natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endelig konstateredes det, som nævnt i betragtning 17 i forordningen om midlertidig told, at der trods delvis forskellig anvendelse fandtes en række overlappende anvendelsesformål, for eksempel behandling af metal (mikroætsning og bejdsning) og genopløsning af vådstærkt papir.
Finally, as mentioned in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation, despite partly distinct end uses, a number of overlapping applications existed such as metal treatment (micro-etching and pickling) and repulping of wet-strength paper.
Det blev derfor konkluderet, at alle varetyper havde overlappende anvendelsesformål uden klare skillelinjer.
It was therefore concluded that all product types had largely overlapping applications with no clear dividing lines.
Som nævnt i betragtning 9 fremførte den pågældende eksporterende producent, at selv om anvendelsesformålene i et vist omfang overlappede hinanden, gjorde dette sig ikke gældende for en betydelig del af vedkommendes eksportsalg, og det burde derfor anses for uvæsentligt.
As mentioned in recital 9, the exporting producer concerned argued that, while there was a certain overlap in applications, this did not concern a substantial part of its export sales and should therefore be considered as insignificant.
Det bør i den forbindelse bemærkes, at det nøjagtige forbrug af hver varetype til et bestemt anvendelsesformål i løbet af undersøgelsesperioden ikke kunne fastslås på grund af det ringe samarbejde mellem de berørte brugere og manglen på relevante oplysninger.
In this regard, it should be noted that the precise consumption of each product type in a specific application during the IP could not be determined because of the low co-operation of the users concerned and the unavailability of appropriate data for such determination.
Den eksporterende producent fremlagde ikke afgørende beviser i den henseende, men udelukkende udokumenterede skøn.
The exporting producer concerned did not submit conclusive evidence in this respect, but only unsupported estimates.
Desuden samarbejdede kun to brugere i den aktuelle undersøgelse, og de tegnede sig kun for en lille del af det samlede forbrug (7 %).
Furthermore, only two users cooperated in the present investigation, representing only a small part of total consumption (7 %).
Under alle omstændigheder fandt man det irrelevant at fastslå nøjagtigt, i hvilken udstrækning en bestemt varetype anvendtes til et bestemt formål i løbet af en bestemt tidsperiode.
In any event, the exact extent to which a specific product type was used in a specific application during a specific time period was considered irrelevant.
Hvorvidt en særlig varetype kan anvendes til et bestemt formål, skal fastsættes på basis af de fysiske, tekniske og kemiske egenskaber.
Indeed, whether a certain product type can be used in a specific application has to be determined on the basis of the physical, technical and chemical characteristics.
Brugere kan anvende en bestemt varetype på et vist tidspunkt, men kan også let skifte fra en varetype til en anden til et og samme anvendelsesformål.
Users may use a certain product type at a certain time but may also be able to switch easily from one product type to the other for one and the same application.
Hvad angår forskellige prisniveauer for de forskellige varetyper, hedder det allerede i betragtning 17 i forordningen om midlertidig told, at prisforskelle mellem varetyper ikke i sig selv gør det berettiget at konkludere, at en bestemt varetype bør betragtes som en anden vare.
As regards the different price levels of the different product types, it is already set out in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation that it is considered that price differences between product types per se do not justify the conclusion that a certain product type should be considered as a different product.
Selv om kaliummonopersulfats salgspris ganske vist er højere end salgsprisen for de andre persulfattyper, er der også prisforskelle mellem de øvrige tre varetyper.
While it is true that sales prices of KMPS are higher than the ones of other types of persulphates, there are also price differences between the remaining three product types.
Det bør bemærkes, at disse forskelle ses i alle producentlande, herunder også i Fællesskabet.
It should be noted that these differences can be seen in all producing countries, including the Community.
De forskellige prisniveauer skyldes først og fremmest det begrænsede antal producenter af kaliummonopersulfat i verden (i Fællesskabet, USA og i en vis grad Kina) og afspejles ikke nødvendigvis i produktionsomkostningerne.
The different price levels are mainly explained by the limited number of producers of KMPS worldwide (in the Community, the USA and, to a certain extent, the PRC) and are not necessarily reflected in the cost of production.
Som en konsekvens heraf og set i lyset af, at der ingen klare skillelinjer var mellem de forskellige anvendelsesformål for de forskellige varetyper, jf. ovenstående, måtte denne påstand også afvises.
Consequently and given the above findings that no clear dividing lines existed between different applications of the different product types, this claim had also to be rejected.
For så vidt angår den forskel i behandlingen af kaliummonopersulfat og de andre tre varetyper i forbindelse med emballering til transport og i henhold til biociddirektivet, bør det noteres, at der var tale om nye argumenter, der blev fremført efter indførelsen af de midlertidige foranstaltninger og derfor ikke inden for de krævede frister.
As far as the different treatment of KMPS and the other three product types with regard to packing for transport and under the Biocide Directive is concerned, it should be noted that these were new arguments provided after the imposition of the provisional measures and therefore outside the required deadlines.
Under alle omstændigheder har undersøgelsen vist, at emballagestandarderne for alle typer stort set var ens, dog under forskellige klassificeringer.
In any event, the investigation has shown that packing standards for all types were basically the same, albeit under different classifications.
Det var også opfattelsen, at emballagestandarder i sig selv ikke var et afgørende kriterium for fastlæggelse af, om forskellige varetyper var en og samme vare.
It was also considered that packing standards as such were not a decisive criterion in determining whether different product types were one single product.
Som beskrevet i det foregående er hovedkriteriet for definition af den pågældende vare i en antidumpingundersøgelse de grundlæggende kemiske, tekniske og fysiske egenskaber og det endelige anvendelsesformål.
As described above, the main criteria to define the product concerned in an anti-dumping investigation are their basic chemical, technical and physical characteristics and end uses.
Hvad angår biociddirektivet skal det bemærkes, at forskellen i behandlingen skyldes, at EF-erhvervsgrenen påbegyndte den krævede registreringsprocedure i henhold til dette direktiv for kaliummonopersulfat, men ikke for de andre tre varetyper.
As far as the Biocide Directive is concerned, it is noted that the different treatment lies in the fact that the Community industry initiated the registration procedures required under this Directive for KMPS but not for the other three product types.
Registreringsprocedurerne er ikke påbegyndt for de andre typer, hvilket skyldes hensyn, som intet har at gøre med deres kemiske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål, således som det blev påstået af den pågældende eksporterende producent.
Registration procedures had not been started for these other types due to considerations unrelated to their chemical characteristics and end uses, as claimed by the exporting producer concerned.
Registreringsomkostningerne for varetypen kaliummonopersulfat blev delt mellem de to vigtigste producenter af den varetype (den ene i Fællesskabet og den anden i USA), men registreringsprocedurerne blev anset for meget kostbare og tidskrævende og ville kunne håndteres mere omkostnings- og tidseffektivt inden for rammerne af den nye europæiske kemikalieforordning (REACH), som trådte i kraft den 1. juni 2007 [7].
Thus, while for the product type KMPS registration costs were shared between the two main producers of this product type (one in the Community and the other one in the USA), registration procedures were considered very costly and time-consuming, and could be more efficiently handled in terms of cost and time in the wider context the new European Chemicals Regulation (REACH) which entered into force on 1 June 2007 [7].
At varetyperne behandles forskelligt i henhold til biociddirektivet, er derfor ikke ensbetydende med, at de er forskellige hvad angår deres kemiske egenskaber og/eller anvendelsesformål.
The different treatment under the Biocide Directive can therefore not be considered as an indication that the product types were different on the basis of their chemical properties and/or applications.
Det blev derfor anset for irrelevant i forbindelse med definitionen af den pågældende vare, og den eksporterende producents påstand blev afvist.
It was therefore considered irrelevant in the definition of the product concerned and the exporting producer's claim in this regard was rejected.
For så vidt angår resultaterne for den pågældende vare i de i betragtning 10 nævnte undersøgelser bør det bemærkes, at kaliummonopersulfat i ingen af disse undersøgelser blev udtrykkeligt udelukket, dvs. ingen resultater viste, at kaliummonopersulfat og de andre tre varetyper havde forskellige kemiske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål og derfor ikke burde anses for at være en og samme vare.
As far as the findings with regard to the product concerned in the investigations mentioned in recital 10 are concerned, it should be noted that in none of these investigations was KMPS expressively excluded, i.e. there are no findings which would have established that KMPS and the other three product types had different chemical characteristics and end uses and should therefore not be considered as one single product.
Kaliummonopersulfat var ikke medtaget i ovennævnte klager (eller andragender, hvor dette er relevant), fordi det ikke blev eksporteret i undersøgelsesperioden for denne undersøgelse (Fællesskabet), eller fordi den klagende indenlandske erhvervsgren (USA) ikke producerede kaliummonopersulfat på det pågældende tidspunkt.
KMPS was not included in the above complaints (or petitions as applicable) either because it was not exported during the IP of that investigation (Community) or because the domestic complaining industry (USA) did not produce KMPS at that time.
Det skal især bemærkes, at kriterierne i betragtning 7 i forordning (EF) nr. 2961/95 (om indførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold på import af peroxodisulfater fra Kina) ikke havde til formål at sondre mellem kaliummonopersulfat på den ene side og de tre andre varetyper på den anden, men snarere søgte at definere de vigtigste egenskaber, som var fælles for de tre typer, som udgjorde den pågældende vare i undersøgelsen.
It is in particular noted that the criteria listed in recital 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2961/95 (imposing definitive measures on imports of peroxodisulphates from the PRC) did not aim at differentiating between KMPS on the one hand and the three other product types on the other hand, but rather at defining the main characteristics shared by the three types which formed the product concerned in that investigation.
De er derfor specifikt tilpasset til de tre varetyper og er ikke udtømmende.
They are therefore tailored to the three product types concerned and not exhaustive.
De vigtigste undersøgelsesresultater gælder dog også for kaliummonopersulfat, dvs. at de væsentlige egenskaber (persulfatanion) og de endelige anvendelsesformål (initiator og oxideringsmiddel) er de samme, at de i en vis udstrækning er indbyrdes ombyttelige, og at prisforskelle anses for irrelevante.
The main findings, however, also apply to KMPS, i.e. that the essential characteristics (persulphate anion) and end uses (initiator and oxidising agent) are the same, that they are interchangeable to a certain extent and that price differences are considered irrelevant.
Med hensyn til det sidste kriterium, betydningen for produktionsprocessen i aftagerindustrien, hævdede den eksporterende producent, at kaliummonopersulfat udgjorde en stor procentdel af brugernes produktionsomkostninger.
As for the last criterion, the importance in the production process of the downstream industry, the exporting producer claimed that KMPS constituted a high percentage of its users' production costs.
I den forbindelse blev det i undersøgelsen fastslået (betragtning 112-120 nedenfor), at selv om kaliummonopersulfat tegner sig for en større andel af omkostningerne, er virkningerne for brugernes rentabilitet ubetydelige.
In this respect, it was established during the investigation (recitals 112 to 120 below) that although KMPS constitutes a higher proportion of the cost, the impact on the users' profitability is negligible.
Under alle omstændigheder var det opfattelsen, at dette ikke burde forhindre Fællesskabets institutioner i at betragte kaliummonopersulfat som den pågældende vare set i lyset af ovenstående konklusion om, at alle varetyper er indbyrdes ombyttelige.
In any event, it was considered that this should not prevent the Community institutions from considering KMPS as the product concerned given the abovementioned finding that all product types were interchangeable.
Endelig skal det bemærkes, at ingen af de andre interesserede parter, navnlig ingen af de kinesiske eksporterende producenter af kaliummonopersulfat, anfægtede varedefinitionen i den aktuelle procedure eller gjorde indsigelser mod, at kaliummonopersulfat blev medtaget i varetypen i den aktuelle undersøgelse.
It is finally noted that none of the other interested Parties, in particular none of the Chinese exporting producers of KMPS, challenged the product definition in the present proceeding or objected to the inclusion of KMPS in the product scope of the present investigation.
På baggrund af ovenstående bekræftes hermed de foreløbige konklusioner i betragtning 17 i forordningen om midlertidig told, nemlig at alle fire typer bør anses for at være en og samme vare i forbindelse med denne procedure.
On the basis of the above, the provisional conclusions set out in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation that all four types should be considered to constitute one single product for the purpose of this proceeding are hereby confirmed.
I mangel af bemærkninger vedrørende samme vare bekræftes hermed betragtning 18 og 19 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any comments concerning the like product, recitals 18 and 19 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
I mangel af bemærkninger med hensyn til den generelle metode bekræftes hermed betragtning 20-39 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any comments with regard to the general methodology, recitals 20 to 39 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Efter den foreløbige fremlæggelse af oplysninger anførte en eksporterende producent, at den justering, der var foretaget i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), og som er beskrevet i betragtning 47 i forordningen om midlertidig told, førte til dobbelt medregning af fortjenesten hos den forretningsmæssigt forbundne forhandler i Schweiz.
Following the provisional disclosure, one exporting producer argued that the deduction made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) as described in recital 47 of the provisional Regulation led to a double counting of the profit made by its related trader in Switzerland.
Den eksporterende producent kunne dog ikke underbygge sin påstand, og ved en kontrol blev der ikke konstateret dobbelt medregning i forbindelse med beregningen.
However, the exporting producer failed to substantiate its claim and upon verification no double counting was found in the calculation.
I mangel af andre bemærkninger vedrørende fastlæggelse af dumping for så vidt angår USA, bekræftes hermed betragtning 40-50 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the determination of dumping with regard to the USA, recitals 40 to 50 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
To eksporterende producenter, som blev nægtet markedsøkonomisk behandling, bestred Kommissionens konklusioner.
Two exporting producers which were denied Market Economy Treatment (MET) disputed the Commission's conclusions.
De fremsatte dog ingen nye argumenter, og konklusionerne vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling for disse to eksporterende producenter i forordningen om foreløbig told blev derfor ikke ændret.
However, they did not put forward any new arguments and the conclusions made with regard to MET for those two exporting producers in the provisional Regulation have, as a result, remained unchanged.
En af disse to eksporterende producenter fremførte endvidere, at hvis man fastholdt beslutningen om at afvise anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, så burde vedkommende i det mindste indrømmes individuel behandling.
One of those two exporting producers further alleged that, if the decision to reject its MET claim was maintained, it should nevertheless be granted individual treatment (IT).
Denne eksporterende producent var dog ikke i stand til at bevise, at dennes erhvervsmæssige beslutninger var truffet på markedsvilkår og uden væsentlig indgriben fra statens side, som beskrevet i betragtning 56 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
However, that exporting producer was not able to demonstrate that its business decisions was taken in response to market signals, without significant State interference, as explained in recital 56 of the provisional Regulation.
Af samme grund kan det ikke udelukkes, og den eksporterende producent har da heller ikke fremlagt beviser for andet, at statens indgriben ville muliggøre omgåelse af foranstaltninger, hvis der for denne eksporterende producent blev fastsat en individuel toldsats.
For the same reasons it cannot be excluded, and the exporting producer did not prove otherwise, that State interference would permit circumvention of measures if that exporting producer were given an individual rate of duty.
Det fastholdes derfor, at denne eksporterende producent bør nægtes individuel behandling i overensstemmelse med artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen.
It is therefore maintained that IT should be denied to that exporting producer, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
I betragtning 53 i forordningen om midlertidig told fastslås det, at for en af de eksporterende producenter, der blev indrømmet markedsmæssig behandling, var beslutningen herom betinget af yderligere undersøgelser af oplysninger indkommet senere, men som ikke på dette stadium havde kunnet undersøges til fulde.
Recital 53 of the provisional Regulation stated that for one of the three exporting producers granted MET, further examination of late information that could not be fully investigated at that stage was necessary.
De oplysninger, man havde modtaget, tillige med yderligere oplysninger, som blev modtaget efter offentliggørelsen af forordningen om foreløbig told, blev undersøgt, og et kontrolbesøg hos den eksporterende producent blev gennemført for at tjekke om oplysningerne var korrekte.
The information which had then been received, as well as further information received after the publication of the provisional Regulation, was examined and a verification visit at the premises of the exporting producer was carried out in order to check its validity.
De nye oplysninger, som kom frem i løbet af undersøgelsens sidste faser, medførte betydelige ændringer i de faktiske forhold, som lå til grund for vurderingen af kriterium 1 og 2.
This resulted, based on new information which was brought to light during the latest steps of the investigation, in significant changes in the factual situation on the basis of which the evaluation of criteria 1 and 2 had been made.
Med hensyn til kriterium 1 blev det konstateret, at den eksporterende producent tidligere havde tilbageholdt vigtige oplysninger vedrørende sine nuværende ledere og ejere og deres rolle i virksomheden før dens privatisering.
As regards criterion 1, the exporting producer was found to have previously concealed some essential information regarding its current managers and owners, and their role in the company prior to its privatisation.
Denne bevidste undladelse såede også tvivl om alle de øvrige oplysninger om privatiseringen, som var blevet forelagt.
This voluntary omission casts doubts on all the information submitted with regard to privatisation.
Endvidere kunne virksomheden ikke på overbevisende måde forklare baggrunden for, at det var blevet ydet to lån med nedsat rentesats af en statskontrolleret bank, hvilket tyder på statslig indgriben.
Furthermore, the company could not explain convincingly on which grounds it was granted two loans with a reduced interest rate by a bank controlled by the State, which points to State interference.
Disse særlige lån var ikke blevet undersøgt til at begynde med, da de blev ydet efter undersøgelsesperioden.
These specific loans had not been investigated initially as they were granted after the end of the IP.
Dette har dog helt klart en betydning for virksomhedens nuværende situation, og i overensstemmelse med retspraksis fandt man det hensigtsmæssigt at tage højde herfor.
However, this clearly has an impact on the present situation of the company, and it was considered appropriate, in accordance with the case law, to take it into account.
Af ovennævnte grunde, som er baseret på oplysninger, som Kommissionens tjenestegrene ikke med rimelighed kunne kende til på tidspunktet for den indledende undersøgelse om markedsøkonomisk behandling, kan det ikke længere udelukkes, at der har været tale om statslig indgriben i forbindelse med virksomhedens drift, og virksomheden har ikke fremlagt beviser for andet.
For the reasons mentioned above, which are based on information that could not reasonably have been known to the Commission's services at the time of the initial investigation on MET, State interference in the running of the company can no longer be excluded, and the company did not prove otherwise.
Med hensyn til kriterium 2 konstateredes det, at de finansielle udgifter var blevet ansat for lavt i den eksporterende producents regnskaber i strid med de generelle regler for regnskabsmæssig periodisering og mere specifikt de internationale regnskabsstandarder (IAS) nr. 23.
As to criterion 2, it was found that financial expenses had been understated in the exporting producer's accounts, in breach of general accruals accounting rules and more specifically International Accounting Standard (IAS) No 23.
Det bør bemærkes, at en unøjagtig rapportering af virksomhedens lån i dets anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling i alvorlig grad har hæmmet den indledende undersøgelse på dette punkt, og at Kommissionens tjenestegrene derfor ikke med rimelighed kunne kende til den konstaterede uoverensstemmelse ved indledningen af undersøgelsen.
It should be noted that an inaccurate report of the loans held by the company in their MET claim form had seriously impeded the initial examination of this point, and that the discrepancy found could therefore not reasonably have been known to the Commission's services during the prior steps of the proceeding.
I lyset af ovenstående blev det konkluderet, at den eksporterende producents anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling burde afvises.
In view of the above, it has been concluded that this exporting producer's claim for MET should be rejected.
Den pågældende eksporterende producent er informeret og har fået lejlighed til at fremsætte bemærkninger til disse undersøgelsesresultater.
The exporting producer concerned has been informed and has been granted an opportunity to comment on these findings.
Følgelig skulle der foretages en ny beregning af dumpingmargenen for alle eksporterende producenter, der ikke blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, efter den metode, der er beskrevet i betragtning 96 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
As a result, the dumping margin for all exporting producers not granted MET had to be recalculated, following the same methodology as that described in recital 96 of the provisional Regulation.