RUSSIA – TARIFF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: Corrigendum In paragraphs 2.2(h) and 8.1(d), the tariff line associated with the eighth measure at issue is given as "1511 90 900 2". This number should be replaced with "1511 90 990 2". In paragraphs 2.2(k) and 8.1(f), the tariff line associated with the eleventh measure at issue is given as "8418 21 800 0". This number should be replaced with "8418 21 100 0". Paragraph 6.47, second sentence, refers to "para graphs 7.216, 7.219 and 7.265". It should instead refer to "paragraphs 7.216, 7.219 and 7.264". In paragraph 7.264, first sentence,  the word "calculations" should be replaced with "worked mathematical reasoning". Paragraph 7.265, together with the accompanying footnote, should be replaced with the following:
Date: 13 September 2016
Document codes: WT/DS485/R/Corr.2
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Russia
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, India, Japan, South Korea, Moldova, Norway, Singapore, Ukraine, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. II:1(b), II:1(a)  GATT 1994

RUSSIA – TARIFF TREATMENT OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL
AND MANUFACTURING PRODUCTS
REPORT OF THE PANEL
Corrigendum

In paragraphs 2.2(h) and 8.1(d), the tariff line associated with the eighth measure at issue is
given as "1511 90 900 2". This number should be replaced with "1511 90 990 2".

In paragraphs 2.2(k) and 8.1(f), the tariff line associated with the eleventh measure at issue is
given as "8418 21 800 0". This number should be replaced with "8418 21 100 0".

Paragraph 6.47, second sentence, refers to "para graphs 7.216, 7.219 and 7.265". It should
instead refer to "paragraphs 7.216, 7.219 and 7.264".

In paragraph 7.264, first sentence, the word "calculations" should be replaced with "worked
mathematical reasoning".

Paragraph 7.265, together with the accompanying footnote, should be replaced with the following:

7.265 Turning to the eleventh measure as it existed at the time of the Panel's
establishment, the European Union has provided a hypothetical example of a good
with a customs value of 0.8 EUR/l. B ased on this example, and for reasons analogous
to those offered above, we find that the European Union has shown that when the
customs value of a good falling within the tariff line covered by the eleventh measure
was equal to or less than 0.8 EUR/l, the ad valorem equivalent of the specific element
of the applied combined duty rate would inevitably have been higher than the bound
duty rate.344 This finding is represented graphically in Figure 4 below.
344 As noted, the European Union uses the example of a good with a customs value equal to 0.8
EUR/l. The applied rate was "13.3%, but not less than 0.12 EUR/l", while the bound rate was
"14.7%; or 13.3%, but not less than 0.12 EUR/l; whichever is the lower". For any good with a
customs value equal to or less than 0.8 EUR/l, applying the ad valorem rate of 13.3% would
have resulted in a specific duty rate equivalent of 0.106 EUR/l, which is less than 0.12 EUR/l,
therefore requiring the customs authority to impose the specific element of the combined duty,
namely 0.12 EUR/l. This duty would have an ad valorem equivalent of 15.0%, which is higher
than the bound duty rate of 14.7%. For the reasons explained above, the more the customs
value falls below 0.8 EUR/l, the more the applied duty rate will exceed the bound ad valorem
rate of 14.7%. We note that the ad valorem equivalent of the bound duty rate would remain
14.7% for all customs values below 0.8 EUR/l.