WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/00 by Karin Jöns (PSE) to the Council. Regulation (EC) temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products.
Date: 2000-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, fishery product

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/79

2. While deciding to make the text accessible to the public via the Internet, the Council has not as yet
taken any position on its content, and is therefore unable at this stage to give a reply concerning the
substance of the questions put.

The Council would also remind the Honourable Member that the European Council

3.
in Helsinki
agreed that a High Level Working Party would be set up which will, in the framework of the overall report
which it is to submit to the Council, put forward possibilities for solutions, particularly as regards the Code
of Conduct, since the latter forms part of the tax package, in accordance with the conclusions of the Ecofin
Council on 1 December 1997.

(2000/C 374 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0452/00

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2000)

Subject: Turkish (cid:145)free zones(cid:146) and textile exports

On 8 July 1997 the Commissioner responsible for External Relations, Mr Hans van den Broek, notified the
European Parliament (Answer to Question E-1965/97) (1) that (cid:145)a Community team had gone to Turkey
in October 1996 to ascertain that the functioning of Turkish free zones complies with that country(cid:146)s
obligations under the Customs Union.(cid:146) This statement came in the wake of international press reports
voicing suspicions that
textile exports from third countries were passing through the Turkish (cid:145)free
industrial zones(cid:146) of Istanbul and Mersin and appearing on EU markets as (cid:145)Turkish(cid:146) products, thereby
benefiting from the provisions of the EU-Turkey Customs Union Agreement and displacing similar
Community products.

Mr Hans van den Broek also stated that (cid:145)the Community and Turkey agreed as part of the recommenda-
tions adopted by the Community-Turkey Association Committee on 24 April 1997) to keep a constant
watch on this matter in order to prevent any evasion of the rules of the Customs Union.(cid:146) Will the
Commission say how many Community monitoring teams similar to that of October 1996 have been
dispatched since then and what their findings have been?

(1) OJ C 45, 10.2.1998, p. 131.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2000)

Since the Commission(cid:146)s inspection mission to Turkey of October 1996, no further missions took place.
No evidence of actual fraud was found. Since the inspection mission there have been no indications of
fraud, whether by complaints by Community industry or otherwise. The Commission therefore does not
intend to make any periodic inspections, but will raise the matter immediately with the Turkish authorities
if the need arrises. Any suspicion of fraud can be directly communicated to the Director of the European
Anti-fraud Office (OLAF).

(2000/C 374 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0453/00

by Karin J(cid:246)ns (PSE) to the Council

(24 February 2000)

Subject: Regulation (EC) temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common Customs Tariff

duties on certain fishery products

In Council Regulation (EC) No 2822/98 (1) of 21 December 1998, customs duties on a range of fisheries
lump fish, various crab species, etc) were fixed at zero per cent with effect from
products (sturgeon,

C 374 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

1 January 1999. On the other hand, customs duties on dogfish (squalus acanthias (cid:129) fresh, chilled or
frozen) were fixed at six per cent, and on fillets and meat of Alaska pollack (theragra chalcogramma (cid:129) in
the form of industrial block for processing) at four per cent.

1. What is the unreduced rate of customs duty on imports of other fishery products?

2. Why was the rate for Alaska pollack, which is caught almost exclusively off Pacific coastal states
(USA, Canada, Russia, China, Korea, Japan), making the EU dependent on imports, not also fixed at zero
per cent in common with the other fishery products covered by the regulation?

3. Why was the rate for Alaska pollack fixed at four per cent?

4. Why was the rate for dogfish not also fixed at zero per cent in common with the other fishery
products covered by the regulation? It should be noted that dogfish has to be extensively imported into the
EU from the USA and Canada because it is found only in small quantities in the waters between Ireland
and Britain?

5. Why was the rate for dogfish fixed at six per cent?

(1) OJ L 351, 29.12.1998, p. 9.

Reply

(18 May 2000)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2822/98 temporarily suspending some or all of the autonomous Common
Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products was adopted on 21 December 1998 as the same time as
the Regulation opening and providing for the administration of autonomous Community tariff quotas for
certain fishery products.

The proposals for those Regulations were examined together with a view to developing a compromise
solution acceptable both to those Member States that favour the interests of fishermen and to those that
defend the interests of the processing industries.

The Common Customs Tariff lays down the rates applicable. In the case of fishery products, these are

1.
between 2 % for salmon and 25 % for sardines, mackerel, etc. They were published (1).

For certain products, Community production is non-existent, low or insufficient, so the processing
2.
industry has to find sources of supply on markets outside the Community. In that event the Community
has to take the tariff measures necessary to ensure that its industry remains competitive with those of non-
member countries.

The Community(cid:146)s tariff rules are closely linked to its trade policy, and are regularly adapted in line with
developments on the international market and the supply possibilities that arise out of,
in this case,
fisheries agreements.

The 18 % rates applicable to Alaska pollack and to dogfish have been suspended at 4 % and 6 %

3.
respectively in the light of those considerations.

As regards the year 2000, the rates applicable to fish, crustaceans, molluscs and other aquatic

4.
invertebrates were published (2).

5.
On 17 December 1999 the Council adopted a new Regulation suspending some or all of the
autonomous Common Customs Tariff duties on certain fishery products. That Regulation was applicable
from 1 January 2000 and was published (3). The rates adopted for fillets and meat of Alaska pollack and
for meat of dogfish were suspended at 3,5 % and 6 % respectively.

(1) OJ L 292, 30.10.1998, pp. 47 and 62.
(2) OJ L 278, 28.10.1999, pp. 47 to 66.
(3) OJ L 336, 29.12.1999.