RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/37  
 
2 September 2013  
(13-4623)  Page: 1/15  
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 22 APRIL 2013 
CHAIRPERSON: MR. PIERRE-EMMANUEL BRUSSELMANS (BELGIUM) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its thirty-seventh meeting on 22 April 2013. The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/4117, was adopted as follows:  
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH  NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS – 
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE TH E LAST MEETING ..................................................................... 2  
2   INDONESIA'S - REGULATION 27/2012 WHICH OBLIGES NEW LICENCES FOR 
IMPORTS DISTINGUISHED BY PRODUCTION ("API-P") AND DISTRIBUTION ("API-U") AND ALSO COMPELS TO ESTABLISH DIFFERENT PROCEDURES AND 
PRICES THROUGH A "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" WITH EMBASSIES – REQUEST BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................. 10
 
3   THAILAND – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF 
NITROCELLULOSE INTO THAILAND – REQUEST BY THE EROPEAN UION ........................ 10  
4   THAILAND – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR 
STONES – STATEMEN T BY TURKEY ................................................................................. 11  
5   BRAZIL'S RADAR IMPORT AUTHORIZATION SYSTEM – REQUEST BY 
SWITZERL AND ............................................................................................................... 11  
6   NOTIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................ 12  
6.1   Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement (Publications and/or 
Legislation). ................................................................................................................. ... 12 
6.2   Notifications under Article 5 of the Ag reement (New Import Licensing Procedures or 
Changes). ....................................................................................................................... 13 
6.3   Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (replies to questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures). ...................................................................................................... 14 
7   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 14  
7.1   Report by the Chairperson on the informal consultations ................................................ 14 
7.2   Relationship between I-TIP and the noti fications that had been submitted under the 
different provisions of the Agreement ................................................................................. 14 
7.3   Date of th e next meeting ........................................................................................... 15 
8   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 15  
 
At the start of the meeting the Chairperson indicated that under agenda item "Other 
Business" he would inform the Committee of the informal consultations he had held with delegations on the draft form to respond to th e Annual Questionnaire under Article 7.3 of the 
Agreement, and on the relationship between I-TI P and the notifications that had been submitted 
under the different provisions of the Agreement. He also indicated that election of Officers of the 
Committee would also take place at the end of the meeting.    G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICA TION OBLIGATIONS – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING 
1.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that since the last meeting, 22 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of the Ag reement on Import Licensing Procedures (seven 
under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), five under Article 5.1-5.4 on new licensing procedures or 
changes to the procedures in force, and ten under Article 7.3. He recalled that at the 29 October 2012 meeting, he had reported that out of a membership of 157, counting the European Union as 
one Member (EU-27), there remained 17 Members who had not submitted any notification under 
the Agreement since joining the WTO. He reported that as of today, out of a membership of 159, 
counting the European Union as one Member (EU-27), there remained 19
1 Members who had not 
submitted any notification under the Agreement since joining the WTO.    
1.2.  As of 22 April 2013, 102 Members (counting th e EU-27 as one) had submitted notifications of 
laws and regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/ or 8.2(b)). Therefore, 30 Members were yet to 
submit their notifications under these provisions.  
1.3.  Only 39 Members (counting the EU-27 as one) had notified new licensing procedures or 
changes in the existing procedures (under Paragrap hs 1-4 of Article 5); of this total one Member 
had notified changes to import licensing procedures without submitting the initial notifications of 
legislation or replies to the Questionnaire. He urged those Members who had not yet provided any 
information on their new licensing procedures or changes to the existing procedures, to submit these without further delay under Article 5 of the Agreement and to make use of the notification forms adopted by the Committee at its meeting in April 2011. 
1.4.  He also reminded the Committee that while Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to 
submit counter-notifications (where a Member considered that another Member had not notified the institution of a licensing procedure or changes in the procedures), to date no such 
counter-notifications had been received.   
1.5.  As to the replies to the Questionnaire (notifications under Article 7.3), a cumulative total of 
104 Members (counting the EU-27 as one) had submi tted their replies since the entry into force of 
the WTO Agreement. Thus, 28 Members had yet to submit their notifications under this provision. 
As for Article 7.3 notifications, he highlighted that Members who did not apply import licensing procedures nor had laws or regulations relevant to the Agreement were also required to notify the Committee to that effect in order for Members to obtain a complete overview of the licensing 
regimes of all Members. The responses to the A nnual Questionnaire should be submitted to the 
Committee before 30 September of each year, as established in document G/LIC/3.  
1.6.  He also indicated that, as had previously been done by his predecessors, he had sent out 
letters to Members reminding them of their transp arency obligations and highlighting the date of 
the last notification received from their authorities. These letters also contained an invitation to review the status of their notifications in ge neral and update them whenever necessary. The 
letters also included samples of statements to be used by those Members when no or few changes 
had been introduced to their import licensing regimes already notified to the Committee. The latter had proved to be acceptable and easily applicable and in fact, several Members had used the statements to notify.  
1.7.  He also recalled that at its meeting on 11 April 2011, the Committee had agreed that two 
notification forms for notifying under Articles 1.4 (a) and/or 8.2(b) and under Article 5 of the Agreement could be used by Members on a voluntary basis, to notify under these provisions. The 
Chairperson informed delegations that the forms had been circulated in document G/LIC/22, and 
that the templates were also available on the Members' website under: WTO Resources/Market Access - Import Licensing/Template G/LIC/N/1 and G/LIC/N/2.  
1.8.  Since the launch of these forms, 22 Member s had repeatedly used them (19 notifications as 
Type N1 and 22 notifications as Type N2). He encouraged other delegations to do the same to 
                                               
1 Up to 22 April 2013 the following Members had not submitted any notification under the Agreement 
since joining the WTO: Belize, Botswana, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, 
Montenegro, Mozambique, Myanmar, Samoa, Saint Vi ncent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon 
Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Vanuatu and Laos.  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 3 - 
 
  facilitate their task of complying with their noti fication obligations under the Agreement. He was 
confident that these efforts would result in increased and enhanced transparency; assist government officials and traders to acquaint themselves with the rules and administrative ILPs currently applied by Members and consequently, allow for the smooth flow of international trade. 
In this regard, he recalled that at the last meeting of the Committee in October 2012, the 
Secretariat had been tasked with revising the dr aft form to respond to the Annual Questionnaire 
under Article 7.3 of the Agreement. As he had in dicated at the start of the meeting, he would 
inform delegations on this issue under the Agenda item "Other Business".  
1.9.  He also invited Members to submit their no tifications in Microsoft Word version in order for 
the Secretariat to promptly process the notifications and eliminate errors. Any additional information (legal texts, summaries of the legislation and publications, samples of application 
forms, lists and tables indicating the goods to which ILPs apply to, etc.) should also be submitted, 
whenever possible, in an electronic format compatible with WTO software (Microsoft Word and/or PDF). He recommended that in all cases, the Secretary of the Committee, as well as the respective 
delegation in Geneva, be copied in all correspondence. He encouraged Members to consult the 
Secretariat whenever they had questions on no tification requirements and in the case of 
developing and least-developed countries, to request for technical assistance.  
1.10.  The delegate of the United States supported the Chair's call for legislations, rules and 
regulations to be provided to the Secretariat in electronic format as this would facilitate 
transmission and access by delegations.  
1.11.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.12.  Moving to the questions and replies circulated under the G/LIC/Q/- series, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, seven documents2 containing questions, and 
three documents containing replies3 over the import licensing systems maintained by some 
Members had been circulated according to the procedures agreed to by the Committee for the 
review of notifications. He also informed the Committee that after the Airgram had been circulated, the Secretariat received from the European Union, questions to Thailand on the import 
licensing regime applied to imports of nitrocel lulose (G/LIC/Q/THA/1); however, these questions 
would be considered under agenda item 2C as it referred to the same issue. He introduced document, G/LIC/Q/AUS/1, containing the questions from the European Union to Australia on its import licensing regime and invited the Committee to consider it together with Australia's 
responses contained in document G/LIC/AUS/2. 
1.13.  The delegate of the European Union thanke d Australia for its responses, which had clarified 
all the queries.  
1.14.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.15.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/RUS/1, containing joint 
questions from Canada, the United States, Japa n and the European Union with respect to the 
Russian Federation's notification under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement. 
1.16.  The delegate of the United States welcomed  the Russian Federation's first notification under 
the Agreement on ILPs (G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1), whic h represented an effort to fulfil Russia's 
obligations contained therein. However, Russia had failed to respond to the Annual Questionnaire 
that was due "90 days after accession", i.e., 22 November 2012. Russia's notification only referred 
to four of the rules, regulations and decisions that  were part of its IL regime. This had led the US 
to pose joint questions on a number of laws and regulations, including those which Russia had 
implemented in accordance with its Customs Union that set out the government's required import 
licensing procedures. After the questions had been submitted, the US had learnt of the Eurasian 
                                               
2 Listed in the airgram as follows: Question s from: (i) The European Union to Australia 
(G/LIC/Q/AUS/1); (ii) Canada, the European Union, Japan and the United States to the Russian Federation (G/LIC/Q/RUS/1); (iii) The United States to Vietnam (G/LIC/Q/VNM/4); (iv) The United States to Saint Lucia (G/LIC/Q/LCA/1); (v) The European Union and the United States to Indonesia (G/LIC/Q/IDN/24, and 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/25); and (vi) The European Union and the United States to Ukraine (G/LIC/Q/UKR/1).  
3 Responses from: (i) Australia to the European Union (G/LIC/Q/AUS/2); (ii) India to Turkey 
(G/LIC/Q/IND/21); and (iii) India to the United States (G/LIC/Q/IND/22).  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Economic Commission (EEC) Decision No. 143, of 23 August 2012,"Measures to protect the 
economic interests of stainless steel pipes producers in the Customs Union", which apparently referred to quotas regarding stainless steel pipes administered through import licences. Russia had not notified any of these ILPs to administer such quotas, as required by different provisions in the 
Agreement.  
1.17.  He indicated that this licensing program created concerns under Article 3 of the Agreement 
on ILPs, and the quotas being administered by ILPs raised concerns with relevant provisions of 
GATT 1994. He called on Russia to notify prompt ly the EEC Decision to the Committee and provide 
copies, preferably in English, as established by th e Agreement. In the sake of transparency, and in 
accordance with Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement, the US requested that the Russian Federation review its import licensing regime, notify all required information, and provide to the 
Secretariat, translated copies of government rules, regulations, etc. 
1.18.  The delegate of the European Union thanked the Russian Federation for its first notification 
and reiterated the concerns expressed in the joint questions contained in document 
G/LIC/Q/RUS/1. The EU wanted to know when  Russia would respond to these questions and 
recalled that transparency was capital to the operat ion of the WTO. She also indicated that in the 
absence of transparency it was not possible to neither assess whether WTO Members had fulfilled 
their WTO obligations and commitments nor evaluate the impact of such activities on international 
trade.  
1.19.  The delegate of Norway echoed the concer ns expressed by Canada, the European Union, the 
United States and Japan in their questions to the Russian Federation.  
1.20.  The delegate of Switzerland thanked the co-sponsors of the joint questions posed to the 
Russian Federation. Switzerland looked forward for Russia's responses.  
1.21.  The delegate of Canada stated that tr ansparency and notifications contributed towards 
avoiding trade disruption and ensuring that any on-going reform and customs harmonization 
process within the WTO Members would be implemented smoothly with minimal trade disrupting impacts. 
1.22.  The delegate of Japan echoed the previous statements and recalled that Japan had been 
interested in Russia's implementation of the WTO obligations, including the Agreement on ILPs. 
Notifications were necessary to secure transparency thus, Japan welcomed the Russian Federation's first notification under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b). However, the information therein 
was insufficient for the large number of ILPs to which Russia's Protocol of Accession and other 
documents referred. Japan therefore requested Russia to examine its ILPs and notify the Committee of its full and complete licensing system. Additionally, Russia had not yet fulfilled its 
obligation to respond to the Annual Questionna ire. Japan would carefully examine Russia's 
responses to the questions posed to it as well as its future notifications. 
1.23.  The delegate of Australia thanked the co-sponsors for their questions to the Russian 
Federation on its IL regime. He welcomed Russia's first notification but, as other delegations 
looked forward to receiving further details and other elements of Russia's IL regime. 
1.24.  The delegate of the Russian Federation stated that notification G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1 referred to 
key documents and sources of documents concerning Russia's IL regime, and that notification 
G/MA/QR/N/RUS/1 contained the list of goods subj ect to ILPs. He clarified that an internal 
redistribution of tasks between the Russian Federa tion and the Customs Union in the area of IL 
had delayed the preparation of the responses to the Annual Questionnaire. However, these would 
be sent to the Committee shortly, and would contain all the pertinent information on Russia's ILPs. 
1.25.  He announced that ethyl alcohol, alcoholic beverages and precious metals were no longer 
subject to ILPs and that his authorities were of the view that the so called "licensing of production, 
storage and retail sale of ethyl alcohol and alcoholic beverages" were not within the scope of the 
Agreement. Regarding the list of documents concerning ILPs to which delegations had referred, he indicated that as a consequence of the implementation process of Russia's obligations, some of these were no longer in force in particular, the CU Commission Decision No. 747 of 16 August 
2011 "On amendments to Normative Legal Acts of the Customs Union in the Sphere of Non-Tariff G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Regulation in Relation to Ethyl Spirits and Alcoholic Products"; and the CU Regulations of the 
"Order of Import of Ethyl Alcohol and Alcoholic Products to the Customs Territory of the Customs Union" adopted by the CU Commission Decision No. 132 on 27 November 2009. 
1.26.  He indicated that on 16 August 2012 the CU Commission Decision No. 134 approved the 
new Common List of Goods that was subject to Non-tariff Measures (NTMs). Thus, ILPs were 
currently applied to the following eleven groups of goods: 1. ozone destroying substances and 
products containing such substances; 2. plant protection chemicals; 3. hazardous wastes; 4. 
drugs, substances with psychotropic effects and their precursors; 5. toxic substances; 6. medicines 
and pharmaceuticals products; 7. radio-electronic and/or high-frequency means; 8. special devices intended for unauthorised obtaining of information;  9. encryption devices; 10. human organs and 
tissues, blood and its components; and 11. official and civil weapon, its main parts and cartridges. 
His delegation hoped that the response to the Annual Questionnaire would clarify Russia's IL 
regime. 
1.27.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.28.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/VNM/4, containing 
questions from the United States to Viet Nam ab out the scope, objectives and application of Viet 
Nam's import licensing regime notified in document G/LIC/N/1/VNM/2.  
1.29.  The delegate of the United States stated th at after six years of Viet Nam's accession to the 
WTO, its IL regime remained unclear and that pertinent and satisfactory notifications on this 
regime were still pending. Even though Vietnam had notified in document G/LIC/N/1/VNM/2 the temporary suspension of import regulations applied "on a number of goods items specified in the 
Circular N° 24/2010/TT-BCP of 28 May 2010, effective from 26 September 2012", it had failed to 
provide Appendix N° 1 of such regulation contai ning the list of covered products. He therefore 
urged Vietnam to indicate which items had been suspended from the IL requirements, and 
whether it intended to permanently suspend them.  
1.30.  He urged Viet Nam as a WTO Member, to fully comply with the Agreement on ILPs, and 
requested Viet Nam to respond to the Annual Questionnaire as this would help the US stakeholders 
to fully participate in Viet Nam's market.  
1.31.  The delegate of the European Union welcomed the decision by Viet Nam to temporarily 
suspend the automatic IL system under Circular 24 but reiterated the request to entirely withdraw 
the measure with a view to creating a stable an d predictable environment for economic operators. 
1.32.  The delegate of Viet Nam stated that his authorities pursued the fulfilment of transparency 
obligations under the WTO and particularly under the Agreement on ILPs to facilitate trade. With 
regard to the responses to the Annual Questionnaire, Viet Nam would complete its responses for 
2013, fully explaining its IL regime. He furthered that document G/LIC/N/1/VNM/2, dated 29 
January 2013, referred to Circular 27/2012 which had temporarily ceased the application of automatic IL to a number of items specified in  Circular 24/2010 of 28 May 2010, and which was 
effective from 26 September 2012. His capital would provide all the information requested by the 
US; however, due to some technical issues, some of Viet Nam's notifications had not yet been fully published. Vietnam would work with the Secretariat to ensure that all the information would be available on the Member's website. Viet Nam woul d continue working with Members to address all 
the questions posed to it. 
1.33.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
1.34.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/LCA/1 containing questions 
from the United States to Saint Lucia on the IL re gime applied to poultry, pork and pork meat and 
products. 
1.35.  The delegate of the United States stated that Saint Lucia's IL requirement on poultry and 
pork had yet to be notified to the Committee, including copies of all publications and regulations 
implementing such requirements in accordance  with the WTO Agreement on ILPs. He sought 
explanation from Saint Lucia on the rationale for its domestic purchase requirements for those items, and on how the government justified these requirements under the Agreement; particularly G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 6 - 
 
  how could the government ensure that its ILPs were not used in a manner that was contrary to the 
GATT/94 principles and obligations. He also asked Saint Lucia to explain how it considered the domestic purchase requirements for poultry, pork, and pork products to be compatible with the GATT 1994.  
1.36.  The delegate of Saint Lucia thanked the US for the questions, which had been conveyed to 
her capital and her delegation was waiting for the responses.  
1.37.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.38.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to document G/LIC/Q/IDN/24 containing 
questions from the United States and the Europe an Union to Indonesia on its regulations 56 and 
57 of 2010 and 83 of 2012.  
1.39.  The delegate of the United States indi cated that his authorities were disappointed to 
continue raising concerns about Indonesia's IL regime which was not clear on how to make 
business with Indonesia under a rules-based trading system to which Indonesia had agreed to nearly 20 years ago. Two years ago, Indonesia had put in place a regime affecting seven groups of 
goods: food and beverages, traditional medicine and food supplements, cosmetics, ready-to-wear 
clothes, electronics, footwear, and children's toys . However, this regime had never been properly 
notified to this Committee.  
1.40.  His authorities were also concerned over Regulation 83 on which joint specific questions 
with the EU had been put forward to Indonesia in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/24. His delegation was awaiting responses.  
1.41.  The delegate of the European Union indicated that she would refer to both questions as 
contained in G/LIC/Q/IDN/24 and G/LIC/Q/IDN/25. Regarding Circular 83, the EU industry was 
concerned that this regulation, which affected imports of cellular phones and handheld computers, had a number of provisions which made it harder to import products into Indonesia; consequently 
most of these products were stored in Singapore for long periods while awaiting import permits. 
Since her delegation and the US had jointly submitted questions on Regulations 82 and 108, she indicated that she would not repeat the concerns. However, she asked that Indonesia provide 
written responses as well as a copy of Regulation  108, as required by the Agreement on ILPs in 
order to discuss further the issue. 
1.42.  The EU concerns also related to the request to foreign companies to increase the number of 
official distributors. The Ministry  of Trade had also indicated to the media that, given the increase 
of imports, Indonesia could impose excise duties on the products included under this regulation. 
She asked whether Indonesia planned to impose such duty.  
1.43.  The EU also expected written answers to the questions submitted jointly with the US on 
Ministry of Trade (MoT) Regulation 83 which took effect on 1 January 2013 for a three year period. 
The preceding measures had been taken to help Indonesia cushion the financial crisis; however, concerns existed on how Indonesia, with a 6.23%  GDP growth in 2012, could justify the extension 
of such measure; and how the IL requirements would conform to the GATT 1994. The EU also 
questioned if Indonesia was imposing pre-shipment control and entry port restrictions.  
1.44.  MoT Regulation 83 affected imports of garments and textiles. The threshold for import 
licences had been reduced from $1,500 to $250; however, the number of airports through which 
goods subjected to ILPs could be imported had been reduced. Consequently, companies were 
obliged to reroute their imports through other airp orts and then transport further by road, thereby 
increasing costs and time. She sought clarification from Indonesia on the rationale for lowering the 
threshold for import licences, and to notify Regulations 57 and 83 in accordance with Article 5 of 
the Agreement while providing copies of Regula tion 83 and the underlying regulations 56 and 57, 
as required by Article 8.2(b) of the Agreement. 
1.45.  The delegate of Japan stated that his de legation had systemic concerns over Indonesia's 
regulations to which the questions referred and indicated that those measures could be not 
consistent with the WTO principles and the Agreement on ILPs.  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.46.  The delegate of Korea shared the concerns  expressed by the US, the EU and Japan. Since 1 
January 2013 when the Regulation entered into fo rce, every imported cellular phone and tablet 
required to have a registration number prior to obtaining a register from the Indonesian authority. When considering the deadlines in obtaining such registers, the regulation became a trade 
restrictive measure.  
1.47.  With regard to the questions to Indonesia contained in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/25, the 
delegate of the United States indicated that hi s authorities also had concerns over Indonesia's 
import licensing regime covered by Regulations 82 and 108 issued by the Ministry of Trade and the 
Ministry of Industry, respectively, which affe cted cellular phones, handheld computers, and 
tablets. His authorities had posed various questions about this IL regime but Indonesia had failed to provide a copy of these regulations, as requir ed by the Agreement. When notifying, Indonesia 
had used the forms but without attaching a copy of the regulations, thus the information was 
scarce and did not clarified its ILPs. Moreover , Indonesia had provided hyperlinks to its 
government webpages that were supposed to cont ain the relevant regulations. However, these 
hyperlinks did not connect the reader directly to the text of the regulation but to a webpage that 
changed on a regular basis. As required by the Ag reement, it was essential that Members provided 
copies of their legal instruments with their noti fications. Therefore, Indonesia had to provide 
electronic copies or working hyperlinks to the relevant regulations. 
1.48.  The Agreement called for procedures to be as simple as possible, however Indonesia's 
regulations appeared to impose numerous and complex procedures, in addition to those already imposed by Regulation 59. He asked that Indonesi a respond in writing to the questions contained 
in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/25, including a justification of Regulations 82 and 108. 
1.49.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked the speake rs for their interest in the Indonesian policy 
related to ILPs, particularly to Regulations No. 57/2012 and No. 83/2012. Even though the 
questions had been forwarded to the capital, responses had not yet been received. He explained 
that in general terms, any import licensing requirement in Indonesia was imposed based on 
justified reasons such as assurance that all imported goods complied with the technical 
regulations, including the protection of human he alth, animals and the environment, as well as 
consumer's protection from deceptive practices; and to discourage the importation of insufficient or bad quality goods. Licences were granted on a non-discriminatory basis but some delays had occurred that were being corrected. Indonesia's ILPs were not intended to be permanent. 
1.50.  Concerning Regulation No. 83/2012 he stated that it had come into effect on 1 January 
2013 and would expire on 31 December 2015. This Regulation as well as Regulation 108/2012 were aimed at ensuring compliance of imported or domestically produced cellular phones with 
Indonesian standards and technical regulations, as well as to protect the consumers.  
1.51.  Importers of cellular phones, hand held computers and computer tablets had to obtain an 
import permit as well as a trading licence, a company registration identity, a tax payer registration 
number, and a letter of declaration and co-operation with at least three distributors. 
1.52.  The Committee took note of statements made. 
1.53.  The Chairperson invited the Committee to consider document G/LIC/Q/UKR/1 containing 
questions from the European Union and the United  States to Ukraine on the "Amendments to the 
Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 19 December 2012 N° 1201 225 - revised on 03/13/2013". In 
this regard he informed the Committee that the Secretariat had received a notification from Ukraine, circulated in G/LIC/N/2/UKR/3, concerning Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers 225.  
1.54.  The delegate of the United States stated that his authorities were concerned over Ukraine's 
Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers No. 225 of 13 March 2013 as it appeared to contravene 
GATT 1994 by introducing quotas and prohibitions on the importing system of metallurgical coke 
and coal, and urged Ukraine to notify it in accordance with Articles 1.4(a), Article 8.2(b) and 
Article 5 of the Agreement. Concerning Ukraine's notification contained in document G/LIC/N/2/UKR/3, his delegation was concerned with the quota it included of "0" tons for metallurgical coke. His authorities looked forward to receiving written responses to the questions it 
had posed in document G/LIC/Q/UKR/1.  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.55.  The delegate of the European Union shared  the concerns expressed by the Unites States 
with regard to Ukraine's Resolution No. 225 of 13 March 2013 as it appeared that the import ban 
or zero tons quota for metallurgic coke was incompatible with the Agreement. Her delegation urged Ukraine to explain these new measures, justification thereof under the WTO rules, and to 
suspend their implementation until full compatibility with the multilateral rules and Ukraine's WTO 
obligations.  
1.56.  The delegate of Australia joined the delegati ons of the US and the EU on their concerns over 
the newly introduced ILPs and welcomed further explanation and justification from Ukraine.  
1.57.  The delegate of Ukraine thanked the speake rs for their interest in the Ukrainian ILPs and 
informed the Council that Resolution of the Cabi net of Ministers of Ukraine No. 225 of 13 March 
2013 would be enforced on 27 April 2013. Ukraine had notified it under Articles 5 and 8.2(b) of the 
Agreement and a copy of the unofficial translation was available on line from the Verkhovna Rada 
website of Ukraine. A notification under Article 1.4(a) of the Agreement was being prepared. He 
furthered that that the licensing regime for coking coal was of a temporary nature as it would 
remain in place until 31 December 2013 (inclusive); its objective was to ensure efficient planning 
of the mining activity as Ukraine wished to ad dress the environmental challenges caused by an 
increasing accumulation and storage of domestically produced and imported coal whose stock had 
increased from 312 000 tons on 1 January 2013 to 452 000 tons as of 1 April 2013. The self-
inflammation cases in mining regions were also a concern which required intervention and action on the industrial and ecological sectors so as to protect health, life and social wellbeing in these regions.  
1.58.  The IL measures in Resolution 225 were non-discriminatory and would be applied in 
accordance with Article XX of the GATT 1994. Quot as for the tariff lines to which Annex 9 referred, 
would be allocated by a special interdepartmenta l commission that would soon be established by 
the Cabinet of Ministers. Regarding Annex 8 he indicated that the "changes" mentioned therein 
referred to Resolution 225 which had already been notified under articles 5 and 8.2 of the Agreement, as well as the procedures for issuing import licences which had been mentioned in 
document G/LIC/N/3/UKR/3 of 10 December 2010 and its amendments could be retrieved at the 
Verkhovna Rada website (http://zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z1100-07). Her delegation would respond to the questions in the coming days.  
1.59.  The Committee took note of statements made.  
1.60.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to document G/LIC/Q/IND/21 containing 
the responses from India to the questions posed by Turkey on the ILPs applied to marbles and 
similar stones.  
1.61.  The delegate of Turkey recalled that since October 2011 India's ILPs on natural stones and 
marbles had been a concern to his delegation, and that Turkey, a country with a remarkable 
interest in the exportation of natural stones and rough marble, had done its best to solve this issue 
with India through a number of bilateral attempts that were carried out in parallel to discussions in 
this Committee. These concerns, contained in documents G/LIC/Q/IND/17 and G/LIC/Q/IND/20, had been echoed by some other delegations, wh ich had also indicated that they had received 
complaints from their industries over India's regime. However, India's responses had not clarified 
the issue and concerns still remained such as explanation from India on how processing marbles 
blocks and marble mining created similar hazardous effects on the environment and if these environmental effects were scientifically justifiable. India was also asked to explain how the 
eligibility criteria of the "5-year operation pe riod" was justifiable under Article 3(5) of the 
Agreement. Turkey wanted India to explain the rati onale behind its ILPs, particularly the argument 
that setting a floor price could ensure a better quality.  
1.62.  Despite India's arguments of having increa sed the amount of quotas up to 600.000 metric 
tons in 2012, Turkish authorities considered that In dia's practice of extending additional quotas to 
domestic marble producers, with mines abroad, was a discrimination which favoured national investors. His delegation looked forward to hearing India's explanations on this issue, particularly 
considering that India had a strong position on environmental concerns.  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.63.  The delegate of the European Union supported  Turkey's request to India to further clarify its 
ILPs on marble and similar stones, especially conc erning the incomplete answers it had provided to 
Turkey in document G/LIC/Q/IND/21 regarding the rationale of its IL system. She furthered that 
the EU industry continued to complain about India's current IL regime, including the allocation of 
quotas, the annual import ceilings below the potential imports, and the minimum import price. The 
EU invited India to review its licensing system.  
1.64.  The delegate of the United States reiterat ed the interest of his authorities in Turkey's 
questions on India's ILPs, which were similar to the ones that the US had for boric acid and other 
products subject to import licensing requirements in India. The US also considered that in its responses, India had not clarified its regime and that several questions raised at the October 2012 meeting remained unanswered. 
1.65.  The delegate of India thanked the dele gations who took the floor on this issue and 
reiterated India's concern on the environment effect s of marble dust. He also indicated that the 5-
year adaptation period for domestic investors had been established with a view to ensuring that 
they could have access to the proper machinery for the processing of rough marbles.  
1.66.  He stated that Turkey was one of the biggest  exporters of marble to India, especially of HS 
tariff line 2515.12.10, and that Italy, an EU member State, was a main exporter of marble to 
India. Concerning the increase of the quota to 600 000 metric tons, he explained that this had 
been a measure aimed at increasing the number of imports of marbles into India. His delegation looked forward to continuing the bilateral and plurilateral negotiations with the interested delegations.  
1.67.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
1.68.  The Chairperson then drew the Members' attention to document G/LIC/IND/22 containing 
India's responses to the questions posed by United States in document G/LIC/IND/19 regarding 
the import licensing regime applied to boric acid.  
1.69.  The United States thanked India for its responses (G/LIC/IND/22) and indicated that despite 
the responses, the situation had not changed since 2008 when his delegation raised the issue in 
this Committee for the first time. He recalled that at the 29 October 2012 Committee meeting, 
India expressively committed itself to work with th e US, bilaterally and in this Committee, to seek 
for a positive solution to this longstanding issue that would allow the entry of US boric acid into India. In this regard he informed the Committee that in the week before this Committee meeting, 
India had agreed to follow up the issue bilaterally; his delegation hoped to report a positive 
outcome to the Committee at its next meeting.  
1.70.  Since India’s positive response to work wi th the US authorities on this issue had not been 
recorded in the minutes of the 29 October 2012 meeting of this Committee, he requested that the 
Secretariat reflect India's commitment in the minutes of the current meeting
4.  
1.71.  The delegate of Turkey supported the statement made by the US and informed the 
Committee that Turkey had also received a response from India – immediately before this 
meeting, regarding Turkey's questions on ILPs a pplied to boric acid. Turkey would review these 
responses and provide follow up questions if necessary. 
1.72.  The delegate of India indicated that bila teral discussions with the US would take place in 
June 2013, and that his delegation had provided mo st of the replies to the questions posed to it 
regarding boric acid for insecticidal and non-insecticidal use.  
1.73.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
                                               
4 The Secretariat would like to record that at the 29 October 2012 meeting of this Committee, the 
delegate of India expressed that his delegation would work with the US authorities on the issue of the IL 
regime applied to boric acid.  G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2  INDONESIA'S - REGULATION 27/2012 WHICH OBLIGES NEW LICENCES FOR IMPORTS 
DISTINGUISHED BY PRODUCTION ("API-P") AND DISTRIBUTION ("API-U") AND ALSO 
COMPELS TO ESTABLISH DIFFERENT PROCEDURES AND PRICES THROUGH A "SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP" WITH EMBASSIES – REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 
2.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee th at in a communication dated 5 April 2013, the 
European Union requested the Secretariat to includ e in the agenda of this meeting the following 
item: "Indonesia's Regulations 27/2012 which obliges new licences for imports distinguished by 
production ("API-P") and distribution ("API-U") and also compels to establish different procedures 
and prices through a "special relationship" with  embassies – Request by the European Union". 
2.2.  The delegate of the European Union stat ed that Regulation 27/2012 exemplified how the 
Indonesian authorities had realised how burdensome their IL policy could be, not only for 
companies, but also for its own officials respon sible for administering this measure. In fact, 
Regulation 27/2012 had been amended twice since it s enactment, firstly to address the concerns 
expressed by companies (Regulation 84/2012), and then to postpone its entry into force to 31 
March 2013.  
2.3.  The EU recognised Indonesia's efforts to improve Regulation 27/2012; however, the EU 
industry remained concerned as regards its application, and in particular the requirement to 
establish a "special relationship" with the Indonesian embassies to obtain an authorization to 
continue importing products to be produced or traded in Indonesia. As different rules seemed to be applied by different embassies, the EU asked Indo nesia whether the Ministry of Trade had provided 
strict guidelines to be followed by the Indonesian  embassies on how to obtain the importer's status 
and how to fix the applicable fees. Reports had also been received that the five days deadline 
announced by Indonesia to issue an import licence was not being respected. She asked whether Indonesia had considered automatic ILPs which were faster; and if it had identified those importers 
that did not produce locally; she also requested explanation as regards the purpose of 
differentiating between two categories of importers, those who imported for production and those who imported for sales.  
2.4.  The delegate of Indonesia stated that his delegation had taken note of the concerns by the 
EU which had been forwarded to his capital for further action. He furthered that some of the 
articles in the Regulation had been amended so as  to enable companies to import more than one 
product in the HS classification, provided that the company had a special relationship with the 
producer, specified in a distribution, ownership or  supplier agreement. As regards the instructions 
given to the embassies, he indicated that the trade attachés had been tasked to legalize a specific form provided by the authorities. He announced that Indonesia would provide written responses at 
a later stage.  
2.5.  The delegate of the United States shared the concerns expressed by the EU about Indonesia's 
ILPs which were considered by his authorities as complex and multi-layered, including the form for 
the so-called API-P and API-U requirements. Those requirements were an example of how the flow 
of international trade could be impeded by an inappropriate use of ILPs.  
2.6.  The delegate of Japan indicated that Japan continued to be interested in Indonesia's IL 
system and encouraged it to continue improving its regime with the aim of ensuring its consistency 
with Indonesia's WTO obligations.  
2.7.  The Committee took note of statements made.  
3  THAILAND – REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPORTS OF NITROCELLULOSE INTO 
THAILAND – REQUEST BY THE EROPEAN UION 
3.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee th at in a communication dated 5 April 2013, the 
European Union requested the Secretariat to includ e in the agenda of this meeting the following 
item: "Thailand – Regulatory Requirements for Imports of Nitrocellulose into Thailand – Requested 
by the European Union" 
3.2.  The delegate of the European Union stated that Thailand's ILP had de facto closed the Thai 
market to EU exporters of industrial-grade nitroc ellulose. Even though industrial-nitrocellulose was G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 11 - 
 
  not a military product, Indonesia's ILPs applied to it were not only cumbersome but also in charge 
of the Ministry of Defence. Despite the various efforts undertaken by her authorities, including a 
letter to the Thai Ministry of Defence in August  2012, and a request for statistical information, 
Thailand had not taken any step to resolve this issue.  
3.3.  She recalled Thailand's commitments under the IL Agreement, particularly its obligations to 
ensure that non-automatic ILPs did not have trade-restrictive or trade-distortive effects on imports, additional to those caused by the impositi on of the restriction itself, and that ILPs should 
not be more burdensome than necessary to administ er the measure, as provided by Article 3.2 of 
the Agreement. Thailand was also obliged to provide information under Article 3.5 of the Agreement, especially regarding the import licences granted. Thailand failed to comply with these commitments therefore, she asked Thailand to remove its IL requirements for industrial 
nitrocellulose, or alternatively to bring them in line with the Agreement.  
3.4.  The delegate of Thailand thanked the EU  for its comments and requested that they be 
submitted in writing for onward transmission to the capital. 
3.5.  The Committee took note of statement made.  
4  THAILAND – IMPORT LICENSING PRACTICES FOR MARBLE AND SIMILAR STONES – 
STATEMENT BY TURKEY 
4.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that in a communication dated 11 April 2013, the 
delegation of Turkey had requested the Secretaria t to include in the agenda of this meeting the 
following item: "Thailand – Import Licensing Practices for Marble and Similar Stones – Statement by Turkey" 
4.2.  The delegate of Turkey indicated that desp ite Thailand's responses to the concerns expressed 
by his delegation over the Thai IL regime applied to marble and similar stones, many concerns 
remained valid. As a producer and exporter of natural stones, Turkey had follow-up questions on 
the following: (i) Thailand had indicated that it s import licensing regime covered both HS 25.15 
(except 25.15.12.10 i.e. marble blocks) and HS 6802.21; however in the list of products contained in Thailand's notification G/LIC/N/2/THA/4, "worked monument or building stone" (HS6802) had 
been included, but tariff line HS 2515 had not been mentioned. Moreover, his authorities had 
noticed that the website ( http://www.dtf.go.th ) mentioned in Thailand's notification, stipulated 
that not only tariff line HS 2515 was subject to import licences but also tariff lines HS 6802.21.00, 
6802.23.00 and 6802.29.00 were subject to the same procedure. He urged Thailand to clarify this 
situation, as the answers it had provided did no t correspond to the information contained in the 
notification under Article 5 of the Agreement. ( ii) Thailand's answer as to whether concerns 
regarding safety were alleviated through its IL  system, were not satisfactory; particularly 
regarding the imposition of the same requirements  on domestic producers of crude and processed 
marble. He sought clarification from Thailand on this issue and indicated that Turkey would continue to follow-up the Thai IL system. 
4.3.  The delegate of Thailand indicated that Turk ey's concerns would be conveyed to his capital.  
4.4.  The Committee took note of statements made.  
5  BRAZIL'S RADAR IMPORT AUTHORIZAT ION SYSTEM – REQUEST BY SWITZERLAND 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 11 April 2013, the 
delegation of Switzerland had requested the Secr etariat to include in the agenda the following 
item: "Brazil’s RADAR Import Authorization System". 
5.2.  The delegate of Switzerland recalled that th is issue was brought to the Committee's attention 
at its meeting in April 2012 when his delegation  put forward written questions to Brazil in 
document G/LIC/Q/BRA/16 on the import authorization system called RADAR. This system, introduced in 2002, was aimed at preventing fraud by ghost companies and required importers to 
possess, prior to importation, a RADAR licence in order to import goods into Brazil. Thus, 
Switzerland believed that this system was an impo rt licensing regime, pursuant to the definition 
contained in Article 1 of the Agreement. Moreover , in order to get a RADAR licence, the importing G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 12 - 
 
  company had to declare, inter alia, the approximate amount it intended to import, its tax status, 
economic, financial and operational capacity. 
5.3.  She furthered that there were two types of RADAR licences: one which referred to imports up 
to a maximum amount of $150'000 within 6 months and which, according to the Swiss industry, 
could easily be obtained from the Brazilian authorit ies. However, the second type did not refer to a 
defined maximum amount of imports within a specific time period, but to an estimated value which could not be exceeded substantially and whos e application procedures were lengthy and 
burdensome. Reports from the Swiss industry indicated that companies could apply for an increase 
of the estimated import value, except for the region of Sao Paulo where companies were required to apply for a new RADAR licence, including the submission, once again, of all the necessary 
documentation. 
5.4.  In addition to the questions posed in April 2012, Switzerland asked Brazil if there were 
available public records of licenced importers that specified the type of RADAR licence and the maximum amount of import granted. This information would not only enhance Brazil's 
transparency on its IL regime but also facilitate importers' decisions on the selection of their 
distributors in Brazil. Since the RADAR system ha d been modified and simplified, she asked Brazil 
to further explain the changes that had been introduced, particularly, whether the modified system 
still required setting an estimated value that could not be exceeded. Her delegation would follow-
up the answers received from Brazil.  
5.5.  The delegate of the United States echoed the questions and concerns raised by Switzerland 
and furthered that the US had similar concerns on Brazil's SISCOMEX system and the lack of 
transparency of its ILPs. 
5.6.  The delegate of Brazil thanked Switzerland and the US for their interest on Brazil's IL policy, 
and indicated that the additional questions and concerns would be conveyed to his capital.  
5.7.  The Committee took note of statements made.  
6  NOTIFICATIONS 
6.1  Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agreement (Publications 
and/or Legislation).  
6.1.  The Chairperson recalled that Articles 1.4(a)  and 8.2(b) and notification procedures, as had 
been agreed by the Committee5, required all Members to publish their laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures, and notify these to the Committee upon becoming a Member of the 
WTO, together with copies of any relevant publications or laws and regulations. Any subsequent 
changes to these laws and regulations were also  requested to be notified. He informed the 
Committee that under these provisions, seven notifications6, as listed in the airgram, had been 
received from the following six Members: Ecuador, Malaysia, Morocco, the Russian Federation, 
United States and Viet Nam. He thanked the Russian Federation for having submitted its first notification under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and invited Members to comment on these 
notifications. 
6.2.  The delegate of the United States thanke d those Members that had submitted notifications 
for the information that they had provided and indicated that his authorities would consider them 
carefully and reserved its right to come back with further questions.  
6.3.  With regard to Ecuador's notification in document G/LIC/N/1/ECU/3, he indicated that this 
referred to an abundance of resolutions and decisions dating back to 2008, and also made reference to a general website; thus, it would not be easy for Members to find, retrieve and 
understand the number of legal instruments that Ecuador had notified; this was a problem that the 
Secretariat could not solve by an existing form. In this regard, he sought clarification from Ecuador on how it would ensure that: its ILPs were not utilized in a manner contrary to the principles and 
                                               
5 G/LIC/3 
6 See documents G/LIC/N/1/ECU/ 3; G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2; G/LIC/N/1/MAR/5; G/LIC/N/1/MAR/6; 
G/LIC/N/1/RUS/1; G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/ADD.2; G/LIC/ N/1/USA/6/ADD.2/CORR. 1; and, G/LIC/N/1/VNM/2 
 G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 13 - 
 
  obligations of the GATT 1994; the flow of inte rnational trade would not be impeded by the 
inappropriate use of import licensing procedures; its ILPs would be implemented in a transparent and predictable manner; the non-automatic licensing procedures were no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to administer the relevant measure; transparency would be 
brought to the administrative procedures and practi ces used in international trade, and that such 
procedures and practices would be fair and equitable in their application and administration. 
6.4.  In response, the delegate of Ecuador indicated that the webpage mentioned in document 
G/LIC/N/1/ECU/3 was a new, modern and user-friendly webpage that contained all the regulations 
in force in Ecuador regarding international trade. He asked that the US submit its questions in writing for transmission to his capital.  
6.5.  Regarding the Malaysian notification contained in document G/LIC/N/1/MYS/2 which referred 
to the Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order that came into effect on March 2013, the delegate of 
the United States thanked Malaysia for having provided a copy of the notified legislation. While 
reserving the right of his delegation to ask further questions in writing, he asked Malaysia to 
explain how it justified its prohibitions and import licenses in light of Article 1.2 of the Agreement, 
which required Members to ensure that the administrative procedures used to implement IL regimes were in conformity with the relevant provisions of GATT 1994. He also asked how the flow 
of trade would not be impeded by the use of such prohibitions and procedures, and for the 
rationale used by Malaysia for restricting trade through the use of prohibitions and import licensing procedures. 
6.6.  The Committee took note of the notifications and of the statements made.  
6.2  Notifications under Article 5 of the Agr eement (New Import Licensing Procedures or 
Changes). 
6.7.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that, as listed in the airgram, under this agenda 
item there were five notifications7 submitted by four Members under Article 5 of the Agreement: 
Argentina, Colombia, Indonesia and Thailand. He invited delegations to comment on these notifications . 
6.8.  The delegate of the United States thanked Colombia for having notified the changes 
introduced to control the import of certain heavy machinery and chemicals that could be used in 
mining activities. He requested Colombia to provide, in accordance with Article 1.4(a) of the Agreement, a copy of the laws and regulations mentioned therein, to describe in writing, the 
procedures for obtaining an import license for the specified goods, and to indicate the ILPs that 
domestic producers were required to  fulfil for the same purpose.  
6.9.  In response, the delegate of Colombia indi cated that his delegation would provide copies to 
the Secretariat. Colombia would also submit written responses to the questions posed. 
6.10.  The delegate of the European Union re called that on 16 April 2013 the EU had submitted 
written questions to Thailand as contained in document G/LIC/N/2/THA/4, requesting clarification 
on the IL scheme applicable to swine offal, shal lots and fresh oranges. The EU expected written 
responses from Thailand.  
6.11.  The delegate of Thailand indicated that his delegation would contact his capital in this 
regard.  
6.12.  The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.  
                                               
7 See documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/4/ADD.1/REV.1/ Suppl.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/26; G/LIC/N/2/COL/2; 
G/LIC/N/2/IND/13; and G/LIC/N/2/THA/4. G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 14 - 
 
  6.3  Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (replies to questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures).  
6.13.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that under Article 7.3 of the Agreement, ten 
notifications8 had been received from ten Members, as listed in the airgram: Albania, Argentina, 
Burkina Faso, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Kuwait and the Philippines. He invited 
delegations to comment on these notifications . 
6.14.  The Committee took note of the notifications.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  7.1  Report by the Chairperson on the informal consultations 7.1.  The Chairperson referred to the informal consultations that had taken place prior to the 
regular meeting, and recalled that, in April 2012, the Secretariat had been asked to prepare, for 
Members' consideration, a draft notification form to facilitate Members' responses to the Annual 
questionnaire contained in G/LIC/3 as provided for in Article 7.3 of the Agreement. In this regard 
he informed the Committee that at the informal meeting, Members continued their discussion on 
the new draft notification form which included the comments and suggestions made by Members 
at the October 2012 informal meeting. There was support from various delegations who found the draft notification form useful and user-friendly an d which, in their view, would facilitate Members' 
responses to the Annual Questionnaire, particularly  in the case of developing countries and Least-
developed countries (LDCs). However, other Member s were of the view that the form would not 
necessarily improve the number and quality of notifications, and that further consideration and discussion should follow. He also reported that during the informal discussion, delegations had 
demonstrated their interest in improving transpar ency through notifications, and particularly in 
responding to the Annual Questionnaire. Therefor e, he not only invited Members to pursue the 
informal discussions on the subject but also indicated that he would inform and encourage his 
successor to continue the discussion on the basis of the revised notification form. 
7.2.  With regard to the discussion on the pr eparation of the next Biennial Review of the 
Implementation and Operation of the Agreement, he indicated that as a result of the consultations 
that had been carried out, he had the impression  that delegations were open to reviewing and 
updating the notification procedures that had been  adopted in 1995 with a view to putting them in 
line with the IT improvements and developments that had taken place since then. However, the idea was not to change the substance or the re quirements therein but to improve transparency 
and make the next Biannual Review in 2014, a proact ive activity. He was also positive that on the 
occasion of the Biennial Review, some recommendations could also be made regarding the possible use of electronic notification forms as well as electronic submission of attachments 
thereto.  This would enhance compliance and transparency obligations under the Agreement, at 
the same time, ensuring the timeliness and quality of the information provided. He would also inform his successor of these discussions and would encourage him to carry out informal 
discussions in this regard.  
7.3.  The Committee took note of the above information.  
7.2  Relationship between I-TIP and the notifications that had been submitted under the 
different provisions of the Agreement 
7.4.  The Chairperson recalled that at the start of the meeting he had announced that he would 
refer to the relationship between I-TIP and the notifications that had been submitted under the 
different provisions of the Agreement.  
7.5.  In this regard he indicated that during WTO Trade Data day on 16 January 2013, Members 
were introduced to the new WTO information system called the Integrated Intelligence Portal (I-TIP). The I-TIP provided comprehensive informat ion on non-tariff measures based on Members' 
                                               
8 See documents G/LIC/N/3/ALB/ 6; G/LIC/N/3/ARG/10; G/LIC/N/3/BFA/5; G/LIC/N/3/CAN/11; 
G/LIC/N/3/CAN/11/CORR/1; G/LIC/N/3//CPV/3; G/LIC/ N/3/CHL/7; G/LIC/N/3/CRI/9; G/LIC/N/3/CUB/4; 
G/LIC/N/3/KWT/3; G/LIC/N/3/KWT/3/CORR.1; and, G/LIC/N/3/PHL/9. G/LIC/M/37 
 
- 15 - 
 
  notifications as well as information on specific trade concerns. The I-TIP currently covered 
information pertaining to technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and anti-dumping and countervailing measures. The aim was to broaden this coverage and to include Members' notifications on inter alia import licensing procedures (ILPs).  
7.6.  He furthered that, in this connection, the Secretariat had started retrieving data and 
legislations contained in the import licensing notifications with the objective of creating an Import Licensing database (IL database) which would feed  into the I-TIP. Such an information system 
would allow Members to consult the legislations on import licensing procedures, as notified or 
mentioned in Members' notifications, under the di fferent transparency provisions in the Agreement 
on Import Licensing. However, in order to ensure accuracy of the data that would be inputted into the IL database, Members' co-operation and collaboration in obtaining clarification and precision on 
some factual information provided in the notifications on ILPs and the retrieval of the applicable 
legislation would be of capital importance. 
7.7.  He also informed the Committee that after careful examination of the records, the Secretariat 
had encountered the following challenges: (i) hard copies of the notified legislation available at the 
Secretariat appeared to be sometimes unclear or difficult to read; (ii) notified sources of information where legislation had been publishe d either did not exist anymore, had not been 
updated and/or the notified links did not work; (iii) notified legislation had only been made 
available in the Members' official language(s) without the summary of the publication and/or legislation in one of the WTO official languages as  provided for by the Procedures for Notification 
(G/LIC/3); (iv) notified legislation was not subm itted by Members to the Secretariat as provided 
for by Article 8.2(b) of the Agreement, nor a summary of the legislation in one of the WTO official 
languages as provided for by the Procedures for No tification (G/LIC/3); (v) the list of products and 
their HS codes and/or type of ILPs (automatic or  non-automatic) had not been precisely indicated; 
and (v) lack of clarity as to which products referred to which legislation had also been detected.  
7.8.  He also informed the Committee that given the above and in order to establish an accurate 
information database on ILPs, which would certainly contribute to increasing the transparency of 
notified ILPs, the Secretariat would be contacting by e-mail, those delegations whose notifications 
on ILPs fell into one of the situations described above in order to request clarification on the said issues. Therefore, prompt responses would be appr eciated as this would enable the Secretariat to 
proceed with inputting the IL database with accurate information.  
7.9.  The Committee took note of the above information. 
7.3  Date of the next meeting  
7.10.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved 
Tuesday, 22 October 20139 for the next meeting of the Committee on the understanding that 
additional meetings would be convened if necessary.  
7.11.  The Committee took note of the information.  
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 8.1.  The Committee elected by acclamation Mr Lu XIANKUNG (China) as Chairperson of the 
Committee, to hold office until the end of th e first meeting of 2014, under Rule 12 of the 
Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147). It also elected by acclamation Mr
 Filipe RAMALHEIRA 
(Portugal)  as Vice-Chairperson. 
 
 
 
__________  
                                               
9 Given that MC9 will take place at the beginning of December 2013, the date of the next meeting was 
then changed to Friday 4 October 2013.