Analisis Penyelesaian Sengketa Perdagangan Internasional

Melalui Dispute Settlement Body World Trade Organization

pada Sengketa Biodiesel Antara Indonesia dengan Uni Eropa

World Trade Organization (WTO) menjadi satu-satunya organisasi internasional

yang mengatur kegiatan perdagangan antar negara dengan kekuasaan sebagai
penegak rule of law yang bertindak sebagai forum penyelesaian sengketa
perdagangan internasional. Untuk itu, WTO dilengkapi dengan badan khusus
bernama Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) sebagai lembaga penyelesaian
sengketa dengan mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa yang diatur di dalam
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU). Penelitian ini mengkaji metode
penyelesaian sengketa internasional secara damai, latar belakang sengketa
perdagangan internasional terkait produk biodiesel antara Indonesia dan Uni
Eropa, serta mekanisme penyelesaian sengketa di bawah WTO melalui DSB
dengan berpedoman pada DSU. Dalam penelitian ini digunakan pendekatan
yuridis normatif. Data yang digunakan adalah data sekunder melalui studi
pustaka (library research). Data yang dikumpulkan dianalisis dengan
menggunakan metode analisis data normatif-kualitatif. Penyelesaian sengketa
internasional secara damai dapat ditempuh dengan dua cara, yaitu: secara
diplomatik (diplomatic political means) dan secara hukum (adjudicational-legal
means). Dispute Settlement Body WTO termasuk ke dalam lembaga peradilan
khusus di bawah kerangka GATT/WTO yang berwenang menyelesaikan sengketa
perdagangan internasional secara damai antara negara-negara yang menjadi
anggota WTO. Sengketa biodiesel antara Indonesia dan Uni Eropa ke WTO
ditenggarai adanya tuduhan dumping yang dilayangkan Uni Eropa kepada
Indonesia terkait biodiesel, yang mengakibatkan diberikannya hambatan
perdagangan oleh Uni Eropa berupa pengenaan Bea Masuk Anti-Dumping
(BMAD). Indonesia memanfaatkan peran WTO sebagai forum penyelesaian skala
global untuk menyelesaian sengketa ini. WTO melalui DSB menyelesaikan
sengketa dengan mekanisme yudisial (adjudicatory) yang menghasilkan
kewajiban dan konsekuensi hukum yang mengikat para pihak yang bersengketa.
Panel memutus Uni Eropa melanggar Pasal 2.2; 2.2.1.1; 2.2.2(iii); 2.3; 3.1;
3.2; dan 9.3 Anti-Dumping Agreement serta Pasal VI:1(b)(ii) dan Pasal VI:2
GATT 1994 sehingga Uni Eropa berkewajiban menghapus BMAD yang dikenakan
terhadap biodiesel Indonesia.

Anti Dumpling agreement

2.2 When there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic
market of the exporting country or when, because of the particular market situation or the low
volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country2 , such sales do not permit a
proper comparison, the margin of dumping shall be determined by comparison with a comparable
price of the like product when exported to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is
representative, or with the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for
administrative, selling and general costs and for profits.
2.2.1.1 For the purpose of paragraph 2, costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records
kept by the exporter or producer under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance
with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect
the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration. Authorities
shall consider all available evidence on the proper allocation of costs, including that which is made
available by the exporter or producer in the course of the investigation provided that such
allocations have been historically utilized by the exporter or producer, in particular in relation to
establishing appropriate amortization and depreciation periods and allowances for capital
expenditures and other development costs. Unless already reflected in the cost allocations under
this sub-paragraph, costs shall be adjusted appropriately for those non-recurring items of cost which
benefit future and/or current production, or for circumstances in which costs during the period of
investigation are affected by start-up operations.

2.2.2 For the purpose of paragraph 2, the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and
for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of
trade of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation. When such amounts
cannot be determined on this basis, the amounts may be determined on the basis of:

(iii) any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not
exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same
general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.

2.3 In cases where there is no export price or where it appears to the authorities concerned that the
export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the
exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the
price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer, or if the products are
not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable
basis as the authorities may determine.

3.1 A determination of injury for purposes of Article VI of GATT 1994 shall be based on positive
evidence and involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume of the dumped imports and
the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products, and (b) the
consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products.

3.2 With regard to the volume of the dumped imports, the investigating authorities shall consider
whether there has been a significant increase in dumped imports, either in absolute terms or
relative to production or consumption in the importing Member. With regard to the effect of the
dumped imports on prices, the investigating authorities shall consider whether there has been a
significant price undercutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of a like product of
the importing Member, or whether the effect of such imports is otherwise to depress prices to a
significant degree or prevent price increases, which otherwise would have occurred, to a significant
degree. No one or several of these factors can necessarily give decisive guidance.

9.3 The amount of the anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping as established
under Article 2.

Gatt 1994
Article VI: Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties
1. The contracting parties recognize that dumping, by which products of one country are introduced into
the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products, is to be condemned if it
causes or threatens material injury to an established industry in the territory of a contracting party or
materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry. For the purposes of this Article, a product is to
be considered as being introduced into the commerce of an importing country at less than its normal value,
if the price of the product exported from one country to another
(a) is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for
consumption in the exporting country, or,

(b) in the absence of such domestic price, is less than either

(i) the highest comparable price for the like product for export to any third country in the ordinary course
of trade, or

(ii) the cost of production of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addition for selling cost
and profit.
2. In order to offset or prevent dumping, a contracting party may levy on any dumped product an anti-
dumping duty not greater in amount than the margin of dumping in respect of such product. For the
purposes of this Article, the margin of dumping is the price difference determined in accordance with the
provisions of paragraph 1.*