natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
According to the arguments the lack of comparability was due to different technology, material, polishing and design used for production of Union and Chinese tiles.
Väidete kohaselt ei ole tooted võrreldavad seetõttu, et liidu ja Hiina tootjad kasutavad erinevat tehnoloogiat, materjale, poleerimist ja mudeleid.
Technologically advanced lines produced high quality tiles with screen printing and several colours.
Kõrgtehnoloogilistel tootmisliinidel valmistatakse kõrgekvaliteedilisi plaate, mida trükitakse siiditrükis, kasutades paljusid värvitoone.
The company explained that there were different printing technologies for screen printing, roto-printing and inkjet printing.
Äriühing selgitas, et siiditrüki, rotatsioontrüki ja tinditrüki puhul kasutatakse erinevat trükitehnoloogiat.
Despite requests for detailed submission elaborating on all these aspects of product comparability, the party failed to substantiate its claims.
Huvitatud isikul paluti esitada täpsustavaid märkusi kõikide nende toodete võrreldavuse aspektide kohta, kuid väidete põhjendamiseks tõendeid ei saadud.
Also the argument on improving the comparability has not been supported by any evidence.
Peale selle ei esitatud tõendeid võrreldavuse parandamist käsitleva väite kinnituseks.
Further, the party itself acknowledged that the product types that would be covered by adding the four suggested criteria, would represent only 0,5 % of the tiles’ market.
Huvitatud isik tunnistas, et tooteliigid, mida nelja kavandatud kriteeriumi lisamine hõlmaks, moodustavad üksnes 0,5 % keraamiliste plaatide turust.
As stated in the report produced by the Hearing Officer, which summarized the position of the company concerned, the remaining 99,5 % products falling under the same PCNs were similar.
Ärakuulamise eest vastutava ametniku aruandes, milles võeti kokku asjaomase äriühingu seisukoht, tõdeti, et ülejäänud 99,5 % sama kontrollnumbri alla kuuluvatest toodetest olid samasugused.
As mentioned above the party did not substantiate the need to introduce the additional criteria nor their potential impact on prices.
Nagu eespool märgitud, ei põhjendanud huvitatud isik täiendavate kriteeriumide lisamise vajadust ega nende võimalikku mõju hindadele.
Hence, in view of the negligible market share of the product types concerned and the explicit acknowledgment by the party that 99,5 % of the tiles were comparable under the PCN concerned, the claim to add additional criteria to the PCN structure had to be provisionally rejected.
Võttes arvesse asjaomaste tooteliikide väikest turuosa ja isiku selget kinnitust, et 99,5 % plaatidest olid asjaomase kontrollnumbri alusel võrreldavad, tuli PCN-süsteemi kriteeriumide lisamise taotlus esialgu tagasi lükata.
It is concluded that the product concerned, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of China and on the domestic market of the USA, which served provisionally as the analogue country, as well as the product manufactured and sold in the Union by the Union producers were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses.
Vaatlusalusel tootel ning Hiina ja esialgu võrdlusriigiks määratud USA siseturul toodetaval ja müüdaval tootel ning liidu tootjate toodetud ja liidus müüdaval tootel leiti olevat samad füüsilised ja tehnilised omadused ja samasugune põhiline kasutusotstarve.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in China, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 punktile b määratakse Hiinast pärit importi käsitlevates dumpinguvastastes uurimistes normaalväärtus kindlaks kooskõlas kõnealuse artikli lõigetega 1–6 nende tootjate puhul, kes vastavad algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 punktis c kehtestatud kriteeriumidele.
Two groups of exporting producers in China requested MET in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Kaks Hiina eksportivate tootjate rühma taotlesid turumajanduslikku kohtlemist vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 7.
It was found that the parties (two producers; one Chinese trader and one Hong Kong trader) allegedly forming one of these groups were not in fact related.
Selgus, et osapooled (kaks tootjat, üks Hiina hulgimüüja ja üks Hongkongi hulgimüüja), kes väidetavalt moodustasid ühe nendest rühmadest, ei olnud tegelikult omavahel seotud.
In these circumstances, the MET claims of the two Chinese producers (Becarry Group and Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd) were treated separately.
Seepärast käsitleti kahe Hiina tootja (Becarry Group ja Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd.) turumajandusliku kohtlemise taotlusi eraldi.
Regarding the other group of companies, namely the Wonderful Group, which consisted of two producer groups related to each other through ownership by the same holding company, only one of the related groups requested MET, while the second one requested only individual treatment (IT).
Teisest äriühingute rühmast (Wonderful Group), mis koosnes kahest tootjate grupist, mille omanik oli sama valdusettevõte ja mis seetõttu olid omavahel seotud, taotles üks tootjate grupp turumajanduslikku kohtlemist ja teine üksnes individuaalset kohtlemist.
Since MET criteria must, however, be requested and fulfilled for all companies within the same group, this MET claim was incomplete and was therefore not considered.
Kuna ühte rühma kuuluvad äriühingud peavad kõik taotlema turumajanduslikku kohtlemist ja täitma selleks vajalikud kriteeriumid, ei olnud nimetatud turumajandusliku kohtlemise taotlus täielik ning tuli seega kõrvale jätta.
MET could thus not be granted to the group.
Seega ei saanud selle rühma suhtes turumajanduslikku kohtlemist kohaldada.
Concerning the Becarry Group, as far as criterion 1 is concerned the investigation established that the producer had an export sales restriction in its business licence which was applied in practice.
Becarry Groupi puhul tehti uurimise käigus 1. kriteeriumi osas kindlaks, et tootja ettevõtluslitsents sisaldas eksportmüügi piirangut ning seda kohaldati ka praktikas.
It was therefore considered that sales decisions were not taken freely but were subject to significant State interference.
Seepärast leiti, et müügiotsuseid ei tehtud vabalt, vaid riik sekkus neisse märkimisväärselt.
Furthermore, for several companies within the group, it could not establish whether and who paid the initial capital into the company.
Mitme rühma kuuluva äriühingu puhul ei olnud võimalik kindlaks teha, kas ja kes oli maksnud äriühingu algkapitali.
With regard to criterion 2, the accounting showed several serious shortcomings which were not mentioned in the audit report.
kriteeriumit kontrollides leiti raamatupidamises tõsiseid puudusi, mis auditiaruandes ei kajastunud.
Finally, regarding criterion 3 it was also found that there were several distortions carried over from the non-market economy system as major assets were not correctly recorded or depreciated in the accounts and no proof of payment could be provided that the company had paid for its land use right.
kriteeriumit kontrollides selgus, et mitteturumajanduslikust süsteemist oli üle kandunud mitmeid moonutusi – olulised varad ja nende amortiseerumine ei olnud raamatupidamises nõuetekohaselt registreeritud, lisaks puudusid tõendid selle kohta, et äriühing oleks maakasutusõiguse eest maksnud.
Regarding Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd, with respect to criterion 1 the investigation found that the company could not demonstrate whether and who paid the initial capital into the company when it was established.
Äriühingu Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co Ltd. puhul leiti uurimise käigus 1. kriteeriumit kontrollides, et äriühing ei suutnud tõestada, kas äriühingu asutamisel oli ettevõttesse makstud algkapitali, ja kes seda teinud oli.
It could thus not be excluded that some funds were provided by the State.
Seega oli võimalus, et osa varadest oli andnud riik.
As far as criterion 2 is concerned, the accounting records showed serious shortcomings not mentioned in the audit report and therefore the accounts were not considered to be audited in line with international accounting standards.
kriteeriumit kontrollides leiti, et raamatupidamises esines tõsiseid auditiaruandes märkimata puudusi ning seega ei saanud raamatupidamist pidada rahvusvaheliste raamatupidamisstandardite kohaselt auditeerituks.
Finally, with regard to criterion 3 there were also several distortions carried over from the non-market economy system as no proof of payment could be provided that the company paid for its land use rights or proof of payment for certain assets.
kriteeriumit kontrollides selgus, et mitteturumajanduslikust süsteemist oli üle kandunud mitmeid moonutusi – puudusid tõendid selle kohta, et äriühing oleks maakasutusõiguse või teatavate varade eest maksnud.
The Commission disclosed the results of the MET findings to the exporting producers concerned, to the Chinese authorities and the complainants, and invited them to submit comments.
Komisjon edastas turumajanduslikku kohtlemist käsitlevad järeldused asjaomastele eksportivatele tootjatele, Hiina ametiasutustele ja kaebuse esitajatele ning kutsus neid üles märkusi esitama.
Following the disclosure of the MET findings, comments were received from the two sampled exporting producers which were not granted MET.
Turumajanduslikku kohtlemist käsitlevate järelduste avaldamise järel saadi märkused kahelt valimisse kuuluvalt eksportivalt tootjalt, kellele ei võimaldatud turumajanduslikku kohtlemist.
However, these comments were not such as to change the findings in this regard as they only attempted to rebut part of the findings, and did not submit any additional evidence in support of the comments.
Kõnealused märkused esitati osa järelduste ümberlükkamiseks, kuid need ei sisaldanud märkusi toetavaid täiendavaid tõendeid ja seetõttu järeldusi ei muudetud.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 punkti a kohaselt kehtestatakse selle artikliga hõlmatud riikide suhtes vajaduse korral üleriigiline tollimaks, välja arvatud juhtudel, kui äriühingud suudavad tõendada, et nad vastavad algmääruse artikli 9 lõikes 5 sätestatud kriteeriumidele.
State officials appearing on the Boards of Directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is none the less sufficiently independent from State interference,
Direktorite nõukogus või juhtivatel positsioonidel on riigiametnikud vähemuses, vastasel juhul tuleb tõendada, et sellest hoolimata on äriühing riiklikust sekkumisest piisavalt sõltumatu;
The sampled exporting producers which requested MET – Becarry Group and Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd – also claimed IT in the event they would not be granted MET.
Valimisse kuuluvad eksportivad tootjad Becarry Group ja Shandong Yadi Ceramics Co. Ltd., kes taotlesid turumajanduslikku kohtlemist, taotlesid ka individuaalset kohtlemist juhul, kui neile turumajanduslikku kohtlemist ei võimaldata.
The Wonderful Group and the Xinruncheng Group also claimed IT.
Wonderful Group ja Xinruncheng Group taotlesid samuti individuaalset kohtlemist.
Regarding Becarry Group, it was found that sales were not freely determined due to the export sales restriction mentioned in recital (37) above, and its IT claim was therefore rejected.
Becarry Groupi puhul leiti, et eespool põhjenduses 37 osutatud eksportmüügipiirangu tõttu ei kujunenud müük vabalt, ning seega lükati selle rühma individuaalse kohtlemise taotlus tagasi.
The other exporting producers were found to meet the conditions of Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation and thus could be granted IT.
Teiste eksportivate tootjate puhul leiti, et nad vastavad algmääruse artikli 9 lõikes 5 sätestatud kriteeriumidele, ning seega võimaldati neile individuaalne kohtlemine.
Thus, on the basis of the information available, it was provisionally established that the following Chinese exporting producers which were included in the sample meet all the requirements for IT as set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation:
Olemasoleva teabe põhjal leiti esialgu, et kõikidele algmääruse artikli 9 lõikes 5 sätestatud individuaalse kohtlemise nõuetele vastavad järgmised valimisse kuuluvad Hiina eksportivad tootjad:
Wonderful Group.
Wonderful Group
In the Notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use the USA as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for China, and invited interested parties to comment thereon.
Algatamisteates teatas komisjon oma kavatsusest kasutada Hiina puhul normaalväärtuse määramiseks asjakohase võrdlusriigina USAd ning huvitatud isikutel paluti esitada selle kohta oma arvamus.
A number of comments were received and several other countries were proposed to serve as an alternative, in particular Brazil, Turkey, Nigeria, Thailand, and finally Indonesia.
Komisjonile esitati hulk märkusi ning võrdlusriigiks pakuti mitmeid muid riike, eelkõige Brasiiliat, Türgit, Nigeeriat, Taid ja Indoneesiat.
The Commission therefore decided to seek cooperation from known producers in these countries including the USA.
Seepärast otsustas komisjon teha koostööd teadaolevate tootjatega nendes riikides ja USAs.
However, only two producers of the product concerned in the USA replied to the questionnaires.
Küsimustikule vastas ainult kaks vaatlusaluse toote tootjat USAs.
A Thai producer also submitted an incomplete reply to the questionnaire; and in any case its product range was not fully comparable to the cooperating Chinese producers.
Üks Tai tootja esitas mittetäieliku küsimustiku vastuse ning tema tootevalik ei olnud täielikult võrreldav Hiina tootjate toodetega.
The investigation revealed that the USA was a competitive market for the product concerned.
Uurimise käigus selgus, et USAs on vaatlusaluse toote turul konkurents olemas.
Several producers were active on the US domestic market and the import volumes were high.
USA omamaisel turul tegutseb aktiivselt mitu tootjat ning impordimahud on suured.
The investigation has further shown that the ceramic tiles originating in China and in the USA have basically the same physical characteristics and uses and that production processes were similar.
Lisaks selgus uurimise käigus, et Hiinast ja USAst pärit keraamilistel plaatidel on samasugused füüsikalised omadused ja kasutusotstarve ning et tootmisprotsessid on sarnased.
It was argued that since the US market is mainly characterized by imports, the ceramic tiles manufactured in the USA and those manufactured in China cover different segments of the market.
Väideti, et kuna USA turgu iseloomustab põhiliselt import, konkureerivad USAs ja Hiinas toodetavad keraamilised plaadid erinevates turusegmentides.
Therefore, the domestically produced product types which would serve as a basis to establish normal value would not be comparable to the product types exported by China to the Union.
Seega ei ole omamaisel turul toodetud tooteliigid, mille alusel määratakse kindlaks normaalväärtus, võrreldavad Hiinast liitu eksporditavate tooteliikidega.
However the investigation has shown that the US production covers a wide range of product types comparable to the ones produced in and exported from China, as mentioned above in recital 49.
Uurimise käigus selgus siiski, et USA toodang hõlmab mitmeid tooteliike, mis on võrreldavad Hiinas toodetud ja sealt eksporditud tooteliikidega, nagu märgitud eespool põhjenduses 49.
It was also argued that the USA would be a relatively minor player in the worldwide ceramic tiles market.
Lisaks väideti, et USA-l on ülemaailmsel keraamiliste plaatide turul suhteliselt väike osa.
However, circa 600 million m2 were produced domestically in 2009 which is considered significant.
USA omamaisel turul toodeti 2009. aastal siiski ligikaudu 600 miljonit m2, mida tuleb pidada märkimisväärseks koguseks.
For comparison, China, the world’s major producer, manufactured 2000 million m2 in the same period.
Võrdlusena tootis Hiina, kes on maailma suurim tootja, sama ajavahemiku jooksul 2 miljardit m2.
One party argued that the USA had strict quality standards and effectively created non-tariff barriers for Chinese imports.
Üks huvitatud isik väitis, et USA ranged kvaliteedistandardid moodustavad mittetariifse tõkke Hiina impordile.
However, the investigation revealed that as mentioned above import volumes from China in the USA were high and constituted the major share of the US domestic consumption.
Uurimise käigus selgus siiski – nagu eespool märgitud –, et Hiinast USAsse suunduvad impordikogused on suured ning moodustavad põhiosa USA omamaisest tarbimisest.
Therefore, the argument that non-tariff barriers in the USA affect imports and thus competition was rejected.
Seepärast lükati tagasi väide, mille kohaselt mittetariifsed tõkked mõjutavad USAs importi ja seega ka konkurentsi.
The data submitted in their reply by the two cooperating US producers were verified on spot.
Kahe koostööd tegeva USA tootja vastustes esitatud teavet kontrolliti kohapeal.
Only data from one producer visited was finally considered, as it was found to be reliable information on which a normal value could be based.
Lõpuks võeti arvesse ainult ühe tootja esitatud teavet, sest seda peeti normaalväärtuse kindlaksmääramisel usaldusväärseks.
The data from the second producer visited were found not to be reliable and had to be discarded, as this producer only reported part of its domestic sales and costs could not be fully reconciled with the accounts.
Teise kontrollitud tootja teave leiti olevat mitteusaldusväärne ning see tuli kõrvale jätta, kuna see tootja esitas ainult osa oma kodumaisest müügist ning kulusid ei olnud võimalik raamatupidamisandmetega täielikult vastavusse viia.
It is therefore provisionally concluded that the USA is an appropriate and reasonable analogue country in accordance with Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Seega tehakse esialgne järeldus, et USA on algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 kohaselt sobiv ja põhjendatud võrdlusriik.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation normal value was established on the basis of verified information received from the producer in the analogue country as set out below.
Algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 punkti a kohaselt määrati normaalväärtus kindlaks võrdlusriigi tootjalt saadud kontrollitud teabe põhjal, nagu on kirjeldatud allpool.
The domestic sales of the US producer of the like product were found to be representative in terms of volume compared to the volume of the product concerned exported to the Union by the cooperating exporting producers.
USA tootja samasuguse toote omamaine müük leiti koostööd tegevate Hiina eksportivate tootjate poolt liitu eksporditava vaatlusaluse toote mahuga võrreldes olevat representatiivne.
During the investigation period, sales on the domestic market to unrelated customers were found to be made in the ordinary course of trade for all types of the like product manufactured by the US producer.
Leiti, et uurimisperioodil toimus USA tootja valmistatud samasuguse toote iga tooteliigi müük omamaisel turul sõltumatutele tarbijatele tavapärase kaubandustegevuse tingimustes.
However, because of differences in quality between the like product produced and sold in the USA and the product concerned exported from China to the Union, for certain product types it was considered more appropriate to construct normal value in order to be able to take into account these differences and ensure fair comparison as described in recital 61.
Kuid kuna USAs toodetud ja müüdud samasuguse toote ja Hiinast liitu eksporditud vaatlusaluse toote kvaliteet on erinev, leiti, et teatavate tooteliikide puhul on õigem kehtestada arvestuslik normaalväärtus, et saaks arvesse võtta kvaliteedi erinevust ning tagada, et võrdlus oleks õiglane (vt põhjendus 61).
Normal value was constructed by adding to the cost of manufacturing of the US producer its SG&A and profit.
Normaalväärtuse arvutamiseks lisati USA tootja tootmiskuludele tema müügi-, üld- ja halduskulud ning kasum.
Pursuant to Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation, the amounts for SG&A and profit were established on the basis of the actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product of the US producer.
Kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 2 lõikega 6 põhinesid müügi-, üld- ja halduskulud ning kasumisummad tegelikel andmetel, mida USA tootja oli esitanud samasuguse toote valmistamise ja tavapärase kaubandustegevuse käigus toimunud müügi kohta.
Export prices for the exporting producers
Eksportivate tootjate ekspordihinnad
Adjustments were made for all costs incurred between importation and resale including sales, general and administrative expenses and profit.
Kõnealuseid hindu korrigeeriti, et võtta arvesse importimise ja edasimüügi vahel kantud kulusid, sealhulgas müügi-, üld- ja halduskulusid, ning kasumit.
With respect to profit margin, the profit realised by an unrelated importer of the product concerned was used since the actual profit of the related importer was not considered reliable because of the relationship between the exporting producer and the related importer.
Kasumimarginaali puhul kasutati kasumit, mille sõltumatu importija sai vaatlusaluse toote müügist, kuna seotud importija tegelikku kasumit ei peetud usaldusväärseks eksportiva tootja seotuse tõttu seotud importijaga.
The dumping margins were established by comparing the individual ex-works export prices of the sampled exporters to the domestic sales prices or to the constructed normal value (CNV) as appropriate.
Dumpingumarginaalid määrati kindlaks, võrreldes valimisse kuuluvate eksportijate individuaalseid ekspordihindu tehasest hankimise tasandil omamaiste müügihindade või vajaduse korral arvestusliku normaalväärtusega.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Normaalväärtuse ja ekspordihinna õiglase võrdlemise tagamiseks võeti korrigeerimiste näol nõuetekohaselt arvesse hindu ja hindade võrreldavust mõjutavaid erinevusi vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 10.
The normal value was adjusted for differences in characteristics - mainly due to OEM branding and for quality differences for certain types not produced by the analogue country producer - for the lower cost of non-porcelain tiles.
Normaalväärtust kohandati omaduste erinevuse osas, et võtta arvesse muude kui portselanplaatide madalamat hinda – peamiselt OEM-märgistuse ja kvaliteedierinevuste tõttu teatavate tooteliikide puhul, mida võrdlusriigi tootja ei tooda.
Further adjustments were made, where appropriate, in respect of ocean freight, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit, bank charges and commissions in all cases where they were found to be reasonable, accurate and supported by verified evidence.
Vastavalt vajadusele võeti kohandamisel arvesse mereveo-, kindlustus-, käitlemis- ja lisakulusid, pakendamiskulusid, laenumakseid ning pangatasusid kõikidel juhtudel, kui need osutusid põhjendatuks ja täpseks ning kui kontrollitud tõendid neid kinnitasid.
Pursuant to Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation, the dumping margins for the sampled cooperating exporting producers granted IT were established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value established for the analogue country with each company’s weighted average export price of the product concerned to the Union as established above.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõigetele 11 ja 12 määrati valimisse kuuluvate koostööd tegevate eksportivate tootjate puhul, kellele võimaldati individuaalset kohtlemist, dumpingumarginaalid kindlaks võrdlusriigis selle tooteliigi suhtes kehtestatud kaalutud keskmise normaalväärtuse ja iga liitu eksportiva äriühingu puhul selle tooteliigi suhtes kehtiva kaalutud keskmise ekspordihinna võrdluse alusel, nagu on eespool kirjeldatud.