natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
De hævdede, at Kommissionens konklusion om, at skruer anvendt til formål i den højere ende af markedet, men ikke fremstillet efter brugerens tegninger, burde betragtes som specialskruer, var ubegrundet, og at Kommissionen således brød grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 10, om princippet for rimelig sammenligning.
They claimed that the Commission’s findings according to which fasteners used for high-end applications but not manufactured according to user’s drawings had nevertheless been considered as special fasteners were baseless, and thereby the Commission acted inconsistently with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation by breaching the principle of a fair comparison.
De mente desuden, at Kommissionens konklusioner, der er baseret på den indiske producents opdeling, ikke var bekræftet ved et kontrolbesøg.
Furthermore, they considered that the Commission’s findings based on the split made by the Indian producer had not been subject to an on-spot verification visit.
I lyset af ovenstående bad de Kommissionen om på ny at undersøge opdelingen mellem standard- og specialskruer eller, i modsat fald, at anvende et andet datasæt for normale værdier.
In the light of the above, they requested the Commission to review the distinction between standard and special fasteners and if not possible, to revert to a different normal value data set.
Kommissionens ræsonnement angående opdelingen mellem standard- og specialskruer er allerede behandlet i betragtning 47 ovenfor.
The reasoning of the Commission regarding the distinction between standard and special fasteners is already addressed in recital 47 above.
Hvad angår påstanden vedrørende den manglende kontrol af den indiske producents opdeling kontrollerede Kommissionen salgslisten på stedet via gennemgang (»walk-through«-test) (dvs. dybdegående kontrol af en stikprøve af salgstransaktioner på salgslisten med henblik på at kontrollere korrektheden deraf) i henhold til standardpraksis for kontrolbesøg.
With regard to the claim concerning the absence of verification of the split made by the Indian producer, the Commission verified the sales listing through a number of ‘walk-through’ tests (i.e. in-depth verification of a sample of sales transactions included in the sales listing in order to verify its accuracy) as per standard verification practices.
Desuden blev den efterfølgende opdeling af den indiske producents salgsliste kontrolleret i sammenligning med opdelingens gennemsnitlige prisniveau, således som det forklares i den pågældende note.
In addition, the subsequent split of that sales listing provided by the Indian producer was checked against an average price level of the split as explained in the said note.
Således er påstanden om, at Kommissionen anvendte den pålydende værdi i den indiske producents data, ubegrundet.
Therefore, the allegation that the Commission took at face value the data provided by the Indian producer is not founded.
Desuden giver den indiske producents kriterier for specialskruer, defineret som skruer produceret på grundlag af kundens tegninger som nævnt i ovenstående betragtning 47, tilstrækkelig sikkerhed for pålideligheden af disse data.
In addition, the criteria used by the Indian producer to define special fasteners, i.e. according to customer drawing as mentioned in recital 47 above, provides sufficient assurance of the reliability of the data.
Kommissionen foretog allerede i den oprindelige undersøgelse en justering af den normale værdi for at tage højde for de kvalitetskontroltiltag, den indiske producent iværksætter, men som ikke blev konstateret hos de kinesiske producenter i stikprøven.
In the original investigation the Commission already made an adjustment to the normal value to take into account quality control steps applied by the Indian producer which were not found for Chinese sampled producers.
I betragtning heraf finder Kommissionen det ikke nødvendigt at anvende et andet datasæt for normale værdier, jf. de interesserede parters forslag.
Under these circumstances, the Commission does not consider it necessary to resort to another normal value data set as suggested by the parties concerned.
Endelig, som nævnt i betragtning 89 i forordningen om endelig told, tilbød ingen andre producenter i mulige referencelande at samarbejde i forbindelse med undersøgelsen, på trods af Kommissionens bestræbelser.
Finally, as mentioned in recital 89 of the definitive Regulation despite the efforts of the Commission no other producers from any possible analogue country offered to cooperate in the proceeding.
Hvad angår anvendelsen af data fra den indiske referencelandsproducent i forbindelse med fastsættelsen af den normale værdi hævdede sammenslutningen af europæiske forhandlere (EFDA), at denne teknik ikke var passende, da dennes assortiment, produktionsmængde, kundeprofil, distributionsmetode og markedsposition ikke kunne sammenlignes med de kinesiske eksporterende producenters situation.
Regarding the use of the data of the Indian analogue country producer for the determination of the normal value, the Association of European Distributors (EFDA) claimed that such technique was not appropriate given that its product range, production volume, customer profile, distribution method and market position were not comparable to the situation of the Chinese exporting producers.
Den hævdede desuden, at de kinesiske priser var lavere grundet fordelene ved storproduktion af standardprodukter, da der er tale om specialiserede, effektive producenter.
In addition, it claimed that the Chinese prices were low because they reflected the benefits of high-volume production of standard products since they are specialised and efficient producers.
Desuden efterspurgte EFDA mere detaljerede oplysninger om den indiske producents priser og produktionsmængde for standardskruer.
Moreover, it requested more detailed information regarding the Indian producer’s prices and production volume of standard fasteners.
Endelig fremlagde EFDA Eurostat-data til at understøtte dens påstande om, at en sammenligning af eksportpriser på to specifikke KN-koder fra henholdsvis Kina og Indien ville vise, at den indiske eksport af disse produkter udgjorde mindre end 4 % af Kinas, og at Indien ikke var troværdig som leverandør af disse produkter til eksportmarkeder.
Finally, EFDA submitted Eurostat data to support their allegations that a comparison regarding export prices from the PRC and India for two specific CN codes would show that the Indian exports of these products were less than 4 % of the PRC exports and that India was not a credible supplier of these products for export markets.
Til spørgsmålet om, hvorvidt den indiske referencelandsproducent er passende, henvises til sidste del af betragtning 49 ovenfor.
As regards the appropriateness of the choice of the Indian analogue country producer, reference is made to the last part of recital 49 above.
Hvad angår den generelle påstand om, at de kinesiske eksportpriser kommer af fordelene ved storproduktion, manglede der meningsfulde argumenter og tal herfor. Påstandene kunne således ikke analyseres på det pågældende tidspunkt i undersøgelsen.
In relation to the general claim that Chinese export prices reflected the benefits of high-volume production, these claims were not substantiated or quantified in a meaningful manner that could assist in the analysis being carried out at that stage of the review.
Hvad angår anmodningen om supplerende oplysninger om den indiske producents data henvises der til betragtning 82 om fortrolighed.
As regards the request for additional information regarding the Indian producer’s data, reference is made to recital 82 regarding confidentiality.
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at den indiske eksport ikke kan sammenlignes med den kinesiske eksport under og efter undersøgelsesperioden, er det de indiske hjemmemarkeds-, og ikke eksportpriser, der betragtes som relevante baseret på grundforordningen med henblik på fastsættelsen af den normale værdi.
With regard to the claim that the exports from India were not comparable to those from the PRC during the IP and after the IP, for the determination of the normal value, it is the Indian domestic prices which are considered to be relevant according to the basic Regulation and not the Indian export prices.
Derfor var EFDA's påstande ubegrundede.
Therefore, these claims from EFDA were unfounded.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet om den belægning, der anvendes af den indiske producent, udtrykte det kinesiske handelskammer og en kinesisk eksporterende producent tvivl, og de bad Kommissionen forklare, hvorledes de fortrolige oplysninger udgjorde afgørende bevis for, at den indiske producent solgte udelukkende elektropletterede skruer på hjemmemarkedet.
Regarding the issue of the coating applied by the Indian producer, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce and a Chinese exporting producer expressed doubts and requested the Commission to explain how the confidential information offered is conclusive proof that the Indian producer only sold electro-plated fasteners on its domestic market.
Under kontrollen fremlagde den indiske producent beviser, der gjorde Kommissionen i stand til at konkludere, at standardskruer solgt på hjemmemarkedet var elektropletterede, jf. type »A« i det oprindelige PCN.
During the verification, the Indian producer provided evidence that allowed the Commission to conclude that standard fasteners sold domestically were electroplated, corresponding to the coating type ‘A’ of the original PCN.
Dette taget i betragtning mener Kommissionen, at der foreligger tilstrækkelige beviser til at konkludere, at standardskruerne solgt på hjemmemarkedet var elektropletterede.
In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the evidence in the file is sufficient to conclude that standard fasteners sold on the domestic market were electroplated.
I denne sammenhæng blev der foretaget en justering for forskelle ved krom, som angivet i betragtning 81 nedenfor.
In this respect, an adjustment was made for difference in chrome, as mentioned in recital 81 below.
Yderligere oplysninger efterspurgt efter noten om fremlæggelse af oplysninger af 5. juli 2012
Further information requested after the information disclosure note of 5 July 2012
Visse eksporterende producenter bad om yderligere forklaringer og oplysninger for eventuelt at kunne anmode om tilpasning af deres egne dumpingmargener som angivet i den oprindelige undersøgelse, på grundlag af følgende forhold:
Some exporting producers requested further clarifications and information in order to be able to make a possible request for adjustments to their own dumping margin as established in the original investigation, based on the following considerations:
de anvendte produkttypeegenskaber (KN-koder, styrkeklasse, standard- eller specialdele) ved fastsættelsen af den normale værdi
characteristics of the ‘product types’ used (CN codes, strength class, standard vs special parts) for the determination of the normal value;
yderligere oplysninger vedrørende egenskaberne for produkterne solgt af den indiske producent, anvendt ved fastsættelsen af den normale værdi
further information regarding characteristics of the products sold by the Indian producer used for the determination of the normal value;
forklaring vedrørende årsagerne til, at det originale PCN's resterende egenskaber ikke blev anvendt
clarification regarding the reasons why the remaining characteristics of the original PCN were not used; and
justeringer i henhold til forskelle i de fysiske egenskaber.
adjustments to be made for difference in physical characteristics.
Med hensyn til litra a) ovenfor, som angivet i informationsnoten af 30. maj 2012, var styrkeklassen for skruer solgt af den indiske samarbejdende producent den samme som styrkeindikatoren omfattet af de PCN, der blev anvendt i spørgeskemaet, fremsendt til alle parter.
Regarding point (a) above, as mentioned in the information note provided on 30 May 2012, the strength class of the fasteners sold by the Indian cooperating producer was the indicator of strength contained in the PCN used in the questionnaire sent to all parties.
Styrkeklassen blev fastsat ved den indiske producents anvendelse af samme relevante PCN-element på de salgslister, der blev gennemgået under kontrolbesøget.
The strength class was identified by using the same relevant element of the PCN by the Indian producer on the sales listings verified during the on-spot verification visit.
»Special«-skruer fremstilles efter kundens tegning. »Standard«-skruer fremstilles til lager og ikke i henhold til en specifik kundes anvisninger. Behovet for at skelne mellem standard- og specialskruer fremstillet af den indiske producent var klart defineret, og som nævnt i betragtning 51 og 54 i forordningen om endelig told blev sammenligningen mellem eksportprisen og den normale værdi for de kinesiske eksporterende producenter i stikprøven foretaget for skruer af »standard«-typen.
The need to differentiate between standard and special fasteners produced by the Indian cooperating producer had been fully recognised and as mentioned in recitals 51 and 54 of the definitive Regulation, the comparison between the export price and the normal value for the sampled Chinese exporting producers was made between fasteners of the ‘standard’ type.
Med henblik på spørgsmålene i litra b) er det, af fortrolighedsmæssige årsager, ikke muligt at oplyse den præcise model af de skruer og bolte, den indiske producent sælger.
With regard to issues raised under point (b), for confidentiality reasons, it is not possible to disclose the exact types of model of screws and bolts sold by the Indian producer.
Som angivet ovenfor fandt sammenligningen dog sted baseret på vægt inden for samme standard- eller specialkategori angivet i PCN.
However, as indicated above, the comparison was made on a weight basis within the same category standard or special and within the same strength class set out in the PCN.
Ligeledes med hensyn til spørgsmålene i litra b) efterspurgte flere af de interesserede parter mere information om belægningen.
Again in regard to issues raised under point (b), several interested parties requested more information on coating.
Den oprindelige undersøgelses data undergik yderligere analyse, hvoraf det fremgik, at produktet solgt som »standard« på det indiske hjemmemarked havde en basisbelægning, dvs. elektroplettering.
The original investigation data was further analysed and this showed that the product sold as ‘standard’ on the Indian domestic market had a basic coating, i.e. electroplating.
Denne information blev fremlagt under høringer ønsket af de interesserede parter, derpå videregivet til de interesserede parter efter anmodning samt placeret i dossieret, der stilles til rådighed for interesserede parter.
This information was provided in hearings requested by interested parties and was redisclosed to the interested parties that had requested this information and was also placed in the file for inspection by interested parties.
To eksporterende producenter i stikprøven efterspurgte mere information om justeringer for forskelle ved anvendelse af krom i belægningen.
Two sampled exporting producers requested more information regarding adjustments for the use of chrome in coating.
Den samarbejdende indiske producents salgsdata blev analyseret yderligere, hvilket førte til en justering af den normale værdi for forskelle ved anvendelse af krom, som forklaret i betragtning 81 nedenfor.
The sales data provided by the Indian cooperating producer were further analysed which led to an adjustment in the normal value for difference in chrome as explained in recital 81 below.
De samme to eksporterende producenter bad om yderligere forklaringer på, hvorledes rentabiliteten for den indiske samarbejdende producents hjemmemarkedssalg blev beregnet, hvorvidt produktionsomkostningerne blev rapporteret på grundlag af PCN, om der var blevet anvendt gennemsnitsomkostninger, og hvorvidt den normale værdi inkluderede salg til forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder.
The same two exporting producers requested more clarification as to how the profitability was determined for the domestic sales of the Indian cooperating producer; whether the production costs had been reported on a PCN basis or whether average costs had been used; and whether the normal value included sales to any related companies.
Al relevant information om den normale værdi var anført i betragtning 94 i forordningen om endelig told.
All relevant information regarding the normal value were mentioned in recital 94 of the definitive Regulation.
Det er ligeledes angivet, at kun hjemmemarkedssalg til virksomheder, der ikke var forretningsmæssigt forbundne, blev anvendt.
It is also specified that only domestic sales to unrelated companies were used.
Disse to eksporterende producenter ytrede senere alvorlig tvivl om, hvorvidt rentabilitets- og repræsentativitetstesten var udført korrekt.
These two exporting producers later argued that they had serious doubts about whether the profitability and the representativity tests were carried out in a correct way.
Med hensyn til repræsentativitetstesten ytrede disse eksporterende producenter tvivl om, hvorvidt den indiske producents salgsmængder på hjemmemarkedet oversteg 5 % af deres eksportsalg for de reviderede produktgrupper.
More specifically with regard to the representativity test, these exporting producers doubted that the quantities of the domestic sales of the Indian producer were above 5 % of their export sales per the revised product groups.
I forbindelse med repræsentativitetstesten fremgik det, at i tilfælde, hvor 5 %-kravet ikke var overholdt for en specifik produkttype, var hjemmemarkedssalget dog omfangsrigt nok til at muliggøre en passende sammenligning.
In regard to the representativity test it was found that in cases where the 5 % test was not met for a particular product type, domestic sales were nonetheless found to be of sufficient magnitude to provide for a proper comparison.
Med hensyn til rentabilitetstesten bekræftes det, at den blev udført på grundlag af produkttype.
With regard to the profitability test, it is confirmed that this was carried out on a product type basis.
Hvad angår spørgsmålet under litra c) ovenfor, dvs. hvorfor man ikke anvendte de komplette PCN til sammenligning af den normale værdi og eksportprisen, fremgik det klart af undersøgelsen, at de komplette PCN ikke ville udgøre en pålidelig indikator.
With regard to the issues raised under point (c) above, i.e. why the full PCN was not used to compare normal value to export price, it became clear during the investigation that the full PCN would not be a reliable indicator.
For det første fordi hverken de indiske eller de kinesiske myndigheder skelner mellem 10 KN-koder til produktidentificering, sådan som EU-myndighederne gør det.
Firstly, because neither the Chinese nor the Indian authorities distinguish between the 10 CN codes used to define the product concerned as do the EU authorities.
For det andet, som forklaret i betragtning 48 i forordningen om endelig told, hævdede en række parter, at hovedparten af de skruer, der produceres af de kinesiske eksporterende producenter, er standardprodukter (som især befinder sig mellem belastningsklasse 4.8 og 8.8) uden særlige egenskaber, hvad angår råmaterialer, belastning, belægning eller certificerings-/sikkerhedsrelaterede aspekter, at de er bestemt til anvendelsesformål i den lavere ende af markedet (ikkeprofessionel brug og generel distribution), i modsætning til den højere ende heraf, og at de ikke opfylder de strenge krav stillet af brugere i sidstnævnte ende af markedet såsom bilindustrien, den kemiske industri eller rumfartsindustrien.
Secondly, as explained in recital 48 of the definitive Regulation, a number of parties claimed that fasteners produced by the Chinese exporting producers were standard products (mainly ranging between 4.8 and 8.8 class of resistance), which had no special characteristics regarding raw material, resistance, coating, or certification/safety related aspects; which were destined for lower-end applications (non-professional use and general distribution) as opposed to high-end applications; and did not meet strict requirements of specific end-users such as the automotive, chemical or aerospace industry.
Spørgsmålene rejst af to andre eksporterende producenter under litra d) ovenfor, sporbarhedselementer, ISO-standard 9000, fejlrate og andre aspekter såsom »hårdhed, bøjelighed, styrke, stød, modstand, friktionskoefficient« kunne ikke godtages, da de pågældende virksomheder ikke har vist, hvorledes disse elementer påvirker prissammenligneligheden mellem den normale værdi og eksportprisen.
With regard to the issues raised under point (d) above, elements of ‘traceability’, ISO standard 9000, unit of defective rate and other criteria such as ‘hardness, bending, strength, impact toughness, friction coefficient’ which were raised by two other exporting producers could not be accepted, as the companies concerned have not shown how these elements affect the price comparability between the normal value and export price.
Da der manglede specifikke oplysninger om den manglende sammenlignelighed, de interesserede parter fremfører ud over deres anbefalinger i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse, og da mængden af tilgængelige yderligere oplysninger om de øvrige tekniske egenskaber såsom belægning var begrænset, konkluderede den oprindelige undersøgelse, at de væsentligste faktorer og forskelle fremhævet af de interesserede parter selv, nemlig special-/standardprodukter og styrkeklasse, udgjorde et tilstrækkeligt grundlag for sammenligning mellem den normale værdi og eksportpriserne.
In the absence of any specific information with regard to the lack of comparability as claimed in addition to the recommendations which had been made by the interested parties in the original investigation, and given the limited amount of further information available regarding other technical characteristics such as coating, it was concluded in the original investigation that the main factors and differences highlighted by the interested parties themselves, in particular standard vs special and strength class constituted a sufficient basis on which to base the comparison between the normal value and export prices.
Yderligere fremlæggelse af oplysninger vedrørende den normale værdi af 11. juli 2012
Further disclosure of information concerning the normal value on 11 July 2012
Den 11. juli 2012 fremlagde Kommissionen en genklassificering af den normale værdi som beskrevet ovenfor og den foreslåede genudregning af dumpingmargener på grundlaget beskrevet ovenfor samt de efterspurgte bemærkninger.
On 11 July 2012 the Commission further disclosed the reclassification of the normal value as described above and its proposed recalculation of the dumping margins on the basis explained above and requested comments.
Som nævnt i betragtning 32 ovenfor fremlagde den indiske producent oprindeligt en salgsliste for hjemmemarkedet uden PCN.
As mentioned in recital 32 above, the Indian producer provided in its original submission a domestic sales listing (‘DMSAL’), without PCNs.
Hvert salg var blot identificeret vha. en enhedskode, dvs. en intern kode for hvert produkt, og en tekststreng med produktbeskrivelse, for eksempel:
The only identifier of each sale was an Item Code, which was an internal code for each product, and a product description text string, for example:
Som forklaret i betragtning 48 til 57 i forordningen om endelig told angav den indiske virksomhed en opdeling af sit hjemmemarkedssalg i standard- og specialskruer på grundlag af den skelnen, der nævnes i betragtning 77.
As explained in recitals 48 to 57 of the definitive Regulation, the Indian company provided a split of its domestic sales between standard and special fasteners using the distinction mentioned in recital 77.
Således blev hjemmemarkedssalget fremlagt inddelt i to segmenter: »standard-hjemmemarkedssalg« og »special-hjemmemarkedssalg«.
As a result the DMSAL was submitted as two files, ‘Standard DMSAL’ and ‘Special DMSAL’.
Salg, der ikke kunne identificeres som enten standard- eller specialsalg, blev ikke medtaget i den efterfølgende beregning af den normale værdi.
Those sales that could not be identified as either Standard or Special were excluded from further calculation of the normal value.