EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON FARMED SALMON FROM NORWAY
Document: Request for Consultations by Norway
Date: 22 March 2006
Document codes: 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

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
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;

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.

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.