natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In that regard, it is to be noted in particular that unrelated importers do not enjoy, in an antidumping proceeding, rights of defence, as those proceedings are not directed against them.
U tom je pogledu potrebno posebno napomenuti da nepovezani uvoznici u antidampinškom postupku nemaju pravo na zaštitu jer ti postupci nisu usmjereni protiv njih.
Regarding the alleged derogation from the principle of non-retroactivity, reference is made to the recitals (62) to (69) where this was addressed extensively.
U pogledu navodnog odstupanja od načela zabrane retroaktivnosti, upućuje se na uvodne izjave 62. do 69. u kojima je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Regarding the alleged application of two different legal regimes in the current implementation reference is made to recitals (87) to (90) where this was addressed extensively.
U pogledu navodne primjene dvaju različitih pravnih režima u trenutačnoj provedbi, upućuje se na uvodne izjave 87. do 90. u kojima je to detaljno objašnjeno.
Finally, concerning the comments provided by FESI following the disclosure of the MET assessment of the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers concerned, these have been addressed fully by the Commission in the current Regulation in recitals (32) and (39) above.
Konačno, u pogledu primjedbi FESI-ja nakon objave ocjene za MET predmetnih kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika, Komisija je na njih u ovoj Uredbi u potpunosti odgovorila u uvodnim izjavama 32. i 39.
FESI claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
FESI je tvrdio 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.
FESI argued in particular, that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters and that only desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits.
FESI je posebno tvrdio da kineskim i vijetnamskim proizvođačima izvoznicima nije pružena mogućnost da nadopune svoje obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT putem obavijesti o manjkavosti te da je provedena samo analiza dokumentacije, ali ne i provjere na licu mjesta.
In addition, FESI added that the Commission did not ensure the due delivery of the disclosure of the assessment of MET/IT requests to the exporting producers concerned.
Osim toga, FESI je dodao da Komisija nije osigurala pravovremenu dostavu informacija o objavi zahtjeva za MET/IT predmetnim proizvođačima izvoznicima.
FESI claimed that 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.
FESI je tvrdio da Komisija nije uzela u obzir vremensku razliku između podnošenja zahtjeva za MET/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 roka od 21 dana.
Also, FESI 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.
FESI je također tvrdio da je Komisija primijenila de facto podatke koji su bili dostupni u smislu članka 18. stavka 1. Osnovne uredbe, a da pritom nije postupala u skladu s postupovnim pravilima koja su predviđena člankom 18. stavkom 4. Osnovne uredbe.
The Commission 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.
Komisija podsjeća da je prema sudskoj praksi teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji zahtijeva MET/IT na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) Osnovne uredbe.
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 recital (32)).
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 32.).
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.
S time u vezi podsjeća se da Komisija nema obvezu od proizvođača izvoznika tražiti da dopuni svoj zahtjev za MET/IT.
As mentioned in the preceding recital, the Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Kako je navedeno u prethodnoj uvodnoj izjavi, Komisija svoju ocjenu može temeljiti na informacijama koje je dostavio proizvođač izvoznik.
The allegation is therefore so abstract that the Commission cannot take into account those difficulties when carrying out the assessment of the MET/IT claims.
Ta je tvrdnja stoga toliko apstraktna da Komisija pri ocjenjivanju zahtjeva za MET/IT ne može 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 rejected.
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.
Therefore, the Commission did not apply Article 18.
Stoga Komisija nije primijenila članak 18.
Regarding criterion 1 FESI contested the assessment of the Commission with regard to the MET requests of the Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers concerned.
U pogledu kriterija 1 FESI je osporavao ocjenu Komisije s obzirom na zahtjeve za MET predmetnih kineskih i vijetnamskih dobavljača.
FESI requested the Commission to provide more detailed information on the basis of which it was concluded that business decisions of the three Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers were not taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
FESI je zatražio od Komisije da dostavi detaljnije informacije na temelju kojih je zaključeno da poslovne odluke triju kineskih i vijetnamskih dobavljača nisu donesene u skladu s tržišnim signalima bez znatnog uplitanja države.
Regarding criterion 2, FESI observed that it was unable to understand the basic grounds for MET rejection given the vagueness of the Commission's assessment.
U pogledu kriterija 2 FESI je utvrdio da nije mogao razumjeti temeljne razloge za odbijanje MET-a s obzirom na nejasnoću Komisijine ocjene.
Regarding criterion 3, referring to the judgment of the Court of Justice in case T-586/14 Xinyi OV v Commission, FESI 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, FESI je tvrdio 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 it 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 članka 2. stavka 7. točke (c) Osnovne uredbe te da isto tako nije pružila dostatne razloge za odbacivanje zahtjeva za MET proizvođača izvoznika.
As to the request for more detailed information included in the MET/IT claims of the three Chinese and Vietnamese suppliers on the basis of which the Commission rejected criterion 1, it is noted that such information was provided to the Commission on a confidential basis as it contained business secrets.
U pogledu zahtjeva za detaljnije informacije u zahtjevima za MET/IT triju kineskih i vijetnamskih dobavljača na temelju kojih je Komisija odbacila kriterij 1, napominje se da su te informacije dostavljene Komisiji na povjerljivoj osnovi jer sadržavaju poslovne tajne.
This information could therefore not be disclosed as such and only a non-confidential summary thereof can be provided to interested parties.
Te se informacije stoga ne mogu objaviti kao takve i zainteresiranim stranama može se dostaviti samo njihov sažetak u verziji koja nije povjerljiva.
Concerning criterion 3, the Commission confirms that no tax incentives or preferential tax regimes (if any) were considered as a reason to reject the MET request.
S obzirom na kriterij 3, Komisija potvrđuje da ni porezni poticaji ni preferencijalni porezni režimi (ako postoje) nisu uzeti u obzir kao razlog za odbacivanje zahtjeva za MET.
None of the Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers concerned fulfilled these requirements.
Ni jedan od predmetnih kineskih ili vijetnamskih dobavljača nije ispunio te zahtjeve.
As outlined in recital (35) 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.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 35., utvrđene su manjkavosti odsustvo 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 između određenih navoda u obrascu zahtjeva za MET i financijskih izvještaja.
All claims made by FESI were therefore rejected and the findings laid out in recitals (32) to (39) confirmed.
Stoga su sve tvrdnje FESI-ja odbačene, a nalazi iz uvodnih izjava 32. do 39. potvrđeni.
FESI first argued referring to IT criterion 2, that the Commission did not show that export sales were not freely determined and that it was for the Commission to establish whether and how export prices were affected due to State interference.
FESI je prvo tvrdio, pozivajući se na kriterij 2 za IT, da Komisija nije dokazala da se izvozna prodaja ne određuje slobodno te da je upravo Komisija trebala utvrditi utječe li uplitanje države na izvozne cijene i na koji način.
Moreover, FESI argued that the finding that export sales were not freely determined contradicts the findings of the original investigation related to original equipment manufacturers (‘OEM’) sales made where it was established that importers such as Puma and Timberland were conducting its own R & D and raw material sourcing when buying from their suppliers.
Štoviše, FESI je tvrdio 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 su Puma i Timberland provode vlastito istraživanje i razvoj te nabavu sirovina kada kupuju od svojih dobavljača.
On this basis, FESI 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 FESI je tvrdio da Puma i Timberland imaju značajnu kontrolu nad proizvodnim procesom i specifikacijama te da stoga nije bilo prostora za uplitanje države.
As already mentioned in recital (41) above the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim IT.
Kako je već navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 41., teret dokazivanja počiva na proizvođaču koji zahtijeva IT.
As also explained above in recital (46) the exporting producers failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made without State interference.
Kako je već i objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi 46., proizvođači izvoznici nisu dokazali da su poslovne odluke donesene bez uplitanja države.
It is also noted that IT criterion 2 is not referring solely to export prices, but in general to export sales including export prices and quantities and other conditions and terms of sales that should be determined freely without State interference.
Također je navedeno da se kriterij 2 za IT ne odnosi samo na cijene izvoza, već općenito na izvoznu prodaju koja uključuje izvozne cijene i količine te druge uvjete i odredbe prodaje koji se trebaju odrediti slobodno bez uplitanja države.
In support of its argument that export prices were freely determined FESI referred to recital (269) of Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 (the provisional Regulation).
Kako bi potkrijepio svoj argument da su se cijene izvoza određivale slobodno, FESI je uputio na uvodnu izjavu 269. Uredbe (EZ) br. 553/2006 (Privremena uredba).
Likewise, the reference to recital (132) of the provisional Regulation and recital (135) of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (the contested Regulation) refers to adjustments made to the normal value when comparing it to the export price and does not allow any conclusions as to whether export sales of the Vietnamese companies were freely determined.
Isto tako, upućivanje na uvodnu izjavu 132. Privremene uredbe i uvodnu izjavu 135. Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 (Sporna uredba) odnosi se na prilagodbu normalne vrijednosti u odnosu na izvoznu cijenu te ne dopušta zaključke u pogledu toga je li izvozna prodaja vijetnamskih društava slobodno određena.
Furthermore, FESI claimed that the Commission has also not explained how it arrived to the conclusion that there would be a risk of circumvention of the anti-dumping measure if the exporting producers concerned were granted an individual duty rate that would, however, be the underlying purpose of the IT criteria.
Nadalje, FESI je tvrdio da Komisija nije obrazložila ni kako je došla do zaključka da postoji opasnost od izbjegavanja antidampinških mjera ako bi se predmetnim proizvođačima izvoznicima omogućila pojedinačna stopa pristojbe, a koja bi bila temeljna svrha kriterija za IT.
E. CONCLUSIONS
E. ZAKLJUČCI
Account taken of the comments made and the analysis thereof it was concluded that in case of General Footwear Ltd the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China, i.e. 16,5 % and in case of Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co. Ltd’) the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to Vietnam, i.e. 10 % should be reimposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
Uzimajući u obzir primjedbe i analizu zaključeno je da bi u slučaju društva General Footwear Ltd preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Kinu, tj. 16,5 %, i u slučaju društava Diamond Vietnam Co Ltd i Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd („Ty Hung Co Ltd”) preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Vijetnam, tj. 10 %, trebalo ponovno uvesti za razdoblje primjene Sporne uredbe.
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 Article 1(3) below and falling within CN codes: 64032000, ex64033000, 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 which took place during the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009.
Uvodi se konačna antidampinška pristojba na uvoz obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože ili umjetne kože, isključujući sportsku obuću, obuću proizvedenu s pomoću posebne tehnologije, papuče i ostalu obuću za unutarnju uporabu te obuću sa zaštitnom kapicom, podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama, koju proizvode proizvođači izvoznici navedeni u članku 1. stavku 3. u nastavku i koja je obuhvaćena sljedećim oznakama KN: 64032000, ex64033000, 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 i ex64051000, koji je ostvaren tijekom razdoblja primjene Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1294/2009.
The TARIC codes are listed in the Annex to this Regulation.
Oznake TARIC navedene su u Prilogu ovoj Uredbi.
‘sports footwear’ shall mean footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of Annex I of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1719/2005,
„sportska obuća” znači obuća u smislu napomene 1. za podbrojeve uz poglavlje 64. Priloga I. Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 1719/2005,
‘footwear involving special technology’ shall mean footwear having a CIF price per pair of not less than EUR 7,5, for use in sporting activities, with a single- or multi-layer moulded sole, not injected, manufactured from synthetic materials specially designed to absorb the impact of vertical or lateral movements and with technical features such as hermetic pads containing gas or fluid, mechanical components which absorb or neutralise impact, or materials such as low-density polymers and falling within CN codes ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998,
„obuća proizvedena s pomoću posebne tehnologije” znači obuća čija je cijena CIF po paru najmanje 7,5 EUR, za upotrebu u sportskim aktivnostima, s jednoslojno ili višeslojno oblikovanim potplatom, koji nije brizgan, proizvedena iz sintetičkih materijala koji po svojoj prirodi apsorbiraju udarce u smjeru okomitog ili lateralnog kretanja, s posebnim tehničkim svojstvima kao što su plinom ili tekućinom punjeni hermetički jastučići, mehaničke komponente za apsorpciju ili neutralizaciju udaraca, ili materijala kao što su polimeri niske gustoće, obuhvaćena oznakama KN ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996 i ex64039998,
‘footwear with a protective toecap’ shall mean footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules and falling within CN codes: ex64033000, 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,
„obuća sa zaštitnom kapicom” znači obuća u koju je ugrađena zaštitna kapica s otpornošću na udarce od najmanje 100 džula i koja je obuhvaćena oznakama KN: ex64033000, 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 i ex64051000,
The rate of the definitive anti-dumping duty applicable, before duty, to the net free-at-Union-frontier price of the products described in paragraph 1 and manufactured by the exporting producers listed below shall be as follows:
Stopa konačne antidampinške pristojbe primjenjive na neto cijenu franko granica Unije, neocarinjeno, proizvoda opisanih u stavku 1. koje su proizveli proizvođači izvoznici navedeni u nastavku iznosi kako slijedi:
The amounts secured by way of the provisional anti-dumping duty pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 shall be definitively collected.
Konačno se naplaćuju iznosi osigurani privremenom antidampinškom pristojbom prema Uredbi Komisije (EZ) br. 553/2006 od 27. ožujka 2006.
OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.
SL L 176, 30.6.2016.,. str. 21.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ L 98, 6.4.2006, p. 3).
SL L 98, 6.4.2006., str. 3.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 of 5 October 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (OJ L 275, 6.10.2006, p. 1).
Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 1472/2006 od 5. listopada 2006. o uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe uvedene na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine i Vijetnama (SL L 275, 6.10.2006., str. 1.).
Case C-415/96 (see footnote 13); Case C-458/98 P (see footnote 13).
Predmet C-415/96 (vidjeti bilješku 13.); predmet C-458/98 P (vidjeti bilješku 13.).
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51).
Uredba Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice (SL L 343, 22.12.2009., str. 51.).
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 was subsequently amended by Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2012 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community OJ L 237, 3.9.2012, p. 1–2.
Uredba (EZ) br. 1225/2009 kasnije je izmijenjena Uredbom (EU) br. 765/2012 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 13. lipnja 2012. o izmjeni Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 1225/2009 o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske zajednice, SL L 237, 3.9.2012., str. 1.–2.
According to Article 2 of Regulation (EU) No 765/2012 the amendments introduced by that amending Regulation only apply to investigations initiated after the entry into force of that Regulation.
U skladu s člankom 2. Uredbe (EU) br. 765/2012 izmjene uvedene tom uredbom o izmjeni primjenjuju se samo na ispitne postupke pokrenute nakon stupanja na snagu te Uredbe.
The present investigation, however, was initiated on 7 July 2005 (OJ C 166, 7.7.2005, p.14)
No trenutačni ispitni postupak pokrenut je 7. srpnja 2005. (SL C 166, 7.7.2005., str. 14.)