natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 143/2005
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 143/2005
This Regulation shall enter into force on 29 January 2005.
Ta uredba začne veljati 29. januarja 2005.
to Commission Regulation of 28 January 2005 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
k Uredbi Komisije z dne 28. januarja 2005 o določitvi pavšalnih uvoznih vrednosti za določanje vhodne cene nekaterega sadja in zelenjave
Commission Regulation (EC) No 144/2005
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 144/2005
concerning the 75th special invitation to tender issued under the standing invitation to tender referred to in Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999
glede 75. posebnega razpisa, objavljenega v okviru stalnega razpisa, predvidenega v Uredbi (ES) št. 2799/1999
For the 75th individual invitation to tender pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2799/1999, in respect of which the time limit for the submission of tenders expired on 25 January 2005, no award shall be made.
V zvezi s 75. posamičnim razpisom, objavljenim na podlagi Uredbe (ES) št. 2799/1999, in glede katerega je rok za oddajo ponudb potekel 25. januarja 2005, se ne ugodi nobeni ponudbi.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 145/2005
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 145/2005
imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of barium carbonate originating in the People's Republic of China
o uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz barijevega karbonata s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community [1] (the basic Regulation) and in particular Article 7 thereof,
ob upoštevanju Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 384/96 z dne 22. decembra 1995 o zaščiti proti dampinškemu uvozu iz držav, ki niso članice Evropske skupnosti [1] („osnovne Uredbe“), in zlasti člena 7 Uredbe,
On 30 April 2004, the Commission announced, by a notice (notice of initiation) published in the Official Journal of the European Union [2], the initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding with regard to imports into the Community of barium carbonate originating in the People's Republic of China (PRC or country concerned).
Dne 30. aprila 2004 je Komisija z obvestilom („obvestilo o začetku postopka“), objavljenem v Uradnem listu Evropske unije [2], objavila začetek protidampinškega postopka, ki se nanaša na uvoz barijevega karbonata s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske („LRK“ ali „zadevna država“) v Skupnost.
The proceeding was initiated as a result of a complaint lodged in March 2004 by Solvay Barium Strontium GmbH (the complainant), the sole producer of barium carbonate in the Community representing 100 % of the Community production.
Postopek je bil sprožen na temelju pritožbe, ki jo je marca 2004 vložilo podjetje Solvay Barium Strontium GmbH („pritožnik“), edini proizvajalec barijevega karbonata v Skupnosti, ki predstavlja 100 % proizvodnje Skupnosti.
The complaint contained evidence of dumping of the said product and of material injury resulting therefrom, which was considered sufficient to justify the initiation of a proceeding.
Pritožba je vsebovala dokaze o dampingu omenjenega izdelka in znatni škodi, ki je zaradi tega nastala, kar je zadostovalo za upravičenost začetka postopka.
PARTIES CONCERNED BY THE PROCEEDING
STRANI, KI JIH POSTOPEK ZADEVA
The Commission officially advised the complainant, the exporting producers, importers, suppliers and users known to be concerned, and representatives of the PRC, of the initiation of the proceeding.
Komisija je pritožnika, proizvajalce izvoznike, uvoznike, dobavitelje in uporabnike, za katere je znano, da jih postopek zadeva, kot tudi predstavnike LRK, uradno seznanila z začetkom postopka.
Interested parties were given an opportunity to make their views known in writing and to request a hearing within the time limit set in the notice of initiation.
Zainteresiranim stranem je dala možnost, da pisno predstavijo svoja stališča ter zahtevajo zaslišanja v časovnem roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku.
The complainant producer, exporting producers, importers, users and user associations made their views known.
Pritožnik proizvajalec, proizvajalci izvozniki, uvozniki, uporabniki in združenja uporabnikov so predstavili svoja stališča.
All interested parties, who so requested and showed that there were particular reasons why they should be heard, were granted a hearing.
Vsem zainteresiranem stranem, ki so zahtevale zaslišanje ter dokazale, da zanj obstajajo posebni razlogi, je bilo to odobreno.
In order to allow exporting producers in the PRC to submit a claim for market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), if they so wished, the Commission sent MET and IT claim forms to the Chinese companies known to be concerned.
Da bi proizvajalcem izvoznikom v LRK, če bi to hoteli, omogočila vložitev zahteve za obravnavo tržnega gospodarstva (Market economy treatment – MET) ali individualno obravnavo (Individual treatment – IT), je Komisija obrazce za vložitev omenjenih zahtev poslala kitajskim podjetjem, za katera je znano, da jih postopek zadeva.
Five companies requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation or IT should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET.
Pet podjetij je zahtevalo MET v skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe, ali pa IT, če bi preiskava pokazala, da pogojev za MET ne izpolnjujejo.
In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated that in view of the apparent large number of exporters/producers and importers sampling may be applied in this investigation.
V obvestilu o začetku postopka je Komisija navedla, da se lahko, glede na očitno veliko število izvoznikov/proizvajalcev in uvoznikov, v preiskavi uporabi vzorčenje.
However, given the lower than expected number of exporting producers in the PRC and importers and users in the Community, which indicated their willingness to cooperate, it was decided that sampling was not necessary.
Ker pa je bilo število proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK ter uvoznikov in uporabnikov iz Skupnosti, ki so izrazili pripravljenost za sodelovanje, manjše od pričakovanega, je bilo sklenjeno, da vzorčenje ni potrebno.
The Commission sent questionnaires to all parties known to be concerned and to all the other companies that made themselves known within the deadlines set out in the notice of initiation.
Komisija je poslala vprašalnike vsem stranem, za katere je vedela, da jih postopek zadeva, kot tudi vsem drugim podjetjem, ki so se prijavila v roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku postopka.
Replies were received from the complainant Community producer, five unrelated importers, one raw material supplier, six users, one association of users and five exporting producers in the PRC.
Odgovore je prejela od pritožnika – podjetja iz Skupnosti, petih neodvisnih uvoznikov, enega dobavitelja primarnih surovin, šestih uporabnikov, enega združenja uporabnikov ter petih proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK.
The Commission sought and verified all the information deemed necessary for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest.
Komisija je poiskala in preverila vse podatke, za katere je menila, da so potrebni za začasno določitev dampinga, iz njega izhajajoče škode ter so v interesu Skupnosti.
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the following companies:
V ta namen so potekali obiski v naslednjih podjetjih.
Community producer:
Proizvajalec Skupnosti
Solvay Barium Strontium GmbH, Germany.
Solvay Barium Strontium GmbH, Nemčija.
exporting producers in the PRC:
Proizvajalci izvozniki v LRK
Guizhou Hongkaj Chemical Co. Ltd and related Hengyang Hong Xiang Co. Ltd,
Guizhou Hongkaj Chemical Co. Ltd ter z njim povezana Hengyang Hong Xiang Co. Ltd
unrelated importers:
Neodvisni uvozniki
Kimpe Sarl, France,
Kimpe Sarl, Francija
Norkem BV, Netherlands.
Norkem BV, Nizozemska.
Community users:
Uporabniki Skupnosti
Ilpea SpA, Italy.
Ilpea Spa, Italija.
In view of the need to establish a normal value for exporting producers in the PRC to which MET might not be granted, a verification visit to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:
Glede na potrebo po vzpostavitvi normalne vrednosti za proizvajalce izvoznike v LRK, ki jim MET ne bi bil odobren, je preverjanje za vzpostavitev normalne vrednosti na temelju podatkov iz analogne države potekalo v prostorih naslednjega podjetja:
Chemical Products Corporation (CPC), Cartersville, producer in the United States of America.
Chemical Products Corporation („CPC“), Cartersville, proizvajalec v Združenih državah Amerike.
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003 (IP).
Preiskava dampinga in povzročene škode je zajemala obdobje od 1. januarja 2003 do 31. decembra 2003 („OP“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January 2000 to the end of the IP (period considered).
Pregledovanje trendov, pomembnih za oceno o škodi, je zajelo obdobje od januarja 2000 do konca OP („veljavnega obdobja“).
The product concerned is certain barium carbonate with a strontium content of more than 0,07 % by weight and a sulphur content of more than 0,0015 % by weight, whether in powder, pressed granular or calcined granular form, originating in the PRC, falling within CN code ex28366000.
Zadevni izdelek je poseben barijev karbonat, katerega teža vsebuje več kot 0,07 % stroncija in več kot 0,0015 % žvepla, v prahu ali v stisnjeni ali žgani granulirani obliki, s poreklom v LRK, ki spada pod oznako KN ex28366000.
LIKE PRODUCT
PODOBNI IZDELEK
No differences were found between the product concerned and the barium carbonate produced and sold on the domestic market in the PRC and the United States of America (USA), which served as an analogue country for the purpose of establishing the normal value with respect to imports from the PRC.
Med zadevnim izdelkom in barijevim karbonatom, proizvedenim in prodajanim na domačih trgih v LRK in Združenih državah Amerike (ZDA) – slednje so bile v preiskavi zajete kot analogna država za vzpostavitev normalne vrednosti glede na uvoz iz LRK, niso bile ugotovljene nobene razlike.
Indeed, barium carbonate produced and sold in the USA has the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses compared with that exported from the PRC to the Community.
Barijev karbonat, proizveden v ZDA, ima dejansko enake osnovne fizikalne in kemijske značilnosti in uporabnosti v primerjavi s tistim, ki so ga iz LRK izvozili v Skupnost.
Likewise, no differences were found between the product concerned and the barium carbonate produced by the Community industry and sold on the Community market.
Prav tako niso bile ugotovljene nobene razlike med zadevnim izdelkom in barijevim karbonatom, ki ga je proizvedla industrija Skupnosti ter je v prodaji na trgu Skupnosti.
They both share the same physical and chemical characteristics and uses.
Oba imata enake fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti ter uporabnost.
Consequently, barium carbonate produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and barium carbonate produced and sold on the domestic market of the analogue country, as well as barium carbonate produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry have the same basic physical and chemical characteristics and uses.
Barijev karbonat, proizveden in v prodaji na domačem trgu v LRK, barijev karbonat, proizveden in v prodaji na domačem trgu v analogni državi, kot tudi barijev karbonat, proizveden v Skupnosti in v prodaji na njenem trgu, imajo torej enake osnovne fizikalne in kemijske lastnosti in uporabnost.
It is therefore concluded that all types of barium carbonate are considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Preiskava je torej pokazala, da so si vsi tipi barijevega karbonata podobni v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
MARKET ECONOMY TREATMENT
OBRAVNAVA TRŽNEGA GOSPODARSTVA
In anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
V protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom proizvodov s poreklom iz LRK, se normalna vrednost določi v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 člena 2 osnovne uredbe za tiste proizvajalce, ki izpolnjujejo merila, določena v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria, fulfilment of which the applicant companies have to demonstrate, are set out in summarised form below:
Merila, katerih izpolnjevanje morajo pokazati prijavljena podjetja, so, na kratko in zgolj za lažjo referenco, v strnjeni obliki pojasnjena v nadaljevanju:
business decisions and costs are made in response to market signals, and without significant State interference,
poslovne odločitve in stroški so nastali kot odgovor na tržna gibanja in brez pomembnejšega vpletanja države,
accounting records are independently audited in line with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes,
računovodska dokumentacija je bila neodvisno pregledana v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi in uporabljena v vse namene,
there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,
ni bilo zaznati pomembnejših motenj, ki bi bile posledica prejšnjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva,
legal certainty and stability are provided by bankruptcy and property laws,
pravna varnost in trdnost sta urejeni z zakoni o stečaju in lastnini,
currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.
menjava valut je opravljena po tržnem tečaju.
Five exporting producers in the PRC requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers.
Pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK je zahtevalo MET v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in oddalo MET obrazce za proizvajalce izvoznike.
The request of two companies has been rejected on the basis of a first analysis of the MET claim form which failed to show that all the criteria were met.
Zahtevi dveh podjetij sta bili zavrnjeni na podlagi prve analize obrazca MET, ki je pokazala, da ne izpolnjujeta vseh meril.
In particular these companies, which were fully or predominantly State owned, and had a board of directors entirely or predominantly consisting of State nominated directors, could not demonstrate that there was no significant state interference in their business decisions.
Podjetji, ki sta v celoti ali večinoma v državni lasti, v njihovih odborih pa so direktorji, ki jih je v celoti ali večinoma imenovala država, nista mogli dokazati, da v sprejemanje njunih poslovnih odločitev država ni pomembneje posegala.
For the remaining three companies, the Commission sought and verified at the premises of these companies all information submitted in the MET applications and deemed necessary.
Za preostala tri podjetja je Komisija poiskala in v njihovih prostorih preverila vse podatke, navedene v obrazcu MET, za katere je menila, da so potrebni.
The investigation showed that two companies fulfilled all the criteria required and they were therefore granted MET.
Preiskava je pokazala, da dve podjetji izpolnjujeta vsa zahtevana merila in jim je bil odobren MET.
The exporting producers in the PRC which were granted MET are:
Proizvajalca izvoznika iz LRK, ki jima je bil odobren MET, sta:
The following table summarises the determination for the three companies for which MET was not granted against each of the five criteria as set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
V naslednji razpredelnici je prikazana določitev za tri podjetja, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, in sicer po vseh petih merilih, določenih v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Source: Verified questionnaire replies of cooperating Chinese exporters. Company
Vir: Preverjeni izpolnjeni vprašalniki sodelujočih kitajskih izvoznikov.
Criteria
Podjetje
Article
Merila
indent 4 Article
alinea 4
indent 5
alinea 5
Not met
Ni izpolnjeno
Met
Izpolnjeno
The companies concerned were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Zadevna podjetja so dobila možnost odgovoriti na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve.
As far as company 2 is concerned, the shareholders of its related company could not be identified and it could not be established who ultimately controlled this company.
Kar zadeva podjetje št. 2, ni bilo mogoče ugotoviti, kdo ga nadzira in kdo so delničarji z njim povezanega podjetja.
Therefore, significant State interference could not be excluded.
Zato ni bilo mogoče izključiti možnosti, da ima nanj pomemben vpliv država.
Although the company contested this fact, it could not provide any information or evidence which would have shown that it was mainly controlled by private entrepreneurs and free from significant State interference.
Čeprav je podjetje omenjeno ugotovitev spodbijalo, pa ni moglo posredovati nobenega podatka, iz katerega bi bilo razvidno, da imajo v njem večinski delež zasebni podjetniki ter da v njegovo poslovanje ni vpletena država.
It was therefore concluded that the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) indent 1 of the basic Regulation was not fulfilled.
Zato je Komisija ugotovila, da omenjeno podjetje ne izpolnjuje meril, določenih v členu 2(7)(c), alinea 1, osnovne uredbe.
For the same company, the investigation revealed significant deficiencies in the audited accounts.
Preiskava je v omenjenem podjetju odkrila znatne pomanjkljivosti pri pregledu računovodske evidence.
Thus, the company's own auditors made reservations with regard to, amongst others, the booked sales figures, assets valuation and depreciation.
Tako so revizorji omenjenega podjetja izrazili pridržke, med drugim glede naročenih prodajnih vrednosti, ocene premoženjskega stanja in amortizacije.
However, no corrections were made in order to rectify the shortcomings identified by the auditors and no explanations could be given by the company as to why so far no account was taken of the reservations expressed by the auditors.
Vendar niso bile za zmanjšanje primanjkljaja, ki so ga odkrili revizorji, uvedene nobene izboljšave, prav tako ni podjetje podalo nobenega pojasnila o tem, zakaj ni upoštevalo pridržkov, ki so jih izrazili revizorji.
Given these shortcomings, it would not have been possible to make a reliable dumping calculation on this basis.
Ob tolikšnem primanjkljaju ne bi bilo mogoče narediti zanesljivega izračuna dampinga.
Although the company contested these conclusions, it did not provide any reasonable explanation why its accounts would be reliable despite these deficiencies.
Čeprav je podjetje takšnim ugotovitvam nasprotovalo, ni podalo nobenega razumnega pojasnila, zakaj naj bi bila njegova računovodska dokumentacija zanesljiva kljub omenjenim pomanjkljivostim.
In view of the elements set out above which put into question the reliability of the accounts and that the problems identified by the auditors were not corrected, it is concluded that the criterion set out under Article 2(7)(c) indent 2 of the basic Regulation is not met.
V luči podrobnosti, omenjenih zgoraj, ki so pod vprašaj postavile zanesljivost računovodske dokumentacije, in ker težave, ki so jih ugotovili revizorji, niso bile odpravljene, je Komisija ugotovila, da omenjeno podjetje ne izpolnjuje merila, določenega v členu 2(7)(c), alinea 2, osnovne uredbe.
Finally, as far as the acquisition of company 2's assets is concerned, the company could not explain under which conditions some of the company's assets were transferred from the collectively-owned pre-existing company.
In nazadnje, kar zadeva pridobitev premoženja podjetja št. 2, podjetje ni moglo pojasniti, pod kakšnimi pogoji je pridobilo lastnino nad nekaterimi deli premoženja, ki je bilo nanj preneseno s prejšnjega podjetja v kolektivni lasti.
The Commission therefore concluded that the conditions of Article 2(7)(c) indent 3 of the basic Regulation were not met.
Komisija je tako ugotovila, da podjetje ne izpolnjuje meril, določenih v členu 2(7)(c), alinea 3, osnovne uredbe.
Company 2 disagreed with these conclusions, but did not provide any information or evidence with regard to the transfer of assets which would have shown that there are no significant distortions from the former non-market economy regime.
Podjetje št. 2 se z omenjenimi ugotovitvami ni strinjalo, vendar ni podalo nobenih podatkov ali dokazov glede prenosa lastnine nad premoženjem, ki bi pokazali, da ni šlo za večje nepravilnosti iz prejšnjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva.
The claim made by company 2 was therefore unfounded and was rejected.
Komisija je torej menila, da je zahteva podjetja št. 2 neutemeljena in jo je zavrnila.
The Advisory Committee was consulted and the parties directly concerned were informed accordingly.
Komisija se je posvetovala s Svetovalnim odborom ter o tem obveščala strani, ki jih je preiskava neposredno zadevala.
The Community industry was given the opportunity to comment, and did not oppose to the MET determination.
Industrija Skupnosti, ki je dobila možnost odgovoriti na odločitev Komisije, določitvi MET ni nasprotovala.
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT (IT)
INDIVIDUALNA OBRAVNAVA (IT)
The three exporting producers to which MET was not granted also claimed individual treatment.
Trije proizvajalci izvozniki, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, so prav tako zahtevali individualno obravnavo.
Therefore, the Commission examined whether these three exporting producers demonstrated that they are complying with the criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je Komisija preverila, ali omenjena tri podjetja izpolnjujejo merila, določena v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
Two companies (company 1 and 3) were found to be fully or predominately State owned and had a board of directors consisting fully or entirely of State nominated directors.
Komisija je ugotovila, da sta dve podjetji (št. 1 in 3) v celoti ali večinoma v državni lasti in imata upravna odbora, sestavljena večinoma iz direktorjev, ki jih je imenovala država.
These companies could not demonstrate that they were sufficiently independent from State interference and consequently did not meet the conditions set in Article 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Omenjeni podjetji nista mogli dokazati, da sta v zadostni meri neodvisni od države in s tem posledično nista izpolnili meril, določenih v členu 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Although the third exporting producer (company 2) was partly privately owned, it could not demonstrate who ultimately controlled it and significant State interference could therefore not be excluded.
Čeprav je tretji proizvajalec izvoznik (podjetje št. 2) delno v zasebni lasti, ni mogel jasno predstaviti, kdo ga nadzira, zato tudi v njegovem primeru ni bilo moč izključiti možnosti poseganja države.
As a consequence, the company was not able to demonstrate that it met criterion 9(5)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Omenjeno podjetje posledično ni moglo dokazati, da izpolnjuje merilo iz člena 9(5)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Furthermore, for all three companies, it was found that there is a risk of circumvention of the measures if these exporters would be given an individual duty rate.
Nadalje je bila pri vseh treh podjetjih ugotovljena možnost izogibanja ukrepom, če bi bile tem izvoznikom dodeljene različne stopnje dajatve.
This risk results partly from the above-mentioned State influence in the operation of two of the companies, and the fact that the other exporter could not demonstrate the absence of significant State influence either.
Tveganje delno izhaja iz prej omenjenega poseganja države v delovanje dveh podjetij, ter dejstva, da tudi tretji izvoznik ni mogel zanesljivo dokazati, da ni pod vplivom države.
Moreover, given the commodity nature of the product concerned, which cannot be identified as having been produced by a particular producer, the risk of circumvention of measures by way of exporting via a company with a lower duty was also deemed significant.
Poleg tega je, glede na naravo blaga zadevnega izdelka, za katerega ni moč zanesljivo določiti proizvajalca, tveganje izogibanja ukrepom z izvozom prek podjetja z nižjimi dajatvami po mnenju Komisije povečano.