WT/DS496/7  
 
5 October 2017  
(17-5366) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERTAIN  IRON OR STEEL PRODUC TS  
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY VIET  NAM UNDER ARTICLES 1 6.4 AND 17  
OF THE UNDERSTANDING  ON RULES AND PROCEDU RES GOVERNING THE SE TTLEMENT OF 
DISPUTES AND UNDER R ULE 23(1) OF THE WOR KING PROCEDURES FOR APPEL LATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated  3 October 2017 , from the delegation of Viet Nam , is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing t he 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 23(1) of the Working Proced ures for Appellate Review, 
Viet Nam hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its deci sion to appeal to the 
Appellate  Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation covered in th e Panel Report entitled 
Indonesia — Safeguard on Certain Iron or Steel Products (WT/DS496/R), which was circulated on 
18 August 201 7 (the "Panel Report").  
 
Pursuant to Rules 23(1) and 23(3) of the Working Proced ures for Appellate Review, Viet  Nam is 
simul taneously filing this notice of other appeal and its other appellant's submission with the 
Appellate Body Secretariat. Viet Nam is providing as well an executive summary of the other 
appellant's submission, in accordance with the Guidelines in Respect of E xecutive Summaries of 
Written Submissions in Appellate Proceedings (WT/AB/23).  
 
For the reasons further elaborated in its other appellant's submission, Viet Nam appeals and 
requests the Appellate Body to reverse the findings and conclusions of the Panel w ith respect to 
the errors contained in the Panel Report described below.1 
 
I. THE PANEL ERRED IN F INDING THAT INDONESI A'S MEASURE IS NOT A  
"SAFEGUARD MEASURE"  
 The Panel erred in its interpretation and application of Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, 1.
various provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, including Articles 1 and 9.1, as well as the 
General Interpretative Note to Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement, when it found that Indonesia's 
measure is not a safeguard measure.2  
 In particular, and without pr ejudice to the arguments developed in Viet Nam's other 2.
appellant's submission, the Panel erred in finding that the suspension of the most -favoured -nation 
treatment (MFN) obligation under Article I:1 does not constitute a "suspension" of "the obligation" 
under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. This error includes:  
 The Panel's erroneous finding that Indonesia's suspension of the MFN obligation under 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards did not intend to prevent or remedy serious 
injury;3 and 
                                                
1 Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii)(C) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, this Notice of  Other 
Appeal includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without 
prejudice to Viet Nam's right to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel Report in the context of its other appeal.  
2 Panel Report, paras. 7.40 -7.41, 8.1(a) and 8.2.  
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.25 -7.28. WT/DS496/7  
 
- 2 - 
 
   The Panel' s erroneous finding that the discriminatory application of a safeguard measure 
in accordance with Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards does not constitute a 
"suspension" of the MFN obligation, because the question of "suspension" does not arise 
due t o the application of the General Interpretat ive Note to Annex 1A of the 
WTO Agreement.4 
II. REQUEST FOR FINDINGS , COMPLETION OF THE ANALYSIS, AND SUGGES TION FOR 
IMPLEMENTATION  
 Viet Nam requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel 's finding contained i n 3.
paragraphs  7.40-7.41, 8.1(a) and 8.2 of the Panel Report that Indonesia's specific duty applied 
pursuant to Regulation  No. 137.1/PMK.011/2014 is not a safeguard measure, and to find instead 
that this measure is a safeguard measure within the meaning of A rticle XIX of the GATT 1994 and 
the Agreement on Safeguards. Viet Nam further requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and 
of no legal effect the Panel's legal interpretations provided in paragraphs 7.12 -7.41 of the Panel 
Report, and paragraphs 2.9 -3.7 of Annex A -3 of the A ddendum to the Panel Report.  
 Viet Nam requests the Appellate Body to complete the legal analysis and find that the 4.
measures at issue in this dispute are inconsistent with the following provisions:  
a. With respect to the specific duty imp osed as a safeguard measure:  
 Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, 
because KPPI  failed to explain in a reasoned and adequate manner the existence of 
both "unforeseen developments" and "the effect of the [GATT] obligations", as well 
as the logical connection of these elements with the increase in imports that 
allegedly caused serious injury;  
 Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(c) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards, as KPPI failed to explain in a reasoned and adequate 
manner why the alleged increase in imports was "recent enough";  
 Article XIX:1(a) of the  GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(a), 4.1(b), 4.2(a) 
and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, as KPPI failed to provide a reasoned and 
adequate explanation of how the facts support its threat of serious injury 
determination, including the evaluation of all relevant serious injury indicators ;  
 Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(b), and 4.2(c) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards as KPPI failed to explain in a reasoned and adequate 
manner  a causal link, and to conduct a proper non -attribution analysis in accordance 
with those provisions;  
 Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because 
Indonesia applied  the safeguard duty to a product that is different from the product 
that was investigated, and thus fail ed to observe the requirement of parallelism ; 
b. With respect to Indonesia's notifications of the finding of threat of serious injury and of 
the decision to impose a safeguard measure:  
 Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because Indonesia failed to provide "all 
pertinent information" in the relevant notification; and  
c. With respect to the obligation to provide an opportunity to hold consultations:  
 Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, 
because Indonesia failed t o provide Members having a substantial interest as 
exporters with a meaningful opportunity to hold consultations prior to the imposition 
of a safeguard measure.  
                                                
4 Panel Report, para. 7.29.  WT/DS496/7  
 
- 3 - 
 
   
 In addition, Viet Nam requests the Appellate Body to leave the Panel's finding contained in 5.
paragraphs 7.42 -7.44 and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report that Indonesia's specific duty is inconsistent 
with Indonesia's MFN -treatment obligation under Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 undisturbed.  
 Finally, Viet Nam requests the Appellate Body to exercise its discret ion under Article 19.1 of 6.
the DSU and suggest that Indonesia bring its measure, and any extension of it, into conformity 
with its WTO obligations by immediately withdrawing the specific duty at issue.  
__________