WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/02 by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE)and Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unfair competition on the market for aluminium scrap.
Date: 2002-10-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, Ukraine, aluminium, common commercial policy, export restriction, international competition, market access, measure having equivalent effect, metal waste, restriction on competition, trade agreement, trade restriction

C 268 E/24

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

If divergences arise, due to differing interpretations of the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature by national
administrations, they are dealt with in the framework of the Customs Code Committee and appropriate
measures to end the differing interpretations (for example, a classification regulation or explanatory note)
are taken. This might lead to the revocation of a BTI. In this case, a period of grace of up to six months is
granted in order to allow the economic operator to adapt to the harmonised interpretation of the Tariff
and Statistical Nomenclature, in accordance with Article 12(6) of the Customs Code.

All BTIs issued by Member States, containing both confidential and non-confidential data, are stored in a
central database managed by the Commission and accessible to all national administrations. A thesaurus
facilitates the understanding of BTIs issued in the various Community languages. In addition, in the past,
the Commission made publicly available a CD-ROM containing an extract of the database (not showing the
confidential data such as the data about the holder or detailed information about the composition of the
goods). Currently, this CD-ROM is no longer issued for technical and budgetary reasons.

However, the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member on the importance of public access to the
classification decisions stored in the database, as it may be helpful for economic operators when making
their import or export declaration. The Commission is, therefore, in collaboration with Member States,
working on the contents of the database as well as on the updating of its thesaurus, in order to allow all
operators to consult the Binding Tariff Information issued in the various Community languages. Public
access to the database (non-confidential data) is scheduled towards the end of 2003.

(1) OJ L 302, 19.10.1992.
(2) OJ L 253, 11.10.1993.

(2003/C 268 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/02

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE), Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE)
and Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Unfair competition on the market for aluminium scrap

The OEA (Organisation of European Aluminium Refiners and Remelters), an organisation representing 175
companies which produced a total of approximately 2 900 000 tonnes of aluminium in 2001, has drawn
attention to the situation set out below. Aluminium scrap prices are more or less the same everywhere on
the world market. However, Russia and Ukraine are out of step with the market price, given that in 2000
Ukraine imposed a total ban on exports of aluminium scrap and that Russia has steadily increased the
duties it levies, thus making it impossible for European producers to obtain supplies on these markets. This
situation is distorting competition: Ukrainian producers have a ready supply of cheap scrap on their
domestic market and face no competition whatsoever, while the duty payable on imports into the EU of
alloys produced in Russia and Ukraine stands at 6 %.

In view of the wholly justified concern expressed by the OEA, how does the Commission intend to put an
end to this serious distortion of competition?

Would it not agree that it should propose that the barriers imposed by Russia (30 % duty) and Ukraine to
trade in scrap should be removed, that the duty levied be brought into line with that in force for imports
of finished products into the EU market (6 %) or even that, taking a leaf out of the USA’s book, a 100 %
levy should be imposed on imports of aluminium alloys for pressure die casting produced in Ukraine and
Russia?

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/25

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Members’ concerns about distortions of competition caused by
Russia’s and Ukraine’s restrictions on exports of non-ferrous scrap metal.

Initially set at 10 % in 1999, the Russian tax on exports of ferrous metals has been gradually raised and
now stands at 50 %. The dissuasive level of this tax inevitably brought about a sharp reduction in Russian
exports of scrap metal, thus refuting the budgetary argument put forward by the Russian authorities to
justify the tax. As a result, Russian producers can get their secondary raw materials on the domestic
market at prices well below the international market price. This advantage means that their semi-finished
and finished products are very competitive on third-country markets.

The issue of Russian export taxes is a key point on the agenda of the bilateral trade discussions and was
broached at the recent EU-Russia Cooperation Committee meeting in Brussels on 23 October. Elimination
of those taxes is one of the Community’s demands in the negotiations for Russia’s accession to the WTO.

A similar situation obtains for Ukraine. Since August 2000 it has banned exports of non-ferrous scrap
metal, ostensibly to combat criminal activity in its scrap metal sector.

The Commission considers that this Ukrainian measure, which is not accompanied by equivalent domestic
measures, is a flagrant breach of the provisions of the bilateral Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

In both cases,
undertakings made and, where appropriate, with the dispute settlement procedures set out
partnership and cooperation agreements.

the Commission will defend Community interests as part of compliance with the
in the

At this stage it cannot therefore go along with the suggestion by some operators that the Community
should unilaterally impose additional customs duties over and above the existing 6 % tariff on imports of
raw aluminium originating in Russia and Ukraine.

(2003/C 268 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3010/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 October 2002)

Subject: Humanitarian crisis, Northern Uganda

In the Uganda-European Community Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme for the
period 2002-2007 Section 3.1: The Political Situation (p. 5), the Commission states that:

Apart from the North and South West areas affected by rebellions, there is a general sense of security
and of not being exposed to exactions from State organs.

Is the Commission aware of the developing humanitarian crisis in large parts of northern Uganda as
escalating conflict between the Ugandan Government and the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) has led to food
production being stopped in some areas and that aid convoys have been terminated following attacks
upon them, resulting in up to 120 000 people being threatened with starvation?

What representations has the Commission made to the Ugandan Government regarding the growing
humanitarian crisis?