natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Subsequent to the disclosure of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was decided to impose provisional measures (‘provisional disclosure’), several interested parties made written submissions making known their views on the provisional findings.
Pärast selliste oluliste faktide ja kaalutluste teatavakstegemist, mille põhjal otsustati kehtestada ajutised meetmed („esialgsete järelduste teatavakstegemine”), esitas mitu huvitatud isikut kirjalikud esildised, milles nad väljendasid oma seisukohti esialgsete järelduste kohta.
The parties who so requested were granted the opportunity to be heard and hearings with the Hearing officer were held upon request of two interested parties.
Seda soovinud isikutele anti võimalus arvamust avaldada suuliselt ning lisaks toimusid kahe huvitatud isiku taotlusel ärakuulamised vastutava ametniku juuresolekul.
All parties were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China and the definitive collection of the amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Kõiki asjaosalisi teavitati olulistest faktidest ja kaalutlustest, mille põhjal kavatseti soovitada lõpliku dumpinguvastase tollimaksu kehtestamist teatavate Hiinast pärit keraamiliste plaatide impordi suhtes ja ajutise tollimaksuna tagatiseks antud summade lõplikku sissenõudmist.
They were also granted a period of time within which they could make representations subsequent to this disclosure.
Pärast seda teatavakstegemist anti asjaosalistele võimalus esitada teatava ajavahemiku jooksul oma märkused.
When selecting the sample of exporting producers, an applicant ‘group’ of companies was included due to the fact that the combined export volume of the two producers included in the alleged group made them together the third largest exporter by volume to the Union market.
Eksportivate tootjate valimi koostamisel lisati valimisse seda taotlenud ettevõtete „rühm”, sest kahe asjaomase tootja liidetud ekspordimaht paigutas nad liidu turule eksportijate seas kolmandale kohale.
These companies claimed a relationship based on Article 143(1)(b) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code [4] which provides that parties shall be deemed to be related if ‘they are legally recognised partners in business’.
Need ärihingud väitsid, et nad on seotud komisjoni 2. juuli 1993. aasta määruse (EMÜ) nr 2454/93 (millega kehtestatakse rakendussätted nõukogu määrusele (EMÜ) nr 2913/92, millega kehtestatakse ühenduse tolliseadustik) [4] artikli 143 lõike 1 punkti b alusel, mille kohaselt loetakse pooled seotuks, kui „nad on juriidiliselt tunnustatud äripartnerid”.
The investigation subsequently revealed that these companies were not related in this sense and, as mentioned in recital 35 of the provisional Regulation, these two producers were treated as separate entities.
Uurimisel selgus, et need äriühingud ei olnud siiski selles tähenduses seotud, ja neid koheldi edaspidi nagu eraldiseisvaid üksusi, nagu on mainitud ka ajutise määruse põhjenduses 35.
Several exporting producers made submissions claiming that these companies should have been excluded from the sample for submitting false or misleading information.
Mõned eksportivad tootjad väitsid oma märkustes, et kõnealused äriühingud oleks tulnud ebaõige või eksitava teabe esitamise eest valimist välja jätta.
These producers further claimed that, consequently, the weighted average dumping margin should have been calculated without taking into account the two sampled companies.
Lisaks väitsid samad tootjad, et kaalutud keskmise dumpingumarginaali arvutamisel ei oleks tohtinud neid kaht valimisse kuuluvat äriühingut arvesse võtta.
In this regard, it is noted that the information provided by these parties prior to the selection of the sample was considered sufficient to consider them as related and given their combined export sales volume to the Union market they were included in the sample.
Sellega seoses tuleb märkida, et kõnealuste isikute poolt enne valimi moodustamist esitatud teave oli piisav, et pidada neid äriühinguid seotuks, ning nad lisati valimisse, arvestades nende liidetud eksportmüüki liidu turule.
Following the on-spot verification visits at the premises of these two companies, the issue of their relationship was examined in detail.
Kahe äriühingu omavahelist suhet uuriti üksikasjalikult nende valdustesse tehtud kontrollkäikude ajal.
The information provided by the companies in support of their claim to be related was verified but found to be insufficient for them to be regarded as related, contrary to the companies’ own view on this matter.
Teave, mille need äriühingud olid esitanud oma seotuse väite tõenduseks, leiti siiski olevat ebapiisav, et tõendada nende seotust – vastupidiselt äriühingute enda arvamusele.
As a result, it was concluded that these companies could not be considered to be related in the sense of Article 143(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93.
Seetõttu tehti järeldus, et kõnealuseid äriühinguid ei saa pidada seotuks määruse (EMÜ) nr 2454/93 artikli 143 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses.
As the companies cooperated in the investigation, including by providing information with regard to their alleged relationship, it is considered that there are no grounds to exclude them from the sample.
Kuna äriühingud tegid uurimises koostööd, esitades muu hulgas teavet oma väidetava seotuse kohta, ei olnud mingit põhjust neid valimist välja jätta.
Moreover, even assuming that selecting other companies into the sample during the investigation would have led to a considerably larger volume of exports towards the Union market during the IP being covered, it would have been difficult, within the time available, to investigate any newly selected companies.
Pealegi, isegi kui oletada, et teiste äriühingute kaasamine valimisse uurimise ajal oleks andnud uurimisperioodil tulemuseks tunduvalt suurema eksportmüügi liitu, oleks allesjäänud aja jooksul olnud raske neid kiiruga valitud äriühinguid uurida.
Therefore, in spite of the fact that these companies have turned out not to be related, the sample continues to comply with the criteria foreseen in the basic Regulation.
Sellepärast on valim – hoolimata sellest, et kõnealused äriühingud ei osutunud seotuks – kooskõlas algmääruses sätestatud nõuetega.
Finally it is pointed out that there was no evidence that the companies deliberately alleged being related in order to be included in the sample.
Samuti ei ole mingeid tõendeid selle kohta, nagu oleks need äriühingud meelega väitnud oma seotust, et saada valimisse kaasatud.
In the absence of any other comments, recitals 5 and 6 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Kuna muud märkused puuduvad, kinnitatakse ajutise määruse põhjendused 5 ja 6.
Following the imposition of the provisional measures, one party claimed that none of the Union producers supporting the complaint had provided sample responses and should therefore be regarded as not cooperating with the proceeding.
Pärast ajutiste meetmete kehtestamist väitis üks isik, et kuna ükski kaebust toetavatest liidu tootjatest ei esitanud küsimustiku vastuseid, tuleks neid käsitada uurimise käigus koostööst hoiduvatena.
This argument was maintained following final disclosure.
See väide jäi jõusse ka pärast lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemist.
With respect to the claim that the lack of sample responses would indicate that the Union producers supporting the complaint did not cooperate, it is recalled that CET was the legal representative of all complaining companies.
Vastuseks väitele, mille kohaselt näitab küsimustiku vastuste puudumine kaebust toetavate liidu tootjate hoidumist koostööst, tuleb meenutada, et CET on kõigi kaebuse esitanud äriühingute seaduslik esindaja.
It follows that the complaining producers were fully cooperating since they provided all the necessary information at the complaint stage and the necessary updates as regards the IP data were provided on their behalf by their legal representative during the investigation.
Järelikult tegid kaebuses esitanud tootjad täielikku koostööd, kuivõrd nad olid edastanud kogu vajaliku teabe kaebuse esitamise etapis ning kuna nende seaduslik esindaja oli edastanud nende eest uurimisperioodi andmete nõutavad ajakohastused.
One interested party claimed that the division of the Union industry into different segments and the geographical coverage of the sample meant that it was not statistically valid.
Üks huvitatud isik väitis, et valim ei ole statistiliselt korrektne liidu tootmisharu eri kategooriatesse jaotamise ja valimi geograafilise katvuse tõttu.
In this respect it is recalled that the Union ceramic tiles industry is highly fragmented with over 500 producers.
Liidu keraamiliste plaatide tööstus on tugevalt killustatud tootmisharu, kuhu kuulub üle 500 tootja.
It was also found that the industry was represented in all three industry segments, i.e. large, medium and small companies.
Sellega seoses tehti kindlaks, et esindatud olid kõik kolm äriühingute kategooriat – st suured, keskmise suurusega ja väikesed ettevõtted.
In order to ensure that the results of large companies did not dominate the injury analysis but that the situation of the small companies, collectively accounting for the biggest share of the Union production, was properly reflected, it was considered that all segments (i.e. small, medium-sized and large companies) should be represented in the sample.
Et kahjuanalüüsis ei domineeriks suurte äriühingute tulemused, vaid et see kajastaks asjakohaselt ka väikeste äriühingute olukorda, kelle toodang moodustab valdava osa liidu toodangust, peeti vajalikuks kaasata valimisse nii väikesed, keskmise suurusega kui ka suured äriühingud.
Within each of the segments, the largest companies were chosen, provided that geographical representativeness could be assured.
Igast kategooriast valiti suuremad ettevõtted, kui geograafiline katvus seda lubas.
One interested party also claimed that the Commission had failed to show that the sample remained representative after the withdrawal of the Polish producer and that it was in any event insufficiently representative in terms of sales volume in the Union market.
Ühe huvitatud isiku väitel ei olnud valim pärast Poola tootja väljajätmist enam representatiivne liidu turule suunatud müügi mahu osas ning komisjon ei suutnud selle representatiivsust tõendada.
It is correct that one Polish producer decided to cease cooperation and therefore had to be excluded from the sample.
Tõepoolest, üks Poola tootja loobus koostööst ja tuli seetõttu valimist välja jätta.
However, it is not necessary for a sample to reflect the exact geographical spread and weight of the producing Member States in order to be representative.
Siiski ei sõltu valimi representatiivsus sellest, kui täpselt see kajastab kõigi tootvate liikmesriikide geograafilist paiknemist ja osakaalu.
Given the fact that geographical spread is only one of the factors to take into account to ensure representativeness, such an approach would not have been administratively practicable.
Niisugune lähenemisviis ei ole praktikas õigustatud, kuna geograafiline katvus on vaid üks valimi representatiivsust tagavatest teguritest.
Rather, it is sufficient that the sample largely reflects proportions of the major manufacturing countries involved.
Tegelikult piisab sellest, kui valim peegeldab laias laastus peamiste tootjariikide proportsionaalset osakaalu.
Assessed against this criterion, it was found that the withdrawal of the Polish company did not affect the overall representativeness of the sample.
Seda kriteeriumi järgides leiti, et Poola äriühingu väljajätmine valimist ei mõjutanud selle üldist representatiivsust.
On this basis, it is confirmed that the sample of Union producers was sufficiently representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Selle alusel kinnitatakse, et liidu tootjate valim oli algmääruse artikli 17 tähenduses piisavalt representatiivne.
As concerns the claim of the overall representativity of the sample, it is recalled that given the fact that the Union industry is highly fragmented, it is unavoidable that the companies in the sample cover a relatively small portion of the overall Union production.
Seoses valimi üldise representatiivsusega tuleb märkida, et liidu tootmisharu suure killustatuse tõttu on vältimatu, et valimisse kuuluvad äriühingud katavad vaid suhteliselt väikest osa liidu kogutoodangust.
In any event Article 17 of the basic Regulation sets out that investigations may be limited to samples which are either statistically valid, or which constitute the largest representative volume of production, sales, or exports which can be reasonably investigated, without, however, indicating any specific quantitative threshold as to the level of such representative volume.
Igal juhul on algmääruse artiklis 17 sätestatud, et uurimine võib piirduda statistiliselt õigete valimitega või suurima tüüpilise toodangu-, müügi- või ekspordimahuga, mida on uurijate käsutuses oleva aja jooksul võimalik uurida, ilma et seda tüüpilist mahtu kuidagi piiritletaks.
In view of the above it is confirmed that the sample selected was representative within the meaning of Article 17 of the basic Regulation.
Eelnevale tuginedes kinnitatakse, et valim oli representatiivne algmääruse artikli 17 tähenduses.
One interested party claimed that the Commission failed to include in the sample Union producers which offer low sales prices and which are located in countries like Poland and the Czech Republic; therefore, the sample so obtained would not be representative of the Union producers’ average sales prices.
Ühe huvitatud isiku väitel ei kaasanud komisjon valimisse sellistes riikides nagu Poola ja Tšehhi Vabariik asuvaid liidu tootjaid, kes pakuvad madalaid müügihindu. Seega ei peegeldanud valim piisavalt liidu tootjate keskmisi müügihindu.
In response to the above claim, the Commission found that the average sales prices of the Union industry’s sample were in the same range as the average sales prices in the publicly available statistics.
Komisjon tuvastas seda väidet uurides, et valimisse kuuluvate liidu tootjate keskmised müügihinnad olid samas suurusjärgus mis avalikult kättesaadavates statistikaaruannetes esitatud keskmised müügihinnad.
In any event, and as explained in recital 125, the investigation has shown that even taking into consideration publicly available prices for those countries, the final findings would not change in any meaningful way.
Igal juhul – nagu on selgitatud ka põhjenduses 125 – näitas uurimine, et lõppjäreldused ei muutu oluliselt, kui nende riikide puhul kasutatakse statistikas avaldatud hindu.
A number of parties made comments concerning the methodology used to select the Union industry sample as compared to the selection of the sample of Chinese exporters, which was solely based on export volume.
Rida isikuid esitas märkusi liidu valimi koostamise meetodi kohta ning võrdles seda Hiina eksportijate valimi koostamise põhimõttega, mis põhines vaid ekspordimahul.
As to the different methodologies used for selecting a sample of Union producers on the one hand and Chinese exporting producers on the other hand, it should be noted that the methodologies were used according to the objectives of the sampling exercise.
Liidu tootjate ja Hiina eksportivate tootjate valimite erinevate koostamismeetodite kohta tuleb märkida, et need valiti vastavalt väljavõttelise uuringu eesmärkidele.
Concerning the Union industry, the Commission had to assess the situation of the whole industry and therefore the criteria that would ensure the most representative picture of the entire sector were chosen.
Kuna komisjon pidi hindama liidu tootmisharu üldist olukorda, valiti kriteerium, mis annaks sektorist kõige representatiivsema ülevaate.
As far as the Chinese exporters are concerned, it was considered appropriate to choose a sample based on the largest volume of exports of the product concerned and thus the largest exporters were sampled.
Hiina eksportijate puhul peeti sobivaks koostada valim vaatlusaluse toote suurima ekspordimahu põhjal, mistõttu võeti valimisse vaid suurimad eksportijad.
It is also noted that there is no obligation in Article 17 of the basic Regulation for both samples to be selected on the basis of the same criteria.
Algmääruse artiklis 17 ei ole ette nähtud, et mõlemad valimid peaksid olema koostatud sama kriteeriumi alusel.
Furthermore, in this case, before finalising the sample of Chinese exporting producers, the cooperating parties in China as well as the Chinese authorities were given the opportunity to comment on the proposed sample.
Pealegi said kõnealusel juhul enne Hiina eksportivate tootjate valimi lõplikku kinnitamist nii koostööd tegevad isikud Hiinas kui ka selle riigi ametivõimud selle kohta märkusi esitada.
Comments were received with regard to the composition of the sample but not with regard to its representativity.
Märkusi saadi valimi koosseisu, aga mitte selle representatiivsuse kohta.
Following the final disclosure, an importers’ association claimed that Article 17 of the basic Regulation implied that samples of Union producers and of exporting producers should be made on the basis of the same criteria.
Pärast lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemist väitis üks importijate ühendus, et vastavalt algmääruse artiklile 17 tuleb liidu tootjate ja eksportivate tootjate valimid moodustada sama kriteeriumi alusel.
Several Chinese parties continued to claim following final disclosure that there was discrimination between the treatment of Chinese exporting producers and Union producers in choosing the respective samples.
Ka mõned Hiina osapooled jäid pärast lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemist väite juurde, nagu olnuks Hiina eksportivate tootjate ja liidu tootjate valimite moodustamisel tegemist diskrimineerimisega.
In response to the claim following the final disclosure that the same criteria should be applied in the selection of the samples of Union producers and exporting producers, for the reasons outlined in recital 23, it is considered that these samples may be made on the basis of different criteria.
Vastuseks sellele väitele, mille juurde jäädi ka pärast lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemist ja mille kohaselt tulnuks liidu tootjate ja eksportivate tootjate valimite moodustamisel kohaldada sama kriteeriumi põhjenduses 23 esitatud põhjustel, leitakse, et need valimid võib moodustada erinevate kriteeriumide alusel.
With regard to the fact that, as mentioned in recital 23, no comments were received in relation to the representativity of the sample, these parties claimed that, at the time of selecting the samples, the Chinese parties were not informed that different selection criteria were being used for the selection of the samples and so could not comment on this fact.
Mis puudutab põhjenduses 23 mainitud asjaolu, et valimi representatiivsuse kohta ei esitatud märkusi, siis väidavad need isikud, et valimite koostamise ajal ei olnud Hiina osapooled teadlikud sellest, et kasutati erinevaid valikukriteeriume, ega saanud seetõttu seda aspekti kommenteerida.
Concerning the fact that the Chinese parties were not informed of the different criteria used in selecting the samples, it is standard practice, in line with Article 17(2) of the basic Regulation, to consult parties on the composition of proposed samples for their own category, e.g. exporting producers will only be consulted on the proposed sample of exporting producers.
Seoses tõsiasjaga, et Hiina osapooled ei olnud teadlikud sellest, et valimite koostamisel kasutati erinevaid kriteeriume, tuleb rõhutada, et kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 17 lõikega 2 on väljakujunenud tavaks, et osapoolte arvamust küsitakse vaid nende oma kategooria valimite kohta, st eksportivad tootjad saavad esitada märkusi vaid kavandatava eksportivate tootjate valimi kohta.
In these circumstances, these parties’ claim regarding the inability to comment on the different selection criteria for the different samples at the time of selection of the samples is disregarded.
Neil asjaoludel jäetakse arvesse võtmata kõnealuste isikute väide, mille kohaselt nad ei saanud esitada märkusi erinevate valimite koostamise kriteeriumide kohta nende valimite koostamisel ajal.
Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed that by taking the different segments into account for the selection of the sample, the Commission breached Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation that lays down that the analysis should be made in relation to the Union industry as a whole and not to certain groups or types of companies.
Lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemise järel väitis üks huvitatud isik, et erinevaid ettevõttekategooriaid valimisse kaasates rikkus komisjon algmääruse artikli 4 lõiget 1, mis näeb ette, et analüüsida tuleb liidu tootmisharu tervikuna, mitte teatavaid ettevõtterühmi või -tüüpe.
The claim that the division of the sample in three segments is in breach of Article 4(1) of the basic Regulation cannot be upheld.
Õigustatud ei ole väide, nagu rikutaks valimi kolme kategooriasse jagamisega algmääruse artikli 4 lõiget 1.
As can be derived from recital 23, the sample selected represented the whole Union industry and not only a specific group of companies, as alleged by the party concerned.
Vastavalt põhjenduses 23 selgitatule esindas valim liidu tootmisharu tervikuna, mitte vaid teatavat ettevõtete rühma, nagu väidab asjaomane isik.
Furthermore, Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation specifically allows for the selection of a sample in order to determine injury.
Pealegi on algmääruse artikli 17 lõikes 1 selgelt lubatud koostada kahju kindlakstegemiseks valim.
This claim was therefore unfounded and rejected.
Seetõttu leiti kõnealune väide olevat põhjendamatu ja lükati tagasi.
Following final disclosure, the same interested party challenged the fact that the geographical spread had been taken into account for the selection of the sample, arguing that the Union is a single market and that Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation can only allow for a sample to be selected based on the largest representative volume.
Pärast lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemist vaidlustas seesama huvitatud isik geograafilise katvuse arvessevõtu valimi koostamisel, väites, et liit on ühisturg ja et algmääruse artikli 17 lõike 1 alusel tohib valimi moodustada vaid suurima representatiivse ekspordimahu põhjal.
As for the claim on the use of the criterion of geographical spread, it is observed that this is a fragmented industry and in order to assess representativeness of the selected companies, the producers’ geographical spread amongst Member States is used to reflect the different situations that can be encountered in the Union.
Seoses geograafilise katvuse kriteeriumi kasutamisega tuleb märkida, et tegemist on killustatud tootmisharuga ning valitud ettevõtete representatiivsuse hindamiseks tuli võtta arvesse tootjate geograafilist paiknemist liikmesriikides, et valim kajastaks liidus ettetulevaid erinevaid olukordi.
The sample covers Member States where approximately 90 % of the Union production is manufactured; after the withdrawal of the Polish company, this level remained high at approximately 80 %.
Valim hõlmab liikmesriike, kus valmib umbes 90 % liidu toodangust, ning isegi pärast Poola ettevõtja väljajätmist on see protsent suur – umbes 80 %.
Thus, the methodology applied by the Commission ensured that the sample was representative of the Union production as a whole and complied with Article 17(1) of the basic Regulation.
Seega tagas komisjoni kasutatud meetod, et valim kajastab liidu tootmist tervikuna ja on kooskõlas algmääruse artikli 17 lõikega 1.
Following final disclosure, one interested party claimed that only small and medium-sized companies were selected in the sample of Union producers which allegedly had higher costs and prices than the large Chinese companies.
Lõplike järelduste teatavakstegemise järel väitis üks huvitatud isik, et liidu tootjate valimisse valiti vaid keskmise ja väikese suurusega ettevõtted, mille kulud ja hinnad on väidetavalt kõrgemad kui suurtel Hiina ettevõtetel.