natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
A second preliminary ruling request on the validity of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223 was lodged by the UK First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on 28 November 2016 (Case C-612/16 C & J Clark International).
Drugi zahtjev za donošenje odluke o prethodnom pitanju valjanosti Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 podnio je 28. studenoga 2016. First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) – Ujedinjena Kraljevina (Predmet C-612/16 C & J Clark International).
Furthermore, following a notification from the French customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the Commission analysed MET/IT claims from three Chinese exporting producers, Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd and Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd
Nadalje, nakon obavijesti francuskih carinskih tijela u skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene Uredbe (EU) 2016/223 Komisija je analizirala zahtjeve za MET/IT triju kineskih proizvođača izvoznika Chengdu Sunshine Shoes Co. Ltd, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd i Fujian Sunshine Footwear Co. Ltd.
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257, the Commission re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and produced by three exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Kao rezultat navedenog, Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2016/2257 Komisija je ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz Narodne Republike Kine koju proizvode tri proizvođača izvoznika koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak.
On 12 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of the United Kingdom notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 carinska tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine 12. srpnja 2016. obavijestila su Komisiju o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju i dostavila popratne dokumente.
On 13 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Belgium notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 belgijska carinska tijela 13. srpnja 2016. obavijestila su Komisiju o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju i dostavila popratne dokumente.
On 26 July 2016, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Sweden notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 švedska carinska tijela 26. srpnja 2016. obavijestila su Komisiju o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju i dostavila popratne dokumente.
These notifications, which are the subject of this Regulation, listed a total of 246 companies as suppliers of footwear from China and Vietnam.
U tim je obavijestima, koje su predmet ove Uredbe, navedeno ukupno 246 društava kao dobavljači iz Kine i Vijetnama.
For a large number of these companies, 168 (listed in Annex III of this Regulation) the Commission has no record that these companies had submitted any MET or IT claim form in the original investigation.
Za velik broj tih društava (168 društava navedenih u Prilogu III. ovoj Uredbi) Komisija nema zapisa o takvim zahtjevima za MET ili IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
Amongst these companies there were also companies that are not concerned by the investigation as they were, for instance, not located in China or Vietnam or they were trading or mere processing companies in any event not entitled to any individual dumping margin.
Među tim društvima bilo je i društava na koja se istraga ne odnosi jer se, primjerice, ne nalaze u Kini ili Vijetnamu ili su pak društava za trgovinu ili preradu koja nemaju nikakvo pravo na pojedinačnu dampinšku maržu.
The companies listed in Annex III were also not able to demonstrate that they were related to any of the Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that had provided a MET/IT claim in the original investigation.
Društva navedena u Prilogu III. nisu mogla dokazati da su povezana s bilo kojim kineskim ili vijetnamskim proizvođačem izvoznikom koji je u početnom ispitnom postupku podnio zahtjev za MET ili IT.
However, as mentioned in recital (79) below, the Commission recognises 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 said traders acquired their footwear.
Međutim, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (79) u nastavku, 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 navedeni trgovci nabavili obuću.
Recital (79) also explains in more detail why the Commission, on that basis, has decided to temporarily suspend the examination of the companies listed in Annex III.
U uvodnoj izjavi (79) detaljnije je objašnjeno zašto je Komisija na temelju toga odlučila privremeno obustaviti ispitivanje društava navedenih u Prilogu III.
(3 1) Out of the remaining companies, 20 were already assessed individually or as part of a company group selected in the sample of Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers in the context of the original investigation (listed in Annex IV of this Regulation).
Od preostalih društava, njih dvadeset već je ocijenjeno pojedinačno ili kao dio grupacije odabrane u uzorku kineskih ili vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka (navedenih u Prilogu IV. ove Uredbe).
As none of these companies received an individual duty rate, the duty for China of 16,5 %, or of 10 % for Vietnam, is applied to imports of footwear from these companies respectively.
Budući da ni jedno od tih društava nije dobilo pojedinačnu stopu, na uvoz obuće od tih trgovačkih društava primjenjuje se stopa od 16,5 % za Kinu, odnosno 10 % za Vijetnam.
These rates were not affected by the judgment mentioned in recital (12).
Presuda iz uvodne izjave (12) nije utjecala na te stope.
Out of the remaining companies, 31 (listed in Annex V of this Regulation) were already assessed either individually or as part of a company group in the context of the implementation of the judgment mentioned in recital (12); namely in Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU or in Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 respectively.
Od preostalih društava, njih trideset i jedno (navedeno u Prilogu V. ovoj Uredbi) već je ocijenjeno pojedinačno ili kao dio grupacije u okviru provedbe presude navedene u uvodnoj izjavi (12), tj. u Provedbenoj uredbi 2014/149/EU ili u provedbenim uredbama (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, odnosno 2016/2257.
These assessments included also eight companies that were notified to the Commission and were identified following disclosure through comments received from Federation of the European Sporting Goods Industry (‘FESI’) and the Footwear Coalition as being related to one of the company or company groups already assessed previously in one of the before-mentioned regulations.
U to je ocjenjivanje uključeno osam društava koja su prijavljena Komisiji i koja su nakon objave na temelju primjedbi Federacije europskih proizvođača sportske robe („FESI”) i Koalicije proizvođača obuće utvrđena kao društva koja su povezana s jednim od društava ili s grupacijom koji su već ocijenjeni u jednoj od navedenih uredbi.
Companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU were not made subject to any re-imposition of an anti-dumping duty, as mentioned in recital (10), on the basis that the reimbursement of duties to these companies had already taken place and thus provided legitimate expectations to them that no such re-imposition would occur.
Za društva ili grupacije koji su ocijenjeni u Provedbenoj odluci 2014/149/EU nije ponovno uvedena antidampinška pristojba, kako je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi (10), na temelju činjenice da su tim društvima već nadoknađene pristojbe i da stoga za njih postoje legitimna očekivanja da neće doći do takvog ponovnog uvođenja.
The reimbursement claims of importers in the Union relating to companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Regulations (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 and (EU) 2016/2257 respectively, should, on the other hand, not be granted.
Za razliku od toga, ne bi trebalo odobriti zahtjeve za povrat koje su podnijeli uvoznici u Uniju povezani s društvima ili grupacijama koji su ocijenjeni u, slijedom, provedbenim uredbama (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731 i (EU) 2016/2257.
This is because these importers find themselves in a different legal situation than those assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU, having notably not gained legitimate expectations.
Razlog tomu je to što su ti uvoznici u drugačijoj pravnoj situaciji od onih koji su ocijenjeni u Provedbenoj odluci 2014/149/EU, posebno zato što nisu stekli legitimna očekivanja.
Following disclosure, through comments provided by FESI and the Footwear Coalition, one Chinese exporting producer that was notified to the Commission, was identified as a company having submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation but that was not sampled, nor assessed in previous implementation exercises mentioned in recitals (18) to (20) and (25).
Nakon objave je na temelju primjedbi FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće jedan kineski proizvođač izvoznik koji je prijavljen Komisiji utvrđen kao društvo koje je podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, ali nije uključeno u uzorak niti ocijenjeno u prijašnjim provedbama navedenima u uvodnim izjavama od 18. do 20. i 25.
The same parties also identified four other companies notified to the Commission 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).
Iste su stranke utvrdile i prijavile Komisiji i četiri 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.
In total there are thus five companies (listed in Annex VI) whose MET/IT claim, or that of their related companies, should be assessed.
Stoga bi ukupno trebalo ocijeniti zahtjeve za MET/IT pet društava (navedenih u Prilogu VI.) ili njihovih povezanih društava.
These assessments cannot be finalised within the time frame of the current implementation exercise and will therefore be subject to a subsequent implementation exercise.
Te se ocijene ne mogu finalizirati u vremenskom roku trenutačne provedbe te će stoga biti podložne sljedećoj provedbi.
The reimbursement claims of importers in the Union of these companies (listed in Annex VI) should therefore be temporarily suspended pending the outcome of the assessment of the MET/IT claims of the relevant suppliers in China and/or Vietnam.
Zahtjeve za povrat koje su podnijeli uvoznici u Uniju tih društava (navedenih u Prilogu VI.) trebalo bi stoga privremeno obustaviti sve dok se ne sazna ishod ocjenjivanja zahtjeva za MET/IT relevantnih dobavljača u Kini i/ili Vijetnamu.
Finally, following disclosure, the same parties claimed that six companies listed in Annex III were related to a company or company group already assessed in previous implementation exercises and should be identified as such.
Naposljetku, nakon objave iste su stranke tvrdile da je šest društava navedenih u Prilogu III. povezano s društvom ili grupacijom koji su bili ocijenjeni u prijašnjim provedbama te bi stoga tako i trebali biti utvrđeni.
However, the evidence in the file did not confirm this claim, which was, in any case, also not substantiated by any further evidence.
Međutim, dokazi u spisu ne potvrđuju tu tvrdnju, koja, u svakom slučaju, nije potkrijepljena nikakvim dodatnim dokazima.
The remaining 19 companies were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and that had submitted an MET/IT claim form.
Ostalih devetnaest trgovačkih društava bili su kineski ili vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu uključeni u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku, a koji su podnijeli obrazac zahtjeva za MET/IT.
The Commission therefore assessed the MET and IT claims provided by these companies.
Komisija je stoga ocijenila zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijela ta društva.
This assessment included also two companies that were notified to the Commission and were identified following disclosure through comments received from FESI and the Footwear Coalition as being related to one Chinese exporting producer subject to the current assessment.
U ta su ocjenjivanja uključena i dva društva koja su prijavljena Komisiji i koja su nakon objave na temelju primjedbi FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće utvrđena kao povezana s jednim kineskim proizvođačem izvoznikom koji je predmet trenutačnog ocjenjivanja.
In summary, in this Regulation, the Commission assessed the MET/IT claim forms of: 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.
Ukratko, u ovoj Uredbi Komisija je ocijenila obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT sljedećih društava: 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.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA
B. PROVEDBA PRESUDA SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KINE
This Regulation seeks to correct the aspects of the contested Regulation found to be inconsistent with the basic Regulation, and which thus led to the declaration of invalidity in so far as the exporting producers mentioned in recital (37) are concerned.
Cilj je ove Uredbe ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji nisu u skladu s Osnovnom uredbom i koji su stoga doveli do njezina proglašenja nevaljanom u pogledu proizvođača izvoznika navedenih u uvodnoj izjavi (37).
All other findings made in the contested Regulation and in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, which were not declared invalid by the Court, remain valid and are herewith incorporated into this Regulation.
Svi ostali nalazi utvrđeni u Spornoj uredbi i Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) br. 1294/2009 koje Sud nije proglasio nevaljanima i dalje su važeći i ovime postaju dio ove Uredbe.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments of the Court.
Stoga se sljedeće uvodne izjave odnose samo na novu ocjenu koja je potrebna radi usklađivanja s presudama Suda.
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers mentioned in recital (37) (‘exporting producers concerned’) which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za proizvođače izvoznike iz uvodne izjave (37) („predmetni proizvođači izvoznici”), koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET/IT u ispitnom postupku, prevladavali MET ili IT.
The purpose of this determination is to ascertain the extent to which the importers concerned are entitled to receive a repayment of the anti-dumping duty paid with regard to anti-dumping duties paid on exports of these suppliers.
Svrha je tog određivanja utvrditi mjeru u kojoj predmetni uvoznici imaju pravo na povrat antidampinške pristojbe plaćene u pogledu antidampinških pristojbi koje se plaćaju za izvoz tih dobavljača.
Should the analysis reveal that MET was to be granted to the exporting producers concerned whose exports were subject to the anti-dumping duty paid by the importers concerned, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to that exporting producer and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid and the individual duty rate, i.e. in case of import from China, the difference between 16,5 %, and the duty imposed on the only exporting company in the sample that obtained MET, namely 9,7 %; and, in case of imports from Vietnam, the difference between 10 % and the individual duty rate calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Ako se analizom pokaže da je MET bilo potrebno odobriti za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike na čiji se izvoz primjenjivala antidampinška pristojba koju su platili predmetni uvoznici, pojedinačna stopa pristojbe trebala bi se pripisati tom proizvođaču izvozniku, a povrat pristojbe bio bi ograničen na iznos koji odgovara razlici između plaćene pristojbe i pojedinačne stope pristojbe, odnosno u slučaju uvoza iz Kine, razlici između 16,5 % i pristojbe uvedene za jedino društvo izvoznika u uzorku koje je dobilo MET, odnosno 9,7 %, a u slučaju uvoza iz Vijetnama razlici između 10 % i pojedinačne stope pristojbe izračunane za predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika, ako postoji.
Should the analysis reveal that IT was to be granted to an exporting producer for which MET was rejected, an individual duty rate would have to be attributed to the exporting producer concerned and the repayment of the duty would be limited to an amount corresponding to a difference between the duty paid, i.e. in case of imports from China 16,5 % and in case of imports from Vietnam 10 %, and the individual duty calculated for the exporting producer concerned, if any.
Ako se analizom pokaže da je IT bilo potrebno odobriti za kineskog proizvođača izvoznika za kojeg je MET odbijen, trebalo bi predmetnom proizvođaču izvozniku dodijeliti pojedinačnu stopu pristojbe, a povrat pristojbe ograničiti na iznos koji odgovara razlici između plaćene pristojbe, odnosno 16,5 % za uvoz iz Kine, a za uvoz iz Vijetnama 10 %, i pojedinačne pristojbe izračunane za predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika, ako je ima.
As explained in recital (12), the Court of Justice annulled the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009 with regard to exports of certain footwear from certain Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers, in so far as the Commission did not examine the MET and IT claims submitted by these exporting producers.
Kako je objašnjeno u uvodnoj izjavi (12), Sud je poništio Spornu uredbu i Provedbenu uredbu (EU) br. 1294/2009 u pogledu izvoza određene obuće od određenih kineskih i vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika jer Komisija nije ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT koje su podnijeli ti proizvođači izvoznici.
The Commission has therefore examined the MET and IT claims of the exporting producers concerned in order to determine the duty rate applicable to their exports.
Komisija je stoga ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika kako bi utvrdila stopu pristojbe primjenjivu na njihov izvoz.
That assessment showed that the information provided did not demonstrate that the exporting producers concerned operated under market economy conditions or that they qualified for individual treatment (see for a detailed explanation below recitals (48) and following).
Ta je ocjena pokazala da se dostavljenim podacima nije dokazalo da predmetni proizvođači izvoznici posluju u uvjetima tržišnoga gospodarstva niti da ispunjuju uvjete za individualni tretman (vidjeti detaljno objašnjenje u nastavku u uvodnoj izjavi (48) i sljedećim uvodnim izjavama).
Accordingly, there is no obligation on the Union institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
U skladu s tim, institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
On the contrary, it is for the Union institutions 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 and it is for the Union judicature to examine whether that assessment is vitiated by a manifest error (paragraph 32 of the judgment in Case C-249/10 P and paragraph 24 of the judgment in Case C-247/10 P).
Naprotiv, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni proizvođač dostatan dokaz da su kriteriji utvrđeni člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom Osnovne uredbe ispunjeni kako bi se tom proizvođaču odobrio MET, a sud Unije treba ispitati je li ta ocjena iskrivljena zbog očigledne pogreške (točka 32. presude u predmetu C-249/10 P i točka 24. presude u predmetu C-247/10 P).
In accordance with Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, all five criteria listed in this article should be met so that an exporting producer can be granted MET.
U skladu s člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) Osnovne uredbe potrebno je ispuniti svih pet kriterija navedenih u tom članku kako bi se proizvođaču izvozniku mogao odobriti MET.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that they met criterion 1 (Business decisions).
Ni jedan od predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije mogao dokazati da su ispunili kriterij 1 (poslovne odluke).
More specifically, the Commission found that most of the exporting producers concerned (Companies 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25) could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and export markets.
Točnije, Komisija je utvrdila da većina predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika (društva 7., 11., 12., 13., 14., 16., 17., 18., 19., 20., 21., 22., 23., 24., 25.) ne može slobodno odrediti svoje prodajne količine za domaća i izvozna tržišta.
In this respect, the Commission established that there were limitations in the output and/or a limitation to sales quantities on specific markets (domestic and export).
U tom pogledu, Komisija je utvrdila da postoje ograničenja u pogledu proizvodnje i/ili ograničenje količina prodanih na posebnim tržištima (domaća i izvozna).
Moreover, some of the exporting producers concerned (Companies 8, 9, 10, 15) failed to provide essential and complete information (e.g. evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence or explanations concerning the company's decision making) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Nadalje, određeni predmetni proizvođači izvoznici (društva 8., 9., 10., 15.) nisu dostavili bitne i potpune podatke (npr. dokaze o strukturi i kapitalu društva, dokaze ili objašnjenja o postupcima donošenja odluka u društvu) kako bi dokazali da se njihove poslovne odluke donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale, a bez znatnog uplitanja države.