Indonesia—Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Panel
WT/DS54, 55, 59, 64/R (July 23, 1998)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Indonesia (defendant) adopted two programs that were challenged as improper subsidies under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement by the United States and the European Communities (plaintiffs). Both sets of measures involved the Indonesia National Car Program, which granted certain exemptions from luxury tax on sales of cars and from import duties. To qualify for the programs, manufacturers were required to meet minimum local content requirements. One vehicle, the Timor, met these requirements and received the benefits under the National Car Program. The United States did not actually export any similar cars to Indonesia. The European Communities exported the Optima and 306, which were like products. After the program was adopted, the market share for those imported vehicles declined, but the absolute sales numbers either stayed flat or slightly increased. Essentially, the overall market for these vehicles grew. The list and market price of the Timor was significantly lower than the like imported products. The United States and the European Communities asserted that the National Car Program constituted actionable subsidies that were specific subsidies and met the serious-prejudice standard under the SCM Agreement. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Panel considered and ruled on these issues.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.