1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 1
This document is meant purely as a documentation tool and the institutions do not assume any liability for its contents
►B COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1826/1999
of 23 August 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing
duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway with regard to certainexporters,imposingprovisionalanti-dumpingandcountervailingdutiesonimportsofsuchsalmonwithregardtocertainexporters,amendingDecision97/634/ECacceptingundertakingsofferedinconnection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidies proceedings concerning imports of suchsalmonandamendingCouncilRegulation(EC)No772/1999imposingdefinitiveanti-dumpingand
countervailing duties on imports of such salmon
(OJ L 223, 24.8.1999, p. 3)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1Commission Regulation (EC) No 2592/1999 of 8 December 1999 L 315 17 9.12.1999
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 2
▼B
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1826/1999
of 23 August 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 imposing provisional anti-
dumping and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlanticsalmon originating in Norway with regard to certain exporters,imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties onimportsofsuchsalmonwithregardtocertainexporters,amendingDecision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings offered in connectionwith the anti-dumping and anti-subsidies proceedings concerningimportsofsuchsalmonandamendingCouncilRegulation(EC)No772/1999 imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing
duties on imports of such salmon
THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Havingreg ard to the Treaty establishingthe European Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December
1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not membersof the European Community (
1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
905/98 (2), and in particular Article 8 thereof,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October
1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries notmembers of the European Community (
3), and in particular Article 13
thereof,
After consultingthe Advisory Committee,Whereas:
A.PREVIOUS PROCEDURE
(1)On 31 August 1996, the Commission announced, by two separate
notices published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities , the initiation of an anti-dumpingproceeding(4)a s
well as an anti-subsidy proceeding(5) in respect of imports of
farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway.
(2)The Commission sought and verified all information that itdeemed necessary for the purpose of its definitive findings. As aresult of this examination, it was established that definitive anti-dumpingand countervailingmeasures should be adopted in orderto eliminate the injurious effects of dumpingand subsidisation.All interested parties were informed of the results of the invest-igation and were given the opportunity to comment thereon.
(3)On 26 September 1997, the Commission adopted Decision 97/634/EC (
6), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 (7),
acceptingundertaking s offered in connection with the two above-mentioned proceedings from the exporters listed in the Annex tothe Decision and terminatingthe investig ations in their respect.
(4)On the same day, the Council, by Regulations (EC) No 1890/97 (
8) and 1891/97 (9) imposed anti-dumpingand countervailing
duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating inNorway. Imports of farmed Atlantic salmon exported by compa-nies from which an undertakinghad been accepted were
(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 128, 30.4.1998, p. 18.
(3) OJ L 288, 21.10.1997, p. 1.
(4) OJ C 253, 31.8.1996, p. 18.
(5) OJ C 253, 31.8.1996, p. 20.
(6) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p. 81.
(7) OJ L 115, 4.5.1999, p. 13.
(8) OJ L 267, 3.9.1997, p.1. Regulation repealed by Regulation (EC) No 772/
1999 OJ No L 101, 16.4.1999, p. 1.
(9) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p.19, repealed by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
exempted from that duty pursuant to Article 1(2) of those Regu-
lations.
(5)The abovementioned Regulations set out the definitive findingsand conclusions on all aspects of the investigations. The form ofthe duties havingbeen reviewed, Reg ulations (EC) No 1890/97and 1891/97 were replaced by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999, asamended by Regulation (EC) No 1003/1999 (
1).
B.PROVISIONAL MEASURES IMPOSED BY REGULATION
(EC) No 929/1999 (Recital 29 et seq)
(6)The text of the undertakings provides that failure to submit a
quarterly report of all sales transactions to the first unrelatedcustomer in the Community within a prescribed time limit(except in case of force majeure ), would be construed as a
violation of the undertaking, as would non-compliance with theobligation to sell the different presentations of the productconcerned (i.e. gutted, head-on, etc.) on the Community market atprices which are not below the minimum import prices foreseenin the undertaking.
(7)For the third quarter of 1998, one Norwegian company did notpresent a report within the prescribed time limit. For the samequarter, the Commission had reason to believe that anotherNorwegian exporter had sold the product concerned to theCommunity market at a price which was below the price foreseenin its undertaking. Two other Norwegian companies appeared tohave made misleadingdeclarations in their quarterly reports as tothe identity of the exporter and the identity and nature of thesales reported.
(8)The Commission therefore had reason to believe that these fourcompanies had breached the terms of their undertakings and,consequently, by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 imposed provi-sional anti-dumpingand countervailingduties on imports offarmed Atlantic Salmon fallingwithin CN codes ex 0302 12 00,ex 0304 10 13, ex 0303 22 00 and ex 0304 20 13 originating inNorway and exported by the companies.
(9)By the same Regulation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the provi-sional duty Regulation'),the Commission deleted the four compa-nies concerned from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC, whichlists the companies from which undertakings are accepted.
C.PROCEDUREFOLLOWINGIMPOSITIONOFPROVISIONAL
DUTIES
(10)All four Norwegian companies subject to the provisional duties
received disclosure in writingconcerningthe essential facts andconsiderations on the basis of which these provisional dutieswere imposed. They were also given an opportunity to submitcomments and request a hearing.
(11)Within the time limit set in the provisional duty Regulation, all ofthe Norwegian companies concerned submitted comments inwriting. Following receipt of these written submissions, theCommission sought and examined all information it deemednecessary for the purpose of a definitive determination on theapparent violations. Of the four companies subject to the provi-sional measures, one requested (and was granted) a hearing.
(12)The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedparties were considered and, where appropriate, the definitivefindings have been changed accordingly.
(1) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999, p. 19.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
D.DEFINITIVE FINDINGS — REPEAL OF PROVISIONAL
DUTIES FOR ONE COMPANY
(13)With regard to the Norwegian exporter, Atlantic Seafood A/S,
whose quarterly sales report was received by the Commissionafter the prescribed date, the company stated that, at the timewhen the report should have been sent, it had encountered tech-nical problems with its electronic mail system which werebeyond its control. Evidence was provided from the company’s‘internet provider' which confirmed this submission.
(14)Havingexamined the additional evidence put forward by thecompany subsequent to the imposition of the provisional meas-ures, the Commission is satisfied that the company was preventedfrom sendingits report in time for reasons which were beyond itscontrol. Accordingly, it is considered that Regulation (EC) No929/1999 should be repealed in so far as this company isconcerned and any provisional duties collected should bereleased.
E.DEFINITIVEFINDINGS—VIOLATIONOFUNDERTAKINGS
BY THREE COMPANIES
(15)Another company, Myre Sjømat AS, had provisional measures
imposed against it by Regulation (EC) 929/1999 due to anapparent violation of the minimum import price. Subsequent tothe imposition of the provisional measures, the company claimedthat some of the transactions declared on the quarterly salesreport for the period in question as ‘Presentation g' (fillets orfillet portions), with sales prices below the minimum import pricefor this presentation, were in fact ‘Presentation e' (offcuts ortrimmings). It was submitted that the sales prices of these offcutsor trimmings were above the minimum import price for ‘Presen-tation e'and that no violation of the undertakinghad occurred. Itwas also claimed that another sale reported below the minimumimport price as ‘Presentation g'was not a commercial sale but alow-priced sample of salmon fillets.
(16)The Commission requested the company to provide supportingdocumentation for these claims, which it did. With regard tothose sales originally declared as ‘Presentation g'but which werelater claimed to be ‘Presentation e',the Commission is satisfiedthat the consignments in question were indeed offcuts or trim-mings and that the minimum import price for these sales hadbeen respected.
With regard to the sale of a sample at a low price, it should be
noted that whilst the undertakingprovides for sufficient flexi-bility to allow such sales to be made below the minimum importprice, they do not fall outside its scope. Accordingly, the low-priced sale in question has to be included in the quarterly averagesales price of the company for the presentation concerned. Onthis basis, the quarterly average price of sales of ‘Presentation g'duringthe quarter concerned was sig nificantly below the applic-able minimum import price.
It should also be noted that, in addition to the violation of the
minimum import price duringthe third quarter of 1998, the reportof Myre Sjømat AS for this quarter was received late. The reportsfor the two subsequent quarters were also received late or werenot received at all. No satisfactory explanations were receivedconcerningthese additional reportingviolations.
In view of all the above, it is concluded that definitive duties
should be imposed against this company.
(17)Brødrene Eilertsen A/S, one of the two companies whichappeared to have made misleadingdeclarations as to the identityof the exporter within the meaningof the undertakingand theidentity and nature of the goods reported, claimed that thecompany was indeed the ‘exporter' and that the Norwegiancompany on whose behalf Brødrene Eilertsen A/S appeared tohave been acting(and which, it was understood, had neither an
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
export licence issued by the Norwegian authorities nor an under-
takingwith the Commission), was in fact Eilertsen’s ag ent.Brødrene Eilertsen A/S argued that it should be regarded as the‘exporter'as it dealt with customs authorities, freight hauliers andhad to arrange its own customs duty payment/credit facilities inNorway and the Community.
(18)The company confirmed, however, that the money-flow did notmatch the purchase/resale invoice-flow and that for most exporttransactions the other Norwegian company obtained orders fromcustomers in the Community, took responsibility for arrangingthe financingof the sale and, most importantly, received paymentfor the shipment direct from the customers. Brødrene EilertsenA/S argued that this was typical business practice and was notdone with a view to violatingthe minimum import price or theundertaking.
(19)The Commission has considered all the arguments put forward,however, none of these detract from the fact that the companyissued invoices to unrelated customers in the Community, butnever received payment for those invoices. It is considered thatthis type of business practice is incompatible with the obligationsimposed by the undertakingas the company is unable to ensurethat the invoice amount was actually paid by its customer and, itfollows, that it was not below the minimum import price level.Consequently, it could not control whether the actual pricesachieved did indeed respect the terms of its undertakingas far asthe minimum import prices were concerned. For these reasons,Brødrene Eilertsen A/S cannot be considered as an exporterwithin the meaningof the undertaking .
(20)It also follows that, in submittingquarterly undertakingreports of‘sales' to the Community which can only be regarded as hypo-thetical (as they simply reflected the amounts stated on theinvoices and not necessarily, contrary to the requirements of theundertaking, the real value of the underlying financial transac-tions), the company misled the Commission with regard to itstrue function and capability for respectingthe undertakingandalso as to the true nature and price level of the sales. Indeed, ifthese facts had been known to the Commission, they would haveled to the rejection of the offer of an undertakingat the outset, orto the withdrawal of acceptance of the undertakingat a muchearlier stage.
(21)For an undertakingto be considered acceptable, the Commissionmust be satisfied that it can be effectively monitored, which issomethingit clearly cannot do when a company such as BrødreneEilertsen A/S has no control (or even knowledge) of the finalprice of exported salmon paid by the customer in the Communitydirectly to the supplier in Norway. Consequently, the acceptanceof the undertakingoffered by Brødrene Eilertsen A/S should bewithdrawn and definitive duties should be imposed.
(22)The other company which appeared to have made misleadingdeclarations as to the identity of the exporter, Arne MathisenA/S, confirmed that with regard to one particular supplier inNorway, an exporter without an undertaking, its money-flow didnot reflect the paper-flow of purchase and resale invoices. It hada commercial arrangement with this Norwegian supplier and itssole customer in the Community (which was related to theNorwegian supplier) whereby Arne Mathisen A/S would receivefrom the importer the difference between the cost of goodssupplied from the related company in Norway and the resaleprice to the importer, thus savingon bank costs. Sales sourced inthis way constituted a significant proportion of the total exportsof Arne Mathisen A/S.
(23)The company stated that it was actingas exporter because itacquired legal title to the goods, accepted the commercial risksand arranged for transport to the Community. Arne Mathisen A/Salso argued that receipt of only the difference between thepurchase and resale prices was standard business practice. The
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
company further submitted that the resale prices of goods
purchased from Arne Mathisen A/S by the Community importerin question had been verified duringan on-spot verification at theimporter’s premises in November 1998 and were found to havebeen above the minimum import price. It was argued that thesales in question of Arne Mathisen A/S had not, therefore, causedany injury ultimately to the Community industry.
(24)It also submitted that it had ceased sourcingsalmon from thecompany in Norway which is related to its customer in theCommunity as soon as an amendment was made at the end ofNovember 1998 to the undertaking(and correspondingamend-ment to the applicable Norwegian legislation) which expresslyprevented salmon beingsourced in this way from, inter alia ,
Norwegian exporters which do not hold undertakings.
(25)With regard to the arguments concerning the receipt of a ‘net'amount from the Community customer, the considerations andconclusions of the Commission set out above at recital 19 et seq
also apply to Arne Mathisen A/S. It too is considered to have senthypothetical sales reports, and to have misled the Commission asto its true function and capability for respectingthe undertaking .
(26)In this regard, as long as it had no control over the constitutiveprice element, it is irrelevant whether Arne Mathisen A/S mayhave taken responsibility for ancillary obligations concerning itssales. In addition, it should be noted that, contrary to what it hadstated earlier, Arne Mathisen A/S admitted that it was fully awareof the relationship between the Norwegian supplier concernedand its sole customer in the Community. It follows, therefore,that Arne Mathisen A/S must have known that prices and money-flows between those two companies were only of a notionalcharacter as they were, in essence, transfer prices between relatedparties.
(27)As concerns the verification visit of the Commission to theunrelated customer in the Community, the argument that theresale prices of this company may have been above the minimumimport price and therefore at non-injurious levels is considered tobe a completely different issue to the one of whether ArneMathisen A/S had respected its undertakingor not.
(28)Indeed, to establish, as argued by Arne Mathisen A/S, that theseresale prices had no negative effects, it would also be necessaryto extend the investigation to the related parties of that importerin Norway and the Community. Furthermore, such a findingisnot required by Article 8(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 inorder to establish a violation, nor for withdrawingthe acceptanceof the undertaking. Finally, it is irrelevant whether ArneMathisen A/S abandoned the practise of obtainingsalmon fromthe Norwegian supplier which was related to its customer in theCommunity once, as mentioned above in recital 24, this methodof sourcingwas blocked in November 1998. At that time it hadalready violated its undertakingfor more than five consecutivereportingquarters. Consequently, the acceptance of the under-takingoffered by Arne Mathisen A/S should be withdrawn anddefinitive duties should be imposed.
(29)All the interested parties were informed of the essential facts andconsiderations on the basis of which it was intended to eitherrepeal the provisional measures imposed against them and rein-state them on the list of companies from which undertakings areaccepted, or confirm the withdrawal of the Commission’s accep-tance of their undertakingand to recommend the imposition ofdefinitive anti-dumpingand countervailingduties and the defin-itive collection of the amounts secured by way of provisionalduties. The companies were also granted a period within which tomake representations subsequent to this disclosure. Commentsreceived were taken into account where appropriate.
(30)In parallel to this Regulation, the Commission is submitting aproposal for a Council Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumpingand countervailingduties on farmed Atlantic salmon
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
originating in Norway and exported by the three companieswhich remain subject to the provisional duty imposed by Regula-tion (EC) No 929/1999, namely Myre Sjømat AS, BrødreneEilertsen A/S and Arne Mathisen A/S.
F.NEW VIOLATION CASES
(31)As mentioned above, all exporters from which undertakings have
been accepted are required, inter alia , to submit quarterly reports
to the Commission of their sales of the product concerned to theCommunity and to respect minimum prices for the variouspresentations of the product concerned.
(32)While monitoringthe reports relatingto the fourth quarter of1998, it appeared that one exporter, Norfra Eksport AS, had madesales for one presentation of fish on the Community marketbelow the minimum price foreseen in the undertaking.
(33)The company was given an opportunity to correct any possibleclerical mistakes made in the processingof the report and also tocomment on any erroneous assessment thereof made by theCommission.
(34)In reply, the company stated that it had not realised that it wasobliged to respect the minimum price for each presentation sepa-rately, but rather that it could compensate sales below theminimum price in one presentation with sales above theminimum price in another. Moreover, the company stated that thesame approach had been applied in its sales report for the thirdquarter of 1997, however, at that time, the Commission had notadvised it that anythinguntoward had occurred. According ly, thecompany considered that its interpretation of the terms of theundertakingand its approach concerningsales prices was correct.
(35)The Commission cannot accept the first argument as it considersthat the text of the undertakingsig ned by the company makes itabsolutely clear that minimum prices are to be respected bypresentation. In addition, pre-formatted computer files have beendistributed to exporters as part of the reportingprocedure. Thesefiles are also clearly geared to presenting (and checking) pricesby presentation, and not by an average of all presentations.
(36)As concerns the submission that the Commission had failed toadvise the company in the past that it had misinterpreted theundertaking, it is noted that the Commission, in May 1998, whilstclarifyinga number of technical issues raised by the Norweg ianSeafood Export Council, also emphasised that the respect of theminimum prices would be checked for each presentation. It wasconfirmed that Norfra Eksport AS had received a copy of thisletter.
(37)In addition, while monitoringthe reports relatingto the firstquarter of 1999, it appeared that another exporter, Janas AS, hadmade sales for one presentation of fish on the Community marketbelow the minimum price foreseen in the undertaking. Thecompany was given an opportunity to correct any possible cler-ical mistakes made in the processingof the report and also tocomment on any erroneous assessment thereof made by theCommission. No satisfactory answer was received, however,from the company within the deadline set which caused theCommission to consider that its preliminary evaluation wasincorrect.
(38)Also with regard to the first quarter of 1999, no sales report wasreceived within the prescribed time limit from another exporter,Vie de France Norway AS, despite the fact that a reminder wassent to the company 24 hours before the deadline. The companywas subsequently given an opportunity to advise the Commissionof any reasons which may have prevented it from sendingitsreport within the time limit, however, no explanation has beenreceived from the company in this respect.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
(39)Accordingly, there are reasons to believe that the undertakings of
Norfra AS, Janas AS and Vie de France Norway AS are beingbreached.
G.IMPOSITION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES FOLLOWING
APPARENT BREACHES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS
(40)Havingreg ard to the above, it is considered that pendingfurther
investigation of these apparent violations, provisional duties beimposed against these three companies.
(41)In accordance with Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96and Article 13(10) of Regulation (EC) No 2067/97, the rate of theanti-dumpingand countervailingduty respectively must be estab-lished on the basis of the best information available.
(42)In this regard and in view of recital 107 of Regulation (EC) No1890/97 and recital 149 of Regulation (EC) No 1891/97, it isconsidered appropriate that the provisional anti-dumpingandcountervailingduty rates be set at the level, and in the form,imposed by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.
H.FINAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING IMPOSITION OF
PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(43)In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed
in which interested parties may make known their views inwritingand request a hearing .
I.NEW EXPORTERS
(44)Followingthe imposition of definitive anti-dumpingand counter-
vailingduties, several Norweg ian companies have made them-selves known to the Commission claimingto be new exportersand have offered undertakings.
(45)In this regard, four such companies, F. Uhrenholt SeafoodNorway AS, Mesan Seafood AS, Polaris Seafood AS and Scan-fish AS, demonstrated that they had not exported the productconcerned to the Community duringthe investig ation periodwhich led to the current anti-dumpingand countervailingduties(hereinafter ‘the original investigation period'). The companiesalso showed that they were not related to any of the companies inNorway which are subject to the anti-dumpingand countervailingduties. Finally, the companies provided evidence that they hadeither exported the product concerned to the Community after theoriginal investigation period, or had entered into an irrevocablecontractual obligation to export a significant amount of theproduct concerned to the Community.
(46)The undertakings offered are identical in terms to those previ-ously offered by other Norwegian companies exporting farmedAtlantic salmon originating in Norway and it is considered thatacceptance of such undertakings from these exporters will besufficient to remove the effects of injurious dumpingand subsidi-sation.
(47)Since the exporters have offered to provide the Commission withregular and detailed information on their exports to theCommunity, it is concluded that the undertakings can be moni-tored effectively by the Commission.
(48)The undertakings offered by these companies are thereforeconsidered acceptable. The companies have been informed of theessential facts and considerations upon which acceptance of theundertakingis based. The Advisory Committee was consultedand has raised no objections. Pursuant, therefore, to Article 2 ofRegulation (EC) No 772/1999, the Annex to that Regulationshould be amended so as to grant exemption from payment ofanti-dumpingand countervailingduties to these companies.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
J.CHANGE OF NAME
(49)Finally, two other Norwegian exporters, Herøy Filetfabrikk AS
and SL Fjordgruppen AS, advised the Commission that thenames of the companies had been changed to Atlantis Filetfab-rikk AS and Fjord Seafood Leines AS respectively. The Commis-sion has therefore verified and confirmed that there were nochanges to the corporate structure which warranted a moredetailed examination of the appropriateness of the companiesmaintaining their undertakings. Accordingly, the names of thesecompanies should be amended in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.
K.AMENDMENT OF THE ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC
(50)The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC acceptingundertaking s in the
context of the present anti-dumpingand anti-subsidies proceed-ings should be amended to take account of the reinstatement ofthe undertakingg iven by Atlantic Seafood A/S in respect ofwhich the provisional duties should be repealed, the undertakingsaccepted from F.Uhrenholt Seafood Norway AS, Mesan SeafoodAS, Polaris Seafood AS and Scanfish AS, and the change ofname of Herøy Filetfabrikk AS to Atlantis Filetfabrikk AS and ofSL Fjordgruppen AS to Fjord Seafood Leines AS.
(51)For the sake of clarity, an updated version of this Annex shouldbe published herewith, showingthe exporters whose undertaking sremain in force.
L.AMENDMENT OF REGULATION (EC) No 929/1999
(52)As mentioned previously, by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999, the
Council amended the form of the anti-dumpingduty to a variableduty based on minimum import prices for each of the differentpresentations of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway.In this regard, new Taric codes were created for each of thesepresentations.
(53)By Regulation (EC) No 929/1999, provisional measures wereimposed against the four companies listed in Annex II to thatRegulation. However, Article 2(1)(a) of that Regulation stillrefers, incorrectly, to the Taric codes which were replaced byRegulation (EC) No 772/1999. In addition, references to theTaric additional code 8900 in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Regula-tion (EC) No 929/1999 are superfluous. An amendment to theseArticles in Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is therefore necessary,
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The provisional anti-dumpingand countervailingduties imposed
against Atlantic Seafood A/S (UT No 24, Taric additional code 8122)by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 in relation to farmed (other than wild)Atlantic salmon orig inatingin Norway fallingwithin CN codesex 0302 12 00 (Taric codes: 0302 12 00*21, 0302 12 00*22,0302 12 00*23 and 0302 12 00*29), ex 0303 22 00 (Taric codes:0303 22 00*21, 0303 22 00*22, 0303 22 00*23 and 0303 22 00*29),ex 0304 10 13 (Taric codes: 0304 10 13*21 and 0304 10 13*29) andex 0304 20 13 (Taric codes: 0304 20 13*21and 0304 20 13*29), arehereby repealed.
2. Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is hereby replaced by
Annex I to the present Regulation.
3. Any amounts secured from Atlantic Seafood A/S by way of the
provisional anti-dumpingand countervailingduties imposed by Reg ula-tion (EC) No 929/1999 shall be released.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
Presentation of salmonMinimum price
Euro/kgnet
product weightTaric codeArticle 2
1. (a) Provisional countervailingand anti-dumpingduties are hereby
imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild) Atlantic salmonfallingwithin CN codes ex 0302 12 00 (Taric codes:0302 12 00*21, 0302 12 00*22, 0302 12 00*23 and0302 12 00*29), ex 0303 22 00 (Taric codes: 0303 22 00*21,0303 22 00*22, 0303 22 00*23 and 0303 22 00*29),ex 0304 10 13 (Taric codes: 0304 10 13*21 and 0304 10 13*29)ex 0304 10 13 (Taric codes: 0304 20 13*21 and 0304 10 13*29)and ex 0304 20 13 (Taric codes: 0304 20 13*21 and0304 20 13*29) originating in Norway and exported by thecompanies listed in Annex II to the present Regulation.
(b) These duties shall not apply to wild Atlantic salmon (Taric
codes: 0302 12 00*11, 0304 10 13*11, 0303 22 00*11and0304 20 13*11). For the purpose of this Regulation, wild salmonshall be that in respect of which the competent authorities of theMember States of landingare satisfied, by means of all customsand transport documents to be provided by interested parties,that it was caught at sea.
2. (a) The rate of the countervailingduty applicable to the net free-at-
Community frontier price, before duty, shall be 3,8 %.
(b) The rate of the anti-dumpingduty applicable to the net free-at-
Community frontier price, before duty, shall be EUR 0,32 perkilogram net product weight. However, if the free-at-Community-frontier price, includingthe countervailingand anti-dumpingduties, is less than the relevant minimum price set outin paragraph 3, the anti-dumping duty to be collected shall be thedifference between that minimum price and the free-at-Community frontier price, includingthe countervailingduty.
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2, the following minimum prices
shall apply per kilogram net product weight:
Whole fish, fresh or chilled 2,925 0302 12 00*21
Gutted, head-on, fresh or chilled 3,25 0302 12 00*22
Gutted, headless, fresh or chilled 3,65 0302 12 00*23
Other, fresh or chilled, including‘steaks' 3,65 0302 12 00*29
Whole fish, frozen 2,925 0303 22 00*21
Gutted, head-on, frozen 3,25 0303 22 00*22
Gutted, headless, frozen 3,65 0303 22 00*23
Other, frozen, including‘steaks' 3,65 0303 22 00*29
Whole fish fillets, more than 300 geach, fresh
or chilled5,19 0304 10 13*21
Other fish fillets or fillet portions, 300 gor lesseach, fresh or chilled 6,55 0304 10 13*29
Whole fish fillets, more than 300 geach,frozen 5,19 0304 20 13*21
Other fish fillets or fillet portions, weighing300 gor less each, frozen 6,55 0304 20 13*29
Article 3
The followingcompanies shall be added to the Annex to Reg ulation
(EC) No 772/1999 listingthe companies exempted from the definitiveanti-dumpingand countervailingduties:
1999R1826 —EN—10.12.1999 —001.001 —11
▼B
UT No Company nameTARIC addi-
tional code
193 F. Uhrenholt Seafood
Norway ASA033
194 Mesan Seafood AS A034
195 Polaris Seafood AS A035
196 Scanfish AS A036
Article 4
The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC is hereby replaced by Annex III to
the present Regulation.
Article 5
1. Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is replaced by the
following:
‘Provisional countervailingand anti-dumpingduties are hereby
imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild) Atlantic salmonfallingwithin CN codes ex 0302 12 00 (Taric codes: 0302 12 00*21,0302 12 00*22, 0302 12 00*23 and 0302 12 00*29), ex 0303 22 00(Taric codes: 0303 22 00*21, 0303 22 00*22, 0303 22 00*23 and0303 22 00*29), ex 0304 10 13 (Taric codes: 0304 10 13*21 and0304 10 13*29) and ex 0304 20 13 (Taric codes: 0304 20 13*21 and0304 20 13*29) originating in Norway and exported by the compa-nies listed in Annex II to the present Regulation.'
2. Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is replaced by the
following:
‘The rate of the countervailingduty applicable to the net free-at-
Community frontier price, before duty, shall be 3,8 %.'
3. Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is replaced by the
following:
‘The rate of the anti-dumpingduty applicable to the net free-at-
Community frontier price, before duty, shall be EUR 0,32 per kilo-gram net product weight. However, if the free-at-Community-fron-tier price, includingthe countervailingand anti-dumpingduties, isless than the relevant minimum price set out in paragraph 3, theanti-dumpingduty to be collected shall be the difference betweenthat minimum price and the free-at-Community-frontier price,includingthe countervailingduty.'
Article 6
This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publica-
tion in the Official Journal of the European Communities .
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in
all Member States.
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 12
▼B
UT No CompanyTARIC additional
codeANNEX I
List of companies subject to provisional anti-dumping and countervailing
duties by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999
14 Arne Mathisen A/S 8112
28 Brødrene Eilertsen A/S 8126
99 Myre Sjømat AS 8203
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 13
UT No Company nameTaric additional
code▼M1
ANNEX II
Company subject to provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties by
Regulation (EC) No 1826/1999
187 Vie de France Norway AS 8321
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 14
UT No Company nameTARIC additional
code▼B
ANNEX III
ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC
Listofthe112companiesfromwhichundertakingsareaccepted,asupdated
on 25 August 1999
3 Agnefest Seafood 8325
7 Aqua Export A/S 8100
8 Aqua Partner A/S 8101
11 Arctic Group International 8109
13 Artic Superior A/S 8111
15 A/S Aalesundfisk 8113
16 A/S Austevoll Fiskeindustri 8114
17 A/S Keco 8115
20 A/S Refsnes Fiskeindustri 8118
21 A/S West Fish Ltd 8119
22 Astor A/S 8120
23 Atlantic KingStranda A/S 8121
24 Atlantic Seafood A/S 8122
26 Borkowski & Rosnes A/S 8124
27 Brødrene Aasjord A/S 8125
31 Christiansen Partner A/S 8129
32 Clipper Seafood A/S 8130
33 Coast Seafood A/S 8131
35 Dafjord Laks A/S 8133
36 Delfa Norge A/S 8134
39 Domstein Salmon A/S 8136
41 Ecco Fisk & Delikatesse 8138
42 Edvard Johnsen A/S 8139
43 Eurolaks AS 8140
44 Euronor AS 8141
46 Fiskeforsyningen AS 8143
47 Fjord Aqua Group AS 8144
48 Fjord TradingLtd AS 8145
50 Fossen AS 8147
51 Fresh Atlantic AS 8148
52 Fresh Marine Company AS 8149
53 Fryseriet AS 8150
58 GriegSeafood AS 8300
60 Haafa fisk AS 8302
61 Hallvard Lerøy AS 8303
62 Atlantis Filetfabrikk AS 8304
66 Hydro Seafood Norway AS 8159
67 Hydrotech-gruppen AS 8428
72 Inter Sea AS 8174
76 Joh. H. Pettersen AS 8178
77 Johan J. Helland AS 8179
79 Karsten J. Ellingsen AS 8181
80 Kr Kleiven & Co. AS 8182
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 15
▼B
UT No Company nameTARIC additional
code
82 Labeyrie Norge AS 8184
83 Lafjord Group AS 8185
85 Leica Fiskeprodukter 8187
87 Lofoten Seafood Export AS 8188
92 Marine Seafood AS 8196
93 Marstein Seafood AS 8197
96 Memo Food AS 8200
98 Midsundfisk AS 8202
100 Naco TradingAS 8206
101 Namdal Salmon AS 8207
104 Nergård AS 8210
105 Nils Williksen AS 8211
107 Nisja TradingAS 8213
108 Nor-Food AS 8214
111 Nordic Group ASA 8217
112 Nordreisa Laks AS 8218
113 Norexport AS 8223
114 Norfi Produkter AS 8227
115 Norfood Group AS 8228
119 Norsk Akvakultur AS 8232
120 Norsk Sjømat AS 8233
121 Northern Seafood AS 8307
122 Nortrade AS 8308
123 Norway Royal Salmon Sales AS 8309
124 Norway Royal Salmon AS 8312
126 Norway Seafoods AS 8314
128 Norwell AS 8316
130 Nova Sea AS 8235
134 Ok-Fish Kvalheim AS 8239
137 Pan Fish Sales AS 8242
140 Polar Seafood Norway AS 8247
141 Prilam Norvège AS 8248
142 Pundslett Fisk 8251
144 Rolf Olsen Seafood AS 8254
145 Ryfisk AS 8256
146 Rørvik Fisk- ogfiskematforretningAS 8257
147 Saga Lax Norge AS 8258
148 Prima Nor AS 8259
151 Sangoltgruppa AS 8262
153 Scanfood AS 8264
154 Sea Eagle Group AS 8265
155 Sea Star International AS 8266
156 Sea-Bell AS 8267
157 Seaco AS 8268
158 Seacom AS 8269
160 Seafood Farmers of Norway Ltd AS 8271
161 Seanor AS 8272
162 Sekkingstad AS 8273
164 Sirena Norway AS 8275
165 Kinn Salmon AS 8276
1999R1826 — EN — 10.12.1999 — 001.001 — 16
▼B
UT No Company nameTARIC additional
code
167 Fjord Seafood Leines AS 8278
168 SMP Marine Produkter AS 8279
172 Stjernelaks AS 8283
174 Stolt Sea Farm AS 8285
175 Storm Company AS 8286
176 Superior AS 8287
178 Terra Seafood AS 8289
180 Timar Seafood AS 8294
182 Torris Products Ltd AS 8298
183 Troll Salmon AS 8317
188 Vikenco AS 8322
189 Wannebo International AS 8323
190 West Fish Norwegian Salmon AS 8324
191 Nor-Fa Food AS 8102
192 Westmarine AS 8625
193 F. Uhrenholt Seafood Norway AS A033
194 Mesan Seafood AS A034
195 Polaris Seafood AS A035
196 Scanfish AS A036