Approach to trade and key tariff outcomes
Introduction
3.1
This chapter examines, broadly, the trade in goods chapter of the Australia-India Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement (AI-ECTA) and associated tariff commitments. Chapter 2 of the AI-ECTA deals with trade in goods and conforms to the standard set of provisions expected in a trade agreement chapter dealing with trade in goods. The most important commitments are contained in Annex 2A, which details the tariff commitments made by each Party.
3.2
This chapter begins with a discussion of the trading relationship between Australia and India including India’s approach to trade and tariff liberalisation, and the nature of the goods trade between the two countries. It summarises the key provisions in Chapter 2 of the AI-ECTA before examining the tariff commitments made by India and Australia respectively.
3.3
The views of participants to the inquiry with regard to India’s tariff commitments are discussed, followed by the four side letters of relevance to the AI-ECTA’s trade in goods chapter. These side letters deal with trade and production of wine; trade in organic goods; whisky and other alcoholic beverages; and most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment of wine.
Overview of the trading relationship
India’s approach to trade
3.4
The 2018 independent report to the Australian Government, An India Economic Strategy to 2035: Navigating from Potential to Delivery (India Economic Strategy), discussed India’s approach to international trade and noted notwithstanding successive rounds of trade liberalisation under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), India’s approach to trade was influenced by an historical distrust of the market economy and ‘an understandable concern about the effect on the poor of unmanaged economic growth’.
Reform without disruption
3.5
The principal imperative of India’s approach to trade is that reform has to be managed without major disruptive consequences. While Australia could view India’s approach to international trade as ‘protectionist’, the Indian Government considers its approach as an important tool for managing its economy, particularly minimising social disruption. It considers these tools give it the political space to slowly introduce international competition to parts of the domestic economy.
3.6
Consequently, according to the India Economic Strategy, ‘access to India’s agricultural market for Australian exporters is particularly contentious. The sector is politically sensitive with close to half of India’s workforce employed in agriculture’.
3.7
This insight was reflected in evidence to the inquiry from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) in the context of outcomes in agriculture:
Clearly this is an agreement where India made commitments that it wanted to make and it certainly carved out some of the more-sensitive agriculture products that go to India's important need to ensure that good nutrition reaches its vast population. So, with some of those really staple agricultural products it's maintained its quite protectionist stance in those areas so that the free trade agreement doesn't step into some of those areas. I think India has tried to ensure, by carving certain sectors out, that it's able to manage its markets the way it wants to manage them.
3.8
In particular, DFAT commented on the absence of commitments on dairy:
Dairy was something that India quickly identified as very sensitive to them. There are many, many small, very micro, dairy arrangements all over the country, and there's a lot of important production of nutrients that are essential to be distributed amongst a large number of people.
3.9
As negotiations continue on the comprehensive agreement, DFAT was of the view it is important for Australia to understand India’s market and discuss with India where market liberalisation might occur ‘without threatening some very important needs that they have, with 1.4 billion people’.
Revenue
3.10
The India Economic Strategy also stated revenue considerations influence India’s trade policy settings. Legal border transactions are observable and taxable, in contrast to India’s large domestic cash economy.
3.11
The impact of India’s tariff reductions in minerals and energy (discussed below) was acknowledged by DFAT as having a significant impact on India in terms of revenue.
Indian tariffs
3.12
India’s tariff system is complex and tariff rates can be high. According to DFAT, India’s average tariffs are ‘around 15.4 per cent, ranging up to 150 per cent’.
3.13
India also applies a number of additional charges to the basic tariff, including charges by weight of a good, and specific taxes, such as the ‘Agriculture, Infrastructure and Development Cess’ (AIDC—discussed below).
3.14
In practice this means India retains a significant gap between the tariff levels it has bound in the WTO and other trade agreements, and the rates they apply at the border. According to the India Economic Strategy:
This maximises India’s policy flexibility in managing its economy, and enables the frequent and unpredictable changes it makes to tariffs. Compounding this challenge, exporters are given no advance notice of tariff changes, with no transition periods or grandfathering arrangements for exports already under contract or even in transit.
3.15
This is particularly noticeable in relation to tariffs on agricultural imports:
India regularly raises and lowers its tariffs on agriculture – within its international commitments – depending on domestic demand and production. It does this with the conflicting aims of seeking to protect farmers’ incomes on the one hand while avoiding inflationary pressures for consumers on the other.
3.16
India has also trended towards increasing average tariff rates, which has been noted by the WTO. India’s tariff rates range from zero to 150 per cent with the highest rates (above 60 per cent) applying to alcoholic beverages; animals and animal products; fruit, vegetables and plants; coffee and tea; and certain motor vehicles.
3.17
Submitters to the inquiry commented on aspects of India’s trade policy. The Queensland Cane Growers Organisation (Canegrowers) stated:
While India is an important strategic partner of Australia, … [Canegrowers] respectfully questions India’s commitment to trade and market access reform, particularly for agricultural products and especially for those it considers to be politically sensitive such as sugar.
3.18
According to the Business Council of Australia:
… the Indian government imposes measures such as higher tariffs, quantitative restrictions, and changes to non-tariff barriers at little or no notice, creating risk and uncertainty for Australian business, hampering investment.
Agriculture, Infrastructure and Development Cess
3.19
According to DFAT, India introduced the AIDC in February 2021 as a levy to help fund agricultural infrastructure investment. For most goods the AIDC was offset by corresponding reductions in the basic customs duty. The AIDC is a customs duty and, as the total level of customs duty remained unchanged, its introduction did not impose additional costs on Australian exporters to India. India’s customs duties, including their AIDC components, are subject to the elimination and reduction commitments agreed under the AI-ECTA.
Australia’s goods trade with India
Exports
3.20
In 2020-21, Australia exported $13.2 billion in goods to India, constituting 3.3 per cent of Australia’s goods exports. In 2020-21, India was Australia’s sixth largest goods export market with a 1.5 per cent five year trend rate of growth.
Table 3.1: Major Australian exports to India 2017-18 to 2020-21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Coal
|
$9,907,331
|
$11,623,831
|
$7,790,368
|
$8,656,663
|
|
Confidential items [liquified natural gas (LNG)]
|
$727,539
|
$571,312
|
$723,949
|
$747,577
|
|
Gold
|
$731,547
|
$578,213
|
$66,183
|
$1,474,261
|
|
Copper ores and concentrates
|
$1,068,398
|
$445,864
|
$462,702
|
$626,205
|
|
Natural gas
|
$246,357
|
$935,000
|
$369,000
|
$202,000
|
|
Vegetables f.c.f
|
$829,000
|
$31,099
|
$95,437
|
$97,599
|
|
Wool and other animal hair
|
$108,770
|
$224,864
|
$136,990
|
$86,517
|
|
Non-ferrous waste and scrap
|
$145,868
|
$210,221
|
$157,177
|
$187,206
|
|
Wheat
|
$19,219
|
$239
|
$624
|
$29
|
|
Ferrous waste and scrap
|
$145,868
|
$152,595
|
$139,134
|
$145,363
|
Source: DFAT.
3.21
While the trade statistics provided above are not directly comparable to India’s tariff schedule, generally the goods above attract comparatively low tariffs (aside from wheat which carries a tariff of between 30 and 100 per cent and is a sensitive product for India, and some fresh vegetables). For instance, most categories of coal attract a 1 per cent tariff (with 1.5 per cent AIDC). This tariff would be eliminated on entry into force (EIF). The tariff on many categories of non-ferrous waste and scrap is between zero per cent and 5 per cent, and would be eliminated over five years. LNG and copper ores and concentrates carry a tariff of 2.5 per cent, which would be eliminated on EIF. The tariff treatment of gold is mixed. Gold ores and concentrates carry a tariff of 2.5 per cent, which would be eliminated on EIF. However, monetary gold is contained in India’s exclusion list (EL) and its tariff (6.9 per cent or 7.5 per cent, and 2.5 per cent AIDC) would not change. Most ferrous waste and scrap does not attract a tariff and enters India duty free.
Imports
3.22
In 2020-21, Australia imported almost $6.5 billion in goods from India, constituting around 2 per cent of goods imports. In 2020-21, India was Australia’s thirteenth largest market for goods imports with a 4.7 per cent five year trend rate of growth.
Table 3.2: Major Indian exports to Australia 2017-18 to 2020-21
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Refined petroleum
|
$1,642,595
|
$566,163
|
$878,237
|
$1,708,885
|
|
Medicaments (incl veterinary)
|
$353,633
|
$392,896
|
$449,176
|
$525,349
|
|
Pearls and gems
|
$280,080
|
$264,450
|
$226,921
|
$354,961
|
|
Railway vehicles
|
$338,912
|
$471,024
|
$87,624
|
$7,045
|
|
Made-up textile articles, nes
|
$176,205
|
$192,735
|
$172,729
|
$244,482
|
|
Jewellery
|
$179,620
|
$198,450
|
$188,175
|
$220,520
|
|
Women’s clothing
|
$97,472
|
$108,533
|
$116,343
|
$110,617
|
|
Other textile clothing
|
$85,604
|
$105,060
|
$115,136
|
$140,828
|
|
Floor coverings
|
$89,062
|
$103,473
|
$94,805
|
$132,279
|
|
Manufactures of base metal, nes
|
$81,945
|
$98,144
|
$106,131
|
$108,820
|
Source: DFAT
3.23
In general, the tariffs on the major items Australia imports from India are either zero or 5 per cent, and the significant majority of Australia’s tariffs would be eliminated on EIF.
Key provisions in Chapter 2—Trade in goods
3.24
Chapter 2 of the AI-ECTA for the most part conforms to a standard set of provisions contained in a trade agreement chapter on tariffs on trade in goods. The chapter, amongst other things:
incorporates article III (concerning equal tax treatment of goods) of the GATT 1994
prohibits the Parties from increasing tariffs or imposing new tariffs
commits the Parties to tariff reductions in accordance with their respective schedule to Annex 2A
includes a MFN provision permitting the Parties access to lower tariff outcomes if such outcomes are negotiated in another agreement
permits Parties to either negotiate accelerating tariff reductions or to unilaterally reduce tariffs
limits non-tariff fees and charges (other than customs duties, charges equivalent to an internal tax or other internal charges applied consistently with article III(2) of the GATT 1994, and anti-dumping and countervailing duties) to cost recovery only, and prohibits such fees from being used for indirect protection of domestic goods or as a revenue source
requires that Parties administer their laws, regulations, decisions, and rulings on matters covered by this chapter in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner and would, to the extent possible, make their laws, regulations, decisions, and rulings publicly available
requires that Parties establish a sub-committee on trade to review the operation of the chapter, promote trade, and address issues associated with the administration of this chapter.
3.25
With regard to goods, article 2.8 specifies neither Party is to prohibit or restrict the importation from, exportation to, or sale for export to, the other Party, except in accordance with article XI of the GATT 1994, which is incorporated into and made part of the AI-ECTA.
Tariff commitments
3.26
Annex 2A contains the tariff reduction schedules for Australia and India. Each Party provides a schedule listing the products in the harmonised system and their associated tariff treatment, if any, and information for interpreting that schedule.
3.27
Broadly, India has made commitments in around 70 per cent of lines (there are around 12,000 lines in India’s schedule); Australia has made commitments in all lines. The Indian Government welcomed the fact the AI-ECTA is the first trade agreement India has signed in which a partner country has eliminated all tariffs for Indian exports.
India’s schedule of tariff commitments
3.28
India’s general disposition towards trade in goods appears to be reflected in the outcomes on goods in the AI-ECTA. In its explanatory material on the AI-ECTA, the Indian Government stated:
India has kept many sensitive products in the exclusion category without offering any concession. Some of these are milk and other dairy products, chickpeas, walnut, pistachio nut, wheat, rice, bajra, apple, sunflowers seed oil, sugar, oil cake, gold, silver, platinum, jewellery, iron ore and most medical devices. This is a major gain for India in this Agreement.
3.29
In return, the Indian Government noted that India was offering to remove or reduce tariffs on raw materials and intermediates (referring to extractive industries like mining or gas) and would provide zero duty access on EIF of 40.3 per cent of its tariff lines, and another 30 per cent over a period of 3, 5, 7 and 10 years.
3.30
Of the tariff lines committed:
some would be eliminated on EIF
some would be eliminated in a number of annual reductions
some would be reduced to a lower tariff in a number of annual reductions
some would retain their AIDC and be subject to tariff rate quotas (TRQs)
some would be subject to TRQs.
3.31
Around 30 per cent, or 3,540 lines, are specified on the EL, meaning there would be no tariff reductions. Items on the EL include:
some synthetic fibre products
some manufactured clothing
some manufactured footwear
items of silver, gold, or platinum
Australia’s schedule of tariff commitments
3.32
Under Australia’s commitments, tariffs would be reduced on EIF or in equal annual instalments, with the first instalment falling on the EIF of the AI-ECTA. Australia has the following staging categories for tariff reductions:
A—Goods that are either already tariff free or where the tariff would be eliminated on EIF. For the majority of Australian products, the existing tariff rate of zero would remain so on EIF. Tariffs of 5 per cent that currently apply to a number of imports from India, would be eliminated on EIF.
B5—For a small number of goods, including flat rolled iron or non-alloy steel, aluminium, bars and rods, angles shapes and sections, wire, tubes, pipes, and tanks, elimination of tariffs would occur in five annual equal instalments.
Outcomes for Australia
3.33
The National Interest Analysis (NIA) highlighted a number of key outcomes for Australian exporters and these are discussed below. In general, the NIA stated more than 85 per cent of Australian goods exports would enter India duty free on EIF of the AI-ECTA. This figure includes commodities that enter India duty free already.
3.34
According to the NIA, goods where the tariffs (generally between 10 per cent and 50 per cent) would be phased out over seven years include: Atlantic salmon; tuna; Albacore; rock lobster; some seed oils; some processed wheat, cereal and grain products; milk powder for infant use; milk powder for protein concentrates; cherries; shelled macadamia nuts; shelled pistachios; avocados; some types of pasta; and crispbread.
3.35
Apricots and strawberries would see a tariff reduction from 30 per cent to 15 per cent over seven years.
3.36
Some goods would gain access to TRQs including:
lentils—1.5 lakh tonnes at 50 per cent of MFN duty on the day of imports—duty is 10 per cent (plus 20 per cent AIDC)
almonds—combined 34,000 tonnes for in shell or shelled at 50 per cent of MFN duty on the day of imports—duty is Rs100 per kg
oranges and mandarins—combined of 13,700 tonnes at 50 per cent of MFN duty on the day of imports—duty is 30 per cent
pears—annually 3,700 tonnes at 50 per cent of MFN duty on the day of imports—duty is 30 per cent.
3.37
In relation to industrial goods, the NIA highlighted a number of achievements:
coal—generally a 1 per cent plus 1.5 AIDC, eliminated on EIF, with bituminous coal eliminated over five years
LNG—2.5 per cent tariff eliminated on EIF
alumina—5 per cent tariff eliminated on EIF
most metallic ores (excluding a range of iron ores)—various categories generally 2.5 per cent tariff eliminated on EIF
certain non-ferrous metals—where not on the EL, generally a 5 per cent tariff eliminated on EIF
manganese ores—2.5 per cent eliminated on EIF
tungsten ores and concentrates—2.5 per cent eliminated on EIF
rare earth oxides—2.5 per cent eliminated on EIF
zirconium concentrates—2.5 per cent eliminated on EIF
pharmaceutical products—generally 10 per cent tariff eliminated over five years
certain medical devices [not specified]
sandalwood—the 20 per cent tariff on oil would remain, while the 15 per cent tariff on chips and dust would be eliminated over seven years.
3.38
In general, according to DFAT, the AI-ECTA would address India’s frequent and unpredictable changes in tariffs through the commitment neither Party would increase any existing tariff, or adopt any new tariff, on an originating good—where a commitment is made.
Views on the tariff outcomes for Australia
3.39
Various organisations who made submissions to the inquiry supported generally the tariff outcomes, though some expressed reservations about specific outcomes. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry stated the market benefits were clear and the tariff commitments were a ‘significant early harvest’.
3.40
While noting that some nuts did not obtain tariff reductions (such as walnuts, pecans and inshell pistachios), the Australian Nut Industry Council (ANIC) stated the tariff reductions achieved would provide better opportunities for nut exports, particularly almonds and macadamias. With regard to nuts that did not obtain tariff reductions, ANIC stated it understood that walnuts were regarded as sensitive due to the production of walnuts in Kashmir. However, it questioned why pecans and inshell pistachios were excluded when there are no pecans grown in India and there is no Indian pistachio industry. Nevertheless, the ANIC fully supported the AI-ECTA.
3.41
While Canegrowers welcomed the conclusion of the negotiations with caution and supported ratification, it expressed significant reservations about India’s compliance with existing WTO obligations. Similarly, Spirits and Cocktails Australia and the Australian Distillers Association in their joint submission welcomed the conclusion of the agreement, but stated they were disappointed there were no improvements in market access for distilled spirits.
3.42
Quintis, which produces sandalwood, welcomed the incremental reduction of tariffs on sandalwood chips and powder as a ‘promising start’ that would bring Australia into line with the tariffs enjoyed by Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members. However, the tariff for sandalwood oil remained at 20 per cent while the tariff for ASEAN countries was being reduced to 5 per cent following the completion of the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 2018.
3.43
Others who supported the goods outcomes included Australian Red Meat Industry and the Northern Territory Government.
Outcomes on wine
3.44
India’s tariff schedule contains a separate appendix on wine in which it makes the following commitments according to the CIF value of a 750ml bottle of wine:
less than US$5—existing customs duty of 150 per cent would not be reduced
between US$5 and US$15—reduction over 10 years from 150 per cent to 50 per cent
above US$15—reduction over 10 years from 150 per cent to 25 per cent.
3.45
During the public hearing, DFAT stated India had not made a liberalising commitment on wine previously, but acknowledged Australia predominantly exported wine to India in the ‘very low price category’ and this would not be eligible for tariff reductions. Only around 2 per cent of wine currently exported to India would be eligible for tariff reductions.
3.46
According to DFAT, the outcome reflected the fact the wine industry is a ‘very difficult issue for India’. India has:
… an infant industry there that they are trying to develop. That industry is very much focused in that low-price range, so they wanted to not encourage imports in that particular price range in order to help their infant industry to grow, so they set a minimum import price of US$5 per bottle and the 150 per cent tariff to phase down for wine above that US$5 point.
3.47
The price point targeted by the Indian wine sector was discussed during the public hearing and DFAT told the Committee the Indian wine sector was primarily targeting products at the equivalent CIF of less than US$2. The Committee was told by Pernod Ricard Winemakers that the average price of Australian wine exported to India in 2020 was US$2.53 a bottle. Australian Grape and Wine stated, ‘in general, Australian producers and Indian producers are playing in different spots in the market’.
3.48
It is nevertheless the case according to DFAT that there is, ‘enormous potential to move into the more premium wine market, in terms of the big tariff advantage that Australian exporters will have over all its competitors’. This was acknowledged by Australian Grape and Wine.
Views of the wine industry
3.49
Pernod Ricard Winemakers emphasised that only 2 per cent of Australian wine exports to India exceeded the minimum import price of US$5 a bottle in the 12 months to December 2021, and stated:
… we want to put on the record that we were surprised and disappointed with the lack of ambition contained in the agreement. We think it represents a missed opportunity to open up a critical growth market at a really delicate time in our industry … In our view, the substance of the agreement is a little bit like launching flights to a new destination but only selling seats in first class.
3.50
Pernod Ricard Winemakers confirmed producers exporting wine to India below the US$5 per bottle threshold:
… will be unable to artificially inflate prices above the threshold in an attempt to take advantage of the deal, as this would rightly attract the attention of Indian authorities.
Transfer prices are set at a level benchmark amongst a range of criteria and documented by external advisers. Typically it's not something you can adjust at the drop of a hat.
3.51
As such, according to Pernod Ricard Winemakers:
Businesses such as ours, who have invested considerable capital in building brands in the Indian market over decades, will be at a competitive disadvantage relative to new entrants who may be able to price their products above the minimum import price.
3.52
More generally, Pernod Ricard Winemakers noted the AI-ECTA did not deal with:
… a number of discriminatory taxes at the state level. For example: the state of Maharashtra imposes a tax on foreign liquor set at 150 per cent of manufacturing cost. The cumulative effect of these tariffs and taxes in the Indian market are that a bottle of Jacob's Creek Classic, which sells for around $8 in Australia, costs between $20 and $30 in India.
3.53
Australian Grape and Wine also spoke about taxes:
… each of the 28 States and 8 Union and National Territories have individual tax regimes. Often, these taxes and charges discriminate against foreign produced alcoholic beverages in an effort to support local producers. For most, this suite of taxes and charges make India a relatively unattractive export market.
3.54
It acknowledged religious and cultural sensitivities in India often drove regulatory arrangements and state taxes, including in some states that are ‘completely prohibitionist’.
3.55
In response to concerns raised about taxes, DFAT acknowledged that while India applied a range of taxes and charges at the state and union territory level, their impact on trade was not quantifiable. It stated WTO national treatment provisions did not prevent Parties applying internal taxes, including at the state and union territory level, provided imported goods were treated no less favourably than ‘like’ domestic goods and the taxes were not applied to afford protection to domestic production.
3.56
Despite their reservations about the substance of the commitments on wine, Australian Grape and Wine supported the ratification of the AI-ECTA and submitted to the Committee:
Improving market access for Australian wine in India would be a major step towards mitigating the impact of China’s trade-prohibitive import duties on Australian wine imports and successfully diversifying Australia’s wine export footprint over the long-term.
Side letters
Trade and production of wine
3.57
The side letters on trade and production of wine deal with bilateral cooperation on the trade in wine, including in relation to customs procedures, regulatory requirements, and testing requirements.
3.58
The bilateral cooperation would include dialogue, technical consultation and collaborative projects, exchange of information, the sharing of best practices, and the provision of technical assistance and capacity building.
3.59
Each Party is also to endeavour to assess each other’s laws, regulations and requirements in relation to oenological practices (the science and study of wine making) with the aim of getting each Party to accept the other’s mechanisms for regulating their oenological practices.
3.60
The Parties would establish a Joint Dialogue on Wine for information and cooperation on production and trade related matters associated with wine.
3.61
The purpose of the side letters, according to DFAT, was to:
… help industry-to-industry links, to help grow their wine industry and to establish a degree of cooperation and understanding between the two industries, which we hope will help us to find a mutually satisfactory way of deepening that liberalisation in wine.
3.62
The wine industry supported these activities for their future potential benefit to wine exports. Australian Grape and Wine stated:
The side letters that are part of the AI-ECTA are really positive. They focus on things like information exchange, creating formalised sorts of dialogues, regulatory cooperation and the like. These are really important things, particularly in the interim phase, where governments can start working together and regulators can start working together. And it gives industry the imprimatur to start working to build that relationship between our two industry bodies and industries in general … to build some understanding about what the state of Australia's wine sector is really like and how we can work together to grow that market for wine in total in India.
3.63
According to Australian Grape and Wine, cooperation on the trade in wine is already underway.
Wine (most-favoured-nation treatment)
3.64
In the side letters on the MFN treatment of wine, the Indian Government affirms that it would extend to Australian wine products treatment as favourable as that provided to imports of like goods from any non-Party with regard to tariffs and charges of any kind on or in connection with importation, with respect to the method of levying such duties and charges, and with respect to the minimum customs valuation of the import.
3.65
During the inquiry, DFAT stated these side letters mean any deeper liberalisation to which India agrees in any future FTA, including with wine export competitors such as the European Union, United Kingdom, United States or New Zealand, would be extended to Australia.
3.66
This would mean Australia would not be ‘undercut in the market in the future by any of our competitors … under their future free trade agreements’.
3.67
The side letters were strongly supported by Australian Grape and Wine. Pernod Ricard Winemakers stated:
On balance, it's positive. Given the tariff outcome, it's better to have two MFN clauses and not one. However, I would say that, given the dominance of the Australian category in India, it would end up having to rely on the MFN clause for tariff reductions. By definition, that means we're risking giving up our market share in favour of other nations.
Trade in organic goods
3.68
The side letters on trade in organic goods confirm the understanding that the Parties shall:
exchange information on matters that relate to organic production, certification of organic goods, and related control systems
endeavour to conclude negotiations on a Mutual Recognition Assessment of organic equivalence within 12 months of the signing of the AI-ECTA.
Whisky and other alcoholic beverages
3.69
The side letters on whisky and other alcoholic beverages state the Parties shall consider issues relating to market access, particularly in relation to maturation rules for whisky and other alcoholic beverages.
3.70
Both Parties would participate in a working group which would report to the Subcommittee on Trade in Goods to examine these issues.