RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/46  
 
1 Februa ry 2018  
(18-0735) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 3  OCTOBER  2017  
CHAIRPERSON: MR.  FAWAZ ALMUBALLI ( KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA)  
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty -seventh  meeting on 3  October  2017 under the 
chairmanship of Mr.  Fawaz Almuballi ( Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). The agenda proposed for the 
meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/6/Rev.1.  
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OB LIGATIONS  –
 DEVELOPMENTS SINCE T HE LAST MEETI NG ................................ ................................ .... 2 
2   WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  2 
2.1   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/40 (follow -up questions from the EU to Indonesia)  ........................  2 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/21 (replies from Brazil to the European Union)  .............................  3 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/38 (replies from Indonesia to the United States)  ...........................  3 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/39 (replies from Indonesia to the European Union)  .......................  4 
2.5   Documents  G/LIC/Q/MYS/14 and G/LIC/Q/MYS/15 (replies  from Malaysia to the 
European Union)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  4 
2.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/MAR/2 (replies from Morocco to the European Union)  ...........................  4 
2.7   Document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 (follow -up questions from the European Union to the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia)  ................................ ................................ ................................  4 
2.8   Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 (follow -up questions from the EU to Thailand)  ...........................  4 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
3.1   Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  ................................ ..............  5 
3.2   Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  ................................ ................................ . 5 
3.3   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ..............................  6 
4   INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING  REQUIREMENTS FOR BOR IC ACID  – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 6 
5   MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
6   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLET S - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STA TES ................................ ... 8 
7   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENTS RELATED TO  MILK 
SUPPLY AND CIRCULATI ON – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ...............................  10 
8   VIET NAM  – DISTILLED SPIRITS AN D COMPLETENESS QUEST ION –
 STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
9   CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LI CENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE 
WASTES AND RECOVERED  MATERIALS – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ..............  11 
10   IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE 
AGREEMENT – REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  ................................ ...............................  12 G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 2 - 
 
  11   DRAFT REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN 
GOODS (G/LIC/W/48)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13 
12   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ..................  14 
 
1  MEMBERS ' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTI FICATION OBLIGATIONS  – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that a total of 22  notifications had been received 
since the la st meeting , of which  21 were listed for conside ration. New N/3  notifications from Japan 
and the European Union, as well as Viet  Nam's written reply to the United States would be 
reviewed at the next meeting.  
1.2.  The Chairman pointed out that, as of 3  October  2017, 16  Members had not yet submitted any 
notification under any provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO. With regard to the 
N/1 notification concerning Members ' laws and regulations, as well as sour ces of information, 
26 Members had still not submitted any such notifications. In addition, 24  Members had not yet 
submitted any Replies to the Questionnaire under Article  7.3. For the sake of transparency, he 
urged all those Members to notify as soon as p ossible. On the other hand, he noted some new and 
positive developments. For instance, Mauritius and the Republic of Moldova had submitted new 
N/1 notifications providing comprehensive list s of all import -licensing -related laws and regulations 
in force in their countries; Botswana had also prepared a draft of its first  ever notification under 
this Agreement, which would be circulated soon. He informed Members that two  Geneva -based 
workshops on import licensing would  be organized for 2018 and 2019 to enhance  technical 
assistance and capacity building for developing Members.  
1.3.  The delegate of the United States  welcomed  these developments  and expressed gratitude to 
both Mauritius and Botswana regarding their new notifications. He noted that the overall 
compliance  of notifications in this Committee was still not satisfactory and encouraged Members 
who had not yet made a notification to do so, as transparency  was a basic and fundamental tenet 
of this Committee. In addition, his delegation welcomed the workshops bein g organized to assist 
Members to meet their notification obligations.  
1.4 The Committee  took note  of the Chairman 's report and of the statement s made.  
2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AN D REPLIES FROM MEMBE RS ON SPECIFIC TRADE  CONCERNS  
2.1  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/40 (follow -up questions from the EU to Indonesia)  
2.1.  The representative of the European Union  thanked Indonesia for the replies to its questions 
on the importation procedures for tyres. However, the EU considered that further clarifications 
were needed and, in this respect , the EU had submitted a set of follow -up questions in 
August  2017. Today, she focused on the following questions:  
(1) The EU asked when "the evaluation " of the  regulation would be completed;  
 
(2) The EU wished  also to understand how Indonesia regulated th e requirement of 
restriction of the import of tyres in order to meet the stated objective of "supporting 
the domestic tyres availability and encourage the development of the tyres in dustry". 
She stated that the EU  looked forward to receiving detailed writt en replies to all its 
follow -up questions.  
 
2.2.  In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the EU for its question s. She indicated 
that they were still waiting for a reply from Capital regarding the EU's follow -up questions 
circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/40. Nevertheless , she pro vided a preliminary response.  
2.3.  She stated that Indonesia would make an effort to notify the regulation as soon as possible 
after completing the evaluation. Regarding the term "restricted " in Indonesia 's import regulation  
on tyre s, she explained that it did not mean that imports of tyres into Indonesia were restrict ed 
(be it in terms of quantity or any other forms of restriction) . G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4.  She clarified that , in relation to import s, Indonesia 's customs regulation classified goods i nto 
three  groups, namely : "free goods ", "restricted goods ", and "prohibited goods ". Free goods were 
those that were freely imported into Indonesia. "Restricted goods " referred to  those goods whose  
importation was regulated. "Regulated " did not necessarily mean that Indonesia restrict ed or 
limited the quantity of a particular good being import ed. In general, imports of any good into 
Indonesia that were regulated were not limited by a  quantity or any other restriction. In contrast , 
prohib ited goods were goods whose importation into Indonesia was banned.  
2.5.  In principle, the import ation of tyre s into Indonesia was regulated so as to attain the 
objectives set out  in the regulation. The article mentioned by the EU did not provide for any 
discret ion on the part of the issuer of the license. It stipulated that the license would be issued at 
the latest three  working days after the application for the license had been submitted in a 
complete and correct manner  and subsequently accepted for review . 
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/21 (replies from Brazil to the European Union)  
2.6.  The representative of the European Union  welcomed the Brazilian government 's engagement 
to streamline and ultimately to reduce the number of products subject to import licencing 
requirements  and looked  forward to hearing from Brazil about any new development s. 
2.7.  She acknowledged Brazil 's commitment to amend its notification (as well as its 
QR notification) and would welcome any updates in this respect, in particular on when Brazil 
planned to submit a revised notification. She also expressed interest in understanding the role of 
the recently established "National Committee on Trade Facilitation " in this process.  
2.8.  On Nitrocellulose for industrial use, the EU thanked Brazil for the replies to its questions, 
circulated as document  G/LIC/Q/BRA/21 , and wished to continue the discussion on the importation 
of Nitrocellulose for industrial use. More specifically, she asked whether, in the framework of the 
general review of the import licensing procedures, Brazil envisaged any revision to the procedures  
applicable to the importation of nitrocellulose for industrial use. With the understanding that the 
Brazilian Ministry of Defence could lead this specific review, she requested Brazil to clarify this 
aspect, including the expected timeline.  
2.9.  She recalled t hat, in its written replies, Brazil had stated that all proceeding s regarding 
nitrocellulose could be downloaded at "http://www.mdic.gov.b r/index.php/comercio -
exterior/importacao/tratamento -administrativo -de-importacao ". However, the EU had still not 
succeeded in  finding the relevant information . For this reason , she asked Brazil once again  to 
present in detail the current requirement s on importation of nitrocellulose fo r commercial use.  
2.10.   Second, and as already asked in this Committee on several previous occasions , the EU 
continued to request reciprocal treatment on the import of nitrocellulose products for industrial 
purposes with a maximum nitrogen content of 12.5% , and likewise requested further clarification 
on the procedures for the importation of nitrocellulose under regulation  NCM 3912.20 (nitratos de 
cellulose/ nitrocellulose).  
2.11.   Third, regarding Brazil 's claim that the procedures were in place to guarantee Brazil's 
national security interest s, she asked Brazil to clarify what Brazil  meant by "national security 
interests ". In this respect, she underlined that a stability test for industrial nitrocellulose  declared 
the EU  products to have the highest safety standard worldwide , that the products were stable , and 
that they would not show a dangerous decomposition even if they should become  dry. Therefore, 
she asserted  that Brazilian national security would no t be negatively affected and invited Brazil to 
comment.  
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/38 (replies from Indonesia to the United States)  
2.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its replies and noted that 
they would take up the matter under anoth er agenda item.  G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/39 (replies from Indonesia to the European Union)  
2.13.   The representative of the European Union  stated that they would come back to this issue 
under another agenda  item. 
2.5  Documents  G/LIC/Q/MYS/14 and G/LIC/Q/MYS/15 (replies f rom Malaysia to the 
European Union)  
2.14.   The representative  of the European Union  thanked Malaysia for its replies and confirmed 
that they had no further questions.  
2.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/MAR/2 (replies from Morocco to the European Union)  
2.15.   The representative of the European Union  thanked Morocco for its replies and confirmed 
that they had no further  questions.  
2.7  Document  G/LIC/Q/BOL/3 (follow -up questions from the European Union to the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia)  
2.16.   The representative of the European Union  stated that  the EU had noted an increasing use in 
the Plurinational State of Bolivia of import licensing procedures and wished  to ask Bolivia to 
explain the rationale behind  this new policy. She pointed out that EU  companies had complained 
about  Bolivia's  burdensome import procedures and a lack of sufficient information. Thus, as at 
previous meetings, the EU again asked  Bolivia: (1)  to provide detailed written replies to the 
EU questions submitted last year. This would allow her delegation to understand the  procedures 
put in place under  Supreme Decree  2752/2016. In particular, the EU asked Bolivia to present the 
details of these procedures, clarifying the ir purpose and intende d duration; and  (2) to submit its 
annual notification.  
2.17.   In response, the representat ive of Bolivia  asked the EU to submit  their comments and 
questions in writing so  that they could be promptly convey ed to Capital .  
2.8  Document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 (follow -up questions from the EU to Thailand)  
2.18.   The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's concern s with regard to  
Thailand's  import procedures on feed wheat , and asked the following questions: (1)  the EU wished 
to understand under  what rationale  the measure was introduced  and for how long  it would be 
maintained;  (2) the EU wished  to understand whether the measure in question  was an automatic 
or a non -automatic import licence,  as well as  to receive more information with regard to  the 
applicable import procedures (including the ir timeline ), in accordance with Article  3 of the 
Agreem ent; (3) the EU wished also to understand Thailand 's justification  for the measure. In 
addition , the EU repeated its request to receive  all relevant data concerning  the actual situation in 
market oversupply of corn. In particular, the EU requested Thailand  to provide statistics on the 
production, export, import , and consumption of maize and wheat for the period 2014 -2016.  
2.19.   Moreover, she noted that a new implementing regulation had been  issued in June  2017. The 
new set of rules maintained identical requiremen ts for the purchase of local corn, while granting  
favourable derogations for feed wheat imported for the manufacture of pet food and shrimp feed. 
On this point, she requested Thailand to explain the consistency and rationale of this policy making 
and quest ioned if these derogations might not  cause additional pressure on the alleged market 
oversupply of corn. If that were the case, she asked if the likely consequence would be  a 
prolongation of the measure.  
2.20.   In addition, she reiterated the EU's request for Thailand to share information regarding the 
number of applications received under the new license regime and the number of import licenses 
granted  to date,  including the total import quantity of feed wheat allowe d under the new license 
regime.  
2.21.   In conclusio n, she indicated that the EU was looking forward to receiving written replies to 
its questions circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 , as well as to the questions raised today , and G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 5 - 
 
  would like to know whether Thailand intended to notify these import procedure s in accordance with 
Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Agreement.  
2.22.   The representative of Canada  shared the EU's concerns. He encouraged all Members to 
submit notifications in a timely manner and , in this case, asked Thailand to notify its measures to 
the WTO as soo n as possible , in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures. Canada looked forward to receiving additional  information from Thailand,  
including on the issue of the compatibility of Thailand 's measures in question  with Article  XI of 
GATT  1994.  
2.23.   In response, the representative of Thailand  thanked the EU and Canada for raising the 
questions regarding its import proced ures for feed wheat in document  G/LIC/Q/THA/3. She 
explained that Thailand had set the final bound tariff s for wheat a t 27%. However, since 
September  2007, Thailand had exempted import tariffs for wheat to reduce the burden on the  
private sector. Since 2012, Thailand had begun  importing a large amount of feed wheat and this 
had had a  negative impact on corn f armers during the harvest season. The import permit for feed 
wheat was a temporary measure that had been  put in place to relieve  the challenge  of corn price 
depression. In this regard, animal feed manufacturers were required to register with the 
Department of Livestock Development. The Ministry of Commerce was currently reviewing a 
possible increase in imports of wheat at a reasonable level and w as in con sultation with the 
Ministry of A griculture and private sector to find a satisfactory way in which to do so . In this 
regard, she asked the EU to provide its questions in writing . 
2.24.   The representative of Ukraine  registered Ukraine's  support for the co ncerns expressed by 
the EU and Canada and thanked Thailand for its explanation.  
2.25.   The representative of Australia  echoed the concerns of the EU, Canada,  and Ukraine. He 
thanked Thailand for its answer s but noted that this was an issue that had been raised in  multiple 
fora since the beginning of the year, and Australia looked forward to its resolution.  
2.26.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  Notifications under Articles  1.4(a)/8.2(b) of the Agreement  
3.1.  The following N/1  notifications were reviewed: European Union (G/LIC/N/1/EU/11); Mauritius 
(G/LIC/N/1/MUS/3); Republic of Moldova (G/LIC/N/1/MDA/3); Switzerland (G/LIC/N/1/CHE/4); 
and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (G/LIC/N/1/TPKM/12).  
3.2.  The Committee  took no te of the notifications made.  
3.2  Notifications under Article  5 of the Agreement  
3.3.  The following N/2  notifications were reviewed at the meeting: Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28); the European Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/11); Hong Kong, China 
(G/LIC/N/2/HKG/8 ); Malaysia (G/LIC/N/2/MYS/8 and G/LIC/N/2/MYS/8/Add.1); Paraguay 
(G/LIC/N/2/PRY/7) ; and Ukraine (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/6/Corr.1).  
3.4.  On G/LIC/N/2/PRY/7, the representative of the European Union  sought confirmation from 
Paraguay that , with these new measures, Paraguay had introd uced an automatic import licensing 
procedure for mobile cellular telephones , and a non-automatic procedure for telephone parts not 
integrated into finished mobile cellular  telephones . She also requested an explanation of the 
rationale for having  put in pla ce two  different systems, one automatic and the other 
non-automatic, as well as Paraguay's  reasons for choosing a non -automatic system.  
3.5.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements made.  G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.3  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.6.  The f ollowing N/3  notifications were reviewed at the meeting: Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/3/ARG/13); Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/9/Rev.1); Hong Kong, China 
(G/LIC/N/3/HKG/21); Mali (G/LIC/N/3/MLI/9); Mauritius (G/LIC/N/3/MUS/7); Panama 
(G/LIC/N/3/PAN/8); the  Separate Custo ms Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
(G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/8); Switzerland (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/13) ; and Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/10).  
3.7.  The Committee took note of the notifications made.  
4  INDIA  – IMPORT LICENSING  REQUIREMENTS FOR BOR IC ACID  – STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
4.1.  The Chairman  informed the Committee that items  4 to 9 had been included in the agenda at 
the request of the United States in a communication dated 19  September  2017.  
4.2.  The representative of the United States  indicated that, for quite some time, the US had been 
concerned with India 's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respect to the 
burdensome end -use certificates necessary for importation. In fact, his delegation had be en raising 
this issue in the Committee since 2008, and bilateral ly for even longer.  
4.3.  He recalled that US concerns dated back to 2006, when India 's Ministry of Commerce and 
Industry issued a new ruling,  stating that "Imports of Boric Acid for non -insecticida l purposes 
would be subject to an import permit issued by the Central Insecticide Board & Registration 
Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture. " 
4.4.  He elaborated that , prior to this change, no import permit had been required for boric acid. 
However, India 's implementation of this change had had the effect of limiting the 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. This information was subject to  a formal government 
review process. Ultimately, only a specific quantity of boric acid could be approved for import 
under each transaction.  
4.5.  The Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee only met monthly, and often did 
not have the opportunity t o review import requests. This completely impeded  the ability of 
importers in India to meet "just in time " supply chain requirements for non -insecticidal boric acid. 
No such restrictions were placed on domestic suppliers of non -insecticidal boric acid.  
4.6.  In addition to the lengthy time-frame  for obtaining an approval, quantities were also 
restricted. Indian importers had expressed their frustration that they must supply information on 
their past consumption of boric acid, broken out by imports and domestic so urces, when seeking 
approval to import. New approvals for imported boric acid were based only on past import levels, 
not on total consumption. This appeared to be an arbitrary quantitative restriction.  
4.7.  He noted that the US  had received varying responses fr om the Indian government when 
presented with these facts. During its TPR, India had cited the Insecticides Act of 1968 as the 
legislative authority for its import licensing of boric acid. However, import permits were not 
required on boric acid until 2006. Then, in 2011, India 's Central Board of Excise and Custo ms 
(CBEC) stated that Section  38 of the Insecticide Act  1968 exempted  insecticides with 
non-insecticidal use from import permit requirements. However, the CBEC later clarified that 
import permits were  still required for non -insecticidal boric acid.  
4.8.  He continued to request that India explain why boric acid, which had a toxicity level roughly 
equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide  requiring  an import permit for 
non-insecticidal use co nsidering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticides that were not 
required to obtain an import permit.  
4.9.  He observed that domestic manufacturers of boric acid in India did not have to seek approval 
from a government Ministry to sell their product , and that domestic  producers did not have to 
determine the end use of the boric acid prior to its sale. Indeed, domestic producers could sell  to 
any buyer and face d no quantitative  limit upon how much they sold. G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.10.   In this regard, the US continued to request  that India amend Schedule – I (Imports) of the  
ITC (HS) Classifications of Export and Import Items to eliminate the requirement that imports of 
boric acid for non -insecticidal purposes be subject to an import permit.  
4.11.   Further, on 17 August  2017, India's Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee 
issued a public notice entitled "Mechanism for Issuance of the Specific Quantity Permission (SQP) 
in view of Make in India initiative. " 
4.12.   The policy would implement quantitative  restrictions on imports of all registered 
insecticides, including boric acid. The notice stated that imports of insecti cides would be restricted 
to 75% of the average of the three  previous years of imports from the date an application for an 
import permit was submitted.  
4.13.   In this rega rd, the United States had a number of questions that they intended to follow up 
with India bilaterally : 
 The US wished  to understand on what basis India was imposing this restriction on the 
amount of boric acid that could be imported?  
 
 When did India plan to notify  this measure to the Committee?  
 
 The US understood  that its implementation had been deferred until an online system had 
been developed and was interested to know when India expected to implement this policy.  
 
4.14.   In response, the representative of India thanked the US  delegate for its continued interest 
in India's import licensing policy on boric acid. He noted that the US had raised  two specific issues. 
On the first  issue, India had already responded to all written questions asked by interested 
delegations , including the US, and these replies had explained the policy objectives of the measure 
as well as issues relating to its implementation. The matter had also been discussed at a bilateral 
level. He stated that there was no new response from India on this issue and invited the US to 
refer to India's detailed statement delivered  at the Committee's previous meeting and available at 
paragraph  6.11 and 6.12 of the minutes ( G/LIC/ M/44). 
4.15.   Regarding the US reference to the public notice issued by the Central Insecticide Board 
Administration and Registration Committee in 2017, he indicated that the implementation of the 
measure had been deferred until further notice. In this regard, India requested the US to submit  
its concerns in writing . India also indicated that the issue would be discussed further in bilateral 
meetings with the US.  
4.16.   The Committee took note of the statements  made.  
5  MEXICO  – STEEL IMPORT LICENSI NG PROGRAM  – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
5.1.  The representative of the United States  thanked Mexico for its continued cooperation to wards  
address ing US concerns over Mexico 's import licensing requirement s for steel products.  
5.2.   However, the United States continued to be concerned about  aspects of the p rogram and its 
implementation. He noted that his authority had received reports from US  industry of long border 
delays caused by ad hoc or unusual import license paperwork requirements. Specifically, some 
US steel service centres had indicated that S AT and  Mexican Customs were : (1) mandating – in 
certain instances – that importer s or customs broker s present an original or "certified copy " of the 
Steel Mill Test Certificate; and (2)  requiring that specific terminology, such as "hot-rolled steel, " be 
spelled out on the Mill Test Report. He noted  that this development was confusing for industry 
because a listing of these requirements seemed not to have been published anywhere in Mexican 
law, nor on the webs ites of SAT or Mexican Customs.  
5.3.  In this regard, the US  had questions for Mexico on which they wished to follow up  bilaterally, 
including : G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 8 - 
 
   Whether Mexico could clarify where the requirements for certified copies of Steel Mill Test 
Certificates and specific terminology on Mill Test Reports could  be found? And co uld Mexico 
provide the rationale for requiring specific terminology on Mill Test Reports?  
 
 The US  understood that SAT established the Steel Sector  Import Registration in 
January  2017. Companies were initially given until 15 May to register although that 
deadline was then extended to 15 June because of  the overwhelming number of 
applications received. The US wished  to know whether all applications had been 
successfully reviewed by the 15 June deadline . If not, how was SAT managing imports by 
those companies whose applications had not yet been reviewed, and were imports by 
those companies permitted?  
 
5.4.  He hoped to continue bilateral communications with Mexico in order to resolve these issues.  
5.5.  In response, the representative of Mexico  took note of the statement made by the US. She 
indicated that her delegation had been  surprised to see that this item had once again been 
included on the Committee's agenda, in pa rticular given the ongoing bilateral exchanges and 
cooperation on this issue . She pointed out that , unfortunately , her delegation was not in a position 
to answer the questions raised today given that they did not receive any indication of the specific 
US concern s prior to the meeting, and nor had they been notified that the  item would appear  on 
the agenda. She noted that such notification  was considered a courtesy gesture between Geneva 
delegations. In any case, the channel s of communication remained open , in Geneva and in Capital. 
She requested that the questions raised be submitt ed to her delegation in writing.  
5.6.  The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REG IME FOR CELLPHONES, HANDHELD COMPUTERS 
AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
6.1.  The representative of the United States  pointed out that, as the Committee was well aware, 
the US held long  standing and serious concerns over Indonesia 's import  licensing  regimes and, in 
particular, the import licensing  requirements for cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets. For 
some tim e, the United States had been seeking clarity regarding the specific requirements of 
Indonesia 's import licensing regime and an explanation  of the overall  rationale  for the 
requirements.  
6.2.  While recognizing the responses provided by Indonesia just prior to the last meeting, the 
US was of the view that these  did not address  their concerns and , in some instances, the answers 
did not respond to the questions asked.  
6.3.  He continued to seek Indonesia 's explanation as to  why the import licensing requirements 
treated 3G and 4G  technologies  differently. He pointed out that the answers received from 
Indonesia merely stated that the two  products were treated differently —both in terms of which 
type of API was needed as well as in terms of the type of recommendation needed —without 
explaining the underlying rationale fo r the difference in treatment.  
6.4.  The US  also continued to wish to understand  why Indonesia required both a license to import 
generally —which divided companies into those that import ed goods  for further processing  and 
those that import ed finished products —and a separate license for specific products, in this case for 
4G LTE products, and a recommendation fr om the specific line ministry.  
6.5.  In addition, the US also had a series of questions concerning  whether or not domestic 
companies were subject to requirements equivalent to those imposed on importers. Based on 
Indonesia 's responses, it appeared that Indonesia had designed its system to treat importing 
companies differently from domestic companies manufacturing these products. Further, it  
appeared that the system was designed to treat importers that import for further processing more 
favourably than those importing finished products.  
6.6.  He emphasized that this set of requirements was a source of  fundamental concern and that 
the responses received had so far done nothing to alleviate that concern.  G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 9 - 
 
  6.7.  He pointed out that the one area in which it appeared that there might be a similar 
requirement for domestic companies was with respect to the use of di stributors. In this regard, his 
delegation asked Indonesia to provide the specific legislative or regulatory reference —the title, 
number, and year —for the requirement applicable to domestic companies regarding the use of 
distributors.  
6.8.  Furthermore, his dele gation questioned the suggestion made in the written responses , that a 
comparison of the current requirements with the immediately preceding requirements was an 
appropriate basis for determining whether the current requirements were no more administrativel y 
burdensome than necessary , because:  
 It did not appear that the current requirements were less administratively burdensome 
than the immediately preceding requirements ; 
 
 Second, if one were to accept that proposition , it would be prefer able to compare the 
current requirements to the situation in 2011, when there were no requirements in place.  
 
6.9.  Overall, his delegation continued to question what WTO -consistent measure these import 
licensing requirements were implementing, as well as how these requirements could be 
understood as being  no more administrativ ely burdensome than necessary.  
6.10.   He understood  that Indonesia had issued additional regulations —Ministry of Industry 
Regulation  65/2016 , and Ministry of Communication and Inf ormation Technology 
Regulation  23/2016 —which contained additional procedures for obtaining the necessary 
certification prior to obtaining an import license.  
6.11.   He stated that the industry concerned was very important both to the United States and to 
the global economy. As previously stated , the issues raised today and on multiple previous 
occasions were serious. In the view of the US , the import licensing requirements at issue had 
already begun to distort trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector, and to 
undermine efforts to e nhance market access opportunities for high technology pr oducts, as 
reflected in the WTO  Information Technology Agreement.  
6.12.   He appreciated that Indonesia had notified some of these measures to the Committee, 
including Ministry of Trade Regulation  41/2016 , in March  2017. However, the US urged Indonesia:  
(1) to notify all of the associated measures, including M inistry of Industry Regulations  108/2012 
and 68/2016, the two  aforementioned new measures from the Ministry of Industry and the 
Ministry of Communicatio n and Information Technology ( Regulation  29/2017 and 
Regulation  23/2016, respectively); as well as KOMINFO  Circular Letter  518/2017; and (2) to 
reconsider these import licensing requirements for cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets.  
6.13.   In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the United States for its concern with 
regard to  Indonesia 's import licensing regime for cellphones, h andheld computers, and tablets.  
6.14.   She noted that , as the destination for many 4G  devices, Indonesia nee ded to ensure the 
safety and conformity of 4G  devices with existing operating system s in Indonesia; Indonesia also 
needed  to ensure that 4G devices sold on its market came with  good after -sales service so that 
consumers knew where to go if any  problems occ urred with their devices. She stated that her 
Government had invested a huge sum to create the 4G  system and had an obligation to ensure 
that 4G devices sold in Indonesia were compatible with the network provided without creating any  
unnecessary interference that might affect  national security.  
6.15.   She continued that , as the Committee was primarily concerned with import licensing 
procedure s, her delegation could reassure the US that, as long as all the licensing requirements 
were fulfille d in a complete and correct manner, the import license would be issued  automatically , 
especially in the case of import s of cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets.  
6.16.   The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 10 - 
 
  7  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQ UIREMENT S RELATED TO MILK SU PPLY AND 
CIRCULATION – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
7.1.  The representative of the United States  noted that the US was very concerned with recent 
developments regulating the dairy industry in Indonesia. They understood that Indonesia had 
recently issued Ministry of Agriculture Regulation  26/2017 concerning Milk Supply and Circulation 
("MOA 26/2017 ") and that this regulation called for the issuance of several additional measures, 
including a dairy import regulation.  
7.2.  He was concerned that Regulation MOA 26/2017 and associated measures would restrict 
US dairy exports to Indonesia and create disadvantageous conditions for dairy importers and food 
processing businesses. Based on conversations with Indonesian officials, the US understood that 
the import regulation would be similar to some of the existing import licensing requirements that 
were already in place in Indonesia, such as those for animal and animal products.  
7.3.  He stated that , as this Committee was well aware, the United States had long -standing  
concerns with Indonesia 's import licensing regime in general , and in the agriculture area 
specifically. Thus, he urge d Indonesia to reconsider Regulation MOA 26/2017, and to consult with 
its trading partners prior to the issuance of any subsequent  dairy impo rt measures.  
7.4.  The representative of the European Union  expressed its interest in this issue. In particular:  
(1) the EU was interested in receiving information on the current situation with regard to  the 
implementation regulation; (2)  the EU requested Indonesia to present in detail the rules applicable 
on the basis of Regulation No . 26/2017 and its implementing regulations on milk supply and 
distribution; (3)  the EU invited Indonesia to notify these new procedures as soon as possible upon 
their entry into force.  
7.5.  The representative of Switzerland  echoed the concerns raised by the US and the EU with 
regard  to Indonesia 's tariff regulation  26/2017 on milk supply and regulation. He looked forward to 
receiving a response from Indonesia on this matte r, especially regarding Indonesia's justification 
for the measure and details of its implementation.  
7.6.  In response, the representative of Indonesia  thanked the US, the EU , and Switzerland, for 
their interest in  Indonesia 's regulation on the provision and circulation of milk, and in particular 
that part of the regulation  that concern ed imports . She pointed out that the regulation did not 
contain any provision regarding import licensing. However, her delegation would convey the issue 
to Capital and stood ready to give additional  explanation if requested  to do so . 
7.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  VIET NAM  – DISTILLED SPIRITS AN D COMPLETENESS QUEST ION – STATEMENT BY 
THE UNITED STATES  
8.1.  The representative of the United States  recalled that they  had been raising the issue of Viet 
Nam's distilled spirit importation measures for some time and that it remained an issue of 
importance to various stakeholders in the United States.  
8.2.  He indicated that there were positive signals that the issue might soon be addressed in light 
of a replacement decree that would come into effect on 1 November  2017. This new decree – 
Decree  105 – appeared to replace the three -tiered licensing regime from Decree  94/2012, and to 
eliminate the earlier decree's  discriminatory aspects.  
8.3.  He noted that while his Government would review the new decree and its implementation, 
the US  preliminary analysis suggested that the issues they had raised in the past had now been 
addressed. In this regard, his delegation highly appreciated Viet Nam 's responsiveness to their 
concerns. Finally, he emphasized that the US remained interested in confirming that Viet Nam had 
notified all of its import licensing regimes. They had bee n working bilaterally with Viet Nam to 
address this issue and appreciated the effort s Viet Nam had made to resolve it. He informed the 
Committee that , based on their bilateral discussions , it appeared that Viet Nam intended  to meet 
its transparency obligat ions imminently and had a plan to do so. The US looked forward to 
reviewing Viet Nam 's Article  7.3 notification in the near term.  G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 11 - 
 
  8.4.  The representative of Australia  stated that Australia had also been raising this issue on 
distilled spirits with Viet  Nam for some time. His delegation was pleased to hear the news from the 
US that the new Decree made some positive amendments. They would review the new Decree and 
looked forward to further engagement with Viet Nam.  
8.5.  In response, the representative of Viet Nam  confirmed that on 2 October Viet Nam had 
submitted its answers to the United States ' questions (document  G/LIC/Q/VNM/7). He informed 
the Committee that , as of the day of the Committee's meeting , the draft decree on wine trading 
referred to in their response had  become final and would enter into force on 1  November  2017. He 
hoped that it would address all the concerns raised by the United States. He thanked the US for 
their continued interest and remained open to discuss ing with Members  any further issue 
regardin g Viet Nam 's import licensing regime . 
8.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  CHINA – CHANGES TO IMPORT LI CENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE WASTES A ND 
RECOVERED MATERIALS – STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  
9.1.  The representative of the United States  noted that the US had significant concerns over the 
uncertainty, transparency, and trade restrictiveness of the changes to import licensing regulations 
surrounding China 's implementation of an existing import ban on certain plastic and paper scrap 
and China's  plans to extend this ban to other products. He asked China to explain the following: 
(1) the new import licensing requirements under this policy , and when it would notify these 
changes to the Committee ; and (2) whether China planned to extend the import ba n to ferrous 
and non -ferrous scrap? If so, when might those  changes occur? What procedures would be 
followed in adopting such an extension? In addition, he respectfully asked that China adhere in a 
timely manner to its notification obligations under the Ag reement on Import Licensing with respect 
to any new import measures, particularly for ferrous and non -ferrous metals, as China was a 
multi-billion dollar  market for US  stakeholders.  
9.2.  The representative of the European Union  expressed the EU's interest in this issue and asked 
China to provide details of the recently adopted amendments to the licence procedures for 
restricted waste. The EU also invited China to notify these amendments as soon as possible.  
9.3.  The representative of Australia  also expressed its conc erns and interest in this matter. He 
noted that Australia had raised its concerns both in Geneva and in Beijing and looked for ward to 
receiving  further information on this matter and, in particular , a notification of the changes to 
China 's regime.  
9.4.  The representative of Canada  shared the US 's concerns with  regard to  China 's recently 
announced restrictions on the import of solid waste and the resulting uncertainty for traders. 
Canada would appreciate additional and more detailed information on the fol lowing: (1) the 
specific products that China intended to ban under the revised Catalogue of Solid Wastes 
Forbidden to Import into China; (2)  clarity with regard to  the explicit descriptions of each newly 
banned material and the rationale for China 's action  in each case so as more clearly to understand 
China 's intentions; (3)  an explanation from China regarding the planned changes to its import 
licensing system, as well as the date of implementation; and (4) clarification as to whether or not 
the proposed me asures would apply to goods destined for recycling operations.  
9.5.  He argued that the trade in recyclable materials was mutually beneficial because  Canada was 
not able to process many of these materials as efficiently as China could , and  because  Chinese 
companies in turn obtained valuable raw materials from Canadian sources. Severely restricting the 
import of these materials into China might then increase the price of those raw  materials, thereby 
harming the competitiveness of Chinese processors.  In this regard, Canada encouraged China to 
consider all possible mechanisms to ensure that this lucrative trade was not disrupted while at the 
same time limiting any harmful environmental impact.  
9.6.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  shared the conc erns of other Members with 
regard to China 's changes to its import licensing for certain recoverable waste and recovered 
materials. He indicated that Korea would continue to closely monitor the follow -up measure s to be G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 12 - 
 
  taken by the Chinese Government . Kore a looked forward to reviewing China 's notification to the 
Committee and to further cooperating with China on this matter , as necessary.  
9.7.  In response, the representative of China  took note of the statements made by the US, the 
EU, Australia, Canada,  and Kore a. She pointed out that , since it was the first  time that this issue 
had been  raised in the Committee, her delegation would forward it to Capital for further 
consideration. In order to better respond to the concerns, she hoped that the US and other 
Members  would submit their questions in writing.  
9.8.  The Committee  took note  of the statements made.  
10  IMPROVING TRANSPAREN CY IN NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES OF THE AGR EEMENT – 
REPORT OF THE CHAIRP ERSON  
10.1.   The Chairman  noted that  transparency had always been one of the key pil lars of the 
multilateral trading system and that, in the past few years, a lot of work and effort had gone into 
improving transparency and notification compliance in this Committee. He recalled that at the 
Committee 's previous  meeting , on 5 May 2017, he had repeated the view expressed by his 
predecessor, Mr  Tapio Pyysalo of Finland, that the factors leading to a low notification rate in this 
area were complex and needed to be addressed  in a comprehensive manner. He also believed that 
the time and effor t dedicated by many Members and the Secretariat to simplifying and 
streamlining notification procedures should not be wasted. On the other hand, he recognized the 
fact that, at this stage, divergent views remained among Members with regard  to how to improv e 
notification procedures, as well as the process by which to do so.  
10.2.   Taking into account the importance of improving transparency and notification compliance in 
this Committee, he suggested to Members that they continue to work in a frank and constructive 
manner. In this regard, he intended to hold informal consultations with Members after MC11. As 
the new Chair, he sought Members ' views on: (1)  whether we should continue the discussions in 
this Committee ; and (2)  what would be the best approach to do so? 
10.3.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for all 
their work in seeking to improve notification procedures and expressed disappointment with the 
difficulties that had arisen in further advancing  this work. His delegation understood that it could 
be challenging  to comply with the notification requirements under this Agreement , especially for 
lesser developed countries with capacity constraints. His delegation was also aware of the 
seemingly very low level of com pliance among  Members with their import lice nsing notification 
obligations.  
10.4.   In this context, he welcomed a re -examination of the notification procedures, while 
recognizing that the substantive obligations would not be modified through this process, and 
providing  that any changes contemplated were realistically designed to increase the level of 
compliance with the notification obligations. Furthermore, his delegation continued to advocate 
that legislation be provided to the Secretariat in an electronic forma t so as to ensure that  such 
information  be easily transmittable and accessible.  
10.5.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Chairman and supported his proposal to hold  
further consultations. His delegation regret ted that the Committee's discussions had n ot resulted 
in agreement on how to improve the situation on notification. He echoed the US in saying that 
notification compliance in the Committee was poor  partly because of  the complexity of the current 
notification system. He emphasized that the proposal put forward by the Secretariat would be on a 
voluntary basis and that his delegation was still of the view that to discuss the document should 
not be an issue. Therefore , his delegation would indeed wish to cont inue the discussion.  
10.6.   The representative of the European Union  expressed the EU's readiness to participate in any 
kind of initiative if Members join ed the consensus to work on the revision of the notification 
templates. She  noted that , as expressed several times in past years, in the EU 's view, there was 
room for improvement in the current rules in order to streamline the notification process and to 
make the preparation of the annual notification less burdensome to Members. On the other hand, 
the EU also considered it necessary that Members first  agree on the process . The EU  therefore G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 13 - 
 
  encourage d those Members that had objected to such discussions in the past to re consider their 
position s and to engage in this process with the  aim of improving regulatory  transparency.  
10.7.   The representative of Canada  expressed support for the Chair 's initiative to continue 
working on informal consultations with a view to advancing a discussion on new notification 
templates. In Canada 's view, the wo rk would facilitate efforts to help Members to meet their 
transparency obligations under the Agreement, and to ensure that governments and business es 
had access to applicable import licensing procedures in a timely manner. Canada supported 
continuous discu ssions on the issue and was read y to participate in  such discussions in  any format.  
10.8.   The representative of Singapore  indicated that Singapore was  supportive of Members' 
efforts in the Committee to improve overall compliance with notification obligations. Singapore 
very much welcomed the technical assistance workshops that the Secretariat would organize and 
regarded such efforts as a step in the right direction. She reiterated her delegation 's continuous 
support for the Committee 's earlier efforts to streamline notification requirements, without 
duplicating existing obligations or creating new notification obligations.  
10.9.   The representative of Australia  noted that , as technology evolved,  Members should look to 
make the best use of it in the area of notifications. Referring to the very low compliance rate in 
notifications to the Import Licensing Committee, he believed that the compliance rate  could be 
improved  by new approaches and appropriate  amendments. He emphasized that Members shou ld 
always be looking to make improvements in how things  were done . Australia 's ultimate wish was 
to have a database , similar to those  of other Committees , where Members would be  able to search 
procedures and notifications with ease. However, he  acknowledge d that , in the interim certain  
initial steps might first need to  be taken. The first step was to improve the notification process  
itself. He encouraged the Chairman to hold consultations on this issue and looked forward to 
working with him  in this regard . 
10.10.   The representative of China  thanked the Secretariat for its great efforts in improving 
transparency and the efficiency of the notification template. China attached great importance to 
implementation of the transparency obligation under the Agreement on Imp ort Licensing 
Procedures and believed that discussions on the templates should aim at simplifying notification s, 
improving efficiency , and reducing the notification burden on Members. At the same time, the 
exercise should avoid duplicating notification obl igations or creating new notification obligations. 
China was ready to engage in any related technical discussions.  
10.11.   The representative of Thailand  pointed out that her delegation fully support ed continuing 
the discussion to improve the notification procedur es and practices under the Agreement by 
streamlining a template to fulfil the Agreement's requirements and to reduce the duplications in 
the existing forms. She emphasized that it was essential that the revised template facilitate the 
notification procedur es and enhance transparency without placing any additional burden on 
Members.  
10.12.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  expressed support for advancing  the 
consultations and his delegation was ready to work on this issue to enhance transparency in the 
Committee.  
10.13.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the Secretariat for the excellent work they 
had done  and for the discussion so far. She expressed her delegation 's full support for a simplified 
and streamlined notification  format . She encouraged Mem bers with concerns to show flexibility 
and looked forward to the adoption of draft formats in this Committee in the near future.  
10.14.   The Committee took note  of the Chair's report and of the statements made.  
11  DRAFT  REPORT (2017) OF THE  COMMITTEE TO THE COU NCIL FOR TRADE IN GO ODS 
(G/LIC/W/48)  
11.1.   The Chairman  informed the Committee that a draft report to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG), covering the activities of the Committee in 2017 , had been circulated in G/LIC/M/46  
 
- 14 - 
 
  documen t G/LIC/W/48 for the Committee 's consideration. He noted that new notifications and 
documents received since the issuing of the draft report would be included in the final report .1 
11.2.   The Committee adopted  the report.  
12  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
12.1.   The Chairman  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had  tentatively reserved Friday , 
20 April 2018, for the next formal  Committee meeting and on the understanding that additional 
meetings may be convened as necessary.  
12.2.   The Committee took note . 
__________  
                                                
1 The final report was circulated in document  G/L/1187.