RESTRICTED   
  
G/LIC/M/53  
 
26 November 2021  
(21-8922) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Import Licensing  Original: English  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 8 OCTOBER  2021  
CHAIRPERSON: MR HSIN-LUNG HUNG  (CHINESE TAIPEI)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifty -fourth  meeting on 8  October  2021 under the  
chairpersonship of M r Hsin-Lung Hung  (Chinese Taipei ). The  agenda proposed for the meeting was 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/13/Rev.1.  
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS: DEVELO PMENTS  
SINCE THE LAST MEETING  ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
2.1   Documents  G/LIC/Q/EGY/4, G/LIC/Q/EGY/6 and G/LIC/Q/EGY/7  ................................ ....... 3 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/5  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/44  ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/45  ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
2.5   Documents  G/LIC/Q/PHL/5 and G/LIC/Q/PHL/6  ................................ ...............................  4 
2.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/TZA/1  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
2.7   Document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/21  ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
2.8   Document  G/LIC/Q/GBR/1  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
3.1   Notifications under Article  1.4(a), Article  5.1-5.4 and Article  8.2(b) of the Agreement  ..........  5 
3.2   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  6 
4   ANGOLA: IMPO RT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
5   CHINA: CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE MATERIALS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
6   EGYPT: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCES SED PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ... 8 
7   INDIA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT BY  
THE UNITED S TATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
8   INDIA: IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND INDONESIA  ................................ ................................ ................................  10 
9   INDIA: QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENT BY 
CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  12 
10   INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  ................................ .....................  13 
11   INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY  
IMPORTERS OF STEEL PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN AND THE  
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  14 G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 2 - 
 
  12   SRI LANKA: IMPORT BAN ON PALM OIL - STATEMENT BY INDONESIA  ....................  14 
13   THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF FEED WHEAT - STATEMENT BY THE  
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  15 
14   IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE  
AGREEMENT – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ...............................  16 
14.1   Import Licensing Website  ................................ ................................ ........................... 16 
14.2   Members' Profiles and Sector Study  ................................ ................................ ............ 16 
14.3   E-learning Module on Import Licensing  ................................ ................................ ........ 17 
14.4   Online N2  Notifications  ................................ ................................ .............................. 17 
14.5   E-Agenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 17 
14.6   N3 Annual Questionnaire  ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 
14.7   Notification Workshop  ................................ ................................ ............................... 18 
15   DRAFT REPORT (2021) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE  
IN GOODS (G/LIC/W/55)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  19 
16   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..................  19 
 
 
The Chairperson  opened the meeting by observing that, due to the COVID -19 travel and meeting 
restrictions, the meeting would take place in hybrid  mode and that delegates could attend the 
meeting either in person or remotely.  The agenda proposed for the meeting had been  circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/LIC/13/Rev.1.  
 
Before movi ng to the adoption of the agenda, the Chairperson  recalled that, on 22  September  2021, 
the Committee had elected , by written procedure , Ms Lorena R ivera of Colombia as Vice -Chairperson 
for the period 2021 -2022. He congratulate d Ms Lorena Rivera on her election and welcome d her in 
her new position . 
 
The representative of Indonesia  proposed that the discussion of Agenda Item  9, regarding 
Indonesia's statement on India's Import Policy on Tyres, be merged with Agenda Item  8, raised by 
the European Union.  
 
The agenda was adopted  with the changes proposed.  
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS: DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  stated that he had been informed by the Secretariat that, to date, a total of 
43 notifications had been  received under various provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement since 
the Committee's previous meeting, 37 of which had been listed in the Airgram for consideration at 
that day's meeting. Two N/2 notifications (both from the European Union1) and four  N/3 notifications 
(from Cuba; Hong Kong, China; Switzerland; and the United Kingdom2) had been received by the 
Secretariat  after the Airgram had closed and  before the meeting . These notifications  would be 
reviewed at the Committee's next meeting.  
1.2.  The Chairperson  highlighted that, as of 8 October  2021, 13 Members had not yet submitted 
any notification under any provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO. A total of 2 2 Members 
had not yet submitted any reply to the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 of the Agreement, 
including the 13  Members just mentioned. For the sake of transparency, he urged all Members on 
the list to submit their notifications as soon as possible.  
1.3.   He recalled that submitting replies to the questionnaire under Article  7.3 of the Agreement 
was an annual notification obligation for all Members. As of 8  October  2021, only 27  Members had 
 
1 G/LIC/N/2/EU/15 and G/LIC/N/2/EU/16.  
2 G/LIC/N/3/CUB/11 , G/LIC/N/3/HKG/25 , G/LIC/N/3/CHE/17,  and G/LIC/N/3/GBR/1.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 3 - 
 
  submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2020, and only 24  Members had submitted replies 
to the questionnaire for 2021. He noted that, over the past few years, there had been a declining 
trend in responses to the questionnaire. He stated that transparency was one of the key pillars of 
the rules –based multilateral trading system and strongly encouraged all those Members that had 
not yet submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2021 to do so as soon as possible.  
1.4.  The Chairperson further noted that, since the Committee's previous meeting, a total of 23  new 
N/1 and N/2 notifications had been received. All N/2  notifications had bee n submitted using the 
revised notification form contained in document  G/LIC/28. He thanked those delegations that had 
provided their notifications and encouraged others to do so as soon as possible. He recalled that the 
Secretariat stood ready to provide t echnical assistance to help Members to fulfil their notification 
obligations. Finally, he congratulated Botswana on having submitted its N/3  questionnaire 
notification for the first time in 2021.  
1.5.  The Committee took note . 
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
2.1  Documents  G/LIC/Q/EGY/4, G/LIC/Q/EGY/6 and G/LIC/Q/EGY/7  
2.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation  would address its 
questions to Egypt  contained in document s G/LIC/Q/EGY/4  and G/LIC/Q/EGY/7 , as well as Egypt's 
replies, contained in document  G/LIC/Q/ EGY/6, under Agenda Item 6. 
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/5  
2.2.  The representative of the United States  thanked Egypt for its replies to the questions. She said 
that her delegation was reviewing those replies and w ould revert with any further questions at the 
appropriate time.  
2.3.  The representative of Egypt  stated that her delegation looked forward to further discussions of 
the replies that they had provided in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/ 5. 
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/44  
2.4.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his delegation wished to respond to Australia's 
concerns regarding commodity balance and automatic import licensing as part of the Omnibus Law. 
He said that the discussion of the commodity balance was aimed at supp orting simplification and 
transparency in order to facilitate exports and imports. Indonesia stated that they would be able to 
provide more updates and information regarding the above -mentioned provisions after the internal 
process and the provisions' publ ication. His delegation also wished to highlight that their import 
regime was already efficient, and that the implementation of the above -mentioned provisions would 
not have brought about a change harmful to business sectors. He added that Indonesia was 
administering import licences automatically. In accordance with the Import Licensing Agreement, 
the application process took place over a short time -period, once all the required documents had 
been submitted and were complete and correct  
2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN /45 
2.5.  The representative of Japan  said that his delegation would address this document under Agenda 
Item 12. 
2.6.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his delegation took note of Japan's concerns 
regarding its import licensing of steel products. He said that the policy was intended to protect 
consumers by ensuring that all products met certain safety standards, technical regulations, and 
techn ical requirements. Indonesia also wished to highlight that the policy provided a transparent, 
simple, and fast import approval process. An application for import approval was processed 
electronically, and within a short time -period, once the required docum ents had been submitted and 
were complete and correct.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.5  Documents  G/LIC/Q/PHL/ 5 and G/LIC/Q/PHL/6  
2.7.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Philippines for the written replies to their 
questions. She noted that, while the answers provided clarity on some concerns, much uncertainty 
remained, and the United States was interested in hearing more from the Philippines on this issue. 
She added that transparency was a crucial part of the work of this Committee, including through 
Members' questions and tim ely notifications. Her delegation still had concerns about the Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Import Clearance Regime of the Philippines and its potential to disrupt trade. She 
said that the application of this regime was especially concerning for certain comm odities during 
certain times of the year. Her delegation hoped that the Philippines would make modifications to 
facilitate trade that were commensurate with the level of sanitary and phytosanitary risks posed by 
the importation of the relevant products; fo r instance, with the issuance of a single Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) for multiple shipments and validity periods. On behalf of 
her delegation, she requested that the Philippines reply in full to the new questions that they had 
posed, as well as to the unanswered questions from the April  meeting, which they had asked again 
in document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/6 . She concluded by stating that her delegation hoped to continue the 
bilateral engagement with the Philippines, as well as discussions at this Committee, to avoid any 
unnecessary barriers to trade.  
2.8.  The representative of the Philippines  thanked the United States for their follow -up and 
additional questions on the Philippines' Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance Regime, 
contained in do cument  G/LIC/Q/PHL/6. She said that her delegation had taken note of the United 
States' continued interest in this issue and that her Capital was considering how best and fully to 
reply to these questions, in addition to the written replies that they had r ecently circulated in 
document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/5. She added that the replies they were working on would no longer be 
purely technical, because the questions had ventured farther , out into the realm s of policy and 
politics. Her delegation also wished to assure all their trading partners, including the United States, 
of their cooperation in providing further replies and information to all questions as promptly as they 
could. They also wished to assure Members that their trading regime remained very open. Their 
trade practices and policies  were fine -tuned to accommodate this openness against the multi -faceted 
backdrop represented by their domestic industries and a consumer base of 110  Million people to 
feed. The Philippines would revert to the United States with its replies in due course.  
2.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/TZA/1  
2.9.  The representative of the United States  directed Members' attention to the written questions 
by her delegation to Tanzania, contained in document  G/LIC/Q/TZA/1 . She stated that her 
delegation was interested in hearing from Tanzania about their use of import licences, and in 
particular the use o f import licences for meat, dairy, and poultry products, and the potential burden 
on trade. She noted her delegation's concern about reports of denied import permits for poultry and 
poultry products and reports of differences in policy for imports to Zanzi bar versus mainland 
Tanzania. They hoped to better understand Tanzania's laws and regulations related to import 
licensing, as well as the process for import licensing, the basis for denials, and the process for 
appeals. Her delegation encouraged Tanzania t o submit its annual questionnaire notification to this 
Committee, looked forward to engaging with Tanzania's delegation on their questions, and hoped to 
continue their bilateral engagement with Tanzania, as well as their discussions in this Committee  
2.7  Docum ent G/LIC/Q/ARG/21  
2.10.   The representative of the United States  thanked Argentina for their written replies to its 
questions contained in document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/21 . She said that the answers gave them added 
clarity on some of the recent changes to Argentina's reg ime. They demonstrated the value of 
transparency through this Committee, including consistent notifications of new or changed 
measures, and engagement through Members' questions. Her delegation still had concerns about 
the import licensing regime of Argent ina and its potential to burden trade and hoped that Argentina 
would reconsider the use of non -automatic licences and other ways to reduce formalities and 
facilitate trade. She concluded by noting that her delegation hoped to continue its bilateral 
engagem ent with Argentina, as well as their discussions in this Committee.  
2.11.   The representative of Colombia  underscored the usefulness and relevance of the consolidated 
paper containing written questions and replies ( G/LIC/W/51/Rev.5 ), which allowed delegations to G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 5 - 
 
  follow all topics of interest and access information and details that had been shared by Members. 
She thanked the United States for having drawn the attention of the Committee to this item and for 
its questions on the import licensing regime adopted by Arg entina. She also thanked Argentina for 
the answers that it had provided in writing, as well as for the recent notifications, which they had 
also placed on this meeting's agenda. She stated that firms exporting to the Argentinian market 
had, over the last f ew months, experienced difficulties in foreign trade procedures. In particular, 
there had been constant changes in the procedures and delays in the processing times, despite all 
of the requirements having been met and the documentation requested by the aut horities having 
been provided. She drew attention to the fact that some licences, which had previously been 
approved in not more than 72  hours, now required several weeks for their approval, with no reason 
or justification being provided for the delays. No r were the firms involved requested to submit any 
additional details in order for the procedure to be finalized.  
2.12.   In addition to these delays in the approval of licences, the regime also limited the validity of 
import licences, in some cases to 90  calendar days, which undermined predictability in foreign trade 
operations and exposed entrepreneurs to significant uncertainty and high costs. She noted that, in 
the case of Colombia, entrepreneurs were, for the most part, small and medium -sized enterprises 
(SMEs) . For this reason, her delegation wished to  know the details of these licensing procedures, as 
well as the policy objectives of this licensing system. In addition, her delegation wished to know the 
criteria that were used to decide which products were cove red under an import licensing regime, 
and which were not. Finally, her delegation wished to continue its constructive dialogue on this topic 
with the various relevant authorities in order to address the concerns of their entrepreneurs.  
2.13.   The representative o f Argentina  stated that, on 21  June 2020, her delegation had answered, 
in writing, all of the additional questions that had been asked by the United States in 
document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/20. These explanatory responses were contained in 
document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/21. S he thanked the United States, the United Kingdom, and Colombia, for 
their interest, as expressed also in the previous meeting of this Committee, and hoped that these 
answers, in addition to those provided at the fifth  trade policy review of Argentina, whic h took place 
in September  2021, would provide clarification regarding Argentina's import licensing regime. She 
also thanked Colombia and the United States for their additional questions and expressed her 
delegation's availability to continue with their bil ateral exchanges.  
2.8  Document  G/LIC/Q/GBR/1  
2.14.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the United Kingdom for its written 
replies and said that her delegation would circulate additional questions in writing, if any.  
2.15.   The Chairperson  encouraged all Me mbers to follow the procedures established in 
document  G/LIC/4, and to make good use of this Committee to clarify  any issue regarding other 
Members' notifications of import licensing procedures.  
2.16.   The Committee  took note  of the statements  made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Article  1.4(a), Article  5.1-5.4 and Article  8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The Chairperson  informed Members that o ne N/1 notification and 20  N/2 notifications, 
submitted by seven  Members, had been listed for the Committee's consi deration at that meeting. 
Two new N/2  notifications had been submitted after the Airgram had been issued and these would 
be reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting.3 The larger number of N/2  notifications , as 
compared to N/1  notifications , could be  explained by the fact that Members, who were introducing 
new licensing procedures or modifying existing ones, were overwhelmingly using the new notification 
template contained in document  G/LIC/28 , and were thus fulfilling their notification requirements 
under Article  1.4(a), Article  5.1-5.4 and Article  8.2(b) in one single  notification form, namely the 
N/2 form.  
 
3 The notifications in question were submitted by  the European Union  (G/LIC/N/2/EU/15 and 
G/LIC/N/2/EU/16. ). G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.2.  In addition, he informed delegations that, due to the large number of notifications on the 
agenda, and with a view to making the review process as efficient as possible,  he would  not read 
out the document symbol of each notification one by one . Instead, he proposed that the Committee 
review the  notifications  in groups , following a sequence by notifying Member.  He noted that this 
approach d id not prevent any Member from raising questions regarding any particular notification 
under review.  
3.3.  The following  notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, Article  1.4(a), and Article  8.2(b) of the 
Agreement were reviewed by the Committee: Argentina ( G/LIC/N/2 /ARG/28/Add.9 and 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.10 ); Hong Kong, China  (G/LIC/N/2/ HKG/17); India 
(G/LIC/N/2/IND/12 -G/LIC/N/2/IND/17 ); Macao, China  (G/LIC/N/2/ MAC/3); Tonga  
(G/LIC/N/2/ TON/1-G/LIC/N/2/ TON/8); United Kingdom  (G/LIC/N/ 1/GBR/1/Add.1 ; 
G/LIC/N/ 2/GBR/8/Corr.1 ; G/LIC/N/2/GBR/12 ); and United States (G/LIC/N/2/USA/ 5). 
3.4.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statement made.  
3.2  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.5.  The Chairperson  noted that  16 notifications had been listed for the Committee's consideration. 
Some  of the notifications had been notified for 202 1, while others had been notified for 202 0. 
Four new N/3  notifications had been submitted after the Airgram had been issued and would be 
reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting.4 
3.6.  The following notifications under Article  7.3 were reviewed by the Committee:  Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/3/ARG/1 7); Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/1 4); Botswana  (G/LIC/N/3/ BWA/1); Canada  
(G/LIC/N/3/ CAN/20); the European Un ion (G/LIC/N/3/ EU/10); Guatemala  (G/LIC/N/3/ GTM/5); 
Honduras  (G/LIC/N/3/ HND/12); India (G/LIC/N/3/I ND/20); Macao , China (G/LIC/N/3/ MAC/24); 
Mexico  (G/LIC/N/3/ MEX/7); Norway  (G/LIC/N/3/ NOR/10); Panama  (G/LIC/N/3/ PAN/12); 
Philippines (G/LIC/N/3/PHL/ 14); Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/1 2 and 
G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/1 2/Corr.1 ); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/ 14); and the United States 
(G/LIC/N/3/USA/ 18). 
3.7.  The Chairperson  recalled that only 24 Members  out of a total WTO  Membership of 
over 130 (counting the  European Union as one) had submitted replies to the annual q uestionnaire 
for the year  2021, and that the deadline for their submission had been 30  September  2021. He then 
presented a chart prepared by the Secretariat that illustrated a declining trend in the number of 
annual questionnaire notifications submitted by Members over the past few years.  Therefore, he 
encouraged those Members that had not yet done so to submit their annual questionnaires as soon 
as possible.  
3.8.  The Committee  took note  of the notifications  and statement made . 
4  ANGOLA : IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.1.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated her delegation's deep concern over 
Angola's Presidential Decree No.  23/19 aiming to protect dome stic industries in a manner 
incompatible with WTO  rules. She stated that this Presidential Decree could have proven detrimental 
to foreign investments in Angola, and that, beginning in 2019, the European Union had already 
raised these concerns at previous meetings of the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on 
Market Access, and the Committee on Agriculture, as well as in the Import Licensing Committee at 
its meeting of 21  April 2021.  
4.2.  She noted that, to date, Angola had not provided any substantive rep lies or explanations as to 
how it intended to bring this Decree under the remit of WTO  rules. The European Union reiterated 
that, irrespective of the Decree's inconsistency with WTO  rules, Angola still needed to provide a clear 
picture of the process set f orth in the Decree, including any changes it wished to introduce, and in 
which sectors. The European Union  remain ed supportive of Angola's intention to diversify its 
economy and to develop its domestic industry. Nonetheless, they once again urged Angola to  review 
 
4 The notifications in question were submitted by  Cuba ( G/LIC/N/3/CUB/11 ); Hong Kong, China 
(G/LIC/N/3/HKG/25 ); Switzerland ( G/LIC /N/3/CHE/17 ); and the United Kingdom ( G/LIC/N/3/GBR/1 ). G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 7 - 
 
  the relevant measures in order to ensure their compliance with WTO  rules. Specifically, concerning 
the remit of the Committee on Import Licensing, the Decree did not provide information on how the 
restrictions were to be implemented. Notably, it wa s unclear if licences were to be used to manage 
the restrictions. Therefore, the European Union requested Angola to clarify this question. The 
European Union also reminded Angola of its obligation under the Import Licensing Agreement to 
notify the measures  should licences be involved in the implementation of the Presidential Decree. 
Depending on Angola's engagement on this file, the European Union would further decide on an 
approach appropriate to ensure an adequate protection of its trade interests.  
4.3.  The re presentative of the United States  underscored that her delegation continued to have 
significant concerns about Angola's Presidential Decree, issued in January  2019. Nevertheless, the 
United States had been pleased to hear Angola's statement at the Committe e's 21  April 2021 
meeting, indicating that they would be working on a possible review of the measure. In this respect, 
her delegation, like the European Union, wondered if Angola still planned to revise the Decree and, 
if so, if they had an update on such a review. In addition, the United States requested Angola to 
provide information regarding the implementation of the Decree, in light of WTO  rules, as well as to 
comment on its potential impact on trade, investment, and businesses operating in Angola. Whil e 
her delegation understood that the stated goal of this Decree was to increase domestic economic 
diversification and development, they remained concerned about the impact of the Decree on 
imports. The United States understood that the Decree targeted 54  products, mainly agricultural 
goods, and that it could potentially target more products in the future. Since the Decree's 
implementation, the United States had heard reports of confusion over how it was being enforced, 
and of delays facing goods at the bord er. US  agricultural exporters were particularly concerned over 
delays that perishable goods might have faced amidst all of this uncertainty. She recalled that her 
delegation had also raised their concerns at the most recent meetings of the Committee on Mar ket 
Access and the Committee on Agriculture.  
4.4.  The representative of Angola  said that her Capital was  continuing to work with the competent 
authorities to address the  issues  raised. She noted that Angola, as a developing  country, ha d always 
been heavily dependent upon imports. Given this, the Government of Angola had decided to reverse 
the paradigm, to look at its fragile economy, and to create new administrative mechanisms to 
strengthen products for domestic consumption. The  provisio ns of the legislation in question and in 
force did not focus on any type of protectionism, as the country was committed to the promotion of 
free competition, but rather on the promotion of national production, in conjunction with the 
implement ation of a  national policy for diversification of the economy.  However, her delegation  
recognize d that the objective of the WTO was to reduce obstacles to international trade and that its 
focus was to ensure stability and competition among Members , thereby ensuring their economic 
development.  
4.5.  She explained that the  Decree implement ed the Program to Support National Production, 
Export Diversification and Import Substitution – PRODESI. The strong dependence of the national 
economy on the oil sector was the main characteri stic of the current imbalance in the country's 
economic structure. The experiences of several countries demonstrate d that the sustainable 
development of other sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, fisheries , and industry, had to  be 
considered in a l ogic of promotion , including with an effective focus on diversifying national 
production and generating wealth in those clusters with greater potential for generating value and 
increasing exports . The process of progressive diversification of the country's  economic base, in 
terms of the internal market and exports, had to be based on adequate coordination between public 
and private investments, with the latter becoming the engine of productive activity . 
4.6.  She said that all inconsistencies  in the Decree  were being analysed  and revised , and that certain 
terms  were also under review,  to harmonize them with the WTO's rules; the relevant provisions 
would be duly notified. She added that the Decree in question did not in any way prohibit the 
import ation of any product originating from any other country or Member  that was similar to the 
national product . 
4.7.  She stated that, whether the D ecree also involved  the application of temporary quantitative 
restriction s would  depend on the determination  by the Executive of the existence, in the year  2022, 
of an internal capacity to replace the imports  in question , as well as the maintenance of stability and 
regularity in the supply of the respective goods to final consumers . Ther efore, in 2022, an analysis 
of the internal market would be  carried out to substantiate the existence of internal capacity at the 
level of national production.  She concluded by reaffirming her delegation's commitment to the  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 8 - 
 
  multilateral trading system , and by offering to provide any  further clarification s that might help  in 
resolving any disagreements  through dialogue.  
4.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  CHINA : CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE MATERIALS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNIT ED STATES  
5.1.  The representative of the United States  recalled that her delegation had  raised concerns about 
the changes to import licensing surrounding China 's implementation of its import ban on solid waste, 
including recyclable and scrap materials, at sever al previous meetings of the Committee. She also 
recalled that they had requested  China to notify to the Committee any changes to its import licensing 
regime.  She noted that, u nfortunately, China had yet to provide any information about its current 
import licensing procedures for recycled raw materials or other imports, or updates on any planned 
changes that would be sufficient to alleviate US concerns.  At the same time, the United States 
reiterate d its concern that certain scrap materials, such as bundled recycled newspaper, had been 
banned, whereas other more processed scrap materials, such as pulped paper and "smelter -ready " 
metals, were allowed. She asked  China to explain the scientific basis  that it had used to determine 
which categories of scrap materials were acceptable , and which were not. 
5.2.  In addition, her delegation continue d to seek more information regarding the policy  at issue , 
considering that  China ha d yet to respond to their questions. Speci fically,  she asked if:  
- China could explain the new import licensing requirements under this policy and state when 
it would  notify these changes to the Import Licensing Committee ; 
 
- China would be developing a written regulation for importation, includin g what was 
"contaminated ", or "clean", and what materials were allowed for importation , and if so, when ; 
 
- China would be notifying to the WTO its requirements for import, including relevant 
contamination requirements, which it ha d implemented for the imp ortation of recycled raw 
materials ; 
 
- China could explain how these policies were consistent with China 's pro -circular economy 
narrative, given that China appear ed to include recyclable materials within the scope of "solid 
waste ". 
 
5.3.  She said that her delegation looked forward to receiving China's responses to their questions  
and asked that China adhere to its notification obligations under the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures , with respect to any new import measures , in a time ly manner.  
5.4.  The representative of China  recalled that this issue had been discussed several times in the 
Import Licensing Committee and other WTO  bodies; therefore, for the sake of time, he simply 
referred to his delegation's statements made in those meetin gs.5 He also highlighted that China had 
already banned, and had not imported any solid waste, since 1  January  2021, in order to protect 
public health and the environment. Meanwhile, recycling materials, such as copper, custom 
aluminium alloys, iron, and s teel, were not considered as solid waste, and could be imported in the 
normal way, as long as they met China's already published national quality standards and posed no 
harm to human health and the environment.  
5.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements mad e. 
6  EGYPT: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE EU ROPEAN UNION  
6.1  The representative of the European Union  noted her delegation's ongoing concerns over a 
number of measures implemented by Egypt, namel y the quantitative restrictions for import of meat 
 
5 See, for example, document  G/LIC/M/52, paragraph  5.3. G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 9 - 
 
  and poultry, as well as the recently announced new import measures, notified under the 
SPS Agreement, for seed potatoes.  
6.2  First, regarding the import restriction on meat and poultry, mainly ducklings and ca nned meat, 
the European Union reiterated that the system of import permits under Prime Minister Decree 
No. 2080/2018 and Prime Minister Decision No.  222/2018 was inconsistent with Article  XI of the 
GATT, as well as with several provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
Furthermore, Egypt had still not notified the two  Decrees to the WTO. She said that, as her 
delegation had mentioned on previous occasions, the system of granting import permits lacked 
transparency: the procedures of the com mittees and the calendars of the meetings were not publicly 
shared; rejections of import permits were communicated orally without any possibility of appeal; 
and there were no rules stipulating under which conditions import permits were approved under 
each act. The European Union requested Egypt, in compliance with its WTO  obligations, to stop 
applying quantitative restrictions on imports of meats and poultry originating in the European Union.  
6.3  Regarding the second  set of measures, the European Union was deep ly concerned about Egypt's 
new measures, notified to the SPS  Committee, on imports of seed potatoes. While Egypt had 
provided replies to the European Union's questions following the notification's circulation, she 
nevertheless wished to reiterate the follo wing points:  
- The new mechanism was designed in a way that, in practical terms, would have limited import 
volumes from the European Union and had an effect comparable to a quantitative restriction. 
Moreover, the introduction of a fee per tonne of imported  seed potatoes to finance field 
inspections was equivalent of the imposition of a customs duty;  
 
- The introduction of a pre -clearance system in the form of field visits in the European Union by 
Egyptian inspectors was very burdensome, costly, and made tra de unviable. EU  member 
States had efficient and effective national plant protection organizations, which could certify 
that imports complied with importing country requirements in accordance with international 
standards, notably the International Plant Pro tection Convention and related international 
standards;  
 
- Egypt's technical requirements were not aligned with the growing cycle of seed potatoes in 
the European Union. Egypt demanded that import applications be submitted between 
15 March and 15  April of each year, when EU  potatoes had not yet been planted; indeed, most 
data needed for the application was not available at that time of year. The compliance of seed 
potatoes with Egyptian standards could only be assessed after harvest;  
 
- The European Union r equested Egypt to reconsider its new measures on the importation of 
seed potatoes and stood ready to engage with Egypt to discuss any concerns it might have in 
that respect.  
 
6.4  The representative of the European Union  added that, prior to that day's meeting,  her delegation 
had received some replies from Egypt to their questions regarding the first  set of import restrictions 
for meat and poultry; however, they had received those replies only very late on the previous day, 
and they were currently still analysin g them. Therefore, they reserved their right to revert to Egypt 
with further questions or requests for clarification in advance of the Committee's next meeting.  
6.5  The representative of Egypt  confirmed  that her delegation had provided its replies to the 
additional questions from the European Union,  contained in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/7 , on the 
previous day; in this regard, Egypt  looked forward to the follow -up discussions and questions from 
the European Union. She stressed that Prime Minister's Decree s No. 2080/2018 and No.  222/2018 
were not intended to create any quantitative restrictions on the import of poultry and meat. The 
main aim of the decrees was rather to regulate imports to ensure that they would not introduce any 
diseases and actually met the sta ndards stipulated by the General Organization of Veterinary 
Services. She said that her delegation stood  ready to engage in further discussions with all trading 
partners concerning the implementation of the two  decrees . Regarding  the import regime for pota to 
seeds, she stated that the replies that they had provided the previous day would clarify many of the 
issues raised by the European Union. In this respect, she also recalled that her delegation had 
engaged bilaterally with the European Union in Capitals on this issue. In conclusion, Egypt  had 
provided its detailed replies and additional questions had been addresse d at bilateral level.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.6  The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation share d concerns similar to 
those of the European Union  regarding Egypt' s import licensing requirements for certain agricultural 
products. She found it encouraging to hear that some replies had been provided to the European 
Union's questions on the previous day; her delegation would certainly look at those respo nses. At 
the same time, she encourage d Egypt to notify  to the Committee all applicable regulations and 
procedures, listing the products subject to import licensing, providing the eligibility to apply for an 
import licen ce, identifying the administrative bo dy for requesting an import licen ce, and describing 
the criteria and documents considered when issuing an import licen ce. 
6.7  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDIA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
7.1  The representative of the United States  noted that for some time her delegation had been 
concerned about  India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respect to the 
burdensome end -use certificates necessary for importation. She said that her delegation's concerns 
had begun more than  a decade  earlier , 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 & 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 in turn require d that non -insecticidal boric acid could  only be imported directly by a 
manufactur er and prevent ed independent traders from importing boric acid for resale purposes. The 
rule further  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 a nd production data of the finished 
product.  This information was subject to a formal government review process.  In addition, Indian 
importers had expressed their frustration about the fact that, in import licensing applications , they 
were required to  suppl y information on past consumption of boric acid , and production of the finished 
product, which was information often unavailable to importers.  
7.2  Therefore, the United States continue d to request that India explain why boric acid, which had 
a toxicity level r oughly 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 
insecticides for which  an import permit  was not required . In closing, she recall ed that the United 
States continue d to request that India amend Schedule –I of the ITC  (HS) Classifications of Export 
and Import Items , and eliminate the requirement that imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal 
purposes be subject to  an import permit.  Her delegation hoped that their  recent bilateral negotiations 
in this area would  bring about a mutually beneficial resolution.  
7.3  The represent ative of India recalled that India had already submitted its written 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 
the policy objectives and implementation issues  in detail. For non -insecticidal use, do mestic 
manufacturers of boric acid were required to submit annual production and sales data, whereas 
imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal use were exempted from the requirement of registration 
under the Insecticides Act. Import permits were issued on  the basis of end -use certificates of.  
Various multi -use chemicals had been listed in the schedule to the Insecticides Act of 1968 since 
they were capable of being used both as insecticides and for other purposes. Boric acid was one of 
various multi -use in secticides that were subject to similar regulatory measures.  
7.4  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  INDIA : IMPORT ATION  OF PNEUMATIC TYRES – STATEMENT S BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
AND INDONESIA  
8.1  The representative of the European Union  reiterated her dele gation's concern, already raised 
twice before the Import Licensing Committee, regarding India's licensing regime for importation of 
pneumatic tyres for motor cars, buses, lorries, motor scooters and motorcycles, introduced under 
Notification No.  12/2015 -2020 on Amendments in Import Policy of Tyres of 12  June 2020. She said 
that, while the European Union welcomed the belated WTO  notification by India of these measures, 
they continued to be concerned about the effect of the measures on the importation of tyre s, which G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 11 - 
 
  had become highly restricted since June  2020. Only a limited number of licences had been granted 
to EU  tyres manufacturers, and these licenses had been limited in terms of duration, quantity, and 
type of tyres. In particular, no licences had been granted for bus and truck tyres. The European 
Union recalled the requirement of Article  3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement, according to which, 
non-automatic import licensing "shall not have trade -restrictive or -distortive effects on imports 
additional  to those caused by the imposition of the restriction ". The European Union also urged India, 
once again, to reconsider any implicit or explicit quantitative or other (for example, end -user 
principle) restrictions on the importation of replacement tyres tha t could be contrary to 
WTO requirements, by being discriminatory and favouring local tyre manufacturers.  
8.2  The representative of Indonesia  said that, technically, the importation of tyres by Indonesian 
manufacturers into India had been hampered since early  2020. This had happened because the 
Government of India had unilaterally stopped importing tyres from Indonesian exporters. In 2020, 
the Government of India had issued a new import policy, Notification No.  12/2015 -2020, dated 
12 June 2020, regarding Amendme nts in Import Policy of Tyres, which had changed the import 
criteria for tyres from "free" to "restricted". For this reason, there had been no imports of tyres from 
Indonesia into India during that period, considering that the Government of India had issue d no 
import licences. At the beginning of 2021, the Government of India had issued import licences for 
tyres; however, these import licences were subject to restrictions, considering that only tyres 
meeting certain criteria could be exported to India. This  policy had a huge impact, with a number of 
import licences being revoked due to the new provisions. In this regard, Indonesia sought further 
explanations from India regarding its pneumatic tyres import policy and regulations, a request that 
Indonesia had already made at the Committee's April  meeting. In particular, Indonesia wished India 
to elaborate in detail on their import regime for pneumatic tyres, including the requirements to 
obtain import approvals and import recommendations, if any. Indonesia felt  that the aforementioned 
arrangements were inconsistent with GATT  provisions on national treatment to the extent that they 
discriminated against imports as compared to tyres manufactured  locally. Indonesia requested the 
Government of India immediately to r eview the aforementioned policy to ensure that it met the 
principles and requirements of the WTO  Import Licensing Agreement.  
8.3  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation shared the  concern s raised by the 
European Union and Indonesia . He noted that t he situation ha d been ongoing for over a  year, since 
India had announced its restrictive import measure s on new pneumatic tyres in June  2020. He 
recalled that his delegation had repeatedly expressed their concern over the issue in  this Committee , 
and that it was regrettable that they had  to raise the question again at that day's meeting . He 
observed that, while, since December  2020, there had been some cases of successful applications 
from their companies, such successful applicati ons had sharply declined to only about 40 % of the 
average of the previous three  years. His delegation underst ood that  India was issuing  import licen ces 
only for those categories of pneumatic tyres that were  not produced domestically , and that it had 
also set a limit on imported tyres. In his delegation's view, this constituted a ban on the importation 
of tyres, thus clearly violating WTO rules prohibiting quantit ative restrictions. For this reason, his 
delegation urged India to comply with the rules of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  
and, i n particular, ensure that non-automatic licensing procedures be implemented in a transparent 
and predictable manner ; similarly, they should  not have trade -restrictive or t rade-distortive effects 
on imports additional to those caused by the imposition of the restrictions.  In the meantime, Chinese 
Taipei requested India to share  with Members its domestic practices for granting licen ces, and to 
take immediate measure s to ensur e that import licen ces could  be issued in a timely, transparent, 
non-discriminatory , and predictable manner.  
8.4  The representative of Japan  expressed his delegation's ongoing concern that India was not 
publicizing enough information about the relevant details  of its import procedures, including their 
rationale and criteria , to indicate whether or not it would grant an import licen ce. For this reason, 
Japan  urged India to make , in due course , this information public , and to provide sufficient 
explanation  of its import procedures . He noted that his delegation had sent a written questionnaire 
to India in late September , to which Japan requested  a timely reply in writing.  
8.5  The representative of the United States  supported those delegations that had expressed their 
concerns regarding India' s lack of notifications of its import procedures for tyres. Her delegation 
urged India to notify  to the WTO the procedures set forth by  Notification No.  12/2015 -2020, of 
12 June 2020, and to complete the annual questionnaire to meet its transparency obligations under 
the Import Licensing Agreement. They also requested that India review all pending applications in a 
timely manner.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 12 - 
 
  8.6  The representative of India said that the non -autom atic licensing requirements were 
administered in a manner consistent with the rules of the WTO  Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures, including with respect to the time -frame for granting import licences. Import licences 
had been administered in a fair and equitable manner and a number of licences had been granted 
after approval by the Facilitation Committee. In particular, the measure had been taken in view of 
quality issues. Under the non -automatic licensing procedure, applications were examined and 
licences were granted based on the comments of the concerned administrative ministries, which 
were based on the criteria laid down for the purpose. She noted that, in the case of importation of 
tyres, the Committee had granted licences in almost all cases af ter examination of the applications.  
8.7  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  INDIA: QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENT BY CANADA  
9.1  The representative of Canada  stated that, as a high quality and reliable supplier of pulses, 
Canad a had been most negatively affected by India's measures to limit the import of pulses. Canada 
was disappointed that pulses continued to be listed as import restricted under India's book of 
ITC HS Classification of Import and Export.  
9.2  He noted that, for drie d peas, no quota volume had been announced by India for the fiscal 
year 2021. Canada understood that the import of dried peas was, therefore, banned. Continuous 
quantitative restrictions and import bans on dried peas and other pulses had been in place for the 
past three  years. Consequently, it was difficult for Canada to understand why India continued to 
claim that these measures were "temporary". Canada continued to question the legal interpretation 
provided by India to justify import bans, quantitative re strictions, and discretionary import licensing 
procedures, such as minimum import prices or limiting imports to one  single port of entry for the 
importation of dried peas. Furthermore, Canada questioned why India was not able to meet its 
requirements to no tify, to this Committee, changes to import licensing procedures for dried peas 
within 60  days, as prescribed in Article  5.1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. He 
remarked that Notification No.  37/2015 -2020, dated December  2019, had been notif ied to this 
Committee 512  days after its publication, and that India had also not notified Publications  SO1225E 
and SO1260E, dealing with import licensing rules in quota volumes for dried peas, which had been 
introduced in March and April of 2020. In concl usion, Canada called upon India immediately and 
expeditiously to review its trade restrictive measures put in place on dried peas and other pulses 
and to implement alternative, WTO -consistent, policy options that promoted a predictable and 
transparent regi me for pulses.  
9.3  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation was very disappointed by 
India's continued application of quantitative restrictions on pulses. The European Union shared 
Canada's concerns and were looking forward to India providing substantive replies to all of the 
questions raised. Similarly, the European Union looked forward to India reviewing and bringing its 
regime into conformity with the WTO  rules.  
9.4  The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation shared the concerns of Canada 
and the European Union regarding India' s import licensing requirements for select varieties of pulses.  
The United States also continued to urge India to consider less trade restrictive requirements and 
to notify future relevant measures and regulations in a timely manner.  
9.5  The representative of India responded, as they had done on previous occasions, that 
notification  G/LIC/N/3/IND/20 addressed various aspects of licensing procedures and quota 
utilization. This was an old  issue that had been raised in various forums, such as the Committee on 
Agriculture, the Committee on Import Licensing, the Committee on Market Access, and the Council 
for Trade in Goods. India reiterated that the objective of the measures was to cater to the food and 
livelihood security of small and marginal farmers. India had been regularly reviewing the measures 
based on the market situation of pulses, owing to which the quota of pulses had been increased 
from time to time. In this regard, apart from the  quota  increase, the Government of India had further 
relaxed its import measures through DGFT  Notification  SO1858E, dated 15  May 2021, wherein 
restrictions on the import of Tur/Pigeon Peas, Moong, and Urad, had been withdrawn, and the import 
policy had bee n revised, from "restricted" to "free", with effect from 15  May 2021 until 
31 October  2021.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.6  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  
10.1  The rep resentative of the European Union  stated that, following the entry into force of 
Regulation No.  77/2019, imports of EU  origin of finished textile items, notably carpets, were no 
longer possible into Indonesia. No licences had been issued for these finished  products, and only 
raw materials or unfinished products, or materials imported for further processing, could obtain a 
licence. She reiterated that, as already noted in other WTO  Committees, this resulted in a de facto  
prohibition of the importation of fin ished textiles. She pointed out that, to date, this measure had 
not been notified to the WTO, which was inconsistent with WTO  transparency obligations. Moreover, 
the measures appeared to be inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT ( de jure  and de facto  import 
prohibition through quantitative restrictions), as well as Articles  1 and 5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures (disproportionately cumbersome import licensing procedures and 
requirements).  
10.2  In addition, the European Union considered that In donesia's import regime for textiles products 
and textiles, as set forth in Regulation No.  77/2019 with regard to imports for purposes other than 
further processing by domestic producers, importers, their cooperating production parties and/or 
small and mid -sized industries, went also against the spirit and the letter of several provisions of 
the WTO  Trade Facilitation Agreement. In light of these inconsistencies with WTO  obligations and 
the severely restrictive impact on trade in carpets and other textile products, the European Union 
urged Indonesia to re -evaluate the measure at issue and bring  it into conformity with WTO  rules.  
10.3  The representative of the European Union  also noted that the import regime for textile products 
and textiles under Regulation No.  77/2019 was just one of many similar import regimes that 
Indonesia had adopted in recent times, such as Regulation No.  68/2020 on Import Provisions for 
Footwear, Electronics, and Bicycles/Tricycles, which had the clear and expressly stated objective of 
stimulating and protecting the domestic industry and curbing imports. She said that the measure 
raised serious concerns over its protectionist nature, and furthermore, it was pursued with policies, 
measures, and practices, of dubious WTO  consistency. Her deleg ation had already raised this point 
at previous meetings of the Import Licensing Committee and, upon request from Indonesia, they 
had followed -up with detailed written questions, contained in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43. In the 
absence of any reaction, her del egation invited Indonesia to provide its replies without further delay.  
10.4  The representative of Japan  noted that Indonesia had substantially prohibited the importation 
of certain textile products for retail sales by strengthening the import registration and approval 
system provided in the Minister of Trade Order No.  77 of 2019. Since the  regulation's introduction , 
global exports of textile products to Indonesia had sharply dropped; indeed, global exports in 2020 
had been approximately one  tenth of what they  had been  in 2019. Exports of carpet products 
classified under  HS57 had been  hit particularly hard.  Moreover, the previous  February , Indonesia 
had implemented safeguard measures against the importation of carpet products classified under 
HS57. In their investigation, Indonesian authorities had determined the increase of imports without 
taking into consider ation the sharp reduction in import s caused by the import registration and 
approval system . This determination had been  possible because the Indonesian authorities had set  
the period of investigation as 2017 to 2019, that is, immediately prior to the aforementioned sharp 
reduction  in imports . These safeguard measures appl ied extremely high tariffs , of around 150 -200% 
ad valorem . Japan , therefore , consider ed that these measures did not fulfil the requirements for 
safeguard measures, especially the requirement stating that safeguards should be applied o nly to 
the extent necessary. He concluded by saying that Japan ha d serious concern s about  these measures  
and urge d Indonesia to  eliminate them as soon as possible.  
10.5  The representative of Indonesia  stated that his Capital was still coordinating among several  
government agencies and would provide more information regarding the aforementioned provisions 
after his government had completed the exercise.  
10.6  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 14 - 
 
  11  INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY IMPORTERS OF 
STEEL PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  
11.1  The representative of Japan  stated that his delegation remain ed concerned by the requirement 
of compulsory registration for importers of steel products , based on Indonesia' s Minister of Trade 
Order No.  3 of 2020.  His delegation was continuously find ing cases where the Indonesian authorities 
had issued a substantially smaller number  of import licen ces for steel products than the number  of 
licences applied for by importers , regardless of the type of licen ces concerned.  He noted that t his 
was having  a trade restrictive effect on imports, and was possibly inconsistent with  Article  3.2 of the 
Import Licensing Agreement and Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994. Japan urge d Indonesia not to 
substantially reduce the amount of approved import licen ces as compared to the number  of import 
licences applied for. Japan also request ed that I ndonesia clarify the rationale behind , and criteria 
for, the reduction in its import quotas. In particular, his delegation was concerned about the Minister 
of Industry Order No.  4 of 2021 providing that the Ministry of Industry would  have consider ed the 
issuance of the Technical Consideration, necessary for import licen ces for trading companies called 
"API-U", by considering the domestic demand -supply balance in Indonesia. This provision was 
potentially inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement and other 
WTO Agreements. Japan therefore urge d Indonesia to implement it in a WTO -consistent manner. 
On this issue, Japan had submitted  a questionnaire  to Indonesia,  through this  Committee , in 
July 2021. His delegation appreciated Indonesia's oral statements under Agenda Item  2, clarifying 
its general position; nevertheless, Japan needed further details in order for their concerns to be 
properly addressed. Japan  thus request ed Indonesia to reply in writing as soon as possible.  
11.2  The representative of the European Union  stated that imports of steel products into Indonesia 
were subject to restrictive and distortive licensing requirements, including the issuing of a technical 
regulation  by the Ministry of Industry, taking into account the domestic balance between supply and 
demand. Furthermore, licences were issued in limited quantities, not always meeting the quantities 
applied for by importers. The European Union asked Indonesia for cl arification as to its underlying 
rationale for restricting the quantities of licences granted, as well as the criteria applied to this end.  
11.3  As noted under the previous agenda item, she said that her delegation was also concerned 
that this measure appeared to be inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT ( de jure  and de facto  
import prohibitions through quantitative restrictions), as well as with Article  3 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures (non -automatic import licensing). In view of the above -mentioned 
inconsistencies with Indonesia's WTO  obligations, and of their restrictive impact on trade in steel 
products, the European Union  urged Indonesia to re -evaluate the measures at issue and bring them 
into conformity with WTO  rules; in other words, by issuing licences for steel products automatically, 
without delays, and without limiting the quantities applied for by the importer.  
11.4  The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegation's concern, together with 
Japan and the European Union, about Indonesia' s import licensing requirements for steel products, 
including registration and pre -shipment inspection requirements that had the potential to limit trade 
in this important area.  Her delegation encourage d Indonesia to respond promptly to the qu estion s 
that Japan had submitted to the Committee in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/45 , and ensure that its 
authorities  issued import licen ces automatically, without delays, and without limiting the quantities 
applied for by importers.   
11.5  The representative of Indones ia reiterated his delegation's previous statement and took note 
of Members' concerns regarding its import licensing of steel products. He explained that this policy 
was aimed, in particular, at protecting their consumers by ensuring that all products met c ertain 
safety standards, technical regulations, and requirements. Indonesia also highlighted that the policy 
provided a transparent and simple process for import approval; that is, applications for import 
approval were processed electronically, and relativ ely swiftly, once the required documents had been 
submitted in a complete and correct manner.  
11.6  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  SRI LANKA: IMPORT BAN ON PALM OIL - STATEMENT BY INDONESIA  
12.1  The representative of Indonesia  stated that his delegation had a specific trade concern 
regarding Sri Lanka's import ban on palm oil. He recalled that the Government of Sri Lanka had G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 15 - 
 
  issued Operating Instruction No.  8/2021 regarding a temporary suspension of palm oil importation, 
dated 5 April 2021. Furthermore, Sri Lanka had also issued the Imports and Exports Control 
Regulation No.  4/2021, dated 6  April 2021, which instructed that the imports of palm oil under 
HS code 1511 (1511.10.00, 1511.90.00 and 1511.90.10, 1511.90.20, 1511.90.30,  and 1511.90.90) 
were suspended and subject to import licensing requirements as well as additional import licensing 
fees. The legislation for the above -mentioned regulations effectively entered into force on 5 and 
7 April 2021, respectively.  
12.2  He said that I ndonesia was seeking responses from the delegation of Sri Lanka regarding the 
objectives and background of Sri Lanka's import ban on palm oil. He noted that, although Sri Lanka 
claimed that the palm oil import ban was temporary, the policy did not specific ally mention its 
duration. Furthermore, he noted that Sri Lanka's policy could have systemic implications for the 
global palm oil trade. Indonesia felt that the prohibition on imports of palm oil by Sri Lanka was 
inconsistent with several WTO  provisions, e specially Article  XI of GATT, Article  4.2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture, and Article  3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement. His delegation had found that, 
since the regulation's enactment, there had been a significant decline exports to Sri Lanka of palm  
oil and its derivatives; at the same time, there had also been an increase in exports of palm oil under 
high MFN  tariffs. In addition, his delegation had also found that the Government of Sri  Lanka had 
imposed an additional levy on palm oil imports of 0.4 % of the c.i.f.  value. For these reasons, 
Indonesia requested the Government of Sri Lanka to resolve the aforementioned matters and restore 
normal trade . 
12.3  The representative of Colombia  said that her delegation was interested in this topic and noted 
their c oncern regarding Sri Lanka's import restricting measures on palm oil. She recalled that 
Colombia was a producer and exporter of palm oil, derivative products, and palm oil biofuels. The 
global market dynamics of these products, as well as any restrictions,  or limitations to their 
commercialization in various jurisdictions, affected their exports and market trends. She stated that 
the "operating instructions" released by the Government of Sri Lanka, through which imports of 
palm oil had been suspended or res tricted, were of particular concern. She noted that Sri Lanka had 
presented no notifications of these measures under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, 
which limited Members' knowledge of the policy objectives and procedures to commercialize pal m 
oil and its derivatives. Her delegation requested clarifications from Sri Lanka regarding the measures 
adopted, their period of implementation, their justification, and the authorities in charge of their 
administration.  
12.4  The representative of Sri Lanka  stated that the information his delegation had provided to 
various WTO  Committees remained valid regarding the concerns expressed by the delegations of 
Indonesia and Colombia. He noted that Indonesia had raised concerns over several procedures 
covered under the WTO  Agreements, including under Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures. He said that Sri Lanka's procedure complied with the provisions of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and recalled that his delegation had made a 
comprehensive statement before the Committee on Market Access in this regard in April. He added 
that his delegation would coordinate with Capital on Indonesia and Colombia's additional concerns.  
12.5  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13  THAILAND: IMPORT ATION OF FEED WHEAT - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
13.1  The representative of the European Union  reiterated her delegation's concerns about 
Thailand's import procedures for feed wheat and asked why they had not been notified in accordance 
with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement. She noted that her delegation had not 
yet received written replies to the written questions circulated as documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and 
G/LIC/Q/THA/4. She reiterated the request to understand on what basis the measures , announced 
as temporary, could be maintained for so long, and when they would cease to apply. Her delegation 
also wished to receive a detailed description of the import licensing procedures to be applied. She 
repeated the European Union's requests to rece ive relevant data about the actual situation of the 
corn market in order to better understand Thailand's justification of the measures. Based on the 
information her delegation had gathered, the average domestic prices had trended upwards since 
the introduc tion of the measures in late 2016.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 16 - 
 
  13.2  As per its written questions, the European Union understood that the Government of Thailand 
had launched a support programme for corn production in September  2018 to provide incentives for 
rice farmers to divert their far ming to corn during the drought period, and to fill the gap between 
domestic demand for corn and its domestic production. The programme provided both financial 
(minimum price guarantee, a crop insurance premium subsidy, and soft loans for inputs on 
managem ent costs in the post -harvesting period) and non -financial support (marketing and 
technical assistance) to farmers who switched their farming from rice to corn. However, this seemed 
to be in contradiction with the alleged market oversupply of domestic corn ; therefore, the European 
Union asked Thailand to clarify how government support for the expansion of corn production could 
be reconciled with an alleged market oversupply of domestic corn. She further noted that the above -
mentioned support programme had e nded in September  2019. A deficiency payment scheme had 
subsequently been introduced in its place, beginning from December  2019, with an even higher 
guaranteed price programme. She noted that this support programme had not been notified to the 
Committee on  Agriculture; in this regard, she encouraged Thailand to notify the measure in a timely 
manner. She concluded by saying that, setting aside the questions pertaining to the market 
situation, the European Union had a significant concern over the WTO  compatib ility of Thailand's 
import licensing regime for feed wheat. Therefore, her delegation was looking forward to receiving 
Thailand's detailed written replies to the questions circulated.  
13.3  The representative of Thailand  said that the questions received from the  European Union had 
been communicated to Capital, and they were being carefully reviewed by the relevant authorities. 
She explained that this matter was relevant to many government agencies and stakeholders. She 
informed delegations that Thailand was in th e process of reviewing its import permit measures for 
feed wheat, including the increase in the MFN  applied rates under Thailand's WTO  commitments; 
however, the process had been delayed due to the COVID -19 pandemic. She noted that, on import 
statistics, th e volume of imports had increased by 8.59% from 1.7  million tonnes in 2019 to 
1.85 million tonnes in 2020. Thailand believed that the volume would continue to increase, in line 
with the global economic recovery from the pandemic. As for the notification of  domestic support for 
feed wheat, Thailand was collecting information from its relevant authorities and her delegation 
would inform Members once they had received further information from Capital in this regard; 
indeed, her delegation would notify the WTO at the first  opportunity.  
13.4  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
14  IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE AGREEMENT – 
REPORT BY THE  CHAIRPERSON  
14.1.   The Chairperson  reported on the Committee's informal meeting of 20 September  2021. He 
read the following summary:  
Import Licensing Website  
14.2.   The Secretariat made a presentation on the functions of the website, which was launched at 
the Committee's meeting last October. Since then, it has provided a very useful tool to Members 
and to the public. During the meeting, several Members expressed their support for the use and 
continuing update of the website. They also emphasized the importance of fostering the use of 
technology to facilitate Members' work on import licensing.  
Members' Profiles and Sector Study  
14.3.   The Secretariat also introduced document  RD/LIC/16, containing Members' Profiles on import 
licensing, which can be found on the Import Licensing website http://www.importlicensing.wto.org; 
and a sector study on five sectors, namel y: Hazardous Chemicals; Rough Diamonds; Fertilizers and 
Pesticides; Pharmaceuticals; and Hazardous Waste, which has been circulated to Members and would 
be published under the Secretariat's responsibility shortly.  
14.4.   Some delegations asked questions about how  the sectors were selected in the study and why 
the Committee was not consulted before such work was undertaken. Other delegations expressed 
appreciation for this type of research but wondered whether other sectors would be addressed in 
the future and whet her the Members' Profile document would be updated.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 17 - 
 
  14.5.   The Secretariat responded that a mandate was not sought from the Committee because such 
work formed part of the Secretariat's own research functions and had been shared with the 
Committee only for transpa rency purposes. The Secretariat did not plan to expand or update these 
documents for the moment.  
E-learning Module on Import Licensing  
14.6.   The Secretariat made a brief presentation of its e -learning module on Import Licensing 
Procedures. This module was launch ed in July  2021 and was available for use on the WTO  e-campus.  
14.7.   Several delegations welcomed this e -learning module and underlined the importance of such 
capacity -building interactive tools. One  delegation stated that they had used the new  module and 
found it very useful and well designed. They noted that while the e -learning tool was very well 
developed, there were a few difficulties relating to signing in and registering on the WTO  e-campus 
that would be important to address to facilitate access. The Secre tariat would look further into the 
issue.  
Online N2  Notifications  
14.8.   At previous meetings, Members had discussed the possibility of using the website to send 
notifications to the WTO. For this purpose, the Secretariat prepared a presentation giving Members 
an idea of what an online notification form might look like via the website. This tool reproduced, in 
an online form, the same N2  notification form currently being used, and which is contained in 
document  G/LIC/28. The online form would provide an additional  and voluntary means to send an 
N2 notification to the WTO.  
14.9.   If such a tool were introduced, Members would remain free to send N2  notifications to the 
WTO via traditional means (email, fax, or post). When a notification would be received via the online 
tool, it would then be converted into an N2  form and circulated as such.  
14.10.   Several Members expressed support for this type of digital tool to submit notifications. Some 
Members noted that such a tool should be available on a voluntary basis and that Members shou ld 
remain free to notify through traditional means if that was their preference. Several Members posed 
questions to the Secretariat about practical aspects of the online notification system, including how 
it would interface with the issuance of the officia l WTO  G/LIC/N  series documents. Other Members 
encouraged the Secretariat to coordinate with parallel initiatives developed for other notification 
requirements in the WTO.  
E-Agenda  
14.11.   The Secretariat also made a presentation on the eAgenda system that was intr oduced in the 
Committee on Market Access, as well as in the TBT and SPS  Committees. Several delegations 
expressed support and appreciation for this type of digital tool, which they considered could simplify 
and improve Members' work in the Committee. One  Member noted that her delegation was 
favourable to the development of this type of tool in all the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade 
in Goods (CTG). Some Members stated that such tools should be available on a voluntary basis. 
One delegation noted that, even if it was introduced on a voluntary basis, her delegation expected 
other delegations to use it for it to be a successful and reliable instrument. Other delegations noted 
that in an initial phase the eAgenda could be introduced as a pilot project , as had been done in other 
committees  
N3 Annual Questionnaire  
14.12.   Members discussed the possibility of improving the format of the N3  annual questionnaire. 
Some Members expressed doubts about modifying it, noting that they did not want to lose any of 
the elem ents required by the existing questionnaire; thus, they did not consider updating it a priority. 
Other Members noted that completing the questionnaire represented a challenge, especially for 
Members with capacity constraints, and that the questionnaire wou ld benefit from an updating, 
without losing any of its substantive elements.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Notification Workshop  
14.13.   The Secretariat introduced the workshop that took place between 4 and 6  October. It was 
attended by more than 70  Capital -based government officials from 32  developing country Members 
and Observers. It was held virtually, on the Zoom platform, and consisted of identical sessions, one 
in the morning and the other in the afternoon, Geneva time, to accommodate Members from different 
time zones.  
14.14.   Several delegations  expressed interest in this type of activity, including developed country 
Members who suggested that a similar activity could be organized for all WTO  Members in different 
languages sometime next year. The Chairperson stated that if Members so required, su ch an activity  
could be organized in the coming year.  
14.15.   The Chairperson noted that, while more time was needed on some of these matters, he 
would continue to monitor the issues, communicate with Members, and keep reminding Members of 
their notification oblig ations.  
14.16.   This concluded the Chairperson's report.  
14.17.   The representative of the United States  commented that her delegation appreciated having 
such a report of the informal session, including for the benefit of those delegations that had not been 
able to partic ipate in it. She asked the Chairperson whether his statement with regard to the 
monitoring of these issues was meant to be specific to the N/3  discussion, or if it had referred more 
broadly to all of these transparency items.  
14.18.   The Chairperson  clarified that  he intended to keep monitoring all of these issues, but that, 
in respect of certain matters, more time might be needed before work could advance.  
14.19.   The representative of the United States  then raised a concern regarding the Secretariat's 
Members' Profiles a nd Sector Study . She noted that her delegation had registered its concerns to 
the Secretariat following the circulation of the studies, including the concern that, in her delegation's 
view, the purpose of the studies was not exactly clear, and the analysis  of the five  sectors tended 
to focus on other agreements and additional background that did not always seem relevant to the 
work of the Committee. More specifically, she noted that the sector study mixed international 
conventions with the WTO  import licens ing commitments in a couple of the sectors, which was not 
useful from a WTO  perspective. Furthermore, she noted that  the intent of the authors' conclusions 
regarding changes to notifications was not clear, while based on recent discussions, there was no 
consensus in the Committee regarding the changing of notifications, even with the intent to improve 
data. In conclusion, her delegation urged the Secretariat to work closely with Members on any ideas 
for future reports.  
14.20.   The representative of the European Uni on expressed appreciation for the work of the 
Secretariat and for the Chairperson's detailed report on the Committee's informal meeting. She 
added that her delegation would wish for the report of the informal meeting to be circulated to 
Members; it would b e useful for Members' further internal consultations with Capitals. Regarding the 
possibility of improving the format of the N/3  annual questionnaire, she noted that her delegation 
understood that the Chairperson would continue to explore the issue with Me mbers. In addition, she 
said that her delegation stood ready to work on a new N/3  form, if there was any real need to 
improve the existing form, and if any new form would be made available on a voluntary basis, 
allowing Members the possibility to choose be tween them.  
14.21.   The representative of Colombia  expressed appreciation for the Chairperson's report on the 
informal meeting. She said that her delegation was pleased to see this type of informal discussion 
taking place. She also thanked the Secretariat for its efforts in working on the virtual tools, the 
website, and the document analysis and research. Regarding the notification workshop that took 
place between 4 and 6  October, in English, she said that her delegation was hoping that this type of 
technical assis tance could also be provided in Spanish, considering the need to train officials in 
Capital who may find it more difficult to attend such activities in English. At the same time, she 
acknowledged that the Secretariat was making efforts and was working towa rds providing these 
events in the WTO's three  official languages.  G/LIC/M/53  
 
- 19 - 
 
  14.22.   The Chairperson  said that his report on the informal meeting would be circulated shortly as 
requested by delegations, and that it would also be incorporated in the current meeting's minutes.  
In respect of delegations' interventions at the informal meeting, as well as at the current formal 
meeting, he observed that he had detected delegations' broad support to develop an eAgenda for 
the Import Licensing Committee, as well as a system of online  notifications for N/2  notifications. 
Therefore, in light of the aforementioned discussions, he proposed that the Secretariat advance its 
work on an eAgenda by developing a pilot project, and also its work on a system of online 
notifications , via the Impor t Licensing w ebsite, based on the current N2  form, for the Committee 's 
further consideration.  In addition, he noted that it was his intention to further pursue these issues 
in informal consultations . To this end, he would  convene an informal meeting of the  Committee 
during the first  quarter of 2022, ahead of the  Committee's first formal meeting of next year, 
scheduled in April  2022, to allow progress to be made in all these  areas. 
14.23.   The Committee took note  of the Chairperson's report and of the statements made.  
15  DRAFT REPORT (2021) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/55)  
15.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that a  draft report, covering the activities of the 
Committee in 202 1, had b een circulated in document  G/LIC/W/5 5 for the Committee's consideration.  
He noted that, s ince issuing the draft report, the Committee had  received new notifications from 
Cuba;  the European Union;  Hong Kong, China;  the Philippines; Switzerland; and  the Unit ed 
Kingdom . The report would  be updated to reflect those  notifications, as well as new written questions 
and replies received as of the date of that meeting, 8  October  2021. 
15.2.   The representative of the United States  requested that the updated report be circu lated to 
Members, and that it be finalized through written procedures.  
15.3.   The Chairperson  confirmed that the draft report would be updated, circulated for Members' 
examination, and then finalized through written procedures.6 
16  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
16.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods had held a 
meeting with the chairpersons of the CTG's subsidiary bodies to address the issue of overlapping 
meeting dates with a view to avoiding such situations in the future. In this regard , he informed 
delegations that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Friday , 8 April 2022, as the date of the 
Committee's next formal meeting, on the understanding that the final date would be confirmed in 
an email circulated well in advance of the meet ing, and that additional meetings could  also be 
convened , as required.  
__________  
 
6 The Committee's final Annual Report (2021) was circulated as document  G/L/1406.