natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere hævdede en af importørerne, at de eksporterende producenters procedurerettigheder blev krænket, eftersom de ikke længere var i stand til at fremsætte relevante bemærkninger eller indgive supplerende oplysninger til støtte for anmodninger, der blev fremsat for 11 år siden, da virksomhederne måske ikke længere eksisterer, eller dokumenterne ikke længere er til rådighed.
The (lower) duty remains in force both for the time prior to annulment and for the time after annulment.
Samme part hævdede, at i modsætning til i den oprindelige undersøgelse ville den nuværende genindførelse af foranstaltninger kun påvirke importørerne i Unionen, uden at de imidlertid havde nogen mulighed for at indgive relevant input.
In order to comply with the judgment, the Institutions recalculate the duty and amend the Regulation imposing the duty accordingly for the past and for the future.
Det blev også hævdet, at Kommissionen faktisk anvendte de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger, jf. grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1, hvorimod Kommissionen tilsidesatte procedurereglerne i grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 4.
They also instruct national customs authorities to reimburse the difference, where such claims had been made in due time.
Kommissionen bemærker, at der i grundforordningen ikke er noget krav til Kommissionen om at give eksporterende virksomheder, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, mulighed for at tilvejebringe manglende faktuelle oplysninger.
The Union Courts proceed to complete annulment where they cannot establish themselves on the basis of the facts in the file whether or not the institutions were right in assuming that there was dumping, injury and Union interest, because the Institutions had to redo part of their investigation.
Den minder om, at bevisbyrden ifølge retspraksis påhviler den producent, som ønsker at anmode om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b).
As the Union Courts are not competent for carrying out the investigation at the place of the Commission, they annulled the regulations imposing definitive duties completely.
I henhold til Domstolens domme i Brosmann og Aokang påhviler det således ikke institutionerne at bevise, at producenten ikke opfylder betingelserne for at opnå denne status.
As a consequence, the Institutions validly established the presence of the three conditions necessary for the imposition of measures only after the judgment annulling the duties.
Derimod påhviler det Kommissionen at vurdere, om de af den berørte producent angivne forhold udgør tilstrækkelige beviser for, at kriterierne i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), første afsnit, med henblik på at tildele producenten markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling er opfyldt (jf. betragtning 31).
For imports that took place prior to the valid establishment of dumping, injury and Union interest, the imposition of definitive duties is prohibited both by the basic Regulation and by ADA.
Retten til at blive hørt vedrører vurderingen af disse faktiske omstændigheder, men omfatter ikke retten til at afhjælpe mangelfulde oplysninger.
Therefore, the acts adopted by the institutions to close those investigations imposed definitive duties only for the future.
Ellers ville den eksporterende producent kunne forlænge vurderingen på ubestemt tid ved at fremlægge oplysningerne lidt efter lidt.
The present case is different from past (partial or complete) annulments in so far, as it does not concern the very presence of dumping, injury and Union interest, but merely the choice of the appropriate duty rate (that is the choice between the duty rate applicable to the only company in the sample having received MET and the residual duty rate).
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til at anmode den eksporterende producent om at supplere anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
What is at dispute is therefore not the very principle of imposing a duty, but only the precise amount (in other words: a modality) of the duty.
Som nævnt i foregående betragtning kan Kommissionen basere sin vurdering på de oplysninger, som den eksporterende producent har indgivet.
And the adjustment, if any, can only be downwards.
Under alle omstændigheder har de berørte eksporterende producenter ikke anfægtet Kommissionens vurdering af deres anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling, og de har ikke meddelt, hvilke dokumenter eller medarbejdere de ikke længere råder over.
Contrary to the cases of partial annulment in the past discussed above in recital (119), the Court has not been able to decide as to whether a new (reduced) duty rate had to be granted, because that decision requires first an assessment of the MET claim.
Påstanden er derfor så abstrakt, at institutionerne ikke kan tage hensyn til disse vanskeligheder i forbindelse med vurderingen af anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
That task of assessing the MET claim falls within the prerogatives of the Commission.
Da denne påstand er baseret på formodninger og ikke understøttes af nøjagtige angivelser af, hvilke dokumenter og medarbejdere man ikke længere råder over, og af relevansen af disse dokumenter og medarbejdere for vurderingen af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling, tilbagevises denne påstand.
Hence, the Court cannot carry out this part of the investigation at the place of the Commission without overstepping its competences.
For så vidt angår den faktiske anvendelse af grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1, fordrer dette ikke også automatisk anvendelse af grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 4.
Contrary to cases of complete annulment in the past, the findings on dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have not been annulled.
Dette er kun påkrævet i tilfælde, hvor Kommissionen måtte afvise oplysninger, der var fremlagt af den interesserede part.
Therefore, dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have been validly established at the time of adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
I det foreliggende tilfælde accepterede Kommissionen oplysningerne fra de berørte eksporterende producenter og baserede sin vurdering på disse oplysninger.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit the reimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties to the future.
Dette er ikke ensbetydende med brug af de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger.
The present regulation does therefore in any event not depart from the decisional practice of the Institutions, even if it was relevant.
Det er snarere udtryk for, at Kommissionen ikke har afvist nogen oplysninger.
Interested parties also argued that the annulment of anti-dumping duties would not entail any unjust enrichment by the importers, as claimed by the Commission, since these importers may have suffered a decline in sales due to the duty which had been incorporated in the sales price.
Unionens interesser
In the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is recognized that the repayment of charges which have been unduly levied may be refused where doing so would entail unjust enrichment of the recipients.
Der var en importør, som hævdede, at Kommissionen undlod at undersøge, om indførelse af antidumpingtold ville være i Unionens interesse, og fremførte, at foranstaltningerne ville være i strid med Unionens interesser, fordi i) foranstaltningerne allerede havde deres ønskede virkning, da de blev indført i første omgang, ii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville udgøre en yderligere fordel for EU-erhvervsgrenen, iii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville have nogen indvirkning på de eksporterende producenter, og iv) foranstaltningerne ville pålægge importørerne i Unionen en betydelig omkostning.
The Commission observes that those interested parties do not contest that the duty has been passed on and do not provide any proof for a decline in sales, and that in any event the case-law on unjust enrichment only takes into pass-on, but not possible secondary effects of pass-on.
Den foreliggende sag vedrører kun anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, fordi dette er det eneste punkt, hvor EU's retsinstanser har identificeret en retlig fejl.
Regarding the alleged derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity, reference is made to the recitals 76 to 81 where this was addressed extensively.
For så vidt angår Unionens interesser, er vurderingen i den oprindelige forordning fortsat fuldt ud gældende.
Regarding the alleged application of two different legal frames in the current implementation reference is made to recitals 99 to 102 where this was addressed extensively.
Desuden er den nuværende foranstaltning berettiget for at beskytte Unionens finansielle interesser.
Finally, concerning the comments provided by these parties following the disclosure of the MET assessment of the Chinese exporting producers concerned, it is considered that these have been addressed fully in the current Regulation.
Åbenbare fejl i vurderingen af anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling
Other procedural issues
Vurdering af anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling
The above interested parties claimed that the same procedural rights should have granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation than those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
FESI og Puma anfægtede Kommissionens vurdering af deres kinesiske leverandørers anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling og hævdede, at de hovedsagelig blev afvist, fordi de ikke indeholdt fyldestgørende oplysninger.
They argued that in particular, the Chinese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters and only desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits.
For så vidt angår kriterium 1, hævdede disse parter, at Kommissionen ud over ikke at gøre sig anstrengelser for at indhente de manglende oplysninger heller ikke præciserede, hvilke oplysninger der var nødvendige for at påvise, at der ikke var nogen omfattende statslig indgriben i de berørte eksporterende producenters virksomheders beslutninger.
In addition, the Commission did not ensure the due delivery of the disclosure of the assessment of MET/IT requests to the exporting producers concerned as these were only sent to the legal representatives of these companies at the time of the original investigation.
For så vidt angår kriterium 3, henviste disse parter til Domstolens dom i sag T-586/14, Xinyi OV mod Kommissionen, og hævdede, at skatteincitamenter eller præferenceskatteordninger ikke var udtryk for forvridning eller ikke-markedsøkonomisk adfærd.
It was further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
På dette grundlag gjorde parterne gældende, at Kommissionen begik en åbenbar fejl ved at anvende grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra c), og heller ikke gav tilstrækkelige begrundelser for at afvise de eksporterende producenters anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
The Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
For så vidt angår de manglende oplysninger vedrørende kriterium 1, henvises der til betragtning 135, hvoraf det fremgår, at der ikke i grundforordningen er noget krav til Kommissionen om at give eksporterende virksomheder, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling, mulighed for at tilvejebringe manglende faktuelle oplysninger, og at bevisbyrden faktisk påhviler den eksporterende producent, som ønsker at anmode om markedsøkonomisk behandling.
In addition, exporting producers, during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
For så vidt angår kriterium 3, præciseres det, at eventuelle skatteincitamenter eller præferenceskatteordninger ikke blev betragtet som en grund til at afvise markedsøkonomisk behandling.
In addition, one of the importers claimed that the procedural rights of the exporting producers were violated as they were no longer in a position to provide meaningful comments or provide additional information to support claims that were made 11 years ago as the companies may no longer exist or the documents may no longer be available.
Vurdering af anmodninger om individuel behandling
The same party argued that unlike in the original investigation, the current reimposition of the measures would only affect the importers in the Union without, however, any option for them to provide meaningful input.
Samme ovennævnte parter hævdede med henvisning til kriterium 2, at Kommissionen ikke påviste, at eksportsalget ikke fastsattes frit, og at det var op til Kommissionen at afgøre, om og hvordan eksportpriser blev påvirket på grund af statslig indgriben.
Also, it was claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Endvidere blev det hævdet, at konklusionen om, at eksportsalget ikke blev fastsat frit, er i strid med konklusionerne i den oprindelige undersøgelse vedrørende OEM-salg, hvor det blev fastslået, at importører som Puma havde deres egen FoU og råvareleverance, når de købte hos kinesiske leverandører.
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
På dette grundlag blev det hævdet, at Puma og Timberland havde betydelig kontrol med produktionsprocessen og specifikationerne, og at der derfor ikke var nogen mulighed for statslig indgriben.
It recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Som allerede nævnt i betragtning 42 ovenfor påhviler bevisbyrden den producent, som ønsker at anmode om individuel behandling.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Som også forklaret ovenfor i betragtning 47 kunne de eksporterende producenter ikke påvise, at virksomhedernes beslutninger blev truffet uden statslig indgriben.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET/IT (see above recital 31).
Det skal også bemærkes, at kriterium 2 ikke kun sigter til eksportpriser, men generelt til eksportsalg, herunder at eksportpriser og -mængder og andre salgsbetingelser og -vilkår fastsættes frit uden statslig indgriben.
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Til støtte for deres argument om, at eksportpriser blev fastsat frit, henviste de berørte interesserede parter til betragtning 269 i forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006 (»forordningen om midlertidig told«).
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
Denne betragtning omhandler imidlertid videresalgspriser for importørerne i Unionen og kan derfor ikke anses for at være et passende grundlag for at fastslå pålideligheden af de eksporterende producenters eksportpriser.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
Ligeledes vedrører henvisningen til betragtning 132 i forordningen om midlertidig told og betragtning 135 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 (»den anfægtede forordning«) justeringer af den normale værdi i forhold til eksportprisen og giver ikke mulighed for at drage konklusioner om, hvorvidt de kinesiske virksomheders eksportsalg blev fastsat frit.
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Desuden påstod disse parter, at Kommissionen heller ikke har forklaret, hvorledes den nåede frem til den konklusion, at der ville være risiko for omgåelse af antidumpingforanstaltningen, hvis de berørte eksporterende producenter blev indrømmet en individuel toldsats, hvilket imidlertid ville være det underliggende mål med kriterierne for individuel behandling.
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
For så vidt angår risikoen for omgåelse, er dette kun et kriterium ud af de fem, der er opført i artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen før dens ændring.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
I henhold til nævnte artikel bør den eksporterende producent påvise, at alle 5 kriterier er opfyldt.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument has to be rebutted.
Derfor er manglende opfyldelse af et eller flere kriterier tilstrækkeligt til at afvise individuel behandling uden at undersøge, om de øvrige kriterier er opfyldt.
Regarding the de facto application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, this does not automatically also require the application of Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Timberlands leverandør
This is only required in cases where the Commission were to reject information that had been provided by the interested party.
FESI anfægtede påstanden i betragtning 19 ovenfor, ifølge hvilken en af Timberlands leverandører, General Shoes Limited, fejlagtigt blev identificeret som en kinesisk leverandør i sagsanlægget ved den nationale ret, hvorimod virksomheden var etableret i Vietnam.
In the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned and based its assessment on this information.
FESI fremførte, at Kommissionen burde have anmodet om yderligere oplysninger, og påstod, at virksomheden let kunne identificeres som en kinesisk virksomhed.
That is not use of facts available.
De fremførte, at selv om det var korrekt, at virksomheden optrådte med et andet navn i stikprøveskemaet og anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling i den oprindelige undersøgelse (dvs. som General Footwear Ltd), skyldes det andet virksomhedsnavn i Timberlands sagsanlæg ved den nationale ret (dvs. General Shoes Ltd) højst sandsynligt alene en oversættelsesfejl.
Rather, the Commission has not rejected any information.
Derfor burde anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling fra den kinesiske virksomhed General Footwear Ltd også være blevet vurderet.
Union interest
General Footwear Ltd er en del af en virksomhedsgruppe med forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder i Kina og Vietnam.
One importer claimed that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Der var både en producent i Vietnam og en i Kina, der indsendte anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse.
The present case only concerns the MET/IT requests, because this is the only point on which a legal error has been identified by the Union Courts.
I den relevante anmodning om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling er det imidlertid uklart, om den pågældende virksomhed faktisk er kinesisk eller vietnamesisk.
For Union interest, the assessment in the initial regulation remains fully valid.
Det var derfor ikke urimeligt at antage, at den virksomhed, der er nævnt i sagens akter i den nationale sag, faktisk var vietnamesisk.
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Under alle omstændigheder er det fortsat Kommissionens hensigt at vurdere anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling fra »General Footwear Ltd« (Kina).
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
Som led i god forvaltningsskik og for ikke unødigt at forsinke den igangværende gennemførelse, bliver denne vurdering dog genstand for en separat retsakt.
MET assessment
Argument i forbindelse med anmodninger om godtgørelse
FESI and Puma contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of their Chinese suppliers and alleged that they were mainly rejected based on the absence of complete information.
Importøren anmodede desuden om, at dens leverandørers anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling blev undersøgt på grundlag af de dokumenter, som de relevante belgiske toldmyndigheder havde forelagt Kommissionen.
On this basis, the parties argued that the Commission made a manifest error in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and has also not provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the exporting producers' MET requests.
For så vidt angår ovenstående anmodning, henviser Kommissionen til Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2016/223 om fastlæggelse af en procedure for vurdering af en række anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling og individuel behandling fra eksporterende producenter i Kina og Vietnam og om gennemførelse af Domstolens dom i de forenede sager C-659/13 og C-34/14, hvori det fastlægges, hvilken procedure der skal følges.
With regard to the missing information concerning criterion 1, reference is made to (135) which outlines that there is nothing in the basic Regulation that requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET the possibility to complete lacking factual information and that the burden of proof lies in fact with the exporting producer who wishes to claim MET.
Kommissionen vil navnlig i henhold til artikel 1 og 2 i nævnte forordning undersøge de relevante anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling, så snart den har modtaget den relevante dokumentation fra toldmyndighederne.
Concerning criterion 3, it is clarified that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET.
D. KONKLUSIONER
IT assessment
Ud fra de modtagne bemærkninger og analysen heraf konkluderedes det, at restantidumpingtolden for Kina bør genindføres, for så vidt angår de 13 berørte eksporterende producenter, i anvendelsesperioden for den anfægtede forordning.
The same above parties argued, referring to criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was up to the Commission to determine whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
E. FREMLÆGGELSE AF OPLYSNINGER
Moreover, it was argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to OEM sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from the Chinese suppliers.