natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår kriterium nr. 1 kunne man også konstatere uregelmæssigheder med hensyn til forretningsmæssige beslutninger og omkostninger.
As far as criterion 1 is concerned, discrepancies with respect to business decisions and costs were established.
Man konstaterede, at der i talrige tilfælde ikke fandtes dokumentation for betalinger i forbindelse med overdragelse af virksomhedernes aktier.
It was found that on numerous occasions there was no evidence on payments made for the transfer of companies’ shares.
Desuden var der ikke foretaget uafhængige vurderinger af bidrag fra enten statsejede aktionærer eller tilknyttede parter i anlægsaktiver, jord og omkostninger, der var konverteret til aktier.
Furthermore contributions either from state-owned shareholders or related parties in fixed assets, land and expenditures converted into shares were not independently evaluated.
I et enkelt tilfælde blev aktier overdraget fra en statsejet aktionær til et af selskaberne i APP-gruppen til ikke-markedspris.
Finally in one case shares passed from one state-owned shareholder to one of the APP group companies at non-market price.
I forbindelse med omkostninger viste undersøgelsen, at der i henhold til gruppens metodologi for registrering af input af råvarer mangler dokumentation for udgifterne til større input af råvarer.
With respect to costs, the investigation established that, account taken of the methodology used by the group to record raw material inputs, there is lack of evidence on the cost of major raw material inputs.
Man konkluderede derfor, at de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber ikke havde påvist, at de opfyldte kriterium nr. 1.
Consequently, it was concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 1.
Med hensyn til kriterium nr. 2 kunne det fastslås, at man ikke havde fulgt principperne i de grundlæggende internationale regnskabsstandarder (»IAS«) og navnlig IAS 1 (dvs. periodiseringsprincippet, modregning, manglende forsigtighed og korrekt gengivelse af transaktionerne) både i regnskaberne og ved revision af disse, hvilket satte spørgsmålstegn ved troværdigheden af virksomhedernes regnskaber.
With respect to criterion 2, it was established that fundamental International Accounting Standards (IAS) principles and in particular IAS 1 were disregarded (i.e. accrual principle, off-setting, lack of prudence and fair representation of transactions) both in the accounts and in their audit, which put into question the reliability of the companies’ accounts.
Man konkluderede derfor, at de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne selskaber ikke havde påvist, at de opfyldte kriterium nr. 2.
Consequently, it was concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 2.
Med hensyn til kriterium nr. 3 afslørede undersøgelsen, at der findes betydelige fordrejninger med hensyn til brugsret til jord for de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter.
As far as criterion 3 is concerned, the investigation revealed the existence of significant distortions with respect to land use rights (LUR) relevant to the four related exporting producers.
Sådanne fordrejninger peger i retning af den konklusion, at brugsretten til jord ikke tildeles og beholdes på markedsøkonomiske vilkår.
Such distortions point to the conclusion that the LUR are not granted and maintained in accordance with market economy conditions.
På stedet kunne det også konstateres, at der er tale om betydelige fordrejninger ved tildeling af lån til de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter fra den kinesiske bank/finanssektor.
It was also established on spot that significant distortions exist in loan attribution to the four related exporting producers from the Chinese banking/financial sector.
De fleste af lånene blev ydet af banker, hvori staten besad en betydelig aktiepost, med klare tegn på, at de finansielle institutioner tog hensyn til statens overordnede industripolitik ved fastlæggelse af koncernens kreditværdighed, hvilket førte til långivning til virksomheder, der befinder sig i en dårlig økonomisk situation.
Most of the loans were given by banks with significant shareholding by the State while clear indications exist that general state industrial policies were taken into consideration by financial institutions when establishing the group’s creditworthiness which resulted in providing loans to companies that were in a bad financial situation.
Under hensyntagen til ovenstående konkluderede man derfor, at de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter ikke har påvist, at de opfylder kriterium nr. 3.
Account taken of all the above, it was consequently concluded that the four related exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil criterion 3.
APP og EU-producenterne fik mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger til ovennævnte undersøgelsesresultater.
APP and the Union producers were given the opportunity to comment on the above findings.
EU-producenterne var enige i ovenstående konklusioner.
The Union producers agreed with the above findings.
De anfægtede ligeledes argumenter fra de kinesiske eksporterende virksomheder vedrørende indrømmelse af markedsøkonomisk behandling, fordi Kommissionen sideløbende var i gang med en undersøgelse vedrørende statsstøtte.
They also disputed arguments made by the Chinese exporting group as to being granted MET because the Commission is simultaneously conducting an anti-subsidy investigation.
Den kinesiske eksporterende gruppe var ikke enig i ovenstående konklusioner.
The Chinese exporting group did not agree with the above findings.
Med hensyn til kriterium nr. 1 fremførte man, at aktieoverdragelserne mellem gruppens virksomheder og betalingerne for disse er irrelevante for dette kriterium, eftersom kriteriet kræver, at virksomhederne skal træffe forretningsmæssige beslutninger som reaktion på markedets signaler.
With respect to Criterion 1, it was submitted that share transfers of the group’s companies and payments made thereon are irrelevant for this criterion as the criterion requires companies to take business decisions in response to market signals.
I denne henseende skal det bemærkes, at de mangler, der blev konstateret ved vurderingen med hensyn til markedsøkonomisk behandling (dvs. manglende dokumentation for betalinger for aktieoverførsler, urimeligt lave betalinger til statsejede aktionærer for aktieoverdragelser, ingen uafhængig evaluering af tilførte aktiver) indvirker på de forretningsmæssige beslutninger.
In this respect it is noted that the deficiencies identified in the MET assessment (i.e. lack of evidence on payments on share transfers, unreasonably low amounts paid to state-owned shareholders for share transfers, no independent evaluation of contributed assets) do have an impact on business decisions.
Det forhold, at en virksomhed kan undgå at erlægge betaling for aktieoverdragelser, bruge under/overvurderede aktiver som en del af sin aktiekapital og foretage aktieoverdragelser med statsejede virksomheder, der savner en økonomisk forklaring eller begrundelse, har direkte følger for dens økonomiske situation og evne til at træffe beslutninger som reaktion på markedssignaler.
Indeed, the fact that a company can avoid payments on share transfers, use under/over evaluated assets in its share capital and perform with state-owned companies share transfers that do not have an economic explanation or justification, has a direct impact on its financial position and its ability to take decisions in response to market signals.
Med hensyn til råvarer fremførte man, at Kommissionen skulle have undersøgt, hvorvidt indkøb af input foretaget af den kinesiske gruppes råvareleverandører var sket til markedspriser.
With respect to raw materials it was argued that the Commission should have investigated whether the purchases of inputs made by the Chinese group’s upstream raw material suppliers were made at market values.
Man fremførte ligeledes, at Kommissionens konklusioner var forkerte.
It was also submitted that the Commission’s findings are incorrect.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes det, at undersøgelsen påviste, at det er praktisk taget umuligt at spore, hvad gruppen betaler for en givet type af råvareindkøb.
In this respect it is noted that the investigation established it is practically impossible to trace back what the group pays for any type of raw material procurements.
Med hensyn til kriterium nr. 2 fremførte man, at EU har anerkendt de kinesiske regnskabsstandarder (GAAP) som værende forenelige med IFRS/IAS.
With respect to Criterion 2 it was argued that the Chinese accounting standards (GAAP) have been recognised by the EU as being equivalent to the IFRS/IAS.
I den forbindelse bemærkes det, at vurderingen af markedsøkonomisk behandling foretages i henhold til IAS og ikke de kinesiske regnskabsstandarder.
In this respect it is noted that the MET assessment is carried out in line with IAS and not the Chinese accounting standards.
Under alle omstændigheder og navnlig i lyset af den påståede overensstemmelse mellem de to sæt standarder ville det have været naturligt at forvente, at revisoren havde fremhævet de konstaterede uregelmæssigheder.
In any event, and in particular in view of the claimed equivalence between the two sets of standards, it would have been normal to expect that the deficiencies found in this respect should have been highlighted by the auditor.
APP anfægtede, at dens virksomheder overtræder de aspekter af IAS-reglerne, der nævnes i vurderingen vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling (periodiseringsprincippet, princippet om korrekt gengivelse af transaktionerne samt modregning).
APP disputed that its companies breach the elements of the IAS rules mentioned in the MET assessment (accrual principle, faithful representation of transactions principle and offsetting).
Men de fremførte bemærkninger undergraver imidlertid ikke undersøgelsesresultaterne.
Nevertheless the comments provided did not undermine the findings of the investigation.
Med hensyn til kriterium nr. 3 og navnlig brugsretten til jord fremførte man, at dette kriterium henviser til betydelige fordrejninger, der er overført fra det ikke-markedsmæssige system og ikke en statslig indgriben af den type, der er almindelig i lande med markedsøkonomi.
With respect to Criterion 3 and in particular to the LUR it was argued that this criterion refers to significant distortions carried over from the non-market system and not to state intervention of a sort that is common in market economy countries.
Således blev det anført, at de konstaterede fordrejninger med hensyn til tildelingen af brugsretten til jord ikke er specifikke for Kina, men også forekommer i Europa, eftersom der er tale om restriktioner indført af de myndigheder, der skal tiltrække investorer og sikre, at investeringerne er i overensstemmelse med de gældende lovkrav.
It was thus submitted that the distortions identified with respect to LUR allocation is not specific to the PRC but exists also in Europe as these are restrictions imposed by authorities in charge of attracting investors and ensuring that investments comply with the applicable regulatory requirements.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes det, at formålet med undersøgelsen under alle omstændigheder ikke er at afgøre, hvorvidt der forekommer fordrejninger inden for EU.
In this respect it is noted that in any event it is not the purpose of the investigation to determine whether any distortions might exist in the Union.
Desuden fastslog man ved undersøgelsen, at tildelingen af brugsretten til jord var direkte underlagt et stramt sæt regler (både med hensyn til betingelser og lejens størrelse), der udsprang direkte af det tidligere ikke-markedsmæssige system.
Furthermore the investigation established that land allocation was directly linked to a strict set of rules (both is respect to conditions and lease rates) flowing directly from the former non-market system.
Disse regler beskriver et centralt planlagt system, der ikke er i overensstemmelse med markedsøkonomiske principper.
These rules describe a centrally planed system which is not in accordance with market economy principles.
Med hensyn til lån anførte man, at Kommissionens konklusioner er udtryk for hypoteser.
With respect to loans it was submitted that the Commission’s findings are speculative.
I denne henseende bemærkes det, at man ved undersøgelsen påviste en klar sammenhæng mellem gruppens evne til at opnå bankfinansiering og gennemførelsen af mål udformet af den centrale kinesiske planøkonomi.
In this respect it is noted that the investigation established a clear link between the group’s ability to achieve bank financing and the fulfilment of objectives set up by the Chinese centrally planed economic system.
Man anførte ligeledes, at de fordrejninger, som Kommissionen havde identificeret, højst kunne være subsidier.
It was also submitted that the distortions spotted by the Commission may at most be subsidies.
Man anførte derfor, at eftersom der foregår en parallel antisubsidieundersøgelse, kan de påståede subsidier ikke være en begrundelse for at afvise markedsøkonomisk behandling.
It was thus argued that since there is the parallel anti-subsidy investigation these alleged subsidies cannot be a ground for rejecting MET.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes det, at man ved vurderingen vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling fastslog, at der forekommer fordrejning i lånetildelingerne fra den kinesiske bank/finanssektor.
In this respect it is noted that the MET assessment established that distortions exist in loan attribution by the Chinese banking/financial sector.
Der er tale om en fordrejning, der er overført fra det ikke-markedsmæssige økonomiske system, og det har ingen sammenhæng med, hvorvidt konsekvenserne af sådanne handlinger skal betragtes som subsidier.
This is a distortion carried over from the non-market economy system and has no link with whether or not the impact of such acts could be considered as countervailable subsidies.
I løbet af den foreløbige undersøgelse fremførte APP påstande om, at den kinesiske gruppe af eksporterende producenter skulle indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling for at undgå dobbelttælling med den parallelle undersøgelse af statsstøtte.
During the course of the provisional investigation APP submitted representations arguing that the Chinese exporting producers group must be granted MET so as to avoid double counting with the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
Man fremførte, at statsstøtten er en del af vurderingen vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling, har indvirkning på resultaterne heraf og derfor vil blive behandlet ved den parallelle antisubsidieundersøgelse.
It was argued that state subsidisation forms part of the MET assessment, has an impact to the MET findings and thus will be dealt in the parallel anti-subsidy investigation.
For at underbygge disse påstande henviste parten også til proportionalitetsprincippet og retten til forsvarlig forvaltning.
To corroborate these claims the party also made reference to the principle of proportionally and to the right to good administration.
Dette argument afvises af følgende grunde.
This claim must be rejected for the following reasons.
For det første bemærkes det, at kriteriet for markedsøkonomisk behandling fastlægges klart i grundforordningen og står angivet under betragtning 32 ovenfor.
First, it is noted that the criteria on MET are clearly set out in the basic Regulation and listed under recital 32 above.
Det forhold, at der i øjeblikket foregår en antisubsidieundersøgelse, fritager ikke den undersøgende myndighed for pligten til at sikre, at betingelserne for indrømmelse af markedsøkonomisk behandling er opfyldt.
The fact that there is currently an anti-subsidy investigation does not deprive the investigating authority from its obligation to ensure that the conditions for granting MET are fulfilled.
For det andet er spørgsmålet om »dobbelttælling« af antidumping- og udligningstold omfattet af bestemmelserne i den relevante EU-lovgivning, jf. artikel 14, stk. 1, i grundforordningen, og artikel 24, stk. 1, andet afsnit, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 597/2009 af 11. juni 2009 om beskyttelse mod subsidieret indførsel fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab [3], og afhænger ikke af, hvorvidt den pågældende eksportør indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Second, the issue of ‘double counting’ of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is regulated by the provisions of the relevant EU legislation, notably Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and 24(1), second subparagraph of Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community [3], and is not dependent on whether or not the exporter in question is granted MET.
Under alle omstændigheder er den foreslåede midlertidige antidumpingtold for alle de kinesiske samarbejdende parter baseret på skadestærsklen og ikke på dumpingmargenen, og dermed er enhver påstand om dobbelttælling ugyldig.
In any event as the proposed provisional anti-dumping duty for all Chinese cooperating parties is based on the injury elimination level and not on the dumping margin, any claim on double counting is invalid.
Man konstaterede, at to ud af de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter kun fremstillede multiplekskarton som nævnt i betragtning 23 ovenfor.
Two out of the four related exporting producers were found to produce only the multi-ply paperboard, mentioned in recital 23 above.
I denne forbindelse erindres der om, at man foreløbigt konkluderede, at multiplekskarton ikke skal være blandt de produkter, der er genstand for den igangværende undersøgelse.
In this respect it is recalled that it was provisionally concluded that multi-ply paperboard should be excluded from the product scope of the current investigation.
Selv om de foreløbige konklusioner vedrørende de berørte varer bliver bekræftet, vil konklusionerne vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling for disse to forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter ikke være relevant for denne procedure.
Thus, should the provisional findings with respect to product scope be confirmed, the MET findings with respect to these two related exporting producers will not be relevant for this proceeding.
I overensstemmelse med EU's praksis gælder det, at hvis en forretningsmæssigt forbunden virksomhed, der arbejder med fremstilling og salg af den pågældende vare, ikke opfylder kriterierne for markedsøkonomisk behandling, kan der ikke indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling til gruppen af forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder.
In line with the EU’s practice, if one related company associated with the production and sale of the product concerned does not qualify for MET, MET cannot be granted to the group of related companies.
Derfor konkluderes det, at APP-virksomhederne ikke kan indrømmes markedsøkonomisk behandling.
Therefore, it is concluded that APP companies cannot be granted MET.
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), fastsættes der om nødvendigt en landsdækkende told for lande henhørende under nævnte artikel undtagen i tilfælde, hvor virksomheder kan påvise, at de opfylder alle kriterierne for individuel behandling i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is 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 to be granted IT.
Eksportører, som er helt eller delvist udenlandsk ejede virksomheder eller joint ventures, kan frit tilbageføre kapital og fortjeneste.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits,
Statslige tjenestemænd i bestyrelsen eller i ledende stillinger skal være i klart mindretal, eller det skal påvises, at virksomheden er tilstrækkeligt uafhængig af statslig indgriben. Valutaomregninger foretages til markedskursen.
State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from state interference,
Begge grupper af kinesiske eksporterende producenter (dvs. APP og Chenming) krævede individuel behandling.
Both Chinese exporting producers groups (i.e. APP and Chenming) claimed IT.
På grundlag af de foreliggende oplysninger, som er blevet kontrolleret under kontrolbesøgene, fandt man, at både APP's og Chenmings samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter opfyldte kravene i grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5.
On the basis of the information available and verified during the verification visits, it was found that both APP’s and Chenming’s cooperating exporting producers fulfilled the requirements foreseen in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
I lyset af ovenstående fastslås det foreløbig, at de relevante samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter kan indrømmes individuel behandling.
Account taken of the above, it is provisionally established that the relevant cooperating exporting producers could be granted IT.
I henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra a), skal den normale værdi for de eksporterende producenter, der ikke er indrømmet markedsøkonomisk behandling, fastsættes på grundlag af prisen eller en beregnet værdi i et tredjeland med markedsøkonomi (»referenceland«).
According to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market economy third country (analogue country).
I indledningsmeddelelsen tilkendegav Kommissionen, at den påtænkte at benytte USA som referenceland med henblik på at fastsætte den normale værdi for Kina, og opfordrede interesserede parter til at fremsætte bemærkninger hertil.
In the Notice of initiation the Commission indicated its intention to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited the interested parties to comment thereon.
En af grupperne af samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter i Kina fremsendte bemærkninger, hvori man udtrykte skepsis over brugen af USA som et hensigtsmæssigt referenceland og foreslog Thailand som et alternativ.
One group of cooperating exporting producers in the PRC sent comments expressing scepticism with regard to the use of USA as an appropriate analogue country and proposed Thailand as an alternative.
Med hensyn til USA fremførte man, at en af producenterne i USA sandsynligvis ville være en virksomhed med tilknytning til en af klagerne fra EU.
With respect to the USA it was argued that one of the producers in the USA is likely to be a related company to one of the EU complainants.
Man anførte ligeledes, at de amerikanske producenter er involveret i en parallel procedure mod det samme kinesiske produkt, at de amerikanske producenter modtager store beløb i statsstøtte, og at deres udstyr er forældet.
It was also submitted that the US producers are involved in parallel proceeding against the same Chinese product, that the US producers are heavily subsidised and that they have outdated equipment.
Kommissionen bad alle de berørte parter om at fremkomme med forslag.
The Commission asked all the parties concerned for comments on the party’s proposal.
EU-producenterne var uenige i brugen af Thailand som et hensigtsmæssigt referenceland og bestred den kinesiske parts argumenter om de amerikanske producenter.
The Union producers disagreed with the use of Thailand as an appropriate analogue country and contested the arguments of the Chinese party with respect to the US producers.
Den thailandske virksomhed, der nævnes i den kinesiske parts dokumentation, blev kontaktet, men afviste skriftligt at medvirke ved undersøgelsen.
The Thai company mentioned in the Chinese party’s submission was contacted but submitted a written refusal to cooperate with the investigation.
Man kender ikke til andre eksporterende producenter af den pågældende vare i Thailand.
No other exporting producer of the product concerned in Thailand was known.