natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Thus, it was only found during the on-the-spot investigation that the company actually split into two entities at the beginning of the IP (one of them producing the product concerned).
Seega selgus alles äriühingu kohapealsel kontrollimisel, et äriühing oli uurimisperioodi algul jagunenud kaheks üksuseks (kellest üks tegeleb vaatlusaluse toote tootmisega).
The fact that the complex company structure was not declared before the verification visit significantly impeded the investigation because of its far-reaching consequences in terms of accounting and determinations of costs.
Asjaolu, et äriühingu keerukast struktuurist ei teatatud enne kontrollkäiku, takistas oma kaugeleulatuvate tagajärgede tõttu raamatupidamise ja kulude määramise suhtes oluliselt uurimist.
Moreover, the company did not submit essential elements of the reply, including audited financial statements, claiming these were not available.
Seejuures jättis äriühing küsimustikule olulises osas vastamata, sealhulgas ei saatnud ta oma auditeeritud finantsaruannet, väites, et see ei ole kättesaadav.
However, this proved to be wrong during the verification visit.
Kontrollkäigul selgus siiski, et see väide oli vale.
In addition, the company re-submitted at the beginning of the investigation verification significant parts of its questionnaire reply, impeding the verification of the questionnaire reply.
Lisaks esitas äriühing kontrollimise alguses oma vastused olulises osas uuesti, takistades nii küsimustiku vastuste kontrollimist.
The related trader in Russia of the company mentioned in the previous recital did not cooperate.
Eelmises põhjenduses nimetatud äriühinguga seotud Vene hulgimüüja koostööd ei teinud.
Indeed, the company impeded the verification, by refusing access to information pertaining to organisation, sales of the product concerned, and payments, in such a way that this party could not be considered to be a cooperating party.
Nimetatud äriühing hoopis takistas kontrollimist, keeldudes andmast teavet oma korralduse ning vaatlusaluse toote müügi ja maksete kohta, nii et seda äriühingut ei olnud võimalik lugeda koostööd tegevaks.
Finally, the related trader in the United Kingdom could not provide any financial figure for the IP.
Viimaks ei olnud Ühendkuningriigis asuval seotud hulgimüüjal võimalik esitada mingeid finantsnäitajaid uurimisperioodi kohta.
In view of the above, it was considered that the dumping margins for both exporting producers could not be established on the basis of their own data.
Eelnevat arvestades otsustati, et kummagi eksportiva tootja puhul ei saa dumpingumarginaali kindlaks määrata nende endi esitatud andmete põhjal.
The dumping margin was therefore provisionally determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Seetõttu määrati dumpingumarginaal vastavalt algmääruse artiklile 18 esialgu kindlaks kättesaadavate andmete põhjal.
In the absence of any other information, the normal value was provisionally calculated on the basis of the information in the complaint.
Muu teabe puudumisel arvutati normaalväärtus esialgu kaebuses esitatud teabe põhjal.
An average normal value was calculated from the prices indicated in the price lists of the domestic market during the IP of both exporting producers.
Keskmine normaalväärtus arvestati hindade põhjal, mis uurimisperioodi jooksul sisaldusid mõlema tootja siseturule mõeldud hinnakirjades.
In the absence of any more appropriate basis, one single normal value was calculated for the product concerned as a whole.
Sobivama aluse puudumisel arvutati vaatlusaluse toote kui terviku üks ühtne normaalväärtus.
Export price was provisionally calculated on the basis of Eurostat data for the IP.
Ekspordihind arvutati esialgu Eurostati andmete põhjal uurimisperioodi kohta.
Pursuant to Article 2(10)(e) of the basic Regulation, adjustments were made to the normal value, to take into account the fact that the prices in the price-lists included terms of delivery other than ex-works, and to the export price to take into account the differences in terms of delivery and other charges incurred between ex-works and CIF incoterms.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 10 punktile e kohandati normaalväärust seoses asjaoluga, et hinnakirjas sisalduvad hinnad sisaldasid peale tehasehinna ka muid tarnetingimusi, ning ekspordihinda seoses tarnetingimuste erinevuste ja muude maksudega, mis jäävad tehasehinna ja CIF-tarneklauslite vahele.
All adjustments were made on the basis of information provided in the complaint.
Kõik kohandused tehti kaebuses esitatud teabe põhjal.
The provisional dumping margin was established on the basis of a comparison of the weighted average normal value with the weighted average export price, as determined above.
Esialgne dumpingumarginaal määrati kaalutud keskmise normaalväärtuse ja eespool määratud kaalutud keskmise ekspordihinna võrdluse alusel.
The comparison between the normal value and the export price showed the existence of dumping.
Normaalväärtuse ja ekspordihindade võrdlusel ilmnes dumpingu olemasolu.
The provisional dumping margins, expressed as a percentage of the cif net free-at-Community-frontier price, before duty, is 36,6 %.
Esialgne dumpingumarginaal, väljendatuna protsendimäärana CIF-netohinnast ühenduse piiril enne tollimaksu sissenõudmist, on 36,6 %.
Since the aforementioned two companies represented all export sales from Russia to the Community, and since there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer abstained from cooperating, the residual duty was also set at the same level.
Kuna kogu eksport Venemaalt ühendusse jagunes kahe eespool nimetatud äriühingu vahel ja ei ole põhjust arvata, et ükski eksportiv tootja hoidus koostööst, määrati ka jääktollimaks samal tasemel.
Within the Community, the product concerned is known to be manufactured in Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Poland by:
On teada, et ühenduses toodavad vaatlusalust toodet Saksamaal, Itaalias, Madalmaades, Ühendkuningriigis ja Poolas:
three producers on behalf of which the complaint was lodged, representing more than 80 % of the Community production, and
kolm tootjat, kelle nimel kaebus esitati ja kes koos toodavad rohkem kui 80 % ühenduse toodangust, ning
two other Community producers which were not complainants.
veel kaks ühenduse tootjat, kes kaebust ei esitanud.
Only one has submitted general information to the Commission.
Ainult üks neist on andnud komisjonile üldist teavet.
Neither of these two producers opposed the present proceeding.
Kumbki neist kahest tootjast ei ole käesoleva menetluse vastu.
The Commission has found that all the above companies could be considered as Community producers within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation.
Komisjon leidis, et kõiki eespool nimetatud äriühinguid võib pidada ühenduse tootjateks algmääruse artikli 4 lõike 1 tähenduses.
The output of all the above companies constitutes the Community production, established by adding to the volume of production reported by the three producers supporting the complaint, the estimated production of the two non-complaining producers, as contained in the complaint.
Kõikide eespool osutatud äriühingute toodang moodustab kaebuses esitatud ühenduse toodangu, mis koosneb kolme kaebust toetava tootja aruandlusejärgsest tootmismahust, millele on liidetud ülejäänud kahe, kaebuse mitteesitanud tootja hinnanguline tootmismaht.
The accumulated production of the three Community producers which cooperated with the Commission represents 81 % of the total production of granular PTFE resin in the Community.
Komisjoniga koostööd teinud kolm ühenduse tootjat toodavad kokku 81 % ühenduse granuleeritud PTFE-vaigu kogutoodangust.
They are therefore deemed to constitute ‘the Community industry’ within the meaning of Articles 4(1) and 5(4) of the basic Regulation.
Seega moodustavad need tootjad ühenduse tootmisharu algmääruse artikli 4 lõike 1 ja artikli 5 lõike 4 tähenduses.
Community consumption was established on the basis of the sales volumes of the Community industry on the Community market, plus the estimated sales of the other Community producers, plus the imports from Russia, the PRC and the other third countries under CN code ex39046100.
Ühenduse tarbimise määramiseks liideti ühenduse tootmisharu läbimüügile ühenduse turul ülejäänud ühenduse tootjate hinnanguline läbimüük ja CN-koodi ex39046100 alla kuuluv import Venemaalt, Hiinast ja muudest kolmandatest riikidest.
It is noted that imports from Russia under CN code 39046100 cover the product concerned and other products.
Märgitakse, et CN-koodi 39046100 alla kuuluv import Venemaalt hõlmab vaatlusalust toodet ja muid tooteid.
The total import volume from Russia of PTFE was therefore estimated based on the methodology followed in the complaint.
Seepärast hinnati Venemaa PTFE koguimpordi mahtu kaebuses kasutatud meetodil.
For the other countries no information indicated that imports under such CN code would contain PTFE not in granular form.
Ülejäänud riikide puhul ei olnud teavet, et kõnealuse CN-koodi alla kuuluv import sisaldaks PTFE-d muul kui granuleeritud kujul.
Between 2001 and the IP, the apparent Community consumption decreased from 16185 tonnes to 14725 tonnes, i.e. by 9 %.
aasta ja uurimisperioodi vahel vähenes ühenduse ilmne tarbimine 16185 tonnilt 14725 tonnile, st 9 %.
This decrease in consumption was caused to a large extent by the general economic downturn in the period since 2002.
Vähenemine oli suuresti põhjustatud 2002. aastal alanud üldisest majanduslikust surutisest.
The Commission examined whether imports of granular PTFE resin originating in Russia and the PRC should be assessed cumulatively in accordance with Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisjon uuris, kas Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit granuleeritud PTFE-vaigu importi on vaja kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 3 lõikega 4 hinnata kumulatiivselt.
The margin of dumping established in relation to the imports from each of the countries concerned was above the de minimis threshold as defined in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation and the volume of imports from each of these countries was not negligible in the sense of Article 5(7) of the basic Regulation (i.e. their market shares attaining 10,8 % and 23,7 % respectively in the IP).
Kõikidest kõnealustest riikidest pärit impordi puhul kindlaks tehtud dumpingumarginaal ületas algmääruse artikli 9 lõikes 3 määratletud miinimumkünnise ning kõikidest riikidest pärit impordi maht ei olnud ebaoluline algmääruse artikli 5 lõike 7 tähenduses (st nende turuosa ulatus uurimisperioodil vastavalt 10,8 ja 23,7 protsendini).
As regards the conditions of competition, the investigation showed that granular PTFE resin imported from the countries concerned and that of the Community industry were alike in all their basic physical and technical characteristics.
Konkurentsitingimuste osas tuvastati uurimisel, et asjaomastest riikidest imporditud ja ühenduses toodetud granuleeritud PTFE-vaigu kõik põhilised füüsikalised ja tehnilised omadused olid sarnased.
On that basis, PTFE originating in Russia and the PRC on the one hand and PTFE produced and sold in the Community on the other hand were interchangeable.
Seega oli Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit PTFE vahetatav ühenduses toodetava ja müüdavaga.
Likewise, they were marketed in the Community through comparable sales channels and under similar commercial conditions.
Samuti turustati importtoodet ühenduses võrreldavate müügikanalite kaudu ja analoogsetel kaubandustingimustel.
It was also found that export prices from Russia and China had a similar trend during the period considered and both were significantly undercutting the Community prices.
Samuti tuvastati, et Venemaa ja Hiina ekspordihinnad arenesid vaatlusalusel perioodil analoogselt ning olid ühenduse hindadest oluliselt madalamad.
The Russian exporting producers argued that PTFE imported from Russia on the one hand and the one imported from the PRC on the other hand were subject to different conditions of competition and that imports originating in Russia should therefore be decumulated.
Vene eksportivad tootjad väitsid, et Venemaalt imporditud PTFE konkurentsitingimused erinevad Hiinast imporditud PTFE konkurentsitingimustest ning et Venemaalt pärit importi ei tohiks kumuleerida Hiinast pärit impordiga.
In this regard, it was argued that import trends from Russia were declining over the period considered, while imports from China showed an increasing trend.
Ses suhtes väideti, et Venemaalt pärit import vähenes vaatlusalusel perioodil, Hiina import aga kasvas.
Secondly, it was pointed out that imports from China and Russia were mainly concentrated in one Member State (Italy).
Teiseks märgiti, et Hiinast ja Venemaalt pärit import suundus peamiselt ühte liikmesriiki (Itaalia).
Therefore, Russian and Chinese PTFE products were not in competition in the other 24 Member States.
Seepärast ei pakkuvat Vene ja Hiina PTFE konkurentsi ülejäänud 24 liikmesriigis.
However, despite the decreasing trend, the volume of imports originating in Russia remains far from negligible, with a market share of 23,7 % of the Community consumption during the IP.
Kõnealusele vähenemissuundumusele vaatamata ei ole Venemaalt pärit impordi maht sellegipoolest sugugi ebaoluline, moodustades uurimisperioodil ühenduse tarbimisest 23,7 %.
Furthermore, PTFE exported from Russia was of a similar quality to PTFE exported from the PRC and destined for similar-end uses and applications.
Peale selle oli Venemaalt imporditud PTFE-l Hiinast impordituga sarnane kvaliteet ning sarnased kasutusotstarbed.
In addition, as mentioned above, export prices from Russia and China had a similar trend during the period considered and both were significantly undercutting the Community prices.
Pealegi, nagu eespool mainitud, arenesid Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit impordi hinnad vaatlusalusel perioodil analoogselt ning mõlemad olid ühenduse hindadest oluliselt madalamad.
Finally, it should be noted that the Community industry sales were also concentrated mainly in Italy and therefore in direct competition with the imports originating in Russia and the PRC.
Viimaks tuleb märkida, et ühenduse tootmisharu müük oli samuti suunatud peamiselt Itaaliale ning seega konkureeris see otseselt Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit impordiga.
PTFE produced by the Community industry was sold through the same type of distribution channels in Italy as PTFE from Russia and China.
Ühenduse tootmisharu PTFE-d müüdi Itaalias sama liiki turustuskanalite kaudu kui Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit importi.
It is also noted that there was no indication that Russian and Chinese imports into Italy were not further resold to other parts of the Community market and entered therefore into competition with Community products also outside Italy.
Samuti märgitakse, et ei ole alust arvata, et Vene ja Hiina importi ei müüdud edasi ühenduse turu teistesse osadesse ning need ei asunud konkureerima ühenduse toodetega ka väljaspool Itaaliat.
On this basis, the argument that the product imported from Russia on the one hand and the one imported from the PRC on the other hand were subject to different conditions of competition had to be rejected.
Seetõttu tuli väide, et Venemaalt imporditud PTFE konkurentsitingimused erinevad Hiinast imporditud PTFE konkurentsitingimustest, tagasi lükata.
In the light of the above, it is provisionally considered that all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met and that imports from the countries concerned should be examined cumulatively.
Eespool esitatu põhjal võetakse esialgu seisukoht, et kõik algmääruse artikli 3 lõikes 4 sätestatud kriteeriumid on täidetud ning et asjaomastest riikidest pärit importi tuleb uurida kumulatiivselt.
Imports from the countries concerned
Import asjaomastest riikidest
Although imports of the product concerned from Russia and the PRC into the Community decreased from 6281 tonnes in 2001 to 4838 tonnes in 2002, they increased since 2002 and reached 5079 tonnes in the IP.
Kuigi vaatlusaluse toote import Venemaalt ja Hiinast ühendusse vähenes 6281 tonnilt 2001. aastal 4838 tonnile 2002. aastal, hakkas see alates 2002. aastast kasvama ning ulatus 5079 tonnini uurimisperioodil.
Imports from Russia and the PRC (tonnes)
Import Venemaalt ja Hiinast (tonnides)
The corresponding market share decreased from 38,8 % in 2001 to 34,5 % in the IP, but remained very significant.
Vastav turuosa vähenes 38,8 protsendilt 2001. aastal 34,5 protsendile uurimisperioodil, kuid jäi väga oluliseks.
It is noted that the market share has shown a continuous gradual increase since 2002, i.e. from 33,8 % to 34,5 % in the IP.
Märgitakse, et turuosa on 2002. aastast alates pidevalt ühtlaselt kasvanud, st 33,8 protsendilt 34,5 protsendile uurimisperioodil.
Market share of imports from Russia and the PRC
Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit impordi turuosa
The average price of the imports concerned decreased significantly.
Asjaomase impordi keskmine hind vähenes oluliselt.
Thus, they shrank from EUR 7236/tonne in 2001 to EUR 4092/tonne in the IP, i.e. a decrease of 43 % over the period considered.
See langes vaatlusaluse perioodi jooksul 7236 eurolt tonni eest 2001. aastal 4092 eurole tonni eest uurimisperioodil, st 43 %.
Average price of imports from Russia and the PRC (EUR/tonnes)
Venemaalt ja Hiinast pärit impordi keskmine hind (EUR/t)
For the purposes of analysing price undercutting, the weighted average sales prices per product type of the Community industry to unrelated customers on the Community market were compared with the corresponding weighted average export prices of the product concerned.
Hinna allalöömise analüüsimiseks võrreldi ühenduse turul sõltumatutele klientidele pakutavate ühenduse tootmisharu tooteliikide müügihindade kaalutud keskmist vastava vaatlusaluse toote ekspordihindade kaalutud keskmisega.
The prices of the Community industry were adjusted to an ex-works basis.
Ühenduse tootmisharu müügihindu korrigeeriti vastavalt tehasehindade tasemele.
The prices of the imports concerned were on a CIF basis adjusted by customs duties and post-importation costs.
Asjaomase impordi hinnad olid CIF-hinnad, mida oli kohandatud tollimaksude ja impordijärgsete kulude võrra.
Some interested parties argued that the quality of the products manufactured by the Community industry is generally higher than that of the product concerned imported from the PRC and Russia.
Mõned huvitatud pooled väitsid, et ühenduse tootmisharu toodete kvaliteet on Hiinast või Venemaalt imporditud vaatlusaluste toodete omast üldjuhul kõrgem.
Based on the evidence found during the investigation, it was provisionally considered that an adjustment was warranted for quality differences which are mainly determined by lower physical properties and inconsistency of the material, i.e. significant variations of the particle size within one product type and impurities.
Uurimise käigus kogutud tõendite põhjal võeti esialgu seisukoht, et kohandamine on õigustatud kvaliteedierinevuste korral, mis on tingitud peamiselt materjali kesisematest füüsikalistest omadustest ja ebaühtlusest, st osakeste suuruse ja lisandite olulisest kõikumisest ühe tooteliigi piires.
The Russian exporting producers claimed that as a consequence, the PTFE produced and exported by them can only be used when further processed which involves additional costs.
Vene eksportivad tootjad väitsid, et seetõttu on nende toodetud ja eksporditud PTFE-d võimalik kasutada ainult edasiselt töödelduna, mis toob kaasa täiendavaid kulusid.
However, none of the interested parties was able to precisely quantify the market value of these differences in quality, nor the processing costs of the imported PTFE.
Mitte ükski huvitatud isik ei suutnud siiski nende kvaliteedierinevuste turuväärtust ega imporditud PTFE töötlemise kulusid täpselt määratleda.
A number of parties estimated the adjustment at 30 %, based on the alleged price difference between the different qualities.
Mõne osapoole hinnangul tuleks hindu kohandada 30 % võrra, lähtudes eri kvaliteediga sortide väidetavast hinnavahest.
This estimate corresponded to the one made by the Russian exporting producers.
See hinnang vastab Vene eksportijate hinnangule.
On this basis, and given that no other more reliable information was available in this regard, an adjustment of 30 % was provisionally added to the CIF Community frontier price of the cooperating exporting producers from both countries.
Selle alusel ja arvestades, et usaldusväärsemat teavet selle kohta ei olnud, kohandati mõlema riigi koostööd tegevate eksportijate CIF-hindu ühenduse piiril esialgu 30% võrra.
It is noted that this issue will be further investigated in order to reach definitive conclusions.
Märgitakse, et lõplike järeldusteni jõudmiseks uuritakse seda küsimust uuritakse edasi.
A comparison showed that the products concerned originating in the PRC and Russia were sold in the Community at prices which undercut the Community industry's prices by 24 % and 17 % respectively during the IP when expressed as a percentage of the Community industry's prices.
Võrreldes selgus, et Hiinast ja Venemaalt pärit tooteid müüdi ühenduses hindadega, mis olid uurimisperioodil ühenduse tootmisharu hindadest vastavalt 24 % ja 17 % madalamad.
In accordance with Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, the examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the Community industry included an evaluation of all economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the Community industry from 2001 to the IP.
Kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 3 lõikega 5 anti dumpinguhinnaga impordi poolt ühenduse tootmisharule avalduvat mõju uurides hinnang kõigile tootmisharu seisundit mõjutavatele majanduslikele teguritele ja näitajatele 2001. aastast kuni uurimisperioodini.
The production volume of the Community industry increased by 8 % between 2001 and the IP, from 6798 tonnes to 7326 tonnes.
Ühenduse tootmisharu tootmismaht kasvas 2001. aastast uurimisperioodini 8 % võrra ehk 6798 tonnilt 7326 tonnile.
Despite a fall in Community consumption during the same period, it should be noted that the Community industry had to decrease its sales prices as a consequence of the dumped imports in order to compete with the imports under consideration.
Kuigi ühenduse tarbimine samal perioodil vähenes, tuleb märkida, et ühenduse tootmisharu pidi oma müügihindu dumpinguhinnaga impordi tõttu vähendama, et konkureerida asjaomase impordiga.
This lead to an increase in production to cater for the increased demand for its products.
See põhjustaski toodangu kasvu, et rahuldada suuremat nõudlust tootmisharu toodete järele.
The drop in the capacity utilisation between 2001 and 2002 is a consequence of the decrease in consumption and the general economic downturn during this period.
Tootmisvõimsuse rakendusastme langus aastatel 2001–2002 on tingitud tarbimise vähenemisest ja üldisest majanduslikust surutisest sellel perioodil.
Subsequently, as stated above, the Community industry had to lower its prices, thereby increasing its sales, in order to compete with the imports of the countries concerned whose prices had fallen by almost 40 % in 2004 (see recital 96).
Seepärast, nagu eespool öeldud, pidi ühenduse tootmisharu oma hindu alandama, suurendades sellega oma läbimüüki, et konkureerida asjaomaste riikide impordiga, mille hinnad langesid 2004. aastal ligi 40 % (vt põhjendus 96).
Thus, capacity utilisation of the Community industry recovered, while profitability went down dramatically (see recital 110w).
Seega ühenduse tootmisharu tootmisvõimsuse rakendusaste taastus, kuid kulutasuvus vähenes drastiliselt (vt põhjendus 110).
Over the period under consideration, the EC sales volume of the Community industry increased by 15 %, from 4223 tonnes in 2001 to 4845 tonnes during the IP.
Uurimisperioodi jooksul kasvas ühenduse tootmisharu müügimaht ühenduses 15 % võrra, s.o 4223 tonnilt 2001. aastal 4845 tonnile uurimisperioodil.