natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Parterne hævdede, at de valgte transportomkostninger var for høje, og at de formodentlig kun gjaldt transport med lastvogn.
The parties claimed that the transport costs chosen were too high, referring probably to transport by truck.
Imidlertid blev størstedelen af varerne ifølge parternes oplysninger transporteret med skib, hvilket er en langt billigere transportform.
However, according to the information of the parties, the majority of goods was transported by vessels, which is a much cheaper mode of transport.
Parterne anmodede om en redegørelse for indberegningen i omkostningerne efter import af gebyrer for håndtering i terminalen og for omkostninger til transport med lastvogn til importørens lokaler.
The parties asked for an explanation concerning the inclusion of terminal handling charges and the costs for trucking to the importer’s premises in the post-importation costs.
Hvad angår synspunktet om, at undersøgelsen ikke burde være blevet genoptaget, samtidig med at der blev draget tvivl om den oprindelige forordnings gyldighed i sag C-338/10 (betragtning 64), forklarede Kommissionen, at den handlede i henhold til legalitetsformodningen.
In respect of the argument that the investigation should not have been reopened while the validity of the original Regulation had been challenged in Case C-338/10 (recital 64), the Commission explained that it acted under the presumption of legality.
I forbindelse med påstandene om den for tidlige genoptagelse, der er genstand for den verserende appelsag C-195/11P (betragtning 65), anser Kommissionen påstanden for at være grundløs, da genoptagelsen var baseret på Rettens konklusioner.
In respect of claims concerning the premature reopening subject to the pending appeal Case C-195/11 P (recital 65) the Commission considers the argument without object, given that the reopening was based on the findings of the General Court.
Desuden er appelsagen i mellemtiden blevet trukket tilbage.
Furthermore, the appeal has in the meantime been withdrawn.
Hvad angår kravene om en ny undersøgelse skal det understreges, at den delvise genoptagelse kun har som mål at rette op på problemet med overtrædelsen af retten til at forsvare sig, som Retten har påpeget, ikke at genoptage hele proceduren.
In respect of the claims for a new investigation it has to be underlined that the partial reopening has as its objective to remedy only of the violation of the rights of defence identified by the General Court, not to reopen the entire proceeding.
Kommissionen vil imidlertid informere de interesserede parter om, at de har mulighed for at anmode om indledning af en interimsundersøgelse, jf. grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 3, hvis de ønsker, at institutionerne skal efterprøve deres påstand om, at der i henhold til nyere oplysninger ikke længere er tale om skade.
However, the Commission will advise the parties concerned that they have the possibility to request the initiation of an interim review, as prescribed in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, if they want the Institutions to verify their claim that on the basis of more recent data, there is no more injury.
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at skadesanalysen bør baseres på nyere oplysninger (betragtning 66), skal det bemærkes, at nyere oplysninger vil blive påvirket af, at der er etableret en antidumpingtold.
With regards to the claim that the injury analysis should be based on more recent data (recital 66), it is observed that any more recent data will be influenced by the fact that an antidumping duty has been in place.
Derfor er det passende værktøj til analyse af nyere oplysninger en interimsundersøgelse, jf. grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 3, og ikke en ny undersøgelse (jf. også betragtning 43).
Therefore, the appropriate instrument to analyse more recent data is an interim review as prescribed in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, and not a new investigation (see also recital 43 above).
Med hensyn til tvivlen om procedurens upartiskhed og retfærdighed (betragtning 67) beror dette på en misforståelse om, at Kommissionen afviste anmodningen om en interimsundersøgelse.
As regards the doubt concerning the impartiality and fairness of the proceeding (recital 67), this is based on a misunderstanding that the Commission rejected the request for an interim review.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene underrettede de respektive parter ved brev af 6. september 2011 om, at der ud fra de til dato foreliggende oplysninger ikke kunne træffes en beslutning om, hvorvidt der kunne iværksættes en fornyet undersøgelse.
The Commission’s Services informed the respective parties by letter of 6 September 2011 that on the basis of the information provided to that date no decision could be taken whether or not a review could be initiated.
De punkter, der krævede yderligere afklaring eller dokumentation, blev kort anført.
The points which required further clarification or evidence were outlined.
Parterne blev underrettet herom ved høringen den 29. februar 2012 og blev opfordret til at fortsætte drøftelsen med de relevante kommissionstjenestegrene.
The parties were informed about this at the hearing of 29 February 2012 and were invited to continue the discussion with the relevant Commission service.
Kommissionens tjenestegrene vil underrette dem om, at de kan videreføre deres anmodning fra datoen for denne forordnings ikrafttrædelse.
The Commission services will inform them that they can pursue their request as of the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Den etårige periode, som var fastlagt i grundforordningens artikel 11, stk. 3, finder ikke anvendelse i dette tilfælde, da det ville være imod formålet med hensyn til, at der bør være en minimumsperiode mellem den oprindelige undersøgelsesperiode og en interimsundersøgelse.
The one-year period provided for in Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation does not apply in the case at hand, as this would run counter its objective, which is that there should be a minimum amount of time between the initial investigation period and an interim review.
I dette tilfælde er denne minimumsperiode blevet respekteret.
In the present case, this minimum amount of time has been observed.
Med hensyn til argumentet om midlet til med tilbagevirkende kraft at rette op på problemet med overtrædelsen af retten til at forsvare sig (betragtning 68) mener Kommissionen, at som konsekvens af Rettens dom er undersøgelsen blevet genoptaget på det punkt, hvor ulovligheden indtrådte.
As regards the argument concerning the retroactive remedy of the breach of rights of defence (recital 68) the Commission considers that as a consequence of the judgement of the General Court, the investigation has been reopened at the point where the illegality occurred.
Parterne har nu mulighed for at udøve deres rettigheder i det omfang, de blev forhindret i at gøre dette, som fastlagt af Retten.
The parties have now a possibility to exercise their rights to the extent they were prevented from doing as established by the General Court.
Desuden vil tolden kun blive indført fremover.
Furthermore, the duties will be imposed only for the future.
Set i dette lys er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at der ikke er tale om et middel til at rette op på problemet med tilbagevirkende kraft som anført af parterne, og deres påstand må således afvises.
Against this background the Commission considers that there is no issue of retroactive remedy as claimed by the parties and this argument of the parties has to be therefore dismissed.
Hvad angår påstanden om den utilstrækkelige angivelse af begrundelser (betragtning 69), er selve formålet med genoptagelsen at rette op på den manglende angivelse af begrundelser og basere den nye retsakt på et komplet set af begrundelser.
As regards the argument concerning the inadequate statement of reasons (recital 69), the very purpose of the reopening is to remedy the lack of reasoning and to base the new legal act on a complete statement of reasons.
Denne påstand fremsat af parterne anses derfor for at være behandlet.
It is therefore considered that this argument of the parties is addressed.
Med hensyn til dommens indhold (betragtning 72) er formålet med genoptagelsen at fastsætte det passende handelsled og især afklare, hvorfor omkostningsjusteringen efter importen af cif-eksportprisen var nødvendig for at sikre, at sammenligningen af eksportprisen og EU-erhvervsgrenens pris fandt sted i samme handelsled.
In respect of the scope of the judgment (recital 72) the purpose of the reopening is to establish the appropriate level of trade, and in particular to clarify why the post-importation cost adjustment of the CIF export price was necessary to ensure that the comparison of the export price and of the Union industry price was done at the same level of trade.
Derfor må parternes påstand afvises.
The argument of the parties has to be, therefore, dismissed.
Med hensyn til påstandene om mangler i oplysningsdokumentet af 5. december 2011 for så vidt angår redegørelsen for det handelsled, der blev anvendt i dette tilfælde (navnlig betragtning 73 til 76), fik parterne yderligere oplysninger og forklaring ved flere lejligheder, nemlig i punkt 4 og 5 i oplysningsdokumentet af 5. december 2011 og under høringerne den 29. februar 2012.
As regards the claims concerning the deficiency of the disclosure document of 5 December 2011 in respect of the explanation of level of trade applied in this case (in particular, recitals 73 to 76), the parties were provided with additional information and explanation at several occasions, namely in points 4 and 5 of the disclosure document of 5 December 2011 as well as during the hearings of 29 February 2012.
Af hensyn til den fulde klarhed angående dette punkt gengives konklusionerne vedrørende handelsled kort nedenfor:
For the sake of full clarity on this point, the findings concerning the level of trade are summarised as follows:
Undersøgelsen viste, at mandariner på dåser kun produceres i en spansk region (Valencia) og hovedsageligt sælges i Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige.
The investigation showed that the canned mandarins are only produced in one Spanish region (Valencia) and are mainly sold in Germany and United Kingdom.
Andelen af EU-salget til Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige blev fastsat til at udgøre 62 % af det samlede EU-salg. ii) På baggrund af de kontrollerede oplysninger blev det fastslået, at EU-producenterne og de kinesiske eksportører hovedsageligt solgte til de samme kunder i UP, dvs. til forhandlere eller distributører. iii) Af den grund blev prissammenligningen mellem importen fra de eksporterende producenter og EU-producenternes salg for de eksporterende producenters vedkommende foretaget ved grænsen (cif) og for EU-producenternes vedkommende ved fabrikken (ab fabrik) med justering for importørens lager. iv) Denne metode krævede følgende justeringer:
The proportion of Union sales to Germany and United Kingdom was established to represent 62 % of the total Union sales.
Denne fragtjustering blev beregnet ud fra de etablerede transportomkostninger fra Valencia til Hamborg.
This freight adjustment was calculated based on the established transport costs from Valencia to Hamburg.
Da ikke alt salg fra EU-producenterne blev leveret til Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige, blev dette gennemsnit, der svarede til andelen af salget til Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige (62 %) og andelen af det direkte salg, reduceret.
Given that not all sales of Union producers were delivered to Germany and United Kingdom, this average was lowered in proportion of the share of sales to Germany and United Kingdom (62 %) and in proportion of direct sales.
Hvad angår andelen af EU-producenternes direkte salg, har det i UP ligget mellem 2 % og 12 %.
As regards the proportion of direct sales of the Union producers, it has been in a range of between 2 % and 12 % during the IP.
Den nøjagtige procentsats kan ikke offentliggøres af fortrolighedshensyn.
The precise percentage cannot be disclosed for confidentiality reasons.
Desuden blev det gjort gældende, at der burde være udviklet en differentieret tilgang til fastsættelsen af det passende handelsled med hensyn til EU-producenternes direkte salg (betragtning 72).
Furthermore, it was argued that a differentiated approach in determination of the appropriate level of trade in respect of the direct sales of the Union producers (recital 72) should have been developed.
I den forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at ud fra de kontrollerede konklusioner blev der ikke solgt noget af den kinesiske import direkte i UP.
In this respect it is to be noted that based on the verified findings none of the Chinese imports were sold directly during the IP.
Da der ikke fandtes et tilsvarende direkte salg for så vidt angår den kinesiske eksport, var det ikke muligt at udvikle en differentieret tilgang til fastsættelsen af et handelsled for andelen af EU-producenternes direkte salg.
Since there were not matching direct sales on the side of the Chinese exports, it was not possible to develop a differentiated approach for establishing a level of trade for the proportion of direct sales of Union producers.
I stedet for blev EU-producenternes direkte salg justeret tilbage til niveauet ab fabrik og underlagt fragtjusteringen, jf. betragtning 92, punkt iv).
Instead, for the purpose of the injury margin calculation, the direct sales of Union producers were adjusted back to the ex-works level and subjected to the freight adjustment described in recital 92 point (iv) above.
Derfor må parternes påstand afvises.
Against this background, the respective claim of the parties has to be dismissed.
For så vidt angår parternes krav om, at justeringen af cif-eksportprisen burde have omfattet SA&G-omkostninger samt en rimelig fortjeneste (betragtning 73), skal det bemærkes, at hvis Kommissionen havde justeret cif-eksportprisen ved at tilføje SA&G-omkostninger samt fortjeneste, så ville salget af de importerede varer have fundet sted i detailleddet.
As regards the claim of the parties that the adjustment of the CIF export price should have included the SG&A and a reasonable profit margin (recital 73) it is noted that had the Commission adjusted the export CIF price by adding SG&A and profit, it would have brought the sales of imported goods to the retailer level.
I et sådant tilfælde ville sammenligningen mellem de kinesiske eksportpriser og EU-salgspriserne have fundet sted i forskellige handelsled.
In such case the comparison between the Chinese export prices and the Union sales prices would have been carried out at different levels of trade.
Af den grund må parternes påstand afvises.
For this reason, the claim of the parties has to be dismissed.
Med hensyn til parternes påstand om, at det stammer fra oplysningsdokumentet af 5. december 2011, at 38 % af EU-producenternes salg i UP fandt sted i form af direkte salg (betragtning 74) blev parterne ved høringerne af 29. februar 2012 underrettet om, at denne konklusion var fejlagtig.
As regards the argument of the parties that it stems from the disclosure document of 5 December 2011 that 38 % of sales of Union producers in the IP were direct sales (recital 74), it was explained to the parties at the hearings of 29 February 2012 that this conclusion was mistaken.
EU-erhvervsgrenens tal på 62 % for salg, der fandt sted til Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige, vedrører den geografiske distribution af salget og har ingen relevans for identificeringen af kundetype og dermed heller ikke for identificeringen af det direkte salg.
The figure of 62 % of Union industry sales that were made in Germany and United Kingdom relates to the geographical distribution of the sales and has no relevance as regards the identification of the type of customer, and thus as regards the identification of direct sales.
Det kan kun udledes af dette forhold, hvilket også blev bekræftet, at de resterende 38 % af EU-producenternes salg fandt sted uden for Tyskland, og Det Forenede Kongerige.
It may only be deduced from this fact, and it is confirmed, that the remaining 38 % of the sales of Union producers were made outside Germany and the United Kingdom.
Da parternes formodning om handelsleddet på 38 % af EU-producenternes salg ikke er korrekt, må den efterfølgende påstand, der var baseret på denne formodning om behovet for en genberegning af skadesmargenen, også afvises.
Since the parties’ assumption on the level of trade of 38 % of sales of Union producers is incorrect, the subsequent claim based on this assumption concerning the need to recalculate the injury margin has to be also dismissed.
I den forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at fakturaerne i sagens natur er fortrolige oplysninger.
In this respect it is noted that the invoices constitute information confidential by nature.
Parterne anmodede ikke herom.
The parties did not request it.
Derfor mener Kommissionen, at kravet om at fremlægge alle oplysninger undtagen de fortrolige var opfyldt.
For these reasons the Commission considers that the requirement to disclose all but confidential information was met.
Desuden mener Kommissionen, at den på dette stadie kan afsløre, at procentsatsen for det direkte salg er på mellem 2 % og 12 %, da de analyserede data er mere end 5 år gamle.
Furthermore, given that the data under assessment is more than five years old, the Commission considers that it can disclose at this stage that the percentage of direct sales is between 2 % and 12 %.
Hvad angår parternes indsigelse over for fragtjusteringen af Unionens salgspris ab fabrik (betragtning 78), er Kommissionen af den opfattelse, at den pågældende justering skete for at transportere varerne til importørens lager, dvs. til det samme handelsled som den kinesiske eksport.
Concerning the objection of the parties to the freight adjustment of the Union ex-works selling price (recital 78) the Commission considers the adjustment in question was made to bring the goods to the importer’s warehouse, i.e. to the same level of trade as the Chinese exports.
Denne justering var baseret på de særlige forhold på det relevante marked, hvor mandariner på dåser kun produceres i én spansk region (Valencia) og hovedsageligt sælges i Tyskland og Det Forenede Kongerige.
This adjustment was based on the specific circumstances of the relevant market where the canned mandarins are only produced in one Spanish region (Valencia) and are mainly sold in Germany and United Kingdom.
Det skete for at opnå en retfærdig sammenligning mellem eksportprisen og EU-prisen i samme handelsled, og ikke for at udligne den påståede omkostningsulempe for EU-producenterne som følge af deres produktionsfaciliteters beliggenhed.
It was made to achieve the fair comparison between export price and the Union price at the same level of trade, not to offset the claimed cost disadvantage of the Union producers due to the location of their production facilities.
Parternes påstand må derfor afvises.
The argument of the parties is therefore dismissed.
Med hensyn til påstanden om, at Kommissionen burde have taget importørernes højere omkostninger i betragtning, eftersom de kinesiske varer blev leveret i containere, mens EU-erhvervsgrenens varer blev anbragt på paller, hvilket reducerede håndteringsgebyret for EU-producenterne (betragtning 79), skal det bemærkes, at de foretagne justeringer kun dækkede omkostningerne ved at levere varerne til importørens lager.
Concerning the argument that the Commission should have taken into account the higher costs of importers because the Chinese products were delivered in containers while the Union industry products were palletised which resulted in the reduction of handling charges by the Union producers (recital 79), it is noted that the adjustments made covered only the cost of bringing the goods to the importer’s warehouse.
De efterfølgende omkostninger, der påløb i forbindelse med varernes forsendelse til detailhandlere, skal afholdes efter det definerede handelsled og kan derfor ikke tages i betragtning.
The subsequent costs incurred in the context of the shipment of the goods to the retailers are to be borne after the defined level of trade and cannot be therefore taken into account.
Af den grund må parternes påstand afvises.
For this reason the argument of the parties is dismissed.
For så vidt angår påstanden om, at EU-producenternes transportomkostninger burde være blevet reduceret for at tage højde for sager, hvor varerne blev leveret direkte til importørernes kunder som fremført af importørerne (betragtning 80), skal der mindes om, at fragtjusteringen af Unionens salgspris ab fabrik var baseret på de fastslåede omkostninger ved fysisk levering til lageret i Hamborg (90 EUR) baseret på indsamlede fakturaer, da lageret i Hamborg er det passende handelsled for sammenligning af eksportprisen og EU-varens priser.
Concerning the argument that the transport costs of the Union producers should have been reduced to take into account cases where the products were delivered directly to the customers of importers as claimed by the latter (recital 80), it is recalled that the freight adjustment of the Union ex-works sales price was based on the established costs of physical delivery to the warehouse in Hamburg (EUR 90) based on collected invoices, because the warehouse Hamburg is the appropriate level of trade for comparing export price and prices of the Union product.
Fragtjusteringen er ikke berettiget med henvisning til, at den medregner de samlede transportomkostninger mellem EU-producenten og detailledet (hvilket ville være højere end leveringsomkostningerne til lageret), men med henvisning til, at lageret i Hamborg er det passende handelsled i kraft af de særlige forhold på markedet for den pågældende vare.
The freight adjustment is not justified on the ground that it includes total transport costs between the Union producer and the retailer (which would be higher than the costs for delivery to the warehouse), but on the ground that in the light of the specificities of the market for the product concerned, the warehouse in Hamburg is the appropriate level of trade.
I den forbindelse synes parternes påstand at være uvæsentlig.
In this context, the argument raised by the parties appears immaterial.
Parterne hævdede, at den anvendte fragtjustering var for høj, da den var baseret på transportomkostninger for lastvogn (betragtning 81).
The parties claimed that the applied freight adjustment was too high because it was based on the transport costs by truck (recital 81).
I denne forbindelse erindres der om, at fragtjusteringen blev beregnet ud fra de etablerede omkostninger ved fysisk levering til Hamborg, hvilket omfattede både lastvogn og skib.
In this context, it is recalled that the freight adjustment was based on the established costs of physical delivery to Hamburg, which included both truck and boat.
Derfor er den justering, som parterne anmodede om, allerede inkluderet i beregningen af fragtomkostninger til Hamborg.
Therefore, the adjustment requested by the parties had already been included in the calculation of freight cost to Hamburg.
Det var således ikke nødvendigt at kontrollere de data, som parterne havde forelagt under høringen, da omkostningerne ved levering til Hamborg i den oprindelige undersøgelse var blevet fastslået ud fra de kontrollerede oplysninger fra EU-producenterne.
It was therefore not necessary to verify the data submitted by the parties during the hearing, as during the original investigation, the costs for delivery to Hamburg had been established on the basis of the verified data of the Union producers.
Med hensyn til ansøgerens bemærkning om beregning af omkostningerne efter import (betragtning 82) blev det anført, jf. punkt 9 i oplysningsdokumentet af 5. december 2011, at både gebyrerne for håndtering i terminalen og omkostningerne til transport med lastvogn til importørens lokaler var inkluderet i beregningen.
Regarding the comment made by the applicant concerning the calculation of the post-importation cost (recital 82), it was stated that, as explained in paragraph 9 of the disclosure document sent on 5 December 2011, both terminal handling charges and the costs for trucking to the importer’s premises were included in the calculation.