natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Questionnaire replies were received from six Chinese exporting producers, from the sole Ukrainian exporting producer, from four Community producers, from two importers not related to the exporting producers and from one trader.
Izpolnjene vprašalnike je predložilo šest kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, edini ukrajinski proizvajalec izvoznik, štirje proizvajalci Skupnosti, dva uvoznika, ki nista povezana s proizvajalci izvozniki, in en trgovec.
In addition, one importer submitted comments without replying to the questionnaire.
Poleg tega je en uvoznik predložil pripombe, vprašalnika pa ni izpolnil.
Certain information was also received from 17 Community producers of the like product (15 of which supported the complaint, one expressed a neutral position and one opposed) and three companies only importing the product concerned.
17 proizvajalcev podobnega izdelka v Skupnosti (15 od teh je pritožbo podprlo, en se glede pritožbe ni opredelil, en pa ji je nasprotoval) in tri družbe, ki samo uvažajo zadevni izdelek, so prav tako predložili nekatere informacije.
The Commission sought and verified all the information it deemed necessary for the purpose of MET and for a provisional determination of dumping, resulting injury and Community interest.
Komisija je poiskala in preverila vse informacije, ki so bile po njenem mnenju potrebne za TGO ter začasno ugotovitev dampinga, škode, ki je zaradi tega nastala, in interesa Skupnosti.
Verification visits were carried out as follows:
Preveritveni obiski so bili opravljeni pri:
Community producers
proizvajalcih Skupnosti:
Verification visits were carried out at the premises of the four Community producers.
Preveritveni obiski so bili opravljeni v prostorih štirih proizvajalcev Skupnosti.
These producers requested that their identities be kept confidential on the basis of the provisions of Article 19 of the basic Regulation.
Ti proizvajalci so zahtevali, da se na podlagi določb člena 19 osnovne uredbe njihova identiteta ne razkrije.
They claimed that the disclosure of their identity could lead to a risk of significant adverse effects.
Trdili so, da bi razkritje njihove identitete lahko imelo znaten škodljiv vpliv.
Indeed, certain complainant Community producers supply customers in the Community that also source their products from the PRC and Ukraine, thus benefiting directly from these imports.
Dejansko nekateri proizvajalci Skupnosti pritožniki izdelke dobavljajo strankam v Skupnosti, ki izdelke nabavljajo tudi iz LRK in Ukrajine, pri čemer imajo neposredne koristi od tega uvoza.
Those complainants argued that they were therefore in a particularly sensitive position since they had good reasons to believe that some of their suppliers and customers would not be satisfied with their lodging or supporting a complaint against alleged injurious dumping and would react to such action.
Navedeni pritožniki so trdili, da so zato v posebej občutljivem položaju, saj so upravičeno prepričani, da nekateri njihovi dobavitelji in stranke ne bi bili zadovoljni, če bi vložili ali podprli pritožbo glede domnevnega škodljivega dampinga, in bi se na tak ukrep odzvali.
Indeed, they alleged that they risk retaliation from these suppliers and customers, including the possible termination of their business relationship.
Dejansko so trdili, da obstaja nevarnost povračilnih ukrepov s strani teh dobaviteljev in strank, vključno z možnostjo prekinitve njihovih poslovnih odnosov.
The request was granted as it was sufficiently substantiated.
Zahtevek je bil dovolj utemeljen, zato je bil odobren.
Exporting producers in the PRC
proizvajalcih izvoznikih v LRK:
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan and its related company Wire King International Ltd, Hong Kong,
Foshan Shunde Yongjian Housewares and Hardware Co. Ltd, Foshan, in njegova povezana družba Wire King International Ltd, Hongkong,
Exporting producer in Ukraine
proizvajalcu izvozniku v Ukrajini:
Eurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir and its related company Eurogold Service Zumbühl & Co., Zug in Switzerland.
Eurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir in njegova povezana družba Eurogold Service Zumbühl & Co., Zug v Švici.
In the light of the need to establish a normal value for the exporting producers in the PRC and Ukraine to which MET might not be granted, a verification to establish normal value on the basis of data from an analogue country took place at the premises of the following company:
Ob upoštevanju potrebe, da se določi normalna vrednost za proizvajalce izvoznike v LRK in Ukrajini, ki jim TGO morda ne bo odobren, je bil preveritveni obisk za določitev normalne vrednosti na podlagi podatkov iz primerljive države opravljen v prostorih naslednje družbe:
Gİpaș elektronik sanayi ithalat ihracaat dahili ticaret ve pazarlama anonim șirketi sanayi A.Ș., Istanbul, Turkey.
Gİpaș elektronik sanayi ithalat ihracaat dahili ticaret ve pazarlama anonim șirketi sanayi A.Ș., Istanbul, Turčija.
The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 (the investigation period or IP).
Preiskava dampinga in škode je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2005 do 31. decembra 2005 („obdobje preiskave“ ali „OP“).
The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2002 to the end of the IP (the period considered).
Proučitev gibanj, pomembnih za oceno škode, je zajela obdobje od 1. januarja 2002 do konca OP („obravnavano obdobje“).
The product concerned is ironing boards, whether or not free-standing, with or without a steam soaking and/or heating top and/or blowing top, including sleeve boards, and essential parts thereof, i.e. the legs, the top and the iron rest originating in the People's Republic of China and Ukraine (the product concerned), normally declared within CN codes ex39249090, ex44219098, ex73239390, ex73239991, ex73239999, ex85167970 and ex85169000.
Zadevni izdelek so likalne deske, prostostoječe ali ne, s sistemom za vsrkavanje odvečne pare in/ali ogrevalnim sistemom in/ali sistemom za pihanje zraka ali brez navedenih sistemov, vključno z rokavniki in njihovimi bistvenimi deli, tj. podnožjem, prevleko in odlagalno površino za likalnik, s poreklom iz Ljudske republike Kitajske in Ukrajine (zadevni izdelek), običajno uvrščene pod oznake KN ex39249090, ex44219098, ex73239390, ex73239991, ex73239999, ex85167970 in ex85169000.
There are different types of ironing boards and their essential parts depending mainly on their construction and size, their construction material and accessories.
Obstajajo različne vrste likalnih desk in njihovih bistvenih delov, kar je odvisno predvsem od njihove izdelave in velikosti, materiala, uporabljenega pri izdelavi, in opreme.
However, all different types have the same basic physical characteristics and uses.
Vendar imajo vse različne vrste enake osnovne fizikalne lastnosti in enako uporabo.
Consequently, all existing types are considered as one product for the purposes of this investigation.
Zato se za namene te preiskave vse različne vrste obravnavajo kot en izdelek.
The product concerned and the ironing boards and the essential parts thereof produced and sold on the domestic market of the PRC and Ukraine, and on the domestic market of Turkey, which finally served as an analogue country, as well as the ironing boards and their essential parts produced and sold in the Community by the Community industry were found to have the same basic physical and technical characteristics and uses.
Za zadevni izdelek, likalne deske in njihove bistvene dele, ki se proizvajajo in prodajajo na domačem trgu v LRK in Ukrajini in na domačem trgu v Turčiji, ki je predstavljala primerljivo državo, ter likalne deske in njihove bistvene dele, ki jih v Skupnosti proizvaja in prodaja industrija Skupnosti, je bilo ugotovljeno, da imajo enake fizikalne in tehnične lastnosti in uporabo.
Therefore, these products are provisionally considered to be alike within the meaning of Article 1(4) of the basic Regulation.
Zato se začasno šteje, da so ti izdelki enaki v smislu člena 1(4) osnovne uredbe.
Market economy treatment (MET)
Tržno-gospodarska obravnava (TGO)
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation, in anti-dumping investigations concerning imports originating in the PRC and in Ukraine (in the latter case for all proceedings lodged or initiated before 30 December 2005), normal value shall be determined in accordance with paragraphs 1 to 6 of the said Article for those exporting producers which have shown that they meet the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation, i.e. where it is demonstrated by such exporting producers that market economy conditions prevail in respect of the manufacture and sale of the like product.
V protidampinški preiskavi v zvezi z uvozom s poreklom iz LRK in Ukrajine (v slednjem primeru za vse postopke, predlagane ali začete pred 30. decembrom 2005) je v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe treba normalno vrednost določiti v skladu z odstavki 1 do 6 navedenega člena za tiste proizvajalce izvoznike, ki so dokazali, da izpolnjujejo merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, tj. ko so ti proizvajalci izvozniki dokazali, da pri proizvodnji in prodaji podobnega izdelka prevladujejo razmere tržnega gospodarstva.
Briefly, and for ease of reference only, these criteria are set out in a summarised form below:
Ta merila so na kratko in samo za lažje sklicevanje povzeta v nadaljevanju:
business decisions and costs are made in response to market conditions, and without significant State interference,
poslovne odločitve in stroški nastanejo kot odziv na tržne razmere in brez večjega vmešavanja države,
accounting records are independently audited, in line with International Accounting Standards (IAS) and applied for all purposes,
izvedena je neodvisna revizija računovodske evidence v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi (MRS), računovodska evidenca pa se uporablja v vse namene,
there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,
ni nobenega bistvenega izkrivljanja, ki bi ostalo še iz nekdanjega sistema netržnega gospodarstva,
legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws,
pravno varnost in stabilnost zagotavljajo zakoni o stečaju in pravo lastninskih razmerij,
Eight Chinese exporting producers initially requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadlines.
Prvotno je osem kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov zahtevalo TGO v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in je v danih rokih izpolnilo obrazec za zahtevek za TGO za proizvajalce izvoznike.
However, two of them decided subsequently not to co-operate with the investigation.
Vendar sta se dva od teh pozneje odločila, da v preiskavi ne bosta sodelovala.
Thus, only the MET claims of the remaining six co-operating Chinese exporting producers listed in recital 9 were considered.
Zato so se proučili samo zahtevki za TGO preostalih šestih sodelujočih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 9.
The sole Ukrainian exporting producer requested MET pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation and replied to the MET claim form for exporting producers within the given deadlines.
Prvotno je edini ukrajinski proizvajalec izvoznik zahteval TGO v skladu s členom 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe in je v danih rokih izpolnil obrazec za zahtevek za TGO za proizvajalce izvoznike.
However, the Ukrainian producer remarked that Ukraine was by Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 removed from the list of non-market-economy countries mentioned under Article 2(7)(b) of the basic Regulation.
Vendar je ukrajinski proizvajalec opozoril, da je bila Ukrajina z Uredbo Sveta (ES) št. 2117/2005 črtana s seznama držav z netržnim gospodarstvom, omenjenih v členu 2(7)(b) osnovne uredbe.
The company claimed that the decision to grant market economy status to Ukraine was taken on the basis of an assessment of the situation in the preceding months.
Družba je trdila, da je bila odločitev o dodelitvi statusa tržnega gospodarstva Ukrajini sprejeta na podlagi ocene položaja v preteklih mesecih.
Therefore, it was submitted that it should be granted MET because (i) the IP is the calendar year 2005; (ii) the complainants should have provided evidence showing that market economy conditions were not applicable to the Ukrainian producers concerned and (iii) a failure to grant MET status to Ukraine would discriminate Ukraine with regard to Russia.
Zato je predlagala, da se ji odobri TGO, ker (i) je bilo OP v koledarskem letu 2005; (ii) bi morali pritožniki predložiti dokaze o tem, da se pogoji tržnega gospodarstva niso uporabljali za zadevne ukrajinske proizvajalce ter (iii) bi zaradi neodobritve statusa TGO Ukrajini ta država bila v manj ugodnem položaju kot Rusija.
In this respect, it is noted that Council Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 clearly states that normal value for Ukrainian exporters and producers will be established in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation only in investigations initiated after 30 December 2005, either on the basis of an application for initiation lodged after the above said date or at the initiative of the Commission.
V zvezi s tem je treba opozoriti, da Uredba Sveta (ES) št. 2117/2005 jasno navaja, da bo normalna vrednost za ukrajinske izvoznike in proizvajalce določena v skladu z določbami člena 2(1) do (6) osnovne uredbe samo v preiskavah, ki se bodo začele po 30. decembru 2005, in sicer na podlagi zahtevka za začetek preiskave, vloženega po navedenem datumu, ali na pobudo Komisije.
As the complaint for this proceeding was lodged on 23 December 2005, it is evident that the provisions of Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation cannot apply and that the co-operating Ukrainian company has, therefore, to prove that it meets the criteria laid down in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation.
Ker je bila pritožba za ta postopek vložena 23. decembra 2005, je jasno, da se določbe člena 2(1) do (6) osnovne uredbe ne morejo uporabiti in da mora zato sodelujoča ukrajinska družba dokazati, da izpolnjuje merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe.
It is evident from the wording of the aforesaid Article that it is the exporting producers that carry the burden of proof on the fulfilment of the MET criteria and not the complainants.
Iz besedila omenjenega člena je očitno, da breme dokazovanja o izpolnjevanju meril za TGO nosijo proizvajalci izvozniki, in ne pritožniki.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the granting of MET status to a certain country is based on an overall assessment of its economic situation as a whole with a view to establish whether costs and prices can, in general, be relied on for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations.
Nadalje je treba opozoriti, da odobritev statusa TGO določeni državi temelji na splošni oceni njenega gospodarskega položaja kot celote, da se ugotovi, ali se je pri protidampinških preiskavah na splošno možno zanesti na stroške in cene.
In other words, it is not an evaluation of the particular situation of each individual enterprise.
Drugače povedano, to ni ocena položaja vsakega posameznega podjetja.
Finally, the argument that Ukraine would be discriminated with regard to Russia is without foundation as Russia has been considered to be a market economy since 2002.
Nenazadnje trditev, da bi bila Ukrajina v manj ugodnem položaju v primerjavi z Rusijo, ni utemeljena, saj se Rusija že od leta 2002 obravnava kot tržno gospodarstvo.
For these reasons the Commission rejected the claims made by the Ukrainian exporting producer and proceeded with the MET determination process.
Zato je Komisija zavrnila zahtevke ukrajinskega proizvajalca izvoznika in nadaljevala s postopkom določanja TGO.
For the co-operating exporting producers the Commission sought all information deemed necessary and verified the information submitted in the MET claim at the premises of the companies in question.
Za sodelujoče proizvajalce izvoznike je Komisija poiskala vse informacije, za katere je menila, da so potrebne, in informacije, predložene v zahtevku za TGO, preverila v prostorih zadevnih družb.
One Chinese exporting producer, Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd, Guangzhou, showed that it fulfilled all five criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and it was granted MET.
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik, Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd, Guangzhou, je dokazal, da izpolnjuje vseh pet meril iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato mu je bil TGO odobren.
As far as the remaining Chinese exporting producers listed in recital 9 are concerned, one did not fulfil criteria 1, 2 and 3, one did not fulfil criteria 2 and 3 and three did not meet criterion 2.
Eden od preostalih kitajskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov, navedenih v uvodni izjavi 9, ni izpolnil meril 1, 2 in 3, eden ni izpolnil meril 2 in 3, trije pa niso izpolnili merila 2.
All co-operating Chinese exporting producers and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on the above findings.
Vsem sodelujočim kitajskim proizvajalcem izvoznikom in industriji Skupnosti je bila dana možnost, da predložijo pripombe na zgornje ugotovitve.
Four companies disagreed with the determinations made and claimed that they should be granted MET.
Štiri družbe se niso strinjale z določitvijo in so trdile, da bi jim moral biti TGO odobren.
As far as criterion 1 is concerned, one Chinese exporting producer has not demonstrated that it fulfils this criterion.
En kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik ni dokazal, da izpolnjuje merilo 1.
In particular, it has not shown at any stage of the investigation that one of its two shareholders actually paid for its shares obtained from the state.
Še posebej ni v nobeni fazi preiskave dokazal, da je eden od dveh njegovih delničarjev svoje delnice, ki jih je pridobil od države, dejansko plačal.
Furthermore, the company obtained electricity from the state on a non-contractual basis.
Poleg tega je država družbi dostavljala električno energijo brez sklenjene pogodbe.
The company contested the disclosed findings but did not provide any verifiable evidence on these issues.
Družba je odkrite ugotovitve izpodbijala, vendar v zvezi s tem ni predložila nobenih preverljivih dokazov.
Therefore, its comments could not be taken into account.
Zato njenih pripomb ni bilo mogoče upoštevati.
Consequently, it was concluded that the company has not shown that it fulfils criterion 1.
Tako je bilo sklenjeno, da družba ni dokazala, da izpolnjuje merilo 1.
As far as criterion 2 is concerned, five companies failed to demonstrate that they had a clear set of accounting records, independently audited in line with International Accounting Standards.
Kar zadeva merilo 2, pet družb ni dokazalo, da imajo jasno računovodsko evidenco, za katero je bila izvedena neodvisna revizija v skladu z mednarodnimi računovodskimi standardi.
As a matter of fact, an examination of the accounts in question showed significant flaws in all five cases.
Dejansko so bile v okviru pregleda zadevnih evidenc ugotovljene znatne pomanjkljivosti v vseh petih primerih.
For instance, the companies did not itemise all different revenues and expenses in their accounts but applied an extensive offsetting system between such revenues and expenses on a monthly basis.
Družbe na primer v svojih evidencah niso razčlenile vseh različnih prihodkov in odhodkov, ampak so uporabile obsežen sistem kompenzacije med temi prihodki in odhodki na mesečni ravni.
They also did not respect the accrual principle of accounting.
Prav tako pri računovodstvu niso upoštevale načela nastanka poslovnega dogodka.
In fact, they grouped transactions per month and recorded them in their books on a summary basis without details of the individual transactions concerned.
Pravzaprav so transakcije razvrščale mesečno in jih knjižile na splošno brez podrobnih podatkov o posameznih zadevnih transakcijah.
Since the auditors have not commented on these infringements of the IAS 1, the accounting records were not audited in line with IAS.
Ker revizorji niso predložili pripomb v zvezi s temi kršitvami MRS 1, se revizija računovodske evidence ni izvedla v skladu z MRS.
Upon disclosure, four exporting producers continued to argue that they followed IAS but provided no evidence to show that the findings were wrong.
Ob razkritju so štirje proizvajalci izvozniki še naprej trdili, da so upoštevali MRS, vendar niso predložili nobenih dokazov, da so ugotovitve napačne.
Consequently, it was concluded that in all cases the companies have not shown that they fulfil criterion 2.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da družbe v nobenem primeru niso dokazale, da izpolnjujejo merilo 2.
Two companies also failed to demonstrate that they fulfil criterion 3.
Dve družbi prav tako nista uspeli dokazati, da izpolnjujeta merilo 3.
For these two companies it was found on the spot that they had not met their contractual obligations in respect to payments of land-use rights to the state, yet this had no financial or other consequence for the companies.
V primeru teh dveh družb je bilo na kraju samem ugotovljeno, da nista izpolnili svojih pogodbenih obveznosti v zvezi s plačili državi za pravice do rabe zemljišč, vendar to za družbi ni imelo finančnih ali drugih posledic.
Furthermore, one company was found to lease during the IP state owned land for which it had not formally obtained land-use rights from the state.
Poleg tega je bilo v primeru ene družbe ugotovljeno, da je v OP dajala v najem zemljišča v državni lasti, za katera od države ni uradno pridobila pravic za rabo zemljišč.
This situation was only corrected after the IP, but only at a fee below the normal rate.
Ta položaj se je popravil šele po OP, vendar je bilo plačilo nižje od običajnega zneska.
Upon disclosure the two Chinese exporting producers contested these findings, but the new information they submitted in order to support their claims could not be accepted since it was not verifiable.
Ob razkritju sta dva kitajska proizvajalca izvoznika te ugotovitve izpodbijala, vendar novih informacij, predloženih v podporo njunemu zahtevku, ni bilo možno sprejeti, ker niso bile preverljive.
Consequently, it was concluded that both companies failed to show that they fulfil criterion 3.
Zato je bilo sklenjeno, da družbi nista dokazali, da izpolnjujeta merilo 3.
On the basis of the above, only one Chinese exporting producer, namely Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co. Ltd, has shown that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and was granted MET, whilst the remaining five exporting producers have not shown that they fulfil all such criteria and, thus, could not be granted MET.
Na podlagi zgoraj navedenega je samo en kitajski proizvajalec izvoznik, tj. Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd, dokazal, da izpolnjuje vsa merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe, zato mu je bil TGO odobren, preostalih pet proizvajalcev izvoznikov pa ni dokazalo, da izpolnjujejo vsa ta merila, zato jim TGO ni bilo možno odobriti.
MET determination regarding the sole exporting producer in Ukraine
Določitev TGO v zvezi z edinim proizvajalcem izvoznikom v Ukrajini
The sole Ukrainian exporting producer, Eurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir, showed that it fulfils all the criteria set out in Article 2(7)(c) of the basic Regulation and was therefore granted MET.
Edini ukrajinski proizvajalec izvoznik, Eurogold Industries Ltd, Zhitomir, je dokazal, da izpolnjuje vsa merila iz člena 2(7)(c) osnovne uredbe in mu je bil TGO zato odobren.
The exporting producer and the Community industry were given an opportunity to comment on the MET findings but no comments were received.
Proizvajalcu izvozniku in industriji Skupnosti je bila dana možnost, da predložita pripombe glede ugotovitev v zvezi s TGO, vendar Komisija ni prejela nobenih pripomb.
Pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, a country wide duty, if any, is established for countries falling under that Article, except in those cases where companies are able to demonstrate that they meet all criteria set out in Article 9(5) of the basic Regulation.
V skladu s členom 2(7) osnovne uredbe se za države, ki jih zajema navedeni člen osnovne uredbe, vzpostavi dajatev na ravni države, če sploh, razen v primerih, ko lahko družbe dokažejo, da izpolnjujejo vsa merila iz člena 9(5) osnovne uredbe.