natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Importmængden fra det pågældende land og markedsandel
Volume of imports from the country concerned and market share
Af tabellen herunder fremgår den samlede import til EF-markedet fra amerikanske eksporterende producenter i den betragtede periode.
The table below shows the total imports into the Community market made by US exporting producers during the period considered.
Kilde: USA's eksportstatistikker
Source: USA export statistics.
Samlet import fra USA
All imports from USA
En interesseret part hævdede, at analysen af skade og årsagssammenhæng i antisubsidieproceduren burde foretages ud fra andre oplysninger end dem, der lå til grund for den sideløbende antidumpingprocedure.
One interested party claimed that the injury and causation analysis of the anti-subsidy proceeding should be made on different data than that made in the parallel anti-dumping proceeding.
Det blev hævdet, at konklusionerne vedrørende subsidier tager udgangspunkt i i) egenproduktion, ii) produktion og blanding og iii) indkøb og blanding af biodiesel eksporteret til Fællesskabet, hvorimod konklusionerne vedrørende dumping, navnlig for så vidt angår eksportsalg til Fællesskabet, kun tager udgangspunkt i den biodiesel, som producenterne i stikprøven har produceret.
It was argued that the subsidy findings are based on i) own produced, ii) produced and blended and iii) purchased and blended biodiesel exported to the Community whereas the dumping findings, in particular the export sales to the Community, are based only on the own produced biodiesel of the sampled producers.
Denne påstand lader til at slå til lyd for, at antidumpingproceduren altid bør tage udgangspunkt i færre oplysninger end antisubsidieproceduren.
This claim would appear to suggest that the anti-dumping proceeding should always be based on a narrower data in relation to the anti-subsidy proceeding.
Det blev dog i den midlertidige fase konstateret i den sideløbende antidumpingprocedure, at al eksport af egenproduktion fra virksomheder, der indgik i stikprøven af producenter fra USA, skete til dumpingpriser på EF-markedet.
However, at provisional stage it was found in the parallel anti-dumping proceeding that all the exports of the own production of the companies included in the sample of US producers were made at dumped prices in the Community market.
Man nåede frem til en lignende konklusion i denne antisubsidieundersøgelse.
A similar finding was made in the present anti-subsidy investigation.
Derfor blev al eksport fra USA i begge undersøgelser betragtet som værende dumpet og subsidieret og derfor inddraget i analysen af skade og årsagssammenhæng.
Thus in both investigations all exports made from the USA were deemed to be dumped and subsidized and were thus all included in the injury and causation analysis.
Det bør imidlertid fremhæves, at det i den endelige fase blev konstateret, at en virksomhed i USA, der indgik i stikprøven, ikke eksporterede til dumpingpriser, hvilket har ført til, at der er en forskel imellem mængden af dumpingimport og mængden af subsidieret import, som der skal tages højde for i procedurernes analyse af skades- og årsagssammenhæng.
It should, however, be pointed out that, at definitive stage, one sampled US company was found not to be dumping and this has led to a difference between the volume of dumped imports and the volume of subsidized imports to be considered in the injury and causation analysis of the proceedings.
I antidumpingproceduren er den samlede mængde af dumpingimport fra USA blev justeret for at tage højde for, at man havde konstateret, at en eksporterende producent i stikprøven ikke solgte til dumpingpriser.
In the anti-dumping proceeding, the overall volume of dumped imports from the USA has been adjusted to take into account the fact that the imports of one sampled exporting producer were found not to be dumped.
Dette har imidlertid ingen indvirkning på antisubsidieproceduren.
This has no bearing, however, on the anti-subsidy proceeding.
I lyset af ovenstående måtte påstanden afvises.
In view of the above the claim had to be rejected.
En interesseret part hævdede, at toldposition 3824 90 i USA's eksportstatistikker, som blev benyttet i forordningen om midlertidig told til at fastsætte importen fra det pågældende land, også ud over biodiesel omfattede andre varer som f.eks. »fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin and mixtures thereof« (fedtstoffer af animalsk eller vegetabilsk oprindelse eller en blanding heraf).
One interested party claimed that the HTS heading 3824 90 of the USA export statistics which was used in the provisional Regulation to establish the imports from the country concerned would also cover, in addition to biodiesel, other products such as ‘fatty substances of animal or vegetable origin and mixtures thereof’.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at den amerikanske toldposition 3824 90 4000 og ikke den sekscifrede position, der var anført af denne part, blev anvendt for at beregne importmængderne fra USA.
In this regard, it is firstly noted that the US HTS code 3824 90 4000 was used in order to compute the import volumes originating in the USA and not the six-digit tariff heading claimed by this party.
Desuden kunne Eurostats data som nævnt i betragtning 170 i forordningen om midlertidig told ikke anvendes til vurdering af importen af biodiesel fra USA, da der indtil ultimo 2007 ikke fandtes en separat KN-kode for tariferingen af denne vare.
Moreover, it is recalled that as mentioned in recital (170) of the provisional Regulation, Eurostat data could not be used for the purpose of assessing the imports of biodiesel from the USA because until the end of 2007 there was no distinct CN code available for the customs classification of that product.
Biodiesel kunne faktisk være blevet tariferet under mindst seks forskellige KN-koder, som også indeholdt importoplysninger om andre varer.
Biodiesel could indeed have been classified under various CN codes which also contained import data for other products.
Grunden til, at USA's eksportstatistikker blev brugt, var, at de viste sig at opføre eksporten af den pågældende vare under én toldposition, og at mængden af andre varer opført under samme position ville være ubetydelig, for så vidt angår eksport til Fællesskabet.
The reason why the USA export statistics were used was that they appeared to capture the exports of the product concerned under one tariff code and that the volume of other products captured under the same code would be of insignificant importance as far as exports to the Community are concerned.
I forbindelse med begrænsningerne ved at bruge Eurostats oplysninger ville et andet alternativ til USA's eksportstatistikker have været at bruge importoplysningerne i klagen.
In view of the limitations to use Eurostat data, another alternative to the US export statistics would have been to use the import data reported in the complaint.
Disse oplysninger havde de klagende fået fra fortrolige markedsinformationskilder, og derfor ville brugen af dem have været underlagt denne begrænsning.
This data was obtained by the complainants from confidential market intelligence sources and therefore recourse to such information would have been subject to this limitation.
For at fuldende billedet bringes imidlertid tendenserne i importmængderne, som de ville have set ud i indeksform:
However, for the sake of completeness the trends of import volumes would have shown the following picture in an indexed form:
Indeks: 2005 = 100
Indexed 2005=100
En sammenligning imellem ovenstående tabel 3 og tabel 2 ville vise, at Kommissionens vurdering af importmængderne af den pågældende vare i analyseperioden var mere konservativ end den, som alternativt kunne have været anvendt.
The comparison of the Table 3 with Table 2 above would demonstrate that the Commission’s assessment of the import volumes of the product concerned over the analysis period was more conservative than the one that could have been alternatively used.
Endvidere er oplysningerne i det samlede billede af importmængderne i tabel 3 fortrolige og må ikke offentliggøres, hvorimod USA's statistikker er offentlig tilgængelig information.
Moreover, this overall picture of the import volumes of Table 3 is compiled from confidential data not susceptible to disclosure whereas the USA statistics is publicly available information.
Metoden foreslået af den interesserede part ville på basis af oplysningerne indsamlet fra de undersøgte eksporterende producenter have vist følgende tendenser i eksportmængderne:
The proposed method by the interested party would have shown the following picture regarding the trends of the export volumes on the basis of the information collected from the investigated exporting producers:
En sammenligning mellem ovenstående tabel 4 og tabel 2 ville vise lignende tendenser mellem den af Kommissionen anvendte metode og den, der er foreslået af denne part.
The comparison of Table 4 with Table 2 above would demonstrate very similar trends between the method used by the Commission and the one proposed by this party.
Den samme interesserede part hævdede også, at fordi den pågældende vare er biodiesel og blandinger af biodiesel med et biodieselindhold på over 20 %, kunne den importmængde, der er vist i tabel 2 ovenfor, ikke svare til den korrekte importmængde for den pågældende vare.
The same interested party also claimed that because the product concerned is biodiesel and blends of biodiesel with a biodiesel content above 20 % the volume of imports shown in Table 2 above could not correlate with the correct import volume for the product concerned.
I den forbindelse bemærkes det, at der ikke i undersøgelsen er blevet påpeget nogen import af den pågældende vare med et biodieselindhold over B20 og under B99 i UP.
In this regard it is noted that the investigation has not identified any imports of the product concerned with a biodiesel content above B20 and below B99 during the IP.
Med andre ord har undersøgelsen ikke identificeret nogen import af den pågældende vare, som på grund af et lavt indhold af biodiesel ville være klassificeret under en anden amerikansk toldposition.
In other words the investigation has not identified any imports of the product concerned that because of their low biodiesel content would be classified under a different US HTS code.
På grundlag af ovenstående konkluderes det, at importmængden i tabel 2 i forordningen om midlertidig told udgør en pålidelig, objektiv og konservativ vurdering af importen til Fællesskabet af den pågældende vare.
On the basis of the above it is concluded that the import volume presented in the Table 2 of the provisional Regulation represents a reliable, objective and conservative estimation of the imports into the Community of the product concerned.
En interesseret part hævdede, at splash and dash-eksportmængderne fra USA skulle have været holdt ude fra importen af den pågældende vare med oprindelse i USA, da førstnævnte ikke kan behandles som import med oprindelse i USA.
One interested party claimed that the splash and dash quantities exported from the USA should have been distinguished from the imports of the product concerned originating in the USA as the former cannot be treated as imports of US origin.
Samme part og den amerikanske regering hævdede, at al eksport fra USA, stik imod hvad der fastslås i betragtning 179 og 182 i forordningen om midlertidig told, ikke nødvendigvis kommer fra USA.
In addition the same party and the USG claimed that contrary to what was stated in recitals (179) and (182) of the provisional Regulation all exports from the USA are not deemed to be originating in the USA.
Der er ikke nogen myndighed i USA, som foretager en vurdering af eller fastslår oprindelseslandet for en bestemt vare til eksport, og man kan ikke gå ud fra, at al biodiesel, som forlader USA's område, stammer fra USA.
There is no authority in the USA that makes an assessment or a determination with respect to the country of origin of a particular product for export and it cannot be assumed that all biodiesel leaving the territory of the USA is of US origin.
Samme part erklærede også, at lovgivningen om oprindelse, som US Census Bureau har fastsat, vedrørende bestemmelse af oprindelsen af de eksporterede varer, ikke er almindeligt kendt af biodieselindustrien, så eksportørerne af biodiesel anfører normalt, når de udfylder »Shippers Export Declaration« (»SED«), at de eksporterede varer er af indenlandsk oprindelse.
The same party also stated that the origin regulations established by the US Census Bureau regarding the determination of the origin of the exported goods are not widely known to the biodiesel industry and therefore the exporters of biodiesel when filling out the ‘Shippers Export Declaration’ (SED) normally indicate that the goods exported are of domestic origin.
Denne genfremsatte endvidere sin påstand fra den midlertidige fase om, at de mængder, som importeredes til Fællesskabet i forbindelse med splash and dash-mønstret, ville udgøre over 40 % af eksporten af den pågældende vare fra USA.
It further reiterated its claim made at provisional stage that volumes imported in the Community under the splash and dash pattern would represent more than 40 % of the product concerned exported from the USA.
Som belæg for sin påstand benyttede den pågældende USA's import- og eksportoplysninger fra toldposition 3824 90 4020 og 3824 90 4000 og hævdede i realiteten, at al import af biodiesel til USA blev geneksporteret i forbindelse med splash and dash-mønstret til Fællesskabet.
In support of its claim it used the US import and export data of the HTS codes 3824 90 4020 and 3824 90 4000, and practically claimed that all imports of biodiesel in the USA were re-exported under the splash and dash pattern to the Community.
For så vidt angår ovenstående, bemærkes det, at forklaringen fra USA's myndigheder vedrørende den kendsgerning, at ingen amerikansk myndighed foretager en vurdering eller fastslår oprindelsen af en bestemt vare til eksport, kan godtages.
On the above it is noted that the clarification requested by the US authorities regarding the fact that no US authority makes an assessment or determination of the origin of a particular product for export can be accepted.
Den påstand, at splash and dash ville udgøre mindst 40 % af USA's eksport til Fællesskabet, byggede på den antagelse, at al biodiesel importeret til USA ville blive geneksporteret til Fællesskabet under splash and dash-mønstret, uden at der blev forbrugt noget i USA eller foretaget nogen yderligere opblanding i USA før eksport.
The claim that splash and dash would represent at least 40 % of the US exports to the Community was based on the assumption that all biodiesel imported in the USA would ultimately be re-exported to the Community under the splash and dash pattern without any volume being consumed in the USA or further being blended in the USA before exportation.
De oplysninger, som denne part fremførte, viste imidlertid, at i årene 2004 og 2006 oversteg importen langt eksporten, hvilket tyder på, at der er en indenlandsk efterspørgsel efter biodiesel i USA fra andre lande.
However, the data presented by this party showed that in the years 2004 to 2006 the imports exceeded by far the exports which would suggest that there is a domestic demand for biodiesel in the USA from other countries.
Denne antagelse er endvidere ret forenklet, da den ikke tager højde for de mængder af biodiesel, som eksporteres til Fællesskabet i en biodieselblanding, hvori andelen af biodiesel fra USA er dominerende og derfor bevirker, at den samlede mængde af den blandede vare får oprindelse i USA, eller hvis egenskaber er forskellige fra dem i råmaterialerne, hvilket også bevirker, at den blandede vare får oprindelse i USA.
Moreover, this assumption is rather simplistic as it does not take into account the quantities of biodiesel blended in the USA and exported to the Community in which i) the characteristics of the blends are different from those of the input materials which would confer US origin to the whole blended product or ii) blends in which the proportion of US origin biodiesel being the dominant one would confer US origin to the whole blended product.
Der mindes i den forbindelse om, at de undersøgte amerikanske virksomheder som omtalt i betragtning 180 i forordningen om midlertidig told erklærede, at det for de varer, der blev eksporteret til Fællesskabet eller solgt på hjemmemarkedet, var umuligt at sondre mellem, hvilke varer der var produceret eller indkøbt i USA, og hvilke varer der var importeret.
It is recalled in this respect that, as mentioned in recital (180) of the provisional Regulation, the US companies investigated declared that it was not possible to differentiate in the quantities exported to the Community or sold on the domestic market between the quantities own produced or sourced in the USA or imported.
Det bemærkes også, at oprindelsen lader til at være blevet angivet korrekt af de berørte amerikanske virksomheder, eftersom yderligere blanding af biodiesel — med oprindelse uden for USA — i alle tilfælde fandt sted i USA.
It is also noted that the origin would appear to have correctly been declared by the US companies concerned as in all of the cases further blending of non-US origin biodiesel was taking place in the USA.
I de fleste tilfælde er de undersøgte eksporterende producenter nemlig meget store virksomheder eller virksomhedskoncerner med forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder i Fællesskabet, om hvilke det er vanskeligt at acceptere, at de ikke er klar over de eksisterende bestemmelser i USA og Fællesskabet om bestemmelse af varers oprindelse.
Indeed, in most of the cases the investigated exporting producers are very large companies or groups of companies with related companies in the Community for which it is difficult to accept that they were not aware of the existing US and Community rules regarding the origin determination.
På grundlag af ovenstående konkluderes det, at der ikke er nogen grunde til klart at identificere import til Fællesskabet under splash and dash-mønstret i den betragtede periode.
On the basis of all the above it is concluded that there are no grounds to clearly identify the imports made in the Community under the splash and dash pattern for the period considered.
Det konkluderes ligeledes, at der ikke er nogen grunde til at behandle denne eksport som import med oprindelse uden for USA.
It is also considered that there are no grounds to treat these exports, if any, as non-US origin imports.
I nedenstående tabel vises salgsprisen pr. enhed for al import til EF-markedet med oprindelse i USA i den betragtede periode, jf. betragtning 183 og 184 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
The table below shows the unit selling price of all imports into the Community market originating in the USA during the period considered as ascertained in recitals (183) and (184) of the provisional Regulation.
Kilde: USA's eksportstatistikker og besvarelser af spørgeskemaerne fra de amerikanske eksportører i stikprøven
Source: US export statistics and questionnaire replies of the sampled US exporters.
Indeks: 2005 = 100
Index2005=100
For at kunne undersøge prisunderbuddet blev de vejede gennemsnitlige salgspriser, som EF-producenterne i stikprøven opkrævede af ikke-forretningsmæssigt forbundne kunder på EF-markedet, justeret til ab fabrik, sammenlignet med de tilsvarende vejede gennemsnitlige priser for dumpingimporten fra USA, der var fastsat på cif-basis for de amerikanske eksporterende producenter i stikprøven, der, som man havde konstateret, solgte til dumpingpriser på EF-markedet.
For the purpose of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices of the sampled Community producers charged to unrelated customers on the Community market, adjusted to an ex-works level, were compared to the corresponding weighted average prices of the dumped imports from the USA, established on a CIF basis for the sampled exporting producers in the USA which were found to be dumping into the Community market.
Der blev foretaget en justering for told, omkostninger efter importen og forskelle med hensyn til de råmaterialer, der blev anvendt til produktionen af biodiesel, hvor det var relevant, jf. betragtning 186 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
An adjustment for the customs duties, post-importation costs and for the differences in feedstock used for the production of biodiesel was applied where appropriate as described in recital (186) of the provisional Regulation.
En række eksporterende producenter hævdede, at justeringen for forskellene med hensyn til råmaterialer var undervurderet, da den ikke afspejlede markedsværdien af forskellene korrekt.
Certain exporting producers claimed that the adjustment for the differences in feedstock was understated as it did not reflect correctly the market value of the differences.
De hævdede endvidere, at forskellene skulle fremstå på grundlag af priserne for de forskellige typer biodiesel på EF-markedet og kvantificerede denne påstand ved henvisning til prisnoteringer, toldbehandlet i Antwerpen og offentliggjort af en markedsanalytiker.
They further claimed that the differences should be obtained on the basis of the prices for the different types of biodiesel in the Community market and quantified this claim by reference to the price quotations, customs cleared Antwerp based, published by a market analyst.
I den forbindelse bemærkes det, at justeringen byggede på de samlede efterprøvede data indsamlet hos de eksporterende producenter i stikprøven for deres transaktioner i USA og dermed byggede på konklusionerne af undersøgelsen, som er den mest pålidelige informationskilde.
In this regard it is noted that the adjustment was based on the overall, verified data collected from the sampled exporting producers for their operations in the USA and was, therefore, based on the findings of the investigation which is the most reliable source of information.
Endvidere ville prisnoteringerne på EF-plan have været et uegnet grundlag for denne justering, da disse prisniveauer påvirkes af prisniveauerne på den subsidierede import med oprindelse i USA.
Moreover, the price quotations at Community level would have been an inappropriate basis for this adjustment as these price levels would have been influenced by the price levels of the subsidised imports originating in the USA.
Påstanden blev derfor afvist.
On this basis the claim was rejected.
De samme eksporterende producenter hævdede, at justeringen for forskelle med hensyn til råmaterialer kun skulle anvendes på salget hos de eksporterende producenter i stikprøven og ikke på salget hos EF-producenterne i stikprøven, da sidstnævntes salg består af blandinger, som er i overensstemmelse med EF-standarderne.
The same exporting producers claimed that the adjustment for feedstock differences should only be applied to the sales of the sampled exporting producers and not to the sales of the sampled Community producers as the sales of the latter consist of blends compatible with the Community standards.
Denne påstand blev fundet irrelevant, da formålet med justeringen var at tage højde for forskellene i råmaterialer og ikke forskelle med hensyn til at opfylde de forskellige standarder på EU-plan.
This claim was found to be irrelevant as the purpose of the adjustment was to address the differences in feedstock and not any differences in meeting the different standards applicable at Community level.
Påstanden afvistes derfor.
The claim was, therefore rejected.
Klageren anfægtede det hensigtsmæssige i denne justering ved at hævde, at både EF-producenter og eksportører i USA bruger mange forskellige råmaterialer, og begge fremstiller mange forskellige blandinger, som sælges på begge markeder, og derfor opererer med de samme muligheder, for så vidt angår valget af råmateriale.
The complainant contested the appropriateness of this adjustment by claiming that both Community producers and US exporters use a variety of feedstock and both produce a variety of blends which are provided on both markets and are, therefore, operating with the same range possibilities when it comes to the raw material choice.