natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I henhold til grundforordningen blev alle parter indrømmet en frist til at fremsætte bemærkninger til hver fremlæggelse.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to each disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Bemærkninger til fremlæggelsen fremsendt den 13. juni 2012 blev modtaget fra P.T.
Comments on the disclosure sent on 13 June 2012 were received from P.T.
Musim Mas (PTMM), den anden eksporterende producent i Indonesien, fra en producent i Unionen og fra en eksporterende producent i Malaysia.
Musim Mas (PTMM), the second exporting producer in Indonesia, from one producer in the Union, and from one exporting producer in Malaysia.
PTMM bad også om en mulighed for at blive hørt af Kommissionens tjenestegrene og blev indrømmet en høring.
PTMM also asked for an opportunity to be heard by the Commission services and was granted such a hearing.
PTMM, som også havde fået tildelt en justering i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), hævdede, at Domstolens dom i de forenede sager C-191/09 P og C-200/09 P burde resultere i en ny beregning af dumpingmargenen, sidestillet med den for Ecogreen, uden at der foretages en justering i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), eftersom der ikke kan laves tilpasninger i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), når først en enkelt økonomisk enhed bestående af den eksporterende producent og forhandleren er etableret.
PTMM, for which an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) had also been made, argued that the Court judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P should result in a recalculation of its dumping margin, similar to that made for Ecogreen, without an adjustment being made pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), as once a single economic entity made up of the exporting producer and the trader is established, no adjustments under Article 2(10)(i) can be made.
Virksomheden hævdede desuden, at bevisbyrden for, at der burde foretages en justering, påhviler institutionerne, og de har ikke fremlagt beviser herfor i PTMM's tilfælde.
The company also claimed that the burden of proving that an adjustment should be made rests with the Institutions, and that they have not proved it in the case of PTMM.
Den hævdede ligeledes, at alle omstændigheder var identiske med Ecogreen, og enhver forskellighed i behandling ville derfor udgøre forskelsbehandling.
It further alleged that its circumstances were identical to those of Ecogreen, and any difference in treatment would therefore amount to discrimination.
Med hensyn til de bemærkninger, der blev fremsat af PTMM, skal det bemærkes, at det ikke er en følge af Domstolens dom i de forenede sager C-191/09 P og C-200/09 P, at så snart forekomsten af en økonomisk enhed er etableret, kan der ikke laves nogen justering i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i).
As regards the comments made by PTMM, it should be noted that it does not follow from the Court judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P that as soon as the existence of a single economic entity is established no adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation can be made.
En justering i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), betragtes som værende begrundet i PTMM's tilfælde, som forklaret i den endelige forordning, i kommunikationen med virksomheden og nedenfor.
The adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) is considered to be justified in the case of PTMM as has been explained in the definitive regulation, in communication with the company and below.
Der er en række forskelle mellem omstændighederne for de to indonesiske eksporterende producenter, særligt sammenholdt med følgende: niveauet for det direkte eksportsalg fra producenten, betydningen af forhandlerens aktiviteter og opgaver vedrørende varer, der købes fra ikke-forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder og forekomsten af en kontrakt mellem forhandleren og producenten, som fastslog, at forhandleren skulle modtage provision for eksportsalget.
There are a number of differences in the circumstances of the two Indonesian exporting producers, in particular the following in combination: the level of direct export sales made by the producer; the significance of the trader’s activities and functions concerning products sourced from non-related companies; the existence of a contract between the trader and producer, which provided that the trader was to receive a commission for the export sales.
I betragtning af forskellen i omstændighederne for de to virksomheder må påstanden om forskelsbehandling afvises.
Given the difference in the circumstances of the two companies the claim of discrimination has to be rejected.
Det bemærkes, at PTMM også fremsatte en anmodning (sag T-26/12) til Retten om annullation af den endelige forordning for så vidt angår antidumpingtold for PTMM.
It is noted that PTMM also lodged an application (Case T-26/12) before the General Court for the annulment of the definitive Regulation as far as the anti-dumping duty with regard to PTMM was concerned.
En eksporterende producent i Malaysia hævdede, at den nye beregning af margenen for Ecogreen uden at foretage en justering i henhold til artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), ikke var underbygget af dommen i de forenede sager C-191/09 P og C-200/09 P eller af forhold deri.
One exporting producer in Malaysia argued that the recalculation of the margin for Ecogreen, without making an adjustment pursuant to Article 2(10)(i), was not supported by the judgment in joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P or the facts therein.
Den påpegede, at Retten i sag T-249/06 havde fundet et åbenbart urigtigt skøn ved anvendelsen af grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), for så vidt som Rådet foretog en justering af eksportprisen opkrævet af Sepco inden for rammerne af transaktioner vedrørende rør produceret af Interpipe NTRP VAT, men ikke dem, der produceres af Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT.
It pointed out that the General Court, in Case T-249/06, had found a manifest error of assessment in applying Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation in so far as the Council made an adjustment on the export price charged by Sepco in the context of transactions concerning pipes manufactured by Interpipe NTRP VAT, but not those manufactured by Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT.
Ecogreens faktiske omstændigheder kan derfor ikke samtidig sidestilles med Interpipe NTRP VAT's og Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT's omstændigheder, da situationen for disse to virksomheder er forskellig.
Ecogreen’s factual circumstances thus could not simultaneously be similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT and of Interpipe Niko Tube ZAT due to a difference in the situation of those two companies.
Dette argument blev accepteret.
This argument is accepted.
Ecogreens situation kan faktisk sidestilles med Interpipe NTRP VAT's situation.
Indeed, Ecogreen’s situation is similar to that of Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Dette begrunder behovet for at tage de nødvendige skridt til at foretage en ny beregning af dumpingmargenen for Ecogreen uden anvendelse af justeringen i artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i).
This finding justifies the need for taking the appropriate steps to recalculate the dumping margin for Ecogreen without the Article 2(10)(i) adjustment.
Den eksporterende producent i Malaysia fremførte endvidere, at Ecogreens situation som beskrevet i forordningen om endelig told endda slet ikke kan sidestilles med Interpipe NTRP VAT's situation.
The exporting producer in Malaysia further argued that the situation of Ecogreen as described in the definitive Regulation is not even similar to that of Interpipe NTRP VAT.
Ved at revurdere de præcise faktiske omstændigheder for Ecogreen er det imidlertid opfattelsen, at disse kan tilstrækkeligt sidestilles med Interpipe NTRP VAT's omstændigheder, da en sådan kontrol som fastslået af Retten for Interpipe NTRP VAT ved vurderingen af, hvorvidt den virksomhed, der foretager salgsaktiviteter, er under tilsyn af den eksporterende producent eller, om der foreligger fælles kontrol, er blevet konstateret for Ecogreen, og sammen med flere andre faktorer, som anført i betragtning 4, fører til den konklusion, at justeringen i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), ikke skulle have været foretaget.
Upon reassessing the precise factual circumstances of Ecogreen, it is however considered that these are sufficiently similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT as such control as found by the General Court for Interpipe NTRP VAT when assessing whether the company carrying out the sales activities is under the control of the exporting producer or whether there is common control has been found for Ecogreen and together with several other factors, as indicated in recital 4, leads to the conclusion that the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation should not have been made.
Den samme eksporterende producent i Malaysia fremførte, som et alternativ til sin påstand om lighederne mellem situationen for Ecogreen og omstændighederne i sag T-249/06, at fremlæggelsen fremsendt den 13. juni 2012 var utilstrækkelig, og at supplerende oplysninger bør gives om de væsentligste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, på grundlag af hvilke den nye beregning for Ecogreen er berettiget.
The same exporting producer in Malaysia, as an alternative to its argument regarding the similarities between the situation of Ecogreen and the circumstances of Case T-249/06, argued that the disclosure sent on 13 June 2012 was insufficient and that additional disclosure should be made of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which the recalculation for Ecogreen is justified.
En producent i Unionen bemærkede ligeledes, at begge fremlæggelser, der er omhandlet i betragtning 8, var utilstrækkelige, og fremførte, at retten til forsvar var blevet frataget.
One producer in the Union also commented that both disclosures referred to in recital 8 were insufficient, and argued that it was deprived of its rights of defence.
I denne forbindelse skal det understreges, at visse detaljer vedrørende særlige virksomheder, som er af fortrolig karakter, ikke videregives til tredjeparter.
In this regard, it is recalled that certain details relating to specific companies which are confidential in nature cannot be disclosed to third parties.
Imidlertid blev de faktiske omstændigheder for Ecogreen, der kan sidestilles med dem, der findes for Interpipe NTRP VAT, jf. betragtning 5, meddelt de interesserede parter den 13. juni 2012 og den 25. september 2012, der blev indrømmet en frist, inden hvilken de kunne fremsætte bemærkninger til hver fremlæggelse i overensstemmelse med bestemmelserne i grundforordningen.
However, the nature of the factual circumstances of Ecogreen which are similar to those of Interpipe NTRP VAT, as indicated at recital 5, was disclosed to interested parties on 13 June and 25 September 2012, who were granted a period within which they could make representations subsequent to each disclosure in accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation.
Som svar på den anden fremlæggelse sendt den 25. september 2012 genfremsatte parterne hovedsageligt deres fordringer i deres svar på den første fremlæggelse af 13. juni 2012.
In response to the second disclosure sent on 25 September 2012, the parties mainly reiterated their claims in their responses to the first disclosure of 13 June 2012.
PTMM har udformet sine bemærkninger baseret på hovedkravet om, at forekomsten af en økonomisk enhed af PTMM og forhandleren udelukker en justering i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), med krav om, at institutionerne ændrer doktrinen om økonomiske enheder fastlagt af domstolene til en funktionel tilgang, hvor en analyse af de opgaver, som udføres af forhandleren, er påkrævet.
PTMM has developed its comments based on its main claim that the existence of a Single Economic Entity (SEE) of PTMM and its trader excludes an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation claiming that the Institutions shift the SEE doctrine laid down by the Courts to a functional approach where an analysis of the functions of the related trader would be required.
Det skal bemærkes, at dette spørgsmål drejer sig om et retsspørgsmål, der er genstand for en verserende sag.
It is noted that this issue turns on a point of law that is a subject matter of a pending case.
PTMM påstod ydermere, at argumenterne i betragtning 12 ovenfor ikke er overbevisende og ikke er tilstrækkelige til at kunne skelne mellem omstændighederne for hhv. Ecogreen og PTMM.
Furthermore, PTMM claimed that the arguments in recital 12 above are not convincing and do not suffice to differentiate between the circumstances of Ecogreen and PTMM respectively.
I denne henseende er det tilstrækkeligt at bemærke, at det er fast retspraksis, at forskellig behandling af virksomheder, der ikke befinder sig i en identisk situation, ikke udgør forskelsbehandling [6].
In that regard it is sufficient to note that it is settled case-law that different treatment of companies that are not in an identical situation does not amount to discrimination [6].
På denne baggrund blev hvert enkelt tilfælde vurderet individuelt mod resultaterne i dommene i sag T-249/09 og i de forenede sager C-191/09 P og C-200/09 P.
Against this background each individual case was assessed on its individual merits against the findings in the judgments of Case T-249/09 and joined Cases C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P.
Første argument: Niveauet for direkte eksport fra producenten.
First argument: Level of direct export sales made by the producer.
PTMM fremførte, at det ikke har nogen markedsførings- og salgsafdeling, og hævdede, at alt salg gennemført direkte fra producenten i Indonesien (og ikke af den forretningsmæssigt forbundne forhandler) fandt kun sted for at opfylde lovkrav.
PTMM submitted that it has no marketing and sales division and claimed that all the sales carried out directly by the producer in Indonesia (and not by the related trader) were only done so as to comply with legal requirements.
Markedsførings- og salgsopgaverne blev udført af forhandleren i Singapore.
The functions of marketing and sales were carried out by its trader in Singapore.
Af denne årsag hævdede PTMM, at dette argument ikke berettiger en justering i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), eller en skelnen mellem PTMM på den ene side og Interpipe NTRP VAT på den anden side.
For this reason, PTMM claimed that this argument does not justify the adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation nor the distinction drawn between PTMM on the one hand and Interpipe NTRP VAT on the other.
Ifølge grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, skal der foretages en rimelig sammenligning mellem eksportprisen og den normale værdi i samme handelsled med behørig hensyntagen til de forskelle, der påvirker prisernes sammenlignelighed.
Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation stipulates that a fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value at the same level of trade with due account taken of differences which affect price comparability.
Når den normale værdi og den konstaterede eksportpris ikke er umiddelbart sammenlignelige, tages der i hvert enkelt tilfælde behørigt hensyn i form af justeringer til forskelle i de faktorer, der påstås og påvises at påvirke priserne og dermed prisernes sammenlignelighed.
Where the normal value and the export price as established are not on such a comparable basis, due allowance in the form of adjustments shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences in factors which are claimed, and demonstrated, to affect prices and price comparability.
På dette grundlag og som forklaret i betragtning 38 i forordningen om midlertidig told blev justeringer for forskelle i provision bl.a. mellem eksportsalgspriser og salgspriserne på hjemmemarkedet i de oprindelige undersøgelser anset for at være berettiget som følge af forskellige salgskanaler mellem eksportsalget til Den Europæiske Union og på hjemmemarkedet.
On this basis, and as explained in recital 38 of the provisional Regulation, adjustments for, inter alia, differences in commissions between export sales prices and domestic sales prices during the original investigations were considered warranted due to the differences in the sales channels between export sales to the European Union and domestic sales.
De argumenter, som PTMM fremsatte, strider ikke mod det første argument, nemlig at PTMM's direkte eksportsalg er højere end andelen af Interpipe NTRP VAT, og at dette forhold adskiller PTMM fra Ecogreen.
The arguments put forward by PTMM do not contradict the first argument, namely that the level of direct export sales made by PTMM is higher than that of Interpipe NTRP VAT and that this fact distinguishes PTMM from Ecogreen.
I betragtning af niveauet for det direkte eksportsalg kan det også kun konkluderes, at PTMM's eksportsalg ikke kun udføres fra den forretningsmæssigt forbundne forhandler i Singapore, men også fra Indonesien.
Indeed, given the level of direct export sales, it can only be concluded that PTMM’s export sales are performed not only from its related trader in Singapore, but also from Indonesia.
Andet argument: Betydningen af forhandlerens aktiviteter og opgaver vedrørende varer, der købes fra ikke-forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder.
Second argument: Significance of the trader’s activities and functions concerning products sourced from non-related companies.
PTMM udelukkede ikke, at den forretningsmæssigt forbundne forhandler var involveret i en række forskellige palmeoliebaserede produkter, men hævdede, at denne påstand var fejlagtig, da den var baseret på aktiviteter ud over anvendelsesområdet for den oprindelige undersøgelse.
PTMM claimed that, whereas it did not deny that its related trader was involved in a range of different palm oil-based products, PTMM claimed that this argument was flawed, since it was based on activities beyond the scope of original investigation.
For at vurdere, om en forhandlers opgaver ikke er opgaver for en intern salgsafdeling, men som kan sammenlignes med dem, der udøves af en agent, der arbejder på provisionsbasis, i henhold til Rettens dom i sag T-249/06, skal forhandlerens opgaver vurderes på grundlag af de økonomiske realiteter.
In order to assess whether the functions of a trader are not those of an internal sales department but comparable to those of an agent working on a commission basis within the meaning of the judgement of the General Court in Case T-249/06, the trader’s activities have to be assessed against the economic reality.
Der er ligheder, hvad angår forhandlerens opgaver med hensyn til den pågældende vare og andre varer, som forhandles.
There are similarities as regards the functions of the trader with regard to the product concerned and the other products traded.
Dette bekræftes af den omstændighed, at, jf. betragtning 30 og 31, forholdet mellem PTMM og den forretningsmæssigt forbundne forhandler, herunder dennes opgaver, for de fleste, om ikke alle, varer — herunder den pågældende vare — er omfattet af en enkelt kontrakt, uden at der skelnes mellem varerne.
This is confirmed by the fact that, as discussed below in recitals 30 and 31, the relationship between PTMM and its related trader, including the functions of the latter, for most if not all products — including the product concerned — is governed by one single contract without distinguishing among products.
Det skal bemærkes, at forhandlerens samlede aktiviteter i betydeligt omfang var baseret på leverancer fra ikke-forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder.
It should be noted that the trader’s overall activities were based to a significant extent on supplies originating from unrelated companies.
Forhandlerens opgaver kan derfor sidestilles med opgaver for en agent, der arbejder på provisionsbasis.
The trader’s functions are therefore similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis.
Tredje argument: Forekomsten af en kontrakt mellem forhandleren og producenten, som fastslog, at forhandleren skulle modtage provision for eksportsalget.
Third argument: The existence of a contract between the trader and producer, which provided that the trader was to receive a commission for the export sales.
PTMM hævdede, at denne kontrakt var en rammeaftale til regulering af intern afregning mellem forretningsmæssigt forbundne parter for at overholde gældende indonesiske/singaporeanske skattemæssige retningslinjer og internationalt accepterede retningslinjer for interne afregningspriser.
PTMM claimed that this contract was a master agreement to regulate transfer prices between related parties to comply with applicable Indonesian/Singapore tax guidelines and internationally accepted guidelines on transfer pricing.
Den omstændighed, at denne aftale også kan anvendes til beregning af frie markedspriser i overensstemmelse med gældende skattemæssige retningslinjer, er ikke til hinder for den konklusion, at forhandleren i henhold til aftalen modtog provision i form af en fast sats udelukkende for de internationale salgs- og marketingsaktiviteter.
The fact that this agreement can also be used for calculating arm’s length prices in accordance with applicable tax guidelines does not contradict the finding that pursuant to the agreement the trader received a commission in the form of a fixed mark-up only for its international and marketing sales activities.
Det blotte navn og det nærmere indhold af aftalen giver også grundlag for at konkludere, at kontrakten havde til formål at regulere forholdet mellem PTMM og forhandleren og ikke var begrænset til de interne afregningspriser eller skattemæssige spørgsmål.
Indeed, the very name and the modalities of the agreement justify the finding that the contract was intended to govern the relationship between PTMM and the trader and was not limited to the transfer pricing or tax issues.
Kontrakten er altså indiciebevis for, at forhandlerens opgaver kan sidestilles med dem, som udføres af en agent, der arbejder på provisionsbasis.
The contract thus represents circumstantial evidence that the trader’s functions are similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis.
På baggrund af de ovenfor anførte argumenter har institutionerne opfyldt de gældende beviskrav i henhold til fast retspraksis [7]: Deres konklusioner blev baseret på direkte beviser eller i det mindste indiciebeviser.
In the light of the arguments presented above the Institutions have met the standard of proof required by the settled case-law [7]: they based their findings on direct or at least circumstantial evidence.
Hvad angår PTMM og af ovenstående grunde, er en justering af eksportprisen i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, litra i), berettiget, og det nuværende niveau for antidumpingtolden bør derfor bibeholdes.
As regards PTMM, and for reasons explained above, the adjustment made to the export prices pursuant to Article 2(10)(i) of the basic Regulation is warranted and the present level of anti-dumping duty should therefore be kept.
C. KONKLUSION
C. CONCLUSION
På grundlag af ovenstående bør toldsatserne for Ecogreen og for alle andre virksomheder i Indonesien (undtagen P.T. Musim Mas) ændres.
On the basis of the above the duty rates applicable to Ecogreen and to all other companies in Indonesia (except P.T. Musim Mas) should be amended.
Anmodninger om tilbagebetaling eller udligning bør indgives til de nationale toldmyndigheder i overensstemmelse med gældende toldlovgivning —
Repayment or remission should be requested from national customs authorities in accordance with applicable customs legislation,
Punktet om Indonesien i tabellen i artikel 1, stk. 2, i gennemførselsforordning (EU) nr. 1138/2011 affattes således:
The entry for Indonesia in the table in Article 1(2) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 is replaced by the following: