|
The Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation
Official Reply of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation to Report on Questions about Import Certificate to Enterprises
with Foreign Investment
WaiJingMaoZiTongJinHanZi [2000] No.565
August 9, 2000
The Shanghai Special Commissioner’s Office of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation:
The Report on Questions about Import Certificate to Enterprises with Foreign Investment (WaiJingMaoHuTeHanZi [2000] No.19) is duly
received, and now reply you on the relevant questions as follows:
The existing regulations on import quota license administration over enterprises with foreign investment are worked out in accordance
with the three basic laws for enterprises with foreign investment in China and provisions concerning the administration of import
of goods. Article 2 of the recently publicized Circular on Issues concerning Standard Rules governing the Issuance of Import Certificates
to Enterprises with Foreign Investment ( WaiJingMaoZiTongJinHanZi [2000] No.498) is not contradictory to the questions your office
reported. The main reasons are:
I.
It is simply for the purpose of protecting the legally approved foreign trade right of enterprises with foreign investment capable
of trading products for their own use that the state distributes separate import quota to enterprises with foreign investment and
allow them to import self-use products within their business scope, while continuing the practice of limiting the trade of some products
to authorized companies. Article 2 of Document No.498 provides that the second item, ” Import Applicant”, in the import certificate
must be the same enterprise as in the third item , ” Import Agent” does not mean to ban the foreign trade agency business among enterprises.
As this Ministry knows, foreign trade companies such as SINOCHEM and COFCO with more authorized company business can continue to
sign agency contracts according to the provisions of Document No. 498. The only difference is that enterprises with foreign investment
must now make the payment by themselves to their overseas customers and apply to customs by themselves (or entrust a broker). Therefore,
the provisions of Document No. 498 is not contradictory to Article 9 of the Interim Regulations of the People’s Republic of China
concerning the Licensing System for Import of Goods which says “can entrust relevant foreign trade companies to order from overseas
market”.
II.
Document No.498 provides that Item 2, ” Import Applicant” must be the same company as in Item 3, ” Import Agent”. Therefore, in line
with the relevant provisions on import license application and issuance, “Importer” should corresponds to ” Import Agent” and “Consignee”
to “Import Applicant”, i.e. the same enterprise with foreign investment. In this way, there will not be confusion in the process
of import license issuing work.
III.
With regard to the reported issue concerning fertilizer import of Jiangxi Jinyu Quanyuan Fertilizer Co. Ltd., a result is found after
investigation that the company’s import business through agent (including goods storage on ships) is not substantively affected,
so long as it pays agent fees. In addition, since the company knows the market changes well, it does not ignore cost accounting of
raw materials for reason of agent import by authorized foreign trade company.
The official reply is hereby given.
|
