natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Da det er umuligt for Kommissionens tjenestegrene på stedet at kontrollere de forskellige 'forslag' fra Acme, kan det kun konkluderes, at de satser for [SAGomkostninger] og fortjeneste, der oprindelig blev kontrolleret, ikke er pålidelige og derfor må afvises.«
1999 — CASE T-48/96 in the second place, the mere fact that costs on sales such as delivery costs and repair costs are not booked in the SG & A [expenses] but elsewhere does not mean that they don't have to be reported as SG & A expenses; in the third place, the documents provided by your correspondence of 30 July clearly show that the mark-up for each of the MWO types sold is substantially above the mark-up that was reported in response to the questionnaire, even taking in consideration the unverified rebate which was also not reported in the reply to the questionnaire as correct; in the fourth place, the fact that Imarflex is "offering" four different SG & A [expenses] and profit rates varying from 11.29% as reported in the reply to 9.96% in Annex 10 of Acme's letter of 31 July 1995 to 13% in Annex 11 of the same letter and to 15% as used by the US authorities shows that there is clearly something wrong. In particular, all these "proposals" are still far below the margins between purchase prices and sale prices of each of the models sold. As it is impossible for the Commission services to verify the different proposals of Acme on the spot, it can only be concluded that the SG & A [expenses] and profit rate verified initially were unreliable and that they have as such to be rejected.' 71 Finally, at recital 26 in the preamble to the contested regulation, the Council stated that Imarflex's data had turned out to be unreliable and that it had been 'considered reasonable to maintain, as in the case of Malaysia, the general methodology for determining normal value for Thailand as outlined in recitals 46 and 47 of the provisional duty regulation'.
72 Sagsøgeren har ikke fremlagt nogen oplysninger, der afkræfter disse konstateringer. ringer.
72 The applicant did not provide any evidence enabling those statements to be verified.
Det bestrides nemlig ikke, at sagsøgeren i sit svar af 4. februar 1994 på spørgeskemaet ikke har redegjort for Imarflex' SAG-omkostninger og fortjeneste i overensstemmelse med instrukserne i spørgeskemaet. Navnlig bestrides det ikke, at sagsøgeren ikke har opdelt omkostningerne efter kategori eller givet oplysninger om de mikrobølgeovne, som Imarflex solgte i Japan.
It is not denied that the applicant, in its reply to the questionnaire dated 4 February 1994, did not submit Imarflex's SG & A expenses and profit margin in accordance with the terms of the questionnaire and, in particular, did not break down those expenses by category or produce information relating exclusively to MWOs sold by Imarflex in Japan. 74
Selv om sagsøgeren af Kommissionen er blevet opfordret til at supplere sit oprindelige svar på disse punkter, har sagsøgeren i sin skrivelse af 22. februar 1994 ikke opfyldt kravene i spørgeskemaet.
Although the Commission invited it to supplement its initial reply on those points, the applicant did not, in its letter of 22 February 1994, comply with the requirements of the questionnaire.
Det er ligeledes ubestridt, at de oplysninger om SAG-omkostninger og fortjeneste, som sagsøgeren har givet i sit svar på spørgeskemaet, er blevet afkræftet ved kontrollen på stedet. I betragtning af de uoverensstemmelser, der er påvist efter efterprøvelsen af omkostningerne vedrørende modellen »CMO 552«, har Kommissionen været berettiget til at drage pålideligheden af sagsøgerens svar i tvivl.
It is also common ground that information relating to the SG & A expenses and profit margin submitted by the applicant in its reply to the questionnaire was invalidated during the on-the-spot inspection. Having regard to the discrepancies found on completion of the verification of the costs relating to the 'CMO 552' model, the Commission was entitled to cast doubt on the reliability of the applicant's replies. 76
Det er først efter den foreløbige forklarende skrivelse, at sagsøgeren ved skrivelser af 31. juli og 3. november 1995 har givet nærmere oplysninger om Imarflex' SAG-omkostninger og fortjeneste.
It was only following the provisional disclosure letter that the applicant, by letters of 31 July and 3 November 1995, shed any light on Imarflex's SG & A expenses and profit margin. 77
Det bestrides således ikke, at sagsøgeren i strid med instrukserne i spørgeskemaet ikke har medtaget omkostninger til reparationer efter salg, leveringsomkostninger og nedslag i priserne blandt Imarflex' SAG-omkostninger. Det er ligeledes ubestridt, at disse omkostninger i ikke ubetydelig grad påvirker fastsættelsen af den beregnede normale værdi.
It is therefore not contested that the applicant did not declare the after-sales repair costs, delivery costs and sales rebates as part of Imarflex's SG & A expenses, notwithstanding the terms of the questionnaire. It is also common ground that those costs affect the calculation of constructed normal value to a significant degree. 78
Sagsøgeren har udtrykkeligt erkendt at have begået en fejl ved at undlade at angive leveringsomkostningerne, men søger at retfærdiggøre udeladelsen af omkostningerne til reparationer efter salget ved at henvise til sin egen og
The applicant has expressly recognised that it committed an error in failing to declare delivery costs but attempts to justify its omission of after-sales repair costs by arguing that its accounting practices and those of Imarflex are sound. The
Omkostningerne ved reparation af produkter, der afholdes efter salget, udgør dog pr. definition salgsomkostninger i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra b), nr. ii). Heraf følger, at disse omkostninger skal medregnes som SAG-omkostninger ved fastsættelsen af den beregnede normale værdi.
1999 — CASE T-48/96 costs relating to product repairs, incurred after the sale of the product, are by definition selling expenses within the meaning of Article 2(3)(b)(ii) of the basic regulation.
79 Hvad angår prisnedslagene ved salg er det i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra a), bestemt, at rabatter og afslag, som direkte har tilknytning til salget, kan trækkes fra den normale værdi, forudsat at eksportøren har anmodet herom og fremlægger tilstrækkelige beviser for, at der faktisk er indrømmet sådanne nedsættelser af bruttoprisen.
It follows that those costs must be included in SG & A expenses when calculating the constructed normal value. The allegation that Imarflex and the applicant treat those costs as 'cost of sales' for accounting purposes is irrelevant in that respect. The way in which undertakings treat certain types of costs when drawing up their annual accounts cannot call into question the classification of those costs for the purposes of an antidumping investigation. Furthermore, the applicant did not, either during the procedure or at the hearing, adduce any evidence to support that allegation. 79 With regard to sales rebates, Article 2(3)(a) of the basic regulation provides that discounts and rebates directly linked to sales may be deducted from the normal value provided that the exporter claims and supplies sufficient evidence that any such reduction from the gross price was actually granted.
I den foreliggende sag har sagsøgeren ikke bestridt, at selskabet i besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet af egen drift har fratrukket visse nedslag i priserne uden at forklare sig nærmere eller fremlægge beviser.
In this case, the applicant does not dispute that, in reply to the questionnaire, it deducted of its own accord certain rebates on sales, without providing any explanations or evidence in support of its action.
Sagsøgeren har endvidere i processkrifterne og i retsmødet erkendt, at de ensidige prisnedslag blev ydet for kontant betaling.
Furthermore, it accepted in its pleadings and during the hearing that the rebates which were deducted unilaterally had been granted for cash.
Kontantrabatter påvirker ifølge deres natur ikke den pris, der skal betales af Imarflex' kunder, men er den værdi, Imarflex tillægger en fremskyndet betaling af fakturaprisen.
By their nature, cash reductions do not affect the price payable by Imarflex's customers but correspond to the value which Imarflex attributes to early payment of the invoiced price.
Sådanne rabatter kan derfor ikke fratrækkes i den beregnede normale værdi.
They are not therefore deductible from the constructed normal value.
80 Retten skal ligeledes bemærke, at sagsøgeren i sine erklæringer efter modtagelsen af den foreløbige forklarende skrivelse successivt har »foreslået« flere forhøj -elsessatser.
It follows that the institutions were right to consider that those sales rebates should have been included as part of Imarflex's SG & A expenses. 80 The Court also observes that, in its statements following the provisional disclosure letter, the applicant 'proposed' various mark-ups.
Først har sagsøgeren i svaret på spørgeskemaet angivet en sats på 11,39%, derefter, i skrivelsen af 31. juli 1995, satserne 9,96%, 13% og 15%, og endelig i skrivelsen af 3. november 1995 satserne 11,86% og 21,75%.
Thus, having opted for a mark-up of 11.39% in its reply to the questionnaire, the applicant went on to propose further mark-ups of 9.96, 13 and 15% in its letter of 31 July 1995, and then of 11.86 and 21.75% in its letter of 3 November 1995.
81 Endelig har sagsøgeren i replikken som forklaring på skrivelsen af 3. november 1995 for første gang fremlagt et nyt beregningsgrundlag, som fører til en forhøjelsessats på 22,26%.
81 Finally, in its reply, the applicant, under cover of explanations relating to its letter of 3 November 1995, put forward for the first time a new basis of calculation giving a mark-up of 22.26%.
Uden at det er nødvendigt at udtale sig om andre forhold eller sagsøgerens gode tro, fremgår det tydeligt af ovenstående, at institutionerne ikke har begået noget åbenbart urigtigt skøn ved at konkludere, at de oplysninger vedrørende Imarflex, som sagsøgeren har fremlagt i sin besvarelse af spørgeskemaet, er upålidelige.
Without there being any need to rule on other facts or on the good faith of the applicant, it is sufficiently clear from the foregoing that the institutions did not commit a manifest error of assessment in finding that the data relating to Imarflex and provided by the applicant in reply to the questionnaire was unreliable.
Heraf følger, at sagsøgerens argumenter om Imarflex-oplysningernes pålidelighed må forkastes.
It follows that the applicant's arguments pertaining to the reliability of Imarflex's data must be rejected as unfounded.
Den repræsentative karakter af forhøjelsessatsen for modellen »CMO 552«
The representative nature of the mark-up on the 'CMO 552' model
Sagsøgeren har bestridt, at den forhøj elsessats for modellen »CMO 552«, ud fra hvilken Kommissionen har konkluderet, at Imarflex-oplysningerne er upålidelige, er repræsentativ.
The applicant questions the representativeness of the mark-up on the 'CMO 552' model on the basis of which the Commission decided that Imarflex's data were unreliable.
Denne model, der blev valgt af Kommissionen under kontrollen på stedet, er den model, som giver den højeste forhøjelsessats, men den repræsenterer kun 3,2% af samtlige de af Imarflex solgte modeller.
That model, which was selected by the Commission during the on-the-spot investigation, is the one with the highest mark-up and represents only 3.2% of all models sold by Imarflex.
Forhøjelsessatsen for denne model er unormalt høj i forhold til den gennemsnitssats på 22,26%, der gælder for alle de mikrobølgeovne, Imarflex sælger i Japan, og i forhold til de 16,08%, som gælder for samtlige de af Imarflex solgte
The mark-up on that model is significantly higher than both the average mark-up of 22.26% on all MWOs sold by Imarflex in Japan and that of 16.08% on all
Forskellen skyldes, at leveringsomkostningerne for mikrobølgeovne er højere end for de øvrige produkter.
That discrepancy is the result of the fact that delivery costs are higher for MWOs than for other products.
Sagsøgeren har heraf udledt, at institutionerne således har begået et åbenbart urigtigt skøn ved at afvise Imarflex-oplysningerne på grundlag af forhøjelsessatsen for modellen »CMO 552«.
From that, the applicant concludes that the institutions made an obvious error of assessment in using the mark-up relating to the 'CMO 552' model in order to reject Imarflex's data.
Konstateringen af en forhøjelsessats på over 30%, en sats, der står i klar modsætning til satsen i sagsøgerens besvarelse af spørgeskemaet, er tilstrækkelig til at konkludere, at de tal, sagsøgeren tidligere har fremlagt, er upålidelige.
The finding that the mark-up was higher than 30%, clearly contradicting the applicant's response to the questionnaire, was sufficient for the conclusion to be drawn that the figures previously submitted by the applicant were unreliable.
Den manglende pålidelighed bekræftes bl.a. af, at sagsøgeren i strid med sine tidligere erklæringer senere har kunnet fremlægge oplysninger, der alene vedrører mikrobølgeovne.
Their unreliability was confirmed, inter alia, by the fact that the applicant, contrary to its earlier statements, was subsequently able to provide data relating only to MWOs.
Det skal påpeges, at det fremgår af oplysningerne i sagen, at Kommissionen kontrollerede oplysningerne om »CMO 552«-modellen som led i en stikprøveundersøgelse foretaget for at kontrollere sagsøgerens angivelser i besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet.
The file shows that the Commission examined the data relating to the 'CMO 552' model by way of a sample, in order to verify the applicant's statements contained in its reply to the questionnaire.
Undersøgelsen viste, at der var uoverensstemmelser mellem undersøgelsens resultater og angivelserne i besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet.
That verification enabled the investigators to find contradictions between that data and its reply to the questionnaire.
Heraf følger, at sagsøgerens argument om, at forhøjelsessatsen for modellen »CMO 552« ikke er repræsentativ, ligeledes må forkastes.
It follows that the applicant's argument that the mark-up on the 'CMO 552' model was not representative must also be rejected.
Sagsøgeren har fremhævet, at eftersom Imarflex var ansvarlig for eksporten af sagsøgerens mikrobølgeovne, burde Imarflex have været betragtet som eksportør af de pågældende produkter i henhold til grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra b), nr. ii).
The applicant emphasises that, to the extent that Imarflex was responsible for exporting its MWOs, it should have been considered to be the exporter of the products in question within the meaning of Article 2(3)(b)(ii) of the basic regulation.
Sagsøgeren har i den forbindelse bemærket, at Kommissionen har udpeget Imarflex som eksportør i betragtning 3 og 4 til den midlertidige forordning og har foretaget et inspektionsbesøg hos Imarflex, således at Kommissionen ikke kan have været i tvivl om, at Imarflex var eksportøren.
In that connection, it points out that the Commission designated Imarflex as the exporter in recitals 3 and 4 in the preamble to the provisional regulation and carried out an inspection at Imarflex's premises, so that it must have been certain that Imarflex was the exporter.
91 Ifølge sagsøgeren kunne institutionerne ikke afvise Imarflex' oplysninger med den begrundelse, at mikrobølgeovnene fysisk blev eksporteret fra Thailand.
91 According to the applicant, it was not open to the institutions to disregard Imarflex's data on the ground that the MWOs were physically exported from Thailand.
Institu tionerne har ved at fortolke begrebet »eksportland« i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra b), nr. ii) som alene omfattende det sted, hvorfra de af undersøgelsen omfattede produkter fysisk blev eksporteret, misforstået formålene med antidumpinglovgivningen.
To interpret the 'country of export' in Article 2(3)(b)(ii) of the basic regulation as referring only to the place to which the products covered by the investigation were physically exported would be contrary to the aims of the antidumping legislation.
92 Når produktions- og eksportfunktionerne inden for én og samme økonomiske enhed overlades til to forskellige selskaber, er institutionerne nemlig forpligtet til at lægge det eksporterende selskabs priser til grund.
92 Where, within a single economic entity, the functions of manufacture and export are each entrusted to two different companies, the institutions are bound to refer to the prices charged by the exporter.
I den foreliggende sag har institutionerne ikke taget hensyn til fordelingen af produktions- og eksportfunktionerne inden for Nisshin-koncernen hvad angår mikrobølgeovne.
In this case, the institutions failed to take into account the manner in which manufacture and export of MWOs are distributed within the Nisshin Group.
Sagsøgerens virksomhed er begrænset til produktion af mikrobølgeovne, mens Imarflex udøver alle eksportørens kommercielle funktioner, der medfører SAG-omkost-
The applicant itself merely manufactured MWOs, whereas Imarflex carried out all the commercial functions of an exporter
DOM AF 12.10.1999 — SAG T-48/96 ninger, som f.eks. forhandlinger om priser og salgsbetingelser, forskning og udvikling, fakturering til kunder samt modtagelse af betalinger.
1999 — CASE T-48/96 entailing SG & A expenses, such as negotiating prices and terms of sale, research and development, invoicing customers and receiving payments. 93
Sagsøgeren har subsidiært gjort gældende, at institutionerne burde have anvendt Imarflex-oplysningerne analogt.
In the alternative, the applicant claims that the institutions should have used Imarflex's data by analogy.
Rådet har hævdet, at et tredjeland ifølge grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 6, alene kan betragtes som eksportlandet, såfremt produkterne forsendes i transit gennem dets område.
The Council contends that under Article 2(6) of the basic regulation, a third country can be considered to be the country of export only if the goods are transshipped through its territory.
De af sagsøgeren fremstillede mikrobølgeovne forsendes dog direkte fra Thailand til Fællesskabet uden at passere Japan.
The MWOs manufactured by the applicant were dispatched directly from Thailand to the Community and were never shipped through Japan.
I øvrigt overvurderer sagsøgeren Imarflex' eksportaktiviteter.
Furthermore, the applicant overstates the role of Imarflex as exporter.
En del af eksportfakturaerne udstedes nemlig direkte af sagsøgeren, som også betaler visse distributionsomkostninger samt ikke ubetydelige eksportomkostninger.
The applicant itself issues certain invoices relating to exports and bears distribution costs as well as substantial export expenses.
Institutionerne har således med rette konkluderet, at Japan ikke er eksportlandet.
The institutions were therefore entitled to conclude that Japan was not the country of export.
Endvidere har institutionerne alene gennemgået Imarflex' oplysninger for at afgøre, om disse kunne bruges som »et andet rimeligt grundlag« i den betydning, der anvendes i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra b), nr. ii), in fine.
Furthermore, the institutions looked at Imarflex's data only in order to assess whether they could be used as 'any other reasonable basis' within the meaning of the last part of Article 2(3)(b)(ii) of the basic regulation.
Rådet har fremhævet, at institutionerne under ingen omstændigheder kan lægge Imarflex-oplysningerne til grund, da disse ikke er pålidelige.
The Council observes that, in any event, the institutions should not have taken Imarflex's data into account because such data were unreliable.
Den franske regering har hævdet, at sidste punktum i grundforordningens artikel 2, stk. 3, litra b), nr. ii), giver institutionerne et alternativ.
The French Government maintains that the last sentence of Article 2(3)(b)(ii) gives the institutions an alternative.
Institutionerne kan nemlig vælge at foretage beregningerne enten »på grundlag af salg realiseret af den pågældende eksportør eller af andre producenter eller eksportører i samme erhvervssektor i oprindelses- eller eksportlandet« eller »på et andet rimeligt grundlag«, uden at denne rækkefølge skal betragtes som en prioritering.
They can use either 'sales made by the exporter or other producers or exporters in the same business sector in the country of origin or export' or 'any other reasonable basis', and there is no order of priority between the two methods.
Selv om det påvises, at den førstnævnte metode er pålidelig, og at det er mere rimeligt at anvende denne metode end »et andet rimeligt grundlag«, er den anfægtede forordning derfor ikke af den grund behæftet med et åbenbart urigtigt skøn, der bevirker, at forordningen må annulleres.
Accordingly, even if it were shown that the first method was reliable and its use more reasonable than the use of 'any other reasonable basis', that would not mean that the contested regulation was vitiated by a manifest error of assessment such as to entail its annulment.
Efter Kommissionens opfattelse udelukker såvel den bogstavelige betydning af udtrykket »eksportør« som grundforordningen sagsøgerens fortolkning.
For the Commission, both the literal meaning of the word 'exporter' and the basic regulation preclude the interpretation suggested by the applicant.
Retten har allerede fastslået, at institutionerne korrekt har kunnet konkludere, at Imarflex-oplysningerne ikke er pålidelige.
The Court has already held that the institutions were entitled to conclude that the data relating to Imarflex were unreliable.
Derfor kan disse oplysninger ikke anvendes til at fastsætte den beregnede normale værdi, og det er i den forbindelse uden betydning, om Imarflex er eksportøren, således som hævdet af sagsøgeren.
Therefore, those data could not be used for the purposes of determining the constructed normal value, and whether or not Imarflex was the exporter, as the applicant maintains, is irrelevant in that connection.
Pålideligheden af Imarflex' oplysninger
Reliability of Imarflex's data
100 Efter sagsøgerens opfattelse kunne Kommissionen let have efterprøvet pålideligheden af de oplysninger, den satte spørgsmålstegn ved.
100 In the applicant's view, the Commission could easily have verified the reliability of the information which it considered dubious.
Institutionerne kan ikke behandle besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet som et formelt retligt dokument, som kan forkastes i sin helhed, såfremt der konstateres fejl eller mangler.
The institutions cannot treat the reply to the questionnaire as a formal legal document which can be rejected in its entirety once certain errors or gaps have been found in it.
Spørgeskemaet er blot et middel til brug for parterne, der gør det muligt for disse efter bedste evne at fremlægge de relevante oplysninger inden for den korte frist, de har til at udfylde spørgeskemaet.
The questionnaire is no more than a tool allowing the parties to provide relevant data to the best of their ability within the short period of time allocated to them to fill it out.
101 Kommissionen burde på alle stadier af proceduren have givet sagsøgeren mulighed for at fremsætte de forklaringer, selskabet skønnede nødvendige.
101 At every stage of the procedure, the Commission should have allowed the applicant to provide such further particulars as it deemed appropriate.
Institutionerne har anvendt sagsøgerens supplerende bemærkninger og subsidiære forslag til at understrege forekomsten af modsigelser og som argument for at afvise Imarflex-oplysningerne.
The applicant maintains that the institutions used the supplementary observations and alternative suggestions made by it as an argument to highlight the existence of contradictions and reject Imarflex's data.
Sagsøgeren finder en sådan praksis urimelig.
In the applicant's submission, that practice is unfair.
Parterne i en antidumpingprocedure bør i den administrative fase kunne undersøge alternative løsninger uden at frygte, at deres forslag senere anvendes imod dem.
Parties to antidumping proceedings should be able to explore alternative solutions at the administrative stage, without having to fear that their proposals will subsequently be held against them.