. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/Q1/IDN/11 
23 May 2012 
 (12-2707) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Questions posed by the UNITED STATES Regarding  
the Notification of INDONESIA1 
   The following communication, dated 22 May 2012, is being circulated at the request of the Delegation of the United States.    
_______________ 
 
  The United States thanks Indonesia for its notification of the Government Regulation 34 
of 2011 concerning Antidumping Measure, C ountervailing Measure, and Safeguard Measure  
(hereinafter  Government Regulation 34) and Elucida tion on Government Regulation of the 
Republic of Indonesia Number 34 of 2011 ( hereinafter  Elucidation) and poses the following 
questions:  
1. With regard to Article 1(3) and (25) of  Government Regulation 34, Indonesia defines 
the term "safeguard measure" to mean a measure "to remedy serious injury or to 
prevent threat of serious injury suffered by a domestic industry."  Could Indonesia 
please clarify how this wording is consistent  with wording in Article 5:1 of the WTO 
Agreement on Safeguards and elsewhere in th e Agreement that refers to measures 
necessary "to prevent or remedy serious in jury"?  (To further clarify, Indonesia 
appears to envision that it might apply a safeguard measure in order to prevent the threat of serious injury, as opposed to prev ent serious injury.  Similar wording occurs 
elsewhere in the regulation, including in Article 70(3)). 
 
2. Article 72(4) of Government Regulati on 34 refers to the filing of confidential 
documents and prohibits their disclosure.  It states that "Documents that are declared 
confidential may not be disclosed."  Please indicate whether the KPPI defines the 
term "confidential" documents, whethe r the submitter of the document alone 
determines whether a document is "conf idential" or whether KPPI does using 
objective criteria,  and how this Article is  consistent with Article 3:2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Safeguards, which among ot her things provides that confidential 
treatment may be provided "upon cause being s hown."  It is also noted that similar 
wording appears elsewhere in Regulation 34 (for example, in Article 78(4). 
 
3. Article 74(2)b of Government Regulation 34  requires that the KPPI provide notice of 
the initiation of an investigation to, among ot her persons, "associati ons of importers."  
Please explain what is meant by an "association" of importers, and also please explain how individual importers who are not member s of an association would be notified.  
                                                      
1 G/SG/N/1/IDN/3.   G/SG/Q1/IDN/11 
Page 2  
 
  It should be noted that the term "associations  of importers" occurs in several places in 
Regulation 34 (for example, in Article 76(3)). 
4. Article 80 of Government Regulati on 34 sets out the circumstances under which 
Indonesia might apply a provisional safeguard measure.  Please explain how the test set out in Article 80(1) is consistent with  that in Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards, which provides in part that "I n critical circumstances where delay would 
cause damage which it would be difficult to repair," a member may take a provisional 
measure "pursuant to a preliminary determin ation that there is clear evidence that 
increased imports have caused or are th reatening to cause serious injury."  
 
5. Article 88(1) of Govern ment Regulation 34 states that  petitioners requesting an 
extension of a safeguard measure must submit their request to KPPI "within a 
reasonable period of time before the expiry  date of the safeguard measure."  How 
does Indonesia define the term "reasonable period of time" and will the period of time 
allow KPPI to conduct the necessary inv estigation and provide for input from 
interested parties in conformity with the procedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5 
of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards? 
 
6. Article 88(3) of Government Regulation 34 sets out the test that KPPI will apparently 
apply in deciding whether to recommend an extension of a safeguard measure.  Please explain how this test is consistent with the test in Article 7:2 of the WTO 
Agreement on Safeguards that states that a measure may be extended provided that 
the competent authorities determine that the safeguard measure "continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious inju ry and that there is  evidence that the 
industry is adjusting"? 
 
__________