natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In any event, even if there were retroactivity in the sense of Union law, quod non, such retroactivity would be justified, for the following reason:
Esiteks, väitsid nad, võivad asjaomased eksportivad tootjad olla olukorras, kus nad ei saa esitada põhjendatud märkusi ega täiendavaid tõendeid oma mitu aastat tagasi esitatud turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotluste toetuseks.
The substantive rules of Union law may apply to situations existing before their entry into force in so far as it clearly follows from their terms, objectives or general scheme that such effect must be given to them.
Näiteks võib juhtuda, et neid äriühinguid enam ei ole või ei ole asjakohased dokumendid enam kättesaadavad.
In particular, in case C-337/88 Società agricola fattoria alimantare (SAFA), it was held that: ‘[A]lthough in general theprinciple of legal certainty precludes a Community measure from taking effect from a point in time before its publication, it may exceptionally be otherwise where the purpose to be achieved so demands and where the legitimate expectations of those concerned are duly respected’ [44].
Lisaks väitsid Clarks jt, et erinevalt esialgsest uurimisest mõjutaksid komisjoni meetmed de facto ja de jure üksnes importijaid, kusjuures importijatel ei ole mingeid võimalusi anda tähenduslikku panust ning nad ei saa ka nõuda, et nende tarnijad teeksid komisjoniga koostööd.
In the present case, the purpose is to comply with the obligation of the Commission pursuant to Article 266 TFEU.
Komisjon täheldab, et alusmääruses ei nõuta, et komisjon annaks turumajanduslikku/individuaalset kohtlemist taotlevatele eksportivatele äriühingutele võimaluse täiendada ebatäielikku teavet.
Since, in the judgments referred to in recital 12, the Court only found an illegality with regard to the determination of the applicable duty rate, and not with regard to the imposition of the measures themselves (that is, with regard to the finding of dumping, injury, causation and Union interest), the exporting producers concerned could not have legitimately expected that no definitive anti-dumping measures would be imposed.
Nagu on sedastatud põhjenduses 88, lasub tõendamiskohustus tootjal, kes taotleb turumajanduslikku/individuaalset kohtlemist alusmääruse artikli 2 lõike 7 punkti b alusel.
Consequently, that imposition, even if it was retroactive, quod non, cannot be construed as breaching legitimate expectations.
Õigus saada ära kuulatud on seotud nende asjaolude hindamisega, kuid ei hõlma õigust täiendada ebatäielikku teavet.
Importers that have imported from Brosman and the other four exporting producers concerned by the judgments in cases C-247/10 P and C-249/10 P, are in a different factual and legal situation, because their exporting producers decided to challenge the contested Regulation and because they were reimbursed their duties, so that they are protected by Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code.
Nagu on märgitud põhjenduses 84, võib komisjon hindamise käigus tugineda eksportiva tootja esitaud teabele.
No such challenge and no such reimbursement have taken place for others.
Väide on seega niivõrd abstraktne, et institutsioonid ei saa neid probleeme turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotluste hindamisel arvesse võtta.
In the first place, they argued that the exporting producers concerned may no longer be in a position to provide meaningful comments or adduce additional evidence to support their MET/IT claims that they made several years ago.
Viiendaks väitsid Clarks jt, et komisjon ei uurinud, kas dumpinguvastaste tollimaksude kehtestamine on liidu huvides, ning väitsid, et see meede oleks liidu huvidega vastuolus, sest i) meetmega taotletud mõju saavutati juba selle esmasel kehtestamisel; ii) see ei anna liidu tööstussektorile täiendavaid hüvesid; iii) see ei mõjuta eksportivaid tootjaid ja iv) sellega suurendatakse oluliselt liidu importijate kulutusi.
For example, the companies may no longer exist or relevant documents may no longer be available.
Käesolev juhtum puudutab vaid turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotlusi, sest vaid nende puhul on liidu kohtud tuvastanud õigusrikkumise.
In addition, Clarks et al argued that unlike during the original investigation, the Commission's measures would de facto and de jure affect only importers, whereas they have no means of providing any meaningful input and cannot require their suppliers to cooperate with the Commission.
Liidu huvides on, et määrus (EÜ) nr 1472/2006 jääb täies mahus kehtima.
The Commission observes that nothing in the basic Regulation requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET/IT the possibility to complete lacking factual information.
Lisaks on praegune meede liidu finantshuvide kaitse seisukohalt põhjendatud.
In fact, and as set out in recital 88 the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Kuuendaks esitasid Clarks jt väite, et dumpinguvastast tollimaksu ei saaks selle uuestikehtestamise korral koguda, kuna ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 221 lõikega 3 (nüüd liidu tolliseadustiku artikli 103 lõige 1) kehtestatud ajalised piirangud olid aegunud.
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Clarks jt väite kohaselt oleks selline olukord komisjoni poolt võimu kuritarvitamine.
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
Komisjon tuletab meelde, et ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 221 lõike 3/liidu tolliseadustiku artikli 103 lõike 1 kohaselt ei kohaldata ajalisi piiranguid, kui esitatakse ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 243/liidu tolliseadustiku artikli 44 lõike 2 kohane kaebus, nagu on toimunud praeguste juhtumite puhul, milles käsitletakse ühenduse tolliseadustiku artikli 236/liidu tolliseadustiku artikli 119 alusel esitatud kaebusi.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation, for the Commission, to request the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim.
Liidu tolliseadustiku artikli 103 lõike 3 kohase kaebuse võib selle artikli 44 lõikes 2 esitatud selgituse kohaselt esitada selleks, et vaidlustada riiklike tolliasutuste tollimakse kohaldavad otsused kuni riikliku kohtu lõpliku otsuseni, lisades vajaduse korral viite eelotsusele.
As mentioned in recital 84, the Commission may base their assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Kolmeaastane ajavahemik algab seega kaebuse esitamise kuupäevast.
In any event, the exporting producers concerned have not contested the assessment of their MET/IT claims by the Commission, and they have not identified which documents or which people they have no longer been able to rely upon.
Käesolevas menetluses kohaldatav asjakohane määrus on Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 8. juuni 2016. aasta määrus (EL) 2016/1036 kaitse kohta dumpinguhinnaga impordi eest riikidest, mis ei ole Euroopa Liidu liikmed.
As that argument is based on speculation and not supported by precise indications as to which documents and which people are no longer available and as to what the relevance of those documents and people for the assessment of the MET/IT claim is, that argument is rejected.
Komisjon märgib esiteks, et otsused dumpinguvastase tollimaksu tagasimaksmise kohta kuuluvad liikmesriikide tolliasutuste pädevusse.
Regarding the claim that an importer would have no means to provide any meaningful input, the Commission observes the following: first, importers do not enjoy rights of defence, as the anti-dumping measure is not directed against them, but against the exporting producers.
Teiseks järeldas komisjon talle esitatud teabe põhjal, et äriühingu SIEMES 19. märtsi 2012. aasta tagasimaksetaotlus lükati tagasi, sest kohtuotsuses, mille kohaselt ta esitas oma tagasimaksetaotluse, käsitleti ainult äriühinguid Brosmann ja Aokang.
Second, importers had the opportunity to comment on that point already during the administrative procedure prior to the adoption of the contested Regulation.
Kohtuotsusel ei olnud mõju teistele Hiina ja Vietnami eksportivatele tootjatele.
Third, if importers thought that there was an irregularity in that regard, they had to take the necessary contractual arrangements with their suppliers to ensure to dispose of the necessary documentation.
Alles 4. veebruaril 2016 tunnistas Euroopa Kohus liidetud kohtuasjades C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited ja C-34/14 Puma SE vaidlustatud määruse kehtetuks selles osas, mis puudutab kõiki asjakohast toodet eksportivaid tootjaid (vt põhjendus 12).
Therefore, the claim has to be rejected.
Komisjon järgis eelkõige sellise impordi puhul, mille kohta esitati tagasimaksetaotlused, millest Saksamaa tolliasutused teavitasid komisjoni kooskõlas rakendusmääruse (EL) 2016/223 artikliga 1 (viidatakse põhjendusele 30), kõnealuse määruse artikli 1 lõikes 2 sätestatud kaheksakuulist ajapiirangut.
Fifth, Clarks et al argued that the Commission failed to examine whether the imposition of the anti-dumping duties would be in the Union interest and argued that the measures would be against the Union interest because (i) the measures already had their intended effect when first imposed; (ii) the measures would not cause additional benefit for the Union industry; (iii) the measures would not affect the exporting producers and (iv) the measures would impose an important cost on the importers in the Union.
Seega ei olnud komisjon nõus väitega, et menetlus on vastuolus hea halduse põhimõttega.
For Union interest, the assessment in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 remains fully valid.
D. JÄRELDUSED
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Esitatud märkusi ja nende analüüsi arvesse võttes jõudis komisjon järeldusele, et Hiina ja Vietnami suhtes kohaldatud dumpinguvastane jääktollimaks, vastavalt 16,5 % ja 10 % tuleks vaidlustatud määruse kohaldamise perioodiks uuesti kehtestada.
Sixth, Clarks et al claimed that the anti-dumping duty, if reimposed, could no longer be collected because of the statute of limitations of Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code (now Article 103(1) of the Union Customs Code) had expired.
Nagu on märgitud põhjenduses 28, peatas komisjon oma rakendusmääruse (EL) 2017/423 III lisas loetletud äriühingute olukorra hindamise, kuni riiklikelt tolliasutuselt tagasimaksmist taotlev importija on teatanud komisjonile nende eksportivate tootjate nimed ja aadressid, kellelt asjaomased ettevõtjad jalatseid ostsid, või kui kõnealuse aja jooksul vastuseid ei saada, siis kuni komisjoni poolt kõnealuse teabe esitamiseks seatud tähtaja möödumiseni.
According to Clarks et all, this situation would constitute an abuse of power by the Commission.
Määruse (EL) 2017/423 artiklis 3 on komisjon asjaomastele riiklikele tolliasutustele andnud juhtnööre, et nad ei tagastaks tollimakse enne, kui komisjon on asjaomaste turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotluste hindamise lõpule viinud.
The Commission recalls that according to Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code/103(1) of the Union Customs Code, the statute of limitations does not apply where an appeal pursuant to Article 243 of the Community Customs Code/Article 44(2) of the Union Customs Code is lodged, as in all the present cases, which concern appeals on the basis of Article 236 of the Community Customs Code/Article 119 of the Union Customs Code.
Seetõttu, nagu on märgitud põhjenduses 29, esitasid Pentland Brands Ltd., Puma UK Ltd. ja Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd oma tarnijate andmed.
An appeal within the meaning of Article 103(3) of the Union Customs Code, pursuant to the clarification in Article 44(2) of the same regulation, extends from the initial challenge to the decision by the national customs authorities imposing the duties up to the final judgment rendered by the national court, including, where necessary, a reference for a preliminary ruling.
Komisjon analüüsis käesolevas määruses kindlaks tehtud tarnijate turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotlusi.
The three year period is consequently stayed from the date the challenge is filed.
Komisjon lõpetas määruse (EL) 2017/423 III lisas loetletud äriühingute olukorra hindamise.
Lastly, Clarks et al claimed that, following the expiry of paragraph 15(a)(ii) of China's WTO Protocol of Accession on 11 December 2016, the Commission can no longer rely on the methodology used to determine normal value for Chinese exporters in the original investigation (i.e. the analogue country methodology under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation).
Seetõttu ei ole komisjonil oma rakendusmääruse (EL) 2017/423 III lisas loetletud äriühingute puhul mingeid andmeid selle kohta, et need äriühingud oleksid esitanud esialgses uurimises turumajandusliku/individuaalse kohtlemise taotluse.
(152) The contested regulation was adopted in 2006.
Seega ei tohiks kõnealuste importijate asjakohaseid hüvitistaotlusi rahuldada, kuna vaidlustatud määrust ei ole nendega seoses tühistatud.
The relevant legislation applicable to this proceeding is the Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union.
Selguse huvides on komisjon määruse (EL) 2017/423 III lisa uuesti esitanud käesoleva määruse VI lisana.
In addition, SIEMES argued that the length of the procedure in relation to its ongoing reimbursement request of anti-dumping duties before the German customs authorities violates the right of good administration under Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
E. AVALIKUSTAMINE
First, the Commission notes that decisions over repayment of the anti-dumping duties fall within the competence of the national customs authorities of the Member States.
Asjaomaseid eksportivaid tootjaid, Saksamaa ja Madalmaade tolliasutuste teadetes nimetatud importijaid, oma Hiina ja/või Vietnami tarnijate nimed ja aadressid esitanud importijaid, ning kõiki teisi isikuid, kes andsid endast märku, teavitati olulistest asjaoludest ja kaalutlustest, mille alusel kavatseti soovitada uuesti kehtestada lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks 70 asjaomase eksportiva tootja ekspordi suhtes.
Second, the Commission understood from the information provided to it that SIEMES' reimbursement request of 19 March 2012 was rejected because the judgment pursuant to which it lodged its reimbursement request was limited to Brosmann and Aokang.
Neile anti pärast avalikustamist võimalus esitada teatava aja jooksul oma märkused.
The judgment had no effect vis-à-vis other exporting producers in China and Vietnam.
Käesolev määrus on kooskõlas määruse (EL) 2016/1036 artikli 15 lõike 1 alusel loodud komitee arvamusega,
Only on 4 February 2016 did the Court of Justice declare, in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the contested Regulation invalid in so far as it concerned all exporting producers of the product concerned (see recital 12).
ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA MÄÄRUSE:
It is only at this point that SIEMES was concerned by a judgment of the Court, as duly notified to it by the German customs authorities in their letter of 7 September 2016.
Artikkel 1
The Commission implemented the judgment vis-à-vis a number of exporting producers as described in recitals 18 to 38, as well as vis-à-vis the importers requesting reimbursement claims before the German customs authorities.
Käesolevaga kehtestatakse lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks Hiina Rahvavabariigist ja Vietnamist pärit ning käesoleva määruse II lisas loetletud eksportivate tootjate toodetud nahast või komposiitnahast pealsetega jalatsite impordi suhtes (välja arvatud spordijalatsid, jalatsid, mille valmistamisel kasutatakse eritehnoloogiat, tuhvlid ja muud toajalatsid ning varbakaitsega jalatsid), mis liigitatakse järgmiste CN-koodide alla: 64032000, ex64033000, [45] ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 ja ex64051000, [46] kui import toimus ajavahemikul, mil kohaldati nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 1472/2006 ja nõukogu rakendusmäärust (EL) nr 1294/2009.
In particular, as regards imports subject to reimbursement claims notified to the Commission by the German customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 (reference is made to recital 30), the Commission fully respected the eight month time limit for implementation set out in Article 1(2) of that Regulation.
TARICi koodid on loetletud käesoleva määruse I lisas.
The Commission, accordingly, disagreed with the argument that this procedure violated the principle of good administration.
Käesolevas määruses kasutatakse järgmisi mõisteid: —
This claim had therefore to be rejected.
„spordijalatsid“ jalatsid komisjoni määruse (EÜ) nr 1719/2005 [47] I lisa grupi 64 alamrubriigi 1 tähenduses;—
D. CONCLUSIONS
„jalatsid, mille valmistamisel kasutatakse eritehnoloogiat“ jalatsid, mille paari CIF-hind on vähemalt 7,5 eurot, mis on mõeldud sportimiseks, millel on ühe- või mitmekihiline vormitud, õmblusteta sünteetilisest materjalist sisetald, mis on spetsiaalselt välja töötatud vertikaalsete või külgliikumiste mõju pehmendamiseks ja mille tehnilised omadused on saavutatud näiteks gaasi või vedelikku sisaldava hermeetilise polstri, põrutusi vähendavate või neutraliseerivate mehhaaniliste osade või väikese tihedusega polümeermaterjaliga ja mis liigitatakse CN-koodide ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 alla; —
Having taken account of the comments made and the analysis thereof, the Commission concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, i.e. 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should be reimposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
„varbakaitsmega jalatsid“ jalatsid, millel on kaitsev varbaosa, mille löögikindlus on vähemalt 100 džauli [48] ning mis liigitatakse järgmiste CN-koodide alla: ex64033000, [49] ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 ja ex64051000; —
As mentioned in recital 28, the Commission suspended the assessment of the companies listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 until the importer claiming reimbursement from national customs authorities has informed the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producer(s) from which the relevant traders purchased footwear, or where no reply is received within that period of time, the expiry of the deadline set by the Commission for providing that information.
„tuhvlid ja muud toajalatsid“ jalatsid, mis liigitatakse CN-koodi ex64051000 alla.
In Article 3 of Regulation (EU) 2017/423 the Commission also instructed the relevant national customs authorities not to reimburse the customs duties collected until the Commission has finalised the assessment of the relevant MET/IT claims.
Lõpliku dumpinguvastase tollimaksu määr, mida kohaldatakse käesoleva määruse II lisas loetletud eksportivate tootjate toodetud ning lõikes 1 kirjeldatud toodete vaba netohinna suhtes liidu piiril enne tollimaksu sissenõudmist, on 16,5 % asjaomaste Hiina eksportivate tootjate puhul ning 10 % asjaomase Vietnami eksportiva tootja puhul.
As a consequence, as mentioned in recital 29, Pentland Brands Ltd, Puma UK Ltd and Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd came forward and identified their suppliers.
Artikkel 2
The Commission analysed the MET/IT claims of the suppliers identified in the current Regulation.
Summad, mis on tagatiseks antud ajutise dumpinguvastase tollimaksuna vastavalt komisjoni määrusele (EÜ) nr 553/2006, nõutakse lõplikult sisse.
It follows that the Commission finalised the assessment of the situation of the companies listed in Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Dumpinguvastaste tollimaksude lõplikku määra ületavad tagatissummad tuleb vabastada.
As a result, for companies listed in Annex III of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, the Commission has no record that these companies submitted any MET/IT claim form in the original investigation.
Artikkel 3
The relevant reimbursement claim of the importers should therefore not be granted because the contested Regulation has not been annulled as far as they are concerned.
Käesolev määrus jõustub järgmisel päeval pärast selle avaldamist Euroopa Liidu Teatajas.
For ease of reference, the Commission has reproduced Annex III of Regulation (EU) 2017/423 as Annex VI to this Regulation.
Käesolev määrus on tervikuna siduv ja vahetult kohaldatav kõikides liikmesriikides.
E. DISCLOSURE
Brüssel, 4. detsember 2017
The exporting producers concerned, the importers that were concerned by notification of the customs authorities of Germany and the Netherlands, the importers that came forward providing the names and addresses of their respective suppliers in China and/or Vietnam as well as all other parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the reimposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the 70 exporting producers concerned.
Komisjoni nimel
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
president
This Regulation is in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,
ELT L 176, 30.6.2016, lk 21.
HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
ELT L 98, 6.4.2006, lk 3.
Article 1
Nõukogu 5. oktoobri 2006. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 1472/2006, millega kehtestatakse teatavate Hiina Rahvavabariigist ja Vietnamist pärit nahast pealsetega jalatsite impordi suhtes lõplik dumpinguvastane tollimaks ning millega nõutakse lõplikult sisse kõnealuse impordi suhtes kehtestatud ajutine tollimaks (ELT L 275, 6.10.2006, lk 1).
A definitive anti-dumping duty is hereby imposed on imports of footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather, excluding sports footwear, footwear involving special technology, slippers and other indoor footwear and footwear with a protective toecap, originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by the exporting producers listed in Annex II to this Regulation and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000 [45], ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000 [46] which took place during the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009.
Nõukogu 29. aprilli 2008. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 388/2008, millega laiendatakse määrusega (EÜ) nr 1472/2006 teatavate Hiina Rahvavabariigist pärit nahast pealsetega jalatsite impordi kohta kehtestatud lõplikke dumpinguvastaseid meetmeid Aomeni erihalduspiirkonnast lähetatud sama toote impordi suhtes olenemata sellest, kas need on deklareeritud Aomeni erihalduspiirkonnast pärinevatena või mitte (ELT L 117, 1.5.2008, lk 1).
The TARIC codes are listed in the Annex I to this Regulation.
ELT C 251, 3.10.2008, lk 21.