natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Endvidere hævdede FESI, 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 deres leverandører.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply that article.
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 follows that there was no need to follow the procedure under Article 18(4) of the Basic Regulation.
Som allerede nævnt i betragtning 39 ovenfor påhviler bevisbyrden den producent, som ønsker at anmode om individuel behandling.
The procedure under Article 18(4) is followed in cases where the Commission intends to reject certain information provided by the interested party and to use facts available instead.
Som også forklaret ovenfor i betragtning 47 kunne de eksporterende producenter ikke påvise, at virksomhedernes beslutninger blev truffet uden statslig indgriben.
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
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.
MET assessment
Til støtte for sit argument om, at eksportpriser blev fastsat frit, henviste FESI til betragtning 269 i Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006 (»forordningen om midlertidig told«).
Regarding criterion 1 FESI contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of the Vietnamese suppliers and alleged that they were mainly rejected based on the absence of complete information.
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.
Regarding criterion 1, FESI argued that the Commission, apart from making no effort to obtain the missing information did also not specify which information would have been necessary to show that there was no significant State interference in the business decisions of the exporting producers concerned.
Ligeledes vedrører henvisningen til betragtning 132 i forordningen om midlertidig told og betragtning 135 i den anfægtede forordning justeringer af den normale værdi i forhold til eksportprisen og giver ikke mulighed for at drage konklusioner om, hvorvidt de vietnamesiske virksomheders eksportsalg blev fastsat frit.
FESI further requested to be provided with more detailed information on the basis of which it was concluded that business decisions of the Vietnamese suppliers were not taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Desuden påstod FESI, at Kommissionen heller ikke har forklaret, hvorledes den nåede frem til den konklusion, at der ville være risiko for omgåelse af antidumpingforanstaltningen, hvis de pågældende eksporterende producenter blev indrømmet en individuel toldsats, hvilket imidlertid ville være det underliggende mål med kriterierne for individuel behandling.
In this regard, FESI recalled that in accordance with criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, state interference needs to go beyond mere influence.
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.
Regarding criterion 3, referring the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, FESI argued that tax incentives or preferential tax regimes were not indicative for any distortion or non-market economy behaviour.
I henhold til nævnte artikel bør den eksporterende producent påvise, at alle 5 kriterier er opfyldt af.
Regarding criterion 2, FESI observed that the mere absence of audited accounts is not a reason to reject MET claims as even in the Union small companies with a turnover below a certain threshold are not required to have audited accounts.
Derfor er manglende opfyldelse af et eller flere kriterier tilstrækkeligt til at afvise individuel behandling uden at undersøge, om de øvrige kriterier er opfyldt.
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.
Timberlands leverandører
With regard to the missing information concerning criterion 1, reference is made to recital (126) 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.
FESI anfægtede påstanden i betragtning 20 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.
As to the request for more detailed information included in the MET/IT claims of certain Vietnamese suppliers on the basis of which the Commission rejected criterion 1, it is noted that such information was provided to the Commission on a confidential basis as it contained business secrets.
FESI fremførte, at Kommissionen burde have anmodet om yderligere oplysninger, og påstod, at virksomheden let kunne identificeres som en kinesisk virksomhed.
This information could therefore not be disclosed as such and only a non confidential summary thereof.
De fremførte, at selv om det var korrekt, at virksomheden optrådte med et andet navn i stikprøveskemaet og anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel 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.
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 request.
Derfor burde anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling fra den kinesiske virksomhed General Footwear Ltd være blevet vurderet, hvorimod vurderingen af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling fra General Shoes Ltd var en åbenbar fejl, for så vidt angår anmodningen om tilbagebetaling fra Timberland.
Finally, as regards criterion 2, Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation clearly stipulates that firms must have one set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and are applied for all purposes.
Derfor bør en sådan vurdering begrundes og korrigeres.
None of the Vietnamese suppliers concerned fulfilled these requirements.
General Footwear Ltd er en del af en virksomhedsgruppe med forretningsmæssigt forbundne virksomheder i Kina og Vietnam.
As outlined in recital (33) the deficiencies observed were the absence of audited accounts or auditor's opinions, severe issues highlighted by auditors in their opinion (such as non-compliance with international accounting standards) and contradictions regarding loans between certain statements made in the MET claim form and the financial statements.
Der var både en producent i Vietnam og en i Kina, der indsendte anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse.
All claims made by FESI were therefore rejected and the findings laid out in recitals (30) to (37) confirmed.
Under alle omstændigheder finder de kriterier, der er fastsat i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, for anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling og i artikel 9, stk. 5, i grundforordningen før dens ændring for anmodninger om individuel behandling anvendelse på både kinesiske og vietnamesiske producenter, da både Kina og Vietnam behandles som lande uden markedsøkonomi.
Moreover, FESI 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 their suppliers.
Den vietnamesiske virksomhed General Shoes Ltd. var også leverandør til andre importører end Timberland, og dens anmodning om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling blev ikke kun vurderet i forbindelse med Timberlands anmodning om tilbagebetaling.
On this basis, it was claimed that Puma and Timberland had significant control over the production process and specifications and that there was therefore no possibility of State interference.
Anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling vurderes på grundlag af de generelle betingelser, hvorunder en virksomhed opererer, og er ikke begrænset til bestemte transaktioner eller bestemte kunder i Unionen.
As already mentioned in recital (39) above the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT.
Derfor finder resultatet af en sådan vurdering anvendelse på den pågældende eksporterende producent som sådan, og der var derfor ikke tale om en åbenlys fejl, for så vidt angår Timberlands anmodninger om godtgørelse.
As also explained above in recital (47) the exporting producers failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made without State interference.
Under alle omstændigheder er det fortsat Kommissionens hensigt at vurdere anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling fra »General Footwear Ltd« (Kina).
It is also noted that criterion 2 is not referring solely to export prices, but in general to export sales including export prices and quantities and other conditions and terms of sales that should be determined freely without State interference.
Som led i god forvaltningsskik og for ikke unødigt at forsinke den igangværende gennemførelse, bliver denne vurdering dog genstand for en separat retsakt.
In support of its argument that export prices were freely determined FESI referred to recital (269) of the provisional Regulation.
Argument i forbindelse med anmodninger om godtgørelse
However, this recital addressed the re-sale prices of the importers in the Union and cannot therefore be considered as an appropriate basis to establish the reliability of the export prices by the exporting producers.
En importør erkendte, at ingen af de eksporterende producenter, der er berørt af denne gennemførelse, var dens leverandør, og var derfor af den opfattelse, at konklusionerne ikke var relevante for dens situation.
Likewise, the reference to recital (132) of the provisional Regulation and recital (135) of the contested Regulation refers to adjustments made to the normal value when comparing it to the export price and does not allow any conclusions as to whether export sales of the Vietnamese companies were freely determined.
Denne part fremførte, at konklusionerne af den nuværende gennemførelse derfor ikke kan udgøre et grundlag for at afvise dens anmodninger om godtgørelse, der er indgivet til de nationale toldmyndigheder.
Furthermore, FESI claimed that the Commission has also not explained how it arrived to the conclusion that there would be a risk of circumvention of the antidumping measure if the exporting producers concerned were granted an individual duty rate that would, however be the underlying purpose of the IT criteria.
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.
Regarding the risk of circumvention, this is only one criterion out of five listed in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation before its amendment.
For så vidt angår ovenstående anmodning, henviser Kommissionen til Kommissionens gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2016/223 [42], hvori det fastlægges, hvilken procedure der skal følges.
According to this Article all 5 criteria should be shown to be met by the exporting producer.
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.
Therefore, failure to meet one or more criteria is sufficient to deny the IT claim without examining whether the other criteria were met.
D. KONKLUSIONER
Suppliers of Timberland
Ud fra de modtagne bemærkninger og analysen heraf konkluderedes det, at restantidumpingtolden for Vietnam bør genindføres, for så vidt angår de 14 pågældende eksporterende producenter, i anvendelsesperioden for den anfægtede forordning.
FESI contested the statement in recital (20) above according to which one of Timberland suppliers, General Shoes Limited, was wrongly identified as a Chinese supplier in the application before the national Court whereas the company was established in Vietnam.
E. FREMLÆGGELSE AF OPLYSNINGER
FESI argued that the Commission should have sought further clarification and alleged that the company was easily identifiable as a Chinese company.
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 importen fra de 14 berørte eksporterende producenter.
It argued that while it was true that the company appeared with a different name in the sampling form and MET/IT claim provided in the original investigation (i.e. as General Footwear Ltd) the different company name in Timberland's application before the national Court (i.e. General Shoes Ltd) would be most likely merely due to a translation error.
De blev indrømmet en periode, inden for hvilken de kunne fremsætte bemærkninger efter fremlæggelsen af oplysninger.
Therefore the MET/IT request of the Chinese company General Footwear Ltd should have been assessed, while the assessment of the MET/IT request of General Shoes Ltd was a manifest error to the extent the repayment request of Timberland is concerned.
Denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelsen fra det udvalg, der er nedsat i medfør af forordning (EU) 2016/1036 artikel 15, stk. 1 —
Therefore, such assessment has to be justified and corrected.
VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
General Footwear Ltd is part of a company group with related companies in China and Vietnam.
Artikel 1
Both, a producer in Vietnam and another one in China provided MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
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 Vietnam, produceret af de eksporterende producenter, som er opført i bilag II til denne forordning, og henhørende under KN-kode: 64032000, ex64033000 [43], 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 [44], som fandt sted i løbet af anvendelsesperioden for forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009.
In the MET/IT claim of the Chinese company, its name is consistently reported as ‘General Footwear Ltd’ with an address in China.
Taric-koderne er opført i bilag I til nærværende forordning.
The producer in Vietnam is reported as ‘General Shoes Ltd’.
I denne forordning forstås ved: — »sportsfodtøj«
However, the relevant MET/IT claim form is ambiguous whether the company at stake is in fact Chinese or Vietnamese.
fodtøj i henhold til definitionen i underpositionsbestemmelse 1 til kapitel 64 i bilag I til forordning (EF) nr. 1719/2005 — »fodtøj, hvortil der kræves en særlig teknologi«
It was therefore not unreasonable to assume that the company mentioned in the file before the national Court was in fact Vietnamese.
fodtøj, for hvilket cif-prisen pr. par er lig med eller højere end 7,5 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 — »fodtøj med beskyttelseståkappe«
In any event, the criteria set out in Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation for MET requests and in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation before its amendment for IT requests apply equally to Chinese and Vietnamese producers as both PRC and Vietnam are treated as non-market economy countries.
fodtøj med en indbygget beskyttelseståkappe og en modstandsdygtighed over for stød på mindst 100 joule [45] og henhørende under KN-kode: ex64033000 [46], 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 —
The Vietnamese company General Shoes Ltd was supplier also to other importers than Timberland and its MET/IT request was not merely assessed in the context of the repayment request of Timberland.
»hjemmefodtøj og andre typer af indendørs fodtøj« fodtøj henhørende under KN-kode ex64051000.
The MET/IT claim is assessed on the basis of the general conditions under which a company operates and is not limited to specific transactions or specific customers in the Union.
Den endelige antidumpingtold fastsættes 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.
Therefore, the outcome of such assessment is applicable to the exporting producer concerned as such and there was therefore no manifest error with regard to Timberlands reimbursement requests.
Artikel 2
In any event, it is the Commission's intention to still assess the MET/IT claim of ‘General Footwear Ltd’ (China).
De beløb, for hvilke der er stillet sikkerhed i form af midlertidig antidumpingtold i henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006, opkræves endeligt.
In the spirit of sound administration and in order not to delay unnecessarily the ongoing implementation exercise, this assessment will, however, be subject to separate legal act.
Beløb til sikkerhedsstillelse, som ligger ud over den endelige antidumpingtold, frigives.
Argument linked to reimbursement claims
Artikel 3
One importer acknowledged that none of the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation was its supplier and therefore considered that the conclusions were not relevant to its situation.
Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
This party argued that the conclusions of the current implementation cannot therefore constitute a basis for denying its reimbursement requests filed at the national customs.
Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
The importer further requested that the MET/IT claims of its suppliers should be investigated on the basis of the documents provided by the relevant Belgian customs authorities to the Commission.
Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 13. september 2016.
With regard to the above claim, the Commission refers to the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 [42] which sets out the procedure to be followed in this matter.
På Kommissionens vegne
In particular, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of that Regulation, the Commission will examine the relevant MET/IT claims as soon as it has received the relevant documentation from the customs authorities.
Jean-Claude Juncker
D. CONCLUSIONS
EUT L 176 af 30.6.2016, s. 21.
Account taken of the comments made and the analysis thereof it was concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to Vietnam in respect of the fourteen exporting producers concerned for the period of application of the contested Regulation should be re-imposed.
Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 553/2006 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).
E. DISCLOSURE
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).
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 reimposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the fourteen exporting producers concerned.
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).
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
EUT C 251 af 3.10.2008, s. 21.
This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,
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).
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
EUT C 295 af 11.10.2013, s. 6.
Article 1