RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/STR/Q1/TUR/2
24February 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-0751)
Original: English Working Party onState Trading Enterprises
Replies toQuestions Posed byCANADA1Concerning
theArticle XVII Notification ofTURKEY2
Thefollowing communication, dated 17February 1997, hasbeenreceived fromthePermanent
Mission ofTurkey.
_______________
Question
Turkey'snotificationwassubmittedpriortothecommencementoftheEU-TurkeyCustomsUnion.
Asaresult ofthisagreement, Turkey hashadtoalign (forthemostpart) itstrade regime withthat
oftheEU.Consequently, many oftheState Trading Enterprises appear tohavelosttheirexclusive
rights orprivileges thatwould affect imports orexports. Inreviewing thenewTurkish tariff (effective
1January 1996), itappears thatallreferences toimport monopolies havebeenremoved. However,
weunderstand thatthemonopolies stillexistinpractice andaremaintained asaresult ofearlier
legislation which pre-dates thenewCustoms Code.
Asaresult oftheCustoms Union agreement, alltrade-related legislation enacted byMinisterial
Decree (asopposed tothatenacted byaLawpassed through Parliament) hasbeenabolished. This
included thegranting ofanimport monopoly tosuchfirmsasTEKEL foralcohol andcigarettes, MKEK
forsmall arms, andtheRedCrescent Society forsomepharmaceuticals intheprevious Customs Code.
Withtheabolition oftheMinisterial Decrees, references tospecial status forthese agencies donot
appear inthenewCustoms Code. However, where "special status" hadbeengranted because ofa
Lawpassed byParliament, themonopolies remain eveniftheyarenotreferred tointheCustoms Code.
Forexample, until1996, themonopoly ofTEKEL fortheimport ofbeer, wine, grape must,
vermouth, undenatured ethylalcohol, compound alcoholic beverages, whiskies andalcoholic drinks
produced fromagro-products, wasreflected intheTurkish Customs Code. InthenewCustoms Code
dealing withthese items, nomention ofthestatemonopoly appears. However, theLawestablishing
TEKEL isstillinforce andthisLawgrants TEKEL amonopoly ontheimportation oftheproducts
listed above.
Based onourinformation, wewould assume thatTEKEL, MKEK andtheRedCrescent Society
retain theirearlier import monopolies. Thisisnotreflected, however, inthenewCustoms Code and
would onlybeevident when imports oftheseproducts bynon-state monopoly purchasers arerestricted
1G/STR/W/13.
2G/STR/N/1/TUR.
./.G/STR/Q1/TUR/2
Page2
orforbiddenbyTurkishCustomsauthorities.WouldTurkeypleaseclarifythecurrentsituationregarding
import monopolies inthenewTurkish trade regime?
Answer
Within theframework oftheCustoms Union withtheEC,Turkey made important legaland
practical arrangements onaverywide variety offields particularly incommercial andcompetition
policies.
Thecomprehensive measures taken byTurkey inthiscontext areintheImport Regime of1996,
which waspublished intheOfficial Gazette dated 31December 1995, No.Bis22510. Inthisregime,
thespecial andexclusive rights andprivileges granted topublic enterprises andState monopolies of
commercial nature wereterminated. Theexclusive rightgranted totheTurkish SoilProduct Office
(Turkish Grain Board) toimport some products freeofmass housing fundlevies wasalsoabolished.
Inthisrespect, Iwould liketoinform youthatweshallprovide ourupdating notification assoonas
possible.
Regarding theother enterprises inquestion, namely TEKEL andtheTurkish RedCrescent
Society, Iwould liketostatethatthese enterprises retain theirexclusive rights granted bytherelevant
lawspassed bytheParliament withregard toimports thatwerementioned intheArticle XVIInotification
ofTurkey thatappeared indocument G/STR/N/1/TUR.
Inaddition tothis,Iwould liketoinform youthatMKEK doesnotenjoy anyspecial orexclusive
rights orprivileges within themeaning ofArticle XVII:4(a) oftheGATT 1994 andparagraph 1of
theUnderstanding ontheInterpretation ofArticle XVII oftheGATT 1994.