RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/214 
27 June 2006 
 (06-3050) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
9 June 2006  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 9 June 2006  
 
Chairman:  Mr.  Muhamad Noor Yacob (Malaysia) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. European Communities – Anti-dumping  measure on farmed salmon from 
Norway......................................................................................................................... ..............1  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Norway .................................................................1  
2. Selection process for appointment of  an Appellate Body member.......................................3  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... ...3 
 
 1. European Communities – Anti-dumping measure on farmed salmon from Norway 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Norway (WT/DS337/2) 
1. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communicati on from Norway contained in document 
WT/DS337/2, and  invited the repr esentative of Norway  to speak. 
2. The representative of Norway  said that on 17 March and again on 27 March 2006, Norway 
had requested consultations with  regard to the EC's definitive anti-dumping measures imposed on 
farmed salmon from Norway.  On 12 May 2006, No rway had held consultations with the EC under 
Article 4 of the DSU regarding this matter.  Ho wever, these consultations had not brought about a 
solution, which would be satisfactory to Norway.  It was worth noting that, before seeking these 
formal consultations, Norway had held informal c onsultations with the EC over an extended period of 
time, with a number of bilateral meetings.  These in formal consultations had also been unable to 
secure a mutually satisfactory solution to this di spute.  Consequently, on 29 May 2006, Norway had 
submitted a request for the establishment of a pa nel with regard to the anti-dumping measures 
imposed by the EC, which had been circulated in document WT/DS337/2, and had requested that a special DSB meeting be held to establish a panel to examine this matter.  
3. He said that adjusting to in creased international competition was part of the day-to-day 
challenges faced by enterprises throughout the world in  a system of liberalized international trade.  
However, it had long been evident that some Iri sh and UK producers of salmon had been unwilling or 
unable to adapt to the competitive environment of salmon farming.  There had long been a need for 
structural changes to this part of the industry in  the EC, where necessary changes had not taken place 
to the extent needed.  Consequently, the part of the industry which continued to seek trade protection WT/DSB/M/214 
Page 2  
 
  was highly inefficient.  The productivity figures were striking in this respect:  in 2004, Norway's 
salmon industry had produced 347 tonnes per worker while the whole Sco ttish industry had produced 
136 t onnes per worker.  The domestic industry, as de fined by the EC, had produced 82 tonnes per 
worker.  Thus, in this instance, Norwegian salmon fa rmers were almost five times as efficient as the 
domestic industry.  
4. He then further noted that the domestic indus try supporting and coope rating in this case had 
produced 18,000 t onnes of salmon.  The entire salmon indus try in the UK and Ireland had produced 
173,000 tonnes in 2004.  In essence, the domestic industry represente d, in real terms, about 10 per 
cent of the total production in the UK and Ireland.  This share had been steadily declining as most EC 
producers had adapted to market realities and had beco me more competitive.  Rather than adapting to 
competition, a minority of EC producers had preferred to clamour for restrictions on trade.  The EC 
had repeatedly imposed restrictions on imports in  one form or another (including anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty measures, and safeguards).  For nearly 20 years, hardly a year had gone by without some kind of restrictions in place.  The EC industry could have made us e of this situation of 
near constant protection to restructure or to pu t into place measures to become more efficient.  
Instead, the minority that he referred to, had apparen tly come to rely heavily on protection instead of 
undertaking necessary structural changes. 
5. He recalled that Norway had requested consulta tions against the EC's safeguards measures on 
imports of farmed salmon in 2005.  He further recal led that consultations had also been requested by 
Chile regarding the same matter.  At that time,  Norway had not requested a panel because the 
safeguards measures, which had been  imposed in the fall of 2004, had been lifted in the spring of 
2005.  However, those measures, had then immedi ately been replaced by a provisional anti-dumping 
measure.  Therefore, with the definitive anti- dumping measure now in place since January 2006, 
Norway was left with little choice but to bring th e anti-dumping measure to a panel.  Members might 
ponder the legality of switching from one form of trade restriction to another, forcing complainants to 
reargue the case under a different angle each time.  While Norway was not claiming that the EC had 
improperly imposed a safeguard measure in the guise of an anti-dumping measure, it nevertheless 
recommended that Members consider the issue of how best to avoid such abuses in the future in the 
ongoing negotiations on Rules. 
6. He said that Norway had identified a number of  violations of the WTO Agreements in its 
request for the establishment of a panel.  These re lated to almost all aspects of the anti-dumping 
investigation and determina tions of the EC in this case.  For th e sake of brevity he would not repeat 
them at the present meeting, but would refer Memb ers to the detailed description of the numerous 
violations contained in document WT/DS337/2.  As set out in its request for the establishment of a panel, Norway was requesting that a panel be estab lished at the present meeting to address the matter 
referred to in WT/DS337/2.  Furthermore, Norway was requesting that the panel be established with 
standard terms of reference. 
7. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC found it most regrettable to 
be faced, at the present meeting, with Norway's request  for the establishment of a panel in this matter.  
First and foremost the EC did not believe that cons ultations, which were aimed at finding an amicable 
solution to this matter, had been fully exhausted.  On 12 May 2006, the EC ha d sent to Geneva a large 
delegation to participate in those consultations , which comprised both case-handlers who had been 
involved in the anti-dumping investigation, as well  as WTO experts.  This clearly signalled the 
seriousness and good faith with which the EC had a pproached those consultations.  The EC had also 
indicated its readiness to pursue a second round of c onsultations aimed at answering the remaining 
questions posed by Norway.  However, Norway had replied to the EC in unclear terms and without 
directly addressing the proposal for further consu ltations.  On the first working day following its 
unclear reply, Norway had submitted the request for a panel.  It was regrettable that Norway appeared 
to be unduly rushing the matter, including by requ esting a special DSB meeting for purposes of this  WT/DSB/M/214 
 Page 3 
 
 
  panel request.  Needless to say, th e EC continued to consider Norw ay's claims manifestly ill-founded 
as the EC acted in full consistency with the Anti-Du mping Agreement.  The EC, therefore, could not 
accept Norway's request for the establishment of a panel on this matter. 
8. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
2. Selection process for appointment of an Appellate Body member 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
9. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that as all delegations were aware, 
there would be intensive negotiations among Members in the last week of June.  In light of this and 
given that the members of the Selection Committe e would be involved in those negotiations, it had 
become necessary to reschedule the interviews of candidates for appointment to the Appellate Body.  
These interviews would now take place on 10, 11 and 14 July.  Subsequently, on 17 July, 19 July 
(afternoon) and 20 July, the Selection Committ ee would meet, upon request, with interested 
delegations who would wish to express any views co ncerning the candidates.  Delegations wishing to 
do so were invited to contact Ms Margaret Kenne dy of the Council and TNC Division to make an 
appointment.  Alternatively, delegations may send their comments in writing addressed to the 
Chairman of the DSB, in care of the Council and TNC Division, by no later than 20 July.  He said that 
he would send a fax regarding this matter to all delegations for transparency purposes.  Finally, he 
noted that delegations wishing to meet with candidat es were invited to contact directly the delegations 
of Australia, Benin, China, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico and South Africa to make appropriate 
arrangements.       
 The DSB took note  of the statement.  
 
__________