natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
It should be however noted that the downward trend of the profitability as set out in the provisional Regulation is constant over the period considered and not linked to a specific year.
Samas aga tuleks tähelepanu pöörata asjaolule, et kulutasuvuse ajutises määruses osutatud langussuundumus on olnud pidev kogu vaatlusaluse perioodi vältel ega ole olnud seotud mingi kindla aastaga.
In addition, the investigation revealed that the cost for the acquisition of Laporte was taken by the holding company, not by Degussa Initiators Co. Ltd. This factor did therefore not have any impact on the profitability trends as shown in the provisional Regulation.
Lisaks näitas uurimine, et Laporte omandamisega seotud kulud kandis valdusettevõte, mitte Degussa Initiators Co. Ltd. Seetõttu ei avaldanud antud tegur kulutasuvuse suundumustele mingisugust mõju, nagu on näidatud ajutises määruses.
Finally, one of the exporting producers in the USA claimed that the injury analysis was based on wrong expectations of the Community industry to obtain profit margins which are above the average of this industry.
Lõpuks, üks eksportivatest tootjatest USAs väitis, et kahjuanalüüs põhines ühenduse tootmisharu valedel ootustel, mis nägid ette vastava tootmisharu keskmist ületavate kasumimarginaalide saavutamist.
With regard to this argument, it should first be noted that, as it becomes apparent from recitals 120 to 139 of the provisional Regulation, the injury analysis was based on the developments of all injury indicators during the period considered and thus on the actual situation of the Community industry during that period, which gave an objective picture based on verified actual data.
Selle väitega seoses tuleks esmalt pöörata tähelepanu ajutise määruse põhjendustest 120–139 ilmnevale asjaolule, et kahjuanalüüs põhines kõigi kahjunäitajate arengul vaatlusaluse perioodi vältel ning seega ühenduse tootmisharu tegelikul olukorral mainitud perioodil, mis andis tulemuseks kontrollitud tõestel andmetel põhineva objektiivse ettekujutuse.
In other words, the Community expectations as such did not serve as a basis in the injury analysis and this argument was therefore rejected.
Teisisõnu ei põhinenud kahjuanalüüs sisuliselt ühenduse ootustel, mistõttu vastav väide lükati tagasi.
One user alleged that there was no price depression on the Community market, but did not submit any evidence to support this claim.
Üks kasutaja väitis, et ühenduse turul ei leidnud aset hinnalangust, kuid ei esitanud antud väite toetamiseks mingisugust tõendusmaterjali.
Since the verified information submitted by the exporting producers concerned and the Community industry clearly showed a downward trend in average selling prices during the period considered, this claim had to be rejected.
Kuivõrd asjaomaste eksportivate tootjate ja ühenduse tootmisharu poolt esitatud kontrollitud teave näitas selgelt keskmiste müügihindade langussuundumuse olemasolu vaatlusaluse perioodi vältel, lükati kõnealune väide tagasi.
In the absence of any other comments concerning the situation of the Community industry, recitals 120 to 139 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Kuna ühenduse tootmisharu olukorra kohta muid märkusi ei ole, kinnitatakse käesolevaga ajutise määruse põhjendused 120–139.
Effects of dumped imports
Dumpinguhinnaga impordi mõju
In the absence of any comments concerning the effects of dumped imports, the findings in recitals 141 to 143 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Kuna dumpinguhinnaga impordi mõju osas mingeid täiendavaid märkusi ei ole, kinnitatakse käesolevaga ajutise määruse põhjendustes 141–143 sätestatud järeldused.
Imports originating in third countries other than the PRC, USA and Taiwan
Import kolmandatest riikidest peale HRV, USA ja Taiwani
Both exporting producers in the USA alleged that imports from other countries, and in particular from Turkey, may have caused injury to the Community industry particularly in view of their prices which are allegedly lower than the prices from the USA.
Mõlemad eksportivad tootjad USAs väitsid, et import muudest riikidest, ning eriti Türgist, võis ühenduse tootmisharule kahju tekitada, eelkõige arvestades nende hindu, mis on väidetavalt USA omadest madalamad.
In particular, it was claimed that these imports were made in significant quantities and at dumped prices which undercut significantly the Community industry prices.
Muu hulgas väideti, et niisugune import leiab aset olulistes kogustes ja dumpinguhindadega, mis ühenduse tootmisharu hindu oluliselt alla löövad.
Both exporting producers claimed that imports from Turkey had injured the Community industry at least to the same degree as imports from the USA, if not to a larger extent.
Mõlemad eksportivad tootjad väitsid, et import Türgist on kahjustanud ühenduse tootmisharu vähemalt samal määral kui import USAst, kui mitte rohkemgi.
First, it should be noted that Turkey was not included in the complaint because the complainants had not found any evidence of injurious dumping from Turkey.
Esiteks tuleks märkida, et kaebus ei hõlmanud Türgit sellepärast, et kaebajad ei leidnud mingit tõendusmaterjali Türgist lähtuva kahjustava dumpingu olemasolu kohta.
At the time of the initiation of this proceeding, the Commission did not have any evidence at its disposal that contradicted the complainants' statement.
Käesoleva menetluse algatamise ajal ei olnud komisjoni käsutuses mingit kaebajate avaldusega vastuolus olevat tõendusmaterjali.
Secondly, the fact that Turkish export prices may appear to be lower than the prices from the USA when looking at average prices emanating from Eurostat trade statistics may be the result of a different product mix exported by the two countries.
Teiseks võib see, et Türgi ekspordihinnad võivad Eurostati kaubandusstatistikast tuletatud keskmiste hindade vaatlemisel USA omadega võrreldes tunduda madalamatena, olla põhjustatud erinevate tootesegude eksportimisest nende kahe riigi poolt.
Indeed, on the basis of available information, the exports from the USA consist to a large extent of KMPS whereas, neither at initiation stage nor during the investigation, was any evidence available that Turkish exports to the Community show a similar product mix.
Olemasoleva teabe põhjal koosneb USA eksport suures osas KMPSist, samas kui nii algatusetapil kui ka uurimise vältel ei olnud saadaval mingisugust tõendusmaterjali selle kohta, et Türgi eksport ühendusse oleks koosnenud sarnasest tootesegust.
Therefore, no meaningful conclusion could be drawn from differences in average Eurostat prices.
Seetõttu ei õnnestunud Eurostati keskmiste hindade erinevuste põhjal jõuda mingile eesmärgipärasele järeldusele.
Finally, it should be recalled that neither was any such evidence provided by the exporting producers concerned.
Lõpuks tuleks meeles pidada, et ka asjaomased eksportivad tootjad ei esitanud vastavat tõendusmaterjali.
When analysing the situation of the Community industry, the effects of the dumped imports from all three exporting countries concerned were assessed cumulatively for the reasons set out in recitals 48 to 55.
Ühenduse tootmisharu olukorra analüüsimisel hinnati kõigist kolmest eksportivast riigist pärineva dumpinguhinnaga impordi mõju kumulatiivselt ülaltoodud põhjendustes 48–55 osutatud põhjustel.
On this basis, it was considered inappropriate to base the analysis with regard to causation on each country concerned separately.
Seetõttu loeti kohatuks põhjusliku seose analüüsi läbiviimist iga asjaomase riigi suhtes eraldi.
However, even if considering imports from the USA separately, import trends from the USA and Turkey are different.
USAst ja Türgist lähtuva impordi suundumused on aga erinevad isegi juhul, kui USA importi käsitletakse eraldi.
While import volumes of Turkey significantly decreased during the period considered (i.e. by 42 %), import volume and market share from the USA increased.
Samas kui Türgi impordimahud vaatlusaluse perioodi vältel langesid (st 42 % võrra), suurenesid USAst pärit impordi maht ja turuosa.
As far as prices are concerned no evidence of dumping from Turkey was submitted by the exporting producer or was otherwise available.
Hindade osas tuleb märkida, et eksportiv tootja ei esitanud mingisugust tõendusmaterjali Türgi poolt rakendatava dumpingu kohta ja seda ei olnud ka muul viisil saadaval.
Likewise, as far as undercutting is concerned, on the basis of the evidence available, the product mix exported from Turkey was different from that from the USA; in particular in Turkey there was no production of KMPS.
Mis puudutab hindade allalöömist, siis erines Türgist eksporditud tootesegu saadaoleva tõendusmaterjali põhjal USAst pärit tootesegust, eelkõige selle poolest, et Türgis KMPSi ei toodetud.
When comparing average prices from the USA excluding exports of KMPS and average export prices from Turkey, it was found that Turkish prices were higher than the prices from the USA.
USA keskmiste ekspordihindade (välja arvatud KMPSi eksport) ja Türgi keskmiste ekspordihindade võrdlemisel selgus, et Türgi hinnad olid USA hindadest kõrgemad.
On the basis of the above, the conclusions as set out in recitals 144 to 148 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ülaltoodu alusel kinnitatakse käesolevaga ajutise määruse põhjendustes 144–148 sätestatud järeldused.
It was reiterated by several interested Parties that the imports of one Community producer of the product concerned from its related company in PRC were dumped and undercut the Community industry sales prices causing the price depression on the Community market.
Mitu huvitatud isikut kordas, et vaatlusaluse toote import ühe ühenduse tootja poolt oma sidusettevõttelt HRVs leidis aset dumpinguhinnaga ja lõi ühenduse tootmisharu müügihinnad alla, kutsudes esile hinnalanguse ühenduse turul.
Any injury would therefore be a consequence of these imports and thus self-inflicted.
Sellest järeldub, et võimalikud kahjud tulenesid niisugusest impordist ja olid seetõttu ise tekitatud.
Imports of the Community industry from its related company in the PRC only represented a minor part of the Community consumption (less than 4 %) and less than 8 % of the sales of the Community producer in question and were only made to maintain the custom of global customers who would otherwise have purchased the product concerned from the Chinese suppliers at dumped prices.
Ühenduse tootmisharu import oma sidusettevõttelt HRVs moodustas vaid väikese osa ühenduse tarbimisest (alla 4 %) ja vähem kui 8 % kõnealuse ühenduse tootja müügimahust ning leidis aset vaid selleks, et säilitada ülemaailmseid kliente, kes oleksid vastasel juhul ostnud vaatlusalust toodet Hiina tarnijatelt dumpinguhindadega.
None of the abovementioned interested Parties submitted any evidence or explained how these relatively small quantities (in comparison to the dumped imports made to unrelated customers in the Community) could have been the main factor for the price depression in the Community market and this claim had therefore to be rejected.
Ükski eespool mainitud huvitatud isikutest ei esitanud mingisugust tõendusmaterjali ega selgitanud, kuidas need suhteliselt väikesed kogused (võrreldes dumpinguhinnaga impordiga sõltumatutele klientidele ühenduses) oleksid võinud toimida ühenduse turul aset leidnud hinnalanguse põhitegurina, mistõttu antud väide lükati tagasi.
Investments of the Community industry in the PRC
Ühenduse tootmisharu investeeringud HRVs
One of the exporting producers in the USA claimed that the downward trend of the investment activities of the Community industry shown in Table 8 of the provisional Regulation was due to an increased investment activity of one of the Community producers in its related company in the PRC and thus not due to the dumped imports.
Üks eksportivatest tootjatest USAs väitis, et ühenduse tootmisharu investeerimistegevuse ajutise määruse tabelis 8 käsitletud langussuundumus on põhjustatud ühe ühenduse tootja investeerimistegevuse tõusust oma HRVs asuva sidusettevõtte suhtes ning mitte dumpinguhinnaga impordist.
It is noted that the spare capacity of the Community industry was high, i.e. reached almost 30 % during the IP.
Sellega seoses märgitakse, et ühenduse tootmisharu vaba tootmisvõimsus oli suur, ulatudes uurimisperioodi vältel peaaegu 30 protsendini.
Under these circumstances, and taking into account that dumped imports increased significantly during the period considered and took over part of the Community industry's market shares, it was considered that it would have been unreasonable to invest in an increase of production capacity on the Community market.
Antud tingimustes ja arvestades seda, et dumpinguhinnaga import suurenes vaatlusalusel perioodil oluliselt ning hõivas osa ühenduse tootmisharu turuosadest, peeti investeeringute tegemist tootmisvõimsuse suurendamiseks ühenduse turul ebaratsionaalseks.
However, as mentioned in recital 129 of the provisional Regulation, investments were made to maintain existing production capacities.
Küll aga tehti investeeringuid olemasolevate tootmisvõimsuste säilitamise nimel, nagu mainitud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 129.
Under the given circumstances, this was considered as a reasonable business decision against the background of the dumped imports.
Kehtivaid tingimusi arvestades peeti seda mõistlikuks äriliseks otsuseks dumpinguhinnaga impordi taustal.
It was therefore concluded that the decrease in investments in the Community market was not connected to the investment activities of this producer in the Chinese market and did therefore not indicate that the injury suffered was self-inflicted.
Seetõttu jõuti järeldusele, et investeeringute vähenemine ühenduse turul ei seondunud mainitud tootja investeerimistegevusega Hiina turul ega andnud seetõttu tunnistust selle kohta, et kantud kahju oli ise tekitatud.
Other activities of the Community industry in the PRC
Ühenduse tootmisharu muu tegevus HRVs
One unrelated importer claimed that the production, production capacity and utilisation decreased due to the relationship of one of the Community producers with one of the exporting producers in the PRC.
Üks sõltumatu importija väitis, et tootmine, tootmisvõimsus ja kasutusaste langesid ühenduse ühe tootja suhete tõttu ühe eksportiva tootjaga HRVs.
This importer claimed that the related Chinese producer would serve the South Asian market with the lower priced persulphate produced by the related company in the PRC and as a consequence the Community producer decreased significantly its exports to this area, which would be the reason for the decrease of the production volume in the Community.
See importija väitis, et vastav seotud Hiina tootja tarnis Lõuna-Aasia turule sidusettevõtte poolt HRVs toodetud madalama hinnaga persulfaati, mille tagajärjel vähendas ühenduse tootja oluliselt oma eksporti antud piirkonda, mis olevatki tootmismahu languse põhjuseks ühenduses.
It should be noted that the trends with regard to production volume, capacity and capacity utilisation as shown in recital 120 of the provisional Regulation (Table 5) are related to the production volume for products sold in the Community.
Tähelepanu tuleks pöörata sellele, et tootmismahu, tootmisvõimsuse ja tootmisvõimsuse kasutusastmega seonduvad suundumused, mida on käsitletud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 120 (tabel 5), seonduvad ühenduses müüdud toodete tootmismahuga.
The alleged decrease in exports of one of the Community producer had therefore no impact and the importer's claim had to be rejected.
Seetõttu ei olnud ühenduse ühe tootja ekspordi väidetaval vähenemisel mingit mõju ja importija väide lükati tagasi.
One of the exporting producers in the USA claimed that the increase in production cost as a plausible cause of the injury suffered by the Community industry was not addressed in the provisional Regulation.
Üks eksportivatest tootjatest USAs väitis, et ajutine määrus ei käsitlenud tootmiskulude suurenemist ühenduse tootmisharu kantud kahju ühe tõenäolise põhjusena.
This claim had to be rejected.
See väide lükati tagasi.
The reason for the Community industry's increase in the unit cost is outlined in recital 125 of the provisional Regulation.
Ühenduse tootmisharu ühikuhinna tõusu põhjus on välja toodud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 125.
Thus, it is the result of the decrease in production volume due to the dumped imports at stable capacities.
Ühikuhinna tõus tuleneb tootmismahu langusest dumpinguhinnaga impordi tõttu stabiilsete tootmisvõimsuste juures.
As a result, overhead costs were allocated to lower production volumes which increased the unit costs.
Üldkulud jagunesid väiksematele tootmismahtudele, mis tõi kaasa ühikuhindade tõusu.
Since there is a direct link to the dumped imports, the argument of the exporting producer concerned had to be rejected.
Kuivõrd puudub otsene seos dumpinguhinnaga impordiga, lükati asjaomase eksportiva tootja väide tagasi.
Profitability levels of the Community industry in 2003
Ühenduse tootmisharu kulutasuvustasemed aastal 2003
The same exporting producer in the USA claimed also that the reasons for the high levels in profitability in 2003 should have been analysed further and taken into consideration in the causality analysis.
Sama eksportiv tootja USAs väitis ka seda, et 2003. aasta kõrgeid kulutasuvuse tasemeid oleks tulnud täiendavalt analüüsida ja põhjusliku seose analüüsi teostamisel arvesse võtta.
This exporting producer also failed to provide any explanation or evidence as to how the profit levels in 2003 could have broken the causal link between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Community industry.
Ka see eksportiv tootja ei esitanud mingisuguseid selgitusi või tõendusmaterjali selle kohta, kuidas kulutasuvuse tasemed aastal 2003 oleksid võinud katkestada kausaalse seose dumpinguhinnaga impordi ja ühenduse tootmisharu poolt kantud kahju vahel.
The question whether the profit margins realised in 2003 would indicate that the Community industry did not suffer material injury during the IP is addressed in recital 63.
Küsimust, kas 2003. aasta kasumimarginaalid võiksid anda tunnistust selle kohta, et ühenduse tootmisharu ei kandnud uurimisperioodi vältel olulist kahju, on käsitletud põhjenduses 63.
Cost of the merger of one of the Community producers
Ühe ühenduse tootja ühinemise maksumus
The other exporting producer in the USA claimed that the cost increase and consequently the decrease in the Community industry's profitability during the IP were due to the acquisition of a company by one of the Community producers and the consequent significant write-off of intangible assets in their accounting.
Teine eksportiv tootja USAs väitis, et kulude suurenemine ja sellest tulenev ühenduse tootmisharu kulutasuvuse vähenemine uurimisperioodi vältel olid põhjustatud ühe äriühingu omandamisest ühenduse ühe tootja poolt ning sellele järgnenud olulisest immateriaalsete varade mahakandmisest nende raamatupidamises.
However, the downward trend of the profitability as set out in Table 9 of recital 130 of the provisional Regulation is constant and not linked to a specific year during the period considered.
Samas aga on kulutasuvuse ajutise määruse põhjenduse 130 tabelis 9 osutatud langussuundumus pidev ega seondu vaatlusaluse perioodi mingi kindla aastaga.
In addition, the investigation revealed that the cost of the acquisition was not borne by the Community producer but by its holding company.
Lisaks näitas uurimine, et omandamiskulud kandis ühenduse tootja valdusettevõte, mitte ühenduse tootja.
This claim had therefore to be rejected.
Seetõttu lükati väide tagasi.
Uncompetitive behaviour of the Community industry
Ühenduse tootmisharu konkurentsivastane käitumine
One user claimed that the Chinese producers related to the Community industry offered the product concerned on the Community market at levels that were largely above the market prices, while the same producers were able to offer the product at much lower prices in any other given market, and even below the price levels of their competitors in these third markets.
Üks kasutaja väitis, et ühenduse tootmisharuga seotud Hiina tootjad pakkusid vaatlusalust toodet ühenduse turul hindadega, mis olid turuhindadest tunduvalt kõrgemad; samas olid kõnealused tootjad võimelised pakkuma mainitud toodet märksa madalamate hindadega ükskõik millisel muul turul ning isegi allpool oma konkurentide hinnatasemeid nendel kolmandatel turgudel.
This user claimed that the producers concerned should have known that such price offers would be unacceptable for any potential customer and alleged that the Community industry through their links to these producers intentionally refrained to sell the product to certain customers in the Community.
See kasutaja väitis, et asjaomased tootjad oleksid pidanud teadma, et niisugused hinnapakkumised on vastuvõetamatud iga potentsiaalse kliendi jaoks, väites lisaks ka seda, et ühenduse tootmisharu hoidis oma sidemete kaudu nende tootjatega tahtlikult ära toote müümise teatud klientidele ühenduses.
Therefore, the decrease in sales volume and market share on the Community market was due to this uncompetitive behaviour rather than the dumped imports.
Seetõttu on müügimahu ja turuosa vähenemine ühenduse turul põhjustatud pigem sellisest konkurentsivastasest käitumisest kui dumpinguhinnaga impordist.
It was found that only one of the abovementioned producers was exporting the product concerned to the Community during the IP.
Leiti, et vaid üks ülalmainitud tootjatest eksportis uurimisperioodi vältel ühendusse vaatlusalust toodet.
The arguments with regard to the other producer were therefore considered irrelevant and rejected.
Teist tootjat puudutavad argumendid loeti seetõttu tähtsusetuks ja lükati tagasi.
As far as the producer in the PRC is concerned, it did indeed export the product concerned during the IP (see also recital 74).
Mis puudutab tootjat HRVs, siis eksportis ta tõesti vaatlusalust toodet uurimisperioodi vältel (vt ka põhjendust 74).
However, it was found that business decisions were taken completely independently from the Community producer concerned and in particular, price strategy in the Community market was not agreed.
Samas aga leiti, et ärilised otsused võeti vastu asjaomasest ühenduse tootjast täiesti sõltumatult ja hinnastrateegiat ühenduse turul kokku ei lepitud.
The user concerned did not submit any evidence to support its claim that the Community industry should be held responsible for business decisions of its related exporting producer in the PRC.
Kõnealune kasutaja ei esitanud mingit tõendusmaterjali toetamaks oma väidet, et ühenduse tootja tuleks võtta vastutusele oma HRVs asuva seotud eksportiva tootja ärialaste otsuste eest.
Therefore, on the basis of the information available, this claim was rejected.
Seetõttu lükati väide olemasoleva teabe põhjal tagasi.
It should also be noted that the evidence submitted with regard to prices by this user was anecdotal and could not be verified, given that it was submitted outside the deadlines required and at a very late stage of the proceeding.
Samuti tuleks tähelepanu pöörata asjaolule, et kõnealuse kasutaja poolt hindade osas esitatud tõendusmaterjal ei olnud tõsiseltvõetav ja seda ei olnud võimalik kontrollida, sest see esitati väljaspool kehtestatud tähtaegu ning menetluse väga hilisel etapil.
In any case, the price offers shown were offers before negotiation and were therefore not final.
Igal juhul oli esitatud hinnapakkumiste näol tegemist enne läbirääkimisi esitatud pakkumistega, mis ei olnud seetõttu lõplikud.
They also did not relate to the IP.
Samuti ei seondunud need uurimisperioodiga.
Moreover, the actual verified average sales price of the Community industry was well below the levels of the offers shown.
Lisaks jäid ühenduse tootmisharu tegelikud tõendatud keskmised müügihinnad tublisti alla pakkumistes osutatud tasemetele.
It is also noted that as in recitals 117 to 119 of the provisional Regulation, average undercutting levels were found to be significant.
Tähelepanu juhitakse ka sellele, et vastavalt ajutise määruse põhjendustele 117–119 tuvastati oluliste keskmiste hinna allalöömistasemete olemasolu.