natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if individual exporters are given different rates of duty.
Trgovačka društva 40. i 41. nisu dostavila engleski prijevod bitnih informacija o svojoj imovini.
All seventy exporting producers concerned that requested MET also claimed IT in the event that they would not be granted MET.
U pogledu kriterija 4 (pravno okruženje), društva 76., 101. i 102. nisu uspjela dokazati da posluju u skladu sa zakonima o stečaju i imovini kojima se jamči pravna sigurnost i stabilnost.
The Commission therefore assessed the IT claims of each exporting producer concerned, in addition to rejecting their MET claims as described in recitals 49 to 57.
Trgovačko društvo 70. nije uspjelo dokazati da ispunjava kriterij 5 (razmjena valuta) s obzirom na to da se, u skladu s napomenama uz financijske izvještaje, to trgovačko društvo koristilo fiksnim tečajem za stranu valutu, što nije u skladu s kriterijem 5 kojim se utvrđuje da se konverzija valuta obavlja po tržišnim stopama.
Regarding criterion 1 (Repatriation of capital and profits), Companies 69, 77, 86 and 95 failed to prove that they were free to repatriate capital and profits and did thus not demonstrate that this criterion was fulfilled.
Osim toga, društva 56., 71., 78. i 90. nisu uspjela podnijeti dokaze o proizvodnji predmetnog proizvoda, vlasništvu nad glavnim sirovinama, vlasništvu nad predmetnim proizvodom i nadzoru nad utvrđivanjem cijena.
With regard to criterion 2 (Export sales and prices freely determined), Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 52, 53, 54, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74, 75, 79, 80, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 100 failed to prove that business decisions such as export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale were freely determined in response to market signals, as the evidence analysed, such as articles of association or business licences, showed a limitation in output and/or on the sales quantities of footwear in specific markets.
Njihovi zahtjevi za MET stoga nisu bili predmet detaljne analize.
As regards criterion 3 (Company — key management and shares — is sufficiently independent from State interference), Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101 and 102 failed to demonstrate that business decisions were made sufficiently independent from State interference.
Komisija je predmetne proizvođače izvoznike obavijestila o tome da ni jednom od njih ne bi trebalo odobriti MET te ih je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
Inter alia, no information or insufficient information was provided as regards the ownership structure of the company and how the decisions were taken.
Nisu primljene nikakve primjedbe.
In addition, Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 70, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86,87, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 101, 102 did not provide sufficient information on how the land use right were transferred to these companies and at what terms and conditions.
Stoga ni jedan od sedamdeset predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio sve uvjete određene člankom 2. stavkom 7. točkom (c) osnovne uredbe, zbog čega se svima MET odbija.
Therefore, it did not fulfil the requirements of criterion 4 (Market based exchange rate).
Kao što je navedeno u uvodnoj izjavi 49., nužno je istaknuti da je teret dokazivanja na proizvođaču koji želi zatražiti IT na temelju članka 9. stavka 5. osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene.
In addition, Companies 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 101 and 102 also failed to prove that they fulfilled the requirements of criterion 5 (Circumvention) on the basis that no information was provided as to how decisions were taken within the company and whether the State exerted significant influence in this decision making of the company.
Stoga se člankom 9. stavkom 5. prvim podstavkom osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene predviđa da zahtjev mora biti propisno obrazložen.
Their IT claims were therefore not subject to a detailed analysis.
U skladu s tim institucije Unije nemaju nikakvu obvezu dokazati da izvoznik ne zadovoljava uvjete utvrđene za priznavanje tog statusa.
In light of the above, none of the seventy exporting producers concerned fulfilled the conditions set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation prior to its amendment and IT was therefore denied to all of them.
Naprotiv, institucije Unije trebaju ocijeniti jesu li dokazi koje je dostavio predmetni izvoznik dostatni da se pokaže da su kriteriji određeni člankom 9. stavkom 5. osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene ispunjeni kako bi se tom izvozniku odobrio IT.
The Commission informed the exporting producers concerned accordingly and invited them to provide comments.
U skladu s člankom 9. stavkom 5. osnovne uredbe prije izmjene izvoznici bi trebali na temelju propisno obrazloženog zahtjeva dokazati da je ispunjeno svih pet kriterija iz tog članka kako bi im se odobrio IT.
The residual anti-dumping duty applicable to China and Vietnam, of 16,5 % and 10 % respectively, should therefore be imposed for exports made by the seventy exporting producers concerned for the period of application of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006.
Stoga je Komisija smatrala da se zahtjev za IT može odbiti ako nije ispunjen najmanje jedan kriterij.
The period of application of that regulation was initially from 7 October 2006 until 7 October 2008.
Riječ je o sljedećih pet kriterija:
Following the initiation of an expiry review, it was prolonged on 30 December 2009 until 31 March 2011.
da u slučaju poduzeća ili zajedničkih pothvata koji su u cijelosti ili djelomično u stranom vlasništvu izvoznici mogu slobodno repatrirati kapital i dobit;
The illegality identified in the judgments is that the Union institutions failed to establish whether the products produced by the exporting producers concerned should be subject to the residual duty or to an individual duty.
da se izvozne cijene i količine te uvjeti prodaje utvrđuju slobodno;
On the basis of the illegality identified by the Court, there is no legal ground for completely exempting the products produced by the exporting producers concerned from any anti-dumping duty.
da većina dionica pripada pojedincima; da su državni dužnosnici u upravnom odboru ili na ključnim upravljačkim pozicijama u manjini ili moraju dokazati da je društvo dovoljno nezavisno od uplitanja države;
A new act remedying the illegality identified by the Court therefore only needs to reassess the applicable anti-dumping duty rate, and not the measures themselves.
da se konverzija valuta obavlja po tržišnim stopama i
Since the Commission concluded that the residual duty applicable to China and Vietnam respectively should be reimposed in respect of the exporting producers concerned at the same rate as originally imposed by the contested Regulation and Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, no changes are required to Regulation (EC) No 388/2008.
da uplitanje države ne omogućuje izbjegavanje mjera ako se pojedinačnim izvoznicima odrede različite stope pristojba.
That latter regulation remains valid.
Svih sedamdeset predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika koji su zatražili MET zatražili su i IT u slučaju da im se ne odobri MET.
C. COMMENTS OF INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER DISCLOSURE
Komisija je stoga ocijenila zahtjeve za IT svakog predmetnog proizvođača izvoznika i odbila njihove zahtjeve za MET kako je opisano u uvodnim izjavama od 49. do 57.
Following disclosure, the Commission received comments on behalf of (i) FESI and the Footwear Coalition [26] representing importers of footwear in the Union; (ii) C&J Clark International, Cortina, Deichmann and Wortmann (‘Clarks et al’), importers of footwear in the Union, (iii) Sino Pro Trading, and (iv) Schuhhaus SIEMES Einkaufs & Beteiligungs GmbH (‘SIEMES’), both importers of footwear from China and Vietnam.
U pogledu kriterija 1 (repatrijacija kapitala i dobiti), trgovačka društva 69., 77., 86. i 95. nisu uspjela dokazati da su slobodno repatrirala kapital i dobit te stoga nisu dokazala da je taj kriterij ispunjen.
Companies listed in Annex III to this Regulation
U pogledu kriterija 2 (slobodno utvrđivanje izvozne prodaje i izvoznih cijena), Komisija je zaključila da društva 33., 34., 35., 36., 37., 40., 41., 43., 44., 45., 46., 47., 48., 52., 53., 54., 58., 59., 60., 62., 64., 66., 67., 69., 72., 74., 75., 79., 80., 82., 84., 85., 88., 89., 92., 93., 94., 95., 96., 97., 98., 99. i 100. nisu uspjela dokazati da se poslovne odluke, primjerice izvozne cijene i količine te uvjeti prodaje utvrđuju slobodno, kao odgovor na tržišne signale, jer je na temelju analiziranih dokaza, primjerice statuta ili poslovnih dozvola, uočeno ograničenje proizvodnje i/ili prodajnih količina obuće na određenim tržištima.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that according to the Commission's open file a company named Fortune Footwear Co.
U pogledu kriterija 3 (društvo – ključna uprava i dionice – dovoljno je neovisno o uplitanju države), društva 33., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40., 41., 42., 43., 44., 49., 50., 51., 52., 53., 54., 55., 57., 58., 59., 60., 61., 62., 63., 64., 65., 66., 67., 68., 69., 70., 72., 73., 74., 75., 76., 77., 80., 81., 82., 83., 84., 85., 86., 87., 91., 93., 94., 95., 96., 97., 98., 101. i 102. nisu uspjela dokazati da se poslovne odluke donose dovoljno neovisno o uplitanju države.
Ltd submitted an MET/IT claim for the investigation period and therefore should not be listed in Annex III to this Regulation.
Među ostalim, nije dostavljena nijedna informacija ili nije dostavljeno dovoljno informacija o vlasničkoj strukturi trgovačkog društva i načinu donošenja odluka.
However, there is no record of any MET/IT claim submitted by this company and FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not provide any further evidence that this company indeed submitted such claim.
Osim toga, društva 33., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 42., 43., 44., 58., 59., 60., 61., 62., 63., 64., 65., 66., 67., 70., 72., 74., 75., 76., 77., 80., 81., 83., 84., 85., 86., 87.,91., 94., 95., 96., 97., 101., 102. nisu dostavila dovoljno informacija o tome kako su prava korištenja zemljištem prenesena na ta društva i pod kojim uvjetima.
Therefore this claim is rejected.
Društva 33., 34., 35., 40., 41., 51., 59., 62., 81. i 95. nisu dostavila prijevod odgovarajućih dokumenata na engleski jezik.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that a company named Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear was incorrectly listed in Annex III since this company had allegedly submitted an MET/IT claim.
Konačno, društvo 70. nije uspjelo dokazati da se konverzija valuta obavlja po tržišnim stopama.
There is however no company named Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear listed in Annex III or any other Annex to this Regulation.
Stoga nije ispunilo zahtjeve kriterija 4 (konverzija valuta na temelju tržišta).
A company with a similar name (Nanhai Shyang Ho Footwear Co.
Osim toga, društva 33., 34., 35., 36., 37., 38., 39., 40., 41., 42., 43., 44., 49., 50., 51., 52., 53., 54., 55., 57., 58., 59., 60., 61., 62., 63., 64., 65., 66., 67., 68., 69., 70., 72., 73., 74., 75., 76., 77., 80., 81., 82., 83., 84., 85., 86., 87., 91., 93., 94., 95., 96., 97., 98., 101. i 102. nisu uspjela dokazati ni da su ispunila zahtjeve kriterija 5 (izbjegavanje) na temelju činjenice da nisu dostavila podatke o načinu donošenja odluka u društvu ni o tome je li država imala znatan utjecaj na donošenje odluke tog društva.
Ltd) is listed in Annex III but FESI and the Footwear Coalition did not provide any evidence that it is the same company as Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
Njihovi zahtjevi za IT stoga nisu bili predmet detaljne analize.
For the sake of completeness, it must also be noted thata company with a similar name, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd, was assessed in Regulation (EU) 2016/2257.
U kontekstu navedenog, ni jedan od sedamdeset predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika nije ispunio uvjete određene člankom 9. stavkom 5. osnovne uredbe prije njezine izmjene, zbog čega se ni jednom od njih ne odobrava IT.
Likewise, there is, however, no evidence available that the latter is the same company as Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
Komisija je o tome obavijestila predmetne proizvođače izvoznike te ih je pozvala da dostave primjedbe.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further claimed that Guangzhou Panyu Xintaiy Footwear Industry Commerce Co., Ltd submitted an MET/IT claim and that this claim should have been assessed by the Commission.
Na temelju nezakonitosti koju je Sud utvrdio ne postoji pravni temelj za potpuno izuzeće proizvoda koje proizvode predmetni proizvođači izvoznici od bilo kakve antidampinške pristojbe.
It is clarified that the MET/IT claim of this company was indeed assessed.
Novim aktom kojim bi se otklonila nezakonitost koju je Sud utvrdio stoga je potrebno ponovno ocijeniti jedino primjenjivu stopu antidampinške pristojbe, a ne i same mjere.
The company did not fulfil the criteria for MET and IT and its claim was therefore rejected.
Budući da je Komisija zaključila da je potrebno ponovno uvesti preostalu pristojbu koja se primjenjuje na Kinu odnosno Vijetnam u pogledu predmetnih proizvođača izvoznika po istoj stopi po kojoj je na početku uvedena spornom uredbom i Uredbom (EU) br. 1294/2009, nisu potrebne izmjene Uredbe Vijeća (EZ) 388/2008.
Consequently, the definitive duty should be reimposed in its regard and the company is therefore listed in Annex II to this Regulation.
Ta Uredba ostaje valjana.
Therefore the claim of FESI and the Footwear Coalition in this regard is rejected.
C. PRIMJEDBE ZAINTERESIRANIH STRANA NAKON OBJAVE
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed in addition, that a company named Mega Power Union Co.
Nakon objave Komisija je primila primjedbe od i.
Ltd submitted an MET/IT claim.
FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće [26], koja je predstavnik uvoznika obuće u Uniju; ii. uvoznika obuće u Uniju C&J Clark International, Cortina, Deichmann i Wortmann („Clarks et al”), iii. društva Sino Pro Trading i iv. društva Schuhhaus SIEMES Einkaufs & Beteiligungs GmBH („SIEMES”), koji su oba uvoznici obuće iz Kine i Vijetnama.
However the Commission has no record of this MET/IT claim and FESI and the Footwear Coalition failed to provide any evidence that this company indeed submitted such claim.
Trgovačka društva navedena u Prilogu III. ovoj Uredbi
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that a group named ‘the Evervan group’ submitted an MET/IT claim and that the company group was therefore incorrectly listed in Annex III.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da je prema otvorenom spisu Komisije trgovačko društvo pod nazivom Fortune Footwear Co.
However, while six companies listed in Annex III have names which contain the word ‘Evervan’ (Evervan, Evervan Deyang Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Golf, Evervan Qingyuan Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Qingyuan Vulcanized, Evervan Vietnam), FESI and the Footwear Coalition failed to provide any evidence that they were indeed part of a group.
Ltd podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT za razdoblje ispitnog postupka i stoga ne bi trebalo biti navedeno u Prilogu III. ovoj Uredbi.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also failed to provide evidence that this group as a whole indeed submitted an MET/IT claim.
Međutim, nije evidentirano da je to trgovačko društvo podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT, a FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dostavili nikakve daljnje dokaze da je to društvo doista podnijelo takav zahtjev.
For the sake of completeness it must be noted that a company named ‘Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co., Ltd’ submitted an MET/IT claims that was assessed and rejected in Regulation (EU) 2017/1982.
Stoga je ta tvrdnja odbijena.
There is no evidence available that would allow establishing a relationship with the other companies containing the word ‘Evervan’ listed in Annex III.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da je trgovačko društvo pod nazivom Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear bilo pogrešno navedeno u Prilogu III. jer je to društvo navodno podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT.
Procedural requirements when assessing MET and IT claim forms
Međutim, u Prilogu III. ili bilo kojem drugom prilogu ovoj Uredbi nije navedeno društvo pod nazivom Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the burden of proof when assessing MET/IT claims lies with the Commission, as the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers had discharged the burden by submitting the MET/IT claims in the original investigation.
Trgovačko društvo sličnog naziva (Nanhai Shyang Ho Footwear Co.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the same procedural rights should have been granted to the exporting producers concerned by the current implementation as those granted to the sampled exporting producers during the original investigation.
Ltd) navedeno je u Prilogu III., ali FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dostavili nikakve dokaze da je to isto društvo kao Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition argued in particular, that only a desk analysis had been carried out rather than on-spot verification visits, and that the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers were not provided any opportunity to complement their MET/IT claim forms via deficiency letters.
Radi potpunosti valjanapomenuti i da je poduzeće sličnog naziva, Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu Footwear Ltd, ocijenjeno u Uredbi (EU) 2016/2257.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition further argued that the exporting producers concerned by this implementation were not provided with the same procedural guarantees than those applied in standard anti-dumping investigations, but stricter standards were applied.
Isto tako, međutim, nema dokaza da je to isto društvo kao Foshan Nanhai Shyang Yuu/Hu Footwear.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the Commission has not taken into account the time lag between the filing of the MET/IT request in the original investigation and the assessment of these claims.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nadalje su tvrdili da je društvo Guangzhou Panyu Xintaiy Footwear Industry Commerce Co., Ltd podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT i da bi Komisija taj zahtjev trebala ocijeniti.
In addition, exporting producers during the original investigation were only provided 15 days in order to fill in the MET/IT requests, instead of the usual 21 days.
Pojašnjeno je da je zahtjev za MET/IT tog trgovačkog društva doista ocijenjen.
On this basis, FESI and the Footwear Coalition claimed that the fundamental legal principle of granting interested parties full opportunity to exercise their rights of defence laid down in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union, was not respected.
To trgovačko društvo ne ispunjava kriterije za MET i IT te je njegov zahtjev stoga odbijen.
On this basis, it was argued that by not giving the exporting producers the opportunity to complete incomplete information the Commission misused its powers and effectively reversed the burden of proof at the stage of the implementation.
Slijedom toga, za to društvo bi trebalo ponovno uvesti konačnu pristojbu te je stoga navedeno u Prilogu II. ovoj Uredbi.
Finally, FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that this approach would be discriminatory vis-à-vis the Chinese and Vietnamese exporting producers that were sampled in the original investigation, but also other exporting producers in non-market economy countries that were subject to an anti-dumping investigation and filed MET/IT claims in that investigation.
Stoga se tvrdnja FESI-ja i Koalicije proizvođača obuće u tom pogledu odbacuje.
Thus, the Chinese and Vietnamese companies concerned by the current implementation should not be made subject to the same information provision threshold as applied in a normal 15 months investigation and should not be subject to stricter procedural standards.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su i da je trgovačko društvo pod nazivom Mega Power Union Co.
FESI and the Footwear Coalition also claimed that the Commission applied de facto facts available within the meaning of Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, while the Commission did not comply with the procedural rules set out in Article 18(4) of the basic Regulation.
Ltd podnijelo zahtjev za MET/IT.
The Commission recalls that according to the case-law, the burden of proof lies with the producer wishing to claim MET/IT under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Međutim, Komisija nema evidenciju o tim zahtjevima za MET/IT, a FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dostavili nikakve dokaze da je to društvo doista podnijelo takav zahtjev.
Accordingly, as held by the Court in the judgments in Brosmann and Aokang, there is no obligation on the institutions to prove that the producer does not satisfy the conditions laid down for the recognition of such status.
Naposljetku, FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da je grupa pod nazivom „Evervan group” podnijela zahtjev za MET/IT i da je ta grupa trgovačkih društava stoga pogrešno navedena u Prilogu III.
On the contrary, it is for the Commission 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/IT (see recital 49).
Međutim, iako šest društava navedenih u Prilogu III. imaju nazive koji sadržavaju riječ „Evervan” (Evervan, Evervan Deyang Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Golf, Evervan Qingyuan Footwear Co., Ltd, Evervan Qingyuan Vulcanized, Evervan Vietnam), FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dostavili nikakve dokaze da su oni uistinu dio grupe.
In that regard, it is recalled that there is no obligation for the Commission contained in the basic Regulation or in the case-law to give the possibility of the exporting producer to complement the MET/IT claim with all missing factual information.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće nisu dostavili dokaze ni o tome da je ta grupa kao cjelina doista podnijela zahtjev za MET/IT.
The Commission may base its assessment on the information submitted by the exporting producer.
Radi potpunosti valja napomenuti da je trgovačko društvo pod nazivom „Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co., Ltd” podnijelo zahtjeve za MET/IT te da su oni ocijenjeni i odbijeni u Uredbi (EU) 2017/1982.
In relation to the argument that only a desk analysis was carried out, the Commission notes that a desk analysis is a procedure whereby the requests for MET/IT are analysed on the basis of the documents submitted by the exporting producer.
Nema dokaza o njegovoj povezanosti s drugim trgovačkim društvima navedenima u Prilogu III. koji sadržavaju riječ „Evervan”.
All MET/IT applications are subject to a desk analysis by the Commission.
Postupovni uvjeti pri ocjeni obrazaca zahtjeva za MET i IT
In addition, the Commission may decide to carry out on-site verification visits.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da teret dokazivanja pri ocjeni zahtjeva za MET/IT počiva na Komisiji jer su se kineski i vijetnamski proizvođači izvoznici oslobodili tereta podnošenjem zahtjeva za MET/IT u početnom ispitnom postupku.
On-site verifications visits are, however, not required, nor are they carried out for every application for MET/IT.
FESI i Koalicija proizvođača obuće tvrdili su da su proizvođačima izvoznicima na koje se odnosi trenutačna provedba trebala biti dana ista postupovna prava koja su dana proizvođačima izvoznicima u uzorku tijekom početnog ispitnog postupka.