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 certain exporters, imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of such salmon with regard to certain exporters, amending Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidies proceedings concerning imports of such salmon and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of such salmon
Date: 1999-08-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, export subsidy, import, monetary compensatory amount, sea fish

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/3

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 certain ex-
porters, imposing provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of such salmon
with regard to certain exporters, amending Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertakings offered in
connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidies proceedings concerning imports of such
salmon and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 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 members of 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 not members of the European Community (3), and in
particular Article 13 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PREVIOUS PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

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) as well as an anti-subsidy
proceeding (5) in respect of imports of farmed Atlantic
salmon originating in Norway.

The Commission sought and verified all
information
that it deemed necessary for the purpose of its definitive
findings. As a result of this examination, it was estab-
lished that definitive anti-dumping and countervailing
measures should be adopted in order to eliminate the
injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation. All inter-
ested parties were informed of the results of the invest-
igation and were given the opportunity to comment
thereon.

the Commission adopted
On 26 September 1997,
Decision 97/634/EC (6), as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 929/1999 (7), accepting undertakings offered in
connection with the two abovementioned proceedings

(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.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

from the exporters listed in the Annex to the Decision
and terminating the investigations in their respect.

On the same day, the Council, by Regulations (EC) No
1890/97 (8) and 1891/97 (9) imposed anti-dumping and
farmed Atlantic
countervailing duties on imports of
salmon originating in Norway.
farmed
Atlantic salmon exported by companies from which an
undertaking had been accepted were exempted from that
duty pursuant to Article 1(2) of those Regulations.

Imports of

The abovementioned Regulations set out the definitive
findings and conclusions on all aspects of the investiga-
tions. The form of the duties having been reviewed,
Regulations
(EC) No 1890/97 and 1891/97 were
replaced by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999, as amended
by Regulation (EC) No 1003/1999 (10).

B. PROVISIONAL MEASURES IMPOSED BY REGULA-

TION (EC) No 929/1999 (Recital 29 et seq)

The text of the undertakings provides that failure to
submit a quarterly report of all sales transactions to the
first unrelated customer 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 the obligation to sell the
different presentations of the product concerned (i.e.
gutted, head-on, etc.) on the Community market at
prices which are not below the minimum import prices
foreseen in the undertaking.

For the third quarter of 1998, one Norwegian company
did not present a report within the prescribed time limit.
For the same quarter, the Commission had reason to
believe that another Norwegian exporter had sold the
product concerned to the Community market at a price
which was below the price foreseen in its undertaking.
Two other Norwegian companies appeared to have
made misleading declarations in their quarterly reports
as to the identity of the exporter and the identity and
nature of the sales reported.

(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.

(10) OJ L 123, 13.5.1999, p. 19.

L 223/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

(8)

(9)

The Commission therefore had reason to believe that
these four companies had breached the terms of their
undertakings and, consequently, by Regulation (EC) No
929/1999 imposed provisional anti-dumping and coun-
tervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic Salmon
ex 0302 12 00,
falling
ex 0304 10 13, ex 0303 22 00 and ex 0304 20 13
originating in Norway and exported by the companies.

within

codes

CN

By the same Regulation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
provisional duty Regulation’), the Commission deleted
the four companies concerned from the Annex to
Decision 97/634/EC, which lists the companies from
which undertakings are accepted.

C. PROCEDURE FOLLOWING IMPOSITION OF PROVI-

SIONAL DUTIES

(10) All four Norwegian companies subject to the provisional
duties received disclosure in writing concerning the
essential facts and considerations on the basis of which
these provisional duties were imposed. They were also
given an opportunity to submit comments and request a
hearing.

all of

the Norwegian companies

(11) Within the time limit set in the provisional duty Regula-
tion,
concerned
submitted comments in writing. Following receipt of
these written submissions, the Commission sought and
information it deemed necessary for the
examined all
purpose of a definitive determination on the apparent
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 inter-
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate,
the definitive findings have been changed accordingly.

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
Commission after the prescribed date,
the company
stated that, at the time when the report should have
been sent, it had encountered technical problems with
its electronic mail system which were beyond its control.
Evidence was provided from the company's ‘internet
provider’ which confirmed this submission.

(17)

(14) Having examined the additional evidence put forward by
the company subsequent to the imposition of the provi-
sional measures, the Commission is satisfied that the
company was prevented from sending its report in time
for reasons which were beyond its control. Accordingly,
is considered that Regulation (EC) No 929/1999
it
should be repealed in so far as
this company is
concerned and any provisional duties collected should
be released.

E. DEFINITIVE FINDINGS — VIOLATION OF UNDER-

TAKINGS BY THREE COMPANIES

imposed against

(15) Another company, Myre Sjømat AS, had provisional
measures
it by Regulation (EC)
929/1999 due to an apparent violation of the minimum
import price. Subsequent to the imposition of the provi-
sional measures, the company claimed that some of the
transactions declared on the quarterly sales report for
the period in question as ‘Presentation g’ (fillets or fillet
portions), with sales prices below the minimum import
price for this presentation, were in fact ‘Presentation e’
(offcuts or trimmings). It was submitted that the sales
prices of these offcuts or trimmings were above the
minimum import price for ‘Presentation e’ and that no
violation of the undertaking had occurred. It was also
claimed that another sale reported below the minimum
import price as ‘Presentation g’ was not a commercial
sale but a low-priced sample of salmon fillets.

(16)

The Commission requested the company to provide
supporting documentation for these claims, which it did.
With regard to those sales originally declared as ‘Presen-
tation g’ but which were later claimed to be ‘Presentation
e’, the Commission is satisfied that the consignments in
question were indeed offcuts or trimmings and that the
minimum import price for
these sales had been
respected.

With regard to the sale of a sample at a low price, it
should be noted that whilst the undertaking provides for
sufficient flexibility to allow such sales to be made below
the minimum import price, they do not fall outside its
scope. Accordingly, the low-priced sale in question has
to be included in the quarterly average sales price of the
company for the presentation concerned. On this basis,
the quarterly average price of sales of ‘Presentation g’
during the quarter concerned was significantly below the
applicable minimum import price.

It should also be noted that, in addition to the violation
of the minimum import price during the third quarter of
1998, the report of Myre Sjømat AS for this quarter was
received late. The reports for the two subsequent quar-
ters were also received late or were not received at all.
No satisfactory explanations were received concerning
these additional reporting violations.

In view of all the above, it is concluded that definitive
duties should be imposed against this company.

the exporter within the meaning of

Brødrene Eilertsen A/S, one of the two companies which
appeared to have made misleading declarations as to the
identity of
the
undertaking and the identity and nature of the goods
the company was indeed the
reported, claimed that
‘exporter’ and that the Norwegian company on whose
behalf Brødrene Eilertsen A/S appeared to have been
acting (and which,
it was understood, had neither an
export licence issued by the Norwegian authorities nor
an undertaking with the Commission), was in fact Eilert-
sen's agent. Brødrene Eilertsen A/S argued that it should
be regarded as the ‘exporter’ as it dealt with customs
authorities, freight hauliers and had to arrange its own
customs duty payment/credit facilities in Norway and
the Community.

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/5

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

transactions

The company confirmed, however, that the money-flow
did not match the purchase/resale invoice-flow and that
the other Norwegian
for most export
company obtained orders
in the
Community,
arranging the
took responsibility for
financing of the sale and, most importantly, received
payment for the shipment direct from the customers.
Brødrene Eilertsen A/S argued that this was typical busi-
ness practice and was not done with a view to violating
the minimum import price or the undertaking.

from customers

The Commission has considered all the arguments put
forward, however, none of these detract from the fact
that the company issued invoices to unrelated customers
in the Community, but never received payment for those
invoices. It is considered that this type of business prac-
tice is incompatible with the obligations imposed by the
undertaking as the company is unable to ensure that the
invoice amount was actually paid by its customer and, it
follows, that it was not below the minimum import
price level. Consequently, it could not control whether
the actual prices achieved did indeed respect the terms
of its undertaking as far as the minimum import prices
were concerned. For these reasons, Brødrene Eilertsen
A/S cannot be considered as an exporter within the
meaning of the undertaking.

the underlying financial

It also follows that, in submitting quarterly undertaking
reports of ‘sales’ to the Community which can only be
regarded as hypothetical (as they simply reflected the
amounts stated on the invoices and not necessarily,
contrary to the requirements of the undertaking, the real
value of
the
company misled the Commission with regard to its true
function and capability for respecting the undertaking
and also as to the true nature and price level of the sales.
Indeed, if these facts had been known to the Commis-
sion, they would have led to the rejection of the offer of
an undertaking at the outset, or to the withdrawal of
acceptance of the undertaking at a much earlier stage.

transactions),

would receive from the importer the difference between
the cost of goods supplied from the related company in
Norway and the resale price to the importer, thus saving
on bank costs. Sales sourced in this way constituted a
significant proportion of
the total exports of Arne
Mathisen A/S.

(23)

The company stated that
it was acting as exporter
because it acquired legal title to the goods, accepted the
commercial risks and arranged for transport
to the
Community. Arne Mathisen A/S also argued that receipt
of only the difference between the purchase and resale
prices was standard business practice. The company
the resale prices of goods
further
purchased from Arne Mathisen A/S by the Community
importer in question had been verified during an on-
spot verification at the importer's premises in November
1998 and were found to have been above the minimum
import price. It was argued that the sales in question of
Arne Mathisen A/S had not, therefore, caused any injury
ultimately to the Community industry.

submitted that

(24)

It also submitted that it had ceased sourcing salmon
from the company in Norway which is related to its
customer in the Community as soon as an amendment
was made at the end of November 1998 to the under-
taking (and corresponding amendment to the applicable
expressly prevented
Norwegian legislation) which
salmon being sourced in this way from,
inter alia,
Norwegian exporters which do not hold undertakings.

from the Community customer,

(25) With regard to the arguments concerning the receipt of
a ‘net’ amount
the
considerations and conclusions of the Commission set
out above at recital 19 et
seq also apply to Arne
Mathisen A/S. It too is considered to have sent hypothet-
ical sales reports, and to have misled the Commission as
to its true function and capability for respecting the
undertaking.

For an undertaking to be considered acceptable, the
Commission must be satisfied that it can be effectively
monitored, which is something it clearly cannot do
when a company such as Brødrene Eilertsen A/S has no
the final price of
control
exported salmon paid by
in the
customer
Community directly to the supplier in Norway. Con-
sequently, the acceptance of the undertaking offered by
Brødrene Eilertsen A/S should be withdrawn and defin-
itive duties should be imposed.

(or even knowledge) of
the

The other company which appeared to have made
misleading declarations as to the identity of the exporter,
Arne Mathisen A/S, confirmed that with regard to one
particular supplier in Norway, an exporter without an
undertaking, its money-flow did not reflect the paper-
flow of purchase and resale invoices. It had a commer-
cial arrangement with this Norwegian supplier and its
sole customer in the Community (which was related to
the Norwegian supplier) whereby Arne Mathisen A/S

(26)

In this regard, as long as it had no control over the
constitutive price element, it is irrelevant whether Arne
Mathisen A/S may have taken responsibility for ancillary
obligations concerning its sales. In addition, it should be
noted that, contrary to what it had stated earlier, Arne
Mathisen A/S admitted that it was fully aware of the
relationship between the Norwegian supplier concerned
and 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 notional character as they were,
in
essence, transfer prices between related parties.

(27) As concerns the verification visit of the Commission to
the unrelated customer in the Community, the argument
that the resale prices of this company may have been
above the minimum import price and therefore at non-
injurious levels is considered to be a completely different
issue to the one of whether Arne Mathisen A/S had
respected its undertaking or not.

L 223/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

(28)

that

Indeed, to establish, as argued by Arne Mathisen A/S,
that these resale prices had no negative effects, it would
also be necessary to extend the investigation to the
related parties of
importer in Norway and the
Community. Furthermore, such a finding is not required
by Article 8(9) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 in order to
establish a violation, nor for withdrawing the acceptance
of the undertaking. Finally, it is irrelevant whether Arne
Mathisen A/S abandoned the practise of obtaining
salmon from the Norwegian supplier which was related
to its customer in the Community once, as mentioned
above in recital 24, this method of sourcing was blocked
in November 1998. At that time it had already violated
its undertaking for more than five consecutive reporting
quarters. Consequently, the acceptance of the under-
taking offered by Arne Mathisen A/S should be with-
drawn and definitive duties should be imposed.

(34)

(35)

repeal

(29) All the interested parties were informed of the essential
facts and considerations on the basis of which it was
intended to either
the provisional measures
imposed against them and reinstate them on the list of
companies from which undertakings are accepted, or
confirm the withdrawal of the Commission's acceptance
of their undertaking and to recommend the imposition
of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties and
the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way
of provisional duties. The companies were also granted a
period within which to make representations subsequent
to this disclosure. Comments received were taken into
account where appropriate.

(30)

In parallel to this Regulation, the Commission is submit-
ting a proposal for a Council Regulation imposing defin-
itive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on farmed
Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and exported by
the three companies which remain subject to the provi-
sional duty imposed by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999,
namely Myre Sjømat AS, Brødrene Eilertsen A/S and
Arne Mathisen A/S.

F. NEW VIOLATION CASES

(31) As mentioned above, all exporters from which undertak-
ings have been accepted are required, inter alia, to submit
quarterly reports to the Commission of their sales of the
product concerned to the Community and to respect
minimum prices for the various presentations of the
product concerned.

(32) While monitoring the reports relating to the fourth
quarter of 1998, it appeared that one exporter, Norfra
Eksport AS, had made sales for one presentation of fish
on the Community market below the minimum price
foreseen in the undertaking.

In reply, the company stated that it had not realised that
it was obliged to respect the minimum price for each
presentation separately, but rather that it could com-
pensate sales below the minimum price in one presenta-
tion with sales above the minimum price in another.
Moreover, the company stated that the same approach
had been applied in its sales report for the third quarter
of 1997, however, at that time, the Commission had not
advised it that anything untoward had occurred. Accord-
ingly, the company considered that its interpretation of
approach
the
concerning sales prices was correct.

the undertaking and its

terms of

The Commission cannot accept the first argument as it
considers that the text of the undertaking signed by the
company makes it absolutely clear that minimum prices
are to be respected by presentation. In addition, pre-
formatted computer files have been distributed to ex-
porters as part of the reporting procedure. These files are
also clearly geared to presenting (and checking) prices by
presentation, and not by an average of all presentations.

(36) As concerns the submission that the Commission had
failed to advise the company in the past that it had
misinterpreted the undertaking,
the
Commission, in May 1998, whilst clarifying a number of
technical issues raised by the Norwegian Seafood Export
Council, also emphasised that
the
minimum prices would be checked for each presenta-
tion.
It was confirmed that Norfra Eksport AS had
received a copy of this letter.

the respect of

is noted that

it

(37)

In addition, while monitoring the reports relating to the
first quarter of 1999, it appeared that another exporter,
Janas AS, had made sales for one presentation of fish on
the Community market below the minimum price fore-
seen in the undertaking. The company was given an
opportunity to correct any possible clerical mistakes
made in the processing of
the report and also to
comment on any erroneous assessment thereof made by
the Commission. No satisfactory answer was received,
from the company within the deadline set
however,
its
which caused the Commission to consider
preliminary evaluation was incorrect.

that

(38) Also with regard to the first quarter of 1999, no sales
report was received within the prescribed time limit
from another exporter, Vie de France Norway AS,
despite the fact that a reminder was sent to the company
24 hours before the deadline. The company was subse-
quently given an opportunity to advise the Commission
of any reasons which may have prevented it
from
sending its report within the time limit, however, no
explanation has been received from the company in this
respect.

(33)

The company was given an opportunity to correct any
possible clerical mistakes made in the processing of the
report and also to comment on any erroneous assess-
ment thereof made by the Commission.

(39) Accordingly, there are reasons to believe that the under-
Janas AS and Vie de France

takings of Norfra AS,
Norway AS are being breached.

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/7

G. IMPOSITION

MEASURES
FOLLOWING APPARENT BREACHES OF THE UNDER-
TAKINGS

PROVISIONAL

OF

(40) Having regard to the above, it is considered that pending
further investigation of these apparent violations, provi-
sional duties be imposed against these three companies.

(41)

(42)

In accordance with Article 8(10) of Regulation (EC) No
384/96 and Article 13(10) of Regulation (EC) No
2067/97, the rate of the anti-dumping and counter-
vailing duty respectively must be established on the basis
of the best information available.

In this regard and in view of recital 107 of Regulation
(EC) No 1890/97 and recital 149 of Regulation (EC) No
1891/97,
it is considered appropriate that the provi-
sional anti-dumping and countervailing duty 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 in writing and request a hearing.

(47)

(48)

(49)

Since the exporters have offered to provide the Commis-
sion with regular and detailed information on their
exports to the Community,
the
undertakings can be monitored effectively by the
Commission.

is concluded that

it

The undertakings offered by these companies are there-
fore considered acceptable. The companies have been
informed of the essential facts and considerations upon
the undertaking is based. The
which acceptance of
Advisory Committee was consulted and has raised no
objections. Pursuant, therefore, to Article 2 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 772/1999, the Annex to that Regulation
should be amended so as to grant exemption from
payment of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to
these companies.

J. CHANGE OF NAME

Finally, two other Norwegian exporters, Herøy Filetfab-
rikk AS and SL Fjordgruppen AS, advised the Commis-
sion that the names of the companies had been changed
to Atlantis Filetfabrikk AS and Fjord Seafood Leines AS
respectively. The Commission has therefore verified and
confirmed that there were no changes to the corporate
structure which warranted a more detailed examination
of the appropriateness of the companies maintaining
their undertakings. Accordingly,
these
companies should be amended in the Annex to Decision
97/634/EC.

the names of

I. NEW EXPORTERS

K. AMENDMENT OF THE ANNEX TO DECISION

97/634/EC

Following the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and
countervailing duties, several Norwegian companies have
made themselves known to the Commission claiming to
be new exporters and have offered undertakings.

(50)

(44)

(45)

four

regard,

In this
such companies, F. Uhrenholt
Seafood Norway AS, Mesan Seafood AS, Polaris Seafood
AS and Scanfish AS, demonstrated that they had not
exported the product concerned to the Community
during the investigation period which led to the current
anti-dumping and countervailing duties (hereinafter ‘the
original
investigation period’). The companies also
showed that they were not related to any of the com-
panies in Norway which are subject to the anti-dumping
and countervailing duties.
companies
provided evidence that they had either exported the
product concerned to the Community after the original
investigation period, or had entered into an irrevocable
contractual obligation to export a significant amount of
the product concerned to the Community.

Finally,

the

(46)

The undertakings offered are identical in terms to those
previously offered by other Norwegian companies
exporting farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway
and it is considered that acceptance of such undertakings
from these exporters will be sufficient to remove the
effects of injurious dumping and subsidisation.

The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC accepting undertak-
ings in the context of the present anti-dumping and
anti-subsidies proceedings should be amended to take
account of the reinstatement of the undertaking given by
Atlantic Seafood A/S in respect of which the provisional
duties should be repealed, the undertakings accepted
from F.Uhrenholt Seafood Norway AS, Mesan Seafood
AS, Polaris Seafood AS and Scanfish AS, and the change
of name of Herøy Filetfabrikk AS to Atlantis Filetfabrikk
AS and of SL Fjordgruppen AS to Fjord Seafood Leines
AS.

(51)

For the sake of clarity, an updated version of this Annex
should be published herewith, showing the exporters
whose undertakings remain 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-
dumping duty to a variable duty based on minimum
import prices for each of the different presentations of
farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway. In this
regard, new Taric codes were created for each of these
presentations.

L 223/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

(53)

By Regulation (EC) No 929/1999, provisional measures
were imposed against
the four companies listed in
Annex II to that Regulation. However, Article 2(1)(a) of
that Regulation still refers, incorrectly, to the Taric codes
which were replaced by Regulation (EC) No 772/1999.
In addition, references to the Taric additional code 8900
in Article 2(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation (EC) No
929/1999 are superfluous. An amendment
to these
Articles in Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is therefore
necessary,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
The provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties
imposed against Atlantic Seafood A/S (UT No 24, Taric addi-
tional code 8122) by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 in relation
to farmed (other than wild) Atlantic salmon originating in
Norway falling within CN codes ex 0302 12 00 (Taric codes:
0302 12 00*21,
and
0302 12 00*29), ex 0303 22 00 (Taric codes: 0303 22 00*21,
0303 22 00*29),
0303 22 00*22,
and
ex 0304 10 13
0304 10 13*29)
codes:
0304 20 13*21and 0304 20 13*29), are hereby repealed.

0303 22 00*23
(Taric
codes:
and

and
0304 10 13*21

0302 12 00*22,

0302 12 00*23

ex 0304 20 13

(Taric

Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is hereby

2.
replaced by Annex I to the present Regulation.

3.
Any amounts secured from Atlantic Seafood A/S by way
the provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties
of
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 shall be released.

2. (a) The rate of the countervailing duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be
3,8 %.

free-at-Community-frontier price,

(b) The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be
EUR 0,32 per kilogram net product weight. However, if
the
including the
countervailing and anti-dumping duties, is less than the
relevant minimum price set out in paragraph 3, the
anti-dumping duty to be collected shall be the difference
between
free-at-
Community frontier price, including the countervailing
duty.

that minimum price

and

the

For the purpose of paragraph 2, the following minimum

3.
prices shall apply per kilogram net product weight:

Presentation of salmon

Minimum price
Euro/kg net
product weight

Taric code

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

fresh or chilled,

including

3,65

0302 12 00*29

Other,
‘steaks’

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

Article 2

Other, frozen,

including ‘steaks’

3,65

0303 22 00*29

codes:

codes:

1. (a) Provisional countervailing and anti-dumping duties are
hereby imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild)
Atlantic salmon falling within CN codes ex 0302 12 00
(Taric
0302 12 00*22,
0302 12 00*21,
0302 12 00*23 and 0302 12 00*29), ex 0303 22 00
(Taric
0303 22 00*22,
0303 22 00*21,
0303 22 00*23 and 0303 22 00*29), ex 0304 10 13
codes: 0304 10 13*21 and 0304 10 13*29)
(Taric
codes: 0304 20 13*21 and
ex 0304 10 13 (Taric
0304 10 13*29)
codes:
0304 20 13*21 and 0304 20 13*29) originating in
Norway and exported by the companies listed in Annex
II to the present Regulation.

and ex 0304 20 13 (Taric

Whole fish fillets, more than 300 g
each, fresh or chilled

5,19

0304 10 13*21

Other fish fillets or fillet portions,
300 g or less 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,
weighing 300 g or less each, frozen

6,55

0304 20 13*29

codes:

(b) These duties shall not apply to wild Atlantic salmon
(Taric
0304 10 13*11,
0302 12 00*11,
0303 22 00*11and 0304 20 13*11). For the purpose of
this Regulation, wild salmon shall be that in respect of
which the competent authorities of the Member States
of landing are satisfied, by means of all customs and
transport documents
to be provided by interested
parties, that it was caught at sea.

Article 3

The following companies shall be added to the Annex to
Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 listing the companies exempted
from the definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties:

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/9

UT No

Company name

193

194

195

196

F. Uhrenholt Seafood
Norway AS

Mesan Seafood AS

Polaris Seafood AS

Scanfish AS

Article 4

TARIC
additional
code

A033

A034

A035

A036

The Annex to Decision 97/634/EC is hereby replaced by
Annex III to the present Regulation.

Article 5

Article 2(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is

1.
replaced by the following:

‘Provisional countervailing and anti-dumping duties are
hereby imposed on imports of farmed (other than wild)
Atlantic salmon falling within CN codes ex 0302 12 00
0302 12 00*22,
(Taric
0302 12 00*21,
ex 0303 22 00
0302 12 00*23 and 0302 12 00*29),
0303 22 00*22,
(Taric

0303 22 00*21,

codes:

codes:

ex 0304 10 13
0303 22 00*23 and 0303 22 00*29),
(Taric codes: 0304 10 13*21 and 0304 10 13*29) and
ex 0304 20 13
and
codes:
0304 20 13*29) originating in Norway and exported by
the companies listed in Annex II to the present Regulation.’

0304 20 13*21

(Taric

Article 2(2)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is

2.
replaced by the following:

‘The rate of the countervailing duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be
3,8 %.’

Article 2(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 929/1999 is

3.
replaced by the following:

‘The rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net
free-at-Community frontier price, before duty, shall be
EUR 0,32 per kilogram net product weight. However, if
the free-at-Community-frontier price, including the coun-
tervailing and anti-dumping duties, is less than the relevant
minimum price set out in paragraph 3, the anti-dumping
duty to be collected shall be the difference between that
minimum price and the free-at-Community-frontier price,
including the countervailing duty.’

Article 6

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 23 August 1999.

For the Commission

Karel VAN MIERT

Member of the Commission

L 223/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

List of companies subject to provisional anti-dumping and countervailing duties by Regulation (EC) No 929/1999

ANNEX I

UT No

Company

14

28

99

Arne Mathisen A/S

Brødrene Eilertsen A/S

Myre Sjømat AS

TARIC
additional
code

8112

8126

8203

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/11

Companies upon which provisional duties are imposed by Article 2 of the present Regulation

ANNEX II

UT No

Company

75

Janas AS

116

187

Norfra Eksport AS

Vie de France Norway AS

TARIC
additional
code

8177

8229

8321

L 223/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

ANNEX III

ANNEX TO DECISION 97/634/EC

List of the 112 companies from which undertakings are accepted, as updated on 25 August 1999

UT No

Company name

TARIC
additional code

3

7

8

11

13

15

16

17

20

21

22

23

24

26

27

31

32

33

35

36

39

41

42

43

44

46

47

48

50

51

52

53

Agnefest Seafood

Aqua Export A/S

Aqua Partner A/S

Arctic Group International

Artic Superior A/S

A/S Aalesundfisk

A/S Austevoll Fiskeindustri

A/S Keco

A/S Refsnes Fiskeindustri

A/S West Fish Ltd

Astor A/S

Atlantic King Stranda A/S

Atlantic Seafood A/S

Borkowski & Rosnes A/S

Brødrene Aasjord A/S

Christiansen Partner A/S

Clipper Seafood A/S

Coast Seafood A/S

Dafjord Laks A/S

Delfa Norge A/S

Domstein Salmon A/S

Ecco Fisk & Delikatesse

Edvard Johnsen A/S

Eurolaks AS

Euronor AS

Fiskeforsyningen AS

Fjord Aqua Group AS

Fjord Trading Ltd AS

Fossen AS

Fresh Atlantic AS

Fresh Marine Company AS

Fryseriet AS

8325

8100

8101

8109

8111

8113

8114

8115

8118

8119

8120

8121

8122

8124

8125

8129

8130

8131

8133

8134

8136

8138

8139

8140

8141

8143

8144

8145

8147

8148

8149

8150

24. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 223/13

UT No

Company name

TARIC
additional code

58

60

61

62

66

67

72

76

77

79

80

82

83

85

87

92

93

96

98

100

101

104

105

107

108

111

112

113

114

115

119

120

121

122

123

124

126

Grieg Seafood AS

Haafa fisk AS

Hallvard Lerøy AS

Atlantis Filetfabrikk AS

Hydro Seafood Norway AS

Hydrotech-gruppen AS

Inter Sea AS

Joh. H. Pettersen AS

Johan J. Helland AS

Karsten J. Ellingsen AS

Kr Kleiven & Co. AS

Labeyrie Norge AS

Lafjord Group AS

Leica Fiskeprodukter

Lofoten Seafood Export AS

Marine Seafood AS

Marstein Seafood AS

Memo Food AS

Midsundfisk AS

Naco Trading AS

Namdal Salmon AS

Nergård AS

Nils Williksen AS

Nisja Trading AS

Nor-Food AS

Nordic Group ASA

Nordreisa Laks AS

Norexport AS

Norfi Produkter AS

Norfood Group AS

Norsk Akvakultur AS

Norsk Sjømat AS

Northern Seafood AS

Nortrade AS

Norway Royal Salmon Sales AS

Norway Royal Salmon AS

Norway Seafoods AS

8300

8302

8303

8304

8159

8428

8174

8178

8179

8181

8182

8184

8185

8187

8188

8196

8197

8200

8202

8206

8207

8210

8211

8213

8214

8217

8218

8223

8227

8228

8232

8233

8307

8308

8309

8312

8314

L 223/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24. 8. 1999

UT No

Company name

TARIC
additional code

128

130

134

137

140

141

142

144

145

146

147

148

151

153

154

155

156

157

158

160

161

162

164

165

167

168

172

174

175

176

178

180

182

183

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

Norwell AS

Nova Sea AS

Ok-Fish Kvalheim AS

Pan Fish Sales AS

Polar Seafood Norway AS

Prilam Norvège AS

Pundslett Fisk

Rolf Olsen Seafood AS

Ryfisk AS

Rørvik Fisk- og fiskematforretning AS

Saga Lax Norge AS

Prima Nor AS

Sangoltgruppa AS

Scanfood AS

Sea Eagle Group AS

Sea Star International AS

Sea-Bell AS

Seaco AS

Seacom AS

Seafood Farmers of Norway Ltd AS

Seanor AS

Sekkingstad AS

Sirena Norway AS

Kinn Salmon AS

Fjord Seafood Leines AS

SMP Marine Produkter AS

Stjernelaks AS

Stolt Sea Farm AS

Storm Company AS

Superior AS

Terra Seafood AS

Timar Seafood AS

Torris Products Ltd AS

Troll Salmon AS

Vikenco AS

Wannebo International AS

West Fish Norwegian Salmon AS

Nor-Fa Food AS

Westmarine AS

F. Uhrenholt Seafood Norway AS

Mesan Seafood AS

Polaris Seafood AS

Scanfish AS

8316

8235

8239

8242

8247

8248

8251

8254

8256

8257

8258

8259

8262

8264

8265

8266

8267

8268

8269

8271

8272

8273

8275

8276

8278

8279

8283

8285

8286

8287

8289

8294

8298

8317

8322

8323

8324

8102

8625

A033

A034

A035

A036