Since products that are competitive in the market could be affected by the treatment of ”less favourable” imports than the treatment of domestic products, the term ”likes” should be interpreted in Article III:4 so that it applies to products that are in such a competitive situation. The definition of the ”parable” under Article III:4 is therefore essentially a provision relating to the nature and extent of a competitive relationship between products and between products. If we say this, we are aware that there are a number of degrees of ”competitiveness” or ”substitutability” of products on the market and that it is difficult, if not impossible, to abstractly indicate the word ”like” in Article III:4 of the 1994 GATT. We are not saying that all products that have a certain competitive relationship are ”like products” under Section III:4. In deciding the disputed measure, we are also not trying to define the precise scope of the word ”likes” in Article III:4. Nor do we want to decide whether the scope of ”products similar” to Article III:4 is coalist with the combined scope of products ”similar” and ”directly competitive or substitutable” to Article III:2. We recognize, however, that the relationship between these two provisions is important because there is no clear difference between the section III:2 tax regulation and the non-tax regulation under Section III:4. Both types of regulation can often be used to achieve the same objectives. It would be inappropriate for Members to be prevented, because of a significant difference in the scope of the products of these two provisions, from using some form of regulation. B for example, fiscally – to protect the domestic production of certain products, but to be able to use another form of regulation – for example fiscally – to achieve these objectives. This counteracted a consistent application of the ”general principle” of Article III:1. For these reasons, we conclude that the scope of ”Like” in Article III:4 extends beyond the scope of ”Like” to Article III:2, first sentence.

Nevertheless, we note once again that Article III:2 covers not only ”similar products” but also ”directly competitive or substitutable” products, and that Article III:4 applies only to ”similar products.” Given these differences in language, and while we do not have to decide on the exact extent of the article III:4 product, we conclude that the scope of Article III:4, even if it goes beyond the first sentence of Article III:2, certainly does not extend beyond the combined scope of the two sentences of Article III:2 of the 1994 GATT. Open markets can be beneficial, but they also require adjustments. WTO agreements allow countries to gradually introduce changes through gradual liberalization. Developing countries generally have more time to meet their obligations. Challenging is a fundamental principle of the GATT/WTO, which prohibits discrimination between imported and domestic products in terms of internal taxation or other state rules. The principle of questioning is formulated in Article 3 of GATT 1947[6] (and by reference to the 1994 GATT); Article 17 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS); and Article 3 of the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement.