 
RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
19 November 2002 
 (02-6422) 
Working Party on the Accession 
of the Russian Federation  
 
 
 
DRAFT REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON THE  
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION 
Revision  
Introduction  
1. The Government of the Russian Federation applied for accession to the General Agreement 
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1947) in June 1993.  At its meeting on 8 July 1993, the GATT Council 
of Representatives established a Working Party to examine the application of the Government of the 
Russian Federation to accede to GATT 1947 under Article XXXIII of the General Agreement.  
Following the entry into force of the WTO Agr eement on 1 January 1995, and in pursuance of the 
decision adopted by the WTO General Council on  31 January 1995, the GATT 1947 Working Party 
was transformed into a WTO Accession Workin g Party under Article XII of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the WTO.  The terms of re ference and the membership of the Working Party 
are reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS/1/Rev.[…]. 
2. The Working Party met on 17-19 July 1995, 4-6 December 1995, 30-31 May 1996, 
15 October 1996, 15 April 1997, 22-23 July 1997, 9-11 December 1997, 29 July 1998, 
16-17 December 1998, and 25 May 2000 under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. W. Rossier 
(Switzerland) and on 18 December 2000, 26-27  June 2001, 23-24 January 2002, 25 April 2002, 
20 June 2002, and […] under the Chairmanship of H.E. Mr. K. Bryn (Norway). 
Documentation Provided 
3. The Working Party had before it, to serve as a basis for its discussions, a Memorandum on the 
Foreign Trade Regime of the Russian Federation (L/7410), questions submitted by Working Party 
members on the foreign trade regime of the Russian Federation together with replies thereto and other 
information provided by the Russian authorities listed in document WT/ACC/RUS/11/Rev[…] and 
legislative texts and other documentation listed in Annex I. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 2  
Introductory Statements 
4. The representative of the Russian Federation r ecalled that his Government had been an 
observer to GATT 1947 since January 1992 when the Russian Federation continued the former USSR 
observer status. In this capacity , the Russian Federation had witnessed the successful conclusion of 
the Uruguay Round and followed its implementation.  Si nce its request for accession to the WTO, the 
Russian Federation had undertaken an unprecedented process of reform of its economy progressively 
adopting laws and regulations cons istent with WTO multilateral rules and disciplines.  This process 
was primarily aimed at establishing the conditions  for a dynamic market economy in the Russian 
Federation based on a stable and predictable legisl ative framework capable of sustaining long term 
economic growth and ensuring improvements in the standards of living and welfare of the Russian 
population as well as in the modernization of the Russian Federation's production capacity, its 
international competitiveness and security. 
5. In this context, he noted that his Governme nt was confronted with a number of important 
tasks in the social, institutional, macroeconomic and structural investment fields. In particular, the 
Russian Federation had to overcome the decline in the standards of living of its population resulting 
from the economic and financial cris is of 1998. This could be only achieved through policies aimed at 
stimulating growth in the country's GDP by improving economic productivit y, expanding domestic 
sources of financial investments and creating an environment capable of attracting an increasing 
amount of foreign investments.  In his Government's  view, this would also require the maintenance of 
a set of policies which could adequately deve lop competitive domestic markets for goods, services 
and capitals and enhance the role of smaller a nd medium size enterprises and business.  Regarding 
foreign economic policy, his Government attached  great priority in securing the institutional 
integration of the Russia Federation in the worl d economy.  Accession to the WTO was of primary 
importance in this process. 
6. Members of the Working Party welcomed the Russian Federation's application for accession 
to the WTO and underscored the importance of a rapi d integration of the Russian Federation into the 
multilateral trading system.  To this end, members considered that the enactment of relevant legislation consistent with WTO requirements a nd of provisions for its implementation was essential 
to the establishment of the terms of accession of th e Russian Federation to the WTO.  Members of the 
Working Party equally stressed the need for co mpleting the negotiations on commercially viable 
terms which should be mutually beneficial to the Russian Federation and WTO Members. 
7. The Working Party reviewed the economic polici es and foreign trade regime of the Russian 
Federation and the terms of a draft Protocol of Accession to the WTO.  The views expressed by 
members of the Working Party on the various as pects of the Russian Federation's foreign trade  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 regime, and on the terms and conditions of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO are 
summarized below in paragraphs […] to […].    
ECONOMY, ECONOMIC POLICIES AND FOREIGN TRADE 
Economic Policies - Fiscal and Monetary Policies 8. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that current economic policies in the 
Russian Federation were aimed, inter alia , at "debureaucratization" of the economy, improvement of 
competition and investment attractiveness of the co untry, as well as at the achievement of its fiscal 
and monetary stability.  In particular, the Russian Federation stated that current monetary policy was 
aimed at creating sustainable economic growth.  This objective was basically being achieved by 
controlling money supply, maintaining a floating exchange rate for the national currency, and 
consolidating gold and foreign exchange reserve assets.  All these actions were accompanied by 
measures directed at liberalizing foreign exchange regulations.  
9. Noting the above statement, some members of th e Working Party considered that the Central 
Bank of Russia (CBR) in its conduct of monetary po licy continued to rely unduly on management of 
the exchange rate and foreign r eserves and on depository operations rather than on more standard 
tools, such as refinancing and interest rate  management.  These members asked the Russian 
Federation to further comment on these issues.  
10. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation referred to the detailed description 
of the CBR's activities contained in the following section on foreign exchange and payments systems.   
- Foreign Exchange and Payments System 
11. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that, as a member of the International 
Monetary Fund (IMF) since 1992, his country followe d internationally accepted monetary rules.  The 
national currency - the Ruble (equal to 100 Kopeks) - was convertible to foreign currencies on the 
basis of current market rates.  Pursuant to th e commitments undertaken by the Russian Federation 
under Article VIII of the Articles of Agreement of  the International Monetary Fund imposing an 
obligation to avoid limitations on payments and transfers under curre nt international transactions 
without the approval of the Fund, and pursuan t to Article 6 of Fe deral Law No. 3615-1 of 
9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation and Currency Control"
1, current currency operations were 
performed by residents and non-residents without any limitations.  No multiple exchange rates were 
                                                      
1 All legislative texts can be cross-referenced in Annex I to this draft Working Party Report. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 4  maintained, but a single exchange rate based on the ma rket.  Capital transactions were subject to the 
regulative procedures of the CBR. These transacti ons could require permissions of the CBR, or 
notifications to the CBR, or could be conducted freely. Permissions and notifications did not 
constitute unnecessary barriers to trade. The pro cedures were transparent and publicly available 
through normative acts published by the CBR. Th e number of capital operations requiring the 
permissions by the CBR was constantly being re duced and superseded by simple notification 
procedures or free execution.   
12. He noted that six exchange restrictions neve rtheless remained in place (Table 1).  These 
restrictions exclusively covered transactions invol ving capital flow which were not regulated by the 
WTO Agreement and in respect to which the Ru ssian Federation had no commitments under its 
international agreements.  These restrictions were gr adually being abo lished.  The restrictions still 
maintained were connected first and foremost wi th the necessity to prevent the illegal outflow of 
capital from the country and to combat money-launde ring practices, in line with joint efforts of the 
world financial community, through international financial organizations, including the Financial 
Action Task Force on Money Laundering (FATF).  These restrictions, however, did not limit the 
ability of service providers to offer a service or to  be established in the territory of the Russian 
Federation in line with WTO requirements. 
13. Foreign exchange regulation and foreign ex change control were efficient against 
non-sanctioned leakage of capital from the Russian Fede ration.  In this regard, the CBR was currently 
taking further steps in order to improve the system of control on timely and full transfer of export 
revenue returned to the country and on payment fo r goods which were imported into the territory of 
the Russian Federation on prepayment conditions.  The CBR was also strengthening control measures 
to enable the detection of fictitious foreign exchange  operations by residents to increase the efficiency 
on the transfer of foreign currency to off-shore z ones.  These measures we re provided in the CBR 
Directive No. 500-U of 12 February 1999 "On Enha ncing the Currency Control by Authorized Banks 
over the Lawfulness of Their Clients' Currency Tran sactions and on the Procedure for the Application 
of Sanctions to Authorized Banks for Breach of the Currency Legislation". 
14. With regard to foreign currency acquisition a nd use by residents, the procedure for the 
acquisition of foreign currency on the internal currency market by physical and legal entities was 
established under Article 4 of Federal Law No . 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation 
and Currency Control".  Purchase of foreign currency by resident legal entities to make pre-payments 
under import contracts for the delivery of goods was to  be made in accordance with the requirements 
of CBR Directive No. 519-U of 22 March 1999 "On th e Procedure for the Purchase by Resident Legal 
Entities of Foreign Currency for Rubles on the Internal  Currency Market of the Russian Federation to 
Make Payments under Agreements fo r the Import of Goods into the Russian Federation".  Payments  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 to non-residents for the performance of works, the re ndering of services or the transfer of results of 
intellectual activity was established under CBR Directive No. 721-U of 30 December 1999  "On the 
Procedure for the Purchase by Resident Legal Entiti es of Foreign Currency to Make Payments for the 
Performance of Works, the Rendering of Services or the Transfer of Results of Intellectual Activity".  
Existing currency legislation did not restrict the right s of resident physical persons to acquire foreign 
currency on the internal currency market. 
15. Federal Law No. 120-FZ "On the Tax on the Purchase of Foreign Legal Tenders and 
Instruments Denominated in Foreign Currency" of 21 July 1997, as subsequently amended, 
introduced a tax in the amount of one per cent of  the amount of foreign currency cash acquired by 
physical persons (not applicable to legal entities).  At the end of June 2002, the Government of the 
Russian Federation approved and introduced to the State Duma a draft law "On Recognizing as 
Invalid Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian  Federation on Tax on the Purchase of Foreign 
Currency and Payment Documents Expressed in Fo reign Currency", envisaging the cancellation of 
this tax as of 1 January  2003. 
16. Russian currency legislation under Article  6:5 of the Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 
9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation and Currency  Control" also envisaged a requirement for 
resident legal entities to mandatorily sell 50 pe r cent of the entire amount of currency revenue 
received from non-residents currency revenue on the in ternal currency market (75 per cent prior to 
August 2001). Foreign currency revenue from non-resi dents was not subject to mandatory sale if it 
was: 
- non-residents' contributions to charter capitals; 
- income (dividends) obtained from participation in capital; 
- revenue from the sale of securities (shares, bonds); 
- income (dividends) from securities (shares, bonds); 
- contracted loans (deposits, holdings); 
- amounts received as repayment of loans (deposits, holdings) granted, including 
accrued interest; 
- receipts in the form of charitable donations; 
- foreign currency acquired by residents on the internal currency market; 
- foreign currency payments made from funds  remaining following the mandatory sale 
of a part of export revenue; 
- pre-payment amounts returned by non-residents under unfulfilled import contracts. 
This applied to all foreign currenc y export revenue -  export of goods, works, services and the results 
of intellectual activity.  The sale took place on the in ternal currency market at the market exchange 
rate of foreign currencies to the Ruble on the internal  currency market on the date of the sale.  Prior to 
the mandatory sale of the part of the export currenc y revenue, resident legal entities were entitled to 
make payments in foreign currency for the transp ortation, insurance and forwarding of cargoes to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 6  non-residents and residents, and to pay in foreign currency for all customs formalities, export customs 
duties and commissions to authorized banks. 
17. With regard to the opening of foreign currenc y accounts in non-resident banks by physical 
process and legal entities, Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Currency Regulation and 
Currency Control" determined in Ar ticle 5.2 that residents (physical persons and legal entities) could 
open foreign currency accounts in no n-resident banks in accordance with the procedure established by 
the CBR.  The CBR Instruction No. 100-I of 29 A ugust 2001, "On Resident Physical Persons' 
Accounts in Banks Outside the Russian Federation", stated that resident natural persons could open 
accounts in non-resident banks functioning in OECD  and FATF member-countries.  Funds from these 
accounts could not be used to conduct entreprene urial activity without permission from the CBR.  
Physical persons had to inform the tax authoriti es at their place of residence of the opening and 
closure of such accounts. 
18. Resident legal entities could open accounts in fo reign currency in non-resident banks on the 
basis of permissions of the CBR which would be issued in each specific case. Legal entities could 
only open foreign currency accounts in non-resident  banks to make paymen ts under international 
construction agreements as provi ded for under CBR Directive No. 101 0-U of 3 August 2001, "On the 
List of Foreign States (Territori es) and their Non-Freely Convertible  Currencies, in which Residents 
May Open Accounts Outside the Russian Federa tion to Make Payments Under International 
Construction Agreements". 
19. Some members expressed concerned that ex isting requirements on foreign exchange 
acquisition and retention actually inhibited trade.  These members sought to register those concerns 
because the introduction of these measures by the Ru ssian Federation was a factor in closing the 
Russian Federation's market for a number of pro ducts of interest to them and these measures 
continued to impede market access.  Thus they re quested additional information on the status and 
operation of foreign exchange control and regulator y measures in force, including restrictions on 
foreign exchange retention, restriction on the ability to obtain or retain foreign exchange for payments 
purposes, restrictions on the rights of residents to  acquire and hold foreign exchange and to have 
account in foreign banks, pre-payment requirement s for imports, and the acquisition charge of 
one per cent levied on the purchase of foreign excha nge.  This information should include details on 
the nature of the requirements in place, their le gal basis, their purpose and WTO justification, the 
circumstances that led to their introduction and whether these circumstances still existed, and the 
Russian Federation's plans to eliminate restrictions which were still in place. 
20. In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that pursuant to Article 10 of  
Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Curr ency Regulation and Currency Control" currency  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 control proceeded mainly along the following lines:   (i) determining whether a currency transaction 
was consistent with the legislation in force and whether all required licenses and permits were 
available;  (ii) control of compliance by resident s with their obligations to the state nominated in 
foreign currency, as well as their obligations in resp ect of the sale of foreign exchange on the internal 
market of the Russian Federation;  (iii) control of  legitimacy of payments in foreign currency;  
(iv) control over full and accurate record and accounting of currency operations, and operations 
performed by non-residents in Russian currency for the primary purpose of controlling that foreign 
exchange revenues return to Russian Federation a nd monitoring the outflow of foreign exchange from 
the country under prepayment arrangements. 
21. He confirmed that there were no subsidies on purchases and sales of foreign exchange. There 
were no restrictions for residents to buy foreign currencies on the domestic exchange market to meet 
their payment commitments on current transactions.  Foreign currencies to pay capital transactions 
could also be freely obtained on the domestic market on condition that the requirement of the CBR was met.  The requirement in the case of prepayme nt to be transferred under contracts for imports 
made it compulsory for residents to deposit an amount in Rubles equal to 100 per cent of the sum used 
for buying foreign currency for the purpose of prepayment in an authorized bank.  Their requirement was regarded by the Russian authorities as a m eans to avoid illicit capital flight as the Russian 
Government made substantial paym ents to service its external debt and needed adequate currency 
control measures to check unauthorized outflow of cap ital, and it did not appl y to residents' purchases 
of foreign currencies required to pay for the impor t of goods already delivered in the country.  
Moreover, pursuant to Article 149 of Part II of the Tax Code of the Russian Federation, sale and 
purchase of foreign currency in cash or without cash transfer (including mediation services for sale and purchase of foreign currency) were not subject to taxation. 
22. While noting the above statement, several member s maintained that the tax of one per cent on 
the purchase of foreign currency in cash was inconsis tent with the non-discriminatory provisions of 
Article III and the requirements of Article XI of  GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture to eliminate unjustifiable restrictions  on exports. The provision that purchases of foreign 
exchange for payments made 90 days prior to impor tation was subject to the tax, and all formalities, 
fees and requirements associated with the implemen tation of that provision,  also discriminated 
against imports from more distant countries and accord ingly it was inconsistent with the provisions of 
Article I of GATT 1994. The mandatory requirement applicable to exporters of products from the 
Russian Federation to convert 50 per cent of their foreign exchange earnings into domestic currency 
was inconsistent with the requirement of Artic le XI of GATT 1994 to eliminate unjustifiable 
restrictions on exportation. Insofar as this requireme nt impeded the use of foreign exchange earnings 
for subsequent importation, it was also inconsiste nt with non-discrimination requirements of Article WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 8  III of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO Agreemen t on Agriculture.  Some members further noted 
that the requirement in question was especially burdensome for small importe rs and could therefore 
heavily inhibit trade.  The requirement to depos it in domestic currency in an authorized bank an 
amount equal in value to the foreign currency purc hased for the purpose of prepayment for purchase 
of imports was equally inconsiste nt with the non-discrimination provisions of Article III and XI of 
GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  For these reasons, several 
members urged the Russian Federation to consider the use of other methods to avoid illicit capital 
flight.  They also requested the Russian Federation to eliminate all these requirements by the date of 
its accession to the WTO and to enter a commitment not to have recourse to such measures after accession. 
23. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration reiterated his authorities' intention to 
eliminate the tax of one per cent on the purchase of foreign currency on 1 January 2003.  He 
explained that under Article 6.5 of Federa l Law No. 3651-1 of 9 October 1992 "On Currency 
Regulation and Currency Control" 50 per cent e xport earnings generated from exports of goods, 
services and results of intellectual activity were subj ect to mandatory resale through authorized banks 
on the internal exchange market at market exchange rates.  At this  stage, this requirement was an 
important instrument guaranteeing the stability of fo reign exchange market and the predictability of 
the Ruble exchange rate dynamics, and a means of mobilization of currency resources required to fulfil foreign payments obligations. The Russian Go vernment considered premature to abandon this 
requirement at this stage.  The procedure for purch ase of foreign currency with Rubles in the internal 
exchange market by resident legal entities for th e purpose of payments under goods import contracts 
was provided by the CBR Directive No. 519-U of 22 March 1999 and required the implementation of 
the following: firstly, a resident should make a pa yment to the transacting authorized bank for 100 
per cent of the value of the amount with which it proposed to purchase foreign currency; secondly, the 
resident should establish a deposit for value of the foreign currency to be purchased. Thus, the 
requirement to make a deposit for the purpose of purchasing foreign currencies for prepayment of 
imports was a mandatory enabling condition for purchase of foreign currency in the internal exchange 
market. It was not, however, intended to restrict rights  and lawful interests of residents bat rather to 
control and restrain currency outflow from the count ry. This requirement was applicable only in case 
of advance payments beyond 90 days. Otherwise,  foreign currencies destined to pay capital 
transactions might be freely obtained by residents on the domestic market. Similarly, no additional 
deposit was required for purposes of settlements between  residents in case of payments through letter 
of credit, bank guarantee, or where a risk insuran ce was available in respect on non-return of export 
exchange earnings.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 24. In response to further enquiries concerning advance payment under import contracts, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that  neither legislation or regulatory acts of the CBR 
required non-residents to complete delivery within  90 days from the date of advance payment by a 
resident, or otherwise restrict their right to make  longer-term contracts.  Russian currency law stated 
that transfers discussed below which did not ex ceed 90 days were classified as current currency 
operations and were performed freely without any limitations and did not require a permit by the 
CBR.  Those that took longer than 90 days were classified as operations involving capital flow thus 
requiring an appropriate permit issued by the CBR.  An importer who may find that 90 days will be 
exceeded can apply for a permit before the end of the 90 day period. 
25. He further explained that CBR's regulations re quiring shipment of goods within 90 days of 
payment of invoice were non-discriminatory and c ould not cause interruption of transactions as 
modern means of transport made 90 days a suffi cient time for delivery of goods to the Russian 
Federation from virtually any geographical location in  the world. On the contrary, this requirement 
facilitated currency transactions as transactions of  90 days duration were qualified for current 
operations and did not require CBR's authorization.   Further, gradual liberalization of currency 
regulation and control was being envisaged by hi s authorities. A massive reform was under way to 
improve existing legislation rela ting to currency regulation and a Federal Law "On Amendments and 
Supplements to the Law "On Currency Regulation and Currency Control" was in an advanced drafting 
stage. 
26. While recognizing the liberalization efforts undertak en by the Russian Federation in this field, 
several members further considered it useful to be provided with an opportunity to also review the 
content of the new package of banking laws and information on the banking reform policy recently 
promoted by the Russian authorities. 
- Investment Regime   
27. The representative of the Russian Federation note d that the current policy of his Government 
in this area was particularly directed at creating the conditions to promote the expansion of domestic 
and foreign investments, and also the formation of  transparent and stable rules in the conduct of 
economic activities. 
28. The basic texts relating to the activities of fore ign investors were set forth in the Constitution 
of the Russian Federation adopted on 12 December  1993; the Civil Code Part One, No. 51-FZ of 30 
November 1994 (as amended on 20 Febr uary, 12 August 1996, 8 July 1999, 16 April, 15 May 2001) 
and Part Two, No. 14-FZ of 26 January 1996  (as amended on 12 August 1996, 24 October 1997, 
17 December 1999); and a number of other legisla tive acts. Those legislative acts provided proper WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 10  guaranties for the protection of foreign investors' rights and interests and a dvantageous conditions for 
foreign investors and enterprises which intended to invest in the Russian Federation respecting its 
domestic investment legislation and relevant intern ational treaties signed by the Russian Federation.  
29. In response to questions by some members, he  added that the adoption of the Land Code of 
the Russian Federation (Federal Law No. 136-FZ of  25 October 2001), together with a number of 
legislative acts on "debureaucratization" (Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing 
of Specific Types of Activity", as well as Federal Law 178-FZ on Amending the Law on Licensing Specific Kinds of Activities dated 26 November 1998), Federal Law No. 134-FZ of 8 August 2001 
"On the Protection of Legal Entities' and Individual Entrepreneurs' Rights in the Case of Exercise of 
State Control (Supervision)", and the Tax Code of the Russian Federation significantly contributed to 
the formation of a favourable investment climate and facilitated the activity of Russian and foreign 
companies in the Russian market. 
- State Ownership and Privatization  
30. The representative of the Russian Federation not ed that the multilateral trade agreements 
resulting from the Uruguay Round did not contain any requirements in respect of undertakings in 
relation to privatization.  He was willing, howeve r, to provide informati on on privatization policies 
and their implementation in the Russian Federation. 
31. He further noted that the government privatiza tion policy was aimed at a structural reform of 
the Russian economy and at developing its private sect or by expanding the scope of privatization.  
This policy also provided for:  the formation of budget revenues; minimization of federal budget costs 
of public property management; encouragement of investment in the production sector of the Russian 
economy; improved opportunities for medium and small busin ess participation in the privatization by 
means of diversifying the instruments of priva tization of State and municipal property; and the 
consolidation of real properties by means of at taching land plots to the property privatized. 
Privatization in the Russian Federation was based on the principles of transparency and predictability 
of privatization procedures, equal treatment of a ll purchasers of state and municipal properties and 
transparent procedures of state authorities and lo cal administrations.  The legislative basis for 
privatization consisted of Fede ral Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 "On Privatization of State 
and Municipal Property", and the re lated implementing legislation.  
32. Privatization of State enterprises were execute d pursuant to the following basis legal acts: 
- the State Program of "Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian 
Federation" (approved by Presidential D ecree No. 2284 of 24 December 1993, as 
amended on 14 March 1996, 6 October 1997, 15 July 1998, 25 July, 1 August 2000, 
3 April 2002);  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
- Basic Provisions of the State Program of "Privatization of State-Owned and 
Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Fede ration after 1 July 1994" (approved by 
Presidential Decree No. 1535 of 22 July 1994 as amended on 16 April 1998, 25 January 1999);    
- the Conception of Management of State Property and Privatization in the Russian 
Federation (approved by Government D ecision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999, as 
amended on 29 November 2000). 
33. He further added that pursuant to Fe deral Law No. 178-FZ of 21 December 2001 "On 
Privatization of State and Municipal Property"  property classified under federal laws as a 
non-alienable object of civil rights (an object exem pt from alienation) - natural resources, budgetary 
funds, defense facilities and objects, sanitary and ep idemiological services, etc. - and also property 
that could only be in state or municipal owne rship as established by federal laws could not be 
privatized. 
34. Some members requested additional informati on on the criteria applied by local government 
authorities in deciding whether to permit foreign partic ipation in particular privatizations and, if so, 
under what conditions.  In this context, clarificati ons on the nature of the relationship between local 
and the national regulatory framewo rk were sought.  These members also required more information 
on the scope and future of the Russian Federation' s privatization efforts and more information on 
those enterprises which would not be privatized. In  particular, a clarification was sought regarding 
state-owned sectors which were excluded from foreign participation in privatization. 
35. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that Federal Law No. 178-FZ 
of 21 December 2001 "On Privatization of State and Municipal Property" did not itself contain any 
restrictions concerning foreign participation in pr ivatization, but required mandatory compliance with 
the restrictions established by other legal acts.  The State Program of Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federati on (approved by Presidential Decree No. 2284 of 
24 December 1993) provided that the Government of  the Russian Federation and governments of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation were entitled to defi ne the terms of foreign i nvestor participation in 
the privatization of facilities and objects of the defe nse industry, the oil and gas industry, mining and 
processing of ores of strategic materials, precious and semiprecious stones, precious metals, radioactive and rare-earth minerals, certain  objects and facilities in transportation and 
communications (federally owned and privatized  at a decision of the Russian Federation 
Government), when making the decision on privatiza tion.  In each instance a regulatory legal act 
should be adopted. According to the State Program of  Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises 
in the Russian Federation, the privatization decisi on and authorization of fo reign participation for 
retail and wholesale enterprises, public catering
2 and consumer services3, as well as of small 
                                                      
2 Public catering – restau rants, fast-food enterpri ses and other eating places. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 12  enterprises in industry, constructi on, and automobile transportation, which were the subjects of 
municipal ownership, were to be made by local  administrations. Privatization of State property 
maintained by the subjects of the Russian Federati on and of municipal property was governed by the 
Russian Federation legislation on privatization. 
36.  In response to requests from members for information on the current progress in 
privatization, he further stated that 90,947 en terprises had been privatized between 1993 and 2001 
(Table 2).  He also provided information concerning privatization by sectors (Table 3).  He noted that 
according to the Common Russian Classifier of Sectors of the Economy (approved by Decision No. 21/97 of Gosstandard of the Russian  Federation on 29 Octobe r 1997, as amended on 15 
January, 31 August 1999, 15 February 2000) "Industry" included fishing and mining, and 
wood-processing, timber-processing and cellulose and paper producing industries as a single category. 
Forestry (forestation, forest regeneration) was a separate sector of economy and pertained to "Other areas of economy".  According to the Conception of Management of State Property and Privatization 
in the Russian Federation (approved by Government  Decision No. 1024 of 9 August 1999 only such 
enterprises could be maintained in the form of Fe deral State unitary enterprises which complied with 
the criteria stipulated in Government Decisi on No. 1348 of 6 December 1999 "On Federal State 
Unitary Enterprises Based on the Right of Economic Jurisdiction (maintenance of national defense 
and national interest, solution of social goals)".  According to Article 113 of the Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation, the unitary en terprise was recognized as a commercial organization, not endowed 
with the right of ownership to the property, allotte d to it by the property owner.  Only State and the 
municipal enterprises were set up in the form of unitary enterprises. 
37. He further noted that according to the national statistics, in 2001, the State sector (i.e. State 
unitary enterprises and joint-stock companies more th an 50 per cent owned by the State) in all sectors 
of economy accounted for 13.4 per cent of the total production of goods and services (and 14.1 
per cent in 2000), 9.7 per cent of the total industr ial production and services, and 13.2 per cent of the 
total agricultural production (Annual Report On Deve lopment of State Sectors of Economy in the 
Russian Federation in 2001, Goskomstat) . 
38. [Members of the Working Party invited the Ru ssian Federation to enter a commitment to 
report on developments in its progr am of privatization as long as the privatization program was in 
existence and on other issues related to any ongoing  economic reforms releva nt to its obligations 
under the WTO.] 
                                                                                                                                                                    
 
3 Consumer services – includes hairdressing saloons, dry-cleaner's, repair of householder equipment, 
shoe repair, etc.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 13 
 39. [The representative of the Russian Federa tion confirmed the readiness of the Russian 
Federation to ensure the transparency of its on going privatization programme and to keep WTO 
Members informed of progress in the reform of its economic and trade regime.  He stated that his Government would provide annual reports to WTO Me mbers (along the lines of that provided to the 
Working Party) on developments in its progra mme of privatization as long as the privatization 
programme was in existence.  He  also stated that his Government would provide annual reports on 
other issues related to economic reforms as releva nt to its obligations under the WTO while the 
Russian Federation was still in the process of reforming its economy.] 
- Pricing Policies 
40. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the main objective pursued by his 
authorities was to introduce the principle of free ma rket price formation based on supply and demand 
in the economic field.  Therefore, prices in most  sectors of the Russian economy were determined 
freely by market forces.  Presidential Decree No. 221 of 28 February 1995 "On Measures to 
Streamline the State Regulation of Prices (tariffs )" (as amended on 8 July 1995) and Government 
Resolution No. 239 of 7 March 1995 "On Measures to Streamline the State Regulation of Prices 
(Tariffs)"  (as amended on 8 February, 15 Ap ril, 31 July 1996, 30 June 1997, 30 July, 
28 December 1998, 6 February, 7 May, 16 June, 20  August 2001), established the main principles of 
the state regulation of prices (tariffs) on the domestic  market of the Russian Federation, carried out by 
the Government of the Russian Federation, fede ral authorities and sub-federal bodies of executive 
power for those goods and services comprehensively listed in Tables 4-6.  Regulatory legal acts 
issued by federal executive bodies concerning state regulation of prices for goods and services were subject to mandatory official publication.  All deci sions by the Government of the Russian Federation 
concerning state regulation of prices and tariffs, including those for services of natural monopolies, 
were published in "Rossiiskaya Gazeta". 
41. He noted that contract prices for goods and servi ces subject to state price regulation delivered 
on the territory of the Russian Federation were fixe d by enterprises independently, subject to market 
conditions and the current regulatory provisions regardless of whether they  were sold to  domestic or  
foreign purchasers.  Contract prices for exports of goods and services subject to state price regulation 
from the territory of the Russian  Federation were also fixed by enterprises depending on market 
conditions.  However, in sectors where natural m onopolies existed (transpor tation of oil and oil 
products along main pipelines; transportation of gas along main pipelines; transfer of electric heat and power;  transportation by rail;  services of trans port terminals, sea and river ports and airports;  
services of generally accessible electric
4 and postal communication services) and in the case of 
                                                      
4 The term "electric" refers both to the descriptio n of power supply and to telecommunication services. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 14  products purchased exclusively or mainly by the St ate such as defense products, pricing was based on 
production costs and established in a way which ex cluded any possible abuse by the producer/supplier 
of its monopoly position.  The procedures and princi ples used for fixing prices of goods and services 
regulated by the State differed depending on the type of goods or services.  For some goods a minimum price level was fixed (e.g. for alcoholic  beverages above 28 proof) while for others a 
maximum price level was settled (e.g. in railway trans portation).  In addition, in the case of air, road 
and river transport services involving competing gr oups of carriers, the carriers themselves had the 
right to set their own prices within established profit margins. 
42. Members of the Working Party asked for further clarifications on how State controlled prices 
were actually determined and what their relation to international prices was.  Noting that there was no 
agreement in the WTO on what could constitute a "natural monopoly", and therefore questioning the 
use of such term, some members required further clarification on the extent to which prices charged by these so-called "natural monopoly" suppliers  of goods and services would differ depending on 
whether they were sold to a domestic or foreign pur chaser or – in the case of services associated with 
the sale of goods – they related to goods destined for export rather than for domestic consumption.  
Some members sought additional information on the Russian Federation's announcement of efforts to 
unify its domestic and foreign operating tariffs for railways, as well as a status report on 
developments.  A member requested further clarifi cation on the grounds for fixing the minimum price 
level of vodka, liquor products and other alcohol stro nger than 28 proof.  This member also asked the 
Russian Federation to explain how this practice c ould be in compliance with the Agreement on the 
Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.  Another member asked whether gas liquids and 
condensate, e.g. those used for petrochemical feed stocks, were also included in the list of items under 
price control. 
43. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that the following elements were 
considered in determining the prices for products and services of natural monopolies
5: the 
cost-effectiveness of their production including the expenses of production (marketing) of products 
and services;  taxes and other payments;  the cost  of fixed production assets;  the requirement of 
investment for reproduction purposes;  depreciation charges;  estimated profits;  remoteness of 
different consumer groups to the pr oduction site of products and services;  adequacy of the quality of 
the products;  and services produced and marketed to the consumer demand.  In response to other 
                                                      
5 Under Russian legislation in force the term "nat ural monopoly" means the state of the commodity 
market when the satisfaction of the demand on this market is more efficient in the absence of competition, due 
to  specific technological aspects of  production (in connection with  a substantial decrease in the production 
costs per unit of goods  in the course of the growing volume of output), whereas goods produced by  subjects of 
the natural monopoly cannot be substituted in their consumption. As a result, the demand on the goods, which 
were produced by subjects of the natural monopolies and are on the commodity market depends to a lesser extent on the price changes for these goods than the demand on other goods does.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 15 
 enquiries, he said that the communication services which were regulated on the domestic market of 
the Russian Federation by the Ministry of Antim onopoly Policy and Entrepreneurship Support of the 
Russian Federation (approved by Government Resolution No. 715 of 11 October 2001 "On 
Developing the Mechanism of the State Regulation of Tariffs on Communications Services”), were as follows: 
- domestic correspondence (post cards, letters, parcels); 
- domestic cable services; 
- long-distance calls provided for registered subscribers: 
- spreading and broadcasting of national television channels; 
- providing access to telephone line regardless of th e subscriber line type (cable line or 
cable free (radio) line); 
- local calls provided for registered subscribers.   The charge for the local calls includes: 
- when the telephone services are provided upon subscription -  the rental fee for the 
permanent use of the subscriber line regardl ess of its type and for the use of the local 
telephone line regardless of th e telephone talk duration; 
- when payment for the telephone services is made by time - the rental fee for the 
permanent use of the subscriber line regard less of its type and the variable payment 
for the use of the local telephone line depe nding on the duration of the telephone talk 
counted in the tariffing units; 
- the provision of the cellular networks and va lue-added networks shall not be part of 
the natural monopoly, market principles of pricing are employed in the formation of the prices for these services; 
- liquefied gas and gas condenser are included in the list of goods, the prices for which 
are regulated by the state. 
44. He further noted that fixing the minimum pri ce level of vodka, liquor products and other 
alcohol stronger than 28 proof related only to th e internal sale and did not discriminate against 
imported products. This measure had no bear ing on customs valuation procedures.   
45. Regarding price controls applied at the sub -regional level, some members of the Working 
Party  enquired about the legal basis and scope of au thority to apply price controls at this level, and 
about whether these measures were actually reviewed by the federal authorities.   
46. The representative of the Russian Federation replied that regional governments regulated 
prices for products and services classified as local natural monopolies.  These included gas and solid 
fuel sold to the population, transportation of passe ngers and luggage by all means of public transport 
in municipal transport networks, communal serv ices to households, water supply, and sewerage 
services.  At the regional government level, prices fo r electrical energy provided by regional electrical 
power-plants were also regulated, as well as prices for all means of commuter passenger 
transportation (except railways),  communal services for the population (including rent), and public 
utilities.  Decisions on pricing taken at federal leve l by bodies authorized to regulate the activity of 
natural monopolies were compulsory for the regiona l executive bodies and local  executive authorities.  
State regulation of prices for goods and services pr ovided by local natural monopolies was carried out WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 16  by regional executive bodies independently to the extent provided by current regulatory provisions, 
taking into account recommended prices approved by federal executive bodies. 
47. He confirmed that Order No. 12/1 of the Fe deral Energy Commissi on of 24 March 1999 "On 
Granting a 50 per cent Reduction of Prices of Gas to Enterprises which Produce Chemical Fertilizers, 
Chemical Protection for Plants and Raw Materials fo r Production Thereof, in 1999" had been repealed 
in the course of that year and since there were no ot her legal provisions that provided for similar price 
reductions for industries. 
48. Noting that the Russian Federation had indicated that discriminatory pricing for transportation 
on railway freight could be eliminated by 1 Marc h 2002, some members asked the Russian Federation 
if this measure had been implemented as planned.   These members expected the Russian Federation  
to treat all import and export cargoes on the same basis as domestically produced goods, in line with 
the national treatment requirements of Article III, a nd to make a commitment to this in the Working 
Party Report. 
49. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation explained that his authorities were 
prepared to introduce the same pricing scheme on import-export cargoes as it was domestically. He 
added that in August 2001 the first stage of unifica tion for railway freight rates was implemented with 
the transition to payment for export and import car goes shipped through Russian ports based on Price 
List No. 10-01 tariffs.  Competent federal authorities were preparing the second stage of this tariff unification which would extend Price List 10-01 tari ffs to export and import cargoes shipped through 
Russian border checkpoints. This would eliminate th e existing differentiation in pricing for export and 
import cargoes shipped through Russian ports and border checkpoints and domestically circulated 
cargoes. 
50. Some members expressed strong concerns about th e trade distortions caused by State controls 
on the pricing of energy for domestic consumption (whether in the form of  gas, oil or electricity).  The 
effect of these controls was to depress prices for dom estic industrial users and to lead to a very wide 
differential between the price paid by domestic industrial users and th e price paid by export customers 
as well as the world market price.  This price differe ntial was in the order of as much as six to one for 
gas, five to one for electricity and four to one fo r oil.  For example, the price of natural gas to 
domestic industry was around US$15 per 1,000 cubic metres, compared to an average export price at 
The Russian Federation's western borders in 2001 of  US$116 per 1,000 cubic metres.  Even in the oil 
market, which was more deregulated, the price of  crude oil on the domestic spot market was around 
US$5 per barrel in January/March 2002 when the prevailing world price was around US$20.  These 
price comparisons were independent of any price variations resulting from differences in internal 
taxation rates.  The negative effects of the price differential were also potentially amplified by other  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 17 
 factors such as non-payment by domestic consumers.  This dual pricing contributed to an indirect 
subsidization of Russian industrial pr oducers, as they do not have to pay a full market price for their 
energy inputs.  This situation had implications  for the ability of imported goods to compete on the 
Russian market and could lead to a displacement  of member products from third country markets. 
Moreover, the non-market pricing of such input s rendered price comparisons in trade defense 
investigations (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy) pr oblematic.  Also, as a result of the non-market 
pricing of such inputs, Russian exports of "downstr eam" intermediate or finished goods, particularly 
of products that are energy-intensive such as fer tilizer or metals, can take place at prices below their 
normal value, leading to the possibility that they  could face anti-dumping or countervailing actions in 
export markets.  These members recognized that th is was an area where the Russian Federation had 
begun a process of regulatory reform, which could not be achieved overnight, and also understood 
that the Russian Federation could wish to maintain co ntrols on the price of energy sold for domestic 
household consumption.  But they considered th at the opportunity of WTO accession should be taken 
to tackle the negative impact of dual pricing in fa vour of manufacturing industry at its source.  They 
further considered that the progressive phasing-out of these subsidies - together with the phasing-out 
of export duties applied on associated products and a broader regulatory reform in the energy sector - 
would also benefit the wider economy of the Russi an Federation by allowing for a more rational 
resource allocation and stimulating greater investment and competitiveness. 
51. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that underground resources within the 
territory of the Russian Federation, including subs oil domain and mineral resources contained therein, 
energy and other resources were property of the State.   Gas, oil and electricity were pertaining to the 
sovereign rights of the Russian Federation.  He furt her pointed out that "dual pricing" mentioned by 
some members was, in the view of his Government, not regulated by WTO Agreement.   Regarding 
the view expressed by some member s that the Russian Federation's energy policies could imply an 
element of "an indirect subsidization of Russian indu strial producers, as they do not have to pay a full 
market price for their energy inputs', he said that in his Government's view such an issue would not 
follow under the tests established by the WTO Ag reement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
for determining the existence of an "actionable" subsidy.   
52. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed the Russian Federation would apply 
price controls on products and services contained in  Tables […], and any similar measures, including 
dual pricing, that are introduced or reintroduced in  future, in a WTO consistent manner, and take 
account of the interests of exporting members as provided for in Article III:9 of GATT 1994.  From 
the date of accession, the Russian Federation will pu blish lists of goods and services subject to State 
price controls in its Official Gazette, including the list in Tables […] and any changes from that list.]    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 18  
- Competition Policy 
53. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that his authorities attached great 
importance to competition policy.  Noting that it was not fully covered by current WTO provisions, the Russian Federation closely followed the activitie s of the WTO Working Group on the interaction 
between trade and competition policy.  The basic goal of competition policy in the Russian Federation 
was to create a favourable climate for developing free enterprises, and f acilitating competition and 
effective functioning  of commodity markets by preventing, restraining and eliminating monopolistic 
and anti-competitive practices among economic operators .  To this end, the Russian Federation had 
adopted and maintained a number of legislativ e acts implementing its competition policy. The 
existing Russian legislation, consis tent with international norms, cont ained all the basic elements of 
state supervision and control over agreements (Concerted Actions) of economic operators which 
could affect competition on the commodity and financial services markets.   
54. He also noted that the role of the Ministry  of Anti-monopoly Policy of the Russian Federation 
(MAP) was to implement government competition policies and control the enforcement of 
anti-monopoly legislation. The main functions of th e MAP were to prevent, restrain and prosecute 
monopolistic activities and unfair competition prac tices; promote the formation of a market 
environment through developing competition; implement state control over the enforcement of 
anti-monopolistic legislation and relate d legislative acts.   In response to questions raised by some 
members, he explained that MAP was entrusted with the responsibility of introducing legislative 
initiatives in the field of anti-monopoly activit y; development and execution of measures on 
demonopolization of production and distribution of goods and services; monitoring of compliance 
with anti-monopoly requirements in the establishmen t, mergers and affiliations of business (unions 
and associations) liquidation and separation (spin-of f) of state and municipal enterprises and buy-ins 
into commercial companies; advising on the eff ects of safeguard measures on competition in the 
Russian market; monitoring compliance to anti-monopol y legislation and related legislation by federal 
and regional executive authorities, local administ rators, business and non-pr ofit organizations. The 
Constitution of the Russian Federation referred promo tion of competition and freedom of enterprise to 
the competence of the Russian Federation.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 19 
 
FRAMEWORK FOR MAKING AND ENFORCING POLICIES  
Powers of executive, legislative and judicial branches of government; 
Government entities responsible for making and implementing policies affecting foreign trade; 
Division of authority between central and sub-central governments  
55. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that, in accordance with the Constitution, 
State power in the Russian Federation was exercised by the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Federal Assembly (the Council of the Federation and the State Duma), the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and the courts of the Russian Federa tion.  The competence of each body of power was 
defined in Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation respectively.   
56. The right of legislative initiative was vested with  the President of the Russian Federation, the 
Members of the Council of the Federation, the Depu ties of the State Duma, the Government of the 
Russian Federation, and the legislative bodies of the subjects of the Russian Federation.  The right of 
legislative initiative was also vest ed in matters under their jurisdiction with the Constitutional Court 
of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Superior Court of 
Arbitration of the Russian Federation.  
57. In response to enquiries by members of the Working Party, he explained that the functioning 
of the judicial system of the Russian Federation was regulated by Federal Constitutional Law, No. 1-FKZ of 31 December 1996 "On Judicial System  of the Russian Federation"; No. 1-FKZ of 21 
February 1994 "On Constitutional Court of the Russi an Federation" (as ame nded on 8 February 2001) 
and No. 1-FKZ of 28 April 1995 "On Arbitration Courts  in the Russian Federation".  Judicial power 
was exercised exclusively by courts manned by ju dges, juries, and arbitrators duly appointed under 
constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal court proceedings.  No other agencies or persons 
were entitled to administer justice.  The judicial  power was separated from, and acted independently 
of, the legislative and executive powers.  Justice was equal for all. Courts should not favour any 
agency, person or otherwise complainant based  on nationality, sex, race, language, political 
convictions or any other grounds unless established by  federal laws.  The judicial system comprised 
federal courts, constitutional  courts and district courts.  Judgements by these courts after taking effect 
as well as any lawful rulings, including requests, orders, summons and other communications were 
binding for all governmental authorities, local ad ministrations, officials, community associations, 
other natural persons or legal en tities.  Judgements were enforceable without reservation in the whole 
territory of the Russian Federation.  Failure to co mply with a court judgement, or any other act of 
contempt for the court, shall entail liabilities provided by federal laws.  The rules of civil procedure in 
federal courts of general jurisd iction were provided by the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 20  Federation, whereas procedures for the settlement of di sputes by arbitration courts were stipulated in 
the Arbitration Procedural Code of the Russian Federation No. 70-FZ of 5 May 1995.  
58. The Russian legal system comprised federal normative legal acts and normative legal acts of 
the subjects of the Russian Federation.  The fe deral normative legal sy stem consisted of the 
Constitution; federal constitutional la ws; federal laws; decrees and resolutions of the President of the 
Russian Federation; resolutions and orders of the Government of the Russian Federation; and acts of 
federal executive authorities
6.  The normative legal system of the subjects of the Russian Federation 
consisted of the constitutions of Re publics of the Russian Federation; ch arters of other subjects of the 
Russian Federation; laws of the subjects of th e Russian Federation; a nd normative legal acts of 
governments of the subjects of the Russian Federa tion.  The Constitution of the Russian Federation 
was the supreme instrument in the hierarchy of norm ative legal acts.  The Constitution had overriding 
power and was applicable in the entire territory of the Russian Federation.  All federal normative acts 
and normative legal acts of the subjects of the Russi an Federation should be in compliance with the 
Constitution. Federal constitutional laws regulated issues directly provided for under the Constitution 
of the Russian Federation.  Federal laws regulated  areas of joint competence between the Russian 
Federation and its regions. The Constitution provided for the clear jurisdiction of the Russian 
Federation and the joint jurisdiction of the Russ ian Federation and its s ubjects (Article 72).  
Presidential decrees and resolutions did not prevent the Federal Assembly from enacting a law covering the same issue, although the scope of such  law would not have to be limited to it.  
Government resolutions and orders were issued on the basis and in furtherance of the Constitution, 
federal constitutional laws, federal laws and Presidential decrees and resolutions.  The need for such 
resolutions and orders were, as a ge neral rule, provided for in the rele vant law, decree or resolution.  
These legislative acts were also binding throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation and 
might be appealed in court.  Acts of federal ex ecutive authorities were issued on the basis of and 
furtherance of federal laws, presidential decrees and resolutions, and Government resolutions and 
orders.  These acts should be in compliance with the relevant normative provisions.  They had an 
auxiliary and detailing function.  International tr eaties contracted by the Russian Federation were 
concluded by appointed federal authorities on behalf  of the Russian Federation.  Following their 
official acknowledgement, ratification and approval , international treaties were binding throughout 
the entire territory of the Russian Federation.  In accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution, if an 
international treaty to which the Russian Federation was party provided for ot her rules than those set 
forth by Russian Federation domestic law, the rul es of the international treaty should apply.   
                                                     
 
6 Acts of federal executive authorities (i.e. acts whose bi nding effect extends to all of the territory of the 
Russian Federation) are as follows and limited to: reso lutions, orders, rules, instructions, regulations and 
decisions. Recommendations, letters, telegrams, teletype messages are not regulatory legal acts (Order No. 217 
of the Ministry of Justice of July 14, 1999). Such act s have recommendatory character only and are intended for 
use within the relevant ministry or department.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 21 
 59. A mechanism for controlling compliance of nor mative legal acts of the subjects of the 
Russian Federation with federal laws was established by Federal Law No. 184-FZ of 6 October 1999 
"On General Principles of the Organization of the Legislative Representative and Executive Authorities of State Power of the Subjects of the Ru ssian Federation".  The Public Prosecutor's Office 
was in charge of such control.  Eventual protest s were lodged with the issuing authority or their 
superior authority.  The Public Prosecutor, in line with established procedures, could apply to the 
Supreme Court of the concerned republic, territorial court, court of a city of federal significance, 
autonomous district, or autonomous region to invali date such acts.  Presidential Decree No. 849 of 13 
May 2000 "On the Authorized Representative of the President of the Russian Federation in a Federal 
District" institutionalized the function of a presiden tial representative in a federal district.  Among his 
tasks, the presidential representative was required to  submit to the President proposals regarding the 
suspension of acts of executive authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation that contravened 
the Constitution, federal laws or international comm itments of the Russian Federation.  Presidential 
Decree No. 1486 of 10 August 2000 "On Supplementa ry Measures to Provide Integrity of Legal 
Treatment in the Russian Federation" created a fede ral registry of normative legal acts of the subjects 
of the Russian Federation.  The highest authoriti es of the subjects of the Russian Federation were 
required to forward to the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation copies of their normative legal 
acts within 7 days from adoption for inclusion in the federal registry and legal review.  Where any of 
such normative legal acts were found inconsistent with federal laws, th e Legislative Department of the 
Ministry of Justice drafted a presidential decree suspending such act.  The Legal Department also 
drafted inquiries to the Constitution Court of the Russian Federation together with proposals on 
reconciliation procedures or proposals for rectifyi ng the conflict in case.  Lawsuits on compliance 
where heard by the Constitutional Court of the Ru ssian Federation. Acts or parts thereof found to 
contravene the Constitution become invalid. 
60. Under the Russian legislation, an internati onal treaty meant an international agreement 
concluded by the Russian Federation with a forei gn State (or States) or with an international 
organization in written form and governed by inte rnational law, regardless of whether such an 
agreement consisted of one document or several in terrelated documents, and also regardless of its 
specific name.  The Protocol of Accession to the WTO would have the status of an international treaty 
and as such become an integral part of the legal sy stem of the Russian Federation.  The Protocol of 
Accession to the WTO should be subject to ratification.   The ratification of the international treaties of 
the Russian Federation was to be effected in the form of a federal law.  Article 7 of the Civil Code of 
the Russian Federation provided that international agreements of the Russian Federation had direct 
effect in regard to relations regulated by civ il law except where such international agreements 
required a national act to be passed for their enforc ement.  It follows that the provisions of an WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 22  international agreement should apply throughout the territory of the Russian Federation after 
ratification. 
61. Several members considered that a more exp licit description was required regarding to the 
right of administrative appeal, in particular concer ning the right of appeal to an independent tribunal 
or judicial review and the procedures applied (e.g. fees, timetables, etc.).  Some members also 
requested additional information on how the Govern ment of the Russian Federation was working with 
the Experts Committee of the Duma to ensure that WTO-inconsistent draft laws would not be enacted 
and that those already in place would be phased ou t.  They also felt that standard Protocol 
commitment language would be required to clar ify the right and the willingness of the central 
Government to take the initiative to overrule any WTO-inconsistent measures which might be 
identified and to provide the right of appeal to an i ndependent tribunal or judicial review as necessary.  
Some members further enquired whether there were  any state fees charged for appeals concerning 
WTO provisions.  
62. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that any decisions or action/inaction by 
the state authorities, local administrations, community  associations or officials could be appealed to 
court.  Depending on the issue, appeals could be addressed either to the Government or its agency 
which controlled the activity of the body responsible for such decision, or the respective court of  
jurisdiction. It was up to the claimant whether to use administrative or court procedures.  In response 
to enquiries on administrative appeals, he said that  the procedure for appealing against action by 
customs bodies, as well as actions and omissions by their officers, was provided in the Customs Code 
of the Russian Federation. Under this procedur e, a person might appeal against the decisions, 
including regulatory acts, actions and omissions of the Russian Federati on customs bodies if he 
considered that his rights and statutory interests ha d been violated. Appeals against decisions, actions 
or omissions of the Russian Federation customs bodies, as well as their officers, might be lodged with 
a higher customs body of the Russian Federation or with a supervising customs officer and shall be 
considered within one month.  Appeals against ac tions or omissions by the State Customs Committee 
of the Russian Federation and its officers  might be lodged before the Committee.  A higher customs 
body or the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation might extend the terms for 
consideration of an appeal, but not more that tw o months.  The procedure for appealing against acts 
issued by tax bodies and actions or omissions of their officers was regulated by the Tax Code of the 
Russian Federation.  Acts issued by tax bodies, as well as actions and omissions by their officers, 
might be appealed before a higher tax body (a superv ising officer) or a court, either simultaneously or 
consecutively.  An appeal shall be considered by a higher tax body within one month from the date of 
its receipt.  The tax body shall take a decision within  one month. Such decision shall be notified to the 
person lodging the appeal within 3 days after the decision was taken.  The rates of state fees for  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 23 
 claims or other statements or complaints submitte d to the courts of general jurisdiction or to 
arbitration courts were es tablished in Federal Law  No. 2005-1 of 9 December 1991 "On State Fees". 
63. He explained that in 2000, a Foreign Trad e and Foreign Investment Expert Council was 
created within the State Duma under the Committ ee for Economic Policy and Business to collect 
opinions of government authorities, public organizati ons, scientific and business circles, and foreign 
investment and foreign trade legislators, weigh them against the WTO disciplines, and coordinate 
their legislative work connected with WTO accessi on.  The Foreign Trade and Foreign Investment 
Expert Council includes representatives of the Duma, the Government of the Russian Federation and 
scientific and business circles.  The task of the Expert Council was to support a dialogue between the Government of the Russian Federation responsible for the actual negotiations process, the legislators 
providing the legislative support for and ratificati on of the agreement, and the business community 
directly affected by the Russian Federation's a ccession to the WTO.  He further noted that a  
representative of the Expert Council was regularly attending meetings of the Working Party on the 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO. 
64. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement should be applied uniformly throughout the Russian Federation's customs territory and 
other territories under the Russian Federation's contro l within its state border, including in regions 
engaging in border trade or frontier traffic, speci al economic zones, and ot her areas where special 
regimes for tariffs, taxes and regul ations were established.  He added that, when informed of a 
situation where WTO provisions were not being ap plied or were applied in a non-uniform manner, 
central authorities would act to enforce WTO provisions without requiring affected parties to petition thought the courts.] 
65. [The representative of the Russian Federati on also confirmed that in matters involving 
international trade subject to WTO provisions, his authorities would provide judicial, arbitral or 
administrative recourse to an independent tribunal or judicial review, in conformity with WTO 
obligations, including, but not restricted to, Article X:3(b) of GATT 1994, and relevant provisions in 
the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of  Intellectual Property Rights and the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services.] 
POLICIES AFFECTING TRADE IN GOODS 
Registration requirements for import/export operations 
66. Several members noted that laws and regulations relating to the right to trade in goods (also 
referred to as "registration requirements" or "activ ity licensing") should not restrict imports in 
violation of the general prohibition on quantitative restrictions as under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 24  nor should they discriminate against imported goods in violation of the non-discriminatory provisions 
of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  Furthermore, fees an d charges levied on the right to import should be 
limited to the cost of services rendered as under Article VIII:1(a) of GATT 1994, and taxes and 
charges on the right to trade in imported goods shoul d not lead to discrimination in favour of like 
domestic products as required by  Article III:2 of GATT 1994. 
67. The representative of the Russian Federation said that his government did not restrict the right 
of persons and entities to import or export.  He not ed that the elimination of the State monopoly in 
foreign trade was proclaimed by Preside ntial Decree No. 213 of 15 November 1991 "On 
Liberalisation of Foreign Economic Activity on the Te rritory of the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist 
Republic" (as amended on 27 October 1992) under which all enterprises were given the right to carry 
out foreign economic activities, whatever their fo rm of ownership. This  principle was further 
embodied in the Civil Code and the Constitution of the Russian Federation. 
68. Some members required more detailed informa tion regarding activity licensing requirements 
relative to pharmaceuticals, natural gas, electricity , alcoholic beverages, metals and precious stones. 
These members were particularly interested in obtaining a clarification regarding the steps taken by 
the Russian authorities to bring existing practices into consistency with WTO requirements. Noting 
that the Ministry of Agriculture and the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation (SCC) 
had recently made efforts to limit the number of  both importing and exporting firms engaged in 
international trade of certain products, these member s further requested an explanation on the reasons 
for these limitations and the legal basis upon which they might be taken for both domestic and foreign 
trading firms. 
69. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation said that activity licensing 
requirements in foreign trade on the territory of th e Russian Federation were described in Federal Law 
No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On the State Regula tion of the Foreign Trade Activity" (amended 
8 July 1997, 10 February 1999).  Article 2 of this la w stipulated that foreign trade activity could be 
carried out both by Russian as well as foreign par ticipants in foreign trade activities.  Foreign 
participants in foreign trade activities were legal entities or natural persons recognized as such by the 
law of foreign states. If foreign companies or natural persons carried out foreign trade activity 
(exportation or importation) as foreign participants of foreign trade activity, they did not need to be 
registered or have any investments in the Russian Federation.  The Russian participants in foreign 
trade activities were Russian juridical entities or na tural persons who had obtained state registration as 
juridical entities or individual entreprene urs in accordance with the Russian law. 
70. Registration of legal entities and natural persons as individual entrepreneurs was performed in 
accordance with Article 51 of the Civil Code and Presidential Decree No. 1482 of 8 July 1994 "On  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 25 
 Streamlining of State Registration of Enterprises a nd Entrepreneurs in the Territory of the Russian 
Federation" and Federal Law No.129-FZ of 8 A ugust 2001 "On State Registration of Juridical 
Persons". The registration of a legal entity required th e submission of an application, the charter of the 
legal entity in question approved by its founders, a documentary confirmation of payment of no less 
than 50 per cent of the charter capital of the firm, and a certificate of payment of state duty in the 
amount of 252 Rubles.  The registration of a natura l person as an individual entrepreneur required an 
application from that person and a document confirmi ng the payment of the registration charge in the 
amount of 100 Rubles.  Denial of registration could be appealed through a judicial procedure.  The 
registration act permitted the enterprise/individual entrepreneur to engage in economic activity, 
including foreign trade activity.  The above-menti oned principles entered into force on 1 July 2002 
and regulated registration of the establishment, re organization or liquidation, and introduction of 
amendments to instituting documents of legal entities as well as and the conduct of the State Registry 
of legal persons.  The law established the order for the registration of legal entities and did not contain 
any restrictions or discrimination for foreign founde rs of legal persons.  The registration was effected 
solely by federal bodies.  The lists of documents ne cessary for the registration of a new legal entity as 
well as of an entity under reorganiza tion were stipulated in Article 5 of the Law on State Registration 
(application for registration, description of the organizational form, address, copies of instituting 
documents, and the charter capital) and were exha ustive. Under subparagra ph 4 of Article 9, the 
registering body could not demand any other documen ts than those mentioned in the Law on State 
Registration.   Subjects of the Russian Federation had no rights to impose the requirements on legal or 
natural persons that might affect their rights to  engage in importation or exportation of goods. 
71. He further noted that Article 10 of the Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On the State 
Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" (amendments of 8 July 1997, 10 February 1999) established 
that all Russian participants of foreign trade activities were permitted to undertake foreign trade 
activity, regardless of the form of their property and without any additional special permission or 
activity licence.  This rule had only three excepti ons. The first was the importation and exportation of 
alcoholic beverages.  Pursuant to Federa l Law No. 173-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State 
Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethy l Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing 
Products" (as amended on 7 January 1999), natural persons and legal entities wishing to do business 
in these areas needed to obtain an  activity licence in the agencies of the Ministry of Tax and Charges 
Collection after their state registration.  Conditions and requirements to be fulfilled by the enterprises 
and entrepreneurs were stipulated in Articles 18 – 21 of the said Law.  Licensing fees provided by 
Federal Law No. 5-FZ of 8 January 1998 "On Ch arges for Issuance of Licenses for Production and 
Turnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcohol Cont aining – Products" are shown in Table 7. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 26  72. The second exception related to imports and expor ts of pharmaceutical products (medicines). 
According to Federal Law 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Me dicines", the right to exports and imports of 
pharmaceuticals was enjoyed by Ru ssian participants of foreign economic activities, who had a 
licence for the production or wholesale trade of  these goods.  Pursuant to Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain Types of Activity", the licensing requirement in respect of 
pharmaceutical activity and production of medicines was due to the overall requirement of license 
availability in all types of activity that might cause damage to rights, lawful interests and health of 
Russian nationals and where regulation was only possi ble in the form of licensing.  Once a company 
obtained such an activity licence in all two cases men tioned above, it would be eligible for the receipt 
of import and export licenses each time it wished to import or export goods subject to licensing. In 
accordance with Article 15 of Federal Law No. 128-FZ of 8 August 2001 "On Licensing of Certain 
Activities", a fee of 1,300 Rubles (about US$40) was charged for the issuing of each licence.  The limitation of the number of companies importing and exporting certain products could be done by 
virtue of federal law only. In absence of such a law no authority had the right to take such measures. 
73. The third exception concerned the importation of  precious stones and metals.  The exportation 
of unprocessed precious metals was prohibited in the Russian Federation.  The exportation of 
affinated platinum was effected under quota restrict ions and the exportation of  affinated gold, silver 
and natural precious stones was effected under non-auto matic licensing.  To obtain an export license 
for precious metals and precious stones under Preside ntial Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On the 
Procedure of Importation into and Exportation fro m the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones".  The following authorizations we re required:  (i) CBR and crediting institutions 
having the CBR licence to perform operations with precious metals under the Federal Law No. 395-1 
of the Russian Federation of 2 December 1995 "O n Banks and Banking", extracting organizations 
having the licence under the Federal Law No. 2395-1 of  the Russian Federation of 21 February 1992 
"On Underground Resources" as well as the produ cers and individual entrepreneurs having the 
confirmed property rights to a certain metal had the ri ght to export of refined gol d and silver;  (ii) for 
export of precious stones and precious  metals – registration certificate of the Purity Supervision 
Committee (issued based on Federal Law No. 41- FZ of 23 March 1998 "On Precious Metals and 
Precious Stones");  (iii) for export of ores of non -ferrous metals containing precious metals – opinion 
of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of In dustry and Science regarding the practicability and 
feasibility of commercial recovery of precious meta ls (Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001, 
"On the Procedure of Importation into and Expor tation from the Russian Federation of Precious 
Metals and Precious Stones"). Certain cases require a permit from the Ministry of Natural Resources 
of Russian Federation where ores and concentrat es qualifying for hazardous wastes were exported 
(Government Resolution No. 766 of 1 July 1996, "O n State Regulation and Control of Cross-border 
Shipment of Hazardous Waste") in accordance with  the Basel Convention.  Regarding importation of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 27 
 pharmaceuticals, foreign-owned firms enjoyed the same rights as Russian firms in the Russian 
Federation and could obtain an activity licence unde r the same scheme.  Foreign-owned firms which 
were not established in the Russian Federati on should have their own representative office
7 in the 
Russian Federation.  If this was the case, these fi rms could also apply for an import licence.   
74. Under Article 21 of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 22 June 1998 "On Medicines" sole domestic 
and foreign practitioners were not permitted to ex port pharmaceuticals to the Russian Federation. In 
accordance with the same law, imports of medicin es into Russian Federation were only allowed to 
enterprises that produced medicines; wholesale traders of medicines; academic research 
organizations; institutions, laboratories for developm ent, study and control of  quality, effectiveness 
and safety of medicines, subject to permission of the federal medicine control agency for import of the 
relevant consignment of medicines; foreign en terprises producing medicines and foreign wholesale 
traders of medicines provided they had representative o ffices in Russia. All applicants for a licence to 
import medicines had to undergo an uniform pr ocedure as provided under Government Resolution 
No. 1539 of 25 December 1998 "On Import into and Export from the Russian Federation of 
Medicines and Pharmaceutical Substances". 
75. Members of the Working Party noted that the Russian Federation had confirmed the 
elimination of the state-trading monopoly and had described the nature of the requirements placed on 
individuals and firms that wish to import and expor t. They felt however that more information was 
still required on laws relating to th e registration of enterprises and th e regulation of trading activity 
which were being currently drafted.  Some memb ers requested an outline describing how these laws 
would make registration requirements for the right to import and export transparent and 
non-discriminatory.  These members further request ed information on whether the requirement that 
import and export contracts be registered would be  restored.  More information was also needed 
concerning the requirements imposed by subjects of the Russian Federation on legal or natural 
persons that might affect their right to e ngage in importation or exportation of goods. 
76. Some members expressed concern over the restric tive consequences of the current system of 
activity licensing for the sale of alcoholic bevera ges.  Information was requested on the Russian 
Federation's intention to introduce ne w legislation in this area.  Noting that the fees charged for the 
right to trade in imported alcoholic beverag es greatly exceeded those charged for domestic 
distribution or export, these members felt that more detail was also required on  this and on any other 
activity licensing fees associated with importation. 
                                                      
7 In accordance with Article 33 of the Civil Code of the Russian Fede ration the representative office is 
a detached division of legal entity, located elsewhere than  its business address, which represents and protects the 
interests of such legal entity.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 28  77. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration noted that, in order to improve the 
system of import licensing in the Russian Federation,  the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the 
Russian Federation had passed in the first reading and was currently preparing for the second reading 
a draft federal law "On Amending the Federal Law On Charges for Issuance of Licenses and Right for 
Production and Marketing of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcohol Containing and Other Alcoholic Products".  This 
draft law was designed to provide a unified rate of  the licensing charge (500 minimum wages) for the 
right of production, storage and sale of alcoholic  products, the right to export ethyl alcohol and 
alcoholic products and the right to purchase ethyl alcohol, alcohol-containing and alcoholic products 
for import, storage and wholesale.   
78. Registration requirements for export contracts ha d been originally introduced by Government 
Resolution No. 758 of 1 July 1994 "On Measures to Improve the State Regulation of Export of Goods 
and Services", and had now been repealed by G overnment Resolution No. 300 of 21 March 1996 "On 
Recognizing as Invalidated Certain Decisions of th e Government of the Russian Federation on the 
Issue of Registering Contracts in the Export of Commodities".  Registration of import contracts had 
never been practiced in the Russian Federation.  Thus the Russian Federation did not maintain any 
special registry of import or export contracts.  He also confirmed that his authorities had no plans to 
restore such registration in any form.  He further st ated that the subjects of the Russian Federation had 
no rights to impose requirements on legal or natural pers ons that might affect their rights to engage in 
importation or exportation of goods. 
79. Some members requested further clarification on whether the Russian Federation maintained 
any restrictions or requirements other than tariffs  on the importation of precious metals and stones, 
notably whether imports of these products were also restricted by licensing, or whether it was necessary to import them through specific custom s posts as was the case with diamond exports.  
These members also expressed concerns in relati on to export requirements for precious stones and 
metals.  Some members requested further informatio n on the terms and structure for activity licensing 
for pharmaceuticals, particularly in regards to any requirements for imports that might differ from 
those applied to domestic production.  These memb ers also requested the Russian Federation to 
confirm that the ability to request an activity li cence for trade in pharmaceuticals was reserved to 
Russian Federation firms and to explain what that meant in practice for foreign-owned firms in the 
Russian Federation, foreign exporting firms not est ablished in the Russian Federation, and domestic 
or foreign practitioners seeking to export pha rmaceuticals to the Russian Federation. 
80. [Some members expected that the Russian  Federation would undertake the following 
commitments in this area: the Russian Federati on would guarantee that no restrictions would be 
maintained on the right to trade in goods except as would be consistent with  WTO provisions and that 
all laws and regulations relating to trading rights would be applie d in a manner consistent with  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 29 
 relevant WTO obligations.  Specifically, the Russian  Federation should confirm that no restrictions 
would be maintained on the rights of individuals  and enterprises, including those with foreign 
participation, to import and export goods into the customs territory of the Russian Federation except 
as would be consistent with provisions of the WTO Agreement.  Nor would individuals and firms be 
restricted in their ability to import and export based on their registered scope of business.  The criteria 
for registration and enrolment in the State Register of legal persons would be generally applicable and 
published in the Official Gazette, along with any furt her changes.  Without prejudice to other relevant 
provisions of the WTO Agreement, the Russian Federation should ensure that any laws and 
regulations relating to the right to trade in goods wo uld not restrict imports of goods in violation of 
the general prohibition on quantitative restrictions under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, nor should they 
discriminate against imported goods in violation of the non-discriminatory provisions under Article 
III:4 of GATT 1994.  Any associated fees, taxes and charges should also be limited to the 
approximate cost of services rendered and their appl ication should not lead to  discrimination in favour 
of like domestic products.  The Russian Federation w ould ensure full national tr eatment in respect of 
all laws, regulations and requirements concerni ng internal sale, offering for sale, purchase, 
transportation, distribution or use of imported alcoholic beverages and ethyl alcohol.] 
Import Regulations  
- Customs Regulations and Customs Tariff 
81. The representative of the Russian Federation reca lled that the Russian Federation had been an 
active member of the World Customs Organization (W CO) even before gaining full membership to it 
on 8 July 1993.  The Russian Federation had also joined the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Syst em on 1 January 1997. Federal Law No. 5003-1 
of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" (as amended 7 August, 25 November and 27 December 1995, 
5 February 1997, 10 February 1999, 4 May 1999 and 27 May 2000) and the Customs Code currently 
constituted the legal framework for th e customs regime of the Russian Federation.  The right of appeal 
against decisions of Customs w as ensured, inter alia, by Articles 17 and 404-419 of the Customs 
Code.  The Customs Code had been applied with minor changes since 1993.  The new draft of the 
Customs Code and draft Chapter 27 of the Tax Code  contained provisions on customs procedures and 
customs administration system in full confor mity with the relevant WTO Agreements. 
82. Members of the Working Party stressed that pending enactment of the new Customs Code 
and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code, it was not po ssible to assess whether the provisions contained 
therein would be in conformity with WTO requirement s.  They considered that the Russian Federation 
should provide a description of changes to customs regulations, procedures a nd practices which would 
follow the enactment of the new Customs Code and Ch apter 27 of the Tax Code, together with copies WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 30  in a WTO working language of all relevant implem enting instruments in this area. Noting that there 
appeared to be proposals before the Duma for revising Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 on 
Customs Tariff (amendments of 7 August, 25 N ovember, 27 December 1995, 5 February 1997, 10 
February, 4 May 1999 and 27 May 2000, several me mbers further asked the Russian Federation to 
explain how these proposals related to the new Cust oms Code and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code.  
83. Some members expressed concern regarding a pos sible inconsistency in the application of 
relevant provisions by regional customs authoriti es and stressed the need to ensure uniform and 
transparent implementation of customs regulations throughout the entire territory of the Russian 
Federation. Many members also sought a clarifi cation on Customs Order No. 25 of 25 January 2001 
and other related orders of the SCC which limited  the numbers of customs land checkpoints for goods 
imported from 14 countries, including a number of ASEAN countries.  Noting that ten out of these 14 
countries were WTO members, these members reque sted a commitment from the Russian Federation 
that this particular order and othe r related orders would be repelled and would no t be introduced in the 
future. 
84. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation confirmed that Customs Order 
No. 25 of 25 January 2001 was abolished by virtue  of Customs Order No. 517 of 24 May 2002 .  He 
reiterated that his Government did not intend to s ubmit draft laws for member's scrutiny as it was not 
required under the WTO Agreements.  But for the sak e of transparency he explained that the new 
draft Customs Code of the Russian Federation w as based on generally accepted international rules, 
including the Kyoto Convention 2000.  To preven t that customs authorities could use their own 
discretion in decision-making, the vast majority of  provisions of the draft Customs Code were of 
direct application.  To ensure transparency, th e draft Custom Code provided that the authorities 
concerned should publish legal acts of customs regula tions in the official publications.  The draft 
Customs Code contained detailed pr ovisions related to WTO rules and disciplines in particular those 
to protect intellectual property rights, and was draf ted in a manner to comply with the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  The draft contained improved provisions on right of appeal so as to ensure compliance of customs administrations and their officers with legislative requirements in their 
decision-making, action or inaction.  Right of appeal might be exercised through lodging a complaint 
with the superior customs administrations and/or th rough judicial procedures.  Draft Chapter 27 of the 
new Tax Code contained the procedures of valuat ion for customs purposes and it was drafted in a 
manner to comply with Article VII of GATT 1994 and the WTO Customs Valuation Agreement, 
including the vast majority of interpretive notes annexed to the Agreement.  The procedures of 
valuation for customs purposes were also based on  the principles of the WTO Customs Valuation 
Agreement.  The draft envisaged that the primary basis for customs value was the transaction value.  
The application of other methods would be in full co nformity with the Customs Valuation Agreement.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 31 
 In anticipation of further requests from members, the representative of the Russian Federation stated 
that the interpretative notes annexed to the Cust oms Valuation Agreement not included in draft 
Chapter 27 of the Tax Code would be reflected in another regulatory act. 
- Ordinary Customs Duties 
85. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that the structure of the Russian 
Federation's customs tariffs was regulated by Federal Law No. Law No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On 
Customs Tariff" (as amended 7 August, 25 Novemb er and 27 December 1995, 5 February 1997, 
10 February and 4 May 1999, 27 May 2000).  Tari ff rates could be changed by government decisions 
based on proposals by the Governmental Comm ission on Customs and Tariff Policy and Trade 
Remedies Measures, also taking into account the Ru ssian Federation' s international commitments. 
86. Government Resolution No. 1560 of 27 December 1996 had introduced a commodity 
description and classification system based on HS 96, replacing as from 1 January 1997 the HS 92 previously used.  A new commodity description a nd classification system entered into force on 1 
January 2002 based on HS 2002.  The customs tariff consisted of 11,032 tariff lines.  The significant 
majority of tariff items were subject to ad valorem  tariffs; 1,515 tariff items were subject to 
compound (mixed) rates ( ad valorem  and specific duties); and 76 tariff items were subject to specific 
rates (apples, chocolate, beer and strong alcoholic  beverages). The ad valorem rates and ad valorem 
equivalents of combined and specific rates ranged fr om 0 to 30 per cent, except for ethyl alcohol and 
beer. 
87. Tariff rates (Tables 8 and 9) were established fo llowing the basic criteria that (i) tariffs were 
the major trade policy measure applied to protect do mestic industrial and agriculture production; (ii) 
tariffs were considered measures of both trade a nd fiscal policy; (iii) tariffs were a function of 
economic development, in particular, the technologi cal restructuring of the economy. The most recent 
version of the Customs Tariff of the Russian Fe deration was introduced by Government Resolution 
No. 148 of 22 February 2000 (as amended on 27 N ovember 2000) and contained MFN rates of import 
customs duties for all 11,032 tariff lines.  The rate s of customs duties applicable to the products 
originating from the countries with which the Russian Federation did not apply MFN treatment 
amounted to the double of MFN rates.  The import customs duties applicable to products originating 
from countries enjoying the Russian Fe deration' s GSP scheme were levi ed at the level of 75 per cent 
of the MFN rates (except for raw sugar wher e a tariff rate quota mechanism was used). 
88. Government Resolution No. 886 of 27 Novemb er 2000 substantially revised downwards and 
leveled out the customs duties (in approximately 3, 500 tariff positions out of 11,032).  As a result, 
customs tariffs for nearly all goods categories were  grouped under broader he adings (raw materials, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 32  semi-finished products, finished products, foodstuffs) with duty levels of 5, 10, 15 and 20 per cent, 
respectively.  These changes, which took effect on 1 January 2001, were aimed at liberalization of 
imports of modern technologies and machinery in to the Russian Federation, countering illegal 
practices at customs and improving the effectiveness of customs payment collection. 
89. He confirmed that there were no tari ffs for non-agricultural products whose ad valorem  
equivalent was higher than 30 per cent and that future GSP schemes woul d continue to provide 
recipients a tariff rate equal to 75 per cent of the corresponding MFN rate.  Following the request of 
some members, he stated that that a new commod ity description and classification system based on 
HS 2002 which entered into force on 1 January 2002 was available in the WT O Secretariat in the 
English language in electronic format.  He also stat ed that, on request, members could have the lists of 
the Russian Federation's MFN partners and GSP recipients. 
90. Noting the above statements, some members asked  the Russian Federation to clarify whether 
the expected changes to the cust oms legislation would also exclude the possibility to apply double 
MFN tariff rates to goods originating from WTO members, thereby conforming Article I of GATT 
1994. 
- Tariff Quotas 
91. Many members expressed concerns regarding the Russian Federation's intention to have 
recourse to TRQs, particularly on products curre ntly subject to tariffs only.  These members 
considered that the introduction of new TRQs would be a step backward from trade liberalization that 
should be expected by acceding to the WTO.  Th ey requested a description of the current and 
prospective legal authority for auctioning licenses an d quotas in the Russian Federation and noted that 
any method of allocating quotas or licenses should be consistent with WTO provisions, notably 
Articles II, XI, and XIII of GATT 1994, the Agreem ent on Import Licensing Procedures and Article 4 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  Several members al so stressed that, if TRQs were to be introduced, 
the Russian Federation must ensure that these TRQs would preserve existing levels of trade, provide 
annual growth and would be limited in time.  In any case, full details of tariff quota administration 
measures should be provided in order to assess their WTO conformity. 
92. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that Federal Law No. Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" provided the lega l framework for the establishment of tariff rate 
quotas as a part of free trade agreements and the GSP scheme.  These tariff quotas could be applied 
for agricultural and industrial goods.  In general, tariff rate quotas allowed import at zero (or reduced) 
tariffs.  The only tariff rate quota currently in pl ace (on raw sugar originating from countries enjoying 
the Russian Federation's GSP scheme) had been op ened under Government Resolutions No. 572 of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 33 
 28 July 2000 "On the Tariff Regulation of Raw Suga r Imports",  No. 622 of 23 August 2001 "On the 
Tariff Regulation of the Import of Raw Sugar and Wh ite Sugar in 2002" and No. 536 of 15 July 2002 
"On the Tariff Regulation of the Import of Raw Suga r and White Sugar in 2002".  TRQs on raw sugar 
had been allocated by auction among companies.  Th e auction was open to all Russian participants of 
foreign economic activities.  This method of allo cating TRQs was transparent, based on market 
principles and in line with Articles II, XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as Article 4 of the WTO 
Agreement on Agriculture, as the payments made by th e winner of the auction were not a tax, or duty 
or charge, but the fee due for the service of conducti ng the auction.  He confirmed that the quota fill 
rate was 100 per cent and that the fees paid for the auctions was from to 15-50 euro/t. 
93. Several members stated that to the extent that the auction charg es exceed the Russian 
Federation's tariff bindings, they would be inconsis tent with the Russian Federation's obligations 
under Article II of the GATT, and allocation of quot as without regard to Articles XI and XIII would 
also violate WTO provisions.  These members sought a commitment from the Russian Federation that any fees charges or revenues collected must not exceed the bound rate of duty established for the 
product concerned.  Some members asked the Russia n Federation to provide further information of 
the fees paid on raw sugar auctions of the TRQs under Government Resolutions No. 572 of 
27 July 2000 "On the Tariff Regulation of Raw S ugar Imports" and No. 62 2 of 23 August 2001 "On 
the Tariff Regulation of the Import of Raw Sugar a nd White Sugar in 2002", as well as the fill rate.  
Some members also mainta ined that the auctioning method of TR Qs was not fully consistent with 
GATT 1994 and discriminated against those members that did not provide export subsidies. 
94. Noting that Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 21 Ma y 1993 "On Customs Tariff" prohibited access 
under TRQs from being granted to products or iginating from MFN supp liers, some members 
requested confirmation of whether the Russian Federa tion also intended to provide legal authorization 
for the use of TRQs to regulate general imports or  if this would be lim ited to GSP imports. These 
members required a more precise understanding of the methods of allocation and other aspects of the system that the Russian Federation inde nted to adopt in this field.   
95. The representative of the Russian Federation c onfirmed that his Government intended to 
provide legal authorization for the use of TRQs to  regulate imports other th at imports under the GSP 
scheme.  He also noted that the allocation of TR Qs by auction was a common practice and used by 
many WTO Members.  The Federal Law "On Custom s Tariff" would be replaced by Chapter 27 of the 
Tax Code in this respect.  Regarding methods of allo cation to be used in the future he expected that 
the principle "first come – first served" would remain predominant.  He further stated that the amount 
of fees paid on raw sugar auctions of TRQs was US$214 million in 2000 and US$185 million in 2001, 
while the fill rate was 100 per cent for both years. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 34  96. Some members requested a clarification on whethe r the notion that only "Russian participants 
if foreign economic activities which could participat e in TRQ auctions included foreign-owned firms 
established as Russian juridical persons.  These me mbers also requested a confirmation that there 
were no eligibility requirements to participate in TR Q auctions that would fa vour local production, 
such as requirements to enter into contracts to  purchase domestic product or to provide domestic 
producers with inputs.  The representative of the Russian Federation replied that the notion of 
"Russian participants of foreign economic activ ities" included foreign-owned firms established as 
Russian legal persons.  He also confirmed that ther e were no eligibility requirements to participate in 
TRQ auctions that would favour local production. 
- Tariff Exemptions 
97. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that exemptions from the payment of 
customs duty could be granted only in accordance w ith the provisions of Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff".  Article 35 of th is Law established the list of goods which were 
not subject to customs duties, such as goods in transit;  printed or recorded materials related to culture, 
science, education; items imported by foreign di plomatic and consular offices in the Russian 
Federation in accordance with their needs and require ments for official purposes; articles for personal 
use when travelling abroad; goods destined for disaster relief and humanitarian purposes; industrial 
and other equipment related to fo reign investment, etc. Exempti ons could be also granted under 
Articles 34, 36 and 37 of the said Law ("Commitments  under International Agreements') on the basis 
of tariff rate quotas; tariff preferences; free trad e agreement and GSP scheme.  Tariff exemptions 
other than those provided for in the context of a free trade agreement or GSP scheme were applied on 
a MFN basis. 
- Other Duties and Charges 
98. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that the Russian Federation did not at 
present apply any duties and charges (ODCs) within  the meaning of Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.  
Noting this statement, several members asked the Ru ssian Federation to bind at zero all such ODCs in 
its Schedule of Concessions and Commitments on Goods.  
99. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
not apply other duties and charges on imports other than ordinary customs duties from the date of 
accession, and that any such charges applied to im ports after accession would be in accordance with 
WTO provisions.  He further confirmed that the Ru ssian Federation would not list any other charges 
in its Schedule under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, binding such charges at zero.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 35 
 
- Fees and Charges for Services Rendered 
100. The representative of the Russian Federation said that fees for customs services (Table 10) 
were established in accordance with Article 110 of the "Customs Code", which contained the list of 
such fees.  These fees and charges were related to the approximate cost of the services rendered.  
Revenues generated by those fees  were remitted to the general revenues of the State budget. 
101. Several members noted that although the in formation provided above was helpful, a 
description on how the Russian Federation intended to modify its current regime was necessary as the 
Russian Federation had indicated its intention to revise its import fee structure and that this was 
provided for in the new draft "Customs Code".  Noting that under the present Code, fees charged for 
customs clearance were calculated on an ad valorem  basis,  these members questioned  how they 
would relate to the cost of services rendered and st ressed their expectation that the Russian Federation 
should meet the relevant obligations provided for in GATT 1994. 
102. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that according to the new draft Customs 
Code fees and charges levied for customs service s related to importation or exportation would be 
reduced to two types: a customs charge for customs clearance; and a customs charge for customs 
escort of goods.  The fees charged would be calcula ted as fixed sums, corresponding to the value of 
rendered service. 
103. He further noted that the stamp tax applicable (Table 11) for the processing of imports or 
exports by customs and for other purposes related to  trade was established in accordance with Federal 
Law No. 226-FZ of 31 December 1995 "On introducing th e amendments and additions to the law of 
Russian Federation on the state duty" (with am endments and additions  of 20 August 1996; 
19 July 1997; 21 July 1998; 13 April 1999).  The stamp tax was to be collected for the performance of legally valid actions or for the issue of documents by  the bodies or by the official persons authorized 
for this purpose.  
104. Regarding stamp taxes, several members questioned again how an ad valorem  stamp tax for 
the attestation of agency agreements and for accep ting money and securities in deposit could relate to 
the cost of the service rendered.  They also requ ested clarification on whether these taxes applied in 
the act of importation or exportation, and what so rts of customs documents required a stamp tax.  
Regarding fees that were applied only to imports  for requirements which would normally apply to 
both imported and domestic products, such as standards certification or vehicle taxes, these members also noted that these fees were not consistent w ith Article III of GATT 1994 and should be revised or 
eliminated prior to accession.  Clarification was also  requested regarding the nature of the services 
rendered by the additional customs charge for customs clearance, and on the precise meaning of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 36  legally signification action "for performing other notary actions" or "for the performance of the 
technical work for the making of the documents".   
105. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation said that pursuant to Law of the 
Russian Federation of 9 December 1991, No. 2005-1 "On State Duty", "legally significant actions"  
were the following actions forming grounds for levy of state duty: 
- statements of claim and other claims and complaints filed with courts of general 
jurisdiction, arbitration courts and the Co nstitutional Court of the Russian Federation; 
- notarial acts by notaries public employed by notary offices or duly authorized 
officials of executive authorities, local ad ministrations and consular offices of the 
Russian Federation; 
- state registration of vital records and othe r legally significant actions performed by 
vital statistics offices; 
- issuance of documents by courts, instituti ons and agencies for consideration and 
issuance of documents associated with acqui sition of Russian citizenship (national 
status) or denunciation thereof and performan ce of other legally significant actions. 
106. No special consular fees conn ected with the export or import of goods or services have been 
instituted.  Regular consular fees were collected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian 
Federation, Consular Articles provisions and the currently applied Customs Tariff approved on 29 
June 1993 and 28 March 1994, as well as internati onal treaties signed by the Russian Federation.  
Payments collected by consular offices of the Ru ssian Federation for executing abroad consular acts 
or issuance of the documents of legal significance to  citizens of foreign states, foreign legal entities, 
persons without citizenship, enterprises with fore ign investments, as well as Russian natural persons 
or legal entities constantly or temporarily residing or located in foreign countries, were remitted to the 
general revenues of the State budget.  Heads of consular offices had the power to decrease the 
consular fees or not to collect them at all from indi vidual persons in view of their applications, if the 
reasons specified by them were considered to be valid.  
107. Noting the statement above, some members expr essed concern about the charging of fees for 
consular purposes (Table 12) at a lower rate from certain countries where the service was performed 
(the Baltic countries and CIS countries) as this pract ice would be in violati on of Article I of GATT 
1994 and should be eliminated prior to accession.  
- Other Fees 
108. Some members requested clarification on any possible discriminatory aspect involved in the 
application of port user fees between  foreign and domestic users.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 37 
 109. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the port fees used in commercial 
seaports (Tables 13(a) and 13(b)) of the Russian Fe deration had been approved by the Ministry of 
Transport on 21 July 1995.  The port-charges include : tonnage, (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of 
vessel conventional capacity, separately for each  fetching into the port and sailing from it), 
beaconnage (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conventional capacity upon each fetching into 
the port and its transit passing.  Exempted from th e light dues are vessels calling for refuge to perform 
an emergency repair and the vessels of group "D".  Vessels of groups "E" and "G" are exempted from 
the beaconnage dues unless they perform cargo handling and operations of commercial nature at the 
port), canal dues (to be collected for 1 cubic metr e of vessel conventional capacity upon each pass of 
canal in one direction), wharfage (to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conventional capacity for 
each day of vessel being alongside.  The wharfage  dues are collected from vessels staying alongside 
the berth.  For the vessels of groups "A", "B" and "H" wharfage dues are charged per 1 m
3 of the 
conventional volume of the vessel for each day of the vessel's stay alongside th e berth.  The time of 
stay at a berth is rounded off upward to one-half of the day.  For the vessels of groups "C", "D", "E", 
"F" and "G" berth dues are charged per 1 m3 of the conventional volume for each call), anchor dues 
(to be collected for 1 cubic metre of vessel conven tional capacity for each hour of anchorage in the 
outer or inner harbour in excess of 12 hours.  Incomp lete hour of anchorage shall be considered as a 
complete hour of anchorage), ecological dues, pilo tage dues, navigation dues.  Port-charges were 
collected in commercial seaports of the Russian Fede ration, irrespective of their form of organization, 
legal status and pattern of ownership, from Russi an and foreign vessels and floating facilities on the 
basis of non-discrimination principle. 
110. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
ensure that any fees and charges for services rendered listed in Tables […] or introduced in the future 
would only be applied in conformity with the relevant obligations of GATT 1994, and that any 
application of fees and charges by the Russian Fede ration for services rendered or in connection with 
importation or exportation would be in accordan ce with the relevant provisions of the WTO 
Agreement, in particular Articles VIII and X of GATT 1994, from the date of accession.  He further 
confirmed that, after accession, information regardi ng the application and the level of any such fees, 
revenues collected and their use, would be provided to WTO Members upon request.]  
Application of Internal Taxes on Imports 
- Excise Taxes 
111. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that excise taxes on certain products were 
differentiated between imported and domestically -produced goods until Janua ry 1997.  Federal Law 
No. 12-FZ of 10 January 1997 "On Excise Tax" unified  excise tax rates for imported and domestic WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 38  products. In pursuance of Chapter 22 ("Excise Tax" ) of the Tax Code (Federal Law No. 110-FZ of 
24 July 2002 "On the Introduction of Chapter 22 Into  Force"), excise tax rates for imports and those 
for domestic products were identical and brought into  conformity with Article III of GATT 1994.  The 
products subject to excise taxes and to respec tive tax rates were enumerated in Table 14. 
112. Two categories of products only (natural gas and partly cigarettes) were subject to ad valorem  
rates.  The tax base for calculating excise tax fo r those products was the selling price exclusive of 
VAT for domestic products and the sum of thei r customs value and the payable customs duty 
exclusive of VAT for the ad valorem part of excise  tax for imported cigarette s.  Natural gas imported 
to the Russian Federation was free from excise tax.  If excisable goods were placed under customs treatment of transit, bonded warehouse, re-export, processing under the customs control, free customs 
area, free warehouse, destruction and refusal in fa vour of the State the excise tax was not paid.  
Products for which zero level excise tax was indica ted were included in the list of excisable goods 
only for more effective state monitoring of their tur nover.  Excise taxes had been applied differently 
to Russian trade with CIS countries than to trade with non-CIS countries.  But as from 1 July 2001, 
when Chapter 22 of the Tax Code entered into fo rce, excise taxes were levied in a uniform manner 
based on the principle of country of destination. 
113. Several members expressed appreciation for the comprehensive listing of excise taxes and 
other information on their application to domes tic and imported goods.  They noted that the 
differentiation of excise tax rates within specific cat egories of alcoholic beve rage, e.g., for different 
types of beer, wine, and spirits, might have a de facto  discriminatory effect on imports. 
114. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that differentiation of excise 
tax rates applied to specific categories of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine and spirit) was based on the 
principle of harmonizing the applied rate with the concentration of pure alcohol in those beverages 
and was not having a discriminatory effect on imports.  For example, Russian produced wines 
(fortified wines) were subjected to the highest  excise rates in comparison with imported wines 
(natural wines). 
115. Noting that when excise taxes were collected  on imports from CIS countries there was still a 
deduction from the charge for excise taxes applie d in the exporting CIS country, some members 
maintained that this could violate Article I of GATT 1994.  Noting further that differential rates of 
excise tax were levied on natural gas depending on wh ether it was sold in the Russian Federation for 
export to other CIS countries (15 per cent), or whether it was for export to other countries (30 per cent), some members felt that this practice should be brought  in conformity with the WTO 
upon accession.  Moreover, a more detailed clarification was needed on the national treatment 
implications of calculating excise taxes on imports on the customs value plus the total of customs  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 39 
 duties and levies payable, while the excise tax es on domestically produced goods were based on 
actual value only.  [Furthermore, members sought a commitment that full conformity with WTO 
provisions should be ensured by the Russian Federa tion in the application of excise taxes as from the 
date of accession to the WTO.] 
116. The representative of the Russian  Federation replied that an ad valorem  excise tax was used 
only for natural gas.  The excise tax was not levied on natural gas imported to Russia.  The excise tax 
established in the Russian Federation for natural gas w as a natural rent royalty paid to the state by gas 
extracting companies.  This rent made no influence either on the level of export prices for gas or on 
the export flows of gas.  In this respect the existi ng procedure of levying the excise tax for natural gas 
was in compliance with WTO rules and di sciplines.  He also added that the ad valorem  part of 
combined rate of excise tax for cigarettes was e qual to one per cent.  Thus the methodology of 
accruing the tax basis described in paragraph […] could not hamper imports. 
- Value Added Tax 
117. Some members requested confirmation that VAT  was now applied in an uniform manner to 
all domestic and imported products a nd that from 1 July 2001 this was also the case with respect to 
CIS countries.  Clarification was also requested on whether the same principle applied to imports and 
exports of energy products such as gas and oil.  A member requested clarification concerning the 
different VAT treatment of ice-cream produced fr om milk and dairy products (10 per cent) and 
ice-cream produced from fruits and berries (20 per cent).  
118. The representative of the Russian Federation re plied that, in accordance with Chapter 21 of 
the Tax Code (Federal Law No. 117-FZ of 5 August 2000 and Federal Law No. 118-FZ of 
5 August 2000 "On Introduction of Part Two of the Tax Code") VAT was applied in an uniform 
manner to all domestic and im ported products on the basis of country of destination principle, and that 
also was the case with CIS countries as from 1 July 2001.  The only exception related to bilateral 
trade with Belarus, where VAT was levied on the country of origin.  As for the exportation of crude 
oil and natural gas, VAT would be levied on the count ry of destination also with respect to bilateral 
trade with CIS country from the year 2004 or 2005.  
119. Noting that that the application of domestic ta xes to Belarus was still based on the country of 
origin, some members asked the Russian Federatio n to indicate how, and in what time-frame, the 
Russian Federation intended to proceed to convert its taxation system with Belarus.  These members 
also asked a list, by HS tariff lines, of oil and g as import items for which the level of application of 
VAT continued to be based on the country of origin .  They further requested the Russian Federation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 40  to provide a more precise timetable for unifying appl ication of VAT on all products on the basis of the 
country of destination. 
120. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the Russian Federation 
and Belarus were the parties of the bilateral Tr eaty "On the Creation of the Union State" of 8 
December 1999 leading, inter alia , to the formation of a unique economic space based on the unified 
legislation.  The work was being done to address the issue of taxation within this unique economic 
space.  He further stated that the only difference in the exportation of crude oil and natural gas (HS 
2709 and 2711.21, respectively) to CIS countries in comparison with the exportation of these products 
to other countries was that VAT was not reimbursed to Russian exporters in the case of export to CIS 
countries.  
121. He noted that VAT was levied at a single rate  of 20 per cent with some exemptions listed in 
Tables 15(a) and 15(b).  All these exemptions were  applied in non-discriminatory manner both to 
domestic output and imports of si milar products. Also exempt fro m VAT were goods placed under the 
customs treatment of transit customs warehouse; re-export; duty free shop; processing under customs 
control; free customs zone; free warehouse; destruct ion and refusal in favour of the State. The tax 
base for the imposition of VAT included excise taxes, if any. For imported goods customs duties were 
also included in the tax base. 
122. Referring to the list of VAT exemptions listed in Table 15(a), some members noted that a 
reference was made therein that 'sale of products of own manufacture of orga nizations engaged in the 
production of agricultural products which generate 70 per cent and mo re of the overall share of 
incomes from the sale in the total sum of their incomes' were ex empted from VAT. They asked to 
know which were the products in question and whether imports of similar products did also qualify 
for exemption and, more generally, how the ex emption of domestic agricultural output from VAT 
could be justified under Article III:2 of GATT 1994. Noting that products of sea fishery caught and/or 
produced by fishing enterprises were also VAT exempted, these members further inquired whether 
this exemption was extended to imported fish pro ducts as well. Some members also inquired whether 
the provision for VAT exemption for certain agricu ltural producers, or producers in any other sector, 
also applied where output was bartered for goods  or services or used as payment in kind for 
discharging financial obligations to financial institutions or  other creditors. If that was the case, these 
members asked full details on the legal basis for su ch goods and services being deemed to satisfy the 
relevant criteria for VAT exemption.  
123. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that, in the case of sea fishery, VAT 
exemption resulted from the fact that sea fishery caught by Russian fishi ng enterprises was Russian 
fish and, as such, its delivery into the customs terr itory of the Russian Federation did no constitute an  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 41 
 importation.  These goods were thus not subject to VAT when imported into the customs territory of 
the Russian Federation but were subject to VAT when the first transaction was performed. 
124. In response to the concerns of members of the Working Party concerning VAT exemption for 
agricultural products of some producers, he furthe r explained that these products substituted payments 
for the job of natural persons employed by those pr oducers.  Such a form of payments was used in 
agricultural sector by entities in critical situation w ith no actual money either to pay salaries or VAT 
when paying for the job of employed persons by agricultural products.  There were few such cases.  
The agricultural products at issue were unprocessed  products of plant growing and cattle breeding 
(meat, fish, eggs, vegetables, fruits etc.).  This provision was not applied to the cases when the output 
of the above mentioned producers was bartered for goods  or services, or used as payment to reimburse 
financial obligations to financial institutions or other creditors.  
125. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its domestic taxes,  including VAT, excise taxes, and other taxes 
applied to goods including those listed in Table [… ] and paragraphs […], would be applied in 
compliance with Articles I and III of GATT 1994,  in a non-discriminatory manner to imports 
regardless of country of origin and to domestica lly produced goods, without exceptions, regardless of 
regional destination of goods.] 
Quantitative Import Restrictions, in cluding Prohibitions and Quotas  
126. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation did not 
maintain any quantitative import restrictions, prohibiti ons or quotas within the purview of Article XI 
of GATT 1994.  He noted that the only exception had been the temporary ban on importation of ethyl alcohol enforced under Federal Law No. 61-FZ of 31 March 1999 "On Temporary Ban on Ethyl 
Alcohol Imports" which was terminated on 31 December 2001.   
127. He further said that Article 13 of Federa l Law No. 173-FZ of 22 November 1995 "On State 
Regulation of Production and Turnover of Ethy l Alcohol, Alcoholic and Alcohol-Containing 
Products" restricted imports of distilled spirits to no more than 10 per cent of alcohol sales in the 
Russian Federation. Within this quota, not less than  60 per cent of imports must contain 15 per cent of 
alcohol or less.  He noted, however, that the provisi ons of that Article had never been implemented. 
128. Noting the Russian Federation's statement con cerning the lifting of the temporary ban on 
imports of ethyl alcohol, some members requested  clarification on whether the Russian authorities  
considered that imports of ethyl alcohol could s till be affected by Government Resolution No. 1292  
of 3 November 1998 "On the Approval of Rules for the Issuance of Quotas for the Manufacture of 
Ethyl Alcohol from All Types and Special Permits for Its Delivery" (date to be supplied).  As this WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 42  Resolution seemed to contemplate placing quotas on deliveries by domestic producers, the issue 
remained as to whether the Russian Federation even tually planned to place quotas on imports.  As for 
the reference to a law in force, but not applied, that  restricted imports of distilled spirits to no more 
that 10 per cent of the Russian market and stipulated  that within this quota at least 60 per cent of 
imports must contain 15 per cent of alcohol or l ess, some members requested a clarification as to 
whether the Russian authorities actuall y intended to repeal this law. 
129. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that the rules of putting quotas 
on production of ethyl alcohol from all types of raw materials, methylated spirits and alcohol-containing solutions had been recognised as invalid and inapplicable by Resolution of the 
Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 16 May 2001 No. GKPI 2001-7 83 "On Recognition as 
Invalid and Inapplicable the Rules on Putting Q uotas on Production of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcohol-
Containing Solution, Approved by the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation".  The 
rules of issuance of special permits for delivery (re lease) of ethyl alcohol produced from all types of 
raw materials, methylated spirits and alcohol-cont aining solutions had been recognised as invalid and 
inapplicable by Resolution of the Supreme Cour t of the Russian Federation of 23 November 2000 
No. GKPI 00-1251 "On Recognition as Invalid and Ina pplicable the Rules of  Issuance of Special 
Permits for Delivery (Release) of Ethyl Alcohol Produced from All Types of Raw Materials, Methylated Spirits and Alcohol-Containing Solutions , Approved by the Resolution of the Government 
of the Russian Federation".  No quotas on imported alcoholic products was planned in future.  He 
further confirmed that the provisions of Article  13 of Federal Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 
"On State Regulation of Production and Tu rnover of Ethyl Alcohol, Alcoholic and 
Alcohol-Containing Products" had never been applie d and no agency in the Russian Federation was 
appointed to oversee its implementation.  Fede ral Law No. 171-FZ of 22 November 1995 was going 
to be amended.  The proposals on such amendments  was being drafted contem plating abandonment of 
export and import licensing of this type of activity by the Ministry of Taxes and Levies of the Russian Federation. 
Import Licensing Systems  
130. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that his country's import licensing system 
(Tables 16(a) and 16(b)) was established in Article  19 of Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 
"On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activities".  Articles 12 and 15 of this law stipulated that 
procedures for the importation of precious stones, precious metals, and nucle ar materials should be 
established by Presidential Decrees, while proce dures for the importation of goods affecting the 
Russian Federation's national security interests and fo r the fulfillment of its international agreements 
were under the responsibility of the Government of  the Russian Federation.  Government Resolution 
No. 1299 of 1 October 1996 "On Rules of Conduct of  Auctions and Tenders on Sale of Quotas in  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 43 
 Cases of Introduction of Quantitative Restrictions  and Licensing of Exported and Imported Goods, 
Works and Services in the Russi an Federation" (as amended on 27 January 1997, 2 February, 14 
March and 29 December 1998), introduced a uniform procedure for the licensing of imports, making 
the Russian practices in this field consistent with the relevant provi sions of GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
131. The purpose of the licensing regime was to mon itor and control imports of goods which, for 
various reasons, were classified as sensitive for the Russian Federation and the international 
community.  Import licenses in force were jus tifiable under Articles XX and XXI of GATT 1994 and 
the corresponding provisions of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures as, in accordance with Federal Law No. 157-FZ, licenses were required for the purpose of fulfilling 
international agreements; ensuring state security; the protection of human, animal and plant health; 
the protection of the environment; and the mainte nance of public morals.  Licenses were generally 
issued by the Ministry for Economic Developm ent and Trade.  In the case of weapons and 
ammunitions licenses were issued by the Ministry  of Defense.  The licensing regime applied to 
imports from all countries, including imports from CIS countries. 
132. Several members of the Working Party expressed  concern regarding the Russian Federation's 
statement that a justification to support the app lication of non-automatic import licenses for products 
listed in Table 16(a) might be found under Article  XX of GATT 1994. These members felt that more 
explanation was necessary to understand how the pr ovisions in the chapeau of Article XX would be 
met.  They noted that, while import licensing might  be an appropriate mechanism to administer 
certain controls, the justification for these controls , as well as the specifics of the import licensing 
procedures used to administered them, needed in  all cases to be fully in accordance to WTO 
provisions, including those on non-discrimination.  For example, some members noted that 
pharmaceutical licensing requirements were extr emely burdensome and constituted a significant 
problems for their exporters.  A major obstacle w as that pharmaceuticals had to be re-registered 
periodically, e.g. once every four years, and this re-registration was not automatic, often resulting in 
firms losing their current licence and being unable to import products for a period of time.  In 
addition, the Ministry of Health processing of the application was often slow and occasionally a 
barrier to receipt of the permit.  Some members argued that the prior authorizations required for 
importation of goods subject to Hygienic Assessm ent and Mandatory Certification could act as 
disguised barriers to trade or might not be applie d uniformly to imports and domestic output.  Some 
members asked more detail information on how the Ru ssian authorities considered that each of the 
requirements of Article 1 and 3 of the Agreemen t on Import Licensing Procedures had been met in 
relation to non-automatic import licensing in th e administration of its TRQ for raw sugar 
(HS 1701.11). WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 44  133. In response, the Representative of the Russian Federation said that the Russian Federation had 
no intention to limit the quantity and value of imports, except as provided for in international 
conventions such as the Montreal Protocol or Basel Convention.  Import licenses for glucose syrup had been of a temporary surveillance character, issu ed to gather trade data.  In the case of import 
licensing for strong alcoholic beverages and pharmaceu tical products, he noted that the applicant 
should have an activity licence.  Regarding the importation of raw sugar under TRQ scheme only the 
winners of the auction could be granted a licence.  A ll other participants in this foreign trade activity 
could import raw sugar without any licence but paying the MFN duty on it.   
134. He added that Government Resolution No. 158 0 "On the Introduction of Amendments and 
Addenda to the Regulations on the Procedure for Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works, 
Services) in the Russian Federation" that enfor ced import or export licensing had been issued on 
29 December 1998, and after that the list of goods su bject to import or export licence regime had been 
amended on several occasions with a view to mini mizing the number of products concerned.  The 
most recent Decision No. 560 of 26 July 2001 "On the Abolishment of the Licensing of the Import of 
White Sugar to the Russian Federation" removed wh ite sugar from the list of products requiring an 
import license. Licence applications were submitted to two administrative bodies only.  The amount and type of information to be submitted was s tipulated in Government Resolution No. 1299 of 
31 October 1996 which described the procedures for a pplication, and contained copy of the import or 
export contract, copy of the charter of the applicant,  copy of the certificate for the state registration 
approval of the federal agency responsible for the specific sensitive goods (for non-automatic licence 
only) and activity licence (for strong alcoholic bevera ges only).  The validity of the licence was, as a 
rule, no more than 12 months but could be ex tended upon request of the licence holder.  An 
administrative fee of 3,000 Rubles was charged for each import or export licence.  For issuance of 
preliminary permits for imports of pharmaceutical products the Ministry of Health charged fees of 
0.05 per cent of the contract value of the goods. App lications could only be rejected if any of the 
above-mentioned documents would no t be available, or the information submitted by the applicant 
was false, or the importer or exporter did not fu lfil the conditions stipulated in international 
conventions for specific goods.  A licence was required to  be issued within 25 days after the complete 
set of documents had been submitted.  
135. Several members took issue with the Russian Fe deration's stated intention of not limiting the 
quantity and value of imports, except as provided for in international conventions such as the 
Montreal Protocol or Basel Convention as the current application of licensing requirements to 
products such as pharmaceuticals, sugar, alcoholic  beverages, precious stones and metals clearly 
restricted import. They requested the Russian Fede ration to explain how these restrictions would be 
modified or eliminated to meet WTO requirements.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 45 
 136. Noting that for alcoholic beverages, import li censes were only issued where the applicant 
already had an activity licence, some members felt  that additional explanation was necessary on the 
rationale for this apparent double requirement.  Th ey also required information on the number of 
licenses issued every year and on how many of these were currently in force.  These members 
expected the Russian Federation to make a comm itment that any import licenses on ethyl alcohol, 
alcoholic drinks and pharmaceutical products should be granted automati cally on the basis of a regime 
compatible with WTO requirements, including Ar ticle 2 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  Some members noted their understanding that activity licensing for precious stones and metals had been eliminated on 11 Febr uary 2001 by Federal Law No. 128-FZ. 
137. Regarding Government Resolution No. 1539 "O n the importation in and the exportation from 
the Russian Federation of Medicaments and Phar maceutical Substances", some members indicated 
that  Paragraph 2 of this resolution appeared to s uggest that foreign manufactures must have offices in 
the Russian Federation in order to obtain an import li cense.  They requested clarification as to whether 
this would imply that foreign manufacturers of pha rmaceuticals should have an office in the Russian 
Federation to obtain a license to import, and noted that in this case such a requirement would be WTO 
inconsistent with WTO provisions.  In addition, th ey asked the Russian Federation to elaborate on the 
purpose of these requirements, particularly in the case of licensing products such as flavourings and 
dual use precursor chemicals, and on whether they require the examination of every contract to 
import. 
138. Noting further that pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concern over certain Russian 
import licensing requirements (for instance if the molecule unique to the pharmaceutical had not 
changed periodic renewal of licenses appeared unnecessary and could be e xpensive and burdensome 
to industry), some members asked whether such requirements were equally applied or not to similar 
domestic products, as they could constitute a violatio n of Article III of GATT 1994.  Noting also that 
some pharmaceutical exporters had expressed concer n that the administration of licenses at MOH and 
MEDT did not presently meet WTO requirements such as transparency, fees for services rendered, processing within a reasonable timeframe and forbearance on minor documentation errors, these members requested clarification on the steps that th e Russian Federation intended to take to ensure 
that the administration of import licenses would conf orm to WTO requirements. In this regard, some 
members asked the Russian Federation to explain ho w the 0.05 per cent administrative fee charged by 
the MOH for issuing permits to import pharmaceutical  products was consistent with the requirements 
of Article VIII of GATT 1994.  
139. Some members requested additional clarification on the status of any legislative initiative in 
the Russian Federation which could be designed to  restrict imports of pharmaceuticals having 
domestic analogues.  These members felt that, if adopted , this legislation could be inconsistent with WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 46  the provisions of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994.  They asked the Russian Federation to confirm 
that activity licenses would be made available to all registered companies (domestic or foreign) which 
satisfied government regulatory criteria.  They noted that this would not prevent the Russian Federation from operating state-trading enterprises or applying controls on imports and exports for 
example for purposes of human health, as long as th ese were applied in a manner consistent with 
relevant WTO obligations.  Noting further that the Russian Federation had acknowledged that the 
current law concerning pharmaceuticals (Federal Law No. 86 "On medicines" of 22 June 1998) was 
inconsistent with the new draft Foreign Trad e and Import/Export Licensing Laws, some members 
expected that this law would be amended or rep ealed to ensure WTO conformity by the date of 
accession. 
140. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that there were no plans in the Russian 
Federation to introduce new legislative initiative wh ich could be designed to restrict imports of 
pharmaceuticals having domestic analogues.  Activity licences were made available to all registered 
companies (domestic or foreign) which satisfied  government regulatory criteria. Moreover, if a 
foreign company was not registered it could nevert heless get the required import licence if it had a 
representation office in the Russian Federation.  He  noted that imports of pharmaceuticals to the 
Russian Federation grew in 1993-2002.   In the first half of 2002 they  increased by 22 per cent.  Thus, 
the licensing system existing in the Russian Federati on did not hamper imports.  He also added that, 
by way of legislative and regulatory developmen t, work was currently being done to modify 
procedures for imports of pharmaceutical substan ces and medicines into the Russian Federation. 
141. [The Representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
eliminate from the date of accession, and would no t introduce, reintroduce or apply, quantitative 
restrictions on imports or other non-tariff measure s such as quotas, bans, permits, prior authorization 
requirements, licensing requirements or other require ments or restrictions having equivalent effect 
that could not be justified under the provisions of the WTO Agreem ents.  The import licensing regime 
from the date of accession would be fully in accord ance with all relevant provisions of the WTO, 
including the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures.  He further confirmed that the legal 
authority of the Government of the Russian Fede ration to suspend imports or to apply licensing 
requirements that could be used to suspend, ban or  otherwise restrict the quantity of trade would be 
applied from the date of accession in conformity w ith the requirements of the WTO, in particular 
Articles III, XI, XII, XIII, XIX, XX and XXI  of GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreements on 
Agriculture, the Application of Sanitary and Ph ytosanitary Measures, Import Licensing Procedures, 
Safeguards, Technical Barriers to Trade and the Understanding on Balance-of-payments Provisions of 
GATT 1994.]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 47 
 
- Customs Valuation  
142. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the basic provisions relating to 
customs valuation practices in the Russian Federa tion were contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" and Government  Resolution No. 856 of 5 November 1992 "On the 
Procedure of Customs Valuation of Products Imported into the Territory of the Russian Federation".  
The rules for determining customs values were based on the provisions of the WTO Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994.  All six methods of customs valuation applied were 
based on the provisions of Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 a nd 8 of that Agreement.  Moreover, in line with the 
provisions of Article 17 of the same Agreement,  the State Customs Committee of the Russian 
Federation (SCC) had been implementing a special t echnique of customs control which was aimed at 
preventing gross under-invoicing of customs value, such as the use of false documents stating a 
clearly understated contractual price in the performance of customs formalities. 
143. Members of the Working Party noted that specifi c issues of concern in this area included the 
use of de facto fixed import prices for some goods, the need to include more precise provisions for 
valuation of imports possibly involvi ng related parties, and the inclus ion of the Interpretative Notes to 
the Agreement in legal text.  They reiterated that any use of minimum or arbitrary valuation methods, 
even if intended to address a specific problem, mu st be eliminated prior to accession and replaced 
with procedures meeting WTO requirements. 
144. Several members further noted that the legisla tion currently applied did not appear to fully 
implement Article 13 of the Agreement on the Im plementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 which 
provided for a guarantee system allowing an importer to withdraw goods from customs pending final determination of the customs value if he provided sufficient guarantee.  This was a critical provision 
as it ensured that customs procedures did not, in themselves, block imports. These members sought a 
confirmation that relevant Customs decisions, e.g ., Orders and Letters, and the decisions of local 
customs authorities, that traders ne eded to be able to review and understand, would be made available 
for this purpose to traders and other interested pa rties promptly and at reasonable cost.  Information 
was also required on how SCC and its regional office s, published and/or made available their rulings 
and other information for importers and exporters. 
145. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the procedure for 
publication and making effective regulatory legal act s of the federal executive authorities (including 
SCC) was governed, in particular, by Presidential Decree No. 763 "On the Procedure for Publication 
and Taking Effect of Acts of the President of th e Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and Regulatory Lega l Acts of Federal Executive Authorities" of 23 May 1996; 
Government Resolution No. 1009 "On the Approval of  the Rules for Preparing the Normative Legal WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 48  Acts of the Federal Bodies of the Executive Power and Their State Registration" of 13 August 1997; 
and the Order of the Ministry of Justice No. 217 "On the Approval of the Explanations on the 
Application of the Rules for the Preparation of Normative Legal Acts of the Federal Bodies of 
Executive Power and Their State Registration" of 14 July 1999;.  Normative legal acts of SCC (e.g. 
acts with a binding effect throughout the territo ry of the Russian Federation) included only its 
regulations, orders, rules, instru ctions, dispositions and administra tive decrees.  Briefings, letters, 
telegrams, teletype letters were not considered as normative legal acts but acts which could only have 
recommendatory character and be used internally for the sole purpose of a state body.  Normative 
legal acts of SCC were subject to mandatory publi cation with the exception of acts or parts thereof 
constituting state secrets or confidential information.  Exhaustive lists of such information and data 
had been approved by various Presidential decr ees. The official organs for publication were 
Rossijskaya Gazeta and the Bulletin of Regul atory Acts of Federal Bodies published by 
Yuridicheskaya Literatura publishing house of the President's Administration edited monthly since 
1998.  Regulatory legal acts of SCC subject to state registration with the Ministry of Justice became 
enforceable only after they had been regi stered and officially published.   
146. Noting that the Russian Authorities had mentione d "a special technique of customs control" 
recently introduced by SCC in order to preven t "gross under-invoicing" of customs value, some 
members requested clarification on the modalities of a pplication and legal justification of this special 
technique. 
147. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration said that this technique entrusted the 
decision-making authority of the customs bodies with the task of checking the truth and accuracy of 
the stated value of products.  The relevant cust oms bodies were vested with certain functions to 
control customs value, and those situations in which such functions could be performed were 
specified and the operational procedures of the cu stoms bodies at the various levels (custom-house, 
regional customs authority, SCC staff) defined. This technique was not meant to replace the applicable Russian legislation  on customs valuation based on the use of the transaction value as a 
main method of customs valuation.  This technique might also enable the cu stoms authorities to more 
effectively respect the provisions of Article 13 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of 
Article VII of GATT 1994 as it simplified the proce dures and criteria used to decide whether the 
stated transaction value could have been understated.   He also noted that further details on special 
techniques of customs control were c ontained in document WT/ACC/RUS/28. 
148. He noted that actions by SCC could be appeal ed in accordance with th e procedure established 
by the Customs Code of the Russian Federation, notably under Article 407 which required that the 
initial appeal should be filed with the higher cust oms administration of the Russian Federation, and 
Article 416 which stipulated that should this appeal be turned down, the importer could further appeal  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 49 
 to a court.  The draft Chapter 27 of the Tax C ode entitled "Customs Duty and Customs Charges" 
contained requirements ensuring consistency of cust oms valuation procedures with the provisions of 
the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of GATT 1994 and referred members of the 
Working Party to his statement in paragraph […]. 
149. Noting the reference to the new Tax Code a nd the Customs Code, several members again 
considered that further information on the proposed new legislation in this area was needed to enter 
into meaningful discussions on the extent to which further adjustments would be required to bring the 
Russian practices in full conformity with WTO require ments.  They noted that existing procedures in 
the WTO Agreement that facilitate importation we re important benefits for WTO Members and 
should be introduced by the Russian Federation upon accession. 
150. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply its customs valuation laws, re gulations and practices in full c onformity with the relevant WTO 
provisions, including the Agreement on Implementati on of Article VII of GATT 1994, from the date 
of accession without recourse to any transition period.  He further confirmed that, in determining the 
value of imports, the Russian Federation would ap ply the provisions on the Treatment of Interest 
Charges in Customs Value of Imported Goods a nd for the Valuation of Carrier Media Bearing 
Software for Data Processing Equipment. In accord ance with these latter provisions, only the cost of 
the carrier medium itself would be accounted for in the customs value.  He also confirmed that the 
Russian Federation had eliminated the use of minimum import prices and reference prices for 
determining the value of imports, and that the Russian Federation would not use any form of 
minimum value, reference price, or fixed valua tion schedule establishing the value of imports and 
exports nor would apply duties and taxes from the date of accession. He added that, as an international 
agreement, the provisions of the WTO Agreemen t on the Implementation of Article VII of GATT 
1994 would supersede domestic law after accession.]   
- Rules of Origin 
151. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that the Russian Federation was closely 
following the work of the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the WTO regarding 
harmonization for non-preferential rules of origin.  In accordance with the provisions of Federal Law 
No. 5003-1 of 21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff", the principles for determining the country of origin 
of goods were based on internationa l practices.  The procedures for determining the country of origin 
of goods were established pursuant to this Law. Goods  originated from a country if they were wholly 
made in that country or substantially transformed  in accordance with criteria set forth in the Law.  
The country of origin of goods might also be understood to mean a group of countries, customs 
unions, a region or a part of a country, if this was necessary to identify them with a view to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 50  determining the origin of goods.  The provisions of Federal Law No. 5003-1 which related to the 
determination of the country of origin of goods , reflecting international practices and implementing 
the recommendations of the Kyoto Convention, were in corporated in the draft of the new version of 
the Customs Code of the Russian Federation.  
152. A customs authority might request a certificate of origin in order to confirm that the goods 
originated from a particular country.  This applied, in particular with respect to goods originating from 
countries which benefit from the National GSP Sc heme; to goods of which the importation from a 
given country was regulated by quantitative restri ctions (quotas) or by other methods for the 
regulation of foreign economic activitie s;  if this was envisaged by in ternational agreements, to which 
the Russian Federation was a party, as well as by Russian legislation on environmental protection, 
public health, protection for the rights of Russian c onsumers, public order, state security and other 
vital interests of the Russian Federation;  and, in cases where data about the origin of the goods were 
absent in the documents submitted for customs clearan ce or the Russian customs agency had reason to 
believe that the declared data about the origin of the goods were not trustworthy. In the event that the 
importer did not seek a preferential regime and the origin of goods could e confirmed by indirect 
indicators (marking, information on the origin contained in shipping documentation, etc.) there might be no mandatory requirement to submit a certificate of origin. In these cases, where MFN treatment existed with the exporting country, customs duti es were charged at the Customs Tariff rates. 
Otherwise, customs duties were charged at double the rate.    
153. The certificate of origin was expected to clearly prove that the goods in question were 
originating from the country of issuance, and should contain a written statement by the consignor that 
goods satisfied the respective criteria of origin, a nd written confirmation by the duly authorized body 
of the exporting country which had issued the certificat e that the data indicated therein were true and 
correct.  The certificate of origin should be s ubmitted alongside the customs declaration and other 
documents presented for customs clearance.  If doubts existed about the validity of a certificate or the 
accuracy of the data indicated therein, including th e data about the country of origin of goods, the 
Russian customs agency might approach the organi zations that had issued the certificate or other 
authorities of the country indicated as the country of origin of goods with a request for supplementary 
or clarifying data.  Goods would not be regarded as originating from a given country until a duly 
executed certificate of origin or requested data were submitted. Failure to submit a duly executed 
certificate or data about the origin of goods would not constitute grounds for refusal to clear such 
goods across the customs border.  Goods of which the origin had not been clearly established should 
be cleared after the payment of customs duties at the non-MFN rates of the Russian Customs Tariff.   
154. The determination of the origin of goods orig inating from developing countries eligible for 
the system of preferences maintained by the Russi an Federation was governed by the "Rules of Origin  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 51 
 of Goods Originating from Developing Countries fo r the Purposes of Tariff Preferences under the 
General Preferences System" incorporated in th e Agreement of the CIS states of 12 April 1996 "On 
Rules of Origin of Goods Originating from Developing Countries for the Purposes of Tariff 
Preferences under the General Preferences System".  As for the rules of origin within free trade 
agreements, the additional criteria of direct purch ase were used. In respect of goods originating from 
CIS countries, he said that the Russian Federati on adhered to the "Rules of Origin of Goods" 
approved by the Council of Heads of CIS Governme nts on 30 November 2000.  The above rules were 
developed pursuant to the internationa l practice of determination of origin. 
155. Noting that the rules of origin provisions contained in Federal Law No. 5003-1 of 
21 May 1993 "On Customs Tariff" did not appear to fully reflect the requirements of the WTO 
Agreement, several members of the Working Part y felt it essential to ensure that the new draft 
Customs Code would provide revised rules of or igin consistent with WTO provisions.  These 
members also requested a clarification on whether these new laws would cover both preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.  Noting further that goods of which the origin had not been clearly 
established were cleared through customs only after pa yment of customs duties at a rate double that in 
the Customs Tariff, some members asked the Russi an Federation to clarify whether in such cases it 
was possible to submit a certificate of origin subse quent to customs clearance and, if origin was 
subsequently satisfactorily established, whether ex cess duties were then refunded.  Some members 
also expressed concerns and requested a clarif ication regarding the consistency with the WTO 
Agreement on Rules of Origin of the Russian stated pr actice that "the country of origin could also be 
understood to mean a group of countries, customs uni ons, a region or part of a region, if this was 
necessary to identify them with a view to  determining the origin of goods".   
156. Several members indicated a particular interest in the provisions concerning the right to 
request an origin determination from the Government  prior to shipment[, and requested a commitment 
that these provisions should be a pply in line with the requirement s of Article 2(h) and Annex II, 
paragraph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  In addition, they also indicated that Russia' s preferential rules of origin for CIS should fully reflect the interim rules of Annex II of the 
Agreement].  In this regard, these members request ed clarification on whether the "Decision of the 
Council of the Governments of the Commonwealth of Independent States on the Rules for the 
Determination of a Country of Goods' Origin" of 24 September 1993 would currently meet these 
requirements[, and a commitment was sought as to their implementation upon accession].  Some 
members also asked a clarification on whether cu stoms procedures did include any guarantee system 
which allowed release of goods pending determination of preferential origin and how did any 
associated rectification procedure (subsequent refund or recovery of customs duties) actually operate.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 52  157. In response, the representative of  the Russian Federation stated that Articles 393 to 396 of the 
currently applied Customs Code provided that cust oms authorities were entitled to issue a provisional 
decision with respect to the origin of goods, prio r to import of these goods into the territory of the 
Russian Federation.  To further develop these provisions, the State Customs Committee (SCC) had 
prepared and would shortly introduce a "Regulation on the procedure for taking preliminary decisions 
with respect to the country of origin of goods".  He added that with regard to compliance with the 
requirements of Article 2(h) and Annex II, paragr aph 3(d) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
Articles 393 – 396 of the existing Customs Code of the Russian Federation provided for the possibility of preliminary (prior to shipment) origin determination by customs administrations.  In furtherance of these Articles the State Customs Committee had prepared and would soon pass a 
Regulation on the procedure for origin determination prior to shipment. 
158. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession the 
Russian Federation's laws and regulations on rul es of origin for both MFN and preferential trade 
would be applied in conformity with the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
including the provisions of Annex II, and that th ese provisions would be established in the Russian 
Federation's legal framework. He further confirmed that , in line with the requirements of Article 2(h) 
and of Annex II, paragraph 3(d), both for non-preferen tial and preferential rules of origin, its customs 
authorities would provide an assessment of the orig in of the import and outline the terms under which 
such an assessment would be provided upon the request  of an exporter, importer or any person with a 
justifiable cause. According to the provisions of  the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin specified 
above, any request for such an assessment would be accepted even before trade in the goods 
concerned had began, and any such assess ment would be binding for three years.] 
- Other Customs Formalities 
159. Several members stressed that the simplif ication of border controls and customs 
documentation necessary for importation in the Russi an Federation would have a favorable impact 
through reduced costs and improved efficiency for Ru ssian traders.  In response, the representative of 
the Russian Federation stated that customs formaliti es in use in the Russian Federation were applied 
in accordance with the internationally accepted ru les and were based on the Kyoto Convention.  
160. Noting that his country was experiencing a huge volume of uncontrolled entry of smuggled 
goods from the Russian Federation which seriously in jured its domestic market, a member asked the 
Russian authorities to clarify how they intended to fully control the Russian Federation's customs 
border in its entirety to prevent exit of smuggled goods from Russian territory continuing to damage 
small and vulnerable neighbouring countries.  This member believed that import regulations imposed 
by the Russian Federation on imports of certain ty pes of products (wine and wine products, petroleum  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 53 
 products, tobacco products, chicken meat etc.) wh ich authorized only certain check-points often 
located away from the exporting countries, even in the case of neighbouring countries, to handle these 
goods, represented hidden impediments to trade.  He  therefore requested that  the Russian Federation 
ensure these requirements be removed or significantly simplified. 
161. One member of the Working Party said that  his authorities had identified a number of 
measures that raised concerns in this area.  Under State Customs Committee Orders No. 155 of 
14 February 2001 "On the Procedure for Coordina tion of Decisions to Release Goods for Free 
Circulation" and No. 949 of 31 December 1999 on "Amending Order No. 258 of the SCC of 26 April 1996 (in the wording of Order No. 43 of the SCC of  31 January 1997 and with the Amendments and 
Additions of 10 March 2000) certain goods that qua lified as high-risk (e.g. certain foodstuffs) were 
not released for free circulation without the specific approval of a higher customs authority.  The 
process of obtaining such approval can last from one  to two weeks.  Under rules introduced in 
October 2001 by the North Western Customs Authority , shipments of "risk products" (a wide group 
of products including coffee, furniture, tyres a nd washing machines) were subject to burdensome 
documentary requirements, including in relationship to the ownership of the vehicle transporting the 
goods.  The Russian Federation had also imposed r estrictions that require customs clearance for 
certain goods, including textiles, clothing and el ectrical products, to take place only on border 
crossings with certain Asian countries as well as in  ports and airports.  Consequently such items 
originating in Asia could not longer be exported to  the Russian Federation via this member's customs 
territory.  As well as raising concerns in relation to conformity with WTO requirements on trade in 
transit, these decrees made it possi ble for companies exporting to th e Russian Federation to use raw 
materials from the Far East for sub-contracting and subsequently created a barrier to business 
cooperation.  The cumulative effect was that expor ters to the Russian Federation face unpredictable, 
non-transparent, lengthy and generally burdensom e customs procedures for imported goods at the 
point of entry into the Russian Federation's customs territory.  Appropriate checks on imported goods might be called for to ensure that the Russian Fede ration's regulatory requirements were respected, but 
such measures should not be applied in a heavy- handed or non-transparent  way.  Standard WTO 
requirements of transparency, predictability and un iform application should apply. Another member 
said that his authorities had concerns with the pr actice used by the Russian Federation customs bodies 
in respect of the transport companies of this member. He noted that county-specific restrictive 
customs procedures were incompatible with WTO pr ovisions, notably those in Articles I and VIII of 
GATT 1994. This member requested the Russian Fede ration to ensure that these and other country 
specific measures relating to custom s procedures would be brought in fully conformity with the WTO 
requirements prior to accession. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 54  162. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that measures mentioned above by some 
members had been taken in order to strengthen cont rol over the truth and accuracy of data on products 
and transportation means crossing the customs border of the Russian Federation.  He further pointed 
out that the other issue raised in paragraph […] related to trade facilitation which, depending on the 
results of the Fifth Ministerial Conference in 2003, might be subject to multila teral trade negotiations.  
In this respect the Russian Federation very clo sely followed the work of the WTO Goods Council on 
reviewing and, as appropriate, clarifying and impr oving relevant aspects of Articles V, VIII and X of 
GATT 1994.  He also added that the commitments in  this area could be defined after the completion 
of the above mentioned negotiations. 
163. [Members of the Working Party stated that th ey expected the Russian Federation to undertake 
a commitment that upon accession all regulations, fo rmalities and requirements connected with the 
importation of goods, including in relation to sta tistical control, customs clearance, documents, 
documentation and certification, inspection and an alysis, and any changes to these regulations, 
formalities and requirements would be published suffi ciently in advance and applied in a uniform, 
impartial and reasonable manner across the customs te rritory of the Russian Federation, consistent 
with WTO requirements, including Articles VIII and X of GATT 1994.  Customs regulations, formalities and requirements should al so be applied and operated in a fashion consistent with WTO 
requirements.]  They noted that industry and expo rters had regular experi ence of inconsistencies 
between administrative decisions taken by the Russian Federation authorities and the prevailing 
Russian Federation legislation.  Moreover, incons istencies appeared to exist between the general 
legislative framework and subsidiary regulations a nd administrative guidance issued by the Russian 
Federation government bodies (such as SCC).  Furthe rmore, administrative orders issued by SCC 
were sometimes issued as 'secret orders' and thei r contents were not publicized to traders.  
- Pre-shipment Inspection   
164. [Noting that the Russian authorities had stated that the Russian Federation did not require any 
inspection services prior to shipment, members of th e Working Party asked the Russian Federation to 
undertake a commitment indicating that if such services should be employed in the future, they would conform to WTO provisions in their operations, e.g., in the application of fees for services rendered, 
observance of other WTO requirements in customs processing, and in providing right of appeal to the 
Government.]  While recognizing that the WTO Agr eement did not preclude recourse to pre-shipment 
inspection subject to meeting a range of requirement s, some members believed that this would be a 
backward step and expressed their preference to see the Russian Federation engaging customs reforms 
that would address problem areas.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 55 
 165. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that if a pre-shipment inspection 
system would be introduced in the future, it woul d be temporary.  The Government of the Russian 
Federation would take responsibility to ensure that  the operations of any pre-shipment inspection 
companies it retained would meet the requirement s of the WTO Agreements, in particular the 
Agreements on Pre-shipment  Inspection, Import Li censing Procedures, Customs Valuation, Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade.  He further confirmed that charges and 
fees applied by such companies would be consistent  with Article VIII of GATT 1994, and that such 
system would comply with the due process and transparency requirements of the WTO Agreements, in particular Article X of GATT 1994, and the Ag reement on the Implementation of Article VII of 
GATT 1994.]  
- Trade Remedy Measures 
166. The representative of the Russian Federation noted that Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ 
of 14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Econom ic Interests of the Russian Federation with 
Respect to Foreign Trade in Goods" provided the le gal framework to safeguard the country's balance 
of payment.  The provisions in this Article were in full compliance with the provisions of Article XII 
of GATT 1994.  In accordance with this law, and due  to particular balance of payment difficulties, 
Government Resolution No. 791 of 17 July 1998 "O n Introduction of an Additional Import Duty" had 
introduced a special import surcharge at a rate of 3 per cent ad valorem  applied to all tariff items.  
Government Resolution No. 235 of 27 February 1999  had eliminated the import surcharge effectively 
from 1 March 1999. 
167. Some members noted that the application of a tariff surcharge by the Russian Federation, 
based on the mentioned provisions of Federal Law No. 63-FZ, might not be consistent with WTO 
provisions. They asked additional information on the circumstances foreseen in Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ which would trigger the use of an import surcharge measure and the type of measures that 
could be used.  Some members further asked wh ether import surcharges would be authorized under 
any of the new customs laws, notably the amendmen ts to the Customs Tariff Law, the new Customs 
Code, and Chapter 27 of the new Tax Code.  [I n this regard, these members sought a commitment 
confirming that as from the date of accession the Russian Federation would apply any such measures, 
either for BOP or other purposes, in fu ll conformity with WTO provisions.]  
168. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation asked members to clarify their 
concerns with respect to any possible inconsistenc y of the provisions of Federal Law No. 63-FZ  with 
WTO requirements.  He stated that Article 15 of Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 14 April 1998 provided 
that in order to safeguard its balance of paymen ts, the Government of the Russian Federation might 
decide, on the basis of a presentation by the CBR or  upon a presentation by Federal executive bodies WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 56  in agreement with the CBR, to impose temporary r estrictions on the importation of goods.  Subject to 
international obligations of the Ru ssian Federation, such restrictio ns should be implemented through 
import quotas or other measures, imposed on a non-di scriminatory basis, for the period necessary to 
restore the balance-of-payments of the Russian Federation.   
169. [Several members considered that, given the overlapping authorities of Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ and the Russian Federation's intention to establish separate specialized legislation on trade 
remedies, a commitment was required from the Russia n Federation that the provisions of Federal Law 
No. 63-FZ that addressed trade remedies, including those applied for balance-of-payments purposes, 
would be replaced by other legal provisions that c onform to relevant WTO provisions, in particular 
the WTO Agreements on Safeguards, Antidumping, and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and 
Article XII of GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the Balance of  Payments Provisions of GATT 
1994.]   
170. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated further that Federal Law No. 63-FZ of 
14 April 1998 "On Measures to Protect the Economic Interests of the Russian Federation in Foreign 
Trade in Goods" established current rules of procedures for the application, conduct of investigation 
and the imposition of safeguards, anti-dumping and countervailing measures as well as other 
regulations of exports and imports, including measu res for safeguarding the balance of payments.  
Under this law, anti-dumping, safeguards and co untervailing measures could be introduced only 
following an investigation showing evidence of substantially increased, dumped or subsidized 
imports, serious or material injury to domestic industry or threat of such injury and causality between 
these developments.  The measures could only be in  place for a limited period of time necessary to 
eliminate the injury. Government Regulations  Nos. 183 and 184 of 16 February 1999 "On the 
Peculiarities of the Determination of a Significant Da mage to a Branch of the Russian Economy as a 
Result of Dumping Imports" and "On the Peculiariti es of Determining a Significant Damage of a 
Branch of the Russian Economy when a Foreign St ate (an Alliance of Fore ign States) Subsidizes 
Goods Imported to the Russian Federation as Well as the Amount of the Subsidy" and No. 274 of 
11 March 1999 "On the Regulations  for Conducting Investigations Prior to the Introduction  of 
Special Protective Measures, Anti-Dumping Measures or Compensatory Measures" established 
procedures for investigations as well as for determ ination of injury.  A new draft Federal Law "On 
Safeguard, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures" had been prepared by the Government with 
the objective of introducing full conformity with the relevant WTO provisions in these areas.  This 
new law would be submitted to the State Duma shortly.  
171. Concerning anti-dumping, several members noted that the description of the current 
legislation provided by the Russian authorities did not  appear to ensure consistency with relevant 
WTO provisions.  In particular, investigations see med to be limited to injury and causality aspects  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 57 
 without requiring a proper determina tion of dumping, while any measures applied would be expected 
to remain in place for "a limited period of time necessary to eliminate injury", thus not necessarily 
complying with the five-year maximum duration provided for measures undertaken under the WTO  
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of  the GATT 1994.  Concerning safeguards, some 
members felt that more information was required on the measures currently in place or under 
consideration by the Russian authorities before an y assessment of their WTO compatibility could be 
effectively made. 
172. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that in accordance with 
Articles 8 and 11 of the Federal Law No. 63-FZ, i nvestigations should be primarily devoted to 
determination of injury, causation aspects and dumpe d imports.  In particular, Article 11 established 
that the maximum duration of antidumping measures should be of five years, in conformity with 
WTO requirements.  
173. Noting that new legislation was being prepared in these areas, including a new law "On 
Additions and Amendments to the Federal Law "On Protection of Economic Interests of the Russian 
Federation in Foreign Trade in Goods", some member s felt that the Working Party should be given an 
opportunity to review the content and coverage  of these new legislative acts as well as any 
implementing regulations so as to reflect their provisi ons in the Draft Report.  As it was apparent that 
the Russian Federation intended to make recourse to  such measures to regulate trade, members also 
stressed the importance of devising an appropr iate commitment that should confirm the full 
conformity of the new Law and regulations and th eir modalities of application with relevant WTO 
Agreements. 
174. [Some members of the Working Party requested  the Russian Federation to confirm that, 
notwithstanding Article 18.3 of the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994, 
the Russian Federation would apply the provisions of  the  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI 
of the GATT 1994 to proceedings under Article 9.3, including the calculation of margins of dumping, 
in connection with anti-dumping measures adopted befo re the entry into force of the Draft Protocol 
("existing measures"), to reviews of existing meas ures initiated under Article s 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3 
pursuant to requests made on or after the entry into force of the Draft Protocol (any review of an 
existing measure of Article 11.3 would be initiate d no later than five years from its date of 
imposition), and provide the type of  judicial review described in Article 13 of the  Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 with  regard to proceedings under Article 9.3 and 
reviews under Articles 9.5, 11.2 and 11.3.  These me mbers further requested the Russian Federation 
to confirm that the Russian Federation would provide the type of judicial review described in Article 
23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures with regard to reviews under Articles 
19.3, 21.2 and 21.3; to ensure that all investig ations initiated and measures imposed in the area of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 58  trade defense instruments (i.e. anti-dumping, c ountervailing and safeguard measures) were fully 
consistent with WTO requirements upon accession; and to ensure that all relevant legislation in place 
at the time of accession or implemented in the futu re was in full conform ity with the relevant 
provisions of the relevant WTO Agreements.] 
175. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
not apply such measures until it has notified and implemented laws in full conformity with the 
relevant WTO provisions, including Articles VI  and XIX of GATT 1994 and the Agreement on the 
Implementation of Article VI, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  After such legislati on was implemented, the Russian Federation would 
only apply any anti-dumping measures, countervailing measures and safeguard measures in full 
conformity with WTO provisions.] 
Export Regulations 
- Export Duties  
176. Several members of the Working Party noted th at the Russian Federation maintained export 
restrictions in the forms of export tariffs, export quotas and export licensing.  These members were 
concerned that these measures might restrict trad e without justifiable grounds.  They therefore 
requested the Russian Federation to apply all such  measures in conformity with WTO provisions.  
177. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that export duties, ranging from three to 
50 per cent, had been imposed mainly for fiscal purpo ses and, in very few cases (raw hides and skins, 
scrap and waste of non-ferrous metals) to ensure th e availability of materials essential to the domestic 
industry and to prevent shortages in domestic suppl y.  Export duties were applied on an MFN basis 
except for goods exported to members of the Cust oms Union. All changes in export duties were 
published officially.  Exported goods were exempt from VAT (except for crude oil and natural gas 
exported to CIS countries).  The Russian Federation maintained the same customs fees on exportation 
as on importation. 
178. Several members stressed that export duti es acted as indirect subsidies to domestic 
down-stream users and could thus distort internati onal trade.  They requested the Russian Federation 
to provide a comprehensive listing of export duti es by HS-number together with the applied duty 
rates.  Noting that the Russian Federation was preparing new legislation on import and export 
licensing and on application of standards and the certi fication of imports, these members felt that this 
information should be updated when that legisla tion would be in a more advanced form.  Noting 
further that VAT exemption on exports of oil and natural gas was slated to  expire in 2004, some  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 59 
 members suggested that the Russian Federation's plans on the revision of its export tariff regime 
should be reflected in the draft Report. 
179. Noting that the Russian Federation had argued that  export duties were levied mainly for fiscal 
purposes, some members expressed concerns that the e ffect of these duties was to discriminate against 
foreign buyers and to raise the level of the expor t price so that third-country producers encountered 
their own difficulties of supply for the products concerned; suffered from increased production costs 
resulting from higher input or energy costs; and/or faced a situation where they lose relative competitiveness on the global market for downstream pr oducts as a result of the indirect price support 
given to domestic Russian producers competing in the same markets. This was particularly the case as 
a result of export duties on minerals, petrochemicals , natural gas, raw hides and skins, ferrous and 
non-ferrous metals and scrap.  [These members expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to phase out export duties under modalities a nd a timetable would need to be established.  
The Russian Federation should also commit that ex port duties would not be applied on other products 
and that, once eliminated, export duties on products  currently affected would not be reintroduced.] 
180. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation reiterated that export duties were 
levied mainly for fiscal purposes, aiming to pay the external debt of the Russian Federation.  In the 
2001-2002 years the list of goods subject to export duties was reduced by more than 40 per cent, 
while the simple mean rate of export duties was re duced from 10.5 to 6.5 per cent.  Products subject 
to export duties and respective duty rates on J une, 2002 at the 10-digit level of HS-2002 were 
enumerated in the Annex I to document WT/ACC/SP EC/RUS/25/Add.2.  The list of products subject 
to export duties containing 680 lines at present include d mostly stock exchange products subject to 
world prices.  Thus, export duties could not discrimin ate against foreign buyers and raise the level of 
export prices.  The number of products subject to ex port duties would gradually be reduced depending 
on diminishing the external debt of the Russian Federation. 
181. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply from the date of accession export restrictio ns, in particular export duties and VAT, on a 
non-discriminatory basis vis-à-vis all WTO Members without any exemptions.]  
- Quantitative Export Restrictions, Including Prohibitions and Quotas 
182. The representative of the Russian Federation stat ed that all export bans or export quotas had 
been abolished since 1996.  He noted that Artic le 15 of Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 
"On State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity " allowed for the imposition of export quotas in 
exceptional cases to ensure essential national interest s of the Russian Federation and implementation 
of its international commitments.  There was no spec ial registration of export contracts or registration WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 60  or nomination of exporting companies (special exporters ).  According to Article 19 of this law, a ban 
on exports could be introduced by special federal laws only. 
183. Noting this statement, some members asked deta ils on the export restrictions abolished in 
1996 and on any other export restriction which mi ght have been abolished since 1996.  These 
members also asked a clarification regarding th e reference to "essential national interests" as a 
justification for export quotas and any possible re lation of this referenc e with relevant WTO 
provisions that referred to essential security interest. 
184. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that according to Article 19 of 
the Federal Law No. 157-FZ of 13 October 1995 "On St ate Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity", a 
ban on exportation or importation could only be introduced by Federal Law and for reasons of 
national interest, which consisted of: 
- sustaining public morals and public order; 
- protection of life and health of people, animals and plants and environment on the 
whole; 
- preservation of cultural heritage of peoples of the Russian Federation; 
- protection of cultural values from illegal expor tation, importation or transfer of title; 
- necessity to prevent exhaustion of irreproducib le natural resources, provided that such 
measures are accompanied by a proportionate decrease of domestic production and consumption; 
- national security of the Russian Federation; 
- protection of financial position in foreign trade and maintenance of payment balance 
equilibrium of the Russian Federation; 
- performance of international commitments of the Russian Federation.   
185. Some members of the Working Party request ed further clarification on the SCC Decree 
No. 1002 of 19 December 2001 "On Appointing Expor tation Check-Points" which stipulated the 
customs clearance checkpoints that mi ght be used for exportation of certain timber products by rail or 
road.  A member noted that this Decree had been provisionally amended on 14 January 2002 to 
include customs clearance checkpoints at its country  borders with the Russian Federation and asked 
whether the Russian Federation intended to make a definitive amendment to SCC Decree No. 1002 so 
as to avoid possible trade distorting effects.  Anot her member asked an information on the sorts of 
timber products covered by the Russian measures and a clarification on whether this restricted use of 
checkpoints for exports would al so cover additional products. 
186. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that SCC Order No. 1002 of 
19 October 2001 "On Appointing Exportation Check-P oints" for certain types of timber products 
(codes of Commodity Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity of Russia: from 4401 10 000 0 
fuel wood in the form of logs and lumber; 4403;  from 4404 chopped wood, piles and spiles, sharpened  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 61 
 but not length sawed; 4406; 4407; 4409) currently did not apply as provided for by a special 
instruction of SCC (teletype message of 11 February 2002 No. TF-3705-3713). 
187. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
abide by WTO provisions in respect of non-automatic export licensing requirements and export restrictions and would eliminate upon accession a ll non-automatic licensing requirements and export 
restrictions, unless they could be specifically justified under WTO provisions.] 
- Export Licensing Procedures 
188. The representative of the Russian Federation st ated that export licensing procedures in 
operation in the Russian Federation were the same as import licensing in that they were regulated by Government Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 199 6 "On the Procedure for Conducting Tenders and 
Auctions for Distribution of Quota upon Introduc tion of Quantitative Restrictions and Licensing of 
Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in th e Russian Federation".  The most sensitive goods 
were subject to non-automatic li censing.  A limited number of goods was subject to automatic 
licensing for the purpose of monitoring of trade flows (Tables 17(a) and 17 b). 
189. Noting that the Russian Federation did not presently apply any export quotas, members 
considered that a system of non-automatic expor t licensing however applied to a wide range of 
products and that such measures had the potential to be applied in a manner contrary to the general 
prohibition of quantitative restrictions on export pr ovided under Article XI of GATT 1994.  In the 
case of precious metals and stones, the legislation pr oviding for export licensing made the issue of an 
export licence for certain products subject to a quot a (Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001 
"On the Procedure of Importation into and Expor tation from the Russian Federation of Precious 
Metals and Precious Stones").  Under this Decree,  exports of platinum were permitted under licence 
within quantitative limits, while exports of precious  metals waste and scrap are prohibited.  While a 
rationale could exist for the application of cer tain controls on exports  under the relevant GATT 
exceptions clauses (including Articles XX and XXI), fo r example in respect of the exports of dual use 
goods, hazardous products, endangered species etc, the ra tionale for such controls on the exports of 
other goods, particularly pharmaceuticals, precious metals and stones other than gold and silver was 
less clear.  Automatic licensing, which was alread y applied for exports of raw hides and skins, 
provided a mechanism to monitor export flows, if this was considered desirable.  However, as 
discretionary controls on these par ticular products are unlikely to meet the relevant criteria of the 
GATT exceptions clauses, it was essential that any li censing regime should be genuinely automatic, in 
order to avoid restrictions on trade. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 62  190. Several members also requested more information on the procedures followed and fees 
charged in connection with the issuance of export li censes.  They requested confirmation that any fees 
charged on exports related to the cost of service rendered in accordance with WTO provisions.  Some 
members questioned whether the restrictions on pr ecious metals and stones, semi-precious stones, 
objects made thereof, certain alloys, semi-fabricates,  ores, concentrates and wastes could be justified 
under the WTO provisions invoked by the Russian au thorities.  These members considered that the 
Russian Federation should provide full explanation of  the measures applied on these products that the 
Russian Federation was seeking to justify unde r Article XV:9(b) of GATT 1994, including a 
description of each measures and their legal basis;  the bodies involved in applying those measures 
including details of their responsibilities; the produc ts affected by each measure; the export licensing 
procedures applicable, including details of any r estrictions on eligibility for export licenses, other 
terms and conditions associated with their issuance, and the procedural aspects of the issuance of such 
licenses; the provisions of the Russian Federation's exchange arrangements with the IMF currently in 
force that required the Russian Federation to adopt  or maintain the measures applied by means of 
non-automatic export licensing that the Russian Federation was seeking to justify under Article 
XV:9(b) of GATT 1994; and the Russ ian Federation's plans to eliminate all measures applied by 
means of non-automatic export licensing that might  be required under those arrangements at the 
conclusion of their term. 
191. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation stated that the issuance procedure 
for export licensing was regulated by Government  Resolution No. 1299 of 31 October 1996 "On the 
Procedure for Holding Tenders and Auctions for the Sale of Quotas When Introducing Quantitative 
Restrictions and Licensing the Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services) in the Russian 
Federation", and the corresponding charges were re gulated by Order No. 363 of 6 August 1999 of the 
Ministry of Trade of the Russian Federation "O n Approval of Regulation on Fixing the Charges for 
Issuance, Reissuance and Extension of Licenses fo r Export and Import of Goods (Works, Services), 
Certificates of Barter Transactions".  Work was currently being conducted in the Russian Federation 
to bring national export licensing legislation into  accordance with WTO disc iplines.  Specifically, 
Federal Law No. 157-FZ, "On the State Regulation of Foreign Trade Activity" was being re-edited.  
Following its adoption, corresponding amendments will be made to the Government Resolution 
No. 1299 of 31 October 1996, "On the Procedure for Holding Tenders and Auctions for the Sale of 
Quotas When Introducing Quantitative Restrictions  and Licensing the Export and Import of Goods 
(Works, Services) in the Russian Federation".  Work was being conducted to bring the Russian 
Federation export licensing for precious metals an d stones into accordance w ith WTO disciplines.  
Specifically, a draft regulatory document had been pr epared on the introduction of amendments to 
Presidential Decree No. 742 of 21 June 2001, "On th e Procedure of Importation into and Exportation 
from the Russian Federation of Precious Metals and Precious Stones".  Further, inter-agency  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 63 
 consultations were being held to make new amendments to the same Decree to reduce the number of 
licensed goods and remove bans on the export of certa in types of goods.  In addition, a Presidential 
Decree had been drafted on the procedure for the im port and export of raw na tural diamonds, aimed at 
the future liberalization of internationa l trade involving this category of goods. 
192. Some members noted that the Russian Federati on had applied restrictions on the number of 
customs checkpoints authorized for the export of specific products, for example metal scrap.  In 
addition to creating potential delays and bottleneck s and adding to shipment costs, these members 
were concerned that such restrictions could also act as de facto  trade barriers.  Th ey asked the Russian 
Federation to provide an update on steps being taken to increase the number of customs checkpoints 
authorized for the export of specific products, such  as metal scrap and forestry products.  These 
members were also concerned that licensing require ments that govern access to pipelines or other 
distribution networks could operate in a manner so as to restrict the volume of oil and gas exported from the Russian Federation.  Management of th ese pipelines was typically the responsibility of a 
State monopoly (Transneft for oil and Gazprom and its affiliate Gazexport for natural gas).  This 
situation raised questions of compatibility with WTO requirements, including Article XI of GATT 
1994.  They requested the Russian Federation to pr ovide further information on the operation of these 
regimes, including on the regime for export licensing of energy products. 
193. The representative of the Russian Federation said that there were no licensing requirements 
that govern access to pipelines or other distribution ne twork so as to restrict the volume of gas and oil 
exported from the territory of the Russian Federati on. He also confirmed that there were no export 
licenses requirements for these products.  
194. [Members of the Working Party asked the Russi an Federation to undertake a commitment that 
the Russian Federation would eliminate any quantita tive or restrictive licensing measures on exports 
that could not be justified under the WTO Agreemen ts by the date of accession and that any such 
measures applied in future would be in conformity with WTO provisions.] 
 - Export Financing, Subsidy and Promotion Policies 
195. Members of the Working Party stressed the need  to continue efforts to clarify whether 
benefits provided to certain exporting industries in  the Russian Federation would constitute prohibited 
export subsidies. In particular, some members re quested more information regarding the price and 
availability of natural gas to certain export indust ries vis-à-vis the price and availability to other 
commercial entities within the Russian Federation. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 64  196. The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that his authorities had not identified 
any export subsidies that would follow within the purview of prohibited export subsidies under the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement. 
197. Some members noted that the Russian Federa tion was developing a co mprehensive draft law 
on State Aids that should address these issues and that deal comprehensively with subsidies, i.e., those 
provided for as "revenues foregone" through tax and tari ff exemptions or special pricing policies, as 
well as those provided for in the budget.  These members requested that the Russian Federation 
should revise its domestic law/regulations for any identified subsidy measures with a view to 
eliminate all prohibited industrial export subsidies upon accession.  They requested the Russian Federation to describe export and im port substitution subsidies, both at federal and sub-federal levels, 
and the subsidy effect of price and availability of natural gas to export industries, both in terms of 
world prices and the price and availability to other commercial entities within the Russian Federation. 
198. The representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that the above-mentioned term 
'special pricing policies' was inaccurate and had a wide sense not covered by existing WTO rules.  He 
further stated that no existing industrial subsidies in Russian Federation constituted prohibited export 
subsidies.  He stressed that availability and prices for natural gas were not contingent upon the export 
performance and were based on the non-discriminatory principle.  He further characterized the above-mentioned practice as commercially based. 
199. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would not maintain subsidies, including export subsidies which met the definition 
of a prohibited subsidy, within the meaning of  Article 3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures, that it would not introduce su ch prohibited subsidies in the future, and that 
export financing and other export promotion policies would be opera ted in conformity with WTO 
provisions.  He further confirmed that this commitmen t covered subsidies at all levels of government, 
including exemptions, reductions, deferrals of fo rgiveness of taxes and du ties to enterprises which 
were contingent upon export performance.  He also  confirmed that the Russian Federation would not 
invoke any of the provisions of Articles 27, 28 or 29 of the Agreement of Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.] 
- Other Customs Formalities 
200. A member of the Working Party expressed concer n about the Russian Federation's practice of 
maintaining only a very limited number of custom s checkpoints authorized for exportation of certain 
products and also the practice to close promptly certain customs checkpoints, thus creating serious 
impediments to trade.  This member had a pa rticular concern regarding SCC Order No. 1219 "On  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 65 
 Defining Places for the Customs Formalization and E xport of Ferrous and Non- Ferrous Metals Scrap 
and Wastes" of 27 December 2000 which provided that  non-ferrous and ferrous metal scrap could be 
exported only through the seaports of the Russian Fede ration.  He requested the Russian Federation to 
ensure that these and other measures related to expor tation would be brought in  full conformity with 
WTO provisions upon accession. 
201. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that SCC Order No. 1219 
1219 "On Defining Places for the Customs Formaliza tion and Export of Ferrous and Non-Ferrous 
Metals Scrap and Wastes"  of 27 December 2000 (as amended on 5 July, 21 December 2001 and 
9 April 2002) was enacted to bring into order th e shifting across the customs border of the Russian 
Federation of the scrap and the wastes of ferr ous and non-ferrous metals  exported out of the 
boundaries of the customs territory of the Russian Fede ration.  This Order contained a wide list of sea 
points (61 points) for crossing the customs borde r of the Russian Federation to export above 
mentioned commodities.  He stressed that the provisi ons of this Order were not to applied to the 
above-mentioned commodities exported out of the cust oms territory of the Russian Federation by rail 
transport through the crossing points defined by this Order (21 points).  In the view of the Russian 
Federation the above-mentioned me asures constituted neither serious impediments to trade nor 
violation of WTO rules. 
3. Internal Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Goods 
- Industrial policy, including subsidy policies 202. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that under current Russian legislation the 
following types of state support (financial contribution) were available:  (i) direct transfers of budgetary funds, including those under federal targeted  and investment programs;  (ii) grants and 
subventions (earmarked grants) to regions;  (iii) budgetary loans, credits and guarantees;  and (iv) 
deferred payments and exemptions with respect to pa yable taxes.  Tariff preferences with respect to  
goods and services produced by natural monopolies could also be granted by decisions of federal and 
regional tariff regulating authorities.  Total state support averaged US$12 billion a year, including US$10 billion from the federal budget (average data for 1997-1999).  Support was accorded both at 
federal and regional levels.  Direct  transfers constituted th e main element of state support to industrial 
production sector (around 40 per cent).  Such support was concentrated in the coal mining industry 
and it was mainly targeting social and restructuring needs.  The remaining amount of direct transfers 
was provided for under federal targeted programs,  38 per cent of which destined to programs 
(projects) associated with the development of industrial production. At pr esent, no budget subsidies 
existed in the Russian Federation which c ould be considered as export subsidies. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 66  203. He added that financial contribution to the regi ons of the Russian Federation did not directly 
related to the development of industrial production, but was aime d at reducing re gional financial 
disparities.  The bulk of transfers was provided on the basis of objective indicators characterizing 
social situation in the regions (82.5 per cent of the total amount).  The rest was paid for deliveries of supplies of food and fuel to Far North areas (11.5 pe r cent) and special ("closed ") territorial areas.  
The same forms of state support to industrial prod uction sectors were used by the subjects of the 
Russian Federation.  Such support mostly aimed at the financial rehabilitation of enterprises, 
resolution of social problems, and reimbursement of  losses.  Less than 6 per cent of the total amount 
of support was destined to production development. 
204. Noting that WTO rules on subsidies covered stat e benefits given through revenues forgone, as 
well as those financed through budgetary allocations , some members felt that the Russian Federation 
appeared to address the issue of prohibited subsid ies, but did not address that of other industrial 
subsidies that should be notified under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  They requested updated information on the Russian Federation's comprehensive draft law 
on State Aids, including a description of its purpose, scope and provisions, and an indication of when 
it might be implemented. Some members asked details  regarding current subsidies paid to the coal 
sector and other sectoral sectors such as the automo bile and aircraft industries as well as the Russian 
Federation's plans to eliminate them. These members also questioned whether or not budget subsidies 
currently existed in the Russian Federation which co uld be considered export subsidies. They asked, 
in this regard, to what extent loans provided under Government Resolution No. 538 of (date to be 
supplied) "On Provisions of Budgetary Loans to  Finance the Implementation of High-Return 
Contracts for Production and Supply of Products, Including Export Supplies" of 15 May 1999 were 
contingent upon export performances.  [More generally, several members asked the Russian 
Federation to confirm that any subsidy programs would be administered in line with the WTO 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, whether at the national, sub-national, regional 
or local level, and that upon accession all necessary in formation on programs to be notified, if such 
programs existed, would be provided to the Co mmittee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures in 
accordance with Article 25 of the Agreement.] 
205. In response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration stated that the provision of subsidies 
in the Russian Federation was regulated by budget legi slation and tax legislation.  The preparation of 
the specific legislation regulating provision of s ubsidies (the State Aid Law) was still under way and 
being re-drafted.  The new legislation would cover all potential subsidies subject to WTO rules, but 
would unlikely interfere with the Tax Code.  The fina l draft legislation should be fully consistent with 
respective WTO regulations, including the ban on the prohibited industrial export subsidies under 
WTO rules.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 67 
 206. Some members stated that the Russian Federation shall recognize that tariff preferences or 
natural monopoly pricing could constitute a subs idy under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  These members asked the Russian Federation to provide a description of 
the existing pricing mechanisms and any reforms unde r way to bring domestic prices for oil, natural 
gas and electricity closer to world market prices. 
207. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation pointed out that his authorities 
continued to believe that tariff preferences or na tural monopoly pricing did not constitute a subsidy 
under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Count ervailing Measures.  Regarding domestic prices 
for oil, natural gas and electricity, he re ferred to his statement in paragraph […]. 
208. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that for a ll federal and regional 
subsidy measures identified, the Russian Federation would revise its domestic law or regulations to 
eliminate prohibited subsidies within the meaning of Article 3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures from the date of accession.  He further confirmed that the Russian Federation would, upon accession, grant no subsidies contingent upon the use of domestic over 
imported goods in the meaning of Article 3: 1(b) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures and that this commitment woul d cover subsidies at all levels of government, 
including exemptions, reductions, deferrals or fo rgiveness of taxes and du ties to enterprises which 
were contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over imported goods.  He also 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would admini ster any subsidy programs in place or established 
after accession in conformity with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
and that all necessary information on programs be notified (if such pr ograms existed) and be provided 
to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing M easures in accordance with Article 25 of the 
Agreement upon entry into force of the Russian Federation's Protocol of Accession to the WTO.] 
Technical Regulations and Standards, Including Measures Taken at the Border with Respect to 
Imports 
- Technical Barriers to Trade 
209. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that the State Committee of the Russian 
Federation for Standardization and Metrology (Gosst andart of Russia) was the federal authority for 
standardization, metrology and certification matter s.  Gosstandart acted directly or through its 
subordinate centres for standardization, metrology and certification and state inspectors, performing 
surveillance over State standards and providing unifor mity in the units of measure.  The tasks of 
developing State standards of the Russian Federati on, and of participating in the development of 
international and regional standards, was fulf illed by technical standardization committees.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 68  210. The legal framework for the regulation of matte rs pertaining to standardization, metrology 
and certification was established under the following legislative acts: Federal Law No. 5154-1 of 10 
June 1993 "On Standardization" (as amended and supplemented on 27 December 1995);  Federal Law 
No. 4871-1 of 27 April 1993 "On Provision of Un iformity of Units of Measure"; Federal Law 
No. 5151-1 of 10 June 1993 "O n Certification of Products and Services" (as amended and 
supplemented on 27 December 1995, 2 March, and 31 July 1998); Federal Law No. 2300-1 of 
7 February 1992 "On Protection of Consumer  Rights" (as amended and supplemented of 
17 December 1999);  Government Resolution No. 1 00 of 12 February 1994 "On Organization of 
Works in Standardization, Provision of Uniformity of  Units of Measure, Certification of Products and 
Services";  Government Resolution No. 113 of 2 February 1998 "On Certain Measures to Improve 
Systems of Ensuring Quality of Products and Services"; Government Resolution No. 1212 of 
1 November 1999 "On Development of a Uniform System of Classification and Encoding of Technical and Economic and Social Information";  Government Resolution No. 26 of 11 January 
2000 "On Federal System of Cataloguing Produc ts Procured for Federal State Needs"; and 
Government Resolution No. 514 of 6 July 2001 "O n Accreditation of Organizations Performing 
Assessment of Conformity of Products, Production Processes and Services to the Existing Quality and 
Safety Requirements". 
211. Under this legislative framework, products im ported into the territory of the Russian 
Federation should meet technical, pharmacological, sa nitary, veterinary, phytosanitary and ecological 
standards and requirements determined by the Russian  Federation.  In partic ular, imports of products 
into the territory of the Russian Federation were rest ricted if the products in question did not meet the 
legislative requirements; they did not have a certific ate, marking or a corresponding sign in the cases 
envisaged by federal laws and other legal acts of th e Russian Federation; or they were banned for use 
as harmful consumer goods. 
212. The Russian authorities determined the nomenclature of products and services subject to 
mandatory certification in the Russian Federation.  Products subject to mandatory certification were 
listed in Government Resolution No. 1013 of 13 August 1997 (as amended on 24 May 2000) "On the 
Approval of the List of Goods Subject to Mandatory Certification and the List of Works and Services 
Subject to Mandatory Certification" (as amended on  24 May 2000).  Gosstandart was in charge of 
organizing and implementing mandatory certification re quirements. In cases envisaged by legislative 
acts of the Russian Federation with respect to certain types of products, this task could be entrusted to 
other governmental bodies of the Russian Federati on.  The forms of mandatory certification of 
products were determined by Gosstandart or ot her authorized governmental bodies of the Russian 
Federation with due regard to est ablished international practices.  Government Resolution No. 287 of 
29 April 2002 "On the Amendments to the List of G oods Subject to Mandatory Certification, to the  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 69 
 List of Works and Services Subject to Mandatory Certification and to the List of Products Whose 
Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity Decl aration" substantially reduced the list of goods 
subject to mandatory certification. 
213. Work on mandatory certification of goods in the GOST R certification system was currently 
conducted by foreign certification authorities and t est laboratories accredited in accordance with the 
established procedure, as well as by Russian authorities and laboratories.  Certification authorities and 
test laboratories were accredited in accordance with ISO/IEC Guideline 5 and ISO/IEC Standard 
17025, the procedure being uniformly applicable to  Russian and to foreign certification authorities 
and laboratories.  The list of accredited certificati on authorities and test laboratories was published on 
Gosstandart's webpage, at www.gost.ru
. 
214. The list of goods for which safety might be c onfirmed by declaration of conformity was 
provided in Government Resolution No. 766 of 7 July 1999 "On Approval of the List of Products 
Whose Conformity May Be Confirmed by Conformity  Declaration". Conformity of products subject 
to mandatory certification could be confirmed by a conformity certificate issued by certification 
authorities, or a declaration of conformity regist ered with the certification authority.  Such a 
certificate should be submitted to customs authorities together with the cargo customs declaration, and 
was necessary to obtain permission for importing the products in question into the Russian Federation.  
The recognition of certificates issued by the suppl ying country was carried out by reference to 
interstate agreements and intern ational certification systems to which the Russian Federation had 
acceded.  The fees connected to certification of products and services, including certification tests, 
were payable as provided for under the certifica tion rules "Payment for Works Involved in 
Certification of Products and Services" issued by the Ministry of Finance and registered with the 
Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation.  The Appeal Commission of Gosstandart was regulated 
by its charter and had been set up for the purpose of considering complaints by users concerning the 
performance of certification authorities, testing laboratories (centres), certification experts and 
applicants, monitoring, use of conformity mark, issuance, suspension and cancellation of certificates, 
licenses, and other related issues.   
215. All work related to conformity with th e WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS was conducted 
under the provisions of the Inter-Agency Program of Measures to Ensure Compliance with the 
Requirements of the WTO Agreement on TBT and th e WTO Agreement on SPS.  Gosstandart, jointly 
with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, had drafted 
measures aimed at further harmonizing the existi ng legislation with the requirements of WTO 
Agreements on TBT and SPS.  The draft framework implementing these measures provided the 
following main approaches based on the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TBT:  (i) issues of 
safety and quality of products would be regulated by legal acts, i.e. technical regulations providing WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 70  binding specifications with respect to goods and their production processes;  (ii) national standards 
would be developed, as a rule, pursuant to an inte rnational counterpart as voluntary standards;  (iii) 
conformity confirmation procedures would be rec onciled with international rules and would be a 
constituent part of a technical regulation, provi ding the producer with a choice of different 
confirmation schemes depending on the degree of poten tial danger of the products;  (iv) legislative 
support would be obtained through a single enquiry point open to customers, including international 
customers, and containing all available documents  and documents in progress;  (v) the draft law 
provided that the cost of mandatory conformity confirmation would be based on uniform rules of 
price fixation for identical or similar products and on the basis of uniform principles reflecting the 
actual value of incurred expenses.  The require ments of technical regulations, standards and 
procedures of mandatory conformity confirmation we re applied in the Russian Federation uniformly 
to Russian and imported goods. 
216. He further stated that, after the adoption of th is law, his authorities intended to examine the 
adjoining legislation and, if necessary, define th e ensuing amendments. In addition, in 2002 his 
authorities intended to issue federal laws "On Ac creditation" and "On Cataloguing".  Simultaneously, 
draft state standards would be developed based on the direct application of corresponding international standards.  Voluntary application of such state standards should ensure compliance with 
the requirements of technical regulations.  As techni cal regulations for various types of products were 
also being developed and taking effect, all state st andards (both existing and newly developed) would 
be transformed to non-binding instruments by re vision, cancellation or adoption of new standards. 
217. He also recalled that, for the purposes of impl ementing the provisions of the WTO Agreement 
on TBT, which required harmonizati on of national standards with th eir international counterparts, 
since 1997 and subject to state standardization plans, his authorities had developed and implemented 
state standards, over 50 per cent of which were  already harmonized with their international 
counterparts.  The overall level of  harmonization of domestic standard s with international standards 
was currently about 35 per cent.  While the draft framework law was not yet operational, Gosstandart 
was working on the exclusion of certain types of products from the range of goods subject to mandatory certification, and on the reclassification of  certain types of products so as to allow their 
conformity confirmation by a declaration of conform ity (quality system certificate, tests protocol of 
the accredited laboratory).  The Single Enquiry Point contemplated under the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS had been established to provide the Russian and foreign customers with access to 
Russian legal provisions, standards, rules and conf ormity confirmation procedures. The enquiry point 
was located within Gosstandart of the Russi an Federation at the following address:  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 71 
 
Russian Federation 
4, Granatniy Pereulok,  103001, Moscow e-mail : ENPOINT@VNIIKI.RU website – http://www.ricwto.ru 
Tel/Fax: (007 095) 230 25 98 
218. In order to implement the requirements of  the WTO Agreements on TBT and SPS with 
respect to the notification of draft regulatory documents, GOST R 1.13-2001 "State Standardization 
System of the Russian Federation - The Procedure for Preparation of Notifications of Draft Regulatory Documents" had been enacted and publis hed in November 2001.  This regulation provided 
the framework requirements and procedures for filling in the notification forms with respect to draft 
regulatory documents produced pursuant to WT O Agreements on TBT and SPS.  Since 2000, 
Gosstandart had published a regular (quarterly) "New sletter (Vestnik) of the Russian Enquiry Point", 
which contained such regulatory documents and reference materials as required by the WTO 
Agreements on TBT and SPS.  Draft documents were also published in the Newsletter.  In order to 
provide an adequate level of transparency on any measures taken, a web-page was created on the 
Internet by the Ministry of Economic Developm ent and Trade and Gosstandart (http://www.gost.ru/) 
containing plans for development of standards, dr aft laws, other draft regulatory acts, and other 
required documents pursuant to WTO Agreement on TBT.  During 2002, this page would be 
supplemented with documents and information in English.   
219. Several members noted that, so far, the Russi an authorities had provided a general outline of 
current elements of the Russian Federation's system  of standards and certification, without including 
detailed information on the required institutional arrangements.  The Russian Federation's effort to 
amend the current system in order to ensure eff ective and ongoing complianc e with TBT obligations 
also remained to be reviewed.  In this regard, these members asked the Russian Federation to provide 
an updated checklist on steps currently under ways in  the Russian Federation to implement the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade including copies of the latest draft legislation in this area.  
Noting further that the Russian authorities were in the process of developing new or amended laws on 
Standardization, Metrology, and Conformity A ssessment whose provisions would address a number 
of the concerns expressed by the Working Party w ith the Russian Federation's current TBT regime, 
many members felt that this new additional legi slation might go a long way towards reforming the 
present system to prevent unnecessary technical barri ers to trade.  Concerns, however, remained 
regarding the level of harmonization of domestic standards with international standards as the current 
35 per cent level was considered far too low.  In th is regard, these members asked to be informed on 
the respective international standards that woul d serve as e reference for the harmonization of 
domestic standards and whether there were an y relevant product sectors where the respective 
domestic standards would not be subject to harmonization with international standards. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 72  220. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that ISO, IEC MSE, EEC UN, 
the Codex Alimentarius, European norms and the internationally accepted ASTM and BAE standards 
were used as basic international standards.  The draft law "On F undamentals of Technical Regulation 
in the Russian Federation"  took into account the provisions of the Code of Good Practice.  This draft 
law did not envisage industry standards as standardiz ation documents.  Therefore, upon the adoption 
of the law, all existing industry standards must be  adopted either as national standards or as standards 
of research-technology and public organizations.  Subj ects of the Russian Federation had no standards 
of their own. 
221. Some members asked for a description on how the new legislation would address identified 
concerns such as the need for clar ity in the Russian Federation' s le gislation on TBT, for additional 
horizontal guidance to authorities on their developmen t and application of technical regulations, for 
additional transparency and enhanced due pro cess regulations, and for act ion to bring fees for 
conformity assessment services into line with WTO provisions. Other examples of measures which required further description included establishing a cl ear distinction between compulsory technical 
regulations and voluntary standards, ending the coexistence of various categories of so-called 
'standards' and the existence of compulsory elemen ts in the standards (with no exceptions), aligning 
with international standards (unless there were justif ied exemptions) and participating in international 
standards bodies, assuring openness and transparency  in the drafting of technical regulations, 
standards, etc., and clearly defining the products  subject to mandatory certification while assuring 
proportionality in conformity assessment measures and consistency of certification procedures applied 
to the same products. 
222. In response, the representative of the Russian  Federation stated that the draft law "On 
Fundamentals of Technical Regulation in the Russian Federation"  set forth that the federal technical 
regulation authority should confirm and publish in its official publication a list of national standards 
ensuring compliance with the requirements of techni cal regulations, so the voluntary application of 
state standards would lead to an assumption of conformity to technical regulations.  He further noted that this draft law envisaged a sev en-year transitional period during which all mandatory requirements 
of standards must be transferred into technical re gulations, and standards transferred to the voluntary 
category.  Under this draft, the principle of using international standa rds as a framework for 
developing national standards app lied equally to all t ypes of goods with the exception of cases where 
this was impossible due to special climactic or geographical conditions, and as a result of technical or technological differences. 
223. Some members considered that the Russian Fede ration should further describe its intentions 
to clarify and institutionalize the responsibilities of the various national agencies in implementing the 
WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade,  including the designation of an authority  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 73 
 responsible for overall implementa tion and, more generally, the practical arrangements in place to 
ensure compliance of measures covered with WTO relevant provisions.  [These members also sought 
a commitment that the Russian Federation woul d implement the WTO Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade upon accession.  They also sought to  obtain relevant information and commitments 
by the Russian Federation regarding adherence of  standards setting bodies to Annex 3 of the WTO 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade and comp liance of sub-federal bodies with the provisions 
of this Agreement.]  
224. Regarding requirements on forgery-proof marks fo r electric appliances, a member noted that 
on 30 December 1998 the Ministry of Trade and Goss tandard had issued Instruction No. 200/30 (title 
to be supplied) under which manufacturers of these pr oducts were required to affix a conformity mark 
on their products, importers and/or dealers were required to affix a registration information mark on 
the box (to be purchased in advance from each re gional Trade Inspection Department), and sellers 
and/or retailers were required to affix a registration information mark on each product.  As a result, 
this member maintained that foreign manufacturers were obliged to purchase three different kind of 
marks for their products, resulting in an unnecessary burden for their business.  He requested the 
Russian Federation to eliminate th ese requirements as soon as possible. 
225.  [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all obligations under the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade from the date of 
accession without recourse to any transition period.] 
- Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
226. The representative of the Russian Federation expl ained that the Department on State Sanitary 
and Epidemiological Surveillance ("Gossanepidnadzor ") of the Ministry of Health (MOH) was the 
federal executive authority in charge of ensuri ng sanitary and epidemiological well-being of the 
population.  Protection of human health was curre ntly regulated by Federal Law No. 5487-1 of 23 
June 1993 "Fundamentals of Health Legislation of the Russian Federation";  Federal Law  No. 52-FZ 
of 30 March 1999 "On Sanitary and Epidemiologi cal Well-Being of the Population"; Government 
Resolution No. 554 of 24 July 2000 approved "Regulati ons of the State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Service of the Russian Federation" and "Regula tions on State Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Standardization";  and terms and provisions of othe r federal laws and resolutions of the Government 
of the Russian Federation concerning provision of saf ety of goods and products for human health and 
environment (e.g. Federal Laws "O n Environmental Protection";  "On Consumer Rights Protection";  
and "On Quality and Safety of F ood Products").  Under the current legislation, goods produced by 
domestic manufacturers and sold on the territory of the Russian Federation should comply with 
sanitary norms and hygiene standards. Sanitary no rms and hygiene standards for foodstuffs should be WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 74  science-based.  Leading scientific-r esearch institutes of the Russian  Academy of Medical Sciences, 
departments of medical colleges and other inter ested institutions should participate in their 
development. Existing sanitary rules and hygiene st andards for foodstuffs should be harmonized with 
directives and recommendations of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. 
227. All products produced in and imported into th e territory of the Russian Federation for 
distribution to the population and/or use in i ndustrial production, agriculture, civil construction 
development, for transport requiring direct human involvement, or for private and household use, had 
to conform to the requirements of sanitary and ep idemiological rules, norms and hygienic standards 
(Articles 13, 15, 16 of Federal Law No. 52-FZ).  Su ch conformity should be confirmed by a sanitary-
epidemiological approval or a registration certificat e.  A sanitary and epidemiological report was not 
confirmation of conformity of pro ducts and goods with the requirement s of sanitary legislation (this 
was the responsibility of the producer or supplier), but only a statement that the certain type of 
product was in conformity with the sanitary legisl ation, under strict implementation of established 
requirements and rules during production, transporta tion, storage and sale of products.  As a rule, 
hygienic assessment of imported products had to be pe rformed prior to delivery of products into the 
territory of the Russian Federation.  Imports of  products that had not passed a prior hygienic 
assessment procedure had to be subjected to hygienic  examination resulting in a hygienic report valid 
for such particular consignment only.  
228. Government Resolution No. 987 of 21 December 2000, "On State Surveillance and Control in 
Ensuring the Quality and Safety of Foodstuffs" dist inguished between the functions of the authorities 
and institutions of the State Veterinary Service of  the Russian Federation and the State Sanitary and 
Epidemiological Service of the Russian Federati on for the conduct of expert reviews of animal 
products.  A sanitary and epidemiological conclu sion on imported goods was confirmation of their 
conformity with the requirements of sanitary le gislation.  When goods were exported, the State 
Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation s hould certify that animal products were safe from a 
veterinary viewpoint and complied with veterina ry norms and requirements.  The veterinary 
certificate could not be duplicated. 
229. Pursuant to Article 14 of Fede ral Law No. 52-FZ, chemical, biol ogical substances and certain 
types of products presenting potential human hazard s were allowed for production, transportation, 
procurement, storage, sale and use only after their state registration based on the results of research, 
tests and examination.  Federal Law No. 52-FZ (Article 43) also provided that chemical and 
biological substances not previously industrially  produced or used, and preparations thereof 
presenting potential human threat, certain types of  products presenting potential human threat, and 
certain types of products including food products imported into the Russian Federation for the first 
time should be subject to state registration.  Stat e registration of the above substances and types of  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 75 
 products was based on an assessment of the threat presented by the substances and certain types of 
products for human life and hea lth and environment according to  regulatory documents and 
assessment guidelines approved by the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.  Federal Law No. 109 of 19 July 1997 "On Safe Use of Pesticid es and Agrochemicals", and other regulatory acts 
subsequently approved, determined the procedure of State Registration in the territory of the Russian 
Federation.  This procedure included a mandatory toxic-hygienic expert review of pesticides and 
agrochemicals to be carried out by the MOH on the basis of a thorough assessment by scientific 
research institutions appointed by the MOH. The list of pesticides and agrochemicals permitted or 
prohibited for use was drawn up by the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) as approved by the MOH. 
230. Federal Laws No. 52-FZ of 30 March 1999, "On Sanitary and Epidemiological Wellbeing of 
the Population", No. 29-FZ of 2 Ja nuary 2000, "On Quality and Safe ty of Foodstuffs", Government 
Resolution No. 988 of 21 December 2000, "On the St ate Registration of Ne w Foodstuffs, Materials 
and Items" imposed uniform requirements when conducting state registration of new foodstuffs, 
materials and items newly developed and first prod uced in the territory of the Russian Federation 
(Russian goods), and for goods imported into the Russian Federation for the first time.  State 
registration of imported foodstuffs  was under the competence of the MOH.  Approval of the MOA 
was required only for approval of a specific product of animal origin. 
231. A registration certificate was issued for any type  of product for the whole period of industrial 
production in the case of Russian products, or the pe riod of supplies in the case of imported products.  
State registration of potentially hazardous substa nces and types of products was performed by the 
MOH and, in the case of new food products of anim al origin, by the MOH in conjunction with the 
MOA (Government Resolution No. 262 of 4 April 2001 "On State Registration of Certain Types of 
Products Presenting Potential Threat for Human Life and Health and Certain Types of Products First 
Imported to the Territory of the Russian Federa tion";  Government Resolution No. 987 of 21 
December 2000 "On State Surveillance and Cont rol in Ensuring Quality and Safety of Food 
Products";  and Government Resolution No.988 of 21 December 2000 "On State Registration of New 
Food Products, Materials and Items").  Lists of produc ts subject to state registration were attached to 
the above Resolutions.  Requirements and criteria with  respect to safety of products for human health 
and the environment pursuant to Articles 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 16, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 of Federal Law No. 
52-FZ were implemented by state sanitary and epidemiological rules and norms which were 
regulatory legal acts and binding on all citizens, individual entrepreneurs and legal entities.  All 
regulations within the territory of the Russian Federation were implemente d through federal rules 
approved and enacted by the MOH.   
232. The State Sanitary and Epidemiological Serv ice of the Russian Federation was a single 
federal centralized system of agencies and ins titutions, consisting of a federal executive authority WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 76  (MOH – Gossanepidnadzor) chaired by the Chief Stat e Sanitary Expert of the Russian Federation – 
First Deputy Minister of Health of the Russian Federation centres for state sanitary and 
epidemiological surveillance in Russian Federation regions, areas, transport (water transport and 
aircraft) and state research and other institutions.  Purs uant to Russian legislation, an applicant had the 
right to appeal a decision of Gossanepidnadzor following administrative or judicial procedures.  The 
procedure for sanitary and epidemiological examin ation of products, types of products and the 
procedure for issuing a sanitary and epidemiological  report on the conformity of products with state 
sanitary and epidemiological rules and norms were established under the Regulations on the 
Procedures of Sanitary and Epidemiological Ex amination of Products, approved by MOH Order 
No.217 of 20 July 1998.  A sanitary and epidem iological report ascertaining the conformity of 
products with the available sanitary rules and hygien ic norms and based on the results of a sanitary 
and epidemiological examination of products by one of the Gossanepidnadzor centres, was valid 
everywhere in the territory of the Russian Federation. 
233. After state registration with the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) of the Russian Federation, all 
regulatory legal acts of the MOH had to be publis hed in official press organs: the Bulletin of 
regulatory acts of federal executive authorities of th e Administration of the President of the Russian 
Federation (Presidential Decree No. 763 of 23 Ma y 1996 "On the Procedure for Publication and 
Taking Effect of Acts of the President of the Ru ssian Federation, the Government of the Russian 
Federation, and Regulatory Legal Ac ts of Federal Executive Authorities");  the Bulletin of regulatory 
documents and guidelines of Gossanepidnadzor of the Ministry of Health;  and various specialized 
scientific journals and manuals (Nutrition Care, He alth Care at Work Place, Radiation Hygienics, 
Toxicology Newsletter, etc.).  Draft sanitary rul es were published in the "Newsletter of the Russian 
Enquiry Point" and specialized journals.  Regulat ory documents took effect not earlier than three 
months after their approval, unless a direct threat to human health and life was involved. A Russian 
TBT and SPS Enquiry Point had been set up and was functioning, supplying all relevant information 
on SPS issues as noted in paragraph […]. 
234. The Federal executive authority in charge of veterinary control over imports of animal 
products was the MOA (Veterinary Department).  The procedures of the State Veterinary Service 
were regulated by Federal Law No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Service", and other 
federal laws and regulatory legal acts made pursu ant thereto (Government Resolution No. 830 of 29 
October 1992 on "Regulations on the State Veteri nary Service of the Russian Federation for 
Protection of the Russian Territory Against Importati on of Infectious Animal Diseases from Abroad";  
Government Resolution No. 706 of 19 June 1994 on "Re gulations on State Veterinary Surveillance in 
the Russian Federation";  Government Resolution No. 1263 of 29 September 1997 on "Regulations on 
the Procedure for Examination of Low Quality or Hazardous Food Input and Products, Their Use and  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 77 
 Destruction";  "Regulations on Division of Functio ns of State Veterinary Surveillance in Processing 
and Storage Enterprises of Animal Products" No . 13-7-2/173 of 14 October 1994 approved by the 
Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the Russian Federation;  Instruction "On the Procedure for 
Issuance of Veterinary Accompanying Documents for Cargoes Controlled by the State Veterinary 
Surveillance Agency" No. 13-7-2/871 of 12 April 1997 approved by the MOA;  and Government 
Resolution No. 987 of 21 December 2000 "On State Su rveillance and Control in Ensuring Quality and 
Safety of Food Products").   
235. Developments in legislation on certification, quality and safety of products made it necessary 
to update Federal Law No. 4979- 1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary  Service".  Amendment and 
supplementing regulations were currently in prepara tion.  Changes would affect the structure of the 
State Veterinary Service of the Russian Federation and the organization of veterinary and sanitary 
surveillance.  Veterinary requirements with resp ect to domestic and imported cargoes controlled by 
the state veterinary services were the same as provided under Federal La w No. 4979-1 of 14 May 
1993 "On Veterinary", Articles 14,15,18.  The list of controlled cargoes was contained in letter 
No. 13-8-01/3009 of 16 May 2000 of the Veterinary  Department of the MOA.  Imports of cargoes 
controlled by the State Veterinary Service require d authorization of the Chief State Veterinary 
Inspector of the Russian Federation, with regard to  the epizootic situation in the exporting country and 
taking into account the Russian firm’s ability to en sure  appropriate conditions of care for imported 
animals, and storage, processing and sale of animal products.  Cargo entering the Russian Federation 
had to be accompanied by the original veterinary certificates of the exporting country, issued by the 
state veterinary service of the country of produc tion and guaranteeing compliance with all provisions 
of the certificate.   
236. The Russian Federation had agreed forms of ve terinary certificates for all types of animal 
products with the state veterinary services of most  exporting countries.  Import of animal products 
under approved veterinary certificates was not a ma ndatory procedure.  In the absence of approved 
veterinary certificates, animal products were exported to the Russian Federation under general 
veterinary certificates.  The actual import conditions were contained in the veterinary certificate. The 
list of cargoes controlled by the State Veterinary Service had been compile d in accordance with the 
Goods Nomenclature of Foreign Economic Activity  and only included those items which may be a 
source of infectious animal diseases or poisoning, and threaten the life and health of animals and 
people.   
237. Pursuant to the requirements of bilateral agreem ents for cooperation in veterinary matters, and 
also pursuant to the Code of the International Ep izootics Office (IEO) and by virtue of Federal Law 
No. 4979-1 of 14 May 1993 "On Veterinary Practices" , pre-shipment inspection was carried out on 
raw meat products that had not undergone ther mal treatment, and was implemented under the WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 78  supervision of representatives of the Veterinary Department.  For those countries that had not agreed 
veterinary certificates with the Russian Federation,  import of cargoes was governed by "Veterinary 
and Sanitary Requirements for Imports into the Russi an Federation of Cargoes Controlled by the State 
Veterinary Service", approved by the Chief State Ve terinary Inspector of the Russian Federation and 
letter No.13-8-01 of 23 December 1999 issued by the MOA.  Bilateral agreements on the presence of 
Russian veterinary inspectors to supervise the fulf illment of Russian Veterinary Service requirements 
when delivering meat to the Russian Federation ha d been reached with a number of countries with 
unfavorable epizootic situations w ith regard to infectious animal diseases.  In these cases the Russian 
Veterinary Inspector took a decision on delivery of a specific meat shipment to the Russian Federation 
taking into account the epizootic situation, conditions  of processing and storage of meat in Russia, and 
prevents delays at border crossings and the shipment’s return to the exporting country. 
238. Imports of controlled cargoes into the Russian Federation were restricted to designated 
cross-border checkpoints at railway and car stations, at seaports, airports and other specially equipped 
places open for international communications a nd having cross-border veterinary checkpoints 
installed.  To be able to bring controlled cargoes (as imports or in tr ansit) regulated by the Convention 
on International Trade in Endangered Species of W ild Fauna and Flora (CITES), in addition to the 
above documents the owner of the cargo needed to have a permit from the CITES agency in the 
exporting country (in the Russian Federation the CITES agency was the Ministry of Natural Resources). 
239. International transit of cargo controlled by the State Veterinary Service through the Russian 
Federation was conducted in accordance with the provi sions of the International Epizootics Office’s 
International Veterinary Code.  Written authorizati on from the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of the 
Russian Federation was not required for internationa l transit of raw produce and products of animal 
origin through Russia.  When crossing the border of the Russian Federation the cargo was inspected 
by the State Veterinary Inspector of the appropria te cross-border surveillance veterinary checkpoint 
and, if requirements of integrity of packaging, conformity of labeling to  transport documents and 
existence of the exporting country’s original veteri nary certificate were fulfilled, a "transit permitted" 
stamp was placed on the original veterinary certificat e upon import to Russia.  International transit of 
live animals through the Russian Federation require d written authorization from the Chief Veterinary 
Inspector of the Russian Federation, on the basis of a request from the central veterinary authority of 
the importing country, indicating the points of impor t, export, route, stops, transfers and animal 
feeding sites. 
240. Transit of cargoes required written authorization by the Chief State Veterinary Inspector of 
the Russian Federation or his/her deputies.  Where pe rmits for transit through third countries had to be 
obtained, such formalities were the responsibility of  the owner of the cargo.  International transit  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 79 
 required permits from central state veterinary agenci es of importing countries, both destinations of the 
cargo and transit territories.  The itinerary of the cargo  also had to be agreed with such agencies.   
241. Import and export of pedigree animals required th at the owner of the animals obtain (as well 
as the permit of the Chief State Veterinary Insp ector of the Russian Federation and a veterinary 
certificate) an "extract from the state registry of selection achievements allowed for use, with respect 
to the imported plant seeds or pedigree animals" for imports and "confirmation of compliance with the 
requirements with respect to protection of patent ho lder rights with respect to the exported plant seeds 
or pedigree animals" for exports, signed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation.  Imports of veterinary  preparations were regulated by Government Resolution No. 1539 of 
25 December 1998 "Regulations on Imports into and Exports from the Russian Federation of 
Medicines and Pharmaceuticals".  Once enacted, all new instruments of veterinary legislation were 
published in the journals "Veterinary Science and Practice", "Veterinary Newspaper", the newspaper 
"Veterinary Consultant", and other special publications. 
242. Policies on plant quarantine were determined by the MOA, with actual quarantine being 
implemented, within the Ministry, by the State Service for Quarantine of Plants.  Regionally, 
phytosanitary controls were implemented by state inspections for quarantine of plants conducted in 
the different regions of the Russian Federation.  Cross-border phytosanitary controls at Russian 
checkpoints were performed by cross-border plant quarantine points, and local quarantine of plants 
was performed by district and inter-district plant quarantine points of the regional inspections. Import 
quarantine permits were issued under Governme nt Resolution No. 268 of 23 April 1992 "On State 
Service for Quarantine of Plants  in the Russian Federation", as amended and supplemented by 
Government Resolution of the No. 1143 of 1 Oc tober 1998).  The list of products subject to 
phytosanitary control, indicating codes accordi ng to the Goods Nomenclature of the Foreign 
Economic Activity of the CIS, was provided in the "Nomenclature of Main Types of Products, 
Cargoes and Materials (Goods) Subject to Quarantine,  for which imports into and exports from the 
Russian Federation required authorization by the agencies of the State Service for Quarantine of 
Plants of the Russian Federation".  This la tter Nomenclature was approved by the MOA on 
19 March 1999 upon agreement with the SCC, and was binding both for the agencies of the State 
Service for Quarantine of Plants  and the agencies of the SCC. 
243. With regard to imports of seeds and planti ng stock and some other products imported by 
several regions, import quarantine pe rmits relating to imports of fr esh vegetables and fruits were 
issued by Rosgoskarantine.  This co uld also be issued by regional in spection authorities.  To obtain an 
import quarantine permit, the consignor had to  apply to the corresponding inspection or 
Rosgoskarantin.  The application had to state th e product in question, the country of origin, the 
country of export, volumes, timeframe for collec tion, destinations and cross-border checkpoints for WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 80  imports of such products subject to quarantine (Government Resolution No. 268 of 23 April 1992 "On 
State Service for Quarantine of Plants in the Ru ssian Federation").  An import quarantine permit 
indicated ad hoc  phytosanitary requirements for each consi gnment of products subject to quarantine, 
and required that each consignment be accompan ied by a phytosanitary certificate confirming 
conformity of the phytosanitary qualities of the product to the said requirements.  A phytosanitary 
certificate needed to be issued by agencies of the state service in charge  of the quarantine of plants in 
the exporting country.  Phytosanitary measures ma intained by the Russian Federation met the 
recommendations of the European and Mediterran ean Plant Protection Organization (of which he 
Russian Federation(USSR) was a member si nce 1957 and an executive member since 1997). 
244. Noting that the information provided above c onstituted a useful compendium of current 
practice in the Russian Federation, members of the Working Party felt that this information was still 
insufficient to assess to what extent  the current regime was consistent with WTO provisions.  More 
information on currently applied phytosanitary m easures was also required.  In this connection 
members stressed that lack of clarity in the way in  which the Russian Federation proposed to ensure 
that its SPS regime, as in case of any other NTMs, could prevent bilateral market access negotiations 
being effectively pursued.  While recognizing th at the Russian Federation was taking steps to 
strengthen its SPS regime and bring it into complian ce with WTO rules, members further considered 
that there was still substantial work ahead for the Russian Federation to develop a predictable, 
transparent, and science-based regulatory system th at would ensure due legal process and sustained 
adherence to international obligatio ns.  In practice this could be achieved by achieving compliance 
with WTO obligations, particularly regarding the following principles of the SPS Agreement:  
transparency of measures through information to other WTO Members;  consistency, coherency and 
proportionality of measures;  non-discriminatory nature of measures, including the need for 
requirements affecting imports not to be more restrictive than t hose affecting domestic production;  
adoption of international standards set by Codex, OIE and IPPC for import rules (the rules must be 
based on transparent scientific risk assessment in case  they go beyond the international standards, or 
where no international standards exist);  applica tions of the principles of regionalisation; and, 
acceptance of certificates and other guarantees give n by a third country (including the European 
Union) competent authorities as the basis for impor ts.  Members stressed that the Russian Federation 
needed to bring its legislative and regulatory procedures into compliance with WTO requirements, 
and provide the necessary legislative acts and doc umentation to demonstrate how these current 
deficiencies would be addressed.  They considered that an update of the Russian Federation SPS 
Action Plan would be particularly helpful at this stage of work.  More info rmation was also sought on 
the inspection procedures and associated charges in fo rce in relation to import of poultry meat and red 
meat as that available indicated that the effect of  recently introduced measures had made the testing 
procedures in the country of export more burdensome and had raised the charges levied on imports.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 81 
 245. [Members of the Working Party sought a co mmitment that the Russian Federation would 
fully apply the WTO Agreement on SPS upon acces sion.  The representative of the Russian 
Federation confirmed that the Russian Federa tion would apply all obligations under the WTO 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures from the date of accession without recourse to 
any transition period.] 
- Trade-related Investment Measures (TRIMs)  
246. The representative of the Russian Federation said that Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 
1999 "On Foreign Investment in the Russian Federa tion" did not provide for measures inconsistent 
with the requirements of Articles III or XI of  GATT 1994 nor measures wh ich corresponded to the 
illustrative list of TRIMs contained in Article 2, paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement on TRIMs.  The 
Law provided that information on all measures aff ecting foreign investors should be published and 
authorised the Government and local entities to gr ant foreign investors a favourable regime, taking 
into consideration the general ec onomic interest of the Russian Fe deration.  Federal Law No. 225-FZ 
of 30 December 1995 (as amended on 7 January  1999, 18 June 2001) "On Production Sharing" 
contemplated that foreign investors which took pa rt in production sharing schemes in the Russian 
Federation should place some proportion of their orde rs from locally produced goods.  Presidential 
Decree No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional M easures to Attract Investments for Development 
of Domestic Car Making", and Government Reso lution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for Development of Domestic Car Making" provided for customs 
and other preferences for those investments in th e automotive industry that exceeded the established 
ceiling.  Four investment agreements had been signed on the basis of these acts.  
247. In response to questions by some members of the Working Party, he confirmed that 
Government Resolution No. 574 of 2 August 2001 "On Certain Issues of Regulation of Temporary 
Imports of Foreign Made Aircraft " superseded Government Resolution No. 716 of 7 July 1998 "On 
Additional Measures of State Support for Civil Aviation in Russia".  The latter Government 
Resolution provided for full exemption from customs duties and taxes for temporary import periods established by previously adopted Government decisi ons and was retained for foreign aircraft, spare 
parts and engines and simulators imported on the b asis of such decisions.  Proposals were also being 
discussed in the Russian Government on the reduction of import customs duty rates for foreign made 
aircraft imported to the Russian Federation, and fo reign made spare parts and components required for 
domestic civil aircraft, equivalents of which were not produced in the Russian Federation. 
248. Members felt that the information on TRIMs pr ovided above did not fully address the issues 
that had been raised regarding the measures in place,  particularly with respect to productioni sharing 
agreements and the investment-promoting legisla tion for the automotive sector for which a fuller WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 82  description was still required. Several members felt that additional information was needed, 
particularly on relevant WTO requirements relatin g to investment provisions provided for in the 
amendments to the Law No. 19-FZ on "Production Sh aring Agreements" adopted on 7 January 1999.  
More information was also required on the workings  of the Presidential Decree No. 135 of 5 February 
1998 "On Attracting Additional Investments to Pr omote the Automobile Industry", Government 
Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for the 
Development of the Domestic Automotive Industr y", and Federal Law No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 
"On Foreign Investment in the Russian Federation". 
249. In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that Presidential Decree 
No. 135 of 5 February 1998 "On Additional Measures to Attract Investments for the Development of 
the Domestic Automobile Industry"  contained pr ovisions on state support of large-scale projects for 
the creation and development of production capacity  for the manufacture of modern vehicles and 
parts.  To implement this Decree, Government  Resolution No. 413 of 23 April 1998 "On Additional 
Measures to Attract Investments for the Developm ent of the Domestic Automobile Industry" was 
adopted.  In this Resolution the Government appr oved regulations on features of the legal regulation 
of a bonded warehouse customs regime, the procedur e for determining the country of origin of 
vehicles and parts during their export from the bonded warehouse territory with features of the legal 
regulation of a customs regime and their import to the remaining territory of the Russian Federation, 
as well as the procedure for determining quantitative rest rictions for the application of features of the 
legal regulation of a bonded warehouse customs regi me and the share of expenditure made on the 
territory of the Russian Federation in the produc tion costs of the final product.  Federal Law 
No. 160-FZ of 9 July 1999 "On Foreign Investments in the Russian Federation" defined the basic guarantees of foreign investors' rights to investments and income and profit obtained therefrom, and 
conditions of foreign investors' entrepreneurial activity  in the territory of the Russian Federation.  This 
Federal Law did not contain any measures classified under the TRIMs illustrative list. 
250. [While noting that existing programs might be  terminated or modified, several members 
requested confirmation that the Russian Federation would eliminate any existing TRIMs upon accession.  The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, 
the Russian Federation would eliminate and would not  maintain any measures inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement on Trade-related Investment Meas ures (TRIMs), and would apply this Agreement 
without recourse to any transition period.]   
State-trading enterprises ("STEs") 
251. The representative of the Russian Federation conf irmed that his authorities considered that 
only five state-trading enterprises in the Russian Fe deration were required to be notified pursuant to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 83 
 the notification requirements of Article XVII of GATT 1994.  Those enterprises and the 
product/products for which had have special powers or  privileges were:  Russian joint stock company 
(RJSC) Gazprom – natural gas; Russian joint st ock company (RJSC) UES of Russia – electricity; 
Joint stock company (JSC) Rosugol – coal (dissolv ed in November 1997); Joint stock company (JSC) 
Diamonds of Russia-Sakha (ALROSA) – raw na tural diamonds; and State enterprise (SE) 
Almazyuvelir Export Foreign Trade Association – raw natural diamonds.  In the view of the Russian 
Government, there were no other enterprises in the Russian Federation, either state-owned or privately-owned, which had been granted such excl usive or special rights, or privileges including 
statutory or constitutional powers in the exercise of which their purchases or sales might influence the 
level or direction of imports or exports.  The ente rprises, which had been gran ted exclusive or special 
rights or privileges in the exercise of which they in fluenced, through their purchase or sales, the level 
or direction of imports or exports, made thei r purchases and sales on the basis of commercial 
considerations. 
252. Some members of the Working Party noted that in relation to Alrosa's sales of raw diamonds 
for exports, arrangements seemed to be in place th at were expressly designed to deprive foreign 
enterprises of an opportunity to compete for particip ation in those sales.  Th ese members maintained 
that this practice would be inconsistent with th e provisions of Article XVII:1(b) of GATT 1994. In 
response, the representative of the Russian Fede ration maintained that export deliveries of raw 
diamonds from the Russian Federation were executed on the basis of commercial contracts concluded 
between Alrosa and foreign enterprises. The State di d not interfere into the substance and form of 
these contracts.     
253. Some members requested further information on the role of marketing enterprises such as 
Exportkhleb, Prodintorg, and Roskhleboprodukt in  agricultural trade, and a description of the 
legislation that had specifically ended the special  rights and privileges that these organizations had 
traditionally received as monopoly trade or marketing entities.  These members also asked further information on the extent to which the Russian Federation's agricultural trade was still conducted 
through inter-governmental agreements betwee n the Russian Federation and other countries, 
especially CIS countries, and on whether any gove rnment-to-government barter arrangements were 
still in place. 
254. Regarding trade in agricultural products, the representative of the Russian Federation noted 
that under Government Resolution No. 1224 of 26 September 1997 "On the Foundation of the State 
Unitary Enterprise – the Federal Agency for Food Ma rket Regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Food of the Russian Federation", the Federa l Agency for Food Market Regulation had replaced 
the Federal Food Corporation with a modified in stitutional and legal framework.  The Agency's 
mission included, inter alia , the monitoring of agricultural product markets, promotion of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 84  competition, assisting in commodity purchases in the agricultural market, and acting as a state 
customer (procuring organisation) to maintain the current food reserves of the Russian Government.  
Purchases of products and commodity interventions were to be performed not by the Agency, but 
exclusively by business entities selected  through public tende rs.  Thus the Agency did not impact on 
export or import trade.  He confirmed that some  enterprises (Roshleboproduct and Roscontract) had 
been granted exclusive and special rights in 1993-1994 in the context of bilateral barter trade with 
some CIS countries performed under the framework of special intergovernmental agreements for 
those calendar years.  Such exclusive rights expired completely on 31 December 1995 where the agreement mentioned above also expired and were never resumed.  At the present time the Russian 
Federation did not conduct barter trade with any of the CIS countries.   
255. Several members requested further information regarding a recent government resolution that 
imposed licensing requirements on procurement, processing, storing, and marketing of grain and grain products for state needs, as well as on production of most grain products (bread, flour, etc.), and a clarification on the purpose of these licenses and on  whether both foreign and domestic companies 
were subject to them.  Concerning reports that 150 bankrupt grain facilities (mills, storage facilities, 
etc.) had been reverted to state control, some me mbers requested clarification on how this process was 
being implemented and what role the Government  would play in the operation and management 
decisions of these facilities.  In addition to listing state-trading enterprises, these members also asked 
a confirmation that, upon accession, the Russian Federation's state-trading enterprises would be 
administered and operated in conformity with WTO provisions, including Article XVII and the 
Understanding.  
256. Some members were particularly concerned that the commercial practices followed by the 
Russian state-trading enterprises, in particular G azprom and Alrosa, could not be regarded as being 
based on commercial considerations.  Specifically, sales for export were subject to controls in relation 
to quantity and price, and the sale of gas for domes tic industrial consumption was at prices levels 
considerably below those applied for export which we re linked to the prevailing would market price.  
Artificially low domestic energy prices could also lead to indirect subsidisation of downstream 
industries and to exports of value-added intermedia te and finished goods at prices below their normal 
value.  In addition to the significant trade dist ortion which these practices could cause, these members 
were concerned that current prices to domestic indus trial customers could take place at rates that did 
not ensure "adequate remuneration" as provided fo r under Article 14(d) of the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and thus would confer a benefit to domestic industrial users.  
More generally, this situation gave rise to questions as regards its compatibility with WTO 
requirements, not only in relation to Article XVII but  also in relation to Articles XI and XVI of GATT 
1994 and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and C ountervailing Measures.  These members invited  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 85 
 the Russian Federation to provide further info rmation on the operation of these enterprises, 
particularly as regards the manner in which prices were set for the export of natural gas and diamonds. 
257. Responding on the functions of the five enterpri ses which could be granted the status of state 
trade enterprises, the representativ e of the Russian Federation referred members to the detailed 
information contained in documents WT/ACC/ RUS/18 and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add.2.  He 
further noted that a full list of functions and th e working procedure of the federal agency for the 
regulation of the food market was enclosed  to Government Resolution No. 1224 of 
26 September 1997 "On the Foundation of the State Un itary Enterprise – the Federal Agency for Food 
Market Regulation by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food of the Russian Federation".  Government 
Resolution No. 414 of 13 June 2002 "On Approval of the Regulation of Licensing of the Storage of 
Grain and Products Received as a Result of Its Remaking" approved the provision on the licensing of 
the storage of grain and products received as a r esult of its remaking.  The major aim of the 
introduction of the provision stated was for legal pe rsons and individual entrep reneurs to observe the 
rules of the storage of grain and other products. Go vernment Resolution No. 414 had also invalidated 
the former Government Resolution No. 43 of 22 January 2002 "On Licensing of Purchase, Remaking, 
Storage and Realizing of Grain and Products Recei ved as a Result of Its Subsequent Remaking Which 
is Meant for State Needs on Production of Bread, M acaroni, Flour, Groats and Other Grain Foods".  
He also stated that statements on reverting 15 0 bankrupt grain facilities to state control were 
unfounded. 
258. [Members of the Working Party stated that th ey expected the Russian Federation to ensure 
that the practices of existing state-trading ente rprises and other enterprises enjoying special or 
exclusive privileges would be brought into line w ith relevant WTO requirements as from the date of 
accession.  Purchases and sales by such enterprises, whether of state-owned, state-invested or 
enjoying any special or exclusive privileges (i ncluding practices such as state orders, purchases for 
state needs, state-designated trading, state goods di stribution, government-to-government agreements 
for the supply/purchase of products, dual pricing of energy and state mandated counter-trade and 
barter, and dual pricing of energy ), should be based solely on co mmercial considerations, without any 
government influence or applica tion of discriminatory measures.] 
259. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that, from the date of accession, the 
Russian Federation would apply its laws and regulations governing the trading activities of 
state-owned enterprises and other enterprises with special or exclusive privileges (including practices such as state orders, purchases for state needs, st ate-designated trading, state goods distribution, 
government-to-government agreements for the su pply/purchase of products, and state-mandated 
counter-trade and barter), including those listed in paragraphs […], in conformity with WTO 
provisions, including Article XVII of GATT 1994, th e Understanding on Article VII of GATT 1994, WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 86  and the Understanding on Article VIII of the GATS.  He further confirmed that the Federal Agency 
for Food Market Regulation, established un der Government Resolution No. 1224 of 
27 September 1997 did not provide domestic support nor export subsidies in any form. He also 
confirmed that the Russian Federation would notif y enterprises falling within the scope of Article 
XVII no later than upon accession, and would observe  the obligations of non-discrimination and 
application of commercial c onsiderations for trade tran sactions for these enterprises.] 
- Free Zones and Special Economic Zones 
260. The representative of the Russian Federati on noted that, although Russian legislation 
provided for the establishment of free-trade zones, such zones had never become significant in terms 
of the Russian Federation's trade regime.  Actua lly only one Special Economic Zone (SEZ) was 
operative due to the specific geographical location of  the Kaliningrad region.  This SEZ was directly 
administered by the regional authorities. Unde r Federal Law No. 13-FZ of 22 January 2000 "On The 
Special Economic Zone in the Kaliningrad Re gion" (as amended on 27 December 2000) all goods 
(excluding goods covered by quantita tive restrictions), imported in to the Kaliningrad Region were 
exempted from customs duties and payments (excluding charges).  Under Article 7 of Federal Law 
No. 13 of 22 January 1996 –FZ "On a Special Econom ic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", goods 
manufactured in the Special Economic zone and export ed to other countries or transported to the rest 
of the Russian Federation should be exempt from customs duties and other charges payable upon the customs registration of goods (except customs fees ).  The goods stated should not be subject to 
economic policy measures (measures on non-tariff stat e regulation of foreign trade).  Goods imported 
to the Special Economic Zone from other countries and then transported to the rest of the Russian Federation as well as to the territory of the Custom s union (except goods which have been recycled in 
the Special Economic Zone and are considered to ha ve been manufactured in this zone), should be 
subject to import customs fees and other fees payable upon the customs registration of goods. 
Economic policy measures could be implemented to the goods stated. Under Federal Law No. 13 of 
22 January 1996 –FZ "On a Special Economic Zone in  the Kaliningrad Region", Russian and foreign 
investors and entrepreneurs were granted privileg es under fiscal law of the Russian Federation and the 
legislation of the Kaliningrad Region.  The administration of the Kaliningrad Region with the 
agreement of the Government of the Russian Federation and the Central Bank of the Russian 
Federation should have the right to set privileges for Russian and foreign banks in regard to their work 
on the carrying out of the federal state program of  the development of the Special Economic Zone.  
No value added tax should be levi ed on profits from transportatio n services, loading and unloading 
services, reloading and storage in the course of the transportation from the Special Economic Zone to 
the rest part of the customs territory of the Russi an Federation and from the rest part of the customs 
territory to the Special Economic Zone.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 87 
 261. The legislation in force (Federal Law No. 150-FZ of 27 December 2000 "On the Federal 
Budget for 2001", as amended on 24 March and 8 August 2001) abrogated the excise and VAT 
exemptions for imports of excisable goods under fr ee customs zone regime of the territory of the 
Kaliningrad SEZ in the year 2001.  However, if such goods were later exported to other regions of the 
Russian Federation, customs import duties were payable in full, with the exception of goods 
processed or deemed to have been processed in  the Kaliningrad Region.  Under Federal Law 
No. 13-FZ of 22 January 1996 "On the Special Econom ic Zone in the Kaliningrad Region", a product 
was deemed to be manufactured in the Special Econ omic Zone provided that the value added in the 
processing amounted to no less than 30 per cent, or  no less than 15 per cent in electronics and 
sophisticated home appliances, and its processing resulte d in a change of the HS code of such product 
according to the customs classification.  The procedure for determining a product as originating from 
the special economic zone was established by a Joint Resolution of the Administration of 
Kaliningrad Region and the SCC of Russia No. 296-r/01-14/1365 of 31 December 1998 "On 
Approval of the Procedure for Determination of  Goods as Originating from the Special Economic 
Zone of Kaliningrad Region", registered by the Ministry of Justice in Regulation No. 1892 of 
9 July 1999.   
262. Current legislation also provided for the estab lishment of SEZs in the Magadan region and in 
Nakhodka, but that these zones were not yet ac tive.  The Free Economic Area "Nakhodka" was 
formed in October 1990, as the Russian Federation's first free economic area.  Its free economic 
regime was regulated by Resolution of the RSFSR Supreme Council of 24 October 1990 "On 
Creation of a Free Economic Zone Centred on th e Town of Nakhodka in Primorsky Krai", and 
Government Resolution No. 1033 of 8 September 1994 "On Certain Measures of Development of the 
Free Economic Zone of Nakhodka".  Exports and im ports of goods to and from the Free Economic 
Area "Nakhodka" were regulated by the ordinary customs regime. Magadan Special Economic Zone 
was created under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of 31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone in 
Magadan Region", and Law of Magadan Region No. 80-FZ of 5 July 1999 "On Changing the 
Administrative and Territorial Structure of Magada n Region".  The procedure for determining that 
goods originated from the Special Economic Zone  in Magadan Region wa s provided under Order 
No. 829 of 30 November 1999 of the SCC "On the Pr ocedure for the Determination of the Origin of 
Goods from the Special Economic Zone in th e Magadan Region", and the "Guidelines for 
Determining Goods as Originating from the Special  Economic Zone in Magadan Region" contained 
in a joint Letter of the State Customs Committ ee and the Administration of Magadan Region 
No. 01-11/10593 of 25 April 2000.  The territory of  Magadan Region was a free customs zone, which 
meant that foreign goods were imported to the territo ry of the Special Economic Zone free of customs 
duties and taxes.  Foreign goods exported from the te rritory of Magadan Region within or outside of 
the customs territory of the Russian Federation we re liable to customs duties in full amount. Foreign WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 88  goods undergoing a certain amount of processing a nd which would qualify for the definition of 
sufficient processing, were deemed to be Russian goods and were not liable to import customs duties 
and other taxes when entering the rest of the custom s territory of the Russian Federation.  The criteria 
of sufficient processing of goods in the Special  Economic Zone were as follows: change of 
commodity classification (HS code); implemen tation of certain production and technological 
operations sufficient  for the goods to be deemed to originate from the Speci al Economic Zone;  and 
change of cost of goods, provided the value adde d by processing amounted to no less than 30 per cent 
of the goods (no less than 15 per cent for electronics or sophisticated home appliances).  Tax and customs benefits were to be maintained until 31 December 2014 – the last effective date of the Law 
"On the Special Economic Zone of Magadan Region".   
263. Members of the Working Party requested furthe r information in order to assess whether the 
existing free zone in Kaliningrad, or those provided for in additional legislation, might pose certain 
WTO-consistency problems, notably whether incen tives granted to firms establishing in the SEZs 
were or would be based on export performance or lo cal content requirements. Issues raised in this 
connection concerned the basis on which goods manufact ured in Kaliningrad were deemed to have 
transformed imported inputs sufficiently to eliminat e the need to pay the duties and taxes exempted 
when the inputs were imported, and what other bene fits, if any, in terms of tax exemptions, were 
available to firms that locate there.  A descripti on of the provisions for firms located in the special 
economic zones of Magadhan and Na khodka was also requested.   
264. A member supported the Russian Federation in respect of efforts made to maintain and 
strengthen the Kaliningrad SEZ, having in mind th e geographical specificity of the region. He 
expressed his authorities' expectation that the acc ession of the Russian Federation to the WTO would 
maintain and not weaken the benefits of this  SEZ which were vital for the overall economic 
development of the region. 
265. Regarding the special economic zone of Ma gadhan the representative of the Russian 
Federation said that under Federal Law No. 104-FZ of  31 May 1999 "On the Special Economic Zone 
in the Magadan Region" firms operating in this sp ecial economic zone shoul d be partially exempt 
from duties. The stated provision was valid until 31 December 2005.  From 1 January 2006 to 31 
December 2014 firms should be exempt from duties on profits which was further invested in the 
development of production and the social sphere on the territory of the Magadan Region.  Foreign 
made goods acquired by those firms for their needs and used on the territory of the Magadan Region 
should be exempt from import customs duties and other charges (except customs fees) payable upon 
the customs registration of goods in the procedure determined by SCC.    WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 89 
 266. Members stressed that the Russian Federation s hould revise its domestic laws and regulations 
to eliminate any measures in place in the Russian  Federation's free zones or other special economic 
areas that were not in conformity with WTO provi sions upon accession, in particular incentives tied to 
export requirements, other subsidies, and TRIMs, so  as ensure enforcement of its WTO obligations in 
those zones.   
267. [Members asked that the Russian Federation s hould consider entering a commitment to apply 
normal customs formalities on goods from the zones sold elsewhere in the Russian Federation, 
including the application of tariffs and tax es upon accession.  The representative of the Russian 
Federation confirmed that any free zones or other special economic areas authorized in the Russian 
legislation, including those in paragraphs […], would be administered in conformity with WTO 
provisions, and that the Russian Federation would ensure enforcement of WTO provisions in the 
zones.  The right of firms to establish and operate in these areas would not depend on export performance, trade balancing, or local content crite ria.  In addition, goods produced in these areas 
under provisions that exempt import from tariffs and certain taxes would be subject to normal customs 
formalities when entering the rest of the Russian Federation, including the application of tariff and 
taxes.]  
- Government Procurement  
268. Members of the Working Party invited the Russi an Federation to provide information on its 
government procurement practices in particular on the existing procurement regime at both federal 
and sub-federal levels. Some members also express ed interest in a commitment from the Russian 
Federation to become an observer to the WTO Agreement on Government Procurements and to 
initiate negotiations for accession to this Agreement upon accession.   
269. The representative of the Russian Federation repl ied that "procurement for state needs"  
(Russian legislation did not contain the term "gove rnment procurement") was governed in the Russian 
Federation by the following regulatory acts: the Civ il Code of the Russian Federation; Federal Law 
No. 53-FZ of 2 December 1994 "On procurement and deliveries of agricultural goods, raw materials 
and foods for the state needs"; Federal Law No . 60-FZ of 13 December 1994 "On procurement of 
goods for federal state needs" (as amended on 19 June 1995, 17 March 1997, and 6 May 1999); 
Federal Law No. 597-FZ of 6 May 1999 "On tenders for placement of orders for deliveries of goods, 
performance of works and provision of services for state needs"; Presidential Decree No. 305 of 
8 April 1997 "On priority measures to prevent co rruption and reduce budget expenses in the course of 
organisation of procurement of goods for stat e needs"; and Government Resolution No. 1222 of 
26 September 1997 "On goods to be procured for st ate needs without conducting tenders (auctions)" 
(as amended on 25 June 1998, 3 September 1999, and 9 January 2001).  The principles and WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 90  procedures for formation, placement and fulfilment of orders for procurement and delivery of goods 
for state needs contained in the above-mentioned act s had been elaborated taking into consideration 
the provisions of UNCITRAL Model Law "On proc urement of goods (works ) and services" thereby 
corresponding to international practices in this fiel d. The regime for procurement for state needs was 
transparent and non-discriminatory, provided for appellate procedures and was applied in a uniform 
manner both at federal a nd sub-federal levels. 
270. Members requested further information on the status  of proposed new legislation in this area, 
in particular on the draft federal law "On the Purchases and the Deliveries of Products for State 
Needs".  In addition, information was also require d on the involvement of the Russian government in 
barter trade, noting the legal basis for this as we ll.  In response, the representative of the Russian 
Federation stated that required information was cont ained in the legislative acts noted in the preceding 
paragraphs and asked for clarification as to what additional information was needed in this area, 
taking into account that this was an issue re lated to a by WTO plurilateral agreement. 
271. [The representative of the Russian Federati on confirmed the intention of the Russian 
Federation to join the WTO Agreement on Govern ment Procurement and to notify the Committee on 
Government Procurement to this effect at the time of its accession to the WTO and ensure that by this 
date, its public contracting entities would award contracts in a transparent manner according to 
publish laws, regulations and guidelines.  He al so confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
request observership in the Agreement on Government  Procurement at the time of its accession to the 
WTO and would initiate negotiations for member ship in the WTO Agreement on Government 
Procurement by tabling an Appendix 1 offer within [… time] of accession.  He confirmed that, if the results of the negotiations were satisfactory to th e interests of the Russian Federation and the other 
Members of the Agreement, the Russian Federation would complete negotiations for membership in 
the Agreement within [y time] thereafter.] 
- Regulation of Trade in Transit 
272. The representative of the Russian Federation sai d that, at present, transit of commodities 
through the territory of the Russian Federation was free from the levy of fees, customs duties, VAT and excise tax.  The Russian Federation granted free dom of transit through its territory as prescribed 
by Article V of GATT 1994 as well as on the basis of international treaties to which it was party to.  
The only charges levied were those for transporta tion commensurate with administrative expenses or 
with the cost of services rendered. 
273. Several members of the Working Party noted  that a sufficient description of Russian 
provisions on transit was still required to confirm whether the Russian Federation's policies for trade  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 91 
 in transit were in conformity with WTO provisions,  in particular Article V of GATT 1994.  Concerns 
were raised on the SCC Order No. 631 of 2 July 2001 "On the Application of Order of the State 
Customs Committee of the Russian Federation No. 25 of 15 January 2001" which appeared to provide 
for measures inconsistent with WTO requirements in  this area.  Questions were asked regarding the 
circumstances under which the Russian Federation might  currently impede transit of other countries' 
exports through its territory; the charges for transit es cort and the reasons for their application; and the 
provisions for the transit of goods of dual usage.  A member expressed concerns about the practice of 
the application of specific customs procedures by the Russian authorities in respect of this member's 
transport companies.  He noted that country-specifi c restrictive transit procedures were incompatible 
with WTO provisions, notably Articles I and V of GATT 1994.  He requested the Russian Federation 
to ensure that these and any other country-specifi c measures of transit procedures would be brought 
into conformity with WTO requirements upon accession. 
274. In response to questions on the ban on transit ove r the territory of the Russian Federation, the 
representative of the Russian Federation stated that aircrafts carrying armaments, military equipment, 
military property were forbidden to cross the territo ry of the Russian Federation by transit without 
making a landing on the territory of the Russian Fede ration.  Import to, export from, and transit of 
explosives for industrial purposes by juridical persons  over the territory of the Russian Federation as 
part of the accompanied or unaccompanied luggage a nd handle luggage, and their cargo shipment to 
natural persons' addresses was also  forbidden.  Apart from that, there was a set of special rules on 
transit of narcotics, substances with psychotropic e ffects, poisons and the substances given in tables I 
and II of the "Convention of the United Nations Orga nization Against Illegal Circulation of Drugs and 
Psychtropic Substances" of 1988.  These rules co mplied with the norms of international law. 
275. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation would 
apply all its laws and regulations governing transit operations and w ould act in full conformity with 
the provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular Article V of GATT 1994.] 
- Policies Affecting Foreign Trade in Agricultural Products 
276. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the key long-term objectives of the 
Russian agricultural sector were the establishmen t of an effective and competitive agro-industrial 
production and the provision of a sufficient degree of  food security for the Russian population.  These 
objectives required a comprehensive program of polic y measures of both a short-term and a long-term 
nature.  Pursuant to the Protocol No. 25 of 27 Ju ly 2000 on "Priority Trends of Agri-Food Policy of 
the Government of the Russian Federation for 20 01 – 2010", approved by the Government on 27 July 
2000, the Russian agricultural sector needed first and foremost to a ddress the problems that had been 
accumulated over the years preceding the reform an d during the reform, and notably the sectoral WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 92  imbalance of prices and revenues which was a majo r adverse factor in agrarian production, low 
profitability, and the development of a material base.   
277. He described the current priorities of the agro -food policy and the agrarian reform in the 
Russian Federation and provided detail on agricultu ral support measures and policies falling under the 
green and amber boxes defined under the WTO Agreem ent on Agriculture.  He said that, taking into 
account such factors as the geography of agricultu ral production in the Russian Federation, its vast 
territory, actual state of development of transpor tation system and infrastructures supporting exports 
of agricultural products, use of export subsidies by  some of the Russian Federation's major partners 
and also the prevailing conditions for competitio n on world agricultural markets, the Russian 
Government came to the conclusion that export subsidies consistent with the WTO Agreement on 
Agriculture could also be used.  Therefore, the Ru ssian Federation intended to reserve its right to use 
export subsidies subject to: (a) agreed reductions with WTO Members over a fixed period of time;  
and (b) the results of the on-going WTO negotiations on agriculture. 
278. Members noted that a more comprehensive submission of the Russian Federation's 
agricultural support policies was still required.  They  stressed that such info rmation was needed in 
order to establish a detailed description of the Ru ssian Federation's agricultural policies on which 
appropriate commitments could be determined.  While recognising th e possibility of having recourse 
to "amber box" measures under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, several members considered that 
in determining its requirements and level of commitments the Russian Federation should give 
emphasis to the use of "green box" measures that c ould achieve the desired reform objectives pursued 
by the Russian Federation in the fiel d of agriculture.  Some members fu rther argued that in the current 
context they considered it inappropriate for any country to accede to the WTO with export subsidy 
commitments.  These members stressed the need that the Russian Federation should bind its export 
subsidies at zero.  In this respect, these members also stressed that the disciplines contained in the 
WTO Agreement on Agriculture on export credits, e xport credit guarantees or insurance programmes 
needed to be applied by the Russian Federation so  as to avoid circumvention of the commitment not 
to provide export subsidies. 
279. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that the Russian Federation should 
not provide any export subsidies as from the date of  accession and that it should not circumvent this 
commitment in any form, in particular through e xport credits, export credit guarantees or insurance 
programmes or through state trading enterprises or through food aid.]   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 93 
 
- Trade in Civil Aircraft  
280. [Some members of the working Party asked that  the Russian Federation enter a commitment 
to join the Agreement on Trade in Civil Airc raft upon accession. Those members further requested 
that the Russian Federation should implement the ag reement without exceptions and without recourse 
to any transitional period, and that the Russian Fede ration should ensure that all internal taxes would 
be applied to the sale or lease of civil aircraft in a non-discriminatory fashion between imported and 
domestically produced goods and between  goods imported from third countries.] 
281. In response, the representative of the Russian Fe deration stated that th e degree of exploitation 
of the manufacturing facilities in the aviation industry in the Russian Federation did not exceed 10 – 15 per cent.  As a result, most enterprises of the aviation sector suffered losses, thus substantially 
limiting the possibilities of financing the procedures for modernization of the facilities, introduction 
of modern manufacturing and servicing technologies.  Over 50 per cent of the currently operated technological and experimental equipment required renewal.  The integrated corporate structures 
established in the aviation sector cannot remedy the s ituation due to the shortage of their revenues. 
Possible ways out were governmental support in fi nancing the sale of aircraft, maintaining an 
appropriate level of tariffs to prevent the sal e on the domestic market of low-priced second hand 
imported aircraft.  The current s ituation of the aviation sector made it impossible for the Russian 
Federation to join the Agreement On Trade in Civil Aircraft and implement its requirements. 
- Textiles 
282. Some members noted that upon its accession to the WTO, the provisions of the WTO 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) would also become relevant for the Russian Federation.  
In this connection, a member said that its bila teral quotas on imports from the Russian Federation of 
certain textile and clothing produc ts would become the starting-point for further liberalisation under 
the terms of that Agreement.  [In order to ensure  an orderly transfer to this new status and to 
guarantee the benefits of ATC trade liberalisati on for Russian exports, that member sought an 
appropriate commitment in the draft report.] 
283. Another member of the Working Party stated that the quantitative restrictions on imports 
maintained by WTO Members on textiles and cl othing products originating from the Russian 
Federation that were in force on the date prior to the date of accession of the Russian Federation to the 
WTO should be notified to the Textiles monitoring Body (TMB) by the members maintaining such 
restrictions and would be applied for the purposes of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing.  Thus, for the purpose of the Russian Fe deration's accession to the WTO, the phrase "day 
prior to the date of entry into force of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing" should be deemed to WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 94  refer to the day prior to the date of accession of th e Russian Federation to the WTO.  To this base 
level the increase in growth rates provided for in Ar ticles 2.13 and  2.14 of the Agreement on Textiles 
and Clothing should be applied, as appropriate, in the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing from the 
date of the Russian Federation's accession to the WTO. 
284. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation raised concern in respect of the 
application of the provisions of Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and stated 
that this issue required further clarification. 
TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REGIME (TRIPS) 
General 
285. The representative of the Russian Federation said that the national system of protection of 
intellectual property rights complied with the basic international standards adopted in this field, 
including  the provisions of the WTO Agreement on TR IPS.  The framework of the Russian 
Federation's policy on intellectual property was determined by the Constitution of the Russian 
Federation (Article 44, item 1) wh ich in particular guaranteed freedom of literary, artistic, scientific, 
technical and other types of creative activity, and provided protection for such activities.  The whole 
system of the Russian legislation in force supported the implementation of this constitutional right.  A  
number of international agreements signed by the Russian Federation constituted an integral part of 
this system.  He also informed that the new Ar bitration Procedure Code (Federal Law No. 95-FZ of 
24 July 2002 on "Arbitration Procedure Code") woul d enter into force on [1 September 2002].  The 
draft law on amendments to the Patent Law set forth that plants, animals, layout-designs of integrated 
circuits, decisions that were contradictory to pub lic interests, principles of humanity and moral were 
excluded from patentability. 
286. He noted that the Russian Federation applie d national treatment to the legal entities and 
individuals of those countries which had signed the tr eaties providing for such treatment (in particular, 
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the World Convention on Copyright, and the Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary  and Artistic Works) both directly pursuant to 
such covenants (Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Cons titution of the Russian Federation provided for the 
direct application and prevalence of internationa l agreements) in accordance with the obligations 
undertaken under these treaties and in  accordance with applicable provi sions of legislative acts of the 
Russian Federation (in particular, Articles 36 and 37  of the "Patent Law of the Russian Federation" 
No. 3517-1 FZ of 23 September 1992; Article s 47 and 48 of Federal Law No. 3520-FZ of 
23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Marks, and Appellations of Origin";  Article 3, Article 
5:1 and Article 35:4 of Federal Law No. 5351-1 FZ of 9 July 1993 "On Copyrights and Related  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 95 
 Rights";  Article 7 of Federal Law No. 3523-1 FZ of  23 September 1992 "On the Legal Protection of 
Computer Programs and Databases"; and Articl es 13 and 14 of Federal Law No. 3526-1 FZ of 
23 September 1992 "On the Legal Protection of Layo ut Designs of Integrated Circuits").  The 
application of most-favoured-nation treatment (subj ect to exceptions regarding certain preferences 
granted by the Russian Federation under certain treaties including those with CIS countries) as to 
intellectual property was additionally provided for un der the treaties signed with the European Union 
and Switzerland.  As a party to the Euroasian Pa tent Convention the Russian Federation granted no 
advantages and privileges to other parties under this Convention.  Any party to this Convention which 
used the procedure set out in the Convention coul d obtain the benefits of being a party to the 
Convention within the territory of any signatory.   
287. Commenting on specific aspects of ongoing legislative work in the area of TRIPS and in 
response to specific enquires by members, the repr esentative of the Russian Federation provided the 
following information.   
- Copyright and Related Rights 
288. Overall, the provisions of the Russian legislation on copyright (including those relating to 
protection of computer programmes and databases) we re in conformity with the provisions of the 
Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary an d Artistic Works (including Article 6 bis) and the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  In particular, the Russian legislation protected 
not only personal non-proprietary rights of author s, such as authorship right, right to name, 
publication right, right to protect reputation of the author, but also property rights of authors which 
could be inherited.  Thus copyrigh ts were valid during the life of the author and during 50 years after 
his/her death.  In certain cases stipulated by th e law, the term for protection was calculated on the 
basis of other dates ( for instance from the date of latest death of a co-author where a work had been 
created in co-authorship).  The draft law under cons ideration by the Duma intended to extend the term 
for protection to 70 years after the death of the au thor. At the same time, further to the declaration 
made by the Government of the Russian Federation when joining the Bern Convention, the provisions 
of the latter did not applied to literary and artis tic works which were of public property when the 
Convention came into force for the Russian Federati on.  In accordance with Article 28 of Federal Law 
No. 3531-1-FZ of 9 July 1993 "On Copyright and Re lated Rights", works for which the term of 
copyright had elapsed as well as works which had never been protected in the Russian Federation 
were considered to have become public property.  The Russian authorities intended to further amend 
this law so as to bring it in full conformity with the respective requirements  of the Bern Convention 
and WTO Agreement on TRIPS.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 96  
- Trademarks 
289. Overall, the provisions of the Russian legislati on relating to the protection of trademarks and 
service marks were in conformity with the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the relevant provisions of  the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, except for those 
which governed well-known marks protection with respect to non-homogene ous goods.  Additions 
reflecting these provisions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS were contained in the draft federal law 
submitted to the Duma "On amending the Fede ral Law "On Trademarks, Service Marks and 
Appellations of Origin".  The Russian legisla tion in force allowed for protection of well-known 
trademarks.  The legal basis was Articles 2 and 7 of the Federal law No. 3520-FZ of 
23 September 1992 "On Trademarks, Service Mark s and Appellations of Origin" as well as the 
Regulation on recognition trademark as well-known in  the Russian Federation.  The legislation did 
not require the registration of well-known trademarks .  Nevertheless, any trademark pretending to be 
well-known should be recognized as such by a competent authority, i.e. the Higher Patent Chamber of 
Rospatent.  Such a procedure of granting protection was fully consistent with Paris Convention.  The 
provisions of criminal and civil legi slation applicable to "ordinary" tr ademarks were also applicable to 
well-known trademarks.  Among the remedies there we re the recognition of the right, prevention of 
the violation, compensation of losses, criminal and administrative liability. 
- Geographical Indications 
290. Prior to 1992 geographical indications in the Russian Federation were protected mostly by 
considering any false geographical indications as a form of unfair competition or a violation of 
consumer rights (this was done by antitrust -antim onopoly- agencies or courts respectively).  Since 
1992 one important category of geographical indicati ons - appellations of origin - was accorded 
special protection through their State registration in  line with the procedure set forth in the Federal 
Law No. 3520-FZ of 23 September 1992 "On Trad emarks, Service Marks and Appellations of 
Origin".  Protection for such types of geographical  indications was provided for under Article 6 of the 
said law which prohibited to register trademarks containing indications of the place of production of 
goods as well as trademarks containing false indica tions or indications which might mislead the 
customer as to the identity of the producer of goods .  Protection of appellation of origin existed for all 
kind of goods – food and manufactured goods alike.  According to Article 47 of the same law, the 
right to register an appellation of origin in the Russian Federation was gran ted to persons and legal 
entities of those states that provided similar rights to Russian persons and legal entities. 
291. On the whole, the provisions in accordance to which geographical indications were protected 
in the Russian Federation were in conformity with the Paris Convention for the Protection of 
Industrial Property and the relevant provisions of  the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The draft law "On  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 97 
 amendments to Federal Law No. 3520-FZ "On Trad emarks, Service Marks and Appellations of 
Origin" would allow protection not only for appellation of goods duly registered in the Russian 
Federation but for geographical indication of wines a nd spirits as well, in line with the provisions of 
Article 23.3 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  Su ch additional protection was not maintained for 
any other goods.  
- Inventions and Industrial Designs 
292. On the whole, the provisions of Federal Law No. 3517-FZ of 23 September 1992 "Patent Law 
of the Russian Federation on the protection of invent ions and industrial designs" were in conformity 
with the Paris Convention and the relevant provis ions of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  The draft 
law "On amendments to the Patent Law of the Russi an Federation" reflected the provisions of Article 
31 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS by extending th e scope of currently existing provisions on 
"compulsory licensing".  Under this draft law, a patent might not be obtained in relation to the 
following: plant varieties, animal breeds, solutions  violating social interests or humanitarian and 
moral principles. This amendment corresponded to Article 27.3 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS.  
Under the Patent Law in force, the validity term of patents for all kind of inventions was 20 years, 
starting from the date when the application was s ubmitted. This term corresponded to the relevant 
provisions of Article 33 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS. Moreover, the amendment to this law 
provided for the possibility of extending such term for pharmaceutical products (medicines), 
pesticides and agricultural chemicals, if their use ha d been based on a consent of an authorized state 
body. In these cases, the general 20 year term might be extended for up to 5 years.   
- Plant Variety and Animal Breed Protection  
293. Plant varieties and animal breeds were protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 5605-1 FZ of 6 August 1993 "On Selection Attain ments".  The provisions of this Law, in the 
Russian Federation's view,  were in conformity  with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS and the UPOV 
Convention (International Union for Protection of New Varieties of Plants) to which the Russian 
Federation became a member in 1998. 
- Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits 
294. Layout designs of integrated circuits we re protected in accordance with Federal Law 
No. 3526-1 of 23 September 1992 "On Legal Protection of  Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits".  In 
general, the provisions of this Law were in c onformity with the provisions of the Treaty on 
Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circu its (Washington Treaty).  In addition, the Federal 
Law No. 82-FZ of 9 July 2002 "On amendments to th e Law "On Legal Protection of Layout Designs WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 98  of Integrated Circuits" contained provisions aimed at satisfying the requirements of the WTO 
Agreement which were additional to those of the Washington Treaty. 
- Requirements on undisclosed information,  including trade secrets and test data 
295. Protection of undisclosed information, as in Section 7 of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, was 
ensured in the Russian legislation by virtue of Article  139 of the Civil Code.  In particular, this article 
stipulated legal protection of undisclosed inform ation which constituted official or commercial 
secrets.  In addition, the acquisition, use, or disclosure of scientific, technical, production, or 
commercial information, including commercial secr ets, without the owner's consent were not 
permitted by virtue of Article  10 of Federal Law No. 948-1 of  23 March 1991 "On Competition and 
Restriction of Monopoly Activity on Commodity Ma rkets".  The provisions of the above-mentioned 
laws prohibited the use of undisclosed information without the consent of the right holder.  All these 
provisions were applicable to the protection of confidential (undisclosed) information related to 
pharmaceutical and argochemical products containi ng new chemical substances.  Following the 
opinion of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation the term of six years was sufficient to 
protect undisclosed information obtained during clinical  tests of new medicines.   In the event that 
protection of undisclosed information could endang er the human life and health such information 
could be published before the expire of this term. 
- Enforcement 
- Criminal Measures 
296. Since 1999 there had been a special department  dealing with intellectual property crimes 
within the Main Economic Crime Division of the Mini stry of Interior (and its regional departments).  
As for criminal sanctions, the Criminal Code of  13 June 1996 included three articles specifically 
dealing with intellectual property: Article 146 (Cop yright and Related Rights Violations); Article 147 
(Patents Violations); and Article 180 (Trademark Violations).  While copyright violations were 
punishable by fines and imprisonment, for other in tellectual property violations no imprisonment had 
been provided until December 2001 where a new para graph was introduced to the Criminal Code 
providing for liability for illegal use of trademarks. In addition to fines, this paragraph stipulated that 
sanctions up to five years of imprisonment.  The legislators continued their work on the Criminal 
Code with a general intention of establis hing an even wider scope of liability. 
297. Since intellectual property crimes were not c onsidered to be "grave" crimes, enforcement 
bodies used other articles of the Criminal Code wh ere appropriate such as sm uggling, consumer fraud, 
etc.  In 1997, there were 720 intellectual propert y violation cases; in 1998, 950; in 1999, 1300; in 
2000, 2000 including 1,117 cases on copy rights and related rights viol ations.  In 1999, 125 illegal  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 99 
 manufacturing facilities were closed down and 30 milli on illegal units were confiscated.  In 2000, 334 
manufacturing facilities were closed down and 50 m illion units were confiscated.  Confiscation of 
illegal goods, materials and equipment used for thei r manufacturing was not directly stipulated under 
Articles 146, 147 and 180 of the Criminal Code.  It  was normal practice, however, to confiscate these 
goods and machinery as material evid ence.  For the illegal copies, the right holder could request to 
take them. For machinery, the matter had to be  decided by courts.  Concerning the Superior 
Arbitration Court's practice, the Court issued a decision on confiscation and destruction in cases 
where the right holder did not request the goods to be transferred to him.  Where a court did not order confiscation of illegal goods in civil proceedings, the right holder might appeal. 
- Criminal Procedure 
298. In accordance with the legislation in force,  the enforcement bodies had no responsibility for 
discovering or identifying criminal violations.  Sinc e intellectual property violations were within the 
category of private accusation, criminal procedure could not be initiated without a complaint by the right holder.  The time limits for investigation in  accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code was 
initially 10 days and 30 days for the final decision in complex cases.  Normally, the statement that the 
goods were counterfeit was made by th e right holder.  Official state examination might be done by the 
Centre for Expertise of the Ministry of Interior.  At the request from an anti-trust or law enforcement body and on the basis of a relevant court order, Rospatent experts provided an opinion regarding a 
trademark, invention or another intellectual propert y issue.  An investigator, prosecutor or court 
would then make a decision based on the results of the examination.  The examination initiated by the 
law enforcement bodies was free of charge.   
- Administrative Measures 
299. A new Code of Administrative Offences was in force since 1 July 2002. Articles 7.12, 7.28 
and 14.10 of this Code established liability for violation of copyrights and related rights, rights to 
inventions, useful models and industrial designs , service marks and appellation of origin.  The 
administrative sanctions, in addition to fines, in cluded confiscation of counterfeit products.  In 
addition, anti-monopoly legislation provided certain san ctions that were administered directly by the 
Ministry of Anti-monopoly Policy and Support for Business. Any business entity whose rights of 
intellectual property were violated by another busine ss entity could apply to the Ministry to start the 
proceedings against the offender.  The Ministry could issue a decision imposing fines or demanding 
certain actions or prohibiting infringing actions.  The procedure normally took between one and two 
months, and in complicated cases between three and six months.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 100  
- Border Measures 
300. Article 10 of the Customs Code referred intell ectual property protection to the competence of 
the Customs authority. Since 1998, the State Cust oms Committee accepted a pplications from right 
holders for the customs measures.  The following do cuments had to be presented: confirmation of the 
intellectual property rights, power of attorney (when necessary) and information on the violation 
(description of goods) as well as any additional information available from the right holder.  The Code 
of Administrative Offences in force since 1 July 2002 introduced administrative liability for import of 
goods violating intellectual property rights. 
301. At present, the Customs Code did not allow the Customs bodies to act fully in accordance 
with the all provisions of the WTO Agreement on TR IPS in terms of supplying the right holder as a 
third party with information and of providing the ri ght holder with an opportunity to inspect detained 
goods and take samples.  The draft new Cust oms Code included a new section dealing with 
intellectual property protection wh ich effectively addressed these issues as well.  When goods were 
detained, the Customs had ten working days to inspec t all goods.  Particular attention was paid to the 
goods indicated by the right holder.  The term c ould be extended for another 20 working days or 31 
calendar days. According to the existing practice, if during this period a violation of intellectual 
property was confirmed, the Customs transferred the evidence to the Police and prosecutors, and, 
since 1 July 2002, the Customs would also draw up a protocol of administrative offence. The right 
holder could then bring a civil law case to the cour t.  As for the possibility of obtaining from the 
Customs bodies information about the infringing comp any, its history and activity, the new draft 
Customs Code stipulated that such information woul d be available in relation to importers as well as 
imported goods.   
- Civil Law Remedies and Procedures 
302. The Higher Arbitration Court of the Russian Fede ration had drafted a Code of the Arbitration 
Procedure Code which was currently under examinati on by the Duma.  This draft code reflected the 
latest international developments in the organi sation and administration of economic justice, and 
established new mechanisms essential for an e ffective application the WTO Agreements. For 
example, these mechanisms included preliminary interim measures which w ould promote realisation 
of Section 3 of Article 44 of the WTO Agreemen t on TRIPS.  The draft code also contained an 
updated section on consideration of  economic disputes with particip ation of a foreign party which 
introduced application of the principle of reciprocity  in the enforcement of court orders and awards; 
national treatment for foreign participants in resp ect of the procedure; and the abandonment of the 
principle of absolute immunity.  Remedies availa ble under the Civil Code included confirmation of 
rights;  prohibition of actions violating rights;  imposing fines;  compensation of damages caused to  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 101 
 the right holder;  and compensation of income recei ved by the infringer and statutory compensation. 
The last two  measures were available only for copyrights.   
303. Regarding claims for damages and assessment of damages, civil law cases provided for the 
general principle of full recovery of damages.  The amount of damage was calculated in accordance 
with the general norms of the Civil Code based  on the prices of corresponding legitimate goods 
adjusted for actual damage and forgone profit of the right holder.  As for the statutory compensation, 
it was initially defined by the plaintiff who had the bur den to prove the fact of damage caused without 
calculating the amount.  Then it was further assessed by the court based on the nature of infringement, 
income received by the infringer, etc.  The final decision on the amount of compensation rested with 
the court. Regarding provisional measures under Artic le 75 of the Arbitration Procedure Code, the 
court could issue an order for preliminary injunction based on the plaintiff's petition.  Such measures 
should be aimed at securing the claim. Provisional measures included: prohibition of infringing actions, arrest of property including back accounts, seizure of documents and other evidence.  The 
judge handling the case should make a decision the next day after the petition was filed without the 
representatives of the parties.  Under the current legislation, any petition for provisional measures 
could be filed after the civil procedure was initiated.   However, the draft amendments to the Code of 
Arbitration Procedure proposed to allow provisional measures to be obtained before filing the claim. 
304. [Noting all the above, members of the Worki ng Party sought a commitment that the Russian 
Federation would be in compliance with the WTO Agreement on TRIPS, including its enforcement 
provisions, as from the date of accession, without  recourse to transitional arrangements.  The 
representative of the Russian Federation confirmed th at the Russian Federation would apply fully the 
provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 
from the date of accession to the WTO, including provis ions for enforcement, without recourse to any 
transitional period.  He confirmed that the Russi an Federation would provide effective protection 
against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data submitted to authorities in the Russian 
Federation, in support of applications for marke ting approval of pharmaceutical or of agricultural 
chemical products which utilised new chemical entities,  for a period of at least six years from the date 
on which the Russian Federation granted marketing approval to the person submitting the data.  He 
also confirmed that the Patent Law would be am ended to better specify the legal framework for 
decision-making with respect to issuance of co mpulsory licenses (this amendment would put the 
Patent Law in  conformity with the requirements Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement);  the Draft Law 
on Trademarks would bring the Russian legisla tion in this area in conformity with TRIPS 
requirements (including immediate publication afte r registration, additional protection for well-known 
trademarks against bad faith registration and use on dissimilar goods, and additional protection 
against trademarks registration containing geographical indications); the draft law on the introduction WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 102  of amendments and addenda to Federal Law "On Legal Protection of Topologies of Integrated 
Circuits" would implement all the TRIPS requirements in this area and would ensure the granting of 
protection against articles embodying an integrat ed circuit containing an unlawfully reproduced 
topography; the draft federal law on introduction of  amendments and addenda  to Federal Law "On 
Legal Protection of Computer Progr ammes and Databases" would make clear its relationship, as 'lex 
specialis' to the Copyright law and that the Russian Federation would implement all TRIPS 
obligations with respect to Computer software a nd Databases; the draft federal law on introduction of 
amendments and addenda to Federal Law "On copyright and related rights" would introduce 
amendments that will allow the application "in toto " of the provisions of Article 18 of the Berne 
Convention to foreign works and phonograms, incl uding the granting of retroactive protection to 
foreign works or phonograms; and that current re visions of Criminal Code and the Criminal 
Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code and the Code of Arbitration Procedure and the Customs 
Code would allow for the correct implementation of Articles 41-61  of the WTO Agreement on TRIPS 
and the enforcement by the Russian Federa tion of intellectual property rights.] 
TRADE-RELATED SERVICES REGIME 
Policies Affecting Trade in Services 
305. The representative of the Russian Federation noted  that the Russian market for services began 
to develop only in the first part of the 1990s, following the domestic process of economic reforms, 
privatisation and liberalisation of the whole system  of the Russian Federation's economic relations.  
The development of services market had led to a substantial increase of its share in national GNP, 
reaching about 55 per cent in 2000 (28 per cent in 19 91).  Although the Russian Federation's share in 
world trade in services was not yet significant, the contribution of services to the country's total trade 
was not negligible (in 2000, the Russian Federation' s share of trade in services in the world' s trade in 
services was just over 1 per cent). The balance of foreign trade in services was traditionally negative 
for the Russian Federation, with exports amounti ng to US$9,632 million and imports amounting to 
US$17,412  million in 2000 (data based on the Balance of Payments).  
306. The reform of the Russian economy during the last decade called into being new services 
sectors as well as contributed to the development of existing ones.  At the same time, be they old or 
new, services providers in some sectors operated within insufficient regulatory and institutional 
framework and suffered from an unstable market struct ure.  As "infant industries', those services 
sectors were liable to positive and negative economic a nd social variations that could have a serious 
impact on the economy as a whole.  In these circum stances, the Russian Federation needed to retain 
the possibility of having recourse to certain tempor ary measures aimed at the maintenance of a normal 
competitive environment, balance and integrity of markets, social stability and employment.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 103 
 307. The economic developments in services were suppor ted by the legislative process. Many laws 
and regulations were adopted to establish a legal framework for provi sion of services in general (such 
as the Civil Code or the law on foreign investments) or in specific sectors.  However, the dynamism 
of services markets was still not adequately reflect ed by the domestic regulatory system. As an 
example, the Russian banking crisis in August 19 98 was particularly associated with inadequate 
approaches to, and lack of effective prudential arrangements in, the established banking activities 
following the extreme dependence of the domestic fi nancial system from the situation in short-term 
foreign capital markets. For the purposes of creatin g a favourable economic and investment climate, 
including in the sphere of services, the Russian Federation had embarked on a series of measures to 
reduce restraints on the economy involving streamlini ng of the procedures of company registrations, 
downsizing the list of types of activities subject to licensing and a reduction of the frequency of 
inspections of enterprises. It could be expected that regulatory framework of the Russian Federation 
governing the services sector would, at the same  time, be subject to frequent adaptations and 
improvement in light of experience and of progr ess made in building national capacity to supply 
services on a competitive basis. In the view of the Russian authorities this possibility did not 
contradict GATS provisions which recognized the right  of Members to regulate and to introduce new 
regulations on the supply of services within thei r territories in order to meet national policy 
objectives.   
308. Under the existing legal framework some types of services were subject to licensing.   
Legislative reform was however underway to resolve restraints on the service economy.  Some of the 
laws, which had been passed in regard to this reform were:  Federal Law No. 129 – FZ of 8 August 
2001 "On State Registration Of Juridical Persons";  Federal Law No. 128 – FZ of 8 August 2001 "On 
Licensing Of Certain Types Of Activities"; and Federal Law No. 134 – FZ of 8 August 2001 "On 
Protection Of Rights Of Juridical Persons And I ndividual Entrepreneurs In The Procedure Of 
Inspection Conducted by the State".  The foregoing laws were meant to ease the procedure of the 
registration of juridical persons by the state, reduce substantially the number of activities to be 
licensed and reduce the frequency of enterprise inspections.   
309. The regulation of the provision of services in the sphere of construction was under joint 
control of the Russian Federation and subjects of th e Russian Federation.  The basic normative acts on 
the regulation of the provision of services in the sphe re of construction included:  Civil Code of the 
Russian Federation;  provision "On Licensing Of Wo rks Of Mounting, Repairing And Servicing Of 
Anti-Fire Equipment Of Buildings And Construc tions" (approved by Government Resolution No. 373 
of 31 May 2002);  provision "On licensing of works on the design of buildings and constructions of 
the 1st and 2nd levels in accordance with the state-set standards" (approved by Government 
Resolution No. 174 of 21 March 2002);  and provision s "On licensing of works on the construction of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 104  buildings and constructions of th e 1st and 2nd levels of liability in accordance with the state-set 
standards" (approved by Government Resolution No. 174 of 21 March 2002). 
310. These normative acts were applied uniformly on the whole territory of the Russian 
Federation.  The procedure for filing of an appeal ag ainst decisions made by the state authorities, local 
administration, public unions and individuals in au thority was described in paragraphs 19 and 20 of 
document WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Add 2. 
311. He further noted that the Russian Federation ex ercised its sovereign rights over subsoil and 
mineral resources, underground resources within the territory of the Russian Federation, including 
subsoil domain and mineral resources contained therei n, energy and other resources.  Subsoil areas 
could not be subject to purchase, sale, gift, inhe ritance, deposit, pledge or any other form of 
alienation.  In this context, the Russian Federa tion was developing a market environment capable of 
creating favourable conditions for enterprise operation, capital and t echnology inflow and 
encouraging access to the subsoil and natural resour ces on the basis, inter alia, of production sharing 
and concession agreements.  
312. Several members of the Working Party stressed the need for more information on the Russian 
Federation's progress towards establishing the requi red inquiry point and other transparency and 
procedural requirements for complying with the GA TS.  These members requested confirmation that, 
in services sectors requiring licensing, foreign natu ral and juridical persons needing activity licenses 
could obtain them on the same terms as Russian na tural and juridical persons.  Some members noted 
that the Russian Federation had used the "infant i ndustry" argument to justify a certain level of 
protection to its services sector and asked how the Russian Federation would implement measures in this regard, considering that the GATS did not contemplate any safeguards mechanism.  
313. Regarding the banking sector, some members expressed concern that the two largest 
commercial banks in the Russian Federation (Sberb ank and Vneshtorgbank) were currently owned by 
the CBR.  Taken together these two banks held a dominant position on the Russian market and their 
ownership by the CBR created a clear potential conf lict of interest with the CBR's prudential and 
other tasks.  While welcoming the information on plans to divest the CBR holdings in commercial 
banks, these members invited the Russian Federation to indicate a firm date by when the ownership of 
these banks and their commercial activities would be legally and in practice separated from the CBR.  
In addition, these members expressed further concern about the distortions of competition created by the unlimited (i.e. 100 per cent) state guarantee given to deposits in accounts held with Sberbank.  No 
state guarantee at all existed for deposits held in  accounts with other banks, whether Russian or 
foreign.  As this would foster  equal conditions of competition in  the Russian banking sector and 
would help improve the solidity and functioning of the financial sector more generally, these members  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 105 
 expected that the Russian Federation would commit by  an agreed timeframe to divest or bring under 
the responsibility of another branch of government the commercial activities of the CBR and to ensure 
that there was no discrimination between establishe d banks as regards the guarantee of deposits.  One 
member of the Working Party expressed concern ove r the current regulations of the CBR regarding 
qualification of certain countries as off-shore zon es and other discriminatory measures in the banking 
sector and requested the Russian Federation to bring these regulations in conformity with 
internationally recognized practices. 
314. In response, the representative of the Russian Federation provi ded additional information on 
the Sberegatel'ny Bank, Vneshtorgbank and the system of guaranteeing personal deposits.  The 
Sberegatel'ny Bank of the Russian Federation (Sbe rbank) was a credit organization which played a 
leading role in the personal deposits market.  In  the near future, the CBR intended to retain its 
controlling stake in Sberbank since issues of the CBR 's withdrawal from its capital and changes of the 
structure of its shareholders were closely connected to the creation of a system of guaranteeing deposits and with prospects for the entry of Sberbank  into such a system.  Sberbank's participation in 
the system of guaranteeing deposits had already been  deemed feasible.  The issue of the conditions 
and procedure for its entry would be resolved as the draft Federal Law "On Guaranteeing the 
Repayment of Deposits of Physical Persons in Ba nks of the Russian Federation" was developed.  
Article 8 of the re-edited version of Federal Law No. 86-FZ of 10 July 2002, "On the Central Bank of 
the Russian Federation (the Bank of Russia)", established that the CBR would withdraw from 
Vneshtorgbank's capital prior to 1 January 2003.  Thereafter, the issue of the sale of a part of 
Vneshtorgbank's shares to international financia l organisations and private investors would be 
considered. 
315. He added that the CBR participated in the cap itals of the following credit organisations 
created on the territories of foreign states: Donau-bank AG, Vienna; East-West United Bank, 
Luxemburg; Commercial Bank for Northern Europe  – Eurobank, Paris; the Moscow National Bank 
Ltd., London; Ost-West Handelsbank AG, Frankf urt-on-Main.  Under th e Federal Law "On the 
Central Bank of the Russian Federa tion (the Bank of Russia)", the CBR's participation in the charter 
capitals of these banks was reduced or alienated in  the procedure and deadlines determined by the 
CBR as approved by the Government of the Russian Federation. 
316. The Government of the Russian Federation and the CBR assumed that the creation of an 
effective system of guaranteeing citizens' deposits  would enable public confidence in the banking 
sector to be regained would allow banks' resource base  to be broadened, incl uding the financing of the 
real economy, and would strengthe n competition on the market of a ttracting personal deposits.   The 
reliability of the system of guaranteeing deposits wa s of principal importance.  The Government of WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 106  the Russian Federation, jointly with the CBR, was preparing, for introduction to the State Duma, a 
draft federal law, envisaging the following provisions: 
- only financially stable banks whose status  had been assessed using internationally 
acknowledged approaches might be admitted to the system of guaranteeing deposits; 
- the system of guaranteeing deposits would be  created in two stages.  Following the 
adoption of the Federal Law "On Guaran teeing Physical Persons' Deposits", a 
transitional period (Stage 1) would be  introduced, envisaging banks' voluntary 
inclusion in the system.  Banks not included in the system would retain the right to attract deposits from physical persons; 
- Stage 2 would commence upon the expiry of a year following the transfer of credit 
organisations to international accounting and financial reporting standards.  At this 
stage, banks attracting deposits from physical persons will be obliged to participate in 
the system of guaranteeing deposits.  Those banks not included in the system would be deprived of the right to work with physical persons' funds. 
317. Regarding the construction sector, some members of the Working Party noted that services 
suppliers to the Russian market were subject to multiple approvals for each single aspect of their 
operation and that the procedural requirements for obtaining these approvals were generally 
non-transparent and applied in an non-consistent manner over time and in different geographic areas 
of the Russian Federation.  Those members asked  how the new legislative acts that the Russian 
Federation intended to enact on "debureaucratisa tion" would ensure that domestic regulations 
concerning construction-related activities would be  no more burdensome that necessary to guarantee 
the quality of the service and would not constitute unn ecessary barriers to trade in this area.  They 
further asked whether these new legislative act s would also establish any principles for the 
administration of these regulations, in particular en suring consistency of implementation in the entire 
territory of the Russian Federation, and what legal procedures would be availabl e to services suppliers 
who wished to appeal against administrative decisions. 
318. Regarding the energy sector, some members noted that the Russian Federation had so far 
made no commitments on mining, oil drilling and pi peline services. In this regard, these members 
requested details of the relationship, if any, be tween the lack of any co mmitments in these activities 
and the exercise of the Russian Federation's sovere ign rights over its subsoil and mineral and energy 
resources.  They further asked a clarification on the Russian Federation's intentions in respect of the 
development of a market environment in relation to the provision of mining, oil-drilling and pipeline 
services and whether these would be consistent with  the role that the Russian Federation saw for the 
conclusion of production sharing agreem ents and concession arrangements.  
319. One member of the Working Party expressed de ep concern over the Russian Federation's 
maintenance of a discriminatory regime with regard to the supply of services on the Russian 
Federation's services' market by his country's nationa ls residing in different regions of his country,  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 107 
 under the mode of supply –"commercial presence" a nd "movement of natural persons". A member 
requested the Russian Federation to make the necess ary adjustments in order to avoid discriminatory 
treatment and to allow all his nationals to provide services on the Russian market on an equal footing.  
Another member requested confir mation regarding the Russian Federation's intention to introduce 
international accounting standards (IAS) adopted by  the International Accounting Standards Board 
(IASB) for banks by 1 January 2004 and for all lis ted companies by 1 January 2005.  That member 
asked the Russian Federation to confirm this inform ation and indicate the steps by which it intended 
to achieve this objective.  He also requested th e Russian Federation to provide information on the 
actual application of IAS by Russian companies.   Another member asked whether the financial 
measures described by the Russian Federation in re lation to currency regulatio ns and controls were 
not already covered by Article XII of the GATS and paragraph 2 of the Annex on Financial Services. 
320. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that in the services sectors inscribed in 
the Russian Federation's Schedule of Specific Co mmitments, WTO Members' nationals who were 
services suppliers should be accorded treatment no l ess favorable than that provided for under the 
terms, limitations and conditions and subject to qualifications specified in its Schedule as it was 
provided by GATS.  He also noted that the re quirement for establishing a GATS enquiry point was 
being addressed.  He further noted that the Russi an Federation had a limited number of bilateral 
agreements related to debt settlements and tec hnical assistance measures resulting from agreements 
on legal assistance which contained some preferentia l provisions.  The Russian Federation understood 
that WTO provisions should not be construed as preventing the Russian Federation implementing 
these bilateral agreements for the period of their validity.  For the purpose of the protection of 
interests of investors, depositors and policy-holde rs, the protection of national currency of the Russian 
Federation and also for the purpose of ensuring the st ability and integrity of the financial system, the 
Russian Federation did not exclude the possibility of  applying measures affecting currency regulation 
and currency control and any transaction involving in struments of the internal debt of the Russian 
Federation and raising credits or loans at internati onal financial markets by issuance and placement of 
bonds and other issue-grade securities outside the territory of the Russian Federation. 
321. In the Russian Federation, services considered  as public utilities could be subject to public 
monopolies or exclusive rights granted to private opera tors.  Public utilities existed in sectors such as 
utility services, related scientific and technical consulting services, services on obligatory independent 
technical testing, appraisals, examinations and analysis, environmental services, health services, 
transport services and services auxiliary to all modes of transport.  Exclusive rights on such services 
could be granted to private operators, for instan ce operators with concessions from bodies of state 
power and local self-governmental bodies, subject  to specific services obligations.  These services WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 108  were universal and were supplied on the basis of pu blic contract.  These measures were applied on 
non-discriminatory basis with respect to foreign services suppliers. 
322. The policy of the Russian Federation in preser ving, developing, and disseminating culture, 
required that an authorization could be required with respect to the acquisition of control over a 
juridical person of the Russian Fede ration related to the cultural herita ge of Russian Federation and/or 
being a cultural property of the peoples of the Russ ian Federation.  Also the number of services 
suppliers and scope of their ope ration could be limited on non-discriminatory basis on the specially 
protected territories.   
323. For the purpose of the protection and preservati on of indigenous pers ons and exiguous ethnic 
communities, measures directed at the protection an d preservation of the territories of the traditional 
habitation of these group could be  applied, and preferences to these group could be granted with 
respect to their traditional economic activity on the territory of their traditional habitation. 
324. For the purpose of national security reasons, the Russian Federation could use measures to 
regulate economic and entrepreneur activities with r espect to trade in services, including possession, 
use and disposal of land, natural resources and im movable property, entry and/or permanent stay of 
physical persons could be limited or prohibited within the border zones and closed administrative areas.  Such measures were not aimed at discrimination of the foreign suppliers of services.   
325. [Members of the Working Party stated that th ey expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee transparency of licen sing requirements and procedures, qualification 
requirements and procedures as well as of other authori sation requirements, in particular with respect 
to obtaining, extending, renewing, denying and te rminating licences and other approvals required to 
provide services in the Russian Federation's market and appeals of such actions. The Russian Federation's licensing procedures and conditions should  not in themselves act as a barrier to market 
access and should not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  The Russian Federation should 
publish a list of authorities responsible for authoris ing, approving or regulating those service sectors 
in which The Russian Federation makes specific co mmitments and the Russian Federation's licensing 
procedures and conditions. Members also expected th e Russian Federation to make a commitment to 
guarantee that for those services that would be in cluded in the Russian Federation's Schedule of 
Specific Commitments, relevant regulatory authoritie s would be separated from, and not accountable 
to, any service suppliers they regulate. Members fu rther expected the Russian Federation to make a 
commitment to guarantee that foreign service supp liers remain free to choose their partners.] 
326. [In response, the representative of the Russi an Federation noted that with respect to 
transparency of licensing requirements and proce dures, qualification requirements and procedures as  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 109 
 well as other authorization requirements, the Ru ssian Federation would make commitments in 
accordance with GATS and as provided for under the te rms, limitations and conditions and subject to 
qualifications specified in its Schedule.] 
TRANSPARENCY 
- Publication of Information on Trade 327. Members of the Working Party requested a de scription of the legal authorization to 
implement Article X and the other transparency provisions required under WT O Agreements together 
with a confirmation that these provisions would be applied upon accession.  A clarification was 
particularly sought on where the Russian Federation' s laws, decrees, resolutions, orders, letters, etc. 
were published to fulfill the requirements of Article X and the other transparency provisions in WTO 
Agreements. 
328. The representative of the Russian Federation rep lied that in accordance with Article 15.3 of 
the Constitution of the Russian Federation, laws a nd other regulatory acts relating to human rights, 
freedom and duties were subject to official publicati on.  This provision was developed in Federal Law 
No. 5-FZ of 14 July 1994 "On the Procedures of P ublishing and Entering into Force of Federal 
Constitutional Laws, Federal Laws, Acts passed by the Chambers of the Federal Assembly"; and 
Presidential Decree No. 763 of 23 May 1996 "On the Procedures of Publication and Entering into Force of the Acts of the President of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and the Normative Legal Acts of the Fe deral Executive Bodies". According to Article 4 of 
the said federal law, the date of publication of a federal constitutional law,  federal law or an act 
passed by the Chambers of the Federal Assembly shoul d be the date of the first publication of their 
full text in the "Parlamentskaya Gazeta", "Rossi yskaya Gazeta" or in the digest 'Sobraniye 
Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii ". Federal constitutional laws, federal laws and acts of the 
Chambers might also be published in other press organs and brought to general knowledge through 
media, distributed to state authorities, official s, enterprises, establishments and organisations, 
transmitted via communication channels or distributed in machine-readable formats.  
329. He added that in accordance with paragraph 2 of the said Presidential Decree, acts of the 
President of the Russian Federation and acts of the Government of the Russian Federation were 
subject to official publication in the "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" and in the digest 'Sobraniye 
Zakonodatelstva Rossijskoj Federatsii" within ten days after their signing. Distribution of the acts of 
the President and the Government in a machine-readab le form by the scientific and technical centre of 
legal information "Systema" was also deemed to constitute an official publication. Moreover, in 
accordance with paragraph 9 of the same Presidential Decree, regulatory legal acts of the federal WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 110  bodies of executive power related to human rights, fr eedom and duties or establishing the legal status 
of organisations or acts of inter-departmental natu re were subject to official publication in the 
"Rossiyskaya Gazeta" within the days of their regi stration, and also in the "Bulletin of Normative 
Acts of the Federal Bodies of Executive Power" published by the publishing house "Yuridicheskaya 
Literature" of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation.  This Bulletin was 
distributed in a machine-readable form by "Systema". 
330. [The representative of the Russian Federation confirmed that from the date of accession all 
laws, regulations, decrees, decisions, judicial d ecisions and administrative rulings of general 
application related to trade would be publishe d promptly in a manner that fulfils the WTO 
requirements, including Article X of GATT 1994. As such, no law or regulation related to 
international trade would become effective prior to such publication in one or more official 
publication specifically identified for this purpose from the date of accession.  He also confirmed that 
the Russian Federation would observe the transpar ency requirements of the GATS, particularly 
Article II, from the date of accession.] 
- Notifications 
331. [Members of the Working Party sought a co mmitment that the Russian Federation would 
provide, as from the date of accession, initial notif ications for all WTO Agreements, and that 
regulations subsequently enacted by the Russian Federation which would give effect to the laws 
enacted to implement any of the WTO Agreements would also conform to the requirements of that 
Agreement.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration confirmed that upon accession, the Russian 
Federation would submit all initial notifications re quired by any Agreement constituting part of the 
WTO Agreement.  Any regulations subsequently enac ted by the Russian Federa tion which gave effect 
to the laws enacted to implement any Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement would also 
conform to the requirements of that Agreement.] 
FREE TRADE AND CUSTOMS UNION AGREEMENTS 
332. Members of the Working Party noted that it was customary to provide a detailed description 
of the scope, nature, and status of all preferential ar rangements.  This was required to ensure that the 
value of MFN commitments negotiate d in the schedules would be known to all parties.  They felt that 
the Russian Federation should consider how to im prove the information needed in this regard. 
333. The representative of the Russian Federation said that, in accordance with the Russian 
Federation's bilateral agreements on free trade with CIS countries and the Federal Republic of 
Yugoslavia, the importation of nearly all goods (i ncluding agricultural products) originating from 
these countries into the customs territory of the Russi an Federation was not subject to customs duties.   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 111 
 Such preferences were granted on the basis of a certif icate of origin, provided that the exporter was a 
resident of the exporting country.  He added that a number of agreements, aimed at a step-by-step 
formation of a customs union, had been signed be tween the Russian Federation and the Republic of 
Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic  of Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic. These 
agreements had been transformed into a single "A greement on the Establishment of the Eurasian 
Economic Community" taking effect on 30 May 2001.  Pursuant to Article 6 of this Agreement, a 
customs tariff common for the Russian Federation,  Belarus, Kazakhstan a nd Tajikistan would be 
gradually formed within a five year period.  Th e Agreement provided for possible extension of the 
timeframe for formation of the Common Customs Ta riff beyond the original five-year period. This 
process would fully take into account the future commitments of the Russian Federation as a WTO 
member, including, inter alia, the provisions of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of the 
GATS.   
334. He said that trade agreements in specific se ctors concluded with several WTO Members and 
falling into the definition of "voluntary export restra int agreements", covered different products such 
as steel and steel products, certain fertilizers, textil es and sport weapons.  As it was not the intention 
of the Russian Federation to continue these agreem ents which were not in conformity with WTO 
provisions, the Russian Federation intended to propose to its other parties either to bring them into 
conformity with the WTO or to terminate them as from the date of the Russian Federation' s accession 
to the WTO. 
335. Members of the Working Party required furthe r clarification on how the Russian Federation 
intended to ensure compliance between its pr ocess of accession to the WTO and its commitments 
undertaken in the framework of the Customs Union,  notably with respect to the establishment of a 
common external tariff considering that a Customs Union country was already member of the WTO. 
Some Members sought fuller explanation of the r easons why MFN exemptions would be needed in 
the Russian Federation's GATS Schedule if, as the Ru ssian Federation had claimed, the customs union 
arrangements would be in conform ity with Article V of the GATS. Another member enquired whether 
the Russian Federation would confirm that preferenti al access to exports of other CIS countries to the 
Russian market was limited to exporters resident in the exporting country as, if this was the case, this 
provision would be inconsistent with WTO obligations.  
336. [Members of the Working Party sought a co mmitment that the Russian Federation would 
observe Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS in its participation in trade 
agreements, and would ensure that the provisi ons of these WTO Agreements for notification, 
consultation and other requirements concerning fr ee trade areas and customs unions were met upon 
accession, and that any subsequent legislation or regulations enacted or altered under these 
agreements would remain consistent  with the provisions of the WTO.  More specifically, the Russian WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 112  Federation should notify its Free Trade Areas, Cust oms Union, and Economic Union Agreements for 
review by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreem ents (CRTA) upon accession.  The representative 
of the Russian Federation confirmed that his Gove rnment would observe the provisions of the WTO 
including Article XXIV of GATT 1994 and Article V of the GATS in its participation in trade 
agreements, and would ensure that the provisi ons of these WTO Agreements for notification, 
consultation and other requirements concerning fr ee trade areas and customs unions of which the 
Russian Federation was a member were met from the date of accession.  He confirmed that the Russian Federation would, upon accession, submit notifi cations and copies of its Free Trade Area and 
Customs Union Agreements to the Committee on Re gional Trade Agreements (CRTA).  He further 
confirmed that any legislation or regulations requi red to be altered under its  Trade Agreements would 
remain consistent with the provisions of the WT O and would, in any case, be notified to the CRTA 
during its examination of the same.] 
Conclusions 
337. [to be completed]  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 113 
 
Table 1  
 
Currency Restrictions on Current Currency Operations  
identified by the IMF Expert Group Report on the Basis of  
Interviews Conducted with the  Ru ssian Federation authorities under  
Article IV (Exchange Arrange ment) of the IMF Agreements  
 
I-III Restrictions on "S" type Ruble accounts op erations of non-residents (three out of six 
restrictions mentioned in the IMF Restrictions  Expertise Report relat e to such accounts) 
 "S" type accounts are non-resident Ruble accounts which were opened with authorized banks licensed 
by the Bank of Russia.  The accounts we re subdivided into "S" type accounts  (conversing) and "S" 
type accounts (investment).  The Bank of Russia wa s authorized to establis h intermediate transit 
accounts through a special regime.  These accounts were used to tr ansfer Rubles from type "S" 
investment account to type "S" conversing account for further pur chase of foreign currency and 
repatriation of means. 
"S" type accounts could be opened by both non-residents with juridical  person status (including those 
who did not have representation or a branch office on the territory of the Russian Federation) and 
non-residents with natural person status (including  those who were not individual entrepreneurs).  
Non-residents had the right to have "S" type accounts  in more than one bank, to transfer their means 
to the accounts of other non-residents held with the same authorized bank or with other authorized 
banks.  Non-residents were also free to transfer means from their conversing and investment "S" type accounts with one authorized bank to their appropri ate "S" type accounts held with other authorized 
banks (except the means which had entered trans it accounts).  Under the Russian Federation's 
legislation non-residents could draw the means from "S" type accounts to purchase the following securities: 
- state short-term voucher-free bonds; 
- federal loan bonds; 
- Russian Federation's emitters' corporate bonds (a  different credit rating from sovereign bonds 
of no more than two grades) which were included into the trade organizers' first grade quoting list; 
- Russian Federation's emitters’ shares included in to the trade organizers’  first grade quoting 
list; 
- Russian Federation subjects' bonds (a different credit rating from sovereign bonds of no more 
than two grades). 
Under the Russian Federation's foreign exchange regulation and control legislation non-residents' 
operations with the above securities were referred to portfolio investments, which were not current 
operations under his legislation.  Regulations established by the Bank of Russia in relation to 
operations with securities did not therefore contradi ct Article VIII of the IMF Agreements and other 
international agreements. 
Restrictions on "S" type accounts we re introduced as a result of th e August 1998 default to prevent 
aggravation of the crisis.  Overco ming the crisis made the regime of the "S" type accounts more 
liberal and thus made it possible for non-residents to use the mean s of these accounts for investment 
into residents' businesses as part of the capital of the businesses and for providing purpose loans to 
residents, to reduce the terms of the existence of the means on transit accounts from 365 days to 120 days, and transfer means and se curities between "S" type accou nts which belong to different 
non-residents.  The Bank of Russia held auctions on the sale of foreign currency of the owner of the 
means which are on "S" type accounts.  There were no limits for the transpor tation of the currency 
which has been purchased at such auctions.  The process of making such accounts more liberal would 
continue. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 114  
IV. Non-residents' "N" type Ruble ac counts operations (non-conversing) 
 Non-residents had the right to use Rubles including those in "K ", "N", "F" accounts when making 
payments in the territory of the Russian Federation.  The mechanism of converting the means on the accounts stated was based on the principle of divi sion of residents' paymen ts to non-residents and 
depending on whether the operation carried out prior to the payment was one under which the Russian 
Federation was obliged to provide convertibility in accordan ce with international contracts and federal 
laws.  For non-residents' "N" type Ruble accounts, a special procedure for conversion was established 
when conversion only occurred 365 days after filing a commission for the purchase of foreign 
currency to the authorized bank by a non-resident.  There would be no restrictions on non-residents transferal abroad of foreign curren cy received from this conversion  
V. Restrictions on the transfer of foreign currency  as an advance payment for import by residents 
 Currency regulation and control legislation covered operations for advance payments made for the 
import of goods, works, services, re sults of intellectual activity by re sidents for a period exceeding 90 
days from the day of transfer of the foreign currency up to the day of the transportation of goods.  Procedures were determined by the Central Bank of Russia in conformity with the Russian 
Federation's commitments under Article VIII of the IMF Agreements.  Permits for importers to 
transfer foreign currency from the Russian Federation (foreign cu rrency entering the account of a 
non-resident supplier with an authorized bank) were required for: 
- payment for imported goods if the time between the currency transfer and entry of the goods 
into the Russian Federation exceeded 90 days un der the Order of the Central Bank of the 
Russian Federation No. 39 of 24 April 1996 "On the Change of the Procedure for Performing 
Certain Kinds of Currency Operations in the Russian Federation" (to be submitted), except 
cases which were envisaged by Federal Law No. 3615-1 of 9 October 1992 of the Russian 
Federation "On Currency Regulation And Control" (WT/ACC/RUS/36 refers); 
- payment for services provided by non-residents , works and results of intellectual activity, if 
the time between the currency transfer and provis ion of the services exceeded 90 days under 
Regulations of the Central Bank of Russia No. 157-P of 24 October 2001 on the "Procedure 
for Settling Accounts between Residents and No n-residents under Cont racts of Carrying Out 
Works, Rendering Services or Transfer of In tellectual Activities' Results" (to be submitted). 
The issuance of permits for the above operations wa s determined by normative acts of the Bank of 
Russia (also by Order of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation No. 02-378 of 11 October 1996 "On Putting into Effect of the Provisional Procedur e for Granting Permits by the Chief Administration 
(National Banks) of the Central Bank of the Ru ssian Federation for Particular Foreign Currency 
Operations" (to be submitted)).  Permits were issued by (i)  branch offices of the Bank of Russia, if that the advance payment determined by the im port contract did not ex ceed US$10 million (or 
equivalent) or (ii)  the central office (headquarters) of the Bank of Russia (Department of Currency 
Regulation And Control) of this am ount was exceeded, and (iii)  the central office (hea dquarters) of 
the Bank of Russia (Department of Currency Regulation And Control) if the transfer is for advance 
payment for import of services, works, the results of the intellectual activity.  Permits of the Central 
Bank of the Russian Federation authorizing the above operations were issued exclusively to resident 
importers of the Russian Federation. 
Permits were granted on submission of the following  documentation to the Bank of Russia territorial 
division of the place of the importer's registration, or to the Department of Currency Regulation and 
Currency Control of the Bank of Russia (depending on the nature of operation and the amount of 
advance payment): 
- application written in a free form, signed by the manager of the importing organization; 
- notarized copies of foundation documents of the importer; 
- notarized copies of the state registration document of the importer; 
- a reference letter from the Tax Inspectorate concerning Ruble and current accounts opened 
for the importer with the authorized banks of the Russian Federation; 
- reference letters from the tax authority whic h performed the importer's registration as 
taxpayer confirming that the importer did not have any tax debts or other outstanding duty 
payments and was in compliance with tax legi slation (where there were any obligations 
outstanding the permit might still be issued subject to consent of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation or the Ministry of Taxes and Levies of the Russian Federation); 
- reference letters from the authorized banks of the Russian Federation in which the importer  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 115 
 
had current currency accounts conf irming that there are no debt s on currency revenue yield 
and its mandatory sale, compliance with currency legislation and sufficient funds in the importers' accounts to cover the advance payments; 
- the balance for the last accounting year and at the date of the importer's application to the 
Bank of Russia (this must be signed by the manager and the chief accountant of the importer, sealed with a round seal and attach the audit opinion confirming the balance to be true and 
accurate), certified by  the Tax Inspectorate 
- a report of financial results for the last accounting year and at the date of the importer's 
application to the Bank of Russia,  certified by the Tax Inspectorate; 
- a certificate from the state authority for sta tistics on assigning a code to the importer 
- copies of contracts between the importer and the supplier of goods as amended or 
supplemented (in Russian and in the original language); 
- copies of cargo customs declarations confirming the export of goods; 
- information from the authorized bank of the Russian Federation on funds actually remitted 
under the contract (with copies of payment documents attached); 
- notarized copies of sales permits for certain types of goods, licenses to engage in certain 
types of activity (as required by legislation). 
Territorial branches of the Bank of Russia would consider these documents and grant a permit or 
substantiated refusal within one month of their submission, and the Department of Currency 
Regulation and Currency Control of the Bank of Russia within two months.  Refusal was mainly due 
to (i)  non-compliance with currency, customs or in r ectified tax legislation, (ii)  violation of the terms 
of permits issued previously and (iii)  non-compliance of the documentation, incomplete documentation, or non-compliance with the form of presentation of the documentation. 
VI. Restrictions on operations with residents of members 
 Issue was of a bilateral nature.  The Bank of Russi a is currently considering possibilities of regulating 
this issue. 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 116  
Table 2:  Progress in Privatization of Enterprises of State 
 
and Municipal Ownership Within 1993-2001  
 
Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 
No. of privatized 
enterprises of 
state and 
municipal ownership 42,924 21,905 10,152 4,997 2,743 2,129 1,536 2,274 2,287
Including those by the form of property 
Federal 7,063 5,685 1,875 928 374 264 104 170 125
Subjects of the 
Russian 
Federation  9,521 5,112 1,317 715 548 321 298 274 231
Municipal 26,340 11,108 6,960 3,354 1,821 1,544 1134 1830 1,931
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 117 
 
Table 3:  Progress in Privatization of Enterprises of State  
and Municipal Ownership Concerning Specific Areas of Activity Within 1993-2001  
 
Area of activity 1993-2001 
Industry 
- electric energy 21,915 
194 
Agricultural Sector 1,842 
Transport  - railway  
- auto road  
- pipeline  - maritime transport 
- internal waterways  
- air transport  - loading, unloading and expeditious services 3,242 
57 
2,529 
5 
44 
104 
67 93 
Communications  
Construction  
Wholesale trade Retail  trade 
Public catering 
Housing and related services  Services to the population  
Health care and other types of social care  
Public education  Culture and art  
Science  
Other areas of economy 206 
8,182 
1,653 
25,505 
5,137 
3,037 1,940 
356 
278 331 
654 
16,669 
Total 90,947 
Source : Annual Report On Development of State sector of Economy in the Russian Federation in 2001, 
Goskomstat. WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 118  
Table 4:  List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption for Which Prices are 
 
Regulated by the Government of the Russ ian Federation and Federal Executive Bodies  
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
271121 Natural gas (excluding as sold 
to the population) The Federal Energy Commission 
271111 
271129 
 Accompanying oil gas and 
stripped dry gas8, casing-head 
gas (sold to gas processing 
plants for further processing), liquefied gas for household 
needs (excluding as sold to the 
population) The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on 
agreement with the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of 
Finance of the Russian 
Federation Setting of fixed prices of 
the limit level 
2844 Nuclear fuel cycle products  The Ministry of Nuclear Power 
of the Russian Federation  
271600 Electric power and heat po wer The Federal Energy Commission Fixed tariffs or their limit 
levels 
9301 9307 
871000 Products for defence purposes The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation Setting of fixed or 
approximate prices 
7101- 
7103 
 Raw diamonds and precious 
stones The Ministry of Finance of the 
Russian Federation on 
agreement with the Ministry of 
Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation Setting of the fixed price 
9021 Prosthetic and orthopaedic 
appliances The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on submission of the Ministry of 
Labour and Social Development 
and the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation  Setting of the profitability 
limit level 
2208 Vodka, liquor products and 
other alcohol products 
stronger than 28 proof, produced in the territory of the 
Russian Federation or 
imported into the customs territory of the Russian 
Federation. The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on submission of the Ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the minimum 
price 
2208 Ethyl alcohol from raw 
eatables produced on the 
territory of the Russian 
Federation The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade on 
submission of the ministry of 
Agriculture of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the minimum 
price 
7131 Transportation of crude oil 
and oil derivatives by trunk pipelines The Federal Energy Commission Setting of the maximum 
limit level 
7112 
741 Transportation of cargoes, 
railway loading and unloading 
operations The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian Federation. Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
services 
                                                      
8 Excluding gas sold by the gas producer organizations not being affiliated to the Russian Joint-Stock 
Company Gazprom, the joint-stock comp anies Yakutgazprom, Norilskgazprom and 
Rosneft-Sakhalinmorneftegaz and also the gas sold to the populace and housing construction cooperatives. 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 119 
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
71111 7112 Transportation of passengers, 
baggage, cargoes and mail by railway transport (except 
suburban traffic) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading services 
741 Loading and unloading 
operations in ports, port duties The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation on submission of the 
Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level 
745 Charges for passage through 
internal waterways by vessels 
flying foreign flags The Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation on 
agreement with The Ministry of Finance of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
profitability limit level 
74610 
74110 
4190 Aircraft, passengers and 
cargoes services in airports The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
profitability limit level 
74590 Ice-breaking fleet service The Ministry of Economic 
Development and Trade of the 
Russian Federation on submission of the Ministry of 
Transport of the Russian 
Federation and on agreement with the Ministry of Finance of 
the Russian Federation  Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or 
profitability limit level 
74620 Aeronavigation services of 
aircraft on the routes and on airfields The Ministry of Transport of the 
Russian Federation (the Federal Aviation Service) Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or profitability limit level 
7511 
752 
7524 Certain postal and electronic 
communication services, 
communication services in respect of broadcasting of 
programmes of Russian state 
TV and radio organizations The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff  
75111 
75112 Domestic postal items: letters, 
post cards, parcels (only for 
State Post office) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7522 
75232 Domestic telegram (only for 
State Post office) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
75212 Provision of a long-distance 
telephone link (connection) through an automatic or 
manually operated 
switchboard irrespective of a type device used by 
subscribers The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7541 Provision of trunk telegraph 
and telephone communications channels to 
organizations funded by 
corresponding budgets The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 120  
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
7524 Distribution and broadcasting 
of All-Russia television and radio programs The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
7521 Provision of access to the 
telephone network irrespective of the type of lines employed 
by subscribers (wire or 
wireless lines) The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
75211 Provision of a local telephone 
link (connection) to registered 
subscribers The Ministry for Anti-Monopoly 
Policy and Support of 
Entrepreneurship of the Russian 
Federation. Setting of a fixed tariff 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 121 
 
Table 5:   List of Goods and Services for Internal Consumption for Which Prices are  
Regulated by the Government of the Russia n Federation and Sub-Fe deral Executive Bodies  
 
HS code/ 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
271112 Natural gas distributed to the 
population and building 
cooperative societies The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
271111 Liquefied gas distributed to 
the population for household 
purposes (except gas to refuel 
motor vehicles) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
271600 Electric power and heat 
power  Regional Power Commissions 
on agreement with the Federal Energy Commission 
2701 
2704 Solid fuel, furnace fuel for 
household use and kerosene 
distributed to the population The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of fixed prices or 
their limit level 
3001- 
3006 Mercantile markups on prices 
for medicines and goods of 
medical designation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the amount of 
mercantile mark-ups 
931 
933 Social services supplied to 
the population of the Russian 
Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the amount limit 
of the mercantile mark-ups 
931 
933 Social services guaranteed by 
the State and supplied to 
elderly citizens and invalids 
of the Russian Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation  
71211 Transportation of passengers 
and baggage by all types of 
public transport, including 
urban, subway and suburban transport (except railway 
transport) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading 
operations 
9703 Funeral services The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
9401 18000 Water supply and sewage 
systems services The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
82101 
82201 Payments for public utilities 
by the population The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Determining the amount of 
mercantile mark-ups 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 122  
Table 6:  List of Services for Internal C onsumption for which the Sub-FederalExecutive 
 
Bodies have the right to introduce regional regulations over prices (tariffs) and markups  
 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
622 Marketing and 
mercantile markups on 
prices for products and commodities distributed 
in the Far North areas or 
territories of equivalent status with limited cargo 
delivery periods The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
6310 642 Markups for products 
(commodities), distributed to public 
catering enterprises 
affiliated with secondary schools, vocational 
schools, secondary 
specialized and higher educational institutions The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Setting of the amount limit 
of the mercantile mark-ups 
6222 Mercantile markups for 
baby food (including 
food concentrates) The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the profitability 
limit level  
71112 Transportation of 
passengers and baggage by suburban railway 
transport (upon 
agreement with the 
Ministry of Railways of 
the Russian Federation), and provided that the 
losses resulting from 
tariff regulation are reimbursed from the 
respective budget of the 
subjects of the Russian Federation The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation on agreement with 
the Ministry of Railway 
Transport of the Russian 
Federation 
71213 71221 Transportation of 
passengers and baggage 
by motor transport along intra-regional and 
inter-regional routes 
(inter-republican routes within the Russian 
Federation), including 
taxi The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation 
731 7221 Local transportation of 
passengers and baggage 
by local airlines and river 
transport The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian 
Federation Setting of the tariffs and 
fees for loading and unloading operations 
7211 7212 7221 
7222 
731 732 Transportation of 
cargoes, passengers and baggage by sea, river and 
air transport in the Far 
North areas and the territories of equivalent 
status The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Setting of tariffs and fees 
for loading and unloading operations  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 123 
 
CPC Description of goods and 
services Regulating body Principles of setting of the 
prices 
7113 741 Services rendered on 
branch lines by enterprises of the 
industrial railway 
transport and other 
subjects  The Executive Bodies of the 
Subjects of the Russian Federation Setting of the coefficient 
limit of raising of tariffs or limit level 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 124  
Table 7:  Licensing fees structure for manufacturing, storage, 
 
wholesale, exportation and importa tion of alcoholic beverages  
 
Types of Activity Licence fees 
(in minimum wages) Equivalent in Rubles 
Manufacturing and wholesale of alcoholic 
beverages 500 50,000 
Exportation of alcoholic beverages 100 or 5009 10,000 or 50,000 
Importation, storage and wholesale of 
alcoholic beverages 1,000 or 15,000 100,000 or 1,500,000 
 
 
Table 8:  Tariff structure  
 
Tariff rate (per cent) Number of tariff items 
0 46 
5 3,989 
10 1,890 
15 3,120 
20 1,824 
25 108 
30 5 
above 30 50 
 
 
Table 9:   Tabulation of the trade weighted average customs tariff rates  
 
Year Percentage 
1995 16.0 
1996 17.7 
1997 13.3 
1998 12.8 
1999 11.7 
2000 11.4 
2001 11.1 
                                                      
9 Lesser  fees correspond to payment for single opera tion license, while larger ones  - for  general  
licence.  Single operation licenses for exports or imports  were issued for delivery of alcoholic products for the customs value of up to 10,000 minimum wages (approximately US$32,000)  or of the volume in terms of 
absolute alcohol of  up to 2,000 decilitres and for duration of  not more than two months. The general licence 
was issued for exports or imports of alcoholic products for the period of one year starting from the date of issuance of this licence.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 125 
 
Table 10:  Fees and charges for customs services rendered related to im portation or exportation  
Description of Se rvice Rendered/ 
Purpose of Fees Rate Applied 
Customs charge for customs clearance 0.1 per cent of the customs value of the goods in 
Rubles10 
Additional customs charge for customs clearance 0.05  per cent of the customs value of goods in 
foreign currency  
Customs charges for storage of goods in temporary storage warehouses, where the goods to be placed 
before the customs clearance
11, 12 
- the same in specially designed  warehouses 
- in customs warehouses for goods placed 
 under the customs warehouse regime  
 
 
0.02 Euro/kg of gross weight for every 24 hrs 0.03 Euro/kg of gross weight for every 24 hrs 
0.04 Euro/kg of gross weight  
and 3 Euro/vehicle per every 24 hrs 
Customs charges for cust oms escort of goods 
a) for each motor and rail way vehicle utilized either 
for the transportation of goods or which moves under 
its own power to be used as a commodity  - for the distance up to 50 km 
- for the distance from 50 to 100 km 
- for the distance from100 to 200 km - for the distance over 200 km  
 
 
 20 minimum wages (2,000 Rubles)
13 
30 minimum wages (3,000 Rubles) 
40 minimum wages (4,000 Rubles) 60 minimum wages (6,000 Rubles) 
Payment for the information and consultation US$0.2-50  depending upon the amount the 
information provided and short notice 
Payment for taking preliminary decision on classification of goods according to HS codes five minimum wages (500 Rubles) 
 
                                                      
10 The State Customs Committee may reduce custom s charge for customs clearance to zero 
11 For the warehouses establis hed by customs authorities only 
12 The customs authorities may reduce the charges for storage by half of the maximum 
13 The minimum wage is roughly US$3.2 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 126  
Table 11:  Stamp Tax related to  imports and exports (updated)
 
Service rendered/type of Fees and Charges Rates applied14 
For committing notary actions by the notaries of the 
state notary's offices or by  official persons of the 
executive power bodies, the bodies of local self-government and of the consular institutions 
authorised for this and also for their compiling the 
drafts of the documents and issuing the copies and duplicates of the documents, the state duty shall be 
levied in the following amounts:  
1. for the attestation of ag reements the subject of 
which is subject to evaluation 1.5 per cent of the value of the agreement but at 
least 50 per cent of the minimal wage 
2. for the attestation of agency agreements 0.5 pe r cent of the amount of  obligation undertaken 
but at least 30 per cent of the minimal wage 
3. for the certification of other warrants 20 per cent  of the minimum wage  
4. for effecting a captain's protest 15-fold minimum wage  
5. for testifying to the correctness of a document's 
translation from one language into another 10 per cent of the minimum wage per 1 page of  the 
document's translation 
6. for accepting in deposit of moneys and  securitie s  0.5 per cent of accepted monetary sum and the 
value of securities 
7. for testifying to the correctness of the copies of 
other documents and of the extracts from 
documents 1 per cent  of the minimum wage per 1 page 
8. for testifying to the authenticity of the signature: 
-  on applications and on other documents  (with the exception of the bank cards)  
-  on bank cards (from every person and on every 
document)  
 5 per cent of the minimum wage  
 
1 minimum wage  
9. for the issue of duplicates of the documents, kept 
in the cases of the state notary's offices, executive 
power bodies and consular institutions 50 per cent  of the minimum wage  
10. for the performance of the technical work  of 
preparation of the above documents (print, 
editing, check of texts)  two per cent of the minimal wage per page 
 
                                                      
14 The minimum wage is roughly US$3.2   WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1
 Page 127Table 12:  Consular Fees  
Rates applied (US$) Documents and acts, for which  
consular fees are collected CIS countries and Baltic countries Other countries 
Fees for certification and notarization of documents  
For certification of each document 3 30 
Power of attorney notarization  
For power of attorney authorizing the use and 
command of property, including motor vehicles, as 
well as carrying out the lending operations:  6 60 
For confirming other powers claimed by an 
individual 2 20 
For notarization of:  
Agreements subject to evaluation: 5% of the amount specified in the agreement, but no less 
than US$1.  5 % of the amount specified in the agreement, but no 
less than US$10.  
For authentication of signature: 1 10 
For authentication of copies of instruments and extracts from instruments  1.5 15 
For authentication of photostats:  6 
For issuing the extracts from, or copies of, 
instruments kept in the files of consular offices (for one page) 1.5 15 
 If less than one page of text of an extract from, or a copy 
of, instrument is issued, the collected fee shall correspond 
to the same for a full page.  Minimum fee for this act: 
30 
For making an executive inscription 2% of the collected amount, but no less than  US$0.5. 2% of the collected amount, but no le ss than  US$5.  
 For processing the documents 
certifying the fact of purchasing the motor vehicles 
or motorcycles 1% of value of the given 
transport facility assessed by mercantile 
business,  but no less 
than US$10.  Translation with simultaneous notarization of its 
correctness for each page: 
   For translations from foreign 
languages into Russian 20 
   For translations from Russian 
into foreign languages 35  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 128 Rates applied (US$) Documents and acts, for which  
consular fees are collected CIS countries and Baltic countries Other countries 
   For certification of 
correctness of a translation made without participation of 
consular office for each page 15 
   For typing the documents 5 
Consulage for consular service of sea- and air-craft  
 Executing the protest by 
master 5 Executing the protest by 
master 50 
 Issuing the certificate of 
loading or unloading 
operations with a vessel flying 
a foreign flag, as well as 
certifying other shipping documents 10 Issuing the certificate of 
loading or unloading 
operations with a vessel 
flying a foreign flag, as well 
as certifying other shipping documents 100 
 Issuing the temporary 
certificate confirming the right 
to fly a flag of the Russian 
Federation or ownership of vessel 15 Issuing the temporary 
certificate confirming the 
right to fly a flag of the 
Russian Federation or ownership of vessel 150 
 Prolongation of the term of 
validity of vessel documents 
and processing the logbooks 3 Prolongation of the term of 
validity of vessel documents 
and processing the logbooks 30 
 Notarization of various 
certificates and applications; 
issuing the cargo certificate; 
adding crew Members to a crew list, or removing them 
from it 3 Notarization of various 
certificates and applications; 
issuing the cargo certificate; 
adding crew Members to a crew list, or removing them 
from it 30 
 Gluing the additional sheets in 
crew list or logbook 2 Gluing the additional sheets 
in crew list or logbook 20 
 Notarization of sanitary 
certificate 3 Notarization of sanitary 
certificate 30 
 Executing a protocol of 
salvaging the wrecked or 
stolen vessel 2.5 Executing a protocol of 
salvaging the wrecked or 
stolen vessel 25 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 129 
 
 Table 13(a):  Port Fees used in Commercial Seaports of  
the Russian Federation Group Classification of Vessels  
 
Group of 
vessels Vessels and floating facilities 
A Foreign-going cargo vessels and facilities,  including non-self propelled ones.  
B Coastal-traffic cargo vesse ls and facilities, including non-self propelled ones. 
C Foreign-going inter-port ferries. Foreign-going passenger ships.  
D Coastal-traffic inter-port ferrie s. Coastal-traffic passenger sh ips. Ice breakers not operated 
day-to-day or rented by port sea administration (or seaport administration). 
E Lighters on board the lighter-aboard ship; warships; hospital ships; sports vessels; private 
yachts; technical vessels used for deepening wo rks in ports; vessels of local port fleet, 
shipyards or ASPTR/LRN; ice breakers operated day-to-day by port sea administration (or 
seaport administration) and not rented by them.  
F Transit vessels; vessels touching at a port forcedly, for damage repairs, quarantine needs or 
custom house and frontier formalities, as well as  the vessels undergoing performance trial.  
G Service vessels; research ships; surveying vessels.  
H Fishing and other vessels of a fish industry department.  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 130  
 
 Table 13(b): Port Fees used in Commercial Seaports of the Russian Federation
 
 
Port US$ Port US$ 
1. Tonnage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventio nal capacity, separately for each fetching into the port 
and sailing from it.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.270 Taganrog 0.140 
Sochi 0.285 Tuapse 0.250 
  Other ports 0.184 
Baltic basin  
Vyborg 0.200 Kaliningrad 0.170 
Vysotsk  0.220 Other ports 0.210 
Saint Petersburg  0.240   
North basin  
Arkhangelsk  0.230 Naryan-Mar 0.240 
Amderma  0.218 Onega 0.216 
Kandalaksha  0.216 Tiksi 0.216 
Mezen  0.216 Kh atanga 0.216 
Murmansk  0.230 Other ports 0.216 
Arctic and Far East basin  
Anadyr  0.175 Pevek 0.175 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin  0.279 Provideniya 0.210 
Beringovskiy  0.175 Petropavlovsk-Ka
mchatsky 0.175 
Boshnyakovo  0.234 Poronaysk  0.248 
Vladivistok  0.223 Posyet 0.205 
Vostochny  0.223 Uglegorsk  0.234 
Vanino  0.210 Ust-Kamchatsk  0.175 
Korsakov  0.220 Kholmsk   0.223 
Krasnogorsk  0.225 Shakhtyorsk  0.234 
Magadan  0.175 Egvekinot  0.265 
Nakhodka  0.223 Other ports  0.175 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.223   
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur  0.225   
Caspian basin  
Makhachkala 0.150 Other ports  0.112 
Astrakhan (Olya) 0.120   
2. Beaconage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity upon each fetching into the port and its 
transit passing.   Exempted from the light dues are vesse ls calling for refuge to perform an emergency repair and the vessels of 
group "D". Vessels of groups "E" and "G" are exempt ed from the beaconage dues  unless they perform cargo 
handling and operations of commercial nature at the port.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.025 Taganrog 0.025 
Sochi 0.025 Tuapse 0.025 
  Other ports 0.025 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.025 Kaliningrad 0.025 
Vysotsk 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Saint Petersburg 0.025   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.025 Naryan-Mar 0.025  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 131 
 
 
 Port US$ Port US$ 
Amderma 0.025 Onega 0.025 
Kandalaksha 0.025 Tiksi 0.025 
Mezen 0.025 Kh atanga 0.025 
Murmansk 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.025 Pevek 0.025 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin 0.025 Provideniya 0.025 
Beringovskiy 0.025 Petro-pavlovsk-Ka
mchatskiy 0.025 
Boshnyakovo 0.025 Poronaysk 0.025 
Vladivostok 0.025 Posyet 0.025 
Vostochny 0.025 Uglegorsk 0.025 
Vanino 0.025 Ust-Kamchatsk 0.025 
Korsakov 0.025 Kholmsk 0.025 
Krasnogorsk 0.025 Shakhtyorsk 0.025 
Magadan 0.025 Egvekinot 0.025 
Nakhodka 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.025   
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur  0.025   
Caspian basin 
Makhachkala 0.025 Other ports 0.025 
Astrakhan 0.025   
3. Canal dues  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventiona l capacity upon each pass of canal in one direction.  
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Taganrog 0.072 Tuapse 0.009 
Sea of Azov – Don River Canal  0.216   
Baltic basin 
Kaliningrad 0.075 Saint Petersburg 0.070 
Vyborg 0.045   
Vysotsk 0.025   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.196 Naryan-Mar 0.299 
Mezen 0.159 Onega 0.299 
Far East basin 
Vostochny  0.011 Nikolaevsk-on-Am
ur 0.050 
Kholmsk 0.011   
Caspian basin 
Volga River – Caspian Sea Canal   Makhachkala 0.016 
Astrakhan 0.790   
Astrakhan (Olya) 0.480   
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 132  
 
  
Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
Port for vessel being 
alongside, with 
load handling 
operations  
carried out 
 
US$ for all other cases 
 
US$ US$ 
4. Wharfage  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventional capacity for each day of vessel being alongside. 
The wharfage dues are collected from vessels staying alongside the berth. For the vessels of groups "A", "B" 
and "H" wharfage dues are charged per 1 m3 of the conventional volume of the vessel for each day of the 
vessel' s stay alongside the berth. The time of stay at a berth is rounded off upward to one-half of the day. 
For the vessels of groups "C", "D", "E", "F" and "G" berth dues are charged per 1m3 of the conventional 
volume for each call. 
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk  
- for bulk-carriers  0.0022 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers 0.0045 0.0015  
Sochi 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Taganrog 0.0063 0.0021 0.0044 
Tuapse  
- for bulk-carriers 0.0021 0.0007 0.0044 
- for tankers  0.0042 0.0014  
Other ports 0.0040 0.0014 0.0044 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0051 0.0017 0.0040 
Vysotsk 0.0056 0.0019 0.0040 
Kaliningrad 0.0070 0.0023 0.0040 
Saint Petersburg 0.0031 0.0010 0.0040 
Other ports 0.0040 0.0013 0.0040 
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0062 0.0021 0.0050 
Kandalaksha 0.0180 0.0060 0.0050 
Murmansk 0.0049 0.0016 0.0050 
Naryan-Mar 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Tiksi 0.0072 0.0024 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0100 0.0033 0.0050 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0079 0.0027 0.0070 
Vanino 0.0046 0.0015 0.0060 
Vladivostok 0.0054 0.0018 0.0060 
Vostochny 0.0130 0.0043 0.0060 
Korsakov 0.0190 0.0063 0.0060 
Magadan 0.0056 0.0018 0.0070 
Nakhodka 0.0049 0.0016 0.0060 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0148 0.0049 0.0060 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0184 0.0061 0.0060 
Pevek 0.0113 0.0038 0.0070 
Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy 0.0121 0.0040 0.0070 
Posyet 0.0113 0.0038 0.0060 
Provideniya 0.0068 0.0024 0.0070 
Kholmsk 0.0190 0.0063 0.0070  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 133 
 
 
 Group A, B or H vessels Group C, D, E, F 
or G vessels 
Port for vessel being 
alongside, with 
load handling 
operations  
carried out 
 
US$ for all other cases 
 
US$ US$ 
Egvekinot 0.0103 0.0034 0.0070 
Other ports 0.0097 0.0032 0.0060 
Caspian basin 
Astrakhan 0.0220 0.0070 0.0044 
Makhachkala 0.0156 0.0052 0.0050 
Other ports 0.0146 0.0048 0.0044 
5. Anchor dues  
Shall be collected for 1 cubic meter of vessel conventiona l capacity for each hour of anchorage in the outer or 
inner harbor in excess of 12 hours. Incomplete hour of anchorage shall be considered as a complete hour of 
anchorage.      
Black Sea – Sea of Azov basin 
Novorossiysk 0.0001 Taganrog 0.0001 
Sochi 0.0001 Tuapse 0.0001 
  Other ports 0.0001 
Baltic basin 
Vyborg 0.0001 Kaliningrad 0.0001 
Vysotsk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Saint Petersburg 0.0001   
North basin 
Arkhangelsk 0.0001 Naryan-Mar 0.0001 
Amderma 0.0001 Onega 0.0001 
Kandalaksha 0.0001 Tiksi 0.0001 
Mezen 0.0001 Khatanga 0.0001 
Murmansk 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Arctic and Far East basins 
Anadyr 0.0001 Pevek 0.0001 
Aleksandrovsk-in-Sakhalin 0.0001 Provideniya 0.0001 
Beringovskiy 0.0001 Petropavlovsk-Ka
mchatskiy 0.0001 
Boshnyakovo 0.0001 Poronaysk 0.0001 
Vladivostok 0.0001 Posyet 0.0001 
Vostochny 0.0001 Uglegorsk 0.0001 
Vanino 0.0001 Ust-Kamchatsk 0.0001 
Krasnogorsk 0.0001 Kholmsk 0.0001 
Magadan 0.0001 Shakhtyorsk 0.0001 
Nakhodka 0.0001 Egvekinot 0.0001 
Nakhodka (oil harbor) 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Nikolaevsk-on-Amur 0.0001   
Caspian basin 
Makhachkala 0.0001 Other ports 0.0001 
Astrakhan 0.0001   
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 134  
 
 Table 14: Excise taxes 
 
Types of excisable goods Tax rate 
1. Ethyl alcohol made of all types of raw materials  16 Rubles 90 Kopeks per 1 litre of 
absolute ethyl 
2. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol over 25 
per cent (except for wines) and alcohol containing products 114 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
3. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol from 9 to 
25 per cent inclusive (except for wines) 84 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
4. Alcohol products of volume fraction of ethyl alcohol up to 9 
per cent inclusive (except for wines) 58 Rubles 60 Kopeks per 1 litre of 
absolute ethyl alcohol contained in 
excisable goods 
5. Fortified wines (except for natural wines) 75 Rubles per 1 litre of absolute ethyl 
alcohol contained in excisable goods 
6. Champagne and sparkling wines 10 Rubles 50 Kopeks per 1 litre 
7. Natural wines (except for champagne and sparkling wines) 4 Rubles per 1 litre 
8. Beer with normative (standard)  volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol up 0,5 per cent inclusive 0 Ruble per 1 litre 
9. Beer with normative (standardized)  volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol  over 0,5 per cent up to 8.6 per cent inclusive 1 Ruble 40 Kopeks per 1 litre 
10. Beer with normative (standardized)  volume of fraction of ethyl 
alcohol over  8.6 per cent 4 Rubles 60 Kopeks per 1 litre 
11. Pipe tobacco 522 Rubles per 1 kg 
12. Smoking tobacco, except for tobacco utilized as raw material to 
produce tobacco articles 214 Rubles per 1 kg 
13. Cigars 13 Rubles per 1 piece 
14. Cigarillos, cigarettes with filter longer than 85 mm 143 Rubles per 1,000 pieces 
15. Cigarettes with filter 50 Rubl es per 1,000 pieces plus 5% 
16. Non-filter cigarettes, mouthpiece cigarette s 19 Rubles per 1,000 pieces plus 5% 
17. Petroleum and stable gas condensate 73 Rubles 92 Kopeks per 1 ton 
18. Cars with engine power up to 67.5 Kw  (90 hp) inclusive 0 Rubles per 0.75 kWh ( 1 hp) 
19. Cars with engine power up over 67.5 Kw  (90 hp) and up to 
112.5 Kw  (150 hp) inclusive 13 Rubles per 0.75 Kwt ( 1 hp) 
20. Cars with engine power over 112.5 Kw  (150 hp), motorcycles 
with engine power over 112.5 Kw (150 hp) 129 Rubles per 0.75 Kwt ( 1 hp) 
21. Motor gasoline with octane value up to "80" inclusive 2190 Rubles per 1 ton 
22. Motor gasoline with other octane values 3000 Rubles per 1 ton 
23. Diesel fuel 890 Rubles per 1 ton 
24. Oil for diesel and (or) carburettor (injector) engines 2440 Rubles per 1 ton 
25. Natural gas sold on the territory of the Russian Federation 15 per cent 
26. Natural gas sold to member states of the  Commonwealth of 
Independent States 15 per cent 
27. Natural gas sold from the territory of the Russian Federation 
(except for the CIS member states) 30 per cent 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 135 
 
 
 Table 15(a):  List of goods exempt from VAT on the territory of the Russian Federation  
1.  major, vital medical equipment 
2.  prosthetic and orthopedic items, raw materials and articles for their manufacture and semi-finished 
products for such items 
3.  facilities, including motor vehicles, materials which may be used exclusively for disability prevention 
or the rehabilitation of the disabled 
4.  spectacles (except sunglasses), lenses and spectacle frames (except sunglasses frames) 
5.  foodstuffs directly produced by student and school canteens, other educational establishments' 
canteens, medical organisations' and pre-school establishments' canteens, and sold in such 
establishments, and foodstuffs directly produced by public catering organisations and sold to such 
canteens or the establishments described 
6.  postage stamps (except collectable stamps), stamped postcards and envelopes, lottery tickets for 
lotteries held upon the decisi on of the authorised body 
7.  coins made of precious metals (except collectable coins) constituting the currency of the Russian 
Federation or of foreign states 
8.  goods placed under the custom s regime of duty-free shops 
9.  goods (works, services), except excisable goods a nd excisable minerals, sold (performed, rendered) as 
part of the granting of free aid (assistance) by the Russian Federation under the Federal Law "On Free Aid (Assistance) of the Russian Federation and the Introduction of Amendments and Addenda to 
Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation on Taxes and on Provision of Preferential Payment 
Terms in Respect of Payments to  State Non-Budgetary Funds in Co nnection with Free Aid (Assistance) 
of the Russian Federation" 
10.  the sale of entrance tickets and subscriptions fo r theatrical and spectator, cultural and entertainment 
events, amusements in zoos and cu lture and relaxation parks, excursion tickets and passes, the form of 
which has been approved in the established procedure as blank forms for which strict records are kept 
11.  the sale of programs at performances  and concerts, catalogues and booklets 
12.  the sale (transfer for personal n eed) of religious articles and religio us literature (in accordance with the 
list approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by religious organisations (associations), produced and sold by religious orga nisations (associations), organisations owned by 
religious organisations (associations), and companie s whose charter (reserve) capital consists entirely 
of contributions from religious organisations (associations), as part of religious activities, except 
excisable goods and minerals, and the organization and holding by such organisations of religious rites, 
ceremonies, prayer meetings or other cult activities 
13.  the sale (including the transfer, performance, rendering for personal needs) of goods (except excisable 
goods, minerals and mineral deposits, and other goods under the list to be approved by the Government of the Russian Federation as advised by Russian public organisations of disabled persons), works, 
services (except brokers' and other in termediary services) produced and sold: 
by public organisations of disabled persons (including those created as unions of public organisations of disabled persons), no less than 80 percent of Members of which are the disabled and their lawful 
representatives; 
organisations whose charter capital consists entirely of contributions by the public organisations of disabled persons described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, if the number of disabled 
persons on the payroll constitutes no less than 50 percent, and their share in the salary fund no less than 
25 percent; 
institutions, the sole owners of the property of wh ich are the public organisations of disabled persons 
described in the second paragraph of this sub-paragraph, created for educational, cultural, therapeutic, physical exercise and sport, scientific, informational and other social purposes, and to render legal and 
other assistance to the disabled, disabled children and their parents; 
health treatment (industrial) workshops in antituberculous, psychiatric, psycho-neurological institutions, public social protection or social rehabilitation establishments 
14.  the sale of articles of folk craf t of recognized artistic value (except excisable goods), samples of which 
have been registered in the procedure established by the Government of the Russian Federation WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 136  
 
 15.  the sale of ore, concentrates and other industrial products containing precious metals, scrap and waste 
from precious metals for the manufact ure of precious metals and refining; the sale of precious metals 
and gems by taxpayers (except those described in Article 164:1:6 of the present Code) to the State Fund 
of Precious Metals and Gems of the Russian Federation, of gems for raw materials (except uncut 
diamonds) for treatment to enterprises, regardless of their forms of ownership, for subsequent sale for export; the sale of gems for raw materials and cut [gems] to specialised foreign economic 
organisations, the State Fund of Precious Metals an d Gems, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
and banks; the sale of precious metals from the Stat e Fund of Precious Metals and Gems of the Russian 
Federation to specialised foreign economic organisations, the Central Bank of the Russian Federation 
and banks, and of precious metals in ingots by the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and banks, provided that such ingots remain in one of the certified vaults (the State Vault of Valuables, the Vault 
of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation or bank vaults) 
16.  the sale of uncut diamonds to refining enterprises of all forms of ownership 
17.  the internal sale (transfer, performance, rendering for internal needs) by penitentiary system 
organisations and institutions of goods produced by  such organisations and institutions (works 
performed, services rendered) 
18.  the charitable transfer of  goods (performance of works,rendering of  services), free of charge under the 
Federal Law "On Charitable Activity and Charity Organisations', except excisable goods 
19.  the sale of entrance tickets, the form of which has been approved as blank forms for which strict 
records are kept, by physical exer cise and sport organisations for sport and spectator events held by 
such organisations; the rendering of services for the leasing of sports facilities for holding such events 
20.  the sale of home-grown produce of organisations engaged in producing agricultural products, the share 
of income from the sale of which in the total amount of revenue constitutes no le ss than 70 percent, as 
in-kind compensation, in-kind issuances for remune ration of labor, and for catering for employees 
engaged in the agricultural work 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 137 
 
 
 Table 15(b):  List of goods taxed on the territory of the  
Russian Federation  at the VAT rate of 10 percent  
 
1 Foodstuffs : 
 
− livestock and poultry on a live weight basis; 
− meat and meat products (except gourmet products: tenderloin, veal, tongue, sausage goods – 
high quality smoked, high-quality smoked semi-dry, freshly seasoned, high-quality stuffed; 
smoked pork, lamb, beef and veal products, poultry meat - balyk, carbonade, neck, gammon, pastroma, sirloin; baked pork and beef; preserved foods - ham, bacon, carbonade and jellied 
tongue); 
− milk and dairy products (including dairy i ce cream, except ice cream made from fruits and 
berries, fruit and edible ice); 
− eggs and egg products; 
− vegetable oil; 
− margarine; 
− sugar, including raw sugar; 
− salt; 
− grain, compound feed, feed mix, grain waste; 
− oilseeds and products of their processing (coarsely cut, oil cake); 
− bread and bakery products (including rich, rusk and roll articles); 
− cereal; 
− flour; 
− pasta; 
− live fish (except valuable species: white salm on, Baltic Sea and Far East salmon, sturgeon 
(beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet), salmon, trout (except sea trout), nelma, dog 
salmon, king salmon, coho salmon, muksun, omul, Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira); 
− seafood and fish products, including refrigerated, frozen fish and other types of processed fish, 
herring, conserves and preserves (except gourmet types: caviar from sturgeon and salmon; white 
salmon, Baltic Sea salmon, sturgeon – beluga, bester, sturgeon, starred sturgeon, sterlet; salmon; nelma cold-smoked backs and flanks; dog salmon, king salmon lightly-salted, medium-salted 
and semuzh-pickled; backs of cold-smoked dog-salmon, king salmon and coho salmon, flanks of 
dog-salmon and flanks of cold-smoked king salmon; backs of cold-smoked muksun, omul, Siberian and Amur whitefish, chira; pickled canned fillet slices of Baltic Sea and Far East 
salmon; crabmeat and sets of cooked and frozen individual crab sticks; lobster); 
− baby and diabetic foodstuffs; 
− vegetables (including potatoes) WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 138  
 
 2 Children's goods : 
 
− knitwear articles for newborn babies and children of nursery, pre-school, junior and senior 
school age groups: outer knitwear articles, clot hing knitwear articles, legwear garments, other 
knitwear articles: gloves, mittens, hats; 
− garments, including articles made from sheepskin and rabbit (including articles made from 
sheepskin and rabbit with leather pieces) for newb orn babies and children of nursery, pre-school, 
junior and senior school age groups, outer garments (including dresses and suits), underwear, 
headwear, clothing and articles for newborn ba bies and children of a nursery age.  The 
provisions of this paragraph do not apply to garments made of natural leather and fur, except from sheepskin and rabbit; 
− footwear (except sport footwear): bootees, pre-sc hool, school; felt; rubber: for nursery children, 
children's, school; 
− children's beds; 
− children's mattresses; 
− prams; 
− school exercise books; 
− games; 
− plasticine; 
− pencil cases; 
− counting sticks; 
− school abacuses; 
− school diaries; 
− drawing books; 
− sketchbooks; 
− folders for exercise books; 
− covers for textbooks, di aries, exercise books; 
− cards containing figures and letters; 
− diapers 
3 Periodical printed publications, except periodical printed publications of an advertising or erotic 
nature 
4 Books connected to education, science and culture, except books of an advertising or erotic nature 
5 Medical goods of domestic and foreign origin: 
medicines, including drug substances, including of internal pharmacy production; 
articles for medical use.  
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 139 
 
 
 Table 16(a): List of goods subject to non-automatic import licensing  
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO 
Reference 
Nuclear substances and 
articles made thereof 2844 40, including as parts of 
devices and equipment by subgroups 
9022 12 000 0, 9022 13 000 0, 
9022 14 000 0, 
9022 19 000 0, 9022 21 000 0, 
9022 29 000 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Art. XXI (b) (I) 
Explosive substances, 
pyrotechnics 2904 20 100 0 
3601 00 000 0, 3602 00 000 0 
3603 00 
3604 General 
exemptions Article XX (b)(ii) 
Precious stones List National 
interests  
Drugs, substances with 
psychotropic effects; 
virulent substances and 
toxic substances Nomenclature and quota General 
exemptions 
 
International commitments Article XX (b) 
Information protection 
devices (including 
encryption devices, components for encryption 
devices and encryption 
software packages), regulatory documentation 
and specifications 
(including developer and user documentation) 8471, 
8543 89 950 0 
8473 30 8543 90 800 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) 
Medicines and 
pharmaceutical products 
used for medical treatment 2904-2909, 2912-2942 00 000 0, 
3001, 3002, 3003, 3004,  
3006 30 000 0, 3006 60 General 
exemptions  Art. XX (b)  
Medicines used for 
veterinary purposes List General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) 
Ozone destroying 
substances and products 
containing such substances List General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Hazardous wastes 
(Basel Convention) Lists  General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Plant protection chemicals 3808 (only plant protection 
substances) General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) 
Ethyl alcohol 2207 10 000 0, 2207 20 000 0, 
2208 90 910 0, 2208 90 990 0 General 
exemptions 
National 
interests Art. XX (b) 
Vodka 2208 60 General 
exemptions Art. XX (b) WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 140  
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO 
Reference 
Strong liquors  (over 28 proof) 2208 90 110 0,  
2208 90 190 0, 
2208 90 330 0, 
2208 90 380 0, 2208 90 410 0, 
2208 90 450 0, 
2208 90 480 0,  2208 90 520 0, 
2208 90 570 0,  
2208 90 690 0, 2208 90 710 0, 
2208 90 740 0, 
2208 90 780 0 General 
exemptions 
 Article XX(b) 
Sturgeon species of fish 
and products made there of 
including caviar ex.030199190, ex.030269190, 
ex.030270, ex.030379190, 
ex.030380, ex.030410190, 
ex.030410910, ex.030420190, ex.030490100, ex.030520, 
ex.030530900, ex.030549800, 
ex.030559900, ex.030569900, ex.051191900, ex.160419910, 
ex.160419980, ex.160420900  
(all-only sturgeon species of fish), 160430100 General 
exemptions 
International 
commitments Art. XX (b)  
Special devices for 
unauthorised obtaining of 
information, subject to export and import licensing List General 
exemptions  Article XX(a) 
Nuclear materials, 
equipment, special 
non-nuclear materials and technologies subject to 
export control List 06 Presidential Decree No. 202 
as amended and supplemented from 
time to time, including Presidential Decree No. 412 of 11 April 2001  International 
commitments 
 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i) 
Products of military 
designation 9301-9307, 8710 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 141 
 
 
 Table 16(b):  List of Goods subject to automatic import licensing  
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT/WTO reference 
Carpets and textile 
flooring originating 
from EC 5702 (except 5702 20 000 0,  
5702 39 900 0, 5702 49 900 0),  
5703, 5704, 5705 00 
Raw sugar 1701 11 
Starch treacle 1702 30 990 1 Monitoring of 
trade flows WTO Agreement on 
Import Licensing 
Procedures, articles 1 
and 2 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 142  
 
 Table 17(a):  Goods subject to non-automatic export licensing
 
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Nuclear substances and products 
made thereof 2844 40 
9022 12 000 0 
9022 13 000 0 9022 14 000 0 
9022 19 000 0 
9022 21 000 0 9022 29 000 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) 
Explosive substances, pyrotechnics 2904 20 100 0 
3601 00 000 0 
3602 00 000 0 3603 00 
3604 General 
exemptions Article XX (b) 
Precious metals and gems List Protection of 
national values Article XV:9(b) 
Drugs, substances with psychotropic 
effects; virulent substances and toxic substances Nomenclature and 
quota International 
commitments Article XX (b) 
Information protection devices 
(including encryption devices, 
components for encryption devices and encryption software packages) 8471, 
8543 89 950 0 
8473 30 8543 90 800 0 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (a) 
Ozone destroying substances and 
products containing such substances List International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Hazardous wastes 
(Basel Convention) Lists  International 
commitments Art. XX (b) 
Wildlife, ivory, horns, hooves, corals 
and similar products  List General 
exemptions International 
commitments, 
protection of national values Art. XX (b) 
Pharmaceutical raw materials of 
animal and vegetable origin 0206 10 100 0,  
0206 22 000 1,  
0206 29 100 0,  
0206 30 200 1,  
0206 30 300 1,  
0206 30 800 1, 0206 41 200 1,  
0206 41 800 1, 
0206 49 200 1,  0206 49 800 1, 
0206 80 100 0,  
0206 90 100 0,  0507,  
0510 00 000 0, 
1211,  1212 20 000 0, 
1302 (except  
1302 19 300 0), 3001, 3002  General 
exemptions Art. XX (b)  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 143 
 
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Fish, crustaceans, shell-fish and other 
invertebrates, spawn, milt (roe) of 
sturgeon, salmon and ordinary fish 
species (live only) 0301, 0306, 
0307, 
0511 91 901 1, 
0511 91 901 9, 0511 91 902 0 General 
exemptions Article XX (b) 
Collectible materials in mineralogy 
and paleontology, semiprecious 
stones and products thereof 9705 00 000 0, 
7103 10 000 0, 
7103 99 000 0, 7105 10 000 0, 
7105 90 000 0, 
7116 20 110 0, 7116 20 190 0 General 
exemptions 
 Protection of 
national values Article XX (f) 
Subsoil information by region and by 
deposit of fuel an d energy sources 
and minerals located within the 
territory of the Russian Federation 
and within the continental shelf and 
marine economic zone of the Russian Federation   Protection of 
national values  
Refined gold and silver List General 
exemptions Article XX(c) 
Sturgeon species of fish and products 
thereof including caviar  International 
commitments Art. XX (b)  
Non-ferrous metals ores containing 
precious metals 2603 00 000 0,  
2604 00 000 0, 
2607 00 000 0, 
2608 00 000 0, 
2609 00 000 0,  2617, 
2620 19 000 0,  
2620 20 000 0, 2620 30 000 0,  
2620 90 100 0, 
2620 90 300 0,  2620 90 400 0, 
2620 90 500 0,  
2620 90 700 0, 2620 90 800 0,  
2620 90 990 0, 
2621 00 000 0, 7401, 
7402 00 000 0, 
7501, 7801 99 100 0 Protection of 
national values  
Special devices for unauthorised 
obtaining of information, subject to 
export and import licensing List Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
Chemicals, equipment and 
technologies which may be used for 
production of chemical weapons and 
are subject to export control  List 01 Presidential 
Decree No. 1082 of 
28 November 2001 
No. 621-RP of 7 December 1994 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI (b) (ii) WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 144  
 
 Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT Reference 
Human, animal and plant pathogens, 
genetically modified 
microorganisms, toxins, equipment 
and technologies, subject to export control  List 02 Presidential 
Decree No. 1004 of 
8 August 2001 
No. 298-RP of 14 June 1994 General 
exemptions Article XX(b) 
Equipment and materials of dual 
purposes and technologies used in 
nuclear industry subject to export control List 03 Presidential 
Decree No. 228 of 
21 February 1996 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i) 
Equipment, materials and 
technologies which may be used in 
creation of rocket weapons List 04 Presidential 
Decrees No. 1005 of 
8 August 2001, 
No. 1194 of  16 August 1996 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
Goods and technologies of dual 
purpose subject to export control List 05 Presidential 
Decrees No. 1268 of 
August 26, 1996  Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(i) 
Nuclear materials, equipment, special 
non-nuclear materials and 
technologies subject to export control List 06 Presidential 
Decree No. 202 as 
amended and 
supplemented from time to time, 
including Presidential 
Decree No. 412 of 11 April 2001 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations 
 International 
commitments Article XXI(b)(i) 
Goods and technologies of dual 
purpose and other devices controlled 
under resolutions of the UN Security Council for exports to Iraq and 
subject to notification or ban List 24 Presidential 
Decrees No. 972 of 
2 September 1997 International 
commitments Article XXI(b) 
Products of military designation 9301-9307, 8710 Exemptions for 
national security 
considerations Article XXI(b)(ii) 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 145 
 
 
 Table 17(b): Goods subject to automatic export licensing  
 
Product group HS Code Reason for 
licensing GATT reference 
Cattle hides  
Sheep hides 
Other unprocessed hides and skins 4101, 4102, 4103 Monitoring of 
trade flows  
Timber of valuable types of wood List Monitoring of 
trade flows  
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 146  
 
 ANNEX I  
List of Laws and Regulations Available to the Working Party
 
 
Note:  Work on finalisation of the list of laws a nd their availability in the Secretariat is underway.  
A provisional list of legislation will be circulat ed shortly, as an Addendum to this document.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 147 
 
 
 Draft Decision 
 
ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Decision of […]  
 
 
 The Ministerial Conference,   Having regard to  paragraph 2 of Article XII and paragr aph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Orga nization (the "WTO Agreement"), and the 
Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and X II of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the 
World Trade Organization agreed by the General Council (WT/L/93), 
 
 Taking note  of the application of the Russian Federation for accession to the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trad e Organization dated 9 December 1994, 
  Noting  the results of the negotiations directed toward the establishment of the terms of 
accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO Agreement and having prepared a Draft Protocol on the Accession of the Russian Federation,  
 Decides  as follows: 
  The Russian Federation may accede to the WT O Agreement on the terms and conditions set 
out in the Draft Protocol annexed to this Decision. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 148  
 
 DRAFT PROTOCOL  
ON THE ACCESSION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Preamble
 
 
 The World Trade Organization (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO "), pursuant to the approval 
of the General Council of the WTO accorded und er Article XII of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organizati on (hereinafter referred to as the "WTO Agreement "), and the 
Russian Federation,  
 
 Taking note  of the Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to 
the WTO Agreement reproduced in document WT/ACC/RUS …, dated … (hereinafter referred to as the "Working Party Report"),   Having regard
 to the results of the negotiations on the accession of the Russ ian Federation to the 
WTO Agreement,  
  Agree
 as follows: 
 
PART I -  GENERAL 
 
1. Upon entry into force of this Protocol pursua nt to paragraph 8, the Russian Federation accedes 
to the WTO Agreement pursuant to  Article XII of that Agreement and thereby becomes a Member of 
the WTO.   2. The WTO Agreement to which the Russian Fe deration accedes shall be the WTO Agreement, 
including the Explanatory Notes to that Agreement, as  rectified, amended or ot herwise modified by such 
legal instruments as may have entered into force before the date of entry into force of this Protocol.  This 
Protocol, which shall include the commitments referred  to in paragraph … of the Working Party Report, 
shall be an integral part of the WTO Agreement.  3. Except as otherwise provided for in pa ragraph … of the Working Party Report, those 
obligations in the Multilateral Trade Agreements annexed to the WTO Agreement that are to be 
implemented over a period of time starting with the entry into force of that Agreement shall be 
implemented by the Russian Federati on as if it had accepted that Agreement on the date of its entry into 
force.  
4. The Russian Federation may maintain a measure inconsistent with paragraph 1 of Article II of 
the GATS provided that such a measure was recorded in  the list of Article II Exemptions annexed to this 
Protocol and meets the conditions of the A nnex to the GATS on Article II Exemptions. 
 
PART II - SCHEDULES 
 
5. The Schedules reproduced in Annex I to th is Protocol shall become the Schedule of 
Concessions and Commitm ents annexed to the General Agr eement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
(hereinafter referred to as the "GATT 1994") and the Schedule of Specific Co mmitments annexed to the 
General Agreement on Trade in Services (hereinafter referred to as "GATS') relating to The Russian Federation.  The staging of the concessions a nd commitments listed in the Schedules shall be 
implemented as specified in the releva nt parts of the respective Schedules. 
 6. For the purpose of the reference in paragraph 6( a) of Article II of GATT 1994 to the date of that 
Agreement, the applicable date in respect of th e Schedules of Concession s and Commitments annexed 
to this Protocol shall be the date of  entry into force of this Protocol.  WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
 Page 149 
 
 
  
PART III - FINAL PROVISIONS 
 7. This Protocol shall be open for acceptance, by  signature or otherwise, by the Russian Federation 
until …. 
 
8. This Protocol shall enter into force on the thirtieth day following the day upon which it shall have been accepted by the Russian Federation.  
 9. This Protocol shall be deposited with the Director-General of the WTO.  The Director-General 
of the WTO shall promptly furnish a certified copy of this Protocol and a not ification of acceptance by 
the Russian Federation thereto pursuan t to paragraph 9 to each Member  of the WTO and to The Russian 
Federation.     This Protocol shall be registered in accordance with the provisions of Ar ticle 102 of the Charter 
of the United Nations.   
  Done at … this … day of … in a single copy in the English, French and Spanish languages, 
each text being authentic, except that a Schedule  annexed hereto may specify that it its authentic 
in only one of these languages. 
 
_______________ 
 
 WT/ACC/SPEC/RUS/25/Rev.1 
Page 150  
 
 ANNEX I 
 
  
SCHEDULE – THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
 
Authentic only in the … language. 
 
  
 
Part I - Goods 
 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS[…]) 
 
 
  
Part II – Services 
 
(Circulated in document WT/ACC/RUS/[…] 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 
   