In Thailand. (i) the income tax; and
(ii) the petroleum income tax; (hereinafter referred to as “Thai tax”)
In Thailand. (i) In the case of immovable property, from the date compensation is determined by the committee established under Article 23 of the at the highest rate of interest for the fixed deposit of the Government Savings Bank;Article 23 of the at the highest rate of interest for the fixed deposit of the Government Savings Bank;
(ii) In the case of movable property, as determined by the ; ; Without delay and shall be effectively realizable and freely transferable in a freely convertible currency.
In Thailand. H-Beams, the Appellate Body then also reversed the Panel's findings that the Panel was precluded from examining facts not disclosed to interested parties in the national investigation: "Articles 17.5 and 17.6(i) require a panel to examine the facts made available to the investigating authority of the importing Member. These provisions do not prevent a panel from examining facts that were not disclosed to, or discernible by, the interested parties at the time of the final determination."46
In Thailand. H-Beams, the Appellate Body provided the following contextual support for its finding that a determination of injury pursuant to Article 3.1 need not be based exclusively on evidence which has been disclosed to the parties to the investigation:
In Thailand. H-Beams, the Appellate Body provided the following contextual support for its finding that a determination of injury pursuant to Article 3.1 need not be based exclusively on evidence which has been disclosed to the parties to the investigation: "Contextual support for this interpretation of Article 3.1 can be found in Article 3.7, which states that a threat of material injury must be 'based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility'. This choice of words shows that, as in Article 3.1, which overarches and informs it, it is the nature of the evidence that is 36 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 204. 37 Appellate Body Report, Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice, para. 205. 38 Panel Report, Morocco - Hot-Rolled Steel (Turkey), para. 7.154. 39 Panel Report, Morocco - Hot-Rolled Steel (Turkey), para. 7.155. 40 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 111. 41 Appellate Body Report, Thailand – H-Beams, para. 107.
In Thailand. H-Beams, the Panel discussed the difference between notification requirements in Articles 5.5 and 12.
1. The Panel noted that each requires notification to the exporting Member's government of certain events connected with initiation, but the requirements for timing, form and content of the notifications are different:
In Thailand. H-Beams, the Panel, agreeing with the Panel in Mexico – Corn Syrup12, rejected Poland's argument that paragraph (iv) of Article 5.2 implies that some sort of analysis of data is required in the application, and stated that "we do not read this provision as imposing any additional requirement that the application contain analysis of the data submitted in support of the application."13 The Appellate Body did not review these findings.
1.3.5 simple assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant evidence"
