WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/LIC/M/35 
6 August 2012 
 (12-4332) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 APRIL 2012 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Shai Moses (Israel) 
   The Committee on Import Licensing held its thir ty-fifth meeting on 27 April 2012.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/3931 and Revision 1, which were circulated 
on 17 and 26 April 2012, respectively, was adopted as follows:    
Table of Contents 
 
1.  Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting ....................................................................................................................... ................ 2  
2.  Argentina - Import Licensing Measures and Procedures Argentina. - Statements 
by Australia, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Norway, Turkey and the 
United States ................................................................................................................. ............. 9  
3.  Notifications ................................................................................................................. ............ 15  
(i)  Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation) ........................................................................................................... .......... 15 
(ii)  Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications) ........................................ 15  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) .................................................................................................. . 16 
4.  Other Busi ness ................................................................................................................ ......... 16 
(i)  Date of next meeting .......................................................................................................... ....... 16 
(ii)  Cost Savings in Document Production a nd Meetings - Recommendation by the 
Committee on budget, Finance and Administration which were adopted by the 
General Council ............................................................................................................... ......... 16 
5.  Election of Officers .......................................................................................................... ........ 17 
 
 At the start of the meeting the Chair indicat ed that in November 2011, the Chairperson, 
Mr. Flavio Soares Damico, from Brazil, returned to his Capital and before leaving Geneva, he 
requested him to Chair this meeting in his capacity as Vice-Chair.  
 Also at the start of the meeting the delega te of Argentina drew Members' attention to 
document G/LIC/N3/ARG/9 containing Argentina' s responses to the Annual Questionnaire for 2011 
which was recently submitted; she woul d refer to it under Agenda item III.  G/LIC/M/35 
Page 2 
 
 
  1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee th at since the last meeting, a total of 
27 notifications had been received:  eight notific ations under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) on 
legislation/publications; five under Article 5.1- 5.4 on new licensing procedures or changes to the 
procedures in force; and fourteen under Article 7.3 – re plies to the Questionnaire.  As of the day of the 
meeting, out of a total Membership of 153, counting the European Union (EU-27) as one, there 
remained 15 Members1 who had not submitted any no tification under any provision  of the Agreement 
since joining the WTO. 
1.2 As to notifications concerning Members' laws  and regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 
8.2(b)), only a cumulative total of 101 Memb ers, counting the EU-27 as one, had submitted 
notifications.  Thus, 25  Members had yet to submit their notifications under this provision.  Under 
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, only 39 Members, the EU-27 counted as one, had notified new 
licensing procedures or changes in the existing ones.  Of these, one Member (Papua New Guinea) had notified changes to its import licensing procedur es without submitting the initial notification of 
legislation or its replies to the Questionnaire.  He urged those Members who had not yet notified 
either their new licensing procedures or changes in  existing procedures to do so and, in order to 
facilitate this task, he encouraged the use of th e notification forms adopted by the Committee at its 
meeting in April 2011, circulated in document G/ LIC/22 and also available on the Members' website 
under WTO Resources / Market access – Import Licensing / Templates .  
1.3 As to the replies to the Annual Questionnair e under Article 7.3, he informed the Committee 
that a cumulative total of 104 Members, counting EU-27 as one, had submitted their replies to the 
Questionnaire since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement; thus, 22 Members had yet to submit 
their responses to the Questionnaire.  He also re called that the annual deadline for the responses was 
30 September; a deadline often not respected by many Members and urged those Members who had 
not yet responded to the Questionnaire to submit their responses without further delay.  He 
highlighted that Members who did not apply import licensing procedures nor had no laws or 
regulations relevant to the Agreem ent were also required to notify the Committee of this fact in order 
to obtain a complete overview of the licensing regimes of all Members.   
1.4 He also encouraged Members to consult the Secretariat whenever there were questions about 
the notification requirements, and in the case of deve loping and least develope d countries, to ask for 
technical assistance to be provided in their countries with the participation of the national authorities 
who enact and administer import licensing procedures. 
1.5 The Chairperson informed the Committee th at, since the last meeting, three documents 
containing replies concerning licensing systems mainta ined by some Members had been circulated in 
the G/LIC/Q/- series.2     
1.6 He therefore referred to the first document, G/LIC/Q/VNM/2,  containing the questions from 
the United States to Viet Nam on its import licen sing regime and on its responses to the Annual 
Questionnaire contained in document G/LIC/N/3/VNM/ 1; he also informed the Committee that the 
                                                      
1 Belize, Botswana, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Myanmar, Nepal, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands and Tanzania. 
2 Listed in the Airgram as follows: Questions :  from (i) The United States to Viet Nam 
(G/LIC/Q/VNM/2) (ii) the United States  to India (G/LIC/Q/IND/19) and, (iii)  Canada and the United States to 
Indonesia (G/LIC/Q/IDN/19). Pending from the previous meeting: (i) Responses from: Indonesia to the United 
States (G/LIC/Q/IDN/18) and (ii) In dia to Turkey (G/LIC/Q/IND/18).  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 3 
 
 
  previous day, the Secretariat received the draft responses from Viet Nam to these questions; these  
would be circulated in the G/LIC/Q series and considered at the next meeting3.  
 1.7 The delegate of the United States thanked Viet  Nam for having submitted the day before this 
meeting, its responses to the questions his delega tion had posed; his delegation would refer to these 
once circulated to Members.  He also thanked Viet Nam for having submitted its responses to the 
Annual Questionnaire;  however the US remained concerned that Viet Nam had not provided copies 
of its import licensing legislation and that since its accession to the WTO in 2007, it had not notified 
under Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) of the Agre ement when new or amended import licensing 
requirements were put in place.  
1.8 The US understood that there had been several changes to Viet Nam's import licensing regime 
since its accession and cited the case of Circ ular Numbers 17/2008, 22/2010 TT-BCT and 
24/2010/TT-BCT dated May 2010, Circular Nu mber 31/2010/TT-BCT dated July 2010, and 
Circular 42/2010 dated December 2010, which did no t appear to have been notified to this 
Committee. Concerns referred especially to the procedures published in Circular 24, which had 
significantly extended the scope of products subj ect to import licensing procedures.  Thus, he 
requested Viet Nam to explain how the products, in cluding food, agricultural products, and textiles 
and apparel were selected for inclusion in Ci rcular 24 as well as the measure being implemented 
through this regime.  
1.9 He urged Viet Nam to promptly notify Circular 24, as well as Circulars 17, 22, 31 and 42, as 
well as any other changes to its ILPs since its access ion.  Transparency was a basic requirement of 
WTO Membership and of this Agreement, and Viet Nam should acknowledge its commitments and 
also promptly provide the requested inform ation contained in document G/LIC/Q/VNM/2. 
1.10 The delegate of the European Union suppor ted the US statement and thanked Viet Nam for 
having submitted document G/LIC/N/3/VNM/1 cont aining its first response to the Annual 
Questionnaire; this provided information which allo wed a better understanding of Viet Nam's ILPs 
and requirements.  However, the notification did not cover all import licensing related legislation 
currently in force in Viet Nam, as it only refe rred to Circulars 22/2010, 24/2010 and 31/2010 but not 
to Circular 17 issued in December 2008, the fi rst regulation related to import licensing since 
Viet Nam's accession to the WTO.  Circular 24 (May 2010), updating Circular 17, significantly 
extended the scope of products initia lly covered by Circular 17 and other specific Circulars which 
applied to steel and steel products were also issued  in 2010.  The EU invited Viet Nam to provide a 
full overview of its import licensing related legislatio n currently in force to allow full examination by 
Members of its IL regime; he also sought Viet Nam to submit its notifications under Articles 1.4(a), 5 
and 8.2(b) of the Agreement wh ich had not been provided since its accession to the WTO in 2007. 
Her delegation attached high importance to Me mbers' due compliance with the notification 
obligations set up in the WTO agreements; the first and foremost transparency obligations within the 
WTO should not be disregarded.  Transparent rul es and procedures were important to ensure smooth 
trade flows. 
1.11 She also recalled that during the MC8 in December 2011, Ministers widely acknowledged 
that improving Members' compliance with notifica tion obligations would enhance transparency across 
WTO bodies and help to discourage protectionism .  The completeness and timeliness of such 
notifications was of benefit to the daily bus iness of the WTO.  Improving compliance with 
notification obligations was an important discussion subject also in this Committee during 2009-2011. 
Moreover, these discussions resulted in the adoption of two standard notification forms for voluntary 
use to facilitate Members' compliance with notif ication obligations under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 
Article 8.2(b) and Article 5 of the AIL.  Therefor e, her delegation urged Viet Nam to submit all its 
                                                      
3 See document G/LIC/Q/VNM/3. G/LIC/M/35 
Page 4 
 
 
  information related to import licensing procedures to the WTO Secretariat as soon as possible, using – 
if appropriate – new standard forms.  The EU would also look carefully at Viet Nam's responses to the 
US and reserved its right to pose additional questions. 
1.12  The delegate of Viet Nam thanked the US and the EU for its questions and informed the 
Committee that Viet Nam had issued , for statistical purposes, several regulations on automatic ILPs 
such as Circular Nos. 17/2008, 22/2010, 24/2010, 31/2010, 42/2010 and 32/2011. However, all these 
were of a temporary nature and had already expired,  except Circular Nos. 24 and 32.  Circular No. 24 
regulated the application of automatic ILPs to cer tain products; Circular No. 32 removed some of the 
items listed in Circular No. 24.  His delegation had submitted the pertinent notifications the day 
before this meeting.  No other changes had been  introduced to the IL regime since Viet Nam's 
accession to the WTO.  
1.13 As to how products - including food, agricu ltural products, textiles a nd apparels items, were 
selected for inclusion in Circular No. 24, he indicat ed that the aim of the Circular 24 was to obtain 
more details, accurate and timely statistics and data  to assess imports of such products. As to what 
measure was being implemented through the ILPs descr ibed in Circular No. 24 , he indicated that the 
licensing regime was automatic and that Viet Na m's IL regulations and procedures fully complied 
with the Agreement. 
1.14 The Committee took note of the statements made.  
1.15 The Chair then drew Members' attention to document G/LIC/Q/IND/19 containing additional 
questions from the United States relating to India's import licensing regime applied to boric acid.  1.16 The delegate of the United States indicated that his delegation remained concerned about the 
ILPs applied by India to boric acid, a situation th at had not changed since 2008 when the US raised 
the issue for the first time.  Therefore, the US ha d posed the questions contained in G/LIC/Q/IND/19. 
Concerns referred to the questions by India when applying for an import licence that related to the 
precise end-use of boric acid.  This end-use re quirement had a negative impact on the ability of 
intermediaries to import non-insecticidal boric acid in India and impeded the ability of the 
US exporters to sell this product in India's market .  It remained unclear exactly how India's ILPs 
achieved the stated objective of avoiding misuse of  boric acid and how the information requested to 
apply for an import licence advanced that objective.   The US sought further information from India to 
better understand why this informa tion was necessary and how India's procedure ensured that the 
boric acid being imported was not misused.  Furthermore, India should explain how these procedures fulfilled the obligations set out in Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement on ILPs. The US also sought 
a more detailed explanation from India on why th is information was necessary for imported boric 
acid, especially since his authorities were unaware of a similar requirement for domestic sales.  
1.17 The US were baffled by the way India classi fied boric acid; in 2007, the Central Board of 
Excise and Customs (CBEC) established that bo ric acid would be classified under the heading 
applicable to boric acid only when imported as a p esticide or for insecticidal use.  However the CBEC 
issued further instructions in 2011 which created more confusion.  What, exactly, were the specific 
requirements that non-insecticidal boric acid might meet?  And, why, given the 2007 CBEC 
classification decision, were non-insecticidal boric acid  imports required to be licensed by the Central 
Insecticides Board? 
1.18 The delegate of Turkey shared the concerns by the US on India's IL regime applied to boric 
acid. As an exporter of this product Turkey was inte rested in the responses to be provided by India. 
1.19 The delegate of India announced that his delegation would respond soon to the questions 
posed by the US and Turkey.  He indicated that the information on the manufacturing and import of  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 5 
 
 
  multi-use boric acid, regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, as well as the information on the end-
users certificate, was available in the official website.  
1.20 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.21 The delegate of the United States, when referring to document G/LIC/Q/IDN/19, introduced 
by the Chair and containing questions by Cana da and the United States to Indonesia on its 
non-automatic import licensing requirements applied to livestock, livestock products including meats, 
and fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, stated that Indonesia's new requirements on these 
products appeared to be complex and non-transparent and could significantly impair trade.  They expected from Indonesia prompt and full res ponses to the concerns and questions and also 
requested it to promptly publish and notify any me asures or changes therein with Articles 1.4 and 
Article 5 of the Agreement, so as to allow governme nts and traders to become acquainted with them 
and provide comments prior to their implementation.   Indonesia should clarify the operation of its 
livestock and horticultural import licensing regulati ons, the underlying measures that the licenses 
were intended to administer, the reason for the comp lexity of the measures, and how Indonesia would 
implement them to ensure transparency.  This w ould also lead Indonesia to a self-examination on the 
impact of its ILPs on the international tradi ng system and the flow of trade, and uphold its 
responsibility to pursue the goals of the rules-based trading system.  
1.22 The delegate of Canada stated that from a systemic perspective, Canada was concerned that 
Indonesia's new procedures appeared to be complex and non-transparent.  Additionally, these had not 
yet been notified according to Articl es 1.4 and 5 of the Agreement.  In recent years, Canada's industry 
had received expression of interest for a variety of livestock products including live animals and 
generics from Indonesian industry, including coopera tives, research institutes and the Government 
itself.  Canada was working with Indonesia on ca pacity building initiatives to help the country to 
develop its livestock sector, particularly in the area of dairy products and genetics.  Market access for 
these products was crucial for a successful cooperati on in commercial exchanges in the sector.  The 
new import measures would hamper and jeopardize the growing mutual and beneficial bilateral 
co-operation in trade in this area.  Therefore, in line with the objectives of keeping simplified and 
transparent administrate procedures and practices, Canada requested Indonesia to promptly address 
the concerns outlined in the written questions as we ll as to publish and promptly notify any new ILPs 
or changes in existing procedures.  
1.23  The delegate of Australia expressed concer ns over the significant reduction in Indonesia's 
import permits for live cattle and beef products and the number of restrictions on horticultural 
products.  These restrictions were of major comme rcial interest to Australia and its exporters. 
Australia looked forward to working with Indonesi a to resolve these issues  and encouraged it to 
submit its notifications on any new licensing measures or changes in existing licensing measures in 
accordance with Article 5 of the Agreement.  
1.24 The delegate of the European Union echoed the US and Canada concerning Indonesia's recent 
regulations 24/2011, 50/2011 and 3/2012 on imports of horticulture products, and animal and animal 
products as these had a negative impact on EU expor ts to Indonesia.  Overall, import conditions 
should be in conformity with WTO obligations; thus, transparent to prevent trade distortions. 
However, the new regulations by Indonesia seemed  to introduce important new procedures to its 
import licensing regime, set quantitative restri ctions for a number of products and added 
administrative measures. Despite important change s in Indonesia's ILPs, these regulations had not 
been notified to the WTO, except the draft of Re gulation 50/2011, which was notified to the WTO but 
under the SPS Agreement in document G/SPS/N/I DN/43, dated 18 January 2010; his delegation 
provided SPS related comments questioning the whol e import procedure, considered burdensome and 
having negative impact on trade.  However, the EU comments had not been taken into account.  G/LIC/M/35 
Page 6 
 
 
  1.25 He reiterated the importance of complying w ith Members' notification obligations set up in 
the WTO agreements, as acknowledged by the Mini sters during the MC8 in December 2011, and 
encouraged Indonesia to submit notifications c oncerning the above-mentioned new regulations as 
soon as possible, using – if appropriate – the new standard forms.  
1. 26 The delegate of Brazil indicated that in the SPS Committee, his delegation had raised 
concerns regarding the sanitary restrictions impo sed by Indonesia on Brazilian exports of beef and 
poultry meat. These concerns might also have connecti ons with some of the points highlighted in the 
written questions posed by the US and Canada to Indo nesia. In this regard, he mentioned question 7 in 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/19 referring to Annex 2 of regulation No. 51/2011 of the Ministry of Agriculture 
containing a list of livestock products that c ould be imported but where some commonly trade 
products such as chicken products  were not listed. This raised  doubts about the possibility of 
obtaining import permits for those products. Thus, Brazil would continue to follow-up the discussion 
in this committee. 
1.27 The delegate of New Zealand echoed the prev ious concerns that Indonesia's new requirements 
were not transparent and had a significant impact on New Zealand's trade with Indonesia.  
Additionally, these were not consistent with Indon esia's WTO obligations. The required notifications 
had not taken place and insufficient information ha d been provided on how these regulations would be 
applied.  Previous changes had already impacted New Zealand's exports of beef in 2010 and the 
exports volume fell by 40 per cent between 2010 and 2011.  His authorities had recently raised their 
concerns bilaterally with Indonesia during a visit of the Prime Minister Jakarta but would continue to 
follow the developments on this issue very closely.  
1.28 The delegate of Japan echoed the concer ns regarding the IL measures on horticultural 
products and the delegate of Switzerland indicated that for systemic reasons his delegation would 
follow the issue closely and wa it for Indonesia's responses.  
1.29 The delegate of Indonesia indicated that th e written responses were at the back of the room 
and that these would be circulated to Members4. With regard to the livestock and livestock products 
he indicated that the ILPs regulated by Law 18/ 2009 on Husbandry and Animal Health, Regulation 
No. 50/2011 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Regulation No. 24/2011 of the Ministry of Trade, were automatic ILPs. According to those regula tions, the licence for importation of livestock and 
livestock products was granted to all registered im porters of animal and an imal products (IT-Animal) 
and provided the fulfilment of the requirements set out in the regulations; the application might be 
submitted on any working day prior to the custom cl earance; and, the approval process of a complete 
application did not exceed the ten days period requi red in Article 2 of the Agreement on ILPs.  The 
legal requirements to submit an a pplication were set out in Law 18/2009 Regulation No. 50/2011 of 
the Ministry of Agriculture and the already cited Re gulation No. 24/2011; complete applications were 
always granted. Therefore, this import licensing syst em did not fall under Article 3 of the Agreement. 
He furthered that under Regula tion No. 24/2011, there was no prohibition for the importation of any 
poultry products. However, the issuance of the im port permit was based on the recommendation of the 
Ministry of Agriculture, subject to certain requirements indicated in Regulations of the Ministry of 
Agriculture No.50, 51 and 52 of 2011. 
1.30 With regard to the horticultural products, th e import procedures were in Decree No. 03/2012.  
A recommendation concerning the importation of  horticultural products was signed on 
31 January 2012, and would enter into force on 31 April 2012.  Indonesia was elaborating the 
notifications of these two regulations.  Additionall y, Indonesia had not issued any implementation of 
Ministerial Decree No. 3 of the Ministry of Agricultural.    
                                                      
4 See document G/LIC/Q/IDN/20.  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.31 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.32 The Chair recalled that at the last mee ting, the Committee was informed that after the 
Airgram had been issued, Indonesia submitted document G/LIC/Q/IDN/18 containing its written 
responses to the questions posed by the Unite d States on Regulation 57/12/2010, which renewed 
Decree 56 of 2008, and on Indonesia's responses to the Annual Questionnaire contained in document 
G/LIC/N/3/IDN/4.   On this occasion it was also i ndicated that document G/LIC/Q/IDN/18 would be 
considered at this meeting. 
1.33 The delegate of the United States thanked Indonesia for its responses; his delegation had 
follow-up questions. Indonesia's last WTO notifi cation of import licensing legislation was in 
July 2009, yet a new import licensing regula tion was signed and passed on 29 December 2010 
(Ministry of Trade Regulation 57/M-DAG/PE R/12/2010) and entered into force on 
1 January 2011.  During the meeting of the Comm ittee in October 2011, Indonesia indicated that it 
would notify the Ministry of Trade Regulation 57  as soon as possible (see G/LIC/M/34). However, 
the notification had not been submitted to date .  He asked when Indonesia would notify this 
legislation.  As to Indonesia's last responses to the Annual Questionnaire in February 2010, he noted 
that the notification did not include reference to products which appeared to  be covered by import 
licensing requirements, like cosmetics.  He asked  when Indonesia planned to submit an updated 
response to the Questionnaire.  He also asked Indon esia to clarify if the ILPs to which Ministry of 
Trade Regulations 45/2009, 17/2010 and 39/2010 re ferred to were automatic and if approvals under 
these three regulations were issued within ten days of the receipt of the application.  As to Ministry of 
Trade Regulation 57 he sought explanation on wh at measure Indonesia necessitated to use ILPs.  
Finally, he urged Indonesia to notify any import licensing requirements. 
1.34 In response the delegate of Indonesia re ferred to document G/LIC/Q/IDN/18 containing its 
responses on Decree No. 57; he also informed the Committee that his delegation submitted, on 
25 April 2012, the pertinent notification and that he had taken note of the further questions by the US. 
1.35 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
1.36 The Chair recalled that at the last meeting, it was also announced that document 
G/LIC/Q/IND/18 had been submitted by India after the Airgram had been issued and contained its 
written responses to the questions posed by Turkey  in document G/LIC/Q/IND/17 on India's import 
licensing regime applied to marble and similar ston es which would be considered at this meeting. 
1.37 The delegate of Turkey thanked India for its responses to the concerns on the products subject 
to the quota system.  He noted that DGFT Notifi cation No.64, dated 4 August 2011, referred only to 
products covered under HS Codes 25151100 and 25151200 and that in its reply, India stated that other 
products under the two other HS Codes (25151220 a nd 25151290) were also restricted for imports; 
but did not specify the exact regulation.  Thus, he asked India to indicate the exact date and reference 
number of the legislation regulating the import of products covered under HS Code 
numbers 25151220 and 25151290.  He also asked how  the restriction on imports of marble and 
similar stones would alleviate concerns related to "s afety, security and the environment", particularly 
since India's reply referred to the environmental eff ects of processing of marble blocks. India had also 
stated that marble mining, as well as cutting and fu rther processing of marble blocks, had an equal 
effect on the environment, but there was any scientif ic study or evidence cite d by India indicating the 
hazardous effects of marble processing and the similarity of its effects with marble mining.  
Moreover, in 2010, India exported around 1 million tons of processed granites, ranking itself in  
second place among processed granite exporting countri es. Turkey believed that the "potential" 
effects, if any, of marble and granite processing to health and environment were the same. Thus, 
Turkey wondered if there was any Indian regulation regarding granite processing.   G/LIC/M/35 
Page 8 
 
 
  1.38 Another concern was the restricted eligibility criterion set out in the notification. India 
answered by stating that the eligibility criterion changed with DGFT Notification No.64. However, 
after an examination of the said notification the five years' long operation requirement remained, 
together with some additional elig ibility requirements.  India had also indicated that the reason for the 
above-mentioned requirement was the aim to en sure adequate manufacturing capacity. This 
contradicted Article 3.5(j) of the Agreement stati ng that "Consideration shall be given to ensuring a 
reasonable distribution of licenses to new importers…".  
1.39 Turkey had also asked why India imposed a ceiling level of 300.000 metric tons.  India 
replied that the ceiling for imports was now 500.000 me tric tons.  However, this did not change the 
fact that India's import licensing system was a quantitative restriction as it had a restrictive effect on 
importation.  Moreover, on the questions regarding the eligibility of units that might make applications for import licenses, India replied that the said criteria was intended to ensure adequate 
and sustainable manufacturing capacity.  Did India ha ve data regarding its domestic marble cutting 
and processing capacity?  If yes, Turkey was of the opinion that the quota of 500,000 metric tons for 
imports was restrictive considering India's total ca pacity for marble cutting and processing and did not 
meet market demands in India. 
1.40 He furthered questioned as to whether the floor  price was a licence fee.  India replied that it 
was the minimum import price to ensure quality of goods under import, however, marble price would 
depend on the variables on the supply and demand side .  Moreover, as the price of marble fluctuated 
within the year depending on the market conditions, the price determined by India for the whole year 
made the link between price and quality, as stated by I ndia, rather arbitrary. Thus, this linkage might 
be further elaborated by India. 
1.41 The delegate of the European Union supported Turkey's request for further clarifications on 
India's import licensing regime on marble and simila r stones.  The EU industry had also complained 
about the current licensing regime, setting and allocation of quotas and the annual import ceiling 
below the potential imports.  More information was required concerning the objective of the 
restrictions.  The EU had also noted that in its r esponses India stated that due to "safety, security or 
the environment" reasons, marble mining was subj ect to licensing and production control and that 
cutting and further processing of marble blocks woul d have an impact on environment.  India should 
elaborate further on how these restrictions addr essed these concerns and, provide information on 
whether it was also applying any similar restrict ions to domestic marble and stone cutting and 
processing industry.  He also sought from India fu rther details on the revision of the criteria and 
ceiling that had taken place with the domestic stakeholders.  
1.42 The delegate of the United States stated that many of the underlying concerns raised by 
Turkey were similar to the ones the US had ha d for other products subject to import licensing 
requirements in India, and recalled that at the Oct ober 2011 meeting, the US reiterated its request to 
India that, rather than referring Members to its general DGFT website, it provide to this Committee a 
list of products subject to automatic licensing require ments, and a separate list of products subject to 
non-automatic licensing requirements.  If this list ha d not been provided to the Secretariat when did 
India plan to provide it? 
1.43 Like Turkey, the US were interested in Indi a's explanation of its specific concerns regarding 
"safety, security or the environment," and how the restriction on these goods would, specifically, 
alleviate those concerns.  Unfortunately, in its respon se to Turkey India simply stated that it subjected 
marble mining to licensing and production control due to "safety, security or the environment", which 
shed no light on the restriction or on how it would address India's concerns.  The US also requested 
India to explain what measures, if any, it im posed on domestic sandalwood, marble and stones, 
concerning "safety, security, or environment"  concerns that justified India's ILPs.  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 9 
 
 
  1.44 The delegate of India thanked the prev ious speakers for the additional questions, and 
requested these in writing so as to send them to Capital. 
1.45 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2. Argentina - Import Licensing Measures and Procedures Argentina. - Statements by 
Australia, the European Union, Japan, Korea , Norway, Turkey and the United States 
2.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee th at in a communication dated 16 April 2012 the 
delegations of Australia, the European Union, Japan , Korea, Norway, Turkey and the United States 
requested the Secretariat to incl ude in the agenda of this meeting an item on Argentina's import 
licensing measures and procedures.  
2.2  The delegate of Australia stated that furt her to the joint statement Australia made with 
Canada, China, Costa Rica, EU, Israel, Japan, Ko rea, NZ, Norway, Panama, Switzerland, Chinese 
Taipei, Thailand, Turkey and the US at the recent meeting of the Goods Council in March 2012, his 
delegation continued to have concer ns over Argentina's trade-restrictive IL measures, particularly the 
new trade-restrictive import requirements introduced  on 1 February 2012, which required, in essence, 
the personal approval by the Secretary of Commerce of  every product imported into Argentina.  This 
was not consistent with the procedures and obliga tions set out in the WTO Agreements on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (TBT), Sanitary and Phyto-sanita ry Measures and Customs Valuation, nor with the 
GATT/94 and the Agreement on ILPs.  Australia wa s also concerned that the expansion of the 
non-automatic licensing (NAIL) requirements to a pproximately 600 tariff lines was not consistent 
with the GATT/94 and the Agreement on ILPs but app eared to be designed to restrict the importation 
of products into Argentina without regard to the WT O rules.  He therefore invited Argentina to take 
immediate steps to address Australia's concerns by removing or terminating these import-restrictive 
measures and indicated that, if despite the concerns  described above, Argentina continued to maintain 
these import-restrictive measures, Argentina should pr ovide a detailed written e xplanation of why, in 
its view, these measures were consistent with WTO ru les and in particular with Article XI:1 of the 
GATT/94 and Article 3.2 of the Agreement on ILPs . He also requested that Argentina provide 
monthly import statistics by volume and value for the last three years (up to May 2012). 
2.3 The delegate of Turkey recalled that his delegation was among the ones who expressed 
concerns on Argentina's ILPs in this Committee a nd also was a co-sponsor of the joint statement 
delivered in the last CTG meeting.  Turkey con tinued to receive complaints from its industry and 
observed a significant downfall in its exports to Argentina, particularly because 40 per cent of 
Turkey's total exports to Argentina were subject to the NAIL system.  An analysis of the export trend 
in these products demonstrated a downfall in one, or more than one year, following the introduction of 
NAIL system.  Argentina claimed th at the decrease in imports in  2009 was not a result of the said 
practices but of the economic stagnation in the co untry.  However, despite an average growth in 
Argentinian economy of 9 per cent in 2010 and 2011, imports in many products continued to 
decrease.  For 24 of the products which Turkey e xported to Argentina and which were subject to 
NAIL system in 2008 and 2009, export quantities of 2008 could not have been caught as of 2011.  
Likewise, exports of 10 other prod ucts had been negatively affected by the additions made to the list 
of products subject to NAIL and had decreased by 50 per cent in 2011 when compared to 2010.  
Among these electrical household appliances were the mo stly affected ones.  He furthered that the 
"advance sworn import declaration" requirement, put  into practice on 1 February 2012, had also 
begun to have effects on Turkey's exports in the last  two months; once again, electrical and electronic 
products had been the most adverse affected sector s by the new requirement, with exports shrinking 
from 3.3 million dollars in February-March 2011 to 1 05 thousand dollars in the same period in 2012. 
Turkish exports to Argentina decreased by 40.1 pe r cent in February-March 2012 when compared to G/LIC/M/35 
Page 10 
 
 
  the same period in 2011.  He theref ore invited Argentina to bring its practices into conformity with its 
WTO obligations and its commitments as a member of the G-20.  
2.4 The delegate of the European Union, when re ferring to the joint statement, made at the Goods 
Council on 30 March 2012 on behalf of 14 Members and supported by 18 other Members, indicated 
that this, as well as the current meeting of the Comm ittee, had been attempts to have Argentina reply 
to and address the concerns on its NAILs and the c onsequent restrictive effects these had on trade. 
However, Argentina had failed to adequately address these concerns or respond to Members' 
questions.  NAILs were just one of the measures used by Argentina; since 2008, these had greatly 
expanded to currently cover approximately si x hundred 8-digit tariff lines in Argentina's 
non-agricultural goods schedule.  Products affected included, but were not limited to laptops, home 
appliances, air conditioners, tractors, machinery and t ools, autos and auto parts, plastics, chemicals, 
tyres, toys, footwear, textiles and apparel, luggage, bicycles, and paper products.  Since 
1 February 2012, through Resolutions of the Taxation and Customs Authority Argentina had 
established a sworn import declaration procedure whic h in conjunction with resolutions from other 
Governmental agencies required a pre-registration,  review and approval of each and every import 
transaction.  These regulations were creating long de lays and resulting in huge costs for many of the 
exporters and seemed to constitute  a de facto non–automatic licen sing system on all imports. Its 
practical implementation, which left a wide di scretion to Government Agencies involved in the 
process and which lacked of transpar ency and clarity for importers, coul d be used with a protectionist 
purpose to control and administer imports to Argentina.  
2.5  She furthered that there were reported pr actices that import/export balancing requirements 
were being imposed on companies by Governmental authorities and licenses and authorisations were 
subject to finding an arrangement with the G overnment on import balancing plans. Importing 
companies were forced to commit to certain values of  exports to be able to continue to import into 
Argentina.  In this vein she recalled that accord ing to Article 3.2 of the WTO Agreement on ILPs, 
a non-automatic licensing requirement was WTO in compatible unless it was necessary to implement 
measures which were imposed in conformity wi th the relevant WTO rules and did not have 
trade-restrictive or trade-distortive effects on imports beyond those caused by the underlying 
restriction.  Article 5(g) of the Agreement confir med this by requiring that the notifications of non-
automatic import licensing include an indication of "the measure being implemented through the 
licensing procedure". A different interpretation of these articles would render Article XI of GATT meaningless, since it would allow WTO Members to  use arbitrarily import licensing regimes as a 
means to restrict imports for protectionist purpo ses.  Also, the non-automatic licensing requirement 
might comply with all relevant provisions of the Agreement, including a maximum processing period 
of 60 days.  
2.6 Argentinean import licensing measures were not  in line with the spirit and letter of WTO 
obligations.  There were a number of reports that  Argentina's NAIL scheme had a trade-restrictive 
effect on imports and that there were long delays in the issuance of import licences or in the approval 
of sworn declarations prior to imports.  Thus, the EU urged Argentina to withdraw its protectionist 
measures and to bring its import licensing regime in  compliance with its WTO obligations as soon as 
possible.  Argentina was required to address the serious concerns raised both bilaterally and 
multilaterally in the WTO since 2009.   If despite al l these concerns, Argentina continued to maintain 
these import-restrictive measures and practices, the EU  requested from Argentina to provide detailed 
written explanation of how and why, in its view, th ese measures and practices were consistent with 
the WTO rules.   
2.7 The delegate of Norway echoed the views and concerns expressed by previous speakers. 
Norway believed that these measures had trade restri ctive implications. Norway had already raised 
concerns on this issue in the CTG and was fully committed to preserve the multilateral trading system.  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Thus his delegation asked Argentina to take imme diate steps to address these concerns by either 
removing or terminating the use of import-restricted measures. 
2.8 The delegate of Thailand joined the previous  speakers in the concerns regarding Argentina's 
IL regime and recalled that his delegation also co -sponsored the statement made during the CTG on 
30 March 2012.  Thai industry had also reported that there were difficulties in obtaining import 
licences from Argentinean authorities.  They had al so been informed that since February 2012, in 
order to get the pre-approved licence, importers were  being asked to indicate the value of the exports, 
in equal amount of what they were seeking to im port.  Thus, Thailand urged Argentina to withdraw 
these measures.  If Argentina was to  maintain these measures, it should provide detailed explanations, 
particularly concerning the justification as to how  these measures were consistent with Argentina's 
obligations under the WTO, particularly with resp ect to the Agreement on ILPs and GATT Article XI. 
2.9 The delegate of the United States reiterated the deepest concern of the US about the effect 
that Argentina's ILPs and other restrictions were  having on the rules-based international trading 
system and recalled that at the Goods Counc il meeting on 30 March 2012, 14 WTO Members – both 
developed and developing countries- made a join t statement contained in G/C/W/667.  These 
countries, along with eight additional WTO Member s who voiced their support, continued to ask 
Argentina to take immediate steps to remove or terminate its import-restrictive measures and practices.  The US wanted to know what steps Argentina had taken or was undertaking to address 
these concerns.  At the least, his delegation expect ed to receive, as requested in G/C/W/667, detailed 
written explanation of why, in its view, Arge ntina considered its measures and practices WTO 
consistent.    
2.10 His delegation had been voicing its concerns  on Argentina's ILPs for six years in this 
Committee and in other bodies, most recently in th e CTG meeting and at the G20 Trade Ministerial 
Meeting.  The US believed that the WTO was th e forum where trade issues like these could and 
should be resolved according to an agreed set of ru les.  Therefore, his authorities were disheartened 
that despite the collective protestations, Arge ntina had not acknowledged the validity of these 
concerns and persisted in adopting additional restrictive measures.  To the repeated attempts to obtain 
clarification on the operation of its licensing regime , Argentina had responded in this Committee, as 
well as in other venues, with vague answers that only confirmed the lack of transparency of its 
system, or with simple assertions that its impor t licensing regime operated consistently with WTO 
rules.  The US had long questioned the speci fic underlying measures that Argentina was 
implementing through its import licensing regime.  Under the WTO Agreement on ILPs, non-
automatic licensing procedures shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely 
necessary to administer the underlying measure.  The underlying measure might also be WTO consistent.  Therefore, his delegation expected a clear and complete explanation from Argentina on 
the precise justification for the underlying measure  it required to use import licensing and on why 
there was no other less burdensome way to administer the measure.  In addition to the confusion over 
whether or not there was a justifiable underlying ne ed for the licensing procedures, it was difficult to 
understand why the evaluation of trends and changes in trade flows, which Argentina had suggested 
as the reason for certain of the procedures, would require pre-registration and pre-approval of all imports, and why this verification mechanism nec essitated NAILs.  Argentina's responses had so far 
proved unsatisfactory and Argentina could explain further and in detail why it believed that "the 
evaluation of trends and changes in trade flows" required a NAIL regime. 
2.11 There were also concerns regarding the timeframe for approving licence applications.  
Reports from the US industry indicated that importers still faced long delays of six months or more to 
obtain an import licence, despite the claims by Ar gentina that all licenc es were issued within 
30-60 days.  When so many Members in this Commi ttee continued to report concerns about the same 
kinds of delays, Argentina's assertions that li cences were issued within 30 to 60 days simply G/LIC/M/35 
Page 12 
 
 
  confounded WTO membership.  Thus, Argentina shoul d explain the reason for the chronic delay in 
issuing import licenses. 
2.12 Reports received by his authorities also indicated that applications were left pending 
indefinitely until a company made some commitment to the Ministry of Industry to either invest 
domestically in Argentina, or balance its imports w ith exports from Argentina.  Reportedly, only once 
such commitments were made, were companies able to obtain the necessary import licences and 
approvals to import their goods.  The Ministry of Industry's website was replete with press releases 
announcing trade balancing and domestic production arrangements.  These arrangements included 
well known automakers agreeing to export products su ch as wine, olive oil and soy meal, and required 
companies across a number of sectors to undertake production in Argentina without reference to the 
economics of doing so.  Argentina should clarify this  situation.  In short, the question for Argentina 
was when would it put an end to the non-transpar ent and restrictive measures and practices that had 
been the source of such longstanding irritation and growing frustration among so many of its fellow 
WTO Members? 
2.13 The delegate of New Zealand endorsed the comments of previous delegations, both at this 
meeting and at the CTG meeting.  His authorities ha d systemic concerns in relation to the range of 
trade-restrictive IL measures that had been introduced  by Argentina and would continue to follow this 
development closely. 
2.14 The delegate of Costa Rica echoed the con cerns expressed by other delegations and drew 
Argentina's attention to the need to establish me asures compatible with its commitments under the 
Agreement and with regard to transparency. 
2.15 The delegate of Colombia reiterated the concerns on Argentina's NAIL system as well as on 
the pre-registration and pre-appr oval requirements introduced in Ja nuary 2012. These measures were 
incompatible with Argentina's obligations under th e Agreement on ILPs. Colombia considered that 
there was not only lack of transparency but also  a system highly discretionary. Therefore, these 
measures had de facto  become QRs to imports and their impact had been a reduction in imports of 
industrial products and all products to Argentina: about 40 tariff lines had been affected by the NAIL 
system, 28 industrial export lines had been affected by  15 per cent and in 18 lines, imports had been 
reduced to practically zero. Colombia had always been  respectful of its obligations to Argentina in the 
multilateral framework and had tried to ensure that Argentinean exporters had total certainty for their 
operations; this had not been the case with Colo mbian exporters because the measures had altered 
their ability to access the Argentinean market and had affected the predictability of the system. None 
the less Colombia noted a lack of guarantees for its exporters in respect of the NAIL system and that 
licences were systematically denied without justific ation. Therefore, Colombia urged Argentina to 
change its system vis-à-vis  imports from Colombia and also to put the sworn declaration of product 
composition in line with Law No. 32/52. 
2.16 The delegate of Peru stated that what her delegation had expressed in other meetings of this 
Committee and in the CTG meetings with respect to the NAIL, the certification system and the delays 
in providing this document, unfort unately continued to be the case in the administration and operation 
of the Argentinean IL system.  These impaired Per uvian exports to Argentina most of them in the 
textile and clothing sectors from SMEs which faced  difficulties in entering the Argentinean market. 
Between 2007 and 2011, 40 per cent of Peruvian expo rts subject to the NAIL system were from micro 
and small enterprises which represented more than half  of the exported value to Argentina. Therefore, 
Peru requested the Argentinean authorities to avoid any unnecessary restriction on international trade.  
Argentina should continue dialoguing with its trad e partners in order to resolve this situation 
promptly.   G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 13 
 
 
  2.17 The delegate of Hong Kong, China stated that  a large portion of its exports to Argentina was 
covered by Argentina's NAIL requirements.  Th e processing period for applications of IL was 
reported to be considerably longer than 60 days; th is was not in compliance with the provisions in 
Article 3.5 of the Agreement.  Moreover, in Jan uary 2012 Argentina introduced new regulations 
which entered into force in February and which required a pre-registration review and approval for 
each and every import transaction.  These require ments and measures had not only caused extra 
burden to Hong-Kong exporters and their trading partne rs, but also resulted in trade distortive effects 
on imports from all Members.  His authorities hoped that Argentina would comply with the 
Agreement on ILPs and would also apply its measures  in a transparent and predicable manner without 
impeding international trade to flow. 
2.18 The delegate of Japan stated that despite the continued and deepened concerns raised by a 
growing number of WTO Members in this Committ ee and the CTG, Argentina had not made any 
improvements regarding the delays in issuing import licences which overpassed the processing period 
prescribed in the Agreement.   As expressed jointly at the CTG meeting on 30 March 2012, in 
addition to the import restricting policies and prac tices Argentina had introduced and enlarged its 
NAIL system with trade balancing requirements,  pre-registration and pr e-approval of imports. 
Argentina should address concerns expressed by Members and explain how those measures and 
practices were WTO consistent.  Japan asked Arge ntina to ensure WTO consistency on these matters 
and to keep the issuance of import licences within the timeframe stipulat ed in the Agreement.  He also 
recalled that G-20 leaders reaffirmed their commitmen t to resist protectionism in all forms; this 
should also be applicable to all cases including NAIL procedures.  Japan would continue discussing 
the issue further with Argentina, both bilaterally and multilaterally. 
2.19 The delegate of Korea shared the concerns ra ised by previous speakers which had been raised 
several times in the WTO including this Committ ee and also the G-20.  Argentina had not only 
maintained this procedure but had also increased the scope of appl ication and strengthened the trade 
restrictive effects of the NAIL system without accommodating Members' concerns.  Korea invited 
Argentina to bring its IL regime in line with its WTO obligations and to apply their implementation in 
a transparent and predictable manner.  
2.20  The representative of Switzerland echoed the concerns and previous statements.  Since 2008, 
the scope of products subject to non-automatic licenc es in Argentina had increa sed.  According to the 
Swiss industry, Argentina's NAIL regime had trade r estrictive effects on imports and long delays in 
the issuance of import licences had also been expe rienced. The lack of transparency had created 
uncertainties for exporters in Argentina.  These c oncerns had been expressed several times in this 
Committee and in the CTG where Switzerland was one of  the several co-sponsors of a joint statement. 
Switzerland found it worrying and frustrating that desp ite the numerous calls by a growing number of 
WTO Members urging Argentina to conform to its WTO obligations, the situation had not improved 
but even worsened.  He therefore urged Argentina, once again, to take imme diate steps to address the 
concerns expressed several times by Switzerland a nd many other WTO Member s and provide detailed 
explanations regarding how Argentina considered its  measures were in line with its obligations under 
the Agreement on ILPs and Ar ticle XI of the GATT 94. 
2.21 The delegate of Canada shared the concerns  of previous speakers and reiterated to Argentina 
the importance and need for transparency with obl igations in the WTO Agreements.  Canada had 
systemic concerns on Argentina's measures and ca lled it to engage with the WTO community to 
address such concerns in a constructive and prompt manner. 
2.22 The delegate of Argentina stated that her de legation would respond to some of the statements 
and that it reserved its rights to respond to the ot hers in a different opportuni ty. Argentina had listened 
to and taken note of the comments made, some of wh ich repeated statements made at the last CTG 
meeting in March 2012. Thus, Arge ntina reiterated some of the comments made on that occasion in G/LIC/M/35 
Page 14 
 
 
  document G/C/W/668.  There continued to be unjustifi ed descriptions of Argentina's IL system as an 
import restrictive regime which led to an unjustified claim not to apply it.  At previous meetings of 
this committee, Argentina had responded to the c oncerns of some Members as well as fulfilling it 
notification and transparency obligations.  Her de legation had always ratified its will to continue 
responding to concerns of its trading partners. She also hoped to provide more clarity under Agenda 
item 2.C.III of today's agenda when referring to  notifications made under Article 7.3 of the 
Agreement.  One of the repetitive st atements referred to Argentina's system as limiting the growth of 
trade or creating barriers to export into Argentin a.  However, in 2011 Argentina had increased its 
imports from most of the countries that had take n the floor by 24 per cent; Argentina's import 
statistics concerning the seven Members that had inte rvened at today's meeting, showed that for the 
period February 2011 - 2012, when compared with the previous year (February 2010 - 2011), there had been an increase of exports representing 20 pe r cent.  Out of the seven Members, the only one 
whose exports decreased was Norway to whom, in February 2010-2011, Argentina purchased fishing 
vessels for an amount of 35 million dollars (51 per cent of its exports in the same period), while 
during the following period (February 2011- 2012), th ere had not been any purchase of vessels.  The 
increase in exports of the said countries to Arge ntina during February 2011-2012 was:  Australia 
16 per cent, the EU 18 per cent, Japan 14 per cen t, Korea 39 per cent; Norway minus 19 per cent, 
Turkey 19 per cent and, the US 20 per cent.  
2.23 In order to provide greater transparency ove r its licensing system and to facilitate imports and 
import procedures of its NAIL system, Argentina set  up in 2011 an integrated system for foreign 
trade, SISCO.  Thanks to this computerized info rmation system importers could use an on-line system 
for their applications.  The relevant information could be obtained on the webpage of the Secretariat 
for Foreign Trade.  
2.24 Some Members had referred to Argentina's commitments in other fora other than this 
Committee; these expressions were unprecedented since never in this Organization reproaches had 
been heard towards a Member for s upposed incompliance with its obligations in other fora.  This was 
a systemic concern:  obligations and commitments to be met in the Organization were those falling 
under its rules and provisions and, in her view, this was the understanding particularly among the 
Members who were not part of the G-20.  She then  referred to one of the concepts included in the 
BRICS Ministerial Declaration that took place recen tly in Puerto Vallarta, that Argentina had 
co-sponsored, where the need to avoid protectionism  in all of its forms and to promote trade was 
emphasized, with due respect to the political spac e consistent with the WTO rules available to 
developing countries in order to meet their legitima te growth, developmental and stability objectives. 
She furthered expressed that it was not contrary to the international commitments of Argentina; its 
trade policy, including the IL system, were transparent and WTO consistent.  
2.25 She then referred to the Integrated System of Foreign Trade (SISCO) and explained that it 
was a web-service that helped to streamline and unify the non-automatic licensing procedures. SISCO 
facilitated the presentation by the interested part y and likewise the execution by the application 
authority, making of it an agile, secure and transparent platform.  The importer might complete some 
fields via the web to be registered on SISCO:  details of the company or natural person (CUIT, 
address, email address, etc.); authorized members; legal representative; owners of the company.  Once 
the required data had been loaded, the applica tion might be printed and should be physically 
submitted together with the relevant documents to  continue the process. Once this process had been 
completed, the applicant would be assigned w ith a unique password for public administration 
documentation (CUDAP) to link, via web, with th e SISCO procedure.  The importer should then 
complete the form cover containing a control numbe r.  Once the importer had been entitled, an email 
was sent to the account indicated on the legal registration record, thus, enabling the use of SISCO for 
the procedures.  Thanks to the username and pass word sent via email, the importer could load the 
applications for new licences, registrations, cance llations, notes and returns of unused licences. She 
then provided particular and specific technical i ndications of the different steps and the various  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 15 
 
 
  procedures and particularities of the system such as how to select the regime whereby the licence 
would be requested, the uploading of tariffs , the data concerning the invoice and required 
documentation, the CUDAP number to link the system, the inspection of files that had been submitted, etc.  
2.26 The delegate of the European Union tha nked Argentina for the presentation of its SISCO 
system which did not answer all of the concerns a nd, in view of the long and speedy statement, asked 
Argentina to provide a written copy and, in respon se the delegate of Argentina indicated that an 
English version had been given to the interpre ters and apologized for not having provided a 
translation into French5. 
2.27 The Committee took note of the statements made.   
3. Notifications 
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8. 2(b) of the Agreement (publications and/or 
legislation) 
3.1 The Chairperson recalled that Articles 1.4(a)  and 8.2(b) and notification procedures, as had 
been agreed by the Committee6, required all Members to publis h 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 required to be  notified.  Members should also submit, together 
with the notifications, all the pertinent informati on (legal texts, summaries of the legislation and 
publications, samples of application forms, lists a nd tables indicating the goods to which ILPs apply, 
etc.) for consultation by other interested Members.   In this regard, he encouraged Members to 
therefore submit their notifications under these provi sions using the notification forms agreed to by 
this Committee in April 2011.  Members who did not wish to use the notification forms were invited 
to submit their notifications as well as the attachments thereto, in electronic versions compatible with 
the WTO software (Microsoft Word or similar).  Th is would help the Secretariat to promptly format 
and edit the draft notifications into the WTO format s and/or provide suggestions or comments through 
the respective delegation in Geneva; it would also avoid mistakes that might occur when retyping the 
draft notifications, especially considering that these were submitted in the three WTO official 
languages and that some copies and attachments were long and unclear. He then informed the 
Committee that under these provisions there were eight notifications received from the following 
seven Members:  the European Union (G/L IC/N/1/EU/1 and G/LIC/N/1/EU/2), Georgia 
(G/LIC/N/1/GEO/2), Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/L IE/3), Malawi (G/LIC/N/1/MWI/2), Morocco 
(G/LIC/N/1/MAR/4 and G/LIC/N/1/MAR/4/Corr.1), Nicaragua (G/LIC/N/1/NIC/2) and Switzerland 
(G/LIC/N/1/CHE/3).   
3.2 The Committee took note of the notifications.  
(ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, changes to 
existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)  
3.3 The Chairperson recalled that under paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, Members which instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedures, ha d to notify the Committee to  that effect within 
60 days of the publication of these procedures.  Para graph 2 of Article 5 listed the information that 
should be included in such notifications.  He enc ouraged Members to submit their notifications under 
                                                      
5 The full explanation of the SISCO system was then  posted in the Members website under Documents 
for Meetings. 
6 G/LIC/3. G/LIC/M/35 
Page 16 
 
 
  Article 5 of the Agreement using the notification fo rm agreed to by this Committee in April 2011.  
He informed the Committee that there were five not ifications listed in the Airgram and its revision 
submitted under this provision by the European Union (G/LIC/N/2/EU/1 and 2), Kuwait (G/LIC/N/2/KWT/1), Malawi (G/LIC/N/2/M WI/2) and Morocco (G/LIC/N/2/MAR/1). 
3.4 The Committee took note of the notifications and of the statements made.
    
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures) 
3.5 The Chairperson informed th e Committee that there were fourteen notifications received from 
thirteen Members listed in the Airgram:  Arge ntina, Bahrain, Cambodia, Canada, Costa Rica, 
Dominican Republic, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Ma lawi, Malaysia, Nigeria, Oman and Rwanda.7  He 
recalled that at the last meeting three notificati ons from Croatia, Switzerland and the United States, 
contained in documents G/LIC/N/3/HRV/6, G/LIC/N/3/CHE/7 and G/LIC/N/3/US/8, respectively 
were not available in the three WTO official languages and that, consequently, these would be 
considered at the present meeting.   
3.6 With respect to the notification in documen t G/LIC/N/3/ARG/8, the delegate of Argentina 
referred in extenso to the principal  aspects of Argentina's import licensing system described therein.  
3.7 The Committee took note of the notifications and statement made. 
4. Other Business 
(i) Date of next meeting 
4.1 The Chairperson informed Members that th e Secretariat had tentatively reserved Monday, 
22 October 2012 for the next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings would be convened if necessary.  The ag enda would close on Thur sday 11 October 2012. 
4.2 The Committee took note of the information. 
(ii) Cost Savings in Document Production and M eetings - Recommendation by the Committee on 
budget, Finance and Administration whic h were adopted by the General Council 
4.3 The Chairperson drew the Committee's atten tion to the recommendations concerning cost 
savings in document production and meetings dr awn up by the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration which were adopted by the Gene ral Council on 30 November 2011.  They were 
contained in paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of document WT/BFA/128. 
4.4 He referred to the informal meeting that took place before this regular meeting, and stated that 
he believed the main message was that the WT O was moving to a paperless environment where 
distribution of hard copies of documentation within the Secretariat and to Members had been or would 
soon cease.  Additionally, there was a directive to  reduce the overall volume of official documents, 
which would include reducing the le ngth of reports, annexes and stat ements.  This with a view to 
cutting back on translation and interpretation costs.   There was also a request to all Chairs to 
systematically seek to improve the scheduling and co nducting of meetings with a view to reducing the 
                                                      
7 G/LIC/N/3/ARG/8; G/LIC/N/ 3/BHR/2; G/LIC/N/3/KHM/2 a nd G/LIC/N/3/KHM/2/Corr.1; 
G/LIC/N/3/CDA/10; G/LIC/N/3/CRI/8; G/LIC/N/3/ DOM/6; G/LIC/N/3/GEO/4;  G/LIC/N/3/LIE/5; 
G/LIC/N/3/MWI/3; G/LIC/N/3/MYS/ 7; G/LIC/N/3/NGA/7; G/LIC/N/3/OM N/5 and G/LIC/N/3/OMN/6; and 
G/LIC/N/3/RWA/2.  G/LIC/M/35 
 Page 17 
 
 
  number and length of such meetings.  So for example,  Chairs had been requested to start the meeting 
on time and to try and avoid the cancellation of meetings.   
4.5 Since no objections were presented at the inform al meeting, he invited the Committee to take 
note of the recommendations listed in paragraphs 29 to 31 of document WT/BFA/128 and to agree to 
follow them wherever possible. 
4.6 With regard to notifications, he also recalled that at the informal meeting, the Secretariat was 
asked to prepare, for Members' c onsideration, a draft notification form for notifying under Article 7.3 
of the Agreement and a draft text on the use of el ectronic versions of attachments to notifications 
submitted under the different provisions in the Ag reement. Consultations on these proposed drafts 
would be held in informal mode.   
4.7 The Committee took note of the aforementioned proposition. 
5. Election of Officers 
5.1 The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. Pierre-Emmanuel BRUSSELMANS (Belgium) as 
Chairperson of the Committee, to hold office until the end of the first meeting of 2013, under Rule 12 
of the Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).   It also elected by acclamation Mrs. Elisa 
OLMEDA DE ALEJANDRO (Mexico) as Vice-Chairperson. 
 
__________