RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/30 
30 November 2009 
 (09-6048) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 19 OCTOBER 2009 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Anna Ashikali (Cyprus
) 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its thir tieth meeting on 19 October 2009.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/3454 and Revision 1, was adopted as 
follows:    
Table of Contents
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification obli gations –  Developments since the last 
meeting ........................................................................................................................ ...............1  
2. Notifications.................................................................................................................. .............8  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation)............................................................................................................ ...........8  
(ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)..........................................8  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures)................................................................................................... 10 
3. Eighth Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China (WT/L/432) ...............................................................................11  
4. Report (2009) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods ..................................12  
5. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........12  
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that since the last meeting, 52 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (eight 
notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) , fourteen under Article 5.1-5.4 and thirty under 
Article 7.3).  As of the date of the meeting, out of a total Membership of 153 (counting each of the EC 
member States individually), there remained 21 Members1 who had not submitted any notification 
under the Agreement since joining the WTO.  She highlighted that in 2009 some Members2 had 
submitted notifications for the first time under vari ous provisions of the Agreement and encouraged 
them to continue complying with their notificati on obligations;  she also encouraged those Members 
who had not yet submitted any notification,  to do so without further delay.  
                                                      
1 Angola, Belize, Botswana, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, 
Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique , Myanmar, Nepal, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, 
Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Tanzania,  Tonga and Vietnam. 
2 Croatia, Nicaragua, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Suriname. G/LIC/M/30 
Page 2  
 
  1.2 Only a cumulative total of 96 Members, counting the European Communities as one, had 
submitted notifications on laws a nd regulations (under Articles 1.4( a) and/or 8.2(b)).  Only 32 
Members, counting the European  Communities as one, had notified new licensing procedures or 
changes in the existing procedures (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 legislation or replies to the Questionnaire.  In addition, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that, while Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to submit 
counter-notifications (where a Member considers th at another Member has not notified the institution 
of a licensing procedure or changes in the pro cedures), no such counter-notifications had been 
received up to the date of this meeting.  As to the replies to the Questionnaire
3, notifications under 
Article 7.3, only a cumulative total of 95 Memb ers, counting the European Communities as one, had 
submitted their replies since the entry into fo rce of the WTO Agreement.  For Article 7.3 
notifications, the annual deadline of 30 September was not often respected by many Members.  In 
brief, she stated, compliance with the notificati on obligations under the Agreement had improved but 
there still remained important gaps.  She also re minded delegations that, twice each year, the CRN 
and the Secretariat sent periodic reminders to tho se Members who had not fulfilled their notification 
obligations; and, informed the Co mmittee, that in 2009 the Chair ha d addressed specific letters to each 
one of the Members reminding them of their tran sparency obligations under the Agreement and 
highlighting the date of the last communication they had submitted under Article 7.3.  Only 39 
Members had responded to the Chair's request  and submitted their responses to the Annual 
Questionnaire.   
 
1.3 In brief, she stated, the compliance with th e notification obligations under this Agreement had 
improved, but there still remained important gaps.  She therefore urged all those Members who had 
not yet provided information on their laws and regula tions relevant to import licensing, nor replied to 
the annual Questionnaire, nor notified the institutio n of new import licensing procedures or changes 
since their previous notifications to do so without further delay.  She also highlighted that Members 
who did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or regulations relevant to the 
Agreement were also required to notify the Committee of this fact for Members to obtain a complete 
overview of the licensing regimes of all Members.  If any Member had questions concerning these notification requirements, they would be welcom e to consult the Secretariat or, in the case of 
developing and least developed countries, they could also ask for technical assistance.   
 
1.4 The delegate of the United States
 referring to the informal discussions that had taken place on 
ways to improve the timeliness and completeness of  notifications in the Committee, expressed that 
these were useful and recalled that several delega tions, including her own,  came up with concrete 
suggestions for improvement;  in this regard sh e asked the Chairperson to update the Committee on 
the results and further steps or plans to hold further discussions on the matter. 
 1.5 In response, the Chairperson
 informed the Committee that Mr. Marco J. Kassaja, the Chair of 
this Committee, had informed the Chairperson of th e TPRB of the results of the informal discussions 
and of the ideas and suggestions presented by Member s.  In light of these, he had prepared and sent 
specific letters to each one of the WTO Members reminding them of their transparency obligations 
and highlighting the date of the last notificati on received from their authorities, especially under 
Article 7.3 of the Agreement.  In his letters he al so invited Members to review the status of their 
notifications in general and update them whenever necessary, but only a few Members, less than 40, 
responded to his invitation.  She also reminded Memb ers that, at the last  informal meeting, on 
30 April 2009, some Members were of the opinion th at discussions should continue but in an informal 
mode.  However, the Chair was open to new ideas and ways to continue the discussion in this 
Committee on ways and means to improve the timelin ess and completeness of notifications and other 
information flows.  Discussions could be in an in formal mode, or under an item in the agenda of the 
                                                      
3 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/30 
 Page 3 
 
 
  next formal meeting.  The Chair's position was due , to the interest that Members had expressed at 
informal meetings, as well as the fact that the issu e had been a main concern of the Committee and its 
Chairs for at least the last four years.  1.6 The delegate of Australia
 echoed the query of the United States on the status of discussions 
on ways to improve compliance with transparency ob ligations.  He appreciated the Chair's report and 
urged Members to comply with notification obligations.   1.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made.  
 
1.8 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that, as the airgram and its revision indicated, the 
following documents were before it for considera tion:  document G/LIC/Q/CHN/22/Add.1 and Corr.1 
containing questions from Australia to China; doc ument G/LIC/Q/BRA/5/Add.1 containing questions 
from China to Brazil; document G/ LIC/Q/ARG/8 containing the replies from Argentina to the 
questions from Canada, China, the European  Communities, Japan and the United States4; document 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/9 containing the replies fro m Argentina to the questions from Peru5;  document 
G/LIC/Q/BRA/11 containing the replies from Brazil to the questions posed by China6;  document 
G/LIC/Q/BRA/12 containing the replies from Br azil to the questions posed by Thailand7 ;  document 
G/LIC/Q/IND/14 containing the replies from India to the questions posed by the United States8.    
 1.9 The delegate of Australia
 thanked China for its initial replies9 to the questions relating to its 
import licensing regime on iron and iron ore10.  Given that some of the initial questions had not been  
addressed by China, Australia had submitted follow-up questions in May 2009 (documents 
G/LIC/Q/CHN/22/Add.1 and Corr.1) for which respon ses were also still outstanding.  His delegation 
had also noted that, since the last meeting, Chin a had introduced import licensing procedures for other 
products, including milk way and milk powder, and would like China to assure that these new import 
licensing regimes were intended for monitoring purposes only and would not be used to control 
imports.  1.10 The delegate of China
 said that his delegation had received the additional responses to 
Australia's questions and was in the process of transl ating them into English to be circulated to the 
Committee. 
 
1.11 The delegate of China   informed the Committee that hi s delegation had follow-up questions11 
on the Brazilian non-automatic import licensing syst em applied to toys for which responses and 
clarifications by Brazil would be appreciated.   
1.12 The delegate of Brazil
 thanked China for its follow-up questions on the import licensing 
procedures for toys and informed him that his authorities would provide answers soon.  1.13 The delegate of Peru
 said that her delegation was still concerned at the progressive and 
increasing list of products subject to import licensing prescriptions in Argentina which, in its view, 
could lead to unnecessary requirements in violation of  the Agreement.  Peru had additional questions 
related to Argentina's replies contained in doc ument G/LIC/Q/ARG/9 and to the most recent 
                                                      
4 See also document G/LIC/Q/ARG/6. 
5 See also document G/LIC/Q/ARG/7. 
6 See also document G/LIC/Q/BRA/5. 
7 See also document G/LIC/Q/BRA/7. 
8 See also document G/LIC/Q/IND/11/Add.1. 
9 See document G/LIC/Q/CHN/26. 
10 See document G/LIC/Q/CHN/22 and Corr. 1. 
11 See documents G/LIC/Q/BRA/5 and 11. G/LIC/M/30 
Page 4  
 
  Argentinean notifications, namely document G/LIC/ N/2/ARG/18:  (i) according to Argentina, the 
increased number of products covered by the non-au tomatic licensing mechanism was explained by 
the volatility of the international market.  Peru would like Argentina to explain the relationship 
between the volatility of the international mark et and the purpose of the non-automatic licensing 
procedure which was to establish a pre-release veri fication mechanism to monitor and control imports 
of certain goods (section (g) of notifications  G/LIC/N/2/ARG/12, G/LIC/N/2/ARG/12/Add.1, 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/16 and G/LIC/N/2/ARG/18).  Did this  relate to Argentina's reply to the question 
contained in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/8, which referre d to the need to extend the coverage of the 
system of non-automatic licences to certain tariff lines corresponding to products that were sensitive 
to changes in trade flows caused by  the world economic and financial crisis?  What specific criteria 
had Argentina used to determine that a tariff line was " sensitive" to fluctuations?  (ii)  With regard to 
question 1(c), Peru would like Argentina to explain what other procedures it had considered in order 
to achieve the objective of monitoring and controll ing imports, and why it believed that non-automatic 
import licensing was the most appropriate and least tr ade-restrictive system.  (iii)  Regarding question 
2, why were applications for non-automatic impor t licences now being exam ined simultaneously 
rather than on a first-come, first-served basis as before?  
 1.14 On the other hand there were cases where th e Argentinean Ministry of Production required 
additional information in order to issue an  import certificate for miscellaneous products ( Certificado 
de Importación de Productos Varios , CIPV).
12 In this regard, Peru would like to know how such 
additional information contributed to achieving im port licensing objectives, taking into account that 
that this could run counter to Article 1.5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
 1.15 The delegate of Argentina
 said that Peru's additional ques tions would be conveyed to her 
Capital.  
1.16 The delegate of the United States  said that her delegation, alon g with other delegations, was 
greatly concerned about Argentina's import licensing system which was being used to restrict trade. 
The United States was also troubled by  the lack of transparency of the current system and the burdens 
and delays Argentina was reportedly placing on imports.  Her authorities had received numerous 
reports from importers and exporters, trade associatio ns and press stating that Argentina was using its 
import licensing procedures in an attempt to improve  its trade balance;  companies had also reported 
that they had been told that their applications  would not be approved unless they agreed to trade 
balance requirements established by the Secretary of Domestic Trade and that, in order to obtain an 
import licence, they also might show an increase in  exports of the same dollar value of Argentina-
originating goods.  The US had serious concern a bout such balancing and mi xing requirements, which 
established quantitative requirements for imports, a nd did not believe that import licensing systems 
should be used for such purposes.  Her authoriti es would appreciate receiving from Argentina an 
explanation to these reports, including indication of the legal requirements authorizing this treatment 
as well as the pertinent copies for revi ew by the Committee;  she also requested Argentina to indicate, 
in greater detail, how it considered  its policy to be WTO consistent. 
 1.17 The United States was also concerned about the significant delays in processing times which 
had trade-restricting effects.  Although Argentina ha d denied that delays existed, industry and press 
reports indicated that importers experienced delays of  120 days or greater to obtain an import licence;   
such reports directly conflicted with Argentina' s past statements, most recently at the April 2009 
meeting, that all import licences were issued in the time periods prescribed by the Agreement.  In its 
replies contained in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/8, Argentina claimed that the expansion of 
                                                     
 
12 Such as a) brochures pertaining to and description of the goods that were the subject of the 
application.  b) process diagram showing the entire production cycle of the goods referred to in (a).  c) details of the inputs used.  d)  the origin of the inputs used and their relative share in the final production cost; and, e)  the 
full list of the products manufactured  by the producing/exporting company.  G/LIC/M/30 
 Page 5 
 
 
  non automatic licensing requirements was necessary for certain sensitiv e products due to changes in 
the trade flows caused by the world economic and fi nancial crisis;  her de legation would appreciate 
receiving this response, but still questioning the specific underlying measure Argentina was 
implementing through this non-automatic import licen sing regime.  Reports about Argentina's current 
method of administering its import licences were extr emely unsettling, she added, and its failure to 
provide an adequate explanation fo r its actions was even more troubling.  The United States requested 
Argentina to uphold its commitment to the WTO Ag reement on ILPs and to ensure that import 
licences were issued in a timely manner and no mo re administratively burdensome than absolutely 
necessary.  Her authorities understood that Argen tina had had lately some balance of payments 
concerns, but encouraged it to resolve them in a manner consistent with its  WTO obligations.  Her 
delegation would continue to follow this issue, and would be submitting specific questions shortly. 
 1.18 The delegate of the European Communities
 echoed the concerns expressed by Peru and the 
United States.  The EC found the justification given by Argentina for increasing the criteria and requirements for IL unjustified and unconvincing.  Reports on non-justified delays in issuing import 
licences were still being received by the EC;  these de lays represented a serious obstacle to European 
exports to Argentina; additionally, the extended requirements to grant import licences to an expanded 
number of goods was also a matter of concern.  In its responses
13, Argentina had asserted that the 
timeframe to grant automatic licences was established by Article 2 of the Agreement;  the EC would 
like Argentina to clarify whether or not, in practi ce, this delay was respected.  Argentina had also 
confirmed that non-automatic import licensing were  mechanisms to confirm whether goods were 
complying with technical regulations and other requirements established by its current national 
legislation and to verify the ver acity of data provided by suppliers ;  if goods complied with these, the 
pertinent institution granted licences within the time-frame established  in the Agreement.  The EC 
would like Argentina to explain when these techni cal regulations and other requirements had been 
established and to receive copies of them.  Argentin a had also said that the timeframes under Art. 3.5 
of the Agreement were respected;  the EC would like  Argentina to confirm this.  With regard to the 
delays and conditions to grant non-automatic import licences, Argentina had indicated that 
applications were examined on a first-come, first-ser ved basis but that currently these were considered 
simultaneously;  the EC would like to know what were the reasons and legal basis for this.   
 1.19 For the EC, the justification by Argentina for the verification procedures for environmental, 
security or consumer protection regulations with regard to Decree 26/2009, establishing 
non automatic licensing for new tyr es, was also a matter of concern.  Her delegation would like 
Argentina to explain what were those regulations;  if they were for environmental or security reasons; 
when were they adopted;  if it would receive copies of those regulations;  and, on which basis Argentina considered that requirements to gran t import licences were needed to assess compliance 
with these regulations.  With regard to Decr ee 61/2009, through which Argentina had increased the 
coverage of certain tariff lines to import licensing, the EC would like to receive more information.  
Argentina had also mentioned that import licensing  had been introduced on a transitional basis in 
order to verify whether the technical regulations and other requirements were respected by different 
kinds of goods;  the EC would like to know when this regulation was adopted and to receive copies, 
also to know on what basis Argentina determined  that the requirements for granting licences were 
necessary in order to guarantee the consistency with domestic legislation.  
 1.20 The delegate of Japan
 echoed the comments made by Peru, the US and the EC;  industries in 
his country still had concerns on Argentina's import licensing system, especially on the delays in the 
issue of import licences and the lack of clarity.  Japan would like to closely monitor Argentina's 
import licensing system. 
 
                                                      
13 See document G/LIC/Q/ARG/8. G/LIC/M/30 
Page 6  
 
  1.21 The delegate of Argentina
 requested the questions in writing to be transmitted to her capital.  
With regard to the delays in issuing import licences  and the copies of the pertinent legislation that had 
been notified, she stated that these delays were in accordance with the Agreement and that copies of 
the legislation were available from the Secretariat, but that Members could also address their request directly to her delegation.  
 
1.22 The delegate of China
 said that Argentina's responses were still being studied in his capital.  
1.23 The delegate of Thailand said that her authorities continued to review and follow the 
Brazilian two-track system applied to toys14 and were interested in receiving the written responses 
from Brazil to the additional questions put by China on the same matter.  
 
1.24 The delegate of Brazil  informed the Committee that the a dditional questions from China were 
under analysis and, once ready, would also be conveyed to Thailand.   
 1.25 The delegate of the United States
 thanked India for its responses to the questions on the 
import licensing procedure for boric acid15 in which India had stated that it was an automatic 
procedure.  However, India appeared to exercise discretion in granting the quantity that could be 
imported under an import licence given that in the responses, it had also indicated that the quantity was based upon a recommendation of the Nodal Ministry as well as on the quantity imported by the applicant during the preceding five years.  This procedure was having a negative impact on the US 
trade;  she therefore requested clarification from Indi a regarding how it considered its regime to be an 
automatic import licensing procedure.  The issue of  the import licence application related to the 
precise end-use requirement of boric acid and the impact that this requirement was having on the ability of intermediaries to sell non-insecticidal boric acid in India was another concern for her delegation and she requested India to explain, in greater detail, why this information was necessary 
and how the import licensing procedure ensured th at the good was not being misused once imported 
into India.  With regard to India's submission unde r Article 7.3 of the Agreement, she requested India 
to provide product specific replies to each question a nd to submit a list of those products subject to IL 
procedures as well as an indication of whether th e procedures for these products were automatic or 
non-automatic since the references India had previo usly made to a website alone did not provide 
sufficient information to Members.   
1.26 The delegate of India
 requested the US to send its questions in writing to be transmitted 
promptly to his capital.  1.27 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee that, immediately before the meeting started, two 
communications were received  from Brazil and Indi a, the first one containing Brazil's responses to 
the United States on its import licensing regime a pplied to lithium products and, the second one 
containing India's responses to the questions posed by Korea on the Indian import licensing scheme for steel products and other items.  These two communi cations were available at the back of the room, 
and would be circulated as G/LIC/Q/BRA/13 and G/LIC/Q/IND/15, respectively.  Though they would 
be considered at the next meeting, she invited delegations to comment on them.   
 
1.28 The delegate of Brazil  confirmed that his delegation had just circulated written replies to the 
questions posed by the US on the Brazilian IL procedures for lithium and lithium compounds;  these 
answers were basically the same as those provided to  the US at the two previous meetings of the 
Committee.  They were recorded in  the minutes of the meetings and were provided in written form 
with the aim that there were no more procedural pending issues relating to this issue. 
                                                      
14 See documents G/LIC/Q/BRA/7 and 12. 
15 See document G/LIC/Q/IND/14.      G/LIC/M/30 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.29 The delegates of Korea  and the United States  thanked, respectively, India and Brazil for their 
responses.  1.30 The delegate of Mexico
 recalled that, at the previous m eeting, her delegation had submitted 
written questions to Brazil and Venezuela16 regarding Brazil's import licensing system applied to 
motor vehicles and Venezuela's certificate of insufficiency or non-national production.  Her 
delegation sought clarification from Brazil on the procedures it followed when considering 
applications for non-automatic import licences fo r motor vehicles and, specifically, into which 
category new motor vehicles fell -"products which may cause damage to human, plant or animal 
health;  products capable of causing environmental damage;  products classified as weapons or made 
for warlike purpose or products subject to non-ta riff quotas and products subject to tariff quotas".  
What were the reasons for placing them in the respectiv e category;  what specific criteria were used to 
reject amendments to an import licence when these related to insignificant or minor changes such as 
variations in quantity, as provided in Article 1 of the Agreement, and to request the exporter to submit 
a new application to obtain another import licence for the same product.   
 
1.31 From Venezuela her delegation would like to know: (i) what were exactly the "certificates of 
insufficiency" or "certificates of no-national producti on" to which a resolution referred and that were 
required for the importation of a number of products; ( ii) if this was an administrative procedure in the 
sense of Article 1.1 of the Agreement, what was its justification;  (iii) what criteria were used to 
determine the products whose importation was subject  to these certificates; (iv) what information was 
required when applying for the certificates and what specific criteria did Venezuela use in approving 
or rejecting applications;  (v) which was the author ity in charge of issuing the certificates and what 
was the normal processing time;  (vi) if it was possibl e to challenge the rejection of the application 
and if so, what was the procedure;  and, (vii) if  the measure establishing these certificates had already 
been notified to the Committee.  Mexico looked forw ard to receiving written answers to its questions.  
 
1.32 The delegate of Brazil  informed the Committee that writte n responses to Mexico's questions 
on ILPs for motor vehicles w ould be submitted promptly.  
 1.33  The delegate of Venezuela
 informed the Committee that Mexico's questions were being 
consulted in his capital and written responses would be submitted soon.  
 
1.34 The delegate of the United States  recalled that at the last meeting her delegation asked if there 
had been any changes to Vietnam's IL regimes sin ce its last notifications which were submitted prior 
to its accession to the WTO in 2007.17  The US was aware of one new import licensing requirement 
implemented since Vietnam's accession which had not yet been notified to the Committee.  This was a 
circular issued in December 2008 establishing au tomatic import licensing requirements on a broad 
range of products.  Her delegation encouraged Vietnam to notify the Committee of this new IL 
procedure and to circulate updated r esponses to the Annual Questionnaire. 
 1.35 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
                                                      
16 Contained respectively in documents G/LIC/Q/BRA/10 and G/LIC/Q/VEN/5 
17 See document G/LIC/Q/VNM/1 G/LIC/M/30 
Page 8  
 
  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 Committee,18 required all Members to publish their laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures, and notify these to th e Committee upon becoming a Member of the WTO, 
together with copies of any relevant publications or  laws and regulations.  Any subsequent changes to 
these laws and regulations were also required to be  notified.  She informed the Committee that since 
the last meeting, eight notifications had been received from Albania, Argentina, Canada, Croatia, 
India;  Morocco; Turkey and the United States19 and that the notification from India, received after the 
airgram and its revision had been issued, was not avai lable in the three WTO official languages.  This 
would be considered at the next meeting but she invited delegations to comment on it so as to allow India to respond at the next meeting.  2.2 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and of the notifications received from 
Albania, Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Morocco, Turkey and the United States. 
 
(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 under this provision there were 14  notifications submitted by:  Argentina; Croatia; 
Hong Kong, China;  Indonesia; Korea and Sing apore as listed in the airgram and its revision20.  
 2.4 The delegate of th e European Communities
, regarding the notification submitted by 
Argentina in document G/LIC/N/2/ARG/4/Add.1/Rev. 1, reiterated its concerns given the increasing 
requirements and criteria to obtain import licences.  She requested from Argentina clarification on 
whether it had notified Regulation 11 of 25 January  2008 and if this regulation complied with 
paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article 1 of the Agreement.   Argentina had also adopted Resolution 337 of 
21 August 2009 extending the application of licensing procedures to several products such as motor 
vehicle parts and other related products;  the EC requ ested Argentina to:  (i) notify this regulation to 
the Committee;  (ii) confirm whether the licensing pr ocedures were automatic or non-automatic;  and,  
(iii) explain what were the conditions for grantin g import licences.  The EC would also appreciate 
detailed explanation on the specifi c product coverage of such procedures and on why the certificates 
of importation (certificados de importación) for mo tor vehicle parts and similar products were only 
required for end products.  These questions  would be circulated in written form. 
 
                                                      
18 G/LIC/3. 
19Documents G/LIC/N/1/ALB/3; G/LIC/N/1/ARG/3; G/LIC/N/1/ CAN/2; G/LIC/N/1/HRV/4;  
G/LIC/N/1/IND/12;  G/LIC/N/1/MAR/1/Add.1/Rev.1; G/ LIC/N/1/TUR/8 and G/LIC/N/ 1/USA/5, respectively. 
20 (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/4/Add.1/Rev.1 ); (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/16/Add.1) ; (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/17-21);  
(G/LIC/N/2/HRV/1); (G/LIC/N/2/H KG/4); (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2+Corr.1);  (G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2/Add.1);  
(G/LIC/N/2/IDN/3);  (G/LIC/N/2/KOR /1/Rev.1);  (G/LIC/N/2/SGP/5). 
  G/LIC/M/30 
 Page 9 
 
 
  2.5 With regard to Argentina's notifications c ontained in documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/17 – 21, the 
delegate of Mexico  informed the Committee that, concerning the licensing regime applied to electric 
and electronic products,  her delegation would like fu rther and detailed explanation from Argentina on 
the criteria mentioned in Resolution 251/09, notif ied in document G/LIC/N/2/ARG/21, which were 
applied by the Ministries of Economics and Producti on.  In particular, Mexico would like Argentina 
to further elaborate on the requirements, the procedures and timeframe to issue import licences to 
such products, also to clarify if those non-automa tic licences were subject to import quotas and, if so, 
what were the value and volume of such quotas.  Mexican exporters of electric and electronic 
products were also concerned about the delays and re jection of applications due to minimal mistakes 
in filling out those applications;  thus, she request ed Argentina to explain which were the applied 
criteria to reconcile any minor errors or discrepancies when applying for import licences and, 
specifically, what did Argentina consider a minor er ror, if applicants had the opportunity to introduce 
amendments in case of minor errors and, if so wh at were the delays.  Her authorities had understood 
that, in order to grant non-automatic import licen ces, the Argentinean authorities were permitted to 
request additional information beyond that which was published in the regulations establishing such 
measures.  She therefore asked Argentina to clarif y what additional information it usually required, 
which were the delays for applicants to provide  the additional information and if these additional 
requirements could be listed to facilitate appli cants' compliance with such requirements.  Her 
delegation would provide th ese questions in writing. 
 2.6 The delegate of Argentina
 said that her delegation hoped to  receive Mexico's and the EC's 
questions in writing so as to convey them to her capital. 
 2.7 The delegate of the United States
 said that her delegation continued to monitor the 
implementation of the Indonesian import licensi ng procedures established by Decree 56 (document 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2) and remained concerned about its sc ope.  It would continue to  bring its concerns to 
the attention of the Committee, as appropriate.  In th is vein, she requested clarification on issues such 
as: (i) what limitations were there on who could apply for an import licence;  (ii) could non Indonesian companies apply to import produc ts;  (iii) had Decree 23/M-DAG-PER-6-2009 
modified Decree 56 and, if so, when would Indonesi a notify it so as to allo w the US to review the 
amendments;  (iv) what effect did the amendment have on the import licensing procedures for textile, 
apparel and made-up goods and which specific textile and appare l items were still subject to those 
procedures;  and,  (v) which import licensing proce dures were applicable - those in Decree 56, those 
in the amendment 23/M-DAG-PER-6-2009, or both.  The US continued to be interested in 
Indonesia’s plan for the phasing out of all import licensing procedures for these goods;  it would also appreciate receiving updated statistics on the number and frequency of import licences that had been 
denied in recent months, and the reasons provided for any rejections .  Concerns also remained over 
the overall chilling effect on trade caused by th e interplay of the cumbersome import licensing 
requirements established by Decree 56 and other procedur es that might be completed in the country of 
importation and of exportation, including the accompanying pre-shipment inspection requirements.  
With regard to the necessity of the pre-shipment  inspection requirements established by Decree 56, 
the US would address these issues in  the appropriate Committee.   
 
2.8 On the import licensing regime applied to iron and steel (documents G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2 and 
Add.1), particularly Regulati on of the Minister of Trade No. 8/M-DAG/PER/2/2009 and its 
amendment in June 2009, the US requested Indonesi a to clarify the process for obtaining import 
licences.  Specifically, should importers seeking licences first obtain a technical consideration from 
the Ministry of Industry and then submit the informa tion to the Ministry of Trade in support of their 
application?  The US delegation would also appreciate receiving information on the process for 
obtaining the technical considerations from the Ministry of Industry; on what basis might this 
Ministry refuse to grant its consideration and how often had this Ministry denied requests from 
importers.   G/LIC/M/30 
Page 10  
 
  2.9  On Indonesia's import licensing regime applied to sugar, the US continued to have concerns 
and would continue to carefully monitor their implementation and effect on US traders.  According to the notification in document G/LIC/N/2/IDN/3 and the responses to the US questions
21, it seemed that 
Indonesia was using the licensing system to regulate who imported sugar, how much was imported 
and when it could be imported.  Therefore, her de legation requested clarification form Indonesia on 
how it considered its regulations to be WTO comp liant and how two different regimes could work 
together, the latter given that Indonesia’s notifica tion indicated that refined sugar (1701.99.11.00 and 
1701.99.19.00) was subject to both non-automatic and automatic import licensing procedures.  The 
US also sought confirmation from Indonesia on whether or not there was a requirement for importers 
to purchase domestic sugar supplies prior to receiving permission to import; and, requested information on the number of applications to import sugar that had been submitted over the last year 
and, how many of these had been approved and how many rejected.  The US would circulate these 
questions in writing.  
2.10 The delegate of the European Communities
 echoed the concerns expressed by the US 
delegation on Indonesia's Decree 56-08 which, accordi ng to Indonesia was not an IL regime but was 
designed to register importers.  Indonesia had also  mentioned that when information required in 
article 2.3 of Decree 56 was provided, registratio n took place within the following seven working 
days and that, upon registration, the import licence w as automatically issued.  The EC considered that 
if import licences were automatically delivered on th e basis of the quantities specified in the import 
plan, as mentioned in Article 2.3 of Decree-56,  there were de facto  procedures.  Therefore, Decree 56 
should be notified under Article 5 of  the Agreement.  If no relationship existed between the import 
plan mentioned in Article 2.3 of Decree 56 and the issuance of import licences, the EC would like 
Indonesia to clarify the legal basis on which it s upported such a measure.  Her delegation was also 
interested in obtaining the complete list of docum ents required by Indonesia to support an application 
as well as the conditions to deny it.  The EC woul d submit these and further questions in writing to 
Indonesia.  2.11 The delegate from Indonesia
 said his delegation hoped to receive the questions from the US 
and the EC in writing so as to convey them to his capital. 
 
 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) 
2.12 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that there were 30 notifications listed in the 
Airgram and the Revision convening this meeting, received from Cameroon;  Canada; Costa Rica;  
Dominican Republic; Ecuador; The European Comm unities; Ghana; Grenada; Honduras; Hong Kong, 
China; Japan; Macao, China; Ma uritius; Morocco; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Oman; Senegal;  
Singapore; Suriname; the Separate Customs Terri tory of Taiwan, Penghu; Kinmen and Matsu; 
Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay and the United States22. Of these, thirteen 
                                                      
21 See document G/LIC/Q/IDN/9/Add.1. 
22 G/LIC/N/3/CMR/3; G/LIC//N/3/CAN/8; G/ LIC/N/3/CRI/6; G/LIC/N/3/DOM/3+ADD.1;  
G/LIC/N/3/ECU/3;  G/LIC/ N/3/EEC/12+ADD.1; G/LIC/ N/3/GHA/4; G/LIC/N/3/GR D/3; G/LIC/N/3/HND/3;  
G/LIC/N/3/HKG/13; G/LIC/N/ 3/JPN/8; G/LIC/N/3/MAC/12; G/LIC/N/3/MUS/3/CORR.1; 
G/LIC/N/3/MAR/7/REV.1; G/LIC/N/ 3/NIC//1; G/LIC/N/3/NGA/5; G/LIC/ N/3/NOR/4; G/LIC/N/3/OMN/4;  
G/LIC/N/3/SEN/3; G/LIC/N/ 3/SGP/7; G/LIC/N/3/SUR/1; G/LIC/N/ 3/TPKM/2/REV.1; G/LIC/N/3/THA/2;  
G/LIC/N/3/TTO/8; G/LIC/N/3/TUR/ 9; G/LIC/N/3/UKR/2; G/LIC/N/3/URY/4;  an d G/LIC/N/3/USA/6.  G/LIC/M/30 
 Page 11 
 
 
  notifications23 were not available in the three WTO official languages;  these notifications would be 
considered at the next meeting.  She also remi nded the Committee that, at the last meeting, the 
notification received from the Dominican Republic (G/LIC/N/3/DOM/3), was not available in the 
three WTO official languages and that this would be  considered at the present meeting together with 
its Addendum. 
 
2.13 The Committee took note  of the notifications from Came roon; Dominican Republic; Ghana; 
Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Japan; Macao China;  Morocco; Norway; Oman; Senegal; Singapore; 
Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; Turkey and Uruguay.  3. Eighth Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China (WT/L/432) 
3.1 The Chairperson
 recalled that the Seventh Transitiona l Review of the implementation by 
China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provi sions of the Protocol, under paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of China (WT/L/432), had been  carried out in 2008 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/19.  The 
Committee would conduct the Eighth Transitional Review  at this meeting.  She also informed the 
Committee that, since the last meeting, the Secretaria t had received, after the airgram and its revision 
convening this meeting had been issued, a communication from China containing information 
required by paragraph IV:3 of Anne x 1A of the Protocol of Accessi on which had been circulated in 
document G/LIC/W/35.  3.2 The communication of the People's Republic of China stated that no major changes had occurred on China's import licensing regime since 2008.  The  Catalogue of Goods Subject to 
Automatic Import Licensing of 2009 , published in MOFCOM and GAC Joint Announcement No.103 
of 2008;  and, the Catalogue of Goods Subject to Import Licence Administration of 2009 , published in  
MOFCOM, GAC and AQSIQ Joint Announcement No. 99 of 2008, listed all the products subject to 
import licensing procedures, except for those under Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) administration. All the 
administrative rules could be found in China Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Gazette  and 
could also be obtained from MOFCOM website: ( WWW.MOFCOM.GOV.CN
). 
  
3.3. The Committee took note  of the communication circulated by China. 
 3.4 The Chairperson
 suggested that, to conclude th e Eighth 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.    3.5 The Committee so agreed
.  The report to the CTG on the Eighth Transitional Review was 
circulated in document G/LIC/20. 
                                                      
23 Received from Canada; Costa Ri ca; Ecuador; the European Comm unities;  Grenada; Mauritius;  
Nicaragua;  Nigeria;  Suriname;  the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu;  
Ukraine and the United States. G/LIC/M/30 
Page 12  
 
  4. Report (2009) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods  
4.1 The Chairperson
 said that the Committee was required to submit an annual report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods, (CTG).  A draft report to the CTG, covering the activities 
of the Committee in 2009, had been circulat ed in document G/LIC/W/34 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, as well as the discussion at this meeting. 
 4.2 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/903 
 
5. Other Business 
(i)  Information on technical assistance activities related to the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures 
 5.1 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee that, since th e last meeting of the Committee, one 
technical assistance activity had taken place, in Ecuador .  The general objective of this activity was to 
enhance the administrative capability of the diffe rent authorities to clearly understand the aim, 
purposes and particularities of the Agreement.  Traini ng was also provided to enable the authorities to 
differentiate between the two types of import licences and other trade barriers whose legitimate 
objectives could be better obtained through less trade -restrictive and less trade-distorting measures 
than import licences such as technical regulations, san itary and phyto-sanitary measures, etc.  These 
areas were covered as suggested by the local aut horities to better respond to the Annual Questionnaire 
as well as to concerns and questions raised by Members on import licensing procedures.  As a result of this, Ecuador had circulated document G/LIC/N/ 3/ECU/3.  Two requests for national seminars had 
been received by the Secretariat from Tanzania and Paraguay.  These activities would take place in 
early 2010. 
 
5.2 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
  
Date of the next meetings 
 
5.3 The Chairperson  informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Monday, 
26 April 2010 and Monday 25 October 2010 for th e next meetings of the Committee, on the 
understanding that additional meetings would be convened if necessary.    5.4 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
 
__________