natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
For non-co-operating companies, a ‘residual’ dumping margin was determined in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.
Za nesodelujoča podjetja je bila v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe na podlagi razpoložljivih dejstev določena „preostala“ stopnja dampinga.
Since the export volumes of the co-operating exporters in the PRC represented around 70 % of the total imports from the PRC into the Community during the IP, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of any measures, it was decided to set the residual dumping margin at the level of the dumping margin established for those representative types of the product concerned with the highest dumping margins, deriving from the two co-operating exporters who were neither granted IT nor MET.
Ker je obseg izvoza sodelujočih izvoznikov v LRK predstavljal okoli 70 % skupnega uvoza iz LRK v Skupnost v OP, in da bi zagotovili učinkovitost kakršnih koli ukrepov, je bilo sklenjeno, da se določi preostala stopnja dampinga na ravni stopnje dampinga, določene za tiste reprezentativne tipe zadevnega izdelka z najvišjimi stopnjami dampinga, ki izhajajo iz dveh sodelujočih izvoznikov, katerim ni bil odobren niti IT niti MET.
Since the export volumes of the co-operating exporters in the USA represented less than 40 % of the total imports from the United States of America into the Community during the IP, and in order to ensure the effectiveness of any measures, it was decided to set the residual dumping margin at the level of the dumping margin established for those representative types of the product concerned with the highest dumping margins, deriving from the two co-operating exporters.
Ker je obseg izvoza sodelujočih izvoznikov v ZDA predstavljal manj kot 40 % skupnega uvoza iz Združenih držav Amerike v Skupnost v OP, in da bi zagotovili učinkovitost kakršnih koli ukrepov, je bilo sklenjeno, da se določi preostala stopnja dampinga na ravni stopnje dampinga, določene za tiste reprezentativne tipe zadevnega izdelka z najvišjimi stopnjami dampinga, ki izhajajo iz dveh sodelujočih izvoznikov.
Market Economy Treatment (MET)
Obravnava v skladu s tržnim gospodarstvom (MET)
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC, normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those producers which were found to meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c).
Na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe je v protidampinških preiskavah o uvozu s poreklom iz LRK normalna vrednost določena v skladu z odstavki od 1 do 6 navedenega člena za tiste proizvajalce, ki izpolnjujejo vseh pet meril, določenih v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in summarised form below:
Ta merila so na kratko navedena spodaj v strnjeni obliki, zaradi boljše preglednosti:
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;
currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.
pretvorbe glede menjalnega tečaja se izvajajo po tržnem tečaju.
Six 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.
Šest proizvajalcev izvoznikov iz LRK je zahtevalo MET v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in oddalo MET obrazce za proizvajalce izvoznike.
The Commission sought and verified at the premises of these six companies all information submitted in the MET applications and deemed necessary.
Komisija je poiskala in preverila v prostorih teh šestih podjetij vse informacije, navedene v obrazcu MET, za katere je menila, da so potrebni.
The investigation revealed that three of the six Chinese exporting producers fulfilled all of the conditions for granting MET.
Preiskava je pokazala, da so trije od šestih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov izpolnili vse pogoje za odobritev MET.
The three exporting producers in the PRC which obtained MET are:
Trije proizvajalci izvozniki iz LRK, ki jim je bil MET odobren, so:
The remaining three claims had to be rejected.
Zahteve preostalih treh je bilo treba zavrniti.
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 preglednici je prikazana določitev za tri podjetja, katerim 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.
Vir: preverjeni odgovori na vprašalnike sodelujočih kitajskih izvoznikov.
Article 2(7)(c) indent 1
Člen 2(7)(c) alinea 1
Article 2(7)(c) indent 2
Člen 2(7)(c) alinea 2
Article 2(7)(c) indent 3
Člen 2(7)(c) alinea 3
Article 2(7)(c) indent 4
Člen 2(7)(c) alinea 4
Article 2(7)(c) indent 5
Člen 2(7)(c) alinea 5
The companies concerned and the complainant were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Zadevna podjetja in pritožnik so dobili možnost odgovoriti na zgoraj navedene ugotovitve.
The three exporting producers that were not granted MET submitted that the determination was wrong and that MET should be granted to them.
Trije proizvajalci izvozniki, ki jim MET ni bil odobren, so trdili, da je bila ugotovitev napačna in da bi jim moral biti MET odobren.
Comments from company 1
Pripombe podjetja 1
Company 1 argued that the major reason to reject their claim for MET was that the State indirectly owns a majority share (60 %) of it.
Podjetje 1 je ugovarjalo, da je glavni razlog, da je bil njihov zahtevek za MET zavrnjen, ker je država neposredni lastnik večinskega deleža (60 %) podjetja.
However, the company pointed out that state interference regarding decisions of the company could not be demonstrated.
Vendar pa je podjetje opozorilo, da ni mogoče dokazati vmešavanja države pri odločitvah podjetja.
Moreover, it argued that, due to its listing on the Shanghai Stock Exchange, and the criteria to be met in order be listed on this stock exchange, should safeguard against any undue state interference.
Poleg tega je trdilo, da se mora zaradi kotacije na borzi v Šanghaju in meril, ki jih mora izpolniti, da lahko kotira na tej borzi, varovati pred neumestnim vmešavanjem države.
The aim of the investigation is, inter alia, to assess to which extent the State could interfere in business decisions, and which measures were taken by the company to prevent such interference.
Cilj preiskave je med drugim oceniti, v kolikšni meri bi država lahko posegala v odločitve podjetja, in katere ukrepe je podjetje sprejelo, da bi preprečilo takšne posege.
In this regard, it was found that the State held the majority of the Director posts on the Board of Directors, and that there were no restrictions on the State-appointed Directors’ voting rights on the Board (minority protection).
V zvezi s tem je bilo ugotovljeno, da je imela država v odboru direktorjev večino direktorskih mest in da ni bilo omejitev glede glasovalnih pravic direktorjev, ki jih je imenovala država, v odboru (zaščita manjšine).
The company failed to demonstrate that appropriate measures have been taken to prevent such State interference in the future.
Podjetje ni dokazalo, da so bili sprejeti ustrezni ukrepi, ki bi v bodoče preprečili takšne posege države.
Finally, whereas the listing on the Shanghai Stock exchange implies, inter alia, that the Board of Shareholders must appoint at least 3 ‘independent Directors’ (individuals that do not represent the shareholders and that have professional qualification relevant to the operations of the company), a listing on a stock exchange itself does not safeguard against undue state interference.
Nazadnje, če kotacija na borzi v Šanghaju med drugim pomeni, da mora odbor delničarjev imenovati najmanj 3 „neodvisne direktorje“ (posameznike, ki ne predstavljajo delničarjev in so strokovno usposobljeni za dejavnosti družbe), samo kotiranje na borzi ne varuje pred neumestnim vmešavanjem države.
As already mentioned, there were no voting restrictions in force that could prohibit the state-appointed majority of the Directors to take decisions against the will of the independent Directors, who are in minority.
Kot je že bilo omenjeno, ni veljala nobena omejitev glasovanja, ki bi lahko prepovedala, da bi večina direktorjev, ki jih je imenovala država, sprejemala odločitve proti volji neodvisnih direktorjev, ki so v manjšini.
Comments from company 2
Pripombe podjetja 2
Company 2 argued that the reason to reject their claim for MET, namely that the state controlled company 2 through direct and indirect ownership of three other companies that in their turn held the majority of the shares in company 2, was flawed.
Podjetje 2 je trdilo, da je bil razlog, da je bil njihov zahtevek za MET zavrnjen, dejstvo, da je država nadzorovala podjetje 2 preko neposrednega in posrednega lastništva treh drugih podjetij, ki so po vrsti imele večino delnic v podjetju 2, napačen.
More specifically, it questioned the reasoning that the company ‘ABC’, which holds 48 % in company 2, was dominated by the State, since 80 % of the ABC's shares were held by employees which were represented by a Staff Committee.
Natančneje, preverjalo je utemeljitve, da podjetje „ABC“, ki ima v lasti 48 % v podjetju 2, obvladuje država, kajti 80 % delnic ABC imajo v lasti zaposleni, ki jih zastopa odbor delavcev.
Company 2 disputed the argument that the Staff Committee in ABC was controlled by the state.
Podjetje 2 je oporekalo utemeljitvi, da odbor delavcev v ABC nadzira država.
Concerning ownership and control of ABC, it should be emphasized that ABC was not the company subject to the MET investigation.
Kar zadeva lastništvo in nadzor ABC je treba poudariti, da podjetje ABC ni bilo predmet preiskave MET.
However, since the State owns 20 % of ABC, and the remaining 80 % was distributed between more than 1000 employees, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the State was the single biggest shareholder and, as such, has de facto control over ABC.
Ker pa je država lastnica 20 % ABC, ostalih 80 % pa je bilo razdeljenih med več kot 1000 zaposlenih, je dopustno sklepati, da je bila država drugi največji delničar in ima kot taka dejanski nadzor nad ABC.
Company 2 also argued against the conclusion that it was found to be de facto closely linked to another company: ‘DEF’.
Podjetje 2 je tudi ugovarjalo ugotovitvi, da je dejansko tesno povezano z drugim podjetjem: „DEF“.
The basis for this conclusion by the Commission was that company 2 (i) shared the same premises as DEF (company 2 ‘subleased’ the land-rights from DEF); (ii) purchased some of the most important raw materials from DEF; and (iii) had lent a significant amount of money to DEF. Company 2 argued that all of these observations could be commercially explained and that in any event none of them proved integration into DEF.
Podlaga za to ugotovitev Komisije je bila, da si je podjetje 2 (i) delilo prostore z DEF (podjetje 2 je od DEF „zakupilo“ pravice na nepremičnini; (ii) kupilo nekaj najpomembnejših surovin pri DEF in (iii) posodilo večjo količino denarja. Podjetje 2 je ugovarjalo, da je vse te pripombe mogoče tržno pojasniti in da se to v nobenem primeru ni izkazalo kot vključevanje v DEF.
Indeed, company 2 has de jure been found to be state-controlled through 3 different state-controlled shareholders, and de facto under significant state-control through its links with the state-controlled shareholder DEF. On the basis of the foregoing, and in the absence of any measures that had been taken by the company to prevent such interference, there is a clear risk of state interference.
Za podjetje 2 je bilo po pravu ugotovljeno, da je pod nadzorom države preko 3 različnih delničarjev, katere nadzira država, in je dejansko pod znatnim nadzorom države preko svojih vezi z delničarjem DEF, katerega nadzira država. Na podlagi prej navedenega in v odsotnosti vseh ukrepov, ki jih je podjetje sprejelo, da bi preprečilo takšno vmešavanje, obstaja jasno tveganje vmešavanja države.
Company 2 also argued that the fact that the money lent to DEF, which it admitted had not been accounted for in accordance with International Accounting Standards (IAS), did not have any effect on the calculation on the normal value and could therefore not be held against it in respect of whether it met the criteria for MET.
Podjetje 2 je tudi ugovarjalo, da dejstvo, da denar, ki ga je posodilo DEF, za katerega je priznalo, da se ni upošteval v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („IAS“), ni učinkovalo na izračun normalne vrednosti in mu ga zato ni mogoče očitati v zvezi z dejstvom, ali je izpolnjeval merila za MET.
To borrow money from a bank and to lend it to one of its (state-controlled) shareholders (notwithstanding all other legal aspects such as the protection of the interest of other minority shareholders and other creditors) had not been accounted for in accordance with IAS.
Izposoja denarja pri banki in posoja le-tega enemu izmed delničarjev (pod nadzorom države) (ne glede na vse druge pravne vidike, kot so varstvo interesov drugih manjših delničarjev in drugih upnikov) se ni obračunala v skladu z IAS.
On the basis of the preceding, also taking into account the significant amount involved and that the auditors did not react on this item, it is concluded that this company did not meet criterion 2.
Na podlagi prej navedenega in upoštevajoč vpleteni znatni znesek ter dejstvo, da se revizorji niso odzvali na to točko, se sklepa, da to podjetje ni izpolnjevalo merila 2.
Comments from company 3
Pripombe podjetja 3
Company 3 argued that the reason for not granting this company MET, namely that the accounts were not kept in accordance with IAS, did not have any effect on the calculation on the normal value and could therefore not be grounds for refusing to grant MET.
Podjetje 3 je ugovarjalo, da dejstvo, da temu podjetju ni bil dodeljen MET, in sicer, da računovodski izkazi niso bili vodeni v skladu z IAS, ni vplivalo na izračun normalne vrednosti in bi zato ne moglo biti podlaga za zavrnitev odobritve MET.
The reason this company was considered not to have met criterion 2 was that there was an erroneous entry into the company's books of an acquisition of land-rights.
Razlog, da se je za to podjetje štelo, da ni izpolnjevalo merila 2, je bil napačen vnos nakupa pravice na nepremičnini v poslovne knjige podjetja.
The amount involved was significant and the erroneous entry was also reflected in the annual report.
Zadevni znesek je bil znaten in napačen vnos se je odražal tudi v letnem poročilu.
The auditors did not react on this.
Revizorji se na to niso odzvali.
On the basis of the preceding, it is concluded that this company does not meet criterion 2.
Na podlagi prej navedenega se sklepa, da podjetje ne izpolnjuje merila 2.
Comments from the complainant
Pripombe pritožnika
The complainant argued against granting any of the companies MET.
Pritožnik je nasprotoval odobritvi MET kateremu koli podjetju.
The complainant claimed, inter alia, that, as Chinese companies applied Chinese accounting standards (and were audited by Chinese auditing firms) which were not necessarily the same as IAS, this would had been a violation of criterion 2.
Pritožnik je med drugim trdil, da bi to, ker so kitajska podjetja uporabila kitajske računovodske standarde, ki niso nujno enaki kot IAS (in so revizijo opravile kitajske revizorske hiše), pomenilo kršitev merila 2.
Moreover, it argued that, as the Chinese currency is pegged to the USD by a decision of its government, the currencies had not been exchanged at market rates by any of the co-operating exporters - this would had been a violation of criterion 5.
Poleg tega je pritožnik trdil, da sodelujoči izvozniki, ker je kitajska valuta s sklepom kitajske vlade fiksirana na ameriški dolar, niso menjali valut po tržnem tečaju – to bi pomenilo kršitev merila 5.
On the basis of a ‘cumulative assessment of the criteria’, the complainant argued that none of the co-operating exporters in the PRC could qualify for MET.
Na podlagi „kumulativne ocene merila“ je pritožnik trdil, da nobeden izmed sodelujočih izvoznikov v LRK ne izpolnjuje pogojev za MET.
Chinese companies are by law obliged to keep their accounting records in accordance with the Accounting Law of the PRC, as well as to have a Chinese auditor.
Kitajska podjetja morajo po zakonu voditi računovodsko evidenco v skladu z Zakonom o računovodstvu LRK, imeti pa morajo tudi kitajskega revizorja.
This cannot be held against any company applying for MET.
Tega se ne sme očitati nobenemu podjetju, ki zaprosi za MET.
Indeed, the Accounting Law has been introduced in order to implement international accounting standards in the PRC.
Zakon o računovodstvu je bil uveden, da bi se izvajali mednarodni računovodski standardi v LRK.
As the consistent practice of the Institutions has shown, the law itself does not constitute any obstacle in obtaining MET.
Kot je pokazala običajna praksa institucij, sam zakon ne pomeni nikakršne ovire pri pridobivanju MET.
Hence, the purpose of the verification of criterion 2 is primarily whether the Chinese Accounting Law is properly implemented in line with international accounting standards.
Zato je glavni namen preverjanja merila 2 preučiti, ali se kitajski računovodski zakon pravilno izvaja v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
It also examines whether the accounting records have been independently audited, in line with IAS.
Prav tako preuči, ali je bila računovodska dokumentacija neodvisno revidirana v skladu z IAS.
The fact that the Chinese currency RMB is pegged to the USD is a decision by the Chinese government, against which an applicant for MET cannot be held responsible.
Dejstvo, da je kitajska valuta RMB fiksirana na ameriški dolar, je odločitev kitajske vlade, proti kateri vlagatelj MET ne more nositi odgovornosti.
Similar decisions have in the past also been taken by other countries, notably in Latin America.
V preteklosti so podobne odločitve sprejemale tudi druge države, predvsem v Latinski Ameriki.
Again, it is the consistent practice of the Institutions to consider this criterion as fulfilled if the company uses the official exchange rate for all its transactions involving foreign currencies.
Spet gre za običajno prakso institucij, da obravnavajo to merilo kot izpolnjeno, če družba uporablja uradni menjalni tečaj za vse svoje transakcije, ki vključujejo tuje valute.
Thus, it is ensured that no black market practices are applied.
Tako je zagotovljeno, da se ne uporabljajo prakse črnega trga.
Indeed, all of the co-operating exporters in this investigation were found to be able to purchase and sell foreign currencies obtained in their business operations, despite the fact that the exchange rate RMB/USD is pegged.
Vsi sodelujoči izvozniki v tej preiskavi so bili dejansko zmožni kupiti in prodati tuje valute, pridobljene v njihovih poslovnih dejavnostih, kljub dejstvu, da je menjalni tečaj RMB/ameriški dolar fiksiran.
Thus, the arguments forwarded by the complainant have been rejected.
Zato so bile utemeljitve, ki jih je predložil tožnik, zavrnjene.
A country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where a company receives MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(c) or if a company is able to demonstrate, in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, that
Dajatev na ravni države, če sploh, je določena za države iz člena 2(7) osnovne uredbe, razen v tistih primerih, kjer podjetje prejme MET v skladu s členom 2(7)(c) ali, če podjetje lahko prikaže, v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe, da
partly or wholly foreign owned firms and joint ventures are free to repatriate capital and profits;
družbe in skupna podjetja, ki so delno ali v celoti v tuji lasti, lahko povrnejo kapital in dobiček;
their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions and terms of the sales are freely determined;
so njihove izvozne cene in količine ter pogoji prodaje svobodno določeni;
the majority of the shares belong to private persons;
je večina delnic v lasti posameznikov;
exchange rates are carried out at market rates;
se menjalni tečaji izvajajo po tržnem tečaju;
any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.
kakršno koli vmešavanje države ni take narave, da bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepov, če je izvoznikom določena druga stopnja dajatve.
The six exporting producers, as well as requesting MET, also claimed individual treatment in the event they were not granted MET.
Šest proizvajalcev izvoznikov je poleg MET zahtevalo tudi posamezno obravnavo, če zahtevi po MET ne bi bilo ugodeno.
On the basis of information available, it was found that one of the companies which could not be granted MET met all of the requirements for IT, set forth in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Na podlagi razpoložljivih informacij je bilo ugotovljeno, da eno izmed podjetij, kateremu MET ni bil odobren, izpolnjuje vse zahteve za posamezno obravnavo iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
The two remaining companies which could not be granted MET were found to be predominantly state owned.
Preostali dve podjetji, ki jima MET ni bil odobren, sta bili pretežno v državni lasti.
For these companies, the risk of State interference was deemed significant.
Za ti podjetji se je tveganje vmešavanja države štelo nepomembno.
Given the nature of the product concerned, which cannot be identified as having been produced by a particular producer in conjunction with State ownership, the risk of circumvention of measures by way of exporting via a company with a lower level of duty was also deemed significant.
Glede na naravo zadevnega izdelka, pri katerem ni moč zanesljivo določiti, da gre za posebnega proizvajalca v povezavi z državno lastnino, se je tveganje izogibanja ukrepom z izvozom prek podjetja z nižjimi dajatvami prav tako zdelo pomembno.
Consequently, the conditions set in Article 9(5)(c) and (e) of the basic Regulation were not met.
Zato pogoji, določeni v členu 9(5)(c) in (e) osnovne uredbe niso bili izpolnjeni.
It was therefore decided not to grant them IT.
Tako je bilo odločeno, da se jim posamezna obravnava ne odobri.
It was therefore concluded that IT should be granted to the following exporting producer in the PRC:
Na podlagi tega je bilo zaključeno, da se posamezna obravnava odobri naslednjemu proizvajalcu izvozniku v LRK:
Determination of Normal Value
Določitev normalne vrednosti
Determination of normal value for the exporting producers not granted MET
Določitev normalne vrednosti za vse proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jim MET ni bil odobren
According to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, for non-market-economy countries and, to the extent that MET could not be granted, for countries in transition, normal value has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an analogue country.
V skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe se za države z netržnim gospodarstvom in, če MET ni mogoče odobriti, za države v tranziciji, normalna vrednost določi na podlagi cene ali računsko določene vrednosti v primerljivi državi.
In the notice of initiation, the Commission indicated its intention to use Mexico as an appropriate analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for the PRC and invited interested parties to comment on this.
V obvestilu o začetku postopka je Komisija izrazila svoj namen uporabiti Mehiko kot ustrezno primerljivo državo za določitev normalne vrednosti za LRK in pozvala zainteresirane stranke, da v zvezi s tem podajo svoje pripombe.
One Community importer objected to this proposal, alleging that Mexico was not representative since it had, on 20 December 2002, imposed anti-dumping measures on imports on TCCA originating in the PRC, thereby cutting off competition on the Mexican market.
En izvoznik Skupnosti je ugovarjal temu predlogu in trdil, da Mehika ni reprezentativna, ker je 20. decembra 2002 uvedla protidampinške ukrepe na uvoz TCCA s poreklom iz LRK in tako uničila konkurenco na mehiškem trgu.