RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/47  
 
25 September 2018  
(18-5934) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 20  APRIL  2018  
CHAIRPERSON: MR  FAWA Z ALMUBALLI (KINGDOM  OF SAUDI ARABIA)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty -eighth meeting on 20  April 2018 under the 
chairpersonship of Mr  Fawaz Almuballi  (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The agenda proposed for the 
meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/7.  
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIA NCE WITH NOTIFICATIO N OBLIGATIONS – DEVE LOPMENTS 
SINCE THE LAS T MEETING  ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTION S AND REPLIES FROM M EMBERS ON SPECIFIC  
 TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  2 
2.1   Document G/LIC/Q/ARG/16  ................................ ................................ ..........................  2 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/1  ................................ ................................ ............................  5 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/RUS/4  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
2.5   Document  G/LIC/Q/VNM/7  ................................ ................................ ...........................  7 
2.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/22  ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
2.7   Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4  ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  8 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ..............  8 
3.2   Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................ . 9 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  9 
4   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIM E FOR CELLPHONES, HA NDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS - STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  ................................ .......................  9 
5   INDONESIA – IMPO RT LICENSING REQUIREMEN TS RELATED TO MILK S UPPLY AND 
CIRCULATION – STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  ................................ ....................  10 
6   INDIA – IMPORT L ICENSING REQ UIREMENTS FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 
7   INDIA – IMPORT R EQUIREMENTS FOR BEAN S OF THE SPECIES VIG NA MUNGO  HEPPER 
OR VIGNA RADIATA WIL CZEK AND PIGEON PEAS  (CAJANUS CAJAN) – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  13 
8   IMPROVING TRANSP ARENCY IN NOTIFI CATION PROCEDURES OF  THE AGREEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  ................................ ................................ ......................  15 
9   DATE OF THE NEXT  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ....................  17 
10   ELECTION OF OFF ICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  17 
 
 G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  MEMBERS ' COMPLIANCE WITH NOT IFICATION OBLIGATION S – DEVELOPMENTS SIN CE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chair person  informed the Committee that a total of 39  notifications had been received 
since the last meeting, of which 33 were li sted for consideration. The following new notifications 
would be reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting: new N/1 notification from India ; new 
N/3 notifications from India, Mali, and the Russian Federation;  new N/2  notifications from Japan and 
Seychelles ; as well as Brazil 's written reply to the European Union.  
1.2.  The Chair pointed out that, as of 20  April 2018, 15  Members had not yet submitted any 
notification under any provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO. With regard to the 
N/1 notification concerning Members ' laws and regulations, as wel l as where to find sources of 
relevant information, 25  Members had still not submitted any such  notification. In addition, 
24 Members had not yet submitted any replies to the Q uestionnaire under Article  7.3. 
1.3.  He also pointed out t hat only 22  Members had submitted their replies to the Quest ionnaire for 
2017. Among those 22 Members, only ten Members had submitted their replies either before or 
immediately after 30  September  2017, namely  Argentina; the European Union; Hong Kong, China ; 
Japan; Mali; Mauritius; Panama; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; and Ukraine . Australia, Canada, and 
China had submitted their N/3  notifications for year 2016. For the sake of transparency, he urged 
other Members to submit their replies to the Questionnaire as soon as possible.  
1.4.  The Committee took note  of the Chair 's report.  
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
2.1  Document G/LIC/Q/ARG/16  
2.1.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Argentina for its notification of Trade 
Resolution No . 523/2017 and its implementing rules, on the meeting's agenda under item  3.2. She 
noted that the EU had submitted a set of detailed questions in the hope of  receiving further 
clarification of certain aspects of Argentina's import licensing procedures currently in place and, in 
particular, with regard to the amendments introduced by Trade Resolution No . 523/2017 and its 
implementing rules.  
2.2.  More specifically, she underlined the following main areas where  the EU sought further 
information:  
- The EU wished  to receive a detailed list of products subject in Argentina to import 
licensing procedures , with a clear indication of how the amendments introduced by 
Resolution No. 523/2017 had affected each pro duct concerned ; 
 
- the EU wished also  to receive further clarification of the amendments introduced in 
Resolution No . 5/2018 , of 8 January  2018. In this regard , while the EU acknowledged 
that this resolution had been notified and circulated , in document  G/LIC/N/2/ARG/ Add.2  
(agenda item 3.2), it was still not sufficiently clear, on the basis of that notification, 
what were the products affected and what the import licensing procedures  to be applied . 
Therefore, the EU requested  Argentina to further develop th e procedures described 
under point (c) of page 2 of its notification ; 
 
- the EU noted that Argentina had declared that the system used both automatic and 
non-automatic import licensing procedures and had stated that "the aim of the non -
automatic licensing system was to establish an appropriate prior verification system for 
ensuring compliance with the conditions governing the importation of the goods, in 
accordance with the provisions of Annexes II to XV to Ministry of Production Resolution 
No. 523/2017 and  the amendments thereto, Secret ariat for Trade Resolutions 
No. 898/2017 and No.  5-E/2018". The EU requested Argentina to describe how the prior 
verification system functioned in practice;  
 
- lastly, it was unclear to the EU  whether or not Argentina was mov ing towards a greater 
reliance on non-automatic licensing procedures , or rather if Argentina intended to G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 3 - 
 
  replace non -automatic licence procedures by a scheme of technical regulations. The EU 
requested Argentina to provide further information in this regard . 
 
2.3.  In response, the representative of Argentina  welcomed the EU's interest in Argentina's licensing 
system as applied to the different items of concern to the EU. He noted that, regarding the annual 
questionnaire, Argentina had answered all questions in ac cordance with the established  template . 
Concerning document  G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28, he clarified that one of the objectives of the economic 
policy implemented by the Government since December  2015 was the establishment of a 
transparent and predictable foreign tr ade system with a view to facilitating international 
trade -related operations . In that context, a review of trade policy was ongoing, and Argentina's 
policy direction had indeed been evolving away from a largely non-automatic licensing system and 
towards  a system based increasingly on automatic licensing procedures. He confirmed that his 
delegation would provide its answers to the EU's questions in writing.  
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27  
2.4.  The representative of the European Union  indicated that the EU had submitted a set of detailed 
questions to China that sought  clarification regarding China's replies to the 2016 annual 
questionnaire. The EU looked forward to receiving China's equally detailed responses to its questions.  
2.5.  The EU wished  to underscore the following main points, as raised in its written questions:  
(i) The EU regretted that China had not yet submitted its annual notification for 2017 and 
wished  to know when China intended to do so;  
 
(ii) the EU wished  to receive a complete list of products subject in China to non -automatic 
import licences , as well as a complete list of products subjec t to automatic import 
licences ; 
 
(iii) the EU wished also to receive a detailed description of the procedures applicable  to 
waste products , and to know whether or not China envisaged making any amendments 
to the current procedures ; 
 
(iv) the EU reiterated the need for China to notify its procedures applicable to waste products 
and, in the absence of such notification, the E U requested China to provide the following 
information : 
 
– detailed information on products subject to ban from 1  January  2018;  
 
– detailed information on changes in the list of products subject to non -automatic 
import licences (restricted solid waste) and  automatic import licences 
(non-restricted solid waste) from 1  January  2018; 
 
- detailed information on changes on the conditions for the issuance of import 
licences ; that is, import licences no longer issued to traders but only to processors 
in China.  
 
2.6.  The representative of Japan  stated that Japan held a significant interest in the restrictions 
imposed by China on the import of scrap materials , and that his delegation had already expressed 
concerns similar to those of the EU at the most recent meetings of the CTG and the TBT  Committee. 
Japan's  understanding was that these restrictions had already had a significant impact on the exports 
to China of many Members , and wished to continue discussion s with China and other Members on 
this issue.  
2.7.  The representative  of the Republic of Korea  thanked the EU for raising this important issue. He 
indicated that Korea, too,  had concerns and interests regarding changes in China 's import licensing 
regulations on waste materials. He argued that, given the huge impact on the g lobal recycling chain 
and environment, large economies , such as in the case of China,  should ensure that such measures 
were applied in a c autious and transparent manner.  
2.8.  To clarify the se measures, Korea wished China to reply to the following questions: (1)  at the 
CTG's most recent  meeting, the Chinese delegation had indicated that these measures had been G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 4 - 
 
  notified to the TBT  Committee ; was China referring to a series of TBT  notifications that had been 
circulated on 15  November  2017? (2)  regardless of any notifications made to the TBT Committee , 
Korea believed that China still needed to notify these measures under Article  5 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement ; (3) on 19 April 2018, China announced a plan to further restrict imports of 
32 kinds of waste  material . Korea request ed China to clarify its reason ing and criteria for selecting 
these 32  kinds of waste material, and when the new restrictions would be notified. In conclusion, 
Korea urged China to notify new import -related measure s in a more transparent and t imely manner 
so as to be then in full compliance with the Import Licensing Agreement, and so as to avoid 
unnecessary negative impact on trade and the environment . Korea would keep a close eye on any 
future development s. 
2.9.  The representative of the United Sta tes highlighted that the US supported the EU 's request for 
more clarity with regard to changes in China 's import licensing regime, and specifically the EU's 
request for a detailed list of products subject to non -automatic import licenses.  
2.10.   The US still had significant concerns over the uncertainty, non -transparency, and 
trade -restrictiveness in China 's implementation of its measures applying to the import of certain 
recoverable commodities and recovered materials. She recalled that her deleg ation had already 
raised the issue of certain recoverable commodities and materials at the October  2017 meeting of 
the Committee, and on that occasion had requested China to notify to the Committee any changes 
it might make to its import licensing  regime . The US had also requested more detail ed information 
concerning whether or not China intended to ban or further restrict the import of ferrous and non -
ferrous scrap.  
2.11.   She continued that the US had been troubled to learn of China 's planned addition of 32  types 
of scrap materials  to the Catalogue of Banned Import Solid Waste , including various types of ferrous 
and non -ferrous scrap. The US was also disappointed that China had not provided sufficient 
information about its current import licensing procedures, nor any planned changes in that regard, 
to alleviate Members' concerns. In this regard, she respectfully requested  China to adhere in a timely 
manner to its notification obligations under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in respect 
of any new impo rt licensing measures, in particular for ferrous and non -ferrous metals. The US also 
requested China to halt its implementation of existing measures , and any new proposed measures, 
and consider less trade -restrictive alternatives  instead . 
2.12.   The delegation of  Australia  appreciated China 's efforts to reduce pollution. However, the 
Australian Government was concerned by China 's licensing arrangements for waste and scrap 
imports ; Australia also shared the concerns raised by other Members. He pointed out that the impact 
of the measures on Australian exporters would be significant , and might cause a large amount of 
waste to go to landfill instead of being recycled in China and recovered for intermediate materials. 
He requested further clarification of China's specif ic public health, animal or plant, and environmental 
protection objectives, and how these objectives would  be fulfilled by the measure?  
2.13.   His delegation questioned if the measure was not more trade restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the objectives  desired . In addition, Australia noted that, just that week , China had imposed 
new restrictions on additional categories of waste and scrap ; Australia wished to receive an 
explanation as to whether or not these changes had been notified to the WTO and , if so,  if a period 
for comments from Members  had also been indicated . Finally, he again urged China to reconsider 
these standards and to allow for a comp rehensive consultation process.  
2.14.   The representative of Canada  shared the concerns raised by other Members over China's 
waste and scrap policy , as well as the concerns raised in the EU's written questions to China 
regarding China 's import licensing regime. Canada encouraged China to clarify which specific goods 
were subject to its automatic and non -automatic import lice nsing regime , as well as the procedures 
applicable to the import of goods listed under the category of solid waste. Finally , he encouraged 
China to notify all of its measures to the WTO as soon as possible , and in accordance with the Import 
Licensing Agreement.  
2.15.   In response, the representative of China  thanked the EU and other Members for raising their 
questions on China's import licensing regime . He indicated that his delegation had forwarded the se 
questions back to Capital , where they were being caref ully reviewed. He reiterated that China was G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 5 - 
 
  fully committed to implementing all of the WTO  Agreements , including the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures , and that written replies would be provided as soon as possible.  
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/1  
2.16.   The representative of the European Union  regretted that Egypt had never submitted any 
notification under the Import Licensing Agreement – neither under Article  7.3, nor Article  5, nor 
Article  1.4. The EU urged Egypt to fulfil its notification obligations a nd asked Egypt if its annual 
notification was currently under preparation. If not, the EU wished to know Egypt's reasons for failing  
to do so.  
2.17.   She noted that , in past years, imports had been rationalized on the basis of complicated  
import procedures. In pa rticular, a number of new laws, decrees , and procedures , had been issued 
and implemented in 2017. However, none of this legislation had been notified to the WTO.  
2.18.   In the absence of any notification, the EU had submitted a set of detailed questions in the 
hope of  receiving from Egypt further clarification regarding Egypt's import licensing procedures 
currently in place. More specifically, the EU wished to know the full picture of the relevant legislation 
in place, including with regard to the products that were subject to import procedures (both 
automatic and non -automatic) , and the specific procedures applicable on each of those products, in 
accordance with Article  5.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement. In addition, the EU wished to receive 
further clarific ation from Egypt of the mandatory registration requirements set by Decree 
No. 43/2016 , which  entered into force on 16  March  2016, and of how those requirements complied 
with Articles  1, 2, and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
2.19.   In response, the represent ative of Egypt  thanked the European Union for its questions in 
document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/1. He noted that the questions were currently being considered in Capital , 
but that he would nevertheless address briefly several of the points  that had been raised.  
2.20.   On tra nsparency and notifications, he reiterated that Egypt,  as clearly stated during its most 
recent trade policy review, was fully committed to fulfil ling its notification obligations. Recognizing 
the importance of transparency, Egypt was currently taking stoc k of all its trade -related regulations , 
including import licensing procedures , which had not previously been notified in order to prepare 
and submit the appropriate notifications in the context of the relevant WTO  Committees. He pointed 
out that this task required enormous human and technical capacity, especially in light of the often 
complex and detailed structure of notification requirements. As a developing country, Egypt intended 
to seek technical assistance fro m the WTO.  
2.21.   Regarding Egypt's laws governing import licensing procedures, he explained that , in general, 
the Import and Export Law No. 118/1975 , and its executive regul ation in Ministerial Decree 
No. 770/2005 , including their amendments and complementary de cisions , were the main regulations 
governing import licensing procedures in Egypt, notwithstanding that the administration and 
application of the procedures included in the decree were conducted by a number of different 
authorities. He added that certain products were subject to other regulations , as set by the relevant 
regulatory authority, such as wireless telecommunication devices , for example,  which were subject 
to the National Telecommunications Regulatory Authority.  
2.22.   On imports of products listed in An nex 1 of Decree No. 770/2005 , and its amendments , he 
noted that the importation of those listed products was suspended for SPS, national security, 
religious, or environmental reasons . 
2.23.   Regarding import licensing procedures for importation of certain agricul tural commodities, he 
indicated that Prime Minister 's Decree No.  2992/2016 , and Ministerial Decree No.  24/2017 , set out 
the import permit requirements for wheat grains , corn used for the feed industry , and soya bean 
seeds. The General Organization for Expo rt and Import Control (GOEIC), was the sole Egyptian 
authority in charge of inspecting consignments upon their arrival to ensure compliance with Egyptian 
standards and requirements. In this vein, it was worth underscoring that the purpose of such 
procedure s was to facilitate trade by appointing a single entity to be responsible for the process.  
2.24.   On importing into free zones , he noted that f ree zones were considered a special regime 
where dealings were conducted in accordance with special customs and tax provisions ; specifically,  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 6 - 
 
  procedures for importing into free zones were governed by Investment Law No.  72/2017 , and its 
executive regulation in Prime Minister 's Decree No. 2310/2017.  
2.25.   In addition, he  indicated that Egypt did not consider Decree No.  43/2016 to be an import 
licensing procedure as per the definition stipulated in Article  1.1 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures, arguing that the decree only required the registration of manufacturing plants 
or companies owning trademarks, with no requ irement to renew the registration process as long as 
the documents submitted were valid ; there were  no further requirements on new importers of the 
products of the registered company. Further , the Decree had been notified to the TBT  Committee 
before its en try into force, and since then Egypt had held a number of bilateral meetings with 
interested Members, including the EU, on the fringe s of the TBT  Committee, which Egypt believe d 
to have been very constructive , and which reflected positively on the applicat ion of the Decree. 
Therefore, Egypt remained ready to engage with interested Members on this issue within the 
framework of the TBT  Committee . 
2.26.   In this context, regarding the EU's Question No. 6 in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/1, Egypt would 
like to seek more clarif ication from the EU with regard to the relevance of that question to import 
licensing procedures.  
2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/RUS/4  
2.27.   The representative of the European Union  stated that the EU regretted that the Russian 
Federation had not yet submitted its annual noti fication in accordance with Article  7.3 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement and asked Russia when it would do so . Turning its focus to the advance 
questions on the meeting's agenda, the EU hoped to receive further clarification from Russia of the 
procedures to be followed for the importation of certain specified medicines and pharmaceutical 
products.  
2.28.   The EU noted that , since the introduction of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate 
requirements, in January  2016, the importations of pharmaceutical products were subject to 
complicated, burdensome , and discriminatory procedures. She argued that the GMP  certification, as 
currently implemented in Russia, raised concerns not only regarding the WTO  National Treatment 
principle , but also as concerned its undeniable import licensing  dimension.  
2.29.   The EU was interested in understanding the different procedures applied to importers wishing 
to obtain GMP  certifications , and what justification existed for applying a different set of procedures 
to imp orters compared to domestic producers. In particular, the EU invited  the Russian Federation 
to explain why a domestic applicant could obtain a GMP certificate , together with its marketing 
authorization, while an importer had first to obtain the GMP  certifi cate and subsequently, as a 
separate step , the relevant marketing authorization . The EU also wished to know what the average 
time was for obtaining the GMP  certificate for a domestic compared to  a foreign applicant . 
2.30.   She noted  that the EU was raising these questions at the IL  Committee because the 
procedures for obtaining GMP  certificates for an importer could be understood as a "licence ", thus 
falling within the scope of Article  1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
2.31.   The EU wished the Russian Federation  to clarify whether or not it had envisaged any 
amendments to the current procedures , and also if it could confirm that a bill of law had been sent 
to the Duma early in 2018? Any information regarding the current status of this draft law would also 
be appreciated. In addition, the EU would welcome any information on relevant rules and procedures 
to allow operators to rectify formal errors in their GMP  certification applications once these had been 
submitted to the Russian authorities.  
2.32.   In response, the repre sentative of the Russian Federation  thanked the EU for its questions. 
She pointed out that her delegation had recently submitted to the Secretariat a new reply to the 
annual questions and that this notification would be circulated shortly. Concerning the E U's other 
questions, she replied that internal consultations were being  held among the relevant authorities in 
Capital . In the meantime, she emphasized that, in Russia 's view, the Good Manufacturing Practices 
fell under the scope of  the TBT  Agreement rathe r than the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.5  Document  G/LIC/Q/VNM/7  
2.33.   The representative of the United States  thanked Viet Nam for addressing their concerns and 
indicated that currently the US  had no further  questions.  
2.34.   The representative of the Europ ean Union  indicated that the EU had appreciated Viet Nam's 
efforts when preparing its replies to the questions  from the US . However, her delegation noted that 
the last annual notification submitted by Viet Nam dated back to 2014. The EU wished  to understand 
the reasons for this, as well as to learn of any actions being taken by Viet Nam so as to enable it to 
catch up on its outstanding notifications.  
2.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/22  
2.35.   The representative of the European Union  recalled Brazil 's commitment last year to revise its 
annual notification (as well as its quantitative restrictions notification) , and to clarify the import 
licensing procedures applied by Brazil to import s of nitrocellulose ; in this regard, the EU regretted 
that Brazil had not yet submitte d its annual notification for 2017 , and asked Brazil to indicate when 
it would do so and to explain the reasons behind the delay.  
2.36.   The EU continued to be concern ed over the importation of nitrocellulose for industrial use and, 
to further clarify the issue, had recently submitted a new set of questions. The EU thanked Brazil for 
its replies , which were currently under review. Her delegation would rev ert to Brazil on this issue at 
a later stage.  
2.37.   She reiterated that a stability test on industrial nitrocellulose  had demonstrated that 
EU products had the highest safety standards worldwide , and that these products were stable and 
would not decompose dangerous ly, even if they dried out . In this regard , she recalled that the 
competent authorities in Brazil allowed for the transportation and use of around 9 ,000 tonnes of 
industrial nitrocellulose from Brazil's  monopolist producer , NQB, in printing ink, wood coating , and 
other end-user industries in Brazil. On these grounds, she argued that national security in Brazil  
would not be negatively affected by EU  imports. The EU asked Brazil to comment on this particular 
aspect , and to reply in writing to the EU's questions in writing.  
2.38.   In response, the representative of Brazil  thanked the EU for this opportunity to further cl arify 
Brazil's import licensing regime for nitrocellulose. He informed the Committee that a written reply 
had been submitted by Brazil and would shortly be circulated. He reiterated that Brazil 's regime 
applied to the importation of nitrocellulose was full y compatible with WTO  rules and rejected any 
suggestion to the contrary.  
2.39.   He clarified that:  
(i) Imports of nitrocellulose , as well as of all chemicals containing a  certain nitrocellulose 
content , was not prohibited but was subject to prior licens ing because of safety risks;  
 
(ii) nitrocellulose required particularly strict control s due to its explosive nature and its 
detonation speed. All products classified under HS  subheading 3920 .12, even those with 
lower nitrogen concentrations , had these characteristics. For this reason, Brazilian 
statistics and the WCO  itself did not distinguish between products with a greater or a 
lesser degree of nitrogen concentration , or between products for military or industrial 
use; 
 
(iii) Brazil did not agree that  industrial nitrocellulose and military nitrocellulose were distinct 
products based solely on nitrogen concentration. Therefore , the statement contained in 
Question No. 4 of document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/22 , affirming that Brazil agreed that there 
was a difference between military and industrial use n itrocellulose was simply wrong ; 
 
(iv) given  its characteristics , nitrocellulose could potentially be used in the production chain 
of items that might then compromise national defence and public safety. The risks of 
nitrocellulose included potential  accidental detonation during transportation and 
handling , and its deliberate use in criminal acts, military assaults , or terrorist attacks. 
Such risks were not purely theoretical. Brazil had observed with great concern recent G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 8 - 
 
  incidents in this regard, including a case of militia groups in the Middle East obtain ing 
low content nitrocellulose , which the EU would qualify as industrial nitrocel lulose , 
manufactured in Germany ; 
 
(v) it was also important to clarify that the regulations in place in Brazil on the importation 
of nitrocellulose applied to products of any origin. The assumption that Brazil was 
granting licences only to Uruguay was not correct. Brazilian official statistics re gistered 
imports in past years from Switzerland and the US , for example, but  not from Uruguay. 
Furthermore, there was no bilateral understanding in place to facilitate import of 
nitrocellulose from Uruguay,  and no r was nitrocellulose imported from that cou ntry. 
 
2.7  Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4  
2.40.   The representative of the European Union  noted with regret that Thailand had not submitted 
any annual notification of its import licensing procedures since 2013. The EU strongly encouraged 
Thailand to comply with its notificat ion requirements and wished  Thailand to explain the reasons 
behind its delay. She also reiterated the EU's concern over Thailand's  import procedures for feed 
wheat. In this regard, the EU had now submitted an additional set of advance questions, which were  
in response to Thailand 's request raised at the Committee's previous meeting.  
2.41.   The EU wished  to understand on what basis the measure could be maintained , and for how 
long, and to receive a detailed description of the import licensing procedures to be appli ed. In 
addition, the EU repeated its request to be provided with all the relevant data concerning the actual 
situation of the corn market so as to evaluate  whether or not Thailand 's justification of the measure 
on grounds of  corn oversupply was, in the EU' s opinion, legitimate and acceptable . 
2.42.   Furthermore, the EU understood , as per its written questions, that importation of corn from 
ASEAN was permitted for the period of February to August , and that this period might be extended 
until October, this indicating a potential increase in the import volume of corn ; however, this 
appeared to contradict the claim of an alleged market oversupply in domestic corn . Therefore, the 
EU wished Thailand to clarify how the possible extension of such period could be r econciled with the 
claim of an alleged market oversupply of domestic corn.  
2.43.   The EU looked forward to receiving detailed written replies to its questions circulated in 
document s G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4. At the same time , the EU asked Thailand if it 
intended to notify its import procedures for feed wheat , in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the 
Import Licensing Agreement.  
2.44.   The representative of Canada  seconded the EU's questions and reiterated Canada 's systemic 
concerns on this issue. He encouraged  Thailand to submit its notification on procedures for feed 
wheat as soon as possible . 
2.45.   In response, the representative of Thailand  thanked the EU and Canada for raising their 
questions and concerns regarding Thailand's procedure s for the importation of fee d wheat. He 
reiterated that the import permit for feed wheat was a temporary measure , and noted that his  
delegation had forwarded the recent EU  questions to Capital . He informed the Committee that 
internal consultation s were ongoing with a view to find ing a suitable solution to this issue. He 
confirmed that Thailand would provide written replies to the Committee once his delegation had 
received the relevant update from Capital . 
2.46.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications unde r Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The following N/1  notifications were reviewed  by the Committee : Botswana 
(G/LIC/N/1/BWA/1); Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/1/LIE/4, G/LIC/N/1/LIE/5 , and G/LIC/N/1/LIE/6); 
Macao, China (G/LIC/N/1/MAC/7); Paraguay (G/LIC/N/1/PRY/8); Switzerland (G/LIC/N/1/CHE/5, 
G/LIC/N/1/CHE/6 , and G/LIC/N/1/CHE/6/Rev.1) ; and Ukrai ne(G/LIC/N/1/UKR/7).  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.2.  On document  G/LIC/N/1/BWA/1, the Chairperson  congratulated Bo tswana for submitting its 
first notification under the Agreement and encouraged Botswana also to submit its first  reply to the 
annual questionnaire.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  appreciated Botswana's  effort s and hoped that the 
country would soon subm it its an nual notification under Article  7.3 and inform Members of the 
various administrative procedural de tails in place for its different regulations.  
3.4.  The representative of Botswana  expressed sincere gratitude to the Secretariat for its valuable 
and continuous support in the fulfilment of its notification obligations under the Import Licensing 
Committee. He noted that the technical support received by Botswana had enabled Botswana to 
overcome its capacity constraint s and, despite other difficulties, Botsw ana remained committed to 
fulfilling all of its notification obligations.  
3.5.  The Committee took note  of the notifications submitted and of the statements made.  
3.2  Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.6.  The following N/2  notifications were reviewed at the  meeting: Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.1, G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.1/Corr.1 , and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.2); 
Paraguay (G/LIC/N/2/PRY/8 and G/LIC/N/2/PRY/8/Corr.1); the former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia (G/LIC/N/2/MKD/2) ; and Ukraine (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/7).  
3.7.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the  above -listed  Members for their 
notifications. She indicated that the EU wished  to take the opportunity to raise the issue of the new 
Indonesian import policy on alcoholic beverages. In particular, the EU  was aware that the Indonesian 
authorities were finalizing a new ministerial regulation that would then govern this sector. She noted 
that, based on the EU's information, a new implementation decree would be issued by end-April, but 
companies could already  begin the relevant procedures to obtain an import license. In this regard , 
the EU requested Indonesia to clarify what exactly the relevant procedures were in order to obtain 
a licence , and also to inform Members of the following: (i) where the description  of these pro cedures 
had been published; (ii)  when the new import licensing schem e would be notified to the WTO.  
3.8.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statement made.  
3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.9.  The following N/3  notificatio ns were reviewed at the meeting: Canada (2016) 
(G/LIC/N/3/CAN/16); China (2016) (G/LIC/N/3/CHN/15); European Union (2017) 
(G/LIC/N/3/EU/6); Georgia (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/GEO/7); Japan (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/16); 
Kazakhstan (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/2); Macao, China  (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/20); the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2016 -2017) (G/LIC/N/3/MKD/16 and G/LIC/N/3/MKD/17); 
Nicaragua (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/NIC/9); Norway (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/NOR/9); Paraguay (2017) 
(G/LIC/N/3/PRY/5); Qatar (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/QAT/1 3); Singapore (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/SGP/13); the 
United States (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/US/14) ; and Malaysia (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/13).  
3.10.   Concerning document  G/LIC/N/3/MKD/6 and 7, the representative of the former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia  explained that its intention in submitting two  N/3 notifications was to correct 
some minor mistakes and add detail to the information  available . He also informed the Committee 
that licences for import, export , and transit, as well as for allocation of tariff quotas , had been  
administered electronically though a single window and one -stop system since 2008.  
3.11.   The Committee took note  of the notifications and statement made.  
4  INDONESIA – IMPORT L ICENSING REGIME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD  COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS - STATEM ENT BY THE UNITE D STATES  
4.1.  The representative of the United States  noted that her delegation had long -standing and 
serious concerns with regard to Indonesia 's import licensing regime and, in particular, the import 
licensing requirements for cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets. She recalled that , in the 
questions that the US had addressed to Indonesia, the United States had sought clarity regarding G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the specific requirements of Indonesia 's import licensing regime , and an understanding of the 
rationale for the requirem ents overall. While acknowledging the responses that Indonesia had 
provided in 2017 , she stated that these responses did not resolve US concerns with the import 
licensing requirements  at issue , and that in certain instances Indonesia had not sufficiently 
addressed the question that had been asked  of it. 
4.2.  In this regard , the US continued to seek Indonesia 's explanation for why the import licensing 
requirements treat ed 3G and 4G  technology differently. She noted that the answers received from 
Indonesia had also confirmed that the two  types of products were treated differently but had not 
explain ed the rationale behind this difference in treatment ; her delegation requested Indonesia to 
do so . She observed that, based on Indonesia 's responses, it appeared that Indonesia 's system 
favoured imports intended for further processing as opposed to  imports of finished products.  
4.3.  Furthermore, it remained unclear whether or not domestic companies were subject to 
equivalent requirements to those imposed upon importers.  For example, there appeared to be a 
different requirement for domestic companies in respect of the use of distributors. When asked to 
provide similar legislative or regulatory requirements for domestic producers based on their products 
being either 3G or 4G LTE-enabled, Indonesia had stated that these requirements applied to 
registered importers.  
4.4.  She also noted that Indonesia had issued additional regulations —Ministry of Industry 
Regulations  68/2016 and 29/2017 , and Ministry of Communication and Informatio n Technology 
Regulation  23/2016 —which contained additional procedures for obtaining certifications necessary 
prior to obtaining an import licence . In this regard, the US continued to question whether this import 
licensing regime was consistent with the pri nciples of the WTO in general, as well as how these 
requirements could be considered no more administrativ ely burdensome than necessary.  
4.5.  She emphasized that these issues, which had also been raised by her delegation on multiple 
previous occasions, were ser ious. The US believed that these import licensing requirements had 
distorted trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector, and a sector that was significant 
both to the US and global economy. She appreciated that Indonesia had notified some of t hese 
measures to this Committee, but continued to urge Indonesia also to notify all of the associated 
measures, including Ministry of Industry Regulations  108/2012, 68/2016, and 29/2017 , KOMINFO 
Regulation  23/2016 , and KOMINFO Circular Letter  518/2017. In brief, the US urged Indonesia to 
reconsider these import licensing requirements for cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets.  
4.6.  The representative of Chile thanked  the US for raising the issue. He expressed systemic concern 
with regard to Indonesia's  import licensing regime, and in particular with how it applied to 
agricultural products. He also requested Indonesia to comply fully with the notification requirements 
under this Agreement ; namely, by notifying modifications to legislation in a timely man ner, and by 
removing requirements that were more trade restrictive tha n necessary.  
4.7.  In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the US for its continued interest in 
Indonesia's market for the products concerned. He argued that regulations on import s of cellular 
telephone s, handheld computer s, and computer tablet s, as governed by the Regulation s of the 
Ministry of Trade of the Republic of Indonesia, were intended to secure compliance with Indonesia 's 
Law on Trade , Law on Industry, and Law on Standard ization and Conformity Assessment . The ir 
primary objective was to ensure that 4G  devices met Indonesia 's national standards and to protect 
the end -users of the devices  in question . He pointed out that the obligations stipulated in the 
regulation were also applied to Indonesia's domestic industries. In addition, he informed the 
Committee that Indonesia had already notified its regulation regarding certification of cellular 
telephone s, handheld computer s, and computer tablet s to the Committee on Technical Barriers to 
Trade in document  G/TBT/N/IDN/116.  
4.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – IMPORT L ICENSING REQUIREMENT S RELATED TO MILK SU PPLY AND 
CIRCULATION – STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  
5.1.  The representati ve of the United States  stated that the US remained very concerned about 
recent developments regulating the dairy industry of Indonesia. She pointed out that , in July of  last G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 11 - 
 
  year, Indonesia had issued Ministry of Agriculture Regulation  26/2017 , concerning  Milk Supply and 
Circulation (MOA  Regulation  26/2017), which appeared to make the grant of an import 
recommendation for dairy imports conditional on a local partnership agreement. Furthermore, 
MOA Regulation  26/2017 also called for the issuance of several implementing regulations. One such 
regulation under consideration by Indonesia would further subject animal products, including milk 
and milk products, to the restrictive import licensing scheme that was already in place for other 
products. The US was concerned that MOA  Regulation  26/2017 and its related and implementing 
measures would restrict US dairy exports to Indonesia and create disadvantageous conditions for 
dairy importers for milk processing businesses.  
5.2.  She noted that her delegation held long-stand ing concerns over Indonesia 's import licensing 
regime in general , and in particular in the area of agriculture. She understood that Indonesia 's 
Director of Processing and Marketing of Livestock Products had sent letters directly to processors 
and importers  requesting formal Partnership Proposals under MOA Regulation  26/2017 by the 
deadline of 15 February  2018. Furthermore, the US understood that these proposals would be given 
consideration prior to  the issuance of any import permit. The US regarded this development as 
disappointing ; it indicated that Indonesia 's intent ion was  to continue with its implementation plans 
for MOA Regulation  26/2017 , and its associated measures, despite the significant concerns over the 
measures already raised by Indonesia's trading partners. In this regard , the US strongly urged 
Indonesia to reconsider its MOA  Regulation  26/2017, and to consult with its trading partners prior 
to the issuance of any subsequent dairy import measures.  
5.3.  In addition, she urged Indonesia to notify a ll draft measures under consideration  to the 
appropriate WTO  Committee , and requested that Indonesia respond to the US comments with an 
explanation of how it intended to address the significant trading conc erns created by  these 
measures.  
5.4.  The representative  of the European Union  expressed the EU's ongoing concern over the 
Indonesian import licensing regime, as raised already several times in this Committee. She 
reiterated the EU's wish to receive detailed information on the rules and standards for milk regul ating 
the production of processed milk and its relevant investments. In particular, she requested Indonesia 
to present , in detail, the licensing rules applicable on the basis of the draft Ministry of Agriculture 
Regulation concerning the Importation and Ex portation of Food Products of Animal Origin into and 
from the territory of the Republic of Indonesia, which also included provisions on milk and milk 
products.  
5.5.  The EU welcomed the fact that Indonesia had notified the above -mentioned draft legal text to 
the WTO SPS Committee ( document  G/SPS/N/IDN/121), and invited Indonesia also to notify to the 
Committee on Import Licensing any import licensing -related issues arising from this regulation and 
the related MOA  Regulation  13/2017 , on Partnership with Local Dair y Producers/Farmers. In this 
regard , the EU invited Indonesia to further elaborate on the licensing -related aspects of 
MOA Regulation  13/2017, which was making dairy imports conditional upon establishing 
partnerships with local farmers. The EU also asked f or an overview of the dates foreseen of 
application of the three  regulations mentioned above , and any other rules already foreseen relating 
to milk sup ply, distribution , and imports.  
5.6.  The representative of Switzerland  echoed the concerns of the US and the EU regarding 
Indonesia 's draft MOA Regulation  26/2017 , on milk supply and regulation. Switzerland looked 
forward to receiving any response from Indonesia concerning this measure, especially with regard 
to its justification and implementation.  
5.7.  The represent ative of Chile shared concerns similar to those already raised by other Members 
and reiterated its own system ic concern  regarding Indonesia's  import licensing regime, in particular 
as it was applied to agricultural products.  
5.8.  The representative of New Zeala nd thanked the US for its questions addressed to Indonesia. 
She indicated that this was an issue on which her government had engaged constructively with 
Indonesia during the Indonesian President 's recent visit to New Zealand, and that her delegation 
remain ed keen to better understand the impli cations of the se new regulations.  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.9.  New Zealand was particularly interested to understand the link between the requirements in 
Articles  23 and 30 –which  stipulated that importers were obliged to establish partnerships wit h local 
farmers, farm groups, or cooperatives , to utilize and/or promote fresh milk, provide production 
facilities, production equipment, and/or funding or financing –and Article  34.3, which stated that 
these partnership agreements shall be considered by th e Director General of Livestock and Animal 
Health when issuing import recommendations.  
5.10.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the US, the EU, Switzerland, Chile, and 
New Zealand,  for their continued interest in the Indonesian market for the p roducts concerned. He 
explained that the current regulation being applied was a regulation on the provision and circulation 
of milk ; it did not regulate the procedure on the importation of milk per se . Rather, the importation  
of milk would be regulated by Indonesia 's Minister of Agriculture in the form of a decree or regulation 
on the importation and exportation of food products of animal origin into and from the territory of 
the Republic of Indonesia. He informed that Committ ee that the draft decree or regulation in question 
had been notified to the SPS  Committee in document  G/SPS/N/IDN/121 , on 23  November  2017, and 
he assured Members that , in drafting any decree or regulation, Indonesia carefully considered 
WTO rules and prin ciples.  
5.11.   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  noted that the US had been concerned with India 's 
import licensing requirements for boric acid  for some time , in particular with regard to the 
burdensome end -use certificates necessary for importation.  
6.2.  She highlighted that her delegation had been raising this issue in this Committee for nearly  a 
decade. She recalled that US concerns dated back to 2006, when India 's Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry issued a new rule , stating that "imports of Boric Acid for non -insecticidal purposes will be 
subject to an import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration  Committee 
under the Ministry of Agriculture". Prior to this change, no import permit was required for boric acid. 
However, India 's implementation of this change had the effect of limiting the importation of non -
insecticidal boric acid by Indian importers by requiring the importer to provide the precise end -use 
of the product prior to its importation. This information was subject to a formal government review 
process. Ultimately, only a specific quantity of boric acid could be approved for import under each  
transaction.  
6.3.  She argued that the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee met only monthly, 
often not getting an opportunity even to review the import requests  pending . It was the US 
understanding , for example,  that an import permit for non -insecticidal boric acid had not been 
approved in over six months, despite repeated applications. In this regard, the US requested India 
to explain why no import licences had been approved for such a n extended period of time?  
6.4.  She noted that , in addition to the lengthy time -frame for obtaining an approval, quantities were 
also restricted. Indian importers had expressed to the US their frustration that they must supply 
information on their past consumption of boric acid, broken down by imports and domestic sources, 
when seeking import approval. In fact, new approvals for imported boric acid were based only on 
past import levels, not on total consumption ; this appeared to be an arbitrary quantitative restriction. 
She continued to repeat the US request that India explain why boric acid, which had a toxicity level 
roughly equivalent to table salt, was the only insecticide that required an import permit for 
non-insecticidal use, considering its low toxicity level compared to other inse cticides for which  an 
import permit  was not required . 
6.5.  In addition, she pointed out that India 's domestic manufacturers of boric acid did not have to 
seek approval from a government ministry to sell their product, and nor were producers required to 
indicate  the boric acid 's end use prior to sale ; instead, they could sell to any buyer without any  
quantitative limit. The US continued to request India to amend its Schedule -I (Imports of the ITC 
(HS) classification of Export and Import Items ) and to eliminate th e requirement that imports of 
boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes must have an import permit.  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.6.  In response, the representative of India thanked the US for its continued interest in India 's 
import licensing policy and related procedures for boric acid. He noted that the US had been raising 
these issues since 2008, and that  India had responded to most of them in its periodic written replies. 
Therefore , India had already explained the policy objectives of the measure as well as the issues 
relating to its i mplementation. He further argued that the remaining issues raised by the US were 
being discussed bilaterally and , to date , there was no further update on the issue since the last 
bilateral meeting , held in 2017.  
6.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDIA – IMPORT REQUIREMENTS  FOR BEANS OF THE SP ECIES VIGNA MUNGO HE PPER 
OR VIGNA RADIATA WIL CZEK AND PIGEON PEAS  (CAJANUS  CAJAN)  – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA  
7.1.  The representative of Australia  noted that , in August  2017, India had imposed  quantitative 
restrictions on imports of beans of the species Vigna mungo Hepper or Vigna radiata Wilczek, 
commonly known as black lentils, and mung beans, as well as on Cajanus cajan, commonly known 
as pigeon peas. He observed that India 's restrictions had imposed an absolute quota on the 
importation of these products. In the case of mung beans and black lentils, Notification 
No. 22/2015 -2020 in the Government of India Gazette had restricted import s to an annual quota of 
300,000  tonnes. For pigeon peas, No tification No.  19/2015 –2020 had restricted import s to an annual 
quota of 200,000  tonnes. Imports above these amounts were otherwise prohibited.  
7.2.  He noted  that Australia had attempted to engage with India, both bilaterally and plurilaterally, 
in Geneva , and in New Delhi, to better understand the restrictions that had been imposed by India 
on mung beans and pigeon peas, and the WTO -basis of th ese quantitative restrictions. He recalled 
that his delegation had also raised this issue at WTO committees in Geneva. For example, Australia 
had raised its concerns over India's quantitative restrictions for mung beans at the Committee on 
Agriculture in October  2017, and again in February  2018. His delegation had also raised the issue at 
meetings of the Council for Trade in Goods in November  2017 and March  2018. India had so far 
failed to provide Australia with an answer to their questions posed in those committees , although 
India had responded to Australia's questions at the CTG's meeting  in March, indicating that it woul d 
shortly notify the quantitative restrictions to the Market Access Committee, although India had still 
not done so . 
7.3.  Australia welcomed India 's recent notification providing its replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures of 12  April 2018 ( document  G/LIC/N/3/IND/17). India 's response 
stated that the import policy of pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan /tool dal) had been amended and was  
now subject to an annual quota of 200,000  tonnes. Likewise, imports of mung beans (moong dal 
and urad dal) were rest ricted to an  annual import quota of 300,000  tonnes. India's response further 
stated that restrictions "will not apply to Government 's import commitments under any 
bilateral/regional Agreement/MoU. " The reply to the Questionnaire went on to list Mozambique as 
having been granted approval to import 125,000  tonnes of pulses "under the MoU signed between 
the two  Countries. " 
7.4.  Quoting that "restrictions on imports are maintained only on grounds of protection of human 
health or safety; animal or plant life or healt h; security and the environment" , he sought clarification 
about which of these grounds was the basis for India 's quantitative restrictions on mung beans and 
pigeon peas. In addition to this recent notification, Australia continued to encourage India to not ify 
these quantitative restrictions to the WTO  Committee on Market Access , pursuant to the Decision 
on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions , and to do so without further delay . 
7.5.  In Australia 's view, India 's notification on import licensing procedures relating to quantitative 
restrictions on pulses provided insufficient information. Australia understood that the quotas were 
proportionally allocated to applicants in the form of import licenses based upon the total volume of 
the requested quota . Accordingly, with regard to India's  current licensing arrangements , which India 
had implemented in order to impose those quantitative restrictions , Australia asked the following : 
(i) Where were the details of the licensing measures to give effect to the allocation of 
import quotas for mung beans and pigeon peas  published ? 
 G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 14 - 
 
  (ii) When may license applica tions be made , and in what form?  
 
(iii) Who may apply for an import licence,  and are there any restrictions on who can apply?  
 
(iv) How are import licences granted , and are there any pre -conditions for approval?  
 
(v) How many licences were issued in the financial year  2017/2018?  
 
(vi) What steps had India taken to ensure transparency in administrative procedures 
authorizing import licences,  and may licence applicants appeal licence approvals?  
 
(vii) What was the process to redistribute unused quota allocation? What was the utilization 
of quotas in 2017 –2018? What has been the utilization of the quota to date , in 
2018-2019? 
 
(viii) Could India clarify on what  WTO legal basis it had exempted Mozambique from India 's 
licensing arrangements?  
 
(ix) When would India notify these quantitative restrictions to the WTO Committee on 
Market Access, pursuant to the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions?  
 
(x) Over what period is the annual quota open ; does it run according to India 's fiscal year 
1 April–31 March, or on the basis of some other time period?  
 
(xi) When did India intend to terminate these quantitative restrictions?  
 
7.6.  The representative of the European Union  stated that the EU shared the preoccupations raised 
by Australia and reiterated its concerns about the effect of these measures on trade. She indicated 
that the issue had already been raised at the Committee on Agri culture and at the Council for Trade 
in Goods, but India's response had so far  been limited . The EU noted that India had not submitted 
its annual notification under Article  7.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement and asked India to clarify 
its reasons  for no t yet having done so . 
7.7.  She asked India whether or not it intended to notify the measures at stake and, in particular , 
to explain these measures in light of the statement contained in India's latest annual notification 
(document  G/LIC/N/3/IND/16) , affirming that India normally did not apply quota restrictions on 
imports. The EU emphasized how important it was  for WTO  Members to respect their transparency 
obligations and to notify to the WTO the introduction of any quantitative import restrictions and 
relevant  import licensing procedures.  
7.8.  The representative of Canada  shared Australia's concerns regarding India 's use of quantitative 
restrictions on certain beans and pointed out that Canada had also expressed its support for 
Australia's similar statement s at the Committee on Agriculture and the CTG. His delegation would 
like to understand the WTO  legal basis on which India implemented these import restrictions. Canada 
was also concerned by India's lack of transparency in not providing information on these measures  
to WTO  Members. He encouraged India to notify these measures as soon as possible and to provide 
as much information as required to justify these measures.  
7.9.  The representative of the United States  shared Australia 's concerns regarding India 's import 
require ments on select ed varieties of beans. She indicated that the US had also requested India,  at 
various Committees , to provide clarification of its quantitative restrictions (QRs) , including with 
regard to time -frames and any plans India might have to institute additional QRs on agricultural 
imports. To date, no responses from India had been received. The United States also supported 
Australia 's request for India to provide more detail at this Committee meeting on its import 
requirements for mung beans and pigeon peas , and at the same time requested India formally to 
notify to the WTO any related import licensing measures  that may also be in place . 
7.10.   The representative of Ukraine  indicated that his delegation had al so expressed similar 
concerns to India at a number of the regular committees . Ukraine shared Australia's position 
regarding the QRs imposed by India on imports of beans. He encouraged India to submit a 
notification on the import licensing procedures for mu ngo beans and pigeon peas as soon as possible.  G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 15 - 
 
  7.11.   The representative of Japan  expressed its systemic interest in this issue and noted that his 
delegation would monitor its further development closely.  
7.12.   In response, the representative of India appreciated the interest shown by Australia, Canada, 
the EU, Japan, Ukraine,  and the US concerning India's import measures on the agricultural products  
in question . He stated that , apart from information already sought at other committees, Members 
were on this occasion seeking additional information ; for this reason, he would forward the questions 
to Capital so that the relevant  information could be collected from the departments concerned, and 
primarily  from the Department of Agriculture.  
7.13.   He also informed the Committee tha t. as part of its biannual notification on QRs, India was in 
the process of consolidating QR -related information and would shortly notify the consolidated 
QR notification to the Committee on Market Access and , if required, to the Committee on Import 
Licens ing as well.  
7.14.   The measure that had been taken was a  temporary measure , as permitted under WTO  rules. 
Some Members had also raised the issue of the trans -fiscal element. On this issue , India informed 
Members that, although the restriction on polici es was imposed through DGFT  Notifications No. 19 
and 22 , dated 21 August  2017, all the statements made prior to the date of notification had been 
cleared by the customs authorities , taking into account the provisions of paragraphs  2.1.7 and 9.1.1 
of the Handbook of Procedures under foreign trade policy 2015 –2020 of the Government of India. 
Further more,  those shipments that were bagged with the confirmed de -regulator were also allowed 
for imports for the application of the notification and were allowed clear ance by the customs 
authorities. Since the aforesaid quotas for the period April  2017–March  2020 there was a financial 
year counted from April to March, adjusted on account of already affected imports before the 
imposition of the measure and thereafter on the account of the already shipped consignments in 
between. Therefore, the procedure was not laid down for any quota during that period but for the 
financial year 2018 –2019. The process of allocation of quota was being worked out by the 
administrative mini stry and would be notified soon. The procedure for the same would be available 
in the public domain at http://www.DGFT.gov.in. It is also understood that allocated time would be 
provided to the Members for making an application. Quotas would be available t o all Members as 
long as the applicant met the required criteria therein.  
7.15.   He noted again that Members had raised a few issues for the first time at this meeting of the 
Committee. In this context, India requested Members to provide their questions in writin g so that 
his authorities could better understand Members' concerns with a view to resolving the issue. He 
also requested those Members that had intervened at the meeting to provide their comments in 
writing. 
7.16.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  
8.1.  The Chairperson  stated that in the past few years a lot of work and effort had gone into 
improving transparency and notification compliance in this Committee. At the last Committee 
meeting, he sought views from Members on whether or not the Committee should continue its 
discussions , and what would be the best approach. He recalled th at all those Members that had 
previously taken  the floor had expressed their support for re-examin ing and simplify ing notification 
procedures. Some Members believed that streamlining notification procedures , and templates in 
particular , could  reduce duplication and increase notification compliance. Most Members had 
expressed the ir willingness to continue the discussion or consultations in this regard. Nevertheless, 
he acknowledged that , as a consequence of his busy schedule, he had not been able in recent months 
to organize any informal meetings. However, he believed that this work would continue very soon , 
based on the work and discussion s undertaken so far , and under the leadership of his successor . 
8.2.  On a separate note, he informed the Committ ee that, continuing with last year's success ful 
practice, the Secretariat had organized the second Geneva -based Workshop on Import Licensing for 
developing Members, LDCs , and countries in accession, from 17 to 20  April 2018. Thirty  participants 
from thirty  developing Members had participated in this workshop, and had also sat-in at this G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Committee meeting. He indicated that the Secretariat could perhaps organize a similar workshop , 
open to all Geneva delegates, if Members would consider it useful . 
8.3.  In additio n, he informed the Committee that the Secretariat had been working on a new 
WTO website on Import Licensing. Once this  work was complete the Secretariat would give a 
presentation to all Members so as to receive their comments  and feedback . 
8.4.  The representati ve of the European Union  confirmed that the EU stood ready to participate in 
any kind of initiative if Members joined in a consensus to work on a revision of the notification 
templates. She reiterated that, in the EU 's view, there was room for improving the current rules in 
order to streamline the process and to make the preparation of the annual notification less 
burdensome for Members. On the other hand, the EU also considered it necessary that Members 
first agree on  the process ; for this reason, the EU encouraged those Members that had objected in 
the past to reconsider their position and to engage in this process with the aim of improving overall  
transparency. The EU welcomed and appreciated all  of the work that had  been carried out by the 
Secretariat and welcomed the creation of a WTO  Website dedicated to import licensing . 
8.5.  The representative of Japan  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their initiative in seeking 
to improve import licensing notification proced ures. Japan attached great importance to the 
implementation of the transparency obligation and supported the Committee 's previous efforts to 
streamline its notification requirements. He highlighted that Japan had made its latest notification 
under Article  5 by using the suggested template as a voluntary exercise. Japan was ready to engage 
in any future discussion on the subject of  improving transparency.  
8.6.  The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for all their work 
in seek ing to improve transparency at the Import Licensing Committee. However, the United States 
remained disappointed with the difficulties that had arisen in advancing the work.  
8.7.  Recognizing that compliance with the notification requirements in the Import Licens ing 
Agreement could be challenging, especially for lesser -developed countries , which often had  capacity 
constraints, the US strongly supported the recent workshop for lesser -developed countries provided 
by the Secretariat , and looked forward to increased p articipation from those countries in the coming 
Committee meet ings. 
8.8.  At the same time, she expressed continued disappointment with the low level of compliance 
by Members in terms of their import licensing notification obligations. In this context, her deleg ation 
welcomed an examination of the notification procedures, recognizing that the substantive obligations 
could not be modified through this process, and provided that any changes contemplated would be 
realistically designed to increase the level of compl iance with the notification obligations.  
8.9.  She advocated further reflection on any attempt to improve transparency and streamline 
notification obligation s, with an emphasis on providing legislation to the Secretariat in an electronic 
format that could be easily accessed and transmitted . 
8.10.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  appreciated all the efforts that had been made  so 
far to improve transparency through streamlining of the notification procedures in the Committee , 
and Korea was ready to engage in a ny consultation that could lead to concrete results.  
8.11.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  appreciated the hard work carried out by the Secretariat 
and the Committee so far on improving transparency and capacity building for Members. She pointed 
out that the two workshops on import licensing organized in last May and this April had indeed been 
very helpful to Members. Her delegation ho ped that the Secretariat would also consider holding a 
similar workshop for Geneva -based delegates so that all Members could then benefit from it.  
8.12.   The representative of Hong Kong , China  noted that all Members agreed on the importance of 
transparency , although it was regrettable that Members could not yet agree on notification 
templates. She pointed out that , in an electronic era, what mattered most was to have all relevant 
information available in a database and website that was easily accessible to traders , governments , 
and other interested parties. For this reason, a certain flexibility could be introduced into  the 
notification format , as in the Trade Facilitation Agreement , which did not have a standard notification 
template but relied instead on Members presenting the pertinent information in the format that they G/LIC/M/47  
 
- 17 - 
 
  deemed  most appropriate . This information was then compiled by  the Secretariat and entered into 
the TF  database. She considered that such an approach could  shed light on a possible direction for 
future discussion on the issue of notification template s also in this Committee . She added that  
training for Members also played a crucial role in improving notification performance. In this regard, 
she congratulate d the Secretariat for having that day  successfully completed  another workshop on 
notifications. The high quality of this workshop had set a precedent for similar efforts in other areas. 
It provided  solid support to Members in assisting them to comply with the notification requirements.  
Finall y, Hong Kong, China looked forward to further discussion with Members on the theme of 
enhancing transparency in import licensing notifications.  
8.13.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair for his report. Canada supported the work 
being carried out on re vision of the notification template. Like other Members, his delegation also 
saw room for improvement in terms of streamlining the notification process without changing  any 
of the obligations. Canada supported the objective of improving transparency and st ood ready to 
engage in any discussion with the new Chair in order to move the process forward.  
8.14.   The representative of China  supported the discussions in this Committee  on improving 
transparency , and appreciated the efforts made by the Secretariat in this re gard. While attaching 
great importance to implementation of transparency obligations, China believed that the discussion 
should be directed at simplifying notification procedures, improving efficiency , and reducing the 
administrative burden on Members. At the same time, the work should avoid any duplication in 
notifications , or creating any new notification obligation. His delegation stood ready to engage in 
any future discussion in this regard . 
8.15.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Chair and the Se cretariat for all the efforts that 
had been made to help Members to improve in the area of notifications. Switzerland attached great 
importance to transparency and shared the concerns expressed by other delegations. His delegation 
stood ready to support al l efforts made towards  improving notifications, including in establishing a 
new template.  
8.16.   The representative of Australia  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for their efforts to 
improve  notifications and transparency. Australia supported all of the stat ements made thus far on 
this issue. He also recalled that , every time that the Committee turned to this agenda item, 
significant support was expressed for making improvements in this area ; and Australia believed that 
this was certainly an area where Members should continue in their efforts. In this context, Australia 
was willing to engage with the new Chairperson in any eventual consultation. Australia shared the 
ideas expressed by the representative of Hong Kong , China and believed that  the new import 
licensing website might provide some user -friendly information regarding Members ' import licensing 
regime s. Australia supported the idea of holding workshops in Geneva for all Members, arguing that 
transparency was an issue that had an impa ct upon all Members, and it was not just developing 
Members who were deficient , but also developed Members . Therefore, such activities could help all 
Members to impr ove their notifications.  
8.17.   The Committee took note  of the Chair 's report and the statements m ade. 
9  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
9.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved the date 
of Friday, 2 November 2018, for the Committee 's next formal meeting and on the understanding 
that additional meetings may also be co nvened , as necessary.  
9.2.  The Committee took note . 
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
10.1.   Mrs Lorena RIVERA of Colombia was elected by acclamation as Chairperson of the Committee 
for 2018 and Mr  Kazunori FUKUDA of Japan was elected as Vice -Chairperson . 
10.2.   The Committee so agreed . 
__________