WT/DS490/2  
 
21 August 2015  
(15-4267)  Page: 1/4  
  Original: English  
 
 INDONESIA – SAFEGUARD ON CERTAIN IRON OR STEEL PRODUCTS 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY  
OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
The following communication, dated 20 August 2015, from the delegation of the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement 
Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
  
On 12 February 2015, the Separate Customs Terr itory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
requested consultations with Indonesia pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Di sputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards 
with respect to the imposition of a safeguard measure on imports of certain flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy steel, the investigation and determinations leading thereto, and other aspects 
related to the notification requirements and consultations required under Article XIX:2 of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Pe nghu, Kinmen and Matsu and Indonesia held 
consultations on 16 April 2015 with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. However, 
these consultations failed to settle the dispute. A ccordingly, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the 
DSU, Article 14 of the Agreement of Safeguards, and Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, The Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu requests the Dispute Settlement Body to 
establish a Panel to examine the matter and the claims set forth below. 
I. BACKGROUND AND MEASURES AT ISSUE 
A. Background 
The measures at issue were imposed pursuant to an investigation conducted by Indonesia's 
investigating authority on safeguard measures, Komite Pengamanan Perdagangan Indonesia (KPPI).   
1. Initiation of the safeguard investigation  
On 19 December 2012, KPPI initiated a safeguard investigation on imports of flat-rolled product of 
iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or mo re, clad, plated or coated with aluminium-zinc 
alloys, containing by weight less than 0.6% of carbon, with a thickness not exceeding 1.2mm, 
under HS code 7210.61.11.00.
1  
 
                                               
1 Committee on  Safeguards, Notification under Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards on 
Initiation of an Investigation and the reasons for it, Indonesia, (Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel) , 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/22, 8 January 2013; and the supplement, G/SG/N/6/IDN/22/Suppl.1, 24 April 2013. WT/DS490/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2. Final determination  
The relevant determination is contained in the investigating authority's Final Disclosure Report. On 
27 May 2014, WTO Members were notified of the investigating authority's positive findings of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports.
2 On 28 July 2014, WTO Members were 
notified of the actual imposition of the safeguard measure against imports of flat-rolled product of 
iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or mo re, clad, plated or coated with aluminium-zinc 
alloys, containing by weight less than 0.6% of carbon, with a thickness not exceeding 0.7mm, 
under HS code 7210.61.11.00, pursuant to Regulation Number 137.1/PML.011/2014 of Indonesia's 
Minister of Finance, dated 7 July 2014, and promulgated on 15 July 2014 in the Berita Negara of 
Indonesia, Year 2014, No. 978.3  
The safeguard measure consists of a specific duty  to be applied from 22 July 2014, and reduced 
onwards in accordance with the following timetable: 
Timetable of the Safeguard Duty 
 
Period Safeguard Duty 
22 July 2014 - 21 July 2015 Rp 4,998,784 per ton 
22 July 2015 - 21 July 2016 Rp 4,314,161 per ton 
22 July 2016 - 21 July 2017 Rp 3,629,538 per ton 
 
B. Measures at issue 
The measures at issue in this dispute are the following: 
a. The specific duty imposed as a safeguard measure, as a result of the investigation 
initiated on 19 December 2012 and concluded by the Final Disclosure Report, on 
imports of flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated with aluminium-zinc alloys, containing by weight less 
than 0,6% of carbon, with a thickness not exceeding 1.2mm, under HS code 
7210.61.11.00, as referred to in section I.A.1 above.
4 
b. The notification of the finding of threat of  serious injury caused by increased imports 
and of the regulation imposing the safeguard measure, as referred to in section I.A.2 
above. 
                                               
2 Committee on  Safeguards, Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on 
Finding a Serious Injury or Threat Ther eof Caused by Increased Imports, Notification of a Proposal to Impose a 
Measure, Indonesia, (Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel under HS code 7210.61.11.00) , 
G/SG/N/8/IDN/16, G/SG/N/10/IDN/16, 27 May 2014. 
3 Committee on  Safeguards, Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on 
Finding a Serious Injury or Threat Thereof Caused by In creased Imports, Notification under Article 12.1(c) of 
the Agreement on Safeguards on Taking a Decision to Apply a Safeguard Measure, Notification pursuant to 
Article 9, footnote 2, of the Agreement on Safeguards, Indonesia, (Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy 
Steel under HS code 7210.61.11.00) , G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/N/11/IDN/14, 28 July 2014. 
4 Indonesia appears to have narrowed the scope of the subject product to which the measures at issue 
apply to flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, clad, plated or coated with aluminium-zinc alloys, containing by weight less than 0,6% of carbon, with a thickness not exceeding 0.7mm. 
This change in the scope of the subject product is reflected in the document: Committee on Safeguards, 
Notification under Article 12.1(b) of  the Agreement on Safeguards on Fi nding a Serious Injury or Threat 
Thereof Caused by Increased Imports, Notification under  Article 12.1(c) of the Ag reement on Safeguards on 
Taking a Decision to Apply a Safegu ard Measure, Notification pursuant to Article 9, footnote 2, of the 
Agreement on Safeguards, Indonesia, (Flat-Rolled Pr oduct of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel under HS code 
7210.61.11.00) , G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/11/IDN/14, 28 July 2014, 
p. 1.    WT/DS490/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  c. Indonesia's failure to provide an opportunity for consultations on relevant information 
related to the safeguard measure, including on the proposed measure and its date of introduction prior to the actual imposition of the measure. 
The measures at issue in this dispute cover all decisions and notices of the authorities mentioned 
above as well as any related measures and amen dments or replacement measures taken by the 
authorities in relation to this investigation and/or the imposition of the safeguard measures.  
II. LEGAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINT 
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu notes that according to 
Article 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, a Member shall not take or seek a safeguard action unless such action conforms with the pr ovisions of Article XIX of the GATT 1994, and is 
applied in accordance with the Agreement on Safeguards. In this respect, The Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu considers that: 
 
a. With respect to the specific duty  imposed as a safeguard measure: 
1. Indonesia failed to provide reasoned and adequate findings and conclusions 
regarding the alleged unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT obligations 
that led to the increased imports that caused or threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic industry. Indonesia, theref ore, acted inconsistently with Article 
XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
2. Indonesia failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the 
investigated imports had increased given the fact that its analysis is based on 
outdated import data (i.e. data of a period ending 17 months before Indonesia's 
decision to impose the measure, and 19 months before the imposition of the 
measure). Indonesia thus acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  
3. Indonesia failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the analysis 
of the different serious injury indicators at issue led to the conclusion of overall 
impairment in the situation of the domest ic industry. Nor did Indonesia provide a 
reasoned and adequate explanation of how the KPPI determined the existence of threat of serious injury. Moreover, there was no reasoned and adequate explanation 
of serious injury (or threat thereof) with respect to certain products, such as 
zincalume products, that do not appear to have been produced domestically, despite the fact that the safeguard measure applies to these products. These omissions are 
inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 3,1, 4.2(a), and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. 
4. Indonesia failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the 
investigated imports caused serious injury to the domestic industry. Nor did it 
provide an explanation of how the injurious effects of factors other than the investigated imports, which also caused serious injury to the domestic industry, were not attributed to the investigated imports. Indonesia, therefore, acted inconsistently 
with Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(b), and 4.2( c) of the Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.         
5. Indonesia failed to ensure the required parallelism between the scope of imports 
considered for the purposes of the underlying investigation and the scope of products 
to which the safeguard measure is applied. Indonesia, therefore, acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
6. In any event, the specific du ty imposed by Indonesia is inconsistent with Article I:1 
of the GATT 1994 in that it applies to products originating only in certain countries, and this constitutes an advantage that has not been accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like products originating in all WTO Members.      WT/DS490/2 
 
- 4 - 
 
  b. With respect to the notification of the finding of th reat of serious injury and of 
the proposal to impose a safeguard measure , Indonesia has acted inconsistently 
with Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards as the notification does not contain all pertinent information, including the proposed measure, the proposed date of 
introduction, or a timetable for the progressive liberalization of the measure.  
c. With respect to Indonesia's failure to provide an opportunity for consultations 
prior to the imposition of the safeguard measure , this action is inconsistent with 
Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
The measures at issue, therefore, nullify and impair benefits accruing to the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu directly or indirectly under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.  
 
Accordingly, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu respectfully 
requests that, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of  the DSU, Article XXIII of  the GATT and Article 14 
the Agreement on Safeguards, a Panel be established to examine this matter , with the standard 
terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu , Kinmen and Matsu asks that this request be 
placed on the agenda for the meeting of th e Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 
31 August 2015.  
 
__________