I.             Introduction. 1

II.           Arguments of the Participants and the Third Participants. 4

            A.           Claims of Error by the Philippines – Appellant 4

1.            Article III:2, First Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 5

2.            Article III:2, Second Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 11

(a)          Directly Competitive or Substitutable Products. 11

(b)          "So as to afford protection to domestic production". 15

            B.         Arguments of the European Union – Appellee. 16

1.            Article III:2, First Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 17

2.            Article III:2, Second Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 21

(a)          Directly Competitive or Substitutable Products. 21

(b)          "So as to afford protection to domestic production". 24

            C.         Arguments of the United States – Appellee. 25

1.            Article III:2, First Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 26

2.            Article III:2, Second Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 29

(a)          Directly Competitive or Substitutable Products. 30

(b)          "So as to afford protection to domestic production". 33

            D.        Claim of Error by the European Union – Other Appellant 33

            E.         Arguments of the Philippines – Appellee. 35

            F.         Arguments of the Third Participants. 35

1.            Australia. 35

2.            Mexico                                                                                                                                                                                                                37

III.          Issues Raised in This Appeal 38

IV.       Background. 39

            A.        The Measure at Issue. 39

            B.         The Products at Issue. 41

V.           Article III:2, First Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 44

            A.        The Panel's Finding that Each Type of Imported Distilled Spirit Made from Non‑Designated Raw Materials is "Like" the Same Type of Domestic Distilled Spirit Made from Designated Raw Materials  45

1.            The Products' Physical Characteristics. 46

2.            Consumers' Tastes and Habits. 55

3.            Tariff Classification. 60

4.            Regulatory Regimes. 62

5.            Conclusions. 63

            B.         The Panel's Finding that All Distilled Spirits at Issue in This Dispute, whether Imported or Domestic and Irrespective of Their Raw Material Base, are "Like Products". 64

VI.         Article III:2, Second Sentence, of the GATT 1994. 67

            A.        European Union's Other Appeal 67

            B.         Philippines' Appeal 71

1.            Directly Competitive or Substitutable Products. 72

(a)          "Degree" of Competition. 74

(b)          Market Segmentation. 77

(c)          Potential Competition. 82

(d)          Substitutability Studies – Article 11 of the DSU.. 84

(e)          Conclusion. 89

2.            "So As to Afford Protection to Domestic Production". 90

            C.         Conclusion. 94

VII.        Findings and Conclusions in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS396/AB/R.. EU‑97

VII.        Findings and Conclusions in the Appellate Body Report WT/DS403/AB/R.. US‑97