natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Som nævnt i betragtning 90 i forordningen om endelig told »rejste en række importører og eksportører tvivl om, hvorvidt det var hensigtsmæssigt at anvende data fra førnævnte indiske producent, da i) mængden af skruer, der produceres og sælges af denne producent på det indiske hjemmemarked, angiveligt ikke var repræsentativt for den mængde, der eksporteres fra Kina til Fællesskabet, og ii) denne indiske producent angiveligt har handelsmæssige forbindelser til en af de EF-producenter, der støtter klagen. Det skal i den forbindelse bemærkes, at i) den indiske producents salgsmængder blev betragtet som værende tilstrækkeligt repræsentative til, at der kunne beregnes pålidelige normale værdier, og at ii) valget af Indien som referenceland ikke er urimeligt, selv om den pågældende indiske producent har forbindelser til en EF-producent, der støtter klagen. Det blev endvidere bemærket, at disse forbindelser blev etableret efter undersøgelsesperioden. På grund af manglende samarbejde fra andre tredjelandsproducenter og i betragtning af ovennævnte blev valget af Indien som referenceland betragtet som rimeligt«.
As mentioned in recital 90 of the definitive Regulation, ‘a number of importers and exporters questioned the appropriateness of using the data from the latter Indian producer on the grounds that: (i) the quantity produced and sold in the Indian domestic market by this producer would allegedly not be representative of the quantity exported from the PRC to the Community; and (ii) this Indian producer has alleged commercial links with one of the Community producers supporting the complaint. In this respect, it should be noted that: (i) the sales volume of the Indian producer were considered sufficiently representative to allow for the establishment of reliable normal, values; and (ii) the fact that the analogue country producer has links to a Community producer supporting the complaint does not make the choice of that analogue country unreasonable. It was also noted that these links were established after the IP. Given the above and the absence of cooperation from other third country producers, the choice of India as analogue country was considered reasonable’.
I betragtning af konkurrencevilkårene og åbenheden på det indiske marked og i betragtning af, at den samarbejdende indiske producent solgte varetyper, der kunne sammenlignes med dem, som de kinesiske eksporterende producenter solgte, blev det derfor konkluderet, at Indien var et egnet tredjeland med markedsøkonomi, jf. grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7.
Given the conditions of competition and openness of the Indian market, and the fact that the cooperating Indian producer sold product types comparable to those exported by the PRC exporting producers, it was concluded that India was a suitable market economy third country within the meaning of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Noten om fremlæggelse af oplysninger angav, at disse data om hjemmemarkedssalg dækkede undersøgelsesperioden, dog uden det komplette varekontrolnummer (»PCN«).
The information disclosure note stated that the data regarding domestic sales covered the investigation period but without the Product Control Number (‘PCN’).
Den indiske producent kunne dog identificere den solgte skrues styrkeklasse, og hvorvidt der var tale om standard- eller specialskruer, jf. forordningen om endelig told.
The Indian producer, however, was able to identify the strength class of the fastener sold, and also whether that fastener was ‘standard’ or ‘special’ as defined in the definitive Regulation.
Behovet for at skelne mellem standard- og specialskruer var ikke fastsat på tidspunktet for undersøgelsens begyndelse, hvor PCN blev oprettet.
The need to distinguish between standard and special fasteners had not been identified at the start of the investigation when the PCN had been created.
Kommissionen bemærkede dog, at denne skelnen påvirkede prissammenligningen, hvorfor den indiske producent fremlagde disse data efter anmodning.
However, the Commission noted that this distinction affected price comparability and therefore this data was requested from the Indian producer and was provided.
Det indiske hjemmemarkedssalg blev således inddelt i »standard«- og »special«-salg, hvorefter styrkeklassen blev fastsat for hver transaktion.
Indian domestic sales were therefore divided into ‘standard’ sales and ‘special’ sales and then the strength class of each transaction was identified.
En normal værdi pr. kg blev udregnet for hver styrkeklasse, som oprindeligt identificeret i tabellen med varekontrolnumre (PCN).
A normal value per kg was calculated for each strength class as originally identified in the PCN table.
De resterende egenskaber fra det oprindelige PCN blev ikke anvendt, dels fordi den indiske producent ikke kunne fremlægge så detaljerede data, men også på grund af følgende:
The remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not used, not only because the Indian producer was not able to provide the data at this level of detail, but also for the following reasons:
Diameter og længde blev ikke dømt relevante, da analysen var baseret på vægt og således automatisk tog højde for forskelle stammende fra skruer med forskellig diameter eller længde.
diameter and length were not considered relevant because the analysis was performed on the basis of weight, thus automatically taking into account any differences resulting from different diameter or length of the fastener,
Der var ingen angivelse af forskelle angående krombelægning eller belægning generelt — dvs. angivelse af galvanisering — mellem den indiske producents varer og de kinesiske skruer.
there was no indication that there were any differences in terms of chrome on coating or coating in general — in essence an indicator of galvanisation — between the Indian producer’s products and Chinese fasteners,
Med hensyn til det sidste PCN-element, KN-koderne blev det vurderet, at der ikke var tale om en pålidelig indikator, idet de kinesiske og indiske myndigheder, i modsætning til EU-myndighederne, ikke opererer med 10 KN-koder for at definere det pågældende produkt.
in respect of the only other remaining PCN element, the CN code, it was considered that it would not be a reliable indicator since the Chinese or Indian authorities do not distinguish between the 10 CN codes used to define the product concerned as do the EU authorities.
Kommissionen fokuserede derfor på to afgørende forskelle mellem produkterne: dels styrkeklassen, dels forskellen på standard- og specialskruer, hvilket er en indikator for kunde- og kvalitetsforskelle.
The Commission therefore concentrated on two crucial differences between products: strength class, on the one hand; and standard vs special fasteners, which is an indicator of customer differences and quality differences, on the other hand.
Den normale værdi blev angivet ab fabrik og tilpasset for at tage højde for priseffekten af den kvalitetskontrol, der udføres af den indiske producent, men ikke i Kina.
The normal value was expressed ex-works, minus an adjustment to remove the price effect of the quality control performed by the Indian producer which was not performed in China.
Kommissionen meddelte alle interesserede parter, at den normale værdi ikke kunne afsløres, da der var tale om en enkelt indisk producents fortrolige pris på hjemmemarkedet.
The Commission informed all interested parties that the normal value could not be disclosed as it concerns the confidential price of a single Indian producer on the domestic market.
De interesserede parter blev dog meddelt, at den normale »standard«-værdi for en skrue i styrkeklasse 8.8 (»G« i PCN-tabellen), en produkttype, der ofte eksporteres af kinesiske producenter, vurderedes til mellem 9 og 12 CNY pr. kg ab fabrik.
However, interested parties were informed that the ‘standard’ normal value for an 8.8 strength class fastener (‘G’ in the PCN table), which is a standard type commonly exported by Chinese producers, was calculated in the range of 9 to 12 CNY per kg ex-works.
Bemærkninger til note om fremlæggelse af oplysninger af 30. maj 2012
Comments received to the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012
En importør og fire eksporterende producenter hævdede, at tidsfristen for parterne til at fremsætte bemærkninger til de supplerende oplysninger (10 dage) var for kort.
One importer and four exporting producers alleged that the time given to parties to comment on the additional information (10 days) was too short.
Kommissionen mener dog, at ovenstående tidsfrist var passende, idet de givne oplysninger blot supplerede oplysningerne i forordningen om endelig told efter den oprindelige undersøgelse.
However, the Commission considers that the abovementioned time limit was appropriate, given that the information provided was only a supplement to that already disclosed in the definitive Regulation, at the end of the original investigation.
Tidsfristen for at gennemlæse og kommentere disse supplerende oplysninger blev således betragtet som værende rimelig.
The time granted to examine and comment on this additional information was therefore considered reasonable.
Visse parter hævdede, at Kommissionen havde angivet, at den ikke rådede over nye oplysninger om de fysiske egenskaber ud over styrkeklassen for de produkter, der blev brugt til fastsættelsen af den normale værdi.
Some parties alleged that the Commission had stated that it did not have any new information regarding the physical characteristics other than strength class of the products used for the determination of the normal value.
Denne påstand bør afvises.
That claim should be rejected.
På dette tidspunkt i undersøgelsen fremlagde Kommissionen blot supplerende oplysninger om, hvorledes den normale værdi blev udregnet under den oprindelige undersøgelse.
At that stage of the review, the Commission was merely providing additional clarification about how normal value had been established in the original investigation.
Det skal understreges, at de kinesiske eksporterende producenter havde udpeget »styrke« som en relevant egenskab.
It is important to emphasise that ‘strength’ had been identified as one of the relevant characteristics by the Chinese exporting producers.
Dette indebar dog ikke, at Kommissionen ikke rådede over oplysninger om andre fysiske egenskaber.
However, this did not imply that the Commission did not have any information regarding other physical characteristics.
Samme parter hævdede, at Kommissionen under høringerne angav, at den, med hensyn til de mulige justeringer for sammenligning mellem eksportpriserne og den normale værdi, ville privilegere en justering på grundlag af en analyse af priser frem for omkostninger.
The same parties claimed that the Commission stated, during hearings, in regard to possible adjustments to be made for the purpose of comparison between export prices and the normal value that a preference would be given for adjusting on the basis of a price analysis rather than a cost analysis.
Faktisk præciserede Kommissionen, at, i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, bør en sammenligning foretages med passende hensyntagen til de forskelle, der påvirker prissammenligneligheden og ikke forskellene i omkostninger.
In fact the Commission clarified that according to Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, a comparison should be made with due account taken of differences which affect price comparability and not to cost differences.
Efterfølgende gentog disse parter deres påstand om, at disse justeringer burde tage højde for forskelle i produktionsomkostninger, såsom forskelle i råmaterialets energiforbrug, forbruget af valsetråd, af elektricitet og selvgenereret elektricitet, i produktivitet pr. medarbejder, den rimelige fortjeneste og forskelle med hensyn til værktøj.
Subsequently, these parties repeated their claim that adjustments should be made to take into account the differences in cost of production such as differences in efficiency of consumption of the raw material; differences in wire rod consumption; in electricity consumption, in self-generated electricity, in productivity per employee, in reasonable profit level and in differences related to tooling.
Som angivet ovenfor henviser artikel 2, stk. 10, i grundforordningen til priser og ikke omkostninger.
As stated above, Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation is referring to price and not cost.
Disse parter fremførte ingen beviser for, at de påståede forskelle i omkostninger gav sig udslag i prisforskelle.
There was no evidence adduced by these parties that the alleged differences in cost translated into differences in prices.
Der mindes i denne forbindelse desuden om, at der, ved undersøgelser omfattende overgangsøkonomier som Kina, anvendes et referenceland, når det anses for påkrævet, for at undgå at medtage priser og omkostninger, der ikke skyldes normale markedskræfter i lande uden markedsøkonomi.
In investigations concerning economies in transition such as China, an analogue country is used when warranted to prevent account being taken of prices and costs in non-market economy countries which are not the normal result of market forces.
Således, med henblik på at fastsætte den normale værdi, erstattes omkostninger og priser for producenterne i lande med fungerende markedsøkonomi.
Thus, for the purpose of establishing the normal value, a surrogate of the costs and prices of producers in functioning market economies is used.
På dette grundlag afvises disse krav om at justere for forskelle i produktionsomkostninger.
Therefore, these claims for adjustments taking into account the differences in cost of production are rejected.
Samme parter hævdede yderligere, at de supplerende oplysninger fremlagt den 30. maj 2012 vedrørende egenskaber for produkter solgt af den indiske producent var utilstrækkelige, idet der efter sigende manglede information om følgende områder: forskelle vedrørende skruetypen, belægning og anvendelse af krom, diameter og længde, sporbarhed, ISO 9000 og fejlrate samt andre aspekter vedrørende hårdhed, bøjelighed, styrke, slagstyrke og andre friktionskoefficienter.
These parties further argued that the additional information provided on 30 May 2012 regarding the characteristics of the products sold by the Indian producer was incomplete in so far as information regarding the following issues was allegedly missing: differences related to type of fastener; coating and use of chrome; diameter and length; traceability; ISO 9000; unit of defective rate; and other aspects of hardness, bending, strength, impact toughness and other friction coefficients.
De ønskede afklaring om årsagerne til, at de øvrige egenskaber i det oprindelige PCN ikke blev dømt relevante.
They sought clarification regarding the reasons why the remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not deemed relevant.
Disse spørgsmål blev forklaret i to noter om fremlæggelse af oplysninger, afsendt den 5. juli og placeret i det dossier, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter, den 11. juli 2012.
These issues were explained in two information disclosure notes respectively sent on 5 July 2012 and put in the file for inspection by interested parties on 11 July 2012.
Note om fremlæggelse af oplysninger af 5. juli 2012
Information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
En tabel med de forskellige prisniveauer for de normale værdier, udregnet pr. styrkeklasse for standardskruer solgt på det indiske hjemmemarked til selvstændige kunder af den samarbejdende indiske producent.
A table showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal values calculated by strength class for standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent customers, by the sole Indian cooperating producer.
Det blev desuden pointeret, at størstedelen af de varer, der eksporteres af kinesiske producenter, ligger i styrkeklasse G.
It was also specified that the vast majority of exports by the Chinese producers fall under strength class G.
En dybdegående analyse af data fra Indien viste, at standardskruer solgt på hjemmemarkedet var elektropletterede med PCN-kode »A«.
An in-depth analysis of the data in India showed that standard fasteners sold on the domestic market were electroplated corresponding to the PCN Code ‘A’.
Derfor foreslog Kommissionen at sammenligne den normale værdi med belægningstype A for eksportvarer.
Therefore, the Commission proposed to compare the normal value with coating type A for exported models.
Efter manuel analyse af prisdata for det indiske hjemmemarked blev der udtrukket information om diameter og længde fra tekststrengen med den indiske producents salgskoder.
Following a manual analysis of the Indian domestic price data, information on diameter and length were extracted from the text string of sales coding used by the Indian producer.
For at muliggøre sammenligning med de kinesiske virksomheders eksport blev disse data sammendraget i kategorier for at skelne mellem de to overordnede produktstørrelser:
To allow for a comparison with the exports of the Chinese companies, this data was summarised into ranges to distinguish between the main product dimensions:
M4 til M10
M4 to M10
0 til 100 mm
0 to 100 mm
M12 til M20
M12 to M20
100 til 200 mm
100 to 200 mm
M22 til M30
M22 to M30
200 til 300 mm
200 to 300 mm
Kommissionen foreslog derfor at anvende disse data for yderligere at indskærpe den normale værdi og udregne dumpingmargener på dette grundlag.
The Commission therefore proposed to use this data to further refine the normal value and calculate dumping margins on this basis.
Eksporterede skruer uden for disse kategorier blev ikke medtaget i dumpingberegningerne.
Where exported fasteners did not fall into these ranges they would not be used in the dumping calculation.
Dette omfattede kun en ubetydelig eksportmængde.
This affected only a very small amount of exports.
Som reference fremlagde Kommissionen de foreslåede reviderede PCN:
The Commission provided for reference the proposed revised PCN:
Standardskrue
Standard fastener
Specialskrue
Special fastener
Styrkeklasse
Strength class
Elektropletteret belægning
Electroplated coating
101 til 200 mm
101 to 200 mm
201 til 300 mm
201 to 300 mm
Kommissionen fremlagde en oversigt over dumpingmarginer, ændret i henhold til forslaget i noten om fremlæggelse af oplysninger, idet den bemærkede, at disse reviderede antidumpingmargener ikke automatisk ville udgøre antidumpingtold, der er underlagt reglen om mindste told.
The Commission provided an overview of the dumping margins modified as per the proposal listed in the information disclosure note, noting that these revised anti-dumping margins would not be automatically the anti-dumping duties, which would be subject to the lesser duty rule.
Endelig blev der fremlagt nye tabeller: 22, 23, 32, 33 og 34 for en EU-producent som svar på bemærkningerne fra visse interesserede parter om, at de supplerende oplysninger i noten om videregivelse af oplysninger af 30. maj 2012 var utilstrækkelige, idet visse elementer i tabellerne manglede eller var fejlagtigt sammendraget.
Finally, new Tables 22, 23, 32, 33 and 34 of one EU producer were provided in reply to the comments made by some interested parties that the additional information provided with the information disclosure note of 30 May 2012 was incomplete, in so far as some elements in those Tables were missing or not properly summarised.
Bemærkninger til note om fremlæggelse af oplysninger af 5. juli 2012
Comments to the information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
Visse parter efterspurgte supplerende oplysninger om prisniveauet for den normale værdi.
Some parties requested additional information on the price level of the normal value.
Som angivet i betragtning 82 ovenfor kunne prisniveauet ikke oplyses til de interesserede partier, da der er tale om fortrolig information om en enkelt referenceproducents priser.
As mentioned in recital 82 below, the price level could not be disclosed to interested parties as it is confidential information concerning the prices of a single analogue producer.
Dog blev en ikkefortrolig version af den normale værdi pr. styrkeklasse for standardskruer offentliggjort den 5. juli 2012 til de kinesiske eksporterende producenter, der efterspurgte sådanne yderligere oplysninger, og placeret i dossieret, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter, den 11. juli 2012.
However, a non-confidential version of the normal value by strength class for standard fasteners was disclosed on 5 July 2012 to those Chinese exporting producers who requested such further information and was also placed in the file for inspection by interested parties.
I denne note fremlagde Kommissionen en tabel med de forskellige priskategorier for de normale værdier, udregnet pr. styrkeklasse for standardskruer solgt på det indiske hjemmemarked til selvstændige kunder af den samarbejdende indiske producent.
In this note, the Commission provided a table showing the ranges of the price levels of the normal values calculated by strength class for standard fasteners sold on the Indian domestic market, to independent customers, by the sole Indian cooperating producer.
Ved en høring afholdt den 11. juli 2012 bad samme parter Kommissionen forklare, hvorledes den indiske producent havde foretaget opdelingen af den normale værdi mellem special- og standardskruer. Kommissionen oplyste, at dette var gjort på grundlag af kundenavnene.
During a hearing held on 11 July 2012, the same parties asked the Commission to explain how the split of the normal value between special and standard fasteners by the Indian producer had been carried out.
Som det fremgår af høringsreferatet, udarbejdet af høringskonsulenten ved GD for Handel, udtalte Kommissionen dog, før høringens afslutning, at den skulle kaste yderligere lys over dette spørgsmål.
The Commission indicated that it had been done on the basis of the names of the customers.
Dette blev gjort i en oplysningsnote af 13. juli 2012, sendt til de parter, der tog del i høringen, og placeret i dossieret, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter.
However, as evidenced by the minutes produced by the Hearing Officer for Trade DG, the Commission stated before the end of the hearing that it would have to clarify this issue, which it did in a further note for information of 13 July 2012 that was sent to the parties which participated in the hearing and was placed in the non-confidential file for consultation by all interested parties.
De nævnte parters påstand om, at Kommissionen udtalte, at »opdelingen af den normale værdi mellem special- og standardskruer blev blandt andet foretaget på grundlag af kundenavnene« er således ufuldstændig, da yderligere oplysninger er kommet for dagen, som angivet i nedenstående betragtning.
The statement made by the said parties according to which the Commission stated that ‘the split of the normal value between special and standard fasteners was carried out, inter alia, on the basis of the names of the customers’, is therefore incomplete as more information regarding this issue has been provided as mentioned in the recital below.
Det kinesiske handelskammer og en kinesisk eksporterende producent fremførte påstande i lighed med ovenstående angående den mulige inkludering af skruer til bilindustrien i den normale værdi. De hævdede desuden, at selv bilskruer, der ikke er fremstillet efter individuelt design, skal undergå særlig kvalitetskontrol eller opfylde sporbarhedskrav, der gør dem dyrere, og at disse bør betragtes som specialskruer.
The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese exporting producer made similar claims as above regarding the possible inclusion of fasteners destined to the automotive sector in the normal value and, in addition, alleged that automotive fasteners which are not made according to a specific customer design still have to go through a special quality control or have to respect traceability requirements making them more expensive and should normally be considered as special fasteners.