Proposal for a Council Regulation repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway
Date: 2008-06-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, sea fish

EN 

Trade/80012/2008 Rev. 3 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 19.6.2008 
COM(2008) 385 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 on 
imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL 

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 2117/2005  of  21  December  2005  ('the  basic  Regulation')  in  the  proceedings 
concerning imports of salmon originating in Norway. 

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. 

Existing provisions in the area of the proposal 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  85/2006  of  17  January  2006  imposing  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed  on  imports  of 
farmed salmon originating in Norway. 

Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union 

Not applicable. 

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 

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. 

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL 

Summary of the proposed action 

By  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  85/2006  of  17  January  2006  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed 
on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway. 

On  21  April  2007,  the  Commission  opened  an  interim  review  of  the  above  measures 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.  

The investigation concluded that there was no dumping during the IP and that there is 
not a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should measures be allowed to lapse.  

It is therefore proposed that the Council adopt the attached proposal for a Regulation. 

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 2117/2005 of 21 December 2005.  

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 reasons: 

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. 

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION 

The proposal has no implication for the Community budget. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 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 and 11(3) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. Measures in force 

A. PROCEDURE 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

1 

2 
3 

The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (the 'original investigation'), by 
Regulation  (EC)  No  85/20062  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
farmed salmon originating in Norway. The definitive duty was imposed in the form of 
a minimum import price ("MIP").  

2. Request for review and initiation 

On 20 February 2007, the Commission received a request for a partial interim review 
lodged by the following Member States: Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal and Spain 
(‘the applicants’) pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.  

The  applicants  have  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  basis  on  which  the 
measures were established has changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. 
The applicants alleged and provided prima facie evidence showing that a comparison 
between  a  constructed  normal  value  and  export  prices  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of 
dumping  significantly  below  the  level  of  the  current  measures.  Therefore,  the 
continued imposition of measures at the existing levels is no longer necessary to offset 
dumping.  This  evidence  was  considered  sufficient  to  justify  the  opening  of  a 
proceeding.  

Accordingly, after having consulted the Advisory Committee, the Commission on 21 
April  2007  initiated,  by  the  publication  of  a  notice  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 
European  Union3,  a  partial  interim  review  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on 
imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway in accordance with Article 11(3) of 
the basic Regulation (the 'notice of initiation'). 

OJ  L  56,  6.3.1996,  p.  1.  Regulation  as  last  amended  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  2117/2005  (OJ  L  340, 
23.12.2005, p. 17). 
OJ L 15, 20.1.2006, p. 1. 
OJ C 88, 21.4.2007, p. 26. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

This  review  was  limited  in  scope  to  the  aspects  of  dumping  with  the  objective  of 
assessing  the  need  for  the  continuation,  removal  or  amendment  of  the  existing 
measures. 

3. Parties concerned by the proceeding  

The Commission officially advised all known exporters/producers in Norway, traders, 
importers  and  associations  known  to  be  concerned,  and  representatives  of  the 
Kingdom of Norway, of the initiation of the proceeding. Interested parties were given 
the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within 
the time limit set in the notice of initiation. 

4. Sampling 

Section  5(a)  of  the  notice  of  initiation  indicated  that  the  Commission  may  decide  to 
apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation. In response to 
the  request  pursuant  to  Section  5(a)(i)  of  the  notice  of  initiation,  267  companies 
provided the information requested within the specified deadline. Of these, 169 were 
exporting producers of farmed salmon. Exports were made either directly or indirectly 
via related and independent traders.  

In view of the large number of companies involved, it was decided to make use of the 
provisions for sampling and, for this purpose, a sample of producing companies, with 
the  largest  export  volumes  to  the  Community  (exporting  producers)  was  chosen,  in 
consultation with the representatives of the Norwegian industry. The representatives of 
the Norwegian industry proposed to include into the sample (i) a producing company 
which did not export on its own but only via unrelated traders in Norway and (ii) two 
exporters  but  not  producers  of  the  product  concerned.  This  could  not  be  accepted 
because  as  far  as  the  producing  company  is  concerned  there  were  no  sufficient 
guarantees  that  export  sales  to  the  Community  via  unrelated  traders  could  indeed  be 
identified.  As  for  the  exporters  without  own  production  of  salmon,  no  normal  value 
could be established and therefore no duty could be determined for these companies.  

(9) 

In accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the selected sample covered the 
largest possible representative volume of exports that could reasonably be investigated 
within  the  time  available.  The  exporting  producers  selected  in  the  final  sample 
represented almost 60 % of the reported volume of the product concerned exported to 
the Community.  

(10)  As  far  as  importers  are  concerned,  and  in  order  to  enable  the  Commission  to  decide 
whether  sampling  is  necessary,  Section  5(a)(ii)  of  the  notice  of  initiation  requested 
importers in the Community to submit the information specified in this section. Only 
four importers in the Community replied to the sampling form. Given this low number 
of co-operating importers no sampling was necessary in this case. 

(11)  The  Commission  sought  and  verified  all  information  deemed  necessary  for  the 
determination of dumping.  To  this  end, the  Commission invited all parties known to 
be concerned and all other parties which made themselves known within the deadlines 
set out in the notice of initiation to co-operate in the present proceeding and to fill in 
the relevant questionnaires. In this regard, 267 producers and exporters in Norway, the 
representatives of the Community salmon producers and the Governments of Ireland 
and  Scotland  cooperated  with  the  Commission  and  made  their  views  known. 
Furthermore,  four  importers  and  the  six  sampled  Norwegian  exporting  producers 
submitted full questionnaire replies within the deadlines set.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
(12)  The Commission carried out verifications at the premises of the following companies: 

(a) 

Importers/processors/users 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Laschinger GmbH, Bischofmais, Germany 

Gottfried Friedrichs KG (GmbH & Co.), Hamburg, Germany 

Rodé Vis B.V., Urk, The Netherlands 

Hätälä Oy, Oulu, Finland 

(b) 

Exporting producers in Norway (Group level) 

–  Marine Harvest AS, Bergen, Norway 

– 

Hallvard Leroy AS, Bergen, Norway 

(13)  The two largest Norwegian exporting producers, i.e. Marine Harvest AS and Hallvard 
Leroy  AS  represented  over  44%  of  the  total  production  reported  by  the  cooperating 
Norwegian producers and 45% of the Norwegian exports to the Community. 

(14)  The  information  supplied  by  the  other  four  companies  selected  in  the  sample  was 
subject to an in-depth desk analysis and it was found that their costs of production and 
export prices were generally in line with those of the visited companies.  

(15)  All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons 

why they should be heard, were granted a hearing. 

5. Investigation period  

(16)  The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 

2006 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).  

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. Product concerned 

(17)  The  product  under  review  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  farmed 
(other than wild) salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen originating in 
Norway  ('the  product  concerned').  The  definition  excludes  other  similar  farmed  fish 
products  such  as  large  (salmon)  trout,  biomass  (live  salmon)  as  well  as  wild  salmon 
and further processed types such as smoked salmon. 

(18)  The product is currently classifiable within CN codes ex 0302 12 00, ex 0303 11 00, 
ex  0303  19  00,  ex  0303  22  00,  ex  0304  19  13  and  ex  0304  29  13  corresponding  to 
different  presentations  of  the  product  (fresh  or  chilled  fish,  fresh  or  chilled  fillets, 
frozen fish and frozen fillets). 

2. Like product 

(19)  As  established  in  the  original  investigation  and  confirmed  by  this  investigation,  the 
product  concerned  and  the  product  produced  and  sold  on  the  domestic  market  in 
Norway were found to have the same basic physical characteristics and had the same 
use. They were therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 
1(4)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Since  the  present  review  was  limited  to  dumping,  no 
conclusions  were  reached  with  regard  to  the  product  produced  and  sold  by  the 
Community industry in the Community market. 

1. General 

EN 

C. DUMPING 

6 

   EN 

 
(20)  The  Norwegian  producers  of  farmed  salmon  were  making  sales  of  the  product 
concerned to the Community either directly, or via related and unrelated traders. Only 
identifiable  sales  destined  for  the  Community  market  made  directly  or  via  related 
companies based in Norway were used to calculate an export price at the level of the 
producer. 

2. Normal value 

(21)  For  the  determination  of  normal  value  the  Commission  first  established,  for  each  of 
the  exporting  producers  included  in  the  sample,  whether  its  total  domestic  sales  of 
farmed  salmon  were  representative  in  comparison  with  its  total  export  sales  to  the 
Community.  In  accordance  with  Article  2(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  domestic  sales 
were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume of each exporting 
producer was at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.  

(22) 

In  order  to  determine  whether  domestic  sales  were  representative,  sales  to  unrelated 
traders  located  in  Norway  and  owning  an  export  licence  during  the  RIP  were 
disregarded  since  the  final  destination  of  these  sales  could  not  be  established  with 
certainty.  Indeed,  the  investigation  indicated  that  these  sales  were  overwhelmingly 
destined  for  export  to  third  country  markets  and  therefore  not  sold  for  domestic 
consumption.  

(23)  The Commission subsequently identified those product types sold domestically by the 
companies  having  overall  representative  domestic  sales,  which  were  identical  or 
directly comparable with the types sold for export to the Community. 

(24)  Domestic  sales  of  a  particular  product  type  were  considered  as  sufficiently 
representative  when  the  volume  of  that  product  type  sold  on  the  domestic  market  to 
independent customers during the investigation period represented 5% or more of the 
total volume of the comparable product type sold for export to the Community. 

(25)  An  examination  was  also  made  as  to  whether  the  domestic  sales  of  each  type  of  the 
product concerned sold domestically in representative quantities could be regarded as 
having  been  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of trade in accordance with Article 2(4) of 
the basic Regulation, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent 
customers  of  the  type  in  question.  This  was  done  by  establishing  the  proportion  of 
profitable domestic sales to independent customers of each exported product type, on 
the domestic market during the investigation period, as follows: 

(26)  Where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above 
the calculated cost of production, represented more than 80% of the total sales volume 
of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above 
the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  prices.  This 
price was calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that 
type made during the RIP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not. 

(27)  Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80% or less of the 
total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was 
below  the  cost  of  production,  normal  value  was  based  on  the  actual  domestic  price, 
calculated as weighted average of profitable sales of that type only, provided that these 
sales represented 10% or more of the total sales volume of that type. 

(28)  Where the volume of profitable sales of any product type represented less than 10% of 
the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that this particular type was sold 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
in insufficient quantities for the domestic price to provide an appropriate basis for the 
establishment of the normal value. 

(29)  Wherever domestic prices of a particular product type sold by an exporting producer 
could not be used in order to establish normal value, another method had to be applied.  

(30)  First,  it  was  examined  whether  normal  value  could  be  established  on  the  basis  of 
domestic prices of other producers in Norway in accordance with Article 2(1) of the 
basic Regulation. Since in this case, no more reliable prices of other producers were 
available,  the  constructed  normal  value  was  used  in  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of 
the basic Regulation. 

(31)  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  Commission 
instead  calculated  a  constructed  normal  value  as  follows.  Normal  value  was 
constructed  by  adding  to  each  exporting  producer's  manufacturing  costs  of  the 
exported types, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable amount for selling, general and 
administrative expenses (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable margin of profit. 

(32) 

In  all  cases  SG&A  and  profit  were  established  pursuant  to  the  methods  set  out  in 
Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation. To this end, the Commission examined whether 
the  SG&A  incurred  and  the  profit  realised  by  each  of  the  exporting  producers 
concerned on the domestic market constituted reliable data.  

(33)  None of the six exporting producers concerned for which the normal value had to be 
constructed had representatives domestic sales. Therefore, the method as described in 
Article 2(6) chapeau could not be used. Article 2(6)(a) could not be applied since none 
of  the  exporting  producers  concerned  had  representative  domestic  sales.  Article 
2(6)(b) was not applicable either, because sales of the general category of products on 
the  domestic  markets  were  found  not  to  be  made  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade. 
Therefore,  SG&A  and  profits  were  established  pursuant  Article  2(6)(c)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, i.e. on the basis of any other reasonable method. In this regard, and in the 
absence  of  any  other  more  reliable  information  available,  it  was  considered  that  a 
profit margin of 30% and SG&A of 3% would be reasonable taking into account the 
figures  reported  by  the  six  exporting  producers  during  the  RIP  regarding  their 
domestic sales.  

(34)  The  Norwegian  exporting  producers  questioned  the  use  of  a  profit  margin  of  30% 
claiming that it would not correspond to any actual figures reflecting normal margins 
in  the  fish  farming  sector.  However,  there  was  no  indication  in  the  file  that  the 
amounts  for  profits  established,  as  described  above,  exceeded  the  profit  normally 
realised  by  other  exporting  producers  on  sales  of  products  of  the  same  general 
category  on  the  domestic  market  of  the  country  of  origin  in  the  RIP.  Indeed,  as 
mentioned  above,  the  profit  margin  used  was  based  on  actual  verified  figures.  This 
argument had therefore to be rejected. 

3. Export price 

(35) 

In all cases where the product concerned was exported to independent customers in the 
Community,  the  export  price  was  established  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation, namely on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable. 

(36)  Where  export  sales  were  made  via  related  traders,  the  export  price  was  constructed, 
pursuant to Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the price at which the 
imported products were first resold to an independent buyer, duly adjusted for all costs 
incurred  between  importation  and  resale,  as  well  as  a  reasonable  margin  for  SG&A 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
and profits. In this regard, the related traders' actual SG&A during the RIP were used. 
As far as profit is concerned, it was determined on the basis of information available, 
and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  more  reliable  information,  that  2%  profit  was 
reasonable for a trader in this business sector.  

(37)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (22),  in  cases  where  sales  were  made  via  unrelated 
traders,  it  was  not  possible  to  determine  with  certainty  the  final  destination  of  the 
product  exported.  Therefore,  it  could  not  be  established  whether  a  certain  sale  was 
made to a customer in the Community or to another third country, and it was therefore 
decided  to  disregard  sales  to  unrelated  traders.  The  Community  industry  objected  to 
this  approach  claiming  that  such  sales  should  have  been  investigated  alleging  that 
salmon  was  sold  via  independent  traders  which  entered  the  Community  at  prices 
below the MIP. 

(38) 

It  is  reminded  that  when  establishing  the  export  price,  sales  to  the  first  independent 
customer  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  accordance  with  Article  2(8)  of  the 
basic Regulation and that therefore, in the context of the determination of dumping, re-
sales  prices  from  the  first  independent  customers  are  irrelevant.  This  argument  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

4. Comparison 

(39)  The  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  prices  was  made  on  an  ex-works 

basis. 

(40)  For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export 
price,  due  allowance  in  the  form  of  adjustments  was  made  for  differences  affecting 
prices  and  price  comparability  in  accordance  with  Article  2(10)  of  the  basic 
Regulation. Appropriate adjustments were granted in all cases where they were found 
to  be  reasonable,  accurate  and  supported  by  verified  evidence.  On  this  basis, 
allowances for differences in discounts, rebate, transport, insurance, handling, loading 
and ancillary costs, packing, credit and import duties were made.  

5. Dumping 

5.1 Sampled companies 

(41)  For  the  exporting  producers  which  were  included  in  the  sample,  an  individual 
dumping  margin  was  calculated.  For  these  companies,  the  weighted  average  normal 
value of each type of the product concerned exported to the Community was compared 
with  the  weighted  average  export  price  of  the  corresponding  type  of  the  product 
concerned, as provided for under Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation.  

5.2 Non-sampled companies  

(42)  Regarding  those  cooperating  exporting  producers  not  included  in  the  sample,  it  was 
found that, for the bulk of their sales, their  export prices were generally  in line with 
those  of  the  sampled  exporters.  In  the  absence  of  any  information  indicating  the 
contrary,  it  was  considered  that  the  sampling  results  are  representative  for  all  other 
exporters.  

5.3 Non-cooperating companies  

(43)  Given the high level of cooperation, i.e. almost 100%, it was also concluded that the 
dumping  margins  found  for  the  sampled  co-operating  exporting  producers  were 
representative for Norway. 

5.4 Dumping margins 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
(44)  On the basis of the above, the dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF 

net free-at-Community-frontier price, duty unpaid are: 

Marine Harvest AS  

Norway Royal Salmon AS  

Hallvard Leroy AS 

Mainstream Norway AS 

Norwell AS 

Polar Quality AS 

-20.3% 

-5.9% 

-13.0% 

-0.8% 

-0.8% 

-2.7% 

(45)  The weighted average dumping margin for all six exporting companies is -16.1%. 

D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING 

1. General  

(46)  Since  the  dumping  found  during  the  RIP  was  de  minimis,  it  was  further  examined 
whether there is a likelihood of recurrence of dumping should measures be allowed to 
lapse,  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e.  whether  the 
circumstances  during  the  RIP  were  of  a  lasting  nature.  In  this  regard,  the  following 
four  aspects  were  examined  in  particular,  i)  evolution  of  the  normal  value,  ii) 
development  of  export  volumes  and  prices  to  the  Community  and  other  third 
countries,  iii)  production  volumes  and  capacities  in  Norway  and  (iv)  the  situation  of 
the Norwegian industry. 

2. Evolution of the normal value 

(47)  For the vast majority of export sales, (i.e. for 99%), the normal value was constructed 
in  accordance  with  Article  2(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
manufacturing of the exporting producers concerned by adding an amount for SG&A 
and profit. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to examine the likely evolution of 
the cost of production in Norway as a surrogate for domestic prices, to determine the 
likely evolution of the normal value. 

(48)  The  investigation  revealed  that  the  cost  structure  of  the  Norwegian  exporting 
producers has remained stable throughout the RIP. In fact, during the RIP, the costs of 
production per unit of the investigated companies were on average 20 to 25% below 
the MIP.  

(49)  As regards their likely evolution, several factors having an influence on the level of the 
unit  costs  were  examined,  such  as  costs  of  feed,  costs  of  smolt,  the  impact  of  the 
consolidation process of the Norwegian salmon industry and the increased use of new 
increasingly cost efficient technologies. 

(50) 

It was considered that the cost of feed which represents 50 to 60% of the total cost is a 
reliable indicator regarding the total cost evolution. This is also confirmed by industry 
analysts  specialised  in  this  sector.  Certain  interested  parties  claimed  that  total  costs 
would  have  had  increased  after  the  RIP  and  are  likely  to  increase  further,  i.e.  by  at 
least 30% by the end of 2008 in comparison to the beginning of the RIP mainly due to 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
alleged  increases  of  feed  prices.  They  argued  further  that  a  combination  of  an 
increasing  normal  value  with  falling  export  prices  would  result  in  recurrence  of 
dumping. 

(51)  The interested parties concerned did not submit any particular evidence substantiating 
the alleged anticipated increase in feed cost by 30%. An analysis of the possible cost 
development  could  furthermore  not  confirm  these  allegations.  Thus,  in  contrast  to 
what  was  claimed  by  these  interested  parties,  the  investigation  revealed  that  the 
verified feed costs of the Norwegian exporting producers have remained more or less 
stable throughout the RIP and the first three quarters of 2007. Thus, Table (1) in recital 
(54)  only  shows  a  slight  increase  of  feed  costs  between  2006  and  2007.  The 
investigation also revealed that the feed price increase is mainly linked to the increase 
of the prices of some feed components (raw materials) such as fish oil and fish meals. 
It should be noted that fish oil and fish meals are to a certain extent substitutable by 
other lower cost raw material in the fish feed composition such as vegetable oils and 
meals.  As  a  consequence,  feed  producers  would  normally  switch  the  fish  feed 
composition  in  order  to  keep  the  overall  feed  cost  as  low  as  possible.  It  is  therefore 
expected that even if the cost of certain feed components would increase, this will not 
have a direct linear impact on the overall feed cost, i.e. if any increase, such increase 
will be at a significantly lower pace. It should also be noted that other cost factors as 
described  below  in  recitals  (52)  and  (55)  to  (63)  will  likely  have  a  decreasing  and 
therefore have a compensatory effect on the potential increase in the feed cost.  

(52)  As regards smolt prices, which represent about 15% of the total cost of farming, the 
investigation  showed  that  prices  have  decreased  as  shown  in  Table  (1)  below. 
Although  it  is  difficult  to  precisely  foresee  the  development  of  smolt  costs,  the 
persistent  decreasing  trend  shown  in  table  (1)  below  was  considered  as  a  reliable 
indicator allowing to reasonably conclude that the same trends will be followed in the 
future. In any case, the investigation did not reveal nor did any of the interested parties 
claim a significant change of smolt costs developments in the future.  

(53)  Since both smolt and feed costs account for at least 65% of the total costs and that fish 
oil and fish meals are to a certain extent substitutable by other lower cost raw material 
in the fish feed composition (see recital (51) above), it was concluded that total cost 
are not likely to increase significantly in the foreseeable future.  

(54)  Table  (1):  Evolution  of  costs  of  feed  and  smolt  in  Norwegian  Kroner  (per  kilo  of 

salmon - Head On Gutted (HOG) (source: Kontali Analyse AS4 (2008)) 

Norway  2003 

2004 

Feed 

10,36 

Smolt 

2,10 

9,41 

2,00 

2005 

8,90 

1,94 

2006 

2007 E 

10,08 

10,65 

1,72 

1,70 

(55)  Subsequent  to  disclosure,  the  Community  industry  objected  to  above  findings  by 
alleging that feed costs should have been allocated by generation as feed costs during a 
certain year do not affect the cost of a harvest in that specific year but the costs of a 

4 

Kontali  Analyse  AS  is  a  provider  of  statistics,  mainly  for  aquaculture  and  fishing  industry 
(www.kontali.no) 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
future harvest. Otherwise, findings regarding the development of feed costs would not 
reflect  appropriately  the  actual  situation.  This  had  to  be  rejected  because  actual 
verified feed costs aggregated by generation were used in the analysis. 

(56)  The Community industry also objected to the conclusions that higher prices in certain 
feed components can be compensated by substitution. In this respect it was argued that 
due to an increase in prices of other feed components on the one hand and the negative 
impact on the quality of the salmon flesh on the other hand such substitution would be 
limited.  Regarding  the  increase  of  costs  of  other  feed  components,  this  was  not 
supported by sufficient evidence and had therefore to be rejected. It is recognised that 
substitution  of  certain  feed  components  is  limited.  However,  as  mentioned  above  in 
recital  (51),  it  was  found  that  substitution  is  indeed  possible  to  a  certain  extend.  On 
this  basis  it  was  concluded  that  although  feed  cost  may  increase  in  future,  they  will 
likely  not  increase  to  the  same  extend  than  the  increase  in  costs  of  fish  oil  and  fish 
meal. The Community industry did not submit any evidence which could reverse these 
conclusions. 

(57)  The consolidation process is another factor contributing to the stabilisation of the costs 
of  production.  It  should  be  noted  that  since  the  year  2000  the  number  of  companies 
producing 80% of the Atlantic salmon in Norway has been reduced from 55 to 31 in 
2006. Although the Norwegian fish farming sector can still be seen as fragmented, the 
consolidation  process  has  positive  effects  on  the  costs  of  production  not  only  of  the 
most  important  producers  in  Norway,  which  were  also  selected  in  the  sampling,  but 
also for the overall sector, as confirmed by specialised industry analysts. Indeed, new 
synergies,  integration  of  production  activities  and  economies  of  scale  have  enabled 
producers to control the cost increase on per unit basis, despite the important increase 
of production volumes.  

(58)  The  consolidation  trend  is  expected  to  continue  in  the  future,  which  will  very  likely 

have a further positive impact on the costs, through economies of scale. 

(59)  Finally, the introduction of new technologies and equipment in fish farming activities 
has contributed to a containment of the costs increase on a per unit basis, despite the 
fact that production volumes have increased (see below recital (64) and following). 

(60)  Subsequent  to  disclosure,  the  Community  industry  contested  that  production  cost 
would  have  decreased  arguing  that  consolidation  as  such  is  not  necessarily  a  cost 
reducing  factor.  Thus,  it  was  claimed  that,  according  to  Norwegian  statistics,  the 
medium and small sized companies in Norway would be more efficient than the large 
groups. It was further argued that the conclusion of cost reductions would contradict 
the findings in recital (92) concerning the possible consequences of an outbreak of a 
disease and the expected lower yield per smolt in future which both would have a cost 
increasing effect. 

(61) 

It is first noted that recital (92) does not refer to the consequences of an outbreak of a 
disease  but  to  the  normal  mortality  rate  inherent  to  the  production  of  salmon  which 
does not have any impact on the cost as such. Secondly, the expected lower yield per 
smolt  mentioned  in  this  recital  is  not  due  to  an  exceptional  situation  and  is  not 
considered to be significant and therefore without any substantial impact on the overall 
cost.  Recital  (92)  merely  attempts  to  shows  that  the  increase  in  production  volume 
cannot  be  translated  one  to  one  by  the  increase  in  the  smolts  production  since  other 
factors have also an influence of the harvested volume, which was not disputed by the 
Community industry. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
(62)  As  far  as  the  cost  reducing  effect  of  the  consolidation  process  is  concerned,  the 
Community  industry  did  not  submit  any  evidence  to  support  their  objection.  The 
Community arguments in this respect had therefore to be rejected. 

(63) 

In conclusion, given the above, it is considered that the normal value is not likely to 
increase significantly in the foreseeable future. Rather, due in particular to the ongoing 
consolidation process, further cost reductions may be realised even though feed prices 
are  on  an  upwards  trend  (see  recital  (51)  above).  Therefore,  the  constructed  normal 
value,  which  is  based  on  the  cost  of  manufacturing,  is  considered  to  be  of  a  lasting 
nature. 

3. Development of export prices and production volumes in Norway 

3.1 Evolution of the production volume in Norway and exports to the EU  

(64)  As shown in Table (2) in recital (65) below, the Norwegian production of salmon has 
increased  steadily  in  the  last  three  years  and  in  2007  in  particular,  mainly  due  to 
favourable biological conditions and as compared to a weak production year in 2006. 
However,  as  shown  in  Table  (3)  in  recital  (66)  concerning  the  estimated  total 
consumption in the Community, the Community market for the product concerned has 
also  increased  significantly,  i.e.  +9,40%  from  2006  to  2007,  and  based  on  the  past 
trends should further grow. The development in the consumption shown in Table (3) 
below  includes  all  third  countries  imports  as  well  as  the  sales  of  the  Community 
industry in the Community Market. 

(65)  Table (2): Total production of salmon in tons Whole Fish Equivalent (WFE) between 
2003  and  2007  (source:  Kontali  Analysis  :  Monthly  Salmon  Report  January  N° 
01/2008) 

Norway  2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

508.400 

537.000 

572.300 

598.500 

723.200 

Y to Y 

5,63% 

 6,57% 

 4,58% 

20,80% 

(66)  Table  (3)  Development  in  consumption  (supply  from  all  sources  including  the 
Community  industry)  of  Atlantic  salmon  in  the  Community  from  2004  to  2007 
(source: Kontali Analysis : Monthly Salmon Report January N° 01/2008). 

Year 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

579.200 

603.100 

634.600 

651.000 

712.200 

Y to Y 

3,94% 

5,22% 

2,58% 

9,40% 

(67) 

In 2007, according to public statistics (Kontali Analysis), the estimated market share 
in the Community of Norwegian salmon reached 71% compared to 69% in 2006. This 
is,  however,  especially  due  to  the  decrease  of  imports  from  Chile  where  production 
levels  dropped  between  3%  and  5%  (depending  on  the  sources)  between  2006  and 
2007,  due  to  a  disease  outbreak  which  is  anticipated  to  have  lasting  effects  on 
productions levels at least in 2008 and the following years.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(68)  On the basis of the above, it was concluded that the increasing Community market will 
be  able  to  absorb  a  large  part  of  the  production  volumes  in  Norway  without  the 
Norwegian  production  necessarily  taking  over  significant  market  shares  from  the 
Community  industry.  Furthermore,  as  outlined  below  in  recitals  (78)  and  following, 
parts  of  the  Norwegian  production  volumes  are  likely  to  be  increasingly  exported  to 
other third country markets where considerable growth has been observed. Finally, the 
reduced Chilean presence in the Community will very likely also contribute to further 
reducing the risks of oversupply of exports to the Community. 

(69)  Subsequent to disclosure, the Community industry claimed that the situation in Chile 
has  no  significant  impact  for  the  Community  market,  since  Chilean  salmon  was 
mainly  exported  to  the  US  market  and  thus  the  supply  situation  in  the  Community 
market  is  essentially  determined  by  Norwegian  exports.  The  Community  industry 
further  argued  that  market  shares  from  Norway  in  the  Community  increased  by 
additional  2%  points,  while  imports  from  Chile  in  the  Community  would  have 
increased by 5% at the beginning of 2008. 

(70) 

It  should  first  be  noted  that  the  data  submitted  by  the  Community  industry  only 
referred  to  2  to  3  months  of  2008  and  therefore  no  meaningful  conclusion  can  be 
drawn  thereon.  Indeed,  in  this  kind  of  market  developments  have  to  be  looked  at 
during  a  longer  time  span.  Secondly,  the  disease  situation  in  Chile  should  have  an 
impact in the world-wide supply which will indeed be reduced and where Norwegian 
additional production volumes can be indeed re-directed. 

(71)  As  far  as  export  prices  to  the  Community  are  concerned,  certain  interested  parties 
claimed that they have decreased significantly since the RIP and would reach a level 
of 2,85 €/kg in 2008 which, in combination with  the alleged increase in cost and thus 
the normal value, would result in dumping. This price was estimated on the basis of 
the average cross-section price reported on the Oslo Market in 2007, i.e. €3,13/kg by 
deducting an estimated average price decrease of between €0,06/kg and €0,28/kg. 

(72)  As far as the development of the normal value is concerned and as explained in recitals 
(47) and following above, the arguments brought forward by the interested parties in 
question had to be rejected.  

(73)  As far as export prices to the Community are concerned, publicly available statistics 
show that the allegations of the above mentioned interested parties are not confirmed 
by the recent evolution of export prices as shown in Chart (1) below:  

(74)  Chart  (1):  Evolution  of  prices  (FCA  Oslo  €/Kg  of  Fresh  Salmon  Superior  –  source 

Fish Pool) in 2006, 2007 and beginning of 2008. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
g
k
R/
U
E

5,7
5,5
5,3
5,1
4,9
4,7
4,5
4,3
4,1
3,9
3,7
3,5
3,3
3,1
2,9
2,7
2,5

January

February

Fresh Salmon Superior 3-6 kg FCA OSLO

2006

2007

2008

March

April

May

June

July

September
August

October

November

December

Source  : Fis h Pool

(75) 

It  follows  from  the  above  that  prices  to  the  Community  in  2007  were  indeed 
significantly lower than during large part of the RIP, i.e. in 2007 they were between 
2,88€/kg and 3,51€/kg. However, the investigation 
established that these prices were 
still  largely  above  the  established  cost  of  production  and  therefore  also  above  the 
normal  value  and  were  therefore  not  considered  to  be  made  at  dumped  levels. 
Furthermore,  based  on  the  information  available  for  the  first  three  months  of  2008, 
prices  during  that  period  were  found  to  be  between  2,96€/kg  and  3,35€/kg,  i.e. 
likewise,  still  above  the  established  costs.  Therefore,  they  were  very  likely  not  at 
dumped  levels  when  considering  that  the  normal  value  has  remained  stable  as 
concluded  in  recitals  (47)  and  following  above.  The  investigation  has  shown  that 
prices continue to be influenced by the market demand but are currently set at a higher 
level. It is also noted that these price fluctuations are normal in this sector. 

(76)  The Community industry claimed that export prices after the RIP were influenced by 
the  existence  of  the  MIP  and  therefore  kept  at  a  relatively  high  level.  They  further 
argued  that,  therefore,  should  measures  be  allowed  to  lapse,  the  price  level  to  the 
Community  will  decrease  significantly.  This  conclusion  is  not  confirmed  by  the 
findings  of  the current investigation, which  showed that  normal value should remain 
relatively stable, while the likelihood of significantly decreased export price levels to 
the  Community  was  small.  Latter  findings  were  based  on  a  thorough  analysis  of 
several  aspects  listed  in  recital  (46)  above,  such  as  likely  development  of  the 
production  and  export  volumes  from  Norway  to  the  Community  and  other  third 
country markets. The Community industry did not submit any information or evidence 
which could devaluate the findings made in this respect. 

(77)  Considering  the  above,  it  was  concluded  that  increasing  imports  of  salmon  to  the 
Community from Norway should not be such as to create a risk of an oversupply in the 
Community  market.  Furthermore,  given  the  situation  of  the  cost  of  production  and 
export prices to the Community, the risk of dumping appears to be remote. 

3.2 Export price and volume evolution to non-EU countries 

(78)  The  investigation  showed  that  the  Community  is  and  is  likely  to  remain  the  main 
market  for  Norwegian  salmon,  followed  by  Russia  and  Japan.  In  addition,  there  are 
also emerging markets for salmon where Norwegian exports have increased in the last 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
few years, a trend which is expected to continue in the future (see further recital (82) 
and following below). Indeed, the investigation has shown that Norwegian producers 
are prepared to supply these markets in future, since they were able to establish local 
customer  relationships  and  distribution/sales  operations  which  indicate  the  strong 
interest of the Norwegian exporting producers in these markets. 

(79)  Certain  interested  parties  have  argued  that  the  Russian  market  has  been  historically 
volatile  and  that  therefore  it  is  not  predictable  whether  demand  in  this  market  will 
indeed increase and whether the Norwegian exporting producers will therefore be able 
to export increased quantities to this market in the future. The same parties have also 
argued that export sales from Norway to Japan showed a falling trend over the last five 
years  and  that  therefore,  likewise,  it  is  uncertain  whether  increased  production 
volumes in Norway can indeed be exported to the Japanese market. 

(80)  However,  as  regards  Russia,  the  investigation  revealed  that  the  market  of  around 
61,000 tonnes has continued to increase and that there are no reasons to assume that it 
should not continue to do so in the foreseeable future.  

(81)  The  total  exports  of  salmon  from  different  producer  countries  to  Japan  showed  a 
decrease by 15% in 2007 as compared to 2006. However, while some of the supplier 
countries  have  decreased  their  exports  to  Japan,  Norway  was  able  to  increase  its 
market  share  from  52%  in  2006  to  66%  in  2007  (Source:  Kontali  Analysis).  As 
mentioned above in  recital  (67),  Chile's production yield was  largely affected  by the 
disease situation and therefore export volumes in general, and thus also to Japan were 
significantly reduced. Norway has therefore been able to take over market shares from 
Chile,  a  situation  which  is  expected  to  last  at  least  until  2009  as  already  mentioned 
before in recital (67) above. 

(82)  As  shown  in  Table  (4)  in  recital  (85)  below,  Norwegian  exports  to  other  emerging 
markets  of  the  world  such  as  Eastern  Europe  (Ukraine,  Belarus)  and  the  Far  East 
(China,  South  Korea,  Hong  Kong,  Thailand)  have  also  increased  significantly  and 
contrary to what has been claimed by the interested parties concerned, these markets 
will  in  all  likelihood  absorb  an  increasing  part  of  the  Norwegian  production  in  the 
coming years.  

(83)  Export prices to the Community and to other third countries on a FCA Oslo basis were 
found  to  be  at  similar  levels  and  it  was  therefore  concluded  that  all  markets  are 
comparably  attractive  should  there  be  sufficient  demand.  When  sold  as  a  fresh  or 
chilled product, the product concerned is transported to the EU usually by truck. When 
sold to more far destinations not accessible by truck in certain time limit, the product 
concerned is transported by air.  

(84)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  it  is  concluded  that,  other  factors  being  equal,  the 
deteriorating production of salmon of between 3 to 5% in 2007 in Chile linked to the 
disease  situation  will  contribute  to  the  containment  of  global  supply  growth  in  2008 
and give market opportunities to Norwegian producers in markets such as Japan, the 
US  and  other  emerging  markets  where  Chilean  producers  hold  significant  market 
shares.  

(85)  Table  (4):  Market  development  (exports)  for  Atlantic  Salmon  from  Norway  –  2006 
versus  2007  (volume  in  tons  round  weight)  –  (Source:  Norwegian  Seafood  Export 
Council). 

Volume 

Volume 

Change 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
2006 

2007 

EU 

438 569 

509 273 

16,1 % 

Japan  

26 703 

28 846 

8,0 % 

Russia 

39 998 

61 248 

53,1 % 

USA  

10 752 

14 136 

31,5 % 

Ukraine 

6 518 

13 617 

109 % 

China 

5 284 

9 021 

South Korea  6 037 

7 613 

71 % 

26 % 

Thailand 

3 177 

7 887 

148 % 

(86)  The  Community  industry  objected  to  the  above  findings  by  claiming  that  the 
development  of  export  volumes  from  Norway  to  other  third  countries  would  have 
shown  a  different  trend  in  the  beginning  of  2008,  i.e.  exports  to  these  countries  in 
absolute terms would have decreased and the total growth of exports would thus have 
been lower than in 2007 and lower than the export growth to the Community during 
the same period.  

(87)  The investigation has shown that import data for the beginning of 2008 depending on 
the source used varied significantly. Thus, Kontali Analsyis showed increasing trends 
at  a  much  higher  degree  for  the  same  period.  Furthermore,  as  mentioned  above  in 
recital  (70),  market  developments  should  be  looked  at  during  a  longer  time  span  to 
show a conclusive picture. The arguments of the Community industry could therefore 
not devaluate the findings with regard to the development of export volumes to other 
third countries. 

4. Production volumes and capacities in Norway  

(88)  The production level in Norway, i.e. maximum allowed biomass, is mainly determined 
by the number of production licenses which are granted by the Norwegian authorities, 
and the ability of the fish farmers to achieve the highest possible production within the 
limits of their licence. Other factors susceptible to increase the production of salmon 
are for example favourable biological and meteorological factors and the improvement 
of the fish farming processes with high-tech equipment. Conversely, the outbreak of a 
fish disease could harm the production significantly and lead to a decrease in harvested 
fish as was the case in Chile during 2007. 

(89)  Certain  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  increase  in  production  of  juvenile  fish  in 
Norway since 2006 (allegedly an increase of 20% between 2006 and 2008) would give 
a  strong  indication  that  Norwegian  salmon  production  volume  would  increase 
significantly within the next two years and thus lead to a situation of over supply. On 
this basis, and taking into account the particularly high yield level achieved in 2007, 
these parties argued that in 2008 (and beyond) production volumes in Norway will be 
significantly  higher  and  largely  exceed  the  growth  of  its  export  markets,  and  in 
particular  the  Community  market.  They  alleged  that  should  the  yield  improvement 
experienced  by  the  Norwegian  salmon  industry  in  2007  be  repeated  in  2008,  the 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
surpluses or unsold volumes could reach between 20.000 and 91.000 tonnes resulting 
from an estimated production level of 870.000 tonnes WFE, i.e. 150.000 tonnes more 
than in 2007. 

(90)  The investigation did not confirm the above allegations. While it is true that there was 
an  increase  in  the  production  of  juvenile  fish  in  2006,  this  increase  was  in  line  with 
increases of prior years and cannot be regarded as exceptional, as shown in Chart (2) 
below: 

(91)  Chart  (2)  Number  of  produced  salmon  juveniles  (in  1000  pieces)  –  (Source  :  SSB 

Norway) 

Salmon juveniles

r
e
b
m
u
N

300.000

250.000

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

Salmon

2002

2003

2004

Year

2005

2006

(92) 

In  addition,  based  on  a  combination  of  various  factors  such  as  the  mortality  factors, 
government regulations ruling maximum allowed biomass and lower yield per  smolt 
in  2008,  according  to  Kontali  Analysis,  the  estimated  production  of  salmon  in  2008 
should  increase  by  merely  6%,  i.e.  from  723.000  tonnes  WFE  in  2007  to  770.000 
tonnes  in  2008,  i.e.  47.000  tonnes  WFE.  The  figures  regarding  the  smaller 
development in the biomass in 2008 are supported by the feed sales data which show a 
significant drop in 2008 compared to 2007 (source Havbruksdata and FHL). 

(93)  Subsequent to disclosure, the Community industry re-iterated its claim that production 
volume  in  Norway  is  likely  to  increase  significantly  and  provided  some  further  data 
concerning  harvest  quantities,  stocks  and  juvenile  fish  relating  to  the  beginning  of 
2008. As above, it was considered that data relating to only two months of the year are 
as such not conclusive and cannot therefore devaluate the findings with regard to the 
development of the production volume in Norway as outlined above. 

(94)  Therefore, and on the basis of the information available, although production volumes 
in  Norway  are  on  an  upwards  trend,  a  dramatic  increase  in  production  in  the  near 
future,  such  as  claimed  by  the  above-mentioned  interested  parties,  is  not  likely  to 
occur.  In  addition,  as  outlined  above  in  recitals  (82)  and  following,  any  increased 
production volumes are not likely to be exported in their totality to the Community but 
will be very likely in large part directed to other third country markets where demand 
is  increasing  significantly.  Finally,  for  the  reasons  outlined  in  recitals  (71)  and 
following  above,  exports  to  the  Community  are  not  expected  to  be  made  at  dumped 
prices. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
5. The situation of the Norwegian industry  

(95)  Finally,  the  situation  of  the  Norwegian  industry  in  general  and  during  the  RIP  in 
particular has been given special consideration. The investigation thus revealed that, in 
contrast to what was found during the original investigation, the aquaculture sector in 
Norway  is  composed  of  highly  profitable  companies.  This  is  partly  due  to  the  large 
and  still  ongoing  consolidation  process  which  has  turned  the  sector  highly  efficient 
and  healthy.  This  is  also  reflected  in  the  ownership  structure  of  the  companies 
concerned, i.e. several Norwegian and global investments and pension funds are very 
well represented in the exporting producers' groups. This was also not the case during 
the original investigation. 

(96)  Furthermore, the investigation revealed that Norwegian producers are meanwhile also 
very well established in the Community market, where they represent  approximately 
between  80  and  90%  of  the  total  production  volume  in  the  Community.  These 
Norwegian  related  companies  in  the  Community  were  found  to  produce  and  sell 
salmon to a large part for and on the Community market. 

(97) 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  Norwegian  mother  companies  were  exporting 
themselves considerable quantities to the Community. 

(98)  On  this  basis,  it  was  considered  that  the  Norwegian  mother  companies  of  the 
producing companies located in the Community would at least be equally negatively 
affected  by  any  significant  price  decrease  in  the  Community  market  due  to  dumped 
imports from Norway. Indeed, on this basis, it was not unreasonable to assume that it 
would at least economically not make sense for the Norwegian exporting producers to 
contribute  via  dumping  practices  to  a  drop  of  the  prices  of  farmed  salmon  in  the 
Community.  This  would  directly  harm  the  profitability  of  the  sector  and  would 
negatively  affect  the  companies'  shares  which  are  traded  in  the  stock  exchange  and 
have,  as  mentioned  in  recital  (95)  above,  major  investment  and  pension  funds  as 
shareholders. 

(99)  On the basis of the above, it was therefore reasonable to conclude that the Norwegian 
exporting  producers  have  a  vested  interest  in  avoiding  situations  of  market  price 
collapses  and  to  remain  profit  orientated.  Consequently,  the  risk  that  the  dumping 
practices  by  the  Norwegian  exporting  producers  would  resume  in  foreseeable  future 
was considered limited.  

(100)  The Community industry objected to the above findings by claiming that the healthy 
situation of the Norwegian producers found during the RIP was not of a lasting nature 
and that after the RIP, these producers would have faced financial problems and some 
of  them  would  have  even  reported  losses  at  the  beginning  of  2008.  The  Community 
industry also claimed that the vast majority of Norwegian producers do not have any 
subsidiaries  in  the  Community  market  and  that  on  this  basis  it  cannot  be  concluded 
that dumping would not resume. Finally, it was alleged that Norwegian producers with 
subsidiaries  in  the  Community  would  decrease  their  production  in  the  Community 
market and increase production in Norway should measures be allowed to lapse. 

(101)  As far as the financial situation of the Norwegian producers is concerned, it is noted 
that the losses of some of the companies were linked to their investments in Chile and 
the  outbreak  of  the  disease  in  this  country.  These  particular  circumstances  only 
concerned  a  small  number  of  the  total  producers  in  Norway.  In  addition,  the 
information  related  only  to  the  beginning  of  the  year  2008  and  does  not  allow  any 
overall conclusions concerning the performance of these companies in the whole year. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
As  far  as  the  Norwegian  owned  production  in  the  Community  is  concerned,  and  as 
also admitted by the Community industry, although the number of companies having 
subsidiaries  in  the  Community  is  limited,  they  represent  major  part  of  the  total 
Norwegian production and was therefore considered as significant. The argument that 
Norwegian  owned  production  capacities  in  the  Community  will  be  reduced  should 
measures  be  repealed  was  not  supported  by  any  evidence.  These  arguments  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

6. Conclusion 

(102)  The investigation revealed that dumping during the RIP was at de minimis levels. The 
investigation further revealed that there are no reasons to believe that the production 
volume  in  Norway  will  increase  above  the  traditional  growth  rate  and  thus  lead  to 
significantly  increased  export  volumes  from  Norway  to  the  Community.  The 
investigation  also  established  that  the  risk  of  a  significant  decrease  in  Norwegian 
export prices to dumped levels is limited in the foreseeable future, mainly due to the 
fact that a significant over-production in Norway, which may be the main trigger for 
such decline in prices, is not expected. In particular, normal value, which was found to 
remain very likely stable, was significantly lower than the export price during the RIP, 
i.e.  normal  variations  due  to  the  fluctuating  character  of  the  market  and  therefore 
temporary  decreases  in  the  export  price  are  not  likely  to  automatically  result  in 
dumping.  Finally,  it  was  considered  that  the  changed  situation  of  the  Norwegian 
aquaculture  sector  which  has  become  highly  profitable  and  the  shares  of  which  are 
traded at the stock exchange, as well as the important presence of Norwegian owned 
production  in  the  Community,  has  made  the  recurrence  of  dumping  practices  in  the 
foreseeable future unlikely. For all above reasons, it was concluded that the likelihood 
of recurrence of dumping is low and does not warrant the continued imposition of the 
anti-dumping measures in force.  

(103)  Consequently,  the  current  interim  review  should  be  terminated  and  the  measures  in 
force on imports of farmed salmon originating in the Norway should be repealed. 

E. SPECIAL MONITORING  

(104)  As  explained  above,  it  is  expected  that  market  conditions,  i.e.  demand  and  supply, 
remain  stable  in  the  foreseeable  future  and  that  there  is  therefore  no  apparent 
likelihood of recurrence of dumping. Indeed, all indicators examined show that it can 
be  reasonably  expected  that  the  export  volumes  to  the  Community  will  not  increase 
significantly and that export prices remain at non-dumped levels.  

(105)  However,  given  a  certain  unpredictability  of  market  conditions  mainly  due  to  the 
nature  of  the  product  (perishable  goods),  it  is  considered  appropriate  to  monitor  the 
market  closely  and  to  review  the  situation  should  there  be  sufficient  prima  facie 
evidence 
that  market  conditions  have  changed  significantly.  In  such  case, 
consideration will be given to the initiation of an investigation on an ex officio basis, 
should it be deemed necessary.  

(106)  The  monitoring  should  be  limited  in  time  until  the  original  foreseen  expiry  of  the 
definitive  measures  imposed  by  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  85/2006,  should  they 
have remained in place, i.e. until 21 January 2011. 

(107)  Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of  which  it  was  intended  to  terminate  the  present  interim  review  an  to  repeal  the 

F. DISCLOSURE 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
existing  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  the  product  concerned.  All  parties  were 
given  an  opportunity  to  comment.  Their  comments  were  taken  into  account  where 
warranted and substantiated by evidence. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Sole Article  

The  partial  interim  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  farmed 
(other than wild) salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen, currently classifiable 
within CN codes ex 0302 12 00, ex 0303 11 00, ex 0303 19 00, ex 0303 22 00, ex 0304 19 13 
and  ex  0304  29  13,  originating  in  Norway,  initiated  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  Council 
Regulation (EC) No 384/96, is hereby terminated.  

The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  Regulation  (EC)  No  85/2006  on  the  above-
mentioned imports is hereby repealed. 

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

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

Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

21 

   EN