natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 [17], the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by thirteen Chinese exporting producers that submitted MET and IT claims in the investigation that lead to the imposition of definitive duties (‘original investigation’) but that had not been sampled during that investigation.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 [17] Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno prikupila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark i Puma određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju je proizvelo trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT u ispitnom postupku koji je rezultirao uvođenjem konačnih pristojbi („početni ispitni postupak”), ali koji nisu bili uključeni u uzorak tijekom tog ispitnog postupka.
For imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland from Vietnam the Commission assessed all MET and IT claims provided by the relevant non-sampled exporting producers that submitted such claims in the original investigation.
Za uvoz društava Clark, Puma i Timberland iz Vijetnama Komisija je ocijenila sve zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su dostavili relevantni proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, a koji su podnijeli takve zahtjeve u početnom ispitnom postupku.
Regarding imports of Timberland, one of the two Chinese suppliers identified in the case C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd was in fact established in Vietnam and assessed as such in the current exercise.
U pogledu uvoza društva Timberland, jedan od dva kineska dobavljača utvrđena u predmetu C-571/14, General Shoes Ltd, zapravo ima poslovni nastan u Vijetnamu i kao takav je ocijenjen u trenutačnom postupku.
As mentioned below in recital (144) this was later contested by the Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) that claimed that General Shoes Ltd was in fact a Chinese supplier.
Kako je navedeno u nastavku u uvodnoj izjavi 144., to je kasnije osporavala Federacija europskih proizvođača sportske robe („FESI”), koja je tvrdila da je društvo General Shoes Ltd zapravo kineski dobavljač.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM VIETNAM
B. PROVEDBA PRESUDA SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ VIJETNAMA
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment [18].
Komisija može ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ostavljajući pritom nepromijenjene dijelove ocjene na koje presuda ne utječe [18].
The present Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as certain exporting producers from Vietnam are concerned.
Cilj je ove Uredbe ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji nisu u skladu s Osnovnom uredbom i koji su stoga doveli do njezina proglašenja nevaljanom u pogledu određenih proizvođača izvoznika iz Vijetnama.
The Commission has examined whether MET and IT prevailed for the Vietnamese exporting producers, suppliers of Clark, Puma and Timberland, which submitted MET and/or IT requests in that investigation, during the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za vijetnamske proizvođače izvoznike, dobavljače društava Clark, Puma i Timberland, koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i/ili IT u tom ispitnom postupku, MET i IT prevladavali u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the three importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of their Vietnamese suppliers which requested MET and/or IT.
Svrha je tog određivanja utvrditi mjeru u kojoj tri predmetna uvoznika imaju pravo na povrat antidampinške pristojbe plaćene u pogledu antidampinških pristojbi koje su plaćene za izvoz njihovih vijetnamskih dobavljača koji su zatražili MET i/ili IT.
Should the analysis reveal that MET or IT was to be granted to the Vietnamese exporting producer whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by either of the three importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producers concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, namely 10 %, and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Ako se analizom pokaže da je MET ili IT bilo potrebno dodijeliti vijetnamskom proizvođaču izvozniku na čiji se izvoz primjenjivala antidampinška pristojba koju je platio neki od tri predmetna uvoznika, potrebno je predmetnim proizvođačima izvoznicima dodijeliti pojedinačnu stopu pristojbe te bi povrat pristojbe bio ograničen na iznos koji odgovara razlici između plaćene pristojbe, odnosno 10 %, i pojedinačne stope pristojbe izračunane za predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika, ako je ima.
As explained in recital 12, the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers, i.e. Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd, Freetrend Industrial Ltd and its related company Freetrend Industrial A (Vietnam) Co, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd, Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd, (‘the exporting producers concerned’) to the Union and imported by C&J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE and Timberland Europe B.V., in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by, inter alia, the exporting producers in Vietnam.
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 12., Sud je poništio Spornu uredbu i Provedbenu uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009 u pogledu izvoza određene obuće četrnaest vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika, tj. društava Best Royal Co. Ltd, Lac Cuong Footwear Co., Ltd, Lac Ty Co., Ltd, Saoviet Joint Stock Company (Megastar Joint Stock Company), VMC Royal Co Ltd., Freetrend Industrial Ltd. i njegovog povezanog trgovačkog društva Freetrend Industrial A (Vijetnam) Co, Fulgent Sun Footwear Co., Ltd, General Shoes Ltd, Golden Star Co, Ltd, Golden Top Company Co., Ltd, Kingmaker Footwear Co. Ltd., Tripos Enterprise Inc., Vietnam Shoe Majesty Co., Ltd. („predmetni proizvođači izvoznici”) u Uniju i uvoza od strane društava C&J Clark International Ltd, Puma SE i Timberland Europe B.V., jer Komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su, među ostalima, podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz Vijetnama.
The Commission has therefore in a first step examined the MET and IT claims of these fourteen exporting producers in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Komisija je stoga u prvom koraku ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT tih četrnaest proizvođača izvoznika kako bi utvrdila stopu pristojbe koja se primjenjuje na njihov izvoz.
The assessment showed that the information provided was not sufficient to demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals (30) and following).
Ocjenom se pokazalo da dostavljeni podaci nisu bili dostatni kao dokaz da predmetni proizvođači izvoznici posluju u uvjetima tržišnoga gospodarstva niti da ispunjuju uvjete za individualni tretman (vidjeti detaljno objašnjenje u nastavku u uvodnoj izjavi 30. i sljedećim uvodnim izjavama).
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
On the contrary, it is for the Union Institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the producer concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation are fulfilled in order to grant it MET and it is for the Union judicature to examine whether that assessment is vitiated by a manifest error (paragraph 32 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Naprotiv, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač dostatan dokaz da su kriteriji određeni člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom Osnovne uredbe ispunjeni kako bi se tom proizvođaču odobrio MET, a sud Unije treba ispitati je li ta ocjena iskrivljena zbog očigledne pogreške (točka 32. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 24. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Stoga je mišljenje Komisije bilo da je neispunjenje barem jednog od navedenih kriterija dovoljan razlog za odbijanje zahtjeva za MET.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criteria 1 (Business decisions).
Nijedan od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije mogao dokazati da je ispunio kriterij 1 (poslovne odluke).
More specifically, the information provided by eight exporting producers (V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V13, V14) demonstrated that the State exerted a significant influence in the business decisions.
Točnije, informacije koje je dostavilo osam proizvođača izvoznika (V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V13, V14) pokazale su da je država imala znatan utjecaj na poslovne odluke.
As for the six remaining exporting producers, they failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence concerning domestic sales, evidence concerning the appointment of directors, etc.) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Preostalih šest proizvođača izvoznika nisu dostavili bitne i potpune informacije (npr. dokaze o strukturi i kapitalu društva, dokaze o domaćoj prodaji, dokaze o imenovanju direktora itd.) kako bi dokazali da se njihove poslovne odluke donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale, a bez znatnog uplitanja države.
As concerns criterion 2 (Accounting), ten companies (V1, V2, V3, V5, V6, V7, V9, V10, V11, V12) did not meet this criterion as they did not submit a clear set of basic accounting records.
U pogledu kriterija 2 (računovodstvo), deset društava (V1, V2, V3, V5, V6, V7, V9, V10, V11, V12) nije ispunilo taj kriterij jer nisu dostavila transparentan sustav osnovnih računovodstvenih podataka.
The deficiencies observed were the absence of audited accounts or auditor's opinions, severe issues highlighted by auditors in their opinion (such as non-compliance with international accounting standards) and contradictions regarding loans between certain statements made in the MET claim form and the financial statements.
Utvrđene su manjkavosti nedostatak revidiranih financijskih izvještaja ili revizorskih mišljenja, ozbiljni problemi koje su revizori istaknuli u svojem mišljenju (kao što je neusklađenost s međunarodnim računovodstvenim standardima) i proturječnosti u pogledu zajmova među određenim navodima u obrascu zahtjeva za MET i financijskim izvještajima.
For the remaining four companies criterion 2 was not assessed for the reasons set out in recital (31).
Za preostala četiri društva kriterij 2 nije se ocjenjivao zbog razloga utvrđenih u uvodnoj izjavi 31.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry-over’), eight exporting producers (V2, V4, V5, V7, V8, V10, V11, V12) failed to provide complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the assets owned by the company and the land use right, explanation for non-payment of income taxes) to demonstrate that no distortions were carried over from the non-market economy system.
U pogledu kriterija 3 (imovina i „prenošenje”) osam proizvođača izvoznika (V2, V4, V5, V7, V8, V10, V11, V12) nije dostavilo potpune podatke (npr. dokaze o imovini u vlasništvu društva i pravu na korištenje zemljišta, objašnjenje neplaćanja poreza na dobit) kako bi dokazali da nikakvi poremećaji nisu preneseni iz sustava bez tržišnoga gospodarstva.
For the remaining six companies criterion 3 was not assessed for the reasons set out in recital (31).
Za preostalih šest društava kriterij 3 nije se ocjenjivao zbog razloga utvrđenih u uvodnoj izjavi 31.
For the reasons set out in recital (31), for none of the exporting producers concerned criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) were assessed.
Zbog razloga utvrđenih u uvodnoj izjavi 31. ni za jednog od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nisu ocijenjeni kriterij 4 (zakoni o stečaju i imovini) i kriterij 5 (konverzije valuta).
On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned should be granted MET and informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly, which were invited to provide comments.
Na temelju prethodno navedenog Komisija je zaključila da se nijednom od četrnaest predmetnih vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika ne bi trebao odobriti MET te je o tome obavijestila predmetne proizvođače izvoznike, koje je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
No comments were received from any of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned.
Nijedna primjedba nije primljena ni od jednog od četrnaest predmetnih vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika.
Therefore, none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, denied for all of them.
Stoga ni jedan od četrnaest predmetnih vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio sve uvjete određene člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) Osnovne uredbe, zbog čega se nijednom od njih ne odobrava MET.
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, where Article 2(7)(a) of the same Regulation applies, an individual duty shall however be specified for the exporters which can demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena, u slučajevima u kojima se primjenjuje članak 2. stavak 7. točka (a) te uredbe, odredit će se pojedinačna pristojba za izvoznike koji mogu dokazati da ispunjuju sve kriterije iz članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena.
As mentioned in recital (30) it is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT under Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 30., nužno je istaknuti da je teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji želi da mu se, na temelju članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena, odobri IT.
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union Institutions to prove that the exporter does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da izvoznik ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
On the contrary, it is for the Union Institutions to assess whether the evidence supplied by the exporter concerned is sufficient to show that the criteria laid down in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment are fulfilled in order to grant IT.
Naprotiv, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni izvoznik dostatni da se pokaže da su kriteriji određeni člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena ispunjeni kako bi se tom izvozniku odobrio IT.
In accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, exporters should demonstrate on the basis of a properly substantiated claim that all five criteria listed in this Article are met so that they can be granted IT.
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena izvoznici bi trebali na temelju propisno obrazloženog zahtjeva dokazati da je ispunjeno svih pet kriterija iz tog članka kako bi im se odobrio IT.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the IT claim.
Stoga je mišljenje Komisije bilo da je neispunjenje barem jednog od navedenih kriterija dovoljan razlog za odbijanje zahtjeva za IT.
the majority of the shares belong to private persons; state officials appearing on the board of directors or holding key management positions shall either be in minority or it must be demonstrated that the company is nonetheless sufficiently independent from State interference;
većina dionica pripada pojedincima; državni dužnosnici u upravnom odboru ili na ključnim upravljačkim pozicijama u manjini su ili se mora dokazati da je društvo ipak dovoljno nezavisno od uplitanja države;
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
konverzije valuta obavljaju se po tržišnoj vrijednosti; i
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
uplitanje države nije toliko da bi omogućilo izbjegavanje mjera ako bi se pojedinačnim izvoznicima odredile različite stope pristojba.
All fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Svih četrnaest vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su zatražili MET zatražili su i IT u slučaju da im se ne odobri MET.
Four exporting producers (Companies V6, V12, V13, V14) failed to meet Criterion 1 (Capital repatriation) since they failed to provided substantiated evidence that repatriation was permitted.
Četiri proizvođača izvoznika (društva V6, V12, V13, V14) nisu ispunila kriterij 1 (repatrijacija kapitala) jer nisu dostavila potkrijepljene dokaze da je repatrijacija dopuštena.
None of the fourteen exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that they met Criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined).
Ni jedan od četrnaest predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije mogao dokazati da je ispunio kriterij 2 (slobodno utvrđivanje izvozne prodaje i izvoznih cijena).
More specifically, for nine exporting producers (Companies V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V10, V13, V14) the Articles of Association, Investment Licence or Business Licence stipulated a limitation in output and therefore they failed to demonstrate that business decisions, such as export quantities are made in response to market signals reflecting supply and demand.
Točnije, za devet proizvođača izvoznika (društva V1, V2, V4, V7, V8, V9, V10, V13, V14) statutom, dozvolom za ulaganje ili dozvolom za rad utvrđeno je ograničenje proizvodnje te oni stoga nisu mogli dokazati da se poslovne odluke, kao što je odluka o količini izvoza, donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale koji odražavaju ponudu i potražnju.
The remaining exporting producers concerned did not sell on the domestic market and provided no further explanations so that they have not demonstrated that this was not due to State intervention.
Ostali predmetni proizvođači izvoznici nisu prodavali na domaćem tržištu i nisu dostavili dodatna objašnjenja, tako da nisu dokazali da to nije bila posljedica državne intervencije.
As regards Criterion 3 (Company –key management and shares- is sufficiently independent from State interference), it was found that two exporting producers (Companies V2, V8) were partly owned by State-owned shareholders.
S obzirom na kriterij 3 (društvo – ključni članovi uprave i dionice – dovoljno je nezavisno od uplitanja države), utvrđeno je da su dva proizvođača izvoznika (društva V2, V8) u djelomičnom vlasništvu dioničara u državnom vlasništvu.
The majority of the shares of one exporting producer (Company V2) did not belong to private persons as required by Criterion 3.
Većina dionica jednog proizvođača izvoznika (društvo V2) nije pripadala pojedincima kako se zahtijeva kriterijem 3.
In addition, the board members appointed by the respective State-owned shareholders of both exporting producers were found able to block any decision of their respective boards.
Osim toga, utvrđeno je da članovi odbora koje su imenovali odgovarajući dioničari u državnom vlasništvu iz oba proizvođača izvoznika mogu blokirati svaku odluku svojih odbora.
Therefore both exporting producers failed to demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference.
Zbog toga ni jedan od ta dva proizvođača izvoznika nije uspio dokazati da je dovoljno nezavisan od uplitanja države.
Therefore, none of the fourteen Vietnamese exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was, as a result, denied to all of them.
Ni jedan od četrnaest predmetnih vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika nije stoga ispunio uvjete iz članka 9. stavka 5. Osnovne uredbe prije izmjena, zbog čega se nijednom od njih ne odobrava IT.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to Vietnam should therefore be imposed for these exporting producers for the period of application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Za te bi proizvođače izvoznike stoga trebalo uvesti preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Vijetnam tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
The illegality identified in the judgments is that the Union Institutions failed to establish whether the products produced by the exporting producers concerned should be subject to the residual duty or to an individual duty.
Nezakonitost utvrđena u presudama u tome je što institucije Unije nisu uspjele utvrditi bi li proizvodi koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici trebali podlijegati preostaloj pristojbi ili pojedinačnoj pristojbi.
Since it is concluded that the residual duty should be re-imposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Council Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Budući da je zaključeno da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu pristojbu u pogledu predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika po istoj stopi po kojoj je na početku uvedena Spornom uredbom i Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009, nisu potrebne izmjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 388/2008.
The above findings and conclusions were disclosed to the interested parties which were given a time period to comment.
Gore navedeni nalazi i zaključci dostavljeni su zainteresiranim stranama koje su imale određeno vremensko razdoblje da dostave primjedbe.
FESI and one importer came forward and provided comments.
Javili su se FESI i jedan uvoznik te iznijeli primjedbe.
FESI's comments were also filed on behalf of Puma SE and Timberland Europe BV.
Primjedbe FESI-ja iznesene su i u ime društava Puma SE i Timberland Europe BV.
FESI claimed that there were a number of procedural errors in the current implementation.
FESI je tvrdio da je u trenutačnoj provedbi počinjen niz postupovnih pogrešaka.
FESI pointed to the fact that the MET claims of the Chinese exporting producers concerned were already examined and disclosed prior to the judgment of the Court of Justice in the joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, i.e. on 3 December 2015, as well as the Commission's intention to re-impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of footwear of 16,5 %.
FESI je naglasio činjenicu da su zahtjevi za MET kineskih proizvođača izvoznika već bili ispitani i objavljeni prije presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE, tj. 3. prosinca 2015., kao i namjeru Komisije da ponovno uvede konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu od 16,5 % na uvoz obuće.