Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 of 8 March 2004 imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands
Date: 2004-03-08
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Faroes, Norway, customs duties, import, originating product, sea fish

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/23

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 437/2004

of 8 March 2004

imposing definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on
imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

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)
(the
basic Regulation), in particular Article 9 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commission
after consulting the Advisory Committee,

(5)

(6)

Whereas:

The oral and written comments submitted by the inter-
ested parties were considered and, where appropriate,
the definitive findings have been changed accordingly.

The Commission continued to seek and verify all infor-
mation it deemed necessary for the definitive findings. In
addition to the verification visits undertaken at
the
companies mentioned in recital 6 of the provisional
Regulation, it should be noted that after the imposition
of provisional measures, on-spot verification visits were
carried out at the premises of the following companies
and Associations:

— Federation of European Aquaculture

Producers

(FEAP), Boncelles, Belgium,

A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES

— Syndicat national des industries du saumon et de la

truite fumés, Paris, France,

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

The Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003 (2)
(the provisional Regulation) imposed a provisional anti-
dumping duty on imports of large rainbow trout falling
within CN codes 0302 11 20, 0303 21 20, 0304 10 15
and 0304 20 15, originating in Norway and the Faeroe
Islands.

is recalled that

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

B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE

Following the imposition of provisional duties on
imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway
and the Faeroe Islands, some interested parties submitted
comments in writing. The parties who so requested were
also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.

the essential

facts and
All parties were informed of
considerations on the basis of which it was intended to
recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping
duties and the definitive collection of amounts secured
by way of provisional duties. They were also granted a
period within which they could make representations
subsequent to this disclosure.

(1) OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation

(EC) No 1972/2002 (OJ L 305, 7.11.2002, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 232, 18.9.2003, p. 29. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 117/2004 (OJ L 17, 24.1.2004).

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

Gøta, Faeroe Islands,

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

Kollafjørður, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Bakkafrost, Glyvrar, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Faeroe Salmon, Klaksvik, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Faeroe Seafood, Torshavn, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Landshandilin, Torshavn, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Navir, Argir, Faeroe Islands,

— P/F Viking Seafood, Strendur, Faeroe Islands.

(7)

In this respect,

Some parties argued that the selected IP was not appro-
priate as the prices were extremely low during that
it
period and have since recovered.
should be recalled that, as per Article 6(1) of the basic
Regulation, for the purpose of a representative finding,
an investigation period shall be selected which,
in the
case of dumping shall, normally, cover a period of not
less than six months immediately prior to the initiation
of the proceeding. In other words, the IP is basically
determined by the date of initiation. However, it is also
recalled that in line with usual Community practice, the
IP concerning dumping had a duration of one year. This
period which is usually long enough to cover also

L 72/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

seasonal changes in demand and thus ensuring a repre-
sentative finding, in particular by excluding that short-
lived fluctuations on the Community market or on the
home markets of the exporting country carry a dispro-
portional overweight in the findings. Article 6(1) of the
basic Regulation also sets the rules under which circum-
stances occurring after the IP can be taken into account.
Accordingly, information relating to a period subsequent
to the investigation period shall, normally, not be taken
into account. In line with consistent Community prac-
tice, this has been interpreted as meaning that events
relating to a period subsequent to the IP can only be
taken into account if they are manifest, undisputed and
lasting. Nothing found in this investigation suggests that
the data relating to a period after the initiation are more
representative than those relating to the IP. Events
before the IP are in any event taken into account in the
analysis period. The argument was therefore rejected.

In addition,

deferred consumption. Moreover, the present investiga-
tion has established that fresh and frozen large rainbow
trout are interchangeable.
in the recent
investigation (1) concerning salmon where a similar argu-
ment was made,
it was determined that the product
concerned included whole fish, gutted fish and various
types of portion fillets, whether fresh, chilled or frozen
and that such presentations of salmon constituted a
single product which itself was deemed to be alike in all
respects to that produced by the Community producers
and sold in the Community market, and thus this case
does not support the submission made. Finally, argu-
ments concerning practice in the USA were not consid-
ered relevant in the context of this investigation, since
the product scope of the anti-dumping investigations
carried out by the USA authorities was different. On the
basis of the above, the request that frozen whole fish
and fillets should be excluded from the proceeding could
not be accepted.

C. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(10)

(8)

(9)

further

claimed that

The Norwegian exporting producers and the Norwegian
Ministry of Fisheries argued that fresh/chilled and frozen
trout should not be considered as like products because
they do not share the same physical characteristics since
frozen trout is a processed product using fresh as its raw
frozen trout
material. They
competes only to a limited degree with fresh trout and is
to a large extent intended for different markets than the
fresh products. It was also noted that authorities in the
USA have consistently not included frozen products in
the context of antidumping proceedings concerning
salmon originating in Norway. Similarly, they submitted
that in the recent antidumping proceeding concerning
salmon originating in Norway, the Faeroes Islands and
Chile,
frozen
the Community Institutions found that
fillets from Chile competed with fresh salmon products
from the Community industry only to a limited degree.
On the basis of these arguments they requested that
frozen whole fish and fillets be excluded by the
proceeding.

it should be noted that

in assessing
In this respect
whether the product concerned should be deemed to be
alike to large rainbow trout produced in the Community,
it was initially considered whether the various types of
and presentations of large rainbow trout, i.e. fillets or
frozen, shared the same basic
whole fish,
physical,
In
this respect it was considered that, in contrast to proce-
dures such as smoking or marinating, the freezing of
large rainbow trout does not alter the basic characteris-
tics of the product, but solely allows its storage for a

technical and/or chemical characteristics.

fresh or

The same parties also argued, that live trout should not
be covered by the product concerned that producers of
live trout should not be considered for the definition of
the Community industry, and that producers of trout
should be distinguished from companies involved in the
slaughtering, packing, freezing and filleting of fish. In
this respect it should be noted that live trout is not
covered by the investigation and thus not accounted in
for the total production of the product concerned in the
Community. Furthermore, live trout is indeed neither the
product concerned nor are producers of
live trout
included in the definition of the Community industry.
in respect of the submission that the trout
However,
growers should be distinguished, it was established that
all the sampled cooperating producers included in the
definition of the Community industry grow the fish and
then slaughter it and pack it, or fillet it. In some cases
they further process it and/or freeze it. This distinction
between producing companies and processing compa-
nies does therefore not exist in the Community industry
and the argument was thus rejected.

(11)

It was further argued that part of the production of large
rainbow trout in the Community is destined for produ-
cing roe, and that fish grown to maturity to this end
constitutes a product of a much inferior quality and
therefore can not be considered as alike to the product
concerned. It was also submitted in this regard that the
basic
significantly
because of lower fat content and the colour of flesh of
it
the fish matured for producing roe. In this respect,
should be firstly noted that the alleged changes in fat
content and the colour of flesh are only significant when
the fish is fully matured, but not before. The fish is,

characteristics

physical

change

(1) OJ L 133, 29.5.2003, p. 1.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/25

slaughtered before the full maturity, and
however,
accordingly the quality of the fish is not affected to that
extent that it cannot be sold on the market for human
consumption. In this respect, it should be further noted
that fully matured trout also produces lower quality roe.
For that reason, there is no added value for growing
trout to full maturity, even for producing roe. Accord-
ingly, the fish grown to lesser than full maturity and
producing roe as a by-product can therefore be sold on
the market at prices equal or lower to non mature trout,
depending on its stage of maturity and on the market
conditions. Therefore, allowing fish mature does not
alter its basic physical characteristics unless full maturity
is reached. This latter event,
is however, not in the
interest of growers as explained above. As for the differ-
ences in quality these are duly taken into consideration
in determining the different types of fish subject to the
investigation and as such were accounted for in the
dumping calculations and in the injury assessment. The
argument was therefore rejected.

(12)

In the absence of any other information submitted by
interested parties, the conclusions drawn in recitals 9
and 10 of
the provisional Regulation are hereby
confirmed.

(15)

D. DUMPING

1. Claims made by parties in Norway and the

Faeroe Islands

(13) A number of parties in both Norway and the Faeroe
Islands argued that, since their production of
large
rainbow trout was geared mainly towards the supply of
the Japanese market, the dumping calculations did not
take sufficient account of alleged physical differences
between the quality types sold to that market and those
sold to the European and domestic market. They ques-
tioned the appropriateness of allocating costs of produc-
tion on the basis of turnover. Instead they claimed that
the Commission should have accepted the calculations
submitted in the questionnaires, whereby the cost of
production for non-superior quality grades was reduced
by the absolute difference in average sales prices,
expressed in NOK/kg, between superior and non-
superior quality grades.

(14)

The cost of production calculations submitted by the
companies in their questionnaire replies could not be
accepted since, as mentioned in recital 46 of the provi-
sional Regulation, the companies 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. In addition, the methodology proposed
by the companies had the effect of eliminating certain
costs rather than reallocating them over all units of

production and the sampled producers did not have an
established system to identify costs on the basis of differ-
ences between the various quality grades of the product
concerned and had never previously used the metho-
dology proposed. Moreover, although it is acknowledged
that the major part of both Norwegian and Faroese trout
exports is destined for the Japanese market, it cannot be
excluded that so-called Japan quality trout is sometimes
exported to other markets. If one accepts the argument
made by the parties that the primary production objec-
tive is to supply trout meeting Japanese standards, it is
only correct to apportion costs, such as extra pigmenta-
tion in the feed, across all fish produced. The allocation
of production costs on the basis of turnover, also fore-
seen in the absence of a more appropriate method by
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, is indeed the best
method to reflect differences in those cases where the
same costs are incurred for all products but the quality
finally obtained is different.

In addition, the sampled producers in the Faeroe Islands
argued that
they considered the methodology they
proposed of adjusting costs by the differences in resale
values between the different categories of trout was in
line with generally accepted accounting principles. As
already referred to in recital 56 of the provisional Regu-
lation, the methodology used by the sampled producers
does not allocate costs to the products on the basis of
how these costs are actually incurred, nor does it distri-
bute production costs to the products in a manner that
relative sales values. On the
properly reflects their
contrary,
failing to recognise all
production costs since it is based on simply reducing
costs for lower quality products by an amount equal to
the difference between their sales prices and those of
higher quality product. Therefore,
this methodology
cannot be considered to be in line with generally
accepted accounting principles.

it has the effect of

(16)

In conclusion, the use of turnover as the basis of produc-
tion cost allocation, in accordance with Article 2(5) of
the basic Regulation, means that any alleged physical
differences in the quality types of the product concerned
are appropriately reflected in the calculations since this
method, by its nature, allocates more production cost to
those fish having the greater sales value, such as superior
quality trout. The arguments in recitals 11 and 12 above
are therefore rejected and the approach set out in recital
46 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.

(17) A number of Norwegian parties argued that the cost of
acquisition calculations in respect of each producer,
which were based on sales destined for consumption on
the domestic market (recital 30 of the provisional Regu-
the total
lation), only represented a small part of

L 72/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

domestic sales and would therefore not be representa-
tive. In considering this claim, the methodology used to
determine the cost of acquisition, as set out in recitals
29 to 32 of the provisional Regulation was also re-exam-
ined. It was concluded that the exclusion of sales which
were not made in the ordinary course of trade and the
construction of the costs in the cases were sales by
product
types were not profitable could lead to the
inclusion in the cost of acquisition of elements not only
relating to costs, but also involving a notion of profit. It
was therefore established that the carrying out of an
ordinary course of trade exercise at the level of the
producers would not be fully appropriate. Accordingly,
it was decided to base the ‘cost of acquisition’ exclusively
on the costs incurred by the sampled producers, these
costs still being allocated to the products in the way
described in the last sentence of recital 46 of the provi-
in order
sional Regulation. Moreover,
to ensure a
maximum of representativity,
it was decided that the
costs of acquisition so calculated for each sampled
producer should be weighted by the quantities of all
sales made domestically by those producers to indepen-
dent domestic customers to give an overall cost of acqui-
sition for each product type sold by the sampled produ-
cers.

qualities. Although expressly requested during the verifi-
cation visits, these parties did not supply information
that would permit a more detailed calculation, nor other-
wise substantiate the above claim. The approach adopted
is considered the most reasonable since, by taking the
cost of acquisition for fresh gutted head-on superior
quality fish (the most commonly sold type) and adjusting
this by the percentage difference between the selling
prices for that product and for the fillets, quality differ-
ences involved are actually reflected in the calculation. It
should be noted that companies were requested in the
questionnaire to immediately contact
the officials in
charge, should they have any queries or request any clar-
ification on the main aspects of the questionnaire itself,
as for example the part concerning the product descrip-
tion, which they never did. At this stage of the investiga-
tion, the abovementioned remarks concerning the range
of qualities within the product codes used can no longer
be taken into consideration. The methodology set out in
the provisional Regulation is therefore
recital 33 of
confirmed.

(18)

It was also submitted that
the representativity of
domestic sales by Norwegian exporters should have been
assessed on the basis of the combined domestic sales of
the three exporters for each product type rather than for
each exporter separately (recital 34 of the provisional
Regulation). However, the approach adopted of assessing
the representativity of domestic sales for each exporter
separately, is consistent with the established practice of
considering the circumstances and determining the
results of each exporter forming part of a sample sepa-
rately before determining the overall
the
sample. This representativity test is in no way linked to
the question of whether individual duties or a single
country wide duty, as in this case,
is being applied.
Accordingly, the argument is rejected and the approach
set out in recitals 26 to 28 of the provisional Regulation
is confirmed.

result

for

(19) A number of Norwegian parties also argued, at a late
stage of the investigation, that the calculation of the cost
of acquisition for trout fillets is inaccurate as it is based
on the cost of acquisition for ‘superior’ quality fish, as
indicated in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation, and
as the codes used for fillets include a range of different
qualities. They maintained that ‘superior’ quality fish is
not used for fillets, which are generally made from
‘other’ quality fish, or sometimes ‘ordinary’ quality fish,
qualities as defined in recital 28 of the provisional Regu-
lation. Nevertheless, they considered that even basing the
calculation on ‘other’ quality fish would not be accurate
since this category itself covered a range of different

(20) A Norwegian party maintained that the profit margins
used in constructing the costs of acquisition and normal
values were unrealistically high (recitals 31 and 38 of
the provisional Regulation). In this context, it is to be
noted that in view of the revision of the methodology
used to establish the cost of acquisition, no profit
margin has now been used at the level of the sampled
producers. The profit margins used at the level of the
sampled exporters, in the limited number of cases where
values were constructed, were in the range 12 % —
21 % with the average being close to 15 %. These figures
came from the sampled companies' own verified data
relating to their profitable sales and therefore cannot be
considered to be excessive. The argument is therefore
rejected. One Norwegian party argued that only consid-
ering profitable sales in constructing the cost of acquisi-
tion and normal value in the cases indicated in recitals
31 and 36 of
the provisional Regulation would be
against WTO rules. This argument cannot be accepted.
Indeed, in view of the revision of the methodology used
to establish the cost of acquisition,
the question no
longer arises for the cost of acquisition. The approach
followed in testing the profitability of domestic sales of
exporters for the determination of normal value,
is
consistent with the provisions contained in Article 2(4)
of the basic Regulation, which are in conformity with
WTO rules. The claim is therefore rejected.

(21)

Parties in the Faeroe Islands claimed that, in the absence
of domestic sales, normal values should be determined
on the basis of information concerning export sales to
third countries, which was requested as part of the ques-
tionnaire for the investigation (recitals 50 and 51 of the
it should be
provisional Regulation).

In this respect

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/27

for certain information in an
noted that the request
investigation does not prejudge in any way the further
analysis or restrict the choice of methodologies to those
making use of that information only. The construction
of normal values on the basis of the cost of production
in the country of origin is the first alternative listed at
Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation for cases where there
are no domestic sales. The use of constructed normal
value, instead of exported prices to third countries, as
the basis for the determination of normal value is also
the consistent practice of the Community in the absence
of representative domestic sales. No arguments were
presented nor any reasons found as to why the use of
export prices to third countries would have been more
appropriate in this case than a constructed normal value.
The argument is therefore rejected and the approach set
out in recitals 50 and 51 of the provisional Regulation is
confirmed.

(22) A number of Norwegian parties identified certain sales
to wholesalers and distributors as having being incor-
rectly excluded from the domestic sales. The calculations
were amended in order to take account of these sales.

(23)

Four Norwegian companies argued that the codes used
in the investigation to identify the different types of the
product concerned were not sufficiently detailed for the
purpose.
It should be noted that the product coding
system is based on the widely accepted system of classifi-
cation used in the industry, the purpose of which is to
distinguish between the various qualities of product. It is
therefore considered an appropriate basis to ensure a
proper comparison between the normal value and
export price for the same quality and presentation of the
product concerned. The argument is therefore rejected
for the same reasons mentioned in recital 17.

(24) One Norwegian exporter claimed an adjustment

in
respect of certain domestic sales to retailers on the basis
that they were at a different level of trade than its sales
to the Community. This argument was accepted and the
normal value calculations were amended accordingly.

(25) A number of parties submitted comments regarding the
inclusion of certain items in the cost of production data
and the correct identification of domestic sales transac-
tions where those to traders were being excluded. For
those claims which were found to be justified the
dumping calculations were amended accordingly. A
clerical error found in the cost of acquisition calculation
for one Norwegian producer, which had led to an under-
statement of the cost of acquisition, was also corrected.

it was claimed that

the basic Regulation,

quence, Faroese exports to the EC will be de minimis in
the future. On this basis,
the
proceeding should be terminated in respect of the Faeroe
Islands. In this respect, it should be noted that, according
to Article 6(1) of
information
relating to a period subsequent to the IP shall, normally,
not be taken into account. Findings should therefore be
limited to the IP except in cases where the effects of new
circumstances can be proved to be manifest, undisputed,
lasting, not open to manipulation and do not stem from
deliberate action by interested parties. It was verified that
the claimed reduction in production and exports had
indeed taken place. However, even if
the claimed
decreases would bring Faroese exports to the EC below
the de-minimis level in the near future, there are insuffi-
cient elements to conclude that such a decrease would
be lasting. Moreover, even if a lasting decrease in
production and exports in general would actually take
place,
it would not be possible to conclude from this
fact that exports to the EC would also decrease in a
lasting way given that EC exports only amount
to
around 11 % of the production and that therefore any
slight change in the supply of, for example, the Japanese
market may result in significant increases of the exports
to the Community. This type of situations would only be
verifiable over a more extended period of time. The
claim is therefore rejected.

3. Dumping calculations

(27)

Some claims having been accepted, and the calculations
refined,
the amount of dumping finally determined,
expressed as a percentage of the CIF net at Community
frontier price, is as follows:

Norway, country wide margin

24, 8 %

Faeroe Islands:

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

54,5 %

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

30,0 %

Cooperating but non-sampled companies

42,6 %

All other companies

54,5 %

2. Post IP events in the Faeroe Islands

(26)

Some parties in the Faeroe Islands argued that the level
of production and exports from the Faeroe Islands had
significantly decreased since the IP and that, as a conse-

E. COMMUNITY INDUSTRY

(28)

The Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries argued that the
percentage of the Community industry's production in
relation to the total Community production is below
25 %, and therefore the proceeding should be terminated
due to the lack of support for the case. This submission
was based firstly, on the argument that the production
of the Community industry which should not include

L 72/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

(29)

(30)

that

the production of large rainbow trout used for captive
transfers as further explained in recital 41, and secondly
the argument
the total Community production
figures for 2001 and 2002 reported by the Federation of
European Aquaculture Producers (FEAP) are not reliable
as there is no common method for collecting the data
on production from the members of FEAP.

In respect of the first aspect, it should be noted that, irre-
spective of the question how the presence of a captive
market can be most appropriately taken into considera-
tion in the injury determination, the investigation has in
any event to cover the entire market for the reasons
further explained in recitals 41, 42 and 43, and thus
both the production used for sales on the free market
and that used for captive transfers. Standing should
therefore equally be determined for the entire market,
and the argument made in this respect was therefore
rejected.

are

year

reviewed

twice per

the previous

In respect of the second argument made,
it is correct
that at the provisional stage, the statistical information
made available by FEAP contained a number of uncon-
firmed figures, but these figures were not replied upon
exclusively. FEAP aggregates the production data which
is provided by its members, the national associations,
and/or national research institutions. These data are
reviewed and reported to FEAP in the framework of its
year. The production figures
meetings
concerning
and
approved. Following the General Assembly meeting of
FEAP on October 2003, and the subsequent on-spot
verification visit at the premises of FEAP, the production
figures were accordingly reviewed. FEAP remains the
sole source of information at Community level for total
Community production. As for the reliability of these
figures it should be noted that FEAP adjusts the produc-
tion figures when appropriate in order to reduce any
discrepancies in the methods used by its members or/
and national research institutions in order to publish an
aggregate data. On this basis, and in view of the figures
of
the Community industry production which were
revised as explained in recital 44, it was confirmed that
the Community industry does account for more than
25 % of Community production of
the product
concerned, and therefore the argument of the Norwegian
Ministry of Fisheries was rejected.

(31)

The Faeroes' exporting producers and the Faeroe Fish
Farming Association argued that the complainant must
be regarded as a regional industry because, almost all of
its production is sold on the Finnish market, and the
intra-Community trade with Finland is negligible, thus
meeting the criteria set out in Article 4(1)(b) of the basic
Regulation for establishing an isolated market. Whereas
the Finnish producers have indeed sold a major propor-
tion of their production of large rainbow trout on the

the
Finnish market during the investigation period,
market share of other Community producers in that
market represented more than 12 %. This percentage is
considered substantial, in particular in view of the fact
that the market for the product concerned is competi-
tive, transparent and sensitive to price variations. The
Finnish market cannot therefore be considered as an
isolated market. In addition, 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 criteria set out in Article
4(1)(b)(i) of the basic Regulation for a regional case are
therefore not met, and the argument was rejected.

F. INJURY

1. Apparent Community consumption

(32) Due to the revised figures of Community production as
described in recital 44, the figures in recitals 67, 74 and
84 of the provisional Regulation regarding the Com-
munity consumption and subsequently the market
shares of Community industry and of
imports from
Norway and the Faeroe Islands have been accordingly
reviewed for the purpose of the definitive determination
and presented below.

A ppar e nt consumpti on i n the Commu ni ty

1999

2000

2001

IP

Tonnes

43 831

49 970

54 250

55 565

Index 1999 = 100

100

114

124

127

(33) On the above basis, the apparent consumption of large
rainbow trout on the Community market shows a slight
increase in relation to the figures indicated in the provi-
sional Regulation.

(34) One party argued that CN codes used by Eurostat during
the IP covered also portion-sized trout not included in
the product scope of this proceeding and therefore the
figures used in calculating the
export and import
apparent Community consumption of
large rainbow
trout would be inaccurate.

(35)

(36)

The methodology used to calculate the consumption
takes indeed account of this element and makes the
necessary appropriate adjustments as described in detail
in recital 65 of the provisional Regulation.

In the absence of any other information submitted, and
account being taken of the revised figures of the Com-
munity consumption,
the methodology explained in
the provisional Regulation is hereby
recital 65 of
confirmed.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/29

2. Market share of the imports concerned

(37) Due to the revised figures of Community consumption as described above, the figures regarding
market share of the imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands have been reviewed for the
purpose of the definitive determination and are presented below:

Market share

1999

3,8 %

2000

3,5 %

2001

11,0 %

IP

16,7 %

(38)

The above shows the same sharp increase of the dumped imports from Norway and the Faeroe
Islands as concluded in recital 74 of the provisional Regulation. Indeed, their market share moved
up by approximately 13 % percentage points over the analysis period and absorbed the major part
of the increase in consumption that occurred in the Community market over the same period.

3. Effect of the dumped imports on prices in the Community market

(39)

Subsequent to the provisional measures, new calculations of the undercutting margins, due to some
transactions found to have been wrongly recorded and the corrections made to take account of the
free customs duty quota granted to the Faeroe Islands (recitals 92 and 93), showed that 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 percentage of the latter, as
follows: Norway on average by 7,3 % and the Faeroe Islands in the range between 21,8 % and
28,4 %.

(40)

The analysis of all the revised figures did not alter the methodology explained in recitals 76 and 77
of the provisional Regulation which is hereby confirmed.

4. Economic situation of the Community industry

(i) Preliminary remarks

(41)

(42)

It was found in the investigation that two of the sampled cooperating Community industry produ-
cers used the like product for further processing to other products, mainly smoked and ground
trout. Such internal captive transfers, i.e. those used by an integrated producer for further proces-
sing, transformation or assembly within an integrated process do not enter the open market and are
thus not in direct competition with imports of the product concerned. In order to take this situation
into account and to provide as complete a picture as possible of the situation of the Community
industry, data have been obtained and analysed for the entire activity, and it was subsequently deter-
mined whether the production was destined for captive use or for the free market.

For the following economic indicators the analysis focused on the situation prevailing on the free
market: sales volume, sales prices, profitability, return on investments and cash flow. Where possible
and justified, these findings were subsequently compared with the data for the captive market. Due
to the use of sampling, these indicators were examined on the basis of the data obtained for the
sampled companies. It should be noted that there were no indications of further processing by other
companies belonging to the Community industry but outside the sample.

(43) As regards other economic indicators, it was found on the basis of the investigation, that they could
reasonably be examined only by referring to the whole activity. Indeed, production (for both the
captive and the free market), capacity, capacity utilisation, market share, investments, employment,
productivity, wages, ability to raise capital depend upon the whole activity, whether the production
is captive or sold on the free market.

L 72/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

(ii) Production capacity, production, capacity utilisation

(44)

Following provisional measures, the factors listed in the table below have been reexamined. Certain
information regarding three cooperating Community producers could now be taken into account
with the consequence that the figures in recital 81 of the provisional Regulation were slightly under-
stated. These have been therefore adjusted for the purpose of the definitive determination and are
presented below.

P r odu c t i o n c a p a c i t y , p r od u c ti o n , c a p a c i t y u t i li s a ti on

Production capacity in tonnes of
Whole Fish Equivalent

15 645

15 630

15 665

15 684

1999

2000

2001

IP

Index 1999 = 100

100

100

100

100

Production in tonnes of Whole Fish
Equivalent

11 348

12 739

11 605

12 080

Index 1999 = 100

100

Production/Capacity utilisation rates

73 %

112

82 %

102

74 %

106

77 %

(45)

The analysis of all the revised figures did not alter the conclusions drawn in recital 81 of the provi-
sional Regulation which are hereby confirmed.

(iii) Stocks

(46)

It was found in the investigation that one of the non-sampled cooperating Community producers
had frozen a large part of its production in 2000 and 2001, which was subsequently sold in 2001
and during the IP. However, no other producers were found to freeze their production and there-
fore, the conclusions drawn in recital 82 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(iv) Market share of Community industry

(47)

Furthermore, due to the revised figures for Community consumption and Community industry
production, as explained in recital 32, the market share held by the Community industry during the
analysis period is presented below:

M a r ke t sh a r e of Co mmu ni t y i ndu st r y

Market share

1999

25,9 %

2000

25,5 %

2001

21,4 %

IP

21,7 %

(48)

The above shows that the market share held by the Community industry decreased by four percen-
tage points over the analysis period. Whilst the high increase of the Community consumption, i.e.
27 % over the analysis period, does not change the trend of the imports concerned showing a sharp
increase, it results in a much lower market share held by the Community industry, which lost more
than four percentage points over the same period. The conclusions drawn in recital 84 of the provi-
sional Regulation are therefore hereby confirmed. It should be however noted that the Community
industry's market share declined only in 2001 when the imports concerned increased sharply.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/31

(v) Employment, productivity, wages and ability to raise capital

(49)

For the same reasons as described in recital 44, the employment and productivity figures were
accordingly revised, as follows:

E mp loy me nt, p r odu ct i vi ty

Number of employees

Index 1999 = 100

1999

194

100

Productivity: production/employee

100

Source: Questionnaire replies of the Community industry.

2000

179

92

122

2001

182

94

109

IP

173

89

119

(50)

The analysis of all the revised figures did not alter the conclusions drawn in recital 86 of the provi-
sional Regulation which are hereby confirmed.

(51) With regard to the ability to raise capital, it is confirmed that the Community industry did not
encounter particular difficulties given its possibility to invest in new equipment, as explained in
recital 91 of the provisional Regulation. However, this ability should be seen in the light of the
Community industry's efforts to increase its productivity in order to cope with the increased compe-
tition due to low market prices.

(52)

In the absence of any other information regarding wages, the conclusions drawn in recital 87 of the
provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.

(vi) Sales

(53) With regard to sales volumes, it should be firstly recalled that, as explained in recitals 65, 66 and 82
of the provisional Regulation, the production figures were considered equal to the sales of the
product concerned on both the captive and the free market with the exception of one company's
sales as explained in recital 46. The sales of the like product on the free market made by the Com-
munity industry and the production volumes used by two sampled companies for further processing
the like product (captive use), are presented below:

Free market sales in tonnes WFE

10 274

1999

2000

8 114

2001

IP

10 727

11 326

Index 1999 = 100

Captive use in tonnes WFE

Index 1999 = 100

100

872

100

79

104

110

2 053

1 559

2 795

235

179

320

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

L 72/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

(54)

The above shows that whilst the sales on the free market increased by ten percentage points during
the analysis period, the captive use increased three fold. It should however, be noted that the high
increase in captive use is mainly due to the fact that one of the two integrated producers practically
started its operations of further processing only in 2000. In any case, this evolution indicates that
the Community industry was not able to benefit from the increase in consumption (+ 27 % over
the analysis period), but instead was forced to increase its use of the like product.

(vii) Profitability

(55)

In a review of the information submitted by the sampled cooperating Community producers, the
profitability of these companies for their net sales on the free market has been revised for the
purpose of the definitive determination and is presented below:

Profitability of the sales on the free
market

1999

8,6 %

2000

13,3 %

2001

10,4 %

IP

0,5 %

100

155

122

5

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

(56)

The above shows that while the profitability of the free market sales was relatively high in the
period 1999 to 2001, during the IP, it marked a significant deterioration to practically break even
point due the low prices prevailing on the market. As for the profitability including captive use, this
could not be determined since the captive transfers of the like product were internal transfers of the
integrated producers, for which no invoices were issued. However, there is no reason to believe that
the profitability of these captive transfers within the two companies concerned did not follow the
same trend as that of the sales on the free market.

(viii) Return on investment, cash flow

(57)

The reviewed sampled Community industry's return on investment during the analysis period is
presented below:

Return on investments

1999

43,7 %

2000

57,2 %

2001

58,3 %

IP

2,3 %

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

(58)

The above shows the same trend as provisionally established and therefore the conclusions drawn in
recital 92 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. As for the return on investment
concerning the captive transfers, for the same reasons as explained for the profitability, it could not
be assessed. Nevertheless, given that the captive transfers are made by the integrated producers
using the same production facilities and the same investments, it was considered that they follow
the same trend as the sales on the free market.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/33

(59)

The sampled Community industry producers, recorded a net cash inflow from operating activities
during the analysis period. However, this declined dramatically during the IP as shown below:

Cash flow in EUR '000 without
captive use

1999

1 522

2000

1 757

2001

1 713

IP

398

Index 1999 = 100

100

115

113

26

Cash flow expressed as percentage
of turnover

12 %

18 %

13 %

4 %

Source: Questionnaire replies of the sampled Community industry producers.

(ix) Comments received from interested parties

(60) One party argued that the Community industry did not suffer material injury during the IP since
performance indicators such as production, production capacity, productivity and the average wage
per employee increased over the same period. Moreover, the industry was profitable, made a return
on investment and had a positive cash flow. Regarding the production increase, it should be noted
that the production of large rainbow trout follows a biological cycle of 2,5-3 years before it is
harvested and sold on the market. A production increase during the IP is therefore due to a decision
of farmers on the quantity of small fish put in the water in 1999 and 2000 reflecting the market
conditions of these years which were not influenced by the dumped imports. With regard to the
productivity increase, this is mainly attributable to the investment in new equipment reflecting the
efforts of the Community industry to cope with low market prices and secondly to the decrease of
employment, this indeed reflecting the severe situation facing the industry. As for the profitability
and cash flow, both marked a sharp decline during the IP reflecting the low prices obtained on the
market and the difficult financial situation of the Community industry.

(61)

(62)

It was further argued that the Community industry's production did not manage to increase in order
to meet the increase in demand because of the licensing policies pursued within the Community. It
should be noted that the environmental licences affect the production capacity, which as described
in recital 81 of the provisional Regulation remained stable during the analysis period. However, as
the production capacity was not fully used, there was a free capacity which could have been used
for meeting the increase in demand. This argument was therefore rejected.

It was further argued that several Norwegian exporters also sell trout smaller than 1,2 kg, which
might obtain lower prices affecting thus the injury assessment analysis. In this respect, it should be
noted that the investigated sampled companies representing approximately 40 % of total Norwegian
exports during the IP were not found to have had any sales of that kind of trout. Therefore, it can
be assumed that the quantities concerned were, if any, negligible, and thus their impact on the
analysis equally negligible. The argument was therefore rejected.

(63)

In the absence of any other information submitted, and account being taken of all revised figures
regarding the economic indicators, the conclusions drawn in recitals 80 to 98 of the provisional
Regulation are hereby confirmed.

L 72/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

5. Conclusion on injury

(64)

Captive use was limited to two sampled Community producers and there were no indications of
further processing of the like product by other producers belonging to the Community industry.
Furthermore, given the profits attained by the Community industry between 1999 and 2001, it is
unlikely that the captive use could have a significant impact on the economic situation of the Com-
munity industry. Therefore, the conclusions drawn by the above analysis on the situation of the
Community industry are not considered to change due to the captive use.

(65) During the analysis period the volume of low-prices imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands
increased significantly. Their market share increased from 3,8 % to 16,7 %. It is noteworthy that the
increase of the imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands and the decline of the sales price were
particularly pronounced between 2001 and the IP. Import volumes during that period were multi-
plied by 4 to 6 and import prices decreased by 34 %, undercutting the Community industry's sales
prices (which were close to break-even point) in the range between 7,3 % and 28,4 % during the IP.
This should be further seen in conjunction with the evolution of profitability of the Community
industry which after a first decline in 2001 decreased sharply to a nil level during the IP.

(66)

Regarding the argument that some of the detailed injury indicators developed positively during the
analysis period and accordingly did not point towards injury, it should firstly be noted that, as per
Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, none of the economic factors or indices listed in this article
shall necessarily be decisive in the determination of material injury suffered by the Community
industry. More importantly, while some economic indicators pertaining to the situation of the Com-
munity industry, such as production, production capacity installed and capacity utilisation, produc-
tivity, and investments showed positive developments over the analysis period, these had not the
desired positive effect. Indeed, the Community industry suffered from eroding market shares in a
loss-making situation
growing market though demand and reduced prices resulting in a quasi
during the IP which in fact more than offset the aforementioned positive developments.

(67)

Taking into account all factors mentioned above, it is considered that the Community industry has
suffered material injury.

G. CAUSATION

(68)

It was argued that the price undercutting by Norwegian exports of large rainbow trout should not
be considered significant and injurious to the Community industry. In this respect, it should be
firstly noted that the undercutting found is significant taking into account the specific features of the
product concerned: large rainbow trout is a commodity and sensitive to price fluctuations. In addi-
tion, the Community industry is very fragmented, and thus can not impose its prices on the market.
These factors together explain the injurious impact that the level of price undercutting found had on
the Community industry.

(69)

It was further argued that the IP coincided with a temporary and cyclical mismatch of offer and
demand in the world market for trout. As investments decisions are made two to three years before
the product is brought to the market, the stability of prices will from time to time be disrupted.
Temporary shortages in the market will lead to increased prices, while the effect is the opposite if
demand does not keep pace with production.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/35

(70)

In this regard, it should indeed be noted that if the Community market had during the analysis
period an excess demand resulting in a shortage, this would normally push the prices to a higher
level, as consumers would bid up the price through that excess. However, instead a steep drop in
prices occurred in 2001 and during the IP, which in the absence of other likely explanations must
be attributed to the dumped imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands.

(71)

It was further argued that large rainbow trout is a commodity where the world prices are set in the
dominant market of Japan, and that the Community prices followed these prices which dropped
significantly during the same period. In this respect, it should be noted that on the basis of the infor-
mation submitted by the Norwegian Seafood Federation on the Japanese wholesale price quotations
for frozen Norwegian trout for the period 1997 up to 2003, the prices on the Japanese market
dropped continuously throughout the analysis period, account being taken of the fluctuations in
currency exchange rates. However, the argument that prices of large rainbow trout are set world-
wide by the Japanese market, was not confirmed by the findings of the investigation. Whereas it is
true that the prices in the Community also dropped sharply during the IP, as did prices on the Japa-
nese market, they were maintained at a reasonable level
in 1999 and even increased in 2000,
contrary to those in Japan. During the same period, the imports from Norway and the Faeroe
Islands followed the same trend as the Community prices, while in volume terms they were kept at
a low level. It is only in 2001, when the prices in the Japanese market attained a very low level, that
dumped imports into the Community from Norway and the Faeroe Islands increased dramatically,
namely to three times the volume of 2000. This increase is thus directly attributable to the selling
off on the Community market of a part of the production in excess due to the reduction of their
exports on the collapsed market in Japan. On the above basis, the argument was therefore rejected.

(72)

In the absence of any other new information submitted on the causation, the findings and the
conclusion reached, as set out in recitals 109 to 120 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby
confirmed.

H. COMMUNITY INTEREST

(73)

Subsequent to the imposition of provisional measures, some Associations of fish processing indus-
tries submitted comments opposing to the measures. A questionnaire was therefore addressed to
them, and they were invited to submit their responses, on the basis of which an assessment of the
alleged economic effects of the anti-dumping measures to these parties was made. One party replied
and submitted information regarding seven of its member companies. On the basis of this informa-
tion, which was consolidated for the seven companies, it was concluded that the economical impact
of the anti-dumping measures on the fish processing companies would be negligible. Their argument
was therefore rejected.

(74) One party argued that the product concerned from Norway is of better quality and that the imposi-
tion of definitive measures would reduce supply of quality trout from Norway. This would be to the
detriment of importers involved and also to consumers as prices will be likely increased due to
reduced supply from Norway. The effect of lower supply from Norway is allegedly likely to be espe-
cially strong in particular during summer and early autumn when the supply from the Finnish
industry is low. Furthermore, it was argued that the imposition of anti-dumping measures would
result in a lasting re-direction of Norwegian exporters' sales activities from the Community to other
markets, which in turn would be to the detriment of importers and consumers in the Community.

L 72/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

(75)

Regarding the quality differences, it should be noted that they were considered in the different types
of the product concerned and as such were examined in the dumping calculations and the injury
assessment. As regards the increased prices in the Community due to the lower supply from
Norway, it should be emphasised that the purpose of anti-dumping duties is to restore a ‘level
playing field’, rather than to prevent access to Community markets. As for the effect of the measures
on the Finnish market due to lower supply in particular during the summer, it should be noted that
the Finnish market is not regarded as a separate market in accordance with Article 4(1)(b) of the
basic Regulation. Therefore, the supply and demand conditions are determined at the level of the
whole Community market in which the Norwegian imports compete with the Community produ-
cers. Regarding the possibility of Norwegian exporting producers to export during the summer
when the supply in the Finnish market is low, this is a comparative advantage. Should this advan-
tage exist, it remains unaffected by the imposition of anti-dumping measures, and thus Norwegian
exporting producers will continue to benefit from it.

(76)

The same party argued that since the imposition of provisional measures, Norwegian exports of
large rainbow trout to the Community have decreased by over 60 per cent compared with the same
period in 2002. This decrease of supply appears set to increase in the future given the declining
level of production of large rainbow trout in Norway, and to be detrimental to importers, the
processing industry and consumers in the Community.

(77)

In this respect, it should be firstly noted that anti-dumping measures aim at restoring a level playing
field and not to prevent access into the Community market. In this connection, it is noteworthy that
the imports continued at a level comparable to that of 1999 and 2000, before the steep increase in
dumped imports in 2001. As for the decreasing level of production in Norway, no substantiated
evidence was submitted indicating that such a situation would continue in a lasting manner. Addi-
tionally, any such decrease might, in any event, not actually affect the exports to the Community
market if the supplying conditions in other export markets were even less favourable than those to
the Community at the time of the exports. On this basis, the argument was rejected.

(78)

Several associations of fish processing industries argued that not enough attention was paid to the
existence of different market segments (whole, fillet, roe and smoked) and different pricing on these
segments. Moreover, it was argued that large rainbow trout farmed in salty waters in Norway has a
specific positioning on the market and that restricting the access to this specific origin of the
product by imposing a heavy duty did not favour free competition.

(79)

(80)

Firstly, it should be noted that smoked trout and roe are not subject to this investigation. Regarding
the whole fish and fillets, they were considered as different types of the product concerned and as
such were examined in the dumping calculations and the injury assessment. Therefore, the different
pricing of different market segments has been indeed taken into account. Regarding the specific
origin of product, the investigation has established that the products exported from Norway and the
Faeroe Islands and the products sold by Community producers have been alike in all their essential
physical characteristics and uses.

Furthermore, it was argued that cheap large trout, mostly of Finnish production, has been sold
mainly for the consumer market as whole fish or fillets, while processors do not use much of it.
This argument was not substantiated. In contrast, on the basis of the information provided by the
Finnish cooperating companies, it was not only found that their production had been sold also to
processors, but a number of them further processed the product concerned themselves before they
sold it on the market. Moreover, the significant undercutting established for imports from Norway
and the Faeroe Islands rather indicates that cheap imports from Norway and the Faeroe Islands have
been attractive to processors due to their low price. The argument was therefore rejected.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/37

(81)

It was further argued that the Community market registered higher prices after the IP ending thus a
low price period for trout, and that it is highly probable that the prices will remain on a relatively
high level in the short/medium term. First it should be noted that, in line with a consistent Com-
munity practice, events relating to a period subsequent to the investigation period can only be taken
into account if they are manifest, undisputed and lasting. However, this price evolution was not
substantiated and no elements demonstrating the likeliness of its lasting nature were provided.
Although the prices after the IP were indeed found to have increased, this fact does not constitute
evidence in itself for the future prices, which are determined on the basis of the balance between
supply and demand. In this respect, it should be noted that, in contrast to a possible forecast of
supply, the demand is very difficult to anticipate as there are many interacting factors in the market
which may cause price fluctuations.
information was provided to
substantiate an estimate of these two factors. Therefore, the argument was rejected.

In any case, no relevant

(82)

It was further argued that the duty on imports will cause an increase of prices, the processors will
turn to other types of fish such as salmon and the Community farmers will face difficulties regarding
their trout sales. Therefore, it was claimed that the anti-dumping measures would not be in the
interest of the producers.

(83)

Regarding the increase of prices, the anti-dumping measures indeed aim at increasing the dumped
prices, removing thus the injurious impact suffered by the Community industry. It cannot be
excluded either that a substitution effect takes place, account being taken of the substitutability of
large rainbow trout with salmon and the price differential between them. In general, whereas a price
increase helps the Community industry recover profitability, other exporters not targeted by the
measures as well as the Community industry via a higher use of production capacity might increase
their supply, which in turn has to keep pace with demand and find a new balance at lower level of
prices. In this respect, it should be noted that a substitution with salmon has the same effect on
prices. In conclusion, whilst the anti-dumping duty aims at restoring a ‘level playing field’, the
prevailing market forces determine the prices.

(84) One party argued that the absence of a reaction from its side representing the interests of consumer
associations should not be interpreted as a lack of interest, and even more be used to conclude that
the impact on consumers of any anti-dumping measures will be limited. It requested therefore that
recital 117 of the provisional Regulation be accordingly amended. The Institutions have taken note
of this claim. However, in the absence of any substantiated information, this claim does not affect
the conclusions of the provisional Regulation concerning the Community interest.

(85)

The Finnish Food and Drink Industries' Federation submitted comments which nevertheless could
not be taken into account for the purpose of the definitive findings since it had failed to make itself
known as an interested party either within the time limits set out in the notice initiating this
proceeding, or within the time limit set out by Article 2 of the provisional Regulation. Furthermore,
the allegations made by this federation were expressly rejected by its members having cooperated in
the investigation.

(86)

In the absence of any other new information submitted on the Community interest, the findings and
the conclusion reached, as set out in recitals 109 to 120 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby
confirmed.

L 72/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

I. DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES

(87)

In view of the conclusions reached regarding dumping, injury, causation and Community interest, it
is considered that definitive anti-dumping measures should be imposed in order to prevent further
injury being caused to the Community industry by dumped imports from Norway and the Faeroe
Islands.

1. Injury elimination level

(88)

(89)

(90)

Based on the methodology explained in recitals 121 to 125 of the provisional Regulation, an injury
elimination level has been calculated for the purposes of establishing the level of measures to be
definitively imposed.

The Norwegian authorities argued that a normal profit margin considered of 12 % is too high. It
was further submitted that the analysis period was not representative of a normal competitive situa-
tion, as prices and profit margins, according to the industry, were particularly high during these
years compared with the average situation in the industry.

Firstly, it should be noted that this argument was not substantiated. Secondly, the sharp decline of
Norwegian trout prices in the Japanese market as explained in recital 71 might have had a signifi-
cant impact on the profits realised by the Norwegian industry during the analysis period. This price
fall did not however occur on the Community market before the surge of dumped imports, when a
normal competitive situation prevailed. Therefore, the argument that the analysis period was not
representative of a normal competitive situation was rejected.

(91) However, on the basis of the revised figures concerning the profitability of the Community industry
as explained in recital 55, a profit level of 10 % was considered as an appropriate level which the
Community industry could be expected to obtain in the absence of injurious dumping.

(92) One party argued that different quality grades of the like product in the Community had not been

appropriately considered resulting in a certain inconsistency with the target prices.

(93)

It was indeed found that some transactions have been wrongly recorded in terms of quality due to
the misinterpretation of some invoices. All the relevant transactions were therefore corrected and
new calculations for determining undercutting and injury margins were made. Furthermore, correc-
tions were made to take account of the free customs duty quota granted to the Faeroe Islands.

(94) On the basis of the above, the new injury elimination margins found are presented below:

Norway

Faeroe

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

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

Other cooperating

Injury elimination margins

19,9 %

43,8 %

54,4 %

49,3 %

(95)

In the absence of any further comments made, the methodology used for establishing the injury
elimination level as described in recitals 121 to 125 of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/39

2. Form and level of the duties

(96)

In the light of the foregoing and in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, definitive
anti-dumping measures should be imposed in respect of imports originating in Norway and the
Faeroe Islands. The measures should be imposed at the level of the injury margins or the dumping
margins found, whichever are the lower. There are no reasons why these measures should not, as
with provisional measures, take the form of an ad valorem duty.

(97)

Following the imposition of any definitive measures, the Commission will examine the market devel-
opments, and in particular the effect of enlargement of the Community market, and propose
changes to the application of measures, if warranted.

3. Collection of provisional duties

(98)

In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found and in the light of the injury caused to the
Community industry, it is considered necessary that the amounts secured by way of the provisional
anti-dumping duty, imposed by the provisional Regulation, should be definitively collected at the
rate of the duty definitively imposed. Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional
duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provisional duties should be definitively
collected.

(99) 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 the setting up of new production or sales entities)
should be addressed to the Commission (1) forthwith all relevant information,
in particular 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 Regu-
lation accordingly by updating the list of companies benefiting from individual duty rates.

4. Undertakings

(100) The Commission by Regulation No 117/2004 of 23 January 2004 amending the provisional Regu-
lation accepted the undertakings offered by two exporting producers in the Faeroe Islands. The
reasons for accepting these undertaking are set out in this Regulation. The Council recognises that
the undertakings eliminate the injurious effect of dumping. In addition, the companies will also
provide the Commission with regular and detailed information concerning their exports to the Com-
munity, meaning that the undertakings can be monitored effectively by the Commission. Under
these circumstances, it is considered that the risk of circumvention of the agreed undertakings is
limited.

(101)

It is pointed out that, in the event of suspected breach, breach or withdrawal of the undertaking an
anti-dumping duty may be imposed, pursuant to Article 8(9) and (10) of the basic Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.
A definitive 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 and gills on,
gutted, weighing more than 1,2 kg each or with heads off, gilled and gutted, weighing more than 1 kg
each) or in the form of
fillets (weighing over 0,4 kg each), currently classifiable within CN codes
0302 11 20, 0303 21 20, 0304 10 15 and 0304 20 15, originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands.

(1) European Commission — Directorate General for Trade — Directorate B — J-79 5/17 Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200 B

1049 Brussels.

L 72/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2004

The rate of the definitive antidumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Community-
2.
frontier price for products described in paragraph 1 produced by all companies in Norway shall be 19,9 %.
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Community-frontier
price for products described in paragraph 1 produced by the companies listed below in the Faeroe Islands
shall be as follows:

Producer

Definitive anti-dumping
duty
(%)

TARIC additional code

P/F PRG Export together with its related producer P/F Luna, FO-
510 Gøta

54,4 %

A474

P/F Vestsalmon together with its related producer P/F Vestlax, P.O.
Box 82, FO-410 Kollafjørður

30,0 %

A475

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

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

42,6 %

54,4 %

A476

A477

A478

A479

A480

A481

A482

A483

A999

3.

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

Article 2

Imports under one of the following TARIC additional codes which are produced and directly exported (i.e.
shipped and invoiced) by a company named below to a company in the Community acting as an importer
shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1 provided that they are imported in
conformity with Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003.

Manufacturer

TARIC additional code

Faeroe
Islands

Faeroe
Islands

P/F PRG Export together with its related producer P/F Luna,
FO-510 Gøta

P/F Vestsalmon together with its related producer P/F Vestlax,
P.O. Box 82, FO-410 Kollafjørður

A474

A475

11.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 72/41

Article 3

As regards imports of the product described in Article 1(1) originating in Norway and the Faeroe Islands,
the amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1628/
2003 shall be definitively collected in accordance with the rules set out below.

The amounts secured in excess of the definitive rates of anti-dumping duties shall be released. Where the
definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts secured at the level of the provi-
sionally duties shall be definitively collected.

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the Euro-
pean Union.

Article 4

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

Done at Brussels, 8 March 2004.

For the Council

The President

D. AHERN