RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/LIC/M/13
14 June 2001
(01-2959)
Committee on Import Licensing
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 4 APRIL 2001
Chairperson: Mr. Albert Wright (Denmark)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its thirteenth meeting on 4 April 2001.  The
agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in WTO/AIR/1519, 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 of the Ag reement (Replies to Questionnaire on Import
Licensing Pr ocedures) .......................................................................................................... ......2
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (New Import Licensing Procedures or
Changes) ....................................................................................................................... ..............3
2. Members' compliance with no tification obligations ..............................................................4
3. Other business............................................................................................................... ............7
4. Election of  officers ......................................................................................................... ...........7
1. Notifications
(i) Notifications under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b) (publications and/or legislation)
1.1 The Chairman said that there were ten notifications before the Committee for review:  from
Colombia (G/LIC/N/1 /COL/1/Add.1), Czech Republic (G/LIC/N/1/CZE/2), Dominica
(G/LIC/N/1/DMA/1), Hungary (G/LIC/N/1/HUN/4), India (G/LIC/N/1/IND/3), Jordan
(G/LIC/N/1/JOR/1), Liechtenstein (G/LIC/N/1/L IE/2), Oman (G/LIC/N/1/OMN/1), Switzerland
(G/LIC/N/1/CHE/2) and Uruguay (G/LIC/N/1/URY/2).  Regarding the status of notifications relating
to laws and regulations, since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, the Committee had
received notifications under these two provisions  from only 67 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 and
administrative procedures were also required to be notified.  He requested all those Members whichhad not yet provided any information of their laws and regulations relevant to import licensing to
submit their notifications without further delay.  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 allG/LIC/M/13
Page 2
Members.
1.2 Regarding Oman, the representative of the United States said that Oman had notified
Ministerial Decision No. 71-2000 on import licensing procedures but had not submitted responses to
the import licensing questionnaire.  Did this signify that Oman had no import licensing restrictions?
Also, did Oman regulate the import of products with health and security implications, for exampleexplosives or narcotics?  Were these products regulated with a system of prior import authorizations?
She noted that the Agreement required notification of prior licensing requirements even when they
were wholly compatible with WTO rules, for example in the areas of public health and safety,
sanitary and phytosanitary.
1.3 The delegate of Oman said that Oman would be notifying on the questionnaire.  Oman did not
apply any import licensing procedures.
1.4 Regarding Dominica, the representative of the United States said they were seeking
clarification on the purpose of th e requirements in G/LIC/N/1/DMA/1.
1.5 Regarding the notification by India, the representative of the United States said that with
regard to G/LIC/N/1/IND/3 and G/LIC/N/2/IND/3, I ndia listed changes to its import licensing policy.
Did the list contained in the document remove the listed items from coverage of India's licensing
system?  If so, was the importation of these items now subject only to tariffs as a regulatory
mechanism excluding requirements and restrictions associated with national security or health and
safety?  If not, could India outline the nature and scope of any other regulatory regimes restrictingimport of these products, and also what items remained under discretionary licensing regimes, for
example under the regime described in G/LIC/N/ 3/IND/4.  What was the timetable for further
liberalization of these remaining requirements?
1.6 The representative of India looked forward to receiving the written questions in due course
and pointed out that India's import/export policy had undergone changes from 1 April 2001 which he
hoped to notify in the coming weeks.  He would nevertheless look into the questions and give detailed
answers.
1.7 The representative of Jordan informed the Co mmittee that their legislation had been devised
and the new draft import-export law had been approved by the Cabinet.  This draft law was in full
compliance with the legal WTO requirements and it was expected that it would be approved fully in a
special session of the Parliament to be held in May.  This would be notified.
1.8 The Chairman proposed that the Committee take note of the notifications as well as the
comments and statements made.  It was so agreed.
(ii) Notifications under Article 7.3 of the Agreement (Replies to Questionnaire on Import
Licensing Procedures)
1.9 The Chairman said that since the last meeting, replies to the Questionnaire had been received
from the following 20 Members:  Burkina Faso, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Estonia, EC, Hong
Kong China, Hungary, India, Jordan, Liechtenstei n, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland,
Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United States and Zimbabwe.  In addition, since the airgram
for this meeting was issued, three more replies had been received from the Czech Republic,
Liechtenstein, and Macau, China.  These would be on the agenda for the next meeting.  Regarding the
current status of notifications under Article 7.3,  since the entry into force of the WTO Agreement,replies to the Questionnaire had been received from a total of only 68 Members, the EC and its
member States counted as one Member: 11 Members had submitted notifications in 1995, 22G/LIC/M/13
Page 3
Members in 1996, 25 Members each in 1997 and 1998, 20 Members in 1999, 32 Members last year,
and 6 Members up to now this year.  The current membership of the WTO totalled 140.  The
Agreement required all Members to submit replies to the Questionnaire annually, by 30 September.
Notifications were overdue from many Members.  He requested these Members to submit their
notifications without further delay.  Even those Members which have not made any changes to their
import licensing procedures since their previous notification, or which do not apply import licensingprocedures, were required to notify this fact to the Committee.  He then turned to the notifications
before the Committee: Burkina Faso  (G/LIC/N/3/BFA/1/Add.1), Colombia
(G/LIC/N/3/COL /1/Add.2), Costa Rica  (G/LIC/N/3/CRI/3), Dominica  (G/LIC/N/3 /DMA/1), Estonia
(G/LIC/N/3/EST/1), European Communities  (G/LIC/N/3/EEC/3 and Addenda 1-26), Hong Kong,
China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/4), Hungary  (G/LIC/N/3/HUN/3/Add.1), India  (G/LIC/N/3/IND/4),
Jordan  (G/LIC/N/3/JOR/1), Liechtens tein  (G/LIC/N/3/LIE/2), Romania
(G/LIC/N/3/ROM/2 /Add.1),  Singapore  (G/L IC/N/3/SGP/3), South Af rica  (G/LIC /N/3/ZAF/3),
Switzerland  (G/LIC/N /3/CHE/3 and Add.1), Trinidad and To bago  (G/LIC/N/3/TTO/3), Tunisia
(G/LIC/N/3/TUN/3/Add.1), Uganda  (G/LIC/N/3/UGA/1/Add.1), United States  (G/LIC/N/3/USA/3),
Zimbabwe  (G/LIC/N/3/ZWE/1/Adds.1-2).
1.10 Regarding Costa Rica,  the representative of the United States said that the notification
described its licensing system for allocating imports under the system of TRQs established as part of
the Uruguay Round negotiations.  Her delegation wa s reviewing Costa Rica's submission and would
provide written questions and comments as soon as possible.
1.11 Regarding Jordan, the representative of the United States said that Jordan had notified its
import-export law No. 14 and outlined its import li censing procedures in G/LIC/N/3/JOR/1.  She
sought clarification on the purpose of some of these requirements, for example in section 1 it listed
that rice, wheat, sugar, barley, corn and cigarettes  in addition to wheat flour, corn biscuits, mineral
water, table salt, used automobile cars, used electronic equipment and milk for industrial uses were
subject to import licensing.  Document G/LIC/N/ 2/JOR/1 indicated that licensing for rice, wheat,
sugar, barley, corn and cigarettes had been eliminated.  Jordan indicated that the remaining import
licences were maintained mainly for statistical purposes as well as health and safety purposes.  Were
the remaining items under automatic or non-automatic licensing?  In section 8 of G/LIC/N/3/JOR/1, it
listed potatoes, onions, garlic, fresh fruits and vegetables as being subject to prior authorization for
importation by the agricultural marketing organization, and that the requirement was maintained forstatistical purposes.  Could Jordan clarify if these were subject to automatic or non-automatic import
licensing?  For example, was the requirement solely for statistical purposes or did the agricultural
marketing organization regulate the quantities imported?
1.12 The representative of Jordan said that concerning the second question, it was for statistical
purposes and would be considered as automatic licensing.  The new draft import-export law took care
of what was automatic and non-automatic licensing and he assured that import licensing had beeneliminated on wheat, barley, corn, rice, sugar and cigarettes.  The details were notified in the
questionnaire.
1.13 The Chairman said that since the airgram for this meeting was issued, three more replies had
been received from the Czech Republic, Liechtenstein and Macau, China.  These would be on the
agenda for the next meeting.  He proposed that the Committee take note of the notifications and the
comments and statements made by delegations.  It was so agreed.
(iii) Notifications under Article 5 of the Agreement (New Import Licensing Procedures or
Changes)
1.14 The Chairman said that there were only six notifications before the Committee:  IndiaG/LIC/M/13
Page 4
(G/LIC/N/2/IND/3), Jordan  (G/LIC/N/2/JOR/1),  Liechtenstein  (G/LIC/N/2/LIE/2), Poland
(G/LIC/N/2/POL/1), Switzerland  (G/LIC/N/2 /CHE/2) and Venezuela  (G/LIC/N/2/VEN/2).
1.15 The representative of the United States, re garding G/LIC/N/ 2/POL/1, said that Poland had
stated that its import licensing regime for worn clothing was valid until December 2000.  Had it been
renewed?  The representative of Poland had been unable to provide an expert for today's meeting, but
thought that the Act had not been extended.  He asked the US to provide their question in writing in
order to pass it to Warsaw for confirmation.
1.16 Regarding Venezuela, the representative of the United States said that in G/LIC/N/2/VEN/2
Venezuela had again notified a change in its licensing system, without having notified the system
itself nor responded to the import licensing questionnaire as called for.  At the last meeting, she had
suggested that Venezuela provide both copies of its legislation in response to the Questionnaire asrequired, so that they could be reviewed at the next meeting of the Committee.  She renewed this
request.  In addition she noted that Venezuela's submissions to date related solely to the TRQs
negotiated on agricultural products during the Uruguay Round.  She believed that Venezuela
maintained other import licensing requirements, both for health and safety and for other purposes, and
she requested that Venezuela also notify these licensing requirements and provide the Committee withinformation on their scope and administration.
1.17 The representative of Venezuela said she could not at this stage provide specifications on this
issue to the US concerning the issue of health and safety considerations.  She would be grateful for
presentation of this question in writing in order to send it to her authorities to provide the answers.Concerning the responses to the questionnaire, unfortunately it was not possible to be ready for this
meeting even though her authorities had made headway concerning the consideration of the
legislation in this respect.
1.18 The representative of the United States noted that Brazil in previous meetings had provided
certain information and responses to questions on its licensing regime to the EC and to Switzerland.
He recalled that at the last meeting the Chairman had also encouraged Brazil to circulate those
responses to other Members of the Committee.  His delegation had not yet received those responses
and asked whether the Chair or the Secretariat had been in contact with Brazil on this point.
1.19 The Chairman said he had not but said the question was whether there was anything to hinder
the questions and answers being circulated.  He assumed unless informed otherwise that Brazil has no
objections to what was agreed in the last meeting.
1.20 The delegation of India made a general remark concerning all the three notification
requirements.  While Members had a right to make oral comments at the meeting of the Committee,
he felt it would be useful if the questions could be sent in advance to the concerned delegations, sothat there could be a response either in writing before the meeting or orally at the subsequent meeting.
1.21 The Chairman welcomed the suggestion and asked if the Committee had any objections to
making best endeavours to comply with that procedure.  That did not seem to be the case.  In
conclusion he proposed that the Committee take note of the notifications as well as the comments andstatements made.  It was so agreed.
2. Members' compliance with notification obligations
2.1 The Chairman said that a main concern of this Committee was the lack of compliance of
Members with the notification obligations under the Agreement.  The Committee had had a discussion
on this issue at its October 2000 meeting, and several proposals were made by delegations to remedy
this situation, as recorded in the minutes of the la st meeting, in paragraph 3 of G/LIC/M/12.  In spiteG/LIC/M/13
Page 5
of reminders and urging from the Committee at each meeting, and periodic reminders from the
Central Registry of Notifications, the situation did not seem to have improved.  In fact, many
Members have not submitted any notification at all since joining the WTO.  The Agreement (under
Articles 1.4(a) and 8.2(b)) and the procedures agreed by the Committee required notifications relating
to publications and legislation relevant to import licensing;  the first such notification had to be made
upon becoming a Member of the WTO, and any changes thereafter.  Replies to the Questionnaire onImport Licensing Procedures (under Article 7.3) had to be submitted every year.  In addition, the
Agreement contained a notification obligation in paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 5, which required
Members to notify the Committee when they established new import licensing procedures or made
changes in these procedures.  However, there existed a large gap between what was required by the
Agreement and the actual number of notifications received.  At the last meeting, several Members had
suggested possible ways of remedying this situation:  One proposal was that all Members, which had
not done so yet, make a special commitment to br ing themselves fully up to date regarding the
notification of their legislation;  and for the annual questionnaire, to make a single "best efforts"
notification covering all of the time periods for which a notification was due;  another suggestion was
that the Secretariat and other Members provide assistance to the newest Members of the Committee
and those that had never notified to encourage compliance;  in particular, Members that used licensing
to operate tariff rate quotas on agricultural goods to be encouraged to comply.  Also, that Membersshould participate more fully in reviewing the notifications;  and those who had difficulties in
notifying to inform the Committee or the Secretariat to see how assistance could be provided.  The
Committee agreed at the last meeting to have this item on the agenda for today's meeting with a view
to agreeing how to ensure full compliance of  all Members with the obligations to notify.
2.2 The representative of the Philippines said that the Philippines had not been up to date with
their notification obligations.  Members might wish to follow a procedure used in the Market Access
Committee, that of a multilateral review by several groupings of countries.  For delegations in each
particular group, the Secretariat could prepare a paper outlining where each country was with regards
to notification obligations, and in the multilateral review delegations would be encouraged to informthe Committee of the problems that they were facing, and why they found it difficult to comply.  The
Secretariat also could start approaching countries that had not made any notification at all.  A good
number of Members were overwhelmed by all the notification obligations so maybe it would help if
the Secretariat could start contacting those delegations that had not made any notification at all as a
first step.
2.3 The representative of the United States said that the transparency provided by compliance
with the notification obligations of this Agreement was one of the great benefits of the WTO.
Licensing, by its nature, created disincentives to trade even when it was necessary for technical, as
opposed to trade policy, purposes.  The ability of WTO Members to receive information on these
systems and to encourage compliance with the substa ntive requirements of this Agreement helped to
reduce this problem.  She shared the disappointment that the number of WTO Members providinginformation to this Committee was not rising faster.  She noted that the US' written questions
submitted to delegations last autumn had also for the most part not found response, and the US was
still waiting for answers from Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Chad, Haiti, Iceland, Madagascar and the
UAE.  She did not prejudge the reasons for the lack of notifications and response and suspected in
some cases it was an oversight, or there had simply been a lack of coordination.  While ultimatelyonly delegations themselves could take responsibility for their compliance with WTO provisions, this
Committee might be able to be helpful in alerting delegations, both in Geneva and in capitals, of the
need to address the transparency obligations of the Agreement.
2.4 She suggested that the Chairman, on behalf of the Committee membership, communicate
directly with all delegations that had not as yet provided the information requested under Articles 1.4,
7.3 and 8.2 of the Agreement, inviting them to provide the necessary information and indicating that
the Secretariat stood ready to consult with delegations that sought clarification and assistance inG/LIC/M/13
Page 6
pulling those submissions together.  She also suggested that the Chairman remind delegations of
outstanding requests for information from other Committee Members.  She noted that several WTO
Members among the 20 largest trading economies in the WTO which she believed to have significant
licensing regimes had not yet taken the opportunity to provide the required information.  She was
certain that they were anxious to provide the info rmation and would move to do so if encouraged by
the Committee.  She wondered if it would be possible as well for the Chair to speak with Membersabout this problem when they came from capitals for their trade policy reviews.  This was an
approach currently being used by the Subsidies Committee and it might help.  The US remained ready
to work with the Chairman and delegations on any reasonable methods of addressing this problem.
2.5 The representative of the European Communities had repeatedly stated her concern at the lack
of notifications.  It was of great concern to note that half of the WTO Members had not notified yet.
She suggested that the Chair or the Secretariat get into contact with those countries who had not yetnotified or with those who had problems in notifying.  Further, it should be possible for the countries
who had problems in notifying to explain their technical assistance needs in order to correct the
situation.
2.6 The representative of Chile said Chile was preparing this year's notification.  Regarding the
systemic problem, Members should be able to better comply with their notification obligations.
Chile's experience had been positive elsewhere:  Chile had been able to coordinate the TPR with the
IDB which could be of use for licences too.  Likewise, there was a multilateral examination as to why
Members had not sent data to the IDB.  Perhaps there should be more informal meetings of this
Committee in order to review this problem and not leave it till September or October for a formalmeeting to receive only notifications by a few Members.
2.7 The representative of Switzerland supported the proposals made by the US and the EC.  It
was a good idea that the Chair contact those delegations which had not yet complied with their
notification obligations in order to better underst and what the problems were;  he supported the
suggestion made by the US to take advantage of the trade policy reviews to flag to those delegations
that some notification requirements were still pending.
2.8 The representative of the Czech Republic did not know if a multilateral review was the best
remedy.  He did not think that the regular notification obligations as they were enforced in the
Agreement on Import Licensing were comparable to such a new element as the IDB.  He welcomed
the idea of the Chairperson contacting through a letter those delegations which had problems.  On the
idea of using TPR, the import licensing regime was a part of the Secretariat's report, so in principle
delegations should give information about their import licensing regimes, including legislation.  This
was not a very quick exercise because of the rhythm of TPRs, but better than nothing.
2.9 The representative of the United States said that one theme that might be worth thinking about
for the next meeting was the possibility of doing something on a region-wide basis and to have an
informal meeting relating to a particular region or the countries in that region that had not yet made
any notifications and maybe take them up together to see if one could generate notifications which
would be available before the formal session in the autumn.  However, Members might have
reservations about creating yet more meetings here at the WTO between sessions.
2.10 The representative of India said he shared the concerns of Members regarding lack of
compliance with notification obligations by more than half of the total Membership.  For the present,
he felt that instead of sending out one letter from the Chairman to the concerned delegations, it would
be useful if periodical reminders, say every two m onths, could be sent out by the Chairman to the
delegations, not only reminding them of their non-compliance but also to tell the Committee of their
problems and technical assistance needs in fulfilling these obligations.G/LIC/M/13
Page 7
2.11 The representative of Venezuela could not agree to the Philippine and Chilean proposals.  She
believed that the nature of notifications in this  Committee was such that it differed from problems
countries had with the IDB.  As concerned the EC and the US proposals, these were useful and she
thought the Secretariat assistance had been positive.  She believed that the possibility of using the
TPR could be useful in encouraging countries to notify.
2.12 The representative of the Philippines said that as a first step, if the multilateral review would
be too difficult, she encouraged the Secretariat to make personal approaches to those countries that
had not made even one notification, and find out their problems.
2.13 The representative of Chile said that if Members had a problem of capacity or understanding
the Agreement, they needed technical assistance to know what the problems were.  When a Member
had stated its problems it would realise that another Member had had the same problems and mighthave found an easier way of solving this, so maybe it would be important to have a new meeting in
order to deal with this on an unofficial basis so Members could talk it over to determine what kind of
technical assistance by the Secretariat would be necessary.  The fact of just sending a letter annually
saying where notifications had not been made and for which year might not be sufficient.
2.14 The representative of the European Communities had some reservation as concerned the
proposals by Chile and the Philippines at this stage.  To increase the amount of meetings did not
necessarily improve dynamism within a Committee.  Members should ask the Chair and the
Secretariat to enter into contact with the countries  who had problems in notifying or who had not yet
notified, to identify with them their problems in order to give them the appropriate technicalassistance.  This was a first stage.  The use of the TPR examinations was useful and it might be used
in order to improve the status of notifications in this Committee.
2.15 The representative of the Czech Republic welcomed the letter approach.  The Chair could
annex the respective part of the notification handbook to concerned delegations, giving an overview
of notification obligations, and their formats, with examples.
2.16 The Chairman said that in a first phase, the Chairman and the Secretariat should send a letter
to all Members who had not notified at all, along with the relevant parts of the notification handbook.
There was a proposal for having a type of multilateral review and that could be one of the steps thatcould be taken, but perhaps one should wait until there was an overall assessment of the problems
before holding an informal meeting.
2.17 The Committee took note of all the statements made.
3. Other business
3.1 The Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat had reserved 9 October 2001  for the
next meeting of the Committee, on the understanding that additional meetings would be convened if
necessary.
4. Election of officers
4.1 The Chairman noted that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, pursuant to
paragraph 6.3 of the "Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies", had carried out
informal consultations on a slate of names for appointment as Chairpersons to the different subsidiary
bodies of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations were taken note of by theCouncil for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 14 March 2001.  With respect to this Committee, theG/LIC/M/13
Page 8
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had proposed Ms. Simone Rudder of Barbados as
Chairperson.  He proposed that the Committee agree by acclamation that Ms. Simone Rudder be
elected as Chairperson for the coming year.  It was so agreed.
4.2 The Agreement also provided for the election of a Vice-Chairperson.  Consultations in thisregard indicated that there was agreement among delegations that Ms. Nancy Johnston of the United
States should be elected as Vice-Chairperson for this year.  He proposed that the Committee elect
Ms. Nancy Johnston as Vice-Chairperson also by acclamation.  It was so agreed.
4.3 The representative of India conveyed his delegation's appreciation for the excellent work done
by the Chairman of this Committee, especially concerning the compliance with the notification
obligations by Members.  He also conveyed their appreciation for the work done by the outgoing
Vice-Chairperson.
4.4 The meeting was adjourned.
__________