RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/11
25 April 2000
(00-1641)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 APRIL 2000
Chairman: Mr. Lars Andersen (Norway)1
The Committee on Import Licensing held its eleventh meeting on 11 April 2000.  The
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1271, was adopted as follows:
1. Notifica tions................................................................................................................ ...............1
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation) ..................1
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing
Procedures).................................................................................................................... .............2
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 (new im port licensing procedures or changes)............................3
2. Other Business............................................................................................................... ............3
(i) Brazil's import licensing procedures ........................................................................................ ..3
(ii) Members' compliance with notification re quirements ................................................................5
(iii) Date of ne xt meeting ...................................................................................................... .............5
3. Election of  Offi cers ......................................................................................................... ..........5
_______________
1. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation)
1.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that since the last meeting, the Secretariat had
received notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) from nine Members (G/LIC/N/1/- series),
which included two notifications received since the airgram convening this meeting was issued (from
Bangladesh and Madagascar), that would be before the Committee for review at the next meeting.
Copies of publications and laws and regulations referred to in the notifications were available for
consultation in the Secretariat.
1.2 With respect to the current status of notifications under the two provisions, the Chairman
said that since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement the Committee had received notificationsfrom only 65 Members (counting the EC and its member States as one Member).  Under the twoprovisions and the procedures agreed by the Committee, all Members were required to notify their
                                                     
1 Mr. Lars Andersen, Vice- Chairman  of the Committee, presided in place of the Chairperson,
Mrs. Marie Gosset (Côte d'Ivoire).G/LIC/M/11
Page 2
legislation and submit copies of any relevant publications and laws and regulations upon becoming a
Member of the WTO.  He urged Members that had not yet provided any information concerningtheir laws and regulations and publications relevant to import licensing to submit their notificationswithout further delay.  Members which did not apply import licensing procedures, or had no lawsor regulations relevant to the Agreement, were also requested to notify the Committee of this fact sothat a complete picture could be obtained.
1.3 The Committee took note of the above statement as well as the notifications from the Czech
Republic, Estonia, the EC, Guatemala, Haiti, Hu ngary, India, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia, Malawi,
Singapore and Turkey.
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures)
1.4 The Chairman said that replies to the Questionnaire (G/LIC/N/3/- series) received from the
following 16 Members were before the Committee for review at the present meeting:  Canada;  the
EC;  Guatemala;  Hong Kong, China;  Hungary;  India;  Jamaica;  Latvia;  Macau, China;Malawi;  Namibia;  Philippines;  Romania;  South Africa;  Tunisia;  and Turkey.  In addition, theSecretariat had received four notifications since the airgram convening this meeting had beenissued, from Bangladesh, Namibia, Norway and the United Arab Emirates, which the Chairmansuggested should be reviewed at the next meeting.
1.5 With respect to the current status of notific ations, the Chairman informed the Committee that
since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, a total of only 62 Members (counting the EC and
its member States as one Member) had thus far submitted notifications under this provision.  This
included notifications from 11 Members in 1995, 22 in 1996, 25 each in 1997 and 1998, 20 in1999, and eight Members up to now this year.  The WTO had a Membership of 136 at present.  AllMembers were required to submit replies to the Questionnaire on an annual basis, by 30 September.Notifications were overdue from many Members and he urged Members therefore to submit theirnotifications without any further delay.  Those Members which had not made any changes to theirimport licensing procedures since their previous notifications, or which did not apply importlicensing procedures, were also required to notify this fact to the Committee.  The Questionnaireused for these notifications could be found in the Annex to document G/LIC/3.
1.6 The representative of Norway said that her country had notified recently that there had been
no changes in the Norwegian procedures on import licensing.  However, some questions had arisen
regarding the last notification circulated in document G/LIC/N/3/NOR/2, dated 3 December 1997,and her authorities therefore were in the process of re-examining whether the information containedin the above document was entirely correct.
1.7 The representative of Canada referred to the notification from the EC (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/2
and Adds. 1-27),  reply 13 of which stated that in general no deposit or advance payment was
required to obtain an import licence.  However, in the agricultural field, security deposits were
required.  He requested the EC to explain why security deposits were needed for agricultural goodsif they were not necessary for other goods.
1.8 The representative of the EC took note of the question and agreed to provide a reply to
Canada at the next meeting.1.9 The representative of Canada referred to the notification from India (G/LIC/N/3/IND/3)
and said that in its response to question 2, India appeared to say that Special Import Licences wereG/LIC/M/11
Page 3
subject to export requirements.  He would appreciate it if India could specify where details of those
requirements were set out and indicate the approval rate for Special Import Licences and RestrictedImport Licences.
1.10 The representative of India informed the Committee that, with effect from 1 April 2000,
India had made some improvements to its export/import policy as a result of which there might be a
change in policy with regard to the Special Import Licences as well.  As mentioned in reply 6.I ofthe notification, details of the Import and Export Policy, Special Import Licences and otheradministrative procedures were available on the website http://www.nic.in/eximpol.  He wouldprovide the information requested by Canada at the next meeting.
1.11 The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made.
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 (new import licensing procedures or changes)
1.12 The representative of Uruguay said that the notification made by Venezuela
(G/LIC/N/2/VEN/1) was being studied by his authorities and without prejudicing additional
questions that might be posed later, his delegation wished to have replies to the following questions:what was the period of validity of the import licence once it was given by the correspondingorganization?  Were there established periods for making licence applications or for the granting oflicences?  Up to which date was the import licensing system operative?  Were there any types ofrestriction or limitation in terms of minimum or maximum volumes for the products in question forthe granting of licences?  In what way was the purchasing of domestic raw milk (indicated inII(g)(10)) linked to the granting of import licences?  Did the non-automatic import licensingprocedure apply to imports outside the quotas negotiated in the Uruguay Round as well;  if not,were imports outside the Uruguay Round quotas subject to other procedures or licensingmechanisms?  He informed the Committee that the two delegations had already had, and would
continue to have, bilateral discussions on this issue.
1.13 The representative of Venezuela took note of the questions and said that the requested
information would be provided at the next meeting.
1.14 The Committee took note of the notifications submitted since the last meeting by Argentina,
India, Malaysia, Romania, Singapore and Venezuel a (G/LIC/N/2/- series) and the statements made.
2. Other Business
(i) Brazil's import licensing procedures
2.1 The representative of the EC recalled the discussion in the Committee at its meetings of
29 April and 21 October 1999 regarding the compatibility with the Agreement of certain
modifications introduced in August 1998 by Brazil to its non-automatic import licensing system(G/LIC/M/9, paragraphs 2.1-2.4 and G/LIC/M/10, paragraphs 3.1-3.4).  She wished to ask onceagain some of the questions which had been put to the delegation of Brazil at the last meeting and towhich the EC had not received a reply or had received only partial replies.  First of all, sherequested that Brazil provide the list of products (including HS codes) currently subject to theimport licensing scheme and to indicate separately the products subject to automatic licensing andthose subject to non-automatic licensing.  In which legal texts could this information be found?What was the legal status of such texts?  Were these texts published?  If so, where and when and, ifnot, did the Government of Brazil intend to publish these texts in the Brazilian Official Journal?How did Brazil reconcile the present situation with Articles 1.4(a) and 3.3 of the Agreement onG/LIC/M/11
Page 4
Import Licensing Procedures?  Secondly, in the vi ew of her authorities, th e notification submitted to
the Committee by Brazil concerning its licensing system (G/LIC/N/2/BRA/1 dated 19 June 1998)was only partial and did not cover all the points mentioned in Article 5.2 of the Agreement.  HadBrazil adopted any legal texts since the date of that communication, i.e., 24 April 1998, that had notbeen notified to the relevant WTO bodies?  If so, was it the intention of Brazil to notify thislegislation or these administrative regulations immediately?  How did Brazil reconcile this situationwith its obligations under Article 5 of the Agreement?  According to Comunicado DECEX 23/98 allinformation concerning the products subject to non-automatic import licensing was included in afield called "Tabela de tratamento administrativo" on the online system SISCOMEX, to which onlyusers authorized by the Brazilian authorities had acce ss.  It appeared that following the adoption of
Comunicado DECEX 23/98, published information on products subject to licensing procedures inBrazil was no longer available.  Could Brazil confirm this?  Could it explain the reason for suchmodification?  Could Brazil explain whether it considered that such a practice was consistent withthe requirements of transparency set out in the WTO Agreement, and in particular with Article 1.4of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and Article X.1 of the GATT 1994?  WouldBrazil publish an updated list of the products subject to licensing requirements and notify it to theCommittee on Import Licensing in keeping with its obligations under the Agreement?
2.2 The representative of Brazil said that he had taken note of the above statement.  He
informed the Committee that Brazil had provided replies to these questions directly to the EC.  As
was stated by the EC delegation these issues were subject to bilateral consultations under theDispute Settlement Understanding of the WTO.
2.3 The Chairman requested Brazil to forward to the Committee, for circulation to other
Members, copies of any replies it had sent to the EC and Switzerland in response to their queries
raised at the Licensing Committee meeting.
2.4 The representative of Brazil said that it would be difficult for his authorities to provide
written copies to the Committee at this moment since the matter was subject to consultations under
the DSU.
2.5 The representative of the EC said that she did not wish to enter into questions relating to the
DSU consultations the parties were having on this issue.  However, a number of questions in the
context of this Committee had been repeated by her at the present meeting and she believed that itwould be useful for reasons of transparency within the WTO if the Committee could receive repliesfrom Brazil for circulation to Members.  This would not have an impact on the bilateral discussionsthat were being held or would be held in the future.
2.6 The Chairman recalled that Brazil had received questions from the EC and Switzerland
during the April 1999 meeting of this Committee and had provided replies to those questions.  It
was these replies that Brazil was requested to submit to the Committee for reasons of transparency,as had been agreed to by Brazil (G/LIC/M/9, paragraph 2.4 and G/LIC/4).
2.7 The representative of Brazil said that he had taken note of the above comments and he
would refer them to his authorities.2.8 The Committee took note of the statements made.G/LIC/M/11
Page 5
(ii) Members' compliance with notification requirements
2.9 The Chairman stated that a dominant aspect of the Committee's work was the review of
notifications submitted by Members.  As stated under agenda item 1 relating to the specific
provisions on notification requirements, he noted that there was a large gap between the number ofnotifications required under the Agreement and the actual number of notifications received.  Inorder for the Committee to continue to carry out its functions effectively as mandated by theAgreement, he considered it necessary for the Committee to look into how this situation could beredressed.  Therefore, in addition to urging Members to comply with the notification requirements,he suggested that Members reflect on possible ways to address the low number of notifications.
2.10 In order to have a clear picture of the current situation, he suggested that the Secretariat be
requested to circulate an informal paper, prior to the next meeting of the Committee, surveying thecompliance of Members with the notification requirements under the Agreement.  In addition toreviewing the situation, such a paper, in his view, would serve as a useful reminder to Members oftheir obligations under the Agreement.  He suggested that the Committee discuss this issue at thenext meeting.  Such a discussion could also be held as part of the biennial review of theimplementation and operation of the Agreement provided for in Article 7.1 which would be carriedout at the autumn 2000 meeting of this Committee.
2.11 The Committee so agreed.
(iii) Date of next meeting
2.12 The Committee agreed to hold the next meeting of the Committee on 11 October 2000 on
the understanding that additional meetings would be convened if necessary.
3. Election of Officers
3.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that consultations by the Chairman of the Council
for Trade in Goods on new Chairmanships of the subsidiary bodies of the CTG, including this
Committee, were not yet finalized and that the CTG, at its meeting on 5 April 2000, had agreedthat, in the meantime, the current Chairpersons would continue in their functions for one moremeeting.  The new Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for this Committee would therefore beelected at the next meeting of the Committee.
3.2 The Committee took note of the above.
__________