natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Information from the questionnaire responses of the four producers of DRAMs cooperating with the original investigation (i.e., Samsung, Hynix, Infineon and Micron, which together represented around 80 % of the worldwide DRAMs market) shows that their total capacity in Mbits increased by 129 % between 1999 and 2000 and by 85 % between 2000 and the IP.
Podatki iz izpolnjenih vprašalnikov štirih proizvajalcev DRAM-a, ki so sodelovali v prvotni preiskavi (tj. Samsung, Hynix, Infineon in Micron, ki so skupno predstavljali približno 80 % svetovnega trga DRAM-a), kažejo, da se je skupna zmogljivost teh proizvajalcev v Mbit-ih med letoma 1999 in 2000 povečala za 129 %, med letom 2000 in OP pa za 85 %.
Their total production in Mbits increased in line by 124 % between 1999 and 2000 and by 81 % between 2000 and the IP.
Podobno se je povečala njihova celotna proizvodnja v Mbit-ih, in sicer za 124 % med letoma 1999 in 2000 ter za 81 % med letom 2000 in OP.
In other words, the capacity and the production of the four major worldwide producers increased significantly more between 1999 and 2000, the good year during which the Community industry maintained some price stability and made profits, than between 2000 and the IP (2001), during which the Community industry suffered significant losses because of the collapse of prices (see recitals 128 and 131 and relevant tables of the provisional Regulation).
To pomeni, da sta se zmogljivost in proizvodnja štirih glavnih svetovnih proizvajalcev znatneje povečala med letoma 1999 in 2000, v obdobju, ko je industrija Skupnosti ohranila stabilnost cen in ustvarila dobiček, kot med letom 2000 in OP (2001), ko je imela industrija Skupnosti znatno izgubo zaradi padca cen (glej uvodni izjavi 128, 131 in ustrezne tabele v začasni uredbi).
Consequently, the existing worldwide overcapacity throughout the period under consideration did not, in the Commission’s view, contribute significantly to the collapse of prices and the material injury suffered by the Community industry in the IP.
Zato po mnenju Komisije obstoječa presežna zmogljivost po vsem svetu v celotnem obdobju obravnave ni znatno prispevala k padcu cen in škodi, povzročeni industriji Skupnosti v OP.
In addition, record evidence shows that Community overcapacity was not a factor of injury.
Poleg tega je iz zabeleženih podatkov razvidno, da presežna zmogljivost Skupnosti ni bila škodljivi dejavnik.
During 1999 to 2000, Community capacity more than tripled (increasing by 252 %), and from 2000 to 2001 it nearly doubled (increasing by 92 %).
V obdobju 1999–2000 se je zmogljivost Skupnosti več kot potrojila (večja za 252 %), v obdobju 2000–2001 pa se je skoraj podvojila (večja za 92 %).
These additions to Community capacity were accompanied by increases in Community production.
Hkrati s povečanjem zmogljivosti Skupnosti se je povečala tudi proizvodnja Skupnosti.
While capacity utilisation in the Community did drop by 28 % from 1999 to 2000, it recovered by 4 % from 2000 to 2001 (see recital 125 and relevant table of the provisional Regulation).
Izkoriščenost zmogljivosti v Skupnosti se je sicer zmanjšala za 28 % med letoma 1999 in 2000, vendar se je med letoma 2000 in 2001 zopet povečala za 4 % (glej uvodno izjavo 125 in ustrezno tabelo v začasni uredbi).
Trends in Community overcapacity (defined as the inverse of Community capacity utilisation) show little or no correlation with trends in the sales prices of the Community industry.
Videti je, da je gibanje presežne zmogljivosti Skupnosti (opredeljene kot nasprotje izkoriščenosti zmogljivosti Skupnosti) le delno povezano z gibanjem prodajnih cen industrije Skupnosti ali pa s tem sploh ni povezano.
In particular, during 1999 to 2000, Community overcapacity rose by 28 %, but the sales prices of the Community industry fell by only 5 %.
Na primer, v obdobju 1999–2000 se je presežna zmogljivost Skupnosti povečala za 28 %, prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti pa so se znižale za samo 5 %.
Further, from 2000 to 2001, Community overcapacity went down by 4 % but the sales prices of the Community industry plummeted by 77 % (see recitals 125 and 128 and relevant tables of the provisional Regulation).
Nadalje se je med letoma 2000 in 2001 presežna zmogljivost Skupnosti zmanjšala za 4 %, prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti pa so se močno znižale, tj. za 77 % (glej uvodni izjavi 125, 128 in ustrezne tabele v začasni uredbi).
It may be concluded that, if rising overcapacity were correlated to falling price levels, the significant increase in overcapacity over 1999 to 2000 would have resulted in severe price depression, whereas the contraction in overcapacity in 2000 to 2001 would have led to rising prices, or at least to some degree of price stability.
Iz tega je mogoče sklepati, da bi v primeru povezave med presežno zmogljivostjo in znižanjem cen znatno povečanje presežne zmogljivosti v obdobju 1999–2000 povzročilo močan padec cen, zmanjšanje presežne zmogljivosti v obdobju 2000–2001 pa povišanje cen ali določeno stopnjo stabilnosti cen.
Record evidence shows the opposite.
Iz zabeleženih podatkov je razvidno prav nasprotno.
Over 1999 to 2000, there was very mild price depression, despite the significant increase in overcapacity, while from 2000 to 2001, there was substantial price depression, despite the contraction in overcapacity.
V celotnem obdobju 1999–2000 so se cene le nekoliko znižale kljub znatnemu povečanju presežne zmogljivosti, v obdobju 2000–2001 pa so se cene znatno znižale kljub zmanjšanju presežne zmogljivosti.
This stands in sharp contrast with the close correlation between trends in the prices of the subsidised imports and trends in the sales prices of the Community industry.
To je v izrazitem nasprotju s tesno povezavo med gibanjem cen subvencioniranega uvoza in gibanjem prodajnih cen industrije Skupnosti.
In fact, during 2000 to 2001 the trend in the sales prices of the Community industry mirrored almost perfectly the trend in the prices of the subsidised imports: over this period, the former dropped by 74 % and the latter did so by 77 % (see recitals 119 and 128 of the provisional Regulation).
Pravzaprav je v obdobju 2000–2001 gibanje prodajnih cen industrije Skupnosti skoraj popolnoma ustrezalo gibanju cen subvencioniranega uvoza: v tem obdobju so se prodajne cene znižale za 74 %, cene subvencioniranega uvoza pa za 77 % (glej uvodni izjavi 119 in 128 začasne uredbe).
Record evidence also shows that trends in Community overcapacity bear no correlation with trends in other key indicators of the condition of the Community industry.
Iz zabeleženih podatkov je razvidno tudi, da gibanje presežne zmogljivosti Skupnosti ni povezano z gibanjem drugih ključnih kazalnikov stanja industrije Skupnosti.
In particular, during 1999 to 2000, the profitability of the Community industry was rising, and returns on investment and cash flow were positive, in spite of the significant increase in Community overcapacity.
Zlasti v obdobju 1999–2000 se je kljub znatnemu povečanju presežne zmogljivosti Skupnosti povečala dobičkonosnost industrije Skupnosti, donosnost naložb in denarni tok pa sta bila pozitivna.
In contrast, in 2001 the Community industry suffered heavy losses, and returns on investment and cash flow were negative, in spite of the contraction in Community overcapacity during 2000 and 2001.
V nasprotju s tem je industrija Skupnosti kljub zmanjšanju presežne zmogljivosti Skupnosti v obdobju 2000–2001 imela znatno izgubo v letu 2001, donosnost naložb in denarni tok pa sta bila negativna.
The performance of the Community industry over 2000 to 2001 in terms of profitability, returns on investment and cash flow is correlated instead with the trend in the prices of the subsidised imports over that period.
Storilnost industrije Skupnosti v obdobju 2000–2001 v zvezi z dobičkonosnostjo, donosnostjo naložb in denarnim tokom pa je povezana z gibanjem cen subvencioniranega uvoza v navedenem obdobju.
As noted, in 2000 to 2001, as the Community industry suffered heavy losses and negative cash flow and return on investment, the prices of the subsidised imports decreased by 74 %.
V obdobju 2000–2001, kot je že navedeno, so se cene subvencioniranega uvoza znižale za 74 %, saj je imela industrija Skupnosti znatno izgubo, denarni tok in donosnost naložb pa sta bila negativna.
Hynix claimed that Community overcapacity was another known factor contributing to material injury during the period under consideration.
Hynix je trdil, da je presežek zmogljivosti Skupnosti še en znan dejavnik, ki je v obdobju obravnave prispeval k znatni škodi industrije.
However, trends in Community overcapacity show no or only negligible correlation with trends in the condition of the Community industry.
Vendar pa med razvojem presežka zmogljivosti v Skupnosti in stanjem industrije Skupnosti ni povezave, ali pa je skoraj zanemarljiva.
The Commission therefore concludes that Community overcapacity cannot be considered as a factor of material injury to the Community industry.
Zato Komisija ugotavlja, da presežka zmogljivosti Skupnosti ni mogoče razumeti kot dejavnik, ki je povzročil znatno škodo industriji Skupnosti.
Given that Community overcapacity did not adversely affect the condition of the Community industry, there is no need to distinguish any alleged injury caused by capacity from the injury caused by Hynix’s imports.
Ker presežek zmogljivosti Skupnosti ni negativno vplival na stanje industrije Skupnosti, ni potrebe po razlikovanju med kakršno koli domnevno škodo in med škodo, ki jo je povzročil uvoz Hynixa.
The Commission believes this finding is consistent with the findings of recent WTO Panels reviewing determinations in respect of non-attribution described in recital 106 above.
Komisija meni, da je ta ugotovitev v skladu z ugotovitvami preiskovalnega odbora STO, ki je pred kratkim preučil rezultate preiskav v povezavi z upoštevanjem drugih dejavnikov, opisanih v uvodni izjavi 106.
As reviewed, there is no demonstrated causal relationship between overcapacity and either price declines or injury to the Community industry.
Ta nedavni pregled kaže, da ni mogoče dokazati vzročne zveze med presežkom zmogljivosti in znižanjem cene ali škode, ki jo je utrpela industrija Skupnosti.
In contrast, the Community industry suffered severe declines during 2001, which is the same period when subject import prices plummeted and when subject import volumes reached peak penetration in the Community market.
Prav nasprotno, industrija Skupnosti je zelo nazadovala v letu 2001, torej v istem obdobju, ko so se cene zadevnega uvoza znižale, obseg zadevnega uvoza na trg Skupnosti pa se je takrat najbolj povečal.
This contrast establishes that subject import volumes and price effects are a separate and distinguishable cause of material injury to the Community industry as compared with overcapacity.
To nasprotje kaže, da sta obseg in učinek cene zadevnega uvoza, v primerjavi s presežkom zmogljivosti, ločena in razlikovalna vzroka za znatno škodo, povzročeno industriji Skupnosti.
Other non-subsidised imports
Drugi nesubvencionirani uvozi
The Panel noted in paragraph 7.426 of its report that there is no requirement to consider non-subsidised imports on a country-per-country basis.
Odbor v odstavku 7.426 svojega poročila navaja, da nesubvencioniranih uvozov ni treba nujno preverjati za vsako državo posebej.
The Panel also noted in paragraph 7.435 that a satisfactory explanation of the nature and extent of the injurious effects of non-subsidised imports, as distinguished from the injurious effects of the subsidised imports, should be provided.
Odbor v odstavku 7.435 navaja tudi, da je treba poleg škodljivih učinkov, ki so posledica subvencioniranih uvozov, zagotoviti zadovoljivo razlago o vrsti in obsegu škodljivih učinkov nesubvencioniranih uvozov.
Accordingly, the effects of non-subsidised imports were examined by considering jointly imports from countries other than Korea (e.g. the United States, Japan, and Taiwan) and imports from Samsung.
Glede na to, se je preučilo vplive nesubvencioniranih uvozov ob upoštevanju uvozov iz drugih držav, razen Koreje (npr. iz ZDA, Japonske in Tajvana) ter uvozov Samsunga.
Recital 151 of the provisional Regulation and recitals 194 and 200 of the definitive Regulation provide the growth rates of import volume, market share, and average prices of non-subsidised imports during the period under consideration.
V uvodni izjavi 151 začasne uredbe in uvodnih izjavah 194 in 200 dokončne uredbe so predvidene stopnje rasti obsega uvoza, tržni delež in povprečne cene nesubvencioniranih uvozov v obravnavanem obdobju.
These data are re-stated below in aggregated index form [76].
Ti podatki so navedeni v spodnji tabeli, označeni z indeksi [76].
Given the very limited number of players in the DRAMs market, for reasons of confidentiality, indices are used to show the evolution of trends.
Zaradi zelo omejenega števila akterjev na trgu DRAM ter zaradi zaupnosti se za prikaz razvoja gibanj uporabljajo indeksi.
Non-subsidised imports in ’000 Mbits
Nesubvencionirani uvozi v „000 M-bitov
Market share of non-subsidised imports
Tržni delež nesubvencioniranih uvozov
Average price of non-subsidised imports
Povprečna cena nesubvencioniranih uvozov
During the period under consideration, non-subsidised imports increased significantly less than did subsidised imports, i.e., by 133 % as opposed to 361 % (see recital 177 and relevant table of the definitive Regulation).
V obravnavanem obdobju so se nesubvencionirani uvozi povečali bistveno manj kot subvencionirani uvozi, in sicer za 133 % v primerjavi z 361 % (glej uvodno izjavo 177 in ustrezno tabelo dokončne uredbe).
It is noted that during the same period Community consumption increased by 316 %.
V istem obdobju se je poraba Skupnosti povečala za 361 %.
Hence, whereas the rate of growth in non-subsidised imports was only a fraction of the rate of growth of Community consumption, subsidised imports increased well in excess of Community consumption.
Iz tega je razvidno, da ko je rast nesubvencioniranih uvozov zajemala le delček rasti porabe Skupnosti, so se subvencionirani uvozi povečali veliko bolj kot poraba Skupnosti.
Accordingly, during the period under consideration, the market share of non-subsidised imports contracted by 44 % whilst the market share of subsidised imports expanded by 20 % (see recital 185 and relevant table of the definitive Regulation).
V skladu s tem se je v obravnavanem obdobju tržni del nesubvencioniranih uvozov zmanjšal za 44 %, tržni delež subvencioniranih uvozov pa se je povečal za 20 % (glej uvodno izjavo 185 in ustrezno tabelo dokončne uredbe).
If the market share of non-subsidised imports heavily declined during the period under consideration, as shown by the above facts, it can be concluded that non-subject imports did not injure the Community industry by reason of their volume effects.
Če se je tržni delež nesubvencioniranih uvozov v obravnavanem obdobju zelo zmanjšal, kot kažejo zgoraj omenjena dejstva, se lahko zaključi, da nesubvencionirani uvozi zaradi svojega obsega niso povzročili škode industriji Skupnosti.
Record evidence also indicates that non-subject imports did not injure the Community industry by reason of their price effects.
Zabeleženi podatki kažejo tudi, da cene nezadevnih uvozov niso povzročile škode industriji Skupnosti.
During the IP, the prices of non-subsidised imports exceeded not only the prices of subsidised imports but also the sales prices of the Community industry.
V obravnavanem obdobju niso cen nesubvencioniranih uvozov presegle cene subvencioniranih uvozov, temveč tudi prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti.
In particular, during the IP the average price of non-subsidised imports was 19 % higher than the average price of subsidised imports and 24 % higher than the average sales price of the Community industry.
V obravnavanem obdobju je bila povprečna cena nesubvencioniranih uvozov višja za 19 % v primerjavi s povprečno ceno subvencioniranih uvozov ter 24 % višja kot povprečne prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti.
In addition, during the period under consideration, the prices of non-subsidised imports fell, but not anywhere as much as the prices of subsidised imports and the Community industry.
Poleg tega so se cene nesubvencioniranih uvozov v obravnavanem obdobju znižale, vendar nikakor ne toliko, kot so se znižale cene subvecioniranih uvozov in industrije Skupnosti.
In particular, during the period under consideration the average price of non-subsidised imports decreased by 52 %.
V obravnavanem obdobju se je povprečna cena nesubvencioniranih uvozov znižala za 52 %.
In contrast, over such period, the average price of subsidised imports decreased by 80 % (see recital 178 and relevant table of definitive Regulation) and the average sales price of the Community industry by 79 % (see recital 128 and relevant table of the provisional Regulation).
Prav nasprotno pa se je v tem obdobju povprečna cena subvencioniranih uvozov znižala za 80 % (glej uvodno izjavo 178 in ustrezno tabelo dokončne uredbe), povprečne prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti pa so se znižale za 79 % (glej uvodno izjavo 128 in ustrezno tabelo začasne uredbe).
On the basis of these facts, it can be concluded that the prices of non-subsidised imports did not affect adversely the sales prices of the Community industry.
Na podlagi teh podatkov se lahko zaključi, da cene nesubvencioniranih uvozov niso negativno vplivale na prodajne cene industrije Skupnosti.
As is the case with overcapacity, there is no demonstrated causal relationship between non-subject imports and price declines or injury to the Community industry.
Kot v primeru presežka zmogljivosti ni mogoče dokazati vzročne zveze med nezadevnimi uvozi in znižanjem cen ali škodo, povzročeno industriji Skupnosti.
There is, at the same time, a clear deterioration in Community industry performance while subject import volumes steadily increased and while subject import prices undercut the Community like product.
Še bolj pa se je poslabšala gospodarska učinkovitost Skupnosti v obdobju, ko se je zadevni uvoz postopno povečeval, cene zadevnega uvoza pa so bile nižje kot cene istega proizvoda industrije Skupnosti.
This contrast establishes that subject import volumes and price effects are a separate and distinguishable cause of material injury to the Community industry as compared with non-subject imports.
To dokazuje, da sta bila zadevni obseg uvoza in učinek cene zadevnega uvoza, v nasprotju z nezadevnim uvozom ločena in različna (razločevalna) vzroka za znatno škodo, povzročeno industriji Skupnosti.
Therefore, the Commission is of the view that its redetermination satisfies the non-attribution requirement under Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation (which generally corresponds to Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement) in respect of non-subject imports by separating and distinguishing this other factor from subsidised imports and showing that, during the period under consideration, non-subject imports did not cause material injury to the Community industry, either in terms of their volume effects or in terms of their price effects.
Zato Komisija meni, da ponovna preiskava ustreza zahtevam za upoštevanju drugih dejavnikov v skladu s členom 8(7) osnovne uredbe (ki je v splošnem oziru v skladu s členom 15.5 Sporazuma SIU) in da so bili nezadevni uvozi ustrezno ločeni od drugih dejavnikov subvencioniranih uvozov, poleg tega je bilo dokazano, da nezadevni uvozi v obravnavanem obdobju industriji Skupnosti niti zaradi obsega niti zaradi svoje cene niso povzročili znatne škode.
Having separated, where appropriate, and analysed further the effects, if any, of the decline in demand, overcapacity and other non-subsidised imports, it is considered that no injury caused by any of these factors has been attributed to the subsidised imports within the meaning of Article 8(7) of the basic Regulation.
Po ločitvi in po nadaljnji analizi morebitnih učinkov, kot so zmanjšanje povpraševanja, presežek zmogljivosti in druge vrste nesubvencioniranih uvozov, se šteje, da noben od navedenih dejavnikov, ki so v smislu člena 8(7) osnovne uredbe pripisani subvencioniranemu uvozu, ni povzročil škode.
Furthermore, it is confirmed that the subsidised imports through the effects set out in recitals 144 to 149 of the provisional Regulation and recitals 191 and 192 of the definitive Regulation have caused material injury to the Community industry within the meaning of Article 8(6) of the basic Regulation.
Poleg tega je potrjeno, da so subvencionirani uvozi s svojimi učinki, ki so opredeljeni v uvodnih izjavah 144 do 149 začasne uredbe in uvodnih izjav 191 in 192 dokončne uredbe, v smislu člena 8(6) osnovne uredbe povzročili znatno škodo industriji Skupnosti.
The contents and conclusions reached in recitals 206 to 209 of the definitive Regulation remain unaffected by the Panel report.
Preiskovalni odbor v svojem poročilu ni spreminjal vsebine niti sklepov iz uvodnih izjav 206 do 209 dokončne uredbe.
REVISED MEASURES
SPREMENJENI UKREPI
The Panel report and the reassessed findings do not concern Samsung which was not found to be subsidised and thus was attributed a 0 % duty rate in the original investigation.
Poročilo preiskovalnega odbora in nove ugotovitve ne zadevajo Samsunga, saj je bilo za to družbo v prvotni preiskavi ugotovljeno, da ni bila subvencionirana in da je bila zanjo določena stopnja dajatve 0 %.
The revised subsidy amount for Hynix was found to be lower than the injury elimination level established during the original investigation and, thus, the revised countervailing duty rate should be based on the revised subsidy amount expressed ad valorem, i.e. 32,9 %.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da je bila na novo izračunana vsota subvencije za Hynix nižja od stopnje odpravljanja škode, uporabljene v prvotni preiskavi in mora zato spremenjena stopnja izravnalne dajatve temeljiti na ponovno izračunani vsoti za subvencije ad valorem, in sicer v višini 32,9 %.
It is noted that the revised duty rate for Hynix should apply on the duty as specified by Regulation (EC) No 2116/2005.
Spremenjena stopnja dajatve se mora uporabljati namesto stopnje, določene v Uredbi (ES) št. 2116/2005.
The GOK, Hynix and the Community producers Infineon and Micron received disclosure of the reassessed findings and were given an opportunity to comment and to be heard.
Korejska vlada, Hynix in proizvajalca iz Skupnosti, Infineon in Micron so bili obveščeni o novih ugotovitvah in jim je bila dana možnost, da dajo pripombe.
They each submitted comments [77].
Pripombe so predložili vsi [77].
The GOK generally submits that the revised findings do not reasonably address the Panel’s recommendations.
Korejska vlada ugotavlja, da nove ugotovitve na splošno ne upoštevajo priporočil preiskovalnega odbora.
The Commission does not agree, for the reasons set out in this Regulation.
Komisija se s tem ne strinja zaradi razlogov, opredeljenih v tej uredbi.
The Commission does not agree that the revised duty must necessarily be lower than the original duty, and notes that in any event it is.
Komisija se ne strinja, da mora biti spremenjena dajatev nujno nižja od prvotne dajatve in ugotavlja, da je nižja v vsakem primeru.
The GOK specifically submits that the Commission should have used seven banks in the syndicated loan as a benchmark.
Korejska vlada zlasti ugotavlja, da bi morala Komisija kot merilo za posojila bančnega konzorcija uporabiti sedem različnih bank.
The Commission disagrees, particularly for the reasons set out in recitals 16 to 24 above.
Komisija se ne strinja, zlasti zaradi razlogov, opredeljenih v uvodnih izjavah 16 do 24.
The GOK also submits that the Commission should have made its benchmark calculations differently.
Korejska vlada je tudi poudarila, da bi Komisija stopnje dajatev morala izračunavati drugače.
In the light of the GOK’s comments the Commission has made some adjustments to its calculations, as reflected in this Regulation.
Glede na pripombe Korejske vlade je Komisija svoje izračune nekoliko spremenila, kot je razvidno iz te uredbe.
For the reasons set out in this Regulation, the other aspects of the calculations remain unchanged.
Zaradi razlogov, opredeljenih v tej uredbi, ostanejo drugi načini izračunavanja nespremenjeni.