RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/44  
 
27 April 2017 
(17-2315) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 3 NOVEMBER  2016  
CHAIRPERSON: MR. TAPIO PYYSALO (FINLA ND) 
The Committee on Im port Licensing held its forty -fifth meeting on 3 November  2016 under the 
chairmanship of M r. Tapio Pyysalo (Finland ). The agenda proposed for the mee ting was circulated 
in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/ 4. 
 
The Russian Federation requested that the issue of Ukraine's market access restrictions on foreign 
printed products be placed on the agenda under "Other Business". The European Union requested 
the issue of "O utstanding Replies from Morocco"  also to be placed on the agenda under "Other 
Business". The agenda was adopted with these additions . 
 
Table of contents  
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS  –
 DEVELOPMENTS S INCE THE LAST MEETIN G ................................ ................................ .... 2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
2.1   Replies from Mexico to the United States (G/LIC/Q/MEX/2)  ................................ ..............  3 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ..............  3 
3.1.1    Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/LIC/N/1/BOL/3 and G/LIC/N/1/BOL/4)  ..........................  3 
3.1.2    Brazil (G/LIC/N/1/BRA/7)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  4 
3.1.3    European Union (G/LIC/N/1/EU/8 and G/LIC/N/1/EU/9)  ................................ ................  4 
3.2   Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................ . 4 
3.2.1    Bolivi a, Plurinational State of (G/LIC/N/2/BOL/1 and G/LIC/N/2/BOL/2)  ..........................  4 
3.2.2    Malaysia (G/LIC/N/2/MYS/7)  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  4 
3.3.1    Brazil (G/LIC/N/3/BRA/11)  ................................ ................................ .........................  5 
3.3.2    Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/15)  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
4   EUROPEAN UNION – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG SYSTEM - STATEMENT BY 
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
5   INDON ESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLET S - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ... 8 
6   INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT FOR BORIC A CID – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 10 
7   BANGLADESH  – IMPORT LICENSING PRO CEDURES  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  11 
8   MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  12 G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   VIET NAM  – DISTILLED S PIRITS AND COMPLETEN ESS QUESTION 
(G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 AND G /LIC/Q/VNM/6)  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  .........  13 
10   IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE 
AGREEMENT – REPORT OF THE CHAIR ON THE INFORMAL CONS ULTATIONS  
HELD ON 2  JUNE, 17  OCTOBER, AND 3  NOVEMBER  2016  ................................ ................  13 
11   ELEVENTH BIENNIAL RE VIEW OF THE IMPLEMEN TATION AND OPERATION  
OF THE AGREEMENT UND ER ARTICLE  7.1 (G/LIC/W/47)  ................................ ..............  15 
12   DRAFT REPORT (2016) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  
GOODS (G/LIC/W/46)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 16 
13   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ..................  16 
14   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16 
14.1   Statement by the European Union on Mor occo's notification  ................................ ........... 16 
14.2   Statement of the Russian Federation on certain Ukrainian import measures  ..................... 16 
 
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS  – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that  a total of 55  notifications had been received  
and listed for consideration  since the last meeting , including : 18 notifications under Article  1.4(a) 
and/or 8.2(b); 12 under Article  5; and 25  notifications under A rticle 7.3. Two recent notifications 
under Article  7.3 (from  Singapore  and the United States) and a few recent notifications under 
Article  5.5 from the Philippines would be considered at the next formal Committee meeting . 
1.2.  As of 3 November  2016, 16 Members  had not yet submitted any notification s under any 
provision of the Agreement; 2 9 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 Member s had never submitted replies to the questionnaire under Article  7.3. For the sake 
of transparency, he urged those Members to submit their notifications as soon as possible.  
1.3.  On a positive note, he congratulated Afghanistan and Seychell es for submitting their 
first notification s to this Committee  under Article  1.4(a) and/or Article  8.2(b)  
(documents  G/LIC/N/1/AFG/1 and G/LIC/N/1/SYC/1) , and El Salvador and Kazakhstan for their 
first N/3 notification s under Article  7.3 (documents  G/LIC/N/3/SLV/1 and G/LIC/N/3 /KAZ/1) . 
1.4.  He informed the Committee that  the overall  notification compliance rate was  still not 
encouraging. With regard to Members' replies to the annual questionnaire, f rom 21  October  2015 
to 21  October  2016, only 35 Members had submitted their replies and, of those, 20 submissions 
were for the current year , while t he rest were delayed notifications relating to previous years. This 
situation was summarized in Annex  III of the Committee's report to the CTG 
(document  G/LIC/W/46).  
1.5.  In this context, he brought Members' atte ntion to the following: (1)  Members that did not 
apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to the Agreement were 
nevertheless required to notify the Comm ittee of this fact; (2)  Article  5.1 required Members that 
instituted import licensing procedures or changes in these procedures to notify the Committee of 
such procedures or changes within 60 days of publication; (3)  Article  7.3 of the Agreement obliged 
all Members to complete the Questionnaire on Import Licensing  Procedures on a yearly basis and 
to submit the completed quest ionnaire to the Committee by 30  September each year. He urged 
Members to respect these timelines in the fulfilment of their notification obligations.  
1.6.  On improving transparency and streamlining notification procedures under the Agreement, 
the Chairman highlighted that , under the able leadership of previous Chairpersons, and with the 
support of the Secretariat, efforts had been made to identify the underlying reasons behind  low 
notification compli ance under this Agreement. He was encouraged to see that more and more 
Members were actively involved in the effort  to find solutions, as demonstrated in the informal 
session earlier that day . Three informal meetings in total had been held to discuss this issue since G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 3 - 
 
  he took office in May, and the Chair indicated that he would report on those  meetings under 
agenda item  10. 
1.7.  The Committee took note  of the Chairman's statement . 
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
2.1.  The Chairman  indicated that there was only one document (G/LIC/Q/MEX/2) for review under 
this agenda item: replies from Mexico to the United States on qu estions regarding its licensing 
regime on certain  steel products. He also noted that on 2 November the United States  had 
submitted written questions to Indonesia on its import regimes on cellphones, handheld 
computers , and tablets ; these questions would be circulated  shortly . 
2.1  Replies from Mexico to the United States (G/LIC/Q/MEX/2)  
2.2.  The representative of Mexico  thanked t he United States  for its interest in Mexico's import 
licensing regime. He hoped that, w ith the replies contained in document  G/LIC/Q/MEX/2 circulated 
on 28 June, the concerns of the US and o ther Members had been addressed. He reiterate d that 
Mexico's autom atic import licensing regime  was in compliance  with the relevant provisions of the 
Agreement , and Article  2 in particular. Mexico  hoped that , with these replies, the item would no 
longer appear on the  agenda.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked  Mexico for its replies. He indicated that the 
US would nevertheless comment  on the issue again as it continue d to have conc erns over Mexico's 
licensing system . 
2.4.  The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Article s 1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The following  N/1 notifications from 12  Members were reviewed:  Afghanistan 
(G/LIC/N/1/A FG/1); Bolivia, Plurinational State of  (G/LIC/N/1/BOL/3 and G/LIC/N/1/BOL/ 4); Brazil 
(G/LIC/N/1/BRA/7 and G/LIC/N/1/BRA/7/ Corr.1); Ecuador (G/ LIC/N/1/ECU/6); European Union 
(G/LIC/N/1/EU/8 and G/LIC/N/1/EU/ 9); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/1/MAC/6); Paraguay 
(G/LIC/N/1/PRY/7);  Philippines (G/LIC/N/1/PHL/5); Russian Federation (G/LIC/N/1/RUS/12,  
G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 13, G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 14, G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 15, and G/LIC/N/1/RUS/ 16); Seychelles 
(G/LIC/N/1/SYC/1) ; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
(G/LIC/N/1/TPKM/11); and Thailand (G/LIC/N/1/THA/2).  
3.1.1   Bolivia, Plurinational State of (G/LIC/N/1/BOL/3 and G/LIC/N/1/BOL/ 4) 
3.2.  The representative  of the European Union  thanked Bolivia for the submission of these 
two notifications. With reference to notification  G/LIC/N/1/BOL/3, the EU noted that it was linked 
to notification  G/LIC/N/2/BOL/2  and submitted in accordance wi th Article  5 of the ILA. The  
EU understood that these notifications related to measures put in place in Supreme Decree 
No. 2752/2016 , which required prior authorization for the importation of certain goods , and which 
entered into force in July  2016. On notification  G/LIC/N/1/BOL/4, t he EU understood that it related 
to the measure put in place in Supreme Decree No. 2865/2016 , which required prior authorization 
for the importation of certain goods, notably certain dry -cleaning machines. She noted that the EU 
was of the view that the pro cedures were not described in sufficient detail in these notifications. 
Furthermore, the EU regretted that Bolivia had not submitted an annual import licencing 
notification since 2000. For these reasons, the EU asked Bolivia to provide  details of the 
proce dures and, in particular , to clarify  the purpose and intended length of the measures. In 
addition, the EU asked when Bolivia intend ed to submit its annual notification  so as to provide  a 
detailed explanation of all import procedures currently in place.  
3.3.  The representative  of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  responded that he had taken  note of 
the comments made by the EU , and requested the EU to provide its questions  in writing so that 
they could be sent to  Capital for due consideration . G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1.2   Brazil (G/LIC/N/1/B RA/7)  
3.4.  The representative  of the European Union  thanked Brazil for the submission of this 
notification. She understood that Brazil had submitted notification  G/LIC/N/1/ BRA/7  and 
G/LIC/N/1/BRA/7 /Corr.1 in accordance with  Articles  1.4 and 8.2 of the ILA, whic h did not refer to 
a specific product but rather the general import procedure system s in place. Considering that it 
seemed to be closely linked to Brazil's notification submitted under Article  5 of the ILA , and 
circulated as document  G/LIC/N/2/BRA/7 , as we ll as Brazil's annual notification, circulated as 
document  G/LIC/N/3/BRA/11, the EU would raise its questions to Brazil under agenda Item 3:III. 
3.1.3   European Union (G/LIC/N/1/EU/8 and G/LIC/N/1/EU/ 9) 
3.5.  The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the EU for the submission of these 
two notifications and indicated that it would make a statement on these measures under agenda 
Item 4. 
3.6.  The Committee took note  of the submissions  and statements made . 
3.2  Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.7.  The following N /2 notifications  from 8  Members  were reviewed:  Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27/Add.1,  G/LIC/N/2/AR G/27/Add. 2, and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/27/Add. 3); Bolivia, 
Plurinational State of  (G/LIC/N/2/BOL/1 and  G/LIC/N/2/BOL/ 2); Brazil (G/LIC/N/2/BRA/7); 
El Salvador (G/LIC/N/2/S LV/1); European Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/8 and G/LIC/N/2/EU/ 9); 
Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/2/HKG/7 ); Malaysia (G/LIC/N/2/MYS/7) ; and Paraguay 
(G/LIC/N/2/PRY/6).  
3.2.1   Bolivia, Plurinational State of  (G/LIC/N/2/BOL/1 and  G/LIC/N/2/BOL/ 2) 
3.8.  The representative  of the Europ ean Union  thanked Bolivia for the submission of these 
notifications. The EU would like to receive further detailed information on the import procedures 
contained in document  G/LIC/N/2/BOL/1 , which related to measures put in pl ace in Supreme 
Decree No.  2600/2015 requiring prior authorization for importation of gaming machines. The 
EU requested Bolivia to present the detail of these procedures and to clarify the intended length of 
the measure.  
3.2.2   Malaysia (G/LIC/N/2/MYS/7)  
3.9.  The representative  of the European Unio n thanked Malaysia for the submission of this 
notification and, in particular, for the abolishment of the import licensing requirement for these 
products. The EU sought clarification on whether or not the abolishment was permanent , and 
whether they also envisaged abolishing the import licensing requirement for other prod ucts. 
3.10.   The representative of Malaysia  thanked the EU and requested that it submit its questions in 
written form so as to allow Malaysia to formulate  more concrete responses.  
3.11.   The Committee took note  of the statements  made.  
3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.12.   The following N/3 notifications were reviewed at the meeting:  Brazil (G/LIC/N/3/BRA/11); 
Cameroon (G/LIC/N/3/CMR/6); Canada (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/ 15); Cuba (G/LIC/N/3/CUB/8); 
El Salva dor (G/LIC/N/3/SLV/1); European Union (G/LIC/N/3/EU/5); Honduras 
(G/LIC/N/3/HND/10); Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/20); India (G/LIC/N/3/IND/16); Japan 
(G/LIC/N/3/JPN/15); Jordan (G/LIC/N/3/JOR/3); Kazakhstan (G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/1 and 
G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/1 /Corr.1);  Kuwait (G/LIC/N/3/KWT/6); Liechten stein (G/LIC/N/3/LIE/9); 
Macao,  China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/19 and G/LIC/N/3/MAC/19/ Corr.1); Mauritius (G/LIC/N/3/MUS/6); 
Mexico (G/LIC/N/3/MEX/5); Panama (G/LIC/N/3/PAN/7) ; Philippines (G/LIC/N/3/PHL/12); Russian 
Federation (G/ LIC/N/3/RUS/3); Seychelles (G/LIC/N/3/SYC/2); Switzerland (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/12); 
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/7); G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/15) ; and Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/9) . Comments were made on the 
followi ng notifications:  
3.3.1   Brazil  (G/LIC/N/3/BRA/11)  
3.13.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Brazil for the submission of its annual 
notification. She noted that  this notifica tion did not comply with the requirements set out in the 
questionnaire and contai ned in document  G/LIC/3 (A nnex). The annual notification should give a 
brief presentation of each system as a whole and, w ith respect to each system , reply to the 
questions as relevant. She argued that Brazil had limited itself to referring to the SISCOMEX  
without really giving a detailed description of the procedures for each product. Therefore, the EU 
wished to receive the following clarifications:  
- Could Brazil provide a complete description of the procedures in place per each single 
product subject to import licensing requirements?  
 
- Could Brazil provide the list of tariff lines covered under automatic and non-automatic 
import licensing?  
 
- Could Brazil provide more detailed justification  as to why so many tariff lines were covered 
by automatic and non-automatic import licensing?  
 
3.14.   In particular, according to the information available it seemed that , for importation of 
products corresponding to more than 5,000  tariff lines , an import licence would be necessary. In 
this respect:  
- First, could Brazil clar ify whether or not this inf ormation was correct?  
 
- Second, could Brazil explain how this was justified , taking also into account that in its annual 
notification Brazil had declared that, as a rule, the Brazilian import reg ime did not require 
licensing?  
 
- Third, could Brazil clarify the reasons for such an extensive use of import licensing?  
 
3.15.   As the products wer e not clearly defined, the EU reiterated its concerns on the procedures in 
place for importation of nitrocellulose and ask ed Brazil for further clar ification. In particular, the EU 
noted that Brazil's notification include d a reference to the Minis try of Industry , where a table was  
provided for import procedures ( http://www.mdic.gov.br/comercio -
exterior/importacao/tratamento -administrativo -de-importacao ). According to that table, it seem ed 
that the  importation of nitrocellulose wa s subject to an automatic import licence. The EU requested 
Brazil to confirm that the import of products under  NCM 3912.20 ( nitrocellulose) was covered by 
automatic import licences? And, if so, the EU  wished  Brazil to clarify in detail the procedures for 
the importation of these products , given that EU companies had still experienced  problems in the 
importation of this product onto the Brazilian market . As already stated on several occasions in 
this Committee, the EU maintain ed its view that Brazil ha d in place non -automatic import licensing 
procedures for nitrocellulose fo r industrial purposes. This represent ed a de facto  unjus tified ban . 
The EU considered it regrettable  that the import procedures of industrial nitrocellulose ha d not 
changed and urged Brazil to amend its legislation.  
3.16.   In response, t he representative of Brazil pointed out  that t he EU's intervention contain ed a 
number of elements that had not been  the object of prior written questions and to which he could 
therefore  not immediately respond . He made a preliminary comment but wished  to receive the 
EU's questions in writing.  
3.17.   He was aware that his explanation had not convinced the EU to withdraw the issue of 
nitrocellulose from the agenda. At this point, he could  only make reference to the previous 
clarifications provided by Brazil in this Committee , and at the CTG , and he requested the  
Secretariat to include those remarks in the record of this meeting, particularly the remarks that 
were offere d to the C ommitte e at its meeting in April.1 
                                                
1 See document  G/LIC/M/43, para graphs  5.6-5.8. G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.18.   With regard to the information on the SISCOMEX  website , he recalled that the lic ensing 
measure for nitrocellulose had been  characterized as an automatic licensing procedure and 
believed that the information previously provided had been correct . Nevertheless , he agreed to 
check and clarify the relevant information as soon as possible a nd, if necessary , would request a  
correction to be made to the system.  
3.19.   On the EU's assessment that Brazil's N/3  notification was not in compliance  with the 
requirements of the Agreement, he disagreed . He believed that Brazil had provide d sufficient detail 
and source s of information , both  to the Secretariat and to the Committee , to allow Members to 
verify Brazil's licensing procedures . He referred to the N/3  notification that made refere nce to the 
SISCOMEX  website and claimed that this wa s fully consistent in a digital era . He indicated that 
Brazil was willing to provide any necessary clarification or to engage with Members bilaterally if the 
EU and other interested Members had any problem with the info rmation currently provided in the 
system.  
3.20.   With regard to the remaining question s, he indicated that he had taken note of the points 
raised  and would verify these with Brasilia, namely  the issue of automatic/ non-automatic licensing 
measures , applied to which  product s, and the number of lines covered by automatic licensing 
procedures . He explained that there wa s a list on the SISCOMEX  website indicating which tariff 
lines we re subject to automatic and which to non-automatic licensing . He agreed to forward the 
EU's concern s to capital with a request for feedback. Re garding the issue of more than 5000  lines 
possibly subject to licensing, he regarded  this too as an issue to be verified in  Brasilia . 
3.21.   Finally , he inform ed the C ommittee that Brazil ha d begun  an inter -agency process to review 
the legislation in light of Brazil's international commitments in the fields of environment al security 
and others that might imply a QR in trade in goods . The outcome of this process m ight result in  
adjustments to Brazilian notification s regarding both QR and import licensing measures.  
3.3.2   Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/15)  
3.22.   The representative of Malaysia  thank ed the Turkish delegation for its notification. He 
understood that Turkey also imposed  a surveillance licensing regime on solar products under  
HS8541.40 , through Circular No.  2015/9 , which seeme d to not have been included in this recent 
notification . Malaysia would like to understand the rational e for this non -inclusion . He pointed out 
that, in this context, Malaysia would  submit  additional written questions and looked forward to 
receiving Turkey 's replies . 
3.23.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed Malaysia for its questions  and indicated that  they 
would be happy to answer Malaysia's questions once  received in writing.  
3.24.   The Committee took note  of the statement s made.  
4  EUROPEAN UNION  – STEEL IMPORT LICENS ING SYSTEM - STATEMENT BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
4.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that this item had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the Russian Federation in a communication dated 18 October  2016. 
4.2.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration  explained that they had requested  this agenda 
item because of commercial concerns over the system of prior surveillance of imports of iron and 
steel products adopted by the European Union on 28  April this year by Commission Implementin g 
Regulation ( EU) No.  2016/670, which was notified on 31  May 2016 in documents  G/LIC/N/1/EU/8 
and G/LIC/N/2/EU/8.  
4.3.  He noted that , although the European Union had declare d that the system merely constituted 
automatic import licensing, Russian steel exporters ha d reported on several significant obstacles 
encountered since t he introduction of the measure.  
4.4.  First, his government had been informed that the authorities of the European Union member 
States frequently require d submission of original versions of contracts and other commercial 
documents with genuine signatures and stamps. Without such  papers, a surveillance document G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 7 - 
 
  was not granted. He argued that s uch requirements incur red significant additional logistic and time 
costs for traders . An importer ha d sometimes to addres s authorities in EU member States in o rder 
to receive the necessary approval documents.  
4.5.  Second, in some cases submission of an applicatio n for surveillance documents had to be 
made only upon readiness of the goods for delivery, which impede d prompt shipmen t. This wa s a 
consequence of  the requirement to provide the exact TARIC (customs classification) codes upon 
application  for a licence , which normally should be declared by the producer only at the end of the 
production cycle , once the chemical composition of the steel had become clear.  
4.6.  Third, the EU's overall licensing time -frames create d obstacles to trade. The delivery of steel 
from Russian plants to European consumers generally took less  than 2 -3 days, especi ally by road . 
With the new licensing regime, the appr oval of requests for licences in some cases took longer 
than the time required  for delivery of the products. In his view, this situation was advantageous  to 
domestic EU suppliers who could  ship goods without passing the surveillance procedure  and th us 
more quickly . In addition to this was the requirement to submit original documents as "commercial 
evidence ", as well as the detailed TA RIC codes . Taken together , the overall impact of the licens ing 
procedure on delivery time wa s significant.  
4.7.  He further inform ed the Committee that the Russian Federation  had recently raised this issue 
under the Committee on Safeguards  as their stakeholders were deeply concerned about a  possible 
repetition of a 2002 precedent when , after introduction of a similar licensing procedure , a 
safeguard investigation covering a large number of steel products was launched in the EU  at the 
same time that  preliminary duties were imposed. It had caused a significant disruption to trade. 
He noted that the preamble to Regulation (EU) No.  2016/670 unequivocally pointed to the possible  
repetition of such a scenario.  
4.8.  He also noted that, at the Committee on Safeguards, the European Union had stated that the 
information collecte d through licensing procedures wa s not and never had been intended for use in 
trade defence  investigations. Only official statistics were used in investigations . In this regard, the 
Russian delegate questioned the additional value of such a monit oring of steel imports, which was  
really burdensome for traders and which, ac cording to the European Union, d id not help in trade 
defence procedures targeting steel imports . 
4.9.  In conclusion, he clarified  that his delegation had  only outline d the principal issues. The full 
list of questions covering the Russian Federation's concerns i n respect of the conformity of the 
steel import licensing system in the EU to the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ha d been 
submitted to the WTO  Secretariat  and the Russian Federation were looking forward to receiving a 
response from the European U nion. 
4.10.   The representative of China  echoed and share d the concern s of the Russia n Federation . 
China believe d that the  EU measures  created an unnecessary burden to trade . In addition, her 
delegation had several specific concerns on surveillance measures. In this regard, she asked the 
EU to clarify : (1) whether the measures complied with the uniform , impartial , and reas onable 
implementation principle contained in GATT  Article  10; and (2) whether the measures complied 
with Art icle 2.2 of the Licensing Agreement . To this end, she noted that China wish ed to receive 
more information regarding specific regulation s and practice s in the implementation of 
EU measures on prior surveillance of import s of certain iron a nd steel products.  
4.11.   The representative of Brazil  thank ed the Russian Fed eration  for raising this issue. Brazil had  
an interest in this issue and would like to hear  the EU's  clarification of it. Brazil was concerned  
about the bilateral trade impact of potentially restrictive trade mea sures, such as those that might 
derive from the licensing system in question , which  was particularly challenging to the steel sector.  
4.12.   In response, t he representative of  the European Union  thank ed the Russian Federation, 
China , and Brazil for their interest in these procedures.  She n oted that, in compliance with the 
provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the EU had informed WTO  Members about this 
measure in two  notifications  circulated last May . One notification had  been submitted in 
accordance with Art icle 5.1–5.4 of the Agree ment and circulated as document  G/LIC/N/2/EU/8; 
the other notification ha d been submitted in accordance with Article  8.2(b) of the Agreement and 
circulated as document  G/LIC/N/1/EU/8.  G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.13.   The prior surveillance scheme put in place by the EU was applicable to t he importation of 
certain iron and steel products, for transactions whose net weight exceeded 2, 500 kg. As detailed 
in their  notifications, the system applie d to imports of any origin except the European Economic 
Area – Norway, Iceland , and Liechtenstein.  Furthermore, the EU annual notification, recently 
circulated as d ocument  G/LIC/N/3/EU/5, contained  all relevant information on procedures 
currently in place. In particular, it specified that:  
- Its purpose was to collect information about the intention to import from all non -EU member 
countries. Those statistics were updated on a monthly basis and we re publicly available at: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/sigl/info_steel.htm . 
 
- The issuing of the licences was fully automatic for any quantity and any price and wa s not 
targeted at products with certain specific origin s. Consequently, the system did  not disrupt 
or impede normal trade.  
 
- According to the Regulation, the surveillance document to accompany  steel products 
required by  the Regulation could  be obtained in the licensing  offices of any EU  member 
State. The full list of EU member State authorities wa s contained in the Annex of the 
Regulation.  
 
- The surveillance documents we re: 
 
- Issued automatic ally upon request from an importer;  
- For any quantity and price;  
- Valid for 4  month s + 4  months possible extension;  
- Valid throughout the EU, regardless of the issuing EU  member State.  
 
4.14.   Regarding specific concerns raised by the Russian Federation , she p rovided some 
preliminary replies  and noted that detailed replies would  be submitted in writing.  
- On the first point raised by the Russian Federation, the EU note d that impl ementation of the 
Regulation was in the hand s of the  national authorities of the EU  member States. The 
Regulation asked for commercial evidence that include d, for example, a copy of the contract. 
The list of possible supporting docu ments listed in the regulation wa s not exhaustive.  
 
- On the second point, the EU confirm ed that the TARIC  code ha d to be inserted in the 
request. All documents pre sented for customs clearance had  to have t he same information, 
i.e. TARIC  code, including the surveillance document.  
 
- On the third point, as already ment ioned, the licences were valid for 4  months and could  be 
requested well in advance. Therefore, they should not be the cause of any delay with regard  
to shipment of the goods.  
 
4.15.   Concerning the last point raised by the Russian Federation, she argued that it fell  primarily 
under the competence of the Co mmittee on Safeguards. She nevertheless note d that the legal 
basis wa s the same and that the necessary legal conditions to apply a safeguard measure were 
clearly set out in that regulation. Whether  or not a safeguard was applied  depended  on current  
market  situation . 
4.16.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA  – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS  - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
5.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that this item had been included in the ag enda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 20 October  2016.  
5.2.  The representative of the United States  stated that US concerns were ongoing with regard to 
Indonesia's import licensing regime and , in particular , Indonesia's import licens ing requirements 
for cell phones, handheld comp uters, and tablets.  G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 9 - 
 
  5.3.  He understood that , since the last meeting of the Committee, the Ministry of Trade had 
issued a revision to the import licensing r equirements for these products.  As his delegation  had 
already noted, the US  had hoped that the revision would address many of the concerns that they 
had raised in this Committee and else where. Unfortunately, this did  not appear to have been the 
case. In this regard, the US had a number of questions regarding these  new requirements, which 
were recently submitted in writing.  
5.4.  He argued that , as they understood the changes included in t he latest revision, the intent 
was to ensure that the rele vant import licensing measures we re consistent with Indonesia's lo cal 
content  requirements for 4G  LTE products. While Indonesia ha d said i n the past that these 
measures we re for consumer protection, it appear ed that the purpose was  in fact to increase 
manufacturing in Indonesia by linking the issuance of import licenses to a requir ement to invest in 
the Indonesian domestic industry. This understanding was reinforced by Indonesia's notification to 
this Committee of Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Regulation  27/2015 in 
document  G/LIC/N/2/IDN/31.  
5.5.  In general, the US  continue d to question the purpose of the requirements and procedures for 
importation of cell phones, h andheld computers, and tablets.  Specifically:  
- What wa s the rationale for establishing separate requirements for 3G and 4G  LTE products?  
 
- What wa s the justification for limiting importers of 4G  LTE products only to those that held 
producer importer identity numbers?  
 
- What wa s the difference between the "recommendation " for 3G  devices and the  "industry 
investment recommendation " for 4G  LTE devices? And  how do these differences relate to 
Ministry of Industry Regulation  No. 68/2016?  
 
5.6.  He noted that these and other questions we re part of their written submission  and hoped that 
Indonesia w ould respond expeditiously given that these requirements were already in force.  
5.7.  While appreciat ing that Indonesia had  notified some of these measures to this Committee, he 
asked Indonesia to notify all of the associated measures, including but not limited to Ministry of 
Trade  Regulation  No. 41/2016 and Ministry of Industry Regulations  No. 108/2012 and 
No. 68/2016.  
5.8.  The US representative reiterated that the industry concerned was a very important one to the 
United States and the global economy. The issues that the US had raised today, and on multiple 
previous occasions, were serious.  In their  view, the import lic ensing requirements at issue would  
distort trade and investment in an important and rapidly developing sector, and potentially 
undermine d efforts to enhance market access opportunities for high technology products, as set 
out in the WTO  Information Technology Agreement.  
5.9.  In this regard, the US  continue d to urge Indonesia to reconsider the new requirements found 
in the latest legal measures implementing revisions to the latest import licensing requirements for 
cell phones, handheld computers , and tablets.  
5.10.   The representative of the European Union  echoe d US concerns and reiterate d the EU's 
interest in understanding the provisions set out in Regulation No . 27/2015 . In particular, she 
asked Indonesia to clarify the linkages betw een Regulation No . 27 and Regulations  38 and 108.  In 
addition, she asked Indonesia why this regulation ha d not been included in the annual notification  
(2015)  submitted in accordance with Article  7.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
5.11.   The representative of  Chinese Taipei  stated that his delegation shared  the same concern s as 
those raised by the United States, particularly with regard to  smartphones. He indicated that , in 
July 2015, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology of Indonesia had issued a 
regulation entitled Technical Requirement of Telecommunications Device s based on LTE  Stand ard 
Technology. According to their  understandi ng, Indonesia 's measure required  that smartphone 
importers had to  comply with local content requirements to obta in the right to import. The 
measure also require d that, in order to obtain an import licence, smartphone companies ha d to 
purchase a certain number  of Indonesian -produced components and packaging based on value to G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 10 - 
 
  meet its domestic content  requirements. He  noted that, since Indonesi a was one of its major 
trading and investment partners in Southeast Asia, Chinese Taipei had a substan tial interest in this 
regard. His  delegation urge d Indonesia to provide a detailed clarification of the measures in 
question and to bring them into conformity with WTO  rules. 
5.12.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thank ed the US, the EU , and Chinese Taipei for 
their questions. He indicated that the regulation wa s new and request ed the Members concerned 
to submit their questi ons in writing so as then to receive a written response from Indonesia . 
5.13.   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 it em had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States  in a communication dated 20 October  2016. 
6.2.  The representative of the United States  stated that the US  had for some time been concerned 
by India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respect to the burdensome 
end-use certificates necessary for importation. He recalled that  his delegation had  in fact been 
raising this issue in the Committee since 2008, and that the issue ha d been on their  bilateral 
agenda for lon ger still. 
6.3.  He noted that US  concerns began in 2006, when India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry 
issued a new rule stating that "Imports of Boric Acid for non -insecticidal purposes will be subject to 
an import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Boa rd & Registration Committee under the 
Ministry of Agriculture. " 
6.4.  Prior to this change, there was no import permit requirement  for boric acid. However, India's 
implementation of the change ha d had the effect of limiting importation of non -insecticidal boric 
acid by Indian importers by requiring the importer to provide the precise end -use of the product 
prior to importation. The information provided was subject to a formal government review process 
and only a sp ecific quantity of boric acid could  be approved f or import under each transaction.  
6.5.  He explained that t he Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee only meets 
monthly, and often d id not have an opportunity t o review import requests. A review of their 
minut es for the past ten  months showed  only three months where import reques ts were reviewed 
and approved. This completely impede d the ability of importers in India to meet  the "just in time " 
supply chain requirements fo r non-insecticidal boric acid. No such restrictions were placed on 
domestic supp liers of non -insecticidal boric acid.  
6.6.  In addition to the lengthy time-frame for obtaining an approval, quantities were also 
restricted. Indian importers ha d expressed to the US  their frustration that they must also supply 
information on their past consumpt ion of boric acid, broken down by imports and domestic 
sources, wh en seeking approval to import. New app rovals for imported boric acid we re based only 
on past import lev els, not on total consumption. It appear ed to be an arbitrary quantitative 
restriction.  
6.7.  He continued that the US had  received varying responses from the Indian government wh en 
presented with these facts. During its TPR, India cited the Insecticides Act of 1968 as the 
legislative authority for import licensing of boric acid. However, import p ermits were not requ ired 
on boric acid until 2006. Then, in 2011, India's Central Board of Excise and Customs stated that 
Section  38 of the Insecticide Act 1968 exempts insecticides with a non -insecticidal use from import 
permit require ments. However, CBEC  had later clarified that import permits were still required for 
non-insecticidal boric acid.  
6.8.  The US delegation request ed India to explain why boric acid, which ha d a toxicity level 
roughly equi valent to that of table salt, was  the only insecticide that re quired an import permit for 
non-insecticidal use, considering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticides that were not 
required to obtain an i mport permit.  In addition, his delegation also request ed India to explain why 
boric acid wa s the on ly insecticide for which there we re import quantity restrictions.  G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 11 - 
 
  6.9.  He also noted that the approval process, applied only to imports of boric acid, was vigoro usly 
enforced. However, according to government officials and Indian importers, there was  no similar 
oversight for sale of domestic boric acid . Domestic manufacturers of boric acid d id not have to 
seek approval from a government Ministry to sell the ir product, and producers did  not have to 
specify the end-use of the boric acid prior to its s ale. Domestic producers could  sell to any buyer 
and do so without quantitative limits.  
6.10.   Finally, he indicated that the US had continue d to request that India amend Schedule –I 
(Imports) of the ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items to eliminate the requirement 
that imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes be subject to import permit.  
6.11.   In response, the representative of India thanked the delegation of the United States for its 
continued interest in the matter of India 's import policy on 'boric acid '. He stated that it wa s on the  
record that India ha d already responded to all written questions posed by interested delegati ons. 
These replies we re contained in WTO  documents G/LIC/Q/IND/ 12, G/LIC/Q/IND/ 14, 
G/LIC/Q/IND/ 16, and G/LIC/Q/IND/ 22. In his view , these responses properly explain ed the policy 
objectives of the measure as well as issues relating to its implementation. As a result, in the 
meeting of this Committee held on 29 October  2012, the delegation of the United States had 
expressed their desire to ta ke up the matter with India  bilaterally . Since then , the two capitals ha d 
engaged in a bilateral  discussion of the issue . 
6.12.   He informed the Committee that t he last bilateral meeting between the US and India had 
taken  place in October  2016. In that meeting, I ndia had responded to all the issues raised by the 
US and also supplied the documents requested. India ha d also explained that boric acid wa s 
considered an  insecticide , as per the Insecticides Act, and that the law applie d to all. Domestic 
manufacturers al so ha d to provide details of end-use and these had to be verified by the 
Registration Committee. Finally, he observed  that India had hoped that the bilateral discussions 
would have helped to address US concerns on this subject.  
6.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  BANGLADESH  – IMPORT LICENSING PRO CEDURES  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED 
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  20 October  2016. 
7.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that the Secretariat had circulated their  most 
recent questions to Bangladesh on 21 February 2014, in document  G/LIC/Q/BGD/5 , and that his 
delegation was still awaiting a reply  from Bangladesh . He recalled th at the US had  been raising 
this issue for quite some time , with this Committee and in other fora.  
7.3.  The representative of Switzerland  associate d his delegation with the concerns and questions 
raised by the United States.  He noted that Switzerland was especia lly concerned about problems 
with pharmaceutical imports  into Bangladesh. Importers were required to submit import "indents " 
and to get approval by the "Standing Committee for Import of Pharmaceuticals " of the 
Directorate -General of Drug Administration  of Bangladesh. According to their information, 
approvals were  not issued as they should have been; entire applications were sometimes rejected 
or only partially approved.  
7.4.  He argued that t he result was low predictability and delays as well as uncertainties for  
domestic patients with critical diseases in need of the products  in question . He highlighted that 
a 1994 directive of the Bangladesh Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and a 1998 directive of 
the Prime Minister state d that "medicines which are adequate ly manufactured in Bangladesh 
cannot be imported ". It appear ed that these directives we re still in force and that the import 
prohibition s at issue were based on them. Switzerland  was concerned that these directives were 
possibly  inconsistent with GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement. He therefore asked 
Bangladesh to undertake any necessary reform of these measures so as to bring them into 
conformity with these agreements , and also to provid e his delegation  with any update in this 
regard.  G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 12 - 
 
  7.5.  The representati ve of the European Union  also wished for the EU to be associate d with the 
concerns and questions raised by the US. She recalled that a t the last meeting of this Committee, 
Bangladesh had informed Members that its notification was under preparation and woul d soon be 
submitted. The EU regret ted not yet having seen such a notification as it would have helped 
Members to develop a better understanding of the procedure in place.  On the basis of the 
information  available , the EU  consider ed that these import requir ements for pharmaceuticals were 
not in compliance with Article  1.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement. The EU therefore wished 
Bangladesh to take the necessary steps to remove them.  
7.6.  In response, the representative of Bangladesh  express ed thanks to the deleg ations of the US, 
EU, and Switzerland,  for their continued interest in the  ILPs of Bangladesh. He confirmed that his 
delegation had indicated that they were intending to  submit replies to their ann ual questionnaire. 
He indicated that his capital was workin g on it and hopefully they would soon submit  it. Regarding 
the 1998 directives , he noted that it had been clarified in Capital that import of pharmaceu tical 
products into Bangladesh wa s guided by the Import Policy Order and Bangladesh  draft policy. 
These p olicies maintained  the prov isions of the 1998 directives referred to in an earlier 
intervention. As in other countries, sale of any medicine in Bangladesh,  either to import or for 
domestic production , required a registration ; accordingly , any drug or medic ine registered by the 
Director -General of Drug Administration wa s eligible for importation into Bangladesh. A standing 
Committee for impo rts, as mentioned by Switzerland,  considered import s of pharmaceutical s and  
granted approval for im portation of drugs a nd medicine ; such approval was also required on  locally 
produced  products . He noted  that the approval of medicine s for import  was given regardless of 
whether or not a  similar product wa s on the market , and any foreign company could  apply for 
registration a nd sell their products. His delegation was available to discuss the matter with 
interested delegation s and to clarify any outstanding issue.  
7.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED S TATES  
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 20 October  2016. 
8.2.  The representative of t he United States  thank ed Mexico for its recent response to their latest 
questions (G/LIC/Q/MEX/2) and for its continued cooperation in address ing US concerns about  
Mexico's import licensing requirement for steel products.  However, the United States continue d to 
have concerns, in particular with reported delays in rece iving approvals for import licences,  as well 
as reports of unpublished documentation requirements.  
8.3.  His delegation had underst ood that, on 27 July 2016, Mexico had entered into an agreement 
with the National Iron and Steel Industry Chamber (CANACERO) to ide ntify and conduct joint 
actions to combat illicit steel imports and/or exports, but no informatio n about how this agreement 
would work ha d as yet been published.  
8.4.  In addition, he understood that CANACERO observers would be authorized to conduct on -site 
inspections of steel imports . In this regard, his delegation was  interested in knowing the role of 
CANACERO  observers u nder the Mexican steel import licencing system , and h ow the Government 
of Mexico would  ensure that the propr ietary information on licences was protected from 
unauthorized disclosure . When would  the Government of Mexico publish the parts of this 
agreement relevant to exporters and Mexican importers so as to allow them to better understand 
the licensing system?  The United States hoped to continue  their bilateral communications with 
Mexico to resolve these issues.  
8.5.  In response, the representative of Mexico  thanked the US for their  renewed interest in this 
issue. With regard to delays in granting licences, he pointed out that Mexico's procedures were  in 
conformity with Article  2(b) of the Agreement and the authority  got a maximum of 10 working 
days to issue the licence and there were no exceptions . Therefore , Mexico  believe d that they were  
already in compliance with the agreement. With regard to the a greement  with CANACERO , he 
stated that it was not an official agreement . He assured Members that Mexico would  notify any 
kind of agreement , as required by the Import Licensing Agreement . In this regard, he noted  that, 
if Mexico had  not submitted a notifica tion, it was because there was no agreement  to notify . G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 13 - 
 
  However, Mexico would certainly notify Members of  any new piece of legislation or any new 
agreement . 
8.6.  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  20 October  2016. 
9.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that the US  remain ed interested in receiving 
information regarding the broader product categories that appea red to be  subject to import 
licensing requirements based on Viet Nam's trade policy review.  Specifically, his delegation  
continued to be concerned about the import licensing requirements for distilled spirits , as provided 
for in Decree  94 and as revised  in the new draft Decree of 28 August  2016. 
9.3.  He pointed out that the United States wa s still reviewing the text of the most rece nt decree. 
From their preliminary review, it appeared that the new decree wa s an improvement for traders 
over Decree  No. 94 in that i t remove d the quota for distribution, wholesale, and retail licences 
based on number of inhabitants , and remove d certain re strictions on licences . However, the 
US understood that the new decree still contain ed restrictions on distribution licences which  
remain ed a significant source of concern for US industry ; the burdensome process that require d 
substantial detailed informati on from importers for new and upda ted distribution licences, and that 
was not required for licences granted to producers  of alcohol, was a particular cause for concern . 
9.4.  The United States appreciate d the opportunity for a continued dialogue on this issue an d 
looked forward to receiving a complete written response to the questions circulated in 
documents  G/LIC/Q/VNM/6 and G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 ( as well as document  G/TBT/N/VNM/86 in the 
TBT context) . He also noted that t he United States ha d held productive bilateral d iscussions on 
these topics with Viet Nam and recognize d the capacity issues that Viet Nam faced. However, his 
delegation  continue d to encourage Viet Nam to devote time and resources to meeting these 
important obligations.  
9.5.  In response, t he representative of  Viet Nam  thank ed the US for its questions  and indicated 
that he had taken note and would forward the US  concerns to Capital . 
9.6.  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 INFORMA L CONSULTATIONS HELD  ON 2 JUNE, 
17 OCTOBER , AND 3 NOVEMBER  2016  
10.1.   The Chairperson  reported to the Committee that, since the last Committee meeting, 
three  informal consultations had been held , on 2  June, 17  October , and 3  November  2016,  
respectively. The Chair's report is reproduced below:  
10.2.   "On 2 June, we continued the discussion on the low notification compliance rate by 
addressing notification procedures, organizing national and regional workshops and updating 
notification guidelines. The  Secretariat made a presentation on "Format and procedure of 
notifications under the Agreement on Import Licensing ". The presentation and the discussion paper 
were circulated in document  RD/LIC/7 and 8. In the convening fax, I identified the following issu es 
for Members to discuss as a priority in the Committee: (1)  identification of overlapping notification 
requirements; (2)  clarification of elements to be notified under the Agreement; (3)  the types of 
notifications and their content? (4)  the appropriate t emplate for each type of notification and 
(5) improvements to the annual questionnaire. In the discussion, most Members were supportive 
to continue the exercise to enhance transparency and supporting the establishment of a simpler 
and more logical notifica tion system. Many Members were in favour of an electronic database for 
notifications and two Members volunteered to pilot the database. On the notification templates, 
many Members believed that there seemed to be duplicative templates that could be merged while 
a few others suggested that we should rather make use of the current templates and believed that G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Members should be cautious about jumping to conclusions. Some Members suggested having a 
zero draft of the notification templates to enhance the understa nding of duplications. One Member 
insisted on clarifying the idea of having a database before having further discussions on the 
notification template. There was some support, but also caution towards organizing national and 
regional workshops and not much discussion on updating the notification guidelines. Recent 
discussions have focused mostly on improving notification procedures. I believe these are 
extremely important questions and encourage Members to continue to exchange views on these in 
detail.  
10.3.   At the informal meeting on 17  October, the Secretariat gave a presentation on a discussion 
paper titled "Some ideas on how to address the issue of overlapping notification requirements in 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ", which was circulated as ro om document 
RD/LIC/9. In the presentation, the Secretariat further elaborated on overlapping notification 
requirements and proposed a new notification template for notifications under Article  1.4(a), 
Article  5 and Article  8.2(b). In essence, this new templ ate merged the two forms referred to as 
N/1 and N/2. To clarify the linkage between the new template and respective provision 
requirements, as well as compare it with the existing templates, an Explanatory Note was also 
included in Annex  2 of the document.  
10.4.   Regarding the proposed new template, some Members found it much clearer and easier to 
comply with. A number of Members raised technical questions on specific issues. Nevertheless, 
most Members endorsed the direction of the review exercise and expressed wi llingness to continue 
the technical work on the proposed template. One Member did not support merging N/1 and N/2 
forms and suggested working on those existing templates instead, to solve the overlapping issue. 
Another Member sought clarifications on the l inkage between improving notification templates with 
the establishment of an import licensing database. At the end of the meeting, I had the impression 
that most Members were willing to continue the discussion on issues already clarified so far, and at 
the same time, remain ed open to look at any other concrete alternative idea which mig ht be 
proposed in the meantime.  
10.5.   At the informal meeting on 3  November, the Secretariat provided answers to the questions 
raised by Members at the previous meeting. The Europe an Union made a presentation on how the 
new notification template would work, using one previous EU notification as an example. Members 
have not yet agreed on how notification template s could be improved and t he technical work is 
ongoing. " 
10.6.   The representati ve of India thanked the Chairman for the report . He also thank ed the 
Secretariat for their contributions , and the delegation of the EU for their presentation. However, 
his delegation ha d a different view, which he wished  to place on record.  He recall ed that India had 
not supported a merging of the two notification formats as it would disturb the fine balance of 
rights and obligations under the Imp ort Licensing Agreement. There wa s no cha nge in India 's 
stand. India did  not endorse the idea of merging the two format s, N/1 and N/2.  
10.7.   India believe d that the three  notification requirements provided under  Articles  1.4(a), 5 , 
and 8.2(b) we re quite  different from each other, and hence should not be merge d. He argued that 
the cause s of action in the three  requirements  were different , as wa s evident from the text of the 
Agreement:  (i) Article 1.4(a) c ame into play when rules on procedures for submission of licensing 
applications were framed or modified; (ii) Article  8.2(b) was invoked when there we re any changes 
in laws  and regulations relevant to the Agreement ; (iii) Article  5 was invoked when there wa s 
institution of import licensing. Thus, the tri ggers in the three  requirements we re quite different , 
and the negotiators had  used different terms in different Articles.  
10.8.   In addition, he took the view that the requirement in Artic le 1.4(a) wa s basically a 
publication requirement and not a notification requirement. The main requirement in Article  1.4(a) 
was to publish the rules concerning procedures for su bmission of applicat ions. What was to be 
notified here wa s only the source of publication , with a copy of the publication also in question  to 
be made available to the Secreta riat. Likewise, Article  8.2(b) wa s not primarily a notification 
requirement. It only ask ed that the Co mmittee be informed of any changes in relevant laws and 
regulations. As these two  Articles, i.e. Article  1.4(a) and Article  8.2(b) d id not request the 
notification of  detailed information, the Commi ttee had devised a simple form (N/1). G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 15 - 
 
  10.9.   On the other hand, A rticle 5 wa s the main notification requirement. It ask ed for 
comprehensive information , including individual products subject to licensing, administrative 
bodies to be approached, contact points for information on elig ibility, and whether the licensing 
was automatic or non -automatic , and so on. Therefore, Article  5 require d a more comprehensive 
notification as compared to Articles  1.4(a) and 8.2(b). Accor dingly, a different form (N/2) had 
been developed.  
10.10.   Thus, he was of the view that a merging of the two fo rms wa s neither desirable nor 
supported by the Agreement. By grouping all the information i n one single form, a Member would  
have to provide all the listed information  of Article  5 even when it sought  to notify , for example, 
just a simple change in legisla tion under paragraph  8.2(b). Merging  would thus lead to confusion. 
This wa s something to which India would not agree. However, he pointed out that India remain ed 
open to look ing again  at existing systems , like that provided in document  G/LIC/22,  and how to  
improve them further.  
10.11.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Chairman  for convening the informal 
consultations and for providing the detailed report. His delegation also thank ed the  Secretariat and 
the EU for the excellent work they had done and for the discussion. Chinese Taipei share d the view 
of most Members on the importance of this exercise for enhancing transparency  in the Committee. 
He express ed their full support to the simplified and streamlined formats of notification which had 
been det ailed in Annex  1 of discussion paper  RD/LIC/9. His delegation firmly believe d that the 
draft formats prepared by the Secretariat not only could enhance the transparency in this 
Committee, but also significantly reduce the burden of notification for nationa l administrations , as 
shown in the presentation by the EU. Therefore, he encourage d Members with concerns to display 
flexibility, and look ed forward to the adoption of the draft formats in this Committee at the earliest 
opportunity . 
10.12.   The representative of Ecuador  indicated that with regard to the report of the meeting of 
17 October, it was  not just India but also Ecuador that had delivered a statement indicating that 
Ecuador was  not in agreement with these new notifications . She clarified  that Ecuador felt t hat this 
was a task for Members an d that, with regard to transparency , they believe d that capacity -building 
was also important for developing countries and LDCs in order to assist them to comply with their 
notification obligations . 
10.13.   The Committee took note  of the Chair's report  and statements made . 
11  ELEVENTH BIENNIAL RE VIEW OF THE IMPLEMEN TATION AND OPERATION  OF THE 
AGREEMENT UNDER ARTI CLE 7.1 (G/LIC/W/47)  
11.1.   The Chairman  recalled that Article  7.1 of the Agreement provided that the Committee shall 
review as nece ssary, but at least once every two  years, the implementation and operation of the 
Agreement , and that the last biennial review was held in October  2014. He referred to the draft 
biennial report  for 2015 -2016 prepared by the Secretariat under its own respon sibility  
(document  G/LIC/W/47) and sought the views and comments of Members . 
11.2.   The representative of Brazil  made reference to paragraph  2.18 of the document.  He stated 
that during the discussions his delegation had raised the issue of the proper sequencing o f the 
actions necessary to address the problems  in question . In addition, he believed that reference to 
the document would be sufficient , and that his delegation doubted the value of having the chart 
also here. That said, the presentation made b y the Secre tariat (including the chart) had been 
useful to the membership . 
11.3.   The representative of South Africa  made a statement on the chart to which Brazil referred. 
She pointed out that her delegation had found the chart very useful for Members, and especially 
for those officials/delegates who were unable to attend the meeting at which the process was 
explained. It provided a very clear and useful explanation of the paragraph in question . 
11.4.   The representative of Brazil  observed that the chart and the document would not  disappear 
from the repository of information accessible to Members. He  agree d with South Africa that this 
chart was a useful tool with which Members  could advance d iscussion on the subject ; 
nevertheless, he still believe d that it did not  need to be there.  There might be  issues with some G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 16 - 
 
  aspect s of the  chart, as mentioned in previous meetings , and its inclusion might also suggest 
agreement on some issues when in fact there was none . 
11.5.   The representative of Switzerland  stated that he was not opposed to the cha rt, and indeed 
that his delegation considered this type of information useful. Therefore , he hoped that if 
delegations had  additional issues these  could be raised earlier so as to facilitate prompt 
consultations . 
11.6.   The representative of Chile asked if the  report would be prepared by the Chair  and 
requested that, if this were  the case, perhaps comments could  be included in the report  as 
additional contributions , if acceptable to Members . 
11.7.   The representative of Brazil , taking into account other M embers' interest s in keeping the 
chart for transparency , suggested to add a sentence above the chart, clarifying that the chart was 
an input provided by the Secretariat to the membership as a basis for discussion.  
11.8.   The Committee adopted  the report (G/LIC/W/47) as amended.  
12  DRAFT REPORT  (2016) OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL F OR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/LIC/W/46)  
12.1.   The Chairman  noted that the Committee was required to submit an annual report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), under Article  7.4 of the Agreement.  A draft 
report (2016) of the Committee (G/LIC/W/46) was prepared for the Commit tee's consideration.  
12.2.   The representative of Brazil  provid ed a few wording suggestions  on paragraph  11 and t he 
Committee adopted the draft report as amended.  
13  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
13.1.   The Chairman informed Members that he planned to hold the next formal meeting in late 
April or early May  2017, on the understanding that additio nal meetings might  be convened as 
necessary.  Members would be informed well in advance on the timing of the  formal meeting.  
13.2.   The Committee took note . 
14  OTHER BUSINESS  
14.1  Statement by the European Union on Morocco's notification  
14.1.   The representative of the European Union  reminded Morocco that on 8 April 2016 the 
EU had submitted detailed questions seeking clarification  of the following issues:  
- First, on the note to importers No . 3/2015 and No . 4/2015 for the importation of certain 
arms and gear wheels;  
 
- Second , on the provisions contained in chapters  II and III of the Law No . 91/2014 on 
external trade as this law introduced new conditions for the importation of certain goods.  
 
14.2.   She reiterated the EU's interest in receiving replies from Morocco to its questions. In 
addition , she pointed out that Morocco had not submitted any notification since 2009 . Her 
delegation called on Morocco to submit its notifications  again . 
14.2  Statement of the Russian Federation on certain Ukrainian import measures  
14.3.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that , according to information  publicly 
available , on 20  October  2016 Ukraine 's Parliament had adopted a draft Act introducing an import 
ban on certain printed products, books, magaz ines, etc. In this respect, Russia  requested  Ukraine  
to clarify the following:  G/LIC/M/44  
 
- 17 - 
 
  - When Ukraine intend ed to introduce such restrictions?  
 
- What was the ration ale behind such restrictions?  
 
- How would these import restrictions be administered? Would  respective  imports be subject  
to import licensing procedures?  
 
- Would  imports of all types of printed products be banned or would  the restrictions be applied 
only to printed products conforming to certain criteria?  
 
- Would  these criteria be based on the content of the printed materials?  
 
- If yes, which body would  be responsible for determination of whether or not the content fell 
under such criteria , and on what b asis? 
 
- Would  these criteria be based on the territory of origin of such books or printed materials?  
 
14.4.   He looked forward to receiving replies to these questions  and called upon Ukraine to adhere 
to the relevant WTO  rules when adopti ng measures affecting the market access of foreign goods.  
14.5.   In response, the representative of Ukraine  thanked Russia for its statement. He indicated 
that he could provide only some preliminary answers  as the draft law in question had not yet been 
adopted, and a number of amendment s or additional proposals ha d been submitted for 
consideration . On the substan ce of the draft law, based on  the text  per se , the law prescribe d 
treatment of certain printed products of an extreme  nature to be applied equal ly to both imported 
and domestic printed products . In this light, he doubt ed that this Committee was the appropriate 
forum  for the discussion of the issue raised by  Russia . 
14.6.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked Ukraine for its answer and expressed 
its intention to submit its  questions bilaterally . Nevertheless, the Russian Federation looked  
forward to receiving Ukraine's replies.  
__________