natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 [3], imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more (the product concerned) falling within CN code ex72230019 originating in India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1600/1999 [3] uvedel dokončno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več („zadevni izdelek“), ki se uvršča pod oznako KN ex72230019, s poreklom iz Indije.
The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 % and 55,6 %.
Ukrepi so bili sprejeti kot dajatev ad valorem v obsegu od 0 % do 55,6 %.
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 [4], imposed at the same time a definitive countervailing duty on imports of the same product originating in India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1599/1999 [4] sočasno uvedel dokončno izravnalno dajatev na uvoz istega izdelka s poreklom iz Indije.
The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 0 % and 35,4 % for individual exporters, with a rate of 48,8 % for non-cooperating exporters.
Ukrepi so bili sprejeti kot dajatev ad valorem v obsegu od 0 % do 35,4 % za posamezne izvoznike, s stopnjo 48,8 % za nesodelujoče izvoznike.
CURRENT PROCEDURE
TEKOČI POSTOPEK
Request for a new exporter review
Zahteva za pregled novega izvoznika
Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received a request for the initiation of a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999, pursuant to Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation, from one Indian producer, VSL Wires Limited (the applicant).
Komisija je po uvedbi dokončnih ukrepov od indijskega proizvajalca VSL Wires Limited (v nadaljnjem besedilu „vlagatelj“) prejela zahtevo za uvedbo pregleda Uredbe (ES) št. 1600/1999 za „novega izvoznika“ v skladu s členom 11(4) osnovne uredbe.
The applicant claimed that it was not related to any other exporters of the product concerned in India.
Vlagatelj je trdil, da ni povezan z nobenim od izvoznikov zadevnega izdelka v Indiji.
Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (i.e. from l April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community after that period.
Trdil je tudi, da zadevnega izdelka ni izvažal v Skupnost v prvotnem obdobju preiskave (t. j. od 1. aprila 1997 do 31. marca 1998), pač pa šele po tem obdobju.
On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual duty rate be established for it, in case dumping would be found.
Na podlagi navedenega je zahteval, da se v primeru ugotovitve dampinga zanj določi individualna stopnja dajatve.
Initiation of a review
Uvedba pregleda
The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je preučila dokaze, ki jih je predložil vlagatelj, in ugotovila, da so zadostni za utemeljitev uvedbe pregleda v skladu z določbami člena 11(4) osnovne uredbe.
After consultation of the Advisory Committee and after the Community industry concerned had been given the opportunity to comment, the Commission initiated, by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003 [5], a ‘new exporter’ review of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 with regard to the applicant and commenced its investigation.
Komisija je po posvetovanju s Svetovalnim odborom in potem, ko je bila zadevni gospodarski panogi Skupnosti dana priložnost dati svoje pripombe, z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1225/2003 [5], uvedla pregled Uredbe (ES) št. 1600/1999 za „novega izvoznika“ v zvezi z vlagateljem in začela preiskavo.
At the same time, the anti-dumping duty in force was repealed with regard to imports of the product concerned produced and exported to the Community by the applicant, and those imports were made subject to registration pursuant to Articles 11(4) and 14(5) of the basic Regulation.
Hkrati je bila preklicana veljavna protidampinška dajatev na uvoz zadevnega izdelka, ki ga proizvaja in izvaža v Skupnost vlagatelj, uvoz pa podrejen registraciji v skladu s členoma 11(4) in 14(5) osnovne uredbe.
At the same time and on the same grounds, following a request from the applicant, the Commission initiated an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 [6] pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97.
Komisija je sočasno in na podlagi enakih dejstev na zahtevo vlagatelja uvedla pospešen pregled Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1599/1999 [6] po členu 20 Uredbe (ES) št. 2026/97.
The product covered by the current review is the same product as that under consideration in Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999, namely stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more, containing by weight 2,5 % or more of nickel, excluding wire containing by weight 28 % or more but no more than 31 % of nickel and 20 % or more but no more than 22 % of chromium.
Izdelek, ki je predmet sedanjega pregleda, je isti izdelek, kot ga obravnava Uredba (ES) št. 1600/1999, in sicer žica iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več, ki vsebuje 2,5 mas. % ali več niklja, razen žice, ki vsebuje 28 mas. % ali več, vendar največ 31 mas. % niklja in 20 mas. % ali več, vendar največ 22 mas. % kroma.
The investigation covered the period from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003 (the review investigation period).
Obdobje preiskave je zajelo obdobje od 1. aprila 2002 do 31. marca 2003 („obdobje preiskave za pregled“).
The Commission officially advised the applicant and the Government of India (GOI) of the initiation of the procedure.
Komisija je vlagatelja in indijsko vlado („IV“) uradno obvestila o začetku postopka.
Furthermore, it gave other parties directly concerned the opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing.
Poleg tega je dala drugim strankam, ki jih to neposredno zadeva, možnost, da pisno predstavijo svoja stališča in zahtevajo zaslišanje.
However, no such views or any request for a hearing was received by the Commission.
Vendar Komisija ni prejela nobenih takšnih stališč ali zahteve za zaslišanje.
The Commission sent a questionnaire to the applicant and received a full reply within the required deadline.
Komisija je vlagatelju poslala vprašalnik in v zahtevanem roku prejela popoln odgovor.
The Commission sought and verified all information it deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation and carried out a verification visit at the premises of the applicant.
Komisija je poiskala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za namene preiskave, ter opravila preveritveni obisk vlagateljevih prostorov.
As no request for a review of the findings on injury was made by the applicant, the review was limited to dumping.
Ker vlagatelj ni vložil nobene zahteve za pregled ugotovitev o škodi, je bil pregled omejen na damping.
The applicant was able to satisfactorily demonstrate that it was not related, directly or indirectly, to any of the Indian exporting producers subject to the anti-dumping measures in force with regard to the product concerned.
Vlagatelj je zadovoljivo dokazal, da ni niti neposredno niti posredno povezan z nobenim indijskim proizvajalcem – izvoznikom, za katerega veljajo protidampinški ukrepi v zvezi z zadevnim izdelkom.
The investigation confirmed that the applicant had not exported the product concerned during the original investigation period, i.e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998.
Preiskava je potrdila, da vlagatelj ni izvažal zadevnega izdelka v prvotnem obdobju preiskave, t. j. od 1. aprila 1997 do 31. marca 1998.
The Commission examined whether the applicant had exported the product concerned to the Community subsequent to the original investigation period.
Komisija je preverila, ali je vlagatelj izvažal zadevni izdelek v Skupnost po prvotnem obdobju preiskave.
In this respect, it was established that the applicant has not realised any sales whatsoever to the Community and neither has it entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community of the product concerned during the review investigation period.
Glede tega je bilo ugotovljeno, da vlagatelj ni realiziral nobene prodaje v Skupnost niti ni v obdobju preiskave za pregled prevzel nobene nepreklicne pogodbene obveznosti, da izvozi znatno količino zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost.
It was established that the applicant had only realised one sale to the Community which actually took place in August 2001, i.e. after the original investigation period but well before the review investigation period.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je vlagatelj realiziral samo eno prodajo v Skupnost, in sicer avgusta 2001, t. j. po prvotnem obdobju preiskave, vendar veliko pred obdobjem preiskave za pregled.
The applicant requested the Commission to extend the review investigation period to cover the period in which the sale mentioned in recital 14 was realised.
Vlagatelj je Komisijo zaprosil za podaljšanje obdobja preiskave za pregled, tako da bo zajeto tudi obdobje, v katerem je bila realizirana prodaja iz uvodne izjave 14.
In this respect, the applicant argued that it had requested the ‘new exporter’ review in August 2001 and proposed an investigation period from 1 July 2001 to 31 March 2003.
Glede tega je trdil, da je zahteval pregled „novega izvoznika“ avgusta 2001 in predlagal obdobje preiskave od 1. julija 2001 do 31. marca 2003.
In that respect, it should be pointed out that pursuant to Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation, for the purpose of a representative finding, the Commission shall select an investigation period which, in the case of dumping, shall normally cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding.
V tem pogledu je treba poudariti, da je po členu 6(1) osnovne uredbe Komisija tista, ki za reprezentativne ugotovitve določi obdobje preiskave, ki pri dampingu običajno pokriva obdobje najmanj šestih mesecev neposredno pred začetkom postopka.
The fact that it took almost two years and numerous exchanges of correspondence before the applicant submitted a satisfactory review request does not justify departing from the rule set out in Article 6(1) of the basic Regulation.
Dejstvo, da je vlagatelj šele po skoraj dveh letih in številnih izmenjanih dopisih predložil ustrezno izpolnjeno zahtevo za pregled, ne upravičuje odstopanja od pravila iz člena 6(1) osnovne uredbe.
Moreover, the acceptance of such an extended investigation period, coupled with the fact that it would only cover that export transaction, could lead to a situation where outdated data and accounting information would be used and considerably undermine the accuracy of the findings of the investigation in relation to the current situation of the applicant.
Poleg tega bi lahko sprejetje takega podaljšanega obdobja preiskave skupaj z dejstvom, da bi pokrivalo samo to izvozno transakcijo, privedlo do tega, da bi se uporabili zastareli podatki in računovodske informacije, kar bi zelo ogrozilo točnost ugotovitev preiskave glede trenutnega položaja vlagatelja.
Furthermore, it should be noted that, even if such a long review investigation period was selected and the single sale of August 2001 included, this single sale would not constitute a representative basis for the assessment of dumping and the establishment of an individual dumping margin.
Treba je tudi zabeležiti, da četudi bi bilo izbrano tako dolgo obdobje preiskave in bi zajelo navedeno edino prodajo iz avgusta 2001, ta prodaja ne bi predstavljala reprezentativne osnove za oceno dampinga in določitev individualne stopnje dampinga.
The single transaction represented only around 0,2 % of the applicant's annual production of the product concerned and its price was double the export price of the same product to all other third countries during that period.
Ta edina transakcija je predstavljala samo 0,2 % vlagateljeve letne proizvodnje zadevnega izdelka, njena cena pa je bila dvakrat višja od izvozne cene istega izdelka v vse druge tretje države v tistem obdobju.
Consequently, such a sale could not be used for a representative dumping determination for the applicant.
Zato take prodaje ni bilo mogoče uporabiti za določitev reprezentativnega dampinga za vlagatelja.
In reply to the questionnaire, the applicant identified a contract that had been signed during the review investigation period, but on spot confirmed that the sale had never been materialized.
Vlagatelj je v odgovoru na vprašalnik navedel samo eno pogodbo, ki je bila podpisana v obdobju preiskave za pregled, vendar je pri preverjanju na kraju samem potrdil, da prodaja ni bila nikoli realizirana.
It is therefore established that the applicant has not entered into an irrevocable obligation to export a significant quantity to the Community and that the applicant's statement of ‘intent to continue the export to EC’ following the 2001 sale has not been materialized.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da vlagatelj ni prevzel nepreklicne obveznosti, da izvozi znatno količino v Skupnost, in da se vlagateljeva izjava, da ima „namen še naprej izvažati v ES“ po prodaji v letu 2001 ni uresničila.
For the above reasons, it is considered that in the absence of any export transaction to the Community or any irrevocable contractual obligation during the review investigation period, no individual dumping margin can be established for the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation.
Iz navedenih razlogov se šteje, da za vlagatelja ni mogoče določiti individualne stopnje dampinga v skladu z določbami člena 11(4) osnovne uredbe, saj v obdobju preiskave za pregled ni bilo nobenih izvoznih transakcij v Skupnost niti ni bila prevzeta nobena nepreklicna pogodbena obveznost.
Thus, the dumping margin found in the original investigation for parties not individually investigated, i.e. 76,2 % (see recital 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999), should apply.
Zato bi bilo treba uporabiti stopnjo dampinga, določeno za stranke, ki niso bile posamezno preiskovane, t. j. 76,2 % (glej uvodno izjavo 23 v Uredbi (ES) št. 1600/1999).
THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
PROTIDAMPINŠKA DAJATEV
Given that the highest injury elimination level of 55,6 % established during the original investigation is lower than the 76,2 % dumping margin set for the applicant (see recital 16), the anti-dumping duty rate for the applicant should not be higher than this injury elimination level in accordance with Article 9(4) of the basic Regulation.
Glede na to, da je najvišja stopnja za odstranitev škode, ugotovljena med prvotno preiskavo, 55,6 % nižja od stopnje dampinga, določene za vlagatelja, ki znaša 76,2 % (glej uvodno izjavo 16 zgoraj), stopnja protidampinške dajatve za vlagatelja ne bi smela biti višja od te stopnje za odstranitev škode v skladu s členom 9(4) osnovne uredbe.
Despite the lack of exports to the Community during the review investigation period, an individual countervailing duty rate based on the export subsidy amount (ad valorem 14,1 %), was calculated for the applicant in the parallel accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 (see recital 5).
Čeprav vlagatelj ni izvažal v Skupnost v obdobju preiskave za pregled, je bila zanj med vzporednim pospešenim pregledom Uredbe (ES) št. 1599/1999 po členu 20 Uredbe (ES) št. 2026/97 (glej uvodno izjavo 5 zgoraj) izračunana individualna izravnalna dajatev na osnovi višine izvozne subvencije (ad valorem 14,1 %).
In accordance with Article 14(1) of the basic Regulation and Article 24(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2026/97, no product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidisation.
V skladu s členom 14(1) osnovne uredbe in členom 24(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 2026/97 ne sme biti noben izdelek hkrati predmet protidampinških in izravnalnih dajatev, če sta obe vrsti dajatev namenjeni reševanju iste situacije, ki izhaja iz dampinga ali iz izvoznega subvencioniranja.
On the basis of the above, the definitive anti-dumping duty rate imposed for imports into the Community of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more produced and exported by VSL Wires Limited, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Community frontier price (customs duty unpaid) and taking into account the results of the parallel accelerated review of the countervailing measures in force, should be 41,5 %, i.e. 55,6 % minus 14,1 %.
Na podlagi navedenega bi morala dokončna protidampinška dajatev, uvedena za uvoz nerjavne jeklene žice s premerom 1 mm ali več, ki jo proizvaja in izvaža VSL Wires Limited, v Skupnost, izražena kot odstotek CIF cene na mejah Skupnosti (neplačana carina) in ob upoštevanju rezultatov vzporednega pospešenega pregleda veljavnih izravnalnih ukrepov, znašati 41,5 %, t. j. 55,6 % minus 14,1 %.
Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 should therefore be amended accordingly.
Zato je treba Uredbo (ES) št. 1600/1999 ustrezno spremeniti.
RETROACTIVE LEVYING OF THE ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
RETROAKTIVNO OBRAČUNAVANJE PROTIDAMPINŠKE DAJATVE
The anti-dumping duty applicable to VSL Wires Limited shall also be levied retroactively on imports which have been subject to registration pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003.
Protidampinška dajatev, ki velja za VSL Wires Limited, se na uvoz, ki je bil podrejen registraciji v skladu s členom 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) 1225/2003, obračuna tudi retroaktivno.
DISCLOSURE AND DURATION OF THE MEASURES
OBVESTILO O UKREPIH IN NJIHOVO TRAJANJE
The Commission informed the applicant and the GOI of the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to propose that Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 be amended.
Komisija je vlagatelja in IV obvestila o bistvenih dejstvih in premislekih, na podlagi katerih je nameravala predlagati spremembe Uredbe (ES) št. 1600/1999.
They were also given a reasonable period of time to comment.
Hkrati jima je dala tudi razumen rok, v katerem sta lahko dala svoje pripombe.
In its response to the disclosure, the applicant claimed that the Commission failed to consider other available alternatives for establishing export price and in particular the use of the applicant's export prices to other third countries for the purpose of dumping margin calculations.
Vlagatelj je v svojem odgovoru na obvestilo o ukrepih trdil, da Komisija pri izračunavanju stopnje dampinga ni upoštevala drugih razpoložljivih možnosti za ugotavljanje izvozne cene in zlasti ne uporabe vlagateljevih izvoznih cen za druge tretje države.
In this respect, it should be noted that in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, the export price in a dumping calculation shall be the price actually paid or payable for the product when sold for export from the exporting country to the Community.
V tem pogledu je treba zabeležiti, da se v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe za izračun dampinga kot izvozna cena šteje cena, ki se je dejansko plačala ali se plačuje za izdelek, ko se ta proda za izvoz iz države izvoznice v Skupnost.
There is no provision whatsoever that the export price can also be established on the basis of exports from the exporting country to destinations other than the Community.
Vendar pa ni nobene določbe, po kateri bi se lahko izvozna cena določala tudi na podlagi izvoza iz države izvoznice v druge države, razen Skupnost.
The claim should therefore be rejected and the conclusions set out in recitals 11 to 16 confirmed.
To trditev je torej treba zavreči in potrditi ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 11 do 16 zgoraj.
This review does not affect the date on which Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 will expire pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation,
Ta pregled ne vpliva na datum prenehanja veljavnosti Uredbe (ES) št. 1600/1999 v skladu s členom 11(2) osnovne uredbe –
The table in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1600/1999 is hereby amended by adding the following:
Preglednica iz člena 1(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1600/1999 se dopolni z naslednjim besedilom:
‘VSL Wires Limited, G-1/3 MIDC, Tarapur Industrial Area, Boisar District, Thane, Maharashtra, India
„VSL Wires Limited, G-1/3 MIDC, Tarapur Industrial Area, Boisar District, Thane, Maharashtra, Indija
The anti-dumping duty hereby imposed shall also be levied retroactively on imports of the product concerned which have been registered pursuant to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1225/2003.
S tem dokumentom uvedena protidampinška dajatev se za uvoz zadevnega izdelka, ki je bil registriran po členu 3 Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1225/2003, obračuna tudi retroaktivno.
Unless otherwise specified, the provisions in force concerning customs duties shall apply.
Če ni določeno drugače, se uporabljajo veljavni carinski predpisi.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004.
Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 461/2004.
OJ L 189, 22.7.1999, p. 19.
UL L 189, 22.7.1999, str. 19.
OJ L 189, 22.7.1999, p. 1.
UL L 189, 22.7.1999, str. 1.
Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 164/2002 (OJ L 30, 31.1.2002, p. 9).
Uredba, nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 164/2002 (UL L 30, 31.1.2002, str. 9).
OJ L 172, 10.7.2003, p. 6.
UL L 172, 10.7.2003, str. 6.
OJ C 161, 10.7.2003, p. 2.
UL C 161, 10.7.2003, str. 2.
Council Regulation (EC) No 1295/2004
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1295/2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire with a diameter of 1 mm or more originating in India
o spremembah Uredbe (ES) št. 1599/1999 o uvedbi dokončne izravnalne dajatve na uvoz žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več s poreklom iz Indije
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2026/97 of 6 October 1997 on protection against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation), and in particular Article 20 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 2026/97 z dne 6. oktobra 1997 o zaščiti pred subvencioniranim uvozom iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] (v nadaljnjem besedilu „osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 20 Uredbe,
The Council, by Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999 [2], imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of stainless steel wire having a diameter of 1 mm or more (the product concerned), falling within CN code ex72230019 and originating in India.
Svet je z Uredbo (ES) št. 1599/1999 [2] uvedel dokončno izravnalno dajatev na uvoz žice iz nerjavnega jekla premera 1 mm ali več („zadevni izdelek“), ki se uvršča pod oznako KN ex72230019, s poreklom iz Indije.
Request for review
Zahteva za revizijo
Subsequent to the imposition of definitive measures, the Commission received a request for the initiation of an accelerated review of Regulation (EC) No 1599/1999, pursuant to Article 20 of the basic Regulation, from one Indian producer, VSL Wires Limited (the applicant).
Komisija je po uvedbi dokončnih ukrepov od enega indijskega proizvajalca, VSL Wires Limited („vlagatelj“), prejela zahtevo za uvedbo pospešene revizije Uredbe (ES) št. 1599/1999 na podlagi člena 20 osnovne uredbe.
The applicant claimed that it was not related to any other exporters of the product concerned in India.
Vlagatelj je trdil, da ni povezan z nobenim drugim izvoznikom zadevnega izdelka v Indiji.
Furthermore, it claimed that it had not exported the product concerned during the original period of investigation (i.e. from 1 April 1997 to 31 March 1998), but had exported the product concerned to the Community after that period.
Trdil je tudi, da zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost ni izvažal v prvotnem obdobju preiskave (t. j. od 1. aprila 1997 do 31. marca 1998), pač pa šele po tem obdobju.
On the basis of the above, it requested that an individual duty rate be established for it.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je zahteval določitev individualne stopnje dajatve za izdelek.
Initiation of an accelerated review
Uvedba pospešene revizije
The Commission examined the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered it sufficient to justify the initiation of a review in accordance with the provisions of Article 20 of the basic Regulation.
Komisija je preučila dokaze, ki jih je predložil vlagatelj, in ugotovila, da so zadostni za utemeljitev uvedbe revizije v skladu z določbami člena 20 osnovne uredbe.