Anti-Dumping Dispute Settlement of A4 Paper Products Export between Indonesia and Australia
Authors: Wicaksono Raden Mas Try Ananto Djoko , Nurhayati Irna 
Published: July 2022

Indonesia sebagai salah satu negara yang sering dituduh melakukan dumping produk kertas A4 menimbulkan sebuah pertanyaan karena Australia menjadi negara terkini yang menuduh tindakan dumping atas produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, yang mana sebelumnya Indonesia pernah mendapat tuduhan dari Korea Selatan (2002), Afrika Selatan (2003) dan Jepang (2012). Hal yang seharusnya menjadi perhatian oleh produsen dan pemerintah Indonesia dalam kasus tuduhan dumping oleh negara luar adalah masalah like product serta kekaburan hukum atas klausul PMS (particular market situation), yang mana selama proses persidangan, baik Indonesia, Australia maupun pihak ketiga memiliki argumentasi masing-masing terkait interpretasi dalam menentukan definisi dari PMS karena belum adanya definisi yang jelas. Penelitian ini menganalisis bagaimana WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan analisis menggunakan metode kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan Australia mengenakan BMAD terhadap produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, telah melanggar Pasal 2.2 dan 2.2.1.1 Perjanjian Anti-Dumping WTO. Lalu, WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa anti-dumping ekspor A4 antara Indonesia dengan Australia menentukan bahwa tidak adanya elemen atau batasan terkait dengan intervensi pemerintah. Hal tersebut dikarenakan intervensi pemerintah tidak secara otomatis diterjemahkan secara negatif, karena tidak ada batasan pasti terkait kapan dan bagaimana intervensi pemerintah dapat dianggap berbahaya bagi pasar yang berdampak.

Kata-Kata Kunci: Anti-Dumping, Particular Market Situation, Penyelesaian Sengketa Dagang Internasional, WTO.

Indonesia as one of the countries that are often accused of dumping A4 paper products raises a question because Australia emerged as the latest country that accuse Indonesian products, in which Indonesia had previously been accused by South Korea (2002), South Africa (2003), and Japan (2012). Things that should be of concern to producers and the Indonesian government in cases of dumping accusations by foreign countries are the issue of like the product and legal ambiguity over the PMS (particular market situation) clause, which during the trial process, both Indonesia, Australia, and third parties had their arguments, each comply to their own interpretation in determining the definition of PMS because there is no clear definition. This study will analyze how the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from dispute cases. The research is normative juridical law research which conducted the analysis using qualitative methods. The results of the study show that Australia's policy of imposing BMAD on A4 paper products from Indonesia has violated Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Then, the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from the A4 export anti-dumping dispute case between Indonesia and Australia, determining that there are no elements or limitations related to government intervention. This is because government intervention is not automatically translated negatively, as there is no definite limit to when and how government intervention can be deemed harmful to the impacting market.

Keywords: Anti-Dumping, International Trade Dispute Resolution, Particular Market Situation, WTO.