UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO SHRIMP FROM THAILAND
Document: 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
Date: 22 April 2008
Document codes: WT/DS343/10
Complainant: Thailand
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Chile, China, EU, India, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Vietnam
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.4.2, 2.1, 2.4, 9.3, 18.1, 7, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 7.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 7.2  Anti-dumpingArt. XI:1, I:1, II:1, X:3(a), XX  GATT 1994

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.

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 () (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.

(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 legal interpretations.