By TIOL News Service

GENEVA, OCT 22, 2015: THE Indian procedure for import of apples and the Indonesian procedure for import of tyres last Tuesday prompted many WTO Members to express concern over the policies. At the WTO meeting, Members were also urged to improve compliance with notification obligations as the number of members failing to make the required submissions has remained unchanged since the previous April meeting.

At the Committee’s second meeting of the year, the European Union asked Indonesia to provide clarification on what it deemed to be “new burdensome requirements” for imported tyres. The EU requested an explanation on how the new import system for tyres will work, the date the measure entered into force, and a copy of the text. The United States expressed interest in the matter as well.

Indonesia responded by noting that the import policy is meant to ensure compliance with safety standards, which are reportedly applied on a non-discriminatory basis on imported and locally made tyres. Indonesia also said it will convey to its capital requests for further clarification.

The EU and US went on to question India on its recent policy limiting the entry of imported apples to only one port, the Nhava Sheva port in Mumbai. The EU said it was “very concerned,” noting that members ought to prevent trade distortion under their WTO commitments. It asked India what will happen to imported apples that are brought through other ports and requested further information about the rationale for the measure. The US meanwhile said the measure has so far "had an impact on trade" and took issue over the lack of a comment period before the new policy was implemented. New Zealand, Chile, and Australia also echoed these concerns.

India replied by saying that the measure does not fall within the definition of an import licensing measure under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures and thus is not “fit for discussion under this Committee.” India also referred to Dispute DS366, noting that the panel had not considered designating port of entry as a violation of import licensing provisions. Australia, however, intervened to note that the measure could be considered as an administrative procedure, which falls under the ambit of the Committee’s work and that India’s claim would only be valid if there truly were no documentation required for the import of apples.

Some specific trade concerns were raised again at this meeting, including on India’s import regime on marble and marble products and boric acid, Brazil’s import licensing requirements on nitrocellulose, Indonesia’s import regulations on cell phones, handheld computers and tablets, Mexico’s automatic licensing procedures on certain steel products, Bangladesh’s import licensing procedures and Viet Nam’s import regime for distilled spirits.