RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/42  
 
21 January 2016  
(16-0434)  Page: 1/13  
Committee of Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 OCTOBER 2015 
CHAIRPERSON: Ms. CARRIE I. J. WU (CHINESE TAIPEI) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty-fourth meeting on 20 October 2015 under the 
chairmanship of Ms Carrie I. J. WU (Chinese Taipei). The agenda proposed for the meeting, 
circulated in document WTO/AIR/LIC/2, was duly adopted. 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH  NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS –
 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE LAST MEETING .................................................................... 2  
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE 
CONCERNS ...................................................................................................................... . 3 
2.1   Questions from the European Union to  Moldova (G/LIC/Q/MDA/1) and Replies from 
Moldova to the European Union (G/LIC/Q /MDA/2) ................................................................. 3  
2.2   Replies from Indonesia to  Australia (G/LIC /Q/IDN/35) .................................................... 3  
2.3   Replies from Turkey to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/TUR/10) ......................................... 3  
3   NOTIFICATIONS .......................................................................................................... 3  
3.1   Notifications under Article 1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement ............................................... 3  
3.2   Notifications under Ar ticle 5 of the Agreement ............................................................... 3  
3.3   Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement ............................................................. 4  
4   INDONESIA - NEW REGULATION ON  TYRE IMPORTS - STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION ........................................................................................................... 4  
5   INDIA – IMPORT OF MARBLE AND MARBLE PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION ........................................................................................................... 5  
6   BRAZIL -- REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE 
INTO BRAZIL - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................... 6  
7   INDIA – AMENDMENTS IN THE IMPORT  POLICY CONDITIONS  APPLICABLE TO 
APPLES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN  UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ................. 7  
8   INDONESIA - IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELL PHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ................................... 9  
9   INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQU IREMENT FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................................. 10  
10   BANGLADESH – IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................. 11  
11   MEXICO – STEEL IMPORT LICENSING PROGRAM (G/LIC/Q/MEX/1) –
 STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................. 11  
12   VIET NAM – DISTILLED SPIRITS AND COMPLETENESS QUESTION 
(G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 AND G/LIC/Q/VNM/6) – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES ......... 12  
13   CHAIR'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CO NSULTATION HELD ON 9 JULY 2015 ......... 12  G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 2 - 
 
  14   DRAFT REPORT (2015) OF THE CO MMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS (G/LIC/W/45) ................................................................................................... 13  
15   DATE OF THE NEXT MEET ING .................................................................................. 13  
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICA TION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING 
1.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that, since the last meeting and up to and including 
8 October 2015, a total of 34 notifications had been received, including 8 notifications under 
Article 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b); 6 under Article 5; and 20 notifications under Article 7.3. All of them 
had been listed in the airgram for the Committee's consideration. She noted that after the airgram 
was issued, 4 new notifications from the Russian Federation and a written response from India to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/IND/26) had been received by the Secretariat. These documents 
would be considered at the Committee's next meeting. 
1.2.  She pointed out that, as of 20 October 2015, 14 Members had not submitted any notification 
under any provision of the Agreement; 27 Member s had not yet submitted any N/1 notifications 
concerning their laws and regulations as well as the sources of information under Article 1.4(a) 
and 8.2(b); and 23 Members had never submitted their Replies to Questionnaire under Article 7.3. For the sake of transparency, she urged these Members to notify as soon as possible. 
1.3.  In this context, she brought Members' a ttention to the following: (1) Members who 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) N/1 and N/3 notifications were distinct obligations under this Agreement and served different purposes; they were not 
interchangeable or optional. Therefore, Members who had provided information concerning their 
laws and regulations with regard to import licensing in N/3 notifications were also kindly requested to submit separate N/1 notifications. In this respect, the Secretariat was available to help Members 
who still needed to complete their N/1 notifications, on a bilateral basis; (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 it to the Committee by 30 September each year, as established in document G/LIC/3. 
1.4.  She informed the Committee that, in order to improve transparency and better serve the 
Membership, the Secretariat would update the Import Licensing webpage on the WTO website so that all notifications received would be listed, with direct links to the national legislations as 
notified by Members. In addition, she would hold an informal consultation in the coming weeks 
regarding technical issues encountered by the Secretariat in processing Members' notifications, i.e. overlapping notification requirements under differe nt provisions of the Agreement. The Secretariat 
would be invited to make a presentation on this issue. 
1.5.  The representative of Chinese Taipei stated  that they did see some technical issues that 
needed to be further clarified and his delegation supported the Chair's ideas and would be happy 
to engage in this discussion in the future. 
1.6.  The representative of the United States thanked the Chairperson for the report as well as  the 
efforts of the Secretariat in this regard. He indicated that the US joined the Chairperson in urging 
all Members to comply with their notification obligations, and that the US was ready to work with 
the Chair and the Secretariat on the informal consultations that were mentioned. 
1.7.  The representative of the European Union ec hoed the intervention of the United States and 
was ready to participate in this discussion. 
1.8.  The representative of India stated that they would like to participate in the informal 
consultations shortly to be convened. 
1.9.  The Committee took note of the statements made. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
2.1  Questions from the European Union to  Moldova (G/LIC/Q/MDA/1) and Replies from 
Moldova to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/MDA/2) 
2.1.  The representative of the European Union thanked Moldova for having promptly replied to 
their question and she confirmed that the EU did not have any follow-up questions. 
2.2.  The representative of Moldova stated th at they would be happy to answer any further 
questions from other Members. 
2.3.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2.2  Replies from Indonesia to  Australia (G/LIC/Q/IDN/35) 
2.4.  The representative of Indonesia hoped that their answers submitted in 
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/35 would address the Australian concerns. 
2.5.  The representative of Australia thanked Indonesia for the response. He indicated that 
Australia would certainly consider the responses carefully and perhaps submit follow-up questions. 
In particular, in relation to the responses given to question No. 2, he asked if Indonesia could 
specify and elaborate on the health reasons mentioned in their replies. He pointed out that 
Indonesia had failed to explain in what ways the measures were consistent with Article 2.2(a) and 3.2 of the Agreement and, in this regard, his de legation would submit additional questions to 
Indonesia in writing. 
2.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2.3  Replies from Turkey to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/TUR/10) 
2.7.  The representative of the European Union th anked Turkey for their replies and confirmed that 
the EU did not have any follow-up questions. 
2.8.  The representative of Turkey pointed ou t that his delegation had submitted answers in 
writing to the EU after the last Committee meeting in April, and they would be happy to provide 
information if other Members wanted to learn more about Turkey's import licensing system. 
2.9.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Notifications under Article 1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement 
3.1.  The following 8 N/1 notifications were reviewed at the meeting: European Union 
(G/LIC/N/1/EU/6 and G/LIC/N/1/EU/7); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/1/MAC/5); Paraguay (G/LIC/N/1/PRY/6); Peru (G/LIC/N/1/PER/5); Philippines (G/LIC/N/1/PHL/4); the Russian 
Federation (G/LIC/N/1/RUS/6); and Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/1/TPKM/10). 
3.2.  No comment was made on any of the above-mentioned notifications. 3.3.  The Committee took note of the submissions. 
3.2  Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement 3.4.  The following 6 N/2 notifications were reviewed at the meeting: European Union 
(G/LIC/N/2/EU/6 and G/LIC/N/2/EU/7); Indonesia (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/27 and G/LIC/N/2/IDN/28); 
Malawi (G/LIC/N/2/MWI/3) and Paraguay (G/LIC/N/2/PRY/5). 
3.5.  No comment was made on any of these notifications. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.6.  The Committee took note of the submissions made. 
3.3  Notifications under Ar ticle 7.3 of the Agreement 
3.7.  The Chairperson reiterated that, taking into account that the notification under Article 7.3 
was an annual obligation, she invited Members to explicitly indicate "the year" at the beginning of 
their N/3 submissions, so as to help other Members and the Secretariat to identify the specific year 
to which the notification referred. 
3.8.  The following 20 N/3 notifications were reviewed at the meeting: Cameroon 
(G/LIC/N/3/CMR/5); Cuba (G/LIC/N/3/CUB/7);  European Union (G/LIC/N/3/EU/4); Haiti 
(G/LIC/N/3/HTI/8); Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/3 /HKG/19); Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/14); Jordan 
(G/LIC/N/3/JOR/2); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/3/M AC/18); Malawi (G/LIC/N/3/MWI/4); Mauritius 
(G/LIC/N/3/MUS/5); Nicaragua (G/LIC/N/3/NIC /7); Peru (G/LIC/N/3/PER/11); Philippines 
(G/LIC/N/3/PHL/11); Qatar (G/LIC/N/3/QAT/11); the Russian Federation (G/LIC/N/3/RUS/2); 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (G/LIC/N/3/VCT /1); Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/6); Turkey 
(G/LIC/N/3/TUR/14); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/8 ) and the United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/12). 
3.9.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that a revision would be issued on 
document G/LIC/N/2/RUS/2. 
3.10.  The representative of the European Union made a general statement, indicating that they 
were still assessing the notifications that had been circulated in the two weeks prior to the 
meeting, namely notifications from the United St ates, Japan, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, 
and that they might come back with additional questions. 
3.11.  The Committee took note of the submissions and the statement made. 
4  INDONESIA - NEW REGULATION ON TYRE  IMPORTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION 
4.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the European Union in a communication dated 2 October 2015. 4.2.  The representative of the European Union stated that, during the past months, the EU had 
been concerned about Indonesia's action to impose new burdensome requirements for imported 
tyres on the basis of the Regulation of the Minister of Trade No. 45/M-DAG/PER/6/2015 dated 
29 June 2015. Recently, the EU had been informed  by EU industry that Indonesia had adopted a 
new regulation, No. 78/M-DAG/PER/9/2015, on 28 September 2015, which revoked Regulation No. 45/M-DAG/PER/6/2015. She requested Indonesia to confirm that the new Regulation 
No. 78/M-DAG/PER/9/2015 had been adopted, its date of entry into force, and to provide a copy of 
the text. 
4.3.  In addition, she noted that they had also b een informed that an additional regulation would 
soon be adopted to regulate tyre imports in plac e of the revoked regulation. In this context, she 
asked Indonesia to confirm if this was the case and to provide any known details with regard to its reference and foreseen adoption date, and to explain how the new import system for tyres 
worked. Furthermore, she reminded Indonesia of its obligations to notify under the Import 
Licensing Agreement and the TBT Agreement provided  that the regulation in question contained 
relevant provisions. 
4.4.  In response, the representative of Indonesi a thanked the European Union for its interest in 
Indonesia's policy on the import of tyres. He in dicated that the import of tyres to Indonesia was 
regulated by the Ministry of Trade Regulation  No. 45 of 2015. However, the GOI Deregulation 
Package on 9 September 2015 repealed this regulation. Thus, this regulation was no longer 
implemented and the importation of tyres was on ce again regulated by the Ministry of Trade 
Regulation No. 40 of 2011, which simply regulated technical verification obligations at the port of loading for tyres destined for Indonesia. He explai ned that the reason for this policy was to ensure 
that imported tyres complied with the safety regulation. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.5.  He further argued that the importation of tyres into Indonesia from 2010 to 2014 had 
continued to increase. In 2010, the value of imports was US$414.6 million and in 2012 it increased to US$733.7 million. This trend continued throughout 2013 to 2014, with the ten largest exporters being Japan, China, Thailand, Singapore, Korea,  Brazil, India, the United States, Spain, and 
Malaysia. He noted that this policy had been im plemented because there were two types of tyres 
imported to Indonesia, those that were in conformity with Indonesia's National Standard and those that were not. In practice, they had also found many instances of misconduct in which tyres that 
were not in conformity with the National Standard  entered as tyres that were by simply changing 
the HS code in the documents. In these circumstan ces, Indonesia required technical verification at 
the port of loading for tyres bound for Indonesia. 
4.6.  He noted that, in general, any import licensing requirement in Indonesia was imposed on a 
non-discriminatory basis, and with justified reasons, to ensure that all imported goods complied 
with rules and regulations to protect human and animal health, the environment, to protect consumers from deceptive practices, and to disco urage the importation of goods of very poor 
quality. 
4.7.  The representative of the United States th anked the EU for putting this item on the agenda 
and expressed their interest in this issue. He also thanked Indonesia for the preliminary answers 
and looked forward to receiving further information. 
4.8.  The representative of the European Union thanked Indonesia for the preliminary replies and 
requested additional information and further clarification on the status of Regulation No. 40 of 
2011 and the new Regulation No. 78/M-DAG/PER adopted on 28 September 2015. 
4.9.  In response, the representative of Indonesi a requested the European Union to submit written 
questions that could then be conveyed to capital for further clarification. 
4.10.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
5  INDIA – IMPORT OF MARBLE AND MARBLE PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item was included in the agenda at the 
request of the European Union in a communication dated 2 October 2015. 5.2.  The representative of the European Union thanked India for providing detailed information on 
the legal basis of its import licencing regime for marble as well as information on import licenses 
granted in document G/LIC/Q/IND/26 circulated on 16 October 2015. 
5.3.  She noted that, as explained in previous meetings, the European Union fully conceded that 
countries were entitled to take measures aimed at safety, security, and protection of the environment. However, India had still failed to demonstrate how the importation of marble and 
marble products put at risk the conservation of Indian natural resources or how it posed safety, 
security, and environmental concerns in India. She pointed out that, in its replies of 16 October, India provided merely an abstract overview of Federal and State level regulations applying to 
domestic mining activities, without explaining how these regulations – if at all – applied to 
imported marble products. Therefore, the European Union would still appreciate India's clarification on how its import licensing and quota system could be justified from the point of view of conservation of its domestic exhaustible natural resources, bearing in mind that imports of foreign 
marble into India did not affect the depletion of  marble resources in India. On the contrary, 
restrictions on imports could even trigger additional domestic production and the increased use of Indian natural resources. 
5.4.  She acknowledged that ther e had been a significant increase in the annual import quota in 
the last few years; however, it was still unclear how and on what basis India had fixed the annual quota amount and therefore the EU asked India to clarify this aspect. 
5.5.  In addition, she pointed out that India had not answered the EU's question aimed at clarifying 
how the existing Minimum Import Price could be justified with quality reasons in its replies of 16 October. In this regard, she observed that In dia merely referred to BIS standards for marble G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 6 - 
 
  and dimensional stones which would be in line with EN and ASTM standards, but failed to explain 
exactly how the Minimum Import Price was linked  with quality aspects. Thus, the EU kindly 
requested India to provide further details. 
5.6.  The representative of India thanked the dele gation of the EU for its continued interest in 
India's import licensing policy, and in particular the policy for marble and similar stones. He 
reiterated that marble and similar stones were restricted for import to India due to reasons of "conserving exhaustible natural resources", which was covered under Article XX(g) of GATT 1994. 
I n  t h i s  r e g a r d ,  h e  s t r e s s e d  t h a t  d o m e s t i c  m a r b l e  m i n i n g  w a s  a l s o  s u b j e c t  t o  l i c e n s i n g  a n d  
production control due to environmental concerns. 
5.7.  He continued that mining was closely linked with forestry and environmental issues. Mining 
activities was an intervention in the environment and had the potential to disturb the ecological 
balance of an area. Thus, marble mining in India was subject to licensing and production control 
for environmental safety reasons. A fine balance had to be maintained between a mineral resources requirement vis-à-vis environmental or ecological concerns. Therefore, mining was 
allowed in India only after environmental clearance and there were several conditions stipulated in 
mining licenses. The miners were to follow a number of domestic laws, rules, and orders as listed in India's recent response to the EU's  question in document G/LIC/Q/IND/26. 
5.8.  Nevertheless, he stated that the quota had been progressively relaxed from 130,000 MT in 
2007 to 800,000 MT in 2015, which was an increase of about 470% within a period of 8 years. Thus, a fine balance was being maintained and the opening of this sector was being done in a phased manner. 
5.9.  He recalled that India had responded to all written questions posed by interested delegations 
in the past. These replies were contained in WTO documents G/LIC/Q/IND/18 dated 13 October 2011, G/LIC/Q/IND/21 dated 1 November 2012, and G/LIC/Q/IND/25 dated 
17 March 2015. The last set of written questions fr om the delegation of the EU had also recently 
been responded to in document G/LIC/Q/IND/26. Finally, he stated that his delegation had taken note of all the supplementary questions raised in the meeting and would forward them to his 
capital for a response. 
5.10.  The representative of the United States th anked the EU for raising this issue, in which the 
US also had an interest. He also thanked India for the replies provided so far and expressed 
continued interest in any answers to the follow-up questions. 
5.11.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  BRAZIL -- REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE INTO 
BRAZIL - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
6.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item was included in the agenda at the 
request of the European Union in a communication dated 2 October 2015. 
6.2.  The representative of the European Union reit erated the EU's concerns with regard to Brazil's 
non-automatic licensing regime for nitrocellulose (NC) for industrial purposes (for applications like 
printing inks, wood lacquer, or nail varnish). 
6.3.  She argued that import licensing was not appropriate in this context, where the product was 
intended for commercial and not military purposes. Secondly, the non-automatic licensing regime 
in place represented a de facto  ban as import licence applications were systematically denied and 
no imports of nitrocellulose were allowed into the Brazilian market, at least not from the EU. At the same time, Brazil allowed imports of nitrocellulose (NC) for military purposes (with a nitrogen 
content above 12.5%), which noticeably were twice as expensive than NC for industrial purposes. 
Therefore, the EU continued to be of the view that  Brazil had failed to comply with the Agreement 
on Import Licensing and implemented de facto  import restrictions on NC, under the guise of import 
licensing. Therefore, the EU urged Brazil once again to immediately eliminate those restrictions. 
6.4.  The representative of Brazil stated that hi s delegation took note of the statement from the 
European Union, and that they had nothing to add to previous information provided on the subject G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 7 - 
 
  both in oral and written forms.  He pointed out that their replies to the EU had clearly established 
that the measures adopted by Brazil regarding imports of nitrocellulose were perfectly in conformity with the WTO Agreement on Import Lice nsing. He noted that the same information had 
been provided bilaterally to the EU in the context of the Brazil-EU Economic and Trade 
Sub-Commission. 
6.5.  He argued that nitrocellulose was a ha zardous substance and that its production and 
commercialization were subject to controls all over the world, including Brazil. Risks ranged from 
the possibility of industrial accidents – it was a highly flammable material that could be ignited by 
flame, heat, friction, a spark, or static electricity – to its use in illegal activity, in the absence of controls. In view of these safety and security concerns, Brazil considered that the procedure of 
non-automatic import licensing was a legitimate instrument by which to regulate the commerce 
and use of nitrocellulose, regardless of its nitrogen concentration. 
6.6.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
7  INDIA – AMENDMENTS IN THE IMPORT  POLICY CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO 
APPLES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item was included in the agenda at the 
request of the European Union and the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 
7.2.  The representative of the European Union stated that the EU was very concerned about the 
measure recently adopted by India obliging th e import of certain types of apples (Exim 
code 0808 10 00 of ITC (HS) 2012) exclusively through the Nhava Sheva port. She noted that one of the general principles stated in the Agreem ent on Import Licensing was that Members shall 
ensure that the administrative procedures used to implement import licensing regimes are in 
conformity with the relevant provisions of the GA TT with a view to preventing trade distortions. 
Furthermore, rules for import licensing procedures shall be neutral in application and administered 
in a fair and equitable manner. 
7.3.  She asked India: (1) to explain the rational e of this measure and to clarify how it could be 
reconciled with the above-mentioned provisions? (2) to clarify which were the import procedures 
put in place and where they were published? (3) to explain whether this was an automatic or a 
non-automatic scheme? (4) to clarify what would happen to an importer if he wanted to import the concerned apples through another port (for exampl e, Chennai, as had been the case for several 
EU importers)? (5) to clarify whether the measure would be notified at the WTO, considering that 
Members instituting or changing licensing procedures shall notify this Committee within 60 days of 
publication under Article 5 of the Agreement? 
7.4.  The representative of the United States jo ined the EU and expressed serious concerns about 
this measure adopted by India. He stated that the measure of India had had an impact on trade 
and that the United States associated itself with the EU with regard to all the questions raised by the EU. In addition, the U.S. was concerned to note that this measure was adopted as a final 
measure without any notification or comment period for traders. 
7.5.  The representative of New Zealand thanked the EU for placing this item on the agenda. He 
shared the EU and US concerns, namely that India was limiting the entry of imported apples only 
to the Nhava Sheva port of Mumbai, with all other ports consequently closed. He pointed out that 
this decision was a surprise to New Zealand and its exporters as there had been no prior 
consultation. To date, New Zealand apple exports had been able to enter India through six ports –Nhava Shiva, Chennai, Kolkata, Vizak, Kochin, and Tuticorin. He noted that this restriction was 
applied to apples only and that no other imported product appeared to be affected by port 
restrictions. He also thanked India for the bilateral discussions on the issue so far. On the other hand, he highlighted that questions remained, including how long these closures would remain in 
place, when a WTO notification would be provided, and the rationale for the decision to limit port 
access. He questioned India on the absence of such reasoning, and if this was not an issue for this 
Committee, as insisted by the Indian delegation, in which WTO Committee should the issue be considered. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 8 - 
 
  7.6.  The representative of Chile thanked the EU and the US for raising this issue, and his 
delegation joined the statements and concerns vo iced regarding India's policy. He indicated that 
Chile was concerned over the recently adopted measure because it limited Chilean apples' entry into India exclusively to the Nhava Sheva port. He  requested India to clarify the rationale behind 
the measure and the reasons for restricting entry to the one single port of Nhava Sheva. In 
addition, he asked India to explain under which WTO Agreement India claimed these rights, whether the measure was permanent or temporary, and how long it would last, highlighting that 
this information would be very helpful to Chilean industry. 
7.7.  The representative of Australia supported th e concerns raised by the European Union and the 
United States regarding the extent to which India had met its obligations under the Import 
Licensing Agreement and other WTO Agreements. He noted that the entry into force of India's new 
regulation restricted the importation of apples to the Nhava Sheva port from 14 September 2015. 
He pointed out that the movement of goods was already greatly restricted and that the new measure had been applied without notification to the Committee or consultation with other 
WTO trading partners. 
7.8.  In response, the representative of India stated that his delegation was of the view that  the 
policy in question did not fall under the category of "import licensing", and hence was not fit for 
discussion in this Committee. He recalled that the Committee on Import Licensing was established 
to afford Members the opportunity of consulting on any matters relating to the operation of the Import Licensing Agreement or the furtherance of its objectives. For the purpose of this 
Agreement, "import licensing" was defined as admini strative procedures used for the operation of 
import licensing regimes requiring the submission of an application or other documentation (other 
than that required for customs purposes) to the relevant administrative body as a prior condition for importation into the customs territory of the importing Member. 
7.9.  He argued that the policy in question did not ask for submission of any application or any 
other documentation for granting permission to import. No prior permission or license was required to import apples into India. The policy in question only specified the port through which 
the goods could enter the country, and the im port was "free", as clearly mentioned in 
DGFT's notification No. 21/2015-2020 of 14 September 2015. Therefore, his delegation held that the policy did not satisfy the definition of the term "import licensing" and thus the issue was not fit for discussion in this forum. 
7.10.  The representative of Australia asked the representative of India to clarify whether the 
Indian requirement that all imported apples be se nt to one port was an administrative procedure 
under the definition of "impor t licensing" of the Agreement? 
7.11.  In response, the representative of Indi a repeated his intervention and noted that the 
definition of import licensing referred to an import  licensing regime requiring the submission of an 
application or other documentation to the relevant administrative body as a prior condition for 
importation. However, there was no such requirement of submission of an application or other 
documentation in the recent amendment to India's import policy for apples. Hence the policy was 
not an "import licensing" policy. 
7.12.  He further elaborated on this issue and quoted some relevant provisions of the Agreement 
to clarify the scope of import licensing. For instance, Article 1.4(a) listed certain elements of 
import licensing that needed to be published,  such as "procedures for the submission of 
applications, including eligibility of persons, firms and institutions to make such applications, the 
administrative bodies to be approached, and the list of products subject to these requirements". 
Likewise, Articles 1.5 and 1.6 focused on application forms and application procedures. Article 1.6 further asked that applicants should be allowed a reasonable period of time for the submission of 
license applications. He pointed out that the Agreement also touched upon a number of issues 
relating to administration of licenses such as period of licence validity (Article 3.5(h)) and allocation of licence among importers (Article 3.5(j)). He held that these elements were clearly not there in the policy in question. The policy did no t stipulate submission of any application or any 
eligibility criteria of the applicant or any administrative bodies to be approached. Also, the policy 
did not deal with other requirements such as allocation of licences. As a result, the Indian delegation argued that the policy was not at all an  import licensing policy, and that this Committee 
was not the right forum to discuss the issue. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 9 - 
 
  7.13.  The representative of the European Union thanked India for its response and asked whether 
India could explain at today's meeting, what would happen to an importer if he wanted to import 
the concerned apples through another port? 
7.14.  The representative of India replied that he  was asked to respond to a question that did not 
fall under the jurisdiction of this Committee. He  indicated that when the policy clearly stipulated 
that the import was allowed only to Nhava Sheva port, there was no way in which importation could be through any other port except for Nhava Shev a, as stipulated in the policy. In this regard, 
he drew the attention of the Committee to WTO di spute case DS366 that dealt with the matter of 
port of entry. He argued that, in this case, there was no case of violation of any Import Licensing Agreement provisions, and that paragraph 7.226 of the Panel report mentioned that the port of 
entry specification was not an Import Licensing issue. 
7.15.  The representative of Australia inferred from  the responses by the delegate of India that no 
documents whatsoever were required to export apples to India. He argued that if documents were 
required, and he wanted this on the record, then everything that the representative of India said 
here could not be the case. Because everything he said hinged on the fact that there were no 
documents required to export apples to India. He asked India to answer whether there were any documents required for an exporter to send apples to India? 
7.16.  In response, the representative of India appreciated the supplementary questions from 
Australia and limited his answer to the extent that it was relevant for this Committee and the 
measure in question, notification No. 21/2015-20 20. He confirmed that this particular policy 
document did not add any additional requiremen t for the importation of apples into India. 
7.17.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
8  INDONESIA - IMPORT LICENSING REGIME  FOR CELL PHONES, HANDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 
8.2.  The representative of the United States stated that the U.S. continued to have serious 
concerns with Indonesia's import licensing regime and, in particular, with the import licensing 
requirements for cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets. His delegation continued to raise these concerns in this Committee in the hope that Indonesia would address them satisfactorily. 
8.3.  He observed that, through the licensing regi me, it seemed that the Indonesian Ministry of 
Industry was attempting to reduce import quantities to incentivize companies to submit plans for 
local manufacturing pursuant to Ministry of Trad e Regulation No. 38 of 2013. He understood that, 
starting next year, the Ministry of Trade would not issue import licenses to companies unless they 
had either a factory or design house in Indonesia.  The United States regarded this as disturbing, 
both in light of Indonesia's WTO commitments, and because it appeared to impose a local manufacturing requirement on licenses issued even  p r i o r  t o  t h e  a d o p t i o n  o f  M i n i s t r y  o f  T r a d e  
Regulation No. 38 in 2013. 
8.4.  He pointed out that, while Indonesia had maintained that these measures were for consumer 
protection purposes, there was no specific refe rence to improving the safety and welfare of 
consumers, and his delegation did not see how regulations that appeared to limit imports and 
require the establishment of local manufacturin g facilities necessarily protected consumers. 
8.5.  Furthermore, the United States understood that the Indonesian government was undertaking 
reforms under a series of Economic Policy Packages  and that the Ministry of Trade was considering 
revising many of its import licensing measures. This effort could include eliminating requirements 
for specialized product-specific import licences, for recommendations or approvals from multiple ministries, and for surveyors. The United Stat es understood that these would be positive 
developments, and wished that these reform efforts would extend to the measures that Members 
had raised in this Committee. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 10 - 
 
  8.6.  In this context, he asked if Indonesia could provide any additional specific information 
regarding these recent developments. He encouraged Indonesia to ensure that its import licensing requirements were consistent with the Import Licensing Agreement through its reconsideration of the measures at issue and to work with all stakehol ders as it amended existing regulations, and to 
notify measures to this Committee as required. 
8.7.  He emphasized that the relevant industry in this situation was very important to the United 
States and the global economy. The issues they  had raised today, and on multiple previous 
occasions, were quite serious. The import licens ing requirements at issue stood to distort trade 
and investment in an important and rapidly developing sector, and potentially undermine efforts to enhance market access opportunities for high technology products, as reflected in the WTO Information Technology Agreement, which promoted the facilitation of trade in information 
technology products. 
8.8.  The representative of Indonesia thanked the United States for their continued interest in 
Indonesia's import policy of cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets. He emphasized that this 
regulation was not intended to restrict imports, as  evidenced by the fact that there had been rapid 
growth of imports for these goods in 2013 and 2014, and the trend was continuing. Rather, as 
mentioned already in April's meeting, the reason behind the policy was merely to protect domestic 
consumers through, among other things, establishing after-sales service centres in Indonesia. As a 
large country, Indonesia needed service centres to  cover its large territory. He added that the 
importation of cell phones had been increasing every year. In 2014, mobile phone imports were the second largest imported product in Indonesia, with a value reaching US$3 billion. This was a 
significant increase from US$2.6 billion in 2013, with imports mainly coming from the 
United States, the European Union, China, Chinese Taipei, Japan, and Korea. 
8.9.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
9  INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMEN T FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 9.2.  The representative of the United States stated that the US had for quite some time been 
concerned with India's import licensing requirements  for boric acid, particularly with respect to the 
burdensome end-use certificates necessary for importation. They appreciated the additional 
information provided as to which central government entities could issue the end-use certificate 
necessary for import, and had found the information available on the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee website to be transparent and useful. 
9.3.  However, the U.S. continued to have questions on (1) the registration process for domestic 
producers; (2) the length of time for the approval process; and (3) the limited quantities that appeared to be approved for import. The U.S al so sought to better understand the treatment of 
domestic producers of boric acid to evaluate whether the controls India imposed on importers were 
similar to the treatment enjoyed by domestic producers of boric acid for insecticidal and non-insecticidal use. 
9.4.  While still having issues and questions on what they believed to be overly burdensome 
end-use certification requirements for the importation of boric acid, which impeded the exports of 
boric acid from the United States, the US. looked forward to continuing bilateral communications with India to resolve this issue. 
9.5.  In response, the representative of India thanked the United States for its continued interest 
in the matter of India's import policy relating to 'boric acid'. He noted that the issue had been 
raised in this Committee over a period of quite some time, and that India had already responded 
to all written questions received from Members. These replies were contained in 
WTO documents G/LIC/Q/IND/12 (dated 8 October 2008), G/LIC/Q/IND/14 (dated 30 September 2009), G/LIC/Q/IND/16 (dated 1 November 2010), and G/LIC/Q/IND/22 (dated 1 November 2012). He believed that these responses properly explained the policy objectives of 
the measure as well as issues relating to its implementation. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 11 - 
 
  9.6.  He also pointed out that, in the meeting of this Committee held on 29 October 2012, the 
delegation of the United States had expressed its de sire to take up the matter bilaterally with India 
and that since then the two capitals had been enga ged in bilateral consultations. In these bilateral 
meetings, the Indian side had responded to a ll the issues raised and supplied the documents 
requested. The issue was likely to be discussed again in the US-India Trade Policy Forum 
scheduled to take place on 28 and 29 October 2015. India hoped that these bilateral discussions would help address the concerns expressed on this subject. 
9.7.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
10  BANGLADESH – IMPORT LICENSING PROCEDURES – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED 
STATES 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 10.2.  The representative of the United States noted that their most recent questions to 
Bangladesh were circulated in February 2014 in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/5, and that his delegation 
had not yet received any response from Banglade sh. He emphasized that they had been raising 
this issue for quite some time in this Committee and in other fora. 
10.3.  The representative of Bangladesh thanked the U.S. for its continued concerns about 
Bangladesh's drug policies. He pointed out that the import of pharmaceutical products into the 
country was solely guided by Bangladesh's import, border, and drug policies. He clarified that this policy did not directly reflect any publishing of the Prime Minister's Directive of 1998. He emphasized that, like any other countries, restriction was a must for import and sale of drugs in 
Bangladesh. He also informed the Committee that there was a Standing Committee for the import 
of pharmaceutical products, consisting of the Mi nistry of Health and Family Welfare, and other 
agencies, and that that Committee accorded approval for the imports, sale, and production of 
drugs. There was no discrimination between local manufacturers and importers. Anyone who 
intended to produce, import, and sell drugs/medicines had to obtain such an approval. In this context, Bangladesh held that there was no inconsistency in the administration of the country's 
drug policy. He further noted that Bangladesh woul d take steps to submit its new written replies to 
the Questionnaire under Article 7.3. 
10.4.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
11  MEXICO – STEEL IMPORT LICENSING PROGRAM (G/LIC/Q/MEX/1) – STATEMENT BY 
THE UNITED STATES 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 
11.2.  The representative of the United States thanked Mexico for its continued cooperation to 
address US concerns relating to Mexico's import licensing requirements for steel products. He 
noted that the US continued to have concerns, particularly with the delays and additional costs 
that came as a result of needing to obtain a lice nse. In addition, most approvals still took longer 
than the time needed for transporting the goods fr om the mill to the border, and these delays had 
disrupted supply chains and imposed additional shipment/demurrage costs, as shipments had to remain at the border until licences were issued. 
11.3.  He highlighted that the US welcomed Mexico's efforts to establish an alternative scheme for 
steel import licensing and appreciated its continued cooperation to ensure that its licensing system was truly automatic and did not disrupt legitimate trade. His delegation hoped to continue their 
bilateral communications with Mexico to resolve the issue, and looked forward to Mexico's 
responses to their recently submitted questions. 
11.4.  The representative of Canada echoed the US and he stated that Canadian exporters 
continued to experience delays at the border that  r e s u l t e d  i n  a d d i t i o n a l  c o s t s .  I n  t h i s  r e g a r d ,  
Canada looked forward to continuing the discussion with Mexico to ensure its system operated automatically and that trade was not disrupted. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 12 - 
 
  11.5.  The representative of Mexico thanked the US and Canada for their interest in Mexico's 
import licensing program which had been notified in documents G/LIC/Q/MEX/2 and 
G/LIC/Q/MEX/4 (amendment). She indicated that si nce the first notification was published on the 
steel import regime, the Mexican government had opened a channel of communication and worked 
closely with interested parties in order to respon d to their comments and queries. This had led to 
improvements which had also been du ly notified to this Committee. 
11.6.  She informed the Committee that they had satisfactory bilateral cooperation with the US 
and Canada, and that her delegation was working to respond to the concerns that had been raised. 
She highlighted that Mexico was looking at an alternative mechanism to improve current licensing practice applied to steel, and that they were ready to work with any interested trading partner in this regard. 
11.7.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
12  VIET NAM – DISTILLED SPIRITS AND COMPLETENESS QUESTION (G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 
AND G/LIC/Q/VNM/6) – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES 
12.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 7 October 2015. 
12.2.  The representative of the United States thanked Viet Nam for its notification under Article 5 
in April 2015. He stated that the US remained interested in information regarding the broader 
product categories that appeared subject to impo rt licensing requirements based on Viet Nam's 
Trade Policy Review. Specifically, the US continued to have concerns relating to the import licensing requirements for distilled spirits, and th ey looked forward to receiving a complete written 
response to the questions raised in documents G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 and G/LIC/Q/VNM/6. He further 
noted that, despite the fact that the US had a productive bilateral discussion on this topic with Viet Nam and recognized the capacity issues that Viet Nam was facing, they continued to 
encourage Viet Nam to develop the necessary time and resources to respect these important 
obligations. 
12.3.  The representative of Viet Nam indicated th at his delegation took note of the US concerns 
and would send them to the capital for a reply as soon as possible. 
12.4.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
13  CHAIR'S REPORT ON THE INFORMAL CONSULTATION HELD ON 9 JULY 2015 
13.1.  The Chairperson reported to the Committee on the informal consultation she had held on 
Thursday, 9 July 2015 concerning the possibility of holding a workshop on Import Licensing 
notifications. Her statement is reproduced below: 
13.2.  For transparency, I would like to report to the Committee the informal consultation I held on 
Thursday, 9 July. I made clear in my opening remarks that the consultation was to provide an 
opportunity for interested Members to exchange views on the possibility of such a workshop, 
including the scope and timing of this event. Th e idea of organizing a workshop was discussed in 
this Committee in the context of how to improve transparency and compliance rate of notifications. 
I also pointed out that the informal consultation was convened in response to the call by our former Vice-Chair of the Committee (Mr Juha Ni emi of Finland), who suggested at the April 
Committee meeting this year that the new Chair should follow up on the idea of organizing a 
Geneva-based IL notification workshop for new delegates. 
13.3.  With regard to the content of the possible workshop, I shared some thoughts in order to get 
the discussion going. For example, I believed that it  would be useful for the Secretariat to give an 
overview of: (1) the notification requirements under this Agreement; (2) the status quo of 
Members' notifications and (3) the technical issues that the Secretariat encountered in processing notifications. I also suggested that Members co uld use the workshop to share their experiences 
and practices on how to carry out inter-agency coordination in collecting information for import 
licensing notifications. G/LIC/M/42 
 
- 13 - 
 
  13.4.  A number of Members who took the floor at the consultation supported the idea of 
organizing a workshop on notifications in Geneva so as to improve transparency and notification 
compliance under this Agreement. Some Members expressed interest in the workshop and were 
open to further discussions on details, i.e. the content and timing of the event. A few Members 
expressed the view that no decision had been taken by the Committee on the workshop and they 
could only respond after seeing concrete proposals from Members. After hearing all the interventions, my assessment was that (1) Members supported efforts to enhance transparency 
and improve the level of compliance of notifica tions under this Agreement; and (2) Members 
agreed to continue the discussion on the possibility of a workshop on the basis of written proposals from interested Members. In this context, I would revert to this issue at a later stage upon Members' requests. 
13.5.  The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
14  DRAFT REPORT (2015) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/45) 
14.1.  The Committee adopted the draft report (2015) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in 
Goods (G/LIC/W/45). The final report was issued as document G/L/1132. 
15  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 
15.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Thursday, 
14 April 2016, for the next meeting of the Commi ttee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings may be convened if necessary. 
15.2.  The Committee took note. 
__________