natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
En anden interesseret part tilføjede, at der med henblik på hemmeligholdelse i henhold til WTO-praksis kræves en gyldig grund for alle dokumenter, uanset om de i sagens natur betragtes som fortrolige eller ej.
One interested party added that in order not to be disclosed, WTO practice would require that good cause be demonstrated for all documents, whether considered confidential by nature or not.
I henhold til denne part er der i denne sag ingen gyldige grunde hertil.
According to this party no such good cause had been shown in this case.
Samme part påstod desuden, at hvis der ikke desto mindre indrømmes fortrolig behandling, bør dette til gengæld betyde, at der i hvert fald fremlægges fulde oplysninger om stikprøvens enhedspris og rentabilitetsindikatorer.
The same party also argued that should the request for confidentiality nevertheless be granted, this should in turn mean that at least the full details on unit price and profitability indicators of the sample could be disclosed.
Hemmeligholdelsen af klagerens identitet og af de producenter, der indgik i stikprøven, var, jf. betragtning 40-42, baseret på en behørig anmodning i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 19.
As indicated in recitals 40-42 the confidentiality concerning the identities of the complainant and the producers selected for the sample was based on a duly justified request further to Article 19 in the basic Regulation.
Det er derfor ikke korrekt, at klageren ikke havde en gyldig grund.
It is therefore not correct that due cause was not demonstrated by the complainant.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at de fulde oplysninger om enhedspris og rentabilitet bør fremlægges, fastholder Kommissionen, at dette set i sammenhæng med offentligt tilgængelige oplysninger, indirekte kunne afsløre klagerens identitet.
As concerns the argument that full details of unit price and profitability should be disclosed it is maintained that this, seen in context with publicly available information, could indirectly reveal the identity of the complainant.
En sådan fremlæggelse af oplysninger inden for gruppen af stikprøvevirksomheder ville desuden påvirke de øvrige stikprøvevirksomheders kommercielle interesser, da de også er konkurrenter på markedet.
Moreover within the group of the sampled companies, such disclosure would affect the commercial interests of the other sampled companies that are also competitors on the market.
Ud fra ovenstående ændrer de modtagne bemærkninger ikke konklusionen om at indrømme fortrolig behandling til de EU-producenter, der støttede klagen.
In view of the above, the comments received would not be such as to alter the conclusion to grant confidential treatment to the identity of the Union producers supporting the request.
Definition af EU-erhvervsgrenen og repræsentativitet
Definition of Union industry and standing
En række interesserede parter påstod, at Kommissionen havde anvendt definitionen af EU-erhvervsgrenen og EU-produktionen ukorrekt.
Several interested parties argued that the Commission had applied the definition of Union industry and Union production incorrectly.
To parter påstod, at en skadesvurdering skal baseres på oplysninger om klageren og de virksomheder, der støtter klagen, og ikke på grundlag af den samlede EU-produktion.
Two parties claimed that an injury assessment has to be based on information on the complainant and supporters of the complaint and not on the basis of the total Union production.
Dette ville i henhold til disse parter betyde, at de anvendte makroøkonomiske indikatorer, ikke var repræsentative.
According to these parties, this meant that the macro indicators used were not representative.
Det blev desuden påstået, at Kommissionen ikke havde udelukket en virksomhed fra stikprøven, som havde stoppet sin produktion i Unionen i løbet af undersøgelsesperioden.
It was also held that the Commission had failed to exclude from the sample a company that had discontinued production in the Union in the RIP.
Enkelte parter påstod, at inddragelsen af denne virksomhed havde forårsaget fordrejninger i de mikroøkonomiske indikatorer og i underbudsanalysen.
Some parties maintained that the inclusion of this company had distorted the micro indicators as well as the undercutting and underselling analysis.
Modsat påstod en anden interesseret part, der ikke anfægtede inddragelsen af den pågældende part i stikprøven, at alle denne virksomheds oplysninger og ikke kun oplysningerne vedrørende dens aktivitet i Unionen burde tages i betragtning i forbindelse med skadesanalysen.
Conversely, another interested party that did not object to the inclusion in the sample of this party, held that all data of this company and not only that relating to its activity in the Union should be taken into account for the injury analysis.
De samme interesserede parter påstod, at Kommissionen burde havde udelukket virksomheder, som importerede op til 25 % af den samlede produktion fra tredjelandene, fra definitionen af EU-erhvervsgrenen.
The same interested parties claimed that the Commission had failed to exclude from the definition of Union industry companies that imported up to 25 % of the total production from third countries.
Ifølge parterne var dette en ændring af metoden i forhold til betragtning 231 i forordningen om indførelse af de midlertidige foranstaltninger som led i den oprindelige undersøgelse, hvoraf det fremgår, at alle virksomheder, som havde udflyttet produktionen, var blevet udelukket.
According to these interested parties this constituted a change in methodology when compared to recital 231 of the Regulation imposing provisional measures in the original investigation, stipulating that all companies that had delocalised had been excluded.
Det blev desuden påstået, at Kommissionens generelle praksis for anvendelse af grundforordningens artikel 4, stk. 1, krævede, at virksomheder, der importerer ca. 25 % af den samlede produktion, udelukkes.
It was also claimed that the Commission practice in general as concerned the application of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, would require the exclusion of companies that import around 25 % of the total production.
I den forbindelse påstod en part desuden, at Kommissionen fejlagtigt havde konkluderet, at ingen af CEC's medlemmer havde udliciteret produktionen, selv om det modsatte klart fremgik af et indlæg, der blev fremsendt i løbet af undersøgelsen.
In this context one party also claimed that the Commission had wrongly concluded that none of the CEC members had outsourced production even when a submission showing the contrary had been submitted in the course of the investigation.
En række interesserede parter angav desuden, at der i det generelle dokument med fremlæggelsen af resultaterne var uoverensstemmelser, da det af betragtning 3 fremgår, at støtten til klagen udgjorde 35 %, mens den i betragtning 193 er på 25 %.
Several interested parties also indicated that the general disclosure document was inconsistent as recital 3 indicated that the support for the complaint was 35 %, while recital 193 indicated 25 %.
EU-erhvervsgrenen blev, jf. betragtning 193-200, defineret i henhold til bestemmelserne i grundforordningens artikel 4, stk. 1.
As seen above in recitals 193-200 the Union industry was defined as provided for in Article 4.1 of the Basic Regulation.
Analysen af situationen for hele EU-produktionen er i tråd med grundforordningens bestemmelser.
The assessment of the situation of the entire Union production complies with the basic Regulation.
Påstanden om, at skadesanalysen var baseret på en ukorrekt definition af EU-erhvervsgrenen, må derfor afvises.
The argument that the injury assessment was based on an incorrect definition of the Union industry must thus be rejected.
Hvad angår påstanden om, at en af virksomhederne i stikprøven burde have været udelukket, skal det erindres, at det af betragtning 23 og 196 fremgår, hvorfor denne virksomhed stadig indgår i stikprøven.
As to the failure to exclude one of the sampled companies, it is recalled that recitals 23 and 196 provides the reasons why the company should be retained in the sample.
Det konkluderes endvidere, at en eventuel udelukkelse ikke ville have nogen effekt på stikprøvens repræsentativitet eller skadessituation, herunder underbud.
It is further concluded that a possible exclusion would not have any effect, on standing or on the injury situation, including undercutting, of the sample.
Dette skyldes virksomhedens begrænsede vægt i stikprøven.
This was due to the very small weight of this company in the sample.
Det har derfor i praksis ingen betydning for analyseresultatet, om virksomheden formelt udelukkes eller ej.
Whether the company is formally excluded or not has therefore no practical implications on the outcome of the analysis.
EU-produktionen var udelukkende baseret på virksomheder, der hører under definitionen i artikel 4 (inkl. artikel 4, stk. 1), jf. betragtning 195. Ud fra de foreliggende oplysninger blev der ikke taget hensyn til retlige enheder, der havde udflyttet produktionen, og som burde udelukkes fra definitionen af EU-producenterne i henhold til artikel 4, stk. 1. Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at begrænset import ikke i sig selv er en udflytning. En mindre gruppe klagende producenter importerede ganske rigtigt, men kun i meget begrænsede mængder og under alle omstændigheder højst 25 % af den pågældende virksomheds samlede produktion. Ud fra det foregående er påstanden om, at Kommissionen afveg fra den praksis, der blev anvendt i den oprindelige procedure, eller fra grundforordningens bestemmelser, ikke korrekt.
As seen in recital 195, Union production was based only on companies that fall under the definition of Article 4 (including 4(1). Based on the information on record, no legal entities were taken into account that had delocalised and that should have been excluded from the definition of Union producer under Article 4(1). In this context it is recalled that limited imports as such do not amount to delocalisation. While a small number of complaining producers did import, these volumes were very limited and in any event at most 25 % of the total output of the company concerned. In view of the foregoing the claim that the Commission has deviated from the practice in the original case or from the provisions of the basic Regulation is not correct.
Hvad angår de påståede uoverensstemmelser mellem angivelserne af støtten i betragtning 3 og 193, skal det bemærkes, at det i betragtning 193 blot angives, at støtten er over det retlige minimum på 25 %, der er således ikke tale om en indikation af den faktiske støtte over denne grænse.
As to the alleged inconsistency between the figure of support of the complaints mentioned in recitals 3 and 193, it should be noted that recital 193 simply states that the support is over and above the legal minimum of 25 % and is therefore not an indication of the actual support over and above this threshold.
Periode i forbindelse med skadesvurderingen
Period for assessment of injury
En række parter påstod, at den periode, der blev lagt til grund for skadesvurderingen, var ude af sammenhæng.
Several interested parties claimed that the period for assessing injury was incoherent.
Det blev navnlig påstået, at det ville føre til et usammenhængende resultat at anvende den betragtede periode og 2005 som referenceperiode for visse indikatorer og den oprindelige undersøgelsesperiode for andre skadesindikatorer.
In particular, it was held that using the period under consideration for certain indicators, while referring back to the OIP and to 2005 for other injury indicators, would lead to an inconsistent result.
Andre interesserede parter påstod, at Kommissionen havde lagt data for 2005 og den oprindelige undersøgelsesperiode til grund uden dog at fremlægge disse.
Other interested parties claimed that the Commission had relied on data for 2005 and the OIP without disclosing these data.
Vurderingen af skadesanalysen blev baseret på resultaterne for den betragtede periode, dvs. fra 2006 til og med udgangen af undersøgelsesperioden.
The assessment of the injury analysis was based on the findings in the period concerned i.e. from 2006 up to and including the RIP.
Der blev kun henvist til den oprindelige undersøgelsesperiode og 2005 med henblik på at supplere analysen, men dette havde ikke en afgørende indvirkning på konklusionerne.
References to the OIP and 2005 were made only to complement the analysis but did not have a decisive impact on the conclusions.
Ud fra ovenstående afvises påstanden om, at perioden for skadesvurderingen førte til en usammenhængende analyse.
In view of the foregoing the claim that the period for assessing injury led to an inconsistent analysis will have to be rejected.
Repræsentativitet for så vidt angår stikprøven af EU-producenter
Representativeness of the sample of Union producers
En række parter påstod, at stikprøven af EU-producenter ikke var repræsentativ, hvad angår varetyper, størrelse og geografisk spredning.
Several parties maintained that the sample of Union producers was not representative in term of product types, size and geographical spread.
Det blev i den forbindelse påstået, at Kommissionen ikke havde uddybet den geografiske spredning af stikprøven tilstrækkeligt, og at stikprøven under alle omstændigheder ikke var repræsentativ, da der produceres fodtøj i mindst 7 medlemsstater, hvoraf kun fire indgik i stikprøven.
In this context it was held that the Commission had not given sufficient explanation for the geographical spread of the sample and that this in any event was not representative as footwear is produced in at least 7 Member states out of which only four were part of the sample.
Det blev desuden påstået, at især en medlemsstat var overrepræsenteret.
In addition it was claimed that one Member state in particular was overrepresented.
En interesseret part anmodede desuden Kommissionen om at fremlægge oplysningerne om omfanget af forarbejdningsaftaler i EU-erhvervsgrenen.
One interested party also requested that the Commission provided information on the level of tolling arrangements found with the Union industry.
En part påstod desuden, at damefodtøj var overrepræsenteret i stikprøven, og en anden part mindede om, at stikprøvens rentabilitet ikke var repræsentativ i forhold til det tal, der er udledt af klagen.
One party also claimed that women's shoes were overrepresented in the sample and another party recalled that the profitability of the sample was unrepresentative when compared to the figure deduced from the complaint.
Betragtning 28 indeholder en uddybning af stikprøvens geografiske spredning og dens repræsentativitet i forhold til den samlede geografiske spredning i Unionen.
Recital 28 provides details of the geographical spread of the sample and its representativeness as compared with the overall spread in the Union.
Det erindres i den forbindelse, at stikprøven i vidt omfang afspejlede den geografiske spredning af hele populationen, og at en helt identisk geografisk spredning ikke er nødvendig.
In this context it is recalled that the sample largely mirrored the geographical spread of the entire population and that an exactly identical geographical spread would not be necessary.
Desuden viste undersøgelsen, at ca. 60 % af stikprøvens produktion foregik via de såkaldte »underentrepriser« eller »forarbejdningsaftaler«.
Furthermore, the investigation revealed that around 60 % of the sample production was made through so-called ‘subcontracting’ or ‘tolling’ arrangements.
Da disse »underentrepriser« eller »forarbejdningsaftaler« også forekommer i virksomheder i forskellige medlemsstater, blev det sikret, at produktionen blev tilskrevet den ordregivende virksomheds medlemsstat.
In addition, as such ‘subcontracting’ or ‘tolling’ occurs also amongst companies in different Member States, care was taken to ensure that production was allocated to the Member state of the company that had ordered the service.
Ud fra det foregående vil en ændring af vægten for en medlemsstat ikke gøre stikprøven ikke-repræsentativ.
Considering the foregoing, a degree of variation as to the weight of one Member State will not render the sample unrepresentative.
I betragtning af, at underentreprisen og at to tredjedele af produktionen er koncentreret i tre medlemsstater, kan der ikke være krav om at inddrage repræsentanter fra 7 producerende lande.
Similarly, considering the subcontracting arrangement and the fact that two thirds of the production is concentrated in three Member States, there can be no requirement to include representatives from 7 producing countries.
Det erindres, at det af betragtning 29 fremgår, at EU-producenterne i stikprøven omfattede et tværsnit af varesegmenter, som i høj grad afspejlede tværsnittet for den samlede population.
It is recalled from recital 29 that the sampled Union producers were found to include a cross-section of product ranges which largely reflected that of the overall population.
Det samme gælder for opdelingen i herre- og damesko, selv om der er udsving i alle kategorier: herre-, dame- og børnesko sælges i betydelige mængder af virksomhederne i stikprøven og af den samlede population.
The same holds true for the gender division and although there are variations in all categories, men, women and children's shoes are sold in significant quantities by the sampled companies as well as by the overall population.
Hvad angår fortjenestens niveau, betyder forskellen mellem stikprøven og klagen ikke, at stikprøven ikke er repræsentativ.
As concern the profit level, the fact that there is a variation between the sample and that of the request does not render the sample unrepresentative.
Under alle omstændigheder skal det bemærkes, at stikprøvens rentabilitet er inden for samme interval som efter en analyse af samtlige oplysninger i klagen.
In any event, it should be noted that the profitability of the sample is in the same range as the one established when analysing all information in the complaint.
Toldsatsen i den oprindelige undersøgelse
Duty level in the original investigation
Visse parter påstod, at Kina var blevet diskrimineret i forhold til Vietnam allerede i den oprindelige procedure, idet der blev pålagt en højere told på importen fra Kina, selv om dumpingmargenen for Kina var lavere end dumpingmargenen for Vietnam.
Some parties argued that China has been discriminated vis-à-vis Vietnam already since the original case, because a higher duty was applied on Chinese imports although the dumping margin established for China was lower than the one for Vietnam.
Det blev desuden påstået, at Kina blev forskelsbehandlet på grund af den metode, der blev anvendt til at tilpasse skadesmargenen i den oprindelige undersøgelse.
It was also claimed that China was discriminated against by the method used to adjust the injury margin in the original investigation.
For det første anvender Unionen pr. definition reglen om lavest mulige told, hvilket betyder, at skadesmargenen kan anvendes til fastsættelse af tolden i stedet for dumpingmargenen.
First, it is law in the Union that duties are established in line with the lesser duty rule, which means that the injury margin may be setting the duty, instead of the dumping margin.
Dernæst blev det med henblik på at indføre den lavest mulige afhjælpning af skadevoldende dumping i den oprindelige procedure fundet nødvendigt at tage højde for ikke-skadevoldende mængder og værdier, som blev beregnet for at nå frem til den lavest mulige afhjælpning af den skade, som blev forvoldt af både Kina og Vietnam, og som resulterede i den indførte antidumpingtold.
Second, in the original case it was found necessary in order to impose the lowest possible remedy of injurious dumping to take into account non-injurious volumes and values, which were calculated to arrive to the lowest possible level of remedy of injury caused by both China and Vietnam, and which resulted in the duties imposed.
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at formålet med en udløbsundersøgelse er at vurdere, om de foreliggende kendsgerninger berettiger, at foranstaltningerne i deres nuværende form bevares i endnu en periode.
In this context, it is recalled that the purpose of an expiry review is to assess whether the facts at hand would warrant that measures in their current form be kept in place for a further period.
I betragtning af, at det ikke er muligt at ændre foranstaltningernes niveau som led i denne undersøgelse, kan påstandene i den henseende ikke tages i betragtning.
Considering that there is no scope for change in the level of measures in the context of this review, arguments to this effect cannot be taken into account.
BEMÆRKNINGER VEDRØRENDE SKADESANALYSEN
COMMENTS RECEIVED PERTAINING TO THE INJURY ANALYSIS
Kumulering af importen fra Kina og Vietnam
Cumulation of Chinese and Vietnamese imports
En interesseret part påstod, at betingelserne for en kumulering ikke var opfyldt, da tendensen vedrørende Vietnam adskilte sig meget fra tendensen vedrørende Kina.
One interested party claimed that the conditions for cumulation were not fulfilled as the trend concerning Vietnam was very different from that of China.
Det blev endvidere påstået, at importen fra Vietnam ikke længere kunne antages at forvolde skade, da mængderne i undersøgelsesperioden lå under de ikke-skadevoldende mængder, som fastslået i den oprindelige undersøgelse.
It was also claimed that imports from Vietnam could no longer be considered to cause injury as the volumes in the RIP were below those of the non-injurious volumes as established in the original investigation.
Det skal erindres, at der i betragtning 216 ff. blev gennemført en udvidet analyse, som viste, at betingelserne for kumulering var opfyldt.
It is recalled that an extensive analysis was carried out above in recital 216 and onwards showing that the conditions for cumulation were met.
På denne baggrund er påstanden om ikke-skadevoldende mængder ikke relevant.
In view of this fact, the argument on the non injurious volume is not relevant.
Virkningen af udlicitering
Effect of outsourcing
En interesseret part fremførte, at dokumentet med fremlæggelsen af oplysningerne viste, at EU-erhvervsgrenen fortsat udflytter produktionen.
One interested party indicated that the disclosure document showed that the Union industry is continuing to delocalise.
Dette viste iflg. parterne, at den gældende told ikke havde kunnet stoppe udflytningsprocessen.
According to these parties, this showed that the duties in place had not been able to stop the delocalisation process.
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at formålet med tolden ikke er at stoppe eller fremme en udflytningsproces, men at korrigere handelsforvridninger forårsaget af dumpingimporten.
In this context it is recalled that the purpose of the duties is not to stop or promote any delocalisation process, but to correct trade distortions caused by dumped imports.
Det skal desuden bemærkes, at en række virksomheder havde udflyttet produktionen til andre medlemsstater eller til tredjelande, som ikke er genstand for foranstaltninger.
It is also to be noted that several companies have delocalised to other Member States or to third countries which are not under measures.
Ud fra ovenstående kan denne påstand ikke accepteres.
In view of the foregoing, this argument cannot be taken into account.
Virkningen af de makroøkonomiske indikatorer
Impact of the Macro indicators
En interesseret part mente, at svarene fra de nationale sammenslutninger ikke var tilstrækkeligt grundlag for skadesindikatorerne, da man af deres besvarelser ikke kan udlede oplysninger vedrørende alle skadesindikatorerne.
One interested party considered that responses from national associations were not sufficient as a source for injury indicators since only information pertaining to some of the injury indicators could be deduced from some of their responses.
Parten anfægtede ligeledes, at der kun blev indhentet ni besvarelser.
The fact that only nine responses were obtained, was also challenged.
En række parter anfægtede de makroøkonomiske indikatorer, da disse var baseret på EU-produktionen som helhed og ikke på oplysningerne fra klagerne og de støttende virksomheder.
Several parties challenged the macro indicators due to the fact that these were based on Union production as a whole rather than on information from complainants and supporters.