natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Alle forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber involveret i fremstilling eller salg af den pågældende vare skal besvare ansøgningsformularen vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling, for at der kan foretages en undersøgelse af, om de også opfylder kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c).
Furthermore, all related companies involved in the production or sales of the product concerned have to provide a reply to the MET claim form in order that an examination can be made as to whether they also meet the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Alle forretningsmæssigt forbundne producenter skal også besvare spørgeskemaet.
All related producers would also have to reply to the questionnaire.
I den foreliggende sag forsøgte de forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber, selv om de begge individuelt opfyldte deres forpligtelse om at indsende ansøgningsformularen for markedsøkonomisk behandling, at skjule deres forretningsmæssige forbindelse.
In the present case, although both companies individually complied with their obligation to submit a MET claim form, the related companies attempted to hide their relationship.
Da denne forbindelse ikke var angivet, blev et af de to forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber ikke, som det ellers er normalt, undersøgt sammen med det andet, som var udvalgt til stikprøven.
As the relationship was not disclosed, one of the two related companies was not investigated together with the other one which was selected in the sample, as would normally have been the case.
De oplysninger, der blev fremsendt til Kommissionen, muliggjorde således ikke en ordentlig undersøgelse af alle de forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber i koncernen.
The information submitted to the Commission did thus not allow for proper investigation of all the related companies in the group.
Resultatet heraf var, at det ikke for koncernen som helhed, kunne bestemmes, om den opfyldte betingelserne for markedsøkonomisk behandling.
This led to the result that it could not be established that the group, as a whole, fulfilled the conditions for MET.
Både den undersøgte eksporterende producent og det forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskab, en producent involveret i fremstilling og salg af den pågældende vare, blev erklæret ikke-samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter.
As such, both the investigated exporting producer and its related company, a producer involved in the production and sale of the product concerned, were declared non-cooperating exporting producers.
For så vidt angår det andet resterende selskab blev det påvist, at det bevidst have indsendt urigtige oplysninger i besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet vedrørende eksportsalg, og der blev fundet forfalskede eksportfakturaer under kontrolbesøget som beskrevet i betragtning 112 nedenfor.
For the other remaining company it was found evidence that it had submitted knowingly wrong information in its questionnaire reply as far as export sales were concerned as well as falsified export invoices during the verification visit, as described in recital 112.
Da det var blevet erklæret en ikke-samarbejdsvillig eksportør, blev det ikke anset for relevant at træffe en afgørelse vedrørende ansøgningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling, idet der ikke kunne beregnes en individuel margen for dette selskab under disse omstændigheder.
It was considered that since it had been declared a non-cooperating exporter, no determination concerning their MET claim was relevant, as no individual margin could be calculated for this company in the present circumstances.
Den kinesiske eksporterende producent omhandlet i betragtning 85 kunne ikke godtgøre, at han opfyldte kriterium 1, 2 og 3 ovenfor, og markedsøkonomisk behandling blev derfor afvist.
The Chinese exporting producer referred to in recital 85 could not demonstrate that it fulfilled criteria 1, 2 and 3 above and was therefore refused MET.
Undersøgelsen af dette selskab og forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber viste at koncernen omfatter to producerende enheder, hvor det ene er et kinesisk selskab og det andet en kinesisk filial af et moderselskab i Hongkong.
The investigation of this company and its related companies showed that this group includes two producing entities, one being a Chinese company and the other a branch in China of the Hong Kong parent company.
Selskabet kunne ikke godtgøre, at ledelsen af denne filial ikke finder sted uden den kinesiske stats indflydelse.
The company was not able to demonstrate that the management of this branch is not influenced by the Chinese State.
Desuden er det anført i det kinesiske produktionsselskabs erhvervslicens, at en minimumsprocentdel af produktionen skal eksporteres.
Furthermore, the business licence of the Chinese producing company states that a minimum percentage of the output should be exported.
Selskabet hævdede, at det af de lokale myndigheder ville kunne få tilladelse til at sælge på hjemmemarkedet, dvs. opnå en erhvervslicens uden begrænsninger.
The company claimed that it could obtain from the local authorities the permission to sell domestically, i.e. obtain an unrestricted business licence.
Selskabet dokumenterede dog ikke denne påstand og anmodede heller ikke om fjernelse af begrænsningen i erhvervslicensen, ligesom det heller ikke ændrede stiftelsesoverenskomsten, hvori eksportkravet også indgik.
However, it did not substantiate this allegation and neither asked for the removal of the apparent restriction from its business licence, nor changed its Articles of Association in which the export requirement was also included.
Derfor må det konkluderes, at selskabet ikke leverede fyldestgørende bevis for, at det frit og fleksibelt kan sælge på grundlag af markedsvilkårene, idet dette også ville omfatte muligheden for at sælge på hjemmemarkedet.
Consequently, it is concluded that the company did not provide sufficient evidence that it can freely and flexibly sell according to market signals, which would include being able to sell domestically.
Denne begrænsning skyldes væsentlig statslig indgriben, nemlig en erhvervslicens, der begrænser selskabets aktivitetsområde til eksportmarkedet.
This restriction stems from significant State interference, i.e. a business licence which limits the company's scope of activity to the export market.
Ovenstående betyder, at selskabets anmodning om individuel behandling også blev afvist, fordi selskabet ikke opfylder kriteriet i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5, litra b), om at eksportpriser og -mængder fastsættes frit.
The above means that the company’s claim for individual treatment (IT) was also rejected as the company failed the criteria set out in Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation namely that export prices and quantities were freely determined.
For så vidt angår kriterium 2 anses det, idet filialen af moderselskabet fra Hongkong ikke drives på kontantbasis, at dets regnskaber ikke opfylder periodiseringsprincippet i overensstemmelse med de internationale standarder for regnskabsføring (IAS).
In regard to criterion 2, given that the branch of the Hong Kong parent company is run on a cash basis, it is considered that its accounts do not comply with the accrual principle in accordance with international accounting standards (IAS).
Den manglende adskillelse af denne filials operationer i forhold til det andet produktionsselskabs operationer skaber desuden alvorlig tvivl om regnskabernes nøjagtighed, især med hensyn til omkostninger, i begge enheder.
Furthermore, the lack of separation in the operations of this branch from those of the other producing company casts serious doubts on the accuracy of the accounts, in particular relating to costs, of both entities.
Derfor kan det andet kriterium for markedsøkonomisk behandling ikke anses for at være opfyldt.
Therefore the second criterion for MET cannot be considered to be fulfilled.
For så vidt angår denne filials rettigheder til brug af jord og fabriksbygning har selskabet ikke klart påvist, hvordan disse blev erhvervet, eller om de kan afskrives.
As for the land use rights and factory building of this branch, the company did not clearly demonstrate how they were acquired, or whether they are subject to depreciation.
Derfor kan det tredje kriterium for markedsøkonomisk behandling ikke anses for at være opfyldt, idet selskabet ikke har påvist, at ingen forvridninger er videreført fra det tidligere ikke-markedsøkonomiske system med hensyn til rettigheder til brug af jord og erhvervelse af fabriksbygning.
Therefore the third criterion for MET cannot be considered to be fulfilled given that the company has not demonstrated that there are no distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system in relation to land use rights and the acquisition of the factory buildings.
I en anden kinesisk eksporterende producents erhvervslicens og stiftelsesoverenskomst indgik en bestemmelse om, at 100 % af selskabets produktion skulle eksporteres.
Another Chinese exporting producer had in its business licence and Articles of Association a provision stating that 100 % of the output of the company should be exported.
Selskabet var således underlagt en eksportforpligtelse i undersøgelsesperioden, og Kommissionen konkluderede i første omgang, at det ikke frit kunne træffe forretningsbeslutninger på grundlag af markedsvilkårene, og at det første kriterium for markedsøkonomisk behandling derfor ikke var opfyldt.
As such, the company was subject to an export obligation during the IP and the Commission initially concluded that it was not free to take business decisions according to market signals and therefore, the first MET criterion was not met.
Dette selskab fremsendte dog dokumentation for, at disse begrænsninger var blevet fjernet i marts 2006.
However, this company submitted evidence that these restrictions had been removed in March 2006.
Selskabet godtgjorde også dets beslutning om ikke at sælge på hjemmemarkedet i perioden indtil og i undersøgelsesperioden, ved at fremlægge dokumentation for, at denne beslutning udelukkende var truffet ud fra selskabets situation og markedsudsigterne, og at der derfor til trods for kravet om eksportsalg i erhvervslicensen, i virkeligheden ikke var tale om statslig indgriben.
The company also substantiated its decision not to sell in the domestic market in the period up to and including the IP by providing evidence that this decision was taken exclusively in view of the situation of the company and its market prospects, and was therefore, despite the export sales requirement in the business licence, in effect, free from State interference.
I betragtning af at kravet om eksportsalg ikke længere indgår i selskabets erhvervslicens, og at selskabet har godtgjort, at den øjensynlige begrænsning allerede var forældet før dens fjernelse, opfylder selskabet det første kriterium for markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Given that the company’s business licence no longer contains the export sales requirement, and that the company substantiated its claim that the apparent restriction was already obsolete before its removal, the company meets the first MET criterion.
Den kinesiske stat og flere eksportører anførte, at Kommissionen kun traf en afgørelse om markedsøkonomisk behandling med hensyn til selskaberne i stikprøven og derved ikke tog hensyn til anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling fra ca. 100 selskaber uden for stikprøven.
The Chinese government and several exporters argued that the Commission only made a decision on the MET status of the sampled companies, thus failing to address the MET claims of around 100 non-sampled companies.
Ifølge dem er Kommissionen forpligtet til at træffe individuelle afgørelser med hensyn til indsendte anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling, uanset om en eksportør er med i stikprøven eller ej.
According to their claim, the Commission is obliged to make individual determinations with regard to submitted MET claims irrespectively whether an exporter is sampled or not.
Det skal først bemærkes, at Kommissionen i denne procedure stod over for et hidtil uset antal samarbejdsvillige eksportører, nemlig over 100.
It should first be noted that the Commission was faced in this proceeding with an unprecedentedly large number of cooperating exporters, i.e. more than 100.
På denne baggrund var det nødvendigt for Kommissionen at sikre, at undersøgelsen kunne udføres med de til rådighed værende ressourcer inden for den lovmæssigt fastsatte tidsfrist og uden, at det gik ud over standarderne for vurdering af krav om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Against this background, the Commission had to ensure that the investigation could be carried out with the available resources, within the legal time frame and without compromising the standards of assessment of MET claims.
Kommissionen mener, at den nuværende bestemmelse om stikprøver (grundforordningens artikel 17) fuldt ud dækker situationen med hensyn til selskaber, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The Commission considers that the existing provision on sampling (Article 17 of the basic Regulation) fully encompasses the situation of companies claiming MET.
Eksportører er som følge af selve stikprøveprocedurens natur udelukket fra individuel vurdering i både lande med markedsøkonomi og lande med overgangsøkonomier, og de konklusioner, der foretages med hensyn til stikprøven, udvides til også at omfatte dem.
Indeed, exporters are by the nature of the sampling exercise denied individual assessment in both market economy countries and in economies in transition, and the conclusions reached for the sample are extended to them.
Grundforordningens artikel 17 fastlægger en generel metode til behandling af situationer, hvor en individuel undersøgelse ikke længere er mulig som følge af et stort antal involverede selskaber, dvs. anvendelse af en repræsentativ stikprøve.
Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out a general method to deal with situations where an individual examination is no longer possible due to the high number of companies involved, i.e. the use of a representative sample.
Der er ingen grund til, at denne metode ikke også kan anvendes, når det store antal involverede selskaber også omfatter et stort antal selskaber, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
There is no reason why this method cannot equally be applied where the high number of companies involved includes a high number of companies requesting MET.
Spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt et selskab i stikprøven ansøgte om og blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling eller ej, er et teknisk spørgsmål, der kun er relevant for metoden til bestemmelse af dumpingmargenen.
Indeed, the question whether a sampled company applied for and received MET/IT or not is a technical question and only relevant for the methodology to determine the dumping margin.
Det påvirker kun de data, der anvendes til beregning af dumpingen, og enten anvendes selskabets egne data eller data fra et referenceland.
It only affects the data used for their dumping calculation, either the own data of the company or analogue country data is used.
Som i enhver anden stikprøve fastlægges der et vejet gennemsnit for alle selskaber i stikprøven, uanset den metode, der er anvendt til dumpingberegning for hvert enkelt selskab efter stillingtagen til markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
As in any other sampling case, a weighted average of all sampled companies is established, regardless of the methodology applied for the dumping calculation in respect of each company as a result of the MET/IT assessment.
Markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling bør således ikke forhindre anvendelse af normale stikprøveteknikker.
MET/IT should thus not prevent the application of normal sampling techniques.
Den vigtigste grund til anvendelse af stikprøver er at afbalancere administrative nødvendigheder for at muliggøre en rettidig sagsbehandling inden for de obligatoriske frister, med en individualiseret analyse i videst mulige omfang.
The key rationale of sampling is to balance administrative necessities to allow a case assessment in due time and within the margin of mandatory deadlines, with an individualised analysis to the best extent possible.
Antallet af anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling var i dette tilfælde så stort, at en individuel behandling af anmodningerne — som somme tider finder sted i andre sager — var umulig rent administrativt.
The number of requests for MET in this case was so substantial that an individual examination of the requests – as sometimes done in other cases – was administratively impossible.
Det blev derfor anset for rimeligt også at anvende det vejede gennemsnit for alle selskaberne i stikprøven på alle selskaberne uden for stikprøven i overensstemmelse med kriteriet i betragtning 17 uden hensyntagen til, om selskaberne var indrømmet markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling eller ej.
Therefore, it was considered reasonable to apply equally to all non-sampled companies the weighted average margin resulting from all the companies selected for the sample, according to the criteria set out in recital 17, with no distinction being made between companies obtaining MET/IT or not.
EF-erhvervsgrenen bestred indrømmelsen af markedsøkonomisk behandling af fem af de ovenfor omtalte selskaber.
The Community industry contested the granting of MET to five of the companies detailed above.
EF-erhvervsgrenen anførte, at et af de selskaber, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, generelt betragtes som et statsligt selskab, og at det, fordi det indtil for nyligt har været en af de større statsejede handelskoncerner, sandsynligvis stadig nyder godt af et begunstiget forhold til den kinesiske stat og påvirkes heraf.
The Community industry argued that one of the companies granted MET is widely regarded as a State company, and that having been until recently one of the major State-owned trading groups, it is still likely to benefit from a favourable position with regard to the Chinese State, and be influenced by it.
EF-erhvervsgrenen påpegede også, at overførslen af aktiver fra det tidligere statsejede selskab til det nuværende selskab har potentielle overførselsvirkninger.
The Community industry also pointed out that the transfer of assets from the former state-owned company to the current company has potential carry-over effects.
Kommissionen kontrollerede dette selskabs ejerskabsforhold og kontrolstrukturer og konkluderede, at det siden 2002 er blevet ledet af private investorer uden statsstyring.
The Commission verified the ownership and control structures of this company and concluded that since 2002 it has been managed by private investors, free from State control.
Kommissionen undersøgte også overførslen af aktiver fra det statsejede selskab og mener, at det er godtgjort, at denne fandt sted på markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
The Commission also examined the transfer of assets from the State-owned company and is satisfied that it took place under market economy conditions.
Der er ikke forelagt dokumentation, der anfægter denne konklusion.
No evidence has been presented that would challenge those conclusions.
EF-erhvervsgrenen anførte også, at selskabet, fordi det havde modtaget eksportstøtte, ikke burde indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The Community industry also argued that because the company has benefited from an export subsidy it should not be granted MET.
Omfanget og arten af denne støtte berettiger dog ikke til at afvise markedsøkonomisk behandling.
However, the amount and nature of this subsidy do not justify that MET be refused.
Med hensyn til et andet selskab, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, anførte EF-erhvervsgrenen, at, da dets eksport i stort omfang blev fremstillet under forarbejdningsaftaler med det ovenfor omhandlede selskab, burde det også nægtes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Concerning another company granted MET, the Community industry claimed that since its exports are largely manufactured through tolling arrangements with the company referred to above it should also be denied MET.
Da det imidlertid er blevet konstateret, at førstnævnte selskab opfylder kriterierne for markedsøkonomisk behandling, er der ingen grund til at antage, at dette andet selskab ikke opfylder kriterierne som følge af forarbejdningsaftalerne mellem de to selskaber.
However, given that it has been found that the first mentioned company fulfils the MET criteria, there are no grounds to consider that this company does not fulfil the criteria because of the tolling arrangement between the two companies.
Med hensyn til et tredje selskab, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, mente EF-erhvervsgrenen, at det forhold, at selskabet endnu ikke har givet overskud, betyder at det ikke opererer på markedsvilkår.
Concerning a third company granted MET, the Community industry considered that the fact that the company has yet to make a profit means that it cannot be operating under market economy conditions.
Kommissionen fandt imidlertid, at dette ikke er unormalt i en opstartsfase, og at det er foreneligt med markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
However the Commission considered that this is not abnormal during the start-up phase and is compatible with market economy conditions.
EF-erhvervsgrenen anførte også, at det forhold, at selskabets erhvervslicens i undersøgelsesperioden indeholdt et minimumskrav med hensyn til eksport, er uforeneligt med det første kriterium for markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The Community industry also argued that the fact that the company’s business licence contained during the IP a minimum export requirement is incompatible with the first MET criterion.
Kommissionen mener imidlertid, at der ikke var tale om en faktisk begrænsning i undersøgelsesperioden.
The Commission however considers that this did not amount to an effective restriction during the IP.
For det første fordi begrænsningen blev fjernet i erhvervslicensen for 2005, og for det andet fordi den procentvise andel af eksportsalget hele tiden lå betydeligt over den tærskelværdi, der var fastsat i den gamle erhvervslicens, hvilket tyder på, at begrænsningen i erhvervslicensen allerede var forældet.
Firstly because the restriction was removed in the 2005 business licence, and secondly because the percentage of export sales was always significantly above the threshold stipulated in the old business licence, which indicates that the restriction in the business licence was already obsolete.
Endelig anførte EF-erhvervsgrenen, at en revisionsanmærkning vedrørende dette tredje selskabs værdiansættelse af råvarer betyder, at selskabets regnskaber ikke er pålidelige.
Finally, the Community industry argued that an auditor’s remark concerning the valuation of raw materials by this third company means that its accounts are not reliable.
Det er imidlertid Kommissionens opfattelse, at det forhold, at revisoren foretog denne anmærkning, og at selskabet traf foranstaltninger for at udbedre situationen, bekræfter, at regnskaberne revideres uafhængigt og er pålidelige.
The Commission however considers that the fact that the auditor made this remark, and that the company took measures to rectify the situation, confirms that its accounts are independently audited and reliable.
Med hensyn til et fjerde selskab, der blev indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, hævdede EF-erhvervsgrenen, at der foregik statslig indgriben i selskabets arbejdstagerpolitik, idet den lokale myndighed havde godkendt den anvendte ansættelseskontrakt.
Concerning a fourth company granted MET, the Community industry claimed that there was state interference in the labour policy of the company as the local administration approved the labour contract used.
Endelig gjorde EF-erhvervsgrenen indsigelse mod indrømmelse af markedsøkonomisk behandling af det femte selskab, hvis stiftelsesoverenskomst i undersøgelsesperioden indeholdt en bestemmelse om, at hele produktionen skulle eksporteres.
Finally the Community industry disputed the granting of MET to a fifth company whose Articles of Association contained, during the IP, a provision that all production should be exported.
Dette selskab solgte imidlertid den pågældende vare på det kinesiske hjemmemarked både før og i undersøgelsesperioden.
However, this company sold the product concerned on the Chinese domestic market both before and during the IP.