RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/38  
 
28 February 2014  
(14-1257)  Page: 1/19  
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 OCTOBER 2013 
CHAIRPERSON: MR. LU XIANKUN (CHINA) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fortieth meeting on 4 October 2013. The agenda 
proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/4191, was adopted as follows: 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH  NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS – 
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE TH E LAST MEETING ..................................................................... 2  
2   INDONESIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES APPLIED TO CELL PHONES, 
HANDHELD COMPUTERS AND TABLETS (G/LIC/Q/IDN/25) – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ............................................................ 8
 
3   INDONESIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................... 9  
4   RUSSIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ................................................................. 11  
5   COLOMBIA'S NEW IMPORT LICE NSING PROCEDURES NOTIFIED IN 
G/LIC/N/2/COL/2 – ST ATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ............................................ 12  
6   VIET NAM'S IMPORT LICENSING REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED 
STATES ........................................................................................................................ .. 13 
7   INDIA'S BORIC ACID IMPORT LI CENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY 
THE UNITED STATES ...................................................................................................... 14  
8   MALAYSIA – CUSTOMS ACT 1967 (G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2) – STATEMENTS BY 
AUSTRALIA AND THE UN ITED STATES ........................................................................... 14  
9   INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR STONES 
– STATEMENTS BY TU RKEY AND OMAN .......................................................................... 15  
10   THAILAND – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR 
STONES – STATEMEN T BY TURKEY ................................................................................. 17  
11   NOTIFI CATIONS ...................................................................................................... 17  
11.1   Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement (Publications 
and/or Legislation) ........................................................................................................... 17 
11.2   Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (New Import Licensing Procedures 
or Chan ges). .................................................................................................................. . 18 
11.3   Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (Replies to Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) ............................................................................................ 18 
12   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 19  
12.1   Draft Report (2013) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/LIC/W/42) .................................................................................................................. 19 
12.2   Date of th e next meeting ......................................................................................... 19 
 G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 2 – 
 
  1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICA TION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING 
1.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that, since its last meeting, 52 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Of 
these, 40 Notifications had been included in the Air gram for the Committee's consideration 
(13 under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), 8 under Articles 5.1-5.4 on new licensing procedures or changes to the procedures in force, and 19 under Article 7.3). He recalled that, at the 
22 April 2013 meeting, he had reported that out of a membership of 159, counting the European 
Union as one Member (EU-27), there remained 19 Members who had not submitted any notification under the Agreement since joining the WTO. He reported that up to 2 October 2013, 
out of a membership of 159, counting the European Union as one Member (EU-28), there 
remained 19 Members who had not submitted any notification under the Agreement since joining 
the WTO.
1 
1.2.  As of 2 October 2013, 101 Members (countin g the EU-28 as one) had submitted notifications 
of laws and regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b)). Therefore, 30 Members were yet to 
submit their notifications under these provisions. 
1.3.  Only 39 Members (counting the EU-28 as one) had notified new licensing procedures or 
changes in the existing procedures (under Paragraphs 1-4 of Article 5); from this total, 
one Member had notified changes to import lice nsing procedures without submitting the initial 
notifications of legislation or replies to the Annual Questionnaire. He urged those Members who had not yet provided any information on their new licensing procedures or changes to the existing 
procedures to submit these without further delay, under Article 5 of the Agreement, and to make 
use of the notification forms adopted by the Committee at its meeting in April 2011. 
1.4.  He also informed the Committee that, while Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to 
submit counter-notifications (where a Member considered that another Member had not notified 
the institution of a licensing procedure or changes in the procedures), to date no such counter-notifications had been received. 
1.5.  As to the replies to the Questionnaire (notifications under Article 7.3), a cumulative total of 
103 Members (counting the EU-28 as one) had submitted their replies since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement. Thus, 28 Members had yet to submit their notifications under this provision. As for Article 7.3 notifications, he highlighted that Members who did not apply import licensing 
procedures, nor had laws or regulations relevant to  the Agreement, were also required to notify 
the Committee to that effect in order for Members to obtain a complete overview of the licensing regimes of all Members. The responses to the A nnual Questionnaire should be submitted to the 
Committee before 30 September of each year, as established in document G/LIC/3. 
1.6.  He also indicated that, following on from his predecessors, he had sent out letters to 
Members reminding them of their transparency oblig ations and highlighting the date of the last 
notification received from their authorities. These letters also contained an invitation to review the 
status of their notifications in general, and to update them whenever necessary. The letters also included samples of statements to be used by those Members when no or few changes had been 
introduced to their import licensing regimes already notified to the Committee. The latter had 
proved to be acceptable and easily applicable and, in fact, several Members had already used the 
statements to submit their notifications. 
1.7.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meeting on 11 April 2011, the Committee had agreed that 
two notification forms for notifying under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) and under Article 5 of the 
Agreement could be used by Members, on a vol untary basis, to notify under these provisions. 
The Chairperson informed delegations that the fo rms had been circulated in document G/LIC/22, 
and that the templates were also available on the Members' website, under: 
WTO Resources/Market Access - Import Licensing/Template G/LIC/N/1 and G/LIC/N/2. 
                                               
1 Up to 2 October 2013 the following Members had no t submitted any notification under the Agreement 
since joining the WTO: Belize; Botswana; Congo; Djibouti; Egypt; Guinea; Guinea Bissau; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Mauritania; Montenegro; Mo zambique; Myanmar; Samoa; Saint Vincent & the 
Grenadines; Sierra Leone; Solomon Isla nds; Tajikistan; Tanzania and Vanuatu. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 3 – 
 
  1.8.  Since the launch of these forms, 22 Member s had repeatedly used them (19 notifications as 
Type N1 and 22 notifications as Type N2). He enco uraged other delegations to do the same so as 
to facilitate their task of complying with their notification obligations under the Agreement. He was confident that these efforts would result in increased and enhanced transparency, assist 
government officials and traders to acquaint themselves with the rules and administrative 
ILPs currently applied by Members, and consequently, allow for the smooth flow of international trade. In this regard, he recalled that, at the last meeting of the Committee, in October 2012, the 
Secretariat had been tasked with revising the dr aft form to respond to the Annual Questionnaire 
under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, and he woul d inform delegations on this issue under the 
Agenda item "Other Business". 
1.9.  The Chairman invited Members to submit thei r notifications in Microsoft Word version in order 
for the Secretariat promptly to process the notifications and eliminate errors. Any additional 
information (legal texts, summaries of the legislation and publications, samples of application forms, lists and tables indicating the goods to wh ich ILPs apply, etc.) should also be submitted, 
whenever possible, in an electronic format compatible with WTO software (Microsoft Word and/or 
PDF). He recommended that in all cases the Secretary of the Committee, as well as the respective delegation in Geneva, be copied in all correspondence. He encouraged Members to consult the 
Secretariat whenever they had questions on noti fication requirements and, in the case of 
developing and least-developed countries, to request for technical assistance. 
1.10.  The representative of the United States su pported the Chair's call for legislations, rules and 
regulations to be provided to the Secretariat in electronic format, as this would facilitate 
transmission and access by delegations. 
1.11.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.12.  Moving to the questions and replies circulated under the G/LIC/Q/ series, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, five documents2 containing questions, and 
three documents containing replies3 on the import licensing systems maintained by some 
Members, had been circulated according to the procedures agreed to by the Committee for the 
review of notifications. He also informed the Committee that, after the Air gram had been 
circulated, the Secretariat had received question s from the European Union to Thailand on the 
import licensing regime applied to imports of nitrocellulose (G/LIC/Q/THA/1), but that these questions would be considered under agenda item 2C as they referred to the same issue. He 
introduced document G/LIC/Q/THA/1, which contained questions from the European Union to 
Thailand regarding their import licensing procedures applied to swine offal, shallots, and fresh oranges, and invited the Committee to consider them together with Thailand's responses contained 
in document G/LIC/Q/THA/2. 
1.13.  The representative of the United States echoed the European Union's concerns, despite the 
fact that the United States did not have the same issue with respect to nitrocellulose's market 
access. He emphasized the importance of Members' answering questions in a timely manner. 
1.14.  The representative of the European Union thanked Thailand for its responses. 
1.15.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.16.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/BGD/3, which contained 
questions from the United States to Bangladesh on the IL regime it notified in 
document G/LIC/N/3/BGD/4. He informed the Committee that, after the Air gram had been circulated, the Secretariat had received written re sponses from Bangladesh to the questions from 
the United States, which could be found in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/4, but that these questions 
would be considered at the next meeting of the Committee. 
                                               
2 Listed in the Airgram as follows: Questions from: (i ) the European Union to Thailand (G/LIC/Q/THA/1); 
(ii) the United States to Bangladesh (G/LIC/Q/BGD/3); (iii) the United States to Ecuador (G/LIC/Q/ECU/3); (iv) the European Union to Cambodia (Q/LIC/Q/KHM/1); and (v) the European Union and the United States to Indonesia (G/LIC/Q/IDN/26). 
3 Responses from: (i) Brazil to Switzerland (G/LIC/Q/B RA/17); (ii) Ukraine to the European Union and 
the United States (G/LIC/Q/UKR/2); and (iii) Thailand to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/THA/2). G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 4 – 
 
  1.17.  The representative of the United States thanked Bangladesh for its responses to their 
questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/3, in particular with respect to its ILPs to 
medicines. He recalled that his capital had asked Bangladesh to provide a description of administrative procedures associated with a pharmaceutical directive issued by the Prime Minister 
in 1998, which appeared to prohibit importation of medicines that were produced in sufficient 
quantities within Bangladesh. He stated that, from Bangladesh's responses, it appeared that the prohibition included in the 1998 Directive remained in place, and that local producers were not 
required to adhere to any licensing requirement, beyond an import licence, to sell medicines in the 
domestic market. His delegation looked forward to hearing Bangladesh's explanations regarding the consistency of those prohibitions with th e GATT 1994, according to Article 1.2 of the 
Agreement on ILPs. 
1.18.  He further indicated that the latest notifi cation received from Bangladesh under Article 7.3 
had been submitted in 2007 (G/LIC/N/3/BGD/4), whic h stated that no import licence was required 
to import. However, Bangladesh's recent resp onses, as given in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/4, 
seemed to contradict this, as they indicated that the Standing Committee for Import of 
Pharmaceuticals must approve the importation of drugs and medicines. Thus, the United States called this issue to Bangladesh's attention.  The United States took note of Bangladesh's reply in 
which they signalled an intention to take steps to respond to the Annual Questionnaire. 
1.19.  The representative of Bangladesh thanked the United States for their comments. He 
indicated that his capital had submitted respon ses to the Annual Questionnaire (G/LIC/Q/BGD/3) 
on 25 September, after the Air gram had been issued, and clarified that they had explicitly stated 
the relevant facts with regards to the queries made. He requested the United States to submit its 
statement in written format in order to convey it to his capital. 
1.20.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.21.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/ECU/3, which contained 
questions from the United States to Ecuador on two non-automatic import licensing requirements 
which were contained in "Resolution No. 102" and, "Resolution No. 299-A (MAGAP)", which applied 
to imports of a number of products from al l WTO Members except the Andean Community. 
1.22.  The representative of the United States st ated that his capital had submitted questions to 
Ecuador regarding the import licensing requirements included in the Resolutions, which applied to 
the import of a number of products from all WTO Members except the Andean Community. 
Although not disputing Ecuador's right to determ ine its own import licensing requirements, the 
United States expressed concern about these resolutions in light of Ecuador's commitments to the Agreement on ILPs. He stated that, according to the United States' knowledge to date of 
"Resolution No. 102" and "Resolution No. 299-A (MAGAP)", they contained new requirements 
which threatened seriously to impair trade by establishing a complicated and discretionary import licensing for the products they mentioned. Thus, this would affect the ability of companies with 
significant investment in Ecuador to import those products necessary to conduct business there. 
He indicated that his delegation was concerned that these measures would impede trade. His delegation thanked Ecuador for having submitted a notification to the Secretariat in the previous days regarding the Resolutions in question, an d looked forward to Ecuador's complete and 
accurate written answers to the questions posed in document G/LIC/Q/ECU/3. 
1.23.  The representative of Canada shared the co ncerns expressed by the United States regarding 
Ecuador's new non-automatic ILPs, both from a systemic perspective, and in terms of the very 
concrete impact that they could have on Canada's exports to Ecuador. He appreciated that the 
notification had been submitted and signalled Canada's interest in seeing detailed responses to the questions asked. 
1.24.  The representative of the European Un ion reiterated the concerns expressed by the 
delegations of the United States and Canada, that Ecuador's newly established non-automatic ILPs 
could potentially have a negative effect on trade flows. She indicated that, pending some further internal analysis, the European Union may revert to Ecuador with additional questions regarding its 
IL regime. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 5 – 
 
  1.25.  The representative of Ecuador stated that his capital had received questions from the 
United States in August 2013. Ecuador informed Members that Resolution No. 102 of the 
Committee of Foreign Commerce (COMEX) had been published in Official Gazette No. 924, in 
2013, and that Resolution No. 299-A had been published in Official Gazette No. 48, of 
31 July 2013. Members of the WTO have the obligation to publish laws, regulations, and 
administrative provisions, in an accessible and expedited fashion, as set out in paragraph 1 of Article X of the GATT 1994. As the United Stat es' questions had explicitly referred to this 
obligation, Ecuador noted that, in the case of the European Economic Community's restrictions on 
imports of dessert apples, the Panel had determined  that the publication of an Official Gazette 
would cover the requirements set forth in the afor ementioned article. He informed Members that 
Ecuador had sent the relevant notification to the Secretariat, and that his capital was working to 
provide a definitive response by early August to  the questions received from the United States. 
Nonetheless, his delegation provided the following preliminary answers: 
 Question 1: Non-automatic licensing adopted through Resolution No. 102, applied according 
to the procedures of Resolution No. 299-A, were used on an administrative basis, with a 
view to defining and establishing the annual "food" balance which took into account production chains in compliance with the Ecuadorian constitutional mandate and non-trade 
concerns. These concerns related to food security, meaning that it was necessary to 
maintain a balance between national production and imports, guaranteeing that they were able on a permanent basis to supply food articles in coordination with country resources, and that such food would not be sold to the international market. The procedure for the 
implementation of non-automatic licensing wa s based on Article III of the Agreement on 
ILPs, with the guarantee that the administrati ve measures were predictable, transparent 
and non-discriminatory. 
 Question 2: The non-automatic IL regime did not apply any additional administrative 
burdens. This procedure was fully integrated into a single window system for imports, known as Equapas. Equapas was part of the national trade facilitation system that 
guaranteed swift and predictable processing of goods at the border. 
 Question 3: The procedures and requirements refe rred to in the Resolution of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries of Ecuador (MAGAP) in its preliminary part, No. 9, were related to the legal obligations covered in Ecuadorian legislation with 
regards to business climate and considerations. These were governed by tax and labour 
laws, which were regulated by the Inland Revenue Service along with the Minister of Labour. 
 Question 4: Yes, these responsibilities were published in the Ecuadorian and Official Gazette 
through the relevant laws, the law on the domestic tariff regime and its connected laws, the labour code, the organic law on trade promotion and investment inter alia. 
 Question 5: National producers were subject to  the same legal provisions and requirements 
found in the laws that he had mentioned. 
 Question 6: The non-automatic import licensing procedure described in Resolution No. 299-A 
of MAGAP is based on Article 3 of the Agreemen t on ILPs. The technical facts, taking into 
account the preparation of technical reports for the administration of non-automatic IL, 
were set out in Resolution No. 299-A and were aimed at the food balance analysis for products covered by this regime on the basis of a transparen t, predictable, and 
non-discriminatory system. 
 Question 7: The technical analysis would be done in the shortest time possible and should 
not exceed two months after the end of the time-frame for the presentation of the 
intended imports. 
 Question 8: The technical analysis was intended to establish the overall quantity of imports 
and this would lead to the examination of individual values by the importer. This examination was performed on the basis of internal consumption and demands, national 
food security objectives, and the historic records of imports from the requesting parties 
inter alia. 
 Question 9: The results of the technical analysis, as a whole, were made available to all 
stakeholders in the food production chai n for products covered by this regime. 
 Question 10: The aim of making this inform ation available to producers across the food 
chain through consultations was done through various forums and round-table discussions, 
as necessary. The point of this was to ensure absolute transparency in the administration 
of the system with the relevant information for decision-making purposes on the part of stakeholders, including importers, and to ensure that their recommendations would be taken on board. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 6 – 
 
   Question 11: No. Importers were not obliged to reveal any information of a confidential 
nature, or any information that was declared on a regular basis, or any information considered to be public knowledge. 
 Question 12: Once the products set out in Resolution No. 299-A had been produced, 
imported, or entered into the market, there was no restriction on their commercialization. 
 Question 13: The answer is no, Regulation  No. 299-A did not provide for any import 
prohibition during a given year. 
 Question 14: Ecuador is a developing country whose agricultural sector is made up 
predominantly of small and medium-sized pr oducers dependent on their own production 
for survival. However, a combination of certain factors may influence the general balance of national production; for example, where massive domestic support and export subsidies 
may make it necessary, given the variation in the production of these products, to 
contemplate imports outside the harvest season. 
 Question 15: National producers were not subject to a similar ILP prior to national 
commercialization, given that the IL applied only to imported products. 
 Question 16: Article 6 of Resolution No. 299-A provided for the publication of authorized 
licenses in December of each year, prior to the initiation of the document procedure for the 
formal application for a licence. This was to be done by January of each calendar year. 
 Question 17: Andean Community trade was gove rned by the provisions of the Cartagena 
Agreement on trade with the Andean Community and by the supranational legislation based on it. This was compatible with WTO provisions and the enabling clause, given that 
it is understood to be a preferential regime established in a free-trade zone. 
 1.26.  He further stated that Ecuador continued to work to ensure that within the next few days it 
would produce a written response to questions raised by the United States. 
1.27.  The representative of the United States thanked Ecuador for the preliminary replies and 
looked forward to seeing them in writing in the next few days. He requested Ecuador to respond to 
Question Nos. 8 and 15. 
1.28.  The representative of Ecuador agreed to repeat its responses. Concerning Question 8, he 
affirmed that the technical analysis was intended to establish the overall import quantities which 
would then determine the individual values for th e licence requesting importer. The calculation was 
based on growth in demand and domestic consumption, as well as other national objectives. It 
also took into account historic records of import quantities from the particular importer in question. Concerning Question 15, he stated that the licenses were import licenses and that national 
producers were not subject to an IL prior to the domestic sale of their products. 
1.29.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.30.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/KHM/1, which contained 
questions from the European Union to Cambodia regarding its ILPs for live animal and animal 
products, and agricultural materials, which had been notified in document G/LIC/N/3/KHM/3. 
1.31.  The representative of the European Union stated that they had submitted written questions 
regarding Cambodia's IL regime for live animal and animal products, in notification 
document G/LIC/N/3/KHM/3; they looked forward to receiving written replies. 
1.32.  The representative of the United States l ooked forward to Cambodia's written responses and 
invited Cambodia to identify the GATT 1994 measures that allowed them to impose IL on those 
agricultural products covered by its notification in document G/LIC/N/3/KHM/3. 
1.33.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.34.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/IDN/26, which contained 
questions from the European Union and the United States to Indonesia about its IL regime for 
imported cell phones, handheld computers, and tablet computers. 
1.35.  The representative of the United States proposed that Members addressed this issue under 
the next agenda item on Indonesia. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 7 – 
 
  1.36.  The Committee so agreed. 
1.37.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/BRA/17, which contained 
Brazil's responses to questions posed by  Switzerland regarding the RADAR System. 
1.38.  The representative of Switzerland thanked Brazil for the replies submitted which, on an 
informal basis at the last meeting, had already been received by Switzerland. She thanked the 
Brazilian delegation for their openness in discussing this issue bilaterally, on an informal basis, and her capital understood that in the meantime some  changes had been undertaken. The Regulation 
was no longer in force. Switzerland was now analysing the matter and may revert to Brazil with 
further questions, if necessary. 
1.39.  The representative of Brazil thanked the Delegation of Switzerland for its continued interest 
in Brazil's IL regime and took note of the comme nts made. He noted that replies to the questions 
posed by Switzerland were available to Members in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/17. Additional 
questions on this subject had been raised by Swit zerland on the occasion of Brazil's trade policy 
review, held in June 2013. He drew Members' attention to the minutes of that meeting, which 
contained relevant information on this issue. Hi s capital highlighted that the RADAR system was 
not an IL system, within the purview of paragraph 1 of Article I of the Agreement on ILPs, as it 
was an accreditation procedure to operate within  the SISCOMEX integrated foreign trade system. 
 
1.40.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.41.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/UKR/2, which contained the 
responses from Ukraine to the questions posed jo intly by the Delegations of the European Union 
and United States, concerning the IL regime and quota system applied to imports of metallurgical 
coke. 
1.42.  The representative of the United States thanked Ukraine for its responses to the questions 
raised in document G/LIC/Q/UKR/1, and for the notifications of its legislation. The United States 
remained unsatisfied with Ukraine's justification of its licensing requirements and quotas. In particular, it was unclear from the explanatio n given by Ukraine whether the quota for 2013 of 
imports for coke was zero or 210,000 tons. The representative further asked Ukraine to explain 
how it considered these quotas and IL regime to be compatible with the GATT 1994. 
1.43.  He stated that Ukraine had indicated that  the import quotas had been imposed in 2012, as 
there had been a significant reduction in the accu mulated stocks of coking coal. Since the safety 
and environmental problems that Ukraine sought to address had now apparently been solved, the 
United States asked Ukraine when it would revoke the import licenses and import quotas of coking coal and coke. 
1.44.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked Ukraine for the replies submitted on 
30 April 2013, and for the notifications submitted since the last meeting. According to the 
information contained in the last notification, of 13 August 2013, contained in 
document G/LIC/N/2/UKR/4/Rev.1, the European Union understood that Ukraine had recently 
adopted a new resolution, Resolution No. 462 of 3 July, which further amended previous regulations. She stated that the European Union was assessing additional information that it had received on a bilateral basis. Thus, her authoritie s were assessing whether ILPs applicable to coal 
products, subject to the resolutions in force, would comply with the requirements of the 
IL Agreement and, in particular, with Article 3. Th erefore, the European Union reserved the right to 
come back with further questions. 
1.45.  The representative of Canada echoed other Members' concerns regarding Ukraine's 
IL regime. Canada appreciated Ukraine's responses to the questions posed, and joined the United 
States in their request for further clarification re garding the quotas system and ILPs. Additionally, 
his delegation requested Ukraine to specify which quota, if any, would still be applicable after 
December 2013. 
1.46.  The representative of Ukraine thanked Members for their comments regarding Ukraine's 
IL regime, and noted that the measure in question had been effective since 1 June 2013, and was 
implemented by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukrain e through the adoption of certain regulations, G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 8 – 
 
  such as: Resolution No. 2252013, "On Amending th e Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine Decree, dated 
19 December 2012, No. 1201" of 13 March (later am ended by Resolution No. 462 of 3 July 2013), 
which set IL of coking coal of quotas 10,200,000 tones and coke of 210,000 tones; Resolution No. 312, "On Interdepartmental Commission for Allo cation of Import Quotas on Goods that are 
Subject to Import Licensing in 2013, and the amen dments to Annex 8 of the Cabinet of Ministers 
of Ukraine, Resolution of 19 December 2012, No. 1201" of 22 April 2013 (the Commission). 
1.47.  He stated that it had notified the above-mentioned regulations in documents 
G/LIC/N/2/UKR/3 of 18 April 2013, G/MA/QR/N/UKR/1/Add.1 of 15 May 2013, G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3 of 
24 May 2013, G/LIC/N/2/UKR/4 of 24 May 2013, G/LIC/N/1/UKR/2 of 29 April 2013, G/LIC/N/2/UKR/4/Rev.1 of 13 August 2013, G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3/Rev.1 of 14 August 2013, and G/MA/QR/N/UKR/1/Add.2 of 26 August 2013. 
1.48.  He further noted that there was a decision adopted by the Administrative Court of 
First Instance, of 10 June 2013 (No. 826/6239/13-a), concerning the legal status of Resolution No. 225 of 13 March 2013, which in part related to import licensing of coking coal and coke. 
However, this decision still had not come into force because of an appeal procedure. Hence the 
current measure in question remained applicable. 
1.49.  He indicated that the Commission considered applications and supplementing documents 
submitted by the Ministry of Economic Developm ent and Trade of Ukraine and approved decisions 
concerning the allocation of quotas for goods. Such  decisions were published in the official website 
of the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade. In addition, the Commission monitored the situation on the coal market in case of inquiries of domestic demand for coking coal and steam 
coal and it made recommendations to the Government about regime liberalization in relation to 
coking coal and coke. In such a context, the representative informed Members that the Commission had recently prepared and submitted a pr oposal to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine 
on the extension of the quota of coking coal in  2013. The Government of Ukraine was considering 
the proposal. 
1.50.  The representative of the United States  thanked Ukraine for its statement and welcomed 
receiving the longer statement in writing. 
1.51.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  INDONESIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PR OCEDURES APPLIED TO CELL PHONES, 
HANDHELD COMPUTERS AND TABLETS (G/LIC/Q/IDN/25) – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
2.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that  the European Union and the United States had 
requested the Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the following item: "Indonesia's 
Import Licensing Procedures applied to cell phones, handheld computers and tablets 
(G/LIC/Q/IDN/25) – Statements by the European Union and the United States". 
2.2.  The representative of the United States explained that his capital had posed questions to 
Indonesia in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/25, and had submitted additional questions on 
23 September 2013. The United Sates noted that they were prepared to mention during the meeting that they had still not received replies to G/LIC/Q/IDN/25. Nonetheless, the night before the meeting they had received bilaterally a draf t copy of responses to these questions. The 
document with the responses was dated August 2013. As the document had a format which looked 
similar to notifications or responses coming from the Secretariat, he requested the Secretariat to clarify if there were any responses from Indonesia dating from August 2013. 
2.3.  The Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat had received some documents after the 
Airgram was circulated and these were in the process of being posted on the Members' website. 
2.4.  The representative of the United States indicated that his capital had understood that 
Indonesia had issued additional regulations but had not yet notified or provided copies of these to 
the Secretariat, in accordance with the Agreement. The United States' concerns regarding Indonesia's IL regime were growing. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 9 – 
 
  2.5.  He expressed disappointment at Indonesia's late reply, which prevented Members from 
engaging in a discussion during the meeting. In deed, the United States thought it might be 
forgiven for thinking that this had in any case been Indonesia's intention. Now Members would have to wait until next spring to discuss these answers with the Committee. In the meantime, the 
only remedy within the Committee was to continue posing questions even when these received no 
adequate answers, a regrettable situation. His government reiterated their request to Indonesia to provide full and accurate responses to all the questions that had been posed, including those 
submitted on 23 September 2013. 
2.6.  The representative of the European Union echoed the statement of the United States. 
2.7.   The representative of Japan indicated th at his capital shared the European Union's and 
United States' concerns regarding Indonesia's IL regime and looked forward to reviewing 
responses to the questions. 
2.8.  The representative of Chinese Taipei expres sed his capital's appreciation to the Delegations 
of the European Union and United States for drawing Members' attention to this important issue, 
regarding Indonesia's ILPs. Chinese Taipei shared the same concerns as those previously 
expressed. He looked forward to receiving written replies and the relevant regulations that should be formally provided by Indonesia. Therefore, he r authorities reserved their right to come back 
with further questions. 
2.9.  The representative of Indonesia expressed her appreciation for Member's constant interest in 
Indonesia's IL regime on cellular phones, handheld computers and tablets. With regards to the 
questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/25, In donesia apologized for the late submission to 
the Secretariat as her delegation was experiencing an overload of work in preparing for the 
Ministerial Conference in Bali. With regards to the questions posed jointly by the Delegations of the European Union and United States in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/26, these had already been 
conveyed to her capital and the written responses would soon be sent. She provided a preliminary 
response by clarifying that the Minister of Trade Regulation No. 78-2013 had entered into force on 
1 August 2013, and it had been officially publishe d. Indonesia was working on the notification of 
this Regulation and it would be sent to the Secretariat as soon as possible. The purpose of the 
Regulation was to manage all importer activities in an administrative manner, although it would also be imposed on domestic producers. 
2.10.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  INDONESIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED 
STATES 
3.1.  The representative of the United States reiterated its authorities' concerns regarding 
Indonesia's IL regime and noted that the United States had posed questions to Indonesia on 
different occasions, to which unfortunately they had not received appropriate responses. There had 
been so many questions posed that even the United States found it difficult to keep track of them. 
3.2.  He stated that his capital wished to rece ive Indonesia's updated response to the Article 7.3 
Questionnaire so as to understand Indonesia's co mplex IL regime, which affected its trade on a 
wide range of products. The annual questionnaire from Indonesia had not yet been submitted, so the United States remained in the dark regarding Indonesia's IL regime and recalled that 
Indonesia last submitted an Annual Questionnair e response in 2010. In light of the number of 
import licensing measures that Indonesia had adopted since then, the 2010 response was out of date. 
3.3.  The United States expressed its frustration and emphasized that the Article 7.3 Questionnaire 
was very important and that its current format was the only means by which Members had the opportunity to obtain a full and complete  picture of other Members' IL regime. 
3.4.  He further noted that, when Members failed to receive adequate responses to questions 
posed, the transparency benefits of Article 7.3 we re lost. The fact that a country like Indonesia, 
with its complicated and multi-layered ILPs, did not submit a response to the Annual Questionnaire was not surprising. He believed that Indonesia may have been at a loss clearly to explain the G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 10 – 
 
  procedures that they had been imposing on their trading partners. He recalled that at the last 
meeting of the Committee, the Delegations of the European Union and the United States pointed 
out that Indonesia's current IL regime affected seve n groups of goods and had been in effect for at 
least two years. Furthermore, and despite those IL measures being extended, Indonesia had never 
properly notified them. They understood that the seven groups of products which had not been 
specifically identified, as the Agreement requir ed, included food and beverages, traditional 
medicine and food supplements, cosmetics, read y-to-wear clothes, electronics, footwear, and 
children's toys. 
3.5.  The representative of the United States expressed its concerns in relation to Indonesia's 
Regulation No. 83 of 2012, on 11 April 2013, contained in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/24, submitted jointly by the European Union and the United Stat es. They looked forward to Indonesia's written 
responses to the questions posed, and an explanat ion of how these measures were in accordance 
with the Agreement on ILPs. He also questioned Indonesia as to when they would provide written 
responses. 
3.6.  The United States understood that Indonesia had put in place new and complicated ILPs on 
horticultural products, animals, animal products, and soybeans. The purpose of these regulations was entirely unclear, which complicated ILPs to producers and exporters of other WTO Members. 
His authorities were increasingly concerned that Indonesia did not seem fully to appreciate its 
responsibilities, or to take into account the United States' concerns. His capital urged Indonesia to submit an updated response to the Annual Questio nnaire and asked Indonesia to indicate when it 
planned to do so. 
3.7.  The representative of Canada echoed the sy stemic concerns expressed by the United States 
regarding Indonesia's IL Regime. He indicated th at Canada had had some bilateral engagements 
with Indonesia on the specific requirements related to soya bean and it was their understanding 
that those specific measures had been repealed. They appreciated Indonesia's engagement on the 
issue as it was a very serious commercial concern for Canada. That positive outcome notwithstanding, they continued to have a very  serious interest in Indonesia's IL regime. 
3.8.  The representative of the European Union shared the concerns expressed by the Delegations 
of Canada and the United States regarding the multiplication of Indonesia's complex ILPs, in 
particular concerning Regulation No. 27 and Regulation No. 83. She recalled that this concern was not new or limited to some Members only, as they had also been raised during the TPR exercise on 
Indonesia in April 2013, at the IP Committees, and in various TRIMs Committees. Her authorities 
shared the concerns and urged Indonesia to provide a written response to the questions posed. 
3.9.  The representative of Japan indicated that his capital shared the concerns regarding 
Indonesia's IL regime. As he had mentioned in previous committee meetings, Japan continued to 
be strongly interested in Indonesia's IL restrictions on industrial products. His capital encouraged Indonesian authorities to ensure consistency with their WTO obligations. 
3.10.  The representative of Indonesia thanked Members for their interest in Indonesia's 
IL regime. She took note of the statements made  and requested to have the questions in writing 
so as to convey them to her capital. With regard to the questions posed in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/24, she apologized for the late response. She would remind her capital to 
provide written answers at the earliest convenience. Nonetheless, her delegation provided the 
following preliminary answer to the questions posed by United States: any IL requirement in Indonesia was imposed, with reasons justified, to  ensure compliance of the rules and regulations 
issue by the Indonesian Government, including requirements for the protection of human health, 
animal and environment protection, consumer pr otection from deceptive practices, and to 
discourage the importation of goods of very low quality standards. Indonesia's IL regime was 
applied on a non-discriminatory basis. They realized that their ILPs had experienced some delays, 
as they might have had some difficulties in the coordination among the institutions concerned for its implementation. However, the appropriate measures were being taken to ensure that such delays were reduced to a minimum. 
3.11.  The Committee took note of the statements made. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 11 – 
 
  4  RUSSIA'S IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
4.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that  the European Union and the United States had 
requested the Secretariat to include in this meeting's agenda the following item: "Russia's Import 
Licensing Procedures – Statements by the European Union and the United States". 
4.2.  The representative of the United States expressed its disappointment with the fact that 
Russia is not represented in the Committee meeting.  This was particularly regrettable given that 
there was an agenda item that specifically pertained to the Russian Federation. He noted that, in 
March 2013, the United States, along with some other Members, submitted questions to the Russian Federation regarding its notification contained in document G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1, and requested that the Russian Federation provide written responses. 
4.3.  He further recalled that, during the Committee meeting in April 2013, his delegation 
expressed concerns regarding the Russian Federation's reply to the Annual Questionnaire on IL, which was due on 22 November 2012. One year had passed since Russia's accession to the 
WTO and still it had not fulfilled its obligations under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, as 
30 September of each year was the deadline for Me mbers to submit their responses to the Annual 
Questionnaire. He urged the Russian Federation to provide the required response to the Annual 
Questionnaire. 
4.4.  The United States observed that, along with other Members, during the last meeting of the 
Committee they had noted the existence of laws an d regulations which had not been notified by 
Russia, including those which Russia implemented in accordance with its Customs Union. His 
authorities were deeply troubled by this appare nt lack of transparency. He asked when Russia 
would provide the requested documents to the ILC, in accordance with Article 1.4 of the Agreement on ILPs. 
4.5.  In addition to having requested full tran sparency with respect to Russia's IL regime, as 
detailed in their written questions, the United Stat es subsequently raised the issue of a specific 
licensing regime that was apparently imposed on 23 August 2012, after Russia became a 
WTO Member. He drew Members' attention to the issuance by the Eurasian Economic 
Commission (EEC) of Decision No. 143: "Measures to protect the economic interests of producers of stainless steel pipes in the Customs Union", esta blishing an IL regime to regulate a quota on 
certain pipe products. The United States had not yet seen a notification of such import licences and 
was concerned that these measures were question able under Article 3 of the Agreement and the 
GATT 1994. Notwithstanding their requests, to date th e Russian Federation had failed to notify this 
new import licensing regime. Thus, the United States requested the Russian Federation once again 
to notify the EEC Decision No. 143 to the ILC, and to provide copies of the Decision to the 
Secretariat at the same time, preferably in one of the WTO official languages, in accordance with the Agreement on ILPs. 
4.6.  In the interests of transparency, the United States requested that Russia review its IL regime 
before notifying to the Secretariat all required information on it, providing translated copies of government rules, regulations, etc. He urged the Ru ssian Federation to indica te when it would fulfil 
its obligations under the Agreement on ILPs. In addition, his authorities had questions regarding 
Russia's import licensing regime for products with cryptographic capabilities. On 15 May 2013, the 
EEC amended the regulations governing the import licensing regime for products with cryptographic capabilities. They had not seen any notification to the WTO of those amendments. 
Moreover, notwithstanding the amendments, it was not clear that the EEC regulations establishing 
the import licensing procedures for products with cryptographic capabilities accurately reflected Russia's WTO commitments in that regard. Specifically, the definition of "mass market goods" 
contained in Annex 1 of the regulations differed significantly from the definition of "mass market 
goods" contained in Table 29 of Russia's Working Party Report. The United States' government had 
raised these concerns directly with the Russian Federation. He requested Russia to describe steps 
to be taken to address this concern. 
4.7.  The United States repeated its acknowledge ment that the average processing time for an 
import license, including both the "permit" from  the FSB, and the license from the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade, was 75 working days. Article 3, paragraph 5(f), of the Agreement provided G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 12 – 
 
  that applications should be processed in not more than 60 days. He requested the Russian 
Federation to describe to the Committee what steps it had taken to reduce the processing time of its IL applications. 
4.8.  The representative of the European Union reiterated their concerns, which were posed jointly 
with Canada, Japan, and the United States, in March 2013. She urged the Russian Federation to 
submit a prompt reply to the questions posed. Recalling that transparency is central to the 
operation of the WTO, the European Union underli ned that, in the absence of the transparency 
provided through notifications, it was not possible to assess whether or not a WTO Member had 
fulfilled its obligations and commitments, or to evaluate the impact of such activities on international trade. 
4.9.  The representative of Japan indicated that  his capital was highly interested in Russia's 
implementation of the WTO obligations, including those of the Agreement on ILPs. She recognized 
that the Russian Federation had submitted its first no tification under Article 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of 
the Agreement in October 2012, contained in document G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1. However, such 
notification was insufficient in terms of the contents to be included. According to records of 
remarks made by the Russian Federation upon its accession, and other WTO documents, Russia has yet fully to notify its ILPs under Article 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement. As part of its 
accession commitments, the Russian Federation's first Response to the Annual Questionnaire on 
ILPs under Article 7.3 of the Agreement was due on 22 November 2012. She recalled that, despite the deadline for submission of the responses to the said Questionnaire falling every year on 30 September, Russia had failed to so. At the la st meeting of the Committee, on 22 April 2013, 
Japan, together with other delegations, subm itted questions on the Russian Federation's 
insufficient fulfilment of the obligation on the notification contained in document G/LIC/Q/RUS/1. Japan reiterated that no written responses had as  yet been received from the Russian Federation. 
4.10.  Japan urged the Russian Federation to submit  written responses to the questions as soon as 
possible, and to make notifications as required  under the Agreement. Japan would examine these 
thoroughly. 
4.11.  The representative of Canada recalled th at Canada was among the group of Members that 
posed questions in March 2013 to the Russian Federation. His Capital retained an interest in 
receiving answers. He urged the Russian Federation to comply with its accession commitments and notification obligations under the Agreement. 
4.12.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
5  COLOMBIA'S NEW IMPORT LICENSING PR OCEDURES NOTIFIED IN G/LIC/N/2/COL/2 
– STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the United States had requested the 
Secretariat to include in the agenda of this m eeting the following item: "Colombia's New Import 
Licensing Procedures Notified in G/LIC/N/2/COL/2 – Statement by the United States". 
5.2.  The representative of the United States re called that, at the last meeting of the Committee, 
in April 2013, the United States took note of Co lombia's notification of changes to its import 
licensing laws to control the import of certain heavy machinery and chemicals that could be used in mining activities. At that time, the United States had also requested Colombia to explain in 
writing the procedures for obtaining an IL for the specified goods, and to identify the ILPs that 
domestic producers of those products were required to fulfil. He noted that the United States had not as yet received formal answers to those questions. Furthermore, as of 30 September, 
Colombia had not yet responded to the Annual Questionnaire, and so the United States hoped that 
answers to their concerns could be included in Colombia's response. 
5.3.  The representative of Colombia recalled the notification contained in 
document G/LIC/N/2/COL/2, referring to Decree No. 2261 of December 2012, which introduced 
eight subsections into the prior import requirements relating to heavy machinery for mining. He indicated that the purpose of that change was to deal with the growing problem in Colombia of illegal mining. The Decree No. 2261 established a requirement for the submission of an advanced 
IL for customs-control purposes. These subsections were introduced into the Advanced Import G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 13 – 
 
  requirements as they demanded authorization from the customs authority through the submission 
of a series of documents which were set out in Decree No. 2261. This Advanced Import requirement aimed to identify the importer, includ ing their professional experience, the intended 
use of the machinery, and to ensure a proper control. He stated that his delegation had received 
questions from the United States, with a request to forward the relevant provisions, at the end of 
April 2013. Colombia provided a provisional response, with a copy of the Regulation, in early May 2013. He explained that something may have happened with the emails circulated with the 
responses and, in the interim, they would be happ y to check up on the issue. The delegation of 
Colombia understood that this issue had already been dealt with, and so for future occasions they suggested that the Secretariat send a short communication to indicate that a response had not been received. Thus, these cases could have been dealt with immediately, without it having been 
necessary to include this issue as an agenda item for the meeting. 
5.4.  The representative of the United Sates thanked Colombia for its statement and agreed to 
check into the communications received in May and notify the Secretariat accordingly. 
5.5.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  VIET NAM'S IMPORT LICENSING REGIME – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 
6.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the United States had requested the 
Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the following item: "Viet Nam's Import 
Licensing Regime – Statement by the United States". 
6.2.  The representative of the United States indicated that his capital remained frustrated and 
confused with Viet Nam's IL regime, six years after its accession to the WTO and after several 
rounds of questions. He pointed out that Viet Nam did not submit its response to the Annual 
Questionnaire in 2012 and, as of 30 September this year, it had not yet submitted its 2013 response either. The United States invited Viet Nam to update Members on when it would fully 
explain its ILPs, including by submitting its response to the Annual Questionnaire, emphasizing 
that commercial stakeholders needed to know about Viet Nam's ILPs in order to participate in its market. His delegation recalled that Viet Nam had not responded to the questions posed prior to 
the Committee meeting held in April 2013, contained in document G/LIC/Q/VNM/4. He encouraged 
Viet Nam to provide written responses to the questions as soon as possible. He expressed 
frustration at Viet Nam's import licensing regime, which remained confusing, and stated that his authorities were disappointed that Viet Nam was not taking the necessary steps to address that 
issue. Thus, he urged Viet Nam to fulfil its obligations under the Agreement. 
6.3.  The representative of the European Union reiterated their concern regarding the legal 
uncertainty caused by Viet Nam's Circular No. 24,  in which the European Union had expressed this 
concern in the Committee meeting of April 2013. They welcomed Viet Nam's decision temporarily 
to suspend the automatic IL system under Circular No. 24, which they believed was a step in the right direction. The European Union urged Viet Nam to withdraw Circular No. 24 entirely so as to 
create a stable and predictable trading environment for economic operators. 
6.4.  The representative of Viet Nam thanked the Delegations of the European Union and the 
United States for their interest in Viet Nam's IL regime and noted that their concerns were also 
perceived during Viet Nam's first trade policy re view, held 2 weeks before the meeting of the 
Committee. He confirmed that his capital was working on the Annual Questionnaire according to 
the Agreement. Concerning the questions posed by the European Union and the United States, 
contained in document G/LIC/Q/VNM/4, he explained that Circular No. 27 of 26 September 2012, 
issued by the Ministry of Industry, provided temp orary suspension of the application of regulations 
on automatic IL to a number of goods specified in Circular No. 24. They understood that the concern expressed by the United States with respect to Circular No. 27 was the term "a number of 
products", and that this meant the whole list of products included in Circular No. 24, and that 
Viet Nam would correct it in the near future. He ag reed to convey these concerns to his capital and 
requested Members to provide their statements in writing. 
6.5.  The Committee took note of the statements made. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 14 – 
 
  7  INDIA'S BORIC ACID IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED 
STATES 
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the United States had requested the 
Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meet ing the following item: "India's Boric Acid Import 
Licensing Procedures – Statement by the United States". 
7.2.  The representative of the United States reiterated that his capital's concerns on India's 
ILPs for boric acid had not changed since they were first raised in the IL Committee in 2008, and 
was disappointed that so far they had not received a satisfactory response to their questions. He 
recalled that during the Committee meeting in 2012, India committed to work with United States to resolve this longstanding trade issue. The Un ited States asked for and received confirmation 
from India of India's willingness to work with the United States, both in the WTO but also 
bilaterally, to identify action needed to allow entry of boric acid into India. His delegation was 
disappointed that, after one year of trying, India and the United States had yet to engage in one substantive discussion on this issue. He stressed that, having 12 months pass by without a single 
substantive discussion was difficult to understand. Nevertheless, his authorities were willing to 
give India one more chance to move the discussion forward in the near future. 
7.3.  Referring to Article 1.4(b), where a request for consultations must lead to those consultations 
taking place, the United States reiterated its interest in resolving this issue bilaterally, and urged 
India to work with them at the earliest possibl e opportunity to ensure that a positive outcome 
could be reported at the next meeting of the Committee. 
7.4.  The representative of Turkey echoed the United States' statement and looked forward to 
receive India's written replies to the questions posed. 
7.5.  The representative of India thanked the Dele gations of the United States and Turkey for their 
interest in India's IL regimen on boric acid. He indicated that there had been some coordination 
problems between the governments of India an d the United States. He suggested holding a 
videoconference to solve the concerns posed at the earliest possible opportunity. He also pointed out that the United States and Turkey had been th e largest exporters of boric acid to India, and 
that the two countries had not experienced any impediment to exportation of boric acid to India. 
He noted that, during the last committee meeting of the interlinked insecticide votes, a number of applications had been cleared regarding boric acid for non-insecticidal use. 
7.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
8  MALAYSIA – CUSTOMS ACT 1967 (G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2) – STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA 
AND THE UNITED STATES 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that Australia and the United States had requested 
the Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the following item: "Malaysia – 
Customs Act 1967 (G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2) – Statements by Australia and the United States". 
8.2.  The representative of Australia thanked Malaysia for its recent notification. He stated that 
Australia continued to have concerns regarding Malaysia's ILPs on certain goods and, in particular, 
on passenger motor vehicles, which were opaque , burdensome, and constituted a restriction to 
trade. She argued that licences to import passenger motor vehicles were difficult to acquire and were only offered to applicants who met very restrictive requirements. Furthermore, 70% of 
licences of passenger motor vehicles were offere d to the "bumiputras" companies, and the rest 
were only offered to Malaysian-owned companies. Her Capital understood that the permitted number of vehicles to be imported under licence each year was limited to 10% of the total motor 
vehicle sales in the previous year, which imposed unnecessary QRs on imports. 
8.3.  He noted that Indonesia's 2009 National Automobile Policy Review had set a policy of 
removing ILs through used motor vehicles: the "Open AP Scheme by 2015" and the "Franchise 
Automobile Policy by 2020" for new motor vehi cles. Australia welcomed these amendments 
although they were not reflected in the notified Customs Act. Australia therefore invited Malaysia 
to legislate on the basis of these amendments. Sh e indicated that her Capital also had concerns 
with Malaysia's ILPs for refined sugar, for which the procedures and the eligibility criteria for these G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 15 – 
 
  products were likewise opaque. He noted that, in recent years, only Malaysian domestic refiners 
were allocated ILs for refined sugar, and that this  was not good for domestic competition. Australia 
would appreciate further transparency on ILPs for refined sugar. They reserved the right to provide 
further questions in writing. 
8.4.  The representative of the United States th anked Malaysia for its notification regarding its 
Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order in th e context of the Committee meeting held in 
April 2013, and for providing a copy of its law to the Secretariat for its review by Members. His 
delegation reserved the right to pose written questions, and requested Malaysia to provide 
responses to the following questions originally posed in April 2013. First, how did Malaysia justify its prohibitions and import licenses in light of Ar ticle 1.2 of the Agreement? This Article required 
Members to ensure that the administrative procedures used to implement IL regimes were in 
conformity with the relevant provisions of GATT 1994. Second, how was it that the flow of trade 
not impeded by the use of such prohibitions and procedures? Third, what was Malaysia's rationale 
for restricting trade through the use of prohibitions and import licensing procedures? 
8.5.  The representative of Mexico thanked Malaysia for its notification concerning the customs 
regulation. She thanked the Delegations of Austra lia and the United States for their statements, 
and indicated that her authorities remained with the questions posed and, in particular, those 
questions concerning Malaysia's justification of its IL regime in light of Article 1.2 of the 
Agreement. Mexico was concerned with the uncertainty created by the discretional and opaque nature of Malaysia's IL regime, and its subsequent impact upon exports. Mexico urged Malaysia to provide written replies to the questions posed by Members. 
8.6.  The representative of the European Union noted that the European Union looked forward to 
Malaysia's written responses to the questions pose d by the Delegations of Australia, Mexico and 
the United States. 
8.7.  The representative of Malaysia thanked Members for their interest in Malaysia's notification, 
contained in document G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2, which referred to a customs prohibition of an import 
order that came into effect in March 2013. This represented an improvement to Malaysia's Import 
Act. Malaysia would provide a written response to the questions posed by Australia, Mexico and 
United States. 
8.8.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
9  INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR STONES – 
STATEMENTS BY TURKEY AND OMAN 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committ ee that Turkey and Oman had requested the 
Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the following item: "India – Import Licensing 
Practices for Marble and Similar Stones – Statements by Turkey and Oman". 
9.2.  The representative of Turkey indicated th at it had been two years since her capital first 
brought the issue before the IL Committee. Since th en, Turkey had been regularly following up on 
this issue due to the fact that Turkey was one of the top suppliers of natural stones and marbles to 
the Indian market. During this ti me, Turkey had also worked bilate rally with India on the issue. 
She recalled that, during the Committee meeting in April 2013, the issue was raised again by Turkey, emphasizing India's failure to justify it s IL regime with the Agreement on ILPs. Not 
satisfied with the explanations provided, and noti ng that Turkey's industry continued to report 
problems in this respect, Turkey indicated that it was still awaiting convincing answers from India, in particular concerning the allocation of quotas and a minimum import price, among other issues. 
9.3.  She further stated that, based on information provided by Turkey, India's quota level was at 
600,000 metric tons, and was concerned that it would remain unchanged on the extension of additional quotas for importation for domestic marble producers with mines abroad. This created 
discrimination against other investors. Turkey asked India how the restriction to imports of marble 
and similar stones alleviated concerns regarding safety, security, and the environment. Her authorities considered that India's reasoning on the environmental effects of processing marbles 
were neither verifiable nor justifiable and that therefore India had failed to base its arguments on G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 16 – 
 
  scientific evidence. Turkey requested India to justif y its IL regime in relation to the Agreement on 
ILPs. 
9.4.  The representative of Turkey noted that it was concerned regarding India's minimum import 
price requirement. Turkey considered that India had failed to provide the Committee with an 
answer that proved that the minimum price requir ement could be considered as quality assurance. 
This practice undermined India's IL regime and Turkey looked forward to receiving further clarification from India regarding this issue. 
9.5.  The representative of the United States indicated that his authorities were still interested to 
hear responses from India to the questions po sed by Turkey. The concerns expressed by the 
United States regarding India's IL regime were well-known to the Committee as, for example, the concern over boric acid, and they were very si milar to those concerns expressed by Turkey. 
9.6.  The representative of the European Union indicated that her authorities shared Turkey's 
concerns regarding India's ILPs, especially as they  did not appear to be well founded on "safety, 
security and environmental grounds". The Europe an Union echoed Turkey's statement and asked 
for further clarification on India's IL regime on marble and similar stones. Her authorities especially 
looked forward to receiving clearer responses to  the questions posed by Turkey, contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/IND/20 and, in particular, to Questions No. 2, No. 4 and No. 5. Her delegation 
would appreciate receiving clarification from India as to how the importation of marble and marble 
products posed safety issues, and how such issues were handled with regards to India's domestic natural stone and stone processing industry. They also requested clarification from India on how the QRs on importing marbles related to security concerns, and how such concerns were handled 
with regards to India's domestic industry. The European Union indicated that India had not 
provided an explanation to Turkey regarding its question on how environmental concerns relating to the natural stone industry were handled in India, and with regards to imports and India's 
domestic industry. India had stated that the minimum import price was justified for quality 
reasons. In this respect, the European Union aske d India to indicate what measures India had put 
in place, if any, to ensure a commensurate quality for India's domestic industry. Her capital had 
received complaints from its industry concerning India's current IL regime, the allocation setting of 
quotas, and applying an annual import ceiling below potential imports, as well as a minimum import price. 
9.7.  The representative of India thanked the Delegations of the European Union, the 
United States, and Turkey, for their interest in India's IL regime on marble and similar stones. He 
would provide some preliminary replies to the qu estions posed by Members. Regarding Turkey's 
questions concerning a discrimination against importers vis-à-vis those Indian importers based 
abroad, he indicated that the specific regime ch ange had been made, and that an 100,000 metric 
tons limit was included to some of the more recent regimes. There was a greater degree of control over manufacturers of marbles and stones. Therefor e, with this change introduced, India would be 
able to address the specific environmental and human health concerns that had been expressed at 
the last Committee meeting on 22 April 2013. However, India stated that there was no discrimination per se , because there was a specific limit and that, even in just one year, it was 
1/6 (100,000 metric tonnes) of the total limit available for all the importers (600,000 metric 
tonnes). Regarding the questions posed by the De legations of the European Union and Turkey 
concerning the minimum import price, India stated that it was specifically targeted at the quality of marble, and that there were internal measures especially put in place by the state government 
to ensure that the domestic miners were complying with these same quality standards. Regarding 
the question of environmental concerns, India noted that it aimed both to prevent the depletion of those natural resources, and to address the human health concerns. India was willing to work 
bilaterally with Members on these issues. 
9.8.  The representative of Turkey thanked Indi a for the explanations given. She requested India 
to provide written responses to convey back to ca pital and noted that Turkey would revert to this 
issue at the next Committee meeting. 
9.9.  The representative of India announced that his authorities would provide responses to the 
Delegations of the European Union, the United St ates, and Turkey. He drew Members' attention to 
the fact that India, Italy, the United States, an d Turkey, were some of the largest exporters of 
marbles to India, and that his authorities did not want to impede their market access. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 17 – 
 
  9.10.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
10  THAILAND – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR STONES – 
STATEMENT BY TURKEY 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that Turkey had requested the Secretariat to 
include in the agenda of this meeting the following item: "Thailand – Import Licensing Practices for 
Marble and Similar Stones – Statement by Turkey". 
10.2.  The representative of Turkey recalled that concerns for Thailand's ILPs for HS 68.02.21 
(marble, travertine and alabaster, simply cut or  sawn with a flat or even surface) and 25.15 
(except 25.15.12.10, i.e. marble blocks) were raised by Turkey during the Committee meeting in October 2012, as no satisfactory progress could be achieved via bilateral consultations. During the 
Committee meeting of 22 April 2013, Turkey posed questions to Thailand concerning its 
notification, contained in document G/LIC/N/2/THA/ 4, and its written replies. Turkey recalled that 
these questions included reference to the following issues: coverage of Thailand's current IL regime on marbles and similar stones, whether safety concerns could be alleviated through its 
IL regime and, if domestic producers of crude and processed marble were also imposed, 
requirements to ensure safety. Unfortunately, no  answers had been received on those specific 
questions since the last Committee meeting. Turkey remained concerned over Thailand's 
IL Regime. 
10.3.  The representative of Turkey understood that  Thailand's most recent notification, contained 
in document G/LIC/N/3/THA/6, was incomplete because its coverage lacked HS 25.15, among others. According to the referred website in the notification (http://www.dtf.go.th), HS 25.15 was 
also subject to ILPs. Her delegation requested Thailand to clarify if non-appearance of some 
products in the response to the Annual Questionna ire, including HS 25.15, was simply a clerical 
error. The combination of lack of clarity over wh ether domestic producers are subject to ILPs, and 
the ambiguity in terms of coverage, cast a deep shadow on the WTO compatibility of Thailand's 
IL regime for marbles and natural stones. Although Turkey believed that Thailand was giving its best effort at coming up with explanations that would satisfy Turkey's concerns, she urged 
Thailand to speed up their efforts to that end. Tu rkey indicated, without prejudice, that, as with 
any other action that may be agreed upon in the meantime, they would continue to raise this agenda item before the Committee on the grounds of trade and systemic interests. 
10.4.  The representative of the United States l ooked forward to the written responses provided by 
Thailand to the questions posed by Turkey. 
10.5.  The representative of Thailand indicated that his Capital was studying the questions posed 
by Turkey regarding Thailand's IL regime, and any answers provided would be conveyed to the 
Committee immediately. He requested Turkey to provide its statement in writing so as to allow 
him to forward it to his capital. 
10.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
11  NOTIFICATIONS 11.1  Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement (Publications 
and/or Legislation) 
11.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and notification procedures, as had 
been agreed by the Committee4, required all Members to publish their laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures, and notify these to the Committee upon becoming a Member of the WTO. Any subsequent changes to these laws and regulations were also requested to be notified. 
He informed the Committee that, under these provisions, 13 notifications
5,  a s  l i s t e d  i n  t h e  
Airgram, had been received from the following nine Members: European Union; Gabon; Moldova; 
                                               
4 G/LIC/3. 
5 See documents G/LIC/N/1/EU/3; G/LIC/N/1/EU/4; G/LIC/N/1/EU/5; G/LIC/N/1/GAB/3; 
G/LIC/N/1/MDA/2; G/LIC/N/1/PER/3; G/LIC/N/1/PHL/2; G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4; G/LIC/N/1/UKR/2; G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3 and G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3/Rev. 1;  G/LIC/N/1/TPKM/8 and G/LIC/N/1/TGO/3. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 18 – 
 
  Peru; Philippines; Saint Lucia; Ukraine; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu and Togo, and invited Members to comment on these notifications. 
11.2.  The representative of the United States we lcomed Saint Lucia's notification of its ILPs on 
poultry and pork, and congratulated Saint Lucia for completing and submitting its response to the 
Annual Questionnaire before the 30 September deadline. 
11.3.  He recalled that during the Committee meeting of 22 April 2013 the United States raised 
some questions to Saint Lucia, contained in document G/LIC/Q/LCA/1, which still remained 
unanswered. The following questions were raised for further clarification. What is the rationale of 
Saint Lucia's domestic purchase requirements for poultry, pork and pork products, and how are they justified under the Agreement on ILPs? How would Saint Lucia's government ensure that its import licensing procedures were not used in a manner that was contrary to the principles and 
obligations of GATT 1994? In what way did Saint Lucia consider the domestic purchase 
requirements for poultry, pork, and pork products to be compatible with the GATT 1994? The United States looked forward to Saint Lucia's written responses to these questions at their earliest 
convenience. 
11.4.  The representative of the European Union underlined that she had expressed her authorities 
concerns regarding Ukraine's IL regime, according to its notifications contained in 
documents G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3 and G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3/Rev.1, at the beginning of the Committee's 
meeting. 
11.5.  The Committee took note of the notifications and of the statements made. 
11.2  Notifications under Article 5 of the Ag reement (New Import Licensing Procedures 
or Changes). 
11.6.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that, as listed in the Airgram, under this agenda 
item there were eight notifications6 submitted, by four Members, under Article 5 of the Agreement: 
European Union; Indonesia; New Zealand; and Ukraine. Delegations were invited to comment on 
these notifications. 
11.7.  The Committee took note of the notifications. 
11.3  Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (Replies to Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) 
11.8.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, 
19 notifications7 had been received, from ten Members, as listed in the Airgram: Argentina; 
Cambodia; Dominican Republic; Haiti; India; Liechtenstein; Mali; Moldova; Nicaragua; Norway; 
Peru; Saint Lucia; Senegal; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; Switzerland; Thailand and the United States. He invited delegations to comment on 
these notifications. 
11.9.  The representative of the European Union stated that her authorities were assessing the 
notification submitted by Argentina in document  G/LIC/N/3/ARG/11, and reserved the right to 
revert with further questions. 
11.10.  The Committee took note of the notifications and the statements made. 
                                               
6 See documents G/LIC/N/2/EU/3; G/LIC/N/2/EU/4; G/LIC/N/2/EU/5; G/LIC/N/2/IDN/14; 
G/LIC/N/2/NZL/1; G/LIC/N/2/UKR/3; G/LI C/N/2/UKR/4; G/LIC/N/2/UKR/4/Rev.1. 
7 See documents G/LIC/N3/ARG/11; G/LIC/N/3/ KHM/3; G/LIC/N/3/DOM/7; G/LIC/N/3/HTI/6; 
G/LIC/N/3/IND/13; G/LIC/N/3/IND/13/REV.1; G/LIC/ N/3/LIE/6; G/LIC/N/3/MLI/4; G/LIC/N/3/MDA/2; 
G/LIC/N/3/NIC/5; G/LIC/N/3/NOR/8; G/LIC/N/3/PER/9; G/LIC/N/3/LCA/6; G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/4; G/LIC/N/3/SEN/5; G/LIC/N/3/SGP/9; G/LIC/N/3/ CHE/9; G/LIC/N/3/THA/6 and G/LIC/N/3/USA/10. G/LIC/M/38 
 
– 19 – 
 
  12  OTHER BUSINESS 
12.1  Draft Report (2013) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/LIC/W/42) 
12.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the Committee wa s required to submit an annual report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG). A draft report to the CTG (G/LIC/W/42), 
covering activities of the Committee in 2013, had been circulated for the Committee's consideration. The information covered in the draft report, including its Annexes, would be 
updated to reflect the notifications received up to  the present meeting as well as the discussion at 
this meeting. 
12.2.  The representative of Australia thanked the Secretariat for the report. Regarding Figure 1 
and 2 of the report, while she had no objections to the way in which they were presented, she 
suggested to include also a reference to the number of Members that were required to notify every 
year as compared to the number of Members that ac tually did notify, so as better to track Member 
performance regarding notifications. She considered that the Committee still had a lot of work to 
do on notifications, and suggested adding more details to illustrate the duty of Members to 
improve their notification track records. 
12.3.  The representative of the United States pointed out that paragraph 7 as currently drafted 
was confusing. He suggested that the Report si mply name those countries that have submitted 
their Annual 7.3 notifications for 2013, in accordan ce with the Agreement. In addition, he argued 
that some other details seemed unnecessary and fell outside the Report's "period of review". 
12.4.  The Committee agreed to adopt the report, subject to its being updated. The report as 
revised and adopted was circulated as document G/L/1048. 12.2  Date of the next meeting 12.5.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved 
Tuesday, 15 April 2014, and Friday, 24 October 2014, for the next meetings of the Committee, on 
the understanding that additional meetings would be convened if necessary. 
12.6.  The Committee took note of the information. 
__________