WT/DS592/6  
 
12 December 2022  
(22-9218) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
INDONESIA – MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS  
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL  BY INDONESIA  UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND  
ARTICLE  17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE  
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 2 0(1) OF THE  
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 8 December 2022 , from the delegation of Indonesia , is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
Notification of an Appeal by Indonesia under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the  
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
 
1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review 
(WT/AB/WP/6) ("Working Procedures"), Indonesia hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body 
("DSB") of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in th e report of the 
Panel in Indonesia – Measures Relating to Raw Materials (WT/DS592) ("Panel Report").  
2. In accordance with Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Indonesia files this 
Notice of Appeal together with its Appellant's Submission with the  Appellate Body Secretariat.    
3. As there are  no Appellate Body Members to compose a Division to hear Indonesia's appeal at 
this time, Indonesia awaits further instructions from the Division, once composed, on any further 
steps to be taken by Indonesia in t his appeal.  Indonesia reserves the right to re -file or amend this 
Notice of Appeal and its Appellant's Submission.   
4. The measures at issue consist of an export prohibition and a domestic processing requirement 
("DPR") in respect of nickel ore.1 
5. The issues that Indonesia raises in this appeal relate to the Panel's findings and conclusions 
in respect of:  
• The applicability  of Article XI:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("GATT 1994") to the DPR and the consistency of that measure  with the obligation in 
Article XI:1;  
• the exemption  of the measures at issue from the obligation in Article XI:1 by virtue of 
Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994; and  
• the justification  of the measures at issue under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 in the 
event that they are inconsistent with the obligation under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.   
 
1 The export prohibition at issue is implemented in MEMR Regulation 11/2019 and MOT Regulation 
96/2019, while the DPR is implemented in MEMR Regulation 25/2018.  WT/DS592/6  
 
- 2 - 
 
  6. Non-appeal of any issue contained in the Panel Report does not signify Indonesia's agreement 
therewith.  
7. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, this  Notice of Appeal provides an 
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors of law and legal 
interpretation developed by the Panel, without prejudice to Indonesia's ability to rely on other 
paragraphs of the Panel Repo rt in its appeal.  
I. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XI:1 OF THE GATT 1994  
8. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's conclusion that the DPR is 
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.2  The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation 
include:  
• The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article XI:1 in finding that the term "sale for 
export" in that provision covers non -discriminatory internal measures;3 
• The Panel erred in its applicati on of Article XI:1 in finding that the DPR is a measure on 
the "sale for export" within the meaning of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;4 
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:1 in finding that the DPR by its very nature 
has a limiting effect on e xports.5 
9. Indonesia respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the above Panel findings under 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.6   
10. Indonesia further requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no legal effect  the 
Panel's ultimate conclusion i n paragraph 8.3 of the Panel Report that the DPR is inconsistent with 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
11. Consequently, Indonesia requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no legal effect  
the Panel's conclusions in paragraph 8.3 of the Panel Report th at: (i) the DPR is not a prohibition or 
restriction temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products 
essential to Indonesia within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994; and (ii) the DPR is 
not justifie d under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  
II. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XI:2(A) OF THE GATT 1994   
12. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the measures at 
issue are not exempted from the obligation in Art icle XI:1 of the GATT 1994 because Indonesia had 
not established that the measures at issue meet the requirements of Article XI:2(a) of the 
GATT  1994.7  The legal errors committed by the Panel include:   
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2( a), or, in the alternative, acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that Indonesia had not established 
that nickel ore is "essential" to Indonesia within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) because 
the downstream industries that use it as an input were not yet sufficiently important;8 
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2(a) or, in the alternative, acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that Indonesia had not established 
 
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.159 -7.161.  
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.59, 7.66 and 7.85.  
4 Panel Report, p aras. 7.66, 7.85 and 7.159.  
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.75, 7.84, 7.85, 7.160, and 7.161.  Indonesia appeals this finding of the Panel 
on a conditional basis, i.e., in the event that the Appellate Body does not reverse the Panel's findings that: (i)  
the term "sale for export" in Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 covers non -discriminatory internal measures; and 
(ii) the DPR is a measure on the sale for export within the meaning of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.75, 7.84, 7.85.  
7 Panel Repor t, paras. 7.153 and 7.154.  
8 Panel Report, para. 7.101  WT/DS592/6  
 
- 3 - 
 
  an imminent "critical shortage" of nick el ore within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) 
because future prospective demand was too attenuated;9 
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2(a) or, in the alternative, acted 
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the measures at issue were not 
"temporarily applied" within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) because the Panel expected 
them to last an indefinite period.10 
13. Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the above findings 
of the Pane l under Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 199411 and declare moot and of no legal effect  the 
Panel's finding that Indonesia had not established that the measures at issue meet the requirements 
of Article XI:2(a).12    
14. Consequently, Indonesia respectfully request s the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no 
legal effect  the Panel's ultimate conclusions in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of its Report that the measures 
at issue are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and are not justified under Article XX(d) 
thereof.   
III. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XX(D) OF THE GATT 1994  
15. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the measures at 
issue are not justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 because they are not necessary to 
secure compliance with laws or regulations within the meaning of Article XX(d).13  The legal errors 
committed by the Panel include:  
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that Article 96(d) of Law 
No. 4/2009 does not co nstitute a law or regulation within the meaning of Article XX(d) 
because it is not an enforceable obligation whose compliance can be secured;14 
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that Indonesia had failed to 
demonstrate that the  challenged measures are apt to make a material contribution to 
securing compliance with Article 96(c) of Law No. 4/2009;15     
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that an alternative measure 
proposed by the European Union in the  form of an export authorization system would 
achieve at the very least the same level of contribution as the challenged measures in 
terms of securing compliance with Article 96(c) of Law No. 4/2009.16  
16. Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests the Appe llate Body to reverse  the above Panel 
findings under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 and declare moot and of no legal effect  the Panel's 
ultimate conclusions in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of its Report that the challenged measures are not 
justified under Articl e XX(d).  
 
__________  
 
9 Panel Report, para. 7.151.  
10 Panel Report, para. 7.122.  
11 Panel Report, para. 7.154, 8.2 and 8.3.  
12 Panel Report, paras. 7.153 and 7.154.  
13 Panel Report, paras. 7.286, 7.299, 7.342, 8.2 and 8.3.  
14 Panel Report, paras. 7.192 and 7.201.  
15 Panel Report, paras.  7.280 -7.286 and 7.295 -7.300.  
16 Panel Report, para. 7.335.