natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Efter den reviderede fremlæggelse fastholdt EBB påstanden om, at Kommissionen havde misfortolket appelinstansens erklæring i punkt 6.55 i dens rapport og overset muligheden i punkt 6.41 i samme rapport for at undersøge pålideligheden af de registrerede omkostninger til råmaterialer og se bort fra disse omkostninger, hvis de bliver fundet upålidelige, og EBB fremlagde yderligere argumenter til støtte for dette.
According to EBB, the effect of the DET system was similar to transactions that were not at arm's length and/or amounted to another practice that could affect ‘the reliability of the reported costs’ [10].
Kommissionens fortolkning af punkt 6.55 tog desuden heller ikke hensyn til den omstændighed, at appelinstansen også havde fundet det nødvendigt at behandle det efterfølgende spørgsmål angående et benchmark.
The Commission reassessed this claim also in light of the hearing with the Hearing Officer of 20 July 2017.
Dette ville ikke have været nødvendigt, hvis appelinstansen kategorisk havde udelukket, at Argentinas eksportafgiftsordning kunne udgøre grundlaget for en justering af omkostningerne.
The Commission put forward in recitals 51 to 55 that the actual costs incurred for raw materials were adequately and faithfully reflected in the Argentinian companies' records and that the previous cost adjustment made had been found incompatible with the EU's WTO obligations.
Kommissionen accepterede ikke EBB's fortolkning.
The Commission did not share EBB's interpretation of the Panel and Appellate Body's findings.
For det første er appelinstansens erklæring i punkt 6.55, som der henvises til ovenfor, ikke blot en afskrift af Kommissionens egne konklusioner.
For example, footnote 400 of the Panel Report is more nuanced than what EBB's submission suggests.
Tværtimod udgør den en central del af appelinstansens fortolkning af antidumpingaftalens artikel 2.2.1.1 i punkt 6.56.
The Panel found that ‘the examination of the records that flows from the term ‘reasonably reflect’ in Article 2.2.1.1 does not involve an examination of the ‘reasonableness’ of the reported costs themselves, when the actual costs recorded in the records of the producer or exporter are otherwise found, within acceptable limits, to be accurate and faithful’.
Appelinstansen gentog ordret denne normative konklusion i det næste punkt 6.56 under overskriften »Konklusioner«.
Yet, by claiming that the effect of the DET system was similar to non-arms-length transactions and/or amounted to another practice, EBB precisely pointed in the direction for such examination of the reasonableness of these reported costs.
Hverken appelinstansen eller panelet har imidlertid erklæret noget som helst i den retning.
Following the revised disclosure, EBB maintained its position that the Commission had misinterpreted the Appellate Body's statement in paragraph 6.55 of its report and overlooked the possibility provided for in paragraph 6.41 of the same report to examine the reliability of the recorded raw material costs and disregard such costs if found unreliable and provided some additional arguments in support.
Tværtimod er formuleringen »i sig selv« formentlig anvendt for at gøre det klart, at Argentinas eksportafgiftsordning ikke »som sådan« kan medføre en justering af omkostninger i henhold til antidumpingaftalens artikel 2.2.1.1, uanset hvor velbegrundet eller dokumenteret dets konkurrencefordrejende virkninger er.
With regard to the first claim EBB contended that the AB statement in paragraph 6.55 ‘…the EU authorities' determination that domestic prices of soybeans in Argentina were lower than international prices due to the Argentine export tax system was not, in itself, a sufficient basis for concluding that the producers' records did not reasonably reflect the costs of soybeans associated with the production and sale of biodiesel, or for disregarding those costs when constructing the normal value of biodiesel’ is not a legal assessment by the Appellate Body, as claimed by the Commission, but a mere quotation of the Commission's own conclusion in the definitive Regulation.
Som det kan udledes af overskriften før punkt 6.58, behandlede appelinstansen en anden anmodning fra Argentina i henhold til antidumpingaftalens artikel 2.2.
EBB further claimed that the wording ‘was not, in itself a sufficient basis’ implies that the Argentine export tax system could have provided a sufficient basis to disregard the costs but the Commission failed to carry out the necessary analysis.
Kommissionen adresserede derefter EBB's andet klagepunkt, nemlig, at punkt 6.41 i appelinstansens rapport var et klart signal til, at der kan ses bort fra de omkostninger, der registreres i virksomheders fortegnelser, når de er baseret på en praksis, der påvirker pålideligheden af de registrerede omkostninger.
Finally, the Commission's reading of paragraph 6.55 also disregarded the fact that the Appellate Body had found it necessary to also address the subsequent issue of a benchmark.
EBB henviste også til, at hvorimod panelet kun havde nævnt dette i en fodnote, havde appelinstansen fundet det nødvendigt at medtage det i rapportens hoveddel.
This would not have been necessary if the Appellate Body had categorically ruled out that Argentine export tax system could form the basis for a cost adjustment.
Kommissionen fandt det desuden normalt, at appelinstansen behandlede en påstand i afgørelsens hovedrapport i stedet for i en fodnote, sådan som panelet havde gjort.
On the contrary, it forms an integral part of the Appellate Body's interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA in paragraph 6.56.
Hverken panelet eller appelinstansen nåede dog frem til konklusioner eller henstillinger om, at Argentinas eksportafgiftsordning kunne høre under denne undtagelse for en praksis, der påvirkede pålideligheden.
The Appellate Body expressly agreed with the Panel that this provision did not provide a sufficient basis for the Commission's conclusion to disregard the recorded costs of Argentine biodiesel producers because domestic prices of soybeans in Argentina were lower than international prices due to the Argentine export tax system.
I denne forbindelse skal det bemærkes, at indsamling af alternativ dokumentation vedrørende justering af omkostninger for at modvirke den differentierede eksportafgiftsordnings skævvridende virkning ikke var formålet med den aktuelle fornyede undersøgelse.
If instead (as argued by EBB) the main reason for the Appellate Body to find a WTO inconsistency of the EU measures was the insufficient reasoning of the Commission in the original Regulation, it would have expressly said so.
Under alle omstændigheder bemærker Kommissionen, at resultaterne fra Heffley-undersøgelsen ikke kunne betragtes som et tilstrækkeligt solidt grundlag til at foretage nye omkostningsjusteringer af følgende grunde:
However, nothing of the kind was stated the Appellate Body and the Panel.
For det første omfattede UP perioden juli 2011-juni 2012, mens Heffley-undersøgelsens specifikke analyse fokuserer på perioden oktober 2011-september 2012.
Rather, the wording ‘in itself’ was likely used to make clear that the operation of the export tax system in Argentina cannot ‘as such’ trigger a cost adjustment under Article 2.2.1.1 ADA however well-reasoned or documented its distortive effects may be.
I undersøgelsen blev produktionsomkostningerne i USA for det andet vurderet ud fra prisen på sojabønner på det amerikanske marked.
Third, the Commission disagreed with EBB's inference that the fact that the Appellate Body addressed the claim regarding benchmarks in paragraphs 6.58 to 6.83 was an indication that the export tax system in Argentina could indeed have been a sufficient basis to disregard the recorded costs for raw material.
I undersøgelsesperioden for den oprindelige undersøgelse var eksportprisen på argentinsk biodiesel til EU faktisk på 967 EUR/ton, hvilket svarer til 1294 USD/ton, når man anvender de vekselkurser, der er registreret i sagsakten.
The EBB also referred to the fact that while the Panel had presented this reasoning in a footnote only, the Appellate Body found it necessary to include it in the body of its report.
I undersøgelsen blev der i denne periode dog anvendt en gennemsnitlig eksportpris på 1071 USD/ton.
This would indicate, according to EBB, that the Appellate Body wanted to dispel an overly restrictive interpretation of Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA and give a clear signal that a cost adjustment remains possible in that context.
Dette viser, at den påståede fordel ved den differentierede eksportafgiftsordning ikke kunne stamme direkte fra eksportpriserne til Unionen.
In paragraph 6.41 the Appellate Body addressed the claim from the EU that the Panel report seemed to suggest that an investigating authority would have to accept any cost reported in a company's record as long as it accurately reflected the costs actually incurred ‘no matter how unreasonable such cost would be compared to a proxy or benchmark consistent with normal market conditions’.
Kommissionen konkluderede derfor, at det ikke var muligt at erstatte de registrerede omkostninger i de argentinske biodieselproducenters fortegnelser med den benchmark, der foreslås i Heffley-undersøgelsen.
The Commission agreed with EBB that the Appellate Body had upheld the Panel's ruling that recorded costs could be discarded when the investigating authority has found non-arms-length transactions or other practices affecting their reliability.
Efter den reviderede fremlæggelse præciserede EBB, at formålet med undersøgelsen blot var at vise, hvordan Kommissionen — for eksempel — kunne vurdere og kvantificere omfanget af den skævvridning (upålidelighed), der er forårsaget af Argentinas eksportafgiftsordning, og ikke at erstatte en analyse, der er foretaget af Kommissionen på grundlag af dens egne kontrollerede data, som blev indsamlet under den oprindelige undersøgelse.
It also found it normal that the Appellate Body addressed a claim in the body of its ruling rather than in a footnote, as the Panel had done.
EBB fremsendte også en revideret undersøgelse med referencedata, der fuldt ud svarede til den oprindelige undersøgelsesperiode, som viste et næsten identisk resultat, dvs. en skævvridning af priserne på hjemmemarkedet for sojabønner på ca. 27 %.
However, neither the Panel nor the Appellate Body made any findings or suggestions that the export tax system in Argentina could fall under this exception of a practice affecting reliability.
EBB anfægtede desuden Kommissionens opfattelse, at undersøgelsen var baseret på produktionsomkostninger i USA.
If the Panel or Appellate Body had considered that the Argentine export tax system could have qualified as another practice affecting reliability, they would have made this point clear and refrained from finding a WTO inconsistency of the EU measures.
Tværtimod var undersøgelsen baseret på en anslået værdi af omkostningerne til produktion af biodiesel i Argentina.
The Commission therefore maintained its interpretation of the Reports that the EU could not disregard the costs actually incurred and accurately recorded when constructing the normal value of biodiesel in Argentina on the basis of distortions stemming from the mere existence of the Argentina export tax system.
Slutteligt fremfører EBB, at ingen af de angiveligt komparative fordele kan forklare en prisforskel på omkring 30 %, og i mangel af bevis for det modsatte, er Argentinas eksportafgiftsordning den eneste rimelige årsag til en sådan forskel.
In this respect, it noted that collecting alternative evidence for cost adjustments to counteract the distortive effects of the DET was not the purpose of the present review investigation.
Kommissionen er imidlertid stadig ikke overbevist med hensyn til de tre andre punkter.
There is, consequently, only a partial overlap of the periods considered, making it questionable whether the study's findings can be translated to the underlying investigation without adjustments.
Som EBB selv erkendte, var de anslåede forarbejdningsomkostninger for en producent i Argentina baseret på tre analyser: én, der var baseret på data for de gennemsnitlige omkostninger og priser gennem seks år i USA og Argentina, én, der var baseret på de samme data gennem ét år i USA og Argentina, og én, der var baseret på et års data for Argentina, hvor den argentinske eksportpris blev anvendt som indikator for verdensmarkedsprisen.
The Commission was unable to correct this mismatch without data for the period July-September 2011.
Situationen i USA blev tydeligvis brugt som en udenlandsk reference med det formål at konstatere, hvad omkostningerne i Argentina ville være uden skævvridningerne fra eksportafgiften.
Second, the study estimated the cost of production in the US from the price of soybeans on the US market.
Der var desuden ingen god grund til, at der burde ses bort fra argentinske priser ved eksport til Europa i forsøget på at fastslå, hvilken fordel en argentinsk producent af biodiesel kan have haft som følge af den differentierede eksportafgiftsordning.
This economic method is based on assumptions without, however, providing reliable of actual cost of production of US biodiesel.
Kommissionen har derudover aldrig bestridt, at den differentierede eksportafgiftsordning kunstigt sænkede inputomkostningerne for argentinske biodieselproducenter, men har kun betvivlet, at eksportafgiftsordningen var den eneste grund til den store fordel (ca. 30 %).
Even if one could rely on assumptions only, the idea that the costs of making biodiesel from crude soybean oil would be identical in the US and Argentina is not substantiated.
Genberegnede dumpingmargener
Third, using an ‘average’ Argentinian export price overlooks the fact that the export price to the Union may be actually higher than the average.
Efter fremlæggelsen af oplysninger fremsatte nogle argentinske eksporterende producenter virksomhedsspecifikke bemærkninger vedrørende påståede fejl i dumpingberegningerne.
Indeed, during the IP of the original investigation, the export price of Argentine biodiesel to the EU stood at 967 EUR/MT, which equals 1294 USD/MT, using the exchange rates of the time, as recorded in the file.
Der, hvor det var hensigtsmæssigt, rettede Kommissionen disse fejl og reviderede dumpingmargenerne og tolden i overensstemmelse hermed.
The study, though, used for this period an average export price of 1071 USD/MT.
De reviderede toldsatser for alle argentinske eksportører i lyset af konklusionerne og henstillingerne i WTO-rapporterne, udtrykt i procent af cif-prisen, Unionens grænse, ufortoldet, er som følger:
This shows that the conclusion that the alleged benefit from the DET could not derive directly from the export prices to the Union.
Land
Fourth, the study simply assumes, without adequate evidence to substantiate it, that the (low) cost of production on the Argentine domestic market during the period considered was exclusively caused by the DET.
Virksomhed
Indeed, the study does not consider other factors of comparative advantage which might make the production of biodiesel in Argentina cheaper than in the United States.
Dumpingmargen
The Commission thus concluded that it was unable to replace accurately the recorded cost in the records of Argentinian biodiesel producers by the benchmark suggested in the Heffley study.
Andre samarbejdsvillige virksomheder
Following the revised disclosure, EBB clarified that the purpose of the study was only to demonstrate how the Commission, as an example, could appreciate and quantify the extent of distortion (unreliability) caused by the Argentina export tax system and not to substitute or replace an analysis by the Commission based on its own verified data collected during the original investigation.
Alle andre virksomheder
EBB also submitted a revised study with reference data that fully corresponded to the original investigation period which showed a very similar result, i.e. a distortion of domestic prices for soybeans at around 27 %.
REVIDEREDE KONKLUSIONER VEDRØRENDE SKADE PÅ BASIS AF RAPPORTERNE
EBB further contested the Commission's understanding that the study relied on cost of production in the US.
I rapporterne blev det konkluderet, at EU bl.a. havde handlet i modstrid med antidumpingaftalens artikel 3.1 og 3.4 i forbindelse med undersøgelsen af virkningerne af dumpingimporten for den hjemlige erhvervsgren, i det omfang de vedrører produktionskapacitet og kapacitetsudnyttelse.
On the contrary, the study relied on an estimated cost of production of biodiesel in Argentina.
Rapporterne ugyldiggjorde dog ikke konklusionen om, at EU-erhvervsgrenen led væsentlig skade i den betragtede periode.
Moreover, the Commission's criticism of the study for relying on an average export price is misplaced since that price, in itself, is irrelevant for calculating the distortion to biodiesel costs in Argentina that is caused by the export tax system.
Panelet fandt, at EU handlede i strid med antidumpingaftalens artikel 3.1 og 3.4 ved at acceptere reviderede data fra EU's indenlandske erhvervsgren på et sent tidspunkt i undersøgelsen uden at efterprøve dataenes nøjagtighed og pålidelighed (punkt 7.395 i panelrapporten).
Finally, the EBB contends that any alleged comparative advantages cannot explain a price difference of around 30 % and, absent any evidence to the contrary, the only reasonable explanation for such a gap is the system of export taxes in Argentina.
Visse eksporterende producenter og CARBIO — den argentinske sammenslutning af eksportører af biodiesel — fremførte, at begrebet »uudnyttet kapacitet«, som det blev forklaret i forordningen om endelig told, er temmelig meningsløs i denne branche.
The Commission examined the explanations and clarifications provided by EBB.
Enten eksisterede kapaciteten, eller også gjorde den ikke.
The Commission accepted that the revised study showed distortion of domestic soybean prices during the investigation period of around 27 %.
For importøren Gunvor og for CARBIO var det erhvervsgrenens strukturelle overkapacitet, som fulgte af uberettigede stigninger i produktionskapaciteten til trods for den lave kapacitetsudnyttelsesgrad, og ikke selve kapacitetsudnyttelsesgraden, der var årsag til den skade, der forvoldtes den indenlandske erhvervsgren.
However, it remained unconvinced by the other three points.
Kommissionen behandlede dette spørgsmål i punkt 6.1-6.4.
As EBB itself acknowledged, the estimated processing cost for a producer in Argentina was based on three analyses: one based on six years average cost and price data for the United States and Argentina; one based on one year of the same data of the United States and Argentina; and one based on one year's data for Argentina, with the Argentine export price as a proxy for the world price.
Spørgeskemabesvarelser og kontrolbesøg
Clearly, the situation in the United States constituted an out-of-country benchmark to find out what the costs in Argentina would be absent the distortions from the export tax.
Kommissionen sendte et spørgeskema til EBB med anmodning om en forklaring på i) hvilken metode der blev anvendt til beregning af både EU-erhvervsgrenens produktionskapacitet og kapacitetsudnyttelse i den betragtede periode, og ii) hvorfor disse data blev revideret i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse, og på hvilket grundlag de nye tal blev beregnet.
Moreover, there was no good reason why Argentine export prices to Europe should be ignored when trying to establish the advantage that an Argentine biodiesel producer may have had as a result of the DET.
Kommissionen anmodede også EBB om at redegøre for deres opfattelse af »uudnyttet kapacitet«, hvorfor den efter deres opfattelse skulle udelukkes fra EU-erhvervsgrenens samlede produktionskapacitet i den betragtede periode, og hvordan den uudnyttede kapacitet blev beregnet for ikke-EBB-medlemmer.
In addition, the Commission has never contested that the DET was artificially lowering the input costs for Argentine biodiesel producers, but only took issue with the assumption that the DET was the only cause for such a huge benefit of around 30 %.
Kommissionen modtog spørgeskemabesvarelsen, analyserede den og gennemførte efterfølgende et kontrolbesøg hos EBB den 26. april 2017.
Recalculated dumping margins
På Kommissionens anmodning forberedte sidstnævnte inden kontrolbesøget al den dokumentation og de arbejdspapirer, der var blevet anvendt i udarbejdelsen af spørgeskemabesvarelsen, navnlig dem, der forbandt de fremsendte data med administrations- og regnskabsregistreringerne til Kommissionens kontrolbesøg.
Following disclosure some Argentine exporting producers made company-specific comments regarding alleged mistakes in dumping calculations.
Kommissionen efterprøvede dokumentationen, krydstjekkede de indberettede data for den betragtede periode ved kilden og kunne få oplysningerne i administrations- og regnskabsregistreringerne til at stemme overens med de reviderede data, der blev indsendt i den oprindelige undersøgelse vedrørende produktionskapacitet og kapacitetsudnyttelse i perioden 1. januar 2009 til udgangen af undersøgelsesperioden.
Where appropriate, the Commission corrected these errors and revised the dumping margins and duties accordingly.
EBB burde forklare, hvordan de reviderede data var understøttet af offentligt tilgængelige kilder, og Kommissionen burde ikke blot acceptere EBB's oplysninger.
Company
Desuden hævdede Gunvor og CARBIO, at EBB's spørgeskemabesvarelse var blevet censureret i betydelig grad, hvilket betød, at interesserede parter ikke kunne forstå, hvordan dataene var blevet indsamlet, hvordan de var blevet vurderet, eller hvordan de var efterprøvet i forhold til andre kilder, og de kunne derfor ikke vurdere, om de relevante oplysninger, der var fremlagt af EBB, burde erklæres pålidelige.
Dumping margin
Begge parter fremlagde data, der var indsamlet af Eurostat, angående produktion, kapacitet og forbrug af biodiesel i EU og noterede sig ligheden mellem disse data og dem, der blev offentliggjort i forordningen om midlertidig told, og som var blevet indsamlet og fremsendt til Kommissionen af EBB.
Argentina
De fremførte, at Kommissionen burde have anvendt data fra Eurostat i stedet for EBB's data, som var justeret for uudnyttet kapacitet.
Molinos Río de la Plata S.A., Buenos Aires; Oleaginosa Moreno Hermanos S.A.F.I.C.I. y A., Bahia Blanca; Vicentin S.A.I.C., Avellaneda
De hævdede endvidere, at EBB's definition af uudnyttet kapacitet var for vag, og at forslaget om at reducere produktionskapaciteten ved at udelukke »uudnyttet kapacitet« først opstod efter offentliggørelsen af forordningen om midlertidig told, da det var blevet tydeligt, at de tal, der optrådte i forordningen om midlertidig told ville gøre det vanskeligere at fastslå en pålidelig årsagssammenhæng mellem den påståede dumpingimport og den skade, som EU-erhvervsgrenen angiveligt har lidt.
Other cooperating companies
Kommissionen afviste disse påstande, som beskrevet i punkt 6.2-6.4.
All other companies
Da Eurostats data først blev offentliggjort i 2014, kunne de dog ikke have været anvendt i den oprindelige undersøgelse.
The Reports did not, however, invalidate the conclusion that the Union Industry suffered material injury during the period considered.
De reviderede data, der anvendes i forordningen om endelig told (betragtning 131) (jf. nedenstående tabel), var derfor korrekte og blev bekræftet efter kontrolbesøget.
The Panel found that the EU authorities acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the ADA by accepting revised data submitted by the EU domestic industry at a late stage of the investigation without assuring themselves of its accuracy and reliability (paragraph 7.395 of the Panel report).
Produktionskapacitet (ton)
The revised data concerned ‘idle capacity’.
Kapacitetsudnyttelse
Either capacity existed or it did not.
Samlet EU-produktion: Præciseringer vedrørende EBB's dataindsamlingsproces angående fremstilling
For the importer Gunvor and CARBIO, it was the structural overcapacity of the industry resulting from unwarranted increases in production capacity, despite low capacity utilization rates, and not the capacity utilization rate itself, that was the cause of injury to the domestic industry.