G/LIC/Q/IDN/25  
 
11 April 2013  
(13-1928)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Import Licensing  Original: English  
 
  IMPORT LICENSING SYSTEM OF INDONESIA 
QUESTIONS FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES TO INDONESIA  
The following communication, dated 11 April 2013, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the European Union and the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
On 31 January 2013, the government of Indonesia notified "Regulation of Minister of Trade of Indonesia No. 82/M-DAG/PER/12/2012" and "Regulat ion of Minister of Industry of Indonesia 
No. 108/M-IND/PER/11/2012".  The notification of these two regulations is contained in 
G/LIC/N/2/IDN/13.  Unfortunately, the WTO Secretar iat did not receive copies of the publications 
of these regulations as required by Article 1.4 of the WTO Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  While we appreciate the government’s effort to notify the regu lations, we were unable 
to obtain the regulations through the general link to the website that the government provided.  
With some effort, we searched and found an uno fficial translated version of Regulation 82.  
However, in light of Article 1.4, we request that the government of Indonesia provide copies of 
these regulations – in English, if possible – to the Secretariat as soon as possible. 
 We have a number of specific questions regarding Regulations 82 and 108 below.  As a general matter, we question the purpose of the requirements and procedures they impose, as well as their 
potential impact on trade.  We note further that, while the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures calls for procedures to be as simple as possible, these regulations appear to impose numerous and complex procedures, in addition to those already imposed by Regulation 59.  We 
would appreciate it if Indonesia could prov ide a justification of Regulations 82 and 108. 
 We request Indonesia's written response to the foregoing general observations and concerns as 
well as to the questions and concerns that follow: 
 Article 2 of Regulation 82 appears to require that every imported cellular phone, handheld computer and tablet computer be determined to comply with the provisions of: "a. standards 
and/or technical requirements;" and, "b. labelling requirements."  
 
 By what means does Indonesia make that determination and what criteria does it use?   
 Is this determination made as pa rt of the licensing process?   
 Are domestically-produced cellular phones, handheld computers, and tablet computers 
required to comply with those provisions? 
 
Article 3 of Regulation 82 appears to provide that only a company that has obtained an "IT of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet  Computers" designation from the Minister of 
Trade is allowed to import Cellular Phones, Ha ndheld Computers, and Tablet Computers.   
 
 What is the purpose of this requirement that companies/importers must obtain the "IT" 
designation?  
 
 For purposes of Regulation 82, how does Indonesia define "company"?  How does Indonesia 
define "importer"?  Who, exactly, must obtain the IT designation? 
 
 How is this requirement different from the requirement under Ministry of Trade 
Regulation 59 of 2012 to obtain a designation either as a general importer or a producer G/LIC/Q/IDN/25 
 
- 2 - 
 
  importer?  Is an importer of cellular phon es, handheld computers and tablet computers 
required to obtain designation under Regulation 82 in addition to Regulation 59?   
 Are domestic companies required to obtain the "IT" designation in order to sell Cellular 
Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers in the Indonesian market?  If so, please provide the relevant legal instruments. 
 
Article 4 appears to require that a company file a number of documents in order to be determined 
as "IT of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers".  
 
 Must domestic producers file all such documents? 
 
 Please describe why a company must submit such extensive documentation to obtain “IT” 
status.   
 
 Please explain why Indonesia appears to require that importers use at least three 
distributors to obtain the IT determination.  What is the rationale for this requirement? It 
seems that the Indonesian government wants to increase this figure to fifteen distributors: 
can you please confirm? What is the rationale for this increase?   Please also explain the purpose of the requirement that a company prove three years of experience as a 
distributor.  Also, please provide a rationale for requiring three years of experience as an 
importer.   
 Article 4 also appears to provide that if a written application is "not complete and correct," 
the Director General will notify the applicant of the rejection within a maximum of five 
working days after the Director General has received the application.   
o How does Indonesia treat minor errors and typos in the application?  
o What procedures must an applicant undertake to be granted a written explanation 
for disapproval of the application?   
o Does the applicant have the right of appeal?  If so, what procedures are required 
for the applicant to exercise the right to appeal?   
o Is an applicant permitted to amend a “not complete and correct” application?  If 
so, how much time does the applicant have to submit such an amendment? How 
much time is required for the government to review the amended application?   
 
Article 5 of Regulation 82 appears to provide that the "IT" determination applies for 2 years.  Does 2 years begin from the date of issu ance of the "IT" determination?  If not, from what date does the 
"IT" determination begin? 
 Article 6 appears to require that a company obtain not only an IT designation, but also a "PI 
[import permit] of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers from the 
Minister".    
 Why must an importer follow all the procedures contained in Article 7 to obtain PI status as 
well as the procedures required to obtain the Registration Certificate of Imported Products 
(TPP)?  
 What is the difference among the IT, PI and TPP?   What different purposes, if any, do they 
serve?  
 Can Indonesia explain whether these requirements are no more administratively 
burdensome than necessary?  
Article 7 appears to set forth extensive documentation requirements to obtain "PI". 
 
 Please explain the purpose of requiring each of these documents.  
 
 In particular, Article 7(1)(e) appears to requ ire submission of a consularized “proof of 
appointment”.  What is the purpose of this requirement? G/LIC/Q/IDN/25 
 
- 3 - 
 
   
 Article 7(1)(f) appears to require submission of a 1 year import plan in order to obtain the 
PI. What is the purpose of this requirement?  
 What is the purpose of the PI? Why is it required? How does Indonesia justify its WTO 
compatibility?   
 How long does it take to handle a PI request? We hear it takes 90 days, can you please 
confirm? Does Indonesia consider this timing to be WTO compatible?   
Article 8 appears to provide that the "validity of PI … intended in Article 7 paragraph (2)a is 
adjusted to the validity of the TPP of Import."   
 
 Does this mean that the validity periods for the PI and the TPP must be the same?  
 
 What is the validity period of the TPP?   
 
 How does the validity period of the PI relate to  the validity period of 2 years for the IT?    
  
Article 9 appears to provide that "Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers imported by IT of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers can only be traded 
and/or transferred to the Distributor."  Furtherm ore, Article 9 appears to provide that Cellular 
Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers imported by IT of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers are "forbidden to be traded and/or transferred to the consumer 
or the retailer".   
 
 What is the purpose of these requirements? 
 
 Does Indonesia require domestically-produced cellular phones, handheld computers, and 
tablet computers to be sold through a distributor?  
Article 10 appears to restrict the entry and releas e of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and 
Tablet Computers to specified seaports and airports .  What is the purpose of this restriction?   
 
Article 11 relates to the entry and release of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet 
Computers with regard to “Free Trade Zone and Free Port”.  Please clarify what this provision and its procedures are intended to accomplish. 
 
Articles 12-16 address issues such as verification, technical inquiry, designation and role of the surveyor, surveyors’ collection of fees from IT of  Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet 
Computers according to an amount "determined by the cost benefit principle", and written reports 
submitted every month to the Ministry of Trade Director General on the outcome of the import 
transaction.  Article 14 appears to provide, "Verification or technical inquiry activities of Cellular Phones, Handheld Computers, and Tablet Computers by Surveyor do not diminish the authority of 
the Directorate General of Customs and Excise, Ministry of Finance to conduct customs inspection." 
 
 What is the purpose of the requirement for in spection by a government-appointed Surveyor 
at the point of loading?  Has the government  appointed any Surveyors? How and by whom 
are the fees charged by Surveyors determined?   
 What is the purpose of requiring monthly reports from both the IT-designated company and 
the Surveyor?  
 
Article 15: Please explain what the purpose of the import realization card is.  How is this 
information used? 
 Article 21: Please explain the circumstances under which imported cellular phones, handheld 
computers, and tablet computers would have to be re-exported.  
 
 Are importers able to appeal determinations that  a good must be re-exported? If so, what is 
the process for appeal? G/LIC/Q/IDN/25 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Article 24 appears to contemplate that "Technical guidelines for implementing of this Ministerial 
Regulation may be prescribed by the Director General."  Have any technical guidelines been prescribed?  If so, where are they published?    
While we do not have a copy of MOI Regulation 108, we understand that there are a number of 
requirements that have the potential to disrupt trade, including providing a product identification number for imported products a year in advance.   Furthermore, an MOI license appears to be 
required before the Ministry of Trade will issue an import license under Regulation 82.  When can 
we expect Indonesia to provide a copy of Regula tion 108 to the Secretariat, as required by the 
Import Licensing Procedures Agreement, so that Members have the opportunity to review and discuss it? 
 
 
__________