natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
As concerns Croatia, one exporting producer, Mechel Željezara Ltd, accounted for all exports of the product concerned to the Community. Mechel Željezara Ltd is the new name of the company which cooperated with the original investigation under the name Željezara Sisak d.d., but which had officially changed its name twice since the imposition of the existing measures, due to subsequent changes in ownership [7].
Pri Hrvaški je bil za ves izvoz zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost odgovoren en proizvajalec izvoznik, Mechel Željezara Ltd. Mechel Željezara Ltd. je novo ime za podjetje, ki je sodelovalo v prvotni preiskavi pod imenom Željezara Sisak d.d., vendar je zaradi kasnejših sprememb v lastništvu od uvedbe obstoječih ukrepov dvakrat uradno spremenilo ime [7].
During the original investigation, an undertaking had been accepted from Mechel Željezara Ltd under its original name [8].
Med prvotno preiskavo je bila od Mechel Željezara Ltd. sprejeta zaveza pod njegovim izvirnim imenom [8].
As the investigation was initiated to review the level and form of the measures, the undertaking was also subject to this review investigation (see recitals 135 to 137).
Ker se je začela preiskava v zvezi s pregledom stopnje in oblike ukrepov, je tudi ta zaveza postala predmet te preiskave v zvezi s pregledom (glej uvodne izjave (135) do (137) spodaj).
It was first established whether Mechel Željezara Ltd’s total domestic sales of the like product were representative in comparison with its total export sales to the Community.
Najprej se je ugotavljalo, ali je skupna domača prodaja podobnega izdelka Mechel Željezare Ltd. reprezentativna v primerjavi z njeno skupno izvozno prodajo v Skupnost.
In accordance with Article 2(2) of the basic Regulation, domestic sales were considered representative since the total domestic sales volume represented at least 5 % of its total export sales volume to the Community.
V skladu s členom 2(2) osnovne uredbe se je domača prodaja štela za reprezentativno, saj je obseg skupne domače prodaje predstavljal najmanj 5 % njenega obsega skupne izvozne prodaje v Skupnost.
Subsequently, by defining the product types in accordance with the CN codes under which the product is classified, it was examined whether the domestic sales of each product type were representative.
Nato se je z opredelitvijo vrst izdelka v skladu z oznakami KN, pod katere je izdelek uvrščen, preverjalo, ali je domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka reprezentativna.
Domestic sales of a particular product type were considered sufficiently representative when the total domestic sales volume of that type during the IP represented 5 % or more of the total sales volume of the comparable product type exported to the Community.
Domača prodaja posamezne vrste izdelka se je štela za dovolj reprezentativno, ko je obseg skupne domače prodaje te vrste med OP predstavljal 5 % ali več skupnega obsega prodaje primerljive vrste izdelka, izvoženega v Skupnost.
It was found that all product types sold by the company for export to the Community had representative domestic sales.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da imajo vse vrste izdelka, ki jih podjetje prodaja v izvoz v Skupnost, reprezentativno domačo prodajo.
An examination was also made as to whether the domestic sales of each product type could be regarded as having been made in the ordinary course of trade, by establishing the proportion of profitable sales to independent customers of the type in question.
Z določitvijo razmerja med donosno prodajo zadevne vrste izdelka neodvisnim kupcem je bilo tudi preverjeno, ali se za domačo prodajo posamezne vrste izdelka lahko šteje, da je bila opravljena v običajnem poteku trgovine.
In cases where the sales volume of a product type, sold at a net sales price equal to or above the unit cost, represented more than 80 % of the total sales volume of that type, and where the weighted average price of that type was equal to or above the unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales of that product type made during the IP, irrespective of whether these sales were profitable or not.
V primerih, ko je obseg prodaje vrste izdelka, ki se je prodajal po neto ceni, enaki ali višji od stroškov na enoto, predstavljal več kot 80 % obsega skupne prodaje te vrste, in ko je bila tehtana povprečna cena te vrste enaka ali višja od stroškov na enoto, je normalna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtano povprečje cen celotne domače prodaje te vrste izdelka med OP, ne glede na donosnost te prodaje.
This was the case for two product types.
Tako je bilo v primeru dveh vrst izdelka.
In the case where the volume of profitable sales of a product type represented 80 % or less but at least 10 % of the total sales volume of that type, or where the weighted average price of such sales was below the unit cost, normal value was based on the actual domestic price, calculated as a weighted average of profitable sales of those types only.
V primerih, ko je obseg donosne prodaje neke vrste izdelka predstavljal 80 % ali manj, vendar vsaj 10 % obsega skupne prodaje te vrste, ali ko je bilo tehtano povprečje cen te prodaje nižje od stroškov na enoto, je običajna vrednost temeljila na dejanski domači ceni, izračunani kot tehtano povprečje donosnih prodaj teh vrst.
This was the case for one product type.
Tako je bilo v primeru ene vrste izdelka.
For the fourth product type, less than 10 % of the domestic sales volume was profitable during the IP.
Pri četrti vrsti izdelka je bilo med OP donosnega manj kot 10 % obsega domače prodaje.
It was therefore considered that this particular product type was sold in insufficient quantities for the domestic prices to provide an appropriate basis for the establishment of the normal value and another method had to be applied.
Zato se je štelo, da se ta izdelek ni prodajal v zadostnih količinah, da bi bile domače cene lahko primerna osnova za ugotovitev normalne vrednosti, in potrebno je bilo uporabiti drugo metodo.
In this case, constructed normal value was used, in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.
V tem primeru je bila uporabljena konstruirana normalna vrednost v skladu s členom 2(3) osnovne uredbe.
Normal value was constructed by adding to the manufacturing cost of the exported type, adjusted where necessary, a reasonable percentage for selling, general and administrative expenses (SG&A) and a reasonable margin of profit, on the basis of actual data pertaining to production and sales, in the ordinary course of trade, of the like product, by the exporting producer under investigation in accordance with the first sentence of Article 2(6) of the basic Regulation.
Normalna vrednost je bila konstruirana tako, da se je proizvodnim stroškom izvožene vrste dodal po potrebi prilagojen ustrezen odstotek za prodajne, splošne in administrativne stroške (PSA stroški) in ustrezna stopnja dobička na podlagi dejanskih podatkov o proizvodnji in prodaji v običajnem poteku trgovine s podobnim izdelkom s strani proizvajalca izvoznika iz preiskave, v skladu s prvim stavkom člena 2(6) osnovne uredbe.
The investigation showed that the export sales of Mechel Željezara Ltd were solely made directly to unrelated customers in the Community.
Preiskava je pokazala, da je Mechel Željezara Ltd. izvajala izvozno prodajo izključno neposredno nepovezanim kupcem v Skupnosti.
Therefore, the export price was established on the basis of export prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold to the first independent customer in the Community, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bila izvozna cena ugotovljena na podlagi izvoznih cen, dejansko plačanih ali plačljivih za zadevni izdelek pri prodaji prvemu neodvisnemu kupcu v Skupnosti, v skladu s členom 2(8) osnovne uredbe.
The normal value and export price were compared on an ex-works basis.
Normalna vrednost in izvozna cena sta se primerjali na osnovi vrednosti franko tovarna.
For the purpose of ensuring a fair comparison between the normal value and the export price, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting price comparability in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation.
Zaradi zagotovitve poštene primerjave med normalno vrednostjo in izvozno ceno, se je izvedlo ustrezno nadomestilo z uskladitvijo razlik, ki so vplivale na primerljivost cen v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe.
Accordingly, allowances claimed for differences in transport costs, handling, loading and ancillary costs, credit costs and commissions were granted where applicable and supported by verified evidence.
V skladu s tem so bila po potrebi odobrena nadomestila za razlike v transportnih stroških, stroških obdelave, nakladanja in dodatnih stroških, stroških kreditiranja in provizij, kar je bilo utemeljeno s preverjenimi dokazili.
In accordance with Article 2(11) of the basic Regulation, the adjusted weighted average normal value by product type was compared with the adjusted weighted average export price of each corresponding type of the product concerned.
V skladu s členom 2(11) osnovne uredbe se je prilagojena tehtana povprečna normalna vrednost za vrsto izdelka primerjala s prilagojeno tehtano povprečno izvozno ceno za vsako odgovarjajočo vrsto zadevnega izdelka.
This comparison showed the existence of dumping.
Ta primerjava je pokazala obstoj dampinga.
The dumping margin expressed as a percentage to the cif Community frontier price, duty unpaid, is as follows:
Stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek cene CIF meja Skupnosti, brez plačane dajatve, je naslednja:
This dumping margin is below the dumping margin found during the original investigation.
Ta stopnja dampinga je nižja od stopnje dampinga, ki je bila ugotovljena v prvotni preiskavi.
Since the level of cooperation was high (all exports of the product concerned from Croatia to the Community), the residual dumping margin was set at the same level as the one established for Mechel Željezara Ltd, namely 38,9 %.
Ker je bila raven sodelovanja visoka (ves izvoz zadevnega izdelka iz Hrvaške v Skupnost), je bila preostala stopnja dampinga določena na isti ravni kot stopnja, ki je bila ugotovljena za Mechel Željezara Ltd., tj. 38,9 %.
Market economy treatment (MET)
Tržnogospodarska obravnava („TGO“)
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in Ukraine, normal value is to be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which can show that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of that Regulation, i.e. that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
Na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe bo normalna vrednost pri protidampinških preiskavah v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz Ukrajine določena v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 navedenega člena za tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, ki lahko izkažejo, da izpolnjujejo pogoje, določene v členu 2(7)(c) navedene uredbe, tj., kadar se izkaže, da pogoji tržnega gospodarstva prevladujejo v smislu proizvodnje in prodaje podobnega izdelka.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, the criteria for MET are set out in summarised form below:
Kratek povzetek kriterijev TGO za lažjo presojo:
business decisions and costs are made in response to market signals, and without significant State interference;
poslovne odločitve in stroški se sprejemajo kot odziv na tržne pogoje in brez večjega vmešavanja države;
firms have one clear set of accounting records which are independently audited in line with international accounting standards (IAS) and are applied for all purposes;
podjetja imajo enotne in jasne računovodske evidence, ki se neodvisno preverjajo v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi („IAS“), in se uporabljajo v vse namene;
there are no significant distortions carried over from former non-market economy system;
ni bistvenih izkrivljanj, ki se prenašajo še iz predhodnega sistema netržnega gospodarstva;
currency exchanges are carried out at market rate.
menjave valut se izvajajo po tržnem tečaju.
Claims for MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation were received from two groups of companies:
Zahtevki za TGO na podlagi člena 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe so bili prejeti od dveh skupin podjetij:
the producing company Dnipropetrovsk Tube Works (DTW) and its related trader in Ukraine, Time Ltd.;
proizvodnega podjetja Dnipropetrovsk Tube Works (DTW) in njegovega povezanega trgovca v Ukrajini, Time Ltd.;
the related producing companies OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) and CJSC Nikopolsky seamless tubes plant ‘Nikotube’ and their related trader in Ukraine, SGIP Interpipe.
povezanih proizvodnih podjetij OJSC Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant (NTRP) in CJSC Nikopolsky seamless tubes plant „Nikotube“ ter njihovega povezanega trgovca v Ukrajini, SGIP Interpipe.
The claims were analysed on the basis of the five criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Zahtevki so bili analizirani na podlagi petih kriterijev, določenih v členu 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In the case of the first group, the accounts of the producing company were found to be unreliable due to material inaccuracies and to the misapplication of accounting policies referred to in IAS 1.
Pri prvi skupini so se računi proizvodnega podjetja izkazali za nezanesljive zaradi vsebinskih nepravilnosti in napačne uporabe računovodskih politik iz IAS 1.
It was also found that the same company was in an insolvent situation and belonged to a category of companies which, by bankruptcy law provision, enjoyed a special status which denied legal certainty for the operation of such companies.
Prav tako je bilo ugotovljeno, da je to podjetje nesolventno in da pripada kategoriji podjetij, ki na podlagi stečajnih predpisov uživajo poseben položaj, kar ni omogočalo pravne varnosti pri delovanju teh podjetij.
It was therefore determined that this group of companies did not meet the second and fourth criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da ta skupina podjetij ne izpolnjuje drugega in četrtega kriterija iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
In the case of the second group, it was found that neither producing company had one clear set of basic accounting records which were independently audited in line with international accounting standards and which were applied for all purposes as both companies had several sets of basic accounting records used for different purposes.
Pri drugi skupini je bilo ugotovljeno, da nobeno od proizvodnih podjetij nima enotnih in jasnih osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, neodvisno preverjenih v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi, ki se uporabljajo v vse namene, saj sta imeli obe podjetji več osnovnih računovodskih evidenc, ki sta jih uporabljali za različne namene.
Additionally, significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system in the form of interest free loans not pursued by the State, debt forgiveness of considerable amounts and tax indebtedness were found to affect the cost structure and the financial situation of the group.
Poleg tega so bila iz predhodnega sistema netržnega gospodarstva prenesena bistvena izkrivljanja v obliki brezobrestnih posojil, odpustitve dolga znatnih zneskov ter oprostitve davkov, kar je vplivalo na strukturo stroškov in finančno stanje podjetij iz te skupine.
It was therefore determined that this group of companies did not meet the second and third criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo ugotovljeno, da ta skupina podjetij ne izpolnjuje drugega in tretjega kriterija člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
As a company or a group of companies has to fulfil all of the five criteria of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation in order to have Market Economy Treatment granted to them and this not being the case, both groups of companies were refused MET.
Ker mora podjetje ali skupina podjetij za odobritev tržnogospodarske obravnave izpolnjevati vseh pet kriterijev iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, in ker v tem primeru temu ni tako, se obema skupinama podjetij zavrne TGO.
Both groups of companies argued that the Commission had made a determination regarding its application for MET beyond the three month period mentioned under Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, and that this determination was therefore not valid.
Obe skupini podjetij sta trdili, da je Komisija o uporabi TGO odločila po preteku trimesečnega roka iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe in zato ta odločitev ni veljavna.
In this respect it is noted that the Commission granted several extensions to the deadline to the Ukrainian exporting producers concerned which had major difficulties in filling in the MET claim forms within the deadline set in the notice of initiation.
V tem smislu je treba poudariti, da je Komisija zadevnim ukrajinskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, ki so imeli velike težave pri izpolnitvi obrazcev za zahtevek TGO, v roku, določenem v obvestilu o začetku postopka, odobrila več podaljšanj roka.
It is also noted that the MET claims received were deficient and required a number of substantial clarifications and additional information which delayed the investigation.
Prav tako je treba poudariti, da so bili prejeti zahtevki za TGO pomanjkljivi in je bilo potrebnih veliko vsebinskih razjasnitev in dodatnih informacij, kar je povzročilo zamudo v preiskavi.
Finally, the complexity of a number of issues such as the companies' structures and sales channels as well as the serious problems with regard to the companies' accounts prolonged the analysis.
V končni fazi pa so analizo podaljšali tudi zapletenost številnih vprašanj, kot so strukture podjetij in prodajni kanali, kakor tudi resni problemi v zvezi z računi podjetij.
In view of this, it was not possible to make a determination regarding the MET claims received within three months from the initiation.
Glede na to ni bilo mogoče odločiti o zahtevkih za TGO v trimesečnem roku od začetka postopka.
In this respect it is noted that the non-respect of such deadline does not entail any apparent legal consequences as companies have equally been granted the opportunity to comment.
V zvezi s tem je treba poudariti, da neupoštevanje tega roka, nima očitnih pravnih posledic, saj so vsa podjetja dobila enako priložnost za dajanje pripomb.
Furthermore, it is noted that the abovementioned groups of companies did not claim any negative impact due to the longer period needed for the MET determination.
Poleg tega se zgoraj navedene skupine podjetij niso sklicevale na negativne posledice zaradi daljšega obdobja, potrebnega za določitev TGO.
Given the above, it is concluded that a valid determination with regard to MET can be made even after the three month period and the claims of the groups of companies concerned were therefore rejected.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se zaključi, da se lahko veljavno določi TGO tudi po preteku trimesečnega obodbja, zato so bili zahtevki skupin zadevnih podjetij zavrnjeni.
The Commission findings were further contested by both groups of companies; however, no arguments were brought forward to alter the MET determination.
Obe skupini podjetij sta še naprej spodbijali zaključke Komisije, vendar pa nista predstavili nobenih argumentov, ki bi spremenili določitev o TGO.
The Community industry was given the opportunity to comment and did not oppose the above findings.
Industrija Skupnosti je imela možnost dati pripombe in ni nasprotovala zgornjim ugotovitvam.
Pursuant to Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation, a country-wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that their export prices and quantities as well as the conditions and the terms of sales are freely determined, that exchange rates are carried out at market rates, and that any State interference is not such as to permit circumvention of measures if exporters are given different rates of duty.
Na podlagi člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe se dajatev za celo državo, če je, določi za države, ki sodijo pod člen 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe, razen ko podjetja lahko izkažejo, da so njihove izvozne cene in količine ter pogoji prodaje prosto določeni, da se menjalni tečaji izvajajo po tržnem tečaju, in da morebitno vmešavanje države ni take narave, da bi omogočalo izogibanje ukrepom, če so izvoznikom določene druge stopnje dajatve.
The same Ukrainian exporting producers, which did not fulfil the MET criteria, alternatively requested individual treatment (IT) in accordance with Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
Isti ukrajinski proizvajalci izvozniki, ki niso izpolnili kriterijev za TGO, so alternativno zahtevali individualno obravnavo („IO“) v skladu s členom 9(5) osnovne uredbe.
The Commission consequently sought and verified all information deemed necessary for the purposes of determining whether the two groups of companies qualified for IT.
Komisija je poiskala in preverila vse informacije, potrebne za ugotovitev, ali skupini podjetij izpolnjujeta pogoje za IO.
It was found that the conditions as set in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation were fulfilled by both groups of companies and it was therefore considered justified to grant IT to both groups of companies.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da obe skupini podjetij izpolnjujeta pogoje, določene v členu 9(5) osnovne uredbe in sta zato upravičeni do odobritve IO.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for the exporting producers that were not granted MET has to be established on the basis of the prices or constructed value in an appropriate analogue country for products comparable to those exported by the Ukrainian exporting producers to the Community.
Na podlagi člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se mora normalna vrednost za proizvajalce izvoznike, katerim TGO ni bila odobrena, določiti na osnovi cen ali konstruirane vrednosti v ustrezni primerljivi državi za izdelke, primerljive s tistimi, ki jih ukrajinski proizvajalci izvozniki izvažajo v Skupnost.
Croatia was the analogue country used in the original investigation.
V prvotni preiskavi je bila primerljiva država Hrvaška.
In the notice of initiation, Croatia was again envisaged as the analogue country for the purpose of establishing normal value for Ukraine.
V obvestilu o začetku postopka je bila Hrvaška ponovno predvidena kot primerljiva država za namene določitve normalne vrednosti za Ukrajino.
As none of the interested parties objected to this choice, it was decided to use Croatia as an analogue country in the framework also of this investigation.
Ker nobena od zainteresiranih strank tej izbiri ni nasprotovala, je bila Hrvaška določena kot primerljiva država tudi v okviru te preiskave.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, normal value for Ukraine was established on the basis of verified information received from the sole producer in the analogue country, i.e. on the basis of all prices paid or payable on the domestic market of Croatia for comparable product types or constructed value in Croatia for comparable product types.
Na podlagi člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe se je normalna vrednost za Ukrajino določila na podlagi preverjenih informacij, prejetih od edinega proizvajalca v primerljivi državi, tj. na podlagi cen, plačanih ali plačljivih na domačem trgu Hrvaške za primerljive vrste izdelkov, ali konstruirane vrednosti na Hrvaškem za primerljive vrste izdelkov.
In determining normal value for Ukraine, the same methodology as that described at recitals 15 to 19 was applied.
Pri določitvi normalne vrednosti za Ukrajino je bila uporabljena enaka metodologija, kot je opisana v uvodnih izjavah (15) do (19).
It was established that for the product type corresponding to CN code 73043199 (cold-drawn or cold-rolled tubes), there was no domestic production in Croatia.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da za vrsto izdelka, ki ustreza oznaki KN 73043199 (hladno vlečene ali hladno oblikovane cevi), na Hrvaškem ni domače proizvodnje.
Overall, these exports accounted for only 6,2 % of the Ukrainian exports of the product concerned to the Community.
V celoti je ta izvoz predstavljal samo 6,2 % ukrajinskega izvoza zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost.