29.9.98 Official Journal of the European Communities L 264/17 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2052/98 of 24 September 1998 further amending Regulations (EC) No 1890/97 and (EC) No 1891/97 imposing definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in Norway 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 (), and in particular Articles 8(9) and 9 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 (3), and in particular Articles 13(9) and 15 thereof, Having regard to the proposal submitted by the Commis- sion after consulting the Advisory Committee, Whereas: A. PROVISIONAL MEASURES (1) In the framework of the anti-dumping and anti- subsidy investigations initiated by two separate notices published in the Official Journal of the European  Communities (}), the Commission accepted, by Decision 97/634/EC (*), undertakings offered by the Kingdom of Norway and by 190 Norwegian exporters. (20 The text of the undertakings specifically provides that failure to comply with the reporting obliga- tions and, in particular, failure to submit the quar- terly report within the prescribed time-limit except in case of force majeure, would be construed as a breach of the undertaking. (3) For the fourth quarter of 1997, 12 Norwegian exporters failed to comply with their obligation to present a report within the prescribed time limit or did not submit any report at all. These exporters did not provide any evidence of force majeure to justify such late reporting or non-reporting. On this basis, the Commission had reasons to believe that these companies had breached the terms of their undertakings. (") OJ L 56, 6. 3. 1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 (O] L 128, 30. 4. 1998, p. 18). () OJ L 288, 21. 10. 1997, p. 1. ¢) OJ C 235, 31. 8. 1996, p. 18 and OJ C 235, 31. 8. 1996, p. 20. () OJ L 267, 30. 9. 1997, p. 81. 4y  Consequently, the Commission, by Regulation (EC) No 1126/98 (%), hereinafter referred to as the ‘provi- sional duty Regulation’, imposed provisional anti- dumping and countervailing duties on imports of farmed Atlantic salmon falling within CN codes ex 03021200, ex 03041013, ex 03032200 and ex 0304 20 13 originating in Norway and exported by the 12 companies listed in the Annex to that Regu- lation. By the same Regulation, the Commission deleted the companies concerend from the Annex to Decision 97/634/EC listing the companies, from which undertakings were accepted. B. SUBSEQUENT PROCEDURE (5)  All 12 Norwegian companies subject to the provi- sional duties received disclosure in writing concerning the essential facts and considerations, on the basis of which these provisional duties were imposed. (6) ~ Within the time limit set in the provisional duty Regulation, some of the Norwegian companies concerned submitted comments in writing. (7)  Subsequent to the written submissions received, the Commission sought and examined all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of a definitive determination on the apparent violations. ®) None of the companies, which failed to respect their reporting obligations, submitted any valid evidence of force majeure as would have been necessary under the terms of the undertaking in order to lawfully justify such failure. In the absence of specific provisions in this regard in Regulation (EC) No 384/96, hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic anti-dumping Regulation’, and in Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, hereinafter referred to as the ‘basic anti-subsidies Regulation’, and in accordance with the case law of the Court of Justice, the justification invoked by each company as circumstances constituting force majeure can only be recognised as such where the failure was the inevitable result of an extraneous cause which could not reasonably have been foreseen or pre- empted and made it objectively impossible for the company concerned to comply with its obligations. () OJ L 157, 30. 5. 1998, p. 82.