INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN MEAT AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS
Document: RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY BRAZIL REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 10 November 2020
Document codes: WT/DS484/RW
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

RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY BRAZIL
REPORT OF THE PANEL

LIST OF ANNEXES
ANNEX A
WORKING PROCEDURES OF THE PANEL
Contents Page
Annex A-1 Working Procedures of the Panel 4
ANNEX B
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Contents Page
Annex B-1 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Brazil 12
Annex B-2 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Indonesia 25
ANNEX C
ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
Contents Page
Annex C-1 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Australia 34
Annex C-2 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Canada 37
Annex C-3 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of the European Union 41
Annex C-4 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of Japan 44
Annex C-5 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of New Zealand 47
Annex C-6 Integrated executive summary of the arguments of the United States 49

ANNEX D
PRELIMINARY RULING
Contents Page
Annex D-1 Preliminary Ruling of the Panel 51

CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Argentina – Import
Measures
Appellate Body Reports, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of
Goods, / / , adopted
26 January 2015, DSR 2015:II, p. 579
Argentina – Import
Measures
Panel Reports, Argentina – Measures Affecting the Importation of Goods ,
 and Add.1 / and Add.1 / and Add.1,
adopted 26 January 2015, as modified () and upheld (
/ ) by Appellate Body Reports / /
, DSR 2015:II, p. 783
Australia – Apples Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples
from New Zealand, , adopted 17 December 2010, DSR 2010:V,
p. 2175
Australia – Salmon Appellate Body Report, Australia – Measures Affecting Importation of Salmon ,
WT/DS18/AB/R, adopted 6 November 1998, DSR 1998:VIII, p. 3327
Brazil – Taxation

Panel Reports, Brazil – Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges,
WT/DS472/R, Add.1 and Corr.1 / WT/DS497/R, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 11
January 2019, as modified by Appellate Body Reports WT/DS472/AB/R /

Canada – Wheat Exports
and Grain Imports
Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and
Treatment of Imported Grain , WT/DS276/AB/R, adopted 27 September 2004,
DSR 2004:VI, p. 2739
Chile – Price Band System Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23 October
2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3045 (Corr.1, DSR 2006:XII, p. 5473)
China – Intellectual
Property Rights
Panel Report, China – Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of
Intellectual Property Rights, WT/DS362/R, adopted 20 March 2009, DSR 2009:V,
p. 2097
China – Raw Materials Appellate Body Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various
Raw Materials, WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R, adopted
22 February 2012, DSR 2012:VII, p. 3295
China – Raw Materials Panel Reports, China – Measures Related to the Exportation of Various Raw
Materials, WT/DS394/R, Add.1 and Corr.1 / WT/DS395/R, Add.1 and Corr.1 /
WT/DS398/R, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 22 February 2012, as modified by
Appellate Body Reports WT/DS394/AB/R / WT/DS395/AB/R / WT/DS398/AB/R,
DSR 2012:VII, p. 3501
Colombia – Ports of Entry Panel Report, Colombia – Indicative Prices and Restrictions on Ports of Entry ,
WT/DS366/R and Corr.1, adopted 20 May 2009, DSR 2009:VI, p. 2535
Colombia – Textiles (Article
21.5 – Colombia) /
Colombia – Textiles (Article
21.5 – Panama)
Panel Report, Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles,
Apparel and Footwear – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Colombia /
Colombia – Measures Relating to the Importat ion of Textiles, Apparel and
Footwear – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Panama, WT/DS461/RW and
Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 5 October 2018 [appealed by Panama 20
November 2018 – the Division suspended its work on 10 December 2019]
EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech
Products
Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products , WT/DS291/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and Corr.1 /
WT/DS292/R, Add.1 to Add.9 an d Corr.1 / WT/DS293/R, Add.1 to Add.9 and
Corr.1, adopted 21 November 2006, DSR 2006:III, p. 847
EC – Bananas III Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas, WT/DS27/AB/R, adopted 25 September 1997,
DSR 1997:II, p. 591
EC – Bed Linen Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/R, adopted 12 March 2001, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS141/AB/R, DSR 2001:VI, p. 2077
EC – Chicken Cuts Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen
Boneless Chicken Cuts , WT/DS269/AB/R, WT/DS286/AB/R, adopted 27
September 2005, and Corr.1, DSR 2005:XIX, p. 9157
EC – Fasteners (China) Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti -Dumping
Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R,
adopted 28 July 2011, DSR 2011:VII, p. 3995
EC – Hormones Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and
Meat Products (Hormones) , WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13
February 1998, DSR 1998:I, p. 135
EC – Sardines Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines,
WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted 23 October 2002, DSR 2002:VIII, p. 3359

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
EC – Seal Products Panel Reports, European Communities – Measures Prohibiting the Importation
and Marketing of Seal Products , WT/DS400/R and Add.1 / WT/DS401/R and
Add.1, adopted 18 June 2014, as modified by Appellate Body Reports
WT/DS400/AB/R / WT/DS401/AB/R, DSR 2014:II, p. 365
EC – Selected Customs
Matters
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Selected Customs Matters ,
WT/DS315/AB/R, adopted 11 December 2006, DSR 2006:IX, p. 3791
EU – Energy Package Panel Report, European Union and its member States – Certain Measures Relating
to the Energy Sector , WT/DS476/R and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 10
August 2018 [appealed by the European Union 21 September 2018 – the Division
suspended its work on 10 December 2019]
India – Agricultural Products Panel Report, India – Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural
Products, WT/DS430/R and Add.1, adopted 19 June 2015, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS430/AB/R, DSR 2015:V, p. 2663
India – Autos Panel Report, India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector , WT/DS146/R,
WT/DS175/R, and Corr.1, adopted 5 April 2002, DSR 2002:V, p. 1827
India – Patents (US) Appellate Body Report, India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Chemical Products, WT/DS50/AB/R, adopted 16 January 1998, DSR
1998:I, p. 9
India – Solar Cells Panel Report, India – Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules,
WT/DS456/R and Add.1, adopted 14 October 2016, as modified by Appellate Body
Report WT/DS456/AB/R, DSR 2016:IV, p. 1941
India – Quantitative
Restrictions
Panel Report, India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile
and Industrial Products , WT/DS90/R, adopted 22 Septembe r 1999, upheld by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS90/AB/R, DSR 1999:V, p. 1799
Indonesia – Chicken Panel Report, , WT/DS484/R and Add.1, adopted 22 November 2017, DSR
2017:VIII, p. 3769
Indonesia – Import
Licensing Regimes
Appellate Body Report, Indonesia – Importation of Horticultural Products,
Animals and Animal Products , WT/DS477/AB/R, WT/DS478/AB/R, and Add.1,
adopted 22 November 2017, DSR 2017:VII, p. 3037
Indonesia – Import
Licensing Regimes
Panel Report, Indonesia – Importation of Horticultural Products, Animals and
Animal Products , WT/DS477/R, WT/DS478/R, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 22
November 2017, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS477/AB/R,
WT/DS478/AB/R, DSR 2017:VII, p. 3131
Japan – Agricultural
Products II
Appellate Body Report, Japan – Measures Affecting Agric ultural Products ,
WT/DS76/AB/R, adopted 19 March 1999, DSR 1999:I, p. 277
Japan – Apples (Article 21.5
– US)
Panel Report, Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples – Recourse
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS245/RW, adopted 20 July
2005, DSR 2005:XVI, p. 7911
Japan – DRAMs (Korea) Panel Report, Japan – Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access
Memories from Korea, WT/DS336/R, adopted 17 December 2007, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS336/AB/R, DSR 2007:VII, p. 2805
Korea – Alcoholic Beverages Panel Report, Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, WT/DS75/R, WT/DS84/R,
adopted 17 February 1999, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS75/AB/R, WT/DS84/AB/R, DSR 1999:I, p. 44
Korea – Radionuclides Panel Report, Korea – Import Bans, and Testing and Certification Requirements
for Radionuclides, WT/DS495/R and Add.1, adopted 26 April 2019, as modified
by Appellate Body Report WT/DS495/AB/R
Korea – Various Measures
on Beef
Appellate Body Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and
Frozen Beef, WT/DS161/AB/R, WT/DS169/AB/R, adopted 10 January 2001, DSR
2001:I, p. 5
Peru – Agricultural Products Appellate Body Report, Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural
Products, WT/DS457/AB/R and Add.1, adopted 31 July 2015, DSR 2015:VI, p.
3403
Russia – Pigs (EU) Panel Report, Russian Federation – Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs,
Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union, WT/DS475/R and Add.1,
adopted 21 March 2017, as modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS475/AB/R,
DSR 2017:II, p. 361
Russia – Tariff Treatment Panel Report, Russia – Tariff Treatment of Certain Agricultural and Manufacturing
Products, WT/DS485/R, Add.1, Corr.1, and Corr.2, adopted 26 September 2016,
DSR 2016:IV, p. 1547
Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines)
Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes
from the Philippines, WT/DS371/AB/R, adopted 15 July 2011 , DSR 2011:IV, p.
2203
Thailand – Cigarettes
(Philippines) (Article 21.5 –
Philippines)
Panel Report, Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the
Philippines – Recourse to Artic le 21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines ,
WT/DS371/RW and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 12 November 201 8
[appealed by Thailand 9 January 2019 – the Division suspended its work on 10
December 2019]

Short Title Full Case Title and Citation
Turkey – Textiles Appellate Body Report, Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing
Products, WT/DS34/AB/R, adopted 19 November 1999, DSR 1999:VI, p. 2345
US – Animals Panel Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Importation of Animals,
Meat and Other Animal Products from Argentina , WT/DS447/R and Add.1,
adopted 31 August 2015, DSR 2015:VIII, p. 4085
US – Carbon Steel Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R
and Corr.1, adopted 19 December 2002, DSR 2002:IX, p. 3779
US – Carbon Steel (India) Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Carbon Steel Flat Products from India , WT/DS436/AB/R, adopted 19
December 2014, DSR 2014:V, p. 1727
US – Continued Zeroing Appellate Body Report, United States – Continued Existence and Application of
Zeroing Methodol ogy, WT/DS350/AB/R, adopted 19 February 2009, DSR
2009:III, p. 1291
US – Lamb Panel Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled
or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia , WT/DS177/R,
WT/DS178/R, adopted 16 May 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, DSR 2001:IX, p. 4107
US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd
complaint)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil
Aircraft (Second Complaint) , WT/DS353/AB/R, adopted 23 March 2012, DSR
2012:I, p. 7
US – Poultry (China) Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry from
China, WT/DS392/R, adopted 25 October 2010, DSR 2010:V, p. 1909
US – Renewable Energy Panel Report, United States – Certain Measures Relating to the Renewable Energy
Sector, WT/DS510/R and Add.1, circulated to WTO Members 27 June 2019
[appealed by the United States 15 August 2019 – the Division suspended its work
on 10 December 2019]
US – Section 301 Trade Act Panel Report, United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 ,
WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, DSR 2000:II, p. 815
US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Panel Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador ,
WT/DS335/R, adopted on 20 February 2007, DSR 2007:II, p. 425
US – Shrimp (Thailand) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand ,
WT/DS343/R, adopted 1 August 2008, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS343/AB/R / WT/DS345/AB/R, DSR 2008:VII, p. 2539
US – Tuna II (Mexico) Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation,
Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products , WT/DS381/AB/R, adopted 13
June 2012, DSR 2012:IV, p. 1837
US – Tuna II (Mexico)
(Article 21.5 – Mexico)
Panel Report, United States – Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing
and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by
Mexico, WT/DS381/RW, Add.1 and Corr.1, adopted 3 December 2015, as
modified by Appellate Body Report WT/DS381/AB/RW, DSR 2015:X, p. 5409 and
DSR 2015:XI, p. 5653
US – Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool
Shirts and Blouses from India , WT/DS33/AB/R, adopted 23 May 1997, an d
Corr.1, DSR 1997:I, p. 323
US – Zeroing (Japan) Panel Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews,
WT/DS322/R, adopted 23 January 2007, as modified by Appellate Body Report
WT/DS322/AB/R, DSR 2007:I, p. 97
US – Zeroing (EC) (Article
21.5 – EC)
Panel Report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating
Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the
European Communities, WT/DS294/RW, adopted 11 June 2009, as modified by
Appellate Body Report WT/DS294/AB/RW, DSR 2009:VII, p. 3117
US – Zeroing (Japan)
(Article 21.5 – Japan)
Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset
Reviews – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Japan , WT/DS322/AB/RW,
adopted 31 August 2009, DSR 2009:VIII, p. 3441

EXHIBITS REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT
Exhibit Title Short Title (if applicable)
BRA-2 Letter from Ambassador Evandro Didonet to
Ambassador Hasan Kleib (29 March 2018)

BRA-10 Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Agriculture,
Regulation 34/2016
MoA 34/2016
BRA-11 Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Agriculture,
Regulation 23/2018
MoA 23/2018
BRA-3 Letter from Ambassador Hasan Kleib to Ambassador
Evandro Didonet (31 May 2018)

BRA-5 Letter from Ambassador Evandro Didonet to
Ambassador Hasan Kleib (12 September 2018)

BRA-7 Letter from the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia
(Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health
Services) to the Ambassador of Brazil to Indonesia
(25 June 2019)

BRA-18 Brazil’s response to the 25 June 2019 letter from
the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of
Indonesia (Directorate General of Livestock and
Animal Health) (2 August 2019)

BRA-15 Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Trade, Regulation
29/2019
MoT 29/2019
IDN-1 Minister of Agriculture Regulation 42/2019 MoA 42/2019
IDN-2 Minister of Trade Regulation 72/2019 MoT 72/2019
IDN-7 Decree concerning the appointment of Desk Review
Team in 2018 issued by Director of Veterinary Public
Health

IDN-8 Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18
(Compliance Communication)

IDN-13 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert
Committee in 2014 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health

IDN-19 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert
Committee in 2019 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health

IDN-22 Minutes of Meeting from Director of Veterinary
Public Health regarding the desk review result on
Brazil’s application on 17 June 2019

IDN-24 Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18/Add.10
(Compliance Communication)

IDN-27 Letter to Brazil Ambassador for Indonesia from
Director General of Livestock and Animal Health
Services, Ministry of Agriculture on 14 October 2019
concerning the Result of Desk Review on Brazil’s
Application

IDN-43 Email correspondence between the Permanent
Mission of the Republic of Indonesia to the
representative of Permanent Mission of Brazil to the
WTO on 8 March 2018 regarding the questionnaires
of country of origin and also business unit

IDN-44 Sample of Import Recommendation and Import
Approval issued for one company

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT
Abbreviation Description
DSB Dispute Settlement Body
DSU Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
GATT 1994 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
MoA Regulation Regulation of the Minister of Agriculture or Regulation of the Ministry of
Agriculture
MoT Regulation Regulation of the Minister of Trade or Regulation of the Ministry of Trade
OIE World Organization for Animal Health
RPT Reasonable period of time
SPS Agreement Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
WTO World Trade Organization

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Complaint by Brazil
1.1. This case concerns Indonesia's compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the dispute . Brazil claims that Indonesia has failed to bring into conformity
with its WTO obligations the four measures that the original panel found to be inconsistent with the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT 1994), and the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
1.2. The DSB adopted the panel report in the original proceeding on 22 November 2017 .1 On
15 December 2017, Indonesia informed the DSB that it wa s impracticable for Indonesia to comply
immediately with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute and th at it, therefore,
required a reasonable period of time (RPT) in which to do so. 2 On 15 March 2018, Brazil and
Indonesia informed the DSB of their mutual agreement , made pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the
DSU, that the RPT for Indonesia to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings would be
eight months from the date of the adoption of the panel report, expiring on 22 July 2018.3
1.2 Panel establishment and composition
1.3. On 27 July 2018, Brazil and Indonesia informed the DSB that the two parties concluded
agreed procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the D SU (Agreed Procedures).4 Paragraph 1 of the
Agreed Procedures provides that "[i]f Brazil deems it appropriate to invoke Article 21.5 of the DSU,
Brazil may at any time request the establishment of a compliance panel pursuant to that Article." It
further provides that "Brazil will not need to hold pr evious consultations with Indonesia before
requesting the establishment of the panel".
1.4. On 13 June 2019, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 6 and 21.5
of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article
11 of the SPS Agreement.5 At its meeting on 24 June 2019, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5
of DSU, to refer to the original panel , if possible, the matter raised by Brazil in document

1.5. One member of the original panel was unavailable for this proceeding. On 31 July, the Panel
was composed, as follows:
Chairperson: Mr Sufyan AL-IRHAYIM

Members: Ms Delilah CABB AYALA
 Ms Claudia OROZCO

1.6. The Panel's terms of reference are as follows:
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by
the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil in document
WT/DS484/19 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.7
1.7. Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Japan, the Republic of Korea,
New Zealand, Norway, the Russian Federation, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the United States
reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceeding as third parties.

1 DSB, Minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2017, WT/DSB/M/404, para. 4.7.
2 WT/DS484/13.
3 WT/DS484/16.
4 WT/DS484/17.
5 WT/DS484/19.
6 DSB, Minutes of the meeting held on 24 June 2019, WT/DSB/M/430, para. 6.4.
7 WT/DS484/20.

1.3 Panel proceeding
General
1.8. After consultation with the parties, the Panel adopted its Working Procedures 8 and timetable
on 12 August 2019.
1.9. Brazil and Indonesia filed their first written submissions on 13 September 2019 and 18 October
2019, respectively. The parties' second written submissions were filed by Brazil and Indonesia on
15 November 2019 and 13 December 2019, respectively. The Panel held a substantive meeting with
the parties on 4 and 5 February 2020. A session with the third parties took place on 5 February
2020. The parties and third parties submitted responses to written questions on 21 February 2020.
On 6 March 2020, the parties submitted comments on each other's responses.
1.10. Following the substantive meeting, on 11 February 2019, the Panel communicated to the DSB
chairperson that it would not be able to provide its report within 90 days from the date of referral of
the matter to it pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.9
1.11. On 27 March 2020 , the Panel issued the descriptive part of its Report to the parties. The
Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties on 26 May 2020. The Panel issued its Final Report to
the parties on 24 July 2020.
Preliminary ruling
1.12. On 18 October 2019, Indonesia filed its first written submission, which included a request for
a preliminary ruling. Indonesia requested the Panel to dismiss certain claims Brazil had made in
respect of two of the measure s at issue. These claims pertain to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture regarding the so-called positive list requirement and Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994
concerning the enforcement provisions of the so-called intended use requirement.10 These are claims
that Brazil also raised in the original proceeding and on which the panel in that proceeding exercised
judicial economy.11
1.13. Indonesia raised three separate grounds for the Panel to dismiss these claims. Indonesia
argued that (1) the claims are outside the Panel's terms of reference, (2) Brazil should not be able
to re-litigate these claims, and (3) it is not necessary for the Panel to make multiple findings on the
same measure under various provisions when a single findin g of inconsistency would suffice to
resolve the dispute.12
1.14. On 21 October 2019, the Panel informed the parties and third parties that if they wished to
comment on Indonesia's request, they could do so in their second written submissions and
third-party written submissions, respectively. On 1 November 2019, the European Union and New
Zealand submitted their comments on Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling. On
15 November 2019, Brazil submitted its own comments. Brazil requested that the Panel reject
Indonesia's preliminary ruling request.13
1.15. On 7 February 2020, the Panel issued its preliminary ruling to the parties and third parties.
The Panel's conclusion was as follows:
In view of the above considerations, we reject Indonesia's preliminary ruling req uest
and find that Brazil's claims regarding the positive list requirement under Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture and the intended use requirement with respect to its
enforcement provisions under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 are properly within our
terms of reference. We also find that Brazil is not barred from raising these claims.

8 See the Panel's Working Procedures in Annex A-1.
9 Panel's communication to the DSB, WT/DS484/21.
10 Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling, para. 5.1.
11 Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling, para. 4.
12 Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling, para. 21.
13 Brazil's second written submission, para. 30.

Finally, we consider that it is premature, at this stage, to decide whether to exercise
judicial economy with regard to these claims.
1.16. The full text of the Panel's ruling is in Annex D-1 of the Report.
2 FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.1 Measures at issue
2.1. Brazil is challenging the measures taken by Indonesia to comply with the DSB's
recommendations and rulings in the original proceeding. These measures are enacted through legal
instruments issued by the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA regulations) or the Ministry of Trade
(MoT regulations).
2.2. In its panel request, Brazil describes the four measures at issue as follows:
Positive List Requirement
The positive list requirement concerns Indonesian regulations governing the importation
of meat, which prescribe the type of carcass for which an importer may obtain a Ministry
of Agriculture Import Recommendation and Ministry of Trade Import Approval. Products
that are not listed in the relevant appendices of the respective regulations cannot be
the subject of either an Import Recommendation or an Import Approval.14
…
The positive list requirement is [...] reflected inter alia, in:..15
The Intended Use Requirement and its Enforcement Provisions
The intended use requirement limits the uses of imported chicken meat and chicken
products in the Indonesian mark et to specific "intended uses" as identified in the
relevant Indonesian regulations.16
The enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement applicable with respect to
imported products include: stricter sanctions that apply to importers deviating from the
limitation on the allowed uses, including, for instance, the importer 's suspension; the
commitment to certain intended uses (to obtain an MoA Import Recommendation, for
instance), which restricts the importer to not selling elsewhere; and the burden and
cost arising from having to submit a distribution plan and a weekly distribution report.
…
The intended use requirement and its enforcement provisions are .. reflected inter alia,
in: ...17
Import Licencing Procedures
Indonesia's import licensing procedures include fixed licence terms, which limit the
ability of importers to modify an MoA Import Recommendation and an MoT Import
Approval after their issuance.

14 (footnote original) Original Panel Report, para. 7.103.
15 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, paras. 7 and 9.
16 (footnote original) Original Panel Report, para. 7.176.
17 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, paras. 10 and 12.

The fixed licence terms are ... reflected inter alia, in: ...18
Undue Delay in Approval Procedures
Indonesia . .. continues to unduly delay undertaking and completing the approval
procedures of the veterinary health certificate. At this date, Brazil 's application for a
veterinary health certificate for the importation of chicken meat and chicken products
remains at the first stage of Indonesia 's approval process ( "desk review"), the same
stage where it has been for almost 10 years now. Indonesia has therefore failed to
undertake and complete the approval procedures without undue delay.19
2.3. Brazil's panel request also includes "any amendments or extensions to the measures identified
above, any replacement measures, and any implementing measures, as well as any subsequent
closely connected measures that are adopted by Indonesia".20
2.2 Subsequent amendments to the relevant legal instruments
2.4. Since the establishment of the Panel , Indonesia has either replaced or amended the relevant
MoA and M oT regulations. The table below indicates the relevant legal instruments and their
respective enactment dates.
Table 1: Amendments and revisions in the relevant legal instruments
At panel establishment As adopted in the course of the
compliance panel proceeding
MoA 34/2016 as amended by MoA 23/2018 on
24 May 2018 (hereinafter "MoA 34/2016 as
amended")21
MoA 42/2019 of 6 August 201922
MoT 29/2019 of 24 April 201923 MoT 29/2019 as amended by MoT 72/2019 on
27 September 201924
(hereinafter "MoT 29/2019 as amended")

2.5. The Panel discusses its approach to changes to the measures at issue in section 7.1 below.
3 PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1. Brazil requests the Panel to find that:
a. Indonesia continues to cause an undue delay in the approval of the veterinary health
certificate for the importation of chicken meat and chicken products from Brazil,
inconsistently with Annex C(1)(a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement;
b. at the time of the Panel’s establishment, Indonesia’s intended use requirement and its
enforcement procedures, as reflected in MoA 34/2016, as amended by MoA 23/2018,
continued to accord less favourable treatment to imported chicken meat and chicken
products in contravention of Indonesia’s obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;
c. Indonesia's intended use requirement and its enforcement procedures, as reflected in
MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019, as amended by MoT 72/2019, continue to accord less

18 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 13.
19 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 16.
20 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 17.
21 Indonesia's first written submission para. 8 and Table 1.
22 Indonesia's first written submission para. 8 and Table 1. MoA 42/2019 replaces MoA 34/2016 as
amended.
23 Indonesia's first written submission para. 8 and Table 1. MoT 29/2019 replaces MoT 59/2016.
24 Indonesia's first written submission para. 8 and Table 1.

favourable treatment to imported chicken meat and chicken products in contravention of
Indonesia’s obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;
d. at the time of the Panel 's establishment, Indonesia’s intended use requirement and its
enforcement provisions, a s reflected in MoA 34/2016, as amended by MoA 23/2018,
constituted restrictions on the importation of chicken meat and chicken products that are
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;
e. Indonesia's intended use requirement and its enforcement provi sions as reflected in
MoA 42/2019, and MoT 29/2019, as amended by MoT 72/2019, constitute restrictions on
the importation of chicken meat and chicken products that are inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;
f. at the time of the Panel 's establishment, the positive list requirement, as reflected in
MoA 34/2016, as amended by MoA 23/2018, and as also reflected in MoT 59/2016, as
replaced by MoT 29/2019, continued to be inconsistent with Article XI of the GATT 1994
and is also inconsistent with Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
g. the positive list requirement as reflected in MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019, as amended
by MoT 72/2019, continues to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and is
also inconsistent with Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
h. at the time of the Panel’s establishment, the fixed licence terms, as reflected in
MoA 34/2016, as amended by MoA 23/2018, and as also reflected in MoT 59/2016, as
replaced by MoT 29/2019, constituted a restriction on the importation of chicken meat
and chicken products and thus violates Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and
i. the fixed licence terms as reflected in MoA 42/2019 and in MoT 29/2019, as amended by
MoT 72/2019, constitute a restriction on the importation of chicken meat and chicken
products and thus violates Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
3.2. Brazil, therefore, requests the Panel to find that Indonesia has failed to bring its measures into
compliance with its WTO obligations under the GATT 1994, the SPS Agreement and the Agreement
on Agriculture.25
3.3. Indonesia requests the Panel to reject Brazil's claims in their entirety.26
4 ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
4.1. The arguments of the parties are reflected in their executive summaries, provided to the Panel
in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes B-1
and B-2).
5 ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
5.1. The arguments of Australia, Canada, the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, and the
United States are reflected in the executive summaries, provided in accordance with paragraph 22
of the Working Procedures adopted by the Panel (see Annexes C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6). China,
India, the Republic of Korea, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia did
not submit written or oral arguments to the Panel.

25 See Brazil's second written submission, paras. 185-186. See also Brazil's first written submission,
paras. 232-233.
26 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 156. See also Indonesia's second written submission,
para. 69.

6 INTERIM REVIEW
6.1 Introduction
6.1. On 26 May 2020, the Panel issued its Interim Report to the parties. On 23 June 2020, Brazil
and Indonesia submitted written requests for the Panel to review precise aspects of the Interim
Report. On 3 July 2020, the parties submitted comments on each other's request for review. Neither
party requested an interim review meeting.
6.2. In accordance with Article 15.3 of the DSU, this section of the Report sets out our response to
the parties' requests for review of precise aspects of the Report made at the interim review stage.
We discuss the parties' requests for substantive modifica tions below, in sequential order under the
same headings as they are set out in section 7 of the Report. In addition to the substantive requests
discussed below, we have made editorial and drafting improvements to the Report, including, where
relevant, those suggested by the parties. 27 We also note, in this context that both parties have
requested the inclusion of a number of additional references in footnotes citing the original report or
the parties' submissions. To the extent not specificall y mentioned below, we have accepted these
requests and inserted the relevant references.
6.3. The numbering of some of the footnotes in the Report has changed from that in the Interim
Report as we have added new footnotes. Unless indicated otherwise, the footnote numbers refer to
the numbering in the Final Report. Where relevant, we indicate the corresponding footnote number
in the Interim Report.
6.2 Subsequent amendments to relevant legal instruments
6.4. Indonesia requests the Panel to rephrase paragraph 2.4 to include a reference "to subsequent
amendments relating to the undue delay in approval procedures". Indonesia submits that the Panel
should not equate the term "measures at issue" with legal instruments only and consider
developments concerning the delay in approving Brazil's application for a veterinary health certificate
as amendments to that specific measure. Brazil considers this request inapposite, because Indonesia
already had an opportunity to comment on the descriptive part of the Report and because the
developments referred to by Indonesia are not legal instruments adopted after the establishment of
the Panel.
6.5. We note that the relevant section of the Report does not describe the measures at issue -
these are described, in Brazil's own words, in the pre ceding section. Instead the section only
concerns amendments to the legal instruments that enact, or are otherwise relevant to, the
measures at issue. We, therefore, agree with Brazil that adding a reference to post -panel
establishment developments in resp ect of the undue delay issue would be inapposite, as these
developments do not constitute amendments to any legal instruments. We thus reject Indonesia's
request. However, to make the difference between this section and the preceding one clearer, we
have c hanged the heading of the section to refer to " relevant legal instruments" instead of
"measures."
6.3 Order of analysis – which versions of the measures to review
6.6. Regarding paragraph 7.4, Indonesia requests additional language to reflect that Brazil, on the
delay in approving the veterinary health certificate, also made arguments on post -panel
establishment developments. Brazil sees no need to add any information in paragraph 7.4 , taking
the view that the statement is not incorrect and that, in any event, it i s not meant to be a full
description of Brazil's position.
6.7. As also discussed below, our understanding of Brazil's submissions, which is confirmed by
Brazil, is that Brazil's claim regarding post -panel establishment developments on undue delay is
made in the alternative. Based on this understanding, the addition proposed by Indonesia would be
incorrect as it does not reflect the alternative nature of Brazil's claim. For this reason, we reject

27 This includes the correction of the erroneous reference to Article 13(1)(c) of MoT 29/2019 as
amended, which should be Article 13(1)(d), as both parties have pointed out.

Indonesia's request. However, for the sake of completeness, we have added a footnote referring to
Brazil's alternative claim regarding post-panel establishment developments.
6.4 Background on the relevant import licensing procedures in Indonesia
6.8. Regarding paragraph 7.17, Indonesia requests additional language to reflect that for whole
chicken, there has never been a prohibition on obtaining an Import Recommendation or an Import
Approval. Brazil does not consider this change necessary on the grounds that the Panel's statement
is purely factual and does not purport to attribute the absence of imports to any measure.
6.9. We note that paragraph 7.17 merely recounts that since 2009, there have been no imports of
whole chicken to Indonesia. Indonesia has not contested this. The statement does not make any
link to the possible reasons f or the absence of imports and, therefore, does not relate to the
measures at issue. For these reasons we see no need to add the information Indonesia requests.
6.5 Delay in approving Brazil's veterinary health certificate
6.10. Indonesia requests the Panel to add in paragraph 7.22 language specifying certain
amendments made to the measures at issue since 2006. According to Brazil, adding this level of
detail is not in line with the more general nature of the paragraph. Furthermore, Brazil opposes
language that would suggest that the Panel is making a factual finding on the changes introduced
through MoA 42/2019.
6.11. We note that paragraph 7.22 provides a general overview of the process to obtain a country
of origin approval. Like Brazil, therefore, we consider that adding the proposed language in the text
would not be in line with the intended nature of the paragraph. However, we acknowledge
Indonesia's concern that the description "indicates that there has been no fundamental difference"
whereas Indonesia considers that " several important amendments" have been made. 28 Therefore,
we have removed the penultimate sentence of paragraph 7.22.
6.12. Regarding paragraph 7.31, Indonesia requests additional language to reflect the fact that
Indonesia had already provided Brazil with copies of both questionnaires, country of origin and
business unit, in an email following up on an informal bilateral meeting between the parties on 8
March 2018. Brazil opposes inclusion of such language on the grounds that the paragraph describes
the letter of 31 May 2018 and does not refer to RPT discussions between the parties. Brazil also
cautions the Panel against disclosing the content of confidential bilateral discussions about the RPT
as such disclosure "will make it more difficult for parties to agree on the RPT".29
6.13. The purpose of paragraph 7.31 is to describe the content of Indonesia's letter of 31 May 2018.
The language proposed by Indonesia refers to circumstances outside the letter and, therefore does
not fit with the rest of the paragraph. Ho wever, we see no problem with referring to these
circumstances in a footnote to the paragraph so as to provide a more accurate overall picture of the
relevant facts. Therefore, the issue of the missing business questionnaire now features in the
footnote in its entirety. In this proceeding, Indonesia presented Exhibit IDN-43 which demonstrates
that as a follow up to bilateral discussions Indonesia did provide links to both questionnaires , if not
the text of the questionnaires themselves. 30 Brazil has not contested this other than by cautioning
the Panel against disclosing information related to confidential bilateral discussions. We see some
parallels between Brazil's argument and the discussion on the confidentiality of consultations in
Article 4.6 of the DS U which, in contrast to the provision relevant here, namely Article 21.3(b) of
the DSU, contains an explicit requirement regarding confidentiality. Taking guidance from past
panels regarding the confidentiality requirement in Article 4.6, we note that whil e the discussions
between the parties may be subject to confidentiality, information submitted by the other side during
the consultations is not, much less information submitted by the party itself. 31 Therefore, even
accepting Brazil's argument that the co nfidential nature of bilateral RPT discussions needs to be
preserved, we see no grounds to treat as confidential information that Indonesia submitted in the

28 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 20.
29 Brazil's comments on the Interim Report of the Panel, para. 15.
30 The email contained in Exhibit IDN- 43 in addition to the links themselves, includes copies of the
relevant questionnaires. However, the copies themselves have not been submitted with the email.
31 Panel Reports, Korea – Alcoholic Beverages, para. 10.23; EC – Bed Linen, paras. 6.32-6.35; and US –
Lamb, paras. 5.39 and 5.40.

context of such discussions and has now submitted in this proceeding as evidence of its own actions.
We thus refer to this evidence and have added a slightly modified version of the text proposed by
Indonesia in a new footnote. As we discuss further below, we have also included here additional text
that Indonesia proposed for paragraph 7.59.
6.14. Regarding paragraph 7.32, Brazil requests that the Panel add that Brazil provided its reply to
the country of origin request without prejudice to its position that the sanitary information provided
to the Indonesian authorities in 2009 remained valid. The addition i s necessary, in Brazil's view, to
avoid the impression that Brazil would have changed its position as described in paragraph 7.29.
Indonesia opposes the inclusion of such language arguing that Brazil never demonstrated that all
information provided by Braz il to Indonesian authorities in 2009 remained valid. Alternatively,
Indonesia proposes to add language to clarify this latter point.
6.15. We accept Brazil's argument that additional language will make clear that Brazil had not
changed its position on the conti nued validity of the information submitted in 2009. We have
therefore inserted in a new footnote a slightly modified version of the text Brazil suggested. We have
not added details about what Brazil has or has not demonstrated, as Indonesia requested. Paragraph
7.32 merely describes Brazil's action in reply to Indonesia's request for a new questionnaire and
offers no analysis or conclusions on the merits of Brazil's position.
6.16. Indonesia requests additional language in paragraph 7.34 to refer to the state of play
regarding Indonesia's most recent request for additional information, in particular the fact that at
least up to the substantive meeting , Brazil had not submitted the additional information. Brazil
opposes the request on the grounds that the addition is not necessary given that the Panel's analysis
stops at panel establishment. Alternatively, Brazil requests a more detailed reference to its response
to the Panel regarding this matter.
6.17. Given our own approach to the analysis as set out in section 7.3. 6.1, we do not share
Indonesia's view that "the information is very important should there be any further assessment
about the 'undue' element about the measure post -panel establishment"32. This said, we see no
harm in adding language here, as this section merely describes facts, including some that may not
be relevant to our subsequent analysis. We therefore accept Indonesia's request and have added a
slightly modified version of the text proposed by Indonesia to the paragraph. We also accept Brazil's
request for adding language regarding its reasons for not submitting the additional information.
However, to keep the section short we have done so by inserting a reference to Brazil's submission
in a new footnote.
6.18. Indonesia requests the Panel to add to paragraph 7.36 a footnote citing to the part of Brazil's
first written submission discussing post-panel establishment developments. Brazil does not oppose
the request.
6.19. Because paragraph 7.36 is merely an outline of the parties' arguments, we do not see the
need to add a reference to Brazil's first written submission in a footnote attached to this paragraph.
We therefore reject Indonesia's request.
6.20. Regarding paragraph 7.37, Indonesia requests that the Panel rephrase the first sentence and
add a further sentence to better reflect Indonesia's arguments regarding the period of review that
the Panel should assess. Brazil does not oppose the request.
6.21. To accommodate Indonesia's request, we have rephrased the paragraph. We have taken out
the first sentence, which we c onsider superfluous given the addition Indonesia proposed and have
added a new sentence which closely follows the Indonesia's suggested wording.
6.22. Brazil requests the Panel to revise paragraph 7.38 and the attending footnote to reflect that
New Zealand also supports Brazil's position. Indonesia does not comment on the request.
6.23. We accept Brazil's request and have revised the paragraph and the footnote accordingly.

32 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 30.

6.24. Brazil requests additional language and certain other changes to p aragraphs 7.45 and 7.46
to better reflect that it made arguments concerning the events after panel establishment only in the
alternative. Indonesia, for its part, requests deletion of the last sentence in paragraph 7.45 on the
grounds that Brazil also subm itted arguments on the post -panel establishment period. Since the
parties have opposing views on whether Brazil made its request in the alternative, they also oppose
each other's proposed changes.
6.25. As we already noted above, our understanding of Brazil's po sition is that Brazil's claim
regarding post-panel establishment developments is made in the alternative, should the Panel not
follow Brazil's request to end the period of review at panel establishment. Our understanding thus
aligns with the language sugge sted by Brazil. We therefore reject Indonesia's proposal and have
revised the paragraphs in accordance with Brazil's proposal.
6.26. Regarding paragraph 7.59 Indonesia requests additional language that mirrors its suggestion
to rephrase paragraph 7.31.33 Indonesia also requests the Panel to mention its explanation why it
only attached the country of origin questionnaire to the official letter dated 31 May 2018. Brazil
opposes the request on the grounds that it is irrelevant to the discussion on the scope of the approval
procedure. As with its comments on Indonesia's proposed changes to paragraph 7.31 , Brazil also
refers to the confidential nature of the bilateral RPT discussions.
6.27. As noted in paragraph 6.13 above, we accept Indonesia's argument that additional
information would provide a more accurate picture of the facts and do not agree with Brazil that it
would be contrary to the confidential nature of the bilateral RPT discussions to disclose the
information in question. However, we consider that the full and accurate description of the facts
belongs in the facts section rather than in the analysis section. This is why we have added further
language in the footnote to paragraph 7.31 to refer to Indonesia's explanation. To make sure the
reader is aware of the full description of the facts in paragraph 7.31 and the attending footnotes we
have added a cross -reference to paragraph 7.31 in a new footnote to parag raph 7.59 and aligned
the text of paragraph 7.59 with that in paragraph 7.31.
6.28. Indonesia proposes a revision to paragraph 7.67 to add a fourth delay period to the three
listed. The fourth delay period suggested would concern the developments in approvin g Brazil's
veterinary health certificate after the Panel was established. Indonesia notes that this period was
consistently raised by Brazil in its written submissions and therefore should be reflected in the Report
as such. Brazil opposes the request on the grounds that the addition does not accurately reflect the
alternative nature of Brazil's claim and also that it will cause confusion given that the Panel has
already set out its view on the relevant period of review.
6.29. As noted above, our understanding of Brazil's claim aligns with Brazil's explanations repeated
in its interim review submission: Brazil's claim regarding the post -panel establishment period is
made in the alternative, should the Panel not accept Brazil's main argument that the period of review
ends with panel establishment. To simply add a fourth delay period in the description, therefore,
would not reflect the alternative nature of Brazil's arguments regarding events after panel
establishment. We also agree with Brazil that the addition woul d only create confusion given that
the Panel has already set out its decision to limit its period of review to panel establishment. For
these reasons, we reject Indonesia's request.
6.30. Regarding paragraph 7.80, Indonesia suggests that the Panel add further language qualifying
when an Expert Committee can hold meetings. Brazil opposes the request on the grounds that the
language proposed by Indonesia is not contained in the relevant Decree.
6.31. We note that the additional language Indonesia propose s does not reflec t the text of the
relevant Decree, at least as submitted in its English translation in Exhibit IDN-19. Indonesia has not
indicated to us that there is any mistake in that English translation. In these circumstances, we
cannot add text in a description that purports to recapitulate what is contained in the relevant
domestic legislation. We therefore reject Indonesia's request.
6.32. Regarding Paragraph 7.87, Brazil requests that, in order to second Canada's argument
regarding the need to expeditiously proceed with a request in a compliance scenario, the Panel

33 See paras. 6.12 and 6.13 above.

include in the footnote a reference to Brazil's own argument addressing this point. Indonesia does
not comment on this request.
6.33. We accept Brazil's request and have therefore added the relevant reference in the footnote.
6.6 Positive list requirement
6.34. Indonesia requests the Panel to rephrase paragraph 7.101 to indicate the specific chicken
products that were not on the positive list in the original proceeding and, therefore, were banned.
Brazil does not object to this request.
6.35. We accept Indonesia's request and have revised the paragraph to clarify that Brazi l's
challenge regarding the non -inclusion in the list only concerned three products out of the five at
issue in the original proceeding. To reflect the same distinction between the scope of the original
proceeding and the products subject to Brazil's claim on the positive list requirement, we have also
made changes to paragraph 7.95.
6.36. Regarding paragraph 7.104, Indonesia requests the Panel to reflect Indonesia's alternative
argument that "animals and animal products that are outside the list [are], in fact, not subject to
Import Approval and therefore, can be imported". Brazil does not object to this request but asks the
Panel to add a new footnote outlining Brazil's response to Indonesia's arguments.
6.37. We accept Indonesia's request, noting that Indonesia chara cterizes this argument as
"alternative". In addition, we explain in paragraph 7.111 that , given this characterization of
Indonesia's argument, as well as in light of our findings regarding the amended version of the
positive list requirement, it is not necessary for the Panel to address it in order to provide a positive
solution to this dispute. We have also added an outline of Brazil's response to Indonesia's alternative
argument in a footnote.
6.38. Brazil requests the Panel to revise the wording of paragraph 7.105 and footnote 20434 to
fully reflect Brazil's arguments on whether the Panel should exercise judicial economy on Brazil's
claim that the positive list requirement is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture. Indonesia does not comment on Brazil's request.
6.39. We accept Brazil's request and have made corresponding changes to the wording of paragraph
7.105 and footnote 204.
6.40. Regarding paragraph 7.113, Indonesia takes issue with the Panel's statement that Indonesia
contests that the positiv e list requirement is a restriction on imports but has not put forward any
arguments to support this position. Indonesia points to excerpts of its first and second written
submissions as purportedly reflecting such arguments. Brazil does not object to the additions
proposed by Indonesia, provided that Brazil's response to Indonesia's arguments is also included in
paragraph 7.113.
6.41. Having re-examined the references put forward by Indonesia, we maintain the view that the
referenced excerpts from Indonesia's first and second written submissions do not specifically address
Brazil's arguments that the positive list requirement constitutes a restriction on the importation of
poultry to Indonesia. We, therefore, reject Indonesia's request. In light of the request, however, we
modify the text of paragraph 7.113 to more clearly reflect the extent of Indonesia's arguments
relating to the alleged restriction on the importation of chicken products.
6.42. Brazil requests the Panel to reconsider the findings in paragraph 7.117. In that connection,
Brazil points to its arguments that the source of Indonesian authorities' undefined discretion in
relation to removing the pro ducts at issue from the list is the design, architecture and revealing
structure of the measure itself. In Brazil's view, this is so, because the relevant MoA or MoT
regulations do not stipulate objective criteria for the exercise of the discretion to remo ve products
from the list. Indonesia asks the Panel to reject Brazil's request and retain the original wording of
paragraph 7.117.

34 Fn 173 in the Interim Report.

6.43. We have carefully considered this issue in our examination of Brazil's claim concerning the
positive list requirement and believe that our findings fully address this and other arguments both
parties raised with respect to this measure. We also recall that the interim review process is not an
appropriate stage for the parties to re-argue their case on the basis of arguments that have already
been debated.35 Therefore, we reject Brazil's request.
6.7 Intended use
6.44. Indonesia requests the Panel to add to paragraph 7.135 a citation to the original panel report
concerning a description of the measure at issue in the original proceeding. Brazil comments that
the citation proposed by Indonesia does not match the sentence of paragraph 7.135 that Indonesia
refers to.
6.45. We reject this request, because we find the citation provided by Indonesia not to match the
content of paragraph 7.135.
6.46. As regards footnote 25336 to paragraph 7.136, Indonesia requests the Panel to add further
references to the original panel report discussing the findings of equivalence of certain measures at
issue in the original proceeding. Brazil does not oppose this request.
6.47. We accept the request with respect to the reference to paragraph 7.291 of the original panel
report, but not with respect to the reference in paragraph 7.294. We do not consider the latter
citation to accurately reflect the relevant content of paragraph 7.136.
6.48. Regarding paragraph 7.145, Indonesia requests that the Panel rephrase the last sentence
and add language that would refer to a sanction provision "that [had] been in existence […] but
never been challenged in the original proceeding."37 Indonesia also requests to add a new footnote
to refer to its submission. Brazil opposes both requests. Regarding the first, Brazil considers that it
is vague and that there is no basis to include a reference to a provision which Indonesia had never
raised during the proceeding. Regarding the reference in the footnote, Brazil does not see a need
for the citation as the Panel is directly referring to the legislative text.
6.49. Indonesia's proposed language suggests that there is a sanction provision similar to Article 31
of MoT 29/2019 as amended that would have been in existence during the original proceeding and
that Brazil did not challenge. This is an assertion that Indonesia, so far, had not made in this
proceeding; to introduce it now means raising it in an untimely manner. Furthermore, it is not clear
to us whether the assertion implies any legal procedural argument regarding Brazil's ability to
challenge something that allegedly already existed during the original proceeding. Finally, Indonesia
chose to make this asser tion without submitting the legislative text as evidence. We note in this
respect that the wording of Article 26 of MoT 59/201638 as on the record in Exhibit IDN-109 rev. of
the original proceeding is different from the wording quoted by Indonesia.39

35 Appellate Body Reports, EC – Sardines, para. 301; and EC – Selected Customs Matters, para. 259.
See also Panel Reports, US – Zeroing (EC) (Article 21.5 – EC), para. 7.26; US – Zeroing (Japan), para. 6.106
India – Solar Cells, para. 6.24; Russia – Pigs, paras. 6.6-6.7; Brazil – Taxation, para. 6.7; and EU – Energy
Package, para. 6.3.
36 Fn 222 in the Interim Report.
37 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 55.
38 We point out that MoT 59/2016 was the legal instrument in force during the original proceeding. MoT
20/2018, which Indonesia also refers to, was not at issue in the original proceeding as it was only enacted
after the adoption of the original panel report.
39 The wording of Article 26 of MoT 59/2016 is as follows:
(1) Exporter or importer who conducts export or import of animal and/or animal products not in
conformity with the requirements of this Minister Regulation will be sanctioned in accordance with the laws and
regulations.
(2) Imported Animal and/or animal products of which the amount, type, business unit, and/or country
of origin not in conformity with import approval and/or the requirements of this Minister Regulation must be re-
exported.
(3) The importer shall be responsible for the cost resulted from re-exportation as referred to in
paragraph (2).

6.50. Even assuming we were to consider the assertion as admissible , despite it being untimely,
given the above questions, our duty under Article 11 of the DSU and due process would require us
to reopen the procedure to properly assess Indonesia's assertion. This is not the purpose of the
interim review stage; nor would it be fair on the complainant who has a right to see this proceeding
come to a close.40 For these reasons we reject Indonesia's request.
6.51. As regards the reference to Indonesia's submission in a new footnote to paragraph 7.145, we
do not see the need for this reference as the paragraph directly describes the content of Article 43
of MoA 42/2019 rather than arguments made by Indonesia.
6.52. Regarding paragraph 7.154, Indonesia requests the Panel to specify that Article 28(a) of MoT
29/2019 as amended is the provision "as amended by MoT 72/2019". Brazil sees no need for this
addition given the Panel's way of using an abbreviated name of the legal instrument.
6.53. In Table 1 in paragraph 2.4 of the Report, we identify the legal instruments at issue, including
MoT 29/2019 as amended by MoT 72/2019. We then indicate that the Report will use the short name
of "MoT 29/2019 as amended" to refer to this legal instrument. Thus, the reference to MoT 29/2019
"as amended" means "as amended by MoT 72/2019". We, therefore, see no need to add a reference
to MoT 72/2019 in this paragraph and for this reason reject Indonesia's request.
6.54. Regarding paragraph 7.155, Indonesia requests additional language to provide more detail
on its arguments regarding its objection to Brazil raising Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended.
Brazil opposes the request on the grounds that it is neither necessary nor accurate.
6.55. Paragraph 7.155 merely outlines the part ies' arguments. More detail on the parties'
arguments is contained in the section that sets forth our analysis of Article 31, namely paragraphs
7.172 and following. Paragraph 7.172 sets out Indonesia's view that there is a "clear breach of due
process". Therefore, we see no need to add additional language in paragraph 7.155 and for this
reason reject Indonesia's request.
6.56. Regarding paragraph 7.170, Indonesia requests that the Panel add language to reflect its
position that Brazil never made the argument that the Panel's analysis regarding Article 13 of MoT
29/2019 as amended rests on. Brazil opposes the request on the grounds that the assertion lacks
merit in that Brazil had referred to the importer having to comply with the terms of the import
recommendation. Brazil also points out that the Panel is free to draw its own conclusions on the
relevant provisions on the record as part of its authority to make an objective assessment of the
matter.
6.57. It is well established that where the complainant has made out a prima facie case, a panel
may, in principle, draw from arguments and evidence on the record, or develop its own reasoning
in reaching its findings, provided that it does so consistently with the requirements of due process.41
Brazil, in our view, did establ ish a valid prima facie case regarding Article 28 of MoT 29/2019 as
amended by submitting that deviating from the intended use would mean having submitted incorrect
information within the meaning of that provision.42 The ensuing debate between the parties focussed
on Article 13 of MoT 29/2019 as amended. Given these circumstances, we concentrated our analysis
on that provision and developed our own reasoning based on that analysis in line with the principle
stated above. Therefore, we do not see a need to add the language suggested by Indonesia and for
this reason reject Indonesia's request.
6.58. Regarding paragraph 7.171, Indonesia requests deletion of this paragraph on the grounds
that "the Panel is taking a speculative hypothetical view" on the circumstance in which the clause
would apply.43 Brazil opposes the deletion taking the view that the Panel's approach is consistent
with Article 11 of the DSU and the Panel based its findings on the text of the relevant provisions.
6.59. We take note of Indonesia's disagreement with the finding in paragraph 7.171 and its request
to delete this finding . In our analysis , we have carefully considered the circumstances in which a

40 Panel Reports, Japan – Apples (Article 21.5 – US), para. 7.23; US – Poultry (China), para. 6.32; and
Japan – DRAMs (Korea), para. 6.2.
41 Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico) (Article 21.5 – Mexico), paras. 7.176 and 7.177.
42 Brazil's second written submission, paras. 144 and 145.
43 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 72.

breach of Article 28(a) could be proven, and we see no fault with our conclusion. As noted above
the purpose of interim review is not to re -open the debate, but to review precise aspects of the
Report. We therefore reject Indonesia's request.
6.60. Regarding paragraph 7.172, Brazil requests inclusion of a reference to its own arguments
regarding the due process issue. Indonesia does not comment on this request.
6.61. We accept Brazil's point that both parties' arguments should be reflected in this paragraph.
However, we have modified the text suggested by Brazil (and, correspondingly the reference in the
footnote) to provide more detail on how Brazil responded to the issue of the due process breach.
6.62. Regarding paragraph 7.174, Brazil requests two changes on the grounds that the wording
could be misread to suggest that Indonesia successfully rebutted Brazil's claim under Article 31 of
MoT 29/2019 as amended. Indonesia does not comment on the request.
6.63. We accept Brazil's request and have changed the wording accordingly.
6.64. Regarding paragraph 7.179, Indonesia requests deletion of most of the paragraph on the
grounds that the Panel's analysis is erroneous. Brazil opposes the request taking the view that the
Panel's reasoning is based o n a careful and holistic examination of Article 31 and that Indonesia
offers no explanations to support its reading.
6.65. We take note of Indonesia's disagreement with our analysis as well as with the finding that
follows from it and its request to delete both. Indonesia's disagreement is essentially based on the
same line of argument it pursued during the proceeding, namely that the provision only concerns
"types" of animals and animal products. This is an argument that we carefully considered in our
analysis. As noted previously, the purpose of interim review is not to re -open the debate, but to
review precise aspects of the Report. We, therefore, reject Indonesia's request.
6.66. Regarding paragraph 7.186, Indonesia requests that the Panel insert additional lang uage to
qualify its statement that Indonesia had not submitted MoA 14/2008. Indonesia points to the
evolution of Brazil's arguments to explain why it only referred to MoA 14/2008 at the substantive
meeting. Indonesia considers that it then provided a summary of the content of the regulation that
"should have enabled either Brazil or the Panel to examine or make comments of [sic] the content".44
It is Indonesia's view, that if the Panel had deemed the complete text of MoA 14/2008 to be very
important it should have requested Indonesia to submit it, in the same way it did for Exhibits IDN -
43 and 44. Indonesia sees a contradiction between the Panel accepting Brazil's claim in respect of
Article 31 and rejecting Indonesia' defence, where both have been raised at the substantive meeting.
For these reasons Indonesia considers that its due process rights have been violated. 45 Indonesia
also requests deletion of footnote 295 in the Interim Report.
6.67. Brazil opposes the request on the grounds that Indonesia had ample opp ortunity to submit
the evidence and that it was Indonesia's responsibility, as the party bearing the burden of proof on
this issue, to submit it. Brazil does not oppose the deletion of footnote 295 in the Interim Report.
6.68. We declined to consider Indonesia's argument primarily because of the absence of any text
on record that would have allowed us to undertake our own reading and analysis of the provisions.46
Indonesia contends that we should have requested it. We observe that as the party making an
assertion/defence Indonesia has the burden of proof.47 Just as a complainant challenging a legislative
text is required to submit evidence of that text to support its claim, so a respondent basing a defence
on a legislative text is required to submit evidence of su ch text. While a panel has the authority to
ask questions and request evidence from the parties pursuant to Article 13 of the DSU, the purpose

44 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 84.
45 Indonesia's request for review of the Interim Report, para. 85.
46 We point out that we also raise another issue in para. 7.186, namely that Indonesia had not
presented this legislation in the original proceeding. Had we proceeded with considering Indonesia's argument
on the basis of a text on record, we would also have considered – and discussed with the parties - the question
whether Indonesia is barred from raising this defence now given that it did not do so in the original proceeding.
47 Appellate Body Report, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, p. 14.

of this authority is not to make a case where a party has failed to do so.48 Indonesia's own account
of what is c ontained in the legislation was insufficient for us to undertake a meaningful analysis.
Further, investigations into this issue in accordance with due process requirements would have
added a considerable amount of time, which we considered unwarranted at t his late stage of the
proceeding. In our view, there is no comparison to be made with our treatment of Brazil's claim
regarding Article 31, as there were no evidence and additional due process issues that arose in
respect of that claim. For these reasons, we reject Indonesia's request.
6.69. As regards footnote 295 in the Interim Report, we accept Indonesia's request and have
deleted it.
6.8 Fixed licence terms
6.70. Brazil requests the Panel to delete the language in paragraph 7.225 suggesting that Brazil
agrees that the term "importation requirements" in Article 44(3) of MoA 42/2019 refer s to the
requirements stipulated in Chapter II of that regulation. 49 Indonesia does not comment directly on
this issue,50 but is of the view that the Panel should not make corrections to this paragraph.
6.71. We accept Brazil's request and have modified the wording of paragraph 7.225 accordingly.
6.72. Brazil requests the Panel to clarify its findings in paragraphs 7.227 and 7.228, which, in
Brazil's view, are i n tension with the Panel's findings in paragraph 7.221. According to Brazil, the
Panel states in paragraph 7.221 that it would assess Brazil's contention that Indonesia's authorities
enjoy undefined discretion to accept or reject a request for an amendment of import licence terms
on the basis of the text of MoA 42/2019 only. Brazil submits that the Panel then accepts Indonesia's
explanation that "all complete and proper applications will be accepted", as well as Indonesia's
understanding of "complete" and " proper", "based on the absence of evidence of how Indonesia's
authorities apply the relevant provisions of its regulation". Regarding the evidence of accepting a
request for an amendment to an Import Approval, Indonesia refers to Exhibit IDN-4.
6.73. We do not s hare Brazil's view that there is a tension between paragraph 7.221 on the one
hand and paragraphs 7.227 and 7.228 on the other. Our findings in paragraphs 7.227 and 7.228
rely solely on the text of MoA 42/2019.51 It is this text that, in the Panel's view, does not give a clear
answer to the question whether Indonesia's authorities enjoy undefined discretion in accepting or
rejecting a request for an amendment to import licence terms – the premise of Brazil's argum ent.
Our finding in Indonesia's favour follows from the application of the rules on the burden of proof, as
set out in paragraph 7.221, rather than accepting Indonesia's explanations as true. We have
adjusted the wording of paragraphs 7.221 and 7.228 to make this view clearer.
7 FINDINGS
7.1. Below we examine the measures challenged by Brazil in the following order: (1) delay in
approving Brazil's veterinary health certificate ; (2) positive list requirement; (3) intended use
requirement and its enforcement provisions, and (4) fixed licence terms.
7.2. Before doing so, however, we first discuss the order of analysis in respect of the different
versions of measures in existence at the time of panel establishment and as adopted since that time.
Furthermore, we briefly recall the factual context of this dispute as the panel had also done in the
original proceeding.

48 See Appellate Body Reports, US – Continued Zeroing, para. 343; and Japan – Agricultural Products II,
para. 129; US – Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint), para. 1140. See also Panel Report, EC – Seal Products,
para. 7.77.
49 Although in its request to review precise aspects of the Interim Report, Brazil refers to para. 7.226,
we understand this to be a clerical error and that Brazil is in fact seeking a revision of para. 7.225.
50 Indonesia's comments relate to the letter containing the statements of reasons, which is not
addressed in this paragraph.
51 This is clear from the language of the introductory sentences to both paragraphs.

7.1 Order of analysis – which versions of the measures to review
7.3. As noted above, since the establishment of the Panel, Indonesia has either replaced or
amended the relevant MoA and MoT regulations embodying the measures at issue.52 This raised the
question which versions of these measures the Panel should address. With regard to the positive list
requirement, intended use requirement and fixed licence terms, Brazil requests the Panel to make
findings both on the amended versions of the measures and on the versions that existed at the time
of panel establishment.53 Indonesia submits that the Panel should focus its assessment only on the
amended measures.54
7.4. Below we explain which versions of the three measures we will address and why. As regards
the delay in approving the veterinary health certificate, Brazil asks the Panel to consider
developments up until the Panel's establishment.55 Because this request for findings is different from
that for the other three measures, and taking into account the specific nature of the undue delay
claim, we explain the manner in which we assess this claim together with our analysis of the
substance of that claim.56
7.5. We note at the outset that neither party has contested the Panel's jurisdiction to review both
the versions of the measures that existed at panel establishment and the amended ones. 57 Nor do
we see any reason to doubt that our mandate covers either version of the measures.58 In the absence
of jurisdictional obstacles, our decision will be guided by the parties' specific requests 59 and the
overarching objective of the dispute settlement system to secure a positive solution to the dispute.60
We shall also take account of the specific nature of compliance proceedings.
7.6. Starting with the amended versions of the measures, the parties concur that considering them
would "contribute to the prompt settlement of the dispute". 61 We agree that findings on the recent
amendments would be particularly conducive to solving this dispute and note that the parties have
extensively argued about the alleged inconsistency of the amended measures. 62 Addressing the
amended measures would also be useful if Indonesia is found to have achieved compliance with
respect to some or all of them. This is particularly relevant in the context of compliance proceedings.
Leaving unresolved new developments that have been properly argued before a panel in s uch
proceedings could not only lead to additional litigation, but also to unnecessary suspension of

52 See section 2.2 above.
53 Brazil's second written submission, paras. 2, 99, 100, 118, 127, 134, 162, and 184. Brazil's response
to Panel question No. 1.
54 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 24; See also Indonesia's second written submission,
para. 2.
55 Brazil makes arguments regarding the post-panel establishment period only in the alternative, should
the Panel not accept its request, see Brazil's first written submission, para. 55; second written submission,
para. 48; and Brazil's response to Panel question No. 3, paras. 25 and 29.
56 See section 7.3.6.1 below.
57 Brazil's second written submission, paras. 100-101; Indonesia's first written submission, para. 10.
58 Brazil submits that the adoption of MoA 42/2019 and the amendment to MoT 29/2019 have not
changed the essence of the measures at issue in this dispute. Brazil's second written submission, para. 101.
59 Prior adjudicators regarded parties' requests for findings as an important factor in deciding whether to
rule on a measure adopted in the course of proceedings. See Panel Reports, US – Renewable Energy,
para. 7.24; Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Colombia) / Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama),
para. 7.111.
60 Article 3.7 of the DSU. See Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, paras. 131-132; Panel
Reports, Russia – Tariff Treatment, paras. 7.83 and 7.171; Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Colombia) /
Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama), para. 7.113; Thailand – Cigarettes (Article 21.5 – Philippines),
61 Brazil's second written submission, para. 102; Indonesia's second written submission, para. 2.
62 Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, para. 143; Panel Reports, Colombia – Textiles
(Article 21.5 – Colombia) / Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama), para. 7.113; and US – Renewable
Energy, para. 7.24. In US – Renewable Energy, the panel commented that:
[T]he version of the measure that is currently in force [is] the version of the measure to which
any meaningful findings of WTO-inconsistency and concomitant recommendations would need to
be directed, and in respect of which such findings and recommendations would need to be
implemented.

concessions or other obligations, running counter to the DSU objective o f prompt settlement of
disputes.63
7.7. Turning to the earlier versions of the measures, Brazil submits that it is entitled "to findings
regarding whether Indonesia complied with the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the RPT
… and at the date of the Panel's establishment". 64 Brazil explains that (i) there is a disagreement
between the parties whether these measures have achieved substantive compliance with the DSB's
recommendations and rulings; and that (ii) such findings will preserve Brazil's rights for the purposes
of any subsequent Article 22.6 proceedings on the level of suspension of concessions and other
obligations.65 Indonesia contests, in particular, Brazil's second point , arguing that "it is not
permissible to invoke Article 22.6 proceedings if the Panel has found that the most recent versions
of the measure at issue are already consistent with the original panel findings and
recommendations".66
7.8. We would not subscribe to a view whereby a complainant would always and necessarily be
"entitled" to findings that are in addition to findings on a later version of the same measure. There
may well be situations where such additional findings would simply not be necessary because the
findings already made address all relevant issues.67
7.9. However, Brazil gives us two reasons why in this case additional findings would be necessary.
Regarding the first, we understand Brazil to be making a point about the importance of the RPT.
Indonesia was required to achieve substantive compliance by the end of the RPT and there is
disagreement between the parties whether Indonesia has done so. To bypass this disagreement and
focus only on the current situation would undermine the role of the RPT. It could create an incentive
for responding Members to wait for Article 21.5 proceedings to start before implementing the DSB's
recommendations and rul ings. Therefore, we accept that, to give full effect to the RPT agreed
between the parties, it may well be necessary to make a finding whether substantive compliance
was achieved by the end of the RPT.
7.10. Regarding Brazil’s second reason, we do not take a v iew on whether , and if so, how, such
additional findings would assist a potential arbitrator in assessing the level of nullification or
impairment. That is for an arbitrator to decide.
7.11. In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, we will review both versions of the positive list
requirement, intended use requirement and fixed licence terms. We will first address the amended
measures, that is, the current version of the measures. We will then provide, in addition, an
assessment of their earlier versions, that is, the versions in place at panel establishment.
7.2 Background on the relevant import licensing procedures in Indonesia
7.12. Having explained the order in which we analyse different versions of the measures at issue,
we briefly present the factual context of this dispute. We highlight some salient features of
Indonesia's import licensing regime, of which the challenged measures form part. Our description
largely draws on the original panel's explanations. Although Indonesia has since modified certain
aspects of this system, its basic set-up has remained unchanged.68
7.13. In order to import poultry products into Indonesia, an importer has to apply for and obtain
an Import Recommendation from the Minister of Agri culture (Import Recommendation) and an
Import Approval from the Minister of Trade (Import Approval). The former is a necessary step in

63 The Appellate Body has highlighted the importance of addressing developments that took place in the
course of compliance proceedings. See US – Zeroing (Japan) (Article 21.5 – Japan), para. 122.
64 Brazil's second written submission, para. 2.
65 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 1, para. 1.
66 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 1, para. 3.
67 In some cases, past panels have rejected requests to make additional findings on prior versions of the
measures at issue on the grounds that such findings were not necessary; see Panel Reports, Colombia –
Textiles (Article 21.5 – Colombia) / Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama), para. 7.112; Russia – Tariff
Treatment, paras. 7.168-7.169; and US – Renewable Energy, para. 7.25.
68 We discuss changes in the relevant legal instruments in the sections below dealing with the measures
at issue.

obtaining the latter. The relevant MoA and MoT regulations set out the procedural and substantive
requirements for obtaining an Import Recommendation and an Import Approval.69
7.14. Importers can only apply for an Import Recommendation if the exporting country has been
approved in advance as a "country of origin". Similarly, the relevant business unit in the exporting
country is required to be pre -approved before an importer can include it in an application for an
Import Recommendation. The country of origin approval serves to verify animal health conditions
for the relevant product in the exporting country. The business unit ap proval serves to verify the
animal health and food safety conditions at the relevant business units in the country of origin.70
7.15. In addition to having country of origin approval and business unit approval, importers must
submit a number of other documents when applying for an Import Recommendation.71
7.16. We reproduce below the chart from the original panel report that provides an overview of the
basic features of Indonesia's import licensing regime.72
Figure 1: Overview of Indonesia's import licensing regime

7.17. In the original proceeding, the parties did not dispute that there had been virtually no imports
of chicken cuts (since 2006) and whole chicken (since 2009) into Indonesia, including from Brazil.73
In this proceeding, Brazil likewise asserts, and Indonesia does not contest, that the re have been
"virtually no exports" of chicken from Brazil to Indonesia.74
7.18. We now turn to reviewing Brazil's claims in the order set out above.

69 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.96. We discuss some of these requirements in the sections
below dealing with the measures at issue.
71 Businesses, for example, have to produce a halal certificate as part of the documentation necessary
to obtain an Import Recommendation, see Article 7 of MoA 42/2019. See also Panel Report, Indonesia –
Chicken, para. 7.98.
72 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, Figure 1.
74 Brazil's first written submission, para. 2.

7.3 Delay in approving Brazil's veterinary health certificate
Introduction
7.19. In this section we address the undue delay claim under Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the
SPS Agreement, which Brazil raises in respect of its request for approval of a veterinary health
certificate for the importation of poultry from Brazil into Indonesia.75 Indonesia requests us to reject
the claim.
7.20. We first recall some factual background as well as relevant findings by the original panel. We
then describe developments subsequent to the adoption of the panel report and briefly outline the
parties' arguments before turning to our analysis of these arguments.
Background on the veterinary health certificate
7.21. To recall the original panel's description, a veterinary health certificate is a document issued
by an officially recognized veterinarian in the country of origin, attesting to certain health
characteristics of the traded product and of its place of origin.76 These health characteristics pertain
to aspects such as the disease status of the product or the animal from which it is derived and of its
place of origin; the type of veterinary inspection to which the animal was subject; the conditions of
the establishment in which the products were obtained; the type of monitoring to which the
establishments are subject; and the product's wholesomeness and suitabil ity for human
consumption.77 Under Indonesian law , imported animal products must be accompanied by a
veterinary health certificate.78
7.22. As noted above, both the exporting country itself and its exporting business units need prior
approval to allow for any importation of animal products into Indonesia.79 A model veterinary health
certificate is part of the exporting country's approval as a "country of origin". 80 Indonesian law
provides for a four-step procedure to obtain country of origin approval, and therefore also, approval
of the veterinary health certificate, including (1) a desk review of the documents, (2) an on -site
inspection, (3) a risk analysis by Indonesian authorities, and finally (4) a bilateral health protocol
that includes the model veterinary certificate.81 The legal instrument currently governing the
approval procedure is MoA 42/2019, which was adopted in August 2019.82
7.23. Brazil requested approval of a veterinary health certificate for importation of poultry from
Brazil into Indonesia in 2009. The Indonesian authorities' treatment of this request was the subject
of the original proceeding and is also the subject of the present compliance proceeding.
Relevant findings in the original proceeding
7.24. Just as in the present compliance proceeding, in the original proceeding Brazil claimed that
the Indonesian authorities' treatment of its request involved "undue delay" pursuant to Article 8 and
Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.83
7.25. The panel found that the approval of a veterinary health certificate was an SPS approval
procedure as defined in, and subject to, the requirements of, Annex C of the SPS Agreement.84 The

75 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 16.
76 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.499. See also definition of "international veterinary health
certificate" in the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) Terrestrial Animal Health Code:
A certificate, issued in accordance with Chapter 5.2, describing the animal health and public
health requirements that are fulfilled by the exported commodities.
OIE, Terrestrial Animal Health Code (28th edition, 2019), Glossary. Available at:
https://www.oie.int/index.php?id=169&L=0&htmfile=glossaire.htm (last accessed on 11 May 2020).
77 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.499-7.501.
81 See graph in Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.502.
82 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1).

panel further found that Brazil's application had remained in step 1 (desk review). 85 Relying on
Indonesia's explanation, the panel identified the reason for the "hold up" to be that Brazil had not
submitted the halal assurance documentation required under the relevant regulation for business
unit approval. 86 The panel found that at least one request for business unit approval had been
submitted in 201287 and that the country of origin approval procedure was bundled with the business
unit approval procedure.88
7.26. The panel observed that a Member may not delay the completion of an SPS approval
procedure because non-SPS-related information, which the Member requires the applicant to submit,
is outstanding from the application.89 Applying this conclusion to the facts at issue, the panel recalled
that the only information that was outstanding rela ted to halal assurances , which was non -SPS-
related information. Accordingly, the panel found the delay to be unjustified and therefore undue.
The panel noted that, given the scope of Brazil's claim, this finding applied to the approval procedure
relevant to obtain the veterinary health certificate, that is, the country of origin approval procedure.
Referring to its relevant previous findings, the panel noted that this procedure was bundled with the
business unit approval procedure, which had an SPS componen t as well as the halal component at
issue.90
7.27. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Indonesia had caused an undue delay in the approval
of the veterinary health certificate in violation of Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.91
Developments su bsequent to the adoption of the panel report in the original
proceeding
7.28. As noted above, the panel report was adopted on 22 November 2017 and Indonesia indicated
that it needed a RPT to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings because it was
impracticable to do so immediately.92 The parties negotiated an agreement under Article 21.3(b) of
the DSU, which they notified to the DSB on 15 March 2018.93 The agreed RPT was eight months as
of the adoption of the report and expired on 22 July 2018.
7.3.4.1 Up to the end of the RPT
7.29. As both parties confirm, the issue of the pending request for the approval of a veterinary
certificate was part of the discussions on the RPT. The record indicates that there was some debate
on the need to update relevant information submit ted with the request in the form of replies to a
questionnaire. Indonesia pointed to the need to submit updated questionnaires for the request to be
processed,94 whereas Brazil took the view that the sanitary information provided to Indonesian
authorities in 2009 remained valid.95
7.30. On 24 May 2018, Indonesia adopted MoA 23/2018 amend ing MoA 34/2016. 96 The
amendments concerned, inter alia, the halal requirement in the business unit approval procedure.97
7.31. By letter of 31 May 2018 Indonesia advised Brazil that the sanitary information provided by
Brazil in its 2009 questionnaire was no longer adequate for a proper sanitary assessment in 2018 .
Indonesia requested Brazil "to provide a completed questionnaire containing updated sanitary

86 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.508 and 7.520.
92 See para. 1.2 above.
93 WT/DS484/16.
94 Email from the Representative of Indonesia’s Mission in Geneva to Brazil’s Mission in Geneva, dated 8
March 2019, (Exhibit IDN-43).
95 Letter from Ambassador Evandro Didonet to Ambassador Hasan Kleib (29 March 2018),
(Exhibit BRA-2).
96 Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Agriculture, Regulation 23/2018, (Exhibit BRA-11).
97 Indonesia notified this amendment to the DSB in its status report of 14 September 2018, see
Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18 (Compliance Communication).

information for Brazil and the relevant business units "98 and attached a country of origin
questionnaire addressed to the authorities of exporting countries to this letter.99
7.3.4.2 Between the end of the RPT and panel establishment
7.32. Brazil provided its replies to the country of origin questionnaire on 12 September 2018.100
7.3.4.3 Since the establishment of the Panel
7.33. The Panel was established on 24 June 2019. On 25 June 2019, that is nine months after Brazil
had submitted its up dated questionnaire, Indonesia sent Brazil a letter informing it that the desk
review of Brazil's request "has been done on June 17, 2019". Indonesia also stated that based on
the desk review, further information was needed. The letter provided a list of additional information
requested, namely (a) volume of chicken meat exports and destination countries in the last five
years; (b) recall system mechanism for exported poultry meat products, including the triggers for a
recall and procedure for informing the importing country; (c) explanation and information related
with refusal of chicken meat from Brazil to other countries caused by Salmonella spoilage; and (d)
results of surveillance/monitoring of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes and Campylobacter in the
last five years.101 Indonesia informed Brazil that "[a]fter the documents are completed, the process
of country approval can proceed to the on-site inspection".102
7.34. Brazil provided the requested information on 2 August 2019. 103 Indonesia claims to have
replied to this letter on 14 October 2019 and Brazil claims not to have received the reply. 104 In the
copy of the reply provided to the Panel, Indonesia requested further additional information
concerning the results of the investigation and measures taken by the Brazilian authority regarding
the notifications due to the presence of Salmonella spp. in Brazilian poultry meat from a number of
countries.105 Indonesia re-sent the request on 13 December 2019.106
Outline of parties' arguments
7.35. In this section we outline the parties' arguments, which are summarized in more detail under
the relevant points in the legal analysis.
7.36. Brazil claims undue delay both for country of origin approval and business unit approval. It
alleges three different undue delays between the adoption of the report and panel establishment, all
essentially relating to the requirement to submit an updated questionnaire and the subsequent
processing of that questionnaire. Brazil does not see a need for the Panel to review the events after
panel establishment and puts forward arguments concerning that period only in the alternative.

98 Letter from Ambassador Hasan Kleib to Ambassador Evandro Didonet (31 May 2018), (Exhibit
BRA-3), p. 3.
99 No business unit questionnaire was attached to the letter. We note, however, that, Indonesia had
already sent copies of both questionnaires to Brazil in an email dated 8 March 2018 following up on an informal
bilateral meeting of the parties of the same date, see Exhibit IDN-43. Furthermore, we take note of Indonesia's
explanation that it "was only attaching the country questionnaire in the official letter of 31 May 2018 as a
favour", see Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 10.
100 Letter from Ambassador Evandro Didonet to Ambassador Hasan Kleib (12 September 2018), (Exhibit
BRA-5). In this letter, Brazil also reiterated its position that the sanitary information provided to Indonesian
authorities in 2009 remained valid.
101 Letter from the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal
Health Services) to the Ambassador of Brazil to Indonesia (25 June 2019), (Exhibit BRA-7), p. 2.
102 Letter from the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal
Health Services) to the Ambassador of Brazil to Indonesia (25 June 2019), (Exhibit BRA-7), p. 2.
103 Brazil’s response to the 25 June 2019 letter from the Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of
Indonesia (Directorate General of Livestock and Animal Health) (2 August 2019), (Exhibit BRA-18).
104 Brazil's second written submission, para. 87.
105 Letter to Brazil Ambassador for Indonesia from Director General of Livestock and Animal Health
Services, Ministry of Agriculture on 14 October 2019 concerning the Result of Desk Review on Brazil’s
Application, (Exhibit IDN-27), p. 2. See also Indonesia's first written submission, para. 146.
106 Indonesia's opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, para. 10. Brazil confirmed at the
substantive meeting that it had not yet submitted the requested additional information to Indonesia and
provided further details on why it had not yet done so in its written replies to the Panel's questions, see Brazil's
response to Panel question No. 21, para. 62.

7.37. Indonesia contends that the Panel should review the period starting from the end of the RPT
until the substantive meeting of the Panel with the parties. Indonesia also extensively argues why
the delays Brazil identified were not incurred or were not undue. Much of its defence, however,
concentrates on demonstrating that delays currently incurred are justified because of the salmonella
risks that Indonesia's requests for additional information address.
7.38. Among the third parties, Canada, the European Union and New Zealand submitted views on
the issue of undue delay essentially supporting Brazil's position.107
Analysis of the Panel
7.39. We must determine whether Indonesia has failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations
and rulings by acting inconsistently with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement when
dealing with Brazil's request for a veterinary health certificate.
7.40. Article 8 mandates that Members observe the p rovisions of Annex C in the operation of
control, inspection and approval procedures. Thus, a violation of the obligations contained in Annex C
entails a violation of Article 8.108
7.41. Article 8 of the SPS Agreement reads:
Members shall observe the provisions of Annex C in the operation of control, inspection
and approval procedures, including national systems for approving the use of additives
or for establishing tolerances for contaminants in foods, beverages or feedstuffs, and
otherwise ensure that their pro cedures are not inconsistent with the provisions of this
Agreement.
7.42. Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement reads:
1. Members shall ensure, with respect to any procedure to check and ensure the
fulfilment of sanitary or phytosanitary measures, that:
(a) such procedures are undertaken and completed without undue delay and in no less
favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products;
(…)
7.43. Thus, the following three elements can be discerned from Annex C(1)(a).109 First, the approval
procedure at issue must be an SPS approval procedure, that is a procedure to check and ensure the
fulfillment of sanitary and phytosanitary measures. Second, there must be a delay in a Member
undertaking or completing such SPS procedure. Third, the delay must be "undue". We address these
three elements in turn.
7.44. However, given the parties' arguments, we will first discuss the order of analysis.
7.3.6.1 Order of analysis – whether to review post-panel establishment developments
7.45. As we explained in section 7.1 above, for all other measures at issue in this proceeding we
start our review with the latest version of the measure as adopted after panel establishment. We do
so because the parties have both requested it , and because reviewing the most recent version
contributes to the positive solution of the dispute. For Brazil's undue delay claim, however, the
situation is different, first and foremost because Brazil has requested review o f events after panel
establishment only in the alternative.

107 Canada's third-party-response to Panel question Nos. 1 and 2; European's Union's third-party-
response to Panel question Nos. 1 and 2; and New Zealand's third-party submission, paras. 7–11.
108 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 434; see also Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken,
para. 7.511.
109 See also Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para.7.512.

7.46. We take the view that the complainant has control over the scope of its case. The complainant
can choose to pursue or not any claim that is within the terms of reference of the panel and can
even withdraw the entire case, if it so wishes. 110 A panel, in our view, therefore, cannot review a
measure or claim that the complainant tells it not to review. 111 Here, Brazil explicitly contends that
the appropriate end -date for our assessment is the date of the Panel's establishment and makes
arguments regarding the post-panel establishment developments on the application procedure only
if the Panel were to disagree with its position . Brazil's choice (assuming, from a terms of reference
point of view, that it has a choice)112 means that it has to prove that there was a violation of Annex
C(1)(a) up until the time of panel establishment.113 The measure that we are to review, therefore,
is the alleged failure to act without undue delay up to panel establishment. We note that not
reviewing post-panel establishment events as part of the measure does not prevent us from taking
such events into account as evidence – if we see a need to do so.114
7.47. Accordingly, there are two possible outcomes of this analysis: Brazil ei ther succeeds or fails
to prove undue delay in the time leading up to panel establishment. In our view, in either case we
do not need to consider post -panel establishment developments that Indonesia has presented as
evidence. This is obvious , should we fin d that Brazil failed to prove its case. In that case , Brazil
would not prevail with its claim, and Indonesia would not need to raise any defence.
7.48. However, in our view, it would also hold true if Brazil proves its case for undue delay. We
understand Indonesia to argue that delays currently incurred (i.e. post-panel establishment) are not
undue and that for this reason Indonesia is now in compliance with its obligation in Annex C(1)(a).115
We agree with Indonesia that if post -panel establishment developments could demonstrate that
Indonesia has come into compliance, it would be important to find so now rather than concluding
this proceeding on a factual basis that is no longer applicable and await future proceedings to find
compliance had already existed in the first place.116
7.49. However, the specific nature of the undue delay claim has a bearing on how compliance can
be achieved and, in our view, excludes the need to review events after panel establishment in the
specific circumstances of this case – if we find undue delay before panel establishment.
7.50. Annex C(1)(a) requires a Member not to incur undue delay. The obligation is continuous in
nature: it starts at the moment the request is received and ends when a final decision on that request
has been made. This follows from the reference to the procedure as being "undertaken and
completed without undue delay".117 The obligation, thus, consists in not incurring undue delays over
the entire course of this time period. If and when a Member does incur undue delay at any stage in
the procedure it is in breach of its obligation under Annex C(1)(a).118
7.51. What follows from this, in our view, is that once a breach has occurred, the violation is not
"cured" by proceeding without undue delay thereafter. The r eason is the continuous nature of the
obligation as described above: since there must not be "undue delay" all the way to completion of

110 Panel Reports, China – Raw Materials, para. 7.23.
111 Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Brand System, para. 173.
112 We understand Brazil also to be raising a terms of reference issue when referring to the "temporal
boundaries" of the claim, see Brazil's second written submission, para. 44; Brazil's responses to Panel Question
No. 3, para. 26 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC – Chicken Cuts, para. 156).
113 See also Panel Report Korea – Radionuclides, para. 7.138.
114 Brazil's second written submission, para. 47; Appellate Body Report, EC – Selected Customs
Measures, para. 188.
115 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 3.
116 See also European Union's response to Panel question No. 2, para. 9 and Canada's third-party-
response to Panel question No. 2, para. 11.
117 As the panel in EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products explained "approval procedures
must be started and then carried out from beginning to end", Panel Report, EC – Approval and Marketing of
Biotech Products, para. 7.1494. See also Panel Report US – Animals, para. 7.112. We agree with the following
observation that that panel made: "The requirement to carry out an approval procedure to the end should not
be confused with an obligation for the importing Member to approve the importation of the product(s) subject
to the procedure. Pursuant to Annex C(1)(a), the importing Member is simply required to issue a final
determination regardless of whether it be positive or negative."
118 See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1502.

the procedure, if it occurs, it necessarily affects that completion and, therefore the violation cannot
be undone.119
7.52. The impossibility of "curing" undue delay does not mean that the Member concerned cann ot
bring its measure into conformity with its WTO obligations and secure compliance with DSB
recommendations and rulings. A Member can achieve compliance with a finding of "undue delay" by
proceeding without any further undue delay when implementing the DSB's recommendations and
rulings. This is consistent with the understanding that the WTO dispute settlement system provides
for prospective, and not retrospective, remedies.
7.53. Any further undue delay incurred in the implementation process, however, is a new breach of
the obligation, which must necessarily lead to a finding of non -compliance irrespective of what
happens subsequently. After that point, only completion of the procedure can end the violation. We
therefore do not agree with Indonesia's position that currently incurred delays, if not undue, would
mean compliance. They would not if Indonesia has incurred any (further) undue delay between the
end of the RPT and panel establishment. If that were the case, Indonesia could only end the undue
delay with the completion of the approval procedure.120 Completion in this case, however, has not
happened to this date.
7.54. In these circumstances we do not see a need to review events subsequent to panel
establishment if Brazil manages to prove undue delay before panel establishment.121
7.55. For these reasons we assess Brazil's undue delay claim on the basis of events up to panel
establishment. With this, we turn to the three-pronged test outlined above.
7.3.6.2 Whether the approval procedure at issue is an SPS approval procedure
7.56. Brazil submits that the approval of the veterinary health certificate is an SPS approval
procedure. In support, Brazil relies on the original panel's finding, which, in Brazil's view, equally
applies to the procedure at issue in this proceeding.122 Furthermore, Brazil submits that the approval
procedure encompasses both country of origin and bus iness unit approval. Indonesia contests that
business unit approval is at issue in this proceeding.
7.57. As noted above, Brazil's request for the approval of a veterinary health certificate is the same
request that was at issue in the original proceeding.123 In the original proceeding, the parties agreed,
and the panel concluded, that the approval of a veterinary health certificate constitutes a "procedure
to check and ensure the fulfilment of sanitary and phytosanitary measures" and for this reason was
an SPS approval procedure.124
Scope of the approval procedure – whether country of origin only or also
business unit approval
7.58. Although the parties agree that the procedure in question is an SPS approval procedure, they
disagree on the elements it covers. It is not clear if the procedure covers only the country of origin
approval or also the business unit approval. This distinction is relevant insofar as the Panel would
need to take into account in its assessment of Brazil's claim any delays in responding to the business
unit approval request.
7.59. Brazil, in this proceeding, states that its claim under Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) covers both
the country of origin approval and the business unit approval. Brazil refers to the original panel's
findings explaining that it understands the reference to approval for the veterinary health certificate
there to cover both approvals. 125 Indonesia, for its part, while noting the missing business unit

119 See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1502.
120 See also Canada's third-party-response to Panel question No. 2, para. 13: "An obvious means of
rectifying undue delay would be for Indonesia to complete the procedure".
121 This is obvious if we do not find undue delay before panel establishment. Then we would conclude
that Brazil has not proven its case of non-compliance.
122 Brazil's first written submission, para. 52.
123 Brazil's first written submission, para. 52.
125 Brazil's response to Panel question No.13, para. 57.

questionnaire, submits that the pending desk reviews only cover the country of origin approval.126
As a factual matter, we recall that Indonesia's letter of 31 May 2018 requested both an updated
questionnaire for country of origin and for business units, attaching a country of origin questionnaire
only.127 In reply to this letter, Brazil only submitted a country of origin questionnaire and did not
submit any updated business unit questionnaire.
7.60. The parties' respective positions therefore raise questions about the scope both of the finding
in the original proceeding and of the requested finding in the present proceeding.
7.61. Turning first to the issue of what the exact scope of the finding in the original proceeding was,
we recall the following finding by that panel:
[…] the only information which is outstanding relates to halal assurances, whic h both
parties agree is not SPS related. We agree. Accordingly we find that the delay is not
justified and, is therefore undue. We note that given the scope of Brazil's claim, this
finding applies to the approval procedure relevant to obtain the veterinar y health
certificate, which, as seen above, is part of the country of origin approval procedure. As
noted above, this procedure is bundled with the business unit approval procedure,
which, has an SPS component as well as the halal component at issue .128 [emphasis
added]
7.62. We read this finding to mean that the panel, although recognizing that the business unit
approval procedure was "bundled" with the country of origin approval, limited its finding to the
request for approval of the veterinary health certificat e and did not, as suggested by Brazil, use it
as a broad reference to both country of origin and business unit approval. The reference to the
bundling of the country of origin approval procedure with a business unit approval procedure was
supporting eviden ce that the delay affected the country of origin approval, even though the
outstanding information (halal assurance) concerned the business unit approval. 129 Based on this
reading, we find that the scope of the original panel's finding was limited to the co untry of origin
approval procedure only.
7.63. Having addressed the scope of the original panel's findings, we now turn to the question of
the scope of Brazil's claim in the present proceeding. Brazil's request for the establishment of a panel
– the document that defines our terms of reference – first summarizes the original panel's findings
before turning to the situation giving rise to non -compliance with Annex C(1)(a). The summary of
the original panel's findings contains the above description of the veterinary health certificate (part
of country of origin approval, in turn bundled with business unit approval). It also mentions that
Brazil requested approval of the veterinary health certificate in 2009 and that, in 2012, at least one
Brazilian enterprise submitted the relevant SPS -related information to obtain business unit
approval.130 In subsequently describing the current situation, however, the panel request only refers
to the pending 2009 request for approval of the veterinary health certifi cate ("almost 10 years
now")131 and neither mentions again the 2012 business unit request nor, for that matter, any other
business unit request.132
7.64. On its face, therefore, Brazil's panel request, just like its request in the original proceeding,
is limited to the country of origin approval procedure in the form of the 2009 request for approval
of the veterinary health certificate. We find this reading confirmed 133 by the complete absence of
any reference to any specific business unit approval request in Brazil's submissions134, as well as by

126 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 11, para. 22: "The two desk
reviews only assessed the country of origin questionnaires submitted by Brazil."
127 See para. 7.31 above.
128 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.532. (fn omitted)
129 As noted above, the panel had found at least one such business unit approval to be pending since
2012.
130 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS/484/19, para. 14.
131 See request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS/484/19, para. 16.
132 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS/484/19, para. 16.
133 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bananas III, para. 141.
134 Brazil makes one unspecified reference to "information submitted by Brazil and its business units";
however, does not link that assertion to any evidence. We note that business unit approval requests, both
under MoA 42/2019 (Article 22(1)) and its predecessor, regulation MoA 34/2016 as amended (Article 16(1)),

Brazil's conclusions in its written submissions, requesting the Panel to find "undue delay in the
approval of the veterinary health certificate".135
7.65. We, therefore, conclude that in this proceeding Brazil's claim of undue delay in respect of its
request for a veterinary health certificate only concerns the country of origin approval and does not
cover any business unit approval.136 Our review under Annex C(1)(a), therefore, focuses on whether
undue delays have occurred in the country of origin approval procedure.
7.66. As a factual issue, we note not only that the country of origin approval is a separate procedure
from the business unit approval, but also, as both parties agree137, that under the current legislation
there is no bundling requirement. 138 We, therefore, understand Indonesia's references to missing
business unit questionnaires as a mere statement of fact of the current situation on any business
unit approvals and not as an actual or potential justification for any delays in the pending country
of origin approval procedure.
7.3.6.3 Whether there is delay in undertaking and completing the approval procedure
7.67. Brazil alleges three differen t delays as undue: The first concerns the period between the
adoption of the report and the letter of 31 May 2018, by which Indonesia requested an updated
questionnaire; the second concerns the period that elapsed because of the need to fill in a new
updated questionnaire, which Brazil submitted on 12 September 2018; and the third concerns the
time that Indonesia took to reply to that updated questionnaire, which it did on 25 June 2019.139
7.68. Indonesia does not contest the existence of the delays. However, Ind onesia argues that a
compliance panel cannot review actions taken after the adoption of the panel report but before the
end of the RPT. Therefore, in Indonesia's view, the appropriate start-date for the Panel's assessment
is, 23 July 2018 – the day after the end of the RPT.140 On the basis of Indonesia's argument, thus,
the first and part of the second delay would be excluded from our review.
7.69. We recall that the ordinary meaning of the word "delay" is "(a period of) time lost by inaction
or inability to proceed".141 We have before us three different delays, the reviewability of two of which
is (at least partly) contested. To succeed in its claim, Brazil only needs to prove one undue delay.
The third delay, which Brazil has identified, does not raise any questi ons of reviewability. We,
therefore, address this delay first. If it is undue, we do not need to look further and can leave
important systemic questions such as the one on the role of the RPT to future panels.
7.70. The third delay concerns the time that elapsed after Brazil submitted its updated questionnaire
on 12 September 2018. As noted above, Indonesia replied to this submission on 25 June 2019, that
is, nine months later (and one day after panel establishment).142 Indonesia acknowledges the actual
desk review of Brazil's request only took place on 17 June 2019 and provides several reasons why
this was the case.143 Thus, Indonesia does not contest that there was an extended period of inaction
and, therefore, that there was a delay. Indeed, Indonesia refers in this context to its standard
processing time for desk review (as laid down in the current legislation), which is shorter, namely

are to be submitted through the country of origin's authorities. Brazil, thus, would have specific information, if
any business unit had applied for approval, see Brazil's first written submission, para. 63, see also Brazil's
response to Panel question No. 20, para. 60.
135 Brazil's first written submission, para. 232, letter (a); Brazil's second written submission, para. 185,
letter (b).
136 We leave open the question whether the scope of this Article 21.5 proceeding would allow for the
inclusion of any business unit requests.
137 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 5(b); Brazil's comment on Indonesia's response to Panel
question No. 12, para. 58.
138 There is no need for us to decide whether there was a bundling requirement under the previous
legislation or whether bundling was just done as a matter of fact; See Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken,
para. 7.518.
139 See, in particular, Brazil's first written submission, para. 70; and Brazil's response to Panel question
No 13, para. 60.
140 Indonesia's first written submission, paras. 113, 127, 128, and 130.
141 See Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.519, referring to Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 437 (citing Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn., A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University
Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 635).
142 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 66 and 69.
143 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 145.

six months.144 Rather than denying that there was delay, Indonesia focuses on the reasons why its
authorities did not undertake the desk review earlier, to demonstrate that the delay is not undue.
7.71. We, therefore, turn to whether the delay is undue.
7.3.6.4 Whether the delay is undue
7.72. In examining whether the delay that Indonesia has incurred is undue, we recall that the
ordinary meaning of that term is "unwarranted" or "unjustifiable".145 In line with past panels and the
Appellate Body, we consider that whether a delay is unwarranted or unjustifiable requires a
case-by-case analysis of the reasons for the alleged failure to act with appropriate dispatch. 146
Canada argues in this respect that the specific nature of a compliance situation may have a bearing
on that analysis and we agree. We come back to this point below.
7.73. Indonesia states that Brazil's updated questionnaire only reached the Ministry of Agriculture
on 3 October 2018147 because Brazil had submitted it to Indonesia's Permanent Mission in Geneva
instead of the Ministry of Agricul ture as required. 148 As regards the period thereafter, Indonesia
explains essentially that Brazil's updated questionnaire needed to be reviewed by an Expert
Committee and that this Committee was only available to do so on 17 June 2019.149
7.74. The parties agree that Brazil's request is at step 1 of the approval procedure, that is, the desk
review.150 A desk review is described in Article 23(1) of MoA 42/2019 as follows:
Desk review as referred to in Article 20 letter (a) and (b), is done to review:
a. the c ompleteness and correctness of the Country of Origin and/or Business Unit
application for approval as referred to in Article 22 paragraph (2); and
b. the fulfillment of the Country of Origin and/or Business Unit requirements as referred
to in Article 11 to Article 15.151
7.75. Article 23(2) specifies that desk review is done by a "document reviewer team" and
Article 23(3) provides that this team consists "of representative[s] of General Director of Livestock
and Animal Health, Agriculture Quarantine Body, and/or Commission of Animal Health Experts,
Public Health Veterinary, and Animal Quarantine".
7.76. With Indonesia's help we have come to the following understanding of how the desk review
process is organized and how this process played out in the specific circumstances of this case.

144 We do not take a view whether this standard processing time per se is an appropriate benchmark.
145 See Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.526 referring to Appellate Body Report, Australia –
Apples, para. 437 (citing Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 6th edn., A. Stevenson (ed.) (Oxford University
Press, 2007), Vol. 1, p. 635). See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para.
7.1495, finding that Annex C(1)(a) dictates that approval procedures should be undertaken and completed
with no unjustifiable loss of time.
146 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437. See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495, finding that Annex C(1)(a) dictates that approval procedures
should be undertaken and completed with no unjustifiable loss of time.
147 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 145. We note that in a later submission Indonesia refers
to November as the relevant date when the questionnaire was received by the Ministry of Agriculture, see
Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(a).
148 Indonesia's first written submission, paras. 145, 136, and 137. Indonesia lists two more formal
errors in Brazil's submission (no official stamp on questionnaire; no cover letter) but confirms that these are
not a reason to delay the procedure, Indonesia's first written submission, para. 137.
149 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 145.
150 As noted above, desk review is followed by an on-site visit (step 2), a risk analysis (step 3) and the
conclusion of a bilateral health protocol (step 4). See para. 7.22 above.
151 See MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1).

7.77. Within the Ministry of Agriculture there exists a Desk Review Team, currently consisting of
25 members (including doctors), 152 whose task it is to "review the documents submitted" and
"submit a written report to the Director of Livestock a nd Animal Health".153 The decree setting up
this Desk Review Team also provides that, if necessary, the Desk Review Team can "ask for
suggestions and opinions from Expert Committee of Animal Health and Veterinary Public Health
and/or experts with related scientific backgrounds".154 Indonesia describes the Desk Review Team's
task as ensuring "the completeness and the accuracy of all required formalities" in respect of the
submitted information.155 We see this task as corresponding to the description in Article 23(1)(a) of
MoA 42/2019 above.
7.78. Furthermore, as referred to in the Decree establishing the Desk Review Team, there is the
Expert Committee for Animal Health and Veterinary Public Health, also created by a ministerial
decree. As Indonesia explains, this Committee is composed of "the most prominent veterinarians,
experts from major universities and also highly qualified professionals in Indonesia". 156 There are
currently 29 experts.157 The Committee is renewed every five years and this renewal came up, when
the previous Expert Committee's man date ended on 14 February 2019. 158 The new Expert
Committee was appointed by Ministerial Decree of 7 May 2019.
7.79. The Committee's task is described in the decree as "a. Doing technical analysis regarding an
issue related to animal health, veterinary public he alth and/or animal quarantine. b. Giving critics
and advice regarding an issue related to animal health, veterinary public health and/or animal
quarantine."159 According to Indonesia, the Expert Committee systematically assists the Desk Review
Team with the task of "assess[ing] whether the application has fulfilled all the requirements for
country of origin " approval.160 We see that task as corresponding to the description in
Article 23(1)(b) above. Regarding that task, Indonesia explains that the Expert Committee's analysis
of whether the country of origin requirements are fulfilled differs from the risk analysis in step 3 of
the approval process insofar as it is a process to "determine whether all required information has
been received for further verificati on (on-site visit)", while risk analysis serves to "assess the risk
based on the information that has been verified whether it is safe or not to import certain products
from certain country."161 Furthermore, as indicated in the relevant provisions in MoA 42 /2019 and
confirmed by Indonesia, the Expert Committee's assistance also extends to the on-site visit and the
risk analysis.162
7.80. Under the current ministerial decree, the Expert Committee "is allowed to hold meetings
periodically every 6 (six) months or anyt ime"163, whereas the previous committee was to hold
meetings periodically once every three months and, if needed, could hold meetings anytime
depending on its necessity.164 Indonesia explains that up to date there has never been any special
meeting conducted by the Expert Committee outside the regular schedule for desk review. 165
Furthermore, Indonesia notes that "t o find a schedule that can accommodate all 10 -29 veterinary

152 We refer to the list of names contained in the decree, which lists 14 people with the title of doctor.
We cannot infer from the list or the decree itself, whether these are veterinary doctors, medical doctors or
other. See Decree concerning the appointment of Desk Review Team in 2018 issued by Director of Veterinary
Public Health, second and third clause, (Exhibit IDN-7), page 8.
153 Decree concerning the appointment of Desk Review Team in 2018 issued by Director of Veterinary
Public Health, second and third clause, (Exhibit IDN-7), page 8.
154 Decree concerning the appointment of Desk Review Team in 2018 issued by Director of Veterinary
Public Health, clause four, (Exhibit IDN-7), page 8.
155 Indonesia's first written submission, paras. 140 and 142.
156 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(b).
157 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert Committee in 2019 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health, (Exhibit IDN-19).
158 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 144.
159 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert Committee in 2019 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health, second clause, point 4, (Exhibit IDN-19), page 13.
160 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 142. As Indonesia explains, this Expert Committee reviews
in the same way business unit approval requests.
161 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 18.
162 See Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(e).
163 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert Committee in 2019 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health, (Exhibit IDN-19), sixth clause.
164 Decree concerning the Appointment of Expert Committee in 2014 issued by Director General of
Livestock and Animal Health, (Exhibit IDN-13), fifth and sixth clause.
165 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(c).

experts is very hard" and this is why regular meetings have now been changed to every six
months.166
7.81. As Indonesia explains, the previous Expert Committee, whose mandate ended on 14 February
2019 met only once between November and February, namely on 12 February 2019. Brazil's request
was not reviewed at that meeting, because Indonesia applied the first-come, first-served principle:
there were already around 20 other applications in the pipeline and due to the large number of
documents, the Expert Committee could only review 17 of them.167
7.82. The current Expert Committee, according to Indonesia, after being composed in May, met for
the first time on 17 June 2019 and this was when Brazil's request was reviewed. From the attendees
list attached to the minutes of that meeting, we understand that this meeting was a joint meeting
of experts and the Desk Review Team.168
7.83. With this understanding of what the desk review entails and how the process played out in
the specific circumstances, we now turn to our assessment of whether the delay incurred is
unwarranted or unjustifiable. We focus directly on the period between October 2018 and June 2019
when Brazil's request was with the Ministry of Agriculture in charge of processing it. We see two
issues with the way Indonesia handled the process.
7.84. The first is the lack of resources coupled with issues of the design/set-up of the process itself.
The reason why Brazil's request was not processed sooner, as per Indonesia's explanations, is
essentially the lack of resources, both internal and external. Indonesia points to the small number
of officials in the Desk Review Team and to the unavailability of the Expert Committee due to the
experts' busy schedules. We observe that it is Members' responsibility to allocate resources to the
institutional framework that they create so that they are in a position to discharge the obligations
they have assumed under the WTO Agreement.169 Thus, Indonesia has the responsibility to make
sure that there is enough capacity to proceed without delay.170 Therefore the relatively small number
of desk review officials, does not exonerate Indonesia. As regards the outsourcing of parts of the
process to outside expertise, as a matter of principle, we do not see a problem with such outsourcing.
However, the Member's responsibility to discharge its obligatio ns under the WTO Agreement
remains. Therefore, in such a situation a Member has to make sure that the (outside) capacity is
such that the process can be undertaken and completed without undue delay. Consequently, the
outside experts' busy schedule does not exonerate Indonesia. We find relevant, in this regard,
Canada's point that "undue delay in the operation of a procedure can arise from the design of the
procedure itself".171 While the procedure itself is not the measure at issue here, we point out that it
may be the very design of the process – the number of outside experts and the extent of their
involvement in the process – that has resulted in the delay that Indonesia is now responsible for.
7.85. We see another design problem in the set-up of the process it self. The involvement of an
Expert Committee at the desk review stage seems to invite a level of substantive analysis that closely
resembles the risk analysis stage. By front -loading that analysis to the desk review stage and, at
the same time, involving t he Expert Committee also in the subsequent stages of on -site visit and
risk analysis, we see a risk of repetition, that in our view, could be avoided.172
7.86. The second issue is the lack of priority given to Brazil's request. It is clear from Indonesia's
explanations that Brazil's request was treated like a regular request, namely on a first -come,

166 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(b).
167 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 16(a).
168 Minutes of the Meeting from Director of Veterinary Public Health regarding the desk review result on
Brazil's application on 17 June 2019, (Exhibit IDN-22), pp. 18-21. We have some trouble identifying more than
four experts from the Expert Committee; at the same time, we note a large presence of Members of the Desk
Review Team.
169 See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1500, fn. 1290 and
European Union's third-party submission, para. 67; Canada's third-party statement, para. 8.
170 We note that there is no special and differential treatment for developing countries with regard to the
obligation in Annex C(1)(a) to process requests without undue delay.
171 Canada's third-party statement, para. 7.
172 We note that MoA 42/2019 does not necessarily require in the input of the Expert Committee in
every stage.

first-served basis.173 The Desk Review Team does not seem to have given the request any special
treatment; a special meeting of the Expert Committee was not organized nor was Brazil's request
given any priority at the regular meeting of the Committee that took place on 12 February 2019. As
we noted above, whether a dela y is unwarranted or unjustifiable requires a case -by-case analysis
as to the reasons for the alleged failure to act with appropriate dispatch. 174 What constitutes
appropriate dispatch, therefore, may vary from one situation to the next. The specific situati on at
hand here is that Indonesia was under the obligation to comply with the DSB's recommendations
and rulings in respect of the panel's undue delay finding. Canada, in this regard, points out that:
[B]ringing oneself into compliance in the face of a fin ding of a violation arising from
undue delay in the operation of an approval procedure calls for action by the Member
concerned that is qualitatively different from what might be required to cure a
substantive violation. This is because the very essence of the obligation in Annex
C(1)(a) is timeliness. As a result, the gravamen of a violation of this obligation arises
from the time lost. Any further delays only aggravate the situation created by the
responding party.175
7.87. We agree with Canada that this means that a responding Member already found to have acted
inconsistently with Annex C(1)(a) cannot pursue a "business-as-usual" approach, but must prioritize
to ensure that the approval procedure advances without further delays.176 Additional delays, even if
they might otherwise have been "normal" are unjustifiable in this context and are, therefore, undue.
7.88. Based on our analysis of these two issues we find that the delay that Indonesia incurred in
processing Brazil's updated questionnaire was unjustifiable and, therefore, undue.
Conclusion
7.89. We have found undue delay in the period between Brazil's submission of the updated
questionnaire and panel establishment. Because of this finding we do not consider it necessary to
decide whether there was also undue delay in the other instances that Brazil identified. Furthermore,
as we explained in section 7.3.6.1 above if (and because) there is a finding of undue delay in the
period leading up to panel establishment and given the non -completion of the procedure, we must
conclude on non-compliance irrespective of the events that occurred after panel establishment.
7.90. Indonesia, therefore, will have to complete this approval procedure to end non-compliance
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. In this respect we emphasize that we do not call into
question Indonesia's right to take measures to address the risk of salmonella (or any other risk
identified in Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement), and that are consistent with its obligations
under the SPS Agreement.
7.91. In conclusion, we find that Indonesia has caused further undue delay in the approval of the
veterinary health certificate inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS Agreement.
7.4 Positive list requirement
Introduction
7.92. In this section we address Brazil's claims relating to the positive list requirement. Brazil
describes this measure as concerning:
Indonesian regulations governing the importation of meat, which prescribe the type of
carcass for which an importer may obtai n a Ministry of Agriculture Import
Recommendation and Ministry of Trade Import Approval. Products that are not listed

173 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 140; Indonesia's response to Panel question No.16(a); see
also Communication by Indonesia WT/DS484/18/Add.7 (Compliance Communication).
174 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Apples, para. 437. See also Panel Report, EC – Approval and
Marketing of Biotech Products, para. 7.1495, finding that Annex C(1)(a) dictates that approval procedures
should be undertaken and completed with no unjustifiable loss of time.
175 Canada's third-party statement, para. 11.
176 Canada's third-party statement, para. 11; see also Canada's third-party-response to Panel question
No. 1, para.2; and Brazil's response to Panel question No. 2, para. 15.

in the relevant appendices of the respective regulations cannot be the subject of either
an Import Recommendation or an Import Approval.177
7.93. Brazil claims that the measure continues to inhibit the importation of poultry products into
Indonesia in contravention of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture. Indonesia contests these allegations and maintains that the positive list requirement is
consistent with both provisions.
7.94. We start by recalling the relevant findings of the panel in the original proceeding. We then
briefly describe the measure that Indonesia has taken to comply with that panel's ruling and
introduce the parties' arguments relating to the consistency of that measure with the two provisions.
We follow with our analysis of the parties' positions. As explained in section 7.1 above, we will first
deal with the current version of the measure and then turn to its earlier iteration.
Relevant findings in the original proceeding
7.95. Brazil stated that the scope of its complaint concerned five different chicken products.178 With
respect to three of these, Brazil challenged their non-inclusion in the appendices to the relevant MoA
and MoT regulations. According to Brazil, this amounted to a prohibition on imports under Article
XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and a quantitative im port restriction under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.
7.96. The panel established that "[c]hicken cuts and other chicken products cannot be the subject
either of an MoA Import Recommendation or an MoT Import Approval, because they are not listed
in the relevant appendices of the respective regulations ".179 The panel then recalled that the term
"prohibition" as used in Article XI:1 means "a legal ban on the trade or importation of a specified
commodity".180 The panel found on this basis that:
[T]he positive list requirement qualifies as a "legal ban" because the direct legal
consequence of not being listed as a product is that importation of that product is not
allowed. The positive list requirement, therefore, is a prohibition within the meaning of
Article XI.181
7.97. The panel also established that the positive li st requirement was made effective through a
licence and concluded that it was a prohibition on importation inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994.182
7.98. The panel further considered that it did not need to address Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture and exercised judicial economy on that claim. 183 Although the panel
had to address various iterations of the measure, it reached the same conclusions for all of them.184

177 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19 para. 7 (referring to Panel Report,
Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.103).
178 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/8, fn.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).
180 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.116 (citing Appellate Body Reports, China – Raw
182 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.117-7.118. The panel also rejected Indonesia's defence
that the positive list requirement was necessary to ensure compliance with Indonesia's halal requirements. This
issue does not arise in this dispute, as Indonesia is not raising any defence with respect to the challenged
measures.
183 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.159-7.160.
184 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.168-7.172.

Whether the positive list requirement is consistent with Ar ticle XI:1 of the
GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture
7.99. In implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings, Indonesia amended the relevant
MoA and MoT regulations, maintaining the essential element of the measure: the requirement for
products to be listed in the appendices to the regulations as a condition for being eligible for an
Import Recommendation and an Import Approval.185 As noted above, at issue in this proceeding are
two successive versions of the positive list requirement. T he first one is embodied in MoA 34/2016
as amended and MoT 29/2019;186 the second in MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended . The
main difference between these two versions of the measure are the specific chicken products that
Indonesia included in the list.
7.4.3.1 As enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended (current
version)
7.100. In the version currently in force, Indonesia has included the following chicken products in
the lists annexed to MoA 42/2019 and to MoT 29/2019 as amended:
a. whole chicken, not cut into parts fresh or chilled (HS code 0207.11)187;
b. whole chicken, not cut into parts, frozen (HS code 0201.12)188;
c. chicken cuts and offal, fresh or chilled (HS code 0207.13)189;
d. chicken cuts and offal, frozen (HS code 0207.14)190; and
e. chicken meat, other leftover meat and blood that has been processed or preserved (HS
code 1602.32).191
7.101. These are all the products covered by the scope of the original proceeding, including the
three products that Brazil had indicated in the original proceeding as not listed and , therefore,
banned.
Outline of the parties' arguments
7.102. As in the original proceeding, the scope of Brazil's claim is limited to chicken meat and
chicken products. 192 Brazil contends that including these products in the appendices does not
remove the inconsistency of the positive list requirement with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994193 and
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.194 According to Brazil, adding these products to the list
would not bring Indonesia into compliance because "the measure at issue is not the list itself but
'the requirement to be on [the] list in order to be allowed to be imported'".195

185 MoA 42/2019 (Exhibit IDN-1), Articles 6 b., 8 a. and 9(2); MoT 29/2019 as amended, (Exhibit BRA-
15), Articles 13(1a)a. and 13(2a)a.
186 Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18 (Compliance Communication), (Exhibit IDN-8), p. 1;
Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18/Add.10 (Compliance Communication), (Exhibit IDN-24), p. 1.
187 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Appendix II, p. 35; MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Appendix III,
p. 25.
188 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Appendix II, p. 35; MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Appendix III,
p. 25.
189 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Appendix II, p. 35; MoT 72/2019, Appendix III (Exhibit IDN-2), p. 25.
190 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Appendix II, p. 35; MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Appendix III,
p. 25.
191 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Appendix II, p. 36; MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Appendix IV,
p. 31.
192 Brazil's response to Panel question Nos. 36 and 37.
193 Brazil's first written submission, para. 180.
194 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 192-197; see also Brazil's second written submission,
paras. 122-124.
195 Brazil's first written submission, para. 181 (quoting Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.165).

7.103. Brazil maintains that "being on the list remains a legal condition for importation" 196 that
amounts to a prohibition or, in the alternative, a restriction on imports within the meaning of
Article XI:1.197 For the same reason, the measure also continues to be a quantitative restriction on
the imports of agricultural products under Article 4.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture. 198 Brazil
concludes that to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, Indonesia should have
removed the positive list requirement altogether instead of adding certain products to the list. 199
Australia, New Zealand and the European Union concur with Brazil's conclusion.200
7.104. Indonesia, by contrast, considers that the inclusion of all relevant chicken products in the
positive list is sufficient to achieve compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.201
According to Indonesia, the inclusion of these products in the list has removed the obstacle to
obtaining an Import Recommendation and an Import Approval for these products and, by extension,
allowed their importation. 202 In any event, Indonesia argues , in the alternative, that animals and
animal products not on the list can be imported even without an Import Approval.203
7.105. Brazil also asks the Panel to rule on its claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, if the Panel were to find the measure consistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
Brazil considers, however, that if the Panel were to find the measure inconsis tent with Article XI:1,
the Panel retains discretion to exercise judicial economy on Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 in this
situation, but notes that it is not required to do so. 204 Indonesia submits that the Panel need not
make multiple findings of inconsistency of the same measure with several provisions and asks the
Panel to exercise judicial economy in such a case.205
Whether the positive list requirement is a prohibition or a res triction on the
importation of chicken meat and chicken products contrary to Article XI :1 of the
GATT 1994
7.106. There are two issues that follow from the parties' arguments. Firstly, does the positive list
requirement prohibit the importation of poultry product s despite these products being included in
the list? Secondly, in the alternative, does the positive list requirement restrict the importation of
these products to Indonesia? We address these questions in turn.
7.4.3.1.2.1 Prohibition
7.107. The original panel explained the meaning of "prohibition" in Article XI:1 as "a legal ban on
the trade or importation of a specified commodity" .206 In this dispute, the specified commodity are
chicken meat and chicken products. 207 With the addition of these items to the list, Indonesia has
made it possible for importers to obtain an Import Recommendation and an Import Approval. Brazil
does not contest this fact. As a result, Indonesia has removed the legal impediment to the
importation of chicken products that the original panel found to violate Article XI:1.

196 Brazil's second written submission, para. 114.
197 Brazil's response to Panel question Nos. 38 and 39.
198 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 195-196.
199 Brazil's second written submission, para. 117; Brazil's response to Panel question No. 38, para. 121.
200 European Union's third-party submission, paras. 17-22; New Zealand's third-party submission, para.
19; Australia's third-party statement, para. 13.
201 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 16; see also Indonesia's second written submission,
para. 4.
202 Indonesia's first written submission, paras. 21-22 and 42-43; see also Indonesia's second written
submission, para. 4.
203 Indonesia's second written submission, paras. 14-16. Brazil replies that Indonesia’s argument that
animals and animal products not on the list can be imported even without Import Approval is not supported by
the relevant regulations, lacks credibility, and is contradicted by Indonesia’s own statements and actions. See
Brazil’s opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, paras. 55-60 (referring to Panel Report, Indonesia –
Import Licensing Regimes, para. 7.293).
204 Brazil's second written submission, para. 126; see also Brazil's response to Panel question No 45,
paras. 163-165.
205 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 46; see also Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling,
paras. 25-26.
206 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.116 (quoting Appellate Body Reports, China – Raw
207 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 36.

7.108. Brazil nevertheless maintains that the prohibition of imports persists as long as the positive
list requirement remains in place. This follows from Brazil's understanding of the original panel's
ruling that "the measure is not the list itself, but 'the requirement to be on [the] list in order to be
allowed to be imported'". 208 Relying on this statement, Brazil argues that as long as there is a
requirement to be on the list, the measure amounts to a prohibition within the meaning of
Article XI:1, regardless of whether or not specific products are on the list.209
7.109. In our view, Brazil's conclusions take the original panel's findings out of their context. The
panel did not rule in the abstract that the positive list requirement constituted a leg al ban; its
conclusion was based on the absence of poultry products from the list. It was the impossibility of
importation resulting from this absence that led the original panel to qualify the measure as a legal
ban. In the same paragraph that Brazil relies on, the original panel recalled that:
[T]he measure that is at issue in this dispute and that we have examined is the
requirement for chicken meat and chicken products to be listed in the relevant
appendices of Indonesia's regulations governing the importation of animal products, in
order for their importation to be permitted.210
7.110. Like in the original proceedings, our focus is the market access for a specific commodity –
chicken meat and chicken products. We cannot agree with Brazil that the positive list requirement
is a legal ban on the importation of chicken products, despite these products being on the list. We
understand that Brazil and certain third parties share concerns about the broader implications of the
positive list requirement, including for other product categories.211 Nonetheless, we remain bound
by our mandate in this dispute.
7.111. In light of the foregoing, we do not view the positive list requirement embodied in the most
recent legal instruments as a prohibition on the importation of chicken m eat and chicken products.
As a result, we do not see the need to address Indonesia's alternative argument that animals and
animal products that are not on the list are not subject to Import Approval and can be imported.
7.4.3.1.2.2 Restriction
7.112. Having rejected Brazil' s contention that the positive list requirement is a prohibition on
imports of chicken products, we turn to Brazil's alternative argument that the measure restricts the
importation of these products.
7.113. Brazil asserts that the measure creates uncertainty about the access for poultry products to
the Indonesian market. 212 This uncertainty relates to the alleged possibility that Indonesia's
authorities may add or remove products from the positive list as they please. 213 It discourages, in
Brazil's view, poultry importers from selling foreign chicken in Indonesia, limiting, in effect, its
importation.214 Although Indonesia contests that the positive list requirement is a restriction on
imports215, it does not put forward any specific arguments in support of this position. This does not
relieve us, however, from the duty to examine if Brazil has made a successful prima facie case.216

208 Brazil's first written submission, para. 181; Brazil's response to Panel question No. 38, para. 122
(quoting Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.165).
209 Brazil's first written submission, para. 181; see also Brazil's response to Panel question No. 38,
para. 123.
211 Brazil's second written submission, para. 117; see also Australia's third-party statement, paras. 11-
13; New Zealand's third-party submission, para. 19; and European Union's third-party submission, paras. 19-
20.
212 Brazil's second written submission, para. 116; Brazil's response to Panel question No. 41,
paras. 146-148.
213 Brazil's second written submission, para. 116; Brazil's response to Panel question No. 41,
paras. 149-150.
214 Brazil's second written submission, para. 116.
215 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 6.
216 Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Ecuador), para. 7.9. See also Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones,
para. 109.

7.114. As noted by the original panel, a "restriction" within the meaning of Article XI:1 is a condition
that has a limiting effect on the importation of products. 217 As the Appellate Body observed "not
every condition or burden placed on importation or exportation will be inconsistent with Article XI:1,
but only those that … limit the importation or exportation of products". 218 A complainant does not
need to quantify the measure's impact on trade flows to prove that it has limiting effects; showing
that such effects stem from the measure's design would suffice.219
7.115. As argued by Brazil, a number of prior panels have regarded uncertainty as one of the factors
capable of limiting the importation of goods.220 These panels examined aspects of the measures that
generated uncertainties and limited import opp ortunities.221 Consistent with this approach, we will
now assess if the possibility of removing poultry products from the list creates uncertainties for
importers and exporters that could limit the importation of these products to Indonesia.
7.116. Brazil maintains that access to the Indonesian market is uncertain, because "products can
shift from being permitted, to being prohibited, to being permitted again in a never ending cycle, at
the stroke of a legislative pen".222 Brazil and Australia point to a number of changes that the measure
underwent in the course of the compliance proceeding, as well as before that, to illustrate the lack
of predictability in terms of market access.223 In Brazil's view, this uncertainty is exacerbated by the
absence of any criteria that would circumscribe the discretion of Indonesian authorities in adding or
removing products from the list.224
7.117. To us, Brazil's reasoning seems problematic. First and foremost, we do not see that the
uncertainty that Brazil alludes to stems from the design of the measure itself. Brazil derives this
uncertainty from the undefined discretion the Indonesian authorities allegedly enjoy in deciding on
the removal of products from the list. 225 Yet, Brazil has not pointed to any specific element of the
measure that could be the source of such discretion. Instead, this possibility seems to follow from
the general competence of the Indonesian executive to regulate. As a result, we do not see how any
uncertainty relating to the risk of products being taken off the list is rooted in the design of the
measure itself. In that regard , we are concerned that following Brazil's logic would open to a
challenge under Article XI:1 any measure, simply because national legislators or regulators have the
power to modify, replace or r emove it. This, in our view, would be an impermissible interference
with Members' legislative and executive prerogatives.
7.118. In any event, we see the modifications to the measure that Brazil criticizes as primarily
aimed at bringing Indonesia into conformity with the obligation in Article XI:1.226 Brazil and certain

217 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.199; See also Appellate Body Reports, China – Raw
Materials, para. 320; and Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.217; Panel Reports, India – Quantitative
218 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.217.
219 The text of Article XI:1 refers to restrictions or prohibitions "made effective through quotas, import
or export licences or other measures". It thus requires the restriction to stem from the challenged measure
itself. See Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Import Measures, paras. 5.217-5.218; and Panel Reports, China
– Raw Materials, para. 7.917.
220 Panel Reports, Colombia – Ports of Entry, para. 7.240; China – Raw Materials, para. 7.1081; US –
Poultry (China), para. 7.454; Argentina – Import Measures, para. 6.260; and Indonesia – Import Licensing
Regimes, para. 7.224.
221 In Colombia – Ports of Entry, the panel found that uncertainties for importers related to limiting the
access for imported goods to only one seaport and one airport instead of 11 ports and, as a result, restricting
"the number of opportunities for importers to deliver goods into Colombia". Panel Report, Colombia – Ports of
Entry, paras. 7.272-7.274. In Argentina – Import Measures, "[t]he uncertainty was generated by the unwritten
and discretionary nature of the requirements", which caused the importers not to know what requirements
they would be subject to, under what circumstances and for how long. Panel Report, Argentina – Import
Measures, para. 6.260. In Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes, the importers did not know the price level
activating a temporary halt on imports, which incentivized them "to limit the quantities they import to prevent
the price falling below the activation threshold". Panel Report, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 7.222. In
China – Raw Materials, the limiting effect of the measure was the possibility of the minimum export price being
set at a level high enough that the exporter would not be able to find buyers and, as a result, export the
product. Panel Reports, China – Raw Materials, para. 7.1081.
222 Brazil's second written submission, para. 116.
223 Brazil's second written submission, para. 116; see also Brazil's responses to Panel questions Nos. 41
and 42; Australia's third-party statement, paras. 6-9 and 12.
224 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 41, para. 150.
225 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 42, paras. 158-160.
226 Indonesia's first written submission, paras. 8 and 21.

third parties complain that this process has been far from perfect.227 Nonetheless, as far as we know,
none of the amendments in question has removed any of the chicken products, or indeed any other
product, from the list; instead they have added some. In fact, the only instance of a product being
taken off the list indicated by Brazil and the third parties is bovine offal, removed in 2014.228 In our
view, this single example from six years ago is not enough to display the degree of uncertainty about
access to the Indonesian market that could affect investment plans or otherwise limit the importation
of chicken products.229
7.119. As a result, we find that Brazil has failed to substantiate its claim that the positive list
requirement is a restriction on importation within the meaning of Article XI:1.
7.120. Concluding our analysis under Article XI:1, we find that Brazil has not demonstrated that
the positive list requirement, in its current version, amounts to a prohibition or a restriction on the
importation of chicken products contrary to Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
Whether the positive list requirement is a quantitative import restriction
contrary to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture
7.121. We now turn to Brazil's claim against the same measure made under Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.230 This provision prohibits Members from maintaining or adopting, with
respect to agricultural products, "any measures of the kind which have been required to be converted
into ordinary customs duties". 231 Among the examples of measures to which Article 4.2 a pplies,
footnote 1 mentions "quantitative import restrictions". 232 This term shares textual similarities with
"restrictions … on the importation of any product", prohibited by Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Both
obligations apply to limitations on the quantity of imported products.233 They also reflect a common
objective of replacing volume - and price -distortive border measures with tariffs. 234 We agree,
therefore, with p rior adjudicators that "there is essentially no difference" between the two
obligations.235 It follows that addressing the same arguments of law and fact raised with respect to
the same measure under Article XI:1 and Article 4.2 would require us to conduct the same analysis
under both provisions.236
7.122. To substantiate its claim under Article 4.2, Br azil essentially repeats the arguments it has
already made under Article XI:1:

227 Brazil's first written submission, para. 166; see also Brazil's response to Panel question No. 42,
paras. 160-161; New Zealand's third-party submission, para. 20; and Australia's third-party statement,
para. 12.
228 This happened a year before the original panel was established. Brazil's response to Panel
229 Our approach is consistent with that taken by the compliance panels in Colombia – Textiles, which
refused to qualify three changes to the measure within a little over a year at issue as "constant" and disagreed
with the complainant that these modifications created uncertainty. Panel Reports, Colombia – Textiles (Article
21.5 – Colombia) / Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama), para. 7.226.
230 In its request for a preliminary ruling, Indonesia asked us not to rule on Brazil's claim under
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, inter alia, because such findings would not be necessary to solve
the dispute, if we were to find the positive list requirement inconsistent with Article XI:1. We have not found
the current version of the positive list requirement to violate Article XI:1, and, therefore, we must address
Brazil's claim against this measure under Article 4.2. For other arguments that Indonesia put forward in its
requests for a preliminary ruling, see section 1.3.2 above as well as Annex D-1.
231 The parties do not contest that the products in question fall with within the product scope of the
Agreement on Agriculture, as defined in Annex 1 to that Agreement. See Brazil's second written submission,
para. 122.
232 Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System, para. 209.
233 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Import Measures, fn 84.
234 Appellate Body Reports, Chile – Price Band System, para. 200; and Peru – Agricultural Products,
235 Appellate Body Report, Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes, para. 5.15. Although Article 4.2
applies to a narrower category of products, the substance of both obligations remains the same.
236 Appellate Body Report, Indonesia – Import Licensing Regimes, para. 5.16.

a. The positive list requirement limits the quantities of products that can be imported,
because products not listed in the relevant annexes cannot obtain an Import
Recommendation and an Import Approval.237
b. The measure has "'characteristics in common with a quantitative import restriction' and
limits the opportunities for importation into the Indonesian market."238 According to Brazil,
this characteristic of the positive list requirem ent has not changed with the addition of
chicken meat and chicken products to the relevant appendices.239
7.123. Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 is thus identical to the claim under Article XI:1 in all relevant
aspects: the challenged measure, the underlying fact s, and the arguments raised to prove the
violation. Indonesia too makes the same arguments to contest Brazil's claim. 240 As a result, the
outcome of our analysis will also necessarily be the same under both provisions. Therefore, for the
reasons explained in section 7.4.3.1.2 above, we find that Brazil has equally not demonstrated that
the positive list requirement is a quantitati ve import restriction prohibited in Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
7.4.3.2 As enacted through MoA 34/2016 as amended and MoT 29/2019 (version at panel
establishment)
7.124. We now address Brazil's claims made under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture against the version of the positive list requirement in force at panel
establishment. This iteration of the measure was embodied in MoA 34/2016 as amended and in MoT
29/2019.
7.125. The essence of the measure, i.e. the requirement to be on the list in order for a product to
be allowed for importation, was the same at panel establishment as it is in the current version of
the measure. But the products listed at that time in the appendices to the regulations were different.
With the adoption of MoT 29/2019, Indonesia added all five chicken products that were the focus of
the original proceeding to the list appended to that regulation. 241 However, it only included four of
these products in the relevant appendi ces to MoA 34/2016. One product – other prepared or
preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood – was still missing from the list in that regulation.242
Furthermore, similar to the last version at issue in the original proceeding , Indonesia added a
provision, Article 7(A) of MoA 34/2016, on importation of products outside of the list.
7.126. We first assess if this measure is consistent with Article XI:1 and then move to Article 4.2.
Whether the positive list requirement is a p rohibition or restriction on the
importation of products contrary to Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994
7.127. As with the amended measure, Brazil maintains that the positive list requirement in its earlier
version continued to qualify as a legal ban and that the addition of certain chicken products to the
list did not rectify its inconsistency with Article XI:1.243 In Brazil's view, a separate provision allegedly
allowing importation of products that are not on the list cannot change this characterization of the
measure.244 Indonesia does not put forward any arguments with respect to this version of the
measure. As noted above, this does not relieve us, however, from the duty to examine if Brazil has
made a successful prima facie case.

237 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 194-196; see also Brazil's second written submission,
para. 123.
238 Brazil's first written submission, para. 196. see also Brazil's second written submission, para. 123.
239 Brazil's first written submission, para. 196.
240 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 48.
241 Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Trade, Regulation 29/2019 (Exhibit BRA-15), p. 41; The four
products were (i) whole chicken, not cut into parts fresh or chilled; (ii) whole chicken, not cut into parts,
frozen; (iii) chicken cuts and offal, fresh or chilled; and (iv) chicken cuts and offal, frozen See also Brazil's first
written submission, para. 180.
242 See MoA 23/2018, (Exhibit BRA-11), p. 48.
243 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 178-181.
244 Brazil's first written submission, para. 177.

7.128. Earlier in this Report, we found Brazil's arguments unpersuasive insofar as all the relevant
poultry products are currently included in the list.245 At the time this Panel was established, four of
the relevant chicken products were on the list and importers could obtain import documents for
these products.246 It follows that, like in the current version of the measure, Indonesia has removed
the obstacle for importation of these four specific products. However, a s Brazil rightly points out,
the relevant annexes to MoA 23/2018 did not include at the time of panel establishment one of the
products of interest, i.e. other prepared or preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood.247 Hence,
importers of this fifth product could not obtain an Import Recommendation and, by extension, an
Import Approval. The positive list requirement operated thus as a legal ban with respect to other
prepared or preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood.
7.129. We, therefore, find that Brazil has made a valid prima facie case248 and, therefore, conclude
that the positive list requirement, in the version in force at panel establishment, was inconsistent
with Article XI:1 insofar as other prepared or preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood were
not included in the list.249
Whether the positive list requirement is a q uantitative import restriction
contrary to Article 4.2. of the Agreement on Agriculture
7.130. Having found the positive list requirement to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994, the original panel exercised judicial economy on Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.250 The panel considered its findings under Article XI:1 sufficient to secure
a positive solution to the dispute.251 We see no reason to deviate from the original panel's approach.
In light of our conclusion that the version of the positive list requirement ex isting at the time of
panel establishment was inconsistent with Article XI:1, we do not find it necessary to address Brazil's
claim under Article 4.2 with respect to that measure in order to secure a positive solution to this
dispute.
Conclusion
7.131. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Brazil has not demonstrated that the positive list
requirement, in its current version, amounts to a prohibition or a restriction on the importation of
chicken products inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Brazil has also not shown that the
measure is a quantitative import restriction on agricultural products prohibited under Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture.
7.132. Regarding the version of the positive list requirement that existed at panel establishment,
we conclude that it was a prohibition inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 199 4, insofar as
other prepared or preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood were not included in the list.
7.5 Intended use requirement and its enforcement provisions
Introduction
7.133. In this section we address Brazil's claims regarding the intended use requirement and its
enforcement provisions. In line with the original panel's description, Brazil identifies the intended
use requirement as " limit[ing] the uses of imported chicken meat and chicken products in the

245 See para. 7.109 above.
247 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), p. 37.
248 We take the view that Brazil was not required to make arguments on Article 7(A) of MoA 34/2016 in
order to make a valid prima facie case on the positive list requirement. It would have been Indonesia's
responsibility to raise this provision as factual rebuttal that the positive list requirement operates as a ban.
Indonesia has not done so. In any event, similar to the original proceeding, we find Article 7A to be non-
operational because even if an importer could obtain an Import Recommendation on this basis, it could not
obtain an Import Approval for non-listed products pursuant to Articles 12(1), 10(1) and 13(1a) of MoT
29/2019, see also Panel Report, Indonesia- Chicken, para. 7.165.
250 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.159-7.160.

Indonesian market to specific 'intended uses' as identified in the relevant Indonesian regulations".252
Under the terms of the intended use requirement at issue in the present compliance proceeding, an
importer may sell frozen chicken products only to places that have cold chain storage. Brazil's claims
focus on certain enforcement provisions regarding th e intended use requirement. Brazil alleges a
violation of Articles III:4 and XI :1 of the GATT 1994. Indonesia requests the Panel to reject these
claims.
7.134. We first summarize the relevant findings in the original proceeding before turning to
Indonesia's measure taken to comply. Our analysis will first concentrate on the current version of
the measure, followed by an analysis of the version in force at panel establishment.
Relevant findings in the original proceeding
7.135. At issue in the original proceeding were two successive versions of the intended use
requirement, both of which Brazil challenged under A rticles III:4, XI :1 of the GATT 1994 and
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The first version required intended uses to be limited to
hotels and modern markets only, thereby excluding sales in open -air, so -called wet markets
altogether; the second, enacted through MoA 34/2016, allowed for intended uses in all markets but
on the condition that cold storage facilities were provided. We focus on the relevant findings of the
original panel in respect of this latter version as the one relevant to Indonesia's implementation.
7.136. The panel established that Article III:4 was applicable on the grounds that an equivalent
domestic measure existed similarly imposing a cold storage requirement on the sale of frozen and
chilled domestic chicken in markets.253 The panel identified this equivalent domestic measure to be
MoA Decree 306/1994.254
7.137. The panel first considered the cold storage requirement itself and examined whether it
resulted in less favourable treatment between imported frozen chicken and domestic fresh chicken,
as argued by Brazil. The panel found that frozen and fresh chicken were not "like" products in the
specific circumstances envisaged by the cold storage requirement and therefore rejected Brazil's
argument.255
7.138. The panel then turned to the enforcement provisions which Indonesia had newly enacted
through the second version of the intended use requirement. The panel identified these to be certain
sanction provisions256 as well as the requirement to submit a distribution plan (detailing the country
of origin, type of meat, to whom the goods would be sold in what quantity and at what price)257 and
a weekly distribution report (reporting inter alia, on the details set out in the distribution plan).258
7.139. Examining these enforcement provisions and comparing them to the relevant provisions
applying to domestic frozen and chilled chicken, the panel found that they resulted in less favourable
treatment of imported chicken on three grounds. First, the panel found that stricter sanctions applied
to importers than to sellers of domestic chicken, where chicken was sold in contravention of the cold
storage requirement.259 The relevant sanction provided for a temporary suspension of the Import
Recommendation for one year after written warning where an importer "conduct[s] importation of
type/category of carcass, meat and/or their processed products ot her than what is stated in the
Recommendation".260 As the panel found, "domestic sellers who would sell frozen or chilled chicken
without respecting the cold storage requirement, d[id] not face a comparable sanction – if any
sanction at all" . Furthermore, the panel noted that "Indonesia ha[d] not referred to any sanction

252 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 10; see also Panel Report,
Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.176.
253 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.291 and 7.296.
256 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.268 and 7.272.
260 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.326, referring to Articles 38(4) and 32(1)(b) of MoA
34/2016. The panel had also noted a similar sanction provision in Article 38(1) for a breach of Article 4(6) of
MoA 34/2016, see Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.268.

that could apply to the domestic distributor who sold the frozen chicken to the seller in the traditional
market".261
7.140. Second, the panel found that the requirement to submit a distribution pla n and a weekly
distribution report effectively bound the importer to sell to the buyer identified therein, making it
impossible for the importer to switch within allowed uses. That restriction, which had no equivalent
in the regulation of the domestic mark et, resulted, in the view of the panel, in less favourable
treatment vis-à-vis imported chicken.262
7.141. Third, the panel found that the burden and cost on importers of having to submit a
distribution plan and a weekly distribution report resulted in less favourable treatment in respect of
imported chicken, as there was no comparable burden and cost on domestic sellers of chicken.263
7.142. Accordingly, the panel found a violation of Article III:4. 264 Turning to Brazil's claims under
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture the panel applied
judicial economy leaving open the quest ion whether the application of Article XI :1 was excluded
because of the applicability of Article III:4.265
Whether the intended use requirement is inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI :1
of the GATT 1994
7.143. In implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings in respect of the above findings,
Indonesia has maintained the intended use requirement with reference to cold storage, which, as
seen above, the original panel did not find to be inconsistent with Article III:4. Thus, the relevant
regulations define permissible uses for imported products that utilize cold chain handling /storage
(hereinafter "cold storage"), and this is explicitly stated in both the Import Recommendation and
the Import Approval.266 Indonesia's measure taken to comply amends the enforcement provisions
of the intended use requirement. Brazil's claims are exclusively focused on these enforcement
provisions. The equivalent domestic measure referred to in the original proceeding has not been
amended.267
7.144. As noted above, Indonesia modified or replaced after panel establishment the legal
instruments embodying this (as well as other) measure(s). There are thus two versions of the
enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement, one en acted through MoA 34/2016 as
amended by MoA 23/2018, and one enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended.
As we explain ed in section 7.1 above, we first ad dress the version currently in force , as enacted
through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended.
7.5.3.1 As enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended (current
version)
7.145. In its current form, the intended use requirement enacted through Article 43 of MoA 42/2019
and Article 22 of MoT 29/2019 as amended is limited to the product being destined for use by entities
that utilize cold storage. The condition no longer requires submission of a distribution plan or weekly
distribution report. There are, however, certain sanction provisions (different from the ones at issue
in the original proceeding) the meaning and relevance of which is contested between the parties.

262 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.327-7.328.
264 The panel then briefly considered Indonesia's invocation of Article XX(b) and (d) and found that
Indonesia had not put forward a prima facie case justifying the specific violation at issue, see Panel Report,
Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.334.
266 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 40(k); and MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Article 15(A)(h).
Both regulations provide for two different categories of uses, namely "general purpose" and "special purposes".
On the difference, see below section 7.5.3.1.2.1
267 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 23, para. 68; Indonesia's comment on Brazil's response to
Panel question No. 23, paras. 26-27.

Outline of parties' arguments
7.146. Brazil, directly referring to the relevant findings of the panel in the original proceeding, bases
its claims under Articles III:4 and XI:1 on two assertions, namely that: (1) it remains impossible for
the importer to switch "between" and "among" end uses; and (2) that harsher sanctions continue to
apply to importers where they breach the intended use requirement.268
7.147. Indonesia rejects both assertions arguing that (1) importers are free to switch within uses;
and (2) no sanction provisions under either regulation apply to the situation of an importer not
complying with the terms of the Import Recommendation as regards the intended use requirement
or its enforcement provisions.269
7.148. Among the third parties, only the European Union comments on the intended use
requirement essentially supporting Brazil's arguments.270
Analysis of the Panel
7.149. The parties' arguments turn mainly on the meaning of the relevant provisions in Mo T
29/2019 (and to some extent in MoA 42/2019) .271 Because the parties' arguments re flect
disagreement on the meaning of Indonesia's law, it is our task to examine its meaning objectively
and based on the available evidence.272
7.5.3.1.2.1 Switching uses
7.150. Brazil's arguments regarding the alleged impossibility to switch "between" and "among" uses
initially covered both categories of "uses" identified in Article 43 of MoA 42/2019, namely
(1) "general purpose", which is defined as covering "hotel, restaurant, catering, indus try, market,
and/or other places" 273 and (2) "special purpose" which is defined as covering a number of non -
commercial uses. 274 In later submissions, however, Brazil abandoned the reference to "special
purpose".275
7.151. In respect of the "general purpose", Brazil's claim was premised on the understanding that
the importer, in the Import Recommendation and Import Approval, would have to state a specific
end-use (e.g. "hotel") and would then be bound to that specific end -use once importation has
occurred.276 Indonesia, however, clarified that the intended use as recorded in an Import
Recommendation features the whole list (i.e. "hotel, restaurant, catering, industry, market and/or
other places") and that that list "covers virtually any place with cold storage facilities that importers
want to sell the imported animal product to." 277 In support of this statement Indonesia submitted
examples of Import Recommendations and Import Approvals, which show the "intended use"
recorded as the whole list of possible "general purpose" uses.278 In light of this evidence, Brazil

268 Brazil's second written submission, paras. 140-145.
269 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 105; Indonesia's second written submission, paras. 46 and
49; Indonesia's opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, para. 29.
270 European Union's third-party submission, section III. Japan focuses on the applicable legal standard
under Article III:4 and only comments in passing on the merits of Brazil's arguments under this claim, see
Japan's third-party submission, para. 9.
271 See fn. 284 below.
272 See Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), paras. 4.445-4.446 with further references.
273 See MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 43(2).
274 See MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 43(3). These uses are:
a. Gifts for worship, social or disaster management purposes;
b. Foreign country representatives/international institutions together with their officials who work in
Indonesia, purposes;
c. Research and development purposes; or
d. samples that are not intended for sale (exhibition purposes) up to 200 (two hundred) kilograms.
275 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 25, para. 73.
276 Brazil's second written submission, para. 140.
277 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 46; Indonesia's opening statement at the meeting of
the Panel, para. 30.
278 See Samples of two sets of Import Recommendations and Import Approvals, (Exhibit IDN-44).

stated that if this was the case for every Import Recommendation, it would no longer pursue its
argument regarding the alleged impossibility of switching uses.279
7.152. We believe that Indonesia has suf ficiently demonstrated that "general purpose" intended
use as recorded on the Import Recommendation and on the Import Approval lists all permissible
uses ("hotel, restaurant, catering, industry, market, and/or other places"), which, therefore, allows
an importer to freely choose from the list. Consequently, we do not need to further examine this
aspect of Brazil's claim.
7.5.3.1.2.2 Sanctions
7.153. Brazil's argument regarding stricter sanctions initially addressed generally the situation that
the importer would deviate from the intended uses set out in the Import Recommendation and
Approval.280 Indonesia has clarified that general purpose uses are all stated in the import documents
(see preceding section), and that an importer does not deviate from the licence terms when
switching uses since all possible uses are listed. The question of sanctions, therefore, no longer
arises for this scenario.
7.154. However, the question remains whether in deviating from the licence terms by breaching
the cold storage requirement the importer faces stricter sanctions than those applied to domestic
sellers or distributors.281 This is what the panel in the original proceeding had found to be the case.
While the specific sanction provisions at issue in the original proceeding no longer exist, Brazil refers
to other sanction provisions. Specifically, Brazil mentions Article 28(a) of MoT 29/2019 as amended,
which, it argues, applies to a breach of the cold storage requirement. 282 At the Panel's substantive
meeting with the parties , Brazil also referred to Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended as an
applicable sanction provision.283
7.155. Indonesia submits that sanctions no longer apply to non -conformity with the obligations
related to the intended use requirement284 and, more specifically, that neither of the two provisions
Brazil raised is applicable to a breach of the cold storage requirement.285 Indonesia argues that the
importer, under both regulations at issue, is subject to a cold storage obligation only for its own
transport to, and storage in, the warehouse, but not for sales in the market (i.e. to wholesalers or
retailers).286 With regard to the two provisions , Indonesia argues that they do not capture, as per
their meaning, the situation of a breach of the cold storage requirement in the market.287 Indonesia
also submits that the Panel should not assess Article 31, because Brazil had only raised it at the
substantive meeting with the parties.288
7.156. We first turn to the question whether the importer's responsibility for cold storage exten ds
to sales in the market. If it does not, then we would not need to examine the specific provisions
raised. If there is no cold storage requirement on the importer for sales in the market, there could

279 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 25, para. 73.
280 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 111-113; Brazil's second written submission, para. 145.
281 Brazil's opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, paras. 74-77.
282 Brazil's opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, para. 76; Brazil's response to Panel question
No. 29, paras. 79-84; see also Brazil's second written submission, para. 145.
283 Brazil's response to questioning by the Panel at the meeting; see also Brazil's opening statement at
the meeting of the Panel, para. 76, fn. 74.
284 Indonesia points to the "administrative sanction" provision in Article 53 of MoA 42/2019 to
demonstrate that it does not cover the case of any deviation from intended uses; see Indonesia's first written
submission, para. 100. Brazil has not raised this provision (nor, for that matter, directly rebutted Indonesia's
argument in its second written submission) but in reply to a question from the Panel submits that it also
applies to the breach of the cold storage requirement, see Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29. We do
not consider that Article 53 is among the provisions that we need to examine, since Brazil has not raised it. In
any event, we agree with Indonesia that it is not applicable to a breach of the cold storage requirement. While
it covers the situation that an importer would "do Importation [without] an importation approval" [reference to
Article 5(1) of MoA 42/2019] we do not see a breach of the cold storage requirement to constitute "importation
without import approval".
285 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 29.
286 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28.
287 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 29.
288 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, para. 37.

not be any sanction to enforce it. Therefore, only if we find there is such a requirement, would we
address the sanction provisions at issue.
Whether the cold storage requirement applies to sales in the market
7.157. Indonesia submits that the "importer's responsibility for cold storage requirement is only
from the moment importer received the goods at the port of entry until the goods are transferred to
their warehouse".289 Indonesia refers to Article 13(1) of MoT 29/2019 as amended which requires
an importer to provide "evidence on the control of cold storage and refrigerated transportation
equipment".290 Indonesia thus argues that the importer's responsibility for cold storage under MoT
29/2019 as amended does not extend to sales in the market. According to Indonesia, if an importer
were to sell directly in the market, it would be subject to domestic regulation on monitoring food
safety.291
7.158. Brazil submits that Indonesia's position is contradicted by the original panel's findings, is not
supported by the text of Indonesia's regulations and cannot be reconciled with evidence submitted
by Indonesia in this proceeding.292
7.159. If Indonesia's position were correct, then there would be no need for us to review the
sanction provisions discussed between the parties, as it would be clear that they do not apply to the
scenario discussed here. If there is no cold storage requirement on the importer in respect of sales
in the market, there could not be any sanction to enforce it.
7.160. We agree with Indonesia that Article 13(1) (d) of MoT 29/2019 as amended contains a
requirement for the importer to submit proof of possession of cold storage and refrigerated
transportation equipment for its own transport and storage in the warehouse. 293 A similar clause is
contained in Article 7(1)(f) of MoA 42/2019 requiring a "stamped certificate of cold storage
possession that already has NKV and refrigerated transportation" .294 Indonesia, therefore, is right,
that the importer has a cold storage obligation for its own transportation and storage. However, that
is not the cold storage requirement at issue in this case. Both Article 22 of MoT 29/2019 as amended
and Article 43 of MoA 42/2019 refer, in addition, to the cold storage requirement, not of the importer,
but of the buyer of the imported animal product. As noted previously, b oth regulations, in the
respective provision on "intended uses" feature a clause referring to the cold chain storage or cold
chain handling used by the recipient of the imported goods.295 Thus, Article 22 of MoT 29/2019
states:
(1) The use of Types of Animal Products as listed in Appendix III and Appendix IV, which
are an integral part of this Ministerial Regulation, are intended for general purpose using
cold chain handling and special purpose using cold chain facility.296
(2) General purpose as referred to in paragraph (1) is for hotel, restaurant, catering,
industry, market and/or other places.
7.161. Article 43 of MoA 42/2019, for its part, states:
(1) Intended use as referred to in Article 40 letter k is for carcass, Meat, Edible Offal,
and/or its Processed Products that utilize cold chain storage, which involves general and
special purposes.297

289 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28.
290 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28.
291 Indonesia refers to MoA 14/2008 concerning Supervision and Testing Guidelines on the Safety and
Quality of Animal Products but has not submitted a copy of this legislation. See Indonesia's response to Panel
question No. 28. On this point, see also para. 7.186 below.
292 Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28, para. 102.
293 See the text in para. 7.168 below. From what we can see, the word "control" refers to a word in
Bahasa that is also translated as "possession".
294 See MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1).
295 See para. 7.143 above.
296 See MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2). (emphasis added)
297 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1). (emphasis added)

(2) General purpose as referred to in paragraph (1) is for hotel, restaurant, catering,
industry, market and/or other places.
7.162. Furthermore, both regulations require that the "intended use" is stated in the Import
Recommendation and Import Approval.298 The examples of Import Recomm endations and Import
Approvals that Indonesia provided include references to buyers with cold storage. The examples of
Import Approvals also show that such cold storage is stated as a condition/limitation on the scope
of the approval granted: "The imported fresh animal products can only be used for hotel, restaurant,
catering, industry, market and/or other places with cold storage facilities ."299 In other words, the
terms of the Import Approval do not cover use of the imported animal product by hotels, restaurants
and markets that do not have cold storage facilities.
7.163. We see the wording and structure of these provisions to be very similar to Article 31(1) of
MoA 34/2016, which was the provision at issue in the original proceeding. It defined "purpose of
usage" as being for "hotels, restaurants, caterings, industries, markets with cold chain facilities, and
other special needs".300 In respect of this requirement, Indonesia confirmed, and the original panel
accordingly found, that the importer was subject to relevant sanctions under the MoA regulation
when selling chicken meat and chicken product s at a market without cold chain facilit ies.301 We,
therefore, agree with Brazil that "Indonesia's assertion that an importer is not r esponsible for the
cold storage requirement beyond transportation from the port to its warehouse is … inconsistent
with the adopted findings of the original panel."302
7.164. Based on our reading of the relevant provisions both in MoT 29/2019 as amended and in
MoA 42/2019, the evidence submitted by Indonesia , as well as the historical context of those
provisions, we find that there is a requirement on the importer to sell only to places with cold storage
facilities. A separate question is what enforcement provisions there are to enforce this requirement.
We turn to this question next.
Whether Article 28(a) of MoT 29/2019 as amended applies to breach of cold storage
requirement
7.165. Article 28(a) of MoT 29/2019 as amended states as follows:
Export and Import Approvals are revoked if Export or Importer
a. is proven to submit incorrect data and/or information as requirements for obtaining
Export Approval and Import Approval;303
7.166. Brazil argues that an importer submits data and/or information on the control of cold storage,
when applying for Import Approval, referring to Article 13(1)(d) of MoT 29/2019. 304 According to
Brazil, this information allows the Import Approval to be issued with the allowed intended use stated
as per Article 15A of MoT 29/2019. If an importer then sells the chicken to a market or other place
that does not have cold storage facilities, the importer would be deviating from data/information
that it supplied when seeking to obtain an Import Approval and, therefore, would be deemed to have
submitted incorrect data and/or information.305
7.167. Indonesia contends that the data/information to be submitted as "requirements for
obtaining" an Import Approval are those set out in the list in Article 13 of MoT 29/2019. Article 28(a)
only applies, according to Indonesia , if false information is submitted with regard to any item on

298 See MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 40, and MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2), Article 15(A).
299 See Samples of Import Recommendation and Import Approval, (Exhibit IDN-44). As Brazil points
out, both documents also contain a reference to sanctions applying if the importer does not comply with the
relevant regulations, see Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28, para. 106.
(emphasis added)
300 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, Table 3 after para. 7.177. (emphasis added)
302 Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28, para. 108.
303 MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2); see also MoT 29/2019, (Exhibit BRA-15).
304 See Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, paras. 81-82; see also Brazil's comments on
Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 28, para. 108. We note that the correct reference should be Article
13(1)(c), not (d).
305 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, paras. 81-82.

that list, which does not refer to intended uses. Indonesia explains that the reference to evidence of
control of cold storage contained in the list in Article 13 concerns the cold storage of t he importer
itself, not of the distributor or retailer who buys from the importer.306
7.168. Article 28(a) concerns data or information that the importer submits in order to obtain the
Import Approval. If that data or information is proven to be incorrect, Articl e 28(a) applies. We
understand the term "data" to refer to "an item of information" and the term "information" to refer
to "knowledge communicated concerning a particular fact".307 The question is whether, and if so, in
which circumstances, an importer selling to a market or other place that does not have cold storage
facilities could be considered to have submitted incorrect data or information concerning that sale
at the moment of applying for the Import Approval. We understand both parties to accept that
Article 13 of MoT 29/2019 is the provision that contains the "requirements" to be submitted for
obtaining an Import Approval. Article 13 states as follows:
(1) ...
d. Evidence on the control of cold storage and refrigerated transportation equipment to
Import products as listed in Appendix III and IV, except for the import of processed
meat ready for distribution which does not require refrigerated facilities, as described
in the information labels on products, or other processed products that d o not need
refrigerated facilities;
…
(1a) In addition to attaching the requirements as referred to in paragraph (1), Importers
holding NIB that apply as API must also attach:
a. Recommendation from the Minister of Agriculture or officials appointed by the Minister
of Agriculture on the Impor tation of Animal Types and Animal Products as listed in
Appendix II and Appendix III which are an integral of this Ministerial Regulation; ...308
7.169. In respect of this list , the parties have discussed the relevance of the reference to cold
storage in Article 13 letter (d) of MoT 29/2019 as amended . We agree with Indonesia that the
reference to evidence of control of cold storage in Article 13(1)(d), contrary to what Brazil argues,
is not the cold storage requirement that we are considering here. As noted in pa ragraph 7.161
above, this provision refers to an importer's own cold storage obligation for transport and
warehouse; it is , thus, different from the cold storage requirement set out in Article 22 of MoT
29/2019 as amended, which refers to the market or other place to which the importer sells the
frozen chicken.
7.170. The list contained in Article 13(1), therefore, does not contain a direct reference to the
buyer's cold storage requirement as derived from Article 22. However, it contains an indirect
reference to that requirement elsewhere in the provision: Article 13(1a)(a) as set out above,
requires the importer to submit an Import Recommendation when applying for the Import Approval.
As noted previously, Article 40(k) of MoA 42/2019 requires that the Import Recommendation
contains the intended use, and that reference not only lists all the general purpo se uses but also
explicitly refers to the requirement that the market or other place in question needs to have cold
chain facilities.309 The importer i n submitting the Import Recommendation with its application for
the Import Approval therefore provides inf ormation on the commitment it has undertaken to sell
only to places with cold chain facilities.
7.171. To the extent it can be proven that the importer lied about that commitment – by intending
to sell to a place without cold chain facilities – the information submitted would be incorrect. On the

306 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, para. 33.
307 Oxford English Dictionary Online, definition of "data", available at: <http://www.oed.com,
https://oed.com/view/Entry/296948?rskey=YueFdz&result=1&isAdvanced=false#eid, definition of
"information", https://oed.com/view/Entry/95568?redirectedFrom=information#eid, accessed 29 April 2020.
308 See MoT 72/2019, (Exhibit IDN-2).
309 See above, para. 7.162

basis of this reading, we , therefore, c onclude that Article 28(a) would apply to a breach by the
importer of the cold storage requirement contained in Article 22.
Whether Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended applies t o breach of cold storage
requirement
7.172. Before examining the meaning of Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended, we first need to
address Indonesia's objection to Brazil raising this provision only at the Panel meeting. In its
comments on Brazil's responses , Indonesia submits that invoking this provision so late is a clear
breach of its due process rights and contrary to paragraph 3(1) of the Panel's Working Procedures.310
Brazil, for its part, considers that Indonesia's due process rights have not been infringed as Indonesia
was well aware of the sanction provision and had an opportunity to comment on Brazil's argument.311
7.173. Paragraph 3(1) of our Working Procedures requires the parties to "transmit to the Panel a
first written submission, and subsequently a written rebuttal, in which it presents the facts of the
case and its arguments, and counter -arguments, respectively, in accordance with the timetable
adopted by the Panel". One could read this provision, as Indonesia seems to do, as a requir ement
to submit all arguments (and a fortiori claims) in the two written submissions before the panel
meeting and not at any other, later, point. However, in our view, paragraph 3 , rather than
constituting a requirement in its own right , is an expression o f – and therefore has to be read
together with – the due process principle, which requires a panel to give parties adequate
opportunity and time to respond to arguments. 312 Due process needs to be respected , and this
generally means that parties have to set out their case before they come to the hearing. However,
in individual cases, due process may still be respected even if that case was not set out in full before
the hearing. In other words, a "breach" of paragraph 3 of our Working Procedures is not independent
from, but rather depends on, whether there is a breach of the due process requirement.313
7.174. In this case, we do not see such a breach of the due process requirement. While Brazil did
not mention Article 31 in its written submissions, it did describe it in its opening statement at the
Panel's meeting with the parties. In turn, Indonesia could (and did) respond to Brazil's argument at
the meeting with the parties. Indonesia was also given the opportunity – through a question from
the Panel – to set out its views in writing, both in its own responses and in its comments on Brazil's
responses to the same question. In these circumstances, we do not agree with Indonesia that there
was a breach of due process and paragraph 3(1) of the Working Procedures.
7.175. Having addressed Indonesia's objection we turn to examining the meaning of Article 31 of
MoT 29/2019 as amended which states as follows:
(1) Exporters or Importers that carry out Export or Import activities of Types of Animals
and / or Animal Prod ucts not in accordance with the provisions in this Ministerial
Regulation are subject to sanctions in accordance with the provisions of the laws and
regulations.

310 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, para. 37, and No. 33,
paras. 44-46. We note that Indonesia has not argued that Brazil's reference to Article 31 would be outside our
terms of reference. We have considered this issue on our own motion and have come to the conclusion that it
is covered. Article 31 itself does not feature in Brazil's panel request. However, Brazil describes the measure at
issue, inter alia, as "stricter sanctions that apply to importers deviating from the limitation on the allowed
uses…". The description of the measure at issue, in the panel request, is followed by an open ("inter alia") list
of provisions that reflect the measure. In these circumstances, we consider that the measure at issue is
sufficiently well described to give Indonesia adequate notice that Brazil might raise other sanction provisions,
such as Article 31, that fit the same description. We, therefore, consider that Brazil's reference to Article 31 is
covered by our terms of reference.
311 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 33, paras. 104 and 105.
312 Appellate Body Report, Australia – Salmon, para. 278: "A fundamental tenet of due process is that a
party be provided with an opportunity to respond to claims made against it."
313 We find support for our view that paragraph 3 of the Working Procedures is an expression of, and
dependent on respect for, due process, in Appellate Body Report, EC – Fasteners, para. 574, where the
Appellate Body treated the breach of a similar provision in the Working Procedures on a par with a breach of
due process of law.

(2) Imported Animals Species and / or Animal Products not in accordance with the
provisions in this Ministerial Regulation must be recalled from distribution and destroyed
by the Importer.
(3) The costs for carrying out the recall from distribution and destruction as referred to
in paragraph (2) shall be borne by the Importer.314
7.176. Brazil submits that selling imported chicken in a market without cold storage would mean
that the imported chicken is sold in breach of the intended use condition and thus not in accordance
with Article 22 of MoT 29/2019, which triggers the sanction under Article 31.315 In such a case, the
importer would have to recall the chicken from distribution (Article 31(2)) and have it destroyed at
its own expense (Article 31(3)).316
7.177. Indonesia argues that Article 31(2) is only applicable when the type of animals and/or animal
products is not in accordance with provisions of MoT 29/2019. Indonesia explains that the sanction
applies for SPS and for import administration purposes. By way of example, Indonesia refers to a
hypothetical case of an importer import ing chicken when the Import Approval had been given for
deboned beef; because the chicken has not been approved for imports, it would have to be recalled
at the importer's expense. In donesia also points out that Brazil has not made a link between
Article 31 and the intended use requirement in Article 22.317
7.178. We understand the first paragraph of Article 31 to be an overall reference to sanctions
applicable inter alia to importers that carry out import activities in breach of the Regulation. Article
28 is one such provision foreseeing revocation of the Import Approval . T he second and third
paragraphs of Article 31, which are the focus of Brazil's arguments, provide for sanctions involving
the imported good: product recall from distribution at the cost of the importer.318
7.179. Paragraphs (2) and (3) provide for that sanction if the imported product is "not in accordance
with the provisions in this Ministerial Regulation". We note that it is the product itself that has to be
"not in accordance", rather than, for example the actions of the importer (as in paragraph (1)).
However, we do not see in the wording the limitation that Indonesia refers to, namely that this only
concerns the type of product. In particular, we do not see why, to refer back to Indonesia's example,
chicken would have to be recalled if the Import Approval was for a different product but would not
need to be recalled if it were sold in a market without cold st orage facilities. In either case , the
chicken is sold in breach of the terms set out in the Import Approval and is thus not in accordance
with the Ministerial Regulation itself. We, therefore, conclude that the wording of Article 31 is in no
way limited to particular types of violations, but rather it is broad and all-encompassing enough to
also include breach of the cold storage requirement in Article 22. Finally, contrary to what Indonesia
contends we note that Brazil does make an express link between a b reach of Article 22 and the
sanction in Article 31.319
7.180. Concluding on the question whether the two sanction provisions raised by Brazil are
applicable to the situation of an importer selling to a market or other place that does not have cold
chain facilities, we find that this is the case both with regard to Articles 28(a) and 31(2) and (3) of
MoT 29/2019 as amended.320
7.181. We are conscious that our finding is based on a reading of Articles 28(a) and 31(2) and (3)
of MoT 29/2019 that differs from Indonesia's reading of its legislation. However, Article 11 of the
DSU requires us to make an objective assessment of the facts. We have therefore completed our
analysis, relying on the text of the relevant provisions , which is also a reading that gives meaning

314 See MoT 29/2019, (Exhibit BRA-15), pp. 25-26.
315 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, para. 86.
316 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 29, para. 86; see also Brazil's comments on Indonesia's
response to Panel question No. 29, para. 116.
317 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 29; see also Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response
318 Brazil's arguments are also focussed on these two paragraphs, see Brazil's response to Panel
question No. 29, para. 85.
319 See Brazil's opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, para. 76; and response to Panel question
No. 29.
320 One member of the Panel disagrees with the reading of Article 28(a) respectively Article 31(2)(3) set
out above. See dissenting opinion in 7.5.3.1.4 below.

to other provisions of the legislation. 321 Central to this analysis is the cold storage requirement set
out in Articles 22 of M oT 29/2019 as amended and 43 of MoA 42/2019 , which has played an
important role in the recent history of Indonesia's import regulation and which has not changed
since the original proceeding. The cold storage requirement conditions the Import Approval on selling
to a buyer with cold storage facilities. A reading of the legal text that exempts the cold storage
requirement from the enforcement provisions, without express reference to such an exemption, is
not supported by the text or the design of the Regulation.
Whether the sanctions result in less favourable treatment contrary to Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994
7.182. We now turn to the question whether these sanctions result in less favourable treatment
contrary to Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
7.183. A violation of Article III:4 requires that three elements are met: (1) the imported and
domestic products at issue are "like products"; (2) the measure at issue is a "law, regulation, or
requirement affecting their internal sale, offering for sale, purchase , transportation, distribution or
use"; and (3) the imported products are accorded "less favourable" treatment than that accorded to
like domestic products.322
7.184. We do not need to dwell on the first two of these elements. Indonesia does not oppose
Brazil's reliance, in this respect, on the original panel's findings and we agree that these findings
remain applicable here. Thus, the like products in question are imported and domestic frozen and
chilled chicken meat and chicken products and the intended use requirement discussed here affects
the internal sale, offering for sale , etc., in the market. 323 The question left, therefore, is whether
there is less favourable treatment.
7.185. To show less favourable treatment, Brazil relies on the original panel's analysis, including as
regards the comparison with sanctions applying to domestic sellers and distributors.324 The original
panel found that "domestic sellers who would sell frozen or chilled chicken without respecting the
cold storage requirement, d[id] not face a comp arable sanction – if any sanction at all" and that
"Indonesia ha[d] not referred to any sanction that could apply to the domestic distributor who sold
the frozen chicken to the seller in the traditional market" .325 In its response to Panel questions
following the meeting with the parties, Indonesia submits that the sanctions applicable in domestic
law are set out in MoA 14/2008 and that these sanctions apply irrespective of the origin of the animal
product in question.326
7.186. We note that Indonesia did not refer to MoA 14/2008 in the original proceeding, even though
this legal instrument was already in existence at that time. Furthermore, Indonesia has not
submitted the text of MoA 14/2008. Consequently, neither Brazil in its comments to the answers
nor the Panel can examine its content.327 As we cannot examine the content of this regulation and
therefore cannot verify Indonesia's argument, we cannot take it into account.328
7.187. In the absence of proof to the contrary, we accept Brazil's reliance on the relevant findin g
of the original panel, that there are no comparable sanctions , if any sanctions at all. On this basis ,
we find that there is less favourable treatment of imported frozen and chilled chicken meat and

321 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel (India), para. 4.445 (citing Appellate Body Report, India –
Patents (US), para. 66).
322 Appellate Body Report, Korea – Various Measures on Beef, para. 133; see also Panel Report,
Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.298.
323 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.190, 7.299, and 7.322.
324 Brazil’s first written submission, para. 112 (citing Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.326);
Brazil’s second written submission, para. 146 (citing Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.326); Brazil’s
opening statement at the meeting of the Panel, para. 77.
326 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 30; Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel
question No. 31, para. 43.
327 See also Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 30, para. 123.
328Appellate Body Reports, US – Wool Shirts and Blouses, pp. 14-16, DSR 1997:I, 323, at 335-337; and
EC – Hormones, para. 109. We leave open whether Indonesia would have been allowed to re-open this factual
issue despite the relevant finding of the panel in the original proceeding.

chicken products in respect of sanctions applying to a breach of the cold storage requirement on
sales in the market.
Whether the sanctions are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994
7.188. Brazil also raised a claim under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 arguing that the enforcement
provisions of the intended use requirement constituted a restriction having limiting effect on
importation. Indonesia asks us to dismiss the claim on the same factual grounds as above (i.e.
inapplicability of the sanctions) but also requests us to apply judicial economy to this claim.329
7.189. The panel in the original proceeding applied judicial economy to Article XI :1 after having
made a finding of violation under Article III:4. The panel did so on the grounds that the outcome of
its analysis under Article XI :1 would be the same as that under Article III:4 and sketched out a
number of reasons for this.330
7.190. Brazil invites us not to follow the original panel's approach. Brazil submits that Article XI,
both in scope and content, is a different obligation and therefore should be ruled on.331
7.191. Given our factual findings above, what would potentially be left of this claim is the question
whether the sanctions applying to the breach of the cold storage requirement constitute restrictions
on importation. Brazil has not developed any arguments in its submissions (which were focused on
sanctions applying to switching uses) or in its responses to questions (which only developed
arguments under Article III:4) on this aspect of its claim. We would, therefore, be inclined to reject
Brazil's claim on the basis that it has not developed a prima facie case.
7.192. In any event, even if we were to accept Brazil's initial arguments as sufficient, we would
follow the original panel's approach despite Brazil's insistence on the difference in scope and content
between Article III:4 and Article XI :1. That difference is of course there. 332 However, in our view,
that difference alone does not determine whether a panel may exercise judicial economy. As the
original panel recalled, a panel may refrain from making multiple findings that the same measure is
inconsistent with various provisions when a single, or a certain number of findings of inconsistency,
would suffice to resolve the dispute. 333 The question, therefore, is what is sufficient to resolve a
dispute. In our view, findings of inconsistency are necessary where they matter in implementation.
If an additional finding potentially makes a difference in implementation, a panel should not exercise
judicial economy. We therefore asked Brazil whether a finding on Article XI:1 would make a
difference in implementation. In reply , Brazil did not point us to any potential differences in
implementation.334 In these circumstances, we see no reason not to exercise judicial economy.
7.193. We conclude, therefore, that even if Brazil established a valid prima facie case on an Article
XI:1 violation, we would not consider it, but would instead apply judicial economy. Given that, just
like the panel in the original proceedings, we leave open the question whether the application of
Article XI:1 is excluded because of the applicability of Article III:4.
Conclusion on current version
7.194. The majority of us, therefore, conclude that Articles 28(a) and 31(2) and (3) of MoT 29/2019
as amended, insofar as they apply to a breach of the cold storage requirement, violate Article III:4.

329 Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling, paras. 25-27.
331 Brazil's second written submission, para. 161; Brazil's response to Panel question No. 34 (referring
to Appellate Body Report, US – Tuna II (Mexico), para. 405).
332 Indeed, the difference is such that it raises the systemically important question whether these two
provisions are not mutually exclusive.
333 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.159, citing to Appellate Body Report, Canada – Wheat
334 Instead Brazil refers to Indonesia's alleged "moving target strategy" and "unusual conduct". See
Brazil's response to Panel question No. 34, paras. 107-108.

Dissenting opinion
7.195. While I am in agreement with my colleagues on this Panel with respect to the findings on all
other claims, I must respectfully disagree with their analysis regarding the issue of the cold storage
requirement and applicable sanctions in the current version of the intended use requirement. In my
view, this Panel should not have concluded on a violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 for the
reasons set out below.
7.196. Maintaining cold chain is an important safety and health issue; too important to be reduced
to a minor element of the intended use requirement. It is vital to preserve the safety and quality of
refrigerated foods in order to comply with the legislative directives and industry codes of practice in
handling frozen food. Control of cold chain requirements for frozen food is therefore of utmost
importance for the maintenance of quality and safety of these food products. A break in the chain
may promote growth of pathogenic microorganisms and/or bacterial toxins leading to health hazard
and cannot be considered as merely "deviating from the limitation on the allowed uses" 335, or the
general term of "violating obligations related to intended use r equirements".336 I, therefore, find
convincing Indonesia's explanation that the cold storage requirement (outside the importer's own
warehouse and transportation) is regulated in Indonesia's internal market legislation and not in its
import regulations.337
7.197. The claim of "intended use" as raised by Brazil did not focus on sanctions for selling to a
buyer without cold storage facilities until very late in the proceedings. In my opinion, therefore, the
Panel should not have considered the issue of sanctions app lying to a breach of the cold storage
requirement in the market. My understanding comes from the following: In its panel request, its
first written submission, and its second written submission Brazil focused its arguments regarding
the intended use requir ement on the distribution plan, the restriction on switching between end
uses, or the question of changing the intended use stated in an Import Approval. It was only after
the second written submission that Brazil changed the focus of its claim to sanctions related to selling
without a cold storage facility.
7.198. The sanctions contained in MoT 29/2019 as amended and MoA 42/2019 do not apply to
selling without cold storage. There is no reference to "buyer" or "seller" in either of these legal
instruments. The references to "hotels, restaurants, caterings, industries, markets with cold chain
facilities, and other special needs” in the legislation are simply enumerations of examples of places
where cold storage is expected and would fit for distribution of chilled/frozen chicken. It is not proof
of a requirement on the importer, much less of a sanction applying to the importer in respect a
breach of cold storage.
7.199. Regarding Article 28(a) of MoT 29/2019 as amended, the reference to the intended use cold
storage requi rement contained in the Import Recommendation is not sufficient to constitute a
requirement within the meaning of Article 13 of MoT 29/2019 as amended. Therefore, the cold
storage requirement is not data or information that the importer submits when applyi ng for an
Import Approval. Consequently, Article 28(a) does not apply to the breach of the intended use cold

335 The issue of "intended use" was defined by the complainant in the panel request as:
The enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement applicable with respect to imported
products include: stricter sanctions that apply to importers deviating from the limitation on the
allowed uses, including, for instance, the importer's suspension; the commitment to certain
intended uses (to obtain an MoA Import Recommendation, for instance), which restricts the
importer to not selling elsewhere; and the burden and cost arising from having to submit a
distribution plan and a weekly distribution report.
336 See Brazil's first written submission, para. 101, where Brazil summarizes its claim as follows:
Indonesia’s revised measure does not:
(i) eliminate the requirement that importers must submit a distribution plan in their
request for an MoA Import Recommendation;
(ii) allow modification of the distribution plan after an MoA Import Recommendation is
issued;
(iii) change the penalties if and when the importer does not carry out the sales as set out
in the distribution plan;
(iv) revoke the severe penalties on importers for violating obligations related to the
intended use requirement; or
(v) change the fact that the Import Recommendation shall state the purpose of usage of
the products.
337 Indonesia's response to Panel question Nos. 28 and 30.

storage requirement. The majority's reading, in practice, would require proving the importer's
knowledge of a breach of the cold storage requiremen t at the time of application, which is
impracticable.
7.200. Regarding Article 31 of MoT 29/2019 as amended, Brazil raised this provision too late in the
proceeding. I also find plausible Indonesia's explanation that a breach of the cold storage
requirement does not mean that the product itself is "not in accordance with the Ministerial
Regulation" as required in Article 31(2). Instead, it is an action of the importer captured by Article
31(1), which does not contain a sanction on its own. The absence of applicab le sanction provisions
regarding breach of the cold storage requirement supports Indonesia's argument that the importer's
responsibility for cold storage ends at the warehouse and that all aspects of cold storage in the
market are governed by internal market law. The cold storage requirement as stated in Article 22(1)
of MoT 29/2019 as amended, therefore, is merely descriptive in nature and does not constitute a
licence condition for the Import Approval.
7.5.3.2 As enacted through MoA 34/2016 as amended (version at panel establishment)
7.201. We now turn to the version of the intended use requirement and its enforcement provisions
that was in force at panel establishment. This version was enacted through MoA 34/2016 as
amended.
7.202. As Brazil explains in its first written submission, this version, while no longer containing a
requirement to submit a weekly distribution report, still contains the requirement to submit a
distribution plan.338 As noted above, the distribution plan required the importer to detail the country
of origin, type of meat, to whom the goods would be sold , in what quantity, and at what price. 339
Brazil also points to a number of sanction provisions, which remain as they were at the time of the
original proceeding 340 or were only slightly modified. 341 On the basis of these provisions, Brazil
submits that the three grounds for violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 that the original panel
found continue to exist. On the same three grounds, Brazil also alleges violation of Article XI :1 of
the GATT 1994.
7.203. Indonesia does not rebut Brazil's factual or legal arguments regarding this version. However,
as we noted above, the absence of a rebuttal by Indonesia does not relieve us from the duty to
examine if Brazil has made a successful prima facie case.342
7.204. In respect of Brazil's claim under Article III:4 , we recall that the original panel found a
violation of that obligation on three grounds : (1) stricter sanctions in respect o f the cold storage
requirement; (2) the impossibility to switch uses and (3) the administrative cost and burden of
reporting. In our view, Brazil has presented a valid prima facie case in respect of two of these three
grounds.343 First, by showing that the requirement to submit a distribution plan still exists and is
also still enforced through strict sanctions , while no such requirement exists on the domestic side,
Brazil has demonstrated the continued impossibility of switching uses. Second, Brazil has
demonstrated prima facie that the administrative burden of presenting a distribution plan is
unmatched on the domestic side and therefore results in less favourable treatment. On this basis
we conclude that there is a continued violation of Article III:4.
7.205. In respect of Brazil's claim under Article XI:1, we refer to our discussion above in paragraph
7.192. On this basis we follow the original panel's approach and apply judicial economy to this claim

338 Brazil refers to Article 22(1)(l) of MoA 34/2016 as amended, see Brazil's first written submission,
para. 97.
339 See para. 7.138 above.
340 Brazil refers to Article 38(1) and 38(3)(b) of MoA 34/2016 as amended; see Brazil's first written
submission, para. 112.
341 Brazil refers to Article 38(4) which provides for a sanction of temporary suspension of the Import
Approval for six months, if reporting obligations set out in Article 32A are violated. See Brazil's first written
submission, para. 113.
342 Panel Reports, US – Shrimp (Ecuador), para. 7.9; and US – Shrimp (Thailand), para. 7.21. See also
Appellate Body Report, EC – Hormones, para. 109.
343 Brazil did not refer in its first written submission specifically to sanctions applying to the breach of
the cold storage requirement. The discussion of sanctions by Brazil relates primarily to the impossibility of
switching uses.

leaving open the question whether the application of Article XI:1 is excluded because of the
applicability of Article III:4.
Conclusion
7.206. With respect to the enfo rcement provisions of the intended use requirement as enacted
through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended, we find that Articles 28(a) and 31(2) and (3)
of MoT 29/2019 as amended, insofar as they apply to a breach of the cold storage requirement, are
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. We apply judicial economy with respect to the claim
under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
7.207. With respect to the enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement as enacted
through MoA 34/2016 as amended and MoT 29/2019, we find that they were inconsistent with Article
III:4 of the GATT 1994 insofar as they resulted in the impossibility to switch uses and an increased
administrative burden on the importer. We apply judicial economy to Brazil's claim under Article XI:1
of the GATT 1994.
7.6 Fixed licence terms
Introduction
7.208. In this section we address Brazil's claim concerning fixed licence terms. In line with the
panel's description in the original proceeding, Brazil refers to the measure as "limit[ing] the ability
of importers to modify an MoA Import Recommendation and an MoT Import Approval after their
issuance".344
7.209. Brazil claims that importers continue to be prevented from modifying these licence
documents and that, therefore, the measure continues to restrict imports of poultry to Indonesia in
violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Indonesia requests us to reject the claim.
7.210. As in other sections of this report, we start by recalling the relevant findings of the panel in
the original proceeding. We then briefly describe the measure that Indonesia has taken to comply
with that panel's findings and introduce the main arguments relating to the consistency of that
measure with Article XI:1. We follow with our analysis of the parties' positions.
Relevant findings in the original proceeding
7.211. The relevant provisions at issue in the original proceeding prohibited importers from
requesting or making any changes to the terms of an Import Recommendation or an Import
Approval. Brazil challenged that measure under Article XI: 1 of the GATT 1994, Article 4.2. of the
Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement.
7.212. The panel found the measure to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 insofar as it impeded
importers from modifying the initially declared port of entry or the quantity of imported products.345
According to the panel, the inability of an importer to modify either of these terms was a restriction
on the importation of chicken products, because in some circumstances arising in the normal course
of b usiness an importer may be required to change one or both of them. 346 In drawing this

344 Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil, WT/DS484/19, para. 13. See also Panel Report,
Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.361: "[T]he fixed licence terms relate to the limitation imposed by the relevant
regulations of MoA and MoT on the possibility of an importer to modify certain aspects of an MoA Import
Recommendation and an MoT Import Approval".
345 By contrast, the panel did not view as a restriction similar limitations on the possibility to amend the
country of origin and the business unit where the products came from. See Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken,
para. 7.395. In this dispute, Brazil is not making claims about the possibility to adjust these two aspects of an
Import Recommendation and an Import Approval. See Brazil's response to Panel question No. 46, para. 166.
346 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, para. 7.396. The panel rejected Indonesia's defence under
Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 that fixing the licence terms was necessary to secure compliance with
Indonesia's laws and regulations addressing halal, public health, consumer protection, as well as customs
enforcement relating to halal and safety. See Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.441-7.449. This
issue does not arise in this dispute, as Indonesia is not raising any affirmative defence with respect to the
challenged measures.

conclusion, the original panel took into account the severe sanctions for deviating from the terms
stated in the licence documents.347
7.213. The panel also held that it did not need to address Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture and Article 3.2 of the Import Licensing Agreement and exercised judicial
economy on these claims.348 The panel examined various iterations of the measure and reached the
same conclusions for all of them.349
Whether the fixed licence terms are consistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994
7.214. With a view to implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings on fixed licence terms,
Indonesia introduced a procedure enabling importers to modify certain terms of an Import
Recommendation and an Import Approval. 350 Among the se terms are the port of entry and the
quantity of imported products. Indonesia enacted these changes through MoA 34/2016 as amended
and MoT 29/2019.351 Subsequently, Indonesia carried over the provisions allowing modifications of
import licence terms to the legal instruments that are currently in force, namely MoA 42/2019 and
MoT 29/2019 as amended. 352 Therefore, despite the change in applicable legal instruments, the
conditions for amending the terms of an import licence have essentially remained the same as at
panel establishment. This is why our findings on the current version of the measure apply equally to
its version existing at the time of panel establishment.353
7.215. Turning to the amendment procedure itself, it allows online filing of requests to adjust certain
terms of an Import Recommendation and an Import Approval. 354 To modify an Import
Recommendation, an importer has to provide a valid existing Import Recommendation and a
stamped certificate stating the reasons for requesting the change (statement of reasons).355 Such a
request "can be accepted if it fulfils importation requirements". 356 If the requ est is accepted, the
Ministry of Agriculture has five working days to make the changes. 357 Once the modification to an
Import Recommendations is made, an importer can request changes to the Import Approval, which
the Ministry of Trade should make within two business days.358
7.6.3.1 Outline of the parties' arguments
7.216. The parties' arguments focus on the procedure to amend the terms of the Import
Recommendation as set out in Article 44 of MoA 42/2019. Brazil takes issue with two aspects of this
procedure that, it argues , deprive poultry importers of a genuine possibility to modify the port of
entry or the quantity of imported products.359 Firstly, Brazil asserts that Indonesia's authorities enjoy
undefined discretion to accept or reject a request for modifications to an I mport Recommendation,

349 Panel Report, Indonesia – Chicken, paras. 7.441-7.449.
350 Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18 (Compliance Communication), (Exhibit IDN-8), p. 2;
Communication by Indonesia, WT/DS484/18/Add.10 (Compliance Communication), (Exhibit IDN-24), p. 2.
351 MoA 34/2016 as amended, (Exhibit BRA-10), Article 32; and MoT 29/2019, (Exhibit BRA-15),
Articles 16-18.
352 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44 and MoT 29/2019 as amended, (Exhibit BRA-15), Articles
16 through 18.
353 Contrary to Brazil's assertion, Indonesia did contest that the version of the measure existing at panel
establishment was inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Indonesia explained that "[t]he
requirements for amendments of Import Recommendation under MoA 23/2018 [are] similar to the
requirements under MoA 42/2019"; see Indonesia's second written submission, para. 26. Thus, we understand
Indonesia's arguments concerning fixed licence terms to apply to both versions of the measure.
354 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44(1) and MoT 29/2019 as amended, (Exhibit BRA-15),
Article 16(2).
355 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44(2).
356 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44(3).
357 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44(4).
358 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Article 44(4) and MoT 29/2019 as amended, (Exhibit BRA-15),
Article 16(3).
359 Brazil's first written submission, para. 222; see also Brazil's second written submission, para. 181;
Brazil's responses to Panel question Nos. 49, para. 171, and 56, para. 180; and Brazil's opening statement at
the meeting of the Panel, para. 86.

rendering the amendment procedure illusory. 360 Secondly, Brazil contends that the requirement to
produce an affidavit explaining the reasons for changes to an Import Recommendation and to pay
stamp duty is an administrative burden and cost that "is in and of itse lf is a restriction on
importation".361 Because these two elements of the measure inhibit the ability of importers to amend
licence terms, Brazil asserts that Indonesia maintains the restriction on the importation of poultry
that the original panel found to violate Article XI:1. 362 Brazil adds that the inability of importers to
amend licence terms is reinforced by severe sanctions for deviating from these terms.363
7.217. Indonesia submits that it has removed any impediment to modifying i mport licence terms
with the introduction of the amendment procedure. 364 Indonesia specifically contests the alleged
existence of undefined discretion on the part of its authorities. Rather, Indonesia contends that the
criteria for accepting an application for changes to an import licence are objective and clearly stated
in MoA 42/2019. Indonesia also argues that the cost of modifying an Import Recommendation and
the overall administrative burden of the procedure are negligible.365 Finally, Indonesia points to ways
other than amending existing licence terms, that, it argues, allow importers to respond to market
developments and changing business opportunities.366
7.6.3.2 Whether importers are deprived of a genuine possibility to amend the terms of an
import licence
7.218. Two questions arise for us from the parties' arguments. The first is whether Indonesia's
authorities enjoy undefined discretion to accept or reject a request for amendment of an Import
Recommendation. The second is whether the cos t and administrative burden of submitting a
statement of reasons and a stamp duty is such that it denies poultry importers the possibility to
modify import licence terms resulting in a restriction on imports. We need to answer either of these
questions in the affirmative to accept Brazil's claim. We address them in turn.
7.219. Finally, because Brazil's claim relates specifically to changes of the port of entry and the
quantity of products imported, these are the two terms that we will focus the analysis on and address
in our findings.367
Whether Indonesia's authorities have undefined discretion to accept or reject a
request for amendment to an Import Recommendation
7.220. Brazil infers the existence of "undefined" or "unfettered" discretion from the text of MoA
42/2019.368 Indonesia contests that such discretion follows from the language of the regulation and
submits an example of an amended Import Recommendation to support this understanding.
7.221. Because the parties' arguments reflect a disagreement on the meaning of Indonesia's law,
it is our task to examine its meaning objectively and based on the available evidence. 369 Brazil's
reasoning relies solely on the text of the regulation and does not offer other evidence, such as
consistent application of the regulation, pronouncements of domestic courts on its meaning, opinions
of legal experts and the writings of recognized scholars. This is understandable given that the
regulation had only been issued a few months before submissions in this proceeding were due. Thus

360 Brazil's first written submission, paras. 225-226; see also Brazil's second written submission,
paras. 173-176.
361 Brazil's first written submission, para. 225; see also Brazil's response to Panel question No. 49,
para. 169.
362 Brazil's second written submission, paras. 179-181.
363 Brazil's first written submission, para. 224; see also Brazil's response to Panel question No. 50,
para. 173.
364 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 24.
365 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 68; Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 52 and
comments on Brazil's response to Panel's question No. 49, para. 58.
366 Indonesia's first written submission, para. 34.
367 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 46.
368 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 56, paras. 176-180.
369 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – Cigarettes, fn 253; Panel Report, China – Intellectual Property
Rights, para. 7.28. We examine the meaning of the relevant provisions of Indonesia's regulation for the sole
purpose of assessing consistency of the measure with Article XI:1.

there is hardly any evidence regarding the implementation of the regulation. 370 We therefore need
to examine Brazil's contention on the basis of the text of the regulation alone and determine whether,
on its face, it shows the existence of undefined discretion to accept or reject a request for changes
to an import licence. Should the meaning of the text of the regulation not be clear on its face, given
the absence of evidence regarding its application, we would need to rule in favour of Indonesia,
consistent with the accepted rules on burden of proof.371
7.222. Article 44 of MoA 42/2019 is the relevant provision that sets out the procedure for amending
an Import Recommendation. It reads as follows:
(1) If there is a change in the Recommendation as referred to in Article 40, except for
letter a and b, Business Actors can request for the change in the Recommendation online
to General Director through the Head of PPVTPP.
(2) Business Actors as referred to in paragraph (1) in requesting for change in
Recommendation must attach:
a. Recommendation that is still valid; and
b. Statement letter with a stamp duty stating the reasons for requesting a change in
the Recommendation.
(3) Recommendation change request as referred to in paragraph (1) can be accepted if
it fulfils importation requirements.
(4) For the Recommendation change request as referred to in paragraph (1), General
Director, on behalf of the Minister, issued the Recommendation change within 5 (five)
working days after the request has been fully and properly received.372
7.223. Brazil contends that the phrase "can be accepted" in paragraph (3) is discretionary and does
not instruct Indonesia's authorities to accept a properly filed application for modifications. 373 Brazil
links this language to the requirement to provi de a statement of reasons for requesting a change,
which, it believes, reinforces the discretion.374 Indonesia, for its part, explains that the Bahasa term
translated as "can" means "having sufficient power, skill or resources to do something", here to
accept the application. 375 Indonesia submits that the exercise of this power is circumscribed by
objective parameters: whether the request meets the importation requirements in Chapter II of
MoA 42/2019 and whether an importer has attached two documents, a statement of reasons and a
valid Import Recommendation.376 If this is the case, the application is "complete and proper" and
will be accepted. 377 On this basis, Indonesia denies the existence of undefined discretion in
processing requests for amendments.378
7.224. It follows from both parties' explanations that the phrase "can be accepted" in Article 44(3)
is not mandatory in the sense that applications mu st necessarily be accepted in every case. The
question, however, is whether the authority's decision to accept the request or not is framed by
objective parameters. To answer this question, we need to read the language of the provision in its
proper context.
7.225. The phrase "can be accepted" in Article 44(3) is conditioned upon fulfilling "importation
requirements". Reading the provision in its context we agree with Indonesia that the term

370 Indonesia has provided a single example of an amended Import Recommendation. Although this
single instance shows that it is possible to amend certain licence terms, it is not enough to actually prove how
Indonesia's authorities apply Article 44 of MoA 29/2019 in practice.
371 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 157; Panel Reports, US – Section 301 Trade Act,
372 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), p. 77.
373 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 56, para. 177.
374 Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 52, paras. 164-165.
375 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 30; Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 55.
376 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 55.
377 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 28; Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 48.
378 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 27; Indonesia's second written submission, para. 38;

"importation requirements" refer s to Chapter II of MoA 42/2019. This cha pter sets out the
administrative requirements and technical animal health and veterinary public health requirements
that an importer needs to prove compliance with when applying for an Import Recommendation.379
We also note and accept Indonesia’s explanation that, with respect to changes to the port of entry
or an increase in the quantity of imports, there is no need to verify compliance with the requirements
of Chapter II, since such requirements have been fulfilled in the initial application for the Import
Recommendation.380 By contrast, such verification could be necessary when the amendment
concerns other items, such as the country of origin.381 Thus, Article 44(3) sets forth some objective
criteria for accepting or rejecting applications.382
7.226. However, for Brazil this merely means that the authorities are "able" to accept any
application that fulfills importation requirements, not that they are "required" to accep t it.383 Brazil
refers to the statement of reasons that the importer is required to submit pursuant to Article 44(2)
as contradicting the above conclusion. Brazil sees no rational purpose for the statement other than
taking the reasons for modifications into account in deciding whether to accept a request or not.384
We understand Brazil, therefore, to be contending that the existence of the statement of reasons
proves the existence of the discretion vested in Indonesia's authorities through the language of
paragraph (3).385 Indonesia explains that stating reasons for a modification is required for
"administrative purpose", such as tracking changes in importers' addresses or market fluctuations.386
7.227. We do not draw the same conclusion from the text of the regulation as B razil. The phrase
"can be accepted" in paragraph (3) refers directly to fulfilling the importation requirements and not
to the statement of reasons in paragraph (2). Therefore, we do not see the same link between the
phrase "can be accepted" and the requir ement to state reasons that Brazil does. Moreover, in the
absence of discernible practice, due to the recent adoption of the regulation, there is no evidence
indicating that Indonesia's authorities take into account the reasons stated by importers in deciding
whether to accept or reject a request. In the absence of such evidence, Brazil's argument is
speculative, and thus not sufficient to accept Brazil's reading of the regulation over that advanced
by Indonesia.
7.228. In sum, we cannot conclude based on the text of Article 44 of MoA 42/2019 alone that
Indonesia's authorities enjoy undefined discretion to accept or reject a request to amend the terms
of an import licence. Because the parties' arguments regarding the meaning of the regulation remain
in equipoise, a nd because Brazil is the party asserting the existence of unfettered discretion, we
have to give Indonesia the benefit of the doubt. 387 We underline that we make this finding in the
absence of compelling evidence showing how Indonesia's authorities apply th e relevant provisions
in practice.388 That said, we note Indonesia's explanations and attach importance in particular to its
statement389 that "all complete and proper applications will be accepted" with "complete" meaning
inclusion of a valid Import Recommendation and stamped letter of reason, and "proper" meaning
limited to the fulfilment of the requirements in Chapter II of MoA 42/2019.390
Whether the requirement to state reasons and pay a stamp duty is burdensome
7.229. We now turn to the question whether the obligation to state reasons for modifying the licence
terms is burdensome enough to deny the possibility to amend licence terms. In the previous section,
we addressed a different aspect of the requirement to produce a statement of reasons that Brazil is

379 MoA 42/2019, (Exhibit IDN-1), Articles 7 and 8 through 18.
380 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 54(a).
381 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 54(a).
382 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 27.
383 Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 48, para. 160.
384 Brazil's first written submission, para. 225; see also Brazil's opening statement at the meeting of the
Panel, para. 91.
385 Brazil's comments on Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 48, para. 160.
386 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 52.
387 Appellate Body Report, US – Carbon Steel, para. 157; Panel Report, US – Section 301 Trade Act,
para. 7.14.
388 We note that Indonesia has produced a single example of an amended Import Recommendation.
Although this single instance shows that it is possible to amend certain licence terms, it is not enough to
actually prove how Indonesia's authorities apply Article 44 of MoA 29/2019 in practice.
389 See Panel Report, US – Section 301 Trade Act, paras. 7.118-7.126.
390 Indonesia's responses to Panel question Nos. 48 and 54(c).

challenging – that it reinforces discretion of Indonesia's authorities. Here we focus on what we
understand to be another prong of Brazil's argument, namely that the requirement is burdensome
and thus "in and of itself, a restriction".391
7.230. In response to our queries to expound the latter line of argument, Brazil points out that
importers must produce an affidavit and pay the stamp duty even for making small changes to the
original import licence terms. 392 As a result, they incur an administrative burden and cost "every
time business opportunities change". 393 This, in Brazil's view, is "an element of the design and
structure of Indonesia's regulations that continue to prevent importers from making adjustments to
licence terms."394
7.231. Indonesia submits that the stamp duty for a statement of reasons is the equivalent of
40 US cents.395 Brazil does not contest this. Nor does it deny that an importer can make both the
request and the payment online.396
7.232. These requirements do not seem to us particularly burdensome; all the more so, in the
context of international trade in goods, which implies certain routine import-related formalities. Not
every such formality, or charge, amounts to a restriction on imports inconsistent with Article XI:1 of
the GATT 1994 .397 As the complainant, Brazil has to demonstrate that the burden or cost on
importers is of such nature and extent as to preclude or, at the very least, dissuade them from
requesting changes to the import documents. Yet, Brazil has not explained why or how attaching a
brief statement of reasons and paying the equivalent of 40 US cents would do so. We, therefore,
disagree with Brazil that the procedure for amending an Import Recommendation is enough of a
burden to prevent importers from requesting changes to an import licence and, as a result, to restrict
imports.
7.233. Concluding our analysis under A rticle XI:1 of the GATT 1994, we find that Brazil has not
demonstrated that the measure prevents or severely limits the importers' ability to modify the port
of entry or the quantity of imported products in the normal course of business.
7.234. In light of this c onclusion, we do not see the need to address the parties' arguments
concerning sanctions for deviating from the terms of an import licence. Brazil refers to these
sanctions as an element "enforce[ing] the continued inability of importers to amend licence terms",
which we just found Brazil has not demonstrated. The situation we are dealing with is thus unlike
the one before the original panel, when importers had no choice but to breach the terms of a licence
if they wanted to change the port of entry or quantity of products.
Alternatives to amending import licence terms
7.235. Finally, we recall that Indonesia points to ways other than amending import licence terms
that, it argues, would allow importers to respond to market developments and changing business
opportunities. These are the possibility to apply for new and for multiple Import Recommendations
and Import Approvals.398
7.236. The availability of such alternatives would matter for our assessment if Brazil had
demonstrated that poultry importers do not have a genuine possibility of modifying the terms of an
import licence. In that case , the question would arise whether Indonesia may have achieved
substantive compliance in other ways than through providing amendment procedures. However, in
the preceding section we hav e found that Brazil has not demonstrated that there is no genuine

391 Brazil's first written submission, para. 225; see also Brazil's response to Panel question Nos. 49,
para. 169, and No. 51, para. 174.
392 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 49, para. 169.
393 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 49, para. 169.
394 Brazil's response to Panel question No. 49, para. 168.
395 Indonesia's response to Panel question No. 52.
396 Indonesia's comments on Brazil's response to Panel question No. 49, para. 58.
397 Appellate Body Report, Argentina – Import Measures, para. 5.217. See also Panel Reports, Colombia
– Textiles (Article 21.5 – Colombia) / Colombia – Textiles (Article 21.5 – Panama), para. 7.224 and China –
Raw Materials, para. 7.917. We note that the Import Licensing Agreement governs administrative procedures
used for the operation of import licensing regimes and contains specific requirements for import-related
formalities.
398 Indonesia's second written submission, para. 34.

possibility to amend licence terms. In light of that finding, we do not see the need to explore the
alternatives put forward by Indonesia.
Conclusion
7.237. We conclude that Brazil has not demonstrated that the fixed licence terms as enacted both
at panel establishment and in their current version constitute a restriction on the importation of
poultry in violation of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. For the reasons set forth in this Report, we conclude as follows:
a. In respect of Indonesia's request for a preliminary ruling:
i. the Panel finds that Brazil's claims under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture
regarding the positive list requirement an d under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994
concerning enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement are within the
Panel's terms of reference;
ii. the Panel finds that Brazil is not barred from challenging the positive list requirement
under Article 4.2 of the Agreement of Agriculture and the intended use requirement
under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 in this compliance proceeding.399
b. In respect of the delay in the approval of the veterinary health certificate:
i. the Panel finds that Indonesia has caused furt her undue delay in the approval of the
veterinary health certificate, inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C(1)(a) of the SPS
Agreement.
c. In respect of the positive list requirement:
i. the Panel finds that Brazil has not demonstrated that the positive list r equirement as
enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended is a prohibition or a
restriction on the importation of chicken products inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994;
ii. the Panel finds that Brazil has not demonstrated that the positive list requirement as
enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended is a quantitative import
restriction on agricultural products prohibited in Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture;
iii. the Panel finds that the positive list requirement as enacted through MoA 34/2016 and
MoT 29/2019 constituted a prohibition on the importation of other prepared or
preserved chicken meat, chicken offal or blood inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994;
iv. having found the version of the positive list requirement enacted through MoA 34/2016
and MoT 29/2019 to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, the Panel does
not find it necessary to rule on Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 of the Agreement on
Agriculture with respect to this version of the measure to secure a positive solution to
this dispute.

399 Indonesia requested that the Panel also exercise judicial economy on the claims pertaining to
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture regarding the positive list requirement and Article XI:1 of the
GATT 1994 regarding the enforcement provisions of the intended use requirement, as was done in the original
proceeding. The Panel rejected this request, stating it was premature, at that stage in the proceedings, to
decide on whether to exercise judicial economy with regard to these claims; see para. 1.15 above. The Panel's
decision on this point is contained in paras. 8.(c)(iv), as well as 8.(d)(ii) and (iv) below.

d. In respect of the intended use requirement and its enforcement provisions:
i. the Panel finds that the enforcement provisions of the intended u se requirement as
enacted through MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019 as amended are inconsistent with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 insofar as they apply to a breach of the cold storage
requirement;
ii. having found these enforcement provisions to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994, the Panel does not find it necessary to rule on Brazil's claim under Article
XI:1 of the GATT 1994 with respect to this version of the measure to secure a positive
solution to this dispute;
iii. the Panel finds that the enforc ement provisions of the intended use requirement as
enacted through MoA 34/2016 as amended and MoT 29/2019 were inconsistent with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 insofar as they resulted in the impossibility to switch
uses and in an increased administrative burden on the importer; and
iv. having found these enforcement provisions to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994, the Panel does not find it necessary to address Brazil's claim under Article
XI:1 of the GATT 1994 with respect to this version of the measure to secure a positive
solution to this dispute.
e. In respect of the fixed licence terms:
i. the Panel finds that Brazil has not demonstrated that the fixed licence terms constitute
a restriction on the importation of chicken products inconsisten t with Article XI:1 of
the GATT 1994.
8.2. We therefore conclude that, to the extent that the Panel has found the measures at issue to
be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of these agreements, Indonesia has failed to implement
the recommendations and r ulings of the DSB and to bring its measures into conformity with its
obligations under the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994.
8.3. Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is an infringement of the obligations
assumed under a covered agreement, the acti on is considered prima facie to constitute a case of
nullification or impairment. We conclude that, to the extent that the measures at issue are
inconsistent with certain provisions of the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement, they have nullified
or impaired the benefits accruing to Brazil under those agreements.
8.4. To the extent that Indonesia has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB in the original dispute, those recommendations and rulings remain operative.