WT/DS491/2  
 
10 July 2015  
(15-3606)  Page: 1/5  
  Original: English  
 
 UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON  
CERTAIN COATED PAPER FROM INDONESIA 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMEN T OF A PANEL BY INDONESIA 
The following communication, dated 9 July 2015,  from the delegation of Indonesia to the 
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
  On March 13, 2015, the Government of Indonesia requested consultations with the United States 
of America pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article IV of the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Ag reement") and Article 30 of the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement"), with respect to the United States' measures and determinations imposing anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties on certain 
coated paper products from Indonesia.
1  Indonesia and the United States held the consultations on 
June 25, 2015 with a view of reaching a mutual ly acceptable resolution.  Unfortunately, these 
consultations failed to resolve the dispute. 
Measures at Issue 
Indonesia requests the establishment of a panel to  examine the preliminary and final anti-dumping 
duty and countervailing duty measures in Appendix  1. The measures at issue were instituted by 
the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") and the United States International Trade 
Commission ("USITC"). 
The measures include the determinations by the USDOC and USITC to initiate certain anti-dumping 
duty and countervailing duty investigations, the conduct of those investigations, any preliminary or 
final anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty determinations issued in those investigations, any 
definitive anti-dumping duties and countervailing duties imposed as a result of those investigations, including any notices, annexes, or ders, decision memoranda, or other instruments 
issued by the United States in connection with the anti-dumping duty and countervailing duty 
measures identified in Appendix 1. 
Indonesia considers the following determinations
2 by the USDOC and USITC, and the 
corresponding anti-dumping duties and countervailing duty measures3 to be inconsistent with the 
United States' obligations under the following provisions of the AD Agreement, SCM Agreement, 
and GATT 1994: 
                                               
1 WT/DS491/1. 
2 Including the conduct of the investigations, any notices, annexes, decisi on memoranda, orders, 
amendment, or other instruments issued by the United  States in connection with the anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty measures. 
3 The measures at issue have been identified in Appendix 1. WT/DS491/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  "As Applied" Claims 
Subsidy Determinations 
(1) Indonesia considers that the determinations made, and the countervailing measures 
imposed, by the United States are inconsistent with Articles 2, 12, and 14 of the SCM Agreement 
and with the following obligations: 
(a) In connection with the alleged provision of standing timber for less than adequate 
remuneration: 
(i) Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement beca use USDOC did not identify whether the 
entity allegedly providing the purported su bsidy was the national, regional or local 
government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported 
subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting 
authority." 
(ii) Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to 
demonstrate that Indonesia's alleged provision of standing timber constituted a 
subsidy program specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or 
industries.  USDOC did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a plan or scheme sufficient to constitute a "subsidy programme."  
(iii) Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly found that 
Indonesia conferred a benefit by allegedly providing standing timber for less than adequate remuneration using a per se determination of price distortion based on purported government intervention. USDO C failed to determine the adequacy of 
remuneration "in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in 
question in the country of provision. 
(b) In connection with the alleged benefit conf erred by the Government of Indonesia's log 
export ban: 
(i) Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement beca use USDOC did not identify whether the 
entity allegedly providing the purported su bsidy was the national, regional or local 
government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported 
subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority." 
(ii) Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to 
demonstrate that Indonesia's ban on log exports constituted a subsidy program 
specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.  USDOC did not cite to evidence establishing the existence of a plan or scheme sufficient to 
constitute a "subsidy programme." 
(iii) Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly found that 
Indonesia conferred a benefit by banning log exports using a per se determination 
of price distortion based on purported go vernment intervention.  USDOC failed to 
determine the adequacy of remuneration "in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the country of provision." 
(c) In connection with the Government of Indonesia's alleged forgiveness of debt: 
(i) Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement beca use USDOC did not identify whether the 
entity allegedly providing the purported su bsidy was the national, regional or local 
government, and therefore, failed to properly examine whether the purported 
subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting 
authority." 
(ii) Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly failed to 
demonstrate that Indonesia's alleged debt forgiveness constituted a subsidy WT/DS491/2 
 
- 3 - 
 
  program specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.  
USDOC did not cite to evidence establishi ng the existence of a plan or scheme 
sufficient to constitute a "subsidy programme." 
(iii) Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC improperly applied adverse 
facts available without examining information Indonesia provided, and without 
examining whether Indonesia "refuse[d] access to, or otherwise [did] not provide" the information.
4 
USITC Threat of Injury Determination  
(2) Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement and Ar ticle 15.5 of the SCM Agreement because: 
(a) USITC did not demonstrate the existence of a causal relationship between the imports 
and the purported threat of injury to th e domestic industry.  USITC failed to 
sufficiently examine known factors other than the allegedly dumped and subsidized 
imports which at the same time were in fact injuring the domestic injury. 
(3) Article 3.7 of the AD Agreement and Ar ticle 15.7 of the SCM Agreement because: 
(a) USITC based its threat of injury findings on "allegation, conjecture [and] remote 
possibility."  The findings on which the determinations were based conflicted with the record and were not based on record evidence. 
(b) USITC findings that formed the basis for its threat of injury determination did not 
indicate a change in circumstances that was "clearly foreseen and imminent."  Furthermore, USITC failed to demonstrate that the totality of the factors considered lead to the conclusion that material injury would have occurred unless protective 
action was taken. 
(4) Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Ar ticle 15.8 of the SCM Agreement because: 
(a) USITC did not exercise or consider "special care" in its threat of injury determination. 
"As Such" Claims 
Threat of Injury Determination 
(5) The requirement contained in 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11)(B) that a tie vote in a threat of injury 
determination must be treated as an affirmative USITC determination is inconsistent with 
Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 15. 8 of the SCM Agreement because the requirement 
does not consider or exercise special care. 
(6) In addition to the foregoing claims set forth, Indonesia asserts that the United States has 
also consequently acted inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM 
Agreement, and Article VI of the GATT 1994. 
(7) The determinations and measures also nullify and impair the benefits accruing to Indonesia 
under the cited agreements directly and indirectly. 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel (8) Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests , pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and 
Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, that the Disp ute Settlement Body establish a panel to examine 
this manner with standard terms of referenc e as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
 
                                               
4 This claim includes all of the instances in which USDOC used facts available and/or applied adverse 
facts available in support of its investigations and determinations listed in Appendix 1. WT/DS491/2 
 
- 4 - 
 
  The request for the establishment of a Panel is  enclosed with this communication. Indonesia 
respectfully asks that this request be placed  on the agenda of the Dispute Settlement Body 
meeting scheduled to take place on 20 July 2015. 
Please circulate the enclosed notification to the Dispute Settlement Body. We also request the 
Secretariat to notify the Council for Trade in Goods and the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.
  
_______________ 
 
 WT/DS491/2 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Appendix 1 
 Certain Coated Paper from Indonesia: Initiation of Countervailing Duty Investigation, 
74 Fed. Reg. 53707 (Oct. 20, 2009) (USDOC initiation of CVD investigation); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia and the People's Republic of China: Initiation of Antidumping Duty 
Investigations, 74 Red. Reg. 53710 (Oct. 20, 2009) (USDOC initiation of AD investigation); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from China and Indonesia, 74 Fed. Reg. 50243 (Sept. 30, 2009) (USITC institution of investigation); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from China and Indonesia, 74 Fed. Reg. 61174 (Nov. 23, 2009) (USITC preliminary 
injury determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Preliminary Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination and 
Alignment of Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Final Antidumping Duty Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 10761 (Mar. 9, 2010) (USDOC preliminary CVD 
determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 24885 (May 6, 2010) (USDOC 
preliminary AD determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Final Affirmative Countervailing Duty Determination, 75 Fed. Reg. 
59209 (Sept. 27, 2010) (USDOC final CVD determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value 75 Fed. 
Reg. 59223 (Sept. 27, 2010) (USDOC final AD determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from China and Indonesia, 75 Fed. Reg. 7028 9 (Nov. 17, 2010) (USITC final threat of 
injury determination); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Countervailing Duty Orde r, 75 Fed. Reg. 70206 (Nov. 17, 2010) (CVD 
order); 
 Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High-Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses 
from Indonesia: Antidumping Duty Order, 75 Fed. Reg. 70205 (Nov. 17, 2010) (AD order); and 
 Section 771(11)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, codified at Title 19 of the 
United States Code, Section 1677(11)(B). 
 
__________