natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 odabran u uzorak zatražio MET ili IT tijekom ispitnog postupka koji je doveo do uvođenja konačnih mjera Uredbom (EZ) br. 1472/2006 („početni ispitni postupak”).
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and reimpose the appropriate duty rate.
Komisija će ocijeniti relevantne zahtjeve za MET ili IT i ponovno uvesti odgovarajuću stopu pristojbe.
Following a notification from the French customs authorities in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the Commission identified two Chinese exporting producers that provided MET and IT claims in the original investigation but that had not been sampled.
Nakon obavijesti francuskih carinskih tijela u skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223, Komisija je utvrdila dva kineska izvoznika proizvođača koji su dostavili zahtjeve za MET i IT u početnom ispitnom postupku, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.
As a result of the above, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/2257 [21], the Commission reimposed 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 [21] 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 odabrani u uzorak.
In accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the UK, Belgian (‘BE’), and Swedish (‘SE’) customs authorities notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers on 12 July 2016 (UK), 13 July 2016 (BE) and 26 July 2016 (SE).
U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 carinska tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine, Belgije i Švedske obavijestila su Komisiju 12. srpnja 2016. (Ujedinjena Kraljevina), 13. srpnja 2016. (Belgija) i 26. srpnja 2016.
As a result of these notifications, the Commission analysed MET and IT claims from nineteen exporting producers and, by Regulation (EU) 2017/423 [22], reimposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the PRC and Vietnam and produced by these nineteen exporting producers.
(Švedska). Kao rezultat tih obavijesti, Komisija je analizirala zahtjeve za MET i IT devetnaest proizvođača izvoznika i Uredbom (EU) 2017/423 [22] ponovno uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu i konačno naplatila privremenu pristojbu uvedenu na uvoz određene obuće s gornjim dijelom od kože podrijetlom iz NRK-a i Vijetnama koju proizvode tih devetnaest proizvođača izvoznika.
During the above investigation, through comments made by several interested parties following disclosure, five additional companies/company groups were identified that had either themselves or via a related Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producer submitted a MET and IT claim form during the original investigation, but that were not sampled and that had not been assessed in any previous implementation exercise.
Tijekom navedenog ispitnog postupka, putem primjedbi nekoliko zainteresiranih strana nakon objave, za pet dodatnih trgovačkih društava/grupa trgovačkih društava utvrđeno je da su ili sami ili preko povezanih kineskih ili vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika dostavili obrazac zahtjeva za MET i IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, no nisu bili odabrani u uzorak i nisu bili ocijenjeni ni u jednoj prijašnjoj provedbi.
These companies were listed in Annex VI to Regulation (EU) 2017/423 and were part of four company groups.
Ta su trgovačka društva navedena u Prilogu VI. Uredbi (EU) 2017/423 i dio su četiri grupe trgovačkih društava.
On this basis, the Commission identified four company groups comprising together seven individual companies that were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and assessed the MET and IT claim forms that these companies had submitted during the original investigation.
Na temelju toga Komisija je utvrdila četiri grupe društava koje se zajedno sastoje od sedam samostalnih trgovačkih društava koji su bili kineski ili vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu odabrani u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku te je ocijenila obrasce zahtjeva za MET i IT koje su ta društva podnijela tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
As a result, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1982 [23], the Commission reimposed 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 these exporting producers that had submitted MET and IT claims but that had not been sampled.
Kao rezultat toga, Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2017/1982 [23] 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 ti proizvođači izvoznici koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili odabrani u uzorak.
In addition, in Article 3 of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, the Commission temporarily suspended the assessment of the situation of companies listed in its Annex III until the importer claiming reimbursement from national customs authorities has informed the Commission of names and addresses of the exporting producers concerned from which traders have purchased the footwear.
Osim toga, člankom 3. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2017/423 Komisija privremeno suspendira ocjenu stanja trgovačkih društava navedenih u Prilogu III. sve dok uvoznik koji zahtijeva povrat od nacionalnih carinskih tijela ne obavijesti Komisiju o nazivima i adresama predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika od kojih su trgovci kupili obuću.
Indeed, while the Commission considers that the burden of proof to identify the relevant exporting producers in China and/or Vietnam lies with the importers requesting reimbursement of the anti-dumping duties paid, it also recognised that not all importers that bought footwear from 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.
Naime, iako Komisija smatra da teret dokazivanja za utvrđivanje relevantnih proizvođača izvoznika u Kini i/ili Vijetnamu trebaju snositi uvoznici koji zatraže povrat plaćenih antidampinških pristojbi, priznala je i da možda nisu svi uvoznici koji su kupili obuću od trgovaca bili svjesni da moraju obavijestiti Komisiju o nazivima proizvođača izvoznika od kojih su ti trgovci nabavili obuću.
Therefore, the Commission specifically contacted all importers concerned by the UK, Belgian, and Swedish notifications and invited them to provide the necessary information, i.e. the names and addresses of the exporting producers in the PRC or Vietnam within a specified deadline.
Stoga je Komisija stupila u kontakt sa svim predmetnim uvoznicima na koje se odnose obavijesti Ujedinjene Kraljevine, Belgije i Švedske i pozvala ih da u utvrđenom roku dostave potrebne informacije, tj. nazive i adrese proizvođača izvoznika iz NRK-a ili Vijetnama.
As a consequence, three importers, i.e. Pentland Brands Ltd, Puma UK Ltd and Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd provided the names and addresses of their respective suppliers in China and/or Vietnam on 18 April 2017 (Puma UK Ltd), on 27 April 2017 (Pentland Brands Ltd) and on 15 May 2017 (Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd), respectively.
Kao posljedica toga, tri uvoznika, tj. Pentland Brands Ltd., Puma UK Ltd. i Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd. dostavili su nazive i adrese svojih dobavljača u Kini i/ili Vijetnamu 18. travnja 2017. (Puma UK Ltd.), 27. travnja 2017. (Pentland Brands Ltd.) i 15. svibnja 2017.
On 7 April 2017, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of Germany notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
(Deichmann Shoes UK Ltd.). (30) U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 njemačka carinska tijela 7. travnja 2017. obavijestila su Komisiju o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju i dostavila popratne dokumente.
On 20 June 2017, the customs authorities of Germany sent an addendum to their original notification and notified the Commission additional claims of importers.
Njemačka carinska tijela poslala su 20. lipnja 2017. dopunu svoje izvorne obavijesti i obavijestila Komisiju o dodatnim zahtjevima uvoznika.
On 23 May 2017, in accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the customs authorities of the Netherlands notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers in the Union and provided supporting documents.
U skladu s člankom 1. Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 nizozemska carinska tijela 23. svibnja 2017. obavijestila su Komisiju o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju i dostavila popratne dokumente.
On 21 July 2017, the customs authorities of the Netherlands sent an addendum to their original notification and notified the Commission additional claims of importers.
Nizozemska carinska tijela poslala su 21. srpnja 2017. dopunu svoje izvorne obavijesti i obavijestila Komisiju o dodatnim zahtjevima uvoznika.
As a result, the Commission received names and addresses of a total of 600 companies that were reported as suppliers of footwear in the PRC and Vietnam.
Kao rezultat toga, Komisija je primila nazive i adrese ukupno 600 društava koja su prijavljena kao dobavljači u NRK-u i Vijetnamu.
For 431 of these companies (listed in the Annex III to this Regulation) the Commission has no record that these companies had submitted any MET or IT claim form in the original investigation.
Od tih društava, za njih 431 (navedena u Prilogu III. ovoj Uredbi) Komisija nema evidenciju da su ta društva dostavila zahtjev za MET ili IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.
These companies 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.
Ta društva nisu mogla dokazati ni da su povezana s bilo kojim kineskim ili vijetnamskim proizvođačem izvoznikom koji je u početnom ispitnom postupku podnio zahtjev za MET ili IT.
Out of the remaining companies, 19 exporting producers 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 the Annex IV to this Regulation).
Od preostalih društava, devetnaest proizvođača izvoznika već je ocijenjeno pojedinačno ili kao dio grupe društava odabrane u uzorak kineskih ili vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka (navedeni u Prilogu IV. ovoj Uredbi).
As none of these companies received an individual duty rate, the duty for the PRC 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 NRK, 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, 72 exporting producers (listed in Annex V to 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, (EU) 2016/2257 and (EU) 2017/1982 respectively.
Od preostalih društava, sedamdeset i dva proizvođača (navedena u Prilogu V. ovoj Uredbi) već su ocijenjeni pojedinačno ili kao dio grupe društava 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, (EU) 2016/2257 i (EU) 2017/1982.
Companies or company groups assessed by Implementing Decision 2014/149/EU were not made subject to any reimposition 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 reimposition would occur.
Za društva ili grupe društava 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 ta društva već dobila povrat pristojbi i da stoga ona imaju 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, (EU) 2016/2257 and (EU) 2017/1982, 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 grupama društava koji su ocijenjeni u provedbenim uredbama (EU) 2016/1395, (EU) 2016/1647, (EU) 2016/1731, (EU) 2016/2257 i (EU) 2017/1982.
The remaining 70 companies (listed in Annex II to this Regulation) were Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producers that were not sampled in the original investigation and that had submitted an MET/IT claim form.
Ostalih sedamdeset trgovačkih društava (navedena u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi) bili su kineski ili vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici koji nisu odabrani u uzorak u početnom ispitnom postupku, a koji su podnijeli obrazac zahtjeva za MET/IT.
B. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN JOINED CASES C-659/13 AND C-34/14 FOR IMPORTS FROM CHINA AND VIETNAM
B. PROVEDBA PRESUDE SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KINE I VIJETNAMA
The Commission has the possibility to remedy the aspects of the contested Regulation which led to its annulment, while leaving unchanged the parts of the assessment which are not affected by the judgment [24].
Komisija može ispraviti aspekte sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ostavljajući pritom nepromijenjene dijelove ocjene na koje se presuda [24] ne odnosi.
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 30 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 30.
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 postaju dio ove Uredbe.
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers concerned mentioned in recital 38 which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike iz uvodne izjave 38., koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET/IT za razdoblje ispitnog postupka, prevladavali MET ili IT.
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 imports 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 analiza 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 analiza pokaže da je IT bilo potrebno odobriti proizvođaču izvozniku kojem 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 postoji.
Conversely, should the analysis of such MET and IT claims reveal that both MET and IT should be rejected, no repayment of anti-dumping duties can be awarded.
S druge strane, ako analiza tih zahtjeva za MET i IT pokaže da je MET i IT potrebno odbiti, ne može se odobriti povrat antidampinških pristojbi.
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.
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 49 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 49. i sljedećim uvodnim izjavama).
It is necessary to point out that the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Nužno je istaknuti da je teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji želi podnijeti zahtjev za MET na temelju članka 2. stavka 7. točke (b) osnovne uredbe.
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 određeni 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.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Stoga je Komisija smatrala da se zahtjev za MET može odbiti ako nije ispunjen najmanje jedan kriterij.
More specifically, the Commission found that Companies 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 53, 54, 58, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 77, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101 and 102 [25] could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and exporting markets.
Točnije, Komisija je utvrdila da društva 34., 36., 37., 38., 39., 42., 43., 44., 45., 46., 47., 48., 53., 54., 58., 65.,66., 67., 69., 72., 77., 79., 80., 82., 84., 85., 88., 89., 92., 93., 94., 96., 97., 98., 99., 100., 101. i 102. [25] ne mogu slobodno odrediti svoje prodajne količine za domaća i izvozna tržišta.
In this respect, the Commission established that there were limitations on 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).
Certain Companies 33, 35, 39, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 96, 97, 101 and 102 did not provide sufficient information on their ownership structure, shareholder, board of directors, or the selection of directors to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
Određena trgovačka društva, 33., 35., 39., 49., 50., 51., 52., 53., 54., 55., 58., 59., 60., 61., 62., 63., 66., 67., 68., 69., 70., 72., 73., 74., 75., 77., 81., 83., 84., 85., 86., 87., 91., 96., 97., 101. i 102., nisu dostavila dovoljno podataka o svojoj vlasničkoj strukturi, dioničarima, upravnom odboru ili odabiru direktora, kako bi dokazali da se njihove poslovne odluke donose kao odgovor na tržišne signale, a bez znatnog uplitanja države.