WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS337/2 
30 May 2006 
 
 (06-2613) 
 Original:   English 
  
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE 
ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Norway
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 29 May 2006, from the delegation of Norway to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
_______________ 
 
  On 17 March 2006, Norway requested consulta tions 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 Gene ral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
("GATT 1994"), and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article 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  imposing 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   
  On 27 March 2006, Norway supplemented its  initial request for consultations with a 
clarification of the legal basis for the request.  The initial and supplemental requests for consultations 
of 17 March 2006 are to be read together.  
 Consultations were held on 12 May 2006 with  a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory 
solution.  These consultations failed to resolve the dispute.   Therefore, Norway respectfully requests, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , that the Dispute 
Settlement Body (DSB) establish a Panel to examine this matter.  Norway asks that a special DSB 
meeting be held on 9 June 2006 to c onsider this request.  Norway further requests that the Panel have 
standard terms of reference, as set  out in Article 7.1 of the DSU. 
  Norway considers that the measure is inconsis tent with, at least, the obligations of the EC 
under the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and, where specified, the 
GATT 1994:  
                                                     
 
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/DS337/2 
Page 2  
 
  1. Article 5, including Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 a nd 5.4, because, by determining that the product 
under consideration is fresh, chilled or frozen fa rmed salmon, whether or not filleted, the EC 
improperly initiated an investigation into a si ngle product that consists of more than one 
product. 
 
2. Article 5.4 because the EC initiated the investig ation 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 . 
 3. Article 2, including Articles 2.1 and 2.6, b ecause the EC made dumping determinations for a 
single product (fresh, chilled or frozen farmed salmon , whether or not filleted) that consists of 
more than one product. 
 4. Article 6.10 because the EC determined an individual margin of dumping for a selection of 
producers that neither constituted a statistica lly 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 determine an indivi dual margin of dumping for one of the producers 
included by the EC in the defective sample. 
 5. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1 because the EC excluded certain domestic sales as not in the 
ordinary course of trade by reason of price a nd/or volume without respecting the conditions in 
those provisions, in particular the duty to ensure  that below-cost sales are rejected solely if 
prices do not provide for the recovery of a ll costs within a reasonable period of time. 
 6. Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.2.1.1, and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994, because the EC failed to 
determine the normal value for the like product on the basis of each individually examined 
company's costs of production ("COP") plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling 
and general ("SG&A") costs, and for profits, in  particular by virtue of improper adjustments 
to the COP and SG&A costs reported by indivi dually examined companies.  The Commission 
also made clerical errors in its cal culations of constructed normal value. 
 
7. Article 2.2.2 because the EC rejected actual data pertaining to production and sales in 
determining amounts for profits and SG&A costs due to the low volume of domestic market 
sales of the like product and/or sub-categories of that product. 
 8. Article 6.8 and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 a nd 7 of Annex II because the EC determined normal 
value for certain individually examined companies, in part, on the basis of facts available.  In 
so doing, the EC failed to respect the conditions  set forth in these provisions governing the 
use of facts available.  In particular, the EC: failed to inform the relevant companies of the 
information required; failed to use verifiable  information submitted in timely manner, even 
though this would not have presented undue difficulti es; failed to inform them of the reasons 
for the rejection of information submitted; fa iled to provide them with an opportunity to 
provide further explanations within a reasona ble period; failed to state, in the published 
determinations, reasons for re jection of the evidence and information submitted by these 
individual companies; and failed to ta ke into account information submitted. 
 9. Article 6.8 and paragraph 1 of Annex II, a nd Article 9.4, by improperly applying facts 
available in establishing the "residual" margin  of dumping that was assigned to producers and 
exporters that were not individually examined. 
 10. Article 3, including Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6, because the EC 's injury determination 
is made in relation to an EC domestic indus try producing a single product (fresh, chilled or 
frozen farmed salmon, whether or not filleted) th at consists of more than one product.  By  WT/DS337/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  failing to determine the product under considera tion properly, the EC failed to examine and 
make an injury determination with respect to the separate EC domestic industries producing 
the like products. 
 11. Articles 3.1, 3.4 and 3.5 and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because the EC failed to make a 
determination of injury for the relevant domes tic industry, as defined in Article 4.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement .  This claim has several components: 
  (a) The EC limited the EC domestic industry to certain producers of farmed salmon that 
cooperated fully in the investigation and that supported the complaint.  The EC 
improperly excluded from the EC domes tic industry unrelated allegedly non-
cooperating producers and unrelated non-supporting producers. 
  (b) The EC examined injury to the EC domest ic industry in relation to a sample of 5 EC 
growers of farmed salmon that did not constitute the EC producers as a whole of the 
like product, or a majority of them.  In so doing, the EC violated Article 6.10 of the 
Agreement , if applicable to injury determ inations, because the EC made a 
determination of injury solely for sel ected domestic producers without complying 
with the conditions in that provision. 
  (c) The EC failed to include EC producers as a whole of filleted products, or a major 
proportion of them, in the EC domestic industry. 
 12. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 because the EC failed to make an objective examination, on the basis of 
positive evidence, of price undercutting by No rwegian imports because of a failure to 
examine the substantial price premium enjoye d by Scottish and Irish farmed salmon over 
Norwegian farmed salmon. 
 13. Articles 3.1 and 3.4 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. 
 
14. Articles 3.1 and 3.5 because the EC failed to make an objective examination, on the basis of 
positive evidence, that dumped imports are, through the effects of dumping, causing injury; and because the EC failed to ensure that inju ry caused to the domestic industry by other 
factors was not attributed to dumped imports. 
 
15. Article 9, including Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4, because the EC failed to impose anti-dumping 
duties on imports of a single product and instead imposed remedies at six different levels on 
different products. 
 16. Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, and Article VI :2 of the GATT 1994, because the EC imposes 
variable anti-dumping duties by reference to minimum import prices ("MIPs") in an amount 
that is not limited by the margin of dumping determined for individually examined 
companies; because the MIPs exceed the normal value determined for individually examined 
companies; and because the MIPs are de termined using a flawed methodology. 
 17. Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3, and Article  VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because in certain 
circumstances the EC imposes variable and fixed anti-dumping duties that exceed the margin 
of dumping determined for individually examined companies. 
 18. Article 9.4 because the EC established a wei ghted average margin of dumping for cooperating 
companies that were not individually examined using margins of dumping previously WT/DS337/2 
Page 4  
 
  determined for certain individually examined companies using facts available.  The EC's 
weighted average margin of dumping is also tainted by calculation errors. 
 19. Articles 6.2 and 6.4 because the EC failed to provide timely opportunities, and in some cases 
any opportunity, for interested parti es to see non-confidential information. 
 
20. Article 6.5.1 because the EC failed to ensure  the provision of non-confidential summaries of 
confidential information relating to the domestic  industry or, where provided, failed to give 
summaries in sufficient detail to enable a reasonable understanding of that information. 
 
21. Articles 6.2 and 6.7, and paragraph 7 of Annex I, because the EC failed to respect the 
procedures for on-the-spot investigations, in pa rticular, it failed to inform companies of 
further verifiable information that was needed.  
 22. Articles 6.2 and 6.9 because the EC failed to inform interested Norwegian parties in timely 
manner, and in some cases at all, of the essen tial facts forming the basis for the decision to 
apply definitive measures, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to defend adequately 
their interests. 
 23. Articles 12.2 and  12.2.2 because the EC failed to  set forth, in sufficient detail, the findings 
and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law material to the determinations of 
dumping, injury and causation, as well as to the determination of the various MIPs. 
  The EC's measure, therefore, nullifies and im pairs benefits accruing to Norway under the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and the GATT 1994. 
 
__________