natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on the group subject to the current review investigation, OAO TMK (‘the TMK Group’ or ‘the applicant’) composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works was 35,8 %, i.e. the residual duty.
Praeguse läbivaatamise uurimise käigus vaadeldava äriühingute grupi OAO TMK (edaspidi „TMK grupp” või „taotluse esitaja”), kuhu kuuluvad äriühingud OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant ja OAO Seversky Tube Works, suhtes kehtestatud lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks oli 35,8 % (st jääktollimaks).
By Regulation (EC) No 812/2008 [3] the Council, following the initiation of an interim review requested by the TMK Group pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation (‘the review investigation’), amended the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, to 27,2 % for the TMK Group.
Pärast seda kui TMK grupi puhul korraldati algmääruse artikli 11 lõike 3 kohaselt vahepealne läbivaatamine (edaspidi „läbivaatamisega seotud uurimine”) muutis nõukogu määrusega (EÜ) nr 812/2008 [3] Venemaalt pärit teatavate rauast või terasest õmblusteta torude impordi suhtes kehtinud lõplikku dumpinguvastast tollimaksu TMK grupi jaoks 27,2 protsendile.
By Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 [4] the Council, following an expiry review (‘the expiry review investigation’), maintained the measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 954/2006 on imports of seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia and Ukraine.
Pärast aegumise läbivaatamist (edaspidi „aegumise läbivaatamisega seotud uurimine”) jättis nõukogu rakendusmäärusega (EL) nr 585/2012 [4] jõusse määrusega (EÜ) nr 954/2006 Venemaalt ja Ukrainast pärit rauast ja terasest õmblusteta torude impordi suhtes kehtestatud meetmed.
Accordingly, the measures currently in force are those imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012.
Seega kehtivad praegu rakendusmäärusega (EL) nr 585/2012 kehtestatud meetmed.
The TMK Group composed of OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant and OAO Seversky Tube Works is subject to an anti-dumping duty of 27,2 %.
TMK grupi, kuhu kuuluvad äriühingud OAO Volzhsky Pipe Plant, OAO Taganrog Metallurgical Works, OAO Sinarsky Pipe Plant ja OAO Seversky Tube Works, suhtes kehtiv dumpinguvastane tollimaks on 27,2 %.
On 14 October 2011, the Commission announced by a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union (‘notice of initiation’) [5] the initiation of a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel, originating in Russia.
14. oktoobril 2011 avaldas komisjon vastavalt algmääruse artikli 11 lõikele 3 Euroopa Liidu Teatajas teate (edaspidi „algatamisteade”) [5] Venemaalt pärit teatavate rauast ja terasest õmblusteta torude impordi suhtes kohaldatavate dumpinguvastaste meetmete osalise vahepealse läbivaatamise algatamise kohta.
The review, which is limited in scope to the examination of dumping, was initiated following a substantiated request lodged by the TMK Group.
Läbivaatamine, mis piirdus dumpingu uurimisega, algatati pärast seda, kui TMK grupp esitas selleks põhjendatud taotluse.
In the request the applicant provided prima facie evidence that the continued imposition of the measures at the current level is no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping.
Taotluses esitas taotluse esitaja esmapilgul usutavaid tõendeid selle kohta, et meetmete jätkuv kohaldamine praegusel tasemel ei ole kahjustava dumpingu korvamiseks enam vajalik.
The Commission officially informed the applicant, the authorities of the exporting country and the Union industry of the initiation of the partial interim review.
Komisjon teavitas ametlikult taotluse esitajat, eksportiva riigi ametiasutusi ning liidu tootmisharu osalise vahepealse läbivaatamise algatamisest.
In order to obtain the information necessary for its investigation the Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant, which responded within the given deadline.
Uurimiseks vajaliku teabe saamiseks saatis komisjon taotluse esitajale küsimustiku, millele taotluse esitaja vastas ettenähtud tähtaja jooksul.
The investigation of the level of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’).
Dumpingu ulatuse uurimine hõlmas ajavahemikku 1. oktoobrist 2010 kuni 30. septembrini 2011 (edaspidi „läbivaatamisega seotud uurimisperiood”).
The product concerned is the same as that defined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 585/2012 which imposed the measures currently in force, i.e. seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel, of circular cross-section, of an external diameter not exceeding 406,4 mm with a Carbon Equivalent Value (CEV) not exceeding 0,86 according to the International Institute of Welding (IIW) formula and chemical analysis [6], currently falling within CN codes ex73041100, ex73041910, ex73041930, ex73042200, ex73042300, ex73042400, ex73042910, ex73042930, ex73043180, ex73043958, ex73043992, ex73043993, ex73045189, ex73045992 and ex73045993, originating in Russia (‘the product concerned’ or ‘SPT’).
Vaatlusalune toode on sama, mis on määratletud rakendusmääruses (EL) nr 585/2012, millega kehtestati praegu kohaldatavad meetmed, st Venemaalt pärit rauast või terasest ümmarguse ristlõikega õmblusteta torud, mille välisdiameeter on kuni 406,4 mm ning mis on rahvusvahelise keevitusinstituudi (International Institute of Welding – IIW) valemi ja keemilise analüüsi kohaselt süsinikekvivalentväärtusega kuni 0,86 [6] ning mis praegu kuuluvad CN-koodide ex73041100, ex73041910, ex73041930, ex73042200, ex73042300, ex73042400, ex73042910, ex73042930, ex73043180, ex73043958, ex73043992, ex73043993, ex73045189, ex73045992 ja ex73045993 alla (edaspidi „vaatlusalune toode” või „õmblusteta torud”).
As established in the original investigation as well as in the expiry review investigation, the current investigation confirmed that the product produced in Russia and exported to the Union, the product produced and sold on the domestic market of Russia, and the product produced and sold in the Union by the Union producers have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and end uses.
Nagu esialgse uurimise ja aegumise läbivaatamisega seotud uurimise käigus kindlaks tehti, kinnitas ka käesolev uurimine, et Venemaal toodetud ja liitu eksporditud tootel, Venemaal toodetud ja omamaisel turul müüdaval tootel ja liidus liidu tootjate toodetud ja nende müüdaval tootel on samad füüsikalised ja tehnilised põhiomadused ning kasutusviisid.
Sales on the domestic market were made via the related companies, ZAO TMK Trade House and TMK Warehouse, which resold SPT to independent customers in Russia.
Kodumaisel turul toimus müük seotud äriühingute ZAO TMK Trade House ja TMK Warehouse kaudu, kes müüsid toodet edasi Venemaa sõltumatutele klientidele.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation it was first examined whether each of the exporting producers' total volume of domestic sales of the like product to independent customers was representative in comparison with its total volume of export sales to the Union, i.e. whether the total volume of such sales represented at least 5 % of the total volume of export sales of the product concerned to the Union.
Vastavalt algmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 2 uuriti esmalt iga eksportiva tootja puhul, kas tema vaatlusaluse toote omamaine kogumüük sõltumatutele klientidele on tüüpiline, võrreldes tema liitu toimuva ekspordi müügi kogumahuga, st kas vaatlusaluse toote sellise müügi kogumaht esindas vähemalt 5 % liitu toimunud ekspordi müügi kogumahust.
The examination established that the domestic sales were representative for all exporting producers.
Uurimise käigus tehti kindlaks, et omamaine müük oli tüüpiline kõigi eksportivate tootjate puhul.
Where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of that type was below the unit cost of production, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, which was calculated as a weighted average price of only the profitable domestic sales of that type made during the RIP.
Kui tooteliigi kasumlik müük moodustas seda liiki toote müügi kogumahust kuni 80 % või kui kõnealuse tooteliigi kaalutud keskmine müügihind oli ühiku tootmiskuludest väiksem, määrati normaalväärtus kindlaks tegeliku omamaise hinna põhjal, mida väljendati kõnealuse tooteliigi üksnes kasumliku omamaise müügi kaalutud keskmise hinnana läbivaatamisega seotud uurimisperioodil.
With regard to manufacturing costs, and in particular energy costs, as far as gas is concerned, it was examined whether the gas prices paid by the exporting producers reasonably reflected the costs associated with the production and distribution of gas.
Tootmiskulude, ja eelkõige gaasiga seotud energiakulude puhul uuriti, kas hind, mida eksportivad tootjad gaasi eest maksid, peegeldas gaasi tootmise ja jaotamisega seotud kulusid.
It was found that the domestic gas price paid by the exporting producers was around one third of the export price of natural gas from Russia.
Tehti kindlaks, et gaasihind, mida eksportivad tootjad siseturul maksid, oli ligikaudu üks kolmandik Vene maagaasi ekspordihinnast.
In this regard, all available data indicates that domestic gas prices in Russia are regulated prices, which are far below market prices paid in unregulated markets for natural gas.
Seejuures näitavad kõik kättesaadavad andmed, et Venemaa omamaised gaasihinnad on reguleeritud hinnad, mis jäävad tunduvalt madalamaks maagaasi hindadest reguleerimata turgudel.
Therefore, since gas costs were not reasonably reflected in the exporting producers' records as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, they had to be adjusted accordingly.
Kuna gaasihinnad ei peegeldunud asjakohaselt eksportivate tootjate aruannetes, nagu on sätestatud algmääruse artikli 2 lõikes 5, tuli neid vastavalt korrigeerida.
In the absence of any sufficiently representative, undistorted gas prices relating to the Russian domestic market, it was considered appropriate to base the adjustment, in accordance with Article 2(5), on the basis of information from other representative markets.
Kuna Venemaa omamaise turu piisavalt tüüpilist moonutamata gaasihinda ei olnud võimalik leida, peeti algmääruse artikli 2 lõike 5 kohaselt asjakohaseks võtta kohanduse aluseks teave muude tüüpiliste turgude kohta.
The adjusted price was based on the average price of Russian gas when sold for export at the German/Czech border (Waidhaus), adjusted for local distribution costs.
Korrigeeritud hinna aluseks võeti Vene gaasi keskmine ekspordihind Saksa-Tšehhi piiril (Waidhaus) ja seda kohandati kohalike jaotushindade järgi.
After disclosure, the TMK Group argued that the gas price adjustment was contrary to Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO AD Agreement.
Pärast avaldamist väitis TMK grupp, et gaasi hinna kohandus on vastuolus algmääruse artikli 2 lõikega 5 ning WTO AD kokkuleppe punktiga 2.2.1.1.
As mentioned in recital (21), it was found that the domestic gas price paid by the TMK Group was around one third of the export price of natural gas from Russia.
Nagu märgitud põhjenduses 21, tehti kindlaks, et gaasihind, mida maksab TMK grupp omamaisel turul, on ligikaudu üks kolmandik Vene maagaasi ekspordihinnast.
The claim made by the TMK Group was considered to be unsubstantiated and in the absence of any evidence, it was rejected.
TMK grupi väidet peeti põhjendamatuks ning seda ei kinnitanud tõendusmaterjalid, mistõttu see lükati tagasi.
It should be noted that some export quantities of the product concerned had not been reported by the TMK Group as they considered that these SPT did not fall within the scope of the investigation.
Tuleb märkida, et TMK grupi esitatud andmetes ei kajastatud vaatlusaluse toote ekspordi koguseid täies ulatuses, sest TMK grupp leidis, et kõnealused õmblusteta torud tuleb uurimisest välja jätta.
Samples in the form of cross-sections cuts of the product allegedly falling outside the product scope before and after further processing were shown to the Commission services during the on spot verification visits which however cannot be regarded as conclusive evidence.
Komisjoni talitustele näidati kohapealse kontrollkäigu ajal näiteid nende toodete ristlõigetest (enne ja pärast toote töötlemist), mis väidetavalt vaatlusaluse toote määratluse alla ei kuulu. Seda ei saanud siiski vaieldamatuks tõendiks lugeda.
Having examined the issue, it was considered that these SPT fall within the product scope.
Pärast asjaolude uurimist siiski leiti, et need õmblusteta torud kuuluvad toote määratluse alla.
The corresponding export transactions were therefore taken into account in the dumping calculation.
Seega võeti dumpingu arvutamisel vastavaid eksporditehinguid arvesse.
During a hearing chaired by the Hearing Officer on November 9, 2012, the TMK group stated that it wished to address mainly the classification issue, raised in the disclosure document, which in their view resulted in an increase of their dumping margin from circa 13-14 %.
9. novembril 2012 vastutava isiku juhatusel toimunud ärakuulamisel teatas TMK grupp, et nad soovisid eelkõige tegelda klassifitseerimise küsimusega, mis tõstatati avaldamisdokumendis, mis nende arvates tõi kaasa dumpingumarginaali tõusu ligikaudu 13–14 %.
The TMK group expressed some surprise regarding the fact that these products were considered as falling within the scope of the investigation and reiterated that these exported quantities had not been reported on the grounds that these products were ‘blanks’ (also named ‘hollows’) and not pipes, and thus, in their opinion, did not fall within the product scope.
TMK grupp avaldas imestust, et selliseid tooteid loetakse uurimise alla kuuluvaks ning kordas, et neid ekspordikoguseid ei teatatud sellepärast, et tegemist oli „torutoorikutega” (nimetatud ka „õõnesprofiilideks”), mis ei ole seega torud ega kuulu TMK grupi arvates tootevalikusse.
They further indicated that in fact, this matter had been addressed very concisely by the Commission services in the course of the verification visit.
Nad väitsid ka seda, et kõnealust küsimust käsitlesid komisjoni talitused oma kontrollkäigul väga pinnapealselt.
In this regard, it should be noted that the TMK Group itself indicated in one submission dated 31 August 2012, that ‘the question of whether or not “hollows” falling under CN code 73045910 should be included within the scope of the investigation has been extensively addressed in the course of the investigation’.
Sellega seoses märgitakse, et TMK grupp ise teatas ühes 31. augustil 2012 saadetud dokumendis, et „küsimusega, kas nn torutoorikuid, mis kuuluvad CN-koodi 73045910 alla, tuleks lisada uurimise tootevalikusse, tegeldi uurimise käigus laiaulatuslikult.
In fact, both the European Steel Tube Association (‘ESTA’) and the TMK group have had ample opportunity to comment on this issue on several occasions.
Tegelikult on nii Euroopa terastorude liidul (ESTA) kui ka TMK grupil olnud mitmel korral palju võimalusi sellel teemal oma seisukohti esitada.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the Commission services requested TMK's related importers to fill in the Annex to the questionnaire and verified the information received during an on-spot verification visit in order to collect all relevant information.
Komisjoni talitused palusid TMKga seotud importijatel täita küsimustiku lisa ning kontrollisid teavet, mida nad said kohapeal kontrollkäigul asjaomast teavet kogudes.
The statement that this matter was very ‘concisely’ addressed by the Commission services during the investigation and these products had been considered to be part of the product scope was incorrect and was therefore rejected.
Väide, et komisjoni talitused tegelesid selle küsimusega uurimise ajal „pinnapealselt” ning et kõnealused tooted kuulusid tootevalikusse, ei ole õige ja lükati seega tagasi.
The TMK Group further indicated that the inclusion of these export quantities was illegal and unjustified as the Commission services failed to demonstrate that the pipes were not ‘unworked’ and the conclusions that these ‘blanks’ were ‘semi-finished’ (or partially worked) products were ill-founded.
Siis teatas TMK grupp, et nende ekspordikoguste lisamine on õigusvastane ja õigustamatu, kuna komisjoni talitused ei ole suutnud tõendada, et torud ei ole töötlemata ning järeldus, et need nn torutoorikud on pooltöödeldud tooted, ei ole põhjendatud.
First it is recalled that the products covered by CN codes 73043910 and 73045910 are ‘Tubes, pipes and hollow profiles’ seamless, of iron (other than cast iron) or steel, ‘Unworked, straight and of uniform wall thickness, for use solely in the manufacture of tubes and pipes with other cross-sections and wall thicknesses’.
Esiteks meenutatakse, et CN-koodidega 73043910 ja 73045910 kaetud tooted on rauast või terasest (v.a malmist) töötlemata, sirged, ühtlase seinapaksusega õmbluseta torud ja õõnesprofiilid, kasutamiseks üksnes teistsuguse ristlõike ja seinapaksusega torude valmistamiseks.
The Explanatory Note to subheadings 73043910 and 73045910 states that they include ‘seamless steel tubes usually obtained by piercing and hot-rolling or by piercing and hot drawing; they are usually called “blanks”. They are intended to be transformed into tubes of other shapes and wall thickness with more reduced dimensional tolerances. They are presented with the ends roughly cut off and deburred but are otherwise unfinished. Their exterior and interior surfaces are rough and not descaled. They are not oiled, zinc-coated or painted’.
Alamrubriikide 73043910 ja 73045910 selgitavas märkuses väidetakse, et õmblusteta terastorusid valmistatakse tavaliselt „õõnes- ja kuumvaltsimise või õõnesvaltsimise ja kuumtõmbamisega; tavaliselt nimetatakse neid torutoorikuteks. Need on mõeldud teistsuguse kuju ja seinapaksusega torude valmistamiseks, mille mõõtmete täpsus on suurem. Tollile esitamisel peavad neil otsad olema eelnevalt lõigatud ja kraadid eemaldatud, kuid muul viisil viimistlemata. Nende välis- ja sisepinnad on töötlemata ja lõõmutustagi eemaldamata. Torusid ei ole õlitatud, tsingitud ega värvitud.”
After consideration of the arguments put forward by the TMK Group and ESTA, it is considered that based on the various documents collected during the on-spot verification visits (customer purchase order and specifications, intercompany contracts, invoices issued by related importers, description of the standard ISO 9809-1) these tubes are indeed ‘semi-finished’ in the sense that they have to correspond to certain requirements and specifications such as ‘top quality SS hot finished tubes for cylinders, in steel type 34CrMo4 subject to UNI EN 10083-1 and DIN 1629 “annealed coarse” and “smooth at ends”, of the dimensions specified in the purchase order.’ Furthermore, other requirements which are listed in the customer purchase order and specifications such as ‘ultrasonic testing for feasible defects, thickness control, ovalization and straightness’ also point to further processing of these tubes, which is not the case for so-called ‘blanks’.
Pärast selliste TMK grupi ja ESTA esitatud väidete kaalumist otsustati mitme kontrollkäikudel kohapeal saadud dokumendi (klientide tellimused ja tootekirjeldused, äriühingute vahelised lepingud, seotud importijate esitatud arved, standardi ISO 9809-1 kirjeldus) alusel, et need on tõepoolest pooltöödeldud torud selles mõttes, et nad peavad vastama teatud nõuetele ja tootekirjeldustele, nagu näiteks „eriti kvaliteetsed SS kuumtöötlusega torud silindrite valmistamiseks, terasest 34CrMo4 vastavalt normidele UNI EN 10083-1 ja DIN 1629 „lõõmutatud ja töötlemata” ning „siledate otstega”, tellimuses täpsustatud mõõtmetega.” Klientide tellimustes on esitatud veel teisi nõudeid, nagu ultraheliuuring varjatud puuduste avastamiseks, paksuse kontrollimine, ovaalsuse ja sirgsuse nõuded, mis samuti viitavad torude töötlemisele, nii et tegemist ei ole siiski torutoorikutega.
The TMK Group claimed that the features of ‘annealed coarse’ and ‘smooth at ends’ are not among the criteria listed in the text of the relevant CN codes and the Explanatory Note to determine whether a pipe is ‘unworked’.
TMK grupp väitis, et asjaomaste CN-koodide ega selgitavate märkuste juures ei ole nõudeid „lõõmutatud ja töötlemata” ning „siledate otstega”, et määrata, kas toru on töötlemata.
In this respect, it must be noted that heading texts and relevant Explanatory notes do not always contain an exhaustive list of all the features of the products covered.
Selle kohta märgitakse, et pealkirjades ja asjaomastes selgitavates märkustes ei leidu alati kõikide toote omaduste täielikku loetelu.
In relation to products such as those in question, which partake of the characteristics of different kinds of goods, classification depends on the most important features of the imported goods.
Selliste toodete puhul, nagu kõnealused tooted, millel esineb mitmele tootele omaseid omadusi, toimub klassifitseerimine imporditavate toodete kõige tähtsamate omaduste alusel.
Therefore, while noting that these features are not among the criteria listed in the text of the relevant CN codes and the Explanatory Note, they remain important elements in assessing whether or not product types can be considered to be ‘unworked’ and thus within the scope of CN codes 73043910. and 73045910.
Kuigi need omadused ei ole esitatud asjaomaste CN-koodide ja selgitavate märkuste tekstis, on need ikkagi olulised omadused, mille alusel hinnata, kas kõnealust tüüpi toodet saab või ei saa lugeda töötlemata tooteks, mis kuulub CN-koodide 73043910 ja 73045910 alla.
The TMK group also claimed that these tubes were not annealed as they were not heat treated as indicated in the mill test certificates.
TMK grupp väitis, et kõnealused torud ei ole lõõmutatud, sest neile ei tehtud kuumtöötlust, nagu on kirjutatud materjali tõendis.
In this regard, it should be noted that the purchase specifications of the customer contain contradictory information as they mention heat treatment of the product.
Selle kohta märgitakse, et tellija on hankekirjelduses esitanud vastuolulist teavet, kuna seal osutatakse kuumtöötlusele.
Reference to these purchase specifications is made on other documents such as the manufacturer declaration issued by the TMK Group and the specification to the contracts signed by the TMK Group and its unrelated customer.
Hankekirjeldusele on osutatud teistes dokumentides, nagu TMK väljaantud tootja tõend ning TMK grupi ja selle sõltumatu tellijaga sõlmitud lepingu tootekirjelduses.
It was further noted that in the above-mentioned intercompany contracts provided by the TMK Group during the on-spot verification, these products were initially classified in a different CN code (under measures) and were changed to a CN code not under measures (including during the IP), although, based on the information available, there were no changes to the customer purchase order and product specifications.
Märgiti, et äriühingute vahelistes lepingutes, mis TMK grupp esitas kohapeal toimunud kontrollikäigu ajal, kuulusid need tooted teise CN-koodi alla (meetmetega seotud), kuid hiljem muudeti see CN-koodiks, mis ei olnud meetmetega seotud (ka uurimisperioodi ajal), kuigi kättesaadava teabe kohaselt ei toimunud kliendi tellimuses ega tootekirjelduses mingeid muudatusi.
The TMK Group argued that this change in the CN code was irrelevant as what matters under the applicable customs classification rules are the objective characteristics of the goods at the time of their importation to the Union.
TMK grupp väitis, et selline CN-koodi muutmine ei ole asjakohane, sest kohaldatavate klassifitseerimisreeglite seisukohast on olulised toodete omadused nende importimisel liitu.