natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Disse klagere står derfor i en vanskelig situation, idet nogle af deres kunder kan have indlysende grunde til at modsætte sig deres indgivelse af eller støtte til en klage over påstået skadevoldende dumping.
Those complainants are therefore in a sensitive position since some of their clients may have evident reasons to oppose their lodging or supporting a complaint against alleged injurious dumping.
De skønnede derfor, at der var en risiko for gengældelse fra nogle af deres kunder, herunder en mulig afbrydelse af deres forretningsforbindelser.
For these reasons they considered that there was a risk of retaliation by some of their clients, including the possible termination of their business relationship.
Repræsentanterne for visse eksporterende producenter og for visse ikke-forretningsmæssigt forbundne importører gjorde gældende, at de ikke var i stand til på passende vis at forsvare sig, fordi klagernes identitet blev hemmeligholdt.
The representatives of certain exporting producers as well as unrelated importers claimed that they could not properly exercise their right of defence because the identity of the complainants had not been disclosed.
De påstod, at de under disse omstændigheder ikke kunne efterprøve, om virksomhederne i stikprøven faktisk var repræsentative.
They argued that, in those circumstances, they could not verify that the companies included in the sample were truly representative.
Alternativt fremførte disse parter, at hvis fortrolighedshensynet imidlertid var begrundet, skulle de enkelte virksomheders oplysninger og data dog fremlægges fuldt ud.
In the alternative, these parties held that should confidentiality nevertheless be warranted, full disclosure of the individual company figures should in such case be given.
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at stikprøvens produktionsmængde fordelt på lande blev stillet til rådighed for alle de interesserede parter.
In this context it is recalled that the production volume of the sample, broken down by countries, was made available for inspection to all interested parties.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at alle oplysninger med undtagelse af virksomhedens identitet skulle fremlægges, skal det bemærkes, at en sådan fremlæggelse indirekte ville afsløre identiteten af den virksomhed, der indgik i stikprøven.
As concerns the argument that all information but for the identity of the company should be disclosed it should be noted that such disclosure could indirectly reveal the identity of the sampled company.
Den vanlige fremgangsmåde for fremlæggelse af ikke-fortrolige udgaver af spørgeskemabesvarelserne blev derfor opretholdt (dvs. med indekserede data) også i dette tilfælde.
The usual practice of disclosure of non limited versions of the questionnaire responses was therefore maintained (i.e. containing indexed data) also in this case.
På baggrund af ovenstående konkluderes det derfor, at parternes ret til at kunne forsvare sig var behørigt respekteret, og påstanden blev derfor afvist.
In view of the foregoing it must be concluded that the right of defence of parties was adequately preserved and the claim was therefore rejected.
Achten Beheer BV, Waalwijk, Nederlandene
Achten Beheer BV, Waalwijk, The Netherlands
Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Tyskland
Adidas AG, Herzogenaurach, Germany
C&J Clark’s International Limited, Street, Somerset, Det Forenede Kongerige
C&J Clark's International Limited, Street, Somerset, United Kingdom
Footex International BV, Hazerswoude-dorp, Nederlandene
Footex International BV, Hazerswoude-dorp, The Netherlands
Nike European Operations BV, Laakdal, Belgien
Nike European Operations BV, Laakdal, Belgium
Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, Herzogenaurach, Tyskland
Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport, Herzogenaurach, Germany
Timberland Europe BV, Enschede, Nederlandene.
Timberland Europe BV, Enschede, The Netherlands
Producenter på markedet i referencelandet
Producers in the analogue market
Henrich & Cia Ltda, Dois Irmãos, Brasilien
Henrich & Cia Ltda, Dois Irmãos, Brazil
Werner Calçados Ltda, Très Coroas, Brasilien
Werner Calçados Ltda, Três Coroas, Brazil
Industria de Calçados West Coast Ltda, Ivoti, Brasilien.
Industria de Calçados West Coast Ltda, Ivoti, Brazil
PARTERNES RETTIGHEDER
RIGHTS OF PARTIES
Hele vejen gennem proceduren gjorde visse parter indsigelser mod den angivelige forringelse af deres ret til at forsvare sig.
Certain parties raised objections throughout the proceeding concerning alleged impairment of their rights of defence.
De påstod, hvad angår EU-producenterne i stikprøven, at de oplysninger, der blev stillet til rådighed for interesserede parter, ikke var fuldstændige og ikke blev fremlagt inden for fristen.
They claimed that, as regards the sampled Union producers, the information contained in the file open for inspection by interested parties was incomplete and not provided on time.
Det skal i den forbindelse fremhæves, at samtlige virksomheder i stikprøven indgav den udgave af en parts besvarelse, som bliver stillet til rådighed for interesserede parter (en »åben besvarelse«), uden unødig forsinkelse og i henhold til de frister, der blev givet andre parter i undersøgelsen.
In this respect it should be underlined that a version of a party's response for inspection by interested parties (an ‘open response’) was provided by all the sampled companies without undue delays and in line with the time limits accorded to other parties in the investigation.
Når der indsendes en åben besvarelse til Kommissionen, kan den dog kun indsættes i et åbent dossier, når der er taget stilling til eventuelle fortrolighedshensyn, jf. grundforordningens artikel 19.
When an open response is submitted to the Commission, it may however only be inserted in the open file, once possible confidentiality issues have been resolved as provided for under Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Det skal desuden bemærkes, at Kommissionen er forpligtet til i god tid at indsætte oplysningerne i det åbne dossier, således at parterne kan udøve deres rettigheder.
It has also to be noted that the Commission has a duty to insert information in the open file in good time for parties to exercise their rights.
Denne forpligtelse er i det foreliggende tilfælde blevet korrekt opfyldt.
This duty has been duly fulfilled in this case.
Hvad angår fuldstændigheden af de åbne besvarelser, skal det bemærkes, at det indgår som en normal del af undersøgelserne, at parterne i løbet af undersøgelsen fremlægger supplerende oplysninger.
As regards the completeness of the open responses, it should be noted that it is a normal part of investigations that parties make additional submissions over time in which they provide additional information.
Disse oplysninger tilføjes det ikke-fortrolige dossier, når fortrolighedsspørgsmålene er løst.
These are added to the non-confidential file as soon as any confidentiality issues are resolved.
Denne procedure, hvor de interesserede parters indlæg gradvist indarbejdes i den dokumentation, der anvendes som grundlag for konklusionerne, og i det ikke-fortrolige dossier, indebærer ikke, at dossiererne er ufuldstændige.
This process, whereby the contributions made by all interested parties are progressively integrated into the body of evidence used to arrive at findings and into the non-confidential file, can not be confused with files being incomplete.
Derudover blev de elektroniske dokumenter ledsaget af en indholdsfortegnelse, som gav mulighed for i) hurtig adgang til de mange dokumenter i denne undersøgelse og ii) en datomærket fortegnelse over dokumenterne i dossieret.
In addition, the electronic documents were accompanied by a clear index allowing (i) for easy access to the many documents presented in this case and (ii) for a dated record of documents on file.
Desuden indeholdt en række sagsnotater i det åbne dossier oplysninger om henvendelser, som kunne få indflydelse på parternes ret til at forsvare sig.
Furthermore, a series of notes for the file inserted into the open file responded to queries which might have an impact on the rights of defence of parties.
Ovenstående gav parterne ret til særlig adgang og til at fremsætte omfattende bemærkninger i løbet af undersøgelsen, som Kommissionen derefter fremsendte til rette vedkommende.
The foregoing allowed parties to have enhanced access and to make extensive comments throughout the investigation, which were then addressed by the Commission as appropriate.
Parternes påstande om manglende fuldstændighed og overholdelse af fristen for de åbne dossierer må derfor afvises.
The claims as concerns the lack of completeness and timeliness of the open file made by the various parties must therefore be rejected.
En interesseret part påstod desuden, at Kommissionen havde diskrimineret importører og eksportører ved at tilbyde en mere favorabel behandling til de klagende EU-producenter i forbindelse med undersøgelsen.
One interested party also claimed that the Commission had discriminated importers and exporters by offering more favourable treatment to the complaining Union producers in the investigation.
Parten påstod især, at importører og eksportører i modsætning til producenter ikke blev tilbudt fortrolig behandling deres oplysninger.
In particular it was claimed that importers and exporters, unlike producers were not afforded confidentiality.
Det blev endvidere påstået, at klagerne fik en mere favorabel behandling, idet de ikke blev bedt om at indsende stikprøvebesvarelser ved indledningen af proceduren, og at klageren havde fået for stort råderum med hensyn til frister og kvaliteten af deres besvarelser, mens en eksportør i samme situation skulle evalueres på grundlag af foreliggende faktiske oplysninger, jf. grundforordningens artikel 18.
It was also claimed that the complainants were given more favourable treatment as they were not requested to submit sample forms at the initiation of the proceeding and that too much flexibility as concerned deadline and standard of responses were given to the complainant while an exporter in the same situation would have been assessed on the basis of best facts available under Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at det blev besluttet at hemmeligholde identiteten for de EU-producenter, der støttede klagen, efter en behørigt begrundet anmodning, jf. grundforordningens artikel 19.
In this context it should be noted that the granting of confidentiality to the identity of the Union producers supporting the complaint was based on a duly motivated request in accordance with Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Ingen eksportører eller importører indsendte en sådan anmodning, der opstod heller ingen begivenheder eller fremkom oplysninger i løbet af undersøgelsen, der kunne antyde, at eksportørernes eller importørernes interesser ville blive skadet, hvis deres identitet blev offentliggjort.
No such request was submitted by exporters or by importers nor did any events occur or any information come to the fore in the course of the investigation suggesting that the interests of exporters or importers would be impaired as a consequence of the disclosure of their identity.
Kommissionen konkluderede, at EU-producenternes situation i denne sag var grundlæggende anderledes end eksportørernes og importørernes, og påstanden om diskrimination kunne derfor ikke antages.
Considering that the situation of the Union producers in this context was fundamentally different from that of the exporters and importers, the claim of discrimination cannot be sustained.
Hvad angår udtagelsen af stikprøven, henvises til betragtning 19 ovenfor.
As concerns the selection of the sample, it is referred to recital 19 above.
Eksportørernes og importørernes situation adskilte sig ganske væsentligt fra de klagende producenters, da der ikke forelå nogen oplysninger herom.
The situation for exporters and importers was quite different from that of the complaining producers, as no detailed information was on file regarding the former.
Derfor var det nødvendigt at besvare stikprøveskemaet for at undersøge, om parterne var villige til at samarbejde og for at indhente de grundlæggende oplysninger, der er nødvendige for at udtage en stikprøve.
Therefore, the completion of the sample form was a necessity both in order to verify the parties’ willingness to cooperate but also in order to obtain the basic information needed for the selection of the sample.
Derfor måtte påstanden om diskrimination afvises.
Thus the claim of discrimination has to be rejected.
Hvad angår det råderum, som EU-producenterne fik i forbindelse med oplysningerne i spøgeskemaet som led i undersøgelsen, og anvendelsen af grundforordningens artikel 18, skal det bemærkes, at der ikke er grundlag for påstandene om diskrimination, idet eksportører og importører samt EU-producenter blev behandlet efter samme metode.
As concerns the flexibility afforded to Union producers in the context of information collected through questionnaires in the scope of the investigation and the use of Article 18 of the basic Regulation it should be noted that considering that the same approach was consistently used for exporters and importers as well as for Union producers, there could be no grounds for any claim of discrimination.
Den ubegrundede påstand afvises derfor.
The unsubstantiated allegation is thus rejected.
Vedrørende valget af referencelandet fremførte visse parter, at indiske og indonesiske virksomheder var blevet forskelsbehandlet på grund af de korte frister, tidsplanen og metoden til fremsendelse af spørgeskemaerne.
With regard to the choice of the analogue country, some parties submitted that short deadlines, timing and mode of transmission of the questionnaires discriminated Indian and Indonesian companies.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at fremsendelse af spørgeskemaer til Indien og Indonesien først kunne afsluttes ved udgangen af december 2008, da man havde indhentet de relevante producenters adresser.
In this respect it is noted that the sending of questionnaires to India and Indonesia could only be completed at the end of December 2008, after the relevant addresses of producers were obtained.
Kommissionen sikrede sig, at virksomhederne i disse lande fik samme frist til besvarelse som virksomhederne i Brasilien.
The Commission made sure that companies in these countries were given the same time for replying as the ones in Brazil.
Hvad angår den reelle fremsendelse af spørgeskemaerne, sendte Kommissionen anbefalede breve i alle tilfælde og e-mail, hvor det var muligt.
Regarding the actual transmission of the questionnaires, the Commission used registered mail in all cases, as well as e-mail whenever possible.
Ovenstående påstande må derfor afvises.
Therefore the above claims have to be rejected.
Visse parter påstod, at oplysningerne om referencelandet blev indsat i det åbne dossier med unødig forsinkelse og at dette skadede udøvelsen af deres ret til at forsvare sig.
Some parties claimed that information regarding the analogue country was put on the open file with undue delays and that this constituted an impairment of their rights of defence.
Kommissionen bemærker, at hovedparten af de første ikke-fortrolige spørgeskemabesvarelser fra virksomheder i referencelandet i denne undersøgelse blev anset for mangelfulde, og der blev derfor anmodet om nye og åbne versioner.
The Commission notes that in the present investigation, most of the first non-confidential replies to the questionnaires by companies in the analogue country were found to be deficient, and therefore new, appropriate open versions had to be requested.
Efter modtagelsen blev de indsat i det åbne dossier uden unødig forsinkelse.
Once received, they were put on the open file without undue delays.
I mellemtiden indsatte Kommissionen sammendrag om virksomhederne og deres besvarelser i det åbne dossier.
In the meantime, the Commission included in the open file summary information on the companies consulted and the replies received.
Disse påstande blev derfor afvist.
These claims therefore have to be rejected.
Den vare, der er genstand for denne undersøgelse, er den samme som i den oprindelige forordning, nemlig visse typer fodtøj med overdel af læder eller kunstlæder, undtagen sportsfodtøj, fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi, hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj samt fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Vietnam (»den pågældende vare«), som for øjeblikket tariferes under KN-kode 64032000, ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 og ex64051000.
The product concerned by this review is the same as the product defined in the original Regulation, i.e. certain footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toe-cap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (‘the product concerned’), currently falling within CN Codes 64032000, ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000.
Definitionerne i artikel 1, stk. 2, i den oprindelige forordning finder også anvendelse i forbindelse med denne undersøgelse.
The definitions of Article 1(2) of the original Regulation apply in the present investigation.
Definitionerne er som følger: »sportsfodtøj«
According to those definitions:
fodtøj i henhold til definitionen i underpositionsbestemmelse 1 til kapitel 64 i bilag I til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1031/2008 »fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi«
‘sports footwear’ shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008;
fodtøj, for hvilket cif-prisen pr. par er lig med eller højere end 7,5 EUR, til sportsbrug, med en støbt (dog ikke sprøjtestøbt) sål i et eller flere lag, fremstillet af syntetiske materialer, der er specielt beregnede til at afbøde stød fra vertikale eller laterale bevægelser, og med tekniske karakteristika som f.eks. hermetiske puder indeholdende luft eller væske, mekaniske stødabsorberende eller -neutraliserende dele eller materialer som polymerer med lav massefylde og henhørende under KN-kode ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 »fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe«
‘footwear involving special technology’ shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7.5, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
fodtøj med en indbygget beskyttelseståkappe og en modstandsdygtighed over for stød på mindst 100 joule (1) og henhørende under KN-kode: ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 og ex64051000
‘footwear with a protective toecap’ shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules (1) and falling within CN codes: CN codes: ex64035105, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035905, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039105, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039905, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000;
»hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj« fodtøj henhørende under KN-kode 64051000.
‘slippers and other indoor footwear’ shall mean such footwear falling within CN code ex64051000.
Den samme vare, som er genstand for denne udløbsundersøgelse, er som defineret i den oprindelige undersøgelse visse typer fodtøj med overdel af læder, som fremstilles og sælges på hjemmemarkedet i referencelandet og/eller eksporteres til Unionen fra Kina og Vietnam.
The like product subject to the present expiry review is, as defined in the original investigation, certain footwear with uppers of leather, whether produced and sold on the domestic market, in the analogue market, and/or exported to the Union from the PRC and Vietnam.
Varernes sammenlignelighed
Product comparability
Visse parter påstod, at den samme vare, som sælges i Unionen, ikke kan sammenlignes med den pågældende vare, som eksporteres fra Kina og Vietnam.
Certain parties argued that the like product sold in the Union was not comparable to the product concerned exported from the PRC and Vietnam.
Det blev dog konstateret, at den vare, der sælges i Unionen (i denne undersøgelse), kunne sammenlignes med den pågældende vare, som eksporteres fra de pågældende lande.
It was found however that the product sold in the Union (in this review) was comparable to the product concerned exported from the countries concerned.
Det blev i særdeleshed konstateret, at den pågældende vares fysiske og tekniske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål samt distributionskanaler var ens og ikke havde ændret sig siden den oprindelige undersøgelse.
In particular, it was found that the physical and technical characteristics and uses, as well as the channels of distribution of the product concerned were similar and have not changed since the original investigation.
Visse parter påstod desuden, at det system, der anvendtes til at sammenligne de varetyper, der solgtes af de forskellige samarbejdsvillige virksomheder i undersøgelsen, var uhensigtsmæssigt, da det ikke var specifikt nok til at sikre en rimelig sammenligning.
Certain parties also argued that the system used to compare product types sold by the various co-operators in the investigation was inappropriate because it was not specific enough to guarantee a fair comparison.
Det anvendte system (varekontrolnummer-systemet) gav dog mulighed for at sammenligne indtil 600 forskellige varekategorier eller varetyper opdelt efter fem hovedkriterier, nemlig fodtøjets stil, forbrugertypen, typen af fodtøj, ydersålens materiale og for.
However, the system used (PCN system) allowed for the comparison of up to 600 different categories or product types organised into five main criteria, namely style of footwear, type of consumer, type of footwear, material of outer sole and presence of lining.
Dette system blev desuden allerede anvendt i forbindelse med den tidligere undersøgelse.
Moreover, this PCN system was already used in the previous investigation.
Der blev ikke fremsat begrundede årsager til at ændre dette system.
No substantiated reasons have been put forward to show why it should be amended.
Derfor blev det system med varekontrolnumre, som blev anvendt som i led i den oprindelige undersøgelse, også anvendt i denne udløbsundersøgelse.
Therefore the same PCN system that was used in the original investigation was applied in the present expiry review investigation.