Committee Reports > List of Committees > Joint > 1976 > Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities > Report No. 27 - Miscellaneous Proposals on Pesticides, Paints etc: Customs Procedure and Community Transit

REPORT

A. INTRODUCTION

1. In this report the Joint Committee proposes to deal with a miscellaneous group of Commission proposals. From enquiries made it does not appear to the Joint Committee that the implementation of these proposals presents any special difficulties for Ireland and consequently it sees no objection to their adoption. For this reason the proposals are being dealt with in a single report although the subject matters of the proposals are not related.

B. CLASSIFICATION, PACKAGING AND LABELLING OF (i) PESTICIDES AND (ii) PAINTS, VARNISHES, GLUES AND RELATED PRODUCTS

2. Pesticides

The proposal relating to pesticides* is for a Council Directive and was submitted to the Council on 31st December, 1974. The aim of the proposal is the elimination of technical barriers to trade which necessarily involves the adoption of uniform safety standards to protect users and workers.

Member States are to be obliged to ensure that dangerous pesticides are not placed on the market unless they (a) are packaged securely and (b) have labels indicating name of the substance, special risks and toxicity. The format of the labels, symbols of toxicity etc., are specified in Directive 67/548/EEC on dangerous substances. The draft Directive defines the pesticides to which it relates and establishes the methods of determining their toxicity.

3. Paints, Varnishes, Glues and Related Products

The proposal on paints, varnishes etc., which is also for a Council Directive was submitted to the Council on 30th June, 1975 (R/785/75). It too is concerned with the elimination of technical barriers to trade and consequently with the standardisation of protective measures.

Member States may not permit the marketing of substances which contain the substances listed in Annex 1 of the proposal unless they are packaged and labelled according to prescribed standards. There are special conditions relating to lead in paint which children might suck or chew.

4. Existing Directives

The proposals are complementary to two Directives already adopted in this field, viz.

(i) dangerous substances (67/548/EEC), and

(ii) dangerous preparations-solvents (73/173/EEC).

These two Directives are due to be implemented by May and June, 1976 respectively. It is possible that the implementation date may be deferred to enable certain anomalies between classifications in the Directives to be removed. It is understood that it is proposed to implement them in this country by statutory instruments made under the European Communities Acts.

5. Implementation of the Proposals

The proposals, if adopted, are to be implemented by 1st October, 1977. However a period of approximately two years between adoption and implementation would be desirable. Accordingly the target dates may have to be altered if the Directives are not adopted within the next few months. Present indications are that there will be quite some delay before adoption takes place.

The proposal relating to pesticides is with a Council Working Party since September, 1970. On 15th January, 1976 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution welcoming the proposal on Paints and Varnishes (O.J. C28/34—9th February, 1976).

It is possible that the provisions on pesticides may have repercussions on the Poisons Act, 1961; this aspect has not yet received detailed examination by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries which has primary responsibility for the Directive in question. The Department of Labour states that it “does not administer any existing Acts or Regulations which are relevant to the proposed Paints and Varnishes Directive”. Neither Department foresees any real difficulties for this country arising out of these proposals.

C. SIMPLIFICATION AND HARMONISATION OF CUSTOMS PROCEDURE (S/1210/75)

6. Kyoto Convention

The International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonisation of Customs Procedure (Kyoto Convention) which entered into force on 25th September, 1974 was drawn up under the auspices of the Customs Co-operation Council. The Council, which is an International Organisation, set up by a Convention drawn up at Brussels in 1950, has 77 members including the nine Member States of the EEC. Ireland is a founder member of the Council and is represented at its meetings and on its principal Committees by members of the Revenue Commissioners’ staff.

The objects of the Council are to operate the Nomenclature and Valuation Conventions and to secure the highest degree of harmony and uniformity in customs systems and to this end to study the problems inherent in the development and improvement of Customs technique and Customs legislation.

In keeping with these objectives the Council drafted the Kyoto Convention with strong support from international organisations concerned with the development of international trade. The Convention provides the most effective means of securing the highest possible degree of harmony and uniformity in the Customs procedures of different countries.

The Convention is comprised of one common part, the body of the Convention, followed by a number of Annexes each dealing with a customs procedure. Each Annex in conjunction with the body of the Convention forms a Convention in itself which may be accepted separately. An Annex contains an introduction, definitions of certain Customs terms used therein, and a series of provisions of two kinds: Standards and Recommended Practices. Application of the Standards in any given Annex will ensure a certain harmonisation of the Customs procedure concerned; the application of the Recommended Practices, where the accent is placed on simplification, will also bring an even further degree of harmonisation in the particular Customs procedure.

To date twelve such Annexes have been adopted within the Customs Co-operation Council concerning the following Customs Procedures:—

1. Customs Warehouses

2. Drawback

3. Temporary Admission subject to re-export action in the same state

4. Rules of Origin

5. Documentary Evidence of Origin

6. Control of Documentary Evidence of Origin

7. Temporary Admission for Inward Processing

8. Duty Free Replacement of Goods

9. Repayment of Import Duties and Taxes

10. Clearance for Home Use

11. Transit

12. Temporary Exportation for Outward Processing.

Article 11 of the main body of the Convention has a clause which enables Customs or Economic Unions to contract in their own name.

Article 12 states that the main body of the Convention and its Annexes shall enter into force three months after five States, Members of either the Customs Co-operation Council or the United Nations, have signed the Convention without reservation of ratification.

So far, the main body of the Convention and the Annexes relating to Warehouses, Drawback and Temporary Admission subject to re-exportation in the same state, have entered into force. The European Communities and its nine Member States have acceded to the body of the Convention and to the Annex on Warehouses.

7. Present Proposal and its Effect on Ireland

The Commission of the European Communities on 7th August, 1975 submitted a Recommendation for a Council Decision accepting on behalf of the Community the following four Annexes:—

(1) Annex concerning Rules of Origin,

(2) Annex concerning Documentary Evidence of Origin,

(3) Annex concerning Temporary Admission for Inward Processing,

(4) Annex concerning Repayment of Duties and Taxes at Importation.

The implications for Ireland, should the Council decide to accept the proposal, would be as follows:—

(a) No effect on existing legislation;

(b) No appreciable implications—regarding Annexes outlined in (1), (2), (3) our procedures and practices are already aligned by EEC Regulation and are more or less uniform to those set out in these Annexes; regarding Annex at (4) an EEC Regulation dealing with the question of Repayments is at present at the draft stage;

(c) The Council and Commission decided that the Recommendation in Document S/1210/75 COM(75) 388 final of 22nd July, 1975, should be referred to the European Parliament, before a decision is made by the Council, because of a difference as to whether the matter should be decided under Article 113 or Article 235 of the Treaty of Rome. The European Parliament in its opinion delivered on 14th November, 1975 welcomed the proposal (O.J. C280/70—— 8th December, 1975). It is understood that consideration at Council level may take 3 to 6 months.

D. COMMUNITY TRANSIT (R/2141/75)

8. Amending Regulation

On 18th March, 1969 the Council adopted Regulation (EEC) No. 542/69 the purpose of which is to simplify customs formalities. It has since been extended and improved to bring it more into line with the needs of the trade and administration. The present proposal aims at further simplifying transit procedures.

Under the basic Regulation a person seeking to carry out an external Community transit operation was generally required to furnish a guarantee to ensure collection of duties and other taxes a Member State was authorised to charge. No guarantee was required in the case of internal Community transit unless the law of the Member State concerned so provided. The present proposal would abolish automatic guarantees. In the case of external Community transit, firms which are regarded as risk-proof as regards paying money due would be exempt. In the case of internal Community transit no guarantees would be required except in the case of certain goods.

The present proposal would also abolish the TIF procedure which involved breaking up a railway transit operation into a series of national procedures. It had largely become obsolete in any event. The other amendments suggested by the proposal seem of lesser importance.

9. Consolidating Regulation

The Commission also proposes replacing Regulation (EEC) No. 542/69, as amended, by a new Regulation which drops some provisions that are no longer applicable but otherwise makes no significant amendment of existing rules.

10. Effect on Ireland

Neither proposal has any special significance for this country and apparently they do not raise any great problems for us.

(Signed) CHARLES J. HAUGHEY,

Chairman of the Joint Committee.

24th March, 1976.

*O.J. No. C40/30 of 20th February, 1975.