Proposal for a Council Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway
Date: 2005-12-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fish, fish farming, import, originating product

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.12.2005 
COM(2005) 688 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway  

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1)  CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

110 

• 

Grounds for and objectives of the proposal 

This  proposal  concerns  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22 
December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of 
the European Community, as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 
of  8  March  2004  ("the  basic  Regulation")  in  the  proceeding  concerning  imports  of 
farmed salmon originating in Norway. 

120 

• 

General context 

This proposal is made in the context of the implementation of the basic Regulation and 
is the result of an investigation which was carried out in line with the substantive and 
procedural requirements laid out in the basic Regulation. 

139 

• 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

There are no existing provisions in the area of the proposal. 

141 

• 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

2)  CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

• 

Consultation of interested parties 

Interested  parties  concerned  by  the  proceeding  have  already  had  the  possibility  to 
defend their interests during the investigation, in line with the provisions of the basic 
Regulation. 

• 

Collection and use of expertise 

There was no need for external expertise. 

• 

Impact assessment 

219 

229 

230 

This proposal is the result of the implementation of the basic Regulation. 

The  basic  Regulation  does  not  foresee  a  general  impact  assessment  but  contains  an 
exhaustive list of conditions that have to be assessed. 

3)  LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

305 

• 

Summary of the proposed action 

Following  the  initiation  of  an  anti-dumping  investigation  on  23  October  2004,  the 
Commission imposed on 23 April 2005 provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
farmed salmon originating in Norway (“Regulation imposing a provisional duty”). The 
provisional  anti-dumping  duties  which  took  the  form  of  ad  valorem  duties  ranging 
between 6,8% and 24,5% of the value of the imported products applied as of 27 April 
2005. On 1 July 2005 the Commission changed the form of the measures to a minimum 
import  price  (“MIP”)  and  extended  the  duration  of  the  provisional  measures  for  a 
further three months by amending the Regulation imposing a provisional duty. 

After the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties the Commission continued its 
dumping, injury and Community interest analysis. The attached proposal for a Council 
Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty is based on the definitive findings 
on dumping, injury, causation and Community interest. 

It is proposed to impose definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of farmed salmon in 
the form of a MIP of €2.80 per kilo, whole fish equivalent. As imports from Norway 
made at prices at or above the MIP will remove the effects of the injurious dumping, it 
is  appropriate  that  the  MIP  should  apply  to  all  imports  from  Norway  except  for  one 
company, for which a de minimis dumping margin has been found.  

The ad valorem amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties on imports 
of farmed salmon originating in Norway shall be released, as the collection of the ad 
valorem  duties  would  be  disproportionate  to  the  removal  of  injurious  dumping  given 
that  during  the  period  of  the  existence  of  ad  valorem  duties,  market  prices  were 
significantly above the MIP and the MIP was introduced in view of unprecedented and 
unforeseeable  market  developments.  The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  the  provisional 
MIP in excess of the definitive MIP shall be released.  

In  order  to  further  minimise  the  risks  of  misdeclaration  of  the  custom  value  of  the 
goods,  it  is  considered  that  a  special  provision  is  needed  to  ensure  that  companies 
respect the MIP and are discouraged from trying to misdeclare the customs value of the 
goods. To ensure the effective respect of the MIP, the importers should be made aware 
that any misdeclaration of the customs value of the goods shall lead to the retrospective 
application  of  a  fixed  duty  for  the  relevant  transactions.  In  this  context,  reference  is 
also  made  to  the  Customs  Code,  inter  alia,  to  Article  78,  according  to  which  the 
customs  authorities  may  inspect  the  commercial  documents  and  data  relating  to  the 
import  or  export  operations  in  respect  of  the  goods  concerned  or  to  subsequent 
commercial operations involving those goods. Such inspections may be carried out at 
the premises of the declarant, of any other person directly or indirectly involved in the 
said operations in a business capacity or of any other person in possession of the said 
document  and  data  for  business  purposes.  Those  authorities  may  also  examine  the 
goods.  

The Commission undertakes to monitor the developments in the farmed salmon market 
in the Community. Where on the basis of this monitoring, there is prima facie evidence 
that  the  existing  measure  is  no  longer  necessary  or  sufficient  to  counteract  injurious 
dumping,  the  Commission  may  consider  to  initiate  a  review  on  the  basis  of  Article 
11(3) of the basic Regulation and to conduct the investigation expeditiously. 

It  is  therefore  proposed  that  the  Council  adopts  the  attached  proposal  in  view  of  its 
adoption and publication in the Official Journal no later than 21 January 2006. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
310 

• 

Legal basis 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  of  22  December  1995  on  protection  against 
dumped  imports  from  countries  not  members  of  the  European  Community,  as  last 
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 of 8 March 2004. 

329 

• 

Subsidiarity principle 

The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Community. The subsidiarity 
principle therefore does not apply. 

• 

Proportionality principle 

The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reason(s). 

The form of action is described in the above-mentioned basic Regulation and leaves no 
scope for national decision. 

Indication  of  how  financial  and  administrative  burden  falling  upon  the  Community, 
national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens is 
minimized and proportionate to the objective of the proposal is not applicable. 

• 

Choice of instruments 

Proposed instruments: Regulation. 

Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s). 

The above-mentioned basic Regulation does not foresee alternative options. 

331 

332 

341 

342 

4)  BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

409 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty 
imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway  

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 Community1 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’), and in particular Article 9 thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

Procedure 

1.1. 

Provisional measures  

(1) 

(2) 

Following  the  initiation2  of  an  anti-dumping  investigation  on  23  October  2004,  the 
Commission,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  628/20053,  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping 
duties  on  imports  of  farmed  salmon  originating  in  Norway  (‘Regulation  imposing  a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty’  or  ‘provisional  Regulation’).  The  provisional  anti-
dumping duties which took the form of ad valorem duties ranging between 6,8% and 
24,5% for the imported products applied as of 27 April 2005.  

On  1  July  2005,  by  Regulation  (EC)  1010/20054  (‘amending  Regulation’),  the 
Commission  changed  the  form  of  the  provisional  measures  by  replacing  the  ad 
valorem duties by a minimum import price (‘MIP’) of EURO 2,81 per kilogram whole 
fish  equivalent  (‘WFE’)  and  extended  the  duration  of  the  provisional  measures  for  a 
further  three  months,  by  amending  the  Regulation  imposing  a  provisional  anti-
dumping duty. 

1 

2 
3 
4 

OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p.12.) 
OJ C 261, 23.10.2004, p. 8. 
OJ L 104, 23.04.2005, p. 5. 
OJ L 170, 1.07.2005, p. 32. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Subsequent procedure 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

2. 

(8) 

Following  the  publication  of  the  Regulation  imposing  a  provisional  anti-dumping 
duty, parties received disclosure of facts and considerations on which the provisional 
Regulation  was  based.  Some  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  All  interested 
parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.  

Following the publication of the amending Regulation, all parties were informed of the 
essential  facts  and  considerations  on  which  the  amendment  of  the  provisional 
Regulation  was  based.  Some  parties  submitted  comments  in  writing.  All  interested 
parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.  

Similarly,  all  parties  were  informed  of  the  essential  facts  and  considerations  on  the 
basis of which it is intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping 
measures  and  the  modalities  on  the  collection  of  amounts  secured  by  way  of 
provisional  duties.  They  were  also  granted  a  period  within  which  to  make 
representations subsequent to this disclosure. 

The  oral  and  written  comments  submitted  by  the  interested  parties  were  considered 
and, where appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings. 

The  Commission  continued  to  seek  all  information  it  deemed  necessary  for  the 
purpose of its definitive findings. In addition to the verification visits undertaken at the 
premises  of  the  companies  mentioned  in  recital  (7)  of  the  Regulation  imposing  a 
provisional  anti-dumping  duty,  it  should  be  noted  that  after  the  imposition  of 
provisional measures, additional on-spot visits were carried out at the premises of the 
following Community users and Associations of Community users: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Norlax, Outrup, Denmark; 

SIF France, Boulogne sur Mer, France; 

Association of Danish Fish Processing Industries and Exporters, Copenhagen, 
Denmark; 

Bundesverband  der  Deutschen  Fischindustrie  und  des  Fischgroßhandels, 
Hamburg, Germany; 

Polish Association of Fish Processors, Koszalin, Poland; 

Syndicat Saumon et Truite fume, Paris, France. 

Product concerned and like product 

Since no comments were received regarding the product concerned and like product, 
the  contents  and  provisional  conclusions  of  recitals  (10)  to  (14)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
3. 

Dumping 

3.1. 

Sampling 

(9) 

As  outlined  in  recital  (18)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  provisionally  not 
possible  for  two  companies  to  be  given  an  individual  dumping  margin  at  that  time. 
However,  as  indicated,  the  Commission  continued  to  investigate  this  issue  at  the 
definitive  stage  of  the  proceeding.  The  two  companies  concerned  have  subsequently 
provided the necessary information to allow an individual definitive determination to 
be made for them. 

(10) 

In  the  absence  of  any  further  comments  on  sampling,  the  provisional  conclusions  as 
set  out  in  recitals  (16)  and  (17)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are  definitively 
confirmed. 

3.2. 

Normal value 

(11)  Following  disclosure  of  the  provisional  determinations,  no  comments  were  received 
concerning  the  methodology  used  to  determine  the  normal  value  for  Norwegian 
exporters.  Accordingly,  the  provisional  conclusions  in  this  respect,  as  set  out  in 
recitals (19) to (31) of the provisional Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

(12)  A  number  of  comments  were,  however,  made  in  respect  of  the  treatment  of  certain 
cost  items  when  constructing  normal  value  in  line  with  the  methodology  set  out  in 
recital (26) of the provisional Regulation. 

3.2.1.  General remarks 

(13)  Where  constructed  normal  value  was  used,  the  Commission  calculated  the  costs 
involved  in  producing  the  product  concerned  during  the  IP.  Where  costs  could  be 
attributed  directly,  the  actual  costs  were  taken  into  account.  Where  this  was  not 
possible,  costs  were  allocated  on  the  basis  of  the  historical  allocation  utilized  by  the 
company  concerned,  where  such  information  was  available  and  demonstrated  by  the 
company; or in the absence of such information, on the basis of turnover, in line with 
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation. 

(14)  Where  certain  cost  elements  could  not  be  directly  calculated  for  the  IP,  such  costs 

were assessed on the basis of the most recently available audited accounts.  

3.2.2.  Extraordinary expenses 

(15)  At  the  provisional  stage,  the  Commission  included  all  extraordinary  expenses 
applicable to the product concerned, which had been reported by companies during the 
IP.  These  extraordinary  expenses  relate  to  a  number  of  company-specific  costs,  but 
typically  include  write-downs  of  tangible  assets,  closure  of  farming  facilities, 
slaughtering  and  processing  plants,  and  severance  payments  to  employees.  Several 
companies  challenged  this  treatment  on  two  grounds.  Firstly,  it  was  claimed  that 
extraordinary costs should not be included at all, as they were said to be non-recurring 
costs  which  should  be  completely  excluded  from  the  normal  cost  of  production  for 
salmon.  Secondly,  were  it  considered  that  these  costs  should  be  included,  then  there 
should  be  some  allocation  of  these  costs  over  the  true  period  of  time  to  which  they 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

relate, e.g. the useful life of a processing plant when the extraordinary expense relates 
to such an asset. 

In  respect  of  the  claim  that  the  totality  of  all  extraordinary  expenses  should  be 
excluded,  the  Commission  notes  that  the  salmon  industry  in  Norway  has  been 
restructuring  for  a  number  of  years.  Accordingly,  extraordinary  costs  have  been 
reported by many of the companies over a number of financial years. It is, therefore, 
clear  that  the  extraordinary  costs  in  question  are  not  isolated  non-recurring  costs 
restricted to a few companies. Rather, they appear to be systemic costs associated with 
the  production  of  salmon.  To  exclude  all  of  these  costs  would  result  in  an 
understatement in the true cost of production, thus this claim had to be rejected. 

In respect of the second claim, the Commission notes that the extraordinary costs that 
were included for the provisional determinations equal those costs actually declared by 
the  companies  during  the  IP,  on  the  basis  of  financial  decisions  taken  by  those 
companies.  The  Commission,  therefore,  followed  the  approach  taken  by  the 
companies themselves. 

It is, however, true that allocation of the costs over a period of time would remove any 
undue  effect  caused  by  the  timing  of  the  decisions  of  the  companies  to  report  these 
costs.  Ideally,  all  extraordinary  costs  reported  for  each  separate  asset  should  be 
allocated over the useful life of that asset to arrive at an average annual cost. However, 
it  is  to  be  noted  that  none  of  the  companies  concerned  carried  out  this  exercise. 
Instead,  the  Commission  has  decided  to  take  the  extraordinary  costs  reported  by 
companies  in  the  sample  during  the  last  three  years,  based  on  the  most  recently 
available  financial  statements,  and  to  allocate  one  third  of  these  costs  to  salmon 
production  in  the  IP,  on  the  basis  of  turnover.  Three  years  was  considered  an 
appropriate  time  period  as  this  is  the  average  length  of  time  that  it  takes  to  grow  a 
salmon from a smolt to a harvestable salmon. 

3.2.3.  Write-down of licences and financial expenses 

(19)  Several  companies  also  claimed  that  write-downs  of  salmon  farming  licences  and 
financial  expenses  should  not  be  included  in  the  cost  of  production  of  salmon.  In 
respect of the write-down valuation of licences, it is noted that a valid licence is a legal 
requirement  in  Norway  in  order  to  farm  salmon.  In  respect  of  the  write-down  of 
financial expenses, it is noted that these expenses relate mainly to the deployment of 
free-cash,  frequently  via  loans  to  related  companies  also  involved  in  the  salmon 
industry, and that the companies concerned are not financial investment companies. 

(20)  For these reasons, the Commission confirms that these write-downs relate to expenses 
that  are  incurred  and  must  be  borne  by  the  companies  concerned.  It  is  further 
confirmed  that  these  costs  should  be  attributed  to  the  prime  business  activities 
including salmon farming, thus the claim is rejected. As with extraordinary expenses, 
it  was  also  considered  appropriate  to  have  one  third  of  all  costs  incurred  by  the 
relevant companies in the last three years allocated to salmon production, on the basis 
of turnover. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
3.2.4.  Write-down of biomass 

(21)  Two  companies  in  the  sample  claimed  that  write-downs  of  the  values  of  biomass 
should  not  be  included  in  the  cost  of  salmon  production.  It  was  claimed  that  these 
write-downs refer to accounting adjustments based on the projected future sales value 
of salmon, and are not a true cost. 

(22)  Where  the  companies  were  able  to  demonstrate  that  these  write-downs  were  indeed 
simply  a  result  of  changing  market  values  and  not  due  to  any  other  factor,  such  as 
escapes, mortality or disease, the Commission concluded that these costs should not be 
included for the normal value calculation, and to this extent the claim of the sampled 
companies was accepted. 

3.2.5.  Transfer price of raw materials 

(23) 

(24) 

It  was  claimed  that  the  profit  margin  of  the  related  companies  should  be  deducted 
when assessing the cost of raw materials purchased from such parties. It was argued 
that  this  approach  would  be  consistent  with  the  approach  taken  for  integrated 
companies,  where  only  the  production  cost,  net  of  profit,  is  included  in  the  cost 
calculation  of  finished  products.  In  this  case,  the  claim  centres  mainly  on  the 
purchases of smolt from companies related to those in the sample. 

In response to this claim, it must be noted that the Community institutions were not in 
a  position  to  verify  the  cost  of  production  of  the  smolt,  as  this  information  was  not 
provided  by  the  companies.  Accordingly,  any  profit,  or  indeed  loss,  on  these  related 
inter-company  sales  could  not  be  assessed.  Moreover,  there  was  no  evidence  to 
suggest that the use of these transfer prices affected the reliability of the constructed 
normal value for salmon. Accordingly, this claim had to be rejected. 

3.2.6.  Feed costs 

(25) 

It  was  claimed  for  some  companies  that  too  high  a  feed  cost  had  been  used.  In 
particular,  it  was  claimed  that  the  feed  cost  in  relation  to  fishes  which  die  prior  to 
harvesting was included in both the feed cost of harvested fish, as well as entered into 
the costs associated with mortality. 

(26)  This  claim  was  examined,  and  where  it  was  found  that  such  feed  costs  had  been 

included twice, the necessary adjustment was made to remove this double counting. 

3.3. 

Export price 

(27) 

In the absence of comments on the determination of the export price, the provisional 
conclusions  as  set  out  in  recitals  (32)  to  (34)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
definitively confirmed.  

3.4. 

Comparison 

(28) 

In the absence of comments on the comparison of normal value and export prices, the 
provisional  conclusions  as  set  out  in  recital  (35)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
definitively confirmed. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
3.5. 

Dumping margin 

3.5.1.  Sampled Companies 

(29)  Definitive individual dumping margins have been established for all ten companies in 
the  sample,  following  the  methodology  outlined  in  recital  (36)  of  the  provisional 
Regulation, adjusted where necessary to take account of the claims outlined in recitals 
(11) to (26) of this Regulation. 

3.5.2.  Non-Sampled Companies 

(30) 

In  the  absence  of  comments  on  the  determination  of  the  dumping  margin  for  non-
sampled companies, the provisional conclusions as set out in recitals (38) and (39) of 
the provisional Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

3.5.3.  Non-Cooperating Companies 

(31)  Similarly, in the absence of comments on the determination of the dumping margin for 
non-cooperating companies, the provisional conclusions as set out in recitals (40) and 
(41) of the provisional Regulation are definitively confirmed. 

3.5.4.  Dumping Margin 

(32)  On  this  basis,  the  definitive  dumping  margins  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF 

Community frontier price, duty unpaid, are: 

Company 

Definitive 
dumping 
margin 

Marine  Harvest  Norway  AS,  Postbox  4102  Dreggen,  N-5835 
Bergen, Norway  

Fjord  Seafood  Sales  AS  and  Fjord  Seafood  Norway  AS, 
Toftsundet, 8900 Brønnøysund, Norway 

Pan Fish Norway AS, Grimmergata 5, 6002 Ålesund, Norway 

Stolt Sea Farm AS, Grev Wedels plass 5, 0151 Oslo, Norway 

Follalaks AS, 8286 Nordfold, Norway 

Nordlaks Oppdrett AS, Boks 224, 8455 Stokmarknes, Norway 

Hydrotech AS, Bentnesveien 50, N-6512 Kristiansund, Norway 

Grieg Seafood AS, C. Sundtsgt 17/19, 5804 Bergen, Norway 

Sinkaberg-Hansen AS, Postbox 134, N-7901 Rørvik, Norway 

Seafarm Invest AS, N-8764 Lovund, Norway 

11,2 % 

15,0 % 

17,7 % 

10,0 %. 

20,0 % 

0,8 % 

18,0 % 

20,9 % 

2,4 % 

11,2 % 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Weighted Average for cooperating companies not included in the 
sample. 

Residual Margin 

14,8 % 

20,9 % 

(33) 

In  accordance  with  Article  9(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  is  concluded  that  the 
dumping margin for Nordlaks Oppdrett AS is de minimis, as its margin of dumping is 
below 2%. 

4. 

INJURY 

4.1. 

Definition of Community production and Community industry 

(34)  Following  disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings,  a  large  number  of  claims  and 
allegations concerning the assessment of Community production, the definition of the 
Community  industry  and  the  selection  of  the  sample  of  Community  producers  was 
received.  The  Commission  thus  deepened  the  injury  investigation  and  carried  out 
additional analysis on data provided by all Community producers. In addition, where 
necessary,  more  detailed  information  was  requested  from  all  the  companies  forming 
the  Community  industry  at  provisional  stage.  This  has  allowed  to  establish  the  final 
determinations  for  the  Community  production,  the  Community  industry  and  to 
strengthen  the  accuracy  and  consistency  of  the  data  used  for  assessing  all  the  injury 
indicators. 

(35)  Several  exporting  producers  and  producers  related  to  Norwegian  exporters  repeated 
their  claim  that  they  should  be  included  in  the  definition  of  the  Community 
production. 

(36)  The  Commission  re-examined  all  the  arguments,  which  were  already  raised  at 
provisional stage, in support of the claim.  However, in  the light of the provisions of 
Article 4(1) of  the basic Regulation, it was considered,  that  the relationship  between 
these related producers and the exporters or importers of the dumped product was such 
as  to  cause  the  related  producers  concerned  to  behave  differently  from  non-related 
producers.  

(37) 

Indeed,  it  is  recalled  that  five  producers  located  in  the  EU,  which  are  part  of  large 
Norwegian  groups  involved  in  the  production  and  sales  of  the  product  concerned, 
provided  written  submissions  and  submitted  questionnaire  replies.  The  written 
submissions  largely  mirrored  the  arguments  raised  by  Norwegian  producers  in  the 
context  of  the  investigation.  Although  it  was  found  that  these  EU  companies  also 
suffered from the price depression and lost market share in view of dumped imports 
from  Norway,  they  opposed  the  initiation  of  investigation  and  the  imposition  of  any 
anti-dumping  measures.  It  is  considered  that  this  behaviour  is  largely  influenced  by 
their relationship to exporters in the country concerned. Consequently, in accordance 
with  the  basic  Regulation  the  output  of  these  other  producers  was  not  taken  into 
consideration when calculating Community production. The findings set out in recital 
(44) of the provisional Regulation are therefore confirmed. 

(38)  The further investigation confirmed that the estimated total Community production of 

the product concerned was around 22,000 tonnes during the IP.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(39)  With regard to Community industry, the detailed analysis of the data received from the 
salmon  industry  indicated  that  some  companies  either  did  not  produce  salmon  any 
longer, or they did not produce it during the IP, or they exclusively produced certain 
types  of  salmon,  or  that  they  fell  into  receivership  during  the  IP,  or  did  not  provide 
data in the format requested. This led to the conclusion that only data supplied by 15 
Community  producers  which  were  complainants  or  which  explicitly  supported  the 
complaint could be taken into  account  for the definition of the Community industry. 
This had an impact on the macroeconomic injury indicators, established on the level of 
the  whole  Community  industry,  in  particular,  production,  production  capacity, 
capacity  utilisation,  sales  volume,  market  share,  employment  and  productivity.  The 
revised data is described in detail in recitals (61) to (75) below.  

(40)  The  further  investigation  showed  that  the  15  cooperating  complaining  Community 
producers had produced around 18,000 tonnes of salmon during the IP. This represents 
around 82% of the estimated total Community production of the product concerned, as 
established in recital (38) above, in other words it constitutes a major proportion of the 
Community production. The complaining Community producers are therefore deemed 
to constitute the Community industry within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of 
the basic Regulation. 

4.2. 

Sampling for injury assessment purposes  

(41) 

(42) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  view  of  the  large  number  of  producers  of  farmed  salmon  in  the 
Community,  the  application  of  sampling  techniques  was  foreseen  in  the  notice  of 
initiation for the assessment of injury.  

In the submissions received after disclosure of the provisional findings some interested 
parties claimed that the sample of Community producers was not representative. It has 
been  alleged  that  some  companies  are  specialized  and  fully  dependent  on  the 
production  of  organic  salmon,  which  is  different  from  conventional  salmon  and  that 
the injury indicators have not been established in an accurate manner. 

that 

the  core  production  of 

(43)  The  Commission  carried  out  additional  analysis  of  data  provided  by  Community 
producers,  including  all  producers  forming  the  sample.  The  additional  analysis 
the  Community  producers  remained 
confirmed 
conventional  salmon.  However,  where  it  was  found  that  the  sampled  companies 
produced organic salmon, it was considered that organic salmon should be disregarded 
in  this  investigation  given  that  organic  salmon  has  in  general  a  higher  cost  of 
production  and  a  higher  sales  price.  Therefore,  all  the  injury  indicators  discussed 
below have been re-assessed, by excluding organic salmon from the analysis. 

4.3. 

Injury investigation and sampling techniques 

(44)  Some  exporting  producers  observed  that  some  injury  indicators  were  established  on 
the basis of the information verified at the level of the sample and some on the basis of 
data collected at the level of the Community industry as a whole. On this basis, they 
alleged that the injury analysis has not been established in an objective manner. 

(45)  This  allegation  has  to  be  rejected.  In  case  of  sampling,  it  is  established  practice  to 
assess and analyse the microeconomic or performance-related injury indicators at the 
the 
level  of 

the  sampled  Community 

to  assess  and  analyse 

industry  and 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
macroeconomic injury indicators on the basis of information collected at the level of 
the entire Community industry. 

(46) 

It is recalled that the analysis of injury is based on  

(a) 

(b) 

the  injury  indicators,  such  as  sales  prices,  stocks,  profitability,  return  on 
investment,  cash  flow,  investments,  ability  to  raise  capital  and  wages,  which 
were  established  on  the  basis  of  the  information  verified  at  the  level  of  the 
sample; and  

the  other  injury  indicators,  such  as  production,  production  capacity,  capacity 
utilisation, sales volume, market share, growth, employment, productivity and 
magnitude  of  the  margin  of  dumping  which  were  established  on  the  basis  of 
data collected at the level of the Community industry as a whole. 

(47)  The information mentioned supra (b) can be obtained from different sources, such as 
the  complaint  and  questionnaire  replies  from  individual  producers  and  can  be  cross-
checked  with  data  available  from  producer  associations  or  government  sources.  The 
exporting  producers  did  not  substantiate  or  explain  how  and  why  the  injury 
investigation using the two sources mentioned supra (a) and (b) was not objective or 
which injury factor was not objectively examined. On this basis, their claim had to be 
rejected. 

(48)  Some interested parties further claimed that the approach chosen by the Commission 
to establish the injury may lead to unrepresentative results because at provisional stage 
data from one company selected for the sample, Celtic Atlantic Salmon, was only used 
for the purpose of calculating undercutting and  underselling,  but not for establishing 
the other injury indicators. After having carefully considered this claim and deepened 
the  investigation,  it  was  considered  that  the  undercutting  and  underselling  should  be 
established by excluding this company from the sample because this producer did not 
produce  farmed  salmon  during  the  period  considered  and  therefore  some  of  the  data 
and  information  requested  in  the  questionnaire  was  simply  not  available  for  that 
producer. However, the exclusion of the data submitted by this company did not lead 
to significantly different undercutting or underselling calculations. 

(49)  On  this  basis,  it  is  confirmed  that  the  injury  indicators  as  well  as  undercutting  and 
underselling  calculations  at  definitive  stage  are  now  established  on  the  basis  of  the 
verified information provided by the other five producers in the Community, listed in 
recital (7) of the provisional Regulation.  

(50)  The  further  investigation  showed  that  the  accumulated  production  of  the  five 
Community producers which were selected for the sample and fully co-operated in the 
investigation  was  around  48%  of  the  Community  industry’s  production  of  farmed 
salmon  supporting  the  complaint.  It  is  therefore  confirmed  that  the  selection  of  the 
sample  of  Community  producers  was  based  on  the  largest  representative  volume  of 
production  that  could  be  reasonably  investigated  within  the  time  available  in 
accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  that  the  sample  is  fully 
representative. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Information available for inspection by interested parties 

(51)  Some  Norwegian  exporting  producers  further  claimed  that  most  of  the  Community 
producers’ files available for inspection by interested parties were not complete. They 
observed that some Community producers (including companies in the sample) did not 
reply  to  the  sampling  form  intended  for  the  selection  of  a  sample  of  Community 
producers. Furthermore, they argued that two companies selected in the sample did not 
reply  to  the  anti-dumping  questionnaire  intended  for  Community  producers  in  the 
format requested. The exporting producers therefore concluded that their selection in 
the sample was not warranted and thus that the sample was unrepresentative.  

(52) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  the  light  of  the  comments  received  during  the  investigation  and 
after  disclosure  of  provisional  findings,  the  Commission  deepened  its  investigation 
and  requested  all  parties  to  complete  their  files  in  view  of  Article  19  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Companies which did not provide the requested information or which did 
not  give  more  detailed  precisions  were  excluded  from  the  investigation.  In  this 
context,  it  should  be  recalled,  however,  that  all  sampled  companies  have  been 
investigated  on  the  spot  and  that  any  missing  information  was  provided  during  the 
investigation.  The  completed  files  in  public  versions  were  also  made  available  to  all 
interested  parties,  some  of  which  inspected  them  several  times.  It  is  therefore 
considered  that  the  selection  of  those  Community  producers  was  warranted  and  that 
the sample of Community producers is representative.  

4.5. 

Community consumption 

(53) 

In  the  absence  of  any  submissions  on  consumption,  the  provisional  findings  as 
described in recitals (50) to (53) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

4.6. 

Imports into the Community from the country concerned 

(54) 

In the absence of any new information or evidence submitted, the provisional findings 
concerning the imports into the Community from Norway (volume, market share and 
average  prices)  as  set  out  in  recitals  (54)  to  (59)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  are 
hereby confirmed. 

4.7. 

Price undercutting  

(55)  For  the  purposes  of  calculating  the  level  of  price  undercutting  during  the  IP,  the 
methodology used at provisional stage was also used at definitive stage. The weighted 
average  sales  prices  of  the  five  companies  selected  in  the  sample  of  Community 
producers  were  compared  to  the  weighted  average  export  prices  of  the  sampled 
exporting producers from Norway on a type-by-type basis. This comparison was made 
for comparable types of farmed salmon and at the same level of trade, namely for sales 
to the first independent customer. The comparison was made after deduction of rebates 
and discounts and the prices of the imports were CIF Community frontier, adjusted for 
customs duties. 

(56)  The prices of the sampled Community producers were taken at an ex-works level, i.e. 
excluding  transport  costs  and  at  levels  of  trade  comparable  to  those  of  the  imports 
concerned. For those sampled Community producers which sold their fish at the farm 
gate with a deduction of a fee paid to a processing factory, an upward adjustment was 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
made to reflect processing and packing costs in order to make their prices comparable 
to those of other producers in the sample and to the imports subject to investigation. 
This adjustment was made on the basis of the actual fee paid to the processing facility 
or  on  the  basis  of  the  costs  incurred  by  other  producers  in  the  sample  for  these 
activities. 

(57)  As a result, the price comparison exercise showed that prices of salmon originating in 
Norway  were  significantly  undercutting  the  Community  industry  prices  on  the 
Community market during the IP. The average undercutting margin, when expressed 
as a percentage of the Community industry’s prices, was established at around 12%, 
i.e. there was, as at the provisional stage, substantial undercutting  

4.8. 

Situation of the Community industry  

(58) 

It  is  recalled  that  in  recital  (89)  of  the  provisional  Regulation,  it  was  provisionally 
established  that  the  Community  industry  had  suffered  material  injury  within  the 
meaning of Article 3 of the basic Regulation. 

(59)  Several  interested  parties  questioned  the  interpretation  of  the  figures  relating  to  the 
situation  of  the  Community  industry  as  presented  in  recitals  (63)  to  (89)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. They stated that the figures did not show any material injury 
because some injury indicators, such as production, production capacity, sales volume 
and  stocks  showed  positive  trends.  At  the  same  time,  whilst  they  admitted  that  the 
business  perspectives  of  the  Community  industry  are  not  very  positive,  they 
considered  that  overall  this  should  not  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Community 
industry has suffered material injury.  

(60) 

In  view  of  these  claims,  the  Commission  continued  its  investigation  of  injury.  It  is 
recalled that as mentioned at recital (40) above, 15 complaining Community producers 
now  constitute  the  Community  industry  and,  as  mentioned  at  recital  (49),  five 
complaining  Community  producers  were  selected  for  the  sample.  On  this  basis,  the 
following findings are made:  

4.8.1.  Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation 

(61)  The production, the production capacity and the capacity utilization of the Community 

industry as a whole developed as follows: 

Table 1: Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation  

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Production (tonnes) 

17.448 

18.879 

18.612 

18.271 

Index 

Production 
(tonnes) 

Index 

100 

108 

107 

105 

capacity

32.445 

36.900 

39.442 

39.342 

100 

114 

122 

121 

Capacity utilisation 

54% 

51% 

47% 

46% 

Index 

100 

95 

88 

86 

Source: Community industry 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
  
(62)  As shown in the table above, production of the Community industry overall increased 
by 5% during the period considered. Production first increased by 8% between 2001 
and 2002 but it subsequently decreased by around 1%, and further decreased again by 
2% in the IP, remaining below the level of 2002. The trends observed are in line with 
those found at the provisional stage.  

(63)  During  the  period  considered  production  capacity  increased  by  21%.  The  main 
increase took place in 2002 (+14%). It is recalled that farmed salmon production in the 
Community  is  effectively  limited  by  government  licences  specifying  the  maximum 
amount of live fish, which may be held in the water at any place at any point in time. 
Thus,  the  above  capacity  figures  reflect  a  theoretical  capacity  based  on  the  total 
quantity  licensed  rather  than  the  physical  fish-holding  capacity  of  the  cages  or  other 
production  material  operated  by  the  Community  industry.  It  is  therefore  considered 
that  these  capacity  figures  are  not  decisive  in  the  analysis,  as  the  actual  production 
capacity is lower. 

(64)  Capacity  utilisation  first  decreased  by  5%  between  2001  and  2002  and  further 

decreased in 2003 by around 7% and during the IP by around 2%. 

4.8.2.  Sales volume, market shares, average unit prices in the EC and growth 

(65)  The figures below represent the Community industry’s sales to independent customers 

on the Community market. 

Table 2: Sales volume, market shares, average unit sales prices in the EC  

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Sales volume (tonnes) 

15.719 

16.185 

18.142 

16.825 

Index  

Market Share 

Index 

Average unit sales prices
(EUR/kg) 

100 

103 

115 

107 

2,98% 

2,94% 

2,97% 

2,77% 

100 

3,03 

99 

3,00 

100 

2,64 

93 

2,77 

Index  

100 

99 

87 

91 

Source:  Community  industry  questionnaire  replies  with  regard  to  sales  volume  and  market  share. 
Sampled  Community  industry  questionnaire  replies  with  regard  to  average  unit  sales  prices  on  ex-
farm level  

(66)  The Community industry’s sales volumes have increased between 2001 and the IP by 
7%. In other words, the Community industry was able to increase its sales volume by 
around 1,100 tonnes. This performance should also be seen in the light of the increase 
in Community consumption which was as high as 80,000 tonnes in the same period. 

(67)  Because of the fact that the Community industry did not fully benefit from the market 
growth, its market share overall decreased during the period considered (-7%). It first 
decreased  between  2001  and  2002,  subsequently  slightly  increased  in  2003,  and 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
  
sharply  decreased  again  during  the  IP,  remaining  far  below  the  market  share  of  the 
year 2001. Given the limited market share of the Community industry, every loss, be it 
even little, has a large impact on its economic situation.  

(68) 

In the period 2001 to the IP the Community industry’s average sales prices decreased 
by 9%. The main price decrease occurred between 2002 and 2003. 

(69)  Over  the  period  considered  the  Community  consumption  grew  by  15%  and  the 
Community  industry  increased  it  sales  volume  by  7%.  However,  during  the  same 
period Community sales prices decreased (-9%) as well as the Community industry’s 
market share (-7%). At the same time, the imports from Norway increased by around 
35% and the gain in market share of the low-priced dumped imports was as high as 8.6 
percentage  points.  This  confirms  that  the  Community  industry  only  participated  to  a 
very small degree in the growth of the market over the period considered. 

4.8.3.  Profitability, Return on Investments and Cash Flow 

(70)  Profitability  on  EC  sales  represents  the  result  on  sales  of  farmed  salmon  on  the 
Community market by the sampled Community producers. Return on investments and 
cash  flow  could  be  measured  at  the  level  of  the  narrowest  group  of  products,  which 
included  the  like  product,  pursuant  to  Article  3(8)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  In  this 
context,  it  should  be  recalled  that  farmed  salmon  represented  over  95%  of  the 
economic activity of the sampled Community industry. 

Table 3: Profitability, Return on Investments and Cash Flow  

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Profitability on EC Sales 

8,0% 

-6,9% 

-9,0% 

-5,0% 

Return on Investment 

38,9% 

-18,0% 

-26,2% 

-21,1% 

Cash Flow (000 EUR) 

2.749 

-53 

827 

984 

Source: Sampled Community industry 

(71)  As  shown  in  the  above  table,  the  Community  industry  made  a  positive  result  with 
regard  to  profitability  in  2001  at  a  level  of  8,0%.  Between  2001  and  2002  the 
profitability  turned  negative,  with  a  decrease  as  high  as  14,9  percentage  points, 
resulting in a loss of 6,9%. Since this point in time the Community industry remained 
loss  making.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  situation  deteriorated  further  between  2002 
and 2003 with a loss of 9% on turnover, in other words a further loss of 2,1 percentage 
points. During the IP, demand for salmon was sustained and in coincidence with the 
publication of provisional safeguard measures the Community industry could increase 
its  sales  prices  by  around  5%  between  2003  and  the  IP.  This  led  to  a  reduced  loss, 
which,  however,  remained  significant  (-5%).  From  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 
period considered, the decrease in profitability was 13 percentage points.  

(72)  During  the  period  considered  the  return  on  investments  and  cash  flow  followed  a 

negative trend similar to that of profitability.  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
  
4.8.4.  Employment and Productivity  

Table 4: Employment and Productivity 

2001 

2002 

2003 

Number of employees 

Index  

Productivity 
(tonne/employee) 

Index 

227 

100 

76,9 

247 

109 

76,4 

238 

105 

78,2 

IP 

221 

97 

82,7 

100 

100 

101 

108 

Source: Community industry  

(73)  Between  2001  and  the  IP  employment  directly  linked  with  the  production  of  farmed 
salmon by the Community industry (overall) decreased by 3%. An increase took place 
between  2001  and  2002  (+9%)  and  can  be  explained  by  the  increase  in  production 
realised during the same period. As the above table shows, the increase in employment 
which  occurred  in  2002  could  not  be  maintained  because  of  the  worsening  of  the 
economic situation of the Community industry. A greater use of automation was also 
noticeable during the period considered. The employment figures directly linked with 
the  production  of  farmed  salmon  of  Community  producers  which  are  not  related  to 
Norwegian exporters must be seen in the light of Community interest discussed below 
at recital (112). 

(74)  As  a  result  of  the  increase  in  production  and  the  decrease  of  employment,  the 
Community industry was able to increase its productivity during the period considered 
by 8%.  

4.8.5.  Wages 

Table 5: Wages  

2001 

2002 

2003 

IP 

Wages (000.EUR) 

4.517 

4.147 

3.941 

3.915 

Index 

100 

92 

87 

87 

Source: Sampled Community industry  

(75) 

In view of the worsening of the economic situation of the Community industry, wages 
had  to  be decreased by 13% during the  period considered. The figure of total wages 
reflects a reduced employment but also shows a reduction in average wages per head 
employed in the industry.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
  
  
4.8.6.  Other injury indicators 

(76)  The further investigation had no impact on the other injury indicators. Therefore, the 
provisional findings in respect of stocks, investments, ability to raise capital, recovery 
from  past  dumping  and  magnitude  of  the  actual  margin  of  dumping  as  set  out  in 
recitals (68), (78), (79), (83) and (84) of the provisional Regulation are confirmed. 

4.9. 

Conclusion on injury 

(77)  During  the  period  considered  whilst  the  Community  market  was  characterized  by  a 
sustained increase in demand as consumption grew by 15% or by 80,000 tonnes, the 
price level of dumped imports was depressed with a decrease of 16% during the same 
period.  Low-priced  dumped  imports  of  salmon  from  Norway,  the  main  exporting 
country,  have  taken  place  continuously  in  high  and  increasing  volumes  onto  the 
Community market (+35%). As a result, Norwegian market share increased by 17% or 
by 8,6 percentage points. Between 2002 and 2003 the increase in import volume from 
Norway  (+20%)  and  the  price  decrease  (-13%)  were  particularly  pronounced.  The 
investigation  showed  that  since  then  prices  for  salmon  have  remained  at  a  very  low 
level on the Community market.  

(78)  As to the economic situation of the Community industry, an overall examination of the 
injury  indicators  shows  that  it  gradually  deteriorated  during  the  period  considered. 
While some factors showed a positive trend during the period considered (production, 
capacity,  sales  volumes),  most  indicators  developed  negatively:  sales  prices  (-9%), 
market share (-7%), profitability (-13 percentage points), employment (-3%), wages (-
13%),  as  well  as  cash  flow  and  return  on  investment.  The  economic  situation  of  the 
Community industry mostly deteriorated in the period between 2002 and 2003. 

(79)  As  regards  the  overall  positive  development  of  production  (+5%)  and  sales  volumes 
(+7%), it was found that these increases occurred in a period of increased demand on 
the  Community  market  (+15%).  However,  the  Community  industry  only  benefited 
from the market growth to a minor extent and this only allowed avoiding higher losses 
of market shares during the IP. 

(80)  Furthermore,  it  is  worth  noting  that  the  increase  in  sales  volume  by  the  Community 
industry  occurred  when  prices  were  significantly  falling  on  the  Community  market. 
This  has  led  to  a  significant  fall  in  profitability  from  a  positive  situation  (8,0%  in 
2001) to significant losses for the rest of the period considered. Return on investments 
and  cash  flow  followed  a  trend  similar  to  that  of  profitability.  Also,  wages  have 
suffered during the period considered (-13%). 

(81) 

It should be noted that the main decreases in profitability (-2.1 percentage points) and 
sales prices (-12%) took place between 2002 and 2003. 

(82)  Taking  account  of  all  of  these  factors,  the  definitive  conclusion  reached  is  that  the 
Community  industry  has  suffered  material  injury  within  the  meaning  of  Article  3  of 
the basic Regulation. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
5. 

CAUSATION 

5.1. 

Effect of imports originating in other third countries 

(83)  Several  interested  parties  questioned  the  interpretation  of  the  figures  relating  to  the 
imports  originating  in  third  countries,  as  presented  in  recitals  (94)  to  (99)  of  the 
provisional Regulation. They stated that the figures did show a causal link between the 
low  priced  imports  from  some  third  countries  and  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry.  These  parties  claimed  that  the  total  average  import  price  from  all  third 
countries  other  than  Norway  and  the  average  import  prices  of  some  countries  were 
below the import price from Norway. It was further alleged that the Commission failed 
to prove that wild salmon did not have any impact on the situation of the Community 
industry and that wild and farmed salmon are not interchangeable.  

(84) 

(85) 

It  is  noted  that  none  of  the  interested  parties  questioned  the  figures  relating  to  the 
prices and absolute quantities of imports originating in other third countries, but rather 
their interpretation. It was also not disputed that the import statistics do not distinguish 
between  farmed  salmon  and  wild  salmon  and  that  the  price  of  wild  salmon  is  lower 
than that of farmed salmon.  

It  is  thus  important  to  recall  that  there  is  no  distinction  between  farmed  salmon  and 
wild salmon in the import statistics. However, it has been found that the taste of wild 
salmon  is  significantly  different  from  that  of  farmed  salmon.  More  importantly,  the 
investigation  showed  that  contrary  to  farmed  salmon,  wild  salmon  is  practically  not 
offered in the market for sale as a fresh product but it is mostly sold in tins and cans. It 
is clear that these products are not directly competing with each other on the market. 
This explains why the price of wild salmon is lower compared to farmed salmon and 
why  these  products  are  not  interchangeable  for  users  and  consumers.  Finally,  it  is 
noted  that  none  of  these  interested  parties  submitted  evidence  with  regard  to  the 
alleged interchangeability of wild and farmed salmon. On this basis, their claims had 
to be rejected.  

(86)  When  looking  at  the  overall  average  prices  of  some  countries  in  isolation,  e.g.  USA 
and Canada, they seem to be below the import price from Norway. However, on the 
basis  of  information  gathered  during  the  investigation,  the  majority  of  imports  from 
the USA and Canada consists of wild salmon, which, as explained above, is cheaper 
than  and  not  interchangeable  with  farmed  salmon.  In  view  of  the  findings  made  in 
recital (85) above, it is unlikely that imports from these two countries could have had a 
significant impact on the situation of the Community industry.  

(87)  As  regards  other  exporting  countries  not  concerned,  it  was  observed  that  whilst  the 
average  import  price  from  Chile  was  above  the  level  of  those  of  the  Community 
industry,  during  the  IP  import  price  from  the  Faeroe  Islands  was  lower  than  those 
charged  by  the  Norwegian  exporting  producers  on  the  Community  market.  This, 
however, should not hide the fact that the import volumes from Chile and the Faeroe 
Islands  have  decreased  by  7%  (or  -1 895  tonnes)  and  8%  (or  -3 397  tonnes) 
respectively during the period considered, whereas imports from Norway increased by 
35% (or +93 366 tonnes). These developments should also be seen in the light of the 
development of consumption which increased by 15% during the same period.  

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
(88) 

In  addition,  in  the  period  between  2001  and  2003,  when  the  situation  of  the 
Community industry deteriorated the most, the development of imports from Chile and 
the Faeroe Islands showed some similarities to the development of the fortunes of the 
Community  industry.  Whilst  the  import  volumes  from  Chile  have  significantly 
decreased  by  26%  (or  -6 987  tonnes)  and  imports  from  the  Faeroe  Island  only 
increased by 2%, namely much less than the increase in consumption (16%), imports 
from Norway increased by 31% (or +82 631 tonnes) during the same period. In view 
of  the  above,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  whilst  it  cannot  be  entirely  excluded  that  the 
presence  of  low  priced  salmon  from  these  two  countries  affected  the  Community 
market,  it  does  not  breach  the  causal  link  between  the  increased  presence  of  high 
volumes of dumped imports from Norway and the injury suffered by the Community 
industry. 

5.2. 

Effect of changes in export performance of the Community industry 

Table 6: Export volumes of the Community industry 

Exports (tonnes) 

2001 

184 

Index 

100 

Source: Community industry 

2002 

212 

116 

2003 

386 

210 

IP 

484 

263 

(89)  The  further  investigation  also  uncovered  certain  variations  in  the  level  of  exports  of 

the Community industry and led to the results shown in the table above.  

(90)  Some interested parties argued that the export performance of the Community industry 
has  been  negatively  affected  by  import  restrictions  imposed  by  the  USA  on  farmed 
salmon during the year 2003. They concluded that any injury caused by a weak export 
performance may not be attributed to Norwegian imports.  

(91) 

In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  no  evidence  with  regard  to  the  US  import 
restrictions was submitted. If any, these restrictions did not have any material effect on 
the export activity of the Community industry. Furthermore, the export activity of the 
Community  industry  was  of  a  limited  nature  during  the  period  considered.  It 
represented around 1% of Community industry production in 2001 and less than 3% 
during the IP. Contrary to what is suggested, the above table clearly shows that exports 
of the Community industry have significantly increased during the period considered. 
In the light of these findings and in view of the difficult situation on the Community 
market, the material injury suffered by the Community industry cannot be attributed to 
any change in the level of its exports.  

(92) 

In any event, it is noted that data relating to prices and profitability used in the injury 
assessment  are  based  on  the  Community  industry’s  sales  to  unrelated  Community 
customers only. Therefore, the argument that the change of export performance of the 
Community  industry  had  an  injurious  effect  on  the  Community  industry,  which  was 
not further substantiated, had to be rejected. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
5.3. 

Effect of a scientific publication on sales volume and sales price of the Community 
industry  

(93)  An interested party argued that the publication of a scientific study which found that 
the  Scottish  salmon  had  allegedly  a  very  high  level  of  contamination  could  have 
caused significant losses of sales volumes and could have had a negative impact on the 
Community industry’s sales prices during the period considered.  

(94)  However, the investigation showed that production and domestic sales, as well as the 
export  sales  volume  of  the  Community  producers  increased  during  the  period 
considered.  

(95)  Based on the above facts and given that the claim was not further substantiated, it had 

to be rejected.  

5.4. 

Effect of increased mortality on production and sales volumes 

(96)  One interested party repeated the argument that higher than normal fish mortality rates 
in Ireland and disease outbreaks in the United Kingdom and Ireland in 2002 and 2003 
could  have  caused  a  significant  loss  of  production  and  sales  volumes  to  the 
Community industry.  

(97)  However, the investigation showed that the above phenomena were limited to a small 
number  of  farms  and  did  not  have  an  appreciable  effect  on  the  overall  sales  and 
production  figures  in  the  Community  given  that  the  affected  quantities  were  small. 
Indeed, as explained above and in recitals (62) and (65), production and sales volume 
of the Community increased in 2002 and 2003.  

(98)  Therefore, and since the claim was not further substantiated, this argument had to be 

rejected.  

5.5. 

Conclusion on causation 

(99)  On the basis of the above facts and considerations and in the absence of evidence or 
any other substantiated comments on causation, the conclusions drawn in this respect 
in recitals (90) to (111) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6. 

COMMUNITY INTEREST 

6.1. 

Preliminary remark 

(100)  It  is  recalled  that  the  analysis  of  Community  interest  at  provisional  stage  had  to  be 
based on the low level of cooperation of processors (users). The Commission therefore 
continued the Community interest investigation by encouraging processors (users) to 
submit further meaningful replies to questionnaires, by carrying out additional on spot 
investigations at the premises of users and user associations mentioned above at recital 
(7) and by collecting further information.  

(101)  Furthermore,  after  disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings,  numerous  claims  were 
received  from  interested  parties,  in  particular  from  processors  and  processors’ 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
associations, which required a further analysis, in particular with regard to the impact 
of any measures on their activity and with regard to the form of the measure.  

(102)  It  should  also  be  noted  that,  following  disclosure  of  the  Commission’s  intention  to 
change the form of the provisional duty, generally positive reactions on the change to 
a minimum import price in the form of a variable duty (‘MIP’) were received.  

6.2. 

Interest of the Community industry 

(103)  Some  interested  parties  argued  that  given  the  low  employment  in  the  Community 
industry on the one hand and the high employment in the user industries on the other 
hand,  alternative  options  of  supporting  the  Community  industry  other  than  imposing 
anti-dumping measures should be taken.  

(104)  In this context, it is noted that possible alternative options and anti-dumping measures 
have different legal contexts and different purposes. It is recalled that the Community 
industry has been suffering from low-priced dumped imports of farmed salmon from 
Norway. In view of the nature of the injury suffered by the Community industry, it is 
considered that, in the absence of measures, a further deterioration in the situation of 
the Community industry is unavoidable. Not adopting measures will most likely entail 
further injury and in the medium term potentially the disappearance of that industry, 
bearing  in  mind  the  losses  occurred  during  the  period  considered.  Therefore,  on  the 
basis of the findings in the IP, the Community industry is considered to be in jeopardy 
unless the low level of the dumped import prices is corrected. Given that a finding of 
injurious  dumping  has  been  made,  the  appropriate  action  is  the  imposition  of  anti-
dumping measures and alternative options are therefore not relevant. 

(105)  If  no  anti-dumping  measures  are  imposed,  the  threat  of  having  large  quantities  of 
dumped  Norwegian  salmon  on  the  Community  market  will  increase.  This  situation 
will  not  provide  the  required  long-term  stability  which  is  essential  for  the  salmon 
farmers  in  the  Community  to  recover  from  current  dumping  practices  and  will 
jeopardize  all  restructuring  efforts  undertaken  by  the  Community  industry  so  far.  In 
view of the large number of farms which closed down in recent years in the EU, it is 
considered that, without any measures to eliminate injurious dumping, there is a high 
risk that the Community industry will disappear in the medium term. 

(106)  If  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  are  imposed,  those  would  reinstate  fair  trading 
conditions  on  the  market  and  allow  the  Community  industry  to  benefit  from  its 
restructuring  efforts  made  in  recent  years.  Under  these  conditions,  the  Community 
industry will be able to remain a viable producer offering high quality farmed salmon 
and will likely be able to expand. In particular, it is also expected that the Community 
industry will return to a profitable situation as was the case in 2001. In the meantime, 
in view of the capacities left over by farms which were forced to close down during 
the  period  considered,  it  should  not  be  excluded  that  the  Community  industry  could 
double its market share.  

(107)  The  viability  of  the  Community  industry  will  have  several  positive  effects  for  users 
and  consumers  of  salmon.  The  high  quality  products  offered  by  the  Community 
industry will continue to be available to all users and consumers. It is also reasonable 
to assume that after restructuring and with an increased market share the Community 
industry will also be able to better control its costs and profit from economies of scale, 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
which  it  has  not  been  able  to  do  in  view  of  the  pressure  it  has  been  facing  from 
dumped imports. This will materialise into a strengthening of the financial situation of 
the  Community  industry,  more  effective  competition  and  stable  salmon  prices  to  the 
benefit of all parties on the Community market. 

(108)  It should finally be borne in mind that a number of Community producers are located 
in  remote  and  rural  areas  of  the  EU  where  the  direct  and  indirect  employment  of 
salmon producers is extremely important for the local Community. This employment 
is  likely  to  disappear  if  the  Community  industry  is  not  protected  against  low-priced 
dumped imports from Norway. Should measures be imposed, to the contrary, it is to 
be  expected  that  with  the  expected  improvement  in  the  situation  of  the  Community 
industry as outlined above, employment levels will also increase. 

(109)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  substantiated  comments  submitted  with  respect  to  the 
interest of the Community industry, the findings as set out in recitals (113) to (116) of 
the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.3. 

Interest of unrelated importers and processors (users) 

(110)  Following  disclosure  of  the  provisional  findings  and  further  investigation  as 
mentioned above in recital (100), a number of claims were received from processors of 
farmed  salmon.  Some  additional  cooperation  was  received  from  importers  and 
processors  as  a  result  of  the  further  investigation.  The  companies  now  submitting 
meaningful  replies at the definitive stage of the proceeding represent around 18% of 
total imports from Norway during the IP and roughly 11% of consumption (compared 
with 9% and 6% respectively at provisional stage). 

(111)  Importers  and  processors  (users)  considered  that  ad  valorem  duties  would  increase 
their costs, reduce their sales volume and profitability and may lead to job losses and 
even de-localisation. They also argued that employment in the fish processing sector is 
far higher than in the fish farming industry, which nevertheless in some cases provides 
employment  in  regions  of  low  employment.  Processors  also  stressed  the  need  for 
consumers  and  traders  to  continue  to  have  access  to  good  quality  farmed  salmon  at 
low prices. However, they generally considered the MIP as a more acceptable form of 
the measure compared to an ad valorem duty.  

(112)  The main costs incurred in smoking or otherwise processing salmon are those related 
to  the  purchase  of  salmon  and  employment.  As  to  employment,  during  the  further 
investigation different figures have been presented to the Commission in a number of 
studies or submissions. These studies and submissions are only of limited use for the 
purpose  of  this  investigation.  In  this  context,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  studies 
submitted refer to periods of time other than the IP, do not exactly cover the product 
concerned  and  partly  use  different  parameters  not  covered  by  this  investigation. 
Therefore,  the  Commission  also  undertook  to  carry  out  on-spot  visits  to  relevant 
associations. On the basis of all the information gathered, the best estimate indicates 
that around 7,500 workers are employed directly in the salmon processing sector in the 
Community.  

(113)  Following the further investigation it was found that farmed salmon represents around 
48-54%  and  wages  around  6-12%  of  the  total  costs  of  processors.  Under  normal 
market conditions (i.e. reasonable raw material price and good retail price), processors 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
expect operating profits ranging between 5 and 12%. This has been confirmed by the 
co-operating processors which reported data on profitability. The further investigation 
showed  that  profit  can  be  even  higher  in  good  times.  At  the  end  of  the  distribution 
chain, retailers may expect a profit margin ranging between 6 and 11%.  

(114)  The  worries  expressed  by  the  users  industry  are  legitimate  as  they  fear  a  negative 
impact  of  the  proposed  measures  on  their  costs  leading  to  a  reduced  profitability. 
However,  under  the  current  circumstances  and  in  view  of  the  proposed  MIP,  any 
impact on the users’ costs is likely to be small or non existent.  

(115)  In a best case scenario, market conditions will remain as they are currently, i.e. prices 
will remain at a level well above the MIP. In such a case the MIP will have no impact 
at all on the costs of users. Where imports are undertaken at a CIF Community border 
price equal to or above the MIP established, no duty would be payable. 

(116)  In  a  worst  case  scenario  with  the  imposition  of  measures,  the  cost  of  users’  raw 
material  will  be  set  at  the  level  of  the  MIP,  namely  at  the  level  of  the  actual  costs 
incurred by producers plus reasonable profit for deliveries on the Community market. 
Although this scenario does not reflect current market conditions, it is considered that 
in  such  a  case  it  cannot  be  excluded  that  the  imposition  of  anti-dumping  duties  will 
have  some  negative  impact  on  importers  and  processors  as  duties,  if  any,  would  be 
directly payable at the time of import whatever the level of the import price. However, 
in this context it is recalled that the measure proposed is in the form of a MIP which is 
a floor price intended only to ensure that Community producers can sell their salmon 
in the Community at prices, on the basis of the lesser duty rule, that will allow them to 
cover their costs and allow for a margin of profit that they could normally expect in 
the absence of dumped imports. Duties will only be collected, in possible exceptional 
cases,  when  the  free-at-Community-frontier  price  of  Norwegian  imports  falls  below 
the MIP and then only at a level equivalent to the difference between the import price 
and  the  MIP.  In  addition,  the  whole  salmon  market  from  production  to  deliveries  to 
consumers will be governed by fair competition. These conditions will allow for costs 
to  be  duly  reflected  on  the  sales  prices  at  each  level  of  the  distribution  chain.  Users 
may also expect an increased possibility of supplies from EU sources and from other 
third  countries,  once  the  market  will  be  recovering  from  the  effects  of  injurious 
dumping.  Indeed,  when  all  operators  in  the  market  enjoy  sound  market  conditions 
governed by fair trade, the largest choices of products and qualities are available from 
various sources of supply. Prices being set according to market signals should have a 
positive  impact  on  the  production  and  distribution  chains,  allowing  more  price  and 
cost stability and predictability. 

(117)  If no measures are imposed and if the price for Norwegian exports were permitted to 
drop  back  to  previously  dumped  low  levels,  users  may  be  allowed  to  profit  from 
unfairly  dumped  imports  for  a  while.  The  market,  however,  will  not  sustain  this 
situation for a long time. Salmon prices to users will be below the costs of producers 
for deliveries on the Community market. If dumping is allowed  to  recur, Norwegian 
imports  representing  around  60%  of  Community  consumption  will  prevent  exports 
from non-dumped third country  sources. Users  will  not have  the choice of obtaining 
alternative supplies and quality. The fact that prices will not be set according to market 
signals  will  lead  to  price  volatility  and  negative  influence  on  final  products  to 
consumers. This may ultimately affect processors’ profitability. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
(118)  Therefore,  the  application  of  a  MIP  will  on  the  one  hand  have  only  minor  cost 
implications for importers and processors. Indeed, whilst market prices remain above 
the  MIP,  there  will  be  no  financial  implications  at  all.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
considered  that  such  market  conditions  should  also  prevent  any  de-localisation  as 
import duties on processed salmon are high. Therefore, the processing industry in the 
Community should continue to have access to an adequate supply of raw material.  

(119)  As  set  out  in  recital  (140)  below,  the  Commission  undertakes  to  monitor  the 
developments in the farmed salmon market in the Community. Where on the basis of 
this  monitoring,  there  is  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  existing  measure  is  no  longer 
necessary or sufficient to counteract injurious dumping, the Commission may consider 
initiating a review on the basis of Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and conducting 
the  investigation  expeditiously.  This  will  allow  the  Commission  to  react  quickly, 
should market prices fall for a longer period of time below the level of the MIP. 

(120)  There  has  been  some  debate  with  interested  parties  on  the  question  of  future 
employment  levels.  However,  as  with  the  analysis  of  the  cost  implication  of  the 
measures,  there  is  no  evidence  that  the  impact  on  employment  in  this  sector  by  any 
anti-dumping measure on imports of salmon from Norway will be anything other than 
small.  

(121)  The  further  investigation  confirmed  that  the  MIP  and  its  proposed  level  is  the  most 
appropriate form of the measure (see below at recital (128). Therefore, with a MIP the 
disadvantages  likely  to  be  suffered  by  importers/processors/users,  if  any,  are  not 
considered  such  as  to  outweigh  the  benefits  expected  to  accrue  to  the  Community 
producers  as  a  consequence  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  which  are  considered  the 
minimum necessary to remedy the serious injury suffered and prevent further serious 
deterioration  in  the  situation  of  the  Community  producers.  In  addition,  it  should  be 
noted that separate sources of supply from other third countries also remain available. 

(122)  In  the  absence  of  any  further  substantiated  comments  submitted  with  respect  to  the 
interest of unrelated importers and processors (users), the findings as set out in recital 
(128) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.4. 

Interest of producers of smolt and feed, suppliers and producers in the EC related to 
Norwegian producers/importers  

(123)  In the absence of any substantiated comments submitted with respect to the interests of 
producers of smolt and feed, suppliers and producers in the EC related to Norwegian 
producers/importers, the findings as set out in recitals (117) to (121) of the provisional 
Regulation are hereby confirmed. 

6.5. 

Interest of consumers 

(124)  As  the  product  concerned  is  a  consumer  product,  the  Commission  informed  various 
consumer  organisations  of  the  opening  of  an  investigation.  A  response  was  received 
from  one  party  which  claimed  that  the  nutritional  beneficial  effects  of  salmon  are 
widely recognised and that artificially increasing the price would make good nutrition 
choices more difficult for consumers. Concern was also expressed that any increase in 
prices  would  make  farmed  salmon  less  affordable  and  stifle  market  growth  in  those 
Member States with a lower than average gross domestic product per head (GDP). 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
(125)  It  is  considered  that  if  anti-dumping  measures  are  imposed,  economic  operators  will 
continue to have access to unlimited quantities of imports, albeit at fair prices. Further, 
given the magnitude of the margins between the whole fish ex-farm and the retail price 
of processed salmon products, it is considered that the measures are unlikely to have a 
material effect on retail prices, since it is unlikely that the full price increase, if any, 
will be passed on to consumers. Indeed, at current market prices which are well above 
the MIP, there would be no impact at all. The impact on consumers, even in a worst 
case scenario, is therefore likely to be small. In addition, loss-making price levels are 
probably not sustainable in the medium to long term. On that basis, it is not expected 
that  anti-dumping  measures  would  have  any  significant  negative  consequences  for 
consumers.  

6.6. 

Conclusion on Community Interest 

(126)  In view of the conclusions drawn in the provisional Regulation and taking into account 
the submissions made by the various parties and the results of the further investigation, 
it  is  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  not  to  impose  definitive  anti-
dumping measures against dumped imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway. 
The  conclusion  as  set  out  in  recital  (131)  of  the  provisional  Regulation  is  therefore 
confirmed. 

7. 

Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures 

7.1. 

Form of the definitive measures 

(127)  In view of the definitive conclusions reached with regard to dumping, injury, causation 
and  Community  interest,  anti-dumping  measures  should  be  imposed  in  order  to 
prevent  further  injury  being  caused  to  the  Community  industry  by  the  dumped 
imports. Account has been taken of both the dumping margins found and the amounts 
of duty necessary to eliminate the injury sustained by the Community industry. It has 
been  found  that  all  injury  margins  were  above  2,0%  and  could  therefore  not  be 
considered as de minimis. The weighted average injury margin, which was below the 
weighted average dumping margin, was found to be 14,6%. 

(128)  However,  following  disclosure  of  facts  leading  to  the  adoption  of  the  amending 
Regulation,  some  interested  parties  explicitly  rejected  ad  valorem  duties  and 
welcomed the introduction of a MIP. Therefore, in light of these comments received 
and  the  findings  of  the  further  investigation,  the  MIP  as  the  appropriate  form  of  the 
measure is confirmed. 

7.2. 

Injury elimination level 

(129)  In accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the definitive duty should be 
set at the level of the dumping or injury margins, whichever is the lower. In order to 
apply  this  rule,  a  non-injurious  MIP  was  established.  In  order  to  verify  this  method, 
company  specific  non-dumped  MIPs  were  also  calculated  on  the  basis  of  normal 
value, adjusted to the net-free-at-Community-border price. These were compared with 
the non-injurious MIP calculated according to the methodology set out at recital (131). 
In all cases it was found that the non-injurious MIP was lower than the non-dumped 
MIP. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
(130)  In calculating non-dumped MIPs, a conversion from Norwegian Kroners to Euros had 
to  be  made.  At  the  provisional  stage,  the  Commission  used  three-year  average 
currency  exchange  rates  for  this  conversion.  Several  companies  claimed  that  the 
correct rate should be that which applied during the IP. In response to this claim, the 
Commission again notes that three years is the average production cycle for salmon. 
As a number of important costs which are included in the normal value are incurred 
over this production cycle, the Commission considers that three-year average rates are 
appropriate when calculating non-dumped MIPs. The claim is, therefore, rejected. 

(131)  As regards the level of the non-injurious price necessary to remove the effects of the 
injurious  dumping,  the  findings  of  the  further  investigation  had  to  be  taken  into 
account. When calculating the amount of duty necessary to remove the effects of the 
injurious dumping, it was considered that any measures should allow the Community 
industry  to  cover  its  costs  of  production  and  obtain  overall  a  profit  before  tax  that 
could  be  reasonably  achieved  by  an  industry  of  this  type  in  the  sector  under  normal 
conditions of competition, i.e. in the absence of dumped imports, on the sales of the 
like product in the Community. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for 
the Community industry of the like product. The non-injurious price has been obtained 
by  adding  a  profit  margin  of  8%  on  turnover  to  the  cost  of  production.  The  cost  of 
production  was  cross-checked  on  the  basis  of  the  average  unit  sales  price  of  the 
sampled  Community  industry  (2,77  Euro/kg)  and  the  average  loss  of  sampled 
Community industry (5% loss) during the IP. The profit margin of 8% was established 
on the basis of the profit achieved during the year 2001 (see table 3 above) and is a 
strict minimum which the Community industry could expect to obtain in the absence 
of injurious dumping.  

(132)  Farmed salmon is commonly traded in different presentations (gutted head on, gutted 
head off, whole fish fillets, other fillets or fillet portions). Therefore, a non-injurious 
minimum import price level had to be established for each of these  presentations, to 
reflect the added costs incurred in preparing each of them. In this respect, the different 
minimum  import  prices  are  based  on  the  findings  in  this  investigation.  They  are 
essentially  derived  from  the  conversion  factors,  as  contained  in  Council  Regulation 
(EC) No 772/19995, and also used in this investigation. With regard to the whole fish 
fillets and fillets cut in pieces, processing costs were taken into account. 

(133)  Where imports are undertaken at a CIF Community border price equal to or above the 
minimum  import  price  established,  no  duty  would  be  payable.  If  imports  are 
undertaken at a lower price, the difference between the actual price and the minimum 
import  price  established  would  become  payable.  As  imports  from  Norway  made  at 
prices  at  or  above  the  MIP  will  remove  the  effects  of  the  injurious  dumping,  it  is 
appropriate  that  the  MIP  should  apply  to  all  imports  from  Norway  except  for  one 
company,  for  which  a  de  minimis  dumping  margin  has  been  found  as  outlined  in 
recital (33) above.  

5 

OJ  L  101,  16.04.1999,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  321/2003  (OJ  L  47, 
21.2.2003, p. 3). 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
8. 

Definitive Collection of the provisional Duty 

(134)  In view of the magnitude of the dumping margins found for the exporting producers in 
Norway and in light of the level of the injury caused to the Community industry, it is 
considered  necessary  that  the  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping 
duties  imposed  by  the  provisional  Regulation,  as  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1010/2005,  should  be  definitively  collected  to  the  extent  of  the  amount  of  definitive 
duties imposed. In so far as the definitive duties are lower than the provisional duties, 
only  amounts  secured  up  to  the  level  of  the  definitive  duties  should  be  definitely 
collected. 

(135)  The  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  which  took  the  form  of  ad  valorem  duties, 
ranging between 6,8% and 24,5%, for the imported products which were imposed by 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  628/2005  and  applied  during  the  period  from  27 
April 2005 to 4 July 2005 shall however be released. The collection of the ad valorem 
duties  would  be  disproportionate  to  the  removal  of  injurious  dumping  given  that 
during  this  period  market  prices  were  significantly  above  the  MIP  which  was 
introduced  in  view  of  unprecedented  and  unforeseeable  market  developments.  The 
amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1010/20056 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway 
shall  be  definitively  collected,  by  taking  account  of  the  MIP  finally  imposed.  The 
amounts secured by way of provisional anti-dumping duties pursuant to Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1010/2005 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in 
excess of the definitive rate shall be released.  

9. 

Enforceability of the MIP 

(136)  Following disclosure, it was argued that a MIP may be more difficult to enforce and 
more open to misdeclaration of the customs value of the goods than other forms of the 
measure. Indeed, in view of indications that some circumvention of the MIP occurred 
since it was imposed on 1 July 2005 and the potential which exists for compensatory 
arrangements  in  this  market  sector,  it  is  necessary  to  introduce  a  double  system  of 
measures.  This  double  system  is  composed  of  a  MIP  (see  recitals  (129)  to  (133) 
above) and a fixed duty. In accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the 
fixed duty was calculated on the basis of the weighted average injury margin as this 
was  found  to  be  lower  than  the  weighted  average  dumping  margin.  To  ensure  the 
effective  respect  of  the  MIP,  importers  should  be  made  aware  that  when  it  is  found 
following  a  post-importation  verification  that  (i)  the  net,  free-at-Community-frontier 
price  actually  paid  by  the  first  independent  customer  in  the  Community  (“post-
importation price”) is below the net-free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, as 
resulted from the customs declaration; and (ii) the post-importation price is lower than 
the MIP, a fixed duty shall apply retrospectively for the relevant transactions, unless 
the  application  of  the  fixed  duty  plus  the  post-importation  price  lead  to  an  amount 
(price actually paid plus fixed duty) which remains below the MIP. In such a case, an 
amount of duty equivalent to the difference between the MIP and the post-importation 
price  shall  apply.  Customs  authorities  should  inform  the  Commission  immediately 
whenever indications of a misdeclaration are found. 

6 

OJ L 170, 1.07.2005, p. 32. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(137)  In this context, and in order to address the concerns raised, the Commission intends to 
put in place three specific pillars to ensure that the measures continue to be relevant 
whilst  also  being  fully  respected.  Firstly,  reference  is  made  to  Council  Regulation 
(EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code7, 
inter  alia,  to  Article  78,  according  to  which  the  customs  authorities  may  inspect  the 
commercial documents and data relating to the import or export operations in respect 
of the goods concerned or to subsequent commercial operations involving those goods. 
Such  inspections  may  be  carried  out  at  the  premises  of  the  declarant,  of  any  other 
person directly or indirectly involved in the said operations in a business capacity or of 
any other person in possession of the said document and data for  business purposes. 
Those authorities may also examine the goods.  

(138)  Secondly,  in  order  to  best  guard  against  any  possible  absorption  of  the  measures, 
particularly between related companies, the Community institutions hereby notify their 
intention to immediately initiate a review under Article 12(1) of the basic Regulation 
and to subject importations to registration in accordance with Article 14(5) of the basic 
Regulation, should any evidence of such behaviour be provided. 

(139)  The  Community  institutions  will  rely,  inter  alia,  on  import  surveillance  information 
provided by national customs authorities, as well as information provided by Member 
States pursuant to Article 14(6) of the basic Regulation. 

(140)  Finally,  the  Commission  undertakes  to  monitor  the  developments  in  the  farmed 
salmon  market  in  the  Community.  Where  on  the  basis  of  this  monitoring,  there  is 
prima facie evidence that the existing measure is no longer necessary or sufficient to 
counteract injurious dumping, the Commission may consider initiating a review on the 
basis  of  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  conducting  the  investigation 
expeditiously,  

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of farmed (other than 
wild)  salmon,  whether  or  not  filleted,  fresh,  chilled  or  frozen,  falling  within  CN 
codes ex 0302 12 00, ex 0303 11 00, ex 0303 19 00, ex 0303 22 00, ex 0304 10 13 
and ex 0304 20 13 (hereinafter "farmed salmon") originating in Norway. 

Wild salmon shall not be subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty. For the purpose 
of  this  Regulation,  wild  salmon  shall  be  that  in  respect  of  which  the  competent 
authorities of the Member State, where the customs declaration for free circulation is 
accepted,  are  satisfied,  by  means  of  all  appropriate  documents  to  be  provided  by 
interested parties, that it was caught at sea for Atlantic or Pacific salmon or in rivers 
for Danube salmon. 

The amount of the definitive anti-dumping duty in respect of Nordlaks Oppdrett AS 
shall be: 

OJ  L  302,  19.10.1992,  p.  1  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  648/2005  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 117, 4.5.2005, p. 13). 

1. 

2. 

3. 

7 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Company 

Definitive Duty 

TARIC additional 
code 

Nordlaks  Oppdrett  AS,  Boks  224,  8455 
Stokmarknes, Norway 

0,0% 

A707 

4. 

5. 

For all other companies (TARIC additional code A999), the amount of the definitive 
anti-dumping duty shall be the difference between the minimum import price fixed in 
paragraph 5 and the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, if the latter is 
lower than the former. No duty shall be collected where the net, free-at-Community-
frontier  price  is  equal  to  or  higher  than  the  corresponding  minimum  import  price 
fixed in paragraph 5.  

For the purpose of paragraph 4, the minimum import price set out in column 2 in the 
table  below  shall  apply.  Where  it  is  found  following  post-importation  verification 
that the net, free-at-Community-frontier price actually paid by the first independent 
customer  in  the  Community  (post-importation  price)  is  below  the  net,  free-at-
Community-frontier price, before duty, as resulted from the customs declaration and 
the  post-importation  price  is  lower  than  the  minimum  import  price,  the  fixed  anti-
dumping  duty  set  out  in  column  3  of  the  table  below  shall  apply,  unless  the 
application of the fixed duty set out in column 3 plus the post-importation price lead 
to an amount (price actually paid plus fixed duty) which remains below the minimum 
import price set out in column 2 in the table below. In such a case, an amount of duty 
equivalent to the difference between the minimum import price set out in column 2 
in the table below and the post-importation price shall apply. Where such fixed anti-
dumping  duty  is  collected  retrospectively,  it  shall  be  collected  net  of  any  anti-
dumping duty previously paid, calculated on the basis of the minimum import price. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
Presentation of farmed 
salmon 

Minimum import 
price EUR/kg net 
product weight 

Fixed duty 
EUR/kg net 
product weight 

TARIC code 

Whole  fish,  fresh,  chilled  or 
frozen 

2,80 

0,40 

Gutted, head-on, fresh, chilled 
or frozen 

3,11 

0,45 

Other (including gutted, head-
off), fresh, chilled or frozen 

3,49 

0,50 

Whole  fish  fillets  and  fillets 
cut  in  pieces,  weighing  more 
than  300  g  per  fillet,  fresh, 
chilled or frozen, skin on  

Whole  fish  fillets  and  fillets 
cut  in  pieces,  weighing  more 
than  300  g  per  fillet,  fresh, 
chilled or frozen, skin off 

Other  whole  fish  fillets  and 
fillets  cut  in  pieces,  weighing 
300  g  or  less  per  fillet,  fresh, 
chilled or frozen 

5,01 

0,73 

6,40 

0,93 

7,73 

1,12 

0302  12  00  12, 
0302  12  00  33, 
0302  12  00  93, 
0303  11  00  93, 
0303  19  00  93, 
0303  22  00  12, 
0303 22 00 83 

0302  12  00  13, 
0302  12  00  34, 
0302  12  00  94, 
0303  11  00  94, 
0303  19  00  94, 
0303  22  00  13, 
0303 22 00 84 

0302  12  00  15, 
0302  12  00  36, 
0302  12  00  96, 
0303  11  00  18, 
0303  11  00  96, 
0303  19  00  18, 
0303  19  00  96, 
0303  22  00  15, 
0303 22 00 86 

0304  10  13  13, 
0304  10  13  94, 
0304  20  13  13, 
0304 20 13 94 

0304  10  13  14, 
0304  10  13  95, 
0304  20  13  14, 
0304 20 13 95 

0304  10  13  15, 
0304  10  13  96, 
0304  20  13  15, 
0304 20 13 96 

6. 

In  cases  where  goods  have  been  damaged  before  entry  into  free  circulation  and, 
therefore, the price actually paid or payable is apportioned for the determination of 
the  customs  value  pursuant  to  Article  145  of  Commission  Regulation  (EEC)  No 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
2454/938,  the  amount  of  anti-dumping  duty,  calculated  on  the  basis  of  paragraph  4 
and 5 above, shall be reduced by a percentage which corresponds to the apportioning 
of the price actually paid or payable. 

7. 

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

Article 2 

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 628/2005, prior to the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 1010/2005, on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway shall be released.  

The  amounts  secured  by  way  of  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  pursuant  to  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 1010/2005 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway shall be 
definitively collected in accordance with the following rules: 

a.) 

b.) 

The amounts secured in excess of the definitive duties shall be released. 

Where the definitive duties are higher than the provisional duties, only the amounts 
secured at the level of the provisional duties shall be definitively collected.  

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

Article 3 

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

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

8 

OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 883/2005 (OJ L 148, 11.6.2005, 
p. 5)  

EN 

33 

   EN