WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/LIC/M/34 
5 December  2011 
 (11-6305) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 14 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Chairperson: Mr. Flavio SOARES DAMICO (Brazil) 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its th irty-fourth meeting on 14 October 2011.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/3817, was adopted as follows:    Table of Contents 
 
1.  Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – developments since the last 
meeting. ...................................................................................................................... ................ 1  
2.  Import Licensing Measures and Procedures by Argentina .................................................. 4  
3.  Notifications ................................................................................................................. .............. 9  
(i)  Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation) ........................................................................................................... ............ 9 
(ii)  Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications) ........................................ 10  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) .................................................................................................. . 10 
4.  Final Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China (WT/L/432). .............................................................................. 11  
5.  Draft report (2011) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods. ........................ 13  
6.  Other business ................................................................................................................ ......... 13 
(i)  Dates of the next meetings .................................................................................................... ..... 13 
(ii)  Election of Vice-Chair ........................................................................................................ ...... 14 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson informed th e Committee that since the last meeting, 55 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (eleven 
notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), seven under Article 5.1-5.4 and thirty-seven under 
Article 7.3).  He recalled that at the April 2011 m eeting, his predecessor reported that out of a total 
membership of 153 counting the European Un ion as one Member (EU-27), there remained 
17 Members1 who had not submitted any notification under th e Agreement since joining the WTO.  In 
                                                      
1 Belize, Botswana, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Myanmar, Nepal, Saint Vincent and the Grenadin es, Sierra Leone, Solo mon Islands, Tanzania. G/LIC/M/34 
Page 2  
 
  this regard, he announced that, two Members had submitted their first notifications:  Angola under 
Articles 1.4 (a) and 8.2 (b); and, Viet Na m under Article 7.3 of the Agreement.    
 1.2 Up-to-date, a total of 100 Members (counti ng the EU-27 as one) had submitted notifications 
of laws and regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/ or 8.2(b)).  Thus, 26 Members were yet to submit 
their notifications under these provisions.  Only 36 Members (counting the EU-27 as one) had notified 
new licensing procedures or changes in the existing pr ocedures (under Paragraphs 1-4 of Article 5); of 
this total one Member (Papua New Guinea) had notified changes to import licensing procedures 
without submitting the initial notifications of le gislation or replies to the Questionnaire.  
 
1.3 He urged those Members who had not yet provided any information on their new licensing 
procedures or changes to the existing procedures, to submit, without further delay, their notifications 
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 c onsiders that another Member has not notified the 
institution of a licensing procedure or changes in the procedures), no such counter-notifications had 
been received up to the date of this meeting.    1.5 As to the replies to the Questionnaire
2, notifications under Article 7.3, a cumulative total of 
102 Members (counting the EU-27 as one ) had submitted their replies since the entry into force of the 
WTO Agreement.  Thus, 24 Members have yet to subm it their notifications under this provision.  As 
for Article 7.3 notifications, he highlighted that Members who did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regula tions relevant to the Agreement were also required to notify the 
Committee of this fact in order for Members to obtain a complete overview of the licensing regimes 
of all Members and that responses to the Annual Questionnaire should be submitted to the Committee 
before 30 September of each year, as established in document G/LIC/3.  This year, the Committee received notifications from 38 Members only, thus, the deadline of 30 September had not been respected by many Members.  He thanked Tonga and Viet Nam for submitting their first responses to the Questionnaire.  
1.6  He also indicated that, as had previously b een done by his predecessors, he sent out letters to 
Members reminding them of their transparency oblig ations and highlighting the date of the last 
notification received from their authorities. These lette rs also contained an invitation to review the 
status of their notifications in general and update  them whenever necessary. The letters also included 
samples of statements to be used by those Me mbers when no changes 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, some Members had used such statements to notify.
3  
 1.7 He also recalled that at the last meeting th e erstwhile Chair indicated that as a result of two 
years of discussions, there was wide support for the use of, on a voluntary basis, two notification forms for notifying under Articles 1.4 (a) and/or 8. 2(b) and under Article 5 of the Agreement.  
Consequently, the Committee agreed that the forms be circulated in the G/LIC document series and 
made available on the Members' website to facilitate use thereof.  In this re gard, the Chair informed 
delegations that these forms were 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, r espectively.  The Chai r then informed the 
                                                      
2 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3. 
3 Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Honduras, Kingdom 
of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Qata r, Senegal, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Tunisia, and 
Ukraine.    G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Committee that since the release of these forms, Colombia, Jamaica,  Kuwait and the Former Yugoslav 
Republic of Macedonia have used them.  He encourag ed other delegations to do the same to facilitate 
their task of complying with their notification ob ligations under the Agreement.  He was confident 
that these efforts would result in an increased and enhanced transparency, help governments and 
traders acquaint themselves with the rules and admi nistrative ILPs currently applied by Members and 
consequently, would allow for smooth flow of international trade.  He said that this was only a first 
step and therefore, encouraged Members to continue  with this informal process of consultations in 
order to enhance transparency.    1.8 He also invited Members to submit their notifi cations in Microsoft Word in order to help the 
Secretariat promptly format and edit these notif ications into the WTO formats and/or provide 
suggestions or comments thereon through the respectiv e delegation in Geneva.  This would also help 
eliminate errors that might occur when retyping th e notifications especially considering that they are 
submitted in different WTO official languages and that some copies and attachments are long and 
unclear.  Any additional information (legal text s, summaries of the legislation and publications, 
samples of application forms, lists and tables indica ting the goods to which ILPs apply to, etc.) should 
be submitted in an electronic format compatible wi th WTO software (Microsoft Word and/or PDF).  
He recommended that in all cases, the Secretar y of the Committee, as well as the respective 
delegation in Geneva, be copied in the corresponde nce.  He encouraged Members to consult the 
Secretariat whenever they have questions on notif ication requirements and in the case of developing 
and least developed countries, to request for tec hnical assistance for their national authorities who 
enact and administer import licensing procedures.  
 1.9 The Committee took note of the statement made. 
 1.10 Moving to the questions and replies circulated under the procedures agreed to by the 
Committee for the review of notifications (documen t G/LIC/4), the Chairperson indicated that there 
were two documents (G/LIC/Q/IDN/17 and G/LIC/Q/ IND/17) for consideration by the Committee.  
First, he drew the Committee's attention to doc ument G/LIC/Q/IDN/17 containing questions from the 
United States to Indonesia on its 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.  He indicated that Indonesia had, on the day before the meeting, submitted its written responses to 
questions by the United States and these were in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/18 and would be considered 
at the next meeting.     1.11 The delegate of the United States thanked Indonesia for its responses; his authorities would 
review and come back to them at the next meeti ng.  Concerns remained as Indonesia had not fully 
notified its import licensing regime to the WTO; also Indonesia's licensing procedures appeared to be 
administrative procedures used for the operation of  import licensing regimes that fitted within the 
meanings defined by the Agreement of Import Li censing Procedures.  He urged Indonesia to notify 
the Committee of its import licensing system and provide the pertinent legislation, as prescribed by the Agreement.       
1.12 The delegate of Indonesia confirmed that his delegation had submitte d its written responses to 
the US questions just before the meeting and indicated  that it was ready to consult with all interested 
Members.     1.13 The delegate of the European Union recalled that at the meeting in April 2011 her delegation 
had requested clarification from Indonesia on its responses to the questions posed by the EU and 
contained in document G/LIC/IDN/15.  The EU requ ested for more information as to the procedures 
and conditions of obtaining  an importer identity number and whether these procedures were automatic 
or not.  She also recalled that Decree 56 which sp ecified the inspection procedures prior to shipment 
for iron and steel had been extended in December 2010 for a two year period;  these procedures were G/LIC/M/34 
Page 4  
 
  questionable under the GATT and particularly un der the Agreement on Import Licensing and had 
systemic implications and importance.  Her de legation supported the US in recalling Indonesia's 
obligation to comply with its transparency obligatio ns, particularly to notify under Article 5 of the 
Agreement.   
1.14 In response, the delegate of Indon esia confirmed that Decree 56 had expired on 
31 December 2010 and was/had been substituted by Ministry of Trade Regulation 57/2010 of 
29 December 2010 which entered into force on 1 Janua ry 2011.  The Ministry of Trade Regulation 
45/2009 which regulated Importer Identity Number (API) was amended by the Ministry of Trade Regulation 17/2010 that divided the Importer Iden tity Number (API) into General Importer Identity 
Number (API - U) and Producer Importer Identity Nu mber (API - P).  Ministry of Trade Regulation 
39/2010 provided detailed information regardi ng the Importer Identity Number for Producers 
(API - P) and complemented Ministry of Trad e Regulations 45/2009 and 17/2010.  His delegation 
would notify the Ministry of Trade 57 Decree as soon as possible.  
1.15 The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
1.16 The Chair then moved to document G/LIC/Q/IND/17 containing questions from Turkey to 
India on the import licensing regime applied to marble  and similar stones, as referred to in India's 
response to the Annual Questionnaire (G/LIC/N/3/IND/ 12).  He also informed  the Committee that 
India had submitted, on the day before the meetin g, its written responses to Turkey, in document 
G/LIC/Q/IND/18 and they would be considered at the next meeting.   
 1.17 The delegate of Turkey indicated that as a country endowed with 40 per cent of the world's 
natural stone reserves and 3.8 million cubic meters of extractible marble, Turkey had substantial 
interest in the exports of natural stones, particularly to India, with its share of 2.8 per cent in Turkey's 
exports, this made India its major trading partner in this sector.  Thus, Turkey carefully monitored 
India's import quota and licensing regime for marble and similar stones since Turkey's share of the 
Indian market in these products was 35 per cent.  Turkey's questions on India's responses to the 
Annual Questionnaire (27 September 2011) and rela ted policy legislation considered both, the 
rationale of the system and its procedural aspects.  Bilateral attempts with specific questions fell short 
of reaching a common understanding therefore, Turkey brought the issue to the Committee.  The 
responses recently provided by India would be asses sed in his capital and some follow-up questions 
could also be necessary.      1.18 The delegate of the United States said that his delegation had systemic concerns about India's 
import licensing regime and that many of the underlyi ng concerns raised by Turkey were similar to 
those which the US had with regard to other product subject to India's ILPs.  His authorities were also 
interested in receiving from India, an explanation on the specific concerns it had regarding "safety, 
security or the environment," and on how the restri ctions of these goods would, specifically, alleviate 
those concerns.  He also requested India to explain what measures, if  any, it imposed in respect to 
domestic sandalwood, marble and stones, with respect to the "safety, security, or environment" concerns that justified India's import licensing measures.  
 
1.19  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
2. Import Licensing Measures and Procedures by Argentina 
2.1 The Chairperson informed the Committee that in a communication dated 26 September 2011, 
the Secretariat was requested to include in the Agenda of this meeting an item titled "Argentina - 
Import Licensing Measures and Procedures by Argentina. - Statements by EU, the US and Japan" and, that in a communication dated 3 October 2011 Turkey  and Switzerland requested to be included on 
the list of speakers.    G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 5 
 
 
  2.2 The delegate of the European Union noted th at this agenda item had been requested by a 
number of delegations in order to express serious  concerns over the Argentinean import licensing 
measures and the implementation of a general import substitutions policy by the Argentinean 
Government as referred to in public statements frequen tly echoed in the press.  She also noted that at 
the beginning of 2011, Argentina extended the sc ope of its non-automatic import licensing scheme 
(NALs) to around 200 new products, including high-e nd cars with big engines, certain car parts and 
mobile phones.  The 600 products now covered by the NALs amounted to nearly 16 per cent of EU 
exports to Argentina (worth over a billion Euros).  The EU authorities believed that NALs were just 
one of the measures used by Argentinean aut horities to restrict imports.  Other additional 
requirements to those included in the legisl ation such as commitments on trade balancing 
requirements with a view to reduce imports; incr ease production in Argentinean facilities; compensate 
imports with exports; were also being imposed  on importers by Argentinean authorities.   
 2.3 The autos sector was particularly targeted a nd at the end of 2010, the Argentinean Ministry of 
Industry requested that car importers - mainly info rmally, reduce imports by 20 per cent and balance 
their imports and exports (one dolla r of imports for one dollar of expor ts) compared with the previous 
year and buy or export more locally produced g oods.  Many importers had reported cases where the 
absence of an agreement on plans for export-impor t rebalancing and using local goods instead, had 
resulted in undue delays of import licences and even s ubsequent blockages of goods at customs.  As a 
consequence, she added, most of the car manufacturer s were forced to accept the deals to be able to 
export to Argentina.  
 
2.4 Other restrictions, never published, include d new information requirements at customs level 
or undue delays of homologations of imported products or recent cases of books and printed products 
blocked at customs.  This intervention by Argen tinean authorities had had a noticeable trade distortive 
effect, was not acceptable and raised serious concer ns in terms of Argentina's compliance with WTO 
obligations.  In addition, Argentinean NAL practic es, including the most recent extension of the NAL 
scheme, contradicted Argentina's political commi tments undertaken in the G-20 context to not 
introduce new trade-restrictive measures.  She also noted that this issue had now developed into a 
significant trade barrier for exports from many co untries and needed to be addressed quickly.  
 2.5 Furthermore, the Argentinean import licensing measures were not in line with the spirit and 
letter of WTO obligations and the Import Licensing scheme was part of a deliberate import 
substitution policy which, not only was openly and st rongly supported by public statements of the 
Argentinean government but also used to improve th e trade balance and systematically discriminate a 
number of import products.  To date, despite re peated requests at WTO level and bilaterally, 
Argentina had failed to provide any convincing ev idence to the contrary.  There was no need to 
reiterate that non-automatic import licensing was onl y justified where necessary to implement a WTO 
compatible measure and that Article 3(2) of th e Agreement on ILPs stated that "non-automatic 
licensing procedures shall correspond in scope a nd duration to the measure they are used to 
implement, and shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to administer 
the measure".  This was confirmed by Article 5(g) of  the Agreement by requiring that notifications of 
non-automatic import licensing regimes to this Co mmittee include an indication of "the measure 
being implemented through the licensing procedure".  A different interpretation of these articles 
would render Article XI of GATT/94 meaningless, since it would allow WTO Members to arbitrarily use IL regimes as a means to restrict imports for pr otectionist purposes.  She also indicated that the 
examination procedures of the applications for impor t licences in Argentina la cked transparency and 
that some elements of these procedures were not re gulated in Argentinean legislation, such as the 
change from first-come-first-served method of cons ideration of applications to the simultaneous 
consideration;  all of these practices increased the concerns of her delegation.    2.6 When concluding, she urged Argentina to bring its regime in compliance with its WTO 
obligations as soon as possible.  The EU had trie d both in this Committee and also in the Goods G/LIC/M/34 
Page 6  
 
  Council to obtain Argentina's reply to the EU concerns over the Argentinean NALs, as well as to 
address its restrictive effect on trade.  No satisfact ory replies had yet been received; therefore, she 
asked Argentina to indicate how it planned to address these concerns that were seriously affecting EU 
imports, and already raised both bilaterally  and multilaterally in the WTO since 2009. 
 
2.7 The delegate of the United States stated that the US continued to be troubled by Argentina's 
use of import licence procedures, which appeared to be  intended to restrict imports into Argentina.  
The US was frustrated with Argentina's unwillingn ess to address the problems extensively raised by 
its delegation and other WTO Members in a number of venues.  Based upon the reports the US had 
received, and the statements made by other WTO Members, it seemed that Argentina was using 
import licensing as a trade balancing measure to  discourage imports.  Many delegations had 
repeatedly requested a clear and precise explanation on what measures were being implemented through Argentina's extensive reliance on import lic ense requirements.  He also noted that under the 
Agreement on ILPs, non-automatic licensing procedures shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to  administer the underlying measures.  As of the date of this 
meeting, the US still had not received a clear expl anation on the justified measures that necessitated 
Argentina's use of import licensing.  He requested Argentina to provide an explanation of what WTO 
provision justified each of its e xpansive licensing requirements.  
 2.8 He also recalled that, according to the minutes of the meeting held in April 2011, Argentina 
indicated that it had not rejected any import license a pplications; in this regard, he clarified that the 
US concern related to the lengthy delays and unoffi cial requirements that must be met in order to 
obtain a licence.  Reports indicated that applicati ons were left pending indefinitely, until a company 
made some commitment to the Ministry of Industry to either invest domestically in Argentina, or increase its exports from Argentina; and only wh en such commitments were reportedly made, 
companies were able to import their goods.  
 
2.9 He also requested more specific informati on regarding the online system that Argentina 
mentioned during the April 2011 meeting.  As noted in the official minutes from that meeting, Argentina claimed to have established an online syst em to consider import licensing applications.  He 
requested detailed explanation regard ing how this system was being u sed, and the extent to which it 
was publicly available for example: what informa tion would be available on this online system and 
how could interested parties access the information contained in this system?   
 2.10 He concluded by stating that it appeared that  the majority of US exports to Argentina were 
now subject to NALs for purposes that were obscure a nd appeared to be intended to restrict imports 
and import licensing procedures, by themselves, were not  supposed to be used to restrict trade.  The 
US was troubled not only by Argentina's procedures,  but also by its apparent unwillingness to respond 
to questions and concerns raised by WTO Members on this issue.  He therefore urged Argentina to 
address these concerns.    
 
2.11  The delegate of Japan stated that despite the concerns raised by Members in this Committee 
and in the Council for Trade in Goods, Japan had not  seen any improvements in relation to the delay 
of issuing import licences in Argentina and the required timeframe to issue import licences had 
continued to exceed the period stipulated in the Agreement on ILPs.  Resolution 45/2011 had 
expanded the scope of the products  covered by NALs and created significant adverse effects on 
Japanese companies which operated in Argentina.  In  the case of those manufacturing companies, at 
least one third of intermediate materials needed for production were being covered by the NAL; this 
would seriously affect the whole pro cess of production in Argentina.   
 2.12 With respect to auto imports in particular , Japan recalled that Argentina announced at the end 
of 2010 that, in the current year, import licences would be reduced by 20 per cent of the actual 
importation during 2010 and, stated its deep con cern that this measure would significantly cause  G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 7 
 
 
  negative effects to car importers.  Japan urged Ar gentina to respond satisfactorily to the concerns 
raised by Members in this Committee and in the Goods  Council, and also asked Argentina to explain 
how the measure was consistent with the Agreemen t.  Furthermore, Japan requested Argentina to 
ensure the smooth issuance of import licenses within  the timeframe stipulated in the Agreement and 
improve the transparency in  the issuance procedure.  
 
2.13 The delegate of Turkey stated his delega tion continued to have concerns over the import 
licensing system of Argentina, an issue that had been brought up in the WTO on many occasions, the 
last one being in the CTG meeting in May 2011.  His authorities regretfully observed that in the course of time, Argentina's import licensing system  distanced even further from the WTO rules and 
principles.  He recalled that Argentina had progre ssively extended the scope of its non-automatic 
import licensing regime from originally 38 products to  more than 400 products, and then in February 
and March this year to a total of 609 products.  The Argentine NALs now covered a wider range of 
products in electronics, steel and textiles that further added to Turkey's worries about this system since almost 35 per cent of its exports were affected  by this extension.  Mo reover, Turkish exporters 
had reported that issuing a licence could take from f our to twelve months; this contradicted the rules 
of the Agreement.  It was well known that NALs we re just one of the means used by Argentinian 
authorities to restrict imports.  He also noted that  in scope of the so-called "trade-balancing regime" 
firms were required to export in order to import the "one to one" policy, and were even required to be 
net exporters.  In the view of his authorities, it woul d not be wrong to state that together with the lack 
of transparency and predictability, the NAL system turned into a prohibition in practice, as buyers 
switched from imported products to lo cal products due to lengthy delays and burdensome procedures.  
 2.14  Turkish electrical household appliances, in particular white goods, had been the sectors most 
heavily hit by the Argentinean policies since 2009; Turkish expor ts to Argentina in washing 
machines, air-conditioners, refrigerato rs and other white line products had almost come to a halt.  His 
authorities found the rationale stipulated by Argen tina for the NALs requirement far from convincing; 
evaluating trade flows did not justify the resort to NALs, as this could be achieved as well through 
automatic import licensing.  The reference to the ne ed for verification of compliance with technical 
standards was also problematic; technical regulations  had been there for many years before the sudden 
switch to non-automatic licenses.  Argentina's responses about the underlying purpose of the NAL 
regime led the concerned countries to the conclu sion that these measures were, in fact, taken to 
substitute imports and impr ove trade balance.   
 2.15 Even under the assumption that the underl ying purpose was WTO consistent, Turkey 
reminded Argentina that Article 3(2) of the Ag reement stated that "non-automatic licensing 
procedures shall correspond in scope and duration to  the measure they are used to implement and 
shall be no more administratively burdensome than absolutely necessary to administer the measure".  
Argentina's intense use of protectionist measure s contradicted not only GATT Article XI and the 
Agreement on ILPs but also the TRIMs Agreemen t; the NAL system measures violated the basic 
WTO " raison d’être ":  achieving free and fair trade.  Turkey invited Argentina to bring its measures 
into conformity with its WTO obliga tions and address Members' concerns.  
 
2.16 The delegate of Switzerland recalled that her delegation had raised concern on Argentina's 
ILPs several times in various WTO bodies since July  2010.  She indicated that the market access 
problems that previously existed could be solv ed bilaterally during the second half of 2010 but 
unfortunately, the situation worsened  again this year; this explained Switzerland's request to be added 
to the list of speakers on this issue for the first time.    
 
2.17 The Swiss industry was of the opinion that Argentina's rules to obtain an import licence were applied in a discretionary way and that the sc ope of products subject to NAL in Resolution 
45/2011had been approximately extended to 600 produc ts.  The Swiss industry had also been affected 
by excessive delays in the issuance of those licences.  She stated that unofficial requirements, aimed G/LIC/M/34 
Page 8  
 
  at improving Argentina's trade balance, had to be met in order to import pr oducts into Argentina;  
thus, either the importer proved that its exports ex ceeded its imports or that there was no Argentinean 
equivalent to the goods in question.  Reports also in dicated that Argentina applied this requirement to 
products outside the scope of the NAL regime; this resulted in long delays in imports. Additionally, 
the recent establishment of an electronic system to  request licences, introduced by Resolution 52/2011 
had not improved the situation for Swiss importers  in Argentina; there remained a lack of 
transparency and predictability creating uncertainty among importers.   2.18 Switzerland continued to worry over these me asures and recalled that Argentina had failed, 
up to now, to address the concerns raised by Members in different WTO bodies. She requested 
Argentina provide information on specific steps to bring its IL regime in conformity with its WTO 
obligations.  2.19  The delegate of Korea echoed the concerns ra ised by the previous speakers.  He recalled that 
at the April meeting his delegation expressed con cern regarding Resolution 45/2011 and noted that, 
although Korea had discussed the issue bilaterally with Argentinean authorities, these procedures still 
remain and their application had even been strengthe ned; this created trade threatening effects rather 
than address Members' concerns.  Based on Resolution 45/2011 Argentina had approved de facto  
conditions over importers to submit a plan sti pulating their willingness to export the same amount 
they were to import.  His delegation was of the view that these conditions violated the WTO national 
treatment principle.  Korea invited Argentina to bring its import licensing regime in line with its WTO 
obligations and implement it in a tr ansparent and practicable manner. 
 2.20 The delegate of Peru voiced support for the statements made by previous speakers and 
reiterated Peru's concern over the approval by Ar gentina of Resolution 45/2011. The NAL system had 
serious implications for Peruvian enterprises and par ticularly affected the garments and textile sector 
which involved a number of small-medium size ente rprise (SMEs) which generated a large number of 
jobs in Peruvian areas where resources were limited.  Peru's concern also related to the legitimacy of 
Argentina's licensing system and the delays in issu ing licences which vastly exceed those allowed by 
the Agreement.  2.21 Peru stated that although 50 licences were granted as a result of bilateral discussions, there 
remained an important number of pending ones wh ich resulted in negative effects for Peruvian 
exporters.  Peru drew attention to the notifications by Argentina in documents 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/Add.4; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/10/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/15/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/16/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/20/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/22/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/23 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/24 concerning re gulations to be applied in relation to the 
licensing system.  She recalled that in its responses,  Argentina indicated that this was a transitional 
mechanism to monitor the imports of certain goods ; nevertheless, in the view of her delegation 
monitoring trade was an acceptable reason for im plementing automatic licensing but not for NAL.  
Article 3.2 of the Agreement provided that non-auto matic licensing should not have trade restrictive 
or distortive effects, it should be applied to administering other measures which might be in accordance with WTO provisions.  Argentina had not indicated the rationale for its NALs particularly, 
with regard to garments and textile  products.  Peru was of the view that according to Article XI of 
GATT 1994, the import licensing scheme was a trade r estriction and was not compatible with the 
WTO obligations; therefore, Peru sought informati on on the measures that would justify Argentina's 
NALs for certifying textile and garment products.  
2.22 The delegate of Canada echoed the concerns  raised by the previous speakers and emphasized 
the need for consistency of the Argentine measures with obligations contained in the Agreement and 
on the need for transparency in the Committee.   G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 9 
 
 
  2.23  The delegate of Argentina, in response to the previous speakers, indicated that the 
implementation of automatic import licensing in his c ountry was the result of changes in international 
trade flows in recent years.  Resolution 45/2011 which, as many delegations indicated, was notified by Argentina on 21 March 2011, extended the covera ge of products subject to licensing to 581; 
however, tariff lines subject to non-automatic lice nsing only represented 7 per cent of the total 
number of tariff lines in Argentina's Schedule of Concessions.  
 2.24 With regard to the concern voiced by the EU, he stated that the application of non-automatic 
licensing did not, in any way, lead to incompatib ility with Argentina's commitments in the G-20 and 
in the WTO since this was a valid trade policy measure as provided for in Article 3.3 of the 
Agreement.  Additionally, importati on of products subject to NAL indicated that the system was not 
ultimately intended to protect national domestic indus try by controlling imports; if the imports trends 
of products subject to NAL were compared to those which are not subject to such licences the 
following conclusions could be drawn: (i)  in 2009,  as a result of the international economic crisis, 
there was a decrease in imports both in terms of total numbers and for those subject to NAL;  (ii) in 
2010, the total increase in imports also saw an incr ease in the number of imports subject to NAL as a 
result of the recovery of the world economic activit y and; (iii) imports subject to NAL increased by 
110 per cent in 2010 in comparison with 2006, whilst th ere was a 65 per cent increase of total imports 
over the same period.  Therefore, NALs did not operate as a protective trade measure to favour domestic industry.   
2.25 With regard to the concerns voiced previously  by Peru, Japan and Turkey, he stated that the 
predictability and transparency of the NAL system had enabled normal trading flows to continue.   
 2.26 Regarding the concern already voiced by Korea on the exclusion of national treatment, 
Argentina pointed out that all imports subject to NA L, regardless of their origin, received the same 
treatment when applying the measu res; the same requirements and processing time were also applied 
for requests and renewals thereof.   2.27 As to the concerns expressed by Switzerla nd and Australia in previous occasions concerning 
the functioning of NAL, he indicated that processing of applications did not exceed 60 days according 
to the period set for in Article. 3.5(g) and (h) of  the Agreement.  As alr eady conveyed to Members, 
since March 2011 the "Sistema Integrado de Come rcio Exterior" (SISCO) had been implemented 
through various resolutions of the Ministry of Trade in orde r to increase transparency and 
predictability.  SISCO's objective was to ensure fair and equitable administration of import licensing 
through an on-line management system for applications .  In conclusion, he stated that the NAL system 
had been set up on the basis of the provisions of, and in compliance with the WTO Agreement on 
ILPs.   
 2.28   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 Committee4, required all Members to publis h their laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures, and notify these to the Committee upon becoming a WTO Member, 
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.  He informed the Committee that under 
                                                      
 4 G/LIC/3. G/LIC/M/34 
Page 10  
 
  these provisions there were eleven notifications  received from eleven countries since the last 
meeting.
5  
 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 who instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedures,  were required to notify the Committee 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.  Members also had to submit copies of the publications in 
which this information was publishe d.  Furthermore, paragraph 5 of Article 5 provided the possibility 
of making counter-notifications, where a Member co nsidered that another Member had not notified a 
licensing procedure or changes therein, in accordance with paragraphs 1-3 of Article 5.  He informed 
the Committee that there were seven notifications listed in the airgram submitted by six Members6 
under this provision.  He also recalled that at th e last meeting the delegation of the United States 
requested that notifications G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/Add.4; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/10/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/14/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/15/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/16/Add.2; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/20/Add.1 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/22/Add. 1 be considered at this meeting since the 
translations were made available in the other tw o official languages only a few days prior to that 
meeting and would be considered at this meeting. 
 
3.4 The Committee took note of the notifications. 
 
(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 thirty-seven notifications received 
under Article 7.3 of the Agreement from 36 Members listed in the airgram.7  H e  i n f o r m e d  t h e  
Committee that three notifications, received from Croatia; Switzerland and the United States (G/LIC/N/3/HRV/6; G/LIC/N/3/CHE/7; G/LIC/N/3/US A/8), as well as the notification from Malaysia 
(G/LIC/N/3/MYS/7), received after the airgram w as issued, were not available in the three WTO 
official languages and thus, would be discussed at th e next meeting.  He then opened the floor for 
delegations to comment on the notifications. 
 3.6 The delegate of the United States stated thanked India for its notification in document 
G/LIC/N/3/IND/12; however, the US remained concer ned about the limited de tail provided in India's 
notifications.  He recalled that his delegation, along with several other Members requested, during 
                                                      
 5Documents G/LIC/N/1/AGO/1; G/ LIC/N/1/ARG/4; G/LIC/N/1/M KD/4; G/LIC/N/ 1/IND/13;  
G/LIC/N/1/KWT/2; G/LIC/N/1/MYS/1; G/LIC/N/1/MAR/3 and G/LIC/N/1/MAR/3/Corr.1; G/LIC/N/1/TGO/2; 
G/LIC/N/1/TON/1, G/LIC/N/1/TUR/ 9 and G/LIC/N/1/USA/6/Add.1. 
 6Documents (G/LIC/N/2/COL/1); (G/LIC/N/2/IND/11 ); (G/LIC/N/2/JAM/2);  (G/LIC/N/2/PRY/1); 
(G/LIC/N/2/THA/2); (G/LIC/N/2/U KR/1) and (G/LIC/N/2/UKR/2). 
 7 (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/4); (G/LIC /N/3/BRA/9); (G/LIC/N/3/BFA /4); (G/LIC/N/3/CPV/2); 
(G/LIC/N/3/CHL/6); (G/LIC/N/3/COL /9); (G/LIC/N/3/HRV/6); (G/LIC/N /3/DOM/5); (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/14); 
(G/LIC/N/3/EEC/14/Add.1); (G/L IC/N/3/MKD/3); (G/LIC/N/3/ HND/6); (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/15); 
(G/LIC/N/3/IND/12); (G/LIC /N/3/JPN/10); (G/LIC/N/3/SAU/2); (G/L IC/N/3/KOR/10); (G/LIC/N/3/KWT/2); 
(G/LIC/N/3/MAC/14); (G/LIC/N/3/MDG/ 6); (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/6); (G/LIC/N /3/NIC/3); (G/LIC/N/3/NOR/6); 
(G/LIC/N/3/PER/7); (G/LIC/N /3/QAT/8); (G/LIC/N/3/SEN/4); (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/7); 
(G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/2/Rev.2); (G /LIC/N/3/THA/4); (G/LIC/N/3/TGO/2); (G/LIC/N/3/TON/1); 
(G/LIC/N/3/TUN/6); (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/ 11); (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/4); (G/LIC/N /3/USA/8); (G/LIC/N/3/URY/5); 
(G/LIC/N/3/VNM/1).  G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 11 
 
 
  India's recent Trade Policy Review (TPR), detail ed information regarding products subject to 
automatic licensing requirements and a list of produc ts subject to non-automatic requirements.  India 
had indicated that it would be shortly notifying such information to the WTO; therefore, the US, as follow-up to India's response during its TPR, reiterate d its request that, rather than referring Members 
to its general DGFT website, India provide to this Committee a list of products subject to automatic 
licensing requirements and a list of products subj ect to non-automatic licensing requirements.   
 3.7  The delegate of India indicated that he would request a list from the capital and would get 
back to the US. 
 
3.8 With regard to document G/LIC/N/3/VNM/1 , the delegate of the United States thanked 
Viet Nam for its recent and updated responses to  the Annual Questionnaire; however, the US 
remained concerned that, to date, Viet Nam had not  dully notified its import licensing legislation since 
its accession to the WTO in 2007.  His delegation knew that there had been several changes to 
Viet Nam's import licensing regime since its accession, such as Circulars Number 17/2008, 22/2010 
TT-BCT and 24/2010/TT-BCT dated May 2010, Circul ar Number 31/2010/TT-BCT dated July 2010, 
and Circular 42/2010 dated December 2010, which appeared to have not been notified to the 
Committee.   3.9 The US was especially concerned about Viet  Nam's procedures published in Circular 24, 
which significantly extended the scope of products s ubject to ILPs and requested an explanation from 
Viet Nam as to how the products, including food, ag ricultural products and te xtiles and apparel were 
selected for inclusion in Circular 24.  He also requested Viet Nam to explain what measure this 
requirement was being used to implement.  He urged Viet Nam to promptly notify Circular 24 and asked whether there had been any other changes to Viet Nam's import licensing regime since its 
accession.  He also urged Viet Nam to acknowledge  its responsibility in this area and provide the 
requested information as soon as possible given that this was a basic requirement of WTO 
membership and of this Committee.  3.10 The delegate of Viet Nam thanked the Unite d States for raising these concerns and requested 
its statement in writing for conveyance to his capital for further consideration and response. 
 
3.11 The Committee took note of the notific ations and of the statements made. 
 
4. Final Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China (WT/L/432). 
4.1 The Chairperson recalled that the eighth tran sitional review of the implementation by China 
of the WTO Agreement and of the related provisi ons of the Protocol, under paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of China (WT/L/432), had been  carried out in 2009 by the subsidiary bodies of 
the WTO, including the Committee on Import Licens ing, which had a mandate covering China's 
commitments under the WTO Agreement or China's Pr otocol of Accession.  The Committee's report 
to the Council for Trade in Goods on that revi ew was circulated in document G/LIC/20.  The 
Committee would conduct the Ninth and Final Transitiona l Review at this meeting.  He also informed 
the Committee that, since the last meeting, the Secretariat had rece ived, after the airgram convening 
this meeting had been issued, a communication from China containing information required by 
paragraph IV:3 of Annex 1A of the Protocol of Accession which had been circulated in document 
G/LIC/W/39.  
4.2 In G/LIC/W/39, China indicated that its current import licensing procedures included import 
licences administration, automatic import licensing and tariff rate quota administration.  It also 
explained that, pursuant to the Law on Foreign Trade  and the Regulations on Administration of 
Import and Export of Goods , the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) issued the Measures for the G/LIC/M/34 
Page 12  
 
  Administration of Import License for Goods , and the Measures for the Administration of Automatic 
Import Licensing for Goods .  Based on the latter, MOFCOM and the General Administration of 
Customs (GAC) annually issued the Catalogue of Goods Subject to Automatic Import Licensing 
Administration  and the  Catalogue of Goods Subject to Import License Administration .  These two 
catalogues, circulated as a MOFCOM Announcemen t and issued in the second semester of each 
calendar year but implemented only in the following  year, listed all the products subject to import 
licensing procedures, except those under Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) administration.  4.3 Regarding the ILPs to administer TRQs, China's submission indicated that the current 
applicable rules were the Interim Measures  on the Administration of Tariff Rate Quota for 
Importation of Agricultural Products and the Interim Measures on the Administration of Tariff Rate 
Quota for Importation of Fertilizers .  Based on these rules, MOFCOM and the National Development 
and Reform Commission (NDRC) issued annually the Implementing Rules on the Administration of 
Tariff Rate Quota for Importa tion of Wool and Wool Tops , the Application and Allocation Methods of 
Tariff Rate Quota for Importation of Sugar , the  Quantities, Allocation Principles and Application 
Procedures of Tariff Rate Quota for Importation of Fertilizers , and the  Quantities, Application 
Conditions and Allocation Methods  of Tariff Rate Quota for Importation of Grain and Cotton .  These 
rules circulated as MOFCOM and NDCR announcements, were issued in the s econd half of the year 
but implemented in the following year.  Pursua nt to MOFCOM Announcement No. 93 in 2005, TRQ 
administration for importation of soybean oil, pa lm oil and rapeseed oil was eliminated on 
1 January 2006 and replaced by automatic import licensing administration.  
 
4.4 China's submission also stat ed that the aforementioned basic laws, regulations, rules and 
announcements concerning its import licensing procedur es, as well as other supplementary ones, were 
WTO consistent.  China's aforementioned legisla tion was available in China Foreign Trade and 
Economic Cooperation Gazette and accessible from the websites of the Central Government of China 
(http://www.gov.cn) and/or MOFCOM (http://www.mofcom.gov.cn).  
 4.5 China was currently working on adjustme nts to its notifications under the various 
transparency provisions in the Agreement in order to better fulfil its notification obligations and put 
them in accordance with the new notifica tion formats adopted by the Committee.  
 
4.6 The delegate of the United States recalled that  when acceding to the WTO, China agreed to an 
annual transitional review mechanism (TRM) to  be conducted before the 16 WTO Committees and 
Councils during eight years with a final review in year 10.  The TRM was established because China was admitted as a WTO Member before it had revised all of its trade-related laws and regulations to 
become WTO-compatible.  The annual TRM had provi ded an opportunity to review multilaterally 
with China, the efforts it had taken to implement specific commitments in its Protocol of Accession 
and to comply with its obligations regarding the WTO Agreements and its Annexes.  The US 
highlighted steps China had undertaken in reformi ng its economy and legal regime to comply with 
WTO obligations.  Nevertheless, in the area of IL Ps there remained several concerns pertaining 
specifically to iron ore and agricultural products.   
 
4.7 With regard to iron ore, a key steel i nput for which Chinese steel producers had become 
increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers, he indicated that in  2005, China began imposing new 
ILPs which restricted licences to a limited number of traders and steel producers without making a 
public list of qualified enterprises or qualifying criteria, and setti ng a goal to import at least 50 
per cent of its iron ore from Chinese-invested enterp rises located abroad.  Directing iron ore imports 
toward certain producers or sources distorted trade significantly, particularly as China was the largest 
iron ore importer in the world, and global prices for iron ore have reached high levels, led by Chinese demand.  The overall licensing system seemed to be part of a programme to control raw material 
prices in favour of unfair advantages to China's downs tream steel producers.  Despite several requests, 
China still maintained restrictive ILPs for iron ore.    G/LIC/M/34 
 Page 13 
 
 
  4.8 Concerning the IL requirements for agricultural products, the US considered that for several 
years, China's regulatory authorities had administer ed inspection-related requirements for issuing 
Quarantine Inspection Permits (QIP) and Automati c Registration Forms (ARF) in an arbitrary 
manner.  For nearly all traded agricultural comm odities, China's State administration of Quality 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine not only required importers to obtain a QIP prior to signing 
purchase contracts but also slowed down or suspende d its issuance in a discretionary manner, without 
notifying traders in advance nor providing any explanation.  China had been urged to eliminate such QIPs as there appeared to be no scientific basis and se rved as an unjust and restrictive barrier to trade 
which affected imports of poultry, pork and beef.  
 
4.9 Based on China's ARFs regime applied to  poultry, soybeans, pork and dairy products, 
MOFCOM allocated to an importer, yearly vo lumes of imports of particular commodities. 
Nevertheless, in administering ARFs, MOFCOM exercised its discr etion to slow down imports from 
selected Members.  The US also urged China to eliminate ARFs entirely.  
 
4.10 In response, the delegate of China drew th e US' attention to document G/LIC/W/39 indicated 
that most of the issues on iron ore had been clarified in previous TRM opportunities; and that the 
measure had statistical purposes. 
 
4.11. The Committee took note of the communication circulated by China and of the statements 
made. 
 
4.12 The Chairperson suggested that, to c onclude the Final Transitional Review under 
Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of th e People's Republic of China, a factual report on 
China's transitional review be submitted to the Coun cil for Trade in Goods (CTG).  As had been done 
previously, this factual report would refer to the rele vant paragraphs of the minutes of this meeting as 
well as to the information received from China.  The relevant paragraphs of the minutes which 
reflected the discussion would be annexed to this report.   
 
4.13 The Committee so agreed.  The report to the CTG on the Final Transitional Review was 
circulated in document G/LIC/23. 
 
5. Draft report (2011) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
5.1 The Chairperson said that the Committee w as required to submit an annual report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods, (CTG).  A draft report to the CTG (G/LIC/W/38) 
covering the activities of the Committee in 2011 had been circulated for the Committee's consideration.  The information covered in the draf t report, including its Anne x, would be updated to 
reflect the notifications received up to the present meeting; China's submission on its transitional 
review; as well as the discussion at this meeting. 
 
5.2 There were no comments on the draft report.   The Committee agreed to adopt the report, 
subject to the updating.  The report as revised and adopted was circulated as document G/L/968. 
6. Other business  
(i) Dates of the next meetings  
6.1 The Chairman informed the Committee that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Friday, 
27 April 2012 and Monday, 22 October 2012 for th e next meetings of the Committee, on the 
understanding that additional meetings  will be convened if necessary.   
 6.2 The Committee took note of the information. 
 G/LIC/M/34 
Page 14  
 
  (ii) Election of Vice-Chair 
6.3 The Chairman recalled that at the last m eeting the Committee elected him as its Chair and 
Mr. Gustavo BOSIO from Israel, as Vice-Chair.  He informed the Committee that Mr. Bosio had left 
the Geneva delegation in summer this year and, in  order to fulfil the mandate in Article 4 of the 
Agreement which provides for the election of a Vice-Ch air, he carried out informal consultations with 
group coordinators and various dele gations.  The result of these consultations indicated that there was 
agreement among delegations that Mr. Shai MOSES, also from Israel, be elected as Vice-Chairperson 
for this year.    6.4 The Committee so agreed. 
 
 
__________