MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 october 2014
CHAIRPERSON: MR. tsotetsi makong (lesotho)
The Committee on Import Licensing held its
forty‑second meeting on 20 October 2014, under the chairmanship of
Mr Tsotetsi Makong (Lesotho).
The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in document WTO/AIR/4369,
was duly adopted.
1 members' compliance
with notification obligations – development since the last meeting.. 2
2
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES FROM MEMBERS ON SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS. 2
3
Notifications. 6
3.1 Notifications under Article 1.4(1)
and/or Article 8.2(b) of the Agreement 6
3.2 Notifications under Article 5 of
the Agreement 6
3.3 Notifications under Article 7.3 of
the Agreement 6
4
India – import of marble and marble products - request by the european union 7
5
Brazil - regulatory requirements for imports of nitrocellulose into Brazil -
request by the european union.. 8
6
Nigeria - regulatory requirements for imports of fishery products - request by
the European Union, Iceland, Norway and uruguay. 9
7
Indonesia's import licensing regime for cellphones, handheld computers and
tablets - statement by the united states. 10
8
India - import licensing requirements for boric acid - statements by the united
states. 11
9
Bangladesh - import licensing procedures - statements by the united states 12
10
viet nam - import licensing procedures - statements by the united states. 12
11
draft report (2014) of the committee to the council for trade in goods
(g/lic/w/43) 12
12
tenth biennal review of the implementation and operation of the agreement under
article 7.1 (g/lic/w/44). 12
13
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING.. 13
1.1 The
Chairman informed the Committee that, since the last meeting and up to
10 October 2014, a total of around 50 notifications had been
received under various provisions of the Agreement, including 14 notifications
under Article 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b); 7 under Article 5; and 28
notifications under Article 7.3. In
addition, the meeting also considered 4 notifications that were pending
from the last Committee meeting. The Chairman noted new notifications from the
European Union under Article 7.3; Nigeria's
preliminary response to Norway,
Iceland, and Uruguay regarding its policy on importation of
fish and fish products; as well as new notifications from Brazil and
written replies to EU Questions, which were received after the airgram was
issued and will be considered at the Committee's next meeting.
1.2 The
Chairman gave an overall picture of Members' compliance with notification
requirements under this Agreement. As of 20 October 2014, there were
still 16 Members which had
not submitted any notification under any provision of the Agreement
since joining the WTO; 28 Members
which had not submitted notifications concerning their laws and regulations, as
well as sources of information under Articles 1.4(a) and/or 8.2(b). Since
the Committee's last meeting, 7 notifications
from 3 Members under paragraph 1‑4
of Article 5 had been received and 28 N/3
notifications had been received from 25 Members.
1.3 The
Chairman congratulated Samoa for submitting its notification under
Article 1.4(a) for the first time, and Tajikistan
and the Russian
Federation for submitting their first
N/3 notifications, which were ready for consideration today. At the same
time, the Chairman reminded the Committee that (1) those Members not
applying import licensing procedures or which had no laws or regulations
relevant to the Agreement were still required to notify the Committee of this
fact; (2) the time‑line requirement of 60 days should be respected
under Article 5.1; (3) Members were requested to complete the
Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures before 30 September each
year.
1.4 The
Chairman observed that, from a historical perspective, out of a membership of
132 (with the EU‑28 counted as one), 25 Members
had never submitted replies to the Questionnaire under Article 7.3. The
Chairman highlighted that transparency was one of the key pillars of this
Agreement and encouraged Members experiencing difficulty in fulfilling their
notification obligations to consult the Secretariat for technical assistance
and to request capacity‑building activities.
1.5 The
representative of Brazil
took the floor to inform the Committee of new notifications submitted by Brazil that
morning. The representative of the United States thanked the
Chairman for the report, at the same time expressing disappointment with the
poor notification record. He supported the Secretariat's continued efforts to
enhance the timeliness and completeness of the notifications and questionnaire.
1.6 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
2.1 Moving to the questions and replies
circulated under the G/LIC/Q document series, the Chairperson informed the
Committee of the three documents containing questions on the licensing
regimes maintained by other Members, and the 11 documents containing
responses to the written questions, which were in due course to be considered
by the Committee, following the order of the airgram.
G/LIC/Q/BRA/18
2.2 The representative of the European Union
indicated that she would refer to this issue under agenda item 5.
G/LIC/Q/MNG/1
2.3 The
representative of the European Union pointed out that the European Union
had submitted a set of questions to Mongolia
seeking clarification on the import licensing procedures currently in place in Mongolia, and that the European Union would welcome
Mongolia's
replies. She underlined the importance of having a clear picture of the
procedures in force and, as her delegation had already indicated in the context
of Mongolia's recent Trade
Policy Review, the European Union remained willing to cooperate with Mongolia to
prepare such documentations for its importers.
2.4 The
Committee took note of the statement made.
G/LIC/Q/ARG/15
2.5 The
representative of the European Union thanked Argentina
for its replies as circulated in document G/LIC/Q/ARG/15 in May 2014, and raised the following
questions regarding some aspects of Argentina's replies, indicating
that the European Union stood ready to provide these questions in writing.
- Introduction of the reply
("Modifying these errors leads to the submission of a new form, which will
be automatically approved and as a result the importation can take
place."): Can Argentina explain how errors have been communicated in such
a way that they can be easily understood and corrected? How many new resubmitted
forms, in which an error has been corrected, have not been automatically
approved in 2013 and 2014? What percentage is this? How long did it take for
the new, amended forms to be approved?
- Reply to Question 3: The reply
includes "Observations are only made on applications when the form contains mistakes." However, the WTO Agreement on Import
Licensing Procedures, Article 1(7) says "No application shall be
refused for minor documentation errors which do not alter basic data
contained". Can Argentina
inform how many DJCP (sworn declaration of product composition) applications
have been "observed" in 2013 and 2014? Which rule does Argentina apply
to distinguish between minor errors and those that require observation? Where
is that rule published?
- Reply to Questions 5 and 6: "The DJCP procedure does
not take longer than ten working days." This is indeed the limit
stipulated in the ILA. But is it specified in either Resolution 248/13 or
99/13 or any other relevant text? Q6 asks specifically "what is the
relevant legal provision" but Argentina doesn't say in its
replies.
- Reply to Question 10 ("The DJCP was established by
Resolution 850/1996 in
order to comply with the National Fair Trade Law, No. 22.802, so
that importers fulfil the same requirements as domestic producers): There is a
discrimination of imported products with regard to the obligations of local
producers, as the latter do not report electronically to a database the
information like importers have to do, which imposes a delay and administrative
burden. Local producers indicate composition through labelling, without forms
being submitted. What other requirements on domestic producers are enforced on
imports by DJCP that could not be enforced through labelling?
2.6 The
representative of Argentina
thanked the European Union for these questions and requested the EU to provide
the questions in writing so as to transmit them back to capital and then come
back with further replies.
2.7 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
G/LIC/Q/COL/3
2.8 The
representative of the United States
thanked Colombia
for its responses, which were under careful review back in Capital.
The Committee took note of the statement
made.
G/LIC/Q/ECU/7
2.9 The
representative of the European Union pointed out that the EU had
recently submitted a set of questions to Ecuador seeking additional
clarifications and written replies on the following aspects of the notification
submitted as document G/LIC/N/1/ECU/5:
- Regarding
COMEX Resolution No. 98 providing for the allocation of annual import
quotas for hydrochlorofluorcarbons (HCFCs) the EU would be grateful to
receive further clarifications about the annual quota volume attributed to
imports, as well as the criteria for pre‑import controls pursuant to
COMEX Resolutions No. 45 and 73.
- Regarding
COMEX Resolution Nos. 81, 89 and 95 the EU would like to be informed
about the criteria applied to qualify for an import licence for the products
concerned or that automatic licensing procedures are envisaged.
2.10 The
representative of Canada
appreciated Ecuador's
responses, and noted that they were being reviewed in Capital. He pointed out
that Canada remained
concerned that Ecuador's
non‑automatic import licences could negatively impact Canadian exports of
certain agricultural and food products and certainly would continue to monitor
this issue.
2.11 The
representative of the United States
also noted that Ecuador's
responses were under careful review back in capital, and that the US might submit
follow‑up written questions if necessary. He expressed disappointment that Ecuador did not
attend this meeting.
2.12 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
G/LIC/Q/IDN/32
2.13 The
representative of Indonesia thanked Canada, the European Union, Japan,
New Zealand, and the United States for their interest regarding Indonesian
import licensing on animal and animal products in MOT regulation
No. 46/2013 and MOA regulation No. 84/2014 and indicated that
Indonesia had replied to the questions in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/21
(21 May 2014).
2.14 She
clarified that, in general, any import licensing requirement in Indonesia was
imposed with justified reasons so as to ensure that all imported goods complied
with the rules and regulations issued by the Government, including with regard
to requirements on the protection of human health, animal protection,
environment protection, and consumer protection from deceptive practices, and
to discourage the importation of goods with very low standards. The licences
were issued on a non‑discriminatory basis. The application could also be
submitted via an online system so as to expedite the licensing process. Indonesia
believed that its import licensing procedure was not an obstacle to trade and
that it was in accordance with the WTO Agreement.
2.15 The
representative of the United States
thanked Indonesia
for its responses. He indicated that they were under careful review back in Capital
and that his government might submit follow‑up written questions if necessary.
2.16 The
representative of Canada
shared the points raised by the United
States. He observed that Canada remained
interested and concerned with these measures and reserved the right to come
back with new questions.
2.17 The
representative of the European Union echoed the views of the United States and Canada and indicated that they
might come back to the issue after careful review.
2.18 The
representative of New Zealand
thanked Indonesia
for the responses and appreciated the opportunity to see the data in writing.
He looked forward to continuing to work with Indonesia on some of the concerns.
2.19 The
representative of Chinese Taipei thanked Indonesia for providing detailed
answers regarding their laws and regulations and expressed continued interest
in those measures on horticultural products.
2.20 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
G/LIC/Q/IDN/33
2.21 The
representative of Indonesia
expressed appreciation to the delegation from the United States for their interest in
Indonesian policy relating to import licensing of cellular phones and handheld
and computer tablets in MOT regulation No. 82/2012. In this regard,
she apologized for providing an incorrect reply, contained in
document G/LIC/Q/IDN/33, and undertook to provide a reply to the United
States in due course.
2.22 The
representative of the United States deferred his statement until agenda
item 7.
G/LIC/Q/MYS/9
2.23 The
representative of Malaysia noted that they had circulated replies,
through the Secretariat, on 2 May 2014, and looked forward to
discussing any issue with interested Members on a bilateral basis.
2.24 The
representative of the United States highlighted that the replies were
under careful review in his capital, and that his government might submit
follow‑up written questions if necessary.
2.25 The
representative of Canada expressed interest in this issue and would continue
to monitor it.
2.26 The Committee took note of the
statements made.
G/LIC/Q/MYS/10 and G/LIC/Q/MYS/11
2.27 The
representative of Malaysia thanked the European Union for both sets of
questions and pointed out that they had replied to the questions in May and
August respectively, and reaffirmed their commitment to further bilateral
discussion of these issues.
2.28 In response, the representative of
the European Union thanked Malaysia for its replies and confirmed that
the European Union did not have any further questions at this time, but
reserved the right to revert with follow‑up questions once they had examined
the replies in more detail.
2.29 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
G/LIC/Q/LCA/3
2.30 The
representative of the United States thanked St. Lucia for their
written answers. He pointed out that, while understanding that St. Lucia's
rationale for its domestic purchase requirements for poultry, pork, and pork
products, was to increase food production and nutritional security and to
promote rural employment and development, the United States deemed that
domestic purchase requirements might raise concerns under the GATT 1994
and the Agreement on Agriculture. He questioned whether St Lucia had
considered other policies to achieve the cited objectives, i.e. adopting
quality standards for poultry and pork to ensure that all producers develop the
necessary technical knowledge to ensure sustainability and achieve their
economic goals? More specifically, he asked (1) whether St Lucia had
established an order obliging an importer to purchase domestic products in
order to receive an import license for chicken or pork and, if so, where that
document could be found? (2) how domestic purchases were verified? He
appreciated St Lucia's engagement and looked forward to continuing a
productive dialogue.
2.31 The
representative of Saint Lucia thanked the United States for their
continued interest and requested that the United States provide written
questions which could then be submitted back to capital.
2.32 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
G/LIC/Q/RUS/3
2.33 The
representative of the United States thanked the Russian Federation for
its responses, which were under careful review back in capital. The United
States might submit follow‑up written questions if necessary.
2.34 The
Committee took note of the statement made.
3.1 The
Chairman reiterated that Article 1.4(a),
Article 8.2(b), and procedures agreed to by the Committee, required all
Members to notify to the Committee their laws, regulations, and administrative
procedures, and to notify the sources of these laws and regulations upon
accession to the WTO. Any subsequent changes to these laws and regulations
should also be notified. Copies of these laws and regulations, as well as the
sources containing these laws, shall be submitted to the Secretariat for consultation
by interested Members. He informed Members that 15 notifications from
10 Members were listed for the Committee's consideration at this meeting
(see WTO/AIR/4369).
3.2 On
document G/LIC/N1/TUR/11, the representative of the European
Union highlighted that they had just received some informal replies from
Turkey to their previous questions, and that these replies might have a link to
this notification, and thus that the European Union would study the document
and perhaps revert to it in the future.
3.3 No
comments were made with regard to the remaining notifications.
3.4 The
Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.
3.5 The
Chairman indicated that seven notifications from 3 Members (Indonesia,
Mexico, and the Russian Federation) were listed for review at this meeting.
3.6 No
delegation took the floor.
3.7 The
Committee took note of the notifications.
3.8 The
Chairman reiterated that 28 notifications were to be considered at this
meeting.
3.9 On
document G/LIC/N/3/VNM/2, the representative of the European
Union welcomed Viet Nam's notification and appreciated the efforts
undertaken by Viet Nam's government to comply with this obligation. She noted
that the European Union was currently assessing the notification and might
revert with written questions at a later stage.
3.10 The
representative of the United States took the floor and thanked Viet Nam
for its submission, which was being reviewed back in Washington. The United
States indicated that it might revert to Viet Nam with questions if
necessary.
3.11 The
representative of Viet Nam took note of the interventions of the
European Union and the United States.
3.12 With
regard to document G/LIC/N/3/IND/14, the representative of the European
Union commented that, according to India's notification, India maintained
certain licensing procedures imposing restrictions on the import of live
animals. The European Union reiterated its interest in knowing the rationale
for maintaining import licensing on live animal, fish and plant material. She
recalled that, at the last meeting, India indicated that a detailed response
would be submitted to this Committee after the completion of their internal
consultations with the SPS authorities, wildlife authorities, and other
Ministries concerned. However, India had failed to provide such a response at
this meeting, and the European Union would like to know when a reply could be
expected.
3.13 In response, the representative of India
thanked the European Union for the interest shown on certain aspects of his
country's import licensing policy. He reiterated that they were still engaged
in a process of internal consultations which was referred to at the last
meeting, and confirmed that when the internal process was over, India would
submit a written reply to the questions raised by the European Union.
3.14 No
comments were made on any of the remaining notifications.
3.15 The
Committee took note of the notifications and statements made.
4 India – import of marble and marble products - request by the european union
4.1 The
representative of the European Union stated that this was an issue that
had been raised along with other trading partners for quite some time. She
recalled that the European Union had addressed several rounds of questions to
India on this matter, the last being on 10 December 2013, further to
India's last notification to the Committee.
4.2 Reiterating
their interest in receiving these replies she recalled that, at the previous
meeting, the representative of India had informed the Committee that its
internal consultations would take some more time, but that it expected to be in
a position to table a written response within one month.
4.3 The
European Union requested India to clarify the following issues: (1) how
the import of marble and marble products would pose safety issues, and how such
issues were handled with regard to India's domestic natural stone and stone‑processing
industry; (2) how the quantitative restrictions on importing marble
related to security concerns, and how such concerns were being handled with
regard to India's domestic industry; (3) the basis and process of fixing
the quota amount; (4) India stated in the past the minimum import price was
justified for quality reasons and to put in place internal measures ensuring
that domestic miners were complying with these same quality standards; in this
regard, the EU asked India to provide the references to the state level
measures that allegedly provided for internal measures specifically targeting
the quality of marble in the same way as minimum import price.
4.4 She
argued that a lack of these elements might point to the unsubstantiated
character of the Indian scheme as regarded safety, security, and environmental
grounds.
4.5 On
implementation, the European Union noted that apparently the last licensing
notification for marble was issued on 26 August 2013, for licenses to
be distributed for the financial year 2013/14 (ref. Notification
Nos. 36 and 37). Could India confirm that there was no notification issued
in 2014, and therefore that no import licenses had been distributed so far for
the financial year 2014/15? If so, could India provide an explanation and an
indication as to when such notifications would be issued so as to allow the
issuance of new licenses?
4.6 In conclusion, she reiterated that
the European Union had received complaints from its industry with regard to the
current licensing regime, setting allocation of quotas, an annual import
ceiling below the potential imports, as well as a minimum import price.
4.7 The
representative of India thanked the European Union for the interest
shown in India's import policy on marble. He recalled that his delegation had
responded to some of the questions that the EU had raised at the last meeting
and indicated that he would attempt to answer the remaining questions on the
EU's list. He also indicated that his delegation intended to submit written
replies to all these questions in due course.
4.8 The
representative of the United States expressed interest in India's reply
to the EU's questions. He asked India to confirm that, in pointing to
Article XX as a justification for its import licensing scheme, India was
seeking to conserve natural resources that were found in other countries but
not within India itself.
4.9 The
representative of India gave answers to those questions still
outstanding from the EU's list (G/LIC/Q/IND/23, dated
10 December 2013). Regarding the EU's questions 3(b) and 3(c),
he explained that marble and similar stones were restricted for import to India
due to reasons of "conserving exhaustible natural resources", which
was covered under Article XX(g) of GATT 1994. India allowed imports of
these goods through specific import licences in accordance with policies
notified for this purpose. On the issue of "how such concerns are handled
with regard to India's domestic industry", he noted that domestic marble
mining was also subject to licensing and production control due to concerns on
environmental safety as well as judicial pronouncements by Indian Courts in
this regard.
4.10 With
regard to question 3(d), he elaborated that marble mining in India was
subject to licensing and production controls due to concerns over the safety of
the environment and on grounds of related judicial pronouncement. Apart from
the mining of stones, the cutting and further processing of marble blocks also
had an additional adverse impact on the environment, thus requiring such
activities to be regulated. He indicated that there were various judicial
pronouncements forbidding mining activity in reserve forests. These
pronouncements were basically aimed at preserving ecologically sensitive areas
as well as to ensure that there was no displacement of vulnerable populations
from mining project areas. In other words, the domestic industry was also
subject to comparable environmental norms.
4.11 In
response to question 3(e), the representative of India said that the policy
related to imports of rough marble blocs for the financial year 2013‑14, and
had been revised and notified by Notification No. 37, dated
26 August 2014, a copy of which was available on http://www.dfgt.gov.in.
4.12 The
representative of the European Union thanked India for the replies and
requested to receive his comments in writing.
4.13 The
representative of the United States thanked India for its more detailed
responses and looked forward to seeing them in writing in due course. He raised
a follow‑up question regarding India's argument that import licensing
registrations on marble were due to the need to conserve exhaustible natural
resources under Article XX. He questioned whether India's import licensing
procedures were trying to conserve exhaustible natural resources in other
countries, and not just in India.
4.14 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
5.1 The
representative of the European Union raised her delegation's concern
over Brazil's blockage of imports of nitrocellulose for industrial purposes, a
situation which had not changed since April 2014. She outlined the
European Union's questions to Brazil, contained in its written submission and
circulated as document G/LIC/Q/BRA/18 on 16 May 2014, and
including detailed statistics for the last five years on the operation of the
nitrocellulose import licensing scheme (e.g. licence application number,
licence approval number, domestic production of nitrocellulose with nitrogen
content below and above 12.5%), justification for rejecting issuing licences
for industrial nitrocellulose and the rationales for such a scheme, as well as
procedural details as to the role played by the Ministry of Defence.
5.2 The
representative of the European Union highlighted that the European Union had on
a number of occasions since 2010 sought to resolve the issue, including in
bilateral meetings and in the context of Brazil's Trade Policy Review However,
the European Union was not satisfied with the progress made. She emphasized
that the operation of such a licensing scheme had benefited Brazilian producers
while creating discrimination against Brazil's European Union competitors.
5.3 She
further clarified that industrial nitrocellulose was only used for commercial
purposes such as for applications like printing inks, wood lacquer, or nail
varnish. Industrial nitrocellulose with a content of less than 12.5% of
nitrogen was a different product than nitrocellulose used for military
purposes, which generally had a nitrogen content of above 12.5%.
5.4 The
representative of the European Union argued that Brazil's licensing scheme on
nitrocellulose was inconsistent with Brazil's commitment under the Import
Licensing Agreement, and that it was Brazil's responsibility to ensure that its
non‑automatic import licensing policies did not have trade‑restrictive or trade‑distortive
effects on imports. She urged Brazil to comply with its commitments and
immediately remove its import licencing requirement on the foresaid product. In
this regard, Brazil already acknowledged that nitrocellulose for industrial and
military purposes were different products.
5.5 In
response, the representative of Brazil thanked the European Union for
its interest in the subject. He acknowledged that questions by the European
Union in document G/LIC/Q/BRA/18 had been forwarded to the competent
authority in Brazil. The answers were sent today to the Secretariat to be made
available to Members. He argued that the Brazilian government considered the
questions raised by the European Union as having been fully addressed in
today's submission. Nevertheless, his delegation remained available for
bilateral talks and for any clarification, if necessary. He underlined that
Brazil did not share the European Union's view that "industrial and
military nitrocellulose are substantially and chemically different
products", except for the nitrogen concentration. He argued that,
regardless of its use, the product poses risks. In this sense, the non‑automatic
licensing regime was a legitimate instrument to regulate the trade and use in
Brazil of nitrocellulose in view of the characteristics of the product and in
order to prevent the use of such hazardous substances in ways incompatible with
security standards.
5.6 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
6.1 The
representative of the European Union raised a concern regarding the
Guidelines and Policy Directives currently applied by the Nigerian Government
with regard to imports of frozen fish, which appeared to be clearly restrictive
insofar as they were intended to reduce authorized imports by 25%.
6.2 She
observed that the current situation was not transparent and nor was it clear on
what grounds importers were selected and which importers were actually
receiving licences. Therefore, the representative of the European Union invited
Nigeria to submit detailed clarifications of the licensing procedures in place
and, in particular, on where (and on the basis of which source of information)
other governments and traders could find all the information relating to the
application of these licensing measures, including the procedures for the
submission of applications, the eligibility of applicants, the administrative
body to be approached, the basis for granting the license, and the period for
processing applications.
6.3 The
representative of Iceland shared the concerns raised by other Members on
possible restrictions by Nigeria to its imports of fishery products. He pointed
out that Iceland had raised this issue bilaterally, as well as several times in
the Council for Trade in Goods.
6.4 Iceland
appreciated Nigeria's willingness to engage in further discussion and welcomed
the statement of the Nigerian Ambassador on 19 June 2014, that
"Nigeria … is not introducing an import licence regime or planning to
increase the import duties of fish and fish products so as to reduce
imports".
6.5 However,
he pointed out that the official explanations received from Nigeria so far had
been incomplete and inconsistent with the information provided by their
exporters. He expressed particular concern with regard to new reports that
Nigeria was considering or had already begun to implement new guidelines on
fish importation and licensing procedures that appeared to impose strict
restrictions on the importation of a number of seafood.
6.6 Iceland
respectfully called on Nigeria to show full transparency and to inform the
Committee of any changes to its import regime, including detailed information
on the licensing procedures in place, the fisheries products affected, and the
necessity of such measures to achieving stated policy objectives and their
compliance with Nigeria's WTO obligations.
6.7 The
representative of Norway emphasized that exports of fish and fish
products were of great importance to Norway. Norwegian exports of fish to
Nigeria had dropped significantly since 2012 and this was in large part due to
uncertainty regarding the conditions for imports.
6.8 He
recalled that his delegation had been registering concerns in this regard for a
long time, and at least since the October 2013 meeting of the Council for
Trade in Goods. He expressed appreciation for the efforts of the Ambassador of
Nigeria here in Geneva and for the good bilateral contacts in Abuja. On the
other hand, he expressed disappointment and concern with regard to the continued
lack of transparency and predictability of the present import regime on fish
and, in particular, as to how Nigeria's import licensing regime was applied and
how licences were distributed.
6.9 He
invited Nigeria to disclose all relevant information on their current practices
regarding imports of fish and urged Nigeria to publish promptly detailed
information on their import licensing regime in line with its
WTO obligations
6.10 The
representative of Uruguay supported the statements made by the European
Union, Iceland, and Norway. Highlighting the importance of getting predictable
information in advance for Uruguayan traders, he requested Nigeria to provide
further information and clarity with regard to its import regime on fish and
fish products.
6.11 The
representative of the United States supported the European Union,
Iceland, Norway, and Uruguay, in requesting Nigeria to clarify and provide
further information on its import licensing restrictions which were already in
place and those which were to be implemented with regard to fish products.
6.12 The
representative of Chile shared the concerns raised by the European
Union, Iceland, Norway, and Uruguay, concerning the measures imposed by Nigeria
on fisheries imports. Chile's concerns were not merely systemic but were also
and principally of a commercial nature. Nigeria was the main market for Chilean
exports of frozen mackerel for human consumption. She noted that Chilean fish
exports to Nigeria had been decreasing since 2012 and that the prospect for
2015 was uncertain. She therefore urged Nigeria to provide promptly full
transparency with regard to the functioning of its fish import licensing
regime.
6.13 In
response, the representative of Nigeria thanked the delegations of
Iceland, Norway, Uruguay, the European Union, Chile, and others which spoke on
the issue of Nigeria's policy on Fish and Fish Products. She recalled that this
issue was first raised in the Council for Trade in Goods when Nigeria provided
responses and promised to continue consulting with those delegations concerned.
6.14 She
informed the Committee that national consultations had been held in Nigeria,
among stakeholders in particular, with the Ministry of Industry, Trade and
Investment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, and other
relevant Agencies, and that these consultations were still ongoing.
6.15 She
indicated that Nigeria had submitted responses with regard to the issues raised
by the delegations of Iceland, Norway, Uruguay, Chile, and the European Union,
and clarified that the fish import policy was still at the formulation stage.
Nigeria recognized that the draft policy should follow the required processes,
including notifications to the WTO on the measures. She therefore urged those
delegations concerned to allow some time for the consultations to continue in
order to ensure that the draft policy received input from all the concerned
parties in Nigeria. She undertook to continue consultations with those
delegations concerned so as to ensure an amicable solution to the issue.
6.16 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
7.1 The
delegate of the United States argued that they had previously raised the
issue of import licensing requirements for cell phones, handheld computers, and
tablets. He explained that the United States asked for this agenda item in the
hope that the new government of Indonesia would address this important issue,
as it was having a significant impact on business in Indonesia at the present
time.
7.2 While
welcoming the fact that Indonesia had responded to previous sets of questions,
he pointed out that the United States still had outstanding concerns, and that
some of their critical questions were essentially unanswered.
7.3 In
his view, the regulations in question might raise serious concerns under the
Import Licensing Agreement. Under the relevant regulations, the products at
issue might not be imported without an approval from the Ministry of Trade, and
must be imported by a registered importer. Further, Indonesia's regulations
required such importers to commit to establishing local manufacturing of these
products within three years. This requirement–specifically,
Article 8A of Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 38/2013–was of
particular concern.
7.4 He
argued that if import licenses were withheld because an importer had not
established a domestic industry, or had not promised to establish a domestic
industry, this could effectively be import substitution or a quantitative
restriction on importation. The United States Government had heard reports from
the private sector saying that the Government of Indonesia had met with their
members informally to press compliance with this requirement.
7.5 He
further noted that Indonesia's regulations also required that a registered
importer of these goods must be certified as having experience as an importer
and distributor, and to transfer these products to distributors, but should not
itself be a distributor. In other words, the importer must have experience as a
distributor, but it could not be a distributor. Nor were importers permitted to
sell directly to consumers or retailers. The registered importer must be appointed
by the principal brand owner, through a letter of appointment, which must be
consularized by Indonesia's Embassy, and the brand owner must endorse the
importer's annual import plan. If a registered importer intended to import from
a foreign distributor, it must also have three years' experience as an importer
of these products and must have at least 25 service centres in Indonesia.
In his view, the requirements appeared to create a barrier to imported goods
and new entrants into the market.
7.6 In addition,
he expressed some transparency concerns on more general terms. While
appreciating Indonesia's notification of the two Ministry of Trade
regulations relating to these import licensing procedures, the United States
requested Indonesia to notify its Ministry of Industry Regulation No. 108
of 2012, which contained relevant requirements. Highlighting the importance and
seriousness of the situation to the United States and to the global economy, he
stressed that the measures mentioned above already had a distorting effect on
trade in the region and urged the new government in Indonesia to take a close
look at these regulations as soon as possible.
7.7 The
representative of Japan shared the concern raised by United States and
looked forward to hearing Indonesia's explanation, mainly from the systemic
point of view. He emphasized the importance of making these measures consistent
with the WTO Agreements. In particular, he questioned why and how these
measures could be understood as being for consumer protection purposes.
7.8 In
response, the representative of Indonesia reiterated that, as she
already mentioned under agenda item 2, the reply provided by Indonesia as
contained in document G/LIC/Q/IDN/33 was incorrect and may have caused
confusion to the United States. She clarified that Indonesia had made an
addendum response that would be submitted to the Committee in due course, and
hoped that it would be reviewed by the United States and other Members soon.
With regard to the further concerns raised by the United States and Japan
today, she expected to receive these in written form so as to convey them back
to capital. As for the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 108/2012, she
responded that Indonesia had already notified it in document G/LIC/N/2/IDN/13.
7.9 The Committee took note of the
statements made.
8.1 The
representative of the United States took the floor and highlighted that
the United States had for quite some time been concerned with India's import
licensing requirements for boric acid, particularly with respect to the
burdensome end‑use certificates necessary to obtain the license for
importation.
8.2 He
appreciated the additional information provided with regard to which central
government entities could issue the end‑use certificate necessary for import,
and acknowledged that both sides were finally able to discuss the issue
bilaterally. The United States government would continue reviewing the
information with a view, in particular, to better understanding the scope of
state entities with authority to issue end‑use certificates under India's
licensing regime. He argued that while the United States still had issues with
this trade barrier, it hoped to continue bilateral communications with India to
resolve the issue.
8.3 The
representative of India thanked the United States for its interest in
India's import policy on boric acid. He confirmed that both sides were able to
have a bilateral dialogue in August during which India responded to most of the
queries that the United States had raised at that stage. He noted that, upon
request, his government had provided the United States with some documents. He
confirmed that India was willing to further engage with the United States on
this matter, and was ready to respond to any further queries in this regard.
8.4 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
9.1 The
representative of the United States highlighted that the Secretariat had
circulated their most recent questions to Bangladesh on
21 February 2014 in document G/LIC/Q/BGD/5. However, they had not yet
received a written response, and thus requested Bangladesh for an update on
when they could receive it. He reiterated the concerns of the United States in
view of the fact that Bangladesh's last N/3 notification under
Article 7.3 was circulated on 2 October 2007 and asked when
Bangladesh would provide a new Questionnaire response to this Committee.
9.2 The
representative of Bangladesh took note of the statement of the United
States and promised to convey the message back to capital. He informed the
Committee that his capital was working on the new notifications and would submit
them in the near future.
9.3 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
10.1 The
representative of the United States called Viet Nam's attention to
documents G/LIC/Q/VNM/4 and G/LIC/Q/VNM/4/Corr.1, and expressed
disappointment that, to date, his government had not yet received any response
from Viet Nam. He urged Viet Nam to provide an update on when it would respond
to the questions from the United States in writing.
10.2 The
representative of Viet Nam took note of the statement made and agreed to
send it back to capital, in the hope of submitting written replies before the
next meeting.
10.3 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
11.1 The
Committee went through the draft Report paragraph by paragraph. With regard to
paragraph 7, the representative of the United States wondered if
the pie chart in the report was helpful in conveying a message about the
notification numbers. Nevertheless, he indicated that the United States would
join in a consensus to approve this report.
11.2 In response, the Secretariat took note
of the comments from the United States and agreed to take this point on board
in future reports.
11.3 The Committee adopted
the draft Report.
12.1 The
Chairman recalled that the Committee
shall review as necessary, but at least once every two years, the
implementation and operation of this Agreement under Article 7.1. He
further noted that the Secretariat had drafted a
factual report under its own responsibility for consideration by the Committee,
which was distributed in document G/LIC/W/44, covering the period from
30 October 2012 to 20 October 2014, and had proposed that the
draft report be adopted.
12.2 The Committee so agreed.
12.3 The Chairman further elaborated on the
Biennial Review. He observed that, so far, the review was limited to the
approval of the factual report prepared by the Secretariat and adopted by the
membership. Unfortunately, there had been no substantive discussions among
Members to express their views on the operation of the Agreement, or on what
challenges they were facing in fulfilling the notification obligations under
this Agreement, or on how existing notification methodologies could be improved
in the future.
12.4 He recalled that, since 2012, his
predecessors had held a number of informal consultations with Members in this
regard so as to make the process more dynamic and "Member Driven".
However, the feedback from Members had been rather limited.
12.5 He informed the Committee that it was his
intention to begin informal consultations with delegations on how best to move
forward. As a first step, he suggested to focus on outlining the main
issues and challenges encountered by Members (as well as the Secretariat) when preparing and processing notifications,
with a view to determining the fundamental issues that lead to such a low level
of compliance, as at present (noting that either it was due to the complexity
of the import licensing procedures themselves, or a lack of awareness of
notification obligations, or a result of capacity constraints among capital
officials). Based on the results of these consultations, he proposed that the Committee could then discuss means
to address these issues accordingly, including organizing workshops in Geneva
or providing technical assistance in different regions for capital officials.
12.6 The
representative of the United States took the floor and indicated that
the United States would participate in the Chair's informal consultations, but
emphasized that discussions on these issues should be Member‑led. On the
workshop issue, the United States reiterated its call for any interested
Members to come forward with a proposal, so that his authorities could consider
and engage with these.
12.7 The
Committee took note of the statements made.
13.1 The
Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat has tentatively reserved
Friday, 10 April 2015, for the next meeting of the Committee, on the
understanding that additional meetings may be convened if necessary.
13.2 The
Committee so agreed.
__________