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