INDONESIA 

– CHICKEN1
(DS484)

PARTIES AGREEMENT TIMELINE OF THE DISPUTE

Establishment of Panel 3 December 2015
Complainant Brazil
GATT Arts. XI, III:4, XX Circulation of Panel Report 17 October 2017
AA Art. 4.2 Circulation of AB Report N/A
Respondent Indonesia
Adoption 22 November 2017

1. MEASURE AND PRODUCT AT ISSUE

• Measure at issue:  (i) alleged (unwritten) general prohibition resulting from the combined operation of several different trade-
restrictive measures; and (ii)  six specific restrictions; four of these were also constitutive elements of the alleged general
prohibition. Indonesia made some amendments during the proceedings and claimed that, as a result, certain measures had
expired.
• Product at issue:  Chicken meat and chicken products.

2. SUMMARY OF KEY PANEL FINDINGS

General prohibition
• While the Panel established that the measure was properly identified and therefore within its terms of reference, it found that
Brazil had not demonstrated the existence of alleged (unwritten) general prohibition.

Measure 1:  Positive list requirement

• The Panel found that the positive list requirement in its version at panel establishment resulted in a ban that was inconsistent
with GATT Art. XI. It further found that the ban was not justified under GATT Art. XX as it did not meet the necessity
requirement under Art. XX(d).
• The Panel found that subsequent amendments had not resulted in the expiry of the measure and, that, therefore, the violation
remained.

Measure 2:  Intended use requirement:

• The Panel found that the intended use requirement in its version at panel establishment was inconsistent with GATT Art. XI
and was not justified either under GATT Art. XX(b) or under GATT Art. XX(d).
• The Panel held that subsequent amendments had not led to the expiry of the measure. In examining new features of the
amended measure, the Panel found that in respect of its cold storage requirement, the measure did not breach GATT Art. III:4;
however, the Panel concluded that in respect of its enforcement aspects the measure did result in less favourable treatment of
imported chicken and that Indonesia had not justified this breach under GATT Art. XX(b) or (d).

MEASURE 3: LICENSING REGIME

• In respect of the licensing requirements the Panel found that the single measure consisting of the application windows and the
validity periods was inconsistent with GATT Art. XI:1 because importers were unable to import products during at least four
weeks of each import period, thus restricting the market access of the products at issue into Indonesia. The Panel also found
that the fixed licence terms aspect of the licensing regime was inconsistent with GATT Art. XI:1 and not justified under GATT
Art. XX.
• In respect of subsequent amendments, the Panel found that the single measure consisting of the application windows and the
validity periods had expired and, therefore refrained from issuing a recommendation in its regard. As regards the fixed licence
term requirement, the Panel found that it had not expired and continued to violate GATT Art. XI.

Measures 4-6
• SPS Art. 8 and Annex C(1)(a):  The Panel found that Indonesia had caused undue delay as it had not begun the approval
procedure for Brazil’s proposed veterinary health certificate and because it required Brazil to complete a non-SPS questionnaire.
• GATT Art. III:4:  The Panel found that Indonesia did not discriminate against imported chicken in enforcing its halal labelling
requirements.
• GATT XI:1/AA Art. 4.2:  The Panel held that (i) the relevant measure permitted transhipment, including transit and that (ii)
Brazil had not adduced evidence that demonstrated that the drafting of the relevant measure was so unclear that it had a trade-
restrictive effect.

3. OTHER ISSUES2
• Third parties (Art. 6.2):  The Panel accepted Oman’s and Qatar’s requests to join the dispute as third parties more than three
months after the Panel’s establishment.

1 Indonesia – Measures Concerning the Importation of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products
2 Terms of reference, replacement measures, expiry of a measure; separate opinion by one panelist; AA Art. 4.2 vs GATT III:4, GATT XI vs GATT
III:4, judicial economy.

208 WTO Dispute Settlement: One-Page Case Summaries