When WTO members met as the Import Licensing Committee on 27 April 2012, several countries complaint against Argentina’s ‘protectionist’ import licensing requirement. Additional, some member also questioned the mechanism of the import licensing regime in Vietnam, licensing for boric acid and for marble and similar stones in India, as well as licensing for animals, animal products, and fruit and vegetables in Indonesia.

Import licenses are basically permits granted before a product is imported. The procedure to obtain such licenses should be simple, neutral, equitable, and transparent. In fact, if possible, they should be given automatically and quickly, but if non-automatic, the procedure should not unnecessarily hinder trade.

Argentina’s import licensing measures

Several countries, including Australia, Turkey, the EU, Norway, Thailand, the US, New Zealand, Costa Rica, Colombia, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Japan, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, and Canada, complained against Argentina’s licensing processes and requirements, citing that their producers and traders’ exports to Argentina have declined or been delayed.

Some of the specific complaints include:

• - Almost 600 products individually require for import licenses approval either explicitly or in practice;
• - The “trade-balancing” policy for issuance of the licenses, on condition that the importer also exports or invests in local production;
• - The processing time of application which can take longer than 30-60 days (maximum time for non-automatic licensing set in Agreement on Import Licenses Article 3(f));
• - The licensing requirement is burdensome and raises problems under the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreement, customs valuation, as well as the GATT.

These concerns have been raised in the WTO since 2009. However, Argentina argued that its measures are compatible with WTO rules, with streamlined features to make processing easier. It also cited the 30% increase in imports in 2011 as evidence that it was not restricting imports.

Vietnam’s licensing regime

The US and the EU claimed that Vietnam had issued several circulars on import licensing without notifying the WTO. Under the Import Licensing Agreement, it has such an obligation to notify all its licensing measures. Nevertheless, Vietnam said that all but two have expired and they are being notified.

India’s licensing regime

The issue of India’s licensing for boric acid has been raised previously. The US and Turkey remain concerned about the licensing requirements, i.e. obligation for applicants and domestic suppliers to provide certain types of information.

On the other hand, India’s licensing for marble and similar stone was questioned by Turkey, the EU and the US. They questioned the coverage of the measure, the reason, and also suggested the licensing procedure has the effect of a quantitative restriction.

Indonesia’s licensing regime

A complaint was raised by the US and Canada, supported by Australia, the EU, Brazil, NZ, Japan, and Switzerland on Indonesia’s licensing for livestock, animal products, and fruits and vegetables. They claimed that the licensing is non-automatic, non-transparent (criteria to receive approval are unclear) and could amount to restrictions on quantities that can be imported. They also urge Indonesia to notify the measures. On the other hand, Indonesia claimed that its licenses are automatic. However, the US claimed that some information was missing or unclear. Finally, Indonesia has submitted a new notification and is being processed.