WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS337/1 
G/L/766 
G/ADP/D64/1 
22 March 2006 
 (06-1287) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE 
ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY 
 
Request for Consultations by Norway
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 17 March 2006, from the delegation of Norway to the delegation of the European Communities and to th e Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is 
circulated in accordance with  Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
   My authorities have instructed me to request  consultations with the European Communities 
("EC") pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement 
of Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 
1994"), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Articl e VI of the General Agreement on 
Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("Anti-Dumping Agreement ") with respect to Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 85/2006 of 17 January 2006 impos ing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively 
the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway.
1  This measure 
confirms, and incorporates reasoning from, Commission Regulation (EC) No. 628/2005 of 
22 April 2005,2 as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1010/2005 of 1 July 2005.3 
  Norway considers that the measure is inconsistent, at least, with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the GATT 1994: 
 
1. Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC initiated the investigation without 
ensuring that the application for an investigation was "made by or on behalf" of the relevant 
"domestic industry", as defined in Article 4.1 of that Agreement ; 
 2. Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC determined an individual margin 
of dumping for a selection of producers that neit her constituted a statistically valid sample nor 
represented the largest percentage of the volume of  exports from Norway that could reasonably be 
investigated; and because the EC failed to determ ine an individual margin of dumping for each of the 
producers included in the defective sample;  3. Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC examin ed the sufficiency 
of domestic sales in the ordinary course of trad e on the basis of sub-categories of the like product; 
 
                                                     
 
1 Official Journal of the European Union, L15/1, published 20 January 2006. 
2 Official Journal of the European Union, L104/5, published 23 April 2005. 
3 Official Journal of the European Union, L170/32, published 1 July 2005. WT/DS337/1 
G/L/766 G/ADP/D64/1 
Page 2 
  
  4. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC excluded certain 
domestic sales as not in the ordinary course of tr ade by reason of price and/or volume without 
respecting the conditions in those provisions; 
 
5. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and Article VI:1 of the 
GATT 1994, because of the EC's failure to determ ine the normal value for the like product on the 
basis of the costs of production plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs, 
and for profits; 
 
6. Article 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC rejected actual profits data due 
to the low volume of domestic market sales of the like product and/or sub-categories of that product; and because the EC substituted an imputed profits margin  that is not consistent with the conditions set 
forth in that provision; 
 
7. Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC determined normal 
value for certain individually examined companies on the basis of facts available without respecting 
the conditions set forth in those provisions, inter alia : failing to inform the relevant companies of the 
information required; failing to inform them of de ficiencies in information provided; and failing to 
provide them with an opportunity to reme dy deficiencies within a reasonable period. 
 
8. Article 6.8 and Annex II, and Article 9.4, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC 
determined a residual margin of dumping on the ba sis of facts available for certain companies not 
individually examined that the EC treated as "non-cooperating";    
9. Article 6.8 and Annex II, and Article 9.4, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC 
determined the weighted average ("all others rate ") and the residual margin of dumping for companies 
not individually examined using margins of dumping previously determined for individually examined companies using facts available;  10. Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because the 
EC failed to make a determination of injury, on the basis of positive evidence, relating to the relevant 
domestic industry, as defined in Article 4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; and Article 6.10 of that 
Agreement , if applicable to injury determinations, b ecause the EC made a determination of injury 
solely for selected domestic producers without comp lying with the conditions in that provision; 
 
11. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of positive evidence, of the volume of dumped imports from 
Norway because the EC treated all imports from Norway as dumped; and of price undercutting by 
Norwegian imports because of a failure to examin e the substantial price premium Scottish and Irish 
farmed salmon enjoy over Norwegian farmed salmon;    
12. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of  positive evidence, of the factors having a bearing on the state of 
the domestic industry, including those listed in Article 3.4;  13. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to make an 
objective examination, on the basis of positive eviden ce, that dumped imports are, through the effects 
of dumping, causing injury; and because the EC failed to ensure that injury caused to the domestic 
industry by other factors was not attributed to dumped imports;   WT/DS337/1 
 G/L/766 
 G/ADP/D64/1 
 Page 3 
  
  14. Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, 
because the EC imposes variable anti-dumping du ties by reference to minimum import prices 
("MIPs") in an amount that is not limited or related to the margin of dumping; because the MIPs 
exceed normal value; because the MIPs are dete rmined using a flawed methodology, including 
incorrect whole fish equivalent conversion factors,  excessive amounts for processing costs and profits, 
and the use of three-year average exchange rates;  15. Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, 
because in certain circumstances the EC imposes va riable and fixed anti-dumping duties that exceed 
the margin of dumping;  16. Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC imposes variable and fixed anti-
dumping duties on companies that are not individually examined without respecting the conditions in 
that provision; 
 17. Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to provide timely 
opportunities for all interested parties to see all non-c onfidential information relevant to the defense of 
their interests;  
18. Article 6.5.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to ensure the provision of 
summaries of confidential information relating to th e domestic industry or, where provided, failed to 
give summaries in sufficient detail to enable a r easonable understanding of the substance of that 
information;  
19. Articles 6.2 and 6.7, and Annex I, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to 
respect the procedures for on-the-spot investigations;  20. Articles 6.2 and 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to inform 
interested Norwegian parties in timely manner, and in  some cases at all, of the essential facts forming 
the basis for the decision to apply definitive measure s, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to 
defend adequately their interests; 
 21. Articles 12.2 and  12.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because the EC failed to set forth, 
in sufficient detail, the findings and conclusions r eached on all issues of fact and law material to the 
determinations of dumping, injury and causation, as well as to the determination the various MIPs; 
and 
 22. In consequence, Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because an anti-dumping 
measure shall be applied only under the circumst ances provided for in Article VI of the GATT 1994 
and in accordance with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
 
 The EC's measure, therefore, nullifies and im pairs benefits accruing to Norway under the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the GATT 1994. 
  We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date for consultations.   
 
__________