We support this view because we do not believe that dumping has taken place at all. We have always argued that the dumping actions have nothing to do with dumping at all but rather about the perceived market image of Scottish salmon. The fact that the independent farmers do not achieve the price premiums that they believe that they have a right to expect is blamed on imports of Norwegian fish which they believe are of inferior quality and therefore should cost less than their own. Yet, when imported salmon is sold at a lower price, the independent farmers claim that the Norwegians are undercutting their prices. It seems that when a price differential does occur, these independent farmers prefer to call it undercutting rather than a premium. It seems to us, that they cannot have it both ways. Having taken fifteen years to bring the dumping case to the European Court, we hope that the Norwegians do not blow the opportunity. It seems that much of the case revolves round the question of the domestic industry in Scotland and the level of representation. Certainly, the first issue raised by the Norwegian Government in their case to the WTO questions whether the application for investigation was made by or on behalf' of the relevant domestic industry'. We believe that this is a non-starter and we understand from reports in IntraFish that Jan Magne Juuhl Langseth of the law firm Schjødt has taken a similar approach in his case on behalf of Fjord Seafood. The WTO trade rules are clear about the definition of the domestic industry Part I: Article 4 defines the domestic industry: " 4.1 For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "domestic industry" shall be interpreted as referring to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those products, except that when producers are related to the exporters or importers or are themselves importers of the allegedly dumped product, the term ...
| Website | http://www.callandermcdowell.co.uk |
| Revenue | $6 million |
| Employees | View employees |
| Address | PO Box 378, Manchester M8 2DF, GB |
| Phone | +44 161 795 5085 |
| Industry | Grocery Retail, Retail |
| Competitors | Cushman & Wakefield, JLL UK Retail, Colliers, Norland Managed Services, Lambert Smith Hampton, Strutt & Parker, Knight Frank Promise, GVA Second London Wall, Barker Proudlove, Savills Telecom Limited +28 more (view full list) |
| SIC | SIC Code 542 Companies, SIC Code 541 Companies, SIC Code 54 Companies |
| NAICS | NAICS Code 4452 Companies, NAICS Code 44522 Companies, NAICS Code 445 Companies, NAICS Code 44 Companies |
Looking for a particular Callander McDowell employee's phone or email?
The Callander McDowell annual revenue was $6 million in 2026.
The NAICS codes for Callander McDowell are [4452, 44522, 445, 44].
The SIC codes for Callander McDowell are [542, 541, 54].