RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/LIC/M/32 
16 December 2010 
 (10-6779) 
Committee on Import Licensing  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 29 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Anna Ashikali (Cyprus
) 
  
 The Committee on Import Licensing held its thirty-second on 29 October 2010.  The agenda 
proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AI R/3645 and Revision 1, was adopted as follows:   
 
Table of Contents
 
 
 
1. Members' compliance with notification obli gations – developments since the last  
meeting ........................................................................................................................ ...............1  
2. Notifications.................................................................................................................. ...........10  
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) of the Agreement (publications 
and/or   legislation).......................................................................................................... .........10  
(ii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (new import licensing procedures, 
changes to existing licensing procedures and reverse notifications)........................................11  
(iii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Ag reement (Replies to the Questionnaire on 
Import Licensing Procedures)................................................................................................... 11 
3. Eighth Biennial Review of the Implementation and Operation of the Agreement under 
Article 7.1.................................................................................................................... .............12  
4. Report (2010) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods ..................................12  
5. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........12  
 
1. Members' compliance with notification ob ligations – developments since the last 
meeting  
1.1 The Chairperson  informed the Committee that since the last meeting, 40 notifications had 
been received under various provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures (three 
notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) , three under Article 5.1-5.4 and thirty-four under 
Article 7.3).  As of the date of the meeting, out  of a total Membership of 153 (counting each of the 
European Union member States individually), there remained 20 Members1 who had not submitted 
any notification under the Agreement since joining the WTO.  Nevertheless, she highlighted that 
during the past two years 2008 – 2010, some Member s had submitted notifications for the first time, 
under Article 5 (Croatia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Malawi and Thailand);  and, 
                                                      
1 Angola, Belize, Botswana, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Congo, Djibouti, Egypt, Guinea, 
Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepa l, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, 
Solomon Islands, Tanzania,  Tonga and Viet Nam. G/LIC/M/32 
Page 2  
 
  under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (Cape Verde, Kuwa it and Saint Kitts and Nevis).   She encouraged 
other Members, particularly those who had not  submitted any notification, to do the same. 
 1.2 A cumulative total of 96 Members, counting the European Union and its member States as 
one, had submitted notifications of la ws and regulations (under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b)).  Only 
34 Members, counting the European Union and its member States 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 chang es to import licensing procedures without submitting 
the initial notifications of legislation or replies to  the Questionnaire.  In addition, the Chairperson 
informed the Committee that, while Article 5.5 of the Agreement allowed Members to submit 
counter-notifications (where a Member considers th at another Member has not notified the institution 
of a licensing procedure or changes in the pro cedures), no such counter-notifications had been 
received up to the date of this meeting.  As to the replies to the Questionnaire
2, notifications under 
Article 7.3, a cumulative total of 98 Members, counting the European Union as one, had submitted 
their replies since the entry into  force of the WTO Agreement.  For Article 7.3 notifications, the 
annual deadline of 30 September, as established in document G/LIC/3, was not often respected by 
many Members.  With regard to the responses to  the Annual Questionnaire, she 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 for Members to obtain a 
complete overview of the licensing regimes of all Members.  
1.3  She also indicated that since 2009, at the request of the Chairperson and in light of the 
suggestions and ideas proposed and discussed at th e informal meetings that had taken place, the 
Secretariat had prepared and sent specific letters to each one of the WTO Members.  This was to remind them of their transparency obligations and to highlight the date of receipt of the last 
notification from their authorities, especially under Article 7.3 of the Agreement.  These letters also 
contained an invitation to Members to review the st atus of their notificati ons in general and update 
them whenever necessary;  they also included samp les of statements to be used by those Members 
who had not introduced any changes or had introd uced only a few to their import licensing regimes 
already notified to the Committee.  The latter had proved to be acceptable and easily applicable and 
some Members had already adopted short statements in their notifications. She therefore encouraged 
other Members to do so and to contact, if necessary,  the Secretariat for assistance in preparing their 
short notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreemen t.  With regard to the submission of draft 
notifications and the pertinent information (legal te xts, summaries of the legislation and publications, 
samples of application forms, lists and tables indi cating the goods to which ILPs apply, etc.), she 
invited delegations to submit them in electronic me dia compatible with the WTO software (Microsoft 
Word or similar) as this would help the Secretariat to promptly format and edit the draft notifications 
into WTO formats and/or provide suggestions or comments through the respective delegation in 
Geneva;  it would also avoid mistakes that might occur when retyping the draft notifications, especially considering that these were submitted in the three different WTO languages and that some 
copies and attachments were lengthy and unclear.  She also recommended that, in all cases, the Secretary of the Committee as well as the respec tive delegation in Geneva, be copied in the 
correspondence.  She encouraged Me mbers to consult the Secretariat whenever there were questions 
about the notification requirements and, in the case of developing and least developed countries, to 
ask for technical assistance to be provided in th eir countries with the participation of the national 
authorities responsible for enacting and administering import licensing procedures (ILPs).  1.4 The Committee took note
 of the statement made. 
 
1.5 The Chairperson  reminded delegations that according to  the Understanding on Procedures for 
the Review of Notifications Submitted under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
                                                      
2 The Questionnaire is annexed to document G/LIC/3.  G/LIC/M/32 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (document G/LIC/4), Members had to provide their written questions to other Members sufficiently in 
advance of the meeting of the Committee.  She encouraged delegations to do so as this would 
facilitate timely replies and contribute to a more effective and efficient use of the Committee's time.  She also indicated that Members should respond in writing to questions formally submitted to the 
Committee. 
 
1.6 She then informed the Co mmittee that, as the Airgram and its Revision indicated, the 
following set of documents were before the Comm ittee for its consideration:  (i) submissions 
containing questions:  document G/LIC/Q/COL/1 containing questions from Chile to Colombia; 
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/15 containing follow-up ques tions from the European Union to Indonesia;  
and, document G/LIC/Q/ARG/12 containing questi ons from Turkey to Argentina; and, (ii) 
submissions containing replies to the questions:  document G/LIC/Q/ARG/11 containing the replies 
from Argentina to the questions from Canada, China,  the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Peru and 
the United States;  document G/LIC/Q/BRA/15 containing the replies from Brazil to the questions posed by China;  document G/LIC/Q/TUR/6, containi ng the replies from Turkey to the United States;  
and, document G/LIC/Q/VEN/6 containing the replies from Venezuela to Mexico.  She also informed 
the Committee that a communication from India, received on 28 October 2010, contained India's 
responses to the questions posed by the United Stat es and that this would be circulated under the 
G/LIC/Q series
3 and considered at the next meeting. 
  1.7 The delegate of Chile
 informed the Committee that the Chil ean exporters of cuts of chicken 
meat had not been able to export their products to Colombia since both HS tariff line 020713 and HS 
tariff line 020714 which corresponded, respectively, to "cuts and offal, fresh or chilled " and to "cuts 
and offal, frozen", were subject to import licences (I L);  that during the last 12 months Colombia had 
not granted any of these import licences under the argument that these had been suspended on a 
temporary basis.  In September 2009 "AGROSUPER ", a Chilean company, reached an agreement 
with "Alimentos Andinos SA", a Colombian importi ng company, to export cuts and offal of chicken 
meat to Colombia.  Even though the importer had the required zoo-sanitary permission to import, duly 
approved by the "Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario –ICA", and by the "Instituto de Vigilancia de 
Medicamentos y Alimentos –INVIMA", the Minist ry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism (MCIT) 
had indicated that "there was a temporary  restricti on on this type of import" and never granted the IL.  
Since 2009, the Chilean authorities had been discussi ng the matter bilaterally with Colombia but had 
not obtained any reasonable explanation nor a mutua lly satisfactory solution.  The Chilean private 
sector had recently reiterated its concern to the nati onal authorities.  Chile had had the intention to 
raise this issue at the Committee meeting that took place in April 2010, but agreed to deal with it in 
the context of the Bilateral Administrative Co mmission of the Free Trade Agreement between 
Colombia and Chile which took place during 5-6 May 2010.  As a result of this, Colombia committed 
itself to revise the situation with a view to provide  a solution within a short time-frame, but this had 
not been the case.  Consequently, Chile had broug ht its concerns to the Committee's attention to 
facilitate the clarification of the issue by Colombia  and to obtain an explanation for  the measures it 
had been applying in light of the objective and provisions of the Agreement on ILPs.  Chile 
considered the restrictions by Colombia to gran t ILs did not comply with the Agreement and limited 
the Chilean exports to the Colombian market.  Thus, Chile sought responses from Colombia to the 
questions contained in document G/LIC/Q/COL/1.  He also indicated that Chile had brought this 
concern to the Committee, a multilateral forum, but that Chile reserved its position that, within the 
context of the Free Trade Agreement between Chile  and Colombia, licences could not be applied to 
limit the access of the Chilean produc ts into the Colombian market. 
 
1.8 The delegate of Colombia  informed the Committee that only a few days before the meeting 
the questions were received which in turn were c onveyed to her authorities.  Colombia had always 
                                                      
3 Circulated as docum ent G/LIC/Q/IND/16. G/LIC/M/32 
Page 4  
 
  granted the highest importance to its trade relatio n with Chile; Chile's questions deserved all the 
attention, her authorities were preparing the res ponses and would provide them as soon as possible. 
  1.9 The delegate of Chile
 thanked Colombia for its statement and sought prompt and substantive 
responses from it. 
 
1.10 The delegate of Turkey  indicated that the questions to Argentina in document 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/12 concerning its import licensing regime  and the restrictive practices it was applying, 
reflected the concerns of the Turkish industry;  these practices had impacts on their exports to 
Argentina and represented a significant loss of market s.  Refrigerators, air conditioners and washing 
machines where among the products affected by the changes in Argentina from an automatic to a non-
automatic regime.  The Turkish industry had reported not only lack of transparency and predictability 
in the system's implementation, but also long de lays in obtaining licences;  these were the major 
concerns because they were considerably longer than  the time-frames establis hed in the Agreement.  
Turkey asked Argentina to provide prompt and s ubstantive responses; and to bring its regime and 
implementation in line with its WTO obligations. 
 1.11 The delegate of Argentina
 informed the Committee that her delegation would provide the 
responses to Turkey.4 
 1.12 Argentina's measures raised serious and sy stemic concerns, stated the delegate of the 
European Union
; and, indicated that Argentina had been progressively extending the scope of its 
non-automatic IL regime from originally 38 products, to more than 400 tariff lines.  This extension, 
combined with the significant delays in obtaining the required IL, had been creating difficulties to EU 
exporters.  Argentina's replies to the various questions posed by Members had aggravated the 
concerns:  the most recent replies denied that non-automatic import licensing should only be applied 
when necessary to implement an underlying measure.5  This was inconsistent with 
GATT Article III:2, which indicated that " non-automatic licensing procedures shall correspond in 
scope and duration to the measure they are used to  implement, and shall be no more administratively 
burdensome than absolutely necessary to administer the measure ".  Article 5(g) of the Agreement 
confirmed this by requiring that the notification of non-automatic ILPs included an indication of " the 
measure being implemented th rough the licensing procedure ".  A different interpretation of the 
Agreement would render GATT Article XI meaningless, since it would allow WTO Members to use 
arbitrarily IL regimes as a means to restrict imports for protectionist purposes.  1.13 The EU representative continued to indicate that  Argentina, in its replies, had also tried to 
justify its non-automatic IL regime by referring to the need to "evaluate ch anges in trade flows".  
However, the EU was of the opinion that monitoring trade did not justify the recourse to a 
non-automatic ILP;  this was only justified, wh ere necessary, to implement a WTO compatible 
measure.  Argentina's argument that these meas ures were necessary to verify compliance with 
technical standards was also weak.  Argentina's refe rence to technical regulations adopted back in the 
1990's to justify the introduction of non-automatic  IL from 2007 onwards was difficult to understand; 
why had non-automatic ILs become  necessary for some products for which the applicable technical 
standards had been in place for more than a decade? 
 1.14 The application of such a non-automatic import licensing regime also posed significant difficulties.  First, delays in obtaining the licences went beyond the time-frames established in 
Article 3.5(f) of the Agreement.  This provision estab lished 30 days to issue an IL when applications 
were considered on a first-come first-served basis; and, a maximum period of 60 days if applications 
were considered simultaneously.  But importers were experiencing delays over 100 days to obtain a 
                                                     
 
4 See document G/LIC/Q/ARG/13 (and Corrigendum 1 in French and Spanish only). 
5 (G/LIC/Q/ARG/11, response 2).   G/LIC/M/32 
 Page 5 
 
 
  licence in Argentina.  Second, Argentinean authorities were reportedly imposing additional 
requirements on importers to those already included in  the legislation, such as:  commitments on trade 
balancing requirements with a view to reduce impor ts or increase production in Argentinean facilities, 
evidence of increase in exports of Argentinean products, or a process diagram showing the entire 
production cycle of the goods subject to the applica tion.  The EU found this incompatible with the 
core principle of the Agreement, according to wh ich import licensing requirements could not be more 
burdensome than absolutely necessary to implemen t the underlying measure.  Third, some rules 
applicable to the examination procedures for granting import licenses were not part of the 
Argentinean legislation (e.g. change from first- come first-served method of consideration of 
applications to simultaneous cons ideration). This was inconsistent  with Article 1.4 (a) of the 
Agreement, according to which rules concerning ILPs s hould be published.  As a result of this, and in 
addition to the negative impact on trade flows, the Argentinean ILPs also raised important systemic 
concerns, even more so if the G-20 commitment not  to introduce new trade-restrictive measures to 
deal with the economic crisis was considered.  Th e EU invited Argentina to bring its regime in 
compliance with its WTO obligations as soon as possible. 
 
1.15 The delegate of the United States  indicated that her authorities were troubled by the extensive 
use by Argentina of ILPs in a manner which restrict ed the ability for the US exporters to access the 
Argentine market.  This had been indicated in past interventions and also in written submissions.  The 
US had made many attempts to obtain clarificati on from Argentina on the operation of its IL regime 
or redress from its negative effects on trade from the US;  Argentina had repeatedly responded with 
vague and unhelpful answers that confirmed the syst em's lack of transparency.  To date, no serious 
explanation regarding the precise measures being implemented through the use of non-automatic 
import license procedures had been provided by Arge ntina.  Moreover, Argentina had contradicted 
itself in attempting to provide such a justifi cation: in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/11 Argentina 
responded to question two: " the measures being implemente d under the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures are automatic and non-automa tic import licensing. There is no specific 
underlying measure ".  However, in the same document, Ar gentina then made a conflicting claim, 
stating that " The decision to require non-automatic licensing of products that were previously subject 
to automatic licensing was prompted by the signi ficant changes in trade flows for these products, 
which called for the establishment of a verificati on and monitoring mechanism, other than automatic 
licensing, that could more accurately evaluate the reasons for such changes ".   In addition to the 
confusion over whether there was, or not, an underlying need for the licensing measures, her 
authorities had trouble understanding why the evaluation of trends and changes in trade flows would require a verification mechanism, and why the latter needed a non-automatic import licence.  The continued reports received from exporters in the US st ating that their shipments encountered delays of 
more than 60 days to obtain an import licence was an  additional concern.  Argentina claimed that all 
licenses were issued within 30-60 days; this as sertion was difficult to understand, especially when 
eight Members in this Committee had expressed conti nued concerns about the same delays.  Recent 
reports that Argentina had frequently requested add itional information from importers in an attempt to 
delay the processing times to issue ILs were equally  troubling.  According to these, Argentina often 
required importers to complete an in-person "con sultation" with the Ministry as well as provide 
additional information or additional copies of th e IL applications;  none of these were a normal 
practice, nor required for normal customs clearanc e, even for licensed goods. Moreover, during these 
burdensome and unnecessary requests, impor ters had indicated that Argentina " stopped the clock " on 
the processing time of applications and did not count th e elapsed time in the 60 day period to issue an 
IL.  The US delegation urged Argentina to uphold its commitment to the WTO and the Agreement on ILPs; and, to operate its import licensing regimes in  a transparent and predictable manner according to 
WTO rules.  Argentina should reform its import licensi ng regime to ensure the issue of ILs in a timely 
manner and applying procedures without trade restrictive effects.  Given the number of Members in the Committee who had expressed serious concerns on this matter, the US requested an explanation 
from Argentina on what steps it was taking to a ddress the concerns raised by these Members, 
including the US; and on how it intended to re form its import licensing system.  Her delegation G/LIC/M/32 
Page 6  
 
  looked forward to receiving details about this situ ation from Argentina, including how and when it 
would be remedied.  1.16 The delegate of China
 thanked Argentina for its respon ses to the joint questions.  His 
authorities had carefully studied these but were still not convinced by the explanations and 
clarifications provided, some of which had created  more confusion on Argentina’s licensing system 
and practices.  Chinese exporters cont inued to report their difficulties to trade with Argentina;  in 
some cases the situation had even been aggravat ed because of the complicated and non transparent 
licensing requirements.  As an example he menti oned that, in the past, some Chinese toy exporters 
reported that it took 2 to 3 months to obtain licenses;   but currently the process was facing delays of 4 
to 5 months.  The toy industry w as not the only sector seriously impacted by the measures;  other 
sectors included footwear, textile and clothing, bicy cle, motorcycle, tyre and miscellaneous products, 
which covered almost all the major Chinese exports to Argentina.  His delegation had the following 
comments on Argentina's replies:  (i)  On the rationale for introducing and maintaining the non-
automatic import licensing requirements, Artic le 3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures provided that “ non-automatic licensing procedures shall correspond in scope and 
duration to the measure they are u sed to implement … the measure .”  From the context of the 
Agreement, the measure should be one of those adopted pursuant to relevant GATT provisions.  
Question two of document G/LIC/Q/10 asked Argen tina to specifically iden tify the measures being 
implemented through non-automatic import licensing.   Nevertheless, Argentina replied that there was 
no specific underlying measure as this created confus ion, so if there was no underlying measure, what 
was the non-automatic licensing for?  (ii)  In its re plies to Questions 4(a), 5,  10 and 13(c) of document 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/10, Argentina tried to explain that  the introduction of some non-automatic import 
licensing measures was to verify, monitor or evaluate  trade flows.  China was not convinced by this 
explanation; licensing was also used  in China for monitoring trade.  However, China's procedure was 
automatic rather than non-automatic; automatic import licensing was sufficient enough for the said 
purpose.  China invited Argentina to elaborate fu rther on its verification and monitoring mechanism 
and on why the licensing procedure might be non-automatic;  and, to explain how it ensured that the increase in non-automatic import licensing measures should not have additional trade-restrictive 
effects on imports to those caused by the imposition of th e restriction, as provided in Article 3.2 of the 
Agreement.  (iii)  On technical regulation issues,  China respected Argentina's right to implement 
standards or regulations for environmental purposes,  safety and consumer protection.  However, his 
authorities were not convinced that non-automatic import licensing was necessary to verify 
compliance with these regulations.  While some of  these regulations had already been in place for 
years, the dramatic increase in non-automatic lic ensing requirements started in 2008.  China did not 
understand why the use of non-automatic licensing was ne cessary to ensure comp liance.  (iv) On the 
delays to grant licences, his delegation had take n note of the reply to question 3(a) that the 
Argentinean officials respected the time-limits prescribed in the Agreement on ILPs.  However, 
Chinese exporters continued to report lengthy delays in  practice.  (v)  China had other concerns on the 
arbitrariness, lack of transparency and predictability  in the allocation and granting of licences.  Some 
exporters had reported that, based on the importers performance in the previous year, the Argentine 
authorities started to reduce toy import quotas of each importer by a certain percentage.  Up to now importers and exporters had not f ound any official publication explaining the reasons and criteria for 
such reduction. 
 1.17 The delegate of Japan
 echoed the previous speakers.  In previous meetings his delegation had 
expressed that it was closely monitoring the Argen tinean measures.  The situation had not improved 
and Japanese industries were still experiencing significan t delays in the issue of ILs, over the 60 days 
stipulated in the Agreement.  Argentina's an swers to the joint questions posed to it in 
G/LIC/Q/ARG/11 were not sufficient, even conf using. Japan asked Argentina to respond to 
Question 6 in G/LIC/Q/ARG/10 concerning the exp ected duration of the licensing procedures under 
Article 5.2(h) of the Agreement; and urged Argen tina's government that its ILs complied with the 
WTO rules.  G/LIC/M/32 
 Page 7 
 
 
  1.18 The delegate of Peru  echoed the previous speakers; her authorities were also concerned by the 
increased number of products in Argentina subject to non-automatic licenses.  Her authorities were 
closely monitoring the Argentine licensing system an d had concerns that it was exceeding the 60 days' 
time period in the Agreement; this had a negative a dverse effect on the impor ters and exporters of 
Peruvian products into Argentina, because it lacked  predictability and legal certainty.  The main 
objectives of the Agreement were to simplify the ad ministrative procedures, provide transparency and 
guarantee their implementation through a fair and equ itable administration so as to avoid restrictive or 
distorting measures; thus, it was necessary to examine whether the Argentinean non-automatic 
licensing system was consistent with the Agreem ent and with GATT 1994 Article XI.  According to 
Article 3.2 of the Agreement, non-automatic licences would be used to administer underlying 
measures that were consistent with the WTO legal framework.  Thus, licensing procedures should not 
have distorting or restrictive effects in addition to  the underlying measures and might be related to the 
scope and duration of these; the non-automatic licen sing system had not been established in the 
Agreement to monitor changes in trade flows.  However, in G/LIC/Q/ARG/11, Argentina responded 
in Question 2 by stating that there were no unde rlying measures applicable by its non-automatic 
licensing system.  Argentina had also stated in G/LIC/Q/ARG/8 and 11 that the main reason for 
imposing the non-automatic licences was the need to monitor changes in trade flows given the 
international economic cris is and its negative impact on the econom y.  She emphasized that according 
to the economic projections made by the WTO, a r ecovery from the crisis could be appreciated for 
2010; and, asked Argentina to put an end to  its regime which had a temporary nature. 
 
1.19 The delegate of Mexico  endorsed the previous statements; the Mexican exporters, particularly 
in the electronics industry, had indicated that long delays in granting licences went beyond 100 days.  Mexico was concerned by the Argentine responses,  by the increased number of products currently 
covered by the licensing system and by the time-fram e it was taking to obtain a licence.  She urged 
Argentina to provide clearer information about the concerns Members had raised and to eliminate the 
long delays that Mexican e xporters were experiencing. 
 1.20 The delegate of Canada
 indicated that her delegation had systemic concerns on this issue, 
namely in the context of Members' transparency w ith regard to IL practices and on the implication it 
had in predictability in the trading system.  He r delegation looked forwar d to obtaining further 
responses by Argentina; this issue had been rais ed in other WTO instances, this reflected its 
importance and the need for greater transparency in ILPs. 
 1.21 The delegate of Argentina
 thanked delegations for their statements and requested these in 
written.  She recalled that Argentina's written responses were contained in G/LIC/Q/ARG/11. 
 
1.22 The delegate of the European Union  reminded Indonesia that despite the flexible approach 
showed by its authorities towards the EU exporte rs, her delegation considered Decree 56 as a breach 
of the provision in GATT and in the Agreement.  Th is matter, of systemic importance for the EU, led 
to the follow-up questions by the EU in docum ent G/LIC/Q/IDN/15, where it asked for further 
clarification of the replies by Indonesia in documen t G/LIC/Q/IDN/14.  At the start of the meeting, 
her delegation had received the replies to the follow -up questions and would cl osely look at them.  
The issue was particularly important if the rumours on a possible prolongation for 2 more years of 
Decree 56 were confirmed.  1.23 The delegate of the United States
 echoed the statement by the EU and requested an update on 
the status of Decree 56 from Indonesia, which was notified in G/LIC/N/2/IDN/2. The US had 
understood that Decree 56 would expire in Decemb er 2010, but requested confirmation by Indonesia 
that the requirements contained in Decree 56 would expire and would not be renewed, including the 
requirement for exporters to complete an "impor t technical investigation".  She also requested 
additional information from Indonesia regarding the sc ope of its import licensing regime and its most 
recent responses to the questionnaire on IL proce dures.  The US was concerned that parts of G/LIC/M/32 
Page 8  
 
  Indonesia's IL regime had not been fully notified to the Committee.  In reviewing Indonesia's past 
notifications and responses to the Annual Questionna ire, the full scope of the procedures was unclear, 
and certain requirements appeared to be absent.  Exporters had reported to her authorities about new 
procedures, contained in 45/DAG/PER/9/2009, later amended in 17/M-DAG/PER/3/2010, and 
possibly in 39/2010.  The original procedures appeared to require that companies obtained import 
licenses to import goods either for their own manufacturing or for further distribution, but not both.  It 
appeared that 39/2010 had then further modified this requirement.  Given the potentially burdensome 
and trade restrictive nature of such a requireme nt, especially when combined with other import 
requirements, the US requested I ndonesia to provide additional inform ation regarding the exact nature 
of the licensing procedures, including a justificati on for such a requirement;  and, to indicate when 
Indonesia intended to notify these licensing procedures.   The US also asked for clarification on the 
scope of products covered by these new requirements and if all imported goods  would be subject to 
these new procedures once the requirement entered into  effect.  With regard to the structure of 
Indonesia's responses to the Annual Questionnaire, which seemed to contain responses organized by 
year, she asked Indonesia to elaborate on the reason fo r this structure. If the requirements listed under 
year 2007 were still in effect or if the requireme nts listed under year 2009 should be considered as the 
current set of requirements.  The responses to th e Questionnaire also appeared to omit certain 
products for which import licensing procedures were re quired, such as steel and iron;  why were these 
measures not notified?  In light of the above, the US asked Indonesia to review  its previous responses 
to the Questionnaire and notifications and to ensu re that the full scope of its import licensing 
procedures was appropriately notified to th e Committee before the next meeting. 
 
1.24 The delegate of Indonesia
 thanked the EU and the US for the follow-up questions regarding 
Decree 56/2008.  Concerning the questions from the EU, his delegation had provided its responses to 
the EU at the start of the meeting and hoped the EU would find these satisfactory.  He would convey 
the follow-up questions to his capital, as well as the concerns expressed at the meeting by the US.  He 
asked for these in written form. 
 1.25 The delegate of Brazil
 reminded the Committee that at the la st meeting he made a preliminary 
presentation of the replies to China, (G/LIC/Q/BRA /15); Brazil had explained the criteria used to 
determine which goods required no n-automatic IL, as well as the compatibility of those criteria with 
the Agreement on ILPs.  Brazil also explained that  the objective of the non-automatic licenses for toys 
was to ensure that these complied with safety requirements in order to protect consumers.  The 
responses also underlined the reasons why Brazil c onsidered its licensing requirement was not more 
administrative burdensome than necessary to fulfil th e objective of the measure.  With respect to the 
information provided together with the application for a non-automatic IL, in the case of toys, Brazil 
indicated the legislation establishing these requirements as well as information on these specific 
requirements.  The procedures followed by Brazil and its authorities in considering an application for 
ILs for toys were also described  in the responses.  He also in formed delegations that the IL 
requirements for toys had the objective of ensuring th at imported toys complied with the same safety 
standards imposed to domestic toys; these proce dures were non-discriminatory in their application 
and consistent with Brazil' s obligations in the WTO. 
 
1.26 The delegate of China  thanked Brazil for its replies; his authorities would continue 
monitoring trade with Brazil in the toys' industry.  1.27 The delegate of Turkey
 informed the Committee that his delegation had responded to the 
questions posed by the US in document G/LIC/Q/TUR/ 5.  Turkey applied sanitary controls to distilled 
spirits during both the importation and production stages.  A "control certificate", issued by the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) , aimed at ensuring food safety and protection of 
human health and life, was required to import these products into Turkey.  This document with the 
aim of ensuring human health protection was not an  IL by any means. Likewise, domestic producers 
of distilled spirits also had to obtain a producti on permit certificate from the MARA after having  G/LIC/M/32 
 Page 9 
 
 
  proved that they fully met food conditions and requi rements.  In conclusion, imports of distilled 
products and domestic production of  such products were subject to the same non-discriminatory 
procedures in fulfilling the sanitary controls, theref ore, Turkey did not administer IL for distilled 
spirits.  
1.28 The delegate of the United States
 thanked Turkey for its replies; nevertheless her authorities 
still had concerns on whether or not the TAB and MARA requirements to import distilled spirits 
might constitute an import licence.  In this regard , her delegation sought addi tional clarification from 
Turkey; it would also submit follow-up questions.  Turkey had claimed that this matter was being 
addressed in the TBT and SPS Committees, but Turkey  had not notified these requirements either to 
the Committee on Import Licensing or to the TBT or SPS Committees.  The US looked forward to 
working with Turkey to clarify this issue.  1.29 The delegate of Venezuela,
 when referring to the content of the replies to Mexico's questions 
in document G/LIC/Q/VEN/6, reiterated that the certificates of no-national production or insufficient 
national production clearly were not an import license and did not fall within the scope of Article 1 of 
the Agreement.  1.30 The delegate of Mexico
 thanked Venezuela for its replies; these were being analyzed by her 
authorities.  
1.31 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee that the day immediately before the Committee 
meeting, India had submitted its responses6 to the United States.  These would be considered at the 
next meeting.  The delegate of the United Sates  thanked India for its responses.  
 1.32 The Chairperson
 informed the Committee that as indicated in the Airgram and its Revision, 
the European Union had informed that it w ould present some questions to Viet Nam on 
"Circular 24/2010/TT-BCT of 28 May 2010"  1.33 The delegate of the European Union
 informed the Committee that on 28 May 2010, the 
Ministry of Industry and Trade of Viet Nam is sued Circular 24/2010/TT-BCT (Circular 24) on the 
application of automatic import licences (AIL) on a range of goods.  Her de legation had repeatedly 
encouraged Viet Nam to notify Circular 24, but to da te this had not happened.  The 60 day deadline to 
which Article 5 of the Agreement referred to, expi red on 28 July 2010.  The EU wanted to know 
about Viet Nam's intention to notify this measure; and, recalled the importance of respecting notification obligations.   The EU recognized that Viet Nam was currently facing economic 
challenges, notably concerning its trade deficit;  the EU had understood that th is measure was part of 
the measures adopted by Viet Nam over the past mont hs to face the trade deficit.  The EU delegation 
sought clarification from Viet Nam on the objective of this measure and on if it was meant to be 
temporary.  According to feedback from the Eur opean industry concerning implementation of the 
measure, her authorities had been told that the admi nistrative burden had increased and that delays in 
goods clearance had also increased, in some inst ances up to two weeks.  Her authorities were 
concerned about the possible trade-restricting eff ects of the measure on imports subject to these 
automatic licensing procedures, particularly for perishable products. 
 1.34 The delegate of Viet Nam
 thanked the EU for its questions concerning Circular 24; his 
delegation had not received any instructions yet, but assured the EU that it would do its best to comply with the notification obligation; Viet Nam asked if the EU could send the questions in writing. 
 
1.35 The delegate of the United States
 echoed some of the concerns raised by the EU;  for more 
than a year, the US had requested Viet Nam to provi de additional information on its IL regime and to 
                                                      
6 Circulated as G/LIC/Q/IND/16. G/LIC/M/32 
Page 10  
 
  properly notify it to the Committee on IL.  As me ntioned in past occasions, Viet Nam had not 
submitted any notifications since its accession in 200 7, nor had it provided an updated response to the 
Annual Questionnaire. However, since then, it  had indeed introduced several new licensing 
requirements.  She encouraged Vi et Nam to notify the full scope of its regime as soon as possible.  
The US was especially concerned about the most re cent procedures, published in Circular 24, which 
significantly extended the scope of products subject to IL.  It seemed that Circular 24 replaced the 
previously established requirements contained in Ci rcular 17 and that, in addition to those products 
for which licenses were required under Circular 17,  the new Circular 24 extended requirements to 
cover certain food and agricultural products as we ll as textile and apparel pr oducts.  Her delegation 
sought additional explanation on how these new products  were selected for inclusion in Circular 24; 
and, with what measures these requirements were be ing used to implement them.  She urged Viet 
Nam to notify Circular 24 and to indicate if ther e had been any other changes to Viet Nam's import 
licensing regime since its accession;  this was a basic requirement of WTO Membership and of this Committee and Viet Nam should acknowledge its respons ibility in this area and provide the requested 
information. 
 
1.36 The delegate of Canada  indicated the interest of her authorities in Circular 24 and encouraged 
Viet Nam to submit its notification as soon as possible.  1.37 The delegate of Australia
 echoed the concerns expressed by previous speakers regarding Viet 
Nam's IL regime, including the recent Circular 24  which extended the list of goods subject to 
automatic IL requirements.  He encouraged Viet Nam to notify its measures to facilitate Members' 
understanding of its ratio nale and implications. 
 1.38  The delegate of Viet Nam
 thanked delegations for their inte rventions; their concerns would be 
conveyed to his Capital.  
1.39 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 Committee7, required all Members to publis h 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.  Members should also submit the draft 
notifications as well as the pertinent information (legal texts, summaries of the legislation and 
publications, samples of application forms, lists a nd tables indicating the goods to which ILPs apply 
to, etc) in electronic media compatible with the WTO software since this would help the Secretariat to 
promptly format and edit the draft notifications into the WTO formats and to avoid mistakes that might occur when retyping the draft notifications .  Copies of laws, regulations and information 
submitted under these provisions were available in the Secretariat.  She info rmed the Committee that 
since the last meeting, three notifications had been received from the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia, Paraguay and the United States.
8 
 
                                                      
7 G/LIC/3. 
8 Contained in documents G/LIC/N/1/MKD/3; G/LIC/N/1/PRY/2; and,  G/LIC/N/1/USA/6, 
respectively.  G/LIC/M/32 
 Page 11 
 
 
  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 which instituted 
licensing procedures or changes in these procedur es, were required to notify the Committee within 
60 days of the publication of these procedures.  Para graph 2 of Article 5 listed the information that 
should be included in such notifications.  Members also had to submit copies of the publications in 
which this information was publishe d.  Furthermore, paragraph 5 of  Article 5 provided the possibility 
of making counter-notifications, where a Member co nsidered that another Member had not notified a 
licensing procedure or changes therein, in accordance with paragraphs 1-3 of Article 5.  She informed 
the Committee that under this provision there were three  notifications submitted by:  Costa Rica, 
Malawi and Thailand, as listed in  the Airgram and its Revision.9  The notification from Thailand was 
not available in the three WTO official languages a nd would be considered at the next meeting, but 
she would invite delegations to raise any questions or comments to be considered by Thailand at the 
next meeting.   2.5  The Committee took note
 of the notifications from Costa Rica and Malawi. 
 
(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 thirty-four notifications listed in the 
Airgram and its Revision convened at the meeting, received from Argentina; Armenia; Burkina Faso; 
Canada; Chile; Costa Rica; Croa tia; the European Union; th e Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia; Grenada; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; I ndia; Japan; Korea; Kuwait; Macao, China;  
Namibia; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Norway; Peru; Qata r; Switzerland; Thailand; Trinidad and Tobago; 
Turkey; the United States and Zimbabwe.10  She also informed the Committee that the notifications 
from Korea (G/LIC/N/3/KOR/9) and two notificati ons from Argentina (G/LIC/N/3/ARG/ 6 and 7) 
were not available in the three WTO official langua ges; and, that after the Airgram and its Revision  
were issued,  one notification had been received from the Dominican Republic11 under this provision.  
Thus, these notifications would be considered at the next meeting but she also invited delegations to 
raise questions or comments to be considered by these Members at the next meeting.  She reminded 
Members that at the last meeting on April 2010, the notification from Switzerland contained in document G/LIC/N/3/CHE/5 was not available in th e three WTO official languages and that this 
would be considered at this meeting. 
 2.7 The Committee took note
 of the notifications announced by the Chairperson.  
 
                                                      
9 Contained in documents G/LIC/N/2/CRI/2; G/LIC/N/2/MWI/1; and G/LIC/N/2/THA/1, respectively. 
10 (G/LIC/N/3/ARG/5/Corr.1); (G/LIC/N/3/ARG/6+7 ); (G/LIC/N/3/BFA/3); (G/LIC/N/3/CAN/9);  
(G/LIC/N/3/CHL/5); (G/LIC/N/3/CRI/7); (G/LIC /N/3/HRV/5); (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/13+Corr.1);  
(G/LIC/N/3/EEC/13/Add.1);  (G/LIC/N/3/MKD/2);  (G/L IC/N/3/GRD/4);  (G/LIC/N/3/HND/1/Add.1/Corr.1);  
(G/LIC/N/3/HND/5);  (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/14 );  (G/LIC/N/3/IND/11);  (G/LIC/N /3/JPN/9);  (G/LIC/N/3/KOR/9);  
(G/LIC/N/3/KWT/1); (G/LIC/N /3/MAC/13); (G/LIC/N/3/NAM/5&6); (G/LIC/N/3/NIC/2);  
(G/LIC/N/3/NGA/6);  (G/LIC/N/3/NOR/5 );  (G/LIC/N/3/PER/6);  (G/LIC/N /3/QAT/7);  (G/LIC/N/3/CHE/6);  
(G/LIC/N/3/THA/3);  (G/LIC/N/3/TTO/9 );  (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/10);  (G/LIC/N /3/USA/7);  (G/LIC/N/3/ZWE/3). 
11 Contained in document G/LIC/N/3/DOM/4. G/LIC/M/32 
Page 12  
 
  3. Eighth Biennial Review of the Implemen tation and Operation of the Agreement under 
Article 7.1 
3.1 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 Seventh Biennial Review of the Impl ementation and Operation of the Agreement took place 
in October 2008.  She referred to the background do cument prepared by the Secretariat, on its own 
responsibility and for the Committee's consideration,  circulated as G/LIC/W/37, which covered the 
period from 21 October 2008 to 29 October 2010.  She hi ghlighted that the Secretariat 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 2008- 2010.  She said that the document, as well as the annexes, would be updated to take into account the discussion at the present meeti ng.  This report would be circulated in the 
G/LIC/- series.  
3.2 The Committee agreed to adopt
 the report as updated.12 
 4. Report (2010) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods  
4.1 The Chairperson
 said that the Committee was required to submit an annual report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods, (CTG).  A draft report to the CTG, covering the activities 
of the Committee in 2008, had been circulated  in document G/LIC/W/36, for the Committee's 
consideration.  The information covered in the draf t report, including its Anne x, would be updated to 
reflect the notifications received up to the present meeting, as well as the discussion at this meeting. 
 4.2 There were no comments on the draft report.  The Committee agreed
 to adopt the report, 
subject to the updating.  The report as revised a nd adopted was circulated as document G/L/941 and 
Corr.113. 
 
5. Other Business 
Date of the next meetings 
 
5.1 The Chairperson  informed Members that the Secretariat had tentatively reserved 
Friday 15 April 2011 and Friday 21 October 2011 fo r the next meetings of the Committee, on the 
understanding that additional meetings would be convened if necessary.  5.2 The Committee took note
 of the information. 
 
__________  
                                                      
12 The final report was circulated as document G/LIC/21 and Corr. 1, dated 1 and 3 December 2010, 
respectively. 
13 Corrigendum in English only.