Issues related to food safety recently increased. The incidence of foodborne diseases is increasing and international food trade is disrupted by frequent disputes over food safety and quality requirements. Many food control systems need to be revised and strengthened if improvements are to be realized. Food safety has also been a problem and has taken attention many countries in the world especially the developed countries that have a deep interest in this trading issue. Goods which related to the food safety issues are the scope of the Sanitary & Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement). SPS Agreement is trying to establish basic rules for food safety and animal and plant health standards and it also Allows states to set their own standards but must be based on science and they also have to apply this rule only to the extent necessary to protect humans, animals or plants or health. This research aims to show the implementation of SPS Agreement in case of Australia Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand; how the parties solving their problems using SPS Agreement; and obstacles faced by WTO (World Trade Organization) members particularly Australia and New Zealand in applying SPS Agreement. In order to compile data in the research, library research is applied to get secondary data, through reading, citing and analyzing data that are related to object of research. The methodology apply is normative research. This method will explain how to implement the SPS Agreement in the WTO case. Based on the research, there are several articles that violated by Australia such as, Australia inconsistent with the 16 measures at issues, both as a whole and individually and constitute SPS measures within the meaning of Annex A(1) to the SPS Agreement, inconsistent with Article 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement, inconsistent within the meaning of Article 11 of the DSU (Dispute Settlement Understanding), inconsistent with Article 5.6, and Panel finds that New Zealand has not established that the 16 measures at issue are inconsistent with Annex C (1) (a) and Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. It is recommended to be more transparency and open hearing. It would make all parties who want to help become easier to enter into the public oral hearing and it is recommended to create a standard of review that even better than the previous one in order to help the parties to resolve problems easily.