 RESTRICTED  
  
G/LIC/M/52  
 
30 July 2021  
(21-5998) Page: 1/24 
Committee on Import Licensing    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 21 APRIL  2021 
VICE-CHAIRPERSON: MS STEPHANIA  AQUILINA  (MALTA ) 
The Committee on Import Licensing held its fifty-third meeting on 21 April 2021 under the 
chairpersonship of the Vice-Chairperson  of the Committee, Ms Stephania Aquilina  (Malta) . The 
agenda proposed for the meeting was circulated in document  WTO/AIR/LIC/ 12/Rev.1 . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1   MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS:  DEVELOPMENTS 
SINCE THE LAST MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
2   WRIT TEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE 
CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  5 
2.1   Document  G/LIC/Q/IND/27  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.2   Document  G/LIC/Q/IND/28  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.3   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/42  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.4   Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.5   Documents  G/LIC/Q/ARG/18, G/LIC/Q/ARG/19, and G/LIC/Q/ARG/20  ..............  6 
2.6   Document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/2  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
2.7   Documents  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3 and G/LIC/Q/EGY/4  ................................ ..................  7 
2.8   Document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/4  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
3   NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
3.1   Notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, Article  1.4(a), and Article  8.2(b) of the 
Agreement  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
3.2   Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  ................................ ....................  9 
4   ANGOLA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE  
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  9 
5   CHINA: CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE  
MATERIALS – STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ .......................  10 
6   EGYPT – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL  
AND PROCESSED PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  .........................  11 
7   INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR BORIC ACID – STATEMENT  
BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................  12 
8   INDIA: QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENTS BY 
CANADA, AUSTRALIA, AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ......................  13 
9   INDIA: IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  15 G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELL PHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  ................................  17 
11   INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES - 
STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ...........................  18 
12   INDONESIA : IMPORT RESTRICTION: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY  
IMPORTERS OF STEEL PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN  ................................ ..........  18 
13   INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSI NG REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  ................................ ....................  19 
14   INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS – STATEMENTS  
BY JAPAN AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ .........  20 
15   THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF FEED WHEAT - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  20 
16   IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE  
AGREEMENT – REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ..............................  21 
16.1   Use of revised N2  notification form (G/LIC/28)  ................................ ..................  21 
16.2   Import licensing website  ................................ ................................ .....................  21 
16.3   N2 online notification tool  ................................ ................................ ...................  21 
16.4   Challenges relating to completing the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 .... 22 
17   CONTACT LIST OF DELEGATIONS (G/LIC/INF/3)  ................................ ..................  22 
18   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .................  22 
19   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 22 
19.1   Workshop on Import Licensing Notifications  ................................ .......................  23 
19.2   Members' profiles and Secretariat analysis of import licensing procedures in 
five sectors  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  23 
20   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..................  24 
 
The Chairperson  opened the meeting by observing that , due to the COVID -19 travel and meeting 
restrictions, the meeting would take place in virtual mode  only. She informed Members that, due to 
a family -related emergency , the Chairperson of the Committee, Dr Irfan Muhammad  (Pakistan),  
could not  be present  in Geneva to chair the meeting . For this reason,  Dr Muhammad had requested 
her to chair the meeting on his behalf , in her capacity as Vice -Chairperson of the Committee.  
 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the meeting's proposed agenda was contained in the Airgram , 
document  WTO/AIR/LIC/12/Rev.1.  At the same time, she noted that the European Union wished to 
withdraw Agenda Item 7, concerning the importation of ceramics in to Egypt.  
1.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his delegation wished to include an item under "Other 
Business" regarding certain trade concerns Indonesia had in respect of Sri Lanka's ban on the 
importation of palm oil.  
1.3.  The Chairperson  proposed the inclusion of two items under "Other Business ", namely : (i) the 
Import  Licensing  Notifications Workshop ; and  (ii) two Secretariat papers on Members' profiles  and 
Secretariat analysis of import licensing procedures in five  sectors . 
1.4.  The agenda w as adopted  with the changes proposed.  
1.5.  After the agenda had been adopted, the representative of Sri Lanka  objected  to the  inclusion 
in the agenda of the item proposed by Indonesia under "Other Business" regarding Sri Lanka. She 
noted that, while Indonesia had indicated to Sri Lanka that it would be raising this issue, it had done 
so only on the day of the meeting  itself, regrettably. She noted that her delegation was small and 
lacked the capacity to make representations everywhere. She reiterated that Sri Lanka could not 
agree to the adoption of the agenda.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.6.  The Chairperson  noted  that the agenda had already been adopted and suggested that Sri Lanka 
and Indonesia discuss the issue bilaterally and update the Committee  accordingly . 
1.7.  The representative of Sri Lanka  requested the Secretariat to read out the Committee's rules of 
procedures , and noted that there had to be prior notification to a Member if another Member wished 
to raise an issue concerning it under "Other Business". She considered that t he decision to continue 
with the meeting was harsh on a small delegation such as hers, given that Indonesia had raised this 
issue against Sri Lanka  without prior notice.  
1.8.  The representative of Indonesia  responded  that the agenda had already been adopted and that 
they had followed all of the procedures required to insert the item under "Other Business". Therefore , 
they intended  to raise their concerns under this agenda item. He noted that Sri Lanka could respond 
to Indonesia's concerns at the current meeting or else bilaterally at a later stage , before the next 
meeting , and that that they remained open to any communication on this matter.  
1.9.  The representa tive of the European Union  stated that she fully understood Sri Lanka's position. 
She added that , while a Member was permitted to insert any item under "Other Business", there 
was no expectation that a discussion would take place on that item or that the Member to whom the 
question had been  addressed would respond  to it. 
1.10.   Responding to Sri Lanka's request, a representative of the Secretariat  read out to the 
Committee the relevant rules of procedure  of the Committee on Imp ort Licensing , namely : 
Rule 6 
The first  item of business at each meeting shall be the consideration and approval of 
the agenda. Representatives may suggest amendments to the proposed agenda, or 
additions to the agenda under "Other Business". Representative s shall provide the 
Chairperson or the Secretariat, and the other Members directly concerned, whenever 
possible, advance notice of items intended to be raised under "Other Business".  
Rule 25 
Representatives should avoid unduly long debates under "Other Bus iness". Discussions 
on substantive issues under "Other Business" shall be avoided, and the Committee on 
Import Licensing shall limit itself to taking note of the announcement by the sponsoring 
delegation, as well as any reactions to such an announcement by  other delegations 
directly concerned.  
Rule 26 
While the Committee on Import Licensing is not expected to take action in respect of 
an item introduced as "Other Business", nothing shall prevent the Committee on Import 
Licensing, if it so decides, to take a ction in respect of any such item at a particular 
meeting, or in respect of any item for which documentation was not circulated at least 
ten calendar days in advance.  
1.11.   The representative of Sri Lanka  observed that , according to the rules of procedure of the  
Committee , there was a best endeavour obligation to provide advance notice to the Member 
concerned when an item was proposed under "Other Business". Nevertheless, Indonesia had not 
informed Sri Lanka that they had intended to raise this issue in th e Commi ttee on Import Licensing 
under "Other Business" . In this respect, she noted that , had Indonesia informed them  that they had 
intended to raise the issue, they would have received feedback from Capital and been prepared to 
respond. She considered it very unf ortunate that Indonesia had not shared any prior information 
with her delegation ; therefore , allowing Indonesia to retain this item on the agenda would create a 
very bad precedent. She added that her delegation was not present at the meeting when the agenda 
had been adopted ; for this reason, Sri Lanka had  not been in a position to oppose its adoption at 
that time. In conclusion, she requested  the Chairperson to take a ccount of the si tuation in a fair  
decision.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.12.   The Chairperson  thanked the representative of Sri Lanka for her statement  and offered to 
meet Sri Lanka and Indonesia later that day to discuss the matter further .1 At the same time, she 
encouraged Indonesia to reach out to Sri Lanka on this issue with a view to them resolving it 
bilaterally.  
1.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
1  MEMBERS' COMPLIANCE WITH NOTIFICATION OBLIGATIONS:  DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 
THE LAST MEETING  
1.1.  The Chairpers on stated that she had been informed by the Secretariat that, to date, a total of 
87 notifications had been received under various provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement  since 
the Committee's previous meeting , 85 of which had been listed in the Airgram for consideration at 
that day's meeting.  New N/3  notifications had been received by the Secretariat before the meeting 
from Honduras ( document  G/LIC/N/3/HND/12) and Norway ( document  G/LIC/N/3/NOR/10). These 
documents had arrived after  the Airgram had been issued  and they would therefore be reviewed at 
the Committee's next meeting.  
1.2.  The Chairperson  highlighted that, as of the date of that meeting, 13 Members had not yet 
submitted any notification under any provision of the Agreement sinc e joining the WTO. A total of 
23 Members had not yet submitted any reply to the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 of the 
Agreement, including the 13  Members just mentioned. For the sake of transparency, she urged all 
Members on the list to submit thei r notifications as soon as possible.  
1.3.   She also  recalled that submitting replies to the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 of the 
Agreement was an annual notification obligation for all Members. As of 21  April 2021, o nly 
26 Members ha d submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2020, and only eight Members had 
submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2021. She stated that transparency was one of the 
key pillars of the rules –based multilateral trading system  and strongly en courage d all those Members 
that had not yet submitted their replies to the questionnaire for 2021 to do so by the deadline of 
30 September  2021.  
1.4.  She stated that , since the Committee 's previous  meeting, positive developments had occurred 
in the area of noti fications. First, a number of notifications had been submitted under Articles  1.4(a), 
8.2(b) , and 5.1 -5.4, with a total of 62  new N/1 and N/2  notifications received. Second, all except 
one of these new N/2 notifications  had been  submitted using the revised  notification form , contained 
in document  G/LIC/28 , to notify new import licensing regulations or changes thereof. Third, 
one Member, Guinea, had notified its import licensing procedures for the first  time, thus lowering 
the number of Members that had not yet submitted any notification under any provision of the 
Agreement to 13. She thank ed all those Members that had submitted their notifications for their 
efforts and dedication.  
1.5.  The representative of the United Kingdom  noted that this was the first  statement made on 
behalf of the United Kingdom in the Committee on Import Licensing and thanked the Chairperson 
for her opening remarks with regards to the importance of compliance with notification obligations. 
She reiterated the United Kingdom's commitment  to transparency and notifications and reported 
that the United Kingdom had notified under Article s 1.4(a) and 8.2(b) and  had submitted 
11 notifications under Article  5.1 to 5.4 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. She 
thanked the Secretariat f or their assistance on these notifications and informed the Committee that 
the United Kingdom would submit its reply to the annual questionnaire in time for the 2021  deadline. 
She noted that the United Kingdom recognized the work of this Committee in stren gthening 
transparency by streamlining existing notification obligations and through the creation of the import 
licensing website. Finally, she said that her delegation would endeavour to work with WTO  Members 
on existing initiatives to ensure that import licensing was simple, transparent , and predictable, and 
not an obstacle to trade.  
1.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 
1 For scheduling reasons, this meeting did not take place.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2  WRITTEN QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
2.1  Document  G/LIC/Q/IND/2 7 
2.1.  The representative of the Europea n Union  stated that they would address their questions to 
India contained in document  G/LIC/Q/IND/27 under agenda items  9 and 10. Similarly, they would 
also comment on their questions to Indonesia contained in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43 under agenda 
items  14 and 15.  
2.2  Document  G/LIC/Q/IND/2 8 
2.2.  The representative of Canada  recalled that they had posed a series of questions to India 
regarding its quantitative restrictions on dried peas, which had been scheduled to expire on 
31 March  2021. He noted that these quantitative restrictions had been in place continuously for the 
past three  years. He asked India if the quantitative restrictions had in fact ended on 31  March of 
this year or if they had been extended. He also asked India to elaborate on potential increases to 
the quantitative restrictions for yellow peas, which were cu rrently set at zero tonnes. Finally, he 
asked India how this measure could be considered temporary, given that it had been place for 
three  continuous years.  
2.3.  The representative of India thanked the delegation of Canada for its continued interest in this 
issue. He responded that his delegation had transmitted these questions to Capital and were awaiting 
a response.  
2.3  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/42  
2.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his delegation appreciated Indonesia's written replies and 
recognized that an import  permit for Japanese rice had finally been issued in January  2021. 
Meanwhile, his delegation requested  Indonesia to ensure that the normal duration from application 
to issuance of import permits w as three  days, as clearly stated in Indonesia's written repl y. His 
delegation also requested Indonesia to notify the procedures for import permits as import licensing 
procedures to ensure transparency.  
2.5.  The representative of Indonesia  responded to Japan's concern regarding its import licensing 
for japonica rice. He recalled that his delegation had already submitted its written replies to Japan's 
questions on the importation of japonica rice. In addition, he said that Indonesia had issued import 
approval s regarding the importation of japonica rice or iginating from several countries, including 
Japan. Furthermore, from January until April  2021, Indonesia had issued three  new import approval s 
regarding japonica rice. He concluded by saying that , based on that data, Indonesia had never 
restricted the impo rtation of japonica rice, including that originating from Japan ; indeed, on several 
occasions, they had had been made aware of  Japanese satisfaction with the Indonesian 
government 's handling of the issue of the importation of japonica rice, which had been based purely 
on business  decision s. His delegation hoped that , in the future , trade cooperation between Indonesia 
and Japan could be increased , to the ir mutual benefit.  
2.4  Document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43  
2.6.  The representative of Indonesia  thanked  the European Union for its concern regarding 
Indonesia's  import licensing regimes for  textile and textile products, footwear, electronics , 
bicycles/tricycles  and alcohol ic beverages , which  had been submitted through 
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43. He said that h is delegation was still coordinating amongst several 
government agencies in preparing Indonesia's written replies to the European Union's questions on 
all of these matters.  
2.7.  Regarding certain import s subject to Regulation No.  68/2020, he said that his government 
intend ed to ensure that the administ ration of  the surveillance of the incoming goods could  be carried 
out in accordance with the standards of the specified port of destinations. Regarding the import 
clarification provisions, he said that the Indonesian government ha d to ensure that certain incomin g 
goods met the se requirements both in quality and quantity.  Regarding the import plan obligation, 
he said that I ndonesia need ed the data to project the future utilization of import approvals . Finally,  
regarding the importation of alcohol ic beverages, he said that his delegation found no barriers to G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 6 - 
 
  EU alcohol ic beverages entering Indonesia's market. He noted that , between January and April 2021, 
Indonesia ha d issued 13  import approvals on alcohol ic beverages originating from several countries , 
including the European Union. He concluded that , in view of his delegation , the utilization of import 
approval s relating to alcoholic beverages, whether  originating from the European Union or not , was 
based on business -to-business decisions by the business entities or importers  themselves . 
2.5  Documents  G/LIC/Q/ARG/18, G/LIC/Q/ARG/19 , and G/LIC/Q/ARG/20  
2.8.  The representative of the United States  thank ed Argentina for its written replies to the 
questions posed by her delegation in document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/19. She said that the  answers 
provided had clarified a number of recent changes and demonstrate d the value of transparency 
through this Committee.  As a follow-up, she stated that the United States wished to draw Members ' 
attention to some additional US questions , which  her delegation had submitted in 
document  G/LIC/Q/ARG/20. She said that her delegation would  appreciate receiving a written 
response to those q uestions from the government of Argentina as soon as possible.  
2.9.  The representative of the United Kingdom  thank ed the United States for its written and 
follow -up questions relating to Argentina's import licensing system.  She said that her delegation was 
also interested in the issues raised by the United States, in particular regarding the processing times 
for import licences in Argentina and the approval processes and requirements. She thanked 
Argentina for their written responses to date and look ed forward to further replies.  
2.10.   The representative of Colombia  highlight ed the usefulness and relevance of the compilation 
of questions and answers  prepared by the Secretariat (document  G/LIC/W/51/Rev.4 ). She said that 
this was an important transparency tool, which facilitated  the Committee's task in  follow ing up on 
specific trade concerns and in gathering  information and additional details from Members.  
2.11.   On this specific agenda point, she said that her delegation was grateful to the  United States 
for drawing the Committee's attention to th is matter by circulating various documents containing 
questions about Argentina's  import licensing regime. She also thank ed Argentina for the 
opportunities for bilateral dialogue , both in Buenos Aires and Geneva , and for Argentina's written 
answers and recent notifications , which appeared on the meeting's agenda under item 3. She said 
that her delegation had been made aware of  the fact that , for several months, firms exporting to 
the Argentin ian market had experienced difficulties in relation to import procedures . In particular, 
she noted that there were constant changes in the procedures as well as  delays by the authorities 
in the deadline for granting licences, even though  firms were  complying with all the requirements  
and documentation.  She noted that , in some cases, there had been delays of more than 60  days in 
approving  licences, without an indication being given of the reasons for such delays  or of the details 
for completing the proceedings . She called particular attention to the fact that some licences, which 
had previously take n not  more than 72  hours to be approved , now t ook more than 60  days, again  
without any explanation being given.  In addition to these delays in approving licences, the current 
regime limit ed the validity of import licences to 90  calendar days, which was a substantial reduction 
from the validity of  180 calendar days  under the previous regime. This situation did not ensure 
predictability in foreign trade transactions and expose d entrepreneurs to great uncertainty and high 
costs.  
2.12.   She requested Argentina  to disclose the  details of its procedures for gr anting licence s as well 
as the objectives of the policy for implementing the system. Her delegation also wished to find out 
more about the universe of tariff headings covered by the import licen sing requirements  and the 
criteria for determining which produ cts were included under this regime. Finally, she indicate d that 
her delegation hoped to receive answers to its questions within a short time -frame and invited 
Argentina  to continue the constructive dialogue that existed between the ir respective  authorities.  
2.13.   The representative of Argentina  expressed gratitude to the delegations of the United Kingdom, 
the United States,  and Colombia,  for the ir questions. She said that her delegation had taken  note of 
the questions, which would be studied by specia lists in Capital . She indicated that her delegation 
would provide Argentina's written replies before the Committee's next meeting . Like others, she also 
considered  bilateral discussions among trading  partners  to be important . G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.6  Document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/2  
2.14.   The representative of the United States  drew Members ' attention to previously asked 
questions contained in document  G/LIC/Q/DOM/2 and request ed that the government of the 
Dominican Republic respond to these questions in writing and as soon as  possible.  
2.15.   The representative of Colombia  record ed her delegation's  interest in the questions posed  by 
the United States to the Dominican Republic. She recalled that , at the Committee's previous meeting , 
they had taken note of and greatly appreciated the information and explanations provided by the 
Dominican  Republic . However, some of the concerns and misgivings that had been mentioned at the 
time, still remained . She said that her delegation would be grateful for any additional information 
that could be shared in this Committee, as well as  written answers , so that her authorities in Capital 
could  carry out a more detailed analysis.  
2.7  Documents  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3 and G/LIC/Q/EGY/4  
2.16.   The representative of the United States  thank ed Egypt for its replies to their questions 
contained in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/3. They had  received these replies on the previous day and 
were reviewing them. She said that her delegation would revert to the Committee  with any further 
questions it may have.  
2.17.   The representative of the Europe an Union  recalled that they had submitted questions , 
contained in document  G/LIC/Q/EGY/4 , in September  2020; her delegation was  looking forward to 
receiving Egypt's replies as soon as possible.  
2.18.   The representative of Egypt  thank ed the United States  and the European Union for the 
questions raised and said that her delegation stood  ready to engage with the United States  on any 
further follow -up questions . She also noted that , on the day prior to the meeting , her delegation had  
submitted  to both delega tions concerned, and to the Secretariat,  its responses to the questions 
raised by the United States  and by the European Union .2 
2.8  Document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/4  
2.19.   The representative of the United States  drew Members ' attention to its previously asked 
questions in document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/4 and request ed that the government of the Philippines respond 
to these questions in writing as soon as possible.  
2.20.   The representative of the Philippine s replied that her Capital was still working on its responses 
to the wri tten questions circulated in document  G/LIC/Q/PHL/4 . Nevertheless, she could provide 
certain initial information regarding the sanitary and phytosanitary import clearances (SPSICs) being 
issued by her authorities.  
2.21.   She said that the  SPSIC  system aim ed at ensuring that agricultural and fisheries commodities 
imported into the Philippines compl ied with relevant SPS measures. Such documentary system also 
prescribe d post-entry conditions to be complied with by an importer in order to maintain the safety, 
quality,  fitness, and suitability of the imported products or commodities for their intended purposes.  
She noted that t he process of issuance of SPSICs was outlined in the rules and regulations for 
importation of agricultural and fisheries commodities , as contained in  the following administrative 
orders : 
(a) Department of Agriculture Administrative Order (DA -AO) No.  8, series of 2009 (Rules 
and Regulations Governing the Importation of Agricultural and Fish and Fishery/Aquatic 
Products, Fertilizers, Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals, Veterinary Drugs and 
Biological Products into the Philippines); and  
(b) Department of Agriculture Adminis trative Order (DA -AO) No.  9, series of 2010 
(Department of Agriculture Administrative Order No.  8, series of 2009, as amended) . 
 
2 Documents G/LIC/Q/EGY/5 and G/LIC/Q/EGY/6 . G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.22.   She stated that her delegation had  taken note of the United States'  continued interest in this 
issue and assure d the United Stat es of her delegation's cooperation in providing further information 
and responses within a reasonable period of time, in addition to those that they had  already 
conveyed . 
2.23.   The Chairperson  encourage d all Members to follow the procedures established in 
docume nt G/LIC/4 , and to make good use of this Committee to clarify any issue regarding other 
Members' notifications on import licensing  procedures . 
2.24.   The Committee  took note of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1   Notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, Article  1.4(a), and Article  8.2(b) of the 
Agreement  
3.1.  The Chairperson  informed Members that o ne N/1 notification and 61  N/2 notifications, 
submitted by 13  Members, had been listed for the Committee's consideration at the meeting. This 
was a good number of N/ 1 and N/2  notifications, over a period of six months. She noted that t he 
large number of N/2   as compared to N/1  notifications could  be explained by the fact that Members 
were overwhelmingly using the new notification template contained in document  G/LIC/28 and were 
thus fulfilling their notification requirements under Article  1.4(a), Article  8.2(b) , and Article  5.1-5.4, 
with one single notification form, namely the N /2 form.  Members had notified new regimes and 
continued to make great efforts to provide missing information on existing regimes using the new 
notification form contained in document  G/LIC/28. She thank ed all those Members that had made 
efforts to improve the transp arency of their respective import licensing regimes.  
3.2.  In addition, she informed delegations that, d ue to the large number of notifications on the 
agenda, and with a view to making the review process as efficient  as possible , she would  not read 
out the docum ent symbol of each notification one by one . Instead, she proposed that the Committee 
review the notifications  in groups following a sequence by notifying Member. She noted that this 
approach did not prevent any Member from raising questions regarding any p articular notification 
under review.  
3.3.  The following notifications under Article  5.1-5.4, Article  1.4(a) , and Article  8.2(b) of the 
Agreement were reviewed by the Committee: Argentina (G/LIC/N/2/ARG/28/Add.8) ; Kingdom of 
Bahrain  (G/LIC/N/2/BHR/1 to G/LIC/N/2/BHR/ 14); Ecuador (G/LIC/N/2/ECU/1) ; European Union 
(G/LIC/N/2/EU/14) ; Israel (G/LIC/N/2/ISR/5) ; Republic of Korea (G/LIC/N/2/KOR/24 to 
G/LIC/N/2/KOR/ 41); Macao, China (G/LIC/N/2/MAC/2) ; Myanmar (G/LIC/N/2/MMR/3) ; Philippines 
(G/LIC/N/2/PHL/140) ; Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/14 to G/LIC/N/2/TPKM/ 17); United 
Kingdom (G/LIC/N/1/GBR/1 and G/LIC/N/2/GBR /1 to G/LIC/N/2/GBR/ 11); and United States 
(G/LIC/N/2/USA/4).  
3.4.  The representative of the Russian Federation  welcomed the efforts of the United Kingdom to 
ensure the implementation of its notification obligations by providing Members with information on 
its import licensing legislation. She said that , after close consideration of these notifications, the 
Russian Federation wished to place on record that they had  questions regarding one of these  
documents, namely document  G/LIC/N/2/GBR/1. The Russian Federation sought  clarification from 
the United Kingdom regarding  goods subject to automatic import licensing and those subject to 
non-automatic import licensing . Furthermore , she referred to footnote  2 of 
document  G/LIC/N/2/GBR/ 1, which stated that "[s]ome European Union law was retained in UK  law 
by virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act  2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal 
Agreement) Act  2020, with minor modifications to ensure operability ". Her delegation asked if  the 
United Kingdom intended to notify these modifications.  
3.5.  The representative of the  United Kingdom  thank ed the Russia n Federation for its comments on 
these specifi c notifications  and said that her delegation would refer these  concerns to Capital and 
respond to them in due course.  
3.6.  The Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.2  Notifications under Article  7.3 of the Agreement  
3.7.  The Chairperson  noted that 36  notifications had been listed for consideration at this meeting. 
Certain of the se notifications had been notified for 202 0, while  others had been notified for 202 1. 
Two new N/3  notifications had been submitted after the Airgram ha d been issued and these would 
be reviewed at the Committee's subsequent meeting.3  
3.8.  The following notifications under Article  7.3 were reviewed by the Committee:  Albania 
(G/LIC/N/3/ALB/10) ; Argentina (G/LIC/N/3/ARG/16) ; Australia (G/LIC/N/3/AUS/13) ; Colomb ia 
(G/LIC/N/3/COL/14) ; Costa Rica (G/LIC/N/3/CRI/17) ; Guinea (G/LIC/N/3/GIN/1) ; Honduras 
(G/LIC/N/3/HND/11) ; Hong Kong, China (G/LIC/N/3/HKG/24) ; Indonesia (G/LIC/N/3/IDN/12) ; 
Israel (G/LIC/N/3/ISR/5) ; Japan (G/LIC/N/3/JPN/19) ; Kazakhstan (G/LIC/N/3/KAZ/5) ; Republic of 
Korea (G/LIC/N/3/KOR/13) ; Malaysia (G/LIC/N/3/MYS/15) ; Mali (G/LIC/N/3/MLI/10) ; New Zealand 
(G/LIC/N/3/NZL/7) ; Philippines (G/LIC/N/3/PHL/13/Corr.1) ; Singapore  (G/LIC/N/3/SGP/16) ; 
Chinese Taipei (G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/10/Corr.1 and G/LIC/N/3/TPKM/11) ; Thailand (G/LIC/N/3/THA/7); 
Turkey (G/LIC/N/3/TUR/17) ; Ukraine (G/LIC/N/3/UKR/12) ; and United States (G/LIC/N/3/USA/17) . 
3.9.  The Chairperson  recalled that only 26  Members out of a total WTO  membership of over 
130 (counting EU  Member States as one) had submitted replies to the annual questionnaire for the 
year 2020, and that so far only eight Members had submitted replies to the questionnaire for 2021 . 
She encouraged those Members that had not yet done so to update and submit their N3  notific ations 
by the deadline of 30  September  2021.  
3.10.   The Committee  took note of the notifications.  
4  ANGOLA: IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
4.1.  The representative of the European Union  stated that her delegation was deeply concerned 
about Angola's Presidential Decree No.  23/19 , which  aimed at protect ing domestic industries  but in 
a manner incompatible with WTO  rules. This decree could prove detrimental to foreign investments 
in Angola.  The European Union reminded Angola that these concerns had already been raised , since 
2019 in meetings of other WTO  bodies , notably the Council for Trade in Goods , the Committee on 
Market Access, and more recently , in March  2021, at the Committee on Agricu lture. To date , Angola 
had not  provide d any substantive reply or explanations as to how it intend ed to bring this decree 
into the remit of WTO  legality. Irrespective of its illegality with WTO  rules, the European Union  
reiterate d the need for Angola to provide the clearest picture of the process regarding this decree, 
and of any changes it wishe d to introduce to it, including information as to which sectors  those 
changes would be applied . While the European Union  remain ed supporti ve of Angola' s intention to 
diversify its economy and to develop its domestic industry , it nevertheless urged Angola once again 
to review the relevant measures , in order to ensure their compliance with WTO  rules.  Concerning 
the specific remit of th e Commit tee on Import Licensing , she noted that the decree did not provide 
any information on how these restrictions were to be implemented. In particular , it was unclear if 
licences were to be used to manage these restrictions. Therefore, the European Union request ed 
Angola to clarify this question . The European Union also remind ed Angola of its obligation under the 
Import Licensing Agreement to notify the measure  if licences had been involved in the 
implementation of this decree.  She stated that, d epending on Angola' s engagement on this issue, 
the European Union  might  take further decisions on  its approach to ensur ing an adequate protection 
of its trade rights and interests.  
4.2.  The represent ative of the United States  said that her delegation had significant concerns with 
Angola's Presidential Decree No.  23/19, issued in January  2019. While they understood  that the goal 
of this decree was to increase domestic economic diversification and devel opment, there were 
concerns as to the type of impact the decree would have on imports. Her delegation  underst ood that 
this decree had target ed 54 products, mainly agricultural goods, and that it could potentially target 
additional products in the future.  Since the implementation of the decree, her delegation had  heard 
reports of confusion over how the decree was being enforced and of delays facing goods at the 
border. Their agricultural exporters were particularly concerned over delays that perisha ble goods 
faced amidst the uncertainty.  She stated that her delegation had already raised its concerns at the 
most recent meetings of the Committee on Market Access and the Committee on Agriculture , and 
 
3 The notifications in question were submitted by  Honduras ( document  G/LIC/N/3/HND/12) , and Norway 
(document  G/LIC/N/3/NOR/10).  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 10 - 
 
  had asked Angola to explain if it had plans to revise  the decree, or how it planned to implement it, 
in light of WTO  rules, given its potential impact on trade, investment , and businesses operating in 
Angola.  
4.3.  The representative of Angola  thank ed the European Union  and the United States for their 
statements , of which they took  note. Nevertheless , he informed these delegations that Angola had 
submitted to the Trade Policy Review Division , in September  2020, its notification relating to its 
commercial legislation on imports and exports. He said that Presidential Decree No.  126/20, of 
5 May 2020, had approve d the "Regulation on Administrative Procedures to be Observed in the 
Licensing of Imports and Exports " and had defined a simplified and un bureaucratic model of these 
procedures with a view to improving the business environment, guarantee ing stability and 
confidence in the licensing of foreign trade operations , and adapt ing to the current political, 
economic , and social panorama. He explained  that the measure applying  the requirements for import 
licences was intended to be in harmony with the provisions, rules , and regulations of the WTO, and, 
in particular , with Article  VIII:1(c) of GATT  1994, according to  which , Members "… also recognize 
the need for minimizing the incidence and complexity of import and export formalities and for 
decreasing and simplifying import and export documentation requirements" , as well as with the 
provisions of the  Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, in the sens e that such procedures were 
implemented in a transparent and predictable manner, in accordance with practices adopted in 
international trade , and in the sense that they were applied and administered in  a fair and equitable 
manner.  He said that Angola stood  ready to continue to work with the Secretariat to identify  this 
legislation already submitted to the WTO. He added that his delegation would also work on the 
possible review of Presidential Decree  No. 23/19.  
5  CHINA: CHANGES TO IMPORT LICENSING FOR CERTAIN RECOVERABLE MATERIALS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
5.1.  The representative of the United States  said that her delegation had significant concerns about 
the changes to import licensing surrounding China' s implementation of its import ban on solid waste 
imports, including recyclable materials such as certain plastic and paper scrap, while allowing certain 
"recycled raw materials" , such as copper, aluminium, and brass , to be imported as long as those 
materi als met strict purity standards.  She recalled that the United States had raised the issue of 
certain recyclable materials at several previous meetings of th is Committee , and that, in addition, 
the United States had requested China to notify to the Committe e any changes made to its import 
licensing regime.  Unfortunately, China ha d yet to provide any information about its current licensing 
procedures for recycled raw materials or other imports, along with updates on any planned changes 
that would have been  sufficient to alleviate US concerns.  She added that t he United States also ha d 
concerns over the ban on certain scrap materials, such as bundled recycled newspaper, when  other 
more processed scrap materials, such as pulped paper , and "smelter -ready" metals, were permitted . 
She addressed the following questions to China : 
- whether China could e xplain the scientific basis it had used to determine which 
categories of scrap m aterials were safe and which were not; 
 
- whether China could explain the new import licensing requirements under this policy 
and state when it would  notify these changes to this Committee ; 
 
- whether China would be developing a written regulation for impo rtation, including what 
was "contaminated" or "clean" , and what materials were allowed for importation , and, 
if yes, when ; 
 
- whether China would be notifying to the WTO its requirements for import, including 
relevant contamination requirements, which it had implemented for the importation of 
recycled raw materials ; 
 
- lastly , whether China could explain how these policies were consistent with China's 
pro-circular economy narrative, given that China appear ed to include recyclable 
materials within the scope of "solid waste" . 
 
5.2.  Going forward, she said that her delegation would also ask that China adhere to its notification 
obligations in a timely manner under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures with res pect to 
any new import measures.  Finally, she reiterate d her delegation's  prior request that China halt its G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 11 - 
 
  implementation of the existing and planned measures. She restated that China's scrap ban was 
having a detrimental effect on global recycling markets  and might, in fact, cause more environmental 
damage than good in the long term.  
5.3.  The representative of China  said that his delegation took note  of the concerns raised by the 
delegation of the United States. He said that , for the sake of time , and to the ex tent that they had 
already provided replies to this issue in various other WTO  bodies, his delegation would not repeat 
in full its statement made at previous meetings of this Committee . He nevertheless highlighted the 
latest developments on this issue. Fro m 1 January  2021, China ha d banned all imports of solid waste 
according to China's law on the prevention and control of environmental pollution by solid waste and 
relevant regulations , with the aim to effectively protect public health and ecosystem safety.  
Currently, China was  working on the WTO  notification of the above -mentioned measures and would  
notify them pursuant to the notification requirements of the relevant WTO  Agreements.  In addition, 
China had published national quality standards for recycling materials such as brass, copper, cut 
aluminium alloy , and iron and steel materials.  Recycling materials complying with China's national 
quality standards  and presenting  no hazard to human health and the e nvironment, were not 
regarded as solid waste and could  be imported normal ly. Finally, he said that China urge d major 
solid waste -exporting Members to reduce solid waste at source and ensure that they live d up to their 
international responsibilities to hand le and dispose of their own solid waste.  
5.4.  The Committee  took note of the statements made.  
6  EGYPT – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS  FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND 
PROCESSED PRODUCTS - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
6.1.  The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation remained  concerned over a 
number of measures implemented by Egypt, namely the prolonged restrictions on sugar imports, 
quantitative restrictions for imports of meat and poultry, and the recently announced new import 
measures for s eed potatoes , which ha d been notified under SPS  119. 
6.2.  The European Union  also reiterate d its concern s regarding Egypt's  import restrictions on sugar . 
Since 4  June 2020, Egypt had implemented a series of three -month restrictions on the import ation 
of sugar t hat had been prolonged three  times (the last prolongation took place on 4  March  2021, 
again for a period of three  months, bringing the total period to one  year). In the Committee on 
Agriculture , on 28  July 2020, the European Union had  asked Egypt for infor mation on how this 
measure respect ed the requirements of GATT  Article  XI:2(c). To date, Egypt had not provided a 
reply. Moreover, in the Committee on Import Licensing , on 9 October  2020, the European Union  had 
asked Egypt to provide all relevant information justify ing its  import restrictions applied to raw and 
white sugar. Again, to date, no such information ha d been received.  Following the last extension of 
the measure, the European Union had  asked Egypt in the Committee on Agriculture , on 
30 March 2021, how its import restrictions on sugar were reconciled with its commitments under 
Article  XI of the GATT regarding the General Elimination of Quantitative Restrictions. Furthermore, 
the European Union  had enquired about the current market situation in Egypt, the modalities for 
obtaining an import approval for sugar , and Egypt's recent import statistics.  The European Union  
reiterate d all of its previous questions on the import restrictions on raw and white sugar and insist ed 
on receiving replies from Egypt. The European Union  consider ed that these import restrictions were 
not aligned with Egypt's WTO  obligations and urge d Egypt to rapidly eliminate these trade -restrictive 
and trade -distorting measures.  
6.3.  Regarding the import restrictions on meat and poultry (ducklings and canned meat) , the 
European Union  reiterate d that the system of import permits under Prime Minister's Decree 
No. 2080/2018 and Prime Minister's Decision No.  222/2018 was inconsistent with Article  XI of the 
GATT ( de jure and de facto import prohibition s through quantitative restriction s), as well as with 
several provisions of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Furthermore, to her 
delegation's knowledge, Egypt ha d still not notified the se two decrees to the WTO.  She said that,  as 
they had  mentioned on previous occasions, the system of granting import permits lack ed 
transparency ; the procedures of the committees and the calendars of their meetings were not 
publicly shared ; rejections of import permits were communicated orally, without any possibility of 
appeal ; and  there were no rules stipulating under which conditions import permits were approved 
under each act. The European Union requested Egypt to stop applying quantitativ e restrictions on 
imports of meat and poultry originating in the European Union , in compliance with WTO  law. G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 12 - 
 
  6.4.  Regarding the n ew measures on the import of seed potatoes , notified under the  
SPS Agreement, and while noting that Egypt had provided replies to the European Union's  questions, 
she wished to repeat the following points : 
- The new mechanism was designed in such a way that, in practical terms, it would limit 
import volumes from the European Union  and have an effect comparable to a 
quantitative restriction. Moreover, the introduction of a fee per ton ne of imported seed 
potatoes to finance field inspections was equivalent to the imposition of a customs duty ; 
 
- The introduction of a pre -clearance sy stem in the form of field visits in the European 
Union  by Egyptian inspectors was very burdensome, costly, and ma de trade unviable. 
EU member States had efficient and effective national plant protection organizations , 
which could  certify that exports compl ied with importing country requirements in 
accordance with international standards like the International Plant Protection 
Convention and related international standards ; 
 
- Egypt's technical requirements were not aligned with the growing cycle of seed pot atoes 
in the European Union . Egypt demand ed import applications to be submitted between 
15 March and 15  April of each year, which was at a time of year when potatoes in the 
European Union were not yet planted ; for this reason, most data needed for these 
applications was not available at that time. Rather, the compliance of seed potatoes 
with Egyptian standards could  only be assessed after their harvest.  
 
6.5.  The European Union requested Egypt to reconsider its new measures on the import of seed 
potatoes and stood ready to engage with Egypt to discuss any concerns it might have in this respect.  
6.6.  The representative of the United States  share d similar concerns to those of the European Union  
regarding Egypt's import licensing requir ements for certain agricultural products. She asked Egypt 
to address these issues in a timely manner.  She also encourage d Egypt to notify the Committee of 
all applicable regulations and procedures, including listing the products subject to import licensing , 
providing the eligibility to apply for an import licence , and describing the criteria considered when 
issuing an import licence . 
6.7.  The representative of Egypt  thank ed the European Union for including this item on the agenda , 
and the European Union and the United States for the ir statement s. He said that t he recent 
Ministerial Decree No.  117, issued in March  2021, ha d extended the application of the Ministerial 
Decree No.  606 of December  2020, allowing the importation of raw sugar through an import 
approval from the Minister of Trade and Industry and the Minister of Supply and Internal Trade. He 
explained that  the measure was temporary in nature  and of a duration of three  months. The decree 
aimed at organizing the internal market in order to ensure that all traders had a share of the market, 
which would  have a positive impact on trade. He noted that i t was also important for statistical 
purposes to keep track of the expected volume of imports ov er a period of time, especially during  
the pandemic.  As for import permits for poultry and live animals, meat and meat products, he said 
that they  aimed at regulating imports of these products to ensure that such imports did not lead to 
the introduction of  any disease and to ensure that they met the required standards stipulated by the 
General Organization of Veterinary Services. These import permits did not in any way impose 
quantitative restrictions.  Finally, in respect of  the concerns raised by the Europ ean Union  regarding 
seed potatoes , he said that his delegation had taken note of the se concerns and would  convey them 
to Capital and revert with comments in due course.  
6.8.  The Committee  took note of the statements made.  
7  INDIA – IMPORT LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR BORIC ACID - STATEMENT BY THE 
UNITED STATES  
7.1.  The representative of the United States  said that her delegation had been concerned for some 
time over India's import licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respect to the 
burde nsome end -use certificates necessary for importation.  She recalled that their  concerns had 
begun over a decade earlier , when India 's Ministry of Commerce and Industry had introduced a rule 
stating that "[i]mports of Boric Acid for non -insecticidal purposes will be subject to an import permit 
issued by the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the Ministry of 
Agriculture ". The import application require d an applicant to attest "that imported material is not for G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 13 - 
 
  sale but for use as per our own requirement as stated in this application ". This statement require d 
that non -insecticidal boric acid could  only be imported directly by a manufacturer and prevent ed 
independent traders from importing boric acid for resale purpose s. The rule also require d the 
importer of non -insecticidal boric acid to provide the precise end -use of the product prior to 
importation as well as historical import and production data of the finished product. This information 
was subject to a formal gove rnment review process.  In addition, Indian importers had expressed 
their frustration that in import licensing applications they were required to supply information on 
past consumption of boric acid and production of the finished product, which was informat ion often 
unavailable to importers.  
7.2.  Her delegation continue d to request that India explain why boric acid, which ha d a toxicity level 
roughly equivalent to that of table salt, was the only insecticide that require d an import permit for 
non-insecticidal use , considering its low toxicity level compared to other insecticides that were not 
required to obtain an import permit.  She concluded by saying that her delegation continue d to 
request that India amend Schedule –I (Imports) of the ITC  (HS) Classifications of  Export and Import 
Items and eliminate the import permit requirement for imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal 
purposes. Her delegation hoped that its recent bilateral negotiations with India in this area would  
bring about a mutually beneficial resolution.  
7.3.  The representative of  India thank ed the delegation of the United States for its continued 
interest in imports of boric acid in to India and recalled that India had already submitted its written 
replies in docum ents G/LIC/Q/IND/12 , G/LIC/Q/IND/ 14, G/LIC/Q/IND/ 16, and G/LIC/Q/IND/ 22, 
explaining in detail the policy objectives and implementation  issues . He also noted that, for 
non-insecticidal use , domestic manufacturers of boric acid were required to submit annual  production 
and sale s data, whereas imports of boric acid for non -insecticidal use were  exempted from the 
requirement of registration under the Insecticides Act . Import permits were issued on the basis of 
certificates of end use.  He added that various mult i-use chemicals had been listed  in the Schedule  
to the Insecticides Act of 1968, since they were capable of being used both as insecticides and for 
other purposes. Boric acid  and all multi -use insecticides were subject to similar regulatory measures.  
7.4.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  INDIA: QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN PULSES – STATEMENTS BY 
CANADA, AUSTRALIA,  AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  
8.1.  The representative of Canada  referred to the questions his delegation  had posed to India on 
this issue and said that they had been disappointed that India had not been able to provide clarity 
on the status of its quantitative restriction on dried peas. Twenty -one days after the end of the 
application period of the quantitative restriction on dried peas, exporters and importers of dried peas 
were still unaware of the relevant importing rules and restrictions. Th is situation had been creating 
uncertainty for traders, who did not  know if their en  route shipments would  be rejected or accepted 
upon arrival. Canada underscore d its request to India to clarify the situation promptly, and also 
asked India to notify its procedures on the import ation of dried peas under the quantitative 
restriction in a timely m anner to ensure predictability for traders.  
8.2.  He noted that Canada, as the largest supplier of pulses to India, had been the WTO  Member 
most negatively affected by India's measures to limit its imports of pulses. Pulses were an import ant 
source of protein fo r many Indian consumers, and Canada ha d been a high quality and reliable 
supplier.  Canada was thus disappointed by India's  continue d use of quantitative restrictions on the 
import of dried peas and other pulses. The situation had been ongoing for more than  three  years 
and it was difficult for Canada to understand how India could claim that these measures were 
temporary . Canada also question ed the legal interpretation provided by India to justify its 
quantitative restrictions, minimum import prices , and disc retionary import licensing procedures, as 
limiting imports to one  single port of entry for the import of dried peas.  Canada call ed upon India 
immediately and expeditiously to review its trade -restrictive measures on dried peas and other 
pulses and implemen t alternative and WTO -consistent policy options instead, which would promote 
a predictable and transparent import regime for pulses . 
8.3.  The representative of Australia  said that her delegation's concerns over India's restrictive 
measures on pulses imports were well known to all Members.  Australia was extremely disappointed 
by India's decision to renew the quantitative restrictions for mung beans, pigeon peas , and black G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 14 - 
 
  gram for the 2021 -2022 marketing year. Thi s renewal meant  that India would  have had its 
WTO-inconsistent measures in place for over five  marketing years, considering  that the quantitative 
restrictions  had first been introduced in August  2017.  She requested India to clarify the status of 
peas that had also been subject to quantitative restrictions in 2020 -2021. These quantitative 
restrictions were clearly no longer temporary and had to  be removed. She added that , despite their 
regular requests, India had failed to provide sufficient explanation of the WTO  basis for these 
measures.  In a recent meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, Australia, Canada the European 
Union, the  Russian  Federation , Ukraine,  and the United States,  had submitted formal questio ns to 
India. It was imperative that India provide detailed answers explain ing the market and other 
conditions behind its decision , and how such a decision was  WTO consistent.  She noted that , while 
the WTO  Agreements contain ed exceptions, the onus was on the Member implementing the measure 
to explain how such exceptions might  apply.  Australia dr ew Members ' attention to a number of issues 
relating to the most recent announcement by India that pertain ed to this Committee's work. And 
these were not the ir only c oncerns regarding  India's quantitative restrictions on pulses ; rather, they 
were indicative of the continuing and problematic al manner in which India was conducting its pulses 
import regime.  
8.4.  In Public Notice No. 47/2015 -20 of 30  March  2021, India had published the procedure and 
modalities for the import of mung beans, pigeon peas , and black gram for the 2021 -2022 marketing 
year. Similar to previous years, applicants had been allowed a limited period of time in which to 
submit their applications for an allocation of the quota  volumes  available . This announcement had 
been made on 30  March  2021, and the last date of submission of applications had been 
15 April 2021.  She asked India to explain why it had provided such a limited time-frame  for 
applications and why more advanced notice had not been provided to applicants.  She recalled that  
Australia ha d previously raised concerns about  India only allotting volume to millers and refiners 
provided that they had refining processing capacity. Th e latest announcement had indicate d that 
eligible applicants include d millers, refiners, and traders. She asked India to confirm whether it ha d 
expanded  the scope of eligible applicants and whether a refining/processing capacity was required . 
She also aske d whether traders could import a finished product that was fit for consumption without 
further processing . Finally, she stated that Australia was seeking confirmation from India about the 
status of the quantitative restrictions on peas which had expired on  31 March. She asked if the 
restriction on peas was still in place, and if  so, what the associated import licensing requirements  
were in this case . 
8.5.  In conclusion , she recalled that Australia had previously raised its concerns over India's 
restrictive impor t licensing requirements on peas imported under the quantitative restrictions, and 
in particular that imports of peas could only occur at a minimum import price of INR 200, and only 
through the Calcutta seaport. These restrictive import licensing requirements were part of a much 
bigger overall set of concerns  over India's quantitative restrictions on pulses  that Australia and other 
WTO Members had been raising over the past nearly four years. Once again, Australia called  upon 
India to remove its quantitative restrictions on pulses , to bring its measures into compliance with 
India's WTO  commitments , and to ensure transparency and predictability with respect to its pulses 
impor ts. 
8.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation share d the concerns raised 
by Canada and Australia. This supposedly temporary measure ha d been in place for more than 
three  years  and this issue ha d been raised in many WTO  meetings by the European Union  and 
several  other WTO Members, developing and developed alike. Each time, India ha d referred to 
responses  that it had provided in other committees. However, in none of those committees had India 
provided a substantive reply to the questions asked by other Members. She asked India to indicate 
precisely in which meeting it had replied to each of the concerns raised.  She noted that in its reply 
provided in  the Council for Trade in Goods on 31  March  2021, India had referred to Article  XI:2(c)(ii) 
of the GATT relating  to the removal of a temporary surplus. In this regard, she asked India to provide 
balance sheet s for pulses for each of the years 2017, 2018, 2 019, and 2020 , so that the Membership 
might  review the relevance of this provision . She also wondered what steps India had taken to 
reduce its surplus, and if there had been a repeated surplus of pulses for four  years . She noted that 
India had also claimed  in the Council for Trade in Goods that Article  XX of the GATT had been the 
basis for its import ban on pulses to protect small farmers. Given the references to the protection of 
public morals and human life, she wondered whether India genuinely consider ed that Article  XX(a) 
and (b) of the GATT  1994 justified these measures . If so, she asked India to provide further 
reasoning to support what, in her delegation's view,  seem ed like  an extremely questionable 
interpretation of those provisions.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 15 - 
 
  8.7.  The representative of the United States  share d the concerns of Australia , Canada , and the 
European Union , regarding India's import licensing requirements for select varieties of pulses.  She 
said that her delegation had continue d to urge India to consider less trade -restrictive requirements 
and to notify future relevant measures and regulations in a timely manner.  
8.8.  The representative of India thank ed the delegations of Canada , Australia , the Europ ean Union,  
and the United States for their continued interest in the matter.  He noted that most of the issues 
raised had also been raised in earlier meetings of this Committee , as well as in other WTO  bodies, 
most recently at the last meeting of the Counci l for Trade in Goods.  He said that, in this context,  
India reiterate d that the objective of this measure was to guarantee the food and livelihood security 
of small and marginal farmers. His government has been regularly reviewing these measures based 
on the market situation of pulses, owing to which, the quota of pulses had been increased from time 
to time.  He added that, together with the  specific WTO  provisions under which India ha d imposed 
these measures, the general exceptions of Article  XX of the GATT  1994 allowed a Member to impose 
measures necessary to protect its public morals , including small and marginal farmers ' food and 
livelihood security.  This provision also allow ed Members to introduce measures in pursuance of 
human health and safety , animal and plant life or health , and the environment.  
8.9.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  INDIA: IMPORTATION OF PNEUMATIC TYRES - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
9.1.  The representative of the European Union  reiterate d the concerns her delegation had  raised in 
October  2020, at the Committee 's previous meeting , regarding the licensing regime for  the 
importation of pneumatic tyres for motor cars, buses, lorries, motor scooters and motorcycles , 
introduced by India under Notification No.  12/2015 -2020 on "Amendment in Import Policy of Tyres" 
of 12 June 2020.  She reminded Members that her delegation had  not yet received written replies to 
its questions submitted at this Committee  and circulated as document  G/LIC/Q/IND/27 ; she also 
noted that , to the European Union's knowledge, India had not yet fulfilled its notification obligations 
under Article  1.4 and A rticle 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement. India had not indicated through 
the licensing procedure that this measure had been implemented ; nor had India indicated its 
duration. She said that the European Union had continue d to be concerned about the effec t of this 
measure on the import of tyres, which had become highly restricted since June  2020. Only a limited 
number of licences had been granted to EU  tyre manufacturers , and those licences had been limited 
in duration, quantity, and type of tyre.  The European Union recalled the requirements of Article  3.2 
of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures , according to which "non-automatic import 
licensing shall not have trade -restrictive or  -distortive effect on imports additional to those caused 
by the imposition of the restriction " and urged India once again to reconsider any implicit or explicit 
quantitative or other ( for example,  end-user principle) restrictions on the import of replacement 
tyres that could run contrary to WTO  rules by being disc riminatory and favour ing local tyre 
manufacturers.  
9.2.  The representative of  Chinese Taipei  share d the concern s raised by the European Union.  She 
said that her delegation had expressed its concern s at the previous formal meeting of the Committee 
on Import Licensing Procedures , in October  2020. Recently , they had been informed by their 
business representatives that businesses had encountered difficulties in India over applications for 
import licences by Indian importers in June  2020 that had either remained  pending or that had not 
been approved until December  2020. Moreover, the number of successful applications had sharply 
declined , to only about 40% of the average of the past three  years. She noted that India had issued 
import licences only for those categories of pneumatic tyres  that were not being produced 
domestically. In the view of Chinese Taipei, this constituted a ban on imports of tyres and clearly 
violate d WTO rules prohibiting quantity restrictions. In consequence, her delegatio n urged India to 
comply with the rules of  the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. She noted , too,  that 
non-automatic licensing procedures should be implemented in a transparent and predictable manner 
and not have trade -restrictive or trade -distortive effects on imports additional to those caused by 
the imposition of restrictions.  Like the European Union, she observed that India had not yet fulfilled 
its notification obligations under Article  1.4 and Article  5 of the Import Licensing Agreemen t. Finally, 
she requested India to provide detail ed information concerning  its domestic practices in granting 
licences and to take immediate measure s to ensure that normal trade could  be restored.  
9.3.  The representative of the United States  support ed the Europ ean Union's concerns regarding 
India's lack of notifications of its import procedures for tyres. Her delegation urged India to submit G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 16 - 
 
  its notifications of the procedures for  the 12 June 2020 Notification No.  12/2015 -2020, and to 
complete the annual questionnaire , in order  to meet its transparency obligations under this 
Committee.  They also request ed that India review and submit all pending applications in a timely 
manner.  
9.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his delegation shared the concerns of the  European Union, 
Chinese Taipei , and the United States , regarding India's lack of notifications of its import procedures 
for tyres,  as well as  its non-compliance with  Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures . He asked India  to clarify whether  it regard ed this measure as a non -automatic import 
licence. If yes, he asked India to provide an overview of the applicable import procedures in 
accordance with Article  3 of the Agreement , including the timeline of the procedures. He added that , 
if India regard ed this measure as an automatic import licence, India should operate the measure as 
such.  However, if India operate d this measure as a non -automatic licence , his delegation had  three 
additional questions : first , under Article  3 of the Agree ment, sufficient information regarding the 
import licence needed to be published , and he asked  India to indicate where such information was 
published , or, if it had not yet been published, to clarify the reason for this and indicate the expected  
timing of its future publication ; second, he asked India what  the reason was  for introduc ing this new 
measure, which require d importers to obtain a licence only in the case of specific  categories of tyres;  
third, he asked India about the rationale and criteria upon which the Indian authorities decide d 
whether or not they would  grant an import licence in response to  an application, and on what such 
rationale and criteria were themselves based . He said that his delegation would be sending its 
questions on  these points to India and concluded by requesting  India to provide further clarification 
on this issue.  
9.5.  The representative of the Republic of Korea  also share d the concerns of the European Union , 
Chinese Taipei , the United States and Japan , regarding India's import  procedures for tyres. He 
recalled that the Republic of Korea had expressed its concerns at the Committee's previous meeting , 
in October  2020. Those concern s remained unchanged. The Republic of Korea sought  explanations 
from India about the criteri a and reason s for its import licensing requirements and the legal basis 
for its policies.  He recalled that , according to Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures , "Non-automatic licensing shall not have trade -restrictive  or -distortive effects on imports 
additional to those caused by the imposition of the restriction ". In contrast , he argued that India's 
adopted policy was substantially restricting tyre import s. The Republic of Korea urge d India to 
operate its import licensing policy on tyres in a transparent way and to make improvements to this 
policy so that it would not  be a barrier to trade.  
9.6.  The representative of India thank ed the European Union , Chinese Taipei , the United States , 
Japan , and the Republic of  Korea,  for their continued interest in this matter.  He said that India was 
in the process of notifying to the relevant committees its import policy changes in relation to certain 
specific new pneumatic tyres. As concerned the implemen tation of import authorizations by India, 
he said that this had been realized  in a transparent and predictable manner. Procedures for the 
issuance of such import authorizations were provided under paragraphs  2.50 and 2.51 of the 
Handbook of Procedures 2015-2020, which was in the public domain and could  be accessed through 
the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT ) website , at https://www.dgft.gov.in/CP/?opt=ft -
procedures . He noted, too, that applications for such authorizations could  be filed online , and that 
DGFT  Trade Notice No.  49, dated 15  March  2019, set out  the relevant procedure.  He explained that , 
after the scrutiny of applications for the  required documents , taking int o account the comments  from 
concerned administrative industries and departments , such applications were considered by the 
EXIM Facilitation Committee (EFC) for decisions on the grant ing of import authorizations . He added 
that the  issues that Members had raised at that day's meeting would  be forwarded to Capital for 
further examination and comment.  
9.7.  The representative of Indonesia  thank ed the European Union and said that his delegation 
share d similar concerns over India's import  regime for pneumatic tyres. Indonesia sought  further 
explanation s from India on its regulations concerning  import licences for pneumatic tyres. 
Furthermore, his  delegation requested India to elaborate on its  import regime for pneumatic tyres 
in detail , including on its requirements to obtain import approvals.  Moreover, Indonesia was seeking  
further clarification  as to whether additional arrangements were in place, whereby  the final import 
licence would require that  the types of tyres being imported were not manufactured in India. 
Indonesia felt that such arrangements would be  inconsistent with GATT  national treatment.  
9.8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 17 - 
 
  10  INDONESIA – IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CELL PHONES, HANDHELD 
COMPUTERS AND TABLETS - STATEMENT BY THE UNITED STATES  
10.1.   The representative of the United States  acknowledg ed Indonesia 's adoption, in the previous 
autumn , of the "Job Creation Omnibus Law ". She said that her delegation had understood that one 
of the stated goals of this law was to improve Indonesia's domestic business climate , an aim which 
her delegation  believe d was  in Indonesia's best interest s, and which they applaud ed. Unfortunately, 
however, the issue her delegation wished to rais e conflict ed with this aim.  She said that, a s the 
Committee was well aware, the United States ha d long-standing and serious concerns with 
Indonesia's import licensing regimes and, in particular, the import licensing requirements for cell 
phones, handheld c omputers, and tablets.  
10.2.   The United States  and other Members  had been raising this issue for nearly a decade, both in 
this Committee and bilaterally, and they regretted that they  had to raise this issue  again . In their 
questions to Indonesia, the United Stat es had sought clarity regarding the specific requirements of 
Indonesia's import licensing regime , and an understanding of the rationale for the requirements 
overall. To date, Indonesia's responses had neither provided sufficient clarity nor resolved their 
concerns.  They continue d to seek Indonesia's explanation for why the requirements of the import 
licensing regime treat ed 3G and 4G  technology differently.  They also continue d to seek an 
understanding of why Indonesia require d both a licence to import generally as well as a separate 
licence for specific products, in this case , for 4G  LTE products, including a requirement to obtain a 
recommendation from the specific ministry wit h regulatory responsibility.  She said that her 
delegation was deeply concerned that it appear ed that Indonesia's system favour ed imports meant 
for further processing , in other words, in -country assembly, as opposed to imports of finished 
products . They wer e also concerned that domestic companies might  not be subject to requirements 
equivalent to those imposed on importers ; there appear ed to be a different requirement for domestic 
companies with respect to the use of distributors , for example . 
10.3.   She stated  that her delegation considered that the issues that they were raising again at that 
meeting, as on multiple previous occasions, were serious. These import licensing requirements had 
distorted trade and investment in an important and dynamic sector, one of sig nificance both to the 
United States  and the global economy.  The proliferation of burdensome import licensing measures 
in Indonesia – and, in particular  those measures that mandate d the purchase of local goods – had 
had a negative impact on Indonesia's reputation among investors.  Furthermore, her delegation  
believe d that such policies were to Indonesia's own detriment . She  noted that Indonesia ha d 
previously estimated that it was losing  nearly two  trillion rupiah (US $135 million) annually from 
illegal cell phone imports.  Indonesia had stated that it intend ed to undertake a comprehensive review 
of the local content requirements attached to its import licensing regime for 4G  products.  Her 
delegation was therefore concer ned that, despite this commitment, Indonesia had issued a new 
regulation in 2020 – Ministry of Industry Regulation No.  22 – that appear ed intended to expand to 
other electronic products the local content requirements attached to this import licensing regim e. 
Lastly, she said that her delegation  appreciate d that Indonesia ha d notified some of these measures 
to the Committee. However, they urged Indonesia to notify all of the associated measures, including : 
Ministry of Industry Regulation Nos.  108/2012, 68/20 16, 29/2017 ; KOMINFO  Regulation No.  7/2019 
and 16/2018 ; and KOMINFO  Circular Letter No.  518/2017.  They also urged Indonesia to reconsider 
these import licensing requirements for cell phones, handheld computers, and tablets.  
10.4.   The representative of the Europe an Union  echoed and strongly support ed the intervention  of 
the United States. She also took  note of the adoption of the new Omnibus Law on Job Creation , 
passed in October  2020, which affect ed trade policy and cover ed 11 different clusters, including one 
on the implementation of licensing endeavours.  Her delegation wished to know if and what 
amendments to the Indonesian import licensing regime had been made by the new Omnibus Law.  
She noted that t his question was also relevant to  the next poi nt on the agenda, request ed by 
Australia , about Indonesia 's import licensing restricting policies and practices.  
10.5.   The representative of Indonesia  thank ed the United States and the European Union for their 
continued interest in Indonesia's  import licensing r egime , in particular concerning cell phones, 
handheld computers , and tablets.  Responding to the concerns by the United States rega rding 
Indonesia's import licensing procedure s, he referred to their response s provided at the Committee's 
previous meeting, and to their  written replies to the questions from the United States contained in  
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/38.  He said that , based on their internal coordination , they had found no 
barriers to US  imports of 4G  technology products into the  Indonesia n market.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 18 - 
 
  10.6.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES - 
STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA  
11.1.   The representative of Australia  welcome d the opportunity to raise their concerns regarding 
Indonesia's i mport restricting measures, especially as concerned its  import licensing  regime . She 
said that a number of Indonesia's import policies continue d to restrict and impact imports  
unnecessarily . She thank ed Indonesia for its engagement with Australia on this i ssue to date , 
including under the Indonesia -Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement . Her 
delegation request ed that this engagement continue to ensure that any delays were resolved and 
that trade in any affected  products could  resume as soon as possible.  Australia was encouraged by 
Indonesia's efforts to improve its import licensing regime through the implementation of its Omnibus 
Law on Job Creation, Law No.  11 of 2020 , which  include d simplifying permit processes for agricultu ral 
products. They encourage d Indonesia to promptly notify WTO  Members of the regulations developed 
to support the implementation of the Omnibus Law, including those relating to the operation of the 
commodity balance, which they underst ood would  inform dec isions about import and export permits. 
Australia wanted  to better understand how the proposed usage of the commodity balance would  
affect the issuing of import permits. They would have also appreciate d receiving from Indonesia an 
explanation of whether or not they had given  consideration to the adoption of automatic import 
licensing procedures as part of this Omnibus Law,  and, if so,  why this had not been adopted.  Australia 
request ed that Indonesia ensure  that all its measures, including the latest proposed changes 
resulting from the Omnibus Law, be consistent with its WTO  obligations, and its obligations under 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  in particular . 
11.2.   The representative of Indonesia  thanked  Australia for its concerns regarding Indonesia's  
import licensing policies and practices.  Indonesia took note of Australia's concerns on this matter 
but also encourage d Australia to submit its questions to the Commit tee in writing . He explained that 
this would  allow them to liaise  more easily with the relevant parties in seeking any solution to the 
aforementioned issues.  
11.3.   The Committee took note of the statements made.  
12  INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION: COMPULSORY REGISTRATION BY IMPORTERS OF 
STEEL PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
12.1.   The representative of Japan  said that his delegation was concern ed about  Indonesia's 
compulsory registration of importers of steel products.  His delegation had  found a number of ca ses 
where, based on the Minister of Trade Order No.  3 of 2020, the Indonesian authorities had issued a 
substantially smaller number of import licences for steel products than the number of applications 
submitted by importers.  He noted that this had a trade -restrictive effect on importation and was 
possibly inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  and 
Article  XI:1 of the GATT  1994. Japan urge d Indonesia not to reduce substantially the approved 
import quantity compared to the quantity applied. Japan also request ed that Indonesia clarify the 
rationale and criteria behind its reduction in import quotas. He added that another problem was the 
amendment to the Ministry of Industry 's Technical Consideration, which was necessary for steel 
products importation, as provided for in the Minister of Industry Order No.  4 of 2021. Article  12.A of 
that Order provide d that the Ministry of Industry would  consider the issuance of the Technical 
Consideration, which was necessary fo r import licensing application s, by considering the domestic 
balance in Indonesia between supply and demand . Japan was concern ed that this provision was 
potentially inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures , as well as 
with the provisions of other WTO  Agreements . Therefore, Japan urged Indonesia to implement this 
provision in a WTO -consistent manner.  
12.2.   The representative of the United States  said that her delegation share d Japan's concerns 
about Indonesia's import licensing requirements for steel products, including its registration and 
pre-shipment inspection requirements.  She said that they would be closely monitor ing this situation 
and look ed forward to hearing Indonesia 's response to the concerns expressed by Japan.  
12.3.   The representative of Indonesia  thank ed Japan and the United States for their concerns 
regarding its policy of compulsory registration  for importers of steel products.  Indonesia took note G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 19 - 
 
  of those concerns  but also encourag ed Japan to submit its questions to the Committee  in writing . 
Indonesia would coordinate and follow -up on this issue accordingly.  
12.4.   The Committee took note of the statements made.  
13  INDONESIA: IMPORT LICENSING REGIME FOR CERTAIN TEXTILE PRODUCTS  – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN  
13.1.   The representative of the European Union  stated that, f ollowing the entry into force of 
Regulation No.  77/2019, imports of EU  origin of finished textile items, notably carpets , were no 
longer possible in Indonesia.  No licences were issued for these products if they did not meet the 
requirements of the import licensing system , and only raw materials or supporting materials 
imported for further production processes could  obtain licence s. She noted, a s the European Union 
had already done  on previous occasions , that this result ed in a prohibition against import of finished 
textile products for the product at issue , which also created a  precedent.  She pointed out that , to 
date, this measur e had not been notified to the WTO, which was inconsistent with WTO transparency 
obligations.  Moreover, the measure appear ed to be inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT  1994 
(de jure  and de facto  import prohibition through quantitative restriction), as well as, Articles  1 and 
5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures ( disproportionately cumbersome import 
licensing procedures and requirements). The European Union consider ed that Indonesia's import 
regime for textile products and te xtiles (within the scope of Regulation No.  77/2019, if imported for 
purposes other than further processing by domestic producer importers, their cooperating production 
parties, and/or small - and mid -sized industries ) also ran counter to the letter and the spirit of several 
provisions of the WTO  Trade Facilitation Agreement. As a consequence, the European Union  urged 
Indonesia to re -evaluate the measure at issue and to bring it in to conformity with WTO  rules.  
13.2.   In addition, she noted that the import regime for textile products and textile s under Regulation 
No. 77/2019 was just one of many similar import regimes that Indonesia had adopted in recent 
times with the clear and expressly stated objective of stimulating and protect ing domest ic industry 
and curb ing imports  (the latest such measure had been Regulation No.  68/2020 on import provisions 
for footwear, electronics, and bicycles/tricycles, for example, which had entered into force on 
28 August  2020) . Indeed, Indonesia's import regime  appear ed to be protectionist in nature and 
based on policies, measures , and practices of dubious WTO  consistency. The European Union  
reserve d its right to provide further comments on this  issue, including in other WTO  meetings.  She 
recalled that her deleg ation had already raised this point at the previous meeting of the Committee 
and, upon Indonesia's request , they had also followed up with detailed written questions, which had 
been circulated  in document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43 , as specifically mentioned under Agenda Item 2. In 
the absence of any reaction so far, she again invited Indonesia to provide its replies without further 
delay.  
13.3.   The representative of Japan  said that , in October  2019, Indonesia had substantially prohibited 
the importation of certain textile products for retail sales by strengthening the import registration 
and approval system provided in the Minister of Trade Order No.  77 of 2019. Since then, the world 's 
exportation of textile products to Indonesia had sharply dropped; the amount of g lobal exports in 
2020 was approximately one -tenth of what it had been in 2019. Exports of carpet products under  
HS57 had been hit particularly hard.  Moreover, Indonesia had implemented safeguard measures 
against the importation of carpet products under  HS57 in February  2021. These measures appl ied 
extremely high ad valorem  tariffs of around 150 -200%, without considering the sharp reduction in 
importation already caused by the import registration and approval system. Japan was of the view 
that this measure d id not fulfil the requirements of  a safeguard measure, especially the requirement 
that safeguards should be applied only to the extent necessary. In conclusion, he reiterated that 
Japan ha d serious concern s about these measures , and he urged Indonesia to  eliminate them as 
soon as possible.  
13.4.   The representative of Indonesia  thank ed the European Union and Japan for their concerns 
regarding its import licensing requirements for textiles and textile products. He said that Indonesia 
had received sev eral questions from the European Union  regarding the import licensing of textile 
products, especially finished textile products.  He explained that his delegation was still coordinati ng 
with the relevant agencies in preparing the written replies to the Euro pean Union's questions in 
document  G/LIC/Q/IDN/43.  G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 20 - 
 
  13.5.   The Committee  took note of the statements made.  
14  INDONESIA: IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS – STATEMENTS BY JAPAN 
AND THE EUROPEAN UNION  
14.1.   The representative of Japan  said that his delegation was concern ed about  Indonesia's Minister 
of Trade Order No.  68 of 2020 , enacted in August  2020. He noted  that Indonesia ha d not notified  
the import permits system for air conditioners and that there was accordingly a lack of trans parency 
regarding the relevant procedures. He said that , approximately six  months since the enforcement of 
this Order, his delegation had f ound a number of cases  in which it had taken several months from 
the time of application to the issuance of the impor t permits , without any explanations having been 
provided of the reasons for this dela y. In addition, the number of air conditioning units that had 
been approved for importation  had been  restricted to less than the number requested in applications 
made by i mporters , likewise  without any explanation as to why. Japan was concerned that this 
measure was either a non -automatic import licensing measure or a quantitative restriction that was 
inconsistent with Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and Article  XI:1 of 
the GATT  1994. Therefore , he request ed Indonesia to explain why the se procedures had been taking 
several months , and why the number  of permits issued had been  restricted. He also request ed that 
Indonesia impr ove transparency by setting out  in the rules and regulations the duration period for 
the application procedures and the criteria for any restrictions. Japan insisted that  Indonesia provide 
further clarification concerning the background and the WTO -consist ency of this measure . In 
conclusion, Japan urged Indonesia ultimately to eliminate this measure.  
14.2.   The representative of the European Union  share d the concerns expressed by Japan. She said 
that the European Union was also concerned about the import regime fo r footwear, also regulated 
by Indonesia's Ministry of Trade  Order  No. 68/2020.  She noted that this import regime was just one 
of many similar import regimes that Indonesia ha d adopted in recent times with the clear and 
expressly stated objective to stimulate and protect its domestic industry and curb imports. Such 
objectives were protectionist in nature ; furthermore, they were objectives being pursued with 
policies, measures , and practices of dubious WTO  consistency. Her delegation advise d Indonesia to 
review its system.  
14.3.   The representative of Indonesia  thank ed Japan and the European Union for their concerns 
regarding its import regime for  air conditioners. His delegation took  note of the concerns of Japan 
and the European Union  on this matter and encourage d them to submit their written questions to 
the Committee.  
14.4.   The Committee took note of the statements made.  
15  THAILAND: IMPORTATION OF FEED WHEAT - STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
15.1.   The representative of the  European Union reiterate d her delegation's  concern about  the import 
procedures for feed wheat introduced by Thailand.  She asked Thailand why these import procedures 
had not been notified , in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing  
Procedures . In addition, she said that her delegation had not yet received written replies to their 
questions , which had been  circulated in documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4 . She 
reiterated her delega tion's interest in understanding on what basis the measure, announced as 
temporary, could be maintained for so long , and when it would cease to apply. To this end, the 
European Union wished to receive a detailed description of the import licensing procedur es to be 
applied , and also repeated its request to receive relevant data about the actual situation of the corn 
market in Thailand in order to better understand Thailand's justification of the measure. Based on 
the information gathered by her delegation, a verage domestic prices had been trend ing upwards  
since the introduction of the measure in late  2016.  
15.2.   She said that her delegation had understood  that the Government of Thailand had launched 
a support programme for corn production in September  2018 in order to provide incentives for rice 
farmers to divert their farming to corn during the drought period and to fill in the gap between the 
domestic demand for corn (8  million  MT) and its domestic production (5  million  MT). The programme 
had provided both fi nancial support (minimum price guarantee, crop insurance premium subsidy , 
and soft loans for inputs and management costs in the post-harvesting period) and non -financial 
support (marketing and technical assistance) to farmers who switch ed their farming fro m rice to G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 21 - 
 
  corn. However, this appeared  to contradict the alleged market oversupply of domestic corn . 
Therefore, the European Union  requested Thailand to clarify how government support for the 
expansion of corn production could  be reconciled with the allege d market oversupply in domestic 
corn. She further note d that the above -mentioned  support programme ha d ended in 
September  2019. A deficiency payment scheme had subsequently been put in place, beginning from 
December  2019, with an even higher guarantee pric e (8.5  Baht/KG compared to 8  Baht/KG under 
the production support programme). She observed  that these support programmes had not yet been 
notified to the Committee on Agriculture and encourage d Thailand to notify them in a timely manner.  
In addition to  its questions on the market situation, she stated that the European Union  was also 
significantly  concern ed about  the WTO-compatibility of Thailand's import licensing regime for feed 
wheat. The European Union was looking forward to receiving detailed writte n replies to its written 
questions , which were circulated in document s G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4.  
15.3.   The representative of Thailand  thanked the European Union  for its continued interest and 
questions concern ing Thailand's  import licensing procedures for feed wheat.  She said that her 
delegation had taken note of the European Union's remarks and had  forwarded the recent questions 
and concerns to its Capital , where they would  be carefully reviewed. She said that internal 
consultation s with relevant authorities and stakeholders were therefore ongoing . However, these 
consultations might take longer than expected due to the ongoing pandemic and the mandat ory 
work from home policy implemented by the government in light  of rising rates of new infection s in 
the country.  
15.4.   The Committee took note of the statements made.  
16  IMPROVING TRANSPARENCY IN NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES OF THE AGREEMENT – 
REPORT BY  THE CHAIRPERSON  
16.1.   The Chairperson  stated that i mproving transparency had been an important focus of the 
Committee's work. She report ed on the following points: ( i) use of the revised N2  notification form 
(G/LIC/28); ( ii) the import licensing website and database ; (iii) possible N2  online notification tool 
via the import licensing website; and ( iv) challenges relating to completing the annual questionnaire 
under Article  7.3. 
16.1  Use of revised N2  notification form (G/LIC/28)  
16.2.   The Chairperson  reported that , since the Committee 's previous  meeting, there had been a 
steady flow of notifications by Members under Article  5.1-5.4 of the Agreement , with 
61 N/2 notifications submitted. In this regard, the new N/2  form contained in document  G/LIC/28 
had been very successful ; indeed, this user -friend ly revised notification template had been used in 
60 out of the 61 new N/2 notifications.  
16.2  Import licensing website  
16.3.   The Chairperson  noted that a nother positive development ha d been the official launch of the 
new import licensing website at the 9  October  2020 meeting. This was the very first WTO database 
on import licensing measures. It was being regularly updated , based on the notifications received 
from Members , and it contain ed thousands of import licensing -related laws, regulations, and 
administrative procedures enforced by governments around the world , as well as the contact details 
of officials in charge of import licensing in Geneva and in Capitals . It was accessible to the general  
public and was intended to improve transparency and facilitate Members' work in the area of import 
licensing. As Members had emphasized at its launch, it was of fundamental importance that the 
website be updated regularly and that it contain ed the most recent and accurate import lic ensing 
information available . 
16.3  N2 online notification tool  
16.4.   The Chairperson  recalled that t he Secretariat was constantly updating the website and 
reflecting on possible developments and improvements to it. One possible improvement to the 
website, as had been  raised by Members in early  2020, might be the creation of an online notification 
tool to allow Members to send import licensing notifications to the WTO by completing a form 
available on the website  itself. The online form should mirror the current notification forms , G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 22 - 
 
  templates , and related entries , and would be available to Members on a voluntary basis . In no  way 
should it create additional burdens for Members or alter the balance of rights and obligations under 
the Agreement.  
16.5.   She explained that , with a possible online notification tool, o nce information had been received 
by the Secretariat via online submission, that information would be issued in  a WTO  N series 
document , as per the current practice . Exchanges with the Secretariat on modifying a notification 
prior to its issuance as a final N  series document would  also continue to be possible. An online 
notification form would facilitate the task of the notifying Member by providing an additional and 
user-friendly notification interface ; at the same time , it would ensure  that the information contained 
in the notifi cation would fe ed directly into the import licensing website's database, thus facilitating 
an ongoing updating of the website. Initially, an online notification form could be developed for the 
N/2 template , as recently revised and made more user -friendly b y Members , contained  in 
document  G/LIC/28.  
16.6.   She concluded her report by stating that t he new Chairperson of the Committee might  wish 
to follow up on this subject and move the process forward if Members  themselves so wish ed. 
16.4  Challenges relating to completing  the annual questionnaire under Article  7.3 
16.7.   The Chairperson  stated that a n issue that remain ed unresolved for the Committee was the 
question of how to improve Members' compliance regarding their notification obligations under 
Article  7.3, namely their replies to the annual questionnaire. She recalled that the number of annual 
notifications remain ed at very low levels. Previous Cha irpersons of the Committee had outlined a 
number of challenges faced by Members in preparing  their replies to the annual questionnaire, such 
as lack of understanding of the entries in the questionnaire , and efforts required during preparation 
in Capitals,  including complex coordination among several different agencies.  
16.8.   She concluded her report by stating that the new Chairperson of the Committee might wish 
to follow up on this subject and move the process forward if Members  themselves so wished.  
16.9.   The Committ ee took note of the Chair person 's report s. 
17  CONTACT LIST OF DELEGATIONS (G/LIC/INF/3)  
17.1.   The Chairperson  brought delegations' attention to the Secretariat 's revised "Contact List  of 
Delegations ", which had been circulated  as WTO  document  G/LIC/INF/3. She said that, like any 
other database, the value of this list was dependent upon the timeliness and accuracy of Members' 
updates and cooperation. In this regard, she encourage d Members to review the list and provide 
updated information to the  Secretariat on a regular basis. Based on the information received from 
Members, the Secretariat would update this document, as well as the contact list on the import 
licensing website . As a complementary and user -friendly way of maintaining an updated con tact list, 
she encourage d Members  to make use of the WTO  e-Registration tool and to update their contact 
information there on a regular basis.  
17.2.   The Committee took note  of the contact list of delegations  and of the Chairperson's statement.  
18  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
18.1.   The Chairperson  informed delegations that t he Secretariat ha d tentatively reserved Friday, 
8 October  2021 as the date of the Committee's next formal  meeting, on the understanding that the 
final date would  be confirmed in an email well before the meeting  itself, and that additional meetings 
could be convened as required.  
18.2.   The Committee took note . 
19  OTHER BUSINESS  
19.1.   The representative of Indonesia  raised  a specific trade concern  relating to Sri Lanka's ban on 
palm oil importation.  He stated that Sri Lanka 's import and export control department  had released 
operating instructions regarding a palm oil  importation ban , which instruct ed that importation  of G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 23 - 
 
  palm oil under HS  Code 15.11  (1511.10.00, 1511.90.00, 1511.90.10, 1511.90.20, 1511.90.30, and 
1511.90.90 ) was temporarily suspended , from 5  April 2021 until further notice.  He said that his 
delegation sought  a response from Sri Lanka regarding its objectives or rational e for this palm oil 
importation ban. Although it had been claimed that the palm oil importation ban had been temporary, 
the policy did not specifically mention its duration . He added that such a policy could have systemic 
implications for  global trade in palm oil. Indonesia felt that  the prohibition on imports of palm oil 
was inconsistent with several WTO  rules, especially Article  XI of the GATT  1994, Article  4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture , and Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Import Licensing  Procedures . 
19.2.   The Committee took note of the statement made.  
19.3.   The Chairperson  raised the following items under "Other Business" : 
19.1  Workshop on Import Licensing Notifications  
19.4.   The Chairperson  recalled that , as part of its targeted te chnical assistance and 
capacity -building activities , the Secretariat ha d held regular Geneva -based workshops on import 
licensing notifications since 2017. She inform ed Members that the Secretariat was organizing 
another notification workshop in the days pr eceding the next formal meeting of the Committee, 
tentatively scheduled for 8  October  2021. The workshop would  be held over two to three  days 
between 4 and 7  October  2021. Depending on the prevailing sanitary  situation and related measures 
in force, the workshop would  take place in hybrid mode (with both in -person and virtual 
participation) or only in virtual mode.  
19.2  Members' profiles and Secretariat analysis of import licensing procedures in 
five sectors  
19.5.   The Chairperson  said that the Secretariat ha d been conducting research based on the recently 
established import licensing website and database . Specifically, the Secretariat ha d compiled a range 
of import  licensing data by Member ( based on Members' profiles ), which ha d been made  available 
to the Committee in document  RD/LIC/16. This informal document contain ed information that was 
derived from the database and Members' notifications. She noted that i t represent ed ongoing work, 
and she  encourage d Memb ers to review it and provide any feedback, edits, corrections , or additions 
to the Secretariat. She added that the Secretariat  was also working on a WTO  Staff Working Paper 
reviewing import licensing procedures in five sectors , namely : hazardous chemicals ; rough 
diamonds ; fertilizers and pesticides ; pharmaceutical products ; and hazardous waste.  She asked the 
Secretariat to present these papers.  
19.6.   A representative of the Secretariat  explained that both papers provided examples of data that 
could be extracted f rom the database and the website. It demonstrate d that there  was a wealth of 
information that had been provided by Members through the notifications and that this information 
was now  easily accessible and easily retrievable . The main purpose of these documents was to show 
the utility of this new tool  to increase transparency and enhance information -sharing  in the field of 
import licensing. He said that the first document , which the Se cretariat  would  present in more detail  
at the present meeting, had  been provided to delegations as document  RD/LIC/16 and contained  
information on import licensing procedures organized by Member . It had been put together for eas e 
of reference,  and the info rmation it contained could  be easily retrieved from the website  itself. This 
document was provided for Members' review and feedback , so Members wishing to send edits, 
corrections , or comments to the Secretariat could helpfully improve  it. The second  document was a 
Staff Working Paper comprising  a sectoral review of import licensing procedures covering 
five sectors. It was based on information retrieved from Members' import licensing  notification s as 
well as other publicly available information taken from other relevant international organizations.  
19.7.   Another representative of the Secretariat  presented the Member profiles in 
document  RD/LIC/16 in more detail . She explained that each profile consisted of  an introduction and 
seven  parts.  The introduct ion contained information on a Member 's ranking in world trade 
merchandise import s for 2019, excluding intra -EU trade. This was followed by the Member 's date of  
WTO accession, and contact details for the relevant delegate in Geneva, if provided. Part  1, 
organized by Member , provided information on all of the product categories for which import 
licensing regimes were applied  by that Member . Part 2 contained  information on recently updated 
and recently introduced legislation. Part  3 cover ed a Member 's stated justification s for applying G/LIC/M/52  
 
- 24 - 
 
  import licensing measures , presented in graph format. Due to the limited use of HS  tariff codes in 
import licensing notifications , a specific methodology had been devised for calculating the share of 
product  categories notifie d by a Member under specific categories of justifying rationale . In brief, 
this comprised a ratio of the number of product  categories per justification to the total number of 
product  categories notified by Members.  Part 4 was dedicated to notifications sub mitted by 
WTO Members under the requirements specified under Articles  1.4(a) , Article  2, Article  5, 
Article  7.3, and Article  8.2(b)  of the Agreement of Import Licensing Procedures. Column  1 show ed 
the number of notifications received under the requirements of Articles  1.4(a) and 8.2(b). Under 
these requirements, WTO  Members were requested to submit at least one  notification.  Column  2 
showed the number of notifications received under the requirement s of Article  5. And finally, 
column  3 show ed the number of notifications received under the requirements of Article  7.3. Th e 
number of notifications submitted under Article  7.3 was shown in dark blue.  In contrast, light blue 
was used to highlight the total  number of notifications that should have been submitted until 
30 September  2020 (for an original WTO  Member , this number was 25, that is, one for each year of 
WTO membership) . Depending on the year of a Member's WTO accession , the number of Article  7.3 
notifications that should have been submitted  varied . Part 5 deal t with specific trade concerns raised 
by Members in the Committee on Import Licensing.  Finally, parts  6 and 7 provide d a complete list 
of product categories, including , where available , the HS Codes, and all the relevant legislation. She 
recalled that all of this information was contained within the document, circulated as 
document  RD/LIC/ 16. Members might wish to review this document  and to provide their feedback, 
edits, corrections , or additions , directly  to the Secretariat.  
19.8.   The representative of the United States  asked  if the two  documents that were referenced in 
the presentation , as well as the request for Members to review those documents, had themselves 
been requested by a particular Member . She said that her delegation would appreciate receiving 
more information on the objectives of these documents . 
19.9.   A representative of the Secretariat  explained that the papers had not been produced following 
a request by a Member ; rather, they represented Secretariat research based on the newly 
established import licensing website and database , which the Secretariat had now shared with the 
Committee . He said that there was no analytical purpose to the papers ; their main purpose was to 
demons trate to Members the usefulness of the information available in the database.  
20  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
20.1.   The Chairperson  stated that t he Rules of Procedure s for Meetings of the Committee  
established  that, "[t]he Committee on Import Licensing shall elect a Chairperson and a 
Vice-Chairperson from among the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the 
first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. The Chairperson and 
Vice-Chairperson shall hold office until the e nd of the first  meeting of the following year" . She 
recalled that the Chair person  of the Council for Trade in Goods ha d been consulting with Members 
regarding the election of chairpersons  for the subsidiary bodies  of the Council , including the 
Committee on  Import Licensing. However, to date , no agreement had been reached on the slate of 
names of proposed chairpersons for the Goods Council's subsidiary bodies . For this reason , she 
propose d to proceed as follows . Once the Council for Trade in Goods had  agree d on the proposed 
chairpersons for its subsidiary bodies, the Secretariat would  send an email to Members with the 
name of the proposed chairperson for the Committee  on Import Licensing . If no objection was 
received within the time -frame indicated in that email, the candidate would  be deemed to have been 
elected by the Committee  by acclamation . The  Vice-Chairperson of the Committee would  be 
proposed by the new Chair person  and be elected by the Committee based on the same approach.  
__________  