PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS ON CERTAIN PAPER PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY INDONESIA
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 13 May 2014
Document codes: WT/DS470/2
Complainant: Indonesia
Respondent: Pakistan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5.10  Anti-dumpingArt. X:3(a), XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 11.11  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. 10, 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:3  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

PAKISTAN – ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY INVESTIGATIONS
ON CERTAIN PAPER PRODUCTS FROM INDONESIA
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY INDONESIA
The following communication, dated 12 May 2014, from the delegation of Indonesia to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 27 November 2013, Indonesia requested consulta tions with Pakistan pursuant to Article 4 of
the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Govern ing the Settlement of Disputes, Article 17.3 of
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreemen t on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement"), Articl e 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (the "SCM Agreement"), and Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994").
1
The request for consultations concerned the initiation and continuation by Pakistan of, and its
failure to terminate in a timely manner, certain anti-dumping and countervailing duty
investigations of imports of certain paper products from Indonesia (the "measures").
Consultations were held in Geneva on 27 Febr uary 2014 with a view to reaching a mutually
satisfactory solution. These consultations clarified certain issues pertaining to this matter, but
failed to resolve the dispute. Therefore, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2
of the GATT 1994, Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement and Article 30 of the SCM
Agreement, Indonesia requests that the Dispute Settlement Body establish a panel to examine this
matter.
A. THE MEASURES AT ISSUE
a. The Anti-Dumping Investigation
The first measure at issue consists of the initiation, continuation and failure to terminate in a
timely manner an anti-dumping investigation of imports of certain paper products from Indonesia
(the "anti-dumping investigation at issue") that was initiated on 10 November 2011 by Pakistan's
National Tariff Commission (the "Commission").
2
Indonesia understands that the relevant Pakistani national laws applicable to anti-dumping
investigations are the National Tariff Commission Act of 19903, the Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance
of 20004, the Anti-Dumping Duties (Amendment) Act of 20115, and the Anti-Dumping Duties Rules

1 Request for Consultations, Pakistan – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Certain
Paper Products from Indonesia, WT/DS470/1, G/ADP/D99/1, G/SCM/D99/1, G/L/1059, 2 December 2013.
2 See "Notice of Initiation of Antidumping Investigation Against Alleged Dumped of Writing Printing
Paper into Pakistan Originating in and/or exported from China, Indonesia, Japan and Thailand", ADC No
26/2011/NTC/CP, 10 November 2011.See also, Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, "Semi-Annual Report of
Anti-Dumping Actions for the period 1 July – 31 December 2012 by Pakistan", G/ADP//N/237/PAK,
27 March 2013.
3 An Act to provide for the establishment of the National Tariff Commission, (Act No.VI of 1990).
4 Ordinance No. LXV of 2000to amend and consolidate the law relating to imposition of anti-dumping
duties to offset such dumping (F.No.2(1)/2000-Pub).

of 2001. 6In particular, Article 29 of the Anti-Dumpi ng Duties Ordinance of 2000 provides that
"[t]he Commission shall, except in special circumstances, conclude an investigation within twelve
months, and in no case more than eighteen months after its initiation. "In this case, however, the
investigation was not concluded within 18 months.
Instead, on 12 December 2011, the investigation was suspended by the Islamabad High Court. On
24 May 2012, the Islamabad High Court issued a decision declaring that the investigation was
inconsistent with Pakistani domestic law. This decision was subsequently appealed. To
Indonesia's knowledge, a further judgment has been rendered in this matter, but Indonesia has
not been officially informed of the content of this judgment.
As far as Indonesia is aware, therefore, more than two years after the initiation of the
investigation, the Commission has issued neither a final determination nor a notice terminating the
investigation.
b. The Countervailing Duty Investigation
The second measure at issue consists of the initiation, continuation and failure to terminate in a
timely manner a countervailing duty investigation of alleged subsidized imports of certain paper
products from Indonesia that was initiated by the Commission on 23 November 2011(the
"countervailing duty investigation at issue").
7
Indonesia understands that the relevant Pakistani national laws applicable to countervailing duty
investigations are the National Tariff Commission Act of 1990, the Countervailing Duties Ordinance
of 2001
8 and the Countervailing Duties Rules of 2002. 9 Article 12.8 of the Countervailing Duties
Ordinance of 2001 provides, in relevant part, that "[a]n investigation shall, whenever possible, be
concluded within one year and in no event later than eighteen months from its initiation […]."In
this case, however, the investigation was not concluded within 18 months.
Instead, it was interrupted by court proceedings. The Peshawar High Court dismissed a petition
from certain importers seeking that the investigation be declared illegal. On 18 December 2012,
however, the Peshawar High Court granted interi m relief suspending the investigation while the
Court's determination on the consistency of the investigation with Pakistani domestic law was
pending. On 28January 2014, the Peshawar High Court issued a definitive ruling declaring that the
investigation was legal under the law of Pakistan.
As far as Indonesia is aware, therefore, more than two years after the initiation of the
investigation, Pakistan has issued neither a final determination nor a notice terminating the
countervailing duty investigation at issue.
B. LEGAL BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT
a. The Anti-Dumping Duty Investigation
With respect to the anti-dumping duty investigation, Pakistan's apparent continuation of, and
failure to terminate this investigation formally and in a timely manner despite the expiry of the 18-
month time limit stipulated by the Anti-Dumping Agreement appears to be inconsistent with the
following provisions of WTO law:

5 Act No. XXIII of 2011 to amend the Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance of 2000 (No. F. 22 (29)/2008-
Legis).
6 Anti-Dumping Duties Rules of 2001 (S.R.O. 203(I)/2001).
7 See "Notice of Initiation of an Investigation against Alleged Subsidised Imports of Certain
Writing/Printing Paper into Pakistan Originating In and Exported (sic) Indonesia and Thailand", CVD
No.2/2011/NTC7CP, 23 November 2011.See also, Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,
"Semi-Annual Report of Countervailing Duty Actions for the period 1 July – 31 December 2013 by Pakistan",
G/SCM/N/267/PAK, 4 March 2014.
8 Ordinance No.1 of 2001 to amend and consolidate the law relating to imposition of countervailing
duties to offset subsidies (F.No.2(1)/2001-Pub).
9 Countervailing Duties Rules of 2002 (S.R.O. 599 (I)/2002).

 Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which requires that any anti-dumping
duty investigation be terminated "in no case" later than 18 months from the date of
initiation.
 Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 because, by virtue of its failure to terminate this
investigation within the timeframe provided for in Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement as well as in Pakistani legislation and regulations incorporating these
agreements into Pakistani law, Pakistan fails to administer its anti-dumping and
countervailing laws, regulations, decisions and rulings in a uniform, reasonable and
impartial manner.
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the "chilling effect" on imports of continuing
the anti-dumping investigation at issue beyond the time limit specified by Articles 5.10
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and of Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement, imposes
a limiting condition on the importation of the subject products from Indonesia. This
amounts to a "prohibition[] or restriction[]" on importation, within the meaning of,
and inconsistently with, Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
 Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, as well as Articles VI:1 and VI:2
of the GATT 1994, because the continuation of the anti-dumping investigation at
issue, beyond the 18-month time limit specified in Article 5.10 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, constitutes additional impermissible "specific action against dumping"
within the meaning of Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Furthermore, Indonesia considers that Pakistan acts inconsistently with:
 Articles 1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because Pakistan has failed to
take all necessary steps, of a general or particular character, to ensure the conformity
of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. Specifically, in the application of its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures referred to above, Pakistan fails to ensure that all anti-
dumping investigations are concluded or terminated no later than 18 months after
their initiation, as required by Article 5. 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, to the
extent that Pakistani law requires the National Tariff Commission to continue, or
prevents it from concluding or otherwise terminating, an anti-dumping investigation
within the time limit of 18 months required under both WTO and Pakistani law in
circumstances where court proceedings related to that investigation have been
initiated.
b. The Countervailing Duty Investigation
With respect to the countervailing duty investigation, Pakistan's continuation of, and failure to
terminate, this investigation in a timely manner despite the expiry of the 18-month time limit
stipulated by the SCM Agreement, appears to be inconsistent with the following provisions of WTO
law:
 Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement, whic h requires that any countervailing duty
investigation be terminated "in no case" later than 18 months from the date of
initiation.
 Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 because, by virtue of its failure to terminate this
investigation within the timeframe provided for in Article 11.11 of the SCM
Agreement, as well as in Pakistani legislation and regulations incorporating these
agreements into Pakistani law, Pakistan fails to administer its countervailing laws,
regulations, decisions and rulings in a uniform, reasonable and impartial manner.
 Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the "chilling effect" on imports of continuing
the countervailing duty investigation at issue beyond the time limit specified by
Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreements, impose s a limiting condition on the importation
of the subject products from Indonesia. This amounts to a "prohibition[] or

restriction[]" on importation, within the meaning of, and inconsistently with, Article
XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
 Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, as well as Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994,
because the ongoing conduct of the counterva iling duty investigation, beyond the 18-
month time limit specified in Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement, constitutes
additional impermissible "specific action against a subsidy" within the meaning of
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.
Furthermore, Indonesia considers that Pakistan acts inconsistently with:
 Articles 10 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement, because Pakistan has failed to take all
necessary steps, of a general or particular character, to ensure the conformity of its
laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of the SCM
Agreement. Specifically, in the application of its laws, regulations and administrative
procedures referred to above, Pakistan fails to ensure that all countervailing
investigations are concluded or terminated no later than 18 months after their
initiation, as required by Article 11.11 of the SCM Agreement, to the extent that
Pakistani law requires the National Tariff Commission to continue, or prevents it from
concluding or otherwise terminating, a countervailing duty investigation within the
time limit of 18 months required under both WTO and Pakistani law in circumstances
where court proceedings related to that investigation have been initiated.
For these reasons, Indonesia considers that the actions of the Government of Pakistan cannot be
reconciled with Articles 10, 11.11 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Articles X:1 and X:3(a) of
the GATT 1994. Pakistan's measures also nullify an d impair benefits accruing to Indonesia under
those agreements.
Accordingly, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994,
Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement an d Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, Indonesia
requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine this matter. Indonesia further requests that
the panel be established with the standard terms of reference, as set forth in Article 7.1 of the
DSU.
Indonesia asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the DSB meeting to be held on
23 May 2014.