natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
On 7 May 2018, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of the same product originating in the PRC (‘the provisional anti-dumping Regulation’) in an investigation which had been initiated on 11 August 2017 (‘the parallel anti-dumping investigation’).
Komisija je 7. svibnja 2018. uvela privremenu antidampinšku pristojbu na uvoz istog proizvoda podrijetlom iz NRK-a („privremena antidampinška uredba”) u ispitnom postupku koji je pokrenut 11. kolovoza 2017. („usporedni antidampinški ispitni postupak”).
On 22 October 2018, the Commission imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of the same product originating in the PRC (‘the definitive anti-dumping Regulation’) in the parallel anti-dumping investigation.
Komisija je 22. listopada 2018. uvela konačnu antidampinšku pristojbu na uvoz istog proizvoda podrijetlom iz NRK-a („konačna antidampinška uredba”) u usporednom antidampinškom ispitnom postupku.
The GOC claimed that the investigation should not be initiated because the complaint did not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and of Article 10(2) of the Basic Regulation.
Kineska vlada tvrdila je da ispitni postupak ne bi trebalo pokretati jer u pritužbi nisu ispunjeni zahtjevi o dokazima iz članka 11. stavaka 2. i 3.
According to the GOC, there was insufficient evidence of countervailable subsidies, injury and a causal link between the subsidised imports and the injury.
Sporazuma WTO-a o subvencijama i kompenzacijskim mjerama te iz članka 10. stavka 2. osnovne uredbe.
The Commission rejected that claim.
Prema navodima kineske vlade nije bilo dostatnih dokaza o postojanju subvencija protiv kojih se mogu uvesti kompenzacijske mjere, šteti i uzročno-posljedičnoj vezi između subvencioniranog uvoza i štete.
The evidence submitted in the complaint constituted the information reasonably available to the complainant at that stage.
Komisija je odbacila tu tvrdnju.
It was sufficient to show, at initiation stage, that the alleged subsidies were countervailable in terms of their existence, amount and nature.
Dokaze dostavljene u pritužbi čine informacije koje su u razumnoj mjeri bile dostupne podnositelju pritužbe u toj fazi.
The complaint also contained sufficient evidence of the existence of injury to the Union industry, which was caused by the subsidised imports.
Bili su dostatni da se u fazi pokretanja postupka pokaže da se protiv navodnih subvencija mogu uvesti kompenzacijske mjere u pogledu njihova postojanja, iznosa i prirode.
Contrary to what was claimed by the GOC, the complaint did not only rely on the tyre industry policy in 2010, but also contained (in particular in points 81 to 92), a number of other policy documents, plans and catalogues with references to the tyre industry.
Pritužba je sadržavala i dostatne dokaze o postojanju prijetnje štete industriji Unije koju je uzrokovao subvencionirani uvoz.
Moreover, the Commission (where appropriate) relied on other available sources to confirm the alleged subsidisation.
Suprotno onomu što je tvrdila kineska vlada, pritužba se nije oslanjala samo na politiku za industriju guma za 2010. već je sadržavala (osobito u točkama od 81. do 92.) i niz drugih dokumenata o politikama, planova i kataloga u kojima se upućuje na industriju guma.
For example, given that the US authorities had recently made public determinations on some of the measures, the Commission also relied on this material already at this stage.
Osim toga, Komisija se (prema potrebi) oslanjala na druge dostupne izvore kako bi potvrdila navodno subvencioniranje.
Moreover, the Commission found it useful to include a reference to a new industrial promotion plan of the Hebei province of 2016, which it had on file, but was not mentioned in the complaint.
Primjerice, s obzirom na to da su vlasti SAD-a nedavno objavile odluke o nekima od tih mjera, Komisija se u već u toj fazi oslanjala i na te materijale.
This additional evidence, which is available in the non-confidential file of the case as part of the memorandum on sufficiency of evidence, further confirmed and complemented the allegations made in the complaint as regards the existence and nature of the alleged subsidisation.
Osim toga, Komisija je smatrala korisnim da uključi i upućivanje na novi plan pokrajine Hebei za promicanje industrije iz 2016., koji je imala u spisu, no koji nije naveden u pritužbi.
Insofar as the GOC pointed to any deficiencies with respect to the accuracy and adequacy of the complaint, the Commission examined these allegations during the investigation, and found no reason to question the allegations about the existence and extent of subsidisation when initiating the investigation.
Tim dodatnim dokazima, koji su dostupni u nepovjerljivom spisu predmeta u okviru dopisa o dostatnosti dokaza, dodatno su potvrđene i dopunjene tvrdnje iznesene u pritužbi u pogledu postojanja i prirode navodnog subvencioniranja.
Following final disclosure, Hämmerling claimed that the Commission cannot initiate an investigation with a general reference to CN codes given for information only.
Komisija je tijekom ispitnog postupka ispitala sve navode kineske vlade o nedostacima u pogledu točnosti i primjerenosti pritužbe i nije vidjela razlog za dovođenje u pitanje navoda o postojanju i opsegu subvencioniranja u trenutku pokretanja ispitnog postupka.
According to Hämmerling, although the CN codes are not binding in their interpretation, such a general reference defining product concerned cannot be accepted, as it impairs the legal certainty of all of the interested parties, concerning whether they will fall within the scope of the investigation and constitutes a direct breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter ‘Charter’) and the right to good administration.
Nakon konačne objave društvo Hämmerling tvrdilo je da Komisija ne može pokrenuti ispitni postupak općim upućivanjem na oznake KN navedene samo u informativne svrhe.
Moreover, such a reference and unclear language referring to ‘of a kind used’ convey the message that the scope of the investigation was uncertain and could have been further discretionally extended or narrowed, at the later stage of the investigation, which impairs the right to be heard of interested parties.
Iako tumačenje oznaka KN nije obvezujuće, društvo Hämmerling smatra da je takvo opće upućivanje neprihvatljivo kao definicija predmetnog proizvoda jer se time umanjuje pravna sigurnost svih zainteresiranih strana, koje nisu sigurne ulaze li u opseg ispitnog postupka, te da se tako izravno krši članak 41.
In regard to this claim, the Commission found that the party did not substantiate its theoretical claim how the use of CN codes impair legal certainty.
Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima (dalje u tekstu „Povelja”) i pravo na dobru upravu.
The Commission is not bound by the CN codes but by the product definition as stated in the Notice of Initiation.
Nadalje, takvim se upućivanjem i nejasnim izrazom „vrsta koja se rabi” ostavlja dojam da je opseg ispitnog postupka neodređen i da ga se u kasnijoj fazi slobodno moglo proširiti ili suziti, čime se ugrožava pravo na saslušanje zainteresiranih strana.
The party made no claims that the Commission did not respect the product definition as stated in the Notice of Initiation.
Komisija je utvrdila da ta stranka nije potkrijepila svoju tvrdnju da se uporabom oznaka KN umanjuje pravna sigurnost.
Therefore this claim was rejected.
Komisija ne mora poštovati oznake KN, nego definiciju proizvoda navedenu u Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka.
Registration of imports
Stranka nije tvrdila da Komisija nije poštovala definiciju proizvoda navedenu u Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka.
The complainant submitted requests for registration of imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation on 19 August 2017 and on 5 October 2017 respectively.
Stoga je ta tvrdnja odbačena.
On 4 October 2017, the China Rubber Industry Association (‘CRIA’) and the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (‘CCCMC’) submitted comments on the request for registration.
Evidentiranje uvoza
They claimed that the request had failed to satisfy the applicable evidentiary standard as there was no evidence of a history of dumping/subsidy, a substantial rise in imports and that the imports are likely to seriously undermine the remedial effects of the duty.
Podnositelj pritužbe podnio je 19. kolovoza 2017. i 5. listopada 2017. zahtjeve za evidentiranje uvoza predmetnog proizvoda podrijetlom iz NRK-a u skladu s člankom 14. stavkom 5. osnovne antidampinške uredbe odnosno člankom 24. stavkom 5. osnovne uredbe.
On 2 February 2018, the Commission published Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/163 (‘the registration Regulation’) making imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC subject to registration as of 3 February 2018 onwards.
Tvrdili su da u zahtjevu nije zadovoljen primjenjivi standard dokaza jer ne postoje dokazi o prethodnom dampingu ili subvencijama, znatnom povećanju uvoza i vjerojatnosti da bi uvoz mogao ozbiljno ugroziti pozitivne učinke pristojbe.
The Commission took into account comments by interested parties when assessing the validity of the request for registration.
Komisija je 19. listopada 2017. održala saslušanje na zahtjev CRIA-e tijekom kojega je ponovila svoje ranije primjedbe.
After the registration entered into force Hankook Group claimed that its rights of defence were violated as no information regarding the Commission's intention to make imports of the product concerned subject to registration had been communicated to it before the entry into force of the registration Regulation.
Komisija je 2. veljače 2018. objavila Provedbenu uredbu Komisije (EU) 2018/163 („uredba o evidentiranju”), kojom je uvela obvezu evidentiranja uvoza predmetnog proizvoda podrijetlom iz NRK-a od 3. veljače 2018. nadalje.
For that reason the Hankook Group claimed that there was a breach of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Komisija je pri ocjeni valjanosti zahtjeva za evidentiranje uzela u obzir primjedbe zainteresiranih strana.
The Commission observed that prior disclosure is mandatory under Article 30(2) of the basic Regulation before the imposition of definitive measures.
Nakon što je evidentiranje stupilo na snagu Grupa Hankook tvrdila je da je povrijeđeno njezino pravo na obranu jer prije stupanja na snagu uredbe o evidentiranju nije primila obavijest o namjeri Komisije da uvede obvezu evidentiranja predmetnog proizvoda.
The same does not apply to a registration Regulation under Article 24(5) of the basic Regulation.
Zbog toga je Grupa Hankook tvrdila da je povrijeđen članak 41.
Moreover, the right to be heard under Article 41(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union only applies to individual adverse measures.
Komisija je primijetila da je u skladu s člankom 30. stavkom 2. osnovne uredbe prethodna objava obvezna prije uvođenja konačnih mjera.
In this case, the Commission directed the Union customs authorities to register imports.
Isto se ne primjenjuje na uredbu o evidentiranju na temelju članka 24. stavka 5. osnovne uredbe.
The registration Regulation is not an individual measure affecting the Hankook Group adversely.
U tom je članku predviđeno samo da države članice prethodno treba obavijestiti na vrijeme.
It was neither addressed to the Hankook Group nor did it produce individual negative effects for that group.
Nadalje, pravo na saslušanje iz članka 41. stavka 2. točke (a) Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima primjenjuje se samo na pojedinačne mjere s negativnim učincima.
In this respect, it should also be recalled that the registration of imports is an appropriate step in order to allow for the subsequent imposition of duties against registered imports and duly informs operators about the potential liability attached to those imports which may be incurred in case of definitive measures.
U ovom predmetu Komisija je carinskim tijelima Unije naredila da evidentiraju uvoz.
Therefore, neither the rights of defence of the Hankook Group nor Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union were violated by failing to inform the Hankook Group in advance of the registration decision.
Uredba o evidentiranju nije pojedinačna mjera koja ima negativan učinak na Grupu Hankook.
Investigation period and period considered
Nije bila upućena Grupi Hankook niti je proizvela pojedinačne negativne učinke za tu grupu.
The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 (‘the investigation period’ or ‘IP’).
S obzirom na to, trebalo bi podsjetiti i na to da je evidentiranje uvoza primjeren korak kako bi se omogućilo naknadno uvođenje pristojbi na evidentiran uvoz te se time propisno obavješćuje subjekte o potencijalnoj odgovornosti povezanoj s tim uvozom koja bi mogla nastati u slučaju konačnih mjera.
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2014 to end of June 2017 (‘the period considered’).
Stoga ni pravo na obranu Grupe Hankook ni članak 41.
Interested parties
Povelje Europske unije o temeljnim pravima nije bilo povrijeđeno time što Grupa Hankook nije unaprijed bila obaviještena o odluci o evidentiranju.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission invited interested parties to contact it in order to participate in the investigation.
Razdoblje istražnog postupka i promatrano razdoblje
In addition, the Commission specifically informed the complainant, other known Union producers, the known exporting producers and the GOC, the known importers, suppliers and users, traders, as well as associations known to be concerned about the initiation of the investigation and invited them to participate.
Ispitnim postupkom o subvencioniranju i šteti obuhvaćeno je razdoblje od 1. srpnja 2016. do 30. lipnja 2017. („razdoblje ispitnog postupka” ili „RIP”).
Interested parties had an opportunity to comment on the initiation of the investigation and to request a hearing with the Commission and/or the Hearing Officer in trade proceedings.
Ispitivanjem kretanja važnih za procjenu štete obuhvaćeno je razdoblje od 1. siječnja 2014. do kraja lipnja 2017. („razmatrano razdoblje”).
Two Union producers, represented by the complainant, took this opportunity to request the Commission to keep their names confidential for fear that they could face retaliation by customers or competitors concerned by this investigation, in accordance with Article 29(1) of the basic Regulation.
Zainteresirane strane
Moreover, two other cooperating Union producers requested the same status subsequently.
Komisija je u Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka pozvala zainteresirane strane da joj se obrate radi sudjelovanja u ispitnom postupku.
The Commission individually examined the merits of each confidentiality request.
Osim toga, Komisija je o pokretanju ispitnog postupka obavijestila podnositelja pritužbe, druge poznate proizvođače iz Unije, poznate proizvođače izvoznike i kinesku vladu, poznate uvoznike, dobavljače, korisnike i trgovce te udruženja za koja se zna da na njih odnosi pokretanje ispitnog postupka te ih je pozvala na sudjelovanje.
It established that there was indeed evidence of a significant possibility of retaliation in each case and accepted that the names of those companies should not be disclosed.
Zainteresirane strane dobile su priliku dostaviti primjedbe na pokretanje ispitnog postupka i zatražiti saslušanje Komisije i/ili službenika za saslušanja u trgovinskim postupcima.
Two exporting producers, the Giti Group and the China National Tire Group, claimed that the anonymity of two Union producers represented by the complainant could seriously affect the parties' right of defence as it is not possible to verify that the complainant effectively represents more than 25 % of total Union production.
Dva proizvođača iz Unije, koje predstavlja podnositelj pritužbe, iskoristila su tu priliku kako bi u skladu s člankom 29. stavkom 1. osnovne uredbe zatražili od Komisije da njihovi nazivi budu povjerljivi zbog straha od moguće osvete kupaca ili konkurenata na koje utječe ovaj ispitni postupak.
In addition, the anonymity does not allow interested parties to know in which tier the complainant is active and thus, to meaningfully comment on the material injury that it could suffer due to Chinese exports of the product concerned to the Union.
Osim toga, isti su status naknadno zatražila i dva druga proizvođača iz Unije koji surađuju.
Moreover, the Giti Group claimed that, according to the complainant, tier 3 Union production represented only 16 % of total Union production.
Komisija je pojedinačno ispitala osnovanost svakog zahtjeva za povjerljivošću.
Finally, the Giti Group and the China National Tire Group argued that confidentiality hinders interested parties from knowing whether sampled Union producers are related to Chinese exporting producers.
Utvrdila je da zaista postoje dokazi o znatnoj mogućnosti osvete u svakom slučaju i prihvatila da se nazivi tih društava ne otkriju.
In light of these comments, the Commission re-assessed the non-confidential version of the complaint but came to the conclusion that the version available for inspection by interested parties sufficiently permitted interested parties to assess the standing requirements underlying this investigation.
Dva proizvođača izvoznika, Grupa Giti i Grupa China National Tire, tvrdili su da bi anonimnost dvaju proizvođača iz Unije koje predstavlja podnositelj mogla ozbiljno utjecati na prava stranaka na obranu zbog toga što nije moguće provjeriti predstavlja li zaista podnositelj pritužbe više od 25 % ukupne proizvodnje Unije.
In any case, the Commission noted that whether a complainant belongs to a particular market tier is not determinative of the finding of standing since standing is assessed on the basis of the total production (regardless of any tier segmentation) of the product concerned.
Osim toga, zainteresirane strane zbog anonimnosti ne mogu znati u kojoj je razini podnositelj pritužbe aktivan te stoga ne mogu iznijeti smislene primjedbe o materijalnoj šteti koje bi on mogao pretrpjeti zbog kineskog uvoza predmetnog proizvoda u Uniju.
Finally, the Commission observed that there was insufficient evidence or explanation provided how the alleged lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers would impede the rights of defence of interested parties.
Nadalje, Grupa Giti tvrdila je da podnositelj pritužbe smatra da je proizvodnja iz 3. razine u Uniji činila svega 16 % ukupne proizvodnje u Uniji.
The Commission invited interested parties to provide such evidence or explanations, but no further evidence was provided.
Konačno, Grupa Giti i Grupa China National Tire tvrdile su da zainteresirane strane zbog povjerljivosti ne mogu znati jesu li proizvođači iz Unije u uzorku povezani s kineskim proizvođačima izvoznicima.
The claims levied against granting of confidentiality were therefore rejected.
S obzirom na te primjedbe, Komisija je ponovno ocijenila nepovjerljivu verziju pritužbe, no pritom je zaključila da verzija koja je dostupna na uvid zainteresiranim stranama u dostatnoj mjeri omogućuje zainteresiranim stranama da ocijene stalne zahtjeve na kojima se temelji ovaj ispitni postupak.
Article 29 of the basic Regulation stipulates that the Commission must not reveal any information which is deemed confidential upon good cause being shown without specific permission from the supplier of such information.
U svakom slučaju, Komisija je napomenula da pitanje pripada li podnositelj pritužbe određenoj tržišnoj razini nije odlučujuće za nalaz o stanju zbog toga što se stanje ocjenjuje na temelju ukupne proizvodnje (neovisno o podjeli na razine) predmetnog proizvoda.
The Commission considered that the open version of the complaint permitted interested parties to assess the standing requirements.
Konačno, Komisija je napomenula da nisu navedeni dostatni dokazi ili objašnjenja o tome kako bi navodno nedovoljno poznavanje mogućih poveznica između anonimnih podnositelja pritužbe i kineskih proizvođača izvoznika moglo narušiti pravo zainteresiranih strana na obranu.
Moreover, whether the complainant belongs to a particular market tier is irrelevant since standing is assessed on the basis of the total production (regardless of any tier segmentation).
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane strane da dostave te dokaze ili objašnjenja, ali one nisu dostavile dodatne dokaze.
Finally, the Commission was not convinced by the argument that the lack of knowledge of potential links between anonymous complainants and Chinese exporting producers should impede the rights of defence of interested parties.
Stoga su odbijeni zahtjevi protiv odobravanja povjerljivosti.
Sampling
U članku 29. osnovne uredbe propisuje se da Komisija ne smije bez posebnog odobrenja pružatelja informacija otkriti informacije koje se smatraju povjerljivima na temelju osnovanog razloga.
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it might sample the interested parties in accordance with Article 27 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je smatrala da zainteresirane strane na temelju javne verzije pritužbe mogu ocijeniti jesu li ispunjeni stalni zahtjevi.
Union producers
Osim toga, pitanje pripada li podnositelj pritužbe određenoj tržišnoj razini nebitno je s obzirom na to da se stanje ocjenjuje na temelju ukupne proizvodnje (neovisno o podjeli na razine).
In the Notice of Initiation, the Commission stated that it had preliminarily selected a sample of Union producers on the basis of the highest representative production and sales volumes whilst ensuring a geographical spread.
Konačno, Komisija nije smatrala uvjerljivim argument da bi zbog nedovoljnog poznavanja potencijalnih poveznica između anonimnih podnositelja pritužbi i kineskih proizvođača izvoznika pravo zainteresiranih strana na obranu bilo narušeno.
It invited interested parties to comment on the provisional sample.
Odabir uzorka
Four interested parties submitted comments on the provisional sample (the China National Tire Group; the Giti Group; the CRIA and the CCCMC).
Komisija je u Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka navela da bi u skladu s člankom 27. osnovne uredbe mogla provesti odabir uzorka zainteresiranih strana.
In particular, they considered that the market segmentation into three tiers was not duly reflected in the provisional sample and that the sample should mirror as close as possible the percentage of tier 1, tier 2 and tier 3 production and sales out of the total Union production and sales.
Proizvođači iz Unije
Further to that comment, on 25 September 2017, the Commission requested Union producers to provide additional information on the tiers with a view to establishing a revised sample of Union producers.
U Obavijesti o pokretanju postupka Komisija je navela da je odabrala privremeni uzorak proizvođača iz Unije na temelju najvećeg reprezentativnog obujma proizvodnje i prodaje, pri čemu je osigurala geografsku pokrivenost.
Cooperating Union producers that responded to the sample questionnaire include large and Small and Medium Size Enterprises (‘SMEs’) and represent more than 50 % of the total estimated Union production and sales.
Komisija je pozvala zainteresirane strane da dostave primjedbe o privremenom uzorku.
In order to establish the definitive sample, the Commission took into consideration the fragmentation of the tyres sector among different tiers, ensuring that all three tiers were covered by the sampled companies.
Četiri zainteresirane strane dostavile su primjedbe o privremenom uzorku (Grupa China National Tire, Grupa Giti, CRIA i CCCMC).
In addition, to ensure that the situation of the SMEs was properly reflected in the injury analysis given that they represent around 15 % of the total Union sales volumes of Union producers, the Commission considered that SMEs should also be represented in the sample.
Konkretno, smatrale su da se u privremenom uzorku segmentacija tržišta na tri razine ne odražava primjereno i da bi uzorak što više trebao odgovarati postotku proizvodnje i prodaje iz 1., 2. i 3. razine u ukupnoj proizvodnji i prodaji u Uniji.