8 ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY
MEASURES AGAINST FARMED ATLANTIC SALMON
(24553)
8721/03
COM(03) 224
| Draft Council Regulation terminating the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and the anti-dumping proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faroe Islands
|
| Legal base | Article 133 EU; simple majority voting
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration |
Minister's letter of 20 January 2006 |
| Previous Committee Report |
HC 63-xxiii (2002-03), para 6 (4 June 2003) and HC 38-xi (2004-05), para 10 (15 March 2005)
|
| Discussed in Council | 26 May 2003
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared (decision reported on 15 March 2005)
|
Background
8.1 Community legislation enables counter-measures to be taken
where products are dumped on the market or are subsidised to an
unreasonable degree. More specifically, measures were taken on
both counts in 1997 against imports of farmed Atlantic salmon
from Norway, and, in June 2003, our predecessors reported on a
review which the Commission had carried out of these measures.[57]
After assessing the extent of any dumping, and whether the Community
industry concerned had suffered any material injury, it concluded
that, in the case of Norway, there was no dumping, and that, although
some elements of subsidy still remained, these had declined since
the counter-measures taken in 1997, and were, at most, only just
over the de minimis level of 1% (and in practice probably
less than that). It therefore proposed that the measures which
had applied to Norwegian salmon should be terminated.
8.2 As our predecessors noted, the UK had sought
an extension of those measures, but, as it had been supported
only by Ireland, the termination proposal was adopted by the Council
on 26 May 2003. However, the UK had made a declaration in COREPER
on the social importance of salmon farming in areas with little
alternative employment, and had called for a surveillance mechanism
to be put in place to give early warning of any surges in imports.
In drawing this to the attention of the House, our predecessors
said that they would hold the document under scrutiny, pending
further information on this last point.
8.3 As they reported on 15 March 2005, they subsequently
received a letter of 1 March 2005 from the then Minister of State
for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs saying that, following
a request from the UK and Ireland, the Commission had put forward
in August 2004 provisional safeguard measures on imports of farmed
salmon from third-countries, thus superseding the request for
surveillance measures, which it had not felt able to support.
In the event, several Member States with salmon processing industries
had opposed this, and Denmark (which has a sizeable processing
industry as well as longstanding ties to Norway), had referred
the measures to the Council. As a result, these had lapsed in
early December 2004, but, after a further investigation, which
had found that, contrary to its expectations at the time of the
removal of anti-dumping measures, greatly increased exports particularly
from Norway were flooding the Community, the Commission had imposed
definitive safeguard measures on 6 February 2005, lasting until
August 2008. The Minister also noted that, like the measures introduced
in August 2004, these could be referred to the Council by a Member
State, in which case it would again be possible for the Council
to amend or revoke them.
Minister's letter of 20 January 2006
8.4 We have now received a letter of 20 January 2006
from the present Minister of State (Ian Pearson) saying that,
as a result of a separate anti-dumping complaint which the UK
industry had submitted in September 2004, the Council would be
adopting on 22 January a Regulation imposing anti-dumping measures
on imports of farmed salmon. This would take the form of a minimum
import price of €2.80
per kilogram (whole-fish equivalent), and, in the event of the
market price falling below that level, a duty equivalent to the
difference would be payable.[58]
Conclusion
8.5 We are grateful to the Minister for this further,
and welcome, information, which —
notwithstanding our predecessors' clearance of the original document
—
we think it right to report to the House.
57 This also dealt with the case for imposing anti-dumping
measures against similar exports from Chile and the Faroe Islands. Back
58
This would not apply in the case of one company whose dumping
was found to be "de minimis". Back
|
