WT/DS491/3  
 
21 August 2015  
(15-4251)  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 20 August 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 13 March 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 VI 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 
25 June 2015 with a view of reaching a mutua lly acceptable resolution. Unfortunately, these 
consultations failed to resolve the dispute. 
Measures at Issue 
Indonesia, hereby, makes a new request for 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 Internationa l 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/DS491/3 
 
- 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 Articl es 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 because USDOC did not identify whether the entity 
allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local government, and therefore, failed to pr operly 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. USDOC 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 conferred by the Government of Indonesia's log 
export ban: 
i. Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement because USDOC did not identify whether the entity 
allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local 
government, and therefore, failed to pr operly 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 ex istence 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 government 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 because USDOC did not identify whether the entity 
allegedly providing the purported subsidy was the national, regional or local government, and therefore, failed to pr operly 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 program WT/DS491/3 
 
- 3 - 
 
  specific to an enterprise or industry or group of enterprises or industries.  USDOC did 
not cite to evidence establishing the ex istence 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 In donesia 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 Article 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 in jury to the 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 Article 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 Article 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 th e 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. 
New Request for the Establishment of a Panel  
8.  Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully reques ts, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, and Articl e 30 of the SCM Agreement that the Dispute 
Settlement Body establish a panel to examine this manner with standard terms of reference 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/DS491/3 
 
- 4 - 
 
  The new 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 31 August 2015.  
Please circulate the enclosed notification to the Dispute Settlement Body. We also request the 
Secretariat to notify the Council for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, and the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Committee.  
 
 
_______________ 
 WT/DS491/3 
 
- 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). 
  
 
__________