WT/DS491/1, G/L/1109  
G/ADP/D108/1, G/SCM/D106/1  
 
17 March 2015  
(15-1516)  Page: 1/3  
  Original: English  
 
 UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES ON  
CERTAIN COATED PAPER FROM INDONESIA 
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY INDONESIA 
The following communication, dated 13 March 2015, from the delegation of Indonesia to the 
delegation of the United States and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is 
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
  
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the 
United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Unde rstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes ("the DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 17 of the Agreem ent on Implementation of Article VI of the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD  Agreement") and Article 30 of the Agreement 
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Ag reement") in relation to the measures listed 
below: 
 The following determinations by the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") and the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC"), including the conduct of the 
investigations, any notices, annexes, decisi on memoranda, orders, amendments, or other 
instruments issued by the United States in connection with the anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures: 
   
 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 Fed. 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 WT/DS491/1 • G/L/1109 • G/ADP/D108/1 • G/SCM/D106/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  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). 
  The following U.S. law: 
 
 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). 
 
The United States' imposition of anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders appears to be 
inconsistent with at least the following provisions of WTO law: 
 
 With respect to USDOC's determination that the Government of Indonesia's allegedly 
provided standing timber for less than adequate remuneration, banned  log exports, Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement because, inter alia, the USDOC made a per se 
determination of price distortion based on purported government intervention and did 
not determine the adequacy of remuneration "in relation to prevailing market conditions for the good . . . in question in the country of provision".  
 
 With respect to USDOC's determination that the Government of Indonesia's allegedly 
provided standing timber for less than ad equate remuneration, banned log exports, 
and forgave debt, Article 2.1(c) of the SCM Agreement, inter alia, because USDOC did 
not examine whether there was a plan or scheme in place sufficient to constitute a 
"subsidy programme."  
 With respect to USDOC's determination that the Government of Indonesia's allegedly 
provided standing timber for less than ad equate remuneration, banned log exports, 
and forgave debt, Article 2.1 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia, because USDOC did 
not identify whether the entity providing the purported subsidy was the national, 
regional, or local government and, thus, USDOC failed to properly examine whether the subsidy was "specific to an enterprise . . . within the jurisdiction of the granting authority". 
 
 With respect to USDOC determination that the Government of Indonesia's allegedly 
forgave debt, Article 12.7 of the SCM Agr eement, inter alia, because USDOC applied 
adverse facts available without examining information that the Government of 
Indonesia had provided and without examining whether the Government of Indonesia had "refused access to, or otherwise did not provide" the information. 
 
 With respect to USITC's threat of injury  determination, Article 3.7 of the AD 
Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia, because USITC relied on "allegation, conjecture [and] remote possibility" rather than facts. 
 WT/DS491/1 • G/L/1109 • G/ADP/D108/1 • G/SCM/D106/1 
 
- 3 - 
 
   With respect to USITC's threat of injury  determination, Article 3.7 of the AD 
Agreement and Article 15.7 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia , because USITC did not 
base its determination on a change in circumstances that was "clearly foreseen and imminent." 
 
 With respect to USITC's threat of injury  determination, Article 3.5 of the AD 
Agreement and Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia , because USITC did not 
demonstrate the existence of a causal relationship between the imports and the 
purported threat of injury to the domestic industry. 
  With respect to USITC's threat of injury  determination, Article 3.8 of the AD 
Agreement and Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia , because USITC did not 
consider or exercise "special care." 
 
 With respect to 19 U.S.C. § 1677(11)(B)'s requirement that a tie vote in a threat of 
injury determination must be treated as an affirmative USITC determination, Article 3.8 of the AD Agreement and Arti cle 15.8 of the SCM Agreement, inter alia , because 
the law does not consider or exercise "special care." 
 The United States' measures discussed above are also inconsistent with Article 1 of the AD Agreement, Article 10 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a 
consequence of the apparent breaches of the AD Agreement and SCM Agreement described above.
  Indonesia reserves the right to raise additional factual issues or legal claims or matters during the 
course of consultations and in any request for the establishment of a panel.   
 Indonesia looks forward to receiving the United States' response to this request in order to set a 
mutually convenient date and venue for consultations. 
 
 
__________