natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Dette gælder ikke for de varer, der nok henhører under den pågældende KN-kode, men falder uden for varedefinitionen. De kan nemlig ikke fremstilles på en standard PVA-produktionslinje og forudsætter en anden produktionsteknologi og yderligere udstyr, og produktionsomkostningerne kan derfor variere meget.
The opposite is true for the grades which fall under the same CN-code but outside the product definition: they cannot be produced on a standard PVA production line, require a different production technology and additional equipment, and the production cost can therefore be very different.
Varer, der ikke hører under varedefinitionen, har også meget anderledes egenskaber i forhold til de varer, der hører under varedefinitionen.
The grades not covered by the product definition have also very different properties when compared to those covered by the product definition.
Hvad angår viskositet og hydrolyse: i) Varer med lav viskositet er PVA med lav molekylevægt, som er vanskelige at håndtere, hvilket bl.a. resulterer i en lav produktion, hvorimod ii) varer med høj viskositet, som også er vanskelige at håndtere, anvendes til coating af glossy paper af høj kvalitet, som er en ganske særlig anvendelse, hvor uønskede revner, som ofte fremkommer, skal undgås; iii) PVA med en høj hydrolysegrad anvendes hovedsagelig til dette formål og iv) PVA med en lavere hydrolysegrad kan ikke opløses i vand eller danner ustabile opløsninger med vand.
As concerns the degree of viscosity and hydrolysis: (i) the low viscosity grades are low molecular weight PVA which are difficult to handle, inter alia, resulting in a low production yield, whereas (ii) the high viscosity grades, which are also difficult to handle, are used for high-end glossy paper coatings, a very special type of application where unwanted cracks which are usually formed have to be avoided; (iii) high degree hydrolysis grades are also mainly used for that application and (iv) PVA grades with a low degree of hydrolysis are not soluble in water or form unstable solutions with water.
Sådanne varer anvendes især til fremstilling af suspensions-PVC, og ved høje temperaturer vil disse varer fraspaltes.
Such products are essentially used for the production of suspension PVC and at elevated temperatures such products will fall out of solution.
Brugeren påstod, at PVA til fremstilling af den PVB-harpiks, der er nødvendig til fremstilling af PVB-film, skal besidde seks meget vigtige egenskaber.
The user submitted that to produce the PVB resin it would need for producing its PVB-film, six characteristics of the PVA were of absolute importance.
Kombinationen af parametrene for disse seks egenskaber gør den omstridte vare enestående i forhold til alle andre PVA-varer på markedet.
The combination of the parameters for these six characteristics would make the contested grade unique as compared to all other PVA grades on the market.
Under gennemgangen af denne påstand blev det da også konkluderet, at de tekniske specifikationer til visse formål kan være strengere end til andre.
Whilst analysing this claim, it was indeed found that for some applications the technical specifications can be more stringent than for others.
Det blev dog samtidig fastslået, at alle former for PVA, herunder standardvarer, der hører under anvendelsesområdet og som ofte refereres til som »standard-PVA«, har en unik kombination af egenskaber.
At the same time, however, it was established that as a matter of fact all grades, including the commodity grades falling under the product scope and sometimes referred to as ‘standard grades’, have a unique combination of characteristics.
Afhængigt af det valgte formål kan der vælges mellem PVA-formerne.
Depending on the desired application, one or another grade would be chosen.
Dette gælder ikke kun for den pågældende brugers anvendelse af PVA, men også for andre formål.
This is valid not only for the application of the user concerned, but for other applications too.
Påstanden afvises derfor.
Consequently, the claim had to be dismissed.
Den omstridte vare påstås at have meget specifikke anvendelsesformål
The contested grade would have very specific end-uses
Den pågældende bruger gjorde også indsigelser mod Kommissionens vurdering af markedet for PVA-brugere og påstod specifikt, at markedet for PVB-brugere varierede på mange punkter.
The user concerned also contested the Commission’s appreciation of the PVA user market and specifically alleged that the PVB user market would be very diverse.
Som allerede nævnt i forordningen om midlertidig told anvendte den pågældende bruger denne form for PVA til fremstilling af PVB, hvilket er den mest udbredte anvendelse i Fællesskabet, der udgør 25-29 % af PVA-forbruget og er den hurtigst voksende anvendelse, da der er en stadig større efterspørgsel efter PVB-film.
In this respect, as already indicated in the provisional Regulation, the user used this grade of PVA for the production of PVB which is the largest application in the Community, accounting for 25 % to 29 % of PVA consumption, and also the fastest growing application because of the strong increase in demand for PVB-film.
På et lavere led i produktionskæden har undersøgelsen endvidere vist, at næsten 90 % af PVB, der fremstilles i Fællesskabet, således anvendes til fremstilling af PVB-film, som også er den pågældende brugers slutanvendelse (men det er ikke den eneste producent af PVB-film i Fællesskabet).
Further down-stream, the investigation has also shown that close to 90 % of the PVB produced in the Community is consequently used for the production of PVB-film, which is also the eventual application by the user concerned (but it is not the only PVB-film producer in the Community).
Det bekræftes derfor, jf. betragtning 17 i forordningen om midlertidig told, at den interesserede parts specifikke anvendelse er en af de vigtigste anvendelser, som på grund af markedets størrelse, ikke kan betegnes som »ikke-standard«.
It is therefore confirmed, as mentioned in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation, that the specific use of this interested party is one of the main applications which, in view of its market importance, cannot be characterised as not standard.
Hvad angår den påståede specifikke anvendelse, fremførte den pågældende bruger også, at den omstridte vare ikke kunne erstattes af andre former for PVA, hvilket skulle illustrere den specifikke slutanvendelse.
As concerns its alleged specific use, the user concerned also argued that the contested grade could not be substituted by other models which would illustrate this specific end-use.
I den forbindelse blev det først slået fast, at denne bruger ikke udelukkende foretager indkøb hos den pågældende kinesiske producent, men også har flere alternative kilder.
In this respect, it was firstly established that this user was not buying exclusively from the Chinese producer concerned and already had several alternative sources.
I undersøgelsesperioden købte den pågældende bruger nemlig under 5 % af det PVA, som han påstod, skulle undtages fra anvendelsesområdet, af producenten i Kina.
In fact, during the IP it sourced less than 5 % of its purchases of PVA for which it claimed exclusion from the producer in the PRC.
De resterende mængder PVA blev indkøbt fra tre andre producenter i tre forskellige lande.
The remaining purchased volumes were sourced from three other producers in different countries.
Det blev desuden fastslået, at selv om de fleste andre former for PVA, der sælges på markedet i Fællesskabet, ikke kunne anvendes som alternativ til den omstridte vare, kan den omstridte vare også anvendes til andre formål og sælges på markedet i Fællesskabet til priser, der ligger tæt på priserne for de andre former for PVA, der importeres fra Kina.
Moreover, it was established that although most of the other grades sold on the Community market indeed could indeed not be used as an alternative to the contested grade, the contested grade itself could be used in other applications, too, and it was made available on the Community market at prices similar to those of other grades imported from the PRC.
På baggrund heraf afvises påstanden om, at den omstridte vare ikke kan erstattes af andre.
In view of the above, the argument that the contested grade could not be substituted had to be dismissed.
Den omstridte vare er en copolymer og ikke en homopolymer
The contested grade would be a co-polymer, not a homopolymer
Efter indførelsen af de midlertidige foranstaltninger påstod den pågældende bruger, at PVA med lavt askeindhold er en copolymer og ikke en homopolymer.
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the user claimed that low ash PVA would be a co-polymer and not a homopolymer.
Brugeren påstod, at denne form for PVA indeholder to byggesten.
This claim was based on the fact that it would contain two building blocks.
Dette blev undersøgt, og man fandt frem til, at PVA er et resultat af en oprindelig homopolymerisk polymerisering.
This issue was investigated and it was found that PVA is the result of an initial hompolymeric polymerisation.
Den efterfølgende hydrolyseproces er dog altid ufuldstændig (mellem 84,0 mol % og 99,9 mol %), og det kunne derfor påstås, at PVA indeholder to byggesten og kan betegnes som copolymer.
However, the subsequent hydrolysis process is always incomplete (between 84,0 mol % and 99,9 mol %) and to that extent, it could also be argued that PVA contains two building blocks and can be referred to as co-polymer.
For at undgå misforståelser blev det fundet hensigtsmæssigt at præcisere den varedækning, som fastlægges ved forordningen om midlertidig told.
In order to avoid any confusion, it was therefore deemed appropriate to clarify the product scope definition determined in the provisional Regulation.
Den pågældende vare defineres derfor endeligt som visse copolymeriske polyvinylalkoholer (PVA) baseret på en homopolymerisk polymerisering med en viskositet (målt i 4 % opløsning) på mindst 3 mPa, men ikke over 61 mPa, og en hydrolysegrad på mindst 84,0 mol %, men ikke over 99,9 mol %, med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Taiwan, som normalt tariferes under KN-kode ex39053000.
Therefore, the product concerned is definitively defined as certain co-polymeric polyvinyl alcohols (PVA) based on a homopolymeric polymerisation with a viscosity (measured in 4 % solution) of 3 mPas or more but not exceeding 61 mPas and a degree of hydrolysis of 84,0 mol % or more but not exceeding 99,9 mol % originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan and normally declared within CN code ex39053000.
Hvad angår Taiwan blev der ikke indført midlertidige foranstaltninger, da der, jf. betragtning 29 og 30 i forordningen om midlertidig told, ikke konstateredes dumping vedrørende importen af den pågældende vare med oprindelse i Taiwan.
With regard to Taiwan, no provisional measures were imposed, because, as stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the provisional Regulation, no dumping was provisionally found regarding imports of the product concerned originating in Taiwan.
Som nævnt i betragtning 30 i forordningen om midlertidig told er den eneste samarbejdsvillige virksomhed fra Taiwan, Chang Chun Petrochemical Co. Ltd (herefter benævnt »CCP«), også den eneste eksporterende producent af den pågældende vare i Taiwan, og den tegnede sig for 100 % af Taiwans eksport til Fællesskabet i undersøgelsesperioden, jf. Eurostats oplysninger.
As mentioned in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, the sole cooperating Taiwanese company, Chang Chun Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (CCP) is the only exporting producer of the product concerned in Taiwan, and it accounted for 100 % of the Taiwanese exports to the EC during the investigation period as reported by Eurostat.
Begge fællesskabsproducenter, Kuraray Europe GmbH og Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L., påstod, at CCP havde foretaget dumping i undersøgelsesperioden og anmodede Kommissionen om en fornyet gennemgang af resultaterne vedrørende fastlæggelsen af dumping fra CCP’s side.
Both Community producers, Kuraray Europe GmbH and Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L. claimed that CCP was in fact dumping during the IP, and requested the Commission to reconsider its findings with regard to the dumping determination for CCP.
Råvareomkostninger
Raw material costs
Begge fællesskabsproducenter påstod, at CCP’s produktionsomkostninger var meget højere end de omkostninger, som Kommissionen havde konstateret, da omkostningerne til vinylacetatmonomer (herefter benævnt »VAM«), som er den vigtigste råvare til fremstilling af PVA, var blevet undervurderet.
Both Community producers claimed that CCPs cost of production was much higher than what was found by the Commission, because the costs for vinyl acetate monomer (VAM), which is the main raw material used in the production of PVA, had been underestimated.
De anførte i den forbindelse, at CCP’s leverandør af VAM er en forretningsmæssigt forbundet virksomhed.
They stressed in this respect that CCPs VAM supplier is a related company.
Som bevis for påstandene indsendte en fællesskabsproducent en undersøgelse af CCP’s PVA-virksomhed, som blev gennemført af et konsulentfirma, og en række publikationer om internationale VAM-priser.
In support of its arguments, one Community producer submitted a study on CCPs PVA business carried out by a consultancy firm, as well as publications on international VAM prices.
De indsendte oplysninger blev gennemgået.
The information submitted was examined.
En sammenligning mellem VAM-priserne i ovennævnte publikationer og de priser, der blev konstateret i forbindelse med undersøgelsen i Asien og Europa, viser klart, at priserne i disse publikationer var stærkt overdrevne.
A comparison between the VAM prices listed in the abovementioned publications and the prices verified in the course of the proceeding both in Asia and in Europe clearly shows that the prices published in those publications are overstated.
Desuden anføres det i publikationerne, at de offentliggjorte priser er skøn, at de faktiske markedspriser kan være højere eller lavere, og at de offentliggjorte priser bedst anvendes som vejledende priser.
In addition, the publications themselves state that the published prices are estimates, that actual prices in the market may be either higher or lower and that the best use of the published prices is as indices.
Selv om sådanne priser kan anvendes til overvågning af tendenser, afspejler de tilsyneladende ikke de faktiske priser.
Indeed, even though such prices may be used to monitor trends over time, they do not appear to represent actual prices.
Desuden har undersøgelsen vist, at den forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheds salg af VAM til CCP skete til priser, der svarer til dem, som leverandørens ikke-forbundne kunder skal betale, og at den pris, som CCP betalte for VAM, var i overensstemmelse med, hvad andre producenter betaler i Asien og især Japan.
Moreover, the investigation has shown that the VAM sales made by the related supplier to CCP were made at prices in line with those charged to this supplier’s unrelated customers and that the prices paid for VAM by CCP were consistent with those paid by other producers in Asia, notably in Japan.
De VAM-omkostninger, der er angivet i ovennævnte undersøgelse, var desuden baseret på, at CCP’s VAM-forbrug var højere, end det reelt er tilfældet.
In addition, the VAM costs contained in the study mentioned above were based on a higher VAM consumption rate than the actual CCP one.
I betragtning af, at VAM-forbruget er baseret på en blanding af helt og delvist hydrolyseret PVA, fandt Kommissionen, at CCP’s faktiske forbrug var på niveau med andre producenters i både Asien og Fællesskabet under hensyntagen til de respektive varesortimenter.
Considering that VAM consumption rate depends on the mix of fully and partially hydrolysed PVA, CCPs actual VAM consumption rate was found to be consistent with that of other producers, as verified, both in Asia and in the Community, taking into account the respective product mixes.
Af de grunde, der er fremført i betragtning 20 til 23 ovenfor, blev det således konkluderet, at CCP’s VAM-omkostninger ikke var undervurderede, og påstandene i den forbindelse blev derfor afvist.
For the reasons detailed in recitals 20 to 23, it was therefore concluded that CCP’s VAM costs had not been underestimated and the claims concerning this issue were therefore rejected.
På grundlag af omkostningerne i ovennævnte undersøgelse påstod en af de to fællesskabsproducenter, at andre omkostningselementer end VAM-omkostningerne var undervurderede i CCP’s produktionsomkostninger til fremstilling af PVA; dette gjaldt bl.a. forsyningsomkostninger, andre fremstillingsomkostninger og salgs- og administrationsomkostninger og andre generalomkostninger.
On the basis of the costs contained in the abovementioned study, one of the two Community producers claimed that in addition to the VAM, other cost elements of CCP’s cost of production of PVA, such as those related to utilities, other manufacturing overheads and SG&A, had been underestimated.
Der blev dog ikke fremlagt specifikke beviser for disse omkostningsoverslag i undersøgelsen.
However, no specific evidence was submitted to support the cost estimates made in the study.
De faktiske data, som blev efterprøvet ved et kontrolbesøg i CCP, blev gennemgået på ny, og det blev bekræftet, at dumpingberegningerne var baseret på de rigtige omkostninger.
The actual data verified for CCP on the spot was re-examined and it was confirmed that the correct costs have been used in the dumping calculations.
Beregning af den normale værdi
Calculation of normal value
En producent i Fællesskabet hævdede, at den normale værdi for CCP skulle have været beregnet for alle varetyper, da situationen på det taiwanesiske PVA-marked er speciel på grund af kunstigt lave priser især i forhold til de offentliggjorte priser for Asien; desuden gik hovedparten af salget på det taiwanesiske hjemmemarked til forretningsmæssigt forbundne kunder i undersøgelsesperioden.
One Community producer claimed that for CCP, the normal value should have been constructed for all product types, because there is a particular market situation on the Taiwanese PVA market due to artificially low prices particularly as compared to price ranges published for Asia, and also because most of the Taiwanese domestic sales were made to related customers during the IP.
Der er reelt ingen beviser for, at priserne på det taiwanesiske hjemmemarked kan betegnes som kunstigt lave.
There is in fact no evidence on the basis of which Taiwanese domestic sales prices could be considered as artificially low.
De offentliggjorte PVA-priser er kun meget generelle prisintervaller for Asien (undtagen Kina) som helhed uden anførsel af de pågældende varer eller varetyper og kan derfor ikke anvendes i en prissammenligning for Taiwan.
The published PVA prices are only price ranges of a very general nature given for Asia (excluding China) as a whole, without specifying the actual grades or product types in question, and therefore cannot be used in any price comparison for Taiwan.
På denne baggrund kan salgspriserne på det taiwanesiske hjemmemarked ikke betegnes som kunstigt lave.
On this basis, Taiwanese domestic sales prices cannot be considered as artificially low.
Hvad angår den påståede mangel på tilstrækkeligt hjemmemarkedssalg til uafhængige kunder, bekræftes det, at salget til uafhængige kunder foregik i tilstrækkelige mængder til, at der kunne beregnes en normal værdi.
As concerns the alleged absence of sufficient domestic sales to independent customers, it is confirmed that sales to independent customers were found to be made in sufficient quantities to determine normal value.
På grund af en påstået særlig markedssituation med kunstigt lave priser på PVA på det taiwanesiske marked hævdede samme fællesskabsproducent endvidere, at den fortjeneste, der blev anvendt i den beregnede normale værdi for CCP, ikke bør fastsættes i henhold indledningen til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 6.
The same Community producer also claimed that, because of an alleged particular market situation due to artificially low PVA prices on the Taiwanese market, the profit used in the constructed normal values for CCP should not be based on the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Af de grunde, der nævnes i betragtning 28, er der ingen grund til, at den fortjeneste, der er fastsat i henhold til indledningen til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 6, ikke skulle være hensigtsmæssig i forbindelse med den beregnede normale værdi.
For the reasons mentioned in recital 28, there is no reason why the profit based on the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation would not be appropriate for the constructed normal values.
De interesserede parter blev informeret om ovenstående resultater og fik også en frist, inden for hvilken de kunne fremsætte bemærkninger.
The interested parties were informed of the above findings and given a period within which they could make comments.
Kommissionen har ikke modtaget yderligere oplysninger fra fællesskabsproducenter eller andre interesserede parter, der kunne medføre ændringer i Kommissionens foreløbige fastlæggelse af dumping for Taiwan.
No additional information was received from the Community producers or any other interested party which would alter the Commissions provisional dumping determination for Taiwan.
Ud fra det ovenstående bekræftes det, at den fastlagte dumpingmargen for Taiwan er mindre end 2 %, udtrykt i procent af eksportprisen, jf. betragtning 29 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In view of the above, it is confirmed that the dumping margin determined for Taiwan is less than 2 %, expressed as a percentage of the export price, as mentioned in recital 29 of the provisional Regulation.
Proceduren bør derfor afsluttes i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 3, for så vidt angår importen af den pågældende vare med oprindelse i Taiwan.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, the present proceeding should be terminated in respect of imports of the product concerned originating in Taiwan.
Folkerepublikken Kina (»Kina«)
People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Markedsøkonomisk behandling og individuel behandling
Market Economy Treatment and Individual Treatment
I mangel af bemærkninger for så vidt angår markedsøkonomisk behandling og individuel behandling bekræftes betragtning 31-39 i forordningen om midlertidig told hermed.
In the absence of comments in respect of the MET and IT determinations, recitals 31 to 39 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Begge fællesskabsproducenter, Kuraray Europe GmbH og Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L., gentog deres ønske om, at Japan vælges som referenceland for Kina i stedet for Taiwan.
Both Community producers, Kuraray Europe GmbH and Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L. reiterated that Japan should be selected as analogue country for the PRC instead of Taiwan.
De påstod, at Japan ville være et mere passende referenceland end Taiwan, da der er langt større konkurrence på det japanske PVA-marked end på det taiwanesiske marked, hvilket skyldes, i) at det taiwanesiske marked er domineret af den eneste taiwanesiske producent, CCP, hvorimod der i Japan er fire producenter; ii) at importen af PVA, der er omfattet af denne undersøgelse, til Taiwan er begrænset, og iii) at den indenlandske efterspørgsel efter samme vare i Taiwan er lav.
They claimed that Japan would be a more suitable analogue country than Taiwan because competition in the Japanese PVA market is far more vigorous than in the Taiwanese market as: (i) the Taiwanese market is dominated by the sole Taiwanese producer, CCP, whereas in Japan there are four producers; (ii) imports of PVA falling under the scope of the investigation into Taiwan are limited, and (iii) the domestic demand for the like product in Taiwan is low.