RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/48  
 
14 March 2019  
(19-1572) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 22  OCTOBE R 2018  
CHAIRPERSON: MS.  LORE NA RIVERA ORJUELA (CO LOMBIA)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty -ninth meeting on 22  October  2018 under the 
chairpersonship of Ms  Lorena Rivera Orjuela  (Colombia). The agenda proposed for the meeting was 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/8.  
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIA NCE WITH NOTIFICATIO N OBLIGATIONS – DEVE LOPMENTS 
SINCE THE LAST MEETI NG ................................ ................................ ...............................  2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTION S AND REPLIES FROM M EMBERS ON SPECIFIC  TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  2 
2.1   Document G/LIC/Q/ARG/17 and G/LIC/Q/ARG/17/Add.1  ................................ ..................  2 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/23  ................................ ................................ ..........................  3 
2.3   Document G/LIC/Q/RUS/4  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/4  ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
2.5   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/40  ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 
2.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/27  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
3   NOTIFI CATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ..............  6 
3.2   Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................ . 6 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  6 
4   INDONESIA – IMPO RT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELL PHONES, HAN DHELD 
COMPUTERS, AND TABLE TS – STATEMENT BY TH E UNITED STATES  ................................ . 6 
5   INDONESIA – IMPO RT LICENSING REQUIRE MENTS RELATED TO MIL K SUPPLY  
AND CIRCULATION – STATEMENT BY THE UNITE D STATES  ................................ ..............  7 
6   INDIA – IMPORT L ICENSING REQUIREMENT S FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT BY  
THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  8 
7   INDIA – IMPORT R EQUIREMENTS FOR BEAN S OF THE SPECIES VIG NA MUNGO 
HEPPER OR VIGNA RADI ATA WILCZEK AND PIGE ON PEAS (CAJANUS CAJ AN) – 
STATEMENT BY AUSTRAL IA, CANADA, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ . 9 
8   VIET NAM – IMPOR T LICENSING FOR CYBE R SECURITY PRODUCTS – STATEMENT  
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 
9   CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERA BLE  
MATERIALS – STATEMEN T BY THE UNITED STAT ES ................................ ........................  12 
10   CONSOLIDATED PA PER ON WRITTEN QUEST IONS AND REPLIES SUB MITTED  
TO THE COMMITTEE ON IMPORT LICENSING SIN CE 1995 (G/LIC/W/51)  ......................  14 
11   NEW IMPORT LICE NSING WEBSITE (HTTPS ://IMPORTLICENSING.W TO.ORG) – 
FEEDBACK BY MEMBERS (RD/LIC/11)  ................................ ................................ ...........  14 
12   IMPROVING TRANS PARENCY IN NOTIFICAT ION PROCEDURES OF TH E  
AGREEMENT – REPORT O F THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ...............................  15 G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 2 - 
 
  13   TWELFTH BIENNIA L REVIEW OF THE IMPL EMENTATION AND OPERA TION  
OF THE AGREEMENT (G/ LIC/W/49)  ................................ ................................ ...............  16 
14   DRAFT REPORT (2 018) OF THE COMMITTE E TO THE COUNCIL FOR  TRADE IN  
GOODS (G/LIC/W/50)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
15   DATE OF THE NEX T MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..................  17 
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS – DEVELOPM ENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that a total of 50  notifications had been received 
since the last meeting, of which 48 were listed for consideration. The following new notifications 
would be reviewed at the Committee 's subsequent meeting: new N/3  notifications fro m Kazakhstan 
and Nicaragua; and a new N/2  notification from Angola.  
1.2.  The Chair pointed out that, as of 22  October  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 well 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 Questionnaire under Arti cle 7.3. The list of 
Members mentioned above had been reflected in the draft biennial report ( document  G/LIC/W/49) . 
1.3.  She also pointed out that only 15  Members had submitted their replies to the Questionnaire 
for 2018. Among these , only twelve  Members had su bmitted their replies either before or 
immediately after 30  September  2018, namely : Argentina; Burundi; Cuba; the European Union; 
Hong Kong, China; Israel; Macao, China; Montenegro; New Zealand; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei ; 
and the United States. Other Mem bers had submitted their N/3 notifications for 2017 and 2016. For 
the sake of transparency, she urged other Members to submit their replies to the 2018  Questionnaire 
as soon as possible.  
1.4.  The representative of the United States  (US) thanked the Chair for co ntinuing to call the 
Committee's attention to the discouragingly low levels of compliance among Members with their 
notification obligations. The United States understood that to comply with the Agreement's 
notification requirements could be challenging. Ho wever, she emphasized that transparency required 
timely and accurate notifications. In this regard, she urged all Members to fulfil their notification 
requirements as prescribed in the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and called on those 
Members t hat had not yet submitted their replies to the  Questionnaire for 2018 do so as soon as 
possible.  
1.5.  The representatives of the European Union  (EU) and Japan  echoed the US  statement. The EU 
representative expressed concerns similar to those of the US over inad equate notification to this 
Committee, and invited Members experiencing difficulty in this regard because of capacity 
constraints to contact the Secretariat for assistance.  
1.6.  The Committee took note  of the Chair's report and of the statements made.  
2  WRITTEN Q UESTIONS AND REPLIES  FROM MEMBERS ON SPE CIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
2.1  Document G/LIC/Q/ARG/17 and G/LIC/Q/ARG/17/Add.1  
2.1.  The representative  of Argentina  recalled that , at the Committee 's previous  meeting , in 
April 2018, his delegation had replied to all of the Europe an Union's  written questions . 
2.2.  In response, the representative of the European Union  thanked Argentina for its written replies , 
and confirmed that the  information provided had been sufficient.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA /23 
2.3.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for its replies to the EU's written 
question s. However, the EU continued to be concern ed by Brazil's import regime for nitrocellulose 
for industrial use.  
2.4.  The EU failed to see how their nitrocellulose would undermine Brazil's  security , considering that 
a stability test for industrial nitrocellulose had declared that the EU  products had achieved the 
highest safety standard worldwide , and that these products were stable and would not show a 
dangerous decomposition, even if dry. Therefore, natio nal security in Brazil would not be affected 
negatively.  
2.5.  The EU wondered about the criteria applied by Brazil to assess the risk of the goods in question, 
and invited Brazil to comment . 
2.6.  She noted that the EU would submit a new set of question s relative to this issue. In particular , 
on 5 September  2018, Brazil had published Decree No. 9.438/2018 , establishing a new regulation 
for the Supervision of Controlled Products, superseding Decree No. 3.665/2000. Section  4 of 
Article  25 of the Decree establishe d that the Controlled Products classified as defence products that 
were manufactured by a company registered as a defence company, could only be imported if a 
special authorization to do so were  granted by the President. The EU sought clarity from Brazil 
regarding the importation of Industrial Nitrocellulose , and if it would require special authorization 
from the President pursuant to section  4 of Article  25 of Decree No. 9.438/2018 . If this were  the 
case, the EU would like to know the criteria for granting such special authorization , and how to 
obtain it.  
2.7.  In response, the representative of Brazil  thanked the EU for its additional  questions and 
continued interest. He asked the EU to submit its questions in writing so that they could be forward ed 
to Capital. He emphasized that Brazil appreciated the importance of transparency obligations, that 
they had provided answers to the EU 's questions until now, and that they would continue , in a 
transparent w ay, to do so.  
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/RUS /4 
2.8.  The representative of the European Union  indicated that, focusing on the advance questions 
on today 's agenda, her delegation  wished to receive further clarification on the procedures to be 
followed for importation into the Russian Federation of specified medicines and pharmaceutical 
products.  
2.9.  The EU note d that, since the introduction of the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) certificate 
requirements, in January  2016, imports into the Russian Federation of the pharmaceutical products 
at issue had been subject to complicated, burdensome , and discriminatory procedures.  
2.10.   She pointed out that GMP  certification as currently implem ented in the Russian Federation 
not only raise d concerns over its adherence to the WTO  National Treatment principle ; it also raised 
concerns over its import licensing dimension, which could not be denied.  
2.11.   The EU wished to understand the different procedures applied to importers for obtaining 
GMP certifications, and what the justifications were for applying procedures to importers that were 
different from those applied to domestic producers. In particular, she invited Russia to explain why 
a domestic applicant could  obtain a GMP certificate together wit h its marketing authori zation, while 
an importer ha d first to obtain the GMP  certificate , and then, as a separate and subsequent step , 
the marketing authori zation.  
2.12.   In addition, t he EU sought clarification as to the average time required to obtain a 
GMP certificate for a domestic as compared to a foreign applicant.  
2.13.   She noted that the EU  had elected to raise these questions in the Import Licensing Committee 
because the procedures for obtaining GMP  certificates for an importer could be understood as 
"licens ing" procedures falling within the scope of Article  1.1 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.14.   The EU asked the Russian Federation if it had already envisage d introducing amendments to 
the current procedures . The EU also sought c onfirm ation from the Russian Federation that a bill of 
law had been  sent to the Duma in early  2018, and asked about how far it had advanced and what 
was its current status. In addition, t he EU requested information on rules  and options for operators 
wishing to rec tify formal errors in  their GMP  certification applications once these had been submitted 
to the Russian authorities.  
2.15.   In response, the representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the EU for its ongoing 
interest in GMP  regulation; she also indicated that the EU  questions we re still under consideration in 
Capital, and that formal replies would be provided once internal consultations had been completed.  
2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/ THA/4 
2.16.   The represe ntative of the European Union  noted with regret that  Thailand ha d not submitted  
any annual notification of its import licensing procedures since 2013. The EU strongly encourage d 
Thailand to comply with its notification ' requirements and requested clarification from Thailand of 
the reasons for this delay.  
2.17.   The EU also reiterate d its concern over Thailand's import procedures for feed wheat . She 
pointed out that, in April 2018,  f ollowing Thailand 's request, the EU ha d submitted an additional set 
of advance questions ; however, to date Thailand had  not submitted any written response . 
2.18.   The EU reiterate d its interest in understanding on what basis the measure could be  justified 
and maintained , and for how long. The EU also wishe d to receive a detailed description of the import 
licensing procedures to be applied. In addition, t he EU repeat ed its request to receive from Thailand 
the relevant data concerning the actual situation of the corn market in order to evaluate Thailand 's 
justification of the measure on the grounds of corn oversupply . 
2.19.   Furthermore, the EU underst ood that, as indicated in  its written questions, corn imports from 
ASEAN  members wa s permitted from February to  August, and that this period might  then be 
extended until October, thus indicating a potential increase in import volume s of corn. The EU 
considered that this appeared to  run contrary to the alleged market oversupply of domestic corn , 
and requested Thailand to clarify how such a possible extension could  be reconciled with alleged 
market oversupply of domestic corn.  
2.20.   She emphasized that the EU looked forward  to receiv ing detailed written replies to its 
questions circulated as document s G/LIC/Q/THA/3  and G/LIC/Q/THA/4. She also asked if Thailand 
intend ed to notify its import procedures for feed wheat in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 1.5 of 
the Import Licensing Agreement.  
2.21.   In response, the representative of Thailand  stated that the import permit requirement for 
feed wheat was a temporary measure that had been put in place to relieve the situation of corn price 
depression and to stabilize the domestic price of corn. Thailand's relevant authorities were currently 
in active consultation with regard to the measure, which included a review of the possibility of 
applying appropriate and updated tariffs.  
2.5  Document  G/LIC/Q/ IDN/40 
2.22.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation had submitted to 
Indonesia a set of detailed questions in order to receive further clarification from Indonesia in 
response to their original follow -up question on the importation of tyres. To date , the EU  had not 
received from I ndonesia any written reply to this question.  
2.23.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  stated that, i n addition to their statement 
delivered at  the Committee's previous meeting, his delegation wished to convey the following 
message from Capital. T he Min ister of Tra de Regulation No.  77 of 2016 had  been amended by 
Minister of Trade Regulation No.  6 of 2018.  The main changes in the regulation concerned import 
licensing requirements and inspection for compliance.  More specifically , the changes in the regulat ion 
were as follows : a change in the supervision system from at -the-border to post -border ; a change of 
sanctions for non -compliance ; a change of subject s from whom import approval was required, and 
a change in the department responsible for monitoring and inspection at the post -border.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/ CHN/27 
2.24.   The representative  of the European Union  indicated that they had submitted to China a set of 
detailed questions seeking further clarification of the annual notification  (2016)  submitted by China, 
but to date had  received no written response from China.  
2.25.   She indicated that the main aspects of the EU's questions were as follows: (1)  the EU wished 
to receive a complete list of those products subject to non -automatic import licences , as well as a 
complete l ist of products subject to automatic import licences ; (2) the EU wished to receive a 
detailed description of the procedures applicable to waste products , and also wanted to know if China 
envisaged making any amendments to its current procedures. She noted that t his issue would also 
be addressed under Agenda I tem 9. 
2.26.   The EU reiterate d its concerns regarding the lack of notification from China on t he procedures 
applicable to waste products , and sought further clarity on a number of points, namely : (1) detailed  
information on the products subje ct to a ban from 1  January  2018; (2)  changes on 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; (3)  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.  
2.27.   In response, the representative of China  thank ed the EU for its questions on China's import 
licensing system.  Regarding the notification of procedures for the importation of solid waste,  he 
stated that  China had notified the updated Catalogue for the Administration of the Import of Solid 
Wastes to the TBT  Committee  in 2017, and that i n China's next notification t o the Committee on 
Import Licensing, the "Catalogue of Solid Wastes that Can Be Used as Raw Material s under Import 
Restrictions" would  be included.  
2.28.   Regarding China's  automatic import licensing regime，he explained  that it applied to certain 
freely -imported commodities, and had been introduced in order to monitor  the market  and to collect 
trade statistics. Its content and implementing methods compl ied with the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures , and no restriction was  imposed on either the quantity or the value of impo rts. 
2.29.   With regard  to the procedures under  automatic import licensing, he explained that applicants 
could  file applications to the Ministry of Commerce or its approved institutions. In the case of 
applications that were complete  and correct , the issuing authority would , to the extent possible, 
approve the m immediately. In special cases, issuance would be within 10  working days. The validity 
of an automatic import licence wa s six months, effective in the calendar year. For an extension, t he 
licence holder s were required to under go certain additional formalities . 
2.30.   For products subject to non-automatic import licensing, applicants should  file their 
applications to the relevant competent authorities , depending on the type of product, and then obtain 
import licen ces from the Ministry of Commerce or its entrusted institutions upon approval. Eligible 
applicants could obtain import licences in no more than three  working days, and in no more than 
ten working days under special circumstances.  The time required to obtain pre -approval documents 
for imported ozone -depleting substances and key used mechanical and electronic products was 
excluded from the overall processing time . The validity of an import licence was one  year, effective 
within the cal endar year, which could be extended once and for no more than three  months.  
2.31.   He further explained that, i n the event that the government decide d to take interim prohibitive 
measures or interim quantitative  restrictions on imports of goods subject to automat ic import 
licensing and non-automatic import  licensing, issuance of  automatic import licences would  cease 
from the effective date of such interim measures.  
2.32.   The representative of the European Union  thanked China for its detailed oral reply and looked 
forwar d to receiving China's comparably detailed written replies.  
2.33.   The Com mittee took note  of the statements made.  
 G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The following N/1  notifications were reviewed by the Committee: Ecuador (G/LIC/N/1/ECU/7); 
the European Union (G/LIC/N/1/EU/12); India (G/LIC/N/1/IND/14 and G/LIC/N/IND/14/Add.1); 
Israel (G/LIC/N/1/ISR/4); and Macao, China (G/LIC/N/1/MAC/8).  
3.2  Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.2.  The following N/2  notifications were re viewed at the meeting: Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.3 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.4); Canada (G/LIC/N/2/CAN/1); European 
Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/12); Indonesia (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/37, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/38, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/39, 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/40, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/41 and G/LIC/ N/2/IDN/42); Israel (G/LIC/N/2/ISR/4); Japan 
(G/LIC/N/2/JPN/4); Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/5,  G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/6 and 
G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/7).  
3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.3.  The following N/3  notifications were reviewed at the meeting: Argenti na (2018) 
(G/LIC/N/3/ ARG/14 and  G/LIC/N/3/ ARG/14/Corr.1 ); Australia (2017)(G/LIC/N/3/AUS/10); Burundi 
(2018) (G/LIC/N/3/BDI/4); Canada (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/17); Cuba (2018) (G/LIC/N/3/CUB/9) ; 
El Salvador (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/SLV/2); European Union (2018 ) (G/LIC/N/3/EU/ 7); 
Hong Kong,  China (2018 ) (G/LIC/N/3/ HKG/22); India (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/IND/17); Israel (2017) 
(G/LIC/N/3/ISR/4);  Japan (201 8) (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/1 7); Macao, China (2018 ) (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/2 1 
and G/LIC/N/3/MAC/2 1/Rev.1 ); Mali (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/MLI/9 /Add.1) ; Mauritius (2018) 
(G/LIC/N/3/MUS/8); Montenegro (2018) (G/LIC/N/3/MNE/2) ; New Zealand (2018) 
(G/LIC/N/3/NZL/5); Peru (2016 & 2017) (G/LIC/N/3/PER/12 and  G/LIC/N/3/PER/13); Russian 
Federation (2017) (G/LIC/N/3/RUS/4); Switzerland (2018) (G/LIC/N/3/C HE/14); Chinese Taipei 
(2018) (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/9); Ukraine (2018) (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/11); the United States (201 8) 
(G/LIC/N/3/US A/15); and Uruguay (2016 and 2017) (G/LIC/N/3/ URY/10 and  G/LIC/N/3/ URY/11). 
3.4.  The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
4  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING RE GIME FOR CELL PHONES , HANDHELD COMPUTERS , 
AND TABLETS – STATEM ENT BY THE UNITED ST ATES  
4.1.  The representative of the United States  noted that US concerns over Indonesia's import 
licensing regimes and, in particular, the import licensing req uirements for  cell phones, handheld 
computer s, and tablets , were both serious and of long standing . In its questions to Indonesia, the 
US had sought clarity regarding the specific requirements for Indonesia 's import licensing regime , 
and also an understand ing of the rationale for the requirements overall.  
4.2.  The US acknowledged the responses that Indonesia had provided in May  2017. However, these 
responses had not resolve d its concerns over the import licensing requirements  in question; indeed, 
in certain instances , Indonesia's responses had not sufficiently address ed the question s that had 
been asked.  
4.3.  The US continued to seek Indonesia 's explanation for why its import licensing requirements 
treated 3G and 4G  technology differently. He noted that Indonesia had confirmed in its responses 
that the two  types of products were indeed treated differently ; however, Indonesia had not explained 
the rationale for this difference in treatment. Thus , the US again requested Indonesia to clarify its 
rationale.  
4.4.  Furthermore , the US continued to seek to understand why Indonesia had required both a 
licence to import generally  – which divided companies into those that import for further processing 
("API-P") and those that import finished products ( "API-U") – as well as a separa te licence for specific 
products, in this case for 4G  LT products, including a requirement to obtain a recommendation from 
the specific minis try with regulatory responsibility.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.5.  He observed that it remained unclear if domestic companies were subject to equi valent 
requirements to those imposed upon importers. For example, there appeared to be a different 
requiremen t for domestic companies with regard  to the use of distributors. And when asked to 
identify similar requirements for domestic producers, Indonesia had stated that these requirements 
applied to registered importers.  
4.6.  The US understood that Indonesia 's regulations had imposed a number of additional 
requirements for obtaining certifications prior to issuance of an import licen ce. Based on Indonesia 's 
responses to date, it appeared that Indonesia 's system favour ed imports meant for further 
processing over imports of finished products.  
4.7.  In this context, he emphasized that the US continued to question whether this import licensing 
regime was consistent with WTO principles , as a general matter, as well as how such requirements 
could be understood to be no more administratively burdensome than necessary.  
4.8.  The US representative pointed out that the issues that his delegation had raised, on this and 
multiple previ ous occasions, were serious. In the view of the US, these import licensing requirements 
had distorted trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector  that was  of significance both 
to the US and to the global economy.  
4.9.  He appreciated that Indonesia h ad indeed notified some of these measures to the Committee. 
Nevertheless , the US continued to urge Indonesia to notify all of the associated measures, including 
Ministry of Industry Regulations Nos. 108/2012, 68/2016, 29/2017 , KOMINFO  Regulation 
No. 23/201 6, and KOMINFO circular letter No. 518/2017. He also continued to urge Indonesia to 
reconsider its import licensing requirements for cell phones, handheld computers , and tablets.  
4.10.   The representative of the European Union  echoed the statement made by the US and looked 
forward to receiving Indonesia's replies  to the US  questions.  
4.11.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the United States and the European 
Union for their continued interest in the import licensing regime of the products concerned , and 
referred to Indonesia 's responses provided at previous meetings.  
4.12.   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 representative of the United States  appreciated Indonesia's recent amendments to its dairy 
import measures, namely Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No.  33/2018 ("Regulation  33"). The US 
understood that Regulation  33 appeared to remove the requirement that dairy product importe rs 
enter into "partnership agreements" in order to acquire import licences.  
5.2.  That said, the US remained concerned by industry reports that Indonesia might still be requiring 
partnership agreements as a precondition for import, notwithstanding the apparent c hanges to 
Regulation  33. 
5.3.  In this context, the US questioned if the amendments contained in Regulation  33 were 
meaningful, if the Ministry of Trade ("MOT") had at the same time been continuing to encourage 
importers to enter into partnerships in practice. H e noted that, according to the US' understanding, 
given that no partnership requirements currently existed in the text of the regulations, such 
requirements should be neither enforced nor encouraged. The US wished Indonesia to clarify how 
the MOT intended to "encourage" partnership agreements. Would importers' participation in 
partnership agreements affect their ability to obtain import permits?  
5.4.  Given the long -standing nature of US  trade concerns over Indonesia's domestic partnership 
requirements for dairy products, the US requested Indonesia also to clarify to all importers, in 
writing, that partnerships were not mandatory nor linked to import permits, and that any 
"encouragement" of such partnerships did not mean that partnerships would affect the issuance  of 
import licences.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 8 - 
 
  5.5.  He understood that dairy importers would soon be submitting applications for 2019 first 
semester import permits. His delegation trusted that, if Indonesia had in fact removed its partnership 
requirements, importers that had not entered  into partnership agreements would be able, 
nevertheless, to obtain import permits in a timely manner. The US looked forward to a continued 
and constructive engagement with Indonesia on this issue.  
5.6.  The representative of the European Union  expressed the EU's ongoing concern over Indonesia's  
import licensing regime, as raised already several times in this Committee. The EU reiterated its 
interest in receiving detailed information on the rules and standards for milk regulating the 
production of processe d milk and relevant investments.  
5.7.  In particular, the EU requested  Indonesia to present in detail its licensing rules applicable on 
the basis of the draft Ministry of Agriculture Regulation concerning the Importation and Exportation 
of Food Products of Anima l Origin into and from the territory of the Repub lic of Indonesia, which had 
included  provisions on milk and milk products . 
5.8.  She welcome d the fact that Indonesia ha d notified the above -mentioned draft legal text to the 
SPS Committee ( document  G/SPS/N/IDN/12 1), and invite d Indonesia to further notify the 
Committee on Import Licensing  of any import licensing -related issues in this regulation or in the 
related MOA Regulation No. 13/2017 on Partnership with  Local Dairy Producers/Farmers.  
5.9.  In addition, t he EU invite d Indonesia to further elaborate on the licensing -related aspects of 
MOA Regulation No.  13/2017, which had made  dairy imports conditional upon establishing 
partnerships with local farmers.  
5.10.   The EU also requested an overview of the dates of application  foreseen for the 
three  regulations mentioned above , as well as any other rules foreseen with regard to milk supply, 
distributi on, and import.  
5.11.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the US and the EU for their continued 
interest in this matte r. He referred to Indonesia's statement given at the Committee's previous 
meeting , pointing out that the regulation concerned did  not regulate licensing procedures for imports 
of milk and milk products.  He informed the C ommittee that the regulation at issue ha d recently been 
amended by Minister of Agriculture Regulations Nos. 30 and 33 of 2018. Under these regulations, 
the local partnership agr eement, or partnership plan, would not affect the issuance of 
recommendation for import from the Ministry of Ag riculture, and the partnership was  no longer 
mandatory.  
5.12.   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  pointed out that t he US ha d been concerned for some 
time over India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with regard to the 
burdensome end -use certificates necessary for importation, and he underscored that his delegation 
had now been raising this issue in t he Committee for nearly a decade.  
6.2.  He recalled that US concerns had begun in 2006, when India's Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry had issued a ruling stating that "Imports of Boric Acid for non -insecticidal purposes would 
be subject to an import permit issu ed by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee 
under the Ministry of Agriculture". Prior to this change, no import permit had been required for boric 
acid. 
6.3.  However, he noted that India did now require importers of non -insecticidal boric aci d to specify 
the precise end -use of the product prior to importation, and that such information was subject to a 
formal government review process. In addition, these import requests were not being promptly 
reviewed. The Central Insecticide Board and Regist ration Committee (CIBRC) only met monthly, and 
the extent of its opportunity to review import requests was unclear. Recently, there had been a gap 
of more than six  months, during which the CIBRC had not approved a single import permit for 
non-insecticidal boric acid, despite repeated applications.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 9 - 
 
  6.4.  While import approvals appeared to be limited to past imports, as opposed to consumption, 
Indian importers had expressed to the US their frustration at being required to supply information 
also on their past consu mption of boric acid, broken down by imports and domestic sources, when 
seeking approval to import.  
6.5.  In this context, the US continued to seek India's explanation of why boric acid, which had a 
toxicity level roughly equivalent to table salt, was the only i nsecticide that required an import permit 
for non -insecticidal use.  
6.6.  Furthermore, he questioned why imports were subject to these requirements, given that 
domestic manufacturers of boric acid did not have to seek approval from a government Ministry to 
sell their product, and that domestic producers did not have to determine the end -use of the boric 
acid prior to its sale, but could sell to any buyer, and faced no quantity restriction.  
6.7.  The US requested India to amend Schedule –I (imports) of the ITC (HS) Class ifications of Export 
and Import Items, to eliminate the import permit requirement on imports of boric acid for 
non-insecticidal purposes.  
6.8.  In response, the representative of India thanked  the US for their interest. He pointed out that , 
regarding the import licensing requirement on boric acid, India had already submitted its detailed 
written replies in document s G/LIC/Q/IND/12,  G/LIC/Q/IND/ 14, G/LIC/Q/IND/ 16 
and G/LIC/Q/IND/ 22. 
6.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDIA – IMPORT REQUI REMENTS FOR BE ANS OF THE SPECIES V IGNA MUNGO HEPPER 
OR VIGNA RADIATA WIL CZEK AND PIGEON PEAS  (CAJANUS CAJAN) – STATEMENT BY 
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, A ND THE EUROPEAN UNIO N 
7.1.  The representative of Australia  noted that , in August  2017, India had imposed quantitative 
restrictions on imports of black lentils, mung beans, and pigeon peas, which had imposed an absolute 
quota on the importation of these products into India. An additional quantitative restriction on peas, 
including yellow, green, dun, and kaspa peas, had also been impos ed in April  2018.  
7.2.  In the case of black lentils  and mung beans, imports had been restricted to an annual quota of 
300,000 tonnes. For pigeon peas, imports had been restricted to an annual quota of 200,000  tonnes. 
Imports above these amounts were prohibited.  
7.3.  In the case of peas, imports had been restricted to 100,000  tonnes in the period from 1  April 
until 30  June 2018, and this restricted quantity had been fully utilized within that period. The 
restriction had then been extended until 30  September  2018, and then extended for a second  time 
in late September, with both extensions having no associated additional volume. He argued that 
India would, in effect, have in place an import ban on peas for six  months, until 31  December  2018.  
7.4.  He explained that Australia h ad tried to engage with India, both bilaterally and plurilaterally, 
and in both Geneva and New Delhi, to understand the reasoning behind these restrictions. His 
delegation had made it clear, in this and every other relevant WTO  Committee, that Australia wi shed 
to understand India's reasoning and, most importantly, the WTO -basis of these quantitative 
restrictions. Based on the information currently available, Australia believed that the quantitative 
restrictions in question were not consistent with India's W TO obligations.  
7.5.  He continued that Australia had made it clear that these ad hoc  measures, implemented with 
no forewarning (and applied retrospectively), had had and continued to have a significant impact on 
the global pulses market, and created uncertainty  for all stakeholders, from farmers to consumers.  
7.6.  The unpredictable nature of the administration of these measures was cause for concern. He 
argued that this was best exemplified by the fact that India had been unable to provide any response 
to Australia's  questions relating to their pulses measures at the 25 -26 September  2018 meeting of 
the Committee on Agriculture, when India then extended its quantitative restrictions on peas without 
any additional volume just two  days later. This was in addition to a da y of particular confusion for G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the industry, on 29  August  2018, when India withdrew its restrictions on peas, only to re -introduce 
them the following day.  
7.7.  On 12  April 2018, India's notification to the Import Licensing Committee (G/LIC/N/3/IND/17) 
had stated  that India's import restrictions were "maintained only on grounds of protection of human 
health or safety; animal or plant life or health; security and the environment." Regrettably, Australia 
had still not received a fulsome explanation of the legal basi s of India's quantitative restrictions.  
7.8.  He noted that, at each and every relevant Committee, India had failed to provide answers to 
questions from Australia and other Members. Australia had raised serious and well -founded concerns 
with India's measures on pulses and, in the interests of transparency, his delegation again requested 
India to respond expeditiously and fulsomely to Australia's questions, which included the following 
questions:  
(a) Could India explicitly state which of the four grounds outlined in India's import licensing 
notification was the basis for maintaining quantitative restrictions on a range of pulses?  
 
(b) If India was relying on GATT  Article  XX (General Exceptions) for its quantitative 
restrictions, could India explicitly state which p aragraph in Article  XX it was relying on 
for its quantitative restrictions?  
 
(c) How were these measures 'temporary', given that some had now been in place for more 
than a year and two  months?  
 
(d) Was India planning on continuing or renewing its quantitative restrictions on pulses 
already affected?  
 
(e) Was India planning to introduce new quantitative restrictions on other pulse varieties?  
 
(f) When would India fully notify these quantitative restrictions, including for peas, and 
their WTO  legal b asis, to the WTO Committee on Market Access, pursuant to the 
Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions?  
 
Australia believed that this issue was of relevance to the Import Licensing Committee, 
since India was relying on its response to the 2017 Annual Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing to notify Members of quantitative restrictions that were imposed currently 
(India also cross -referenced its annual questionnaire in its market access notification 
G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, to notify that quantita tive restrictions had been imposed).  
 
(g) Australia noted that India had submitted its notification  G/LIC/N/1/IND/14 on 
15 May 2018, and addendum  G/LIC/N/1/IND/14/Add.1 on 20  June 2018, notifying 
Members of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade's notifi cations relating to products 
subject to import restrictions. However, pursuant to Article  1.4(a) of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures, Members should notify these restrictions "whenever 
practicable, 21  days prior to the effective date".  
 
Austral ia noted that, in the case of peas, the restriction had been published 25 days 
after the effective date  of the measure. Was Australia therefore to understand that 
it was 'impractical' for India to publish information on the pea restriction 21  days prior 
to its implementation?  
 
(a) Could India please explain in detail why it was unable to publish the information 
on the pea restriction until 25  days after it came into effect; and  
 
(b) Why was it not included in India's notification on 15  May and 20  June 2018?  
 
7.9.  Australia also requested India to provide written responses to the questions that Australia had 
asked at the last Import Licensing Committee meeting, which had been held on 20  April 2018. In 
conclusion, Australia expected all WTO  Members to take their ob ligations seriously, and his 
delegation would watch any developments in India on the issue of pulses very closely.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 11 - 
 
  7.10.   The representative of Canada  stated that , as India's largest supplier of pulses, Canada ha d 
been most negatively affected by India 's recent measures to limit import s of pulses. Pulses were an 
important source of protein for ma ny Indian consumers and Canada had been  a high  quality and 
reliable supplier.  
7.11.   Canada was disappointed that India had introduced quantitative restriction s on the import of  
dry peas on 25 April 2018, and then that these restrictions had been extended to 
31 December  2018.  Canada noted that, to date, India ha d not yet provided any clear information 
regarding the GATT or WTO  basis for this quantitative restriction.  During the J une 2018 meeting of 
the WTO  Committee on Agriculture, India had indicated that the rational e for this quantitative 
restriction on dried peas had recently been submitted to the Committee on Import Licensing and the 
Committee on Market Access.  
7.12.   He observed that, i n its response to the questionnaire on import licensing  (G/LIC/N/3/IND/17, 
dated 6  April 2018), India had specified , in paragraph  4, that the restrictions on imports were 
maintained only on the grounds of protection of human health or safety, animal  or plant life or 
health, and security and the environment.  However, India's response had  not include d any specificity 
with regard to the GATT or WTO  rationale underlying India's decision to impose import restrictions 
on dry peas and other pu lses. 
7.13.   He empha sized that t he elimination of quantitative restrictions was a fundamental principle 
of both the GATT and the  WTO (and, more specifically, the WTO  Agreement on Agriculture). Canada 
was extremely disappointed that India had  decided to continue to apply quantita tive restrictions on 
dried peas, and again requested India to specify the GATT or WTO  legal basis upon which India 
justified this measure.  
7.14.   The representative of the European Union  invited India to clarify the legal basis for its 
quantitative restri ctions on certain pulses , including mung beans.  Moreover, the EU was concerned 
by the increase in import duties on dried peas, a measure taken as part of India's policy on pulses. 
The EU was of the view that, even if the duties on dried peas were within I ndia's bound rates, the 
way in which they were suddenly introduced ha d been extremely harmful to pulse producers globally, 
in developing and developed countries. Such sudden measures had led to enormous price 
fluctuations and had reduce d stability on the global pulse market, which had also affected production 
levels. Clearly, this wa s not in the long -term interest s of pulse producers.  
7.15.   The representative of the United States  supported the joint statements by Australia, Canada,  
and the EU , concerning India 's import requirements for select varieties of pulses. The US had asked 
India,  at various Committees , to provide clarification of its QRs including with regard to time -frames , 
and any plans India might have to institute additional QRs on agricultural imports.  To date , the US 
had received no response from India to its questions. The US also supported the request for India 
to provide more detail with regard to its import requirement s for mung bean s and pigeon peas 
already at this Committee meeting , and requested , too,  that India formally notify the WTO of any 
related import licensing measure. In addition, the US requested India to provide further detail 
regarding its import requirements for yellow and green peas.  
7.16.   In response, the representative of India reiterate d that India had replied to questions 
regarding its import requirement s for certain pulses at meetings of the Committee on Market Access 
and the Committee on Agriculture. He asked Members to provide their questions in writing so that 
they could more easily  be sent  to Capital for response.  
7.17.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  VIET NAM – IMPORT LI CENSING FOR CYBER SE CURITY PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY 
THE UNITED STATES  
8.1.  The representative of the United States  expressed US  concern over Viet Nam's implemen tation 
of Decree No.  58 on the import of civil cryptography products, which mandated that import licences 
were required for certain products utilizing encryption (cryptography). According to Decree No.  58, 
and the Decree's supplemental Appe ndices, and guid ance issued by the Government Cipher 
Committee, import licen ces appeared to be required only for certain products where encryption is a G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 12 - 
 
  "primary " or "core" function. However, he noted that Viet Nam appeared to be requiring import 
licenses also for products  where encryption was not the core function.  
8.2.  The US had significant concerns over  the apparent manner in which this import licence 
requirement had been  applied, as follows:  
– Why had the requirement been broadened to cover products where encryption was an 
"important" function, rather than the narrower "core" function requirement, as provided 
in the decree?  
 
– What criteria were used to determine which products required an import licence?  
 
– If there were a list used by Customs to determine which products ne eded an import 
licence, how was the list compiled? How could companies request to remove a product 
from this list if it did not meet the encryption level threshold?  
 
– Why did Viet Nam require additional (business) licensing for IT companies, including 
with regard to when specific prerequisite conditions were needed to demonstrate 
appropriate expertise?  
 
8.3.  He pointed out that these were just a few of the US' many questions about Viet Nam's import 
licensing regime. He also noted that the uncertain operating en vironment in Viet Nam could stifle 
trade unnecessarily, and without providing any clear benefits.  
8.4.  In terms of procedure, he observed that the process for acquiring import licen ces also appeared 
to be unnecessarily burdensome as an importer had first to be licensed as an "Information 
Technology (IT) company " in order to be able to apply for an import licence. The US  industry had 
reported that this process alone could take 60  days, with an additional 60  days required for a product 
to be licensed for import.  
8.5.  The US urged Viet Nam to remove the conditions that it had put in place for companies wishing 
to apply for an import licence. He also urged Viet Nam to consider a less trade -restrictive method of 
implementation , and to suspend implementation of the require ments at issue, while address ing 
stakeholder questions and concerns. Finally, the US requested Viet Nam to notify all of its measures 
to each relevant WTO  Committee, including this Committee . 
8.6.  The representative of Japan  expressed Japan's significant  intere st in the situation surrounding 
Viet Nam 's Cybersecurity Law.  Japan had concerns with regard to the law , and request ed Viet Nam 
to provide details of the "cybersecurity condition ", and to clarify its requirement s and procedures  in 
general , but especially w ith regard to its import licensing measures.  He noted that Japan would  
monitor the situation closely and make further comment if necessary.  
8.7.  In response, the representative of Viet Nam  agreed to send US' questions to Capital , and hoped 
to receive a response  before the Committee's next meeting.  
8.8.  The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  
9  CHINA – CHANGES TO I MPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE MATERIALS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
9.1.  The representative of the United States  observed  that the US was significant ly concerned by 
the uncertainty , transparency , and trade restrictiveness , of China's changes to its import licensing 
regime in the context of China 's implementation of an existing import ban on certain plastic and 
paper scrap , and plans to exten d this ban to other products.  
9.2.  He noted that these sudden restrictions and bans had left US recyclers without viable 
alternative processing capacity, resulting in the storage or landfill disposal of otherwise saleable 
commodities. The global shortfall in pr ocessing capacity had also caused the decline, and in some 
cases, collapse, in prices for certain  recycling materials, which had also put  US municipal recycling 
program mes at risk of closure.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.3.  He argued that these restrictions were causing global environmental harm. Lacking a supply of 
recyclable material s, Chinese manufacturers were forced to use more virgin materials, with higher 
environmental cost. The sudden increase in recycles  trade to alternative markets, which did not have 
the regulatory or  processing capacity properly to manage them, had resulted in oversupply that 
could lead to an increase in landfill materia l, or worse, marine litter.  
9.4.  The US representative recalled that the US had raised the issue of certain recyclable materials 
at the pr evious two  meetings of the Committee, and had asked China to notify any changes to its 
import licensing to the Committee. However, China had still to provide sufficient information about 
its current licensing procedures and any planned changes to alleviate  US concerns.  
9.5.  He noted  that, since the Committee's last meeting, China had announced further planned bans 
on the import of 32  additional recyclable materials ; it had also released a draft law that would ban 
the import of solid waste, which China appeared t o define to include all recyclable material. None of 
these changes had been notified to the WTO.  
9.6.  He requested China to explain its new import licensing requirements under this policy , and to 
state when it would notify these changes to the Committee. He als o asked if China planned to extend 
the import ban to all recyclable materials? If so, when might these changes occur? What procedures 
would be followed when adopting such an extension ? 
9.7.  The US respectfully asked that China adhere to its notification obligat ions under the Agreement 
on Import Licensing , with regard  to any new import measures , in a timely manner. He pointed out 
that China was a mul ti-billion -dollar market for US  stakeholders , and requested that China halt its 
implementation of the existing and planned measures and consider less trade -restrictive alternatives  
instead.  
9.8.  The representative of the European Union  referred to her intervention under Agenda item  2, 
and looked forward to re ceiving replies to its questions to China contained in 
document  G/LIC/Q/CHN/ 27. 
9.9.  The representative of Canada  supported the EU 's questions seeking clarity on the applicable 
import licensing procedures , and specific products , subject to import licensing requ irements in light 
of China 's recent changes for goods listed in China 's Catalogue of Solid Waste. He encouraged China 
to clarify the specific goods (at HS -8 or HS -10-digit level) that were subject to automatic and 
non-automatic import licensing requirement s, as well as the procedures applicable to goods in the 
Catalogues of Solid Waste.  
9.10.   Canada also encouraged China to notify all of its import licensing measures to the WTO as 
soon as possible , in accordance with Article  7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures. 
He looked forward to reviewing China 's responses to the Annual Questionnaire covering  year 2017.  
9.11.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  thanked  the US for raising this important issue.  
He focused on two areas : (1) the importance of tran sparency ; and (2) the importance of 
cooperation.  He noted that t ransparency in trade policy ha d played a constructive role in making the 
process of doing trade clearer and more predictable. In this regard, Korea would like to ask China 
to enhance its trans parency with regard to  the import processes for recoverable materials.  
9.12.   In addition, he emphasized  the importance of  close cooperation among Member s. He recalled 
that, at the Committee's April 2018 meeting , China had indicated that it was preparing its reply to 
the Annual Questionnaire , and Korea believe d that further explanation from China would help to 
reduce uncertainty over this issue.  
9.13.   The representative of Australia  appreciated China 's efforts to reduce pollution and pursue 
sustainable developme nt through a broad range of measures in its economy. However, the Australian 
Government would wish to reiterate its concerns over China 's revised standards for the import of 
certain recoverable materials, and supported the comments raised by other Members.  Australia 
remained concerned that the measures were more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the 
desired objectives, and welcomed further information from China about changes to its regime.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 14 - 
 
  9.14.   The representative of China  thanked the US and other Memb ers for raising this issue. He 
explained that the import of products in the Catalogue of "Catalogue of Solid Wastes that Can Be 
Used as Raw Materials under Import Restrictions " would  be subject to the examination and approval 
of the competent authorities. "Measures for the Administration of the Import of Solid Wastes " and 
the "Regulations on the Environmental Protection of Solid Wastes that Can Be Used as Raw Materials 
under Import Restrictions " regulated the qualifications of enterprises applying for impor t of solid 
waste, as well as the documents , procedures , and time requirements of the applications.  
9.15.   He emphasized  that an enterprise applying for an import licen ce should be a solid waste 
processing enterprise, that is , a "legal person ". Such companies should not entrust the import of 
solid waste to other companies. The import licen ce was effective in the current year and should be 
used within its validity. Details of licensing procedures and requirements could be found in the 
documents  referenced above . He clarified that imports of solid waste listed in the "Catalogue of Solid 
Wastes that Can Be Used as Raw Materials Not under Import Restrictions " did not require an import 
licence. 
9.16.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  
10  CONSOLIDATED PAPER O N WRI TTEN QUESTIONS AND R EPLIES SUBMITTED TO THE 
COMMITTEE ON IMPORT LICENSING SINCE 1995  (G/LIC/W/51)  
10.1.   The Chairperson  noted that the Secretariat had prepared a consolidated document of written 
questions and replies submitted to the Committee since 1995 (G/LIC/ W/51), with a view to providing 
Members with an easy and up -to-date reference document containing all written questions and 
replies submitted so far. She indicated that it was a factual report and proposed that it be updated 
twice a year and circulated bef ore each formal meeting of the Committee.  
10.2.   The Committee so agreed . 
11  NEW IMPORT LICENSING  WEBSITE ( HTTPS://IMPORTLICENS ING.WTO.ORG ) – 
FEEDBACK BY MEMBERS (RD/LIC/11)  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Secretaria t had been  invited to introduce the new 
WTO import licensing website/database at the informal Committee meeting that had been held on 
9 July, and that the Secretariat presentation had b een circulated in room document  RD/LIC/11. The 
username and password to  access the website had been distribut ed to Members in an e -mail dated 
14 August  2018. In this context, she opened the floor for Members ' feedback.  
11.2.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work on 
establishing the new WTO import licensing website . She indicated that clearly listing Members'  
relevant laws  and regulations , products subject to licensing, and detailed administrative procedures 
in force would greatly facilitate the activities of traders wishing to obtain specific information, as well 
as enhancing transparency in Members ' licensing regimes. She pointed out that her delegation had 
provided some initial response to the Secretariat , and look ed forward to the official public launch of 
the website . 
11.3.   The representative of Japan  appreciate d the dedicated  work that had been undertaken  by the 
Secretariat in develop ing this new website.  Japan believed that t he structure and content of the new 
website were clear and well -organized ; Japan also strongly believe d that this initiative would 
contribute to further improving transparency and to re-vitalizing the activities of the Committee. 
Japan looked forward to the website's official launch.  
11.4.   The representative of the European Union  first congratulated the Secretari at for its 
tremendous efforts in  establish ing this website. The EU considered the new website to be a very 
useful tool to enhance  transparency. At the same time, the EU believed that it facilitated the activities  
of their importers  and exporters , including  SMEs. They looked forward to receiving a regular update 
concerning this website.  
11.5.   The representative of the United States  first thanked the Secretariat for all its work in seeking 
to improve transparency in the Import Licensing Committee. He understood tha t compliance in the 
area of Import Licensing Agreement notification requirements could be challenging. The US strongly G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 15 - 
 
  supported the effort s of the Secretariat in the creation of the import licensing website. He 
emphasized  that the US would continue to fill in gaps in the information pertaining to their own 
profile page , and encouraged other Members of the Committee to do the same. He also took the 
opportunity to further advocate that the streamline d website included a sect ion for providing 
legislation to the Secretariat in an electronic format that would be easily  transmittable and 
accessible.  
11.6.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  joined others in commending the Secretariat for 
having produced  this very useful website. She  sought clarification with regard to the plan for its 
official launch , and on how Members could contribute or update their profile page on the website.  
11.7.   The Secretariat  provided updates on the ongoing work on the website , and re plied to the 
questions raised . To date , the Secretariat had uploaded 76 Members ' profile s onto the website , 
including 16  EU Members. Another 73  profile pages were still to be up loaded. The profile pages of 
15 Members, which had never notified to the Committee, could not be prepared du e to a lack of 
information. The Secretariat invited all Members to review and verify the accuracy of the information 
available on their own profile pages, and to give feedback . 
11.8.   The Secretariat indicated that 12  new notifications had been received from Memb ers whose 
profile pages had already been uploaded. In this regard, it was important for Members and the 
Secretariat to discuss how best to reflect these new notifications , and any other change resulting 
from the verification process , on the profile pages. The Secretariat suggested that the Committee 
could meet in informal mode to discuss these technical issues.  
11.9.   Regarding the date of the official launch of the website, the Secretariat indicated that it was 
subject to the verification process ; the specific da te could be discussed at the upcoming informal 
meeting.  
11.10.   In her summary, the Chairperson  congratulated the Secretariat for its excellent work in this 
regard. She echoed the comments made by Members and emphasized that the new website was 
well designed and should significantly facilitate access to the information contained in import 
licensing notifications. She noted that the website provided a platform for better use of notifications , 
and hoped  that it would be open to all to access and , in particular, the business community . She 
indicated that informal sessions would be organized in due course to continue the various technical 
discussions . 
11.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
12  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  
12.1.   The Chairperson  reported that , in the past few years, a lot of work and effort had gone into 
improving transparency and notification compliance in the Committee. At the last Committee 
meeting, all Members that had taken the floor had expressed support for re-examining and 
simplify ing the notification procedures , and most Members had expressed a willingness to continue 
the discussion s and consultations in this regard. Unfortunately, no informal meeting had been held 
on this issue si nce April  2017, and no proposal had yet been tabled by any Member o n how to move 
the work forward.  
12.2.   In the meantime, the Secretariat had undertaken a number of technical assistance activities, 
including two  Geneva -based workshops for experts coming from Capital, and national workshops in 
Paraguay and Egypt. She announced that , in the following year, there would again be a 
Geneva -based workshop for capital -based experts. In addition , the new website had been cr eated, 
as discussed earlier.  
12.3.   She highlighted that the WTO was a Member -driven Organization , and called upon Members, 
in particular those that had indicated their support for a streamlining of the notification procedures, 
to show initiative by tabling ideas or written proposals on how to move the process forward. In this 
context, she was willing to set up informal meetings for discussions  of a technical nature.  G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 16 - 
 
  12.4.   The representative of the European Union  confirmed that the EU  stood ready to participate in 
any kind of initiative if Members joined the consensus to work on the revision of the notification 
templates. In the EU's view, and  as expressed on several previous occasions in recent years, there 
was scope to improve the current rules in order to streamline the process and make the prepa ration 
of annual notification s less burdensome for Members. At the same time , the EU also considered that 
it was necessary that Members first agreed on the process. She therefore encouraged those Members 
that had raised objections  in the past to re -conside r their position and to engage constructively in 
this process that was intended to improve transparency.  
12.5.   The representative of Japan  thanked the Chairperson  for her report , as well as the Secretariat 
for its efforts. Japan  believe d that notifications were the foundation of regular Committee activities.  
With a view to improving transparency, Japan  believed that it would be beneficial to all Members to 
reduce the cost of notification by streamlining the relevant procedures. Japan st ood ready to engage 
in discussions on how best to  streamline  the relevant notification procedures.  
12.6.   The representative of the United States  agreed with the views expressed in the statements 
made by the EU and Japan. The US understood that achieving compliance with the Import Licensing 
Agreement's notification requirements could be challenging. The US was thus an advocate of further 
streamlining the notification process , including by having Members provide their legislation to the 
Secretariat in an electronic fo rmat so as to make them more easily transmittable and accessible.  
12.7.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  shared the views of the EU, Japan,  and the US  and 
reaffirm ed its full support for improving transparency and streamlining the notification  formats and 
procedures . She indicated that Chinese Taipei was  willing to cooperate with other Members and the 
Secretariat in order to make the work of the Committee  a good example of how to strengthen the 
WTO's monitoring function . 
12.8.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that nobody at  the WTO doubted the 
importance of transparency. One key element in the process was for each Committee to consider 
which approach best suit ed its specific A greement and addressed the special needs of the Members 
in its Committee. In the area of import licensing, the notifications provided important information 
for the business community . She supported an ongoing discussion in this regard to explore ways to 
improve notification performance and enhance transparency that were not necessa rily limited to the 
notification template  itself.  
12.9.   The representative of Canada  agreed with the statements that had been made by other 
Members , and stood ready to engage in further discussions on how to increase transparency and 
streamline the Committee's notification procedures.  
12.10.   The Committee took note  of the Chair's report and the statements made.  
13  TWELFTH BIENNIAL REV IEW OF THE IMPLEMENT ATION AND OPERATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT (G/LIC/W/4 9) 
13.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that Article  7.1 of the Agreement provided tha t the Committee shall 
review , as necessary, but at least once every two  years, the implementation and operation of the 
Agreement, and that the last biennial review had been  held in  November  2016. He referred to the 
draft biennial report for 201 7-2018, prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility 
(document  G/LIC/W/4 9), and sought Members' views and comments.  
13.2.   The Committee adopted  the report (G/LIC/W/49).  
14  DRAFT REPORT (2018) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/50)  
14.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that a draft report to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG), covering the activities of the Committee in 2018, had been circulated in G/LIC/M/48  
 
- 17 - 
 
  document  G/LIC/W/50 for the Committee 's consideration. He noted that new notifications and 
documents received since the issuing of the draft report would be included in the final report.1 
14.2.   The Committee adopted  the report.  
15  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
15.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved the 
date of Thursday, 4  April 2019, for the Committee's next formal meeting, on the understanding that 
additional meetings might also be convened, as necessary.  
15.2.   The Committee took note . 
 
 
__________  
                                                
1 The final report was circulated in document  G/L/1269.