natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The association requested the Commission to withdraw the acceptance of the undertaking for the two exporting producers with retroactive effect as it considers that these breaches had seriously and repeatedly harmed the Union industry and distorted the Union market.
Ta je udruga zatražila da Komisija povuče prihvaćanje preuzete obveze dvaju proizvođača izvoznika s retroaktivnim učinkom jer smatra da se tim povredama kontinuirano nanosi teška šteta industriji Unije te narušava tržište Unije.
The Commission examined whether there are reasons to invalidate individual undertaking invoices issued by the two exporting producers pursuant to Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013.
Komisija je ispitala postoje li razlozi da se pojedinačni računi na temelju preuzete obveze koje su izdala ta dva proizvođača izvoznika proglase nevaljanima u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013.
As regards BLD Solar, the Commission could not establish that there was a direct link between the trade practises described in recitals (36) to (41) and individual undertaking invoices.
Za društvo BLD Solar Komisija nije mogla utvrditi postojanje izravne veze između trgovinskih praksi opisanih u uvodnim izjavama 36. do 41. i pojedinačnih računa na temelju preuzete obveze.
Therefore, it considers that it is not appropriate to invalidate any undertaking invoices.
Stoga smatra da nije primjereno proglasiti nevaljanima račune na temelju preuzete obveze.
Regarding Topray Solar, the Commission considered the cases where products covered by the undertaking were sold together with products not covered by the undertaking to the same customer and where undertaking invoices were issued for the sales of products not covered by the undertaking.
U slučaju društva Topray Solar Komisija je razmotrila slučajeve kada su proizvodi obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom prodavani istom kupcu zajedno s proizvodima koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom te su kupcu izdani računi na temelju obveze za prodaju proizvoda koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom.
The Commission considered that Topray Solar, by issuing undertaking invoices in these cases, was in a position to conceal the excess of the parallel sales limit.
Komisija je smatrala da je time što je u tim slučajevima izdavao račune na temelju preuzete obveze Topray Solar mogao prikriti prodaju iznad ograničenja usporedne prodaje.
Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is a direct link between the trade practise constituting a breach of the undertaking and the issue of such individual undertaking invoices.
Komisija je stoga zaključila da postoji izravna veza između trgovinske prakse kojom se krši preuzeta obveza i izdavanja takvih pojedinačnih računa na temelju preuzete obveze.
G. INVALIDATION OF UNDERTAKING INVOICES
G. NEVALJANOST RAČUNA NA TEMELJU PREUZETE OBVEZE
The sales transactions referred to in recital (57) by Topray Solar are linked to the following undertaking invoices:
Prodajne transakcije iz uvodne izjave 57. društva Topray Solar povezane su sa sljedećim računima na temelju preuzete obveze:
The Commission disclosed the reasons for invalidation and the list of invoices to Topray Solar and to the importers concerned as reported by Topray Solar in its periodic reports.
Komisija je objavila razloge za proglašenje nevaljanim i popis računa društvu Topray Solar i predmetnim uvoznicima kao što je izvijestio Topray Solar u svojim periodičnim izvješćima.
The Commission granted certain extensions to both Topray Solar and several importers to submit their comments upon reasoned justification.
Komisija je nakon utemeljena obrazloženja dopustila određena produljenja roka i za društvo Topray Solar i za nekoliko uvoznika kako bi mogli podnijeti svoje primjedbe.
Topray Solar made general statements that it had mistakenly reported the solar products not covered by the undertaking and that such mistake would not be sufficient to trigger the invalidation of undertaking invoices.
Topray Solar općenito je objavio kako je zabunom prijavio solarne proizvode koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom te da ta pogreška nije dovoljna da zbog nje račun izdan na temelju preuzete obveze bude proglašen nevaljanim.
It also submitted that it had no intention to breach the undertaking.
Također je izjavio kako nema namjeru kršenja preuzete obveze.
Topray Solar further submitted that it had a misunderstanding of the solar products not covered by the undertaking.
Topray Solar nadalje je tvrdio da je pogrešno shvatio solarne proizvode koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom.
As referred to in recitals (29) and (31), the exporter is obliged to issue undertaking invoices according to the provisions of the undertaking.
Kako je navedeno u uvodnim izjavama 29. i 31., izvoznik je dužan izdati račune na temelju preuzete obveze prema odredbama preuzete obveze.
Any difficulties or questions regarding the implementation have to be consulted with the Commission.
O teškoćama ili pitanjima povezanima s provedbom obvezno se savjetovati s Komisijom.
In this regard, the Commission refers to comprehensive guidance that had been issued with regard to the term ‘product covered’.
Komisija se u tom pogledu poziva na sveobuhvatne smjernice izdane u vezi s pojmom „obuhvaćenog proizvoda”.
Moreover, the Commission held several training seminars, inter alia, on this issue.
Osim toga, Komisija je održala nekoliko obrazovnih seminara, među ostalim o tom pitanju.
Finally, the assessment whether an undertaking invoice should be invalidated is only based on factual evidence.
Naposljetku, ocjena treba li račun na temelju preuzete obveze proglasiti nevaljanim temelji se samo na činjenicama.
Therefore, the arguments mentioned in recital (60) are rejected.
Stoga se argumenti spomenuti u uvodnoj izjavi 60. odbacuju.
Topray Solar also contested the invalidation of invoices.
Topray Solar osporio je i proglašenje računa nevaljanima.
It claimed that Article 8 and 10(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13 and 16(5) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation do not contain an empowerment to invalidate undertaking invoices.
Tvrdio je da članak 8. i članak 10 stavak 5. Osnovne antidampinške uredbe te članak 13. i članak 16. stavak 5. Osnovne antisubvencijske uredbe ne sadržavaju ovlasti da se račun na temelju preuzete obveze proglasi nevaljanim.
Moreover, the empowerment to invalidate undertaking invoices stems directly from Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013.
Štoviše, ovlast da se račun na temelju preuzete obveze proglasi nevaljanim proizlazi izravno iz članka 3. stavka 2. točke (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i članka 2. stavka 2. točke (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013.
In addition, six importers submitted comments concerning the invalidation of undertaking invoices.
Usto, šest uvoznika podnijelo je primjedbe na proglašenje nevaljanima računa na temelju preuzete obveze.
Two importers claimed that they had traded in good faith with Topray Solar and could not be in position to know that Topray Solar did not respect the undertaking.
Dva uvoznika tvrdila su da su s društvom Topray Solar trgovala u dobroj vjeri te da nisu mogla biti u poziciji da znaju da Topray Solar ne poštuje preuzetu obvezu.
The first importer also claimed that the products not covered amounted to a small fraction compared to the solar modules it purchased from Topray Solar.
Prvi je uvoznik tvrdio i da proizvodi koji nisu obuhvaćeni predstavljaju mali dio u odnosu na solarne module koje je kupio od društva Topray Solar.
In addition, the first importer submitted that the invalidation of invoices would be devastating and that it would become liable for circumstances beyond its control.
Usto, prvi je uvoznik tvrdio da bi proglašenje računa nevaljanima bilo pogubno i da bi on postao odgovoran za okolnosti koje su izvan njegova nadzora.
The second importer claimed to have only one commercial transaction with Topray Solar in August 2013 and it did not know about the acceptance of the undertaking at that time.
Drugi uvoznik tvrdio je da je imao samo jednu komercijalnu transakciju s društvom Topray Solar, u kolovozu 2013. te da u to vrijeme nije znao za prihvaćanje obveze.
The Commission recalls that importers should be aware that a customs debt may be incurred, as a normal trade risk, at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release into free circulation as described in recitals 11 and 12 even if an undertaking offered by the manufacturer from whom they were buying, directly or indirectly, had been accepted by the Commission, as stipulated in Decision 2013/423/EU accepting the undertaking and confirmed by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU.
Komisija podsjeća da bi uvoznici trebali biti svjesni da bi mogao nastati carinski dug, kao normalan rizik poslovanja, u trenutku prihvaćanja prijave za puštanje u slobodan promet kako je opisano u uvodnim izjavama 11. i 12. čak i ako je Komisija prihvatila preuzetu obveza koju je ponudio proizvođač od kojega kupuju, izravno ili posredno, kako je navedeno u Odluci 2013/423/EU o prihvaćanju preuzete obveze i potvrđeno u Provedbenoj odluci 2013/707/EU.
The Commission also notes that the product not covered purchased by the first importer did not represent a small fraction: it was well beyond the parallel sales limit.
Komisija također napominje da proizvod koji nije obuhvaćen, a kupio ga je prvi uvoznik, ne predstavlja tek mali dio: on znatno prekoračuje ograničenje usporedne prodaje.
In addition, the Commission points out that Decision 2013/423/EU was published prior to the conclusion of the sales transaction claimed by the second importer.
Usto, Komisija ističe da je Odluka 2013/423/EU objavljena prije sklapanja transakcije prodaje drugog uvoznika.
The Commission also notes that none of the importers contested that the undertaking invoices were issued for products not covered by the undertaking.
Komisija također napominje da ni jedan uvoznik ne osporava da su računi na temelju preuzete obveze izdani za proizvode koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom.
The arguments of the two importers are therefore rejected.
Argumenti dvaju uvoznika stoga se odbacuju.
The third importer submitted only the respective documentation related to the undertaking invoice which the Commission proposes to invalidate.
Treći uvoznik predao je samo dokumentaciju povezanu s onim računom na temelju preuzete obveze za koji Komisija predlaže da ga se proglasi nevaljanim.
Similarly to the other two importers referred to in recitals (65) and (66), this importer did not contest that the undertaking invoice was issued for a product not covered by the undertaking.
Slično kao i druga dva uvoznika iz uvodnih izjava 65. i 66., taj uvoznik ne osporava činjenicu da je račun na temelju preuzete obveze izdan za proizvod koji nije obuhvaćen preuzetom obvezom.
Therefore, the Commission confirms its initial finding that the undertaking invoice has to be invalidated.
Stoga Komisija potvrđuje svoj prvi zaključak da preuzetu obvezu treba proglasiti nevaljanom.
The fourth importer claimed that it cannot be hold responsible for the breach of Topray Solar and the undertaking invoice was issued for solar panels, which are product covered by the undertaking.
Četvrti je uvoznik tvrdio da se ne može smatrati odgovornim za prekršaj Topray Solara te da je račun na temelju preuzete obveze izdan za solarne ploče koje jesu proizvod obuhvaćen preuzetom obvezom.
In addition, this importer submitted general comments concerning the absence of a reasonable time limit for submission.
Osim toga, taj uvoznik dostavio je općenite primjedbe o nepostojanju razumna roka za podnošenje zahtjeva.
The fifth importer submitted that the price of solar modules purchased from Topray Solar were well above the alleged MIP and that they imported less or the same quantity of other products (controllers) than solar panels.
Peti uvoznik tvrdio je da je cijena solarnih modula kupljenih od društva Topray Solar bila znatno viša od navedene najniže uvozne cijene te da je on uvezao manju ili jednaku količinu drugih proizvoda (regulatora), osim solarnih ploča.
The Commission first recalls that the ‘product covered’ by the undertaking are only those solar panels that are explicitly referred to in recital (6).
Komisija prvo podsjeća da su preuzetom obvezom „obuhvaćeni proizvod” samo one solarne ploče koje se izrijekom spominju u uvodnoj izjavi 6.
The MIP is not applicable for products not covered by the undertaking, in particular for solar panels falling outside the scope defined in recital (6).
Najniža uvozna cijena nije primjenjiva za proizvode koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom, posebno za solarne ploče koje ne ulaze u područje primjene definirano u uvodnoj izjavi 6.
It is meaningless to compare the sales price of the product not covered by the undertaking to the alleged MIP.
Besmisleno je uspoređivati prodajnu cijenu proizvoda koji nije obuhvaćen preuzetom obvezom i navedenu najnižu uvoznu cijenu.
These products were not subject to the investigation; hence their price cannot be verified and compared to the alleged MIP.
Ti proizvodi nisu bili predmet istrage; stoga se njihova cijena ne može provjeriti i usporediti s navedenom najnižom uvoznom cijenom.
Topray Solar should not have issued undertaking invoices at all for products not covered by the undertaking.
Topray Solar nije uopće smio izdavati račune na temelju preuzete obveze za proizvode koji nisu obuhvaćeni preuzetom obvezom.
By issuing these undertaking invoices in breach of the undertaking, Topray Solar was in position to conceal the excess of the parallel sales limit.
Izdavanjem tih računa na temelju preuzete obveze, što je kršenje preuzete obveze, Topray Solar bio je u mogućnosti prikriti prekoračenje ograničenja usporedne prodaje.
The sales of controllers referred to by the fifth importer constitute yet an additional layer to the already existing breach of the parallel sales limit as referred in recital (44).
Prodaja regulatora koju navodi peti uvoznik još je jedna razina već postojeće povrede ograničenja usporedne prodaje, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 44.
As regards the reasonable time limit to provide comments, the Commission recalls that despite the extension granted to the fourth importer, it failed to submit further comments on the substance of the disclosure.
Što se tiče razumnog roka za dostavljanje primjedaba, Komisija podsjeća da, unatoč dodijeljenom produljenju, četvrti uvoznik nije dostavio dodatne primjedbe o sadržaju objave.
The Commission therefore rejects these arguments.
Stoga Komisija odbacuje te tvrdnje.
The sixth importer claimed that the other products for which undertaking invoices were issued being solar panels purchased for demonstrative purposes.
Šesti uvoznik tvrdio je da su drugi proizvodi, za koje su izdani računi na temelju preuzete obveze kao da su solarne ploče, kupljeni za pokaznu svrhu.
The Commission notes that indeed part of the undertaking invoice could have been considered as a sample and the importer could have followed the respective customs procedure for samples to release them into free circulation in the Union.
Komisija smatra da se dio računa izdanog na temelju preuzete obveze doista mogao smatrati uzorkom i da je uvoznik mogao poštovati odgovarajući carinski postupak za uzorke da bi ih pustio u slobodan promet u Uniji.
However, this was not the case and the importer did not contest that Topray Solar issued undertaking invoices for product not covered by the undertaking.
Međutim, nije bilo tako i uvoznik ne osporava činjenicu da je društvo Topray Solar izdalo račune za preuzetu obvezu za proizvod koji nije obuhvaćen preuzetom obvezom.
Therefore, this argument is rejected.
Stoga se ta tvrdnja odbacuje.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, these invoices are declared invalid.
Stoga su u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013. ti računi proglašeni nevaljanima.
The customs debt incurred at the time of acceptance of the declaration for release for free circulation should be recovered by the national customs authorities under Article 105(3)-(6) of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council [30] when the withdrawal of the undertaking in relation to the exporting producer enters into force.
Carinski dug nastao u trenutku prihvaćanja deklaracije za puštanje u slobodni promet nacionalna carinska tijela trebala bi naplatiti u skladu s člankom 105. stavcima 3. do 6. Uredbe (EU) br. 952/2013 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća [30] kada stupi na snagu povlačenje preuzete obveze u odnosu na proizvođača izvoznika.
The national customs authorities responsible for the collection of duties will be informed accordingly.
Nacionalna carinska tijela nadležna za naplatu pristojbi bit će u skladu s tim obaviještena.
In this context, the Commission recalls that pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex III, Nr. 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and to Article 2(1)(b) read in conjunction with Annex 2, Nr. 7 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013, imports are only exempted from duties if the invoice indicates the price and possible rebates for the product covered.
U tom kontekstu Komisija podsjeća da je u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkom (b) u vezi s Prilogom III. točkom 7. Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i u skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (b) u vezi s Prilogom 2. točkom 7. Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013 uvoz oslobođen pristojbi samo ako su na računu navedeni cijena i mogući rabati za obuhvaćeni proizvod.
Where those conditions are not complied with, duties are due, even where the commercial invoice accompanying the goods has not been invalidated by the Commission.
Ako ti uvjeti nisu ispunjeni, pristojbe se moraju platiti čak i ako Komisija trgovački račun uz robu nije proglasila nevaljanim.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation and also in accordance with the terms of the undertaking, the Commission concluded that the acceptance of the undertaking for BLD Solar and Topray Solar should be withdrawn.
Stoga, u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 9. Osnovne antidampinške uredbe, člankom 13. stavkom 9. Osnovne antisubvencijske uredbe te u skladu s uvjetima preuzete obveze, Komisija je zaključila da bi trebalo povući prihvaćanje preuzete obveze za društva BLD Solar iTopray Solar.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 8(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 13(9) of the basic anti-subsidy Regulation, the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and the definitive countervailing duty imposed by Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 automatically apply to imports originating in or consigned from the PRC of the product concerned and produced by Topray Solar and BLD Solar as of the day of entry into force of this Regulation.
Sukladno tomu, u skladu s člankom 8. stavkom 9. Osnovne antidampinške uredbe i člankom 13. stavkom 9. Osnovne antisubvencijske uredbe, konačna antidampinška pristojba uvedena člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i konačna kompenzacijska pristojba uvedena člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013 automatski se primjenjuju na uvoz predmetnog proizvoda podrijetlom ili poslanog iz NRK-a, koji su proizvela društva Topray Solar i BLD Solar, od dana stupanja na snagu ove Uredbe.
The Commission also recalls that where the customs authorities of the Member States have indications that the price presented on an undertaking invoice does not correspond to the price actually paid, they should investigate whether the requirement to include any rebates in the undertaking invoices has been violated or the MIP has not been respected.
Komisija osim toga podsjeća da u slučaju da imaju naznaka da cijena iskazana na računu izdanom na temelju preuzete obveze ne odgovara stvarno plaćenoj cijeni carinska tijela država članica trebala bi istražiti je li prekršena obveza navođenja rabata na računima izdanima na temelju preuzete obveze i je li primijenjena najniža uvozna cijena.
Where customs authorities of the Member States conclude that there has been such a violation or whether the MIP has not been respected, they should collect the duties as a consequence thereof.
Ako zaključe da je ta obveza prekršena ili da nije primijenjena najniža uvozna cijena, carinska tijela država članica trebala bi naplatiti pristojbe.
In order to facilitate, on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Treaty, the work of the customs authorities of the Member States, the Commission should share in such situations the confidential text and other information of the undertaking for the sole purpose of national proceedings.
Komisija bi u tim slučajevima, kako bi olakšala rad carinskim tijelima država članica na temelju članka 4. stavka 3. Ugovora, trebala staviti na raspolaganje povjerljivi tekst preuzete obveze i druge informacije o preuzetoj obvezi, isključivo za potrebe nacionalnog postupka.
For information purposes the table in the Annex II to this Regulation lists the exporting producers for whom the acceptance of the undertaking by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU is not affected,
U informativne svrhe u tablici u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi navedeni su proizvođači izvoznici na čiju preuzetu obvezu prihvaćenu Provedbenom odlukom 2013/707/EU ne utječe ova Uredba,
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. Ltd, Shanxi Topray Solar Co. Ltd, Leshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd, together with their related company in the Union
Shenzhen Topray Solar Co. Ltd, Shanxi Topray Solar Co. Ltd, Leshan Topray Cell Co. Ltd, zajedno s njihovim povezanim društvom u Uniji
The anti-dumping and countervailing duties due at the time of acceptance of the customs declaration for release for free circulation under Article 3(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(2)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 shall be collected.
Naplaćuju se antidampinške i kompenzacijske pristojbe dospjele u trenutku prihvaćanja carinske deklaracije za puštanje u slobodni promet u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 i člankom 2. stavkom 2. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013.
Where customs authorities have indications that the price presented on an undertaking invoice pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 and Article 2(1)(b) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1239/2013 issued by one of the companies from which the undertaking was initially accepted by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU does not correspond to the price paid and that therefore those companies may have violated the undertaking, the customs authorities may, if necessary for the purpose of conducting national proceedings, request the Commission to disclose to them a copy of the undertaking and other information in order to verify the applicable minimum import price (‘MIP’) on the day when the undertaking invoice was issued.
Ako carinska tijela imaju naznaka da cijena iskazana na računu koji je na temelju preuzete obveze u skladu s člankom 3. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1238/2013 te člankom 2. stavkom 1. točkom (b) Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1239/2013 izdalo jedno od društava čije je preuzimanje obveze početno prihvaćeno Provedbenom uredbom 2013/707/EU ne odgovara plaćenoj cijeni te da je stoga moguće da je to društvo prekršilo preuzetu obvezu, carinska tijela mogu, ako je to potrebno za provedbu nacionalnog postupka, zatražiti od Komisije primjerak preuzete obveze i druge informacije za provjeru primjenjive najniže uvozne cijene na dan izdavanja računa na temelju preuzete obveze.