"With respect to the trade impact of the measure, the Panel noted that the tax stamp requirement did not prevent Honduras from exporting cigarettes to the Dominican Republic and that its exports had increased significantly over recent years. Accordingly, the Panel assumed "that the measure has not had any intense restrictive effects on trade." As far as the third factor is concerned, the Panel noted the Dominican Republic's claim that "the tax stamp requirement secures compliance with its tax laws and regulations generally, and more specifically with the provisions governing the Selective Consumption Tax." The Panel, however, was of the view that the tax stamp "In assessing whether a WTO-consistent measure was reasonably available, the Panel in the present case discussed the factors identified by the Appellate Body in previous appeals, namely, the importance of the interests protected by the tax stamp requirement, its trade impact and its contribution to the realization of the end pursued. As regards the first factor, "the Panel [did] not disagree with the Dominican Republic's argument that tax stamps may be a useful instrument to monitor tax collection on cigarettes and, conversely, to avoid tax evasion." The Panel also recognized that "the collection of tax revenue (and, conversely, the prevention of tax evasion) is a requirement was of limited effectiveness in preventing tax evasion and cigarette smuggling. According to the Panel, requiring that tax stamps be affixed in the Dominican Republic under the supervision of the tax authorities "in and of itself, would not prevent the forgery of tax stamps, nor smuggling and tax evasion." In this respect, the Panel indicated that other factors, such as security features incorporated into the tax stamps, or police controls on roads and at different commercial levels, would play a more important role in preventing forgery of tax stamps, tax evasion and smuggling of tobacco products. Having considered the importance of the interests protected by the tax stamp requirement, its trade impact, and its contribution to the realization of the end pursued, we are of the view that the Panel conducted an appropriate analysis, following the approach set out in the Appellate Body Reports in Korea – Various Measures on Beef and in EC – Asbestos, and affirmed in US - Gambling. We see no error in the approach taken by the Panel or in the results of its analysis. We note that, in this particular case, the Panel's conclusion concerning the contribution of the measure to the realization of the end pursued is based on findings of fact (limited effectiveness of the tax stamp requirement in preventing forgery, smuggling and tax evasion; greater effectiveness and efficiency of measures such as security features incorporated into the tax stamps or police controls) that have not been challenged under Article 11 of the DSU and, therefore, fall outside the scope of appellate review."