natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Moreover, during the review investigation period, the prices of the imports from the country concerned undercut those of the Community industry.
Uurimisperioodi jooksul lõi import mainitud riigist ühenduse tootmisharu hinnad alla.
On a weighted average basis, price undercutting was in the review investigation period between 11,5 and 17,1 %.
Kaalutud keskmisena jäi hindade allalöömine uurimisperioodi jooksul vahemikku 11,5 %–17,1 %.
As a consequence of this price pressure exercised by subsidised Indian imports, the Community industry was at no time during the period considered in a position to reach non-injurious price levels.
Indiast pärineva subsideeritud impordi järgselt hinnasurve tulemusel ei saavutanud ühenduse tootmisharu vaatlusalusel perioodil kordagi mittekahjustavat hinnataset.
This negative tendency for the Community industry is further reflected in the picture displayed by the trends in return on investment and cash flow.
See ühenduse tootmisharu negatiivne arengusuundumus peegeldub ka investeerimistasuvuse ja rahavoogude näitajates.
Regarding captive sales, the option for the Community industry to sell part of its production on the captive market provided it with the opportunity to maintain high levels of capacity utilisation.
Mis puudutab müüki suletud turul, siis ühenduse tootmisharu võimalus müüa osa toodangust suletud turul võimaldas rakendada tootmisvõimsust.
High capacity utilisation contributes to decrease cost of production because of economies of scale.
Tootmisvõimsuse rakendamise kõrge tase aitab mastaabisäästu tõttu langetada tootmiskulu.
Furthermore, as outlined above, the trends in sales volumes, prices and market share between the free and captive markets did not diverge significantly.
Nagu eelpool märgitud, ei erinenud müügimahtude, hindade ja turuosade suundumused vabaturul ja suletud kuigi märkimisväärselt.
In the absence of the higher profits achieved by the industry on captive sales, the industry would be in a worse financial situation.
Ilma suletud turu kõrgema kasumitasemeta oleks tootmisharu veelgi halvemas finantsolukorras.
Thus, the captive use did not contribute to the injurious situation.
Nii ei aidanud suletud turg kahjule kaasa.
To the contrary, without a captive market the injurious situation of the Community industry might even have been worse.
Ilma suletud turuta oleks ühenduse tootmisharu olukord võinud seevastu olla isegi halvem.
Two exporters contended that it cannot be concluded that the captive market sales did not contribute to the injurious situation of the Community industry, because captive sales prices are allegedly unreliable, i.e. the profitability of captive sales would be artificially too high.
Kahe eksportija sõnul ei saa järeldada, nagu ei oleks suletud turg kahju suurendanud, sest suletud turu müügihinnad ei ole väidetavalt usaldusväärsed, mis tähendab, et suletud turukasumitase võib olla kunstlikult liiga kõrge.
However, higher profitability on the captive market was not mainly the result of higher transfer prices, but in particular attributable to lower SG & A (see recital 208).
Siiski suletud turu kõrgem kasumitase ei ole saavutatud peamiselt tänu kõrgematele sisehindadele, vaid tingitud eelkõige madalamatest müügikuludest (vt põhjendus 208).
Furthermore, this submission neglects the effect of economies of scale.
Pealegi ei võta see väide arvesse mastaabisäästu.
Thus, it cannot change the conclusion that the captive sales did not contribute to the injury.
Seega ei muuda see järeldust, et müük suletud turul kahju ei suurendanud.
As a result, it was confirmed that, overall, the Community industry has suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.
Selle tulemusel leidis kinnitust, et üldiselt on ühenduse tootmisharu kandnud olulist kahju algmääruse artikli 8 lõike 1 tähenduses.
It should be recalled that Article 8(5) of the basic Regulation does not mandate all economic indicators for the Community industry to be negative in order to establish material injury.
Peab meenutama, et algmääruse artikli 8 lõige 5 ei kinnita, et olulise kahju tuvastamiseks peaksid kõik ühenduse tootmisharu majandusindikaatorid olema negatiivsed.
Moreover, not all economic indicators have the same weight.
Pealegi ei ole kõik majandusindikaatorid sama kaaluga.
Profitability, though, is one of the key economic indicators, since it constitutes the ultimate goal of every economic undertaking.
Kasumlikkus on siiski üks tähtsamaid majandusindikaatoreid, sest kujutab endast iga ettevõtte peaeesmärki.
In the present case, insufficient profitability levels were established.
Antud juhul on tegemist liiga madala kasumitasemega.
Another important injury indicator having a major impact on profitability is the price levels.
Teine tähtis kahjunäitaja, mis mõjutab oluliselt kasumlikkust, on hinnatase.
The Community industry was never in a position to achieve non injurious price levels during the period considered on the free market due to external price pressure, mainly from heavily subsidised Indian imports.
Ühenduse tootmisharu ei olnud vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul kordagi saavutanud vabaturul mittekahjustavat hinnataset ja seda välise hinnasurve, eelkõige Indiast pärineva subsideeritud impordi mõjul.
Effect of the subsidised imports
Subsideeritud impordi mõju
In 2000, and most likely due to the imposition of measures, India lost its position as the second largest exporter to the Community market for an interim period, whereas notably Omani exporters gained market share.
aastal kaotas India tõenäoliselt meetmete rakendamise tõttu vaheperioodiks oma positsiooni suuruselt teise eksportijana ühenduse turule, samas kui eelkõige Omani eksportijaid hõivasid turuosa.
However, since then, Indian exporters not only have recovered their position, but in the review investigation period they even took over the lead as the largest exporter to the Community.
Siiski pole alates sellest ajast India eksportijad mitte ainult parandanud oma positsiooni, vaid uurimisperioodi jooksul saavutasid nad isegi juhtpositsiooni suurima eksportijana ühendusse.
This growth in volume of the subsidised imports from India, in particular since 2002, coincided with the fact that in 2002, the profitability for the Community industry decreased as compared with 2001, i.e. by around 36 %.
Indiast pärineva subsideeritud impordi suurenemine, seda eriti alates 2002. aastast, leidis aset üheaegselt tõsiasjaga, et 2002 aastal vähenes ühenduse tootmisharu kasumlikkus 2001. aastaga võrreldes, ligikaudu 36 % võrra.
It was found that, during this time, one Community producer set up a new plant and found itself in a start-up phase which may have had an effect on its profitability in that period.
On leitud, et selle aja jooksul asutas üks ühenduse eksportijatest uue tehase, mis võis avaldada mõju tema kasumlikkusele.
However, it was also found that the other Community producer, which was not in a start-up phase, found itself confronted with a significant decrease in profitability, i.e. by 17 % as compared with 2001 which further deteriorated during the review investigation period.
Ent leiti, et kasumitase vähenes oluliselt ka teisel ühenduse tootjal, kes ei olnud tegevuse algusfaasis: võrreldes 2001. aastaga 17 % ja see langes uurimisperioodi jooksul veelgi.
Moreover, as stated under recital 207, at no point in time was the Community industry in a position to reach non-injurious price levels.
Pealegi tõdeti põhjenduses 207, et ühenduse tootmisharu ei saavutanud kordagi mittekahjustavat hinnataset.
To the contrary, again starting in 2002, the Community industry had to adjust prices downwards in order to defend its market share.
aastast alates pidi ühendus oma turuosa kaitseks hindasid veelgi alla laskma.
Upon disclosure, three exporters submitted that the Indian imports share on the Community market, 2,5 % during the IP, and their volume in relation to total imports, 8,4 % during the IP, both of which slightly decreased as compared with 2002, would be too small and marginal to have any injurious impact in particular in view of a bigger market share hold by the Community industry.
Kolm eksportijat märkis, et India impordi osa ühenduse turust, mis moodustas uurimisperioodil 2,5 %, ja selle osakaal koguimpordist, mis oli uurimisperioodil 8,4 %, mis mõlemad 2002. aastaga võrreldes pisut vähenesid, on liiga väikesed ja marginaalsed, et avaldada kahjustavat mõju, eriti kui arvesse võtta ühenduse tootmisharu suuremat turuosa.
Furthermore, it was argued that an analysis expressed in relative terms would be misleading, because India started from a very low level, 1,5 % market share and 3,7 % import volume in 1999.
Lisaks väideti, et suhtarvudena esitatud analüüs võib olla ekslik, sest India alustas 1999. aastal väga madalalt tasemelt, 1,5 % turuosa ja 3,7 % impordimahuga.
In reply to this submission it should be considered that both, India’s market share and its import volume during the IP, are well above the de minimis thresholds set in Articles 10(11) and 14(4) of the basic Regulation, thus can have a causal effect.
Vastuseks sellele avaldusele peab märkima, et nii India turuosa kui ka impordimaht uurimisperioodil ületas miinimumläve, mis on sätestatud algmääruse artikli 10 lõikes 11 ja artikli 14 lõikes 4, avaldades seega põhjuslikku mõju.
According to Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation, a causal effect can be manifested alternatively either by the import volume or by the price levels of subsidised imports.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 8 lõikele 6 võib põhjuslik mõju väljenduda nii subsideeritud impordi mahus kui hinnatasemes.
Such price level impact can clearly be observed in the present case.
Selline mõju hinnatasemele on praegusel juhul ilmne.
As already established in the course of the original investigation, the product under investigation, a bulk commodity, is highly price sensitive and reacts swiftly to any downward pressure.
Nagu esialgse uurimise ajal juba täheldati, on vaatlusalune toode – masskaup – kõrge hinnatundlikkusega ning reageerib survele koheselt.
In such cases small quantities can influence prices on the market.
Sellisel juhul võivad ka väikesed kogused mõjutada turuhindasid.
In fact, over the period considered the Indian prices set on average the price pressure benchmark in this case.
Vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul kehtestasid India hinnad tegelikult hinnasurve keskmised näitajad.
It was therefore confirmed that the subsidised imports from India had a considerable negative impact on the situation of the Community industry during the period considered, in particular in terms of profitability.
Seetõttu kinnitatakse, et vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul avaldas subsideeritud import Indiast märkimisväärset negatiivset mõju ühenduse tootmisharu olukorrale, eriti kasumlikkuse osas.
Impact of other factors
Teiste faktorite mõju
Third country imports
Import kolmandatest riikidest
Volume (kg)
Maht (kg)
Average import price per kg (EUR)
Keskmine impordihind kg kohta (euro)
Imports of the product under consideration from countries other than India increased by only 7 % between 1999 and the review investigation period, i.e. well below the rate of increase of the Community consumption.
Vaatlusaluse toote import ülejäänud riikidest, v.a India, suurenes vaid 7 % võrra ajavahemikul 1999. aastast kuni uurimisperioodini, jäädes oluliselt allapoole ühenduse tarbimise kasvumäärast.
Amongst these countries, Oman, the United States of America (USA), China, South Korea and Singapore are the main suppliers to the Community market.
Nende riikide seas on Omaan, USA, Hiina, Lõuna-Korea ja Singapur peamisteks tarnijateks ühenduse turule.
However, their average import prices were considerably higher than the Indian import prices and, except for the import prices from Oman, also the Community industry prices.
Siiski olid nende keskmised impordihinnad märkimisväärselt kõrgemad India impordihindadest ning kui välja arvata Omaani impordihinnad, kõrgemad ka ühenduse tootmisharu hindadest.
Import prices of Oman are at comparable levels to the Community industry’s prices, but Oman’s increase in market share over the period considered was much less pronounced than that for the other third countries.
Omaani impordihinnad on ühenduse tootmisharu hindadega võrreldaval tasemel, kuid Omaani turuosa suurenemine vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul oli tunduvalt vähem märgatav, võrreldes ülejäänud kolmandate riikidega.
Following disclosure, it was submitted by the GOI and two exporters that the countervailing duty in place for Indian imports should have been taken into consideration when comparing average sales prices.
India valitsus ja kaks eksportijat väitsid, et keskmiste müügihindade võrdlemisel oleks pidanud arvesse võtma India impordi tasakaalustavat tollimaksu.
This would allegedly lead to practically similar Indian and Omani price levels.
See omakorda toonuks väidetavalt kaasa India ja Omaani praktiliselt samad hinnatasemed.
In addition, it was noted that average prices from some third countries, notably the USA and China, decreased significantly over the period considered whereas, inter alia, Indian prices increased.
Lisaks sellele märgiti, et mõne kolmanda riigi (peamiselt USA ja Hiina) keskmised hinnad vähenesid vaadeldava perioodi jooksul märkimisväärselt, samal ajal kui India hinnad kasvasid.
Furthermore, it was submitted by another exporter that the volume decrease in Indian imports between 2002 and the review investigation period has not been properly taken into account in the analysis, that other third countries were the main suppliers and that average prices from South Korea and India were similar from 1999 to 2001.
Lisaks märkis üks teine eksportija, et India impordimahu vähenemist ajavahemikus 2002. aastast kuni uurimisperioodini ei ole analüüsi koostades piisaval määral arvesse võetud; et muud kolmandad riigid olid peamised tarnijad ning et Lõuna-Korea ja India keskmised hinnad olid ajavahemikus 1999–2001 sarnased.
With regard to the original countervailing duty in place, it should be noted that the vast majority of imports from India were either subject to a zero duty rate or to a duty rate which still leads to lower average landing prices than the average Omani price levels.
Mis puudutab tasakaalustavat tollimaksu, peab märkima, et suurem osa India impordist kuulus tollimaksu nullmäära alla või sellise tollimaksumäära alla, mis siiski jätab keskmise maaletoomishinna Omaani keskmisest hinnatasemest madalamaks.
Thus, on average Omani imports did not exercise the same degree of price pressure.
Nii ei avaldanud Omaani import hindadele keskmiselt samaväärset survet.
In addition, import prices from all other third countries as well were on average higher over the period considered than Indian price levels, again clearly identifying India as main source of price pressure.
Lisaks olid ka ülejäänud kolmandate riikide impordihinnad vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul keskmiselt kõrgemad India hinnatasemest, mis näitab selgelt, et India oli hinnasurve peamiseks allikaks.
This, of course, had an impact on the trade flow of the product concerned.
See mõjutas loomulikult oluliselt vaatlusaluse toote kaubavoogusid.
Moreover, despite measures, Indian imports grew strongly since 2001 and India recovered its position as second largest exporter in 2002 to become during the IP even the biggest.
Meetmetest hoolimata kasvas import Indiast oluliselt alates 2001. aastast ning India taastas oma positsiooni suuruselt teise eksportijana 2002. aastal ja saavutas uurimisperioodi jooksul isegi juhtpositsiooni.
Therefore, the small decrease in Indian imports between 2002 and the IP had no effect on the market, which eventually rewarded the Indian pricing policy.
Seetõttu ei mõjutanud India impordi väike langus ajavahemikus 2002 kuni uurimisperioodini turgu ning lõpuks võitis India hinnapoliitika.
Consequently, these arguments cannot be accepted.
Järelikult ei saa esitatud väidetega nõustuda.
It was therefore confirmed that imports from third countries could not have caused any injury to the Community industry which would break the causal link between the subsidised imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
On kinnitust leidnud, et import kolmandatest riikidest ei võinud tekitada ühenduse tootmisharule sellist kahju, mis hävitaks põhjusliku seose India subsideeritud impordi ja ühenduse tootmisharule tekitatud kahju vahel.
Development of consumption of the Community market
Tarbimise areng ühenduse turul
Consumption of the product under investigation on the Community market increased by 51 % during the period considered.
Vaatlusaluse toote tarbimine ühenduse turul kasvas vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul 51 % võrra.
Thus, the injury suffered by the Community industry cannot be attributed to a contraction of demand on the Community market.
Nii ei saa kahju, mida ühenduse tootmisharu kandis, seostada nõudluse vähenemisega ühenduse turul.
Export activity of the Community industry
Ühenduse tootmisharu eksporditegevus
The export performance of the Community industry grew by 16 % during the period considered.
Ühenduse tootmisharu eksporditegevus kasvas vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul 16 %.
The Community industry’s export prices were on average 10 to 15 % higher than the sales prices in the Community.
Ühenduse tootmisharu keskmised ekspordihinnad olid 10–15 % kõrgemad ühenduse müügihindadest.
Thus, the Community industry’s export activity could not contribute to its injurious situation.
Seega ei saanud ühenduse tootmisharu eksporditegevus kahju suurendada.
In this context it was submitted by the GOI and one exporter that the Community industry in their questionnaire replies mentioned stiff competition due to Indian competitors on third country markets resulting for the Community industry in low prices and loss of market share in third countries, which prima facie would contradict above finding.
Antud kontekstis märkisid India valitsus ja üks eksportija, et ühenduse tootmisharu mainis küsimustiku vastustes tihedat konkurentsi India konkurentide tegevuse tõttu kolmandate maade turgudel, mis tähendab ühenduse tootmisharule madalaid hindu ning turuosa kaotust kolmandates riikides, mis läheb selgelt vastuollu eeltoodud järeldusega.
Thus, on the basis of this assessment of the Community industry there would be no injury on the Community market or no causal link with Indian imports.
Ühenduse tootmisharu hinnangu alusel saab järeldada, et ühenduse turul ei toimu kahjustamist või puudub põhjuslik seos India impordiga.
In this respect, it is noted that given the worldwide growth of the market for such products, there is no contradiction between any decrease of export prices and loss of market share of the Community industry in third countries and the fact that the volume of such exports had actually increased and that their prices were higher than the Community industry’s prices for sales in the Community.
Siinkohal peab märkima, et arvestades selliste toodete turu kasvu kogu maailmas, puudub vastuolu ühenduse tootmisharu ekspordihindade vähenemise ja kolmandate riikide turuosa kaotamise ning tõsiasja vahel, et ekspordimaht on tegelikult suurenenud ning hinnad kõrgemad kui ühenduse tootmisharu hinnad ühenduse turul.
Therefore, although the export performance of the Community industry could have been better without a low priced subsidised Indian exports competition in third countries markets, there is no indication that, because of its export performance, the Community industry was not subject to injurious price competition on the Community market essentially caused by the low priced subsidised imports from India.
Ehkki ühenduse tootmisharu eksporditegevus oleks olnud veelgi tulemuslikum ilma madala hinnaga subsideeritud India ekspordi põhjustatud konkurentsita kolmandate riikide turgudel, ei ole mingit märki sellest, et ühenduse tootmisharu ei kannatanud ühenduse turul kahjuliku hinnakonkurentsi tõttu, mille peamiseks põhjustajaks oli madala hinnaga subsideeritud import Indiast.
Thus the argument should be rejected.
Seega tuleb see väide tagasi lükata.
Competitiveness of the Community industry
Ühenduse tootmisharu konkurentsivõime
The Community industry is an important competitor for the product under consideration as demonstrated by its market share and has constantly invested to maintain the state-of-the-art in its production.
Ühenduse tootmisharu on oluline konkurent vaatlusaluse toote osas, mida näitab selle turuosa suurus, ning on jätkuvalt investeerinud oma tootmise kaasajastamisse.
Consequently, no evidence was found that lack of competitiveness could have broken the causal link between imports from India and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
Järelikult ei leitud ühtegi tõendit selle kohta, et konkurentsivõime puudumine oleks hävitanud põhjusliku seose India impordi ja ühenduse tootmisharu poolt kantud kahju vahel.
Captive Use
Suletud turg
As stated in recital 226 above, it is considered that the captive use did not contribute to the injurious situation.
Nagu põhjenduses 226 on märgitud, ei aidanud suletud turu kasutamine kahjustava olukorra tekkele kaasa.
LIKELIHOOD OF CONTINUATION OR RECURRENCE OF INJURY
KAHJU JÄTKUMISE VÕI KORDUMISE VÕIMALIKKUS
In accordance with Article 18(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether the expiry of the measures in force would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of injury.
Kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 18 lõikega 2 on uuritud, kas jõus olevate meetmete lõpetamine võiks põhjustada kahju jätkumist või kordumist.
As set out under recitals 161 to 243 above, it was established that during the review investigation period and despite the measures in force, the Community industry continued to sustain injury caused by the subsidised imports of the product concerned.
Nagu põhjendustest 161–243 selgub, on ühenduse tootmisharu uurimisperioodi jooksul hoolimata jõusolevatest meetmetest kandnud kahju, mille põhjustas vaatlusaluse toote subsideeritud import.
The injury elimination level found during the present investigation ranged between 17,3 and 48,1 % and is higher than that established during the original investigation (between 12,6 and 28,9 %), despite the fact that in this review the reasonable profit margin for the Community industry was reduced by one third as compared with the original investigation (see recital 260 below).
Kahju kõrvaldamist võimaldav tase jäi käesoleva uurimise andmetel 17,3 % ja 48,1 % vahemikku ning on kõrgem esialgse uurimise tasemest (12,6 %–28,9 %), hoolimata tõsiasjast, et läbivaatamisel vähendati ühenduse tootmisharu põhjendatud kasumimarginaali esialgse uurimisega võrreldes ühe kolmandiku võrra (vt põhjendus 260).
Furthermore, the investigation established that, despite domestic sales and exports to other countries, there is still significant spare capacity for the products under investigation in India, in particular with exporters which are subject to relatively high duty rates in the Community.
Pealegi kinnitas uurimine, et hoolimata kodumaisest müügist ja ekspordist teistesse maadesse on Indias vaatlusaluse toote osas Indias veel märkimisväärselt palju kasutamata mahtu, mis puudutab eriti eksportijaid, kelle suhtes kohaldatakse ühenduse tollimaksu suhteliselt kõrgete määradega.
It was, therefore, considered reasonable to conclude that subsidised low priced imports from India would further increase and, consequently, injury would be likely to continue in the future, should the measures lapse.
Seetõttu järeldatakse, et subsideeritud madala hinnaga import Indiast edaspidi suureneb ning kui meetmed kehtivuse kaotavad, jätkub kahju tõenäoliselt ka tulevikus.
Since the Community industry continues to suffer material injury due to the subsidised imports despite the existence of measures, it was not necessary to analyse further the likelihood of recurrence of injury.
Et ühenduse tootmisharu kannab jätkuvalt olulist kahju subsideeritud impordi tõttu, hoolimata olemasolevatest meetmetest, ei ole vaja analüüsida kahju kordumise võimalikkust.
It was examined whether compelling reasons existed which would lead to the conclusion that it is not in the Community interest to continue applying measures in this particular case.
Uuriti, kas on olemas kaalukaid põhjusi, mis viiks järelduseni, et antud juhtumi puhul ei ole ühenduse huvides jätkata meetmete kohaldamist.