WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q1/IDN/4
28 October 2003
(03-5723)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT
Replies from INDONESIA to Questions
posed by the UNITED STATES1
and the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES2
The following communication, dated 20 October 2003, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Indonesia.
_______________
Replies to the United States
Q1. Article 9 of the Indonesian law provides for provisional safeguard measures.  However,
it does not refer to the existence of “critical circumstances” as a requirement for imposition of a
provisional measure.  It indicates that a provisional measure may be applied when either there
is clear evidence increased imports have caused or threatened serious injury or when increased
imports have caused serious injury which would be difficult to repair if imposition of a measure
is delayed.  Please explain whether this article is intended to implement Article 6 of the WTO
Safeguards Agreement, and how this standard is consistent with that of Article 6 of theSafeguards Agreement.
Reply
Article 9 of the Indonesian Safeguard Law is intended to implement Article 6 of the
Agreement on Safeguards.  We believe that Article 9 of the Safeguards Law must be implemented in
accordance with Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement as every provisional safeguard action shall be
taken in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair.
Therefore, the Government of Indonesia wishes to reassure Members that Indonesia will ensure that
the implementation of Article 9 of the Indonesian Safeguards Law is consistent to Article 6 of theAgreement.
Q2. Article 1.2 of the Indonesian law defines serious injury as “a clear impairment suffered
by the domestic industry”.  Please explain how this provision is consistent with Article 4.1(a) of
the Safeguards Agreement, which defines serious injury as a “ significant overall  impairment in
the condition of the domestic industry” (emphasis added).
                                                     
1 G/SG/Q1/IDN/2
2 G/SG/Q1/IDN/3G/SG/Q1/IDN/4
Page 2
Reply
The closest translation of a significant overall impairment in the Indonesian language is a
clear impairment suffered.  Indonesia will ensure that the implementation of Article 1.2 of theIndonesian Safeguard Law is consistent to Article 4.1(a) of the Agreement.
Q3. Article 1.3 of the Indonesian law defines threa t of serious injury as “serious injury that
is likely to be suffered by the domestic industry ”.  Please explain how this provision is consistent
with Article 4.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, which defines threat of serious injury as a
“serious injury that is clearly imminent , in accordance with the pr ovisions of [Article 4.2]”
(emphasis added).
Reply
The closest translation for clearly imminent in the Indonesian language is a serious injury that
is likely to be suffered.  While Indonesia acknowledges that there is a higher degree of certainty withthe term clearly imminent, we wish to reassure Members that Article 1.3 will be implemented
consistent to Article 4.1 (b) of the Agreement.
Q4. Article 22(1) of the Indonesian law provid es, subject to an exception, that any import
quota must allow entry of at least the average  quantity of goods that entered during the “last
three years”.  Please explain how this provision is  consistent with the requirement in Article 5:1
of the WTO Safeguards Agreement, which refers to the “last three representative  years for
which statistics are available” (emphasis added).
Q5. Article 22(3) of the Indonesian law provides  that import quotas are to be allocated on
per country basis based on average shares during the last 3 years.   Please explain how this
provision is consistent with the requiremen t in Article 5:2(a) of the WTO Safeguards
Agreement, which refers to proportions supplied by WTO members “during a previous
representative period”.
Replies to Questions 4 and 5
Indonesia considers that the last three representative years is too general and allows a
Member the flexibility to choose periods in which the penetration of imports was perhaps at its
lowest.  As such, the Indonesian Safeguard Law refers to the last three years which could either mean
the last three calendar years or the last three years on a pro rata  basis depending on the availability of
statistic information.  In this respect, Indonesia considers that Article 22(1) goes beyond therequirements of the Agreement.
Replies to the European Communities
Q1. Article 1.3 defines "threat of injury" as serious injury " that is likely to be suffered by the
domestic industry ". Article 4.1(b) of the WTO Safeguards  Agreement defines the same notion as
"serious injury that is clearly imminent ".  The terms " clearly imminent " imply a much higher
degree of certainty than a mere likelihood.  Can Indonesia confirm that "threat of injury"
determinations will be only be made if serious injury is "clearly imminent" and not only"likely"?G/SG/Q1/IDN/4
Page 3
Reply
As we have previously explained as regards the same question posed by the United States,
there are missing translations from the original Indonesian text – to the English text.  In the original
text there are some words which have the same meaning as "clearly imminent".
Indonesia confirms that the threat of injury determination will only be made if serious injury
is "clearly imminent".
Q2. Article 9 provides that provisional safeguard measures may be imposed in two distinct
situations:  (a) there is clear evidence that incr eased imports has caused or threaten to caused
serious injury;  or (b) increased imports of produc t subject to investigation have caused serious
injury which would be difficult to repair if the imposition of a safeguard measure is delayed.
Article 6 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement pe rmits the application of provisional measures
only in the second alternative, i.e. when there is  clear evidence of serious injury and delay would
cause damage which it would be difficult to repair.  Can Indonesia confirm that provisional
measures will only be imposed in conformity with the WTO Safeguards Agreement and,therefore, only in the circumstances described in  (b) above?  If so, can Indonesia explain why
Article 9 of its law provides for the imposition of safeguard measures in the situation described
under (a)?
Reply
Indonesia considers that Article 6 of the Agreement allows for the imposition of safeguard
measures either on a threat of or actual serious injury, a Member may take a provisional safeguard
measure pursuant to a preliminary determination th at there is clear evidence that increased imports
have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury.
Q3. Article 23 provides that the Committee will undertake an examination of safeguard
measures if the latter have been applied for more than three years.  However, this article does
not specify at what point in time the review will be conducted (the language used in Article 23
suggests that the "examination" would be conducted  at the end of the period of application of
the measures).  Article 7.4 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement provides in that respect that the
review must take place not later than the mid-te rm of the measure.  Can Indonesia confirm that
it will conduct a review of safeguard measures imposed for more than three years not later than
at the mid-term of the measures?
Reply
Article 23 of the Indonesian Safeguards Law shou ld be read in conjunction with Article 7.4 of
the WTO Safeguards Agreement.  In this context, examination should be made not later than the mid-
term of the measures.
Indonesia confirms that the mid-term review w ould take place not later than at the mid-term
of the measures.
Q4. Article 29 provides that Indonesia " may hold consultations upon request " with countries
having substantial interests in the product s ubject to investigation. Article 12.3 of the WTO
Safeguards Agreement specifies that the importing country must provide adequate opportunityfor prior consultations with those Members havi ng a substantial interest as exporters of the
product concerned.  The right for consultations is not subject to a prior request.  Can Indonesia
confirm that it will offer consultations to exporting countries having a substantial interest in the
product concerned on its own initiative?G/SG/Q1/IDN/4
Page 4
Reply
Indonesia wishes to confirm that consultations will be held on request.  It is the intention of
the Indonesia Authorities to offer consultations and they will be granted to those countries deemed tohave a substantial interest.
__________