RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/29 
22 July 2009 
 (09-3631) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30 APRIL 2009 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Anna Ashikali (Cyprus)
 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its twenty-ninth meeting on 30 April 2009. The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, containe d in WTO/AIR/3352 and Addendum 1, which were 
circulated on 20 and 28 April 2009, respectively, was adopted as follows:    
Table of Contents
 
 
1.  Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting ........................................................................................................................ ...............1  
2. Notifications.................................................................................................................. .............9  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation) ............................................................................................................ ...9 
(ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications) ................................10  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures)...........................................................................................10  
3. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........11  
(i) Information on technical assistance ac tivities related to the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures ........................................................................................................11  
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 that sin ce the last meeting, a total of 
30 notifications had been received: 2 notificati ons under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) on 
legislation/publications; 12 under Article 5.1-5. 4 on new licensing procedures or changes to the 
procedures in force; and 16 under Article 7.3 – repli es to the Questionnaire.  As of the day of the 
meeting, out of a total Membership of 153, coun ting the European Communities (EC 27) as one, there 
remained 22 Members1 who had not submitted any no tification under any provision  of the Agreement 
since joining the WTO.  He urged all those Members who had not yet provided any information on 
                                                      
1 Angola, Belize, Botswana, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, 
Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Lesotho, Mauritani a, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, St. Vincent & the 
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Isla nds, Tanzania,  Tonga and Vietnam. G/LIC/M/29 
Page 2  
 
  their laws and regulations relevant to import lic ensing to submit their notifications before the 
Committee without further delay.  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 96 Me mbers, counting the EC-27 as one, had submitted 
notifications.  Thus, 30  Members had yet to submit their notifications under this provision.  Under 
paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, only 31 Member s, the EC-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 import licensing procedures  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 cha nges in existing procedures to do so.  He informed 
the Committee that, while Article 5.5 of the Ag reement allowed Members to submit counter-
notifications, up to present no such counter-notifications  had been received.  As to the replies to the 
Annual Questionnaire under Article 7.3, he informed the Committee that only a cumulative total of 93 
Members, counting EC-27 as one, had submitted their re plies to the Questionnaire since the entry into 
force of the WTO Agreement;  thus, 33 Members had yet to submit their responses to the 
Questionnaire.  He also recalled that the annua l deadline for the responses was 30 September, a 
deadline often not respected by many Members.  He urged those Members who had not yet responded to the Questionnaire to submit their responses withou t further delay.  He 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 in order to obtain a complete 
overview of the licensing regimes of all Members.  He asked the Secretariat to send reminders to 
Members in this regard before 30 September 2009 a nd stated that compliance with the notification 
obligations under the Agreement had improved, but there still remained important gaps.  Finally, he 
informed the Committee that the Secretariat had c ontacted the delegation or the capital of those 
Members who had sent incomplete draft notifications to the CRN.  However, in most cases there had 
been no feedback from these contacts. 
 1.3 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee that, sin ce the last meeting, 21 documents 
containing questions and replies concerning licensing systems maintained by some Members had been 
circulated in the G/LIC/Q/- series.2  He also informed the Committee that most of them contained 
questions addressed to the same Member on the same s ubject matter;  thus, in order to facilitate the 
Committee's consideration of such documents he ha d grouped them in various sets.  The first set 
referred to document G/LIC/Q/ARG/3/Add.1 an d documents G/LIC/Q/ARG/6 and 7 containing, 
respectively, questions to Argentina addressed by: (i) the United States;  (ii) Canada, China, the 
European Communities, Japan and the United States;  and, (iii)  Peru.   
1.4 The delegate of the United States
 informed the Committee about the progressive expansion in 
Argentina of the product coverage subject to impor t licensing requirements and of the possibility that 
these procedures could have trade distortive effects.  She requested explanations from Argentina on:  
(i) what had prompted the addition of new produc ts subject to non-automatic and automatic import 
                                                      
2 Listed in the Airgram and its Addendum as follows: Questions: from Canada, China, the European 
Communities, Japan and the United States to Arge ntina (G/LIC/Q/ARG/6); from Canada to Brazil 
(G/LIC/Q/BRA/8),  to China (G/LIC /Q/CHN/24) and to Indonesia(G/LIC/Q/IDN/12);  from Korea to India 
(G/LIC/Q/IND/13);  from Mexico to Br azil (G/LIC/Q/BRA/10) and to Venezu ela (G/LIC/Q/VEN/5);  from Peru 
to Argentina (G/LIC/Q/ARG/7);  from Thaila nd to Brazil (G/LIC/Q/BRA/7) and to Indonesia 
(G/LIC/Q/IDN/10);  from the United States to  Argentina (G/LIC/Q/ARG/3/Add.1), to India 
(G/LIC/Q/IND/11/Add.1) and to Indonesia (G/LIC/Q/IDN /9/Add.1); from the United States and the European 
Communities to Indonesia (G/LIC/Q/IDN/11).  Replies: from Brazil to questions from Canada 
(G/LIC/Q/BRA/9) and from the United States(G/LIC/Q/BRA/6);  from Ch ina to questions from Australia 
(G/LIC/Q/CHN/26) and from Canada (G /LIC/Q/CHN/25);  from Indonesia to questions from the United States 
(G/LIC/Q/IDN/13) and from the Unite d States and the European Communitie s (G/LIC/Q/IDN/14);  and, from 
the Philippines to questions from the United States (G/LIC/Q/PHL/3).  G/LIC/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
  licensing requirements; (ii) the purpose of these new re quirements;  (iii)  what “delays” the automatic 
licenses were intended to avoid;   (iv)  what ex actly the pre-release verification mechanism was and 
how it functioned;  (v)  what measures had been ta ken to ensure that the licensing requirements were 
transparent and did not have trade restrictive or trad e distortive effects.  She also indicated that the 
expansion of products subject to non automatic requirements and the excessive delay to process their 
applications, which according to reports from exporters  were of nearly 120 days, was also a matter of 
concern;  in this regard her authorities would like  to know from Argentina whether importers had any 
remedy in case of excessive delays in processing applications.  She expected Argentina would promptly respond to the questions contained in documents G/LIC/Q/ARG/6 and G/LIC/Q/ARG/3/Add.1. 
 
1.5 The delegates of the European Communities
,  Canada , China  and Japan , co-sponsors of the 
questions circulated in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/ 6, echoed the concerns expressed by the United 
States and urged prompt replies from Argentina.  
 
1.6 The delegate of Peru  echoed the concerns and ques tions contained in document 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/6.  Her authorities were interested in knowing from Argentina: (i)  why a mechanism 
established only two years ago on a temporary b asis had now, pursuant to Resolution 330/2008, 
increased the number of tariff items subject to non-auto matic licensing;  (ii)  if, given the temporary 
nature of the mechanism, Argentina had determined how much longer it would apply;  (iii)  if, in 
order to achieve the objective of the mechanism of  monitoring and control import transactions, the 
Argentinean authorities had considered other more appropriate and less trade restrictive procedures 
than non-automatic import licensing;  (iv)  the reas ons why there was a differe nce between the periods 
to grant licences indicated in document G/LIC/N/3/ARG/5 and those which Peruvian exporters had experienced in practice, which apparently largely ex ceeded  the time-frame laid down in Article 3.5(f) 
of the Agreement;  and, (v)  when did Argentin a intend to notify resolution 61/09 of 4 March 2009, 
further extending the range of tariff items subj ect to non-automatic licen sing, and resolution MP 
123/09 of 15 April 2009, increasing the number of tariff lines subject to Certificates of Importation to 
household, textile, metallurgical and other products.   1.7 The delegate of Argentina
 thanked the co-sponsors of document G/LIC/Q/ARG/6 for their 
questions and informed the Committee that her au thorities had prepared written detailed responses 
that would be circulated soon.3  
 
1.8 The Chairperson  introduced the second set of documents, G/LIC/Q/BRA/8 and 9, containing 
respectively questions from Canada to Brazil and Brazil's responses to Canada’s questions on the possibility for importers to challenge the refusal of an import licence.
 
 
1.9 The delegate of Canada  thanked Brazil for its responses and informed the Committee that her 
delegation was satisfied with the replies contained in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/9.  
 
1.10 The Chairperson  introduced documents G/LIC/Q/CHN/ 24 and 25, containing respectively 
questions from Canada to China and Chin a's responses to Canada’s questions. 
 
1.11 The delegate of  Canada  recalled that at the last meeti ng her delegation had requested China 
to explain why it had a number of tariff headings  up to 616-8 digits for which automatic import 
licensing applied;  she also requested explan ations on why monitoring was necessary for those 
products, how statistics were used and what where th e criteria used to add or remove tariff lines from 
the list of monitored products.    
                                                     
 
3 See document G/LIC/Q/ARG/8, dated 8 May 2009. G/LIC/M/29 
Page 4  
 
  1.12 In response the delegate of China
, informed the Committee that, as explained in document 
G/LIC/Q/CHN/25, China required to monitor and anal yze the statistics of imported products given the 
large volume and value of imports.  Data collected was used by governmental research bodies in the  
analysis of macro-economics and the macro trade environment;  it was also useful for import 
enterprises and individuals to better understand pri ce trend as well as the supply-demand situation.  
 
1.13 The Chairperson  opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/IDN/11  containing 
questions from the United States and the Eu ropean Communities to Indonesia, document 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/12 containing questions from Canada to  Indonesia;  and,  document G/LIC/Q/IDN/14, 
containing the responses from Indonesia to the ques tions posed by United States and the European 
Communities. 
 1.14 The delegate of the United States
 indicated that in its responses to the questions her 
delegation had jointly posed with the EC delega tion, Indonesia had asserted that  Regulation 56 – 
2008 (Decree 56) was not intended to be an import  license requirement;  therefore, it was not 
necessary to notify it.  Her delegation considered that Decree 56 was an import licensing requirement 
in terms of Article 1.1 of the Agreement since it re quired importers, prior to importation, to submit an 
application containing detailed in formation for review and approval by the Ministry of Trade.  
Throughout its responses, Indonesia asserted that appli cants that did not obtain an approval might not 
proceed with their transactions and, in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/14 Indonesia also admitted that more 
than two hundred applications had been rejected .  Her authorities were troubled that Indonesia was 
still refusing to submit the text of Decree 56 for the Committee's review, especially considering the 
magnitude of the measure which covered as much as $2 billion of Indonesia’s imports.  In light of the 
above and considering Members' questions and concerns, her delegation requested Indonesia to 
submit for review the text of Decree 56.  
1.15 On a related matter, the United States still concerned about the import licensing requirements 
applied by Indonesia to textiles, apparel and ma de-up goods as a result of the implementation of 
Decree 56;  her delegation would like Indonesia to update the Committee on its efforts to reduce the 
list of textile products subject to import licensing and on how its government intended to ensure that 
there was no duplication of procedures.   
 1.16 The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked Indonesia for its responses.  However, 
there were a number of concerns and follow-up quest ions:  Indonesia claimed that Decree 56 did not 
impose an import licensing system but in its re plies to the Annual Questionnaire, on several 
occasions, it had mentioned "import licences issued on the basis of Regulation 56";  he invited Indonesia to clarify this.  Moreover, in documen t G/LIC/Q/IDN/14 Indonesia had stated that the 
reason for introducing import licences was to lay down  the basis of an effective tracking system for 
counterfeited and smuggled goods;  hi s delegation would like Indonesia to explain how this "effective 
tracking system" would work.  Additionally, his coll eagues in Jakarta had repeatedly reported that 
Indonesia's administration requested demonstrati on of "past performance in importation" as a 
condition to issue import licences when Decree 56 did not  refer to this requirement for such purpose.  
His delegation would also like Indonesia to clarify the latter; to respond to Question 9 in document 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/11 whose response was omitted in docum ent G/LIC/Q/IDN/14; and, to further clarify 
its responses on how Indonesia's authorities would manage the existing overl ap between Decree 56 
and the current import licensing regime for textiles.  1.17 The delegate of Canada
 recalled that Indonesia had not yet replied to the question her 
delegation posed;  she echoed the concerns expressed  by the United States and the EC and requested 
from Indonesia further information and clarification on the nature and the status of its measure.  
  G/LIC/M/29 
 Page 5 
 
 
  1.18 The delegate of Thailand  echoed the concerns raised by the United States and the European 
Communities.  His authorities were also interested  in hearing further replies and explanation from 
Indonesia.  1.19 The delegate of Indonesia
 thanked the United States, the European Communities, Canada and 
Thailand for their questions and comments.  She st ated that the measure in Decree 56 was not an 
import licensing regime;  that its purpose was only to  register importers and that there was no import 
permit required, nor restrictions imposed.  Nevertheless, for the sak e of transparency, her authorities 
had started the process of notifying Decree 56.4  As to the question on the duplication between Decree 
56 and the regulation concerning textiles, she in formed the Committee that her authorities were 
reviewing the latter and would inform the Committe e once the process is finished.  On the concern 
raised by the EC with regard to the "past perfo rmance requirement" in order to issue a licence, she 
informed the Committee that it had been eliminated.   
 1.20 In response to Canada's questions,
5 she indicated that: (i)  Decr ee 56, which entered into force 
on 1 February 2009, replaced Decree 44 and that it did not create any new non-automatic licensing 
procedures;  importers were simply required to regi ster with the Ministry of Trade and applications 
were only rejected in case of failure to provide th e basic information but not on the form;  importers 
were automatically registered within 7 working da ys.  (ii)  Regarding the specific objectives, Decree 
56 was designed to address illegal trade, safeguard h ealth and safety through the development of an 
effective tracking system.  When goods entered I ndonesia without being declared, pre-inspection and 
import licensing requirements would help the authoriti es to identify the products being marketed in 
her country. (iii) With regard to the concern on the least trade restrictive effects of the measures, she 
informed the Committee that extensive discussions on the relevant information available had been 
undertaken by her authorities;  discussions focused  on how to establish a tracking system that would 
fulfil the twin objective of reducing and facilita ting the identification of smuggled goods and 
identifying the products that might be withdrawn from the market for health and safety matters.  As a 
result, a registration scheme, functional and effi cient in nature, upon which import licences would 
automatically be registered, combined with pre-sh ipment inspection, was considered the least-trade 
restrictive means of achieving the objectives pursued.  Ports of entry had also been chosen to ensure 
that the vast majority of imports would be covere d.  (iv)  On the methodology used to select the 
products she explained that selection of products w as based on items that were the most sensitive to 
smuggling.  (v)  As to the question on whether a company could be designated automatically as an 
importer of products listed in Annex I and if there were other f actors taken into consideration when 
reaching such decision, she responded that as long as the basic information stipulated under article 2.3 
was provided, registration would be granted within  7 days.  Once registered, importers would be 
granted an automatic import licence valid for 2 years.   (vi)  Statistics was the purpose of requiring a 
one-year import plan from companies applying to  be designated as importers. (vii) Given their 
infrastructure, five sea ports and international air ports had been chosen to  import products listed in 
Annex I of Decree 56;  no other ports had been  chosen because it would have delayed the  
effectiveness of Decree 56 in tracking imports of goods  listed in its Annex.  (viii)  In terms of Decree 
56, there were goods exempted from the regist ration requirement such as diplomatic goods, 
belongings of international organisa tions as well as goods used for religious or public activities.  Her 
delegation would submit written responses to Ca nada to be circulated to Members.  
 1.21 The delegates of the European Communities
 and Canada  thanked Indonesia for its detailed 
responses and requested they be submitted in writing .  Canada also welcomed the information that, 
although Indonesia did not consider Decree 56 as an import licensing procedure, it would notify it to 
the Committee.  
 
                                                      
4 Circulated after the Committee meeting in  document D/LIC/N/2/IDN/12 and Corr.1. 
5 See document G/LIC/Q/IDN/12. G/LIC/M/29 
Page 6  
 
  1.22 The Chairperson
 opened the floor for comments on documents G/LIC/Q/IDN/9/Add.1 
containing questions from the United States to I ndonesia; document G/LIC/Q/IDN/10 containing 
questions from Thailand to Indonesia; and, docum ent G/LIC/Q/IDN/13 containing Indonesia's replies 
to the questions posed by the United States.  
1.23 The delegate of the United States
, considering the information provided in document 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/13, asked Indonesia whether or not it had already notified Decree 527/MPP/2004 and 
its amendments.  According to its responses, Indonesi a was also using the import licensing system to 
regulate who could import, what was being imported, and when it was imported.  In the view of her 
delegation managing through import licensing all aspect s of the domestic market situation including 
prices, demand, supply and imports, seemed to be  complex;  her authorities had not received any 
complaints about Indonesia’s administration of the measures, but would continue consulting the US 
traders and would come back to this issue at the next meeting.  
1.24 The delegate of Thailand
 recalled that her delegation had expressed its concern on this issue 
and also posed written questions to Indonesia;  according to some verbal information she had 
received, Indonesia had replied about 2 months a go;  thus, she asked Indonesia to provide written 
answers and to submit them to the Committee.  
 
1.25 The delegate of Indonesia  clarified to Thailand that written responses had been sent to her 
delegation in letter No l.225/WTO/2/ 07, dated 20 February 2009;  this  text would be circulated to 
Members.  She also indicated that Decree 527/MPP/2004 would be notified to the Committee.6  
 1.26 The Chairperson
 opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/IND/13 containing 
questions from Korea to India.   
 1.27 The delegate of Korea
 referred to the questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/IND/13 and 
stated that the Indian government had intro duced a new licensing scheme requiring importers to 
obtain an import licence for certain steel products an d other items (“subject products”);  this had been 
published in the Indian Gazette  on 21 November 2008 (Notification No. 63) and on 24 November 
2008 (Notification No. 64) and, accordingly, only ac tual users of the "subject products" would be 
eligible for a licence.  1.28 In response, the delegate of India
 informed the Committee that: (i) all changes made in import 
licensing procedures and trade policy during the financ ial year were reflected in the updated Foreign 
Trade Policy issued in April every year; the upda ted Foreign Trade Policy incorporating changes until 
31 March 2009 would be notified to the Committee in due time; (ii) the licensing procedure was 
automatic; (iii) India's government was constantly monitoring the situation and appropriate measures 
would be taken as and when necessary;  (iv) the li censing requirement had been introduced to monitor 
imports in the country so that necessary safeguard  measures might be taken if there was a further 
surge in imports;  (v)  since the import licensing scheme on HR coils was put in place, 25 licences had 
been issued as of 22 April 2009; (vi)  “actual user s” were defined in Para graph 9.5 of the Foreign 
Trade Policy which read as follows: "actual user  (industrial) means a person who utilises imported 
goods for manufacturing in his own industrial unit or manufacturing for his own use in their unit including a jobbing unit";  a copy of Foreign Trade Policy was available on the DGFT website, and;  
(vii)  in 2005-2006, imports of HR coils were ar ound $66 billion, in 2006-2007 they were $84 billion, 
in 2007-2008 there were around $122 billion and fo r the period April-November 2008, $94 billion. 
The remaining answers would be provided in India's responses to Korea.  
 
                                                     
 
6 Circulated in document G/LIC/N/2/IDN/3, dated 6 July 2009.  G/LIC/M/29 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.29 The delegate of Korea  thanked India for the detailed information provided;  he looked 
forward to receiving written replies to Korea's questions.  His delegati on would also send the 
remaining questions in writing to India.   1.30 The Chairperson
 opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/BRA/10 containing 
questions from Mexico to Brazil. 
 1.31 The delegate of Mexico
 recalled the concerns raised by  her delegation on motor vehicles 
exports which were facing in Brazil new impor t licensing procedures when  there was a minimum 
number of products per shipment;  she thanked Brazil for its replies that would help her authorities to 
better understand the Brazilian regi me applied to automobiles. 
1.32 The delegate of Brazil  thanked Mexico for its questions  and informed the Committee that 
Brazil's responses were being prepared.   1.33 The Chairperson opened the floor for comme nts on document G/LIC/Q/VEN/5, circulated on 
27 April 2009, and containing questions from Mexico  to Venezuela on certificates of "insufficiency" 
and of "no national production", required fo r the importation of a number of products. 
 1.34 The delegate of Venezuela
 informed the Committee that th e questions, received just a few 
days before the Committee meeting, had been c onveyed to his capital; a written response would be 
submitted as soon as possible. 
 
1.35 The Chairperson  opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/BRA/7 containing 
questions from Thailand to Brazil on its im port licensing regime applied for toys. 
 1.36 The delegate of Thailand
 thanked Brazil for its written responses. The Thai industry 
continued to have concerns over Brazil's non-auto matic licensing for toys;  his delegation would 
continue to monitor the issue and might co me back to the Committee on this matter.  
 1.37 The delegate of Brazil
 thanked Thailand for its questions  and confirmed that Brazil had 
submitted its written responses before the Committee meeting7;  Brazil did not have a two-track 
system for analyzing non-automatic import licence a pplications and did not use any reference price 
system for the importation of toys. 
1.38 The Chairperson  opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/IND/11/Add.1 
containing questions on non-insecticidal boric acid.  1.39 The delegate of the United States
 when referring to India's use of import licensing procedures, 
recalled her delegation's concerns about the trade-r estrictive effects this measure had for a number of 
industries, including non-insecticidal boric acid, refurbished computer parts and remanufactured 
goods since they had resulted in non-transparent and burdensome policies.  Her delegation would 
review India's responses contained in document G/LIC/Q/IND/11/Add.1, circulated immediately 
before the Committee meeting, and reserved its ri ghts to come back with additional follow-up 
questions if needed.   
1.40 The delegate of India
 informed the Committee that his delegation would respond to any 
further question from the United States.   1.41 The Chairperson opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/CHN/26 containing 
the responses from China to Australia on China's impo rt licensing regime applied to iron and iron ore. 
                                                     
 
7 Circulated as document G/LIC/Q/BRA/12. G/LIC/M/29 
Page 8  
 
  1.42 The delegate of Australia
 recalled that in May 2008 his de legation posed some questions to 
China on its imports of iron and iron ore.  China had replied in November 2008;  nevertheless, his 
authorities requested further clarifications on (i)  the regulatory arrangements, particularly a specific 
response to questions about the exact role of indus try associations in determining the allocation of 
import licences;  (ii) the nature of the self-disciplin ary rules imposed by industrial associations; and,  
(iii)  whether these rules concerned the right to obtain an import licence.  
 1.43 The delegate of China
 took note of Australia's additional questions; he hoped to receive them 
in writing.  
1.44 The Chairperson
 introduced document G/LIC/Q/BRA/6 containing Brazil's responses to the 
questions posed by the United States in document G/LIC/BRA/4, circulated on 14 October 2008. 
1.45 The delegate of the United States  thanked Brazil for its responses  concerning the import 
licensing regime applied to toys.  
1.46 The Chairperson
 opened the floor for comments on document G/LIC/Q/PHL/3, containing the 
responses from the Philippines to qu estions posed by the United States in document G/LIC/Q/PHL/2, 
circulated on 5 September 2008.   1.47 The delegate of the United Stated
 thanked the Philippines for its responses on the licensing 
requirements applied to telecommunication equipment.  
 1.48 The Chairperson
 recalled that at the beginning of the Committee meeting, the Chinese 
delegation, as well as the delegation of the United St ates, requested to include in the agenda, some 
questions to Brazil that had been ra ised in previous Committee meetings. 
 
1.49 The delegate of China  recalled that his authorities, over th e past 2 years, had been informed 
that the Chinese toy industry and exporters were c onfronting difficulties when exporting toys to Brazil 
because of Brazil's non-automatic licensing procedures.  His delegation had circulated written questions to Brazil, contained in document G/LI C/Q/BRA/5 which Brazil had responded immediately 
before the Committee meeting;  his delegation reser ved its right to come back on this issue.  
 
1.50 The delegate of Brazil
 requested the Secretariat to circul ate Brazil's written replies to China.8 
1.51 The delegate of the United States  recalled that since 2003 the United States had been raising 
concerns about Brazil’s use of import licensing pro cedures to restrict imports of lithium carbonate, a 
product commercially traded around the world and important for manufacturing a number of ordinary 
commercial products, including as a raw material used  in aluminium smelting; the production of glass 
and ceramics; and, pharmaceutical products.  Her au thorities had submitted repeatedly questions to 
Brazil on this matter at various Committee meet ings and would like to know from Brazil when 
exactly it would provide written responses to each one of the written questions and particularly to the 
ones contained in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/3/Add.1.    1.52 The delegate of Brazil
 recalled that at the last meeting his delegation informed the Committee 
that imports of lithium carbonated and lithium compounds  were subject to some controls in Brazil and 
that imports depended on authorisation by the natio nal agency responsible for nuclear energy issues, 
CNEN.  His delegation had also informed that th ere was no discrimination against the country of 
origin and that import licences were granted on a " first come, first served " basis;  that importers of 
lithium compounds had to be registered in CI SCOMAX, which was the Brazilian foreign trade 
system, which could be accessed with the proper soft ware programme and internet connection;  each 
                                                      
8 Circulated in document G/LIC/BRA/11.  G/LIC/M/29 
 Page 9 
 
 
  import request might be submitted to the CNEN.  Braz il and the United States had also held bilateral 
discussions on these issues and his delegation hoped this matter could be promptly and properly 
settled. 
1.53 The delegate of the United States  indicated that Turkey’s response to the annual 
Questionnaire9 did not make any reference to distilled sp irits, products for which Turkey maintained 
import licensing procedures, including a certification to  be obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture 
and Rural Affairs.  Her delega tion would appreciate if Turkey could provide information on the 
import licensing procedures for distilled spir its and notify them to the Committee.   
1.54 In response, the delegate of Turkey  informed the Committee that his authorities were about to 
complete its notification procedures for 2009; he had taken note of the questions and would convey 
them to his capital.  
 1.55 The delegate of the United States
 informed the Committee that on 18 December 2008 
Vietnam had issued a Circular, establishing automa tic import licensing requirements for a broad range 
of products.  This had not been notified to the Committee and her delegation wondered whether 
Vietnam had  introduced changes to the import li censing regime it had explained to Members during 
the accession process. She encouraged Vietnam to upda te its responses and notifications regarding its 
import licensing scheme.   1.56 The delegate of Vietnam
 took note of the concerns and informed the Committee that these 
would be conveyed to his capital.  
 
1.57 The delegate of the United States  informed the Committee that according to reports received 
by her authorities, Indonesia had implemented, earli er in 2009, a new import licensing procedure for 
steel products. If it was the case, her delegation would like Indonesia to notify the Committee as soon as possible. 
 
1.58  In response the delegate of Indonesia
 informed the Committee that  the notification had been 
submitted to the Committee just before the meeting.10 
 1.59 The delegate of Canada
 stated that her authorities, as a ma jor steel exporter, had noted this 
issue; she welcomed the information that Indonesi a had notified the new regime but looked forward to 
receiving the notification. 
 1.60 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 Committee,11 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 under 
                                                      
9 See G/LIC/N/3/TUR/8. 
10 See documents G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2 and Add. 1. 
11 G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/29 
Page 10  
 
  these provisions there were two notifications recei ved from Brazil and the Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia, documents G/LIC/N/1/BRA/4 and G/LIC/N/1/MKD/2, 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 Ar ticle 5.  He informed 
the Committee that there were twelve notifications  listed in the Airgram and its addendum, submitted 
under this provision by Albania; Argentina (seven notifications); Brazil; Hong Kong, China;  the 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United States;12 and, that after the Airgram and its 
addendum were issued, two notifica tions from Argentina were received  and had been circulated as 
documents G/LIC/N/2/ARG/4/Add.1/Rev.1 and G/ LIC/N/2/ARG/16/Add.1.  These documents would 
be considered at the next meeting of the Committ ee but the Chairperson invited Members to refer to 
them so as to allow Argentina to take note of a ny questions or comments.  The Chairperson also 
recalled that , at the last meeting of the Committee in Oc tober 2008, the notifications received from 
Malaysia and Moldova, contained in documents G/LIC/N/2/MYS/3 and G/LIC/N/2/MDA/1   were not 
available in the three WTO official languages and that these would be considered at this meeting.  
 
2.4 The Committee took note  of the notifications.   
 
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures) 
2.5 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that there were 16 notifications from 15 Members 
listed in the Airgram and its addendum, received from Albania; Brazil; Chile; China; Colombia; 
Cuba; Dominican Republic; Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Honduras; Japan; Korea; Madagascar; Nigeria; the Philippines and Qatar.
13   He also informed the Committee that the 
notification submitted by Dominican Republic was not  available in the thr ee WTO official languages 
and would therefore be considered at the next Committee meeting and recalled that at the last 
Committee meeting it was announced that five notifications14 under this provision, received from 
Canada; Hong Kong, China; Macao, China;  Malaysia  and Morocco were not available in the three 
WTO official languages;  thus, they wo uld be considered at this meeting.    
 
2.6 The Committee took note  of the notifications.  
 
                                                      
12 G/LIC/N/2/ALB/2; G/LIC/ N/2/ARG/4/Add.1 and Add.2;  G/LIC/N/2/ARG/7/Add.3; 
G/LIC/N/2/ARG/12/Add.1; G/LIC/N/ 2/ARG/14; G/LIC/N/2/ARG/15; G/LI C/N/2/ARG/16; G/LIC/N/2/BRA/4; 
G/LIC/N/2/HKG/3; G/LIC/N/2/MKD/ 1 and G/LIC/N/2/USA/2/Add.1. 
13 G/LIC/N/3/ALB/3; G/LIC/N/3/BRA/7; G/LIC/N/ 3/CHL/4; G/LIC/N/3/C HN/7; G/LIC/N/3/COL/6 
and 7; G/LIC/N/3/CUB/3; G/LIC/N/3/DOM/3; G/LIC/ N/3/MKD/1; G/LIC/N/3/HDN /2; G/LIC/N/3/JAP/7;  
G/LIC/N/3/KOR/7; G/LIC/N/3/MDG/ 4;  G/LIC/N/3/NGA/4; G/LIC/ N/3/PHL/6 and G/LIC/N/3/QAT/6. 
14 G/LIC/N/3/CAN/7; G/LIC/ N/3/HKG/12; G/LIC/N/3/MAC/ 11; G/LIC/N/3/MYS/4; and 
G/LIC/N/3/MAR/7.  G/LIC/M/29 
 Page 11 
 
 
  3. Other Business 
(i) Information on technical assistance activities rel ated to the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures 
3.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, two technical 
assistance activities on the Agreement on Import Licens ing Procedures had taken place, one in Jordan 
and one in the People's Democratic Republic of Lao.  For the current year, two countries had 
requested technical assistance, Ecuador and Tanzan ia.  As in previous cases the objective of these 
activities was to:  (i) enhance th e administrative capability of the different authorities to clearly 
understand the aim, purposes and particularities of the Agreement;  (ii) enable them to differentiate 
the two types of import licences and other trade ba rriers whose legitimate objectives could be better 
obtained through less trade-restrictive and less trade- distorting measures than import licences such as 
technical regulations, sanitary and phyto-sanitary me asures; and, (iii) provide the necessary tools and 
explanations to the local authorities to co mply with their notification obligations.  
 3.2 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
 
4. Date of the next meeting 
4.1 The Chairperson  informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved Friday, 
23 October 2009 for the next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings would be convened if n ecessary.  He also reminded Members that the Eighth Transitional 
Review of China would be carried out at that meeting.  He encouraged Members to send their 
questions to China as soon as possible so as to allow China to prepare its responses well in advance.   
 4.2 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
 
5. Election of Officers 
5.1 The Committee re-elected by acclamation Mr . Marco J. KASSAJA (Tanzania) as Chairperson 
of the Committee, to hold office until the end of the first meeting of 2010, under Rule 12 of the 
Committee's Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also re-elected by acclamation Mrs. Anna ASHIKALI (Cyprus) as Vice-Chairperson.  
__________