11. Notes that India is concerned about the lack of harmonisation of microbiological standards in the European Union, the implications of REACH, costly certificates for exporting fruit to the EU and costly conformity procedures for the CE mark, and stresses that these issues must be resolved in the FTA; calls on both parties to ensure that regulation and NTBs are managed in such a way that overall trade is not hampered; calls on both the European Union and India to work more closely in their different working groups towards a more transparent framework for technical regulations and standards; furthermore calls on the Commission to provide technical assistance to support Indian ...[+++] producers in their efforts to reach EU standards, in particular concerning the health, environmental and social dimensions of production, thus creating win-win situations;

11. Notes that India is concerned about the lack of harmonisation of microbiological standards in the European Union, the implications of REACH, costly certificates for exporting fruit to the EU and costly conformity procedures for the CE mark, and stresses that these issues must be resolved in the FTA; calls on both parties to ensure that regulation and NTBs are managed in such a way that overall trade is not hampered; calls on both the European Union and India to work more closely in their different working groups towards a more transparent framework for technical regulations and standards; furthermore calls on the Commission to provide technical assistance to support Indian ...[+++] producers in their efforts to reach EU standards, in particular concerning the health, environmental and social dimensions of production, thus creating win-win situations;

12. Notes that India is concerned about the lack of harmonisation of microbiological standards in the EU, the implications of REACH, costly certificates for exporting fruit to the EU and costly conformity procedures for the EC mark, and stresses that these issues must be resolved in the FTA; calls on both parties to ensure that regulation and non-tariff barriers to trade (NTBs) are managed in such a way that overall trade is not hampered; calls on both the European Union and India to work more closely in their different working groups towards a more transparent framework for technical regulations and standards; furthermore calls on the Commission to provide technical assistance to support Indian ...[+++] producers in their efforts to reach EU standards, in particular concerning the health, environmental and social dimensions of production, thus creating win-win situations;

The product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producer in India on its domestic market and to third countries, as well as those manufactured and sold by the Community producers on the Community market, have thus been found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses, and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.

Given the large number of cooperating exporting producers of the product concerned in India, a sample of Indian exporting producers was selected in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (the basic Regulation) and individual duty rates ranging from 4,4 % to 10,4 % were imposed on the companies included in the sample, while other cooperating companies not included in the sample were attributed a duty rate of 7,6 %.

This proposal from the Commission is an updating of Regulation 1936/2001, which collected all of the various control measures agreed by three tuna regional fisheries organizations (RFOs) - ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna), IOTC (Indian Ocean Tuna Commission) and I-ATTC (Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission).