natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I henhold til tvistbilæggelsesorganets rapporter genvurderede Kommissionen sin analyse om årsagssammenhæng ved at undersøge, hvorvidt eksportresultaterne for den nye definition af EU-tjenestegrenen kunne omfattes af den lidte skade.
Following the DSB Reports, the Commission reassessed its causation analysis by examining whether the export performance of the newly defined Union industry could have been a factor of the injury suffered.
Konklusionen var, at eksport til tredjelande kun udgjorde 3,7 % af den nyligt definerede EU-tjenestegrens produktion af den pågældende vare i undersøgelsesperioden, mod de 11 % angivet i betragtning 175 i forordningen om endelig told.
It was found that exports to third countries represented only 3,7 % of the newly defined Union industry’s production of the like product in the IP, rather than 11 % as mentioned in recital 175 of the definitive Regulation.
Denne eksport steg med ca. 4 % mellem 2003 og undersøgelsesperioden.
These exports increased by about 4 % between 2003 and the IP.
De eksporterede varer solgtes desuden til konsekvent højere priser end på EU-markedet.
Furthermore, these exports were consistently made at prices significantly above sales prices on the Union market.
EU-eksport til resten af verden i den betragtede periode (MT)
Union Exports to the Rest of the World for the PC (MT)
EU-eksport til resten af verden i den betragtede periode (000 EUR)
Union Exports to the Rest of the World for the PC (thousand EUR)
Enhedspris: (EURO/MT):
Unit Price: (EUR/MT):
Det kan således konkluderes, at EU-tjenestegrenens resultat af eksport til tredjelande ikke udgjorde en kilde til væsentlig skade.
It can thus be concluded that the export performance to third countries of the Union industry was not a source of material injury.
Desuden bekræftes den endelige konklusion i betragtning 184 i forordningen om endelig told om, at dumpingimport fra Kina har voldet væsentlig skade på EU-tjenestegrenen i betydningen af artikel 3, stk. 6, i grundforordningen.
Furthermore, the final conclusion as stated in recital 184 of the definitive Regulation that the dumped imports originating in the PRC have caused material injury to the Union industry within the meaning of Article 3(6) of the basic Regulation is confirmed.
Behandling af fortrolige oplysninger
Treatment of confidential information
Som angivet i meddelelsen om indledning iværksatte Kommissionen en genvurdering af konklusionerne baseret på rapporternes afgørelser, ifølge hvilke EU handlede i modstrid med artikel 6.5 og 6.5.1 i WTO-antidumpingaftalen, hvad angår håndtering af fortrolige oplysninger.
As indicated in the Notice of Initiation, the Commission undertook to reassess the conclusions based on the rulings of the Reports suggesting that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the treatment of confidential information.
Ifølge rapporterne opfordrede Kommissionen de to relevante EU-producenter til at fremsætte redegørelser for årsagerne til, at der ikke kunne fremlægges et ikkefortroligt sammendrag af de fortrolige oplysninger.
Following the Reports, the Commission invited the two relevant Union producers to provide appropriate statements of the reasons why confidential information was not susceptible of non-confidential summary.
De to producenter fremlagde supplerende oplysninger på ikkefortrolig vis, eller såfremt der ikke kunne fremlægges et sammendrag af visse oplysninger, angav de, at dette var tilfældet.
The two producers provided additional information in a non-confidential manner or, if certain information was not susceptible of summary, they stated why that was the case.
Alle interesserede parter modtog de oplysninger, disse producenter således havde fremlagt.
The information so provided by these producers was sent to all interested parties.
En repræsentativ sammenslutning af EU-importører hævdede, at oplysningerne fra de to EU-producenter var uforståelige og ikke muliggjorde sammenholdelse med Eurostats offentligt tilgængelige data.
One association representing European Union importers argued that the information provided by the two Union producers was incomprehensible and would not allow cross-checking with data publicly available on Eurostat.
Hvad angår denne påstand, bemærkes det, at idet oplysningerne fra disse to producenter er specifikke for disse virksomheder, findes der sandsynligvis ingen offentlige kilder, der muliggør sammenholdelse.
In regard to this argument, it is noted that given that the information provided by these two producers is company-specific information, it is unlikely that any public sources exist which would allow for cross-checking.
Det kinesiske handelskammer og EFDA hævdede, at de supplerende oplysninger var ufuldstændige, idet visse elementer i tabel 22, 23 og 32 til 34 stadig manglede og derfor ikke stemte overens med den måde, hvorpå tvistbilæggelsesorganets konklusioner burde have fundet anvendelse.
The Chinese Chamber of Commerce and EFDA argued that the additional information provided was incomplete in so far as some elements in Tables 22, 23 and 32 to 34 were still missing and therefore not in accordance with the way the DSB findings should have been applied.
Der blev ikke fremført yderligere bemærkninger efter fremsættelsen af disse supplerende, ikkefortrolige oplysninger.
No other comments were received following the disclosure of this additional non-confidential information.
Da tabel 32 til 34 indeholder detaljer om den pågældende virksomheds salg og omkostninger, blev disse i sig selv fortrolige oplysninger sammendraget for at fremlægge oplysninger om indholdet, uden at bryde fortroligheden.
Since Tables 32 to 34 contain details of the sales and the costs incurred by the company concerned, this information which is by nature confidential was summarised as to provide some information regarding its content, without disclosing confidential information.
De øvrige oplysninger, der hævdedes at mangle i tabel 22 (typer af råmaterialer leveret og omfang af indkøbte råmaterialer), tabel 23 (der fremsættes kun tal for fortjenstmargen før skat og ingen separate tal for salg i og uden for EU), blev fremsat på ny af den pågældende EU-virksomhed for at sikre god forståelse af oplysningerne, og svaret blev tilføjet dossieret, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter.
The other information mentioned as missing in Table 22 (types of raw materials supplied and volumes of raw material purchased) and Table 23 (only indexed figures of pre-tax profit margin are provided and no separate figures for sales inside the EU and outside), was resubmitted by the Union company concerned in order to allow a good understanding of the information and the response was added to the file for inspection by interested parties.
Det konkluderes således, at rapporternes henstillinger på dette område blev efterlevet fuldstændigt.
In conclusion, it is considered that the recommendations of the Reports on this matter were fully complied with.
EFDA hævdede desuden, at den af EU-producenten fremlagte tabel 24 ikke dannede grundlag for at konkludere, at denne virksomhed havde lidt betydelig skade, da den viser stadig fremgang i fortjeneste, anvendelse og produktion.
In addition, EFDA claimed that Table 24 provided by the Union producer did not allow the conclusion that this company had suffered significant injury as it showed steady increases in profit, utilisation and output.
Kommissionen foretog dog fastsættelsen af skade på ny og medtog data fra de seks EU-producenter i stikprøven og konkluderede, at der var sket væsentlig skade, som fastslået i betragtning 124 ovenfor.
However, the Commission made once again the injury assessment including data for the six sampled EU producers and concluded that material injury was suffered as confirmed in recital 124 above.
Kravet er derfor ubegrundet.
The claim is therefore unfounded.
Endelig, som nævnt i punkt 6 i meddelelsen om indledning og i henhold til konklusionerne om artikel 6.5 og 6.5.1 i WTO-antidumpingaftalen, hvad angår håndtering af fortrolige oplysninger, fremlagde Kommissionen den 30. maj 2012 Eurostat-data om den samlede EU-produktion af skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer, som oprindeligt fremlagt.
Finally, as mentioned in point 6 of the Notice of Initiation, following the finding regarding Articles 6.5 and 6.5.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to the treatment of confidential information, on 30 May 2012, the Commission disclosed the Eurostat data on total EU production of fasteners as originally presented.
Andre henstillinger og afgørelser
Other recommendations and rulings
Som nævnt i meddelelsen agtede Kommissionen at overveje bemærkninger fra undersøgelsen af skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer, fremsat af parter, der hævder at være blevet påvirket negativt af fremlæggelsen af konklusionerne vedrørende markedsøkonomisk behandling eller andre henstillinger og afgørelser fra tvistbilæggelsesorganet.
As mentioned in the Notice, the Commission undertook to consider comments by parties in the fasteners investigation who claim to have been adversely affected by the disclosure of findings with regard to market economy treatment or with respect to any other DSB recommendations or rulings.
Kommissionen tildelte individuel behandling til en virksomhed i henhold til henstillingerne om grundforordningens artikel 9, stk. 5, i tvistbilæggelsesorganets rapporter.
The Commission granted IT to one company in accordance with the recommendations concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the DSB reports.
F. FREMLÆGGELSE
F. DISCLOSURE
Alle parter blev informeret om ovenstående konklusioner.
All parties were informed of the abovementioned findings.
Der blev fremsat adskillige bemærkninger efter fremlæggelsen af oplysninger.
Several comments were received following disclosure.
Det fremgår af ovenstående, at antidumpingforanstaltningerne vedrørende import af visse skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer af jern eller stål med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina indført ved forordning (EF) nr. 91/2009 bør bibeholdes, og at import fra Bulten Fasteners China skal pålægges en toldafgift på 0 %.
It follows from the above that the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China imposed by Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 should be maintained and that imports from Bulten Fasteners China should be made subject to a duty of 0 %.
G. KONKLUSION
G. CONCLUSION
På baggrund af ovenstående genvurdering konkluderes det, at den skadelige dumping, der blev konstateret i den oprindelige undersøgelse, bekræftes.
On the basis of the above reassessment, it is concluded that the injurious dumping determined in the original investigation is confirmed.
En eksporterende producent fik dog indrømmet individuel behandling i overensstemmelse med henstillingerne i tvistbilæggelsesorganets rapporter vedrørende artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen.
However, one exporting producer was granted IT in accordance with the recommendations concerning Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation in the DSB reports.
Således skal artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordningen om endelig told ændres i overensstemmelse hermed.
Therefore, Article 1(2) of the definitive Regulation should be amended accordingly.
Samme artikel skal ligeledes ændres for at tage højde for den reviderede antidumpingtold beregnet for visse af virksomhederne i tabellen i artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordningen om endelig told, jf. nedenfor:
The same article should also be amended to take account of the revised anti-dumping duties calculated for some of the companies listed in the table in Article 1(2) of the definitive Regulation as below:
Tabellen, der anfører satserne for den endelige antidumpingtold, der pålægges nettoprisen, frit Unionens grænse, ufortoldet for produkter fremstillet af virksomhederne anført i artikel 1, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 91/2009, affattes således:
The table indicating the rates of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Union-frontier price, before duty, of the products manufactured by the companies listed in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 is replaced by the following table:
Changshu City Standard Parts Factory og Changshu British Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd., Changshu
Changshu City Standard Parts Factory and Changshu British Shanghai International Fastener Co., Ltd, Changshu
EUT C 66 af 6.3.2012, s. 29.
OJ C 66, 6.3.2012, p. 29.
EUT C 160, 6.6.2012, s. 19.
OJ C 160, 6.6.2012, p. 19.
Appelorganets beretning: afsnit 512, ifølge hvilken »artikel 2, stk. 4, forpligter undersøgelsesmyndighederne (...) til som minimum at informere parterne om de produktgrupper, der anvendes til prissammenligningen«
Appellate Body Report: paragraph 512 which states that ‘Article 2(4) obliges investigation authorities … at a minimum to inform parties of the product groups used for purposes of the price comparison’.
Høring vedrørende den »Fornyede undersøgelse af de antidumpingforanstaltninger, der gælder for importen af visse skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer af jern eller stål med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina«, afholdt af høringskonsulenten med sammenslutningen for den kinesiske erhvervsgren for skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer (CCME), 11. juli 2012.
‘Review of the Anti-Dumping Measures in Force on Imports of Fasteners Originating in the PRC Hearing’, Hearing organised by the Hearing Officer with the Chinese Fasteners Industry Association (CCME), 11 July 2012.
Efter anmodningen om supplerende oplysninger, beskrevet i betragtning 42 ovenfor, blev yderligere en note om fremlæggelse af oplysninger sendt til alle interesserede parter den 5. juli 2012.
Following the request of additional information made by the parties as mentioned in recital 42 above, a second information disclosure note was sent to all interested parties on 5 July 2012.
Denne note indeholdt følgende supplerende oplysninger:
In this note, the following additional information was provided:
To eksporterende producenter hævdede, at informationen om belægningen svarede til den aktuelle situation og ikke situationen på tidspunktet for undersøgelsen.
Two exporting producers argued that the information on coating concerned the present situation rather than the situation in the IP.
Det fremgik, at eksport til tredjelande kun udgjorde 11 % af EU-tjenestegrenens produktion af den pågældende vare i 2006.
It was found that exports to third countries represented only 11 % of the total Union industry’s production of the like product in 2006.
Som tvistbilæggelsesorganets rapporter pointerede, var de anvendte data om alle EU-producenters eksport dog baseret på Eurostat-data og ikke på EU-tjenestegrenens eksport.
However, as pointed out in the DSB Reports, the data used related to exports of all producers in the Union and was based on Eurostat data and not to exports of the Union industry.
WTO, appelorganets beretning, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R af 15. juli 2011.
WTO, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R, 15 July 2011.
WTO, panelrapporten, WT/DS397/R, 3. december 2010.
WTO, Report of the Panel, WT/DS397/R, 3 December 2010.
A. GÆLDENDE FORANSTALTNINGER
Whereas: A. MEASURES IN FORCE
28. juli 2011 vedtog WTO's Tvistbilæggelsesorgan appelorganets rapport og panelrapporten som ændret ved appelorganets rapport i tvisten »De Europæiske Fællesskaber — De endelige antidumpingforanstaltninger vedrørende visse skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer af jern eller stål med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina« [3] (»rapporterne«). I disse rapporter blev det blandt andet konstateret, at EU handlede i modstrid med:
On 28 July 2011, the Dispute Settlement Body (‘DSB’) of the World Trade Organization (‘WTO’) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report in the dispute ‘European Communities — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China’ [3] (‘Reports’). In these Reports, it was found, inter alia, that the EU acted inconsistently with:
artikel 6.10 og 9.2 i WTO-antidumpingaftalen, for så vidt angår artikel 9, stk. 5, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 af 30. november 2009 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab [4] (grundforordningen), som anvendt i undersøgelsen vedrørende importen af visse skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer af jern eller stål med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina (undersøgelserne af skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer)artikel 6.4, 6.2 og 2.4 i WTO-antidumpingaftalen, for så vidt angår visse aspekter af fastsættelsen af dumping i undersøgelsen af skruer, bolte, møtrikker og lignende varer
Articles 6.10 and 9.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [4] (‘the basic Regulation’) as applied in the investigation on the imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the fasteners investigation’), Articles 6.4, 6.2 and 2.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement with respect to certain aspects of the dumping determination in the fasteners investigation,
Den 6. marts 2012, i henhold til WTO-bemyndigelsesforordningen, indledtes en fornyet undersøgelse ved offentliggørelsen af en meddelelse [5] i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende (»meddelelsen om indledning«). Europa-Kommissionen informerede parterne omfattet af den undersøgelse, som resulterede i forordning (EF) nr. 91/2009 (»den oprindelige undersøgelse«) om den fornyede undersøgelse, og om den måde, hvorpå der skulle tages højde for rapporternes konklusioner med hensyn til forordningen om endelig told.
On 6 March 2012, pursuant to the WTO enabling Regulation, a review was initiated by the publication of a Notice [5] in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘the Notice of Initiation’). The European Commission informed parties to the investigation which led to Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 (‘the original investigation’) of the review and of the manner in which the findings of the Reports in regard to the definitive Regulation was intended to be taken into account.
Den oprindelige undersøgelse af spørgsmålet om dumping og skade omfattede perioden fra den 1. oktober 2006 til den 30. september 2007 (i det følgende benævnt »undersøgelsesperioden« eller »UP«). Hvad angår de relevante parametre inden for rammerne af skadesvurderingen blev oplysninger dækkende perioden fra den 1. januar 2003 til udgangen af undersøgelsesperioden (»den betragtede periode«) analyseret.
The original investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2007 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). With respect to the parameters relevant in the context of the injury assessment, data covering the period from 1 January 2003 to the end of the investigation period were analysed (‘period considered’).
hævdede to eksporterende producenter, at de opfyldte kriterierne og krævede deres situation undersøgt, men den ene af disse virksomheder trak efterfølgende sin ansøgning tilbage.
Two exporting producers stated that they complied with the criteria and requested that their situation be examined. However, one of these companies subsequently withdrew its application.
Visse parter hævdede også, at Kommissionen under en høring den 26. juni 2012 havde meddelt dem, at det indiske hjemmemarkedssalg omfattede to typer belægning »A« og »B« i henhold til PCN-tabellen i den oprindelige undersøgelse. Denne påstand er ubegrundet. Kommissionen meddelte de pågældende parter, at den på dette tidspunkt i undersøgelsen var i færd med at analysere de 3 typer belægninger, den indiske producent anvender på standardskruer. Under en efterfølgende høring den 3. juli 2012 samt i en oplysningsnote placeret i dossieret, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter, den 11. juli 2012, fik alle parter at vide, at den indiske producent anvendte »A«-belægning ved fremstillingen af standardskruer.
Some parties also argued that the Commission informed them during a hearing held on 26 June 2012 that the Indian domestic sales were of two types of coating ‘A’ and ‘B’ according to the PCN table used in the original investigation. This allegation is not founded. The Commission informed the said parties that at that stage of the review it was examining the types of coating used by the Indian producer on standard fasteners. During a subsequent hearing held on 3 July 2012 and by means of an information note placed on 11 July 2012 in the file for inspection by interested parties, all parties were informed that the Indian producer was using coating ‘A’ for the production of standard fasteners.
Hvad angår forskellen mellem standard- og specialskruer forklarer Kommissionens note af 13. juli 2012, at »det ikke kan udelukkes at bilindustrien ligeledes anvender standardskruer til visse formål«. Visse parter hævdede, at Kommissionen anså, at bilskruer også kan betragtes som standardvarer. Denne påstand var ubegrundet. Som det tydeligt fremgår af den pågældende note, fremkom Kommissionen med denne udtalelse uden at råde over den indiske producents kundeliste. Som det dog er fastlagt i den oprindelige undersøgelse og yderligere forklaret i del 2.7 nedenfor, bestiller bilproducenter altid specialdesignede skruer af kvalitetsmæssige og kommercielle årsager og med henblik på at opfylde erhvervsgrenens ISO-krav. Derfor betragter skrueproducenter, også de indiske, alle skruer produceret til bilindustrien som »special«-produkter. Dette ifølge oplysninger fundet på de indiske bilproducenters websider. Idet den indiske producent definerer alle individuelt designede produkter som »specialskruer«, antager Kommissionen, at standardskruer til bilindustrien ikke var omfattet af den liste over standardskruer, der blev fremlagt i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse.
On the difference between standard and special fasteners, the Commission’s note of 13 July 2012 explained that ‘it cannot be excluded that the automotive industry also uses standard fasteners for certain applications’. Some parties argued that the Commission considered that automotive fasteners could also have been regarded as standard. Such allegation is unfounded. As is clearly explained in that note, the Commission’s statement was made in the absence of a customer list from the Indian producer. However, as established in the original investigation and further explained in Section 2.7 below, for quality and commercial reasons, automotive producers always order fasteners which are custom designed in order to comply with that industry’s ISO requirements. Therefore, all fasteners destined for the automotive sector that are considered as ‘special’ products by fasteners producers, including in India, according to information found on the websites of Indian automotive manufacturers. Since the Indian producer clearly defined as ‘special fasteners’ all parts manufactured to a custom design, the Commission considers that standard fasteners destined to the automotive industry were not included in the list of standard fasteners provided during the original investigation.
Opdelingen mellem special- og standardskruer forklares i betragtning 54 i forordningen om endelig told.
The distinction between special and standard fasteners was explained in recital 54 of the definitive Regulation. ‘Special’ fasteners are those manufactured to a customer drawing. ‘Standard’ fasteners are those manufactured for stock and not to the specifications of a particular customer.