RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/43  
 
23 September  2016 
(16-5072) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 21 APRIL  2016  
CHAIRPERSON: M s. CARRIE I.  J. WU (CHINESE TAIPE I) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty -fourth  meeting on 21 April 2016 under the 
chairmanship of Ms  Carrie I.  J. WU (Chinese Taipei). The agenda propos ed for the meeting, 
circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/ 3, was duly adopted.  
 
Table of contents  
 
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   Questions from the European Union to Malaysia (G/LIC/Q/MYS/12)  ................................ ... 2 
2.2   Questions fro m the European Union to Morocco (G/LIC/Q/MAR/1)  ................................ ..... 3 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ..............  3 
3.2   Notifications under Ar ticle 5 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................ . 4 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  4 
4   INDONESIA - IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELL PHONES,  HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLET S - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ... 6 
5   BRAZIL - REGULATORY REQUIREME NTS FOR IMPORTS OF N ITROCELLULOSE 
INTO BRAZIL - STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  ................................ ....................  7 
6   INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT FOR BORIC A CID – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 
7   BANGLADESH  – IMPORT LICENSING PRO CEDURES  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
8   MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM (G/LIC/Q/ MEX/1)  –
 STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
9   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  .........  10 
10   IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE 
AGREE MENT – REPORT OF THE CHAIR ON THE INFORMAL CONS ULTATIONS 
HELD ON 16  FEBRUARY AND 5  APRIL  2016  ................................ ................................ .... 10 
11   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ..................  13 
12   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  13 
 
 G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  MEM BERS' COMPLIANCE WIT H NOTIFICATION OBLIG ATIONS  – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that  a total of 34  notifications had been received  
since the last meeting, and that 33 of these had been  listed for consideration , including : 
7 notifications under Article  1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b); 6  under Article  5; and 20  notifications under 
Article  7.3. A notification under Article  7.3 (Lesotho) was under preparation and would be 
considered at the next formal Committee meeting . 
1.2.  She poin ted out that , as of  21 April 2016, 16 Members  (including two  recently acceded 
Members) had not yet submitted any notification under any provision of the Agreement; 
28 Members had not yet submitted any N/1  notifications concerning their laws and regulations  as 
well as the sources of information under Article s 1.4(a) and 8.2(b); and 2 5 Members had as yet 
not submitted replies to the questionnaire under Article  7.3. For the sake of transparency, she 
urged these Members to submit their notifications as soon as possible.  
1.3.  On a separate note, she congratulated the Republic of Seychelles for submitting its 
first notification to this Committee since its WTO  Accession on 26  April 2015 
(document  G/LIC/N/3/SYC/1 ). Furthermore, she noted that Tajikistan had submitted its  
first N/1 notification , based on its N/3  notification, with the technical assistance of the Secretariat  
(document  G/LIC/N/1/TJK/1 ). In this regard, she encouraged Members in a similar situation 
(i.e. those who had completed the annual questionnaire but had not yet notified their domestic 
legislations under Article  8.2(b) and G/LIC/3 ) to approach the Secretariat for technical assistance.  
1.4.  In this context, she brought Members' attention to the following: (1)  Members that did not 
apply import licensing procedu res 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 Members that 
instituted licensing procedures or changes in these procedures to notify the Committee of suc h 
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.  She u rged Members to respect these 
timeline s in the fulfilment of their notification obligations.  
1.5.  She informed the Committee that, in order to improve transparency and streamline 
notification procedures under this Agreement, she had held two  informal consultati ons since the 
last Committee meeting and she would report on these consultations under Agenda Item 10. 
1.6.  No comment was made. The Committee took note  of the statement made . 
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
2.1  Questions from the European Union to Malaysia (G/LIC/Q/M YS/12) 
2.1.  The representative of the European Union  thank ed Malaysia for it s notification circulated on 
10 March and sought additional clarifications , as circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/12 , 
including : (1) with refere nce to the procedures applicable to the importation of 'Plant and Planting 
Material', where the EU  wanted  to understand what were the count ries in the 'American Tropics' 
and whether there existed a detailed list of those countries. Furthermore, the EU  asked Malaysia to 
provide further and detailed information as to  the administrative body in charge of the Pest Risk 
Analysis (PRA ); (2) with reference to the procedures applicable to the importations of animal and 
animal products, the EU  also sought clarificat ion as to who wa s authorized to issue the required 
halal certificates and w hy halal certificates were required for the imp ort of animal products not for 
human consumption ; (3) with reference to the procedures applicable to rice, the EU  asked by 
whom the Ap proval Permit had been issued, and what we re the conditions to be fulfilled for being 
a 'holder of the Rice Importers Licence ; (4) the EU requested additional clarification with regard to  
procedures for the importation of round cabbage and unroasted green beans ; (5) the 
EU questioned why the importers of logs and wood were requested to be domiciled in  peninsular 
Malaysia and Sabah , what the purpose was behind the licensing requirement for importers of logs 
and timber, and how the i mport permit requirement w ould fulfil  this purpose.  The EU  looked 
forward to receiving written replies to their  questions.  G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2.  In response, t he representative of Malaysia  thanked the EU delegation for its statement and 
for the written questions submitted in document  G/LIC/Q/MYS/12. He explained that , because the 
questions were received only last week and cover ed a broad range of products, his capital would 
need some time  for internal coordination among various ministries and government agencies in 
order to respond. He pointed out that prior to the meeting Malaysia had already shared with the 
EU its initial responses to some of the EU's questions. He undertook to keep the EU  and other 
Members updated through a written response soon to be submitted to the Committee and 
encouraged intereste d Members to engage bilaterally with Malaysia on any issue regarding 
Malaysia's licensing regime.  
2.3.  The representative of Australia  thanked Malaysia for its notification and expressed support for 
the questions raised by the EU  given that  Australia's  own concerns were similar . He noted that 
Australia had particular concerns with  regard to  Malaysia's IL  procedures for refined sugar. He 
requested clarification and confirmation from Malaysia of the following: (1)  whether it was indeed 
the case that only domestic traders  in Malaysia ha d been allocated IL for refined sugar  in recent 
years ; and (2) taking into account that sugar did not appear in Malaysia's recent IL  notification , 
and that refined sugar had appeared as a product subject to automatic licensing, could Malaysia 
advise if this wa s indeed the case and whether  refined sugar wa s no longer subject to automatic 
licensing.  Australia would submit these questions in writing and discuss these issues with Malaysia 
bilaterally . 
2.4.  The Committee took note  of the stateme nts made.  
2.2  Questions from the European Union to Morocco (G/LIC/Q/MAR/1)  
2.5.  The representative of the European Union  drew attention to the fact that Morocco ha d not 
submitted a notification  under this Agreement since 2009 . She encourage d Morocco at least to 
submit, without further delay, the replies to the annual questionnaire in accordance with 
Article  7.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement . 
2.6.  She pointed out that the EU, in its written questions, had sought clarification on the Notes to 
Importers No s. 3/2015 and No. 4/2015 regarding the importation of certain arms and gear wheels. 
The EU  was disappointed that no information ha d been published in advance , nor notified to the 
incumbents , and asked Morocco  to provide  more information on the import procedure for these  
two products, clarifying in particular: (1) how long in advance the import licence applications could 
be lodged ; (2)  the administrative bodies which would examine these licences and those which 
would  provide the final agreement ; (3) under what circumstan ces these licences could be rejected ; 
(4) whether the licences were subject to a licence or an administrative fee? If yes, what  was the 
amount ; (5) whether the p eriod of validity of a licence wa s the same for all products, namely, 
6 months , as described in  the import procedure of the Ministry . 
2.7.  Furthermore, t he EU  requested additional clarification with regard to the provisions contain ed 
in chapters  II and III of Morocco's  new law on external trade, Law No . 91/2014. The 
representative of the EU  argued that , since the new law introduced  new conditions under which 
import operations were  carried out, the EU  wanted  to know when Morocco would  notify this law 
and the relevant implementing regulations  to the WTO . Pending detailed clarification from 
Morocco, the EU  would assess  the compatibility of the provisio ns contained in chapters  II and  III of 
this law with Articles  XI and XX of GATT and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  She 
looked forward to receiving replies from Morocco soon.  
2.8.  The Committee took not e 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 seven  N/1 notifications were reviewed: Bolivia (G/LIC/N/1/BOL/2); the Russian 
Federation (G/LIC/N /1/RUS/ 7; G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 8; G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 9; G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 10; and 
G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 11) and Tajikistan (G/LIC/N/1/TJK /1). 
3.2.  The Committee took note  of the submissions.  G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.2  Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.3.  The following six N/2 notifications were reviewed: Argentina  (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27); Indonesia 
(G/LIC/N/2/IDN/29 ; G/LIC/N/2/IDN/ 30; and G/LIC/N/2/IDN/ 31); Jamaica (G/LIC/N/2/JAM/3) ; 
and the Russian Federation (G/LIC/N/2/RUS/2).  
3.4.  On Indonesia' s notification  G/LIC/N/2/IDN/30, t he representative of the European Union  
thank ed Indonesia and requested  additional clarification regarding forestry products . She noted 
that t he notification refer red to Regulation of  the Minister of Trade No.  63/M-DAG/PER/8/2015 , 
dated 18  August  2015, concerning the Second  Amendment of the Regulation of the Minister of 
Trade No.  78/M-DAG/PER/2014 , which entere d into effect on 1  January  2016, and which Indonesia 
had declare d an automatic procedure.  She pointed out , however, that since the entry into force of 
the new procedures, the EU  was aware of several containers of fores try prod ucts of EU  companies 
stuck at customs due to clearing problems. In particular, in terms of the definition of products, 
there appear ed to be some internal co -ordination issues between the Ministry of Trade, the 
Ministry of Forestry, the Ministry of Finance , and Customs. Furthermore, the period of validity of 
the certificates wa s limited and the online system intro duced for uploading documents was 
reported not to work efficiently. In this context, she asked Indonesia: (1)  to present the measures 
envisaged for  resolving the problems  described ; (2) to clarify why, in the notification, the import 
scheme for forestry products ha d been declared an 'automatic procedure' ; and (3) to demonstrate 
its compliance with Article  2 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
3.5.  On n otification  G/LIC/N/2/IDN/31, the representative of the European Union  noted that 
Indonesia had informed Members of certain changes to its licensing procedures for telecom s 
products , notifying the "Regulation of the Minister of Communication and Information Te chnology 
No. 27 of 7  July 2015 Concerning Technical Requirements for Equipment and/or any 
Telecommunication Devices Based on Long -Term Evolution Technology".  She observed that , 
according to the notification, Regulation  No. 27/2015, which entered into effec t on 8  July 2015, 
qualifie d as a non -automatic import -licensing scheme. She asked Indonesia:  (1) to clarify why this 
regulation ha d not been included in the annual notification submitted in accordance with Article  7.3 
of the Import Licensing Agreement and referred to 2015 ; (2) to describe all provisions set out in 
the regulation, in addition to their import licensing aspects (see item on G/LIC/N/3/IDN/9 ); and 
(3) to clarify the linkages between Regulation No . 27 and Regulations Nos. 38 and 108 [item  4 of 
the agenda] , with reference in particular to the scope of each regulation . 
3.6.  On notification  G/LIC/N/2/IDN/29 , the representative of the European Union  welcomed the 
notification  concerning  Regulation of the Minister of Tra de No.  78/M-DAG/PER/9/2015 of 
28 Septe mber 2015, which repeal ed Minister of Trade Regulation No.  45/M-DAG/PER/6/2015 on 
importation of tyres , and asked Indonesia to confirm  that Regulation No. 40/2011 applied  to the 
imports of tyres and that no additional import requirements also applied. 
3.7.  The representative of the Russian Federation  asked Indonesia to clarify whether its procedure 
on the importation of tyres was automatic or non -automatic , as such information was not 
mentioned in notification  G/LIC/N/2/IDN/29.  
3.8.  In response, the representative of  Indonesia  thanked the EU and the Russian Federation for 
their questions regarding Indonesia's import policies . He pointed out that , following the 
deregulation package of 9 September  2015, Indonesia ha d terminated/revoked the Ministry of 
Trade (M OT) Regula tion No.  45 of 2015. In this regard, importation of tyres was being regulated 
under the previous  regulation , which wa s MOT No.  40 of 2011 concerning technical verification 
before loading at port.  The purpose of such regulation was  to ensure that the qualit y of imported 
tyres correspond ed to the safety regulation in force in Indonesia.  He invite d the European Union to 
address their concerns in writing so that he  could convey them to Capita l and subsequently 
provide proper responses.  
3.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements  made.  
3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.10.   The Chairperson  thanked those Members who had  explicitly indicate d the year  on their 
submissions to identify to which specific year the notification referred. On behalf of the Secretar iat, G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 5 - 
 
  she noted that this significantly helped  the Secretariat in its preparation of more accurate 
statistics. For instance, the Committee could now see that, among th e 20 notifications under 
review:  13 were for 2015; three  for 20 14; one for 2013; one for 2 016; one covered  
three  consecutive years ( 2014, 2015 and 2016); and one notification did not specify the year. She 
encouraged all Members to submit their notifications  as requested.  
3.11.   The following twenty  N/3 notifications were reviewed at the meeting:  Austr alia 
(G/LIC/N/3/AUS/8); Canada (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/14); Colombia (G/LIC/N/3/COL/11); Costa Rica 
(G/LIC/N/3/CRI/12); Dominican Republic (G/LIC/N/3/DOM/8); India (G/LIC/N/3/IND/15); 
Indonesia (G/LIC/N/3/IDN /8; G/LIC/N/3/IDN/ 9; G/LIC/N/3/IDN/ 10); Republic of Korea  
(G/LIC/N/3/KOR/11); Jamaica (G/LIC/N/3/JAM/5); the State of Kuwait (G/LIC/N/3/KWT/5); 
Malaysia (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/11); Mali ( G/LIC/N/3/MLI/7);  the Russian Federation 
(G/LIC /N/3/RUS/2/Rev.1); Seychelles ( G/LIC/N/3/SYC/1); Singapore (G/LIC/N/3/SGP/11); 
Switzerl and (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/11)  and Uruguay ( G/LIC/N/3/URY/8 and G/LIC/N/3/URY/ 9). 
3.12.   On Indonesia's notifications (G/LIC/N/3/IDN/8 -10), t he representative of the European 
Union  acknowledge d and appreciated Indonesia's efforts to catch up on its outstanding 
notificati ons. Nevertheless, the EU  believed that additional efforts were  still needed, in particular 
with reference to the annual notifications submitted in accordance with Article 7.3 of the 
Agreement.  She noted that , according to the notification referring to 201 5 (G/LIC /N/3/IDN/10), 
Indonesia declared  that no changes had occurred compar ed to its previous notification, except that 
the changes in the import regulation of tyres, sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) , cloves , and wheat 
flour had all been revoked; in addition , there had been an introduction of automatic import 
licensing of complementary goods, market testing goods, and after sales s ervices , as well as an 
introduction of non -automatic import licensing of textile and t extile products of b atik and batik 
patterns.  
3.13.   In this context, and as already mentioned under th e previous item, the EU  wanted  to 
understand why Indonesia had  not included in the 2015  notifica tion all information on the 
non-automatic scheme applicable to telecommunication devices . The EU  urged Indone sia to 
complete the notification , including all elements set out in Regulation No . 27 of 7  July 2015, as 
well as other parts of the legislation applicable to imports of the same domain, notably 
Regulations  Nos. 38 an d 108. W ith regar d to batik products, th e EU did not share Indonesia's view 
but rather consider ed the relevant importation procedures as a non -automatic scheme. She 
highlighted that EU  companies were  experiencing difficulties as a result of Indonesia not yet 
having issued any clear measures or g uidance on the coverage of the regulation. Furthermore, 
there still seem ed to be a problem over the identification of the exact HS  codes covered by the 
regulation. The EU invite d Indonesia to issue clear regulations for the importation of batik products 
and to fulfil its notification obligations by submitting amend ed and complete replies to the Annual 
Questionnaire.  
3.14.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  appreciated the concerns of the EU with regard 
to its import policy as noti fied in documents  G/LIC /N/3/IDN/ 8, G/LIC/N/3/IDN/ 9, and 
G/LIC/N/3/IDN/ 10. He stated that they had not received any instruction from capital on this 
matter and requested the EU  to address its  questions in writing so as to receive a full and proper 
response . 
3.15.   The Secretariat  made t wo technical observations :  first, the  Secretariat advised Members 
not to submit several years of N/3  notifications  altogether  in one submission,  even if the contents 
were the same ; and second, the  Secretariat pointed out that it was not advisable for any newly 
acceded Member to use a document submitted for accession as an official notification under this 
Committee without proper adjustment. The S ecretariat wa s ready to provide technical assistance 
to Members  concerned  in this regard.  
3.16.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked the Secretariat for its technical support in preparing 
notifications  G/LIC/N/3/URY/8 and G/LIC/N/3/URY/ 9. 
3.17.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  INDONESIA - IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELL PHONES,  HANDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
4.1.  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 8 April 2016. 
4.2.  The representative of the United States  stated that the US  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 ho pe that Indonesia would address them satisfactorily.  
4.3.  He recalled that , since the last meeting of the Committee, Indonesia's Ministry of Trade had 
issued a draft amendment to the import licensing requirements of the products in question, and 
the US  had requested an update on its status. He indicated that when the US had heard that 
Indonesia was going to revise its import licensing requirements for these products, his government 
had hoped that Indonesia was going also to address many of the concerns that the US had raised 
in this Committee and elsewhere. Unfortunately this did not appear to be the case notwithstanding 
public  statements, including from the most senior levels of government  that Indonesia wanted to 
improve its business and investment climate so as to make it a more attractive place to do 
business . Unfortunately this did not appear to be the case. Indeed, his government regretted to 
see that the draft amendment appeared to maintain those elements not conducive to a welcoming 
business environment an d of most concern to the US . 
4.4.  For example , the United States  understood  that the amendment would replace the current 
requirement , to "establish an industry within 3  years" , with a requirement that applicants receive a 
recommendation from the Ministry of Ind ustry and Ministry of Communication and Informa tion 
Technology confirming that they had met the local content requirements as adopted last year. He 
argued that if this were the case it would be disappointing and disturbing in terms both of 
Indonesia's WTO  commitments and the potential impact on trade. His delegation  requested  
Indonesia to explain this specific aspect of the draft amendment.  
4.5.  He further pointed out that , while Indonesia maintained that these measures were for 
consumer protection, the US  did n ot understand how regulations that appeared to have been 
designed to limit imports , and that require d the use of local content, could protect consumers. He 
further noted that some companies had already been denied import licences on the basis of these 
localization requirements. He urged Indonesia to revise its regulations in a manner that addressed 
the US concerns, as well as those of the  private sector.  
4.6.  The representative of the United States  highlighted that the industry in question  was very 
important to the United States and to the glob al economy. The issues were serious. The import 
licensing requirements at issue stood to distort trade and investment in an important and rapidly 
developing sector . In addition, they potentially undermined efforts to enhanc e market access 
opportunities for high technology products, as reflected in the WTO  Information Technology 
Agreement  and its promotion of  the facilitation of trade in IT  products.  
4.7.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted that, a s a major export ing Member  of IT products, 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ha d great commercial 
interest in IT  industries, especially in cell phones, handheld computers , and tablets , which were  all 
subject to Indonesia' s import licensing regime. His delegation  share d the same concern as the 
United States in this regard.  
4.8.  He noticed that  at the Committee's previous  meeting the delegation of Indonesia had 
emphasized that  there had been an increase in import s of cell phone s to Indonesia from 2013 to 
2014, and that Indonesia had used this information to defend its claim that its import licensing 
regime had had no negative impact on trade. However, his delegation was not convinced by th e 
statement and believe d that real negative impact would  become appare nt this year  because the 
Indonesia n government had now stopped issuing  import licenses to those companies without 
factories or design houses in Indonesia. He further argued that , according to TPKM's  customs 
export data, Indonesia' s argument with regard to increase s in import s to Indone sia, within the 
same period, were  not valid in the case of  handheld computers and t ablets. He indicated that the 
Separate Customs Territory of TPKM had exported over 2000  sets of handheld computers to G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Indonesia in 2012 ; howeve r, fewer than 300  sets of handheld computers were exported last year. 
Exports of these goods  to Indonesia had decreased by more than 80% ov er the 3-year period. 
Therefore, his delegation  urged Indonesia to re -examine and  ensure that its measures were fully 
consistent with the WTO non -discrimination principle and the Import Licensing Agreement.  
4.9.  In response, the representative of Indonesia  took note of Members' interests in its policies 
regarding cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets.  He argued that the policies that were 
being applied at the moment wer e solely intended to protect huge number s of Indonesian 
consumer s. The number of cellphone  import s into Indonesia continued to increas e steadily , and by 
up to 1 7.5%. The value of such import s was estimated  at around 2,4  billion USD , including  import s 
from the US, the EU, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea,  and certain other Members , and the trend 
continued on a yearly basis. He  assure d Members that Indonesia's  intention had never been to 
prohibit import s in this sector based on  the high volume  of import s, or outcome. However, h e 
noted that, since there wa s a huge demand for cellphones within Indonesia , the Government 
needed  to ensure the safety of users ; it was in this context that such a regulation on importation  
of cellphones, handheld computers , and tablets , had been issued.  Indonesia had also want ed to be 
sure of the commitments undertaken by producers of cellphones, handheld computers , and 
tablets , with  regard  to provision of after -sales service and security o f data transfer.  Finally, he 
expressed Indonesia's willingness to engage in further discussion with the US and Chinese Taipei 
and to this end requested written questions from these Members . 
4.10.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  BRAZIL - REGULATOR Y REQUIREMENTS FOR I MPORTS OF NITROCELLU LOSE INTO 
BRAZIL - STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  
5.1.  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  8 April 2016. 
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU  position that the import licensing 
procedures for nitrocellulose for industrial purposes in Brazil represent ed a de facto ban and 
regret ted that the situation for EU  exporters of industrial nitrocell ulose ha d not changed.  In 
particular, the EU  reiterate d that, in its view , the non -automatic licensing regime established by 
Brazil was not a legitimate instrument by which to regulate the trade and use of this product for 
commercial purposes.  
5.3.  She noted th at, as mentioned in previous meetings of this Committee, industrial 
nitrocellulose wa s used for commercial purposes only, such as applications like printing inks, wood 
lacquer , or nail varnish. Industrial nitrocellulose with a content of less than 12.5% of  nitrogen wa s 
a different product than nitrocellulose used for military purposes , which generally ha d a nitrogen 
content of above 12.5%. Taking into account that Brazil wa s importing nitrocellulose for military 
purposes at a cost of about twice that of  industrial nitrocellulose, she argued that c onsequently 
Brazil had already acknowledge d that nitrocellulose for in dustrial and military purposes we re 
different products.  
5.4.  She emphasized that, except for only limited import duties, the EU  applie d no restriction s on 
imports of industrial nitrocellulose. Therefore, the Brazilian producer of nitrocellulose benefit ted as 
a monopolist supplier f rom the closed local market , as well as  from the open EU  market , and this 
resulted in discrimination  against EU  competitors.  
5.5.  The EU  remain ed of the view that Brazil had failed to comply with the Agreement on Import 
Licensing. Therefore, her delegation  once again urged Brazil immediately to allow import ation of 
industrial nitrocellulose without restrictions and notably to remove  the import licencing 
requirement so as  to allow reciprocal market access , as per the EU 's  request at the Council for 
Trade in Goods (CTG) of 10  November  2015.  
5.6.  The representative of Brazil  stated that his delegation had taken  note o f the EU  statement. 
He pointed out that , since this wa s not the first time the issue had appeared before the 
Committee, Brazil would like to refer to its statements delivered at previous occasions and the 
information already provided both at plenary meetings and in writing  on the subject , namely 
document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/19 of 7  November  2014 in reply to questions submitted by the EU. He G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 8 - 
 
  argued that t hese replies clearly establish ed that the measures adopted by Brazil on the import of 
nitrocellulose  were in conformity with Brazil's WTO obligations , and specifically the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures . He further indicated that Brazil had  engaged 
bilaterally with the EU  on this issue in the context of the Brazil -EU Economic and Trade 
Sub-Commission , where similar informatio n had been provided to the EU . 
5.7.  He noted that, regardless of its nitrogen content or final applications, nitrocellulose  was a 
notoriously hazardous substance, and subject to controls all over the world , including Brazil. The 
risks posed by nitrocellulose to  public safety and national security were  uncontroversial. It wa s a 
highly inflammable material that could  be ignited by flame, heat, fricti on, spark s, or static 
electricity. It  could also be used in illegal activity in the absence of adequate controls. In cidents 
involving nitrocellulose were not unheard of, even where security precautions had been  duly taken. 
Two examples that received  media coverage were an explosion of nitrocellulose in a paint factory 
in Jordan in 2011 an d, more recently , explosions in storage containers of nitrocellulose in China in 
2015. Nitrocellulose  was reported ly also employed in certain criminal activities , such as 
ATM robberies. He informed Members that , in Brazil,  strict surveillance and monitoring measures 
on manufacturing, utilization , transport, acquisition , and storage of nitrocellulose , which include d 
registration and inspection , were established in Executive D egree  3665/ 2000, and were applicable 
indiscriminately to both domestically manufactured and imported nitrocellulose . 
5.8.  The representative of Brazil emphasized that, in view of these safe ty and security concerns , 
and Brazil's  rights under the WTO , his delegation  reaffirm ed that non-automatic import licensing 
procedures  taken by Brazil were legitimate instrument s to regulat e the commerce and use of 
nitrocellulose regardless of its nitrogen concentration.  Considering that , since 2014, Brazil ha d not 
received new or additional questions from either the EU  or other Members on this issue, Brazil saw 
no reason for the item t o be kept on the agenda of the C ommittee.  
5.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT FOR BORIC A CID – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
6.1.  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 8 April 2016. 
6.2.  The representative of the United States  stated that for quite some time the US  had been 
concerned with India' s import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respe ct to the 
burdensome end-use certificates necessary for importation. He noted that  they had  been raising 
this issue in the Committ ee since 2008, and that the issue had been on their  bilateral agenda for 
much longer. He reiterated that India' s requirements had the effect of limiting the importation of 
non-insecticidal boric acid by Indian traders by requiring the importer to provide details of the 
precise end use of the product prior to im portation. This information was subject to a formal 
government review process, and only a specific quantity of boric acid c ould be approved for im port 
under each transaction.  He argued that m ost Indian traders d id not know the end use when they 
import ed the product as their business model was to maintain inventories to sell to end users ; 
thus, the pool of importers of non -insecticidal bori c acid in India was  greatly reduced.  
6.3.  The US  representative noted that t he approval process, app lied to imports of boric acid, wa s 
vigorously enforced. However, from what they had been told b y India, there wa s no similar 
oversight for the sale of domestic boric acid. Domestic manuf acturers of boric acid did  not have to 
seek approval from a government ministry to sell the ir product, and producers did  not have to 
determine the end use of the bor ic acid prior to its sale. Domestic producers c ould sell to any 
buyer and , further, face no quantitative limitations as to  how much they s old. 
6.4.  He recalled that , during India' s last TPR, his delegation  had been informed by India that 
"[D]omestic manufacture rs, who wish to manufacture and sell boric a cid for non -insecticidal 
purposes are required to submit production and sale particulars to the Registration Committee in 
the prescribed [form]. " The US had repeatedly requested to see data that demonstrate d that  
domestic manufacturers were  fulfilling this requirement and that the government was enforcing it. 
Again, t he US  request ed India to submit data demonstrati ng that similar requirements were  placed 
on domestic manufacturers of boric acid as we re applied to i mports.  G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 9 - 
 
  6.5.  If India did  not place similar requirements on domestic manufacturers of boric acid, the 
US delegation request ed that India eliminate its burdensome import licensing requirements on 
imports of boric acid. In addition, his delegation took  note that , during India's TPR, India cited the 
Insecticides Act of 1968 as the legislative authority for its import licensing of boric acid. The 
US encourage d India to review and update ‎its almost 50  year-old rules to provide clarity for boric 
acid importers and me rchants, both Indian and foreign.  
6.6.  The representative of India thanked the US for its continued interest in India's import policy 
on boric acid. In this regard,  he noted that there had been no further updates since the last 
meeting of this Committee. Intere sted Members could therefore refer to India's statement on this 
subject made at the previous meet ing, held on 28  October  2015. His delegation believe d that India 
had responded to all written q uestions received from Members and that a bilateral engagement 
between the two  capitals had also been undertaken to address the se concerns.  
6.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  BANGLADESH  – IMPORT LICENSING PRO CEDURES  – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED 
STATES  
7.1.  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  8 April 2016. 
7.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that their most recent questions to Bangladesh 
had been circulated in February  2014 in document  G/LIC/Q/BGD /5, and that his delegation had 
not yet received any response from Bangladesh. He emphasized that they had been raising this 
issue for quite some time , in this C ommittee and in other fora, and that they looked forward to 
receiving a response as soon as pos sible.  
7.3.  The representative of the European Union  associate d themselves with the concerns and 
questions raised by the US. She pointed out that Bangladesh' s last annual response to the 
"Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures " under Article  7.3 of the Ag reement was circulated 
on 2 October  2007, over eight years ago. While Bangladesh 's Import Policy Order 2015 -18 wa s 
based on the pr inciple that no import license wa s required, the EU  consider ed that in fact there 
were a number of products requir ing an impor t licence,  and should therefore be notified under 
applicable notifications and reporting under the Agreement on Import Licensing. In this context, 
the EU  asked Bangladesh to indicate  when it would provide a new response to  the questionnaire to  
this Committ ee, as required b y Article  7.3 of the Agreement.  
7.4.  In addition, she noted that , with regard to pharmaceuticals, the Import Policy Order  2015-18 
stated that specified medicines could  only be imported if approved by the Drug Regulatory 
Authority. In that respe ct, it seem ed to the EU  that such approval wa s not issued when a similar 
product already existed on the market . Furthermore, where a product wa s not yet on the market 
in Bangladesh, in orde r to obtain approval it had to be made  available through local manu facturing 
or through a local manufacturer.  Thus, t he EU  consider ed that these import req uirements for 
pharmaceuticals wer e not in compliance with Article  1.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement , and 
request ed Bangladesh to take the necessary steps to remove them.  
7.5.  In response, t he representative of Bangladesh  acknowledged that there had been a delay in 
the submission of the notification , and informed the Committee that their Capital was now in the 
process of preparing the notification and would submit it upon receipt. At the same time, his 
delegation had requested the EU  to submit their concern in writing  so that they could transmit it to 
Capital.  
7.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM (G/LIC/Q/ MEX/1)  – 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 8 April 2016. G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 10 - 
 
  8.2.  The representative of the United States  thanked Mexico for its continued cooperation in 
address ing US concerns relating to Mexico's import licensing requirements for steel products. The 
US continued to have concerns, in particular over the delays and additional costs that c ame as a 
result of needing to obtain a licence. He poin ted out that most approvals still took longer than the 
time needed for transporting the goods themselves from the mill to the border. These delays had 
disrupted supply chains and imposed additional shipment/demurrage costs as shipments had to  
remain at the  border until the relevant licences were issued. That said, he 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. He hoped to continue bilateral communications with Mexico to resolve the issue , and looked 
forward to Mexico's responses to their recently submitted questions.  
8.3.  As they had done at previous meetings, t he representative of Canada echoed the concerns 
raised by the US. Canada welcomed the efforts that Mexico had so far undertaken to develop 
alternative import procedures ; nevertheless, his delegation continued to have concerns and looked 
forward to working with Mexico to address th em. 
8.4.  The representative of Mexico  emphasized  that his authorities were in communication with 
their counterparts and reiterated that there had been major improvements in the response time 
for automatic licensing within the scheme. Once again, he confirmed th at this channel of 
communication would remain open in order to deal with the concerns raised by Members until a 
mutually satisfactory solution was found. He further pointed out that his capital was working on 
replies to the questions raised by the US, and that these would be circulated soon.  
8.5.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  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  
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  8 April 2016. 
9.2.  The representative of the United States  thanked Viet Nam for its notification in April  2015 
under Article  5. He stated that the US  remained inte rested in receiving information regarding the 
broader product categories that appeared to be subject to import 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 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 the US  had had a productive bilateral discussi on with Viet  Nam on th is topic, 
and recognized the capacity issues that Viet Nam was facing ; nevertheless, they continued to 
encourage Viet Nam to devote  the time and resources necessary to meet these important 
obligations.  
9.3.  The representative of Viet Nam  indicated that his dele gation had taken  note of the 
US concerns and would send them to the capital for a reply as soon as possible.  
9.4.  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 INF ORMAL CONSULTATIONS HELD ON 16  FEBRUARY AND 
5 APRIL  2016  
10.1.   The Chairperson  reported to the Committee on the informal consultation s that she had held 
on 16 February and 5  April respectively . She noted that , at the February meeting, the Secretariat 
had given a presentation on "Notifications under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures", 
which was circulated as Room Document  RD/LIC/6. In that presentation, the Secretariat gave an 
introduction to the history of the Agreement, to Members' notification obliga tions, as well as to the 
current status of notifications to the Committee. In particular, the Secretariat highlighted 
six issues encountered in the processing of notifications, namely : (1)  low compliance rate; 
(2) delays in submission of notifications;  (3) overlapping of notification requirements in different 
provisions; (4)  unclear terms; (5)  incomplete submissions ; and (6)  discrepancies between G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 11 - 
 
  information in the relevant part of a Member's TPR  report and its submission in the Committee. 
The Secretariat a lso listed some possible options with regard to how best to address these issues , 
and sought Members' guidance.  
10.2.   She highlighted that the Secretariat's presentation was welcomed by Members  and, as a 
follow -up, another informal meeting  was held  on 5 April t o hear Members' feedback on the issues 
outlined. The discussion and main points expressed were summarized as follow s. 
10.3.   On Low Compliance Rate , there was a shared view that this was an important issue which 
should be addressed with concrete action. Several M embers mentioned targeted technical 
assistance from the Secretariat and were open to the idea of organizing regional workshops for 
those Members in need of such assistance; they believed that such workshops would be beneficial. 
One Member cautioned that th e workshop should only serve as a capacity -building exercise and be  
technical in nature and without prejudice to the existing policies and practices of individual 
Member s; nor should it be fed into the formal Committee meeting. Another Member suggested 
that Members participating in these workshops should work closely with the Secretariat on their 
pending notifications , and be ready to provide update s on relevant  import licensing information. 
Another Member questioned the value of having a workshop before th e notification templates 
themselves had been updated, revised, and improved.  
10.4.   Regarding  the issues of  overlapping notification requirements in different provisions and 
delays in submission , most Members were open to discuss notification requirements that were 
duplicative. Several Members highlighted the importance of reviewing the current three  types of 
notifications , and to re -organizing the existing notification templates in a more systematic and 
logical way. One  Member argued that the current template s should first be tried and tested to the 
fullest extent possible, and did not see merit in re -designing the template format . One  Member 
suggested that the Secretariat prepare a note on all such overlapping areas for further action by 
Members.  
10.5.   On the issue of  whether or not the frequency of N/3  notification s should be reduced , some 
Members were in favour of reducing the frequency provided that the notification  forms were 
rationalized and re -organized in a more systematic way ; others remained unconvinced by the 
argument that  reducing notification frequency would improve compliance rate . It was clearly  an 
issue to be further discussed.  
10.6.   On how to address the issue of different interpretations of certain "terms" , one  Member 
suggested that a notification guide, i.e.  an update of the Technical Cooperation Handbook on 
Notification Requirements could be envisaged. Another Member requested the Secretariat to make 
a list of all such te rms and to elaborate on the various different ways in which they  were 
interpreted.  
10.7.   On the  discrepancy between TPR reports and import licensing notification s, some Members 
viewed this as a systemic issue. Ideas were put forward as possible ways to resolve this problem, 
including  enhancing internal coordination in the Secretariat and the cross-referencing of 
notifications.  
10.8.   On the issue of  on-line submission of notifications , most Members were in favour and open 
to further discussion  of the issue . Among them, several Members believed that it could be given 
consideration over a longer timescale, fu rther to  having reviewed the current notification forms. 
One Member questioned whether it was feasible or desirable to do an electronic submission of 
N/3 notification s given  the comprehensive character of this particular notification.  
10.9.   The Chairperson  took note that an increasing number of  Members were now  engag ed in the 
process and that there existed a general recognition that low compliance level of notifications was 
an issue that needed to  be addressed by the Committee , and with concrete follow -up actions . She  
also sense d an emerging consensus to explore possible ways of streamlining current notification 
procedures and re -organizing notification formats.  In this regard, she also recognized that  the 
matter needed to be  discussed by the Committee in greater detail in the coming months. With 
such good momentum, she hoped that technical discussion s of the above -mentioned issues would 
continue under the able leadership of the incoming Chairperson , and with the full support of the 
Secretariat. She also found it useful to have another informal meeting of the Committee in May , G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 12 - 
 
  and invite d the Secretariat to present at that meeting a technical note regarding the issues raised 
by some Members.  
10.10.   The representative of Australia  supported more informal discussions on the issue during  
and beyond the month of May. He indicated that these discussions had been very productive, and 
that the options outlined by the Chair were real options that Members  should explore further.  
10.11.   The representative of Canada  echoed the comments made by Australia. He pointed out 
that they had had  some good discussions and that he endorsed the Chair's assessment that there 
was a growing momentum around some actions that could be taken to improve the notification 
process. He believed that a t the meeting in May it would be good to go from the talking to the 
action stage , and that it would also be a good occasion to see how Members could move forward 
on some of these ideas.  
10.12.   The representative of the European Union  support ed previous speakers and thank ed the 
Secretariat for all the efforts made to improve the situation with regard to notifications . The 
EU looked forward to participating in any discussion that w ould take place either informally or 
formally . The EU  hoped to provide some extra ideas as to how to  improve the situation. She 
thanked the Chair for the detailed report , which reflect ed the discussion that ha d taken place so 
far. 
10.13.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Chair for c onvening informal 
consultations  and for providing a detailed repo rt. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu shared the views of previous speakers on the importance of 
transparency. He emphasized the importance of establishing streamlined and simplified templates 
for notifications under this A greement. He pointed out that the Secretariat had, in their 
presentations, identified certain issues with regard to notification process es, including low 
compliance rate, delays in submission s of notification s, confusion with regard to similar notification  
requirements , and incomplete submissions. His delegation believed that these issues were all 
relevant and could be improved by establishing more streamlined and simplified notification 
templates. Furthermore, streamlined templates would be very useful for  on-line submission, as 
well as for creating a notification database in the long run. He encouraged Members to consider 
the discussion of new notification templates as the first step of the Committee's work toward s 
improving  transparency in notification pr ocedures.  
10.14.   The representative of the United States  appreciated and expressed full support for the 
Secretariat's continued efforts to enhance the timeliness and completeness of the notifications. He 
supported many of the statements previously made. He reiter ated the position , expressed in prior 
informal consultations , that the US felt very strongly about streamlining the notification process 
but that this should not come at the expense of providing the necessary substantive information , 
which  remained a clear priority for his delegation.  
10.15.   The representative of Singapore  reiterated that Singapore remained very much interested 
in continuing discussion on this front and looked forward to engaging with interested Members 
both formally and informally to enhance tran sparency in the Committee.  
10.16.   The representative of India reaffirmed India's commitments to improving transparency of 
import licensing procedures and increasing notification compliance. They looked forward to 
participating in informal consultations in the fut ure. 
10.17.   The representative of Chile gave its full support to the Chair 's efforts to move the process  
forward . 
10.18.   The representative of China  expressed willingness to engage with informal and formal 
sessions on this issue.  
10.19.   The representative of Botswana  expressed  support for the initiative to improve the 
compliance rate of notification s under this Agreement. His delegation echoed the statements that 
had been made in support of  the Chair's report. Considering Botswana's capacity constraints, his 
delegation was of t he view that technical training  would be very useful in their endeavours to meet G/LIC/M/43  
 
- 13 - 
 
  notification obligations. He pointed out that there was a willingness in his capital to fulfil 
notification obligations but that they were still strugg ling with capacity const raints.  
10.20.   The representative of Korea  extend ed its  full support to the Chair and looked forward to 
working closely with interested Members.  
10.21.   The representative of Indonesia  expressed full support for a continuation of  the discussion 
in this regard.  
10.22.   The Commit tee took note  of the Chair's report  and statements made . 
11  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
11.1.   The Chairperson  informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserv ed Tues day, 
1 November  2016, for the next formal meeting of the Committee, on the understanding th at 
additional meetings may be convened as necessary.  
11.2.   The Committee took note . 
12  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
12.1.   The Chairperson  noted that t he Rules of Procedure for meetings of the Committee on Import 
Licensing established  that the Committee on Import Licensing shall elect a Chairperson and a 
Vice-Chairperson from among the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the 
first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. The Chairperson and 
Vice-Chairperson shall hold office unt il the end of the first  meeting of the following year.  
12.2.   She pointed out that the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) had not yet reach ed consensus 
on the list of officers for the subsidiary bodies of the CTG on 15  April. Taking into account that the 
consultati ons were still ongoing she proposed that, once the CTG ha d resolved the deadlock, she 
would inform all delegations regarding the proposed candidate for Chairperson of this  Committee 
via fax . If no objection  were signalled within 24 hours , the proposed Chai r would be deemed to be 
elected by this Committee .1 
12.3.   The Committee  so agreed . 
__________  
                                                
1 On 12  May, Mr  Tapio Pyysalo (Finland) was nominated as the Chairperson of the Committee and was 
elected by acclamation. On 22  July, based on the nomination of the Cha irperson, Mr Marcial Espinola 
(Paraguay) was elected as the Vice -Chairperson by the Committee by acclamation , following a similar 
procedure .