Council Regulation (EC) No 805/2008 of 7 August 2008 repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 on imports of large rainbow trout originating in Norway
Date: 2008-08-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Norway, anti-dumping duty, dumping, import, originating product, sea fish

13.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/1

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is obligatory)

I

REGULATIONS

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 805/2008

of 7 August 2008

repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Regulation (EC) No 437/2004 on imports of large
rainbow trout originating in Norway

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

(3)

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 Articles 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

The Council,
following an anti-dumping investigation
(the ‘original
investigation’), by Regulation (EC) No
437/2004 (2)
imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty
‘the
large rainbow trout
on imports of
product concerned’ as defined in recital 19 below) ori­
ginating in Norway. The definitive duty was imposed in
the form of a countrywide ad valorem duty at a level of
19,9 % (‘the current measures’).

(‘LRT’ or

2. 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 Regu­
lation.

(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 72, 11.3.2004, p. 23.

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
their export prices to the Community
showing that
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 current measures and therefore the
the level of
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.

consulted

after having

the Advisory
Accordingly,
Committee, the Commission on 15 May 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 LRT origina­
ting 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)

(5)

(6)

(3) OJ C 109, 15.5.2007, p. 23.

L 217/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.8.2008

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

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, 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 representa­
tive volume of exports that could reasonably be inves­
tigated within the time available.

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 exa­
minations 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
the product concerned produced by them or
export
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.

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
initiation requested
the notice of
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 cooperating 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 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.

(16)

The Commission carried out verification visits at
premises of the following companies:

the

(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.

(13)

The three exporting producers included in the final
sample represented around 33 % of Norwegian exports

(18)

The investigation of dumping covered the period from
1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 (‘review investigation
period’ or ‘RIP’).

5. Investigation period

13.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/3

(19)

(20)

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

1. Product concerned

i.e.

large

rainbow trout

The product under review is the same as in the original
(Oncorhynchus
investigation,
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), ori­
ginating in Norway (‘the product concerned’).

0302 11 20,

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

0304 19 15

2. Like product

(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
same use. They were
characteristics
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

(22)

(23)

C. DUMPING

1. General

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

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
in
concerned were
of
the product
the
total
comparison with
Community.
the
basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered rep­
resentative when the total domestic sales volume of
each exporting producer was at least 5 % of its total
export sales volume to the Community.

to
In accordance with Article 2(2) of

representative

export

sales

its

(24)

In order to determine whether domestic sales were rep­
resentative, sales to unrelated traders located in Norway

during the RIP were disregarded since the final desti­
nation 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)

sold domestically by the

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

representative

(26) Domestic

sufficiently

sales of a particular product

type were
representative when the
considered as
type sold on the domestic
volume of
market during the review investigation period represen­
ted 5 % or more of the total volume of the comparable
product type sold for export to the Community.

that product

(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 profi­
table 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
to or above the calculated cost of
sales price equal
the total
production, represented more than 80 % of
sales volume of
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
irrespective of whether
that type made during the RIP,
these sales were profitable or not.

that

(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.

L 217/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.8.2008

(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 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.

(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.

the basic Regulation, on the basis of the price at which
the imported products were first resold to an inde­
pendent 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 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
insurance,
handling,
loading and ancillary costs, packing, bank
charges credit and import duties were made.

commissions,

discounts,

transport,

5. Dumping margins

5.1. Sampled companies

(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.

(42)

these companies,

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

3. Export price

(37)

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

(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 %

13.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/5

5.2. Countrywide dumping margin

(44) Given the dumping margins determined for all

the
companies in the sample were de minimis and the co­
operation in this investigation was very high, the coun­
trywide dumping margin was also considered to be de
minimis.

D. LASTING NATURE OF CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES

1. General

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.

(45)

(46)

the basic Regulation, whether

It was further examined, in accordance with Article 11(3)
the circumstances
of
i.e. the dumping margins as indicated
during the RIP;
the
above, were of a lasting nature.
the
following aspects were examined in particular:
the
likely development of
evolution of
the production volume in Norway; and
(iii) the development of the consumption of LRT in the
Community market; (iv) the evolution of export prices
and volumes to third country markets; as well as (v) the
to the
development of export prices and volumes
Community.

In this regard,
(i)
(ii)

the normal

value;

2. Evolution of the normal value

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 manu­
facturing for the exporting producer with the largest
accordance with
export
the
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.

volume

EC in

to

(47) Within this

several

framework,

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, rep­
resenting 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 consoli­
dation 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
is
expected that overall costs will now stabilise at levels
found during the RIP.

investigation and the RIP.

It

(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

(49)

(50)

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.

Subsequent to disclosure, the Community industry (‘CI’)
claimed that the conclusions reached as far as feed and
smolt costs 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.

is not contested that

(51) As the allegations concerning feed price in Finland were
not supported by any public or verifiable information,
feed
they had to be rejected. As far as the price of
it
it
components is concerned,
may have increased. However, 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 10 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.

L 217/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.8.2008

3. Evolution of the production volumes in Norway

of

volume

in Norway

the investigation revealed that

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

salmon production and

concerned have

concentrate

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
Norwegian interested parties that production volumes
therefore had to be
in Norway will decrease overall
rejected.

the argument of

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
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.

is used for

licence

the

releasing trout

shorter period for

The Norwegian interested parties claimed that major
producers of LRT were switching increasingly to the
production of
the biological
salmon because of
differences between LRT and salmon (e.g. harvesting
frequency,
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
worldwide
argument
(see
therefore had to be rejected.

recital 63 below). This

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.

Finally,
interested parties in support of

submitted by the Norwegian
i.e.

their arguments,

evidence

the

(59)

the production in Norway is
The CI claimed that
expected to increase even further following the likely
issuance of new production licences
in 2009. As
it is not expected that
mentioned above in recital 54,
In this
any new licences will be issued before 2009.
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.
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,
this
and given the relatively long production cycles,
does not
immediately in an increase of
production. This argument had therefore to be rejected.

Furthermore,

translate

licences

cover

both

(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

is concluded that
production volumes of LRT in Norway are likely to
increase in the foreseeable future.

the above,

it

4. Evolution of the Community consumption

(62)

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 worldwide
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.

(53)

(54)

(55)

(56)

(57)

13.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/7

(64)

Subsequent to disclosure, the Finnish Fish Farmers’ Asso­
ciation (‘FFFA’) objected to the above conclusion stating
that, even if worldwide fish demand is expected to
there would be no additional demand for
increase,
FFFA further
Norwegian LRT in the Community.
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 infor­
mation or evidence which could substantiate its alle­
gations, they had to be rejected.

(65)

5. Evolution of export prices and volumes to third

country markets

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 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 compe­
tition 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
from 8 600
significantly during the past years;
tonnes in 2002 to 31 500 tonnes in total
in 2007.
This trend is confirmed by recent statistics, which show
that
additional volumes of Chilean and
Norwegian LRT are exported to Russia.

significant

i.e.

the main export market

(68) As stated in recital 65, the investigation showed that
Russia has become
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
the
products,
Norwegian
booming
Russian market.

indicating the strong interest of

producers

exporting

thus

the

in

(69) Norwegian exports to Japan show a downward trend
i.e. they decreased by 39 %
between 2006 and 2007,
from 10 877 to 6 661 tonnes. 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 NOK 34,70 per kg to NOK 24,22
per kg, which is explained to a great extent by the switch
from frozen trout
less
expensive, but also by the international competition.
Likewise,
to Japan moved from an
average NOK 33,26 per kg in 2006 to NOK 29,79 per
kg. Despite this decrease, export prices to the EC in 2007
were still on average 4 % below the export prices to
Japan and Russia. This trend is also confirmed for the
beginning of 2008.

to fresh trout, which was

export prices

(71)

(72)

(73)

(higher prices) of

increasing demand, given the
In a situation of global
attractiveness
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 supple­
mentary volumes of LRT will be mostly channelled to
and absorbed by these markets.

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.

increasing
further claimed the existence of
The CI
Russian production of LRT and the likely introduction
of additional customs duties by the Russian authorities
the Russian LRT
on Norwegian LRT to protect
that
claimed
production. Other
Norwegian LRT producers were dependent on the
to
Russian market and that,
should market access
Russia be limited due to the unpredictability of
this
market, significant volumes of LRT would be directed
to the Community.

producers

LRT

L 217/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

13.8.2008

(74)

(75)

Likewise, these allegations were not supported by any
evidence and were considered purely speculative. Thus,
the currently
there were no reasons to assume that
expanding Russian market would limit
to
access
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

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 EUR 4,02
per kg in 2006 to an average EUR 2,87 per kg in 2007.
However, since the last quarter of 2007 up to the
beginning of 2008,
trend
statistics
stopped and that prices have stabilised.

show that

this

it

is unlikely that

(76) As the above analysis shows in recital 71, in a situation
of growing markets,
the increased
production volume of LRT in Norway will be fully
directed to the Community should measures be allowed
Indeed, demand is increasing worldwide and
to lapse.
Norwegian exports
established in
already well
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.

are

(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
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 signifi­
cantly should measures be allowed to lapse.

is not only strong in other

(80)

to disclosure,

the CI claimed that export
Subsequent
prices to Finland had dropped significantly during and
after the RIP and that export prices of LRT to Finland
had been below the 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 prices were higher. Since an evaluation has to be
done on Community-wide basis, average export prices to
all countries in the Community have to be taken into
the above conclusion in
consideration. On this basis,
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

The investigation has also shown that the production
the product concerned in Norway will
capacity for
investigation further
likely
increase. However,
revealed that although somewhat
increased quantities
may be directed to the Community, due to an expected
increase
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.

in consumption,

the

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(86)

current

The
be
interim review should
terminated and the definitive anti-dumping measures
should be repealed.

therefore

13.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 217/9

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,
initiated
currently classifiable within CN codes 0302 11 20, 0303 21 20, 0304 19 15 and 0304 29 15,
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 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, 7 August 2008.

For the Council
The President

B. KOUCHNER