natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
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 one exporting producer in Vietnam and by two exporting producers in the PRC that submitted MET and IT claims, but had not been sampled.
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.
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.
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.
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 ovom je predmetu do nezakonitosti došlo nakon pokretanja postupka.
The Commission shall assess the relevant MET or IT claim and re-impose the appropriate duty rate.
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.
On this basis the national customs authorities should subsequently decide on the request for repayment and remission of the anti-dumping duties.
Komisija je isto tako, prema potrebi, ispitala ispunjavaju li predmetni proizvođači izvoznici uvjete za IT u skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5.
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.
Uredbe (EU) br. 1225/2009 („Osnovna uredba prije izmjena”).
Another exporting producer was identified that was supplier of Deichmann, a German importer that contested the payment of duties.
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.
Consequently, the Commission analysed the MET and IT claim form from these three Chinese exporting producers.
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.
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.
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 proizvode vijetnamski proizvođač izvoznik i dva proizvođača izvoznika iz NRK-a koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET i IT, ali nisu bili uključeni u uzorak.
In accordance with Article 1 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223, the UK, Belgium and Swedish customs authorities notified the Commission reimbursement claims of importers on 12 July 2016 (UK), 13 July 2016 (Belgium) and 26 July 2016 (SWE) respectively.
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.
As a result of these notifications, the Commission analysed MET and IT claims from 19 exporting producers and, by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, re-imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitely 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 these 19 exporting producers.
Komisija je donijela Provedbenu uredbu (EU) 2016/223.
As mentioned in recital (34) of the abovementioned Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, during the above investigation, through comments made by several interested parties following disclosure, five additional companies/company groups were identified that had either itself or via a related Chinese or Vietnamese exporting producer submitted a MET/IT claim form during the original investigation, but that were not sampled and that had not been assessed in any previous implementation exercise.
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.
These companies were listed in Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423 and were part of four company groups.
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”').
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 that had submitted a MET/IT claim form.
Komisija će ocijeniti relevantne zahtjeve za MET ili IT i ponovno uvesti odgovarajuću stopu pristojbe.
Thus, in the current regulation, the Commission assessed the MET and IT claim forms of: Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Na temelju toga bi nacionalna carinska tijela trebala naknadno donijeti odluku o zahtjevu za povrat i otpust antidampinških pristojbi.
Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co.
Nakon obavijesti francuskih carinskih tijela u skladu s člankom 1.
Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co.
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 uključeni u uzorak.
Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
Za još jednog proizvođača izvoznika utvrđeno je da je bio dobavljač društva Deichmann, njemačkog uvoznika koji osporava plaćanje pristojbi.
Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
Slijedom toga, Komisija je analizirala obrazac zahtjeva za MET i IT tih triju kineskih proizvođača izvoznika.
Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd (‘the exporting producers concerned’).
U skladu s člankom 1.
Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2016/223 carinska tijela Ujedinjene Kraljevine, Belgije i Švedske obavijestila su Komisiju 12. srpnja 2016.
Ltd and Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
(Ujedinjena Kraljevina), 13. srpnja 2016.
Ltd are companies related to the company Dah Lih Puh listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
(Belgija) i 26. srpnja 2016.
Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co.
(Švedska) o zahtjevima za povrat koje su predali uvoznici u Uniju.
Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co.
Kao rezultat tih obavijesti, Komisija je analizirala zahtjeve za MET i IT devetnaest proizvođača izvoznika i Provedbenom uredbom (EU) 2017/423 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 i Vijetnama koju proizvode tih devetnaest proizvođača izvoznika.
Ltd and Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 34.
Ltd are companies related to Shing Tak Ind.
Provedbene uredbe (EU) 2017/423, tijekom navedenog ispitivanja, putem primjedbi nekoliko zainteresiranih strana nakon objave za pet dodatnih trgovačkih društava/skupina trgovačkih društava utvrđeno je da su ili sami ili preko povezanih kineskih ili vijetnamskih proizvođača izvoznika dostavili obrazac zahtjeva za MET/IT tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka, no nisu bili uključeni u uzorak i nisu bili ocijenjeni ni u jednoj prijašnjoj provedi.
Co.
Ta su trgovačka društva navedena u Prilogu VI.
Ltd listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2017/423 i dio su četiri skupine trgovačkih društava.
The company Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
Na temelju toga Komisija je utvrdila četiri skupine koje se sastoje od sedam samostalnih 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.
Ltd is related to Evervan Group P/A EVA Overseas Intl.
Stoga je u aktualnoj uredbi Komisija ocijenila obrasce zahtjeva za MET/IT sljedećih društava: Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
Ltd, also listed in the Annex VI to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423.
Ltd, Dongguan Shingtak Shoes 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
Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd, Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
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 (26) are concerned.
Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock Company i Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
Therefore, the following recitals are limited to the new assessment necessary in order to comply with the judgments of the Court.
Ltd („predmetni proizvođači izvoznici”).
The Commission has examined whether MET or IT prevailed for the exporting producers concerned mentioned in recital (26) which submitted MET/IT requests for the investigation period.
Dongguan Luzhou Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd i Zhaoqing Li Da Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd. trgovačka su društva povezana s trgovačkim društvom Dah Lih Puh, koje je navedeno u Prilogu VI.
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.
Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
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.
Dongguan Shingtak Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd, Guangzhou Dragon Shoes Co.
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.
Ltd i Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co.
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 (37) and following).
Ltd trgovačka su društva povezana s trgovačkim društvom Shing Tak Ind.
C. ASSESSMENT OF THE MET CLAIMS
Co.
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.
Ltd uvrštenim u Prilog VI.
To that end, the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) provides that the claim submitted by such a producer must contain sufficient evidence, as laid down in that provision, that the producer operates under market economy conditions.
Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
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.
Trgovačko društvo Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co.
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).
Ltd povezano je s trgovačkim društvom Evervan Group P/A Eva Overseas Intl.
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.
Ltd, koje je također navedeno u Prilogu VI.
Therefore, the Commission considered that the failure to meet at least one criterion was enough to reject the MET request.
Provedbenoj uredbi (EU) 2017/423.
None of the exporting producers concerned was able to demonstrate that it met criterion 1 (Business decisions).
B PROVEDBA PRESUDA SUDA U SPOJENIM PREDMETIMA C-659/13 I C-34/14 ZA UVOZ IZ KINE
More specifically, the Commission found that certain exporting producers (Companies 28, 29, 31 and 32) could not determine freely their sales quantities for domestic and export markets.
Komisija može ispraviti aspekte Sporne uredbe koji su doveli do njezina poništenja, ostavljajući pritom nepromijenjene dijelove ocjene na koje se presuda ne odnosi.
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).
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 26.
Moreover, all exporting producers concerned failed to provide essential and complete information (such as evidence concerning the structure and the capital of the company, evidence or explanations concerning the company's decision making, evidence concerning the cost of electricity or an English version of the Articles of Association) to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with market signals without significant State interference.
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.
With regard to criterion 2 (Accounting), all seven exporting producers concerned failed to demonstrate that they had a set of basic accounting records independently audited in line with international accounting standards.
Stoga se sljedeće uvodne izjave odnose samo na novu ocjenu koja je potrebna radi usklađivanja s presudama Suda.
In this regard, the assessment for Companies 27, 28, 29, 31 revealed that their accounts were in breach of international accounting standards such as the lack of information concerning the lease of buildings or incorrect reporting of land use right or use of fixed exchange rate.
Komisija je ispitala jesu li za predmetne proizvođače izvoznike iz uvodne izjave 26., koji su podnijeli zahtjeve za MET/IT u ispitnom postupku, prevladavali MET ili IT.
For Companies 27, 28, 30 and 32 the Commission found inconsistencies between the information provided in the MET claim and the supporting documentation (i.e. Balance Sheet).
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.
Company 26 provided the Commission with an independent auditor opinion/report and the financial statements only in Vietnamese language and failed to submit an English translation thereof.
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.
Regarding criterion 3 (Assets and carry-over), Companies 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 failed to demonstrate that no distortions are carried over from the non-market economy system.
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.
In particular, these companies failed to provide essential and complete information, inter alia, about the assets owned by the company, the terms and the value of the land use-rights, the deviation from the standard tax rate, the recruitment policy of the company, the tax rate or the electricity suppliers and rates.
S druge strane, ako se analizom tih zahtjeva za MET i IT pokaže da je MET i IT potrebno odbiti, ne može se odobriti povrat antidampinških pristojbi.
Company 27 failed to demonstrate that it met Criterion 4 (Legal environment).
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.
In particular, although the company was in the situation of apparent insolvency according to its balance sheet, this was not disclosed in its financial statements or auditor report.
Komisija je stoga ispitala zahtjeve za MET i IT predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika kako bi utvrdila stopu pristojbe primjenjivu na njihov izvoz.
The company thus failed to demonstrate that it operated under bankruptcy and property laws that guarantee stability and legal certainty.
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 37. i sljedećim uvodnim izjavama).
Company 29 failed to demonstrate that it met Criterion 5 (Currency exchange) since, according to the Notes of the financial statements, the company used a fixed exchange rate for the foreign currency business, which is not in line with criterion 5 which stipulates that exchange rate conversions are carried out at a market rate.
C OCJENA ZAHTJEVA ZA MET
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned that none of them should be granted MET and invited them to provide comments.
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.
No comments were received.
U tu se svrhu člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) prvim podstavkom određuje da zahtjev koji dostavlja takav proizvođač mora sadržavati dostatne dokaze, kako je utvrđeno tom odredbom, da taj proizvođač posluje u uvjetima tržišnoga gospodarstva.
Therefore, none of the seven exporting producers concerned fulfilled all the conditions set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and MET is, as a result, denied for all of them.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da proizvođač ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
D. ASSESSMENT OF THE IT CLAIMS
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).
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment, where Article 2(7)(a) of the same Regulation applies, an individual duty shall however be specified for the exporters which can demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment.
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.