natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be recalled (see recital 31) that the comparison which has led to the adjustment has been made between the gas prices actually paid by the companies and the export prices charged by the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom for export from Russia, net of transport costs, customs export tax, value added tax and excise duty.
Siinkohal tuleks meenutada (vt põhjendust 31), et kohandamise põhjuseks oli võrdlus äriühingute poolt tegelikult makstud gaasihinna, ning Venemaa gaasitarnija OAO Gazpromi ekspordihinna (ilma transpordi netokulude, eksporditollimaksu, käibemaksu ja aktsiisimaksuta) vahel.
Therefore, this claim was rejected.
Seetõttu lükati see väide tagasi.
One of the applicants submitted that it had a significantly lower unit cost of production during the first quarter of 2004 (i.e. the last quarter of the investigation period) due to increased efficiency and lower maintenance costs and that this lower unit cost should be considered as the basis for the cost of production for the whole investigation period.
Üks taotlejatest väitis, et 2004. aasta esimeses kvartalis (s.o uurimisperioodi viimases kvartalis) olid tema ühikupõhised tootmiskulud tunduvalt väiksemad seoses suurema jõudluse ja väiksemate hoolduskuludega ning et kogu uurimisperioodi tootmiskulude arvutamiseks tuleks aluseks võtta just see väiksem ühikuhind.
This request was not granted as the appropriate basis for establishing such costs is the full investigation period, rather than costs occurring in an exceptional, shorter, period.
Seda taotlust ei rahuldatud, sest asjakohane alus selliste kulude kindlaksmääramiseks on siiski kogu uurimisperiood, mitte aga väljavalitud lühem ajavahemik.
As also concerns cost of production, it was submitted by the Community industry that depreciation of capital assets should, for the purpose of the applicants’ cost of production, be based on the replacement costs of such assets (e.g. new mine shafts and machinery etc.).
Tootmiskuludega seoses teatas komisjoni tööstusharu, et taotlejate tootmiskulude eesmärgil peaks põhivara amortisatsiooni arvutlus põhinema sellise vara asendusmaksumusel (nt uued kaevandused ja masinad).
In this regard, it was argued that depreciation based conventionally on the acquisition (historical) value of the capital assets would not, in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of the product concerned.
Väideti, et soetusmaksumusel põhinev põhivara amortisatsiooni arvutlus ei kajasta vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 5 mõistlikult asjaomase toote valmistamisega seotud kulusid.
It was submitted, therefore, that an upward adjustment to the Russian producers’ costs was required.
Seepärast nõuti Venemaa tootjate kulude ülespoole kohandamist.
As concerns this submission, it was noted that depreciation based on the acquisition value and residual economical life of capital assets appears to be in line with accounting practices in the mining industry.
Seoses sellega märgiti, et soetusmaksumusel ja põhivara majandusliku elu kasvujäägil põhinev amortisatsiooniarvutlus ühtib kaevandustööstuses kasutatavate raamatupidamistavadega.
Therefore, in order to establish whether the depreciation included in the cost of production data reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production of the product concerned, the investigation focused on the way the historical values of the assets had been established.
Selleks et määrata, kas tootmiskuludele lisatud amortisatsiooniarvutlus kajastab mõistlikult asjaomase toote valmistamisega seotud kulusid, keskendus uurimine sellele, mil viisil oli varade algväärtus kindlaks määratud.
In this regard, the on-the-spot verification visits to the Russian producers showed that the original value of their assets had been determined on the basis of valuations carried out during the privatization process which took place in 1993.
Venemaa tootjate kontrollimine kohapeal näitas, et nende varade algväärtus oli määratud 1993. aastal toimunud erastamisprotsessi ajal läbiviidud hindamise põhjal.
These asset values were subsequently revised between 1993 and 1997 as a result of the application of ‘revaluation coefficients’ issued by the Russian Government to deal with hyperinflation.
Varade väärtus hinnati järgnevalt ümber aastatel 1993 kuni 1997 hüperinflatsiooni taltsutamiseks Venemaa valitsuse välja antud ümberhindamiskoefitsiente kohaldades.
At the end of 1997, following a Decree of the Russian Government, independent valuations of assets were carried out by independent evaluators.
aasta lõpul, pärast Venemaa valitsuse dekreedi avaldamist toimus varade sõltumatu hindamine sõltumatute hindajate poolt.
Three basic criteria were adopted in establishing these asset values, one of which was the replacement value of the asset.
Varade väärtuse määramiseks võeti vastu kolm põhikriteeriumi, millest üks oli vara asendusväärtus.
The result of these independent assessments are reflected in the opening Balance Sheet of the applicants in 1998.
Sõltumatu hindamise tulemused kajastusid taotlejate 1998. aasta algbilansis.
Nevertheless, despite this upward valuation of the original values, it was noted that the asset values of the applicants, when expressed as a ratio of production to value of the assets, still appear to be significantly lower than the asset values of the companies comprising the Community industry and a major producer with similar extraction and production capacity in Canada.
Kuid vaatamata originaalväärtuste suurendamisele märgiti, et taotlejate varade väärtused väljendatuna tootmise ja varade väärtuse suhtena on ikkagi tunduvalt väiksemad, võrreldes ühenduse tootmisharu äriühingutega ja Kanada peamise tootjaga, kellel on samasugused kaevandamis- ja tootmisvõimsused.
Such an assessment, however, does not take into account the obsolescence and lower technological level of the assets of the Russian producers obtained prior to the privatisation which took place in 1993.
Kuid tehtud hinnang ei võta arvesse Venemaa tootjate enne 1993. aasta erastamist soetatud varade iganemist ja madalamat tehnoloogilist taset.
Therefore in the absence of any substantive evidence showing that depreciation had not been correctly reflected in the accounts of the exporting producers, it is not considered possible at the present time to make any adjustment to depreciation costs in the cost of production data used for establishing the normal value of the applicants.
Kuna puuduvad olulised tõendid, mis näitaksid, et amortisatsiooni ei kajastata eksportivate tootjate raamatupidamisaruannetes õigesti, ei peeta praegu võimalikuks amortisatsioonikulude kohandamist tootmiskulude andmetes, mida kasutatakse taotlejate normaalväärtuse kindlaksmääramiseks.
The Community industry also submitted that an allocation for environmental protection costs comparable to those incurred by the Community producers should also be factored into the cost of production calculations.
Ühenduse tööstusharu arvates tuleks tootmiskulude arvutamisel võtta arvesse ka keskkonnakaitsele tehtud kulutused, mida saab võrrelda ühenduse tootjate tehtavate kulutustega.
It was found, however, that the applicants had incurred such costs and had accounted for them in the cost of production calculations.
Leiti, et taotlejad on siiski selliseid kulutusi teinud ja tootmiskulude arvutamisel ka nendega arvestanud.
With regard to whether such costs should be of a similar proportion or magnitude to those of the Community producers, it is considered that as long as the applicants have met the environmental protection levels prescribed by the Russian authorities and that the costs involved in meeting such levels are correctly reflected in their records, no adjustment is required.
Selles küsimuses, kas need kulutused peaksid olema sama suured kui ühenduse tootjatel, arvati, et seni, kuni tootjad täidavad Venemaa ametiasutuste ettekirjutusi keskkonnakaitse taseme kohta, ja nende täitmiseks tehtud kulutused kajastuvad andmetes õigesti, ei nõuta kulude kohandamist.
As this was found to be the case for both of the applicants, no adjustment was warranted for environmental costs.
Kuna ilmnes, et see kehtib mõlema taotleja puhul, ei peetud keskkonnakulude kohandamist õigustatuks.
JSC Silvinit (Silvinit)
JSC Silvinit (edaspidi “Silvinit”)
With regard to Silvinit, it was found that most of the company’s sales of potash to the Community in the investigation period were made via an unrelated Swiss trading company.
Silviniti puhul leiti, et ühenduses müüs äriühing uurimisperioodil potast peamiselt sõltumatu Šveitsi äriühingu kaudu.
For the purposes of the present investigation and pursuant to Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the prices, actually paid or payable to Silvinit by this trading company, were taken as the basis for calculating the export price.
Uurimisel ja vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 8 võeti eksporthinna määramisel aluseks Silvinitile kõnealuse äriühingu poolt toote eest tegelikult makstud või makstav hind.
However, it was found that two transactions were made via Silvinit’s related Russian trading company, International Potash Company (IPC), to a related company in Belgium called Ferchimex AS (Ferchimex), which processed the imported potash into a product not covered by the investigation.
Siiski leiti, et kaks tehingut tegi Silvinit seotud Venemaa äriühingu International Potash Company (edaspidi “IPC”) kaudu seotud Belgia äriühinguga Ferchimex AS (edaspidi “Ferchimex”), kes kasutas potast uurimise alla mitte kuuluva toote valmistamiseks.
In accordance with Article 2(9) of the basic Regulation, the prices charged by IPC to Ferchimex may be disregarded if they are considered to be unreliable.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 9 võib IPC poolt Ferchimexilt nõutud hindu mitte arvestada, kui neid ei peeta usaldusväärseks.
It was noted that for both of the transactions, the sales price to Ferchimex were at a broadly similar price for the same types when sold to independent customers in the Community.
Märgiti, et mõlema tehingu puhul oli Ferchimexilt nõutud müügihind üldjoontes samasugune kui ühenduse sõltumatutelt klientidelt sama tooteliigi eest nõutud hind.
Moreover, both transactions concerned only minor quantities.
Pealegi oli mõlema tehingu puhul tegemist väikeste kogustega.
Therefore, they were both included in the overall determination of the export price.
Seepärast kasutati mõlemat hinda ka eksporthinna määramisel.
JSC Uralkali (Uralkali)
JSC Uralkali (edaspidi “Uralkali”)
As concerns Uralkali, it was found that all of the company’s sales of potash to the Community in the investigation period were made directly to a trader situated in Cyprus called Fertexim Ltd which acted as an exclusive distributor for Uralkali.
Uralkali puhul leiti, et kogu äriühingu poolt uurimisperioodil ühendusse müüdav potasekogus tarniti otse Küprosel asuvale äriühingule Fertexim Ltd, kes tegutses Uralkali ainuõigusliku turustajana.
For such sales, the export price was established in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, i.e. on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable by Fertexim.
Sellise müügi korral määrati ekspordihind algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 8 kohaselt ehk Ferteximi poolt tegelikult makstud või makstava hinna põhjal.
The normal value and export prices for both of the applicants were compared on an ex-works basis.
Normaalväärtust ja ekspordihinda võrreldi mõlema taotleja puhul tehasest hankimise tasandil.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance was made for differences which affect price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Selleks et tagada normaalväärtuse ja ekspordihinna õiglane võrdlus, võeti nõuetekohaselt arvesse hindade võrreldavust mõjutavaid erinevusi vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 10.
Accordingly, allowances for differences in respect of discounts, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing and credit costs have been granted where applicable and supported by evidence.
Vajaduse korral ja piisavate tõendite olemasolul võeti arvesse hinnaalanduste, transpordi-, kindlustus-, käitlemis-, laadimis- ja lisakulude, pakkimis- ja krediidikulude erinevusi.
In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, for each exporting producer the adjusted weighted average normal value by product type was compared to the adjusted weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned sold to the Community.
Algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 11 kohaselt võrreldi kõigi eksportivate tootjate puhul tooteliigi kohandatud kaalutud keskmist normaalväärtust kõigi ühenduses müüdud vastavate tooteliikide kohandatud kaalutud keskmise ekspordihinnaga.
The comparison showed the existence of dumping for both of the companies concerned, however, at significantly lower levels than those established previously.
Võrdlus näitas, et mõlema äriühingu puhul on tegemist dumpinguga, kuigi madalamal tasemel kui see, mis oli varem kindlaks tehtud.
As a weighted average of all types exported to the Community, expressed as percentages of the total CIF Community frontier price, duty unpaid, the dumping margins established were as follows:
Ühendusse eksporditavate kõikide tooteliikide kaalutud keskmine dumpingumarginaal, väljendatuna protsendimäärana CIF-hinnast ühenduse piiril ilma tollimakse tasumata, on järgmine:
% Dumping margin
Dumpingumarginaal, %
In accordance with Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, an analysis was made as to whether the circumstances with regard to dumping had changed significantly and if any change could be said to be of a lasting nature.
Algmääruse artikli 11 lõike 3 kohaselt analüüsiti, kas dumpingu asjaolud on oluliselt muutunud ja kas neid muutusi võib pidada püsivaks.
In this regard, it was found that the change in the dumping margins resulted from a lowering of the normal values of the applicants.
Sellega seoses leiti, et dumpingumarginaali muutuse põhjustas taotlejate normaalväärtuse vähendamine.
In this regard, it should be noted that in the present investigation, normal value was established on the basis of the applicants’ costs and prices.
Siinjuures tuleb märkida, et käesolevas uurimises määrati normaalväärtus taotlejate kulude ja hindade alusel.
Moreover, contrary to the findings in the previous investigation, domestic consumption for potash has been steadily increasing in the last few years and, overall, the domestic sales prices of both Russian producers are profitable.
Pealegi oli potase omamaine tarbimine, vastupidiselt varasemal uurimisel tehtud järeldustega, viimaste aastate jooksul pidevalt kasvanud ja omamaised müügihinnad olid tulutoovad mõlemale Venemaa tootjale.
As concerns the lasting nature of export sales prices on markets other than the Community, neither of the applicants was able to provide detailed data on a transaction-by-transaction basis at producer level.
Ekspordihindade püsivuse kohta muudel turgudel, v.a ühenduses, ei suutnud kumbki taotleja tuua üksikasjalikke tehingupõhiseid andmeid tootja tasandil.
Aggregated data was, however, provided by country of destination and by product type.
Kokkuvõtvad andmed esitati päritoluriigi ja tooteliigi alusel.
This was considered sufficient for the purposes of the present partial interim review as an exact determination of sales prices on such markets is not an absolute requirement. In the absence of detailed data, and in view of (i) the variety of delivery terms used for such sales (e.g. cif, fob, FCA etc.)
Seda loeti käesoleva osalise vahepealse läbivaatamise jaoks piisavaks, kuna täpse müügihinna määramist nendel turgudel ei ole tingimata vaja.
the different logistical arrangements and combinations (e.g. rail + sea, rail only etc.) (iii) the differences in distances and transport and handling costs to various destinations in Asia and South America, the Commission was not in a position to determine with exactitude the sales prices to each country.
Seoses üksikasjalike andmete puudumisega ja pidades silmas: i) erinevaid tarnetingimusi (nt CIF, FOB, FCA jm); ii) erinevaid logistilisi korraldusi ja kombinatsioone (nt raudtee + meretransport, ainult raudtee jm); iii) eri pikkusega vahemaid ning veo- ja käitlemiskulusid eri sihtkohtadesse Aasias ja Lõuna-Ameerikas, ei olnud komisjonil võimalik täpselt määrata müügihindu iga riigi kohta.
There were, however, indications that sales price levels to the non-Community markets were, allowing for transport costs, of the same order of magnitude as sales to the Community.
Tõenäoliselt olid müügihinnad ühendusse mittekuuluvatel turgudel, võttes arvesse ka transpordikulusid, siiski samas suurusjärgus kui müügihinnad ühendusse.
In view of all these factors, it is considered appropriate to amend the existing measures insofar as they concern the applicants by lowering the dumping margins to those established in the present investigation.
Nimetatud tegureid silmas pidades leiti, et olemasolevate meetmete muutmine on asjakohane niivõrd, kuivõrd need käsitlevad taotlejaid, alandades dumpingumarginaale käesolevas uurimises kindlaksmääratud tasemeni.
According to Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation, the amount of the anti-dumping duties should not exceed the margins of dumping established, but they should be less than those margins if such lesser duties would be adequate to remove the injury of the Community Industry.
Algmääruse artikli 9 lõike 4 kohaselt ei peaks dumpinguvastase tollimaksu summa ületama kindlaksmääratud dumpingumarginaali, kuid see peaks olema nimetatud marginaalist väiksem, kui sellisest väiksemast tollimaksust piisab ühenduse tootmisharule tekitatava kahju kõrvaldamiseks.
As the existing duties for the applicants had been calculated on the basis of the dumping margins, and as the new dumping margins are lower than the ones previously calculated, the duties should be adjusted to the lower dumping margins found in this investigation, namely 23,0 % for JSC Silvinit and 12,3 % for JSC Uralkali.
Kuna taotlejate suhtes kehtivad tollimaksud arvutati dumpingumarginaalide põhjal ning kuna uued dumpingumarginaalid on varem arvutatutest väiksemad, tuleks tollimakse kohandada uurimisel leitud väiksema dumpingumarginaalini, mis JSC Silvinit puhul on 23,0 % ja JSC Uralkali puhul 12,3 %.
The interested parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the anti-dumping duties originally imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 be amended.
Kõiki huvitatud isikuid teavitati olulistest andmetest ja kaalutlustest, mille alusel soovitati muuta määruses (EMÜ) nr 3068/92 esialgselt kehtestatud dumpinguvastaseid tollimakse.
They were given the opportunity to comment and to request a hearing.
Huvitatud isikutele anti võimalus esitada märkusi ja taotleda ärakuulamist.
All comments received were taken into consideration where appropriate.
Kõik saadud märkused võeti arvesse, kui need olid asjakohased.
Following disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend that the anti-dumping duties originally imposed by Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 be amended, both of the applicants offered price undertakings in accordance with Article 8(1) of the basic Regulation.
Pärast oluliste andmete ja kaalutluste avalikustamist, mille põhjal kavatseti soovitada määrusega (EMÜ) nr 3068/92 esialgselt kehtestatud dumpinguvastaste tollimaksude muutmist, pakkusid taotlejad hinnakohustusi vastavalt algmääruse artikli 8 lõikele 1.
The Commission, by Decision 2005/802/EC [9] accepted the undertakings offered by the applicants.
Otsusega 2005/802/EÜ [9] kiitis komisjon taotlejate pakutud kohustused heaks.
The reasons for accepting these undertakings are set out in that Decision.
Nimetatud otsuses on toodud kohustuste heakskiitmise põhjused.
FORM OF THE MEASURES WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS
TAOTLEJATEGA SEOTUD MEETMETE VORM
The existing measures are applicable to eight CN codes and comprise fixed amounts ranging from EUR 19,61/tonne to EUR 40,63/tonne, depending on the product type.
Olemasolevaid meetmeid kohaldatakse kaheksa CN-koodi suhtes ja nad sisaldavad kindlaksmääratud summasid vahemikus 19,61 euro/tonn kuni 40,63 euro/tonn, sõltuvalt toote liigist.
During the current investigation period, however, it was found that almost all the exports by the applicants to the Community were limited to a product type falling under one CN code.
Kuid viimasel uurimisperioodil selgus, et peaaegu kogu taotlejate ühendusse suunatud eksport piirdus tooteliigiga, mis kuulub ühe CN koodi alla.
Accordingly, in view of the absence of information on the other product types, and as the particular type of potash concerned appears now to be the most commercialised, the most reasonable approach for implementing the amended duties is considered to be the replacement of all the fixed amounts with a single ad valorem duty for all potash types manufactured by the applicants,
Kuna muude tooteliikide kohta andmed puuduvad ja kõnealust potaseliiki turustatakse praegu kõige rohkem, siis oleks muudetud tollimaksude rakendamisel mõistlik asendada kõik kindlaksmääratud summad üheainsa väärtuselise tollimaksuga, mis kehtib taotlejate kõigi toodetavate potaseliikide suhtes,
Regulation (EEC) No 3068/92 is amended as follows:
Määrust (EMÜ) nr 3068/92 muudetakse järgmiselt.
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of potassium chloride falling within CN codes 31042010, 31042050, 31042090, and on special mixtures falling within CN codes ex31052010 (TARIC codes 3105201010 and 3105201020), ex31052090 (TARIC codes 3105209010 and 3105209020), ex31056090 (TARIC codes 3105609010 and 3105609020), ex31059091 (TARIC codes 3105909110 and 3105909120), ex31059099 (TARIC codes 3105909910 and 31059920), originating in Belarus or Russia.’;
Valgevenest ja Venemaalt pärit ning CN-koodide 31042010, 31042050 ja 31042090 alla kuuluva kaaliumkloriidi ning CN-koodide ex31052010 (TARICi koodid 3105201010 ja 3105201020), ex31052090 (TARICi koodid 3105209010 ja 3105209020), ex31056090 (TARICi koodid 3105609010 ja 3105609020), ex31059091 (TARICi koodid 3105909110 ja 3105909120) ja ex31059099 (TARICi koodid 3105909910 ja 3105909920) alla kuuluvate erisegude suhtes kehtestatakse lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks.”;
in paragraph 3, the heading for the table relating to ‘Russia’ shall be replaced by the following:
lõikes 3 oleva Venemaaga seotud tabeli pealkiri asendatakse järgmisega:
‘Russia (all companies excluding JSC Silvinit and JSC Uralkali — TARIC additional code A999)’;
“Venemaa (kõik äriühingud, välja arvatud JSC Silvinit ja JSC Uralkali – TARICi lisakood A999)”;
For the imports of the exporting producers mentioned below, the rate of the anti-dumping duty applicable to the net, free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, for the products described in paragraph 1 shall be as follows:
Allpoolnimetatud eksportivate tootjate suhtes kehtestatav dumpinguvastase tollimaksu määr, mida kohaldatakse vaba netohinna suhtes ühenduse piiril enne tollimaksu sissenõudmist, on lõikes 1 nimetatud toodete puhul järgmine:
JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, Russia
JSC Silvinit, Solikamsk, Venemaa
JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Russia
JSC Uralkali, Berezniki, Venemaa
A666’
A666”
in Article 1a, paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following:
Artikli 1a lõige 1 asendatakse järgmisega:
Imports declared for release into free circulation shall be exempt from the anti-dumping duties imposed by Article 1, provided that they are produced by companies from which undertakings are accepted by the Commission and whose names are listed in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 858/2005 and in Commission Decision No 2005/802/EC, as from time to time amended, and have been imported in conformity with the provisions of the same Commission acts.’
Vabasse ringlusse lubamiseks deklareeritud import vabastatakse artikliga 1 kehtestatud dumpinguvastasest tollimaksust, kui tooteid valmistavad äriühingud, kelle kohustuste võtmise ettepaneku komisjon on heaks kiitnud ning kelle nimed on loetletud komisjoni määruses (EÜ) nr 858/2005 ja komisjoni otsuses nr 2005/802/EÜ nende kehtivas redaktsioonis ning kui tooted on imporditud kooskõlas nimetatud komisjoni õigusaktidega.”
OJ C 93, 17.4.2004, p. 2 and p. 3.
ELT C 93, 17.4.2004, lk 2 ja 3.
See page 79 of this Official Journal.
Vt lk 79 käesoleva Euroopa Liidu Teataja.