G/LIC/Q/IDN/36  
 
1 Novem ber 201 6 
(16-6000) Page: 1/4 
Committee on Import Licensing  Original: English  
 
 IMPORT LICENSING SYSTEM OF INDONESIA  
QUESTIONS FROM THE UNITED STATES  TO INDONESIA  
The following communication, dated  1 November 201 6, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The United States has lon g had questions about Indonesia’s import licensing requirements for 
cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets.  The United States, with the European Union, 
submitted questions regarding this import licensing in documents G/LIC/Q/IDN/25 and 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/26  in 2013.  The United States submitted additional questions in document 
G/LIC/Q/IDN/31 in 2014.  We appreciate Indonesia’s earlier responses to our questions regarding 
these requirements in documents G/LIC/Q/IDN/28, G/LIC/Q/IDN/29, and G/LIC/Q/IDN/33/Add.1 . 
  
The United States understands that Indonesia’s Ministry of Trade recently issued 
Regulation  41/M-DAG/PER/5/2016, which is the third amendment to Ministry of Trade 
Regulation  82/M DAG/PER/12/2012 (previously  amended by MOT 
Regulation 48/M-DAG/PER/8/2014)  regarding provisions on imports of cellular telephones, 
handheld computers, and tablet computers, and that the Ministry of Industry recently issued 
Regulation 68/2016, which appears to set forth requirements for obtaining recommendations for 
designated im porters.   
 
As a general matter, we continue to question the purpose of the requirements and procedures 
related to imports of cellular phones and handheld and tablet computers.   In addition, we have a 
number of specific questions about the changes to the import licensing requirements for these 
products.   
 
  Q1: We ask that Indonesia notify this regulation (Regulation 41/M -DAG/PER/5/2016) to 
the Committee as it contains new requirements for obtaining an import license.  
 
We further request Indonesia’s writt en response to the general observations and concerns, as well 
as to the questions that follow:  
 
Article I.1 of Regulation 41/2016 appears to amend Article 4 of MOT Regulation 82/2012 to 
establish separate requirements for cellphones, handheld computers, a nd tablets depending on 
whether the products are 3G or 4G LTE enabled.  
 
  Q2: What is the rationale for establishing separate requirements for products that include 
4G LTE technology as opposed to those that do not?  
 
  Q3: Are there similar separate require ments for domestically -produced cellphones, 
handheld computers, and tablet computers based on whether they are 3G or 4G LTE 
enabled?  If so, please provide the legislative or regulatory references for those 
requirements.  
 
Under Article 4(1)a, as amended, it appears that companies applying for recognition as a 
Registered Importer (IT) to import 3G enabled devices can be holders of either an Importer 
Identity Number -General (API -U) or an Importer Identity Number -Producer (API -P).  However, G/LIC/Q/IDN/36  
 
- 2 - 
 
  under Article 4(1) b, as amended, companies applying for an IT who intend to import 4G LTE 
enabled devices must hold an API -P.   
 
  Q4: What is the purpose of requiring importers to obtain an IT designation?  
 
  Q5: How is the IT requirement different than the requirement to ob tain an API -U or an 
API-P?  For example, what different purposes do these requirements serve, if any?  How 
do the procedures to obtain an IT and an API -U or an API -P differ?  
 
  Q6: Are domestic companies also required to obtain separate designations to prod uce and 
to sell these products in the Indonesian market? If so, please provide the legislative or 
regulatory references for those requirements.  
 
  Q7: What is the rationale for allowing both API -U and API -P holders to import 3G devices, 
while only allowing  API-P holders to import 4G LTE devices? How do the procedures to 
obtain an API -U versus an API -P differ?  
 
  Q8: What is the difference between the “recommendation” for 3G enabled devices in 
Article 4(1)a.4 and the “industry investment recommendation” for 4G LTE enabled devices 
in Article 4(1)b.4?  Please include an explanation of any differences in light of MOI 
Regulation 68/2016.  
 
  Q9: What is the rationale for requiring importers to show a relationship with at least three 
distributors?  Are domestic prod ucers also required to use three distributors?  
 
  Q10: Please explain how the new regulation’s requirements are “no more administratively 
burdensome than absolutely necessary” as set forth in Article 3.2 of the Import Licensing 
Agreement.  
 
As we understand the requirement in Article 4(1)b.1, which provides that importers of 4G LTE 
enabled devices must hold an API -P, importers may only import 4G LTE devices for further 
processing, and cannot import finished 4G LTE enabled cellphones, handheld computers, and 
tablets for sale.   
 
  Q11: Please confirm our understanding.  If our understanding is not correct, please 
explain.  
 
  Q12: Please explain how, if at all, companies who have an API -U instead of an API -P would 
be able to import these products into Indonesia.  
 
  Q13: Please identify the WTO -consistent measure that Indonesia is implementing through 
this import licensing.  
 
In the response contained in G/LIC/Q/IDN/33/Add.1, Indonesia indicated that the previous 
requirement to “develop industry” did not “generate any  trade distortions.”  Under the new 
requirements, it appears that importers can no longer import finished 4G LTE enabled cellphones, 
handheld computers and tablets.  
 
  Q14: Please explain what impact Indonesia anticipates the new requirements, including 
the requirement that an importer hold an API -P to import 4G LTE enabled devices, will 
have on imports of cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets.  If Indonesia considers 
that these new requirements will not distort trade, please explain why.  
 
Under Articl e 4(2), as amended, the recommendation on industry investment for 4G LTE enabled 
devices must contain information regarding proof of development of, or proof of cooperation with, 
the domestic cellphone, handheld computer, or tablet industry.   
 
  Q15: Pleas e clarify the meaning of these requirements.  What is considered proof of 
development of the domestic industry? What qualifies as proof of cooperation with the 
domestic industry?  Please provide examples of the types of documents required.  
 
  Q16: Who is re sponsible for determining whether the proof provided is sufficient?  G/LIC/Q/IDN/36  
 
- 3 - 
 
    Q17: Who provides this evidence?  May an applicant choose to provide either evidence of 
proof of development of the domestic industry, or proof of cooperation with the domestic 
industry?  
   
  Q18: Please explain what factors are considered in providing a “recommendation” for 
purposes of importing devices that are 3G enabled under Article 4(1).  Please also identify 
what documents or other information are required in order to obtain a “recom mendation.”   
 
MOI Regulation 68/2016 appears to outline requirements for obtaining a “recommendation” 
required to be designated as a registered importer of cellphones, handheld computers and tablet 
computers.   
 
  Q19.  MOI Regulation 68/2016 does not refe r to MOT Regulation 41/2016.  Please explain 
whether and how this regulation relates to MOT Regulation 41/2016.  Does MOI Regulation 
68/2016 apply with respect to products incorporating 4G technology, 3G or lower 
technology, or both?  
 
  Q20.  MOI 68/2016 ap pears to create three categories of applicants who can obtain a 
recommendation:  Category A, B, and C.  As we understand these categories, Category A 
are those who produce cell phones and computers in Indonesia; Category B are those that 
have a “cooperatio n agreement” with domestic producers that can provide “proof of 
industry development”; and Category C are those who are importing products with “special 
specifications and special purposes” or importing for aftersales service.  Please confirm or 
correct th is understanding.  In addition, please provide further detail on what qualifies as a 
“cooperation agreement” and what qualifies as “proof of industry development.”  Also, 
please explain what is meant by “special specifications” and “special purposes”, and 
provide examples.  
 
  Q21.  Please explain whether MOI 68/2016 provides the requirements for a 
“recommendation” needed to be designated a registered importer (IT) for 3G devices 
under MOT 41/2016 Article 4(1)a, or the requirements for the “recommendation on 
industry investment” under MOT 41/2016 Article 4(1)b for 4G LTE devices, or the 
requirements for both.  If MOI Regulation 68/2016 does not set forth the requirements for 
a “recommendation on industry investment,” please indicate whether there is a separate  
regulation that sets forth those requirements, provide a citation for any such regulation, 
and explain what is required to obtain a “recommendation on industry investment.”  
 
Article 7 of MOT Regulation 82/2012, as amended, appears to require that companie s obtain an 
import approval (PI) in addition to the IT.  
 
  Q22: What is the purpose of requiring importers to obtain a PI for these products?  
 
  Q23: What is the difference between the PI issued by the Ministry of Trade and the TPP 
Import issued by the Minis try of Industry (MOI) under MOI Regulation 108/2012?  Do the 
PI and TPP -Import serve different purposes?   
 
  Q24: What is the average validity period for the PI?  
 
  Q25: On what basis may a PI be rejected?  
 
  Q26: Article 7(5), as amended, provides that the PI shall be sent via the Indonesia 
National Single Window.  What information is included with the PI?  
 
Article 9, as amended, provides that cellphones, handheld computers, and tablets imported by IT 
holders can only be traded or transferred to distributors . 
 
  Q27: Why may imported products only be traded or transferred to distributors? Why are 
importers not permitted to sell these products directly to retailers or service providers?   
 
  Q28: Are domestic producers also required to sell cellphones, handheld computers, and 
tablets through distributors?  If so, please provide the legislative or regulatory references G/LIC/Q/IDN/36  
 
- 4 - 
 
  for those requirements.  If not, please explain why domestic products may be sold directly 
to consumers, while imported products may not.  
 
Article 24B states that holders of ITs issued before July 1, 2016, have to come into compliance 
with Article 4 as amended by September 1, 2016.  
 
  Q29: What does this mean for existing holders of ITs who currently import 4G LTE devices 
for sale, in particular hold ers of API -Us?  
 
 
__________