natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
I betragtning af konklusionerne vedrørende ændringer i handelsmønstret og omladningspraksis, jf. afsnit 2, og konklusionerne i betragtning 89-92, som hver især er tilstrækkelige grunde, kunne denne malaysiske virksomhed ikke indrømmes en fritagelse i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 13, stk. 4.
Hence, the Commission has not specified which company is concerned by which findings.
Det blev desuden konstateret, at en anden malaysisk virksomhed ikke havde tilstrækkelig produktionskapacitet til at producere de mængder af den undersøgte vare, som den eksporterede.
Importers that have purchased the product under investigation from those companies and would like to understand what exactly is the situation of their supplier may contact directly their supplier, or the Commission, in view of having more detailed information.
Samme virksomhed var ikke i stand til at fremlægge arbejdskontrakter med de ansatte;
For the purpose of this investigation the following details have been established:
den var således ikke i stand til at bevise, at den beskæftigede personale i undersøgelsesperioden.
two of those three companies in Taiwan were found to import laminated solar modules from the PRC that they did not reveal in their questionnaire reply.
Virksomheden var ikke i stand til at fremlægge købskontrakter for produktionsudstyr til solcellemoduler.
One of those companies admitted during the verification visit that they reported these imports in their questionnaire reply as imports of solar cells from the PRC.
Derudover undlod virksomheden at fremlægge oplysninger om deres forhold til en kinesisk eksporterende producent samt om køb af den undersøgte vare fra den forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomhed.
This company had also reported these imports as solar cells in their customs declaration.
Desuden fremlagde virksomheden dokumenter med forskellige etableringsdatoer.
In case of both those Taiwanese companies, documents were found clearly showing that they re-exported the laminated solar modules from the PRC to the Union.
Det fremgik af undersøgelsen, at virksomheden blev etableret i 2013, dvs. efter indledningen af de oprindelige antidumping- og antisubsidieundersøgelser, og indstillede produktionen kort efter maj 2015, dvs. efter indførelsen af registreringen af moduler fra Malaysia.
These two companies in Taiwan did not provide any additional clarifications in reply to the Article 18(4) letter, as they did not reply at all (see above recital 83).
Virksomheden påstod i sit svar på artikel 18, stk. 4-brevet, at mange små virksomheder i Malaysia ikke har arbejdskontrakter med de ansatte.
For the reasons set out above in recital (85) and with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in section 2 of the present Regulation, each of which are sufficient on their own, these companies were found to be engaged in circumvention practices and could not be granted an exemption in accordance with article 13(4) of the basic regulation.
Virksomheden påstod desuden, at den havde tilstrækkelig kapacitet til at producere de påståede mængder.
For the following three Malaysian companies, as explained below, use was made of facts available in accordance with Article 18(1) of the Basic Regulation for the following reasons.
Derudover påstod virksomheden, at den beskæftigede salgsmedarbejdere fra en kinesisk virksomhed, men at den ikke havde formelle forbindelser til denne kinesiske virksomhed.
One Malaysian company reported in their questionnaire reply that they purchased solar cells in the PRC, and they specified that the modules with Chinese cells were shipped to other markets than the Union.
Disse supplerende forklaringer kunne ikke ændre konklusionerne ovenfor.
However, this company could not prove that it bought sufficient quantities of cells outside of the PRC that would enable them to produce the amount of solar modules that they exported to the Union.
Virksomheden godtgjorde i særdeleshed ikke, at den var i stand til at producere de eksporterede mængder.
During the verification visit this company was found to import laminated solar modules from the PRC, which it fraudulently declared as imports of solar glass.
Desuden var der et stort misforhold mellem den mængde af importerede celler, som virksomheden anførte, og den mængde af celler, som leverandøren anførte.
This company was also found not to have sufficient production capacity to produce the volumes of the product under investigation that they exported.
Den kendsgerning, at virksomheden beskæftiger personale fra den kinesiske virksomhed, bekræfter forbindelsen til den kinesiske virksomhed.
This company was also found to have links to a Chinese company active in the photovoltaic business.
I betragtning af konklusionerne vedrørende ændringer i handelsmønstret og om omladningspraksis jf. afsnit 2, og konklusionerne i betragtning 94 og 95, som hver især er tilstrækkelige grunde, kunne den malaysiske virksomhed ikke indrømmes en fritagelse i overensstemmelse med grundforordningens artikel 13, stk. 4.
In its reply to the Article 18(4) letter, the Malaysian company denied that they exported modules with Chinese cells to the Union.
En anden virksomhed i Malaysia blev etableret i 2013, dvs. efter indledningen af de oprindelige antidumping- og antisubsidieundersøgelser, og begyndte at sælge moduler fra december 2013, dvs. kort efter indførelsen af den endelige antidumping- og udligningstold ved den oprindelige forordning.
They claimed that they exported to the Union modules with South Korean cells that were, however, laminated in China.
Virksomheden producerede polykrystallinske solcellemoduler i rapporteringsperioden med celler, der hovedsagelig blev importeret fra Taiwan.
The company also replied that they ordered this ‘laminated glass’ because there was a quality issue with their laminator.
Virksomheden havde tilsyneladende en tæt forbindelse til en kinesisk virksomhed, som havde fået godkendt et tilsagn, der efterfølgende blev trukket tilbage for misligholdelse [10].
However, as stated above, this was fraudulently declared as solar glass.
For det første var direktøren for den malaysiske virksomhed tidligere ansat i en ledende stilling i den kinesiske virksomhed.
Furthermore, the company was not able to demonstrate that they had bought sufficient cells in South Korea for all modules it exported to the Union.
For det andet blev cellerne oprindeligt i mange tilfælde indkøbt gennem den kinesiske virksomhed og/eller andre kinesiske virksomheder, hvorved cellerne fysisk blev transporteret fra et tredjeland (hovedsagelig Taiwan) til Kina, før de tilsyneladende blev transporteret videre til virksomheden i Malaysia.
The company also argued that there had been a change in ownership since April 2014.
For det tredje blev de fleste moduler, der solgtes til tredjelande i rapporteringsperioden, solgt til en amerikansk virksomhed, som er forretningsmæssigt forbundet med den kinesiske virksomhed.
This change of ownership, however, did not change the fact that links do exist between the Malaysian and Chinese companies in the sense that the Malaysian company's main supplier of raw materials continued to be the Chinese module manufacturer.
For det fjerde var en juridisk repræsentant for den kinesiske virksomhed til stede under kontrolbesøget hos den malaysiske virksomhed.
Therefore, the explanations provided by the company in reply to the Article 18(4) letter were not such as to lead to a change in the finding that they re-exported to the Union the Chinese laminated solar modules and that at least some of the modules exported to the EU used Chinese cells.
For det femte er de kinesiske og taiwanesiske virksomheders modeller til salgskontrakter tilsyneladende de samme, både i udformning og indhold.
In view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practises, as set out in section 2, and the findings as set out in the recitals (89) to (92) above, each of which are sufficient on their own, the exemption as requested by this Malaysian company could not be granted in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.
For det sjette udtalte en repræsentant for den kinesiske virksomhed i en internetvideo, at den kinesiske virksomhed yder teknisk bistand og supervision til den malaysiske virksomhed.
Another company in Malaysia was found not to have sufficient production capacity to produce the volumes of the product under investigation that it exported.
Følgende andre elementer blev ikke fremlagt af denne malaysiske virksomhed under kontrolbesøget, men modtaget gennem toldmyndighederne i en EU-medlemsstat:
The same company was not able to supply any labour contracts for its employees;
Den malaysiske virksomhed havde indgået en aftale om tilladelse til brug af varemærke med den samme kinesiske virksomhed, som havde fået godkendt et tilsagn, hvorved den malaysiske virksomhed havde tilladelse til at anvende den kinesiske virksomheds varemærke, hvis kunderne ønskede det.
hence it was not able to prove that it had any employees during the investigation period.
Desuden blev en af de første kunder i Unionen præsenteret for den malaysiske virksomhed af en salgsrepræsentant fra den kinesiske virksomhed.
This company was not able to supply purchase contracts for the production machines for solar modules.
Endelig var den malaysiske virksomheds første forsendelse til Unionen genstand for toldmyndighedernes undersøgelse i en medlemsstat, idet modulerne var mærket »Made in China« og samtidig bar den kinesiske virksomheds varemærke.
This company also failed to disclose their relationship to a Chinese exporting producer and the purchases of the product under investigation from the related company.
Den malaysiske virksomhed besvarede artikel 18, stk. 4-brevet med et brev dateret den 14. december 2015, hvoraf det fremgik, at virksomheden ikke havde haft til hensigt at skjule sine forretningsmæssige forbindelser med den kinesiske virksomhed, og at virksomheden havde udfyldt fritagelsesformularen i god tro.
In addition, this company provided documents indicating different establishment dates.
Virksomheden meddelte også, at toldmyndighederne i en medlemsstat efter undersøgelsen accepterede, at de ukorrekt mærkede moduler faktisk var blevet produceret af virksomheden i Malaysia.
The investigation revealed that this company was established in 2013, i.e. after the initiation of the original AD and AS investigations and suspended the production shortly after May 2015, i.e. after the imposition of registration on Malaysian modules.
Medlemsstatens toldmyndigheder bekræftede imidlertid overfor Kommissionen, at disse moduler ikke var af malaysisk oprindelse.
This company claimed, in their reply to the Article 18(4) letter, that most small companies in Malaysia do not have labour contracts for their employees.
Efter fremlæggelsen af oplysninger påstod den malaysiske virksomhed, at Kommissionen baserede sine beslutninger på antagelser, påstande og falske beskyldninger, hvorved deres grundlag og eventuelle beviser aldrig var blevet fremlagt for virksomheden, hvilket undergravede virksomhedens ret til at forsvare sig.
In addition, they claimed that they had sufficient capacity to produce the claimed amounts.
Virksomheden kritiserede især Kommissionen for ikke at have fremlagt den internetvideo, der omtales i betragtning 97, og oplysningerne fra toldmyndighederne i en medlemsstat, jf. betragtning 98.
The company also argued that they hired sales people from a Chinese company but did not have formal links with this Chinese company.
Virksomheden påstod også, at den ikke var forretningsmæssigt forbundet med den kinesiske virksomhed, og at den ikke havde holdt sin aftale om tilladelse til brug af varemærke med denne kinesiske virksomhed skjult under kontrolbesøget.
These additional explanations were not such that this would lead to a change in the conclusions set out above.
Hvad angår den undersøgelse, der blev iværksat af toldmyndighederne i en medlemsstat, påstod virksomheden, at samtlige varer i sidste ende blev solgt som moduler med oprindelse i Malaysia.
In particular, the company has not demonstrated that it was able to produce the quantities exported.
Endelig påstod den, at etableringsdatoen og den kendsgerning, at virksomheden solgte til en virksomhed i USA, som er forretningsmæssigt forbundet med den kinesiske virksomhed, ikke er gyldige argumenter til at afslå en anmodning om fritagelse.
In addition, there was a significant discrepancy between the quantity of imported cells as reported by the company and the quantity of cells reported by its supplier.
Virksomhedens supplerende forklaringer kunne dog ikke føre til en ændring i konklusionen ovenfor, hvilket forklares herunder.
Moreover, the fact that they hire staff from the Chinese company confirms the links found with the Chinese company.
Elementerne i betragtning 97 er ikke blot antagelser og påstande, men derimod kendsgerninger, som i sig selv ikke blev betvivlet af virksomheden.
In view of the findings with regard to the change in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices, as set out in section 2, and the findings as set out in the recitals (94) and (95) above, each of which are sufficient on their own, the exemption as requested by this Malaysian company could not be granted in accordance with Article 13(4) of the basic Regulation.
Desuden blev disse kendsgerninger præsenteret for virksomheden i artikel 18-brevet af 3. december 2015, hvori virksomheden blev opfordret til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
Another company in Malaysia was established in June 2013, i.e. after the initiation of the original AD and AS investigations, and started selling modules from December 2013 onwards, i.e. just after the imposition of definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties by the original Regulation.
Efterfølgende blev konklusionerne fremlagt for virksomheden den 22. december 2015, hvor virksomheden igen blev opfordret til at fremsætte bemærkninger.
The company produced polycrystalline PV modules during the Reporting Period from cells, which were mainly imported from Taiwan.
Virksomhedens ret til at forsvare sig blev således respekteret til fulde.
This company appeared to have close ties to a Chinese company, from which an undertaking had been accepted and subsequently withdrawn for violations [10].
Det står dog fast, at virksomheden under kontrolbesøget i hvert fald søgte at nedtone, om end ikke skjule, at den havde indgået en aftale om tilladelse til brug af varemærke med den kinesiske virksomhed.
First, the General Manager of the Malaysian company previously occupied a managerial position at the Chinese company.
Under kontrolbesøget nævnte den malaysiske virksomhed brugen af den kinesiske virksomheds varemærke, men forklarede udtrykkeligt, at dette gjaldt »en begrænset periode«.
Second, cells were initially purchased on many occasions through the Chinese company and/or other Chinese companies whereby the cells physically were transported from a third country (mainly Taiwan) to the PRC, before apparently being transported further to the company located in Malaysia.
Aftalen om tilladelse til brug af varemærket blev dog aldrig fremlagt, og det blev aldrig uddybet under kontrolbesøget, at aftalen var blevet forlænget for yderligere fire år.
Third, most modules sold to third countries during the Reporting Period were sold to a US company, which is related to the Chinese company.
Ingen af de elementer i betragtning 97, som viste stærke forretningsmæssige forbindelser mellem de to virksomheder, blev uddybet eller fremlagt for Kommissionens tjenestegrene under kontrolbesøget.
Fourth, the legal representative of the Chinese company was present during the on spot investigation of the Malaysian company.
Derudover satte virksomheden ikke selv spørgsmålstegn ved disse oplysninger.
Fifth, sales contracts' templates of both the Chinese and Taiwanese companies appear to be the same, both in terms of lay-out and substance.
Det fremgår af grundforordningens artikel 13, stk. 4, at eksporterende producenter for at opnå fritagelse skal påvise, at de ikke er forretningsmæssigt forbundet med nogen af de af foranstaltningerne omfattede producenter, og at de ikke er involveret i omgåelse.
Sixth, a representative of the Chinese company stated in an internet video that the Chinese company is providing technical advice and supervision to the Malaysian company.
Hvad angår det første kriterium (ingen forretningsmæssig forbindelse til producenter omfattet af foranstaltningerne), søgte den eksporterende producent at nedtone, om end ikke skjule virksomhedens mange forbindelser med den kinesiske eksporterende producent, jf. betragtning 97.
Other elements which were not disclosed by this Malaysian company during the on spot investigation, but were received from the customs authorities of a Member State are the following:
Det påhviler dog den eksporterende producent at fremlægge bevis for, at denne forbindelse ikke eksisterer.
The Malaysian company had concluded a brand usage authorisation agreement with the same Chinese company from which an undertaking had been accepted, by which the Malaysian company was authorised to use the Chinese company's brand name, if so requested by customers.
Da virksomheden ikke samarbejdede om dette punkt, og da det var umuligt at kontrollere alle de nye oplysninger, der blev fremlagt i svaret på fremlæggelsen af oplysninger, måtte Kommissionen gøre brug af de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger for at afgøre, om den eksporterende producent afviste den umiddelbare opfattelse, som er baseret på foreliggende faktiske oplysninger om, at virksomheden er forretningsmæssigt forbundet med den kinesiske virksomhed.
In addition, one of the first customers in the Union was introduced to the Malaysian company by a sales representative of the Chinese company.
Under alle omstændigheder, og selv om det første kriterium var opfyldt, hvilket ikke var tilfældet, mener Kommissionen, at det andet kriterium ikke er opfyldt.
The Malaysian company replied to the Article 18(4) letter by a letter dated 14 December 2015 stating that it had not intended to hide the commercial ties with the Chinese company and that they had replied in good faith to the exemption form.
Den eksporterende producent var involveret i omgåelse på to forskellige måder, som hver især var tilstrækkelige til at afvise fritagelsesanmodningen.
They also stated that the customs authorities of a Member State accepted after the investigation that the wrongly labelled modules were actually produced by the company in Malaysia.
En afgørende indikation af, at virksomheden er involveret i omgåelsespraksis, som er fælles for begge måder og uomtvistelig, er, at den eksporterende producent indledte sine aktiviteter efter indførelsen af de oprindelige foranstaltninger.
However, the customs authorities of a Member State confirmed to the Commission that these modules were not of Malaysian origin.
For det første er virksomhedens udtalelse om, at alle varer i betragtning 98 blev solgt som moduler med oprindelse i Malaysia, faktuelt ukorrekt.
After disclosure, the Malaysian company alleged that the Commission based its decision on assumptions, allegations and false accusations, whereby their basis and proof, if at all available, had never been disclosed to them, undermining as such the company's right of defence.
Toldmyndighederne i en medlemsstat fremlagde oplysninger for Kommissionen, som viste, at disse moduler anses for at være af kinesisk oprindelse, idet den kinesiske virksomheds navn var påført de pågældende paller af solcellemoduler.
In particular, it criticized the Commission for not having disclosed the internet video referred to in recital (97) and the information received from the customs authorities of a Member State referred to in recital (98).
For at beskytte disse toldmyndigheders pågående undersøgelse, kunne disse oplysninger ikke fremlægges for den malaysiske virksomhed.
The company also argued that it was not related to the Chinese company and that it had not hidden their brand usage authorization contract with this Chinese company during the verification visit.
Kommissionen gjorde dog virksomheden opmærksom på, at Høringskonsulenten i handelsprocedurer kunne kontrollere nøjagtigheden af disse oplysninger, på grundlag af artikel 12, 13 og 15 i høringskonsulentens mandat.
With regard to the investigation of the customs authorities of a Member State, the company argued that finally all goods were released as modules of Malaysian origin.
Toldmyndighedernes oplysninger udgør bevis for, at den eksporterende producent var involveret i omladning, og er dermed bevis for, at den eksporterende producent er involveret i omgåelsespraksis.
Finally it argued that its date of establishment and the fact that the company sold to a company in the United States, which is related to the Chinese company, are not valid arguments on the basis of which the exemption can be denied.
For det andet blev aftalen om brug af varemærke med den kinesiske eksporterende producent indgået og forlænget på et tidspunkt, hvor den kinesiske eksporterende producent eksporterede til Unionen i henhold til bestemmelserne i et tilsagn.
The Malaysian company also requested a hearing with the Hearing Officer in Trade Proceedings, which was held on 12 January 2016.
I henhold til tilsagnet var bl.a. salg til Unionen af den pågældende vare produceret i et tredjeland forbudt, da dette ville gøre overvågningen af tilsagnet, og især bestemmelsen om tværgående salgsaktiviteter, umulig eller i hvert fald upraktisk.
Prior to that hearing, the internet video was disclosed to the company, which confirmed its accuracy during the hearing.
Betingelserne i den ikke fortrolige udgave af tilsagnet var velkendte i hele erhvervsgrenen og blev efter anmodning fremlagt af Kommissionens tjenestegrene.
The additional explanations provided by the company were not such as to lead to a change in the conclusion as set out above for the reasons set out below.
Som følge af de tætte forretningsmæssige forbindelser med den kinesiske producent, blev de også fremlagt for den eksporterende producent.
The elements mentioned in recital (97) above are not mere assumptions and allegations, but facts which were as such not questioned by the company.
Ved at tiltræde aftalen om brug af varemærke omgik den eksporterende producent betingelserne i tilsagnet og blev således også på denne måde involveret i omgåelsespraksis.
In addition, these facts were presented to the company in the Article 18 letter of 3 December 2015, in which the company was invited to comment.
Under høringen den 12. januar 2016 udtalte den malaysiske virksomhed, at den ikke havde fremlagt ukorrekte eller vildledende oplysninger, og at den er en egentlig malaysisk producent af solcellemoduler.
Subsequently, the findings were disclosed to the company on 22 December 2015, on which the company again was invited to comment.
Hvad angår beviserne fra de nationale toldmyndigheder, som ikke kunne fremlægges for den malaysiske virksomhed, jf. forklaringerne ovenfor, anmodede virksomheden høringskonsulenten om at kontrollere nøjagtigheden heraf.
Accordingly, the rights of defence of the company were fully respected.
Høringskonsulenten informerede efterfølgende virksomheden om, at han havde kontrolleret nøjagtigheden af oplysningerne fra de nationale toldmyndigheder, og om at de nationale toldmyndigheder på dette grundlag konkluderede, at en betydelig mængde moduler i forsendelsen var af kinesisk oprindelse.
The fact remains that the company at least attempted to minimize, if not to hide, its commercial ties, including the existence of its brand usage authorisation agreement, with the Chinese company during the verification visit.
Konklusionerne for denne virksomhed blev derfor baseret på de foreliggende faktiske oplysninger, jf. grundforordningens artikel 18, stk. 1.
Indeed the Malaysian company referred during the on spot verification to a brand usage of the Chinese company, however mentioning explicitly ‘for a limited period’.