RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/55  
 
22 December  2022 
(22-9726) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7 OCTOBER  2022 
CHAIRPERSON: MR LOH JIA JIE  (SINGAPORE ) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifty -sixth meeting on 7 October  2022 under the  
chairpersonship of Mr LOH Jia Jie  (Singapore ). The  agenda proposed for the meeting was circulated 
in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/ 15. 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS: DEVELOPMENTS 
SINCE THE LAST MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..............................  2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE 
CONCERNS (G/LIC/W/51/REV.7)  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
2.1   Documents  G/LIC/Q/PHL/8 and G/LIC/Q/PHL/9  ................................ ..............................  3 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/47  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/48  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/49  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  3 
3.1   Notifi cations under Article  1.4(a), Article  5.1-5.4 and Article  8.2(b) of the Agreement  .........  3 
3.2   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the A greement  ................................ .............................  4 
4   ANGOLA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  7 
5   EGYPT: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ .. 8 
6   INDIA: IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION, INDONESIA, JAPAN AND THAILAND  ................................ .................  9 
7   INDONESIA: COMMODITY BALANCING MECHANISM – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  11 
8   INDONESIA: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY IMPORTERS OF STEEL PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 
9   INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILES PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  ................................ ....................  12 
10   INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS – STATEMENT BY 
JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  13 
11   THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF WHEAT FEED – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  13 
12   IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE  
AGREEMENT – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ..............................  14 
12.1   eAgenda  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  14 
12.2   Online N/2  Notifications  ................................ ................................ ...........................  15 
12.3   N/3 Questionnaire  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 2 - 
 
  12.4   Import Licensing Notification Workshop  ................................ ................................ ..... 16 
12.5   E-Commerce  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  16 
12.6   Experience -Sharing on Import Licensing Procedures  ................................ ....................  17 
13   FOURTEENTH BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION  
OF THE AGREEMENT (G/LIC/W/57)  ................................ ................................ ..............  17 
14   DRAFT REPORT (2022) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  
GOODS (G/LIC/W/56)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 17 
15   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .................  17 
16   APPOINTMENT OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ . 18 
17   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 
 
_______________  
 
 
The Chairperson  proposed  the adoption of  the agenda for this meeting , contained in 
document  WTO/AIR/LIC/1 5. 
The representative of the European Union  indicated that the EU wished to raise an issue under Other 
Business regarding the Dominican Republic's draft legislation on a new import licensing system.  
The agenda was adopted  with the proposed change . 
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 
47 notifications had been received under various provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement since 
the Committee's previous m eeting, 27 of which had been listed in the Airgram for consideration at 
that day's meeting. In addition , 20 notifications 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 noted that 14 notifications under Articles  1.4(a), 8.2(b) and 5.1 -5.4 had been 
submitted  since the Committee 's previous  meeting.  Twelve  of these notifications had been  submitted 
using the revised N/2 notification  form contained in document  G/LIC/28 to notify new import 
licensing regulations or changes thereof.  He remind ed delegations that Members were required  to 
notify their import licensing regulations and changes to those regulations within 60  days of their 
publication.  
1.3.  Thirteen  N/3 notifications had been  submitted under Article  7.3 of the Agreement since the 
Committee 's previous  meeting. The Chairperson thanked all those Members that had provided 
notifications for th eir efforts and dedication.  In addition, he  recall ed that submitting replies to the 
annual questionnaire before 30  September each year was an annual obligation for all Members. As of 
that day's meeting , 19 Members had submitted their replies to the questio nnaire for 2022, and only 
41 for the year  2021. He further noted that 21 Members had never  submitted any reply to the 
questionnaire  and that 13 Members had never  submitted any notification under the Import Licensing  
Agreement since joining the WTO. He encourage d those  Members to notify and to contact the 
Secretariat for technical assistance.  
1.4.  The Chairperson noted that Members in the Committee and the Secretariat ha d undertaken 
and were going to  undertake several init iatives to improve the record of notification compliance. For 
example , from 27 to 29  September  2022, the Secretariat held a workshop on import licensing and 
notification  requirements . The purpose of this workshop was to  enhance participants' understanding  
of import licensing procedures and notifications and to train them in how to fulfil the different types 
of notification requirements under the Agreement. The activity was held in two  WTO official 
languages, English and Spanish. It had previously been held in person in the years 2017, 2018 , and 
2019, and in remote mode in the years 2021 and in 2022 . G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.5.  The Chairperson stated that, while  the Secretariat was always available to engage in this type 
of activity , he was also  seeking guidance from Members in the Committee on how to ensure 
Members' full compliance with their notification obligations under the Agreement.  
1.6.  The Committee took note . 
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
(G/LIC/W/51/REV.7)  
2.1  Documents  G/LIC/Q/PHL/8 and G /LIC/Q/PHL/9  
2.1.  The representative of the United States  noted with appreciation that earlier that day the US 
had received a paper copy of the Philippines ' replies to the United States'  follow -up questions. He 
would transmit these ans wers to Capital for review and follow -up. 
2.2.  The representative of the Philippines  thank ed the United States for its patience and  indicated 
that its replies had also been formally notified to the Committee for circulation later that day.  
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/ IDN/47 
2.3.  The representative of Indonesia  thanked Japan for its interest in Indonesia 's import regulations 
and stated that his delegation had  provided its replies to Japan's questions in  
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/47.  He added that his delegation had taken note of Japan's comments and 
questions  and would convey them to  Capital . 
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/ IDN/48 
2.4.  The representative of Indonesia  thank ed the European Union  for its interest in Indonesia 's 
import regulations. He stated that Indonesia had submitted its replies to the  EU's questions in 
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/48.  
2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/ IDN/49 
2.5.  The representative of Indonesia  thank ed Australia for its continued interest in Indonesia 's 
import regulations. He stated that Indonesia had submitted its replies to Australia's questions in 
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/49.  
2.6.  The representative of the United States  noted that his delegation had  submitted questions to 
Panama  in document  G/LIC/Q/PAN/1 , seeking  Panama's response s regarding its domestic purchase 
requirements on certain onion imports. The US  remain ed concerned about these measures and 
looked forward to receiving Panama's repl ies. 
2.7.  The Chairperson  concluded the item by encourag ing all Members to follow the procedures  
established in document  G/LIC/4 , and to make good use of the C ommittee 's formal  meetings in 
order to clarify any issue regarding other Members' import licensing  notifications . 
2.8.  The Committee took note  of the questions and replies and 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 14 N/1 and N/2 notifications, submitted by 
ten Members, had been  listed on the agenda for the Committee's consideration at that meeting. In 
addition, fifteen  notifications from Cambodia had been received after the closing of the Airgram and 
would  be reviewed at the Commi ttee's  next formal meeting.1 He stated  that Members had notified 
new regimes and had continued to make great efforts to provide missing information on existing 
regimes using the notification form contained in document  G/LIC/28. He thanked all those Members 
that had made efforts to improve the transparency of their respective import licensing regimes. Due 
 
1 G/LIC/N/2/KHM/1 -15. G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 4 - 
 
  to the large number of notifications on the agenda, and with a view to making the review process 
more efficient, he said that 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.  
3.2.  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.13 and 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.14 ); Dominican Republic  (G/LIC/N/2/DOM/1 ); Ecuador  (G/LIC/N/2 /ECU/2); 
Hong Kong, China  (G/LIC/N/2/HKG/20 and G/LIC/N/2/HKG/21 ); India ( G/LIC/N/ 1/IND/15, 
G/LIC/N/2/ IND/21 , and G/LIC/N/2/ IND/22); Japan ( G/LIC/N/2/ JPN/5); Myanmar 
(G/LIC/N/2/ MMR/7); Thailand ( G/LIC/N/2/ THA/6); United Kingdom ( G/LIC/N/2/ GBR/15); and the 
United States ( G/LIC/N/2/ USA/6). 
3.3.  The representative of Ecuador  indicated that his delegation had been consulted by Capital 
regarding the Dominican Republic's notification . For this reason, his delegation would approach the 
Dominican Republic bilate rally for further information on the coverage of its notified import licences . 
3.4.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  responded that her delegation welcomed the  
consultation  from Ecuador and stood ready to engage in a bilateral meeting to clarify mat ters. 
3.5.  The representative of Ecuador  stated that his  authorities in Capital were seeking  additional 
information on the United Kingdom's notification , and the Regulation of 2022 with respect to the 
2018 Law on Ivory  in particular . Specifically, his delegation was interested in hearing more about 
the non -automatic licensing for musical instruments  and would approach the UK bilaterally for 
further information.  
3.6.  The representative of the United Kingdom  stated that the  UK's notification outline d legislation 
regarding  imports of ivory. This legislation support ed the UK's objectives on animal conservation 
and pursue d its obligations under the CITES  Convention . The legislation prohibit ed importing to , or 
exporting from , the UK for the purpos es of trading in the items made of , or containing , elephant 
ivory. The ban applie d regardless of the item 's age , with five  narrow , carefully defined exceptions , 
namely portrait miniatures, musical instruments, items with low ivory content, sales to qualify ing 
museums , and rare or important items. The ivory ban did not affect the ownership of ivory items. 
In addition, the UK  government had launched the digital ivory service , which allow ed people to 
register uncertified exempted ivory items they wished to tra de. He concluded by noting that further 
information could be found in document  G/LIC/N/3/GBR/2. Finally, he invited Ecuador to submit any 
further questions to his delegation  in writing . 
3.7.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
3.2  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.8.  The Chairperson  noted that  13 notifications had been listed for the Committee's consideration. 
The following Members had submitted seven  additional  N/3 notification s after the Airgram had been 
issued , and these would be reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting : Australia; Hong Kong, 
China; Republic o f Korea; Macao, China; Nicaragua; Switzerland -Liechtenstein ; and Chinese Taipei .2 
3.9.  The following notifications un der Article  7.3 were reviewed by the Committee:  Argentina  
(G/LIC/N/3/ARG/18 ); European Union  (G/LIC/N/3/EU/11 ); Honduras  (G/LIC/N/3/HND/13 ); Mali 
(G/LIC/N/3/MLI/11 ); Mexico ( G/LIC/N/3/MEX/8 ); Panama  (G/LIC/N/3/PAN/13 ); Thailand  
(G/LIC/N/3/THA/8 ); Tonga  (G/LIC/N/3/TON/2 ); Tϋrkiye  (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/18 and 
G/LIC/N/3/TUR/19 ); Ukraine ( G/LIC/N/3/UKR/15 ); United Kingdom  (G/LIC/N/3/GBR/2 ); and the 
United States  (G/LIC/N/3/USA/19 ). 
3.10.   The representative of Ukraine  stated that her delegation had  continued to fulfil its notification 
obligations and demonstrate its commitment to the rules of the WTO despite the ongoing war 
unleashed by Russia.  In addition to the immense human toll, Ukrainian businesses had suffered 
 
2 Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/15); Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/26); Macao, China 
(G/LIC/N/3/MAC/25); Nicaragua (G/LIC/N/3/NIC/13) and Switzerland -Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/18).  G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 5 - 
 
  greatly from the full -scale invas ion: some  had had to shut down entirely , while others were 
struggling to find new ways to operate. The whole logistic s system had been destroyed and would 
take much time to rebuild. At any moment, Russian airstrikes could blow up factories or businesses 
anywhere in the country.  Furthermore, a ccording to the World Bank, Ukraine's economy could shrink 
by 45% in 2022  due to the war. The situation was even worse for industrial businesses in the east 
of the country that had had their facilities destroyed. Accord ing to data from the National Bank of 
Ukraine, direct los ses across enterprises, housing , and infrastructure , had reached a cost of 
USD 100 billion since Russia's  invasion in February , which was the equivalent of 50% of Ukraine's 
gross domestic product in 2021.  
3.11.   She noted that Ukraine had optimized the import procedures for various categories of goods 
in order to facilitate business and ensure that business processes did not  suffer additionally as a 
result of the hostilities , the destruction of infrastructure , and the damaged supply chains. In 
particular, the Government of Ukraine had ensure d the possibility of obtaining , by electronic means,  
import licences issued within one or two  days, and free of charge.  Indeed, Ukraine's government 
officials c ontinue d to do everything they could  in present conditions to ensure that businesses could  
continue to operate uninterrupted. However,  as Russia's war continue d, Ukrainian businesses were 
struggling to find ways to compensate for the damage  done. She concl uded by saying that her 
delegation was extremely grateful for the comprehensive and unanimous support from the 
WTO Membership , which had stood  by Ukraine in countering  the Russian military invasion.  
3.12.   The representative of the European Union  supported the statement  from Ukraine  and said 
that her delegation was committed to strengthening the multilateral trading system  that best served 
the interest s of all countries, including those that were smaller and more vulnerable.  For this reason, 
the European Union firmly, and without any ambiguity, condemn ed Russia's continued aggression 
against Ukraine,  and in particular, the previous week , the illegal annexation  of territory that did not 
belong to Russia in the Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia , and Kherson Oblast. She said that Russia 
was endangering  global security by violating Ukraine's fundamental rights to independence, 
sovereignty , and territorial integrity, core principles enshrined  in the UN  Charter and International 
Law. Russia was also damaging  its international reputation in a way that would  take years, and 
probably decades , to repair.  She remarked that Russia, Belarus,  and all those responsible for war 
crimes and other serious crimes would  be held to account for their actions in accordance with 
international law. Her delegation would strengthen restrictive measures countering Russia's illegal 
actions  and would  further i ncrease pressure on Russia and its war of choice.  In Europe, as in other 
continents, people were feeling the consequences of Russia's war, but her delegation  reiterate d that 
the European Union would firmly stand with Ukraine and would  continue to provide e conomic, 
military, social and financial support to Ukraine for as long as it took. 
3.13.   The representative of Canada  supported the statements by Ukraine and the European Union . 
He said that his delegation continue d to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, R ussia's 
unprovoked, illegal , and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine. Russia's hostile act was not 
just an attack on Ukraine and its people, or a reckless decision taken at a fragile moment in the 
global economic recovery from COVID -19, but als o a blatant violation of international law and the 
rules-based international system. He added that r espect for the rule of law was the basis for an 
international system : without it, neither this organization, nor the global economy would be able to 
functio n. Canada  was resolutely committed to supporting Ukraine and those around the world 
impacted by the consequences of the Russian Federation's aggression.  His delegation also continue d 
to see that Russia's war was exacerbating food and energy security concer ns around the world. It 
was clear that the consequences of this war of choice were likely to impact the production and trade 
of key commodities for years to come, worsening an already dire situation.  Canada once again call ed 
upon Russia immediately to ceas e all hostile and provocative actions against Ukraine.  
3.14.   The representative of the United States  joined in support ing Ukraine , the European Union, 
Canada,  and all the  other  delegations  that were raising their flag s to condemn Russia's unprovoked 
attack. His delegation  further thank ed Ukraine for its attention to its role in the WTO and for the 
submission of its import licensing questionnaire  notification under Article  7.3 of the Agreement.  He 
added that Ukraine was to be commended for submitting this notification in unimaginably difficult 
times. His delegation  continue d to call upon Russia immediately to cease its use of force against 
Ukraine and refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force against any UN  member State.  
3.15.   The representative of Australia  condemn ed Russia's unilateral, illegal , and immoral aggression 
against the people of Ukraine. She said that t his invasion was a gross violation of international law, G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 6 - 
 
  including the charter of the United  Nations.  Australia also condemn ed Russia's illegal annexation of 
the regions of Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson , and Zaporizhzhia  in Ukraine. Russia's so-called referenda 
in occupied areas were illegitimate and had no legal effect . Rather, these regions were sovereign 
Ukrainian territory and President Putin's annexation an illegal and dangerous escalation. Any claims 
that these territories were now part of Russia were false. Australia  support ed the comments made 
by Canada, the United States,  and the European Union  regarding the severe implications for global 
food security of Russia's invasion , and for the work of this and other committees in strengthening 
the multilateral rules -based system in trade and agricultural products.  
3.16.   The representative of the United K ingdom  stated that Russia's assault on Ukraine was an 
unprovoked  and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state. The United Kingdom  and 
its international partners stood  united in condemning the Russian Government and its clear breach 
of inter national law under the United Nations Charter.  His delegation considered that Putin's war was 
responsible for price rises and shortages of food. This illegal war impede d Ukraine's ability to trade 
internationally, which ha d had a profound impact on trade a round the world.  The United Kingdom 
reiterate d its condemnation of the Kremlin's irresponsible nuclear rhetoric and call ed for all countries 
to condemn Russia's war of aggression and its attempt to acquire territory by force. Russia must 
immediately stop i ts war of aggression, withdraw all of its troops and military equipment from 
Ukraine,  and respect Ukraine's independence, sovereignty , and territorial integrity within its 
internationally recogni zed borders. Finally, he reaffirmed that the regions of Donet sk, Luhansk, 
Kherson , and Zaporizhzhia , as well as Crimea , were integral parts of Ukraine.  
3.17.   The representative of Japan  echoed and add ed Japan's voice to the preceding interventions 
on the Russian invasion. She said that t he recent acts by Russia, especially in the east of Ukraine , 
which  had forcibly put these regions under Russia's temporary control , were nothing but attempts 
to acquire territory by force ; furthermore, they went against international law, including the United 
Nations Charter.  She added that s uch attempts were invalid and diametrically opposed to the 
principles of global law in the international community. Japan urge d Russia once ag ain, and in the 
strongest terms, immediately  to cease its aggression and withdraw its forces from the territory of 
Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.  Japan also continue d to firmly apply strong 
sanctions against Russia and support Ukrai ne in cooperation with the international community.  
3.18.   Like others, the  representative of New Zealand  also thank ed Ukraine for its notification and 
ongoing commitment to maintain ing its notification obligations to the WTO, despite the impact of 
Russia's illegal and unprovoked war in Ukraine.  New Zealand join ed other Members in condemning, 
in the strongest possible terms, Russia's unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine. Russia's 
illegal invasion was an act of aggression under international l aw and had already caused thousands 
of deaths, a humanitarian crisis , and widespread suffering.  New Zealand continue d to convey its 
support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Furthermore, her delegation  stood  firmly 
against any steps by R ussia that risk ed a further escalation in this conflict. New Zealand steadfastly 
support ed the collective action taken in response by the international community and continue d to 
call upon Russia to act consistently with its international obligations , to cease its invasion of Ukraine, 
to withdraw its troops , and to return to diplomatic negotiations as a pathway to a resolution to the 
conflict . 
3.19.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  thank ed Ukraine for the notification of its 
questionnaire , despite the devastating situation, and for its statement. He joined other s in strongly 
condemn ing Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the principles of the UN  Charter. 
Furthermore, he asserted that Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity , and independence must 
and should be respected. In short, the Korean Government did not recognize Russia's annexation of 
four regions of Ukrainian territory  as legitimate . 
3.20.   The representative of  Switzerland  condemn ed Russia 's military aggression against Ukraine in 
the strongest possible terms.  It represented a serious violation of international law , in particular the 
prohibition on the use of force . It also violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine as 
enshrined in international law. Therefore,  Switzerland call ed upon Russia to respect its international 
obligations , to reverse its actions , to withdraw its troops , and to contribute to a de-escalation. 
Switzerland also called upon all actors to respect international law, including international 
humanitarian law.  
3.21.   The representative of Moldova  thank ed Ukraine for its statement. She also  reiterate d 
Moldova's strong support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Moldova continue d, in the strongest G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 7 - 
 
  possible terms , to condemn  Russia's war against Ukraine.  Moldova called upon Russia to cease its 
aggression and withdraw its troops immediately.  
3.22.   The represe ntative of the Russian Federation  considered it unfortunate that a number of 
delegations had once again decided to disregard the R ules of Procedure and the Committee 's 
mandate . He recalled that R ule 27 of the Rules of Procedure stated  that delegat ions should avoid 
statements on issues that had already been raised before. However, the positions of the delegations 
that had just taken the floor had been stated  multiple times and had not changed ; indeed, repeating 
them over and over again in this body detract ed from Members'  work on mandated issues. Moreover, 
discussions on the situation in Ukraine evidently went beyond the Committee's mandate. Russia 
stood ready to discuss , and was discussing , issues relating to the  special military operation in Ukraine 
in the specialist UN  Bodies and agencies. Regarding the allegations in relation to fertilizer s and the 
energy crisis , which had been raised by some delegations, Russia recalled that it had already stated 
on numerous and multiple occasions that a significant contributing factor to the higher global price 
level was the unilateral trade restrictive measures introduced against Russia. Finally, on the 
referendum  issue, he said that his delegation had clearly stated its  position at the previous da y's 
meeting of the General Council.  
3.23.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  
4  ANGOLA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her de legation remained  deeply 
concern ed about  Angola's Presidential Decree No.  2319, which was intended to protect domestic 
industries but did so in a manner that was incompatible with the WTO's rules . In this regard, the EU 
wished to remind Angola that , since 2019,  it had been raising its concerns at various WTO meetings, 
notably before  the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Market Access , and the Committee 
on Agriculture, as well as at the Co mmittee on Import Licensing in October  2021.  To date, Angola 
had not provide d any substantive repl ies or explanations as to how it intend ed to bring this Decree 
into the remit of WTO  legality. Irrespective of its legality with  regard to the  WTO's rules , the EU 
reiterate d the need for Angola to provide the clearest picture on the process regarding this Decree , 
including any changes it wishe d to introduce and in which areas.  Once again, her delegation strongly 
urged Angola to review the relevant measures in o rder to assure their compliance with the WTO's 
rules. Specifically concerning the remit of this Committee, the Decree did not provide information 
on how these restrictions were implemented. In particular , it was unclear if licences were used to 
manage thes e restrictions. The EU  request ed Angola's  clarification in this regard. At the same time, 
the EU remind ed Angola of its obligation s under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures to 
notify the measures should licences be involved in the implementation of this Presidential Decree.  
Depending on Angola's engagement on this file, the EU would  decide on which approach to take  to 
ensure an adequate protection of its trade interests.  
4.2.  The representative of the United States  appreciate d the attent ion given in this Committee to 
Angola's Decree No.  2319.  He recalled that , at the Committee's April 2022 meeting , the 
representative of Angola had suggested that the information received by trading partners did not 
demonstrate the reality of the current pr ocess of imports to Angola. He added that , while 
diversification  of trade was positive , it was also  important to have a legal and regulatory framework 
in place that ensure d an environment free of trade obstacles in the medium and long term.  
4.3.  The representat ive of Angola  thank ed the European Union and reiterated Angola's previous 
statements made in this and other committees.  Her delegation did not consider that the information 
provided  by their partners demonstrate d the reality of Angola's current import process, which had 
open and fast procedures for issuing import and export licences. On Decree No.  2319, she clarified 
that Angola's  market was open to all imported products , as could be seen from the relevant statist ics 
regarding import volume s into Angola from other WTO  Member s. For example , in the period 2019 
to 2021, EU exports  to Angola amount ed to a total of USD669,104,753.07.  Portugal alone had total 
exports to Angola amounting to USD376,664,445.31. These number s show ed that Angola was still 
importing goods, and that its market remained open.  Furthermore , in 2019, Angola's  imports from 
the United States had amounted to a value of approximately USD628,684,478.05 . Furthermore, she 
noted that , in 2023, Angola's trade policies and practices would be subject to an in-depth 
examination under the WTO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism . In this context , all of Angola's 
Decrees  would be examined and reviewed . She stated that her delegation was focused on the people  
of Angola , as well as African consumers  and beyond . In this regard, she reiterated that Angola's G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 8 - 
 
  market continued to be open  to import s, and that  Decree  No. 23/19 in no way restricted imports. At 
the same time , she considered it important and necessary to focus on what Angola itself was capable 
of making and producing  in order for it to become a competitive player in the global  market. In 
short, Angola wished to be a partner, not only a consumer , and thereby  not only an import er, but 
also an export er of products.  
4.4.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Angola for its remarks and requested to 
receive them in writing for further review.  
4.5.  The representative of Angola  indicated that her delegation would share all of the relevant 
information  with the European Union , including  the statisti cs concerning  imports  of all goods from 
the EU, the Russian Federation,  and the United States.  
4.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  EGYPT: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL  AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
5.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation remain ed concerned about 
Egypt's  quantitative restrictions on import s of meat and poultry, as well as its import measures for 
seed potatoes announced in 2021 and notified under the SPS  Agreement . 
5.2.  Regarding  the import restrictions for meat and poultry , the European Union reiterate d that the 
system of import permits under Egypt's Prime Minister Decree No.  2080/2018 and Prime Minister 
Decision No.  222/2018 was inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT as well a s with several provisions 
of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Furthermore, Egypt ha d not yet notified the 
two decrees to the WTO. As on previous occasions, she restated that: (i)  the system of granting 
import permits lacked transparency ; (ii) the procedure of the committee and the calendar of 
meetings were not publicly shared ; (iii) rejection of import permits was communicated orally, 
without possibility of appeal ; and (iv)  there were no rules stipulating under which conditions import 
permits were approved under each act. Therefore, the EU urged Egypt to s top applying quantitative 
restrictions on its import s of meat and poultry originating in the EU, in compliance with WTO  laws. 
5.3.  In addition , she said that the European Union  was deeply concerned about  Egypt's new 
measures for the import of seed potatoes , which had been  notified to the SPS  Committee under 
notification SPS 119. While Egypt had replied to the EU 's questions following its notification, 
nevertheless, she wished to reiterate the  following points : (i) the new mechanism was designed in 
a way that , in practical terms , would limit import volumes from the EU, with an effect comparable 
to that of a quantitative restriction. Moreover, the introduction of a fee per ton ne of imp orted seed 
potatoes to finance field inspections was equivalent to the imposition of a customs duty ; (ii) the 
introduction of a pre -clearance system in the form of field visits in the EU by Egyptian inspectors 
was highly burdensome and costly , making such trade unviable. EU  member States had efficient 
and effective national plant protection organizations to certify that exports compl ied with importing 
country requirements in accordance with international standards, notably the International Plant 
Protection  Convention and related international standards ; (iii) Egypt's technical requirements were 
not aligned with the growing cycle of seed potatoes in the EU. Egypt demand ed that import 
applications be submitted between 15  March and 15  April of each year , namely during a time of year  
when EU seed potatoes had not yet been planted. Indeed, most of the data required to fill out these 
applications was not available at that time of the year , and the  compliance of seed potatoes with 
Egyptian standards could  only be assessed after the harvest . Finally, she urged Egypt to reconsider 
its new measures for the import of seed potatoes and permanently remove the above requirements.  
5.4.  The representative of the United States  stated that his delegation remain ed concerned abo ut 
Egypt's import licensing requirements for agricultural and food products.  He noted that n otification 
of trade -related measures was a crucial part of the functioning of the World Trade Organization and 
key to ensur ing that trade remained predictable.  For these reasons, he encourage d Egypt to notify 
and engage in a dialogue on its measures in the Committee on Import Licensing.  
5.5.  The representative of Egypt  stated that Egypt  had previously replied to questions from the 
European Union  bilaterally and in the co ntext of the Committee . He assured delegations that 
discussions were still ongoing and that,  among other actions, both Capitals had planned a meeting G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 9 - 
 
  to further discuss the matter . He reiterated that Prime Minister Decree s No. 2080/2018 and 
No. 222/2018 were not intended to create any quantitative restrictions on imports of poultry and 
meat. Rather, the aim of these Decrees was to regulate imports  and ensure that they not introduce 
disease . He maintained that Egypt's rules in this regard could be assumed to be SPS -consistent 
insofar as they serve d these policy objectives.  Regarding c ommittee procedures and the calendar of 
meetings referred to by the EU, he said that c ommittee  meetings  were usually held every 
three  months and /or when needed , and in accordance with the number of import requests 
submitted. He added that his delegation had received no complaints from importers relating to their 
applications.  Rather, importers were informed of the committee 's meeting dates and the  outcome 
of their requests for import permits ; they were also referred back to the general administration of 
veterinary services for any follow -up, specifically to the Office of the Head of the General 
Organization of Veterinary Services (GOVS) or the Office of the Deputy -Minister of Agriculture and 
Land Reclamation.  
5.6.  Regarding the availability of an appeal mechanism , he stated that such a mechanism  would 
only be necessary in the case of an import permit request rejected for unknown reasons. However, 
according to  the two  Decrees, requests for import permits could  not be rejected except for reasons 
related to the epidemiological situation of the exporting country , or because certain  require ments  
had not been fulfilled , including insufficient capacit y in refrigerator facilities and quarantine areas. 
He concluded by assuring the Committee and Egypt's trading  partners that Egypt  planned to notify 
both Decrees within the context of its full  import licensing notifications , which were currently being 
prepared.  
5.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDIA: IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES – STATEMENTS BY THE  
EUROPEAN  UNION, INDONESIA, JAPAN AND THAILAND  
6.1.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated concerns  that her delegation had been 
raising in the Committee  since 2020  regarding the licensing regime for importation of pneumatic 
tyres for motorcars, buses, lorries, motor scooters , and motorcycles , introduced by India under 
Notification No.  12/2015 -2020 on Amendment in Import Policy of Tyres of 12  June 2020. She noted 
that this had become a long -standing issue. It was also worrying that no progress  had been made 
towards resolving the issue , despite it having been raised on mu ltiple occasions in this and other 
WTO committees , notably the Committee on Market Access and the Committee on Trade -Related 
Investment Measures (TRIMs  Committee ). The EU continued to be concerned about the effects of 
these measures on tyre import s, which had become highly restricted since June  2020. Only a limited 
number of licences had been granted to EU  tyre manufacturers and these  had been limited in 
duration, quantity, and type of tyre. After two  years , no licences had yet  been granted for bus and 
truck tyres. She said that t his was blatant discrimination against EU bus and tyre manufacturers. 
Therefore, the European Union urged India to reconsider an d eliminate any explicit quantitative or 
other type of restriction on the import ation of re placement tyres that was contrary to 
WTO requirements . 
6.2.  The representative of Thailand  restated  his delegation's  concern  regarding India's import 
policies on tyres , which  still considerably affected Thailand 's exports of th ese products to India . 
He noted th at in 2021, Thailand's export s of these products to India  had declined by 40.23% in 
value , and 45.23% in volume , relative to 2019 , before the restrictive measure had been  
implemented. Moreover,  for the first  seven  months  of 2022, exports of  tyres from Thai land to India 
had fallen  by 54.91% compared to the same period in 2019.  In this connection, Thailand reiterate d 
its concern that the granting and issuance of import licences for tyres by the Indian authority 
remained unclear and subject to considerable  delay.  For these reasons, Thailand requested India to 
provide information  on the following , in accordance with Article  3, paragraph  5(a), of the Agreement 
of Import Licensing: (i)  the administration  of restrictions,  including  the time-frame  for processing 
application s; (ii) the import  licences  granted  to Thailand  over the recent  period ; and (iii)  the 
distribution  of licences  among  supplying  countries.  
6.3.  The representative of Indonesia  thank ed India for its response to Indonesia's concerns over 
India's import restrictive  policies on tyre products provided at the Import Licensing Committee 's 
meeting of April 2022.  Nevertheless , Indonesia regret ted that its concerns  had still not been 
adequately resolved . Indon esia was fully aware that India ha d imposed import restrictions on tyre 
products of certain types and size categories that could  be produced by tyre manufacturers in India , G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 10 - 
 
  and that India had implemented its policy shortly after imposing a temporary import  ban on tyre 
products for a period of six  months, as stated in Notification No. 12/2015 -2020, dated 12  June 2020, 
on Changes on Tyre Import Policies.  He noted that t he policy , if implemented,  would reduce tyre 
export s to India,  considering the limited categories of tyres that could still be exported.  He also 
noted that , although there were no official provisions governing restrictions o n tyre import s, 
importers were required to make a separate statement , submitted by e mail, relating to  the import 
restrictions for types and categories of tyre size that could  be produced domestically , and that 
non-compliance with this rule was a sanction able crime  based on the FTDR  Act 1992.  
6.4.  In addition, Indonesia had observed discriminatory treatme nt in the application of the policy, 
which  was applied selectively by targeting certain Member countries whose producers could 
potentially compete with India's domestic producers , an aspect of the policy that had had an 
especially negative impact  on Indone sia's tyre export s to India. In addition , the Foreign 
Manufacturers Certification Department of the Bureau of Indian Standards  (BIS)  had issued a new 
import requirement for importers to submit detailed information about their consignment before it 
reached Indian ports. The requirement to inform this office of all warehouse locations was itself 
burdensome and an unnecessary obstacle to trade ; furthermore, if complete details were not 
provided , action would  be taken by the BIS t hat might  include the suspension of the licence. 
Indonesia felt that the implementation of this policy ran contrary to the principle of 
non-discrimination as set out in the Import Licensing Agreement , while potential ly creating 
unnecessary barriers to inte rnational trade.  In this regard, Indonesia requested India to provide 
further clarification of the above -mentioned issues , and to review or revoke the policy at issue in 
line with  the applicable provision of the Import Licensing Agreement . 
6.5.  The representati ve of Japan  expresse d her delegation's ongoing concern about the continued 
occurrence, even in 2022, of cases in which the tyre quantity approved by India's authority was less 
than the quantity applied for by Japanese companies, without any reasons being provided. Having 
received no response from India thus far, Japan again requested India for its detailed explanations 
of the following : (i) what were the reasons for limiting the approved quantity; and (ii)  what were 
the rationale and criteria to decide whether India would  grant an import licence or limit the approved 
quantity, and in which laws and regulations were such rationale and criteria provided. In this regard, 
she recalled that at the Committee 's prev ious meeting India had explained that this measure had 
been implemented in a fair and equitable manner , in accordance with the Import Licensing 
Agreement. However, without receiving any detailed answers  to its questions, Japan remained 
concern ed about the measure's consistency with the Agreement.  
6.6.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that her delegation  shared the concerns raised by 
the European Union , Thailand , Indonesia,  and Japan,  and express ed their continued interest in this 
issue.  She noted that the restrictive measures had been in place  for two  years. At the Committee 's 
previous meeting , India had reiterated that its non-automatic licensing requirements for tyres were 
administered in a manner that was consistent with the rules of the WTO  Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures, including the time -frame for the granting of import licences.  She said that her 
delegation understood India's effort s to ensure that its import licensing procedures compl ied with 
WTO rules. However, accordi ng to the statistics of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry of India, 
the quantity of tyres that India had imported from Chinese Taipei  from 2020 to the first half of 2022 
had sharply decreased , by more than 50% , compared to 2019. In addition, the number  of licences 
granted ha d also declined sharply since December  2020. Furthermore, it should not be overlooked 
that many Members still had considerable doubts about the measure 's transparency , and specific 
trade concerns in this regard had been repeatedly ra ised in the relevant committees.  On many 
occasions, her delegation had  requested India to provide information regarding its domestic practices 
for granting licences under the restrictive measures ; India had responded to these requests for 
relevant product information in July  of the current year, for which her delegation was grateful . She 
said that her  Capital was verifying and reviewing the information provided and would respond as 
soon as possible.  In conclusion, she hoped that India would continue to address the concerns raised 
by Members and that , through an exchange of views in the Committee, the issue would be resolved  
in a timely, transparent, non -discriminatory , and predictable manner.  
6.7.  The representative of the  United  States  expressed support  for Members' concerns regarding 
India's lack of notifications of its import procedures for tyres.  His delegation once again urged India 
to notify  the procedures for Notification No. 12/2015 -2020 of 12  June 2020.  He also  request ed India 
to review and respond to all pending applications in a timely manner.  G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.8.  The representative of India thanked those  delegations that had taken the floor for their interest 
in India's import licensing procedures for tyres.  He referred to the response s provided by his 
delegation at previous meetings of the Council for Trade in Good s and  the Committee s on Market 
Access and Import Licensing. He reiterated that the non -automatic licensing requirements for tyres 
were administered in a manner consi stent with the rules of the WTO  Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures , including with respect to the time -frames for the grant ing of import licences. 
Furthermore, the licensing procedure was being administered in a fair manner , as was reflected in 
the fact that several  licences had been granted upon the Exim Facilitation Committee 's approval . 
His delegation requested the agenda item's proponents to share specific data on applications 
submitted , as well as any other substantiating information. India remai ned committed to address ing 
these concerns bilaterally.  He also thanked Thailand and Japan for their questions , and Indonesia 
for the detail ed information that it had just provided. He would transmit  this information to Capital 
for due consideration. Finally, he recalled that his delegation had already provided data to Chinese 
Taipei on the number of licences granted in response to its specific questions.  
6.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDONESIA: COMMODITY BALANC ING MECHANISM – STATEMENT BY THE  
EUROPEAN  UNION  
7.1.  The representative of the European Union  noted that Indonesia had started implementing the 
commodity balance system introduced through Minister of Trade Regulation No.  19/2020 -2021 in 
2021, establishing a new  and centralized system for issuing import and export licences. Her 
delegation welcomed Indonesia's efforts to streamline the management of import and export 
licences and ensure a coordinated approach across different agencies. The inclusion of a commodity  
balance represented a potentially significant improvement as it meant that there was one  layer less 
of bureaucracy to navigate, thereby improving transparency. However, she noted that the 
mechanism also raised several concerns , including  that it might res ult in further import or export 
restrictions to trade flows, which in turn would raise questions as to the initiative 's compliance  with 
Indonesia's WTO  obligations. Accordingly, the European Union would have welcomed clarification of 
the practical function ing of the commodity balance mechanism , its scheduled implementation , and 
the products concerned.  
7.2.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation was also concerned by 
Indonesia's commodity balance policies. He reminded Indonesia of the United States' written 
questions contained in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/46 of March  2022, to which the US was still awaiting 
Indonesia's responses.  
7.3.  The representative of Indonesia  stated that Indonesia's commodity balance policy aimed at 
creating and facilitating a better business environment, including certainty in doing business , and a 
free flow of goods. It was a policy evaluation tool used by the Government of Indonesia to reflect 
accurate data in a transparent manner ; in addition, it would be implemented by all relevant 
ministries and institutions. However, the commodity balance policy would not represent an additional 
burden on Indonesia's  import regime. Rather, from a government policy perspective, the commodity 
balance would provide transparent and accurate data for all relevant ministries . It was also intended 
to support businesses by creating transparency and permitting forecast s for business development.  
7.4.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  INDONESIA: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY IMPORTERS OF STEEL PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
8.1.  The representative of Japan  stated that her delegation remained concerned by  Indonesia's  
import licensing measure on steel products , which was based on Indonesia 's Minister of Trade Order 
No. 20 of 2021.  Her delegation  had found many cases where the Indonesian authorities had issued 
substantially fewer import licences for steel products than the number applied for by  importers , 
regardless of the type of licence , which seemed to be inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement and Article  XI:1 of the GATT. She recalled that , in the Committee 's previous  
meeting, Ind onesia had explained that the objective of the measure had been to protect consumers 
by ensuring the importation of safe products based on the thorough application of technical 
standards. However, Japan could not understand why Indonesia need ed to reduce  the number of G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 12 - 
 
  licences in order to ensure product safety. She asked Indonesia to explain how such technical 
standards could serve as the rationale for a reduction in the number of import licences issued , as 
opposed to the elimination of harmful products. At the same time, Japan expected Indonesia to 
provide details as to w here and how this rationale was stipulated in the regulations. In this regard, 
Japan urged Indonesia not to substantially reduce approved import licences compared to import 
licence applications. Japan also requested that Indonesia clarify the rationale beh ind, and the criteria 
for, its reduction in import quotas. Finally, she said that her delegation had learned that Minister of 
Trade Order No.  25 of 2022, which amended the Order No.  20 of 2021, had been enacted in 
May 2022, and that a new framework , entitled "NERACA KOMODITAS " ("commodity  balance") , 
would be launched in 2023. She requested a detailed explanation of the new framework and its 
consistency with the WTO  Agreements.  
8.2.  The representative of the United States  said that his delegation  shared Japan's concerns about 
Indonesia's import licensing requirements for steel products, including registration and pre -shipment 
inspection requirements that had the potential to restrict trade in this important area. His delegation 
encouraged Indonesi a to ensure that it issued import licences automatically, without delays , and 
without limiting the quantities applied for by importers.  
8.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation shared the concerns 
expressed by Japan and the United States and ask ed Indonesia for clarification of its underlying 
rationale for restricting the quantities for which licences were granted, as well as the criteria applied 
to this ban. Notably, the EU was concerned that this measure appeared to be inconsisten t with 
Article  XI of the GATT, as well as with Article  3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
In light of these inconsistencies with WTO  obligations , and the restrictive impact of the measure on 
trade in steel products, the EU urged Indonesia t o re-evaluate the measure at issue and to bring it 
into conformity  with WTO  rules, namely by issuing licences for steel products automatically, without 
delays , and without limiting the quantities applied for by importers.  
8.4.  The representative of Indonesia  responded by stating that the aim of the regulation was to 
ensure that all steel products entering Indonesia complied with the relevant standards, 
specification s, and qualifications. Furthermore, the policy had been implemented in accordance with 
the WTO  principles of transparency and non -discrimination, as set out in the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures, and restrict ing imports  was not its intended purpos e. He added that the import 
clarification procedure only involved verifying that the goods to be imported into Indonesia 
corresponded to those indicated in the import documents from the origin countries. In conclusion, 
Indonesia emphasized that its import clarification procedures did not restrict trade ; rather, they 
were intended to protect health and safety, and the environment.  
8.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE S PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY  THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  
9.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation welcomed Indonesia's 
repeal of its Regulation No.  77/2019, revoking the de facto  prohibition of imports into Indonesia of 
EU finished textile items , such as carpets. The EU also understood that textile products would now 
be subject to the commodity balance mechanism established under Government Regulation 
No. 5/2021 on Ministry of Trade Regulation Nos.  19/2021, 20/2021 , and 25/2 022. Therefore, the 
EU wished Indonesia to clarify its import regime for finished textiles, including carpets and rugs. 
The EU also requested further details concerning the expected timeline and arrangements for the 
application of the commodity balance sys tem to textile products.  
9.2.  The representative of Japan  stated that, in October  2019, 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 then, 
the world's exportation of textile products to Indonesia had dropped sharply ; indeed, global exports 
to Indonesia in 2020 had dropped to approximately one -tenth of what they had been in 2019 , and 
exports of carpet products classified under  HS57 had been hit particularly hard. While the new 
Minister of Trade Order No.  20 of 2021  had seemingly replaced the previous Ministerial  Order, it had 
not substantially altered the system  and ha d not removed the sys tem's  trade restrictive effects.  
Moreover, Indonesia had implemented safeguard measures against the importation of carpet G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 13 - 
 
  products classified under HS57 in February  2022. In their investigation, the Indonesian authorities 
had determined the increase of imp orts without considering the sharp reduction in imports resulting 
from the import registration and approval system . This determination had been possible by setting 
the period of investigation to 2017 -2019, immediately prior to the aforementioned sharp redu ction. 
In addition, these measures applied extremely high tariffs of around 150 -200% when converted to 
ad valorem  duties. Therefore, Japan  considered that these measures did not fulfil the requirements 
for safeguard measures,  especially the requirement stating that safeguards should be applied only 
to the extent necessary. Despite Indonesia stating at the April  2022 meeting of the Committee on 
Safeguards that its measures wer e WTO-consistent, appropriate , and transparent, Indonesia had 
not provided adequate responses to Japan's questions and concerns. In conclusion, Japan remained 
seriously concerned about these measures , as it had repeatedly expressed on various occasions , 
and once again urge d Indonesia to  eliminate them as soon as possible.  
9.3.  The representative of Indonesia  responded that , under the current regulation, the application 
for import approval was conducted electronically , and that an import approval was processed once 
all the documents required had been submitted in a complete and correct manner. The approval 
time was relatively short and fell within the time -frame set out in the Import Licensing Agreement. 
Regarding the implementation of the measures on carpet produ cts, his delegation believed it to be 
an issue more relevan t to other WTO  committees.  
9.4.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
10.1.   The representative of Japan  stated that her delegation remain ed concerned by Indonesia 's 
import restriction on air conditioners based on the Minister of Trade Order No.  20 of 2021. Japa n 
recognize d the continuous improvement in the level of quantitative  restriction s. She added that  the 
rationale behind, and criteria for, limiting the import quotas was still unclear, and Japan was 
concerned that it might be inconsistent with Article  3.2 o f the Import Licensing Agreement, 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT, and Article  2.1 of the TRIMs  Agreement . Japan urge d Indonesia to operate 
this measure in a manner that would  not amount to an import restriction , and for it to be sufficiently 
transparent with reg ard to the relevant criteria and procedures. In this regard, Japan expect ed that 
the aforementioned Order No.  20 of 2021 would  be substantially revised  to make it WTO-consistent 
and request ed Indonesia to provide relevant information concerning its revised status. She further 
noted that Japan ha d raised the item because Indonesia had expressed a preference to discuss ing 
it at this Committee rather than at the TRIMs  Committee. Nevertheless, Japan recalled that it had 
submitted written question s to Indonesia a t the TRIMs  Committee 's meeting of  September  2021,  
and that Indonesia had responded by indicating that it was preparing a written answer to those 
questions; however, Indonesia had not yet pr ovided  any such answer . In conclusion, Japan  stated 
that it expect ed to receive Indonesia 's response s as soon as possible in order to advance discussions 
constructively.  
10.2.   The representative of Indonesia  stated that, as her delegation had indicated in previous 
meetings, the import regulations for this product were not intended to restrict imports, but rather 
to improve the licensing regime and ensure surveillance of the importation of these products. Under 
the cu rrent regulations, the application for import approval was made electronically and processed 
once all the required documents were complete and correct. The approval times were relatively short 
and within the time -frame set out in the Import Licensing Agree ment.  
10.3.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF WHEAT FEED – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
11.1.   The representative of the European Union  underscored her delegation's deep and 
long-standing concerns about Thailand's import proced ures on feed wheat, including the ir local corn 
purchase requirements . These import procedures had been introduced in 2016 , meaning that they  
had been in place for over five years  despite their stated temporary nature and the increase in 
average domestic co rn prices over the past year. Notably, the EU was concerned about the 
WTO compatibility of Thailand's import licensing regime for feed wheat , and more general ly, it was 
concerned about the apparent priority given to market considerations over WTO  rules as a driver for 
policy decisions in this sector. The EU also recalled that , at the Committee's previous meeting , in G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 14 - 
 
  April 2022, Thailand had cited developments and challenges in the global animal feed market, 
coupled with the COVID -19 pandemic in Thailand, as  causes of the delay in the review process. In 
light of those claims, recent developments, ongoing stakeholder consultations , and the measure's 
possible review, the EU considered that the measure could no longer be maintained  and reiterated 
its request that it be entirely discontinued. Nevertheless, given that the measure did currently remain 
in force , the EU reminded Thailand of its obligation to notify such import procedures in accordance 
with Article  1.4 and Article  5 of the Import Licensi ng Agreement.  
11.2.   Furthermore, the representative of the European Union recalled that her delegation was still 
waiting for Thailand to provide its written replies to the EU's questions submitted before the 
Committee more than five  years previously  and circulat ed to Members as document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 , 
in April  2017, and document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4 , in April  2018. Finally, the EU requested Government 
of Thailand's timely notification of its support programme for corn production and its deficiency 
payment schemes. She emphasized that these supporting measures, which encouraged the 
expansion of corn production, contradicted the rationale of corn oversupply put forward by the Thai 
authorities to justify the conditions that it had placed upon the importation of corn. Such r ationale 
was even less relevant in the context of shortages of feed wheat due to Russia's aggression of 
Ukraine, which had led to the temporary suspension of the measures until late July.  
11.3.   The representative of Thailand  stated that her delegation had note d the concerns raised by 
the European Union, especially those raised in the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods of 
7 July 2022, which had already been conveyed to Capital for its consideration. She  reiterated that 
the review of the feed wheat import measure was still ongoing because it had to take  into account  
a number  of dynamic  factors , such as a hike in the price of raw materials for animal feed on the 
global market, drought and changing climate, and continuing geopolitical tensions, all of which had 
further delay ed the review process. Regarding  domestic support for feed corn, she noted that feed 
corn was a crucial raw material for animal feed and involve d a large group of stakeholders in 
Thailand , such that the design  and implementation of any policy concerning  this important  crop had 
to be carried out with great caution.  As a result, Thailand was still engaged in the necessary process 
of gathering all pertinent information  from stakeholders and  authorities prior to  WTO notification.  
11.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE AGREEMENT – 
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
12.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that improving transparency was an important focus of the 
Committee's work.  Under his own responsibility as Chairperson,  he provide d a brief report on 
developments since the Committee's previous  formal  meeting . 
12.1  eAgenda  
12.2.   The Chairperson  recalled that , at the Committee's meeting of 8 Octob er 2021, Members had 
approved the establishment of an eAgenda for the Import Licensing Committee. An eAgenda would 
facilitate the work of delegations and the Secretariat in building a meeting 's agenda , including adding 
items, making relevant documents dire ctly available to participants in electronic form at, and sharing 
statements . Between 6  July and 31  August  2022, a pilot version of the eAgenda had been accessible 
to delegations on the WTO and Import Licensing websites. The Secretariat had created a moot formal 
meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing in the pilot version of the eAgenda so that delegations 
could test it. Information on how to register and access the eAgenda had b een sent by the Secretariat 
in an email to all delegations of 6 July 2022. In addition, the explanatory guidelines (in English, 
French , and Spanish) had been sent by the Secretariat to all delegations in an email of 13 July 2022. 
In preparation for the Com mittee's current formal meeting, the period for submission of agenda 
items through the eAgenda had opened on 7  September  2022, one  month prior to the date of the 
meeting. Members had been given  until 22  September to incorporate their specific  trade concern s. 
Some Members had also used the earlier method and had sent their specific trade concerns to the 
Secretariat by email for inclusion in the agenda . Following that day's meeting, Members would have 
until 17  October to upload or update their statements on t he eAgenda  platform . G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 15 - 
 
  12.3.   The Chairperson  stated that, with a view to clarify ing any  remaining questions and to 
demonstrate how it worked, the Secretariat would provide  a short overview of the eAgenda platform 
for the benefit of the Committee on  Import Licensing.  
12.4.   A representative of the Secretariat  provided an overview of the eAgenda platform for the 
Committee on Import Licensing. The presentation covered how to access the eAgenda  platform, how 
to incorporate specific trade concerns and other ite ms, and how to upload statements.  
12.5.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairperson and the Secretariat for 
the detailed and useful presentation. She said that her delegation supported the digitali zation of the 
WTO and improving the function ing of committees . She said that the feedback on the eAgenda that 
she had received from her colleagues had been very positive ; they  had found the system to work 
very well and be user-friendly, in particular as concerned the uploading of statements.  
12.6.   The rep resentative of India commended the efforts of the Secretariat in developing the 
system. He noted that s imilar systems had been beneficial in other committees and hoped and 
expected that the same benefits could be realized also in the Import Licensing Commi ttee. 
12.7.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  also thanked the Secretariat and the Chairperson for 
their efforts to complete the launch of the eAgenda for the Import Licensing Committee. Although 
the eAgenda had already been in troduced  in several other committees , a number of Members still 
needed time to get used to it. She said that her delegation believed that the new system could 
simplify and improve Members' work in the Committee.  
12.8.   The representative of the United Kingdom  expressed his d elegation's gratitude to the 
WTO Secretariat for exploring different options to advance the work of the Committee. He said that 
the UK supported the digitalization efforts, including the development of the eAgenda. He also 
requested the Secretariat to circ ulate the guidelines, as these would be useful to discuss with Capital . 
12.9.   The representative of the United States  agreed with other delegations about the usefulness 
of the eAgenda , and recalled that other committees , such as the TBT  Committee, had already be gun 
to use it and had found it very useful. He also seconded the suggestion by the United Kingdom of 
circulating the Secretariat's guidelines.  
12.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12.2  Online N/2  Notifications  
12.11.   The Chairperson  recalled that , at the Committee 's October  2021 meeting , Members had 
agreed to proceed with the development of an online N/2  notification form, entirely based on the 
notification template set out in document  G/LIC/28. At the 7  March informal meeting, the S ecretariat 
had introduced the online N2  form, including each individual entry in the form. At the same time, it 
had been pointed out that significant ly more work remained to be done on the IT  side to make the 
form operational and ensure it s compatib ility with, and link s to, the Import Licensing Database. 
Moreover, to avoid a duplication of efforts and ensure the development of compatible and unform 
digital tool s in the WTO, work would have proceeded in parallel with similar projects in related areas, 
such as notifications under the Committee on Market Access. The Secretariat was continuing to work 
with the IT  Division on the online N /2 notification tool and would  be updating the Committee in due 
course on the progress  and implementation of the project.  
12.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for its work on improving 
transparency in notification procedures. He recalled that his dele gation had presented a proposal to 
enhance transparency and improve compliance with notification requirements, which had been 
discussed at the General Council's July  2022 meeting. The proposal had received the support of over 
a third of the WTO Membership.  It had called for an open and Member -driven process to identify 
and recommend improvements in notification practices, including constructive suggestions for 
process improvements and other actions that would have streamlined the submission of notifications  
and improved Members' capabilities. The co -sponsors of the proposal continued to see the benefits 
of advancing practical technical work aimed at improving Member notification capabilities in the 
subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods, thus en abling the WTO to function more 
effectively for the benefit of Members and traders. He concluded by encouraging the Committee to G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 16 - 
 
  consider new approaches that would place no additional burden on Members while facilitating their 
timely and complete submissio n of notifications.  
12.3  N/3 Questionnaire  
12.13.   The Chairperson  recalled that it had been pointed out at the Committee's previous formal 
meeting that the rate of N/3  notifications remain ed low and ha d followed a declining trend over 
recent years. At the Committee 's meeting  in April  2022, Members had suggested to identify and 
compile the problems that they had encountered when completing their  annual questionnaire  by 
updating document  RD/LIC/14 , of 6 February  2020, already prepared by the Secretariat for t his 
purpose . Following this request, the Secretariat had made a short presentation based on  an update 
of the document.  However, as no delegation took the floor, the Chairperson indicated that he would 
reach out to Members to seek their views in bilateral c onsultations.  
12.4  Import Licensing Notification Workshop  
12.14.   The Chairperson  noted that the Secretariat had organized and conducted the fifth  Workshop 
on Import Licensing and Notifications from 27  to 29 September  2022. The objective  of the workshop 
had been to pro vide an overview of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and to help 
Members to fulfil their notification obligations in the area of Import Licensing. As in 2021, this 
workshop had taken place in virtual mode, via the Zoom Platform. It had been  originally planned to 
hold the workshop in the three WTO  official languages , with a session in English, a session in French , 
and a session in Spanish. However, only two  applications had been received for the session in 
French. Therefore, due to the low number  of participants, the workshop did not take place in French. 
The Secretariat had reached out to those Members that applied to follow the session in French with 
an offer of bilateral technical assistance ; in addition, the Secretariat was looking at how to organize 
other technical assistance activities for French -speaking Members at the national and regional level s. 
At the same time, given the high number of participants who had signed up for the session in English, 
it had been decided to conduct two  sessions in English , on 27 and 28  September , and one session 
in Spanish , on 29  September. In total, the workshop was attended by 65  government officials from 
37 countries.  
12.15.   The representative of Thailand  thanked t he Chairperson and the Secretariat for organizing 
the workshop, which had greatly benefited their capital -based officials. He asked the Chairperson 
and Secretariat to consider organizing such a workshop also for Geneva -based delegates, as it would 
be espec ially useful for newly arrived delegates in terms of helping them to familiarize themselves 
with the Import Licensing Agreement. Commenting on the issue of transparency, he expressed his 
delegation's support for the important work to promote transparency a nd compliance with 
notification requirements, including the development of the eAgenda. He encouraged the 
Chairperson and the Secretariat to continue such work in the future, considering the declining trends 
in the number of N/3  notifications , with an aver age of only 37  notifications per year, which 
corresponded to approximately 25% of the WTO  Members hip. 
12.16.   The representative of Indonesia  echoed Thailand's suggestion for holding a workshop on 
import licensing procedures for Geneva -based delegates.  
12.17.   The represe ntative of the United States  asked if the material and presentations used in the 
workshops that were conducted in English and Spanish could be circulated to the Committee.  
12.18.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
12.5  E-Commerce  
12.19.   The Chairperson  recalled that, as stated in the Ministerial Decision on the E -Commerce 
Moratorium and Work Programme, Members had agreed to "reinvigorate the work under the  Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce, based on the mandate as set out in WT/L/274 and particularly 
in line with its development dimension". The 1998  Work Programme on Electronic Commerce 
contained a list of issues for the Council for Trade in Goods and i ts subsidiary bodies to examine . 
The Committee on Import Licensing  had been tasked to examine "i ssues arising from the application 
of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ". He recalled that after the 1998  work programme 
had been adopted, there had been no follow -up in the Committee on Import Licensing on the issue G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 17 - 
 
  of import licensing and electronic commerce.  As no delegation took the floor, the Chairperson said 
that he would reach out to Members to seek their views in bilateral consultations.  
12.6  Experi ence -Sharing on Import Licensing Procedures  
12.20.   The Chairperson  stated  that a series of experience -sharing sessions on trade in 
COVID -19-related goods were being organized by the Committee on Market Access , with the most 
recent having been held on 16  September  2022. The next  session would take place on 21  November , 
with the participation of the private sector. He also recalled that when this type of experience -sharing 
session had been proposed in the Import Licensing Committee, at the Committee's previous meeti ng, 
some Members had noted that , while they thought such sessions could be useful, they considered 
that it would have been better to hold them after MC12. Accordingly , he again sought Members' 
views  on holding similar experience -sharing session s on import  licensing procedures , with a focus 
on COVID -19-related goods , or perhaps a broader scope. As no delegation took the floor, the 
Chairperson said that he would reach out to Members to seek their views in bilateral consultations.  
13  FOURTEENTH BIENNIAL REV IEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT (G/LIC/W/57)  
13.1.   The Chairperson  stated that  Article  7.1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
provide d that "the Committee shall review as necessary, but at least once every two  years, the  
implementation and operation of this Agreement ". He recalled  that the thirteenth biennial review 
had been  held at the Committee 's meeting of October  2020 and , according to the rules, the 
Committee was to undertake its fourteenth  biennial review at that meetin g. To this end, the 
Secretariat ha d drafted a factual report under its own responsibility for consideration by the 
Committee. The report had been circulated  in document  G/LIC/W/57, which cover ed the period from 
10 October  2020 to 7  October  2022, the date of that day's  meeting. Once updated, the report would  
be circulated as a G/LIC/ - document, taking into consideration the views expressed by  Members at 
the current meeting. New notifications submi tted between 22  September, when the Airgram had 
closed , and 7  October, would  also be reflected in the final report.  In Section  5 of the report, t he 
Secretariat had continued to provide some in -depth analysis regarding new N/2 and 
N/3 notifications . The Cha irperson sought Members' views and comments.  
13.2.   The Committee adopted  the report  (G/LIC/W/57).  
14  DRAFT REPORT (202 2) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/56)  
14.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee was required to submit an annual rep ort on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods under Article  7.4 of the Agreement. A draft report, 
covering the activities of the Committee  in 202 2, had been  circulated in document  G/LIC/W/5 6 for 
the Committee's consideration.  He noted that, s ince issuing the draft report, the Committee had  
received new notifications , and that t he report, including its Annexes, would  therefore be updated 
to reflect those new notifications.  The Chairperson sought Members' views and comments.  
14.2.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  noticed that certain factual amendments were 
necessary regarding Hong Kong, China's notifications mentioned in Annex  I; his delegation would 
send these amendments to the Secretariat.  
14.3.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Committee agree to ado pt the report subject to it being 
updated to take into account the Committee's work at that day's meeting, as well as the new  
notifications and documents received . 
14.4.   The Committee adopted  the report  (G/LIC/W/56).  
15  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
15.1.   The Chairperson  informed delegations that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Thursday, 
6 April 2023 as the date of the Committee's next formal meeting. He added that the final date would 
be confirmed well before the meeting itself, and that additional meetings may be co nvened as 
required.  G/LIC/M/55  
 
- 18 - 
 
  15.2.   The representative of India said that his delegation was aware that the Secretariat work ed 
very hard on the scheduling of meetings . Nevertheless, they requested that conflicts with other 
meeting s be avoided as this was helpful to delega tions, especially the smaller ones.  
15.3.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made . 
16  APPOINTMENT OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
16.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that a ccording to its Rules of Procedure s, the Committee on Import 
Licensing  "shall elect … a Vice -Chairperson". He informed delegations that he was in the process of 
conducting bilateral consultations to identify the name of a Vice -Chairperson for the Committee. 
Once a suitable candidate  had been identified , the Secretariat would send an email to Members wi th 
the name of the proposed Vice -Chairperson for the Committee. If no objection were received within 
the time -frame indicated in the email, the candidate would be deemed to have been elected by the 
Committee  by acclamation . 
16.2.   The Committee so agreed . 
17  OTHER B USINESS  
17.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that , at the outset of the meeting , the European Union had raised 
an agenda item regarding the Dominican Republic's draft legislation on a new import licensing 
system.  
17.2.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her delegation's concern about the 
Dominican Republic's  draft legislation setting up a new system of import licences for agricultural 
products. The EU  noted that the very broad scope of the proposed changes , covering several hundred 
tariff lines , could lead to an increase in the administrative burden on exporters. In parallel to 
automatic licences, the draft introduced non -automatic licensing, including for products that were 
not covered by tariff rate quotas . Furthermore, the proposed non -automatic licensing system for 
products not covered by tariff rate quotas introduced uncertainty  about the criteria for granting 
import licences and represented an impediment to trade. The EU wished to recall that WTO  Member s 
had recogni zed the need to minimize the incidence and complexities of import formalities and 
simplify import documentation requirements. Therefore , the EU requested information from the 
Dominican Republic concerning its plan for implementation, publicati on, and notification of the draft 
instruments , including whether transitions periods were foreseen.  
17.3.   The representative of the Dominican Republic  thanked the European Union for the concerns 
expressed and said that the points raised would be transmitted to Capital and replies provided in 
due course. She also said that her delegation would appreciate receiving a copy of the EU's 
statement , listing these concerns , in writing.  
17.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
__________