RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/23 
28 August 2006 
 (06-4036) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 JUNE 2006 
 
Chairperson:  Ms. Pamela Cooper (Canada
) 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its twen ty-third meeting on 21 June 2006.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/2842, was adopted as follows:    
 
Table of Contents
 
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting ........................................................................................................................ ...............1  
2. Notifications.................................................................................................................. .............4  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation) ............................................................................................................ ...4 
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures).............................................................................................4  
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications) ..................................6
 
3. Other bus iness ................................................................................................................. ..........7  
(i) Questions posed by the United St ates to Indonesia (on tex tiles).........................................7  
(ii) Questions posed by Egypt....................................................................................................8  
(a) Turkey (on rice) ...........................................................................................................8  
(b) India (on marble) .........................................................................................................8  
4. Date of the ne xt meeting ....................................................................................................... ....8 
5. Election of  officers........................................................................................................... ..........9  
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that  since the last meeting only 15 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (two 
notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), eleven under Article 7.3 and two under Article 5.1-
5.4).  As of the date of the meeting, out of a total Membership of 149 (counting each of the EC G/LIC/M/23 
Page 2  
 
  member States individually), there remained 24 Members
1 who had not submitted any notification 
under the Agreement since joining the WTO.  Only  a cumulative total of 92 Members, counting the 
European Communities as one, had submitted notifica tions of laws and regul ations (under Articles 
1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b));  thus 57 Members have yet to submit their notifications.  As to the replies to the 
Questionnaire2 (notifications under Article 7.3), only a cumulative total of 85 Members, counting the 
European communities as one, had submitted their re plies since the entry into force of the WTO 
Agreement.  For Article 7.3 notifications, the annual deadline of 30 September was not often 
respected by many Members.  Concerning notifications of new licensing procedures or changes in existing procedures (under Paragraphs 1-4 of Artic le 5), only 26 Members, counting the European 
Communities as one, had notified new licensing procedur es or changes in the existing procedures;  of 
this, one Member (Papua New Guinea) had notifie d changes to import licensing procedures without 
submitting the initial notifications of legislation or replies to the Questionnaire.  In addition, the 
Chairperson informed the Committee that while Ar ticle 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to 
submit counter-notifications where a Member consid ered that another Member had 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.  Sh e also reminded the Committee that, at the end of 
each year, the Central  Registry of Notifications sent to each Member a list of notifications that should 
be made under all WTO Agreements in the following year and that this was followed up with periodic 
reminders, twice a year, to those Members who had no t fulfilled their notification obligations.  In spite 
of this the compliance with the notification oblig ations under this Agreement continued to remain 
low.  She therefore urged all those Members who ha d not yet provided information of their laws and 
regulations relevant to import licensing, not replie d to the annual Questionnaire, or not notified the 
institution of new import licensing procedures or cha nges since their previous notifications, to do so 
without further delay.  Members who did not a pply import licensing procedures or had no laws or 
regulations relevant to the Agreement were also re quired to notify the Committee of this fact so that 
Members could obtain a complete overview of the licensing regimes of all Members.  Members who 
had questions about the notification requirements or who would like assistance were requested to 
consult the Secretariat.  1.2 The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the 
reminders that had been sent to Members and delegati ons on the need to notify and to respond to the 
questions raised by other Members; this was a continuing encouragement for compliance.  His 
delegation appreciated the notifications submitted since the last Committee meeting but considered 
that compliance with the notification requirements were still low; a number of countries had never 
submitted any notifications under this agreement sin ce joining the WTO.  This was a concern to the 
U.S.; for instance, Belize had not notified any import licensing procedure, even though this had been 
requested by his delegation at the last meeting of the Committee.  The U.S. appreciated Belize's 
provision of information on the licensing issue raised  with them, but would be more appreciative if 
Belize would submit a formal notification to th e Committee to cover products requiring import 
licences, specifically beverages.  The U.S. recogni zed that there could be many good reasons for a 
country to set up a licensing regime but was only requesting from Members:  procedures that were simple and not controversial;  to be transparent about import licensing;  and to notify the provisions 
currently in force in their trade regimes.  In some cases it was known that import licensing 
requirements did exist, but the governments in qu estion seemed reluctant to acknowledge them or to 
answer questions in the Committee.  He recalled that all Members had agreed to make licensing 
provisions simple, transparent and predictable an d to publish sufficient information about import 
licensing procedures, so that traders could un derstand how and why licences were granted.  
Transparency provided in the Committee was an essential aspect of that effort;  some of the issues that 
                                                     
 
1 Angola, Belize, Botswana, Central African Republic, Congo, Congo, Dem. Republic, Djibouti, Egypt, 
Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Israel, Kuwait, Lesotho, Ma uritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Rwanda, 
St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania and Thailand. 
2 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/23 
 Page 3 
 
 
  his delegation would raise at this Committee meeting ha d been raised before in  previous meetings, but 
his delegation was compelled to repeat its request s since in a few cases the U.S. had not received 
complete responses.  He hoped to receive full answer s this time since U.S. had provided updates of its 
questions to a number of delegations prior to the m eeting.  He said that in those cases where responses 
were not forthcoming, his delegation reserved all its rights, including the right to transparently make 
available information about the import licensing pr ocedures encountered by the U.S. exporters in 
foreign markets and in consistency with all of the agreed procedures by the Committee. 
 1.3 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
1.4 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that since the last meeting two documents 
containing questions concerning licensing systems ma intained by Members or replies thereto had 
been circulated.  Documents G/LIC/Q/BRA/3/Add. 1 and G/LIC/Q/MYS/3, contained questions from 
the U.S. to Brazil and to Malaysia, respectively.  She also informed the Comm ittee that the Secretariat 
had reminded the delegations of Belize, Brazil, Guat emala, Indonesia and Malaysia of pending replies 
to the questions put to them regarding th eir licensing systems at previous meetings.   She requested 
delegations that were in a position to provide replies to the questions posed since the last meeting, or 
prior to it, to do so at this meeting, keeping in mind that under the procedures adopted in this Committee they were required to provide replies in writing to those delegations that had posed 
questions, with copies to the Secretariat (G/LIC/4).   Copies of replies received by the Secretariat 
would be issued in the same document series. 
 
1.5 The representative of the United States
 recalled that for almost three years his delegation had  
been requesting information on Brazil's import licensing requirements on lithium products.  The 
information requested had been largely technical an d clearly related directly to restrictions whose 
procedures were covered by the Agreements a nd the reviewed mandate of the Committee.  
Additionally, the U.S. had approached the Brazilia n government bilaterally on a number of occasions 
on the same issue, but without much success;  the mo st recent approach to the Ministry of External 
Relations was in April 2006.  He asked Brazil to  respond to the written questions as circulated in 
G/LIC/Q/BRA/3/Add.1 and to report to the Committ ee and to his authorities on the results of the 
interim Ministerial Group that had been studying the issue of lithium compound legislation since the 
beginning of 2005.  This request to Brazil was to provide information on its import licensing 
requirements on certain lithium products and to ensu re that the Brazilian import licensing regime for 
these products was fully consistent with WTO requirements.  1.6 In response, the representative of Brazil
 said that Brazil had provided a written answer to the 
U.S. in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/1 and that, as register ed in the Minutes of the meeting in July 2005, 
the Brazilian delegation had also provided informat ion regarding the requested import statistics and 
the number of licences granted in the period.  With regard to the latest communications from the U.S., 
his delegation had not received precise instructions .  All Brazilian decisions regarding imports of 
lithium compounds were determined by the Brazilian Policy of National Security and Nuclear Energy, 
thus any change in the policy involved a decision by  several Ministries;  Brazil had not yet defined 
any changes on that policy.  Nevertheless, he had taken note of the U.S. concern and would request 
from his capital a written answer to the most recent  questions so as to abide by the rules of the 
Committee.  1.7 The representative of the United States
 took note of Brazil's pledge to provide written 
responses to the questions posed before the meeting of  the Committee.  He noted that some contextual 
information had been provided by Brazil in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/1, that it was a start in 
answering the questions that his authorities had put forward;  and he also looked forward to receiving 
much more specific information, specifically on what  his authorities considered to be the key issues, 
such as the procedures for applying for import li cences;  the criteria for granting import licences on 
lithium products; and, the basis for denying applica tions for these licences.  He recalled that this G/LIC/M/23 
Page 4  
 
  information was requested several years ago, but his delegation continued to wait for it.  With regard 
to the reference to national security and from the va ntage point of his delega tion, it seemed clear that 
none of the requests for information that the U.S. was making, involved the national security 
provisions of Article XXI of the GATT 1994, sin ce the information was requested for commercial 
purposes. 
 
1.8 The representative of Malaysia,
 in response to the questions posed by the United States in 
document G/LIC/Q/MYS/3, informed the Committee that the procedures for applying and obtaining 
import licences had been made publicly available thr ough the publication of legislation.  Currently, 
his authorities were finalizing the responses to the im port licensing questionnaire, under Article 7.3, to 
reflect Malaysia's import licensing regime; this would be submitted to the WTO Members by July 
2006 once the internal approval process for official  clearance was completed.  Responses to the 
specific questions posed by the U.S. delegati on would be reflected in the notification. 
 1.9 The representative of Guatemala
 informed the Committee that in document G/LIC/Q/GTM/1 
his delegation had responded to the questions raised by Mexico at the last meeting of the Committee 
concerning the importations of eggs .  He understood that Mexico had requested that this issue be 
discussed as an SPS matter. 
 
1.10 The representative of Mexico  thanked Guatemala for its written responses.  Concerning the 
consideration of the issue under the SPS Agreement,  he informed the Committee that his authorities 
were still studying the answers presented by Guatemal a, and therefore, requested that this issue be 
included in the Agenda of the next meeting of this Committee.  1.11 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 2. Notifications 
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2( b) of the Agreement (publications and/or   
legislation) 
2.1 The Chairperson
 recalled that Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and procedures, as had been  agreed 
to by the Committee, required all Members to pu blish their laws, regulations and administrative 
procedures and notify these to the Committee upon b ecoming 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 require d to be notified.  She informed  the Committee that there were 
notifications from three Members for review at the present meeting: China, (G/LIC/N/1/CHN/5); 
Romania (G/LIC/N/1/ROU/3 & ADD.1); and, the Un ited States (G/LIC/N/1/USA/3).  Concerning the 
notification from Romania, the Chairperson recalle d that it was received after the issuance of the 
airgram convening the last meeting, thus it would be reviewed at this meeting. 
 2.2 The Committee took note
 of the notifications.  
 
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures) 
2.3 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that there we re notifications from twelve Members 
listed in the airgram, from Armenia (G/LIC/N/3/A RM/2), Barbados (G/LIC/N/3/BRB/3), Colombia 
(G/LIC/N/3/COL/3), the European Communitie s (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/7 and 8), Hong Kong China 
(G/LIC/N/3/HKG/9), Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/4),  Macao China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/8), Morocco 
(G/LIC/N/3/MAR/4/Add.1), the People's Republic of China (G/LIC/N/3/CHN/4), Tunisia 
(G/LIC/N/3/TUN/3/Add.5), Uganda (G/LIC/N/3/UGA/1/Add.2) and the United States 
(G/LIC/N/3/USA/4).  She recalled that at the last  meeting of the Committee she had announced that  G/LIC/M/23 
 Page 5 
 
 
  notifications from Armenia, Hong Kong China, Morocco  and the People's Republic of China had been 
received after the issuance of the airgram convening th at meeting, and that these would be considered 
at the present meeting.  She also informed th e Committee that after the issuance of the airgram 
convening the present meeting, an addendum to each of the EC notifications had been received and 
that these addenda would be considered at the next meeting of the Committee. 
 
2.4 The delegate from Australia  thanked China for its response to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures circulated as document G/LIC/ N/3/CHN/4; he recalled that on previous 
occasions his delegation had expressed its interest in th e import licensing regime for iron ore in China.   
Australia wanted to ensure that there were no regul atory obstacles to the continued strong trade in this 
product, and thus it would continue to monitor closely the impact of newly introduced licensing 
provisions in iron ore, including to ensure thei r consistency with the WTO Agreement on Import 
Licensing and with other WTO agreements.  His dele gation was interested in any update that China 
might be able to provide on the status of its notif ications concerning this co mmodity.  He also referred 
to Australia's interest in possible regulatory a rrangements for the importation of copper ore into 
China, so as to ascertain the precise nature of the regulatory arrangements on import licensing for 
copper ore.  This was a concern already registered  by his authorities in Beijing since Australia had 
understood that, from 1 January 2006, MOTCOM had added copper ores to the list of commodities 
that were subject to import licensing.  His delega tion would also appreciate it if China could inform 
Members about the notification of these new import licensing arrangements.  In connection with the 
latter, his delegation also requested informati on on the 2005 quantitative restriction notification to 
which paragraph 2 of document G/LIC/N/3/CHN/4 refe rred,  as it had not been possible for Australia 
to locate that particular notification.   2.5 The representative of China
 thanked Australia for its comments and for the written copy of 
comments and questions received immediately before the Committee's meeting.  In his view 
Australia's intervention could be divided into three pa rts:  (a) on iron ore, he had taken note of the 
continuing interest of Australia in China's import licensing regime;  (b) on copper ore, since this was 
the first time that this issue was raised, he would convey the comments and questions to his 
authorities; and (c) on China's 2005 QR notification he  explained to the Committee that the delay in 
submitting the notification was due to an inte rnal coordination problem, but he assured the 
Committee, and through it the Market Access Comm ittee, that this notification would be submitted 
quite soon. 
 2.6 The representative of the United States
 underscored the interest of his delegation on the issues 
raised by Australia.  His delegation would be very interested in seeing China's responses, as well as 
the 2005 QR notification once submitted by Beijing. 
 
2.7 The representative of Australia  said that he would refer the issue to Canberra so as to make 
clear the precise nature of the questions to facilita te the responses from the Chinese authorities in due 
course.  He also encouraged as much tr ansparency as possible on this issue.   
 2.8 The representative of the People's Republic of China
 said that the U.S. notification under 
Article 5 (G/LIC/N/2/USA/2) referred to the U. S. intention to issue a final rule, before 
30 September 2005, on the United States' Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis System.  Additionally, in the notification G/LIC/N/3/USA/4, under Article 7.3, it was noted that until 5 December 2005 the U.S. did not publish the final rule and that it had declared that there were no changes from the interim final rule.  In this re gard, his delegation requested from the U.S. an 
explanation of the following:  (a) the reasons fo r the delays;  (b) if there were qualification 
requirements for being registered as an importing compan y, its brokers or its agents, in order to apply 
for a steel import license which, accordingly to th e notifications, was automatic;  (c) the reason to 
apply for a steel import licence 60 days prior to the expected date of importation, as stated in both 
notifications;  (d) the rationale of the validity of  75 days for a licence, as stated also in both G/LIC/M/23 
Page 6  
 
  notifications.  In this regard, his delegation would like to know what the situation would be if an 
importer failed to make the importation within the 75 da ys of the issuance of the licence;  (e) the legal 
status of a licence which had been issued for more than 60 days, but less than 75 days, in other words, 
if it was still possible for an importer to make impor tations under such a licence within this period; 
and,  (f) why the U.S. deemed it necessary that a license could only be used once, as indicated in 
notification G/LIC/N/3/USA/4.  He hoped to receive answers from the United States and reserved 
China's rights to follow up this issue, if necessary.  2.9 The representative of the United States
 thanked China for its questions and said that since his 
delegation had not received the questions in adva nce of the meeting, written responses would be 
provided as soon as possible.  Regarding the licensing process in question, he noted that the licensing 
system was automatic, internet-based and in complian ce with the WTO rules.  It was designed solely 
to provide fast and reliable statistical informati on on steel imports to both the Government and the 
public.  The licensing requirement applied equally to steel imports from all countries.  There was no restriction on either the quality or the value of impor ts.  Registered importing companies, their brokers 
or their agents, might apply for a steel import licence, even electronically, through the website.  
Licences could also be obtained via fax.  On-lin e applications for a license generally took a few 
minutes and licences were issued immediately upon co mpletion of the electronic application form.  
No fees were charged for registering via the system, applying for and obtaining a licence, or making corrections to the application if needed.  The sy stem was available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 
except for a periodic maintenance on Sundays. 
 
2.10 The Committee took note
 of the notifications, statements and questions. 
 
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, changes to 
existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)  
2.11 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 c onsidered that another Member had not notified a 
licensing procedure or changes therein, in accordance with paragraphs 1-3 of Article 5.  She informed 
the Committee that under this provision there were  three notifications, submitted by Argentina 
(G/LIC/N/2/ARG/8 and 9) and Romania (G/LIC/N/2/ROU/4).    2.12  The representative of the United States
 thanked Argentina for the notification of its new non-
automatic import licensing procedures on toys and fo otwear (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/8 and 9).  While noting 
that the U.S. authorities were in the process of revi ewing the notifications a nd regulations and might  
request further information in the near future, he  said that the preliminary review raised some 
questions as to the WTO consistency of the notified measures:  notification on the import licensing procedure for goods (G/LIC/2/ARG/9) was aimed at establishing a pre-release verification mechanism 
to monitor and control imports of, among other goods , the footwear sector; also to verify importer 
declarations with regard to product composition.   On the other hand, notification on the import 
licensing procedure for goods (G/LIC/2/ARG/8), am ong them the toy sector, aimed at establishing a 
pre-release verification mechanism to monitor a nd control imports of such goods and to verify 
compliance with toy safety standards.  Nonetheles s, the U.S. delegation was not aware of similar 
verification mechanisms established for Argentinea n toys, nor about any reason why the verification 
of importer declarations for footwear required a new licensing system;  an explanation in this regard 
would be appreciated.  The U.S. was also not aware of any safeguard, nor of other quantity restrictions applied in conformity with WTO rules,  that would justify Argentina's efforts to control 
these imports.  The information provided by Argentina in its notifications had omitted to fully explain  G/LIC/M/23 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the nature and operation of the system.  Thus, hi s delegation was seeking from Argentina a revised 
response to the import licensing questionnaire reporting on these new import licensing requirements to clarify their operation.  In addition, U.S. e xporters had reported that these licensing requirements 
act as a quantitative restriction for their products;  more information was required to address their 
concerns.  His delegation would appreciate it if Argentina could provide as much information as 
possible on these systems, as well as a written submi ssion for the Committee's review at its next 
meeting.  In this regard the qu estion would be put in written form. 
 2.13 The representative of Argentina
 thanked the U.S. delegate for these questions;  he took note 
of them and his delegation would reply as soon as possible. 
 
2.14 The representative of the United Sates  thanked Romania for its notifications 
(G/LIC/N/1/ROM/3 and Add.1;  and G/LIC/N/2/ ROM/4), the second set of submissions on the new 
licensing systems that Romania had notified since its last response to the import licensing questionnaire in February 2001 (G/LIC/N/3/ROM/A dd.1).  He looked forward to reviewing the 
revised questionnaire at the next meeting. 
 2.14 The delegate from Romania
 thanked the U.S. for their appreciation and, with regard to replies 
to the questionnaire, informed the Committee that  the responsible authorities in Bucharest were 
working on it.  
2.15 The Committee took note
 of the notifications and the statement made.   
 
3. Other business 
(i) Questions posed by the United States to Indonesia (on textiles) 
3.1 The representative of the United States  expressed the deep concern of his authorities that, for 
almost three years, the U.S. had been requesting information on Indonesia's import licensing 
requirements on certain textiles.  Some responses ha d been received by the U.S. but no resolution of 
the problem had been provided on an issue raised bilaterally at various opportunities, without much 
success.  In April 2006 the issue had been raised ag ain in the context of the discussions concerning the 
Trade and Investment Framework Agreement.  Once  again, his delegation requested the Government 
of Indonesia, either to eliminate or modify the existing licensing regime under Decree No. 732/2002, 
to remove provisions that restrict or distort tr ade, and to bring its import licensing regime into 
conformity with WTO requirements.  He urged Indo nesia to report to the Co mmittee on the results of 
the Government of Indonesia's examination of studies on this issue.  3.2 The representative of Indonesia
 thanked the U.S. for having raised this issue and for having 
provided his delegation with the written questi ons contained in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/7 dated 
16 June 2006.  He also thanked the Secretariat fo r the reminder sent to his mission on 12 June 2006 
and informed the Committee that his delegation ha d provided, on 20 June 2006, additional written 
replies3 to the questions posed by the U.S. 
 3.3 The representative of the United States
 thanked Indonesia for its response to the questions 
and, since his delegation had not had the opportunity to review them, reserved its right to follow-up 
the issue bilaterally and at the next Committee meeting.  3.4 The Committee took note
 of the notifications and the statements made.  
 
                                                      
3 See document G/LIC/Q/IDN/8, dated 11 July 2006 G/LIC/M/23 
Page 8  
 
  (ii) Questions posed by Egypt 
(a) Turkey (on rice) 
3.5 The representative of Egypt
 said that his country was an important exporter of rice, currently 
ranked the eighth most important exporter in the world.  Recently Egyptian rice exporters had been 
confronted with the Turkish import licensing scheme.  From previous discussions, Egypt had 
understood that Turkey maintained a Tariff Rate Q uota and that the current regime would remain in 
force until 31 July 2006.  Therefore, he requested that Turkey clarify the following:  (a) if this 
understanding was correct and whether or not Turk ey intended to extend its current regime after 
31 July 2006:  (b) to specify, in the event th at Turkey maintained a TRQ, the conditions and 
procedure for importing rice under the TRQ, the discre tion granted to the administrative authorities as 
well as the appeal procedures available to importers  whose applications were rejected;  (c) if 
applications concerning different types of rice such as paddy rice, brown and semi or fully milled rice, 
had been considered differently;  (d) if this w as correct, to clarify the reasons for making such a 
distinction; and  (f) if imports of rice into Turk ey made outside TRQ were subjected to any import 
licensing requirements; if yes, to provide the le gal basis for such requirements and Egypt looked 
forward to receiving Turkey's response to its questio ns and was keen to address this issue bilaterally. 
 3.6 The representative of Turkey
 took note of the questions posed to his delegation and said that 
contact had taken place with the Egyptian delegation on this issue.  He inform ed the Committee that 
Turkey's import licensing system on rice imports had been abolished with the application of the tariff quota regime almost two months ago, but from the qu estions he noted that there might still be some 
problems.  His delegation would provide more clar ification if these questions could be posed in 
written form.  Turkey would continue its bilatera l contacts with Egypt to remove any uncertainties 
that remain in this regard.    (b) India (on marble) 
3.7 The representative of Egypt
 said that imports of rough marble, block and slabs to India were 
subject to licensing requirements that had greatly affected Egyptian marble producers and exporters 
since Egypt was traditionally one of the main exporte rs of these products.  Eg ypt requested from India 
clarification on the following:  (a) the aim of the import licensing system that India maintained on imports of certain types of marble (Egypt was par ticularly interested in receiving a confirmation that 
different types of marble received a different treatme nt when imported to India);  (b) the rationale and 
basis for floor prices imposed by Indian Policy Circular No. 24 (RE05)/2004-2009, dated 
30 August 2005, on imports of certain types of marb le;  (c) the reason why the application for import 
licence was restricted to those applicants who ha d established manufacturing processing units in India 
and had made imports of these items in the precedi ng years;  (d) the basis for the ceiling of 130,000 
metric tonnes per licensing year for total imports  of rough marble blocks classified under HS 
code 25151100, 2515121210 and 25151220 and established by Policy Circular No. 24 
(RE05)/2004-2009; and also how the ceiling was allo cated to individual firms using the turnover of 
the preceding year.  He also informed the Committee that Egypt had previously indicated to India its 
desire to discuss this matter bilaterally and that the main purpose of having ra ised this issue at the 
Committee meeting was to register Egypt' s significant interest in this matter. 
 
3.8 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
4. Date of the next meeting 
4.1 The Chairperson  informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Monday, 
30 October 2006 for the next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings would be convened if necessary.  She also reminded Members that the fifth transitional  G/LIC/M/23 
 Page 9 
 
 
  review of China under Paragraph 18 of its Protocol of  Accession would be carried out at that meeting, 
and encouraged Members to send their questions to  China as soon as possible so as to allow China to 
prepare its responses well in advance.  4.2 The Committee took note
 of the above. 
 
5. Election of officers 
5.1 The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. Ev elio Alvarado Romero (from Guatemala) as 
Chairperson of the Committee, to hold office until end of the first meeting of 2007, under Rule 12 of 
the Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also elected by acclamation 
Mr. Peter Govindasamy (from Singapore) as Vice-Chairman. 
 
__________