natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Article 4(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 of 21 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 as regards the financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) of intervention measures in the form of public storage operations and the accounting of public storage operations by the paying agencies of the Member States [2] provides that expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products is to be determined in accordance with the methods set out in Annex IV to that Regulation on the basis of a uniform interest rate for the Community.
Komisjoni 21. juuni 2006. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 884/2006 (millega kehtestatakse üksikasjalikud rakenduseeskirjad nõukogu määrusele (EÜ) nr 1290/2005 Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondi (EAGF) riiklikku ladustamist hõlmavate sekkumismeetmete rahastamiseks ja riikliku ladustamise toimingute raamatupidamisarvestuseks liikmesriikide makseasutuste poolt) [2] artikli 4 lõike 1 punktiga a on ette nähtud, et rahalised kulutused, mida liikmesriigid on teinud toodete ostmiseks ettenähtud fondidest, määratakse kindlaks vastavalt kõnealuse määruse IV lisas esitatud meetodile ühenduse ühtse intressimäära põhjal.
The uniform interest rate for the Community is the average of the three-month and 12-month forward Euribor rates recorded in the six months preceding the notification from the Member States provided for in point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006, with a weighting of one-third and two-thirds respectively.
Ühenduse ühtne intressimäär vastab määruse (EÜ) nr 884/2006 IV lisa punktis I.2 osutatud liikmesriikide teatisele eelneva kuue kuu jooksul fikseeritud kolme kuu ja kaheteistkümne kuu EURIBORi keskmistele tähtpäevaintressidele paranduskoefitsiendiga vastavalt üks kolmandik ja kaks kolmandikku.
However, if the interest rate notified by a Member State is lower than the uniform interest rate fixed for the Community, in accordance with the second subparagraph of point I.2 of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 a specific interest rate is fixed for that Member State.
Kui liikmesriigi poolt edastatav intressimäär on madalam kui ühenduse ühtne intressimäär, määratakse selle liikmesriigi jaoks vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 884/2006 IV lisa punkti I.2 teisele lõigule siiski kindlaks eriintressimäär.
Given the Member States’ notifications to the Commission, the interest rates applicable for the 2009 EAGF accounting year should be fixed taking the various factors into account.
Võttes arvesse liikmesriikide komisjonile edastatud teavet, tuleks kehtestada EAGFi 2009. eelarveaastal kohaldatavad intressimäärad osutatud eri tegureid arvestades.
For expenditure relating to the financial costs incurred by Member States in mobilising funds to buy in products chargeable to the 2009 accounting year of the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF), the interest rates provided for in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 884/2006 in accordance with Article 4(1)(a) of that Regulation shall be:
Nende rahaliste kulutuste puhul, mida liikmesriigid on teinud sekkumistoodete ostmiseks ettenähtud fondidest, ning mis kaetakse Euroopa Põllumajanduse Tagatisfondi (EAGF) 2009. aasta eelarvest, määratakse määruse (EÜ) nr 884/2006 IV lisaga ette nähtud intressimäär, kohaldades kõnealuse määruse artikli 4 lõike 1 punkti a, kindlaks järgmiselt:
4,1 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in France, Ireland and the Czech Republic;
Prantsusmaa, Iirimaa ja Tšehhi Vabariigi puhul kohaldatakse 4,1 %-list eriintressimäära;
4,3 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Slovakia;
Slovakkia puhul kohaldatakse 4,3 %-list eriintressimäära;
4,4 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in the Netherlands and Sweden;
Madalmaade ja Rootsi puhul kohaldatakse 4,4 %-list eriintressimäära;
4,5 % in the case of the specific interest rate applicable in Greece;
Kreeka puhul kohaldatakse 4,5 %-list eriintressimäära;
5,0 % in the case of the uniform interest rate for the Community applicable to those Member States for which no specific interest rate has been fixed.
nende liikmesriikide puhul, kelle suhtes eriintressimäära kindlaks ei määratud, kohaldatakse ühenduse ühtset 5,0 %-list intressimäära.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1000/2008
Nõukogu määrus (EÜ) nr 1000/2008,
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the People’s Republic of China and India following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 384/96
millega pärast aegumise läbivaatamist vastavalt määruse (EÜ) nr 384/96 artikli 11 lõikele 2 kehtestatakse Hiina Rahvavabariigist ja Indiast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks
In July 2002, by Regulation (EC) No 1339/2002 [2], the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty (the existing measures) of 21 % on imports of sulphanilic acid falling within CN codes ex29214210 (TARIC code 2921421060) originating in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and a residual duty rate of 18,3 % on imports originating in India.
Juulis 2002 kehtestas nõukogu määrusega (EÜ) nr 1339/2002 [2] lõpliku dumpinguvastase tollimaksu (edaspidi „kehtiv meede”) määraga 21 % Hiina Rahvavabariigist (edaspidi „Hiina”) pärineva CN-koodi ex29214210 (TARICi koodi 2921421060) alla kuuluva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes ning jääktollimaksu määraga 18,3 % Indiast pärineva impordi suhtes.
The measures imposed had been based on the results of an anti-dumping proceeding initiated pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation (the original investigation).
Kehtestatud meetmed põhinesid algmääruse artikli 5 põhjal algatatud dumpinguvastase menetluse (edaspidi „esialgne uurimine”) tulemustel.
At the same time, by Regulation (EC) No 1338/2002 [3], the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty of 7,1 % on imports of the same product originating in India.
Samal ajal kehtestas nõukogu määrusega (EÜ) nr 1338/2002 [3] Indiast pärineva sama toote impordi suhtes lõpliku tasakaalustava tollimaksu määraga 7,1 %.
Within the framework of the abovementioned anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings, the Commission, by Decision 2002/611/EC [4] accepted a price undertaking offered by one Indian exporting producer, Kokan Synthetics and Chemicals Pvt.
Eespool nimetatud dumpinguvastaste ja tasakaalustavate menetluste raames kiitis komisjon otsusega 2002/611/EÜ [4] heaks India eksportiva tootja Kokan Synthetics and Chemicals Pvt.
Ltd (Kokan).
Ltd (edaspidi „Kokan”) pakutud hinnakohustuse.
In February 2004, following an anti-absorption reinvestigation pursuant to Article 12 of the basic Regulation, the Council, by Regulation (EC) No 236/2004 [5], increased the rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable to imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the PRC from 21 % to 33,7 %.
Pärast algmääruse artikli 12 kohase absorptsioonivastase kordusuurimise läbiviimist suurendas nõukogu veebruaris 2004 määrusega (EÜ) nr 236/2004 [5] Hiinast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes kohaldatava lõpliku dumpinguvastase tollimaksu määra, tõstes selle 21 protsendilt 33,7 protsendile.
In December 2003, Kokan informed the Commission that it wished to withdraw its undertaking voluntarily.
Detsembris 2003 teatas Kokan komisjonile, et soovib oma kohustusest vabatahtlikult taganeda.
Accordingly, the Commission Decision accepting the undertaking was repealed by Commission Decision 2004/255/EC [6].
Seetõttu tunnistati komisjoni otsus kohustuse heakskiitmise kohta komisjoni otsusega 2004/255/EÜ [6] kehtetuks.
In April 2005, following a request lodged by Kokan, the Commission initiated [7] a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation and Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 [8] on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European Community (the basic anti-subsidy Regulation), limited in scope to the examination of the acceptability of a subsequent undertaking to be offered by Kokan.
Aprillis 2005 algatas komisjon [7] pärast Kokani esitatud taotluse saamist vastavalt algmääruse artikli 11 lõikele 3 ja määruse (EÜ) nr 2026/97 (kaitse kohta subsideeritud impordi eest riikidest, mis ei ole Euroopa Ühenduse liikmed [8] (edaspidi „subsiidiumivastane algmäärus”)) artiklile 19 osalise vahepealse läbivaatamise, milles piirduti Kokani pakutava järgneva kohustuse vastuvõetavuse uurimisega.
By Decision 2006/37/EC [9], the Commission accepted the subsequent undertaking offered by Kokan in connection with the anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings concerning imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India.
Otsusega 2006/37/EÜ [9] kiitis komisjon heaks Kokani dumpinguvastase ja tasakaalustava menetlusega seoses pakutud järgnenud kohustuse Indiast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes.
At the same time, Regulation (EC) No 1338/2002 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India and Regulation (EC) No 1339/2002 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of sulphanilic acid originating, inter alia, in India, were amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 123/2006 [10], to take into account the acceptance of the said undertaking.
Samal ajal muudeti määrusega (EÜ) nr 123/2006 [10] määrust (EÜ) nr 1338/2002, millega kehtestatakse lõplik tasakaalustav tollimaks Indiast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes, ja määrust (EÜ) nr 1339/2002, millega kehtestatakse lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks muu hulgas Indiast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes, et võtta arvesse eespool nimetatud kohustuse heakskiitmist.
Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry [11], the Commission, on 24 April 2007, received a request for an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
Pärast eelseisva aegumise teadaande [11] avaldamist sai komisjon 24. aprillil 2007 taotluse aegumise läbivaatamise kohta vastavalt algmääruse artikli 11 lõikele 2.
This request was lodged by two Community producers (the applicants) representing 100 % of the Community production of sulphanilic acid.
Kõnealuse taotluse esitasid kaks ühenduse tootjat (edaspidi „taotluse esitajad”), kelle toodang moodustab 100 % ühenduse sulfaniilhappe toodangust.
The applicants alleged and provided sufficient prima facie evidence that there was a likelihood of continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and recurrence of injury to the Community industry with regard to imports of sulphanilic acid originating in the PRC and India (the countries concerned).
Taotluse esitajad väitsid ja esitasid esmapilgul usutavad tõendid dumpingu tõenäolise jätkumise ja/või kordumise ning ühenduse tootmisharule tekkiva kahju kordumise kohta seoses Hiinast ja Indiast (edaspidi „asjaomased riigid”) pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordiga.
Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence existed for the initiation of an expiry review, the Commission announced on 24 July 2007, by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union [12], the initiation of an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation.
Olles pärast nõuandekomiteega konsulteerimist otsustanud, et aegumisläbivaatamise algatamiseks on piisavalt tõendeid, teatas komisjon 24. juulil 2007Euroopa Liidu Teatajas [12] algatamise kohta avaldatud teadaandes aegumisläbivaatamise algatamisest vastavalt algmääruse artikli 11 lõikele 2.
Parallel investigations
Paralleelne uurimine
By a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 24 July 2007 [13], the Commission also initiated an expiry review investigation pursuant to Article 18 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation on the countervailing measures in force on imports of sulphanilic acid originating in India.
juulil 2007Euroopa Liidu Teatajas avaldatud algatamisteadaandega [13] algatas komisjon vastavalt subsiidiumivastaste algmääruse artiklile 18 ka aegumisläbivaatamise Indiast pärineva sulfaniilhappe impordi suhtes kehtivate tasakaalustavate meetmete kohta.
This investigation is still on-going.
See uurimine veel kestab.
By a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 29 September 2007 [14], the Commission initiated on its own initiative a partial interim review limited to the level of subsidisation, pursuant to Article 19 of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, since there was sufficient prima facie evidence available to the Commission that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation, on the basis of which measures had been established, had changed and that these changes were of a lasting nature.
septembril 2007Euroopa Liidu Teatajas avaldatud algatamisteadaandega [14] algatas komisjon vastavalt subsiidiumivastase algmääruse artiklile 19 omal algatusel osalise vahepealse läbivaatamise, mis piirdus subsideerimise tasandiga, sest komisjoni käsutuses oli piisavalt esmapilgul usutavaid tõendeid, mille kohaselt olid meetmete kehtestamise aluseks olnud subsideerimisega seotud asjaolud muutunud ning need muutused olid püsiva iseloomuga.
The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2006 to 31 March 2007 (the review investigation period or RIP).
Dumpingu jätkumise või kordumise uurimine hõlmas ajavahemikku 1. aprillist 200631. märtsini 2007 (edaspidi „uurimisperiood”).
The examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 2003 to the end of the review investigation period (the period considered).
Kahju jätkumise või kordumise tõenäosuse hindamiseks oluliste trendide uurimine hõlmas ajavahemikku 2003. aastast uurimisperioodi lõpuni (edaspidi „vaatlusalune periood”).
The Commission officially advised the exporting producers, importers and users known to be concerned, the representatives of the exporting countries and the applicants, of the initiation of the expiry review.
Komisjon teavitas teadaolevalt asjast huvitatud eksportivaid tootjaid, importijaid ja kasutajaid, eksportivate riikide esindajaid ning taotluse esitajaid ametlikult aegumise läbivaatamise algatamisest.
Interested parties were given the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set out in the notice of initiation.
Huvitatud isikutele anti võimalus teha oma seisukohad kirjalikult teatavaks ja taotleda asja arutamist algatamisteadaandes sätestatud tähtaja jooksul.
Questionnaires were sent to all parties known to be concerned, namely to the two Community producers and to all known exporting producers, importers and users.
Aegumise läbivaatamise raames saadeti küsimustikud kõikidele teadaolevatele asjast huvitatud isikutele, nimelt kahele ühenduse tootjale ning kõikidele teadaolevatele eksportivatele tootjatele, importijatele ja kasutajatele.
Replies to the questionnaires were received from the two Community producers and from one exporting producer in India, as well as from four users.
Vastused küsimustikule saadi kahelt ühenduse tootjalt ja ühelt India eksportivalt tootjalt ning ka neljalt kasutajalt.
None of the exporting producers in the PRC and none of the importers replied to the questionnaire nor made themselves known in the course of this investigation.
Mitte ükski Hiina eksportiv tootja, samuti mitte ükski importija ei vastanud küsimustikule ega andnud uurimise käigus endast teada.
The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for a determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and resulting injury and of the Community interest.
Komisjon kogus ja kontrollis kõiki andmeid, mida ta pidas vajalikuks dumpingu ja sellest tuleneva kahju jätkumise või kordumise tõenäosuse ja ühenduse huvide kindlakstegemiseks.
In this regard, the Commission carried out verification visits at the premises of the following companies:
Sellega seoses tegi komisjon kontrollkäike järgmiste äriühingute ruumidesse:
Exporting producer in India:
India eksportiv tootja:
Ardenity, Givet, France, and
Ardenity, Givet, Prantsusmaa,
Users:
kasutajad:
Kemira Germany GmbH, Leverkusen, Germany, and
Kemira Germany GmbH, Leverkusen, Saksamaa,
Robama SA, Palafolls, Spain.
Robama SA, Palafolls, Hispaania.
The product under review is the same as that of the original investigation, namely sulphanilic acid currently classifiable within CN code ex29214210.
Läbivaatamisele kuuluv toode on sama, mis esialgsel uurimisel käsitletud toode, s.o sulfaniilhape, mida praegu liigitatakse CN-koodi ex29214210 alla.
There are basically two grades of sulphanilic acid, which are determined according to their purity: a technical grade and a purified grade.
Põhiliselt on olemas kaks sulfaniilhappe klassi, mis määratletakse vastavalt nende puhtusastmele: tehniline klass ja puhastatud klass.
In addition, the purified grade is sometimes commercialised in the form of a salt of sulphanilic acid.
Lisaks sellele kaubastatakse puhastatud klassi sulfaniilhapet mõnikord sulfaniilhappe soola kujul.
Sulphanilic acid is used as a raw material in the production of optical brighteners, concrete additives, food colourants and speciality dyes.
Sulfaniilhapet kasutatakse toorainena optiliste valgendite, betoonilisandite, toiduvärvide ja spetsiaalvärvide tootmisel.
While there are different uses of sulphanilic acid, all grades and forms are perceived by users to be reasonably substitutable, are used interchangeably in most applications and are, therefore, treated, as was the case in the original investigation, as one single product.
Kuigi sulfaniilhappel on mitmeid eri kasutusalasid, peavad kasutajad kõiki tema klasse ja esinemiskujusid mõislikul viisil omavahel asendatavateks, enamikul rakendusaladel kasutatakse neid vaheldumisi ja seega käsitletakse neid, nagu ka esialgse uurimise puhul, ühe tootena.
As established in the original investigation, this review confirmed that sulphanilic acid is a pure commodity product and its quality and basic physical characteristics are identical, whatever the country of origin.
Samuti nagu leiti esialgsel uurimisel, kinnitasid ka praegused uurimised, et sulfaniilhape on üksnes tooraine ning selle kvaliteet ja peamised füüsilised omadused on päritolumaast sõltumatult ühesugused.
The product concerned and the products manufactured and sold by the exporting producer in India on its domestic market and to third countries, as well as those manufactured and sold by the Community producers on the Community market, have thus been found to have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and essentially the same uses, and are therefore considered to be like products within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Seega leiti, et asjaomasel tootel ning asjaomase eksportiva tootja toodetud ja oma siseturul müüdavatel ja kolmandatesse riikidesse imporditavatel toodetel ning ühenduse tootjate toodetud ja ühenduse turul müüdavatel toodetel on samad põhilised füüsilised ja keemilised omadused ja peamiselt samad kasutusviisid, ning seega loetakse need samasugusteks toodeteks algmääruse artikli 1 lõike 4 tähenduses.
In accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, it was examined whether dumping was taking place during the RIP and whether or not the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping.
Algmääruse artikli 11 lõike 2 kohaselt uuriti, kas uurimisperioodi ajal toimus dumpingut ning kas meetmete aegumine tooks tõenäoliselt kaasa dumpingu jätkumise või kordumise.
It should be noted that, as the Community expanded to 25 Member States in 2004 and to 27 Member States in 2007, export volumes and market shares of imports in the previous investigation and in the current expiry review cannot be directly compared.
Tuleks märkida, et kuna ühendus laienes 2004. aastal 25 liikmesriigini ning 2007. aastal 27 liikmesriigini, siis ole võimalik eelmise uurimise ja praeguse aegumisläbivaatamise andmeid ekspordimahu ja turuosa kohta otseselt võrrelda.
In order to respect confidential business information and in view of the fact that Kokan represents 100 % of imports originating in India, it has been necessary to present the relevant information in ranges or in indexed form.
Konfidentsiaalse äriteabe kaitsmiseks ja arvestades tõsiasja, et Kokan esindab 100 % Indiast pärinevat importi, esitatakse asjakohane teave väärtusvahemikena või indekseeritud kujul.
This examination was based on the verified questionnaire reply from the cooperating exporting producer in India that fully cooperated with the investigation.
Käesolev uurimine põhineb uurimise käigus täielikku koostööd teinud eksportiva India tootja kontrollitud vastustel küsimustikule.
It appears from the information provided by the company and available Eurostat data that all imports of the product concerned during the RIP were accounted for by this exporting producer.
Kõnealuselt äriühingult saadud teabe ja Eurostati andmete põhjal selgub, et uurimisperioodil tuli kogu vaatlusaluse toote import kõnealuselt eksportivalt tootjalt.
It was found that during the RIP around 800 to 1000 tonnes of sulphanilic acid were imported from India into the Community, i.e. approximately 8-10 % of Community consumption.
Selgus, et uurimisperioodil imporditi Indiast ühendusse ligikaudu 800–1000 tonni sulfaniilhapet, mis moodustab ühenduse kogutarbimisest umbes 8–10 %.
In the original investigation, imports from India amounted to 1712 tonnes.
Esialgse uurimise kohaselt moodustas import Indiast 1712 tonni.
People’s Republic of China
Hiina
In the absence of cooperation from any of the Chinese exporting producers, the examination of whether or not dumping was currently taking place had to be based on the information available to the Commission from other sources.
Kuna ükski Hiina eksportiv tootja ei teinud koostööd, tuli dumpingu olemasolu uurimine rajada teabele, mis pärines komisjonile kättesaadavatest muudest allikatest.
In this respect, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation, official Eurostat data was used in order to establish import quantities and prices.
Lähtudes algmääruse artiklist 18, kasutati impordimahtude ja hindade kindlakstegemiseks ametlikke Eurostati andmeid.
On the basis of available data, it was found that during the RIP, 1482 tonnes of sulphanilic acid were imported from the PRC into the Community, i.e. approximately 15 % of the Community consumption.
Olemasoleva teabe põhjal tehti kindlaks, et uurimisperioodi jooksul imporditi Hiinast ühendusse 1482 tonni sulfaniilhapet ehk ligikaudu 15 % ühenduse kogutarbimisest.
In the original investigation period, imports from the PRC amounted to 2950 tonnes.
Esialgse uurimisperioodi jooksul ulatus import Hiinast 2950 tonnini.
In accordance with Article 11(9) of the basic Regulation, the same methodology as in the previous investigation was used to establish the dumping margin.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 11 lõikele 9 kasutati dumpingumarginaali määramisel sama metoodikat nagu eelmise uurimise käiguski.
It is recalled that in the original investigation a dumping margin of 24,6 % was established.
Esialgse uurimise käigus tuvastati dumpingumarginaal 24,6 %.
For the determination of normal value, it was first established for the cooperating exporting producer whether its total domestic sales of the product concerned were representative in comparison with its export sales to the Community.
Normaalväärtuse määramiseks tehti kõigepealt kindlaks, kas koostööd tegeva eksportiva tootja kogu vaatlusaluse toote omamaine müük oli tüüpiline võrreldes tema ekspordimüügiga ühendusse.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative when the total domestic sales volume was at least 5 % of its total export sales to the Community.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 2 loeti omamaine müük tüüpiliseks, kui omamaise müügi kogumaht moodustas vähemalt 5 % äriühingu kogu ekspordimahust ühendusse.
The investigation showed that the domestic sales were representative.
Uurimine näitas, et omamaine müük oli tüüpiline.