natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Denne påstand er ubegrundet.
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.
Importører, der har importeret fra Brosmann og de fire øvrige eksporterende producenter, der er berørt af dommene i sag C-247/10 P og C-249/10 P, befinder sig i en anden faktisk og retlig situation, fordi deres eksporterende producenter besluttede at bestride den anfægtede forordning, og fordi de fik tilbagebetalt deres told, således at de er beskyttet af artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen.
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.
En sådan anfægtelse og en sådan tilbagebetaling har ikke fundet sted for andre.
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.
Se i denne forbindelse også betragtning 118-122.
The contested regulation was adopted in 2006.
For det fjerde hævdede Clarks et al, at der opstod en række proceduremæssige uregelmæssigheder i forbindelse med denne undersøgelse.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is Regulation (EU) 2016/1036.
Først og fremmest fremførte virksomheden, at de pågældende eksporterende producenter ikke længere med sikkerhed befinder sig i en situation, hvor de kan indsende relevante bemærkninger eller tilføje yderligere beviser til støtte for de anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, som de indsendte for flere år siden.
Therefore, this claim is rejected.
Eksempelvis eksisterer virksomhederne måske ikke længere, eller de relevante dokumenter foreligger måske heller ikke længere.
With regard to Clarks et al, it is first claimed that the Commission had no legal basis to investigate the MET/IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the original investigation.
Desuden fremførte Clarks et al, at Kommissionens foranstaltninger i modsætning til i den oprindelige undersøgelse retligt og faktisk kun påvirker importører, som imidlertid ikke har mulighed for at fremlægge relevante bemærkninger og ikke kan pålægge deres leverandører at samarbejde med Kommissionen.
Clarks et al argued that the proceeding, which was closed by the expiry of the measures on 31 March 2011, was not invalidated by the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, and that therefore, it cannot be reopened.
Kommissionen bemærker, at der i grundforordningen ikke er noget krav til Kommissionen om at give eksporterende virksomheder, der anmoder om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, mulighed for at tilvejebringe manglende faktuelle oplysninger.
In reply to this comment, the Commission refers to the explanation provided in recitals 99 to 104.
Bevisbyrden påhviler nemlig, jf. betragtning 88, den producent, som ønsker at anmode om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 7, litra b).
Second, Clarks et al claimed that the current proceeding is in breach of the principles of non-retroactivity and legal certainty enshrined in Article 10 of the basic Regulation.
Retten til at blive hørt vedrører vurderingen af disse faktuelle oplysninger, men omfatter ikke retten til at afhjælpe mangelfulde oplysninger.
In addition, SIEMES, another importer of footwear, similarly, claimed that there would be no legal basis for imposition of anti-dumping duties on a retroactive basis and referred to case law, i.e. Case C-458/98 P, Industrie des poudres sphériques v Council [43], and to previous practice of the Commission in this regard.
Ellers ville den eksporterende producent kunne forlænge vurderingen på ubestemt tid ved at fremlægge oplysningerne lidt efter lidt.
As to the claim concerning retroactivity based on Article 10 of the basic Regulation and Article 10 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (‘WTO ADA’), Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, which follows the text of Article 10.1 of the WTO ADA, stipulates that provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties shall only be applied to products which enter free circulation after the time when the measures taken pursuant to Article 7(1) or 9(4) of the basic Regulation, as the case may be, enter into force.
Det skal i den forbindelse erindres, at Kommissionen ikke er forpligtet til at anmode den eksporterende producent om at supplere anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
In the present case, the anti-dumping duties in question are only applied to products which entered into free circulation after the provisional and the contested (definitive) Regulation taken pursuant to 7(1) and 9(4) of the basic Regulation respectively had entered into force.
Som nævnt i betragtning 84 kan Kommissionen basere sin vurdering på de oplysninger, som den eksporterende producent har indgivet.
Retroactivity in the sense of Article 10(1) of the basic Regulation, however, refers only to a situation where the goods were introduced into free circulation before measures were introduced, as can be seen from the very text of that provision as well as from the exception for which Article 10(4) of the basic Regulation provides.
Under alle omstændigheder har de pågældende eksporterende producenter ikke anfægtet Kommissionens vurdering af deres anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, og de har ikke meddelt, hvilke dokumenter eller medarbejdere de ikke længere råder over.
The Commission also observes that there is neither a violation of the principle of retroactivity, nor a violation of legal certainty and legitimate expectations involved in the present case.
Påstanden er derfor så abstrakt, at institutionerne ikke kan tage hensyn til disse vanskeligheder i forbindelse med vurderingen af anmodningerne om markedsøkonomisk/individuel behandling.
As to retroactivity, the case-law of the Court distinguishes, when assessing whether a measure is retroactive, between the application of a new rule to a situation that has become definitive (also referred to as an existing or definitively established legal situation), and a situation that started before the entry into force of the new rule, but which is not yet definitive (also referred to as a temporary situation).
Da denne påstand er baseret på formodninger og ikke understøttes af nøjagtige angivelser af, hvilke dokumenter og medarbejdere man ikke længere råder over, og af relevansen af disse dokumenter og medarbejdere for vurderingen af anmodningen om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, afvises denne påstand.
In the present case, the situation of the imports of the products concerned that occurred during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 has not yet become definitive, because, as a result of the annulment of the contested Regulation, the anti-dumping duty applicable to them has not yet been definitively established.
For så vidt angår påstanden om, at en importør ikke ville have mulighed for at fremlægge relevante oplysninger, bemærker Kommissionen følgende: For det første er importører ikke omfattet af retten til forsvar, da antidumpingforanstaltningen ikke er rettet mod dem, men mod de eksporterende producenter.
At the same time, importers of footwear were warned that such a duty may be imposed by the publication of the Notice of Initiation and the provisional Regulation.
For det andet havde importørerne mulighed for at fremsætte bemærkninger herom allerede i den administrative procedure forud for vedtagelsen af den anfægtede forordning.
It is standing case-law of the Union courts that operators cannot acquire legitimate expectations until the institutions have adopted an act closing the administrative procedure, which became definitive.
Hvis importørerne for det tredje mente, at der var tale om en uregelmæssighed i denne forbindelse, måtte de træffe de nødvendige kontraktmæssige aftaler med deres leverandører for at sikre sig, at de rådede over den nødvendige dokumentation.
This Regulation constitutes immediate application to the future effects of a situation that is ongoing: The duties on footwear have been levied by national customs authorities.
Påstanden må derfor afvises.
As a result of the requests for reimbursement, which have not been decided in a definitive way, they constitute an ongoing situation.
For det femte hævdede Clarks et al, at Kommissionen undlod at undersøge, om indførelse af antidumpingtold ville være i Unionens interesse, og fremførte, at foranstaltningerne ville være i strid med Unionens interesser, fordi i) foranstaltningerne allerede havde deres ønskede virkning, da de blev indført i første omgang, ii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville udgøre en yderligere fordel for EU-erhvervsgrenen, iii) foranstaltningerne ikke ville have nogen indvirkning på de eksporterende producenter, og iv) fordi foranstaltningerne ville pålægge importørerne i Unionen en betydelig omkostning.
This Regulation sets out the duty rate applicable to those imports, and hence regulates the future effects of an ongoing situation.
Den foreliggende sag vedrører kun anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling, fordi dette er det eneste punkt, hvor EU's retsinstanser har identificeret en retlig fejl.
In any event, even if there were retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
For så vidt angår Unionens interesser, er vurderingen i forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 stadig fuldt ud gyldig.
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Desuden er den nuværende foranstaltning berettiget for at beskytte Unionens finansielle interesser.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA), it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general theprinciple of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’ [44].
For det sjette hævdede Clarks et al, at antidumpingtolden, hvis den blev genindført, ikke længere kunne opkræves, fordi forældelsesfristen i artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen (nu artikel 103, stk. 1, i EU-toldkodeksen) var overskredet.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
Ifølge Clarks et al udgjorde denne situation et misbrug af beføjelser fra Kommissionens side.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital 12, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
Kommissionen minder om, at forældelsesfristen, jf. artikel 221, stk. 3, i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 103, stk. 1, i EU-toldkodeksen, ikke finder anvendelse, når der er indgivet en klage i henhold til artikel 243 i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 44, stk. 2, i EU-toldkodeksen, hvilket er tilfældet i alle de nuværende sager, som vedrører klager på grundlag af artikel 236 i EF-toldkodeksen/artikel 119 i EU-toldkodeksen.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
En klage i henhold til artikel 103, stk. 3, i EU-toldkodeksen, jf. præciseringen i artikel 44, stk. 2, i samme forordning, strækker sig fra den oprindelige anfægtelse af afgørelsen fra de nationale toldmyndigheder om indførelse af told og frem til den endelige dom afsagt af den nationale ret, herunder, hvis det er nødvendigt, en anmodning om en præjudiciel afgørelse.
Third, Clarks et al claimed that it would be discriminatory and in breach of Article 266 TFEU to reimpose an anti-dumping duty on the seventy exporting producers concerned, given that no anti-dumping duty was reimposed following the Brosmann and Aokang judgments.
Perioden på tre år er derfor udsat fra datoen for anfægtelsen.
This claim is unfounded.
Den relevante lovgivning, der finder anvendelse i denne sag, er forordning (EU) 2016/1036 om beskyttelse mod dumpingimport fra lande, der ikke er medlemmer af Den Europæiske Union.
Importers that have imported from Brosman and the other four exporting producers concerned by the judgments in cases C-247/10 P and C-249/10 P, are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they were reimbursed their duties, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
SIEMES gjorde desuden gældende, at procedurens varighed, for så vidt angår dens indgivne anmodning om godtgørelse af antidumpingtold til de tyske toldmyndigheder, er i strid med retten til god forvaltningsskik i henhold til artikel 41 i Den Europæiske Unions charter om grundlæggende rettigheder i Den Europæiske Union.
No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
For det første bemærker Kommissionen, at beslutninger om tilbagebetaling af antidumpingtold falder ind under medlemsstaternes nationale toldmyndigheders beføjelse.
See, in this regard, also recitals 118 to 122.
For det andet forstod Kommissionen ud fra de oplysninger, den modtog, at SIEMES' anmodning om tilbagebetaling af 19. marts 2012 blev afvist, fordi den dom, i henhold til hvilken den indgav sin anmodning om tilbagebetaling, var begrænset til Brosmann og Aokang.
Fourth, Clarks et al alleged that there were several procedural irregularities resulting from this investigation.
Dommen havde ingen virkning over for andre eksporterende producenter i Kina og Vietnam.
In the first place, they argued that the exporting producers concerned may no longer be in a position to provide meaningful comments or adduce additional evidence to support their MET/IT claims that they made several years ago.
Den 4. februar 2016 erklærede Domstolen i de forenede sager C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited, og C-34/14, Puma SE, den anfægtede forordning ugyldig, for så vidt som den vedrørte alle de eksporterende producenter af den pågældende vare (se betragtning 12).
For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.
Navnlig for så vidt angår import, der er genstand for anmodninger om tilbagebetaling anmeldt til Kommissionen af de tyske toldmyndigheder i overensstemmelse med artikel 1 i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2016/223 (der henvises til betragtning 30), overholdt Kommissionen fuldt ud den ottemånedersfrist for gennemførelsen, der er fastsat i nævnte forordnings artikel 1, stk. 2.
In addition, Clarks et al argued that unlike during the original investigation, the Commission's measures would de facto and de jure affect only importers, whereas they have no means of providing any meaningful input and cannot require their suppliers to cooperate with the Commission.
Kommissionen var i overensstemmelse hermed uenig i argumentet om, at denne procedure tilsidesatte princippet om god forvaltningsskik.
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
Denne påstand måtte derfor afvises.
In fact, and as set out in recital 88 the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
D. KONKLUSIONER
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Kommissionen tog hensyn til de modtagne bemærkninger og analysen heraf og konkluderede, at restantidumpingtolden for Kina og Vietnam på henholdsvis 16,5 % og 10 % bør genindføres i anvendelsesperioden for den anfægtede forordning.
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
Som nævnt i betragtning 28 suspenderede Kommissionen vurderingen af de virksomheder, der er opført i bilag III til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/423, indtil den importør, der anmoder om godtgørelse fra de nationale toldmyndigheder, har underrettet Kommissionen om navne og adresser på den eller de eksporterende producenter, fra hvilke de pågældende forhandlere har købt fodtøj, eller, hvis der ikke er modtaget noget svar inden for denne frist, indtil udløbet af Kommissionens fastsatte frist for at give denne underretning.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
I artikel 3 i gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/423 pålagde Kommissionen også de relevante nationale toldmyndigheder ikke at godtgøre den opkrævede told, før Kommissionen har afsluttet vurderingen af de relevante anmodninger om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling.
As mentioned in recital 84, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Som følge heraf, jf. betragtning 29, gav Pentland Brands Ltd, Puma UK Ltd og Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd sig til kende og identificerede deres leverandører.
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
Det følger heraf, at Kommissionen færdiggjorde vurderingen af situationen for de virksomheder, der er opført i bilag III til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/423.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument is rejected.
Derfor registrerede Kommissionen ikke, at virksomheder opført i bilag III til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/423 havde indgivet anmodning om markedsøkonomisk behandling/individuel behandling i forbindelse med den oprindelige undersøgelse.
Regarding the claim that an importer would have no means to provide any meaningful input, the Commission observes the following: first, importers do not enjoy rights of defence, as the anti-dumping measure is not directed against them, but against the exporting producers.
Importørernes relevante anmodninger om tilbagebetaling bør derfor ikke imødekommes, fordi den anfægtede forordning ikke er blevet annulleret for deres vedkommende.
Second, importers had the opportunity to comment on that point already during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Kommissionen har til orientering gengivet bilag III til gennemførelsesforordning (EU) 2017/423 som bilag VI til nærværende forordning.
Third, if importers thought that there was an irregularity in that regard, they had to take the necessary contractual arrangements with their suppliers to ensure to dispose of the necessary documentation.
E. FREMLÆGGELSE AF OPLYSNINGER
Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.
De pågældende eksporterende producenter, de importører, som blev anmeldt af de tyske og de nederlandske myndigheder, de importører, der gav sig til kende og fremlagde navne og adresser på deres respektive leverandører in Kina og/eller Vietnam, samt alle andre parter, der gav sig til kende, blev underrettet om de vigtigste kendsgerninger og betragtninger, på grundlag af hvilke det påtænktes at anbefale genindførelsen af den endelige antidumpingtold på eksporten fra de 70 pågældende eksporterende producenter.
Fifth, Clarks et al argued that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Nærværende forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra det udvalg, der er nedsat ved artikel 15, stk. 1, i forordning (EU) 2016/1036 —
For Union interest, the assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 remains fully valid.
VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Artikel 1
Sixth, Clarks et al claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if reimposed, could no longer be collected because of the statute of limitations of Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code (now Article 103(1) of the Union Customs Code) had expired.
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 og produceret af de eksporterende producenter, som er opført i bilag II til nærværende forordning, og henhørende under KN-kode: 64032000, ex64033000 [45], 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 [46], som fandt sted i anvendelsesperioden for forordning (EF) nr. 1472/2006 og gennemførelsesforordning (EU) nr. 1294/2009.
According to Clarks et all, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.
Taric-koderne er opført i bilag I til nærværende forordning.
The Commission recalls that according to Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code/103(1) of the Union Customs Code, the statute of limitations does not apply where an appeal pursuant to Article 243 of the Community Customs Code/Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code is lodged, as in all the present cases, which concern appeals on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code/Article 119 of the Union Customs Code.
2.
An appeal within the meaning of Article 103(3) of the Union Customs Code, pursuant to the clarification in Article 44(2) of the same regulation, extends from the initial challenge to the decision by the national customs authorities imposing the duties up to the final judgment rendered by the national court, including, where necessary, a reference for a preliminary ruling.
I denne forordning forstås ved: —
The three year period is consequently stayed from the date the challenge is filed.
»sportsfodtøj« fodtøj i henhold til definitionen i underpositionsbestemmelse 1 til kapitel 64 i bilag I til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1719/2005 [47]—
Lastly, Clarks et al claimed that, following the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's WTO Protocol of Accession on 11 December 2016, the Commission can no longer rely on the methodology used to determine normal value for Chinese exporters in the original investigation (i.e. the analogue country methodology under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation).