natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Potash is generally commercialised in either a standard/powder form (standard potash) or in other than standard form that includes — but is not limited to — a granular form (granular potash).
Potast turustatakse tavaliselt kas standardsena/pulbrina (standardne potas) või standardsest erineval kujul, mis hõlmab muu hulgas graanuleid (granuleeritud kaaliumkloriid), kuid ei piirdu nendega.
The product is generally classified into three basic categories, based on the K2O content, namely:
Üldjuhul liigitatakse toode K2O sisalduse alusel järgmisse kolme põhikategooriasse:
potassium content not exceeding 40 % K2O — falling within Combined Nomenclature (CN) code 31042010,
kaaliumisisaldus K2Ona väljendatuna mitte üle 40 % – kuulub CN-koodi 31042010 alla,
potassium content exceeding 40 % K2O but less than or equal to 62 % — falling within CN code 31042050,
kaaliumisisaldus K2Ona väljendatuna üle 40 %, kuid vähem kui 62 % või sellega võrdne – kuulub CN-koodi 31042050 alla,
potassium content over 62 % K2O — falling within CN code 31042090.
kaaliumisisaldus K2Ona väljendatuna üle 62 % – kuulub CN-koodi 31042090 alla.
It should be recalled that in the previous investigation it was found that imports of certain special mixtures or blends with an unusually high content of potash which do not fall under any of the CN codes for potash indicated above, should also be considered as the product concerned.
Tuleb meeles pidada, et varasema uurimise käigus otsustati, et selliseid imporditud ebatavaliselt suure kaaliumkloriidisisaldusega erisegusid ja segusid, mis ei kuulu eespool nimetatud CN-koodide alla, tuleks samuti käsitleda vaatlusaluse tootena.
This conclusion was reached as such mixtures and blends shared the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and have the same uses as the basic categories mentioned above.
See järeldus põhines asjaolul, et kõnealustel erisegudel ja segudel on eespool nimetatud põhikategooriatega ühesugused füüsikalised ja keemilised põhiomadused ning samad kasutusvaldkonnad.
Accordingly, such mixtures or blends falling within CN codes ex31052010, ex31052090, ex31056090, ex31059091 and ex31059099 were also included in the present investigation and constitute part of the product concerned.
Sellest tulenevalt lisati käesolevasse uurimisse ka segud ja erisegud, mis kuuluvad CN-koodide ex31052010, ex31052090, ex31056090, ex31059091 ja ex31059099 alla, ning need moodustavad osa vaatlusalusest tootest.
It was established that, as there were no differences in the physical or chemical properties between the product exported from Russia to the Community and the product produced in Russia and sold on the Russian domestic market, they were considered to be like products for the purposes of the present investigation.
Tehti kindlaks, et kuna Venemaalt ühendusse imporditava toote ja Venemaal toodetava ning Venemaa turul müüdava toote füüsikalistes ja keemilistes omadustes ei ole erinevusi, käsitletakse neid käesoleva uurimise eesmärgil samasuguste toodetena.
DUMPING WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANTS
DUMPING TAOTLEJA PUHUL
As far as the determination of normal value is concerned, it was first established whether the total volume of each of the applicants’ total domestic sales of the like product were representative in comparison with their respective total export sales volumes to the Community.
Normaalväärtuse määramiseks tehti esmalt iga taotleja puhul kindlaks, kas samasuguse toote omamaine müük oli tüüpiline võrreldes kogu tema eksportmüügiga ühendusse.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered to be representative when each of the applicants’ domestic sales volumes of the like product constituted at least 5 % of their respective total export sales volumes to the Community during the investigation period.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 2 käsitleti omamaist müüki piisavalt tüüpilisena, kui iga taotleja samasuguse toote omamaise müügi kogumaht uurimisperioodi jooksul moodustas vähemalt 5 % ühendusse eksporditavast müügimahust.
On this basis, for both applicants, overall domestic sales of the product concerned during the IP were found to have been made in representative quantities.
Selle alusel leiti, et vaatlusaluse toote omamaine müük uurimisperioodi jooksul oli üldkokkuvõttes mõlema taotleja puhul tüüpilises mahus.
Subsequently, by defining the product types in accordance with the TARIC codes under which the product is classified (i.e. by standard grade or other than standard grade, including granular) and by the packing or form in which it is shipped (i.e. in bulk, in bags or in containers), an analysis was made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type were representative.
Seejärel määrates kindlaks toote liigid TARICi koodide järgi (nt standardne või standardsest erinev, sealhulgas granuleeritud) ja pakendi või lähetamisviisi järgi (nt pakendamata, kottides või konteinerites) analüüsiti, kas iga toote omamaine müük oli tüüpiline.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Community.
Teatava tooteliigi omamaist müüki käsitleti piisavalt tüüpilisena, kui kõnealuse liigi omamaise müügi kogumaht uurimisperioodi jooksul vastas vähemalt 5 % ühendusse eksporditud võrreldava tooteliigi müügi kogumahust.
As a result of this analysis, it was found that one exporting producer, JSC Silvinit, had only sold one exported product type in representative quantities on the domestic market.
Analüüsi tulemusel leiti, et üks eksportiv tootja (JSC Silvinit) oli omamaisel turul müünud tüüpilistes kogustes ainult ühte eksporditavat tooteliiki.
For the other exporting producer, JSC Uralkali, it was found that all exported product types had been sold in representative quantities on the domestic market.
Teise eksportiva tootja (JSC Uralkali) puhul leiti, et omamaisel turul müüdi tüüpilistes kogustes kõiki eksporditavaid tooteliike.
An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question.
Kontrollimaks seda, kas iga tooteliigi omamaise müügi puhul võib olla kindel, et see müük toimus tavakaubanduse raames, määrati kindlaks, kui suure osa kõnealuse liigi müügist moodustas tulutoov müük sõltumatutele klientidele.
In this regard, it was found for JSC Uralkali that its domestic sales prices for the best sold product type exported to the Community (the best sold export type) accounting for over 99 % of such exports, showed unusual trends during the investigation period.
Sellega seoses leiti, et JSC Uralkali poolt ühendusse eksporditud enimmüüdud tooteliigi (edaspidi “enimmüüdud ekspordiliik”), mis moodustas üle 99 % sellisest ekspordist, omamaised müügihinnad näitasid uurimisperioodil tavatut suundumust.
It was established that, during the investigation period, 77 % of domestic sales of the best sold exported type had been made to one customer in Russia and that the sales price to this particular customer had, in the space of one month in the middle of the investigation period, more than doubled.
Tehti kindlaks, et enimmüüdud ekspordiliigi omamaisest müügist 77 % moodustas müük ühele kliendile Venemaal ja sellele teatavale kliendile kehtestatud müügihind enam kui kahekordistus ühe kuu jooksul uurimisperioodi keskel.
Price rises for the same product type sold to other domestic customers also rose at the same time, but only by a margin of around 40 %.
Samal ajal tõusis ka teistele omamaistele klientidele müüdud sama tooteliigi hind, kuid ainult 40 % võrra.
Examination of price rises for other potash types sold domestically showed similar price increases of around 40 % during the investigation period.
Muude siseturul müüdavate potaseliikide hinnatõusu kontrollimine uurimisperioodil näitas samasugust, umbes 40 % list hinnatõusu.
In view of this particular market situation with regard to pricing for a key product type used to calculate the dumping margin, pursuant to Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation it is considered that such sales do not permit a proper comparison.
Arvestades seda erilist turusituatsiooni seoses dumpingumarginaali arvutamiseks kasutatud peamise tooteliigi hinna kalkuleerimisega vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 3 leiti, et selline müük ei võimalda nõuetekohast võrdlemist.
Given the significance of such sales in the domestic sales volumes of the type in question, and the importance of this type in the overall export volume of potash exported by the company concerned to the Community, it is considered reasonable to disregard these specific sales to the customer in question.
Pidades silmas sellise müügi tähtsust kõnealuse liigi omamaise müügi kogumahus ja selle tooteliigi tähtsust üldises ekspordimahus potase puhul, mida asjaomane äriühing ekspordib ühendusse, peetakse mõistlikuks eirata sellist müüki kõnealusele kliendile.
The remaining domestic sales of this product type to other customers were found to be below the 5 % threshold considered necessary for them to be regarded as representative.
Tooteliigi kodumaine müük muudele klientidele oli alla 5 % künnise, mis on miinimumnõue, et seda võiks veel pidada tüüpiliseks.
Accordingly, normal value for this product type was calculated on the basis of the cost of production of the exporting producer concerned, plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs and profit.
Järelikult arvutati selle tooteliigi normaalväärtus asjaomase eksportiva tootja tootmiskulude põhjal, millele lisati mõõdukas summa müügi-, üld-, ja halduskuludes ning kasum.
The amounts for selling, general and administrative costs and for profit were based on actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 6 esimesele lausele põhinevad müügi-, üld- ja halduskulud ning kasumisummad tegelikel andmetel, mis uurimisalune eksportija esitab samasuguse toote valmistamise ja tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus toimunud müügi kohta.
It was submitted by Uralkali that the ‘particular market situation’ foreseen in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation is not applicable for the sales of the product concerned to the customer in question and therefore the domestic prices for the product type concerned should have been used to establish normal value.
Uralkali teatas, et algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 3 ettenähtud “erilist turuolukorda” ei kohaldata asjaomase toote müügi puhul kõnealusele kliendile ja seega oleks pidanud asjaomasele tooteliigile normaalväärtuse kehtestamiseks kasutama omamaist hinda.
In this regard it was argued (i) that the provision of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation would not apply in case of ‘artificially high prices’ and (ii) that special conditions applied to only one specific client could not be considered to constitute a ‘particular market situation’ for the Russian domestic market as a whole.
Seoses sellega väideti, et i) algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 3 sätet ei kohaldata “kunstlikult kõrgete hindade” korral ning ii) üksnes ühele erikliendile kohandatud eritingimused ei saa endast kujutada “erilist turuolukorda” kogu Venemaa siseturul.
Moreover, it was claimed that the prices in question were resulting from ‘market forces’ and reflected ‘the actual situation on the market’.
Lisaks väideti, et nimetatud hinnad tulenesid “turujõududest” ja kajastasid “turu tegelikku olukorda”.
With regard to the above, it should be noted that the particular market situations referred to in Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation are not exhaustive and that the particularity of the market should be assessed, inter alia, in light of price variations and trends rather than solely on the basis of the absolute level of the prices.
Seoses ülaltooduga tuleks märkida, et algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 3 viidatud erilised turuolukorrad ei ole ammendavad ning turu erilisust tuleks eelkõige hinnata hindade kõikumise ja suundumuste põhjal, mitte aga ainuüksi hinna absoluuttaseme alusel.
In this case both low priced sales transactions and high priced transactions were excluded from the calculations since they did not reflect a level of prices of a lasting nature and since those prices did not appear to reflect market forces as such trends were not found for any other product type or for any other client of Uralkali.
Käesoleval juhul jäeti arvutustest välja nii odava kui ka kalli hinnaga tehingud, kuna need ei kajasta hinnataset pikemas perspektiivis, samuti ei kajasta need hinnad turujõudusid, kuna sellist suundumust ei täheldatud ühegi teise tooteliigi või mõne teise Uralkali kliendi puhul.
Secondly, Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation provides that normal value may be constructed in situations where ‘… because of a particular market situation such sales do not permit a proper comparison …’.
Teiseks sätestatakse algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 3, et arvestuslikku normaalväärtus kehtestatakse juhul “…kui erilise turuolukorra tõttu ei ole võimalik seda nõuetekohaselt võrrelda …”.
This clearly allows that, as in the current situation, sales to a customer which are considered not to permit a proper comparison may be disregarded as a basis for establishing normal value.
See lubab selgelt kõnealuses olukorras normaalväärtuse kehtestamisel jätta arvesse võtmata müügi, mida ei ole võimalik nõuetekohaselt võrrelda.
This conclusion does not relate to the Russian market as a whole but rather to these sales of Uralkali.
See järeldus ei seostu kogu Venemaa turuga, vaid eelkõige Uralkali eelnimetatud müügitehingutega.
As concerns JSC Silvinit, where the sales volume of one product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the unit cost, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the adjusted unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.
JSC Silviniti puhul, kus ühe tooteliigi müügimaht moodustas üle 80 % selle liigi kogutootemahust ning kus müügiks kasutatav netohind oli võrdne või ületas ühiku maksumuse ja asjaomase tooteliigi kaalutud keskmine hind oli võrdne või ületas kohandatud ühiku maksumuse, põhines normaalväärtus omamaisel hinnal, mis arvutati asjaomase tooteliigi kõigi omamaiste müügihindade kaalutud keskmise järgi uurimisperioodil, vaatamata sellele, kas müük oli tulutoov või mitte.
For the other product type of JSC Silvinit, which was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic prices to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value, another method had to be applied.
JSC Silviniti teise tooteliigi suhtes, mida normaalväärtuse kehtestamiseks asjakohase aluse saamiseks müüdi ebapiisavates kogustes omamaiste hindadega, tuli kohaldada teist meetodit.
In this case, constructed normal value was used, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
Antud juhul kasutati vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 3 arvestuslikku normaalväärtust.
Normal value was constructed by adding to the adjusted unit cost of the exported type, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses and a reasonable margin of profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks liideti eksporditava tooteliigi kohandatud ühiku maksumusele mõõdukas protsent müügi-, üld- ja halduskuludest ning mõõdukas kasumimarginaal, mis põhinesid tegelikel andmetel, mille uurimisalune eksportija või tootja esitas vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 6 esimesele lausele samasuguse toote valmistamise ja tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus toimunud müügi kohta.
It was claimed by Uralkali that the profit margin used in the construction of the normal value did not properly take into account the adjustments of the gas costs, as the profits used for the constructed normal values were derived form the company’s accounts before adjustments.
Uralkali väitis, et normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks kasutatud kasumimarginaali puhul ei võetud vajalikul määral arvesse gaasihinna kohandamist, sest normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks kasutatud kasuminäitaja pärines äriühingu raamatupidamisandmetest enne hinna kohandamist.
However, this claim could not be accepted since in accordance with the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation the actual profit amounts realised by the company in the domestic market should be used for the construction of the normal value.
Ülaltoodud väitega ei saa siiski nõustuda, sest vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 6 sissejuhatavale lõigule tuleks normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks kasutada tegelikku kasumisummat, mida äriühing saab siseturul.
As concerns energy costs, such as electricity and gas used in the mining and production processes of the product concerned, the investigation established that these costs form a significant proportion of the total cost of manufacturing of potash producers, not only in Russia but in other producing countries as well.
Uurimisel tehti kindlaks, et energiakulud nagu asjaomase toote kaevandamisel ja tootmisel kasutatava elektri ja gaasiga seotud kulud moodustavad märkimisväärse osa potasetootjate tootmiskuludest ja seda mitte üksnes Venemaal, vaid ka muudes tootvates riikides.
In this regard, it was submitted by the Community industry that the energy cost per unit of electricity and gas paid by the Russian companies to their utilities suppliers did not reasonably reflect the actual production cost of the electricity and gas purchased.
Seoses sellega väitis ühenduse tööstusharu, et Venemaa äriühingute poolt oma tarnijatele makstav elektri ja gaasi hind ühiku kohta ei kajasta piisavalt ostetava elektri ja gaasi tegelikke tootmiskulusid.
In view of these allegations, it was considered appropriate in the present case to also compare the applicants’ energy purchase costs per unit to those of another major potash producer with similar production methods, output levels and similar natural advantages.
Pidades silmas eeltoodud märkusi, peeti antud juhul asjakohaseks võrrelda taotlejate energia ostmisega seotud kulusid ühiku kohta teiste peamiste potasetootjate kuludega, kellel on samalaadsed tootmismeetodid, samasugune tootemaht ja samasugused looduslikud eelised.
As there are no other producers of potash in Russia, this information was sought and obtained from a large producer of potash in Canada.
Nimetatud andmed saadi Kanada suurelt potasetootjalt, sest Venemaal teisi potasetootjaid ei ole.
The data provided showed that the energy requirements of the Canadian producer were similar to those of the applicant Russian producers and that electricity and gas purchased by this company was derived from domestic hydro-electric power and major gas fields, as is the electricity and gas used by the Russian companies.
Saadud andmed näitasid, et Kanada tootja energiavajadused olid samasugused kui Venemaa tootjatel ning nagu Venemaa puhulgi, pärines ostetav elekter kodumaisest hüdroelektrijaamast ja gaas kodumaistest gaasimaardlatest.
The comparison showed that the cost per unit for electricity paid by the Canadian producer was not too dissimilar to that paid by the Russian producers.
Võrdlus näitas, et Kanada tootja makstud elektrikulu ühiku kohta ei erinenud palju sellest, mida maksid Venemaa tootjad.
As concerns gas supplies, it was established on the basis of data found in the published annual report for 2003 of the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom (whose regional distributor was also the supplier to the exporting producers in question), that the domestic price of gas paid by the two Russian Producers was around one fifth of the export price from Russia.
Gaasi kohta leiti andmeid Venemaa gaasitarnija OAO Gazpromi (kelle piirkondlik jaotusettevõtja tarnis ka asjaomastele eksportivatele tootjatele) 2003. aastal avaldatud aastaaruandest, millest selgus, et Venemaa kahe tootja poolt omamaise gaasi eest makstud hind moodustas viiendiku Venemaa ekspordihinnast.
The same report clearly stated that ‘OAO Gazprom did not make any profit in the domestic market’.
Samas aruandes oli ka nimetatud, et OAO Gazprom ei saanud siseturul mingisugust kasumit.
While there is no officially available information as to the profitability of Russian domestic gas prices, quotes from Russian government sources in the press together with data obtained from specialized market intelligence sources and governmental websites all strongly suggest that the gas prices charged to domestic customers were made at prices far from cost recovery levels.
Kuivõrd Venemaa omamaise gaasihinna kohta puuduvad ametlikud andmed, toetuti Venemaa valitsuse viidetele ajakirjanduses ning turu-uuringute andmetele, samuti valitsuse veebilehekülgedele, mis kõik kinnitasid, et omamaistele klientidele kehtiv gaasi hind oli omahinnast palju madalam.
Moreover, the price of gas paid by the two Russian Producers was significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Canadian producers.
Pealegi maksid kaks Venemaa tootjat gaasi eest tunduvalt vähem kui Kanada tootjad.
In view of the above, it was therefore considered that the prices charged by the regional Russian gas provider to the Russian potash producers in the investigation period could not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production of gas when compared to the exported price of gas from Russia and the price of a Canadian gas provider to a major industrial user in Canada.
Ülaltoodule tuginedes leiti, et võrreldes Venemaalt eksporditud gaasi ja Kanada peamiste tööstustarbijate poolt oma gaasitarbijatele makstud hinnaga ei kajasta uurimisperioodil Venemaa potasetootjate poolt kohalikele gaasitarnijatele makstud hind piisavalt gaasitootmisega seotud kulusid.
In accordance, therefore, with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, an adjustment to the cost of production for each of the applicants was made.
Seega korrigeeriti vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 5 mõlema taotleja tootmiskulusid.
In the absence of any other reasonable basis, such an adjustment was made using information concerning the price of gas for export, net of transport costs, customs export tax, value added tax and excise duty.
Kuna muud põhjendatud alust ei olnud, kasutati kohandamisel andmeid gaasi ekspordihinna, transpordi netokulude, eksporditollimaksu, käibemaksu ja aktsiisimaksu kohta.
In this regard, it was submitted by one of the applicants that the charges for gas were properly reflected in its accounting records, therefore no adjustment was warranted under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Seoses sellega teatas üks taotleja, et gaasi eest nõutav hind oli raamatupidamisdokumentides õigesti kajastatud ja seega ei olnud kohandamine vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 5 õigustatud.
In response to this argument it is not disputed that the company has correctly accounted for the invoiced prices paid, rather the adjustment is justified by the fact that the price of the gas purchased does not reasonably reflect the cost of production and distribution of the gas.
Vastus sellele märkusele on, et kahtlemata maksis äriühing vastavalt kaubaarvetele märgitud hindadele õigesti, kohandamist oli pigem vaja sellepärast, et ostetud gaasi hind ei kajastanud piisavalt gaasi tootmis- ja turustamiskulusid.
On the adjustment for the gas costs, it was also submitted by the Russian Authorities that the Commission had not taken into account the different transportation costs between the gas sold domestically for industrial usage and the gas sold for export.
Venemaa ametiasutused väitsid ka, et gaasi hinna kohandamisel ei ole komisjon arvestanud erinevust siseturul tööstustarbijatele müüdava gaasi ja ekspordiks müüdava gaasi transpordikulude vahel.