RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/28 
23 December 2008 
 (08-6314) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Marco J. Kassaja (Tanzania
) 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its tw enty-eighth meeting on 20 October 2008.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/3256 and Addenda 1 and 2, was adopted as 
follows:    
Table of Contents
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification obligations – 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 procedures and reverse notifications)..........................................8  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures)................................................................................................... ..8 
3. Seventh Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol on 
the Accession of the People's Republic of China (WT/L/432)...............................................9  
4. Seventh Biennial Review of the Implementation and Operation of the  
Agreement under Article 7.1..................................................................................................10  
5. Report (2008) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods ..................................10  
6. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........10  
(i)  Statement from Canada......................................................................................................... ...10 
(ii) Information on technical assistance ac tivities related to the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures........................................................................................................... .....11  
 
1. Members' compliance with notification obligations – Developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that since the last meeting, 29 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (five 
notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) , four under Article 5.1- 5.4 and twenty under 
Article 7.3).  As of the date of the meeting, out of a total Membership of 153 (counting each of the EC G/LIC/M/28 
Page 2  
 
  Member States individually), there remained 21 Members
1 who had not submitted any notification 
under the Agreement since joining the WTO.  Nevert heless, he highlighted that during the past two 
years 2006 – 2008, some Members had submitted notif ications for the first time under various 
provisions of the Agreement and encouraged them, as well as other Members, particularly those who 
had not submitted any notification, to do the same.  
 
1.2 Only a cumulative total of 96 Members, counting the European Communities as one, had 
submitted notifications of laws a nd regulations (under Articles 1.4(a)  and/or 8.2(b)).  Only 26 
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 Questionnaire2, notifications under 
Article 7.3, only a cumulative total of 92 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 his 
view, this was an indication that some action was requi red in order to address this particular trend.  In 
brief, compliance with the notification obligations  under the Agreement had improved but there still 
remained important gaps.  He informed the Committe e that some Members had sent draft notifications 
to the Central Registry of Notifications (CRN) but these had been found to be incomplete or missing information.  In this regard, the Secretariat had c ontacted the delegation or the capital directly, but in 
several cases there had been no feedback.  He therefore urged all those Members who had not yet provided information of their laws  and regulations relevant to im port licensing, nor replied to the 
annual Questionnaire, nor notified the institution of new import licensing procedures or changes since 
their previous notifications, to do so without further delay.  He also reminded Members who did not apply import licensing procedures or had no laws or re gulations relevant to the Agreement were also 
required to notify the Committee of this fact in or der to obtain a complete overview of the licensing 
regimes of all Members.  He also informed the Committee that it was his in tention to hold some 
consultations with delegations in  order to encourage full and complete compliance with notification 
obligations.   
 1.3 The Committee took note
 of the statement made. 
 1.4 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee as the Airgram and its Addenda  indicated, that the 
following documents were before him for considera tion:  first, documents containing questions:  
G/LIC/Q/CHN/22 containing questions from Australia to China; G/LIC/Q/BRA/4 and G/LIC/Q/BRA/5 containing, respectively, questions  from the United States and China to Brazil;  
G/LIC/Q/IND/11 containing questions from the United States to India;  G/LIC/Q/IDN/9, containing questions from the United States to Indonesia;  G/LIC/Q/PHL/2 containing questions from the United States to the Philippines;  and, G/LIC/Q/VNM/1, containing questions from the United States to 
Vietnam;  second, documents containing replies to questions:  G/LIC/Q/ARG/5 containing replies 
from Argentina to the questions from the United States;  G/LIC/Q/USA/4 containing replies from the United States to the questions posed by Canada; and, G/LIC/Q/IND/12 containing replies from India to the questions posed by the United States.   
                                                     
 
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 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/28 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1.5 The delegate of the People's Republic of China , with regard to the questions from Australia, 
contained in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/22, informed the Committee that his cap ital was in the process 
of translating the replies from Chinese into E nglish and that these would be submitted soon to the 
Committee3.  
 
1.6 The delegate of the United States  recalled that over the last three years Brazil, in response to 
the United States' previous interventions and questions concerning lithium products and lithium 
hydroxide and lithium carbonate, had indicated that  an interagency commission was reviewing the 
United States request for information and justifica tion of the licensing restriction maintained on these 
products.  She stated that her delegation would a ppreciate an update from Brazil regarding the current 
status of the review and would like to know when it could be expected to be concluded.  Additionally, 
for almost five years, her delegation had also re quested Brazil to submit a notification regarding its 
licensing regime for these products.  From Brazi l's notifications and responses to the Annual 
Questionnaire, it did not appear that Brazil had no tified its restrictions on lithium products.  With 
regard to the import licensing regime applied to toys, her authorities wanted to know whether the 
information had been published, as set out in Article 1.4a) of the Agreement; and, in particular what 
were the relevant provisions of Brazil's legislation that established these requirements as well as its purpose.  Given the concerns and reports received from exporters, which worried her authorities, she 
referred to the written questions that  her delegation had posed to Brazil,
4 namely those related to the 
administration of the system, the criteria applied by Brazil for approving or denying import licences 
applications for shipments of toys; the use of refe rence prices which did not appear to have been 
published;  the length of time for processing appli cations;  and, the cancellation of applications 
without any further explanation or  determination.  As a result of these reports, her authorities were 
concerned that, in cases where the invoice value of the import was below a specified reference price, 
import licence applications had not been approved by Brazil.  Her authorities were also concerned that 
Brazil had not sufficiently notified the Committee of the full scope of its import licensing regime, 
while the limited notifications submitted by Brazil appeared to lack necessary information regarding 
certain products such as toys, lithium and lithiu m products.  Her delegation looked forward to 
receiving notice from the Brazilian authorities of the entire import licensing regime, properly notified as outlined in Articles 1.4.a); 5; 7 and 8.2.b) of the Agreement.      1.7 The delegate of China,
 stated that his delegation had similar concerns to those of the United 
States relating to Brazil's import licensing regime applied to toys.  Last year his authorities had 
received intensive complaints from the Chinese t oy producers and exporters.  China's concerns, 
contained in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/5, fell into two categories:  (i) unpublished reference-prices 
used by Brazil which implied that import prices belo w this threshold were channelled to a "red track" 
and subject to additional scrutiny and delay;  and,  (ii)  an increased time period to issue import 
licences that in some c ases exceeded 120 days.  China found these practices inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Ch ina stated that they would appreciate Brazil's 
responses to its questions.    1.8 The delegate of Brazil
 informed the Committee that Brazil's legislation affecting import 
licensing in his country had been modified twice during the current year.  Accordingly, his authorities 
had compiled and updated such information and had sent a notification pursuant to Articles 5, 1.4(a) 
and 8.2(b) which would be circulated soon.5  With regard to the questions posed to his delegation by 
the United States, he informed the Committee th at Brazil would formally send the following 
responses immediately after the Committee meeting:6  (i)  the list of products subject to non-automatic 
                                                      
3 Received and circulated after the Co mmittee meeting as G/LIC/Q/CHN/26 
4 See document G/LIC/BRA/4 
5 Received and issued after the Committee m eeting as documents G/LIC/N/1/BRA/4 and 
G/LIC/N/2/BRA/4 
6 Received and circulated after the Co mmittee meeting as G/LIC/Q/BRA/6  G/LIC/M/28 
Page 4  
 
  import licensing could be found, as previously mentioned in Brazil's communications to the 
Committee, on the webpage of the Ministry of Deve lopment, Industry and Foreign Trade;  toys, as 
products subject to import licensing procedures were also mentioned in the list.  Brazil's current 
import licensing requirements for toys were establis hed in Directive SECEX 36/2007 which, besides 
the general rules applied to non-automatic import licensing procedures, contained specific provisions 
for toys in Article 10, Paragraph 4 and in Annex B, Item VI. (ii)  In answers to the questionnaire cited 
by the United States, Brazil had stated that produc ts subject to non-automatic import licensing were, 
“in their majority”, products which might cause da mage to health or the environment, products 
classified as weapons or products subject to quotas. Therefore, the elements mentioned by the United 
States in its question were part of a non-exhaustive list.  Toys were subject to non-automatic import 
licensing procedures because there were technical regul ations that they might comply with and that 
had been notified to the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.  (iii)  Brazil did not use reference 
prices as a criterion to allocate import licenses;  the criteria for approving or denying import licence applications for shipment of toys was established in item VI of Annex B of Directive SECEX No. 36
7.  
The invoice value of the import was not a parameter fo r the allocation of import licenses.  (iv)  Unless 
the information provided was incomplete, the maximum length of time for processing import 
licensing for toys was 60 days.  On average, it t ook 15 days, thus it was in accordance with Article 
3.5(f) of the Agreement.  (v)  In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Directive SECEX 
36/2007, applications were cancelled when a problem  was detected and the operator had not corrected 
it within 90 days.  In those cases, Brazilian aut horities indicated what obligation the operator had 
failed to comply with, and pointed ou t the specific rule related to that obligation.  (vi) Brazil had just 
updated and notified to the Committee on the inform ation regarding both, the products subject to 
import licensing requirements, and the authorities responsible for granting import licenses, including their contact details, which were also provided on  the webpage of the Ministry of Development, 
Industry and Foreign Trade.   
1.9 With regard to the import licensing regime  for lithium and lithium compounds, he informed 
the Committee that these products were subject to so me controls in Brazil given that some lithium 
compounds had an application in the production of nuclear energy.  Therefore, these were treated as a matter of national security.  He also noted that  controls on lithium compounds were not uncommon 
and that other countries also had controls on the pr oduction of lithium products.  In Brazil, imports of 
lithium compounds depended on the authorizati on by CNEN which was the National Agency 
responsible for nuclear energy issues.  There was no discrimination against the country of origin of 
these products.  Import licences were granted on a fi rst-come first-served criteria.  As any other 
operator, importers of lithium compounds had to  be registered in CISCOMAX, which was the 
Brazilian system of foreign trade system, cited in previous notifications.  Each import request might 
be submitted to CNEN in a form which could be downloaded from the webpage already mentioned in 
Brazil's notification.  Brazil had informed the Co mmittee about the inter-ministerial group that was 
established to study the trade policy on lithium co mpounds;  after a thorough discussion on the topic, 
the inter-ministerial group had decided to temporar ily maintain the controls on lithium trade.   
 1.10 With regard to the questions posed by Chin a on the import licensing regime for toys, he noted 
that some of them overlapped with those from the United States on the same issue.  Therefore, they 
might had been addressed in his answers to the Un ited States.  Nevertheless, his authorities were 
                                                     
 
7 "The approval of import license applications for the shipment of toys depends on the compliance with 
the following requirements, in addition with those contained in Title 1 of this Directive:  (a) to indicate, in the field ‘complementary information’ of the licensing form, the number of the certifica tion contract, signed by the 
importer and the certification body accredited by INMETRO;   and (b) to submit the Certificate of Conformity 
regarding the shipment of toys being imported, confirming the certification and performing of the tests in accordance with INMETRO;  (b)(1) the Certificate of Conformity is valid  to only a single import license 
application.”  Annex B, item VI of Directive SECEX 36/2007.  G/LIC/M/28 
 Page 5 
 
 
  preparing the responses to China's questions, receive d only some days before the Committee meeting, 
in order to submit them to the Committee.  1.11 The delegate of Thailand
 informed the Committee that her authorities had also received 
information from Thai exporters regarding the import  licensing regime for toys applied in Brazil.  
Thailand had concerns on what it had understood as a two-track system applied by Brazil in the 
analysis of the non-automatic licence application fo r imported toys: the "green track" and the "red 
track".  If this was the case, her delegation want ed to ask Brazil about how these two-track systems 
operated and what was the criteria considered in assigning an application to these tracks.  Thailand 
also sought explanations from Brazil on whether diffe rent prices were used in connection with the 
two-track systems, and if so how and why?  She stated that if Brazil had notified the two-track 
different price systems for non-automatic licence app lications to the Committee, her delegation would 
appreciate it if Brazil could provide a copy of the provisions related to the two-track and different price systems.  Her delegation would send its questions in writing to Brazil
8 and also looked forward 
for Brazil's responses to China and the United States.  
 
1.12 The delegate of India  informed the Committee that document G/LIC/Q/IND/12 contained the 
responses provided by his delegation to th e questions posed by the United States. 
 1.13 The delegate of the United States
, thanked India for its responses and noted that the ITC (HS) 
Classification of Export and Import Items was now available online.  India also indicated that the ITC 
(HS) provided product specific import restrictions but, even though this document identified which 
products required import licenses, in the view of  her delegation, it did not provide all of the 
information required by the Agreement, nor did it re fer to the entire scope of India's import licensing 
procedures.  For example, the document merely st ated "Import of Boric Acid for non-insecticidal 
purposes would be subject to an import permit issued  by the Central Insecticide Board & Registration 
Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture" but, as ide from this statement, there was no additional 
information about the procedure.  Therefore, ac cording to Article 5.2 of the Agreement which 
required Members to include specific information in their notifications, the Un ited States appreciated 
it if India could provide information on the following:  (i) Was the import licensing regime for non-insecticidal boric acid automatic or non-automatic?  If the import licence was automatic, what was its 
administrative purpose?  If the import license wa s non-automatic, what was the measure being 
implemented through the licensing procedure?  (ii)  Were domestic producers of non-insecticidal boric 
acid subject to any similar requirements?  Why were  the procedures so different for importers?  Did 
domestic producers have to declare the specific e nd-use and quantity of each sale, as it was required 
for importers in order to obtain an import licence for non-insecticidal boric acid?  This was because 
India had stated that domestic producers were s ubject to the "rigorous requirement of obtaining 
registration before the CIB&RC."  (iii)  What crite ria did each ministry apply in determining whether 
to grant a no-objection certificate?  What criteria did the CIB&RC use to determine whether to grant 
an import license?  Could India provide addition al information regarding what information was 
required in the "pro-forma application" for an im port licence for non-insecticidal boric acid?  Could 
India provide a copy of the Department of Agricu lture's exhaustive list of government agencies that 
could issue end-use certificates, or indicate where to locate this exhaustive list of agencies?  In 
addition, what criteria did the GOI apply in dete rmining which agency sh ould issue the end-use 
certificate for a particular end-use?  Could multiple  agencies be responsible for issuing certificates 
for the same end-use?  Might an end user requ est an end-use certificate from any one of these 
agencies?  Her delegation intended to submit these questions in writing to India
9. 
 
                                                      
8 Received and circulated after the Committee meeting as G/LIC/Q/BRA/7. 
9 Received and circulated after the Committee meeting as document G/LIC/Q/IND/11/Add.1 G/LIC/M/28 
Page 6  
 
  1.14 The delegate of the United States
 informed the Committee that in  Indonesia, traders, different 
contacts and local press had reported to her authoritie s that the Indonesian Government was planning 
to introduce reforms to its import licensing regime that would limit sugar imports to favour domestic 
sugar production.  The reforms would require compan ies needing sugar for their operations, including 
the food and beverage industry, to purchase sugar from domestic refineries that had been beneficiaries 
of a government-supported revitalization programme .  Indonesia had recently indicated to her 
authorities that there was not a new import licensing sy stem currently being planned.  She stated that 
her delegation would appreciate confirmation by  Indonesia on whether it intended to revise the 
existing import licensing system and, if so, what was the projected timetable for its actual 
implementation.  Her authorities were interested  in any new licensing procedures and hoped that 
Indonesia would submit them to the Committee, as well as the responses to the questions contained in 
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/9.  1.15 The delegate from Thailand
 stated that her country was a ma jor exporter of sugar to Indonesia 
and that her authorities had also received a repor t from its local industry and from the Indonesian 
Sugar Importers who were facing difficulties given the new import licensing regime to import sugar 
into Indonesia.  Such regime involved quantitative restrictions of imported sugar in the form of a 
quota and of a special import licence with the inten tion to promote sugar self-sufficiency in Indonesia, 
which made it difficult to obtain an import licence fo r sugar.  Thailand stated that they would like 
Indonesia to respond in writing to the questions po sed by the United States as well as to the following 
additional questions10: (i)  Could Indonesia confirm that its new import licensing regime for sugar 
involved the above-mentioned measures -quantitative r estrictions of imported sugar in the form of 
quotas and also of a special import licence?  (ii)  Was the new import licensing system for sugar 
automatic or non-automatic?  (iii)  What specific criteria did Indonesia use for allocation of import 
licensing for sugar?  (iv) What was the maximum le ngth of time and how long did it normally take to 
process an application for a licence to import sugar?  (v) Could Indonesia provide any law or 
regulation concerning the import licensing procedures for the importation of sugar into Indonesia?  
Thailand was interested in discussing this matter furt her with Indonesia, either bilaterally or in any 
other form, to have a clearer understanding of the regime and be able to solve any problem in a 
satisfactory manner.   1.16 The delegate of Indonesia
 informed the Committee that an  official response would be 
promptly provided to the United States and that there would not be a new regulation on sugar in the 
near future.  His authorities were still using the 16 Regulation Form for sugar, issued by Decree of 
Ministry of Trade in 2004.  The Indonesian newspaper had quoted the Minister of Trade when he mentioned that Indonesia might not need "to import white sugar as the local producers would be able 
to meet local demands" once the government-funded refinery revitalization programme had been 
completed in 2009;  this refinery revitali zation programme had the aim to increase domestic 
production to match domestic demand for sugar by 2009.   1.17 The delegate of the United States
 recalled that at the previous meeting in April 2008, her 
delegation had requested additional informati on regarding the Philippines' import licensing 
requirements for telecommunications equipment.  She thanked the Philippines for the additional 
information it had recently provided, which was st ill being reviewed by her authorities.  She looked 
forward to the Philippines' revised notification on telecommunications equipment and encouraged the 
Philippines to circulate its written responses to  the questions posed by her delegation. 
 1.18 The delegate of  the Philippines
 informed the Committee that his delegation would promptly 
circulate its responses and that his authorities were still working on a new notification which included 
the licensing regime applied to telecommunications equipment.  
                                                     
 
10 Received and circulated after the Co mmittee meeting as G/LIC/Q/IDN/10  G/LIC/M/28 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.19 The delegate of the United States  informed the Committee of Viet Nam's August 2008 
decision to implement automatic import licences fo r certain goods.  Her delegation had submitted the 
questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/VNM/1 in order to seek additional information and looked 
forward to receiving Viet Nam's written responses.  Although her delegation had concerns regarding 
the scope and purpose of the automatic import licence requirement, her authorities were pleased to 
note that Viet Nam had recently reduced the number of products covered by the requirement and that 
Viet Nam had also decided to eliminate this practi ce by the end of the year, as prescribed in a recently 
published legislation.  1.20 The delegate of Viet Nam
 informed the Committee that his delegation would be promptly 
circulating its responses to the questions posed by the United States. 
 1.21 The delegate of the United States
 thanked Argentina for its replies, contained in document 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/5, and informed the Committee that, although her delegation had reviewed 
Argentina’s response to its questi ons, as well as the replies to the Questionnaire (G/LIC/N/3/ARG/5), 
her authorities continued to seek further clarifi cation from Argentina regarding its import licensing 
procedures for toys and footwear.  Specifically, the United States remained extremely concerned about the lengthy processing times that its exporte rs were encountering for import licenses for toys 
and footwear, which averaged approximately 120 da ys.  The United States had raised this issue 
several times, but had not received an explanati on from Argentina.  Her delegation would circulate 
additional follow up questions in writing on this issue,
11 and looked forward for Argentina's written 
responses by the next meeting. 
 1.22 The delegate from Argentina
 informed the Committee that, although Resolution 486/ 2005, as 
notified to the Committee did not set out timefra mes, the processing period for import licensing 
procedures normally lasted between 30 and 50 days, a processing period which complied with 
paragraph f. of Article 3.5 of the Agreement. 
 1.23 The delegate of Canada
 thanked the United States for its responses contained in document 
G/LIC/Q/USA/4, which were currently being studied in  her Capital.  She indicated that at this time 
there was no follow-up but her delegation would inform the Committee if there were additional 
questions. 
 
1.24 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 Committee12, 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.  He informed the Committee that five 
notifications had been received since the last m eeting from Albania, India, St. Lucia, Turkey and 
Ukraine13.   
 
                                                      
11 Received and circulated after the Commi ttee meeting as G/ LIC/Q/ARG/3/Add.1 
12 G/LIC/3. 
13 Contained in documents G/LIC/N/1/ALB/ 2; G/LIC/N/1/IND/11 ; G/LIC/N/1/LCA/3; 
G/LIC/N/1/TUR/7; and G/LIC/N/1/UKR/1, respectively. G/LIC/M/28 
Page 8  
 
  2.2 The delegate from the United States
 thanked Ukraine for having submitted its notification so 
quickly immediately after its recent accession.  2.3 The Committee took note
 of the notifications and statement made. 
 (ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, changes to 
existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)  
2.4 The Chairperson
 recalled that under paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, Members who instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedures,  were required to notify the Committee within 60 
days of the publication of these procedures.  Para graph 2 of Article 5 listed the information that 
should be included in such notifications.  Members also had to submit copies of the publications in 
which this information was publishe d.  Furthermore, paragraph 5 of  Article 5 provided the possibility 
of making counter-notifications, where a Member co nsidered that another Member had not notified a 
licensing procedure or changes therein, in accordance with paragraphs 1-3 of Ar ticle 5.  He informed 
the Committee that under this provision there were four  notifications submitted by:  Argentina, India; 
Malaysia and Moldova as listed in the Airgram and its Addenda14.  The notifications from Malaysia 
and Moldova were not available in the three WTO of ficial languages and would be considered at the 
next meeting, as well as a notification from Hong Kong, China15, received after the issue of the 
Airgram and its Addenda.   
 2.5  The Committee took note
 of the notifications from Argentina and India. 
 
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures) 
2.6 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that there were twenty notifications listed in the 
Airgram and the Addenda  convening this meeting, received from Argentina;  Armenia;  Canada;  
Costa Rica;  the European Communities;  Hong Kong, China;  India;  Jamaica;  Lesotho;  Macao, 
China;  Madagascar;  Malaysia;  Morocco;  Norway;  Saint Lucia;  Singapore;  Trinidad and Tobago;  
Turkey and Ukraine16.  He also informed the Committee that  the notifications from Canada;  Hong 
Kong, China;  Macao, China;  Malaysia and Morocc o were not available in the three WTO official 
languages; and that after the Airgram and its Addenda were issued,  one notification was received from 
China17 under this provision.  Thus, these notifications would be considered at the next meeting.  
 
2.7 The Committee took note  of the notifications from Argentina;  Armenia;  Costa Rica;  the 
European Communities;  India;  Jamaica;  Lesotho;  Madagascar;  Norway;  Saint Lucia;  Singapore;  
Trinidad and Tobago;  Turkey and Ukraine.  
                                                     
 
14 Contained in documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/Add.1; G/LIC/N/2/IND/10; G/LIC/N/2/MYS/3  and 
G/LIC/N/2/MDA/1, respectively. 
15 Contained in document G/LIC/N/2/HKG/3. 
16 Contained in documents G/LIC/N/3/ARG/ 5; G/LIC/N/3/ARM/5;  G/LIC/N/3/CAN/7; 
G/LIC/N/3/CRI/5; G/LIC/N/3/EEC/11 an d Add.1; G/LIC/N/3/HKG/12; G/LI C/N/3/IND/10; G/LIC/N/3/JAM/3; 
G/LIC/N/3/LSO/1; G/LIC/ N/3/MAC/11; G/LIC/N/3/MDG/3; G/LI C/N/3/MYS/4; G/LIC/N/3/MAR/7; 
G/LIC/N/3/NOR/3; G/LIC/N/ 3/LCA/5; G/LIC/N/3/SNG/ 6; G/LIC/N/3/TTO/7; G/LIC/N/3/TUR/8; and 
G/LIC/N/3/UKR/1, respectively. 
17 Contained in document G/LIC/N/3/CHN/7.  G/LIC/M/28 
 Page 9 
 
 
  3. Seventh 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 sixth transitional review of the implementation by China of 
the WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of the Protocol, under paragraph 18 of the Protocol 
of Accession of China (WT/L/432), had been carried out in 2007 by the subsidiary bodies of the 
WTO, including the Committee on Import Licensi ng, 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 review had been circulated in document G/LIC/17.  The 
Committee would conduct the seventh transitional review at the present meeting.  He also informed 
the Committee that since the last meeting, the Secretariat had received one submission from the 
United States (G/LIC/Q/CHN/23) containing questi ons on China's import licensing procedures.  The 
Secretariat had also received, after the Airgram and its Addenda convening this meeting were issued, 
a communication from China containing information re quired by paragraph IV:3  of Annex 1A of the 
Protocol of Accession which has been circulated in document G/LIC/W/33.  
3.2 The representative of the People's Republic of China
 informed the Committee that no major 
changes had occurred in China's import licensing regime since 2007 and that all China's related 
import licensing issues could be found in China' s Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation Gazette 
as well as in the website of MOFCOM, China's Ministry of Commerce.  3.3. The representative of the United States,
 referring to the questions posed to China under the 
transitional review (document G/LIC/Q/CHN/23) , informed the Committee that on 5 August 2008 
China’s General Administration of Quality Supe rvision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had 
issued Notice No. 87-2008 announcing the establishm ent of a new requirement for foreign cotton 
exporters who might obtain, before engaging in the export of cotton to China, a registration certificate 
from AQSIQ or face preshipment inspection requirements.  This notice established a starting date for 
the acceptance of registration applications by fo reign exporters of cotton of 15 September 2008 and 
set a deadline of 15 March 2009, by which time cons ignees might provide the registration certificate 
of a foreign exporter of cotton at the port of en try of a cotton shipment.  AQSIQ Notice No. 87-2008 
also imposed an obligation for consignees to include  a preshipment inspection clause in the contract 
or purchase agreement for importation of cotton from non-registered foreign suppliers, and described 
a quality credit appraisal system for implementation by AQSIQ.   
 
3.4 The representative of the People's Republic of China , in response to the concerns raised by 
the United States, informed the Committee that each  year China imported more than 3 million tonnes 
of cotton of which the total value exceeded US$4 billion and that the inferior quality of some 
imported cotton had been a problem for some time.  Chinese importers and users of this cotton were 
seriously injured due to quality problems such as plant diseases, insect pest s, hazardous substances, 
poor quality and shorter wheat.  The figure for 2006 showed that this was the case for almost 70% of 
cotton imports inspected.  Therefore, for quality purposes in preventing inferior cotton from entering 
into China and putting an end to deceptive practic es, China decided to implement the registration 
requirement from AQSIQ.  This registration did no t constitute a trade barrier but would serve to 
protect the legitimate activities of fair enterprises.  The complete text of this registration requirement, 
currently available only in Chinese, can be consu lted on the website of AQSIQ (www.aqsiq.gov.cn).  
With regard to the question concerning the qualif ication criteria in entering the certificate, the 
representative of China stated that it was advisable to  refer to Article I of the registration requirement 
which provided specific details.  Concerning the designation of an organization for pre-shipment inspection, the TBT National Enquiry Point should be  approached by interested Members via e-mail, 
telephone or fax (www.aqsiq.gov.cn; Te lephone 8861082260618; or Fax 8601082262448). 
 3.5 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 G/LIC/M/28 
Page 10  
 
  3.6 The Chairperson
 suggested that, to conclude th e Seventh 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 the oral and written comments and questions submitted to China, and the information received 
from China.  The relevant paragraphs of the minut es which reflected the di scussion would be annexed 
to this report.    3.7 The Committee so agreed
.  The report to the CTG on the seventh transitional review was 
circulated in document G/LIC/19. 
 
4. Seventh Biennial Review of the Implemen tation and Operation of the Agreement under 
Article 7.1 
4.1 The Chairperson  recalled that Article 7.1 of the Agreement provided that "the Committee shall 
review as necessary, but at least once every tw o years, the implementation and operation of this 
Agreement, taking into account the objectives thereof,  and the rights and obliga tions contained therein" 
and that the Sixth Biennial Review  of the Implementation and Operati on of the Agreement took place in 
October 2006.  He referred to the background documen t prepared by the  Secretariat, on its own 
responsibility and for the Committee's consideration,  circulated as G/LIC/W/31, which covered the 
period from 31 October 2006 to 20 October 2008;  he hi ghlighted that the Secret ariat had also included 
some figures which would help delegations to bett er assess Members' compliance with notification 
obligations under the different provisions of the Ag reement, since its entry into force and during the 
review period 2006- 2008.  He said that the document, as well as the annexes, would be updated to take 
into account the discussion at the present meeting.  This report would be circulated in the G/LIC/- 
series.     
4.2 The Committee agreed to adopt
 the report as updated18. 
 5. Report (2008) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods  
5.1 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 2008, had been circulat ed in document G/LIC/W/32 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. 
 5.2 There were no comments on the draft report.  The Committee agreed
 to adopt the report, 
subject to the updating.  The report as revised and adopted was circulated as document G/L/868 
 6. Other Business 
(i)  Statement from Canada 
6.1 The delegate from Canada
 recalled that at the April 2008 meeting her delegation had posed 
oral questions to Brazil and China.  Her author ities would like Brazil to put its responses in writing 
and were also looking forward to China's written responses.  In order to receive written responses 
from Brazil and China, her delegation intende d to circulate its questions in writing19.  
 6.2 The Committee
 took note of the statement. 
                                                      
18 The final report was circulated as document G/LIC/18, 13 November 2008. 
19 Received and circulated after the Committee meeting as G/LIC/Q/BRA/8  and G/LIC/Q/CHN/24  G/LIC/M/28 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (ii) Information on technical assistance activiti es related to the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures 
6.3 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that, during 2008, three countries had requested 
technical assistance from the Secretariat on the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures: Dominican Republic, Jordan and People's Republic of Lao.   The objective of these activities would 
be to enhance the administrative capability of the di fferent authorities to clearly understand the aims, 
purposes and particularities of the Agreement;  and to  enable the authorities to differentiate between 
the two types of import licences and other trade ba rriers whose legitimate objectives could be better 
addressed through less trade-restrictive and less trade-distorting measures such as technical 
regulations, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures, etc.  The first two activities would take place in 
November 2008 and the third one in early 2009. 
 6.4 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
  
Date of the next meetings 
 6.5 The Chairperson
 informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Thursday, 30 
April 2009 and Friday 23 October 2009 for the next  meetings of the Committee, on the understanding 
that additional meetings would be convened if necessary.    6.6 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
 
__________