natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
http://content.icicidirect.com/mailimages/IDirect_GraphiteIndia_Q1FY16.pdf
http://content.icicidirect.com/mailimages/IDirect_GraphiteIndia_Q1FY16.pdf.
https://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/yearbook-archive.html
https://www.worldsteel.org/statistics/statistics-archive/yearbook-archive.html.
http://hegltd.com/pdf/HEGLtd_Q1_FY_16_Investors_Presentation.pdf
http://hegltd.com/pdf/HEGLtd_Q1_FY_16_Investors_Presentation.pdf.
http://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/adfin_Graphite_Electrodes_diameters_ChinaPR.pdf
http://www.dgtr.gov.in/sites/default/files/adfin_Graphite_Electrodes_diameters_ChinaPR.pdf.
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423
Provedbena uredba Komisije (EU) 2017/423
re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam and produced by Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd and Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. implementing the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-659/13 and C-34/14
o ponovnom 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 koju proizvode trgovačka društva Fujian Viscap Shoes Co. Ltd, Vietnam Ching Luh Shoes Co. Ltd, Vinh Thong Producing-Trading-Service Co. Ltd, Qingdao Tae Kwang Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, Panyu Pegasus Footwear Co. Ltd, PanYu Leader Footwear Corporation, Panyu Hsieh Da Rubber Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin Vietnam Co. Ltd, Samyang Vietnam Co. Ltd, Qingdao Samho Shoes Co. Ltd, Min Yuan, Chau Giang Company Limited, Foshan Shunde Fong Ben Footwear Industrial Co. Ltd i Dongguan Texas Shoes Limited Co. i o provedbi presude Suda u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 i C-34/14
Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (‘the basic Regulation’), and in particular Article 9(4) and 14(1) and (3) thereof,
uzimajući u obzir Uredbu (EU) 2016/1036 Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 8. lipnja 2016. o zaštiti od dampinškog uvoza iz zemalja koje nisu članice Europske unije („Osnovna uredba”), a posebno njezin članak 9. stavak 4. i članak 14. stavke 1. i 3.,
By Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 9,7 % to 16,5 % on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather, originating in Vietnam and in the PRC for two years (‘Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006’ or ‘the contested Regulation’).
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 uvelo konačne antidampinške pristojbe u rasponu od 9,7 % do 16,5 % na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama i NRK-a na dvije godine („Uredba (EZ) br. 1472/2006” ili „Sporna uredba”).
By Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 the Council extended the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC to imports consigned from the Macao Special Administrative Region (‘SAR’), whether declared as originating in the Macao SAR or not.
Vijeće je Uredbom (EZ) br. 388/2008 proširilo konačne antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a na uvoz koji se otprema iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa („PUP”), bez obzira na to je li prijavljena kao proizvod podrijetlom iz Posebnog upravnog područja Makaa.
Further to an expiry review initiated on 3 October 2008, the Council further extended the anti-dumping measures for 15 months by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, i.e. until 31 March 2011, when the measures expired (‘Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009’).
Vijeće je nakon revizije zbog predstojećeg isteka mjera pokrenute 3. listopada 2008. dodatno produžilo te antidampinške mjere za 15 mjeseci Provedbenom uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009, tj. do 31. ožujka 2011., kad su mjere istekle („Provedbena uredba (EU) br. 1294/2009”).
Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd and Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd as well as Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) challenged the contested Regulation in the Court of First Instance (now: the General Court).
Društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd i Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd te Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd („podnositelji zahtjeva”) osporila su Spornu uredbu pred Prvostupanjskim sudom (sada: Opći sud).
By judgments of 4 March 2010 in Case T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 4 March 2010 in Joined Cases T-407/06 and T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes and Wenzhou Taima Shoes v Council the General Court rejected those challenges.
Opći sud odbacio je ta osporavanja presudama od 4. ožujka 2010. u predmetu T-401/06 Brosmann Footwear (HK) i ostali protiv Vijeća i od 4. ožujka 2010. u spojenim predmetima T-407/06 i T-408/06 Zhejiang Aokang Shoes i Wenzhou Taima Shoes protiv Vijeća.
In its judgments of 2 February 2012 in case C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) and Others v Council and of 15 November 2012 in case C-247/10P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes v Council (‘the Brosmann and Aokang judgments’), the Court of Justice set aside those judgments.
U svojim presudama od 2. veljače 2012. u predmetu C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK) i ostali protiv Vijeća i od 15. studenoga 2012. u predmetu C-247/10 P Zhejiang Aokang Shoes protiv Vijeća („presude Brosmann i Aokang”) Sud je ukinuo te presude.
It held that the General Court erred in law in so far as it held that the Commission was not required to examine requests for market economy treatment (‘MET’) under Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic Regulation from non-sampled traders (paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 29 and 32 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Smatrao je da je Opći sud povrijedio pravo tako što je smatrao da Komisija ne treba ispitati zahtjeve za tretman tržišnoga gospodarstva („MET”) prema članku 2. stavku 7. točkama (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe primljene od trgovaca koji nisu u uzorku (točka 36. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točke 29. i 32. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
It held that ‘the Commission ought to have examined the substantiated claims submitted to it by the appellants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation for the purpose of claiming MET in the context of the anti-dumping proceeding [which is] the subject of the contested regulation. It must next be found that it cannot be ruled out that such an examination would have led to a definitive anti-dumping duty being imposed on the appellants other than the 16,5 % duty applicable to them pursuant to Article 1(3) of the contested regulation. It is apparent from that provision that a definitive anti-dumping duty of 9,7 % was imposed on the only Chinese trader in the sample which obtained MET. As is apparent from paragraph 38 above, had the Commission found that the market economy conditions prevailed also for the appellants, they ought, when the calculation of an individual dumping margin was not possible, also to have benefited from the same rate’ (paragraph 42 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 36 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Presudio je sljedeće: „Komisija je trebala ispitati potkrijepljene zahtjeve koje su joj dostavili žalitelji na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točaka (b) i (c) Osnovne uredbe za potrebe zahtijevanja MET-a u kontekstu antidampinškog postupka [koji je] predmet Sporne uredbe. Zatim se mora utvrditi da se ne može isključiti mogućnost da bi posljedica takvog ispitivanja bilo uvođenje konačne antidampinške pristojbe žaliteljima različite od pristojbe od 16,5 % koja se na njih primjenjuje na temelju članka 1. stavka 3. Sporne uredbe. Iz te je odredbe očito da je konačna antidampinška pristojba od 9,7 % uvedena za jedinog kineskog trgovca u uzorku kojem je dodijeljen MET. Kako je iz prethodne točke 38. očito da je Komisija utvrdila da su uvjeti tržišnog gospodarstva vrijedili i za žalitelje, i žalitelji su trebali ostvariti korist od iste te stope ako izračun pojedinačne dampinške marže nije bio moguć.” (točka 42. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 36. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
In October 2013, the Commission, by means of a notice published in the Official Journal of the European Union, announced that it had decided to resume the anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the applicants for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005.
U listopadu 2013. Komisija je u obavijesti objavljenoj u Službenom listu Europske unije najavila da je odlučila nastaviti antidampinški postupak upravo u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za podnositelje zahtjeva u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005. prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
That notice invited interested parties to come forward and make themselves known.
U toj su obavijesti zainteresirane strane pozvane da se jave i iznesu svoje stavove.
In March 2014, the Council, by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, rejected a Commission proposal to adopt a Council Implementing Regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co Ltd and Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd and terminated the proceedings with regard to these producers.
Vijeće je u ožujku 2014. Provedbenom odlukom 2014/149/EU odbilo prijedlog Komisije o donošenju provedbene uredbe Vijeća o ponovnom uvođenju konačne antidampinške pristojbe i konačnoj naplati privremene pristojbe na određenu obuću s gornjim dijelovima od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju su proizvela društva Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd, Seasonable Footwear (Zhongshan) Ltd, Lung Pao Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd, Risen Footwear (HK) Co. Ltd i Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Co. Ltd i prekinulo postupak u pogledu tih proizvođača.
The Council took the view that importers having bought shoes from those exporting producers, to whom the relevant customs duties had been reimbursed by the competent national authorities on the basis of Article 236 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/1992 (‘the Community Customs Code’), had acquired legitimate expectations on the basis of Article 1(4) of the contested Regulation, which had rendered the provisions of the Community Customs Code, and in particular its Article 221, applicable to the collection of the duties.
Stajalište Vijeća bilo je da su uvoznici koji su kupili cipele od tih proizvođača izvoznika, kojima su nadležna nacionalna tijela nadoknadila relevantne carinske pristojbe na temelju članka 236. Uredbe Vijeća (EEZ) br. 2913/1992 („Carinski zakonik Zajednice”), imali legitimna očekivanja na temelju članka 1. stavka 4. Sporne uredbe, zbog koje su odredbe Carinskog zakonika Zajednice, a posebno njegov članak 221., postale primjenjive na naplatu pristojbi.
Three importers of the product concerned, C & J Clark International Ltd (‘Clark’), Puma SE (‘Puma’) and Timberland Europe BV (‘Timberland’) (‘the importers concerned’) challenged the anti-dumping measures on imports of certain footwear from China and Vietnam invoking the jurisprudence mentioned in recitals (5) to (7) before their national Courts, which referred the matters to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.
Tri su uvoznika predmetnog proizvoda, C&J Clark International Ltd („Clark”), Puma SE („Puma”) i Timberland Europe B.V. („Timberland”) („predmetni uvoznici”), osporavala antidampinške mjere na uvoz određene obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama pozivajući se pred svojim nacionalnim sudovima na sudsku praksu navedenu u uvodnim izjavama (5) do (7), koji su predmete uputili Sudu na odluku o prethodnom pitanju.
On 4 February 2016, in the Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE, the Court of Justice declared Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 invalid in so far as the European Commission did not examine the MET and individual treatment (‘IT’) claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled (‘the judgments’), contrary to the requirements laid down in Articles 2(7)(b) and 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96.
Dana 4. veljače 2016. u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE Sud je Uredbu (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbenu uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009 proglasio nevaljanima u dijelu u kojem Europska komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i individualni tretman („IT”) koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koji nisu uključeni u uzorak („presude”), što je protivno zahtjevima utvrđenima u članku 2. stavku 7. točki (b) i članku 9. stavku 5. Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) br. 384/96.
Regarding Case C-571/14 Timberland Europe, the Court of Justice decided on 11 April 2016 to remove the case from the register at the request of the referring national court.
U pogledu predmeta C-571/14, Timberland Europe, Sud je 11. travnja 2016. odlučio obrisati taj predmet iz registra na zahtjev nacionalnog suda koji mu ga je uputio.
Article 266 TFEU provides that the institutions must take the necessary measures to comply with the Court's judgments.
U članku 266. UFEU-a propisuje se da institucije moraju poduzeti potrebne mjere kako bi postupile u skladu s presudama Suda.
In case of annulment of an act adopted by the institutions in the context of an administrative procedure, such as anti-dumping, compliance with the Court's judgment consists in the replacement of the annulled act by a new act, in which the illegality identified by the Court is eliminated.
U slučaju poništenja akta koji su donijele institucije u kontekstu administrativnog postupka, kao što je antidamping, usklađenost s presudom Suda sastoji se od zamjene poništenog akta novim aktom, iz kojeg je izbačena nezakonitost koju je utvrdio Sud.
In a situation where a regulation imposing definitive anti-dumping measures is annulled, that means that, subsequent to the annulment, the anti-dumping proceeding is still open, because the act concluding the anti-dumping proceeding has disappeared from the Union legal order, except if the illegality occurred at the stage of initiation.
Ako se uredba kojom se uvode konačne antidampinške mjere poništi, to znači da je nakon poništenja taj antidampinški postupak i dalje otvoren jer akt kojim se taj antidampinški postupak zaključuje više nije dio pravnog poretka Unije, osim ako je do nezakonitosti došlo u fazi pokretanja postupka.
Apart from the fact that the institutions did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by exporting producers in the PRC and Vietnam that were not sampled, all other findings made in Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 remain valid.
Osim činjenice da institucije nisu ispitale zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijeli proizvođači izvoznici u NRK-u i Vijetnamu koji nisu uključeni u uzorak, svi ostali nalazi iz Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 i Provedbene uredbe (EU) br. 1294/2009 i dalje su valjani.
Hence, the Commission decided to resume the present anti-dumping proceeding that was still open following the judgments at the very point at which the illegality occurred and to examine whether market economy conditions prevailed for the exporting producers concerned for the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, which was the investigation period (‘investigation period’).
Stoga je Komisija odlučila nastaviti trenutačni antidampinški postupak koji je još bio otvoren nakon donošenja presuda u točki u kojoj je došlo do nezakonitosti i ispitati jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike u razdoblju od 1. travnja 2004. do 31. ožujka 2005., a to je bilo razdoblje ispitnog postupka („ispitni postupak”), prevladavali uvjeti tržišnoga gospodarstva.
The Commission also examined, where appropriate, whether the exporting producers concerned qualified for IT in accordance with 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (the ‘basic Regulation prior to its amendment’).
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. Uredbe (EU) br. 1225/2009 („Osnovna uredba prije izmjena”).
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark and Puma of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and produced by 13 Chinese exporting producers that have submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1395 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark i Puma određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a koju je proizvelo trinaest kineskih proizvođača izvoznika koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1647, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Clark, Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by certain Vietnamese exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1647 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Clark, Puma i Timberland određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Vijetnama koju su proizveli određeni vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak.
By Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1731 the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of Puma and Timberland of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by General Footwear Ltd and certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and produced by Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd and Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd (‘Ty Hung Co. Ltd’) that submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
Provedbenom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2016/1731 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz društava Puma i Timberland određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju je proizvelo društvo General Footwear Ltd i određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz VIjetnama koju su proizvela društva Diamond Vietnam Co. Ltd i Ty Hung Footgearmex/Footwear Co. Ltd („Ty Hung Co. Ltd”) koja su podnijela zahtjeve za MET i IT u početnom ispitnom postupku, ali nisu bila uključena u uzorak.
The validity of Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647 and (EU) 2016/1731 has been challenged by Puma and Timberland at the General Court in Cases T-781/16 Puma and Others v Commission and T-782/16 Timberland Europe v Commission.
Puma i Timberland pred Općim su sudom u predmetima T-781/16 Puma i ostali protiv Komisije i T-782/16 Timberland Europe protiv Komisije doveli u pitanje valjanost provedbenih uredbi (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647 i (EU) 2016/1731.
Furthermore, the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1395 has also been challenged at the General Court by Clark in Cases T-790/16 C & J Clark International v Commission and T-861/16 C & J Clark International v Commission.
Nadalje, i Clark je pred Općim sudom doveo u pitanje valjanost Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/1395 u predmetima T-790/16 C & J Clark International protiv Komisije i T-861/16 C & J Clark International protiv Komisije.
In view of the implementation of the judgment in Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited and C-34/14 Puma SE mentioned above in recital (12), the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223.
U cilju provedbe presude u spojenim predmetima C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited i C-34/14 Puma SE iz uvodne izjave (12) Komisija je donijela Provedbenu uredbu (EU) 2016/223.
In Article 1 of that regulation, the Commission instructed national customs authorities to forward all requests for reimbursement of the definitive anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear originating in China and Vietnam made by importers based on Article 236 of the Community Customs Code and based on the fact that a non-sampled exporting producer had requested MET or IT in the investigation that lead to the imposition of the definitive measures by Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 (‘original investigation’).
U članku 1. te Uredbe Komisija je uputila nacionalna carinska tijela da joj proslijede sve zahtjeve uvoznika za povrat konačnih antidampinških pristojbi plaćenih na uvoz obuće podrijetlom iz Kine i Vijetnama podnesene na temelju članka 236. Carinskog zakonika Zajednice i na temelju činjenice da je proizvođač izvoznik koji nije uključen u uzorak zatražio MET ili IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, što je dovelo do uvođenja konačnih mjera na temelju Uredbe (EZ) br. 1472/2006 („početni ispitni postupak”).
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
Komisija će ocijeniti relevantne zahtjeve za MET ili IT i ponovno uvesti odgovarajuću stopu pristojbe.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Na temelju toga bi nacionalna carinska tijela trebala naknadno donijeti odluku o zahtjevu za povrat i otpust antidampinških pristojbi.
The validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 is subject to a preliminary ruling request lodged by the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf on 9 May 2016 (Case C-256/16 Deichmann).
Valjanost Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 predmet je zahtjeva za donošenje odluke o prethodnom pitanju koji je 9. svibnja 2016. podnijelo društvo Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (predmet C-256/16 Deichmann).
The above request for a preliminary ruling was made in the context of a dispute between Deichmann, a German importer of footwear and the relevant national customs authority, the Hauptzollamt Duisburg.
Taj je zahtjev za donošenje odluke o prethodnom pitanju podnesen u okviru spora između njemačkog uvoznika obuće Deichmann i relevantnog nacionalnog carinskog tijela Hauptzollamt Duisburg.
The dispute concerns the reimbursement of anti-dumping duties paid by Deichmann on imports of footwear from, inter alia, its Chinese supplier Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd which lodged an MET and IT claim and was not sampled.
Spor se odnosi na povrat antidampinških pristojbi koje je društvo Deichmann platilo na uvoz obuće od, među ostalim, kineskog dobavljača Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, koji je podnio zahtjev za MET i IT, a nije uključen u uzorak.