RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/51  
 
18 December 2020  
(20-9203) Page: 1/24 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9 OCTOBER  2020 
CHAIRPERSON: DR MUHAMMAD IRFAN  (PAKISTAN ) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifty-second  meeting on 9 October  2020 under the 
chairpersonship of Dr Muhammad Irfan (Pakistan ). The agenda proposed for the meeting was 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/1 1. 
 
_______________  
 
1   LAUNCH OF THE IMPORT LICENSING WEBSITE  ................................ ..........................  3 
2   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENTS 
SINCE THE LAST MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
3   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE 
CONCERNS (G/LIC/W/51/REV.3)  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
3.1   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/41  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
3.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/2  ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 
3.3   Documents  G/LIC/Q/KEN/1 and G/LIC/Q/KEN/2  ................................ .............................  6 
3.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3  ................................ ................................ ...........................  6 
3.5   Document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/18  ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
3.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/25  ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
3.7   Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/2  ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
3.8   Document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/2  ................................ ................................ ..........................  8 
4   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  9 
4.1   Notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, 1.4(a), and 8.2(b) of t he Agreement  ...........................  9 
4.2   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ .............................  9 
5   BRAZIL – IMPORTATION OF NITROCELLULOSE FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES IN 
BRAZIL (EU FOLLOW -UP QUESTIONS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION)  ..........  10 
6   EGYPT – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ . 10 
7   INDIA – IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
8   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILES PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ .........  13 
9   THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF FEED WHEAT IN THAILAND – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
10   CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE 
MATERIALS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ .......................  16 
11   INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR BORIC ACID - STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  17 G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 2 - 
 
  12   INDON ESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS, AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ...............................  18 
13   INDIA – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENT BY 
CANADA AND AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ .............................  19 
14   THIRTEENTH BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTAT ION AND OPERATION OF 
THE AGREEMENT (G/LIC/W/54)  ................................ ................................ ...................  21 
15   DRAFT REPORT (2020) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC /W/53)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  21 
16   IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE AGREEMENT 
– REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..................  21 
17   CONTACT LIST OF DELEGATIONS  ................................ ................................ ...........  22 
18   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .................  22 
19   ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .........  22 
20   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 22 
 
1.1.  The Chairperson  opened the meeting by observing that, due to COVID -19 travel and meeting 
restrictions, this was the first time that the Committee on Import Licensing had met formally since 
October  2019.  He thanked Members for appointing him as Chairperson . He also thanked his 
predecessor, Ms  Carol Tsang for her much appreciated and valued work for the Committee.  
1.2.  Ms Carol Tsang  (Hong Kong, China)  congratulated the Chairperson on his appointment. She 
noted that it had been  an unusual year , considering that Members could not meet in person for 
several months , and the Committee had been unable to hold its spring meeting.  However, the work 
of the Committee had not come to a halt during the lockdown period , thanks to the efforts of the 
Secretariat , who had worked hard to facilitate discussions among Members, while many notifications 
were also circulated. In this regard, she was grateful for the guidance and hard work of the 
Secretariat , as well as for the support of the Committee's Vice -Chairperson. She noted that , under 
the pandemic, one could clearly appreciate the importance of the rule s-based system , and that all 
committee s had continued to operate effectively. She recalled that , in 2019, the Committee had 
begun  discussions on the challenges faced in completing the annual questionnaire , and on possible 
ways to facilitate this task for Members. She tha nked all Members for the ir active engagement in 
the work of the Committee and for sharing their experience s. She hoped that Members could build 
on this effort and continue to enhance transparency on import licensing  procedures  in a meaningful 
way.1 
1.3.  Moving  on to the adoption of the agenda , the Chairperson  recalled that the proposed agenda 
for this meeting was contained in Airgram  WTO/AIR/LIC/11.  He stated that , under agenda item 
"Other Business", he wished to say a few words regarding staff changes in conne ction with the 
Committee. He then asked if  any delegation wished to add any other item for discussion under 
"Other Business" . 
1.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated that, under agenda item "Other Business", 
the European Union wished to include an item on the importation of alcoholic beverages into 
Indonesia.  
1.5.  The agenda was adopted  with the changes  proposed . 
1.6.  The Chairperson  recalled that delegates could attend this mee ting either in  person or virtually. 
He noted that, while providing convenience for participants, meetings held in this way could  
encounter unexpected technical problems , and that delegations' understanding and patience would 
be much appreciated in this reg ard. He explained that , in order to ensure that the meeting ran 
smooth ly, once the floor had been opened, he would alternate between offering the floor to delegates 
 
1 Several delegations intervened during the meeting to congratulate the Chairperson on his appointment 
and thank his predecessor for her good work during her tenure.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 3 - 
 
  in the room and those attend ing remotely . He assure d delegations  that such a procedural and purely 
technical arrangement was without prejudice to Members' rights.  
1  LAUNCH OF THE IMPORT LICENSING WEBSITE  
1.1.  The Chairperson  invited Deputy Director -General Yi to make a few remarks on the launch of 
the new WTO  Import Licensing website and database.  
1.2.  Deputy Director -General Yi  observed  that the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures , 
which was established during the Tokyo Roun d, was one of the oldest GATT/WTO  Agreement s. As 
one of the most -frequently -used trade policy instruments, applied by almost all governments, use 
of import licensing ha d extended from enforcing quantitative restrictions and collecting trade 
statistics, to safeguarding product quality, the environment, consumer welfare, public health , and 
national security. Detailed procedural requirements under various provisions of the Agreement 
added further complexity to any search for information in this particular area . And he recalled that 
the idea of creating a database on import licensing date d back to 2017.  
1.3.  The objectives of the website were several: first , to create a database which store d and 
present ed import licensing information in a systematic and structured way ; second , to make better 
use of information contained in notifications ; and third , to make it easy for Members and the business 
community to find the right information.  During the past four ye ars, the staff  in the Market Access 
Division had designed the structure of the new website; they had reviewed and analysed all import 
licensing notifications submitted by Members since 1995; they had uploaded the Member profiles of 
134 WTO Members; and the y had verified over 2 ,500 pieces of legislation to ensure that their 
website links were functioning  as they should,  and that the legal texts were in place as well as 
1,085 products and procedures to ensure accuracy. In this process, colleagues from the Information 
Technology Solutions Division ( ITSD) provided indispensable technical support. Thanks to th e work 
of the staff involved , the objectives of this project had been  achieved and the import licensing 
database was ready to be launched.  
1.4.  He added  that transparency ma de trade more inclusive and predictable. Enhanced efficiency, 
achieved through easy access to information, reduce d trade cost s for both exporters and importers. 
The new WTO  import licensing database would  significantly improve transparency in  this important 
field and would  benefit all Members, especially those developing Members that had capacity and 
resource constraints, as well as SMEs and MSMEs.  
1.5.  In concluding , he thank ed Suja Rishikesh Mavroidis , Xiaodong  Wang , Donna  Wood , Irina  
Tarasenko , Karine  Grange , and Steve Tanner  for their excellent work , as well as all those  colleagues 
in the Secretariat who had contributed to this project at different stages. He also thanked  all 
Members, especially former Chai rpersons  of the Committee  on Import Lic ensing , for their devotion, 
support , and valuable contributions over the past few years. Finally , he encourage d Members to 
work together to make this database a product which was responsive to their needs. In that respect , 
he encouraged Members to use this database frequently  and submit notifications regularly, 
considering that the database had been  established for their benefit and that its value would  be 
enhanced by Members'  use. With these words he announce d the launch of the Import Licensing 
website  (https://importlicensing.wto.org ). 
1.6.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  welcome d the launch of th e new website , which was 
a conveni ent tool for access ing information on the import licensing procedure s of WTO  Members . 
She added that the launch of the website was timely given the need to facilitate trade during the 
current pandemic . And she encouraged all Members to provide their import  licensing information in 
order to enhance transparency in international trade. She joined Deputy Director -General Yi in 
congratulating the Secretariat and thank ing them for this remarkable work.  
1.7.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretar iat for its efforts in creating the 
import licensing website , which the U nited States considered to be a positive step. She encouraged 
all Members , through the Committee,  continuously to update the website , and to do so in a 
transparent manner in order  to ensure that the information it contained remain ed valid.  
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Deputy Director -General Yi and the 
Secretariat for their efforts in launching this website dedicated to the work of the Committee. She G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 4 - 
 
  hoped that the website would help Members to find the necessary information in one  single place 
and look ed forward to it being updated on a regular basis.  
1.9.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  was glad to see the launch of the import licensing website 
and joined Deputy Director -General Yi in thanking the Secretariat for their efforts in establishing it.  
1.10.   The representative of Canada  congratulated the Secretariat for its hard work and previous 
Chairpersons for pursuing this initiative  regarding an import licensing w ebsite . She hoped that this 
website would increase transparency and create a one-stop shop for import licensing notifications in 
the WTO. She also agreed with the European Union and the United States that notifications from 
Members would need to be updated  regularly in order for the website to contain the most recent 
and accurate information possible.  
1.11.   The representative of China  welcomed the launch of the new import licensing website and 
congratulated the Secretariat for its efforts in developing it. He bel ieved that the new website would 
contribute  to improvement s in transparency and to the work of the Committee  as well as facilitating 
Members' work, especially developing country Members that faced capacity constraints.  
1.12.   The representative of Australia  welco med the launch of the very valuable new website  and 
congratulated the Secretariat for its hard work.  Like Canada,  he considered it important to have a 
one-stop shop for Members and interested parties wishing to access information on import licensing 
procedures. This was a simple and real-world  example of how Members could tangibly improve 
transparency, there by assisting and helping exporters and traders.  
1.13.   The representative of Colombia  welcomed the launch of th e import licensing website, which 
should prove useful to governments and business. She thanked the Secretariat for its work in 
developing and implementing this website and joined those Members that had spoken of the 
importance of transparency and of keepin g the website updated based on the submission of 
notifications.  
1.14.   The representative of Switzerland  welcomed the launch of the website, which would greatly 
facilitate access to the information contained in notifications and thus respond to an important need 
among  trade actors. She also thanked the former Chairpersons of the Committee and the Secretariat 
for their hard work and efforts in developing and implementing the website.  
1.15.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICAT ION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENT S SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
2.1.  The Chairperson  stated that he had been informed by the Secretariat that, to date, a total of 
247 notifications had been received under various provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement 
since the last meeting, 244  of which were listed in the Airgram for consideration at this meeting.  
New N/3  notifications had been received by the Secretariat before the meeting from Costa Rica ; 
Honduras; Hong Kong, China ; Indonesia ; Japan ; Kazakhstan ; Thailand;  and the United States . Given 
that they had arrived after the Airgram had already been issued , these documents would  be reviewed 
at the Committee's next meeting.  
2.2.  The Chairperson  highlighted  that, as of the date of this meeting , 14 Members had not yet 
submitted any notification under any provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO. A total of 
23 Members had not yet submitted any reply to the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 of the 
Agreement, including the 14  Members  that had not submitted any notifications at all . The lists of 
Members mentioned above had been reflected in the draft biennial report in document  G/LIC/W/54. 
For the sake of transparency, he urged all Members on the list to submit their replies as soon as 
possible.  
2.3.  He also recalled that  that submitting replies to the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 of 
the Agreement was an annual notification obligation for all Members. As of 9  October  2020, only 
15 Members had submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2020. He thank ed those  Members 
that had respected the notifica tion timeline and submitted N/3  notifications before 30  September  
2020. He stated that transparency was one of the key pillars of the rules -based multilateral trading G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 5 - 
 
  system  and encourage d Members that had not yet submitted their replies to the questionnai re for 
2020 to do so as soon as possible.  He added that , since the last Committee meeting, there had been 
some positive developments in the area of notification s. First, there had been  a significant increase 
in notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, with ove r 200  new N/2  submissions received. Second, more 
Members had begun to use the new notification form contained in document  G/LIC/28 to notify new 
import licensing regulations or changes therein . Third, some Members had notified several  import 
licensing -related laws or regulations that had been in force for years but  had not yet been notified. 
He thank ed those Members for their efforts and dedication.  He then asked delegations if they wished 
to comment on the issue of compliance with notification obligations.  
2.4.  The representative of the United States  thanked those Members that had submitted 
notifications. She said that her delegation considered transparency to be a very important part of 
the work of this Organization, and appreciated Members' efforts in that regard.  
2.5.  The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's report and of the statements made.  
3  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
(G/LIC/W/51/REV.3)  
3.1  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/41  
3.1.  The representative of Japan  stated Japan's  serious conc erns regarding  the importation  of rice 
from Japan into Indonesia, in respect of  which Indonesia was not provid ing transparency , by failing 
to notify its measures , and by not indicating its intention to redress the negative effects of its 
measures on actual trade.  He said that there had been  some cases of import ation of  Japanese rice 
into Indonesia  since the entry into force of the Indonesian "Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.  1 
of 2018 "; however,  even in these relatively fortunate cases, Japan had been informed that,  after 
application, it had taken  approximately four  months on average to obtain import licen ces, which 
seem ed substantially longer than the necessary and proper period.  But this  was not the end of the 
story, since there had been no ca ses in which import licences had been issued after January  2020. 
The problem was ongoing , while the responsible ministry had confirmed that all necessary 
document s had been properly submitted and received. Another issue of  concern  was "unreasonable 
penaliz ation". The validity of an import licen ce, when  issued after several months  of delay , was not 
longer than six  months. Th is period could  be shorter  still and, if the quota under the licence was not 
filled, this failure to use the quota fully would  be considered  cause  for possible penalization in 
subsequent  applications , including  rejection of the application or a reduced  quota allocation. This 
happened  in practice without any basis in the relevant "Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.  1 
of 2018". 
3.2.  He remarked that h ealthy commercial actions could not occur under conditions of limited 
transparency and limited predictability.  Japan was concern ed that Indonesia's  administration of its 
import licensing regime was neither  transparent nor predictable . Therefore, Japan  request ed 
Indonesia to make its import licensing procedure s transparent, promptly to provide solutions to the 
substantial delay in issuing import licences, and to address all  other problems relating to the 
import ation of  Japanese rice.  Moreover, Japan request ed Indonesia to provide sufficient clarification 
of its procedures at the meeting itself, and in writing. To find a solution, Japan stood ready to engage 
in bilateral cons ultations if Indonesia  so wishe d. 
3.3.  The representative of Indonesia  responded to Japan' s concern s regarding import licensing for 
Japonica rice.  She said that , on the issue of notification, Indonesia was still coordinati ng among 
government agencies in preparing regulations to be notified to the WTO. She noted that a ll the 
information questioned by Japan was contained  in the "Regulation of the Minister of Trade No.  1 of 
2018" , publicly available on Ministry of Trade website (http://jdih.kemendag.go.id/peraturan ). 
Indonesia was open to discuss the aforementioned regulation bilaterally, should Japan need further 
explanation of the details of the requirements on import licensi ng, especially regarding Japonica rice 
importation.  
3.4.  Furthermore,  Indonesia was not violating Article 3.5(f) of the Import Licensing Agreement, 
although the COVID -19 pandemic and the so -called "new normal ", including work from home 
policies, were  certainly having a serious impact on how government support ed businesses, including 
in relation to release on import approvals.  Regarding  the import approvals for Japonica rice, she said G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 6 - 
 
  that Indonesia had already released three  import approvals , dated 26  February  , 11 March  , and 
26 June 2020, for imports originating from Japan, Viet  Nam, Thailand, China, the United States , and 
India, for a  total of 6 ,850 ton nes. Based on their data, import utilization relating to th ese 
three  import approvals stood at approximately  1,393 tonnes, or 20.33%, all originating from Viet 
Nam. She further stated that  Indonesia had never restrict ed the importation of Japonica rice, 
including that originat ing from Japan. Indonesia considered  that th e utilization of import approv als 
relating to Japonica rice was purely based on business -to-business decisions by the business 
entity/importer.  
3.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/2  
3.5.  The representative of the United States  reminded the delegation of the Dominican Rep ublic of 
the questions submitted by  the United States  during the review period. She expressed gratitude to 
the Dominican Republic for reviewing their questions and said that they would appreciate a response 
in writing as soon as possible . 
3.6.  The representative of Colombia  thanked the United St ates for their written questions to the 
Dominican Republic. She expressed Colombia's interest in these issues and in the responses that 
the Dominican Republic would share with the Committee. She also said that her delegation had 
found that the compilation of questions and replies  circulated by the Secretariat  in 
document  G/LIC/W/51/Rev.3  had been very useful ; it facilitated Members' work.  
3.7.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  offered his delegation's apologies to the United 
States for the delay in responding to their questions.  He asked the United States to clarify what they 
meant in question  1 by "inspect and dispatch" and "authorization", as they were unsure of what the 
United States was referring  to. He also said that the Dominican Republic was looking at the import 
licensing system with a view to facilitating trade , and that his authorities worked with a sin gle window 
for foreign trade. This was a platform which accelerated requests. He considered that this response 
had addressed questions  1 and 2. Turning to question  3, he noted that one of the pillars of the 
Agreement on Agriculture was the elimination of q uantitative restrictions on imports , and that the 
Ministry of Agriculture could not issue restrictions on quantities to the extent that they were bound 
by these multilateral agreements. Therefore, regarding question  4, he confirmed that hatching eggs 
and p otatoes were included in the WTO  Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) , in accordance with these 
commitments , and that permits were issued automatically.  In respect of question  5, he confirm ed 
that the United States  had correctly understood it, and that they would  submit their responses 
through the usual channels and through the Secretariat.  
3.3  Documents  G/LIC/Q/KEN/1 and G/LIC/Q/KEN/2  
3.8.  The representative of the United States  thanked Kenya for their engagement during the review 
period. She said that  they had received timely responses to their questions , and that their subject 
matter experts were closely examining these responses in Washington. She noted that they had  
additional questions, which they would submit to the Chair person  for circulation to Committee 
Members.  
3.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3  
3.9.  The representative of the United States  drew Members' attention to their written questions 
contained in  document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3. She said that they had been pleased to learn that Egypt 
would  circulate its responses in the near future.  She had been informed that Egypt would  soon notify 
various import licensing procedures  to this Committee , which they assume d would  also include its 
replies to the annual questionnaire (N3) , which would be a welcome development.  She had hoped 
that Egypt 's forthcoming notifications would  clarify Egypt's procedure for the importation of poultry 
products, including chicken offal and limbs. In the meantime, her delegation  asked Egypt to clarify 
whether or not poultry prod ucts, including chicken offal and limbs, were subject to "prior approval", 
import licensing, or both . 
3.10.   She also asked Egypt to clarify the list of products suspended from importation and provide 
relevant information justifying the import suspension ; to disc lose to Members where it publishe d 
relevant information concerning  these products so that importers and export ers could  be informed G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 7 - 
 
  of changes to procedures ; and   to detail when the impo rtation of these products would  be allowed 
to resume.  
3.11.   She added that the United States was seriously concerned over the role of the consultative 
import committees established through 2018  Prime Minister Decisions  Nos. 2080, 2233, and 222. 
Her delegation  request ed transparency regarding the criteria used to is sue import licences for beef, 
fish, and poultry products.  She encouraged Egypt to submit its pending notifications in a manner 
that sufficiently describe d the applicable regulations and procedures, listing the products subject to 
import licensing, providin g the eligibility to apply for an import licence , and describing the criteria 
considered when issuing an import licence . Finally, she said that the United States encourage d 
transparency  on these measures and look ed forward to Egypt's responses to their questions about 
regulation and procedures regarding  its import licensing regime for agricultural products.  
3.12.   The representative of Egypt  thanked the United States for the follow -up and additional 
questions raised in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3. Egypt recognized that the fact that it had not 
submitted notifications under the Import Licensing Agreement had raised many legitimate questions 
among Members. He said that it had been his delegation's intention , prior to  the COVID -19 crisis, to 
finalize the process of preparing these notifications and to present them to the Committee on Import 
Licensing ; however, the ongoing crisis had delayed this process. Nevertheless, he assured the 
Committee that officials in Capital were currently  coordinating efforts among different Egyptian 
authorities in order to finalize and submit the required notifications  by the date of the Committee 's 
next meeting. He also thanked the WTO  Secretariat for the technical assistance it had provided to 
Egypt in this area.  
3.13.   He then turned to the preliminary answers received from Capital, noting that the more 
detailed written replies would be provided as soon as possible.  He addressed first the United States'  
follow -up questions. In respect of the first  question, prior to this meeting, Egypt had provided to the 
US delegation a list of the regulations governing the licensing procedures of different Egyptian 
authorities , and the products they covered.  He added that this list would be included in the document 
with the written replies to be circulated to Members. Regarding the second  question, he said that 
his delegation would notify , by the date of the Committee 's next  meeting , a brief description of t he 
regulations governing the administration of licensing procedures , together with the required 
information stipulated in Article  4(a) and Article  5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing  Procedures. 
In this regard, he noted that a number of recently establi shed authorities had overtaken the 
functions of other entities and had adopted relevant measures that needed to be compiled in the 
notifications. Regarding  the third and fourth  questions , on the suspension of imports of products 
listed in Annex  1 of Decree  No. 770/2005 , he said  that this list and its amendments had not changed 
since Egypt 's last trade policy review in 2018. The import ation of these products had been suspended 
for legitimate reasons , including health, safety, religious, environmental , and national security 
reasons. Hence, the list of products would  only be revised in light of any changes in relation to the 
reasons for justifying the suspension.  
3.14.   Turning to the United States'  additional  questions, he stated that , in respect of poultry 
imports , prior approval requests were submitted to the General Organization of Veterinary Services  
(GOVS) . The requests were then presented to a committee , established by Prime Minister's Decree 
No. 222/201 8, regulat ing the imports of poultry and poultry  products to ensure that such products 
did not lead to the introduction of diseases into the Egyptian territories , and that they met the 
required standards stipulated by the GOVS , including halal requirements . Approvals were granted 
based on meeting the set standards and requirements and the epidemic situation in the exporting 
country . Regarding  Article  102 of Ministerial Decree  No. 770/2005, he clarified that it concern ed 
labelling requirements and not licensing requirements.  He said that t he officials in the Ministry of 
Trade were coordinating with the GOVS regarding the import trade statistics from countries where 
poultry facilities were located. However, the imports of chicken offal and limbs were currently 
suspended , according to  Annex  1 of Ministerial Decree  No. 770/2005 . He added that  any changes in 
this regard would  be duly published.  
3.5  Document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/18  
3.15.   The representative of the United States  expressed concern over the import licensing regime 
of Argentina following a period of sustained reports by United States industry detailing significant 
increases in non -tariff barriers (NTBs), including delays and new formalities for import licences . She 
directed Members' at tention to their recently submitted questions under G/LIC/Q/ARG/18 , in G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 8 - 
 
  response to a series of recent notifications made by Argentina under G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28. She asked 
Argentina to clarify some of these recent changes to its import licensing regime. She sa id that her 
delegation would also appreciate some basic statistical information for both automatic and 
non­automatic licences over the past three  years.  
3.16.   The United States was interested in understanding Argentina's process for granting and 
refusing applica tions for import licences. Specifically, under what circumstances would Argentina 
refuse an application for a licence other than failing to meet the administrative criteria? She noted 
as an example that Argentina's recent notifications indicated the possib ility of very broad information 
requests, on short notice, to applicants for non -automatic import licenses. Her delegation wished to 
better understand these information requests as well as any measures taken by Argentina to ensure 
that such information req uests did not result in a trade restriction or in trade disruptive effects. 
Moreover, she asked Argentina to detail the basis on which the implementing authority made such 
information requests. For example, how did such requests relate to the measure being  implemented 
through the licensing procedure? She thanked Argentina for receiving these questions and said that 
her delegation would have appreciated a response in writing as soon as possible.  
3.17.   The representative of Argentina  thanked the United States for t he questions , contained in 
document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/18 , about  the most recent notifications from Argentina to th e Committee. 
She inform ed the United States  that their technical team was continuing to work on the responses , 
which would be provided  shortly . 
3.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/25  
3.18.   The representative of Brazil  said that the Brazilian Government was still working to provide 
definite answer s to the European Union's  questions. In the meantime, s he reiterated that Brazil did 
not differentiate between indu strial and military nitrocellulose , and that it was a characteristic of this 
product that , regardless of the nitrogen concentration , it might  pose risks, as it was the basis for 
the production of ammunition, explosives , and other defence products. For this reason , Brazil 
underst ood that the adoption of regulations for controlling and monitoring trade in nitrocellulose was 
a legitimate instrument of protection.  
3.19.   The r epresentative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for its short explanation and said 
that her delegation would intervene on this issue under item 5 of the agenda , where they had a 
specific point regarding Brazil's nitrocellulose regime.  
3.7  Document  G/LIC/Q/E GY/2  
3.20.   The representative of Egypt  thanked the European Union for its continued interest in Egypt's 
import system. He noted that , after having provided answers to the questions contained in 
document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/2, they had received additional questions from the European Union. He 
understood that this discussion would take place under agenda item 6 and said that he would 
intervene under that item.  
3.8  Document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/2  
3.21.   The representative of Myanmar  thanked the United States for its questions on import licensi ng 
procedures in Myanmar contained in document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/1 , and noted that Myanmar had 
provided its replies , in document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/2 , at the Committee 's meeting of 4 October  2019. 
She added that Myanmar had no further comments at that stage and that , once she had received 
updates from Capital, she would communicate these to the United States via the Secretariat.  
3.22.   The representative of the United States  thanked Myanmar for its engagement during the 
review period. She noted that her delegation had received timely responses to their questions and 
their subject matter experts in Washington were closely examining the se. If there were any 
additional questions, the United States would submit these, via the Chairperson , for circulation to 
the Committee.  
3.23.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4  NOTIFICATIONS  
4.1  Notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, 1.4(a), and 8.2(b) of the Agreement  
4.1.  The Chairperson  stated that over 200  N/2 notificatio ns, submitted by 16  Members, had been 
listed for the Committee's consideration at this meeting. The large number of N/2  notifications could 
be explained in two  ways. First, due to the COVID -19 pandemic and related travel and meeting 
restrictions, the sprin g formal meeting of the Committee had been  cancelled , which caused delays 
in reviewing some notifications. Second, since the Committee's last meeting, a few Members had 
made tremendous effort s to provide missing information using the new notification templ ate. In this 
regard, he thanked those Members that had made efforts to improve the transparency of their 
respective import licensing regimes.  Due to the large number of notifications on the agenda, and 
with a view to making the review process more efficient, he proposed to review the notifications in 
groups following a sequence by notifying Member.  
4.2.  The following notifications under Article  5.1-5.4 were reviewed by the Committee : Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.5, G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/ Add.6, G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/ Add.7 , and 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/ Add.7/Corr .1); Costa Rica (G/LIC/N/2/CRI/4 -G/LIC/N/2/CRI/24 ); European  
Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/13); Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/2/HKG/14, G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 15, 
G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 15/Corr.1, and G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 16); Indonesia (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/43 and 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/ 44); Republic of Korea (G/LIC/N/2/KOR/3 -G/LIC/N/2/KOR/23 ); Macao, China 
(G/LIC/N/2 /MAC/1); Morocco (G/LIC/N/2/MAR/5 and G/LIC/N/2/MAR/ 5/Corr.1); Myanmar 
(G/LIC/N/2/MMR/2); Philippines (G/LIC/N/2/PHL/3 -G/LIC/N/2/PHL/139 ); Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
(G/LIC/N/2/SAU/2); Seychelles (G/LIC/N/2/SYC/1); Singapore (G/LIC/N/2/SGP/7); Switzerland and  
Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/2/CHE/4,  G/LIC/N/2/CHE/ 5 and G/LIC/N/2/CHE/ 6); Chinese Taipei 
(G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/8 -G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/13 , and G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/ 13/Rev.1); Thailand 
(G/LIC/N/2/THA/5); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/9); and Viet Nam 
(G/LIC/N/2/VNM/3 - G/LIC/N/2/VNM/18 ). 
4.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Philippines for the numerous notifications 
of legislation and regulations concerning import licensing and for updating their annual questionnaire 
notification. She brought Members' attention to document  G/LIC/N/3/PHL/13 and the process for 
issuing SPS  Import Clearances (SPSIC). She said that her delegation planned to submit questions in 
the coming days. However, she noted a few inconsistencies between the information notified and 
the reports that they ha d received regarding this regime. For example, in 
document  G/LIC/N/3/PHL/13, the Philippines had stated that the application for the SPSIC only 
needed to be made before importation. However, they had received reports that in many cases 
applications had to be received well before the product was loaded from its country of origin. Once 
the product was on the water, SPSIC  applications no longer appeared to be accepted at all. They 
asked the Philippines to clarify this requirement. Furthermore, she said that th ey would also 
appreciate more information about the decision -making process used to issue SPSICs. For instance, 
document  G/LIC/N/3/PHL/13 stated that SPSICs were not intended to restrict the quantity or value 
of imports, but rather were used to safeguard human and plant health and prevent the spread of 
pests or diseases. However, they had received reports from industry where  the government had 
refused to issue SPSICs for an extended period without citing these safeguard issues as the primary 
justification. She concluded that her delegation looked forward to submitting these questions to the 
Philippines in the near future and asked the Philippines to provide timely written responses 
addressing their concerns.  
4.4.  The representative of the Philippines  thanked the United States  for their comments and said 
that they would appreciate receiving inputs in writing for consult ations  with t heir Capital.  
4.5.  The Committee took note  of the notifications  and of the statements made . 
4.2  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
4.6.  The Chairperson  noted that 36 notifications had been listed for consideration  at this meeting . 
some of the notifications  had been notified for 2020 and others had been notified for 2019 or earlier 
years. A number of new N/3  notifications had been submitted after the Airgram had been issued and 
these would be reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.7.  The following noti fications under Article  7.3 were reviewed  by the Committee : Albania 
(G/LIC/N/3/ALB/8 and G/LIC/N/3/ALB/ 9); Kingdom of Bahrain (G/LIC/N/3/BHR/3); Cameroon 
(G/LIC/N/3/CMR/8); Canada (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/19); China (G/LIC/N/3/CHN/16,  G/LIC/N/3/CHN/ 17, 
G/LIC/N/3/CHN /18 and G/LIC/N/3/CHN/ 18/Corr.1); Colombia (G/LIC/N/3/COL/13); Costa Rica 
(G/LIC/N/3/CRI/16); Cuba (G/LIC/N/3/CUB/10); El Salvador (G/LIC/N/3/SLV/4); European Union 
(G/LIC/N/3/EU/9); Hong Kong , China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/23); India (G/LIC/N/3/IND/19); Indonesia 
(G/LIC/N/3/IDN/11); Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/18); Kazakhstan (G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/4); Republic of Korea 
(G/LIC/N/3/KOR/12); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/23 and G/LIC/N/3/MAC/ 22/Corr.1); Malaysia 
(G/LIC/N/3/MYS/14 and G/LIC/N/3/MYS/ 14/Corr.1); Mauritius (G/LIC/N/3/MUS /9 and 
G/LIC/N/3/MUS/ 10); Montenegro (G/LIC/N/3/MNE/4 and G/LIC/N/3/MNE/ 4/Corr.1); New Zealand 
(G/LIC/N/3/NZL/6); Panama (G/LIC/N/3/PAN/11); Philippines (G/LIC/N/3/PHL/13); Russian 
Federation (G/LIC/N/3/RUS/5); Seychelles (G/LIC/N/3/SYC/3); Singapore (G/LI C/N/3/SGP/15); 
South Africa (G/LIC/N/3/ZAF/8); Switzerland -Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/15 and 
G/LIC/N/3/CHE/ 16); Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/10); Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/16); Ukraine 
(G/LIC/N/3/UKR/12); United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/16) ; and Uruguay (G/LIC/N/3/URY/13 and 
G/LIC/N/3/URY/ 14). 
4.8.  The Chair person  recalled that only 15  Members, out of a total WTO  membership of over 
130 (counting EU  Member States as one), had submitted new Replies to the Annual Questionnaire 
for the year 2020 so fa r. He encourage d those Members that had not yet done so to update and 
submit their N3  notifications as soon as possible.  
4.9.  The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
5  BRAZIL – IMPORTATION OF NITROCELLULOSE FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES IN BRAZIL 
(EU FOLLOW -UP QU ESTIONS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION)  
5.1.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for its answers in 
document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/25, concerning the Brazilian regime for the importation of nitrocellulose. 
She said that the European Union wished to understand whether importers listed under Brazilian law 
were the only importers that could be authorized to import industrial nitrocellulose to Brazil . 
Furthermore, the y were seeking  clarification as to whether Brazilian law permit ted the importation 
of industrial nitrocellulose by foreign companies, their representations , or their local buyers , in the 
course of an international commercial transaction with a private party in Brazil.  She recalled that 
Brazil had responded that the relevant legislation was being reviewed and that they would provide 
the European Union  with definitive answers once th is process had been concluded.  For this reason,  
they request ed Brazil to provide an update on the current situation regarding Brazil's legislation on 
the importation of nitrocellulose.  
5.2.  The representative of Brazil  thank ed the European Union  for their conti nued interest in this 
matter . Her delegation had taken note of the European Union's remarks , which would be  transmitted 
to Capital , and Brazil hoped to provide a definitive answer as soon as possible.  
5.3.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  EGYPT – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS  FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
6.1.  The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was concerned about certain 
measures recently implemented by Egypt and not no tified to the WTO, namely a new decree on food 
import licensing, a ban on sugar imports , and quantitative restrictions on imports of meat and 
poultry. The new Decree  No. 6/2006 on food import licensing provide d that the National Food Safety 
Authority should take action on a licence request within 30  days; however, it did not stipulate what 
happen ed if the authority fail ed to do so. This might have led  to significant delays, similar to those 
experienced in connec tion with Decree  43/2016 on the compulsory registration of exporters.  
Furthermore, the Decree mention ed the possibility for importers to be included on a White List but  
did not specify which objective conditions need ed to be fulfilled for such inclusion, l eading to a lack 
of transparency in this process.  In addition, the Decree had entered into force one  day after its 
publication, therefore not providing for an adequate transition period. And it only granted a 
six-month transition period for companies that already carried out importation services , while G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 11 - 
 
  allowing no  possibility for companies that were in the process of planning such activities  to adapt to 
the new measures , leading to legal and economic uncertainty.  
6.2.  Her delegation was  also concerned about the possible double registration for food products 
falling under both Decree  No. 6/2020 and Decree  No. 43/2016. It appeared  that exporters and 
importers of the very same food articles need ed to be registered – exporters at the General 
Organization of Export an d Import Control, and importers at the National Food Safety Authority – 
which create d a substantial and unnecessary burden.  Regarding  import restrictions on meat and 
poultry, she noted that the system of import permits under Prime Minister 's Decree No.  2080/2018 
and Prime Minister 's Decision No.  222/2018 was inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT ( de jure 
and de facto import prohibition through quantitative restriction), as well as se veral provisions of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  She added that the systems for granting import permits 
lacked full transparency , noting that the  procedures of the relevant committees , and the calendars 
of their meetings , were not publicly  shared. Rejections of import permits were communicated orally 
and without any possibility of appeal , and there were  no rules stipulating under which conditions 
import permits were approved under each act.  
6.3.  Her delegation was  asking Egypt to stop applying quantitative restrictions on imports of meat 
and poultry originating in the European Union , in compliance with WTO  law and the EU-Egypt 
Association Agreement.  She noted with concern the sugar ban/restrictions imposed by Egypt last 
June, followed by the ban's  three -month extension , and invite d Egypt to provide all relevant 
information justifying the import prohibitions applied to sugar under Decree  No. 259/2020 and 
Decree  No. 420/2020 extending the import restrictions  in question . She recalled that the European 
Union had raised the issue with Egypt in the WTO Agriculture Committee in July  2020 but ha d not 
yet received a reply to its queries and concerns on the nature and motivation for such measure.  She 
concluded that the European Unio n wishe d to be reassured regarding the date of termination of the 
measure  and looked  forward to receiving detailed written replies to its questions circulated in 
document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/4.  
6.4.  The representative of the United States  share d similar concerns to tho se of the European Union  
regarding Egypt's import licensing requirements for certain agricultural products. She asked Egypt 
to address these issues in a timely manner  and to notify the Committee of all applicable regulations 
and procedures, listing the pro ducts subject to import licensing, providing the eligibility to apply for 
an import licence , and describing the criteria considered when issuing an import licence . 
6.5.  The representative of Egypt  thanked the European Union and the United States for their 
statements and , in, particular, the European Union for providing his delegation , prior to this meeting , 
the points that the EU had intended to raise under this agenda item.  He took the opportunity  to 
clarify certain points regarding recent decisions and decrees by the Egyptian authorities . 
6.6.  First, on Decision No. 6/2020 on the rules organizing imports of food issued by the board of 
directors of the National Food Safety Authority (NFSA) , he said that  the Decision stipulate d that 
importers of food products should be registered in the registry of licensed food importers. Food 
importers should  not import food products until they had obtained the licence . The Decision had yet 
to be notified to the WTO. It  aimed at ensur ing the safety of imported food products and reduc ing 
the risk s associated with imported food.  The Decision would  also lead to improved clearance time s 
of imported food by ensuring that foreign suppliers appl ied the necessary food safety mea sures and 
international best practices in this regard and were able to trace and recall their products. The 
Decision covered matters related to  the following : the documents required to apply for licences to 
import food;  the validity period of the licence ; the commitments that food importers must abide by;  
the commitments undertaken by the NFSA in relation to food importers;  the financial obligations 
falling on food importers;  and the cases in which the licence was suspende d or cancelled.  In order 
to ensure transparency, the Decision ha d been published in the Official Journal on 16  July 2020. It  
had also been published on the website of the NFSA. The Decision provided a six-month  transitional 
period for currently operating f ood importers to obtain the stipulated licence and to be registered 
with the authority in order to ensure the smooth flow of trade and to avoid any trade disruptions. 
New food importers would  register with the NFSA after submitting the required documents , including 
proof of regist ration  in the importers registry at the Ministry of Trade and Industry.  
6.7.  He noted that there was therefore no uncertainty in the process. If importers were in the 
process of registering at the Ministry of Trade and Industry, a copy of this registration application 
was a prerequisite in the registration process at the NFSA. The Decision also stipulate d a timeline of G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 12 - 
 
  30 days in which the NFSA would  inform the applicant of whether  or not  his documents had satisf ied 
the relevant requirements.  If the submitted documents fulfil led the requirement s, the applicant 
would  be registered in the registry of licensed importers , and this information would be published 
on th e website. If the applicant did not meet the requirements , and if the food safety requirements 
were not satisfied , they would  be informed of the reasons and corrective action would be required . 
Regarding the point raised on the interlinkage with Decree  43/2016, he noted that not all food 
products were included in Decree  43/2016, whereas Decision  6/2020 cover ed imports of all food 
products as defined in the Decree. Concerning the White List of importers , he stated that  this would  
be established by the NFSA , which  would  duly issue the requirements for adding importers to this 
list. 
6.8.  Second , on  Prime Minister 's Decree No.  2080/2018 and Prime Minister 's Decision 
No. 222/2018 , he said that these decrees did not create quantitative import restrictions. These 
two decrees aim ed at regulating the imports of live animals, meat and meat products and poultry to 
ensure that imports of such products did not lead to the introduction of diseases and that they met 
the required standards stipulated by the G OVS, including the halal requirements. As per these 
two decrees, a committee had been  established to look into the requests for the prior approval to 
import. Approvals were given based on meeting the set standards and requirements and the 
epidemiological situation of the  exporting country. The committee also kept track of the imported 
quantities for statistical purposes.  The two  decrees and their relevant administrative procedures 
would  be part of the regulations to be notified to the Committee on Import Licensing.  
6.9.  Third, regarding Decree  259/2020 and Decree  420/2020 imposing and extending the import 
restrictions on white sugar and raw sugar (except for imports based on an import approval) , he 
confirm ed that this import restriction was temporary in nature and was regularly  reviewed. The initial 
imposition had taken place  on 19  May 2020 and was intended to remain in place for three  months . 
The latest decree ha d extended the restriction for a further three  months. This measure had been 
imposed in order to deal with the problem of the temporary surplus caused by  the sharp 30% decline 
in sugar prices.  
6.10.   Fourth , on the issue raised concerning Decree  43/2016 and whether it limit ed the number of 
suppliers that could  be registered under on e trademark , he confirm ed that Decree  43/2016 
stipulate d no such limits. He said that i t would have b een beneficial if the European Union  could 
have share d with Egypt the specific cases. Decree  43/2016 clearly set out the requirements for 
trademark owner c ompanies and place d no such restriction. The provision on the registration of 
companies owning the trademark ha d been added in order to ensure the flow of exports of those 
companies, because otherwise it would have been necessary to register each distribut ion centre , 
including manufacturing plant s entitled to supply the products bearing their trademark.  
6.11.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Egypt for its preliminary replies to their 
questions and said that her delegation  would also appreciate receiv ing Egypt's replies in writing.  
6.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDIA – IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
7.1.  The representative of the European Union  noted that India had adopted, on 12  June 2020, 
Notification N o. 12/2015 -2020 on "Amendment in Import Policy of Tyres ", whereby imports of 
pneumatic tyres for motor cars, buses, lorries, motor scooters and motorcycles had been  moved 
from the "free" category to the "restricted " category. The change in category implie d that tyres could  
only be imported pending the granting of a licence . To the knowledge  of her delegation , the measure 
at issue  had not been duly notified to the WTO  Import Licensing Committee. Additionally, importers 
had received no guideli nes on how to proceed to obtain licences . There was a need for full clarity on 
both the procedure and the scope of the guidelines.  She said that the European Union was concerned 
about the effect of this measure on import s of tyres, which had come to a halt since June  2020, and 
she urged India to comply with the notification requirements as set out under Articles  1.4 and 5 of 
the Import Licensing Agreement. She said that, i n this context, India should provide to importers 
the rules and all information concerning procedures and requirements for the submission of 
applications. India should also officially inform the WTO  Import Licensing Committee about the 
recent changes to the administrative procedure applicable to  the import ation of tyres.  In addition, 
India should reconsider any implicit or explicit quantitative or other ( for example, end-user principle) G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 13 - 
 
  restrictions on the import of replacement tyres that could run contrary to WTO  rules. In conclusion , 
the European Union  wished to enquire about the reasons that had led India to introduce this new 
measure, which by nature was restrictive and discriminatory, favouring local tyre producers.  
7.2.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns raised by the European Union. H e 
appreciated that India had provided the website link to download the documents for the application 
process for the exports of pneumatic tyres to India. However, his delegation had recently been 
informed by their companies that they had been facing diffic ulties since June because Indian 
importers' applications for import licences from the Indian Government were still pending. He noted 
that the fact that India had not yet issued import licences for the aforesaid applications constituted 
a ban on tyre import s. He urged India to comply with the regulations as set out under the Agreement 
on Import Licensing Procedures. He recalled that  Members that institute licensing procedures or 
make changes to licensing procedures should notify the Committee within 60  days of their 
announcement. Furthermore, non -automatic licensing procedures should be implemented in a 
transparent and predictable manner and should not have any additional trade -restrictive or 
trade -distortive effects.  He reiterated his delegation's concern over this matter and expressed the 
hope that India would carefully consider the impact of the measure and expedite the licence issuing 
process.  
7.3.  The representative of the United States  support ed the European Union's concerns regarding 
India's lack of notifi cations regarding its import procedures for t yres. She urged India to submit its 
notifications of the procedures for Notification N o. 12/2015 -2020 of 12  June 2020, and also to 
complete the annual questionnaire , in order for India to meet its transparency o bligations under this 
Committee.  In addition, she request ed that India review and submit all pending applications in a 
timely manner.  
7.4.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  thanked the European Union for raising this issue 
in a timely manner and echoe d its concerns.  He noted that India had introduced a new import policy 
on tyres in June  2020, with Notification  No. 12/2015 -2020, by changing the previous "free" policy 
to a new "restricted " policy.  Thereafter, Korean companies had request ed import licences on tyres , 
but the Indian Government ha d not replied to the se requests and had not provided any explanation.  
He recalled that Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures stipulate d that 
"non-automatic licensing shall not have trade -restrictive or trade-distortive effects on imports 
additional to those caused by the imposition of the restriction ". In addition, as stated in Article  3.5(f), 
the period for processing applications shall be  "no longer than 60  days if all applications are 
considered simultaneously ". Furthermore, the chapeau of the Agreement ma de clear that import 
licensing, particularly non -automatic import licensing, should be implemented in a transparent and 
predictable man ner. Therefore, he concluded that it was clear that India need ed to operate its import 
licensing policy on tyres in a transparent way, including by providing the relevant information on the 
process. Korea encourage d India to facilitate the import licensing  process to prevent creating a 
barrier to free trade.  
7.5.  The representative of India thank ed the delegations of the European Union, Chinese Taipei, the 
United States,  and the Republic of Korea,  for expressing their views on this matter.  He stated that 
India had recently changed its import policy in respect of certain specific new pneumatic tyres  and 
that they were  in process of notifying these changes to th e Committee.  In this context, he stated 
that the implementation of licensing proce dures by India was  transparent and predictable. He noted 
that the application process for certain import licences was the same as for other import licences 
and that such licences were authorized for clearance every month by a facilitation committee.  He 
added that the procedure for the issuance of such licence s was provided under  paragraph  2.50 and 
paragraph  2.51 of the Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020, which was available on the website of 
India's Director ate General  of Foreign Trade.  
7.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILES PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
8.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that , following the entry into force of 
Regulation  No. 77/20 19, imports of European Union  origin of finished textile s items, notably carpets , 
were no longer possible in Indonesia.  No licences were being issued for these products if they did G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 14 - 
 
  not meet the requirements of the import licensing system , and only raw mate rials or supporting 
materials imported for further production processes could  obtain licences.  This had result ed in a 
prohibition to import finished textile s products , which was very concerning both for the product at 
issue and as a general precedent.  She pointed out that , to that date, this measure had not been 
notified to the WTO  Secretariat, which was inconsistent with WTO transparency obligations. In her 
delegation's view , this measure was inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT ( de jure  and de facto 
import prohibition through quantitative restriction), and Articles  1 and 5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures ( disproportionately cumbersome import licensing procedures and 
requirements).  The European Union also consider ed that Indone sia's import regime for textile s 
products and textile s (falling within the list in the Annex to Regulation  No. 77/2019, if imported for 
purposes other than further processing by domestic producer importers, their cooperating production 
parties, and/or smal l- and mid -sized industries ) was also against the spirit and the letter of several 
provisions of the WTO  Trade Facilitation Agreement . Therefore, the European Union urged Indonesia 
to re-evaluate the measure at issue and to bring it in to conformity with al l applicable WTO  rules and 
procedures.  
8.2.  She also noted that the import regime for textile products and textile s under Regulation 
No. 77/2019 was just one of many similar import regimes recently adopted by Indonesia (for 
example , the most recent, Regulation No. 68/2020 on import provisions for footwear, electronics , 
and bicycles/tricycles, which had entered into force on 28  August  2020) with the clear and expressly 
stated objective of stimulating and protect ing the domestic industry an d curb ing imports . This 
appear ed to be protectionist in nature and was being pursued with policies, measures , and practices 
of dubious WTO  consistency. She said that her delegation  reserve d its rights to provide further 
comments on this, including in other  WTO meetings.  
8.3.  The European Union looked forward  to discussing this matter both bilaterally with Indonesia, 
and within this Committee. It also looked forward to receiving Indonesia's replies to the following 
questions on Regulation No. 77/2019:  
(i) Could I ndonesia please indicate how its import regime for textile s products and textile s 
meets the obligations under Article  1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures?  
 
(ii) Could Indonesia explain why it did not fulfil its transparency obligations under Articles  1 
and 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement?  
 
(iii) In light of Indonesia having fallen short of these obligations, could Indonesia indicate 
whether traders, who were taken by surprise by the application of Regulation  
No. 77/2019 w ithout advance notification to the WTO, could at least complete their 
importations into Indonesia under the previous regime?  
 
(iv) Could Indonesia indicate whether finished textile s products, listed in the Annex to 
Regulation  No. 77/2019, may be imported i nto Indonesia for purposes other than 
further processing by domestic producer importers, their cooperating production 
parties, and/or small - and mid -sized industries?  
 
(v) If so, could Indonesia provide the following information:  
 
(a) How many licences have been issued for the importation of finished textile s 
products for retail or trading purposes since the entry into force of Regulation  
No. 77/2019?  
 
(b) What volumes of finished textile s products, imported for retail purposes or for 
trading, h ave entered Indonesia since the entry into force of Regulation  
No. 77/2019?  
 
(c) From which country did the finished textile s products, imported for retail purposes 
or for trading , since the entry into force of Regulation  No. 77/2019, originate?  
 
(vi) Could Indonesia indicate whether it believes that the import prohibition maintained 
under Regulation No. 85/2015, as last amended by Regulation  No.  77/2019, is 
consistent with Article  XI of the GATT?  
 G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 15 - 
 
  (vii) If so, could Indonesia explain why, de facto  if not de jure , no import licence has been 
issued, since the entry into force of Regulation  No. 77/2019, for the importation of 
finished textile s products from the European Union  for retail purposes or for trading?  
 
8.4.  The representative of the European Union  conclu ded by saying that her delegation would 
submit these questions to Indonesia in writing and likewise looked forward to receiving Indonesia's 
replies in writing.  
8.5.  The representative of Indonesia  expressed her delegation's gratitude to the European Union 
for its concern regarding the import licensing requirements for textiles and textile s products. She 
said that s ince Indonesia ha d not yet receive d the written questions from the European Union, the 
responses they would provide would be preliminary.  She stated t hat the import regime for textiles 
and textile s products (TPT), ha d been updated following the entry into force , on 16  October  2019, 
of Indonesia' s Ministry of Trade Regulation No.  77 of 2019 regarding the "Second Amendment on 
the Ministry of Trade Regulation No.  85/M-DAG/PER/10/2015 Regarding the Provisions on the 
Imports of Textiles and Textile Products ". This regulation aimed at further increas ing the 
effectiveness of the implementation of textile s and textile s product s import policy.  The Governme nt 
of Indonesia t ook the European Union's  concern s on this matter seriously and realize d the 
importance of proper regulation to maximize trade and , at the same time , to prevent unnecessary 
trade barriers. Indonesia was also committed to comply ing with  and to respect ing the agreement s 
that it had signed, including, in this case, the Import Licensing Agreement. Therefore, she concluded 
that her delegation would coordinate with the relevant parties to further investigate this issue in 
order to find a solution  to it. 
8.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF FEED WHEAT IN THAILAND – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  
9.1.  The representative of the European Union  noted that Thailand had not submitted any annual 
notification of its import licensing procedure s since 2013. She  strongly encourage d Thailand to 
comply with its notification requirements and wanted  to hear from Thailand about the reasons for 
this delay. She also expressed  her delegation's concern regarding the import licensing procedures 
for feed wheat introduced by Thailand , and asked Thailand why these import licensing procedures 
had not been notified in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import L icensing Agreement.  She 
reminded Thailand that her delegation had not yet received written replies to their questions 
submitted and circulated in documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4.  She reiterated her 
delegation's interest in understanding on what b asis the measure, announced as temporary, could  
be maintained for so long , and when it would cease to apply. Her delegation  also wishe d to receive 
a detailed description of the import licensing procedures to be applied.  
9.2.  She stated  her delegation's request to receive relevant dat a about the actual situation of the 
market of corn in order to better understand Thailand's justification of the measure. Based on the 
information that the European Union had gathered, the average domestic prices had seen an 
increasi ng trend since the introduction of the measure in late 2016. She said that, a s per their written 
questions, the European Union underst ood that the Government of Thailand had launched a support 
programme for corn production in September  2018 in order to pro vide incentives to rice farmers to 
divert their farming to corn during the drought period and to fill in the gap between the domestic 
demand for corn (8  million  MT) and the domestic production (5  million  MT). The programme 
provided both financial  support  (minimum price guarantee, crop insurance premium subsidy , and 
soft loans for inputs and management costs in the post harvesting period) and non -financial support 
(marketing and technical assistances) to farmers who switch ed their farming from rice  to corn , which  
seem ed to contradict the alleged market oversupply of domestic corn . Therefore, the European Union  
asked  Thailand to clarify how its government support for the expansion of corn production could  be 
reconciled with the alleged market oversup ply of domestic corn.  
9.3.  In addition, she noted that the above -mentioned  support programme ha d ended in 
September  2019. A deficiency payment scheme had subsequently been put in place, starting from 
December  2019, with an even higher guarantee d price (8.5  Baht/KG compared to 8  Baht/KG under 
the production support programme). Noting that it had not yet done so , her delegation  encourage d 
Thailand to notify these support programmes and measures to the WTO  Agriculture Committee  in a 
timely manner.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 16 - 
 
  9.4.  In conclusion, she stated that , setting aside its earlier questions on the market situation, the 
European Union  had a significant concern about  the WTO  compatibility of Thailand's import licens ing 
regime for feed wheat.  The European Union  was looking forward to receiving detailed written replies 
to its questions circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4.  
9.5.  The representative of Thailand  thanked the European Union for their quest ions regarding the 
importation of feed wheat and inform ed the Committee that , from January to August  2020, Thailand 
had imported approximately 1.14  million ton nes of feed wheat , an increase  from the same period in 
2019, in which the import volume had been approximately one million ton nes. Further more, between 
2017 and 2019 , Thailand's average import volume of feed wheat had been 1.72 million ton nes 
annually . Her delegation expect ed that the total import volume of feed wheat in 2020 would  be 
similar to previous years. She said that her delegation had  consulted with relevant stakeholders in 
Thailand,  including farmers and industries , with a view to improving the supply chain of animal 
feeds. Thailand would  review this measure , which require d an in-depth examination of various 
factors , as well as a comprehensive analysis of its economic and social impact. She stated that her 
delegation looked forward to sharing further information in due course. Regarding notification, she 
recalled that Thailand had submitted a notification under Article  7.3 of the Agreement on 
18 September  , which had been  circulated to Members on 6  October  2020,  in 
document  G/LIC/N/3/THA/7.  
9.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING F OR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE MATERIALS - 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
10.1.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation had significant concerns about 
the changes to import licensing surrounding China's implementation of its import ban on solid waste, 
including recyclable materials such as certain plastic and paper scrap, while allowing certain 
"recycled raw materials" such as copper, aluminium, and brass to be imported as long as those 
materials met strict purity standards. The United States als o ha d concerns with apparent 
fundamental differences between requirements for foreign and domestic commodities.  She said that 
these abrupt restrictions and progressively restrictive bans had left many United States  recyclers 
without viable alternative processing capacity. The global shortfall in processing capacity ha d also 
caused the decline and, in some cases, collapse in prices for some recyclable materials.  She noted 
that the pervasive market instability engende red by China's measures ha d led to a halt in recycling 
among some US  municipal recycling program mes, resulting in the incineration or landfill disposal of 
otherwise saleable commodities.  She recalled that the United States had raised the issue of certain 
recyclable materials at several previous meetings of the Committee . The United States had also 
asked China to notify to the Committee any changes to its import licensing regime.  Unfortunately, 
China ha d yet to provide information about its current licensing  procedures and any planned changes 
that would have been sufficient to alleviate their concerns.  She asked China if they had considered 
less trade -restrictive alternatives to outright bans on materials . 
10.2.   She added that the United States also ha d concerns th at certain scrap materials, such as 
bundled recycled newspaper, would  be banned, whereas other more processed scrap materials, such 
as pulped paper and "smelter ready" metals, would  be allowed. In this respect she asked China to 
explain the scientific basi s it used to determine which categories of scrap materials were safe and 
which were not. She also asked  China to explain the new import licensing requirements under this 
policy and to state when it would  notify these changes to this Committee . 
10.3.   Going forwar d, the United States  asked that China adhere to its notification obligations in a 
timely manner under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures with respect to any new import 
measures.  Finally, she reiterate d her delegation's  prior request that China halt its implementation 
of the existing and planned measures. She stated, a s she had  noted in her intervention, that China's 
scrap ban was having a detrimental effect on global recycling marke ts and might , in fact, cause 
more envi ronmental damage than good in the  long-term.  
10.4.   The representative of China  thanked the United States for their concerns on this issue. 
He said that  solid waste was different from other normal goods due to its inherent polluting 
attributes. He noted that the contaminant s and residu es generate d by the  disposal process of solid 
waste caused  serious environment al pollution and harmed human , animal , and plant  health  heavily . G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 17 - 
 
  China,  as a developing country , had suffered for decades because of  the solid waste imported into 
China from other countries. Given the great challenges in addressing environment al pollution , it was 
imperative for China to implement measures to limit the negative effect of importing and processing 
solid waste. From a worldwide perspective , the danger of solid waste ha d been acknowledge d by 
almost every  country . According to the Brussels Convention and other international ly accepted 
principles , every country ha d the obligation to  properly handle and dispose  of its domestic ally 
produced solid waste. He said that his delegation hoped that exporting countries could live up to  
their international responsibilities to handle and dispose of their own solid waste rather than seeking 
to realize benefit s at the cost of the environment of other countries . Regarding transparency, he 
said that China ha d fully taken into consideration its obligations under the WTO during the process 
of developing its relevant policies ; it had also notified the relevant measures to the WTO. He added 
that his delegation would  fully notify other measures , as required by other agreements. He said that 
his delegation had taken note of the concerns of the United States and that these would be 
transmit ted to their  Capital in due course.  
10.5.   The Committe e took note  of the statements made.  
11  INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENT FOR BORIC ACID - STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
11.1.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation had been concerned for some 
time over India's import licensing require ments for boric acid, particularly with respect to the 
burdensome end -use certificates necessary for importation.  She recalled that her delegation's 
concerns had begun more than a decade ago, when India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry had 
introduced a rule stating that "imports of boric acid for non-insecticidal purposes will be subject to 
an import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the 
Ministry of Agriculture" . The import application require d an applicant to attest "that imported 
material is not for sale but for use as per our own requirement as stated in this application." This 
statement require d that non -insecticidal boric acid could  only be imported directly by a manufacturer 
and prevent ed independent traders from importing boric acid for resale purposes.  The rule also 
require d the importer of non -insecticidal boric acid to provide the precise end -use of the product 
prior to importation , as well as the historical import and production data o f the finished product. This 
information was subject to a formal government review process.  
11.2.   In addition, she noted that Indian importers had expressed frustration because, in import 
licensing applications , they were required to supply information on the past consumption of boric 
acid and production of the finished product, which was information often unavailable to importers.  
Her delegation continued to request that India explain why boric acid, which ha d a toxicity level 
roughly equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide that require d an import permit for 
non-insecticidal use, considering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticid es that did not 
require  an import  permit.  
11.3.   In closin g, she said that her delegation continue d to request India to amend its Schedule -I 
(Imports) of the ITC (HS)  Classifications of Export and Import Items in order to eliminate the 
requirement that imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes must obtain  an import permit. 
She hoped that their recent bilateral negotiations in this area would  bring about a mutually beneficial 
resolution.  
11.4.   The representative of India thanked the United States for their continued interest in the 
matter relating to import s of boric acid , but said that  India had already submitted its relevant replies 
in documents  G/LIC/Q/IND/12, G/LIC/Q/IND/ 14, G/LIC/Q/IND/ 16, and G/LIC/Q/IND/ 22, explaining 
in detail the policy objectives of the measure as well as issues relating to its implementation. In the 
case of boric acid imported for non -insecticidal use , such imports were exempt ed from the 
requirement of registration under the India Insecticide Act , and import permits were issued instead 
on the basis of certificates of end use. Domestic producers had to conform to similar measures , 
including the declaration of production and sales information in this regard . Moreover, an end -use 
certificate was a prerequisite for making an application for an import permit for insecticide s for non -
insecticidal use. It was applicable to all insecticides that were proposed to be imported for non -
insect icidal uses.  
11.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 18 - 
 
  12  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS, AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
12.1.   The representative of the United States  said that, as the Committee was well a ware, the 
United States held a long -standing concern over Indonesia's import licensing regime and, in 
particular, the import licensing requirements for cell phones , handheld computers , and tablets. The 
United States,  and other Members , had been raising thi s issue since 2013, both in this Committee 
and bilaterally . She regretted that her delegation was obliged to raise this issue again on this 
occasion . She recalled that , in past questions to Indonesia, the United States had sought clarity 
regarding the specific requirements of Indonesia's  import licensing regime , and an understanding of 
the rationale for the requirements overall.  Her delegation acknowledge d the responses provided by 
Indonesia in May  2017. Unfo rtunately, as pr eviously noted, Indonesia's responses had not resolve d 
their concerns over these imp ort licensing requirements, and in some instances had not sufficiently 
address ed the questions being asked.  
12.2.   She stated that her delegation continue d to seek Indonesia's exp lanation for why the 
requirements of the import licensing regime treat ed 3G and 4G  technology differently.  They also 
continue d to seek an understanding of why Indonesia require d both a licence to impo rt generally , 
which divide d companies into those that im ported for further processing ("API -P") and those that 
imported  finished products ("API -U"), as well as a separate licence for specific products, in this case 
for 4G  LTE products, including a requirement to obtain a recommendation from the specific ministr y 
with regulatory responsibility.  
12.3.   She noted that i t remain ed unclear whether domestic companies were subject to requirements 
equivalent to those imposed upon importers. For example, there appear ed to be a different 
requirement for domestic companies with regard to the use of distributors. When asked to identify 
similar requirements for domestic producers, Indonesia had provided no specific information.  And 
based on Indonesia's responses to date, it  appear ed clear that Indonesia's system favo ured imports 
meant for further processing ( that is , in-country assembly) as opposed to imports of finished 
products.  
12.4.   She underlined that  the issues that the United States had raised today, and on multiple 
previou s occasions, were serious. In their view, these import licensing requirements had distorted 
trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector  that was of significance to both the United 
States  and the global economy.  She further noted that the prolif eration of burdensome import 
licensing measures in Indonesia and , in particular , those  that mandate d the purchase of local goods , 
had had a negative impact on Indonesia's reputation among investors.  Her delegation believe d that 
such policies were to Indone sia's own detriment  and note d that Indonesia's ICT  Minister had 
estimated that Indonesia was losing  nearly two  trillion rupiah (US$135  million) annually from illegal 
cell phone  imports.  
12.5.   She drew the Committee's attention to the information that, in their recent engagement, 
Indonesia had stated that it intend ed to undertake a comprehensive review of the local content 
requirements attached to its import licensing regime for 4G  products. Therefore , her delegation was  
concerned that, despite this commitment, Indonesia had recently issued a new regulation , Ministry 
of lndustry Regulation  22 of 2020 , that appear ed intended to expand to other electronic products 
the local content requirements attached to this import licensing regime.  The United States ask ed 
that the Indonesian delegation provide an update to the Committee on the status of this 
comprehensive review.  
12.6.   Lastly, she said that her delegation  appreciate d that Indonesia ha d notified some of these 
measures to this Committee. However, they continue d to urge Indonesia to notify all of the 
associated measures, including Ministry of Industry Regulations  108/2012, 68/2016, and 29/2017, 
KOMINFO  Regulations  7/2019 and 16/2018, and KOMINFO  Circular Letter  518/2017.  And they 
continue d to urge Indonesia to reconsider these import licensing requirements for cell phones , 
handheld computers, and tablets.  
12.7.   The representative of the European Union  echoed the statement by the United States. She 
said that her delegation shared the same concerns and invited Indonesia to elimina te its burdensome 
and discriminatory licensing requirements. Her delegation was also looking forward to receiving G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 19 - 
 
  updated information from Indonesia, including Indonesia's  replies to the questions and comments 
from the United States.  
12.8.   The representative of Indonesia  thanked the United States for their continued interest in 
Indonesia's import licensing regime for cell phones, handheld computers , and tablets. In responding 
to the concerns expressed by the United States, she referred to their responses at previous meetings 
of the Committee. She said that the Government of Indonesia was committed to providing easy and 
straightforward  import licensin g procedures, especially for cell phones, handheld computers , and 
tablets , by digitalizing the submission of the application for import approval. She noted that the time 
required was relatively short , when the documents submitted met the relevant requireme nts. In 
terms of transparency, she said that the regulations could be easily accessed on the website of the 
Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia ( http://jdih.kemendag.go.id/peraturan ). Regardin g 
the local content requirement, she said that Indonesia was willing to discuss the issue in the 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures.  
12.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13  INDIA  – QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENT BY 
CANADA AND AUSTRALIA  
13.1.   The representative of Canada  stated that, as the largest s upplier of pulses to India, Canada 
had been most negatively affected by India' s measures to limit the import of pulse s. Pulses were an 
important source of protein for many Indian consumers and Canada was a high quality and reliable 
supplier.  Canada was disappointed that India continue d to use quantitative restrictions on the import 
of dried peas and other pulses. This si tuation had been going on for more than two  years. It was 
difficult for Canada to see how India could  still be claiming that these measures were temporary.  
13.2.   He recalled that , on 28 March  2020, the Government of India had extended certain 
requirements and established new, more stringent requirements , designed to further limit the 
importation of dried peas in the fiscal year  2020/ 2021, including : a requirement that all shipments 
of dried peas enter ed via the port of Kolkata;  a minimum import price for dried peas set at around 
six times the price at which imported dried peas had traditionally been traded ; and a quantitative 
restriction allocation of 0  MT for the import of yellow dried peas, which implicitly ban ned all imports 
of yellow peas in to India.  He said that Canada was especially interested  to know  if India could provide 
its rationale for setting the dried peas quota to zero tonnes for yellow peas. His delegation had  
previously expressed its views on the consistency of I ndia's quantitative restrictions with its 
WTO obligations. Canada was concerned about India's continued trend to wards  establish ing even 
more stringent import restrictive measures, while ignoring the fundamental rules of the GATT and 
the Agreement on Agricu lture.  
13.3.   In its response to the questionnaire on import licensing, document  G/LIC/N/3/IND/19, 
submitted to the Committee on 30 October  2019, India had specified that its import restrictions 
were being maintained on the grounds of protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life 
or health, security and the environment.  Furthermore, at the June  2020 Council for Trade in Goods, 
India had justified these quantitative restrictions, minimum import prices, and discretionary import 
licensing procedu res (such as limiting imports to one  single port of entry ), by arguing that Article  4.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture did not envisage the tariffication of temporary or short-term 
measures , and by claiming the public morals exception under GATT  Article  XXI. 
13.4.   Canada question ed the validity of such a rationale. Moreover, India had not responded to 
Canada's request to clarify how these stated objectives were advanced through India 's quantitative 
restrictions on dried peas and other pulses , and why less trade -distorting approaches ha d not been 
considered. He underlined that  the elimination of quantitative restrictions was a fundamental 
principle of the GATT and of the Agreement on Agriculture. Indeed, Article  4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture prohibit ed the u se of agriculture -specific non -tariff measures. Such measures include d 
quantitative import restrictions, minimum import prices, and discretionary import licensing , such  as 
those  being used by India.  In conclusion, he reiterated his delegation's call  for In dia immediately 
and expeditiously to review its trade -restrictive measures put in place on pulses and to implement 
alternative, WTO-consistent policy options that promote d a predictable and transparent import 
regime for pulses.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 20 - 
 
  13.5.   The representative of Austra lia recalled that it was just over one  year since the last formal 
meeting of the Import Licensing Committee , and that , globally, a lot had happened in this time , 
since the detection of COVID -19. However, and disappointingly, India ha d not changed its highly 
restrictive measures on pulses imports, particularly its quantitative restrictions on a variety of pulses, 
for which India has failed to provide a sufficient e xplanation of the ir WTO basis, and which India ha d 
implemented for more than three  years. He said that t hese were no longer temporary measures and 
must be removed. He noted that this was a long -held concern of Australia and a number of other 
Members, inclu ding developing Members. Pulses were not a "small " commodity for India, neither by 
tonnage or by value produced and consumed, nor with respect to trade . 
13.6.   He noted that , since the last meeting of this Committee, in Notice No.  42/2019 -20 of 
19 December  2019, India had amended the import licensing requirements by implementing 
quantitative restrictions o n a range of pulses, including end -use restrictions and requirements to 
import by certain dates. For example,  for the quantitative  restrictions for Urad, India had allotted 
quantities only to millers  and refiners, provided that they had refining  and processing capacity ; and 
they had initially provided a very short time -frame for applications for the quota.  
13.7.   He further noted that recently , on 1 October  2020, India had announced what appeared to be 
an additional 150,000  tonnes of Urad under the existing quantitative restrictions , and had notified 
in Notice No.  22/2015 -2020 the  corresponding  import licensing procedures. The additional tonnage 
would be available  only a mong the eligible and verified applicants allocated quotas in June  2020. He 
said that his delegation had a range of questions on these changes and on how they were 
administered , in particular with regard to end -use requirements and time -frames for applicat ion. His 
delegation would follow -up with these questions separately.  
13.8.   He pointed out that, since the Committee 's previous  meeting, in addition to the restrictive 
import licensing requirements on Urad, India ha d placed restrictive import licensing requiremen ts 
on peas. On 18  December  2019, India had  announced , in Notification No.  37/2015 -2020, that 
imports of peas could only occur at a minimum import price (MIP) of Rs.  200/, and only through the 
Kolkata seaport . He then asked  India whether they could  explain the policy reasons for the restrictive 
import licensing requirements on peas , and how the MIP and port restriction could be consistent 
with India 's WTO  commitments . 
13.9.   He noted that t hese restrictive import licensing requirements were part of a broader  overall 
set of concerns that Australia and other WTO  Members had been raising on India 's quantitative 
restrictions  on pulses over the last three  years. Once again, Australia call ed on India to remove its 
quantitative restrictions  on p ulses; to bring its measures into compliance with India 's 
WTO commitments; and to ensure transparency and predictability with respect to pulses imports.  
13.10.   The representative of the United States  share d Australia's and Canada's concerns 
regarding India's import licensing  requirements  for select  varieties  of pulses.  She urged India to 
consider less trade -restrictive requirements and to notify future relevant measures and regulations 
in a timely  manner.  
13.11.   The representative of the European Union  share d the concerns expressed by Canada and 
Australia about the Indian pulse s policy, in particular regarding India's quantitative import 
restrictions and sudden increases in import duties. She said that the European Union found it hard 
to comprehend that , after three  years of the quantitative import restrictions being in place, India 
was still unable and unwilling to reply to questions concerning its policy 's conformity with WTO rules.  
She recalled that , for over three  years , Members had  repeatedly been told that the measure was 
temporary ; but after three  years , this was no longer a temporary measure. The European Union  
urged India quickly to eliminate this trade -distorting measure . 
13.12.   The representative of India thanked the delegations of C anada, Australia, the United States,  
and the European Union , for expressing their views on the matter. He noted that m any of the issues 
raised in this Committee had also been raised in the meetings of other Councils and Committees . 
The last such meeting was the meeting of the Committee  on Agriculture , held on 
22 September  2020. In that context, he had reiterate d, on behalf of his delegation , that quantitative 
restrictions  on imports o f certain varieties of pulses were necessary , considering the domestic 
demand and supply situation of pulses in India. The y were aimed at alleviating the trade cost to 
small and marginal farmers and its consequent impact on their food and livelihood security. He G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 21 - 
 
  added that , regard ing the specific WTO  provisions under  which  such measures had been imposed , 
India ha d already replied to similar queries by Members in the Committee on Market Access  and in 
the Council for Trade in Goods . He referred Members to India's response s to questions posed  on 
these issues in the respective WTO bodies.  
13.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  THIRTEENTH BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT (G/LIC/W/54)  
14.1.   The Chairperson  stated that Article  7.1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
provide d that "the Committee shall review as necessary, but at least once every two  years, the 
implementation and operation of this Agreement ". He recalled that the twelfth  biennial review was 
held at the Committee meeting in October  2018 and , according to the rules, the  Committee was to 
undertake the thirteenth  biennial review at this meeting.  To this end, the Secretariat ha d drafted a 
factual report under its own responsibility for consideration by the Committee. The report had been 
circulated in document  G/LIC/W/54, which cover ed the period from 23  October  2018 to 
9 October  2020. Once updated, the report would later be circulated as document  G/L/29, taking into 
consideration the views of Members  as expressed  at this meeting . New notifications submitted 
between 28  September, when the Airgram for this meeting had been issued, and 9  October, would  
also be reflected in the final report.  He noted that there had been some new developments in this 
biennial report, as compared to previous versions. For example, a n ew Section  5 had been  added, 
in which the Secretariat had provided in -depth analysis regarding new N/2  notifications.  He sought 
Members' views and comments.  
14.2.   The Committee adopted  the report (G/LIC/W/54).  
15  DRAFT REPORT (2020) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/53)  
15.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that a draft report to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG), covering the activities of the Committee in 2020, had been circulated in 
document  G/LIC/W/53 for the Committee's considerati on. He noted that new notifications and 
documents received since the issuing of the draft report would be included in the final report.2 
15.2.   The Committee adopted  the report.  
16  IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE AGREEMENT – 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
16.1.   The Chairperson  said that i mproving transparency was an important focus of the Committee's 
work. Since the last Committee meeting, there had been a significant increase in notifications 
submitted by Members under Article  5.1-5.4 of the Agreement. This positive development had been 
reflected in the Committee's annual report to the CTG, as well as in the biennial report on the 
operation and impl ementation of the Agreement (2019 -2020). Another positive development was 
the official launch of the new import licensing website  at this meeting . This was the first  database 
of import licensing measures. It contain ed thousands of import licensing -related laws, regulations, 
and administrative procedures enforced by governments around the world. And m aking it publicly 
access ible not only improve d transparency but could  also help reduce trade costs.  
16.2.   He noted  that the question of how to improve Members' compli ance regarding their 
notification obligations under Article  7.3, namely their replies to the annual questionnaire, remain ed 
a challenge for the Committee. At the informal meeting held on 29  January  2020, his predecessor, 
Ms Carol Tsang  of Hong Kong, China , based on her consultations, had outlined a number of 
challenges faced by Members in preparing their replies to the annual questionnaire, along with 
possible ways to address those problems. He said that , as the Committee's new Chairperson, he was  
willing to follow -up on the subject and to move the process forward if Members so wish ed. 
 
2 The final report was circulated in document  G/L/1369.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 22 - 
 
  16.3.   The representative of Switzerland  said that her delegation saw  potential for easing notification 
requirements by making the questionnaire more user -friendly and than ked the former Chair person  
of the Committee and the Secretariat for their efforts. She also welcome d the Chairperson's 
willingness to continue this process and stood ready to support him in that process . 
16.4.   The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's report and of the statement made.  
17  CONTACT LIST OF DELEGATIONS  
17.1.   The Chairperson  introduced a "List of Representatives and Contact Information " prepared by 
the Secretariat for the Committee, which ha d been circulated in document  G/LIC/INF/2. The purpose 
of establish ing this list was to facilitate communications among officials responsible for import 
licensing issues, both in Geneva and in capitals. The contact list was mea nt to provid e updated 
information on a regular basis . Members could  also find the same informati on on the WTO  import 
licensing website.  He pointed out that, as for any other database, the value of this newly established 
list was subject to the timeliness and accuracy of Members' updates and cooperation. Therefore, he  
encourage d Members to review the list and provide updated information to the Secretariat on a 
regular basis.  
17.2.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the Secretariat for having prepared this 
contact list of delegations.  However, in the light of the European Union's  full competence on trade 
matters, she asked the Secretariat to review this document to take into account that there was only 
one single contact for the European Unio n, and no  separate  contacts for individual European Union 
member States.  This was t o avoid creating confusion for other WTO Members as far as the European 
Union contact point  was concerned.3 
17.3.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
18  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
18.1.   The Chairperson  informed delegations that the Secretariat ha d tentatively reserved 
Wednesday, 21  April 2021, as the date of the Committee's next formal meeting, on the 
understanding that the final date would  be confirmed in an email well in advance of  the meeting, 
and that additional meetings may be convened as required.  
19  ELECTIO N OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
19.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that t he Rules of Procedure for meetings of the Committee on Import 
Licensing establish ed that the Committee on Import Licensing will elect a Chairperson and a 
Vice-Chairperson from among the representatives of Members.  Regarding the Vice -Chairpersonship, 
he had held consultations with Members and proposed Mrs  Stephania Aquilina of Malta as the 
Vice-Chairperson of this Committee for 2020. An email ha d been circulated on 6  October seeking 
Member s' views and endorsement of her Vice -Chairpersonship. No objection had been received . He, 
therefore  propose d that Mrs  Stephania Aquilina be elected as Vice -Chairperson by acclamation.  
19.2.   The Committee  so decided . 
20  OTHER BUSINESS  
20.1.   The European Union  raised a poi nt under other business regarding Indonesia – Importation 
of Alcoholic Beverages . The representative of the European Union said that her delegation was deeply 
concerned about the de facto  ban imposed on imports of EU alcoholic beverages into Indonesia. She  
noted that this was a discriminatory situation lasting since April  2019 and persisting despite several 
written assurances to the contrary. Indonesian importers of alcohol ic beverages were denied the 
possibility to clear products of EU origin despite having received the allocation for imports of products 
of other origins. She said that t his was occurring in violation of Indonesian import licensing  
procedures and seemingly in retaliation for the European Union 's policies on renewable energy. She 
cited Indonesia 's concern over the European Union 's renewable energy policies and their perceived 
 
3 A revised L ist of Representatives and Contact Information  was circulated in 
document  G/LIC/INF/2 /Rev.1 . G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 23 - 
 
  negative impact on palm oil. Indonesia 's initiation of a WTO  dispute settlement case against the 
European Union  was a legitimate action: resort to dispute se ttlement and adjudication of this matter 
by the WTO was the correct path to follow. However, as a WTO Member , Indonesia must refrain 
from applying any unilateral retaliatory measures and wait instead for the finalization  of dispute 
settlement procedures. She stated that the European Union expected an immediate solution to the 
current situation and urged Indonesia immediately to allow imports from all European Union member 
States.  
20.2.   The representative of Indonesia  said that her delegation had taken note of the information 
from the European Union and asked the European Union to submit its comments in writing  for further 
discussion.  
20.3.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
20.4.   The Chairperson  said that he had been informed by the Secretariat that Dr  Xiaodong W ang 
would  take over as Secretary to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) Committee  and that 
Dr Carlo Gamberale would  replace Dr  Xiaodong Wang as Secretary to th e Committee  on Import 
Licensing. He recalled that recent years had witnessed dyn amic changes and much fruitful activity 
in this Committee. For example, a new notification form had been established; the new import 
licensing website had been created and launched;  and an advanced Geneva -based import licensing 
workshop had been created an d made a regular event. In this context, he thanked Dr Xiaodong 
Wang for his contribution to the work of the Committee on Import Licensing over the past 
seven  years and wished him all the best in his future endeavo urs. 
20.5.   Dr Xiaodong Wang  thanked Members for their active participation in this Committee over the 
past few years , and the Chairperson s with whom he had served , in particular Carol Tsang of Hong 
Kong, China , and Lorena Rivera of Colombia , without whose leadership and guidance  Members  would 
not have the new notification form  and the import licensing website. He also thanked his Director, 
Mrs Suja Rishikesh Mavroidis , for her guidance , and his team, Donna Wood, Karine Grange, Irina 
Tarasenko , and Irena Giraud , for all the detailed work behind the scenes. Donna Wood had reviewed 
thousand s of notifications and uploaded them onto the website as well as working on the 
development of the database from the beginning. Karine Grange had assisted the Committee by 
format ting all the notifications. And Irina Tarasenko had worked on the analysis and developed the 
useful tables that were inserted in the annual report this year. He also welcomed Carlo Gamberale, 
the new Secretary to the Committee. He concluded by saying that it had been a  great  honour and 
that he had enjoyed working with all Members in the Committee over the past few years.  
20.6.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked Xiaodong, not only in her capacity as former 
Chairperson of the Committee, but also as a de legate. She said that Xiaodong had impressed her 
very much as Secretary to the Committee, going the extra mile and taking additional initiatives for 
the Committee's benefit. She considered that the many achievement s that had been accomplished 
had been possible because of Xiaodong's efforts and competent leadership of a very professional 
and dedicated team.  
20.7.   The representative of the Philippines  thanked Xiaodong and his team for the technical 
assistance provided to their delegation, which had enabled them to catch up and update their 
notifications in the Committee. In particular, they were thankful for the workshop that had been 
conducted in Manila in 2019 , which had greatly helped their various agencies to understand and 
prepare a notification under the Agree ment. Her delegation wished Xiaodong all the best and 
welcomed Carlo to the Committee.  
20.8.   The representative of China  extended his delegation's heartfelt thanks to Xiaodong for his 
dedicated work and constructive contribution. They wished a bright future to X iaodong and looked 
forward to continuing working with him in his new position.  
20.9.   The representative of Colombia  echoed the congratulations to Xiaodong from other 
delegations. She said that it had been a pleasure working with him and that they recognized the 
excellent job that he had done , together with other colleagues from the Division. She also 
congratulated him on his new position and looked forward to wor king with him on other issues in 
the future , as well as with the new Secretary to the Committee.  G/LIC/M/51  
 
- 24 - 
 
  20.10.   The representative of the United States  extend ed the sincere thanks of her delegation to 
Xiaodong for his hard work in the Committee over several years , and also welcome d Carlo to the 
Committee as its new Secretary , noting that he was very fortunate in having such a fantastic team 
working with him. 
20.11.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Xiaodong for all the efforts he had made 
in reinvigorating the Committee. She had worked on the Committee for several  years and had seen 
a real evolution in its work, which had become very active thanks to Xiaodong's efforts. She also 
welcomed the new Secretary and looked forward to working close ly with him.  
_____ _____