KADI remains objective

KADI remains objective

The Anti-Dumping Committee of Indonesia (KADI) wishes to refer
to the article in The Jakarta Post on Aug. 15, 2000, titled Anti-
dumping Body still has much to do, written by Erry Bundjamin.

The article rightfully credits KADI for avoiding recourse to
the WTO dispute settlement. However, the fact that interested
parties to a proceeding may choose recourse to the WTO should not
be seen as undermining the credibility of an investigating
authority. It is the right of all member countries to bring a
case to the WTO, including Indonesia. KADI would recommend to all
countries to exercise their right where violations of Article VI,
GATT 1994 (the Agreement) are deemed to exist.

The one issue of concern in the article presented is the
statement suggesting that KADI may not act impartially. In this
respect, KADI would respectfully draw attention to the record of
proceedings to date. In all cases, KADI has adopted a position of
objectiveness in assessing allegations of dumping, injury and
causality. Decisions taken are based on facts and procedure, and
very detailed and exhaustive investigation. Of course, final
decisions taken will not meet the approval of all interested
parties to the investigation, as antidumping is not a "win-win"
situation. However, this does not mean KADI is partial, or more
precisely, pleads the case of the domestic industry.

With regard to a number of specific issue raised, we wish to
illustrate the issue of objectiveness as follows:
1. KADI is careful in assessing whether there is sufficient prima
facie evidence to justify the initiation of an investigation.
There is at least one case in which the evidence presented was
rejected. However, it is not the intention of Article 5.2 of the
Agreement to impose a preinvestigation on the investigating
authorities, but to make sure, bearing in mind the burden on
interested parties to respond to proceedings, that the prima
facie evidence is well founded. Indonesia has often been
concerned by the allegation brought by other investigating
authorities. Most recently, a proceeding initiated by Canada on
steel plate was actually based on prima facie evidence submitted
by U.S. industry in a similar action.
2. KADI is not aware of a petition being accepted, based on the
information available at that time, where the domestic industry
supporting the petition is less than 25 percent. Furthermore,
KADI has also adopted a position whereby the percentage of
domestic support is continually assessed throughout the
proceeding, which goes beyond the requirements of Article 5.4 of
the WTO Agreement. If a number of Indonesian trading partners
have adopted the same approach, we consider that the same
existing antidumping measures would have been avoided against
Indonesia.
3. The issue of importing products from the countries alleged to
be dumping is present in many antidumping cases. The WTO
Agreement states that the producers concerned may be exempt from
the definition of domestic industry for the purpose of a
proceeding. In practice, investigating authorities will rarely
exempt producers from the domestic industry unless they
consistently act as a trader.
4. In the case of like products, it is important to bear in mind
that it up to the complainants to allege the scope of its
products, and for the investigating authority to decide the scope
of products subject to the proceeding in terms of like product
considerations.
5. With regard to cost-benefit analysis, there is a need to
distinguish between the requirements of the WTO Agreement and
what KADI would term national or public interest. The purpose of
the Agreement is to establish whether there is unfair trade and
whether this unfair trade is causing or contributing to the
injury suffered by the domestic industry. Once this is addressed,
it is then up to the KADI, and ultimately the ministers
concerned, to decide whether to impose measures.

MUCHTAR

Secretary

The Anti-Dumping Committee of Indonesia