6 Repeal of anti-dumping duties on imports
of Norwegian farmed salmon
| (29770) 11083/08 COM(08) 385
| Draft Council Regulation repealing the anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 85/2006 on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway
|
| Legal base | Article 133EC; simple majority
|
| Department | Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 25 February 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-i (2008-09), chapter 6 (10 December 2008).
|
| Discussed in Council | 17 July 2008
|
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
6.1 Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96[30]
allows the Community to take action where industry within the
Community has suffered injury as a result of imported products
having been dumped,[31]
and from time to time the Commission puts forward proposals for
the imposition or removal of anti-dumping duties applied against
a variety of products from a range of different countries. In
the main, we are able to clear these without a substantive Report
to the House, as for example we did in February 2006 when the
Commission proposed the imposition of an anti-dumping duty on
a imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway.[32]
6.2 That proposal was eventually adopted as Council
Regulation (EC) No 85/2006,[33]
and sets a minimum import price below which imports attract an
additional anti-dumping duty. However, following a request for
a review by a number of Member States, the Commission put forward
in June 2008 this further proposal, which would have repealed
that Regulation. In doing so, it said that its investigation had
revealed no dumping during the period of the review, and that
there was no reason to believe that the production volume in Norway
would increase above the traditional growth rate and thus lead
to significantly greater export volumes to the Community. Consequently,
it saw little risk of a significant decrease in Norwegian export
prices to dumped levels in the foreseeable future. It also pointed
out that the extent of Norwegian-owned production within the Community,
with a vested interest in maintaining market prices there, again
made it unlikely that dumping would occur in the future. However,
given the unpredictability of market conditions, the Commission
recommended that the situation should be monitored closely, and
kept under review. In the meantime, the proposal in question was
adopted as Council Regulation (EC) No 685/2008.[34]
6.3 As we noted in our Report of 10 December 2008,
we were told that the Government had consistently defended the
need for these measures, and that the UK and Ireland had opposed
their repeal. However, since we felt that this particular proposal
was one which we should report to the House, our Chairman wrote
on 16 July 2008 asking for a quantitative indication of the size
and distribution of the farmed salmon sector in the UK and the
relative significance of imports of this product from Norway.
He also asked whether the UK's defence of the existing anti-dumping
measures had been essentially based on political grounds, or whether
there were aspects of the Commission's analysis with which it
took issue (and, if so, on what grounds).
6.4 We received a letter of 4 December 2008 from
the Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs (Mr Gareth
Thomas), providing the factual information we had requested. He
also said that the UK's major disagreement with the Commission
related to the likely occurrence of dumping, where the industry
had said that costs had not stabilised at the levels reported
by the Commission, and that it expected production levels in Norway
to be much higher. In addition, he pointed out that the absence
of information and analysis on Norwegian production costs made
it impossible to validate Commission claims. However, he noted
that the Commission had undertaken to monitor import prices and
trends and to report back to Member States on a regular basis.
6.5 We commented that it was clear that there were
a number of detailed considerations involved on both of the argument
but that, now the measures had been repealed, it would presumably
be possible to establish which of these two opposing views had
been borne out in practice. We also noted that the Commission
had undertaken to monitor events, and to report back to Member
States on a regular basis. We therefore asked whether there was
yet any information on the impact which Council Regulation (EC)
No 685/2008 had had in the UK since it had come into force. In
the meantime, we decided to hold the document under scrutiny.
Minister's letter of 25 February 2009
6.6 We have now received from the Minister a letter
of 25 February 2009, enclosing the first monitoring report from
the Commission. He notes that, in the three or four months following
the adoption of the Regulation, import prices into the Community
(and the UK) of Norwegian salmon had remained stable and above
the repealed minimum import price; that, compared with the same
period in 2007, the volume of imports into the Community
as a whole had increased by 2%, whilst those to the UK had decreased
by 4%; and that the Commission had proposed to hold regular meeting
with the Community
industry — in practice, that in the
UK and Ireland — to exchange market-related information.
Conclusion
6.7 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information, in the light of which we see no need to continue
to hold the document under scrutiny. We are therefore now clearing
it.
30 OJ No. L 56, 6.3.96, p.1. Back
31
Dumping is held to have occurred where the export price to the
Community is less than a comparable price for a like product within
the exporting country. Back
32
(27277) 5087/06: see HC 34-xix (2005-06), chapter 15 (15 February
2006). Back
33
OJ No. L 15, 20.1.06, p.1. Back
34
OJ No. L 192, 19.7.08, p.5. Back
|
