natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Rather, it suffices to determine the correct duty rate, and to reimburse any possible difference (whereas it would not be possible to increase the duty rate, as the increased part would constitute retroactive imposition).
Naprotiv, dovoljno je odrediti točnu stopu pristojbe i vratiti moguću razliku (pri čemu ne bi bilo moguće povećati stopu pristojbe jer bi se povećani dio smatrao retroaktivnim uvođenjem).
Past annulments to which interested parties refer have concerned the finding of dumping, injury and Union interest (either with regard to the establishment of facts, with regard to the assessment of the facts, or with regard to rights of defence).
Prethodna poništenja na koja zainteresirane strane upućuju odnosila su se na nalaze o dampingu, šteti i interesu Unije (u pogledu utvrđivanja činjenica, procjene činjenica ili prava na obranu).
Those annulments have either been partial or complete.
Ta su poništenja bila djelomična ili potpuna.
The Union Courts use the technique of partial annulment where they can conclude themselves on the basis of the facts in the file that the Institutions ought to have granted a certain adjustment or should have used a different method for a certain calculation, which would have resulted in the imposition of a lower duty (but did not put into question the findings of dumping, injury and Union interest).
Sudovi Unije koriste se tehnikom djelomičnog poništenja ako sami na temelju činjenica u spisu mogu zaključiti da su institucije trebale odobriti određenu prilagodbu ili da su trebale upotrijebiti drukčiju metodu za određeni izračun koja bi dovela do uvođenja niže pristojbe (ali ne bi dovela u pitanje nalaze o dampingu, šteti ili interesu Unije).
The (lower) duty remains in force both for the time prior to annulment and for the time after annulment.
(Niža) pristojba ostaje na snazi za razdoblje prije poništenja i za razdoblje nakon poništenja.
In order to comply with the judgment, the Institutions recalculate the duty and amend the Regulation imposing the duty accordingly for the past and for the future.
Kako bi postupile u skladu s presudom, institucije ponovno izračunavaju pristojbu i na odgovarajući način izmjenjuju uredbu o uvođenju pristojbe za prošlo i buduće razdoblje.
They also instruct national customs authorities to reimburse the difference, where such claims had been made in due time.
Osim toga, one upućuju nacionalna carinska tijela da nadoknade razliku ako su takvi zahtjevi pravovremeno podneseni.
The Union Courts proceed to complete annulment where they cannot establish themselves on the basis of the facts in the file whether or not the institutions were right in assuming that there was dumping, injury and Union interest, because the Institutions had to redo part of their investigation.
Sudovi Unije primjenjuju potpuno poništenje ako sami na temelju činjenica u spisu ne mogu utvrditi jesu li institucije ispravno pretpostavile da postoji damping, šteta i interes Unije jer su institucije morale ponoviti dio svojeg ispitnog postupka.
As the Union Courts are not competent for carrying out the investigation at the place of the Commission, they annulled the regulations imposing definitive duties completely.
Budući da sudovi Unije nisu mjerodavni za provedbu ispitnog postupka umjesto Komisije, u cijelosti poništavaju uredbe o uvođenju konačnih pristojbi.
As a consequence, the Institutions validly established the presence of the three conditions necessary for the imposition of measures only after the judgment annulling the duties.
Kao posljedica toga, institucije su valjano utvrdile postojanje triju uvjeta potrebnih za uvođenje mjera tek nakon presude o poništavanju pristojbi.
For imports that took place prior to the valid establishment of dumping, injury and Union interest, the imposition of definitive duties is prohibited both by the basic Regulation and by ADA.
Za uvoz koji je izvršen prije valjanog utvrđenja dampinga, štete i interesa Unije uvođenje konačnih pristojbi zabranjeno je Osnovnom uredbom i ADA-om.
Therefore, the acts adopted by the institutions to close those investigations imposed definitive duties only for the future.
Stoga su aktima koje su institucije donijele kako bi zaključile te ispitne postupke konačne pristojbe donesene samo za buduće razdoblje.
The present case is different from past (partial or complete) annulments in so far, as it does not concern the very presence of dumping, injury and Union interest, but merely the choice of the appropriate duty rate (that is the choice between the duty rate applicable to the only company in the sample having received MET and the residual duty rate).
Ovaj se predmet razlikuje od prethodnih (djelomičnih ili potpunih) poništenja utoliko da se ne odnosi na samo postojanje dampinga, štete i interesa Unije, nego samo na izbor odgovarajuće stope pristojbe (tj. izbor između stope pristojbe koja se primjenjuje samo na jedno društvo u uzorku koje je primilo MET i preostale stope pristojbe).
What is at dispute is therefore not the very principle of imposing a duty, but only the precise amount (in other words: a modality) of the duty.
Stoga nije sporno načelo uvođenja pristojbe, nego samo točan iznos (drugim riječima: način) pristojbe.
And the adjustment, if any, can only be downwards.
Osim toga, prilagodba, ako postoji, može biti samo smanjenje.
Contrary to the cases of partial annulment in the past discussed above in recital (119), the Court has not been able to decide as to whether a new (reduced) duty rate had to be granted, because that decision requires first an assessment of the MET claim.
Za razliku od predmeta djelomičnog poništenja u prošlosti koji su razmatrani u uvodnoj izjavi 119., Sud nije mogao odlučiti je li bilo potrebno odobriti novu (sniženu) stopu pristojbe jer je za tu odluku najprije potrebno ocijeniti zahtjev za MET.
That task of assessing the MET claim falls within the prerogatives of the Commission.
Komisija je nadležna za ocjenu zahtjeva za MET.
Hence, the Court cannot carry out this part of the investigation at the place of the Commission without overstepping its competences.
Stoga Sud ne može provesti ovaj dio ispitnog postupka umjesto Komisije, a da pritom ne prekorači svoje ovlasti.
Contrary to cases of complete annulment in the past, the findings on dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have not been annulled.
Za razliku od predmeta u kojima je došlo do potpunog poništenja u prošlosti nalazi o dampingu, šteti, uzročnosti i interesu Unije nisu poništeni.
Therefore, dumping, injury, causality and Union interest have been validly established at the time of adoption of Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Stoga su damping, šteta, uzročnost i interes Unije valjano utvrđeni u trenutku donošenja Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006.
Therefore, there is no reason to limit the reimposition of definitive anti-dumping duties to the future.
Stoga ne postoji razlog za ograničavanje ponovnog uvođenja konačnih antidampinških pristojbi u budućnosti.
The present regulation does therefore in any event not depart from the decisional practice of the Institutions, even if it was relevant.
Stoga se ovom Uredbom ni na koji način ne odstupa od prakse odlučivanja institucija, čak i ako je ona bila relevantna.
Interested parties also argued that the annulment of anti-dumping duties would not entail any unjust enrichment by the importers, as claimed by the Commission, since these importers may have suffered a decline in sales due to the duty which had been incorporated in the sales price.
Zainteresirane strane tvrdile su da poništenje antidampinških pristojbi ne bi dovelo do neopravdanog bogaćenja uvoznika, kako je tvrdila Komisija, jer su ti uvoznici možda pretrpjeli pad prodaje zbog pristojbe koja je bila uključena u prodajnu cijenu.
In the case-law of the Court of Justice, it is recognized that the repayment of charges which have been unduly levied may be refused where doing so would entail unjust enrichment of the recipients.
U sudskoj praksi Suda, prepoznaje se da bi vraćanje iznosa plaćenih za pristojbe koje su neopravdano naplaćene moglo biti odbijeno ako bi se njime prouzročilo neopravdano bogaćenje primatelja.
The Commission observes that those interested parties do not contest that the duty has been passed on and do not provide any proof for a decline in sales, and that in any event the case-law on unjust enrichment only takes into pass-on, but not possible secondary effects of pass-on.
Komisija primjećuje da te zainteresirane strane ne osporavaju činjenicu da je pristojba prenesena i da nisu dostavile dokaze o padu prodaje te da se u svakom slučaju u sudskoj praksi o nepravednom bogaćenju uzima u obzir samo prijenos, ali ne i mogući sekundarni učinci prijenosa.
Regarding the alleged derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity, reference is made to the recitals 76 to 81 where this was addressed extensively.
U pogledu navodnog odstupanja od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti, upućuje se na uvodne izjave 76. do 81. u kojima je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Regarding the alleged application of two different legal frames in the current implementation reference is made to recitals 99 to 102 where this was addressed extensively.
U pogledu navodne primjene dvaju različitih pravnih okvira u trenutačnoj provedbi, upućuje se na uvodne izjave 99. do 102. u kojima je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Finally, concerning the comments provided by these parties following the disclosure of the MET assessment of the Chinese exporting producers concerned, it is considered that these have been addressed fully in the current Regulation.
Naposljetku, u pogledu primjedbi navedenih stranaka slijedom objave ocjene MET-a predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika, smatra se da su one u potpunosti uzete u obzir u ovoj Uredbi.
Other procedural issues
Ostala postupovna pitanja
The above interested parties claimed that the same procedural rights should have granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation than those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Navedene zainteresirane strane tvrdile su da su proizvođačima izvoznicima na koje se odnosi trenutačna provedba trebala biti dana ista postupovna prava koja su dana proizvođačima izvoznicima u uzorku tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
They argued that in particular, the Chinese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters and only desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits.
Tvrdile su da posebice kineskim proizvođačima izvoznicima nije pružena mogućnost da nadopune svoje obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT putem obavijesti o manjkavosti isprave te da je provedena samo analiza dokumentacije, ali ne i provjera na licu mjesta.
In addition, the Commission did not ensure the due delivery of the disclosure of the assessment of MET/IT requests to the exporting producers concerned as these were only sent to the legal representatives of these companies at the time of the original investigation.
Nadalje, Komisija nije osigurala propisnu dostavu objave ocjene zahtjeva za MET/IT predmetnim proizvođačima izvoznicima jer su one poslane samo zakonskim predstavnicima društava tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
It was further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Nadalje se tvrdilo da predmetnim proizvođačima izvoznicima na koje se odnosi ova provedba nisu omogućena ista postupovna jamstva koja se primjenjuju u standardnim antidampinškim ispitnim postupcima, već su primijenjeni stroži standardi.
The Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
Komisija nije uzela u obzir vremensku razliku između podnošenja zahtjeva za MIT/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku i ocjene tih zahtjeva.
In addition, exporting producers, during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Nadalje, proizvođačima izvoznicima tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka omogućeno je samo 15 dana za ispunjavanje zahtjeva za MET/IT umjesto uobičajenog 21 dana.
In addition, one of the importers claimed that the procedural rights of the exporting producers were violated as they were no longer in a position to provide meaningful comments or provide additional information to support claims that were made 11 years ago as the companies may no longer exist or the documents may no longer be available.
Usto, jedan je od uvoznika tvrdio da su povrijeđena postupovna prava proizvođača izvoznika jer više nisu bili u mogućnosti da iznesu značajne primjedbe ili dodatne podatke koji bi podržali navode iznesene prije 11 godina jer ta društva možda više ne postoje ili dokumenti više nisu dostupni.
The same party argued that unlike in the original investigation, the current reimposition of the measures would only affect the importers in the Union without, however, any option for them to provide meaningful input.
Ista je strana tvrdila da bi, za razliku od početnog ispitnog postupka, trenutačno ponovno uvođenje mjera utjecalo samo na uvoznike u Uniji pri čemu im je uskraćena mogućnost da iznesu značajne podatke.
Also, it was claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Također, tvrdilo se da je Komisija primijenila de facto podatke koji su bili dostupni unutar značenja čl. 18. stavka 1. Osnovne uredbe, a da Komisija nije postupala u skladu s postupovnim pravilima koja su predviđena čl. 18. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe.
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.
Komisija napominje da se ni u jednoj odredbi Osnovne uredbe od Komisije ne zahtjeva da društvima izvoznicima koji traže MET/IT omogući dopunu činjeničnih podataka koji nedostaju.
It recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Podsjeća da je prema sudskoj praksi teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji zahtijeva MET/IT na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) Osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the Institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim, kako je Sud smatrao u presudama Brosmann i Aokang, institucije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač ne ispunjava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission 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/IT (see above recital 31).
Naprotiv, Komisija treba ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač dostatni da se pokaže da su kriteriji utvrđeni člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom Osnovne uredbe ispunjeni kako bi se tom proizvođaču odobrio MET/IT (vidjeti uvodnu izjavu 31.)).
The right to be heard concerns the assessment of those facts, but does not comprise the right to remedy deficient information.
Pravo na saslušanje odnosi se na ocjenu tih činjenica, ali njime nije obuhvaćeno pravo na ispravak podataka koji nedostaju.
Otherwise, the exporting producer could prolong indefinitely the assessment, by providing information piece by piece.
U suprotnom bi proizvođač izvoznik mogao beskonačno dugo produljivati ocjenu dostavljanjem podataka malo po malo.
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.
U tom se pogledu podsjeća da za Komisiju ne postoji obveza da od proizvođača izvoznika zatraži da on dopuni svoj zahtjev za MET/IT.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Institutions cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Taj je navod stoga toliko apstraktan da institucije pri ocjenjivanju zahtjeva za MET/IT ne mogu uzeti u obzir te poteškoće.
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 has to be rebutted.
S obzirom na to da se ta tvrdnja temelji na nagađanju i da nije potkrijepljena preciznim naznakama o tome koji dokumenti i koje osobe više nisu dostupni te koja je važnost tih dokumenata i osoba za ocjenu zahtjeva za MET/IT, ta se tvrdnja mora odbaciti.
Regarding the de facto application of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, this does not automatically also require the application of Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
U pogledu de facto primjene čl. 18. stavka 1. Osnovne uredbe, to ne zahtijeva automatsku primjenu čl.
This is only required in cases where the Commission were to reject information that had been provided by the interested party.
18. stavka 4. Osnovne uredbe. To se zahtijeva jedino u slučajevima kada bi Komisija odbacila podatke koje je dostavila zainteresirana strana.
In the current case, the Commission accepted the information provided by the exporting producers concerned and based its assessment on this information.
U ovom slučaju, Komisija je prihvatila podatke koje su dostavili predmetni proizvođači izvoznici te je temeljila svoju ocjenu na tim podacima.
That is not use of facts available.
To se ne smatra uporabom dostupnih činjenica.
Rather, the Commission has not rejected any information.
Već Komisija nije odbila nikakve podatke.
One importer claimed 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.
Jedan je uvoznik tvrdio da Komisija nije ispitala bi li uvođenje antidampinških pristojbi bilo u interesu Unije te je tvrdio da bi mjere bile protivne interesu Unije jer i. bi mjere već postigle svoj planirani učinak pri prvom uvođenju; ii. mjere ne bi prouzročile dodatnu korist za industriju Unije; iii. mjere ne bi utjecale na proizvođače izvoznike te iv. bi mjere nametnule bitan trošak za uvoznike u Uniji.
The present case only concerns the MET/IT requests, because this is the only point on which a legal error has been identified by the Union Courts.
Trenutačni se slučaj odnosi samo na zahtjeve za MET/IT jer je to jedina točka u kojoj su sudovi Unije pronašli zakonske pogreške.
For Union interest, the assessment in the initial regulation remains fully valid.
Radi interesa Unije, ocjena u početnoj uredbi ostaje u cijelosti valjana.
Furthermore, the present measure is justified in order to protect the financial interest of the Union.
Nadalje, trenutna je mjera opravdana radi zaštite financijskog interesa Unije.
Manifest errors in the assessment of MET/IT requests
Očite pogreške u ocjeni zahtjeva za MET/IT
MET assessment
i. ocjena MET-a
FESI and Puma contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of their Chinese suppliers and alleged that they were mainly rejected based on the absence of complete information.
FESI i Puma osporili su ocjenu Komisije u pogledu zahtjeva za MET njihovih kineskih dobavljača navodeći da su uglavnom odbijeni zbog nedostatka potpunih podatka.
Regarding criterion 1, these parties argued that the Commission, apart from making no effort to obtain the missing information did also not specify which information would have been necessary to show that there was no significant State interference in the business decisions of the exporting producers concerned.
U pogledu kriterija 1., te su strane tvrdile da Komisija, osim što nije nastojala pribaviti podatke koji nedostaju, također nije naznačila koji su joj podaci potrebni kao dokaz da nije bilo značajnog uplitanja države u poslovne odluke predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika.
Regarding criterion 3, referring the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, these parties argued that tax incentives or preferential tax regimes were not indicative for any distortion or non-market economy behaviour.
U pogledu kriterija 3., pozivajući se na presudu Suda u predmetu T-586/14 Xinyi OV protiv Komisije, te su stranke tvrdile da porezni poticaji ili preferencijalni porezni režimi nisu pokazatelji narušavanja tržišnog gospodarstva ili ponašanja koje nije u skladu s tržišnim gospodarstvom.
On this basis, the parties argued that the Commission made a manifest error in the application of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and has also not provided adequate reasons for the rejection of the exporting producers' MET requests.
Na temelju toga, stranke su utvrdile da je Komisija počinila očiglednu pogrešku u primjeni čl. 2. stavka 7. točke (c) Osnovne uredbe te da isto tako nije pružila dostatne razloge za odbacivanje zahtjeva za MET proizvođača izvoznika.
With regard to the missing information concerning criterion 1, reference is made to (135) which outlines that there is nothing in the basic Regulation that requires the Commission to give exporting companies claiming MET the possibility to complete lacking factual information and that the burden of proof lies in fact with the exporting producer who wishes to claim MET.
S obzirom na podatke koji nedostaju u smislu kriterija 1., upućuje se na uvodnu izjavu 135. koja navodi da ništa u Osnovnoj uredbi ne obvezuje Komisiju da društvima izvoznicima koja zahtijevaju MET omogući nadopunu činjeničnih podataka koji nedostaju te da u stvari teret dokazivanja počiva na proizvođaču izvozniku koji zahtijeva MET.
Concerning criterion 3, it is clarified that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET.
S obzirom na kriterij 3., obrazloženo je da ni porezni poticaji ni preferencijalni porezni režimi (ako postoje) nisu uzeti u obzir kao razlog za odbacivanje MET-a.
IT assessment
ocjena IT-a
The same above parties argued, referring to criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was up to the Commission to determine whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
Iste su strane tvrdile, pozivajući se na kriterij 2., da Komisija nije dokazala da se izvozna prodaja ne određuje slobodno te da je bio njezin zadatak da utvrdi utječe li i na koji način uplitanje države na izvozne cijene.
Moreover, it was argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to OEM sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from the Chinese suppliers.
Štoviše, navele su da je nalaz kako se izvozna prodaja ne određuje slobodno u suprotnosti s nalazima početnog ispitnog postupka koji se odnose na izvršenu prodaju proizvođača originalne opreme (OEM) u kojima je utvrđeno da uvoznici kao što je Puma provode vlastito istraživanje i razvoj te nabavu sirovina kada kupuju od kineskih dobavljača.
On this basis, it was claimed that Puma and Timberland had significant control over the production process and specifications and that there was therefore no possibility of State interference.
Na temelju toga, tvrdilo se da Puma i Timberland imaju značajnu kontrolu nad proizvodnim procesom i specifikacijama te da stoga nije bilo prostora za uplitanje države.