INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN MEAT AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY BRAZIL
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 21 October 2015
Document codes: WT/DS484/8
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Indonesia
Third parties: U.S., EU, Japan, South Korea, China, Chile, New Zealand, Norway, Vietnam, Paraguay, Taiwan, India, Australia, Argentina, Russia, Canada, Thailand, Oman, Qatar
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 4.2  AgricultureArt. 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4, 5.6, 8, Annex C  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. 2.2  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. 3.2, 3.3  Import LicensingArt. 2.3  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)Art. 2.1  Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)Art. III:4, X:3  GATT 1994Art. 7, Annex B  Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS)

INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN MEAT
AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY BRAZIL
The following communication, dated 15 October 201 5, from the delegation of Brazil to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 16 October 2014, Brazil requested consultati ons with the Government of the Republic of
Indonesia ("Indonesia") pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU"), Ar ticle XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994"), Article 11 of the Ag reement on the Application of Sanitary and
Phytosanitary Measures ("SPS Agreement"), Arti cle 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures ("Import Licensing Agreement"), Article 14 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to
Trade ("TBT Agreement"), and Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture ("Agriculture
Agreement") concerning certain measures imposed by Indonesia on the importation of meat from
fowls of the species Gallus domesticus and products from fowls of the species Gallus domesticus
hereinafter referred to as chicken meat and chicken products.
1 Brazil held consultations with
Indonesia on 15 and 16 December 2014. Those consultations unfortunately failed to settle the
dispute.
As a result, Brazil respectfully requests that a Panel be established to examine this matter
pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994.
As described below, Indonesia: (I) imposes a general prohibition on the importation of chicken
meat and chicken products through the individual and combined operation of WTO-inconsistent
measures; and (II) applies several specific prohibitions and restrictions, through i.e. (i) measures
imposing trade restrictions which do not conform to or are based on international standards; (ii)
measures which are more trade-restrictive than required to achieve its appropriate level of
protection; (iii) undue delay with regard to approval procedures; (iv) discriminatory treatment of
imported chicken meat and chicken products over domestic like products; (v) restrictions on the
importation of chicken meat and chicken products through its import licensing regime; and (vi)
inconsistencies with regard to WTO transparency requirements.
I. GENERAL PROHIBITION ON THE IMPORT ATION OF CHICKEN MEAT AND CHICKEN
PRODUCTS
Indonesia imposes several prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of chicken meat and
chicken products which, combined, have the effect of a general prohibition on the importations of
these products, as follows:

1 The products concerned in the present dispute are referred by the following HS codes of the Gallus
Domesticus species: (i) 0207.11 (whole chicken, not cut into parts, fresh or chilled); (ii) 0207.12 (whole
chicken, not cut into parts, frozen); (iii) 0207.13 (chicken cuts and offal, fresh or chilled); (iv) 0207.14
(chicken cuts and offal, frozen) and; (v) 1602.32 (chicken meat, other leftover meat and blood that has been
processed or preserved).

 Indonesia does not allow the importation of animal and animal products not listed in
the appendices of the relevant regulations 2. With regard to chicken, the list only
contemplates HS codes referred to as whole chicken, fresh or chilled and frozen 3. The
HS codes for chicken meat cut into pieces 4 are not described in any of the "positive
lists" which contain the products that can be imported into Indonesia's territory;5
 Domestic food production (including "staple food" 6, which encompasses chicken meat
and chicken products) and national food reserve are prioritized over food import,
which is only authorized as an exception, when domestic food supply in Indonesia is
not considered "sufficient" by the government;7
 Imports of essential and strategic goods may be prohibited and/or restricted and
prices may be controlled by the Indonesian government. 8 Thus, import and export
operations may be postponed by the Minister of Trade during a force majeure event.
As chicken meat and chicken products fit into the categories of essential and strategic
goods
9, even if they were allowed to enter into Indonesia, their effective importation
would be subject to the discretion of the Minister of Trade;
 The Indonesian government limits the importation of chicken meat and chicken
products to certain intended uses. The importation of chicken meat and chicken
products shall only be allowed to meet the needs of "hotel, restaurant, catering,
manufacturing, other special needs, and modern market";10
 Indonesia has unduly refused to examine and approve the Health Certificates for
poultry products (including chicken meat and chicken products) proposed by Brazil
since 2009;
 Indonesia imposes prohibitions and/or restrictions to importation through its Import
Licensing Regime.11 In order to import chicken meat and chicken products, importers
must obtain import licenses after several approval and overlapping authorization
stages, covered by different regulations and authorities; and
 Indonesia establishes an import prohibition through different regulations regarding
halal slaughtering and labelling requirements for imported chicken meat and chicken
products.12
Brazil understands that the legal instruments through which Indonesia maintains these measures
are:
 Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18/2012 Concerning Food ("Food Law"), in
particular Articles 14, 15, 36, 55 and 56;

2 The products allowed to be imported by Indonesia are currently listed in the Appendix I and II of MoA
Regulation 139/2014 and the Appendix II of MoT Regulation 46/2013.
3 HS Codes 020711 and 020712.
4 HS Codes 020713 and 020714.
5 Furthermore, the HS code for processed chicken products is not described in the "positive list" of MoA
Regulation 139/2014.
6 According to Article 1.15 of Law 18/2012 ("Food Law"), the term "staple food" means "[…] food that is
intended as the main daily food according to local potential resources and wisdom".
7 The determination of self-sufficiency is under the discretion of the Government authorities. The
Government is empowered to establish a tax and/or tariff policy in favor of national interests or to regulate the
import of staple food (Articles 14, 15, 36, 55 and 56 of Law 18/2012).
8 Law 7/2014 ("Trade Law") imposes a number of measures that institutionalize the government's
central role in trade management as well as provides further instruments towards government intervention and
protectionist actions.
9 According to the Trade Law, strategic goods are defined as goods that have "a strategic role in the
smooth running of national development".
10 See Article 32(2) of MoA Regulation 139/2014.
11 Imports of animals and animal pr oducts, including chicken cuts, whic h are not listed in the HS codes
described in the positive lists of MoA Regulation 139/2014 and of MoT Regulation 46/2013, are prohibited.
Furthermore, through the Trade Law and MoA Regulati on 139/2014, the Indonesian government controls the
type, quantity, price and use of chicken meat and chicken products allowed to be imported into Indonesia.
12 See MoA Regulation 139/2014 and Law 33/2014.

 MoT Regulation 46/2013 on Provisions of Import and Export of Animal and Animal
Product, in particular Appendix II;
 MoA Regulation Number 139/2014 Regarding Importation of Carcass, Meat, and/or Its
Derivatives into the Territory of the Republic of Indonesia ("MoA Regulations
139/2014"), in particular Article 32(2) and Appendix II;
 Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 7 of Year 2014 Concerning Trade ("Trade
Law"), in particular Article 26; and
 Halal Product Assurance Act, Law 33/2014.
as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, or implementing measures.
Brazil considers that the general import prohibition described above is inconsistent with
Indonesia's obligations under the following provisions:
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 as these measures are a "prohibition or restriction other
than duties, taxes or other charges" instituted or maintained on the importation of
products into Indonesia;
 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as these measures are "of the kind which
have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties";
 Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, since Indonesia's measures are applied beyond the
extent necessary to protect human and animal life, are not based upon scientific
principles, and are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence;
 Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreem ent since the Indonesian measures do not
conform to nor are based on international standards, guidelines or recommendations
and, without any scientific justification, result in a higher level of sanitary and
phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on the relevant
international standards, guidelines or recommendations;
 Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement since these measures restrict the
importation of the products without a proper assessment of the risk;
 Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, since In donesia maintains sanitary measures that
are more trade restrictive than required to achieve its appropriate level of protection;
 Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement as the undue delay impedes the
completion of control, inspection and approval procedures towards the importation of
chicken meat and chicken products to Indonesia;
 Articles 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as the Indonesian measures are applied with a view
to and with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade; and
 Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, as these
measures, combined, have trade-restrictive effects on imports.
II. SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBIT IONS ON THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN
MEAT AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS
In addition to the general prohibition on imports of the products at issue, Indonesia also applies
individual restrictions and prohibitions on the importation of chicken meat and chicken products.

i Indonesia maintains measures restricting and prohibiting imports of chicken meat
and chicken products which do not conform to nor are based on international
standards
Indonesia imposes several specific restrictions on the importation of chicken meat and chicken
products, which do not conform to nor are based on international standards, guidelines or
recommendations. These restrictions derive from the following measures:
 Prohibition on the importation of chicken cuts, as the relevant regulations only allow
the whole chicken, fresh or chilled and frozen.
13 The HS codes for chicken meat cut
into pieces14 are not described in any of the "positive lists" which contain the products
that can be imported into Indonesia's territory;
 Limitation of the importation of chicken meat and chicken products to certain intended
uses. The importation of chicken meat and chicken products shall only be allowed to
meet the needs of "hotel, restaurant, cate ring, manufacturing, other special needs,
and modern market";15
 Restrictions on the transportation of import ed products by limiting the ports of entry
for chicken meat and chicken products, and also by requiring direct transportation
from the country of origin to the entry points in Indonesia. The transportation
requirements for imported chicken meat and chicken products have no scientific
justification and appear to be imposed by Indonesia to add further obstacles to the
importation of those products.
16
Brazil understands that the legal instruments through which Indonesia maintains these measures
are:
 Law N. 18/2009 on Husbandry and Animal He alth (" Law 18/2009"), as amended by
Law 41/2014;
 MoA Regulation 83/2012, in particular Article 6; and
 MoA Regulation 139/2014, in particular Articles 20(1), 32(1) and Appendix II.
as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, or implementing measures.
Brazil considers that the measures described above are inconsistent with Indonesia's obligations
under the following provisions:
 Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreem ent since the Indonesian measures do not
conform to nor are based on international standards, guidelines or recommendations
and, without any scientific justification, result in a higher level of sanitary and
phytosanitary protection than would be achieved by measures based on the relevant
international standards, guidelines or recommendations;
 Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement as these measures restrict the
importation of the products without a proper assessment of the risk;
 Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement since Indonesia's measures are applied beyond the
extent necessary to protect human and animal life, are not based upon scientific
principles, and are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence;
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 as these measures are a "prohibition or restriction other
than duties, taxes or other charges" instituted or maintained on the importation of
products into Indonesia; and

13 HS Codes 020711 and 020712.
14 HS Codes 020713 and 020714.
15 See Article 32(2) of MoA Regulation 139/2014.
16 See Article 6 of MoT Regulation 83/2012 and Article 20 of MoA Regulation 139/2014.

 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as these measures are "of the kind which
have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties".
ii. Indonesia maintains measures which are more trade restrictive than required to
achieve its appropriate level of protection
Indonesia adopts measures imposing several restri ctions on the importation of chicken meat and
chicken products, which are more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve its appropriate level
of sanitary protection. These restrictions derive from the following measures:
 Prohibition on the importation of chicken cuts, as the relevant regulations only allow
the whole chicken, fresh or chilled and frozen.
17 The HS codes for chicken meat cut
into pieces18 are not described in any of the "positive lists" which contain the products
that can be imported into Indonesia's territory;
 Limitation of the importation of chicken meat and chicken products to certain intended
uses. The importation of chicken meat and chicken products shall only be allowed to
meet the needs of "hotel, restaurant, cate ring, manufacturing, other special needs,
and modern market";
19
 Restrictions on the transportation of import ed products by limiting the ports of entry
for chicken meat and chicken products, and also by requiring direct transportation
from the country of origin to the entry points in Indonesia. The transportation
requirements for imported chicken meat and chicken products have no scientific
justification and appear to be imposed by Indonesia to add further obstacles to the
importation of those products.
Brazil understands that the legal instruments through which Indonesia maintains these measures
are:
 Law N. 18/2009 on Husbandry and Animal He alth (" Law 18/2009"), as amended by
Law 41/2014;
 MoA Regulation 83/2012, in particular Article 6; and
 MoA Regulation 139/2014, in particular Articles 20(1), 32(1) and Appendix II.
as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, or implementing measures.
Brazil considers that by maintaining measures which are more restrictive than required to achieve
its appropriate level of protection Indonesia is in breach of the following WTO provisions:
 Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, since In donesia maintains sanitary measures that
are more trade restrictive than required to achieve its appropriate level of protection;
 Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, since Indonesia's measures are applied beyond the
extent necessary to protect human and animal life, are not based upon scientific
principles, and are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence;
 Articles 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as the Indonesian measures are applied with a view
to and with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade;
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 as these measures are a "prohibition or restriction other
than duties, taxes or other charges" instituted or maintained on the importation of
products into Indonesia; and

17 HS Codes 020711 and 020712.
18 HS Codes 020713 and 020714.
19 See Article 32(2) of MoA Regulation 139/2014.

 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as these measures are "of the kind which
have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties".
iii. Undue Delay with regard to approval procedures
Indonesia has unduly refused to examine and approve the Health Certificates for poultry products
(including chicken meat and chicken products) pr oposed by Brazil. The unjustified delay on the
approval procedures has lasted six years. Since 2009, Indonesia has never provided a formal
satisfactory answer for the non-approval of the Brazilian health certificates.
Brazil considers that by unduly refusing to procee d with the approval procedures Indonesia is in
breach of the following provision:
 Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement as the undue delay impedes the
completion of control, inspection and approval procedures towards the importation of
chicken meat and chicken products to Indonesia.
iv. Indonesia maintains measures which di scriminate against imported chicken meat
and chicken products
Indonesia discriminates chicken meat and chicken products imported from third countries vis-à-vis
its domestic like products through the following measures:
 Law 18/2012 establishes that the Indonesian government shall prioritize domestic
food production and national food reserve ov er imports. Most of the provisions of Law
18/2012 are explicitly designed to protect the domestic industries of "Staple Food"
products and grant a more favourable treatment to national products in detriment of
foreign products;
 Indonesia prohibits the importation of chicken meat cut into pieces
20 while
domestically produced chicken cuts are largely traded in its domestic market;
 Imported chicken meat and chicken products may only be allowed to enter the
Indonesian market to meet specific uses as described in Article 32(2) of MoA
Regulation 139/2014: "hotels, restaurants, catering, manufacturing, other special
needs and modern market". It means that chicken meat and chicken products will not
be allowed to be imported if they are not for the specific purposes established by the
relevant legislation. There is no such restriction of use for like domestic products; and
 Surveillance and implementation of halal sl aughtering and labelling requirements for
imported chicken meat and chicken products established by different Indonesian
regulations
21 are much stricter than the surveill ance and the implementation of halal
requirements applied to the domestic production in Indonesia.
Brazil understands that the legal instruments through which Indonesia maintains these measures
are:
 Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18/2012 Concerning Food ("Food Law"), in
particular Articles 14, 15, 36, 55 and 56;
 MoT Regulation 46/2013, in particular Appendix II;
 Law 7/2014 ("Trade Law") , in particular Article 26;
 MoA Regulation 139/2014, in particular Articles 13, 21, 32(2) and Appendix II; and
 Halal Product Assurance Act, Law 33/2014.

20 According to the "positive lists" established by the Appendices of MoA Regulation 139/2014 and MoT
Regulation 46/2013.
21 See MoA Regulation 139/2014 and Law 33/2014.

as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, or implementing measures.
Brazil considers that the abovementioned measures are inconsistent with Indonesia's obligations
under the following provisions:
 Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement as these measures consist in an arbitrarily and
unjustifiably discrimination between imported products in identical or similar
conditions to domestic products;
 Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as the Indonesian halal measures accord
less favourable treatment to imported products than that accorded to like products of
national origin; and
 Article III.4 of GATT 1994 as these measures accord to the imported products less
favorable treatment than that accorded to like domestic products.
v. Restrictions on the importation of ch icken meat and chicken products through
Indonesia's Import Licensing regime
Indonesia's import licensing regime restricts and/or prohibits the importation of chicken meat and
chicken products. The importer may obtain an import licensing after several approvals,
authorizations and recommendations granted under the discretion of Indonesian authorities, which
comprises: (i) an Importer Designation from the Ministry of Trade for animals and animal
products; (ii) an animal and animal products Import Recommendation from the Ministry of
Agriculture; and (iii) an Import Approval from the Ministry of Trade.
Moreover, Indonesia's trade-restrictive import licensing regime for chicken meat and chicken
products includes, but is not limited to, the following measures:
 Importation activities in Indonesia may only be conducted by importer who has the
Importer Identity Number (API). 22 Along with the requirement of having an API,
Indonesia requires the importer who is conducting customs operations to be
registered before the Director General of Customs and Excise. 23 Moreover, as chicken
is encompassed by the category of "certain products", the importer is subject to the
accreditation as a registered importer of "certain products" (IT of Certain Products)
under the discretion of the Minister of Trade;
24
 Indonesian legislation establishes that Recommendations and Import Approvals are
valid for limited time periods. Recommendations are valid until the end of the relevant
year, while Import Approvals are valid for periods of three months. Importers may
apply for Recommendations and Import Approvals only during limited time periods
before the beginning of each period of validity, and Indonesia issues the respective
documents only at the beginning of each period. Furthermore, importers must
complete all the operations of importation of animals and animal products – covered
by the respective Recommendations and Import Approvals – within a given period of
validity. Thus, all import operations must be loaded, shipped, transported, delivered,
and cleared at the customs within the period for which the related Import Approval is
valid (usually only until the end of the relevant year). Indonesia prohibits or restricts
the importation of animals and animal products covered by Recommendations and
Import Approvals issued for a previous period, which are considered expired;
 When applying for Recommendations and Import Approvals, importers must indicate
the specific products to be imported, as well as the quantity, country of origin, port of
entry, and intended use. Once issued , Recommendations and Import Approvals
specify the type, quantity, country of origin , port of entry, and use of the products
that each importer may purchase during the relevant three-month period. Importers
are not allowed to import products of a different type, in a greater quantity, from

22 See Article 3, paragraph 1 of MoT Regulation 54/2009.
23 See MoF Decree 454/2002
24 See Article 3 of MoT Regulation 83/2012.

another country, through a different port, or for a different use than those specified in
their Recommendations and Import Approvals;
 The MoA Regulations – and a MoT Recommendat ion – limit the type and quantity of
animal products allowed to be imported by determining the types and quantities of
products specified in a Recommendation or Import Approval;25 and
 To secure price stabilization, import licenses may not be granted by the Indonesian
authorities to attend its objectives of price policy and import management.
Brazil understands that the legal instruments through which Indonesia maintains these measures
are:
 Minister of Finance Decree 454/KMK.04/2002 on registration of Importer ("MoF
Decree 454/2002") , in particular Article 1;
 Law 18/2009, as amended by Law 41/2014, in particular Article 59;
 Minister of Trade Regulation N.54/M-DAG/PER/102009 on General Provisions on
Import ("MoT regulation 54/2009"), in particular Article 3(1);
 Regulation of the Minister of Trade No . 27/M-DAG/PER/5/2012 on Provisions of
Importer Identity Number, as amended by Minister of Trade Regulation No. 59/M-
DAG/PER/9/2012 and Minister of Trade Re gulation No. 84/M-DAG/PER/12/2012 ("MoT
Regulation 27/2012"), in particular Articles 2, 3 and 4;
 Regulation of the Minister of Trade No . MoT Regulation 83/M-DAG/PER/12/2012, in
particular Articles 3 and 4;
 MoT Regulation 46/2013, in particular Article 9(1) and 11(2); and
 MoA Regulation 139/2014, in particular Articles 4 and 23.
as well as any amendments, replacements, related measures, or implementing measures.
Brazil considers that these measures described above are inconsistent with Indonesia's obligations
under the following provisions:
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 as these measures are "prohibitions or restrictions other
than duties, taxes or other charges" instituted or maintained on the importation of
products into Indonesia;
 Articles 3.2 and 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, as these
measures, combined, have trade-restrictive effects on imports; and
 Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as these measures are "of the kind which
have been required to be converted into ordinary customs duties."
vi. Inconsistencies with regard to WTO transparency requirements
By not notifying to the WTO the relevant laws and regulations, Indonesia is in breach with WTO
transparency requirements. Considering the lack of notification of several of its relevant
legislations, Indonesia is in breach with its obligations under the following provisions:
 Articles X:1 and X:3 of GATT 1994 as Indonesia's laws and regulations are not
administered in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner;

25 See, e.g., Article 28 of MoA Regulation 139/2014 (stating that the quantity of animal product
specified in a Recommendation is set by the Ministry of Trade).

 Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, as Indonesia did not notify other
Members, through the Secretariat, of the pr oducts to be covered by the regulation
together with a brief indication of the objective and rationale of the proposed
regulation;
 Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures as the lack of information
on the licensing requirements restrict the other Members' and traders' rights to know
the basis for granting and/or allocating licenses in Indonesia.

Therefore, Brazil respectfully requests that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to
examine this matter, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7.1 of the DSU.