Thailand - Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines - Second recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines - Report of the Panel

Thailand – Customs and Fiscal measures on cigarettes

from the Philippines

Second Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the Philippines

Report OF THE PANEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

1   Introduction.. 17

1.1   Prior proceedings in DS371. 17

1.2   Complaint by the Philippines. 18

1.3   Panel establishment and composition. 19

1.4   Panel proceedings. 20

1.4.1   General 20

1.4.2   Third-party access to the confidential Final Report, submissions and exhibits in the first recourse to Article 21.5. 20

1.4.3   The Philippines' request for copies of communications between Indonesian and Thai government officials. 21

1.4.3.1   Thailand's objection to the Philippines' letter of 24 September 2018. 21

1.4.3.2   The Philippines' DSU Article 13 request of 19 October 2018. 23

1.4.4   Thailand's objection concerning the Panel's terms of reference. 24

2   Factual aspects. 25

2.1   Introduction. 25

2.2   PMTL and the relevant Thai government agencies. 25

2.3   The measures challenged in this proceeding. 26

3   Parties' requests for findings and recommendations. 26

4   Arguments of the parties. 28

5   Arguments of the third parties. 28

6   Interim review.. 28

7   Findings. 29

7.1   Initial considerations. 29

7.1.1   Introduction. 29

7.1.2   General framework for the Panel's analysis. 29

7.1.2.1   General principles of interpretation and standard of review. 29

7.1.2.2   Reliance on the Report in the Philippines' first recourse to Article 21.5. 31

7.1.3   Issues relating to jurisdiction and admissibility. 35

7.1.3.1   The nexus between the Charges/NoAs and DSB recommendations and rulings. 35

7.1.3.1.1   Introduction. 35

7.1.3.1.2   Findings in the first recourse to Article 21.5. 36

7.1.3.1.3   The 2002-2003 Charges and the 1,052 revised NoAs. 37

7.1.3.1.4   Conclusion. 39

7.1.3.2   Thailand's allegations of "illegal acts" by PM Indonesia. 39

7.1.3.3   The Philippines' alternative claims under Article 7.1 of the CVA. 42

7.1.3.3.1   Introduction. 42

7.1.3.3.2   Main arguments of the parties. 43

7.1.3.3.3   Analysis by the Panel 44

7.1.3.3.3.1   General considerations. 44

7.1.3.3.3.2   Article 6.2 of the DSU. 46

7.1.3.3.3.3   Timeliness of the Philippines' alternative claim.. 50

7.1.3.3.4   Conclusion. 53

7.1.3.4   The Philippines' standing to challenge measures concerning PMTL's imports from Indonesia. 54

7.1.4   Relevance of the presumption of good faith on the part of Thailand and its authorities. 55

7.1.4.1   Introduction. 55

7.1.4.2   Relevance of the presumption of good faith to accepting the veracity of Thailand's representations. 56

7.1.4.3   Relevance of the presumption of good faith to the interpretation of CVA obligations. 59

7.1.4.4   Conclusion. 62

7.2   The Thai authorities' reliance on the information in the CK-21A forms. 63

7.2.1   Introduction. 63

7.2.2   The nature of the cost information reported in the CK-21A forms. 64

7.2.3   The circumstances surrounding the Thai authorities' reliance on the CK-21A forms. 69

7.2.4   Conclusion. 75

7.3   The 2002-2003 Criminal Charges. 75

7.3.1   General 75

7.3.1.1   Factual description of the Charges. 75

7.3.1.1.1   The prior assessments of the entries at issue. 75

7.3.1.1.2   Events culminating in the Charges. 77

7.3.1.1.3   Section 27 of the Customs Act 78

7.3.1.1.4   The content of the Charges and the Annex. 79

7.3.1.1.5   The explanation of how the "actual" value/price was determined. 79

7.3.1.1.6   The criminal proceedings. 81

7.3.1.2   Claims and order of analysis. 81

7.3.1.3   Claims not pursued. 82

7.3.2   Existence of a challengeable measure. 82

7.3.2.1   Introduction. 82

7.3.2.2   Main arguments of the parties. 83

7.3.2.3   Analysis by the Panel 85

7.3.2.3.1   General considerations. 85

7.3.2.3.2   Existence of a distinct measure. 88

7.3.2.3.3   Existence of a determination for purposes of the CVA. 89

7.3.2.3.4   Speculation on future measures or events. 90

7.3.2.3.5   The issues of making a prima facie case and conducting a de novo review. 91

7.3.2.4   Conclusion. 92

7.3.3   Applicability of the CVA to the Charges. 92

7.3.3.1   Introduction. 92

7.3.3.2   Main arguments of the parties. 93

7.3.3.3   Analysis by the Panel 95

7.3.3.3.1   General considerations. 95

7.3.3.3.2   The agency that filed the Charges. 96

7.3.3.3.3   The meaning of the Charges. 102

7.3.3.3.3.1   Introduction. 102

7.3.3.3.3.2   The issues in dispute. 103

7.3.3.3.3.3   The issue of the "actual price" as merely an approximate reference value. 107

7.3.3.3.3.4   The issue of the "actual price" as the "price actually paid or payable" 111

7.3.3.3.3.5   Conclusion. 114

7.3.3.3.4   The consequences of the Charges. 115

7.3.3.3.5   The "intention to defraud" aspect of the Charges. 118

7.3.3.4   Conclusion. 119

7.3.4   Claims under Articles 1.1 and 1.2(a), second sentence, and Articles 6 and 7 of the CVA. 119

7.3.4.1   Introduction. 119

7.3.4.2   Analysis by the Panel 120

7.3.4.2.1   General considerations. 120

7.3.4.2.2   Claims under Article 1.1 and Article 1.2(a), second sentence. 122

7.3.4.2.2.1   Claim under Article 1.2(a), second sentence. 123

7.3.4.2.2.2   Alternative claim under Article 1.1. 125

7.3.4.2.3   Claims under Article 6.1 and/or Article 7.1. 126

7.3.4.2.3.1   Claim under Article 6.1. 126

7.3.4.2.3.2   Alternative claim under Article 7.1. 127

7.3.4.3   Conclusion. 128

7.3.5   Claim regarding sequential application of valuation methods. 129

7.3.5.1   Introduction. 129

7.3.5.2   Main arguments of the parties. 129

7.3.5.3   Analysis by the Panel 130

7.3.5.3.1   General considerations. 130

7.3.5.3.2   Review of the 2002-2003 Charges. 131

7.3.5.4   Conclusion. 133

7.3.6   Claim under Article 1.2(a), third sentence, of the CVA. 133

7.3.6.1   Introduction. 133

7.3.6.2   Main arguments of the parties. 134

7.3.6.3   Analysis by the Panel 135

7.3.6.3.1   General considerations. 135

7.3.6.3.2   The applicability of Article 1.2(a), third sentence, to the Public Prosecutor 137

7.3.6.3.3   The communications between the DSI and PMTL. 138

7.3.6.4   Conclusion. 142

7.3.7   Article XX of the GATT 1994. 142

7.3.7.1   Introduction. 142

7.3.7.2   Main arguments of the parties. 143

7.3.7.3   Analysis by the Panel 144

7.3.7.3.1   Applicability of Article XX of the GATT 1994 to the CVA. 144

7.3.7.3.2   Justification under Article XX(a) or XX(d) 147

7.3.7.4   Conclusion. 149

7.4   The 1,052 revised Notices of Assessment (NoAs) 149

7.4.1   Introduction. 149

7.4.2   Main arguments of the parties. 150

7.4.3   Analysis by the Panel 152

7.4.3.1   General considerations. 152

7.4.3.2   The termination of the measures. 155

7.4.3.3   Reintroduction of the same or materially similar measures. 159

7.4.3.4   The practical value of additional findings in the event of reintroduction. 161

7.4.4   Conclusion. 162

8   Conclusions and recommendations. 163