RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/ADP/AHG/W/132
14 March 2002
(02-1337)
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
Working Group on ImplementationOriginal:  English
IMPLEMENTATION –RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO THE
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES AND ITS
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION
Replies from Indonesia to Questions from the United States, Canada,
and the European Communities
The following communication, dated 7 March 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Indonesia.
_______________
Question from the United States (G/ADP/AHG/W/131)
To what extent would Indonesia's proposals require a change to the Anti-Dumping
Agreement?
Reply
The proposals made by our Government would require a change to Article 15 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement to ensure that the constructive remedies are defined and made mandatory.  The
constructive remedies should include not only the lesser duty principle, and price undertakings but
also, no measures should be imposed where imports have declined in relative and absolute terms in
the twelve months following the IP.
Indonesia attaches particular importance to the third remedy based on import trends following
the IP.  This would take account of the past experience of Indonesian exporters in that, once an anti-
dumping proceeding is announced, virtually all exports have stopped to the market concerned;  and in
such cases, where import volumes in relative terms and absolute terms have declined, the domestic
industry has already secured protection from the initiation of the proceeding, through to the adoptionof measures.
In addition to these three remedies, the Government of Indonesia also considers that anti-
dumping measures should only apply for a maximum of five years for developing countries.  The
prolongation of anti-dumping measures beyond the five-year period, under expiry review procedures,severely affects the essential interests of developing countries as it may exclude concerned from key
market over very substantial periods of time.G/ADP/AHG/W/132
Page 2
Questions from Canada (G/ADP/AHG/W/130)
Lesser duty and price-undertakings
Q. Paragraph 7.2 of document WT/MIN(01)/17:  How does Indonesia envisage making  its
proposal regarding mandatory lesser duty and undertakings operational?  Would both an
undertaking and a lesser duty be mandatory in each case involving imports from developing
country members?  If so, how does Indonesia envisage this being applied by the investigating
authorities?
Reply
Indonesia considers that the lesser duty principle and undertaking should be mandatory where
measures are to be imposed against a developing country Member.
Investigating authorities could apply this by setting an undertaking at the level of the lesser
duty calculated for those cooperating companies that would accept a price-undertaking.  For thosecompanies that prefer an anti-dumping measure other than a price-undertaking, the measures
concerned should be set at the lesser duty rate.
For the countrywide measures, Indonesia considers that the Investigating Authorities should
be able to impose the measures considered the most appropriate in the light of the cooperationrendered.
With regard to the lesser duty principle in general, Indonesia has expressed reservations in the
past (G/ADP/AHG/W/107) on, inter alia , public interest a judgement to be made solely by the
authorities.  Indonesia also considers that the benefit to developing countries applying the lesser dutyprinciple depends on these issues being addressed.  In addition, if the lesser duty principle were to
become mandatory, it would no longer constitute a constructive remedy for the benefits of developing
countries as it would be available to all Members.  As such, Indonesia also attaches considerable
importance to the other constructive remedies raised.
Negligible volume of imports
Q. The second paragraph of the section dealing with Paragraph 7.3 of document
WT/MIN(01)/17 refers to the termination of an investigation when the volume of imports is
negligible.  Is Indonesia proposing that the i ssue referred to the Committee be expanded to
cover negligible imports as well as de minimis  dumping margins?
Reply
Indonesia considers that the issue referred to the Committee should include negligible imports
and de minimis  dumping margins, as the time periods used for their calculation require clarification.
Investigation period for negligible volume of imports
Q. Paragraph 7.3 of document WT/MIN(01)/17 suggests that the investigation period be
used when determining whether the volume of imports from a country is negligible, but it is
unclear as to which investigation period, the dumping investigation period or the injuryinvestigation period.  Could Indonesia please clarify that point?G/ADP/AHG/W/132
Page 3
Reply
Indonesia acknowledges the practice of setting different IP's for injury and dumping, with
injury being set over a longer period of time in order to assess trends.  However, in establishing a
causal link between dumping and injury, the relevant period is the dumping investigation period.Indonesia  considers that it is the dumping investigation period where the three conditions of dumping
injury and causality have to be met, that should be used to establish whether imports are negligible or
not.
Question by the European Communities (G/ADP/AHG/W/129)
Q1. After initiation of an anti-dumping investigation imports may decline for several
reasons, e.g. as a mere reaction to the initiation  of an anti-dumping investigation or because
anti-dumping practices have been abandoned on a lasting basis. Could Indonesia please expand
on whether and if so how these two scenarios should be distinguished?
Q2. How does Indonesia envisage the practical implementation of its proposal since  data
concerning the imports for the 12 months following the IP will only be available with a certain
delay?
Q3. Should the investigating authorities carry out a new ex officio investigation following the
end of the investigation period in order to find out whether imports have declined?
Reply
Indonesia wishes to stress the importance it attaches to the Committee on Anti-Dumping
Practices, and as such, Indonesia has sent delegations directly from our capital to attend most of theCommittee sessions held.  In view of the limited financial resources available to Indonesia, we are of
course concerned to optimise the results achieved at the Committee meetings;  and our grievance is
that the Committee appears not to be able to respond effectively to concerns expressed on on-going
anti-dumping proceedings.  Quite often, past issues raised have been referred back to later sessions
because the delegates present may not, understandably, be aware of the particular proceeding
concerned.
Indonesia would propose that the Committee should establish a procedure whereby the
Member could meet with the Investigating Authority concerned with an official of the WTO
Secretariat present as third party to discuss a particular proceeding, and that the WTO Secretariat
would express in writing or orally an opinion on the case.  This opinion would be non-binding;  it
could serve the purpose of clarification and could be constructively used, if the Member so wishes, inthe on-going proceeding concerned.
Indonesia considers that such a mechanism would at least provide an outlet at the WTO level
to discuss on-going proceedings.
__________