WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/Q1/IDN/9 
11 May 2012 
 (12-2547) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
 
Replies to Questions posed by MALAYSIA
1 
Regarding the Notification of INDONESIA2 
   The following communication, dated 2 May 2012, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Indonesia.    
_______________ 
 
 
Question 1 
 
 Article 79 of the Indonesia Government Regulation Number 34 of 2011 concerning Anti-
Dumping Measures, Countervailing Measures, and Safeguard Measures states that a hearing 
will be conducted during the course of investigation.  However, unlike Article 19 of the 
Presidential Decree No. 84/2002, Article 79 does no t provide explicitly on how the hearing will 
be conducted in term of timeframe for subm ission of views from interested party. 
 
 Malaysia would appreciate Indonesia's explanation on this. 
 Reply 
 
 Although Article 79 of Government Regulati on Number 34/ 2011 concerning Anti-Dumping, 
Countervailing and Safeguard Measure s is silent on how the hearing will be conducted in terms of 
timeframes for the submission of views, in order to take account of arguments that are raised orally, 
the practice of the Indonesian Authority is to require interested parties to supply information in writing either before, during or not later than five days after the hearing.   
 Question 2   In accordance to Article 12 of WTO Safeguards Agreement, the country proposing to 
apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provi de adequate opportunity for consultation. 
However, the regulation does not specify any pr ovision for consultation to the affected 
countries.  
 
 Could the Government of Indonesia clarify where is the provision for the affected countries to seek for consultation?  
                                                      
1 G/SG/Q1/IDN/6.   
2 G/SG/N/1/IDN/3.   G/SG/Q1/IDN/9 
Page 2  
 
  Reply 
 
 Where the Government Regulation 34/2011 is sile nt on provisions that may exist in the WTO 
Safeguard Agreement, the Agreement prevails  to include the provisions of Article 12.   
 
Question 3 
 
 Article 17 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) stipulates that a Member shall 
provide adequate opportunity for consultation before referring to the Dispute Settlement Body 
(DSB) if a mutually agreed solution failed to achieve. In view of this, Article 79 of the Indonesia Government Regulation Number 34 of 2011 mentioned that any objection against the 
imposition of Anti-dumping Measures, Count ervailing Measures and Safeguard Measures can 
only be addressed through the DSB of the World Trade Organization.   
 Is there any provision in this new legislat ion where affected countries could resolve the 
disagreement or objection at bilateral le vel before bringing it up to the DSB? 
 Reply 
 
 The GOI Indonesia favors resolving agreements at the bilateral level where possible.  As 
stated under the response to 2 above, where Government Regulation 34/2011 is silent from 
obligations that may flow from the WTO Anti-dum ping Agreement, the ADA prevails which includes 
provisions under article 17. 
 
Question 4 
 
 Article 13 of WTO ADA states that: 
 
"Each Member whose national legislation contains provisions on anti-dumping 
measures shall maintain judicial, arbitr al or administrative tribunals or 
procedures for the purpose, inter alia, of the prompt review of administrative 
actions relating to final determinations a nd reviews of determinations within the 
meaning of Article 11.  Such tribunals or  procedures shall be independent of the 
authorities responsible for the dete rmination or review in question." 
 
 In regards to this article, Malaysia would appreciate if Indonesia could clarify how Article 99 (1) and (2) of this regulation could fulfil Indonesian obligation under Article 13 of 
WTO ADA?  
Reply 
  The purpose of Government Regulation 34 /2011 is to elaborate provisions on the 
implementation of the anti-dumping, countervailing a nd safeguard measures, it is intended to create 
greater transperancey for interested parties and not to  limit the rights of interested parties to challenge 
such determinations through the prevailing legal system . 
 
 The rights of interested parties to review de terminations (as stipulated in Article 9.5 and 
Article 11 of ADA, and Article 19 and Article 21 of ASCM), with regard to Anti-Dumping is 
regulated in Article 31 to Article 36, and as for C ountervailing Measures, it is regulated in Article 64 
to Article 69, of Government Regulation 34/2011.    G/SG/Q1/IDN/9 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Question 5  
  Which provision in the regulation could be u sed if interested parties wish to seek for a 
review?  
Reply 
  In terms of Safeguard Measure, the Gove rnment Regulation 34/2011 does not regulate the 
opportunity to undertake a review based on request by interested parties, as it is not required by the 
WTO Agreement on Safeguards. 
  In terms of Antidumping Measure (as stipulated in Article 9.5 and Article 11 of ADA, and 
Article 19 and Article 21 of ASCM), it is regul ated in Article 31 to Article 36, and as for 
Countervailing Measure, it is regulated in Article  64 to Article 69, of Government Regulation 
34/2011. 
 
 
__________