Download Word document-World Trade - 图文

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Negotiating Group on Market Access

TN/MA/S/10 20 May 2003

(03-2712)

INCIDENCE OF NON-AD VALOREM TARIFFS IN MEMBERS' TARIFF SCHEDULES AND POSSIBLE APPROACHES TO THE ESTIMATION OF AD VALOREM EQUIVALENTS

Note by the Secretariat1

INTRODUCTION

I.

1. In their WTO schedules, Members use a variety of formats to specify individual tariff commitments. In most cases, Members specify tariffs in ad valorem terms, which is a simple percentage of the value of the imported product. However, some countries choose to specify some or all tariffs in specific or other non-ad valorem (NAV) formats, particularly on the imports of agricultural products.

2. This paper reviews the NAV bound duties2 in the Consolidated Tariff Schedules database (CTS) and the applied duties in the latest tariff schedules submitted by WTO Members to the Integrated Data Base (IDB). It is necessary to review both bound and applied schedules since the NAV may be specified differently in each schedule for the same Member. The paper then considers possible approaches to estimating Ad Valorem Equivalents (AVEs) and discusses issues raised in respect of these various methodologies. II. A. 3.

NON-AD VALOREM TARIFFS CLASSIFICATION OF NAV TARIFFS

NAV tariffs can be classified in the following categories:

? Specific tariff rates: The customs duty is not related to the value of the imported goods but to the weight, volume, surface, etc. of the goods. The specific duty stipulates how many units of currency are to be levied per unit of quantity (e.g. 2.00 Swiss Francs per kg);

? Compound rates: The customs duty is a tariff comprising an ad valorem duty to which is added

or subtracted a specific duty (e.g. 10 per cent plus $2.00/kg; 20 per cent less $2.00/kg);

? Mixed duty rates.3 In general, this type of duty ensures a minimum or maximum level of

protection through a choice between an ad valorem duty and a specific duty (e.g. 10per cent minimum $2.00/kg; 10 per cent or $2.00/kg, whichever is less);

This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is not intended to prejudice the positions of any Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO.

2

Tariffs and duties shall be used interchangeably in this document. 3

The IDB uses the term mixed duty. Other sources may use the term alternative duty.

1

TN/MA/S/10 Page 2

? Technical duty rates: The customs duty is determined by complex technical factors such as

alcohol content, sugar content or the value of the imported product (e.g. 8.2 per cent + T1, where T1 refers to a specific formula duty based on the agricultural component of the product).

4. A more detailed typology of tariffs is given in Annex Table 1a. It presents in a standardized way ad valorem, specific and compound duties and various ways in which mixed duties can be expressed. Annex Table 1b lists technical duties and other duties that cannot be converted to AVEs with the information available in the IDB. III.

INCIDENCE OF NAV TARIFFS IN THE IDB AND CTS DATABASES

5. The tariff schedules of about half the submissions to the IDB express some MFN applied duties as NAV tariffs.4 Annex Table 2a provides detailed information for those WTO Members with NAV duties, broken down by type of NAV duty and by sector.5 The shares with respect to the total number of agricultural and industrial tariff lines is also provided. Annex Table 2b provides the information on Members providing AVEs to the IDB.

6. Overall, the share of NAV tariff lines in total tariff lines for the Members with NAV tariffs in the IDB is 6.6 percent. Thirty three countries have less than 5 per cent of NAVs in their tariff lines and 17 have less than 1 per cent. Special mention should be made of Switzerland, with 83 per cent of its tariff lines consisting of NAV duties.

7. The incidence of NAV duties is highest for agricultural products (19 per cent of total agricultural tariff lines, compared to only 4 per cent for industrial products).6 Excluding Switzerland, the share of NAV lines can be as high as 60 per cent of all agricultural tariff lines and as high as 26 per cent for non-agricultural tariff lines. Developed country Members are the greatest users of NAVs in agriculture: Canada (26 per cent), European Communities (45 per cent), Iceland (25 per cent), Norway (63 per cent) and United States (43 per cent). A number of economies in transition have also relatively high shares: Belarus (33 per cent), Bulgaria (15 per cent), Poland (25 per cent), Russian Federation (33 per cent). Among the developing country Members, Cyprus (50 per cent) and Thailand (56 per cent) have the highest incidence.

8. Annex Table 3 presents the incidence of NAV duties in the CTS database. Forty Members include NAV duties in their tariff schedules of concessions. The picture for Members with a relatively high incidence of NAV duties in their schedules of concessions is similar to that in the IDB. Malta is an exception, as it has replaced almost all its bound NAV duties in agriculture (84 per cent per cent of total agricultural lines) with ad valorem duties in its latest applied tariff. On the other hand, it can be seen that a number of developing Members currently expressing their tariffs in NAV terms in the IDB did not bind them in this format. Among those with high incidence are: Djibouti – 15 per cent of its total agricultural lines and South Africa – 13 per cent of its agricultural lines and 26 per cent of its industrial lines. Similarly, some economies in transition (including Belarus, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the Russian Federation) use a relatively high number of NAV duties in their national applied tariffs.

9. The incidence of NAV lines by chapter of the Harmonized System nomenclature in the IDB and CTS databases, is presented in Annex Table 4.7 A higher incidence of NAV duties appear in agricultural products such as meat products (chapter 02), dairy produce (chapter 04), sugars

The statistics refer to the status of IDB and CTS files as of 31 January 2003. The agriculture sector includes products covered by the Agreement on Agriculture; the industry lines include other products not covered by the Agreement on Agriculture.

6

Taking into account only Members with NAV tariffs in the IDB. 7

Given the specificity of Switzerland, which has only specific duties in addition to duty free tariffs, its

tariff lines have been excluded from Annex Table 4.

54

TN/MA/S/10 Page 3

(chapter 17), cocoa (chapter 18), preparations of cereals, flour, starch or milk (chapter 19) and beverages (chapter 22). For industrial products, most of the NAV lines are concentrated in textile products. IV.

CONVERSION OF NAV TARIFFS TO AVES

10. The existence of NAV tariffs in Members' schedules makes it extremely difficult to arrive at a meaningful picture of the level of tariffs, unless those rates can be converted to AVEs. For example, the recent document on Members' Tariff Profiles (TN/MA/S/4/Rev.1) produced for the Negotiating Group on Market Access (for non-agricultural products) could only include NAV tariffs in the calculations of duty averages and maxima for those Members who had provided AVEs (see Annex Table 2b).

11. Conversion of NAV tariffs to AVEs is being discussed in the Negotiating Group on Market Access as well as in the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture. The overview of proposals submitted to the Negotiating Group on Market Access (TN/MA/6/Rev.1) notes that several of these proposals are related to issue of NAV tariffs. Whereas some submissions speak more generally of the need to maximize the use of ad valorem rates8, others state that Members should consider converting all NAV duties to ad valorem rates.9 One proposal calls for a common methodology to calculate these rates.10

12. The conversion of NAV duties to AVEs would allow all tariffs to be included in the tariff reduction formulae proposed in the context of discussions on tariff reduction modalities. Table 1 compares the result of a linear with a non-linear tariff reduction when applied to different initial tariffs. The Swiss formula, with a coefficient of 12, has been used as an example of a non-linear formula.11 Whereas a linear reduction applies to ad valorem as well as NAV duties, a non-linear cut cannot be applied on NAV duties unless AVEs are provided. It should be noted though that even if a linear cut can be applied to NAVs the resulting tariffs cannot be considered in the calculation of statistical indicators such as tariff averages. Table 1 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Linear and non-linear cut applied to ad valorem and NAV duties Initial tariff t0 20 per cent $50/tonne 30 per cent or $20/tonne, whichever is the greatest Linear cut 50 per cent t1 10 per cent $25/tonne 15 per cent or $10/tonne, whichever is the greatest Swiss formula (coef. 12) t1 = (12*t0) / (12+t0) 7.5 per cent ? ?

TN/MA/W/9 (Canada), TN/MA/W/18 (US).

TN/MA/W/6/Add.1 (Korea), TN/MA/W/23 (MERCOSUR), TN/MA/W/14 (Oman), TN/MA/W/8

(Singapore).

10

TN/MA/W/31 (Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and

Zimbabwe).

11

For a discussion of the properties of various tariff reduction formulae see document

TN/MA/S/3/Rev.2.

98

TN/MA/S/10 Page 4 V. APPROACHES TO ESTIMATING AVES A.

OVERVIEW

13. The Secretariat does not calculate AVEs for inclusion in either the IDB or the CTS.12 This practice originates from discussions in the Informal Advisory Group to the IDB – a body established during the Uruguay Round. Only AVEs that have been supplied by Members are reported in the IDB. Only five Members have submitted AVEs to the IDB, as indicated in Annex Table 2b. The basis for the calculations is generally not provided.

14. The Secretariat's background paper \Ad valorem, Specific and Other Tariffs\(AIE/S5, 6 February 1998) presented two main methods of AVE estimation that have been used in the GATT/WTO context and which both require that imports have actually taken place for the tariff lines and specific duties in question:

? the use of revenue collected divided by the value of imports, and ? the use of unit values of traded products.

15. Although the use of actual trade data is not the only way of calculating AVEs, under the appropriate circumstances it gives the most accurate information for a particular product. If there is no trade in the product concerned, it could be considered that the price of the product (including the tariff) concerned is, at that point in time, \that the tariff is \of the nature of domestic demand, the competitiveness of domestic production, distribution peculiarities, transport costs, etc., it is not attractive for traders to import that product.

16. In all cases the limits of AVEs must be kept in mind.13 AVEs are only a snap-shot of the actual effect of a specific duty in the reference period used for the calculation. Even though the specific duties used are fixed, their impact may change over time and in relation to each shipment. Moreover, AVEs are usually calculated in terms of annual averages and, in this case, they can only be assessed at the end of the period, when all relevant trade data have been collected. The annual averages also mask a potentially wide variation of AVEs. For example, a shipment of lower valued products has a higher AVE than that of a high value shipment. Thus, the AVEs assessed by some exporting Members could be significantly different from those assessed by others because of different unit values, for example due to seasonal differences.

For the Trade Policy Reviews the Secretariat takes into account only the ad valorem part of all compound and certain mixed duties if AVEs are not provided by the Member. These %used in all statistical tables of the Trade Policy Reviews. Outside the WTO a number of initiatives to estimate AVEs have been undertaken. These include Gibson et. al (2001), ITC (2001), OECD (1997) and Stawowy (2001). 13 It should also be kept in mind in what follows that there is a more general limit to the concept of ad valorem equivalents. When replacing one type of tariff structure with a significantly different type of structure the protection cannot be made \amount of tariff revenue or give rise to the same trade flows or to the same production or consumption patterns. But it will generally not be possible to find one ad valorem tariff structure which, if implemented, would precisely regenerate several or all of these features. Consequently, when seeking to define an AVE structure, the specific sense in which it will be \there is no generally \definition of the term \

12

B.

TN/MA/S/10

Page 5

REVENUE METHOD

17. According to this method, AVEs are estimated as a ratio of customs revenue collected on a particular product (at the tariff line level) to the value of imports of the same product. Revenues of $10 million collected on an import value of $100 million, for example, would give an AVE of 10 per cent, even though the actual tariffs were collected on a dollar per tonne basis. While for certain purposes this method can technically be accurate, it has a number of shortcomings:

? data on revenue collection by tariff line are often unavailable publicly, or even to statistical

agencies (though customs authorities normally collect information at this level).

? where data are available, a major problem with this method of estimation is that it can

measure only the AVEs of applied tariffs but not those of bound tariffs, except when applied duties are equal to bound duties.

? AVEs may understate the applied MFN tariff rate if any trade within the product category

concerned flows under a preferential trading arrangement, such as a GSP scheme, a special regime for least-developed countries, or a free trade area.

? other duties and charges, duty drawbacks, safeguard measures, anti-dumping duties, tariffs

waived for re-export, and so on may affect the estimations as well. Adjustments for all these factors designed to identify the actual MFN rate may be a cumbersome exercise.14 C.

UNIT VALUE METHOD

18. The unit value method of estimating AVEs requires that the specific tariff is expressed as a ratio of the unit price of the associated import flow. Given the lack of detailed data available on import prices at the tariff line level, an estimate of unit import prices can be made simply by dividing the value of imports by their volume for the tariff line concerned. For example, if the c.i.f. import value of a good is $10,000 and the quantity imported is 100 tonnes, the unit value is $100 per tonne. Then if the specific duty were $10 per tonne, the AVE would be 10 per cent.

19. The results of this approach can provide, in a technical sense, an accurate assessment and, as long as volume and value statistics are collected in the same manner. Nevertheless, this method may prove very time-consuming as NAV duties are often not simply specific rates that can be directly compared to unit values, but may be compound, mixed or technical rates that require additional calculations, and in some instances also additional data.

20. The quality of the estimation of AVEs using the unit value method depends very much on the quality of the underlying import values and quantities. As quantity information is not always measured with the same degree of precision as import values the resulting unit values may yield estimates which may vary considerably among members. It would therefore appear necessary to evaluate tariff line unit values in the context of Members' and world HS 6 digit unit values. Significant deviations which cannot be explained by the properties of the underlying product category should be closely scrutinized and excessive unit values should possibly be \at a certain percentile range of 'acceptable' unit values around the world mean unit value.

21. The other remaining problem is that of technical duties which cannot be converted to AVEs without detailed additional information on the import flows. The revenue method could be used successfully in this context if there are no preferences and, regarding bound rates, only if those are equal to the MFN applied rates.

Such adjustments might not be necessary if the reason for amassing AVE data is to make an economic assessment of protection levels.

14

TN/MA/S/10 Page 6 22. In conclusion, it appears that the unit value method is a viable methodology for estimating AVE in an internationally comparable way. Like the revenue method it requires that imports have taken place in the reference period in order to calculate tariff line unit values. However, in the absence of such information, approximate AVEs could still be calculated using higher level aggregates, i.e. HS 6 digit based unit values. If these are not available at the level of the Member concerned, regional or world unit values could be used. D.

ESTIMATION OF AVES

23. The estimation of the AVE (in per cent) of a simple specific tariff using the revenue method is expressed in the following formula:

AVE?rev?100 where rev?sp?q and v rev – Duty revenue sp – Specific tariff v – Import value q – Import quantity 24. The estimation of the AVE (in per cent) of a simple specific tariff using unit values is expressed in the following formula:

AVE?

spv?100 where, uv? and uvqsp – Specific tariff

uv – Import unit value v – Import value q – Import quantity 25. Specific tariffs are generally expressed in national currency units. If import values are not provided in the national currency, exchange rates are required.15 A quantity units conversion factor is necessary when the specific tariff and the import quantities are not expressed in the same units. 26. An example of the estimation of an AVE for a specific duty is given in Table 2. Using the formulae presented above revenue method and unit value method yield the same results because there is only one duty rate and revenue and trade information is available. Table 2

Case 1 Case 2 Example with specific tariff: $20/tonne Import value (US $) 1000 500 Import quantity (tonnes) 10 10 Tariff revenue (US $) 200 200 Unit value $100/tonne $50/tonne AVE in per cent 20 40

For the conversions of import values reported in national currency in IDB submissions annual averages of market exchange rates reported in the IMF's International Financial Statistics unless exchange rates have been provided with the IDB submissions.

15

TN/MA/S/10 Page 7 27. Compound and mixed tariffs contain at least one simple specific component and/or at least one ad valorem component, linked with logical and/or arithmetic operators. The computable ones correspond to those identified in the IDB files and listed in Annex Table 1a.16 28.

The computable tariffs are of the following types:

? Addition or subtraction of specific and/or ad valorem tariff components ? Choice between specific and/or ad valorem tariff components

? Choice between specific and/or ad valorem tariff components, subject to upper and/or lower

limits

29. The non-computable tariffs include, among others:

? Tariff element applicable to input content, for example agricultural component or metal content

? Two or more tariff components specified, but without indication of what condition to apply ? Tariff lines with incomplete descriptions

30. Technical tariffs are in general non-computable, but trade affected by these tariffs is relatively low compared to all trade with NAV MFN applied duties. If one considers the latest tariff and trade data available in the IDB for the QUAD countries, the amount of trade corresponding to the tariff lines for which the MFN applied duty is expressed in NAV terms represents approximately 7 per cent of total trade. Only around 4 per cent of this trade is related to technical duties.

31. An example of the estimation of an AVE for a mixed duty is given in Table 3. Again revenue method and unit value method yield the same results because there is only one duty rate and revenue and trade information is available. Table 3

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Example with mixed tariff: 20 per cent or $20/tonne, whichever is the greatest Import value (US $) 1000 500 2000 Import quantity (tonnes) 10 10 10 Tariff revenue (US $) 200 200 400 Unit value $100/tonne $50/tonne $200/tonne AVE in per cent 20 40 20 VI.

CONCLUSIONS

32. The document has shown that AVEs can be estimated for NAV tariffs. The estimation of AVEs in a transparent and internationally comparable way for all Members appears to be an important step forward in understanding better the diverse structures of protection that prevail in WTO Member countries. It is also a necessary prerequisite for the application of any non-linear, harmonizing tariff cutting formula.

33. Two methods for estimating AVEs were presented: the revenue method and the unit value method. They yield the same results if the underlying import flows face the same MFN tariff treatment. However, the unit value method is relatively easier to apply to situations with no trade flows and/or situations with multiple preferential rates.

34. It is important to note that some Members estimate AVEs in their tariff schedules. In some cases these are for internal purposes, such as to assess the implications of their tariff profile and in

Stawowy (2001) identified a range of compound and alternative tariffs in various schedules. Several were computable as AVEs, but others were not.

16

TN/MA/S/10 Page 8

others they supply them to international agencies. The methodologies presented in this document and/or similar methods used by other international agencies and certain national administrations could serve as benchmarks for coordinated action at the international level to enhance the transparency of tariff regimes. It would also be important to have an internationally accepted benchmark that can be used for any multilateral review of AVE estimation done by Members.

References Gibson, P., J. Wainio, D. Whitley, and M. Bohman, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets. Economic Research Service, USDA, Agricultural Economic Report Number 796, January 2001.

International Trade Center. Bou?t, A., L. Fontagné, M. Mimouni and X. Pichot, Market Access Maps: a bilateral and disaggregated measure of market access, 2001.

OECD. Indicators of Tariff and non-tariff barriers, Paris, OECD ed., 1997.

Stawowy, W. Calculation of Ad valorem Equivalents of non-ad valorem tariffs – Methodology notes. Division on International Trade in Goods and Services, and Commodities, UNCTAD, Draft paper, October 2001.

World Trade Organization. Ad valorem, Specific and other Tariffs: Background Paper by the Secretariat. WTO, AIE/S5, February 6, 1998.

World Trade Organization. Agricultural Negotiations under the Doha Agenda: Elements to be Taken into Account with Regard to Non-ad valorem Tariffs (NAV), Specific Contribution by Costa Rica to the Text. WTO, JOB(02)/87, July 16, 2002.

Table 1a: Typology of tariffs Type of duty Functional form Ad valorem Ad valorem Example TN/MA/S/10

Page 9

av?duty amount?100 import value unit5 per cent Non ad valorem Specific Compound sp? duty amountimport quantity unit15 Fr./100 kg brut 15 per cent + $12,000 each 40 per cent or 622 eur/t, whichever is higher 45 per cent or Rs 55 per kg, whichever is lower 4.5 per cent or 3.5 per cent +1.21yen/m2, whichever is greater 7 per cent + 89,40

本文来源：https://www.bwwdw.com/article/fs27.html