natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Skadesanalysen i denne antisubsidieundersøgelse er identisk med undersøgelsen i den parallelle antidumpingundersøgelse, idet definitionen af EU-erhvervsgrenen, de repræsentative EU-producenter og undersøgelsesperioden er ens i de to undersøgelser.
The injury analyses performed in the present anti-subsidy and the parallel anti-dumping investigation are identical, since the definition of the Union industry, the representative Union producers and the investigation period are the same in both investigations.
Bemærkningerne om skadesaspekter i begge disse procedurer blev således taget i betragtning i begge sager.
For this reason, comments on injury aspects put forward in both these proceedings were taken into account in both proceedings.
Kommissionen meddelte officielt klageren, andre kendte EU-producenter, kendte eksporterende producenter i Kina og en producentsammenslutning (en papirsammenslutning), repræsentanter for Kina, kendte importører og kendte brugere, at procedurerne var indledt.
The Commission officially notified the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers (a paper association), the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users of the initiation of the proceedings.
På grund af det tilsyneladende store antal eksporterende producenter, EU-producenter og ikke forretningsmæssigt forbundne importører fremgik det af indledningsmeddelelsen, at det påtænktes at anvende stikprøver i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 27.
In view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Som anført i betragtning 51 nedenfor, indsendte to eksporterende producentgrupper i Kina de nødvendige oplysninger og indvilligede i at indgå i stikprøven.
As explained in recital (51) below, two Chinese exporting producer groups provided the requested information and agreed to be included in a sample.
Som forklaret i betragtning 53 nedenfor besluttede man, at det ikke var nødvendigt at udtage stikprøver for EU-producenterne.
As explained in recital (53) below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for Union producers.
Som forklaret i betragtning 54 nedenfor besluttede man, at det ikke var nødvendigt at udtage stikprøver for ikke forretningsmæssigt forbundne importører.
As explained in recital (54) below, it was decided that sampling was not necessary for unrelated importers.
Kommissionen udsendte spørgeskemaer til alle parter, som den vidste var berørt af sagen, og til alle andre parter, der anmodede om det inden for de i indledningsmeddelelsen anførte frister, navnlig klageren, andre kendte EU-producenter, kendte eksporterende producenter i Kina og en producentsammenslutning, repræsentanter for det pågældende land, kendte importører og kendte brugere.
The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all other parties that so requested within the deadlines set out in the Notice of initiation, namely the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers in the PRC and an association of producers, the representatives of the country concerned, known importers and known users.
Der indkom svar på spørgeskemaerne og andre dokumenter fra to grupper af kinesiske eksporterede producenter, CEPIFINE, de fire klagende EU-producenter og endnu en EU-producent, 13 ikke forretningsmæssigt forbundne importører og forhandlere, 5 brugere og en sammenslutning af trykkerier.
Replies to the questionnaires and other submissions were received from two groups of Chinese exporting producers, CEPIFINE, the four complainant Union producers and one additional Union producer, 13 unrelated importers and traders, 5 users and one association of the printing industry.
Der blev aflagt kontrolbesøg hos følgende statslige myndigheder og virksomheder:
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following State authority and companies:
Kinas regering
Government of the People Republic of China
Det kinesiske handelsministerium, Beijing, Kina
Chinese Ministry of Commerce, Beijing, China
EU-producenter og -sammenslutninger
Union producers and association
CEPIFINE, Bruxelles, Belgien
CEPIFINE, Brussels, Belgium
Sappi Fine Paper Europe, Bruxelles, Belgien
Sappi Fine Paper Europe, Brussels, Belgium
LECTA Group (CARTIERE DEL GARDA SpA, Riva del Garda, Italien, CONDAT SAS, Le Plessis Robinson, Frankrig, og TORRASPAPEL, S.A., Barcelona, Spain), Barcelona, Spanien
LECTA Group (CARTIERE DEL GARDA SpA, Riva del Garda, Italy CONDAT SAS, Le Plessis Robinson, France and TORRASPAPEL, S.A., Barcelona, Spain), Barcelona, Spain
Burgo Group spa, Altavilla Vicentina, Italien, og dennes tilknyttede virksomheder Burgo Distribuzione srl, Milano, Italien, og Ebix sa, Barcelona, Spanien
Burgo Group spa, Altavilla Vicentina, Italy and its related companies Burgo Distribuzione srl, Milan, Italy and Ebix sa, Barcelona, Spain
Papierfabrik Scheufelen GmbH, Lenningen, Tyskland
Papierfabriek Scheufelen GmbH, Lenningen, Germany
Sinar Mas Paper (China) Investment Co Ltd., holdingselskab for Asia Pulp & Paper Group (»APP«)
Sinar Mas Paper (China) Investment Co Ltd, the holding company of the Asia Pulp & Paper Group (‘APP’)
Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industripark) Co., Ltd., Suzhou, Jiangsu-provinsen, Kina
Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) Co., Ltd, Suzhou City, Jiangsu Province, PRC
Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd., Ningbo, Zhejiang-provinsen, Kina
Ningbo Zhonghua Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, PRC
Ningbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd., Ningbo, Zhejiang-provinsen, Kina
Ningbo Asia Pulp & Paper Co., Ltd, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province PRC
Chenming Paper Group (»Chenming«)
Chenming Paper Group (‘Chenming’)
Importører i Unionen
Importers in the Union
Cartaria Subalpina, Torino, Italien
Cartaria Subalpina, Turin, Italy
Paperlinx, Northampton, Det Forenede Kongerige.
Paperlinx, Northampton, UK
UNDERSØGELSESPERIODEN OG DEN BETRAGTEDE PERIODE
INVESTIGATION PERIOD AND PERIOD CONSIDERED
Undersøgelsen af subsidiering og skade omfattede perioden fra 1. januar 2009 til 31. december 2009 (»undersøgelsesperioden« eller »UP«).
The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Den pågældende vare er coated finpapir, som er papir eller pap, der er coated på den ene side eller begge sider (undtagen kraftpapir eller kraftpap), i enten ark eller ruller og med en vægt på 70 g/m2 eller derover, dog højst 400 g/m2, og med en glans på mere end 84 (målt i henhold til ISO 2470-1) med oprindelse i Kina (»den pågældende vare«), som i øjeblikket tariferes under KN-kode ex48101320, ex48101380, ex48101420, ex48101480, ex48101910, ex48101990, ex48102210, ex48102290, ex48102930, ex48102980, ex48109910, ex48109930 og ex48109990.
The product concerned is coated fine paper which is paper or paperboard coated on one or both sides (excluding kraft paper or kraft paperboard), in either sheets or rolls, and with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 and brightness of more than 84 (measured according to ISO 2470-1), originating in the PRC (‘the product concerned’ or ‘CFP’) currently falling within CN codes ex48101320, ex48101380, ex48101420, ex48101480, ex48101910, ex48101990, ex48102210, ex48102290, ex48102930, ex48102980, ex48109910, ex48109930 and ex48109990.
Den pågældende vare er papir og karton af høj kvalitet, der normalt anvendes til trykning af læsestof som f.eks. tidsskrifter, kataloger, årsberetninger og årbøger.
CFP is high quality paper and paperboard generally used for the printing of reading material such as magazines, catalogues, annual reports, yearbooks.
Den pågældende vare omfatter både ark og ruller, som er egnet til brug i fladtrykspresser (CutStar).
The product concerned includes both sheets and rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed (‘cut star’) printing machines.
Ruller, der er egnet til brug i fladtrykspresser (»arkruller«), er beregnet til at blive skåret op inden trykningen og anses derfor for indbyrdes udskiftelige og i direkte konkurrence med ark.
Rolls suitable for use in sheet-fed presses (‘cutter rolls’) are designed to be cut into pieces before printing, and are thus considered to be substitutable and directly competitive with sheets.
En part hævdede, at varedækningen var for snævert defineret, og at ruller af coated finpapir, som er egnet til rotationstryk, skulle have været medtaget.
One party claimed that the product scope of the investigation was too narrowly defined and that rolls of CFP suitable for web-fed printing should have been included.
Det blev påstået, at ruller til rotationstryk og rullerne, der er omfattet af denne undersøgelse (arkruller og ark), har de samme grundlæggende tekniske og fysiske egenskaber og ikke kan skelnes fra hinanden.
It was claimed that web-fed rolls and the ones included in the scope of the present investigation (cutter rolls and sheets) shared the same basic technical and physical characteristics and were not distinguishable from one another.
Det blev desuden påstået, at begge anvendes til trykning af høj kvalitet, og at de derfor i et vist omfang er indbyrdes udskiftelige.
Furthermore it was claimed that both were used for high quality printing and that they were therefore to some extent interchangeable.
Men i modsætning til ovenstående påstand bekræftede undersøgelsen, at der er klare tekniske og fysiske forskelle, f.eks. på vandindhold og stivhed, mellem papir til rotationstryk og papir til fladtrykspresser.
However, contrary to the above claim, the investigation confirmed that there are indeed distinct technical and physical characteristics such as humidity and stiffness between paper used in web-fed and the one used in sheet-fed printing.
Undersøgelsen bekræftede endvidere, at de tekniske egenskaber under betragtning 18 ovenfor er specielle for ruller, der egner sig til brug i rotationstryk.
The investigation further confirmed that the technical characteristics listed in recital (18) above are unique to rolls suitable for use in web-fed presses.
Som følge af disse forskelle kan papir, der bruges i rotationstryk, og papir til fladtrykspresser, ikke bruges i samme type trykpresse, og derfor er de ikke indbyrdes udskiftelige.
Due to these differences paper used in web-fed or the one used in sheet-fed printing cannot be used in the same type of printing machine and they are therefore not interchangeable.
Undersøgelsen viste dog, at de to typer af ruller heller ikke er indbyrdes udskiftelige ud fra et økonomisk synspunkt, idet ruller til rotationstryk bruges til trykopgaver med stor volumen og normalt laves efter ordre og kræver »just-in-time«-levering, og derfor ligger disse produkter ikke på lager hos mellemmænd, men sendes direkte til slutbrugerne, dvs. de sælges også gennem en anden distributionskanal end ruller, der bruges til fladtrykspresser.
However, the investigation revealed that the two types of rolls are also non-interchangeable from an economic point of view because rolls for web-fed printing are used for mass-volume printing jobs and are generally made to order and require just-in-time delivery, therefore these products are not stocked by intermediaries but are shipped directly to the final users, i.e. they are also sold through a different distribution channel than rolls used in sheet-fed printing.
Det skal også bemærkes, at der i den betragtede periode ikke importeredes ruller til rotationstryk fra Kina.
Furthermore, no rolls for use in web-fed presses were imported from the PRC during the period considered.
Det kan også betragtes som usandsynligt, at disse varer importeres fremover, da det ikke er økonomisk holdbart at indkøbe sådanne varer på lang afstand, hvilket fremgår af foregående betragtning.
It may also be considered unlikely that these products would be imported in the future as sourcing these products from far away is economically not viable for the reasons mentioned in the previous recital.
Parten hævdede endvidere, at det af visse andre test, som gennemførtes i virksomhedens eget laboratorium til måling af rivefasthed af ruller til rotationstryk produceret af EU-producenter fremgår, at varerne ikke ville svare til den nuværende varedefinition, hvilket skulle vise, at kriteriet »rivefasthed« ikke er egnet til at skelne mellem coated finpapir til brug i henholdsvis rotationspresser og fladtrykspresser.
The party further claimed that on the basis of some other tests conducted in its own laboratory measuring the resistance to picking of web rolls produced by the Union producers, it can be seen that these products would not fall into the current product definition which would show that the criterion of ‘resistance to picking’ for distinguishing CFP used in web-fed and sheet-fed printing is unsuitable.
Med disse beviser påstod parten, at udelukkelsen af ruller til rotationstryk var tilfældig.
With this evidence the party alleged that the exclusion of web rolls was made on an arbitrary basis.
Der blev ikke fremlagt dokumentation for påstanden om, at papirets vandindhold kan gøre testresultaterne for ISO-test-standard 3783:2006 upålidelige.
No evidence was submitted with regard to the claim that the moisture content of the paper may render test results for ISO test standard ISO 3783:2006 unreliable.
De testresultater, som den eksporterende producent indsendte, bestod af et resumé af de testresultater, virksomheden havde gennemført i sit eget laboratorium.
The test results presented by the exporting producer consisted of a summary of the test results performed in its own laboratory.
Som noget helt afgørende, var disse resultater ikke tilgængelige for efterprøvning og bemærkninger fra andre interesserede parter, navnlig EU-erhvervsgrenen, og den eksporterende producent indsendte heller ikke et anvendeligt ikke-fortroligt resumé deraf til trods for gentagne påmindelser.
Crucially, the results were not made available for inspection and comments by other interested parties, in particular the Union industry, nor did the exporting producer submit a meaningful non-confidential summary thereof despite repeated reminders.
Efter fremlæggelsen af undersøgelsesresultaterne fremlagde den eksporterende producent ikke yderligere detaljerede oplysninger som kunne bidrage til en vurdering af testens pålidelighed.
After disclosure, no further detailed information was provided by the exporting producer which could help assess the reliability of the test.
Da der ikke blev fremlagt en ikke-fortrolig udgave af denne test, kunne de virksomheder, hvis ruller til rotationstryk angiveligt var blevet testet, ikke reagere på konklusionerne af testen.
Since no non-confidential version of this test was provided, the companies whose web rolls were allegedly tested could not respond to the conclusions of the test.
Kommissionen kunne således ikke objektivt undersøge, om de indsendte testresultater var pålidelige og korrekte og kunne anvendes som led i undersøgelsen.
The Commission thus could not objectively check whether the test results submitted were reliable and correct and could be relied upon for the purposes of the investigation.
På grundlag af de oplysninger, Kommissionen var i besiddelse af, blev testen ikke fundet tilstrækkeligt objektiv og pålidelig, idet de indsendte fortrolige oplysninger ikke kunne krydstjekkes med andre pålidelige kilder.
On the basis of the facts available to the Commission, the objectivity and reliability of the test was found to be insufficient since the information submitted under confidentiality could not be counterchecked by any reliable sources.
Efter fremlæggelsen af undersøgelsesresultaterne fremlagde den samme eksporterende producent resultaterne af endnu en test, der blev gennemført på dennes vegne af et eksternt laboratorium, og gentog, at coated finpapir, der anvendes til rotationstryk vilkårligt var blevet udelukket fra varedækningen i undersøgelsen.
After the disclosure of the findings, the same exporting producer presented the results of a further test conducted on its behalf by an external test laboratory and reiterated that CFP used in web-fed printing has been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
Det fremgik af testrapporterne, at rivefastheden blev målt på 25 stikprøver af ruller til rotationstryk, som den eksporterende producent leverede og identificerede for laboratoriet som stikprøver af papir fremstillet af EU-producenter.
The test reports stated that the resistance to picking has been measured on 25 samples of web-fed rolls provided and identified by the exporting producer to the laboratory as paper samples produced by Union producers.
Ifølge denne rapport opfyldte ingen af papirprøverne begge kriterier omhandlet i betragtning 18.
According to this report, none of the paper met both the criteria referred to in recital (18) above.
Gennemgangen af denne testrapport viste først og fremmest, at det eksterne laboratoriums testrapport overvejende vedrørte varer, for hvilke disse resultater var irrelevante, idet hovedparten af de testede stikprøver faktisk ikke var ruller til rotationstryk. Dernæst vedrørte testrapporten varer, der ikke var tilstrækkeligt identificerede, da det ikke med sikkerhed fremgik af testrapporten, om det testede papir var til fladtrykspresser eller til rotationstryk, idet det beskrevne papirmærke i rapporten findes i begge formater.
The assessment of the test report brought to light that, first of all, the test report by the external laboratory related mostly to products for which these results were irrelevant as the vast majority of the samples tested were not in fact web rolls; secondly, the test report related to products which were not sufficiently identified, as it could not be ascertained from the test report whether the paper tested was for sheet-fed printing or web-fed printing as the paper brand described in the report existed in both formats.
Desuden gav testrapporten ikke sikkerhed for, om de stikprøveudtagne ruller virkelig var dem, der blev testet.
Furthermore the test report provided no assurance that the sample rolls indicated were indeed the ones that were tested.
Som svar på det eksterne laboratoriums testrapport fremlagde klageren resultaterne af en test, som blev gennemført af en af EU-producenterne, af de samme stikprøver af ruller til rotationstryk, som angiveligt var blevet testet af det eksterne laboratorium.
In response to the external laboratory's test report, the complainant provided the results of the testing performed by one of the Union producers on the same samples of web rolls that were allegedly tested by the external laboratory.
Denne test viste anderledes resultater.
This test showed different results.
Klageren tilskrev disse forskelle mulige forskelle i testbetingelserne og dermed en eventuel manglende overholdelse af ISO 3783:2006-standarden, dvs. den standard, som rivefasthed skal måles efter, jf. betragtning 16 i forordningen om midlertidige foranstaltninger.
The complainant attributed the differences to possibly different test conditions and thus a potential non-compliance with the ISO 3783:2006 standard, i.e. the standard according to which resistance to picking set in recital (16) of the provisional Regulation should be measured.
Efter fremlæggelsen af de endelige resultater anfægtede den eksporterende producent Kommissionens objektivitet i forbindelse med afvisningen af testresultaterne fra det eksterne laboratorium.
After disclosing the definitive findings, the exporting producer questioned the Commission's objectivity in rejecting the test result of the external laboratory.
Producenten påstod, at testen var blevet udført som blindtest af en uafhængig ekspert og i overensstemmelse med den relevante ISO-standard.
It claimed that the testing was carried out blindly by the independent expert and in accordance with the relevant ISO standard.
Producenten fremlagde en erklæring på tro og love fra direktøren, hvori man uddybede processen til indkøb af stikprøverne for at bevise testens uafhængighed, korrekthed og repræsentativitet.
It provided an affidavit of its manager explaining the sourcing process of the samples used in the testing in order to prove the independence, correctness and representativeness of the testing.
For det første rejste Kommissionen aldrig tvivl om objektiviteten af det eksterne laboratoriums testrapport, og det er i den forbindelse irrelevant, at testen blev udført som blindtest.
Firstly, the objectivity of the external laboratory test report was never questioned by the Commission and in this regard it is irrelevant that the testing was carried out blindly.
Der blev dog rejst tvivl om sikkerheden i forbindelse med udvælgelse og oprindelse af de testede stikprøver, og altså ikke selve testen.
On the other hand, doubts were raised as to the assurances on the selection and origin of the samples tested and not on the test itself.
Den eksporterende producents argumenter udviskede ikke denne tvivl, da de ikke var sammenhængende og i flere henseender var uklare, f.eks. vedrørende medtagelsen af andre varer end ruller til rotationstryk, hvilket angiveligt var sket som følge af en administrativ fejl eller angiveligt skyldtes leverandørens levering af de forkerte stikprøver.
The arguments of the exporting producer did not remove these doubts as these were not comprehensive and were unclear in several aspects, for example the inclusion of products other than web rolls were claimed to have been caused by administrative errors or were blamed on mistakes by the suppliers in providing possibly wrong samples.
Da både kilden og stikprøverne af de angiveligt testede varer ikke var klare, og testresultaterne fra forskellige parter var modstridende, blev det konkluderet, at den indsendte testrapport fra det eksterne laboratorium på vegne af den kinesiske eksporterende producent ikke afgørende viste, at rivefasthedstesten ikke var egnet til at skelne mellem coated finpapir til brug til rotationstryk og coated finpapir til brug i fladtrykspresser.
Since both the source as well as the samples of the allegedly tested products were not clear and the results of the testing by the different parties were contradictory, it was considered that the submitted test report of the external laboratory acting on behalf of the Chinese exporting producer did not demonstrate conclusively that the resistance to picking test was not appropriate to distinguish between CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing on the one hand and CFP used in sheet-fed printing on the other hand.
Testrapporten viste således ikke, at coated finpapir til rotationstryk vilkårligt var blevet udelukket fra varedækningen i undersøgelsen.
Consequently, the test report did not demonstrate that CFP used in web-fed printing had been arbitrarily excluded from the scope of the investigation.
For så vidt angår relevansen af rivefastheden som et afgørende kriterium for ruller, der er egnede til rotationstryk, skal det erindres, at der i varedefinitionen sondres mellem to varegrupper bl.a. på grundlag af varernes endelige anvendelsesformål, dvs. hvorvidt varen er egnet til brug i rotationstryk eller fladtrykspresser ud fra kravene til de presser, som de skal anvendes på, hvilket bl.a. afspejles i egenskaber som rivefasthed. Det skal desuden bemærkes, at rivefastheden blot er en af de egenskaber, der anvendes til at sondre mellem coated finpapir til rotationstryk og til fladtrykspresser.
As regards the relevance of the resistance to picking as a distinguishing criterion for rolls suitable for web-fed printing, it is recalled that in the product definition the two product groups are distinguished from each other based on, among other things, the use of the products, i.e. whether the product is suitable for use in web-fed or sheet-fed printing as determined by the requirements of the presses on which they are used which is reflected in, inter alia, the characteristic of resistance to picking.