G/ADP/Q1/IDN/16  
G/SCM/Q1/IDN/16  
 
10 September 2013  
(13-4730)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER  
ARTICLES 18.5 AND 32.6 OF THE AGREEMENTS 
QUESTIONS POSED BY THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF INDONESIA1 
The following communication, dated 6 September 2013,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  
_______________ 
 
 We note that Indonesia enacted Government Regulation No. 34 Concerning Anti-dumping 
Measure, Countervailing Measure, and Safeguard Measure on 4 July 2011, and submitted its 
notification of the new legislation to the WTO Committees on Anti-dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures on 16 March 2012.
2 According to Articles 31 to 36 and 64 to 69 of 
the new legislation, interested parties in the anti-dumping and countervailing investigation may 
request Indonesia's Anti-dumping Committee (KADI) to conduct interim reviews  (for the purpose 
of examining the likelihood of injury if the measures are terminated) and sunset reviews  (for the 
purpose of extending the measures before their ex piration). In addition, Article 99(1) of the new 
legislation provides that any objection against the imposition of anti-dumping, countervailing and 
safeguard measures can only be addressed through  the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO. 
However, the above provisions of the new legislation are mute on the question of whether 
interested parties of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations may request independent  
judicial, arbitral or administrative review  of final determinations of investigations and reviews by 
the KADI. 
 
In order to clarify whether the new legislation is in conformity with Article 13 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, both of which oblige each Member to maintain independent judicial, arbitral or administrative 
review mechanisms for interested parties, we asked Indonesia during its Trade Policy Review 
Meeting held 10 to 12 April 2013 whether, how, and according to which provisions of the new legislation or other domestic laws, the interested parties may apply for such independent judicial, 
arbitral or administrative review of the KADI's final determinations of anti-dumping and 
countervailing investigations and reviews, and if interested parties may appeal against the imposition of trade remedy measures through Indo nesia's domestic courts before referring their 
objections to the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO. Indonesia replied that it currently does not 
have any specific court dealing with anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard disputes, and domestic courts are not authorized to, or do not have the capacity to, hold these disputes. From Indonesia's perspective, therefore, the DSB of the WTO appears to be the only mechanism to 
which interested parties with any dissatisfaction regarding the KADI's final determinations may 
refer.
3 
 
Since Article 13 of the Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures require each WTO Member to maintain  judicial, arbitral or administrative 
                                               
1 G/ADP/N/1/IDN/3-G/SCM/N/1/IDN/3. 
2 We also noted that Indonesia submitted its notifica tion of the new legislatio n (relating to safeguard 
measures) to the Committee on Safeguards  (G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) on 20 December 2011. 
3 Record of the Trade Policy Review Meeting held on 10 and 12 April 2013, WT/TPR/M/278/Add.1, 
pp. 53-54. G/ADP/Q1/IDN/16 • G/SCM/Q1/IDN/16 
 
- 2 - 
 
  tribunals or procedures for the prompt review of administrative actions relating to final 
determinations and reviews of determinations that are independent  of the authorities responsible 
for the determinations or reviews, Indonesia is obliged to put in place independent tribunals or procedures for the purpose of the prompt review of the KADI's final determinations of anti-
dumping and countervailing investigations. However, the new legislation does not contain any 
provisions with regard to such independent judici al, arbitral or administrative review mechanisms, 
and thus seems to be in violation of Indonesia's obligations under Article 13 of the Anti-dumping 
Agreement and Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and countervailing Measures. 
 Questions: 
 
1. In light of the above, could Indonesia please explain how the new legislation complies with 
its obligations under Article 13 of the Anti-dumping Agreement and Article 23 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures?  
 
2. It would also be appreciated if Indonesia could advise how interested parties in anti-dumping and countervailing investigations may resort to judicial, arbitral or administrative 
tribunals or procedures independent from the KADI, in order to fully defend their interests or if 
they have objections to the KADI's final determinations?   
__________