natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Selskabet kunne derfor ikke godtgøre, at aktiverne blev overdraget til markedspris, og kunne dermed heller ikke godtgøre, at dets produktionsomkostninger og økonomiske situation ikke blev væsentligt fordrejet som et levn fra det tidligere ikke-markedsøkonomiske system.
The company therefore failed to demonstrate that the assets were transferred at market prices, and could thus not demonstrate that its production costs and financial situation were not subject to significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system.
De vildledende oplysninger, selskabet gav om oprindelsen af sine faste aktiver, var i høj grad en hindring for kontrolarbejdet.
By providing misleading information as to the origin of its fixed assets, the verification work was also strongly impeded.
Da der ikke er fremkommet yderligere oplysninger, bekræftes disse konklusioner, og påstanden er blevet afvist.
In the absence of any further information, those conclusions are hereby confirmed and the claim was rejected.
Selskab 6 hævdede, at den kendsgerning, at alle aktiver afskrives med samme faste sats, ikke burde føre til den konklusion, at selskabets økonomiske situation fordrejes.
Company 6 claimed that the fact that all assets are depreciated at the same flat rate should not lead to the conclusion that the financial situation of the company is distorted.
Selskabet hævdede desuden, at prisen for overtagelsen af brugsretten til jorden, som Kommissionens tjenestegrene fandt unormalt lav, er fastsat ved en ren markedstransaktion uden statslig indblanding.
Moreover, the company claimed that the purchase price of the land right use, which was found to be abnormally low by the Commission services, is a pure market transaction, without State interference.
Disse påstande afvistes med den begrundelse, at anvendelsen af samme afskrivningssats for alle aktiver i dette tidligere kollektivt ejede selskab ikke afspejler den økonomiske virkelighed og indebærer en væsentlig fordrejning af virksomhedens produktionsomkostninger og økonomiske situation.
Those claims were rejected on the grounds that the use of the same depreciation rate for all assets, by this former collectively owned company, does not reflect the economic reality and implies a significant distortion of the production costs and the financial situation of the firm.
Hvad angår overtagelsen af brugsretten til den statsejede jord, var staten pr. definition indblandet, og selskabet kunne ikke bevise, at overtagelsesprisen — der syntes unaturligt lav i forhold til den normale årlige lejeafgift, selskabet tidligere betalte — afspejlede markedsværdien.
As to the acquisition of the State-owned land use right, it involved by nature the State, and the company could not demonstrate that the purchase price, which appeared abnormally low in comparison with the normal annual rent previously paid by the company, reflected market value.
Det skal bemærkes, at nogle eksporterende producenter også hævdede, at Kommissionens konklusion om ikke at indrømme dem markedsøkonomisk behandling var baseret på forkerte resultater.
It should be noted that some exporting producers also claimed that the Commission’s conclusions not to grant them MET were based on wrong findings.
De fremlagde imidlertid ikke yderligere oplysninger i den henseende, og deres påstande måtte derfor afvises.
However, they did not provide any additional element in this respect, so that their claims had to be rejected.
Kun et selskab kunne fremlægge gyldige begrundelser, mens de øvrige selskabers påstande måtte afvises.
Only one company could provide valid clarifications, while the claims made by the others had to be rejected.
Mere generelt hævdede selskab 9, at det manglende kontrolbesøg var ugunstigt for dem og diskriminerende i forhold til de selskaber, hos hvilke der var aflagt kontrolbesøg.
More generally, it was claimed by Company 9 that the absence of verification visit was unfavourable to them and discriminatory as compared to those companies that have been subject to a verification visit.
To andre selskaber hævdede, at et besøg til samtidig kontrol af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling og besvarelsen af dumpingspørgeskemaet var ufordelagtigt for dem, og det samme gjaldt overskridelsen af fristen på tre måneder for Kommissionens beslutning om markedsøkonomisk behandling efter grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
Two other companies claimed that carrying out a simultaneous verification visit of the MET claim form and of the questionnaire reply on dumping worked to their disadvantage, and so did the breach of the three months deadline for the Commission to take a decision of MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Det skal i den henseende bemærkes, at kontrolbesøg ifølge grundforordningens artikel 16 ikke er obligatoriske og gennemføres, hvis det anses for påkrævet.
In this respect, it is recalled that according to Article 16 of the basic Regulation, verification visits are not compulsory and shall be carried out where it is considered appropriate.
I det foreliggende tilfælde blev den anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling, som selskab 9 havde fremsat, afvist allerede ved første gennemgang, da selskabet - selv om der blev fremsendt en mangelskrivelse - ikke godtgjorde, at alle kriterierne var opfyldt.
In the present case, the MET claim by Company 9 was rejected already at the stage of a first analysis since – despite the sending of the deficiency letter – the company failed to show that all the criteria were met.
Med hensyn til de øvrige påstande skal det bemærkes, at de samtidige kontrolbesøg og den manglende overholdelse af fristen på tre måneder hænger sammen med, at denne procedure omfattede mange eksporterende producenter, og at bestemmelserne om stikprøver kun kunne anvendes for dumpingberegninger.
As to the other claims, it should be noted that simultaneous verification visits and the non-respect of the three months deadline are explained by the fact that this proceeding involved a large number of exporting producers and that the provisions on sampling could only be used with respect to dumping calculations.
Undersøgelsen indebar derfor en betydelig og tidskrævende gennemgang af hver enkelt anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The investigation therefore entailed a significant and time consuming analysis of each single MET claim form.
Under alle omstændigheder anses de tidsmæssigt sammenfaldende kontrolbesøg og den manglende overholdelse af fristerne ikke for at have nogen åbenbare retlige konsekvenser eller nogen ugunstige virkninger, og der kunne — som allerede konkluderet i tidligere undersøgelser — på den måde tages rimelig stilling til spørgsmålet om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
In any event, it is considered that the simultaneity of the verification visits and the non-respect of the deadlines do not entail any apparent legal consequences, nor adverse effects and, as already concluded in previous investigations, a valid MET determination could be made under those circumstances.
Påstandene blev derfor også afvist.
The claims were therefore also rejected.
Klagerens påstand om, at der hos alle berørte selskaber burde aflægges et kontrolbesøg vedrørende anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, blev afvist ud fra de grunde, der er anført i betragtning (34).
Finally, the claim by the complainant that a verification visit of the MET claim forms should be carried out at the premises of all companies concerned was rejected for the reasons explained above in recital (34).
Individuel behandling blev indrømmet 18 selskaber — heraf 13, som havde anmodet om, men ikke opnået markedsøkonomisk behandling — da de konstateredes at opfylde alle betingelser for individuel behandling efter grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
It is recalled that individual treatment was granted to 18 companies, 13 of which having claimed but failed to obtain MET, since they were found to meet all the requirements for IT set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Tre selskaber, der ikke blev indrømmet individuel behandling, hævdede, at de enten ikke fik tilstrækkelig tid til at indgive anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling for deres datterselskaber, eller at deres datterselskabers begrænsede aktivitet ikke berettigede, at der skulle indgives en begrundet anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
Three companies which were not granted IT claimed that they were either not granted sufficient time to submit an MET/IT claim form with respect to their subsidiaries or that the limited activity of their subsidiary did not justify the need for a valid MET/IT claim form to be submitted.
For disse tre selskabers vedkommende skal det bemærkes, at der oprindelig ikke blev indgivet nogen anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling inden for den frist, der gjaldt for samtlige selskaber.
In the case of those three companies, it should be noted that no MET/IT claim form was originally submitted within the deadline set for all companies.
Efter en første gennemgang blev disse selskaber ved en mangelskrivelse opfordret til også at indsende en anmodning inden for en bestemt frist vedrørende deres forbundne selskaber, som også var aktive inden for salg/produktion af den pågældende vare.
Following a first analysis, those companies were requested, by a deficiency letter, to also submit a claim form within a certain deadline with respect to their related companies also active in the sales/production of the product concerned.
Der indkom imidlertid ingen sådanne anmodninger, og der kunne ikke indrømmes en ekstra frist for ikke at skabe forskelsbehandling i forhold til de selskaber, der havde fremlagt de relevante oplysninger inden for de fastsatte frister.
No such claim forms were however received, and no additional deadline could be granted in order not to discriminate with those companies that had submitted the relevant information within the granted deadlines.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at i betragtning af, at det drejer sig om en kompliceret sag, der krævede individuel undersøgelse af anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling for mange selskaber, og hvor bestemmelserne om stikprøver måtte anvendes til konstatering af dumping, ville indrømmelsen af længere frister også have forhindret, at undersøgelsen blev afsluttet til tiden.
In this respect, it is noted that given the complexity of the case involving a high number of companies, for which MET/IT claims had to be individually examined and provisions on sampling had to be used for the establishment of dumping, granting extensions would also have prevented the completion of the investigation within the deadline.
Dertil kommer, at den omstændighed, at et selskabs aktivitet er begrænset, ikke fritager selskabet for at bevise, at det opfylder de relevante kriterier.
In addition, the fact that the activity of a company is limited does not exempt that company from proving it meets the relevant criteria.
Påstandene blev derfor afvist.
The claims were therefore rejected.
En af de eksporterende producenter hævdede, at udvælgelsen til stikprøven var unfair, da den alene var baseret på eksportvolumen, og at producenten burde have været med i prøven i betragtning af den høje merværdi, der karakteriserede de produkter, selskabet eksporterede til Fællesskabet.
One exporting producer claimed that the selection of the sample was unfair since it was merely based on export volumes considerations, and that it should have been included in the sample considering the high added value of the products it exported to the Community.
Denne påstand blev imidlertid afvist, da udvælgelsen af selskaberne til stikprøven foregik i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1, dvs. på grundlag af den største repræsentative eksporterede mængde, der med rimelighed kunne undersøges inden for den tid, der var til rådighed.
This claim was, however, rejected since the selection of the companies included in the sample was done in conformity with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports that could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
En anden eksporterende producent bestred den konklusion, at selskabet, da det udtrykkeligt havde afvist at være med i stikprøven, ikke kunne betragtes som en samarbejdsvillig part.
Another exporting producer contested the conclusions that, since it had explicitly refused to be included in the sample, it could not be considered a cooperating party.
Selskabet hævdede for det første, at stikprøveudvælgelsen efter grundforordningens artikel 17, stk. 2, skal foretages med parternes samtykke, således at de får mulighed for at sige nej til at være med i stikprøven.
The company firstly claimed that pursuant to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation the selection of the sample must be made with the consent of the parties, thus leaving them the possibility not to be part of the sample.
For det andet hævdede det, at ifølge grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, er et kontrolbesøg ikke en nødvendig betingelse for at påvise, at et selskab opfylder de fem relevante kriterier, og at det derfor stadig kunne indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Secondly, it claimed that according to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, a verification visit is not a necessary condition for demonstrating that a company fulfils the five relevant criteria, so that it could still be granted MET.
Det fremførte, at dette også kan ses af, at 22 selskaber blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, men der blev kun aflagt besøg på stedet hos syv.
It argued that this is evidenced by the fact that MET has been granted to 22 companies, but only 7 companies were visited on the spot.
Selskabet hævdede desuden, at det burde være blevet underrettet om følgerne af manglende samarbejdsvilje, som omhandlet i grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1.
Finally, the company claimed that it should have received a notification of the consequences of the non-cooperation, as set out in Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation.
Angående den første påstand skal det bemærkes, at ifølge grundforordningens artikel 17, stk. 2, er parternes samtykke ikke en nødvendig betingelse, da artiklen fastsætter, at den endelige udvælgelse påhviler Kommissionen, idet udvælgelsen dog så vidt muligt foretages i samråd med de berørte parter og med disses samtykke.
Concerning the first claim, it is noted that according to Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, the consent of the parties is not a necessary condition, since that Article provides that the final selection rests with the Commission and that only preference shall be given to choosing a sample in consultation with, and with the consent of the parties concerned.
Desuden blev stikprøveudvælgelsen i dette tilfælde foretaget i samråd med de kinesiske myndigheder, og også under denne procedure gav det berørte selskab udtryk for, at det ikke ønskede at være med i stikprøven, fordi et kontrolbesøg ville volde det vanskeligheder.
Furthermore, the selection of the sample in this case was made in consultation with the Chinese authorities and, during this process, the company concerned again expressed that it did not wish to be included in the sample, namely on the grounds that it would have difficulties to receive a verification visit.
Det skal tillige bemærkes, at selskabet ikke anmodede om en individuel undersøgelse efter grundforordningens artikel 17, stk. 3.
Finally, it is also noted that the company did not ask for an individual examination, pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation.
Den anden påstand blev betragtet som ubegrundet, da nægtelse af at give adgang til nødvendige oplysninger, således også i forbindelse med beslutningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, efter grundforordningens artikel 18 bør betragtes som manglende samarbejdsvilje.
The second claim was considered unfounded since, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the refusal to provide access to the necessary information, thus also with respect to MET determination, should be considered as non-cooperation.
Det blev over for selskabet gjort klart, at medvirken i stikprøven indebar, at det skulle besvare et spørgeskema og acceptere en kontrol på stedet af besvarelsen, hvilket selskabet afslog.
It was made clear to the company that the inclusion in the sample implied replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot verification of their response, which was refused by the company.
Under alle omstændigheder skal det bemærkes, at selv om selskabet var blevet indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, ville det have været nødvendigt at anvende bestemmelserne i grundforordningens artikel 18 ved manglende deltagelse i stikprøven, manglende besvarelse af et spørgeskema efter grundforordningens artikel 17, stk. 3, og manglende accept af et kontrolbesøg.
In any event, it is noted that, even if MET had been granted to the company, by refusing to be included in the sample, not submitting a questionnaire reply pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation, and refusing a verification visit, the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation would have had to be used.
Den sidste af selskabets påstande bør også afvises, fordi følgerne af manglende samarbejdsvilje klart fremgik af punkt 8 i meddelelsen om indledning af proceduren.
Finally, the last claim made by the company should also be rejected because the consequences of the non-cooperation were made clear by paragraph 8 of the notice of initiation.
Da der ikke er fremsat bemærkninger hertil, bekræftes den generelle metode, der blev anvendt til at fastsætte den normale værdi, jf. betragtning (31)-(40) i den midlertidige forordning.
In the absence of any comments, the general methodology used for the determination of the normal value, as described in the recitals (31) to (40) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
De eksporterende producenter, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, hævdede, at der var visse kontorfejl i beregningen af den normale værdi, eller bestred den metode, der var anvendt til at beregne de justeringer, der skønnedes nødvendige.
The exporting producers granted MET claimed the occurrence of certain clerical errors in the calculation of the normal value or contested the methodology used for assessing the adjustments that were deemed necessary.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet undersøgt, og der er foretaget de nødvendige ændringer.
Those issues have been re-examined and the necessary amendments have been made where necessary.
Nogle af de interesserede parter hævdede, at grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, ikke var blevet overholdt, da de ikke inden indførelsen af midlertidige foranstaltninger blev underrettet om valget af et andet referenceland end det, der var foreslået i indledningsmeddelelsen.
Certain interested parties claimed a breach of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation because, prior to the imposition of provisional measures, they were not informed of the choice of an analogue country other than that proposed in the notice of initiation.
De hævdede også, at da de ikke vidste, at der ikke var nogen samarbejdsvillige producenter i Mexico, som var det land, der blev foreslået i indledningsfasen, kunne de ikke yde Kommissionen bistand ved valget af et alternativt land.
They further claimed that by not being aware of the absence of cooperation by any producer in Mexico, the analogue country proposed at initiation stage, they were not able to provide assistance to the Commission for the choice of an alternative country.
I den henseende skal det for det første bemærkes, at grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), fastsætter, at parterne umiddelbart efter iværksættelsen af undersøgelsen underrettes om det påtænkte tredjeland med markedsøkonomi.
In that respect, it should be noted first of all that Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation provides that the parties should be informed shortly after the initiation of the market economy third country envisaged.
I dette tilfælde påtænktes det umiddelbart efter iværksættelsen stadig at anvende Mexico som referenceland, og parterne blev opfordret til at fremsætte bemærkninger til dette valg.
In the present case, Mexico was still envisaged as an analogue country shortly after the initiation and the parties were invited to comment on this choice.
På det tidlige stadium af undersøgelsen var der faktisk intet, der tydede på, at ingen mexicansk producent ville vise sig villig til at samarbejde.
At the early stage of the investigation there was indeed no indication that no cooperation from any Mexican producer would be obtained.
Først senere blev det klart, at der som følge af manglende samarbejde måtte vælges et andet land.
It is only at a later stage that it became clear that another country had to be selected in the absence of cooperation.
Desuden fastsættes det ikke i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), at parterne bør bistå Kommissionen i valget af et passende referenceland.
In addition, Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation does not provide that the parties should assist the Commission in its choice of an appropriate analogue country.
De interesserede parter blev også underrettet om de foreløbige resultater, herunder det foreløbigt valgte referenceland, dvs. Tyrkiet, og fik lejlighed til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
Finally, the interested parties were informed of the provisional findings including the provisionally selected analogue country, i.e. Turkey, and were given the opportunity to comment.
Der blev ikke fremsat nogen bemærkninger om, at Tyrkiet ikke kunne anses for at være et passende referenceland i dette tilfælde.
No comment was received that Turkey could not be considered an appropriate analogue country in this case.
Bestemmelserne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), kan derfor ikke anses for at være tilsidesat, og resultaterne i betragtning (44)-(48) i den midlertidige forordning bekræftes.
It is therefore considered that there was no breach of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, and the findings laid down in recitals (44) to (48) of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Da der ikke er fremsat bemærkninger hertil, bekræftes den generelle metode, der blev anvendt til at fastsætte den normale værdi, jf. betragtning (49) og (50) i den midlertidige forordning.
In the absence of any comments, the general methodology used for the determination of the normal value, as described in the recitals (49) and (50) of the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
To eksporterende producenter hævdede, at de betingelser for beregning af eksportprisen, der er fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 9, ikke var opfyldt, og at eventuelle justeringer af eksportprisen ved salg til Fællesskabet via forbundne selskaber etableret i et tredjeland snarere burde ske efter bestemmelserne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10.
Two exporting producers claimed that the requirements for the construction of the export price, as laid down in Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, had not been fulfilled and that any adjustment of the export price when sales were made to the Community via related companies established in a third country should rather be addressed by applying the provisions of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
I den henseende bekræftes det, at bestemmelserne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, særlig litra i), faktisk blev anvendt som nævnt i betragtning (53) i den midlertidige forordning.
In this respect, it is confirmed that the provisions of Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, and more specifically of subparagraph (i) of that paragraph, have indeed been applied, as mentioned under recital (53) of the provisional Regulation.
De eksporterende producenter, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, hævdede, at der var visse kontorfejl i beregningen af eksportprisen, eller bestred den metode, der var anvendt til at beregne visse justeringer, der skønnedes nødvendige.
The exporting producers granted MET claimed the occurrence of certain clerical errors in the calculation of the export price or contested the methodology used for assessing certain adjustments that were deemed necessary.
Disse spørgsmål er blevet undersøgt, og der er foretaget de nødvendige ændringer.
Those issues have been re-examined and the necessary amendments have been made where applicable.