natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For så vidt angår den påståede forskelsbehandling af de eksporterende producenter, som er berørt af denne gennemførelse, og som ikke var omfattet af nogen told som følge af gennemførelsesafgørelse 2014/149/EU, bør det bemærkes, at Rådets afgørelse om ikke at genindføre told tydeligvis blev truffet med henvisning til de særlige omstændigheder i den specifikke situation, der eksisterede på det tidspunkt, hvor Kommissionen fremsatte sit forslag om genindførelse af denne told, og især fordi den pågældende antidumpingtold allerede var blevet godtgjort, og i det omfang den oprindelige meddelelse om gælden til den pågældende debitor var blevet trukket tilbage efter Brosmann- og Aokang-dommene.
Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation explicitly envisages special provisions with regard to the common definition of the concept of origin, a good example of where deviation from the provisions of the Union's customs legislation occurs.
Ifølge Rådet havde denne godtgørelse skabt en berettiget forventning hos de pågældende importører.
It is on that basis that the Commission made use of the powers arising from Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation and required that national customs authorities refrain temporarily from any reimbursement.
Da der ikke blev ydet en sammenlignelig godtgørelse til andre importører, befinder disse sig ikke i en situation, der kan sammenlignes med de importører, der er omfattet af Rådets afgørelse.
This does not challenge the exclusive competence that national customs authorities have in relation to disputes concerning customs debt: the decision-making authority remains with the customs authorities of the Member States.
Under alle omstændigheder kan det faktum, at Rådet valgte at handle på en bestemt måde i betragtning af de særlige omstændigheder i den pågældende sag, ikke forpligte Kommissionen til at gennemføre en anden dom på nøjagtigt samme måde.
The Member States customs authorities still decide, on the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission vis-à-vis the MET and IT claims, whether reimbursement should be granted or not.
Kommissionens kompetence til at indføre endelige antidumpingforanstaltninger
Thus, while it is true that nothing in the Union's customs legislation allows for an obstacle to the reimbursement of erroneously paid customs duties to be erected, no such sweeping statement can be made in relation to thereimbursement of anti-dumping duties.
Desuden påstod FESI og the Footwear Coalition, at Kommissionen ikke har kompetence til at vedtage forordningen om indførelse af en antidumpingtold med tilbagevirkende kraft i forbindelse med den nuværende gennemførelse, og at denne kompetence under alle omstændigheder ville ligge hos Rådet.
Accordingly, and with the overarching necessity to protect the Union's own resources from unjustified requests for repayment and the related difficulty this would have caused pursuing unjustified repayments thereafter, the Commission had to deviate temporarily from the Union's customs legislation by making use of its powers under Article 14(3) of the basic Regulation.
Påstanden var baseret på det argument, at hvis undersøgelsen genoptages netop på det punkt, hvor ulovligheden indtrådte, burde de samme regler være gældende som på tidspunktet for den oprindelige undersøgelse, hvor der blev vedtaget endelige foranstaltninger af Rådet.
Lack of statement of legal basis
Disse parter fremførte, at i overensstemmelse med artikel 3 i Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 37/2014 (også kaldet »omnibus I-forordningen«) finder den nye beslutningsprocedure inden for den fælles handelspolitik ikke anvendelse i den nuværende sag, i) da Kommissionen allerede havde vedtaget en retsakt (den midlertidige forordning), ii) da de høringer, der var påkrævet i henhold til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 384/96 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab, var indledt og afsluttet, og iii) da Kommissionen allerede havde vedtaget et forslag til Rådets forordning om vedtagelse af endelige foranstaltninger inden ikrafttrædelsen af omnibus I-forordningen.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also argued that in violation of Article 296 TFEU, the Commission failed to provide adequate statement of reasons and indication of the legal basis on which duties were re-imposed retroactively and therefore the reimbursement of duties denied to the importers concerned by the current implementation.
På dette grundlag konkluderede disse parter, at beslutningsprocedurerne inden ikrafttrædelsen af omnibus I-forordningen bør finde anvendelse.
Accordingly, FESI and the Footwear coalition claimed that the Commission had breached the right to effective judicial protection of interested parties.
Denne påstand fokuserer imidlertid på datoen for indledningen af undersøgelsen (hvilket netop er relevant i forhold til de andre indholdsmæssige ændringer, der er foretaget i grundforordningen), men undlader at bemærke, at forordning (EU) nr. 37/2014 anvender et andet kriterium (dvs. indledningen af proceduren for vedtagelse af foranstaltninger).
The Commission considers that the extensive legal reasoning provided in the general disclosure document and in this Regulation duly motivates the latter.
Holdningen hos FESI og the Footwear Coalition bygger således på en fejlagtig fortolkning af overgangsbestemmelserne i forordning (EU) nr. 37/2014.
Legitimate expectations
Derfor afvises denne påstand.
Likewise, the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were entitled to have justified legitimate expatiations that their MET/IT claims provided in the original investigation would not be reviewed anymore by the Commission, based on the mere fact that these claims were no assessed within the three-month period applicable during the original investigation.
F. KONKLUSIONER
Regarding legitimate expectations of interested parties that anti-dumping measures expired and that the investigation will not be re-opened anymore, reference is made to recitals (78) and (79) and where these claims had been addressed in detail.
Efter at have taget hensyn til de modtagne bemærkninger og analysen heraf konkluderede Kommissionen, at restantidumpingtolden for Kina og Vietnam, dvs. på henholdsvis 16,5 % og 10 %, bør genindføres i anvendelsesperioden for den anfægtede forordning.
Regarding the legitimate expectations of Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers not to have their MET/IT claims reviewed, reference is made to recital (74) above, where this has equally been addressed in light of the case-law of the Court on this matter.
G. FREMLÆGGELSE AF OPLYSNINGER
Principle of non-discrimination
De pågældende eksporterende producenter og alle de parter, der gav sig til kende, blev informeret om de vigtigste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, på grundlag af hvilke det påtænktes at anbefale genindførelse af den endelige antidumpingtold på eksporten fra de syv pågældende eksporterende producenter.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the imposition of anti-dumping measures with retroactive effects constitutes discrimination of (i) the importers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis importers concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments referred to in recital (6) that were reimbursed duties paid on imports of footwear from the five exporting producers concerned by these judgments, as well as (ii) a discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation vis-à-vis the five exporting producers concerned by the Brosmann and Aokang judgments which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU.
De blev indrømmet en periode, inden for hvilken de kunne fremsætte bemærkninger efter fremlæggelsen af oplysninger.
Regarding the claim on discrimination, the Commission recalls first of all the requirements for discrimination, as set out in recital (67) above.
Denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra det udvalg, der er nedsat ved artikel 15, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2016/1036 —
Then, it is noted that the difference between importers concerned by the current implementation and those concerned by the implementation of the Brosmann and Aokang judgments is that the latter decided to challenge Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 in the General Court, whereas the former did not.
VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
A decision adopted by a Union institution, which has not been challenged by its addressee within the time-limit laid down by the sixth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, becomes definitive as against him.
Artikel 1
That rule is based in particular on the consideration that the periods within which legal proceedings must be brought are intended to ensure legal certainty by preventing Union measures which produce legal effects from being called into question indefinitely.
Der indføres hermed en endelig antidumpingtold på den import af fodtøj med overdel af læder eller kunstlæder, undtagen sportsfodtøj, fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi, hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj og fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe, med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Vietnam, produceret af de eksporterende producenter, som er opført i bilag II til denne forordning, og henhørende under KN-kode: 64032000, ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 og ex64051000, som fandt sted i anvendelsesperioden for forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009.
This procedural principle of Union law necessarily creates two groups: those which challenged a Union measure and who may have gained a favourable position as a result (like Brosmann and the other four exporting producers), and those who did not.
Taric-koderne er opført i bilag I til nærværende forordning.
Yet, that does not mean that the Commission has treated the two parties unequally in violation of the principle of equal treatment.
2.
An acknowledgement that a party falls into the latter category because of a conscious decision not to challenge a Union measure does not discriminate against that group.
I denne forordning forstås ved: —
So, all interested parties did enjoy judicial protection in the Union courts at all times.
»sportsfodtøj« fodtøj i henhold til definitionen i underpositionsbestemmelse 1 til kapitel 64 i bilag I til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1719/2005—
Insofar as it concerns the alleged discrimination of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation which were not made subject of any duty following Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, it should be noted that the decision of the Council not to re-impose duties was clearly taken with regard to the particular circumstances of the specific situation as it stood at the time the Commission made its proposal for the re-imposition of those duties and in particular on the grounds that the anti-dumping duties concerned had already been reimbursed, and to the extent that the original communication of the debt to the debtor in question had been withdrawn following the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang.
»fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi« fodtøj, for hvilket cif-prisen pr. par er lig med eller højere end 7,50 EUR, til sportsbrug, med en støbt (dog ikke sprøjtestøbt) sål i et eller flere lag, fremstillet af syntetiske materialer, der er specielt beregnede til at afbøde stød fra vertikale eller laterale bevægelser, og med tekniske karakteristika som f.eks. hermetiske puder indeholdende luft eller væske, mekaniske stødabsorberende eller -neutraliserende dele eller materialer som polymerer med lav massefylde og henhørende under KN-kode ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996 og ex64039998 —
According to the Council, this reimbursement had created legitimate expectations on the part of the importers concerned.
»fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe« fodtøj med en indbygget beskyttelseståkappe og en modstandsdygtighed over for stød på mindst 100 joule og henhørende under KN-kode: ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 og ex64051000 —
Since no comparable reimbursement took place for other importers, these are not in a comparable situation to those importers concerned by the Council decision.
»hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj« fodtøj henhørende under KN-kode ex64051000.
In any event, the fact that the Council chose to act in a certain way, given the particular circumstances of the case before it, cannot bind the Commission to implement another judgment in the exact same way.
For de pågældende kinesiske eksporterende producenter fastsættes den endelige antidumpingtold til 16,5 %, og for den pågældende vietnamesiske eksporterende producent fastsættes den endelige antidumpingtold til 10 % af nettoprisen, frit EU's grænse, ufortoldet, for de i stk. 1 omhandlede varer fremstillet af de eksporterende producenter, som er opført i bilag II til denne forordning.
Commission's competence to impose definitive anti-dumping measures
Artikel 2
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the Regulation imposing an anti-dumping duty retroactively in the current implementation exercise, and that this competence would in any event lie with the Council.
De beløb, for hvilke der er stillet sikkerhed i form af midlertidig antidumpingtold i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006, opkræves endeligt.
This claim was based on the argument that if the investigation is resumed at the very point at which the illegality occurred, the same rules should also be applicable as the ones at the time of the original investigation, where definitive measures were adopted by the Council.
Beløb til sikkerhedsstillelse, som ligger ud over den endelige antidumpingtold, frigives.
These parties argued that in accordance with Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 (also called ‘Omnibus I Regulation’), the new decision-making procedure in the field of the common commercial policy does not apply to the present context given that before the entry into force of the Omnibus I Regulation the Commission (i) had already adopted an act (the provisional Regulation), (ii) the consultations that were required under Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community were initiated and concluded, and (iii) the Commission had already adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation adopting definitive measures.
Artikel 3
On this basis, these parties concluded that the decision making procedures prior to the entry in force of the Omnibus I Regulation should apply.
Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
That claim, however, focuses on the date of initiation of the investigation (which is indeed relevant in relation to the other substantive amendments that were made to the basic Regulation) but fails to note that Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 uses a different criterion (that is, the initiation of the procedure for adoption of measures).
Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
The position of FESI and the Footwear Coalition is therefore based on an incorrect interpretation of the transitional rule in Regulation (EU) No 37/2014.
Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 31. oktober 2017.
Indeed, given the reference in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 to ‘procedures initiated for the adoption of measures’, which sets out the transitional rules for the changes to the decision-making procedures for the adoption of anti-dumping measures, and given the meaning of ‘procedure’ in the basic Regulation, for an investigation that was initiated prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EU) No 37/2014, but where the Commission had not launched the consultation of the relevant committee with a view to adopting measures prior to that entry into force, the new rules apply to the procedure for adopting the said anti-dumping measures.
På Kommissionens vegne
The same holds true for proceedings where measures had been imposed on the basis of the old rules and come up for review, or for measures where provisional duties had been imposed on the basis of the old rules, but the procedure for adopting definitive measures had not been launched yet when Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 entered into force.
Jean-Claude Juncker
In other words, Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 applies to a specific ‘procedure for adoption’ and not to the entire period of a given investigation or even proceeding.
EUT L 176 af 30.6.2016, s. 21.
The contested Regulation was adopted in 2006.
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006 af 23. marts 2006 om indførelse af en midlertidig antidumpingtold på importen af visse former for fodtøj med overdel af læder med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Vietnam (EUT L 98 af 6.4.2006, s. 3).
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the basic Regulation.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 af 5. oktober 2006 om indførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold og endelig opkrævning af den midlertidige told på importen af visse typer af fodtøj med overdel af læder med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og Vietnam (EUT L 275 af 6.10.2006, s. 1).
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 388/2008 af 29. april 2008 om udvidelse af de endelige antidumpingforanstaltninger, som indførtes ved forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006, på importen af visse typer fodtøj med overdel af læder med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina til også at omfatte import af samme vare afsendt fra Macao SAR, uanset om den er angivet med oprindelse i Macao SAR eller ej (EUT L 117 af 1.5.2008, s. 1).
F. CONCLUSIONS
EUT C 251 af 3.10.2008, s. 21.
Having taken account of the comments made and the analysis thereof, the Commission concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, i.e. 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should be re-imposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
Rådets gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009 af 22. december 2009 om indførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold på importen af visse typer fodtøj med overdel af læder med oprindelse i Vietnam og i Folkerepublikken Kina som udvidet til også at omfatte import af visse typer fodtøj med overdel af læder afsendt fra Macao SAR, uanset om den er angivet med oprindelse i Macao SAR eller ej, som følge af en udløbsundersøgelse i henhold til artikel 11, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 384/96 (EUT L 352 af 30.12.2009, s. 1).
G. DISCLOSURE
EUT C 295 af 11.10.2013, s. 6.
The exporting producers concerned and all parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the re-imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the seven exporting producers concerned.
Rådets gennemførelsesafgørelse 2014/149/EU af 18. marts 2014 om forkastelse af forslaget til Rådets gennemførelsesforordning om genindførelse af en endelig antidumpingtold og endelig opkrævning af den midlertidige told på importen af visse typer af fodtøj med overdel af læder med oprindelse i Folkerepublikken Kina og produceret af Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd og Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (EUT L 82 af 20.3.2014, s. 27).
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
Rådet forordning (EØF) nr. 2913/92 af 12. oktober 1992 om indførelse af en EF-toldkodeks (EFT L 302 af 19.10.1992, s. 1).
This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,
EUT C 106 af 21.3.2016, s. 2.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Forenede sager 97/86, 193/86, 99/86 og 215/86, Asteris mod Kommissionen, Sml. 1988, s. 2181 (ECLI:EU:C:1988:199), præmis 27 og 28.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000 which took place during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009.
Sag C-415/96, Spanien mod Kommissionen, Sml. 1998 I, s. 6993, præmis 31; sag C-458/98 P, Industrie des Poudres Sphériques mod Rådet, Sml. 2000 I, s. 8147, præmis 80-85; sag T-301/01, Alitalia mod Kommissionen, Sml. 2008 II, s. 1753, præmis 99 og 142; forenede sager T-267/08 og T-279/08, Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais mod Kommissionen,(ECLI:EU:T:2011:209), præmis 83.
The TARIC codes are listed in the Annex I to this Regulation.
Sag C-415/96, Spanien mod Kommissionen, Sml. 1998 I, s. 6993, præmis 31; sag C-458/98 P, Industrie des Poudres Sphériques mod Rådet, Sml. 2000 I, s. 8147, præmis 80-85.
For the purpose of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply:
Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 af 30. november 2009 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab (EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 51).
‘sports footwear’ shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005;‘footwear involving special technology’ shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7,5, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998;
Forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 blev efterfølgende ændret ved Europa-Parlamentets og Rådets forordning (EU) nr. 765/2012 af 13. juni 2012 om ændring af Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1225/2009 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Det Europæiske Fællesskab (EUT L 237 af 3.9.2012, s. 1).
‘footwear with a protective toecap’ shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules and falling within CN codes: ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000;
I henhold til artikel 2 i forordning (EU) nr. 765/2012 finder de ændringer, som indføres ved nævnte ændringsforordning, kun anvendelse på undersøgelser, der indledes efter nævnte forordnings ikrafttrædelse.
‘slippers and other indoor footwear’ shall mean such footwear falling within CN code ex64051000.