  
  
WT/DS484/26  
 
6 January 2021  
(21-0175) Page: 1/3 
  Original: English  
 
INDONESIA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICKEN MEAT  
AND CHICKEN PRODUCTS  
RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY BRAZIL  
NOTIFICATION OF AN OTHER APPEAL BY BRAZIL  UNDER ARTICLE 16.4 AND ARTICLE 17.1  
OF THE UNDERSTANDING ON RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE  
SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES (DSU), AND UNDER RULE 2 3(1) OF THE  
WORKING PROCEDURES FOR APPELLATE REVIEW  
The following communication, dated 22 December 2020, from the delegation of Brazil, is being 
circulated to Members.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the DSU, Brazil hereby notifies to the Dispute Settlement 
Body its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in  the Report of the 
Panel and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in its Report in the dispute 
Indonesia  — Measures Concerning the Importation of Chicken Meat and Chicken Products (Recourse 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil) (WT/DS484/RW ). 
Pursuant to Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , Brazil simultaneously files 
this Notice of Other Appeal with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
Brazil restricts its appeal to those errors in the Panel report that it believes constitu te serious errors 
of law and legal interpretation that need to be corrected. Non -appeal of an issue, reasoning or finding 
does not signify or imply agreement therewith.  
For the reasons to be elaborated further in its submission to the Appellate Body, Braz il appeals the 
following errors of law and legal interpretation contained in the Panel Report1, and requests the 
Appellate Body to reverse or modify the appealed findings and conclusions of the Panel, including 
related analysis, descriptions and reasoning , contained in the Panel Report as identified in the Notice 
of Appeal.  
I. The Panel Erred in not Finding that the Positive List Requirement is Inconsistent 
with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  
1. Brazil submits that the Panel erred in finding that the positive list requirement, as set out in 
Regulations MoA 42/2019 and MoT 29/2019, does not constitute a prohibition or restriction to 
international trade inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 and footnote 
1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, as set out in Section 7.4 of its Report.  
 
1 In the following descriptions of the legal errors of the Panel, Brazil provides an indicative list of the 
paragraphs of the Panel Report, in particular paragraphs with the primary instance of the errors. These errors 
may also be reflected in or have conse quences for other parts of the Panel Report, and Brazil also appeals all 
findings and conclusions deriving from or relying on the appealed errors.   WT/DS484/26  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2. The relevant measure, as had been noted by the original panel, "is not the list as such, but 
rather the requirement to be on that list in  order to be allowed to be imported".2 With respect to this 
requirement, there is an unappealed  finding of inconsistency with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 by 
the original panel. This finding must therefore be treated as a final resolution in respect of the 
positive list requirement, which has been maintained by Indonesia.  
3. The Panel further erred by  not deepening its analysis under Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. It found that "Brazil's claim under Article 4.2 is thus identical to the claim 
under Article XI:1 in all relevant aspects", and as a result "the outcome of our an alysis will also 
necessarily be the same under both provisions". By doing so, the Panel disregarded any difference 
between these two provisions in terms of their respective legal standard.  
4. For the above reasons, Brazil respectfully requests the Appellate B ody to reverse the Panel's 
findings in paragraphs 7.111, 7.120, 7.123, 8.1(c)(i) and 8.1(c)(ii) of the Panel Report, together 
with the underlying reasoning and analysis, and to find instead that the positive list requirement, as 
enacted through MoA 42/2019  and MoT 29/2019, is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT  1994 
and Article 4.2 and footnote 1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
II. The Panel Erred In Not Finding That The Requirements For Modifying Licence Terms 
Are Inconsistent With Article XI:1 Of The GATT 1994  
5. Brazil contends that the Panel erred in finding that the requirements for modifying licence 
terms do not violate Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, as set out in Section 7.6 of the Panel Report.  
6. The Panel incorrectly framed Brazil 's argument rega rding the requirement to submit a stamped 
statement letter setting out the reasons for requesting an amendment. Brazil argued that this is a 
burdensome  and unjustified requirement on importers, as they must pay a stamp duty and provide 
a letter giving reas ons for the amendment "even for slight deviations from the original terms"3, and 
therefore incur an administrative burden and cost "every time business opportunities change"4. 
Nonetheless the Panel framed Brazil 's claim as "whether the obligation to stat e reasons for modifying 
the licence terms is burdensome enough to deny the possibility to amend licence terms".5  
7. Based  on this incorrect understanding, the Panel went on to find that  the requirement to 
submit a stamped statement letter setting out the re asons for requesting an amendment, which was 
imposed under Article 44(2) of MoA 42/2019, did not amount to a restriction inconsistent with Article 
XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because it did not appear to impose a significant burden on importers. The 
Panel faile d to consider whether said requirement was justifiable as absolutely necessary for the 
administration of Indonesia 's import licensing regime, and, if not, to conclude that it would then 
constitute a burdensome, unjustifiable restriction on imports inconsis tent with Article XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994.  
8. For these reasons, Brazil respectfully requests the Appellate Body to reverse  the Panel's 
findings in paragraphs 7.233, 7.234, 7.237 and 8(e)(i) of its Report, together with the underlying 
reasoning and analysis, an d to find, instead, that the requirement imposed under Article 44(2) of 
MoA 42/2019 is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
_______________  
 
 
Pursuant to Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , Brazil files this Notice of 
Other Appeal together with its Other Appellant's Submission with the Appellate Body Secretariat.  
Brazil reserves the right, in addressing Indonesia 's appeal, to disagree with any statement in the 
Panel Report made in the context of matter on which Brazil prev ailed.  
 
2 Original panel report, para. 7.165.  
3 Indonesia’s first written submission, para. 69.  
4 Indonesia’s first written submission, para. 69.  
5 Panel Report, para. 7.229.  WT/DS484/26  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Pursuant to Rule 23(2)(c)(ii)(C) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , this Notice of Other 
Appeal provides an indicative list of the paragraphs of the Panel Report containing the errors of law 
and legal interpretation by the Panel, withou t prejudice to Brazil 's ability to rely on other paragraphs 
of the Panel Report in the context of its other appeal.  
There is currently an insufficient number of Appellate Body Members to constitute a division for 
serving on appeal in this dispute. In these  exceptional circumstances, and in the interests of fairness 
and orderly procedure in the conduct of the appeal, in accordance with Rule 16(1) and (2) of the 
Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Brazil will await further instructions from the division,  
when it may eventually be composed, or the Appellate Body, regarding any further steps to be taken 
by Brazil in this appeal.  
Filing of the Other Appellant's Submission by Brazil should be without prejudice to its right to re -file 
it once the division bec omes operational.  
 
 
__________  