natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
With regard to criterion 2 (Accounting), Companies 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25 in addition failed to demonstrate that they had a set of basic accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
U pogledu kriterija 2 (računovodstvo), društva 8., 10., 13., 14., 15., 16., 17., 19., 20., 21., 24. i 25., osim toga, nisu uspjela dokazati da su skup osnovnih računovodstvenih podataka revidirali nezavisni revizori u skladu s međunarodnim računovodstvenim standardima.
In particular, the MET assessments revealed that these companies either failed to provide the Commission with an independent auditor opinion/report, or their accounts were not audited, or lacked explicative notes on several items of the balance sheet and income statement.
Konkretno, ocjene MET-a pokazale su da ta društva nisu uspjela dostaviti neovisno izvješće/mišljenje revizora ili njihovi financijski izvještaji nisu revidirani ili su u njima nedostajale bilješke s objašnjenjima o nekoliko stavki u bilanci stanja i računu dobiti.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and ‘carry-over’), Companies 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25 failed to demonstrate that no distortions are carried over from the non-market economy system.
U pogledu kriterija 3 (imovina i „prenošenje”), društva 7., 8., 9., 10., 11., 13., 15., 16., 17., 18., 19., 22., 23. i 25. nisu uspjela dokazati da iz prethodnog sustava bez tržišnoga gospodarstva nisu prenijela nikakve poremećaje.
In particular, these companies failed to provide essential and complete information, inter alia, about the assets owned by the company, and the terms and the value of the land use-rights.
Konkretno, ta društva nisu dostavila bitne i potpune podatke, među ostalim, o imovini u vlasništvu društva te o uvjetima i vrijednostima prava na korištenje zemljištem.
Lastly, and considering the reasons set out in recital (49), the Commission did not assess criteria 4 (Bankruptcy and property laws) and 5 (Exchange rate conversions) for any of the exporting producers concerned.
Naposljetku, i uzimajući u obzir razloge navedene uvodnoj izjavi (49), Komisija nije procijenila kriterij 4 (zakoni o stečaju i imovini) i kriterij 5 (konverzije valuta) ni za jednog predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned of the MET findings and invited them to provide comments.
Komisija je obavijestila predmetne proizvođače izvoznike o nalazima u pogledu MET -a te ih je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
As mentioned in recital (48) 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 (48), 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.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 9(5) provides that the claim submitted must be properly substantiated.
Stoga se člankom 9. stavkom 5. prvim podstavkom predviđa da zahtjev mora biti propisno obrazložen.
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.
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 therein 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.
in the case of wholly or partly foreign owned firms or joint ventures, exporters are free to repatriate capital and profits;
u slučaju društava ili zajedničkih pothvata koji su u cijelosti ili djelomično u stranom vlasništvu izvoznici mogu slobodno repatrirati kapital i dobit;
exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate; and
konverzija valuta obavlja se po tržišnim stopama; 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 pristojbe.
All 19 exporting producers concerned that requested MET claimed also IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
Svih devetnaest predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika koji su zatražili MET zatražili su i IT u slučaju da im se ne odobri MET.
The Commission therefore assessed the IT claims of each exporting producer concerned.
Komisija je stoga ocijenila zahtjeve za IT svakog predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika.
Regarding criterion 1 (Repatriation of capital and profits), Companies 9 and 20 failed to provide evidence showing that they were free to repatriate capital and profits and did thus not demonstrate that this criterion was fulfilled.
U pogledu kriterija 1 (repatrijaciju kapitala i dobiti), društva 9. i 20. nisu uspjela podnijeti dokaze kojima bi pokazali da su slobodno repatrirali kapital i dobit te stoga nisu dokazala da je taj kriterij ispunjen.
With regard to criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined), the Commission concluded that Companies 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, had failed to prove that business decisions such as export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale were freely determined in response to market signals, as the evidence analysed, such as articles of association or business licences, showed a limitation in output and/or on the sales quantities of footwear in specific markets.
U pogledu kriterija 2 (slobodno utvrđivanje izvozne prodaje i izvoznih cijena), Komisija je zaključila da društva 7., 8., 11., 12., 13., 14., 15., 16., 17., 18., 20., 21., 22., 23. i 24. nisu uspjela dokazati da se poslovne odluke, primjerice izvozne cijene i količine te uvjeti i odredbe prodaje utvrđuju slobodno, kao odgovor na tržišne signale, jer je na temelju analiziranih dokaza, primjerice statuta ili dozvole za obavljanje poslovne djelatnosti, uočeno ograničenje proizvodnje i/ili prodajnih količina obuće na određenim tržištima.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), Companies 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 25 failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference. inter alia, no information was provided on how the land use right were transferred to these companies and at what terms and conditions.
U pogledu kriterija 3 (društvo – ključna uprava i dionice – dovoljno je neovisno o uplitanju države), društva 7., 8., 9., 10., 13., 15., 16., 17., 18., 19., 22., 23. i 25. nisu dostavila potrebne podatke kojima dokazuju da su dovoljno neovisna o uplitanju države. Među ostalim, nisu dostavila podatke o tome kako je pravo korištenja zemljištem preneseno na ta društva i pod kojim uvjetima.
In addition, companies 8, 10, 17, 18 and 25 also failed to prove that they fulfilled the requirements of criterion 5 (Circumvention) on the basis that no information was provided as to how decisions were taken within the company.
Osim toga, društva 8., 10., 17., 18. i 25. nisu uspjela dokazati niti da su ispunila zahtjeve kriterija 5 (izbjegavanje) na temelju činjenice da nisu dostavila podatke o načinu donošenja odluka u društvu.
Lastly, considering the provisions referred to in recital (56) the Commission did not assess criterion 4 (exchange rate conversions are carried out at the market rate) for any of the exporting producers concerned.
Naposljetku, uzimajući u obzir odredbe iz uvodne izjave (56), Komisija nije ocijenila kriterij 4 (konverzija valuta obavlja se po tržišnim stopama) ni za jednog predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika.
None of the 19 exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was therefore denied to all of them.
Stoga ni jedan od devetnaest predmetnih kineskih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio uvjete određene člankom 9. stavkom 5. Osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene, zbog čega se ni jednom od njih ne odobrava IT.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly and invited them to provide comments.
Komisija je o tome obavijestila predmetne proizvođače izvoznike te ih je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, of 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should therefore be imposed for exports made by the 19 exporting producers concerned for the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Stoga je za izvoz devetnaest predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika potrebno uvesti preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Kinu i Vijetnam, u iznosu od slijedom 16,5 % i 10 %, za razdoblje primjene Uredbe (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 applicable to China and Vietnam respectively 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 Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
Budući da je zaključeno da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Kinu odnosno Vijetnam 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 (EZ) br. 388/2008.
That latter regulation remains valid.
Ta Uredba ostaje valjana.
Having taken account of the comments made and the analysis thereof, it was concluded that the residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, i.e. 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should be re-imposed for the period of application of the contested Regulation.
Uzevši u obzir dane primjedbe i analizu tih primjedbi zaključeno je da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu antidampinšku pristojbu koja se primjenjuje za Kinu i Vijetnam, slijedom 16,5 % i 10 %, za razdoblje primjene Sporne uredbe.
D. DISCLOSURE
D. OBJAVA
The exporting producers concerned and all parties that came forward were informed of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the re-imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duty on exports of the 19 exporting producers concerned.
Predmetni proizvođači izvoznici i sve stranke koje su se javile bili su obaviješteni o bitnim činjenicama i razmatranjima na temelju kojih se namjeravalo preporučiti ponovno uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe na izvoz devetnaest predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika.
They were granted a period within which to make representations subsequent to disclosure.
Odobreno im je razdoblje za podnošenje prigovora nakon objava.
E. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
E. PRIMJEDBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANA NAKON OBJAVE
Following disclosure, the Commission received comments on behalf of (i) FESI and the Footwear Coalition representing importers of footwear in the Union; and (ii) Cortina NV (‘Cortina’), an importer of footwear in the Union.
Nakon objave Komisija je primila primjedbe od i. FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće, koja je predstavnik uvoznika obuće u Uniju te ii. društva Cortina NV („Cortina”), uvoznika obuće u Uniju.
In their comments to the disclosure, FESI and the Footwear Coalition first noted that the current implementation is based on the same legal grounds and reasons as the regulations previously adopted by the Commission related to the same implementation procedure, i.e. Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće u svojim su primjedbama na objavu prvo naveli da se trenutačna provedba temelji na istim pravnim temeljima i razlozima kao i uredbe koje je Komisija već donijela u vezi s istim postupkom provedbe, odnosno provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, i (EU) 2016/2257.
Therefore, in their reply to the disclosure, they referred to, and incorporated by reference, the comments they had filed in relation to the above Regulations on 16 December 2015, 6 June 2016, 16 June 2016 and 11 August 2016 respectively, without, however, detailing such comments and claims.
Stoga su u svojem odgovoru na objavu jednostavno spomenuli i uključili upućivanjem primjedbe koje su u pogledu navedenih uredbi dostavili 16. prosinca 2015., 6. lipnja 2016., 16. lipnja 2016. i 11. kolovoza 2016., ali te primjedbe i tvrdnje nisu podrobno objasnili.
In reply to these comments the Commission refers to Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 which fully addressed the comments made by FESI and the Footwear Coalition in the current implementation.
U odgovoru na te primjedbe Komisija upućuje na provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 i (EU) 2016/2257, koje sadržavaju odgovore na sve primjedbe koje su u pogledu trenutačne provedbe iznijeli FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće.
Since FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not elaborate on their arguments any further, the Commission considers that these have been fully replied to in the above regulations and the conclusions made in this regard in these regulations are herewith confirmed.
Budući da FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dodatno razradili svoje argumente, Komisija smatra da se spomenutim uredbama daje potpuni odgovor na njih i potvrđuje zaključke iz tih uredbi donesene u tom pogledu.
In addition, FESI and the Footwear Coalition provided comments that are addressed in detail below.
Osim toga, FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće podnijeli su primjedbe koje su detaljno opisane u nastavku.
Status of companies listed in Annex III
Status društava navedenih u Prilogu III.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition submitted that the approach followed by the Commission with regard to the companies listed in Annex III was illegal.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da je pristup koji primjenjuje Komisija u pogledu društava navedenih u Prilogu III. nezakonit.
Thus, by listing in Annex III companies that were related to companies already assessed in the context of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 or (EU) 2016/2257, the Commission had breached the concept of ‘single economic entity’ however applied in the original investigation.
Tako je uvrstivši u Prilog III. društva koja su bila povezana s društvima koja su već ocijenjena u kontekstu provedbenih uredbi (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 ili (EU) 2016/2257, Komisija prekršila koncept „jednog gospodarskog subjekta” koji se ipak primjenjivao u početnom ispitnom postupku.
In addition, such approach would lead to legal inconsistencies as via the previously mentioned Regulations the Commission re-imposed anti-dumping duties on these companies, while in Annex III the same companies are listed as companies that appear not have submitted any MET/IT claim in the original investigation.
Osim toga, zbog takvog bi pristupa došlo do nedosljednosti jer je navedenim uredbama Komisija ponovno uvela antidampinške pristojbe za ta društva, a u Prilogu III. ta su društva navedena kao društva za koja se čini da nisu podnijela zahtjev za MET/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku.
As for unrelated traders, as they had no legal requirement to file MET/IT claims during the original investigation it would in any event not be required to list them in Annex III.
Kada je riječ o nepovezanim trgovcima, s obzirom na to da oni nisu imali pravnu obvezu podnijeti zahtjeve za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, ni u kojem slučaju nije ih potrebno navesti u Prilogu III.
Finally, for companies related to Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers that had filed an MET/IT claim in the original investigation, but have not yet been assessed in any regulation referred to in recital (63), in the context of the implementation of the judgments referred to in recital (12), FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued that those should also not have been listed in Annex III.
Naposljetku, u pogledu društava povezanih s kineskim ili vijetnamskim dobavljačima koja su u početnom ispitnom postupku ispunila zahtjev za MET/IT, ali još nisu ocijenjena ni u jednoj uredbi navedenoj u uvodnoj izjavi (63), u kontekstu provedbe presuda iz uvodne izjave (12), FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće smatrali su da ni ta društva ne bi trebala biti navedena u Prilogu III.
In particular, it was claimed that such an approach would prevent the Commission in future to assess any MET/IT claim of their related suppliers in China or Vietnam.
Konkretno, tvrdili su da zbog takvog pristupa Komisija u budućnosti ne bi mogla ocijeniti ni jedan zahtjev za MET/IT dobavljača iz Kine ili Vijetnama s kojima su povezani.
The same parties also claimed that it would be the Commission's obligation to identify from the list of companies notified by the national customs authorities those companies/traders belonging to the same company group and whether they form part of any of the Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that filed a MET/IT claim during the original investigation but that were not sampled during the original investigation.
Iste su stranke tvrdile da bi Komisijina obveza bila iz popisa društava koja su prijavila nacionalna carinska tijela utvrditi društva/trgovce koji pripadaju istoj grupaciji te utvrditi jesu li povezani s kineskim ili vijetnamskim proizvođačima izvoznicima koji su podnijeli zahtjev za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Otherwise, the Commission would create an impossible burden of proof for the interested parties.
U suprotnome bi Komisija zainteresiranim stranama stvorila nemogući teret dokazivanja.
As mentioned in recital (34), following disclosure, FESI and the Footwear Coalition, identified indeed companies that were related to Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that had submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation, but were not sampled and that had also not been assessed in previous implementation exercises mentioned in recitals (18) to (20) and (25).
Kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (34), nakon objave FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće doista su utvrdili društva koja su povezana s kineskim ili vijetnamskim proizvođačima izvoznicima koji su podnijeli zahtjev za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak niti ocijenjeni u prijašnjim provedbama navedenima u uvodnim izjavama od 18. do 20. i 25.
The information in the file confirmed the information received by these interested parties, so that the MET/IT requests of these companies will be assessed.
Podaci iz spisa potvrdili su podatke koje su podnijele te zainteresirane strane te će stoga zahtjevi za MET/IT tih društava biti ocijenjeni.
The outcome of this assessment will be subject to a separate legal act.
Ishod tog ocjenjivanja bit će predmet zasebnog pravnog akta.
The request with regard to these companies was therefore granted and these companies are not listed in Annex III.
Zahtjev u pogledu tih trgovačkih društava stoga je odobren i ta trgovačka društva nisu navedena u Prilogu III.
With regard to traders that claimed re-imbursement of the duties paid (related or unrelated to Chinese or Vietnamese suppliers), the Commission considers that the burden of proof lies with these traders.
U pogledu trgovaca koji su podnijeli zahtjev za povrat plaćenih pristojbi (povezani ili nepovezani s kineskim ili vijetnamskim dobavljačima), Komisija smatra da teret dokazivanja počiva na tim trgovcima.
None of the traders listed in Annex III provided, however, information or proof of their suppliers in China or Vietnam (with the exception of the ones mentioned in recital (76)).
Međutim, niti jedan trgovac naveden u Prilogu III. nije dostavio podatke ni dokaz o svojim dobavljačima u Kini ili Vijetnamu (uz iznimku onih navedenih u uvodnoj izjavi (76)).
The Commission recognises, however, that not all importers that bought footwear from those traders may have been aware of the need to inform the Commission of the names of the exporting producers from which those traders acquired their footwear.
Međutim, Komisija priznaje da možda nisu svi uvoznici koji su kupili obuću od tih trgovaca bili svjesni da moraju obavijestiti Komisiju o nazivima proizvođača izvoznika od kojih su ti trgovci nabavili obuću.
In order to ensure full respect of their rights of defence, the Commission therefore has decided to specifically contact the importers in question and make them aware of the situation and their burden of proof.
Kako bi se u potpunosti osiguralo poštovanje njihovih prava na obranu, Komisija je odlučila posebno kontaktirati s predmetnim uvoznicima i izvijestiti ih o situaciji i njihovu teretu dokazivanja.
In order to provide for the time necessary to implement this decision, the examination of the companies listed in Annex III is temporarily suspended until the Commission has contacted the relevant importers and given them time to react.
Kako bi se osiguralo vrijeme koje je potrebno za provedbu te odluke, ispitivanje trgovačkih društava navedenih u Prilogu III. privremeno se obustavlja dok Komisija ne kontaktira s relevantnim uvoznicima i osigura im vrijeme za djelovanje.
The deadline of eight months for assessing MET/IT claims will start on the day the importer informs the Commission of the names and addresses of the exporting producers concerned, or, where no reply is received within the time period determined by the Commission, from the date of expiry of that time period.
Rok od osam mjeseci za ocjenu zahtjeva za MET/IT počet će na dan kada uvoznik obavijesti Komisiju o nazivima i adresama predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika ili, ako ne dobije nikakav odgovor u roku koji odredi Komisija, od dana isteka tog roka.
Suspension of ongoing implementation exercise
Obustava trenutačne provedbe
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued also that in the interest of legal certainty, the Commission should not adopt and publish any further legal acts regarding the implementation of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, until the Court of Justice rules on an ongoing preliminary rulings on the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 referred to in recital (23) and the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647 referred to in recital (19) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 referred to in (20).
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da Komisija u interesu pravne sigurnosti ne bi trebala donijeti ni objaviti daljnje pravne akte o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14 dok Sud ne donese odluku o prethodnom pitanju o valjanosti Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 iz uvodne izjave (23), valjanosti Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1647 iz uvodne izjave (19) i Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1731 iz uvodne izjave (20).