Proposal for a Council Regulation repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway
Date: 2008-07-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, countervailing charge, freshwater fish, import, originating product

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.7.2008 
COM(2008) 456 final 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULA TION 

repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 on 
imports of large rainbow trout 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 large rainbow trout 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  437/2004  of  8  March  20004  imposing  a  definitive  anti-
dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed  on  imports  of 
large rainbow trout 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  437/2004  of  8  March  2004  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  collecting  definitively  the  provisional  duty  imposed 
on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway. 

On  15  May  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  dumping  did  not  take  place  during  the  review 
investigation  period  and  there  is  no  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 437/2004 on 
imports of large rainbow trout 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(2) thereof, 

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

Whereas: 

1. 

(1) 

2. 

(2) 

(3) 

Measures in force 

A. PROCEDURE 

The Council, following an anti-dumping investigation (the 'original investigation'), by 
Regulation (EC) No 437/20042 imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of 
large rainbow trout (‘LRT’ or 'the product concerned' as defined in recital (19) below) 
originating in Norway. The definitive duty was imposed in the form of a country-wide 
ad valorem duty at a level of 19,9% ('the current measures'). 

Request for review and initiation 

On  12  March  2007,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review 
lodged  by  several  producers  and  exporters  of  LRT;  i.e.  Sjøtroll  Havbruk  AS,  Lerøy 
Fossen  AS,  Firda  Sjøfarmer  AS,  Coast  Seafood  AS,  Hallvard  Leroy  AS  and  Sirena 
Norway AS (‘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  their  export 
prices  to  the  Community  market  have  increased  significantly  and  substantially  more 
than  the  domestic  prices  and  cost  of  production  in  Norway.  The  applicants  alleged 
furthermore  that  this  would  lead  to  a  reduction  of  dumping  significantly  below  the 
level of the current measures and 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.  

(4) 

Accordingly, after having consulted the Advisory Committee, the Commission on 15 
May  2007  initiated,  by  the  publication  of  a  notice  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 

1 

2 

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 72, 11.3.2004, p. 23. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
European  Union3,  a  partial  interim  review  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  force  on 
imports  of  LRT  originating  in  Norway  in accordance with Article  11(3)  of the basic 
Regulation ('the notice of initiation'). 

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. 

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. 

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,  298  companies, 
representing more than 70% of the production licences in use during the IP, provided 
the information requested within the specified deadline. Of these, 123 were exporting 
LRT  and  /or  producers  of  LRT.  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.  

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.  

(5) 

3. 

(6) 

4. 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10)  Requests  for  the  determination  of  an  individual  dumping  margin  were  submitted  by 
the  companies  not  selected  in  the  sample.  However,  in  view  of  the  large  number  of 
requests and the large number of companies selected in the sample, it was considered 
that such individual examinations would be unduly burdensome within the meaning of 
Article  17(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation  and  would  have  prevented  completion  of  the 
investigation  in  good  time.  The  claims  for  determination  of  individual  margins  are 
therefore rejected. 

(11)  One of the exporting producers selected in the sample, declared that it was unable to 
complete  the  reply  to  the  anti-dumping  questionnaire.  This  exporting  producer  was 
therefore excluded from the sample and the findings with regard to it were based on 
the facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.  

(12)  The investigation has also revealed that two other exporting producers included in the 
sample  did  not  export  the  product  concerned  produced  by  them  or  their  related 
companies to the Community during the review investigation period ('RIP'). Since no 
export price was therefore available, no dumping margin could be established for these 
exporting producers.  

3 

OJ C 109, 15.5.2007, p. 23. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(13)  The three exporting producers included in the final sample represented around 33% of 
Norwegian exports of LRT to the Community and 31% of the production volume in 
Norway during the RIP which was still considered representative. 

(14)  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 
three  importers  in  the  Community  replied  to  the  sampling  form.  Given  this  low 
number of co-operating importers no sampling was necessary in this case. 

(15)  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.  

(16)  The  Commission  carried  out  verification  visits  at  the  premises  of  the  following 

companies: 

(a) 

Producers in Norway 

–  Marine Harvest AS, Bergen, Norway 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Hallvard Leroy AS, Bergen, Norway 

Sjotroll Havbruk AS, Bekkjarvik, Norway 

Svanoy Havbruk AS, Svanoybukt, Norway 

Hyen Laks AS, Hyen, Norway 

(b) 

Related traders in Norway 

– 

– 

Coast Seafood AS, Maloy, Norway 

Skaar Norway AS, Floro, Norway 

(17)  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  

(18)  The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 

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

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT 

1. 

Product concerned 

(19)  The  product  under  review  is  the  same  as  in  the  original  investigation,  i.e.  large 
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) whether fresh, chilled or frozen, whether in the 
form of whole fish (with heads and gills on, gutted, weighing more than 1,2 kg each or 
with  heads  off,  gilled  and  gutted,  weighing  more  than  1  kg  each),  or  in  the  form  of 
fillets (weighing over 0,4 kg each), originating in Norway (‘the product concerned’). 

(20)  The product concerned is currently classifiable within CN codes 0302 11 20, 0303 21 
20, 0304 19 15 and 0304 29 15 corresponding to different presentations of the product 
(fresh or chilled fish, fresh or chilled fillets, frozen fish and frozen fillets). 

2. 

Like product 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
(21)  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  

C. DUMPING 

(22)  The Norwegian producers of LRT 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  of  the 
exporting  procurers  included  in  the  sample  based  in  Norway,  were  used  to  calculate 
the export price.  

2. 

Normal value 

(23)  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 the 
product concerned 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.  

(24) 

In  order  to  determine  whether  domestic  sales  were  representative,  sales  to  unrelated 
traders located in Norway 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.  

(25)  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. 

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

(27)  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 review investigation period, as follows: 

(28)  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. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
(29)  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. 

(30)  Where  the  volume  of  the  profitable  sales  of  any  product  type  represented  less  than 
10% of the total sales volume of that type, it was considered that the domestic price of 
this particular type does not provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the 
normal value. 

(31)  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. 

(32) 

In this regard, it was first 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,  the  corporate  structures  of  the  groups 
selected in the sample were highly complex and differed significantly from each other, 
which  very  likely  had  an  impact  on  the  exporting  producer's  sales  price  on  the 
domestic market, it was considered that in this case the use of the sales prices of other 
producers was not appropriate because this would not give more reliable results than 
using each exporting producer's own data. Therefore, normal value was constructed in 
accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation as follows: 

(33)  Normal  value  was  constructed  by  adding  to  the  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.  

(34) 

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.  

(35)  One of the three exporting producers concerned for which the normal value had to be 
constructed  did  not  have  representative  domestic  sales.  Therefore,  the  method  as 
described in Article 2(6) chapeau could not be used.  

(36)  Since the other exporting producers had representative domestic sales in the ordinary 
course  of  trade,  SG&A  and  profit  for  this  exporting  producer  were  determined  in 
accordance  with  Article  2(6)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  i.e.  on  the  basis  of  the 
weighted  average  of  the  actual  amounts  determined  for  other  exporters  or  producers 
subject  to  investigation  in  respect  of  production  and  sales  of  the  like  product  in  the 
domestic market of the country of origin. 

3. 

(37) 

Export price 

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. 

(38)  Where export sales were made via related importers, 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 
and  profit.  In  this  regard,  the  related  importers'  actual  SG&A  during  the  RIP  were 
used.  As  far  as  profit  is  concerned,  it  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  information 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
available,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  other  more  reliable  information,  that  2%  profit 
was reasonable for an importer in this business sector.  

(39)  As  mentioned  above  in  recital  (24),  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. 

4. 

Comparison 

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

basis. 

(41)  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,  commissions,  transport,  insurance,  handling, 
loading and ancillary costs, packing, bank charges credit and import duties were made.  

5. 

Dumping margins  

5.1. 

Sampled companies 

(42)  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.  

(43)  On the basis of the above, the dumping margins of the sampled companies expressed 
as a percentage of the CIF net free-at-Community-frontier price, duty unpaid are: 

Marine Harvest AS  

Hallvard Leroy AS 

Sjotroll Havbruk AS 

-12,1% 

-3,3% 

0,6% 

5.2. 

Countrywide dumping margin 

(44)  Given the dumping margins determined for all the companies in the sample were de 
minimis  and  the  cooperation  in  this  investigation  was  very  high,  the  countrywide 
dumping margin was also considered to be de minimis. 

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES 

1. 

(45) 

General  

It  was  further  examined,  in  accordance  with  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  Regulation, 
whether  the  circumstances  during  the  RIP;  i.e.  the  dumping  margins  as  indicated 
above, were of a lasting nature. In this regard, the following aspects were examined in 
particular:  (i)  the  likely  development  of  the  normal  value,  (ii)  the  evolution  of  the 
production volume in Norway and (iii) the development of the consumption of LRT in 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
the  Community  market,  (iv)  the  evolution  of  export  prices  and  volumes  to  third 
country  markets  as  well  as  (v)  the  development  of  export  prices  and  volumes  to  the 
Community. 

2. 

Evolution of the normal value 

(46)  To  determine  the  likely  evolution  of  the  normal  value  and  since  the  normal  values 
established  during  the  RIP  had  to  be  constructed  on  the  basis  of  the  cost  of 
manufacturing for the exporting producer with the largest export volume to the EC in 
accordance  with  Article  2(3)  and  2(6)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  it  was  considered 
appropriate to examine the likely evolution of the cost of production in Norway as a 
surrogate for domestic prices. 

(47)  Within  this  framework,  several  factors  having  an  influence  on  the  level  of  the  unit 
costs  were  examined,  such  as  costs  of  feed,  costs  of  smolt  and  the  impact  of  the 
consolidation  process  of  the  Norwegian  LRT  industry.  Firstly,  the  investigation 
revealed  that  the  two  main  cost  elements,  the  cost  of  feed  and  the  cost  of  smolt, 
representing over 60% of the total cost, have decreased since the original investigation 
and have stabilised since the RIP. No indications were found that they would fluctuate 
significantly in the foreseeable future. This was confirmed by feed price lists for the 
first  quarter  of  2008  verified  during  the  investigation.  Secondly,  the  consolidation 
process in the industry had also a cost reducing effect due to economies of scale. Thus, 
the  overall  production  costs  have  decreased  by  around  12%  between  the  original 
investigation and the RIP. It is expected that overall costs will now stabilise at levels 
found during the RIP.  

(48)  Since  the  normal  values  established  during  the  RIP  were  not  always  constructed,  it 
was examined whether the domestic sales prices are likely to remain at the same level 
as  during  the  RIP.  No  information  was  available  with  regard  to  domestic  prices  in 
Norway  after  the  RIP.  Although  it  was  observed,  on  the  basis  of  publicly  available 
statistical  data  showing  price  evolutions  over  the  past  years,  that  domestic  prices  in 
Norway  and  export  prices  to  the  Community  have  been  at  similar  levels  and  have 
generally followed the same trend, no meaningful conclusion could be drawn on this 
basis. It was therefore difficult to predict how domestic prices will indeed develop in 
the  future  but  it  could  be  inferred  that  they  would  follow  a  similar  trend  to  export 
prices to the Community.  

(49) 

In conclusion, given the above, it is considered that the normal value, when based on 
cost of production is not likely to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. On 
the other hand, the analysis of the normal value, when based on domestic prices, did 
not  show  a  clear  picture  of  future  developments.  Therefore,  although  no  overall 
definitive  conclusion  could  be  drawn,  there  is  an  indication  that  normal  value  is  not 
likely to increase significantly in the foreseeable future. 

(50)  Subsequent to disclosure, the Community Industry ('CI') claimed that the conclusions 
reached  as  far  as  feed  and  smolt  cost  are  concerned  would  be  erroneous.  The  CI 
alleged  that  feed  price  in  Finland  would  have  increased  by  36%  between  2001  and 
2008  and  that  Norwegian  feed  price  evolution  would  have  followed  the  same  trend. 
The CI also claimed that the price of feed components would have increased sharply 
during and after the RIP indicating an increase in the LRT production cost in Norway.  

(51)  As the allegations concerning feed price in Finland were not supported by any public 
or  verifiable  information,  they  had  to  be  rejected.  As  far  as  the  price  of  feed 
components  is  concerned,  it  is  not  contested  that  it  may  have  increased.  However, 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
given  the  substitutability  between  different  feed  components;  usually  some  higher 
priced components can be substituted by lower priced components, it is expected that 
even  if  the  cost  of  certain  feed  components  increased,  this  would  not  have  a  direct 
linear impact on the overall feed cost (and subsequently total production cost), i.e. if 
any increase in overall feed costs, such increase will be at a significantly lower pace.  

(52)  The  CI  also  claimed  that  Norwegian  statistics  showed  that  smolt  unit  cost  had 
increased  by  15.7%  between  2003  and  2006.  The  same  statistics  however  revealed 
that, when looking at a wider time span, the smolt cost had fluctuated over the last ten 
years  and  overall  did  not  significantly  increase.  Also,  it  should  be  noted  that  the 
average  smolt  cost  submitted  by  the  CI  did  not  refer  to  any  average  smolt  weight, 
which  is,  however,  necessary  to  make  a  meaningful evaluation  of these  costs. Given 
the above, the arguments raised by the Community industry regarding feed and smolt 
cost were disregarded and conclusions in recital (49) above are therefore confirmed. 

3. 

Evolution of the production volumes in Norway 

(53)  Contrary to the arguments raised by the Norwegian interested parties, the investigation 
revealed that the production volume in Norway of the product concerned is likely to 
further  increase  in  the  near  future.  Although  it  seems  that  two  major  Norwegian 
producers of the product concerned have indeed decided to terminate their production 
of the product concerned, the investigation also revealed that other producers of both 
LRT  and  salmon  planned  to  stop  the  salmon  production  and  concentrate  on  the 
production of LRT.  

(54)  Production  licences  issued  by  the  Norwegian  government  are  covering  both  the 
product concerned by this review (LRT) and salmon and limit the production volume 
of  these  two  products.  Although  no  new  licences  are  expected  to  be  issued  before 
2009,  individual  producers  may  decide  to  shift  within  the  same  licence  from  the 
production of salmon to the production of LRT (and vice versa). However, given the 
relative production volume between salmon and LRT (on average around 90% within 
one  licence  is  used  for  the  salmon  production  while  only  10%  for  the  production  of 
LRT) the impact of a shift from salmon to LRT would be far more significant than the 
other way round. 

(55)  The Norwegian interested parties claimed that major producers of LRT were switching 
increasingly to the production of salmon because of the biological differences between 
LRT and salmon (e.g. harvesting frequency, shorter period for releasing trout smolt), 
which  would  make  the  production  of  salmon  more  efficient  and  therefore  more 
lucrative.  Besides  the  fact  that  this  argument  was  not  supported  by  any  evidence,  it 
was also not taking into account that LRT has been successfully produced in Norway 
over many years, while the same biological differences between salmon and LRT have 
always  existed.  It  was  not  explained  which  exact  circumstances  had  changed  which 
made  a  change  in  production  strategies  now  more  likely  than  in  the  past.  It  also 
contradicted  the  expectations  of  the  Norwegian  producers  of  LRT  that  consumption 
would increase world-wide (see recital (63) below). This argument therefore had to be 
rejected.  

(56)  Furthermore,  publicly  available  statistics  show  that  the  number  of  smolts  for  the 
production of the product concerned released in 2008 increased significantly, i.e. by at 
least 20% in comparison to 2007. An increasing trend in production is also illustrated 
by  other  statistics  (SSB  –  Statistics  Norway))  which  show  a  significant  increase  in 
production (+42%) and sales (+53%) of LRT juveniles over the period 2003-2006.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
(57)  Finally, the evidence submitted by the Norwegian interested parties in support of their 
arguments,  i.e.  that  there  was  a  decrease  in  the  biomass  level  and  roe  production 
indicating  lower  outputs  in  the  future,  was  incomplete  and  based  on  many 
assumptions. It was therefore not considered as conclusive.  

(58)  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the  argument  of  the  Norwegian  interested  parties  that 
production volumes in Norway will decrease overall therefore had to be rejected.  

(59)  The  CI  claimed  that  the  production  in  Norway  is  expected  to  increase  even  further 
following the likely issuance of new production licences in 2009. As mentioned above 
in recital (54), it is not expected that any new licences will be issued before 2009. In 
this respect, it was considered that even if new licences were to be issued in 2009, the 
additional number of licences and thus additional production volume is yet unknown. 
Furthermore, licences cover both, the production of salmon and the production of trout 
and at this stage it is not possible to forecast with sufficient degree of certainty how 
much of each licence will be used either for salmon or for trout. Finally, it should be 
noted  that  even  if  new  licences  were  to  be  issued,  and  given  the  relatively  long 
production  cycles,  this  does  not  translate  immediately  in  an  increase  of  production. 
This argument had therefore to be rejected. 

(60)  The Norwegian Seafood Federation and Association contested that production volume 
of  trout  would  have  increased  or  would  increase  further  in  future  claiming  that  the 
total  biomass  and  the  number  of  fish  in  April  2008  was  significantly  lower  when 
compared to April 2007. These allegations could however not be verified and had to 
be rejected.  

(61)  On the basis of the above, it is concluded that production volumes of LRT in Norway 

4. 

(62) 

are likely to increase in the foreseeable future. 

Evolution of the Community consumption  

It is noted that this investigation was limited to dumping and therefore precise data on 
the  Community  industry's  production  and  sales  of  LRT  on  the  Community  market 
during the RIP were not available.  

(63)  However,  several  sources  confirmed  that  world  wide  demand  for  fish  products 
including  LRT  is  expected  to  increase  by  5%  on  a  yearly  basis  in  the  future.  This 
expanding trend is also likely to be observed in the Community even though demand 
in the Community is not expected to absorb the entirety of the additional LRT volumes 
produced in Norway.  

(64)  Subsequent to disclosure, the Finnish Fish Farmers' Association ('FFFA') objected to 
the  above  conclusion  stating  that,  even  if  worldwide  fish  demand  is  expected  to 
increase, there would be no additional demand for Norwegian LRT in the Community. 
FFFA further claimed that any additional demand would be directed to new and exotic 
fish  species  rather  than  trout.  It  should  be  noted  that  as  mentioned  in  recital  (63) 
above, several sources indicated an increase in consumption of LRT, which was also 
confirmed by other interested parties representing farmers located in several Member 
States but also in Norway. As FFFA did not submit any information or evidence which 
could substantiate its allegations, they had to be rejected. 

5. 

Evolution of export prices and volumes to third country markets 

(65)  The  investigation  showed  that  Norway’s  main  export  markets  are  Russia  and  to  a 
lesser extent Japan, where, in total, about 57% of the Norwegian exports of LRT were 
destined,  while  only  13%  of  Norwegian  exports  were  destined  to  the  Community 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
market in 2007. Around 14% of total Norwegian exports of LRT were also destined to 
Ukraine and Taiwan in the same year. 

(66)  Norwegian exports on the world market are in competition with Chilean exports; Chile 
being  the  biggest  global  player,  its  production  and  export  volumes  exceed  those  of 
Norway. 

(67)  However,  following  increasing  demand,  Norwegian  exports  to  Russia  but  also  to 
Ukraine have increased significantly during the past years; i.e. from 8.600 tons in 2002 
to 31.500 tons in total in 2007. This trend is confirmed by recent statistics, which show 
that  significant  additional  volumes  of  Chilean  and  Norwegian  LRT  are  exported  to 
Russia.  

(68)  As  stated  in  recital  (65),  the  investigation  showed  that  Russia  has  become  the  main 
export  market  for  Norwegian  producers.  On  top  of  the  significant  export  volume 
increase  to  Russia,  a  switch  from  sales  of  frozen  trout  to  fresh  trout  could  also  be 
observed in 2007. This switch shows the will by Norwegian producers to satisfy the 
needs of their Russian customers who prefer fresh products, thus indicating the strong 
interest of the Norwegian exporting producers in the booming Russian market. 

(69)  Norwegian exports to Japan show a downward trend between 2006 and 2007, i.e. they 
decreased  by  39%  from  10.877  to  6.661  tons.  As  in  the  case  of  Russia,  Norwegian 
imports  are  in  competition  with  Chilean  imports  on  the  Japanese  market.  Chile  was 
able to increase significantly its export volumes to Japan. However, in order to draw 
more definitive conclusions a wider time-span should be looked at. On the basis of the 
data  available  to  the  Commission  services,  such  conclusion  could  however  not  be 
drawn.  

(70)  Norwegian export prices were found to be higher to third country markets than to the 
Community (on average by 8.6%) during the RIP. However, statistics referring to the 
period after the RIP show a decreasing price trend also in Norway’s traditional export 
markets. Average export prices from Norway to Russia have fluctuated between 2006 
and 2007 from 34.70 NOK/kg to 24.22 NOK/kg, which is explained to a great extent 
by the switch from frozen trout to fresh trout, which was less expensive, but also by 
the international competition. Likewise, export prices to Japan moved from an average 
33.26 NOK / kg in 2006 to 29.79 NOK per kg. Despite this decrease, export prices to 
the EC in 2007 were still on average 4% below the export prices to Japan & Russia. 
This trend is also confirmed for the beginning of 2008. 

(71) 

In a situation of global increasing demand, given the attractiveness (higher prices) of 
the main expanding market (Russia) and given the steady increasing demand of other 
markets such as Ukraine and Far East countries where exports of LRT originating in 
Norway  have  been  increasing  over  the  past  years,  it  is  likely  that  supplementary 
volumes of LRT will be mostly channelled to and absorbed by these markets. 

(72)  Subsequent to disclosure the CI claimed that there are high stock levels of frozen LRT 
in  Norway  which  should  be  taken  into  consideration  in  the  analysis  of  the  likely 
development of export volumes into the Community. However, the CI did not submit 
any evidence pointing to the existence of high stock levels. This claim was therefore 
considered  as  speculative.  It  is  also  noted  that  verification  visits  took  place  at  the 
premises of the largest exporting producers of LRT in Norway and that no such high 
stock levels could be found. This claim was therefore rejected. 

(73)  The CI further claimed the existence of increasing Russian production of LRT and the 
likely  introduction  of  additional  customs  duties  by  the  Russian  authorities  on 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Norwegian LRT to protect the Russian LRT production. Other LRT producers claimed 
that  Norwegian  LRT  producers  were  dependent  on  the  Russian  market  and  that, 
should market access to Russia be limited due  to the unpredictability of this market, 
significant volumes of LRT would be directed to the Community.  

(74)  Likewise, these allegations were not supported by any evidence and were considered 
purely speculative. Thus, there were no reasons to assume that the currently expanding 
Russian  market  would  limit  access  to  Norwegian  exports.  It  is  also  noted  that,  as 
mentioned above in recital (65), other third country markets such as Ukraine and the 
Far  East  are  also  expanding  and  that  exports  from  Norway  have  indeed  increased  to 
these  countries.  The  argument  that  Norway  depends  solely  on  exports  to  Russia  had 
therefore to be rejected. 

6. 

Evolution of export prices and volumes to the Community 

(75)  Price data available on export sales to the Community have shown that between 2006 
and 2007 the  average export prices have  moved from an average of 4.02  EUR/kg in 
2006 to an average 2.87 EUR/kg in 2007. However, since the last quarter of 2007 up 
to the beginning of 2008, statistics show that  this trend stopped  and that prices have 
stabilised.  

(76)  As  the  above  analysis  shows  in  recital  (71),  in  a  situation  of  growing  markets,  it  is 
unlikely that the increased production volume of LRT in Norway will be fully directed 
to the Community should measures be allowed to lapse. Indeed, demand is increasing 
world-wide  and  Norwegian  exports  are  already  well  established  in  several  third 
country  markets  and  are  expected  to  increase  further.  Despite  the  competition  with 
Chilean exports, and although in relative terms Norway has lost market shares to Chile 
in  some  markets,  its  exports  to  most  of  these  countries  in  absolute  terms  have 
increased and are expected to increase further given the world market situation.  

(77)  With  regard  to  the  Community  market,  as  mentioned  above  in  recital  (63), 
consumption for LRT is likely to increase and thus the Community market will be able 
to  absorb  increased  import  quantities  without  necessarily  experiencing  significant 
price  pressure.  It  is  also  noted  that  the  competition  between  Norwegian  and  Chilean 
imports is not only strong in other third country markets, but also in the Community 
market. There are therefore no clear indications that import volumes from Norway into 
the Community will indeed increase significantly should measures be allowed to lapse.  

(78)  Given the expected increase in consumption, and the situation in the world-market as 
described  above,  it  cannot  be  concluded  that  there  is  a  risk  of  oversupply  in  the 
Community market with consequent significant price drops. 

(79)  Therefore, it was concluded that the situation as it was during the RIP with regard to 

the export prices and production volume is of a lasting nature.  

(80)  Subsequent  to  disclosure,  the  CI  claimed  that  export  prices  to  Finland  had  dropped 
significantly during and after the RIP and that export price of LRT to Finland had been 
below cost of production since July 2007.  

(81) 

It should first be noted that the costs of Norwegian produced LRT as estimated by the 
CI  were  overstated  and  did  not  correspond  to  the  actual  verified  farming  and 
production cost of the investigated companies. As far as the level of export prices is 
concerned and although Finland imports a significant part of Norway's total exports to 
the  Community,  significant  quantities  are  also  exported  to  Sweden  and  Denmark 
where  the  average  export  price  were  higher.  Since  an  evaluation  has  to  be  done  on 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
Community wide basis, average export prices to all countries in the Community have 
to be taken into consideration. On this basis, the above conclusion in recital (75), i.e. 
that  export  prices  to  the  Community,  as  a  whole,  have  stabilised  at  the  beginning  of 
2008 is therefore confirmed.  

7. 

Conclusion 

(82)  The investigation has shown that the dumping margins were found to be de minimis. 

(83)  The  investigation  has  also  shown  that  the  production  capacity  for  the  product 
concerned in Norway will likely increase. However, the investigation further revealed 
that although somewhat increased quantities may be directed to the Community, due 
to  an  expected  increase  in  consumption,  the  increased  production  volume  will  likely 
be absorbed in a large part by other third country markets. Consumption will also very 
likely  increase  in  the  Community  market  which  will  be  able  to  absorb  the  potential 
increase in imports and therefore no significant oversupply is expected.  

(84)  Additionally, although prices in the Community showed a decreasing trend, this trend 
is not confirmed after the RIP, where prices have stabilised. On the basis of the above, 
i.e. increasing consumption and no likely risk of oversupply, the price pressure in the 
Community is not expected to increase.  

(85) 

It  is  therefore  concluded  that  the  circumstances  on  the  basis  of  which  the  dumping 
margins were calculated during the RIP are of a lasting nature. 

(86)  The  current  interim  review  should  therefore  be  terminated  and  the  definitive  anti-

dumping measures should be repealed.  

F. DISCLOSURE 

(87) 

Interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis 
of  which  it  was  intended  to  terminate  the  present  interim  review.  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  large 
rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) whether fresh, chilled or frozen, whether in the form of 
whole fish (with heads and gills on, gutted, weighing more than 1,2 kg each or with heads off, 
gilled and gutted, weighing more than 1 kg each), or in the form of fillets (weighing over 0,4 
kg each), originating in Norway, currently classifiable within CN codes 0302 11 20, 0303 21 
20, 0304 19 15 and 0304 29 15, initiated pursuant to Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 384/96, is hereby terminated and the measures in force on imports originating in Norway 
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. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
Done at Brussels, […] 

For the Council 
The President 
[…] 

EN 

16 

   EN