EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY
Document: Request for Consultations by Norway
Date: 22 March 2006
Document codes: WT/DS337/R; WT/DS337/1; G/L/766; G/ADP/D64/1
Complainant: Norway
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Canada, China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 2, 2.1, 2.6, 6.10, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.1.1, 6.8, Annex II, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1  GATT 1994Art. 4.1, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 6.2, 6.4, 6.5.1, 6.7, Annex I, 6.9, 12.2, 12.2.2  Anti-dumping

ANNEX A-1

Request for Consultations by Norway and Addendum

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 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 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

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/DS/377/R

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 examined the sufficiency
of domestic sales in the ordinary course of trade on the basis of sub-categories of the like product;

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 remedy 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 complying 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;

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-confidential 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.

WT/DS/377/R

30 March 2006

(06-1464)
 Original: English

Request for Consultations by Norway

Addendum

 The following communication, dated 27 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.

 On 17 March 2006, Norway requested consulta tions with the European Communities ("EC")
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 With respect to this same measure, my authorities have instructed me
to clarify the legal basis for Norway's complaint. This clarification supplements, and must be read
with, Norway's initial request for consultations.

 The EC has determined that farmed Atlantic salmon constitutes a single product, whether or
not the farmed salmon consists of whole fish or f illeted portions of varying sizes and form. Norway
considers that, by virtue of this product dete rmination, the EC's measure is inconsistent, inter alia ,
with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:

 1. Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , including Articles 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4,
because the EC improperly initiated an inves tigation into a single product that, for
purposes of the obligations in this Agreement, consists of more than one product;

 2. Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including Articles 2.1 and 2.6, because the
EC made dumping determinations for a single product that, for purposes of the
obligations in this Agreement, consists of more than one product;

 3. Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , including Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and
3.6, because the EC made an injury determ ination in relation to the EC domestic
industry producing a single product that, for purposes of the obligations in this
Agreement, consists of more than one product; and,

1 WT/DS337/1.

 4. Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.4, because
the EC imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of a single product that, for purposes
of the obligations in this Agreement, consists of more than one product.

 Norway wishes to emphasize that the issue of the product scope of the EC's measure is also
relevant to several claims that are identified in Norway's initial request for consultations.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.

WT/DS/377/R

ANNEX A-2

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Norway

30 May 2006

(06-2613)
 Original: English

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.

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.

 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. 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 and/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 all 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 calculations 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 take 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.
WT/DS/377/R

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
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 determined 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
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 parties 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.

WT/DS/377/R

ANNEX A-3

Working Procedures for the Panel

1. In its proceedings the Panel shall follow the relevant provisions of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding (DSU). In addition, the following working procedures shall apply.
2. The panel shall meet in closed session. The parti es to the dispute, and interested third parties,
shall be present at the meetings only when invited by the Panel to appear before it.
3. The deliberations of the Panel and the documents submitted to it shall be kept confidential.
Nothing in the DSU shall preclude a party to a dis pute from disclosing statements of its own positions
to the public. Members shall treat as confidential information subm itted by another Member to the
Panel which that Member has designated as confid ential. Where a party to a dispute submits a
confidential version of its written submissions to th e Panel, it shall also, upon request of a Member,
provide a non-confidential summary of the informa tion contained in its subm issions that could be
disclosed to the public.
4. The Panel may adopt special procedures for the pr otection of certain confidential information
as an annex to these working procedures, following consultation with and opportunity for comment by
the parties on any proposed procedures.
5. Before the first substantive meeting of the Pane l with the parties, the parties to the dispute
shall transmit to the Panel written submissions in which they present the facts of the case and their
arguments.
6. At its first substantive meeting with the parties, the Panel shall ask Norway to present its case.
Subsequently, and still at the same meeting, the European Communities will be asked to present its
point of view.
7. All third parties which have notified their interest in the dispute to the Dispute Settlement Body
shall be invited in writing to present their views during a session of the first substantive meeting of the
Panel set aside for that purpose. All such third parties may be present during the entirety of this session.
8. Formal rebuttals shall be made at a second substa ntive meeting of the parties. The European
Communities shall have the right to take the floor fi rst, to be followed by Norway. The parties shall
submit, prior to that meeting, written rebuttals to the panel.
9. The Panel may at any time put questions to the parties and to the third parties and ask them
for explanations either in the course of the substa ntive meeting or in writing. Answers to questions
shall be submitted in writing by the date(s) specified by the Panel.
10. The parties to the dispute and any third party i nvited to present its views shall make available
to the Panel and the other party or parties a written ve rsion of their oral statements, preferably at the
end of the meeting, and in any event not later than the day following the meeting. Parties and third
parties are encouraged to provide the Panel and ot her participants in the meeting with a provisional
written version of their oral statements at the time the oral statement is presented.
11. In the interest of full transparency, the presentations, rebuttals and statements shall be made in
the presence of the parties. Moreover, each pa rty's written submissions, including responses to
questions put by the Panel, shall be made available to the other party or parties.
12. The parties shall endeavour to provide the Secr etariat with executive summaries of the claims
and arguments contained in their written subm issions and oral presentations. These executive
summaries will be used by the Secretariat only for the purpose of assisting the Secretariat in drafting a

concise arguments section of the Panel report so as to facilitate timely translation and circulation of
the Panel report to the Members. They shall not serve in any way as a substitute for the submissions
of the parties. The summaries of the first writte n submission and rebuttal written submission shall be
limited to 10 pages each, and the summaries of the oral statements at the meetings will be limited to 5
pages each. The Panel will determine a page lim it for executive summaries of parties' responses to
questions, if necessary and as appropriate. Third pa rties are requested to provide the Panel with
executive summaries of their written submissions and oral presentations, of no more than 5 pages
each. The executive summaries shall be submitted to the Secretariat, preferably within ten days of the
original submission or oral statement concerned. Paragraph 18 shall apply to the service of executive
summaries.
13. A party shall submit any request for a preliminary ruling not later than its first submission to
the Panel. If Norway requests such a ruling, th e European Communities shall submit its response to
the request at a time to be determined by the Panel in light of the request. If the European
Communities requests such a ruling, Norway shall submit its respon se to the request prior to the first
substantive meeting of the Panel, at a time to be determined by the Panel in light of the request.
Exceptions to this procedure will be granted upon a showing of good cause.
14. Each party shall submit all factual evidence to the Panel no later than during the first
substantive meeting, except for evidence necessary for purposes of rebu ttals or answers to questions.
Exceptions to this procedure will be granted upon a showing of good cause. The other party shall be
accorded a period of time for comment, as appropriate, on any new factual evidence submitted after
the first substantive meeting.
15. To facilitate the maintenance of the record of the dispute, and to maximize the clarity of
submissions, in particular the refe rences to exhibits submitted by pa rties, parties shall sequentially
number their exhibits throughout the course of the dispute. For example, exhibits submitted by
Norway could be numbered NOR-1, NOR -2, etc. If the last exhibit in co nnection with the first
submission was numbered NOR -5, the first exhibit of the next submission thus would be numbered
NOR -6. The parties are encouraged to submit exhibits in electronic format, i.e., on a CD-ROM, if
possible.
16. The parties and third parties to this proceeding have the right to determine the composition of
their own delegations. The parties and third parti es shall have responsibility for all members of their
delegations and shall ensure that all members of th e delegation act in accordance with the rules of the
DSU and the Working Procedures of this Panel, pa rticularly in regard to confidentiality of the
proceedings. Each party and third party shall provide a list of the me mbers of its delegation before or
at the beginning of the substantive meetings with the Panel.
17. Following issuance of the interim report, the pa rties shall have two weeks to submit written
requests to review precise aspects of the interim report and to request a further meeting with the
Panel. The right to request such a meeting must be exercised at that time. Following receipt of any
written requests for review, if no further meeting w ith the Panel is requested, each party shall have
one week to submit written comments on the other pa rty's written request for review. Such comments
shall be strictly limited to comments on the other party's written request for review.
18. The following procedures regarding service of documents shall apply:
(a) Each party shall serve its submissions directly on the other party. Each party shall, in
addition, serve its first written submission on all third parties. Each third party shall
serve its submissions on the parties and all ot her third parties. Each party and third
party shall confirm, in writing, that copies have been served as required at the time it
provides each submission to the Panel.
WT/DS/377/R

(b) The parties and third parties shall provide their submissions to the Secretariat by
5:30 p.m. on the due dates established by th e Panel, unless a different time is set by
the Panel.
(c) The parties and third parties shall provide the Panel with eight (8) paper copies of
their submissions. All of these copies sh all be filed with the Dispute Settlement
Registrar, Mr. Ferdinand Ferranco (office number 3154).
(d) At the time that they provide the paper ve rsions of their submissions, the parties and
third parties shall also provide to the Panel electronic versions of all submissions, in a
format compatible with that used by the S ecretariat, either on a CD-ROM or diskette
or as an e-mail attachment. E-mail attachments shall be sent to the Dispute
Settlement Registry (DSRegistry@wto.org) with copies to Mr. Andrea Mastromatteo
(andrea.mastromatteo@wto.org) and Ms. Judith Czako (judith.czako@wto.org).
(e) The Panel will endeavour to provide the part ies with an electronic version of the
descriptive part, the interim report and the final report, as well as of other documents as
appropriate. When the Panel transmits to the parties or third parties both paper and
electronic versions of a document, the paper version shall constitute the official version
for the purposes of the record of the dispute.

ANNEX A-4

Additional Working Procedures of the Panel Concerning Business Confidential Information

The following procedures apply to all business confid ential information (BCI) submitted in the course
of the Panel process.

19. Any information that was treated as confiden tial in the course of the EC's anti-dumping
investigation (AD 487) at issue in the Panel process, and that is not otherwise available in the public
domain, shall be submitted as BCI in this Pane l process, unless the person that provided the
information in the course of the EC's anti-dumping investigation (AD 487) agrees otherwise.
20. Employees of the European Communities, of the Governments of EC Member-states, and of
the Government of Norway, may have access to BC I submitted in this Panel process. Parties may
give access to BCI to outside advisors acting on beha lf of the Party in this Panel process, provided
that the Parties shall provide the Secretariat, a nd the other Party, with a list of the names and
affiliation of such outside advisors. In no circumstances shall an employee, officer or agent of an
enterprise engaged in the production, export or impor t of the products concerned in this dispute be
given access to BCI (except BCI of the enterprise in question).
21. Employees of the Secretariat and Panel Members may have access to BCI submitted in this
proceeding.
22. Third Parties to this Panel process shall r eceive non-confidential versions of the first
submissions of the Parties to the Panel. Employ ees of the Governments of Canada; China; Hong
Kong, China; Japan; Korea and the United States, and outside advisors under the terms set forth in
paragraph 2, may request access to BCI contained in the first submissions of the Parties to the Panel
for the purpose of participating effectively in the Panel proceeding. The Panel shall decide whether to
grant access to such BCI in consultation with the Pa rties. In the absence of a showing of good cause,
any such Third Party access to BCI will take place on the premises of the WTO Secretariat. Third
Parties shall be entitled to review, but not to copy, the BCI accessed on the premises of the WTO
Secretariat. Third Parties granted access to BCI through this paragraph will be given an additional
period, if needed, to allow them to comment on BCI.
23. A Party or Third Party submitting BCI in any wr itten submission (including in any exhibits)
shall mark the cover and/or first page of the document containing any such information with the
words "Contains Business Confidential Information" . The specific information in question shall be
enclosed in double brackets, as follows: [[xx.xxx.xx]] and the notation "Contains Business
Confidential Information" shall be marked at the top of each page containing the BCI. A non-
confidential version, clearly marked as such, of any written submission (including any exhibits)
containing BCI, shall be submitted to the Panel with in three working days after the submission of the
confidential version containing the BCI. In the case of an oral statement containing BCI, the Party or
Third Party making such a statement shall inform th e Panel before making it that the statement will
contain BCI, and the Panel will ensure that only pers ons authorized to have access to BCI pursuant to
these procedures are in the room to hear that statement. A written non-confidential version of an oral
statement containing BCI shall be submitted within a day after the statement has been made. Non-
confidential versions of both oral and written statem ents shall be redacted in such a manner as to
convey a reasonable understanding of the substance of the BCI deleted therefrom.
24. Any BCI information that is submitted in binary -encoded form shall be clearly marked with
the statement "Business Confidential Information" on a label on the storage medium, and clearly
marked with the statement "Business Confidential Information" in the binary-encoded files.
WT/DS/377/R

25. As required by Article 18.2 of the DSU, a Party or Third party having access to BCI
submitted in this Panel process shall treat it as conf idential and shall not disclose that information
other than to those persons authorized to receive it pursuant to these pro cedures. Any information
submitted as BCI under these procedures shall only be used for the purposes of this dispute and for no
other purpose. Each Party and Third Party is re sponsible for ensuring that its employees and/or
outside advisors comply with these procedures to protect BCI.
26. The Panel engages not to disclose in its Report any information designated as BCI under these
procedures. The Panel may, however, make statements of conclusion based on such information.
27. After the conclusion of the Panel process, and within a period fixed by the Panel, each Party
shall return all documents in its possession submitte d as BCI in the Panel process to the Party that
originally submitted the BCI. Alternatively, a Part y may certify in writing to the other Party that all
such documents have been destroyed. This ob ligation is without prejudice to the confidential
information separately obtained by the EC and stored in its own record of the anti-dumping
investigation (AD 487) at issue in the Panel proces s. The Secretariat may retain one copy of the
documents containing the BCI for the archives of the WTO.
28. Submissions containing information designated as BCI under these procedures will be
included in the record forwarded to the Appellate Body in the event of any appeal of the Panel's
Report.
29. At the request of a Party, the Panel may appl y these procedures or an amended form of these
procedures, to protect information that does not fall within the scope of the information set out in
paragraph 1.