WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/LIC/M/33 
31 May 2011 
 (11-2771) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11 APRIL 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Anna Ashikali (Cyprus) 
   The Committee on Import Licensing held its thirty-third meeting on 11 April 2011.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WT O/AIR/3729, which was circulated on 1 April 2011 
was adopted as follows:    
Table of Contents 
 
1.  Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting ....................................................................................................................... ................ 1  
2.  Notifications ................................................................................................................. .............. 7  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation) ........................................................................................................... ............ 7 
(ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing pr ocedures and reverse no tifications) .......................................... 8  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) .................................................................................................. ... 9 
3.  Other Busi ness ................................................................................................................ ......... 10 
(i) Information on results of the informal discussions on Transparency related to the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ............................................................................. 10  
4.  Date of the ne xt meeting ...................................................................................................... ... 11 
5.  Election of Officers .......................................................................................................... ........ 11 
 
 
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 
20 notifications had been received:  two notifica tions under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) on 
legislation/publications;  eight under Article 5. 1-5.4 on new licensing procedures or changes to the 
procedures in force;  and ten under Article 7.3 – rep lies 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 17 Members
1 who had not submitted any no tification under any provision  of the Agreement 
since joining the WTO.  She high lighted the fact that, since the last meeting, three Members had 
submitted the first replies to the Annual Questi onnaire:  Cambodia, Central African Republic and 
                                                      
1 Angola, Belize, Botswana, Congo, Djibouti, Egyp t, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Myanmar, Nepal, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra  Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania and Viet Nam. G/LIC/M/33 
Page 2 
 
 
  Tonga.  She urged all Members who had not yet provided any information on their laws and 
regulations relevant to import licensing to submit their notifications before the Committee without 
further delay and indicated that Members who did not apply licensing procedures or had no laws or 
regulations relevant to the Agreement, were also re quired to notify the Committee of this fact in order 
to obtain a complete overview of the licensing regime of all Members. 
 
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 98 Memb ers, counting the EU-27 as one, had submitted 
notifications.  Thus, 28  Members had yet to submit their notifications under this provision.  Under 
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, only 34 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.  The Chairperson urged those Members who had not yet 
notified either their new licensing procedures or changes in existing procedures to do so.  She 
informed the Committee that, while Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to submit 
counter-notifications, up to now no such count er-notifications had been received.   
 1.3 As to the replies to the Annual Questionnair e under Article 7.3, she informed the Committee 
that a cumulative total of 101 Members, counting EU-27 as one, had submitted their replies to the 
Questionnaire since the entry into force of the WT O Agreement;  thus, 25 Members had yet to submit 
their responses to the Questionnaire.  She 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.  She 
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 She informed the Committee that  since 2009, at the request of the Chairperson and in light of 
the suggestions and ideas proposed and discussed at th e informal meetings, the Secretariat had been 
preparing and sending specific letters to each one of the WTO Members.  This was to remind them of 
their transparency obligations and highlighting the date of the last notification received from their 
authorities, especially, under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent.  These letters also contained an invitation 
to Members to review the status of their notificati ons in general and update them whenever necessary;  
they also included samples of statements to be u sed by those Members which had not introduced any 
changes or only minor changes to their import li censing regimes already notified to the Committee.  
She stated that the latter had proved to be acceptabl e and easily applicable;  that many Members had 
been using such statements to notify
2 and, in light of this, she encouraged other Members to do so and 
to contact, if necessary, the Secretariat for assistance in preparing the short notifications under Article 
7.3 of the Agreement.  She invited Members to su bmit the draft notifications in Microsoft Word for 
the Secretariat to promptly format and edit the draf t notifications into the WTO formats;  additional 
information such as legal texts, summaries of the le gislation and publications, samples of application 
forms, lists and tables indicating th e goods to which ILPs applied to, should be submitted in electronic 
format compatible with the WTO software.  She al so encouraged Members to consult the Secretariat 
whenever there were questions on notification requi rements and; in the case of developing and least 
developed countries, to request for technical assist ance to be provided in their countries with the 
participation of the national authorities who en act 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 
                                                      
2 See documents G/LIC/N/3/COL/8 and G/LIC/N/3/HND/4, respectively.  G/LIC/M/33 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the G/LIC/Q/- series.3  Document G/LIC/Q/ARG/13 contained the responses by Argentina to the 
questions posed by Turkey in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/10.   
 1.6 The delegate of Turkey thanked Argentina fo r its responses and indicated that not only were 
these not fully satisfactory but that there had been  no improvement in the implementation.  The 
number of products subjected to non-automatic lic ensing procedures had increased recently and 
exceeded 400.  Turkish industries were still reporting their concerns on the non-predictability and lack 
of transparency with respect to the implementation;   they also complained about the long periods of 
responses to applications which exceeded the timelin e indicated in the Agreement.  He requested 
Argentina to bring its non-automatic licence regi me in compliance with the WTO obligations.  
 1.7 The delegate of the European Union stated the issue of Argentina's import licensing measures 
had been raised in the WTO on several occasions, th e last time at the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG) meeting on 21 March 2011, where the statem ents made by the EU, the US and Japan were 
supported by many other delegations.  At that me eting her delegation also made a report on the 
consultations requested by the CTG Chair in N ovember 2010.  Despite these consultations, the 
concerns the EU had raised had not yet been a ddressed;  moreover, Argentina had recently extended 
the scope of non-automatic licensing procedures(NALs ), to around 200 new products, including high 
end cars with big engines, certain car parts and mobile phones.  These measures followed an informal 
demand from the Argentinean Ministry of Industr y to the car importers to reduce imports by 
20 per cent Car importers in Argentina were al so complaining about delays at customs and 
homologation processes;  given that various consi gnments were blocked since February 2011.  
 1.8 The NALs scheme now covered almost 600 products, a worst picture given the impact it had 
on imports from the EU to Argentina since the scheme covered imports of around US$ 1,382 million 
or 15.5 per cent of total imports form the EU.  This  picture was even more alarming when considered 
in the context of other measures adopted to  pursue import substitution in Argentina.  
 1.9 In the view of her delegation, the NALs were  not in line with Argentina's WTO obligations, 
were part of an imports substitution policy with  the aim to improve the trade balance and to 
systematically discriminate a number of imported pr oduct.  Despite repeated requests at WTO level 
and bilaterally, Argentina had failed to provid e any convincing evidence to the contrary.  
Non-automatic import licensing measures were only justified where necessary to implement a WTO 
compatible measure;  this was the meaning of Ar ticle 3.2 of the Agreement on Import licensing which 
stated that "non-automatic licensing procedures shal l be no more administratively burdensome than 
absolutely necessary to administer the measure".  This was confirmed by Article 5(g) by requiring that 
the notification of non-automatic import licensing regi mes to this Committee included an indication of 
"the measure being implemented through the licen sing procedure".  The EU considered that a 
different interpretation of these articles would rend er Article XI of GATT 1994 meaningless, since it 
would allow WTO Members to use arbitrarily import licensing regimes as a means to restrict imports 
for protectionist purposes.  
 
1.10 Furthermore, she added, the procedures for examining import licensing applications in 
Argentina lacked transparency, and some of its elemen ts were not regulated in Argentinean legislation.  
Thus, NALs were just one of the means used by the Argentinean authorities to restrict imports.  She 
asked Argentina to provide more information on the scope and coverage of the non-automatic 
                                                      
3 Listed in the airgram as follows: Questions: from  (i) Peru and (ii) Canada, China, the European 
Union, Japan, Mexico, Peru and the United St ates to Argentina (G/LIC/Q/ARG/7/Add.1 and 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/10); from the United States to India (G/L IC/Q/IND/11/Add.1) and to Turkey (G/LIC/Q/TUR/5).  
Replies: from Brazil to questions from the Unite d States (G/LIC/Q/BRA/13) and from Mexico 
(G/LIC/Q/BRA/14); and, from India to questions from Korea (G/LIC/Q/IND/15). G/LIC/M/33 
Page 4 
 
 
  licensing system and on how Argentina would take in to account the EU concerns.  She finally called 
Argentina to comply with its WTO obliga tions within the best possible timeframe. 
 1.11 The delegate of Japan in supporting previ ous speakers, indicated that there had been no 
improvement in relation to the delay of issuing im port licences in Argentina si nce the issue was raised 
at the CTG meeting in November 2010.  The re quired timeframe to issue import licences had 
continued to exceed the period stipulated in th e Agreement on Import Licensing.  Resolution 45/2011 
had expanded the scope of products covered by the non-automatic impor t licensing in Argentina;  this 
had created adverse impacts on Japanese companies which operated in Argentina.  In the case of 
manufacturing companies, at least one third of in termediate materials needed for production were 
covered by the non-automatic licensing;  this wo uld inevitably affect the pace of production in 
Argentina.  He also indicated that imported ve hicles were the biggest problem;  Japanese companies 
had been notified 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.  His authorities requested Argentina to ensure the smooth issuance of import licences within the timeframe  stipulated in the Agreement and also sought 
transparency in the related procedures. 
 1.12  The delegate of Switzerland reiterated the systemic and economic con cerns of her delegation 
regarding Argentina's ILPs.  Argentina had so far fa iled to put its IL system into conformity with 
WTO obligations or to provide a WTO consistent expl anation for it.  With the extension of the scope 
of Argentina's NALs last February, the situation ha d even worsened.  She urged Argentina once again 
to put its IL system into conformity with the WTO commitments. 
 1.13 The delegate of the United States reiterated th e concerns of his delegation over the nature and 
application of Argentina's import licence regime, which was significantly impacting imports into 
Argentina from a number of WTO Members, including the United States.  Since October 2008, 
Argentina had begun progressively expanding th e number of products subjected to licensing 
procedures, but over the past two years had faile d to address the US concerns and those of other 
Members.  The situation regarding import licensing had become increasingly problematic for US  
exporters; according to reports received, it would a ppear that Argentina was using these measures to 
improve its trade balance by restricting imports and promoting exports.  His authorities also continued 
to receive numerous reports about the lengthy dela ys encountered in obtaining a non-automatic import 
licence.  US companies not only were concerned about the added costs and uncertainty associated 
with exporting to Argentina as a result of these measu res, but were also concerned about the negative 
effects of products being sold increasingly on the grey market due to distortions created by 
Argentina's import procedures.  Despite concerns raised by various Members in this Committee, 
Argentina had yet to respond satisfactorily to these c oncerns;  Argentina had also failed to take action 
to resolve this issue and rather, had expanded its im port licensing regime.  In addition, and in spite of 
repeated requests, Argentina had failed to provide an appropriate justification in support of the 
measures being implemented through its non-automa tic import licence requirements.  His authorities 
had also raised their concerns in other WT O bodies like the Goods Council on 21 March 2010.  At 
that CTG meeting his delegation had requested Argen tina to take immediate steps to address this issue 
and provide responses to four specific issues:  (i) an  indication of the WTO legal basis for the use of 
these import licensing procedures, at this or at the next CTG meeting;  (ii) information concerning the 
time period for approving licences, together with an explanation on the length of time for approval 
and, information concerning the reported exporting requirements that companies had to commit to in 
order to obtain an import licence;  (iii) an indication of the specific steps Argentina had taken to 
address the trade distorting effects to its import licensing regime;  and (iv) an explanation of why certain countries were being excluded from these requi rements, as indicated in various news reports 
and local reports published in Argentina. 
  G/LIC/M/33 
 Page 5 
 
 
  1.14 The delegate of Australia supported the previ ous statements on the systemic concerns and the 
expansion and operation of the NALs procedures in Ar gentina which, in the view of her delegation, 
led towards an import substitution program.  She s ought further explanation from Argentina in order 
to prove that its NALs procedures were in line with Article 3.2 of the Agreement. 
 
1.15 The delegate of Korea echoed the concerns  raised by the previous speakers regarding 
Argentinean Resolution 45 recently adopted;  his authorities had been monitoring the Argentinean 
import licensing measures.  Despite the concerns that ha d been raised in this regard in this Committee, 
Argentina had maintained these procedures and ev en increased the scope of product to which the 
procedures applied to;  Argentina had strengthened th e trade effects of its NALs rather than address 
Members' concerns.  The new items Argentina had r ecently added to the list of products to which the 
NALs applied to include the motor vehicle importer ce rtificate;  according to Resolution 45, it seemed 
that Argentina would only approve import licences if importers submitted a plan stipulating they 
would export the same amount as they had imported.   His authorities believed that these conditions 
violated the main principles in the Agreement and requested Argentina to apply its import licensing 
regime in a transparent and predictable manner and invited Argentina to take action in bringing and 
implementing this regime in line with its WTO obligations. 
 
1.16 The delegate of Peru echoed the concerns  expressed by previous speakers on the Argentinean 
Resolution 45/2011 which increased the number of products subjected to NALs procedures from 400 
to 600.  This had important c onsequences on Peruvian industries, especially the SMEs which were a 
source of employment in her country.  Peru's concerns  referred to the licensing system itself and to the 
delays in granting import licences which went far be yond the timeframe established in the Agreement.  
She recalled that at the last CTG meeting in Marc h 2011 her authorities in the statement they made, 
posed questions to Argentina concerning the legality of the NALs, in particular, the response that their 
objective was to establish a transitiona l measure as indicated in documents 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/ADD.4; 10/ADD.1, 14/ADD1; 15/ADD.1; 16/ADD.2; 20/ADD.1; 22/ADD.1, 13 
and 24.  Peru was of the opinion that a statistical monitoring system could not justify the 
establishment of a NALs system given that Article 3. 2 of the Agreement stated that NALs were aimed 
at administering other measures which might be  in line with WTO rules and provisions.  
 
1.17 Argentina had not yet informed in any of its  notifications what the underlined measures which 
justified its licensing scheme were, nor explained th e reason which led it to select certain products 
over others.  Peru was of the view that accord ing to Article XI of GATT 1994 the import licensing 
scheme was a trade restriction and was not compatib le with the WTO provisions;  therefore, Peru 
sought information on the measures that would justif y the NALs system for textile products and other 
products. 
 
1.18 The delegate of Canada stated that he r authorities still had concerns with the licensing 
measures adopted by Argentina.  She highlighted th e need for transparency and consistency with the 
obligations contained in the Agreement on Import Licensing and indicated that Canadian exporters 
were concerned about the lack of clarity in the administration of the NALs system as well as about the 
recent extension to a broader scope of products as s tipulated in Resolution 45/2011.  She requested 
further information from Argen tina to address these concerns. 
 
1.19 The delegate of Mexico echoed the concerns mentioned by previous speakers.  Her authorities 
questioned a non-automatic import licensing system lead ing to the obstruction of trade and applicable 
to an increasing number of products.  Resolution 45/2011  recently issued by the Ministry of Industry 
of Argentina, subjected to NALs procedures about 18 0 products and tariff headings;  this had created 
a general alarm and generated uncertainty among the Mexican exporters since there was lack of clear 
information on the whole system and on the reasons which justified and led to the increased number 
of products covered by the NALs system.  The discre tionary application of the procedures, the delays G/LIC/M/33 
Page 6 
 
 
  in granting the applications impeded, from the trad ing perspective to continue carrying out the trade 
projects envisaged to date.  Her delegation soug ht from Argentina detailed information on the 
implementation and operation of the NALs system a nd on the timeframe to consider applications.  
She urged Argentina to address these concerns wh ich seemed to be trade barriers and affected 
exporters. 
  
1.20 The delegate of Argentina indicated that th e NALs system covered a very small number of 
tariff lines which represented only six per cent of a total of some 411 products and that according to 
Resolution 45/2011 another 157 tariff lines had been a dded to the system.  With regard to imports, he 
asserted that these had increased in 2011 by some 45 pe r cent, and that concerning those who were not 
subjected to the system, imports had increased by 45 pe r cent.  He also indicated that the WTO figures 
indicated that the increase in the wo rld trade within the same period was about 22 per cent, which was 
half of the import increase in Argentina.  Therefor e, the NALs system was not a barrier to trade.  
Argentina had not rejected any import licensing app lication and its authorities had complied with the 
various requisites in assessing, verifying and granting import licences.  This was an integral 
assessment including technical regulations which applied to any product circulating in the 
Argentinean market.  Past delays had been carefully  considered and Argentina had put in place, since 
16 March 2011, an online system to consider appl ications.  Thus, Argentina had complied with its 
obligation under Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing and ha d published sufficient 
information so as to allow other Members and trader s to be aware of the ru les governing the licensing 
system.  He indicated that the concerns raised w ould be addressed by his authorities and that all the 
Resolutions that had been published in the new o fficial Gazette provided more information on the 
NALs system.  The NALs system did not constitute in any way a barrier to imports and it was compatible with the WTO procedures and rules, he finally asserted. 
 
1.21 The delegate of the United States th anked India for its responses contained in 
G/LIC/Q/IND/16.  Nevertheless his authorities conti nued to be concerned about the import licensing 
procedures regarding the precise end-use of boric acid and the impact the end-use requirement was 
having on the ability of intermediari es to sell non-insecticidal boric acid in India.  This created a 
negative impact on the ability of the US exporters to sell the product in India.  He sought from India 
explanation on why this information was necess ary, especially, since there was not a similar 
requirement for domestic sales and on how could In dia assert that this import licensing procedure 
would ensure that boric-acid would not be misused once imported into India. 
 1.22 The delegate of India stated that he would get back to this issue after having consulted his 
authorities and requested the questions in writing in order to convey them to his capital.  
 1.23 The delegate of the European Union thanked Indonesia for its replies in document 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/16 to the EU's follow-up questions on Decree 56/2008 on Registration of Importers.  
However, her delegation would like further clar ification with regard to question number 3 in 
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/15 concerning the "special importer identity number".  In this regard she 
asked Indonesia to clarify if in case the two conditions  set out in the response to obtain the so-called 
Special Importer Identity Number were met - submission of the import identity number and a 
photograph of the responsible person - the issuance of the Special Importer Identity Number would be 
automatic or not.  She also reminded Indonesia that Decree 56 2008 which extended Decrees 8 and 
22/2009 and which in turn had been extended on 28 December 2010 for another two years by Decrees 
54 and 57/2010 was considered by the EU questi onable not only under GATT 1994, but also under 
the specific provisions in the Agreement on Im port Licensing Procedures.  She also reminded 
Indonesia of its transparency obligations under th e Agreement and of the prior publication of any 
regulation concerning import licensing in order to enable WTO Members to become acquainted with 
them.  She finally asked Indonesia if it had the in tention, and when, to notify its import licensing 
legislation under articles 5.1 – 5.4 of the Agreement.  
  G/LIC/M/33 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.24 The delegate of the United States sought from Indonesia an update on the status of Decree 56, 
notified in document G/LIC/N2/IDN/2 since his authorities had acknowledged that this had been 
renewed by the Ministry of Trade Regulation 57/M-DAG/PER/12/2010 dated 29 December 2010.  He 
also asked Indonesia to clarify why it had decided to renew the regulation beyond its original planned 
expiration date, if there were di fferences between Regulation 57/201 0 and the previous regulation, 
and if so, what were the differences?  Since it ha d not been notified yet to Members he requested 
Indonesia to indicate when it planned to do so.  Indonesia's import licensing regime had not been 
notified in full and there remained some procedures and requirements unclear.  In support of this, he 
mentioned that US exporters had reported that th ey were concerned about new procedures contained 
in Ministry of Trade Regulation 45/2009, as amende d by Ministry of Trade Regulation 17/2010 and 
Ministry of Trade Regulation 39/2010.  The origin al procedures appeared to require that companies 
obtain import licences to import goods either for their own manufacturing or for further distribution, 
but not both.  In this regard he asked Indonesia to explain why it was necessary to differentiate 
between imports used in the production process and im ports used in sales and distribution, also to 
explain how Regulation 39/2010 modified this requirement.  
 
1.25 His delegation would also like to receive a dditional information on the exact nature of the 
licensing procedure, including a justification for such  a requirement and clarification on the scope of 
products covered by the new requirements.  He also  asked whether all imported goods were subjected 
to the new procedures and requested explanation from Indonesia on the structure of its responses to 
the Questionnaire, circulated in G/LIC/N/3/IDN/4, particularly what were the reasons for such a 
structure, if the requirements listed under year 200 7 were still effective or if the requirements listed 
under year 2009 should be considered the current se t of requirements.  Since the responses to the 
Questionnaire appeared to omit certain products fo r which import licensing procedures were required, 
such as steel and iron, he asked Indonesia what the reasons were for not having yet notified these 
measures.  He therefore, asked Indonesia to review  its previous notifications and its responses to the 
Questionnaire and to ensure that the full scope of  its import licensing procedures was appropriately 
notified to the Committee on Import Licensing.  His delegation would submit these questions in 
writing and hoped to receive a prompt response from Indonesia. 
 
1. 26 The delegate of Indonesia indicated that  Decree 56/2008 was designed to address illegal trade 
and favour the development of an effective tracki ng system.  The selection of products was made 
following a criteria based on quantita tive data and adequate infrast ructure and represented the vast 
majority of imports to Indonesia.  He also clar ified that Decree 19/2005 had been revoked and was no 
longer applicable;  meanwhile Decree 65/2008 did no t regulate importation.  Therefore, there was no 
duplication of procedures.  Although the Decree requi red an import plan the purpose of this was only 
to provide import data which eventually would contribute to Indonesia's economic growth.  The Decree merely regulated importers' registration, did not intend to create barri ers to imports, and his 
delegation would convey Member's concerns to his capital.  
 1.27 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 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 Member of the WTO, together with copies of any relevant publications or  laws and regulations.  Any subsequent changes to 
                                                      
4 G/LIC/3. G/LIC/M/33 
Page 8 
 
 
  these laws and regulations were also required to be notified.  She informed the Committee that under 
these provisions there were two notifications re ceived from Lesotho, and Morocco, documents 
G/LIC/N/1/LSO/1 and G/LIC/N/1/MAR/1 and Corr.1, respectively.    
2.2 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)  
2.3 The Chairperson recalled that under paragraphs  1 to 4 of Article 5, Members who instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedur es, 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.  She informed 
the Committee that there were nine notifications lis ted in the airgram submitted under this provision 
by Argentina in documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/A dd.4; 10/Add.1; 14/Add.1; 15/Add/1; 16/Add.2; 
20/Add.1 and 22Add.1 and in documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/13/Corr.1 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/24.5  She 
also recalled that at the last meeting of the Co mmittee in October 2010, a notification received from 
Thailand under this provision and contained in doc ument G/LIC/N/1/THA/1, was not available in the 
three WTO official languages;  consequently it would be considered at this meeting. 
 
2.4 The delegate of the United States thanked Arge ntina for the additional notifications contained 
in documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/Add.4;  10/Add.1;  14/Add.1;  15/Add/1;  16/Add.2;  20/Add.1 and 
22Add.1;  since the translations were made availa ble in the other two official languages only a few 
days prior to this meeting, he asked that these notifications be held over to the next meeting. 
 
2.5 The delegate of the European Union indi cated that, on these notifications, her delegation 
would like to revert to the intervention she had made previously on Argentina's non-automatic import 
licensing procedures.  She also called upon Argentina to review its notification system, which was not 
clear and made it difficult to find what exactly had been notified given the current presentation and format.  She also requested that this item re main on the agenda for the next meeting.  
 
2.6 The delegate of Peru also indicated that she would like to revert to the statement made earlier 
under Agenda Item 2-A where mention to these no tifications from Argentina had been made by 
various delegations.  In these notifications ther e was no indication on which were the underlined 
measures that would be applied with the licensi ng regime;  Argentina should clarify the legal 
framework for these NALs procedures in th e case of textiles and other products.  
 
2.7 The delegate of Turkey thanked Ar gentina for the corrigendum in document 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/13/Corr.1 and indicated that he would like to revert to this notification at the next 
meeting.  
 
2.8 With regard to documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/13 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/24, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that in September 2007 Argen tina sent two resolutions to be circulated to 
Members:  Resolution MEyP 47/2007 and Reso lution MEyP 67/2007.  Given that these two 
resolutions were attached to a single note, inadve rtently, only Resolution 47/ 2007 was circulated in 
document G/LIC/N/ARG/13, but indicating the products  covered by the other resolution.  Thus, the 
                                                      
5G/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; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/22Add.1; 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/13/Corr.1 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/24.   G/LIC/M/33 
 Page 9 
 
 
  corrigendum to document G/LIC/N/2/ARG/13 clarifie d the product coverage of Resolution 47/2007, 
and document G/LIC/N/2/ARG/24 contained the information concerning Resolution 67/2007. 
 2.9 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) 
2.10 The Chairperson informed the Committee th at there were ten notifications received from 
20 Members listed in the airgram: Albania;  Ca mbodia;  Central African Republic;  China;  
Dominican Republic;  Gambia;  Lesotho;  M acao China;  the Philippines and Ukraine.6  She recalled 
that at the last meeting two notifications from Argentina contained in documents G/LIC/N/3/ARG/6 
and 7, as well as a notification from Korea in docum ent G/LIC/N/3/KOR/9 were not available in the 
three WTO official languages and that, conseque ntly, these would be considered at the present 
meeting.  She also informed the Committee that, after the airgram w as issued, two notifications were 
received from the Dominican Republic and Tonga;  these would be considered at the next meeting;  
nevertheless, she invited delegations to raise questio ns or comments at this meeting to be considered 
by Dominican Republic and Tonga at the next mee ting.  Finally, she congratulated Cambodia and 
Central African Republic for ha ving submitted their first notifications to the Committee.     
 
2.11 The delegate of Guatemala thanked Ukra ine for its responses to the Annual Questionnaire 
contained in document G/LIC/N/3/UKR/3 and indicate d his authorities were concerned by the regime 
applied to imports of raw sugar during 2010.  According to Ukraine's Protocol of Accession No.14 
regarding the quota contingents, Ukraine should be  applying as from 2011 "first come, first served" 
principle to increase transparency and facilitate an  equitable distribution of quotas.  Nevertheless, 
through Resolution 204, approved on 28 February 2011, Ukraine had amended the procedures to 
allocate and grant the quotas to import raw sugar.  This contradicted the purpose of facilitating and 
simplifying trade when importing raw sugar to Ukra ine.  He sought clarification from Ukraine on the 
following:  to which type of licences, automatic or non-automatic, did Paragraph 2 of the Resolution 
referred to?  Since licences would be approved by the Ministry of Trade, based on reports by the 
agricultural authorities, what would be the criteri a, requirements and timeframe for granting licences 
in each of the various bodies involved?  Would the method set up in Resolution 2004 for granting 
licences be a mixed one or not?  He finally requested  Ukraine to bring its new system in conformity 
with the commitments it undertook when joining th e WTO and to provide more information on the 
various changes.  
2.12 The delegate of Ukraine stated that the new system to allocate tariff quotas (TQs) did not 
create any problem on importation of raw sugar.  Quot a allocation was based on the "first come - first 
served basis".  His delegation had already notified this issue to the Committee on Agriculture, and 
would submit a notification to this Committee.  Ther e had been several meetings held with Guatemala 
to explain the new system for TQs allocation.  He finally invited Guatemala to submit written 
question and indicated that his authorities were open to any discussion on this matter. 
 
2.13 With regard to Argentina's notifications c ontained in documents G/LIC/N/3/ARG/6 and 7, the 
delegate of the European Union asked that they revert to the next meeting.  
 
2.14 The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.  
                                                      
6 G/LIC/N/3/ALB/5; G/LIC/N/3/KH M/1; G/LIC/N/3/ CAF/1; G/LI C/N/3/CHN/9; G/LIC/N/3/DOM/4; 
G/LIC/N/3/GMB/3; G/LIC/N/3/LSO/2; G/LIC/N/3/MAC/13/Rev.1; G/LIC/N/3/PHL/8; and G/LIC/N/3/UKR/3. G/LIC/M/33 
Page 10 
 
 
  3. Other Business 
(i) Information on results of the informal discu ssions on Transparency related to the Agreement 
on Import Licensing Procedures 
3.1 The Chairperson recalled that, following the i nvitation by the Chairman of the General 
Council made in 2009 and addressed to all the Comm ittee Chairs requesting them to consult with 
Members on ways to improve the timeliness and co mpleteness of notifications on trade measures 
within their respective areas of responsibility, this Committee held several informal meetings where 
the issue was discussed.  Delegations who intervened at the informal discussions on transparency had 
unanimously highlighted the importance of improvi ng compliance with notification obligations, and 
encouraged the subsequent Chair of this Committee to continue within the Committee, the discussions 
on ways and means to improve timeliness and completeness of notifications.   
 
3.2 She also recalled that, as a result of the info rmal process, in April 2010 delegations requested 
her to compile two Room documents presented by some Members containing ideas and suggestions to 
improve transparency and flow of other informa tion related to the Agreement on ILPs.  At the 
October 2010 informal meeting, not only did she pr esent a compiled text of the two Room documents 
prepared under her own responsibility, , but al so she requested, under her own responsibility, the 
Secretariat to prepare two notification forms re lating to the notification procedures under Articles 
1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), and Article 5 of the Agreement.   The majority of delegations who intervened at 
that meeting welcomed the latter and expressed that these forms could be useful and helpful not only 
to facilitate compliance with the notification oblig ations under the provisions mentioned above, but 
also to better understand and convey the pertinent information and rules concerning the administration 
of their ILPs.  Some others, while welcoming the initiative, indicated that they were not yet in a 
position to adopt electronic forms to notify under th e transparency provisions in the Agreement on 
ILPs.   
 
3.3 She also informed the Comm ittee that, in an informal meeting prior to this meeting, 
delegations who intervened reiterate d and highlighted the importance of the forms, the benefits that 
would be derived from use thereof, such as upgrad ing the quality and standardizing the information 
submitted by Members, facilitating the tasks of office rs responsible for notifications in their capitals, 
and therefore encouraged the use of forms, on a volunt ary basis, to notify under Article 1.4(a) and/or 
8.2 (b) and Article 5 of the Agreement.  Few dele gations highlighted these benefits and advantages 
but indicated they were still not in a position to adopt  such forms, but that they would not oppose to 
their use by Members who wish to do so.   
3.4 She concluded that as a result of two years of informal discussions, there was wide support 
for the use of the forms on a voluntary basis, which in real terms meant that if some Members decided 
to use the forms, they could do so to fulfil their notification oblig ations under the Agreement, while 
the ones who would like to continue using the formats they had customarily been using would 
continue to do so.  In light of the above, and as announced at the informal meeting which took place 
immediately before this meeting, she requested th e Secretariat to circulate the forms in the G/LIC 
document series and to make them available to Memb ers, indicating that these were forms that could 
be used on a voluntary basis by Members who would like to fulfil their notification obligations under 
the said provisions; she also requested the Secretar iat to post the forms on the Members' website to 
facilitate usage.    
3.5 Finally, she expressed her gratitude to all dele gations who had so actively taken part in the 
informal consultations and discussions and who al so presented ideas and suggestions that had been 
put in place by many Members and the Secretariat.  She was confident this would result in increased 
and enhanced transparency, which would help gove rnments and traders to be acquainted with the 
rules and administrative ILPs currently applie d by Members and consequently would allow  G/LIC/M/33 
 Page 11 
 
 
  international trade to flow smoothly, and encouraged  all delegations to continue this process in the 
future. 
 3.6 The Committee took note of the information and agreed that the forms be circulated in the 
G/LIC document series and posted on the WTO Members website. 
 4. Date of the next meeting 
4.1 The Chairperson informed Members that th e Secretariat had tentatively reserved Monday, 
31 October 2011 for the next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings would be convened if necessary.   
 4.2 The Committee took note of the information. 
 
5. Election of Officers 
5.1 The Committee elected by acclamation Mr. Flavio SOARES DAMICO (Brazil) as 
Chairperson of the Committee, to hold office until the end of the first meeting of 2012, under Rule 12 
of the Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also elected by acclamation Mr. Gustavo BOSIO (Israel) as Vice-Chairperson. 
 
__________