"Thus, Thailand argues, the Panel's finding was not based on the tax burden under Thai VAT law, but instead was based solely on the difference in the "administrative requirements" for resales of imported and domestic cigarettes, and the consequences of failure to comply with those requirements. We consider that Thailand's description of the measure analyzed by the Panel under Article III:2 as "administrative requirements" in respect of VAT is both under-inclusive and over-inclusive. The description is under-inclusive because it does not account for the complete exemption from VAT for resales of domestic cigarettes, and therefore disregards that VAT liability will, when certain conditions prescribed under Thai law are not met, be incurred by resellers of imported cigarettes, but never by resellers of domestic cigarettes. For this reason, Thailand's observation that the domestic producer and importer pay the same VAT amount is incomplete because it disregards that, under Thai law, subsequent resellers of imported cigarettes, but not subsequent resellers of domestic cigarettes, may also incur VAT liability. At the same time, Thailand's description is over-inclusive because the relevant measure for purposes of the Panel's consideration of the Philippines' Article III:2 claim does not include all of the administrative requirements evaluated by the Panel in respect of the Philippines' Article III:4 claim. As we have explained, the relevant measure analyzed by the Panel under Article III:2 consists of an exemption from VAT liability for resellers of domestic cigarettes, together with the imposition of VAT on resellers of imported cigarettes when they do not satisfy prescribed conditions for obtaining input tax credits necessary to achieve zero VAT liability."