RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/45  
 
21 September 2017  
(17-4995) Page: 1/22 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 5 MAY 2017 
CHAIRPERSON: MR.  TAPIO PYYSALO (FINLA ND) 
The Committee on Im port Licensing held its forty -sixth meeting on 5 May 2017 under the 
chairmanship of Mr  Tapio Pyysalo (Finland). The agenda proposed for the meeting was circulated 
in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/ 5. 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS  –
 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE T HE LAST MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  2 
2.1 Document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 (written questions from the EU to Bolivia)  ................................ ... 2 
2.2 Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/20 (written questions from the EU to Brazil)  ................................ .. 3 
2.3 Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/37 (written questions from the EU to Indonesia)  .............................  4 
2.4 Document  G/LIC/Q/MY S/13 (written questions from the EU to Malaysia)  ..............................  5 
2.5 Document  G/LIC/Q/MAR/1 (written questions from the EU to Morocco)  ................................  5 
2.6 Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 (written questions from the EU to Thailand)  ................................  5 
2.7 Document  G/LIC/Q/EU/1 (written questions from the Russia to the EU)  ...............................  6 
2.8 Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN /36 (written questions from the US to Indonesia)  ............................  7 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
3.1 Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ................  7 
3.2 Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement ................................ ................................ ... 7 
3.3 Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................  8 
4   INDONESIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR  TYRES  – STATEMENT BY 
THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
5   INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT FOR BORIC A CID – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 
6   MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 
7   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR  CELLPHONES, HANDHELD  
COMPUTERS AND TABLET S - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ . 13 
8   VIET NAM  – DISTILLED SPIRITS AN D COMPLETENESS QUEST ION 
(G/L IC/Q/VNM/5 AND G/LIC /Q/VNM/6)  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  .........  14 
9   EUROPEAN UNION – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG SYSTEM – STATEMENT BY 
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON................................ ................................ ............................  15 
10   IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE 
AGREEMENT – REPORT OF THE CHAIR ON THE INFORMAL CONS ULTATIONS 
HELD ON 16  DECEMBER  2016 AND 16  FEBRUARY  2017 ................................ ..................  16 G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 2 - 
 
  11   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  21 
12   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ..................  21 
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS  – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that  a total of 39  notifications had been received and 
listed for consideration  since the last meeting . He congratulated Brunei Darussalam, Kazakhstan,  
and South Africa for having submitted their first  notifications under Article  1.4(a) and 8.2(b); and 
the Philippines and Togo for submitting  their first  N/2 notifications under Article  5. In addition, he 
reported that Gabon ha d submitted its first  reply to the annual questionnaire.  
1.2.  On the other hand, the Chairman pointed out that , as of 5  May 2017, 16 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 the sources of 
information, to date, 26 Members  had not submitted a ny such notifications . In addition, 
24 Members had  not yet submitted any Replies to the Questionnaire under Article  7.3. For the 
sake of transparency, he  urged all those Members to n otify as soon as possible.  
1.3.  In this context, the Chairman  brought Members' attention to the following: (1)  Members that 
did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to the Agreement 
were nevertheless required to notify the Committee of this fact; (2)  Article  5.1 required Membe rs 
that instituted  import licensing procedures or changes in these procedures to notify the Committee 
of such procedures or changes within 60  days of publication; (3)  Article  7.3 of the Agreement 
obliged all Members to complete the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures on a yearly 
basis and to submit the completed questionnaire to the Committee by 30  September each year. He 
urged Members to respect these timelines in the fulfilment of their notification obligations.  
1.4.  The Chairman informed the Committe e that the overall notification compliance rate was still 
not encouraging. In the past few years, efforts ha d been made to improve  notification compliance 
under this Agreement. Some issues regarding the notification process had been identified and 
more Mem bers were actively involved in the Committee's exercise on improving transparency and 
streamlining notification procedures under  the Agreement. In this endeavour, two informal 
consultations had been held since the last meeting, on which he would report und er agenda 
item 10. 
1.5.  The Committee  took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS  AND REPLIES FROM MEM BERS ON SPECIFIC TRA DE CONCERNS  
2.1.  The Chairman  informed t he Committee that written questions from the European Union to 
Bolivia, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Morocco,  and Thailand,  had been included in the agenda at the 
request of the European Union in a communication dated  18 April 2017. 
2.1 Document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 (written questions from the EU to Bolivia)  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's request to Bolivia to provide 
replies to their questions circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 on 22  November  2016. The EU 
sought further clarification of the notifications submitted by Bolivia last year. She encouraged 
Bolivia to submit it s annual notification so as to understand the difficulties their authorities were 
encountering, and  that had prevented the Bolivian authorities from respecting their notification 
obligations.  
2.3.  The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  thanked the EU for their interest in its 
notification. He pointed  out that Bolivia had notified  the Committee of its Decree No.  2865 of 
3 July 2017 for dry cleaning machines  in document  G/LIC/N/1/BOL/4. In 
document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 , Bolivia had notified  the Committee with regard to the import regime on  
certain products , such as textiles products. And in document  G/LIC/N/2/BOL/1, Bolivia had notified  
the Committee of prime Decree No.  2800, of 18  November  2015, for the importation of gaming 
machines.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.  He explain ed that procedures for the application of import licences in Bolivia were established 
in accordance with the WTO's Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The website, indicated 
in Bolivia's notifications mentioned above , provided specific and clear regu lations, information 
concerning procedural requirements, and models of forms to be filled out so as to clear customs 
procedures. The purpose of these measures was primarily better control of smuggling, protection 
of public health and mora ls, and the curtai ling of illicit trade.  
2.5.  He noted that Bolivia was a landlocked developing country  that shared its borders with 
five other countries , and that one of the biggest problems it faced was smuggling. The measures 
were useful to verify  that economic agents had fully complied with the relevant legal requirements 
for importing goods . He emphasized  that the problem of smuggling was a global problem although  
in many cases Bolivia did not benefit from  appropriate levels of cooperation from neighbouring 
countries , and that this  created great difficulty  for their customs procedures. He highlighted that 
all the relevant  information could be obtained on the webpage indicated  in the notification , or 
through email contact addresses established for that purpose. His dele gation was ready to provide 
further  detail to the EU bilaterally and had certainly taken note of EU's comments.  
2.6.  The Committee took n ote of the statements made.  
2.2 Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/20 (written questions from the EU to Brazil)  
2.7.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's interest in receiving detailed 
answers to the questions it had formulated in document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/20 , dated 
22 November  2016. She emphasized  some points raised concerning which her delegation was 
expecting to receive replies  from Brazil, namely : (1) the request that Brazil provide a complete 
description of the procedures established for each product subject to the requirements of import 
licences;  (2) the request that Brazil provide a l ist of tariff schedules for non -automatic systems 
and a list of products given  automatic licensing ; and (3)  that Brazil clarify its reasons for having a 
time-limit in place for both non -automatic and au tomatic measures.  
2.8.  She appreciated the fact that on 18  November  2016 Brazil had responded  to the EU  in an 
informal note . Nevertheless , the EU expected and continued to wait  for wr itten replies to its 
questions.  
2.9.  In addition, she underlined that her delegation was expecting further  clarification from Brazil 
with regard  to the import procedures for nitrocellulose under classification  NCM3912.20. All these 
products were listed as subject to non -automatic licenses on the website of the Ministry of 
Industry and the Ministry of Treatment of Imports. The EU asked for reciprocal application of the 
import licensing  regime for nitrocellulose products for industrial purposes that had a maximum 
nitrogen content of 12.5%. In this aspect, the EU had no restriction on identical  products exported 
from Brazil to the EU.  
2.10.   In response, the representative of Brazil  stated that Brazil was strongly committed to 
transparency. Brazil observed with interest the extensive debates over how each WTO  Member 
understood its obligations stemming from the Agreement on  Import Licensing Procedures . Brazil 
took note of the Secretari at's remarks and also followed the discussion on possible modifications to 
the format of notifications. He noted that Brazil had provided links to website pages where  the 
Brazilian government had displayed detailed information on every product which requir ed 
licensing, be they automatic or non -automatic. There was also an on -line simulator to present all 
the necessary administrative steps on an individual product basis . 
2.11.   He added  that, notwithstanding the discussion in this Committee, Brazil was had engaged in 
a revision of the number of products subject to licensing. It was a complex process, which involved  
the Brazilian Congress and a great number of agencies that enjoyed  administrative independence ; 
it included modifications of laws and procedures, as well  as procedural adjustments  such as those 
in progress on the Brazilian Single Window. He pointed out that , although Brazil could not 
speculate on the deadline for this revision, his delegation believed that Members  would  see further  
improvements in the coming months.  
2.12.   Regarding Brazil's more detailed response s to the EU 's questions, the written intervention of 
the Brazilian delegate is copied  below:  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.13.   "Questions  1a and 1b : the Brazilian notification presents a general overview of import 
licensing in Brazil and it indicates, whenever necessary, the specific legislation of every agency 
involved. The website indicated in the notification displays the lists of products subject to 
administrative procedures. We are taking into consideration the Secretariat remarks  and Members ' 
questions to analyse different models to present the data, so we can make the system even more 
transparent.  
2.14.   Question  2a: the general proceedings are included in the "Portaria SECEX N o. 23/11, which 
can be downloaded at http://portal.siscomex. gov.br/legislacao/biblioteca -de-
arquivos/secex/protaria -no-23-de-14-de-julho-de-2011. In order to obtain specific proceedings by 
each product, it is also important to consult the legislation of the concerning agency. All ordinances 
related to foreign trade  can be downloaded at: http://portal.siscomex.gov.br/legislacao . 
2.15.   Question  2b: the complete lists of tariff lines requiring automatic or non -automatic licences 
can be downloaded at http://www.mdic.gov.br/index.php/comerci -
exterior/importacao/tratamento -administrative -de-importacao.  
2.16.   Question  2c: the information is correct. There are more than five  thousand products 
requiring import licensing, as was indicated  in Brazil's  Trade Policy Review.  
2.17.   Question  2d: With the expressive evolution of Brazilian foreign trade in recent decades, the 
governmental entities need different controls in order to enforce important public policies in areas 
such as human health, food safety, environment, public  safety and consumers' rights. This broad 
use of import licensing  is partially due to the lack of proper systems and tools such that  each 
agency concerned could be properly informed of the necessary data on each import process. To 
resolve these occurrences, the Brazilian government is revising the procedures and building one 
system to meet the needs of all agencies in the area of  foreig n trade. The Brazilian Single Window 
is being gradually implemented and will integrate new tools and all the systems of the agencies 
concerned.  
2.18.   Question  2e: Yes , as a rule, the Brazilian import regime does not require licensing, as  stated 
in the Portaria S ECEX No.  23/2011. Nevertheless, there are cases in which governmental entities 
require specific information, so they were grouped in the lists mentioned in the website 
http://www.mdic.gov.br/index.php/comerci -exterior/importacao/tratamento -administrative -de-
importacao.  
2.19.   Question  2f: The new import proceeding in the Brazilian Single Window will be fully 
operational by the end of 2018.  
2.20.   Question  2g: The correct information was delivered during the meeting (non -automatic 
import licences). The actual table which reflects the Brazilian proceeding regarding nitrocellulose 
can be downloaded at http://www.mdic.gov.br/index.php/comerci -
exterior/importacao/tratamento -administrative -de- importacao.  
2.21.   Question  2h: The Brazilian government is engaged in amending the notifica tion. We have 
studies in advanced stages to update both this document and the notification of quantitative  
restrictions (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/1) ." 
2.3 Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/37 (written questions from the EU to Indonesia)  
2.22.   The representative of the European Union  expressed concern about  the import procedures  
for tyres introduced by Regulation  No. 77/M-DAG/PER/11/2016. She pointed out that the EU had 
submitted written questions as follows : 
– To request  Indonesia to clarify why this regulation had not been notified to the WTO in 
accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement , and to ask if 
Indonesia plan ned to submit the due notification in the near future ; 
 
– To request  Indonesia t o clarify the rationale of Article  2 of Regulation No.  77/2016 , 
that read: "Import of tyres is restricted". In particular, the EU would like to ask 
Indonesia to clarify what "restricted" mean t, and what form "restrictions" could take G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 5 - 
 
  pursuant to Article  2. The EU would appreciate receiving from  Indonesia a description 
as to  how and on the basis of  which specific measures imports of tyres were 
restricted ; 
 
– To request  Indonesia to present , in writing , each step to be followed by the importers 
for importing tyres into Indonesia, clarifying in particular the procedures for 
submission of an application, the eligibility criteria applied to  importers wishing to 
apply for a licence , and the time taken to  process applications.  
 
2.23.   The EU looked forward to receiving Indonesia's  written response . 
2.24.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  indicated that her delegation had submitted 
their written answer s to the Secretariat that day , but since they had received these  from capital 
only the previous day , she apologized  for the ir delay ed submission. Her delegation remained  open 
to future communication on this matter.  
2.4 Document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/13 (written questions from the EU to Malaysia)  
2.25.   The representative of the European Union  noted that , after the last Committee  meeting,  the 
EU had submitted questions  to Malaysia , circulated as document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/13 , on 
22 November  2016.  The EU thank ed Malaysia for its replies , which they had received two  days 
before . She stated that the replies were  currently being reviewed and asked Malaysia to clarify : 
(1) whether the abolishment was permanent ; and (2)  whether they envisaged abolishing the 
import licensing requirement for other products.  
2.26.   In response, the representative of Malaysia  pointed out that Malaysia had responded to the 
EU's question in document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/13 , and also in their replies dated 1  May 2017, circulated  
in document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/14. He noted that the questions concerned  Malaysia's notification under 
Article  5.1 of the abolition  of import licensing requirements for certain products , including 
motorhomes, used pneumatic tyres , and safety helmets. Regarding the EU  questions concerning  
whether or not this  was a permanent abolition, and if Malaysia also planned to abolish import 
licensing requirements on other products, he pointed out that the exercise undertaken by Malaysia 
was part of an ongoing process to review and gradually liberali ze Malaysia's  import licensing 
requir ements consistent with its overall development objectives and WTO  obligations. He 
emphasized  that Ma laysia had progressively reduced import licensing requirements over the years, 
citing the  licensing requirements  on 1,218  tariff lines that had been abolished in 2013/2014. He 
noted that his delegation might not yet be able to clarify the exact products un der current review 
as the review process was ongoing.  
2.5 Document  G/LIC/Q/MAR/1 (written questions from the EU to Morocco)  
2.27.   The representative of the European Union  recall ed that , in April  2016, the EU had submitted 
detailed questions to Morocco seeking clarification on the following issues:  (1)  Notes to I mporters 
No. 3/2015 and No.  4/2015 , on importation of certain arms and gear wheels ; (2) provisions 
contained in Chapters  II and III of the new Law No.  91/2014 , on external trade , given that  the 
new law introduced new conditions for import operations.  
2.28.   She stated that the EU did not intend to enter into the detail of its questions at the meeting 
itself, but reiterated its interest in receiving Morocco's replies. Furthermore, noting that Morocco 
had not sub mitted any notifications since 2009, the EU also called upon Morocco to submit its 
outstanding notifications.  
2.29.   The representative of Morocco  thanked the EU for its interest in Morocco's notifications. He 
pointed out that he had just received a lengthy  and detailed response from Capital in an email that 
he would make available to the Committee in writing. The delegation of Morocco was willing to 
consider these questions in greater detail with the EU.  
2.6 Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 (written questions from the EU to Thailand)  
2.30.   The representative of the European Union  expressed concern regarding the import 
procedures for feed wheat recently introduced by Thailand. She pointed out that this issue had G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 6 - 
 
  also been raised at the last Committee on Agriculture , and the EU th anked Thailand for its reply, 
submitted in that Committee, informing Members that the measure in question was temporary and 
put in place to relieve a market oversupply of corn.  
2.31.   She stated that : (1) the EU wished  to understand on what basis the measure was 
maintained , and for what duration;  (2) referring to the EU's written questions, her delegation also 
wished to understand whether the measure in question was  an automatic or a non -automatic 
import licence. In addition, the EU  wanted to have a clear picture  of the applicable import 
procedures in accordance with Article  3 of the Import Licensing Procedures Agreement , including  
with regard to  the timeline for the procedures ; and  (3) as Thailand justified the measure on  the 
basis of an  oversupply of corn, the E U wanted to receive relevant data about this market 
oversupply of corn.  
2.32.   In addition to the written questions, she asked Thailand to share the number of applications 
received under the new license regime and the number of import licenses granted, as well as  the 
total import quantity of feed wheat all owed under the new license regime.  
2.33.   In conclusion, she emphasized  that the EU was looking  forward to receiving replies from 
Thailand to its written questions , circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 , as well as to th e 
questions raised at the meeting itself . The EU also wanted to know if Thailand intended to notify 
these import licensing procedures in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import Licensing 
Agreement.  
2.34.   The representative of Australia  echoed  the EU's questions. He noted that Australia had also 
asked questions recently in the Committee on Agriculture , and that his delegation had some 
queries  still outstanding . Australia noted that , to date , Thailand had not notified any of the 
changes in question to any Committee in the WTO , and that these measures had already been in 
place for over three  months . His delegation wished, first,  to understand why Thailand had not 
notified any of these changes  and, second,  to receive further information regarding the terms of  
the measures, the period of time that they would be in force , further detail as to implementation of 
the measures in question, including how feed wheat would be differentiated from wheat for milling , 
and additional information on the mechanisms and proces ses for issuing import permits. He 
indicated that his delegation might follow up with written questions but that in the first instance 
looked forward to reviewing Thailand's answers to the EU.  
2.35.   The representative of Canada  expressed support for the lines of  enquiry  pursued by 
Australia and shared the concerns of the EU as outlined in its questions  and comments addressed  
to Thailand. His delegation encouraged Members to submit their notifications in a timely manner. 
In this regard, Canada considered that Thai land should notify its measures to the WTO as soon as 
possible , in accordance with Article  1.4 and 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
His delegation looked forward to receiving more information from Thailand in response to the EU's 
question s, including those concerning  the conformity of Thailand's measures with GATT  Article  XI. 
2.36.   The representative of Ukraine  stated that Ukraine  shared the concerns expressed by the EU, 
Australia,  and Canada,  and recalled  that his delegation had also raised the  issue at the recent 
meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  
2.37.   In response, the representative of Thailand  thanked the EU, Australia, Canada,  and Ukraine 
for their questions regarding the newly introduced import procedures for feed wheat under 
document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3. She stated that her Capital was currently gathering relevant 
information to answer the questions posed by  Australia and the EU. Once they had received those 
clarifications from Capital , her delegation would provide written replies to the EU and Australia . 
2.7 Document  G/LIC/Q/EU/1 (written questions from the Russia to the EU)  
2.38.   The Chairman  pointed out  that the European Union ha d provided written answers to the 
Russian  Federation in document  G/LIC/Q/EU/2. In addition, Agenda item  9, which was on the 
same issue, ha d been included on the agenda at the request of the Russian Federation. In this 
case, with the agreement of those Members  concerned, he suggest ed that the Committee consider 
them tog ether under this agenda item , agenda item  2. G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.39.   The represe ntative of the Russian Federation  thanked the Chairman for the suggestion and 
indicated that his delegation would prefer to revert to this topic under agenda item  9. 
2.40.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Russia for the written questions 
submitte d as a follow -up to the previous meeting. She indicated that the EU had replied to those 
questions in February and, without entering into the detail, once again  underlined the main 
characteristics of the system:  
2.41.   The requirements of the prior Union surveill ance scheme concerning certain steel products 
allowed the EU to provide early and advanced statistical information permitting rapid analysis of 
import trends from all non -EU Member countries, already at the lev el of intention to import.  
2.42.   As overcapacity in the steel sector was unlikely to be res olved in the short term, the 
EU considered that the application of the system should remain in place for a period of four years. 
The EU would examine, before the expiration date, whether a prolongation would be necessary on 
the basis of the global steel overcapacity situation at that time. 
2.43.   This procedure was fully automatic and it ensured that all customs declarations lodged 
within the EU  customs territory were treated in the same manner if they referred to the same 
product.  
2.44.   Surveillance documents were issued within five working days of presentation of an 
applicat ion, which  was in conformity with the requirements stipulated in  Article 2.2(a)(iii) of the 
Import Licensing Agreement.  
2.45.   She hoped that the EU had responded adequately  to the Russian Federation's concerns and 
invited the Russian authorities to submit written questions should they need additional 
clarification.  
2.8 Docum ent G/LIC/Q/IDN /36 (written questions from the US to Indonesia)  
2.46.   The representative of the United States  indicated that, since there was already an agenda 
item covering this issue, he would not make  a lengthy intervention. He wished only to note that 
the q uestions that had been posed by the US were still  outstanding , and that his delegation was 
still looking  forward to receiving Indonesia's written replies.  
2.47.    In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the US for its questions on 
Indonesia's import licensing requirements for cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets. She 
pointed out that her delegation had submitted their written answers to the Secretariat at the start 
of that week and apologized for the delay in their submission. Her delega tion was open to future 
communication on this issue.  
2.48.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1 Notifications under Article s 1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The following  N/1 notifications were reviewed:  Brunei Darussalam ( G/LIC/N/1/BRN/1 and 
G/LIC/N/1/ BRN/1/Rev.  1); European Union (G/LIC/N/1/EU/10); Kazakhstan (G/LIC/N/1/KAZ/1); 
South Africa (G/LIC/N/1/ZAF/1); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/1/UKR/6); and the United  States 
(G/LIC/N/1/USA/7).  
3.2.  The Committee  took note  of the notifications ma de. 
3.2 Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.3.  The following N/2  notifications were reviewed at the meeting: Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27/ Add.4, G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27/Add.5 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27/Add.6 ); the 
European Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/10) ; Indonesia (G/L IC/N/2/IDN/32, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/33, 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/34, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/35 and G/LIC/N/2/IDN/6) ; Korea (G/LIC/N/2/KOR/2 ); Malawi G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 8 - 
 
  (G/LIC/N/2/MWI/4 ); Philippines (G/LIC/N/2/PHL/1  and G/LIC/N/2/PHL/ 2); Togo 
(G/LIC/N/2/TGO/1) ; Ukraine (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/6 ). 
3.4.  The Committee  took note  of the notification s made.  
3.3 Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.5.  The following N/3 notifications were reviewed at the meeting:  Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/3/ARG/12) ; Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/9) ; Burundi (G/LIC/N/3/BDI/3) ; Cameroun 
(G/LIC/N/3/CMR/7) ; China (G/LIC/N/3/CHN/14) ; Gabon (G/LIC/N/3/GAB/1 ); Georgia 
(G/LIC/N/3/GEO/6 ); Malawi (G/LIC/N/3/MWI/5) ; Malaysia (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/12) ; Mali 
(G/LIC/N/3/MLI/8) ; Nicaragua (G/LIC/N/3/NIC/8) ; Qatar (G/LIC/N/3/QAT/12 ); Saint Lucia 
(G/LIC/N/3/LC A/7); Singapore (G/LIC/N/3/SGP/12 ); South Africa (G/LIC/N/3/ZAF/6 ); the former 
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (G/LIC/N/3/MKD/5 ); Togo (G/LIC/N/3/TGO/3 ); the United States 
(G/LIC/N/3/USA/13) . 
3.6.  With regard to document  G/LIC/N/3/MYS/12 , the representative of Australia  thank ed 
Malaysia for demonstrating  good compliance with the requirements on completing the annual 
questionnaire. He noted that Malaysia was a regular contributor. Nevertheless, h e raised the  issue 
of refined sugar , which Australia had raised prev iously in the Committee. His delegation had 
noticed, in Malaysia's most recent notification , that sugar did not appear in the annual import 
licensing notification and wished  to ask Malaysia if import licensing  arrangements for sugar , and 
for ref ined sugar  in particular , had now been terminated.  
3.7.  He noted that reports from Australian industry had indicated  that the procedures and 
eligibility criteria for licensing arrangements for refined sugar were complex. Australia's  
understanding was  that only Malaysian d omestic refiners had been allocated import licensing  for 
refined sugar in recent years, which led to poor domestic competition in the sector  concerned . 
Australia noticed that , on the official portal of the Ministry, Malaysia had begun  to freeze import 
licensing  for refined sugar on 1 March  2016. This effectively amounted to a ban on refined sugar 
imported into Malaysia. Thus , Australia wished  to know if Malaysia intended to notify this cessation 
of trade in refined sugar , and also if the ban on imports was still in force. His delegation would 
follow up with written questions.  
3.8.  In response, the representative of Malaysia  thanked the Australian delegation for the 
question. He took note of the concerns raised but was not yet in a position to respond concretely. 
He would request that  the questions from Australia be taken up for consideration by his Capital . 
3.9.  The Committee  took note  of the notifications and statement s made.  
4  INDONESIA  – IMPORT LICENSING  REGIME FOR T YRES – STATEMENT BY THAILAN D 
4.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that this item had been  included on the agenda of 
this Committee meeting  at the request of the delegation of Thailand,  in a communication dated 
20 April 2017.  
4.2.  The representative of Thailand  raised concerns over Indonesia' s new import licensing regime 
for ty res, as set out i n Indonesia' s Regulation No.  77/M-DAG/PE R/11/2016 ( "Regulation No.  77"), 
which entered into force on 1  January  2017. Thailand wa s concerned that Regulation No.  77 
imposed complex, burdensome , and unnecessary r equirements on the importation of t yres, and 
would  disrupt the supply chain for ty res in the region.  
4.3.  The Preamble to Regulation No.  77 described the purpose of the law, including to "support 
the availability and supply of do mestic ty res", to " support n ational industries engaged in ty res", 
and "to increase the national competitiveness ". She pointed out that such objectives should  only 
be pursued in a m anner that remained consistent with Indonesia' s WTO  obligations.  
4.4.  Thailand was of the view that Regulation No . 77 might fail to comply with Indonesia' s 
WTO commitments, including under Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994, and the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.5.  She listed some key features of Regulation No.  77, including:  
– An express rest riction on the impor tation of ty res, with a list of the tyres subject to 
this restriction;  
– A discretionary or non -automatic import licensing system;  
– Difficult import approval procedures;  
– End-use restr ictions for producer importers;  
– Time-limited approval to import tyres;  
– Pre-shipment inspection w ith technical verification; and  
– Reporting requirements.  
 
4.6.  In this respect, Thailand was concerned that Regulation No.  77 would  have a distorting effect 
on ty re imports. The procedural obligations to be met by importers we re onerous. Regulation 
No. 77 appeared to be "more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to 
administer the measure " within the meaning of Article  3.2 of the Licensing Agreement.  
4.7.  Importantly, Regulation No.  77 provided no information with re spect to the criteria to be 
used by the Indonesian government when deciding if to accept or reject a request to import ty res, 
and, if granted, the quantities allowed. The law appeared to grant unlimited discretion t o the 
Director -General . Article  3.3 requi red Members to "publish sufficient information for other 
Members and traders to know the basis for granting and/or allocating licences ", but Regulation 
No. 77 seemed to fall short of this standard.  
4.8.  She noted that Regulation No . 77 bore  some similarity to the measures found to be 
WTO-inconsistent in the December  2016 panel ruling in Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes . 
4.9.  Further more, she pointed out that Thailand had reviewed the questions raised by the EU in 
its communication  circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/37 , and considered those  questions to 
have been useful and looked forward to Indonesia' s responses to th em. In addition, Thailand 
respectfully request ed Indonesia t o clarify the following issues:  
(i) Could Indonesia explain how the restrictions on the importation of tyres under 
Regulation No.  77 were consistent with Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994, under which 
import restrictions are impermissible?  
 
(ii) Could Indonesia explain the criteria that would be applied by the Director -General  
when considering whether to approve impor tation, and at what quantities?  
 
(iii) Could Indonesia ex plain why a request to import ty res require d applicants to provide 
such extensive documentation, including a Master List of products, a notarized letter 
of appointment from the brand owner, warehouse and transportation possession 
receipts for producer -importers, an d a recommendation certificate?  
 
(iv) Why had Indonesia also considered it necessary to add a requireme nt for preshipment 
inspection?  
 
4.10.   To this end, Thailand urged Indonesia to ensure that all of its import licensing measures, 
particularly Regulation No.  77, compl ied fully with Indonesia' s WTO  obligations. She informed the 
Committee that they had had a bilateral consultation with Indonesia on 2  Februar y 2017 to 
address Thailand's concerns and had requested that Regulation No.  77 be reconsidered and 
amended. However, her delegation had yet to receive a positive response from Indonesia. Thailand 
stood ready to continue to discuss this important issue with  Indonesia with a view to achieving a 
satisfactory mutual solution.  
4.11.   The representative of the European Union  observed  that, following Thailand's  statement, 
she had wished to refer to the intervention of the EU under item  2, as well as the EU's writt en 
questions on the same topic.  
4.12.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked Thailand for raising this issue, and the 
EU for sharing the same concern about  the recent MOT  Regulation No.  77/M-DAG/PER/11/2016 , 
and provided the following  response : G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.13.   She explai ned that t his regulation was in principal regulating the importation of all kinds of 
tyres under HS  code 4011, and tyres as descr ibed under HS  code 8708 to the a nnex of this 
regulation. The main purpose of the enactment of this regulation was to ensure the safety of tyre  
products in Indonesia,  in accordance with the mandatory Indonesian National Standard. A 
mandatory term was meant to ensure that the app lication of the standard applied  equally to 
Indonesian domestically produced tyres and to imported ones. She recall ed, based on  Indonesian 
National Police records, that the third most common  reason for accident s in Ind onesia wa s tyre 
problems. Therefore, Indonesia needed  to ensure that tyre products distributed in the Indonesian 
custom s territory were safe.  
4.14.   Regarding the questions raised by Thailand, she replied that her delegation still needed to 
clarify that Indonesia was not restricting any import s of the products concern ed. Instead, 
Indonesia wa s limiting the import o f such products to only thos e considered fully  in compliance 
with Indonesian national standard s. Again, Indonesia wished  to emphasize that the purpose of this 
limitation wa s to ensure that products distributed in the Indonesian Custom s Territory fully 
complied with the  Mandatory In donesian National Standard , as applie d also to Indonesian 
domestically produced tyres.  
4.15.   She clarified that t he Director General of Foreign Trade in the Ministry of Trade, Indonesia, 
require d applicant s to submit their application in accordan ce with Article 6 of the regulation. She 
further highlighted that , among the requirements of Article  6(b), the applicant need ed to attach a 
Certificate of Indonesian National  Standard , and in conformity with Article  6(c), the product 
registration n umber. Those two  require ments were an important indication that the products 
concern ed were in conformity with the  standard applie d in Indonesia and could therefore be 
considered as safe . 
4.16.   She argued that Indonesia had never limit ed the amount of products to be imported. The 
quant ity of the goods to be import ed was given as a self -assessment made by the impo rter to 
ensure that the import wa s in accordance with the needs of their own business practice. Indonesia 
emphasize d that there was no quota linked  to this regulation , and nor in practice. Master List 
products were meant to ensure that importers would import according to their needs. It was 
intended to create predictability in the supply  of products to the Indonesian market , as well as to  
avoid any act of speculation on the part  of importers. Notarized legalization or l egalization from  a 
Trade Attaché wa s meant to reaffirm the legality of the business practice of Indon esian importers. 
This legality wa s important to  allow the goods to be  traced back to their producers  in case of  
accident due to poor product quality. Warehouse control was meant to ensure that product s were 
safely and properly stored so as to maintain their high quality prior to distribution. It was also to 
ensure that some products were not combined with other s such as to  result in a lower  quality  
compared to the original . Similar measures were applie d to transportation control to ensure that 
products were distributed using proper transportation vehicles. I n many past Indonesian case s, 
the products concern ed were o ften store d in improper facilities and distributed using improper 
transportation equipment . 
4.17.   In addition, preshipment inspection , as required in Article  10 of the regulation , was meant 
to ensure that all inspection s were conducted at the port of origin. Indonesian custom officers 
would then only conduct a visual inspection w hen necessary. This would  reduce the time of port 
processing at the Indonesian port of destination.  
4.18.   In conclusion, she reaffirm ed that, according to Article  10 of the regulation, the appl ication 
of an import permit for tyre products wa s conducted through an online application at 
https://inatrade.kemendag.go.id . The pur pose of the online application was to minimize  human 
interference in the ap plication and permit is suance process. The regulation wa s not meant to 
create unnecessary burden nor to limit importation of such products into Indonesia.  
4.19.   She emphasized that Indonesia wa s not applying any import quota or limiting the number of 
products entering its customs territory. As a WTO Member, Indonesia ensured that its regulation s 
were in compliance with its WTO  commitments.  
4.20.   The representative of Thailand  thanked Indonesia for these detailed responses and indicated 
that her delegation would convey this information to Capital.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.21.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT FOR BORIC A CID – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
5.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that this item had been included  in the agenda at the 
request of the United States in a communication dated 20  April 2017. 
5.2.  The representative of the United States  indicated that , for quite some time, the US had been 
concerned with India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, par ticularly with respect to the 
burdensome  end-use certificates necessary for importation. In fact, his delegation had been raising 
this issue in the Committee since 2008, and the issue had been on their bilateral agenda even 
longer.  
5.3.  He recalled that the US  concerns had begun  in 2006, when India's Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry had 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 & Registration Co mmittee 
under the Ministry of Agriculture".  
5.4.  Prior to this change, there was no import permit required for boric acid. However, India's 
implementation of this change had had the effect of limiting the importation of non -insecticidal 
boric acid for Indian im porters by requiring the importer to provide the precise end -use of the 
product prior to 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.  
5.5.  The Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee only met monthly, and often did 
not have the opportunity to review import requests. This completely impeded the ability of 
importers in India to meet "just in time" supply chain req uirements for non -insecticidal boric acid. 
No such restrictions were placed on domestic suppliers of non -insecticidal boric acid.  
5.6.  In addition to the lengthy time -frame for obtaining an approval, quantities were also 
restricted. Indian importers had expressed their frustration to US  counterparts about having  to 
supply information on their past consumption of boric acid, broken out by imports and domestic 
sources, when seeking approval to import. New approvals for imported boric acid were only based 
on past import levels, not on total consumption. This appeared to be an arbitrary quantitative 
restriction.  
5.7.  He noted that the US had received varying responses from the Indian Government when 
presented with these facts. During its TPR, India cited the Insect icides Act of 1968 as the 
legislative authority for import licensing  of boric acid. However, import permits were not required 
on boric acid until 2006. Then, in 2011, India's Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) stated 
that Section  38 of the Insectic ide Act  1968 exempt ed insecticides with a non-insecticidal use from 
import permit requirements. However, CBEC later clarified that import permits we re still required 
for non -insecticidal boric acid.  
5.8.  His delegation continued to request that India explain wh y boric acid, which had a toxicity 
level roughly equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide that required an import 
permit for non -insecticidal use, considering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticides 
that did not require an i mport permit.  
5.9.  His delegation also requested that India explain why boric acid was the only insecticide for 
which there were import quantity restrictions.  
5.10.   Further, the approval process, applied only to imports of boric acid, was vigorously 
enforced ; however , there was no similar oversight for the sale of domestic boric acid according to 
government officials and Indian importers. Domestic manufacturers of boric acid did not have to 
seek approval from a government ministry to sell their product, and producers did not have to 
determine the end-use of the boric acid prior to its sale. Domestic producers could sell to any 
buyer and , further, face d no quantitative limitation on how much they sold.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.11.   In this context, the US continued to request that India amend Schedule  I (imports) of the 
ITC (HS) classifications of export and import items to eliminate the requirement that imports of 
boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes be subject to an import permit.  
5.12.   In response, the representative of India thanked the deleg ation of the US for its continued 
interest in India' s licensing policy for boric acid. He noted that it was on record that India had 
already responded to all the written question s asked by interested delegations, and that these 
replies properly explained t he policy objectives of the measure as well as issues relating to its 
implementation.  
5.13.   He informed the Committee that the issue was under discussion at bilateral level between 
the two capitals. There was no further update since the previous meeting , held on  
3 November  2016. Therefore, his delegation requested that the US delegation refer to the detailed 
statement made by India at the previous meeting, which could be found  at paragraph  6.11 and 
6.12 of document  G/LIC/M/44.  
5.14.   The Committee took note of the state ments  made.  
6  MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
6.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at the 
request of the United States,  in a communication dated 20  April 2017. 
6.2.  The representative of the United States  thanked Mexico for its continued cooperation with a 
view to  address ing US concerns relating to Mexico's import licensing  requirement for steel 
products. However, the US continued to be concerned , and in particular wi th regard to reports of 
unpublished documentation requirements, protection of proprietary information from disclosure to 
industry technical advisers , and new steel sector importer registration requirements.  
6.3.  With regard to the 27  July 2016 agreement between  the National Iron and Steel Industry 
Chamber (CANACERO) and the Government of Mexico, the US appreciated the information that 
Mexico had supplied on the role of CANACERO  observers. However, he  indicated that the response 
did not address how the Government  of Mexico would ensure that the proprietary information on 
licences was protected from unauthorized disclosure to CANACERO  technical observers. What 
safeguards and protections were in place to ensure that no proprietary information from 
US exporters' lice nces or other documents was disclosed to Mexican industry observers? When 
Mexico stated that the industry observers were accredited by the Government of Mexico, the US 
would like to know  what precisely they were accredited to do . 
6.4.  He pointed out that the US  had understood that SAT established the Steel Sector Import 
Registration in January  2017. The US  industry reported that the deadline to register had been  
15 May and that SAT was still in the process of reviewing several outstanding applications. His 
delegation would be interested to know  how the 15  May deadline would impact US  steel exports to 
Mexican importers whose registration had not been completed. Would SAT extend the deadline if 
applications were not reviewed by that date?  
6.5.  He hoped to continue bilateral communications with Mexico so as to resolve these issues.  
6.6.  The representative of Canada  shared  the same concern with regard to Mexico's import 
licensing requirements for steel products and would continue to monitor the requirements closely. 
He looked forward to hearing Mexico's response and to further cooperation with Mexico on the 
matter as necessary.  
6.7.  In response, the representative of Mexico  pointed out that they had taken  note of the 
statements made by the US and Canada. He indicated that they were surprised that , prior to the 
inclusion of the item on the meeting's  agenda , or before the meeting itself, there had been no 
attempt to consult with delegations with a view to resolving  the matter. He argued that Mexico had 
already provided a full response to the questions posed by  the US in the framework of this 
committee ( document  G/LIC/Q/MEX/2), and as reflected in the minutes of the last Committee 
meeting ( document  G/LIC/M/44 , paragraph  8.5). The replies had also been communicated at  the 
last TPR of Mexico,  which had taken  place the previous April. He pointed out that an explanation G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 13 - 
 
  had also been provided to the US in a bilateral , or rather , trilateral frame work in the North 
American Steel Committee , in which both delegations had been  provided with written replies. He 
invited both delegations to approach  his delegation so as to organize follow -up bilateral 
consultation where these concerns be apprised in deta il as Mexico believed that all questions had 
already been answered.  
6.8.  The representative of the United States  indicated  that his delegation would be very much 
interested to follow -up with Mexico's delegation in Geneva on this issue , although he understood 
that there had already been a significant amount of bilateral engagement be tween the relevant 
officials  at capital level . 
6.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS  - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
7.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that this item had been included on the agenda at the 
request of the United States in a communication dated 20 April 2017. 
7.2.  The representative of the United States  pointed out that , as the Committee was well aware, 
the United States held long-standing and serious concerns over Indonesia' s import 
licensing  regimes and, in particular, the import licensing  requirements for cellphones, handheld 
computers , and tablets.  
7.3.  He informed the Committ ee that , immediately  prior to its previous  meeting, the US had 
submitted formal questions to Indonesia regarding the changes made to import licensing 
requirements for the products  in question , which,  according to US  understanding, were intended to 
ensure t hat the measures were consistent with Indonesia's local content requirements for 
4G LTE products. In those questions, the US had sought responses from Indonesia with regard to 
certain requirements for obtaining an import licens e for these products, as well  as the rationale for  
distinguishing between various types of technology.  
7.4.  His delegation also questioned how companies might import finished 4G  devices for sale into 
Indonesia, noting that, as they understood the import licensing  measures, companies could only 
obtain an import licens e for finished 4G  devices if they were importing the device for further  
processing, even if they had already fulfilled the local content requirement. Moreover, the US 
continued to question the purpose of the requirements and procedures for importation of 
cellphones, handheld computers , and tablets.  
7.5.  He recalled that Indonesia had issued additional regulations – Ministry of Industry Regulation 
No. 65/2016 , and Ministry of Communication and Information Tec hnology Regulation No.  23/2016 
– which had contained additional procedures for obtaining the necessary certification prior to 
obtaining an import licence.  
7.6.  He reiterated that the industry concerned  was very important to the US and to the wider 
global economy. As previously stated, the issues his delegation had raised now on multiple 
occasions were serious. In the view  of the US , the import licensing  requirements at issue had the 
potential to distort trade and investment in this important and dyn amic sector, and to undermine 
efforts to enhance market access opportunities for high technology products, as in the 
ITA Agreement . 
7.7.  His delegation had appreciated Indonesia's  notification  to the Committee  of some of these 
measures , including Ministry of Trade Regulation No.  41/2016 , in March  2017. However, he 
continued to urge Indonesia to notify not only some but all of the associated measures, including 
Ministry of Industry Regulations No.  108/2012 and No.  68/2016, as well as the aforementioned 
new meas ures from the Ministry of Industry and the Ministry of Communication , including  
IT Regulation No.  65/2015 and Regulation No.  23/2016, respectively.  
7.8.  Given the importance of this industry to the global economy , and the seriousness of 
US concerns, his delegat ion encouraged  Indonesia to again respond expeditiously to their 
questions contained in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/36. In addition, the US continued to urge Indonesia G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 14 - 
 
  to reconsider its use of these import licensing  requirements for cellphones, handheld computers , 
and tablets . 
7.9.  The representative of the European Union  echoed US  concerns and would be interested to 
read Indonesia's  replies to the detailed questions submitted by the US. She mentioned that this 
issue was not only an import licensing  issue but also a mu ch broader systemic issue that would 
also be raised a t the next meeting of the TRIMS  Committee . As asked already at the previous 
meeting of the Import Licensing  Committee , the EU wished  also to know why Indonesia had not 
included this regulation in its annual notification submitted in accordance with Art icle 7.3 of the 
import licensing  agreement for 2015.  
7.10.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  stated that , as mentioned earlier in the 
meeting, her delegation had already submitted its written replies  and looked forward to future 
communications regarding this issue.  
7.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  VIET NAM  – DISTILLED SPIRITS AN D COMPLETENESS QUEST ION (G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 
AND G/LIC/Q/VNM/6)  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
8.1.  The Chairman  inform ed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at the 
request of the United States in a communication dated  20 April 2017. 
8.2.  The representative of the United States  reiterated that the US  remain ed interested to receive  
information regarding the broader product categories that appear ed to be subject to import 
licensing  requirements based on Viet Nam's TPR.  More specifically, his delegation continue d to be 
concerned  by import licensing  requirements for distilled spirits as provided for by Decre e No. 94, 
and as revised in the draft D ecree of 28  August  2016.  
8.3.  His delegation was  interested in knowing when Viet Nam plan ned to issue a r evised decree. 
The US also encouraged  Viet Nam to provide adequate time for stakeholder com ments before 
issuing the f inal decree  and, when appropriate,  to notify the decree to the WTO  Import Licensing 
Committee.  
8.4.  He noted that it appear ed that the draf t decree issued in August  2016 wa s an improvement 
for trader s over Decree No. 94, in that the new draft decree  remove d quotas for distribution, 
wholesale , and retail licences bas ed on number of inhabitants , and also remove d certain 
restrictions on licences.  
8.5.  However, the US understood that the new decree still contain ed requirements for distribution 
licence holders , and that this was a significant concern to US  industry. Specifically, a burdensome 
application process appear ed to require substantial detailed information from importers for new 
and upda ted distribution licences ; such detailed information was not required when appl ying for 
licences to be granted to domestic alcohol producers.  
8.6.  While the US thank ed Viet Nam for responding to US questions on the draft decree in the 
context  of the TBT  Committee (document  G/TBT/N/VNM/86) , his delegation would nevertheless 
also appreciate  an opportunity for continued dialogue on this issue in the context of the Import 
Licensing C ommittee , and look ed forward to receiving a timely and complete written response to 
US questions circulated in documents  G/LIC/Q/VNM/6 and G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 , in April  2015.  
8.7.  He informed the Committee that the US had  held productive bilateral discussions on these 
topics with Viet Nam and recognize d the capacity issues that Viet Nam face d. However, the US 
continued to encourage Viet Nam to devote the necessary time and resources to these important 
obligations.  
8.8.  The representative of Australia  thanked t he US for raising this issue. Australia, like the US, 
had asked questions of  Viet Nam in the context of the TBT  Committee ; nevertheless, in their view , 
this wa s pre dominantly an import licensing issue . Australia share d US concerns over the 
burdensome requirements placed on  importers of distilled spirits to amend their trading licences 
prior to any business expansion in Viet Nam, including  requirements to provide sign ificant details G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 15 - 
 
  about  distribution partners , and Australia noted that these requirements appeared not to be 
obligation s faced by domestic producers in Viet Nam. Australia would be very interested in 
receiving Viet Nam's answers to the questions asked by the US. He also note d that Australia had  
provided a comment to Viet Nam's TBT  enquiry point on 25  October  2016 but was  still awaiting a 
response. His delegation would be appreciative of a response to those questions.  
8.9.  In response, the representative of Viet Nam thanked the US and Australia for the statements 
made regarding the import licensing  regime in Viet Nam and  indicated that he would report to his 
Capital . 
8.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  EUROPEAN UNION – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG SYSTEM – STATEMENT BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
9.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that this item had been  included in the agenda of this 
meeting at the request of the delegation of the Russian Federation,  in a communication dated 
18 April 2017. 
9.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the European Union for the ir detailed 
answers to the Russian Federation's questions regarding import licensing procedures for iron and 
steel products, referred to under item  2 of the meeting 's agenda . 
9.3.  He recalled that , as the European Union had already mentioned in its answers, the list of 
examples of commercial evidence of intention to import provided in the final paragraph of 
Article  2(6) of Regulation (EU) No.  2016/670 was not exhaustive. Russia was therefore concern ed 
that this lack of legislation at supranational level allowed  for unjustified actions and requests from 
the competent authorities of EU  member States that could lead to disruptions in the  ordinary 
course of trade.  
9.4.  He believed that WTO  Members should enjoy a common understanding of the rules applied 
by a Member at its borders. Thus, the discretion of EU  member S tates to decide what constitute d 
sufficient grounds to demonstrate an intention to import led to confusion among importers, as they 
could not be sure that the ir documents , once submitted to the competent authority of one 
EU member State, would be sufficient to cover also future imports to the same or another  
EU member State. 
9.5.  His delegation thereby appealed to the European Union to harmonize the requirements of the 
competent authorities of the EU  member S tates regarding documents to be submitted by 
importers to prove "commercial evidence of the intention to import ". 
9.6.  In addition, Russia found that , taking into account a significant degree of discre tion among  
the EU  member States in this matter , eventually all national implementing acts constituted 
separate import licensing procedures. For this reason, his delegation wished  to ask EU  member 
States to notify this Committee of all measures applied at n ational level so as to implement the 
overall steel import licensing system of the European Union.  
9.7.  The representative of Brazil  repeated Brazil's  concerns with regard to this measure , especially 
given the possible negative impact on bilateral trade in a particularly challenging sector al context . 
His delegation reiterated that , although steel oversupply was a global problem , Brazilian exports to 
the EU had not grown in previous years and should not be subject to  any trade restrictive 
measure.  
9.8.  The represent ative of China  encouraged the EU to provide written response s to the Russian 
Federation. Meanwhile her delegation shared Russia's  concerns with regard to the unnecessary 
burden faced by traders wishing to export steel products to EU  markets. China would co ntinue to 
engag e in discussions with the EU and other Me mbers on this issue.  
9.9.  The representative of Switzerland  thanked the EU for the replies contained in its notification 
of 22  February  2017. Her delegation also shared the concerns expressed by Russia and  others 
over the EU  steel import licensing system. She noted that Swiss producers of certain iron and steel G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 16 - 
 
  products had been substantially affected by the application of the Prior Surveillance Mechanism. 
Since the introduction of these measures , in June  2016, exports to the EU of these iron and steel 
products had faced a downturn compared to exports of other iron and steel products not covered 
by the measure. Her delegation believed that Swiss exports to the EU had been disproportionally 
affected due to th e close integration of Swiss supplies in cross -border supply chains operating 
under the "just -in-time" model.  
9.10.   She pointed out that Switzerland had shared its concerns with the EU on the Prior 
Surveillance Mechanism  on several occasions . These concerns included both the trade -restrictive 
effects of the EU  measure as well as difficulties relating to its implementation by EU  member 
States. Thus, Switzerland strongly encouraged the EU to eliminate any trade -limiting effect 
resulting from  the Prior Surveillance Mechanism.  
9.11.   In response, the representative of the European Union  thanked the Russian Federation, 
Brazil, China,  and Switzerland,  for their interest in these procedures. The EU took note of the 
statements made and invited the four  deleg ations to submit written questions should they need 
additional clarification.  
9.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIR ON THE INFORMAL CONS ULTATIONS HELD ON 
16 DECEMBER  2016 AND 16  FEBRUARY  2017  
10.1.   The Chairman  reported on the  two informal consultations held on improving transparency in 
notification procedures, on 16  December  2016 and 16  February  2017.  The Chair's report is 
reproduced below:  
10.2.   "On 16  December  2016, an  informal meeting was convened and the Secretariat introduced 
a room document  RD/LIC/10. This document was drafted by the Secretariat, upon the request of 
some Members  to test the possibility of combining various notification requirements under 
different p rovisions of the Agreement in one "Super Form", so that those Members  who wish to do 
so could submit all required information in such a comprehensive manner.  
10.3.   Only a few Members  took the floor and provided some preliminary comments, indicating 
that the pape r was under review in Capitals and would come back with more details later. Among 
the views expressed, several Members  gave their general support to the approach. One Member  
gave detailed technical comments on Form  A. One  Member  reiterated opposition to me rging of the 
notification forms and indicated that redesigning the notification templates would not be a solution 
to the problem of lack of compliance. This delegation also noted that Members ' rights to notify 
under separate articles should be preserved an d cautioned of the legal implications of mixing ad 
hoc notifications with annual obligations. Another delegation expressed concerns on whether the 
new template would simplify the notification workload and sought clarification on the links between 
this form  with future database and electronic submission of notifications.  
10.4.   Taking into account that several delegations had reserved their comments for capital 
instructions and as a follow -up to the December meeting, another informal meeting was convened 
on 16  February 2017 with a view to hear ing Members' further comments and to undertake a line -
by-line discussion on items  1 to 18 of the "Super Form" as co ntained in document  RD/LIC/10.  
10.5.   At the outset of the meeting, one delegation strongly objected  to proceeding with  the 
meeting, on the ground that the proposed line -by-line discussion went beyond the mandate of this 
Committee and the discussions on the notification templates amounted to renegotiating different 
articles of the agreement and introducing any new template  would change the very character of 
the agreement. This delegation argued that despite their repeated opposition, the process had 
been pushed through by the Chair without consensus among Members . So due to lack of 
consensus, they insisted that there should  not be any further discussion on revising the notification 
template. Another delegation [Ecuador] was opposed to revising the notification template, arguing 
that the proposal was leading to obligations too restrictive for the Members . G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 17 - 
 
  10.6.   On the other hand, m any delegations took the floor in support of revising the notification 
templates and appreciated the work done by the Secretariat so far. Without going into too much 
detail, I attempted to summarize the main points expressed by these Members: (1)  they gave  full 
support to the exercise of reviewing existing notification procedures and exploring possible 
approaches to simplify and streamline them, towards which the  Committee has been working in 
the past two years ; (2) they did not see such discussions in the Committee as an attempt to 
renegotiate provisions of the Agreement or alter/create new obligations for any Member ; (3) most 
Members  did not see a need for consensus to continue the technical discussions wh ich had been 
ongoing for quite some time and looked  forward to a line -by-line discussion on the draft 
notification template ; (4) many Members reiterated that they fores aw that any possible new form 
would be used by Members on a voluntary basis ; (5) one Member rejected the accusation that this 
process was p ushed through by the Chair and another Member highlighted that there was no 
consen sus to stop the process either.  
10.7.   At the suggestion of some Members , the informal meeting was suspended for immediate 
consultation. Taking into account that there was no change  of position of a particular Member  after 
the consultation, the informal meeting had to be adjourned and I announced to continue with the 
Chair's informal consultation on the same issue with Members  who wished to participate. By doing 
so, I provided a chan ce for any interested Members  to introduce their technical comments on the 
notification form as requested in the convening note of the informal meeting.  
10.8.   As the Chair, I am here to serve the Committee and facilitate discussion on any topic of 
interest to Members . I would like to reiterate that I do not have any personal not to mention 
national agenda on this topic. Clearly, on this issue, I have heard different views from the 
Members . Since this will be the last Committee meeting I chair, I would like to tak e the 
opportunity to give you my own thoughts on t he issue, for what it  is worth.  
10.9.   First, in the capacity as the Chair of this Committee, I myself learned a lot about  import 
licensing issues in the past year. The more I learned, the more I realized the comp lexity of the 
topic and the more I was convinced that there was room for improvement, particularl y in the area 
of notifications.  
10.10.   Second, the factors leading to a low notification compliance rate in this area were complex, 
as identified by the Secretariat, and they should be addressed in a comprehensive manner. Here, I 
would like to stress that strong political will of Members to fulfil their contractual obligations and 
improve their own transparency is the fundamental pre -condition of success to any sim ilar efforts 
in the WTO.  
10.11.   Third, many Members  and the Secretariat have spent a great amount of time and effort in 
exploring possible ways to simplify and streamline notification procedures and templates in the 
past few years, on the understanding that nothing in any of the outcomes of discussions sho uld 
create additional obligations on Members  beyond the Agreement. As the outgoing Chair, I sincerely 
hope that all these efforts will not be wasted.  
10.12.   Lastly, from a systemic point of view, the Agreement does provide the mandate to the 
Committee to "review,  as necessary, the implementation and operation of the Agreement." This is 
contained in Article 7.1 of the agreement. Though Members have legitimate rights to accept or 
reject the final result of any discussion, I do hope the basic function of the Committe e will be 
maintained and any relevant issue can be raised and discussed in a frank and open manner among 
Members. This concludes my report and the floor is now open."  
10.13.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for all the ir 
work in seeking to improve notification procedures. The US was disappointed with the difficulties 
that had arisen in the process of trying to  further  advance that work . He noted that , clearly , the 
notification requirements of the Import Licensing  Agreem ent were complex, and that the US  
understood that compliance with those requirements could be challenging , especially for less 
developed countries facing  capacity constraints. He also noted the seemingly very low level of 
compliance of Members with thei r import licensing  notification obligations.  
10.14.   In this context, his government welcomed a re -examination of the notification procedures 
provided that the substantive obligations remained the same and that any changes under G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 18 - 
 
  consideration were realistically designed to increase the level of compliance with import 
licensing  notification obligations. He also took this opportunity to continue to advocate that 
legislation be provided to the Secretariat in an electronic format that was easily tr ansmittable and 
accessible.  
10.15.   The representative of Canada  stated that they were very grateful for all the efforts of the 
Chair and the Secretariat dedicated to the development of new templates for notification of ILPs. 
Canada welcomed the significant progre ss that had been made. He confessed to some 
disappointment and frustration that the Committee had not been able to finalize new templates 
despite the fact that these notifications would be made on a voluntary basis  only. He emphasized  
that the work already  carried out  should not go to waste. And he  continued to feel strongly that 
the operation of the Committee could be improved by streamlining notification procedures , 
particularly in view of the fact that these procedures would not in any way modify  Members ' 
obligations under the agreement on ILPs. His delegation would continue to reflect on how this work 
could be advanced and looked forward to continuing to collaborate with other Members so as to 
achieve a positive outcome.  
10.16.   The representative of the Europea n Union  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the ir 
hard work in attempting to address  transparency and improve notification  compliance . The EU 
again expressed its willingness to continue working on this issue. In the EU's view, the revision of 
the not ification templates , to be applied on a voluntary basis , seemed to be a step in the right 
direction in terms of  rationali zing and reorgani zing notifications in a more system atic and logical 
way. The EU, like others, was considering go ing ahead with a new form on a voluntary basis.  
10.17.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that , although there was not yet a 
conclusion to the discussion of a new template, she could see that there was also no disagreement 
among Members as to  the importan ce of transparency and the need to improve notificati on 
performance in the area of import licensing . She pointed out that enhancing transparency was a 
cross-cutting issue ; it was a topic that had also been attracting attention in recent meetings of 
other W TO committees. Members all understood that easy access to information was a crucial 
component in enabling  SME business to begin operating their business at an international  level. 
She suggested that the Committee's future discussions on this matter take in to account the 
transparency obligations established under the newly enforced TFA , which could also affect the 
notification of import licensing  operations. She thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the ir 
great efforts during the past year in facilitatin g a discussion of this issue and in deepening 
Members' understanding with regard to the notification system. Her delegation looked forward to 
working with Members on ways to improve transparency in the area of import licensing . 
10.18.   The representative of Singap ore thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for all the work that 
had been done so far. Singapore was supportive of continuing work on how to streamlin e 
notification requirements without duplicating existing obligations or creating new notification 
obligations ; his delegation remained interested in continuing to work on this issue  in the context of 
the Import Licensing Committee . 
10.19.   The representative of Australia reiterated the importance of import licensing  and the work 
of the Import Licensing Committee, to all Members , of course,  but particularly to Australia. He 
highlighted that Australia's export profile was dominated by products that were often subject to 
import licensing  requirements, such as minerals, metals, agricultural commodities, and processed 
food products. These products were of importance to Australia b ut most of them faced stinging 
import licensing  requirements. He noted that this was a trade profile shared by many other 
WTO Members. Thus , transparency and n otification of changes to any import licensing  regimes 
was important to Australia as indeed it was to  many other Members. It was  for this reason that 
Australia had been very supportive of th e work undertaken  by the Secretariat and by the Chair in 
examining options to streamline the notification process and to look for ways to make notification 
work more efficient and easier to use and to understand while remaining fully in compliance with 
the obligations of the Import Licensing  Agreement , without duplication. His delegation had said on 
numerous occasions that their ultimate interest was to establish a database that would be readily 
available for use by both government officials and the trading  community. Australia therefore 
hoped that the work would both continue and move forward.  
10.20.   The representative of Thailand  expressed sincere appreciation to the Chair  and the 
Secretariat for all the work that had been carried out with a view  to streamlin ing the notification  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 19 - 
 
  procedures . Thailand fully supported continuing the discussion on how to improve notification 
procedures and practices by developing a new form by means of which to fulfil negotiation 
requirements under the Agreement and to reduce duplica tions in existing templates. She 
emphasized that it was essential that the new form should be able to facilitate notification 
procedures and enhance transparency without resulting in  any additional burden on Members.  
10.21.   The representative of the Republic of M oldova  expressed support for the Secretariat 's 
previous proposals relating to the improvement of notification procedures and the idea of merging 
of the N1 and N2  notification templates . She believed that simplified templates would be very 
useful for online  submissions and for the establishment of a database.  
10.22.   The representative of China  joined others in thank ing the Chair and the Secretariat for 
their hard work and efforts to improve transparency. China was open to further discussion of the 
issue. Meanwhile , she emphasized that new notification procedure s should not result in any 
unnecessary additional burden on Members.  
10.23.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  joined previous speakers in thank ing the Chair for his 
leadership , and also reiterated their support for the work of simplifying and streamlini ng 
notification procedures.  
10.24.   The representative of India thanked the Chair for the report and the Secretariat for its 
contribution to the review of notification obligations.  
10.25.   He reiterated the importance of transparency , a central pillar of the WTO, and its particular 
importance in relation to the Import Licensing Agreement. The system of notifications was a 
means to observe and ensure transparency. However, his delegation noted with concern the less 
than sat isfactory performance level of the Membership on the matter of compliance  with the 
import licensing notification requirements. India was of the view that this situati on required 
improvement.  
10.26.   He acknowledged that this was an issue upon which the Committee h ad been deliberating 
intensively for the last few years. Several ideas had been discussed , such as how to assist those 
Members that were lagging behind, how to improve capacity, whether or not to organize 
workshops, how to sensitize Gen eva-based delegates,  and so on.  
10.27.   He stated that his delegation had been surprised to note a sudden change in the course in 
the later phase of discussions when an attempt was made to impose a pre -conceived solution on 
the Membership. India did not endorse such an attempt, and a rgued that it was in effect 
complicating the notification process instead of simplifying it. It sought to redesign and expand the 
existing notification obligations and , in this way, it pushed the Membership into de facto  
negotiations. He was of the view that the Committee had no mandate to renegotiate the existing 
provisions of the Agreement or expand its notification requirements unless all Members agree d to 
do so  by consensus.  
10.28.   He recalled that , in the discussions held i n informal meetings, his delegation had already 
expressed its concerns with regard to  the process, and had also several times explicitly opposed 
the so -called merging or re -designing of notification requirements. He emphasized  that there had 
been no change  in India' s position, and that there were several reasons for this.  
10.29.   First, the Agreement did not specify templates for notifications, except for a format 
provided under Article  5. Article  1.4(a) merely asked that the source of publication should be 
notifie d to the Committee. Likewise, under Article  8.2(b), a Member should  inform the Committee 
of any changes in its laws and regulations and in the administration of such laws and regulations. 
There were no formats prescribed either under Article  1.4(a) or unde r Article  8.2(b). Thus, the 
Agreement provided flexibility to Members concerning how to  notify their laws, regulations , and 
publications , in a manner they deemed most appropriate . This was how the Agreement was 
negotiated, and Members should not seek to in troduce templates that would override the simple 
requirements of the Agreement. He argued that introducing a template would change the very 
character of the Agreement , and the fact that any proposed template would be  voluntary or 
mandatory was immaterial, as still the character of the Agreement  would have been changed . G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 20 - 
 
  10.30.   Second, India believed that the question of how to notify had already been discussed and 
settled by this Committee way back in 1995. The Committee had already clarified the processes 
involved  and had adopted a Decision , circulated as document  G/LIC/3 , on how notifications should 
be made. Accordingly, the Secretariat had also published a Technical Cooperation Handbook in 
October 1996. Subsequently , in 2011, the Committee had adopted a few voluntary formats , as set 
out in document  G/LIC/22 , which were aligned to the notification requirements of the 
corresponding articles of the Agreement. Thus, he argued that the Committee had already 
considered and decided all that was required to fulfil the notification obligation, and India believed 
that there was no need to reinvent. If some delegations were still facing difficulty , a more effective 
way to address their needs would be to provide technical assistan ce and build capacity.  
10.31.   He observed that one delegation had earlier proposed adopting an electronic system of 
submission of notifications , and India would support this suggestion. It could be tried even in the 
existing system , as set out in document  G/LIC/2 2. 
10.32.   In response, the Chairman  voiced his disagreement with the suggestion that a 
preconceived solution had been imposed on Members. He pointed out that the draft that had been 
discussed in the informal committee in February had in fact been before Members f or several 
informal committee meetings prior to that, so he did not agree with India's interpretation  in that 
regard. In addition, the Chair did not agree that Members  were holding de facto  negotiations ; the 
informal meetings had been held simply to gather Members' comments on a line-by-line basis, as 
was clearly  indicated in each convening note.  
10.33.   The representative of India noted that what he had stated at the meeting had been the 
view of his delegation. He further elaborated that the t emplates circulated by the Secretariat in 
documents  RD/LIC/9 and RD/LIC/10 had sought to add new elements to the existing notification 
provisions and hence had extended the discussion  beyond the scope of the Import Licensing 
Agreement. He was of the view t hat a discussion of those templates amount ed to a renegotiat ion 
of the notification requirements of the Agreement, for which the Committee had no mandate.  
10.34.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  thanked the Chair for the efforts 
made on th is issue since last year. His delegation associated itself with the comments made by 
India. He observed that an initiative to improve transparency or compliance would slowly but 
surely develop into a negotiation of new commitments in terms of notifications , which he 
considered to be an erroneous way of proceeding. Bolivia considered that the level of notification 
compliance was not necessarily linked to the format of the notifications. He believed that the 
solution and a better approach would be  capacity -building. His delegation did not support moving 
in the direction proposed and was not going to endorse such a move; Bolivia's was a  small 
delegation and they did not have the capacity to attend all informal meetings. He also believed 
that there were other ways of improving notifications within the Organization , such as electronic 
notification, and using electronic means to enable countries to notify in a simpler and more 
straightforward way, but without seeking to increase or create ob ligations that were not in the 
current format.  
10.35.   The representative of Mali thanked the Chair for his efforts during his term of office , and 
also the Secretariat for its excellent work , from which they had benefitted now for some years. 
Mali wished to under score the importance of notifications, which represented an obligation for each 
Member of this Organization . His delegation noted , with great regret , that Members had not yet 
designed a simple  formula for notification, and especially taking into account small delegations 
that did not enjoy the means to attend all WTO meetings. He reiterated that a simplified formula 
would have been greatly beneficial for Mali and his delegation wished  to appeal to all Members to 
move forward through  consultations so that the Committee could achieve a simpler notification 
procedure that would then be  in the interest s of everyone. Mali entirely supported this process of 
simplification and strengthening transparency and urged all countries to pursue this as quickly as 
possibl e, and perhaps even by the next session.  
10.36.   The representative of South Africa  thanked the Chair for his leadership and report. She 
noted that South Africa had supported the work of the Secretariat in streamlining notifications to 
the extent that this work wo uld not result in an  unnecessary additional burden on Members , and 
bearing in mind that duplication and overlap in the notification process should be eliminated. She 
emphasized that, more importantly , Members should not in any way deviate from or alter their 
rights and obligations.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 21 - 
 
  10.37.   The representative of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  associated himself with other 
delegations that had spoken of the need for enhanced technical assistance and greater 
capacity -building.  
10.38.   In response, the Chair indicated that , as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, the 
Committe e was joined by 29  participants of the 1st WTO  Workshop on Import Licensing  
Notifications, organized by the Secretariat  and held in the WTO that week . This was certainly a 
good step towards capacit y-building t echnical assistance for Members.  
10.39.   The representative of Switzerland  expressed its strong support for this process. He 
emphasized that, even though improving and simplifying notifications was not the only way to 
improve compliance in this Committ ee, his delegation failed to see how the discussion in the 
Committee on simplifying and merging the two  templates into one could be perceived as 
something either close to negotiation or adding elements that did not fall under the mandate of 
this Committee.  
10.40.   The representative of the United States  said that he had listened carefully to the 
interventions of India and other s that had support ed India's comments. However, he failed to 
understand how having a discussion in the Committee about  how to satisfy notification obligations 
under the Agreement constitute d a renegotiation of those obligations. On that point, he did not 
understand the logic.  
10.41.   In response to the views expressed by the United States, the representative of India 
stated that his delegation h ad repeatedly explained , in several informal meetings , that the 
Agreement provided flexibility with regard to notification obligations . There was only one provision, 
Article  5, that prescribed a template, and which Members were required to use. For the rem aining 
provisions, namely, Article  1.4(a) and Article  8.2(b), these was no such requirement. Moreover, 
these two  Articles did not ask for elaborate information. In Article  1.4(a), Members were supposed 
to inform only the source of publication without givin g further details. At the same time, a copy of 
the publication was to be made available to the  Secretariat. Likewise, Article  8.2(b) asked 
Members to inform the Committee of any changes in laws and regulations. It did not prescribe how 
that information should be notified. He argued that a Member was free to notify in the way that 
the Member found most appropriate. Some Members wanted these flexibilities to be preserved, 
and this view had to be respected.  
10.42.   The Committee took note  of Chair's report and the sta tements made.  
11  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
11.1.   The Chairman  informed the Committee that in April  2017 the Council for Trade in Goods  
(CTG)  had selected Ambassador Choi of Korea as the new CTG  Chair. The CTG  Chair ha d been 
consulting with Members  regarding chairpersons for the CTG  subsidiary bodies, including the 
Committee on Import Licensing. To date, the process wa s still on going.  
11.2.   He propose d that as soon as there was  consensus on a slate of names,  the Secretariat 
would  send a fax with the name of the proposed Chairperson for the Import Licensing Committee. 
If no objection were received within the time -frame indicate d in the fax, the candidate would  be 
deemed to have been elected by the Committee  by acclamation .1 
11.3.   The Committee so agreed . 
12  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
12.1.   The Chairman informed  the Committee that the next formal meeting would be held in 
October , on the understanding that additional meetings might  be convened as necessary.  Members 
would be informed  well in advance of the timing of the formal meeting.  
                                                
1 Mr. Fawaz Almuballi (Saudi Arabia) was nominated as the new Chair of the Import Licensing 
Committee by the CTG and the Secretariat informed Members through a fax dated 11  May. The Committee 
elected him as the Chair by acclamation  on 12  May 2017. The Chair man nominated Mr  Richard Emerson -Elliott 
of Australia as Vice -Chairperson of the Committee  and the nomination was sent to Members for consideration 
through a fax on 14  June. The Committee elected  him accordingly.  G/LIC/M/45  
 
- 22 - 
 
  12.2.   The Committee took note . 
12.3.   Before the meeting was adjourned, the Chairman , as outgoing Chair of the Committee, 
thanked Members and the Secretariat for their support.  
__________