The report of the Panel on Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry is being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted document from 2 July pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.

Note by the Secretariat: This Panel Report shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report. If the Panel Report is appealed to the Appellate Body, it shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat.

I. Introduction

A. Background
1. Complaint of Japan
2. Complaint of the European Communities
3. Complaint of the United States
B. Establishment and Composition of the Panel
C. Information-Gathering Procedure under Annex V of the SCM Agreement
D. Panel Proceedings

A. Tax and Tariff Treatment in Indonesia of Imported Completely Built-Up Motor Vehicles
B. Measures at Issue
1. 1993 Programme
(a) Decree No. 114/1993
(b) Decree No. 645/1993
(c) Decree No. 647/1993
(d) Decree No. 223/1995
(e) Decree No. 36/1997
2. National Car Programme
(a) "The February 1996 Programme"
(b) "The June 1996 Programme"
3. The US$690 million loan to TPN
C. Notifications by Indonesia to WTO Committees

A. Japan
B. European Communities
C. United States
D. Indonesia

A. Participation of Private Lawyers
1. Objection of the United States
2. Response of Indonesia
(a) General principles of international law support Indonesia's sovereign right to select counsel of its choice and organize and present its defence
(b) Practice before international adjudicatory bodies confirms Indonesia's right
(c) The WTO Appellate Body supports Indonesia's right
(d) GATT past practice does not and cannot circumvent Indonesia's sovereign right
(e) Practical and equitable considerations mandate that Indonesia not be denied its right
B. Preliminary objection to United States' claim regarding the US$690 million loan to TPN
1. Objection by Indonesia
(a) First, the loan was not raised in the Panel request or the Panel's terms of reference
(b) Second, the loan arose after the Panel was established
(c) Third, the United States cannot "cure" its omission of the loan from its Panel request by discussing the loan in its first submission
2. Response of the United States
C. Business Proprietary Information
1. Request of Indonesia
2. Response of the United States
D. Request from Indonesia for Termination of the Panel with Respect to the National Car Programme
1. Request from Indonesia
2. Response of Japan
(a) It is still not clear whether the National Car Programme has been fully terminated
(b) The Government of Indonesia has not provided any assurances that it will not introduce the measures of the same nature as the National Car Programme, i.e. discriminatory measures to benefit specific domestic products
(c) Even if measures are eliminated, a panel can and should rule on them
3. Response of the European Communities
4. Response of the United States
(a) The measures at issue are within the Panel's Terms of Reference
(b) Established GATT and WTO Panel practice is to make findings on measures that are withdrawn subsequent to the establishment of a Panel's Terms of Reference
(c) It is not established that the measures have, in fact, expired
(d) A termination of the dispute would diminis US rights under the DSU
(e) Conclusion

A. Claims under Article III:2, First Sentence of GATT 1994
1. Claims raised by Japan
(a) Article III:2, first sentence requires that sales of imported products not be taxed at rates in excess of rates imposed on like domestic products
(b) Luxury tax is an internal tax
(c) National cars are domestic products
(d) National cars and imported automobiles are "like" products
(e) Imported products are taxed less favourably than "like" domestic products
(f) Insignificant market share for imported sedans is not a defence
2. Claims raised by the European Communities
(a) The sales tax on luxury goods is an "internal tax"
(b) Imported products are "like" the domestic products exempted from the tax
(c) Imported motor vehicles are taxed in "excess of" domestic like motor vehicles
(d) Imported parts and components are 'indirectly' taxed 'in excess of' like domestic parts, components and materials
3. Claims raised by the United States
B. Claims under Article III:2, Second Sentence of GATT 1994
1. Claims raised by Japan
(a) National Cars and imported automobiles are "directly competitive or substitutable" products
(b) National cars and imported automobiles are not "similarly taxed"
(c) The tax exemption is accorded "so as to afford protection"
2. Claims raised by the United States
C. Claims under Article III:4 of GATT 1994
1. Claims raised by Japan
(a) Article III:4 of GATT 1994 requires each WTO Member to guarantee equality of competitive opportunity between domestic goods and imported goods
(b) Imported parts and components and domestic parts and components are "like" products
(c) Imported parts and components are accorded less favourable treatment than domestic like products in two respects
2. Claims raised by the European Communities
(a) The measures at issue are "laws, regulations or requirements"
(b) The measures "affect the internal use" of parts and components for the assembly of motor vehicles
(c) Imported parts and components and domestic parts and components are "like" products
(d) The measures at issue give "less favourable treatment" to imported parts and components
(e) Local content requirements have already been found contrary to Article III:4 of GATT
(f) The TRIMs Agreement confirms that the measures are compatible with Article III:4 of the GATT
3. Claims raised by the United States

(a) Summary of the measures
(b) The tariff and tax incentives and the government- directed $690 million loan are inconsistent with Article III:4
(c) Indonesia's discriminatory tariff and tax incentives and the government-directed $690 million loan do not constitute a direct subsidy to domestic producers within the meaning of Article III:8(b)
D. General Response by Indonesia to Claims under Article III of GATT 1994 -SCM Agreement prevails
1. The SCM Agreement is the lex specialis for review of the 199 and 1996 subsidy programmes, which Indonesia, as a developing country, is permitted to maintain
(a) The 1993 incentive programme grants an exemption from or reductions in import duties and the luxury tax available to all companies in the automotive industry
(b) The February 1996 National Car Programme grants import duties and luxury tax exemptions to producers of a National Car
(c) The Government's grant of exemptions and reductions to import duties and the luxury tax to certain manufacturers and assemblers of automobiles and automotive parts is a subsidy
(d) Article 27.3 of the SCM Agreement permits Indonesia, as a developing country, to maintain the subsidies granted under the 1993 and February 1996 programmes
(e) Introduction of the February 1996 subsidy programme was not inconsistent with Indonesia's obligations under the SCM Agreement
2. Indonesia's luxury tax subsidies to the automotive industry are governed by the disciplines of the SCM Agreement and not by Article III of the GATT 1994

(a) Both the 1993 incentive programme and the February 1996 National Car Programme subsidize certainautomobile producers by granting reduced luxury tax
(b) Subsidies are governed by and subject to the disciplines of the SCM Agreement
(c) General rules of treaty interpretation preclude finding that a subsidy permissible under the SCM Agreement is proscribed by Article III of the GATT 1994
(d) The proper interpretation of Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994 supports the view that Article III does not override the SCM Agreement
(e) In a conflict between the SCM Agreement and Article III of the GATT 1994, the SCM Agreement prevails
(f) The SCM Agreement defines subsidies and sets out all of the rights and obligations pertaining to them
(g) The definition of "subsidy" in the SCM Agreement is all-encompassing, contrary to the United States assertion
(h) Article VI:5 of the GATT 1994 is irrelevant and serves to limit a Complainant's unilateral remedy
(i) The United States' interpretation of Article 32.1, footnote 56, of the SCM Agreement is flawed
(j) Indonesia's right, as a developing country, to maintain domestic-content subsidies is subject only to Indonesia's obligation not to cause serious prejudice to a like product
(k) The application to this dispute of Article III of the GATT 1994, as complainants advocate, would render the SCM Agreement meaningless
(l) Conversely, Indonesia's interpretation does not render Article III useless, as complainants maintain, but confines it appropriately
(m) Complainants' assertion that the SCM Agreement cannot be lex specialis because, if it were, generally available and Article 8 subsidies would not be constrained, is incorrect
(n) Even if the United States example were relevant, the point the United States seeks to advance is incorrect as a matter of law - the SCM Agreement addresses generally available and other Article 8
(o) Japan's and the United States' claims that Indonesia's measures violate Article III:2, second sentence are incorrect
(p) Japan's view that Indonesia's argument renders the General Interpretative Note meaningless is incorrect
(q) Parts and components are not "indirectly" taxed in excess of like domestic goods
E. Rebuttals to Indonesia's General Response to the Claims Raised under Article III of GATT 1994
1. Rebuttal arguments of Japan
(a) Indonesia's lex specialis argument does not have any merit
(b) The SCM Agreement would not be reduced to inutility by Article III:2 of GATT
(c) GATT Article III does not "conflict" with the SCM Agreement
(d) GATT Article III:8(b) has never excused tax discrimination and should not be "re-thought" to excuse it now
2. Rebuttal arguments of the European Communities
(a) GATT Article III and the SCM Agreement are not mutually exclusive
(b) There is no conflict between GATT Article III and the SCM Agreement
3. Rebuttal arguments of the United States
(a) The tariff and tax incentives under the 1993 Programme and theNational Car Proggramme violate Article III of GATT 1994
(b) Indonesia's argument that the SCM Agreement overrides Article III is unsupported by the text of the SCM Agreement and GATT 1994, would result in the effective repeal of Article III:2, and is inconsistent with the negotiating history of theUruguay Round, established principles of public international law, and WTO jurisprudence
(c) The tax incentives under the 1993 Programme and the National Car Programme are not protected by Article III:8(b) of GATT 1994
F. Additional Arguments Regarding the Claims under Article III:4 of GATT 1994 Pertaining to the Tariff Measures
1. Specific response by Indonesia
(a) The customs import duties schedules for automotive companies using differing levels of domestic content are consistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 because the schedules are border measures which are not subject to Article III:4 of GATT 1994 and are subsidies Indonesia is permitted to maintain
(b) Indonesia's customs import duties subsidy does not involve a "requirement" necessary to "secure an advantage" within the scope of Article III:4 of GATT 1994
2. Rebuttal of Japan to arguments of Indonesia
(a) The February 1996 programme violates GATT Article III:4
(b) Indonesia's "border measure" defence has no merit
(c) Indonesia's "voluntary measure" defence has no merit
3. Rebuttal of the European Communities to arguments of Indonesia
4. Rebuttal of United States to arguments of Indonesia

A. Claims Raised by Japan
1. Indonesia's Programmes are "TRIMS" as defined in the TRIMS Agreement
2. Even if Indonesia's measures were deemed to constitute a subsidy, it is nonetheless also a TRIM
3. Indonesia cannot enjoy the benefit of the transitional period
B. Claims Raised by the European Communities
C. Claims Raised by the United States
D. Response by Indonesia to claims under the TRIMs Agreement
1. Summary
2. The TRIMS "Illustrative List" cannot alter the fact that Article III is inapplicable
3. Subsidies are governed by the Subsidies Agreement and are not within the scope of the TRIMS Agreement
4. Customs import duty subsidies are not within the scope of the TRIMS Agreement
5. Indonesia has not violated the TRIMS Agreement: The TRIMS Agreement does not apply - it adds no new obligations, but merely puts a gloss on Article III of GATT 1994
(a) The TRIMS Agreement, unlike the SCM Agreement, is not lex specialis; it neither defines "TRIM" nor sets forth special remedies
(b) The TRIMS Agreement does not establish a "new balance of rights and obligations"; rather, it merely elaborates on the FIRA Panel's decision regarding the coverage of Article III of GATT
6. Japan is in Error: the Government most certainly does not view the National Car Programme as an investment programme
7. The underlying decree, rules and regulations, and Indonesia's statements to the Committee on TRIMS establish that the National Car Programme does not involve a TRIM
8. The measures are not investment measures but subsidies granted to an automaker to use domestic parts and components 138
9. The measures are not TRIMS that violate Article III:2 of GATT 1994
10. The TRIMS Agreement is not lex specialis to any dispute
E. Arguments made in rebuttal to Indonesia's responses to the claims under the TRIMs Agreement
1. Rebuttal arguments made by Japan
(a) The February 1996 Programme violates TRIMS Article 2.1
(b) The SCM Agreement does not excuse Indonesia's violations of the TRIMS Agreement
(c) Incentive measures are covered by the TRIMS Agreement
(d) Indonesia's arguments would render parts of the TRIMS Agreement virtually meaningless
2. Rebuttal arguments made by the European Communities
(a) The measures at issue infringe GATT Article III and are therefore contrary to Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement
(b) Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement lays down a legally distinct obligation
(c) Even if it was found that there is a "conflict" between GATT Article III and the SCM Agreement, that conflict would not preclude a violation of Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement
(d) The TRIMS Agreement may apply to subsidies
3. Rebuttal arguments made by the United States
(a) The tariff and tax incentives under the 1993 Programme and the National Car Programme are inconsistent with Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement
(b) The Indonesian measures are "trade related measures"
(c) The TRIMS Agreement imposed a new obligation on Indonesia
(d) The notion of lex specialis is irrelevant in this case with respect to the relationship between Article III and the TRIMS Agreement

To Continue with Table of Contents.