RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/15
3 June 2002
(02-3041)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 MAY 2002
Chairperson: Ms. Simone Rudder (Barbados)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifteenth meeting on 14 May 2002.  The agenda
proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1791/Rev .1, was adopted as follows:
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations - Developments since the last
meeting........................................................................................................................ ...............1
2. Notifica tions................................................................................................................ ...............4
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications
and/or legi slation)............................................................................................................ ...........4
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (Replies to the Questionnaire on
Import Licensing Procedures) ................................................................................................... .7
(iii) Notifications under of Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures,
changes to existing licensing procedur es and reverse no tificati ons)..........................................9
3. Preparations in connection with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the
People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization...........................................11
4. Other business............................................................................................................... ..........12
(i) Administration of tariff rate quotas in China ...........................................................................12
(ii) Discussion on special and differential treatment provisions in the Committee on
Trade and Development.......................................................................................................... ..13
(iii) Technical assistance in  agendas of WTO bodies......................................................................13
(iv) Date of the next meeting ................................................................................................... ........13
(v) Election of  Officers ........................................................................................................ ...........14
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations - Developments since the last
meeting
1.1 The Chairperson noted that the lack of compliance of Members with the transparency
obligations of the Agreement had been the main  preoccupation of the Committee for some time and
that the Committee had been discussing this issue at several meetings.  She recalled that, with a viewto improving compliance of all Members, reminders had been sent by the Chairperson in April 2001
to some 42 Members who had not notified under any provision of the Agreement up to then, to
express the concerns of the Committee and to urge them to undertake all necessary efforts with their
authorities to fulfill their notification obligations before the October 2001 meeting.  It was recalled
that Members which did not apply any import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulationsG/LIC/M/15
Page 2
relevant to the Agreement were also required to notify the Committee of this fact.  In addition, those
who had difficulties in notifying were requested to indicate how they thought the Secretariat could
assist them in overcoming these difficulties.  She informed the Committee that only five Members had
responded to this reminder and that no delegation had indicated any difficulties in notifying or any
technical assistance needs.
1.2 The Chairperson also noted that following the last meeting, in November 2001, further
reminders had been sent to those Members who had never made any notifications of laws and
regulations, who had never provided replies to the Questionnaire and who had not updated their
replies to the Questionnaire since 1998, requesting them to make their submissions by 14 December
2001.  These Members were also informed that the Secretariat was willing to provide assistance if
their authorities met with difficulties in notifying and were requested to indicate how they thought the
Secretariat could help.  Of the 83 Members who received reminders in November 2001, 19 hadresponded with 30 notifications.
1.3. The Chairperson reported that the Secretariat had also reminded several delegations
informally since the last meeting of their overdue notifications, and that some of them had in fact
promised to submit their notifications soon.  But once again, no delegation had informed theSecretariat of any difficulties in notifying or had indicated how they thought the Secretariat could help
to improve their compliance.  In addition, as requested by the Committee at the last meeting the
Secretariat, as a monitoring activity, had reminded 18 delegations of the pending replies to questions
that had been posed to them by several delegations, which had been circulated in G/LIC/Q/- series.
1.4. The Chairperson said that she had also taken the opportunity, in April 2002, to address the
participants of the Fourth Geneva Week, attended by some 44 officials from 24 Member governments
which had no permanent representation in Geneva.  As these were among those Members who were
not up-to-date with their notifications, she thought it wo uld be helpful to bring to the attention of these
participants the requirements for notification under the Import Licensing Agreement.  These officialswere urged, upon their return to capital, to undertake all necessary efforts with their authorities in
order to ensure the full compliance of their governments with the notification obligations under the
Agreement, or to identify what type of assistance they felt they might require in order to facilitate
their task.  This was the third reminder on this issue from the Chair within one year to most of these
Members not complying, and the second reminder to the others.
1.5 The Chairperson recalled that in addition to this, at the end of each year, the Central Registry
of Notifications (CRN) sent to each Member a list of notifications which should be made in the
following year under all WTO Agreements.  This wa s followed up with periodic reminders from the
CRN to those Members who had not fulfilled their notification obligations during the year.
1.6 The Chairperson informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, 49 notifications had
been received which showed that there was some pos itive response to the efforts of the Chair and the
Secretariat to urge compliance with the notification obligations of the Agreement.  Notwithstanding
this progress, as of the date of this meeting, out of a total Membership of 144, there were still 35
Members1 who had not submitted any notification since joining the WTO;  only 94 Members
(counting each of the EC Member States individually) had submitted notifications of laws andregulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b)); only a cumulative total of 95 Members had
submitted replies to the Questionnaire (under Article 7.3) since the entry into force of the WTO
                                                     
1 Including Angola, Belize, Botswana, Central African Rep., Congo, Congo, Dem. Rep., Djibouti,
Dominican Rep., Egypt, El Salvador, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Israel, Kuwait, Lesotho, Lithuania, Mauritania,Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Rwanda, St. Vincent &
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Slovak Rep., Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo and
Zambia.G/LIC/M/15
Page 3
Agreement;  and only 38 Members had notified new licensing procedures or changes in existing
procedures (under Paragraphs 1-4 of Article 5).
1.7 The Chairperson also noted that some Members had notified new import licensing procedures
or changes to existing procedures under Paragraphs 1-4 of Article 5 without having notified the
system itself, nor having responded to the Questionnaire under Article 7.32.
1.8 She noted that while Article 5.5 of the Agreement provided for the submission of reverse
notifications, where a Member considered that another Member had not notified the institution of a
licensing procedure or changes in the procedures, no reverse notifications had been received up to the
date of this meeting.
1.9 The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to those Members that had
made submissions and especially those who had notified for the first time.  Notifying a licensing
system or lack of one was essential to the obligations of this Agreement.  Comprehensive and
consistent notification provided for a complete overview of the licensing regimes in place within the
trading system.  The notifications were an essential element of WTO Members' obligations andtangible evidence of the respect they owed each other as Members to be both transparent in the
administration of their trade regimes and responsive to legitimate requests for information about
access to each others' markets.  Notwithstanding this, compliance with the notification requirements
of this Agreement was just over 50 per cent.  This lack of compliance had been noted in previous
meetings.  He fully understood the difficulty and cumbersome nature of the notification and reviewprocess, and that many Members who had not notified had not done so because they did not maintain
an import licensing system.  However, there were others who applied licensing regimes or who had
introduced changes to the system, but resisted notifying them to the Committee.  He noted that some
Members had never completed the Questionnaire.  This was a much broader issue.  For instance, in
Mexico's recent trade policy review, it had been noted that Mexico maintained a system of importpermits and employed an import licensing mechanism.  About one per cent of Mexico's tariff lines
were subject to licensing.  Several WTO Members had expressed concerns about the Mexican
licensing system.  However, to his knowledge, Mexico had never notified its import licensing regime
to the Committee according to its WTO obligations.  This was complicated by a pattern of delay in the
issuance of licences (referred to as cupos ) for products such as corn and dried beans.  Historically, the
Secretariat of Agriculture of Mexico had gauged the issuance of cupos  depending upon domestic
production and supply situation, but this had been intended to be brought into line with WTOobligations when Mexico had joined the GATT and adopted the disciplines of the Import Licensing
Agreement.  In 2002, Mexico had announced and issued cupos  for corn and dried beans.  This was a
long-awaited breakthrough.  US exporters were conc erned with the long-term compliance of Mexico.
His authorities urged Mexico to make it a point of departure for a new approach to the requirements
of the WTO and of this Committee.  Similarly, the US authorities were aware that Malaysia hadimplemented a new import licensing requirement for five categories of steel products on
15 March 2002, but had published these requirements only 11 days later, on 26 March 20 02.  This fell
far short of the obligation under Article 1.4(a) of the Agreement which required Members to provide
21 days' advance notice of changes to licensing requirements, whenever practicable, and in all cases to
publish such changes by their effective date.  In an effort to increase transparency of this regulation,the United States encouraged Malaysia to notify the Committee on Import Licensing of the changes to
its import licensing procedures within 60 days of their publication, as required under Article 5.1 of the
Agreement.  He further noted that other Members, such as Ecuador, Egypt, Israel and Venezuela that
maintained active licensing regimes, had either not notified the measures and legislation to the
Committee or had not completed the annual Questionnaire despite suggestions from other Members atprevious Committee meetings.
                                                     
2 Papua New Guinea, St. Lucia, Mexico and Venezuela.  Venezuela submitted an Article 7.3
notification subsequent to the meeting (circulated in G/LIC/N/3/VEN/1).G/LIC/M/15
Page 4
1.10 The representative of the United States therefore suggested that the Chair contact once again
those Members who had never notified their legislation or submitted responses to the Questionnaire
seeking their efforts to comply with these requirements prior to the September 2002 meeting.  He
suggested that the Chair also continue to investigate how the Secretariat and Members might be ableto offer assistance to other Members to respond to the Questionnaire.  He suggested that the
Committee review this issue at the next meeting by which time he hoped the Committee would have
more information available to it on existing licensing systems of Members as well as a broader level
of initial notifications.  His delegation appreciated the efforts made by the Chairperson and the
Secretariat over the last six months to improve the situation.
1.11 The representative of Venezuela appreciated the information provided by the Chairperson on
the state of play regarding notifications and informed the Committee that the replies to the
Questionnaire and copies of relevant legislation would be submitted by her delegation in the next few
days.3  She hoped that these notifications would meet the concern expressed by the US delegation.
She informed the US delegation that in addition to the licensing regimes under agricultural quotas,
Venezuela also had other regimes which would be described in the replies to the Questionnaire.  Herdelegation welcomed any questions from Members on these notifications.
1.12 The representative of Mexico said that the matter referred to by the US delegation was
already being dealt with between the two delegations and that the notifications of Mexico were being
prepared for submission to the Secretariat.
1.13 The representative of India expressed his appreciation for the efforts of the Chairperson to
ensure greater compliance with notification obligations by Members and said that his delegation
would like to see these efforts, supported by the Se cretariat, continued in the future with a view to
further improving the situation.
1.14 The representative of Ecuador stressed the importance his country attached to the obligations
for notification and said that the comments and statements made by the US delegation at this meeting
as well as at previous meetings were taken note by his delegation.  As far as the reminders that his
delegation had received from the Chairperson and the Secretariat were concerned, he said that he had
received information from his capital that a complete notification for Ecuador, as well as updated
replies to the Questionnaire, were being prepared for submission to the Secretariat.
1.15 The Chairperson said that compliance with notification obligations was an issue which was
central to the work of this Committee and she was pleased to see a positive and constructive attitude
towards ensuring that all Members continued to make progress in fulfilling their notification
obligations.  She hoped that this trend would continue.
1.16 The Committee took note of the statements made.
2. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications and/or
legislation)
2.1 The Chairperson recalled that Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and procedures agreed to by the
Committee required all Members to publish their laws, regulations and administrative procedures, and
submit copies of any relevant publications or laws and regulations upon becoming a Member of the
WTO.  Any subsequent changes to these laws and regulations were also required to be notified.
                                                     
3 The Article 7.3 notification from Venezuela was subsequently circulated in G/LIC/N/3/VEN/1.G/LIC/M/15
Page 5
Noting that as of the date of this meeting, only a total of 94 Members (counting each of the EC
Member States individually) had submitted notifications on legislation, she urged all those Members
which had not yet provided any information of their laws and regulations relevant to import licensing
procedures to submit their notifications without further delay.  She reminded Members that even those
which did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to theAgreement were also required to notify the Committee of this fact for it to obtain a complete overview
of the licensing regimes of all Members.
2.2 The Chairperson said that there were 13 notifications before the Committee for review
received from Antigua and Barbuda (G/LIC/N/1/ATG /1), Côte d'Ivoire (G/L IC/N/1/CIV/1), Croatia
(G/LIC/N/1/HRV/1), Esto nia (G/LIC/N/1/EST/1/Ad d.2), European Communities
(G/LIC/N/1/EEC /2/Add.3), Gabon (G/L IC/N/1/GAB/2), Georgia (G /LIC/N/1/G EO/1), Grenada
(G/LIC/N/1/GRD/1), Guyana (G/LIC/N/1/GUY/1), Hungary (G/LIC/N/1/HUN/5), India
(G/LIC/N/1/IND/4)  and Macao China (G/LIC/N/1/MAC/1 and Add.1).  Copies of laws and
regulations submitted under these provisions were available in the Secretariat for consultation by
interested Members.  As concerned the document for Hungary G/LIC/N/1/HUN/5, she noted that the
Spanish version of the document had been issued only on the day of the meeting.  She suggested thatthe Committee proceed nevertheless with the consideration of this notification with the understanding
that Members would have an opportunity to review this notification again at the next meeting.  She
reminded Members that this was how the Committee had proceeded at the last meeting with respect to
some notifications that had not been issued in all three official languages in advance of the meeting.
2.3 The representative of the United States expressed his delegation's appreciation to all Members
that had submitted notifications of their laws and regulations.  While he did not intend to intervene
with respect to any of the notifications individually, he wished to make a general comment on the
notifications for review.  He said that his author ities had found it difficult to adequately review the
submissions, particularly those that had been prov ided in the days immediately prior to the meeting;
for example the notification from Hungary, G/LIC/N/1/HUN/5, dated 23 April 2002, had been
received only on 1 May 2002.  While he appreciated receiving these notifications, his delegation
suggested that, perhaps as a matter of course, that the notifications that were received less than 30
days prior to the meeting be automatically placed on the agenda for the subsequent meeting, so that
delegations would have a better opportunity to revi ew them.  The purpose of this suggestion was only
to give delegations an additional opportunity to review the submissions for discussion. He considered
it useful to have the opportunity to come back to the above notification from Hungary as well as othernotifications that had been submitted to the Secretariat only recently, at the next meeting.
2.4 The Chairperson, noting that the Committee met only twice a year, suggested that the
Committee look at all the submissions listed in the airgram at this meeting but with the option of
reviewing them again at the next meeting.
2.5 The representative of Hungary said he had no objections to the US proposal.  The Committee
had the right to revert to any notification if it so wished.  However, as the US delegate referred to the
notification submitted by his delegation as an example, he wished to inform him and other Members
that the notification from Hungary clearly stated that there had been no changes in the operation ofimport licensing procedures or in other substantive provisions of the regulations since their
notification contained in G/LIC/N/1/HUN/4, except that the list of products subject to licensing had
been substantially shortened.  What was important in his view was to see whether there were changes
in the operation of an import licensing system compared to the system notified in a previous
notification.  He would not object if a Member wa nted to come back to any notification, although he
did not want to make it a rule.
2.6 The representative of India said that he had no problem with the US suggestion.  He had
noticed in this regard long delays in the availability of translated versions of some notificationsG/LIC/M/15
Page 6
submitted to this Committee.  The problem arose, in his view, not only due to late submission of
notifications but also in part due to delays in translation.  He suggested therefore that the Secretariat
take up this matter with the translation service of the WTO and request that priority be accorded to the
notifications made to this Committee.
2.7 The Chairperson said that these concerns would be conveyed to the translation service.  With
regard to the time-lag between the receipt of a no tification in the Secretariat and the distribution of
translated versions, she recalled that the Committee had adopted the practice of considering those
notifications which had not been issued in all three languages prior to the meeting, while still allowing
delegations to revisit them at subsequent meetings with any comments they might have, once the
notification was circulated in the three languages.  Since the Committee used this practice in
reviewing notifications, and also as the Committee met only twice a year, she suggested that theCommittee could perhaps use a similar practice in dealing with the issue raised by the US delegation.
2.8 The representative of Mexico said that while he had no objection per se  to the US proposal,
he was not in a position to adopt any rule of procedure at this meeting.
2.9 The Chairperson thought that the concern expressed by the US delegation was perhaps one
that was shared by many others.  She therefore proposed that the Committee apply the current practice
with regard to notifications which were not issued in all three languages, to those notifications which
were received not sufficiently in advance of a meeting.
2.10 The representative of India informed the Committee that effective 1 April 2002, his
Government had announced a new Export-Import Policy which would be effective for five years up to
31 March 2007.  Information on this new policy was available on the website
http://www.nic.in/eximpol.   A notification on the new policy would be submitted to the Committee
shortly.  Replies to the Questionnaire for India would also be updated to reflect the changes in the newExport-Import Policy.
2.11 Referring to the two questions posed by the US delegation at the April 2001 meeting on
India's import licensing system (circulated in G/LIC/Q/IND/6), he replied that import of all the items
indicated in the notification circulated in docu ment G/LIC/N/1/IND/3 - G/LIC/N/2/IND/3 was free.
With respect to the second question from the US on India's replies to the Questionnaire (circulated in
G/LIC/N/3/IND/4), he replied that subsequent to the amendments to Import Policy on 31 March 2001,
all import restrictions which had been maintained for balance-of-payments purposes had been
removed;  the Special Import Licence scheme had been abolished effective 31 March 2001;  and that
import restrictions were being maintained on certain items under exceptions provided in Articles XX
and XXI of GATT, which were being reviewed from time to time.
2.12 The Chairperson requested the delegate of India to submit the above responses in written
form to the US delegation, with copies to the Secretariat for circulation to other Members.
2.13 The Chairperson recalled that in addition to the submissions listed in the airgram, there were
two more notifications before the Committee, i.e. from Turkey (G/L IC/N/1/TUR/3/Add.1) and
Uruguay (G/LIC/N/1/URY/3) which had been considered by the Committee at the October 2001
meeting despite their non-availability in all three languages, on the understanding that they would be
revisited at the present meeting.
2.14 The representative of the United States said that he had not received any questions from his
authorities on the two notifications from Turkey and Uruguay.  This, he thought, could have been in
part due to the fact that the two documents were not included in the agenda circulated for this
meeting.  He therefore suggested that in situatio ns like this, the documents be listed in the agenda
circulated in the airgram so that responsible officials in capitals would be aware that these were likelyG/LIC/M/15
Page 7
to come up.  Having taken note of the comment made by Mexico earlier with respect to rule of
procedure, he did not mean to propose this as a rule.  However, he found it awkward to have an item
discussed in a meeting without the knowledge of the officials in capitals.
2.15 The Chairperson said that at each meeting the Chair would propose that the Committee
consider, if it so agreed, the notifications which had not yet been circulated in all three languages, on
the understanding that the Committee could come back to these notifications at the following meeting.
The two notifications in question were ones that had been considered at the last meeting on that
understanding.  She suggested that the Committee take note of the comment made by the US
delegation.
2.16 The Chairperson reminded Members of the review procedures agreed to by the Committee
(circulated in document G/LIC/4) whereby copies of questions concerning notifications and replies
thereto were required to be sent to the Secretariat in writing for transparency purposes.
2.17 The Committee took note of the notifications as well as the statements made.
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import
Licensing Procedures)
2.18 The Chairperson said that since the last meeting, replies to the Questionnaire had been
received from the following 24 Members:  Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Brazil, Burundi,
Canada, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Estonia, the European Communities, Guyana, HongKong China, Hungary, India, Japan, Latvia, Macao China, Maldives, Malta, Moldova, Philippines and
Tunisia.  In addition, since the airgram for this meeting had been issued, the Secretariat had received
two notifications from Bulgaria and Barbados, which would be on the agenda for the next meeting.
2.19 Regarding the current status of notifications under Article 7.3, The Chairperson informed the
Committee that since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, replies to the Questionnaire had
been received from a total of only 95 Members, counting each of the EC Member States individually:
i.e. 11 Members had submitted notifications in 1995, 22 Members in 1996, 40 Members in 1997, 26
Members in 1998, 35 Members in 1999, 47 Members in 2000, 38 Members in 2001, and 17 Members
up to now this year.  The Agreement required all Members to submit replies to the Questionnaire
annually by 30 September.  Therefore the number of notifications should ideally be the total number
of WTO Membership.  She noted that notifications  were overdue from many Members and requested
Members once again to submit their notifications without any further delay.  She recalled that that
those which had not made any changes to their import licensing procedures since their previous
notifications, or which did not apply import licensing procedures, were also required to notify this fact
to the Committee.  She reminded Members that the Questionnaire used for these notifications was
annexed to document G/LIC/3.  If a Member had not submitted replies to the Questionnaire forseveral years, it would be sufficient to send only one notification for the current year which contained
all relevant information on licensing procedures currently being applied.  If there were notifications
submitted previously, Members could update the previous version of the document.
2.20 Turning to the notifications before the Comm ittee, i.e. Albania (G/LIC/N/3/ALB/1), Antigua
and Barbuda (G/LIC/N/3/A TG/2), Argentina (G/LIC /N/3/ARG/2/A dd.1), Brazil (G /LIC/N/3/BRA/2),
Burundi (G/LIC/N/3/BUR/2), Canada (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/4 & Corr.1), Côte d'Ivoire
(G/LIC/N/3/CIV/1), Croatia (G/LIC/N/3/H RV/1), Cuba (G/LIC/N/3/CUB/1), Cyprus
(G/LIC/N/3/CYP/3), Estonia (G/LIC/N/3/EST/2),  the European Communities (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/4 &
Add.1), Guyana (G/LIC/N/3/GUY/1), Hong Kong China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/5), Hungary(G/LIC/N/3/HUN/3/Add.2), India (G/LIC/N/3/IND/5), Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/2), Latvia
(G/LIC/N/3/LVA/2), Macao China (G/LIC/N/3/M AC/4), Maldives (G/LIC/N/3/MDV/1), Malta
(G/LIC/N/3/MLT/3), Moldova (G/LIC/N/3/MDA/1) , Philippines (G/LIC/N/3/PHL/4), TunisiaG/LIC/M/15
Page 8
(G/LIC/N/3/TUN/3/Add.2), the Chairperson said the no tifications from Cyprus, Guyana and India had
not yet been distributed in all three official languages.  The Committee agreed however to proceed
with the consideration of all notifications listed in the airgram, including those from those three
Members.  Notifications for review at the meeting also included those received from Antigua and
Barbuda  (G/LIC/N/3/ATG/1)  Georgia (G/LIC/N/3/GEO/1) and Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/4 & Corr.1)
which had been considered by the Committee at the last meeting despite their non-availability in the
three languages before the meeting.  The Chairperson stated that, as was the case with all notifications
submitted under the Agreement, if delegations had any questions or requests for clarifications on these
notifications, they had the opportunity to address them at this meeting, or to do so in writing later on
with copies to the Secretariat for circulation to other Members (G/LIC/4, Understanding on
Procedures for the Review of Notifications).
2.21 The representative of Jordan, in response to the questions posed by the United States
circulated in G/LIC/Q/JOR/1, clarified that the items remaining in Section I of G/LIC/N/3/JOR/1
were still subject to licensing procedures according to the old by-laws, and that after the entry into
force of the new by-laws in Jordan, import licensing applicable to these items would be as follows:
(a)  mineral water (HS ex2201.10) and table salt (HS 25.01) would be subject to automatic import
licensing;  (b)  biscuits (HS ex19.05), used au tomobile tyres (HS ex40.12) and used electronic
equipment (HS ex85) would be subjec t to non-automatic import licensing;  (c)  milk for industrial use
(HS ex04.02) would be subject to non-automatic import licensing on the date of entry into force of the
new by-laws and would be changed to automatic import licensing on the first day of the third year of
Jordan's accession to the WTO according to Paragraph 88 of Jordan's Protocol of Accession.  Inresponse to the second question posed by the United States, he replied that Jordan did not apply any
licensing procedures on imports of fresh fruits and vegetables from WTO Member countries.
However, imports of potatoes, onions and garlic were subject to prior approval by the Agricultural
Marketing Organization, maintained for statistical purposes only and not to regulate the quantities
imported.  Potatoes, onions and garlic would be subject to automatic import licensing under the newby-laws.
4
2.22 With respect to the notification from the Eu ropean Communities, the representative of the
United States said that it was the understanding of his delegation that importers of organic fruit and
vegetables were required to obtain an import authorization prior to import.  If this was the case, hewondered why this measure was not included in Annex 1 of G/LIC/ N/3/EEC/4, which listed
agricultural products subject to import licensing.
5
2.23 Regarding the notification from Costa Rica wh ich had been circulated in G/LIC/N/3/CRI/3,
the representative of the United States noted that as indicated in that document, Costa Rica allocated
the right to a lower tariff rate within tariff rate quotas for a number of agricultural products, includingrice.  This allocation system operated as a non-auto matic licensing system within the terms of the
WTO Agreement.  Costa Rica had notified its legislation and responded to the Questionnaire.  The US
had been a traditional importer of Costa Rican rice for the duration of the current system and had
found the system difficult to use from its inception.  In particular, import permits were not granted
according to the transparent and predictable system described in Costa Rica’s notifications.  Costa
Rica had re-monopolized the importation of rice through the National Production Council (CNP), astate entity, in order to control the import quantity and the price of rice.  According to Costa Rica’s
national law, all import permits must be processed within eight days.  In special cases there was an
extension of four days.  According to information available to the US, Costa Rica had not granted
import permits since the beginning of 2002.  In addition, permits initially granted for imports this year
had been invalidated, resulting in substantial financ ial losses to the companies that were attempting to
use the market access established by Costa Rica in its WTO commitments, both at the time of
                                                     
4 Replies subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/JOR/2.
5 Question subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/EEC/1.G/LIC/M/15
Page 9
accession and subsequently in the Uruguay Round.  Despite efforts from Washington and by the US
Embassy in San José, the Government of Costa Rica had not given a clear explanation for its refusal
to issue import permits for rice.  He requested that Costa Rica explain why the system outlined in
G/LIC/N/3/CRI/3 was not operational and how US e xporters of rice could make use of the market
access negotiated on their behalf with Costa Rica.6
2.24 With respect to the notification from Romania, which had been circulated inG/LIC/N/2/ROM/ 3, the representative of the United States said that although Romania had provided a
list of products currently subject to automatic licensing, it had failed to indicate if these measures
were covered by the currently notified legislation and Romania’s responses to the Import Licensing
Questionnaire.  Nor had any other information on the mechanics of this particular licensing system
been given.  His delegation wished to know whether this was a new system or whether it was covered
by Romania’s previous notifications, as well as whether automatic licensing was the only means
available to obtain the required information for statistical purposes.
7
2.25 The representatives of Costa Rica, Romania  and the European Communities  stated that they
had taken note of the questions to send back to their capitals.  They were requested by the Chairperson
to provide their replies in written form directly to the US delegation with copies to the Secretariat for
transparency purposes.
2.26 The Committee took note of the notifications as well as the statements made.
(iii) Notifications under of Article 5 of the Agreem ent (new import licensing procedures, changes
to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)
2.27 The Chairperson recalled that under Paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, Members which instituted
licensing procedures or changes in these procedures were required to notify the Committee of such
within 60 days of publication of these procedures.  According to Paragraph 2 of Article 5, thenotification shall include the list of products subject to licensing procedures;  the contact point for
information on eligibility;  the administrative bodies for submission of applications;  the date and
name of publication where the procedures were pu blished;  whether the licensing procedures were
automatic or non-automatic according to definitions under the Agreement;  in the case of automatic
licensing procedures, their administrative purpose;  in the case of non-automatic licensing procedures,
the measure being implemented through the licensing procedure;  the expected duration of the
procedure if it could be estimated, and if not, the reason why this information could not be provided.Members also had to notify the Committee of the publications in which the information required in
Article 1.4 would be published.
2.28 Furthermore, under Paragraph 5 of Article 5, any interested Member which considered that
another Member had not notified the institution of a licensing procedure or changes therein, in
accordance with Paragraphs 1-3 of Article 5, could bring the matter to the attention of that otherMember, and if a notification was not made promptly thereafter the Member could itself notify the
licensing procedure or changes therein, including all relevant and available information.  The
Chairperson informed the Committee that the Secretariat had not received any notification under this
provision since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.
2.29 The Chairperson said that there were nine notifications before the Committee for review,
received from Albania (G/LIC/N/2/ALB/1), Hungary (G/LIC/N/2/HUN/2), India (G/LIC/N/2/IND/4),
Poland (G/LIC/N/2/POL /4/Add.1 & POL/5/Add.1), Romania (G/LIC/N/2/ROM/3), St. Lucia
(G/LIC/N/2/LCA/1) and Venezuela (G/LIC/N/2/VEN/3 & 4).  In addition, since the airgram
                                                     
6 Subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/CRI/4.
7 Subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/ROM/1.G/LIC/M/15
Page 10
convening this meeting had been issued, Poland had made a submission, which would be on the
agenda for the next meeting.
2.30 The representative of the United States expressed his appreciation to Venezuela and other
Members that had notified, as well as for the statement made by Venezuela that it was ready to submit
the required notifications.  Venezuela required import licences for a large number of products
including corn, grain sorghum, various oilseeds and their products, yellow grease, poultry, dairy
products and grapes, among others. While Venezuela had previously notified import licensing for
some of these agricultural products, those submissions appeared to be incomplete.  For example, the
notifications did not include current import licensing requirements for corn, soybean meal and yellow
grease.  For those products that Venezuela had notified as being subject to import licensing, in
G/LIC/N/2/VEN/3 and 4, it was not indicated that licensing for any of these products was
non-automatic, despite the fact that licences were currently being denied for many of the products in
question. Generally, issuance of import licences depended upon compliance with absorption
agreements or unclear SPS requirements.  Problems reported to his authorities included delays in
issuance, reduction in allowable quantities, requirements to prove that domestic products had also
been purchased, and the addition of new SPS requirements.  Usually importers were not informed ofthese extra requirements and delays in writing.  His authorities were particularly concerned about
Venezuela’s import licensing requirements for corn.  Issuance of import licences for yellow corn had
come to practically a complete standstill since a September 2001 announcement by the Venezuelan
Ministry of Agriculture that no import licences would be issued until all domestically produced corn
had been marketed.  They understood that Venezuela’s recent refusal to issue import licences forgrapes might be attributable to phytosanitary concerns.  Notification of import licensing policies on
this product and the reasons why they were applied, would help clarify the situation for importers.
His delegation also noted that Venezuela had failed to provide initial information on its import
licensing requirements to Committee Members in the form of responses to the Import Licensing
Questionnaire.  The information provided through that Questionnaire was particularly important in thecase of Venezuela, since the import licensing practices currently in place in Venezuela had a severely
restrictive effect on imports of a wide variety of agri cultural products.  Of particular interest would be:
(a) whether there were any specific administrative requirements related to import licensing
requirements for the commodities mentioned above, as well as products previously notified to the
Committee, including any quantitative limitations on the amount of imports allowed with a single
import licence; (b) the number of import licences granted, the number rejected and the quantity
imported of the above-mentioned products, as well as products previously notified to the Committee,by supplying country, over the last 24 months; (c) the Venezuelan Government agencies involved in
the administration of import licensing requirements for the above-mentioned products;  and (d) the
legal authority under Venezuelan law for such actions.
8
2.31 Regarding Turkey's licensing system, the representative of the United States said that Turkey
maintained import licensing requirements (through the “control belgisi”) on a number of agricultural
products, including wheat, corn, rice, pet foods, certain kinds of fruit contained in HTS Chapter 8, and
distilled spirits other than whisky contained in HTS 2208.  Although Turkey had previously notified
import licensing requirements on a number of industrial products, it had never notified import
licensing procedures on agricultural products to the Committee on Import Licensing, as requiredunder Article 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  It was particularly important that
Turkey provided such notification since issuance of import licences for the agricultural products in
question had frequently been denied.  His delegation had attempted to address this issue bilaterally,
without success.  Turkey’s policy of discretionary import licensing for these agricultural products had
created considerable uncertainty on the part of interested traders and had acted as a significantdeterrent to imports.  In the interest of bringing  greater transparency to Turkey’s import licensing
regime as well as ensuring Turkey’s compliance with Article 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing
                                                     
8 Subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/VEN/3.G/LIC/M/15
Page 11
procedures he requested that Turkey provide a comprehensive notification of all of its agricultural
import licensing procedures.  He also encouraged Turkey to update its responses to the Questionnaire
on Import Licensing Procedures to reflect current import licensing procedures for agricultural
products.  Of particular interest would be (a) any specific administrative requirements related to
import licensing requirements for the commodities mentioned above, including any quantitativelimitations on the amount of imports allowed with a single import licence; (b) the number of import
licences granted, the number rejected and the quantity imported of  the above-mentioned products, by
supplying country, over the last 24 months; (c) the Turkish Government agencies involved in
administration of import licensing requirements for the above-mentioned products; and (d) the legal
authority under Turkish law for such actions.
9
2.32 The representatives of Turkey and Venezuela  said that replies to the questions from the US
would be provided in writing.  The Chairperson requested them to send their written replies directly to
the US delegation with copies to the Secretariat for transparency purposes.
2.33 The Committee took note of the notifications as well as the statements made.
3. Preparations in connection with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the
People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization
3.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item, placed on the agenda at the request
of the delegation of the United States, had been amended subsequent to the issue of the airgram
convening this meeting to read as above.  She re called that in accordance with the Protocol of
Accession of the People's Republic of China, this Committee was required to report to the Council for
Trade in Goods with respect to China's Transitional Review Mechanism.
3.2 The representative of the United States stressed the importance of establishing a pragmatic
timeline to receive the notifications, questions and replies necessary to conduct China's transitional
review, in order to make the review mechanism a meaningful and efficient exercise and to facilitate
the task of the Secretariat in terms of translation and timely circulation of relevant documents well in
advance of the review meeting.  The United States was in no way interested in renegotiating China's
Protocol commitments.  The main goal was to al low for sufficient time to receive the necessary
information from China, and for subsequent exchange  of questions and answers that would assist the
Committee in preparing adequately for the review as required under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol.
His delegation therefore proposed a time-limit of 90 days before the meeting at which the reviewwould be carried out for notifications to be rece ived from China, 60 days before the meeting for
questions from Members to be submitted to China, and 30 days before the meeting for written
responses to be received from China, as was the standard practice applicable to similar notifications
and exchanges of questions and replies in the WTO.  His delegation thought that it would also be
worthwhile to consider how the Committee would deal with questions to which China was unable to
reply at the review meeting.
3.3 The representative of the European Commun ities said that she was confident that China
would do everything possible to allow for a constructive review mechanism in accordance with the
standard procedures, bearing in mind the time needed for translation and for an exchange of questionsand answers prior to the next meeting.  The EC hoped that China would use the notification
procedures already established in the WTO as a practical model.  This did not presuppose any new
obligations additional to its obligations under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol.
                                                     
9 Subsequently circulated in G/LIC/Q/TUR/1.G/LIC/M/15
Page 12
3.4 The representative of China thanked the United States delegate for his spirit of hard work and
the delegate of the EC for her statement and comments.  He expressed his appreciation to the
Chairperson and the Secretariat for arranging informal consultations on the issue prior to this meeting.
Reiterating China's basic position on the issue, he said that as a newcomer to the WTO, China took its
Membership seriously and attached importance to Paragraph 18 of the Protocol.  China was makinggreat efforts in preparations for the transitional review and, with the understanding and the support of
its trading partners, was determined to do its utmost to overcome the practical difficulties.  However,
as far as the transitional review was concerned, he stated that China had no more obligations than
those stipulated in Paragraph 18, and any attempt to go beyond that and increase the obligations of
China under any pretext would be firmly rejected.  Paragraph 18 of the Protocol, in his view, already
established important guidelines on the frequency, procedure, scope and substance of the review, and
it would thus be inappropriate for any subsidiary body of the WTO to renegotiate or redefine theterms of such reviews.  According to Paragraph 18, subsidiary bodies which had a mandate covering
China's commitments could conduct the transitiona l review once a year.  Such reviews should, in
principle, take place at the last regular meeting of the year of each subsidiary body.  Once a specific
regular meeting was chosen and the date was fixed for the review to be included as one of its agenda
items, the Secretariat should inform China of the sc hedule for the meeting as soon as possible in order
for China to make the necessary preparations.  To facilitate the transitional review, Members were
welcome to raise relevant concerns to China well in advance of the review, and he stated that China
would do its best to address them under Paragraph 18.  On the other hand, he stated that China was
also entitled, under the same Paragraph, to raise issues with other Members who maintained
prohibitions, quantitative restrictions and other measures against imports from China which wereinconsistent with WTO rules and their commitments with regard to China's accession.  He hoped that
through such an exchange of views and dialogue, a better understanding would be reached among
WTO Members on how to improve implementation by all Members and facilitate faster and sounder
growth of trade between China and the rest of the world.
3.5 The Chairperson said that in accordance with China's Protocol of Accession, the Committee
was required to report to the Council for Trade in Goods.  Since the last meeting of the Committee for
this year was scheduled for 24 September 2002, she proposed that the agenda for that meeting include
the review of the implementation of China's commitments in the import licensing area, pursuant to
Paragraph 18 of the Protocol.  She thanked the partie s involved in the informal  consultations for their
constructive and positive approach and hoped that the same would prevail in the Committee when
making preparations for the review.
3.6 The Committee took note of the statements.  It also agreed  that the Chair conduct informal
consultations on this matter to best determine how the Committee should carry out its obligations
under the transitional review mechanism, to report to the CTG.  As requested by China, the Secretariat
would send a communication informing the Permanent Mission of China that China's transitionalreview under Paragraph 18 of its Protocol of Ac cession would be conducted at the 24 September 2002
meeting of this Committee.
4. Other business
(i) Administration of tariff rate quotas in China
4.1 The representative of the United States said that in its market access commitments in the
context of accession to the WTO, China had committed to open from the date of accession, Tariff
Rate Quotas for a specified level of market access for a number of agricultural products and
fertilizers.  It remained unclear how they would be administered.  His authorities were particularly
concerned with licensing procedures associated with agricultural TRQs.  Distribution of TRQallocations had been delayed well past the 1 January 2002 date established in China's accession
commitments.  His authorities were still waiting for basic information on whether and how TRQsG/LIC/M/15
Page 13
allocations had been made.  Moreover, his authorities were concerned by reports that TRQ allocations
assigned to end-users included restrictive conditions such as re-export requirements, non-
commercially viable quota allocations, and limited participation of non-state trading enterprises.  His
authorities also understood that China was imposing a separate import licensing requirement on those
receiving TRQ allocations.  This requirement was contrary to China’s commitments according to its
Working Party Report (WT/ACC/CHN/49, paragraph 138) and the headnotes to China’s market
access Schedule.  In addition, China (AQSIQ) appeared to be limiting the quantity of products that it
would inspect in connection with the grant of import permits.  His authorities would appreciate
clarification from China on this situation.
4.2 The representative of China requested the US delegation to provide its comments and
questions in writing to be sent back to the Chinese authorities.4.3 The Committee took note of the statements made.
(ii) Discussion on special and differential treatment provisions in the Committee on Trade and
Development
4.4 The Chairperson referred to the discussion in the Committee on Trade and Development,
pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and paragraph 12 of the Doha Decision
on Implementation-Related Issues and Concerns, which, inter alia,  required the CTD to identify the
Special and Differential treatment provisions that Members considered should be made mandatory, to
examine ways in which S & D treatment provisions could be made more effective in their operation,
and to consider ways in which developing and least-developed countries could be assisted in making
best use of these provisions.  The CTD had been instructed to report to the General Council with clear
recommendations for a decision by July 2002.  She informed the Committee that she had received, inDecember 2001, a communication from the Chairman of the CTD on this matter.  She further
informed the Committee that arrangements had recently been put in place in the CTD for proposals
concerning the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures to be discussed at the Special Session of
16 May 2002.  She understood that at least one delegation had already submitted to the CTD, on an
informal basis, a proposal concerning the Import Licensing Agreement.  She urged other interesteddelegations to participate in this process and keep this Committee informed.
4.5 The Committee took note of the statement made.
(iii) Technical assistance in agendas of WTO bodies
4.6 The Chairperson referred to the discussions held in the Committee on Trade and Development
on the desirability of placing technical assistance/capacity-building activities as a standing item on the
agendas of Committees and Councils with technical assistance activities.  She recalled in this context
that Paragraph 41 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration instructed the Director-General to report to the
Fifth Ministerial Conference on the adequacy and implementation of technical assistance/capacity
building commitments contained therein, with an inte rim report to be provided to the General Council
in December 2002.  Therefore, it had been suggested that placing technical assistance as a standingitem on the agendas would allow each body to monitor these activities on a permanent basis, and
would provide the Secretariat with the necessary inputs on a timely basis for the preparation of the
interim report in December 2002.  She therefore requested delegations who considered it desirable to
have this item discussed in this Committee to signal their interest to the Secretariat.
4.7 The Committee took note of the statement made.
(iv) Date of the next meetingG/LIC/M/15
Page 14
4.8 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Secretariat had reserved
24 September 2002  for the next meeting of the Committee on the understanding that additional
meetings would be convened if necessary.
(v) Election of Officers
4.9 The Committee elected Mr. Hiromichi Matsushima (Japan) as Chairman of the Committee by
acclamation, to hold office until the end of the first meeting in 2003, under Rule 12 of the
Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also elected Miss. Philippa Davies (Jamaica)  as the
new Vice-Chairperson by acclamation.
__________