. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/Q1/IDN/12
G/SCM/Q1/IDN/12
20 October 1999
(99-4527)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notification of INDONESIA1
The following communication, dated 18 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
__________
1. Indonesia’s submission states that, in order to implement Article 13 of the WTO Anti-
Dumping Agreement regarding “Judicial Review,” based on Law No. 17/1997 dated 23 May 1997and Presidential Decree No. 41/1997 dated 7 Oct ober 1997, Indonesia has established a Tax Dispute
Settlement Board as a Judicial Review Body for the settlement of tax disputes.  However, the
submission does not explicitly state that either the Board or the Agency For the Settlement of Tax
Disputes (the Agency) has jurisdiction over decisions of the Indonesian Anti-Dumping Committee.
Do they  have such jurisdiction?  If not, is jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Anti-Dumping
Committee provided elsewhere in Indonesian law?
2. Article 1(3) of Law No.17/1997 dated 23 May 1997 defines tax laws as “all regulations in
taxation.”  Does the definition of tax laws include the laws governing the imposition and collection of
anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties?
3. Do all interested parties who participated in the administrative proceeding subject to appeal
have access to the appeal process?
4. Are there any limitations on what can be appealed?  For example, can questions concerning
both injury and dumping/subsidization be appeale d, and can questions of both law and fact be
appealed?
5. Could you please clarify the meaning of Arti cle 46(1) of Law No. 17/1997 concerning the
chairperson’s discretion to appoint a council comprising 3 (three) members or a single member to
decide an appeal?  In circumstances where a single  member may dispose of an appeal, does review by
a three-member panel remain available?
6. What is the difference between the following three actions:  (1) an appeal, as defined in
Article 1(6); (2) a lawsuit, as defined in Article 1(7); and (3) an objection to anti-dumping duties filed
before the Appeal Institute, as provided for under Article 35 of the Indonesian Anti-Dumping Laws
and Article 97 of the Indonesian Customs Laws?
                                                     
1 G/ADP/N/1/IDN/2/Suppl.1-G/SCM/N/1/IDN/2/Suppl.1G/ADP/Q1/IDN/12
G/SCM/Q1/IDN/12
Page 2
7. What is the standard of review of the Agency, and does it vary depending on the nature of the
issue on appeal?
8. What documents comprise the record for review?  Is the record limited to documents
presented during the administrative process?
9. What is the precedential effect of the Agency’s rulings?10. Does the Agency have the authority to remit the case to the Anti-Dumping Committee or the
Minister of Finance for further determinations?
11. What, if any, right exists to appeal a ruling by the Agency?  To what judicial body may such
appeals be filed?
12. Article 1, paras. 12 through 19 set forth the general organization and structure of the Agency.
These paragraphs define the positions officials will occupy within the Agency.  Paragraph 19
identifies the minister of the Agency as the Minister of Finance.  Pursuant to Article 6 of the
Indonesian Anti-Dumping Laws and Article 5 of th e Decree of the Minister of Industry and Trade
(No. 136/MPP/Kep/6/1996), the Minister of Finance is identified as a member of the Anti-Dumping
Committee which is charged with the administration of the anti-dumping laws and rendering finaldeterminations and reviews of determinations. Article 27 of the Indonesian Anti-Dumping Laws also
provides that the Minister of Finance shall decide the rate of the anti-dumping and countervailing
duties.
The appointment of the Minister of Finance as the Minister of the Agency for the Settlement
of Tax Disputes and as a member of the Anti-Dumping Committee results in an overlap of authority.
This necessarily means that the authority responsible for making the administrative determinations
will also have authority over the Agency, which is responsible for adjudicating the appeals of those
determinations.  Presuming that the Agency has jurisdiction over decisions of the Anti-Dumping
Committee, such an appointment would appear to be in contravention of Article 13 of the A-D
Agreement and Article 23 of the SCM Agreement, both of which require that judicial review be
independent of the authorities responsible for the determination or review in question.
Please explain to what extent, if any, Indonesia plans to implement procedures to maintain the
Agency’s autonomy and independence from the body  rendering administrative determinations, as
required by Articles 13 and 23 of the A-D and SCM Agreements, respectively.
__________