natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As concerns the degree of viscosity and hydrolysis: (i) the low viscosity grades are low molecular weight PVA which are difficult to handle, inter alia, resulting in a low production yield, whereas (ii) the high viscosity grades, which are also difficult to handle, are used for high-end glossy paper coatings, a very special type of application where unwanted cracks which are usually formed have to be avoided; (iii) high degree hydrolysis grades are also mainly used for that application and (iv) PVA grades with a low degree of hydrolysis are not soluble in water or form unstable solutions with water.
Viskoossus- ja hüdrolüüsiaste: i) madala viskoossusega toodete hulka kuulub madala molekulmassiga PVA, mis on muu hulgas raskesti käsitsetav ja seetõttu madala tootlikkusega, samal ajal kui ii) kõrge viskoossusega tooteid, mis on samuti raskesti käsitsetavad, kasutatakse kvaliteetse läikpaberi kattes – väga spetsiifiline kasutusala, kus tuleb vältida tavaliselt tekkivaid soovimatuid pragusid; iii) kõrge hüdrolüüsiastmega toodete kasutusala on peamiselt sama ja iv) madala hüdrolüüsiastmega PVA tooteklassi kuuluvad tooted ei lahustu vees ega moodusta veega ebastabiilseid lahuseid.
Such products are essentially used for the production of suspension PVC and at elevated temperatures such products will fall out of solution.
Selliseid tooteid kasutatakse peamiselt polüvinüülkloriidi suspensiooni tootmiseks ja need sadestuvad lahuses kõrgetel temperatuuridel.
The user submitted that to produce the PVB resin it would need for producing its PVB-film, six characteristics of the PVA were of absolute importance.
Kõnealune tarbija väitis, et PVB-kile tootmiseks vajaliku PVB-vaigu valmistamisel on PVA kuus omadust ülimalt olulised.
The combination of the parameters for these six characteristics would make the contested grade unique as compared to all other PVA grades on the market.
Kõnealused kuus omadust üheskoos muudavad vaatlusaluse toote muude turul müüdavate PVA toodetega võrreldes ainulaadseks.
Whilst analysing this claim, it was indeed found that for some applications the technical specifications can be more stringent than for others.
Väite kontrollimisel leiti, et mõne kasutusala puhul võivad tehnilised näitajad olla tõepoolest rangemad kui teiste puhul.
At the same time, however, it was established that as a matter of fact all grades, including the commodity grades falling under the product scope and sometimes referred to as ‘standard grades’, have a unique combination of characteristics.
Samas aga tehti kindlaks, et tegelikult on kõik tooteklassid, sealhulgas ka tootemääratluse alla kuuluvad tooteklassid, mida mõnikord nimetatakse „standardklassideks”, ainulaadse omaduste kombinatsiooniga.
Depending on the desired application, one or another grade would be chosen.
Tooteklass valitakse vastavalt soovitud kasutusalale.
This is valid not only for the application of the user concerned, but for other applications too.
See kehtib nii asjaomase tarbija kasutusalade kui ka muude kasutusalade suhtes.
Consequently, the claim had to be dismissed.
Järelikult tuli väide tagasi lükata.
The contested grade would have very specific end-uses
Vaatlusalusel tootel on väga spetsiifilised lõpptarbijad
The user concerned also contested the Commission’s appreciation of the PVA user market and specifically alleged that the PVB user market would be very diverse.
Asjaomane tarbija vaidlustas ka komisjoni poolt PVA tarbijaturule antud hinnangu ja väitis konkreetselt, et PVA tarbijaturg on väga mitmekesine.
In this respect, as already indicated in the provisional Regulation, the user used this grade of PVA for the production of PVB which is the largest application in the Community, accounting for 25 % to 29 % of PVA consumption, and also the fastest growing application because of the strong increase in demand for PVB-film.
Nagu on osutatud ajutises määruses, kasutas tarbija kõnealuse klassi PVAd PVB tootmiseks, mis on ühenduses suurim kasutusala, moodustades 25–29 % PVA tarbimisest, ning PVB-kile nõudluse suure kasvu tõttu kõige kiiremini kasvava kasutusala.
Further down-stream, the investigation has also shown that close to 90 % of the PVB produced in the Community is consequently used for the production of PVB-film, which is also the eventual application by the user concerned (but it is not the only PVB-film producer in the Community).
Järgnevate turgude uurimine näitas, et peaaegu 90 % ühenduses toodetud PVB-d kasutatakse seejärel PVB-kile tootmiseks, millega tegeleb ka asjaomane tarbija (kes ei ole siiski ainus PVB-kile tootja ühenduses).
It is therefore confirmed, as mentioned in recital 17 of the provisional Regulation, that the specific use of this interested party is one of the main applications which, in view of its market importance, cannot be characterised as not standard.
Seega leidis kinnitust ajutise määruse põhjenduses 17 esitatud väide, et konkreetne kasutusala, kus toodet kasutab kõnealune huvitatud isik, on üks peamisi toote kasutusalasid, mida turu olulisust arvesse võttes ei saa nimetada „ebastandardseks”.
As concerns its alleged specific use, the user concerned also argued that the contested grade could not be substituted by other models which would illustrate this specific end-use.
Seoses väidetava spetsiifilise kasutusalaga väitis tarbija, et lõppkasutuse spetsiifilisust näitab asjaolu, et vaatlusalune toode ei ole asendatav teiste mudelitega.
In this respect, it was firstly established that this user was not buying exclusively from the Chinese producer concerned and already had several alternative sources.
Sellega seoses ilmnes, et tarbija ei osta toodet ainult asjaomaselt Hiina tootjalt ning tal on juba mitu alternatiivset allikat.
In fact, during the IP it sourced less than 5 % of its purchases of PVA for which it claimed exclusion from the producer in the PRC.
Tegelikult hankis ta uurimisperioodi jooksul HRV tootjalt vähem kui 5 % PVAst, mille tootemääratlusest väljajätmist ta taotles.
The remaining purchased volumes were sourced from three other producers in different countries.
Ülejäänud kogused hangiti kolmelt muult erinevates riikides asuvalt tootjalt.
Moreover, it was established that although most of the other grades sold on the Community market indeed could indeed not be used as an alternative to the contested grade, the contested grade itself could be used in other applications, too, and it was made available on the Community market at prices similar to those of other grades imported from the PRC.
Lisaks tehti kindlaks, et kuigi enamikku muudest ühenduses müüdavatest toodetest ei saanud tõesti vaatlusaluse toote asemel kasutada, sai vaatlusalust toodet ennast kasutada ka muudel eesmärkidel ning seda müüdi ühenduse turul HRVst imporditud muude toodete hindadega sarnase hinnaga.
In view of the above, the argument that the contested grade could not be substituted had to be dismissed.
Eespool toodut arvesse võttes tuli tagasi lükata väide, et vaatlusalune toode ei ole asendatav.
The contested grade would be a co-polymer, not a homopolymer
Vaatlusalune toode on kopolümeer, mitte homopolümeer
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the user claimed that low ash PVA would be a co-polymer and not a homopolymer.
Pärast ajutiste meetmete kehtestamist väitis tarbija, et PVA on kopolümeer, mitte homopolümeer.
This claim was based on the fact that it would contain two building blocks.
Kõnealune väide põhines asjaolul, et see sisaldab kahte koostisühikut.
This issue was investigated and it was found that PVA is the result of an initial hompolymeric polymerisation.
Seda väidet uuriti ning leiti, et PVA tekib algselt samanimeliste monomeerühikute polümerisatsiooni tulemusel.
However, the subsequent hydrolysis process is always incomplete (between 84,0 mol % and 99,9 mol %) and to that extent, it could also be argued that PVA contains two building blocks and can be referred to as co-polymer.
Järgnev hüdrolüüs on siiski alati mittetäielik (84,0 mol % kuni 99,9 mol %) ja seetõttu võib väita, et PVA sisaldab kahte koostisühikut ning seda võib nimetada kopolümeeriks.
In order to avoid any confusion, it was therefore deemed appropriate to clarify the product scope definition determined in the provisional Regulation.
Leiti, et segaduse vältimiseks tuleb ajutises määruses esitatud tootemääratlust selgitada.
Therefore, the product concerned is definitively defined as certain co-polymeric polyvinyl alcohols (PVA) based on a homopolymeric polymerisation with a viscosity (measured in 4 % solution) of 3 mPas or more but not exceeding 61 mPas and a degree of hydrolysis of 84,0 mol % or more but not exceeding 99,9 mol % originating in the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan and normally declared within CN code ex39053000.
Seetõttu on vaatlusalune toode lõpliku määratluse kohaselt Hiina Rahvavabariigist ja Taiwanist pärit samanimeliste monomeerühikute polümerisatsiooni tulemusel tekkiv teatud kopolümeerne polüvinüülalkohol (PVA), mille viskoossus mõõdetuna 4 % lahuses on 3 mPas või üle selle, aga mitte rohkem kui 61 mPas, ja mille hüdrolüüsiaste on 84,0 mol % või üle selle, aga mitte rohkem kui 99,9 mol %, ja mille hüdrolüüsiaste on 84,0 mol %, aga mitte rohkem kui 99,9 mol %, ning mida tavaliselt deklareeritakse CN-koodi ex39053000 all.
With regard to Taiwan, no provisional measures were imposed, because, as stated in recitals 29 and 30 of the provisional Regulation, no dumping was provisionally found regarding imports of the product concerned originating in Taiwan.
Taiwani suhtes ajutisi meetmeid ei kehtestatud, sest nagu on sedastatud ajutise määruse põhjendustes 29 ja 30, Taiwanist pärit toote importimisel esialgselt dumpingut ei tuvastatud.
As mentioned in recital 30 of the provisional Regulation, the sole cooperating Taiwanese company, Chang Chun Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (CCP) is the only exporting producer of the product concerned in Taiwan, and it accounted for 100 % of the Taiwanese exports to the EC during the investigation period as reported by Eurostat.
Nagu on märgitud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 30, on ainus koostööd teinud Taiwani äriühing Chang Chun Petrochemical Co. Ltd. (edaspidi „CCP”) ainus vaatlusalust toodet eksportiv tootja Taiwanis, kelle arvele jäi uurimisperioodil Eurostati andmetel 100 % Taiwanist EÜsse liikunud ekspordist.
Both Community producers, Kuraray Europe GmbH and Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L. claimed that CCP was in fact dumping during the IP, and requested the Commission to reconsider its findings with regard to the dumping determination for CCP.
Mõlemad ühenduse tootjad, Kuraray Europe GmbH ja Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L., väitsid, et tegelikult tegeles CCP uurimisperioodi ajal dumpinguga ning palusid komisjonil läbi vaadata oma otsus CCP-poolse dumpingu kohta.
Raw material costs
Tooraine maksumus
Both Community producers claimed that CCPs cost of production was much higher than what was found by the Commission, because the costs for vinyl acetate monomer (VAM), which is the main raw material used in the production of PVA, had been underestimated.
Mõlemad ühenduse tootjad väitsid, et CCP tootmiskulud olid palju suuremad, kui leidis komisjon, sest PVA tootmisel kasutatava peamise tooraine vinüülatsetaatmonomeeri (edaspidi „VAM”) maksumust alahinnati.
They stressed in this respect that CCPs VAM supplier is a related company.
Nad rõhutasid, et äriühing, kes tarnib CCP-le VAMi, on seotud äriühing.
In support of its arguments, one Community producer submitted a study on CCPs PVA business carried out by a consultancy firm, as well as publications on international VAM prices.
Väite kinnituseks esitas üks ühenduse tootja ühe konsultatsioonifirma poolt tehtud uuringu, mis käsitles PVA tootmist CCPs, ja VAMi rahvusvahelisi hindu käsitlevad trükised.
The information submitted was examined.
Esitatud teavet kontrolliti.
A comparison between the VAM prices listed in the abovementioned publications and the prices verified in the course of the proceeding both in Asia and in Europe clearly shows that the prices published in those publications are overstated.
Eespool nimetatud trükistes loetletud VAMi hindade ja menetluse käigus kontrollitud Aasia ja Euroopa hindade võrdlus näitab selgelt, et kõnealustes trükistes avaldatud hinnad on liialdatud.
In addition, the publications themselves state that the published prices are estimates, that actual prices in the market may be either higher or lower and that the best use of the published prices is as indices.
Lisaks on ka trükistes endis kirjas, et hinnad on arvestuslikud ning et tegelikud turuhinnad võivad olla kõrgemad või madalamad ja avaldatud hindu tuleks kasutada näitlikena.
Indeed, even though such prices may be used to monitor trends over time, they do not appear to represent actual prices.
Tõepoolest, kuigi kõnealuseid hindu võib kasutada suundumuste jälgimiseks, ei esinda need ilmselt tegelikke hindu.
Moreover, the investigation has shown that the VAM sales made by the related supplier to CCP were made at prices in line with those charged to this supplier’s unrelated customers and that the prices paid for VAM by CCP were consistent with those paid by other producers in Asia, notably in Japan.
Lisaks näitas uurimine, et seotud tarnija müüs VAMi CCP-le sama hinnaga nagu ka tarbijatele, kes ei olnud temaga seotud, ning et hind, mida CCP maksis VAMi eest, oli sarnane hinnaga, mida maksid teised tootjad Aasias, eriti Jaapanis.
In addition, the VAM costs contained in the study mentioned above were based on a higher VAM consumption rate than the actual CCP one.
Lisaks põhinesid eespool nimetatud uuringus esitatud VAMi hinnad suuremal VAMi kasutusmääral, kui CCP tegelikult kasutas.
Considering that VAM consumption rate depends on the mix of fully and partially hydrolysed PVA, CCPs actual VAM consumption rate was found to be consistent with that of other producers, as verified, both in Asia and in the Community, taking into account the respective product mixes.
Arvestades, et VAMi kasutusmäär sõltub sellest, millises vahekorras kasutatakse täielikult ja osaliselt hüdrolüüsitud PVAd, leiti, et VAMi kogused, mida kasutas CCP, on asjaomast tootevalikut arvesse võttes kooskõlas nii Aasia kui ka ühenduse teiste tootjate kasutusmääradega.
For the reasons detailed in recitals 20 to 23, it was therefore concluded that CCP’s VAM costs had not been underestimated and the claims concerning this issue were therefore rejected.
Seetõttu leiti eespool põhjendustes 20–23 esitatud põhjustel, et CCP kulutused VAMile olid alahinnatud ning kõnealust küsimust käsitlevad väited lükati tagasi.
On the basis of the costs contained in the abovementioned study, one of the two Community producers claimed that in addition to the VAM, other cost elements of CCP’s cost of production of PVA, such as those related to utilities, other manufacturing overheads and SG&A, had been underestimated.
Eespool nimetatud uuringus esitatud kulude alusel väitis üks ühenduse tootja, et lisaks VAMiga seotud kuludele oli alahinnatud ka teisi CCP tootmiskulusid, näiteks kommunaalkulusid, ettevõtte üldkulusid ning müügi-, üld- ja halduskulusid.
However, no specific evidence was submitted to support the cost estimates made in the study.
Uuringus esitatud arvestuslike kulude toetuseks siiski konkreetseid tõendeid ei esitatud.
The actual data verified for CCP on the spot was re-examined and it was confirmed that the correct costs have been used in the dumping calculations.
Kohapeal kontrollitud CCP tegelikke andmeid kontrolliti uuesti ja leidis kinnitust asjaolu, et dumpinguarvutustes oli kasutatud õigeid kuluandmeid.
Calculation of normal value
Normaalväärtuse arvutamine
One Community producer claimed that for CCP, the normal value should have been constructed for all product types, because there is a particular market situation on the Taiwanese PVA market due to artificially low prices particularly as compared to price ranges published for Asia, and also because most of the Taiwanese domestic sales were made to related customers during the IP.
Üks ühenduse tootja väitis, et CCP puhul oleks normaalväärtus tulnud arvutada kõikide tooteliikide kohta, sest Taiwani PVA turu olukord on eriline, kuna hindu hoitakse kunstlikult madalal, eriti võrreldes Aasia kohta avaldatud hinnavahemikega, ning ka seetõttu, et enamik Taiwani omamaisest müügist läks uurimisperioodi ajal seotud tarbijatele.
There is in fact no evidence on the basis of which Taiwanese domestic sales prices could be considered as artificially low.
Tegelikult puuduvad tõendid, mis kinnitaksid, et Taiwani siseriiklikud müügihinnad on kunstlikult madalad.
The published PVA prices are only price ranges of a very general nature given for Asia (excluding China) as a whole, without specifying the actual grades or product types in question, and therefore cannot be used in any price comparison for Taiwan.
Avaldatud PVA hinnad on üksnes väga üldised hinnavahemikud Aasias tervikuna (v.a Hiinas), täpsustamata tegelikke tooteklasse ja asjaomaseid tooteliike, ning seetõttu ei saa neid kasutada Taiwani hindadega võrdlemiseks.
On this basis, Taiwanese domestic sales prices cannot be considered as artificially low.
Seega ei saa Taiwani siseriiklikke müügihindu pidada kunstlikult madalateks.
As concerns the alleged absence of sufficient domestic sales to independent customers, it is confirmed that sales to independent customers were found to be made in sufficient quantities to determine normal value.
Seoses väitega, et omamaine müük sõltumatutele tarbijatele on väike, leidis kinnitust, et omamaine müük sõltumatutele tarbijatele on piisav normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks.
The same Community producer also claimed that, because of an alleged particular market situation due to artificially low PVA prices on the Taiwanese market, the profit used in the constructed normal values for CCP should not be based on the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Sama ühenduse tootja väitis ka, et kunstlikult madalatest PVA hindadest põhjustatud Taiwani turu erilise olukorra tõttu ei tohiks CCP normaalväärtuse arvutamisel kasutada algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 6 sissejuhatavas lõigus nimetatud kasumisummasid.
For the reasons mentioned in recital 28, there is no reason why the profit based on the chapeau of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation would not be appropriate for the constructed normal values.
Põhjenduses 28 nimetatud põhjustel puudub alus, miks algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 6 sissejuhatavas lõigus nimetatud kasumisummad ei sobiks normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks.
The interested parties were informed of the above findings and given a period within which they could make comments.
Huvitatud isikuid teavitati eespool nimetatud tulemustest ning neile anti võimalus esitada teatava ajavahemiku jooksul oma märkused.
No additional information was received from the Community producers or any other interested party which would alter the Commissions provisional dumping determination for Taiwan.
Ei ühenduse tootjad ega teised huvitatud isikud ei esitanud lisateavet, mis oleks muutnud komisjoni esialgset otsust Taiwani-poolse dumpingu kohta.
In view of the above, it is confirmed that the dumping margin determined for Taiwan is less than 2 %, expressed as a percentage of the export price, as mentioned in recital 29 of the provisional Regulation.
Eespool toodut arvesse võttes leidis kinnitust, et Taiwani dumpingumarginaal on väiksem kui 2 %, väljendatuna ekspordihinna osakaaluna, nagu on mainitud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 29.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation, the present proceeding should be terminated in respect of imports of the product concerned originating in Taiwan.
Seega tuleks kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 9 lõikega 3 Taiwanist pärit vaatlusaluse toote impordi suhtes käesolev menetlus lõpetada.
People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Hiina Rahvavabariik (edaspidi „HRV”)
Market Economy Treatment and Individual Treatment
Turumajanduslik ja individuaalne kohtlemine
In the absence of comments in respect of the MET and IT determinations, recitals 31 to 39 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Kuna turumajandusliku ja individuaalse kohtlemise kohta märkusi ei esitatud, kinnitatakse ajutise määruse põhjendused 31–39.
Both Community producers, Kuraray Europe GmbH and Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L. reiterated that Japan should be selected as analogue country for the PRC instead of Taiwan.
Mõlemad ühenduse tootjad, Kuraray Europe GmbH ja Celanese Chemicals Ibérica S.L., kordasid, et HRV võrdlusriigiks tuleks Taiwani asemel valida Jaapan.
They claimed that Japan would be a more suitable analogue country than Taiwan because competition in the Japanese PVA market is far more vigorous than in the Taiwanese market as: (i) the Taiwanese market is dominated by the sole Taiwanese producer, CCP, whereas in Japan there are four producers; (ii) imports of PVA falling under the scope of the investigation into Taiwan are limited, and (iii) the domestic demand for the like product in Taiwan is low.
Nende väitel oleks Jaapan Taiwanist sobivam võrdlusriik, sest Jaapani PVA turg on Taiwani omast jõulisem, sest i) Taiwani turul on üksainus valitsev tootja, CCP, samal ajal kui Jaapani turul tegutseb neli tootjat; ii) vaatlusalune PVA import Taiwani on piiratud ja iii) samalaadse toote siseriiklik nõudlus on Taiwanis väike.
Regarding the alleged market dominance of CCP in Taiwan, it has to be recalled that the level of competition is also influenced by imports and in this respect, as already stated in recital 46 of the provisional Regulation, Taiwan has in fact a higher proportion of imports in terms of domestic consumption (15 %) than Japan (3 %).
Seoses CCP väidetava valitsemisega Taiwani turul tuleb meeles pidada, et konkurentsi taset mõjutab ka import ja nagu on juba märgitud ajutise määruse põhjenduses 46, on impordi osakaal PVA siseriiklikus tarbimises Taiwanis tegelikult kõrgem (15 %) kui Jaapanis (3 %).
As for the claim that imports of PVA would mainly refer to products falling outside the product scope of the investigation, this allegation was not supported by sufficient evidence and thus could not be accepted.
Väite toetuseks, mille kohaselt on PVA import peamiselt seotud toodetega, mis ei kuulu vaatlusaluse tootemääratluse alla, ei esitatud piisavalt tõendeid ning seega ei ole väide vastuvõetav.
As concerns the allegedly limited demand for the like product in Taiwan, it has to be emphasised that the Taiwanese domestic market of PVA exceeds 15000 tonnes, most of which being the like product.
Seoses toote väidetava piiratud nõudlusega Taiwanis tuleb rõhutada, et Taiwani siseriiklik PVA turg on suurem kui 15000 tonni, millest enamiku moodustab samalaadne toode.
In addition, although one Community producer claimed that there is actually limited demand because most of CCP’s sales are made to related customers, the contrary was confirmed by the investigation.
Kuigi üks ühenduse tootja väitis, et nõudlus on tegelikult piiratud, sest enamik CCP müügist läheb seotud tarbijatele, kinnitas uurimine vastupidist.
For these reasons, the claim regarding limited demand for the like product was dismissed.
Seetõttu lükati väide, et samalaadse toote nõudlus on piiratud, tagasi.
For the reasons set out in recitals 36 to 38, the claim regarding insufficient competition on the Taiwanese market was rejected.
Eespool põhjendustes 36–38 esitatud põhjustel lükati tagasi väide, et Taiwani turul puudub piisav konkurents.
One Community producer claimed that both in terms of production and sales, the Japanese PVA market is far more representative of the PRC market than Taiwan.
Üks ühenduse tootja väitis, et nii tootmis- kui ka müügimahtude poolest on Jaapani PVA turg HRV turuga sarnasem kui Taiwani turg.
However, even if Taiwanese production and domestic sales are lower than production and domestic sales in Japan, they are still sufficiently substantial to make a comparison to Chinese PVA and its exports to the EC appropriate.
Isegi kui Taiwani tootmismahud ja siseriiklikud müügimahud on Jaapani omadest madalamad, on need siiski piisavalt suured Hiina PVA turuga võrdlemiseks ja EÜsse eksporditavad kogused on selleks sobivad.