natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
The export refunds on the products, exported in the natural state, listed in Article 1(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and in Article 1(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 and subject to Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 [4], as fixed in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1434/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex to this Regulation in respect of the products set out therein.Article 2
Izvozna nadomestila za proizvode, navedene v členu 1(1)(d) Uredbe (ES) št. 1784/2003 in členu 1(1)(c) Uredbe (ES) št. 1785/2003, ki so v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1518/95 [4], določena v Prilogi k Uredbi (ES) št. 1434/2006, se spremenijo v skladu z zneski, navedenimi v Prilogi k tej uredbi, za proizvode iz Priloge k tej uredbi.Člen 2
Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 797/2006 (OJ L 144, 31.5.2006, p. 1).
Uredba, kakor je bila nazadnje spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 797/2006 (UL L 144, 31.5.2006, str. 1).
OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 60.
UL L 270, 29.9.2006, str. 60.
Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 2993/95 (OJ L 312, 23.12.1995, p. 25).
Uredba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 2993/95 (UL L 312, 23.12.1995, str. 25).
to Commission Regulation of 4 October 2006 fixing the export refunds on products processed from cereals and rice
k Uredbi Komisije z dne 4. oktobra 2006 o določitvi izvoznih nadomestil za predelane proizvode iz žit in riža
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1470/2006
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1470/2006
It has therefore been decided to reject all applications for export licences of such products made on 2, 3 and 4 October 2006,
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da se zavrnejo vse vloge za izvozna dovoljenja za te proizvode, predložene 2., 3. in 4. oktobra 2006 –
In accordance with Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1342/2003, applications for export licences with advance fixing of refunds for products falling within CN codes 11022010, 11022090, 11031310, 11031390, 11042310, 11081200, 11081300, 17023051, 17023091, 17023099, 17024090 and 17029050 made on 2, 3 and 4 October 2006 shall be rejected.
V skladu s členom 8(1) Uredbe (ES) št. 1342/2003 se vloge za izvozna dovoljenja z vnaprejšnjo določitvijo nadomestil za proizvode s tarifnimi oznakami KN 11022010, 11022090, 11031310, 11031390, 11042310, 11081200, 11081300, 17023051, 17023091, 17023099, 17024090 in 17029050, predložene 2., 3. in 4. oktobra 2006, zavrnejo.
Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1263/2006 (OJ L 230, 24.8.2006, p. 6).
Uredba, kakor je bila spremenjena z Uredbo (ES) št. 1263/2006 (UL L 230, 24.8.2006, str. 6).
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1471/2006
Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 1471/2006
The rates of the refunds applicable from 29 September 2006 to the products listed in the Annex, exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, were fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1432/2006 [3].
Stopnje nadomestil, ki se od 29. septembra 2006 uporabljajo za proizvode, navedene v Prilogi, izvožene kot blago, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi, so bile določene z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 1432/2006 [3].
It follows from applying the rules and criteria contained in Regulation (EC) No 1432/2006 to the information at present available to the Commission that the export refunds at present applicable should be altered as shown in the Annex hereto,
Iz uporabe pravil in meril iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1432/2006 za informacije, ki so trenutno na razpolago Komisiji, izhaja, da je izvozna nadomestila, ki se trenutno uporabljajo, treba spremeniti v skladu s Prilogo k Uredbi –
The rates of refund fixed by Regulation (EC) No 1432/2006 are hereby altered as shown in the Annex hereto.
Stopnje nadomestil, določene z Uredbo (ES) št. 1432/2006, se spremenijo v skladu s Prilogo k Uredbi.
OJ L 270, 29.9.2006, p. 54.
UL L 270, 29.9.2006, str. 54.
Rates of the refunds applicable from 5 October 2006 to certain cereals and rice products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty [1](EUR/100 kg)
Stopnje nadomestil, ki se od 5. oktobra 2006 uporabljajo za nekatere proizvode iz žit in riža, izvožene kot blago, ki ni zajeto v Prilogi I k Pogodbi [1](EUR/100 kg)
Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006
Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 1472/2006
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam
o uvedbi dokončne protidampinške dajatve in o dokončnem pobiranju začasne dajatve, uvedene na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Vietnama
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 9 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] („osnovna uredba“), in zlasti člena 9 Uredbe,
On 23 March 2006, the Commission imposed by Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 [2] (‘the provisional Regulation’) a provisional anti-dumping duty on the imports into the Community of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam (‘the countries concerned’ or ‘the exporting countries’).
Komisija je 23. marca 2006 z Uredbo (ES) št. 553/2006 [2] („začasna uredba“) uvedla začasno protidampinško dajatev na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Vietnama („zadevni državi“ ali „državi izvoznici“) v Skupnost.
This Regulation entered into force on 7 April 2006.
Ta uredba je začela veljati 7. aprila 2006.
It is recalled that the investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005 (‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’) and that the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2001 to the end of the investigation period (‘period considered’).
Treba je opozoriti, da je preiskava dampinga zajela obdobje od 1. aprila 2004 do 31. marca 2005 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“), proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, pa je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2001 do konca obdobja preiskave („obravnavano obdobje“).
Following the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather from the countries concerned, all parties received a disclosure of the facts and considerations on which the provisional Regulation was based.
Po uvedbi začasne protidampinške dajatve na uvoz določene obutve z zgornjim delom iz usnja iz zadevnih držav so vse stranke prejele obvestilo o razkritih dejstvih in premislekih, na katerih je temeljila začasna uredba.
All parties were granted a period within which they could make representations in relation to these disclosures.
Vsem strankam je bilo odobreno obdobje, v katerem so lahko podale stališča glede teh razkritij.
The Commission's services further disclosed all the essential facts and considerations on the basis of which it was intended to recommend the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures and the definitive collection of amounts secured by way of the provisional duty.
Službe Komisije so razkrile tudi vsa bistvena dejstva in premisleke, na podlagi katerih je nameravala priporočiti uvedbo dokončnih protidampinških ukrepov in dokončnega pobiranja zneskov, zavarovanih z začasno dajatvijo.
Furthermore, an additional disclosure was provided with regard to a change in the envisaged form of measures.
Zagotovljeno je bilo še dodatno razkritje glede spremembe predvidene oblike ukrepov.
Various interested parties reiterated their claim that by not disclosing the name of the complainants, their right of defence was not preserved.
Številne zainteresirane stranke so ponovile svojo trditev, da se s tem, ko imena pritožnikov niso bila razkrita, ni ohranila pravica do obrambe.
This issue was already raised previously (see recital 8 of the provisional Regulation).
To vprašanje je bilo obravnavano že pred tem (glej uvodno izjavo 8 začasne uredbe).
The matter was reviewed at definitive stage and the following is to be noted: the production volume of the complainants, broken down by countries, was disclosed to those interested parties that made claims regarding standing.
Zadeva je bila ponovno proučena v končni fazi in poudariti je treba naslednje: obseg proizvodnje pritožnikov, razčlenjen po državah, je bil razkrit tistim zainteresiranim strankam, ki so v zvezi s tem vložile zahtevek.
Therefore it is considered that their right of defence was adequately preserved.
Zato se šteje, da je bila njihova pravica do obrambe ustrezno ohranjena.
This information was subsequently also made available for inspection to all interested parties.
Te informacije so lahko pozneje pregledale tudi vse druge zainteresirane stranke.
It is recalled that, as set out in recital 10 of the provisional Regulation, the product concerned by this proceeding, is footwear with uppers of leather or composition leather originating in the PRC and in Vietnam, other than:
Treba je opozoriti, kot je določeno v uvodni izjavi 10 začasne uredbe, da je izdelek, ki ga ta postopek zadeva, obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja ali umetnega usnja s poreklom iz LRK in Vietnama, razen:
sports footwear within the meaning of subheading note 1 to Chapter 64 of the combined nomenclature, i.e. (i) footwear which is designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of, spikes, sprigs, stops, clips, bars or the like, and (ii) skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear, snowboard boots, wrestling boots, boxing boots and cycling shoes,
športne obutve v smislu opombe 1 k tarifnim podštevilkam v poglavju 64 carinske nomenklature, tj. (i) obutve, namenjene za športne aktivnosti, ki ima ali je možno nanjo pritrditi trne, čepe, žeblje, kaveljčke, zaponke ali podobne izdelke, in (ii) čevljev za drsanje, smučanje, tek na smučeh, deskanje na snegu, rokoborbo, boks in kolesarjenje,
slippers and other indoor footwear (falling within CN codes 64035950, 64039950 and ex64051000),
copat in druge hišne obutve (uvrščenih pod oznake KN 64035950, 64039950 in ex64051000),
footwear with a protective toecap, i.e. footwear incorporating a protective toecap with an impact resistance of at least 100 joules [3] (falling within CN codes: ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 and ex64051000).
obutve z zaščitno kapico, tj. obutve, ki vsebuje zaščitno kapico in ima odpornost proti udarcem najmanj 100 joulov [3] (uvrščene pod oznake KN: ex64033000, ex64035111, ex64035115, ex64035119, ex64035191, ex64035195, ex64035199, ex64035911, ex64035931, ex64035935, ex64035939, ex64035991, ex64035995, ex64035999, ex64039111, ex64039113, ex64039116, ex64039118, ex64039191, ex64039193, ex64039196, ex64039198, ex64039911, ex64039931, ex64039933, ex64039936, ex64039938, ex64039991, ex64039993, ex64039996, ex64039998 in ex64051000).
In addition, on the basis of the elements set out in recitals 12 to 27 of the provisional Regulation, it was provisionally concluded that certain high tech sports footwear, i.e. Special Technology Athletic Footwear (‘STAF’), should be excluded from this definition.
Na podlagi prvin iz uvodnih izjav 12 do 27 začasne uredbe je bilo začasno sklenjeno, da je treba določeno visokotehnološko športno obutev, tj. Special Technology Athletic Footwear (športna obutev, izdelana po posebni tehnologiji) („STAF“), izključiti iz te opredelitve.
Furthermore, it was decided to provisionally treat children's shoes as forming part of the product concerned, although this was subject to further investigation and consideration at the definitive stage.
Sklenjeno je bilo tudi, da se otroški čevlji začasno obravnavajo kot del zadevnega izdelka, čeprav bodo predmet nadaljnje preiskave in obravnave v zaključni fazi.
The interested parties were invited to comment on those specific issues.
Zainteresirane stranke so bile povabljene, da dajo pripombe na ta posebna vprašanja.
Given the comments they provided with respect to the above, and further requests for exclusion of other specific types of footwear, those claims have been analysed in detail below.
Glede na pripombe, ki so jih predložile o zgoraj navedenem vprašanju, in na zahteve za izključitev drugih posebnih vrst obutve, bodo te zahteve podrobno analizirane v nadaljevanju.
Special technology athletic footwear (‘STAF’)
Športna obutev, izdelana po posebni tehnologiji („STAF“)
It is recalled that STAF, as defined under recital 13 of the provisional Regulation was excluded from the definition of the product concerned.
Treba je opozoriti, da je bila obutev STAF, kot je opredeljena v uvodni izjavi 13 začasne uredbe, izključena iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka.
This exclusion was based on the fact that such type of footwear has different basic physical and technical characteristics, is sold via different sales channels, and has a different end use and consumer perception.
Ta izključitev je temeljila na dejstvu, da se ta vrsta obutve razlikuje po osnovnih fizičnih in tehničnih lastnostih, da se prodaja po različnih prodajnih poteh in razlikuje po končni uporabi in dojemanju potrošnikov.
The Community footwear industry contested the exclusion of STAF from the product scope claiming STAF footwear has the same sales channels and consumer perception as the product under investigation.
Obutvena industrija Skupnosti je nasprotovala izključitvi obutve STAF iz opredelitve izdelka z navedbo, da naj bi se obutev STAF prodajala po enakih prodajnih poteh kot izdelek v preiskavi ter da jo potrošniki tudi enako dojemajo.
Furthermore, in case STAF footwear should nevertheless be excluded from the product scope of the investigation, it was stressed that the minimum STAF value of EUR 9 in the current TARIC definition should be brought to a higher level, taking into account the devaluation of the dollar vis-à-vis the Euro, which occurred over the years.
Če bi se obutev STAF kljub temu izključila iz opredelitve izdelka, zajetega v preiskavo, pa je bilo poudarjeno, da je treba najnižjo vrednost obutve STAF v višini 9 EUR v sedanji opredelitvi TARIC zvišati in pri tem upoštevati razvrednotenje dolarja v primerjavi z eurom, ki se je pojavilo v preteklih letih.
In reply to these submissions, it is first of all noted that the Community industry did not contest that STAF have different basic physical and technical characteristics.
V odgovor na te navedbe je treba najprej opomniti, da industrija Skupnosti ni nasprotovala dejstvu, da se obutev STAF razlikuje v osnovnih fizičnih in tehničnih lastnostih.
Secondly, as regards sales channels, use, consumer perception and import trends, the Community footwear industry did not put forward any substantiated arguments that could change the findings in recitals 15 to 18 of the provisional Regulation.
Drugič, obutvena industrija Skupnosti v zvezi s prodajnimi potmi, uporabo, dojemanjem potrošnika in gibanjem uvoza, ni predložila nobenih trdnih utemeljitev, ki bi lahko spremenile ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav 15 do 18 začasne uredbe.
Furthermore, the claim for an increase of the EUR 9,00 threshold was not further substantiated by any evidence.
Zahteva za zvišanje praga v višini 9,00 EUR tudi ni bila podprta z dokazi.
Several importers requested to lower the minimum value of STAF from EUR 9,00 to EUR 7,50 essentially due to changed circumstances in terms of cost reducing production processes.
Številni uvozniki so zahtevali znižanje najmanjše vrednosti obutve STAF, in sicer z 9,00 EUR na 7,50 EUR, predvsem zaradi spremenjenih okoliščin v obliki proizvodnih procesov, ki znižujejo stroške.
These submissions have been analysed with care as well.
Tudi te navedbe so bile podrobno analizirane.
It is recalled that the EUR 9 threshold was established in the TARIC nomenclature in 1994, when STAF was introduced in the framework of the quota on footwear originating from China, i.e. 12 years ago.
Treba je opomniti, da je bil prag 9 EUR določen v nomenklaturi TARIC leta 1994, ko je bila obutev STAF uvedena v okviru kvot za obutev s poreklom s Kitajske, tj. pred 12 leti.
Furthermore, the importers sufficiently substantiated with evidence that new production technologies have led to both a significant cost reduction per STAF unit and a reduction of waste in material and energy.
Uvozniki so predložili zadostne dokaze, da so nove proizvodne tehnologije privedle tako do znatnega zmanjšanja stroškov na enoto obutve STAF kot tudi do zmanjšanja porabe surovin in energije.
Combined with higher competition due to an increased offer of STAF production, another price lowering factor, this has indeed impact on price levels as compared to the situation 12 years ago, which cannot be disregarded.
To v povezavi z večjo konkurenco, ki je posledica večje ponudbe obutve STAF, drugega dejavnika nižanja cen, v primerjavi s položajem pred dvanajstimi leti dejansko vpliva na ravni cene, česar ni mogoče zanemariti.
A moderate reduction of the STAF threshold of EUR 1,5 is considered reasonable and necessary to reflect those changes.
Skromno znižanje praga za obutev STAF v višini 1,5 EUR se zdi primerno in potrebno za odraz navedenih sprememb.
Moreover, various exporters claimed that the STAF definition should be broadened by including all footwear with uppers of leather and with Ethylene-Vinyl Acetate (EVA) soles and/or direct moulding within its scope.
Različni izvozniki so tudi trdili, da je treba opredelitev obutve STAF razširiti tako, da se v njen obseg vključi vsa obutev z zgornjim delom iz usnja in podplatom iz etilen-vinil acetata (EVA) in/ali vlitim podplatom.
However, in reply to these submissions, it should be underlined that the use of the EVA moulding technique as such did not clearly distinguish the end product from the product concerned.
Vendar pa je treba v odgovor na te trditve poudariti, da uporaba tehnike vlivanja EVA kot take ni pomenila jasnega razlikovanja med končnim izdelkom in zadevnim izdelkom.
Moreover, it was explained that the moulding technique, as applied to EVA soles, could also be used for footwear that were clearly not STAF.
Pojasnjeno je bilo tudi, da bi se lahko tehnika vlivanja, ki se uporablja za podplate EVA, uporabila tudi za obutev, pri kateri jasno ne gre za obutev STAF.
In addition, no evidence was provided showing that the distinction based on different physical and technical characteristics, different sales channels, use and consumer perception and different import trends would not be appropriate.
Predloženi niso bili tudi nobeni dokazi o tem, da razlikovanje na podlagi različnih fizičnih in tehničnih lastnost, različnih prodajnih poti, uporabi in dojemanju potrošnika ter različnih gibanjih uvoza ne bi bilo primerno.
Finally, the definitions of EVA as proposed by various importers were clearly in contradiction with each other.
Poleg tega so si opredelitve EVA, ki so jih predlagali različni uvozniki, jasno nasprotovale.
Therefore, this proposal regarding the definition of STAF was rejected.
Zato je bil predlog glede opredelitve obutve STAF zavrnjen.
In conclusion, the exclusion of STAF from the definition of the product concerned in the provisional Regulation is confirmed.
Izključitev obutve STAF iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka v začasni uredbi se torej potrdi.
Furthermore, the minimum value for STAF should be lowered from EUR 9,00 to EUR 7,50. In the absence of further comments, the findings of the provisional Regulation on STAF as set out in recitals 13 to 19 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Nadalje je treba najnižjo vrednost za obutev STAF znižati z 9,00 EUR na 7,50 EUR. Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, se potrdijo ugotovitve začasne uredbe o obutvi STAF, določene v uvodnih izjavah 13 do 19 začasne uredbe.
STAF of not less than EUR 7,5 is therefore definitively excluded from the proceeding.
Obutev STAF v vrednosti, ki ni manjša od 7,5 EUR, se zato dokončno izključi iz postopka.
Children footwear
Otroška obutev
Children's footwear, i.e. footwear with insoles of a length of less than 24 cm, and with a sole and heel combined having a height of 3 cm or less falling within the CN codes: ex64032000, ex64033000, 64035111, 64035191, 64035931, 64035991, 64039111, 64039191, 64039931, 64039991 and ex64051000 was not subject to provisional anti-dumping measures, because provisional findings were not such as to warrant such measures on Community interest grounds.
Za otroško obutev, tj. obutev z vložki dolžine manj kot 24 cm ter s podplatom in peto s skupno višino 3 cm ali manj, ki se uvršča pod oznake KN: ex64032000, ex64033000, 64035111, 64035191, 64035931, 64035991, 64039111, 64039191, 64039931, 64039991 in ex64051000, niso veljali začasni protidampinški ukrepi, ker z začasnimi ugotovitvami takih ukrepov na podlagi interesa Skupnosti ni bilo mogoče utemeljiti.
In recitals 28 to 31 of the provisional Regulation, no definitive conclusion whether or not to include children's shoes in the definition of the product concerned had been drawn yet.
V uvodnih izjavah 28 do 31 začasne uredbe še ni bil sprejet dokončni sklep o tem, ali naj se otroški čevlji vključijo v opredelitev zadevnega izdelka ali ne.
Although some arguments were considered to possibly exclude children's footwear from the product scope of the investigation, these arguments did not allow a definitive conclusion at that stage of the investigation.
Čeprav so se obravnavale nekatere utemeljitve o izključitvi otroške obutve iz obsega preiskave, pa med navedeno fazo preiskave te utemeljitve niso privedle do dokončnega sklepa.
It was therefore decided to treat children shoes as part of the product concerned pending further investigation and consideration at the definitive stage.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da se otroške čevlje do nadaljnje preiskave in obravnave v zaključni fazi obravnava kot del zadevnega izdelka.
Following disclosure of the provisional findings, certain interested parties claimed that children's footwear should be excluded from the product scope of the investigation.
Po razkritju začasnih ugotovitev so nekatere zainteresirane stranke trdile, da je treba otroško obutev izključiti iz obsega preiskave.
These claims were based on the assumption that in particular style, design, sales channels and customer service, as addressed in recitals 30 and 31 of the provisional Regulation, clearly divided children's shoes from other types of footwear falling within the scope of the current investigation.
Te zahteve so temeljile na predpostavki, da se otroški čevlji v posebni obliki, prodajnih poteh in storitvah za kupce, kot je obravnavano v uvodnih izjavah 30 in 31 začasne uredbe, jasno razlikujejo od drugih vrst obutve, ki se uvršča v obseg sedanje preiskave.
However, those claims were deemed insufficient to exclude children's footwear from the definition of the product concerned because they were not substantiated with sufficient evidence showing that in this investigation a clear dividing line could be drawn between children's footwear and other footwear types within the scope of the investigation.
Vendar pa so se navedene zahteve zdele nezadostne za izključitev otroške obutve iz opredelitve zadevnega izdelka, saj niso bile podprte z zadostnimi dokazi o tem, da se lahko v okviru obsega te preiskave določi jasna ločnica med otroško obutvijo in drugimi vrstami obutve.
In fact, to the contrary it was found that the essential physical and technical characteristics of children's footwear which were common to those of the product concerned — a combination of leather uppers with different types of soles to protect the feet — were much more important than any differences (i.e. essentially size).
Pravzaprav je bilo ugotovljeno nasprotno, in sicer, da so osnovne fizične in tehnične lastnosti otroške obutve, ki so enake lastnostim zadevnega izdelka – kombinacija zgornjega dela iz usnja z različnimi vrstami podplatov za zaščito stopal – pomembnejše od katerih koli drugih razlik (tj. predvsem velikosti).