. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS343/10 
22 April 2008 
 (08-1911) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO SHRIMP FROM THAILAND 
 
Notification of an Appeal by Thailand
 
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules  
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  
and under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review  
   The following notification, dated 17 April 2008 , from the Delegation of Thailand, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
1. Pursuant to Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 
Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU") and Rule 20 of the Appellate Body's Working 
Procedures for Appellate Review , Thailand hereby notifies its decisi on to request the Appellate Body 
to review cert ain issues of law covered in the report of the Panel in United States – Measures 
Relating to Shrimp from Thailand (WT/DS343/R) (the "Panel Report") and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel therein.   
 2. Thailand seeks review by the Appellate Body  of the following issues of law and legal 
interpretations of the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 
1994") and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI  of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994 (the " Anti-Dumping Agreement "): 
(a) The Panel's interpretations of the phrase "pendi ng final determination of the facts in any case 
of suspected dumping" in paragraph 1 of the Ad Note to Articles VI:2 and 3 of the GATT 
1994 to mean that (i) a case of "suspected dumping" may continue to exist even after the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures, (ii)  the "final determination" in a case of 
suspected dumping refers not to the decisi on to impose definitive anti-dumping measures 
following an investigation conducted in  accordance with Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement but instead only to the review of the final amount of liability for duties in a 
subsequent review proceeding conducte d under Articles 9.3.1 or 9.3.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, and (iii) the Ad Note therefore authori ses Members to require security following 
the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures (see paragraphs 7.88-7.130 of the Panel 
Report) .  These interpretations are in error and ar e based on erroneous findings on issues of 
law and related legal interpreta tions.  Properly interpreted, the Ad Note applies only to 
measures imposed prior to a finding of dumping and injury that leads to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures ( e.g., a U.S. anti-dumping order) and, as such, is governed 
by the provisions of Article 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding provisional 
measures. WT/DS343/10 
Page 2  
 
(b) As a consequence of its interpretation that the Ad  Note to Article VI is not temporally limited 
in scope (see issue (a) above), the Panel's conclusion that Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement  permits, in addition to the actions prev iously identified by the Appellate Body 
(provisional measures, price undertakings or  definitive duties), specific action against 
dumping in the form of security (cash deposits  or bonds) based on a determination of likely 
future dumping margins (see, in particular, pa ragraphs 7.97-98 and pa ragraphs 7.138-141 of 
the Panel Report).  This conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of 
law and related legal interpretati ons.  Properly interpreted, Artic le VI and Article 18.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement permit only action against dumping in the form of provisional 
measures, definitive duties, and price undertaki ngs, and nothing in Artic le 18.1 or Article VI, 
including the Ad Note, authorises additional sp ecific action against dumping on the basis of 
likely future dumping margins. 
(c) The Panel's interpretations that (i) monies coll ected by the United States as cash deposits of 
estimated anti-dumping duties on importation of  goods subject to definitive anti-dumping 
measures within the meaning of Article 9.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the form of a 
U.S. anti-dumping order are not anti-dumping "duties" within the meaning of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and that (ii) these cash deposits of estimated anti-dumping duties 
collected at the time of importation are not subject to the requirement set out in Article 9.1 and the chapeau of Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement that the amount of such duties 
may not exceed the margin of dumping establis hed in accordance with Article 2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement (see paragraphs 7.111-7.122 of the Pa nel Report).  These interpretations 
are in error and are based on erroneous fi ndings on issues of law and related legal 
interpretations.  Cash deposits of estimated  anti-dumping duties collected at importation 
pursuant to a definitive anti-dumping measure imposed under Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement are anti-dumping duties within the meaning of Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and may not, therefore, exceed the most recently-determined actual margin of 
dumping. 
(d) Conditionally, in the event that the Appellate Body upholds the Panel's legal interpretations 
on issue (a) above, Thailand also seeks review of the Panel's interpretation of the Ad Note to 
Article VI to mean  that an assessment of the reasonablen ess of security required pursuant to 
the Ad Note does not involve or require any consideration of the risk of default or non-
payment of anti-dumping duties by individual importers of goods subject to anti-dumping 
measures (see footnote 184 to pa ragraph 7.142 of the Panel Report) .  This interpretation is in 
error and is based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related lega l interpretations.   
 
__________