RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/12
12 February 2001
(01-0654)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 OCTOBER 2000
Chairman: Mr. Albert Wright (Denmark)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its twelfth meeting on 11 October 2000.  The
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1393, was adopted as follows:
1. Election of  Offi cers ......................................................................................................... ..........1
2. 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 (institution of new import licensing procedures or
changes)....................................................................................................................... ...............4
3. Members' compliance with no tification obligations ..............................................................6
4. Report (2000) to the Council for Trade in Goods ..................................................................8
5. Third biennial review of the implementation and operation of the Agreement..................9
6. Other business............................................................................................................... ............9
(i) Tentative dates fo r meetings in 2001 ........................................................................................ ..9
_______________
1. Election of Officers
1.1 The  Committee elected Mr. Albert Wright (Denmark) as Chairman of the Committee by
acclamation, to hold office until the end of th e first meeting in 2001, under Rule 12 of the
Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also elected Ms. Fonny  Shek (Hong Kong, China) as
the new Vice-Chairperson.
2. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or  8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation )
2.1 The Chairman recalled that under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement, and the
procedures for notification agreed to by the Committee, all Members were required to notify to the
Committee their laws, regulations and administrative procedures relevant to import licensing,together with copies of any relevant publications or laws and regulations, upon becoming a Memberof the WTO.  Following these first notifications, the Agreement further required Members to notifyG/LIC/M/12
Page 2
to the Committee any subsequent changes to these laws, regulations and administrative procedures.
Those which did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to theAgreement were also required to notify this fact in order to obtain a complete overview of thelicensing regimes of all Members.  However, the status of notifications under these provisions couldnot be considered to be very satisfactory as, since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, theCommittee had received notifications under these two provisions from only 66 Members (countingthe EC and its member States as one Member).  This included the notification submitted by Jordansince the airgram convening this meeting had been issued.  He therefore requested all Memberswhich had not yet provided any information to the Committee of their import licensing systems tosubmit their notifications without further delay.
2.2 The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to Members for the
notifications made.  With respect to the notifications from Estonia and Switzerland which were
lengthy and were still under review, his delegation wished to  reserve their right to forward written
questions within a reasonable time after the meeting.  With respect to the notification fromMadagascar (G/LIC/N/1/MDG/2), he noted that while its import licensing regulations werecontained in Decree 92-424 of 3 April 1992, it had abolished import licensing with the exception ofsome strategic goods, the importation of which nevertheless required prior authorization from theMinistries responsible.  In its earlier notification (G/LIC/N/1/MDG/1 of February 1998), however,it had indicated that it did not have an import licensing system at all.  As there was no past orcurrent notification under Article 7.3 from Madagascar, his delegation would have a few questionsin order to clarify this apparent ambiguity.  These questions would also be circulated to theCommittee.  As concerned the notification from Bangladesh which indicated that import licenceswere not required for any import, he wished to know how Bangladesh regulated the importation ofproducts with health or security implications, such as explosives, where one would expect a systemof import licensing.  As concerned Chad, which had notified that it did have import licensing forsome products, but had not yet provided the Committee with any information on the laws on whichthe licensing was based nor the information requested in the Questionnaire on Import LicensingProcedures required under Article 7.3, a more complete notification would be appreciated.
2.3 The Chairman requested the United States representative to provide the questions
concerning these notifications in writing, for circulation to the Committee.  As agreed by the
Committee (G/LIC/4), replies to these questions would also be circulated to the Committee for itsinformation
1.
2.4 The representative of India informed the Committee that a notification under Articles 1.4(a)
and 5 of the Agreement would be submitted shortly2.
2.5 The Committee took note of the statements made.  It agreed  to postpone the review of the
notification from Switzerland to its next meeting.
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures)
2.6 The Chairman informed the Committee that since the last meeting 16 Members had
submitted replies to the Questionnaire.  This included the notifications listed in the airgram (from
Bahrain;  Bangladesh;  Bolivia;  Chad;  Haiti;  Iceland;  Kyrgyz Republic;  Malta;  Namibia;
                                                     
1 Questions received from the United States concer ning the notifications from Madagascar, Bangladesh
and Chad were subsequently circulated as documen ts G/LIC/Q/MDG/1, G/LIC/Q/BGD/1 and G/LIC/Q/TCD/1.
2 Circulated as document G/LIC/N/1/IND/3 - G/LIC/N/2/IND/3.G/LIC/M/12
Page 3
Norway;  Switzerland;  and the United Arab Emirates) as well those notifications received since the
airgram had been issued (from Estonia;  Hong Kong, China;  Jordan; and Zimbabwe) which wouldbe reviewed at the next meeting.
2.7 The Chairman informed the Committee that, since the entry into force of the WTO
Agreement, a total of only 67 Members (counting the EC and its member States as one Member)
had thus far made the required notifications.  This accounted for notifications from 11 Members in1995, 22 Members in 1996, 25 Members each in 1997 and 1998, 20 Members in 1999, and, out ofa WTO membership of 138 this year, from only 20 Members up to the date of this meeting.  Herecalled that pursuant to Article 7.3 of the Agreement, and the procedures for notification agreed inthe Committee, all Members were required to submit replies to the Questionnaire on an annualbasis, by 30 September.  Noting that notifications were overdue from many Members, he urgedthose Members which had not yet done so to submit their notifications without any further delay.He reminded the Committee in this context that even those Members which had not made anychanges to their import licensing procedures since their previous notifications, or which did notapply import licensing procedures, were required to notify this fact to the Committee in order toobtain a full overview of the situation.
2.8 The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to delegations which had
made the required notifications and said that he wished to reserve the right to pose questions
concerning the submissions from the Kyrgyz Republic and Norway, should they be necessary.While his delegation would submit questions in writing relating to other notifications as well, hewished to raise several questions concerning the submissions by the delegations that were present atthis meeting
3.  The first concerned the notification from Iceland (G/LIC/N/3/ISL/2), section I.8 of
which stated that "beyond the failure of an applicant to meet standard criteria, a request for permitto import can be refused at the discretion of the relevant Minister.  Reasons for refusal willnormally be given.  While no formal procedures exist through which an appeal may be lodged, anapplicant may choose to contact the Ministry to question that decision."  In section VII, concerningpermits for importation of communication equipment, there was no information given on whether areason would be given for why the permit was not approved or if a right of appeal existed.  Hisdelegation requested confirmation from Iceland that, notwithstanding this information, Icelandprovided the benefits of Article 3.5(e) of the Agreement to traders requesting an import permit, i.e.,that "if a licence application was not approved, that application shall, on request, be given thereason therefor and shall have a right of appeal or review in accordance with the domesticlegislation or procedures of the importing Member."  A reply from Iceland, if possible at thismeeting, would be appreciated by other delegations as well.
2.9 In order to stimulate a discussion in the Committee, and to advise Malta of their interest in
the notification, the representative of the United States wished to read out the question concerning
Malta's notification as well (G/LIC/N/3/MLT/2/Add.1).  He noted from this recent notification thatthere had been no changes to Malta's import licensing procedures since its earlier notifications.  Theresponse to question 8 in G/LIC/N/3/MLT/2 stated that "except in cases where the importation ofcertain goods is prohibited, licences were not normally refused, that reasons for refusal weregenerally given, and applicants may, if they wish, appeal to the Minister responsible for trade."His delegation noted that the list of imports subject to import licensing in Malta was extensive andtherefore sought confirmation from Malta that it provided the benefits of Article 3.5(e) of theAgreement to traders whose request for an import licence was refused, i.e., that "if a licence
                                                     
3 Questions received from the United States concerning the notifications from Bahrain, Bolivia, Haiti,
Iceland, Malta and the United Arab Emirates were su bsequently circulated as documents G/LIC/Q/BHR/1,
G/LIC/Q/BOL/1, G/LIC/Q/HTI/1, G/LIC/Q/ISL/1, G/LIC/Q/MLT/2 and G/LIC/Q/ARE/1, respectively, and thereply of Malta as document G/LIC/Q/MLT/3.G/LIC/M/12
Page 4
application was not approved, that applicant shall, on request, be given the reason therefor and shall
have a right of appeal or review in accordance with the domestic legislation or procedures of theimporting Member".  A clarification of this from Malta would be appreciated, if possible, at thismeeting, or later in writing.
2.10 The representatives of Iceland and Malta
 requested the United States to provide the
questions in writing in order to forward them to their capitals4.
2.11 The representative of India said that a notification under Article 7.3 would be submitted to
the Secretariat shortly5.  Recalling the questions posed by Canada at the last meeting concerning
India's previous notification (G/LIC/N/3/IND/3) (G/LIC/M/11, paragraphs 1.9-1.10), he informedthe Committee that the requested information had been received from his capital and would beforwarded to Canada and to the Secretariat shortly.
2.12 The Committee took note of the statements made.  It agreed
 to postpone the review of the
notification from Switzerland to its next meeting.
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 (institution of new import licensing procedures or changes)
2.13 The Chairman informed the Committee that only one notification had been received under
Article 5 since the last meeting, i.e. from Switzerland, which would be reviewed at the next
meeting.
2.14 The representative of India said that a notification under Article 5 would be submitted to the
Secretariat shortly6.
2.15 The representative of the United States referred to the questions posed by Uruguay to
Venezuela at the last meeting concerning changes to its licensing system notified in document
G/LIC/N/2/VEN/1 (G/LIC/M/11, paragraphs 1.12-1.13).  The representative of Venezuela hadtaken note of the questions and had said that the requested information would be provided at thismeeting.  His delegation would be interested in seeing Venezuela's response to Uruguay on thismatter.  He also noted that Venezuela had been recorded in the background document for the thirdbiennial review of the Agreement (G/LIC/W/14) as not having supplied both mandatorynotifications relating to its laws and regulations and replies to the Questionnaire.
2.16  The representative of Venezuela replied that bilateral consultations had been held between
the two countries on this matter and that her delegation had provided a response to Uruguay in
writing.  As concerned Venezuela's notifications required under the Agreement, her authoritieswere in the process of preparing the replies to the Questionnaire which would be submitted to theCommittee shortly.
2.17  The Chairman said that a copy of Venezuela's response to Uruguay had not been received
by the Secretariat up to the date of this meeting and therefore requested Venezuela to forward a
copy of it for circulation to Committee members7.
                                                     
4 See footnote 3.
5 Circulated as document G/LIC/N/3/IND/4.
6 See footnote 2.
7 A copy of the response referred to was receive d by the Secretariat on 18 October 2000 and was
circulated as document G/LIC/Q/VEN/1.G/LIC/M/12
Page 5
2.18 The representative of the United States, referring further to the minutes of the last meeting
of this Committee, noted that the Chairman had requested Brazil to forward to the Committee for
circulation to other Members copies of any replies it had sent to the EC and Switzerland.  Hisauthorities would be interested in seeing the responses given to the two delegations circulated forinformation of the whole Committee.  The information requested concerned certain modificationsintroduced in August 1998 by Brazil to its non-automatic import licensing system, which were notcovered in Brazil's notifications made in April 1998 under Articles 5, 1.4(a), 8.2(b) and 7.3(G/LIC/M/9, paragraphs 2.1-2.4, G/LIC/M/10, paragraphs 3.1-3.4 and G/LIC/M/11,paragraphs 2.1-2.8).  Noting that these modifications had not yet been notified to the Committee, herequested Brazil to correct this deficiency by circulating its response to the EC and Switzerland andby notifying formally the changes in its licensing regime.  His authorities wondered whether theinformation sought by the two delegations had in fact been provided, and, if not, would appreciatewhatever efforts that could be made in this regard.
2.19 The representative of the European Communities said that her delegation shared the
concerns expressed by the United States concerning the modifications to the Brazilian import
licensing system and said that they would like to receive replies to the questions that her delegationhad asked at several meetings of this Committee, and also to see that Brazil notified to theCommittee the modifications to its import regime and requested that the representative of Braziltransmit this message to his capital.
2.20 The representative of Brazil restated that this matter was related to the dispute settlement
procedures on the same issue.  Consultations on this matter had been held with the European
Communities in 1999 and with the United States on a similar issue in July 2000.  Since thequestions posed in this Committee were also linked with the aforementioned dispute settlementprocedures, his delegation, in compliance with confidentiality in the dispute settlement process, wasnot currently in a position to circulate these responses.  He also informed the Committee thatresponses to the questions posed by the two delegations had been sent directly by his authorities tothem.  As concerned the notifications due from Brazil under the Agreement, he informed theCommittee that, since 1998, its non-automatic impor t licensing system had been under review by
the Brazilian authorities.  The review of the regulations was at a final stage and therefore thenotifications to the Committee would be submitted as soon as possible.
2.21 The representative of the European Communities took note of the reply given by the
representative of Brazil in the context of the disput e settlement pr ocess.  She recalled, however, that
her delegation had posed a number of questions to the delegation of Brazil, on several occasionswithin this Committee, which required replies.
2.22 The representative of the United States also took note of the comments made by the
delegation of Brazil for referral to his authorities and said he did not consider that this matter
needed to be on the agenda for the next meeting, but that his delegation would, if necessary, revertto it at a future meeting.
2.23 The representative of Brazil said that he too did not consider that this matter should be on
the agenda for the next meeting.2.24 The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that his authorities had indeed
received a response from Brazil and wondered whether Brazil could circulate that response to the
Committee for reasons of transparency.G/LIC/M/12
Page 6
2.25 The representative of Brazil replied that, in view of developments on this matter in the
dispute settlement process, and as the questions posed by Switzerland were similar to those of the
EC, his authorities would reflect on this matter and would provide a response to the Swiss proposalas soon as possible.
2.26 The Committee took note of the statements made.
3. Members' compliance with notification obligations
3.1 The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed at the last meeting to review the
situation with respect to the compliance of Members with the notification requirements under the
Agreement (G/LIC/M/11, paragraphs 2.9-2.10).  As had been suggested, with a view to facilitatingdiscussions at this meeting, a table showing the status of notifications as at 26 September 2000 hadbeen sent by fax to delegations.  There were several more notifications that needed to be added tothat listing to bring it up to date, i.e., Article 7.3 notifications for 2000 from the EC;  Estonia;Hong Kong, China;  Jordan;  and Zimbabwe;  Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) notification for Jordan;and Article 5 notification for Switzerland.
3.2 The Chairman said that as Members were aware, one main objective of the Agreement was
transparency of import licensing procedures.  There were several provisions of the Agreement
which required notifications from Member countries.  However, as could be seen from theinformation made available by the Secretariat, the situation regarding notifications was not verysatisfactory.  In spite of numerous reminders and urging from the Committee, and periodicreminders from the Administrator of the Central Registry of Notifications, the situation had notimproved.  For example, the legislative notifications required under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) hadso far been received from only 81 Members;   and the replies to the Questionnaire under Article 7.3
from only 20 Members in 2000 and from only 82 since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
The ideal number for all three requirements ought to be 138, which was the total number ofMembers of the WTO.  Many Members had not submitted any notification since joining the WTO.Given this situation, the Committee needed to address the issue and find ways of redressing thesituation.
3.3 The representative of Switzerland said that the information provided by the Secretariat
clearly showed that a large gap existed between the requirements of the Agreement and the actual
number of notifications received and reviewed by this forum.  While it was true that the notificationrequirements of the Agreement were rather complex, he nevertheless felt that the actual situation,where about half of the Membership had not even once notified their legislation and publicationsrequested under Article 1.4 risked endangering the functioning and purposes of the Agreement.The compliance with the notification obligations continued to be poor and was deteriorating eachyear.  Members as a whole were delaying more and more their notifications thereby reducing theusefulness of the information once it was finally notified.  Further, it led to a situation whereMembers which had fulfilled their obligations came under close scrutiny of Members which had notyet submitted their notifications, creating a situation detrimental to the well-being of thisOrganisation.  The same situation persisted with respect to the replies to the Questionnaire requiredunder Article 7.3 and for notification of any subsequent changes as stipulated in Article 5.  Heunderstood that constraints on human and financial resources could sometimes be a fundamentalreason for difficulties of Members in notifying their systems of licensing.  In order to remedy theproblem in a pragmatic manner he suggested that all Members which had not yet done so make aspecial commitment to bring themselves fully up to date regarding the notification of theirlegislation as requested under Article 1 of the Agreement.  For the annual questionnaire, the optionG/LIC/M/12
Page 7
of making a single "best efforts" notification covering all of the time periods for which a
notification was due, but putting most emphasis on the most recent period, could be envisaged.
3.4 The representative of Singapore informed the Committee that the replies to the
Questionnaire for 2000 would be submitted a in a few days.  Singapore had not submitted the
required notifications under Article 7.3 for some time now.  The new notification would thereforebe a full update for the outstanding years
8.
3.5  The representative of the United States regretted that the US submissions under
Articles 7.3, 1.4 and 8.2 had been delayed and said that the replies to the Questionnaire were nearly
completed and would be submitted within the next two weeks9.  The United States would also
update its legislative no tifications.  His delegation would be  pleased to receive written questions
from Committee Members on both notifications and would be prepared to discuss them at the nextmeeting of the Committee.  His delegation shared the concerns expressed by the Chairman at thismeeting and by Chairmen at previous meetings and hoped that by April 2001 a number of additionalCommittee Members would have made their initial submissions.
3.6 With respect to the Chairman's request for ideas in order to encourage additional
notifications, he hoped that perhaps attention would be given to those who had most recently joinedthe WTO to encourage them and to help them to have their submissions ready for the next meeting.His delegation would also suggest that the Chairman contact Members who had never notified theirlegislation or submitted responses to the Questionnaire and seek their efforts in complying withthese requirements prior to the next meeting.  In particular, Members that used licensing to operatetariff rate quotas on agricultural products should be encouraged to comply.  The Chairman shouldalso investigate how the Secretariat and Committee Members might be able to offer assistance toother Members to respond to the Questionnaire.  Also Members should participate more fully inreviewing the notifications that were made.  Often, there appeared to be very little technical analysisof the notifications made, to the extent that meaningful inputs that might be well received could notbe offered to the countries that provided the notifications. The notifications, though cumbersome forsome Members, including to the United States, was not too difficult for any Member whether or nota licensing or a prior authorization system was used to regulate parts of its import regime.  Thenotifications were an essential element of Members' obligations, tangible evidence of the respectthey owed each other as Members, to be both transparent in the administration of their traderegimes and responsive to the legitimate request for information about access to each other'smarkets.
3.7 The representative of the European Communities said that they too were deeply concerned
with the poor status of notifications.  There was a big difference between what the Agreement stated
and the level of notifications.  They believed that respect of this obligation was indispensable for thegood functioning of the Agreement and therefore en couraged those who had difficulties in notifying
to inform the Committee or the Secretariat to see how assistance could be provided.
3.8 The representative of Chile said that, as the table prepared by the Secretariat showed, this
was not a problem limited to developing or least-developed countries but, in general, to both
developed as well as developing countries.  He drew a parallel with the situation regarding theintegrated databases, where great efforts had been made to enable countries to comply with theirobligations.  Perhaps it would be necessary to give new impetus in the area of import licensing bybeing more proactive, for example, by sending letters to delegations indicating what their
notification obligations were.                                                     
8 Circulated as document G/LIC/N/3/SGP/3.
9 Circulated as document G/LIC/N/3/USA/3.G/LIC/M/12
Page 8
3.9 The Committee took note of the statements made and agreed  that the item would be on the
agenda of its next meeting with a view to agreeing how to ensure full compliance of all Members
with the obligations to notify import licensing procedures.
4. Report (2000) to the Council for Trade in Goods
4.1 The Chairman said that the Committee was required to submit annually a report on its
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods.  A draft report to the CTG, covering the activities of
the Committee in 2000, had been circulated in document G/LIC/W/13 for the Committee'sconsideration.  The information covered in the draft report, including its annex, would be updatedto reflect the notifications received up to the present meeting as well as the discussions at thismeeting.  The latest notifications submitted by Es tonia;  the EC;  Hong Kong, China;  Jordan;
Switzerland;  and Zimbabwe would therefore be reflected in the relevant paragraphs and in theAnnex.
4.2 The representative of Mexico suggested that reference to the Committee's Rules of
Procedure be made in the Report.4.3 The representatives of India and the United States
 suggested that the Report be updated to
reflect the notifications received up to the end of the month or up to the date of the CTG meeting.4.4 The Chairman suggested that the Secretariat be requested to redraft paragraph 9 to add a
factual summary of the discussion that took place at this meeting relating to the lack of compliance
of Members with notification obligations, in order to indicate to the CTG that this concerned aproblem of a long duration, and to  state that the Comm ittee would consider the suggestions made by
a number of delegations to remedy the problem.  If Members agreed, the guidance of the CTG
could also be sought on how to proceed on this matter.
4.5 The representative of Hong Kong, China, supported by Canada
, the European Communities
and Mexico, said that she had some reservation on whether the Committee should seek guidance
from the CTG at this stage.  In her view, the Report should rather indicate that the Committee had
heard several suggestions to ensure full compliance with Members' obligations to notify and that itwould examine the difficulties faced by delegations in this regard and proposals to remedy thesituation.
4.6  The representative of India, supported by Chile
 and the United States , suggested that the
text relating to the notifications issue in paragraph 9 be included in a separate paragraph, together
with a summary of several proposals made by delegations to remedy the problem, as well as whatthe Committee intended to do in this regard.  He mentioned in this context that, in his view, theCommittee was competent enough to take suitable action to improve the transparency obligations ofMembers, and that it should not at this stage rush to seek guidance from the Council for Trade inGoods.  As regarded paragraph 10, reference might also be made to the notification obligations ofArticle 5.
4.7 The representative of the United States suggested that the order of paragraphs 9 and 10 be
reversed.4.8 The Chairman said that the Report would be redrafted to take into account the various
proposals made and circulated to delegations for their consideration and acceptance.  It was soG/LIC/M/12
Page 9
agreed.  The Report, as revised and approved by the Committee, was circulated subsequently as
document G/L/403.
5. Third biennial review of the implementation and operation of the Agreement
5.1 The Chairman referred to the background document by the Secretariat, containing factual
information for the period 7 November 1998 to 26 September 2000, and circulated as document
G/LIC/W/14, in preparation for the review foreseen under Article 7.1 of the Agreement.  He saidthat this document would be updated to take into account the discussion at the present meeting aswell as the notifications received up to this meeting.
5.2 The representative of India suggested that the last sentence of paragraph 5 be replaced by
the text that would be agreed for the Annual Report, and the Questionnaire on Import Licensing
Procedures used for Article 7.3 notifications also be annexed to the document.
5.3 The Chairman said that the background document would be updated in light of the
discussion at this meeting.  The revised document would be circulated as document G/LIC/7.
6. Other business
(i) Tentative dates for meetings in 2001
6.1 The following two dates, 4 April and 9 October 2001, were tentatively reserved for the
Spring and Autumn meetings of the Committee in 2001, on the understanding that additionalmeetings would be convened if necessary.
__________