TN/MA/W/10/Add.3

10 April 2003

  (03-1972)
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original: English

 

 

MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS

Communication from India

Addendum

The following document, dated 9 April 2003, has been received from the Permanent Mission of India.

_______________

1. The Secretariat has circulated a note captioned "Formula approaches to tariff negotiations – Secretariat simulations using members’ tariff concessions". The results of simulations have been tabulated to illustrate the impact of different formulae on members’ tariff. The note by the Secretariat is contained in document Job(03)/67. It provides a comparison of the final bound rates before and after application of the different formulae. A separate table gives the percentage reduction in tariffs under different formulae.

2. It would be recalled that India, in its proposal contained in document TN/MA/W/10/Add.2, had suggested different reduction coefficients for developed and developing members. As an example, India had suggested reduction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.33 for developed and developing Members respectively. This proposal was made keeping in view the specific provision in the Doha mandate on less than full reciprocity in reduction commitments by developing members.

3. The table circulated by the Secretariat reflects the results of the application of both the reduction coefficients of 0.5 and 0.33 for all members. This gives an incomplete picture, since it was India’s intention that developed Members would have to reduce tariffs by 50% while developing Members would have to reduce their tariffs by 33%. It is understood that the Secretariat has given the results of simulations using both the coefficients in respect of all the members since there is no list of developing members, which has been approved by the WTO members.

4 It would be useful to have a comparison of revised tariff levels and percentage reductions in tariff, using the appropriate coefficients proposed by India. This is important since many members would be taking a considered view on the different formulae approaches, based on how these formulae would impact on their own tariffs and their market access opportunities. Accordingly, India has chosen a sample of developing and developed countries to demonstrate correctly the impact of its own formula. Results of this are given in the tables at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’. India has used the revised tariff and reduction percentages from the Secretariat’s note. Only in respect of the columns reflecting the impact of India’s formula, an adjustment has been made to take into account the status of the member – whether developing or developed – and the appropriate coefficient used. We hope the members will find this information useful.

 

Annexure - A

 

Table 1:  Simple averages of final bound duties before and after application of formulae

 

New averages by proposal

China

B = 1

China

B = 3

European

Communities

India

Korea

USA

Argentina

100.0

0.0

31.8

15.6

16.7

11.1

21.3

19.9

6.3

Australia

96.5

0.1

11.0

4.5

5.5

4.8

5.1

7.6

3.1

Bangladesh

3.0

0.0

35.7

16.1

17.2

11.1

23.0

18.6

5.8

Barbados

97.6

0.0

73.0

36.8

37.8

15.0

48.8

24.8

7.2

Botswana

96.0

0.0

16.1

7.5

8.5

6.7

10.8

11.5

4.3

Brazil

100.0

0.0

30.8

15.1

16.2

10.8

20.6

19.6

6.2

Canada

99.7

0.4

5.3

2.1

3.1

2.8

2.6

3.7

2.3

European

Communities

100.0

0.7

3.9

1.7

2.6

2.2

1.9

2.9

1.4

Guinea

29.6

0.0

10.0

4.7

5.7

4.9

6.7

7.7

2.7

Indonesia

96.1

0.0

35.6

17.6

18.6

11.8

23.8

20.2

6.3

Jamaica

100.0

0.0

42.5

20.6

21.6

13.1

28.5

19.7

6.2

Japan

99.6

3.6

2.3

0.9

1.5

1.3

1.1

1.5

0.7

Kenya

1.6

0.0

54.8

26.8

27.8

13.9

36.7

22.6

6.9

Malaysia

81.2

0.2

14.9

7.0

7.9

6.2

10.0

11.1

3.2

Nigeria

6.9

0.0

48.8

24.3

25.3

13.9

32.7

22.4

6.8

Norway

100.0

2.6

3.1

1.1

2.0

1.8

1.4

2.0

1.0

Sri Lanka

28.3

1.1

19.3

8.4

9.5

7.4

12.9

11.6

4.0

Thailand

70.9

21.1

24.2

11.5

12.6

9.1

16.2

17.0

5.5

United States

100.0

5.0

3.2

1.1

2.0

1.7

1.4

2.0

1.0

Venezuela

100.0

0.0

33.1

16.7

17.7

11.4

22.2

20.5

6.4

Zambia

4.1

0.0

42.7

21.3

22.3

13.1

28.6

21.8

6.7

 Source: Secretariat calculations based on CTS data

 

Annexure - B

Table 2:   Percentage reductions of simple averages of final bound duties after application of formulae

 

Reductions in percent

China

B = 1

China

B = 3

European

Communities

India

Korea

USA

Argentina

50.9

47.5

65.1

33.0

37.5

80.1

Australia

59.1

49.6

56.4

53.4

30.6

71.7

Bangladesh

54.8

51.8

69.0

35.6

48.0

83.6

Barbados

49.5

48.2

79.4

33.1

66.0

90.1

Botswana

53.1

47.4

58.3

33.2

28.6

73.1

Brazil

50.8

47.4

64.8

33.0

36.5

79.7

Canada

61.3

41.2

47.2

51.9

30.9

57.5

European

Communities

57.0

33.9

45.0

51.1

27.2

65.5

Guinea

52.9

42.9

50.7

33.4

22.6

72.5

Indonesia

50.6

47.7

66.9

33.0

43.1

82.2

Jamaica

51.6

49.2

69.2

33.0

53.8

85.3

Japan

62.8

34.1

43.1

53.7

33.7

68.3

Kenya

51.1

49.3

74.6

33.0

58.8

87.5

Malaysia

53.2

47.1

58.3

33.0

25.8

78.2

Nigeria

50.3

48.2

71.5

33.0

54.2

86.0

Norway

64.9

36.9

43.6

55.0

36.7

68.4

Sri Lanka

56.3

50.9

61.7

33.3

39.6

79.1

Thailand

52.5

48.1

62.6

33.2

29.7

77.4

United States

64.4

39.1

45.9

56.5

37.1

68.9

Venezuela

49.6

46.6

65.6

33.0

38.0

80.6

Zambia

50.2

47.8

69.4

33.0

49.0

84.3

  Source: Secretariat calculations based on CTS data.

Back