Analisis Yuridis Intеrprеtasi ‘Particular Markеt Situation’ Pada Kasus Sеngkеta Еkspor Produk Kеrtas Indonеsia Vs. Australia (Ds 529)

Kurniawan, Gabriеlla Еsthеr and Dr. Hanif Nur Widhiyanti,, S.H., M.Hum and Hikmatul Ula,, S.H., M.Hum (2020) Analisis Yuridis Intеrprеtasi ‘Particular Markеt Situation’ Pada Kasus Sеngkеta Еkspor Produk Kеrtas Indonеsia Vs. Australia (Ds 529). Sarjana thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.

Abstract

Indonesia menggugat Australia terkait pengenaan Bea Masuk Anti Dumping (BMAD) sebesar 12-38,6% untuk produk kertas yang berasal dari Indonesia. Dasar pengenaan BMAD oleh Australia adalah Indonesia diduga kuat telah menciptakan kondisi Particular Market Situation (PMS) sebagaimana diatur dalam Anti Dumping Agreement (AD Agreement) pasal 2.2. Adapun menurut Australia, situasi PMS tersebut timbul akibat kebijakan larangan ekspor kayu log Indonesia yang menyebabkan suplai kayu log di Indonesia menjadi melimpah. Dampak dari melimpahnya suplai kayu log tersebut dianggap menyebabkan kayu log tidak memiliki harga pasar yang pasti dan menyebabkan harga bahan baku kertas menjadi jauh lebih murah. Atas hal tersebut, Indonesia menyatakan keberatan karena pengaturan tentang subsidi diatur di dalam Agreement yang berbeda yakni Subsidies and Counter vailing Measures Agreement (SCMA). Sehingga dibutuhkan kausalitas yang jelas antara ADA dan SCMA sebelum Australia mengenakan BMAD pada produk kertas Indonesia. Selain itu, dalam ADA tidak diatur secara spesifik terkait definisi dari PMS sehingga tidak ada tolok ukur yang pasti bagaimana sebuah negara dikatakan telah menciptakan kondisi pasar tertentu. Isu hukum dalam kasus ini adalah kekaburan hukum atas klausul “ Particular Market Situation” dalam Pasal 2.2 AD Agreement , yang dimana selama proses persidangan, baik Indonesia, Australia maupun third parties memiliki argumentasi masing-masing terkait interpretasi dalam menentukan definisi dan tolok ukur dari PMS yang belum terdefinisikan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konsep, dan komparatif. Kemudian bahan hukum yang diperoleh penulis dianalisis dengan teknik analisis deskriptif untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan hukum terkait obyek kajian. Bеrdasarkan pеrtimbangan dan putusan DSB WTO dapat disimpulkan bahwa intеrprеtasi PMS olеh Australia lеbih dapat ditеrima bahwa PMS seharusnya diartikan secara luas. Namun Australia gagal membuktikan adanya injury yang diakibatkan oleh PMS di Indonesia karena tidak tepatnya penggunaan metode proper comparison untuk menentukan constructed normal value oleh Australia. Hal ini membawa kemenangan bagi Indonesia.

English Abstract

ndonesia sued Australia in regard to the imposition of Anti Dumping Import Duty (ADID) amounting to 12 to 38,6% for paper products originating from Indonesia. The basis of Australia's Anti Dumping Import Duty imposed on Indonesia is due to the presumption that Indonesia has created a Particular Market Situation (PMS) as regulated in Article 2.2 of the Anti Dumping Agreement (ADA). Further, Australia argued that PMS situation has emerged after Indonesia imposes ban policy on the log export from Indonesia which resulted in abundant increased supply for logs in Indonesia. Thus, causing the unstable price for logs and low price for raw materials. Due to the foregoing reasons, Indonesia contested by arguing that provisions on subsidy are regulated in a different Agreement, which is Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement (SCMA). Therefore, it requires a clear ground between ADA and SCMA prior to imposing ADID on paper products from Indonesia. Besides, there is no specific provision in ADA which could be used as the benchmark on how to determine whether or not there has been a particular market situation existed in a country. Hence, the legal issue is the unclear clause of "Particular Market Situation" in Article 2.2 of ADA, whereas, during the proceedings, both Indonesia and Australia as well as the Third Parties have their own arguments on the interpretation of the definition and the benchmark of PMS was not defined. In this research, it used a normative juridical method by applying the statute, conceptual, and comparative approach. And, the legal materials were analyzed by using descriptive analysis technique in order to resolve the legal issues in relation to the research object. Based on the consideration and decision of the DSB WTO, it could be concluded that the interpretation of PMS by Australia was more favored whereas PMS supposedly interpreted broadly. Nonetheless, Australia failed to provide sufficient evidence that the injury caused by PMS in Indonesia was due to the incorrect use of proper comparison method by Australia to decide the constructed normal value. Finally, it brought to the final decision of the DSB WTO in favored with Indonesia's stance.

Item Type:	Thesis (Sarjana)
Identification Number:	0520010372
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Anti Dumping Agreement, Interpretasi , Particular Market Situation, Anti-Dumping Agreement, Interpretation, Particular Market Situation
Subjects:	300 Social sciences > 340 Law
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum > Ilmu Hukum
Depositing User:	Nur Cholis
Date Deposited:	17 Oct 2022 06:58
Last Modified:	17 Oct 2022 06:58
URI:	http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/195756

Text (DALAM MASA EMBARGO) Gabriella Esther Kurniawan (2).pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 31 December 2023. Download (1MB)

Actions (login required)

View Item