 
Ex. 4115 20 000 0; Ex. 4301; 
Ex. 4401 30; Import prohibition (including goods in transit), all 
CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 649Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex. 4415; 
Ex. 4707; 
Ex. 4819; Ex. 5701 90; 
Ex. 5702 32; 
Ex. 5702 42 000 0; Ex. 5702 52 100 0; 
Ex. 5702 52 200 0; 
Ex. 5702 92 100 0; Ex. 5702 92 900 0; 
Ex. 5703 20; 
Ex. 5703 30; Ex. 5705 00 300 0; 
6811 40 000 0; 
Ex. 6812; Ex. 7001 00 100 0; 
Ex. 7010; 
Ex. 7019; 
Ex. 7204; 
Ex. 7404 00; Ex. 7503 00; 
Ex.7602 00; 
Ex. 7802 00 000 0; Ex. 7902 00 000 0; 
Ex. 8002 00 000 0; 
Ex. 8101 97 000 0; Ex. 8102 97 000 0; 
Ex. 8103 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8104 20 000 0; Ex. 8104 90 000 0; 
Ex. 8105 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8106 00 100 0; Ex. 8107 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8108 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8109 30 000 0; Ex. 8110 20 000 0; 
Ex. 8111 00 190 0; 
Ex. 8112 13 000 0;  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 650 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex. 8112 22 000 0; 
Ex. 8112 52 000 0; 
Ex. 8112 92 100 0; Ex. 8112 92 200 1; 
Ex. 8112 92 200 9; 
Ex. 8113 00 400 0; Ex. 8539; 
Ex. 8540; 
Ex. 8548 10  
1.3 Printed information or information on 
audio-visual and other devices 
containing information which may cause 
damage to political or economic interests of the republic, to its state security, to the 
health and morality of its citizens Ex. 3706; 
Ex. 4901, ex. 4902; 
Ex. 4908; 
Ex. 4909 00; Ex. 4911; 
Ex. 4910 00 000 0; 
Ex. 8523 Import/export/transit prohib ition, all CU countrie s In accordance with 
national legislation 
1.4 Plant protection chemicals prohibited to 
be imported to the customs territory of 
the Customs Union subject to Annexes A 
and B of the Stockholm Convention on 
persistent polluting substances signed in 
Stockholm on 22 May 2001 2903 52 000 0; 
2903 59 800 0; 
2903 62 000 0; 
2903 69; 
2910 40 000 0; 
2910 90 000 0; 3808 50 000 0; 
3808 91 200 0; 
3824 82 000 0 Import prohibition, all CU countries (except for 
goods in transit) In accordance with 
national legislation 
1.5 Timber, recovered paper, paperboard and 
wastepaper  Ex. 4401 10 000 0; 
Ex. 4401 30; 
Ex. 4403 10 000 0 –  
4403 20; Ex. 4403 91 – 4403 99; 
4404; 
4406; 4407 10; 
4407 91; 
4407 99; 4408 10; 
4408 90; Export prohibition, Kazakh stan In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 651Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
4409; 
4418 40 000 0; 
Ex. 4418 60 000 0; Ex. 4418 90 800 0; 
4707 
1.6 Office or civil weapon, its main parts and 
cartridges Ex. 93 Import/export/transit prohibition, all CU countries 
(except for goods, subject to the export control system) In accordance with 
national legislation 
1.7 Implements for catch of aquatic 
biological resources 5608 11 190 0 
5608 11 990 0 
8543 20 000 0 Import prohibition, all CU c ountries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2. Goods which transportation through the customs border of the Customs Union is restricted 
2.1 Ozone destroying substances and 
products containing such substances 2903 39 110 0; 
Ex. 2903 49 100 0; 
Ex. 2903 49 300 0; 
Ex. 2903 49 800 0; Ex. 3824 71 000 0; 
Ex. 3824 72 000 0; 
Ex. 3824 74 000 0 – 3824 79 000 0; 
Ex. 3907 20 210 0; 
Ex. 3907 20 290; Ex. 3921 11 000 0 – 3921 19 000 0; 
8415 10; 
8415 81 00; 8415 82 000; 
Ex. 8418; 
Ex. 8419; Ex. 8479 89 970 1; 
Ex. 8479 89 970 9 Import licensing, all CU countries (except for goods 
in transit) In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.2 Plant protection chemicals Ex. 3808 Import li censing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.3 Hazardous wastes  Ex.0511 99 100 0; 
2307 00; 
Ex. 2520 10 000 0; 
Ex. 2530 90; 2618 00 000 0; 
2619 00; Import and/or export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 652 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2620; 
Ex. 2621 90 000 0; 
Ex. 28; Ex. 2907; 
Ex. 2908; 
Ex. 2926; Ex. 2929; 
Ex. 3206; 
Ex. 3208; Ex. 3212; 
Ex. 3504 00 000 0; 
Ex. 3802; Ex. 3824; 
Ex. 3825; 
Ex. 3912 20; Ex. 4004 00 000 0; 
Ex. 4012 20 000 0; 
Ex.4101 - 4103; 
Ex. 4115 10 000 0; 
Ex. 4115 20 000 0; Ex. 4301; 
Ex. 5003 00 000 0; 
Ex. 5103 20 100 0; Ex. 5202 10 000 0; 
Ex. 5505; 
Ex. 5601 30 000 0; Ex. 7112 30 000 0; 
Ex. 7112 99 000 0; 
Ex. 7204; Ex. 7404 00; 
Ex. 7503 00; 
Ex. 7602 00; Ex. 7802 00 000 0; 
Ex. 7902 00 000 0; 
Ex. 8002 00 000 0; Ex. 8101 97 000 0; 
Ex. 8102 97 000 0; 
Ex. 8103 30 000 0;  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 653Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex. 8104 20 000 0; 
Ex. 8105 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8106 00 100 0; Ex. 8107 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8108 30 000 0; 
Ex. 8109 30 000 0; Ex. 8110 20 000 0; 
Ex. 8111 00 190 0; 
Ex. 8112 13 000 0; Ex. 8112 22 000 0; 
Ex. 8112 52 000 0; 
Ex. 8112 92 200 9; Ex. 8113 00 400 0; 
Ex. 85 
2.4 Collectible materials in mineralogy and 
palaeontology Ex. 9601; 
9705 00 000 0 Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.5 Wild growing crude drug (plants, parts of 
plants, seeds, fruits) Ex. 1211; 
Ex. 1302 Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.6 Wild live animals and certain wild 
growing plants Ex. 01; 
Ex. 0301; Ex. 0306; 
Ex. 0307; 
Ex. 0407; 0802 90 500 0; 
1212 20 000 Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.7 Species of wild fauna and flora subject to 
the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and 
flora Ex. 0101 – 0106; 
Ex. 02; Ex. 0301; 
Ex. 0302; 
Ex. 0303; Ex. 0304; 
Ex. 0305; 
Ex. 0307; Ex. 0505; 
Ex. 0507; 
Ex. 0508 00 000 0; Ex. 0510 00 000 0; Export restriction, all CU countries (the goods 
included into this list are not subject to licensing and transported through the customs border of the CU 
members in accordance with the order established 
by the Convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora as of 
3 March 1973) In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 654 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex. 0511; 
Ex. 0601 – 0604; 
Ex. 1211; Ex. 3001; 
Ex. 1604; 
Ex. 4301; Ex. 4302; 
Ex. 4303; 
Ex. 6701 00 000 0; Ex. 9601; 
Ex. 9705 00 000 0 
2.8 Rare and endangered species of wild 
animals and wild growing plants and parts thereof and/or derivates inscribed in 
the "Red books" of the Republic of 
Belarus, Republic of Kazakhstan and Russian Federation Ex. 0101 – 0106; 
Ex. 0301; Ex. 0306; 
Ex. 0307; 
Ex. 0601 – 0604; Ex. 07; 
Ex. 1211; 
Ex. 1212; 
Ex. 20; 
Ex. 2102 Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.9 Precious metals and gems 2530 90 980 0; 
7101 10 000 0; 
Ex. 7102 21 000 0; 
7102 31 000 0; 7103 10 000 0; 
7103 91 000 0; 
7103 99 000 0; 7106; 
7108; 
7110 Export licensing, all CU countries (except for 
precious metals exported by the Central (National) 
Banks of the Customs Union states - members)    In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.10 Unprocessed precious metals, waste and 
scrap of precious metals, ores and 
concentrates of precious metals and 
commodities containing precious metals 2603 00 000 0; 
2604 00 000 0; 
2607 00 000 0; 
2608 00 000 0; 2609 00 000 0; 
2616; Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 655Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2617; 
2620 19 000 0; 
2620 21 000 0; 2620 29 000 0; 
2620 30 000 0; 
2620 91 000 0; 2620 99 100 0; 
2620 99 400 0; 
2620 99 950 1; 2620 99 950 2; 
2620 99 950 3; 
2620 99 950 9; 2621; 
7106 91; 
7108 12 000 0; 7110 11 000 0; 
7110 21 000 0; 
7110 31 000 0; 
7110 41 000 0; 
7112; 7401 00 000 0; 
7402 00 000 0; 
7501; 7801 99 100 0; 
2.11 Mineral raw materials (only untreated 
stones) 7103 10 000 0; 
2530 90 980 0 Export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.12 Drugs, substances with psychotropic 
effects and their precursors 1211 30 000 0; 
1211 40 000 0; 1211 90 980 0; 
1301 90 000 0; 
1302 11 000 0; 1302 19 800 0; 
2806 10 000 0; 
2905 51 000 0; 2921 46 000 0; 
2922 14 000 0; 
2922 19 800 0; Import and/or export licensing, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 656 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2922 29 000 0; 
2922 39 000 0; 
2922 44 000 0; 2922 49 950 0; 
2924 29 950 0; 
2932 91 000 0; 2932 92 000 0; 
2932 93 000 0; 
2932 94 000 0; 2932 95 000 0; 
2932 99 850 0; 
2933 32 000 0; 2933 33 000 0; 
2933 39 990 0; 
2933 53 900 0; 2933 55 000 0; 
2933 59 950 0; 
2933 72 000 0; 
2933 91 100 0; 
2933 91 900 0; 2933 99; 
2934 91 000 0; 
2934 99 900 0; 2939 11 000 0; 
2939 19 000 0; 
2939 41 000 0 -  2939 49 000 0; 
2939 51 000 0; 
2939 61 000 0; 2939 62 000 0; 
2939 63 000 0; 
2939 69 000 0; 2939 91 900 0; 
2939 99 000 0; 
3003; 3004; 
3824 90 980  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 657Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.13 Toxic substances except for precursors of 
the drugs and substances with 
psychotropic effects 
 Ex 1211 90 980 0 
Ex 1302 19 800 0 
Ex 2804 70 001 0 Ex 2804 80 000 0 
Ex 2805 40 
Ex 2811 29 900 0 Ex 2837 19 000 0 
Ex 2842 90 800 0 
Ex 2843 29 000 0 Ex 2848 00 000 0 
Ex 2852 00 000 9 
Ex 2905 11 000 0 Ex 2905 59 
Ex 2907 11 000 0 
Ex 2922 19 800 0 Ex 2924 19 000 0 
Ex 2926 90 950 0 
Ex 2930 90 850 0 
Ex 2931 00 950 0 
Ex 2933 39 990 0 Ex 2939 20 000 0 
Ex 2939 99 000 0 
Ex 3001 90 980 0 Ex 8112 51 000 0 Import/export licensing, all CU co untries  In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.14 Medicines and pharmaceutical  products Ex 21 06 90 980 3 
Ex 2106 90 980 9 
Ex 2904 - 2909 Ex 2912 – 2942 00 000 0 
Ex 2936 
Ex 3001 Ex 3002 
Ex 3004 
3006 30 000 0 3006 60 
Ex 3913 Import licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 658 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.15 Medicines used for veterinary purposes Ex 2922 41 000 0 
Ex 2922 49 
Ex 2930 40 Ex 2930 90 130 0 
Ex 2930 90 160 0 
Ex 2932 21 000 0 Ex 2936 
Ex 2937 
Ex 2938 Ex 2939 
Ex 2941 
Ex 3001 20 900 0 Ex 3001 90 980 0 
Ex 3002 
Ex 3003 Ex 3004 
Ex 3006 20 000 0 
Ex 3401  
Ex 3402 
Ex 3822 00 000 0 Ex 3808 50 
Ex 3808 91 
Ex 3808 92 Ex 3808 94 
Ex 3808 99 Import licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.16 Civil radio-electronic and/or high-
frequency means including built-in or forming part of other goods 
 Ex 8419 
Ex 8470 Ex 8471 
Ex 8514 
8516 50 000 0 Ex 8517 
Ex 8518 
Ex 8519 Ex 8521 
Ex 8525 
Ex 8526 Ex 8527 
Ex 8528 Import licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 659Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex 8531 
Ex 8540 
Ex 9018 Ex 9021 
Ex 9027 
2.17 Special devices for unauthorised 
obtaining of information Ex 8301 70 000 0 
Ex 8471  Ex 8505 90 100 0 
Ex 8517 61 000 
Ex 8517 62 000 Ex 8517 69 390 0 
Ex 8517 69 900 0 
Ex 8517 70 900 1 Ex 8518 30 950 0 
Ex 8518 40 
Ex 8519 81 500 0 Ex 8519 81 510 
Ex 8519 81 520 
Ex 8519 81 530 
Ex 8519 81 540 
Ex 8519 81 580 Ex 8519 89 900 0 
Ex 8521 
Ex 8523 51 Ex 8523 29 210 1 
Ex 8523 29 210 2 
Ex 8523 40 200 0 Ex 8523 40 400 0 
Ex 8523 40 700 1 
Ex 8523 51 700 1 Ex 8523 59 910 1 
Ex 8523 80 910 1 
Ex 8525 50 000 0 Ex 8525 60 000 0 
Ex 8525 80 
Ex 8526 10 000 9 Ex 8526 91 
Ex 8527 Import/export licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 660 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex 8529 10 390 0 
Ex 9002 
Ex 9006 51 000 0 Ex 9006 52 000 9 
Ex 9006 53 100 0 
Ex 9019 10 900 9 Ex 9022 19 000 0 
2.18 Ethyl alcohol and spirits 2207 
2208 90 910 0 
2208 90 990 0 Ex 1302 (*) 
Ex 2101 (*) 
2103 90 300 0 (*) 2103 90 900 9 (*) 
Ex 2106 90 200 0 (*)  
2203 00 (**) 2204 
2205 
2206 
2208 20 
2208 30 2208 40 
2208 50 
2208 60 2208 70 
2208 90 (except for 2208 90 910 0, 2208 
90 990 0) Ex 3302 10 (*) Import licensing, all CU countries;  
 
- (*) Applied by the Republic of Belarus only; - (**) Applied by the Republic of Kazakhstan 
only. In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 661Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.19 Encryption devices Ex 8443 31 
Ex 8443 32 100 9 
Ex 8443 32 200 0 Ex 8443 99 100 9 
Ex 8470 10 000 0 
Ex 8470 50 000 Ex 8471 30 000 0 
Ex 8471 41 000 0 
Ex 8471 49 000 0 Ex 8471 50 000 0 
Ex 8471 70 500 0 
Ex 8471 70 980 0 Ex 8471 80 000 0 
Ex 8471 90 000 0 
Ex 8473 21 100 0 Ex 8473 21 900 0 
Ex 8473 30 200 9 
Ex 8473 30 800 9 
Ex 8517 11 000 0 
Ex 8517 12 000 0 Ex 8517 18 000 0 
Ex 8517 61 000 1 
Ex 8517 61 000 9 Ex 8517 62 000 
Ex 8517 62 000 1 
Ex 8517 62 000 9 Ex 8517 69 390 0 
Ex 8517 69 900 0 
Ex 8517 70 900 1 Ex 8517 70 900 9 
Ex 8523 29 210 1 
Ex 8523 29 210 2 Ex 8523 29 250 
Ex 8523 40 200 0 
Ex 8523 40 400 0 Ex 8523 40 700 1 
Ex 8523 40 910 0 
Ex 8523 51 700 1 Import/export licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 662 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex 8523 51 910 0 
Ex 8523 52 
Ex 8523 59 910 1 Ex 8523 59 950 0 
Ex 8523 80 910 1 
Ex 8523 80 950 0 Ex 8525 50 000 0 
Ex 8525 60 000 0 
Ex 8529 90 490 1 Ex 8529 90 650 0 
Ex 8529 90 970 0 
Ex 8526 91 200 0 Ex 8526 91 800 0 
Ex 8526 92 000 
Ex 8528 71 300 0 Ex 8542 31 900 1 
Ex 8542 31 900 9 
Ex 8542 32 410 9 
Ex 8543 70 900 9 
Ex 8543 90 000 9 
2.20 Cultural values, documents of the 
national archive funds, originals of the 
archive documents Ex 37 
Ex 39 
Ex 40 
Ex 42 Ex 43 
Ex 44 
Ex 46 Ex 49 
Ex 57 
Ex 58 Ex 61 
Ex 62 
Ex 63 Ex 64 
Ex 65 
Ex 66 Ex 69 
Ex 70 Export licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 663Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
Ex 71 
Ex 73 
Ex 74 Ex 75 
Ex 76 
Ex 78 Ex 79 
Ex 80 
Ex 81 Ex 82 
Ex 83 
Ex 84 Ex 85 
Ex 87 
Ex 88 Ex 89 
Ex 90 
Ex 91 
Ex 92 
Ex 93 Ex 94 
Ex 95 
Ex 96 Ex 97 
2.21 Human organs and tissues, blood and its 
components Ex 3001 90 200 
Ex 3002 10 910 0 
Ex 3002 10 950 Ex 3002 90 100 0 Import and (or) export licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 664 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.22 Office and civil weapon, its main parts 
and cartridges Ex 9302 00 000 0 
Ex 9303 
Ex 9304 00 000 0 Ex 9305 10 000 0 
Ex 9305 21 000 0  
Ex 9305 29 000 0 Ex 9306 21 000 0 
Ex 9306 30 100 0 
Ex 9306 30 910 0 Ex 9306 29 400 0 
Ex 9306 30 970 0 
Ex 9307 Ex 9506 99 900 0 Import/export licensing, all CU countries 
 In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.23 Information on subsoil  Export restriction, all CU countries In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.24 Goods subject to quantitative restrictions 1701 99 100 0;(**) 
1701 99 900 0;(**) 7204; (*) 
7404 00;(*) 
7503 00;(*) 
7602 00 (*) 
 Export and/or import restriction.   
- (*) Applied to the goods originating from the 
Republic of Belarus when exported from the 
customs territory of the Customs Union. 
Application of the exclusive right is regulated 
by the Belarus' legislation; 
 - (**) Applied in the volume of 54,422.8 tonnes 
until 1 April 2010 when imported to the 
Republic of Kazakhstan. Application of the import restrictions is regulated by the 
Kazakhstan's legislation In accordance with 
national legislation 
2.25 Goods subject to licensing 1701 11*; 
Ex. 2709 00**; 2710**; 
2712**; 
2713**; 3102**; 
3103**; 
3105** Export and/or import licensing.  Applied to: 
*- the goods imported to the territory of the 
Republic of Kazakhstan from the third 
countries 
**- the goods, originating from the Republic of 
Belarus when exported from the customs 
territory of the Customs Union In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 665Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.26 Goods subject to export/import 
monopoly Goods subject to export monopoly 
 
2711 11 000 0 (*) 2711 21 000 0 (*) 
3104 (**) 
 Goods subject to import monopoly (***) 
 
0303; 0304 
0305 
0306 0307 
1604 
1605 2401 
2402 
2403 - (*) Applied to the goods originating from the 
Russian Federation when exported from the 
customs territory of the Customs Union.  Application of the exclusive right is regulated 
by the Russian Federation's legislation;  
- (**) Applied to the goods originating from the 
Republic of Belarus when exported from the 
customs territory of the Customs Union. 
Application of the exclusive right is regulated by the Belarus' legislation; 
- (***) Applied to the goods originating from 
the third countries when imported to the Republic of Belarus. Application of the 
exclusive rights is regulated by the Belarus' 
legislation.  In accordance with 
national legislation  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 666 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
2.27 Goods subject to Tariff Rate Quotas 0201 10 000 1 
0201 20 200 1 
0201 20 300 1 0201 20 500 1 
0201 20 900 1 
0201 30 000 4 0202 10 000 1 
0202 20 100 1 
0202 20 300 1 0202 20 500 1 
0202 20 900 1 
0202 30 100 4 0202 30 500 4 
0202 30 900 4 
0203 11 100 1 0203 11 900 1 
0203 12 110 1 
0203 12 190 1 
0203 12 900 1 
0203 19 110 1 0203 19 130 1 
0203 19 150 1 
0203 19 550 1 0203 19 590 1 
0203 19 900 1 
0203 21 100 1 0203 21 900 1 
0203 22 110 1 
0203 22 190 1 0203 22 900 1 
0203 29 110 1 
0203 29 130 1 0203 29 150 1 
0203 29 550 1 
0203 29 590 1 0203 29 900 1 
0203 29 550 2 
0203 29 900 2 Import TRQ, all CU countries (within CU Member 
TRQ).  Import procedure is determined by a 
Resolution of the Customs Union Commission in accordance with the Agreem ent on conditions and 
mechanism of implementation of tariff quotas of 
12 December 2008 In accordance with 
national legislation  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 667Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
0207 11 100 1 
0207 11 300 1 
0207 11 900 1 0207 12 100 1 
0207 12 900 1 
0207 13 100 1 0207 13 200 1 
0207 13 300 1 
0207 13 400 1 0207 13 500 1 
0207 13 600 1 
0207 13 700 1 0207 13 910 1 
0207 13 990 1 
0207 14 100 1 0207 14 200 1 
0207 14 300 1 
0207 14 400 1 
0207 14 500 1 
0207 14 600 1 0207 14 700 1 
0207 14 910 1 
0207 14 990 1 0207 24 100 1 
0207 24 900 1 
0207 25 100 1 0207 25 900 1 
0207 26 100 1 
0207 26 200 1 0207 26 300 1 
0207 26 400 1 
0207 26 500 1 0207 26 600 1 
0207 26 700 1 
0207 26 800 1 0207 26 910 1 
0207 26 990 1 
0207 27 100 1  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 668 Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
0207 27 200 1 
0207 27 300 1 
0207 27 400 1 0207 27 500 1 
0207 27 600 1 
0207 27 700 1 0207 27 800 1 
0207 27 910 1 
0207 27 990 1 0207 32 110 1 
0207 32 150 1 
0207 32 190 1 0207 32 510 1 
0207 32 590 1 
0207 32 900 1 0207 33 110 1 
0207 33 190 1 
0207 33 510 1 
0207 33 590 1 
0207 33 900 1 0207 34 100 1 
0207 34 900 1 
0207 35 110 1 0207 35 150 2 
0207 35 150 4 
0207 35 210 1 0207 35 230 1 
0207 35 250 1 
0207 35 310 2 0207 35 310 4 
0207 35 410 2 
0207 35 410 4 0207 35 510 1 
0207 35 530 2 
0207 35 530 4 0207 35 610 1 
0207 35 630 2 
0207 35 630 4  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 669Description CN codes Measure and territorial scope Institutions responsible to 
administer the measure 
0207 35 710 1 
0207 35 790 2 
0207 35 790 4 0207 35 910 1 
0207 35 990 1 
0207 36 110 1 0207 36 150 2 
0207 36 150 4 
0207 36 210 1 0207 36 230 1 
0207 36 250 1 
0207 36 310 2 0207 36 310 4 
0207 36 410 2 
0207 36 410 4 0207 36 510 1 
0207 36 530 2 
0207 36 530 4 
0207 36 610 1 
0207 36 630 2 0207 36 630 3 
0207 36 630 4 
0207 36 710 1 0207 36 790 2 
0207 36 790 4 
0207 36 810 1 0207 36 850 1 
0207 36 890 1 
0207 36 900 1 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 670  
 
  Table 29 - Categories of Goods which are Encryption (cryptographic) Means or Containing thereof 
the Technical and Encryption Characteristi cs of which are Subject to Notification 
1. Goods containing encryption technology which consist of any of the following components: 
a) a symmetric cryptographic algorithm employing a key length not exceeding 56 bits long; or b) an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm based on one of the following methods: 
 - factorization of integers not exceeding 512 bits; 
 - computation of discrete logarithms in multiplicative group of a finite field of a size 
not exceeding 512 bits; or 
 - the discrete logarithm in group other than  in item B hereof not exceeding 112 bits.  
Remark: i)  Bites of parity are not included in the length of a key; and 
  ii) The term "cryptography" does not refer to fixed methods of compression or coding 
of data. 
2. Goods containing encryption with the following limited functions: a) authentication, including all the aspects of access control without encryption of files and texts, 
except encryption related to passwords and iden tification and other similar data protection 
from unauthorised access; and 
b) electronic digital signature. Remark:  Functions of authentication and electroni c digital signature include connected with them 
function of keys distribution. 
3. Encryption (cryptographic) means, which are the components of programme operations 
systems, cryptographic abilities of which cannot be altered by users, which are developed for 
installation by the user individually without furthe r substantial support by the provider and technical 
documentations (the description of algorithms of cryptographic changes, protocols on interactions, 
description of interfaces, etc.) on which is available. 
4. Personal smart-cards: a) cryptographic abilities of which are limited by u se in equipment and systems, referred to in 
paragraphs 5 to 8 of  the present list; or 
b) for wide, publicly available use, cryptographi c abilities of which are not available for use and 
which as a result of special development have li mited abilities of protection of stored personal 
information on them. 
Remark:  If a smart-card can perform few functions, then the control status of each of them is defined 
separately. 
5. Receiving equipment for radio-broadcasting and commercial TV broadcasting or analogue 
commercial equipment for broadcasting to limit ed audience without encryption of digital 
signal, except for the cases of u se of encryption solely for management of video or audio-
channels and sending of bills or return of in formation connected to the programme to the 
providers of broadcasting.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 671 
 
 
  6. Equipment encryption functionality of which are not available to the user, specially developed 
or limited to the use with any of the following:  
а) software is protected from copy; 
b) access to any of the following: 
 - data protected from copy stored on the medium available for read only; and 
 - information, stored in encrypted form  on media, when these media are offered for 
sale to public in identical kits; 
c) control of coping of audio- and video-information protected by the copyrights.  7. Encryption (cryptographic) equipment speci ally designed and limited for banking use and 
financial operations. 
Remark:  Financial operations include duties a nd charges for transport services and crediting.  
8. Portable or mobile radio electronic devices fo r civil use (for example for use with commercial 
civil cellular radio communication systems) that  are not capable of transmitting encrypted 
data directly to another ra diotelephone or equipment.  
9. Wireless radio equipment encrypting informa tion only in radio channel with the maximum 
effective range of un-boosted cordless operatio n is less than 400 meters according to the 
manufacturer's specifications.  
10. Encryption (cryptography) means used for protection of technological channels of 
information-telecommunication system s and communication networks.  
11. Goods whose encryption function is blocked by the manufacture.  12. "Mass market goods" are goods that meet all of the following: 
a) generally available to the public in the terr itory of the Russian Federation by being sold, 
without restriction, from stock at retail selling points by means of any of the following: 
 - over-the-counter transactions; 
 - mail order transactions;  - electronic transactions; or  
 - telephone call transactions. 
b) the cryptographic functionality cannot easily be changed by the user;  c) designed for installation by the user without further substantial support by the supplier; and 
d) when necessary, details of th e items are accessible and will be provided, upon request, to the 
appropriate authority in the regulator's c ountry in order to ascertain compliance with 
conditions described in points a) to c) above. 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 672  
 
  Table 30 - Format of Notification of Goods which contain Encryption Means 
Registered in the Register "___" ___________ 20__ .     N _____ 
 Place for Seal      ______________ _____________________   ________________ 
                       (signature of a person of authorised body)       (Name) 
 
NOTIFICATION 
 
on characteristics of goods (products), which contain encryption means 
 
1. Name of a good (product) _____________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________  2. Use of a good (product) _______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
3. Requisites of a producer of a good (product) _______________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________  4. Used encryption algorithms:                            N of a good category                                                                     from Annex 1 
 
а) ___________________________________________________________________________ 
_________________________________________________________________________________ 
b) ___________________________________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ c) ___________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________  
5. Presence of functional abilit y in a good (product), which is not described in a provided 
exploitation documents to the user ______________________________  6. Period of validity of notif ication till "__" _____________ 20__. 
 
7. Requisites of the applicant _____________________________________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________  8. Requisite of the document of a producer, who provided to the authority's representative the rights for drafting of notification (if n ecessary)  ________________ ___________________________ 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
9. The date of adaptation of notification "__" _______________ 20__ .   Place for Seal       ___________ ___________________    __________________ 
                      (signature of applicant)           (Name) 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 673Table 31- Results of Negotiations on Export Duties referred to in paragraph [636] of this Report 
 Tariff code Description Rate of duty in the year of 
accession Rate of duty after the 
implementation period Implementation 
period 
1. 7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; remelting scrap ingots of 
iron or steel: 15%, but not less than 
 €15/1,000 kg 5%, but not less than 
 €5/1,000 kg 5* 
2. 7204 41 100 0 - - - turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, 
sawdust and filings 5% 5% 0 
3. 7204 41 910 0 - - - - in bundles 15%, but not less than 
 €15/1,000 kg 5%, but not less than 
 €5/1,000 kg 5* 
4. 7204 41 990 0 - - - - other 15%, but not less than 
 €15/1,000 kg 5%, but not less than 
€5/1,000 kg 5* 
5. 7403 11 000 0 --cathodes and sections of cathodes 10% 0% 4  
* The first year – 15 per cent, but not less than €15/1,000 kg, the second – 12.5 per cent, but not less than €12.5/1,000 kg, t he third - 10 per cent, but not less than €10/1,000 kg, 
the fourth – 7.5 per cent, but not less than €7.5/1,000 kg, the fifth - 5 per cent, but not less than €5/1,000 kg. 
 
 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 674  
Table 32 - Export Duties Currently Applied by the Russian Federation 
HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
0302 35 900 0 – – – bluefin tunas ( Thunnus thynnus ) excluding for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604 - 5 
0303 Fish, frozen, excluding fish fillets and other fish meat of Heading 0304:     
  – Pacific salmon ( Oncorhynchus nerka, Oncorhynchus gorbuscha, Oncorhynchus keta, Oncorhynchus tschawyscha, 
Oncorhynchus kisutch, Oncorhynchus masou, and Oncohynchus rhodurus ), excluding livers and roes:    
0303 11 000 0 – – sockeye salmon (red salmon) - 5 
0303 19 000 0 – – other - 5 
  – other salmonidae, excluding livers and roes:    
0303 21 – – trout ( Salmo trutta, Oncorhynchus mykiss, Oncorhynchus clarki, Oncorhynchus  aguabonita, Oncorhynchus gilae, 
Oncorhynchus apache, Oncorhynchus chrysogaster ):    
0303 21 100 0 – – – trout of the species Oncorhynchus apache  and Oncorhynchus chrysogaster  - 5 
0303 21 200 0 – – – of the species Oncorhynchus  mykiss , fish, gutted, head-on, weighing more than 1.2kg each or fish, gutted, headless and 
gilled, weighing more than 1kg each - 5 
0303 21 800 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 22 000 0 – – Atlantic Salmon ( Salmo salar ) and Danube Salmon ( Hucho Hucho ) - 5 
0303 29 000 0 – – other - 5 
  – flat fish ( Pleuronectidae, Bothidae, Cynoglos sidae, Soleidae, Scophthalmidae and Citharidae ), excluding livers and roes:    
0303 31 – – halibut ( Reinhardtius hippoglossoides, Hippoglossus hippoglossus, Hippoglossus stenolepis ):    
0303 31 100 0 – – – lesser or greenland halibut ( Reinhardtius hippoglossoides ) - 5 
0303 31 300 0 – – – Atlantic halibut ( Hippoglossus Hippoglossus ) - 5 
0303 31 900 0 – – – pacific halibut ( Hippoglossus stenolepis ) - 5 
0303 32 000 0 – – plaice ( Pleuronectes platessa ) - 5 
0303 33 000 0 – – sole ( Solea spp .) - 5 
0303 39 – – other:   
0303 39 100 0 – – – flounder ( Platichthys flesus ) - 5 
0303 39 300 0 – – – fish of the genus Rhombosolea  - 5 
0303 39 700 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 44 – – bigeyed tuna ( Thunnus obesus ):     
  – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 44 110 0 – – – – whole - 5 
0303 44 130 0 – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 44 190 0 – – – – other (for example "heads off") - 5 
0303 44 900 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 45 – – bluefin tunas ( Thunnus thynnus ):      
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 675HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
  – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 45 110 0 – – – – whole - 5 
0303 45 130 0 – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 45 190 0 – – – – other (for example "heads off") - 5 
0303 45 900 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 46 – – southern bluefin tunas ( Thunnus maccoyii ):     
  – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 46 110 0 – – – – whole - 5 
0303 46 130 0 – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 46 190 0 – – – – other (for example "heads off") - 5 
0303 46 900 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 49 – – other:     
  – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 49 310 0 – – – – whole - 5 
0303 49 330 0 – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 49 390 0 – – – – other (for example "heads off") - 5 
0303 49 800 0 – – – other - 5 
0303 51 000 0 – – herrings ( Cluрea harengus, Clu рea рallasii ) - 5 
0303 52 – – cod ( Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac, Gadus macrocephalus ):    
0303 52 100 0 – – – of the species Gadus morhua  - 5 
0303 52 300 0 – – – of the species Gadus ogac  - 5 
0303 52 900 0 – – – of the species Gadus macrocephalus  - 5 
  – swordfish ( Xiphias gladius ) and toothfish ( Dissostichus spp .), excluding livers and roes:    
0303 61 000 0 – – swordfish - 5 
0303 62 000 0 – toothfish  - 5 
  – other fish, excluding livers and roes:    
0303 72 000 0 – – haddock ( Melanogrammus aeglefinus ) - 5 
0303 73 000 0 – – coalfish ( Pollachius virens ) - 5 
0303 76 000 0 – – eels ( Anguilla spp .) - 5 
0303 77 000 0 – – sea bass ( Dicentrarchus labrax, Dicentrarchus punctatus ) - 5 
0303 78 – – hake ( Merluccius spp., Urophycis spp .):     
  – – – hake of the genus Merluccius :    
0303 78 110 0 – – – – Cape hake and deep-water hake - 5 
0303 78 120 0 – – – – Argentine hake - 5 
0303 78 130 0 – – – – Southern hake - 5 
0303 78 190 0 – – – – other - 5  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 676 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
0303 78 900 0 hake of the genus Uroаhycis   - 5 
0303 79 – – other:     
  – – – freshwater fish:    
0303 79 110 0 – – – – carp - 5 
0303 79 19 – – – – other:     
  – – – – – Acipenseridae:    
  – – – – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 79 191 0 – – – – – – – whole - 5 
0303 79 192 0 – – – – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 79 193 0 – – – – – – – other cutted - 5 
0303 79 198 0 – – – – – – other - 5 
0303 79 199 0 – – – – – other - 5 
  – – – saltwater fish:    
  – – – – fish of the genus Euthynnus , other than the skipjack or stripe-bellied bonitos ( Euthynnus (Katsuwonus) pelamis ) 
mentioned in Subheading 0303 43:    
  – – – – – – for the industrial manufacture of products falling within Heading 1604:    
0303 79 210 0 – – – – – – whole - 5 
0303 79 230 0 – – – – – – gilled and gutted - 5 
0303 79 290 0 – – – – – – other (for example "heads off") - 5 
0303 79 310 0 – – – – – other - 5 
  – – – – redfish ( Sebastes spp .):    
0303 79 350 0 – – – – – of the species Sebastes marinus  - 5 
0303 79 370 0 – – – – – other - 5 
0303 79 410 0 – – – – fish of the species Boreogadus saida  - 5 
0303 79 450 0 – – – – whiting ( Merlangus Merlangus ) - 5 
0303 79 510 0 – – – – ling ( Molva spp .) - 5 
0303 79 550 0 – – – – Alaska pollock ( Theragra chalcogramma ) and pollock ( Pollachius Pollachius ) - 5 
0303 79 580 0 – – – – fish of  the species Orcynopsis  unicolor - 5 
0303 79 650 0 – – – anchovies ( Engraulis spp .) - 5 
0303 79 710 0 – – – – sea bream ( Dentex Dentex  and Pagellus spp .) - 5 
0303 79 750 0 – – – – ray's bream ( Brama spp .) - 5 
0303 79 810 0 – – – – monkfish ( Lophius spp .) - 5 
0303 79 830 0 – – – – blue whiting ( Micromesistius poutassou  or Gadus poutassou ) - 5 
0303 79 850 0 – – – – blue south whiting ( Micromesistius australis ) - 5 
0303 79 910 0 – – – – European scad ( Caranx trachurus, Trachurus trachurus  ) - 5 
0303 79 920 0 – – – – New Zealand grendier ( Macruronus novaezealandiae ) - 5  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 677HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
0303 79 930 0 – – – – black rockling ( Genypterus blacodes ) - 5 
0303 79 940 0 – – – – fish of the species Pelotreis flavilatus  and Peltorhamphus novaezealandiae  - 5 
0303 79 980 0 – – – – other - 5 
0303 80 – livers and roes:    
0303 80 100 0 – – hard and soft roes, for the manufacture of deoxyribonucleic acid or protamine sulphate - 5 
0303 80 900 0 – – other - 5 
0306 Crustaceans, whether in shell or not, liv e, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried, salted or  in brine; crustacean s, in shell, cook ed by 
steaming or by boiling in water, whether or not chilled, frozen , dried, salted or in brine; flours, meals and pellets of 
crustaceans, fit for human consumption: - frozen:    
  – frozen:    
0306 11 – – rock lobster and other sea crawfish ( Palinurus spp., Panulirus spp., Jasus spp .):    
0306 11 100 0 – – sea crawfish's caudas - 10 
0306 11 900 0 – – – other - 10 
0306 12 – – lobsters ( Homarus spp .):    
0306 12 100 0 – – – whole - 10 
0306 12 900 0 – – – other - 10 
0306 13 – – shrimps and prawns:    
0306 13 100 0 – – – of the family Pandalidae  - 10 
0306 13 300 0 – – – shrimps of the genus Crangon  - 10 
0306 13 400 0 – – – deep-water rose shrimps - 10 
0306 13 500 0 – – – shrimps of the genus Penaeus  - 10 
0306 13 800 0 – – – other - 10 
0306 14 – – crabs:    
0306 14 100 0 – – – crabs of the species Paralithodes camchaticus , Chionoecetes spp. and Callinectes sapidus  - 10 
0306 14 300 0 – – – crabs of the species Cancer pagurus  - 10 
0306 14 900 0 – – – other - 10 
0306 19 – – other, including flou rs, meals and pellets of crustaceans,  fit for human consumption:    
0306 19 100 0 – – – freshwater crayfish - 10 
0306 19 300 0 – – – Norway lobsters ( Nephrons norvegicus ) - 10 
0306 19 900 0 – – – other - 10 
ex. 0306 19 900 
0 Flour, powder and pellets of other invertebrates for human consumption - free 
0306 24 – – crabs:    
0306 24 300 0 – – – crabs of the species Cancer pagurus  - 10 
0306 24 800 0 – – – other - 10 
0306 29 – – other, including flours , meals, and pellets of crustaceans , fit for human consumption:     
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 678 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
0306 29 100 0 – – – freshwater crayfish - 10 
0306 29 300 0 – – – Norway lobsters ( Nephrops norvegicus ) - 10 
0306 29 900 0 – – – other - 10 
ex. 0306 29 900 
0 Flour, powder and pellets of other invertebrates for human consumption - free 
1201 00 Soya beans, whether or not broken:    
1201 00 100 0 – for sowing - 20, but not 
less than €35 
per 1,000kg 
1201 00 900 0 – other - 20, but not 
less than €35 
per 1,000kg 
1205 Rape or colza seeds, whether or not broken:    
1205 10 – rape or colza seeds low- containing erucic acid:    
1205 10 100 0 – – for sowing - 15, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg 
1205 10 900 0 – – other - 15, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg 
1205 90 000 – other:    
1205 90 000 1 – – for sowing - 15, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg 
1205 90 000 9 – – other - 15, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg 
1206 00 Sunflower seeds, whether or not broken:    
1206 00 100 0 – for sowing - 20, but not 
less than €30 
per 1000kg 
  – other:    
1206 00 910 0 – – shelled; when shelled - grey with white stripes - 20, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 679HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
1206 00 990 0 – – other - 20, but not 
less than €30 
per 1,000kg 
1207 50 – mustard seeds:    
1207 50 100 0 – – for sowing - 10, but not 
less than €25 
per 1,000kg 
1207 50 900 0 – – other   10, but not 
less than €25 
per 1,000kg 
2519 Natural magnesium carbonate (magnesite); fused magnesia; dead-burned (sintered) magnesia, whether or not containing 
small quantities of other oxides added before sintering; other magnesium oxide, whether or not pure:    
2519 90 – other:    
2519 90 300 0 – – dead-burned (sintered) magnesia - 6.5 
2613 Molybdenum ores and concentrates:    
2613 10 000 0 – roasted - 6.5 
2613 90 000 0 – other - 6.5 
2704 00 Coke and semi-coke of coal, of lignite or of peat, whether or not agglomerated; retort carbon:     
  – coke and semi-coke of coal:    
2704 00 110 0 – – for the manufacture of electrodes - 6.5 
2704 00 300 0 – coke and semi-coke of lignite - 6.5 
2704 00 900 0 – other - 6.5 
2705 00 000 0 Coal gas, water gas, producer gas, and similar ga ses, other than petroleum gases and other gaseous hydrocarbons 1 ,000m3 5 
2706 00 000 0 Tar distilled from coal, from lignite or from peat, and other mineral tars, whether or not dehydrated or partiall y distilled, 
including reconstituted tars - 5 
2707 Oils and other products of the distillati on of high temperature coal tar; similar products in which the weight of the arom atic 
constituents exceeds that of th e non-aromatic constituents:    
2707 40 000 0 – naphthalene - 5 
2707 50 – other aromatic hydrocarbon mixtures of which 65% or more by volume (including losses) distils at 250°C by the ASTM D 
86 method:    
2707 50 100 0 – – for use as power or heating fuels - 5 
2707 91 000 0 – – creosote oils - 5 
2707 99 – – other:     
  – – – crude oils:    
2707 99 300 0 – – – sulphureted toppings - 5 
2707 99 700 0 – – anthracene - 5  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 680 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
  – – – other:    
2707 99 910 0 – – – – for the manufacture of the products in Heading 2803 - 5 
2708 Pitch and pitch coke, obtained from coal tar or from other mineral tars:    
2708 10 000 0 – pitch - 5 
2708 20 000 0 – pitch coke: - 5 
2709 00 Petroleum oils crude excluding: 1,000kg US$303.8 
2709 00 900 3 Crude oil with the thickness not less than 694.7kg/m3, but no more than 887.6 kg/m3 at 20 С and with a sulphur contents not 
less than 0.04 mas.%, but no more than 1.5 mas.%  1,000kg US$108 
2710 11- 
2710 19 490 0 Light oils, medium oils, gas oils 1,000kg US$217 
2710 19 510 –  
2710 99 000 0 Fuel oils, lubricating oils, waste oils 1,000kg US$116.9 
2711 12 –  
2711 19 000 0 Propane, butanes, ethylene, propylene, butylene and butadiene, other liquefied gases  1,000kg US$118.1 
  – in gaseous state:    
2711 21 000 0 – – natural gas m3 30 
  In 2010-2019 calculation of supplies to Ukraine - Government Resolution No. 291 as of 30 April 2010    
2711 29 000 0 – – other m3 5 
2712 Petroleum jelly; mineral waxes, and similar products, excluding: 1,000kg US$116.9 
2712 90 110 0 Crude 1,000kg 0 
2712 90 190 0 Other 1,000kg 0 
2713 Petroleum coke, petroleum bitumen and other residues of pe troleum oils or of oils obta ined from bituminous minerals, 
excluding: 1,000kg US$116.9 
2713 12 000 Petroleum coke calcined 1,000kg 0 
2714 Bitumen and asphalt, natural; bituminous or oil sh ale and tar sands; asphaltites and asphaltic rocks:    
2714 90 000 0 – other - 5 
2715 00 000 0 Bituminous mixtures based on natural asphalt, on na tural bitumen, on petroleum bitumen, on mineral tar or on mine ral tar 
pitch (for example, bituminous mastics , cut-backs) - 5 
2902 20 000 0 –  
2902 43 000 0 Benzene, toluene, xylenes 1,000kg US$217 
4101 Raw hides and skins of bovine or equine animals (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, pickled or  otherwise preserved, but not 
tanned, parchment-dressed, or further prep ared), whether or not de-haired or split:    
4101 20 – whole hides and skins, with the weight per skin not exceeding 8kg when simply  dried, 10kg when dry-salted, or 16kg 
when fresh, wet-salted or otherwise preserved:    
4101 20 100 0 – – fresh pc  €500 per 
1,000kg  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 681HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4101 20 300 0 – – wet-salted pc  €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 20 500 0 – – simply dried or dry-salted pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 20 900 0 – – other pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 50 – whole hides and skins, with the weight per skin exceeding 16kg:    
4101 50 100 0 – – fresh pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 50 300 0 – – wet-salted pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 50 500 0 – – dried or dry-salted pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 50 900 0 – – other pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4101 90 000 0 – other, including butts and bends - €500 per 
1,000kg 
4102 Raw skins of sheep or lambs (fresh, or salted, dried,  limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, 
parchment-dressed or further prepared), whether or not with wool  on or split, other than those excluded by Note 1c to this 
Chapter:    
4102 10 – with wool on:    
4102 10 100 0 – – of lambs pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4102 10 900 0 – – other pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
  – without wool on    
4102 21 000 0 – – pickled pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4102 29 000 0 – – other pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4103 Other raw hides and skins (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dress ed 
or further prepared), whether or not de-haired or split, other than those excluded by Note 1b or 1c to this Chapter:    
4103 20 000 0 – of reptiles - €500 per 
1,000kg 
4103 30 000 0 – of swine pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4103 90 – other:     
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 682 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4103 90 100 0 – – of goats or kids pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4103 90 900 0 – – other pc €500 per 
1,000kg 
4104 Leather or leather crust of bovine (including buffalo), or equine animals, without hair on, whether or not split, but not further 
prepared:     
  – in the wet-blue state (including leather not further prepared than chrome-tanned):    
4104 11 – – outer surface, not split; outer surface, split:    
4104 11 100 0 – – – of whole bovine skin leather, (including buffalo), of a unit surface area not exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
  – – – other:    
  – – – – of bovine (including buffalo) animals    
4104 11 510 0 – – – – – of whole bovine skin leather, of a unit surface area exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 11 590 0 – – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 11 900 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 19 – – other:    
4104 19 100 0 – – – of whole bovine skin leather, (including  buffalo), of a unit surface area not exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
  – – – other:    
  – – – – of bovine (including buffalo) animals    
4104 19 510 0 – – – – – of whole bovine skin leather, of a unit surface area exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 19 590 0 – – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 19 900 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 683HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
  – in the dry state (crust)    
4104 41 – – outer surface, not split; outer surface, split:     
  – – – whole bovine skin leat her, (including buffalo), of a unit surface area not exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet):    
4104 41 110 0 – – – – East Indian kip, whole, whether or not the heads and legs have been removed, each of a net weight of not more than 
4.5kg, not further prepared than vegetable tanned, whether or not having undergone certain treatment but obviously 
unsuitable for immediate use for the manufacture of leather articles pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 41 190 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
  – – – other:    
  – – – – of bovine (including buffalo) animals    
4104 41 510 0 – – – – – of whole bovine skin leather, of a unit surface area exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 41 590 0 – – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 41 900 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 49 – – other:     
  – – – whole bovine skin leat her, (including buffalo), of a unit surface area not exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet):    
4104 49 110 0 – – – – East Indian kip, whole, whether or not the heads and legs have been removed, each of a net weight of not more than 
4.5kg, not further prepared than vegetable tanned, whether or not having undergone certain treatment but obviously 
unsuitable for immediate use for the manufacture of leather articles pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
       
4104 49 190 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
  – – – other:    
  – – – – of bovine (including buffalo) animals    
4104 49 510 0 – – – – – of whole bovine skin leather, of a unit surface area exceeding 2.6m2 (28 square feet ) pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4104 49 590 0 – – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 684 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4104 49 900 0 – – – – other pc 10, but not 
less than €90 
per 1,000kg 
4105 Sheep or lamb skin leather, or leather crust, without hair on, whether or not split, but not further prepared:    
4105 10 – in the wet-blue state (including leather not further prepared than chrome-tanned):    
4105 10 100 0 – – not split - 10, but not 
less than €70 
per 1,000kg 
4105 10 900 0 – – split - 10, but not 
less than €70 
per 1,000kg 
      
4105 30 – dried (crust):    
4105 30 100 0 – – of Indian hair sheep, vegetable tanned, whether or not having undergone certain treatment, but obviously unsu itable for 
immediate use for the manufacture of leather articles pc 10, but not 
less than €70 
per 1,000kg 
  – – other:    
4105 30 910 0 – – – not split pc 10, but not 
less than €70 
per 1,000kg 
4105 30 990 0 – – – split pc 10, but not 
less than €70 
per 1,000kg 
4401 Fuel wood, in logs, in billets, in twigs, in faggots or in similar forms; wood in chips or particles; sawdust and wood was te 
and scrap, whether or not agglomerated in logs, briquettes, pellets or similar forms:    
4401 10 000 – fuel wood, in logs, in billets, in twigs, in faggots or in similar forms:    
4401 10 000 9 – other - 6.5, but not 
less than €4 
per 1m3 
  – wood in chips or particles    
4401 21 000 0 – coniferous - 5 
4401 22 000 0 – non-coniferous - 5 
4403 Wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, or roughly squared:    
4403 10 000 – treated with paint, stains, creosote or other preservatives from 1 February 2009:    
4403 10 000 1 – – of oak m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 10 000 2 – – of beech m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 10 000 3 – – of ash m3 €100 per 1m3  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 685HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4403 10 000 9 – – other   25, but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 – other, coniferous:     
  – – spruce of the kind Picea abies Karst  or silver fir ( Abies alba Mill ):    
4403 20 110 – – – logs (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 20 110 1 – – – – of a diameter of no less than 15cm but no more than 24cm, of a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15  
per 1m3 
4403 20 110 2 – – – – of a diameter of more than 24cm, of a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 190 – – – other (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 20 190 1 – – – – wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, not roughly squared, of a diameter of less  than 15cm m3 25  but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 190 9 – – – – other m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
  – – Pine of the species Pinus sylvestris L     
4403 20 310 – – – logs (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 20 310 1 – – – – of a diameter of no less than 15cm but no more than 24cm, of a length no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 310 2 – – – – of a diameter of more than 24cm, of a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 390 – – – other (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 20 390 1 – – – – wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, not roughly squared, of a diameter of less  than 15cm m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 390 9 – – – – other m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
  – – other:    
4403 20 910 – – – logs (from 1 January 2010):     
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 686 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4403 20 910 1 – – – – of other spruce except for Norway spruce ( Picea abies Karst ), or other fir except for silver fir ( Abies alba Mill ), of a 
diameter of no less than 15cm but no more than 24 cm, of a length no less than 1,0 m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 910 2 – – – – of other spruce except for Norway spruce ( Picea abies Karst ), or other fir except for silver fir ( Abies alba Mill ), of a 
diameter of no more than 24cm, of a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 910 3 – – – – of other pine except for scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L ), of a diameter of no less than 15cm but no more than 24cm, of 
a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 910 4 – – – – of other pine except for scots pine ( Pinus sylvestris L ), of a diameter of more than 24cm, of a length of no less 
than 1.0m m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 910 9 – – – – other m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 990 – – – other (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 20 990 1 – – – – wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, not roughly squared, of a diameter of less  than 15cm m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 20 990 9 – – – – other m3 25 but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
  – other, of tropical wood specified in subheading note 1 to this Chapter    
4403 91 – – of oak ( Quercus spp .):    
4403 91 100 0 – – – logs m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 91 900 0 – – – other m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 92 – – of beech ( Fagus spp .) (from 1 February 2009):    
4403 92 100 0 – – – logs m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 92 900 0 – – – other m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 99 – – other (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 99 100 0 – – – of poplar m3 10, but not 
less than €5 
per 1m3 
4403 99 300 0 – – – of eucalyptus m3 10, but not 
less than €5 
per 1m3 
4403 99 510 – – – – logs (from 1 January 2010):     
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 687HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4403 99 510 1 – – – – – of a diameter of no less than 15cm but no more than 24cm, of a length no less than 1.0m  m3 25, but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 99 510 2 – – – – – of a diameter of more than 24cm, of a length of no less than 1.0m m3 25, but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 99 590 – – – – other (from 1 January 2010):    
4403 99 590 1 – – – – – wood in the rough, whether or not stripped of bark or sapwood, not roughly squared, of a diameter of le ss than 
15cm m3 0 
4403 99 590 9 – – – – – other m3 25, but not 
less than €15 
per 1m3 
4403 99 950 – – – other:    
4403 99 950 1 – – – – of ash (from 1 February 2009) m3 €100 per 1m3 
4403 99 950 2 – – – – of aspen (from 1 January 2010) m3 10, but not 
less than €5 
per 1m3 
4403 99 950 9 – – – – other (from 1 February 2009) m3 €100 per 1m3 
4407 Wood, sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded or end-jointed, of a thickness exceeding  
6mm:    
4407 91 – – of oak ( Quercus spp .):    
4407 91 150 0 – – – sanded, end-jointed, whether or not planed or sanded - 10, but not 
less than €10 
per 1m3 
  – – – other:    
  – – – – – planed:    
4407 91 310 0 – – – – – – – blocks, strips and friezes for parquet or wood block flooring, not assembled m2 10, but not 
less than €10 
per 1m3 
4407 91 390 0 – – – – – – – other m3 10, but not 
less than €10 
per 1m3 
4407 91 900 0 – – – – other (from 1 February 2009) m3 €100 per 1m3 
4407 92 000 0 – – of beech ( Fagus spp .) (from 1 February 2009): m3 €100 per 1m3 
4407 93 900 0 – – – – other of maple (from 1 February 2009) m3 €100 per 1m3 
4407 94 900 0 – – – – other of cherry (from 1 February 2009) m3 €100 per 1m3 
4407 95 – – of ash ( Fraxinus spp .):     
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 688 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
4407 95 100 0 – – – planed; end-jointed, whether or not planed or sanded - 10, but not 
less than €12 
per 1m3 
4407 95 500 0 – – – – sanded - 10, but not 
less than €12 
per 1m3 
4407 95 900 0 – – – – other (from 1 February 2009) - €100 per 1m3 
ex. 4408 90 Sheets of veneer for plywood and other wood for veneering including those obtained by slicing laminated wood sawn 
lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded, spliced or  end-jointed, of a thickne ss not exceeding 6mm of oak, 
beech, ash (4 tariff lines)    
ex. 4408 90 150 
0 – – Planed, sanded; end-jointed, whether or not planed or sanded - 5, but not less 
than €6 per 
1m3 
ex. 4408 90 350 0 – – – – small boards for the manufacture of lead pencils - 5, but not less 
than €6 per 
1m
3 
ex. 4408 90 850 
0 – – – – of a thickness not more than 1mm m3 5, but not less 
than €6 per 
1m3 
ex. 4408 90 950 
0 – – – – of a thickness exceeding 1mm m3 5, but not less 
than €6 per 
1m3 
7102 Diamonds, whether or not worked , but not mounted or set:    
7102 10 000 0 – unsorted car 6.5 
  – industrial    
7102 21 000 0 – – unworked or simply sawn, cleaved or bruited car 6.5 
7102 29 000 0 – – other car 6.5 
  – non-industrial    
7102 31 000 0 – – unworked or simply sawn, cleaved or bruited car 6.5 
7102 39 000 0 – – other car 6.5 
ex. 7102 39 000 
0 diamonds car free 
7103 Precious stones (other than diamonds) and semi-precious stones,  whether or not worked or graded but not strung, mounted 
or set; ungraded precious stones (other than diamonds) and semi-precious stones, temporarily strung for convenience of transport:    
7103 10 000 0 – unworked or simply sawn or roughly shaped - 6.5 
  – otherwise worked     
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 689HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
7103 91 000 0 – – rubies, sapphires and emeralds car 6.5 
7103 99 000 0 – – other car 6.5 
7105 Dust and powder of natural or synthetic precious or semi-precious stones:    
7105 90 000 0 – other g 6.5 
7107 00 000 0 Base metals clad with silver, not further worked than semi-manufactured - 6.5 
7109 00 000 0 Base metals or silver, clad with gold, not further worked than semi-manufactured g 6.5 
7110 Platinum, unwrought or in semi-manufactured forms, or in powder form:     
  – platinum:    
7110 11 000 0 – – unwrought or in powder form g 6.5 
7110 19 – – other:    
7110 19 100 0 – – – bars, rods, wire and sections; plates; sheets and strips of a thickness, excluding any backing, exceeding 0 .15mm g 6.5 
7110 19 800 0 – – – other g 6.5 
  – palladium:    
7110 21 000 0 – – unwrought or in powder form g 6.5 
7110 29 000 0 – – other g 6.5 
  – rhodium    
7110 31 000 0 – – unwrought or in powder form g 6.5 
7110 39 000 0 – – other g 6.5 
  – iridium, osmium and ruthenium    
7110 41 000 0 – – unwrought or in powder form g 6.5 
7110 49 000 0 – – other g 6.5 
7111 00 000 0 Base metals, silver or gold, clad with platinum, not further worked than semi-manufactured - 6.5 
7112 Waste and scrap of precious metal or of metal clad with precious metal; other waste and scrap containing precious metal or  
precious metal compounds, of a kind used principally for the recovery of precious metal:    
7112 30 000 0 – ash, containing precious metal or precious metal compounds - 6.5 
  – other:    
7112 91 000 0 – – of gold, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing other precious metals - 6.5 
7112 92 000 0 – – of gold, including metal clad with gold but excluding sweepings containing other precious metals - 6.5 
7112 99 000 0 – – other - 6.5 
7204 Ferrous waste and scrap; re-melting scrap ingots of iron or steel:   15, but not 
less than €15 
per 1,000kg 
7204 10 000 0 – turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust, and filings - 5 
7302 10 – rails:     
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 690 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
7302 10 900 0 – – – used - 15, but not 
less than €15 
per 1,000kg 
7401 00 000 0  Copper mattes, cem ent copper (preci pitated copper) - 10 
       
7402 00 000 0 Unrefined copper; copper anodes for electrolytic refining - 10 
7403 Refined copper and copper alloys, unwrought:     
  – refined copper:    
7403 11 000 0 – – cathodes and sections of cathodes - 10 
7403 12 000 0 – – wire-bars (cast metal blanks intended for wire manufacturing) - 10 
7403 13 000 0 – – billets (blanks of square cross-s ection intended for re-rolling in solid rolled shapes) - 10 
7403 19 000 0 – – other - 10 
  – copper alloys    
7403 21 000 0 – – copper-zinc base alloys (brass) - 10 
7403 22 000 0 – – copper-zinc base alloys (bronze) - 10 
7403 29 000 0  – – other copper alloys (other than master alloys of heading 7405) - 10 
7404 00 Copper waste and scrap:    
7404 00 100 0 – of refined copper - 50, but not 
less than €420 
per 1,000kg 
  – of copper alloys    
7404 00 910 0 – – – – of copper-zinc base alloys (brass) - 50, but not 
less than €420 
per 1,000kg 
7404 00 990 0 – – other - 50, but not 
less than €420 
per 1,000kg 
7405 00 000 0 Master alloys of copper - 10 
7501 Nickel mattes, nickel oxide sinters and other intermediate products of nickel metallurgy: -  
7501 10 000 0 – nickel mattes   5 
7501 20 000 0 – nickel oxide sinters and other intermediate products of nickel metallurgy   5 
7502 Unwrought nickel: -  
7502 10 000 0 – nickel, not alloyed - 10 
7503 00 Nickel waste and scrap: -   
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 691HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
7503 00 100 0 – of nickel, not alloyed - 30, but not 
less than €720 
per 1,000kg 
7503 00 900 0 – of nickel alloys - 30, but not 
less than €720 
per 1,000kg 
7601 Unwrought aluminium:    
7601 20 – aluminium alloys:    
  – – secondary:    
7601 20 910 0 – – – – in ingots or liquid state - 3 
7601 20 990 0 – – – other - 3 
7602 00 Aluminium waste and scrap:    
   – waste:    
7602 00 110 0 – – turnings, shavings, chips, milling waste, sawdust and filings, waste of coloured, coated or bonded sheets and  foil, of a 
thickness (excluding any backing) not exceeding 0.2mm - 50, but not 
less than €380 
per 1,000kg 
7602 00 190 0 – – other (including factory rejects) - 50, but not 
less than €380 
per 1,000kg 
7602 00 900 0 – scrap - 50, but not 
less than €380 
per 1,000kg 
7802 00 000 0 Lead waste and scrap - 30, but not 
less than €105 
per 1,000kg 
7902 00 000 0 Zinc waste and scrap - 30, but not 
less than €180 
per 1,000kg 
8002 00 000 0 Tin waste and scrap - 6.5 
8101 Tungsten (wolfram) and articles thereof, including waste and scrap:    
8101 97 000 0 – – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8102 Molybdenum and articles thereof, including waste and scrap:    
8102 97 000 0 – – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8103 Tantalum and articles thereof, including waste and scrap:    
8103 30 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 6.5  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 692 HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
8104 20 000 0 – waste and scrap - 20, but not 
less than €138 
per 1,000kg 
8105 Cobalt mattes and other intermediate products of cobalt metallurgy; cobalt and articles thereof, including waste and scrap :    
8105 30 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 30, but not 
less than 
€1200 per 
1,000kg 
8107 Cadmium and articles thereof, including waste and scrap:    
8107 30 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8108 Titanium and articles thereof, including waste and scrap:    
8108 20 000 – unwrought titanium; powders:     
  – – titanium sponge:    
8108 20 000 1 – – – with a maintenance of titanium no less than 99.56 mas.%, in pieces , in factions from 12+2mm to 70+12mm - 6. 5 
8108 20 000 3 – – – Other - 6.5 
8108 20 000 5 – – Powders - 6.5 
8108 20 000 6 – – Ingots - 6.5 
8108 20 000 7  – – Slabs - 6.5 
8108 20 000 9 – – Other - 6.5 
8108 30 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 30, but not 
less than €225 
per 1,000kg 
8109 30 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8110 20 000 0 – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8111 00 190 0 – – waste and scrap - 6.5 
8112 13 000 0 – – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8112 22 000 0 – – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8112 52 000 0 – – Waste and scrap - 6.5 
8112 92 200 1  – – – – – Germanium - 6.5 
8112 92 200 9  – – – – – Other - 6.5 
8607 Parts of railway or tramway locomotives or rolling-stock:     
8607 19 010 1 – – – – – of cast iron or cast steel, used - 15, but not 
less than €15 
per 1,000kg  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 693HS Description Units Export duty 
rate, % 
8607 19 110 1 – – – – – of closed-die forged steel, used - 15, but not 
less than €15 
per 1,000kg 
8607 19 180 1 – – – – – other, used  - 15, but not 
less than €15 
per 1,000kg 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 694  
 
  Table 33 - Trade in Goods:  List of Exceptions 
Country Import Exception by HS Code   Export exception 
1. Ukraine -  1701 99 100 white sugar  Russian export tariffs 
2. Azerbaijan -  2207 alcohol 
-  2208 90 910 alcohol -  2208 90 990 alcohol 
- 2402 cigars, cigarettes 
(expires 1 January 2012) Russian export tariffs 
3. Armenia -  2207 alcohol 
-  2208 90 910 alcohol 
-  2208 90 990 alcohol 
(expires 1 January 2012) Russian export tariffs 
4. Moldova -  2207 alcohol 
-  2208 90 910 alcohol 
-  2208 90 990 alcohol 
(expires 1 January 2012) Russian export tariffs 
5. Uzbekistan -  1701 99 100 white sugar 
-  2207 alcohol 
-  2208 60 vodka -  2208 90 910 alcohol 
-  2208 90 990 alcohol 
-  2402 cigars, cigarettes Russian export tariffs 
6. Kyrgyz Republic  No exceptio ns Oil and oil products only 
7. Tajikistan No exceptions Oil and oil products only 
8. Turkmenistan No exceptions Russia export tariff only 
9. Belarus No exceptions Oil and oil products only 
10. Kazakhstan No exceptions No exceptions 
11. Georgia -  1701 99 100 white sugar 
-  2207 alcohol 
-  2208 90 910 alcohol 
-  2208 90 990 alcohol -  2402 cigars, cigarettes Russian export tariffs 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 695 
 
 
  Table 34 - TRIPS Enforcement Measures – Identification of Russian Laws 
TRIPS 
Enforcement 
Measures Identification of Russian Law 
Article 41(1)  Part IV of CC, Article 1250-1253 (general). 
Article 41(2)   Civil Procedural Code, Article 3-6,11-13, 98, 107-112, 123, 154. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 2-10, 13, 101-118. 
Criminal Procedural Code, Article 6-8, 15, 128-132. 
Article 41(3)   Civil Procedural Code, Article 10, 12, 55-60, 67, 174, 190, 195, 197-199, 214. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 9, 10, 64-68, 71, 81, 162, 164, 169-170, 176, 177. 
Criminal Procedural Code, Article 6, 17, 240, 244, 247-249, 296, 297, 303, 305-310, 312. 
Article 41(3)   Civil Procedural Code, Article 195-198. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 168-170. Criminal Procedural Code, Article 297, 299, 303-308. 
Article 41(4)   Part 1 of the CC, Article 11. 
Part IV of the CC, Article  1248; Ci vil Procedural Code, Article 35, 209. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article41, 42, 180, 181. 
Criminal Procedural Code, Article 19, 405, Chapters 43-45, 48, 49. 
Article 42   Part 1 of the CC, Article 11. 
Part IV of the CC, Article  1248, 1250-1254. 
Article 42     Civil Procedural Code, Article 113-116. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article121, 122-124. 
Article 42    Civil Procedural Code, Article 10. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 11. 
Federal Law "On Commercial Secret", Article 6, 13. 
Article 43(1)   Civil Procedural Code, Article 55-58, 64-66. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 64-66, 72. 
Article 44(1)   Part 1 of the CC, Article 12.2. 
Part IV of the CC, Article  1250-1253, 1302,1312,1515,1537. 
Civil Procedural Code, Article 140. Arbitration Procedural Co de, Article 90, 91, 99. 
Article 45(1)   Part I of the CC Article 12, 15. 
Part IV of the CC, Article 1252, 1301, 1311,  1515, 1537. 
Article 45(2)   Part I of the CC Article 12, 15. 
Civil Procedural Code, Article 88, 94, 98-100. Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 101, 106, 110. 
Article 46   Part IV of the CC, Article 1252, 1515. 
Civil Procedural Code, Article140. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 90, 91, 94, 98, 99. 
Code of administrative offences Article 3.7,  7.12, 14.10, 32.4. 
Article 46   Part IV of the CC, Article 1252, 1515. 
Civil Procedural Code, Article140. Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 90, 91, 94, 98, 99. 
Code of administrative offences Article 3.7,  7.12, 14.10, 32.4. 
Article 48(1)   Civil Procedural Code, Article 98-100. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 98, 99, 110-112. 
Article 48(2)   Part II of the CC, Article 1064.3, 1069, 1070. 
Article 50(1)   Civil Procedural Code, Article64-66, 139-140. 
Arbitration Procedural Code , Article 72, 90-91, 99. 
Article 50(2)   Civil Procedural Code, Article141. 
Arbitration Procedural Co de, Article 93, 96, 99. 
Article 50(3)   Civil Procedural Code, Article143, 146. 
Arbitration Procedural Co de, Article 92, 94, 99. 
Article 50(4)   Civil Procedural Code, Article142. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 93. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 696  
 
  TRIPS 
Enforcement 
Measures Identification of Russian Law 
Article 50(4)   Civil Procedural Code, Article143-145. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 93, 95, 97, 98, 99. 
Border Measures 
Article 51  CU Customs Code Article 328, Law on Customs Regulation, Article 305. 
Article 52  The Agreement on common customs registry of objects of in tellectual property of States - 
Members of the Customs union, Federal Law on Customs regulation,  Article 306 
Article 52 The Agreement on common customs registry of  objects of intellectual property of States - 
Members of the Customs union, Federal Law on Customs regulation,  Article 306 
Article 53 (2)  The Agreem ent on common customs registry of objects of intellectual property of States - 
Members of the Customs union, Federal Law on Customs regulation, Article 306 
Article 54  CU Customs code Article 331, Federal Law on Customs Regulation Article 308 
Article 55  CU Customs code Article 331, 332, Federal Law on Customs Regulation, Article 308 
Article 56  The Agreement on common customs registry of objects of in tellectual property of States - 
Members of the Customs union, CU Customs code Article 331, Federal Law on Customs regulation Article 305, 306 
Article 57  CU Customs Code, Article 333. 
Article 57  CU Customs Code, Article 328, 333  Federal Law on Customs Regulation, Article 305. 
Article 58  CU Customs Code, Article 328, Federal Law on Customs Regulation, Article 305  
Article 59  Part IV of the CC, Article 1252, 1515. 
Civil Procedural Code, Article140. 
Arbitration Procedural Code, Article 110. Code of Administrative Offences, Article 3.7, 7.12, 14.10, 32.4. 
Article 59  Part IV of  the CC, Article 1515.2. 
CU Customs Code, Articles 328-333, The Agreement on common customs registry of 
objects of intellectual property of States - Members of the Customs union, Federal Law on 
Customs Regulation, Articles 305 – 310 
Article 61  Criminal Code, Article 146, 180.  
Article 61  Criminal Code, Article 104.1. 
Criminal Procedural Code, Article 81. 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 697 
 
 
  Table 35 - Authorities of Federal Executive Bodies in the Field of Protection of Intellectual Property 
Rights 
The Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation 
Is the federal executive body, resp onsible for the development of the State policy and elaboration of 
the legislation on education, science, scientific a nd technological and innovation activities, as well as 
on intellectual property. 
The Federal Service for Intellectual Propert y, Patents and Trademarks (Rospatent) 
Is the federal executive body which exercise supervisi on and control in the sphe re of legal protection 
and use of objects of industrial property (inventio ns, industrial models, usef ul models, trademarks, 
service marks, appellations of orig in of goods, computer programmes, databases and layout designs of 
integrated circuits), and other results of intellectual activity.  
The Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation 
Is the federal executive body responsible for the de velopment of the State policy and elaboration of 
the legislation on culture, art, cinematography, and mass media. 
The Federal Service for Supervision of the  of the legislation in the sphere of Protection of Cultural 
Heritage  
The Federal Service for Supervision of the legislation in the  sphere of Protection of Cultural Heritage 
is a federal executive agency for the protection of cultural heritage, copyright and associated rights, 
surveillance and monitoring thereof, legal normative  regulation of cultural heritage protection, and 
surveillance and monitoring of the sphere  of copyright and associated rights.  
The Federal Agency for Culture and Cinematography 
Is authorised to render services in culture, art and cinematography, including issuance of special rental 
authorizations for demonstration of films in the territory of the Russian Federation and keeping the 
State Register of movies and video films as well as the State Register of films intended for their 
public demonstration and distribution within the territory of the Russian Federation. 
The Federal Agency for Press and Mass Media 
Is authorised to render State services in the sphe re of mass media, computer networks for public use 
in the sphere of electronic mass media, press, publishing, printing and polygraphy. 
The Ministry of Economic Development  of the Russian Federation 
Organizes and coordinates the activities carried out by federal executive bodies related to the 
WTO matters, inter alia , the activities related to bringing the Russian legislation on protection of 
intellectual property rights and its enforcement in compliance with the WTO Agreement on Trade 
Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). 
The Federal Customs Service 
Enforces a system of measures on preventing illegal cross border shipment of goods containing WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 698  
 
  objects of intellectual property through the customs border of the Russian Federation.  The Service 
also keeps Customs Register of the objects of intellectual property. 
The Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation 
Develops and implements the State policy on  the development of technologies regarding, inter alia , 
creation and involvement in the industrial circulation of objects of intellectual property.  
The Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation 
Is the federal executive body authorised to devel op the State policy and elaborate the legislation on 
health and social development, inter alia , on the protection of consumers' rights. 
The Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere  of Protection of Consumers' Rights and Human 
Welfare 
Implements functions on control a nd supervision in the sphere of providing sanitary-epidemiological 
human well-being and protecti on of consumers' rights, inter alia , on the consumption market.  
This Service performs State control over quality a nd safety of goods and ensures protection of the 
consumption market from counterfe ited products by way of preventi on, detection, and discontinuing 
violations therein.  It provides licensing of activities within its competence, including State 
Registration of products and objects, whic h are potentially hazardous to human health.  
The Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphe re of Public Health and Social Development 
Implements functions on contro l and supervision in the sphere  of public health and social 
development including pharmaceutical activity superv ision and control over clinical and pre-clinical 
researches and medicine expertise.  
The Ministry of Internal Affa irs of the Russian Federation 
Is the federal executive body responsible in the sphe re of turnover of objects of intellectual property 
for the prevention and discontinuing of infringements as well as improving the legislation on the 
protection of intellectual property rights.  In this re gard there are special units within Department of 
Economic Security of the Ministry and its regional divisions dealing exclusively with infringements 
of intellectual property rights .  Their main tasks are:  
- to work out and to implement measures on th e protection of all kinds of property, including 
intellectual property, from infringement; and 
- to organize and to conduct preventative measure s and operation search actions on detection, 
discontinuing and uncovering infringements on all kinds of property, including intellectual 
property. 
The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation 
Is the federal executive body responsible for the introduction of proposals on elaborating and 
concluding international treaties of the Russian Fede ration in the sphere of protection of intellectual 
property. 
The Office of Public Prosecutor 
Is responsible for enforcement of intellectual property laws through a pplication of the Criminal Code 
and control and supervision over the enforcement of  criminal provisions relating to infringement of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 699 
 
 
  intellectual property, including conducting prelimin ary investigations of criminal cases concerning 
infringement of copyright and related right s and inventor and patent rights.   
The Federal Antimonopoly Service 
Provides protection of intellectual property concer ning violations of the antimonopoly legislation on 
the illegal use of objects of intellectual property an d like means of individualization of legal entities, 
goods, performing works and services (generally in co nnection with the illegal use of trade marks). 
Ministry of Telecommunications and Mass Media  
Is a federal agency under the executive branch r esponsible for drafting and implementing national 
policy and legal regulation in:  information tech nology, including the creation of Government 
information resources and the promotion of access to such resources; telecommunications, including the allocation of and conversion of the radio fre quency spectrum, and postal communications; mass 
communications and the media, including the electr onic media, the development of the Internet, 
television and radio broadcasting,  and related technology; publis hing and printing; personal data 
processing.  The Ministry of Communications and Mass Media administers the national postal system, and national and international telecommunications networks. 
Federal Agency for Supervision in the sphere Of Telecommunications, Information Technologies and 
Mass Media 
Performs the functions of contro l and supervision in the sphere  of Mass Communication including 
electronic Mass Media and telecommunications.  It issues licenses for producing of audio-visual products, software, data bases and phonograms on any media in accordance with the legislation of the 
Russian Federation. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 700 Table 36 - Schedule of Development of Priority Tech nical Regulations of the Customs Union and EurAsEC 
1. Schedule of development of priority technical regulations of the Customs Union 
No. Customs Union Technical Regulation title (TR) Party – responsible for TR 
development1 Date of submission TR draft by the 
Party-developer 
1. On safety of low-voltage equipment Republic of Belarus March 20112 
2. On safety of the products intended for children and teenagers Russian Federation March 20112 
3. On safety of toys Republic of Belarus March 20112 
4. On safety of package Republic of Belarus March 20112 
5. On safety of rolling-stock Russian Federation March 20112 
6. On safety of high-speed railway transport Russian Federation March 20112 
7. On safety of railway transport infrastructure Russian Federation March 20112 
8. On safety of grain Republic of Kazakhstan March 20112 
9. On requirements to gasoline's, diesel and masuts Republic of Kazakhstan March 20112 
10. On safety of pyrotechnic products  Russian Federation March 20112 
11. On safety of perfume and cosmetic products  Republic of Belarus March 20112 
12. On safety of wheeled vehicles  Russian Federation March 20113 
13. Electromagnetic compatibility of technical means Republic of Belarus March 20113 
14. On safety of machinery and equipment Russian Federation March 20113 
15. Auto-roads safety Russian Federation March 20113 
16. On safety of the equipment for work in explosive environment Russian Federation March 20113 
17. On safety of elevators Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
18. On safety of food products Russian Federation March 20113 
19. Technical regulation for food products to the extent of its marking  Republic of Belarus March 20113 
20. Technical regulation for juice products Russian Federation March 20113 
21. Technical regulation for oil and fat products Russian Federation March 20113 
22. Technical regulation for milk and milk products Russian Federation March 20113 
23. On safety of meat and meat products Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
24. On safety of fish and fish products Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
25. On the requirement to the em ission by automotive  vehicles of hazardous (pollutant) 
substances Russian Federation March 20113 
26. On safety of appliances working on gas fuel Russian Federation March 20113 
27. On safety of personal protective equipment Russian Federation March 20113 
28. On safety of equipment work ing under excessive pressure Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
29. On requirements to fertilizers Republic of Belarus March 20113 
30. On safety of light industry products Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
31. On safety of dietic food, special food and healthful and dietary meals Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
32. On safety of medical purposes products Republic of Belarus March 20113 
33. On safety of food supplements  Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
34. On safety of feeding stuff and feed additives Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 7011. Schedule of development of priority technical regulations of the Customs Union 
No. Customs Union Technical Regulation title (TR) Party – responsible for TR 
development1 Date of submission TR draft by the 
Party-developer 
35. On safety of paintwork materials Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
36. On safety of synthetic detergents and household chemicals Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
37. On safety of explosive substances and products based thereon Republic of Kazakhstan March 20113 
38. On requirements to lubrications, oils and special liquids Russian Federation March 20113 
39. Technical regulation for tobacco products  Russian Federation March 20113 
40. On safety of agricultural and tr ee tractors and trailers thereto Republic of Belarus June 20113 
41. On safety of chemical products  Russian Federation June 20113 
42. On safety of buildings and installations, construction materials and products Russian Federation June 20113 
43. On safety of furniture Russian Federation June 20113 
44. On safety of alcoholic beverages  Russian Federation June 20113 
45. On requirements to wheeled vehicles on provision of safe disposition thereof  Russian Federation June 20113 
46. On safety of small vessels Russian Federation June 20113 
47. On requirements to power effectiveness of household and other energy-consuming 
devices and marking thereof  Russian Federation June 20113 
1) two other Parties are co-developers of the Technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
2) the drafts of the Customs Union technical regulations specified shall be submitte d to the Secretariat of the Customs Union to b e considered by the Commission; and 
3) the drafts of the Customs Union technical regulations specified shall be submitte d to the Secretariat of the Customs Union for public consideration. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 702  
2. Schedule of development of priority  technical regulations of the EurAsEC 
No. Technical regulation title Party – responsible for TR 
development Date of submission draft TR 
for consideration of the CTR Date of submission draft 
TR for consideration of the 
Integration Committee of 
the EurAsEC 
1. Low voltage equipment safety Republic of Belarus I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
2. Lifts safety Republic of Kazakhstan I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
3. Requirements for Gasoline, diesel and heating oil  Republic of Kazakhstan I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
4. On equipment, working under excessive pressure, safe ty  Russian Federation II Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
5. On of buildings and structures, building materials and products safety Russian Federation II Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
6. On grain safety  Republic of Kazakhstan I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
7. On machinery and equipment safety  Russian Federation I Quarter 2011 III Quarter 2011 
8. On marking of food products Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
9. Electromagnetic compatibility of technical means  Republic of Belarus I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
10. On devices, operating on gaseous fuels, safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
11. On agricultural and forestry tractors,  trailers and interchangeable towed 
machinery, of mounted on tractors safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
12. On wheeled vehicles safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
13. On chemical products safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
14. Toy safety  Republic of Belarus I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
15. On equipment for working in explosive environments safety  Russian Federation I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
16. Requirements for personal protection equipment Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
17. Packaging safety Republic of Belarus I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
18. Perfumes & Cosmetics  Republic of Belarus I Quarter 2011 II Quarter 2011 
19. On medical devices safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
20. On communications safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
21. On rail infrastructure safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
22. On railway rolling stock safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
23. On high-speed rail safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
24. On food safety  Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
25. On products intended for children and adolescents safety Russian Federation II Quarter 2011 III Quarter 2011 
26. On woodworking products safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
27. On products of pulp and paper industry safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
28. Tobacco products  Russian Federatio n III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
29. Juice products from fruits and vegetables Russian Federation II Quarter 2011 III Quarter 2011  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 7032. Schedule of development of priority  technical regulations of the EurAsEC 
No. Technical regulation title Party – responsible for TR 
development Date of submission draft TR 
for consideration of the CTR Date of submission draft 
TR for consideration of the 
Integration Committee of 
the EurAsEC 
30. Fat and oil products  Russian Federation II Quarter 2011 III Quarter 2011 
31. Milk and dairy products  Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011  
32. On the emission requirements for automotive engineering of harmful 
substances (pollutants)  Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
33. On pyrotechnic products safety Russian Federation III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
34. On the requirements for honey and products of bee-farm ing  Kyrgyz Republic III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011  
35. On bottled water safety  Kyrgyz Republic III Quarter 2011 IV Quarter 2011 
1) Title of technical regulation of the EurAsEC can be changed during its development;  
2) The deadline for submission of draft TR for consideration by the working group can be changed by the decision of the Integratio n Committee of EurAsEC; and 
3) CTR - Commission on technical regulation, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures to trade under the Integration Commit tee of EurAsEC. 
Note: The development by the technical regulations of EurAsEC will be funded from national budgets of EurAsEC member states and  within the amounts provided for the 
implementation of relevant national programmes.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 704 Table 37 - Powers of the Key Customs Union Bodies and Federal Executive Authorities Involved in Technical Regulation Procedures  
Commission of the Customs Union  
Approves the Uniform list of products which are subject to mandato ry requirements within the framework of the Customs Union and  the procedure for ma intenance thereof.  
Approves plans (schedule) of development of technical regulations of the Customs Union  
Establishes the procedure for development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of technical regulations of the Customs Union.  
Adopts technical regulations, introduces amendments and cancels technical regulations of the Customs Union.  
Determines the procedure for introduction into force of the adopted technical regulations of the Customs Union in case when it was not determined in the relevant technical 
regulation and if necessary  transition provisions.  
Approves the list of international and regional standards and in  the absence thereof – national (state) standards of the Partie s voluntary application whereof ensures observance of 
requirements of the adopted technical regulations of the Customs Union and procedures of its adoption.  
Approves the list of international and regional standards and in  the absence thereof – national (state) standards of the Partie s containing rules and methods of  research (testing) 
and measurements including rules on taking samples required for application and implementation of requirements of the adopted t echnical regulations of the Customs Union and 
conformity assessment (confirmation) of products. Approves procedures of adoption of this list.  
Adopts modal schemes of conformity assessment (confirmation).  
Adopts Unified forms of documents on conformity assessment (confirmation) (declarations of compliance with technical regulation s of the Customs Union, certificate of 
compliance with technical regulations of the Customs Union).  
Adopts depiction of the uniform sign of circulation of products in the market of states-members of the Customs Union.  
Adopts procedure for application uniform sign of circulation of products in the market of states-members of the Customs Union.  
Adopts regulations on the uniform sign of circulation of products in the market of states – members of the Customs Union and th e procedure for application thereof.  
Adopts regulation on the procedure for import to the customs te rritory of the Customs Union of products subject to mandatory re quirements within the Customs Union.  
The Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation  The Federal Agency for Techni cal Regulation and Metrology1 
Carries out development and legal regulation in the areas of technical regulation and 
metrology.  Exercises: 
- Control and supervision over compliance with the mandatory requirements of 
State standards and technical regulations until the Government of the Russian 
Federation decides to transfer these functions to other federal executive authorities. 
Adopts the following regulatory acts: 
 
- forms of declarations of conformity of products to the norms of national technical 
regulations; Performs the following functions: 
- collection and processing of information on cases where damage is inflicted as a 
result of non-compliance with the requirem ents of technical regulations, provision 
of information to purchasers, manufactur ers, and sellers regarding compliance 
with the requirements of technical regulations; 
 - publication of notifications of the development, end of public discussion, and 
approval of national standards, lists of national standards which can be applied on 
a voluntary basis in order to comply with the requirements of technical 
regulations; official publication of national standards, and all-Russian classifiers of technical, economic, and social information and dissemination thereof;  
                                                      
1 The Federal Agency for Technical Regulation and Metrology is under the control of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Ru ssian Federation.  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 705- the procedure for establishing expert commissions for technical  regulation; - establishment of  technical committees for stand ardization and coordination of 
activities thereof; 
 - adoption of a national standards development programme; 
 - approval of national standards; 
 - registration of national standards, standardization rules, norms and 
recommendations in this area and ensuring accessibility thereof to all interested 
persons; 
 - accreditation (in the entrus ted area of competence); 
- the procedure for performance of functions by the national standards body; - functions of the national standards body. 
 Maintains: 
- the federal data bank of technical regulations and standards; 
 - the single information syst em for technical regulation; 
- forms of certificates of conformity of products to the norms of national technical 
regulations; - the list of products subject to mandatory conformity confirmation; 
- the rules of registration of declarations of conformity of products to the norms of 
technical regulations; - the registry of registered conformity declarations; 
- the procedure for th e transfer of information on th e issued certificates to the 
national part of Unified Register of issued certificates; - the single registry of issued certificates; 
- develops and maintains national part of the Unified Register of certificates of 
conformity and the register ed declaration of conformity of the Customs Union 
issued by a single form; 
 - develops and maintains national part of the Unified  Register of certification 
bodies and testing laboratories (centers) of the Customs Union; 
- the procedure for keeping the single registry of the registered voluntary 
certification systems. - the State registry of organizations accred ited to perform assessm ent of conformity 
of products, production processes, and se rvices to the established quality and 
safety requirements. 
The Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation 
Carries out development and legal regu lation in the area of accreditation.  
Designs the national policy and performs legal regulation in the areas of socio-economic development, development of entreprene urial activity, foreign economic activity 
(exclude foreign trade). 
The Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation The Federal Health and Social Development Supervision S ervice2 
Designs the national policy and performs legal regulation in the ar ea of healthcare. Performs th e functions of control and supe rvision in the area of healthcare and social 
development. 
 Exercises control over: 
- Manufacture, preparation, circulation, a nd use of medicines from the view of their 
quality, efficacy, safety 
Registers: - Medicines and articles intended for medical use. 
                                                      
2 The Federal Health and Social Development Supervision Service is under the Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Ru ssian Federation.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 706 The Ministry for Telecommunications and Mass Communications of the 
Russian Federation The Federal Communications Agency3 
Designs the national policy and performs legal regulation in the area of information 
technologies and telecommunications. Organizes the certification system in the area of communications which includes 
certification bodies and test laboratories (centres). 
 Performs registration of conformity declar ations of telecommunication facilities and 
keeps the registry of conformity certificates of the certification system in the area of 
communications. 
The Federal Customs Service4
Performs customs clearance and customs control of goods transported over the customs border of the Russian Federation; provides  for implementation of bans and restrictions on 
trade in goods, established by the Russian legislation.  
                                                      
3 The Federal Communications Agency is under the Ministry for Telecommunications and Mass Communications of the Russian Federati on. 
4 The Federal Customs Service is under the control of the Government of the Russian Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 707 
 
 
  Table 38 - Timeline for the Submission of Notifications 
Notification Requirement Type of Measure Deadline 
Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VII of the GATT 1994 - Decision on checklist of 
issues Responses to the checklist of issues 90 days after 
accession 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) 
- Article 25.1 annual;  
- GATT 1994, Article XVI:1 
annual Any subsidy as defined in ASCM Article 1:1 
which is specific within the meaning of ASCM Article 2 as well as any other subsidy which 
causes increased exports or decreased imports 
within the meaning of the GATT 1994, Article XVI:1 (Format:  G/SC) 180 days after 
accession 
Agreement on Trade-Related 
Investment Measures 
- Article 5.1 Trade-related investment measures (TRIMs) 
which are inconsistent with the provisions of 
Article III or Article XI  of the GATT 1994 and 
not justified under exceptions to the GATT 
(Format:  G/TRI) 90 days after 
accession 
Agreement on Import Licensing 
import licensing Procedures 
- Article 7.3 Replies to questionnaire on procedures 90 days after 
accession 
Agreement on Rules of Origin - Article 5:1; - Annex II, paragraph 4 Existing non-preferential rules of origin:  judicial 
decisions and administrative rulings of general application relating to non-preferential rules of 
origin 90 days after 
accession 
 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 708 Table 39 -  Quantities allowed for Importation under the TRQ Regi me for Beef, Pork and Poultry for the Years 2004-2011 (Tonnes)  
 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 
Russian 
Federation Rep. of 
Belarus Rep. of 
Kazakhstan Russian 
Federation Rep. of 
Belarus Rep. of 
Kazakhstan 
Fresh and chilled 
beef (HS 0201) 27,500 27,500 27,800 28,300 28,900 29,500 30,000 2,500 20    
Frozen beef 
(HS 0202) 420,000 430,000 435,000 440,000 445,000 450,000 530,000 2,500 10,000 530,000 2,500 10,000 
Pork (HS 0203) 450,000 467,400 476,100 484,800 493,500 531,900 472,100 60,000 7,400 472,000 
60,000 7,400 Pork trimmings 
(HS 0203 29 550 2; 
0203 29 900 2) - - - 26,500 28,000  27,900   27,900 
Meat and edible 
offal of poultry of 
heading 0105, fresh, 
chilled or frozen (HS 0207)*  1,050,000 1,090,000 1,130,800 1,171,200 1,211,600 952,000 780,000 9,700 110,000 - 15,000 110,000 
Frozen boneless 
meat of poultry 
(HS 0207 14 100 1), frozen halves and 
quarters of poultry 
with bone in (HS 0207 14 200 1), 
frozen legs of 
poultry and cuts thereof with bone in 
(HS 0207 14 600 1) 
and frozen boneless turkey meat 
(HS 0207 27 100 1) - - - - - - - - - 350,000 - - 
* In 2004-2005- safeguard quota  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 709Table 40 - Utilization of TRQs (Thousands of Tonnes) 
HS 
Code Import within the TRQ Utilization, % 
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
0201 3.3 15.4 18.8 18.7 18.3 14.7 7.3 15.3 28.70 55.96 68.4 67.2 64.6 50.87 24.75 51.0 
0202 229.5 381.8 422.9 293.6 314.6 302.1 323.5 510.4 72.86 90.90 98.3 67.5 71.5 67.89 71.89 96.3 
0203 321.1 427.5 465.8 431.3 500.0 509.4 495.4 495.3 95.14 95.00 99.7 90.6 97.8 97.68 93.14 99.06 
0207 545.0 964.2 1,054.4 1,000.0 1,078.7 1,035.8 854.2 578.8 73.26 91.83 96.7 88.5 92.1 85.49 89.73 74.21 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 710 Table 41- List of Goods Subject to Veterinary Control 
CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0101 Live horses, donkeys, mules and hinnies  Veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport for sport horses Yes No 
0102 Live cattle Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0103 Live swine Veterinary certificate Yes No 
 
0104 Live sheep and goats Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0105 Live poultry, i.e. chicken (Gallus domesticus), ducks, 
geese, turkey and guinea fowl Veterinary certificate Yes No 
0106 Other live animals(1) Veterinary certificate, except 
for two or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs  
For two or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs – veterinary certificate or 
veterinary passport Yes, except for two 
or less dogs or cats 
for personal needs No 
0201 Fresh and refrigerated cattle meat   Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0202 Frozen cattle meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0203 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen swine  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0204 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen  lamb or goat's meat  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0205 00 Fresh, refrig erated or frozen meat of horses, donkeys, 
mules or hinnies  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0206 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen food by-products of cattle, 
swine, sheep, goats, horses, do nkeys, mules and hinnies   Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0207 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and by-products of 
poultry, stated in product item 0105 Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0208 Other fresh, refrigerated or frozen meat and food by-
products  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0209 00 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen, salted*, in brine*, dried* or 
smoked swan fat, separated from the lean meat, and 
poultry fat, not melted or otherwise extracted Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0210 Meat and food by-products salted*, in brine*, dried* or 
smoked*; flour from meat or meat by-products* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 711CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0301 Live fish Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0302 Live or refrigerated fish, except filleted fish and other 
fish of product item 0304  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0303 Frozen meat, except filleted fish and fish of product item  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0304 Fresh, refrigerated or frozen filleted fish and other fish 
(including mincemeat)  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0305 Dried, salted or in brine fish; hot smoke or cold smoke 
fish; fish flour of fine grinding and meal and granules, 
ready for consumption * Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0306 Shellfish in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in br ine*; crustaceans in shell, 
steamed* or boiled*, chilled or non-refrigerated, frozen , 
dried*, salted* or in brine*; Flours of fine grinding and 
meals and pellets of crustaceans, ready for consumption 
* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0307 Mussels in shell or without shell, live, fresh, chilled, 
frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; other aquatic 
invertebrates, different from  crustaceans and mollusks, 
live, fresh, chilled, frozen, dried*, salted* or in brine*; 
Flours of fine grinding, meals and pellets of other aquatic 
invertebrates, ready for consumption* Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0401 Raw milk and raw cream, not concentrated and without 
sugar-added or other sweetening substances  Veterinary certificate Yes Yes 
0402 Milk and cream, concentrated and with added sugar or 
other sweetening substances* Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 712 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0403 Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt, kefir and 
other fermented or acidified milk and cream, concentrated or unconcentrat ed, with or without added 
sugar or other sweeteners in flavored or without them, 
with or without the additional fruits, nuts or cocoa * Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0404 Whey, concentrated or unconcentrated, with or without 
added sugar or other sweetening matter; products made 
of natural components of milk, with or without added 
sugar or other sweetening substances, elsewhere not 
specified or included * Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0405 Butter and other fats and oils, made from milk; dairy 
pastas * 
 Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 713CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0406 Cheese and cottage cheese * Veterinary certificate Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0407 00 Birds' eggs in shell, fresh, canned* or boiled* 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 In respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is required  
only for processed egg products. 
0408 Birds' eggs without shell and egg yolks, fresh, dried, 
steamed* or boiled in hot water*, molded*, frozen or 
preserved otherwise*, with or without added sugar or 
other sweetening substances Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
0409 00 000 0 Natural honey  Veterinary certificate 
  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan No 
0410 00 000 0 Food products of animal orig in, not elsewhere specified 
or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0502 Bristles pork or Cabaña; badger or other hair, used in 
production of brushes; their waste Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 714 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0504 00 000 0 Guts, bladders and stomachs of animals (except fish), 
whole or in pieces, fresh, chilled, frozen, salted, in brine, 
dried or smoked Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure to be applied in respect of 
goods destined from third States to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation, 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0505 Skins and other parts of birds with feathers or down, 
feathers and parts of feathers (cut or uncut edges) and 
down, cleaned, disinfected or treated for stor age, but not 
further prepared; powder and waste of feathers or their 
parts Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No, 
0506 Bones and horn-core, raw, low-fat, dominated by 
primary treatment (without shap ing), treated with acid or 
degelatinised; powder and waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
0507 Ivory, tortoise-shell, whalebone or other marine 
mammals, horns, antlers, hooves, nails, claws and beaks, 
unworked or subjected to primary processing without 
shaping; powder and waste of these products Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0510 00 000 0 Ambergris, castoreum , civet and musk; cantharides; bile, 
whether or not dried; glands and other animal products used in the preparation of pharmaceutical products, 
fresh, chilled, frozen or otherwise provisionally 
preserved Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
0511 Products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or 
included; dead animals of 01 or 03 group, unfit for 
human consumption Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 715CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
0511 99 809 2 Horse hair and its waste, including in the form of 
paintings on the substrate or with or without it Veterinary certificate 
  Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
from 0511, from 9601, from 9705 00 
000 0 Hunting trophies, stuffed animals, including pasting 
through taxidermist processing or canned Veterinary certificate only 
for unprocessed hunting 
trophies No for trophies, 
which passed the 
full taxidermic 
processing. Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the name of the 
taxidermic manufactory (shop) where 
the first processing was made or hunting farm  should be indicated in 
the import permit and in the veterinary 
certificate when thes e are required  
1001 10 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Hard wheat Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1001 90 990 0 (only 
feed grain)** Soft wheat  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1002 00 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Rye  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1003 00 900 0 (only 
feed grain)** Barley  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1004 00 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Oats  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1005 90 000 0 (only 
feed grain)** Other corn Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 716 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
1201 00 900 0 (only 
feed grain)** Soybeans  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1208** Flour of fine grinding and meals of seeds or fruits of 
oilseeds (except mustard seeds), used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1211** Plants and their parts (including seeds and fruits), used in 
insecticidal or similar purposes, or in veterinary medicine, fresh or dried, whole or chopped, crushed or 
ground 
 Veterinary certificate, only  
when declaring for use in veterinary, including for 
animal feed 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1212 99 700 0 Others (bee-bread, ambrosia)  Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1213 00 000 0** Straw and chaff of grain, raw, chopped or 
uncomminuted, beaten or not milled, pressed or in the form of granules Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1214** Swede, beet leaf (Swiss chard) , root feeding, hay, alfalfa, 
clover, sainfoin, forage kale, lupines, vetches and similar 
forage products, granular or granulated Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
from 1301 90 900 0 Others (Propolis) Veterinary certificate 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 717CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
1501 00 Swine fat (including lard) and poultry fat, except fat of 
product item 0209 or 1503 Veterinary certificate – only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process   Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
1502 00 Fat of cattle, sheep or goats, except fat of product item 
1503 Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for food and feed without 
disinfection process  
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1503 00 Lard stearin, lard oil, oleostearin, oleo- oil and tallow oil, 
not emulsified or mixed or otherwise prepared Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without disinfection process  
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1504 Fats, oils and their fractions, from fish or marine 
mammals, whether or not refined, but not chemically 
modified Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for 
food and feed without disinfection process  
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the  final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1505 00 Wool grease and fatty substances derived therefrom 
(including lanolin) Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process   Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the  final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1506 00 000 0 Other animal fats and oils and their fractions, whether or 
not refined, but without altering chemical composition Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of 
animal origin intended for food and feed without 
disinfection process  
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the  final establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 718 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
1516 10 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, 
partly or wholly hydrogenated, inter-esterified, re-esterified or elaidinized, whether or not refined but not 
further prepared Veterinary certificate– only 
for controlled goods of animal origin intended for 
food and feed without 
disinfection process   Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1516 20** Fats and vegetable oils and their fractions 
  Veterinary certificate– only 
when declaring for use in 
animal feed purposes Yes No  
     
1518 00 Animal or vegetable fats and oils and their fractions, 
boiled, oxidised, dehydrated, sulfonated, oxidized by air 
blown, polymerized by heat in vacuum or in inert gas or 
chemically modified in another way other than products 
of product item 1516; unfit for human consumption of 
mix or preparations of animal or vegetable fats and oils 
or fractions of different fats and oils of this group, not 
elsewhere specified or included Veterinary certificate (when 
declaring for use in 
veterinary, including animal 
feed) in respect of goods destined to the territory of 
Belarus and Kazakhstan  
 
Veterinary certificate 
(declaring for veterinary purposes, including for feed  
production), except for 
vegetable fats, except for products containing less than 
50% of products of animal 
origin other than meat in respect of goods destined to 
the territory of the Russian 
Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan 
 
 
Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of the 
Russian Federation, except for vegetable 
fats Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate, except for 
vegetable fats. 
1521 90 Beeswax and other insect waxes and spermaceti, whether 
or not colored, refined or unrefined Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No 
1601 00 Sausages and similar pr oducts of meat, meat by-products 
or blood; ready food products, made on their basis* Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1602 Prepared or preserved meat products, meat by-products 
or blood of other   Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 719CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
1603  Extracts and juices from m eat, fish or crustaceans, 
mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated 
in the import permit and in the 
Veterinary certificate 
1604 Prepared or preserved fish; caviar and its substitutes, 
made from fish eggs  
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1605 Prepared or pr eserved crustaceans, mollusks and other 
aquatic invertebrates*  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Yes 
1902 20 Pasta stuffed, whether or not cooked or otherwise 
prepared, containing fish, cr ustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates, sausag es, meat, meat offal, blood 
or blood products of group 04, or any combination of 
these products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of animal origin 
 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods 
containing less than 
50 % of animal origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate 
1904 20 Cereals (except maize) in the form of grain or flaked 
grains or processed in any other way (except for a thin 
flour and meal), pre-boiled or cooked in any other way, 
containing fish, crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic 
invertebrates, sausages, meat, meat offal, blood or blood 
products of group 04, or any combination of these 
products*** Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, 
except for goods containing less than 
50 % of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated in the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 720 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
from 20 Processed vegetables, fruits, nuts or other parts of plants 
and their mixtures, containing  sausage, meat, meat by-
products, blood, fish or cr ustaceans, mollusks or other 
aquatic invertebrates or products from  group 04, or any 
combination of these products***  Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, except for goods 
containing less than 
50 % of animal origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
from 2102 20** Inactive yeast; other dead single-celled microorganisms 
that are used for animal feed Veterinary certificate Yes No 
from 2104 Soups and broths and billets for its preparation (except 
vegetables); homogenized composite food products, that contain sausage, meat, meat  by-products, blood, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks or other invertebrates or products 
of group 04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate except 
for products containing less than 50% of products of 
animal origin 
  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan, except for goods 
containing less than 
50 % of animal 
origin components  Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate 
from 2105  Ice cream, except ice cr eam, made on the basis of fruits 
and berries, fruit and edible ice*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan 
 Veterinary certificate, except 
for products containing less 
than 50% of products of animal origin, in respect of 
goods destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan   Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the establishments should be indicated 
in the Veterinary certificate  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 721CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
from 2106 Processed cheese and other food products, containing 
sausage, meat, meat offal,  blood, fish, crustaceans, 
mollusks or other invertebrates or the products of group 
04, or any combination of these products*** Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan 
 Veterinary certificate, 
except for products 
containing less than 50% of products of animal origin, in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of the Russian Federation Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan   
Yes, in case producers of sausages, 
meat, meat offals, blood, fish, 
crustaceans, mollusks or other 
invertebrates or the products of group 
04, or any combination of these 
products are not included into the 
Register of third countries 
2301 Flours, meals and pellets of meat or meat offal, fish or 
crustaceans, mollusks or other aquatic invertebrates, 
unfit for human consumption; greaves Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
from 2302** Bran, sharps and other remains from sifting, milling or 
other methods of processing cereals or legumes, 
granulated or not granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
from 2303** Remains of starch manufacture and similar residues, beet 
pulp, bagasse, or sugar cane bagasse and other waste 
from sugar production, grains and other waste from 
brewing or distilling, granulated or not granulated, used 
for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
from 2304 00 000** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extracting 
soybean oil, unbeaten or ground, granulated or not 
granulated, used for animal feed Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 722 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
from 2306** Oilcake and other solid residues, obtained by extraction 
of vegetable fats or oils, except waste of commodity 
items 2304 or 2305, unbeaten or ground, granulated or 
not granulated, used for animal feed 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
2308 00** Products of vegetable origin and vegetable waste, 
vegetable residues and byproducts, granulated or not 
granulated, used for feeding animals, not elsewhere 
specified or included Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
2309 Products used for animal feed Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to 
the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan  
 
Veterinary certificate only if the products contain animal 
products, in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of 
the Russian Federation Yes 
(except feed for 
cats and dogs heat treated and in retail 
packaging) Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in the 
Veterinary certificate 
from group 29** Organic chemical compounds (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No Yes No 
 
from group 30 Pharmaceutical products (for the use in veterinary 
medicine) No 
 Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as 
well as not 
registered pharmaceutical 
products, destined 
to the territory of the Russian 
Federation Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but for non registered 
pharmaceutical products names and/or 
numbers of the final establishments should be indicated in the import 
permit and in the quality certificate for 
additives of chemical or microbiological synthesis 
  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 723CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
3101 00 000 0 Fertilizers of animal  or vegetable origin, mixed or 
unmixed, chemically treated  or untreated; fertilizer 
obtained by mixing or chemical treatment of products of 
vegetable or animal origin Veterinary certificate in 
respect of goods destined to the territory of Belarus and 
Kazakhstan  
 Veterinary certificate only if 
the products contain animal 
products, in respect of goods destined to the territory of 
the Russian Federation Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate, if the products contain animal products 
from 3501 Casein, caseinates and other casein derivatives Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
3502 Albumin (protein) (including concentrates of two or 
more whey proteins, containing more than 80 wt.% of 
whey proteins in terms of dry substance), albuminates 
and other derivatives of albumin Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 724 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
3503 00 Gelatin (including rectangular (including square) sheets 
with a surface treatment or wi thout treatment, or colored) 
and gelatin derivatives; isinglass; glues of animal origin, 
except for casein of heading 3501 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Measure is applied in respect of goods 
destined to the territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan. 
 
In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation 
inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
3504 00 000 0 Peptone and their derivatives; other protein substances 
and their derivatives, in no t elsewhere specified or 
included; powder from the skin or pelt, chrome or not 
chrome Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
from 3507** Enzymes, enzyme prep arations, not elsewhere specified 
or included (for the use in veterinary medicine) No Yes No 
from 3808 Insecticides, rodenticides, means of disinfectants and 
similar to them, put up in forms or packing for retail sale, 
or presented as finished products or articles (for use in 
veterinary medicine) No Measure is applied 
in respect of goods 
destined to the 
territory of Belarus and Kazakhstan, as 
well as  
goods are not registered in CU 
destined to the 
territory of the Russian Federation No 
from 3821 00 000 
0** Environments for cultivation of microorganisms for the 
use in veterinary No No No  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 725CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
from 3822 00 000 0 Diagnostic or laboratory reagents on a substrate, 
prepared diagnostic or laborat ory reagents on a substrate, 
or without it, except for goods of heading 3002 or 3006 
(for the use in veterinary medicine), certified reference 
materials (for the use in veterinary medicine) No  Measure is applied 
in respect of goods destined to the 
territory of Belarus 
and Kazakhstan.   
In respect of the 
goods destined to the territory of the 
Russian Federation 
the measure is applied  until the 
adoption of the 
technical regulation No 
4101 Raw hides and skins of bovine (including buffalo) or 
equine animals (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, pickled or 
otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment-dressed 
or further prepared), whether or not dehaired or split 
 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4102 Raw skins of sheep or lambs (fresh, or salted, dried, 
limed, pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, parchment- dressed or further prepared), whether or not 
with wool on or split, other than those excluded by Note 
1c to this Chapter  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
4103 Other raw hides and skins (fresh, or salted, dried, limed, 
pickled or otherwise preserved, but not tanned, 
parchment- dressed or further prepared), whether or not 
dehaired or split, other than those excluded by Note 1b or 1c to this Chapter Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
4206 00 000 0 Products from guts (except silkworm gut), Sinuga, 
bladders or tendons  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and 
in the Veterinary certificate  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 726 CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
4301 Raw fur (including heads, tails, paws and other pieces or 
cuttings, suitable for  manufacture of fur), except raw 
hides and skins of heading 4101, 4102 or 4103 Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
5101 Wool, not carded or combed  
Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
5102 Animal hair, fine or coarse, not carded or combed  
Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be indicated in the import permit and in 
the Veterinary certificate 
5103 Waste of wool or of fine or coarse animal hair, including 
yarn waste but excluding garnetted stock Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but names and/or numbers of 
the final establishments should be 
indicated in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
from 9508 10 000 0 Animals in the zoos and mobile circuses and mobile 
menagerie  Veterinary certificate 
 Yes Inclusion to the Register is not 
required, but the numbers of farms, 
quarantine bases, names of zoo,  dolphinariums and etc. and/or  names 
of the establishments  should be 
mentioned in the import permit and in the Veterinary certificate 
from 9705 00 000 0 Collections and collectors' items in zoology, anatomy 
and paleontology of animals (except exhibits in museum 
storage) Veterinary certificate 
 Yes No  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 727CN Description of goods Accompanying Documents Import permit 
(yes/no) Register of establishments of third 
States 
(yes/no) 
from 3923, 
from 3926, from 4415, 
from 4416 00 000 0, 
from 4421, from 7020 00, 
from 7309 00, 
from 7310, from 7326, 
from 7616, 
from 8436 21 000 0, from 8436 29 000 0, 
from 8436 80 910 0, 
from 8436 80 990 0, from 8606 91 800 0, 
from 8609 00, 
from 8716 39 800 Machinery and equipment for transportation, farming, 
temporary overexposure animals of all kinds, as well as 
equipment for transportation of raw materials (products) 
of animal origin, that were used   No (document of the 
competent authority exporting country in case of 
difficult epizootic situation) Yes, in cases of 
unsafe epizootic situations additional 
conditions will be 
included into the import permit No 
 
Notes: 
 
(1)  Camels are also included in this group. 
*  As part of epizootic wellbeing 
**  In respect of goods destined to the territory of the Russian Federation veterinary control is not exercised and none of the  measures set-out in columns "Accompanying 
Documents", "Import permit", "Register of establishments of third States" is applied.   
***  Ready-made food products that contain no raw meat components or containing less than 50 per cent of another processed prod uct of animal origin, that are securely 
packaged or sealed in clean containers, and that are shelf stab le at ambient temperature or have clearly undergone in their man ufacture a complete cooking or heat 
treatment process throughout their substances so that any raw pr oduct is denatured, are not subject to veterinary control when destined to the territory of the 
Russian Federation. 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 728  
 
  Table 42 - List of Investment Agreements Concl uded under Auto Investment Program No. 2 with 
regard to "Industrial Assembly" of Motor Vehicles 
 Investment Project Signed (date) 
1. Volkswagen Group RUS (1 investment agreement) 31 May 2011 
2. Ford Motor Company; Ford Sollers Elabuga; Sollers-KAMA  
(3 investment agreements) 30 May 2011 
3. AvtoVAZ; Avtoframos; Nissan manufacturing RUS; United Auto Group; 
KAMAZ; Mercedes-Benz Trucks Vostok 
(6 investment agreements) 31 May 2011 
4. GM-AvtoVAZ; General Motors Auto (2 investment agreements) 31 May 2011 
 
                                                      
 Each of the listed investors signed an individual investment agreement with the Ministry of Economic 
Development of the Russian Federation but act as a consortium implementing the same investment project.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 729 
 
 
  Table 43 - List of Memoranda of Understanding on Intention to Conclude an Investment Agreement 
under Auto Investment Program No. 2 with regard to "Industrial Assembly" of Parts and Components 
of Motor Vehicles 
 Investment Project Signed (date) 
1. CIE-Avtokom 26 February 2011 
2. Roots Avtokom 28 February 2011 
3. Avtokom 26 February 2011 
4. Voko-Rus 26 February 2011 
5. Group ROSSHINA 26 February 2011 
6. Kamaz-New Technologies 26 February 2011 
7. Kamaz Synergy 26 February 2011 
8. Eko Kamaz 26 February 2011 
9. Chistopol Avtotehnologii 26 February 2011 
10. ZF KAMA (14 memoranda) 26 - 28 February 2011 
11. Cummins Kama 28 February 2011 
12. Knorr-Bremse Kama system for the KTS 26 February 2011 
13. Federal-Mogul Naberezhnye Chelny 26 February 2011 
14. Federal-Mogul Pauertreyn Vostok (4 memoranda) 26 February 2011 
15. Mercedes-Benz Trucks Vostok 28 February 2011 
16. Volvo Vostok (22 memorandums) 25 - 26 February 2011 
17. TRM 26 February 2011 
18. Automobile plant Ural (4 memoranda) 25 - 26 February 2011 
19. Scientific-Production Enterprise Sotex (4 memoranda) 25-26 February 2011 
20. Tee Ai Automotive (2 memo randa) 26 February 2011 
21. Group Antolini Saint-Petersburg  25 February 2011 
22. Johnson Controls International (5 memoranda) 25 - 28 February 2011 
23. Trading Company DensoRus (2 memoranda) 25 February 2011 
24. Eberspeher Exhaust Systems Rus  28 February 2011 
25. Tramiko 25 February 2011 
26. NTZ MSP  25 February 2011 
27. Eberspeher AvtoVAZagregat exhaust systems  25 February 2011 
28. Belspring 28 February 2011 
29. Dura Automotive Systems  26 February 2011 
30. Avtodorsistems 26 February 2011 
31. Rus Transmishn  26 February 2011 
32. ZF Russuia 25 February 2011 
33. Automotive Lighting (9 memoranda) 25 - 28 February 2011 
34. Visteon Rus (3 memoranda) 25 February 2011 
35. FUSO KAMAZ Trucks Rus  25 February 2011 
36. Plant Avtopribor 25 February 2011 
37. Webasto Rus 28 February 2011 
38. Tenneko Automotive Volga 25 February 2011 
39. Lick Auto 26 February 2011 
40. Business Consulting Volga  28 February 2011 
41. LIR (3 memoranda) 26 February 2011 
42. Preventive Auto Eng (7 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
43. Foresija ADP (2 memoranda)  25 February 2011 
44. Fores Metal Ikzost Systems 25 February 2011 
45. Continental Automotive Rus (25 memoranda) 25 February 2011 
46. Delphi Samara (3 memoranda) 25 February 2011 
47. Tolyatti Complect Avto  26 February 2011 
48. Bosal (2 memoranda) 25 - 26 February 2011 
49. Stavrovo Automotive Systems 25 February 2011 
50. SK-Promavto 25 February 2011 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 730  
 
   Investment Project Signed (date) 
51. LEONI Vayering Systems (RUS) 25 February 2011 
52. Schmitz Kargobull Russland 25 February 2011 
53. AGCO KTZ 28 February 2011 
54. Company of corporate governance Consortium Tractor plants 
(2 memoranda) 25 - 26 February 2011 
55. NPP ITELMA 25 February 2011 
56. Avtodetal-service  28 February 2011 
57. Electrom 25 February 2011 
58. NPO Turbotehnika  25 February 2011 
59. AvtoVAZagregat  25 February 2011 
60. Electromechanical Plant Pegas 25 February 2011 
61. Industrial Volga Company 25 February 2011 
62. Branoros 25 February 2011 
63. COM 25 February 2011 
64. Kosim 25 February 2011 
65. Lada-Pharm 26 February 2011 
66. Shin Yang Rus 26 February 2011 
67. PressFormSistems 26 February 2011 
68. Sanghvi Hi-Tech Eng  26 February 2011 
69. Donhi Rus 26 February 2011 
70. Devon Rus 25 February 2011 
71. Sechzhong Rus 25 February 2011 
72. PHR 25 February 2011 
73. Modin Rus  26 February 2011 
74. Demfi 28 February 2011 
75. PES/SCC 26 February 2011 
76. RyazanAvtoagregat 26 February 2011 
77. Vesta 25 February 2011 
78. Petrovsky Plant Auto Parts of AMO ZIL 25 February 2011 
79. Roslavl Auto Aggregate Plant 26 February 2011 
80. Penza factory Avtozapchast  26 February 2011 
81. ZIL 26 February 2011 
82. Service-turbo 25 February 2011 
83. Magna Technoplast 25 February 2011 
84. NPO Belmag 25 February 2011 
85. Transmission System 25 February 2011 
86. Magna Togliatti 25 February 2011 
87. Steering Systems 25 February 2011 
88. Plant Avtosvet 26 February 2011 
89. Plant named after AN Tarasova 25 February 2011 
90. Belebeevsky Plant autokomp lect 25 February 2011 
91. Fores Automotive Development 26 February 2011 
92. AHB Group 26 February 2011 
93. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Russia (10 memoranda) 25 - 26 February 2011 
94. Smolensk Pauerstiring Plant 25 February 2011 
95. NPP Avtel (5 memoranda) 26 February 2011 
96. Yura Corporation Rus  26 February 2011 
97. Dimitrovgrad Automobile Units Plant 28 February 2011 
98. ELKO Group  28 February 2011 
99. Broz Russland  28 February 2011 
100. MANN + Hummel  28 February 2011 
101. Sibeko (2 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
102. Kirhoff Avtorus  28 February 2011 
103. Voith Turbo Kazan  28 February 2011  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 731 
 
 
   Investment Project Signed (date) 
104. Continental Tayrs Russ  28 February 2011 
105. Autoliv  28 February 2011 
106. Kuzbassavto  28 February 2011 
107. TRW Automotive (4 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
108. Automotive Komponents International Rus (2 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
109. Mefro Wiles Russia 28 February 2011 
110. Avtoframos (36 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
111. AEK 28 February 2011 
112. Optima  28 February 2011 
113. MALE Technologies RUS Ltd. 28 February 2011 
114. Takata-Petri Rus 28 February 2011 
115. Visteon Avtopribor Electronics (4 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
116. PlasticS 28 February 2011 
117. TPV Rus 28 February 2011 
118. Plastic 28 February 2011 
119. RESURSKONTRAKT 28 February 2011 
120. SIMOS-ZKS 28 February 2011 
121. Plant of the climate systems 28 February 2011 
122. Scientific and Production Company SIGMA 28 February 2011 
123. Robert Bosch (4 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
124. Production Company Autocomponent (2 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
125. Autocomponent:  Starters, generato rs, electromechanical actuators 
(4 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
126. Autocomponent:  Lighting Equipment 28 February 2011 
127. Autocomponent:  Systems of cont rol and diagnostics, electronic 
sensors, measuring devices (8 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
128. Autocomponent:  Details of piston group (2 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
129. Autocomponent:  Compressors 28 February 2011 
130. Autocomponent:  Welded assemblies body parts frame 28 February 2011 
131. Autocomponent:  The exhaust galls converters 28 February 2011 
132. Autocomponent:  Panel interior doors and seats (4 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
133. Autocomponent:  Steering mech anisms 28 February 2011 
134. Autocomponent:  Stamped body parts 28 February 2011 
135. Autocomponent:  Gearbox and transmission units 28 February 2011 
136. Autocomponent:  Brake modules (2 memoranda)  28 February 2011 
137. Autocomponent:  ABS systems, stability and exchange rate stability 28 February 2011 
138. Autocomponent:  Climate system 28 February 2011 
139. Autocomponent:  Clutch, drive shaft and joints 28 February 2011 
140. Autocomponent:  Suspension (3 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
141. Benteler Automotive 28 February 2011 
142. BASF 28 February 2011 
143. NBH RUS 28 February 2011 
144. Toyota Boshoku 28 February 2011 
145. Mobis module CIS 28 February 2011 
146. Duvon Rus 28 February 2011 
147. Valeo Service (7 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
148. Valeo Climate Control Tomilino 28 February 2011 
149. Mietek-Elabuga 28 February 2011 
150. Stola-Elabuga 28 February 2011 
151. Kapler Consult (8 memoranda)  28 February 2011 
152. Dimitrovgrad radiator plant (2 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
153. Maxus Rus (5 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
154. Schaeffler Russland 28 February 2011 
155. Robert Bosch Saratov 28 February 2011 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 732  
 
   Investment Project Signed (date) 
156. TIS 28 February 2011 
157. Ulyanovsk enterprise Avtokontakt  28 February 2011 
158. Kovrov enterprise Motomegal 28 February 2011 
159. Samaraavtozhgut 28 February 2011 
160. Dimitrovgrad ZhgutKomplekt 28 February 2011 
161. Optibelt Pauer Transmishn 28 February 2011 
162. KrasTEM 28 February 2011 
163. Bataisk production association Electosvet 28 February 2011 
164. Megalist-Taganrog 28 February 2011 
165. Belebeevsky enterprise Avtodetal (3 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
166. Electron 28 February 2011 
167. Arzamas Production Association Avtoprovod 28 February 2011 
168. NPO Avtopromagregat 28 February 2011 
169. Metalloprodukcija 28 February 2011 
170. Skopinsky Auto Aggregate Plant 28 February 2011 
171. Deykoform 28 February 2011 
172. Toyota Tsuse Mashineri (5 memoranda) 28 February 2011 
173. Sollers 28 February 2011 
174. POLAD 28 February 2011 
175. Gestamp-Severstal-Kaluga 28 February 2011 
176. Gestamp-Severstal-Vsevolozhsk 28 February 2011 
177. Roslslavsky Auto Aggregate Plant of AMO ZIL 26 February 2011 
178. SAVEKO 28 February 2011 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 733 
 
 
  Table 44 - List of Agreements Concluded under Au to Investment Program No. 1 with Regard to 
"Industrial Assembly" of Motor Vehicles and Parts and Components Thereof 
 
List of 
investment 
agreements Investment Project Signed or Entered into force (date) 
1  "United Auto Group"  11 August 2005  
2  "Sollers-Naberezhnye Chelny" 28 November 2005  
3  "Avtoframos"  28 April 2006  
4  "GM-AvtoVAZ"  2 May 2006  
5  "Volkswagen Group Rus"  29 May 2006  
6  "General Motors Cars»  29 May 2006  
7  "Nissan Manufacturing RUS"  13 June 2006  
8  "Toyota Motor Manufacturing Russia"  12 June 2006  
9  "Ford Motor Company"  31 July 2006  
10  "Sollers-ELABUGA"  25 December 2006  
11  "AvtoVAZ"  29 November 2006  
12  "Automobile plant " GAZ "  9 March 2007  
13  "Suzuki Auto MFG Rus"  8 June 2007  
14  "PSMA RUS"  9 June 2007  
15  "United Transport Technologies"  12 July 2007  
16  "Ulyanovsk Automobile Plant"  30 August 2007  
17  "Hyundai Motor CIS"  14 September 2007 
18  Maxus Rus"  14 September 2007 
19  "EM-MC RUS"  25 December 2007  
20  "Sollers-Isuzu"  30 November 2007  
21  "Ford Sollers Elabuga"  16 November 2007 
22  "Sollers-KAMA"  16 November 2007 
23  "Group Himeks"  29 November 2007  
24  "SAVEKO"  30 January 2008 
25  "MAGNA Nizhny Novgorod 2"  31 May 2008  
26  "TOYOTA MOTOR"  30 March 2009 
27  "Sollers Dalniy Vostok"  24 December 2009 
28  "Sollers-Bussan"  17 February 2011 
29  "KAMAZ"  28 February 2011 
30  "Mercedes-Benz Trucks Vostok"  28 February 2011 
31  "Mazda Motor Manufacturing Rus"  22 June 2011 
 Parts and component of motor vehicles  
32 "ZF KAMA"  29 March 2007 
33 «Toyota Boshoku» 9 April 2007 
34 "Autodiesel"  5 June 2007 
35 "Automotive Lighting"  9 November 2007 
36 "Avtosvet"  31 January 2008 
37 "LIK AUTO"  29 December 2007 
38 "Benteler Automotive»  30 January 2008 
39 "Voith Turbo K azan"  30 January 2008 
40 "Cummins Kama"  30 January 2008 
41 "Automotive Komponents  International RUS" (2 
agreements) 21 February 2008  
42 "Johnson Controls International"  29 February 2008  
43 "Eberspeher Exhaust Systems RUS"  29 February 2008  
44 "Mobis module CIS"  31 March 2008 
45 "Yura Corp  RUS "  31 March 2008 
46 "MAGNA International"  29 February 2008  
47 "Skopinsky Auto Aggregate Plant"  28 February 2008  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 734  
 
  List of 
investment 
agreements Investment Project Signed or Entered into force (date) 
48 "Tee Ai Automotive»  28 February 2008  
49 "Knorr-Bremse Kama"  28 February 2008  
50 "Federal-Mogul Naberezhnye Chelny"  28 February 2008  
51 "Magna St. Petersburg" (the agreement was terminated) 29 February 2008  
52 "LIR"  4 July 2008  
53 "Zavolzhsky Engine Plant"  14 August 2008  
54 "Company of Corporate Governance" Consortium "Tractor 
Plants"  11 September 2008  
55 "Duvon Rus"  20 November 2008  
56 "Sanghvuh Hi-tech Rus"  28 November 2008  
57 "Sechzhong Rus"  28 November 2008  
58 "Devon Rus"  28 November 2008  
59 "NVH Rus"  28 November 2008  
60 "Stavrovo Automotive Systems"  2 April 2009  
61 "KOSIM"  14 September 2009  
62 "The joint venture Vittsenmann Russiya"  19 October 2009  
63 "Deyvon SOLLERS"  21 October 2009  
64 "BOSAL"  26 December 2009  
65 "MAGNA Technoplast"  19 March 2010  
66 "Visteon Rus"  7 April 2010  
67 "Steering System"  2 June 2010  
68 "PES/SKK"  11 June 2010  
69 "Foresiya ADP"  16 July 2010  
70 "AvtoVAZagregat"  12 October 2010  
71 "Shin Yang Rus"  30 November 2010  
72 "Donhi Rus"  22 December 2010  
73 "Plant" Avtopribor "  25 December 2010  
74 "NizhegorodskieMotors" (2 agreements) 3 February 2011  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 735 
 
 
  ANNEX 3  
Technical Barriers to Trade 
I. Agreements of Eurasian Economic Communi ty, Customs Union and Acts of these 
Organizations 
- EurAsEC Agreement On the Basics of Harmonization of Technical Regulations of the Member 
States of EurAsEC of 24 March 2005; 
- EurAsEC Agreement On Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical 
Regulation, Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures of  25 January 2008; 
- Agreement On uniform principles and rules of t echnical regulation in the Republic of Belarus, 
Republic of Kazakhstan and the Russi an Federation of 18 November 2010; 
- CU Agreement On the Circulation of Goods subj ect to Mandatory Conformity Assessment on the 
Customs Territory of Customs Union of 11 December 2009; 
- CU Agreement On Mutual Recognition of Accr editation of Certification Bodies (Conformity 
Assessment (Confirmation)) and Test Laborator ies (Centres) performing works on Conformity 
Assessment (Confirmation) of 11 December 2009; 
- EurAsEC Interstate Council Decision No. 521 of 19 November 2010 On the Schedule of 
development of EurAsEC first-priority technical regulations ; 
- Decision No.  1175 of the Integration Committee of the EurAsEC of 17 August 2010 
On Regulation on development of technical re gulations of Eurasian Economic Community; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 June 2010 On technical regulation in the Сustoms 
Union (as amended on 7 April 2011 by CU Commission Decision 620); 
- CU Commission Decision No. 452 of 18 November 2010 On the Strategies of development of 
unified system of technical regulation, appli cation of sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary 
measures in 2011-2015; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 453 of 18 November 2010 On drafts in the sphere of technical 
regulation of the Customs Union (as amended on 8 December 2010 by CU Commission Decision 
No. 492 of 28 January 2011 by CU Commission Decision No. 527 and by CU Commission 
Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011); 
- CU Commission Decision No. 457 of 18 November 2010 On the draft of the agreement on 
harmonization of the legislations of Member states of the Customs Union in terms of establishing 
responsibility for violation of the requirements of  the legislation of the Customs Union in the 
field of technical regulation, sanitary, veterinary and phytosanitary measures; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 492 of 8 December 20 10 On Schedule of development of priority 
technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 526 of 28 January 20 11 On common list of products, in respect of 
which mandatory requirements are established in the frame of the Customs Union; 
- CU Commission Decision No.527 of 28 January 2011 The regulations of the Commission of the 
Customs Union in the sphere of technical  regulation (as amended on 7 April 2011 by 
CU Commission Decision No. 606); 
- CU Commission Decision No. 562 of 2 March 2011 On the drafting of a Development strategy 
concerning the unified system of technical regula tions and application of sanitary, veterinary and 
phytosanitary measures of the CU in 2011-2015; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 563 of 2 Marc h 2011 On Unified formats for documents on 
conformity assessment confirmations (declaration on conformity to the CU's TRs, conformity 
certificate to CU's TR); 
- CU Commission Decision No. 600 of 7 April 2011 On the drafting of Agreement of the member-
states of the CU on types of the administrative vi olations and the establishment of the charges for 
the violations in sphere of the technical regula tion, application of the sanitary, veterinary, and 
phytosanitary measures; WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 736  
 
  - CU Commission Decision No. 606 of 7 April 2011 On Amendments to the Regulations on the 
development, adoption, amendment and cancellation of the technical regulations of the Customs Union; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 620 of 7 April 2011 On new version of Сommon list of products, 
subject to mandatory assessment (confirmation) of conformity within the customs union with the 
provision of common documents, adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 319 of 18 
November 2010; 
- CU Commission Decision No. 621 of 7 April 2011 On  Regulation on application of modal 
schemes of conformity assessment (confirmation) in technical regulations of the Customs Union; and 
- CU Commission Decision No. 625 of 7 April 2011 On Harmonization (as last amended on 
June 2011). 
II. National Acts of the Russian Federation 
- Water Code of the Russian Federation No . 74-FZ of 3 June 2006 (as last amended on 
28 December 2010); 
- Forest Code of the Russian Federation No. 200-FZ of 4 December 2006 (as last amended on 29 
December 2010); 
- Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 27 December 2002 "On technical regulation" (as last amended on 
28 September 2010); 
- Federal Law of 8 December 2003 No. 164- FZ (as last amended on 8 December 2010); 
- Federal Law No. 126-FZ of 7 July 2003 "On communications" (as last amended on 
23 February 2011); 
- Federal Law No. 99-FZ of 30 December 2006 "O n quarantine of plants" (as last amended on 
28 December 2010); 
- Federal Law No. 29-FZ of 2 January 2000 "On the quality and safety of food products" (as last 
amended on 28 December 2010); 
- Federal Law No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999 "On the sanitary and epidemiological welfare of the 
population" (as  last amended on 28 December 2010); 
- Federal Law No. 170-FZ of 21 November 1995 "On th e use of atomic energy" (as last  amended 
on 27 December 2009); 
- Law of the Russian Federation No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On veterinary science" (as last 
amended on 10 December 2010); 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 86-r of 27 January 2011 
"On cancellation of Resolutions of the G overnment of the Russian Federation"; 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 718 of 27 November 2006 "On the 
Customs tariffs of the Russian Federation and the Commodity classification applicable in the conduct of foreign economic activity" (a s last amended on 8 December 2010); 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 165 of 29 March 2005 (as last 
amended on 4 May 2010); 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 214 of 13 April 2005 "On the 
approval of Regulations on the organization and performance of work of compulsory 
confirmation of compliance of communications fac ilities" (as last amended on 13 October 2008); 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 609 of 12 October 2005 "On the 
approval of the Special technical regulations on the demands made on the ejections by the 
automobile technology, released into turnover on the territory of the Russian Federation, of 
harmful (polluting) substances (as last amended on 8 December 2010); 
- Resolution of the Government of the Russi an Federation No. 294 of 17 June 2004 "On the 
Federal agency on technical regulation and metr ology" (as last  amended on 6 April 2011); and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 737 
 
 
  - Resolution of the Government of the Russian Fe deration No. 766 of 7 July 1999 "On the approval 
of the List of products that are subject to the declaring of conformance and of the procedure for the adoption of the conformance declaration and it' s registration" (as last amended on 1 December 
2009). 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 738  
 
  ANNEX 4 
List of Bilateral and Multilateral Intergovernmental  Agreements in the SPS Sphere  
to which the Russian Federation is Party (last amended on 4 August 2011) 
 
 
1. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
South African Republic for the cooperation in the field of quarantine and protection of plants of Moscow, 5 August 2010; 
2. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Turkish  Republic for the cooperation in the fi eld of quarantine and protection of plants, 
Moscow, 13 January 2010; 
3. Agreement between the Governments of  the Customs Union on sanitary measures, 
St. Petersburg, 11 December 2009; 
4. Agreement between the Governments of the Customs Union on  veterinary and sanitary 
measures, St. Petersburg, 11 December 2009; 
5. Agreement between the Governments of  the Customs Union on plant quarantine, 
St. Petersburg, 11 December 2009; 
6. Agreement  on Implementation of Coordinated Policy in the Field of Technical Regulation, 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, Eurasian Economic Community, Moscow, 
25 January 2008; 
7. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
United States of America on agriculture biotechnology, Hanoi, 19 November 2006; 
8. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
United States of America on importation of beef, Hanoi, 19 November 2006; 
9. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
United States of America on importation of pork meat, Hanoi, 19 November 2006; 
10. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
United States of America concerning inspection and certification of slaughter, processing, and cold storage facilities to be in the official list of facilities which are allowed to export poultry and poultry products and pork and pork products to the Russian Federation, Hanoi, 19 November 2006; 
11. Agreement on the cooperati on procedure on hygienic evaluation of potentially hazard 
products imported into the member-states of the Community of the Independent States, 
Cholpon-Ata, 16 April 2004;  
12. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Republic of Macedonia for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science, Moscow, 
16 October 2003; 
13. Agreement for the legal protection of sorts of plants (The Community of the Independent 
States, Moscow, 16 March 2001; 
14. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Hungarian Republic for the cooperation in th e field of veterinary science, Budapest, 
30 September 1999; 
15. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Greek Republic for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science, Athens, 28 July 1999; 
16. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Turkish Republic for the cooperation in th e field of veterinary science, Moscow, 
5 November 1999; 
17. Agreement for the cooperation in the field of preservation and use of genetic resources of 
cultural plants of the states-participants of  the Community of the Independent States of 
4 June 1999;  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 739 
 
 
  18. Protocol on the uniform order of application of technical, medical, pharmaceutical, sanitary, 
veterinary, phytosanitary and ecological standard s, norms, rules and requirements concerning 
goods imported into the State-participants of th e Customs Union agreements", ratified by the 
Russian Federation on 25 August 1999; 
19. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Argentina Republic for the cooperation in the fi eld of quarantine and protection of plants 
(with lists of pests, diseases of plants a nd the weeds having quarantine value), Moscow, 
26 June 1998; 
20. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
United States of America for the sale of the agricultural goods, Moscow, 23 December 1998; 
21.  Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
New Zealand for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science, Moscow, 15 May 1998; 
22. Agreement between the Government of th e Russian Federation and the Government of 
Vietnam for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science, Moscow, 24 November 1997; 
23. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea for the c ooperation in the field of veterinary science, 
Moscow, 14 October 1997; 
24. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Democratic People's Republic of Korea for th e cooperation in the field of quarantine and 
protection of plants (with lists of pests, di seases of plants and the weeds having quarantine 
value), Moscow, 14 October 1997; 
25. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Republic India for the cooperation in the field of quarantine and protection of plants (with lists of pests, diseases of plants and th e weeds having quarantine value), Moscow, 
25 March 1997; 
26. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Union Republic of Yugoslavia for the cooperation in the field of quarantine and protection of 
plants (with lists of pests, diseases of pl ants and the weeds having quarantine value), 
Belgrade, 31 October 1996; 
27. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Union Republic of Yugoslavia for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science, Belgrade, 31 October 1996; 
28. Agreement between the Government of th e Russian Federation and the Ukraine for the 
cooperation in the field of quarantine of plants (with lists of pests, diseases of plants and the 
weeds having quarantine value), Moscow, 27 August 1996; 
29. Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of the 
Turkmenistan for the cooperation in the field of  quarantine of plants (with lists of pests, 
diseases of plants and the weeds having quarantine value), Moscow, 18 May 1995; 
30. Agreement between the Government of th e Russian Federation and the Government of 
Mongolia for the cooperation in the field of quara ntine and protection of plants (with lists of 
pests, diseases of plants and the weeds having quarantine value), Moscow, 11 November 1993; 
31. Agreement for the cooperation in the field of veterinary science (The Community of the 
Independent States), Moscow, 12 March 1993; and 
32. Agreement for the cooperation in the field of quarantine of plants (with lists of quarantine 
pests, diseases of plants and the weeds) (The Community of the Independent States), Moscow, 13 November 1992. 
  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 740 ANNEX 5 
Documents that have been circulated informally to the Work ing Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation under the Job Se ries Symbol since the last 
Formal Working Party Meeting on 23 March 2006 
 
Document Symbol Document Title Date of Circulation 
JOB(06)/53/Rev.1 Domestic Support in Agriculture (2001-2003) - Revision 1 November 2006 
JOB(06)/251 Questions and Replies Regarding Agriculture 1 November 2006 
JOB(06)/257 Trading Rights and Alcohol Imports into the US 29 November 2006 
JOB(06)/258 General Rules for Registration of Legal Persons 29 November 2006 
JOB(06)/259 Information on the Activity of Customs Brokers (Intermediaries) in the Russian Federation 29 November 2006 
JOB(06)/257/Corr.1 Corrig endum – Document Job (06)/257 is  null and void. 12 December 2006 
JOB(07)/3 Information Note on the Volu me of Domestic Support in 2004-2006 and Forecast for 2007- 2008 18 January 2007 
JOB(07)/18 Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in  Agricultural Products 21 February 2007 
JOB(07)/19 Information on the State of Play of the Regulation in the SPS Sphere in the Russian Federation 21 February 2007 
JOB(07)/20 Technical Regulations in  the SPS Sphere 23 February 2007 
JOB(07)/21 Brief Review of the Provisions of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Part IV 23 February 2007 
JOB(07)/74 Consolidated Document on Russian Domestic Support Programmes (Green Box) 5 June 2007 
JOB(07)/101 Consolidated Textual Inputs by the Russian Federation for revision 22 June 2007 
JOB(07)/111 Import Procedures for Products Subject to Quarantine Control Imported into the Territory of the Russian 
Federation 27 June 2007 
JOB(07)/112 Import Procedures for Products of Animal Origin Importe d into the Territory of the Russian Federation 27 June 2007 
JOB(07)/119 Questions and Replies Regarding SPS 4 July 2007 
JOB(07)/120 Questions and Replies Regarding Agriculture 4 July 2007 
JOB(07)/121 Consolidated Document on Russian Domestic Support Programmes (Amber Box) 5 July 2007 
JOB(07)/125 Domestic Support in Agriculture 17 July 2007 
JOB(07)/127 Checklist on TRIPS Enforcement Measures 17 July 2007 
JOB(07)/134 Information on the Amendments Introduced by Federal Law of 1 May 2007 into the Federal Law of 
27 December 2002 "On Technical Regulations" 15 August 2007 
JOB(07)/134/Corr.1 Information on the Amendments Introduced by Federal Law of 1 May 2007 into the Federal Law of 
27 December 2002 "On Technical  Regulations" - Corrigendum 9 October 2007 
JOB(07)/144 Consolidated Textual Inputs by the Russian Federation for revision 3 October 2007 
JOB(07)/171 List of Treaties Concerning Intellectual Property Issues to which the Russian Federation is a Party (as of 
4 October 2007) 7 November 2007 
JOB (07)/176 Questions and Replies on TRIPS  15 November 2007 
JOB(07)/183 Policies Affecting Trade in Services 23 November 2007 
JOB/07)/184 Trade-related Intellectual Property Regime (TRIPS) 23 November 2007 
JOB(08)/3 Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures – Textual Inputs by the Russian Federation 4 February 2008  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 741Document Symbol Document Title Date of Circulation 
JOB(08)/4 Technical Barriers to Trade – Textual Inputs by the Russian Federation 7 February 2008 
JOB(07)/184/Rev.1 Trade-related Intellectual Property Regime (TRIPS) - Revision 22 February 2008 
JOB(08)/19 Domestic Support Programmes - Green and Amber Boxes - Textual Inputs by the Russian Federation 14 March 2008 
JOB(08)/20 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 as well as the 
Explanatory Notes on Domestic Support in the Russian Federation in years 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 19 March 2008 
JOB(07)/111/Rev.1 Import Procedures for Products Subject to Quarantine Control Imported into the Territory of the Russian 
Federation - Revision 11 April 2008 
JOB(07)/112/Rev.1 Import Procedures for Products of Animal Origin Imported into the Territory of the Russian Federation - 
Revision 11 April 2008 
JOB(08)/3/Rev.1 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - Revision 18 April 2008 
JOB(08)/4/Rev.1 Technical Barriers to Trade - Revision 18 April 2008 
JOB(08)/29 Technical Barriers to Trade - Questions and Replies 18 April 2008 
JOB(08)/30 Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures - Questions and Replies 18 April 2008 
JOB(08)/31 Technical Barriers to Trade 18 April 2008 
JOB(08)/36 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report 30 April 200 8 
JOB(08)/36/Add.1 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Addendum - Legislation 30 April 2008 
JOB(08)/36/Add.2 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Addendum 30 April 2008 
JOB(08)/19/Rev.1 Domestic Support Programmes - Green and Amber Boxes - Revision 13 June 2008 
JOB(08)/20/Rev.1 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 as well as the 
Explanatory Notes on Domestic Support in the Russian Federation in years 2001-2003 and 2004-2006 - 
Revision 13 June 2008 
JOB(08)/36/Add.3 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Addendum - Legislation Listed in JOB(08)/36 13 June 2008 
JOB(08)/36/Add.4 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Addendum 16 July 2008 
JOB(08)/36/Rev.1 Consolidation of Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Revision 14 August 2008 
JOB(08)/36/Rev.1/Add.1 Consolidation Texts Registered since the Circulation of Revision 3 of the Draft Working Party Report - 
Addendum 14 August 2008 
JOB(09)/14 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation 6 March 2009 
JOB(08)/19/Rev.2 Domestic Support Programmes - Green and Amber Boxes - Revision 17 March 2009 
JOB/ACC/1 Informal Note On The Cust oms Union Between Belarus, Kazakhsta n And Russia - Communication from the 
Delegations of Belarus, Kazakh stan and the Russian Federation 12 April 2010 
JOB/ACC/2 Submission by the Russian Federation: Illustrative list of sections/issues where supplementary inputs may be 
necessary 28 May 2010  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 742 Document Symbol Document Title Date of Circulation 
JOB/ACC/3 First Note by the Secretariat on the Technical Stat e of Play of the Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 28 May 2010 
JOB/ACC/4 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation 17 August 2010 
JOB/ACC/5 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2007 and 2008 8 September 2010 
JOB/ACC/6 Second Note by the Secretariat on the Technical State of Play of the Cons olidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 22 September 2010 
JOB/ACC/7 Draft Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services 28 September 2010 
JOB/ACC/8 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation 4 October 2010 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.1 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2007 and 2008 - Revision 25 October 2010 
JOB/ACC/9 Third Note by the Secretariat on the Technical State of Play of the Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 25 October 2010 
JOB/ACC/7/Add.1 Draft Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services - Compilation of Questions, Comments and Requests 
for Clarification - Addendum 27 October 2010 
JOB/ACC/10 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation 10 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/11 Use of Ad valorem  Equivalents (AVEs) for Establishing the Draft Schedule on Goods - Note by the 
Secretariat 16 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/4/Add.1 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/4 - Addendum 22 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/7/Add.2 Draft Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services - Compilation of Questions, Comments and Requests 
for Clarification - Addendum 22 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/8/Add.1 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/8 - Addendum 22 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.1/Add.1 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2007 and 2008 - Compilation of Questions 
Received from Members on JOB/ACC/ 5 and JOB/ACC/5/Rev.1 - Addendum 23 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/4/Add.2 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/4 - Addendum 26 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/8/Add.2 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/8 - Addendum 26 November 2010 
JOB/ACC/13 Fourth Note by the S ecretariat on the Technical State of Play of th e Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 8 December 2010 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.2 Supporting Tables  on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in  2006, 2007 and 2008 - Revision 13 December 2010  
JOB/ACC/14 Reference Information on Pr ices in Supporting Table DS:5 on Market Price Support 13 December 2010 
JOB/ACC/15 Consolidation of Inputs from  the Russian Federation 17 December 2010 
JOB/ACC/10/Add.1 Consolid ation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/10 - Addendum 21 December 2010 
JOB/ACC/15/Corr.1 Consolidation of  Inputs from the Russian Federation - Corrigendum 21 December 2010 
JOB/ACC/16 Membership of International Intellectual Property Conv entions and of Regional or Bilateral Agreements 17 January 201 1  
   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6
 Page 743Document Symbol Document Title Date of Circulation 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.1/Add.2 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2007 and 2008 - Compilation of Questions 
and Replies on Documents JOB/ACC/5 and JOB/ACC/5/Rev.1 - Addendum 21 January 2011 
JOB/ACC/17 Fifth Note by the Secretariat on  the Technical State of Play of the Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 26 January 2011 
JOB/ACC/15/Add.1 Consolid ation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/15 - Addendum 18 February 2011 
JOB/ACC/15/Add.2 Consolid ation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/15 - Addendum 21 February 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.2/Add.1 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2006, 2007 and 2008 - Compilation of 
Questions Received from Members - Addendum 23 February 2011 
JOB/ACC/15/Add.3 Consolid ation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/15 - Addendum 1 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/18 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation 1 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.3 Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector - Revision 3 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.2/Add.2 Supporting Tables on the Russian Federation Domestic Support in 2006, 2007 and 2008 - Compilation of 
Questions and Replies - Addendum 4 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/18/Corr.1 Consolidation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Corrigendum 9 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/19 Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products 14 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/20 Sixth Note by the Secretariat on the Technical State of Play of the Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 29 March 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.3/Add.1 Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector  -  Compilation of Questions Received fro m 
Members - Addendum 15 April 2011 
JOB/ACC/18/Add.1 Consolid ation of Inputs from the Russian Federation - Compilation of Questions Received from Members on 
JOB/ACC/18 - Addendum 15 April 2011 
JOB/ACC/19/Add.1 Policies Affecting Fore ign Trade in Agricultural Products - Compilation of Questions Received from 
Members - Addendum 15 April 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.3/Add.2 Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector - Compilation of Questions and Replies -  
Addendum 20 April 2011 
JOB/ACC/19/Add.2 Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agri cultural Products - Compilation of Questions and Replies - 
Addendum 20 April 2011 
JOB/ACC/23 Submission of Section on "Framework for Making and Enforcing Policies"  6 May 2011 
JOB/ACC/7/Rev.1 Revised Draft Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services 25 May 2011 
JOB/ACC/24 Seventh Note by the Secretariat on the Technical State of Play of the Co nsolidation of the Results of Bilateral 
Market Access Nego tiations on Goods 31 May 2011 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.4 Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector - Revision 22 June 2011 
JOB/ACC/19/Rev.1 Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in  Agricultural Products - Revision 22 June 2011 
JOB/ACC/25 Consolidation of Texts from the Russian Federation 1 July 2011 
JOB/ACC/25/Rev.1 Consolidation of Texts from the Russian Federation - Revision 15 August 2011  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 744 Document Symbol Document Title Date of Circulation 
JOB/ACC/5/Rev.5 Domestic Support and Export Subsidies in the Agricultural Sector - Revision 16 August 2011 
JOB(08)/19/Rev.3 Domestic Support Programmes - Green and Amber Boxes - Revision 18 August 2011 
JOB/ACC/26 Draft Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods 19 September 2011 
JOB/ACC/26/Add.1 Draft Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods - Addendum 1 10 October 2011 
JOB/ACC/26/Corr.1 Draft Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods - Corrigendum 10 October 2011 
JOB/ACC/26/Add.2 Draft Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods - Addendum 2 19 October 2011 
JOB/ACC/26/Add.3 Note by the Se cretariat on the Technical State of Play of the Consolidation of the Results of Bilateral Market  
Access Negotiations on Goods - Addendum to Draft Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods 20 October 2011 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 745 
 
 
  [DRAFT DECISION 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
Decision of [date] 
 The Ministerial Conference,  
 Having regard to  paragraph 2 of Article XII and pa ragraph 1 of Article IX of the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the "WTO Agreement"), and the 
Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and X II of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization agreed by the General Council (WT/L/93); 
 Taking note  of the application of the Russian Federation for accession to the 
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trad e Organization dated 14 June 1993 (L/7243);  
 Noting  the results of the negotiations directed toward the establishment of the terms of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO Agreement and having prepared a Draft Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation; 
 Decides  as follows: 
 The Russian Federation may accede to the WT O Agreement on the terms and conditions  
set-out in the Protocol annexed to this Decision. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 746  
 
  DRAFT  PROTOCOL  
ON THE ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
Preamble 
 The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO"), pursuant to the approval 
of the Ministerial Confer ence accorded under Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreemen t Establishing the 
World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO Agreement"), and the 
Russian Federation,  
 Taking note  of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO Agreement reproduced in document WT/ACC/R US/[…], dated […] (hereinafter referred to as 
the "Working Party Report"), 
 Having regard  to the results of the negotiations on the accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO Agreement,  
 Agree  as follows: 
PART I - GENERAL 
1. Upon entry into force of this Protocol pursuant  to paragraph [8], the Russian Federation accedes 
to the WTO Agreement pursuant to Article XII of that Agreement and thereby becomes a Member of 
the WTO.  
2. The WTO Agreement to which the Russian Fe deration accedes shall be the WTO Agreement, 
including the Explanatory Notes to that Agreement, as  rectified, amended or ot herwise modified by such 
legal instruments as may have entered into force before the date of entry into force of this Protocol.  This 
Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred to  in paragraph [1450] of the Working Party 
Report, shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement. 
3. Except as otherwise provide d for in paragraph [1450] of the Working Party Report, those 
obligations in the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement that are to be implemented over a period of time starting with the entry into force of that Agreement shall be 
implemented by the Russian Federati on as if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into 
force.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
 Page 747 
 
 
  4. The Russian Federation may maintain a measure inconsistent with paragraph 1 of Article II of 
the GATS provided that such a measure was recorded in  the list of Article II Exemptions annexed to this 
Protocol and meets the conditions of the A nnex to the GATS on Article II Exemptions. 
PART II - SCHEDULES 
5. The Schedules reproduced in Annex I to th is Protocol shall become the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitm ents annexed to the General Ag reement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(hereinafter referred to as the "GATT 1994") and the Schedule of Specific Co mmitments annexed to the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereina fter referred to as "GATS") relating to the 
Russian Federation.  The staging of  the concessions and commitments li sted in the Schedules shall be 
implemented as specified in the releva nt parts of the respective Schedules. 
6. For the purpose of the reference in paragraph 6( a) of Article II of the GATT 1994 to the date of 
that Agreement, the applicable date in respect of the Schedules of Con cessions and Commitments 
annexed to this Protocol shall be the date  of entry into force of this Protocol. 
PART III - FINAL PROVISIONS 
7. This Protocol shall be open for acceptance, by  signature or otherwise, by the Russian Federation 
within a period of 220 days from the approval of th e Protocol of Accession of the Russian Federation 
[…]. 
8. This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the day upon which it shall 
have been accepted by the Russian Federation.  
9. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO.  The Director-General 
of the WTO shall promptly furnish a certified copy of this Protocol and a notification of acceptance by 
the Russian Federation thereto pursuant to paragrap h [8] to each Member of the WTO and to the 
Russian Federation.   
10. This Protocol shall be regist ered in accordance with  the provisions of Article 102 of the Charter 
of the United Nations.   
 Done at [place] this [date of month in full] day of [month and year in full] in a single copy in the 
English, French and Spanish languages, each text being authentic, except that a Schedule annexed hereto may specify that it its authentic  in only one of these languages. 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.6 
Page 748  
 
  ANNEX I 
SCHEDULE […] – THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
Authentic only in the […] language. 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS/…/Add.1) 
_______________ 
SCHEDULE OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS ON SERVICES 
LIST OF ARTICLE II EXEMPTIONS 
Authentic only in the […] language. 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS/…/Add.2) ]  
 
__________