natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In light of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country took place at the premises of the following producer in Japan:
Tulenevalt vajadusest teha kindlaks kauba normaalväärtus Hiina Rahvavabariigi eksportivate tootjate jaoks, kelle puhul ei saa tagada turumajanduslikku kohtlemist, teostati kontroll võrdlusriigi andmete põhjal järgmise tootja valdustes Jaapanis:
Taiyo Yuden, Inc. (Takasaki, Japan)
Taiyo Yuden, Inc. (Takasaki, Jaapan).
With regard to exporting producers in the PRC and Hong Kong, the Commission selected, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation, a sample based on the largest representative volume of exports to the Community which could reasonably be investigated within the time available.
Arvestades Hiina Rahvavabariigi ja Hongkongi eksportivaid tootjaid, koostas komisjon vastavalt algmääruse artiklile 17 valimi suurima ühendusse eksporditava tüüpkoguse põhjal, mida sai etteantud aja jooksul mõistlikus ulatuses uurida.
The sample selected for the Chinese exporting producers consisted of four Chinese exporting producers, representing around 85 % of the export volume of the cooperating parties from the PRC to the Community.
Hiina Rahvavabariigi eksportivate tootjate valim koosnes neljast Hiina Rahvavabariigi eksportivast tootjast, kelle toodang moodustab ligikaudu 85 % koostööd tegevate ettevõtete Hiina Rahvavabariigist Euroopa Ühendusse eksporditavatest kogustest.
Additionally, two exporters were included on the reserve list.
Lisaks kaasati kaks eksportijat varunimekirja.
The sample selected for the Hong Kong exporting producers also consisted of four companies, representing over 90 % of the volume of exports to the Community from the cooperating exporting producers from Hong Kong.
Hongkongi eksportivate tootjate valim koosnes samuti neljast äriühingust, kelle toodang moodustab ligikaudu 90 % koostööd tegevate Hongkongi eksportivate tootjate eksporditavatest kogustest.
Additionally, two companies were included on the reserve list.
Lisaks kaasati kaks äriühingut varunimekirja.
The Commission received replies from the sampled exporters in China and Hong Kong as well as from the companies on the reserve list.
Komisjon sai vastused nii Hiina Rahvavabariigi ja Hongkongi valimisse kuuluvatelt eksportijatelt kui ka varunimekirja äriühingutelt.
In accordance with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities were consulted on the samples and raised no objections.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 17 lõikele 2 peeti valimi asjus nõu Hiina Rahvavabariigi ja Hongkongi võimudega ning nemad vastuväiteid ei esitanud.
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2004 to 30 June 2005 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
Dumpingu ja kahju uurimise periood kestis 2004. aasta 1. juulist kuni 2005. aasta 30. juunini (edaspidi “uurimisperiood”).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2002 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Kahju hindamiseks vajalik suundumuste uurimine leidis aset 2002. aasta 1. jaanuarist kuni uurimisperioodi lõpuni (edaspidi “vaatlusalune periood”).
It is recalled that given the need to further examine certain aspects of injury, causation and Community interest, no provisional measures were imposed in the current investigation.
Tulenevalt vajadusest uurida täiendavalt kahju, põhjuslike seoste ja ühenduse huvide teatud aspekte, ei rakendatud käesolevas uurimises mingeid ajutisi meetmeid.
All parties were informed of the preliminary findings and of the facts and considerations on which the decision not to impose provisional measures was based.
Kõiki isikuid teavitati esialgsetest tulemustest ja põhjustest, miks otsustati mitte rakendada ajutisi meetmeid.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make comments.
Kõigile isikutele tagati võimalus teatud aja jooksul märkusi esitada.
Those parties who requested were also granted an opportunity to be heard orally.
Soovijad said võimaluse esitada oma märkused suuliselt.
The Commission continued to seek and verify all information it deemed necessary for its definitive findings.
Komisjon jätkas lõplike järelduste tegemiseks vajaliku informatsiooni kogumist ja kontrollimist.
Measures in force on imports of CD-Rs from other countries
Teistest maadest imporditavate CD-R-de puhul kehtivad meetmed
Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of CD-Rs from Taiwan were imposed on 19 June 2002 [3].
Lõplikud dumpinguvastased tollimaksud CD-R-de impordile Taiwanist kehtestati 19. juunil 2002. aastal.
They ranged from 17,7 % to 38,5 %.
Need olid vahemikus 17,7 % kuni 38,5 %.
Moreover, a definitive countervailing duty on imports of CD-Rs from India was imposed on 6 June 2003 [4].
Veelgi enam, lõplik tasakaalustav tollimaks Indiast imporditavatele CD-R-dele kehtestati 6. juunil 2003. aastal.
It amounts to 7,3 %.
See oli 7,3 %.
The product concerned is recordable compact disks (CD-Rs) originating in the PRC, Hong Kong and Malaysia, which was classifiable in 2005 within CN code ex85239000.
Vaatlusalune toode on Hiina Rahvavabariigist, Hongkongist või Malaisiast pärit kirjutatav laserketas (CD-R), mis 2005. aastal kuulus CN koodi ex85239000 alla.
Due to changes in the Combined Nomenclature and as no CD/Rs exists with a recording capacity exceeding 900 megabytes, from 2006 on, the product concerned falls within CN code ex85239010.
Vastavalt kombineeritud nomenklatuuri muutustele ning kuna pole olemas CD-R-e, mille salvestusmaht ületaks 900 megabaiti, kuulub toode alates 2006. aastast CN koodi ex85239010 alla.
The product concerned is a polycarbonate disc, which is coated with a layer of dye, a layer of reflective material and a protective layer.
Vaatlusalune toode on polükarbonaadist ketas, mis on kaetud värvainekihi, peegeldava materjali kihi ja kaitsekihiga.
Although recording on such discs can be done in several steps, the recorded information can not be erased.
Kuigi sellistele ketastele saab salvestada osade kaupa, ei saa salvestatud informatsiooni kustutada.
The disc is an optical storage medium for digital data or sound.
Ketas on optiline andmekandja digitaalandmete või heli salvestamiseks.
CD-Rs can be distinguished according to the type of data stored (data CD-Rs versus music CD-R), the storage capacity, the reflective metal layer and whether or not the CD-Rs are printed upon.
CD-R-e saab eristada vastavalt salvestatud andmete liigile (andmete CD-R või muusika CD-R), salvestusmahule, peegeldavale metallikihile ning sellele, kas CD-R-le on midagi trükitud või mitte.
The investigation has shown that all types of CD-Rs share the same basic physical and technical characteristics and are used for the same purposes.
Uurimine on näidanud, et eri tüüpi CD-R-d on sarnaste füüsiliste ja tehniliste omadustega ning neid kasutatakse samadel eesmärkidel.
Therefore, they are considered to constitute one single product.
Seetõttu loetakse neid üheks tooteks.
No differences were found between the product concerned and the CD-Rs produced and sold on the domestic market in the PRC, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Japan, which served as an analogue country, as well as the CD-Rs produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry.
Hiina Rahvavabariigis, Hongkongis, Malaisias ja võrdlusriigiks valitud Jaapanis toodetud ja siseturul müüdud CD-R-de ning vaatlusaluse toote vahel ei leitud mingeid erinevusi, samuti ei olnud erinevusi ühenduse toodetud ja müüdud toodete vahel.
They were all found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses.
Jõuti järeldusele, et neil kõigil on sarnased füüsilised ja tehnilised põhiomadused ja otstarve.
It is therefore concluded that all types of CD-Rs form one product and are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Seetõttu otsustati, et eri tüüpi CD-R-d moodustavad ühe toote ja nad loetakse algmääruse artikli 1 lõike 4 mõistes sarnaseks.
The investigation established a level of dumping of more than de minimis for each of co-operating exporting producers from the countries concerned.
Uurimine tuvastas minimaalsest kõrgema dumpingutaseme iga asjaomastest riikidest kaasatud eksportiva tootja puhul.
However, given the conclusions as set out below, it is not necessary to detail these findings.
Siiski pole tarvis allpool esitatud kokkuvõtet arvestades neid järeldusi üksikasjalikult esitada.
Community Production
Ühenduse toodang
In the light of the definition of Community industry as set out in Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation, the output of the following Community manufacturers was considered for inclusion in the definition of the Community production at the initiation of the investigation:
Järgides ühenduse tootmisharu määratlust vastavalt algmääruse artikli 4 lõikele 1, vaadeldi uurimise algatamisel ühenduse toodangu defineerimiseks järgmiste ühenduse tootjate toodangut:
Five complainant Community manufacturers:
Viis kaebuse esitanud ühenduse tootjat:
CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH (‘CDA’)
CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH (edaspidi CDA)
(‘CSI’)
(edaspidi CSI)
Global Digital Disc GmbH & Co KG (‘GDD’)
Global Digital Disc GmbH & Co KG (edaspidi GDD)
Manufacturing Advanced Media S.A. (‘MAM-E’)
Manufacturing Advanced Media S.A. (edaspidi MAM-E)
TDK Recording Media Europe S.A. (‘TDK’)
TDK Recording Media Europe S.A. (edaspidi TDK)
Two other Community producers who fully cooperated in the investigation, and who supported the proceeding:
Kaks teist ühenduse tootjat, kes tegid uurimise käigus täielikult koostööd ja kes menetlust toetasid:
Sony DADC Austria AG (‘Sony DADC’)
Sony DADC Austria AG (edaspidi Sony DADC)
Thirteen other manufacturers, as listed in the complaint, to whom questionnaires were sent but none of whom replied to the questionnaire.
Kolmteist muud kaebuses loetletud tootjat, kellele saadeti küsimustik, aga kellest ükski sellele ei vastanud.
Exclusion of Community manufacturers from the definition of Community production for reasons of significant imports during or after the end of the IP
Ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja jäetud ühenduse tootjad, kes importisid uurimisperioodi jooksul või pärast selle lõppu märkimisväärses koguses toodangut
Company A
Äriühing A
In the questionnaire response by company A, it appeared that company A, in addition to its own Community manufacturing, also had imported the product concerned from the countries concerned.
Äriühingu A esitatud vastustest küsimustikule ilmnes, et äriühing A on lisaks omaenda ühendusesisesele tootmisele importinud vaatlusalust toodet asjaomastest riikidest.
The proportion of the imported product sold on the Community market significantly exceeded the volumes of the like product manufactured and sold within the Community.
Ühenduse turul müüdud importtoodangu osa ületas oluliselt sarnaste ühenduse territooriumil toodetud ja müüdud toodete kogust.
It was thereafter considered whether, despite the significant import volumes, the centre of interest for company A still was within the Community and/or whether the imported volumes could be of a temporary nature.
Seetõttu tuli otsustada, kas äriühingu A huvid on vaatamata märkimisväärsele impordikogusele siiski ühendusesisesed ja/või kas toodangu import on ajutise iseloomuga.
It appeared that the imports of company A were not of a temporary nature but rather based on a strategic decision to source its production from Original Design Manufacturers (‘ODM’) which are companies that design and manufacture products that are then sold under other brand names.
Ilmes, et äriühingu A import ei ole ajutine, vaid tuleneb pigem strateegilisest otsusest kasutada allhanget ehk ettevõtteid, kes töötavad välja ja toodavad tooteid, mida hiljem müüakse teise kaubamärgi all.
It could therefore not be concluded that company A’s centre of interest for the manufacturing of CD-Rs was still within the Community as it appeared likely that company A would continue to import significant volumes of its sales on the Community market from the countries concerned.
Seega ei saa järeldada, et äriühingu A huvi CD-R-de tootmisel on endiselt suunatud ühenduse siseturule. Samuti ilmnes, et äriühing A impordib ka edaspidi vaatlusalustest riikidest märkimisväärse osa ühenduse turul müüdavast toodangust.
It was also found that, during the IP, company A’s sales on the Community market consisted to a large majority of imported CD-Rs.
Selgus ka, et uurimisperioodi jooksul moodustasid suure osa äriühingu A ühenduse turul müüdud toodangust imporditud CD-R-d.
This casts company A more as an importer than a producer.
Seega on äriühing A käsitletav pigem importija kui tootjana.
It was also noted that company A’s head office and main R&D centre for CD-Rs are located outside the Community.
Märgiti ka, et äriühingu A peakontor ning uurimis- ja arendustegevuse keskus asuvad väljaspool ühenduse territooriumi.
Thus, it was concluded that company A should not be included in the definition of Community industry and that its production should therefore be excluded from the definition of Community production.
Seega otsustati, et äriühing A ei kuulu ühenduse tootmisharu mõiste alla ning tema toodang tuleb edaspidi ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja arvata.
Furthermore, company A has meanwhile withdrawn its support for the complaint and decided to oppose the imposition of anti-dumping measures on imports from the countries concerned which confirms the above evaluation of company A’s shift of interest.
Veelgi enam, äriühing A oli vahepeal loobunud kaebust toetamast ning otsustas avaldada vastuseisu asjaomastest riikidest imporditavatele toodetele dumpinguvastaste meetmete kehtestamisele, mis omakorda kinnitab eelpool äriühingu A huvide suundumusele antud hinnangut.
Company B
Äriühing B
In the questionnaire response by company B, it appeared that company B, in addition to its own Community manufacturing, had also imported the product concerned during the period considered.
Äriühingu B vastustest küsimustikule ilmneb, et äriühing B on lisaks oma ühenduses valmistatud toodangule importinud vaatlusalusel perioodil vaatlusalust toodet.
However, during the IP, these imports have decreased to less than 1 % of its total sales and were therefore deemed insignificant.
Siiski on uurimisperioodi jooksul impordi maht kahanenud väiksemaks kui 1 % kogumüügist ning seda loeti seetõttu tähtsusetuks.
The Commission also received a questionnaire reply from another company (‘B-Rel’) that turned out to have the same mother company (‘company B-corporation’) as company B. Company B-Rel and company B are thus considered related within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the basic Regulation.
Komisjon sai vastused küsimustikule veel ühelt äriühingult (edaspidi B-Rel), mille puhul selgus, et temal ja äriühingul B on sama emaettevõte (edaspidi korporatsioon B). Seetõttu loetakse äriühinguid B-Rel ja B vastavalt algmääruse artikli 4 lõikele 2 omavahel seotuks.
Being company B-corporation’s distributor of CD-Rs for the retail market in the Community, company B-Rel has purchased all the CD-Rs that are destined for the retail market from company B. In addition, company B-Rel has also imported significant volumes from third countries including the countries concerned.
B-Rel on korporatsiooni B CD-R-de turustaja ühenduse jaemüügiturul ning on tarninud kõik jaemüügiturule määratud CD-R-d äriühingult B. Lisaks on B-Rel importinud märkimisväärseid koguseid kolmandatest riikidest, sealhulgas asjaomastest riikidest.
When comparing company B-Rel sales of CD-Rs originating in the countries concerned with those manufactured by company B (which subsequently were either sold directly by company B to business customers or sold via company B-Rel to retailers), it appeared that for company B-corporation the proportion of the imported product sold on the Community market significantly exceeded the volumes of the like product manufactured and sold within the Community.
Võrreldes B-Reli müüdud CD-R-de hulka, mis pärinevad asjaomastest riikidest, ja seda kogust, mille tootja on äriühing B (mille äriühing B seejärel kas otse äriklientidele või B-Reli kaudu jaemüüjatele müüs), selgub, et korporatsiooni B puhul ületas imporditud toodete müük ühenduse turul oluliselt ühenduse territooriumil toodetud toodete müüki.
It was thereafter considered whether, despite the significant import volumes, the centre of interest for company B-corporation was still within the Community and/or whether the imported volumes could be of a temporary nature.
Seetõttu tuli otsustada, kas korporatsiooni B huvid on vaatamata märkimisväärsetele impordikogustele ühendusesisesed ja/või kas toodangu importimine on ajutise iseloomuga.
The findings of the investigation indicate that the imports could not be considered as being done only on a temporary basis (as the volume of own manufactured CD-R would not increase considerably in the foreseeable future even taking into account possible extension of the production capacity of company B).
Uuringu tulemused viitavad sellele, et importi ei saa lugeda ajutiseks (kuna ettevõtte enda toodetud CD-R-de kogus lähiajal märkimisväärselt ei suurene, isegi juhul kui äriühing B suurendaks tootmisvõimsust).
Thus, it appeared likely that company B-corporation would also continue to source major parts of its sales on the Community market from the countries concerned.
Seega on tõenäoline, et korporatsioon B impordib ka edaspidi suure osa ühenduses müüdavast toodangust vaatlusalustest riikidest.
It was also noted that company B-corporation’s head office and main R&D centre for CD-Rs are located outside the Community.
Märgiti ka, et korporatsiooni B peakontor ning CD-R-de teadus- ja arendustegevuse keskus asuvad väljaspool ühenduse territooriumi.
It could therefore not be concluded that company B-corporation’s centre of interest for the manufacturing of CD-Rs is within the Community.
Seetõttu ei saa järeldada, et korporatsiooni B huvide keskmes on CD-R-de tootmine ühenduse territooriumil.
Thus, it was concluded that company B should not be included in the definition of Community industry and that its production should therefore be excluded from the definition of Community production.
Seega otsustati, et äriühing B ei kuulu ühenduse tootmisharu mõiste alla ning tema toodang tuleb edaspidi ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja arvata.
Company C
Äriühing C
The Commission received a questionnaire from the Community producer company C as well as from company C-Rel, a distributor of CD-Rs located in Germany.
Komisjon sai küsimustiku vastused ühenduse tootjalt, äriühingult C, samuti äriühingult C-Rel, Saksamaal asuvalt CD-R-de levitajalt.
It appeared that company C and company C-Rel are related within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the basic Regulation, as they have the same owner.
Selgus, et äriühing C ja äriühing C-Rel on algmääruse artikli 4 lõike 2 järgi omavahel seotud, kuna neil on üks ja sama omanik.
During the investigation period, company C-Rel was distributing CD-Rs manufactured by company C. However, after the end of the investigation period, i.e. as from July 2005 onwards, on the basis of supplementary information requested from all Community producers for the period July 2005 to February 2006, company C-Rel has been found to have started to import significant (at a level equivalent to the production of company C in the IP) quantities of CD-Rs from third countries including significant volumes from the countries concerned.
Uurimisperioodi jooksul levitas ettevõte C-Rel CD-R-e, mille tootja oli äriühing C. Kõigilt ühenduse tootjatelt paluti ajavahemiku 2005. aasta juuli kuni 2006. aasta veebruar kohta lisateavet ning sellest selgus, et pärast uurimisperioodi lõppu, st alates 2005. a juulist, hakkas äriühing C-Rel importima märkimisväärses koguses (võrdne äriühingu C toodangu hulgaga uurimisperioodi jooksul) CD-R-e kolmandatest riikidest, sealhulgas ka märkimisväärses koguses asjaomastest riikidest.
In order to verify whether these imports were of a temporary nature, the Commission sent an additional request for supplementary information, this time for the period March 2006 to May 2006.
Et kontrollida, kas see import on ajutise iseloomuga, nõudis komisjon täiendavat informatsiooni, seekord vahemiku kohta 2006. a märtsist kuni 2006. a maini.
On this basis, as significant volumes of imports continued, it had to be concluded that these imports were not of a temporary nature, but rather a strategic decision to source significant parts of its future sales from imports.
Teabest nähtub, et märkimisväärsete koguste importimine jätkus, seega tuli teha järeldus, et import ei olnud ajutise iseloomuga, vaid pigem strateegiline otsus, et oluline osa tulevasest müügimahust tuleb impordi arvelt.
In accordance with the principles presented above and applied vis-à-vis companies A and B and given that company C-Rel/company C will be shielded from the effects of any dumped imports in the future, it was concluded that company C should not be included in the definition of the Community production.
Vastavalt eespool esitatud ning äriühingute A ja B puhul rakendatud põhimõtetele ning arvestades, et ettevõte C-Rel/ettevõte C ei ole tulevikus kaitstud dumpinguhinnaga impordi mõjude eest, otsustati, et äriühingu C toodangut ei saa määratleda ühenduse toodanguna.
Exclusion of Community manufacturers from the definition of Community production for reasons of cessation of production during or after the end of the IP
Ühenduse tootjate ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja jätmine põhjusel, et tootmine uurimisperioodi jooksul või pärast seda lõppes
Company D
Äriühing D
After the end of the IP, the complainant Community producer company D filed for liquidation.
Pärast uurimisperioodi lõppu alustas kaebuse esitanud ühenduse tootja, äriühing D, firma likvideerimise protsessi.
Several parties argued that, pursuant to Community practice, company D should be excluded from the definition of Community production.
Mitu osapoolt leidis, et vastavalt ühenduse tavale tuleks äriühing D ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja arvata.
In January 2006, the liquidator announced its intention to sell all the assets of company D, including all of its production lines.
a jaanuaris teatas pankrotihaldur, et kavatseb müüa kõik äriühingu D varad, sealhulgas kõik tootmisliinid.
The complainant subsequently informed the Commission that a subsidiary of company D, the complainant Community producer company E, would acquire the production lines of its parent company and would re-install them and utilize them for continuous CD-Rs production at the premises of company E. For this purpose, company E would be re-capitalized and be sold to an external party.
Kaebuse esitaja teavitas ühtlasi komisjoni, et äriühingu D tütarettevõte, kaebuse esitanud ühenduse tootja äriühing E, omandab emaettevõtte tootmisliinid, paigaldab need ja võtab kasutusse CD-R-de tootmiseks äriühingus E. Sel eesmärgil tuleb äriühing E rekapitaliseerida ja maha müüa.
Thus, at the time of the Interim Report, it could not be concluded that company D should be excluded from the definition of Community production as the production lines allegedly were to be reinstalled and re-utilized at the premises of its Community subsidiary, company E.
Seega ei saanud vahearuande ajaks teha otsust, et ettevõte D tuleks ühenduse toodangu määratlusest välja jätta, kuna väidetavalt paigaldatakse tootmisliinid uuesti ja ühenduses asuv tütarettevõte E võtab nad kasutusse.
However, on the basis of supplementary information requested from Community producers for the period July 2005 to May 2006 (i.e. after the IP), this supplementary information showed that production lines indeed had not been reinstalled as production and capacity were in line with those before the acquisition of production lines.
Siiski selgus ühenduse tootjatelt nõutud lisainformatsioonist ajavahemiku kohta 2005. aasta juulist kuni 2006. aasta maini (st pärast uurimisperioodi lõppu), et tegelikult ei ole tootmisliine uuesti paigaldatud, kuna toodangu hulk ja tootmisvõimsus olid samasugused kui enne tootmisliinide omandamist.