1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 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 929/1999
of 29 April 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 82/1999 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 115, 4.5.1999, p. 13)
Amended by:
Official Journal
No page date
►M1 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1826/1999 of 23 August 1999 L 223 3 24.8.1999
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 2
▼B
COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 929/1999
of 29 April 1999
amending Regulation (EC) No 82/1999 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,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the 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 lastamended by Regulat ion (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 consulting the 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-dumping proceeding (4)a s
well as an anti-subsidy proceeding (5) in respectof import s 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-dumping and countervailing measures should be adopted in orderto eliminate the injurious effects of dumping and 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), accepting undertakings offered in connection with the
two abovementioned proceedings from the exporters mentionedin the Annex to the Decision and terminating the investigations intheir respect.
(4) On the same day, the Council, by Regulations (EC) No 1890/97 (
7) and (EC) No 1891/97 (8) imposed anti-dumping and coun-
tervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon origin-ating in Norway. Imports of farmed Atlantic salmon exported bycompanies from which an undertaking had 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 267, 30.9.1997, p. 1, repealed by Council Regulation (EC) No 772/
1999 (OJ L 101, 16.4.1999, p. 1).
(8) OJ L 267, 30.9.1997, p. 19, repealed by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 3
▼B
exempted from that duty pursuant to Article 1(2) of that Regula-
tion.
(5) The abovementioned Regulations set out the definitive findingsand conclusions on all aspects of the investigations. The form ofthe duties having been reviewed, Regulations (EC) No 1890/97and (EC) No 1891/97 were replaced by Regulation (EC) No772/1999.
B.PROVISIONAL MEASURES IMPOSED BY COMMISSION
REGULATION (EC) No 82/1999(1)
(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(exceptin 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 ator above the minimum prices foreseen in the undertaking.
(7) For the second quarter of 1998, 10 Norwegian companies eitherdid not present a report within the prescribed time limit (or didnotsubmitany reportatall), and t wo Norwegian export ersappeared to have sold the product concerned to the Communitymarket at a price which was below the price foreseen in theirundertakings.
(8) The Commission therefore had reason to believe that these 12companies had breached the terms of their undertakings.
(9) Consequently, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 82/1999,imposed provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties onimports of farmed Atlantic Salmon falling within CN codesex 0302 12 00, ex 0304 10 13, ex 0303 22 00 andex 0304 20 13 originating in Norway and exported by the 12companies listed in the Annex to that Regulation. By the sameRegulation, the Commission deleted the companies concernedfrom the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC, which listed the compa-nies from which undertakings were accepted.
C.PROCEDUREFOLLOWINGIMPOSITIONOFPROVISIONAL
DUTIES
(10) All 12 Norwegian companies subject to the provisional duties
received disclosure in writing concerning the 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, nineof the Norwegian companies concerned submitted comments inwriting. In addition, comments were submitted by the NorwegianSeafood Association on behalf of two of the companies subject tothe provisional measures. Following receipt of these writtensubmissions, the Commission sought and examined all informa-tion it deemed necessary for the purpose of a definitive deter-mination on the apparent violations.
(12) Of the 12 companies subject to the provisional measures, fiverequested (and were granted) a hearing.
(13) The oral and written comments submitted by the interestedparties were considered and, where appropriate, taken intoaccount in the definitive findings.
D.DEFINITIVE FINDINGS — REPEAL OF PROVISIONAL
DUTIES FOR SIX COMPANIES
(1) OJ L 8, 14.1.1999, p. 8.
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 4
▼B
(14) With regard to the 10 Norwegian exporters which either
submitted their quarterly report to the Commission late, or didnotsubmita reportatall, t wo companies, Kr Kleiven & Co. ASand Scanfood AS, claimed that they had sent their quarterlyreports to the Commission by electronic mail within the due timeperiod. However, it was found subsequently that this electronicmail contained an incorrect internal address for the Commissionservice dealing with the monitoring of anti-dumping undertak-ings, with the result that the reports did not reach the departmentconcerned. The companies both claimed that they did not, asusually happens with undelivered electronic mail, receive a ‘mail-fail' message from, in this case, the Commission’s electronicmail-failure service.
(15) Having examined the additional evidence put forward by thecompanies subsequent to the imposition of the provisional meas-ures, the Commission is satisfied that the companies did indeedtry to send their reports within the prescribed deadline. After alsoinvestigating the matter further with regard to the functioning ofits own electronic mail-failure system, the Commission considersthat, at the time of submission of their reports, Kr Kleiven & Co.AS and Scanfood AS might not, for temporary technical reasons,have received notification of non-receipt from its mail-server.Their claim that they were unaware that the reports had not beenreceived by the competent Commission department is thereforeaccepted and, accordingly, definitive measures should not beimposed against these two companies.
(16) Another company which failed to submit its quarterly reportwithin the prescribed time limit, Nor-Fa Food AS, claimed inmitigation that, whilst preparing the report during the monthfollowing the end of the quarter in question, it encountered ontwo occasions serious technical problems with regard to specialcomputer diskettes used by Norwegian companies for compilingthe sales data for the reports. These problems led to the finalpreparation of the report being delayed and its eventual despatchto the Commission to be after the deadline for receipt in theCommission’s offices.
Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, Nor-Fa
Food AS also provided evidence from the business consultancyfirm which supplied the diskettes confirming that the companyhad indeed encountered problems initially with their use.
(17) The company also argued t hatitwas, att hatt ime, a companynewly admitted to the system of undertakings and that the quar-terly report in question was the first one it had submitted to theCommission.
(18) Having considered the matter further and after examination of thenew arguments and evidence put forward, the Commission isnow satisfied that the company had genuine difficulties in fulfil-ling its reporting obligations and that it had been confronted withcircumstances which were beyond its control. Accordingly, defin-it ive measures should notbe imposed againstNor-Fa Food AS.
(19) A fourth company whose report was received late, NorwaySeafoods ASA, attempted to submit its report for the secondquarter of 1998 by electronic mail, but its electronic message wasnot accepted by the Commission’s mail server because of its size.
(20) Following the imposition of provisional measures, the companyargued that the Commission’s mail server appears to have beenfaulty as the actual size of the message sent was nowhere nearthe maximum handling capacity of the mail server and itsmessage should have been received satisfactorily.
(21) As mentioned above with regard to Kr Kleiven & Co. AS andScanfood AS, the Commission has checked the functioning of itsown electronic mail-failure system at the time when the quarterlyreports in question were due. It is considered that NorwaySeafoods ASA could not have reasonably expected their report tobe refused by the Commission’s mail server which, at the time,
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 5
▼B
may nothave been fault -free. The claim of Norway Seafoods
ASA that it was confronted with a situation over which it had nocontrol is therefore accepted. Accordingly, definitive measuresshould notbe imposed againstt his company.
(22) Following the imposition of provisional measures, anothercompany further elaborated on its claim that exceptional difficul-ties with regard to personnel caused its report to be sent late. Thefurther clarifications and explanations provided by the companyshowed that it encountered difficulties which were unforeseeable.Consequently, definitive measures should not be imposed againstthis company.
(23) One of the two companies against which provisional measureswere imposed due to apparent violations of the minimum importprice, SMP Marine Produkter AS, provided calculations whichshowed that the company had inadvertently deducted from a salestransaction a certain amount for customs duty which had in factbeen paid by the customer in the Community (and was nottherefore deductible as a direct selling expense). Without thiserroneous deduction, the average sales price for the quarter washigher and in conformity with the minimum import price.Accordingly, the provisional duties imposed against this companyshould be repealed.
E.DEFINITIVEFINDINGS—VIOLATIONOFUNDERTAKINGS
BY SIX COMPANIES
(24) As concerns the five other companies which failed to respect
their obligations to report on time, none of them have providedfurther satisfactory evidence subsequent to final disclosure thatcircumstances which were beyond their control had preventedthem from submitting their quarterly reports within the dueperiod.
(25) Accordingly, definitive measures should be imposed against thesefive companies.
(26) The other company against which provisional measures wereimposed due to apparent violations of the minimum import price,Brødrene Remo, did not come forward with any explanations orevidence which would have put in question the provisional find-ings. It is therefore concluded that definitive measures shouldalso be imposed againstt his company.
(27) 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 undertaking and to recommend the imposition ofdefinitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties 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.
(28) In parallel to this Regulation, the Commission is submitting aproposal for a Council Regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on farmed Atlantic salmonoriginating in Norway and exported by the remaining sevencompanies which are subject to the provisional duty imposed byRegulation (EC) No 82/1999, namely A Ovreskotnes AS, AlsvagFiskeprodukter A/S, Brødrene Remo AS, Hitramat & DelikatesseAS, Seacom Nord AS and Stavanger Røkeri AS.
F.NEW VIOLATION CASES
(29) As mentioned above, all exporters from which undertakings have
been accepted are required to submit a quarterly sales reportwithin a prescribed period to the Commission, and also to respectminimum prices for the various presentations of the productconcerned. With regard to the third quarter of 1998, a Norwegian
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 6
▼B
exporter, Atlantic Seafood A/S failed to comply with its obliga-tion to present a report within the prescribed time limit. Thecompany was informed of the consequences of late reporting and,in particular, that should the Commission have reasons to believethat its undertaking is being violated, a provisional anti-dumpingand countervailing duty may be imposed pursuant to Article8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and Article 13(10) of Regu-lation (EC) No 2026/97, respectively.
(30) The company was also invited to provide evidence of any force
majeure which caused the late submission of its report. However,
no conclusive evidence thereof has been provided.
(31) Also, whilst monitoring the reports relating to the third quarter of1998, itappeared t hatone export er, Myre SjømatAS, had madesales to the Community market below the minimum price fore-seen in the undertaking.
(32) In order to determine the veracity and accuracy of the informa-tion provided in the quarterly reports furnished by exporters,on-the-spot verification visits at the premises of selected compa-nies are performed by the Commission on a regular basis. In thisregard, a series of visits was made in November 1998 to expor-ters in Norway and importers in the Community. Visits were alsomade to Norwegian exporters in January 1999.
(33) One of the companies visited in Norway, Brødrene Eilertsen AS,had submitted quarterly reports to the Commission whichpurported to show that it had made sales of the product coveredby the undertaking to customers in the Community in accordancewith the terms of the undertaking. The verification revealed,however, that the company had not bought and sold the productsmentioned in its reports but had, instead, simply issued invoicesto importers in the Community on behalf of another Norwegiancompany, which had not offered an undertaking to the Commis-sion and for which it acted as an agent. Indeed, althoughBrødrene Eilertsen AS issued export invoices and reported theseto the Commission as its own sales, payment for the goods wasmade directly to the other Norwegian company by the buyers inthe Community.
(34) Another Norwegian company visited, Arne Mathiesen AS, wasfound to have exported the product concerned exclusively to anunrelated importer in the Community. However, Arne MathiesenAS sourced much of this salmon from a Norwegian supplierwhich was related to Mathiesen’s sole customer in theCommunity. With regard to the exports sourced from thissupplier, the investigation showed that Arne Mathiesen AS didnot actually pay the supplier for the goods. As concerns ‘resale'of these goods, whilst Arne Mathiesen AS issued the exportinvoices, payment for the goods thereon was made directly by theCommunity importer to its related supplier in Norway, and not toArne Mathiesen AS. Instead of receiving the full invoicedamount, Arne Mathiesen received the difference between thesupposed purchase invoice and the amount appearing on theexportinvoice.
(35) Accordingly, neither Brødrene Eilertsen AS or Arne MathiesenAS can be considered as exporters for the purposes of theirundertakings as they do not exercise any control over the actualprice of the goods. This also means that the price paid by thecustomer in the Community to the Norwegian supplier companieswithout an undertaking cannot be monitored at all by theCommission.
(36) It is therefore provisionally concluded that Brødrene Eilertsen ASand Arne Mathiesen AS have made misleading declarations as tothe identity of the exporter and the identity and nature of thesales reported, which constitutes a breach of their undertakings.
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 7
▼B
G.IMPOSITION OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES FOLLOWING
APPARENT VIOLATION CASES
(37) Having regard to all the above, there are reasons to believe that
the undertakings accepted by the Commission from AtlanticSeafood AS, Myre SjømatAS, Brødrene Eilert sen AS and ArneMathiesen AS are being violated.
(38) It is therefore considered imperative that, pending further invest-igation of these apparent violations, provisional duties beimposed againstt hese companies.
(39) In accordance with Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96and Article 13(10) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, the rate of theanti-dumping and countervailing duty respectively must be estab-lished on the basis of the best information available.
(40) 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-dumping andcountervailing duty rates be set at the level and in the formimposed by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.
H.FINAL CONSIDERATION CONCERNING IMPOSITION OF
PROVISIONAL DUTIES
(41) In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed
in which interested parties may make known their views inwriting and request a hearing.
I.NEW EXPORTER
(42) Following the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and counter-
vailing duties, several companies made themselves known to theCommission claiming to be new exporters and offered undertak-ings.
(43) In this regard, one such company, Westmarine AS, demonstratedthat it had not exported the product concerned to the Communityduring the investigation period which led to the current anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The company also showedthat it was not related to any of the companies in Norway whichare subject to the anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Finally,the company provided evidence that it had entered into an irre-vocable contractual obligation to export a significant amount ofthe product concerned to the Community.
(44) The undertaking offered is identical in its terms to those previ-ously offered by other Norwegian companies exporting farmedAtlantic salmon originating in Norway and it is considered thatacceptance of such an undertaking from this exporter will besufficient to remove the effects of injurious dumping and subsidi-sation.
(45) Since the exporter has agreed to provide the Commission withregular and detailed information on its exports to the Community,it is concluded that the undertaking can be monitored effectivelyby the Commission.
(46) The undertaking offered by this company is therefore consideredacceptable. The company has been informed of the essential factsand considerations upon which acceptance of the undertaking isbased. The Advisory Committee was consulted and has raised noobjections. Pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 772/1999therefore, the Annex to that Regulation should be amended togrant exemption from payment of anti-dumping and counter-vailing duties to this company.
J.CHANGE OF NAME
(47) In addition, two other Norwegian exporters, Saga Lax Nord AS
and Hydro Seafood Sales AS, advised the Commission that thenames of the companies had been changed to Prima Nor AS andHydro Seafood Norway AS respectively. The Commission has
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 8
▼B
UT No Company nameTaric additional
codetherefore verified and confirmed that there were no changes to
their corporate structures which warranted a more detailed exam-ination of the appropriateness of the companies maintaining theirundertakings. Accordingly, the name of these companies shouldbe amended in the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC.
K.AMENDMENT OF THE ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC
(48) The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings in the
context of the present anti-dumping and anti-subsidies proceed-ings should be amended to take account of the reinstatement ofthe undertakings given by Kr Kleiven & Co. AS, Misundfisk AS,Nor-Fa Food AS, Norway Seafoods ASA, Scanfood AS and SMPMarine Produkter AS, in respect of which the provisional dutiesshould be repealed, the undertaking accepted from WestmarineAS and the changes of name to Prima Nor AS and HydroSeafood Norway AS.
(49) For the sake of clarity, an updated version of this Annex shouldbe published, showing the exporters whose undertakings remainin force.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
1. The provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed
against the following companies by Regulation (EC) No 82/1999 inrelation to farmed (other than wild) Atlantic salmon originating inNorway falling within CN codes ex 0302 12 00 (Taric code:0302 12 00*19), ex 0304 10 13 (Taric code: 0304 10 13*19),ex 0303 22 00 (Taric code: 0303 22 00*19) and ex 0304 20 13 (Tariccode: 0304 20 13*19), are hereby repealed:
80 Kr Kleiven & Co. AS 8182
98 Midsundfisk AS 8202
126 Norway Seafoods ASA 8314
153 Scanfood AS 8264
168 SMP Marine Produkter AS 8279
191 Nor-Fa Food AS 8102
2. The Annex to Regulation (EC) No 82/1999 is hereby replaced byAnnex I to the present Regulation.
3. Any amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping and
countervailing duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 82/1999 from KrKleiven & Co. AS, Misundfisk AS, Norway Seafoods ASA, ScanfoodAS, SMP Marine Produkter AS and Nor-Fa Food AS shall be released.
Article 2
1. (a)►
M1Provisional countervailing and anti-dumping duties are
hereby imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild) Atlanticsalmon falling within 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)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. ◄
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 9
▼B
Presentation of salmonMinimum price
Euro/kg net
productweightTaric code(b) These duties shall not apply to wild Atlantic salmon (Taric
codes: 0302 12 00*11, 0304 10 13*11, 0303 22 00*11 and0304 20 13*11). For the purpose of this Regulation, wild salmonshall be that in respect of which the competent authorities of theMember States of landing are satisfied, by means of all customsand transport documents to be provided by interested parties, thatitwas caughtatsea.
2. (a)►
M1The rate of the countervailing duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be 3,8 %. ◄
(b)►M1The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be EUR 0,32per kilogram net product weight. However, if the free-at-Community-frontier price, including the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, 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, including the countervailing duty. ◄
3. For the purpose of paragraph 2, the following minimum prices
shall apply per kilogram netproductweight :
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 g each,
fresh or chilled5,19 0304 10 13*21
Other fish fillets or fillet portions, 300 g orless each, fresh or chilled 6,55 0304 10 13*29
Whole fish fillets, more than 300 g each,frozen 5,19 0304 20 13*21
Other fish fillets or fillet portions, weighing300 g or less each, frozen 6,55 0304 20 13*29
Article 3
The following company shall be added to the Annex to Regulation (EC)
No 772/1999
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 10
▼B
UT No Company nameTaric additional
code
192 Westmarine AS 8625
Article 4
The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC is hereby replaced by Annex III
hereto.
Article 5
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.
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 11
▼B
No CompanyTaric additional
codeANNEX I
List of companies subject to provisional anti-dumping and countervailing
duties
1 A. Ovreskotnes A/S 8095
5 Alsvag Fiskeprodukter A/S 8098
30 Brødrene Remo A/S 8128
65 Hitramat & Delikatesse AS 8154
159 Seacom Nord AS 8270
171 Stavanger Røkeri AS 8282
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 12
▼B
UT No CompanyTARIC addi-
tional codeANNEX II
▼M1
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 SjømatAS 8203
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 13
UT No Company nameTARIC addi-
tional code▼B
ANNEX III
ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC
Listofthe110companiesfromwhichundertakingsareaccepted,asupdated
on 5 May 1999
3 AgnefestSeafood 8325
7 Aqua ExportA/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 WestFish Lt d 8119
22 Astor A/S 8120
23 Atlantic King Stranda A/S 8121
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 CoastSeafood 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 Trading Ltd. AS 8145
50 Fossen AS 8147
51 Fresh Atlantic AS 8148
52 Fresh Marine Company AS 8149
53 FryserietAS 8150
58 Grieg Seafood AS 8300
60 Haafa fisk AS 8302
61 Hallvard Lerøy AS 8303
62 Herøy Filetfabrikk AS 8304
66 Hydro Seafood Norway AS 8159
67 Hydrotech-gruppen AS 8428
72 Inter Sea AS 8174
75 Janas AS 8177
76 Joh. H. Pettersen AS 8178
77 Johan J. Helland AS 8179
79 Karsten J. Ellingsen AS 8181
80 Kr Kleiven & Co. AS 8182
82 Labeyrie Norge AS 8184
83 Lafjord Group AS 8185
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 14
▼B
UT No Company nameTARIC addi-
tional code
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 Trading AS 8206
101 Namdal Salmon AS 8207
104 Nergård AS 8210
105 Nils Williksen AS 8211
107 Nisja Trading AS 8213
108 Nor-Food AS 8214
111 Nordic Group ASA 8217
112 Nordreisa Laks AS 8218
113 NorexportAS 8223
114 Norfi Produkter AS 8227
115 Norfood Group AS 8228
116 Norfra EksportAS 8229
119 Norsk Akvakultur AS 8232
120 Norsk SjømatAS 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 ASA 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- og fiskematforretning AS 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
167 SL Fjordgruppen AS 8278
1999R0929 — EN — 25.08.1999 — 001.001 — 15
▼B
UT No Company nameTARIC addi-
tional code
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
187 Vie de France Norway AS 8321
188 Vikenco AS 8322
189 Wannebo International AS 8323
190 WestFish Norwegian Salmon AS 8324
191 Nor-Fa Food AS 8102
192 Westmarine AS 8625