RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/39  
 
22 August 2014  
(14-4834)  Page: 1/19  
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 APRIL 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: MR. LU XIANKU (CHINA) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its forty-first meeting on 15 April 2014. The agenda 
proposed for the meeting, contained in document WTO/AIR/4278, was adopted as follows: 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH  NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS –
 DEVELOPMENT SINCE TH E LAST MEETING ...................................................................... 1  
2   QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMB ERS ON SPECIFIC TR ADE CONCERNS .............. 2  
3   NOTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 14  
3.1   Notifications under Article 1.4(1) and/or Article 8.2(b) of the Agreement .......................... 14 
3.2   Notifications under Ar ticle 5 of the Agreement .............................................................. 14 
3.3   Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement ............................................................ 14 
4   INDIA – BORIC ACID IMPORT LICE NSING PROCEDURES -- REQUEST BY THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................. 15  
5   THAILAND – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF 
NITROCELLULOSE INTO THAILAND -- REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ................... 16  
6   BRAZIL – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE 
INTO BRAZIL – REQUEST BY  THE EUROPEAN UNION ..................................................... 17  
7   PREPARATION OF THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 7 
8   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING .................................................................................... 18  
9   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 18  
10   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 18  
 
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICA TION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENT SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING 
1.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that, since the last meeting and up to 14 April 2014, 
a total of 69 notifications had been received under vari ous provisions of the Agreement. Of these 
notifications, 65 were listed in the airgram for the Committee's consideration, including 
13 notifications under Article 1.4 and/or 8.2(b); 16 under Article 5; and 36 under Article 7.3. In 
addition, a few notifications remained pending from the last Committee meeting; these would also 
be reviewed.  
1.2 He noted that since the last Committee meeting notifications had been received from 
Jamaica (G/LIC/N/3/JAM/4), Turkey (G/LIC/N/1 /TUR/11), Tajikistan (G/LIC/N/3/TJK/1) and 
Viet Nam (G/LIC/N/3/VNM/2). However, as th e Secretariat was waiting for responses and 
verifications from respective capitals on a number of technical issues, these were not circulated 
and would be considered at the next meeting. Some of the notifications were only in English due to their late submission. In addition, after issuance  of the airgram, Mexico and Paraguay had both 
submitted new notifications, and Saint Lucia an d Malaysia had submitted written responses to 
Questions raised. These would be circulated and then reviewed at the next meeting. G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1.3 He reminded the Committee that 17 Members had still not submitted any notification under 
any provision of the Agreement since joining the WTO. At the same time, he congratulated both 
the People's Democratic Republic of Lao and Tajiki stan for having submitted their first notifications 
under this Agreement. 
 1.4 As of 15 April 2014, 29 Members had not submitted their laws and regulations, as well as the 
sources of information under provision 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b). The Chairperson stressed that 
Members who did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to the Agreement were also required to submit a notification to the Committee. He urged those Members to do so as soon as possible. 
 
1.5 Since the last meeting,  16 notifications from 8 Members had been received regarding their 
new licensing procedures, or changes in existing procedures under Article 5. These would be 
reviewed during the course of the meeting. 
 1.6 Regarding Members' compliance with Article 7.3, he indicated that the overall situation was not 
encouraging, and that the deadline of 30 Sept ember had not been fully respected by many 
Members. Only 39 N/3 notifications had been received from 35 Members since the last meeting. 
36 notifications were ready for consideration at this meeting, while notifications from Jamaica, Tajikistan, and Viet Nam would be reviewed at the next meeting. 
 
1.7 He further noted that, from a historical pers pective, out of the whole membership of 132 (with 
the EU-28 counted as one), 26 Members had never submitted replies to Questionnaires under 
Article 7.3. He urged those Members concerned to fulfil their notification obligations as soon as 
possible.  
1.8 The Chairperson reminded the Committee that tr ansparency was one of the key pillars of this 
Agreement and Members were thus encouraged, on a voluntary basis, to use the forms for N/1 and N/2 notifications, as contained in document G/LIC/22. In doing so, he encouraged Members to approach the Secretariat for technical assistance. 
 
1.9 The representative of the United States agreed with the Chairperson that the picture was not 
very encouraging. He thanked the Chairperson for his efforts to advance transparency among 
Members. Nevertheless, the US welcomed the efforts by Tajikistan and Lao PDR, and in particular 
that of the Lao PDR given that it was a least developed country.  
1.10 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
2  QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
2.1 Moving to the questions and replies circul ated under the G/LIC/Q series, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that, following the order of the airgram, consideration would be given to 
14 documents containing questions on the licensing regimes maintained by other Members and to 5 documents containing responses to written questions. 
 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/14 
2.2 The representative of the European Union regretted that Argentina had not yet replied to their 
questions submitted last December in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/14. She reiterated the EU's 
concerns on the sworn declaration of product composition (DJCP), and notably its qualification as an automatic licensing system despite the fact th at the system had considerably changed in the 
course of the year. Furthermore, she asked for additional clarifications of Resolution No. 248/13, 
very recently adopted by Argentina, which sets ad ditional rules on the use of the sworn declaration 
for goods imports. The EU looked forward to receiv ing the replies to their written questions within 
a short deadline. 
 
2.3 The representative of Argentina thanked the EU for its comments and noted that his delegation 
had submitted written replies to the Secretariat th is morning, and that they were working on the 
document in word version. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4 The representative of the United States indica ted that they shared many of the same concerns 
as those of the EU as set out in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/14, and they looked forward to 
Argentina's written response so as more clearly to understand its DJCP import licensing regime. 
 
2.5 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/BGD/5 and G/LIC/Q/BGD/4 
2.6 The representative of Bangladesh thanked the Un ited States for its questions. He clarified that, 
with regard to the first set of questions as circulated in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/3, Bangladesh had 
responded, in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/4. His ca pital was examining the supplementary set of 
questions and compiling the relevant information. His delegation would submit the response to the 
supplementary questions once these had been received from capital. 
 2.7 The representative of the United States appreciated Bangladesh's efforts to provide a response 
to their request, seeking a description of the administrative procedures associated with a 
pharmaceuticals directive issued by the Prime Minister in 1998, as detailed in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/3 and again in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/4. From Bangladesh's responses, 
the US understood that the 1998 Directive remained in place and appeared to prohibit importation 
of medicines produced in sufficient quantities within Bangladesh itself. He noted that, to sell medicines in the domestic market, local producers were apparently not required, beyond an import licence, to adhere to similar licensing requirements. Thus, he questioned the consistency of these 
import prohibitions with the GATT 1994 and Arti cle 1.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures. He took note of Bangladesh's comment this morning that they were examining the questions and compiling relevant information. He added that the US looked forward to 
Bangladesh's written response and would appreciate  any indication as to when they might expect 
to receive it.  
2.8 Furthermore, the US representative stressed that Bangladesh's last annual response to the 
"Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures" under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (G/LIC/N/3/BGD/4) was already seven years old (cir culated in October 2007), and wished to know 
when Bangladesh would provide a new response to the Questionnaire. 
 
2.9 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/COL/2 
2.10 The representative of the United States thanked Colombia for its Article 7.3 notification for 
2013, as well as the documentation provided with regard to Decree No. 2261 of November 2012, 
which the Colombian government notified to the Committee in March 2013 (G/LIC/N/2/COL/2). 
However, he noted that Colombia did not include Decree No. 2261 in its 2013 Article 7.3 notification, and hoped that the procedures described in that Decree would be included in Colombia's upcoming 2014 responses to the Article 7.3 Questionnaire. 
 
2.11 In addition, the United States wished to understand how Colombia justified its use of non-automatic import licenses to solve concerns about illegal mining. He asked whether Colombia 
had considered less trade-restrictive approaches to addressing this problem so as to reduce 
interruption to legitimate trade flows, and whether domestic producers of the goods covered by Decree No. 2261 were also subject to measures in tended to prevent illegal mining. The United 
States looked forward to receiving Colombia's written responses to their questions. 
 2.12 In response, the representative of Colombia stated that its delegation had submitted replies 
to the questions raised in document G/LIC/Q/COL/ 2. They did so on 10 April, giving answers on 
the basis of the information that was applicable at that time. Nevertheless, shortly after submitting 
these replies, Colombia's capital sent through a new legislation, Decree No. 723, that to some extent modified certain of the replies that had al ready been given. Therefore, Colombia wished to 
provide information on Decree No. 2261 because, as pointed out by the US, it included a 
non-automatic licensing regime for some tariff lines, independently of whether or not these products were used - the essential issue of Decree No. 2261. However, the new decree, 
Decree No. 723, superseded and therefore invalidated Decree No, 2261. Therefore, those goods, 
when they are new, are no longer under the no n-automatic regime. Colombia emphasized that, G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 4 - 
 
  although still worth recalling, this development would have an impact upon the answers it had 
previously given.  2.13 As mentioned by the United States, Decree No. 2261 was intended to address a problem that 
existed in Colombia regarding illegal mining. This problem had multiple dimensions in addition to 
the environmental one; notably, it represented a security issue because illegal mining activities 
financed terrorist activities, as pointed out in Andean Decision No. 774. The Decree's reach was 
not limited to border action; it was also intended to enhance Colombia's vigilance over 
import/export, transportation, processing, trading, and any other type of transaction involving metals, trade in metals, mining goods, and mini ng machinery. Therefore, Colombia's adopted 
actions were integral. Decree No. 723, which replaced Decree No. 2261, contains several 
provisions, including more cooperation with the administration, some control measures for the 
registration of imported goods, an increase in the use of IT, including GPS mechanisms to identify the location of the goods, and other provisions as well. In short, the Colombian government was 
looking at the best possible measures with which to address this type of complex illegal activity. 
 2.14 As the issue of national production of thes e products had been raised in the Committee, 
Colombia wished to emphasize that there was no local production for the products mentioned in 
Decree No. 2261, and therefore that the objective of such Decree was not to protect a national 
industry but to carry out control measures. Further, Colombia would not submit an examination of Decree No. 2261, in conformity with paragraph 3 of Article 7, as this decree was no longer in 
force. Colombia had circulated these answers only a week prior to the meeting, and his delegation 
apologized for any inconvenience its delay in submitting information may have created. He explained that the Colombian government was re viewing the content of Decree No. 2261 and that 
the new legislation had only recently been received. Colombia would notify it in due course hoping 
that its answers already properly addressed the co ncerns of the US. He added that Colombia would 
gladly respond to any further comments from the US, if any. 
 
2.15 The representative of the United States thanked Colombia for the information provided, and 
in particular that regarding Decree No. 723. He asked Colombia to notify the Decree and looked forward to reviewing it carefully. 
 
2.16 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/ECU/5 and G/LIC/ECU/4 
2.17 The Representative of the United States thanked the government of Ecuador for its responses 
to their questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/ECU/3. However, he argued that Ecuador's 
replies contained in document G/LIC/Q/ECU/4 failed to address US concerns sufficiently, and thus requested Ecuador to provide full and complete written answers to their questions, which involve 
issues such as notification, publication, and pr ovision of documentation or direct web links. 
 2.18 He noted that the US had also asked for detailed information regarding how Ecuador 
administered its licensing regime, and questioned the consistency of the measures with the 
GATT 1994. He stated that the resolutions in question contained new requirements which appeared seriously to threaten or impair trade and investment by establishing a complicated and 
discretionary import permit system for those products included in the resolutions. While the United 
States acknowledged Ecuador's right to determine its own import licensing requirements, they had 
questions about these resolutions in light of Ecuador's commitments under the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. While grateful for Ecua dor's oral explanations, he would like to know 
when Ecuador would provide full and complete written responses to the questions from the 
United States.  
2.19 The representative of Canada thanked Ecua dor for the responses provided to previous 
questions. Canada shared the concerns expressed by the US regarding non-automatic 
IL requirements, particularly as they pertained to agricultural products where Canada had a 
commercial interest. He encouraged Ecuador to explain its measures in light of its commitments 
under the GATT and the WTO Agreement on ILP by responding to their written questions.  2.20 The representative of the European Union shar ed many of the concerns expressed in relation 
to this newly established system on non-automatic import licensing in Ecuador and, in particular, 
on how it might be implemented in practice so as to ensure that there were no negative effects on G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 5 - 
 
  trade flows. Therefore, the EU was also interested to hear Ecuador's replies to the questions raised 
by the US and Canada.  2.21 In response to the US questions, the representative of Ecuador stated that: 
 2.22 Ecuador recalled that, at the meeting of October 2013, Ecuador had indicated that Resolutions 102 of COMEX and 299-A of MACAP were published in the Official Journal Supplement 
No. 924 of 2 April 2013 and in No. 48 of 31
 July of the same year. His delegation recalled that both 
resolutions were notified in conformity with Arti cles 1.4 and 8.2 of the ILP Agreement, and that 
copies were available for consultation by Memb ers, as indicated in documents G/LIC/N/1/ECU/4 
and G/LIC/N/1/ECU/4/Corr.1. 
 
2.23 Although Ecuador was in the process of preparing written replies to the questions posed in January, his delegation wished nevertheless to give the following provisional answers: 
 
 Question 4: his delegation indicated that Resolution 299-A identifies in detail the 
administrative procedures required where Article 2 sets forth the information on imports 
that have to be presented, and in Articles 3, 4 and 5 it is stated that the sub-secretariat of 
MAGAP will carry out a technical analysis repo rt and present it to the traders concerned. 
Also, Article 6 sets forth the publication and notification made by the sub-secretary of the MAGAP and the filing for requests for imports. Consequently, Articles 7 and 8 set forth the 
processes to establish seasonality and its periodic revision. The approvals of licences are 
due within 48 hours according to Article 12, and its term, modification, and extension is dealt with in Articles 13 and 14; 
 
 Question 5: the measures contained in Resolutions 102 and 229–A define the annual food 
balance considering the productive chains and allowing for a permanent availability and 
supply of food with a non-trade objective, namely to achieve food security. This objective 
is a strategic and sovereign one which is in compliance with the Ecuadorian constitution. This system maintains equilibrium between national production and imports, for the permanent distribution of food, and it does not reduce the amount of import products 
compared to domestic production. Therefor e, it keeps an approximate balance of 
distribution of the registered traders before the application of the measure; 
 
 Question 6: the application of this administra tive measure has as fundamental principles the 
predictability, transparency, non-discrimination and efficiency of the administration for all operators of international trade. The administrative procedures are applied properly but 
with the greatest simplicity possible, and with a just, fair, and equal administration. This 
system is applied in a neutral way in compliance with those procedures that have been observed and set forth in Resolution 299-A. It s application has avoided any distortion in 
the trade of agricultural goods as provided for in these resolutions; 
 
 Question 7: as Ecuador pointed out when answering question 13 in 
document G/LIC/Q/ECU/4, Resolution 299-A does not provide for any prohibition or 
restriction of imports; 
 
 Question 8: for the analysis of the food balance Ecuador uses technical reports which are 
made with variables such as production, the growth of demand, domestic consumption, 
and the historic registry of import requests, amongst others. For the analysis of the food balance other statistics are also taken into account, such as the national levels of production, sales and consumption that are reported to the National Institute of Statistics 
and Census (INEC) and gathered by the Nation al Service of Information of Agriculture, 
Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries (SIGNAP); 
 
 Question 9: the technical reports are put before the consideration of the various traders, 
including importers, on the basis of consultative groups and other bodies in order to guarantee the absolute transparency in the admi nistration of the regime and to take into 
account their recommendations. This is established in Article 5 of Resolution 299–A; 
 
 Question 10: in line with Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the ILP Agreement, an IL regime should 
take into account the objectives of economic development and the financial and trading 
needs of the LDCs, as well as the non-trad e needs recognized by the preamble of the G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Marrakesh Agreement and the SPS agreement. Regarding the non-automatic licences, 
Ecuador is in compliance with the ILP Agreement; 
 
 Question 11: a detailed description of the administrative procedure and the traders involved 
was given in the answer to question No. 3; 
 
 Question 12: Ecuador will handle opportunely the applications as they come in; 
 
 Question 13: this question was already answer ed by Ecuador at the regular meeting of the 
Agriculture Committee in January 2014; 
 
 Question 14: Ecuador ratifies its answer to question No. 17 included in the 
document G/LIC/Q/ECU/4 of 20 November 2013. 
 
2.24 The delegation of Ecuador reiterated that th ese were only provisional answers and that its 
capital would send written replies as soon as possible.  
2.25 The representative of the United States requested that the Secretariat include Ecuador's 
statement and their answers to those questions in full in the minutes of the meeting. He noted 
that Ecuador was reading from a piece of paper so he did look forward to seeing Ecuador submitting those written replies to the Secretariat as soon as possible. The US would also like to 
see a written response to question 13. 
 2.26 The representative of Ecuador stated that, to facilitate the process, they would provide the 
text of their statement to the Secretariat after the meeting. At the appropriate time, they would, in 
an informal manner, facilitate their responses to the United States.  
2.27 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/30 
2.28 The representative of the United States noted that this Committee was well aware of the 
breadth and depth of its concerns about Indonesia's import licensing regime. The United States 
was disappointed and concerned about the new and onerous import licensing procedures that Indonesia had put in place with regard to animal  and animal products, and horticultural products. 
The United States submitted its questions jointl y with Canada, the European Union, Japan, and 
New Zealand, and well in advance of this Committee meeting, in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/30, on 10 December 2013, and was disappointed that no full and complete written responses had yet 
been provided. 
 2.29 He further argued that Indonesia was among the economies with most potential for global competitiveness. However, with the expansion of the use of import licensing, especially 
non-automatic licenses, Indonesia seemed to be sending out a message that its market was closed 
for business. Equally distressing was that the Indonesian government did not appear to be concerned about its behaviour in light of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
 
2.30 Instead, the government piled administrative procedures on top of administrative procedures. The confusion that this created in Indonesia's marketplace confirmed the belief of the United 
States that Indonesia cared little about the trade restrictiveness of its measures or their impact on 
investment in the Indonesian economy.  2.31 He stated that the United States was also concerned that Indonesia had yet to submit an 
updated response to the Article 7.3 Questionnaire to help Members understand the breadth of 
Indonesia's import licensing procedures, which remained complex and mostly incomprehensible, and which affected Indonesia's trade with respec t to so many different kinds of products. He 
recalled that Indonesia last submitted an Article 7.3 Questionnaire response in 2010. In light of the 
number of new import licensing measures that Indonesia had adopted since then, including the ones that the United States and other Members had raised in this Committee, he believed that the 
2010 response was woefully out of date. 
 2.32 He requested that the Indonesian delegation submit an updated response to the Article 7.3 
Questionnaire, as well as responding in writing to the questions that the European Union, Canada, G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Japan, New Zealand, and the United States had submitted regarding Indonesia's import licensing 
procedures for agriculture products. Furthermore, he urged Indonesia to resolve concerns raised, which would help reinstall confidence in the WTO community that Indonesia was open for business. 
 
2.33 The representative of Canada pointed out that , as a major exporter of agricultural and food 
products, Canada had systemic concerns which they  had expressed at many prior meetings of this 
Committee. Canada echoed the concerns expressed by the United States, which were reflected in 
the co-sponsored questions regarding Indonesia's policies and practice which had a restricting effect upon imports, notably horticultural products, animals and animal products. Canada remained concerned that Indonesia was applying new import licensing procedures on an increasing 
number of products. He urged Indonesia to provide a list of HS codes that were subject to these 
import measures in order to determine what precisely had been the impact on Canadian exports. Meanwhile, he encouraged Indonesia to respect its WTO obligations, in particular regarding import 
licensing procedures. 
 2.34 The representative of the European Union shared similar concerns with regard to the 
multiplication of import licensing procedures in Indonesia and, in particular, Regulations 84, 86, and 47, which appeared to be the most recent regulations adopted by Indonesia for the imports of animal and animal products and fresh products. She stressed that the joint written questions by a number of Members clearly indicated that they perceived Indonesia's current import licensing 
system to be too complex and non-transparent, exerting a considerable impact on trade and going 
against the basic principles of the Agreement. The European Union reiterated their concerns and interest in having a clearer picture of the complex import licensing system in place regarding the 
imports of animal and animal pr oducts, and fresh products. She urged the Indonesian delegation 
to submit written answers without delay.  
2.35 The representative of Japan shared the concerns expressed by other Members. Japan was 
interested in Indonesia's import licensing procedures for horticultural products, and those for 
animal and animal products. He requested Indonesi a to submit written responses and to fulfil its 
notification obligations under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
 
2.36 The representative of New Zealand echoed the concerns raised by previous speakers. 
 
2.37 The representative of Chinese Taipei shared similar concerns to those expressed by previous 
speakers. In particular, with regard to the "Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) Regulation 86 of 2013 
and Ministry of Trade (MOT) Regulation 16 of 2013". He stressed the opaque, burdensome, and 
time-consuming licensing procedures (including obtaining various certificates, acquiring a 
recommendation letter and import permit, etc.) that exporters had to go through before fresh vegetables and fruit could be imported into Indonesia. In his view, these procedures negatively affected the market access of agricultural products. He urged Indonesia to improve its import 
licensing procedures and to ensure its conformity  with the Import Licensing Agreement and other 
relevant WTO Agreements.  
2.38 In response, the delegate of Indonesia expressed sincere appreciation for the continued 
interest in Indonesian import policies on horticultural, meat and meat products. She noted that the 
two regulations had been notified to the WTO Secretariat following consultations with Members. 
She explained that the Indonesian government had made some changes to the regulations to 
address other Members' concerns, while also considering the need to develop their own agricultural sectors which were subsistent in nature. She further highlighted some of the changes made, including the elimination of QRs in the two regulations, that all import applications could be 
viewed on-line to improve the transparency as well  as the efficiency of the administration system, 
and maintaining technical requirements only for consumer protection purposes. She confirmed that all detailed answers to questions from Members woul d be circulated after the meeting. Finally, she 
stressed Indonesia's commitment to work with other Members to address their concerns, while 
taking into account the country's development needs.  
2.39 The Committee took note of the commitments made. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 8 - 
 
  G/LIC/Q/IDN/31  
2.40 The representative of the United States appreciated that Indonesia had responded to 
two previous sets of questions with regard to Indonesia's licensing procedures for cell phones, 
handheld computers, and tablets. However, the US  continued to have unresolved concerns and, in 
this regard, his delegation had recently submitted another set of questions, contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/31 circulated on 31 March 2014. He appreciated Indonesia's immediate and full written responses. 
 
2.41 The representative of the European Union expressed its interest in the upcoming Indonesian 
replies.  
2.42 The representative of Chinese Taipei stressed the importance of the cellphone, computer, and 
tablet industries in their economy. In this regard, he encouraged Indonesia to continue to notify 
Regulation No. 108/M-IND/PER/11/2012 of the Mi nistry of Industry, which contained key 
requirements for obtaining import licences. 
 2.43 The representative of Japan shared the concerns expressed by other Members, and 
encouraged the Indonesian authorities to continue to review and to improve Indonesia's import 
licensing procedures so as to ensure consistency with its WTO obligations.  2.44 The representative of Korea echoed the view s of previous speakers. He expressed strong 
concern over the Indonesian import licensing procedures on cellular phones, handheld computers, 
and tablets, which put in place strict importer qualifications and investment requirements. He encouraged Indonesia to provide more information on this regulation. 
 
2.45 In response, the representative of Indonesia thanked Members for their interest in its 
importation policy on cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets. He pointed out that, in the face 
of rapid growth of imports of the above-mentio ned products, and the huge demand for cellphones 
in the domestic market, it was important for the government to strengthen consumer protection. He emphasized that the import licensing policies in question were not aimed at restricting imports, and agreed to provide answers to questions from Members in writing after the meeting. 
 
2.46 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/IND/23 
2.47 The representative of the European Union poin ted out that this was an issue they had been 
raising, along with other trade partners, for quite some time. The EU had addressed several 
rounds of questions to India on this matter, the last of which was contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/IND/23, further to India's last notification in the WTO Import Licensing Committee.  
2.48 She requested India to clarify how the importation of marble and marble products would pose 
safety issues, and how such issues were handled with regard to India's domestic natural stone and stone processing industry, how the quantitative restrictions on importing marbles relate to security 
concerns, and how such concerns were handled with regard to India's domestic industry. In 
addition, she also sought India's clarification as to the basis and process of fixing the quota amount (even if the latter were to be at some point increased). 
 
2.49 Regarding India's argument in the past that the minimum import price was justified for quality reasons, she asked India to indicate what  measures, if any, had been put in place to 
ensure commensurate quality for India's domestic industry and domestic trade. She emphasized 
that the lack of these elements might point to the unsubstantiated character of the Indian scheme 
regarding the allocation of quotas, setting an annual import ceiling below the potential of imports, as well as a minimum import price. 
 
2.50 The representative of the United States expre ssed his country's interest in the EU's questions 
to India, and also voiced similar concerns regarding India's import licensing regime given that 
US boric acid products were subject to India's import licensing requirement. He looked forward to 
India's written responses to the EU's questions.  G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.51 The representative of India thanked the EU an d the US for showing interest in India's import 
licensing regime in general, and specifically with regard to marble and similar stones, boric acid, 
etc. While reiterating his Government's full commitment to providing further clarifications on these issues, he informed the Committee that India had initiated inter-ministerial consultations in the 
capital for formulating accurate replies to the questions of the EU contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/IND/23. The internal consultations would in his view take some more time but he expected that his delegation would be in a posi tion to table a written response within a month. 
 
2.52 Upon instructions from capital, he made some preliminary comments on the issues raised in the EU's aforesaid document. Regarding the licensi ng systems prevalent in India and the discretion 
available to the authorities for subjecting a product to licensing, he noted that in India the import 
licensing regime was governed by the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. 
Section 3 of this Act authorized Central Government to make provision for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating, the import or export of goods. However, he emphasized that the 
administrative discretion available on the matter was not absolute and pointed out that 
paragraph 2.6 of the Foreign Trade Policy laid down the boundaries within which that discretion was to be applied when taking a measure to restrict imports. He argued that paragraph 2.6 of the 
Foreign Trade Policy was aligned to GATT Articl e XX, and included such possible grounds as 
protection of public morals, protection of human, animal or plant life or health, and conservation of exhaustible natural resources, etc.  
2.53 On the rationale for maintaining import licensing on live animal, fish and plant material, he 
noted that these measures were covered under GATT Article XX(b), as notified by India in document WT/BOP/N/24. He indicated that a detailed response would be submitted to the 
Committee after completion of their internal cons ultations with the SPS authorities, wildlife 
authorities, and other Ministries concerned.  
2.54 Regarding the EU's question about import licensing of marble and similar stones, and whether 
licences were allocated for certain goods partly or  only to domestic producers of like goods, he 
indicated that, under the import licensing regime of marble and similar stones, an eligible importer did not necessarily need to be a domestic producer of similar goods as the licence was granted to 
those who undertook further processing. Furthermore, the utilization of licenses was monitored 
through a system of monthly returns which import ers were required to file. The quotas were 
allocated on an annual basis and the unutilized quotas were not added to the following year's 
allocation. 
 2.55 On the last part of question No. 6. III of the annual questionnaire, he confirmed that the 
names of license holders could be made available to the governments and export promotion bodies 
of the exporting countries, upon request.  2.56 He confirmed that India would come up with a written reply shortly to the remaining 
questions of the EU relating to India's concerns on environment protection and quality of imports, 
which had led to QRs and price benchmarking on imports.  
2.57 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/LCA/2 
2.58 The representative of the United States we lcomed St. Lucia's notification of its import 
licensing requirements on poultry and pork as contained in documents G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4 and 
G/LIC/N/1/LCA/4/Corr.1. Nevertheless, the US was disappointed that their questions to St. Lucia posed at the Committee meeting in April 2013 remained unanswered. In this context, the US once 
again requested to receive St. Lucia's written resp onses to the following questions, namely, what 
was the government's rationale for its domestic purchase requirements for poultry, pork and pork products? By what means did the government of St . Lucia ensure that import licensing procedures, 
including those applied on the above-mentioned pr oducts, were not used in a manner contrary to 
the principles and obligations of GATT 1994? Wh en could the United States expect to receive 
written responses to their questions? 
 
2.59 The representative of Saint Lucia thanked the United States for their questions. He indicated 
that his capital had replied to the first set of questions as contained in document G/LIC/Q/LCA/1 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 10 - 
 
  (in April 2013), which was submitted to the Secretariat last week and which would be circulated 
soon.  2.60 The representative of the United States thanked St. Lucia for the upcoming replies. 
 2.61 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/MYS/6 
2.62 The representative of the United States appr eciated Malaysia's conscientious effort and hard 
work to complete the Annual Questionnaire under Article 7.3 of the Agreement. However, the 
US questioned why Malaysia had chosen to apply import licensing requirements on so many goods, 
and wondered how Malaysia justified the use of import licenses in light of this Agreement. 
Furthermore, he asked whether Malaysia had considered methods other than import licensing in the interest of ensuring that the flow of impo rts was not impeded. The US looked forward to 
receiving Malaysia's detailed written responses to its questions contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/MYS/6 as soon as possible.  
2.63 The representatives of the European Union and Canada shared the concerns of the 
United States. 
 2.64 In response, the representative of Malaysia informed the Committee that they had submitted 
their responses to the Secretariat the previous da y and that they welcomed any further bilateral 
discussions.  
2.65 The representative of the United States th anked Malaysia for submitting its responses and 
looked forward to reviewing them in the days to come. 
 
2.66 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/MYS/7 and G/LIC/Q/MYS/8  
2.67 The representative of the European Union no ted that the EU had presented written questions 
to Malaysia with reference to its annual notification under Article 7.3, as well as its notification on 
specific measures.  
2.68 The EU thanked Malaysia for their preliminary replies, which deserved further study. She 
pointed out that the questions the EU raised were not something new as these issues had also been raised in the framework of the recent Trade Policy Review of Malaysia. The EU reiterated its 
interest in receiving detailed and precise replies to its questions regarding the very extensive use 
and coverage of the import licensing system in Malaysia. She emphasized that the extensive use of non-automatic import licensing by Malaysia was of ten not related to achieving legitimate public 
policy objectives and led to different treatment between domestic and imported goods. 
 
2.69 She stated that the EU still sought clarification from Malaysia on several aspects of its import licensing procedures in place for importing electrical equipment, intoxicating liquor, tobacco and 
denatured spirit, and telecommunications equipment. She invited Malaysia to look into these 
questions and to submit sound and detailed  replies within a short period of time. 
 
2.70 The representative of the United States shared many of the concerns raised by the EU and 
looked forward to Malaysia's detailed responses to these questions. 
 2.71 The representative of Malaysia thanked the EU for the questions raised and indicated that her 
delegation had submitted replies to the Secretaria t on the previous day. She also confirmed that 
her delegation would soon submit the comple ted Annual Questionnaire under Article 7.3. 
Furthermore, she informed the Committee that Ma laysia had been progressively reducing its 
import licensing requirements through an on-going review process, and reported that, in the last 
review, Malaysia had abolished licensing requirem ents on 1218 out of a total of 2428 tariff lines 
and that this process would continue. 
 
2.72 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 11 - 
 
  G/LIC/Q/RUS/2 
2.73 The representative of the United States recalled that, in March 2013, Canada, the EU, Japan, 
and the United States submitted follow-up questions to the Secretariat and to the Russian 
Federation on its notification to this Committee in document G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1. He noted that, to 
date, no answer to their questions had been received. He asked when the Russian Federation 
would submit its written responses.  
2.74 Furthermore, the United States found it unacceptable that the Russian Federation did not 
attend the last Import Licensing Committee meeting, in October 2013, despite the fact that Russia's performance under the Import Licensin g Procedures Agreement was on the agenda. 
According to him, not responding to questions an d then not showing up to the meeting reflected 
poorly on Russia's newly-acquired WTO Membership. 
 2.75 He noted that the Russian Federation continued to ignore its responsibility to respond to the 
Agreement's Article 7.3 Questionnaire, and th at its lack of transparency regarding its 
implementation of a number of import licensing procedures, including those which the Russian Federation applies as part of the Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan, were also troubling. 
 
2.76 More specifically, he brought to Russia's attention the Eurasian Economic Commission's (EEC) issuance of Decision No. 143: "Measures to protect the economic interests of producers of stainless steel pipes in the Customs Union" establishing an import licensing regime to regulate a 
quota on certain pipe products. To date, the Un ited States had seen no notification to the 
Committee regarding import licenses for administering any such quotas. These quotas seemed to call into question Russia's commitments under the Import Licensing Procedures Agreement and the 
GATT 1994. 
 2.77 The United States was also concerned about the Eurasian Economic Commission's 
15 October 2013 Decision No. 223 imposing quotas on combine harvesters imported into the 
Russian Federation (as well as into Belarus and Ka zakhstan). Annex 2 of that Decision described 
the steps that importers must take to obtain an import license for a share of the quota volume, as well as the methodology for allocating those volume s. The US representative stated that the lack 
of notification of these import licensing procedures was troubling and sought clarification as to 
whether or not the Russian Federation published revi sed quota distribution rules by 1 March? If so, 
why did Russia fail promptly to notify this revision? 
 
2.78 In addition, the United States delegate raised questions about Russia's import licensing regime for products with cryptographic capabilities. According to him, on 15 May 2013, the 
EEC amended the regulations governing the import licensing regime for products with 
cryptographic capabilities. However, the US had not seen any notification to the WTO of these amendments. Moreover, notwithstanding thes e amendments, it was not clear that the 
EEC regulations establishing the import licensing procedures for products with cryptographic 
capabilities accurately reflected Russia's WTO commitments in this regard. Specifically, the 
definition of "mass market goods" contained in Annex 1 of the regulations differed in significant ways from the definition of "mass market goods" contained in Table 29 of Russia's Working Party 
Report. He indicated that the US did not agree with Russia's divergence from the Working Party 
Report language and had raised these concerns di rectly with Russia and urged Russia to advise the 
Import Licensing Committee of when it planned to revert to the agreed upon language in the 
Working Party Report, and the steps that Russia was taking to address these. 
 2.79 In sum, he requested that the Russian Federation live up to its commitments and review its import licensing regime, notify all required information regarding its import licensing requirements, 
and provide translated copies to the Secretariat of government rules, regulations, etc. 
 2.80 The representative of Canada shared many of  the concerns expressed by the United States, 
particularly from a systemic point of view. They  were concerned by the signal sent out by the 
Russian Federation with regard to an important ne w Member failing to meet the obligations of this 
Agreement's notification obligations. He called on Russia to respond to the questions submitted in 
March 2013, as well as the follow-up questions submitted more recently, and to take prompt 
action to comply with its obligations under this Agreement.  G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.81 The representative of the European Union al so expressed concern about the fact that no 
answers from Russia had been received to their questions submitted in March 2013. She supported 
the United States and Japan on the different issues raised and, in particular, with regard to several 
measures relating to licensing regimes of stainless steel pipes quotas, products with cryptographic 
capabilities, and combine harvesters. She encouraged the Russian Federation to adopt measures 
intended to reduce the processing time for import licensing, which was currently 75 days although the Agreement provided for a maximum of only 60 days. In the end, she invited Russia to comply 
with its commitments under the Agreement. 
 2.82 The representative of Japan stated that Ja pan had been highly interested in the Russian 
Federation's implementation of its WTO obligations. He argued that Russia's first notification 
submitted under Article 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement, in October 2012, was insufficient 
in terms of content. He emphasized that, accordin g to records of remarks made by Russia upon its 
accession, and other WTO documents, the Russian authorities obviously had a number of import 
licensing measures to be notified to this Committee. For example, as part of its accession 
commitments, Russia's first response to the questionnaire under Article 7.3 of the Agreement was due by 22 November 2012. However, Russia had not yet submitted its responses. Thus Japan 
requested Russia to submit written responses to the questions from Japan and others as soon as 
possible, and to examine thoroughly  its import licensing procedures and duly make notifications as 
required under the Agreement.  
2.83 The representative of Korea echoed previous speakers. He noted that, even though Korea 
had not taken part in the joint action with the United States, the EU, and Japan on this issue, the 
country nevertheless had similar concerns, and he encouraged the Russian Federation to fulfil its 
notification obligations in accordance with the Agreement. 
 2.84 In response, the representative of the Russian Federation thanked  the United States, the EU, 
Canada, and Japan for questions relating to the im port licensing system in the Russian Federation. 
He believed that the preparation of responses to the questionnaire and to the questions raised by 
trading partners helped Russia to systematize the legislation of the Russian Federation and the Custom Union. 
 
2.85 In his view, the current system of import li censing in the Russian Federation was transparent 
and took into account the interests of participants involved in foreign economic activity. 
 
2.86 First, the only normative document was a common list of goods subject to import/export 
prohibitions or restrictions on the part of CU members within the framework of the Eurasian 
Economic Community and involved in trade with third countries, adopted by the Decision of the 
Board of EEC No. 134 of 16 August 2012, and listing all restrictions in foreign trade. The annexes 
to the Common List contained detailed information on goods subject to restrictions, as well as the basic principles of import licensing for each product group. This document had been notified to the 
WTO. All information about changes to the Common List had been published on the website of the 
Eurasian Economic Commission.  
2.87 Second, the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Russian Federation was the only body 
authorized to issue import licences. Administrati ve Regulations of the Ministry of Industry and 
Trade of the  Russian Federation determined the procedure and maximum processing time for 
issuing licences, namely 15 days. All information about import licensing procedures and application 
forms were available on the special website "support for foreign trade participants". Applicants had the opportunity to fill in an application form and the required documents to the Ministry of Industry 
and Trade or to its regional offices in all regions of Russia. 
 
2.88 Third, the resolution of the Government of  the Russian Federation No. 1567 defined federal 
executive bodies authorized for approval of applic ations for licences to import goods. Each federal 
executive body had Administrative Regulations wi th the established procedures for permits and a 
maximum period of consideration not exceeding 30 days.  
2.89 He explained that the import licensing system  that applied to stainless steel pipes and to 
combine harvesters was a result of the application of safeguard measures. From the date of adoption of safeguard measures, the import licens ing system of these goods was an integral part 
of the Decision of the Eurasian Economic Commis sion No. 134 – a common list of goods subject to G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 13 - 
 
  import/export prohibitions or restrictions. The same administrative regulation of the Ministry of 
Industry and Trade of the Russian Fede ration applied when issuing licences. 
 2.90 In his view, the Decision of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 103, adopted in 
May 2013, significantly liberalized the import licensing regime for products with cryptographic 
capabilities. He indicated that a special statement on this issue was ready to be provided to all interested Members. 
 
2.91 He argued that the Government has information that indicates that the average processing time for an import licence for products with cryptographic capabilities currently stood at 45 days: 30 days for permits from the Federal Security service (FSB) and 15 days for licences from the 
Ministry of Industry and Trade. The period of 45 days was fully consistent with Article 3 of the 
Agreement. He was open to any information on violations in terms of issuance of licences or permits. Finally, he confirmed that all necessary  notifications and replies to questions and the 
questionnaire would be presented within one week. 
 2.92 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 G/LIC/Q/TUR/7 
2.93 The representative of the EU indicated that they had recently submitted written questions to 
Turkey. While understanding that Turkey might n eed some time to reply, she emphasized the 
EU's interest in receiving detailed replies to all their questions as soon as possible. 
 2.94 The representative of the United States shared  many of the concerns that the EU had raised 
regarding Turkey's most recent responses to the Questionnaire under Article 7.3. He noted that 
these were important questions which deserved Tu rkey's serious attention. The United States 
looked forward to Turkey's detailed responses to the EU's questions. 
 
2.95 The representative of Turkey thanked the EU for their questions and stressed that Turkey was 
working on them. 
 
2.96 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
G/LIC/Q/VNM/5 
2.97 The representative of the United States called Viet Nam's attention to 
document G/LIC/Q/VNM/4, dated 8 April 2013, and to document G/LIC/Q/VNM/4/Corr.1, dated 
11 April 2013. The US expressed disappointment at to date still not having received a response 
from Viet Nam to their questions. Nor had they received Viet Nam's responses to the annual 
questionnaire in accordance with Article 7.3 of the Agreement.  2.98 The United States was also concerned that Viet Nam had not properly notified its import 
licensing regime pursuant to the Import Licensing Agreement, and strongly urged Viet Nam to 
meet its WTO transparency obligations. He emphas ized that the United States would continue to 
ask all relevant questions until such time as they had a complete and detailed picture of 
Viet Nam's import licensing regime. 
 2.99 Regarding Viet Nam's specific import licensing regimes for distilled spirits (see 
document G/LIC/Q/VNM/5), he stated that a new system of trading licenses established 
three types of licenses (liquor distribution lice nces, liquor wholesale licences, and liquor retail 
licences) and provided that only enterprises with liquor distribution licences were permitted to import liquor directly. In addition, the new system  established tight quotas for each category of 
trading licence. In contrast, domestic producers were permitted to organize their own distribution 
networks and might sell their products without being required to obtain a distribution, wholesale or retail licence. 
 
2.100 He urged Viet Nam to fulfil all its notification obligations and asked when they could expect to receive Viet Nam's responses to their questions. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.101 The representative of the European Union indica ted that they had raised a lot of concerns in 
the past. The EU looked forward to assessing Viet  Nam's new notification, and hoped that it would 
be discussed at the next meeting.  
2.102 In response, the representative of Viet Nam t ook note of the questions raised by the United 
States, and agreed to convey them to Capital. Regarding fulfilment of transparency obligations 
under the Import Licensing Agreement, he emphas ized that the country's limited financial and 
technical resources might add difficulty to this task. Regarding the concerns of the US about 
Circular No. 27/2012/TT-BCT, dated 26 September 2012, as contained in its notification G/LIC/N/1/VNM/2, he clarified once again that Circular No. 27 suspended applying automatic import licensing on all covered goods as indicated in Circular No. 24/2010/TT-BCT. In 
other words, no import licensing shall be applied to products in Appendix I of Circular No. 24. He 
reiterated Viet Nam's commitment to following the rules set out in Article 5 of the Agreement, and likewise committed to continue facilitating export and import procedures in accordance with the 
objectives of trade liberalization and the multilateral trading system. 
 2.103 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 3  NOTIFICATIONS 
3.1  Notifications under Article 1.4(1) and/or Article 8.2(b) of the Agreement 
3.1 The Chairperson indicated that 14 notifications from eleven Members were listed for the 
Committee's consideration at this meeting and that notifications received after the airgram was 
issued would be considered at the next meeting.  
3.2 The following notifications were reviewed in  order: Cameroon (G/LIC/N/1/CMR/2); Colombia 
(G/LIC/N/1/COL/3); Ecuador (G/LIC/N/1/ECU/4 and G/LIC/N/1/ECU/4/Corr.1); Israel (G/LIC/N/1/ISR/3); Lao, PDR (G/LIC/N/1/LAO /1); Moldova (G/LIC/N/1/MDA/2); Paraguay 
(G/LIC/N/1/PRY/3, G/LIC/N/1/PRY/4 and G/LI C/N/1/PRY/5); Philippines (G/LIC/N/1/PHL/3); 
Sri Lanka (G/LIC/N/1/LKA/2); Trinidad  and Tobago (G/LIC/N/1/TTO/3 and 
G/LIC/N/1/TTO/3/Corr.1); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/1/UKR/4 and G/LIC/N/1/UKR/5).  
3.3 No delegation took the floor. 
 3.4 The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made. 
 3.2  Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement 
3.5 The Chairperson noted that there were 17 notifications from 9 Members for review at this 
meeting, among which 4 notifications from Indonesia were pending notifications from the last 
Committee meeting and notifications received after the airgram was issued would be considered at the next meeting.  
3.6 The following notifications were reviewed in order: Indonesia (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/15, 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/16, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/17 and G/LI C/N/2/IDN/18); Chad (G/LIC/N/2/TCD/1); 
Indonesia (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/19, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/20 and G/LIC/N/2/IDN/21); Israel 
(G/LIC/N/2/ISR/3); Lao PDR (G/LIC/N/2/LAO/1 ); Malaysia (G/LIC/N/2/MYS/6); New Zealand 
(G/LIC/N/2/NZL/1); Paraguay (G/LIC/N/2/PRY/2 an d G/LIC/N/2/PRY/3); Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
(G/LIC/N/2/SAU/1 and G/LIC/N/2/SAU/1/C orr.1); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/5). 
 
3.7 No delegation took the floor.  3.8 The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made. 
 3.3  Notifications under Ar ticle 7.3 of the Agreement 
3.9 The Chairperson reiterated that under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, Members were required to 
complete the annual questionnaire on import licensing procedures promptly and in full. 
40 notifications were included in the agenda for consideration at this meeting.  G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.10 The following notifications were presented for review: Colombia (G/LIC/N/3/COL/10); Cuba 
(G/LIC/N/3/CUB/5); Hong Kong, China (G/LIC /N/3/HKG/17); Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/12); 
Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/3/LIE/7); New Zealand (G/LIC/N/3/NZL/3); Panama (G/LIC/N/3/PAN/4); 
Uruguay (G/LIC/N/3/URY/7); Albania (G/LIC/N/3 /ALB/7); Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/6); Canada 
(G/LIC/N/3/CAN/12); Cameroon (G/LIC/N/3/C MR/4); Chad (G/LIC/N/3/TCD/3); China 
(G/LIC/N/3/CHN/10, G/LIC/N/3/CHN/11 and G/LIC/N/3/CHN/12); Costa Rica (G/LIC/N/3/CRI/10); Cote d'Ivoire (G/LIC/N/3/CIV/3); Dominican Republic (G/LIC/N/3/DOM/7); European Union 
(G/LIC/N/3/EU/2 and G/LIC/N/3/EU/2/Add.1); the Gambia (G/LIC/N/3/GMB/4); Georgia 
(G/LIC/N/3/GEO/5); Honduras (G/LIC/N/3/H ND/8); Israel (G/LIC/N/3/ISR/3); Kuwait 
(G/LIC/N/3/KWT/4); Lao PDR (G/LIC/N/3/LAO /1); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/16 and 
G/LIC/N/3/MAC/16/Corr.1); Malaysia (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/8, G/LIC/N/3/MYS/9 and 
G/LIC/N/3/MYS/9/Corr.1); Mexico (G/LIC/N/3/M EX/4); Moldova (G/LIC/N/3/MDA/2); Philippines 
(G/LIC/N/3/PHL/10); Paraguay (G/LIC/N/3/PRY /2); Qatar (G/LIC/N/3/QAT/10); Saint Lucia 
(G/LIC/N/3/LCA/6); Sri Lanka (G/LIC/N/3/LKA/2);  Trinidad and Tobago (G/LIC/N/3/TTO/11 and 
G/LIC/N/3/TTO/11/Corr.1); Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/6); Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/13) and the 
United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/10).  
3.11 The representative of the United States invite d the Secretariat to clarify the reason for listing 
the US notification on the agenda again. Accordin g to his memory, the US notification was on the 
agenda of the 4 October 2013 meeting and the US had submitted the notification on 19 September 2014. 
 
Note from the Secretariat: in a communication to the Secretariat on 19 September 2013, the United States requested that its notification (G/LIC/N/3/USA/10) be circulated to the Membership. 
The document was circulated on 24 September 2014 and the above-mentioned notification was 
included in the airgram of the last Committee meeting, which was issued on the same day (WTO/AIR/4191). However, at the last meeting, the Chairperson announced that "Under 
Article 7.3 of the Agreement there are nineteen noti fications for review at this meeting, received 
from 18 countries as listed in the Airgram. Of thes e, four notifications, namely Dominican Republic 
(G/LIC/N/3/DOM/7); Moldova (G/LIC/N/3/MDA/2); Saint Lucia (G/LIC/N/3/LCA/6); and the United 
States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/10) are not available in the three WTO official languages; thus, these will 
be considered at the next meeting of the Committee." For this reason, all four of the 
above-mentioned notifications were included in the agenda for review at the present meeting, including that from the US. 
 
3.12 No other delegation took the floor.  
3.13 The Committee took note of the notifications and all statements made. 
 
4  INDIA – BORIC ACID IMPORT LICE NSING PROCEDURES -- REQUEST BY THE 
UNITED STATES 
4.1 The representative of the United States indicated that the situation for boric acid had not 
changed since they began to raise the issue in this Committee in 2008. The US had so far not 
received a satisfactory response from India, an d India had failed to provide a straightforward 
explanation as to how US exporters could get boric acid into the Indian market. 
 4.2 He recalled that, during the Import Licens ing Committee meeting in October 2012, and then 
again in October 2013, India expressly commi tted to work with the US to resolve this 
long-standing trade barrier. The US had asked and re ceived confirmation from India that it would 
work with them not only here in the WTO, but also bilaterally, to clearly identify what action was needed so as to allow entry of US boric acid into India's market. 
 
4.3 In this respect, the United States took no te of Article 1.4(b) of the Import Licensing 
Procedures Agreement, where a request for consultations must be conducted upon request. 
However, he was disappointed to report that, after one  and a half years of trying, India and the 
United States had still not yet engaged in a single substantive discussion of this issue.  
4.4 His government found it difficult to comprehend this inability to come to the table to work out 
a solution. Once again, the United States reiterated its interest in resolving this issue and again requested India to clearly convey its intentions in this regard and asking, in particular, whether G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 16 - 
 
  India truly intended to work with the US to iden tify a way forward. The representative emphasized 
that the issue should be resolved satisfactorily as soon as possible.  4.5 In response, the representative of India th anked the delegation of the United States for 
expressing their concerns regarding India's import licensing regime on boric acid. He found it 
important to highlight that India had already resp onded to all written questions received so far 
from interested delegations. His delegation had noted the concerns raised by the US regarding 
further consultations not only at the WTO but also between capitals. He assured the Committee 
that India was fully committed to this end and wa s willing to engage bilaterally with the US and 
other interested Members to provide further clarifications.  
4.6 In this regard, his delegation recalled the discussions held at previous meetings of the 
Committee, those convened in April and October 2013, wherein India had consistently expressed 
its readiness for further bilateral dialogue with th e delegation of the United States. However, no 
discussion took place in 2013 as a consequence of coordination problems between the 
two capitals.  
4.7 He informed the Committee that New Delhi had this year twice proposed to hold bilateral 
discussions on boric acid as a part of a video conference on general Agricultural issues – first in February and again in March 2014, but unfortunately India was unable to get confirmation from the US for either proposal. Thus, no dialogue could be initiated despite India's willingness and 
preparedness, and the availability of capital-ba sed experts. The Government of India had again 
written to the US last week and was awaiting a response. Nevertheless, India hoped that bilateral discussions which would help address the issue would be initiated soon. 
 
4.8 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
5  THAILAND – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE INTO 
THAILAND -- REQUEST BY  THE EUROPEAN UNION 
5.1 The representative of the European Union stressed that the EU had already raised this issue at 
the Committee meeting of April 2013. At that meeting, the representative of Thailand had 
explained that he would need to get back to ca pital on this issue. However, since then her 
delegation had not heard anything from Thailand and no progress had been achieved.  
5.2 She argued that the Thai market for industrial-grade nitrocellulose is de facto closed to 
EU exporters due to a very burdensome and disp roportionate import licensing procedure. The 
import licence had to be issued by the Thai Minist ry of Defence despite the non-military nature of 
industrial nitrocellulose. The procedure was so cumbersome that EU industry was not in a position 
to submit an application for an import licence. She further noted that the EU had undertaken various efforts to solve this issue bilaterally. A letter on this issue had been sent to the Thai Ministry of Defence in August 2012. Her delegation had also repeatedly asked for statistical 
information on import licences already granted. So  far, the Thai government had not taken steps 
to accommodate any of these requests.  
5.3 She reminded Thailand of its relevant commitments under the WTO Import Licensing 
Agreement and, in particular, of its obligation to ensure that non-automatic import licensing should not have trade-restrictive or trade-distortive effects on imports additional to those caused by the 
imposition of the restrictions. Thailand had also to ensure that the import licensing procedure was 
no more burdensome than absolutely necessary to  administer the measure. Finally, Thailand was 
bound by certain information obligations under the WTO Import Licencing Agreement. The EU believed that Thailand currently failed to  comply with these commitments. Therefore, the 
EU called upon Thailand to consider removing the import licence requirement for industrial 
nitrocellulose altogether, or else to bring the current procedure into line with the WTO Import 
Licensing Agreement. 
 
5.4 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 17 - 
 
  6  BRAZIL – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE INTO 
BRAZIL – REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
6.1 The representative of the European Union stated that Brazil was blocking the import of 
industrial nitrocellulose. Importers had to obtain a non-automatic import licence for nitrocellulose 
and applications were denied on the basis of public  security, involving Brazil's Ministry of Defence. 
 6.2 She informed the Committee that the EU had made various efforts to solve this issue 
bilaterally since 2010 and noted that the EU only applied import duties on imports of industrial 
nitrocellulose, with no other restrictions. In this regard, the Brazilian producer of nitrocellulose not only benefited as a monopoly supplier in the closed local market but from the open EU market as well, a discrimination against EU competitors. 
 
6.3 She noted that Brazil had raised the issue in a specific inter-ministerial study-group since 2011, but without result. Furthermore, in the reply to an EU question in the WTO TPR of Brazil 
in 2013, Brazil claimed that industrial nitrocellulose  would create problems related to security as it 
"may be used as an explosive, even at low concentrations. The Brazilian Government is currently reviewing its policy and legislation on controlle d products". She reminded the Committee that 
Brazil had an obligation to ensure that non-automatic import licensing does not have 
trade-restrictive or trade-distortive effects on imports under the Import Licensing Agreement. She 
further stressed that essential security exceptio ns in the provision of Article XXI of GATT 1994 
were to be applied on traffic in implements of war and to goods for the purpose of supplying a 
military establishment, but not to the non-military industrial sector. 
 6.4 In this regard, she asked Brazil to reply to the following questions. First, when would Brazil 
allow the import of nitrocellulose for industrial purposes, since the security exception of 
GATT Article XXI did not apply to industrial nitrocellulose? Second, could Brazil provide information regarding import licences for nitrocellulose granted over the last 5 years, the distribution of such 
licences among supplying countries, and related import statistics? In conclusion, she stated that 
the EU was of the view that Brazil had failed to  comply with the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures and that they therefore requested Brazil  to remove existing licensing requirements and 
to allow importation of industrial nitrocellulose. 
 
6.5 In response, the representative of Brazil thanke d the EU for its interest in the subject and took 
note of the comments made. He requested the EU delegation to provide their comments and 
questions in writing and agreed to refer them back to capital for analysis and response at the next 
meeting of the Committee.  
6.6 The representative of the European Union indi cated that they would provide written questions. 
 
6.7 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
7  PREPARATION OF THE BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
AGREEMENT 
7.1 The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the fact that, according to Article 7.1 of the 
Agreement, the Committee would undertake a biennial review of the years 2013-2014 at the 
October meeting of 2014, based on the factual report prepared by the Secretariat. He recalled that, in informal consultations, some Members ha d expressed the wish to re-energize the biennial 
review and to make it more pro-active, and with the greater participation of Members in the 
process. In this regard, he put the following questions to Members with a view to initiating a more concrete discussion: How to structure the discussion? What issues may be discussed and what related documents may be revised or updated? In addition, he was of the view that written 
proposals with specific ideas from the Membership were needed to guide the Secretariat in 
preparing the review.  
7.2 The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement. 
 G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 18 - 
 
  8  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 
8.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Friday, 
24 October 2014 as the date of the next meeting of the Committee on the understanding that 
additional meetings would be convened if necessary. 
 
8.2 The representative of Ecuador expressed reservation with regard to this date, noting a possible 
time conflict with another already scheduled WT O meeting. He noted that overlapping meetings 
created serious problems for small delegations such as his own, and asked the Chairperson to take 
this into consideration.  8.3 The Chairperson suggested that the date be kept open and asked the Secretariat to consult 
and coordinate with other Committ ees so as to find a new date. 
 8.4 The Committee so agreed. 
 9  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
9.1 The Committee elected by acclamation Mr Tsotetsi Makong (Lesotho) as Chairperson of the 
Committee, to hold office until the end of th e first meeting of 2015, under Rule 12 of the 
Committee's Rules of Procedures (G/L/147). It also elected by acclamation Mr Juha Niemi (Finland) as Vice-Chairperson.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS 
10.1 For the sake of transparency, the Chairperson provided his report at the informal session and 
proposed that it be reflected in the minu tes of the formal meeting, for the record. 
 
10.2 The Committee so agreed. 
 
10.3 The Chairperson's report of his informal consultations was attached as the following, in 
italics:  "In the past year, as the Chairman of the Committee, I held several informal meetings and met 
with many delegations under different configurations. The consultations have been focusing on the 
discussion on a proposed new template for notification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement; how to improve the biennial review; and a possible workshop on improving transparency and notifications 
under the Agreement. 
 The consultations showed that, even though there has been a general support from the 
membership to improve the compliance level of no tification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, 
Members' view differed regarding how to achieve this objective, and in particular, whether we should revise the existing Questionnaire.  
Some Members believed that a revised template with a more standardized format and some new 
language as guiding poles would help Members preparing the notifications and improve compliance. While some other Members were also concerned that the proposed new template may 
lead to oversimplification of the information provided and thus jeopardize the quality of 
notifications. They emphasized that the proce ss should be Member-driven and discussions to 
identify the real problems among interested Memb ers should come first. The consultations were 
suspended due to the Bali Ministerial meeting. Since then, despite some informal signals of 
continued interest, neither I myself nor the Secr etariat has received any new proposal from any 
Member on this subject.  
My sense is that, despite that most Members ar e willing to see improvement in transparency and 
compliance of notifications under this Agreement, it seems difficult to move the discussion forward without concrete inputs from the Members. 
 
The second issue is about the preparation of th e Biennial Review of the Implementation and 
Operation of the Agreement. According to the ru le, the Committee will undertake another biennial 
review for Year 2012-2013 at the October meeting this year, based on the factual report prepared 
by the Secretariat. In the informal consultations,  some Members expressed the wish to re-energize G/LIC/M/39 
 
- 19 - 
 
  the biennial review and make it more pro-active; some are interested to see greater participation 
of Members in the process. I believe, it would be useful for Members to engage in a more concrete discussion on how to structure the discussion and what issues may be discussed. Written proposals with specific ideas from the Membership are indispensable in this regard. 
 
The last issue is about a possible workshop on tr ansparency and notifications of the Agreement, a 
proposal from the floor suggested that the Committee organize a workshop or a technical session 
on how to prepare various notifications under the Agreement to be attended preferably by 
capital-based officials. Members, while being open-minded to the proposal, expressed their interest in first getting more information and clar ity, better in written form, as to the objective, 
content, speakers, audience targeted etc. Furthe r consultation may be needed in this regard. 
 
I hope the new Chair will continue to consult on these issues, provided that there is a collective desire to move forward in this regard." 
 
10.4 The Committee took note of the Chair's report. 
 
 
__________