RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32/Corr.11 
24 February 2003 
 (03-1135) 
Working Party on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation Original:   English 
 
 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Corrigendum  
 
 
 We attach replacement pages 6 a nd 27 of document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32. 
   
 
    
                                                     
 
1 In English only WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32/Corr.1 
Page 2  
 
 Replacement page 6
 (WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 refers): 
 
 export documents, which documents requiring the fees are trade-related, and if their 
use in importation and exportation is optional or mandatory. 
Tables 10-13 -  Tables 10-13 should be comprehensive.  If they are not, additional 
information should be provided to make them so.   
- Has the legal authorization for the measures noted in the first and third 
“notes” to the Table listing Consular fees been eliminated? 
103-104 Russian Federation:  
 
The term “stamp tax” mentioned in the pa ragraphs 103-104 and Table 11 should be 
read “state duty”. 
100-110 - Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
99-100 Our delegation expresses its concern abou t the double standard policy pursued by the 
Russian Federation while collecting the cons ular fees from our nationals, according to 
which the Russian Federation accords the pr ivileges to and exempts from payment of 
certain consular fees specific groups of population based on their ethnicity and places 
of origin and for example, our nationals  from Abkhazian and South Ossetian regions 
are considered/treated as Russian nationa ls.  Our delegation urges the Russian 
Federation to apply the uniform consular fee policy towards all our nationals and 
eliminate the current practice pr ior to its accession to the WTO. 
111-116 Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
- Excise Taxes 
111-116 In para 115 a Member raised the issue of the calculation of excise taxes on imports on 
the customs value plus the total of customs duties and levies payable versus the calculation of excise taxes on domestically pr oduces goods on the basis of the actual 
value only and raised the question of its national treatment implications. As it does 
not seems that the Russian delegation addressed this concern, we would welcome an answer. 
142-150 - Customs Valuation 
142-150 This Section should be updated to describe how the provisions of the draft Customs 
Code and draft Chapter 25.1 of Part II of the Tax Code will bring Russia into conformity with WTO provisions once they are enacted. - Please include information on what will  be required concerning changes to 
regulations in place and issuing furthe r regulations to fully implement the 
new customs valuation regime. 
- The draft report should also include reference to Member requests for 
commitments on the use of the two WCO decisions on valuation. 
- Please elaborate in the revised draft Working Party Report text on the need 
and operation of the “special technique of customs control” to prevent commercial valuation fraud.  What precisely is the “special technique,” how 
is it applied, and does Russia intend to keep using it in future?   
- Please provide a list of products by HS item number currently subject to the 
“special technique,” e.g. flat glass. 
- Please include information on how Russia’s customs regime addresses the 
right to import merchandise under bond. 
- Please include information in the text on the scope for use of transaction 
value in related party transactions, th e need to include the Interpretative 
Notes in Russia’s customs valuation legislation, and respond to the specific concerns noted regarding the determination customs value under transaction value, value of identical merchandi se, deductive value, and the fallback 
method.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32/Corr.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  
Replacement page 27 :  (WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/32 refers): 
 
306 If measures are to be taken for safeguard rea sons, they have to be in conformity with 
the GATS, regardless of whether it is for infant industries or other business. 
307 Russia is intending to maintain its subsid ies to domestic service providers, the bulk of 
which go to large service providers such as Rostelekom, Ingostrakh, Aeroflot, etc. 
- We seek the inclusion in this section of  the draft Report of factual information 
on the types and levels of subsidies currently provided; Russia’s intentions in respect 
of areas currently not receiving any subs idies; and an undertaking by Russia to phase 
out its system of subsidies. - We seek the inclusion in this section full responses to questions raised by 
Members. 
We note that a number of issues are still subject to the broader plurilateral discussions, and we reserve the right to requ est further changes in this section 
pending their outcome. 
320 We assume that the measures referred to either come under prudential measures or 
BOP-measures and should be conform with the GATS. 
321-324 Para 321-324 are as before and do not reflect discussions at the plurilateral on 
services. We therefore reiterate some of our comments. 
321 The use of public utilities argument cannot be used for protectionist purposes or in 
areas where the services are of a narrow nature that cannot be defined as a general 
public service. Specifically on environmental services, no intention to undermine the 
freedom for local government, municipalities  to decide wheth er they themselves 
operate or by tender open up to private actors to operate e.g., sewage treatment 
facilities or refuse disposal. Does not undermine government’s rights to formulate and implement national environmental policies.  In taking commitments in the area of 
public utilities it is possible to make the di stinction between statutory work on behalf 
of and delegated by governme nt, and commercial services in the area  and we would 
urge the Russian delegation to look further into this matter. 
322 - On culture, comparing the WP dra ft report and the Russian services offer, 
the report text seems wide open as to when and were there might be authorization requirements in place, while  in the offer it seems only related 
to education. The working party text cannot be that general because it can imply a national treatment restriction. We would like a confirmation that 
where specific commitments are made, no new (Art XVI- and Art XVII-) 
restrictions based on cultural concerns suddenly pop up. 
- On specifically protected natural territories, we would think that the 
regulations to protect such territories would be the same for all, and as such are covered by  the GATS (relevant articles are preamble and art VI on 
domestic regulation, and Art XIV (b)). 
 Our delegation is still deeply con cerned over the Russian Federation’s 
maintenance of a discriminatory regime w ith regard to the supply of services on 
Russian services’ market by our nationals residing in different regions of our 
country, under the modes of supply - “commercial presence” and “movement of 
natural persons”. We urge the Russia n Federation to make the necessary 
adjustments prior to its accession in order to avoid the discriminatory treatment and to allow all nationals of our country  to provide services on the Russian market 
at the equal footing. 
 
__________