RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/14
6 November 2001
(01-5434)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 9 OCTOBER 2001
Chairperson: Ms. Simone Rudder (Barbados)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fourteenth meeting on 9  October 2001.  The
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1630, was adopted.
Table of contents
1. Notifica tions................................................................................................................ ...............1
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation) ..................1
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing
Procedures).................................................................................................................... .............2
(iii) Notifications under Article5 (new im port licensing procedures or changes).............................3
(iv) Procedures for the re view of notifications................................................................................. .3
2. Members' compliance with no tification obligations ..............................................................4
3. Report (2001) to the Council for Trade in Goods ..................................................................6
4. Other business............................................................................................................... ............6
(i) Tentative dates fo r meetings in 2002 ........................................................................................ ..6
1. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation)
1.1 The Chairperson said that there were eight notifications before the Committee for review:
from Burundi (G/LIC/N/1 /BUR/1), Cameroon (G /LIC/N/1/CMR/1), Ga bon (G/LIC/N/1/GAB/1),
Jordan (G/LIC/N/1/JOR/2), Mali (G/LIC/N/1 /MLI/1), Mongolia (G/LIC/N/1/MNG/1), Turkey
(G/LIC/N/1/TUR/3 /Add.1 and Corr.1) and Uruguay (G/LIC/N /1/URY/3).  In addition, since the
airgram convening this meeting had been issued, India had notified, under Articles 1.4(a) and 5,
amendments to its export and import policy up to March 2001.  India had submitted copies of two
relevant publications, i.e. Export and Import Policy, and Handbook of Procedures Vol.1 for the period
April 1997-March 2002 which incorporated amendments to its export and import policy up to
31 March 2001.  This notification (G/LIC/N/1/IND/4- G/LIC/N/2/I ND/4) would be on the agenda for
the next meeting.  The two publications submitted by India as well as the laws and regulations
referred to in the notifications from Cameroon, Jordan, Mali and Uruguay were available in theSecretariat for consultation by interested Members.  The Chairperson said that the two notifications
from Turkey and Uruguay had not yet been distributed in all three official languages.  The Committee
agreed nevertheless to proceed with the consideration of all notifications listed in the airgram,G/LIC/M/14
Page 2
including those pertaining to Turkey and Uruguay.  Regarding the status of notifications relating to
laws and regulations, the Chairperson said that sin ce the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, the
Committee had received notifications under these two provisions from only 72 Members (EC and its
member States counted as one Member).  All Members were required to notify their laws, regulations
and administrative procedures, and submit copies of any relevant publications or laws and regulations
upon becoming a Member of the WTO.  Any subsequent changes to these laws, regulations andadministrative procedures were also required to be notified.  Members which did not apply import
licensing procedures or did not have laws or regulations relevant to the Agreement were also required
to notify the Committee of this fact for it to obtain a complete overview of the licensing regimes of all
Members.  She requested all those Members which had not yet provided any information of their laws
and regulations relevant to import licensing to submit their notifications without further delay.
1.2 The representative of the United States expressed her appreciation to delegations which had
submitted notifications.  With regard to the notification from Uruguay, she wished to know which
products were subject to import licensing procedures under Decree 275/001.  Noting that Uruguay had
not updated its replies to the Questionnaire since January 1999 she requested Uruguay to submit an
updated notification under Article 7.3 in addition to providing a list of products covered under the
above Decree.1
1.3 The Chairperson recalled the procedures for the review of notifications agreed by the
Committee at the fourth meeting under which queries concerning notifications and replies to such
queries were required to be copied to the Secretariat for circulation to other Members (G/LIC/4).
1.4  The representative of India reminded delegations that India's export and import policies were
available on their website http://www.nic.in/eximpol.
1.5 The Committee took note of the notifications as well as the statements made.
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 (replies to the Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures)
1.6 The Chairperson said that since the last meeting, replies to the Questionnaire had been
received from the following 12 Members:  Antigua and Barbuda, Burundi, Chad, Czech Republic,
Georgia, Ghana, Liechtenstein, Macao China, Mali, Oman, South Africa and Turkey.  In addition,
since the airgram for this meeting had been issued, the Committee had also received notificationsfrom Albania, the European Communities and Hong Kong, China.  These would be on the agenda for
the next meeting.  Regarding the current status of notifications under Article 7.3,  the Chairperson said
that since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement replies to the Questionnaire had been received
from a total of only 74 Members, the EC and its member States counted as one Member:  11 Members
had submitted notifications in 1995, 22 Members in 1996, 25 Members in 1997, 26 Members in 1998,
20 Members in 1999, 32 Members in 2000, and 20 Members up to now this year.  The current
Membership of the WTO totalled 142.  The Agreement required all Members to submit replies to theQuestionnaire annually, by 30 September.  The Questionnaire used for this notification could be
found in the Annex to document G/LIC/3.  Noting that notifications were overdue from many
Members, she requested these Members to submit their notifications without further delay.  Even
those Members which had not made any changes to their import licensing procedures since their
previous notification, or which did not apply import licensing procedures, were required to so notify.
1.7 Turning to the notifications before the Committee, i.e. Antigua and Barbuda
(G/LIC/N/3/ATG/1), Burundi (G/LIC/N/3/BUR/1 ), Chad (G/LIC/N/3/TCD/2), Czech Republic
(G/LIC/N/3/CZE/1), Georgia (G/LIC/N/3/GEO/1), Ghana (G/LIC/N/3/GHA/2),
Liechtenstein(G/LIC/N/3/LIE/3/Rev.1), M acao China (G/LIC/N/3/MAC/3/Rev.1), Mali
(G/LIC/N/3/MLI/2), Oman (G/LIC /N/3/OMN/1), South Africa (G/LIC/N/3/ZAF/3/Rev.1) and Turkey
                                                     
1 Question circulated in document G/LIC/Q/URY/1.G/LIC/M/14
Page 3
(G/LIC/N/3/TUR/4 and Corr.1), the Chairperson said that the three notifications submitted by Antigua
and Barbuda, Georgia and Turkey had not yet been distributed in all three official languages.  The
Committee agreed, however, to proceed with the consideration of all notifications listed in the airgram
including those pertaining to the above three Members.
1.8 The representative of the United States expressed her appreciation to delegations which had
made the notifications.  Regarding Antigua and Barbuda, she sought clarification on the purpose of
requiring a non-automatic licence to import T-shirts.2  Regarding the notification from Ghana which
stated that it did not maintain an import licensing system since it had abolished its import licensing
system in 1989, she wished to know whether Ghana regulated its imports of products with health and
security implications, such as explosives, armaments and narcotics.  If it did, and if not through a
system of import licensing, how were such products regulated and how would importers learn about
the regulations and requirements applicable to such imports?3
1.9 The Chairperson reminded Members of the review procedures agreed by the Committee
(circulated in document G/LIC/4) whereby copies of questions concerning notifications and replies
thereto were required to be sent to the Secretariat for transparency purposes.
1.10 The representative of India said that he would submit an updated Article 7.3 notification as
soon as he received the necessary inputs from his capital.
1.11 The Committee took note of the notifications as well as the statements made.
(iii) Notifications under Article5 (new import licensing procedures or changes)
1.12 The Chairperson said that there were five notifications before the Committee, i.e. one from
Japan (G/LIC/N/2/JPN/3) and four from Poland (G/L IC/N/2/POL/2-5).  In addition, the notification
from India referred to under legislative notifications had been submitted under Article 1.4(a) as well
as Article 5, which would be on the agenda for the next meeting.
1.13 The Committee took note of the notifications.   (iv) Procedures for the review of notifications
1.14 The Chairperson recalled the agreement reached in the Committee in October 1996 for
reviewing notifications (circulated in document G/LIC/4) according to which the Committee had
recognized that Members could express views on notifications, and request clarifications, as may be
necessary, from other Members on matters related to th is Agreement.  It had been agreed that such
views, and requests for clarification, should be comm unicated in writing to the delegations concerned,
with copies for information to the Secretariat pr eferably 21 days, but at least ten working days, in
advance of the meeting at which they would be raised.  Replies to the questions should also be
forwarded to the delegations having raised the questi ons, in writing, with copies to the Secretariat for
circulation to other Committee Members.  The Chai rperson said that questions and replies received
under this procedure had since been circulated in the document series G/LIC/Q/-.  If questions were sent
in advance, delegations would have time to get the necessary clarifications from their capitals by the
time of the next meeting.  This procedure di d not, however, prevent delegations from seeking
clarifications or further information on notifications of any Member during the meeting.  Since theCommittee had agreed to these procedures, questions had been put to several delegations concerning
their notifications.  However, replies to these questions had been received from only some of them.
The Secretariat was not aware whether some Members, namely Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados,
Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chad, Dominica, Ecuador, Haiti, Jordan, Madagascar, Oman, Philippines, the United
                                                     
2 Question circulated in document G/LIC/Q/ATG/1.
3 Question circulated in document G/LIC/Q/GHA/1G/LIC/M/14
Page 4
Arab Emirates and Venezuela, had provided the information or clarifications requested relating to their
notifications.  If they had done so, they had omitted to keep the Secretariat informed for transparency
purposes.  If they had not yet replied, she wished to remind them that copies of their replies should
also be sent to the Secretariat for circulation to other Members.
1.15 The representative of Jordan referred to the questions posed by the United States (circulated
in document G/LIC/Q/JOR/1).  Due to the fact th at Jordan had adopted a new Imports and Exports
Law for the year 2001 which would result in a change of the entire import and export licensing system
of Jordan and as new bylaws and regulations would enter into force by the end of October 2001, his
delegation considered that it would serve no purpose in providing any replies to the United States at
the present time.  The Chairperson requested Jordan to submit replies to the questions as well as the
notification of its new legislation as soon as possible.
1.16 The Chairperson suggested that in order to motivate delegations to provide replies to the
queries made under these procedures, the Secretariat could be requested, as a monitoring activity, to
remind delegations before each meeting of the outstanding replies to questions that had been posed.
1.17 The Committee agreed to the Chairperson's propos al.  It took note of the statements made.
2. Members' compliance with notification obligations
2.1 The Chairperson recalled the discussion of this issue at the last two meetings.  At the meeting
in April 2001, the Committee continued its discussion with a view to agreeing how to ensure full
compliance of all Members with the mandatory notification obligations under Articles 1.4 and 8.2(publications and national legislation) and 7.3 (annual replies to the Questionnaire on Import
Licensing Procedures), and the voluntary notificati on requirement under Article 5 (institution of new
import licensing procedures or changes).  Several Members suggested possible ways of remedying the
problem, as recorded in the minutes of that meeting (G/LIC/M/13, paragraph 2).  The Chairperson
informed the Committee that following the above meetin g, as a first step, she had sent letters to all
Members who had not notified at all to express the concerns of the Committee and to urge them to
undertake all necessary efforts with their authorities to fulfil their notification obligations before the
October 2001 meeting.  She recalled that Members which did not apply any 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 import licensing regimes of allMembers.  Relevant parts of the handbook on WTO notification requirements, which gave a detailed
explanation of the notification requirements as well as examples of notifications, were also attached to
these letters.  In addition, those who had difficultie s in notifying were requested to indicate how they
thought the Secretariat could assist them in overco ming those difficulties.  The following 42 Members
which had not submitted any notification at all since joining the WTO had received such letters in
April 2001:  Albania, Angola, Antigua and Barb uda, Belize, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Central
African Rep., Congo, Democratic Rep. of Congo, Côte  d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Dominican Rep., Egypt, El
Salvador, Gabon, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Israel, Kuwait, Lesotho,
Maldives, Mauritania, Mongolia, Mozambique, Myanmar, Paraguay, Rwanda, St. Lucia, St. Vincent
& Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Slovak Rep., Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Thailand,
Togo and Zambia.  Of these, only five, i.e. Al bania, Antigua and Barbuda and Georgia (under Article
7.3), and Cameroon and Gabon (under Articles 1.4 and 8.2) had submitted notifications so far and noMember had indicated its difficulties in notifying or had indicated any technical assistance needs.  She
wished to hear comments or proposals from the Co mmittee in order to decide on a course of action.
2.2 The representative of the United States said that the US would be updating its legislative
notification and that its Article 7.3 notification was nearly completed and would be submitted to the
Secretariat soon.  Her delegation would be pleased to receive and respond to written questions from
Committee Members on the updated notifications which could be discussed at the next meeting.  She
considered that notifying each Member's licensing system, or the lack of one, was central to theG/LIC/M/14
Page 5
obligations of the Agreement and, therefore she appreciated the submissions by Members who had
notified for the first time.  Comprehensive and consistent notifications provided for a complete
overview of the licensing regimes in place within a trading system.  Notifications were an essential
element of WTO Members' obligations and tangible evidence of the respect they owed each other as
Members, to be both transparent in the admini stration of their trade regimes and responsive to
legitimate requests for information about access to each other's markets.  She noted that manyMembers still had not notified the Committee, and that others who had, had not responded to
questions posed by the United States concerning their notifications.  As a case in point, Ecuador had
not notified its laws and regulations since its WTO membership in January 1996.  The United States
had asked several questions of Ecuador at that time to which to date it had not received any responses.
Her delegation, therefore, reiterated at this meeting their questions, which had been contained in
document G/LIC/Q/ECU/1 dated 3 February 1997, and requested that Ecuador submit a written
response to the Secretariat.  Her delegation shared the concerns expressed by the Chairperson at thismeeting and at previous meetings about the lack of notifications and continued to hope that a number
of Members would make the initial submissions by  April 2002.  She sincerely hoped that Members
such as Egypt and Israel who had never notified the Committee would be able to do so before the
Committee met again in April 2002.  She also wished to urge those Members such as Mexico and
Venezuela who had notified the Committee in an ad hoc Article 5 submission about a change in theirlicensing regime, but had not submitted replies to the questionnaire on import licensing procedures or
made an initial submission documenting their import licensing regime, to do so as soon as possible.
While she understood the difficulty and cumbersome nature of the notification process, she
maintained that it was within any Member's ability  to fulfil its obligations to this Committee.  Her
delegation suggested that the Chairperson contact those Members who had never notified theirlegislation or submitted responses to the questionnaire, seeking their efforts to comply with these
requirements prior to the April 2002 meeting, and prepare a report documenting this action for
examination by all Members.  In addition, the Chairperson should continue to investigate how the
Secretariat and Committee Members might be able to offer assistance to other Members in responding
to the Questionnaire.
2.3 The representative of India suggested that any further requests from the Chair should be
addressed also to those Members who had partially fulfilled their notification obligations, reminding
them to fulfil the remaining obligations.  He too suggested that a time-limit of, for example,
April 2002 be given to those delegations that had not submitted any notification at all.
2.4 The representative of the European Communitie s said that the situation regarding compliance
of Members had not changed from Chairperson to Chairperson and from meeting to meeting and that
this remained a source of concern as only about half of the Members respected their obligations as far
as the notifications were concerned.  She did not wish to repeat herself as the minutes of the
April 2001 meeting faithfully reflected her delegation's position.  Her delegation was disappointed
that only five Members had responded to the Chair's letter that had been sent to some 42 delegations.She did not know how this situation could be improve d.  The EC had always said that it was willing to
provide technical assistance once it became aware of the needs of the countries and why they could
not notify.  In order to put an end to this situation that had gone on from year to year, she suggested
that the Chairperson consult with Members and try to identify what type of technical assistance
Members required.  The Committee would risk this situation arising again in the following year unlesssome concrete measures were undertaken now to solve it.
2.5 The Chairperson summed up the three prongs of the follow-up approach proposed by
Members:  first, the Committee should proceed with further reminders to those 37 Members who had
not responded to the letter that had been sent in April 2001, reiterating their obligations under allrelevant Articles.   Secondly, similar communications should also be despatched to other Members
who had never submitted legislative notifications since joining the WTO and to those who had not
submitted replies to the Questionnaire in recent years, for example since 1998;  this would include
even those five delegations that had sent notifications in response to the first reminder but had notG/LIC/M/14
Page 6
fulfilled all their notification obligations.  A specific deadline before the end of 2001 would be given
for the receipt of these overdue notifications, which would allow opportunity for some further
interaction with delegations.  Thirdly, informal cons ultations should be held specifically on the issue
of technical assistance requirements, requesting those Members who had not been able to submit
notifications to identify their needs, on the basis of which some proposals could be formulated to put
to the EC.  Any other offers of technical assist ance would be most welcome.  As the issue of
compliance was central to the work of the Committee and as it was important to formulate any
approaches necessary to tackle the problem, the Chairperson suggested that this item remain on the
agenda for the next meeting, scheduled for early 2002.  She would be working with the Secretariat to
draw up the letters, which would be de spatched in the very near future.
2.6 The representative of India suggested that informal consultations, if necessary, should be held
about one month after the deadline for the receipt of notifications in order to serve as an additional
reminder to those delegations that had not submitted the required notifications.
2.7 The Committee took note of the statements made.  The Chairperson said that delegations
would be informed in due course of the dates for informal consultations to be held in early 2002.
3. Report (2001) to the Council for Trade in Goods
3.1 The Chairperson said that the Committee was required to submit annually a report on its
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods.  A draft report to the CTG, covering the activities of the
Committee in 2001, had been circulated in document G/LIC/W/15 for the Committee's consideration.
The Council for Trade in Goods, at its meeting on 5 October, had taken note of this as a draft interimreport of the Committee.  The information covered in the draft report, including its annex, would be
updated to reflect the notifications received up to the present meeting as well as the discussions at this
meeting.  The latest notifications submitted by Albania, Gabon, the European Communities, Hong
Kong China, India and Mongolia would therefore be reflected in the relevant paragraphs and in the
annex.  In addition, the report would be revised to take account of the Committee's work at the presentmeeting.
3.2 The Chairperson suggested that the Committee agree to adopt the report subject to the
updating which was required to take account of the Committee's work at this meeting and the new
notifications received up to the date of this meeting.  The Report as updated and adopted wascirculated as document G/L/493.
4. Other business
(i) Tentative dates for meetings in 2002
4.1 The Committee agreed to the following tentative dates for the next two regular meetings of
the Committee in 2002, on the understanding that additional meetings would be convened if
necessary:  9 April and 24 September 2002.
__________