Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003 of 17 September 2003 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands
Date: 2003-09-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Faroes, Norway, anti-dumping duty, freshwater fish, import, originating product

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/29

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1628/2003

of 17 September 2003

imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of large rainbow trout originating in
Norway and the Faeroe Islands

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1) of 22 December 1995 on protection against
dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community, as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1972/2002 (2), (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 7 thereof,

After consulting the Advisory Committee,

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

On 19 December 2002, the Commission announced by way of a notice published in the Official
Journal of the European Communities (3), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning
imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands.

The proceeding was initiated following a complaint lodged in November 2002 by the Finnish Fish
Farmers' Association and the Åland Islands Fish Farmers' Association (the complainant) on behalf of
producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 %, of the total Community
production of large rainbow trout. The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said
product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the
initiation of a proceeding.

The Commission officially advised producers/exporters and importers known to be concerned as
well as their associations, the authorities of Norway, the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands,
users and Community producers of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given
the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit
set in the notice of initiation.

A number of producers/exporters in Norway and the Faeroe Islands, as well as producers and impor-
ters in the Community made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the
above time limit and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were
granted the opportunity to be heard.

In view of the apparent large number of producers/exporters of the product concerned in Norway
and the Faeroe Islands and the large number of Community producers of the like product, sampling
was envisaged in the notice of initiation for the determination of dumping and injury. Sampling was
also envisaged in the notice of initiation in respect of importers of the product concerned into the
Community.

The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a preli-
minary determination of dumping, resultant injury and Community interest. Verification visits were
carried out at the following companies:

(a) Sampled Community producers

— Viviers de France, Castets, France,
— Napapiirin Kala Oy, Vanttauskoski, Finland,
— Savon Taimen Oy, Rautalampi, Finland,
— Flisö Fisk Ab, Mariehamn, Finland,
— Saaristomeren Kala Oy, Uusikaupunki, Finland,
— Linnatien Lohi Ky, Kuivaniemi, Finland,
— Kames Fish, Kilmelford, United Kingdom;

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1.
(3) OJ C 318, 19.12.2002, p. 2.

L 232/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(b) Sampled producers in Norway

— Firda Sjøfarmer AS, Byrknesøy,

— Hydroteck AS, Kristiansund,

— Sjøtroll Havbruk AS, Bekkjarvik;

(c) Sampled exporters in Norway

— Coast Seafood AS, Måløy,

— Hallvard Lerøy AS, Bergen,

— Sirena Norway AS,Florø;

(d) Sampled exporting producers in the Faeroe Islands

— P/F PRG Export and its related producer P/F Luna, Gøta,

— P/F Vestsalmon and its related producer P/F Vestlax, Kollafjørður;

(e) Related importers in the Community

— Vestlax Hirtshals AS, Hirtshals, Denmark;

(f) Unrelated importers in the Community

— Lohikunta, Turku, Finland,

— Kesko Food Ltd, Helsinki, Finland.

(7)

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2001 to 30 September
2002 (investigation period or IP). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury
covered the period from January 1999 to the end of the IP (analysis period).

(8)

(9)

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. General

Rainbow trout is a species of fish originally native to North America. It is not native to European
waters and does not naturally breed in Europe. Therefore, rainbow trout sold on the Community
market is generally of farmed origin. The farming of large rainbow trout in the Community, as well
level by means of licences, as is
as in Norway and the Faeroe Islands, is regulated at national
common for most aquacultural activities. The production cycle of farmed rainbow trout begins with
the adult fish spawning in fresh water. The young fish (or smolt) are then ongrown in fresh, brackish
or salt water principally in large cages or pens. In general, the production cycle lasts between two
and three years.

2. Product concerned

The product concerned is large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) whether fresh, chilled or frozen,
whether in the form of whole fish (with heads on and gills, gutted, weighing more than 1,2 kg or
with heads off, gilled and gutted, weighing more than 1 kg) or in the form of fillets (weighing over
0,4 kg) originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands and normally declared under CN codes
0302 11 20, 0303 21 20, 0304 10 15 and 0304 20 15 (the product concerned). Before 1 January
ex 0302 11 90,
2003,
ex 0303 21 90, ex 0304 10 11 and ex 0304 20 11. The CN classification corresponds to the
different presentations of the product (fresh or chilled whole fish, fresh or chilled fillets, frozen
whole fish and frozen fillets). All these presentations were found to be sufficiently similar for them
to constitute a single product for the purpose of the proceeding.

concerned was normally declared under CN codes

the product

3. Like product

(10)

The product concerned produced and exported to the Community from Norway and the Faeroe
Islands and that produced and sold on the Community market by Community producers are similar
in all their essential physical characteristics and in their uses. Moreover, no differences were found
between the product concerned as exported and large rainbow trout, which were produced and sold
on the exporters' domestic market. In this regard, it is to be noted that there is no domestic market
for the product concerned in the Faeroe Islands.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/31

(11)

It is therefore provisionally concluded that, in accordance with Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation
and for the purpose of this investigation, all types of large rainbow trout produced in the Faeroe
Islands, those produced and sold in Norway and those produced and sold by the Community
industry on the Community market are alike to those exported from Norway and the Faeroe Islands
to the Community.

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

C. SAMPLING FOR THE DETERMINATION OF DUMPING

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling would be necessary and, if so, to
select a sample, pursuant to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, producers/exporters were requested,
in accordance with Article 17(2), to make themselves known within three weeks of the initiation of
the proceeding and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise
activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the names and activities of all
their related companies involved in the production and/or selling of large rainbow trout. The
Commission also contacted known associations of producers/exporters, the authorities of Norway
and the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands. These parties raised no objections to the use of
sampling.

Norway

141 companies came forward and provided the requested information within the time limit set for
this purpose. They represented practically all Norwegian exports of the product concerned to the
Community in the IP.

It was apparent from the companies' replies to the sampling exercise that, in general, a clear distinc-
tion in functions exists between farmers (producers) who produce large rainbow trout and traders
(exporters) who sell it domestically and for export. In most instances, producers sell the majority of
their production to Norwegian exporters and are generally unaware of the final destination of the
product and of its final price. At the same time, it is recognised that Norwegian exporters are in
most cases traders. They do not necessarily cover the whole domestic market as producers may
make some direct sales to customers on the domestic market. Exporters generally act independently
of the producers in that the prices at which they sell the product concerned do not systematically
bear a direct relationship to the costs incurred by the producers in the farming of large rainbow
trout.

For this reason, a representative sample of exporters was selected in order to be in a position to
identify the goods exported to the Community and the prices at which they were exported. Also, in
order to have a complete overview of the Norwegian domestic market and to be able to verify that
the prices in such a domestic market were actually made in the ordinary course of trade, it was
considered necessary to also select a sample of producers so that their costs of production and sales
on the domestic market could also be taken into account.

The selection of samples was made in consultation with, and with the consent of the Norwegian
Seafood Federation and the Norwegian Seafood Association. The samples of producers and exporters
were established primarily based on the significance of production and export volumes respectively.

The samples that were established comprised six companies: three producers and three exporters.
On the basis of their replies to the sampling return, these companies represented approximately
35 % of Norwegian production of the product concerned and 40 % of Norwegian export sales to the
Community. Questionnaires were sent to all sampled companies.

The Norwegian Seafood Federation, the Norwegian Seafood Association as well as all cooperating
Norwegian companies, whether or not retained for the sample, were informed of the choice of the
samples and given the opportunity to make comments. These parties were also informed of the
possibility that a single country-wide dumping margin might be established. None of the parties
objected either to the choice of the samples or the possible determination of a country-wide margin.

L 232/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

The Faeroe Islands

(19)

(20)

(21)

24 individual companies (15 of which belonged to larger groups) came forward and provided the
requested information within the time limit set for this purpose. Only eight of the 24 companies
indicated exports of the product concerned to the Community during the IP. Together, these eight
companies accounted for all such exports.

The production and sales of the product concerned in the Faeroe Islands is carried out by vertically
integrated groups of companies that both produce and export the product concerned. Therefore,
only a sample of exporting producers was selected. In accordance with Article 17(1) of the basic
Regulation, the selection of the sample was based on the largest representative volume of exports,
which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.

Two exporting producers were chosen to constitute the sample in consultation with and with the
consent of the Faeroe Fish Farmers' Association. The two companies selected in the sample repre-
sented, according to the replies to the sampling exercise, approximately 45 % of Faeroese production
and a similar percentage of Faeroese exports to the Community of the product concerned. Question-
naires were sent for completion to both sampled companies.

(22) None of the remaining exporting producers requested an individual treatment in accordance with
Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation. The cooperating exporting producers, which were not finally
retained in the sample, were therefore informed that any anti-dumping duty on their exports would
be calculated in accordance with the provisions of Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation. These
companies were given an opportunity to make comments in relation to the samples. However, no
comments were received.

D. DUMPING

1. Norway

(a) General

(23)

The investigation confirmed the distinction in functions between producers and exporters referred
to in recital 14. In cases where production and export are distinct functions performed by different
companies, it is practically impossible to identify the producer of the exported goods in question,
and in any case, the producer of such exported goods cannot be deemed to be responsible for the
level of the export price eventually charged for their goods by the exporters. As a result of this situa-
tion, it was concluded that the establishment of individual dumping margins would be impracticable
and that a single country-wide dumping margin should be established for Norway.

(24) Accordingly, it was decided that a weighted average normal value and a weighted average export
price would be calculated for Norway as a whole. These would be based on the information
submitted by the sampled exporters and producers.

(b) Normal value

(25)

In considering normal value, it is noted that Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation provides for it to be
based on sales of the like product on the domestic market where they are representative and made
in the ordinary course of trade.

(i) Re pr e se ntati vi t y of sale s v olume

(26)

(27)

The Commission examined whether the domestic sales of each exporter had been made in represen-
tative quantities. In this respect, it is noted that any quantities sold to other exporters, the final desti-
nation of which could not be determined by the sampled exporter, were disregarded.

It was established that the overall domestic sales of each of the three sampled exporters were repre-
sentative in that their volume exceeded 5 % of their overall sales of the product concerned to the
Community.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/33

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

It was then examined whether the domestic sales of each sampled exporter were representative for
each product type i.e. whether the domestic sales of each product type exceeded 5 % of the sales
volume of the same product type to the Community. The elements taken into account in defining
the product types were the quality of the product concerned (superior, ordinary or other), its condi-
tioning (fresh/chilled or frozen) and its presentation (whole fish gutted head on, whole fish gutted
head off or in fillets). The investigation established that each of the sampled exporters had represen-
tative domestic sales for only certain product types. For these product types, it was then examined
for each exporter whether such domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade as
described below. For the remaining product types where domestic sales were not representative,
normal value had to be constructed.

(ii) O r di n a r y c ou r se of tr a de te st a nd c ost of a cq u i si ti on

In determining whether the domestic sales of the sampled exporters were made in the ordinary
course of trade, and for the reasons explained in recitals 14, 24 and 25, information gathered from
the sampled producers concerning their costs and selling prices was taken into account. Therefore,
for each product type sold by the exporters, a ‘cost of acquisition’ was established in the following
manner.

The sampled producers' profitable domestic sales to independent customers were used to calculate
the cost of acquisition for the sampled exporters for each product type. Sales by producers to custo-
mers known to them as traders were not taken into account in this calculation, as in the majority of
cases, the products were not destined for domestic consumption.

In cases where it was found that domestic sales to independent customers by product type were not
profitable, the Commission based the cost of acquisition on each sampled producer's cost of produc-
tion for each product type plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs
(SG & A) and profits. These amounts were determined, in accordance with Article 2(6) of the basic
Regulation, on the basis of the SG & A and profits of the profitable sales made by the producer
concerned since less than 80 % but more than 10 % of such sales were profitable.

(32)

The results of the above exercise were then weighted by the quantities sold domestically by the
producers to independent customers to give an overall cost of acquisition for each product type sold
by the sampled producers.

(33) At the same time, the investigation revealed that fillet product types exported to the Community by
the sampled exporters (and in most cases also sold by them on the domestic market) were not
produced by the sampled producers. Therefore, the Commission based the cost of acquisition for
these fillet product types on the weighted average cost of acquisition established for fresh, gutted
head on superior quality fish (the most sold type of product). This cost was then increased to reflect
the percentage difference between the exporters' domestic selling prices for the fillet product types
and for fresh, gutted head-on superior quality fish.

(34) On the basis of information concerning the cost of acquisition as calculated in recitals 30 to 33, the
proportion of domestic sales made in the ordinary course of trade was then determined for each
exporter overall and in respect of each product type where the sales were found to be representative.
For this purpose, the average selling price by product type was compared to its unit cost, which was
calculated by adding to the cost of acquisition for each product type, the SG & A costs of the
exporter in question incurred in all domestic sales of the product concerned.

(iii) Ca lcu la ti on of n or ma l v a lu e

(35)

In cases where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the unit
cost, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted
average price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost, normal value was based on the prices
of all domestic sales of that type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profit-
able or not.

L 232/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(36)

(37)

In cases where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less but at least
10 % of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was
below the unit cost, normal value was based on the weighted average of profitable domestic sales of
that type only.

For those product types where the volume of profitable sales represented less than 10 % of the total
sales volume of that type on the domestic market, it was considered that the product type concerned
was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value could not be based on
domestic prices. It is recalled that, as noted in recital 28, normal value was also constructed for
those product types not sold domestically in representative quantities.

(38) Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer could not be
used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied. In this regard, the
Commission used constructed normal value, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
Normal value was constructed by adding to the cost of acquisition a reasonable amount for SG & A
and for profits. The amounts for SG & A and profits were established in accordance with the first
sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.

(39)

The normal values, as established above, were then weighted on the basis of the quantities sold to
the Community, so as to arrive at an average normal value for Norway.

(c) Export price

(40)

In the majority of cases, export sales were made to independent customers in the Community. In
these cases, the export price was established, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation,
on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(41) One exporter made sales of the product concerned to a related company in the Community. In this
case, an export price was constructed, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on
the basis of the price charged by the related company to the first independent buyer, after deduction
of the appropriate amounts for all costs incurred between importation and resale including duties
and taxes and a reasonable profit.

(42)

The same exporter also made sales of the product concerned to a second related company in the
Community. However, the large rainbow trout thus exported was transformed by this related
company into products which no longer came within the definition of the product concerned, prior
to its sale to independent customers. These export sales were therefore not taken into account for
the purposes of determining the margin of dumping.

(43)

Finally, the export prices established, as indicated above, for each exporter in the sample, were
weighted on the basis of the quantities sold to their respective customers in the Community, so as
to arrive at an average export price for Norway.

(d) Comparison

(44)

(45)

The average normal value and average export price obtained as indicated above were compared on
an ex-works basis. For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the
export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price
comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

In this regard, it is to be noted that the sampled producers claimed a number of adjustments in
respect of physical differences between the various quality grades of
the product concerned
(superior, ordinary and other quality fish). The sampled producers firstly made a claim in respect of
certain costs relating to ‘Japan quality’ trout (a fish of superior quality with strict skin and flesh
colour requirements beyond those required for markets other than Japan) which they considered
were not relevant in the consideration of the production costs for the product concerned exported
to the Community. They secondly claimed a reduction in the production costs for non-superior
quality grades by the absolute difference in average sales prices, expressed in NOK/kg, between
superior and non-superior quality grades.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/35

(46)

These claims made by the sampled producers under Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation could
not be accepted. In respect of the claim for ‘Japan quality’ trout, it must be noted that the sampled
producers could not substantiate that all Japan quality trout were destined for the Japanese market
nor that the specific costs relating to such fish had not in fact been incurred by all fish during the
production cycle. As regards the second claim, it should be noted that it had the effect of eliminating
certain costs rather than reallocating them over all units of production. Moreover, the sampled
producers did not have an established system to identify costs on the basis of differences between
the various quality grades of the product concerned and had never utilised the methodology
proposed before. Therefore, for all the above reasons and in the absence of a more appropriate
method, it was decided in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, to
allocate costs on the basis of turnover.

(47)

In addition to the above, allowances for differences in discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, hand-
ling, loading and ancillary costs, credit and after-sales costs were granted in relation to the export
price, where applicable and supported by verified evidence. Similarly, in relation to the normal
value, allowances for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs and
credit costs were granted where applicable and where supported by verified evidence.

(e) Dumping margin

(48)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margin was estab-
lished on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average
export price.

(49)

This comparison showed the existence of dumping. The dumping margin provisionally established
for Norway as a whole, expressed as a percentage of the cif at Community frontier price is 26,3 %.

2. The Faeroe Islands

(a) Normal value

In view of the fact that there is no domestic market for the product concerned in the Faeroe Islands,
normal value was established, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation, on the basis
of the cost of production of the companies in the sample, plus a reasonable amount for SG & A and
for profits.

Since there is neither a domestic market for the product concerned nor for the same general cate-
gory of product in the Faeroe Islands, the amounts for SG & A and profits to be added to the cost of
production of the sampled exporting producers were established in accordance with Article 2(6)(c)
of the basic Regulation. These amounts were therefore based on the weighted average SG & A costs
and profits incurred in domestic sales by companies producing and selling the same general category
of products in a third country, i.e. Chile, in the recent past. This method was considered to be the
most reasonable in this situation as the production and sales structure for the aquaculture industry
in that country is similar to that in the Faeroe Islands (i.e. the production and sale of the same
general category of products in Chile and the Faeroe Islands is carried out by integrated companies.

(b) Export price

Both of the sampled exporting producers made export sales to unrelated customers in the Commu-
nity during the IP. In accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price for these
transactions was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

In addition, one of the sampled exporting producers also made sales in the IP to a related company
in the Community. However, the large rainbow trout thus exported was subsequently transformed
by the related company prior to sale to independent customers in the Community into products,
which no longer came within the definition of the product concerned. Consequently, these export
sales were not taken into account for the purposes of determining the margin of dumping.

(50)

(51)

(52)

(53)

L 232/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(c) Comparison

(54)

(55)

(56)

The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-works basis. For the
purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allow-
ance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accor-
dance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.

It is noted that the Faeroese sampled exporting producers also claimed adjustments to the cost of
production for physical differences between the various types of the product concerned (superior,
ordinary and other quality fish) based on the absolute differences in average sales prices observed in
their sales to the Community market during the IP.

For the reasons noted above in respect of the same claim made by the Norwegian sampled produ-
cers (see recital 45), this claim could not be accepted in the form in which it had been made. There-
fore, in the absence of a more appropriate method, it was decided, in accordance with the provisions
of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, to allocate costs on the basis of turnover.

(57)

In addition to the above, allowances for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance
costs, credit costs, discounts and rebates have been granted where applicable and justified.

(d) Dumping margins

(58)

In accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins were estab-
lished on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of
export prices. On the basis of this comparison, the dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of
the cif at Community frontier price are the following:

P/F PRG Export (for goods produced by P/F Luna)

P/F Vestsalmon (for goods produced by P/F Vestlax)

54,5 %

28,1 %

(59)

In accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic Regulation, where an examination has been limited by
the application of sampling pursuant to Article 17 of the same Regulation, any anti-dumping duty
applied to imports from exporters or producers which have made themselves known in accordance
with Article 17 but were not included in the examination shall not exceed the weighted average
dumping margin established for the parties in the sample. The dumping margin thus calculated for
these companies is 40,5 %. With regard to the residual dumping margin for any non-cooperating
exporting producers in the Faeroe Islands, it is noted that the level of cooperation from parties in
the Faeroe Islands was considered to be good. Therefore, it is provisionally concluded that the resi-
dual dumping margin for all other companies should be based on the highest dumping margin
found for the sampled cooperating exporting producers, i.e. 54,5 %.

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(a) Sampling

(60)

In view of the large number of producers of large rainbow trout in the Community, the application
of sampling was foreseen in the notice of initiation for the assessment of injury. The selection of the
sample of Community producers was based on the largest representative volume of production and
sales that could be reasonably investigated within the time available in accordance with Article 17
of the basic Regulation. All Community producers were therefore requested in the notice of initia-
tion to provide basic information on their production, sales volumes and prices and their precise
activities with regard to the production of the product concerned during the IP.

(61) On the basis of the information provided to the Commission, nine companies operating in four
Member States, were initially selected in the sample. Questionnaires were sent to all nine companies.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/37

(b) Sampled Community producers

(62) Out of the nine selected companies, two withdrew their cooperation and were therefore excluded
from the proceeding. Another expressly supported the proceeding and replied to the questionnaire,
without, however, being able to provide its sales to unrelated customers on a transaction-by-transac-
tion basis. This was because almost all of its sales were made to a related company, which went
bankrupt. All other selected companies provided full and complete questionnaire replies. On-the-
spot verification visits were carried out at the premises of the six sampled companies as well as one
related company, Napapiirin Kala Oy, all mentioned in recital 6(a). These companies accounted for
16 % of the total Community production of large rainbow trout during the IP.

(c) Definition of the Community industry

(63)

The complainant Community producers (both the sampled and non-sampled) together with the
Community producers supporting the complaint (both sampled and non-sampled), which responded
to the sampling exercise and were not subsequently excluded from the proceeding, account for more
than 25 % of Community production of the product concerned. They are therefore deemed to
constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.

(64) One interested party alleged that the complainants should be regarded as a regional industry and
should be considered as constituting the Community industry within the terms of Article 4(1)(b) of
the basic Regulation. This argument was provisionally rejected because the dumped imports from
Norway and the Faeroe Islands are not concentrated in the Finnish market and do not cause injury
solely to the producers of that country. The conditions of Article 4(1)(b) are therefore not met.

F. INJURY

(a) Apparent Community consumption

(65) Apparent consumption of farmed large rainbow trout in the Community was established on the
basis of the production figures for the cooperating producers and the production of the other
Community producers, and by adding imports and deducting exports, using data derived from Euro-
stat. As the Eurostat figures report net weights for four different CN codes, i.e. fresh, or chilled fish
gutted head-on or head-off, fresh, or chilled fillets and frozen gutted fish or fillets, certain adjust-
ments were made to convert net weights to round weights or ‘whole fish equivalents’, as the industry
in general performs comparisons on this basis. Therefore, the import figures for ‘fresh, chilled and
frozen trout excluding fillets’ and for ‘fresh, chilled and frozen trout fillets’ were divided respectively
by the conversion factors of 0,83 and 0,52. It should be noted that the CN codes concerned might
also cover other types of fish not included in the scope of this proceeding, such as portion-sized
trout. However, given the origins reported, such quantities can be considered negligible. With regard
to exports, the same methodology was used in order to convert net weights to whole fish equiva-
lents. However, in this case as many Community exporting producers produce significant quantities
of portion-sized rainbow trout, the export figures were adjusted on the basis of the ratio of produc-
tion of large rainbow trout in each Member State over the total production of rainbow trout of that
Member State, using the information of
the Federation of European Aquaculture Producers
contained in the complaint.

(66)

It should be noted that the Community consumption also includes the large rainbow trout that is
subsequently transformed via further processing.

(67) On the above basis, the apparent consumption of large rainbow trout on the Community market
increased, between 1999 and the IP, by 18 %, from 44 000 tonnes to around 52 000 tonnes.

L 232/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

Apparent consumption in the Community

1999

2000

2001

IP

Tonnes

43 831

49 970

50 485

51 893

Index 1999 = 100

100

114

115

118

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry, complaint, Eurostat.

(b) Cumulative assessment of the effects of the imports concerned

(68)

(69)

The Commission examined whether imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the
Faeroe Islands should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regula-
tion.

In that regard, the dumping margins established in relation to the imports from Norway and the
Faeroe Islands were found to be 26,3 and 54,5 % respectively, i.e. not below the de minimis level of
2 % set forth in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. The volume of imports from Norway and the
Faeroe Islands was not negligible.

(70) As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that the product concerned
imported from Norway and the Faeroe Islands were alike in all their essential physical characteristics.
Furthermore, on that basis, large rainbow trout imported from Norway and the Faeroe Islands was
interchangeable and was marketed in the Community during the analysis period through compar-
able sales channels and under similar commercial conditions. Moreover,
it is recalled that the
imported product was found to be alike to large rainbow trout produced in the Community and as
such competes under the same conditions of competition.

(71)

It was argued that imports originating in the Faeroe Islands should not be cumulated with imports
from Norway for the investigation as their volumes were de minimis for the years 1999 to 2001 and
were only above de minimis during the IP. It was further argued that imports from the Faeroe Islands
will decrease after the IP for two reasons. Firstly, it was alleged that the prevailing favourable selling
conditions in Japan in the period 1999 to 2001, which encouraged the Faeroese farmers to start
farming large rainbow trout, no longer exist. Secondly, it was alleged that Faeroese farmers have
taken up the production of salmon again, and that this will result in a reduction of the production
of large rainbow trout and subsequently of their market share in the Community. As far as the first
argument is concerned, the question whether or not import volumes are negligible is defined on the
basis of the imports which took place during the IP and these were found to represent 2 % of the
Community market. As far as the second argument is concerned, it should be noted that, in accor-
dance with Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, information relating to a period subsequent to the
IP shall, normally, not be taken into account. Moreover, the arguments in question were based on
mere assumptions and were not supported by facts. It was therefore considered that they were not
manifest, undisputed and lasting, and were provisionally rejected.

(72)

In the light of the above, the Commission services provisionally considered that all the criteria set
out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from Norway and the Faeroe
Islands should therefore be examined cumulatively.

(c) Volume of the imports concerned and market share

(73)

The volume of imports of the product concerned originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands
derived from Eurostat using the methodology as described in recital 65 increased from approxi-
mately 1 700 tonnes in 1999 to over 9 000 tonnes in the IP.

Volume of imports (tonnes)

1999

1 657

2000

1 766

2001

5 979

IP

9 264

Index 1999 = 100

100

107

361

559

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/39

(74) During the analysis period, the dumped imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands increased their
share of the Community market from 3,8 % in 1999 to 17,9 % in the IP. The sharp increase in
imports (14,1 percentage points) over the analysis period has absorbed the major part of the
increase in consumption that occurred in the Community market over the same period.

Market share

1999

3,8 %

2000

3,5 %

2001

IP

11,8 %

17,9 %

(d) Effect of the dumped imports on prices in the Community market

(i) Imp o r t p r i c e s

(75)

Price information for the imports concerned was derived from Eurostat data based on the import
volumes established using the methodology described in recital 65. This information showed that
between 1999 and the IP, the average cif prices of imports originating in Norway and the Faeroe
Islands decreased by 27 %. The decrease is particularly steep after 2000, which coincides with the
dramatic upsurge of imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands.

Prices in EUR/kg of whole fish equivalent

1999

2,52

2000

3,06

2001

2,19

Index 1999 = 100

100

121

87

IP

1,84

73

Source: Eurostat.

(ii) Pr i ce u nde r c u tti ng a nd p r i c e de p r e ssi on

(76)

(77)

For the purpose of calculating the level of price undercutting in the IP, the prices of the product
concerned sold by the sampled Community industry producers were compared to the prices of
imports of the sampled exporting producers on the Community market during the IP on the basis
of weighted average prices per product type of large rainbow trout, net of all rebates and taxes to
unrelated customers.

The elements taken into account in defining the product types were the quality of the product
concerned (superior, ordinary or other), its conditioning (fresh/chilled or frozen) and its presentation
(whole fish gutted head on, whole fish gutted head off or in fillets). The prices of the sampled
Community industry producers were taken at an ex-works (post processing) level and at levels of
trade considered to be comparable to those of the imports concerned. The cif prices of the sampled
exporting producers were adjusted to include customs duties and in the case of one exporting
producer in the Faeroe Islands an adjustment was made in order to bring product types sold by this
exporter to a comparable level with those sold by the sampled Community producer.

(78)

This comparison showed that during the IP, the products concerned originating in Norway and the
Faeroe Islands were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry's
prices, when expressed as a percentage of the latter, as follows: Norway on average by 6,3 % and
Faeroe Islands in the range between 1 % and 21,4 %.

(79)

It should also be noted that the prices of the Community industry were depressed and that the
Community industry as a whole came close to being loss-making during the IP, whilst several
companies were actually loss-making.

L 232/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(e) Economic situation of the Community industry

(i) Pr e l i mi na r y r e ma r ks

(80)

Pursuant to Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined all relevant economic
factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry, in this regard it should
be noted that this industry has not been subject to dumping or subsidisation in the past. Due to the
use of sampling, the injury indicators have been established partially for the sampled companies and
partially for the Community industry as a whole. The sales prices, profitability, return on investment,
cash flow and wages have been established on the basis of information from the sampled compa-
nies. The other injury indicators: production capacity, production, market shares and employment,
have been established on a Community industry level.

(ii) Pr odu ct i on ca p a ci ty, p r odu ct i on, c a p a ci ty u ti li sa ti on

(81)

The Community industry's production capacity remained stable during the analysis period. This
stable picture is mainly explained by the fact that the production level depends on the environ-
mental licences which are issued in most Member States and are renewed every 5 to 10 years. Over
the same period, the Community industry increased its production by 8 % and its capacity utilisation
rate by five percentage points.

Production capacity in tonnes of whole fish
equivalent

15 065

15 050

15 085

15 104

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index 1999=100

100

100

100

100

Production in tonnes of whole fish equiva-
lent

10 854

12 153

11 154

11 671

Index 1999=100

100

Production/capacity utilisation rates

72 %

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

112

81 %

103

74 %

108

77 %

(iii) S toc ks

(82)

It is noted that farmed large rainbow trout is a perishable product, which unless frozen, has a shelf-
life of less than two weeks. As the sampled Community industry producers do not keep stocks of
fresh large rainbow trout after harvest and do not, to any significant degree, freeze their production,
stock levels are not considered to be a meaningful indicator of injury in this investigation.

(iv) M a r ke t sh a r e a nd g r ow t h

(83)

For the sake of a consistent and meaningful analysis, it was considered appropriate to assess the
market share of the Community industry on the basis of the production figures of large rainbow
trout during the analysis period, as was done for the Community consumption in recital 65, rather
than on the sales of the product concerned.

(84) On this basis the market share held by the Community industry decreased by two percentage points
over the analysis period. While Community consumption increased by 18 % over the same period,
the volume of the imports concerned increased almost sixfold. Thus, the Community industry lost
part of its market share, whereas the imports concerned managed to increase theirs. The Community
industry was therefore unable to take full advantage of the growth of the market between 1999 and
the IP.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/41

Market share

24,8 %

24,3 %

22,1 %

22,5 %

1999

2000

2001

IP

(85)

It should be recalled that the general market share held by all Community producers (both coop-
erating and non-cooperating) is much higher (34,5 % for the IP), as the above percentages refer only
to the market share held by the Community industry as defined in recital 63.

(v) E mp lo yme n t, p r odu c ti v i ty a nd w a g e s

(86)

The level of employment of the Community industry decreased over the analysis period by 11 %.
Over the same period, its productivity, measured as output per person employed per year, increased
by 21 %. This increase in output per person is mainly due to investment in new equipment. In addi-
tion, several companies have had to lay off people due to the severe situation facing the industry
without being able in the short term, due to the production cycle of the product, to decrease
production volumes.

Number of employees

1999

185

Index 1999 = 100

100

Productivity: production/employee

100

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

2000

170

92

122

2001

173

93

110

IP

16

89

121

(87)

The total wage bill of the sampled Community industry producers remained relatively stable during
the IP. Over the analysis period, the average wage per employee increased by 8 %. After remaining
stable in 2000, wages increased by 4 % in 2001 with a further increase of 4 % being recorded
during the IP.

Wages per employee in EUR

24 328

24 345

25 221

26 216

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index 1999 = 100

100

100

104

108

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

(vi) Sa le s p r i ce s

(88)

The sampled Community industry producers' average net sales price increased from a figure of
EUR 2,9 per kilogram in 1999 to reach a peak of EUR 3,1 in 2000. A significant fall in price was
then observed between 2000 and 2001. This fall continued in the IP, with average prices reaching
to their lowest level of EUR 2,5 per kilogram. The steep decrease in prices from 2000 onwards
coincided with the surge of dumped imports on the Community market from Norway and the
Faeroes Islands.

L 232/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

Sales prices to unrelated customers in the
EC in EUR/kg of whole fish equivalent

1999

2,86

2000

3,09

2001

2,75

IP

2,54

Index 1999 = 100

100

108

96

89

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

(vii) Pr ofi ta bi li ty

(89)

The sampled Community industry producers' return on net sales in the Community market, before
taxes, suffered a marked deterioration during the IP due to the low prices prevailing on the market.
During the same period, the Community industry improved its productivity and diversified its
production. These factors resulted in lower unit production costs as the Community industry was
able to spread its fixed costs over a greater volume of production. During the analysis period, the
profitability of the sampled Community industry producers' sales in the Community to unrelated
customers developed as follows:

Profitability

11,5 %

16,1 %

13,8 %

0,5 %

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index 1999 = 100

100

140

120

4

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

(90)

The sampled Community industry producers taken as a whole were profitable in the years 1999 to
2001 reaching levels which are considered necessary given the high risk nature of the industry.
in parallel to the sharp price decrease that occurred in the IP, profitability decreased
However,
dramatically and several of the sampled companies recorded losses during the IP. In addition, a
number of cooperating producers reconsidered their production plans for future years with the
result that fewer smolts were put to the water in 2002.

(viii) Inve stme nt s a nd r e tu r n on i nve stme n ts

(91)

(92)

The level of investments in the production of the product concerned made by the sampled Commu-
nity industry producers increased during the analysis period from approximately EUR 500 000 to
more than EUR 800 000. This investments increase focused mainly on the replacement of existing
assets and the acquisition of additional and/or new equipment with the aim of better handling
existing production and thereby improving productivity.

The sampled Community industry producers' return on investment, which expresses their pre-tax
result as a percentage of the average opening and closing net book value of assets employed in the
production of the product concerned, was positive during the period 1999 to 2001, reflecting their
profit-making situation. In the IP, as their level of profitability declined sharply to just merely break-
even point, their return on investment fell sharply to just 2 %. In general, the industry is not very
capital intensive and the level of investments accounts for a relatively small part of total production
costs.

Investments in EUR '000

1999

483

Index 1999 = 100

100

2000

714

148

Return on investments

59 %

69 %

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry.

2001

604

125

77 %

IP

832

172

2 %

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/43

(ix) Ca sh flow

(93)

The sampled Community industry producers recorded a net cash inflow from operating activities
during the analysis period. However, when expressed as a percentage of turnover, the net cash
inflow showed a marked decline in percentage terms, especially during the IP.

Cash flow in EUR '000

1999

1 919

Index 1999 = 100

100

Cash flow expressed as percentage of turn-
over

15 %

2000

2 034

106

20 %

2001

2 140

112

17 %

IP

398

21

4 %

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

(x) M a g ni tu de of du mp i ng ma r g i n

(94) As concerns the impact on the Community industry of the magnitude of the actual margin of
dumping, given the volume and the prices of the imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands, this
impact is substantial.

(f) Conclusion on injury

(95)

The examination of the abovementioned factors shows that between 1999 and the IP, the dumped
imports increased sharply in terms of volume and market share. In fact, their volume increased by
almost sixfold during the analysis period and they achieved a market share of approximately 18 %
in the IP. It is to be noted that in the IP, they accounted for approximately 85 % of total imports of
the product concerned into the Community. Moreover in the IP, the sales prices of the Community
industry were substantially undercut (up to a maximum of 21,4 %) by those of the imports
concerned.

(96) During this period certain injury indicators, such as production and capacity utilisation developed
positively (+ 8 % and + five percentage points respectively). However, in light of the increase in
Community consumption of 18 % during the same period, these indicators should have developed
in a more positive manner. The Community industry, faced by the increasing volume of dumped
imports at low prices, has had to reduce its number of employees. The increase in productivity per
employee during the period is partly a reflection of that reduction in employment.

(97)

(98)

(99)

The Community industry lost market share during the analysis period at a time when total Commu-
nity consumption grew from approximately 44 000 tonnes to nearly 52 000 tonnes. The Commu-
nity industry suffered a dramatic decline in profitability (- 11 percentage points), cash flow (- 11 %
of turnover) and return on investments (- 57 percentage points).

In the light of the foregoing it is provisionally concluded that the Community industry has suffered
material injury, characterised by severe price depression, declining profitability as well as declining
returns on investment, within the meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation.

(a) Introduction

G. CAUSATION

In order to reach its conclusions on the cause of the injury suffered by the Community industry and
in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined the
impact of all known factors and their consequences on the situation in that industry. Known factors
other than the dumped imports, which could at the same time have injured the Community
industry, were also examined to ensure that the possible injury caused by these other factors was
not attributed to the dumped imports.

L 232/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(b) Effects of the dumped imports

(100) Between 1999 and the IP, dumped imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands increased dramati-
cally in volume (over 550 %) and in market share (from 3,8 % in 1999 to 17,9 % in the IP). Their
price decreased substantially during the analysis period and undercut significantly the Community's
industry prices in the IP. In this regard, it should be noted that the large rainbow trout market is a
competitive and transparent market. Thus, price undercutting in a market with such characteristics
is a detrimental factor that diverts trade towards Norwegian and Faeroese dumped imports.

(101) The prices of the dumped imports were below those of the Community industry throughout the
analysis period. Moreover,
they exerted a pressure, which forced the Community industry to
decrease its own prices. In this regard, it should be noted that the Community industry is very frag-
mented, and thus cannot impose its prices on the market.

(102) The declining prices and loss in market share experienced by the Community industry coincided
with a number of other negative developments in its overall economic situation. The Community
industry went from recording levels of profitability considered appropriate for an industry of this
nature to a barely breakeven situation in the IP. It also recorded a sharp deterioration in its cash flow
and return on investment during the IP. These factors, coupled with the fact that the Community
industry was not able to take advantage of the growing Community market, due to the depressed
prices, had the effect that in spite of rationalisations and investments, it suffered material injury
during the period. The expansion of the dumped imports market share and the drop in the prices
coincided with the sharp change in the conditions for the Community industry.

(c) Effects of other factors

Pe r for man ce of ot h e r Communi ty pr odu c e r s

(103) As regards the production and sales volumes of the other Community producers, they have
decreased slightly in terms of volume (2 %) between 1999 and the IP and they have decreased
steeply in terms of market share (13,4 %). No indication was found that the prices of other Commu-
nity producers were lower than those of the cooperating Community industry. Therefore, it is provi-
sionally concluded that the products produced and sold by the other Community producers did not
contribute to the injury suffered by the Community industry.

Imp o r ts fr o m oth e r t h i r d co u ntr i e s

(104) According to information derived from Eurostat, the volume of imports originating in other third
countries (e.g. Turkey, Chile) increased by 22 % over the analysis period, i.e. in line with consump-
tion, to reach a level of approximately 1 700 tonnes (whole fish equivalent) in the IP. This corre-
sponds to a market share of 3,3 %. Over the same period, the prices of these imports decreased by
9 % (from 2,35 EUR/kg in 1999 to 2,15 EUR/kg in the IP). However, it is noted that the average
price of these imports was above that of the imports originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands
during the IP. It is therefore provisionally concluded that imports from third countries have not
materially contributed to the injury suffered by the Community industry.

(105) No other factors, which could at the same time have injured the Community industry, were raised

by interested parties or identified during the course of the investigation.

(d) Conclusion on causation

(106) The negative situation of the Community industry coincided with a sharp increase in imports from

Norway and the Faeroe Islands and a substantial price undercutting by these imports.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/45

(107) As to the imports from other third countries, in view of their market share during the IP which was
very low in relation to that of the imports concerned, and also in view of the average prices which
appeared to be higher than those of the imports concerned during the IP,
it is provisionally
concluded that the effect of these other factors was not such as to break the causal link between the
dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry.

(108)

It is therefore provisionally concluded that the dumped imports originating in Norway and the
Faeroe Islands have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article
3(6) of the basic Regulation.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(109)

In order to assess the Community interest, the Commission carried out an investigation into the
likely effects of the imposition/non-imposition of anti-dumping measures on the economic operators
concerned. In addition to the Community producers and importers, the Commission requested infor-
mation from all interested parties known to be concerned such as users and consumers associations.

(a) Interest of the Community industry

(110) The Community industry is mainly composed of small and medium-sized companies. The produc-
tion process depends greatly on the biological cycle of large rainbow trout and substantial econo-
mies of scale cannot be achieved as production levels are monitored by the authorities through
environmental licences. Even so, the Community industry still has the possibility to increase produc-
tion somewhat within the limitations of its existing licences, as its capacity utilisation rate is
currently around 77 %.

(111) The imposition of measures is expected to prevent a further distortion of the market and a deteriora-
tion of prices. This would enable the Community industry to recover lost market share, while still
selling at cost covering prices, which again will lead to lower unit costs due to higher productivity.
In conclusion, it is expected that mainly the decrease in unit costs (due to a higher capacity utilisa-
tion and subsequently the higher productivity) and to a lesser extent a slight price increase, will
allow the Community industry to improve its financial situation, without distorting the consumers
market.

(112) On the other hand, should anti-dumping measures not be imposed, it is likely that the negative
trend of the financial situation of the Community industry will continue. The Community industry
is particularly marked by a loss of revenue due to depressed prices, market share and insufficient
profitability. Indeed, in view of the decreasing revenue and the material injury suffered during the
IP, it is most likely that the financial situation of the Community industry will deteriorate further in
the absence of any measures. This would ultimately lead to cuts in production and more closures of
production sites, which would therefore threaten employment and investments in the Community.

(113) Accordingly,

it is provisionally concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would

allow the Community industry to recover from the injurious dumping.

(b) Interest of unrelated importers/traders in the Community

(114)

In view of the apparent large number of importers of the product concerned, and in order to enable
the Commission to decide whether sampling was necessary and, if so, to select a sample, importers
or representatives acting on their behalf were requested in the notice of initiation to make them-
selves known and to provide basic information concerning their sales volumes and prices for the
product concerned during the IP. As the number of companies providing this information was
limited, the Commission decided not to apply sampling and questionnaires were sent to all impor-
ters which made themselves known. Two companies replied to the questionnaire. Both companies
imported large rainbow trout from Norway.

L 232/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(115) Both claimed that the product concerned imported from Norway is of a better quality than that
produced in the Community. They argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would lead
to a reduction in the availability of good quality large rainbow trout from Norway, especially during
the summer and early autumn when Finnish producers, because of the production cycle for large
rainbow trout, are not able to fully supply the market. Regarding the first argument, it has been
established that both the product concerned and the product produced by the Community industry
producers are like products. The quality of the product is determined by its general appearance
including its flesh and skin colour. These factors were taken into account in the comparison of the
different product types imported and those types produced and sold by the Community industry. It
should also be noted that the majority of the sales of the Community industry were of superior
quality fish. As far as product availability is concerned, it is firstly noted that the Finnish market is
not considered to be a closed market and that there are supplies from Finnish producers on a year
round basis, even if
the imposition of anti-dumping
measures would not affect at all the alleged advantage of the Norwegian imports during the periods
of the year when the supply in the Community is apparently lacking. These imports will therefore
continue to satisfy the supply in the Community market. The arguments were therefore provision-
ally rejected.

there are seasonal variations. Secondly,

(116) Therefore, it can be provisionally concluded that the likely effects of the imposition of anti-dumping

measures on unrelated importers/traders would not be significant.

(c) Interest of users and consumers

(117) No user or consumer associations made themselves known within the time limit set in the notice of
initiation. The Commission services therefore also contacted the associations of users and consumers
known from the recent salmon investigations and invited them to submit information regarding the
ongoing proceeding. However, no replies were received either from individual users, their represen-
tative associations or from consumer associations. Given the non-cooperation of these parties, it can
be provisionally concluded that the imposition of any anti-dumping measure would not unduly
affect their situation.

(d) Competition and trade distorting effects

(118) With respect to the effects of possible measures on competition in the Community, it appears likely
that the exporting producers concerned will be able to continue to sell large rainbow trout, albeit at
non-injurious prices, as they have a strong market position. This taken with the large number of
producers in the Community and imports from other third countries will ensure that users and retai-
lers will continue to have a wide choice of different suppliers of the product concerned at reasonable
prices.

(119) Thus, there will be an important number of actors in the market, which will be able to satisfy the
demand. On the basis of the above, it is therefore provisionally concluded that competition will
most likely remain strong after the imposition of anti-dumping measures.

(e) Conclusion on Community interest

(120)

In the light of the above, it is provisionally concluded that no compelling reasons exist against
imposing measures in the present case and that the application of measures would be in the interest
of the Community.

I. PROVISIONAL ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

1. Injury elimination level

(121)

In view of the conclusions reached with regard to dumping,
injury, causation and Community
interest, provisional measures should be taken in order to prevent further injury to the Community
industry by the dumped imports.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/47

(122) The provisional measures should be imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injurious effect
caused to the Community industry by the dumped imports, without exceeding the dumping
amounts found. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the injur-
ious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Community industry to cover
its costs and obtain overall a profit before tax that could be reasonably achieved under normal
conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports.

(123)

It is considered that in the period 1999 to 2001 there was a normal competitive situation on the
Community market where the Community industry, in the absence of injurious dumping, made a
normal profit margin which, on average exceeded the level of 12 %. Moreover, a profit level of 12 %
is considered necessary in order to take into account the high-risk nature of this industry. Conse-
quently, on the basis of the information available, it was preliminarily found that a profit margin of
12 % of turnover could be regarded as an appropriate level which the Community industry could be
expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.

(124) The required price increase was then determined on the basis of a comparison, at the same level of
trade, of the weighted average import price, as established for the price undercutting calculations,
with the non-injurious price of products sold by the Community industry on the Community
market. The non-injurious price was obtained by adjusting the sales price of each sampled Commu-
nity industry producer to a break-even point and by adding the above mentioned profit margin.
Any difference resulting from this comparison was then expressed as a percentage of the total cif
import value.

(125) The injury elimination margins found were as follows:

Country

Company

Injury margin

Norway

Countrywide margin

Faeroe Islands

P/F PRG Export (for goods produced by
P/F Luna)

P/F Vestsalmon (for goods produced by
P/F Vestlax)

All other cooperating companies

21,4 %

49,1 %

16,8 %

33,4 %

With regard to the residual injury elimination margin for any non-cooperating exporting producers
in the Faeroe Islands, it is noted that the level of cooperation from parties in the Faeroe Islands was
considered to be good. Therefore, it is provisionally concluded that the residual injury elimination
margin for all other companies should be based on the highest injury elimination margin found for
the sampled cooperating exporting producers, i.e. 49,1 %.

2. Provisional measures

(126)

In the light of the foregoing, it is considered that, in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regu-
lation, provisional anti-dumping duties should be imposed in respect of imports of large rainbow
trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands at the level of the injury elimination margins
found as these were, in all cases, lower than the dumping margins found.

(127) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation in respect of compa-
nies located in the Faeroe Islands were established on the basis of the findings of the present investi-
gation. Therefore, they reflect the situation found during that investigation with respect to these
companies. These duty rates (as opposed to the countrywide duty applicable to ‘all other companies’)
are thus exclusively applicable to imports of products originating in the Faeroe Islands and produced
by the companies and thus by the specific legal entities mentioned. Imported products produced by
any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation with its name
and address, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, cannot benefit from these
rates and shall be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’.

L 232/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2003

(128) Any claim requesting the application of these individual company anti-dumping duty rates (e.g.
following a change in the name of the entity or following the setting-up of new production or sales
entities) should be addressed to the Commission forthwith with all relevant information, in parti-
cular any modification in the company's activities linked to production, domestic and export sales
associated with, for example, that name change or that change in the production and sales entities.
The Commission, if appropriate, will, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, amend the
Regulation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

J. FINAL PROVISION

(129)

In the interest of sound administration, a period should be fixed within which the interested parties
which made themselves known within the time limit specified in the notice of initiation may make
their views known in writing and request a hearing. Furthermore, it should be stated that the find-
ings concerning the imposition of duties made for the purposes of this Regulation are provisional
and may have to be reconsidered for the purposes of any definitive duty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

A provisional anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of large rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss) whether fresh, chilled or frozen, whether in the form of whole fish (with heads on and gills, gutted,
weighing more than 1,2 kg or with heads off, gilled and gutted, weighing more than 1 kg) or in the form
of fillets (weighing over 0,4 kg) originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands, currently classifiable within
CN codes 0302 11 20, 0303 21 20, 0304 10 15 and 0304 20 15.

The rate of the provisional anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price,
before duty, for products produced by all companies in Norway shall be 21,4 %. The rate of the provisional
anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for products
produced by the companies listed below in the Faeroe Islands shall be as follows:

Company

Provisional duty

TARIC additional code

P/F Luna, FO-510 Gøta

P/F Vestlax, PO Box 82, FO-410 Kollafjørður

P/F Alistødin Á Bakka, Bakkavegur FO-625 Glyvrar

P/F Atlantic Seafarm, FO-900 Vágur,

East Salmon, Box 177, FO-700 Klaksvík

Funningslaks PF, Miðrás 3, FO-100 Tórshavn

Gulin PF, Miðrás 3, FO-100 Tórshavn

P/F Hellisvað, FO-727 Árnafjørður

Kalbaks Laksaaling PF, Í Brekkum 1, FO-530 Fuglafjørður

Navir, P/F, Argjabodagøta 7, FO-160 Argir

All other companies

49,1 %

16,8 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

33,4 %

49,1 %

A474

A475

A476

A477

A478

A479

A480

A481

A482

A483

A999

Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.

The release for free circulation in the Community of the product referred to in paragraph 1 shall be subject
to the provision of a security equivalent to the amount of the provisional duty.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 232/49

Article 2

Without prejudice to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, interested parties may request disclosure of
the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which this Regulation was adopted, make their views
known in writing and apply to be heard orally by the Commission within 20 days of the date of entry into
force of this Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 21(4) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96, the parties concerned may comment on the appli-
cation of this Regulation within one month of its entry into force.

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

Article 1 of this Regulation shall apply for a period of six months.

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 17 September 2003.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission