WRITTEN QUESTION No. 918/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Inclusion of tuna backs in the drugs GSP
Date: 1996-04-23
Institutions: ARIAS CANETE, European Parliament
Subjects: Central America, drug traffic, fight against crime, fish product, fishing regulations, generalised preferences, market access, preserved product, sea fish













EUR-Lex - 91996E0918 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E0918

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 918/96 by Miguel ARIAS CAÑETE to the Commission. Inclusion of tuna backs in the drugs GSP  


Official Journal C 297 , 08/10/1996 P. 0049 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/96 by Miguel Arias Cañete (PPE) to the Commission (23 April 1996)Subject: Inclusion of tuna backs in the drugs GSPThe Commission has submitted a proposal to the Council for a new regulation extending the generalized system of preferences relating to drugs.Under the regulation, tuna backs and tinned tuna products will once again be included on the list of products eligible for customs duty exemption.This exemption seriously affects Community shipowners in that the beneficiary countries use techniques which are banned in Europe. The use of such techniques has resulted in a ban on such countries' imports into the USA, with a consequent diversion of their products towards the EU at dumping prices which distort Community markets.In view of this state of affairs and the difficulty of determining the true origin of products, is the Commission considering excluding tuna backs and tinned tuna products from the list of products eligible for customs exemption under the GSP?Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission (10 June 1996)The fact that specific products cannot be sold on a specific market but can on others does not imply per se that dumping is taking place. The prerequisite for the existence of dumping is the sale of products for export at a lower price than their domestic price or production cost. No such evidence has been produced in the case of tuna backs originating in Central America or the Andean Pact countries.Although the Community has prohibited the capture of tuna along with marine mammals, it can neither impose that legislation on third countries outside waters under the Community's jurisdiction nor, as the United States have done, stop imports of such products (see the conclusions of the GATT panel requested by the Community in June 1992 for a decision on the compatibility of the US legislation with the general agreement).The Community cannot therefore subordinate GSP policy guidelines to short-term factors which are properly debated in the appropriate international forums.The relevant guidelines can be found at point 5 of the Commission's communication to the Council and Parliament on the role of the generalized system of preferences in the period 1995-2004 ((COM(94)212 final. )) where it states that the Commission is in favour of continuing the special arrangements to aid the fight against drugs.As for the question of the origin of the products, it is not necessarily any more difficult to determine than it is in the case of products imported under other preferential arrangements and the Commission should not therefore consider cancelling the preferential arrangements concerned.The Commission intends to maintain its proposal regarding the inclusion of tinned tuna products and tuna backs among the products eligible for the special drugs arrangements in accordance with the procedures laid down in Article 14(1) of the proposed Regulation ((COM(96) 87 final. )) and in the conditions referred to in footnote (1) on page 6 of Annex VI to the proposal.The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the specialized preferences were decided by the Community in order to support the Andean countries in their efforts to combat drug-trafficking. This initiative was fully endorsed by the Parliament, while the Brussels European Council recommended its extension.