natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this regard, all available data indicate that domestic gas prices in Russia were regulated prices which are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas.
Selles osas näitavad kõik kättesaadavad andmed, et Venemaa siseturu gaasihindu reguleeriti ja need olid palju väiksemad maagaasi hindadest reguleerimata turgudel.
Since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the applicant’s records, they had to be adjusted accordingly.
Et gaasiga seotud kulusid ei olnud taotluse esitaja raamatupidamises realistlikult kajastatud, tuli neid vastavalt korrigeerida.
In the absence of any undistorted gas prices relating to the Russian domestic market, and in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, gas prices had to be established on ‘any other reasonable basis, including information from other representative markets’.
Kuna ei olnud võimalik leida Venemaa siseturu moonutamata gaasihinda, tuli algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 5 kohaselt gaasi hinna kindlakstegemiseks võtta „mõni muu realistlik alus, sealhulgas teave teiste tüüpiliste turgude kohta”.
The adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), net of transport costs and adjusted to reflect local distribution costs.
Korrigeeritud hinna aluseks võeti Vene gaasi keskmine ekspordihind Saksa-Tšehhi piiril (Waidhaus) ilma veokuludeta ning korrigeerituna nii, et need kajastaksid kohalikku turustuskulu.
Waidhaus being the main hub for Russian gas sales to the EU, which is both the largest market for Russian gas and has prices reasonably reflecting costs, can be considered a representative market.
Waidhaus on peamine sõlmpunkt Vene gaasi müügil Euroopa Liitu, mis on suurim Vene gaasi turg ja mille hindades kajastuvad kulud realistlikult – seega võib Waidhausi käsitleda kui tüüpilist turgu.
Following disclosure, the applicant claimed that any adjustment of its gas price paid on the domestic market would be unwarranted because the accounting records of the company fully reflected the costs associated with the activity of production and sales of the like product in the country of origin.
Pärast hinna teatavakstegemist väitis taotluse esitaja, et tema siseturu gaasihinna mis tahes korrigeerimine oleks õigustamatu, sest äriühingu raamatupidamisdokumentides kajastuvad täielikult kõik päritoluriigis samasuguse toote tootmis- ja müügitegevusega seotud kulud.
However, when examining cost of production of the like product under Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, it must be determined whether the costs as booked in the company’s accounts are reasonably reflecting the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under investigation.
Kuid algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 5 alusel peab samasuguse toote tootmiskulude uurimisel tegema kindlaks, kas äriühingu raamatupidamises esitatud kulud kajastavad realistlikult uuritava toote tootmis- ja müügikulusid.
For the reasons set out above in recital (18), this was found not to be the case.
Eespool põhjenduses 18 esitatud põhjustel leiti, et tegelikult see nii ei olnud.
The applicant did not address the apparent significant difference between the price for gas paid on the Russian domestic market and the export price of natural gas from Russia, on the one hand, and the one paid by the Community producers, on the other hand.
Taotluse esitaja ei arvestanud ilmset olulist erinevust ühelt poolt Venemaa siseturul makstava gaasihinna ja Vene maagaasi ekspordihinna ning teiselt poolt ühenduse tootjate poolt makstava hinna vahel.
It did also not address the fact that domestic prices for natural gas were regulated in Russia and could not be considered to reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Samuti ei olnud arvestatud asjaolu, et maagaasi hinnad on Venemaal reguleeritud ning seetõttu ei saa eeldada, et need kajastaksid realistlikult hinda, mida tavaliselt makstakse moonutusteta turgudel.
Finally, the applicant did not explain why despite the reasons set out in recital (18), the cost of gas used for the production of the like product sold on the domestic market would be reasonably reflected in its records.
Kokkuvõttes ei selgitanud taotluse esitaja, miks olenemata põhjenduses 18 esitatud põhjustest ei ole siseturul müüdava samasuguse toote tootmiseks kasutatud gaasi kulu tema raamatupidamises asjakohasel viisil kajastatud.
This claim therefore had to be rejected.
Seepärast tuli kõnealune väide tagasi lükata.
The applicant further claimed that by making a gas adjustment, de facto a methodology to determine normal value was used which is not foreseen by the basic Regulation.
Veel väitis taotluse esitaja, et gaasikulude korrigeerimisel kasutati tegelikult sellist normaalväärtuse määramise metoodikat, mida ei ole algmääruses ette nähtud.
Thus, by replacing domestic gas costs by costs calculated as described above in recital (19), and due to the fact that these costs constitute major part of the total costs of the like product and therefore also of the constructed normal value, the normal value would be de facto determined by data from a third ‘representative’ market.
Seega asendades siseturu gaasikulud eespool põhjenduses 19 kirjeldatud viisil arvutatud kuludega ning seoses sellega, et need kulud moodustavad põhiosa samasuguse toote kogukuludest ja seega ka arvestuslikust normaalväärtusest, määravad normaalväärtuse tegelikult kolmanda „tüüpilise” turu andmed.
In this regard, the applicant argued that for market economy countries, the basic Regulation foresees, however, only the following methodologies to determine the normal value:
Sellega seoses väitis taotluse esitaja, et turumajandusriikide suhtes näeb algmäärus ette vaid järgmisi normaalväärtuse määramise meetodeid:
on the basis of the domestic price of the like product in the ordinary cause of trade, or alternatively, in case sales are not made in the ordinary course of trade;
samasuguse toote suhtes tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus kohaldatava siseturu hinna alusel või kui müük ei toimu tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus;
on the basis of the cost of production in the country of origin (plus a reasonable amount for selling, general and administrative costs (‘SG&A’) and for profits) or
päritoluriigi tootmiskulude alusel, millele lisatakse realistlikud müügi-, üld- ja halduskulud ning kasum, või
representative export prices of the like product to an appropriate third country.
asjakohase kolmanda riigi suhtes kohaldatavate samasuguse toote tüüpiliste ekspordihindade alusel.
The applicant concluded that on this basis normal value should not be based on data from a third representative market.
Taotluse esitaja järeldas, et seda arvestades ei peaks normaalväärtus põhinema tüüpiliste hindadega kolmanda riigi turu andmetel.
In this regard and as also outlined below in recitals (45) to (48), it should first be noted that normal value was established in accordance with the methodologies outlined in Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation.
Sellega seoses ja nagu ka kirjeldatud edaspidi põhjendustes 45–48, tuleb kõigepealt märkida, et normaalväärtus kehtestati vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõigetes 1–6 kirjeldatud metoodikale.
However, in order to establish whether domestic sales were made in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price, i.e. whether they were profitable, it must first be established whether the costs of the applicant were a reliable basis within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Kuid selleks, et teha kindlaks, kas siseturu müük toimus tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus hinna tõttu, st kas see oli kasumlik, tuleb kõigepealt teha kindlaks, kas taotluse esitaja kulud on usaldusväärseks aluseks algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 5 tähenduses.
Only after costs have been reliably established, it can be determined which methodology to establish normal value should be used.
Alles pärast seda, kui kulude usaldusväärsus on kindlaks tehtud, on võimalik otsustada, millist metoodikat kasutada normaalväärtuse määramisel.
It is therefore wrong to claim that by determining reliable costs in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation a new methodology to determine normal value was introduced.
Seepärast on vale väita, et usaldusväärsete kulude kindlaksmääramisega kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 2 lõikega 5 võeti kasutusele uus normaalväärtuse määramise metoodika.
The applicant moreover argued that when adjusting cost in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the level of the adjusted costs cannot exceed the level of the respective costs in the exporting country.
Lisaks sellele väitis taotluse esitaja, et kulude kohaldamisel kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 2 lõikega 5 ei saa korrigeeritud kulude tase ületada eksportiva riigi tüüpilisi kulusid.
Otherwise, the methodology used when adjusting cost would be in breach of Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation which stipulates that normal value of the like product shall be calculated on the basis of the costs of production in the country of origin.
Vastasel juhul oleks kulude korrigeerimisel kasutatav metoodika vastuolus algmääruse artikli 2 lõikega 3, mis sätestab, et samasuguse toote normaalväärtus arvutatakse päritoluriigi tootmiskulude alusel.
The cost adjustment was done in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Kulusid korrigeeriti vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 5.
Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not refer to the ‘cost of production in the country of origin’, but explicitly entitles the Institutions to use the cost of production coming ‘from other representative market’ in other countries than the country of origin.
Algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 5 ei ole viidatud „tootmiskuludele päritoluriigis”, vaid on selgelt antud asjaomastele asutustele õigus kasutada peale päritoluriigi teiste riikide ehk „teise tüüpilise turu” tootmiskulusid.
The applicant’s argument therefore had to be rejected
Seetõttu tuli taotluse esitaja väide tagasi lükata.
Finally, the findings set out above in recitals (18) and (19) are also not in contrast to Article 1 of the basic Regulation, as claimed by the applicant.
Lõpuks ei ole ka eespool põhjendustes 18 ja 19 sätestatud järeldused vastuolus algmääruse artikliga 1, nagu väidab taotluse esitaja.
Indeed, although Article 1 of the basic Regulation indicates that normal value should be established by reference to data from the country of export, the basic Regulation makes also clear that this rule is subject to exceptions.
Kuigi algmääruse artiklis 1 on tõepoolest viidatud, et normaalväärtus tuleb määrata eksportiva riigi andmete alusel, on algmääruses ka selgelt märgitud, et seda eeskirja kohaldatakse erandjuhtudel.
The applicant’s arguments in this respect had therefore to be rejected.
Seepärast tuli taotluse esitaja väited selles küsimuses tagasi lükata.
The applicant further claimed that if an adjustment were to be made to its cost of natural gas on the domestic market, such adjustment should be based on either the
Taotluse esitaja väitis ka, et kui tema maagaasi kulu siseturul tuleb korrigeerida, peaks korrigeerimisel aluseks võtma
non-regulated gas prices available in Russia, or
reguleerimata gaasihindu Venemaal;
the average export price of Russian natural gas to the Baltic countries, or alternatively
Vene maagaasi Balti riikidesse suunduva ekspordi keskmisi hindu või
on the basis of the actual cost of production of natural gas in Russia plus a reasonable profit margin.
Vene maagaasi tegelikke tootmiskulusid, millele lisandub realistlik kasumimarginaal.
Firstly, the fact that the Commission could have chosen a different basis does not render the choice of Waidhaus unreasonable.
Esiteks ei muuda asjaolu, et komisjon oleks võinud valida teistsuguse arvestuspõhimõtte, Waidhausi valikut põhjendamatuks.
The primary criterion for the choice of the basis on which to establish the gas prices is that it reasonably reflects a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Gaasihindade määramise arvestuspõhimõtte valikul on peamiseks kriteeriumiks, et see kajastaks realistlikult hinda, mida tavaliselt makstakse moonutusteta turgudel.
It is undisputed that this condition is met with respect to the prices at Waidhaus.
See tingimus on Waidhausi hindade puhul vaieldamatult täidetud.
Secondly, the fact that the volume of gas sold at non-regulated prices in the domestic market was only minor during the RIP and that such prices were significantly closer to the regulated domestic price than to the freely-determined export price strongly suggests that these non-regulated prices were distorted by the prevailing regulated prices.
Teiseks, asjaolu, et uurimisperioodil oli reguleerimata hindadega müüdud gaasi maht siseturul väga väike ning need hinnad olid tunduvalt lähemal reguleeritud siseturu hindadele kui vabalt kujunenud ekspordihindadele, viitab selgelt sellele, et neid reguleerimata hindu moonutasid valitsevad reguleeritud hinnad.
Therefore, the unregulated domestic prices could not be used.
Seepärast ei saanud reguleerimata siseturu hindu kasutada.
It was also considered that Russian export prices of gas to the Baltic States were not sufficiently representative, due to the relatively low export volumes to these countries.
Leiti ka, et Balti riikidesse suunduva Vene gaasi ekspordihinnad ei olnud piisavalt tüüpilised tulenevalt sellest, et ekspordimaht nendesse riikidesse oli suhteliselt väike.
Furthermore, necessary data concerning transportation and distribution cost were not available and therefore, reliable prices to the Baltic States could not be established.
Lisaks sellele ei olnud kättesaadavad vajalikud andmed transpordi- ja turustuskulude kohta ja seepärast ei olnud võimalik kindlaks teha Balti riikidesse suunduva ekspordi usaldusväärseid hindu.
Indeed, by far the greatest volume of gas is exported via the Waidhaus hub which represents therefore an appropriate basis for an adjustment.
Selgelt kõige suurem kogus gaasi eksporditakse Waidhausi sõlmpunkti kaudu, mis on seepärast korrigeerimiseks sobiv alus.
The applicant did not provide any evidence regarding the existence of representative markets, other than the Waidhaus hub, where prices reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Taotluse esitaja ei esitanud mingeid tõendeid selle kohta, et peale Waidhausi sõlmpunkti oleks teisi tüüpilisi turgusid, kus hinnad kajastaksid realistlikult hinda, mida tavaliselt makstakse moonutusteta turgudel.
Consequently, these arguments were rejected.
Seega lükati need väited tagasi.
In this context, the applicant also claimed that it purchased approximately 50 % of the natural gas consumed in its production of fertilisers on the non-regulated market in Russia.
Eespool esitatuga seoses väitis taotluse esitaja ka, et ta ostis umbes 50 % oma väetiste tootmises kasutatud maagaasist reguleerimata Venemaa turult.
The applicant claimed it would therefore be discriminatory to adjust its gas costs while no such adjustments would be made for other exporters with higher cost levels similar to those of the applicant.
Taotluse esitaja väitis, et kui teised taotluse esitajaga sarnased kõrgemate kuludega eksportijad ei pea sellist korrigeerimist tegema, oleks tema gaasikulude korrigeerimine diskrimineeriv.
It should be noted that according to the verified questionnaire reply, the applicant’s purchases of natural gas on the un-regulated market in Russia were marginal during the RIP.
Tuleb märkida, et vastavalt kontrollitud küsimustiku vastusele ostis taotluse esitaja uurimisperioodil Venemaa reguleerimata turult maagaasi väga väikestes kogustes.
As far as the third alternative mentioned under (iii) in recital (28) above is concerned, i.e. to base the adjustment on the actual cost of production of natural gas in Russia, it should first be noted that such alternative is not, as claimed by the applicant, expressively foreseen in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation.
Põhjenduse 28 punktis iii märgitud kolmanda alternatiivi puhul, st kui korrigeerimisel lähtutakse maagaasi tegelikest tootmiskuludest Venemaal, tuleb kõigepealt märkida, et selline alternatiiv ei ole taotluse esitaja väitel algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 5 selgelt ette nähtud.
Furthermore, as mentioned in recital (29), the primary criterion for the choice of the basis on which to establish the gas prices is that it reasonably reflects a price normally payable in undistorted markets.
Lisaks sellele on vastavalt põhjenduses 29 märgitule gaasihindade määramise arvestuspõhimõtte valikul peamine kriteerium see, et hindu ei ole moonutatud ehk teisisõnu, et hinnad kajastaksid realistlikult hinda, mida tavaliselt makstakse moonutusteta turgudel.
Thus, whether the price of gas charged by the supplier to the customers is made at a profit as such is irrelevant in this context.
Seega ei ole selle taustal oluline, kas gaasihind, mida tarnija klientidelt küsib, sisaldab kasumit või mitte.
The applicant furthermore argued that domestic prices for natural gas in Russia regulated by the State are increasing constantly and reaching levels covering the cost of production of gas.
Lisaks väitis taotluse esitaja, et Venemaa maagaasi siseturu riiklikult reguleeritud hinnad pidevalt kasvavad ning saavutavad peagi sellise taseme, et gaasitootmiskulud on kaetud.
Therefore, the price on the domestic market cannot be considered as uncompetitive or unreasonably low.
Seepärast ei saa siseturu hinda pidada konkurentsivastaseks või põhjendamatult madalaks.
This argument has no grounds since the correct standard for choosing a representative market is not whether prices are profitable as such but whether prices reasonably reflect a price normally payable in undistorted markets, as explained in recital (29) above.
See väide on alusetu, kuna tüüpilise turu valiku õige põhimõte ei ole see, kas hinnad on kasumlikud, vaid kas hinnad kajastavad realistlikult hinda, mida tavaliselt makstakse moonutusteta turgudel, nagu märgitud põhjenduses 29.
This is not the case for prices regulated by the State.
Riiklikult reguleeritud hindade puhul see nii ei ole.
Furthermore, this argument also contradicts public statements of the Russian gas supplier (as confirmed by its published audited accounts) that the Russian domestic gas prices do not cover production, transportation and sales cost.
Lisaks sellele on see väide vastuolus Venemaa gaasitarnija avaldustega (mis leiavad kinnitust tema avaldatud auditeeritud majandusaasta aruannetes), et Venemaa siseturu gaasihinnad ei kata tootmis-, transpordi- ja müügikulusid.
Therefore, this argument was rejected.
Seepärast lükati see väide tagasi.
As regards the calculation method of the gas price at Waidhaus as such, the applicant claimed that the Russian export duty payable for all exports should have been deducted from the Waidhaus price, because the export duty is not incurred domestically.
Seoses gaasihinna Waidhausi arvutusmeetodiga väitis taotluse esitaja, et Waidhausi hinnast oleks tulnud maha arvestada kogu Venemaa ekspordi suhtes kohaldatav eksporditollimaks, kuna eksporditollimaksu siseturul ei kohaldata.
Indeed the market price at Waidhaus, which was considered as representative market within the meaning of Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, is the price after export taxes and not the prices before these taxes.
Waidhausi hind, mida loetakse tüüpiliseks turuhinnaks algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 5 tähenduses, on tõepoolest ekspordimakse sisaldav hind, mitte hind ilma maksudeta.
From the perspective of the buyer it is the price it has to pay at Waidhaus which is relevant, and in this regard it is irrelevant what percentage of that price constitutes an export tax and what percentage is paid to the gas supplier.
Ostja seisukohast on oluline Waidhausi hind ning seepärast ei ole oluline, kui suure protsendi sellest hinnast moodustab ekspordimaks ja kui suur protsent makstakse gaasitarnijale.
The latter, on the other hand, will always try to maximise its price and therefore charge the highest price its customers are willing to pay.
Gaasitarnija püüab seevastu alati oma hinna maksimumini viia ja küsib seepärast kõrgeimat hinda, mida klient on valmis maksma.
Given that this price is always well above its costs of production, allowing the gas supplier to make huge profits, its price setting is not primarily influenced by the amount of the export tax but by what price its customers are willing to pay.
Arvestades, et see hind on alati tunduvalt kõrgem tarnija tootmiskuludest, mis võimaldab tal teenida suuri kasumeid, ei ole tarnija hinnakujunduse peamine mõjutaja mitte ekspordimaksu suurus, vaid hind, mida tema kliendid on valmis maksma.
It was therefore concluded that the price including the export tax, and not the price before that tax, is the undistorted market driven price.
Seepärast jõuti järeldusele, et moonutamata turuhind ei ole mitte hind ilma ekspordimaksuta, vaid ekspordimaksu sisaldav hind.
Consequently, the arguments of the applicant in this regard were rejected.
Seega lükati taotluse esitaja väited selles küsimuses tagasi.
The applicant further claimed that the price at Waidhaus should have been adjusted for quality, availability, marketability, transportation and other conditions of sale which would be different in the export and the domestic market of natural gas.
Lisaks väitis taotluse esitaja, et Waidhausi hinda oleks tulnud korrigeerida, arvestades kvaliteedi-, kättesaadavuse, kaubeldavuse, transpordi- ja muid tingimusi, mis on erinevad maagaasi ekspordi- ja siseturu müügi puhul.
It should first be noted that the price of Waidhaus was indeed adjusted by different transportation cost for the export and the domestic market and that the applicant’s claim in this regard was not warranted and had to be rejected.
Esmalt tuleks märkida, et Waidhausi hinda tõepoolest korrigeeriti ekspordi ja siseturu müügi puhul kohaldatavate erinevate transpordikuludega ning et taotluse esitaja vastav väide on õigustamatu ning see tuleb tagasi lükata.
As far as the other elements are concerned the applicant did not provide any further information or any supporting evidence.
Teiste punktide suhtes ei esitanud taotluse esitaja täpsemat teavet ega toetavaid tõendusmaterjale.
In particular, the applicant did not show, nor was there any other information available, that there were differences in quality, availability, marketability and other conditions of sales which would have justified further adjustments, nor did the applicant attempt to quantify these alleged differences.
Eelkõige ei tõendanud taotluse esitaja ning ei olnud kättesaadav ka muu teave, mis tõendaks, et kvaliteedi-, kättesaadavuse ja kaubeldavuse ning muudes müügiga seotud tingimustes esineb erinevusi, mis põhjendaks täiendavaid korrigeerimisi; samuti ei püüdnud taotluse esitaja esitada väidetavate erinevuste koguselisi andmeid.
In this context, the applicant further argued that no adjustments for natural comparative advantages have been made to the price at Waidhaus.
Eespool esitatuga seoses väitis taotluse esitaja ka, et Waidhausi hinda ei ole korrigeeritud vastavalt suhtelistele looduslikele eelistele.
In this regard, it was claimed that since gas is largely available in Russia but not in the Community, prices in Russia would be naturally lower than the price of the exported gas.
Selle puhul väideti, et kuna Venemaal leidub palju gaasi, kuid ühenduses mitte, siis peaksid hinnad Venemaal olema eksporditava gaasi hindadest loomulikult madalamad.
Furthermore, it was alleged that the export capacity would be limited by the limits of the existing gas transportation system which would increase export prices of Russia.
Lisaks väideti, et ekspordimahtu piirab olemasoleva gaasitranspordisüsteemi piiratud võimsus, mis suurendab Venemaa ekspordihindu.
The applicant also argued that the ‘abnormal high profits’ of the Russian gas supplier on the export market should be deducted from the Waidhaus price used.
Taotluse esitaja väitis ka, et rakendatavast Waidhausi hinnast tuleks maha arvestada Venemaa gaasitarnija eksporditurul teenitavad „ebatavaliselt kõrged kasumid”.