INDONESIA – MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY INDONESIA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Document: WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
Date: 12 December 2022
Document codes: WT/DS592/6
Complainant: EU
Respondent: Indonesia
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, United Kingdom, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: GATT 1994  GATT 1994

INDONESIA – MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS
NOTIFICATION OF AN APPEAL BY INDONESIA UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND
ARTICLE 17 OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 20(1) OF THE
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW
The following communication, dated 8 December 2022, from the delegation of Indonesia, is being
circulated to Members.

Notification of an Appeal by Indonesia under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

1. Pursuant to Articles 16.4 and 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
(WT/AB/WP/6) ("Working Procedures"), Indonesia hereby notifies the Dispute Settlement Body
("DSB") of its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretation in th e report of the
Panel in Indonesia – Measures Relating to Raw Materials (WT/DS592) ("Panel Report").
2. In accordance with Rules 20(1) and 21(1) of the Working Procedures, Indonesia files this
Notice of Appeal together with its Appellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.
3. As there are no Appellate Body Members to compose a Division to hear Indonesia's appeal at
this time, Indonesia awaits further instructions from the Division, once composed, on any further
steps to be taken by Indonesia in this appeal. Indonesia reserves the right to re-file or amend this
Notice of Appeal and its Appellant's Submission.
4. The measures at issue consist of an export prohibition and a domestic processing requirement
("DPR") in respect of nickel ore.1
5. The issues that Indonesia raises in this appeal relate to the Panel's findings and conclusions
in respect of:
• The applicability of Article XI:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
("GATT 1994") to the DPR and the consistency of that measure with the obligation in
Article XI:1;
• the exemption of the measures at issue from the obligation in Article XI:1 by virtue of
Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994; and
• the justification of the measures at issue under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 in the
event that they are inconsistent with the obligation under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.

1 The export prohibition at issue is implemented in MEMR Regulation 11/2019 and MOT Regulation
96/2019, while the DPR is implemented in MEMR Regulation 25/2018.

6. Non-appeal of any issue contained in the Panel Report does not signify Indonesia's agreement
therewith.
7. Pursuant to Rule 20(2)(d)(iii) of the Working Procedures, this Notice of Appeal provides an
indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the alleged errors of law and legal
interpretation developed by the Panel, without prejudice to Indonesia's ability to rely on other
paragraphs of the Panel Report in its appeal.
I. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XI:1 OF THE GATT 1994
8. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's conclusion that the DPR is
inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.2 The Panel's errors of law and legal interpretation
include:
• The Panel erred in its interpretation of Article XI:1 in finding that the term "sale for
export" in that provision covers non-discriminatory internal measures;3
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:1 in finding that the DPR is a measure on
the "sale for export" within the meaning of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;4
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:1 in finding that the DPR by its very nature
has a limiting effect on exports.5
9. Indonesia respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the above Panel findings under
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.6
10. Indonesia further requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no legal effect the
Panel's ultimate conclusion i n paragraph 8.3 of the Panel Report that the DPR is inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
11. Consequently, Indonesia requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no legal effect
the Panel's conclusions in paragraph 8.3 of the Panel Report that: (i) the DPR is not a prohibition or
restriction temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages of foodstuffs or other products
essential to Indonesia within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994; and (ii) the DPR is
not justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.
II. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XI:2(A) OF THE GATT 1994
12. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the measures at
issue are not exempted from the obligation in Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 because Indonesia had
not established that the measures at issue meet the requirements of Article XI:2(a) of the
GATT 1994.7 The legal errors committed by the Panel include:
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2( a), or, in the alternative, acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that Indonesia had not established
that nickel ore is "essential" to Indonesia within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) because
the downstream industries that use it as an input were not yet sufficiently important;8
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2(a) or, in the alternative, acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that Indonesia had not established

2 Panel Report, paras. 7.159-7.161.
3 Panel Report, paras. 7.59, 7.66 and 7.85.
4 Panel Report, paras. 7.66, 7.85 and 7.159.
5 Panel Report, paras. 7.75, 7.84, 7.85, 7.160, and 7.161. Indonesia appeals this finding of the Panel
on a conditional basis, i.e., in the event that the Appellate Body does not reverse the Panel's findings that: (i)
the term "sale for export" in Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 covers non-discriminatory internal measures; and
(ii) the DPR is a measure on the sale for export within the meaning of Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
6 Panel Report, paras. 7.75, 7.84, 7.85.
7 Panel Report, paras. 7.153 and 7.154.
8 Panel Report, para. 7.101

an imminent "critical shortage" of nick el ore within the meaning of Article XI:2(a)
because future prospective demand was too attenuated;9
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XI:2(a) or, in the alternative, acted
inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that the measures at issue were not
"temporarily applied" within the meaning of Article XI:2(a) because the Panel expected
them to last an indefinite period.10
13. Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse the above findings
of the Panel under Article XI:2(a) of the GATT 1994 11 and declare moot and of no legal effect the
Panel's finding that Indonesia had not established that the measures at issue meet the requirements
of Article XI:2(a).12
14. Consequently, Indonesia respectfully requests the Appellate Body to declare moot and of no
legal effect the Panel's ultimate conclusions in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of its Report that the measures
at issue are inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and are not justified under Article XX(d)
thereof.
III. REVIEW OF THE PANEL'S FINDINGS UNDER ARTICLE XX(D) OF THE GATT 1994
15. Indonesia seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's findings that the measures at
issue are not justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 because they are not necessary to
secure compliance with laws or regulations within the meaning of Article XX(d). 13 The legal errors
committed by the Panel include:
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that Article 96(d) of Law
No. 4/2009 does not constitute a law or regulation within the meaning of Article XX(d)
because it is not an enforceable obligation whose compliance can be secured;14
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that Indonesia had failed to
demonstrate that the challenged measures are apt to make a material contribution to
securing compliance with Article 96(c) of Law No. 4/2009;15
• The Panel erred in its application of Article XX(d) in finding that an alternative measure
proposed by the European Union in the form of an export authorization system would
achieve at the very least the same level of contribution as the challenged measures in
terms of securing compliance with Article 96(c) of Law No. 4/2009.16
16. Accordingly, Indonesia respectfully requests the Appe llate Body to reverse the above Panel
findings under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994 and declare moot and of no legal effect the Panel's
ultimate conclusions in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.3 of its Report that the challenged measures are not
justified under Article XX(d).