RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/50  
 
15 January 2020  
(20-0450) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 4  OCTOBER  2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MS  CAROL TSANG (HONG KO NG, CHINA)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifty-first meeting on 4  October  2019 under the 
chairpersonship of Ms  Carol Tsang (Hong Kong, China). The agenda proposed for the meeting was 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/10.  
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE  WITH NOTIFICATION O BLIGATIONS – DEVELOP MENTS 
SINCE THE LAST MEETI NG ................................ ................................ ..............................  2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS A ND REPLIES FROM MEMB ERS ON SPECIFIC TRAD E 
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  2 
2.1   Document G/LIC/Q/BRA/24  ................................ ................................ .........................  2 
2.2   Document G/LIC/Q/DOM/1  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.3   Document G/LIC/Q/GHA/4 and Document G/LIC/Q/GHA/3  ................................ ..............  3 
2.4   Document G/LIC/Q/MMR/1  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.5   Document G/LIC/Q/RUS/5  ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  4 
3.1   Notifications under Article 5.1 -5.4 ................................ ................................ ................  4 
3.2   Notifications under Article 7.3  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
4   BRAZIL – IMPORTATIO N OF NITROCELLULOSE FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPO SES  
IN BRAZIL – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  ................................ ......................  4 
5   CHINA – IMPORTATION  OF WASTE IN CHINA - STATEMENT BY THE EU ROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
6   THAILAND – IMPORTAT ION OF FEED WHEAT IN  THAILAND – STATEMEN T BY  
THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
7   INDIA – QUANTITATIV E RESTRICTIONS ON CE RTAIN PULSES – STATE MENT  
BY CANADA AND AUSTRA LIA ................................ ................................ ..........................  6 
8   MYANMAR – IMPORT LI CENSING REQUIREMENTS  FOR AGRICULTURAL  
PRODUCTS - STATEMENT  BY THE UNITED STATE S ................................ ..........................  8 
9   CHINA – CHANGE TO I MPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE  
MATERIALS - STATEMEN T BY THE UNITED STAT ES ................................ .........................  9 
10   GHANA – IMPORT LICE NSING REQUIREMENT FO R POULTRY PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
11   INDIA – IMPORT LICE NSING REQUIREMENT FO R BORIC ACID – STATE MENT  
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................  10 
12   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR  CELLPHONES, HANDHEL D 
COMPUTERS AND TABLET S – STATEMENT BY THE  UNITED STATES  ...............................  11 
13   IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROC EDURES OF THE  
AGREEMENT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  13 G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 2 - 
 
  14   DRAFT REPORT (2019)  OF THE COMMITTEE TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRA DE  
IN GOODS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  14 
15   DATE OF THE NEXT ME ETING  ................................ ................................ .................  14 
16   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 14 
 
 
1  MEMBERS ' COMPLIANCE WITH NOT IFICATION OBLIGATION S – DEVELOPMENTS SIN CE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that 36  notifications had been received under various 
provis ions of the Agreement since the Committee's previous formal meeting, of which 18 had been 
listed for consideration.  
1.2.  She indicated that new N/3  notifications had been received from the Russian Federation ; 
Chinese Taipei ; Japan ; Mauritius ; the United States ; Switzerland -Lichtenstein ; the Republic of 
Korea ; Cameroon ; Cuba; Ukraine ; and Hong Kong, China ; she also indicated that  new 
N/2 notifications had been received from Switzerland -Lichtenstein and Chinese Taipei. She pointed 
out that notifications submitted after the Airgram had been issued would be reviewed at the 
Committee's subsequent meeting.  
1.3.  On Members ' overall notification compliance, she observed that , as of 4 October  2019, 
14 Members had not yet submitted any notification under the Agreement since joining the WTO, 
namely , Belize, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea -Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Vanuatu, a nd Yemen. To date, 24  Members had not yet 
submitted any notification under Article  1.4(a) and 8.2(b), and 24  Members had not yet submitted 
any Replies to the Questionnaire under Article  7.3. She urged Members facing  capacity constraints 
to seek technical s upport from the Secretariat.  
1.4.  The Chairperson  emphasized that submitting replies to the Annual Questionnaire under 
Article  7.3 of the Agreement was an annual notification obligation for all Members ; however, to date 
only 18  Members had submitted their N/3 notifications for 2019. She encouraged Members that had 
not yet submitted their notification to do so as soon as possible.  
1.5.  The Committee took note of the Chairperson 's report.  
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
2.1  Document G/ LIC/Q/BRA/24  
2.1.  The representative of  the European Union  indicated that they would also address agenda item  4 
in their intervention . She reiterated the EU's concerns regarding the importation of industrial 
nitrocellulose in to Brazil and pointed out that Brazil had not yet provided its replies to the EU 's 
follow -up questions , submitted in May  2019 (G/LIC/Q/BRA/24).  
2.2.  The EU wished  to understand if the importers listed under the Brazilian law at issue 
(Article  34-B of Decree No. 9607 of 2018) were the only importers that could be authorized to import 
industrial nitrocellulose into Brazil. Furthermore, the EU wished to know if the Brazilian law permitted  
importation of industrial nitrocellulose by foreign companies, their representa tives, or local buyers , 
as a result of international commercial transaction s with a private party in Brazil. The EU looked 
forward to receiving detailed written replies  from Brazil  to its questions circulated in 
document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/24.  
2.3.  In response, the re presentative of Brazil  that Brazil's import and export regime for controlled 
and other products was currently being  updated. Adjustments had been made to Article  34 of Decree  
No. 9607 of 2018 , for example. She also clarified that Decree  No. 3665 of 2000 wa s relevant in this 
regard and should be read in conjunction with Decree  No. 9607 of 2018. Decree  No. 3665 of 2000 
was replaced by Decree  No. 9493 of 2018 . G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.  In view of Brazil's ongoing modernization of its regulations , which constituted the core of the 
EU's questions, she stated that Brazil was not yet able to provide a definitive answer. Her delegation 
would do so once the normative basis for that response had been defined. Brazil reiterate d that it 
did not differentiate betw een industrial and military nitrocellulose. Regardless of a product's nitrogen 
concentration, it posed a risk and constituted the basis for a production chain of ammunition, 
explosive s, and other defence products. Given these characteristics, Brazil consid ered the adoption 
of a regulation for controlling and monitoring trade in nitrocellulose to be a legitimate defensive 
trade instrument.  
2.2  Document G/LIC/Q/DOM/1  
2.5.  The representative of  the Dominican Republic  thanked the United States for its interest in 
unders tanding the Dominican Republic 's import licensing system in greater detail. She indicated that 
the questions from the United States contained in document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/1 had been sent back to 
Capital and that the Ministry of Agriculture was currently processing the request. A detailed reply 
would be prepared in due course . 
2.6.  The representative of  the United States  indicated that the United States looked forward to 
reviewing the Dominican Republic's written replie s soon.  
2.3  Document G/LIC/Q/GHA/4  and Document G/LIC/Q/GHA/3  
2.7.  The representative of  the United States  looked forward to receiving Ghana 's response s to its 
questions and indicated that his delegation would make a statement under agenda item  10. 
2.8.  The representati ve of Ghana  recalled that his delegation had provided Ghana's written replies 
to the United States at the Committee 's previous  meeting , held on 4  April 2019. It was his 
delegation 's view that the questions that had been raised by the United States in 
docum ent G/LIC/ Q/GHA/2 had been sufficiently clarified by Ghana's written responses. He informed 
the US  delegation that their new questions had been forwarded to the relevant authorities in Accra 
for action and that any feedback would be conveyed to them upon receipt. In the meantime, Ghana 
remained available for bilateral discussion s. 
2.4  Document G/LIC/Q/MMR/1   
2.9.  The representative of  the United States  indicated that the United States looked forward to 
receiving Myanmar's written responses and would elaborate further under agenda item  8. 
2.10.   The representative of Myanmar  thanked the United States for its interest in Myanmar 's import 
licensing regime , and for its questions raise d in document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/1. She pointed out that all 
questions had been conveyed to Capital for review. Myanmar would continue to work closely with 
the United States and other WTO  Members.  
2.5  Document G/LIC/Q/RUS/5  
2.11.   The representative of  the European Union  thanked the Russian Federation for its reply to the 
EU's questions and indicated that the EU did not have any further questions.  
2.12.   The Chairperson  indicated that the Secretariat would include the new "Q series " documents 
in document  G/LIC/W/51/Rev.2 , which would be circulated after the meeting.  
2.13.   In addition, t he representative of  the United States  expressed its interest in Egypt 's replies to 
questions posed by the EU in 2018 , in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/1. The United States was following 
the issue and requested a detailed written response to these questions to be circulated to the 
Committee as soon as possible.  
2.14.   The Committee took note  of the statement made.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Article 5 .1-5.4 
3.1.  Eight notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, from five  Members, were reviewed at the meeting, as 
follows: Hong Kong, China (document  G/LIC/N/2/HKG/13); Morocco (documents  G/LIC/N/2/MAR/2, 
G/LIC/N/2/MAR/ 3, and G/LIC/N/2/MAR/ 4); Russian Federation (documents  G/LIC/N/2/RUS/3 and 
G/LIC/N/2/RUS/ 4); Singapore (document  G/LIC/N/2/SGP/6); and Ukraine 
(document  G/LIC/N/2/UKR/8/Add.1).  
3.2.  The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
3.2  Notifications under Article 7.3  
3.3.  The Chairperson  noted that 10  notifications had been listed for consideration. 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.  
3.4.  The following notifications were reviewed: G/LIC/N/3/ARG/15 (Argentina, for 2019); 
G/LIC/N/3/AUS/11 and G/LIC/N/3/ AUS/12 (Australia, for 2018 and 2019); G/LIC/N/3/CAN/18 
(Canada, for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/EU/8 (European Union, for 2019); G/LIC/N/3/MAC/22 (Macao, China 
for 2019); G/LIC/N/3/MEX/6 (Mexico, for 2019); G/LIC/N/3/MNE/3 (Montenegro, for 2019); and 
G/LIC/N/3/PAN/9  and G/LIC/N/3/PAN/ 10 (Panama, for 2018 and 2019).  
3.5.  The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
4  BRAZIL – IMPORTATION  OF NITROCELLULOSE F OR INDUSTRIAL PURPOS ES IN BRAZIL 
– STATEMENT BY THE E UROPEAN UNION  
4.1.  Please refer to agenda item  2 for details of the dis cussion  of document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/24.  
5  CHINA – IMPORTATION OF WASTE IN CHINA - STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  
5.1.  The representative of the European Union  noted that the EU had submitted a set of detailed 
questions  to China,  in document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27, to seek further clarification from China regarding 
its annual notification of its import licensing policies on waste products. She emphasized that her 
delega tion had not yet received any reply from China and asked China when it intended to submit 
its replies . 
5.2.  In response, the representative of China  thanked the European Union  and other Members for 
expressing their interest in the importation of waste in China.  He stated that China attached great 
importance to the implementation of its transparency obligations. In 2017, China had notified to the 
TBT Committee the updated Catalogue of Solid Wastes Prohibited from Import. In January  2019, 
China had submitted to the Market Access Committee its Quantitative Restrictions notifications for 
2016-2018 and 2018 -2020. His delegation was currently working on its annual questionnaire on 
import licensing procedures and would accelerate  its work  with a view to notify ing its a nnual 
questionnaire  as soon as possible.  
5.3.  On the EU's concern s over the importation of waste in China, he indicated that China had 
established the Catalogue for imported solid waste , which set out that importing products listed in 
the "Catalogue of Solid Wa stes (that can be Used as Raw Materials) Restricted from Import " shall 
be subject to the examination and approval of competent authorities. "Administrative Measures for 
the Import of Solid Waste and the Regulations on the Environmental Protection of Solid Wastes (that 
can be Used as Raw Materials) Restricted from Import " detailed the requirements for enterprises 
applying for the importation of solid waste, including the documents, procedures , and time 
requirements for applications.  
5.4.  According to the law, an enterprise applying for an import licence shall be a solid waste 
processing enterprise, and an enterprise legal person established in accordance with the law that 
shall not entrust other companies to import. The import licence was effective in the current year and 
should be used within its period of validity. For specific requirements, he encouraged interested G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 5 - 
 
  parties to check the above­mentioned legislation. In addition, he clarified that , to import solid waste 
listed in the "Catalogue of Solid Wastes (that can be Used as Raw Materials) Unrestricted from 
Import " did not require an import licence . 
5.5.  The representative of the United States  expressed a similar interest in China 's replies to the 
EU's questions. He indicated that the US wo uld cover this item broadly again under agenda item 9, 
although his delegation did thank China for its updates. He urged China to complete its replies to 
the annual questionnaire and to continue to meet its transparency obligations under this Committee.  
5.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  THAILAND – IMPORTATI ON OF FEED WHEAT IN THAILAND – STATEMENT  BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  
6.1.  The representative of the European Union  noted that Thailand had not submitted any annual 
notification of its import licensing procedures since 2013. The EU strongly encourage d Thailand to 
comply with its notification requirements and wished to understand the reasons for the delay  in this 
regard . 
6.2.  She reiterated the EU's concern over Thailand 's import procedures for feed wheat and asked  
why these had not been notified , in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import Licensing 
Agreement. She also reminded Thailand that no written replies had yet been received to the 
EU's written questions , circulated in documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4.  
6.3.  The EU reiterated its interest in understanding on what basis the measure, announced as 
temporary, could be so long maintained , and when it would cease to apply. The EU wished to receive 
a detailed  description of the import licensing procedures to be applied.  
6.4.  The EU also repeated its request to receive the relevant data on the actual situation of the 
market of corn in Thailand in order to better understand Thailand 's justification of the measure. 
Based on the information gathered  by the EU , the average domestic prices in 2019 had been 
stabilized at the reference price despite a significant expansion in corn output (as induced by the 
support programme) and a significant increase in corn imports in 2019 (+340%  as of August  2019). 
6.5.  As indicated in its written questions, the EU had understood that Thailand had launched a 
support programme for corn production in September  2018 in order to provide incentives to rice 
farmers to divert their farming  to corn during the drought period , and to fill the gap between 
domestic demand for corn (8  million  metric tonnes ) and domestic production (5  million  metric 
tonnes ). The programme provided both financial support (minimum price guarantee ; crop insurance 
premium subsidies; and soft loans for inputs and management 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, Thailand's support programme appe ared to contradict the 
alleged market oversupply of domestic corn ; the EU therefore requested Thailand to clarify how its 
government support for the expansion of corn production could be reconciled with this alleged 
market oversupply of domestic corn.  
6.6.  The EU noted that the above -mentioned  support programme had ended in September  2019 
and asked Thai land if it planned to extend that programme or to introduce a new but similar support 
programme for corn?  
6.7.  Furthermore, the EU understood that the farm gate pr ice of corn in the first  half of 2019 had 
substantially improved and exceeded the reference price (8.06  Baht/Kg). In this case, the EU was 
of the view that there was no reason to maintain the measure.  
6.8.  Setting aside the market situation , the EU had signifi cant concern s over the WTO  compatibility 
of Thailand 's import licensing regime for feed wheat.  
6.9.  The EU looked forward to receiving detailed written replies to its questions circulated in 
documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 6 - 
 
  6.10.   The representative of the United States  shared the EU's concerns over Thailand 's lack of 
notification and its import licensing procedures for feed wheat. He urged  Thailand to notify the  
measure in question and also to complete its annual questionnaire in order to meet its transparen cy 
obligations under the Committee.  
6.11.   The representative of Canada  supported the EU's statement and encouraged Thailand to 
comply with its notification requirements under Article  1.4 and Article  5 of the Import Licensing  
Agreement. He expressed Canada's continued interest in Thailand 's import licensing procedures and 
requirements for agricultural products . At the same time, Canada encouraged all WTO  Members to 
enhance transparency through notifications.  
6.12.   In response, the r epresentative of Thailand  indicated that all Members' questions and 
concerns had been conveyed to Capital and were currently being reviewed . He looked forward to 
providing further clarification and additional responses as soon as possible.  
6.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTIONS ON CER TAIN PULSES – STATEM ENT BY CANADA 
AND AUSTRALIA  
7.1.  The representative of Canada  stated that , as the largest supplier of pulses to India, Canada 
had been the Member most negatively affecte d by India 's measures to limit the import of pulses. 
Pulses were an important source of protein for many Indian consumers and Canada had been a high 
quality and reliable supplier.  
7.2.  His delegation was disappointed that India continued to apply quantitative r estriction s on 
import s of dried peas and other pulses. He recalled that Canada had previously expressed its views 
on the WTO -consistency of these measures. In addition , he noted that India now appeared to be 
using arbitrary administrative rules as a means of further reducing predictable access to the Indian 
market for pulses.  
7.3.  He also noted that , on 11 September  2019,  the Government of India had suddenly announced 
that shipments of those pulses subject to quantitative restrictions must arrive at an Indian po rt at 
the latest by 1 October  2019. India had not published the quantity of pulses to be imported under 
the quantitative restrictions ; it was therefore impossible to determine if the quotas had been filled. 
He considered that there existed a number of valid commercial or logistical factors that could cause 
a shipment to arrive after the date set. In this regard , India's  refusal to consider provi ding its 
importers with an extension beyond what appeared to be an arbitrary deadline was unnecessarily 
rigid and disruptive.  
7.4.  In addition, the notice of 30 September  2019 had indicated that importers whose shipments 
did not arrive at an Indian port by 10 October  "may be debarred for allotment of quota of pulses in 
future ". Canada again noted that there existed a number of valid commercial or logistical factors 
that could result in the arrival of these shipments at an Indian port after the date  prescribed . 
7.5.  Canada was disappointed that India was still finding creative ways to restrict the trade in 
pulses.  
7.6.  He reiterated  that India 's restriction on import s of pulses was an ongoing concern. Canada and 
Australia had been raising this issue for more than two  years.  Nevertheless , India had yet to provide 
clear information as to the GATT or WTO  basis for these quantitative restrictions , either in this 
Committee or other s where Canada had previously raised this issue.  
7.7.  Canada questioned the validity of  India's rationale  in its response to the questionnaire on 
import licensing (document  G/LIC/N/3/IND/18, 17  January  2019), in which India had specified that 
its import restriction was maintained on grounds of protection of human health or safety, animal or 
plant life or heal th, and security and the environment. Moreover, India had not responded to 
Canada 's request to clarify how its stated objectives were being advanced through India 's 
quantitative restrictions on dried peas and other pulses , and why less trade -distorting approaches 
had not also been considered.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 7 - 
 
  7.8.  He emphasized that the elimination of quantitative restrictions was a fundamental principle of 
both the GATT and the WTO , and he again asked India to specify the GATT or WTO  legal basi s for 
its measure.  
7.9.  Canada reiterated its call upon India immediately and expeditiously to review its 
trade -restrictive measures on pulses and , in their place,  to consider alternative and WTO -consistent 
policy options that would promote a predictable and tr ansparent import regime for pulses.  
7.10.   The representative of Australia  stated that Australia 's long -held concerns over India's 
restrictive measures on pulses imports, in particular India's imposition of quantitative restrictions  
were well known to Members . He recalled that Australia had raised its concerns with India in bilateral 
and plurilateral meetings , including at the highest level, as well as in every relevant Committee in 
Geneva over the period of the preceding two years.  
7.11.   He argued that , as the world 's largest consumer of pulses, India 's pulses imports had a direct 
impact on the global pulses market, as well as on the planting decisions of farmers and the 
sustainability of pulses production globally.  
7.12.   Indeed, Australia was increasingly concerned that Indi a's measures on pulses had already 
affected global planting decisions , meaning that India, too,  might in future years find itself short of 
supply as global pulses producers might not prove able to adapt sufficiently quickly to supply India, 
and the rest of  the world, with the pulses it needed. He warned that this could be calamitous for 
India and its consumers , and reiterated that Australia wished to avoid such instability and 
uncertainty.  
7.13.   His delegation welcomed India 's announcement , on 3 July 2019,  to increase the volume of 
the QR on pigeon peas (from 200,000 to 400,000  metric tonnes ); nevertheless, India had still to 
explain the WTO -basis for all of its QRs , and it had still not addressed Australia 's overall concerns. 
Furthermore, Australia was con cerned that the adjustment in India's QRs indicated that India was 
using its QRs as an ongoing means of managing its imports, which was inconsistent with its 
WTO obligations.  
7.14.   In this regard, he requested that India explain  the following : (1) the WTO  basis for the 
application of these QRs ; (2) how these measures were 'temporary ', noting that the QRs had been 
in place for more than two  years for some varieties ; and (3) why the announcement of these 
restrictive measures had not been accompanied by information on licensing procedures to ensure 
that traders could access the quotas from the date of their implementation . On the latter point, he 
referred to India 's Trade Notice No. 06/2019 -2020, concerning a range of licensing procedures, 
which had been published on  16 April 2019, more than two  weeks after the implementation date of 
the restrictions of 1  April 2019.  
7.15.   The representative of  the United States  shared Australia and Canada 's concerns regarding 
India's import licensing requirements for selected varieties of pulses. In particular, the US wished to 
understand the rationale behind the 31  October  2019 deadline . In conclusion, he urged India to 
consider the least trade restrictive measures for pulses.  
7.16.   The r epresentative of the European Union  noted that the EU shared the concerns expressed 
by other Members  regarding India 's pulse import s policy, especially on India 's quantitative import 
restrictions and its sudden increases on import duties. The EU was concer ned about the effect of 
these measures on pulse crop markets. She recalled that this issue had already been raised in the 
Committee on Agriculture , as well as in the Council for Trade in Goods, but that only a limited 
response from India had been received so far. She encouraged India to explain the rationale behind 
its measures.  
7.17.   In response, the representative of India recalled that this issue had been raised in recent and 
past meetings of the CTG, the Market Access Committee , and the Committee on Agriculture. He 
would not repeat India's  previous comments on this issue.  However, India had been reviewing the 
market situ ation of pulses regularly, owing to which, the total quota for pulses, namely toor, mung, 
urad, and peas, had been increased from 600,000  metric tonnes for the financial year 2018 -2019, 
to 650,000  metric tonnes for the financial year 2019 -2020. Furthermore , the quota for 2019 -2020 
had been recently increased further, by an additional 200,000  metric tonnes, taking the total quota G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 8 - 
 
  for the financial year 2019 -2020 to 850,000  metric tonnes. The Director General of Foreign Trade 
for India has also laid down the procedures for these quotas. Moreover, despite such quantitative 
restrictions, substantial imports had been  allowed on account of court orders and, as a result of that, 
the actual import of pulses during the financial year 2018 -2019 had been more than thre e times the 
quota of 650,000  metric tonnes for that financial year.  In conclusion, India stated that it would 
address any further enquiry on this issue in the appropriate committee.  
7.18.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  MYANMAR – IMPORT LIC ENSING  REQUIREMENTS FOR AG RICULTURAL PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
8.1.  The representative of the United States  thanked Myanmar for its recent notification to the 
Committee on Import Licensing. He said that he also looked forward to reviewing Myanmar's future 
notifications, including Myanmar 's replies to the Annual Questionnaire for 2019. His delegation hoped 
that this pending notification would clarify  many of the issues under discussion.  
8.2.  Although pleased with Myanmar 's recent progress in this  Committee, the US still had a number 
of concerns about the substance of Myanmar 's recent notifications , circulated as 
documents  G/LIC/N/1/MMR/1  and G/LIC/N/2/MMR/1 . 
8.3.  He indicated that the US  government had received reports from stakeholders suggesting that  
Myanmar had restricted the importation of certain agricultural products through operating its 
licensing regime at its discretion and in a non -transparent manner. These concerns included reports 
of unofficial and unpublished quotas, bans, and other restric tions on various agricultural product 
imports. There were also reports that import permits had been denied on a verbal basis without any 
written notification.  
8.4.  The United States recently submitted questions concerning Myanmar 's Export and Import Law , 
circul ated as document  G/LIC/Q/MMR/1. Chapter  3 of this law stated that the Ministry of Commerce 
might determine "the restricted goods, prohibited goods and banned goods for export and import ", 
as well as issue ''permits and determine conditions relating to perm it for export and import goods ". 
8.5.  He observed that , in addition to what was specified under this law, the US understood that 
"sensitive " products must also be approved for import permit by the Ministry of Commerce 's (MOC) 
Economic Committee.  
8.6.  He recalled tha t, on multiple occasions during the previous two years , the United States had 
attempted to engage with Myanmar to request greater transparency regarding import permits , as 
well as a list of products that Myanmar deemed to be "sensitive " and therefore not eligible for import 
permits. To date, the US had not received any response to its concerns. Therefore , he asked 
Myanmar to clarify where the "sensitive " product list cou ld be found in Myanmar 's regulations , and 
if Myanmar planned to notify this "sensitive " product list to the Committee for its review and further 
analysis.  
8.7.  In addition , the United States wished to develop a clearer understanding of the composition 
and admin istrative processes of the MOC  Economic Committee ; to this end, his delegation had asked 
Myanmar to provide further detail about the MOC  Economic Committee 's organization structure and 
its role in granting licences , as well as a detailed explanation of the  process for appealing decisions 
that denied import permits.  
8.8.  The representative of Canada  echoed the US  questions to Myanmar concerning its import 
licensing regime. Canada looked forward to the replies to these questions to better understand 
Myanmar 's impo rt licensing regime , notified in March  2019, some of which covered agricultural 
products.  
8.9.  In response, the representative of Myanmar  thanked the United States and Canada for their 
interest in Myanmar 's import licensing regime. She highlighted that , as an L DC, Myanmar faced 
many capacity constraints although it had tried its best to fulfil its WTO notification obligations. The 
additional questions would be conveyed to Capital for further review.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 9 - 
 
  8.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  CHINA – CHANGE TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE  MATERIALS - 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
9.1.  The representative of the United States  noted that the US had significant concerns about the 
changes to its import licensing regime concerning China 's implementation of its existing import ban 
on certain plastic and paper scrap , and its plans to expand that ban to other recyclable materials. 
The US also had concerns over the apparent differences between the requirements for foreign and 
domestic commodi ties. 
9.2.  He argued that these abrupt restrictions and bans had left US  recyclers without a viable 
alternative processing capacity. The global shortfall in processing capacity had also caused the 
decline and , in some cases, collapse in prices for certain recyc lable materials. The pervasive market 
instability engendered by China 's measures had led to a halt in recycling among US  municipal 
recycling program mes, resulting in the incineration or landfill disposal of otherwise saleable 
commodities.  
9.3.  He recalled that his delegation had raised the issue of certain recyclable materials at several 
previous meetings of the Committee, and asked China to notify to the Committee any changes to 
its import licensing regime. Indeed, the US considered it regrettable that  China ha d yet to provide 
sufficient information about its current licensing procedures , and any planned changes , to alleviate 
their concerns.  
9.4.  He asked if China had considered adopting less trade -restrictive alternatives . He also asked 
China to explain its new impo rt licensing requirements and to indicate when it would notify these 
changes to the Committee. In conclusion , he encouraged China, with regard to any new import 
measures,  to adhere to its notification obligations under the Agreement in a timely manner . 
9.5.  The representative of the European Union  referred to their intervention under agenda  item 5 
and looked forward to receiving China 's response s in writing.  
9.6.  The representative of Canada  shared the US and EU  concerns regarding the uncertainty and 
disruptions that  China 's restrictions and burdensome licensing requirements had imposed on the 
import of solid waste. He emphasized that Canada did not wish to dispute China 's goal of limiting 
harmful environmental impacts resulting from contaminated waste material. Howev er, Canada 
encouraged China to consider different and less trade -restrictive mechanisms to address this specific 
problem , while ensuring that mutually beneficial trade in recycled products could continue in a 
predictable manner.  
9.7.  In response, the representa tive of China  stated that solid waste possessed inherent polluting 
attributes that made it different from other goods. China had suffered from the pollution from solid 
wastes imported from other countries for decades. As a developing country , and the country with 
the largest population, and given China's need to deal with its great challenges in addressing 
environment al pollution, it was imperative for China to implement measures to limit the negative 
effect s of solid waste.  
9.8.  Furthermore, he  argued that , according to the Basel Convention and other internationally 
accepted principles, every country had the obligation appropriately to handle and dispose of its 
domestically -produced solid waste. For a long time, China had suffered because of the con sequences 
of imported solid waste , while exporting enterprises in other countries had enjoyed enormous 
economic benefit. China hoped that waste -exporting countries would now actively shoulder their 
international responsibilities to handle and to dispose of their own solid waste  materials . 
9.9.  He stated that , in the course of the adjustment process of its relevant policies, China had taken 
all factors fully into  consideration , including China's obligations under the WTO , as stated at previous 
meetings. Regarding  notification obligations, he reiterated that China had notified its relevant 
measures both to the Market Access Committee , and to the TBT Committee , and that they would 
notify other relevant measures as required by the WTO Agreements.  
9.10.   The Committee took n ote of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 10 - 
 
  10  GHANA – IMPORT LICEN SING REQUIREMENT FOR  POULTRY PRODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
10.1.   The representative of the United States  stated that the US continued to seek clarity regarding 
the purpose and scope of Ghana 's import permit procedures for poultry products, which had the 
negative effect of periodically restricting the quantity of poultry imports into the country.  
10.2.   His delegati on wished to understand the rationale behind some of the requirement s relating  
to the importation of poultry products ; in this regard, he requested Ghana to provide to the 
Committee for further review the relevant legislation outlining the requirement s and process for 
granting import permits.  
10.3.   He acknowledged Ghana's  written responses provided by Ghana in April  2019 and its replies 
given at previous meeting s, nevertheless, these answers did not resolve US  concerns. For this 
reason, the US had recently submitted follow -up questions , in document  G/LIC/Q/GHA/4.  
10.4.   He also acknowledged Ghana 's request to engage initially in bilateral discussions to address 
issues before bringing the m to the Committee. In this regard, he recalled that the US had engage d 
with Ghana bilaterally on several occasions, going as far back as to 2015. One such engagement , in 
September  2015, had focused specifically on expanding Ghana 's understanding of its 
WTO obligations in the area of import licensing.  
10.5.   He understood that, according to Ghana 's responses to the Committee, the permit 
requirement was a means for addressing SPS  concerns. However, in practice , these permits were 
used as a tool to regulate the quantity of poultry imported to supplement any difference between 
domestic demand and domestic supply.  
10.6.   Regardless of the ir intended  purpose, his delegation wished to highlight that ILPs were 
inextricably linked to other WTO  disciplines ; for example, in addition to gathering statistical 
information and operating TRQs, import licensing procedures served administratively to facilitate 
other purposes , such as the protection of plant and animal health and consumer protection. 
Therefore, the US urged Ghana to notify the Committee of its import licensing requi rements 
associated with poultry products , if any . 
10.7.   The US delegation looked forward to receiving Ghana 's responses to its follow -up questions 
and also invited Ghana to engage in further bilateral discussions.  
10.8.   In response, the representative of Ghana  thanked  the United States for its interest in Ghana's 
trade policy practices. He recalled that Ghana had provided its written response to the US  questions 
at the Committee 's April  meeting. He regretted to learn that Ghana 's replies had not been 
considered, from t he US  perspective , as sufficient . 
10.9.   He informed the US  delegation that its most recent set of questions had been forwarded to 
the relevant authorities in Accra and assured the US that any responses received would be 
immediately conveyed to them. He reiterate d that the US remained a very important trading partner 
for Ghana,  both at the bilateral level and within the multilateral context. Therefore, Ghana remained 
available to discuss these concerns bilateral ly, with a view to bring ing them to a conclusion.  
10.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  INDIA – IMPORT LICEN SING REQUIREMENT FOR  BORIC ACID – STATEM ENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
11.1.   The representative of the United States  recalled that the US had long been concerned about 
India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, in particular with regard to the burdensome 
end-use certificates necessary for importation.  
11.2.   The US concerns had begun over a decade before , 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. " This rule required an importer of non -insecticidal b oric acid to G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 11 - 
 
  indicate the precise end -use of a product prior to its importation as well as to provide the historical 
import and production data of the finished product. This information was subject to a formal 
government review process.  
11.3.   Furthermore, he  highlighted that Indian importers had expressed frustration over the fact 
that, on their import licensing applications , they were required to supply information on past 
consumption of boric acid and production of the finished product, although such informatio n was 
often unavailable to importers. His delegation continued to request that India explain why boric acid, 
which had a toxicity level roughly equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide that 
required an import permit for non -insecticidal u se, considering its low toxicity level compared to 
other insecticides that were not required to obtain an import permit.  
11.4.   The United States also expressed concern over India's Bureau of Indian Standards (Boric Acid 
Quality Control Order) , published on 19 May 2019. He argued that this measure appeared to  add 
additional and burdensome requirements before an import licence could be granted. Therefore , the 
US encouraged India to notify this measure both to this Committee and to the Committee on 
Technical Barrier s to Trade.  
11.5.   In conclusion , he request ed India to amend Schedule -I (Imports) of the ITC (HS) 
Classifications of Export and Import Items to eliminate the import permit requirement for imports of 
boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes. The US hoped that their recent bilateral negotiations with 
India would result in a mutually beneficial resolution.  
11.6.   In response, the representative of India reiterated that India had already submitted its written 
replies , in document s 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 the issues relating to its 
implementation.  
11.7.   In this context, he stated that , for non -insecticidal use also domestic manufacture rs of boric 
acid were required to submit their annual production and other relevant information. Imports of 
boric acid intended for identical non -insecticidal use were exempted from the registration 
requirements.  
11.8.   In ad dition, he  clarified that , during the period from June 2018 until April 2019,  the 
insecticidal board and the registration committee had reviewed 29  requests and issued 25  import 
permits for import of boric acid for non -insecticidal use. Moreover, various m ultiuse chemicals were 
listed in Schedule  I to India's Insecticide Act 1968 ; not only boric acid but also all other multiuse 
insecticides had been made  subject to similar regulatory measures.  
11.9.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  INDONESIA – IMPO RT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELLPHONES, HAND HELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS – STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  
12.1.   The representative of  the United States  reiterated US  long-standing and serious concerns over 
Indonesia's  import licensing regime and , in particular , its measures on cellphones, handheld 
computers , and tablets. He recalled that the US and other Members had been raising this issue since 
2013, both at the Committee and bilaterally , and he regretted that his del egation had to raise the 
issue again.  
12.2.   He recalled that, in its previous questions to Indonesia, the US had sought clarification 
regarding the specific requirement s in Indonesia 's import licensing regime and the ir overall rationale. 
While the US acknowledge d the responses provided by Indonesia in May  2017, those responses did 
not resolve US  concerns over Indonesia's import licensing requirements ; furthermore, in some 
instances they had not sufficiently address ed the questions that had been asked.  
12.3.   The United States continued to seek an explanation from Indonesia of why its import licensing 
requirements on 3G and 4G  technology were different. Indonesia had confirmed that the two  types 
of products were treated differently but had not explain ed the rationale behind this difference in 
treatment. For this reason, the US once again requested Indonesia to clarify its rationale.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 12 - 
 
  12.4.   In addition, the US continued to seek to understand why Indonesia required both a general 
licence to import , which divided companies into those that import ed for further processing (APIP) 
and those that import ed finished products (APIU) , as well as a separate licence for specific products , 
in this case 4G  LTE products , including a requirement to obtain a recomme ndation from a specific 
ministry with regulatory responsibility.  
12.5.   To the United States,  it remained unclear if domestic companies were subject to equivalent 
requirements to those imposed upon importers  or not;  for example, there appeared to be a different 
requirement for domestic companies regarding the use of distributors. The US had requested the 
relevant Indonesian authority to identify any similar requirements for its domestic producers ; 
however, Indonesia had not yet provided any specific information in this regard . 
12.6.   His understanding was that Indonesia 's regulation imposed a number of additional 
requirements for obtaining certifications prior to obtaining an import licence. Based on Indonesia 's 
response s to date, it appeared that Indonesia 's system favou red imports intended for further 
processing compared to imports of finished products.  
12.7.   The US continued to question if Indonesia's import licensing regime was consistent with 
WTO principles in general , as well as how its requirements could be considered as being no more 
administratively burdensome than necessary. He reiterated the seriousness of the issue and noted 
that the proliferation of burdensome import licensing measures in Indonesia –particular ly those that 
mandate d the purchase of local goods –had a negative impact on Indonesia 's reputation among 
investors.  
12.8.   He informed the Committee that , in their recent engagement with Indonesia in Washington 
and Jakarta, Indonesia had stated that it intended to undertake a comprehensive review of the local 
content r equirements attached to its import licensing regime for 4G  products. The US welcomed this 
comprehensive review and requested the Indonesian delegation to provide an update to the 
Committee on its status, including the time-frame of any amendment.  
12.9.   He appreciated the fact that Indonesia had already notified some of these measures to the 
Committee. Nevertheless , the US again urged Indonesia to notify all of the associated measures, 
including Ministry of Industry Regulations  108/2012, 68/2016, and 29/2017 , 
KOMINFO  Regulations  7/2018 and 16/2018 , and KOMINFO Circular Letter  518/2017.  
12.10.   The representative of the European Union  shared the concerns expressed by the US. She 
noted that the EU wished to have  more information regarding Indonesia's  requirement s for the 
importation of cellphone s and handheld tablets  and she encouraged Indonesia t o notify all its 
measures to the Committee.  
12.11.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  referred to their statements made at previous 
meetings regarding the rationale behind its policy. He referred to several related regulations , 
including the Ministry of  Trade Regulation No.  82/2012 and its amendments ( the most recent version 
being the Ministry of Trade Regulation No.  41/2016 ), and the relevant Ministry Regulations of the 
Industry and Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (KOMINFO) , and not ed that 
these regulations indicated that Indonesia's policy was intended to protect Indonesian consumer s 
by ensuring that all products met certain standard s, technical regulation s, and labelling 
requirements.  
12.12.   He highlighted that the policy provided for a transparent, simple , and fast process for import 
approval s. The submission of an application for import approval was now processed electronically 
and application approval was quick when the documents submitted were complete and correct. He 
noted that all of the relevant regulations could be easily accessed on the relevant Ministries ' 
websites. For example, the website of the Ministry of Trade ( https://jdih.kemendag.go .id/) provided 
all MoT  regulations, including MoT  Regulation No.  48/2014, which was also available in an official 
translation in to English. In conclusion, he indicated that his delegation stood ready to engage in 
further discussions with the US and the EU bilaterally on this matter.  
12.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 13 - 
 
  13  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT  
13.1.   The Chairperson  emphasized that improving transparency had been an important focus of the 
Committee 's work. In pa rticular, she thanked her predecessor and the Secretariat for having 
introduced  a form for notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, Article  1.4(a) , and Article  8.2(b), for 
Members to use on a voluntary basis. This form had helped Members to better understand t heir 
notification obligations under the Agreement and to facilitate the notification process. She hoped 
that Members would continue to reflect on how the Committee could improve Members' notification 
performance.  
13.2.   She reported that at the Committee's informal meeting of 18 September  2019, Members had 
shared their views on various aspects of the Committee 's work, including with regard to possible 
ways to improve notification performance, and to develop the Import Lic ensing website. An informal 
note from the Chair had been circulated on 27  September  2019 in the interests of transparency . She 
considered this informal meeting to have been a useful starting point and now sought further views 
and suggestions from Members.  
13.3.   She also considered it positive that the 31  participants in the Import  Licensing workshop had 
been invited to attend the meeting and hoped that the knowledge that they had acquired would 
enable them to enhance transparency in their countries in the area of  import licensing. She also 
thanked them for their valuable comments regarding the challenges encountered in preparing 
notification obligations, including in respect of their complexity, the lack of trained personnel, the 
difficult coordination among agenc ies, and the inadequate awareness in Capitals of Members' 
notification obligation s. The Committee would take note of these factors when considering its future 
work.  
13.4.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked  the WTO  Secretariat for conducting a workshop 
on import licensing in Chinese Taipei in June  2019. He reported that the participants , representing 
many of the ministries concerned, had greatly benefited from this well -organized, informative , and 
interactive worksho p. The workshop had provided an opportunity for participants to discuss very 
technical questions directly with the experts in order to develop a clearer understanding of Chinese 
Taipei's obligation s under the Import Licensing Agreement. His delegation had very much 
appreciated the work of the WTO  Secretariat in this regard , and he encouraged other Members also 
to take advantage of the technical assistance opportunities  available . 
13.5.   His delegation shared the view that transparency was one of the fundamental pr inciple s of 
the multilateral trading system , and Chinese Taipei subsequently attached great importance to 
maintain ing its  good record on notification compliance. In this regard, he informed the Committee 
that Chinese Taipei had submitted its reply to the S ecretariat on 3  October  2019 to the annual 
questionnaire for 2019 ; this would be circulated to Members soon.  
13.6.   The representative of Japan  noted that transparency was the basis for all work in the regular 
bodies of this Organization . For this reason, Japan appreciated the Chair and the Secretariat 's hard 
work to wards  streamlining the notification formats .   In addition, he stated that it would be beneficial 
to reduce unnecessary cost s relating to notifications.  
13.7.   In conclusion, Japan looked forward to engaging in further discussions with a view to finding 
a good way to achieve efficiency, while keeping in mind that substance also mattered . 
13.8.   The representative of the European Union  welcomed the Chair 's commitment to improving 
the Committee 's work , and noted that the EU stood ready to engage in constructive cooperation with 
other Members in order to make the Committee 's work more efficient.  
13.9.   She also noted that only a few Members had been actively participating in the Committee 's 
work so far. However, she would welcome all Members ' active participation in the future. To this 
end, she encouraged greater compliance with notification obligations and timely responses to 
questions raised by other Member s within the Committee. The EU support ed informal small group 
consultations to discuss how best to improve the Committee 's functioning . 
13.10.   The representative of Colombia  encouraged Members to use the new N/2  notification form 
when submit ting their notifications : the new format was simple and easy  to use. Colombia was G/LIC/M/50  
 
- 14 - 
 
  pleased with the recent informal meeting, which had provided Members with some useful new 
elements for reflection and action in the area of improving transparency and notifications.  
13.11.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chairperson  for the work that had been done on 
review ing the functioning of the Committee. Canada fully supported this effort and stood willing to 
engage in discussions with other Members with a view to streamlining their notification format while 
maintaining its substance.  
13.12.   The representative of  the United States  was also pleased with the successful Geneva 
workshop that had been organized by the Secretariat. The US delegation encouraged future events 
of this type , in Geneva  and in Capital s. The US was also interested in continuing the discussion on 
how to improve notification compliance and transparency in the Committee and how to improve the 
participation of Members in its regular work.  
13.13.   The Committee took note  of the statem ents made.  
14  DRAFT REPORT (2019) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS  
14.1.   The Committee adopted  the draft report (2019) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in 
Goods (G/LIC/W/52).  
15  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
15.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee  that to facilitate Members ' preparation of work in 
2020, 1 April 2020 and 2 October  2020 had been reserved tentatively as the dates of the 
Committee 's formal meetings next year, on the understanding that final dates would be confirmed 
by email  before the meeting . 
16  OTHER BUSINESS  
16.1.   The Committee elected  Mr Gregory MacDonald (Canada) as the Vice -Chairperson of the 
Committee, based on a proposal by the Chairperson.  
__________