United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway
US Norwegian Salmon CVD (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
|Products at issue||
|Type of product||
Fish and fish products
Key legal aspects
|Chairperson||Janusz Kaczurba (Poland)|
|Other members||Peter Gulbransen (Australia), Meinhard Hilf (Germany, Fed. Rep.)|
|No of Pages (total / legal reasoning)||135 (and 14 annex)|
|Request for consultations|
|Request for conciliation|
|Request for establishment|
|Adoption of report|
|Outcome of the proceedings||
|Additional Info||SCM/M/52 (17/09/1991) Minutes of SCM Committee Meeting (18/07/1991) Norway and the US disagreed on the coverage of issues and the need of additional consultations. The Chairman noted that the case was in the process of conciliation and an additional request for consultations would be considered as part of the conciliation process. SCM/153 Annex: Letter from Norway after Panel submitted its findings to the Parties, requesting a reconsideration of specific aspects. The Panel responded.
SCM/153 (23/10/1992) Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures - United States - Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway - Report of the Panel: The Panel found that the written request for the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation had been made with a legal certification as to its accuracy and completeness. It had been submitted by 21 firms representing well over the majority of all domestic production of Atlantic salmon. Under these circumstances, the Department of Commerce could reasonably have relied on the statements in the certified petition that these firms accounted for well over a majority of production of Atlantic salmon and that these firms supported and had authorized the petition. The Panel therefore concluded that the initiation of the countervailing duty investigation was not inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under Article 2:1 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement).
The Panel considered that if the drafters of the Agreement had intended to impose limits on the scope of countervailable subsidies beyond Article VI, they would not have provided in the Agreement a definition of "countervailing duty" which was word-for-word identical to the definition of "countervailing duty" in paragraph 3 of Article VI. The Panel therefore concluded that, in imposing countervailing duties in respect of regional development programmes, the United States had not acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 11 of the Agreement. The Panel further considered that Article 4:2 did not require that a subsidy calculation method be used which would require the adjustment requested by Norway. The Panel therefore concluded that the United States' action in not taking account of secondary tax effects of the payroll tax exemption in calculating the subsidy was not inconsistent with its obligations under Article 4:2 of the Agreement. The Panel also noted that the facts used by the Department of Commerce in its subsidy determination related specifically to the information necessary to calculate subsidies in accordance with a calculation method which the Panel had found was not inconsistent with Article 4:2. The Panel therefore considered that the Department of Commerce's reliance on the information in the verification report in determining a risk premium, and in adding it to the national average lending rate, was in conformity with Article 2:9 of the Agreement. The Panel therefore concluded that the United States had not acted inconsistently with Article 4:2 of the Agreement by calculating a benchmark lending rate by adding the risk premium it had found during verification to the national average commercial lending rate.
With respect to the existence material injury, the Panel found that:
(i) the analysis and findings of the USITC with regard to the volume of imports of Atlantic salmon from Norway were not inconsistent with Articles 6:1 and 6:2;
(ii) the finding of the USITC that imports of Atlantic salmon from Norway had a significant price depressing effect in the US market was not inconsistent with Articles 6:1 and 6:2;
(iii) the findings of the USITC regarding the condition of the domestic Atlantic salmon industry were not inconsistent with Articles 6:1 and 6:3;
(iv) the analysis by the USITC of factors other than the imports from Norway under investigation was not inconsistent with Article 6:4;
(v) by treating the "effects of the subsidy" in the first sentence of Article 6:4 to mean the effects of the subsidized imports, set forth in Articles 6:2 and 6:3, the USITC had not acted inconsistently with Article 6:4;
(vi) by making one determination of injury for the purposes of both the anti-dumping and the countervailing duty investigation, the USITC had not acted inconsistently with Article 6:4; and
(vii) the United States had not acted inconsistently with Article 6:4 with respect to the existence of present material injury caused by the imports from Norway. On that basis, the Panel concluded that the imposition by the United States of the countervailing duty order on imports of fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon from Norway was not inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the Agreement by reason of the affirmative final determination of injury by the USITC.
SCM/M/65 (31/08/1993) Minutes of SCM Committee Meeting (28-29/04/1993) Norway: further consideration to the Report was required. US: encouraged Norway to support adoption of the Report. Finland on behalf of Finland and Sweden, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Hong Kong and Austria presented concerns to the Report. EEC: The Report raised many issues, needed more time to digest the Report. Australia agreed with one aspect. The Committee agreed to revert in future meetings.