natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Betragtning 18 og 20 indeholder yderligere kriterier, som ikke er blevet anfægtet af den pågældende eksporterende producent.
Furthermore it is noted that resistance to picking is only one of the characteristics that distinguish CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing from CFP used in sheet fed printing; recitals (18) and (20) above set out additional criteria which have not been contested by the exporting producer concerned.
En part påstod, at vandindhold, som defineret i betragtning 20, ikke var en særskilt egenskab til at adskille varerne.
One party claimed that humidity as defined in recital (20) was not a distinct basic characteristic to distinguish products.
Andre parter fremsatte dog anderledes påstande i den henseende i løbet af undersøgelsen.
During the investigation however differing claims in this regard were made by other parties.
I sin besvarelse erkendte klageren, at der kan være ruller, som ikke helt opfylder samtlige kriterier for rivefasthed omhandlet i betragtning 18, men som stadig kan anvendes til rotationstryk.
In its responding submission, the complainant acknowledged that there might be rolls that do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking referred to in recital (18) above, but which could still be used in web-fed printing.
Klageren fastholdt dog, at rivefasthed er den eneste test, der med sikkerhed kan afgøre, om en rulle er egnet til rotationstryk, dvs., hvis en rulle opfylder kriterierne til rivefasthed omhandlet i betragtning 18, er det med sikkerhed en rulle til rotationstryk.
However, it maintained its view that resistance to picking is the only test that is able to identify with certainty that a roll is indeed suitable for web-fed printing, i.e. if a roll meets the criteria for resistance to picking referred to in recital (18) above, it is certainly a web roll.
Til støtte for ovenstående påstande vedrørende rivefasthed henviste den eksporterende producent til argumenter, som blev fremført af en af de klagende EU-producenter i antidumping- og antisubsidieundersøgelserne i USA, i hvilke EU-producenten angiveligt erkendte, at ruller til rotationstryk ikke kan adskilles ud fra rivefasthedstest eller andre målinger.
In support of the above claims concerning resistance to picking the exporting producer referred to arguments put forward by one of the complainant Union producers in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the USA in which the Union producer allegedly acknowledged that web rolls cannot be differentiated based on resistance to picking test or by any other measurement.
Klageren anfægtede disse udtalelser fra den eksporterende producent og påstod, at det i modsætning til, hvad der blev fremført, af undersøgelserne i USA fremgår, at der er en klar opdeling mellem ruller til rotationstryk og coated finpapir.
The complainant contested these statements of the exporting producer and claimed that contrary to what has been claimed, it follows from the proceedings in the USA that there is a clear dividing line distinguishing web rolls from CFP.
For det første skal det bemærkes, at de udtalelser, som den eksporterende producent henviser til, blev fremført under en anden jurisdiktion og af andre parter end i de nuværende undersøgelser, og derfor ikke er relevante.
Firstly, it should be noted that the statements referred to by the exporting producer were presented in investigations under other jurisdictions and by different parties than the ones in the current proceedings and thus are not relevant.
Dernæst konkluderede de amerikanske myndigheder i nævnte undersøgelser, at der var en klar sondring mellem coated finpapir til fladtrykspresser og ruller til brug i rotationstryk.
Secondly, the US authorities in the mentioned investigations concluded that there was a clear distinction between on one hand CFP used in sheet-fed printing and on the other hand rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing.
Arkruller blev betragtet som halvfabrikata, mens ruller til brug i rotationstryk ikke blev betragtet som den pågældende vare.
Cutter rolls were regarded as semi-finished products while rolls suitable for web fed printing were not considered as product concerned.
De amerikanske myndigheder definerede ikke eksplicit ruller til rotationstryk i definitionen af varedækningen.
The US authorities did not explicitly define web rolls in their definition of the product scope.
Ud fra ovenstående bemærkninger blev den tekniske egenskab »rivefasthed« bekræftet som en pålidelig egenskab til at beskrive coated finpapir til brug i rotationstryk.
Based on the above comments, the technical characteristic ‘resistance to picking’ was confirmed as being a reliable characteristic to describe CFP suitable for use in web-fed printing.
Bemærkningerne viste dog også, at der findes ruller til rotationstryk, der kan bruges til rotationstryk, selv om de ikke opfylder samtlige kriterier for rivefasthed.
The comments put forward have however also revealed that there exist web rolls that can be used in web-fed printing even if they do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking.
Det blev derfor fundet nødvendigt at ændre definitionen af ruller, der er egnede til rotationstryk.
For this reason it was considered necessary to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for web-fed printing.
For at anvende endnu et kriterium for at definere ruller til rotationstryk, der ikke helt opfylder samtlige kriterier for rivefasthed, foreslog klageren, at en rulle, som ikke helt opfylder rivefasthedstesten, men har en kernediameter på under 80 mm, bør betragtes som en rulle til rotationstryk.
In order to provide a further criterion to distinguish web rolls which do not fully meet all the criteria for resistance to picking, the complainant suggested that a roll which does not fully sat the picking resistance test but has an internal core size of less than 80 mm, should be considered as a web roll.
GOC og den eksporterende producent påstod, at tilføjelsen af kernediameter som et nyt element i varedefinitionen udgjorde en ændring af definitionen af ruller til rotationstryk og dermed af den pågældende vare.
The GOC and the exporting producer claimed that the addition of core size as a new element into the product definition constituted a revision of the definition of web rolls and thus the product concerned.
Det blev desuden påstået, at kernediameteren ikke er et egnet kriterium, da der findes ruller til rotationstryk med en kernediameter på over 80 mm og arkruller med en kernediameter på under 80 mm.
It also claimed that the internal core size is not a suitable criterion as there exist web rolls with higher than 80 mm core size and cutter rolls with lower than 80 mm core size.
Kommissionen bestræbte sig på at foretage en yderligere ændring af definitionen af ruller, der er egnet til rotationstryk, og gøre definitionen klarere med henblik på endnu tydeligere at skelne mellem den pågældende vare og andre varer og at skabe færre muligheder for omgåelse af foranstaltningerne.
The Commission endeavoured to further refine the definition of rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing and to give further clarification in order to distinguish even more clearly between the product concerned and other products, also with a view to minimize the possibility of circumvention of the measures.
De fremlagte beviser for, at kernediameteren skulle være egnet som et alternativt kriterium i definitionen, viste dog, at dette kriterium eventuelt ville føre til, at arkruller med en kernediameter på under 80 mm ville blive udelukket fra foranstaltningerne.
The evidence submitted on the suitability of the core size as an alternative criterion in the definition however proved that this criterion would lead to the possible exclusion of product concerned, i.e. cutter rolls with a core size of less than 80 mm from the measures.
Dette kriterium til definition af ruller, der er egnede til brug i rotationstryk, blev derfor opgivet.
Therefore this criterion to define rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing was abandoned.
Ovenstående foregriber ikke pålideligheden af den metode, ifølge hvilken ruller, der er egnet til brug i rotationstryk, blev udelukket fra varedækningen i undersøgelsen, hvilket blev påstået af en kinesisk gruppe af eksporterende producenter.
The above is without prejudice to the reliability of the method according to which rolls suitable for use in web-fed printing have been excluded from the scope of the investigation as it was claimed by the Chinese group of exporting producers.
I løbet af undersøgelsen hævdede visse parter også, at multiplekspapir og multiplekskarton, som defineret i næste betragtning 47, bør holdes uden for undersøgelsens anvendelsesområde.
During the course of the investigation, certain parties also claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard,as defined in the recital (47),should be excluded from the scope of the investigation.
De hævdede, at multiplekspapir og multiplekskarton har andre fysiske kendetegn som f.eks. flere lag, større stivhed og lavere massefylde, og at den endelige anvendelse for disse varer er anderledes, eftersom de normalt bruges til foldepap og emballage.
They claimed that multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard had different physical characteristics such as multiple plies, higher stiffness and lower density and that the final use of these products was different as these are usually used for folding carton and packaging applications.
Multiplekspapir og multiplekskarton, som defineret i de forklarende bemærkninger til det harmoniserede system, pos. 4805, er varer, som fremstilles ved at sammenpresse to eller flere lag fugtig papirmasse, hvor mindst en egenskab er forskellig fra de andre.
Multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard, as defined in the Harmonised System Explanatory Notes to subheading 4805, are products obtained by pressing together two or more layers of moist pulps of which at least one characteristics different from the others.
Undersøgelsen viste, at multiplekspapir og -karton rent faktisk har en række andre fysiske og tekniske egenskaber. De har nærmere bestemt flere lag papirmasse, hvilket giver dem større stivhed.
The investigation showed that multi-ply paper and paperboard have indeed some different physical and technical characteristics; more specifically they are composed of several layers of pulp, which increases rigidity.
Multiplekspapir og -karton fremstilles ved en anden fremstillingsproces, der kræver en anden papirmaskine end den, der bruges til fremstilling af coated finpapir, eftersom flere lag papirmasse laves til et enkelt produkt under fremstillingsprocessen. Endelig bruges multiplekspapir og -karton til andre formål (især emballage) end coated finpapir, der bruges til højkvalitetstrykning af reklamemateriale, tidsskrifter osv.
Multi-ply paper and paperboard are produced by a different production method requiring a different paper machine than the one used for the production of CFP, as in the production process several layers of pulp are layered into a single product.
Multiplekspapir og –karton som defineret i betragtning 47 betragtes derfor ikke som den pågældende vare.
Finally, multi-ply paper and paperboard serve different purposes (mainly packaging) compared to CFP, which is used for high quality printing of promotional material, magazines, etc. Multi-ply paper and paperboard as defined in recital (47) is therefore considered as not being the product concerned.
De nævnte KN-koder, der vedrører import af multiplekspapir og multiplekskarton, er således udelukket fra undersøgelsens varedækning.
Consequently, the CN codes mentioned covering imports of multi-ply paper and multi-ply paperboard are excluded from the scope of the investigation.
Man fandt, at betegnelsen »pap« sædvanligvis bruges om papir med stor massefylde, hvilket generelt gør papiret tungere, dvs. »pap« defineres normalt som papir med en basisvægt over 224 g/m2.
It was found that the term ‘paperboard’ is generally used for paper with high substances making the paper in general heavier, i.e. ‘paperboard’ is commonly defined as paper with a basis weight of above 224 g/m2.
Det bemærkes ligeledes, at som beskrevet i betragtning 16 blev alt coated finpapir med en vægt på 70 g/m2 eller derover, dog højst 400 g/m2, eksplicit medtaget i definitionen af den pågældende vare.
It is also noted that, as outlined in recital (16), all CFP with a weight of 70 g/m2 or more but not exceeding 400 g/m2 were explicitly included in the definition of the product concerned.
Derfor betragtes pap som »den pågældende vare«.
Therefore paperboard is considered as being ‘the product concerned’.
Det blev konstateret, at den pågældende vare, der fremstilles og sælges på hjemmemarkedet i Kina, og den vare, der fremstilles og sælges i Unionen af EU-producenterne, havde de samme grundlæggende fysiske og tekniske egenskaber og anvendelsesformål.
The product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses.
Det konkluderes derfor, at disse varer er »identiske«, jf. grundforordningens artikel 2, litra c).
They are therefore considered as ‘alike’ within the meaning of Article 2(c) of the basic Regulation.
STIKPRØVEUDTAGNING AF EKSPORTERENDE PRODUCENTER I KINA
SAMPLING FOR EXPORTING PRODUCERS IN THE PRC
En gruppe (Chenming) repræsenterer to forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter, mens den anden gruppe (APP) repræsenterer fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter.
One group (Chenming) represents 2 related exporting producers while the other group (APP) represents 4 related exporting producers.
De samarbejdsvillige eksporterende producenter tegner sig for den samlede eksport af den pågældende vare fra Kina til Unionen.
The cooperating exporting producers represent the total exports of the product concerned from the PRC to the Union.
Man konstaterede, at to ud af de fire forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter i APP-gruppen kun fremstillede multiplekskarton som omhandlet i betragtning 47 ovenfor.
Two out of four related exporting producers of the APP group were found to produce only multi-ply paperboard referred to in recital (47) above.
I denne forbindelse bemærkes det, at det konkluderedes, at multiplekskarton skal udelukkes fra varedækningen i den igangværende undersøgelse.
In this respect it is recalled that it was concluded that multi-ply paperboard should be excluded from the product scope of the current investigation.
Det bemærkes desuden, at multiplekskarton blev udelukket fra varedækningen i de sideløbende antidumpingprocedurer.
It is also recalled that the multi-ply paperboard was excluded from the product scope of the parallel anti-dumping proceedings.
Det konkluderes derfor, at de to forretningsmæssigt forbundne eksporterende producenter, som kun producerer multiplekskarton, ikke er berørt af de igangværende procedurer.
It is therefore concluded that the two related exporting producers found to produce only multi-ply paperboard are not concerned by the current proceedings.
Denne forordnings resultater er således ikke baseret på deres oplysninger og tal.
Thus the findings presented in this Regulation are not based on their information and data.
STIKPRØVE AF EU-PRODUCENTER
SAMPLING OF UNION PRODUCERS
I betragtning af det potentielt store antal EU-producenter påtænktes det i indledningsmeddelelsen at anvende stikprøver i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 27.
In view of the potentially large number of Union producers, sampling was envisaged in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Men efter en gennemgang af de indkomne oplysninger, og eftersom kun fire EU-producenter gav sig til kende inden for fristerne i indledningsmeddelelsen, besluttede man, at der ikke var behov for stikprøver.
However, after examination of the information submitted and given that only four Union producers came forward within the deadlines set in the Notice of initiation, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.
Disse fire producenter blev anset for at være repræsentative (tegnede sig for 61 % af den samlede produktion) for EU-erhvervsgrenen som defineret i betragtning 372.
Those four producers were considered to be representative (covering 61 % of total production) of the Union industry as defined in recital (372).
Oplysningerne fra de fire virksomheder blev efterprøvet under kontrolbesøget og anvendt i forbindelse med mikroindikatorerne som beskrevet i betragtning 386.
The information provided by the four companies was verified on-the-spot and was used for the micro indicators as explained in recital (386).
STIKPRØVEUDTAGNING AF IKKE FORRETNINGSMÆSSIGT FORBUNDNE IMPORTØRER
SAMPLING OF UNRELATED IMPORTERS
I betragtning af det potentielt store antal importører påtænktes det i indledningsmeddelelsen at anvende stikprøver i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 27.
In view of the potentially large number of importers, sampling was envisaged for importers in the Notice of initiation in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Efter en gennemgang af de afgivne oplysninger blev det i betragtning af det lave antal importører, der gav udtryk for samarbejdsvilje, imidlertid besluttet, at det ikke var nødvendigt at benytte stikprøveudtagning.
However, after examination of the information submitted and given by the small number of importers which indicated their willingness to co-operate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.
Det erindres, at både GOC og de fire eksporterende producenter fra Kina indsendte spørgeskemabesvarelser og accepterede kontrolbesøg med henblik på kontrol af deres besvarelser.
It is recalled that both the GOC and the four Chinese exporting producers submitted replies to the questionnaire and accepted on-the-spot visits in order to verify the replies.
Hvad angår GOC, sendte Kommissionen efter modtagelsen af spøgeskemabesvarelsen tre mangelskrivelser og et brev forud for kontrolbesøget til GOC.
With respect to the GOC, following the submission of the reply to the questionnaire, the Commission sent to the Chinese side three deficiency letters and a pre-verification letter.
Kommissionen gav GOC rigelig tid til at udarbejde og indsende et indlæg, når dette var nødvendigt og berettiget. GOC blev indrømmet en væsentlig forlængelse af fristerne.
The Commission provided to the GOC ample time for the preparation and submission of its representations whenever this was requested and justified.
GOC fik to ugers forlængelse til besvarelse af spørgeskemaet, hvilket gav en samlet frist på i alt 49 dage til indsendelse af spørgeskemabesvarelsen og tre uger til besvarelse af den første mangelskrivelse, hvilket gav en frist på i alt 40 dage.
Indeed substantial deadline extensions were granted to the GOC, i.e. two weeks extension for the reply to the questionnaire which led to a total deadline of 49 days for the submission of the reply to the questionnaire and three weeks for the reply to the first deficiency letter which led to a total deadline of 40 days.
Forud for kontrolbesøget anmodede GOC Kommissionen om at fremlægge yderligere oplysninger skriftligt og navnlig en liste over de spørgsmål, Kommissionen havde til hensigt at stille under kontrolbesøget, og en liste over de statslige myndigheder, der forventedes at deltage i kontrolbesøget.
Prior to the on-the-spot verification visit, the GOC requested the Commission to provide further information in writing, in particular a list of all the questions that it intended to ask during the verification plus a list of the Government departments which were expected to participate in the on-the-spot verification visit.
Da disse oplysninger ikke blev fremsendt, påstod GOC, at Kommissionen ikke opfyldte sine forpligtelser som undersøgende myndighed, jf. aftalen om subsidier og udligningsforanstaltninger (»subsidieaftalen«) og navnlig forpligtelserne i bilag VI, punkt 8.
In the absence of these, it was argued that the Commission would not fulfil its obligations as an investigating authority set out in the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (‘SCM Agreement’) and in particular those contained in paragraph 8 of Annex VI.
GOC påstod endvidere, at man ikke ville være i stand til at garantere udkommet af kontrolbesøget, idet førnævnte oplysninger ikke blev fremsendt.
The GOC also submitted that due to lack of such information it would not be in a position to guarantee the outcome of the verification.
Kommissionen var uenig i anmodningen fra GOC.
The Commission respectfully disagreed with GOC's request.
Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at Kommissionen har opfyldt alle relevante betingelser i bilag VI, punkt 8, til subsidieaftalen og i grundforordningens artikel 26.
In this respect it is noted that the Commission has fulfilled all the relevant conditions of paragraph 8 of Annex VI of the SCM Agreement as well as of Article 26 of the basic Regulation.
Kommissionen sendte et detaljeret brev til GOC forud for kontrolbesøget, hvori tidsplanen for kontrolbesøget (dage og grupper af ordninger, der skulle drøftes pr. kontroldag) blev bekræftet, og hvori man anmodede om deltagelse af de myndigheder, der har ansvar for de relevante ordninger, og de tjenestemænd, der er involveret i udarbejdelsen af bemærkningerne fra GOC.
A detailed pre-verification letter was sent to the GOC confirming the agenda (days and group of schemes to be discussed per verification day) and requesting the presence of the authorities responsible for the relevant schemes and of the officials involved in the preparation of the GOC submissions.
Kommissionen forklarede endvidere før kontrolbesøget, at regeringen bedst selv ved, hvilket myndigheder, der har ansvar for de undersøgte ordninger, og hvilke tjenestemænd, der bedst vil kunne deltage i kontrolbesøget og besvare spørgsmål.
The Commission also explained before the on-the-spot verification visits that only the GOC knows the authorities responsible for the schemes under investigation as well as those officials whose are best placed to take part in the verification and answer questions.
Hvad angår listen over specifikke spørgsmål, forklarede Kommissionen før og under kontrolbesøget, at en sådan liste ikke er påkrævet i henhold til WTO's eller Unionens lovgivning, og at formålet med dette kontrolbesøg er at undersøge GOC's besvarelse af spørgeskemaet og relevante supplerende bemærkninger. Kontrollen følger derfor strukturen i disse dokumenter.
As regards the list of specific questions, the Commission explained before and during the on-the-spot verification visit that such a list is not required by WTO or EU legislation and that the purpose of the investigation is to verify the GOC reply to the questionnaire and the relevant supplementary submissions; therefore the verification would follow the structure of those documents.
Kommissionen havde desuden til hensigt at indhente og klarlægge yderligere oplysninger til den igangværende undersøgelse, men de nøjagtige spørgsmål i den sammenhæng afhænger af GOC's besvarelse af den oprindelige kontrol af besvarelserne.
The Commission would also seek to obtain and clarify further information necessary for the ongoing proceedings, but precise questions in this context would depend on the GOC's replies to the initial verification of its replies.
Før kontrolbesøget blev det desuden gjort klart for GOC, at hvis man afviste at fremlægge nødvendige oplysninger eller bistå den undersøgende myndighed med kontrol af oplysninger og tal, der skønnes nødvendige for undersøgelsen, kunne dette i alvorlig grad underminere undersøgelsesprocessen.
It was also made clear to the GOC before the on-the-spot verification visit that refusals to provide necessary information or to assist the investigating authority in verifying information and data deemed necessary for the purposes of the proceedings may seriously undermine the investigation process.
GOC blev desuden gjort opmærksom på konsekvenserne af grundforordningens artikel 28.
The GOC was also reminded of the consequences of the provisions of Article 28 of the basic Regulation.