WT/DS484/25  
 
18 December 2020  
(20-9239) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
 
INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN MEAT  
AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS  
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY BRAZIL  
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY INDONESIA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17.1  
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  
The following communication, dated 17 December 2020, from the delegation of Indonesia, is being 
circulated  to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
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, Indonesia 
hereby notifies the Dispute Settl ement Body of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body on certain 
issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the compliance Panel Report entitled Indonesia — 
Measures Concerning the Importation Of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products – Recourse to 
Article  21.5 of the DSU by Brazil (WT/DS484/RW), which was circulated on 10 November 2020 
(the "Compliance Panel Report"). Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review, Indonesia is simultaneously filing this Notice of A ppeal to the Appellate Body 
Secretariat.  
For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submission to the Appellate Body, Indonesia appeals, 
and requests the Appellate Body to modify or reverse legal interpretations leading to the legal 
findings and conclusions of the compliance Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in 
the compliance Panel Report:1 
I. The Compliance Panel's findings and conclusions under Article 8 and 
Annex  C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement  
Indonesia submits that the compliance Panel's findings leading to its conclusion that the only way 
for Indonesia to comply with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement solely by completing 
the approval procedure is a legal error. In addition, Indo nesia believes that the compliance Panel’s 
findings leading to its conclusion on non -compliance, irrespective of the events that occurred after 
compliance Panel establishment  since there was a finding of undue delay in the period leading up to 
compliance P anel establishment and given the non -completion of the procedure, is also a legal error 
especially in compliance proceeding. Thus, the compliance Panel has erred to find that Indonesia 
has caused further undue delay in the approval of the veterinary health  certificate  that is inconsistent 
with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.  
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse or modify the compliance Panel's 
findings and conclusions contained,  inter alia , in paragraphs 7.49 – 7.51, 7.53 – 7.54, and as well 
 
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, this Notice of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice 
to Indonesia's right to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its appeal.  WT/DS484/25  
 
- 2 - 
 
  as paragraphs 7.89 – 7.91. In addition, Indonesia also requests the Appellate Body to reverse or 
modify the compliance Panel's conclusions and recommendations in paragraphs 8.1 of its Report.  
II. The Compliance Panel's failure to mak e an objective assessment under Article  8 
and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement  
Indonesia submits that the compliance Panel failed to conduct an objective assessment by not taking 
into account post -compliance Panel establishment developments. The complian ce Panel did not 
examine the post -compliance Panel establishment developments only because Brazil has requested 
review of events after compliance Panel establishment only in the alternative.  
In addition, the compliance Panel also failed to conduct an obje ctive assessment by not following its 
own working procedure as well as its own approach consistently towards all measures at issue in 
the dispute. Thus, the compliance Panel failed to conduct an objective assessment when assessing 
Indonesia’s compliance wi th Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.  
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the compliance Panel's findings and 
conclusions contained, inter alia , in paragraphs 7.45 – 7.46, 7.89 – 7.91 as well as paragraphs 7.72 -
7.88. In addition, Indonesia also requests the Appellate Body to reverse the compliance Panel's 
conclusions and recommendations in paragraphs 8.1 of its Report.  
III. The Compliance Panel erred in determining the cold storage requirement is 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994  
Indonesia submits that the compliance Panel has erred in determining that the sanction provisions 
stipulated in Article 28(a) and Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended are inconsistent with 
Article  III:4 of the GATT 1994 due to the co mpliance Panel errors in its interpretation of Indonesia' s 
regulation. In addition, Indonesia also submits that the compliance Panel has erred in applying the 
legal provisions to the facts of the case.  
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to r everse the compliance Panel's conclusions and 
the compliance Panel's legal interpretations and findings contained in paragraphs, inter alia , 7.160, 
7.162 – 7.164, 7.168 – 7.171, 7.178 – 7.180, 7.194 and 7.206 of the compliance Panel Report. In 
addition, In donesia also requests the Appellate Body to reverse the compliance Panel's conclusions 
and recommendations in paragraphs 8.1 of its Report.  
IV. The Compliance Panel's failure to make an objective assessment under 
Article  III:4 of the GATT 1994  
Indonesia submits that the compliance Panel has failed to make an objective assessment before it 
because the compliance Panel failed to ensure Indonesia’s due process rights during the compliance 
proceeding by accepting Brazil’s new arguments concerning sa nction provisions relating to a breach 
of cold storage requirement in very late stage of the compliance proceeding.  
Indonesia also submits that the compliance Panel failed to make an objective assessment by allowing 
Brazil to introduce arguments on measur es that have been in existence in the original proceeding 
but, on the contrary, not allowing Indonesia to invoke Indonesia’s regulation that was already in 
existence during the original panel proceeding as a defence.  
Indonesia, therefore, requests the App ellate Body to reverse the compliance Panel's findings and 
conclusions contained , inter alia , in paragraphs 7.172 – 7.174, 7.194, and 7.206. Indonesia also 
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the compliance Panel's conclusions and recommendations in 
paragraphs 8.1 of its Report.  
 
__________