WTO largely backs EU over Russia in tariff fight

13 Aug, 2016

Russia violated its international trade commitments by inflating tariffs on the import of some agricultural and manufactured products from the European Union, a World Trade Organisation panel said in a decision on Friday.
The first panel ruling involving Russia since it joined the WTO in 2012 comes after the EU accused Moscow of levying higher-than-permitted tariffs on goods including paper and paperboard, palm oil and its fractions, refrigerators and combined refrigerator-freezers.
When talks between Brussels and Moscow failed to settle the disagreement, the WTO panel was left to decide. The EU contends Russia's higher duties have had a clearly negative impact on exports of products worth some 600 million euros ($670 million) annually.
Following the ruling, the European Commission said the WTO decision highlights Russia's failure to live up to its trade commitments.
"Despite being a WTO member since August 2012, Russia has not yet fulfilled some of its commitments made before its accession," the Commission said in a statement. "This includes one of the WTO's most fundamental rules, according to which its members must not apply customs duties" exceeding levels to which they pledged.
The Commission did say Russia had taken steps to bring some of the challenged measures into compliance over the course of the panel's deliberations.
The ruling can be appealed within 60 days.
EU officials have said the matter is not linked to the West's conflict with Russia over its role in the Ukraine crisis.
In its decision, the WTO panel ruled in favour of the EU on 11 of 12 measures at issue, saying Russia's tariff treatment of the goods was inconsistent with its obligation not to apply tariffs exceeding those it had committed to in its WTO schedule.
Beyond this dispute, EU has also initiated settlement procedures on a number of other trade barriers it maintains have been imposed by Russia, including recycling fees on cars, a pork import ban and anti-dumping duties on light commercial vehicles. Those matters remain unresolved.

Read Comments