This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
back to top
(as cited in request for consultations)
|Request for Consultations received:|
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by Chile.
On 8 February 2005, Chile requested consultations with the European Communities regarding the latter’s definitive safeguard measure against imports of farmed salmon imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/2005, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 February 2005. The measure will be in force from 6 February 2005 to 13 August 2008. The measure consists of:
- A system of tariff quotas calculated on the basis of past imports of
salmon into the Communities. Imports of farmed salmon beyond the level
of the tariff quota shall be subject to an additional duty according
to the group to which they belong;
- A minimum price applicable to imports both within and beyond the
tariff quota; and,
- A security which must be provided by importers as a guarantee of the payment of the actual import price.
On 10 January 2005, the European Communities notified the WTO of its findings of serious injury and of its proposed safeguard measure, concerning farmed salmon (Docs. G/SG/N/8/EEC/3, G/SG/N/10/EEC/3 and G/SG/N/11/EEC/3/Suppl.1).
According to the information provided in the request for consultations, Chile requested prior consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The prior consultations took place in Brussels on 20 January 2005.
Chile states in its request for consultations that the definitive safeguard measure against imports of farmed salmon is inconsistent with the EC’s obligations under the WTO agreements and seriously affects Chilean exports of salmon to the EC, because in its opinion:
- The product subject to the measures and its
like or directly competitive products were not properly defined, since
“chilled farmed salmon” is a different product from the “fresh salmon” produced by the European industry.
- There were no “unforeseen
developments” as a result of which there was an increase in
imports, as required by Article XIX of GATT 1994.
- There has not been an increase in imports
recent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, nor significant enough, so
as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry
as required by Article XIX of GATT 1994 and by Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards. Neither has there been an increase in imports
relative to domestic production.
- There is no serious injury nor threat of
injury to the domestic industry and the determination of injury made by
the investigating authority was based on allegations from the domestic
industry, and on conjectures and remote possibilities, all of which is
inconsistent with Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
- Since there is no injury nor threat of injury
attributable to an increase in imports, the safeguard measure would be
incompatible with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
- Finally, the safeguard measure imposed on imports of salmon goes beyond the extent necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, as required by Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 18 February 2005, Norway requested to join the consultations. On 15 March 2005, the European Communities accepted the request of Norway to join the consultations.
On 12 May 2005, Chile formally withdrew its request for consultations and to put an end to this matter, as the safeguard measure at issue was terminated as of 27 April 2005.
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact email@example.com giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.