EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY
Document: Report of the Panel Corrigendum Please note the following corrections to the above-referenced report – deleted text is in strikethrough, added text is underlined: English version only:
Date: 17 September 2008
Document codes: WT/DS337/R/Corr.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

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE
ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY

Report of the Panel

Corrigendum

 Please note the following corrections to the above-referenced report – deleted text is in
strikethrough, added text is underlined:

English version only:

1. Item VII.J. in the Table of Contents should read as follows:
 "J.
 Alleged Inconsistency of the EC 's Conduct of the Proceedings with Articles 6.2, 6.4, 6.9,
12.2 and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement".

English, French and Spanish versions:

2. Following paragraph 7.479, heading (ii) (Wheth er the NRCs at issue were appropriately
counted as costs of production) should be re-designated heading (i).
3. Following paragraph 7.488, heading (iii) (Wheth er the investigating authority was entitled to
calculate the NRC adjustments for [[XXX]] and [[XXX ]] on the basis of a three-year average) should
be re-designated heading (ii).

English version only

4. Para. 7.504, 2nd sentence should read as follows:
 "Our assessment of the facts that were before the investigating authority and that the parties
have submitted for our review indicates that [[XXX]] did not report the "weighted average
cost of production for all salmon generations that were harvested during the investigation
period"."

English, French and Spanish versions

5. Following paragraph 7.529, heading (ii) (Facts) should be re-designated heading (i).
6. Following paragraph 7.533, heading (iii) ( Whether the investigating authority was entitled to
calculate finance costs on the basis of a three-year average) should be re-designated heading (ii).

English version only

7. Para. 7.539, final sentence should read as follows:
"Once again, we find that the evidence presented in the Definitive Disclosure supports the
conclusion that: (i) [[XXX]] did not report its pe r kilogram costs of production on the basis of
project accounting, but rather on the basis of an
 all costs relating to its salmon farming
activities over the period of investigation; and ( ii) that the investigating authority calculated
all but three of the costs used for the purpose of arriving at [[XXX]] per kilogram cost of
production on the basis of information from the period of investigation."

8. Para. 7.610, 3rd sentence should read as follows:
 "Second, Norway argues that the EC violated Articles 3.1. and 3.2, and consequently,
Article 3.5, because it failed to adequately examine the existence of price undercutting."

9. Para. 7.622, first sentence following quotation should read as follows:
 "Thus, Article 3.1,
 requires consideration of the volume, price, and consequent impact of
dumped imports on the domestic industry."

10. Para. 7.642, 4
th sentence should read as follows:
 "While in a particular case, this might be possible, if all domestic producers operate in the
same currency, that possibility does not justify the conclusion that such analysis is required."

English, French and Spanish versions:

11. Para. 7.711, 4
th sentence should read as follows:
 "Thus, to the extent that we may find any flaw in the investigating authority's calculation of
the "non-dumped" MIPs that could potentially have caused them to be overstated, we believe
that the factual basis for the investigating authority's conclusion that the "non-injurious " MIPs
were lower than the "non-dumped" MIPs must also be flawed, rendering the imposition of the
former on the investigated parties inconsistent with the obligation under Article 9.2 to collect
anti-dumping duties in the "appropriate amounts"."