WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS312/1 
G/L/681 
G/ADP/D54/1 10 June 2004 
 
 
(04-2525) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
KOREA – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON IMPORTS 
OF CERTAIN PAPER FROM INDONESIA 
 
Request for Consultations by Indonesia
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 4 June 2004,  from the delegation of Indonesia to the 
delegation of Korea and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to requ est consultations with the Republic of Korea 
("Korea") pursuant to Article 4 of the Unders tanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of  the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("GATT") and Article 17 of the Agreement on Im plementation of Article VI of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement" ) with respect to the imposition of definitive 
anti-dumping duties on imports of business informa tion paper and uncoated wood-free printing paper 
from Indonesia
1 and certain aspects of the investigation leading to the imposition of such duties. 
 
 Article 1 of the AD Agreement requires that "[a]n anti-dumping measure shall be applied only 
under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations 
initiated* and conducted in accordance with the pr ovisions of [the AD] Agreement" [*footnote 
omitted].  In the light of this requirement, and b ased on Article VI of GATT and other prov isions of 
the AD Agreement hereafter cited, Indonesia is d eeply concerned about the following aspects of the 
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties and the investigation leading thereto: 
 
 1. Korea's initiation of investigation:  
• notwithstanding its failure to make a de termination that the application had 
been made by or on behalf of the domes tic industry, (Article 5.4 of the AD 
Agreement); 
 
• notwithstanding its failure to make an objective examination of the 
participation of the applicant Hansol Pa per Co. ("Hansol") in the definition of 
"domestic industry", despite Hansol's significant volume of imports from Indonesia during the period of investigation for injury, (Article 3.1 and Article 4.1(i) of the AD Agreement); 
 
                                                     
 
1 Imposed under Resolution No. 2003-22, issued by Korea Trade Commission dated 
24 September 2003. WT/DS312/1 
G/L/681 G/ADP/D54/1 
Page 2 
  
• notwithstanding the applicants' failure to  include in the application sufficient 
and adequate evidence of dumping, injury and causal link between the alleged dumped imports and the injury, particularly in respect of: 
 
(i) the occurrence of certain injury factors, inter alia, market share, 
domestic prices, output, profits, ability to raise capital or investment, employment, productivity, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, growth, and the magnitude of the margin of dumping, 
 
(ii) the existence of causal link be tween the alleged dumped imports and 
injury, as the information and evidence on injury submitted by the applicants relates to a period of investigation (1999-2001) during which – except for the quarter October to  December 2001 – there was no occurrence of dumping for the purpose of the investigation 
(according to the Notice of Initiation, the period of investigation for 
dumping was 1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002), 
     (Article 5.2 and Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement);  
• notwithstanding the fact that the period for injury and the period for dumping 
overlapped only for a period of three months, Korea's failure to consider 
simultaneously the evidence of both dumping and injury in the decision to 
initiate the investigation, (Article 5.7 of the AD Agreement); 
  2. Korea's failure to provide in the Notic e of Initiation, any information regarding the 
factors on which the allegation of injury [was] based, (Article 12.1.1(iv) of the AD 
Agreement). 
 
 3. Korea's granting of confidential treatment  to information contained in the domestic 
industry's application without (i) requiring the applicants to provide showing of good 
cause for such a treatment, (ii) requiring the applicants to furnish non-confidential 
summaries "in sufficient detail to permit a reasonable understanding of the substance 
of the information submitted in confiden ce", or (iii) any indication that the 
information could not be summarized a nd the reasons why summarization was not 
possible, (Article 6.5, Article 6.5.1 and Article 6.5.2 of the AD Agreement). 
  4. Korea's making of a request for information from a firm which was not subject to 
investigation - i.e. PT Cakrawala Mega Indah ("CMI") -, without having obtained the 
agreement of that firm, and without havi ng notified the Government of Indonesia of 
such request in the context of an on-the-s pot investigation, (Ar ticle 6.7 and Annex I 
of the AD Agreement). 
 
 5. Korea's rejection of information related to the sales of CMI, even though it was 
(i) verifiable information, (ii) appropria tely submitted to be used without undue 
difficulties, and (iii) submitted in a timely fashion, (Article 6.8 and paragraph 3 of 
Annex II of the AD Agreement). 
  6. Korea's failure to explain why it did not accept the information related to the sales of 
CMI (Article 6.8 and paragraph 6 of Annex II of the AD Agreement). 
  7. In the context of the preliminary determination:  WT/DS312/1 
 G/L/681 
 G/ADP/D54/1 
 Page 3 
   
• Korea's incorrect characterization of business information paper and uncoated 
wood-free printing paper as like products (Article 2.6 of the AD Agreement) 
and the failure to explain this conclusion  in sufficient detail, (Article 12.2 of 
the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's resort to constructed value as  the basis for determining normal value 
for PT Pindo Deli and PT Indah Kiat, (A rticle VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT and 
Articles 2.1. and 2.2 of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's construction of the normal va lue in respect of PT Pindo Deli and PT 
Indah Kiat without taking into consider ation actual data from CMI pertaining 
to sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like products subject to investigation, notwithstanding the fact  that all information requested by 
Korea was supplied by the exporters in tim e, (Article 2.2, Article 2.2.1.1 and 
2.2.2 of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's resort to best informati on available in order to construct 
administrative, selling and general cost s of PT Pindo Deli and PT Indah Kiat, 
(Article 6.8 and paragraphs 3 and 6 of Annex II of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's failure to make a fair comp arison between the export price and the 
constructed normal value of PT Pindo Deli and PT Indah Kiat inter alia , by 
failing to take into account that domestic sales were made through the 
intermediary CMI, while export sales were made directly to consumers, 
(Article VI:1 and Article VI:2 of GATT and Article 2.1 and Article 2.4 of the 
AD Agreement); 
 
• For exporters who did not submit information to Korea ( i.e., PT Tjiwi Kimia 
and unidentified exporters of Indonesia), Korea's arbitrary application of the 
"best information available" standard to determine the dumping margin for Tjiwi Kimia, (Article 6.8 and paragra ph 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement); 
 
• In relation to further informati on provided by the domestic industry 
concerning the domestic industry's pe rformance up to June 2002, Korea's 
denial of access to such information by not making it available to the other 
interested parties in a timely manner or by not allowing other interested 
parties to see it so as to present their cases on the basis of this information, 
(Article 6.1.2 and Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's refusal to provide an opportuni ty to Indonesian exporters to present 
their views in time prior to the disclosure of essential facts and final 
determination, (Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement); 
  8. In the context of the final determination:  
• Korea's incorrect characterization of business information paper and uncoated 
wood-free printing paper as like products (Article 2.6 of the AD Agreement) 
and the failure to explain this conclusi on in sufficient detail notwithstanding 
the views expressed by Indonesian exporters that business information paper WT/DS312/1 
G/L/681 G/ADP/D54/1 
Page 4 
  
and uncoated wood-free printing paper ar e not like products, (Article 12.3 of 
the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's failure to determine individua l margins of dumping for PT Inda Kiat, 
PT Pindo Deli and PT Tjiwi Kimia, (Article 6.10 of the AD Agreement) and the consequent levy of an anti-dumping duty in excess of individual margins of dumping, if any, (Article VI:2 of GATT and Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement). 
 
• Korea's resort to constructed value as  the basis for determining normal value 
for PT Pindo Deli, PT Indah Kiat and PT T jiwi Kimia, (Article VI:1 and VI:2 
of GATT and Articles 2.1. and 2.2 of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's construction of the normal valu e in respect of PT Pindo Deli, PT 
Indah Kiat, and PT Tjiwi Kimia without ta king into consideration  actual data 
pertaining to sales of CMI in the ordinary course of trade of the like products 
subject to investigation, (Article 2.2,  Article 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD 
Agreement); 
 
• Korea's failure to make a fair comp arison between the export price and the 
constructed normal value in respect of PT Pindo Deli, PT Indah Kiat and 
Tjiwi Kimia, (Article VI:1 and Article  VI:2 of GATT and Article 2.1 and 2.4 
of the AD Agreement); 
 
• Korea's incorrect classification of imports from PT Inda Kiat as dumped 
imports as a result of treating PT Inda Kiat, PT Pindo Deli and Tjiwi Kimia as a single economic unit, and the conse quent incorrect  determination of 
injury and causal link between the alleged dumped imports and injury, 
(Article 3.1, Article 3.2, Article 3.4,  and Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, 
and Article VI:1 and Article VI:6 of GATT); 
 
• As a result of the incorrect characteri zation of business information paper and 
uncoated wood-free paper as like products, Korea's incorrect  assessment of 
the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic industry, (Article 3.1, Article 3.4, and Article 3.5. of th e AD Agreement, and Article VI:1 and 
Article VI:6 of GATT); 
 
• Korea's failure to evaluate the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the 
domestic market for like products, (Article 3.1, Article 3.2, and Article 3.5 of 
the AD Agreement, and Article VI:1 and Article VI:6 of GATT); 
 
• Korea's failure to evaluate all releva nt economic factors and indices having a 
bearing on the state of the domestic industry, in particular, actual and potential decline, productivity, return on investment, factors affecting the domestic prices, magnitude of the ma rgin of dumping, actual and potential 
negative effects on cash flow, wages, growth, ability to raise capital or 
investment, (Article 3.1, Article 3.4,  and Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, 
and Article VI:1 and Article VI:6 of GATT); 
 
• In relation to further informati on provided by the domestic industry 
concerning the domestic industry's performance up to first half of 2003,  WT/DS312/1 
 G/L/681 
 G/ADP/D54/1 
 Page 5 
  
Korea's denial of access to such informat ion by not making it available to the 
other interested parties in a timely manner or by not allowing other interested parties to see it, (Article 6.1.2 and Article 6.4 of the AD Agreement).  
 
 It appears to Indonesia that the foregoing cannot  be reconciled with Article VI of the GATT, 
Article 1 of the AD Agreement, and th e specific provisions cited above.   
  Indonesia looks forward to receiving your reply to  this request at your earliest convenience.  I 
propose that the date and venue of these consu ltations be agreed between our two Missions. 
  
__________