RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/21 
26 July 2005 
 
 (05-3351) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 JUNE 2005 
 
Chairperson:  Ms. Victoria Campeanu (Romania
) 
   
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its tw enty-first meeting on 15 June 2005.  The 
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/2582, was adopted as follows:    
Table of contents
 
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting........................................................................................................................ ...............1  
2. Notifications.................................................................................................................. .............5  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or legislation)............................................................................................................ ...........5  
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures) ................................................................................................... .5 
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)..........................................6  
3. Other bus iness ................................................................................................................. ..........6  
(i) Questions posed by Australia to China (iron ore) ......................................................................6  
(ii) Questions posed by Mexico  to Guatemala (eggs).......................................................................6  
(iii) Questions posed by the United States .........................................................................................7  
(a) China (scrap and waste material)............................................................................................... .7 
(b) Indonesia (textile products)................................................................................................... ......7  
(c) Turkey (rice) .................................................................................................................. .............8  
(iv) Date of the n ext meeting ....................................................................................................... ......8  
4. Election of officers........................................................................................................... ..........8  
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – Developments since the last 
meeting 
1.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that since the last meeting 35 notifications had been 
received under various provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures (13 notifications 
under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b), 18 under Article 7.3 and four under Article 5.1-5.4).  As of the 
date of the meeting, out of a total Membership  of 148 (counting each of the EC member States G/LIC/M/21 
Page 2  
 
 individually), there remained 24 Members w ho had not submitted any notification under the 
Agreement since joining the WTO;  these were A ngola, Belize, Botswana, Central African Republic, 
Congo, Congo, Dem. Republic, D jibouti, Egypt, Guinea, Guinea Bi ssau, Israel, Kuwait, Lesotho, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Rwanda , St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, 
Solomon Islands, Tanzania and Tha iland.  Only 116 Members had subm itted notifications of laws and 
regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b)) and a cumulative total of 115 Members had submitted 
replies to the Questionnaire
1 (under Article 7.3) since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.  
For Article 7.3 notifications, the annual deadline of 30 September was not often respected by many 
Members.  Only 51 Members had notified new licensi ng procedures or changes in existing procedures 
(under Paragraphs 1-4 of Article 5);  of this, one Member (Papua New Guinea) had notified changes 
to import licensing procedures without submitting the in itial notifications of legislation or replies to 
the Questionnaire.  While Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to submit counter-
notifications where a Member considered that anot her Member had not notified the institution of a 
licensing procedure or changes in the procedures, up to the date of this meeting, no such counter-
notifications had been received.  Compliance with  the notification obligations under this Agreement 
remained low.  She urged all those Members who ha d not yet provided information of their laws and 
regulations relevant to import licensing, replied to  the annual Questionnaire, or notified the institution 
of new import licensing procedures or changes sinc e their previous notifications to do so without 
further delay.  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. 
 
1.2 The representative of the United States  said that he appreciated the new submissions that had 
been made by Members since the last meeting, and esp ecially those that had notified for the first time.  
Notifying an import licensing system or lack of one w as central to the transparen cy obligations of this 
Agreement.  He hoped that the situation woul d improve as import licensing constituted a serious 
source of non-tariff restrictions on imports in many markets, and the transparency provided in this 
Committee was an important aspect of the Import Li censing Agreement's transparency requirements.  
Providing notifications and responding to questions  were essential elements of WTO Members' 
obligations.  They were tangible evidence of th e respect Members owed each other to be both 
transparent in the administration of their trade regimes and responsive to  legitimate requests for 
information about access to each others' markets.  The United States thanked the Chairperson and the 
Secretariat for its continuing encouragement for co mpliance, such as providing reminders to Members 
on notifications and reminding delegations to res pond to questions posed by other Members.  The 
United States believed that these efforts had significantly improved the situation.     
 1.3 The Chairperson
 said that since the last meeting several documents containing questions from 
delegations concerning licensing systems maintained by some Members had been circulated in the 
G/LIC/Q/- series.  These documents containe d questions from the United States to Brazil 
(G/LIC/Q/BRA/3) and the European Communities (G /LIC/Q/EEC/3 and 4), and from Chinese Taipei 
to the People's Republic of China (G/LIC/Q/CHN /14).  She informed the Committee that the 
Secretariat had reminded these delegations, as well as Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, of pending replies to the questions put to them rega rding their licensing systems and that only Jamaica 
had submitted replies in writing (G/LIC/Q/JAM/2).  She requested delegations that were in a position 
to provide replies to the questions posed since the last meeting or prior to it to do so at this meeting, 
keeping in mind that under the procedures adopted in this Committee they were required to provide 
replies in writing to those delegations that had posed questions, with copies to the Secretariat 
(G/LIC/4).  Copies of replies received by the Secret ariat would be issued in the same document series. 
 
1.4 The representative of the United States
 said that at the September 2004 meeting of the 
Committee the United States had requested that  Brazil submit information concerning import 
                                                      
1 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/21 
 Page 3 
 
 
 licensing requirements for certain lithium pr oducts, including lithium carbonate and lithium 
hydroxide.  Information requested by his authoriti es included, but was not limited to, the following:  
What were the criteria for application and grantin g of import licences;  on what basis were requests 
for licences denied?  The US had requested Brazil to  provide specific information for the period since 
2000 on the quantity of imports for which import licences had been requested and on the import 
licences actually been granted.  Brazil had also been requested to provide statistics by supplying 
country for the period 2003 to date, by value and volume, for each of the lithium compounds.  The 
United States noted that they had not yet receive d a response from Brazil to these questions that had 
been circulated in document G/LIC/Q/BRA /3.  In its most recent notification, 
G/LIC/N/3/BRA/4/Rev.1, Brazil stated that it ma intained licensing requirements on products which 
might pose risks to human, animal or plant health;  products which might cause environmental 
damage;  products classified as weapons or made for war-like objectives;  and products subject to 
non-tariff quotas as established in the WTO Agreemen t and those subject to tariff-rate quotas.  In 
addition to responses to their written questions outlined in document G/ LIC/Q/BRA/3, the US 
requested information from Brazil on which of these cr iteria it would apply to its stringent restrictions 
on imports of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide.   The US continued to look forward to Brazil's 
explanations and responses, to the US and to the Committee.  The delegate of the US requested an 
indication from Brazil as to when it expected to respond to the questions and when it expected to 
notify these restrictions to the Committee per Comm ittee practice.  He reiterated his delegation's 
interest in receiving responses in writing.  
1.5 The representative of Brazil
 said that his Government was in the process of streamlining its 
legislation.  As could be seen from their most recent notifications, G/LIC/N/1/BRA/2/Rev.1, G/LIC/N/2/BRA/2/Rev.1 and G/LIC/N/3/BRA/4/Rev.1, there had been a reduction in the number of 
Ministerial Decrees due to Brazilian legislation be ing consolidated.  With regard to the precise 
legislation that the US delegation was interested in, his capital was assessing whether this notification 
was necessary in accordance with  the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  The Brazilian 
system for imports of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide was justified because of the potential 
risks, and the uses, including for nuclear ends.  In vi ew of the different interpretation that the US had 
given, there were ongoing studies and an inter-M inisterial commission established in Brazil was 
debating the matter.  This Commission involved the Mi nistry of Energy and Mining, the Ministry of 
Science and Technology, the Ministry of Developmen t, Industry and External Trade, the Ministry of 
External Trade, the Ministry of External Relati ons and the National Commis sion of Nuclear Energy.  
Those debates were taking time and this was why Br azil had not yet been able to provide detailed 
responses as had been requested by the US.  Nevert heless, he provided some preliminary statistics 
mentioned in the US request.  With regard to the number of import licences requested and licences 
actually granted for the period between 2000 and 2005 , the figures were as follows:  65 licences were 
granted, 28 licences were still pending, and only 24 were not granted – clearly a minority of the 
requests.  The quantities of imports of lithium hy droxide and lithium car bonate actually imported 
totalled US $3,346 in 2003 and US $3,281 in 2004, amounting to 116 kilos in 2003 and 135 kilos in 2004.    1.6 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 reminded the Committee of his delegation's questions 
circulated in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/14, concerning China's notification in document 
G/LIC/N/3/CHN/2.  He noted that the notificati on had been discussed in the Committee in 2004 but it 
still raised a number of concerns set out in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/14.  His delegation would 
appreciate clarification from China.    
1.7 The representative of China
 said that the Understanding on Procedures for the Review of 
Notifications submitted under the Agreement on Impo rt Licensing Procedures, contained in G/LIC/4, 
stipulated that views and requests for clarifi cation should be communicated in writing to the 
delegations concerned with copies for information to the Secretariat, preferably 21 days but at least 
ten working days in advance of the meeting at whic h they would be raised.  Since his delegation had G/LIC/M/21 
Page 4  
 
 never received any request from Chinese Taipei in wr iting, or in any other form, prior to this meeting 
he believed that his dele gation had no responsibility to give any response. 
 1.8 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said his delegation's questions had been sent to the 
Secretariat and circulated to all Members in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/14 dated 24 September 2004.  
His delegation believed that every Member had the legitimate right to raise comments and questions 
on other Members' notifications, and that the notifying Members were obliged to provide the 
necessary clarification.  This was to ensure one of  the WTO's founding principles, i.e. the principle of 
transparency, which was in the best  interest of all Members.  With this in mind, Chinese Taipei 
regretted that China had failed to fu lfil its obligation in this regard. 
 
1.9 The representative of China  thanked the delegation of Chinese Taipei for its comments and 
said that China was strictly following the rules of  procedure of this Committee, hence their position 
remained the same.  
1.10 The representative of Korea
 requested clarification from the Chairperson on the procedure for 
questions and responses.  He understood that Chinese Taipei had circulated its questions to China in 
September 2004 in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/14, which w as on the agenda for the current meeting.   
 1.11 The Chairperson
 said that the representative of China, observing the rules of procedure, had 
stated that they had not received any questions in  writing from Chinese Taipei, and this was why they 
did not have the obligation to respond to their ques tions.  She said that it was also true that these 
questions had been sent by Chinese Taipei with copies to  the Secretariat, to circulate to all Members.  
This was a problem of communication.    1.12 The representative of Korea
 wished to know whether the document before the Committee for 
the current meeting, G/LIC/Q/CHN/14 which contai ned written questions from Chinese Taipei to 
China, had any relation to this issue.  1.13 The representative of China
 thanked Korea for their interest in this procedure and for seeking 
clarification.    
1.14 The representative of the United States
 said that at the September 2004 meeting of the 
Committee the US had requested that the Europ ean Communities submit information regarding the 
strict quantitative restrictions on imports of natura l and enriched uranium quot as which were enforced 
through licensing restrictions administered by the Euratom Supply Agency.  The US request had been 
circulated in document G/LIC/Q/EEC/3.  His delegation continued to look forward to the EC's 
explanations and responses to their request for info rmation, and requested an update from the EC as to 
when a written response could be expected.  1.15 The representative of  the European Communities
 said that a written reply to the questions was 
being prepared in Brussels and that it would be sent to the US delegation very shortly.  She pointed 
out that the import policy with respect to natural a nd enriched uranium in Eu rope was drawn up in the 
Euratom Treaty, which along with related legislati on were available on the Europa website.  With 
respect to the US request for a copy of the Corfu Declaration, she said that this was a 1994 agreement 
between the Council of the European Union and th e Commission relating to the conclusions of the 
partnership and cooperation agreemen ts between the European Union and Russia.  It related only to 
the implementation of the articles relating to trade in nuclear materials between the European Union 
and Russia.  The document was an internal documen t of the European institutions, and therefore it 
could not be made available to third parties.  1.16 The representative of the United States
 thanked Jamaica for their reply (G/LIC/Q/JAM/2) and 
said that they would submit any further questions or comments at a later date.  G/LIC/M/21 
 Page 5 
 
 
  
1.17 The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the questions posed by the United States 
to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, circulat ed respectively in documents G/LIC/Q/BHR/1 and 
G/LIC/Q/ARE/1, in November 2000.  She said that , as was the case at the meeting in May 2004, the 
responses to the United States from Bahrain and th e United Arab Emirates had not been issued, 
pending clarifications from the two Members (G/LIC/M /19, paragraph 1.16).  At the last meeting in 
September 2004, the United States delegation had urged the two delegations to formalise the 
comments provided bilaterally to the US delegation, and to circulate them as WTO documents in the 
interest of transparency (G/LIC/M/20, paragraph 1.4).  
1.18 The representative of the United States
 reiterated his delegation's interest in seeing the formal 
documents from the above two Members and the ci rculation of their responses to the Committee. 
 1.19 The Committee took note
 of the responses and the statements made. 
 2. Notifications 
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2( b) of the Agreement (publications and/or 
legislation) 
2.1 The Chairperson
 recalled that Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and procedures agreed to by the 
Committee required all Members to publish their laws , regulations and administrative procedures and 
notify these to the Committee upon becoming a Member of the WTO together with copies of any 
relevant publications or laws and regulations.  Any subsequent chang es to these laws and regulations 
were also required to be notified.  2.2 The Chairperson
 said that notifications received from 12 Members were before the 
Committee for review:  Bangladesh (G/LIC/N/1/BGD/2 ), Brazil (G/LIC/N/1/BRA/2/Rev.1), Bulgaria 
(G/LIC/N/1/BGR/2), People's Republic of China (G/LIC/N/1/CHN/4), Croatia (G/LIC/N/1/HRV/3 + 
Corr.1), India (G/LIC/N/1/IND/7), Macedonia (G/L IC/N/1/MKD/1), Mexico (G/LIC/N/1/MEX/1), 
Morocco (G/LIC/N/1/MAR/1/Add.2), Peru (G/LIC/N /1/PER/2/Rev.1), Singapore (G/LIC/N/1/SGP/4) 
and Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/1/TPKM/5 & 6).  2.3 The Committee took note
 of the notifications. 
 
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreem ent (Replies to the Questionnaire on Import 
Licensing Procedures) 
2.4 The Chairperson  said that notifications received from 16 Members were before the 
Committee:  Bangladesh (G/LIC/N/3/BGD/2), Br azil (G/LIC/N/3/BRA/4/Rev.1), Bulgaria 
(G/LIC/N/3/BGR/2/Add.1), Cameroon  (G/LIC/N /3/CMR/1), People's Republic of China  
(G/LIC/N/3/CHN/3), Croatia (G/LIC/N/3/HRV/3), Georgia (G/LIC/N/3/GEO/2), Hong Kong, China 
(G/LIC/N/3/HKG/8), Iceland (G/LIC/N/3/ISL/3), Macao, China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/7), Mexico (G/LIC/N/3/MEX/1), Morocco (G/LIC/N/3/M AR/4), Oman (G/LIC/N/3/OMN/2), Peru 
(G/LIC/N/3/PER/3/Rev.1), Qatar (G/LIC/N/3/ QAT/2) and Tunisia (G/LIC/N/3/TUN/3/Add.4).  
 
2.5 The representative of the United States
 requested updated notifications from two Members, 
Malaysia and Venezuela.  The US noted that Ma laysia had not submitted its annual notification on 
import licensing procedures to the Committee since its first notification submitted in 1997.  He 
requested that Malaysia update its replies to th e annual Questionnaire with particular attention to 
products requiring import licences, specifically moto r vehicles, construction equipment, and paper 
and wood products.  With respect to Venezuela, hi s authorities had heard fr om US exporters that 
Venezuela maintained import licensing requirement s on potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old G/LIC/M/21 
Page 6  
 
 chicks and meat products.  His delegation had made comments and asked questions about these 
restrictions in the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and were awaiting 
Venezuela's response in that body.  As these trad e measures were import licensing in nature, however, 
and since the US did not believe that they were c overed by Venezuela's existing notifications, the US 
expected such requirements and the procedures for administering them to also be notified to the 
Committee on Import Licensing. 
 2.6   The Committee took note
 of the responses and the statement made. 
 
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, changes to 
existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications) 
2.7 The Chairperson  recalled that under paragraphs 1 to 4 of Article 5, Members which instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedures were required to notify the Committee within 60 
days of publication of these procedures.  Paragraph 2 of Article 5 listed the information that should be 
included in such notifications.  Members also ha d to submit copies of publications in which the 
information required in Article 1. 4 were published.  Furthermore, paragraph 5 of Article 5 provided 
the possibility of making counter-notifications wher e a Member considered that another Member had 
not notified the institution of a licensing proce dure or changes therein, in accordance with 
paragraphs 1-3 of Article 5.  2.8 The Chairperson
 said that notifications were received from three Members under this 
provision:  Brazil (G/LIC/N/2/BRA/2/Rev.1), Si ngapore (G/LIC/N/2/SGP/3) and Chinese Taipei 
(G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/3 & 4).  In addition, a notific ation from Jordan which was received after the 
airgram was issued would be considered at the next meeting.  2.9 The Committee took note
 of the notifications.   
 
3. Other business 
(i) Questions posed by Australia to China (iron ore) 
3.1 The representative of Australia  noted that on 1 March 2005 China had introduced an import 
licensing regime for iron ore, to take effect from 1 May 2005.  Australia wanted to ensure that this 
regime would not affect international trade in iron ore.  Conscious of the obligations under Article 5 
of the Agreement to notify the Committee of ch anges in import licensing arrangements, Australia 
asked China when it proposed to formally notify its new licensing regime;  what the objectives of the 
licensing system were;  and how it would impact on importers.  While he was conscious that the 
Chinese delegation was probably not prepared to res pond at this meeting, he informed the Committee 
that his delegation had posed some questions bilate rally to the Chinese delegation and that they would 
follow up the issue bilaterally.  The main interest at th e current meeting was to register their interest in 
the matter.  3.2 The representative of China
 said that his capital would be ready to look at the questions that 
they had just received before the meeting and that  China would like to try to resolve this issue 
bilaterally with Australia. 
 
(ii) Questions posed by Mexico to Guatemala (eggs) 
3.3 The representative of Mexico  informed the Committee that his delegation had posed the 
following questions to Guatemala concerning its non- automatic licences unrelated to sanitary and 
phytosanitary measures on the importation of eggs.  His delegation requested Guatemala to explain 
the procedures and requirements necessary to ac quire these non-automatic licences;  under which  G/LIC/M/21 
 Page 7 
 
 
 internal provisions, laws, decrees or regulations Gu atemala had based the application of this measure 
and the date of publication;  and the date on whic h they notified this measure to the Committee.   
 
(iii) Questions posed by the United States 
(a) China (scrap and waste material) 3.4 The representative of the United States
 said that in December 2003 China's Administration of 
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQS IQ) had issued a notice requiring registration of 
all overseas scrap and waste material suppliers by 1 July 2004.  China had la ter extended the deadline 
for such registration to 1 August 2004.  Although de tailed registration and qualification rules were not 
issued until May 2004, those companies that had mi ssed the application dead line were forbidden from 
importing scrap and waste material into China.  Ch ina had approved approximately 87 per cent of the 
total applications received and had announced that  companies that had not received approval would 
be allowed to reapply in six months.  However,  to date, China had not formally reopened the 
registration process.  These rules and procedures could be viewed as a de facto  import licensing 
requirement which, as it currently stood, restricted  new suppliers from accessing China's market.  The 
US requested China to clarify when it would formally reopen the registration process for scrap and 
waste material.  He said that he would submit this question in writing2 and that he looked forward to 
receiving China's written response in due course.  3.5 The representative of China
 said that this would be considered  in his capital and that he would 
appreciate receiving the questions in writing. 
 
(b) Indonesia (textile products) 
3.6 The representative of the United States  recalled that at the October 2003 and May 2004 
meetings of the Committee, his delegation ha d requested that Indonesia submit information 
concerning its import licensing requirements for certain textiles products under Decree No. 732 of 
2002.  These questions were circulated in docum ents G/LIC/Q/IDN/1 and G/LIC/Q/IDN/3.  The 
United States appreciated Indonesia's responses in G/LIC/Q/IDN/2 and Add.1 and G/LIC/Q/IDN/5.  
However from these responses and the responses to Au stralia's similar questions in G/LIC/Q/IDN/6 
and G/LIC/Q/IDN/6/Add.1, it appeared that the main purpose of the restrictions was protection of domestic production.  The US remained concerne d that the use of non-automatic licensing as a de 
facto  form of import regulation was not consistent with Indonesia's WTO commitments, and that the 
import licensing requirement established by the Decree continued to restrict and distort trade.  
Specific concerns of his authorities included the fo llowing:  First, restricting the use of certain 
imported fabrics as well as who coul d import them seemed to them to mean that only approved local 
garment or textile producers were authorised to import certain fabrics.  Moreover, such imported 
fabrics could only be used as inputs in the producti on of other products and could not be sold or 
otherwise transferred on Indonesia's market.  Sec ondly, the US was concerned about the provision 
requiring that approved importers seek approval from the Ministry of Industry and Trade for both the 
quantity and the timing of imports.  Such approval was apparently not automatically granted.  The 
third concern was the requirement that importers submit to the Ministry of Industry and Trade a 
monthly report that tracked each importation of fabri cs by date, destination, quantity, price, duty and 
country of origin.  Failure to submit such a repor t resulted in the suspension of approval of import 
licences for that import.  The US questioned whethe r this requirement was necessary and whether the 
penalty for non-compliance should be so harsh.  Th e US requested that the Government of Indonesia 
either eliminate or modify its existing licensing regime to address these concerns.  The US looked 
forward to working with Indonesia to achieve this objective.  
                                                     
 
2 Circulated in document G/LIC/Q/CHN/15. G/LIC/M/21 
Page 8  
 
 3.7 The representative of Indonesia
 said that his delegation was still studying the regulation for 
textile products and that he would request his capital to obtain the information as soon as possible 
from the Department of Industry and the Department  of Trade in order to forward it to the United 
States.   
(c) Turkey (rice) 
3.8 The representative of the United States
 said that his authorities had noted that on 27 April, 
27 August and 8 September 2004, Turkey had publishe d changes to the import licensing requirements 
for rice in its Official Gazette.  None of these changes had been notified to the Committee on Import 
Licensing as required by Article 5 of the Agreement.   US producers continued to have problems 
securing import permits for rice, which had created a significant barrier to US exports.  The US had 
raised the issue of Turkey's import licensing rest rictions on several occasions.  These restrictions 
raised serious WTO concerns.  Turkey should r esume the year-round issuance of import licences for 
all rice importers, without requiring the purchase of domestic rice, and should ensure that its import 
licensing practices were fully transparent.  The United States also requested that Turkey submit 
appropriate notifications for its licensing regime in  rice and other agricultural products and update its 
replies to the annual Questionnaire on Import Li censing Procedures to cover these products.  His 
delegation would appreciate a formal statement to the Committee at this meeting confirming Turkey's 
intention to do so promptly.  The US reserved  all its rights under the WTO Agreements.  His 
delegation would submit these points in  writing to the Turkish delegation.3 
 (iv) Date of the next meeting 
3.9 The Chairperson
 reminded Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved 
28 September 2005 for the next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional 
meetings would be convened if necessary.  She fu rther reminded Members that  the fourth transitional 
review of China under Paragraph 18 of its Protocol of Accession would be carried out at that meeting. 
 
3.10 The Committee took note  of the above. 
 
4. Election of officers 
4.1 The Committee elected Ms. Pamela Cooper (C anada) as Chairperson of the Committee by 
acclamation, to hold office until end of the first meeting of 2006, under Rule 12 of the Committee's 
Rules of Procedure (G/L/147).  It also elected Mr. Peter Govindasamy (Singapore) as Vice-Chairman 
by acclamation.  
__________ 
                                                     
 
3 Circulated in document G/LIC/Q/TUR/3.