WT/DS477/11  
WT/DS478/11  
 
21 February 2017  
(17-1024) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
 INDONESIA – IMPORTATION OF HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCTS,  
ANIMALS AND ANIMAL P RODUCTS  
NOTIFICATION OF AN A PPEAL BY INDONESIA  
UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 A ND ARTICLE 17 OF THE  UNDERSTANDING ON RUL ES 
AND PROCEDURES GOVER NING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU),  
AND UNDER RUL E 20(1) OF THE WORKI NG PROCEDURES FOR AP PELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 17 February 2017 , from the delegation of Indonesia , is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, 
Indonesia hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal to the 
Appellate  Body certain issues of law and legal inte rpretation covered in the Panel Report entitled 
Indonesia — Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and Animal Products 
(WT/DS477/R,  WT/DS478/R), which was circulated on 22  December  2016 (the "Panel Report").  
Pursuant to Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the  Working  Procedures for Appellate Review, Indonesia is 
simultaneously filing this Notice of Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
 
For the reasons to be further elaborated in its submission to the Appellate Body, Indonesia 
appeals, and requests the A ppellate Body to modify or reverse legal interpretations leading to the 
legal findings and conclusions of the Panel, with respect to the following errors contained in the 
Panel Report:1 
 
I. The Panel's findings and conclusions under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1 994  
The Panel erred in law in finding that Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 deals more specifically with 
quantitative import restrictions on agricultural goods than Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. In particular, the Panel failed to apply the pri nciple of lex specialis derogat lege 
generali  as reflected in Article 21.1 of the Agreement of Agriculture.  
 
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusions and the 
Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.31-7.33 of the Panel Report. In addition, 
Indonesia requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.92, 7.112, 
7.134, 7.156, 7.179, 7.200, 7.227, 7.243, 7.270, 7.299, 7.327, 7.349, 7.375, 7.398, 7.428, 
7.451, 7.478, and 7.501 as well as paragraph 8.1.b of its Report.  
 
II. The Panel's findings and conclusions under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  
The Panel further erred in law in allocating the burden of proof to Indonesia under the second 
element in footnote 1 to Articl e 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. To make a prima facie  case 
under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, a complainant must demonstrate both elements 
                                                
1 Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, this Notice  of Appeal 
includes an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors, without prejudice 
to Indonesia's right to refer to other paragraphs of the Panel  Report in the context of its appeal.  WT/DS477/11 • WT/DS478/11  
 
- 2 - 
 
  set out in footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of that agreement. It must show that the measure at issue  is of 
the type required to be converted into ordinary customs duties, such as a quantitative import 
restriction, and that it is not maintained under, inter alia , any of the public policy exceptions set 
out in Article XX of the GATT 1994.  
 
Indonesia, there fore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusions and the 
Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.34 and 7.833 of the Panel Report. In 
addition, Indonesia requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's finding in para graph 8.2.  
 
III. The Panel's failure to make an objective assessment under Article 11 of the 
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
(DSU)  
The Panel failed to conduct an objective assessment of the applicability of the covered  agreements 
or of the conformity of the Indonesian measures at issue with the covered agreements , as required 
by Article 11 of the DSU . The Panel did not examine the co -complainants' claims under Article 4.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture, which was the a pplicable agreement. The Panel failed to conduct 
an objective assessment of the applicability of Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and to 
allocate the proper burden of proof under the second element of footnote 1 to Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement o n Agriculture.  
 
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusions and the 
Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.31 -7.34 and 7.833 of the Panel Report. In 
addition, Indonesia requests the Appellate Body t o reverse the Panel's findings in paragraphs 7.92, 
7.112, 7.134, 7.156, 7.179, 7.200, 7.227, 7.243, 7.270, 7.299, 7.327, 7.349, 7.375, 7.398, 
7.428, 7.451, 7.478, 7.501, as well as paragraphs 8.1.b and 8.2 of its Report.  
 
IV. The Panel's conclusion under Artic le XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994  
Indonesia considers that the Panel's conclusion that Article XI:2(c) of the GATT  1994 has been 
rendered inoperative by Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture has systemic implications for 
all WTO Members. If the Panel were correct that Article  XI:1 of the GATT 1994 is the agreement 
that deals specifically with quantitative import restrictions on agricultural products, Indonesia 
submits an alternative claim of legal error that the Panel erred in its conclusion under 
Article  XI:2(c) of the GATT 1994.  
 
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to reverse the Panel's conclusion and the Panel's 
legal interpretation contained in paragraphs 7.59 and 7.60 of the Panel Report.   
 
V. The Panel's findings and conclusions under Artic le XX of the GATT 1994  
With respect to Measures 9 through 17, Indonesia submits that the Panel assessed only the 
requirements under the chapeau to Article XX of the GATT 1994. It did not assess any of the 
defences put forward by Indonesia under the applica ble subparagraphs of Article XX before making 
its findings that "Indonesia has failed to demonstrate that Measures 9 to 17 are justified under 
Article XX(a), (b) or (d) of the GATT, as appropriate".  
 
Indonesia, therefore, requests the Appellate Body to rev erse the Panel's conclusions and the 
Panel's legal interpretations contained in paragraphs 7.824, 7.826, 7.827 and 7.829 of the 
Panel  Report. In addition, Indonesia notes that the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice 
to the arguments developed in Indonesia's Appellant's Submission.  
 
__________