EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/718

(2004/C 78 E/0766)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1531/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 April 2003)

Subject: Importation of canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

In November 2001, the EU, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to hold talks within the framework of the WTO aimed at assessing the extent to which the preferential tariffs accorded to canned tuna originating from the ACP countries was damaging the interests of Thailand and the Philippines. It proved impossible to reach a solution acceptable to all parties and the European Community, Thailand and the Philippines agreed to submit the matter to arbitration. On 20 December 2002, the arbitrator ruled that the European Community should open a ‘most favoured nation’-type tariff quota of 25 000 tonnes for 2003 at an ad valorem rate of duty of 12 %. The Commission agreed to the arbitrator's proposal and has just presented a proposal for a Council regulation on opening and providing for the administration of that tariff quota (1). Article 4 of that proposal lays down that the provisions in force in the Community shall apply when determining the origin of canned tuna qualifying for the tariff quota. Under Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (2), goods whose production has involved more than one country shall be deemed to originate in the country where they underwent their last substantial processing or working.

In the light of the Community legislation on rules of origin currently in force, could the Commission indicate whether, under the regulation being adopted, canned tuna originating from Thailand and the Philippines will be considered to have been undergone its last processing in those countries, regardless of the origin of the raw materials processed?

Is the Commission aware that the application of these provisions on rules of origin could strip the proposal for a regulation of its purpose, which is to grant preferential treatment solely to canned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines and not to open up the EU market to tuna products coming from other Asian countries such as Indonesia, etc.?

Is the Commission aware of the damage that the implementation of these rules of origin might occasion to the EU tuna processing industry, which is located largely in Objective 1 areas that are highly dependent on fishing? What measures has it adopted, or will it adopt, to prevent this situation from arising?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission confirms that, in accordance with the provisions of Community Customs Code (3) and in particular Article 24, canned tuna produced in countries wishing to export to the Community within the proposed quota, will bear the origin of the country in which it underwent its last, substantial, economically justified processing, independently of the origin of the tuna fish used. In accordance with Article 26 of the above-mentioned Regulation, Article 4.2 of the proposed Council Regulation to open the quota requires that a certificate of origin be presented to the Community authorities to prove that the goods are eligible for the part of the quota from which the benefit is requested.

The Commission would respectfully refer the Honourable Member to the proposed Regulation to open a quota for canned tuna and, in particular, to Article 1 which states that the quota shall be open to goods originating in any country. This is in accordance with General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Article XIII, as is the division of the quota, based on past trade of the countries concerned, into the four parts laid down in Article 3 of the proposed Regulation. The complainants, for their part, have signalled their agreement to this division. The Honourable Member will note that canned tuna from Indonesia may be exported to the amount of 11 % of the annual volume of the quota. This is because, in order to comply with GATT Article XIII, Indonesia, as the third main supplier to the Community (i.e. an import share >10 %), is entitled to any increased most favoured nation (MFN) quota. The Commission considers it unlikely, therefore, that either Thailand or Philippines would see any economic advantage by attempting to re-export canned tuna from Indonesia within the limited amounts of the quota (52 % and 36 % respectively) from which they benefit.

The Commission is not of the opinion that damage will be occasioned to the Community tuna processing industry by the implementation of the above-mentioned rules of origin. The Commission will of course monitor the situation following the implementation of the quota and therefore does not intend to adopt any measures at this stage.

(1) COM(2003) 141 final.

(2) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992, p. 1.

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992, OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.