Council Regulation (EC) No 930/2003 of 26 May 2003 terminating the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands

Council Regulation (EC) No 930/2003

of 26 May 2003

terminating the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway and the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community ("the basic anti-dumping Regulation")(1), and in particular Articles 5, 9 and Article 11(3) and (7) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community ("the basic anti-subsidy Regulation")(2), and in particular Articles 14, 19 and Article 22(3) thereof,

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

Whereas:

A. PROCEDURE

(1) In September 1997 the Council, by Regulations (EC) No 1890/97(3) and No 1891/97(4), imposed definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway. By Decision 97/634/EC(5), the Commission accepted undertakings from a large number of exporters/producers from Norway to respect, inter alia, certain minimum import prices. In December 1998, the Commission announced by way of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(6) the initiation of an ex officio investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96 and Article 19(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 in order to review the possibility of a change in the form of the duties so that imports of salmon at injurious prices would be prevented. Subsequently, the Council repealed and replaced Regulations (EC) No 1890/97 and No 1891/97 by a single Council Regulation (EC) No 772/1999(7).

(2) In parallel to the abovementioned anti-dumping and countervailing duties and undertakings, an agreement known as the "Agreement on a solution to the salmon case" (Salmon Agreement) was signed between the Commission and the Norwegian government providing for supporting measures to be managed within the framework of regular contacts between the signatories.

(3) On the basis of the information received by the Commission within the framework of the Salmon Agreement and information obtained from various other sources in 2001, the Commission considered there to be sufficient grounds to warrant the initiation of a further interim review of the existing measures. In particular, it appeared that the form of the measures (including the undertakings) was no longer appropriate to remove the injurious effects of dumping and subsidisation given the disturbances present in the Community market. It also appeared, given the evidence provided by the Norwegian authorities concerning normal value and the available information on export prices to the Community, that the dumping margins established may have changed significantly. Furthermore, in the light of information received from the Norwegian authorities concerning changes to the export tax and certain information received from Community producers of farmed Atlantic salmon, it was considered appropriate to review in parallel the effectiveness of the form and level of the countervailing measures. Finally, given other information concerning developments in the ownership structure of salmon producing companies in the Community and production costs and the resale prices of Norwegian imports, whose volume was substantial, it was considered necessary to review the findings relating to injury in respect of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures.

(4) Therefore, having determined, after consultation of the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed to justify the initiation of an interim review, the Commission announced by way of a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(8), the initiation of an investigation pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 19(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation with regard to imports into the Community of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway, covering both the form and the level of the anti-dumping and countervailing measures.

(5) According to Article 11(7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 22(3) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, when an interim review of measures is in progress at the time when measures are due to expire, the interim review must also cover those aspects, which under other circumstances, would be dealt with within the scope of an expiry review opened under Article 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The Commission therefore had to investigate whether the expiry of the measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping, subsidisation and injury. In this context, the Commission informed all interested parties of the extension in the scope of the review and sought opinions as to whether the expiry of the measures would be likely or unlikely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury, and/or the continuation or recurrence of subsidisation and injury.

(6) On 18 July 2002, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities(9), the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands.

(7) The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged on 3 June 2002 by the EU Salmon Producers' Group (the complainant) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion of the Community production of farmed Atlantic salmon within the meaning of Article 4 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The complaint contained sufficient prima facie evidence of dumping and material injury resulting therefrom to justify the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding.

(8) The Commission officially advised the exporting producers and importers/traders known to be concerned as well as their associations, the authorities of Norway and Chile, and the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands, users, suppliers and Community producers of the initiation of the investigations. Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notices of initiation.

(9) A number of exporting producers and traders in Norway, Chile and the Faeroe Islands, producers and suppliers located in the Community as well as representative associations of fish importers, processors and consumers made their views known in writing. All parties who so requested within the above time limit and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard were granted the opportunity to be heard.

(10) In view of the apparent large number of exporting producers of the product concerned in Norway, Chile and the Faeroe Islands and the large number of producers of the product in the Community, the application of sampling techniques for the investigation of injurious dumping and subsidisation in the review and injurious dumping in the investigation concerning Chile and the Faeroe Islands was envisaged in the notices of initiation.

(11) The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purposes of the investigations. With regard to the investigation concerning imports originating in Chile and the Faeroe Islands, this included all information deemed relevant for the determination of dumping, injury and Community interest. With regard to the investigation concerning imports originating in Norway, this included all information deemed relevant for the determination of dumping, subsidisation and injury and also the determination as to whether there was a likelihood of a continuation and/or recurrence of injurious dumping and subsidisation and the assessment of Community interest. Verification visits were carried out at the following:

(a) The Government of Norway and other entities in Norway

• Ministry of Fisheries, Oslo,

• Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, Oslo,

• Ministry of Trade and Industry, Oslo,

• Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND), Oslo,

• The Research Council of Norway, Oslo.

(b) Community producers

• Orkney Sea Farms Ltd. Glasgow, United Kingdom,

• Muirachmhainní Teo, Co. Galway, Ireland,

• Ardvar Salmon Ltd, Saffron Walden, United Kingdom,

• Hoganess Salmon Ltd, Wester Sound Salmon Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom,

• Cro Lax Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom,

• Bressay Salmon Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom,

• West Minch Salmon Ltd, Atlantic West Salmon Ltd, Sidinish Salmon Ltd, South Uist, United Kingdom,

• Loch Duart Ltd, Edinburgh, United Kingdom,

• Hoove Salmon Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom,

• North Atlantic Salmon Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom,

• Ayre Salmon Ltd, Shetland, United Kingdom.

(c) Exporters/producers and related sales companies

Norway

• Midt-Norsk Havbruk AS, Rørvik,

• Lofoten Sjøprodukter AS, Leknes,

• Follalaks AS, Nordfold,

• Terra Seafood AS, Trondheim,

• Marine Harvest Norway AS, Bergen,

• Aqua Farms AS, Bergen,

• Naco Trading AS, Bergen,

• Aalesundfisk AS, Aalesund,

• Alsaker Fjordbruk AS, Onarheim,

• Labeyrie Norge AS, Oslo.

Chile

• Marine Harvest Chile S.A., Puerto Montt,

• Salmones Multiexport Ltda, Puerto Montt,

• Pesca Chile S.A., Santiago,

• Invertec Pesquera Mar de Chiloé S.A., Santiago,

• Cultivos Yadran S.A., and Yadran Quellón S.A., Quellón, Chiloé Island,

The Faeroe Islands

• P/F Vestlax, and P/F Vestsalmon, Kollafjørður,

• P/F East Salmon, Klaksvík,

• P/F Faeroe Seafood, Tórshavn,

• P/F Bakkafrost, Glyvrar.

(d) Related importers in the Community

• Armoric S.A., Quimper, France,

• Vensy España S.A., Málaga, Spain,

• Narvik S.A., Landivisiau, France,

• Benfumat S.A., St. Feliu de Llobregat, Spain,

• H. Van Wijnen, Krimpen a/d Ijssel, Netherlands,

• A-fish Skagen AS, Skagen, Denmark,

• Labeyrie S.A., Saint Geours de Maremne, France.

(e) Unrelated importers in the Community

• Moulin de la Marche, Brittany, France.

(f) Suppliers

• Landcatch Ltd, Argyll, United Kingdom.

(12) The investigation of dumping and subsidisation in the review investigation concerning Norway covered the period 1 January to 31 December 2001 ("IP"). This same period was exceptionally taken for the investigation of dumping in the anti-dumping proceeding concerning Chile and the Faeroe Islands in order to allow for a combined analysis of injury and causation for all the proceedings. The examination of trends in the context of the analysis of injury for both investigations covered the period from January 1998 to the end of the IP (analysis period).

(13) In accordance with Article 20 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 30 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, all parties concerned were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose the termination of the investigations. They were also granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to this disclosure.

(14) The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its investigations. The written comments submitted by the parties were considered, and where appropriate, the findings have been modified accordingly.

B. PRODUCT CONCERNED AND LIKE PRODUCT

(15) The product under consideration is farmed Atlantic salmon, whether or not filleted, fresh, chilled or frozen. The definition excludes other similar farmed fish products such as large (salmon) trout, other salmon species such as Pacific salmon as well as wild salmon and further processed types such as smoked salmon.

(16) The product is currently classifiable within CN codes 0302 12 00, 0303 22 00, 0304 10 13 and 0304 20 13, corresponding to different presentations of the product (fresh or chilled whole fish, fresh or chilled fillets, frozen whole fish and frozen fillets). All these presentations were found to be sufficiently similar for them to constitute a single product for the purpose of the proceeding.

(17) It was considered whether the product produced in Norway, Chile and the Faeroe Islands and sold for export to the Community was identical, that is to say alike in all respects to the farmed Atlantic salmon produced in the Community and sold on the Community market within the meaning of Article 1(4) and (5) of the basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy Regulations respectively.

(18) One party contended that fresh and frozen salmon should be distinguished for the purpose of the investigation on the basis that frozen salmon, which is not produced in large quantities in the Community, had distinct customers and markets from fresh salmon. It was noted that in a previous Commission investigation of farmed Atlantic salmon initiated in 1990, which was subsequently terminated without the imposition of measures, frozen salmon had been excluded from the scope of the investigation. Similarly, attention was drawn to the fact that authorities in the United States of America (USA) have consistently made the distinction between fresh and frozen salmon in the context of anti-dumping and countervailing investigations relating to salmon. This party suggested that the freezing of salmon added significant value-added to the final product which was appreciated by certain users in the processing industry. Frozen salmon, it was argued, was a further processed product that used fresh salmon as its raw material. It was claimed that consumers in the Community showed a clear preference for fresh salmon and that this was reflected in the price premium that they were prepared to pay. In view of these considerations, it was argued that frozen Atlantic salmon could not be considered to be a like product to that produced in the Community and should therefore be excluded from the investigation.

(19) In assessing whether the product concerned should be deemed to be alike to farmed Atlantic salmon produced in the Community, it was initially considered whether the various types and presentations of farmed Atlantic salmon, i.e. fillets or whole fish, fresh or frozen, shared the same basic physical, technical and/or chemical characteristics. Arguments concerning practice in the USA and in the prior investigation, which was terminated without measures, were not considered relevant in this context. Indeed, it is recalled that in the most recent investigations which led to the imposition of measures against imports into the Community of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway, it was determined that the product concerned included whole fish, gutted fish and various types of portion and fillets, whether fresh, chilled or frozen and that such presentations of salmon constituted a single product which itself was deemed to be alike in all respects to that produced in the Community and sold on the Community market. It was not considered that the freezing of salmon was sufficient to alter the basic characteristics of the product. Rather than adding value to the product that was appreciated by certain users, it was considered that one of the main reasons for freezing the product was to facilitate its transport to the Community. Consequently, references to frozen salmon as a further processed product derived from fresh salmon in the same way that wine is produced from grapes were not found to be reasonable in the context of the present investigations.

(20) The present investigations established fresh and frozen salmon to be interchangeable to a certain degree. Indeed, given the increased share of total consumption accounted for by frozen salmon in the IP, it has to be assumed that there are certain users not having cooperated in the proceeding that are able to replace fresh salmon in their production processes with frozen salmon. At the same time, it is noted that the Community market shows a clear preference for farmed Atlantic salmon over other types of salmon such as Pacific salmon and wild salmon. This is evidenced by the volume of farmed Atlantic salmon consumed in the Community as described in recital 164. Species of salmon other than the product concerned are therefore not considered to have a significant influence on the market for farmed Atlantic salmon.

C. SAMPLING FOR DUMPING ASSESSMENT PURPOSES

(21) In order to enable the Commission to select a sample, pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, exporters, producers and exporting producers were requested to make themselves known within three weeks of the initiation of the review investigation and of the anti-dumping proceeding and to provide basic information on their export and domestic sales, their precise activities with regard to the production of the product concerned and the names and activities of all their related companies in the production and/or selling of farmed Atlantic salmon. The Commission also contacted known associations of exporters/producers, the authorities of Norway and Chile, and the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands. No objections to the use of sampling were raised by these parties.

Chile

(22) 59 entities in Chile, composing 42 individual companies or groups of related companies (companies), came forward and provided the requested information within the time limit set for this purpose. They represented almost 100 % of total exports of the product concerned from Chile to the Community. However, only 28 were producers reporting exports to the Community during the IP which could be taken into account in the selection of the sample. As to the remaining fourteen companies, eight were traders that could not be taken into account in the selection of the sample, three were producers with no exports to the Community during the IP and the remaining three companies were transformers with no production of the product concerned.

The Faeroe Islands

(23) 26 companies in the Faeroe Islands, grouped in thirteen groups of related companies, came forward and provided the requested information within the time limit set for this purpose. All of these companies expressed a wish to cooperate in the investigation. They represented 100 % of total exports of the product concerned from the Faeroe Islands to the Community. Out of the thirteen groups, seven indicated both production and exports to the Community during the IP. These seven groups were taken into account in the selection of the sample.

Norway

(24) 228 companies in Norway replied to the sampling mini-questionnaire within the time limit set for this purpose. They represented close to 100 % of total Norwegian exports of the product concerned to the Community.

Chile

(25) In Chile, as a general rule, the production and sales of the product concerned is made by integrated companies which carry out both functions. Thus, in the case of Chile only one sample of integrated exporting producers was selected. According to Article 17(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the selection of the sample was based on the largest representative volume of exports which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. Criteria that were also found to be important in the selection of the Chilean sample were representative domestic sales and significant production.

(26) On this basis four exporting producers were chosen to constitute the sample in consultation with the Chilean Salmon and Trout Producers Association ("CSTPA") and the Chilean authorities, both of which raised no objection to the proposal of the Commission. The four companies selected in the sample represented, according to the replies to the mini-questionnaire, around 45 % of Chilean export sales to the Community, 53 % of Chilean domestic sales and 36 % of Chilean production of the product concerned.

(27) The cooperating exporting producers, who were not finally retained in the sample, were informed that any anti-dumping duty on their exports would be calculated in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. Some of these companies initially indicated their intention to claim an individual treatment in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation in case they were not selected in the sample. However, only two substantiated claims were received within the deadline specified in the notice of initiation.

(28) One of the two companies that submitted a claim for individual treatment, subsequently informed the Commission that it wished to withdraw its request for individual treatment because its submission (questionnaire response) had serious errors and it did not have the human resources either to correct these errors or to continue with the investigation.

(29) The companies which finally constituted the sample and which fully cooperated with the investigation as well as the sole company that claimed individual examination were attributed their own dumping margin.

(30) Questionnaires were sent for completion to all four sampled companies and to those companies that initially expressed their intention to claim an individual margin.

The Faeroe Islands

(31) As was the case with Chile, the production and sales of the product concerned in the Faeroe Islands is carried out by integrated companies. Therefore, only one sample of integrated exporting producers was selected. According to Article 17(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the selection of the sample was based on the largest representative volume of exports, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. Three exporting producers were chosen to constitute the sample in consultation with and with the consent of the Faeroe Fish Farmers Association and the Home Government of the Faeroe Islands. The three companies selected in the sample represented, according to the replies to the mini-questionnaire, around 54 % of both Faeroese production and exports to the Community of the product concerned.

(32) None of the remaining exporting producers requested an individual treatment in accordance with Article 17(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The cooperating exporting producers, who were not finally retained in the sample, were therefore informed that any anti-dumping duty on their exports would be calculated in accordance with Article 9(6) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(33) The companies which finally constituted the sample and which fully cooperated with the investigation were attributed their own dumping margin. Questionnaires were sent for completion to all sampled companies.

Norway

(34) The samples for Norway were selected in consultation with and with the consent of the Norwegian authorities and the Norwegian Federation of Fish and Aquaculture Industries.

(35) As was the case at the time of the investigation which led to the imposition of the original measures (original investigation), it was found that a strict distinction in functions is maintained between the farmers who grow the salmon and the traders (exporters) who sell it domestically and for export. It was therefore decided to have two samples, one for farmers and one for exporters.

(36) As it was found impossible to impose a company specific duty which could be enforced by customs authorities, since the identity of the grower could never be checked, it was decided that the purpose of the samples would be to establish a country-wide duty. Moreover, as Regulation (EC) No 772/1999 established only one duty rate for Norway as a whole, the present investigation envisaged the review of that single duty.

(37) As a consequence, one company which had specifically requested to be part of the sample with a view to having an individual margin, withdrew its request.

(38) The companies were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

For the farmers:

(i) the significance of their production volumes; and

(ii) their location, so as to ensure a good geographical spread.

For the exporters (traders):

(i) the significance of volume of exports; and

(ii) their involvement in activities which are representative of the various roles played by Norwegian exporters.

(39) The samples that were established along these lines comprised ten companies. Altogether the sampling questionnaire replies of these companies indicated that they represented 17 % of Norwegian export sales to the Community, 20 % of Norwegian domestic sales and 15 % of Norwegian production of the product concerned. Questionnaires were sent for completion to all sampled companies.

(40) Subsequent to the disclosure, one party claimed that the Norwegian sample of exporters was unrepresentative and had led to unreliable results mainly because it included a company which was part of a multinational group with worldwide interests. It should be noted that the selection of the sample was made at the early stages of the review investigation and that interested parties had the opportunity to comment on its appropriateness at that time and chose not to do so. More importantly, no reason was advanced as to why the fact that the Norwegian exporter belonged to a multinational group made the data of that company unusable for dumping purposes. The claim of this party was therefore rejected.

D. DUMPING

(a) Normal value

(41) In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of farmed Atlantic salmon to independent customers by each exporting producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Community.

(42) This assessment revealed that all investigated exporting producers had representative sales of farmed salmon on the domestic market during the IP.

(43) The Commission subsequently considered whether domestically sold and exported product types had similar quality, form (fresh/chilled or frozen) and presentation (gutted fish head-on, gutted fish head-off, whole fillets, portions, etc.) and concluded that they were identical or directly comparable.

(44) Additionally and for each product type sold by the exporting producer on the domestic market, which was found to be directly comparable with the type sold for export to the Community, it was established whether domestic sales were sufficiently representative for the purposes of Article 2(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered as sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Community.

(45) The Commission subsequently examined whether the domestic sales of each company could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

This was done by establishing the proportion of domestic sales to independent customers, of each exported product type, sold at a loss on the domestic market during the IP:

• For those product types where more than 80 % by volume of sales on the domestic market were not below unit costs, and where the weighted average sales price was equal to or higher than the weighted average production cost, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of all domestic sales prices of the type in question.

• For those product types where at least 10 %, but no more than 80 %, by volume of sales on the domestic market were not below unit costs, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of domestic sales prices which were found equal to or above unit costs only, of the type in question.

• For those product types where less than 10 %, by volume of sales, on the domestic market, were not below unit costs, it was considered that the product type concerned was not sold in the ordinary course of trade and therefore, normal value was constructed.

(46) For certain types sold for export to the Community, domestic sales were found to have been made in the ordinary course of trade in the case of three investigated companies. Normal value was based for the corresponding product type on the actual prices paid or payable, by independent customers in the domestic market of Chile, during the IP, as set out in Article 2(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(47) For sales of product types not made in the ordinary course of trade, as well as for product types which were not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, normal value had to be constructed. All five investigated companies had sales to the Community of such product types.

(48) To construct normal value pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the selling, general and administrative (SG& A) costs incurred and the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producers concerned on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the IP, was added to their own average cost of manufacturing during the IP. Where necessary, the manufacturing costs and SG& A costs reported were corrected, before being used in the ordinary course of trade test and in constructing normal values.

(b) Export price

(49) The investigation showed that the exports of certain Chilean exporting producers were made both to unrelated and to related customers in the Community. Two companies exported via unrelated traders in Uruguay and in the USA. In these cases it could however be established that the product under consideration was shipped to the Community.

(50) Therefore, for exports of the product under consideration by the exporting producers which were made directly to independent customers in the Community, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable by the independent customers in the Community or by the independent traders located in the third countries.

(51) For sales made via their related importers, the export price was constructed on the basis of the resale prices to independent customers. Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale by those importers, including SG& A costs, and assuming a reasonable profit margin, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(c) Comparison

(52) The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-factory basis. 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 price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. For all investigated exporting producers allowances for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, import charges, credit costs, after-sales costs, commissions, discounts, rebates, currency conversions have been claimed and granted where applicable and justified.

(d) Dumping margins

(53) Dumping margins, for the companies investigated, were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type.

(54) Since zero dumping margins were established for three out of the four sampled exporting producers in Chile, the dumping margin for exporting producers, which made themselves known in accordance with Article 17 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation but were not examined individually, has been established, pursuant to Article 9(6) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, on the basis of the dumping margin of the company in the sample for which the existence of dumping was established. Moreover, due to the high overall cooperation level established, it was considered appropriate to set the residual dumping margin for non-cooperating companies at the same level.

(55) The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following:

TABLE>

(a) Normal value

(56) In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the Commission first examined whether the domestic sales of the product concerned to independent customers by each exporting producer were representative, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales was equal to or greater than 5 % of the total volume of the corresponding export sales to the Community.

(57) This examination revealed that none of the investigated exporting producers had representative sales of farmed Atlantic salmon to the domestic market during the IP.

(58) As stipulated in Article 2(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, normal value was therefore to be based either on the cost of manufacturing of the companies in the sample, plus a reasonable amount for SG& A and for profits or on the basis of export prices, in the ordinary course of trade, to an appropriate third country, provided that such sales were representative.

(59) In this respect, it was found that none of the exporting producers had representative exports sales to an individual third country. Therefore, the Commission had no other option than to base normal value on the cost of manufacturing of the companies in the sample, plus a reasonable amount for SG& A and for profits.

(60) Given the overall absence of representative domestic sales of the product concerned but also the absence of domestic sales of other products falling within the same general category as the product, a reasonable method was sought for calculating the amounts for SG& A costs and profits to be added to the cost of manufacturing of the sampled exporting producers.

(61) Therefore, it was decided, pursuant to Article 2(6)(c), to determine normal values for the exporting producers in the sample by adding to their own cost of manufacturing the weighted average SG& A costs and profits incurred by the sampled Chilean exporting producers on their domestic sales. This method was considered to be the most reasonable in this situation since Chile is party to the same proceeding as the Faeroe Islands and the production and sales structure of the salmon industry in this country is similar to that of the Faeroe Islands, in the sense that both in Chile and the Faeroes the salmon industry is run by large integrated companies.

(62) Subsequent to the disclosure, one party contested this methodology and claimed that the Commission should not have used the SG& A costs and profits from Chile in constructing the normal value for the Faeroes as the Chilean market is not comparable to the Faeroese market, neither in terms of size nor in development. It further claimed that a profit margin of 15 % should have been used as the Commission had considered this to be a proper level of profitability for the Community industry in the original investigation concerning Norway.

(63) In addressing this argument, it should be noted that since there is no domestic market in the Faeroes Islands for the product concerned, the issue of comparability of a non-existing domestic market with another domestic market is irrelevant. Therefore, the Commission maintains that, due to the absence of a domestic market in the Faeroe Islands for the product concerned or for other similar products, the most appropriate method for determining normal values for this territory was to use the weighted average SG& A costs and profits incurred by the sampled Chilean exporting producers. As explained in recital 61, this was considered the most reasonable method due to the similar structure of the salmon industry in both territories. Regarding the claim for the level of profit used, it should be noted that the profit margin used in the original Norwegian investigation for calculating the injury margin (15 %) is not to be confused with the profit margin that should be used in constructing normal values for the dumping calculations in the current investigations. On the basis of the above the claims made by the party cannot justify an amendment to the methodology used by the Commission.

(b) Export price

(64) It was established that the exports of Faeroese exporting producers were made directly to independent customers in the Community. As a consequence, and in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, the export price was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(c) Comparison

(65) The comparison between normal value and export price was made on an ex-factory basis. 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 price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(66) For all investigated exporting producers allowances for differences in transport costs, ocean freight and insurance costs, credit costs, discounts and rebates have been granted where applicable and justified.

(d) Dumping margins

(67) Dumping margins were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value by product type with a weighted average export price by product type. On the basis of this comparison, zero dumping margins were found in respect of all three companies forming the sample. Moreover, due the overall high cooperation level achieved from exporting producers in the Faeroe Islands it was considered appropriate to attribute a zero dumping margin to all other Faeroese exporting producers.

(a) General

(68) In the original investigation the assessment of dumping was made at exporters' level because the farmers, at that time, sold all their output to Norwegian exporters and were generally unaware of the final destination of the product. As there has been no fundamental change in this situation since the original investigation, the same approach has been followed in the present investigation.

(69) It should also be noted that, at the time of the original investigation, it was considered reasonable to select a representative sample of Norwegian farmers and to base the "cost of acquisition", used in determining whether, for each exporter, domestic sales were profitable or not and for constructing normal value, on a weighted average of the domestic selling prices charged by the sampled farmers. The same approach has been followed in this investigation, for the reasons explained in recital 68.

(70) Moreover, in the original investigation, the investigation of dumping was limited to two specific product types (namely fresh/chilled salmon gutted head-on of superior quality and fresh/chilled salmon gutted head-on of ordinary quality), which accounted for more than 72 % of the total exports to the Community by each of the six exporters which composed the sample. The same approach was followed in the present investigation, as these two product types were found to represent not less than 85 % of the total exports to the Community by each of the five exporters comprising the present sample.

(71) In view of the fact that the present investigation envisaged the establishment of one single country-wide duty for Norway, a weighted average normal value and a weighted average export price for Norway as a whole was calculated, on the basis of the information submitted by the companies included in the samples.

(b) Normal value

(72) It was first examined whether the domestic sales of each exporter - in total and for each of the two product types considered - had been made in representative quantities or not. In this respect, it should be recalled that, in the original investigation, the quantities sold to other exporters, the final destination of which could not be determined by the seller, were disregarded. Moreover, given the specific characteristics of the Norwegian domestic market, a percentage of at least 4 % of the volume of exports of the product concerned to the Community (instead of the usual 5 %) was held as sufficient to consider domestic sales to be representative. As the situation has not fundamentally changed in this respect, both approaches have also been applied in the present investigation.

(73) One party claimed that the Commission should not have used domestic sales representing less than 5 % of the exports to the Community, and hinted that sales to domestic customers could have been further redirected to the Community. In relation to the first claim, it is noted that the basic anti-dumping Regulation clearly provides for the possibility to use domestic sales when they represent a percentage lower than 5 %, if the prices charged are considered representative of the market concerned, in accordance with Article 2(2). Thus, as the circumstances between the original and the current investigation regarding the domestic consumption in Norway had not fundamentally changed this claim had to be rejected. As regards the second claim, the Commission checked the domestic nature of the sales taken into consideration and only used those which were made to final domestic customers.

(74) It was found that, in the case of one exporter only, domestic sales - in total, and for each of the two product types considered - represented at least 4 % of the export sales to the Community. The other sampled exporters had either no domestic sales or domestic sales accounting for significantly less than the abovementioned percentage.

(75) For the sole exporter for which domestic sales were found to be representative, it was then examined whether they could be considered as being made in the ordinary course of trade pursuant to Article 2(4) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. In this respect, it was found that for both product types the proportion of domestic sales, by volume, sold above unit costs on the domestic market, during the IP was less than 80 % but more than 10 %.

(76) In view of the above, normal value, by product type, was calculated as the weighted average of domestic sales prices which were equal to or above unit costs only, of the product type in question.

(77) The unit cost used in determining whether the domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade was calculated by adding to the unit "cost of acquisition" the unit SG& A costs incurred by the exporter in question for the domestic sales of the like product. The unit "cost of acquisition", by product type, was obtained as the weighted average of the prices made by the companies included in the sample of farmers, when selling to independent domestic customers, and in the ordinary course of trade.

(78) As the remaining four exporters in the sample had no representative sales, normal value in their case was constructed on the basis of the "cost of acquisition" as defined above plus a reasonable amount for SG& A costs and for profits, in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The amount for SG& A costs and the profit margin used were based on the respective amounts calculated for the sole exporter whose normal value was based on its domestic sales.

(79) One party claimed that to use the SG& A costs and profits of only one exporter was incorrect, and complained that such amounts had not been disclosed. In its opinion, the amounts used were lower in percentage than those applied in the original investigation. With regard to these claims, it is firstly noted that the party in question had not suggested any possible alternative, and that the use of the amounts observed during the investigation concerning Chile would have not given any more favourable result to that party. Moreover, there was no reason why the percentages observed during the original investigation should be applied as Article 11(9) refers to the application of the same methodology of the original investigation (when circumstances have not changed) and not to the application of the same factual data for the dumping calculations. This claim was therefore rejected. As for the disclosure of the amounts of SG& A costs and profits relating to only one exporter, these could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

(80) Finally, the normal values established as indicated above for each exporter in the sample, were weighted on the basis of the quantities sold to their respective customers in the Community, so as to arrive at an average normal value for Norway.

(c) Export price

(81) In those cases, where export sales had been made to independent customers in the Community, the export price was established, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable.

(82) In certain cases, the product was imported into the Community by a related company (transformer) in order to further process it, and sell it as smoked or marinated salmon. In these cases, reliable export prices would normally be obtained by deducting all costs incurred between importation and resale from the prices charged to the first independent customer, in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. However, it was found that the sales of all but one of these exporters to their related transformers were made at prices which were fully in line with the prices made by the sampled exporters to independent customers in the Community. In these cases, it was established that both the exporters and the related transformers were operating with reasonable profits and that the transformers did not appear to benefit from financial support of their related Norwegian exporters. It was, therefore, considered that the prices paid by these related transformers were reliable and could be used to establish the export price on the basis of prices actually paid or payable.

(83) For the sole exporter which was found to sell to its related transformers at prices which were not in line with the average prices made by the sampled exporters to independent customers in the Community, the export price was constructed in accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(84) One party claimed that export prices should have been constructed for all the exporters. This claim was rejected because Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation is to be applied only when export prices are deemed to be unreliable, which was the case for one exporter only.

(85) Finally, the export prices established, as indicated above, for each exporter of the sample, were weighted on the basis of the quantities sold to the respective customers in the Community, so as to arrive at an average export price for Norway.

(d) Comparison

(86) The average normal value and average export price obtained as indicated above were compared on an ex-works basis. 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 price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. Accordingly, in relation to the export price, allowances for differences in discounts, rebates, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit and after-sales costs as well as for the export tax applicable to exports of Norwegian salmon to the Community were granted, where applicable and supported by verified evidence. Similarly, in relation to the normal value, allowances for differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs and credit costs were granted.

(87) One party queried that the actual level of allowances granted had not been disclosed. However, the actual amounts could not be disclosed for reasons of confidentiality.

(e) Dumping margin

(88) The dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average export price, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

(89) This comparison showed a zero country-wide dumping margin.

(90) One party claimed that if the weighted average normal value had been compared with individual export transactions, as should have been done in its opinion, this would have shown the existence of dumping. For the sake of certainty, the Commission had also assessed the dumping margin of Norway by comparing the weighted average normal value with the prices of individual export transactions. The results of this exercise only showed a de minimis dumping margin for Norway, which meant that the weighted average normal value to weighted export price method reflected the full degree of dumping being practised. The claim was therefore rejected.

(91) One party alleged that the calculations should have arrived at a positive determination of dumping by highlighting the fact that certain important Norwegian operators had reported losses during the IP. This party also claimed that the system of price undertakings was being circumvented by a large number of Norwegian exporters and that this was indicative of dumping. However, first of all it should be noted that the selective highlighting of the economic performance of individual companies does not reflect the general situation of the Norwegian salmon industry seen as a whole. In fact the situation of the Norwegian salmon industry during the IP showed a mixed picture, which is commonly the case with most other industries, where certain companies report losses whilst others report profits. Moreover, as the reasons for companies reporting losses may vary (e.g. extraordinary restructuring costs, losses from investments in other products or countries), the fact alone that they were loss making during the IP does not necessarily imply that they were dumping the product concerned. With regard to the issue of the price undertakings, it is to be noted that this party did not bring any substantive evidence in support of its claim. Moreover, whilst it is acknowledged that certain undertakings were withdrawn following violations, the vast majority of such undertakings remained in place and no evidence was found in the investigation to suggest that the companies involved were not respecting them. Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(f) Likelihood of recurrence of dumping

(i) Production capacity

(92) All but one of the sampled Norwegian farmers were working at full capacity during the IP.

(93) The production capacity of Norway depends on the granting of additional licences by the Norwegian government, and also on the feeding quota policies established by the authorities. The Norwegian parties have stated that any increase in the number of licenses granted and any expansion of the feed quota policy will be made according to sustainable market growth.

(94) One party claimed that Norway would shortly increase its production capacity by over 10 %, following the issue of 90 additional production licenses by the Norwegian government in November 2002 and that this fact alone is sufficient to indicate the likelihood of further injurious dumping by Norwegian exports to the Community.

(95) It was, however, considered that an increase in the number of production licenses alone would not necessarily lead to an increase in actual production, since the latter also depends on the level of feed quota. It was also considered that, because the length of the production cycle of the product concerned is of at least two years, any potential increase would only be felt on the Community market from the end of 2004 onwards. In the short term, therefore, such a potential increase of production capacity would not have any effect on the level of sales volumes including exports to the Community. In any event, an increase in production capacity does not imply of itself that any additional Norwegian exports would be directed to the Community at injurious prices. The claim was therefore rejected.

(ii) Export sales to other countries (prices, volumes, dumping)

(96) The analysis of trends in prices and volumes to other countries was carried out both on the basis of statistical data and on the basis of data collected from the sampled companies.

(97) The analysis on the basis of statistical data was made difficult by the fact that exports of salmon were recorded under statistical codes which do not distinguish between product types and by the fact that prices may vary significantly depending on the product type. The examination of exported quantities has shown that (between the period before the imposition of measures and the IP) exports of the product concerned from Norway to "emerging markets", such as Russia and Poland increased very significantly. Exports to other more "traditional markets", such as Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan, increased in a way more comparable to exports to the Community, which is also considered a traditional market. It should therefore be expected that most of the additional exports deriving from any increased capacity would be directed towards "emerging markets", which are in constant expansion, rather than to "traditional" markets such as the Community, which have already reached a certain degree of stability.

(98) Over the same period, prices have remained substantially stable in respect of the "traditional markets", and prices of exports to non-EU countries overall were, on average, higher than those to the Community market. Prices to "emerging markets" have somewhat decreased, as it could be expected from markets in strong expansion.

(99) The examination of data received from the sampled companies has confirmed that exports of salmon from Norway to non-EU countries were made at prices higher, on average, than those to the Community.

(100) In consideration of the fact that the Community has long been the major export market of salmon from Norway, it can be assumed that, should measures be repealed, the evolution in quantities exported and price behaviour would be similar to that in the case of other "traditional markets" rather than in the case of markets such as Poland and Russia. Accordingly, should measures be repealed, prices are likely to remain stable and quantities to increase only to the same degree as they have been doing during the period following the imposition of the measures. It should also be noted that exports to the other traditional markets Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan appear to have been made at non-dumped prices during the IP.

(101) Subsequent to the disclosure, a number of parties claimed that the analysis carried out on the likelihood of recurrence of dumping was based on optimistic assumptions which could well not take place. Notably it was claimed that Poland and Russia were not genuine markets of final destination, but only markets of "convenience" from which the salmon would be transhipped to the Community. However, the examination of trade statistics showed only insignificant shipments of the product concerned from these countries to the Community. Moreover, the parties in question have never submitted any evidence to support their allegations in this respect. Accordingly, this claim had to be rejected.

(iii) Conclusions

(102) In the light of the market situation as explained above, it is considered unlikely, at least in the short run, that important quantities would flow into the Community should measures be repealed. Although it cannot be excluded that the situation could start changing from late 2004, due to the newly granted production licenses, it is considered that most of any increase in Norwegian exports would be directed towards expanding "emerging markets" rather than to the Community. As the investigation has shown that exports of the product concerned to traditional markets, among which the Community, were made at a non-dumped level during the IP, prices can reasonably be expected to remain stable and at a non-dumped level, even in the case of increased Norwegian production, as indicated in recital 100.

(103) It is therefore concluded that, should measures in respect of Norway be repealed, it would be unlikely that exports of the product concerned to the Community at dumped prices would recur.

E. SUBSIDIES

(104) It was established in the original investigation that the Government of Norway granted a number of subsidies which were found countervailable in accordance with Article 3 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The programmes found to be countervailable in the original investigation were investigated in the framework of this review. In addition, it was investigated whether any other subsidy schemes conferred a benefit to producers/exporters of the product concerned.

(105) In this respect, the Commission investigated whether Government institutions, including any public or private entity under the control of the Government of Norway, provided any financial contribution, as defined in Article 2(1) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, to salmon growers in Norway. It was further investigated whether the financial contributions found to exist conferred a benefit to their recipients.

(106) As in the original investigation, although a limited number of representative companies was investigated in agreement with the Norwegian authorities, it was considered appropriate to establish a single country-wide subsidy amount.

(107) The investigation also examined whether the expiry of the measures would be likely, or unlikely, to lead to the continuation or recurrence of subsidisation.

(108) The Norwegian Government repeated its argument, made in the original investigation, that the application of countervailing measures in the field of fisheries should only be considered and assessed in relation to the obligations under Protocol 9 to the EEA Agreement and in relation to the Joint Declarations on the Agreed Interpretation of Article 4(1) and (2) of the Protocol.

(109) The Norwegian Government made reference to Article 4(1) of Protocol 9 which stipulates that aid granted through State resources to the fisheries sector which distorts competition shall be abolished. In addition, reference was made to the Joint Declaration which states the following: "While the EFTA States will not take over the 'acquis communautaire' concerning the fishery policy, it is understood that, where reference is made to aid granted through State resources, any distortion on competition is to be assessed by the Contracting Parties in the context of Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and in relation to relevant provisions of the 'acquis communautaire' concerning the fishery policy and the content of the Joint Declaration regarding Article 61(3)(c) of the Agreement". In other words, the Norwegian Government argues that the assessment of a possible distortion of competition should be based on a comparison between the aid granted by the EFTA/EEA States concerned and the aid granted by the Community, and in case where any distortion of competition is established the state aid shall be abolished.

(110) As in the original investigation, it should be recalled that Article 26 of the EEA Agreement prohibits the use of countervailing measures, unless specified in the Agreement. In this respect, Article 20 of the EEA Agreement explicitly states that provisions and arrangements that apply to fish are set out in Protocol 9. Article 4(3) of Protocol 9 expressly permits the use of countervailing measures in order to remedy the injurious effects of subsidies in the fisheries sector. Protocol 13 to this Agreement limits the use of countervailing measures to areas where the Community acquis is not fully integrated. This is the case as regards the fisheries sector.

(a) Differentiated social security contributions

(111) In Norway, employers' social security contributions vary according to the zone of residence of the employee. As in the original investigation, the prevailing system consists of five geographical zones with differentiated rates. The rates vary from 14,1 % in zone 1 to 0 % of the employee's gross wage for employees resident in zone 5:

TABLE>

(112) According to the Government of Norway the zones were revised in 1999, but only minor adjustments took place. Some sectors have been taken out of the system of differentiated social security contributions, for example mining and telecommunications. These sectors have to pay 14,1 % irrespective of the location of their employees. The different rates have not changed since the original investigation.

(113) The differentiated employers' social security contribution constitutes a subsidy as defined in Article 2 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The conclusions on this scheme are the same as in the original investigation.

(114) The reduction in or exemption from employers' social security contributions constitutes a financial contribution by the Government of Norway. The system constitutes Government revenue that is foregone or not collected. In exempting or reducing the employers' social security contributions, in all zones except zone 1, the Government revenue is reduced. Therefore, the scheme falls within the definition of a financial contribution in accordance with Article 2(1)(a)(ii) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(115) The scheme clearly confers a benefit to the employers in accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. In employing employees who are resident in zones 2 to 5, employers obtain a benefit compared to the situation that would exist if all employees were resident in zone 1 and were subject to the basic rate of 14,1 %. The scheme confers a de facto benefit to employers on the basis of their location, since most employees live in the same zone as the employer. The benefit to employers employing employees in zones 2 to 5 is the difference between the actual amount of social security contributions paid and the amount of such contributions that would have been paid if the basic rate of 14,1 % had been applied. The amount of subsidy should therefore, as in the original investigation, be measured by reference to the above basic rate of contribution.

(116) Employers located in zones 2 to 5 pay less than the basic rate in zone 1, and therefore the benefit conferred is limited to firms located in those zones only. Hence, this subsidy is specific within the meaning of Article 3(2)(a) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

(117) As in the original investigation, the Government of Norway was not able to provide global figures for social security contributions by the salmon farming industry. Therefore the basis for the calculation of the benefit was the social security contributions of the investigated growers located in various zones. The subsidy was calculated by comparing the actual payment of social security contributions with the amount, which would have been paid if the basic rate of 14,1 % had been applied.

(118) The difference thus obtained was considered to be the benefit to the salmon growers. The total subsidy, when expressed as a percentage of the turnover of the investigated growers (including zone 1), amounts to 0,84 %.

(b) The Norwegian Industrial and Regional Development Fund (SND)

(119) The SND was established by Act No 97 of 3 July 1992 and started to operate on 1 January 1993. The SND is owned by the Ministry of Trade and Industry and is responsible for carrying out public policy. The objective of the SND is to promote profitable business and economic development all over Norway, by contributing towards development, modernisation and re-structuring of - and product development and new establishments in - Norwegian trade and industry, and promote activities that will provide stable and profitable employment and opportunities in areas with particular employment problems or traditionally weak economic basis.

(120) SND provides incentives to firms in the form of grants, loans and loan guarantees.

(i) Grants

(121) The grants programmes available to salmon growers, are funded over the budgets of the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Developments. The programmes funded by these Ministries have been in function since 1996. Two new programmes funded by the Ministry of Fishery, NUMARIO and Grant for Developing the Marine Sector, were introduced respectively in 1997 and 2001. However, they have not been used by the salmon fish farming sector and, therefore, were not considered further.

(122) The following programmes have been available to salmon growers:

(123) Programme 2 is limited to assist certain areas while programme 1 has no geographical limitations, but is mainly operative in areas outside the assisted areas. Both programmes have been in operation since the original IP, and only some minor changes have taken place.

(124) The SND operates several other grant programmes. However, these have not been used by the salmon fish farming sector.

(125) It was established that the total amount of grants provided to salmon growers have decreased since the original IP.

Existence of a subsidy

(126) The grant scheme provides a financial contribution since there is a direct transfer of funds from the Government to the beneficiaries within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a)(i) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation. The scheme confers a benefit to salmon producers, since investment costs are reduced by the amount of the grant. The SND grants therefore constitute subsidies.

Specificity

(127) As regards SND grants, specificity was established twofold in the original investigation:

• regional specificity and,

• lack of objective criteria and of automatic eligibility for non-regional schemes.

(128) With regard to the grants which are available nationwide (programme 1), no grants have been given to the salmon farming sector during the IP. Therefore the question of specificity does not arise.

(129) With regard to programme 2, access to the subsidy is limited to enterprises, albeit not exclusively salmon producers, in certain regions and specificity therefore exists in accordance with Article 3(2)(a) and (3) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation.

Calculation of the benefit

(130) Although SND grants were in general used for the acquisition of fixed assets, they are recurring subsidies obtained by the beneficiaries on a regular basis. In addition, they were not granted in large, concentrated amounts, as was the case in the original IP, and the amounts of grants were relatively small. Therefore, the value of the grants can be expensed in the IP.

(131) The benefit of the grants in the IP, expressed as a percentage of the total sales value of Norwegian salmon growers, is 0,26 %. However, as further discussed in recital 153, it could not be established with certainty whether the whole amount of this subsidy was actually conferring a benefit on salmon production.

(ii) Loans

(132) In the original investigation the SND loan programme was found countervailable. There was a financial contribution from the Government and a benefit was conferred by providing loans at an interest rate lower than the interest rates available for similar loans in the commercial market. In addition, the SND incurred heavy losses on loans to the fish farming sector.

(133) In order to establish whether a benefit still exists for the investigated growers, the interest rate of the SND loans which was actually paid during the IP was compared with the normal commercial interest rate. The comparable commercial loan is a loan of a similar amount with a similar repayment period obtainable by the recipient from a representative private bank operating in the domestic market. The analysis revealed that the SND loan programme, including its rates, was comparable to that of the private market. Consequently, there is no benefit for the investigated growers.

(134) As to the losses incurred by the SND on loans due to non-repayments, it was found that the amount of losses was small. Moreover, the interest rate charged included a risk element for loans other than low risk loans.

(135) Consequently, no subsidy was found to be conferred under the loan programme.

(iii) Loan guarantees

(136) In the original investigation the SND loan guarantee programme constituted a subsidy. It should be recalled that there was a financial contribution from the SND and a benefit for the salmon growers whose loan was guaranteed to the extent that the guarantee was not made on a commercial basis.

(137) The overall losses incurred by the SND on this programme were very small since the original IP, and even nil for the entire fish farming sector (including salmon) during the IP. Moreover, it could not be established that the fees were set at a level which would not cover the amount of defaulted loans.

(138) In these circumstances, no subsidy is now conferred under this programme.

(c) Transport subsidies

(139) In the original investigation, the transport aid scheme was found specific and therefore countervailable. However, the subsidy found for this scheme was only 0,01 %.

(140) In the present review, it was found that only 4 out of 19 counties operated a transport aid scheme, and that the total grants to companies transporting, among other fish products, salmon, was around NOK 600000 compared to NOK 1420000 in the previous investigation.