natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Undersøgelsen viste også, at markedet for blandinger og markedet for forbrugervarer var forskellige markeder med forskellige kunder: et marked, hvor biodiesel og biodieselblandinger er beregnet til yderligere opblanding foretaget af handlende og virksomheder, og et marked, hvor blandingerne er beregnet til distributionsnetværket og dermed forbrugerne.
The investigation also showed that the market for blending and the market for consumer products were different markets with different customers: one market where biodiesel and biodiesel blends are destined to further blending by traders and blenders and one market where the blends are destined to the distribution network and thus to consumers.
Fastsættelsen af tærsklen for den pågældende vare til over B20 var med til at trække en klar skillelinje og undgå forvirring i forbindelse med varer, markeder og de forskellige parter i USA.
Defining the threshold for the product concerned above B20 allowed to draw a clear dividing line and avoided confusion between the products, the markets and the various parties in the USA.
Påstanden blev derfor afvist.
The claim was thus rejected.
I forbindelse med alle antisubsidieundersøgelser er det almindeligt, at de enkelte virksomheder, der indgår i undersøgelsen, ikke producerer og sælger alle de varetyper, der indgår i definitionen af den pågældende vare.
In all anti-subsidy investigations it is common that individual companies investigated do not produce and sell all the product types included in the definition of the product concerned.
Visse virksomheder producerer et meget begrænset antal varetyper, mens andre producerer en bredere vifte.
Some companies may produce a very limited range of product types while other may produce a larger range.
Dette har imidlertid ikke nogen indvirkning på definitionen af den pågældende vare.
This, however, does not affect the definition of the product concerned.
Det konkluderes derfor, at den påstand, at den pågældende vare kun skulle omfatte varetyper, der blev eksporteret af amerikanske producenter og anvendt til beregning af subsidiering og skade, er uberettiget.
It is therefore considered that the claim that the product concerned should only cover the product types that were exported by the US producers and used for the subsidisation and the injury calculations is unfounded.
I undersøgelsen fokuseredes der først og fremmest på biodiesel, både i ren form og i blandinger, jf. forordningen om midlertidig told og betragtning 20.
As mentioned in the provisional Regulation and in recital (20) above, the investigation primarily focused on biodiesel, whether in pure form or when incorporated in blends.
Udligningsforanstaltningerne får virkning for de relevante blandinger, der eksporteres til EF-markedet.
The countervailing measures will apply to the relevant blends exported to the Community market.
Derfor konkluderes det, at spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt en blanding, der indeholder 20 % biodiesel, stadig kan betragtes som biodiesel snarere end mineralsk diesel, som ikke er omfattet af definitionen på den pågældende vare, er irrelevant.
Hence, it is considered that the question whether a blend with 20 % biodiesel still qualifies for a biodiesel fuel rather than mineral diesel which is not included in the definition of the product concerned is not relevant.
At lade blandinger over B20 indgå i definitionen af den pågældende vare havde absolut ingen indvirkning på konklusionerne for undersøgte virksomheder, som ikke producerer og eksporterer denne varetype.
Including blends above B20 in the definition of the product concerned had no impact whatsoever on the findings made for companies investigated which are not producing and exporting this product type.
Denne parts påstand om, at princippet i en dom afsagt af Retten i Første Instans [10] også finder anvendelse på nærværende procedure, og at biodiesel, som ikke er blandinger med et meget højt indhold heraf, ikke kan være omfattet af undersøgelsen, er heller ikke velbegrundet.
The allegation of the party according to which the rationale of a Court Judgment [10] also applies to the current proceeding and that biodiesel that is not part of blends in very high content cannot be subject to the scope of the investigation is also not founded.
For hver enkelt virksomhed, der blev undersøgt, svarer skadesmargenen og subsidiemargenen nemlig nøjagtigt til den pågældende vare og samme vare, for hvilke der blev fastslået konklusioner om subsidier og skade, dvs. de relevante varetyper, som indeholder biodiesel, og som blev solgt på hjemmemarkedet og eksporteret til Fællesskabet af den virksomhed.
In fact, for each company investigated, any injury and subsidy margins will exactly match the product concerned and the like product for which subsidy and injury findings were established, namely the relevant products types that contain biodiesel that were sold domestically and exported to the Community by that company.
Desuden vedrører den dom, aktøren henviser til, en revision af eksisterende antidumpingforanstaltninger, der førte til udvidelsen af bestemmelserne til at omfatte andre varer end den pågældende vare, hvilket ikke er tilfældet i nærværende undersøgelse.
Also, the judgment which is invoked by the operator concerned a review of existing anti-dumping measures resulting in their extension to other products than the product concerned, which is not the case in the current investigation.
Skønt det kan konkluderes, at eksempler i et spørgeskema med det formål at indsamle oplysninger i forbindelse med en undersøgelse ikke kan bruges til at gøre antagelser om undersøgelsesresultaterne, skal man huske på, at Kommissionen ikke på forhånd kan vide, hvilke varetyper der vil blive produceret og solgt på hjemmemarkedet og til eksport af de pågældende virksomheder på det tidspunkt, hvor spørgeskemaet bliver udarbejdet, men først når den har foretaget undersøgelser på stedet.
Although it is considered that the examples provided in a questionnaire intended to collect data for the purpose of an investigation cannot be used to make assumptions as to the conclusion of the investigation, it is noteworthy that the Commission cannot know in advance, namely before its on-spot investigation takes place, which types of products will be produced and sold in the domestic market and for export by the companies concerned at the moment of the drafting of the questionnaire.
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 1 er de varetyper, som det er relevant at lade indgå i en antisubsidieundersøgelse, varer, der betragtes som subsidierede af udligningsberettigede subsidier.
According to Article 1 of the basic Regulation, the relevant product types to include in the scope of an anti-subsidy investigation are those considered to be subsidized from a countervailable subsidy.
I så fald kan der indføres udligningstold med henblik på at udligne subsidier, der direkte eller indirekte ydes til fremstilling, produktion, udførsel eller transport af varer.
In such case a countervailing duty may be imposed for the purpose of offsetting any subsidy granted directly and indirectly for the manufacture, production, export or transport of any product.
Endvidere bør B100 ikke udelukkes fra varedefinitionen.
It is also considered that B100 should not be excluded from the product definition.
CODE), navnlig Title 26, $40A, point (d), hvori termen biodiesel klart defineres, at hele subsidieordningen blev indført for at støtte biodieselindustrien i USA.
CODE), in particular Title 26, $40A, point (d), which clearly defines the term biodiesel, that the whole subsidy scheme was implemented to support the biodiesel industry in the USA.
For det andet fordi det under den amerikanske regerings kontrolbesøg på stedet kom frem, at biodiesel, selv når den blev blandet uden for USA af en virksomhed med et datterselskab i USA, kunne nyde godt af Federal biodiesel Tax credit på 1 USD pr. gallon i USA.
Secondly, because during the verification visit at the premises of the USG, it appeared that biodiesel even when blended outside the USA by a company having a subsidiary in the USA could benefit from the Federal biodiesel Tax credit of USD 1 per gallon in the USA.
Undersøgelsen har også vist, at producenters fremstilling af ren biodiesel i USA fører til udstedelse af et certifikat, jf. betragtning 51 i forordningen om midlertidig told.
The investigation has also showed that the production of pure biodiesel by any producer in the USA triggers the issuance of producer certificate mentioned in recital (51) of the provisional Regulation.
Dette certifikat kan overdrages og skal forelægges den amerikanske regering, når der ansøges om subsidier.
This certificate is transferable and must be presented to the US Government when the claim for subsidy is introduced.
På grundlag af ovenstående kendsgerninger og betragtninger bekræftes det, at alle typer biodiesel og biodieselen i de blandinger, der er omfattet af denne undersøgelse, nemlig ren biodiesel (B100) og blandinger over B20, på trods af eventuelle forskelle med hensyn til de råmaterialer, der anvendes ved produktionen, eller produktionsprocessen har samme eller meget ensartede fysiske, kemiske og tekniske egenskaber og anvendes til samme formål.
Based on the above facts and considerations, it is confirmed that all types of biodiesel and the biodiesel in the blends covered by this investigation, namely pure biodiesel (B100) and blends above B20, despite possible differences in terms of raw material used for the production, or variances in the production process, have the same or very similar basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and are used for the same purposes.
Det blev foreløbigt konstateret, at de varer, der produceres og sælges på hjemmemarkedet i USA, og som er omfattet af denne undersøgelse, har samme grundlæggende fysiske, kemiske og tekniske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål som de varer, der eksporteres fra dette land til EF-markedet.
It was provisionally found that the products produced and sold on the domestic market of the USA, which are covered by this investigation, have similar basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses as those exported from this country to the Community market.
Ligeledes har varer fremstillet af EF-erhvervsgrenen og solgt på EF-markedet samme grundlæggende fysiske, kemiske og tekniske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål som de varer, der eksporteres til Fællesskabet fra det pågældende land.
Similarly, the products manufactured by the Community industry and sold on the Community market have similar basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics and uses when compared to those exported to the Community from the country concerned.
Der blev således ikke konstateret forskelle mellem de forskellige typer af den pågældende vare og varetyper produceret af EF-erhvervsgrenen og solgt på markedet i Fællesskabet, som fører til den konklusion, at varetyper produceret og solgt på EF-markedet ikke er samme varer, der har samme eller næsten tilsvarende grundlæggende fysiske, kemiske og tekniske egenskaber som de typer af den pågældende vare, der produceres i USA og eksporteres til Fællesskabet.
Therefore no differences were found between the various types of the product concerned and the Community product types sold on the Community market which would lead to the conclusion that the product types produced and sold on the Community market are not like products, sharing the same or very similar basic physical, chemical and technical characteristics as to the types of the product concerned produced in the USA and exported to the Community.
Det konkluderes derfor, at alle typer biodiesel, der indgår i denne undersøgelse, anses for at være identiske, jf. grundforordningens artikel 1, stk. 5.
It was therefore concluded that all types of biodiesel covered by this investigation are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(5) of the basic Regulation.
En part hævdede, at definitionen af samme vare hænger uløseligt sammen med afgrænsningen af den pågældende vare og skal opstilles med henblik på varens fysiske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål.
One party claimed that the definition of the like product is intricately linked to the identification of the product concerned and must be established in term of physical characteristics and end-use of the product.
Denne part hævdede i realiteten, at B20 ikke er beregnet til forbrug i EU, men til at indgå i en blanding med endnu lavere indhold af biodiesel, nemlig B5.
They basically said that B20 is not used for consumption in the EU but rather an even lower blend which is B5.
Derfor er samme vare defineret forkert.
Hence the like product was wrongly defined.
Denne part hævdede også, at definitionen af den pågældende vare ikke kan ændres, samtidig med at man bibeholder en anden definition af samme vare.
They also claimed that the definition of the product concerned cannot be changed whilst maintaining a different like product.
Som det klart fremgår af betragtning 31 til 37 i forordningen om midlertidig told, hænger definitionen af samme vare sammen med afgrænsningen af den pågældende vare og blev i alt væsentligt opstillet ud fra varens fysiske egenskaber.
As it clearly appears in recital (31) to (37) of the provisional Regulation, the definition of the like product is linked to the identification of the product concerned and was mainly established in term of physical characteristics of the product.
Varernes faktiske anvendelsesformål blev også taget i betragtning, og det blev konstateret, at B20-tærsklen også burde bibeholdes i forbindelse med definitionen af samme vare.
The actual end-use of the products was also taken into account and it was considered that the threshold of B20 should also be maintained for the definition of the like product.
I dette tilfælde er antallet af varetyper, der er omfattet af definitionen på samme vare, også blevet nedbragt for at matche definitionen på den pågældende vare.
In this case, the number of product types covered by the definition of the like product has also been reduced to match with the definition of the product concerned.
Derfor må parternes påstande om, at definitionen af samme vare var ukorrekt, afvises, og den foreløbige definition af samme vare kan bekræftes.
Hence, the claims of the parties that the definition of the like product was incorrect have to be rejected and the provisional definition of the like product can be confirmed.
En virksomhed hævdede, at de i betragtning 9 i forordningen om midlertidig told fremførte grunde til at udelukke den fra stikprøven var kendt af Kommissionen, da den oprindelig udvalgte stikprøven.
One company claimed that the reasons set out in recital 9 of the Provisional Regulation for its exclusion from the sample were known to the Commission when it originally chose the sample.
På det grundlag burde virksomheden ikke have været udelukket fra stikprøven.
On this basis, the company should not have been excluded from the sample.
I forbindelse med denne påstand bør det bemærkes, at det ikke har nogen væsentlig indvirkning på virksomheden, for så vidt angår undersøgelsens resultat, om den indgår i stikprøven eller ej.
In regard to this claim, it is noted that, whether or not the company is included in the sample has no material impact on the company in terms of the outcome of the investigation.
Hvis virksomheden skulle indgå i stikprøven, ville den få sin egen individuelle udligningstoldsats fastsat, som det var sket i den midlertidige fase, selv om virksomheden var udelukket fra stikprøven.
If it were to be included in the sample, the company would have its own individual countervailing duty rate established as was done at provisional stage even though the company was excluded from the sample.
I nærværende forordning fastsættes der også en individuel udligningstoldsats for virksomheden.
The current Regulation also establishes an individual countervailing duty rate for the company.
Efter den endelige fremlæggelse af disse konklusioner hævdede virksomheden, at dens »udelukkelse i praksis« fra eksportørerne i stikprøven fratog den grundlæggende rettigheder, herunder rettigheder, der udspringer af specifikke beregninger foretaget på data leveret af eksportører i stikprøven.
Following final disclosure of these findings, the company claimed that its ‘de-facto exclusion’ from the sampled exporters prevented it from some substantive rights, including rights resulting from specific calculations as applied to data provided by the sampled exporters.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at der blev foretaget en specifik beregning vedrørende subsidieniveauet for denne virksomhed.
In reply to this, it is noted that a specific calculation was made of the level of subsidisation of this company.
Skadesmargenen for denne virksomhed blev beregnet således som beskrevet i betragtning 173 til 175, dvs. på grundlag af de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 28, da virksomheden ikke havde forelagt de ønskede oplysninger vedrørende eksportsalg og videresalg i Fællesskabet.
In regard to the injury margin for this company, this was established as set out in recitals (173) to (175) below, i.e. on the basis of facts available under Article 28 of the basic Regulation given that the company did not provide the requested information in regard to its export sales and resales in the Community.
Virksomhedens påstand blev derfor afvist.
In these circumstances, the company’s claim is rejected.
En virksomhed påstod, at udligningstoldsatsen lod til at være blevet beregnet på grundlag af hjemmemarkedssalg plus eksportsalg.
One company claimed that the countervailing duty rate appeared to have been calculated on the basis of domestic sales in addition to export sales.
Derfor anmodede virksomheden om, at beregningerne blev rettet.
The company asked that the calculations be corrected accordingly.
I forbindelse med denne påstand bemærkes det, at det konstateres, at alle de subsidieordninger, som udlignes, er indenlandske subsidier, dvs. at de kommer såvel hjemmemarkeds- som eksportsalg til gode.
In regard to this claim, it is noted that all of the subsidy schemes that are being countervailed have been found to be domestic subsidies, i.e. they equally benefit domestic as well as export sales.
I overensstemmelse med almindelig praksis er fordelen i forbindelse med den enkelte ordning i UP blevet fordelt over det samlede salg af den pågældende vare (dvs. hjemmemarkedssalg plus eksportsalg).
In line with standard practice the amount of benefit from each scheme in the IP has been allocated over total sales of the product concerned (i.e. domestic plus export sales).
Virksomhedens påstand afvises derfor.
The company’s claim is therefore rejected.
Denne virksomhed og en anden virksomhed påpegede også, at de cif-værdier, der benyttes til beregning af udligningstoldsatserne, ikke er de samme som dem, der benyttes til beregning af skade og dumping.
This company as well as another company also pointed out that the CIF values used for calculating the countervailing duty rate are not the same as the ones used for the injury and dumping calculations.
Virksomhederne er af den opfattelse, at man for at sikre overensstemmelse også bør benytte de korrekte cif-værdier, som blev brugt til beregning af dumping og skade, til beregning af udligningstoldsatser.
The companies consider that, in order to ensure consistency, the correct CIF values which have been used for the dumping and injury calculations should also be used for the countervailing duty rate calculations.
I forbindelse med denne påstand bemærkes det igen, at alle de subsidieordninger, der udlignes, som nævnt i betragtning 51 er indenlandske subsidier, dvs. at de kommer såvel hjemmemarkeds- som eksportsalg til gode.
In regard, to this claim, it must again be pointed out that, as mentioned in recital (51) above, all of the subsidy schemes that are being countervailed have been found to be domestic subsidies.
I denne forbindelse er den fællesnævner, som benyttes til at fastslå fordelen i UP, det samlede salg til forskel fra i antidumpingprocedurer, hvor fællesnævneren er eksportsalg udelukkende til EU.
In these circumstances, the denominator used in establishing the benefit in the IP is total sales unlike in anti-dumping proceedings where the denominator is export sales to the EU only.
På det grundlag afvises denne påstand.
In these circumstances, this claim is rejected.
En række virksomheder og National Biodiesel Board (NBB) fremførte det argument, at der ikke burde opkræves en udligningstold på import af B100, da subsidiemargenen og skadesmargenen blev beregnet uden inddragelse af salg af B100.
A number of companies and the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) argued that a countervailing duty should not be levied on imports of B100 on the grounds that the subsidy and injury margins have been calculated without including sales of B100.
I forbindelse med denne påstand bemærkes det, at salget af B100 fremstillet af de virksomheder, som indgår i stikprøven, er taget i betragtning i forbindelse med beregningen af de udligningsberettigede subsidier og beregningen af skadesmargenen.
In regard to this claim, it is noted that sales of B100 produced by the sampled companies have been taken into account in calculating the amount of countervailable subsidies as well as in the calculation of the injury margin.
En virksomhed hævdede, at den fordel, den fik i forbindelse med den føderale punktafgift/indkomstskat i UP, ville være på under 1 USD pr. gallon, hvis fordelen skulle beregnes ved at fordele den over den samlede salgsmængde i UP.
One company claimed that the amount of benefit that it received under the federal excise tax/income tax credit in the investigation period (IP), would be less than USD 1 per gallon if the benefit were to be calculated by spreading it over the total sales volume in the IP.
For så vidt angår fordelen under ordningen for fritagelse for punktafgift/indkomstskat, blev den beregnet, jf. betragtning 59 i forordningen om midlertidig told, på grundlag af 1 USD pr. gallon ren biodiesel, som blev solgt i UP, uanset om der var tale om ren biodiesel (B100) eller biodiesel i blandinger.
In regard to the benefit received under the excise tax/income tax credit scheme, this was calculated, as stated in recital (59) of the provisional Regulation, on the basis of USD 1 per gallon of neat biodiesel sold in the IP, whether sold as pure biodiesel (B100) or in a blend.
Denne fordel blev afspejlet i niveauet for den midlertidige udligningstold.
This benefit was reflected in the level of provisional countervailing duty imposed.
Den midlertidige told og den endelige told, der nu indføres med denne forordning, betyder, at udligningstolden på blandinger finder anvendelse i forhold til det samlede indhold af biodiesel i blandingen.
The provisional duty, and indeed the definitive duty now to be imposed by this regulation, provides that the countervailing duty on blends shall be applicable in proportion in the blend of the total content of biodiesel.
I den forbindelse konstateres det, at en told på grundlag af 1 USD pr. gallon ren biodiesel afspejler fordelen i UP korrekt, eftersom der pålægges en mindre told på f.eks. import af B99, fordi den indeholder mindre biodiesel.
In these circumstances, it is considered that a duty based on USD 1 per gallon of neat biodiesel correctly reflects the benefit in the IP as a lesser duty is imposed on, for example, imports of B99 given that it contains less biodiesel.
Virksomhedens påstand afvises derfor.
In these circumstances, the company’ claim is rejected.
En række virksomheder og NBB hævdede, at eftersom der ikke er nogen føderal fritagelse for punktafgift/indkomstskat på salg af B100, er der ikke nogen grund til at tro, at dette salg har nydt godt af denne afgiftsfritagelse.
A number of companies and the NBB claimed that, as no federal excise tax/income tax credit is available on sales of B100, there is no basis to consider that such sales have benefited from this tax credit.