natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I undersøgelsens løb fremførte en importør i Fællesskabet, at unicykler ikke burde være omfattet af varedækningen, fordi de angiveligt har andre grundlæggende fysiske og tekniske egenskaber og andre anvendelsesformål.
During the investigation one importer in the Community claimed that unicycles should be exempted from the scope of the product concerned because they allegedly have different basic physical and technical characteristics and different uses.
Kommissionen undersøgte påstanden og fandt, at der klart er grundlæggende fysiske og tekniske forskelle.
The Commission investigated the claim and found that basic physical and technical differences clearly exist.
Unicykler har i modsætning til cykler kun ét hjul, intet styr og intet bremsesystem.
Unlike bicycles, unicycles have no second wheel, no handlebar for steering and no breaking system.
Desuden er der en klar skillelinje mellem anvendelsen af unicykler og andre cykler.
In addition, there is a clear dividing line between the uses of unicycles and other cycles.
Unicykler benyttes normalt ikke til transport eller sport, men til akrobatiske formål.
Unicycles are normally not used for transportation or sport, they are normally considered and used for acrobatic purposes.
Det konkluderedes derfor, at påstanden var berettiget, og at definitionen af den pågældende vare burde justeres.
It was therefore concluded that the claim was duly justified and that the definition of the product concerned should be adjusted accordingly.
Markedsøkonomisk behandling
Market economy treatment
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b), i grundforordningen skal den normale værdi i antidumpingundersøgelser vedrørende import fra Kina og/eller Vietnam fastsættes i overensstemmelse med samme artikels stk. 1 til 6 for de eksporterende producenter, der kan bevise, at de opfylder kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), nemlig at de fremstiller og sælger samme vare på markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC and/or Vietnam, normal value is to be established in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which can show that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation, i.e. that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
Ti kinesiske og syv vietnamesiske selskaber anmodede om markedsøkonomisk behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b):
Claims for MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation were received from ten PRC and seven Vietnamese companies:
Liyang Machinery (Shenzen) Co. Ltd
Liyang Machinery (Shenzen) Co Ltd,
Always Co., Ltd (»Always«)
Always Co., Ltd (Always),
Co., Ltd (»Asama«)
Co., Ltd. (Asama),
Dragon Bicycles Co., Ltd (»Dragon«)
Dragon Bicycles Co., Ltd (Dragon),
High Ride Bicycle Co., Ltd (»High Ride«)
High Ride Bicycle Co., Ltd (High Ride),
Liyang Vietnam Industrial Co., Ltd (»Liyang«)
Liyang Vietnam Industrial Co, Ltd. (Liyang),
Vietnam Sheng Fa Co., Ltd (»Sheng Fa«)
Vietnam Sheng Fa Co., Ltd (Sheng Fa),
Et af disse selskaber (Komda Industrial Co. Ltd) trak på et senere tidspunkt i undersøgelsen sin anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling tilbage, men fastholdt anmodningen om individuel behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
One of these companies (Komda Industrial Co. Ltd), at a later stage in the investigation, withdrew its request for MET but maintained its request for individual treatment pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
For et andet selskab (Olympic Pro Manufacturing Co., Ltd) konstateredes det, at det ikke havde eksporteret den pågældende vare til Fællesskabet i undersøgelsesperioden.
In the case of another company (Olympic Pro Manufacturing Co., Ltd) it was found that it had no exports of the product concerned into the Community during the IP.
Dets anmodning om markedsøkonomisk og individuel behandling blev derfor irrelevante.
Therefore, its request for MET and individual treatment became irrelevant.
De 15 resterende selskabers krav blev analyseret på grundlag af de fem kriterier, der er fastsat i artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), i grundforordningen.
The claims of the fifteen remaining companies were analysed on the basis of the five criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Afgørelse om markedsøkonomisk behandling af eksporterende producenter i Kina
MET determination regarding exporting producers in the PRC
Det blev fastslået for alle eksporterende producenter af cykler i Kina, at de var omfattet af et eksportkontingentsystem i henhold til en forordning af 20. december 2001 om forvaltning af eksporttilladelser, som er godkendt af Ministeriet for Udenrigshandel og Økonomisk Samarbejde (»MUØS«) og toldmyndighederne.
For all exporting producers of bicycles in the PRC it was established that they were subject to an export quota system, in accordance with a Regulation of export permit management of 20.12.2001 approved by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC) and the customs authorities.
Kontingenterne blev tildelt af et udvalg bestående af repræsentanter for MUØS, det respektive handelskammer og sammenslutningen af udenlandsk finansierede virksomheder på grundlag af kriterier fastsat af MUØS.
The allocation of the quotas was made by a Committee comprised of members of the MOFTEC, the relative Chamber of Commerce and the Association of Foreign Funded Enterprises on the basis of criteria set up by the MOFTEC.
Systemet omfattede også en fastsættelse af minimumseksportpriser pr. varetype og regeringskontrol af priser og mængder i eksportørens salgskontrakt, før der kan udstedes eksportlicens.
The system also included the setting of minimum export prices per product type and the control of prices and quantities of the exporter sales contract by the government, before an export licence could be issued.
Det fremgik klart af ovenstående, at selskabernes beslutninger med hensyn til salgspriser og mængder ikke blev truffet som reaktion på markedets signaler og uden omfattende statslig indgriben som krævet i henhold til første kriterium i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
In view of the above, the companies requesting MET were not able to demonstrate that their decisions regarding sale prices and quantities were taken in response to market signals and without significant State interference, as required by the first criterion of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Efter konsultation af det rådgivende udvalg blev det besluttet ikke at indrømme de pågældende selskaber markedsøkonomisk behandling, da de ikke opfyldte betingelserne i artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), i grundforordningen.
Consequently, after consulting the Advisory Committee, it was decided not to grant MET to the applicant companies, since they did not meet the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Visse eksporterende producenter og China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (»CCCME«) fremførte, at eksportlicensordningen ikke kan anses for at påvirke eksportørernes fastsættelse af eksportmængder og -priser og ikke er genstand for omfattende statslig indgriben, jf. grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
Certain exporting producers and the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic products (CCCME) argued that the export licence scheme cannot be considered to affect the exporters' determination of export quantities and prices and are not subject to significant State interference within the meaning of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
I denne forbindelse skal det for det første bemærkes, at eksportlicensordningen begrænser selskaberne til at eksportere cykler ud over en tilladt maksimumsmængde og under de mindstepriser, der er fastsat af staten.
In this respect, it should be firstly noted that the export licence scheme restricts the companies to export bicycles beyond a maximum allowed quantity and below the minimum prices set by the State.
Denne restriktion viser klart, at de ikke frit kan træffe beslutninger om deres eksportaktiviteter uden betydelig statslig indgriben.
This restriction indicates clearly that they are not free to determine their export activities without significant State interference.
De er faktisk forpligtet til at afgive tilbud om en årlig mængde, der kan accepteres, ændres uden begrundelse eller endda afvises af ovennævnte udvalg.
Indeed, they are obliged to tender for an annual quantity which may be accepted as such, or modified on the basis of unspecified grounds or even be rejected by the above mentioned Committee.
Endvidere kan et selskab, der har eksporteret færre end 5000 cykler i det foregående år, udelukkes helt fra tilbudsprocedurerne, hvilket således lader det være helt op til udvalget, om det pågældende selskabs eksportaktiviteter kan fortsætte.
Furthermore, a company with less than 5000 bicycle exports in the previous year can be totally excluded from the tender procedures, leaving thus to the absolute discretion of that Committee the continuation of the company's export activities.
Desuden overvåges mængder og priser nøje af staten, herunder MUØS og toldmyndighederne, gennem godkendelsen af de faktiske kontrakter om eksportsalg, på grundlag af hvilke eksportlicensen kan udstedes.
Moreover, the quantities and prices are closely monitored by the State, involving MOFTEC and the customs authorities, via the validation of the actual export sales contracts, on the basis of which the export licence can be issued.
Dette anses for at være uafviselig statslig indgriben i selskabets forretningsmæssige beslutninger, jf. grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
This is considered to be an undeniable State interference in the company's business decisions within the meaning of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Argumentet blev derfor afvist.
On this basis, the argument was rejected.
Afgørelse om markedsøkonomisk behandling af eksporterende producenter i Vietnam
MET determination regarding exporting producers in Vietnam
Det konstateredes, at fem af de pågældende selskaber var beliggende i såkaldte industrizoner, og at et af selskaberne var beliggende i en såkaldt eksportforarbejdningszone.
It was found that five of the companies concerned were situated in a so-called Industrial Zones (IZ) and one of the companies was situated in a so-called Export Processing Zone (EPZ).
For så vidt angår selskaber i industrizoner blev det fastslået, at det er fastsat i regeringsdekret 24/2000ND-CP af 31. juli 2000 om gennemførelse af loven om udenlandske investeringer i Vietnam, at selskaber, der er omfattet af denne lov, har en generel forpligtelse til at eksportere mindst 80 % af deres produktion for at kunne opnå en investeringslicens.
Regarding companies situated in an IZ, it was established that the Government Decree 24/2000ND-CP of 31 July 2000 implementing the Law on Foreign Investment of Vietnam, provided for a general obligation for companies subject to this law to export at least 80 % of their production (export obligation) in order to obtain an investment licence.
Det konstateredes også, at eksportforpligtelsen fremgik af investeringslicenserne for alle de fem selskaber, der var beliggende i en industrizone.
It was also found that the export obligation was included in the investment licences of all five companies situated in an IZ.
Desuden fremgik det af undersøgelsen, at investeringslicensen for det selskab, der var beliggende i en eksportforarbejdningszone, ikke indeholdt den ovenfor omhandlede eksportforpligtelse.
Moreover, the investigation showed that the investment licence of the company situated in an EPZ did not contain the export obligation referred to above.
De fem selskaber, der i henhold til deres investeringslicenser havde en eksportforpligtelse, hævdede, at eksportforpligtelsen var bortfaldet efter 7. maj 2003 som følge af en ændring i den gældende vietnamesiske lovgivning, der var sket ved regeringsdekret 27/2003ND-CP (»ændringsdekretet«).
The five companies who had the export obligation included in their investment licences alleged that due to a subsequent change in the applicable Vietnamese legislation which was implemented by Government decree 27/2003ND-CP (amending decree) the export obligation ceased to exist after 7 May 2003.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at eksportforpligtelsen i henhold til ændringsdekretet kun kan bortfalde, hvis andre nødvendige krav i ændringsdekretet er opfyldt.
In this regard, it is to be noted that according to the amending decree, the export obligation can only be removed under the condition that other compelling requirements included in the amending decree are met.
Derfor fjernede ændringsdekretet ikke eksportforpligtelsen, men ændrede snarere de krav, som selskaberne skulle opfylde, for at deres eksportforpligtelse kan blive ophævet.
Therefore, the amending decree did not remove the export obligation but rather amended the requirements which the companies needed to meet for the annulment of their export obligation.
Selskaberne hævdede endvidere, at de ville have været berettigede til at få eksportforpligtelsen fjernet fra deres investeringslicenser, hvis de havde opfyldt de supplerende betingelser i ændringsdekretet.
The companies further alleged that they would have been entitled to have their export obligation removed from their investment licences had they complied with the supplemental conditions listed in the amending decree.
Ifølge den gældende lovgivning skal investoren imidlertid først anmode den myndighed, der har udstedt investeringslicensen, om en ændring af licensen, og denne myndighed skal efterfølgende ændre investorens investeringslicens, således at eksportforpligtelsen ophæves.
However, according to the applicable legislation, the investor first has to request from the investment licence issuing authority an amendment of its licence and, subsequently, the investment licence issuing authority shall amend the investment licence of the investor so that the investor can enjoy the repeal of the export obligation.
De licensudstedende myndigheder havde ikke på noget tidspunkt i undersøgelsesperioden ophævet eksportforpligtelsen i de fem selskabers investeringslicenser.
The investment licence issuing authorities had not repealed the export obligation in the investment licences of any of the five companies at any time during the IP.
Selskaberne kunne derfor heller ikke påvise, at de ville have opfyldt de ekstra betingelser.
Therefore, the companies also failed to demonstrate that they would have complied with the additional conditions.
De samme selskaber hævdede også, at selv om det blev antaget, at eksportforpligtelserne var gældende i undersøgelsesperioden, blev selskabernes afgørelser alligevel truffet som reaktion på markedets signaler.
The same companies also alleged that even if the export obligation were to be considered to be in force during the IP, the companies' decisions were, nevertheless, made in response to market signals.
Imidlertid fandtes denne eksportforpligtelse ikke blot i undersøgelsesperioden, men den var også indeholdt i investeringslicenserne og vedtægterne for alle fem selskaber i hele undersøgelsesperioden.
However, not only was this export obligation in place during the IP but, moreover, this export obligation was included in the investment licences and in the articles of association of all five companies throughout the investigation period.
Det konkluderes derfor, at eksportforpligtelsen må betragtes som et væsentligt statsligt indgreb af en art, der effektivt forhindrer selskaberne i at træffe deres beslutninger som reaktion på markedets signaler.
Consequently, it is concluded that the export obligation has to be considered as a significant State interference of such a nature as to effectively preventing the companies from making their decisions according to market signals.
Det blev også konkluderet, at det selskab, hvis investeringslicens og vedtægter ikke indeholdt den nævnte eksportforpligtelse, frit kunne sælge den pågældende vare både på hjemmemarkedet og på eksportmarkedet og ikke var genstand for omfattende statslig indgriben.
It was also concluded that the company, for which it was found that neither the investment licence nor its articles of association contained the said export obligation, was free to sell the product concerned both on the domestic and on the export market and was not subject to significant State interference.
Det skal endvidere nævnes, at for fire af de fem selskaber nævnt i betragtning 34, der er pålagt en eksportforpligtelse, kunne det ikke konkluderes, at de havde ét klart sæt regnskaber, der blev revideret uafhængigt i overensstemmelse med internationale standarder for regnskabsføring og anvendt til alle formål.
Furthermore, it has to be mentioned that in the case of four companies of the five companies referred to in recital 34 above subject to the export obligation, it could not be concluded that they had one clear set of accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes.
Det konstateredes, at der blev benyttet et uigennemsigtigt faktureringssystem for salget af den pågældende vare til Fællesskabet.
It was found that a non-transparent invoicing arrangement was in place with regard to the invoicing of the product concerned to the Community.
Dette system involverede mellemmænd i skattely og andre steder uden for Vietnam, og det var ikke muligt at følge et revisionsspor.
This arrangement involved intermediary companies in tax havens and other locations outside Vietnam and it did not allow an audit trail to be followed.
De vietnamesiske selskabers regnskaber afspejlede derfor ikke de tilgrundliggende eksportsalgstransaktioner på korrekt vis.
As a result, the accounting records of the companies in Vietnam did not represent faithfully the underlying export sales transactions.
Efter høring af det rådgivende udvalg blev det derfor besluttet at indrømme Always markedsøkonomisk behandling, idet selskabet opfyldte alle kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), og at afvise kravene fra Asama, Dragon, High Ride, Liyang og Sheng Fa, da disse selskaber ikke opfylder alle de ovennævnte kriterier.
Consequently, after consulting the Advisory Committee, it was decided to grant MET to Always on the basis that the company met all the criteria set in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and to reject the claims of Asama, Dragon, High Ride, Liyang and Sheng Fa since these companies did not meet all the above-mentioned criteria.
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), indføres der eventuelt en landsdækkende told for lande henhørende under nævnte artikel undtagen i tilfælde, hvor selskaber kan påvise, at de opfylder alle kriterierne for individuel behandling i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation for individual treatment.
De samme kinesiske og vietnamesiske eksporterende producenter, der ikke opfyldte kriterierne for markedsøkonomisk behandling, samt det i betragtning 29 omhandlede selskab anmodede alternativt om individuel behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
The same PRC and Vietnamese exporting producers, which did not fulfil the MET criteria, as well as the company referred to in recital 29, alternatively, requested individual treatment (IT) in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Kommissionen undersøgte derefter, om selskaberne retligt og reelt havde den nødvendige uafhængighed af staten til at kunne fastsætte eksportpriser og -mængder for den pågældende vare, jf. grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5, litra b).
The Commission consequently verified whether the applicant companies enjoyed, both in fact and in law, the necessary degree of independence from the State for setting their export prices and determining their export quantities of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation.
I denne forbindelse blev det fastslået, at alle eksporterende producenter i Kina var underlagt en betydelig statskontrol med hensyn til fastsættelsen af eksportpriser og -mængder for den pågældende vare, jf. betragtning 31.
In this respect, it was established, that all PRC exporting producers were subject to significant State control with regard to determining their export prices and quantities of the product concerned as explained in recital 31 above.
Det blev derfor konkluderet, at de kinesiske eksporterende producenter, der havde anmodet om individuel behandling, ikke opfyldte kravene herfor som fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
It was, therefore, concluded that the Chinese exporting producers having applied for IT did not meet the necessary requirements for individual treatment as set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
For så vidt angår de vietnamesiske selskaber blev det fastslået, at alle fem selskaber var underlagt en betydelig statslig kontrol med hensyn til fastsættelsen af eksportmængderne for den pågældende vare som beskrevet i betragtning 34 til 41.
Regarding the Vietnamese companies, it was established that all the five companies were subject to significant State control with regard to setting their export quantities of the product concerned as explained in recitals 34 to 41 above.
Det blev derfor konkluderet, at ingen af de fem selskaber opfyldte de krav, som var nødvendige for at indrømme individuel behandling.
It was, therefore, concluded that none of the five companies met the necessary requirements for individual treatment.
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), i grundforordningen skal den normale værdi for de eksporterende producenter i Kina og Vietnam, der ikke kan indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, fastsættes på grundlag af prisen eller den beregnede værdi i et referenceland.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value of the analogue country.
Til dette formål foreslog Kommissionen i indledningsmeddelelserne Mexico, der også var referenceland i den tidligere undersøgelse vedrørende Kina.
For this purpose, in the notices of initiation the Commission suggested Mexico, which was also the analogue country used in the previous investigation concerning the PRC.
Alle interesserede parter fik mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger til det påtænkte valg af referenceland.
All interested parties were given the opportunity to comment on the choice of analogue country envisaged.
Der blev modtaget bemærkninger fra de samarbejdsvillige producenter, hvori Taiwan eller Indien blev foreslået som mere passende referencelande end Mexico.
Comments were received from the cooperating exporting producers suggesting Taiwan or India as being a more suitable analogue country than Mexico.
Visse eksporterende producenter fremførte, at da dette land var blevet benyttet i den oprindelige undersøgelse, var Taiwan et mere passende referenceland.
Certain exporting producers argued that, since this country had been used in the original investigation, Taiwan is a more appropriate analogue country to be used.
De fremførte yderligere, at Taiwan er en af verdens største cykelproducenter og har et veludviklet hjemmemarked, hvor mange indenlandske producenter konkurrerer aktivt.
They further argued that Taiwan is one of the largest producers of bicycles in the world and has a developed domestic market where many domestic producers actively compete.
Desuden er der ingen begrænsninger på importen af cykler eller dele til Taiwan.
Moreover, there are no restrictions on imports of bicycles or parts into Taiwan.