Business speaks out against closed quota on sugar imports in Uzbekistan

A quota not the whole market knows about

The Association of Soft Drink and Juice Producers of Uzbekistan (UzBev) has spoken out against the introduction of a quota on white sugar imports, as reported by Spot.uz. The matter concerns a closed Cabinet of Ministers resolution No. 417 of July 30, 2026, which sets an annual import limit of 300,000 tonnes and has not been published for public access. In the association's view, this prevents entrepreneurs from assessing risks in a timely manner and adjusting their production and investment plans.

Mismatch with market needs

UzBev's main argument is arithmetic. Uzbekistan's annual sugar demand is about 650,000–700,000 tonnes, while imports of sugar and raw sugar over the first nine months of 2026 have already exceeded 650,000 tonnes. A quota of 300,000 tonnes covers less than half of that need, and, according to the association, local sugar plants still depend on state support and imported raw materials, failing to supply the market with the required volume. Restricted access to raw materials, UzBev warns, threatens higher production costs, reduced competitiveness of Uzbek products and increased inflationary pressure — with consequences affecting not only beverage producers but all industries that use sugar, as well as consumers.

Quota or quantitative ban: questions about two resolutions

A separate complaint from the association concerns the inconsistency between the two documents. Resolution No. 416 of July 29, 2026 provides for tariff quotas: imports above the established volume remain possible upon payment of customs duties. The closed resolution No. 417, according to UzBev's analysis, does not set duty rates either within or above the quota and does not establish the possibility of imports above the limit — that is, it effectively turns into a quantitative restriction on imports. The association cites Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, which establishes a general prohibition on quantitative restrictions, and emphasizes:

Risks in the WTO context and the association's demands

UzBev also points to other potentially problematic provisions of resolution No. 417. The priority supply of state organizations with domestic white sugar, in the association's assessment, creates a risk of violating the national treatment principle (Article III:4 of GATT 1994), since the exception for government procurement under the WTO agreement does not automatically extend to purchases for commercial purposes. Support measures for sugar plants — restructuring of loans, attracting $50 million in foreign direct investment, compensation of part of the interest expenses on foreign currency loans and preparation of tax benefits — require, in UzBev's opinion, verification for compliance with WTO subsidy agreements: subsidies themselves are not prohibited, but targeted support conditioned on using domestic goods instead of imported ones may fall under restrictions. The association also notes the absence of public information about the criteria for access to auctions and protection against concentration of quotas among a limited circle of companies. UzBev demands clarifications from the Ministry of Justice on the reasons for closing the document, publication of its full text, open discussion with businesses and a legal review for compliance with Uzbekistan's WTO obligations.