natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Da samarbejdsniveauet var højt, og eftersom der ikke var grund til at antage, at nogen af de eksporterende producenter i disse lande valgte ikke at samarbejde, blev restdumpingmargenen for alle de øvrige eksportører i USA fastsat til samme niveau som for den samarbejdende eksporterende producent, der havde den højeste dumpingmargen.
Since the level of cooperation was high, and there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer deliberately abstained from cooperation, the residual margin applicable to all other exporters in the USA was set at the same level as the one established for the cooperating exporting producer with the highest dumping margin.
Udtrykt i procent af cif-importprisen, Fællesskabets grænse, ufortoldet, udgør de midlertidige dumpingmargener følgende:
The dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are provisionally the following:
I henhold til artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b), i grundforordningen skal den normale værdi i antidumpingundersøgelser vedrørende import fra Kina fastsættes i overensstemmelse med samme artikels stk. 1 til 6 for de producenter, der opfylder kriterierne i artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), i grundforordningen.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which are found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Erhvervsmæssige beslutninger træffes og udgifter afholdes på grundlag af markedsvilkårene og uden omfattende statslig indgriben, og omkostningerne afspejler markedspriserne.
Business decisions and costs are made in response to market signals and without significant State interference and costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values;
Virksomhederne har et klart sæt regnskaber, der revideres uafhængigt i overensstemmelse med internationale standarder (»IAS«) og anvendes til alle formål.
Firms have one clear set of basic accounting records which are independently audited, in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes;
Ingen væsentlig konkurrenceforvridning er overført fra det tidligere ikke-markedsøkonomiske system.
There are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system;
Der skal forefindes konkurs- og ejendomslove, der garanterer stabilitet og retssikkerhed.
Bankruptcy and property laws guarantee legal certainty and stability; and
Seks eksporterende producenter anmodede oprindelig om markedsøkonomisk behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b), og besvarede ansøgningsskemaet herom for eksporterende producenter inden for de fastsatte frister.
Six exporting producers requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadline.
Kommissionen indhentede alle oplysninger, som den fandt nødvendige, og efterprøvede oplysningerne i ansøgningerne om markedsøkonomisk behandling ved kontrolbesøg hos virksomhederne.
The Commission sought and verified at the premises of these companies all information submitted in the MET applications as deemed necessary.
Undersøgelsen viste, at der kun kunne indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling til tre eksporterende producenter, og anmodning herom måtte afslås for de andre tre eksporterende producenters vedkommende.
The investigation revealed that the MET could only be granted to three exporting producers, whereas the claim had to be rejected for the other three exporting producers.
Det skal bemærkes, at for en af de tre eksporterende producenter, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, er beslutningen herom betinget af yderligere undersøgelser af oplysninger indkommet senere, men som ikke på dette stadie som beskrevet nedenfor har kunnet undersøges til fulde.
It is noted that for one of the three exporting producers granted MET, this decision is subject to further examination of late information that could not be fully investigated at this stage, as described below.
Disse oplysninger kan, hvis de bekræftes ved yderligere undersøgelser, medføre betydelige ændringer i de faktiske forhold, på grundlag af hvilke denne virksomhed er indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, i det omfang de vedrører opfyldelsen af det første kriterium.
This information, if confirmed by the further investigation, could lead to a significant change in the factual situation on the basis of which MET was granted to that company, insofar as it may affect the fulfilment of criterion 1.
Følgende tabel viser resultatet for hver af de tre virksomheder, der ikke blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, holdt op imod hvert af de fem ovennævnte kriterier:
The following table summarises the determination for the three companies for which MET was not granted against each of the five above-mentioned criteria:
Ikke opfyldt
Not fulfilled
Opfyldt
Fulfilled
Undersøgelsen viste, at virksomhederne 1, 2 og 3 ovenfor ikke opfyldte kravene i forbindelse med kriterierne 1, 2 og 3.
The investigation showed for companies 1, 2 and 3 above that they did not meet the requirements of the aforementioned criteria 1, 2 and 3.
Ingen af de tre virksomheder kunne nemlig bevise, at deres erhvervsmæssige beslutninger var truffet på markedsvilkår og uden væsentlig indgriben fra statens side.
Namely, all three companies could not demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in response to market signals, without significant State interference.
For virksomhed nummer 1 konstateredes det, at størstedelen af bestyrelsespladserne — herunder formandens, som ejer betragtelige andele af virksomheden — var besat med de samme personer som før privatiseringen, og disse bestyrelsesmedlemmer var udpeget af staten.
Indeed for company 1 it was found that the majority of the Directors on the Board, including the Chairman, who owns a significant share in the company, were the same as before privatisation and had been appointed by the State.
Det konstateredes endvidere, at disse personer var medlemmer af kommunistpartiet.
They were also found to be members of the Communist Party.
Desuden var virksomheden ikke i stand til at dokumentere betalingen for aktierne i forbindelse med privatiseringen.
Moreover, the company was unable to prove payment for the shares during the privatisation process.
For virksomhed nummer 2, der blev grundlagt som statsejet virksomhed, og som blev privatiseret i 2000, viste undersøgelsen, at tre ledende medarbejdere, som havde deres stillinger forud for privatiseringen, udførte privatiseringen og efterfølgende stadig havde kontrol over virksomhedens vigtigste beslutningstagende organer.
In company 2, which was founded as a State-owned enterprise and privatised in 2000, the investigation showed that three members of the management staff that were in post prior to the privatisation conducted the privatisation and still had control over the main decision-making bodies of the company.
Det konstateredes endvidere, at disse tre personer var medlemmer af kommunistpartiet.
Those three persons were found to be members of the Communist Party.
Desuden konstateredes det, at virksomhed nummer 2 havde afgivet falske oplysninger med hensyn til ejerforholdene for sine aktier og privatiseringsprocessen og derved forholdt Kommissionen oplysninger om betragtelig indgriben fra statens side.
Furthermore, company 2 was found to have provided false information with regard to the ownership of its shares and the privatisation process, thereby hiding significant State interference.
Hvad angår virksomhed nummer 3, var der stærke indikationer for, at kapital anvendt til opstart af virksomheden blev indhentet fra virksomheder tilhørende bystyret eller kollektivt ejede virksomheder ledet af virksomhedens nuværende bestyrelsesformand, og virksomheden var ikke i stand til at redegøre for kilderne til denne kapital.
As to company 3, there were strong indications that capital used to start the company was obtained from the village-owned and collectively-owned enterprises managed by the current Chairman of the company and the company was not able to explain and demonstrate the origin of the capital.
Desuden var ingen af de tre virksomheders regnskaber ført i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, og der blev fundet alvorlige fejl ved revisionen af disse.
Moreover, all three companies’ accounts were not kept in line with IAS, and signs of serious negligence in the audit of those accounts were found.
Endelig konstateredes det, at konkurrenceforvridning overført fra det tidligere ikke-markedsøkonomiske system påvirkede begge virksomheders omkostninger, navnlig i forbindelse med brugsretten til jord (virksomhed nummer 1 og 3) eller aktiver overført i løbet af privatiseringen (virksomhed nummer 2).
Finally, distortions carried over from the non-market economy system were found to affect the costs for both companies, in particular with regard to cost of the land-use rights acquired (companies 1 and 3) or assets transferred during the privatisation (company 2).
Med hensyn til tre andre samarbejdende eksporterende producenter konkluderes det i begyndelsen, at disse virksomheder opfyldte alle fem kriterier.
With regard to the three other cooperating exporting producers it was initially concluded that the companies met all five criteria.
Efter orienteringen af interesserede parter, hvorved disse fik lejlighed til at kommentere ovenstående konklusioner, hævdede EF-erhvervsgrenen, at to af de tre eksporterende producenter, der ifølge forslaget skulle indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, burde nægtes dette (herefter benævnt virksomhed nummer 4 og 5).
However, after the disclosure to the interested parties, which were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings, the Community industry claimed that two of the three exporting producers for which it was proposed to grant MET should be denied MET (hereunder referred to as company 4 and company 5).
Det fremførtes om virksomhed nummer 4, at der såvel i forbindelse med ledelsen som med finansieringen af virksomheden var tale om statslig indgriben.
They alleged for company 4 that there was State interference in the management as well as in the financing of the company.
Om virksomhed nummer 5 fremførte EF-erhvervsgrenen, at den havde opgivet et for lavt antal ansatte, og kilderne til virksomhedens grundkapital blev draget i tvivl.
For company 5 the Community industry stated that they had understated their number of employees, and queried the payment of the original capital.
EF-erhvervsgrenen stillede også spørgsmålstegn ved de tab, en forretningsmæssigt forbundet handelsvirksomhed havde haft.
They also queried the losses made by a related trading company.
Med hensyn til virksomhed nummer 4 var det ikke muligt på dette stadie at konkludere, om disse påstande var tilstrækkeligt velfunderede, til at virksomheden kunne nægtes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
With regard to company 4, it was not possible to conclude at this stage whether the allegations constituted sufficient grounds to deny MET.
Påstandene anses for alvorlige, men der hersker stadig tvivl om de kendsgerninger, der ligger til grund for dem.
Whereas the allegations are considered to be serious, there is at present uncertainty about the facts underlying these allegations.
Der er behov for yderligere analyse af de oplysninger, virksomheden har indgivet, samt yderligere undersøgelser, før der kan træffes endelig beslutning.
Further analyses of the information submitted by the company as well as additional investigations are necessary before a final decision is reached.
Under disse særlige omstændigheder blev det med henblik på at sikre interesserede parters ret til at forsvare sig fundet hensigtsmæssigt at indrømme virksomhed nummer 4 markedsøkonomisk behandling på dette stadie og samtidig fortsætte undersøgelserne vedrørende virksomhedens ansøgning om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
In these particular circumstances, in order not to impede the rights of defence of interested parties, it was therefore considered appropriate to grant MET to company 4 at this stage and to continue the investigation regarding its MET claim.
Hvad angår påstandene vedrørende virksomhed nummer 5, viste disse sig kun at være antagelser.
As regards the allegations made against company 5, these were merely assumptions.
Kommissionen verificerede de oplysninger, der var afgivet af denne eksporterende producent, og konkluderede, at påstandene ikke var underbyggede.
The Commission verified the information submitted by this exporting producer and concluded that the allegations were not substantiated.
Kommissionens konklusioner vedrørende denne virksomhed fastholdes derfor.
The Commission's findings as regards this company are thus maintained.
Efter offentliggørelsen af Kommissionens konklusioner gjorde alle de tre virksomheder, der var nægtet markedsøkonomisk behandling, gældende, at dette var ukorrekt, idet virksomhederne opfyldte alle fem kriterier herfor og dermed burde indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Following disclosure of the Commission's findings, all three companies denied MET submitted that the determination was incorrect, that they met all five MET criteria and that they should be granted MET as a consequence.
Især hævdede virksomhed nummer 1, at den havde forelagt bevis for kontant betaling for aktierne for Kommissionen, og den benægtede enhver form for statslig indflydelse på sin beslutningsproces.
In particular, company 1 contended that it had submitted the proof of the payment in cash for the shares to the Commission and denied any State influence on its decision-making process.
Den fremførte også, at dens regnskaber førtes i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, og at udgifterne til brugsretten til jord var i overensstemmelse med markedsprisen.
It also argued that its accounts were kept in line with IAS and that the cost of the land-use right was in line with market values.
Virksomhed nummer 2 bestred, at det forhold, at dets topledere var medlemmer af kommunistpartiet, burde føre til den konklusion, at der var tale om statslig indgriben i virksomhedens beslutningsprocesser, og oplyste, at den ville sende supplerende dokumentation for betaling af aktierne i forbindelse med privatiseringen.
Company 2 contested that membership in the Communist Party of its top management should lead to the conclusion that there is State interference in the company's decision process, and said that it submitted supporting evidence for the payment of the shares during its privatisation process.
Virksomheden fremførte desuden, at dens regnskaber til trods for visse brud på de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring var i overensstemmelse med de kinesiske standarder for regnskabsføring.
The company further argued that, despite breaching some of the IAS, its accounts were in line with the Chinese Accounting Standards.
Virksomhed nummer 3 fremførte, at den kapital, der anvendtes ved virksomhedens oprettelse var indhentet fra andre virksomheder tilhørende samme aktionær, at regnskaberne var i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, og at de priser, virksomheden betalte for brugsretten til jord, var på samme niveau som dem, andre virksomheder i samme område betalte på markedsvilkår.
Company 3 stated that the capital used to start the company was sourced from other companies owned by the same shareholder, that the accounts were in line with IAS, and that their land-use right prices were similar to other companies in the same area and at market prices.
Disse kommentarer blev taget i betragtning af Kommissionen.
Those comments were taken into consideration by the Commission.
Dette ændrede imidlertid ikke ved den konklusion, at disse tre virksomheder ikke burde indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
However they did not change the finding that these three companies should be denied MET.
Virksomhed nummer 1 anførte blot, at bankudskrifter ikke var almindeligt anvendte i Kina, men var ikke i stand til at afgive supplerende dokumentation for, at der rent faktisk var betalt for aktierne i forbindelse med virksomhedens privatisering.
Indeed, company 1 merely alleged that bank statements were not commonly used in China, but it could not give any supporting evidence that the shares for its privatisation were effectively paid for.
Virksomheden bestred heller ikke, at dens ledelsesstruktur var den samme som forud for privatiseringen, eller at dens bestyrelsesformand var medlem af kommunistpartiet.
The company did not either contest the fact that the management structure of the company was the same as prior to privatisation nor that the Chairman was a member of the Communist Party.
Den benægtedes heller ikke, at hovedaktionærerne ikke var repræsenteret i bestyrelsen.
The fact that the main shareholders were not represented in the Board of Directors was also not contested.
Det konkluderedes derfor, at virksomheden ikke i tilstrækkeligt omfang havde godtgjort, at den ikke var genstand for omfattende statslig indgriben.
Therefore it was found that the company had not sufficiently demonstrated that it was not subject to significant State interference.
Ydermere var der ikke fremlagt nyt materiale til gendrivelse af konklusionerne og til støtte for den påstand, at regnskaberne var i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, og at udgifterne til brugsretten til jord var underlagt markedsvilkår.
Furthermore, no new elements were provided to reject the findings and support the claim that accounts complied with IAS and that land-use rights costs were within market conditions.
Virksomhed nummer 2 bestred Kommissionens konklusion, men benægtede ikke, at den var baseret på kendsgerninger.
Company 2 disputed the conclusion reached by the Commission but did not deny the facts on which they were based.
Vedrørende privatiseringsprocessen og betalingen for aktierne, fremførte virksomheden, at det havde fremlagt underbyggende dokumentation herfor, men forholdt sig ikke til den kendsgerning, at disse dokumenter var falske, således som den administrerende direktør havde indrømmet under kontrolbesøget.
Concerning the privatisation process and the payment of the shares, the company argued that it provided supporting evidence but did not address the fact that these documents were false, as admitted by the General Manager during the verification visit.
Virksomheden bekræftede også, at vigtige ledende stillinger i virksomheden var besat med medlemmer af kommunistpartiet.
The company also confirmed that the key management positions were occupied by members of the Communist Party.
Desuden var der ikke fremlagt nyt materiale til støtte for den påstand, at virksomhedens regnskaber var i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, idet virksomheden alene fastholdt, at regnskaberne var i overensstemmelse med kinesiske regnskabsstandarder.
Moreover, no new elements were provided to support the claim that accounts complied with IAS, the company's statement only being that they were in line with the Chinese Accounting Standards.
I forbindelse med virksomhed nummer 3 nærede Kommissionen fortsat tvivl med hensyn til kilderne til virksomhedens kapital.
For company 3, the Commission continued to doubt the origin of the capital of the company.
Virksomhed nummer 3 anførte rent faktisk kun, at kapitalen kom fra forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder tilhørende bestyrelsesformanden for virksomhed nummer 3 i form af lån, der tilbagebetaltes i løbet af nogle få måneder.
Indeed, company 3 merely stated that the capital was sourced from related companies belonging to the Chairman of company 3 through loans which were repaid within a few months.
Disse nye oplysninger var ikke blot i modstrid med udtalelser fra repræsentanter for virksomhed nummer 3 under kontrolbesøget hos virksomheden, hvor der ikke forelå dokumentation tilgængelig for inspektørerne, men også klart mangelfulde, da de ikke indeholder nogen angivelse af kilderne til de midler, der anvendtes til betaling af disse lån.
This new information was not only found to contradict the statements made by representatives of company 3 during the verification at the premises of the company, where no documented evidence was made available for inspection, but is also clearly deficient as it does not provide any indication of the origin of the funds used to repay those loans.
Virksomheden fremførte endnu en gang, at dens regnskaber var i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring, og at de uoverensstemmelser, der konstateredes i løbet af undersøgelsen, ikke var uforenelige hermed.
The company furthermore restated that its accounts were kept in line with IAS and that the discrepancies identified during the investigation were in fact reconcilable.
Virksomheden dokumenterede imidlertid kun delvis den påståede overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder, idet de afgivne oplysninger kun vedrørte en del af de konstaterede uoverensstemmelser.
However, it provided only partial information to document the alleged reconciliation, accounting merely for a minor part of the differences found.
Under alle omstændigheder blev de nye oplysninger først afgivet efter undersøgelsens afslutning, hvor en verificering af oplysningerne ville have været uigennemførlig.
In any case, this new information was submitted only after the investigation and at such a late stage that it would be impractical to verify it.
Desuden påviste virksomheden ikke, at dens lave udgifter til brugsretten til jord var fremkommet ved betaling af markedsprisen.
Furthermore, the company also did not demonstrate that their low land-use right price was actually a market price.
På grundlag af ovenstående indrømmes tre eksporterende producenter markedsøkonomisk behandling:
On this basis, MET is granted to three exporting producers:
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), fastsættes der eventuelt en landsdækkende told for de lande, der er omfattet af nævnte artikel, med undtagelse af de tilfælde, hvor virksomhederne kan påvise, at de opfylder alle kriterierne for at blive indrømmet individuel behandling, jf. artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a countrywide duty, if any, is to be established for countries falling under that Article, 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 and are therefore granted individual treatment (‘IT’).
De eksporterende producenter, der ikke kunne indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling, ønskede også individuel behandling, hvis der ikke kunne indrømmes dem markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The exporting producers to which MET could not be granted also claimed IT in the event that they were not granted MET.
Virksomhedernes anmodning om individuel behandling blev imidlertid også afvist med henvisning til, de ikke opfyldte kriterierne i artikel 9, stk. 5, litra b), om, at eksportpriser og -mængder fastsættes frit, og at statens indgriben ikke er af en sådan art, at der er mulighed for omgåelse af foranstaltningerne, hvis der fastsættes forskellige toldsatser for individuelle eksportører.
However, the companies’ claim for individual treatment was also rejected as they failed to meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5)(b), namely that export prices and quantities were freely determined and that State interference would not be such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
For de tre samarbejdende eksporterende producenter, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, var det samlede salg på hjemmemarkedet af den samme vare repræsentativ, jf. betragtning 21.
For the three cooperating exporting producers granted MET, the total volume of domestic sales of the like product was representative as defined in recital 21 above.