. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS286/9 
27 June 2005 
 (05-2791) 
 Original:   English 
  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – CUS TOMS CLASSIFICATION OF 
FROZEN BONELESS CHICKEN CUTS 
 
Notification of an Other 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 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review   
   The following notification, dated 27 June 2005,  from the Delegation of Thailand, is being 
circulated to Members. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Pursuant to Article 17.4 of the Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") and Rule 23 of the Appellate Body's Working Procedures for 
Appellate Review, Thailand hereby notifies its decisi on to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues 
of law covered in the Panel Report European Communities – Customs Classification of Chicken Cuts , 
WT/DS286/R, (the "Panel Report") and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel in that 
Report.  
Thailand seeks appellate review of: 
 
(a) the Panel's findings and conclusion set out  in paragraphs 7.25–7.32, that EC 
Regulation No. 1871/2003 and EC Regulation No. 2344/2003 are outside its terms of 
reference;   
 
(b) the Panel's findings and conclusion, set out in paragraphs 6.17, 6.18, 7.36 and 7.37, 
that the products included in the Panel’s te rms of reference are limited to frozen 
boneless chicken cuts impregnated with sa lt, with a salt content of 1.2%- 3%; 
 
(c) the Panel's findings and conclusion, set out  in paragraph 7.223, that all the  
"Explanatory Notes" of the Harmonized Syst em cited by Thailand are "non-binding" 
and do not further clarify the interpretation of the concession in heading 02.10 of the 
EC Schedule; and, 
 
(d) the Panel's findings and conclusion, set out in paragraph 7.238, that General Rule for 
the Interpretation of the Harmonised System 3 ("General Rule 3") is not applicable.  
 
The above findings and conclusions ar e based on the following legal errors: 
 
- the Panel's error in determining the sc ope of its terms of reference with 
respect to the measures at issue based on its interpretation, inter alia , that 
Thailand's panel request was not broad enough in its formulation to include 
EC Regulation No. 1871/2003 and EC Regulation No. 2344/2003. (paras. 
7.16–7.32 of the Panel Report); 
 WT/DS286/9 
Page 2  
 
 - the Panel's error in determining the sc ope of its terms of reference with 
respect to the products at issue by interpreting that the product at issue is determined by the measures the Panel cons idered to be within  its terms of 
reference and not by the product described  by Thailand in its request for the 
establishment of a panel. (paras. 7.36 and 7.37 of the Panel Report); 
 
- the Panel’s error in applying Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law 
of Treaties with respect to its analysis of relevant aspects of the Harmonized System for the interpretation of the concession in heading 0210 of the EC Schedule.  In particular, Thailand cons iders that the Panel erred in finding 
that the HS Explanatory Notes to head ing 02.10 and Chapter 2 and the Note 
to Chapter 16 are not helpful to clarify the ordinary meaning of the term "salted" in the concession contained in heading 02.10 of the EC Schedule. 
Thailand also considers that the Panel incorrectly characterised the Note to Chapter 16 as an Explanatory Note when it is in fact a Chapter Note that 
forms part of the Harmonized System and is therefore binding. (paras. 7.206–
7.223 of the Panel Report);  and 
 
- the Panel's error in deciding not to apply General Rule 3.  The Panel 
improperly relied on the parties' position th at – in their view – the product at 
issue does not fall prima facie  under two or more head ings and consequently 
erred in failing to provide its own anal ysis of whether the product at issue 
prima facie  falls under two or more headings. (paras. 7.224–7.241.)  
 
Thailand requests the Appellate Body to review the above findings or conclusions of the 
Panel.  The provisions of the Marrakesh Agreemen t Establishing the WTO that Thailand considers the 
Panel to have erroneously inte rpreted or applied are heading 0210 of the EC Schedule read in 
conjunction with Article II:1(a) a nd II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, as well as Article 3.7, 6.2 and Article 7 
of the DSU.   
__________