WT/DS529/1  
G/L/1184  
G/ADP/D118/1  
 
5 September 2017  
(17-4715) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY INDONESIA  
The following communication, dated 1 September 2017 , from the delegation of Indonesia  to the 
delegation of Australia  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 Australia 
pursuant to Article 4 of the Und erstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of 
Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), 
and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (AD Agreement)  with respect to the imposition of an anti -dumping order on 
A4 copy paper  and the investigation and determination leading thereto.  
 
Pursuant to Article 4.4 of the DSU, the reasons for this request for consultations, including  
identification of the measures at issue and of the legal bases for this complaint, are provided 
below.  
 
MEASURE AT ISSUE  
 
Determination by the Australian Anti -Dumping Commission  (The Commission) including the 
conduct of the investigations, any notices, an nexes, decision memoranda, orders, amendments, or 
other instruments issued by  Australia in connection with the anti -dumping measures on:  uncoated 
white paper of a type used for writing, printing or other graphic purposes, in the nominal basis 
weight range of 70 to 100 gsm and cut to sheets of metric size A4 (210mm x 297mm) (also 
commonly referred to as cut sheet paper, copy paper, office paper or laser paper) under HS code 
4802.56.10 (statistical code 03) and 4802.56.10 (statistical code 09) exported from t he Federative 
Republic of Brazil, the People’s Republic of China, the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of 
Thailand, Anti -Dumping Notice (A DN) 2017 /39.  
 
LEGAL BASIS  
 
1. Inconsisten cy with Article  2.2 of the Dumping  Agreement  ("AD Agreement" ) as applied   
The Commission did not use the Indonesian exporters ’ home market price for normal value 
because it found that a particular market situation existed. Instead, the Commission used a 
constructed value to determine normal value. The Commission found a particul ar market situation 
existed because the Government  of Indonesia allegedly implements polic ies that increase  the 
supply of timber which allegedly result  in lower paper prices due to lower timber prices.  Australia 
has acted inconsistently  with Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement as applied because , even if a 
particular market situation existed, domestic and export prices would have been affected and a 
proper comparison could have been made without resorting to constructed value.   Australia's 
actions also were inconsistent with Article 2.2 of the AD Agreement because a "particular market 
situation" did not exist within the meaning of that term.  
 WT/DS529/1 • G/L/1184 • G/ADP/D118/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2. Inconsisten cy with Article  2.2.1.1  of the AD Agreement as applied  
The Commission replaced the Indonesian exporters ’ actual costs for pulp with a benchmark 
comprised of a weighted average price taken from an industry publication. It violates 
Article  2.2.1.1 of the AD Agreement as applied because the costs were recorded in the companies ’ 
books and records and reasonably reflected the cost of producing the merchandise subject to 
investigation.  
 
3. Inconsisten cy with Article  2.4 of the AD Agreement as applied  
The Commission adjusted the export price to remove selling expenses and profit to der ive an f.o.b. 
plant price. For normal value, the Commission refused to deduct selling expenses and  profit 
incurred by an affiliated home market reseller  that were not included in export price . In this 
regards, Australia has acted inconsistently with Artic le 2.4 of the AD Agreement as applied 
because export sales were not sold through an affiliate but home market sales were, and the 
Commission refused to adjust for the expenses and profit incurred by the affiliated home market 
reseller in calculating normal  value. This means the Commission failed to make a fair comparison 
as required by Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement.  
 
Indonesia reserves the right to raise additional factual issues or legal claims or matters during the 
course of consultations and in any req uest for the establishment of a panel.   
 
Indonesia looks forward to receiving the response of Australia to this request and to fixing a 
mutually convenient date and venue for consultation.  
 
__________