natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter meddelelsen om de væsentligste kendsgerninger og overvejelser, der lå til grund for beslutningen om at indføre midlertidig antidumpingtold på importen af PTFE fra Rusland og Folkerepublikken Kina, fremsatte flere interesserede parter bemærkninger skriftligt.
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of PTFE from Russia and the PRC, several interested parties submitted comments in writing.
I overensstemmelse med artikel 20, stk. 1, i grundforordningen fik alle interesserede parter, der anmodede herom, mulighed for at blive hørt mundtligt af Kommissionen.
In accordance with the provision of Article 20(1) of the basic Regulation, all interested parties which requested a hearing were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission.
Kommissionen fortsatte med at indhente og efterprøve alle de oplysninger, som den fandt nødvendige med henblik på at træffe endelige afgørelser.
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information deemed necessary for the definitive findings.
Der blev aflagt yderligere kontrolbesøg hos følgende selskaber:
An additional verification visit was carried out at the premises of the following companies:
Heroflon (Italien), der forædler PTFE i granulatform
Heroflon (Italy), granular PTFE transformer,
Fluorseals (Italien), der forarbejder PTFE i granulatform.
Fluorseals (Italy), granular PTFE processor.
Alle parter blev underrettet om de væsentligste kendsgerninger og overvejelser, der lå til grund for, at det påtænktes at anbefale, at der indføres en endelig antidumpingtold, og at der sker en endelig opkrævning af de beløb, for hvilke der er stillet sikkerhed i form af midlertidig told.
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of provisional duty.
De interesserede parters mundtlige og skriftlige bemærkninger blev overvejet og, hvor det var relevant, taget i betragtning ved de endelige undersøgelsesresultater.
The oral and written arguments submitted by the parties were considered, and, were deemed appropriate, taken into account for the definitive findings.
I forordningen om midlertidig told beskrives den pågældende vare som såkaldt polytetrafluorethylen (PTFE) i granulatform, med indhold på ikke over 3 % af andre monomerenheder end tetraflourethylen, uden fyldstoffer, i form af pulver eller pellets, undtagen mikroniserede materialer.
The provisional Regulation described the product concerned as granular polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), containing not more than 3 % of other monomer unit than tetrafluoroethylene, without fillers, in the form of powder or pellets, with the exclusion of micronised material.
Den pågældende vare kan også fremstå som råpolymerer (reagenskugler) i våd eller tør form.
The product concerned can also be presented as raw polymer (reactor bead) in wet or dry form.
Efter bemærkninger fra interesserede parter præciseres det, at der ved »mikroniserede materialer« forstås et fluorpolymermikropulver som defineret ved ASTM D5675-04.
Further to comments received by interested parties, it is clarified that ‘micronised material’ means a fluoropolymer micropowder as defined by norm ‘ASTM D5675-04’.
En bruger- og importørsammenslutning (European Fluoropolymer Fair Trade Association eller »EFFTA«) og en eksportørsammenslutning anfægtede de foreløbige konklusioner om, at al PTFE i granulatform udgør en og samme vare.
One users’/importers’ organisation (the European Fluoropolymer Fair Trade Association or EFFTA) and one exporters’ association objected to the provisional conclusions that all granular PTFE constitute a single product.
Det blev fremført, at PTFE i granulatform kan opdeles i tre varegrupper på grundlag af kvalitetsforskelle (høj/mellem/lav).
It was argued that granular PTFE can be divided into three product groups based on quality differences (high/medium/low).
Det blev hævdet, at hver varegruppe blev benyttet til forskellige anvendelsesformål, der ikke konkurrerede indbyrdes inden for samme marked.
It was claimed that each product group would be used in different applications not competing with one another in the same market.
Til trods for kvalitetsforskelle fandtes alle typer af PTFE i granulatform at have samme grundlæggende fysiske, tekniske og kemiske egenskaber, hvilket ikke blev anfægtet af EFFTA eller eksportørsammenslutningen.
Despite quality differences, all granular PTFE types were found to have the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics, which were neither contested by EFFTA nor by the exporters’ association.
For så vidt angår anvendelsesformål for PTFE i granulatform konstateredes det, at PTFE i granulatform af en lavere kvalitet kunne benyttes efter efterbehandling ved næsten alle anvendelsesformål, herunder visse avancerede anvendelsesformål (f.eks. stænger til at skærfe).
As far as granular PTFE applications are concerned, it was found that granular PTFE of a lower quality could be used after post-treatment in almost all applications, including some high-end applications (e.g. billets for skiving).
Generelt er der som også indrømmet af EFFTA overlapning mellem anvendelsesområdet for forskellige typer og kvaliteter af PTFE i granulatform, og der kunne derfor ikke fastlægges klare skillelinjer.
In general, as also admitted by EFFTA, there was an overlapping in applications for various types and qualities of granular PTFE and no clear dividing line could thus be established.
Det konkluderedes derfor, at selv om der fandtes forskellige mulige varetyper som følge af forskellig form, gennemsnitlig partikelstørrelse, varmebehandling eller comonomerindhold, og til trods for kvalitetsforskelle, udgjorde de alle en enkelt vare i forbindelse med denne procedure, fordi alle typer og kvaliteter havde samme fysiske egenskaber og i det væsentlige de samme endelige anvendelsesformål.
It was therefore concluded that, notwithstanding the different possible product types due to different form, average particle size, thermo treatment or co-monomer content, and despite quality differences, all of them constituted one single product for the purpose of this proceeding because all types and qualities had the same physical characteristics and essentially the same basic end-uses.
I betragtning 13, 145 og 147 i den midlertidige forordning var det fejlagtigt anført, at PTFE i granulatform også var indlagt i anorakker og blev benyttet som isolator i kabler, og at varen benyttes i tekstilsektoren og den biokemiske sektor samt som isolationsmateriale.
In recitals 13, 145 and 147 of the provisional Regulation it was erroneously mentioned that granular PTFE would also be contained in anoraks and in the inner shield of cables and that it is used in textile and biomedical applications as well as isolation agents.
Det fremgik af de endelige undersøgelsesresultater, at PTFE i granulatform ikke benyttes til ovennævnte anvendelsesformål.
The definitive findings revealed that granular PTFE is not used in any of the aforementioned applications.
Under hensyntagen til ovennævnte overvejelser bekræftes varedefinitionen og de foreløbige undersøgelsesresultater i betragtning 14 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
Taking into account the abovementioned considerations, the product definition and the provisional findings set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
En række importører og brugere gentog, at PTFE i granulatform, der fremstilles og sælges på markedet i Fællesskabet, ikke er identisk med de varer, der importeres fra Folkerepublikken Kina og Rusland.
A number of importers and users reiterated that the granular PTFE produced and sold in the Community market could not be likened to the products imported from the PRC and Russia.
Det blev fremført, at de varer, som importeres fra de lande, der er genstand for den aktuelle undersøgelse, er af meget lavere kvalitet end den vare, der fremstilles af EF-erhvervsgrenen, og derfor sælges på andre markeder, således at varerne ikke konkurrerer indbyrdes.
It was argued that the products imported from the countries subject of the present investigation, would be of a much lower quality than the product produced by the Community industry and would therefore be sold on different markets, thus not competing with each other.
Disse parter fremlagde imidlertid ikke nye oplysninger eller beviser i denne forbindelse.
These parties did not, however, come forward with new information or evidence in this matter.
Det skal først bemærkes, at det som nævnt i betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidig told fremgik af undersøgelsen, at EF-erhvervsgrenen i undersøgelsesperioden også fremstillede og solgte skrot og »off-spec«-materialer til de samme kunder som de pågældende eksporterende producenter.
It should first be noted that, as outlined in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation has shown that the Community industry also produced and sold scrap or ‘off-spec’ material during the investigation period (IP) to the same customers as the exporting producers concerned.
På den anden side viste undersøgelsen, at i det mindste de russiske eksporterende producenter solgte PTFE i granulatform til Fællesskabet, der selv uden efterbehandling var sammenlignelig med fællesskabsvarer af bedste kvalitet, om end kun i meget begrænsede mængder.
On the other hand, the investigation revealed that at least the Russian exporting producers sold a quality of granular PTFE to the Community, which was, even without post-treatment, comparable to the high quality Community grades, albeit in very limited quantities.
Endvidere kunne selv PTFE i granulatform af lav kvalitet fra de pågældende lande efter behandling benyttes til en række lignende anvendelsesformål som den vare, som EF-erhvervsgrenen fremstillede og solgte på fællesskabsmarkedet.
Furthermore, even low quality granular PTFE imported from the countries concerned could, after post-treatment, be used in a similar range of applications as the product produced and sold in the Community market by the Community industry.
I betragtning af ovenstående konkluderedes det, at den pågældende vare og PTFE i granulatform fremstillet og solgt i Fællesskabet af EF-erhvervsgrenen har samme fysiske og tekniske egenskaber og samme grundlæggende endelige anvendelsesformål.
Considering the above, it was concluded that the product concerned and the granular PTFE produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry share the same physical and technical characteristics and the same basic end-uses.
De blev derfor anset for at være identiske, jf. artikel 1, stk. 4, i grundforordningen.
They were therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Da der ikke er fremsat andre bemærkninger i denne forbindelse, bekræftes de foreløbige konklusioner i betragtning 15 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any other comments in this regard, the provisional conclusions set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Efter indførelsen af midlertidige foranstaltninger påstod de tre samarbejdsvillige kinesiske eksporterende producenter, at de burde være blevet indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, og gentog de argumenter, de tidligere havde fremført.
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the three Chinese cooperating exporting producers claimed that they should have been granted MET and reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted.
Disse bemærkninger er allerede blevet besvaret i betragtning 33 og 39 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
These comments were already addressed in recitals 33 to 39 of the provisional Regulation.
Beslutningen om ikke at indrømme de tre selskaber markedsøkonomisk behandling bør derfor ikke ændres.
Consequently, it was considered that the decision to reject MET to the three companies should be maintained.
To eksporterende producenter fremførte, at de burde indrømmes individuel behandling.
Two exporting producers argued that they should be granted IT.
En eksportør fremførte, at Kommissionen ikke var berettiget til at nægte individuel behandling på grundlag af mulig statslig indgriben, da det i artikel 9, stk. 5, kun kræves, at priser og mængder fastsættes frit.
One exporter submitted that the Commission was not entitled to reject IT on the basis of possible State interference, since Article 9(5) requires that only export prices and quantities are freely determined.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at et selskab pr. definition ikke kan anses for frit at fastsætte sine eksportpriser og -mængder og salgsbetingelser, hvis sidstnævnte kan påvirkes af staten.
In this respect, it should be noted that a company can, by definition, not be considered to freely determine its export prices and quantities and conditions and terms of sale, if the latter can be influenced by the State.
Betingelserne i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5, litra b), kan derfor ikke anses for at være opfyldt af selskaber, der ikke kan påvise, at de ikke er genstand for mulig statslig indblanding.
Therefore, the conditions of Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation cannot be considered to be met by companies that are not able to demonstrate that they are not subject to possible State interference.
Den pågældende eksporterende producent har ikke fremlagt dokumentation for, at staten ikke kunne påvirke selskabets beslutninger om eksportpriser og -mængder og salgsbetingelser, eller for, at den eventuelle statslige indblanding ikke gjorde det muligt at omgå foranstaltningerne.
The exporting producer concerned has not provided any evidence showing that the State could neither influence its decisions with regard to export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale, nor that possible State interference was not such as to permit circumvention of the measures.
Dette skyldes hovedsagelig, at selskabets forbindelser med den statsejede aktionær som nævnt i betragtning 33 i forordningen om midlertidig told var uklare, og vedtægterne fandtes upålidelige.
This is mainly due to the fact that, as outlined in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation, the relationship of this company to the State-owned shareholder was unclear and the Articles of Association were considered unreliable.
Det forhold, at en sådan statslig indgriben angiveligt ikke ville have fundet sted tidligere, ville derfor — selv hvis dette var blevet påvist — ikke være en garanti for, at der ikke ville forekomme indblanding i fremtiden, navnlig hvis selskabet tillægges en individuel toldsats.
Therefore, the fact that such State interference would allegedly not have occurred in the past, would, even if it were demonstrated, not offer any guarantee that it will not take place in future, in particular should an individual duty rate be attributed to this company.
En anden eksportør fremførte, at selskabets ejerskabsforhold (især at det er delvist statsejet) ikke i sig selv gjorde det muligt at konkludere, at staten blandede sig i prisfastsættelsen og andre salgsbetingelser.
Another exporter argued that its shareholding structure, in particular the fact that it is partly State-owned, did not as such allow the conclusion that the State interfered in the setting of prices and other sales terms.
For det første underbyggede selskabet ikke sin påstand med beviser.
First of all, the company did not substantiate its claim with any evidence.
Det konstateredes derimod, at staten ejede hovedparten af selskabets kapital og endvidere udpegede dets direktør og de fleste af dets bestyrelsesmedlemmer.
On the other hand, it was found that the State owned the majority of the company’s capital and furthermore, nominated the General Manager and the majority of the Board of Directors of this company.
Det blev derfor konkluderet, at artikel 9, stk. 5, litra c), ikke var opfyldt, og at der derfor ikke burde indrømmes individuel behandling.
Therefore, it was concluded that Article 9(5)(c) is not fulfilled and IT should therefore be rejected.
Da der ikke er fremsat andre bemærkninger, bekræftes konklusionerne i betragtning 45 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any other comments, the findings of the provisional Regulation, as set out in recital 45 of that Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
Alle tre kinesiske samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter anfægtede valget af USA og hævdede, at Rusland i stedet burde være valgt som referenceland.
All three Chinese cooperating exporting producers disagreed with the choice of the United States of America (USA) and claimed that Russia should have been chosen as the analogue country instead.
To af dem gentog de bemærkninger, som blev fremsat før indførelsen af midlertidige foranstaltninger, og som allerede er blevet behandlet i betragtning 47 til 54 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
Two of them reiterated the comments made before the imposition of provisional measures, which have already been addressed in recitals 47 to 54 of the provisional Regulation.
Da der ikke er fremkommet nye oplysninger eller beviser, måtte disse eksporterende producenters påstande afvises.
In the absence of any new information and evidence, the claims of these exporting producers had to be rejected.
En anden kinesisk eksporterende producent fremførte, at fordi Folkerepublikken Kina er på et lavere økonomisk udviklingstrin, ville produktionsomkostningerne (f.eks. til arbejdskraft og faste udgifter) være lavere end i USA og derfor ikke sammenlignelige.
Another Chinese exporting producer argued that, due to the lower economic development of the PRC, production factors, such as labour costs and overhead expenses, would be lower and therefore not comparable to the USA.
Som nævnt i betragtning 54 i forordningen om midlertidig told er forskellen mellem den samlede økonomiske udvikling ikke i sig selv en relevant faktor for valget af et referenceland.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in recital 54 of the provisional Regulation, the different level of overall economic development is, in itself, not a relevant factor when selecting an analogue country.
Dette selskab hævdede også, at offentlige tjenester, såsom vand-, el- og gasforsyning, ville koste mindre i Kina end i USA som følge af Kinas lavere økonomiske udviklingstrin.
This company also alleged that as a consequence of the lower economic development in China, public services such as water, power and gas supply would be less expensive than in the USA.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at det netop er målet for grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), at der vælges et referenceland for at fastsætte den normale værdi på grundlag af priser og omkostninger, der ikke er pålidelige, fordi der ikke er markedsøkonomiske forhold.
In this regard, it must be noted that it is precisely the aim of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation that an analogue country is selected to determine the normal value on the basis of prices and costs, unbiased by non-market economy conditions.
En simpel sammenligning af priserne i et land uden markedsøkonomi eller i et land med overgangsøkonomi med priserne i referencelandet giver derfor i sig selv ikke mening.
Thus, a simple comparison of prices in the non-market economy country or in the country with an economy in transition with those in the analogue country is as such not meaningful.
Under alle omstændigheder blev der ikke fremlagt oplysninger, der kunne sandsynliggøre eksistensen af de påståede forskelle og muliggøre en kvantificering, eller som ville have påvist, at denne eksporterende producent nød godt af naturlige komparative fordele.
In any event, no information was submitted which would have substantiated the alleged differences and allowed a quantification, or which would have demonstrated that this exporting producer benefited from any natural comparative advantage.
Endelig hævdede denne eksporterende producent også, at udstyret og de dermed forbundne investeringer og afskrivningssatser var væsentligt anderledes som følge af en enklere produktionsproces.
Finally, this exporting producer also claimed that, due to a simpler production process, the equipment, as well as the related investments and depreciation rates would be significantly different.
Eksportøren fremlagde imidlertid ingen oplysninger, der viste, at hans produktionsproces virkelig var enklere end den proces, som blev benyttet af de amerikanske producenter, eller som ville have gjort det muligt for Kommissionen at sætte tal på virkningerne af disse påståede forskelle.
However, the exporter did not submit any information showing that its production process was indeed simpler than that used by the USA producers or which would allow the Commission services to quantify the effect of such alleged differences.
Denne eksportør fremførte også, at amerikansk og kinesisk PTFE i granulatform har forskellig kvalitet, hvilket betyder, at de har forskellige anvendelsesformål; valget af USA som referenceland var derfor ikke passende.
This exporter also argued that the USA and the Chinese granular PTFE have a different quality which would result in different applications and that the choice of the USA as analogue country was therefore not appropriate.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes det, at der som nævnt i betragtning 53 i forordningen om midlertidig told blev foretaget en justering for kvalitetsforskelle, herunder navnlig forureningsgraden, som ikke blev anfægtet af den kinesiske eksporterende producent.
In this regard it is noted that, as explained in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation, an adjustment was made for differences of quality, in particular contamination, the level of which the Chinese exporting producer did not contest.
Denne påstand blev derfor også afvist.
This argument was therefore also rejected.
Da der ikke blev fremsat yderligere bemærkninger, bekræftes konklusionerne vedrørende valget af USA som et passende referenceland i betragtning 47 til 54 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals 47 to 54 of the provisional Regulation regarding the choice of the USA as an appropriate analogue country are hereby confirmed.
Fastsættelse af den normale værdi for de kinesiske eksporterende producenter, der ikke blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling
Determination of normal value for Chinese exporting producers not granted MET
En kinesisk eksporterende producent fremførte, at den justering for kvalitetsforskelle, der er beskrevet i betragtning 53 i forordningen om midlertidig told, var utilstrækkelig, og at den normale værdi burde have været justeret i samme omfang som EF-erhvervsgrenens pris ved beregningen af underbuds- og målprisunderbudsmargenerne, jf. betragtning 98 i nævnte forordning.
One Chinese exporting producer argued that the adjustment for quality differences described in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation was insufficient and that normal value should have been adjusted to the same extent as the Community industry price when calculating undercutting and underselling margins, as explained in recital 98 of the same Regulation.
Det skal bemærkes, at justeringen af den normale værdi er beregnet til at opfange forskelle mellem samme vare solgt på referencelandets marked og den pågældende vare, mens der ved justeringen i skadesanalysen tages hensyn til forskelle mellem sidstnævnte og samme vare solgt i Fællesskabet.
It should be noted that while the adjustment to the normal value is designed to capture differences between the like product sold on the market of the analogue country and the product concerned, the adjustment made in the injury analysis takes into consideration differences between the latter and the like product sold in the Community.
Selv om de samme varer solgt i referencelandet og på fællesskabsmarkedet kan have tilsvarende kvalitet og ensartede egenskaber, har de ikke nødvendigvis de samme forskelle i forhold til den pågældende vare.
Although the like product sold in the analogue country and the one sold in the Community market may be of a similar quality and may have similar characteristics, differences in the product concerned are not necessarily identical.