natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Due to the limited presence of sales to distributors in the Union industry sales listing, those data could not be used for establishing an appropriate adaptation rate for these differences in level of trade and the adaptation rate was therefore provisionally calculated on the basis of the price difference between Chinese sales to traders and end users.
Seepärast kohandas komisjon väljapakutud metoodikat, et kaasata uurimise käigus kontrollitud ja üksnes Ace-K'd käsitlevad andmed.
The complainant contested that this was an appropriate basis and commented that the level of trade adaptation should have been determined by the gross margin realised by three large Union distributors in the food ingredients industry, each of which distributed Ace-K.
Selleks määras komisjon kindlaks kõigi koostööd teinud importijate realiseeritud brutomarginaali.
The Commission accepted that, in this case, it is more appropriate to calculate the adaptation rate on the basis of gross margins obtained by relevant distributors.
See marginaal käib ainult Ace-K müügi kohta.
However, the methodology as proposed by the complainant presented flaws as only one of the distributors mentioned by the complainant cooperated and the data concerned all products traded by these importers, most of which are not product concerned.
Selle parandatud metoodikaga parandati kaubanduse kohandamise määra võrreldes esialgses etapis kasutatuga.
Therefore, the Commission adapted the proposed methodology in order to include data which was verified during the investigation and which concerned Ace-K only.
Kasutati seda parandatud määra ja seda näitab dumpingumarginaal põhjenduses 53 olevas tabelis.
To this end, the Commission determined the gross margin realised by all cooperating importers.
Üks Hiina eksportiv tootja esitas märkuse, et talle ei avaldatud kaubandustasandi erinevuste kohandamise esialgset määra.
This margin concerns the distribution of Ace-K only.
See määr ei ole aga enam oluline, sest see on asendatud, nagu selgitati põhjenduses 24.
This revised methodology resulted in a revised level of trade adaptation rate as compared to the one used at the provisional stage.
Igal juhul, kuna esialgne kohandus põhines Hiina kahe koostööd teinud nii edasimüüjatele kui ka kasutajatele müüva eksportiva tootja andmetel, on täpne summa osa ärisaladusest ja seda ei saa avaldada.
That revised rate was applied and is reflected in the dumping margin in the table under recital 53 below.
Kohandus kvaliteedierinevuse ja selle arvessevõtmiseks, kuidas turg seda tajub
One Chinese exporting producer commented on the fact that the provisional rate for the adaptation for differences in level of trade was not disclosed to them.
Kaebuse esitaja väitis esmalt seoses kvaliteedikohandusega, et Hiina toote ja liidu tootja toodetud samasuguse toote kvaliteedil vahet ei ole, ja seega ei olnud see kohandus põhjendatud.
The rate is not anymore of relevance as it has been replaced as explained in recital 24 above.
Peale selle seadis kaebuse esitaja kahtluse alla tõendite esinduslikkuse, mille alusel komisjon hindas normaalväärtuse määramisel kvaliteedierinevusi ja seda, kuidas turg seda tajub.
In any event, as the provisional adaptation had been based on data from two Chinese cooperating exporting producers with sales to both traders and users, the exact amount concerns confidential business data and cannot be disclosed.
Seoses sellega tuleks rõhutada, et tehti mitmesuguseid esildisi, milles nimetati kvaliteedierinevusi Hiina toote ja liidu samasuguse toote vahel ja/või seda, kuidas turg seda tajub.
Adaptation for quality difference and the market perception thereof
Tegelikult näitas teave, mille kaebuse esitaja kaebuse esitamise käigus esitas, ja teave tema veebisaidil, et kvaliteedierinevused olid olemas.
Regarding the quality adaptation, the complainant first argued that there was no quality difference between the Chinese product and the like product produced by the Union producer and that therefore no adaptation was warranted.
Mõnede, peamiselt kitsa teemakäsitlusega esildiste hulgas on katsetulemusi ja huvitatud isikute kirjalikke esildisi.
The complainant further questioned the representativeness of the evidence based on which the Commission reflected the quality differences and the perception thereof in the market in the establishment of the normal value.
Seepärast loetakse piisavaks tõendite esinduslikkus, mille alusel järeldati, et imporditud ja liidu tootja toodetud Ace-K kvaliteedil oli nii tegelik kui ka turu poolt tajutav vahe.
In this respect, it should be underlined that there were various submissions which indicated quality differences and/or market perceptions of quality differences between the Chinese product and the like product in the Union.
Peale selle kinnitasid seda kvaliteedierinevust kontrollkäikudel liidu tootmisharu ja Hiina tootjate juurde kogutud tootespetsifikatsioonid, sest need näitasid märgatavaid puhtusstandardite erinevusi kaebuse esitaja müüdava toote ja eksportivate tootjate müüdava toote vahel.
In fact, information submitted by the complainant at complaint stage and on its own website clearly indicated that a quality difference existed.
Seepärast on kohandus asjakohane.
Some submissions, mostly limited of nature, include test reports and written submissions received from interested parties.
Kohanduse summa põhineb üksnes kvaliteedierinevuse kvantifitseeritud hinnangul piiratud toimikus, mille esitas liidu tootmisharu.
Therefore, the representativeness of the evidence based on which it was concluded that indeed there was a real and/or perceived difference of quality between the imported product and Ace-K produced by the Union producer is deemed to be sufficient.
Samuti leidis komisjon, et ühe Hiina tootja müüdava Ace-K testimise ja kvaliteedinormide parandamise kulu, nagu tehti kindlaks kontrollkäigul koostööd teinud importija valdustesse, on umbes sama suur kui komisjoni tehtud kohandus, mis kinnitas, et kohanduse summa on põhjendatud.
Furthermore, the product specifications collected during the verification visits of the Union industry, Chinese producers and importers confirmed this quality difference as they revealed significant differences in terms of purity standards between the product sold by the complainant and the product sold by the exporting producers.
Üks Hiina eksportiv tootja väitis, et tema Ace-K kvaliteet ei ole madalam mitte üksnes liidu tootja, vaid ka kahe Hiina konkurendi omast.
An adaptation is therefore warranted.
Ta väitis, et tema toote suhtes tehtud kvaliteedikohandus peaks seepärast suurem olema.
Moreover, as concerns the amount of the adaptation, this is based on the sole quantification of the quality difference in the limited file, provided in a submission by the Union industry itself.
Selle kinnituseks esitatud tõendid olid katsetulemused, milles võrreldi tema toodet ühe teise koostööd teinud Hiina eksportiva tootja omaga, ja liidu tootja antud tunnistus.
The Commission also found that the cost of testing and improving the quality standards of Ace-K sold by one Chinese producer, as verified on-the-spot at the premises of a cooperating importer, is approximately of the same amount as the adaptation made by the Commission, which confirmed that the amount of the adaptation is reasonable.
Nimetatud importija väitis, et ostis vaatlusalust toodet sellelt konkreetselt Hiina tootjalt madalama hinnaga, kuna tolle toode on väidetavalt madalama kvaliteediga kui tema Hiina konkurendil.
One Chinese exporting producer claimed that the quality of its Ace-K is not only lower compared to that of the Union producer but also compared to those of its two Chinese competitors.
Selle väitega ei nõustutud, sest esitatud katsetulemustel olid uurimisperioodist varasem kuupäev.
It claimed that the quality adaptation made for its product should therefore be higher.
Hiina eksportivalt tootjalt pärit vaatlusaluse toote kvaliteet on võinud sellest ajast vabalt tõusta.
Evidence supporting this concerned test reports comparing its product with that of one other Chinese cooperating exporting producer and a statement issued by an importer in the Union.
Peale selle, ehkki esitati väide kahe muu koostööd teinud Hiina tootja toote kehva kvaliteedi kohta, võrreldi katsetulemustes eelkirjeldatud väite esitanud Hiina tootja tooteid vaid ühe teise koostööd teinud Hiina tootja omadega.
This importer stated to have purchased the product concerned from this particular Chinese producer at a lower price as its product is allegedly of lower quality compared to that of its Chinese competitor.
Mis puutub importija tunnistusse, siis käsitles ka see vaid eelnimetatud väite esitanud Hiina tootja ja ühe teise koostööd teinud Hiina tootja toodet.
This claim was not accepted, as the test reports submitted were dated prior to the investigation period.
Peale selle ei esitatud väite kinnituseks mingeid kontrollitavaid tõendeid (näiteks madalamat kvaliteeti ja/või ostuhindu kinnitavad arved).
The quality of the product concerned from the Chinese exporting producer may well have improved since.
Eelöeldu alusel on komisjon seisukohal, et kvaliteedikohandus on õigustatud ja sobiva suurusega.
Furthermore, though the claim of inferior quality was made vis-à-vis both of the other two cooperating Chinese producers, the test reports compared the products of the Chinese producer making the above claim with only one other Chinese cooperating producer.
Seega on leidnud kinnitust liidu hindade kohandus kvaliteedierinevuste peegeldamiseks.
As for the statement issued by the importer, this also only concerned the product of the Chinese producer making the above claim and one other Chinese cooperating producer.
Kohandus teadusuuringute ja arendustegevuse ning turunduskulude arvessevõtmiseks, mis on seotud väga spetsiifilise ja erineva toote väljatöötamisega kaebuse esitaja poolt
In addition, no verifiable evidence supporting the statement (such as invoices indicating lower quality and/or purchase prices) was provided.
Pärast esialgsete järelduste teatavakstegemist kommenteeris kaebuse esitaja, et komisjon ei andnud mingeid selgitusi, miks tema värskelt väljaarendatud tootega seotud kulud on normaalväärtusest lahutatud, ja väitis, et igasugused kohandused on põhjendamatud.
Based on the above, the Commission considers the quality adaptation made to be justified and at the appropriate level.
Seoses sellega tuleb esiteks märkida, et värskelt väljatöötatud tootega seotud kulud on kogu dumpingu- ja kahjuanalüüsi käigus järjekindlalt lahutatud, sest need kulud on seotud väga spetsiifilise ja erineva toote väljatöötamisega kaebuse esitaja poolt (vt põhjendused 12–14).
The adaptation to the Union prices to reflect the quality differences is therefore confirmed.
Need on erakorralised ja liidu tootmisharule ainuomased.
R & D and marketing adaptation related to activities for a very specific and different product developed by the complainant
Teiseks, kuna uus toode oli alles täiemahulise tootmisselaskmise faasis, oli uurimisperioodil müüdud vaid piiratud koguseid, mille müügihinnad ei olnud mingil juhul esinduslikud.
Following provisional disclosure, the complainant commented that the Commission did not provide any explanation as to why costs relating to its newly developed product had been deducted from the normal value and argued that no adaptation was warranted.
Selliseid kulusid ei saa olla ühelgi Hiina eksportival tootjal, keda loetakse vaatlusaluse toote tavapärasteks tootjateks.
In this respect, it needs first to be noted that the costs made in relation to the newly developed product have been deducted consistently throughout the dumping and the injury analysis, as these costs are related to a very specific and different product developed by the complainant (see recitals 12 to 14).
Seepärast, et määrata põhjendatud alusel kindlaks normaalväärtus vastavalt alusmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 7, luges komisjon põhjendatuks teha kohandus, jättes uue tootega seotud kulud normaalväärtuse arvutusest välja.
They are of an exceptional nature and unique to the Union industry.
Kaebuse esitaja vaidlustas ka kohanduse kulude lahutamise teel hindadest kui sellise, väites, et sellel puudub õiguslik alus vastavalt alusmääruse artikli 2 lõikele 10, ja et nii tehes üritab komisjon seostada seostamatut.
Second, as the new product was still in the process of being fully launched, only very limited quantities of sales had taken place in the investigation period, of which the sales prices were in any event not representative.
Kuid nagu selgitati põhjenduses 21, määrati normaalväärtus alusmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 alusel ja kõnealune kohandus leiti olevat selle artikli sätete alusel põhjendatud, et määrata normaalväärtus põhjendatud alustel.
No such costs had been incurred by any of the Chinese exporting producers, which are considered to be generic producers of the product concerned.
Peale selle oli selge, et need uue, väga spetsiifilise ja erineva tootega seotud (teadusuuringute ja arendustegevuse ning peamiselt turunduse) kulud mõjutasid liidu tootmisharu hindu.
Therefore, in order to determine the normal value under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation on a reasonable basis, the Commission considered it reasonable to make an adaptation by excluding the costs related to the new product from the normal value computation.
Uurimine näitas tõepoolest, et need kulud seostati Ace-K'ga seotud tegevusega, ja seepärast on loogiline, et asjaomane äriühing võtab neid oma hinnakujunduses arvesse, et need kaetud saaksid.
The complainant also contested the adaptation as such on the basis that costs were deducted from prices, stating that there would be no legal basis for doing so under Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation and that by doing so the Commission would ‘mix apples with oranges’.
Liidu tootmisharu kinnitas vastustes küsimustikule, et tootmiskulusid võetakse hinnakujundamisel arvesse.
However, as explained in recital 21 above, the normal value has been established on the basis of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation and this adaptation was found to be warranted under the terms of this Article to determine a normal value on a reasonable basis.
Kaebuse esitaja vaidlustas ka kohanduse suuruse, pidades seda liiga suureks.
In addition, it was clear that the price setting of the Union industry was affected by these (R & D and mainly marketing) costs related to a new a very specific and different product.
Ta arvas, et arendus- ja turunduskulude erinevus liidu ja muudel turgudel õigustaks väiksemat summat kilogrammi kohta.
Indeed, the investigation showed that those costs were allocated to the Ace-K activity and it is therefore logical that the company concerned, in its price setting, takes account of them in order to recover these costs.
Seoses sellega tuleks esmalt rõhutada, et uurimise ajal kaebuse esitaja ei osutanud sellele kulude erinevusele eri turgudel, hoolimata asjaolust, et tal paluti esitada kõnealuste arendus- ja turunduskulude jaotus.
In fact it was confirmed by the Union Industry in its questionnaire response that cost of production is a factor considered in price formation process.
Teiseks ei saanud neid näitajaid kohapeal kontrollida.
The complainant also challenged the magnitude of the adaptation, which it considered too high.
See erineb komisjoni arvutatud kohandusest, mis põhines kaebuse esitajalt saadud kontrollitud andmetel.
It submitted that a lower amount per kg was justified by alleged differences in development and marketing costs for the Union market as compared to other markets.
Seepärast on komisjon seisukohal, et kaebuse esitaja ei ole esitanud tõendeid selle kohta, et kohanduse tase oleks põhjendamatu.
In this respect, it should first be underlined that this distinction in costs per market was not made by the complainant during the investigation despite the fact that it had been requested to give a breakdown of these development and marketing costs.
Igal juhul ei peetud arukaks hinnata niimoodi ümber üks müügi-, üld- ja halduskulude element, kuid teisi mitte.
Secondly, these figures could not be verified during the on spot verification.
Eelöeldut arvesse võttes ei saa selle väitega nõustuda.
This contrasts with the adaptation as calculated by the Commission, as it was based on verified data from the complainant.
Üks Hiina eksportiv tootja palus komisjonil avalikustada kaebuse esitaja poolt väljatöötatud uue, väga spetsiifilise ja erineva tootega seotud meetmete suhtes tehtud kohanduse täpne summa.
The Commission therefore considers that the complainant has not brought evidence demonstrating that the level of the adaptation would be unreasonable.
Kuid kuna see teave on konfidentsiaalne, ei saanud seda avalikustada.
In any event, it was not considered prudent to reassess one element of SG&A costs in this manner and not others.
Kolme kohanduse summa, mille komisjon tegi normaalväärtuse määramiseks põhjendatud alustel, oli 25–45 % liidu tootmisharu liidu müügihinnast.
In view of the above, this claim cannot be accepted.
Muude kohanduste nõuded
One Chinese exporting producer asked the Commission to disclose the exact amount of the adaptation made for activities related to a very specific and different product developed by the complainant.
Nagu eespool selgitatud, kasutas komisjon normaalväärtuse määramisel põhjendatud alustel lähtepunktina liidu nõuetekohaselt kontrollitud tegelikku keskmist müügihinda.
However, this could not be disclosed, as this is confidential by nature.
Ajutise avalikustamise järel vaidlustas liidu tootmisharu tegelike müügihindade kasutamise lähtepunktina.
The amount of the three adaptations made by the Commission to determine the normal value on a reasonable basis represents between 25 % and 45 % of the Union sale price of the Union industry.
Konkreetselt väitis liidu tootmisharu, et neile tegelikele hindadele oleks tulnud lisada „mõistlik kasumimarginaal”.
Claims for other adaptations
Kaebuse esitaja arvates olnuks „mõistlik kasumimarginaal” 2009. aastal saavutatud kasumimarginaal (15–25 %), sest kaebuse esitajal ei olnud valitsevat seisundit, kuna ta turuosa oli nimetatud aastal langenud alla 50 %.
As explained above, in its determination of the normal value on a reasonable basis, the Commission used as its starting point the actual average Union sales price, duly verified.
Väidetavalt ei olnud dumping ja kahju 2009. aastal veel juhtunud.
Following disclosure of provisional findings, the Union industry contested the use of actual sales prices as a starting point.
Ajutise määruse põhjenduses 66 juba selgitati, et liidu tootja müük sõltumatutele klientidele oli kasumlik.
In particular, it argued that ‘a reasonable profit margin’ should have been added to those actual prices.
Selle müügi niimoodi arvutatud täpne kasumlikkus on konfidentsiaalne muude isikute jaoks peale liidu tootja, ning seepärast tuli kasumlikkus esitada ajutise määruse tabelis 10 indeksite kujul, kuid see oli üle 5 %, mis on sünteesmagusainete tööstuses mõistlik.
In the complainant's view, the profit margin realised in 2009 (ranging between 15 % and 25 %) would have been ‘a reasonable profit margin’, as the complainant had no dominant position with its market share having dropped to below 50 % in that year.
Täpne summa on avalikustatud kaebuse esitajale.
Allegedly, dumping and injury had not yet occurred in 2009.
Peale selle määrati normaalväärtus alusmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 alusel.
In recital 66 of the provisional Regulation it was already explained that the sales of the Union producer to independent customers were profitable.
Lähtepunktina kasutati liidu tootmisharu hindu ja neid kohandati, võtmaks arvesse liidu tootmisharu konkreetsete hinnakujundustegurite ning kaebuse esitaja poolt väljatöötatud uue, väga spetsiifilise ja erineva tootega seotud meetmetega seotud üksikasju.
The exact profitability of these sales thus calculated is confidential towards parties other than the Union producer and profitability had therefore been presented in indexes in Table 10 of the provisional Regulation, but it was above 5 %, which in the synthetic sweeteners industry is reasonable.
See meetod loeti põhjendatuks seoses kõnealuse juhtumi konkreetsete asjaolude ja toimikus oleva teabega.
The exact figure has been disclosed to the complainant.
Seepärast ei olnud normaalväärtuse määramiseks põhjendatud alustel vaja asendada tegelikku kasumit sihtkasumiga ja arvutada normaalväärtust ümber, nagu väitis kaebuse esitaja.
Furthermore, normal value was established on the basis of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation.
Seega lükatakse kõnealune väide tagasi.
Union industry prices were used as a starting point and were adapted for elements related to Union industry specific factors of price formation and activities related to a very specific and different product developed by the complainant.
Peale selle tuvastas kaebuse esitaja arvutusvea normaalväärtuse aluseks olnud liidu müüginimekirjas.
This method was considered reasonable in view of the specific facts of this case and information available on file.
Viga parandati ja parandus kajastub põhjenduse 53 tabelis.
Therefore, there was no need to replace the actual profit by a target profit to determine the normal value on a reasonable basis and recalculate normal value as was claimed by the complainant.
Märkused pärast lõplike järelduste avalikustamist
The claim is thus rejected.
Oma vastuses lõplike järelduste avalikustamise järel vaidlustas kaebuse esitaja asjaolu, et komisjon oli arvutanud kaubandustaseme erinevuste arvessevõtmiseks mõeldud vähenduse kogu liidu tootmisharu tehasemüügihinna alusel, kuna see hind sisaldas erakorralisi teadusuuringute ja arendustegevuse ning turunduskulusid, mis olid seotud väga spetsiifilise ja erineva toote väljatöötamisega kaebuse esitaja poolt.
Finally, the complainant identified a computational error concerning the Union sales listing which was the basis for the normal value.
Ta arvas, et vähendust tulnuks kohaldada liidu tootmisharu kohandatud tehasemüügihinnale pärast nimetatud erakorraliste kulude lahutamist.
This error was corrected and the correction is reflected in the table under recital 53 below.
Kuid kaubandustaseme kohanduse määr, nagu selgitati põhjenduses 24, on koostööd teinud importijate Ace-K müügil saavutatud brutomarginaalide kaalutud keskmine.
Comments after final disclosure
Seepärast tulnuks seda kohaldada tegeliku müügihinna suhtes, kuna see on kohandus võtmaks arvesse turul kindlaks tehtud müügihindade erinevusi.
In its reply to the definitive disclosure the complainant contested that the Commission had calculated the amount of the deduction for differences in level of trade on the basis of the full Union industry ex-works price, as that price included the exceptional R & D and marketing costs for a very specific and different product developed by the complainant.
Kaubandustaseme kohandus on tihedalt seotud turul täheldatud hindadega.
It considered that it should have been applied to the adapted ex-works price of the Union industry after the deduction of those exceptional costs.
Seetõttu lükati see väide tagasi.
However, the level of trade adaptation rate, as explained in recital 24 above, is the weighted average gross margin realised by the cooperating importers on the distribution of Ace-K.
Pärast avalikustamist kordas kaebuse esitaja taas, et kaubandustasandi kohandamine tulnuks määrata liidu toidu koostisosade tootmisharu kolme Ace-K'd müünud suure edasimüüja realiseeritud brutomarginaali alusel.
It therefore should be applied to the actual sales price as it is an adaptation to address objective differences in sales prices as they are identified in the market.
Ta seadis kahtluse alla komisjoni kasutatud parandatud metoodika, kuna edasimüüjate marginaal, millel see põhines, hõlmas teenuseid, mida liidu tootmisharu edasimüüjad ei pea osutama, põhjustades liiga kõrge marginaali.
The level of trade adaptation is closely related to prices as observed on the market.
Kuid ehkki uurimise käigus tuvastati teatavad lisateenused, oli edasimüüjate kohta tuvastatud brutomarginaal sellistest lisategevustest vaba ja seega seotud üksnes kauplemisega.
This claim was therefore rejected.
Seepärast on kaubandustaseme erinevuste arvessevõtmiseks kehtestatud määr seotud üksnes kaubandustaseme erinevustega, ning kinnitatakse, et niimoodi saadud määr on asjakohasem kui kaebuse esitaja pakutud metoodika kohane määr, nagu juba selgitati põhjenduses 24.