RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/49  
 
21 August 2019  
(19-5385) Page: 1/18 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 4  APRIL  2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MS . LORENA RIVERA ORJUE LA (COLOMBIA)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fiftieth  meeting on 4  April 2019 under the 
chairpersonship of Ms  Lorena Rivera Orjuela  (Colombia). The agenda proposed for the meeting was 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/9.  
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 TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
2.1   Document  G/LIC/Q/GHA/2  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/23  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b)  ................................ ................................ ........  4 
3.2   Notifications under Article  5 ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
4   TUNISIA – IMPORT RE STRICTIVE MEASURES O F 28 NOVEMBER 2018:  USE OF 
NON-AUTOMATIC LICENC ES – STATEMENT BY TH E EUROPEAN UNION  ............................  6 
5   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR  CELLPHONES, HANDHEL D 
COMPUTERS, AND TABLET S – STATEMENT BY THE  UNITED STATES  ................................ . 7 
6   INDIA – IMPORT LICE NSING REQUIREMENTS F OR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT  
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
7   VIET NAM – IMPORT L ICENSING FOR CYBER S ECURITY PRODUCTS – STATEMENT  
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10 
8   CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR  CERTAIN RECOVERABLE  
MATERIALS – STATEMEN T BY THE UNITED STAT ES ................................ ........................  11 
9   DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – IMPORT LICENSING P ERMITS FOR POULTRY –  
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  12 
10   GHANA – IMPORT PROC EDURES AND PERMITS F OR POULTRY – STATEME NT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13 
11   IMPROVING TRANSPARE NCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE  
AGREEMENT – REPORT O F THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ...............................  14 
12   NEW IMPORT LICENSIN G WEBSITE – UPDATE B Y THE SECRETARIAT  .....................  16 
13   DATE OF THE NEXT ME ETING  ................................ ................................ ..................  18 
14   ELECTION OF OFFICER S ................................ ................................ ..........................  18 
 G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  MEMBERS ' COMPLIANCE WITH NOT IFICATION OBLIGATION S – DEVELOPMENTS SIN CE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  reported that a total of 25  notifications had been received under various 
provisions of the Agreement since the last formal meeting, all of which were listed in  the Airgram 
for consideration. As of 4 April 2019, 14 Members had not yet submitted any notification under any 
provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO;  24 Members had not yet submitted any such 
notifications regarding their import licensing laws under Article  1.4(a) and/or  8.2(b);  24 Members 
had not yet submitted any Replies to the Questionnaire under Article  7.3. In addition, only 
25 Members ha d submitted their replies to the Questionnaire for 2018 . In this context, she 
encouraged Members that had not yet submitted their replies to the Questionnaire for 2018 to do 
so as soon as possible.  
1.2.  At the same time , she drew the Committee 's attention to the fact that Myanmar had submitted 
its notifications to this Committee for the first  time. The two  notifications, namely 
documents  G/LIC/N/1/MMR/1 and G/LIC/N/2/MMR/1, had been circulated and included on the 
agenda for review. She highlighted that these notifications were comprehensive and complete. 
Myanmar  had submitted not only 21  laws and import licensing -related regulations but  had also 
notified procedural details and product coverage for each law using the new n otification template. 
In this context, she congratulated Myanmar for its tremendous efforts in preparing such 
comprehensive notifications, and especially for using the voluntary formats, which had significantly 
improved the transparency level of Myanmar 's trade policy regime. Furthermore, she also 
encouraged Myanmar to submit as soon as possible its first  reply to the annual questionnaire.  
1.3.  The representative of Myanmar  thanked the Chair for her encouraging words.  He noted that 
his delegation had been happy to submit their notification s to the Committee on Import Licensing 
for the first  time. For the record, and for the sake of transparency, he reiterate d some of the key 
points already made at the Committee's informal meeting of 8 March  2019. 
1.4.  He indicated tha t Myanmar attache d great importance to improving its transparency record in 
the area of import licensing. Prior to June  2012, all imports into Myanmar had been subject to import 
licensing  requirements . Since then, import licensing requirements had been gradually relaxed , such 
that approximately 70% of import licensing requirements had since been abolished . Indeed, his 
government was working continuously to further open up Myanmar's import licensing regime.  
1.5.  He explained that many min istries were involved in issuing licences on different products in 
Myanmar . Domestic coordination among government agencies had been extremely difficult in the 
past. As an LDC  Member , Myanmar also faced capacity constraint s with regard to fulfilling  its 
notification obligations under the Import Licensing Agreement ; for this reason,  his country had not 
previously been in a position to submit any of its WTO  import licensing  notifications. This situation 
had begun  to change further to their Capital officials attending import licensing workshops in Geneva 
in 2017 and 2018. In addition, a National Workshop on Import Licensing had been held in Nay Pyi 
Taw, in Myanmar,  in January  2019. Over 60  officials from 30  Ministries had participated in this 
nationa l workshop. The workshop had been very successful, and its participants had greatly 
benefitted from the training provided by the WTO Secretariat.  He expressed Myanmar's gratitude to 
the WTO Secretariat for its assistance  in this regard . 
1.6.  He continued by not ing that, although Myanmar continued to face many challenges and 
constraints, it had made its best efforts to submit notification s that were as comprehensive as 
possible . His government would continue to welcome targeted WTO  technical assistance in this 
regard. 
1.7.  Regarding Myanmar's notification circulated as document  G/LIC/N/2/MMR/1, he highlighted 
that the new N/2 notification template  had been welcomed and used by different ministries , where 
officials had found it to be clear and easy to follow,  enabling them to provide the relevant information 
without undue difficulty.  With regard  to the annual questionnaire , he informed the Committee  that 
his Capital was currently working on it and that Myanmar 's first  N3 notification would be submitted 
when rea dy. 
1.8.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair for her report a nd congratulate d 
Myanmar for submitting its first notification s to the Committee . G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.9.  The representative of Japan  underline d the importance of improving transparency  and 
congratulat ed Myanmar for submitting its notifications to this Committee  for the first  time. 
1.10.   The Committee took note  of the Chair person 's report and of the statements made.  
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBERS  ON SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS  
2.1  Document  G/LIC/Q/GHA/2  
2.1.  The representative of the United States  indicated that her delegation would take the floor under  
agenda item 10. 
2.2.  In response, t he representative of Ghana  thanked the US for its questions on the importation  
of meat and meat products (poultry) into Ghana,  contained in document  G/LIC/Q/GHA/2 , dated 
6 March  2019. He replied to the U S questions  orally , in accordance with the answers circulated in 
document  G/LIC/Q/GHA/3.  
2.3.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/2 3 
2.4.  The representative of the European Union  noted that t he EU ha d submitted follow -up questions 
on nitrocellulose for industrial purposes to the Brazilian delegation on 22  October  2018 and had also 
raised this issue at the Committee's previous meeting.  She remind ed the Brazilian Delegation that 
the EU were still awaiting Brazil's replies.  
2.5.  In response, the representative of Brazil  indicated that his  delegation ha d not yet received any 
additional questions from th e EU and asked the EU to submit these  as a WTO  document. He 
underscored that Brazil had already provided its replies to the EU in document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/2 3. His 
delegation stood ready to respond to any additional questions from the EU once these had been 
received in writing.  
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  reminded China that t he EU ha d addressed to it a 
set of detailed questions , submitted in document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27 , seeking further clarific ation o f 
China's annual notification with regard to its restrictions on solid waste . She asked China when it 
intended to reply to the EU's questions.  
2.7.  The representative of China  thank ed the EU for its questions. He noted that China attach ed 
importance to the implementation of the WTO's transparency obligations. Currently, China was 
working on a new set of replies to the annual questionnaire  and would  submit these as soon as 
possible.  
2.8.  Regarding automatic import licensing , he indicated  that it was applie d to certain freely -
imported commodities for collecting trade statistics and for monitoring  imports . The practice was in 
compliance with the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. No restriction was imposed on the 
quantity or value of imports . 
2.9.  With regard to poultry , which had been mentioned in the EU's Question  7, its import  was 
subject to automatic import licences for monitoring and statistics  purposes . Regarding 
electromechanical products, the automatic procedure applied was no differen t from that applied to 
any other products  in this category . 
2.10.   In addition,  the list of products subject to non -automatic and automatic licensing procedures 
could be found on the website of the Ministry of Commerce.  Regarding procedures for automatic and 
non-automatic import licensing, he replied that he  had already present ed them at the Committee 's 
last meeting . G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4  
2.11.   The representative of the European Union  noted with regret that  Thailand ha d not submitted 
any reply to the annual questionnaire since 2013. The EU strongly encourage d Thailand to comply 
with its notification obligations and sought clarification as to the reasons behind such a long delay.  
2.12.   She reiterated the EU's concern over Thailand 's import procedures introduced on  feed wheat. 
She recalled that , following Thailand 's request raised at last year 's Committee  meeting , the EU ha d 
submitted additional questions , in April  2018. However, no written reply had yet been received from 
Thailand.  
2.13.   The EU reiterate d its wish to understand on what basis the measure would be maintained and 
for how long . The EU also wishe d to receive a detailed description of the import licensing procedures 
to be applied. Likewise, the EU wished  to receive actual data on the corn market in  order to verify 
whether or not Thailand 's justification of the measure on the grounds of corn oversupply could be 
considered acceptable . 
2.14.   Furthermore, she pointed out that , as per its written questions, the EU had underst ood that 
the Thai government ha d launched a support programme for corn production since September  2018 
in order to provide incentives for rice farmers to divert their farming to corn during the drought 
period and to fill in the gap between the domestic demand for corn (8  million MT) and domestic 
production (5  million  MT). The programme provide d both financial  support  (minimum price 
guarantee, crop insurance premium subsidy , and soft loans for inputs and management costs in the 
post-harvesting period) and non -financial suppor t (marketing and technical assistance) to farmers 
that switch ed their farming from rice to corn. This support programme seem ed to contradict the 
claim of alleged market oversupply of domestic corn . Therefore , the EU requested Thailand to clarify 
how govern ment support for the expansion of corn production c ould be reconciled with an alleged 
market oversupply in domestic corn.  
2.15.   The EU looked forward to receiv ing detailed written replies to its questions circulated in 
document s G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4. The EU also wished  to know if Thailand intended to 
notify its import procedures for wheat feed in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement.  
2.16.   The representative of the United States  shared the EU 's concerns regarding Thailand 's lack of 
notifications and import procedures for wheat feed. She noted that the US had also submitted 
questions to Thailand,  in April  2018, but had not yet receive d a response. In order to meet its 
transparency obligations und er this Committee, the US urged Thailand to submit its notification of 
this procedure and to complete the annual questionnaire.  
2.17.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the EU and the US for their questions regarding the 
import of wheat and provided certain updated information in response to the EU 's questions . He 
inform ed the Committee that, for the previous two years , the volume of wheat import ha d increased 
by 6.46% , from 1.6 million metric tonnes in 2015 , to 1.71  million metric tonnes in 2017. Thailand 
believed that the volume s in this case  would continue to increase. Currently , the relevant 
government agencies  in Thailand were consult ing with different stakeholders , includ ing farmers  and 
industry , to work on how to improve the animal feed supply chains . He indicated that his delegation 
would continue to provide Members with updated information.  
2.18.   On a separate note, the Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had updated 
the "Consolid ated paper of written questions and replies submitted to the Committee since 1995 ", 
which had been circulated in document  G/LIC/W/51/Rev.1.  
2.19.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b)  
3.1.  Three notif ications from Myanmar and Tajikistan were reviewed  
(documents  G/LIC/N/1/MMR/1, G/LIC/N/1/TJK/2 and G/LIC/N/1/TJK/2/Corr.1) . G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.2.  The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
3.2  Notifications under Article  5 
3.3.  Ten notifications  under Article  5.1-5.4, from six  Members , were reviewed  at the meeting , as 
follow s: Angola ( documents  G/LIC/N/2/AGO/ 1 and G/LIC/N/2/AGO/2); Costa Rica ( document  
G/LIC/N/2/CRI/3); Hong Kong, China ( documents  G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 9，G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 10, 
G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 11, and G/LIC/N/2/HKG/ 12); Myanmar  (document  G/LIC/N/2/MMR/1); Switzerland 
(document  G/LIC/N/2/CHE/3) ; and Ukraine ( document  G/LIC/N/2/UKR/8).  
3.4.  The Chairperson  noted  that most of the above notifications had been prepared using the new 
templates.  
3.5.  The representative of Costa Rica  expressed hi s gratitude  to the Secretariat for the assistance 
offered in preparing Costa Rica 's notification . 
3.6.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and of the statement made.  
3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 
3.7.  Twelve N/3 notifications , from 10  Member s, were reviewed at this meeting , most of which were 
for 2018 , with a few submitted for 2017 or earlier , as follow s: G/LIC/N/3/COL/12 ( Colombia,  for 
2018) ; G/LIC/N/3/CRI/13,  G/LIC/N/3/CRI/ 14, and G/LIC/N/3/CRI/ 15 (Costa Rica,  for 2016, 2017 , 
and 2018); G/LIC /N/3/SLV/3 ( El Salvador,  for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/GEO/8 (Georgia, for 2018); 
G/LIC/N/3/IND/18 ( India,  for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/3 ( Kazakhstan,  for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/NIC/10 
(Nicaragua,  for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/SGP/14 ( Singapore,  for 2018); G/LIC/N/3/ZAF/7 ( South Afri ca, 
for 2018) and G/LIC/N /3/URY/12 ( Uruguay,  for 2018).  
3.8.  On India 's notification (G/LIC/Q/N/3/IND/18), the representative of Canada  stated that , as the 
largest supplier of pulses to India, Canada ha d been the Member most negatively affected by India 's 
recent measures to limit its import s of pulses. He noted that p ulses were an important source of 
protein for many Indian consumers and that Canada was a high quality and reliable supplier. In this 
context, Canada was disappointed that on 29  March  2019 India had extended its quantitative 
restriction  (QR) on the import of dry peas for a whole year.  
3.9.  He emphasized that i t had a been a full year since India had first introduced its quantitative 
restriction on dry peas, and that India ha d still not provided cle ar information on the GATT /WTO basis 
for this quantitative restriction.  
3.10.   He observed that i n India 's latest response to the questionnaire , submitted to the Committee 
on 17 January  2019, India had specified that its import restriction was maintained on the grounds 
of protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, and security and the 
environment.  However, to date, India ha d yet to respond to Canada 's request to provide further  
details  of the basis on which it applied this import restriction on dry peas.  
3.11.   He continued that India 's response did not include any specificity on the rationale to impose 
import restrictions on dry peas and other pulses  and reiterated that t he eliminatio n of quantitative 
restrictions was a fundamental principle in both the GATT and the WTO.  Canada again ask ed India 
to specify the GATT or WTO  legal basis for this measure.  
3.12.   Without prejudice to Canada 's assessment of the legal basis for this measure  that India might 
yet provide , Canada also ask ed India promptly to notify the relevant procedure for obtain ing licences 
for the quota, and ask ed India to indicate when and on which Indian government website this 
information w ould be made available to importers.  
3.13.   The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation  continue d to have significant 
concerns with regard to India 's application of quantitative restrictions on the importation of various 
pulses. He emphasized that these concerns were held not only by Australia, but by other Members  
too. G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.14.   He recalled that for almost two  years Australia ha d been engagin g with India in multiple 
formats to raise their concerns, including asking detailed and considered questions of India in every 
relevant WTO  Committee with regard to the WTO  basis and application of these  QRs. 
3.15.   He noted that Australian concerns remain ed and were strengthening, notably as a result of 
new measures announced by India on 29  March  2019, which restrict ed pulse imports into India for 
a further year. He remind ed all Members  that, in August  2017, India had applied QRs on an annual 
basis of 150,000  tonnes for both Mung beans  and Urad, and 200,000  tonnes for Pigeon Peas . These 
QRs had been further modified and expanded on 4  May 2018. On 25  April 2018, India had applied 
a three -month 100,000  tonne quantitative restriction on the importation of peas, back -dated to 
1 April 2018. This QR had been extended three  times, for three  months each , with no additional 
volume added, with the last QR  extension e nding on 31  March  2019.  
3.16.   On 29  March  2019, India had notified Members that its QRs would apply for the fiscal year 
commencing 1  April 2019 on the following pulse varieties:  
– Mung beans  (green gram) , limited to 150,000  tonnes for the fiscal year;  
 
– Urad (black gram bean/lentil) , limited to 150,000  tonnes for the fiscal year; and  
 
– Pigeon Peas (toor dal) , limited to 200,000  tonnes for the fiscal year.  
 
3.17.   The QR on peas would extend for another full year , starting on 1  April 2019, limiting imports 
of peas (including yellow, green, dun , and kaspa peas) to 150,000  tonnes during this period.  
3.18.   He request ed India to explain the WTO  basis of the application of these QRs , underscoring 
that the burden  to do so  fell on India . His delegation also asked  India to explain why the 
announcement of these measures had not been accompanied by information on licensing procedures 
to ensure that traders could access these quotas . Furthermore, he  asked India to explain how these 
measures were 'temporary ', noting that India's QRs w ould see pulse imports restricted for two  years 
or more . A clarification of whether or not the QRs for Mung beans, Urad , and Pigeon Peas were 
permanent  would also be welcome;  in other words, would these QRs continue in future fiscal years , 
until removed? And was the QR for peas 'temporary '; would it  stop on 31  March  2020, unless 
removed?  
3.19.   The representative of Ukraine  echoed the concerns expressed by Canada and Australia. She 
called upon India to comply with its WTO  obligations.  
3.20.   The re presentative of  the European Union  also supported the concerns expressed by Canada, 
Australia,  and Ukraine,  and invite d India to provide the legal basis for all of the measures in question . 
3.21.   In response, the representative of India thank ed the delegations o f Australia, Canada, the 
EU, and Ukraine for the ir continued interest in India 's pulses import policy. He request ed these 
Members  to provide their questions in writing so that they could be sent to Capital to receive detailed 
responses , as requested.  
3.22.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and of the statements made.  
4  TUNISIA – IMPORT RES TRICTIVE MEASURES OF  28 NOVEMBER  2018: USE OF 
NON-AUTOMATIC LICENCES – STATEMENT BY THE EU ROPEAN UNION  
4.1.  The representative of the European Union  regretted to report that , on 29 November  2018, and 
without prior notice to private operators, Tunisia had enforced , by surprise , a new restrictive 
measure imposing import authori zations on a very long list of products. The EU  had noticed that 
Tunisia ha d established a de facto  system of non -automatic import licences for these products. These 
authori zations should in theory be guided by technical specifications (so called "cahiers des charges ") 
but these ha d not yet been defined . The Ministry of Trade in T unisia evaluate d and decide d on 
importation requests literally on a case -by-case basis in the absence of objective criteria. Moreover, 
quantitative restrictions were also being applied.  G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.2.  He indicated that t he list of products concerned include d many agricul tural and agri -food 
products, textiles and clothing, cosmetics, leather products, shoes, toys, and electrical goods. The 
products affected represent ed roughly 4% of total EU  exports to Tunisia. The new measure ha d not 
been notified to the WTO and appear ed to run contrary to WTO  provisions.  
4.3.  He elaborated that Tunisia's import  regime was based on four categories : (i) free import; 
(ii) import based on technical specifications (the importer had to comply with certain provisions and 
to obtain an authori zation fo r all future imports of the same product); (iii)  importation based on prior 
authorization, based on specific criteria ; and (iv)  prohibited products. The decision of Tunisia 
extend ed the scope of products in category  (iii) above while, apparently, technical specifications 
were in the process of being prepared . The declared purpose of the measure was to assure product 
safety and consumer protection although, initially, the EU had been  told that these measures were 
necessary to redr ess Tunisia's trade deficit.  
4.4.  He argued that t hese measures , specifically the  imposition of non -automatic import licences , 
may constitute an import restriction inconsistent with GATT  Article  XI:1 if not justified under the 
relevant exceptions . 
4.5.  Regarding the  way that the measure was being administered, the provisions of the WTO  Import 
Licensing Agreement would apply  in this case . 
4.6.  Regarding the potential informal conditions to be imposed on importers for obtaining an import 
licence ( including a reduction in  the quantity imported), these would not only be incompatible with 
GATT  Article  XI and the Import Licensing Agreement, but also in violation of GATT  Article  X:1 and 2 
(publication of measures of general application).  
4.7.  Based on this analysis , the EU  expect ed the Tunisian Government to repeal these measures as 
soon as possible. The EU w ould raise this issue at the next meeting of the Goods Council , if 
necessary . In this context, he asked  Tunisia to comment  on, and specifically to explain , the 
compatibility of the se measures with WTO  provisions.  
4.8.  The representative of the United States  shared the EU's concerns  over Tunisia 's import licensing  
requirements for a variety of product s. He support ed the EU  and asked  Tunisia to provide more 
detailed information on its import requirements and to formally notify all of its import licensing -
related measures.  
4.9.  In response, the representative of Tunisia  took note of the EU and US  statement s. He confirm ed 
that his delegation would engage in d iscuss ions with the EU and the  US on this issue. He noted that 
the Minister of Trade of Tunisia was  evaluating this decision and  that his delegation would  be happy 
to share any further information.  
4.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR  CELLPHONES, HANDHEL D COMPUTERS, 
AND TABLETS – STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  
5.1.  The representative of the United States  reiterated long-standing and serious US concerns over 
Indonesia 's import licensing regimes , and its import licensing r equirements for cell  phones, handheld 
computers, and tablets  in particular . 
5.2.  She recalled that , in past questions to Indonesia, the US had sought clarity on the specific 
requirements of Indonesia 's import licensing regime and on the rationale for the requirements 
overall.  
5.3.  While acknowledg ing the responses that Indonesia had provided in May  2017, the US 
considered that these responses had not resolve d its concerns and , in some instances,  they had 
insufficiently address ed the questions that had been asked.  
5.4.  The US continue d to seek Indonesia 's explanation as to why its import licensing regime 
requirements treat ed 3G and 4G  technologies differently. Indonesia had confirmed in its responses G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 8 - 
 
  that the se two types of products were treated differently but had not explain ed its rationale for doing 
so. The US once again ask ed Indonesia to clarify its rationale  in this regard . 
5.5.  She pointed out that the US failed to understand why Indonesia require d both a licence to 
import generally —which divide d companies into those that import ed for further processing ( "API-P") 
and those that import ed finished products ( "API-U")—as well as a separate licence for specific 
products, in this case for 4G  LTE products, including a requirement to obtain a recommendation from 
the specific ministry with regulatory responsibility.  
5.6.  It remained unclear to the US if domestic companies were subject to equivalent requirements 
to those imposed upon importers. For example, there appear ed to be a different requirement for 
domestic companies with regard to the use of distributors. When asked to identify similar 
requirements for domestic producers, Indonesia had provided no specific information.  
5.7.  In addition,  Indonesia 's regulations had impos ed a number of additional requirements for 
obtaining certification prior to obtaining an import licen ce. Based on Indonesia 's responses to date, 
it appear ed to the US that Indonesia 's system favour ed imports intended for further processing as 
opposed to im ports of finished products.  
5.8.  The US continue d to question whether or not Indonesia's import licensing regime was 
consistent with the principles of the WTO as a general matter, as well as how these requirements 
could be considered to be no more administrativ ely burdensome than necessary.  
5.9.  She underscored the seriousness of the issue, highlighting that these import licensing 
requirements ha d distorted trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector, which was a 
sector of significance to both the US and the global economy. Her delegation noted that Indonesia 
had stated that it intend ed to undertake a comprehensive review of the local content requirements 
attached to its import licensing regime for 4G  products.  
5.10.   The US welcome d this review and request ed the Government of Indonesia to conduct it in an 
open and transparent manner in a process that included all stakeholders and trading partners. The 
US also ask ed that the Indonesian delegation keep the Committee informed of updates regarding 
this review.  
5.11.   Finally , she appreciate d that Indonesia ha d notified some of these measures to the Committee  
and urged Indonesia also 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 , and overall to reconsider these import licensing requirements 
for cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets.  
5.12.   The representative of the European Union  echoe d the US statement.  
5.13.   In response, the repr esentative of Indonesia  thanked the US  and the EU for their continued 
interest in the products concerned and reiterate d Indonesia 's position  as explained  in previous 
meetings.  
5.14.   She noted that Indonesia's regulation on import s of cellular telephone s, handhel d computer s, 
and tablet s, was governed by the Regulation of Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia. It  
aimed to secure compliance with Indonesia 's law on trade, law on industry , and law on 
standardization and conformity assessment , to ensure that 4G devices met Indonesia 's national 
standards and to protect end -users of the se devices. The requirements  stipulated in the regulation 
were also applied to domestic industries.  
5.15.   She empha sized that Indonesia had already notified the regulation regarding certification of 
cellular telephone s, handheld computer s, and tablet s, to the Committee on Technical Barriers to 
Trade , in document  G/TBT/N/IDN/116.  
5.16.   Regarding l ocal content requirement s, she noted  that all of the relevant ministries were 
currently reviewing  the existing policy. The regulation s in the telecommunication sector s would  be 
simplified and amended to be more efficient and transparent. Some issues within certain regulations 
were also being reviewed to establish a more efficient and transparent procedure to improve G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Indonesia 's contribution to global telecommunication s development. She highlighted that t his was a 
continuing process and that her delegation would inform interested Members of such an update in 
due course . 
5.17.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDIA – IMPORT LICEN SING REQUIREMENTS FO R BORIC ACID – STATE MENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
6.1.  The representative of the United States  stated that the US had been concerned for so me time 
over India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with regard to the burdensome 
end-use certificates necessary for importation.  
6.2.  He recalled that this issue had been repeatedly raised in this Committee for over a decade. The 
US concerns had begun in 2006, when India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry had issued a rule 
stating that "Imports of Boric Acid for non -insecticidal purposes w ould be subject to an import permit 
issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Co mmittee under the Ministry of 
Agriculture. " Prior to this change, no import permit had been required for boric acid.  
6.3.  He noted that t he rule require d that an importer of non -insecticidal boric acid provide details 
of the precise end -use of the product prior to importation , as well as the historical import and 
production data of the finished product. This information was subject to a formal government review 
process.  
6.4.  He pointed out that i t did not appear that import requests were promptly  reviewe d. The Central 
Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) met only monthly, and it was not clear to 
what extent it ha d the opportunity to review those import requests  that had been received . Indeed, 
the US underst ood that the CIBRC ha d not approv ed a single import permit for non -insecticidal boric 
acid since June  2018, despite repeated applications.  
6.5.  In addition to the lengthy time -frame for obtaining an approval, the US  underst ood that the 
most recent approvals for imported boric acid were based o n past import levels. This appear ed to 
further limit the quantities that c ould be imported.  
6.6.  Indian importers ha d also expressed their frustration over the fact that import licensing 
applications had to include  information on past consumption of boric acid and production of the 
finished product, which was information often unavailable to importers.  
6.7.  The US  continue d to request India to explain why boric acid, which ha d a toxicity level roughly 
equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide that re quired an import permit for non -
insecticidal use, considering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticides that  did not require 
an import permit.  
6.8.  They also question ed why imports of boric acid were subject to these requirements, given that 
domestic manufacturers of boric acid d id not have to seek approval from a government ministry to 
sell their product, and domestic producers d id not have to determine the end use of the boric acid 
prior to its sale. To the contrary, domestic producers c ould sell to any buyer  and face d no limit on 
how much they could sell. 
6.9.  In this context, he continue d to request India to amend its Schedule –I (Imports) of the 
ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items to eliminate the requirement that imports of 
boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes need an import permit.  
6.10.   In response, the representative of India thank ed the US for its continued interest in the matter 
relating to the import of boric acid. He indicated that India ha d already submitted its detailed wr itten 
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.  
6.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7  VIET NAM – IMPORT  LICENSING FOR CYBER  SECURITY PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY 
THE UNITED STATES  
7.1.  The representative of the United States  expressed  US concern over Viet Nam 's Decree  No. 58 
on the import of civil cryptography products, which mandate d that import licences were required for 
certain products utilizing encryption (cryptography). She noted that , according to Decree  No. 58, 
the Decree 's supplemental Appendices, and the guidance issued by the Government Cipher 
Committee, import licences appe ared to be required only for certain products where encryption was 
a "primary " or "core" function (Decree  No. 58, Appendix  1, and GCC  Letter No.  223). However, Viet 
Nam also appear ed to require import licences for products where encryption was not the core  
function.  
7.2.  She listed some  of the specific US  questions on the import licensing requirements set out in 
Viet Nam's Decree  No. 58, as follows : 
– Why had the requirement been broadened to cover products where encryption was an 
"important " function, rather than limiting it to the narrower "core" function requirement , 
as provided for in the decree?  
– What criteria were used to determine which products require d an import licence ? 
– If there existed a list that was used by Vietnamese Customs authorities to determine 
which products required an import licence , how was that list drawn up ? How could 
companies request to have a product removed from this list if it did not meet the 
encryption level threshold?  
– Why did Viet Nam require additional licensing for IT  companies , and what were the 
specific prerequisite conditions needed to demonstrate appropriate expertise?  
7.3.  She argued that t his uncertain operating environmen t could unnecessarily stifle trade without 
providing any clear benefits to Viet Nam.  In terms of procedure, she pointed out that the process 
for acquiring import licences also appear ed unnecessarily burdensome, as an importer must be 
licensed as an "Inform ation Technology (IT) company " even to be able to apply for an import licence . 
US industry had report ed that this process alone c ould take 60  days, with an additional 60  days 
required for a product to be licensed for import.  
7.4.  The US urged Viet Nam to remove the conditions that it had introduced on companies applying 
for an import licence and instead to consider a less trade -restrictive method of implementation ; Viet 
Nam should at least suspend implementation of these requirements until stakeholder questions and 
concerns had been addressed . The US  request ed that Viet Nam notify all of its measures to the 
appropriate WTO  Committees, including the Committee on Import Licensing . 
7.5.  The representative of Japan  express ed Japan's significant interest  in Viet Nam 's Cybersecurity 
Law. He requested Viet Nam to provide Japan  with details of its import licensing requirements and 
procedures based on the Cybersecurity Law and its relevant regulations.  He noted that Japan would 
monitor the situation closely and make further comments if necessary.  
7.6.  The representative of the European Union  supported the US  request and urged Viet Nam to 
notify its import licensing legislation to th is Committee . 
7.7.  In response, the representative of Viet Nam  indicated that Decree No.  58/2016/ND -CP on the 
sale, provision , services , as well as exportation and importation  of civil cryptography products , had 
been promulgated to implement the Law on Network Information Security , dated 
19 November  2015.  
7.8.  He explained that , recognizing that technology goods c ould be dual -use for civil and military 
purposes, the Vietnamese Law on Network Information Security was intended  properly to manag e 
civil cryptography products to ensure national security, sovereignty, and social and econ omic order.  
7.9.  In that spirit, Decree  No. 58 and its attached Appendices, in particular Appendix  II, clearly 
stipulated that only products that match ed all of the listed criteria , including HS  code at 8  digits, G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 11 - 
 
  name of products, and description of the cryptog raphic features of the products , were subject to 
import and export licensing requirements . He argued that the number of such products was very 
limited,  and that the Decree 's aim was  to facilitate understanding and implementation by businesses 
and Customs at the border.  
7.10.   In addition,  Appendix  I of Decree  No. 58 excluded nine types of civil cryptography products , 
including operating systems, internet browsers , and software with integrated c ryptographic 
components (with cryptographic protection of information not the primary function), which were 
designed to be installed by users without manufacturers ' assistance,  and which could be deployed 
on a mass scale. Other examples included informatio n technology products used universally and 
pre-installed with auxiliary cryptographic features for protection of information without manufacturer 
assistance, such as tablets, smart phones, DVD  players, digital cameras , and other household 
electronics. Indeed, it was estimated that up to 80% of civil cryptography products were excluded 
from licensing.  
7.11.   To meet the objective of properly controlling  dual-use cryptography products, the Law on 
Network Information Security require d that import must be carried out through licensed companies 
so that end -users were well served  and products sufficiently well managed. The business licence 
required a company to demonstrate appropriate expertise and adequate capacity  (for example, 
capable technical and managerial personne l, and a service system pertinent to its business ). 
7.12.   He noted that t he procedures in the Law and Decree  No. 58 for acquiring licences were 
transparent, time -bound , and facilitate d trade , with all necessary forms having already been 
published. Upon submission of the complete application, an applicant should receive its licence, or 
else a refusal , within the time-limit stated in the Law. In the case of a refusal, a written notice clearly 
stating the rationale for such refusal would be issued to the applicant.  
7.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  CHINA – CHANGES TO I MPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOV ERABLE MATERIALS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
8.1.  The represent ative of the United States  expressed significant US concern over the uncertainty, 
lack of transparency, lack of predictability, and trade -restrictiveness of the changes to import 
licensing surrounding China 's implementation of its existing import ban on certain plastic and paper 
scrap and its plans to expan d the ban to other recyclable materials.  The US  was also concern ed that 
China did not seem to have applie d the same bans and restrictive contaminant standards to 
domestically sourced products.  
8.2.  He argued that t hese restrictions and bans ha d left US  recycler s without viable alternative 
processing capacity. The global shortfall in processing capacity ha d also caused a decline, and in 
some cases collapse, in the prices for certain recyclable materials. The pervasive market instability 
engendered by China 's meas ures ha d led to a halt in recycling among several US  municipal recycling 
program mes, resulting in the incineration or landfill disposal of otherwise saleable commodities.  
8.3.  The US considered that t hese restrictions were causing environmental harm globally ; by forcing 
recyclables into landfills, China ha d vastly increased the volume of materials at risk of becoming 
marine litter.  
8.4.  He recalled that the US had raised the issue of certain recyclable materials at several previous 
meetings of the Committee and reque sted China to notify to the Committee any changes to its 
import licensing regime.  Unfortunately, China ha d yet to provide sufficient  information about its 
current licensing procedures and any planned changes intended to alleviate US concerns.  
8.5.  He recalled that China ha d announced its intention to expand its import ban to 32  additional 
recyclable materials ; furthermore, China  had release d a draft law that would most likely lead to a 
ban on the import of all recyclable materials. Neither the changes to the list of materials subject to 
the ban nor the draft law ha d been notified to the WTO. He wondered if China could explain the new 
import licensing requirements under this policy and state when it would  notify these changes to the 
Committee . G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 12 - 
 
  8.6.  The US addressed the following questions to China: (1)  Did China intend to expand the import 
ban to all recyclable materials ; if so, when might it do so and what procedures would be followed in 
adopting such an expansion ; and (2) did China intend to apply the same restrictive contaminant 
standards to domestically sourced recyclable materials ; if not, why not?  
8.7.  In conclusion , he reiterated the US  request that China inform the Committee of any new import 
licensing measures  in a timely manner , according to its obligations under the Agreement , and that 
it halt its implementation of the existing and planned measures in order to give its consider ation 
instead to  less trade -restrictive alternatives  to them . 
8.8.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  thanked t he US for raising this issue. Korea 
underst ood and appre ciated Chinese efforts to protect the environment and pursue sustainable 
development. However, he believed that China 's measures should have been implemen ted in a less 
trade -restrictive manner. In terms of transparency , Korea  asked China to clarify its existing import 
licensing procedures , including the standard used when applying these restrict ions, and in general 
to share sufficient information on the relevant regulations.  
8.9.  The representative of Canada  share d the concerns that the US had raised regarding the 
uncertainty and disruption that China 's restrictions on the import of solid waste created for traders. 
He emphasize d that Canada  did not intend to dispute China 's goal of eliminating harmful 
environmental impacts resulting from contaminated w aste material. However, Canada encourage d 
China to consider different and less trade -restrictive mechanisms to address this specific problem 
while ensuring that mutually beneficial trade in recycle d products c ould continue in a predictable 
manner.  
8.10.   The repr esentative of the European Union  referred to the EU's statement delivered under 
item 2 of the agenda.  
8.11.   In response, the representative of China  thanked the US and other delegations for expressing 
their interest in this matter.  He pointed out that s olid wast e treatment and disposal was a shared 
environmental issue faced by all countries around the world. In accordance with the internationally 
recognized principles of "waste generator responsibility " and "disposal to the nearest ", each country 
was obliged to dispose of its own domestically generated solid waste.  
8.12.   He argued that , as a developing country with the largest population  in the world , and given 
the need to protect environmental safety and public health, it was imperative for China to improve 
domestic solid waste treatment and disposal while restricting and prohibiting the import of solid 
waste.  
8.13.   He indicated that China had established a catalogue for imported solid waste. Importing the 
products listed in the Catalogue of Solid Wastes ( That Could Be Used  as Raw Materials) Restricted 
from Import  would be subject to the examination and approval of the competent authorities. The 
Administrative Me asures for the Import of Solid Waste and the Provisions on the Administration of 
Environmental Protection Relating to Solid Waste in the Category of Import Restriction Usable as 
Raw Material  regulate d enterprises applying to import solid waste, as well as the documents, 
procedures , and time requirements pertinent to such applications.  
8.14.   Imports of solid waste listed in the Catalogue of Solid Wastes ( That Could Be  Used as Raw 
Materials) Unrestricted from Import  did not require an import licence . 
8.15.   Regarding noti fication obligations , he noted that  relevant adjustments to the catalogue w ould 
be reflected in the relevant notifications , to be submitted at the earliest possible time.  
8.16.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – IMPORT LICENSING PERMITS FO R POULTRY – STATEMEN T BY 
THE UNITED STATES  
9.1.  The representative of the United States  indicated that t he Dominican Republic appear ed to be 
operating an import licensing system that ha d not been notified to the Committee on Import 
Licensing . G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.2.  This import licensing system appear ed to be restricting trade in agricultural products , including 
dry beans, poultry, dairy products, hatching eggs , and potatoes.  
9.3.  He asked if the Dominican Republic could explain whether or not it operated any non -automat ic 
import licensing program mes; if the Dominican Republic require d that the Minister of State for 
Agriculture approve d any import licensing permits for agricultural products ; and if the Agriculture 
and Livestock Promotion Committee (DPAG) also approve d any import licensing permit?  
9.4.  In response, the representative of the Dominican Republic  welcome d the intervention from the 
US and  noted that her country  applie d TRQs for dried beans, poultry, and powdered milk , but did 
not apply them for hatching eggs or potatoes. She emphasized that these two  items, hatching eggs 
and potatoes, had not been included in the commitments notified by the Dominican Republic  under  
the WTO . 
9.5.  With regard to Law No.  4990 on plant health , she noted that this  law remain ed in force and 
that its objective was to guarantee sanitary protection for plants and crops. In this regard , she 
elaborated on the import licensing  requirements established under Article  3 of this Law, as currently 
applie d. 
9.6.  She explained that all imports of plan t origin required a phytosanitary clearance certificate that 
had been issued by the Department for Plant and Animal Health within the Ministry of Agriculture ; 
however, this  certificate was not to be confused with an import licence because it exclusively 
concerned a sanitary control on plant imports , in accordance with the WTO Agreement on Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures, and was based on scientific risk assessments. The requirement appl ied 
to all products of plant origin independently of whether or not they were imported under TRQs . 
9.7.  She also highlight ed that the D ominican Republic  was currently updating its legal framework ; 
in this regard, it had already notified to the SPS  Committee its draft law on plant and animal health 
protection (document  G/SPS/N/DOM/56/Rev.1 and document  G/SPS/N/DOM/57/Rev.1 , dated 
13 March  2017). This draft law was currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Agriculture 's legal 
department . 
9.8.  Regarding licences issued b y the Department for Agriculture Promotion and Livestock of the 
Ministry of Agriculture, the policy purpose was  to collect trade statistics on agricultural products that 
had been  authorized for import ; licences were granted automatically for products not subject to 
TRQs. Products  under  TRQ administration  were subject to non -automatic licences ; these were issued 
following the procedures established under Decree  No. 569-12, in line with WTO  rules. 
9.9.  On meat products, Law No. 40-30 of 1955 applie d in order  to provide  sanitary protection on 
products of animal orig in. As indicated earlier, this law was currently be ing updated and would  be 
substituted by the draft law for animal health protection.  
9.10.   She highlighted that the Dominican Republic used the fo reign trade single window system to 
facilitate the submission of licence application s, which c ould be done digitally in one single location.  
She looked forward to cooperating with the US on this issue and expressed willingness to provide 
additional informa tion. 
9.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  GHANA – IMPORT PROCE DURES AND PERMITS FO R POULTRY – STATEMEN T BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
10.1.   The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation  had addressed questions to 
Ghana regarding Ghana's  apparent operation of a non -automatic import  licensing regime , under 
which imports of poultry products had been limited. She understood that , under Ghana 's import 
licensing procedures for poultry, only a limited quantit y of poultry (25,000  MT) was permissible for 
import each month. The US was concerned that this policy hinder ed legitimate trade and lack ed 
transparency.  G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 14 - 
 
  10.2.   She thank ed Ghana for its oral responses and her delegation  also looked forward to reviewing 
Ghana's written responses. In addition, she strongly encourage d Ghana to notify these import 
measures to the Committee on Import Licensing as soon as possible.  
10.3.   In response, the representative of Ghana  thank ed the US for its statement and its continued 
interest in Ghana 's import regime. He noted that Ghana had  already provided its replies to  the 
questions  from the US . He assure d the US that its new written questions would be brought to the 
attention of the appropriate authorit ies once received.  Ghana hoped that Members ' concern s could 
be discussed bilaterally before being brought before the Committee.  
11  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  
11.1.   The Chairperson  reported on the work that had been undertaken in improving transparency 
since the Committee 's previous formal  meeting. She recalled that the purpose of all the work and 
efforts on simplifying notification procedures and templates had been to improve transp arency and 
notification compliance in the Committee, as well as to make the notification procedures easier for 
Members.  
11.2.   She noted that , since 2015 , Members' capacity constraints and overlapping notification 
templates resulting from similar notification requirements under  different provisions  had been 
identified as the two main factors that were contributing to low notification compliance.  
11.3.   To address the capacity constraint issue, the Secretariat ha d enhanced its targeted technical 
assistance and capacity -building activities. For example, a Geneva -based Workshop on Import 
Licensing had been held every year since 2017. Upon the request of the Members  concerned , 
national workshops on impo rt licensing and notifications had been held in Paraguay, Egypt, the 
Kingdom of Bahrain,  and Myanmar,  and others were in the pipeline. One  dedicated session of the 
Committee had also been  held last year to improve Geneva -based delegates ' understanding of t he 
Agreement.  
11.4.   Regarding possible improvements to the notification templates, a lot of time and effort had 
been dedicated to this issue by Members and the Secretariat, with a view to find ing a proper solution 
to simplifying and streamlining notification for ms without jeopardizing Members ' notification 
obligations as set out in the Agreement. She pointed out that a t the Committee's informal meeting 
of 8 March  2019, the Secretariat had introduced a notification form for Members to use , on a 
voluntary basis, when submitting their notifications under Article  5.1–5.4 of the Agreement,  and an 
explanatory note had also been circulated , in document  RD/LIC/1 3. 
11.5.   She informed the Committee that a  number of Members (including  Costa Rica; Hong Kong, 
China; Indones ia; Japan; Myanmar; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; and Ukraine) had already used 
this form when notifying their new import licensing laws and procedures, or changes to existing laws 
and procedures. She believe d that it would be useful for these Members to sh are with the Committee 
their experience in using the new template.  
11.6.   The representative of Myanmar  indicated that the feedback from his Capital had been very 
positive , with officials commenting that the form had been well organized and easy to follow. Indeed , 
Myanmar had used it for its first N2  notification.  
11.7.   The representative of Japan  reiterated that Japan attached great importance to transparency 
and believed that notification was an important function of the Committee 's regular activities. His 
delegation considered that streamlining the relevant procedures would be beneficial to all Members ; 
Japan also considered that the new notification form suggested by the Secretariat was a valuable 
contribution  in this regard . 
11.8.   He further noted that Japan was one of the Members that had already used this form for 
notifications and seen its benefits. He cited the experience of a Capital -based colleague who worked 
on notifications, who had informed him that his workload had been significantly reduced thanks to 
this new form. Therefore, Japan strongly encouraged other Members to use this form on a voluntary 
basis.  G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 15 - 
 
  11.9.   The representative of Colombia  reiterated that his country attached great importance to 
notification s under this Committe e. His delegation believed that it was  particularly important to have 
a standard template for notification s, as presented by the Secretariat at the Committee's last 
session . The new form  made it much easier to prepare a notification and also clarifie d many  of the 
doubts that Colombia had encountered during its preparation of  the relevant documents. He 
underscored that preparing these notifications require d the  involvement of many bodies and 
agencies ; in this regard, the new template could also facilitate in ter-agency cooperation. He also 
highlighted Colombia's belief that, when reviewing notification s from other Members , the proposed 
format allow ed for an easier analysis of the information presented.  
11.10.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  share d the view that transparency played a critical role 
in improving the functioning of the multilateral system ; the efforts of the Secretariat were much 
appreciated in this regard. Chinese Taipei  share d its experience of using the new N2  form for 
notifying under Article  5.1-5.4. She noted that Chinese Taipei had used the new N2  form for their 
2018 notification under Article  5.1-5.4. The coordinating official s of Chinese Taipei, who had 
collected the relevant information from Chinese Taipei's different agencies,  considered that the new 
N2 form was easier to complete . The requirements we re clear and the format was unified ; therefore, 
it took them less time.  Her delegation had also noted that the footnotes in the new N2  form allowed 
the same form to be used to notify also under Article  1.4(a) and Article  8.2(b) . She believe d that 
this simplified and streamlined notification format would  greatly enhance Members' efficiency as 
concerned the fulfilment of their notification obligation s. 
11.11.   The representativ e of China  highly commend ed the Secretariat on its efforts to improve 
transparency in import licensing notification procedures, and especially for the new notification form 
under Article  5.1-5.4 of the Agreement. According to their assessment, this new for m was  easy to 
use and understand ; as a result, it effectively reduced the technical burden of notification. China 
believed that the new form would greatly contribute to improvement s in transparency in the area of 
import licensing.  
11.12.   The representative of Uruguay appreciated the efforts made to improve the import licensing  
notification procedure s and to create a standard template . He expressed his delegation 's support for 
using this new voluntary format to improve Members' notification compliance under this Committee . 
11.13.   The representative of  Hong Kong, China  joined others in commending the Secretariat on the 
new N2  form. She noted that Hong Kong, China  had submitted four  notifications using the new form; 
these notifications ha d covered various subjects, including the amendment of a specific import 
licensing mechanism , and various new import licensing arrangements. The feedback from Hong 
Kong, China  was similar to that described by other colleagues: the new form was very useful ; it was 
clear; and it facilitate d inter-agency cooperation. She encourage d Members to use this form to 
enhance transparency in this Committee . She was  also highly encouraged to see Myanmar 's good 
example , which indicated that a national workshop was an effective  way of helping Members to fulfil 
this notification requirement. She emphasized the importance in this Committee of continuing the 
discussion on further  improving notification  compliance . 
11.14.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the Chair  and the Secretariat for their work 
on improving  transparency in the area of Members ' import licensing regime s. The US place d great 
importance on improving transparency as well as  on increasing the quantity and quality of 
notifications submitted to this Committee; indeed, the US was an  advocate of any attempt to 
improve transparency and to streamline notification  compliance. The US emphasized that Members 
should notify their legislation to the Secretariat  in electronic format , preferably,  which were  
transmitt able and accessible.  
11.15.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the ir 
good work on improving notification compliance and transparency. The EU also encourage d Members 
to use the new format , on a voluntary basis. In addition, she suggested that o nline notification  
submission  system s could be incorporated in to the new import licensing website.  G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 16 - 
 
  11.16.   The Chairperson  propose d that the Committee agree that the new notific ation form be used 
by Members on a voluntary basis and that the Secretariat circulate the form as a G/LIC  document .1 
11.17.   The Committee so agreed . 
11.18.   The Committee took note of the Chair person 's report , of the statements made, and of the 
decision taken . 
12  NEW IMPORT  LICENSING WEBSITE  – UPDATE BY THE SEC RETARIAT  
12.1.   The Secretariat  made a presentation and updated the Committee on its work on the new 
import licensing websit e. 
12.2.   On the deadline for Members to review and update their Member profile, he emphasized that 
the Secretariat had already uploaded the profiles of all Members on to the website, except for those 
Members that had as yet not notified under the Agreement. In order  to officially launch the website 
at the earliest opportunity , the Secretariat proposed a two -month review period to allow Members 
to verify the contents of their respective Member profiles. However, t aking into account the workload 
and internal consultati ons that might be necessary to complete such a review , the Secretariat 
clarified to Members that the deadline proposed  was only a target date . 
12.3.   Regarding the approach that Members should take when providing their updates, the 
Secretariat had already identif ied a few "best practices " of Members , which Members might wish to 
discuss. He highlighted that , no matter what approach a Member decided to take, two  principles 
should be strictly  followed , one being that the information provided should be "official ", and the 
other being that this information should also be "trackable ". All updated information from Members 
should be submitted as an official document, such as a notification; furthermore, any additional 
change  or update made by a Member should be clearly identified  as such . 
12.4.   Regarding online submission of notifications, the Secretariat noted that this aspect would be  
taken into consideration in the next phase of the website 's development ; for the current stage  of its 
development , the focus was on st reamlining the notification templates and updating the relevant 
information on Members ' current import licensing regime s. 
12.5.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the Secretariat for develop ing the new 
website ; the US was hopeful  that it would enhan ce transparency . At the same time, she noted that 
many Members had gaps and missing information in their Member  profile s despite the fact that they  
had notified according  to the different provisions . 
12.6.   She appreciated the information  that had been provided on different approaches on the basis 
of which Members  might review and update their respective Member profiles . Her delegation would 
convey this information  to Capital . Until now, the US  position ha d been that Member  profiles  could 
best be corrected by using the annual reply to the questionnaire ( or the N3  notification ). The US 
urged all Members  to submit their next annual notification on time and to consider the information 
that had been presented in their Member  profile  in the proce ss. The US  believed that the recurring 
nature of the N3  notification  would allow Members  regularly to update any information missing from 
their profile . Such an approach was  transparent and consistent with the established norms and 
procedures of this Committee.  
12.7.   She emphasized that the US could not  support any approach to updating the website that was 
not transparent to the entire Committee. She expressed concern over the suggested dates as the 
intention of the US was to update and verify its import lice nsing information when submitting the 
new N/3  notification , by end-September . 
12.8.   The representative of Japan  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat  for their detailed 
explanation.  Japan highly appreciate d the dedicated work that had been carried out by the 
Secretariat in develop ing this new website  and believe d that this initiative would  contribute to further 
improving transparency and revitalizing the Committee 's activities.  
                                                
1 Document  G/LIC/28, dated 1  May 2019. G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 17 - 
 
  12.9.   Japan looked forward to the official launch of the website. He was confident that it w ould bring 
great benefits to various stakeholders outside of the WTO , encouraging their participation in global 
trade.  With a view to official ly launch ing the website as soon as possible, he encourage d Members  
to review their profiles and to make any neces sary updates. He emphasized that it  was Members ' 
shared responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the information on the website.  
12.10.   Regarding the two approaches to update s as described by the Secretariat , Japan indicated 
that it was open to either approach , as long as any updat ing and verification  of information was 
undertaken in a transparent, official , and trackable manner.  Japan also hope d that online submission 
of notifications via this website would  be possible in the near future.  
12.11.   The represent ative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secretariat for the presentation and 
develop ment of  the website . She informed the Committee that her delegation had  verified its 
Member profile and had also confirmed  to the Secretariat  that its profile was accurate and up to 
date. Chinese Taipei would be flexible with regard to the two  options proposed by the Secretariat.  
12.12.   As for the procedural aspect of  the website 's development , her delegation support ed the 
gradual introduction of a process for Members  to submit their notification s themselves  online , either 
via the delegation in Geneva or directly from Capital , once the interface of the website ha d been 
built up. In addition, the Secretariat might  wish to review any submitted notificati on before it was 
made public. On the issue of possible approach es to harmonizing product description s for "Products " 
and their related HS  Codes, she suggested that, given the complicated nature of the issue, 
one possible approach might be to identify  the HS  Code in the description of  the products.  
12.13.   The representative of China  appreciate d the Secretariat 's excellent work in developing this 
new import licensing  website . He noted that the interface of the website was user-friendly  and that 
the information  in the database could be searched and found rapidly and efficiently. China would 
continue to test the new website, to check its data, and to provide  further feedback in due course.  
12.14.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  joined others in commending the Sec retariat for its 
great efforts in developing this website , which her delegation  had found to be user-friendly. Hong 
Kong, China had shared its experience of coordinating between domestic agencies when verifying 
its Member  profile at the  Committee's informal meeting  that had been held on 8  March  2019. 
12.15.   She noted that it took time to update  and verify the information on  the Member  profile ; 
nevertheless , the exercise was rewarding in the long run . She encourage d Members  to complete this 
task as soon as p ossible with a view to launch ing the website  at the earliest opportunity . As for 
possible approaches to updating Member  profile s, Hong Kong, China considered that this could be 
discuss ed further . She had heard the concerns expressed by some Members regardi ng the process 
of N3  notifications , in particular the issue of how to synchronize the work of verification with the 
submission of an N/3 notification ; here too, she believed that the issue should be further discussed . 
In any case, she believed that the website would be further improved , including through the possible 
incorporation of e-submission of notifications. In this context, she encouraged  the Secretariat to 
continue in its effort s to explore concrete options on e-submission . 
12.16.   The representative of the European Union  echoed other delegations  in thanking the 
Secretariat for developing this very useful website. She indicated that the EU was  still reviewing the 
website as well  as the EU 's profile. The EU would provide feedback as soon as possible , which  in all 
probability would be at the same time that it submitted its N3 notification , in September  2019. 
12.17.   The Chairperson  recalled that , at the Committee's most recent informal meeting , Hong Kong, 
China had shared its experience o f review ing and  updating its Member profile on the website. She 
thank ed Hong Kong, China and encourage d all Members  to review and update the ir information in a 
timely manner. She noted that , during the Committee 's informal meeting of  8 March  2019, certain 
technical issue s had been raised , such as how to update a Member profile, electronic submission of 
notifications, and how to harmonize product descriptions according to the HS system. She suggested 
that a discussion among Members of these issues be continued.  
12.18.   The represe ntative of Liberia  congratul ated the Committee for its good job on streamlining 
the notification procedures and notification forms ; Liberia support ed this initiative . However, he 
sought clarification regarding the management of the import licensing website, including if it was G/LIC/M/49  
 
- 18 - 
 
  being managed by the Secretariat or if it was for Members themselves to update their own 
information on the Member profile, and to publish their own notifica tions.  
12.19.   In response, the Secretariat  clarified that the website had been and would be managed by 
the Secretariat , and that all official notifications submitted by Members would be uploaded onto the 
website by the Secretariat.  
12.20.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
13.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved the 
date of Friday, 4  October  2019, for the Committee 's next formal meeting , on the understanding that 
additional meetings could also be convened, as necessary.  
14  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
14.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the CTG  Chair had been consulting with 
Members regarding chairpersons for the CTG 's subsidiary bodies, including the Committee on Import 
Licensing ; this process was ongoing.  
14.2.   She proposed that as soon as there was consensus on a  slate of names, the Secretariat would 
send a communication to all delegations with the name of the proposed Chairperson for the Import 
Licensing Committee. If no objection were received within the time -frame indicated in the 
communication , the candidate w ould be deemed to have been elected by the Committee by 
acclamation.2 
__________  
                                                
2 Ms. Carol TSANG (Hong Kong, China) was nominated as the new Chair person  of the Import Licensing 
Committee by the CTG and the Secretariat informed Members through a communication  dated 4  June. The 
Committee elected h er as the Chair person  by acclamation  on 6 June 2019.