natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
One users’/importers’ organisation (the European Fluoropolymer Fair Trade Association or EFFTA) and one exporters’ association objected to the provisional conclusions that all granular PTFE constitute a single product.
Ena organizacija uporabnikov/uvoznikov, Evropsko združenje za pravično trgovino s fluorpolimerom (European Fluoropolymer Fair Trade Association ali „EFFTA“), in eno združenje izvoznikov sta ugovarjala začasnim sklepom, da se vsi granulirani politetrafluoretileni (PTFE) štejejo za en izdelek.
It was argued that granular PTFE can be divided into three product groups based on quality differences (high/medium/low).
Trdili so, da se politetrafluoretilen (PTFE) lahko razdeli v tri skupine izdelkov na podlagi razlik v kakovosti (visoka/srednja/nizka).
It was claimed that each product group would be used in different applications not competing with one another in the same market.
Vsaka skupina izdelkov naj bi se uporabljala za različna področja uporabe, ki si ne konkurirajo na istem trgu.
Despite quality differences, all granular PTFE types were found to have the same basic physical, technical and chemical characteristics, which were neither contested by EFFTA nor by the exporters’ association.
Kljub razlikam v kakovosti je bilo za vse vrste granuliranega PTFE ugotovljeno, da imajo enake osnovne fizikalne, tehnične in kemijske lastnosti, čemur nista ugovarjali ne EFFTA ne združenje izvoznikov.
As far as granular PTFE applications are concerned, it was found that granular PTFE of a lower quality could be used after post-treatment in almost all applications, including some high-end applications (e.g. billets for skiving).
Kar zadeva področje uporabe granuliranega PTFE, je bilo ugotovljeno, da se granulirani PTFE nižje kakovosti lahko uporablja po nadaljnji obdelavi na skoraj vseh področjih uporabe, vključno z nekaterimi vrhunskimi (npr. naprava za struženje).
In general, as also admitted by EFFTA, there was an overlapping in applications for various types and qualities of granular PTFE and no clear dividing line could thus be established.
Kakor je priznalo tudi združenje EFFTA, se področja uporabe za različne vrste in količine granuliranega PTFE prekrivajo in jih zato ni mogoče jasno ločiti.
It was therefore concluded that, notwithstanding the different possible product types due to different form, average particle size, thermo treatment or co-monomer content, and despite quality differences, all of them constituted one single product for the purpose of this proceeding because all types and qualities had the same physical characteristics and essentially the same basic end-uses.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da kljub različnim možnim vrstam izdelka, ki se razlikujejo glede na njihove različne oblike, povprečne velikosti delcev, toplotno obdelavo ali vsebnost komonomerov in kljub razlikam v kakovosti med njimi, vsi ti izdelki za namene tega postopka predstavljajo en sam izdelek, saj imajo vse vrste in kakovostni razredi izdelkov enake fizikalne lastnosti in v bistvu enako osnovno končno uporabo.
In recitals 13, 145 and 147 of the provisional Regulation it was erroneously mentioned that granular PTFE would also be contained in anoraks and in the inner shield of cables and that it is used in textile and biomedical applications as well as isolation agents.
V uvodnih izjavah (13), (145) in (147) začasne uredbe je bilo napačno navedeno, da granulirani PTFE vsebujejo tudi anoraki in notranje zaščite kablov in da se uporablja v tekstilni in biomedicinski industriji ter kot izolator.
The definitive findings revealed that granular PTFE is not used in any of the aforementioned applications.
Dokončne ugotovitve so razkrile, da se granulirani PTFE ne uporablja na nobenem od navedenih področij uporabe.
Taking into account the abovementioned considerations, the product definition and the provisional findings set out in recital 14 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega se potrdijo opredelitev izdelka in začasne ugotovitve, določeni v uvodni izjavi (14) začasne uredbe.
A number of importers and users reiterated that the granular PTFE produced and sold in the Community market could not be likened to the products imported from the PRC and Russia.
Številni uvozniki in uporabniki so ponovno poudarili, da granulirani PTFE, proizveden in prodan na trgu Skupnosti, ni podoben izdelkom, uvoženim iz LRK in Rusije.
It was argued that the products imported from the countries subject of the present investigation, would be of a much lower quality than the product produced by the Community industry and would therefore be sold on different markets, thus not competing with each other.
Trdili so, da so izdelki, uvoženi iz držav, vključenih v sedanjo preiskavo, nižje kakovosti kot izdelki, ki jih je proizvedla industrija Skupnosti in naj bi se zato prodajali na različnih trgih, ne da bi si konkurirali.
These parties did not, however, come forward with new information or evidence in this matter.
Te stranke pa niso predložile novih informacij ali dokazov v zvezi s to zadevo.
It should first be noted that, as outlined in recital 16 of the provisional Regulation, the investigation has shown that the Community industry also produced and sold scrap or ‘off-spec’ material during the investigation period (IP) to the same customers as the exporting producers concerned.
Najprej je treba opozoriti, da je bilo s preiskavo ugotovljeno, kakor je bilo poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi (16) začasne uredbe, da je industrija Skupnosti med obdobjem preiskave (OP) proizvajala in prodajala tudi ostanke PTFE ali „neustrezni PTFE“ istim strankam kot zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik.
On the other hand, the investigation revealed that at least the Russian exporting producers sold a quality of granular PTFE to the Community, which was, even without post-treatment, comparable to the high quality Community grades, albeit in very limited quantities.
Po drugi strani je preiskava razkrila, da so vsaj ruski proizvajalci izvozniki v Skupnost gotovo prodajali takšne kakovostne razrede granuliranega PTFE, ki so bili, čeprav samo v zelo omejenih količinah, celo brez nadaljnje obdelave primerljivi z visoko kakovostnimi razredi Skupnosti.
Furthermore, even low quality granular PTFE imported from the countries concerned could, after post-treatment, be used in a similar range of applications as the product produced and sold in the Community market by the Community industry.
Poleg tega bi se lahko celo nizko kakovostni granulirani PTFE, uvožen iz zadevnih držav, po nadaljnji obdelavi uporabljal na podobnih področjih uporabe kot izdelek, ki ga je industrija Skupnosti proizvedla in prodala na trgu Skupnosti.
Considering the above, it was concluded that the product concerned and the granular PTFE produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry share the same physical and technical characteristics and the same basic end-uses.
Ob upoštevanju zgoraj navedenega je bilo zaključeno, da imata zadevni izdelek in granulirani PTFE, ki ju je industrija Skupnosti proizvedla in prodala v Skupnosti, enake fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti in enako osnovno končno uporabo.
They were therefore considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato sta se obravnavala kot podobna izdelka v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
In the absence of any other comments in this regard, the provisional conclusions set out in recital 15 of the provisional Regulation are hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb v zvezi s tem ni bilo, se potrdijo začasne ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave (15) začasne Uredbe.
People’s Republic of China
LRK
Following the imposition of provisional measures, the three Chinese cooperating exporting producers claimed that they should have been granted MET and reiterated the arguments they had previously submitted.
Po uvedbi začasnih ukrepov so trije kitajski sodelujoči proizvajalci izvozniki trdili, da bi jim morala biti odobrena TGO, in ponovno poudarili utemeljitve, ki so jih predložili prej.
These comments were already addressed in recitals 33 to 39 of the provisional Regulation.
Na te pripombe je bilo že odgovorjeno v uvodnih izjavah (33) do (39) začasne uredbe.
Consequently, it was considered that the decision to reject MET to the three companies should be maintained.
Zato se je štelo, da odločitev o zavrnitvi TGO tem trem družbam velja še naprej.
Two exporting producers argued that they should be granted IT.
Dva proizvajalca izvoznika sta trdila, da bi jima morala biti odobrena IO.
One exporter submitted that the Commission was not entitled to reject IT on the basis of possible State interference, since Article 9(5) requires that only export prices and quantities are freely determined.
En izvoznik je trdil, da Komisija ne more zavrniti IO na podlagi možnega vmešavanja države, saj člen 9(5) zahteva le, da se izvozne cene in količine prosto določijo.
In this respect, it should be noted that a company can, by definition, not be considered to freely determine its export prices and quantities and conditions and terms of sale, if the latter can be influenced by the State.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da družba po definiciji ne more prosto določiti svojih izvoznih cen in količin ter prodajnih pogojev, če lahko na slednje vpliva država.
Therefore, the conditions of Article 9(5)(b) of the basic Regulation cannot be considered to be met by companies that are not able to demonstrate that they are not subject to possible State interference.
Zato se ne more pričakovati, da bodo družbe, ki ne morejo dokazati, da niso predmet možnega vpliva države, izpolnjevale pogoje iz člena 9(5)(b) osnovne uredbe.
The exporting producer concerned has not provided any evidence showing that the State could neither influence its decisions with regard to export prices and quantities, and conditions and terms of sale, nor that possible State interference was not such as to permit circumvention of the measures.
Zadevni proizvajalec izvoznik ni predložil nobenega dokaza, da država ne more vplivati na njegove odločitve v zvezi z izvoznimi cenami in količinami ter pogoji prodaje ali da možen vpliv države ni takšen, da bi dovoljeval izogibanje ukrepom.
This is mainly due to the fact that, as outlined in recital 33 of the provisional Regulation, the relationship of this company to the State-owned shareholder was unclear and the Articles of Association were considered unreliable.
Vzrok temu je predvsem dejstvo, da je bil odnos te družbe do državnega delničarja nejasen in da se je statut štel za nezanesljivega, kot je poudarjeno v uvodni izjavi (33) začasne uredbe.
Therefore, the fact that such State interference would allegedly not have occurred in the past, would, even if it were demonstrated, not offer any guarantee that it will not take place in future, in particular should an individual duty rate be attributed to this company.
Zato dejstvo, da takšnega vmešavanja države v preteklosti ni bilo, ne bi jamčilo, da ga ne bo v prihodnosti, zlasti, če bi se tej družbi odobrila individualna stopnja dajatve.
Another exporter argued that its shareholding structure, in particular the fact that it is partly State-owned, did not as such allow the conclusion that the State interfered in the setting of prices and other sales terms.
Drugi izvoznik je trdil, da njegova delniška struktura, zlasti dejstvo, da ga ima delno v lasti država, ni omogočala sklepa, da se je država vmešavala v določanje cen ali druge prodajne pogoje.
First of all, the company did not substantiate its claim with any evidence.
Najprej, družba te trditve ni utemeljila z nobenim dokazom.
On the other hand, it was found that the State owned the majority of the company’s capital and furthermore, nominated the General Manager and the majority of the Board of Directors of this company.
Po drugi strani je bilo ugotovljeno, da je imela država v lasti večino kapitala družbe in je poleg tega imenovala generalnega direktorja in večino sveta direktorjev te družbe.
Therefore, it was concluded that Article 9(5)(c) is not fulfilled and IT should therefore be rejected.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da zahteve člena 9(5)(c) niso izpolnjene in je treba IO zavrniti.
In the absence of any other comments, the findings of the provisional Regulation, as set out in recital 45 of that Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
Ker drugih pripomb ni bilo, se potrdijo ugotovitve začasne uredbe, kakor so določene v uvodni izjavi (45) začasne uredbe.
All three Chinese cooperating exporting producers disagreed with the choice of the United States of America (USA) and claimed that Russia should have been chosen as the analogue country instead.
Vsi trije kitajski sodelujoči izvozniki se z izbiro ZDA niso strinjali in so trdili, da bi morala biti kot primerljiva država izbrana Rusija.
Two of them reiterated the comments made before the imposition of provisional measures, which have already been addressed in recitals 47 to 54 of the provisional Regulation.
Dva sta ponovno poudarila pripombe pred uvedbo začasnih ukrepov, ki so že bili obravnavani v uvodnih izjavah (47) do (54) začasne uredbe.
In the absence of any new information and evidence, the claims of these exporting producers had to be rejected.
Ker novih informacij in dokazov ni bilo, so bili zahtevki teh proizvajalcev izvoznikov zavrnjeni.
Another Chinese exporting producer argued that, due to the lower economic development of the PRC, production factors, such as labour costs and overhead expenses, would be lower and therefore not comparable to the USA.
Drugi kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da so zaradi nižje stopnje gospodarske razvitosti LRK proizvodni dejavniki, kot stroški dela in splošni upravni stroški, nižji in zato neprimerljivi z ZDA.
Nevertheless, as mentioned in recital 54 of the provisional Regulation, the different level of overall economic development is, in itself, not a relevant factor when selecting an analogue country.
Kljub temu različna stopnja splošnega gospodarskega razvoja sama na sebi ni ustrezen dejavnik za izbiro primerljive države, kot je omenjeno v uvodni izjavi (54) začasne uredbe.
This company also alleged that as a consequence of the lower economic development in China, public services such as water, power and gas supply would be less expensive than in the USA.
Ta družba je prav tako trdila, da so zaradi nižje stopnje gospodarske razvitosti na Kitajskem javne storitve, kot so dobava vode, elektrike in plina, cenejše kot v ZDA.
In this regard, it must be noted that it is precisely the aim of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation that an analogue country is selected to determine the normal value on the basis of prices and costs, unbiased by non-market economy conditions.
Glede tega je treba opozoriti, da je cilj člena 2(7)(a) osnovne uredbe prav ta, da je primerljiva država izbrana za določitev normalne vrednosti na podlagi cen in stroškov, na katere pogoji netržnega gospodarstva ne vplivajo.
Thus, a simple comparison of prices in the non-market economy country or in the country with an economy in transition with those in the analogue country is as such not meaningful.
Zato samo primerjava cen v državi brez tržnega gospodarstva ali v državi z gospodarstvom v tranziciji s tistimi v primerljivi državi sama na sebi ni smiselna.
In any event, no information was submitted which would have substantiated the alleged differences and allowed a quantification, or which would have demonstrated that this exporting producer benefited from any natural comparative advantage.
Predložene niso bile nobene informacije, ki bi utemeljile domnevne razlike in omogočile količinsko ovrednotenje ali ki bi dokazale, da je imel ta proizvajalec izvoznik koristi od kakršne koli naravne komparativne prednosti.
Finally, this exporting producer also claimed that, due to a simpler production process, the equipment, as well as the related investments and depreciation rates would be significantly different.
Nazadnje je ta proizvajalec izvoznik trdil tudi, da so zaradi enostavnejšega proizvodnega postopka oprema in s tem povezane naložbe in amortizacijske stopnje precej različne.
However, the exporter did not submit any information showing that its production process was indeed simpler than that used by the USA producers or which would allow the Commission services to quantify the effect of such alleged differences.
Vendar izvoznik ni predložil nobenih informacij, ki bi dokazale, da je bil njegov proizvodni postopek dejansko enostavnejši kot postopek proizvajalcev ZDA ali takšen, da bi službam Komisije omogočal, da količinsko ovrednotijo učinek takšnih domnevnih razlik.
This exporter also argued that the USA and the Chinese granular PTFE have a different quality which would result in different applications and that the choice of the USA as analogue country was therefore not appropriate.
Ta izvoznik je prav tako trdil, da sta granulirani PTFE iz ZDA in Kitajske različne kakovosti, kar pomeni različna področja uporabe in zato izbira ZDA kot primerljive države ni bila ustrezna.
In this regard it is noted that, as explained in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation, an adjustment was made for differences of quality, in particular contamination, the level of which the Chinese exporting producer did not contest.
V zvezi s tem je treba opomniti, da je bila, kot je razloženo v uvodni izjavi (53), glede razlik v kakovosti določena uskladitev, zlasti glede ravni nečistoč, kateri kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik ni ugovarjal.
This argument was therefore also rejected.
Tudi ta utemeljitev je bila zato zavrnjena.
In the absence of any other comments, the findings set out in recitals 47 to 54 of the provisional Regulation regarding the choice of the USA as an appropriate analogue country are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobene druge pripombe, se ugotovitve iz uvodnih izjav (47) do (54) začasne uredbe v zvezi z izbiro ZDA kot ustrezne primerljive države, potrdijo.
Determination of normal value for Chinese exporting producers not granted MET
Določitev normalne vrednosti za kitajske proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jim TGO ni bila odobrena
One Chinese exporting producer argued that the adjustment for quality differences described in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation was insufficient and that normal value should have been adjusted to the same extent as the Community industry price when calculating undercutting and underselling margins, as explained in recital 98 of the same Regulation.
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da je bila uskladitev razlik v kakovosti, opisana v uvodni izjavi (53) začasne uredbe, nezadostna in da bi morala biti pri izračunu stopenj nelojalnega nižanja cen in cenejše prodaje normalna vrednost usklajena do iste mere kot cena industrije Skupnosti, kakor je razloženo v uvodni izjavi (98) iste uredbe.
It should be noted that while the adjustment to the normal value is designed to capture differences between the like product sold on the market of the analogue country and the product concerned, the adjustment made in the injury analysis takes into consideration differences between the latter and the like product sold in the Community.
Opomniti je treba, da, medtem ko je cilj uskladitve normalne vrednosti upoštevati razlike med podobnim izdelkom, ki se prodaja na trgu primerljive države, in zadevnim izdelkom, uskladitev pri analizi škode upošteva razlike med zadevnim in podobnim izdelkom, ki se prodaja v Skupnosti.
Although the like product sold in the analogue country and the one sold in the Community market may be of a similar quality and may have similar characteristics, differences in the product concerned are not necessarily identical.
Čeprav sta lahko podobni izdelek, ki se prodaja v primerljivi državi, in izdelek, ki se prodaja na trgu Skupnosti, podobne kakovosti in imata podobne lastnosti, se lahko na drugačen način razlikujeta od zadevnega izdelka.
Consequently, the adjustments were made on their own merits and on the basis of the information and evidence collected during the investigation.
Zato je bila uskladitev opravljena ločeno ter na podlagi informacij in dokazov, zbranih med preiskavo.
The exporting producer did not submit any evidence showing that the methodology used by the Commission in its provisional determinations was unreasonable and that indeed, differences between the product concerned and the like product produced and sold in the Community on the one hand and in the analogue country on the other hand would be identical, nor was there any other information or evidence available suggesting that the adjustments should be identical.
Proizvajalec izvoznik ni predložil nobenih dokazov, da je bila metodologija, ki jo je uporabljala Komisija pri svojih začasnih določitvah, neutemeljena in da so bile razlike med zadevnim izdelkom in podobnim izdelkom, proizvedenim in prodanim v Skupnosti na eni strani in v primerljivi državi na drugi strani, enake; prav tako ni bilo na voljo nobenih informacij ali dokazov, da bi morala biti uskladitev enaka.
Consequently, the claim had to be rejected and the findings in recital 53 of the provisional Regulation as regards the determination of normal value for exporting producers not granted MET are hereby confirmed.
Zato je bilo treba ta zahtevek zavrniti in potrditi ugotovitve iz uvodne izjave (53) začasne uredbe v zvezi z določitvijo normalne vrednosti za proizvajalce izvoznike, ki jim TGO ni bila odobrena.
In the absence of any comments by the interested parties, the methodology set out in recital 59 of the provisional Regulation is hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobenih novih pripomb zainteresiranih strank, se potrdi metodologija, določena v uvodni izjavi (59) začasne uredbe.
One Chinese exporting producer argued that the adjustment for physical differences outlined in recital 62 of the provisional Regulation would not properly reflect the actual difference in production costs and the adjustment made should therefore be revised appropriately.
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik je trdil, da uskladitev fizičnih razlik iz uvodne izjave (62) začasne uredbe ne kaže ustrezno dejanske razlike v proizvodnih stroških in da bi bilo zato treba uskladitev ustrezno preveriti.
It should be noted that the adjustment made for the determination of the provisional dumping margin was based on a reasonable estimate of the difference in market value in the USA, in accordance with Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation.
Treba je opomniti, da je uskladitev za določitev začasne stopnje dampinga temeljila na razumni oceni razlike v tržni vrednosti v ZDA v skladu s členom 2(10)(a) osnovne uredbe.
It was considered that this methodology was the most accurate in order to determine the effect of the difference in price and price comparability.
Štelo se je, da je ta metodologija najbolj natančna pri določitvi učinka razlike na ceno in primerljivost cen.
The Chinese exporting producer did not quantify its claim, nor did it submit any information or evidence that the methodology set out by Article 2(10)(a) of the basic Regulation would not be adequate to take the physical difference into account.
Kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik ni niti količinsko ovrednotil svojega zahtevka niti ni predložil kakršnih koli informacij ali dokazov, da je metodologija, določena v členu 2(10)(a) osnovne uredbe, neprimerna za upoštevanje fizikalne razlike.
On this basis, the claim had to be rejected.
Na tej podlagi je bilo treba ta zahtevek zavrniti.
In the absence of any other comments, the findings on comparison, as set out in recitals 60 to 64 of the provisional Regulation, are hereby confirmed.
Ker ni bilo nobene druge pripombe, se ugotovitve glede primerjave iz uvodnih izjav (60) do (64) začasne uredbe potrdijo.
Application of the provisions of Article 18 of the basic Regulation
Uporaba določb iz člena 18 osnovne uredbe
As mentioned in recitals 69 to 82 of the provisional Regulation, the determination of dumping at provisional stage was based on the facts available for both exporting producers investigated in Russia.
Kakor je bilo navedeno v uvodnih izjavah (69) do (82) začasne uredbe, je določitev dampinga v začasni fazi temeljila na dejstvih, razpoložljivih obema preiskovanima proizvajalcema izvoznikoma v Rusiji.