RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/9
3 September 1999
(99-3681)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 APRIL 1999
Chairperson:  Mrs. Marie Gosset (Côte d'Ivoire)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its ninth meeting on 29 April 1999.  The agenda
proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1070, was adopted as follows:
1. Notifications Page
(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 Questionnaire
on Import Licensing Procedures).................................................................................2
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 (new import licensing
procedures or changes) ................................................................................................2
2. Other business
 (i) Brazil's import li censing pro cedures............................................................................2
(ii) T rade Facilitation .........................................................................................................4
(iii) Date of the next meeting..............................................................................................4
3. Election of Officers…………………………………………………………..............4
_______________
1. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or  8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation)
1.1 The Chairperson said that since the last meeting, the Secretariat had received notifications
under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) from the Czech Republic, European Communities, Iceland,
Indonesia, Panama, Romania, Singapore, Trinidad an d Tobago and Tunisia. In addition, a notification
received from Zimbabwe prior to the last meeting was also before the Committee for review. Thesenotifications were circulated in the G/LIC/N/1-series.
1.2 With respect to the current status of notifications, she informed the Committee that since the
entry into force of the WTO Agreement, the Committee had received notifications under the abovetwo provisions from only 74 Members, and requested Members that had not yet provided anyinformation concerning their laws and regulations and publications relevant to import licensing tosubmit their notifications without further delay.
1.3 The Committee took note of the notifications and the statement made by the Chairperson.G/LIC/M/9
Page 2
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures)
1.4 The Chairperson informed the Committee that  since the last meeting, the following 14
Members had submitted replies to the Questionnaire: Chile, the European Communities, India,
Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Macau, Morocco, Norway, Panama, Peru, Switzerland, Trinidad andTobago, Tunisia and Uruguay.  In  addition, eight notifications received from Bolivia; Hong Kong,
China; Iceland; Korea; Malta; the Philippines; the United States and Zimbabwe were also beforethe Committee for review.  The relevant notifications had been circulated in the G/LIC/N/3/- series.
She suggested that the review of the notification from India which had so far been circulated only in
English and Spanish be postponed to the next meeting .
1.5 With respect to the current status of notifications, the Chairperson informed the Committee
that since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, a total of only 71 Members had thus farsubmitted notifications under this provision.  This included notifications from 11 Members in 1995,
22 in 1996, 25 in 1997, 26 in 1998, and so far from only seven Members in 1999.  Recalling that,
pursuant to Article 7.3 of the Agreement and the pr ocedures agreed in the Committee, all Members
were required to submit replies to the Questionnaire on an annual basis by 30 September, and noting
that notifications were overdue from many Members, she requested those Members that had not yetcomplied with the requirement to submit their notifications without any further delay.  She also
recalled that even those Members which had not made any changes to their import licensing
procedures since their previous notification were required to notify this fact to the Committee.
1.6 The representative of the United States wished to reserve the right to raise questions, if
necessary, on the notification from India.1.7 The Committee took note of the notifications and the statement made by the Chairperson.  It
agreed to postpone the review of the notification from India to its next meeting.
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 (new import licensing procedures or changes)
1.8 The Committee took note of the notifications submitted since the last meeting by Argentina,
India, Mexico and Singapore circul ated in the G/LIC/N/2/- series.
2. Other Business
(i) Brazil's import licensing procedures
2.1 The representative of the European Communities sought clarification on the Brazilian system
of import licensing, in particular as concerns the "Comunicado 23" of 24 August 1998.  This
communiqué modified "Comunicado 37/17" insofar that the products subject to non-automaticimport licensing were not listed any more in its Annex II, but were encoded in the "TabelaAdministrativa" of the SISCOMEX.  This "Tabela Administrativa" was a field in the Brazilianinformatic system for the handling of import/export operations.  Access to the SISCOMEX systemwas limited to authorized and registered users, mostly Brazilian customs brokers.  In practicalterms, this meant that the EC exporters became aware of the requirement of an import licence onlywhen they or their agents in Brazil accessed the SISCOMEX in order to initiate the import/exportprocedure.  As this system did not allow an a priori  knowledge of the requirement for a licence, it
seemed doubtful whether it could be considered as a publication within the meaning ofArticle 1.4(a) of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, or compatible with Article X.1 ofthe GATT 1994.  This system had not yet been notified to WTO.  In addition, there were licenceapplications indefinitely pending.  At least in all cases where minimum prices were implemented,G/LIC/M/9
Page 3
the Brazilian authorities did not explicitly refuse the issuing of the licence, but left it indefinitely
pending.  Thus de facto  the licence was refused but the applicant did not have any official decision
to appeal against, or any official reason for the non-issuing of the licence.  In this respect, theBrazilian system appeared to be in breach of Article 3.5(e) of the Agreement.  Her authorities werealso concerned with "Portaría No. 772" of the Ministry of Health and "Portaría No. 182" of theMinistry of Agriculture.  During a recent visit of experts to Brazil, made within the framework ofthe Trade Barrier Regulation investigation of Sorbitol and Carboxymethylcellulose (the CERESTARcase), the Brazilian authorities had explained that these Portarías were to be considered as simplyexplanatory of the previous more general pieces of legislation that still remained in force.  The linkbetween these measures and licensing was important in terms of assessment of their compatibilitywith WTO rules, in particular with the Agreements on Import Licensing Procedures, Agriculture,and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.  Her authorities were also concerned that these had notyet been notified to the WTO.  Another point of concern to the EC was the imposition of minimumprices and payment terms as conditions for the issuing of non-automatic import licences, which hadbeen contested by the European industry.  According to recent information received from textileexporters, it appeared that in certain cases minimum prices were imposed later in the importingprocess, i.e. at the time of the import declaration.  These administrative regulations were apparentlyapplied in the general framework of import licensing requirements by Brazil but were not published.Therefore, her authorities and importers/exporters had no knowledge of this, and consequently therewere no means of appealing against such regulations.  She also wished to point out that followingthe "FEBELTEX" Trade Barrier Regulation investigation on textile products which the EC hadcarried out, the Brazilian authorities had assured th e EC through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
that several textile products would be removed from the list of products subject to non-automaticimport licensing by the end of March this year (as had happened with respect to some steel productssubsequent to the Eurofer TBR complaint).  The EC had not yet received any official confirmationthat these products had been removed from the list.  She wished to know the situation with respectto this as well.
2.2 The representative of Switzerland stated that a letter had been sent to the Brazilian Mission
by his authorities seeking some information on the Brazilian import licensing system.  As was the
case for the EC exporters, the non-automatic import licensing system applied by Brazil created tradeproblems for Swiss exporters.  One major difficulty was linked to the uncertainty and the lack oftransparency regarding the functioning of the system and to the unknown scope of products comingunder this system.  Another problem lay in the fact that minimum price requirements must befulfilled to be able to export to Brazil.  His delegation, therefore, requested Brazil to informSwitzerland of the detailed functioning of the non-automatic import licensing system, as well as theobjectives of the measure, inter alia,  in relation to the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
Switzerland would also appreciate if Brazil could answer the following questions:  Did Brazil notifythe system to the Committee on Import Licensing?  If so, under which document code had thisnotification been circulated?  Could Brazil indicate on which legal basis the requirement forminimum prices was based internally?  What was its justification under GATT 1994?  The samequestions applied to the seemingly compulsory payment terms.  Could Brazil explain how it justifiedthe current non-automatic import licensing system with respect to Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of theAgreement on Import Licensing Procedures?  In view of the fact that the questions posed by hisdelegation had been transmitted to the Brazilian delegation rather late, he could understand that itwas difficult for Brazil to provide responses at the current meeting.  His delegation wished to havereplies to the questions in writing in order to define further steps to be taken to find a solution.G/LIC/M/9
Page 4
2.3 The representative of the United States said that his delegation associated itself with the
position taken by the EC on this issue as well as with the questions raised by the EC and by
Switzerland.
2.4 The representative of Brazil took note of the concerns raised by the delegations of the EC,
Switzerland and the United States.  He confirmed having received the questions in writing from
Switzerland and said that the information requested would be provided shortly.  As regarded thepoints raised by the EC, it was his understanding that his authorities would provide the answers tothe specific questions through the Brazilian Mission in Brussels.  The non-automatic licensingsystem in Brazil had revealed itself to be extremely useful for customs purposes, in terms of bettercontrol of imports into Brazil.  This procedure had not been used to impede entry into Brazil of anyspecific product.  In cases where there had been justified complaints regarding a more expediteentry into Brazil for specific products, customs authorities had examined those allegations and hadtried to solve the specific problems.  In response to a request made by the delegation of Mexico, heagreed, for reasons of transparency, to submit to the Committee copies of his replies to the EC andSwitzerland.
(ii) Trade Facilitation
2.5 The Committee took note of the response of the Chairperson to the Chairman of the Council
for Trade in Goods summarizing the discussion held in this Committee, at informal and formal
level, on the subject of trade facilitation (G/C/W/149, paragraph 7 and G/LIC/M/8, paragraph 2).
(iii) Date of the next meeting
2.6 The next meeting of the Committee will be held on 21October 1999.
3. Election of officers
3.1 The Committee re-elected Mrs. Marie Gosset (Côte d'Ivoire) as Chairperson of the Committee
by acclamation, to hold office until the end of the first meeting in 2000, under Rule 12 of the
Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).
3.2 The Committee elected Mr. Lars Andersen (Norway) as the new Vice-Chairperson.
__________