Council Regulation (ΕC) No 685/2008 of 17 July 2008 repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway
Date: 2008-07-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, fish, fish farming, import, originating product

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/5

COUNCIL REGULATION (ΕC) No 685/2008

of 17 July 2008

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

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,

establishing the European

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of
22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports
from countries not members of the European Community (1)
(the basic Regulation), 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)

(2)

A. PROCEDURE

1. Measures in force

following an anti-dumping investigation
The Council,
(the original
investigation), by Regulation (EC) No
85/2006 (2) 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

for a partial

On 20 February 2007,
request
following Member
Portugal
Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

the Commission received a
interim review lodged by the
Poland,
to

Italy,
Lithuania,
applicants) pursuant

States:
Spain (the

and

(3)

The applicants have provided prima facie evidence that the
basis on which the measures were established has

(1) 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).

(2) OJ L 15, 20.1.2006, p. 1.

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 impo­
sition of measures at the existing levels is no longer
evidence was
to offset
necessary
considered sufficient
a
proceeding.

dumping. This
to justify

the opening of

after having
the Advisory
consulted
Accordingly,
Committee,
the Commission on 21 April 2007
initiated, by the publication of a notice in the Official
Journal of the European Union (3), 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).

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

amendment of

removal or

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
initiation.
within the time limit set

in the notice of

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.

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(3) OJ C 88, 21.4.2007, p. 26.

L 192/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

(8)

(9)

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
in consultation with
(exporting producers) was chosen,
the representatives of the Norwegian industry. The repre­
sentatives 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
to the
Community via unrelated traders could indeed be iden­
tified. 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.

export

sales

that

In accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the
selected sample covered the largest possible representa­
tive volume of exports that could reasonably be inves­
tigated within the
exporting
represented
producers
the product
almost 60 % of
concerned exported to the Community.

sample
the reported volume of

time
selected in the

available. The
final

(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
initiation requested
the notice of
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 cooperating 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 them­
selves known within the deadlines set out in the notice
of initiation to cooperate in the present proceeding and
to fill in the relevant questionnaires. In this regard, 267
producers and exporters in Norway, the representatives
of
the
salmon
Governments of Ireland and Scotland cooperated with
known.
the Commission
six sampled
Furthermore,
four
Norwegian exporting producers
submitted full ques­
tionnaire replies within the deadlines set.

and made
importers

their
and the

the Community

producers

views

and

(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)

(14)

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 coop­
erating Norwegian producers and 45 % of the Norwegian
exports to the Community.

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 investi­
gation period or RIP).

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

(17)

i.e.

than wild)

farmed (other

The product under review is the same as in the original
investigation,
salmon,
whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen, originat­
ing 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.

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/7

(18)

ex 0303 11 00,

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

ex 0304 19 13

and

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
same use. They were
therefore considered to be like products within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation. Since
the present
limited to dumping, no
conclusions were reached with regard to the product
produced and sold by the Community industry in the
Community market.

and had the

review was

C. DUMPING

1. General

sales of

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

concerned

destined

sales

for

via

2. Normal value

for each of

For the determination of normal value the Commission
first established,
the exporting producers
included in the sample, whether its total domestic sales
farmed salmon were representative in comparison
of
with its
In
total export
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.

to the Community.

sales

(20)

(21)

(22)

representative

sales, which were
domestic
overall
identical or directly comparable with the types sold for
export to the Community.

(24) Domestic

sufficiently

that product

sales of a particular product

type were
representative when the
considered as
type sold on the domestic
volume of
to independent customers during the investi­
market
gation 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 profi­
table 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
type, and where the weighted
sales volume of
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.

that

(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
calculated as
based on the actual domestic price,
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.

In order to determine whether domestic sales were rep­
resentative, sales to unrelated traders located in Norway
and owning an export licence during the RIP were disre­
garded 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.

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

(23)

The Commission subsequently identified those product
companies having
types

sold domestically by the

(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)

(31)

L 192/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

it was examined whether normal value could be
First,
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.

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.

instead

the Commission

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

reasonable

calculated

amount

for

(32)

In all cases SG&A and profit were established pursuant to
the methods set out in Article 2(6) of the basic Regu­
lation. 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.

had

producers

the method

(33) None of the six exporting producers concerned for which
the normal value had to be constructed had represen­
tatives domestic
as
sales. Therefore,
described in Article 2(6) chapeau could not be used.
Article 2(6)(a) could not be applied since none of the
representative
concerned
exporting
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 to Article 2(6)(c) of the basic
i.e. on the basis of any other reasonable
Regulation,
In this regard, and in the absence of any
method.
other more
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.

information available,

reliable

(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 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 (21), 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 recalled 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.

(34)

figures

The Norwegian exporting producers questioned the use
of a profit margin of 30 % claiming that it would not
reflecting normal
correspond to any actual
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.

(40)

For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between
the normal value and the export price, due allowance
was made in the form of adjustments 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 were made
for differences in discounts, rebate, transport, insurance,
handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing, credit and
import duties.

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/9

(41)

(42)

5. Dumping

5.1. Sampled companies

these companies,

For the exporting producers which were included in the
sample, an individual dumping margin was calculated.
For
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

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
it was
considered that the sampling results are representative
for all other exporters.

information indicating

contrary,

the

(46)

(47)

D. LIKELIHOOD OF RECURRENCE OF DUMPING

1. General

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 Regu­
lation, i.e. whether the circumstances during the RIP were
In this regard, the following four
of a lasting nature.
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

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
manufacturing
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.

exporting

costs

the

of

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 cooperating exporting producers were rep­
resentative for Norway.

5.4. Dumping margins

(44) On the basis of

the above,
expressed as a percentage of
Community-frontier price, duty unpaid are as follows:

the dumping margins
free-at-

the CIF net

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
exporting companies is – 16,1 %.

six

(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)

is

the

evolution. This

the total cost
cost
total

It was considered that the cost of feed which represents
is a reliable indicator
50 to 60 % of
also
regarding
confirmed by industry analysts
specialised in this
sector. Certain interested parties claimed that total costs
would have increased after the RIP and are likely to
least 30 % by the end of
i.e. by at
increase further,
2008 in comparison to the beginning of
the RIP
mainly due to alleged increases of
feed prices. They
further argued that a combination of an increasing
normal value with falling export prices would result in
recurrence of dumping.

L 192/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

(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
in contrast to what was claimed by
allegations. Thus,
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 increases, this will
not have a direct linear impact on the overall feed cost,
i.e. if there is an increase, such an increase will be at a
It should also be noted that
significantly lower pace.
factors as described below in recitals (52)
other cost
likely have a decreasing and
and (55)
to (63) will
therefore 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 develop­
the persistent decreasing trend
ment of smolt costs,
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 deve­
lopments 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
it
in fish feed composition (see recital
was concluded that total costs are not likely to increase
significantly in the foreseeable future.

(51)),

(55)

(56)

(57)

Norway

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007 E

Feed

10,36

Smolt

2,10

9,41

2,00

8,90

1,94

10,08

10,65

1,72

1,70

to disclosure,

the Community industry
Subsequent
feed
objected to the above findings by alleging that
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 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.

to

also

industry

objected

The Community
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 in 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 in recital
(51), it was found that substitution is indeed possible to a
certain extent. On this basis it was concluded that
although feed costs may increase in future,
they are
not likely to increase to the same extent as the costs
of fish oil and fish meal. The Community industry did
not submit any evidence which could reverse these
conclusions.

fragmented,

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
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
to
and economies of
control the cost increase on a per unit basis, despite
the important increase of production volumes.

scale have enabled producers

the

(54)

in
Table (1): Evolution of costs of
Norwegian Kroner (per kilo of salmon — Head On
Gutted (HOG) (source: Kontali Analyse AS (1) (2008))

feed and smolt

(1) Kontali Analyse AS is a provider of statistics, mainly for aquaculture

and fishing industry (www.kontali.no).

(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.

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/11

(59)

(60)

(61)

the

introduction of new technologies

and
Finally,
equipment to fish farming activities has contributed to
a containment of the cost increase on a per unit basis,
despite the fact that production volumes have increased
(see recital (64) and following recitals).

to disclosure,

Subsequent
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)
an
outbreak of a disease and the expected lower yield per
smolt in future which both would have a cost increasing
effect.

concerning the possible

consequences of

It is first of all 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
is not due to an exceptional
mentioned in this recital
situation and is not considered to be significant and
therefore without any substantial impact on the overall
cost. Recital
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.

(92) merely attempts to show that

(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
upward trend (see recital (51)). Therefore, the constructed
normal value, which is based on the cost of manufac­
turing, 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), 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 signifi­
cantly, 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 country imports as well as
the
Community industry in the Community market.

the sales of

(65)

Table (2): Total production of salmon in tons Whole Fish Equivalent (WFE) between 2003 and 2007
(source: Kontali Analysis: Monthly Salmon Report January No 01/2008)

Norway

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

508 400

537 000

572 300

598 500

Y to Y

5,63 %

6,57 %

4,58 %

723 200

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 No 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 %

L 192/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

(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
effects on
productions levels at least in 2008 and the following
years.

anticipated

to have

lasting

(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 recital
(78) and
following recitals, 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)

for

to disclosure,

the Community market,

Subsequent
the Community industry
claimed that the situation in Chile has no significant
since Chilean
impact
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 an addi­
tional 2 % points, while imports from Chile in the
Community would have
the
beginning of 2008.

increased by 5 % at

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 on the worldwide supply, which will indeed be
reduced, and which will allow for Norwegian additional
production volumes to be 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
EUR 2,85/kg in 2008 which would result in dumping,
in combination with the alleged increase in cost and thus
in the normal value. This price was estimated on the
basis of the average cross-section price reported on the
Oslo market in 2007, i.e. EUR 3,13/kg by deducting an
estimated average price decrease of between EUR 0,06/kg
and EUR 0,28/kg.

(72) As far as the development of

concerned and as
following recitals,
the interested parties in question had to be rejected.

explained in recital
the arguments brought

the normal value is
and
forward by

(47)

(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.

(70)

It should first be noted that the data submitted by the
Community industry only referred to two to three

(74)

Chart (1): Evolution of prices (FCA Oslo EUR/Kg of Fresh
Salmon Superior — source Fish Pool) in 2006, 2007 and
beginning of 2008.

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/13

It follows from the above that prices to the Community
in 2007 were indeed significantly lower than during large
in 2007 they were between EUR
part of the RIP,
i.e.
2,88/kg and EUR 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 infor­
mation available for the first
three months of 2008,
prices during that period were found to be between
EUR 2,96/kg and EUR 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 recital
(47) and
shown that
following recitals. The investigation has
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.

(79)

have increased in the last few years, a trend which is
expected to continue in the future (see recital (82) and
following recitals). 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.

therefore be able to export

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
increased
in the future. The same
quantities
parties have also argued that export sales from Norway
to Japan showed a falling trend over the last five years
and that
is uncertain whether
increased production volumes in Norway can indeed be
exported to the Japanese market.

to this market

therefore,

likewise,

it

(75)

(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), 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.

(80) However, as regards Russia,

the market of

the investigation revealed
that
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 fore­
seeable future.

(81)

The total exports of salmon from different producer
countries to Japan showed a decrease by 15 % in 2007
the
as compared to 2006. However, while some of
supplier
to
exports
countries have decreased their
Japan, Norway was able to increase its market share
from 52 % in 2006 to 66 % in 2007 (Source: Kontali
(67), Chile’s
Analysis). As mentioned above in recital
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 in recital (67).

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

(82) As shown in Table (4) in recital (85), 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 signifi­
cantly and contrary to what has been claimed by the
interested parties concerned,
in all
likelihood absorb an increasing part of the Norwegian
production in the coming years.

these markets will

L 192/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

(87)

(88)

(83)

comparably attractive

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
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 distant desti­
nations not accessible by truck within a 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 salmon production
of 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
for Atlantic
Salmon from Norway — 2006 versus 2007 (volume in
round weight) — (Source: Norwegian Seafood
tons
Export Council).

(exports)

The investigation has shown that import data for the
beginning of 2008 depending on the source used
varied significantly. Thus, Kontali Analysis
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 not
therefore devaluate the findings with regard to the deve­
lopment of export volumes to other third countries.

4. Production volumes and capacities in Norway

by
the

licenses which

The production level in Norway, i.e. maximum allowed
is mainly determined by the number of
biomass,
the
production
granted
are
Norwegian authorities, and the ability of
fish
farmers
to achieve the highest possible production
within the limits of their licence. Other factors liable 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 in 2007.

Volume
2006

Volume
2007

Change

(89)

438 569

509 273

16,1 %

26 703

39 998

10 752

6 518

5 284

6 037

3 177

28 846

61 248

14 136

13 617

9 021

7 613

7 887

8,0 %

53,1 %

31,5 %

109 %

71 %

26 %

148 %

EU

Japan

Russia

USA

Ukraine

China

South Korea

Thailand

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) gave 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 par­
ticularly 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
the
Community market. They alleged that should the yield
improvement experienced by the Norwegian salmon
industry in 2007 be repeated in 2008, the 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.

its export markets, and in particular

(86)

The Community industry objected to the above findings
the development of export volumes
by claiming that
third countries would have
from Norway to other
i.e.
shown a different trend in the beginning of 2008,
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.

(90)

is true that

The investigation did not confirm the above allegations.
While it
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.

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/15

(91)

Chart (2) Number of produced salmon juveniles (in 1 000 pieces) — (Source: SSB Norway)

(92)

(93)

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
the
in 2008, according to Kontali Analysis,
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).

Subsequent to disclosure, the Community industry reit­
erated 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 inconclusive and cannot
therefore devaluate the findings with regard to the deve­
lopment of the production volume in Norway as outlined
above.

exported in their
totality to the Community, but a
large part will be very likely directed to other third
country markets where demand is increasing signifi­
cantly. Finally, for the reasons outlined in recital
(71)
and following recitals, exports to the Community are
not expected to be made at dumped prices.

(95)

5. The situation of the Norwegian industry

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 investi­
gation, 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 also was not the case
during the original investigation.

(94)

Therefore, and on the basis of the information available,
although production volumes in Norway are on an
upward trend, a dramatic increase in production in the
near future, such as claimed by the abovementioned
interested parties, is not likely to occur. In addition, as
(82) and following recitals, any
outlined in recital
likely to be
increased production volumes are not

(96)

Furthermore, the investigation revealed that Norwegian
producers are meanwhile also very well established in
the Community market, where they represent approxi­
mately 80 to 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 extent for and on the Community market.

L 192/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

(97)

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

(98) On this basis,

any

to dumped imports

significant price decrease

the Norwegian
it was considered that
mother companies of the producing companies located
in the Community would at least be equally negatively
in the
affected by
Community market due
from
Norway. Indeed, on this basis, it was not unreasonable
to assume that at least economically it would not make
sense
to
contribute to a drop of the prices of farmed salmon in
the Community via dumping practices. 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), major investment and pension funds as share­
holders.

the Norwegian exporting producers

for

(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
collapse 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
these producers faced
nature and that after the RIP,
them even reported
financial problems and some of
the beginning of 2008. The Community
losses at
industry
vast majority of
the
also claimed that
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

situation of

the Norwegian
the financial
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 did not allow for any overall conclusions
concerning
companies
throughout the whole year. As far as the Norwegian

performance

these

the

of

total Norwegian production and are

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 a major part of
therefore
the
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

to

export

volumes

from Norway

(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
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 a
decline in prices, is not expected. In particular, normal
value, which was found to very likely remain 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
in
export price are not
dumping. Finally,
the changed
situation of
the Norwegian aquaculture sector which
has become highly profitable and the shares of which
are traded at
the
important presence of Norwegian owned production in
the Community, have made the recurrence of dumping
practices in the foreseeable future unlikely. For all of the
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.

the stock exchange, as well as

likely to automatically result

it was considered that

(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
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.

recurrence of dumping.

Indeed,

all

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 192/17

is

(105) However, given a certain unpredictability of market
the product
conditions mainly due to the nature of
(perishable goods),
to
it
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 inves­
tigation on an ex officio basis, should it be deemed
necessary.

considered appropriate

(106) The monitoring should be limited in time until

the
original
the definitive measures
imposed by Regulation (EC) No 85/2006, should they
have remained in place, i.e. until 21 January 2011.

foreseen expiry of

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Sole Article

interim review of

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

initiated pursuant

ex 0302 12 00,

ex 0303 22 00,

ex 0304 19 13

F. DISCLOSURE

(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 and to repeal the
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,

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

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following 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, 17 July 2008.

For the Council
The President

E. WOERTH