For the reasons set out in this Rep

For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:
(a) With respect to Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement:
(i) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.248 of the Panel Report, that clove cigarettes and menthol cigarettes are "like products" within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;
(ii) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its analysis of consumer tastes and habits;
(iii) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.292 of the Panel Report, that, by banning clove cigarettes while exempting menthol cigarettes from the ban, Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the FFDCA accords imported clove cigarettes less favourable treatment than that accorded to domestic menthol cigarettes, within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;
(iv) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its less favourable treatment analysis; and, therefore,
(v) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.293 and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report, that Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the FFDCA is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement because it accords to imported clove cigarettes less favourable treatment than that accorded to like menthol cigarettes of national origin; and
(b) With respect to Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement:
(i) upholds the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.576 of the Panel Report, that paragraph 5.2 of the Doha Ministerial Decision constitutes a subsequent agreement between the parties, within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention, on the interpretation of the term "reasonable interval" in Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement; and
(ii) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.595 and 8.1(h) of the Panel Report, that, by failing to allow an interval of not less than six months between the publication and the entry into force of Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the FFDCA, the United States acted inconsistently with Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement.
The Appellate Body recommends that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure, found in this Report, and in the Panel Report as modified by this Report, to be inconsistent with the TBT Agreement, into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement.

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

For the reasons set out in this Report, the Appellate Body:(a) With respect to Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement:(i) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.248 of the Panel Report, that clove cigarettes and menthol cigarettes are "like products" within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;(ii) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its analysis of consumer tastes and habits;(iii) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.292 of the Panel Report, that, by banning clove cigarettes while exempting menthol cigarettes from the ban, Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the FFDCA accords imported clove cigarettes less favourable treatment than that accorded to domestic menthol cigarettes, within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement;(iv) finds that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in its less favourable treatment analysis; and, therefore,(v) upholds, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.293 and 8.1(b) of the Panel Report, that Section 907(a)(1)(A) of the FFDCA is inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement because it accords to imported clove cigarettes less favourable treatment than that accorded to like menthol cigarettes of national origin; and(b) With respect to Article 2.12 of the TBT Agreement:(i) luôn tìm kiếm của bảng điều khiển, trong đoạn 7.576 của báo cáo bảng điều khiển, mà đoạn 5.2 của Doha bộ quyết định tạo thành một thỏa thuận tiếp theo giữa các bên, trong ý nghĩa của bài viết 31(3)(a) của Hiệp ước Vienna, về việc giải thích của thuật ngữ "khoảng thời gian hợp lý" trong bài viết 2.12 của thỏa thuận TBT; và(ii) luôn, mặc dù vì lý do khác nhau, bảng điều khiển Tìm kiếm, trong đoạn văn 7.595 và 8.1(h) của báo cáo bảng điều khiển, rằng, bằng cách không cho phép một khoảng thời gian không ít hơn sáu tháng giữa các ấn phẩm và gia nhập lực lượng của phần 907(a)(1)(A) của FFDCA, Hoa kỳ hành động inconsistently with 2.12 bài viết của Hiệp định TBT.Cơ thể phúc thẩm đề nghị rằng DSB yêu cầu Hoa Kỳ để mang lại các biện pháp của nó, tìm thấy trong báo cáo này, và trong báo cáo bảng điều khiển như sửa đổi theo báo cáo này, phải không phù hợp với thỏa thuận TBT, phù hợp với các nghĩa vụ theo thoả thuận đó.