natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Det bemærkes i den henseende, at der er taget højde for forskellene i type og pris med de PKN-koder, der er fastlagt til undersøgelsen, og som sikrer, at forskellige produkttyper sammenlignes med samme vare.
It should be recalled in this respect that differences in type and in price have been accounted for by the product control numbers (PCN) codes established for the investigation, which ensure that different product types are compared like with like.
I betragtning (15) i den midlertidige forordning anførte Kommissionen, at den havde konstateret, at FSEP fremstillet af EF-erhvervsgrenen og solgt på fællesskabsmarkedet var samme vare som FSEP fremstillet i de pågældende lande og eksporteret til Fællesskabet, da der ikke var konstateret nogen forskelle i de grundlæggende fysiske og kemiske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål for de eksisterende forskellige typer.
In recital (15) of the provisional Regulation, it was stated that the Commission had found that FPFF produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market as well as FPFF produced in the countries concerned and exported to the Community were like products, since no differences in the basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses of the existing different types had been found.
Da der ikke er modtaget yderligere bemærkninger vedrørende varedefinitionen og samme vare, bekræftes de foreløbige konklusioner i betragtning (11)-(16) i den midlertidige forordning.
In the absence of any further comments regarding the product definition and the like product, the contents and provisional conclusions of recitals (11) to (16) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
En af de interesserede parter anmodede om, at der blev offentliggjort nærmere oplysninger om de samarbejdsvillige fællesskabsproducenter, så de interesserede parter fik mulighed for at vurdere, om de stående krav var opfyldt.
One interested party requested that the details of the cooperating Community producers should be published in order to make it possible for interested parties to assess whether the standing requirements are satisfied.
Som anført i betragtning (8), litra a), i den midlertidige forordning anmodede fællesskabsproducenterne i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 19 om, at oplysningerne om deres selskaber ikke blev offentliggjort, da dette ville være til betydelig skade for dem.
As stated in recital (8)(a) of the provisional Regulation, the Community producers requested in terms of Article 19 of the basic Regulation that their details should not be published, as to do so would have a significantly adverse effect upon them.
Da nogle af dem køber polyestergarn (deres vigtigste råmateriale) fra kinesiske leverandører, er der risiko for gengældelse.
As some of them buy polyester yarns (their main raw materials) from Chinese suppliers, there is a risk of retaliation.
Deres anmodning blev konstateret at være tilstrækkeligt dokumenteret og blev derfor imødekommet.
Their request was found to be sufficiently substantiated and was, therefore, granted.
I denne undersøgelse gav 49 eksporterende producenter i Kina sig til kende og anmodede om markedsøkonomisk behandling i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), i grundforordningen.
It is recalled that in the present investigation, 49 exporting producers in the PRC made themselves known and requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Hver enkelt anmodning blev gennemgået ud fra de fem kriterier, der er fastsat i nævnte artikel.
Each single MET application was analysed against the five criteria laid down in that Article.
Som nævnt i betragtning (23) i den midlertidige forordning kunne 25 selskaber på det grundlag bevise, at de opfyldte de fem relevante kriterier for markedsøkonomisk behandling.
On this basis, as set out in recital (23) of the provisional Regulation, 25 companies could successfully demonstrate that they met the five relevant MET criteria.
De øvrige selskaber kunne ikke indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling: 10 af dem samarbejdede ikke tilstrækkeligt ved undersøgelsen, da de ikke fremlagde de ønskede nødvendige oplysninger, og for de 14 andre konstateredes det, at de, jf. nedenstående tabel, ikke opfyldte kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
MET could not be granted to the remaining companies: 10 of them did not sufficiently cooperate in the investigation by not submitting the necessary information requested, and the 14 others were found not to meet the criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, for the reasons summarised in the table below:
Kilde: Kontrollerede besvarelser af spørgeskemaer fra samarbejdsvillige kinesiske eksportører.
Source: verified questionnaire replies of cooperating Chinese exporters.
Artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), første led
Article 2(7)(c) first indent
Artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), andet led
Article 2(7)(c) second indent
Artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), tredje led
Article 2(7)(c) third indent
Artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), fjerde led
Article 2(7)(c) fourth indent
Artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), femte led
Article 2(7)(c) fifth indent
De pågældende selskaber og klageren fik lejlighed til at fremsætte bemærkninger til ovennævnte undersøgelsesresultater.
The companies concerned and the complainant were given the opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Resultatet af gennemgangen af bemærkningerne fra de forskellige interesserede parter er omtalt nedenfor.
The results of the analysis of the comments received by the various interested parties are addressed below.
Generelt skal det bemærkes, at bevisbyrden ifølge grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), påhviler de eksporterende producenter, der gør krav på markedsøkonomisk behandling, eftersom artiklen fastsætter, at selskaberne skal fremlægge tilstrækkelige beviser for, at de driver virksomhed under markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
As a general remark, it should be recalled that in accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation the burden of proof is on the exporting producers claiming MET, since this Article provides that it is up to the companies to supply sufficient evidence that they operate under market economy conditions.
Der kan ikke indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, hvis der fortsat er tvivl, f.eks. fordi det eller de pågældende selskaber ikke gav eller ikke kunne give de nødvendige oplysninger, eller oplysningerne var utilstrækkelige.
If doubts remain, for example because the company/ies concerned did not, or was/were not able to provide the necessary information, or that this information was insufficient, MET cannot be granted.
Det skal også bemærkes, at hvert enkelt af de fem kriterier i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), skal være fuldt ud opfyldt, for at et selskab kan indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
It is further noted that each one of all five criteria listed under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation needs to be fully met in order for MET to be granted to a company.
Der kan med andre ord ikke indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, hvis et af kriterierne kun er delvis opfyldt.
In other words, MET cannot be granted if one criterion is only partly fulfilled.
Det er også institutionernes sædvanlige praksis at undersøge, om en gruppe af forbundne virksomheder samlet opfylder betingelserne for markedsøkonomisk behandling, dvs. at alle de forbundne virksomheder, som producerer og/eller sælger det pågældende produkt, hver især skal godtgøre, at de opfylder kriterierne for indrømmelse af markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Likewise, it is the EC Institutions’ consistent practice to examine whether a group of related companies as a whole fulfils the conditions for MET, which means that each related company producing and/or selling the product concerned should demonstrate it fulfils the MET criteria.
I den sammenhæng hævdede selskab 4, 5, 9 og 14, at vurderingen af, om et selskab bør indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, skal foretages ud fra en helhedsbetragtning, og at de burde indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, eftersom Kommissionen konstaterede, at det kun var visse aspekter af de pågældende kriterier, der ikke var opfyldt.
In this context, Companies 4, 5, 9 and 14 claimed that the assessment on whether a company should be granted MET has to be made on an overall basis and, since the Commission found that only certain aspects for the relevant criteria were not fulfilled, MET should be granted to them.
Disse påstande blev afvist af de grunde, der er nævnt i betragtning 20.
Those claims were rejected on the grounds mentioned in recital (20).
Selskab 4 og 5 hævdede også, at Kommissionens resultater ikke var tilstrækkelige til at konkludere, at de ikke opfyldte første kriterium.
Companies 4 and 5 also claimed that the findings of the Commission were insufficient to conclude that they did not fulfil the first criterion.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at kontrolbesøget hos de to selskaber afslørede, at de enten gav vildledende oplysninger i deres anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling, eller at de simpelthen udelod vigtige oplysninger.
In this respect, it should be noted that in the case of both companies, the verification visit revealed that either misleading information was submitted by the companies in their MET claim form or important information was simply omitted.
For ét af selskaberne blev det angivet, at en vigtig leverandør af råmateriale var et privat selskab, mens det ved undersøgelsen på stedet senere konstateredes at være statsejet.
For one company, a significant supplier of raw material was reported to be a private company, but later found to be State-owned during the on-spot investigation.
Selskabets argument om, at det ikke kan forventes at have nærmere kendskab til ejerforholdene hos sine leverandører, kunne ikke godtages, da selskabet i anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling udtrykkeligt anførte, at leverandøren var privatejet, og selskabet også udtrykkeligt bekræftede dette under kontrolbesøget.
The argument made by the company that it cannot be expected to know the details concerning ownership of its suppliers could not be accepted since the company explicitly reported in the MET claim form that this supplier was private-owned, which was also expressly confirmed by the company during the verification visit.
Med hensyn til det andet selskab konstateredes det ved kontrolbesøget, at selv om der specifikt skulle gives oplysning herom i anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, undlod selskabet at anføre sine indkøb af hovedråmaterialet, og der blev således ikke givet oplysninger om de relevante leverandører.
As to the second company, it was found during the verification visit that, although specifically requested in the MET claim form, the company omitted to report its purchases of the main raw material, thus no information was given as to the details of the relevant suppliers.
Disse omstændigheder lagde i høj grad hindringer i vejen for kontrollen, og det kunne ikke efterprøves, om de tilsvarende omkostninger blev afholdt som reaktion på markedssignaler og uden statslig indblanding.
Under those conditions, the verification was strongly impeded and it could not be verified whether the corresponding costs were made in response to market signals and without State interference.
Selskabernes påstande blev derfor afvist.
The claims made by the companies were therefore rejected.
Selskab 3, 9 og 14 hævdede, at den kendsgerning, at revisorerne havde påtegnet deres årsregnskab med forbehold, ikke i sig selv er tilstrækkelig til, at det andet kriterium i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), kan betragtes som ikke opfyldt.
Companies 3, 9 and 14 claimed that the mere fact that the auditors issued a qualified opinion on their annual accounts is not sufficient to consider that the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation is not fulfilled.
Selskab 2 bestred Kommissionens konklusion om, at selskabet ikke har ét klart sæt uafhængigt reviderede regnskaber, som anvendes til alle formål.
Company 2 challenged the Commission’s conclusions that this company does not have one clear set of independently audited accounting records used for all purposes.
Selskab 4 og 5 hævdede, at kriterium 2 burde betragtes som opfyldt, da de havde et klart sæt uafhængigt reviderede regnskaber.
Finally, Companies 4 and 5 claimed that since they have a clear set of accounts independently audited, the second criterion should be considered fulfilled.
Generelt skal det bemærkes, at det andet kriterium i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), kræver, at de pågældende selskaber skal bevise, at de har et grundlæggende sæt regnskaber, som revideres uafhængigt, og som er i overensstemmelse med internationale regnskabsstandarder, således at det er muligt at vurdere pålideligheden af disse regnskaber med henblik på at sikre en behørig dumpingvurdering.
From a general point of view, it is recalled that the second criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation requires the companies concerned to demonstrate that they have a basic set of accounts independently audited in line with international accounting standards, in order to assess the reliability of those accounts in view of ensuring a proper assessment of dumping.
Dumpingberegningen baseres hovedsagelig på data fra selskabernes regnskaber, såsom indtægter, omkostninger, overskud og lagerbeholdning, som derfor skal være pålidelige.
Indeed, the dumping calculation is mainly based on data included in the accounting records of the companies, such as revenue, costs, profit and inventory, which must therefore be reliable.
Antidumpingkontrolbesøget består netop i at efterprøve disse poster.
The anti-dumping verification visit precisely consists in verifying those items.
Det må desuden huskes, at revisionspåtegningen (godkendelse uden eller med forbehold eller nægtelse af godkendelse) afhænger af, hvor væsentlige mangler der konstateres i regnskaberne.
Moreover, it is also recalled that the opinion expressed by the auditor (approval without or with qualifications, or refusal to approve) depends on the materiality of the discrepancies found in the accounts.
Det forhold, at en revisor ikke nægter at godkende regnskaberne, betyder ikke automatisk, at regnskaberne er korrekte, hvilket kun kan garanteres ved en revisionspåtegning uden forbehold.
The fact that an auditor does not refuse to approve the accounts does not mean in itself that the accounts are correct, which could only be guaranteed by an approval without reservations by the auditor.
Specielt vedrørende selskab 3, 9 og 14 skal det bemærkes, at revisorernes forbehold var ret betydelige.
More specifically, concerning Companies 3, 9 and 14, it should be noted that the reservations made by the auditors were rather significant.
For ét af selskaberne var revisorerne ikke i stand til at efterprøve lageropgørelsen ved årets udgang og årets salgsomkostninger.
In the case of one company, the auditors were unable to verify the validity of the year-end balance of stocks and selling costs of the year.
For et andet selskab anførte revisorerne i deres beretning, at de ikke var i stand til at efterprøve lageropgørelsen ved årets udgang på grund af »særlige forhold«.
In the case of another company, the auditors stated in their report that they were unable to check the inventory as of year-end due to ‘restricted conditions’.
Det skal bemærkes, at lagerværdien udgjorde over 10 % af det pågældende selskabs balancesum.
It is noted that the inventory value represented more than 10 % of the balance sheet total of that company.
I øvrigt stemte de regnskaber, selskabet fremlagde, ikke overens med dem, der var omtalt i revisionsberetningen, hvilket rejste tvivl om, hvorvidt det var de korrekte reviderede regnskaber, der blev fremlagt.
In addition, the accounts provided by the company did not match with those referred to by the auditors’ report, which casts doubts as to whether the correct audited accounts were submitted.
For det sidste af selskaberne var der betydelige forbehold i årsregnskabet for 2002.
As to the last company, significant reservations were in the 2002 annual accounts.
Selv om der ikke kunne ses nogen åbenbar ændring af regnskabspolitikken eller nogen korrigering af forhold, der var påtalt de foregående år, blev der ikke fremsat samme forbehold for 2003-regnskabet, og det såede tvivl om, hvorvidt regnskabet var blevet revideret af uafhængige revisorer i overensstemmelse med internationale standarder.
Despite no obvious change in accounting policy, nor any adjustment of issues raised in earlier years, the 2003 accounts did not have the same reservations, which raised doubts as to whether the accounts were independently audited in line with international standards.
Dette regnskab blev end ikke godkendt af aktionærerne.
Moreover, those accounts were not even adopted by the shareholders.
Disse selskabers påstande blev derfor afvist.
The claims made by those companies were therefore rejected.
Hvad angår selskab 2, skal det bemærkes, at de betydelige ændringer, revisorerne forlangte, og som medførte en halvering af overskuddet, kun blev registreret i årsregnskabet, men ikke i selskabets andre regnskaber.
As far as the claim made by Company 2 is concerned, it is noted that the significant adjustments requested by the auditors, having the effect of halving the profits, were only recorded in the annual accounts, but not in the accounts of the company.
Grunden hertil var, at selskabet til andre formål ønskede, at dets regnskaber skulle udvise et større overskud.
The reason for this was that the company wanted to show higher profits in its accounts for other purposes.
Regnskaberne kunne derfor ikke afstemmes med det reviderede årsregnskab, hvilket ville have haft en direkte og betydelig virkning for enhver dumpingberegning.
The accounts could therefore not be reconciled with the audited annual accounts, which would have had a direct and significant impact on any dumping calculation.
Det måtte derfor konkluderes, at selskabet ikke havde et klart sæt regnskaber, der anvendtes til alle formål.
This led to the conclusion that the company did not have a clear set of accounts used for all purposes.
Da der ikke er fremkommet yderligere oplysninger fra selskabet, bekræftes dette resultat, og selskabets påstand afvises.
In the absence of any further information provided by the company, those findings are hereby confirmed and the claim rejected.
For selskab 4 og 5 konstateredes der betydelige mangler i regnskaberne ved kontrolbesøget.
In the case of Companies 4 and 5, significant discrepancies were found in the accounts during the verification visit.
Selskaberne hævdede, at disse mangler skyldtes kontorfejl, og at Kommissionen ikke havde foretaget en grundig undersøgelse og misforstod situationen.
The companies claimed that those discrepancies were due to clerical mistakes and that the Commission had not made a thorough analysis and misunderstood the situation.
Det skal for det første påpeges, at det påhviler selskaberne at afklare eller fjerne tvivl, der måtte opstå i forbindelse med kontrollen.
It is firstly recalled that it is on the companies to clarify or remove doubts which may arise during the verification.
Det skal også bemærkes, at nogle af de dokumenter, der blev anmodet om, ikke blev fremlagt af selskaberne inden for det tidsrum, der var afsat til gennemgang af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, og at det derfor ikke var muligt at kontrollere eller tage disse dokumenter i betragtning.
In addition, it is noted that certain requested documents were not provided by the companies during the time dedicated to the verification of the MET claim form and could therefore not be verified and taken into consideration.
De konstaterede mangler rejste alvorlig tvivl om regnskabernes pålidelighed, og det bekræftes derfor, at disse regnskaber ikke kunne betragtes som revideret i overensstemmelse med internationale standarder.
The discrepancies identified seriously put into question the reliability of the accounts, and it is therefore confirmed that those accounts could not be considered to be audited in line with international standards.
Da der ikke er fremkommet yderligere oplysninger fra selskaberne, bekræftes disse resultater, og selskabernes påstande afvises.
In the absence of any further information provided by the companies, those conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claims were rejected.
De to sidstnævnte selskaber og selskab 6 hævdede, at det var ubegrundet at konkludere, at de ikke opfyldte det tredje kriterium.
The same last two companies and Company 6 claimed that the conclusions that they did not fulfil the third criterion were unfounded.
Selskab 4 hævdede, at Kommissionen ikke havde nogen rimelig grund til at konkludere, at aktionærerne betalte en nedsat pris ved privatiseringen.
Company 4 claimed that the Commission had no plausible grounds to conclude that the price paid by the shareholders in the framework of the privatisation process was reduced.
Undersøgelsen viste imidlertid for det første, at selskabets værdi kun var ansat til 25 % af dets bogførte nettoværdi på privatiseringstidspunktet, hvilket såede tvivl om vurderingsberetningens pålidelighed.
The investigation, however, firstly revealed that the company was valued for only 25 % of its net book value at the time of privatisation, which casts doubts as to the reliability of the valuation report.
Men det viste sig tilmed, at de nye aktionærer kun betalte en del af denne pris for at blive ejere af selskabet.
More importantly, it also appeared that the new shareholders only paid a portion of that price for the ownership of the company.
Den resterende del konstateredes at være betalt af et tredje selskab, som selskab 4 afviste at give nærmere oplysninger om, hvad ejerforholdene angik.
The remaining portion was found to have been paid by a third company whose details, namely on ownership, were refused to be disclosed by Company 4.
Det kunne derfor ikke bortvejre mistanken om, at dette tredje selskab var statsejet.
It could therefore not remove the doubts that this third company was State-owned.
Påstanden om, at oplysningerne ikke kunne fremlægges af hensyn til forretningshemmeligheden, kan ikke accepteres, da myndighederne i antidumpingundersøgelser behandler alle fortrolige dokumenter, der fremlægges ved kontrolbesøget, som fortrolige i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 19, stk. 1, og oplysningerne således under ingen omstændigheder ville blive videregivet.
The claim that the information could not be disclosed due to business confidentiality cannot be accepted since in anti-dumping investigations all confidential documents obtained during the verification visit are treated as such by the authorities, in accordance with Article 19(1) of the basic Regulation, and would thus in any event not be further disclosed in any way.
Selskab 5 bestred Kommissionens negative beslutning om markedsøkonomisk behandling vedrørende det tredje kriterium med den begrundelse, at det angiveligt købte sit vigtigste udstyr fra et forbundet privat selskab, og at aktiverne således blev overdraget til markedspris.
Company 5 challenged the Commission’s negative MET determination with respect to the third criterion on the grounds that it allegedly purchased its main equipment from a related private company, and that the assets were thus transferred at market prices.
Det skal bemærkes, at Kommissionens konklusioner i dette tilfælde var baseret på den kendsgerning, at selskabet i anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling oprindelig anførte, at alle dets aktiver blev købt på det åbne marked, hvilket ved kontrolbesøget konstateredes at være ukorrekt.
It should be noted that in this specific case the Commission’s conclusions were based on the fact that the company originally stated in the MET claim form that all its assets were bought from the open market, which was found incorrect during the verification visit.
Det konstateredes faktisk, at alle aktiver i realiteten blev overført fra selskabets aktionær.
Indeed, it was found that all assets were actually transferred from the company’s shareholder.
Selskabet kunne ikke give nærmere oplysninger om, hvordan aktionæren oprindelig havde købt de pågældende aktiver og til hvilken pris.
The company could not clarify how the assets concerned were originally purchased by its shareholder, and at what price.