|
|
Home / Bioethanol / News Ukraine Trade Policy Monitoring Annual Report 2008
Prepared by:
Ukraine concluded all WTO accession negotiations and finalized the Working Party report on January 25, 2008. At the WTO General Council's meeting on February 5, Ukraine was officially invited to join the World Trade Organization. Ukraine has not yet ratified their Accession Package (AP) partially because the Parliament (Rada) was blocked for over a month over opposition to NATO membership. Ukraine has until July 4, 2008 to ratify their accession package. Currently, there are 11 draft laws pending approval and only 3 of them have been submitted to the Rada by the Ministry of Economy. Ukraine also needs to revise some sub-legislative acts to ensure compliance. Given this report was submitted during Ukraine's transition period, many of the policies described in this report will change after WTO accession. Ukraine continues to support a massive bureaucratic standardization system inherited from the Soviet Union. These «state standards» are broad in scope and include safety and testing of products. The Ministry of Health and State Department of Veterinary Medicine often have duplicative functions. Ukraine has signed FTA agreements with most Commonwealth of Independent States countries (CIS), but many sensitive agricultural products (meat, sugar, etc.) are exempt or trade is restricted due to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures (e.g.: Ukrainian red meat and dairy products are limited by Russia). The GOU maintains a wide rage of agricultural support programs, some of which are price distorting. Many of these programs are low-cost in terms of budget outlays and provide support in the form of foregone tax revenues. The efficiency of state-operated programs remains very low. These programs are not transparent and distribution of state funds is problematic. Both state-funded and forgone budget revenue programs continue to increase in value despite Ukraine's commitment to limit the aggregate level of support. According to the 2008 State Budget of Ukraine, farm subsidies grew significantly compared to the prior year. For 2008, GOU has budgeted UAH 4.53 billion ($897 million) for livestock and crop farmers through various support programs, compared to UAH 3.53 billion ($698 million) in 2007, UAH 1.99 billion ($391 million) in 2006 and UAH 0.7 billion ($135 million) in 2005. The value of the foregone budget revenue program reached UAH 4.5 billion ($0.89 billion). Section II. Trade Barrier Catalog A. Trade Barriers Table The table below provides a short summary of trade barriers that affect U.S. agricultural exports to Ukraine. In order to provide a better understanding of the barrier, a detailed explanation is provided in chapter B of this Section.
Product Trade barriers Description of the Problem Status Value of Trade Affected* FAS Contact (Value Added Tax) Imports are subject to 20% VAT charge, while domestic producers are not Will continue until the end of 2008 $229 million Oleksandr Tarassevych, Olena Pereyatenets B. Tariff, SPS and TBT Commitments Tariffs — In 2005, GOU reduced import tariffs for non-sensitive agricultural and food products in an attempt to liberalize trade and reduce smuggling. No changes to the tariff schedule were made in 2006 through early 2008. (Please note: In 2005, the Parliament adopted Law # 2775-IV — Revising Customs Tariffs for Agriculture, which became effective on August 16, 2005. The law reduced import tariffs on a wide range of non-sensitive agricultural products. Please refer to UNCLAS KIEV 002802 dated July 2005 for more information.) The WTO market accession package will include a draft law that will reduce the remaining import tariffs down to Ukraine's committed levels. The law is to be adopted by July 4, 2008. In 2005 the GOU introduced significant tariff reductions only for products found in chapters 8, 25 and above in the harmonized tariff schedule. The GOU has held discussions with parliamentarians and industry groups concerning reducing tariffs for sensitive agricultural products, but acknowledges that it is a politically sensitive issue that will probably run into significant roadblocks. The «Revising Customs Tariffs Law» from 2005, reduced tariff rates for beef and pork, but the new rates remained prohibitive for all meats, except for offal. The import duty rates for poultry products remains prohibitively high (Please, refer to Section IV below). The GOU committed to reduce poultry tariffs significantly upon Ukraine's accession to the WTO. However, the agricultural lobby was able to include a provision in the law «Revising the Customs Tariffs» that would maintain high fixed tariff rates for poultry even after accession, contradicting GOU's WTO commitment. The fixed rates are binding and if implemented will keep tariff rates for red meat at over 100%. For poultry (and offal), the ad valorem equivalent rate will exceed 100%. Most expect that GOU will be able to get the final WTO market access package through parliament, which means these tariffs will be lowered to the levels Ukraine committed to. For red meat, the new law «Revising the Customs Tariff Schedule» clearly discriminates against meat cuts and favors carcasses, halves and quarters. According to official statements, this was incorporated for two reasons. First, GOU wants increased veterinary control over imported meat, which is easier to accomplish if each carcass or half carcass has an official stamp from the exporting country's veterinary service. Second, there is a strong misperception that carcasses and bigger cuts are higher quality than small-deboned cuts that are packed in boxes. The relatively low 20% import tariff for beef offal was accepted because these products are used for further processing and pose no threat to local producers. The tariff reductions of 2005 and continued negotiations between the United States and Ukraine opened the market to U.S. beef offal in January 2007 (please refer to the chapter on veterinary measures found below) but had little impact on the rest of U.S.-Ukraine trade. Poultry suppliers continued to circumvent import duties by clearing imports through the Free Economic Zones (FEZs). In late 2007, the new government attempted to close FEZ operations by issuing a decree that would allow the State Customs Service and State Tax Administration to charge high import duties despite the court rulings. The legal battle between the government and importers located in the FEZs continue. Another import duty circumvention method — tolling schemes (products are imported and used as inputs for further processing and then the final product is re-exported) — was also targeted by the government in late 2007. Importers have also challenged the government's new policy in the courts but many predict that importers will probably not receive a favorable ruling. Import Licensing In late 2005, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine introduced import licensing for meat (chilled and frozen beef and pork) and live animals (swine and cattle). In early 2008, the GOU removed animal products from the list. The following agricultural commodities remain subject to import licensing: sugar (HS 1701), sugar syrups (HS 1702190000, 1702209000, 1702305900, 1702409000, 1702609500, 1702909900), ready to eat products containing cacao (HS 1806102000, 1806103000, 1806109000) and aromatized and colored sugar syrups (HS 2106903000, 2106905900) if imported into the customs territory of Ukraine. The Ministry of Economy manages the automatic licensing scheme. Out of all the commodities listed above only sugar has a WTO negotiated tariff rate quota for imported products. Also, GOU treats sugar syrups as sugar substitutes which can be easily refined into sugar after import. So these products are subject to the same quota as sugar. FAS/Kyiv has not heard of a single case of cocoa imports being hampered by the import licensing requirement. Some measures used by the State Committee for Veterinary Medicine may require obtaining a permit. Their description is provided in the Veterinary Measures (Products of Animal Origin) chapter bellow. Sugar TRQ Sugar is the only commodity that is subject to non-automatic import licensing (tariff rate quota). The annual import quota for raw sugar is now set at 260,000 tons. The tariff rate is 2 % of the customs value. Raw sugar imported outside the TRQ will face a 50% customs value tariff rate. This law will be implemented on the first January 1 after Ukraine accedes to the WTO. The GOU passed a production quota for sugar of 1,740,000 tons for 2008/2009 marketing year (September-August). The quota for marketing year 2007/2008 was 2,040,000 million tons. The quota for marketing year 2006/2007 was 1,840,000 million tons. The previously established 185,000 ton export quota for marketing year 2006/2007 was cancelled by the GOU on December 13, 2006. Grain Export Licensing and Quotas The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine adopted Decree #1179, dated September 26, 2007, which was officially published on October 2, 2007. The decree became effective on November 1, 2007 and imposed an export quota for each of the grains (wheat, barley, corn and rye) through March 31, 2008. The total size of the export quotas is 1,203,000 tons which is much lower than the grain traders expected. The quota levels are as follows:
— Corn — 600,000 tons;
The mechanism used to allocate the quotas remains the same as last year. 80 percent of the quotas are divided proportionally to grain exporters. The size of the allocations are proportional to the level of grain exported by each company over the past three years. The remaining 20 percent will be distributed to other companies. Sunflower Seeds and Sunflower Oil Export Quotas — On March 12, 2008, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a decree that established a 360,000 thousand ton export quota for sunflower oil. An export quota for sunflower seeds was set at only 1,000 tons which is essentially an export ban. The quotas will be enforced through the end of marketing year 2007/08 and will expire on July 1, 2008. The official justification for this action was to temper the soaring domestic price of sunflower oil and to combat inflation. The justification is questionable since the share of sun seed oil price increases as a percentage of the consumer price index is extremely small. The decision also questions Ukraine's commitments to market principals. State Standards and Conformity Certification / Duplicative Authorities — Ukraine maintains its own system of State Standards that was inherited from the Soviet Union. The State Committee of Ukraine on Technical Regulations and Consumer Policy (SCUTRCP) is responsible for conformity certification procedures and controls, and issues valid certificates for eligible food products sold in the customs territory of Ukraine. SCUTRCP also maintains the Single State Register of Certified Products. Older Soviet standards (GOSTs) and newer standards (DSTUs) establish requirements for all locally produced and imported food and agricultural products. In most cases these standards define safety requirements for the product as well as product name, storage terms, components, processing methods, form (for sausages), appearance, product content, product grades, sampling norms and methods, packaging, etc. There are more than 100 institutions that are authorized to conduct certification in the Ukrainian State Certification System (UkrSEPRO). Ukrainian food producers are not allowed to produce a product that does not match an existing standard or technical condition, or that is not registered and approved by SCUTRCP. Thus, Ukrainian producers must adhere to standards that define a much broader set of norms beyond safety. Almost all imported food products (See Appendix X of the FAIRS Report UP7015 for a complete HS list) are subject to mandatory sampling, testing and conformity certification by SCUTRCP. Imported products are subject to testing for conformity to safety requirements only, but shelf life issues may become a problem as well. The cost of certification is charged to the applicant (either exporter or importer). In all cases, the SCUTRCP duplicates the functions of either the State Department of Veterinary Medicine or the Sanitary Service of the Ministry of Health. A common problem is double sampling and testing, importers often must pay two separate organizations to conduct the same tests. The average testing fee for one beef shipment (regardless of size) ranges between UAH 1,000 and 1,500 (or $200-$300). Sampling norms allow SCUTRCP to take 0.5 kilograms of any product of animal origin from each allotment. The definition of «allotment» is unclear, but usually products produced within 5 calendar days are considered to be included in one allotment. Testing for a number of strictly defined parameters may take from 5 to 7 days and no export certificate safety statements are honored. Producer's statements concerning the product quality and shelf life of the product are also neglected. The procedure used in product sampling and testing completely blocks imports of small food shipments as well as imports of perishable products. These associated costs are just too high. There is another option (besides mandatory certification of each allotment) available to importers. This option is more suitable for frequent shippers of food products produced by one producer and saves the importer the cost of issuing certifications by allotment. This option requires compliance by a foreign facility to existing Ukrainian norms and regulations on quality and safety. This compliance is granted after the facility is inspected by SCUTRCP officials and receives a certificate of conformity valid for up to three years. The certificate may cover a wide range of products produced at the tested facility. Random sampling and/or annual facility audits are still technically allowed even if the certificate of conformity is granted. U.S. exporters can also refer to the Country Commercial Guide prepared by the Foreign Commercial Service of the U.S. Department of Commerce in Kyiv to learn more about certification in Ukraine and recognition of the international ISO-9000 series standards in Ukraine (Chapter 6: Trade Regulations and Standards, Subchapter J). According to the WTO working group protocol, Ukraine committed to completely exclude imported product from the authority of the SCUTRCP. Currently, all imported food products are still subject to conformity certification. Processed Products Containing Animal Products — Ukrainian state veterinarians located at the border conduct inspections of any product that contain any amount of meat or animal fat, such as canned meat, ready-to-eat seafood products and frozen fish. However, the State Sanitary Inspection Service of the Ministry of Health can also conduct the same test. In many instances both authorities conduct the same tests, but there have been exceptions. When new food safety legislation was adopted in 2006, these overlapping authorities were supposed to have been eliminated. The Veterinary Service has authority and control over live animals, slaughterhouses, fresh meat and open-air markets. The Sanitary and Epidemiological Service has authority over processed food products. However, in practice nothing has changed. Many importers continue to complain about duplicative testing. Ukraine has committed to having only one competent authority for specific food or agricultural products after WTO accession, so the sole competent authority will be responsible for safety issues attributed to the specific product. This will eliminate excessive double testing and reduce the significant testing fees that are currently paid by importers. Food Additives Regulation — Ukraine maintains a positive list of food additives. Recommendations from the CODEX Alimentarius Commission, an international food safety standard setting body, are considered (but not accepted) in approving new food additives; however, the Ministry of Health Care of Ukraine (MHCU) conducts its own risk assessment for each new substance. The list of approved food additives in Ukraine is provided in the Attachments (Tables 2 and 3). It is prohibited to import food products that contain food additives that have not received approval from MHCU. There are four food additives, which are not on the list of approved additives, but which have been cleared for use in imported products. The Ukrainian sanitary authorities have conducted a food safety risk assessment and have established maximum allowed levels (MAL) in order to monitor imported food products. Importers of food products that contain non-registered food additives may seek their registration with the MHCU. Currently, there is no information available on MALs for approved food additives since the GOU discontinued publishing the list in January 1999. Veterinary Measures (Beef and Pork) — On March 6, 2006, the State Veterinary Service of Ukraine lifted the red meat ban imposed on U.S. products and signed bilateral import certificates for beef and pork, and their by-products. This success was supposed to reshape the meat product market that in the past was heavily reliant on poultry. At that time imported beef and pork were unavailable and domestic poultry production was insufficient to meet local demand. Opening the market to imported products from the United States will allow Ukrainian consumers to once again return to traditional consumption patterns, a preference for red meat products. A significant increase in pensions and incomes will facilitate a shift to more expensive meat products. The signing of the U.S. — Ukraine protocol did not reopen the Ukrainian market for US pork and beef products because Ukraine used a provision in the signed bilateral certificate allowing them to conduct a System Audit of the U.S. veterinary system. Initially Ukraine insisted that the market could only be opened after the audit. Ukraine demanded a «from the field to the fork» audit, but after long negotiations the scope of the audit was limited. The Ukrainian veterinarians conducted the audit which was concluded on October 26, 2007. However, FAS Kyiv continues to wait for the final audit results. Note: Ukrainian veterinarians continue to maintain its own set of requirements for imported red meat products. The requirements are applied to all exporting countries unless a bilateral protocol has been negotiated. For U.S. suppliers, the requirements outlined in the bilateral certificate prevail. Veterinary Measures (Products of Animal Origin) — Requirements for products that are subject to state veterinary surveillance and control are found in Order #71, which was adopted by the State Committee of Veterinary Medicine (SCVM) on June 14, 2004. The order contains a complete list of such products and lists the requirements for each. The product list is provided below. The SCVM requires veterinary clearance for products of plant origin used as animal feed. Some products (e.g.: eggs and day-old cheeks) face the same strict requirements despite posing different animal health risks. Many of these requirements are not endorsed by exporting countries. Every shipment arriving in Ukraine will be inspected and sampled regardless of the statements made on the accompanying health certificate. The exporter or importer will have to bear the costs associated with border lab testing or the cost of appeal, which is arbitrated at the Central Laboratory of the Veterinary Service. The cost of testing varies between $80 to $500 depending on the number of required tests and the number of uniform lots in the shipment. The testing procedure takes up to 7 days, which makes the import of some highly perishable goods impractical or impossible. In some cases Ukrainian veterinarians may examine a shipment for compliance with Ukrainian State Standards (GOSTs and DSTUs). Imported products may remain wholesome according to the U.S. export certificate, but be declared spoiled and not cleared by SCVM. Import of most goods of animal origin is subject to approval from SCVM regardless of the health/veterinary certificates attached. The approval procedure is not transparent and will remain in place at least until the date of WTO accession. In Ukraine the following goods are subject to veterinarian control and surveillance and will be inspected by the state veterinarian at the border:
1. Brood cattle; Biotechnology — Ukraine has a number of biotechnology policy issues that impact trade. Lack of enforced legislation and no implementing regulations that would establish a bio-safety regulatory framework hinders registration of biotech crops. Ukraine has no functioning approval process for products of agricultural biotechnology. Unclear GMO food labeling regulations and regulatory officials at the border that apply standards inconsistently compound the problems. Uncertainty over implementation of the Cartagena Protocol will discourage imports of bulk agricultural commodities. On occasion, local food safety officials have been known to demand from traders proof that the imported commodities, mainly soybeans and soybean meal, are biotech free. This occurs despite the fact that no published regulations exist that ban imports of biotech feed products. The current regulatory process for the approval of biotech crops in Ukraine is not well defined and is based on registration procedures designed for conventional plant varieties. Ukraine continues its internal struggle to develop national legislation governing the development, importation, approval and registration, and domestic utilization of biotechnology. No biotech varieties have been approved or registered in Ukraine. The government continues to draft implementing regulations but the progress has been uneven because five Ministries are involved: Ministries of Agriculture, Science and Technology, Agriculture, Health and Environment. Please refer to 2007 Annual Agricultural Biotechnology for Ukraine (public distribution) and Illegal Plantings of Biotech Crops: Regulatory Challenge Report (internal use only). Export Subsidies — Ukraine has committed not to use the export subsidies in the future. There are no export subsidies for agricultural commodities at this point.
Ukraine's agricultural appropriation budget is UAH 9.36 billion ($1.85 billion) for 2008. The level has increased yearly and was UAH 8.03 billion ($1.59 billion) in 2007, UAH 7.3 billion ($1.43 billion) in 2006, UAH 4 billion (792 million) in 2005 and UAH 2.4 billion (475 million) in 2004. The increase is mostly earmarked for increased livestock and crop subsidies and multiple «green box» payments. Product-Specific Programs No new product-specific support programs have been introduced since the previous report. For a detailed review of Ukraine's grain policy and support programs, please visit: http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/policy/eur&russia/UkrainePolicy.pdf In 2008, GOU intends to boost direct subsidies for crop and livestock farmers to an unprecedented level of UAH 4.5 billion ($897 million). The following distribution of funds for direct support was adopted (only future Amber Box measures):
* Note: There may be Amber Box components in other programs classified as «Green Box». The government does not provide enough information on some of these programs to make a proper determination. The distribution of funds in 2008 for support programs has not changed from 2007. According to GOU Decree # 256 (crop support distribution) and # 348, the following subsidies will be paid to Ukrainian agricultural producers in 2008: Winter Crops: In marketing year 2007/08, wheat, triticale and rye will receive UAH 100/hector ($19.8). Spring Crops: Crops planted in 2008: spring wheat, triticale, oat, peas, buckwheat and millet — will receive UAH 100/hector; elite seeds and first reproduction seed soybeans — UAH 80/hector; second and third reproduction — UAH 50/hector; rice — UAH 220/hector; flax and hemp — UAH 640/hector. In 2007, the Livestock Enterprise Support Program did not change much. According to GOU Decree # 121, the beef subsidy increased from 1.4 UAH/kilogram LW (Live Weight) to 1.9 and the pork subsidy increased from 1.05 UAH/kg LW to 1.4. All subsidy payment preconditions (minimal slaughter weight) remained in place. To be eligible for subsidies, all livestock and sheep must be registered with the National Identification System. The subsidies are distributed to both private households and large agricultural enterprises. Due to significant program corruption, the new 2008 subsidy regime will distribute financial sanctions to violators. If the farm is caught misusing the subsidy money, the operation will have to pay back the subsidy plus interest and will loose the right to receive subsidies in the current and next 3 consecutive years. The subsidies aimed at increasing herd size (for livestock and sheep) will have to be returned to the State Budget if the actual number of cows and heifers decrease by the end of the year. Livestock sector subsidies for 2008 are to be distributed as follows:
Animal Producer Direct Subsidy Payments Summary — 2008
Per new dairy or beef animal in the herd 3,000 UAH ($594) per cow or heifer The real subsidy payment can be smaller than those specified above in cases when the budget allocation is late or there are insufficient funds. The decision on subsidy payments is made by commissions created on oblast (equiv. State) and rayon (equiv. County) levels. Rayon Agricultural Department Directors will head commissions that are represented by the State Tax Administration, State Statistics Committee, State Control and Revision Commission (equivalent to the Office of the Accountant General). For some subsidies, the funds will be distributed by the regional Agricultural Departments.
The GOU attempted to reform the existing subsidy distribution mechanism in order to reduce the misallocation of state funds by meat packers. It is not clear what share of the state subsidies filters down to the producers, as meat packers were abusing state funds through the use of minimum slaughter weight requirements and other legislative loopholes. The practice of issuing livestock development payments via agricultural processors was to have been replaced by direct payments distributed from special State Budget accounts.
It remains to be seen if all of these programs will be funded at the levels specified above in 2008. Many of the programs outlined in the table just depict payment terms. Ukraine is running a large budget deficit and funding of such programs in the past was frequently revised during the year. Value-Added Tax — The GOU introduced a value added tax (VAT) refund program in 1998 for livestock, meat and dairy farmers who sell product directly to processing facilities. In 2000, the VAT program was expanded to include all farm products including grains, oilseeds and other crops. The program remains in place. The VAT level in Ukraine is 20%. This program does not involve any direct GOU funding and is completely forgone budget revenues. The legal authority for these VAT privileges was to expire on January 1, 2008, but was extended for an additional year despite Ukraine's WTO commitment to end the program. The program is now expected to expire on January 1, 2009 (5 months after the official accession date of July 4, 2008). Some payments will be received by Ukrainian farmers as late as March 1, 2009. This is by far the biggest indirect support program exceeding all direct budget subsidy programs combined. Information about this program is not publicly available. In 2004, producers received UAH 3.1 billion ($613 million) in VAT exemptions; in 2005 — UAH 3.8 billion ($752 million); in 2006 (forecast) — UAH 3.7 billion ($733 million); in 2007 (forecast) — 4.5 billion ($891 million). Processors accumulate the VAT for processed products sold in special accounts. Farm operators can then receive payments from these accounts (included in the price of the product sold from the farm) and use the funds for «production expansion and input purchases». State institutions often do not control or have oversight over spending from these accounts. Fixed Agricultural Tax — The fixed agricultural tax provides Ukrainian farmers with one of the major tax advantages over other sectors of the economy. Ukrainian farmers are exempt from paying taxes on profits, social security payments and other foregone budget revenues. This tax was introduced in 1999. It replaced 12 different taxes and fees that were previously collected from farmers including a company profit tax, land tax, vehicle tax, communal tax, social security and pension fund payments. Under the fixed agricultural tax, farmers are required to make an annual payment of 0.5% of the estimated value of all arable land as well as land utilized for hay and pasture. This tax is decoupled from production as it is strictly based on land value rather than on output. The land value is calculated according to the existing norms that were established by the State Committee on Land Resources. The market for agricultural lands in Ukraine is not functioning at the moment.
In 2006, the fixed agricultural tax saved Ukrainian farmers approximately UAH 1.38 billion (US $257 million) in Pension Fund payments alone. In 2007, the payment decreased to UAH 1.16 billion (US $230 million). Pension fund payments account for the majority of tax contributions in the Fixed Agricultural tax. The legislation authorizing a fixed agricultural tax was to have expired on January 1, 2004. As FAS/Kyiv earlier predicted, the GOU extended the fixed agricultural tax through 2009. There have been no new trade agreements singed by Ukraine since the previous Trade Policy Monitoring Report. The new Ukrainian government is pushing hard for WTO accession and to begin FTA negotiations with the EU. However, the European Union seems more comfortable moving relations within the framework of its new Neighborhood Policy. Ukraine is unlikely to proceed beyond creating the free trade zone as a part of the Unified Economic Space (UES) with Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. The new government has already declared that it would not jeopardize Ukraine's ambitions to join the EU with the creation of a single market with its former Soviet neighbors. The Governments of Ukraine, Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus signed an Agreement «On the United Economic Space (UES)» in September 2003. The goal of this agreement was to create a single market for goods, services, capital and labor. It was expected that the agreement would be implemented in stages. The first stage would be creation of a free trade zone within the four markets. While Ukraine had entered into free trade agreements with each of the signatories prior to signing the 2003 UES Agreement, the GOU expects improved market access for food and agricultural products currently excluded or facing quantitative restrictions under the existing FTAs. GOU has not yet ratified the Agreement and is moving away from establishing the UES at this time. No details on tariff concessions under the UES are available at this time. Russia — Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — Russia and Ukraine signed an FTA in 1993 that was revised in 1995. Under the 1995 agreement, exemptions exist for certain products and commodities. However, the list is not clearly defined. It appears that sugar is still subject to Russian import duties, while Ukrainian confectionary products containing sugar are not.
Uzbekistan — Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was signed on December 29, 1994 and a revised list of exemptions published in February 1995. Under this agreement, all products from Uzbekistan may enter Ukraine free of all import duties (tariffs, VAT, customs duty) except those included on the exemption list. Ukraine still imposes import duties on grains, meat and meat products, flour, butter, sugar, tea, non-fat dry milk and spirits. Uzbekistan still imposes duties on cotton, vegetable oil and hides and skins. Kazakhstan — Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was signed on December 12, 1997 and ratified on October 2, 1998. Under this agreement, all products from Kazakhstan may enter Ukraine free of all import duties (tariffs, VAT, customs duty) except those included on the exemption list that includes a wide variety of agricultural products. The most important provision of this agreement is that Kazakh wheat has duty free access to the Ukrainian market. Kyrgyzstan-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament on December 9, 1997. According to the agreement, no import duties or taxes are applied to agricultural or food products. Belarus — Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was signed on December 17, 1992 but was not ratified until March 19, 1999. Under this agreement, all products from Belarus may enter Ukraine free of all import duties (tariffs, VAT, customs duty) except those included on the exemption list, which includes a wide variety of agricultural products. The list includes heifers, cows, bulls, oxen, other bovine animals, hides and skins, and sheep. Georgia — Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was signed on January 1, 1995 and ratified on May 5, 1996. Under this agreement all products, including all agricultural products, may enter Ukraine duty free. Armenia- Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This agreement was signed on October 7, 1994 and ratified on May 5, 1996. Under this agreement all products, including all agricultural products, may enter Ukraine duty free. Macedonia-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement — This first non-FSU free trade agreement was ratified by Ukraine's Parliament on July 5, 2001. It is not expected to have any significant impact on trade because Macedonia is not a major trading partner with Ukraine. This is the first agreement for Ukraine that sets in-quota duty rates at zero for a specific county. The previously signed agreements (with FSU countries) exclude some or all agricultural and food products without any quantitative limitations. According to the agreement with Macedonia, both countries will eliminate import duties over the next ten years. The VAT (20% in Ukraine) and an excise tax, however, will continue to be applied according to national legislation. This agreement excludes most agricultural products and establishes TRQs for some of them (See Exhibit G, GAIN Report #UP3002 dated 4/16/2003).
Section V. Reference Materials
Table 1. Ukraine's Import Tariffs for Red Meat and Poultry Products (Previous versus Current Rates) Table 2. List Of Food Additives Allowed For Use In Food Products
Index Food Additives Index Food Additives
Table 3. Food Additives That Can Be Used In Imported Food Products*
Resolution # Date Name of Resolution of the Chief State Sanitary Doctor of Ukraine
Table 4. Major Suppliers of Food and Agricultural Products to Ukraine (HS 1-24), (CIF Value, million US$)
Table 6. Major Food and Agricultural Product Imports from the United States
Date: 21.03.2008 Comments:Leave your comment
|
|
AaOYKQhvjkmgqWr
Last night we had a Zinfandel wine that we pcsuhared for $12. The Climber Red for $5 is like three times better. We pcsuhared two cases of the Climber Red.
Last night we had a Zinfandel wine that we pcsuhared for $12. The Climber Red for $5 is like three times better. We pcsuhared two cases of the Climber, 03.02.2012 04:48:01