natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
This exporting producer requested that part of the sales of the product concerned to the Community should be excluded from the dumping calculation on the grounds that the production of certain models of SPT had been stopped at some point during the IP.
Ta proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval, da se del prodaje zadevnega izdelka v Skupnost izvzame iz izračuna dampinga, ker je bila proizvodnja nekaterih modelov BC v OP ustavljena.
However, as explained above, it is the Institution's practice to take normally into account all sales of the product concerned to unrelated parties in the weighted average export price.
Kot je pojasnjeno zgoraj, pa je praksa Komisije, da pri tehtani povprečni izvozni ceni običajno upošteva celotno prodajo zadevnega izdelka nepovezanim strankam.
It should also be noted that sales of those types of the product concerned occurred during the IP in important volumes and that in addition it was found that the production facilities for those types of SPT had not been dismantled and could be started again in the future.
Treba je opomniti tudi, da so se navedene vrste zadevnega izdelka v OP prodajale v velikih količinah, ugotovljeno pa je bilo tudi, da proizvodni obrati za navedene vrste BC niso bile odstranjeni in bi lahko v prihodnosti ponovno začeli s proizvodnjo.
Given the above, the claim was rejected.
Na tej podlagi je bil zahtevek zavrnjen.
Adjustments were made, where appropriate, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, in respect of discounts for differences in quantities, transport, insurance, handling, loading, and ancillary costs, credit, commissions, and differences in level of trade.
Prilagoditve so bile po potrebi izvedene v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe pri popustih za razlike v količini, stroških prevoza in zavarovanja, manipulativnih stroških, stroških natovarjanja in tozadevnih stroškov, stroškov provizije in za razlike v stopnji trgovine.
One exporting producer claimed adjustments for differences in level of trade, for extra logistics costs which were allegedly incurred for domestic sales and not for export sales and for differences in quantities.
En proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval prilagoditev za razlike v stopnji trgovine, za dodatne logistične stroške, ki so postopoma nastali za domačo prodajo in ne za izvoz, ter za razlike v količinah.
However, the exporter did not substantiate the claims nor did the investigation otherwise establish that these claims were warranted.
Vendar izvozniki trditev niso utemeljili, s preiskavo pa tudi ni bilo ugotovljeno, da bi bile te trditve utemeljene.
Therefore, they had to be rejected.
Zato je bilo treba te trditve zavrniti.
The claim for differences in quantities was partially rejected insofar as the amount claimed could not be justified with the evidence collected on the spot and the information provided in the exporting producer's questionnaire response.
Zahtevek za razlike v količinah je bil delno zavrnjen, ker zahtevanega zneska ni bilo mogoče upravičiti z dokazi, zbranimi na kraju samem, in informacijami, ki so jih proizvajalci izvozniki navedli v vprašalniku.
Another exporting producer claimed adjustments for differences in inflation, currency conversions, level of trade and differences in indirect selling expenses.
Drugi proizvajalec izvoznik je zahteval prilagoditve za razlike v inflaciji, pretvorbah valut, stopnji trgovine in za razlike v posrednih prodajnih stroških.
With regard to the claim for an adjustment for the inflation, it should be noted that the inflation rate in Romania was at a level of 10,8 % during the investigation period, far from hyperinflation level.
Glede zahtevka za prilagoditev za inflacijo je treba opomniti, da je bila v obdobju preiskave stopnja inflacije v Romuniji na stopnji 10,8 %, kar je daleč od stopnje hiperinflacije.
As it was not found that price comparability had been affected, the claim was rejected.
Ker ni bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila primerljivost cen ovirana, je bil zahtevek zavrnjen.
The exporter objected to this conclusion and reiterated its claim for an allowance.
Izvoznik je temu sklepu nasprotoval in ponovno zahteval prilagoditev.
However, no new argument or evidence rebutting the preliminary conclusion was submitted and it is confirmed that the claim is rejected.
Vendar ni predložil novih utemeljitev ali dokazov, ki bi zavrnili prvoten sklep, zato se potrdi zavrnitev zahtevka.
It should also be noted that the possibility of a quarterly assessment was envisaged, but declined by the exporter.
Treba je opomniti, da je bila proučena možnost četrtletne ocene, vendar jo je izvoznik zavrnil.
As regards currency conversions, the exporting producer claimed that it should be granted a period of 60 days to reflect movements in the currency exchange rates, under the provision of Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation.
Kar zadeva valutne pretvorbe, sta dva proizvajalca izvoznika v skladu z določbo iz člena 2(10)(j) osnovne uredbe zahtevala odobritev 60-dnevnega obdobja, ki bi odražal gibanje menjalnih tečajev.
It was found that this provision cannot be applied in this case, as evidence was found that no sustained movement in the relevant currency exchange rates occurred during the IP, but merely fluctuations of a small amplitude.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da te določbe v tem primeru ni mogoče uporabiti, o tem namreč priča ugotovitev, da v OP ni prišlo do znatnega gibanja zadevnih menjalnih tečajev, ampak le do majhnega nihanja.
Therefore, this claim had to be rejected, and the conversion of currencies was based in all cases on the rate at the date of invoice, as provided for by Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation.
Zato je bilo treba ta zahtevek zavrniti, pretvorba valut pa je v skladu s členom 2(10)(j) osnovne uredbe v vseh primerih temeljila na tečaju z dne izstavitve računa.
As regards the claim for differences in level of trade, the investigation showed that for certain categories of customers, for which the claim was made, consistent and distinct differences in functions and prices existed at the level claimed by the exporting producer.
Kar zadeva zahtevek za razlike v stopnji trgovine, je preiskava pokazala, da so za določene kategorije strank, za katere je bil zahtevek vložen, obstajale stalne in očitne razlike v funkcijah in cenah na stopnji, ki jo je zahteval proizvajalec izvoznik.
The claim was therefore accepted as regards the categories of customers for which the differences could be demonstrated, and only partially accepted as regards the other categories of customers for which the difference was found to be lower than claimed by the exporting producer.
Zato je bil zahtevek glede kategorij strank, za katere so razlike lahko bile dokazane, sprejet, kar zadeva druge kategorije strank, za katere je bilo ugotovljeno, da je razlika manjša od razlike, ki jo je zahteval proizvajalec izvoznik, pa je bil zahtevek le delno sprejet.
In the latter case, the calculation of the adjustment was based on the evidence collected at the premises of the exporting producer.
V slednjem primeru je izračun prilagoditve temeljil na dokazih, zbranih v prostorih proizvajalca izvoznika.
As regards the claim for difference in indirect selling expenses, it was found redundant with the adjustments granted for differences in level of trade, and it was therefore rejected.
Zahtevek za razliko v posrednih prodajnih stroških je bil zavrnjen, ker je bilo ugotovljeno, da so bile te prilagoditve že odobrene za razlike v stopnji trgovine.
Furthermore, following the comments received from exporters, some clerical mistakes were corrected, and dumping margins were recalculated accordingly.
Po predložitvi pripomb izvoznikov so bile popravljene nekatere stvarne napake in temu ustrezno so bile stopnje dampinga ponovno izračunane.
The comparison between the normal value and the export price showed the existence of dumping.
Primerjava normalne vrednosti in izvozne cene je pokazala obstoj dampinga.
The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, are the following:
Stopnje dampinga, izražene kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF meja Skupnosti brez plačane dajatve, so:
Since the level of cooperation was high (more than 80 % of the exports of the product concerned from Romania to the Community) and there was no reason to believe that any exporting producer deliberately abstained from cooperation, the residual dumping margin applicable to all other exporters in Romania was set at the same level as the one established for the cooperating exporting producer S.C.
Ker je bila stopnja sodelovanja visoka (več kot 80 % izvoza zadevnega izdelka iz Romunije v Skupnost) in ker ni bilo razloga za domnevo, da kateri koli proizvajalec izvoznik namenoma ni sodeloval, je bila preostala stopnja dampinga, ki se uporablja za vse druge izvoznike v Romuniji, določena na isti ravni kot stopnja, ugotovljena za sodelujočega proizvajalca izvoznika S.C.T.M.K.
Artrom S.A., namely 17,8 %.
Artrom S.A., tj. 17,8 %.
Questionnaire replies were received from two groups of exporting producers, one of which consists of four producers and five related companies (‘TMK group’) and the other one of two producers (‘Pervouralsky and Chelyabinsk’).
Izpolnjene vprašalnike sta poslali dve skupini proizvajalcev izvoznikov, eno od njiju sestavljajo štirje proizvajalci in pet povezanih družb („skupina TMK“), drugo pa dva proizvajalca („Pervouralsky in Chelyabinsk“).
Non-cooperation of TMK Group
Nesodelovanje skupine TMK
The questionnaire replies of all four producers and the five related companies were significantly deficient and inconsistent, and except for two related companies, no replies were received by the deadline given for completing the questionnaire replies.
Izpolnjeni vprašalniki vseh štirih proizvajalcev in petih povezanih družb so bili v veliki meri pomanjkljivi in neskladni, razen dveh povezanih družb pa ni nihče izpolnil vprašalnika do roka.
On-spot verifications were carried out at two of the four producers and one related company in Russia but these revealed further weaknesses of the questionnaire replies.
Preveritve na kraju samem so bile izvedene pri dveh od štirih proizvajalcev in pri eni povezani družbi v Rusiji, vendar pa so te preveritve pokazale še več pomanjkljivosti pri izpolnjenih vprašalnikih.
Regarding the two producers visited, no reliable normal value and export prices could be established since both domestic and export sales listings were largely deficient; values and quantities did not correspond with invoices and product control numbers (‘PCNs’) were found to be wrong.
Kar zadeva dva proizvajalca, pri katerih sta bila izvedena preveritvena obiska, ni bilo mogoče določiti zanesljive normalne vrednosti in izvoznih cen, ker sta bila seznama domače prodaje in izvoza pomanjkljiva, vrednosti in količine niso ustrezale računu, kontrolne številke izdelkov pa so bile napačne.
Furthermore, no reliable cost of production data could be obtained.
Prav tako ni bilo mogoče pridobiti zanesljivih stroškov proizvodnje.
Given this entirely unsatisfactory cooperation of the two producers visited, the highly deficient questionnaire replies of the two remaining producers of the group, in particular the fact that one producer did not provide any sales listings, and the fact that no replies were provided to the deficiency letters of the Commission by the given deadline, it was decided not to carry out verification visits at the other two producers of the group.
Glede na splošno nezadostno sodelovanje obeh obiskanih proizvajalcev, zelo pomanjkljivo izpolnjena vprašalnika dveh preostalih proizvajalcev skupine, predvsem pa glede na to, da en proizvajalec ni predložil nobenega seznama prodaje ter da nihče ni v roku odgovoril na pismo Komisije, v katerem so bile navedene pomanjkljivosti, je bilo sklenjeno, da se pri dveh drugih proizvajalcih skupine preveritveni obiski ne izvedejo.
Only two of the three related importers provided a more comprehensive questionnaire reply, of which only one was verifiable whereas the resale listing of the other related importer was largely deficient.
Le dva izmed treh povezanih uvoznikov sta natančneje izpolnila vprašalnika, le enega od njiju pa je bilo mogoče preveriti, pri drugem povezanem uvozniku pa je bil seznam nadaljnjih prodaj v veliki meri nepopoln.
Therefore, even the related importers only cooperated partially, and to a very poor degree indeed.
Zato so celo povezani uvozniki le delno sodelovali in še to zelo skromno.
The TMK group claimed that they could not properly cooperate because of the choice of the PCN, which in their opinion was inadequate given the very diversified production range of the four producers.
Družbe skupine TMK so trdile, da niso mogle ustrezno sodelovati zaradi izbire kontrolnih številk izdelkov, ki je bila po njihovem mnenju neprimerna, saj je razpon proizvodnje štirih proizvajalcev zalo različen.
It should be noted, however, that the classification of the product concerned into the proposed PCN structure did not cause any problems to either the Community producers or other exporting producers, some of which also produce a large variety of SPT.
Treba pa je opomniti, da razvrstitev zadevnega izdelka v predlagano strukturo kontrolnih številk izdelkov ni povzročila težav proizvajalcem Skupnosti niti drugim proizvajalcem izvoznikom, od katerih jih nekaj proizvaja zelo različne BC.
In view of the above, it was considered that the dumping margin for the TMK Group could not be established on the basis of their own data.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se šteje, da stopnje dampinga za skupino TMK ni bilo mogoče določiti na podlagi podatkov njenih družb.
The dumping margin was therefore determined on the basis of facts available, in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Stopnja dampinga je bila določena na podlagi razpoložljivih dejstev v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe.
In this case, it was found that the normal value information established for Pervouralsky and Chelyabinsk would constitute the most appropriate facts available, pursuant to Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
V tem primeru je bilo ugotovljeno, da so informacije glede normalne vrednosti za Pervouralsky in Chelyabinsk v skladu s členom 18 osnovne uredbe najprimernejša razpoložljiva dejstva.
Indeed, this information seemed to reflect best the situation on the Russian market.
Dejansko te informacije najbolje odražajo stanje na ruskem trgu.
Pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation the price of gas used for the calculation of cost of production in the complaint was adjusted in the same manner as for the two cooperating producers, as described below in recitals (94) to (99) to reflect market prices for gas during the IP.
V skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe so bile cene plina, uporabljene za izračun stroškov proizvodnje v pritožbi, prilagojene enako kot za dva sodelujoča proizvajalca, kot je opisano v uvodnih izjavah (94) do (99) v nadaljevanju, in sicer tako, da odražajo cene plina v OP.
The export price was calculated on the basis of Eurostat data for the IP, reduced by the quantities and values obtained from the two cooperating producers listed infra in recital (91).
Izvozna cena je bila izračunana na podlagi podatkov Eurostata za OP, pri čemer so bile odštete količine in vrednosti dveh sodelujočih proizvajalcev, navedenih v uvodni izjavi (91).
The dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF import price at the Community border, duty unpaid, is the following:
Stopnja dampinga, izražena kot odstotek uvozne cene CIF meja Skupnosti brez plačane dajatve, je:
Volzhsky Pipe Works Open Joint Stock Company, Joint Stock Company Taganrog Metallurgical Works, Sinarsky Pipe Works Open Joint Stock Company and Seversky Tube Works Open Joint Stock Company
Volzhsky Pipe Works Open Joint Stock Company, Joint Stock Company Taganrog Metallurgical Works, Sinarsky Pipe Works Open Joint Stock Company in Seversky Tube Works Open Joint Stock Company
Pervouralsky and Chelyabinsk
Pervouralsky in Chelyabinsk
Chelyabinsk and Pervouralsky were separate legal entities during the IP, but since the end of 2004 they are related as Chelyabinsk owns the majority of shares in Pervouralsky, and directly controls the company.
Družbi Chelyabinsk in Pervouralsky sta bili v OP ločena pravna subjekta, od leta 2004 pa sta povezani, saj ima družba Pervouralsky v lasti večino deležev družbe Chelyabinsk in jo zato neposredno nadzoruje.
Therefore, only one duty should be imposed on the group.
Zato je treba na to skupino uvesti le eno dajatev.
For both exporting producers, domestic sales of the product were representative as defined in recital (41).
Pri obeh proizvajalcih izvoznikih je bila domača prodaja reprezentativna, kot je opredeljeno v uvodni izjavi (41).
In accordance with the methodology described in recitals (42) to (45), normal values were established, depending on the product type exported, on the basis of sales prices of all sales, of sales prices of profitable sales only or on the basis of constructed normal values.
V skladu z metodologijo, opisano v uvodnih izjavah (42) do (45), so bile normalne vrednosti, odvisno od izvožene vrste izdelka, določene na podlagi prodajne cene celotne prodaje, prodajnih cen dobičkonosne prodaje ali na podlagi konstruiranih normalnih vrednosti.
It was found that the cost allocation of the company for certain individual product types did neither reflect the large variation in domestic sales prices, nor the important cost drivers.
Ugotovljeno je bilo, da razporeditev stroškov družbe za nekatere posamezne vrste izdelka ni odražala niti velike razliko v cenah domače prodaje niti pomembnih stroškovnih dejavnikov.
Thus, it had to be considered as unreliable.
To trditev je torej treba šteti za nezanesljivo.
Therefore facts available were used as set out in Article 18 of the basic Regulation.
Zato so bila uporabljena razpoložljiva dejstva, kot je določeno v členu 18 osnovne uredbe.
In this case, a profit for the whole group had to be calculated based on all sales of the product concerned which was subsequently used for the determination of normal values.
V tem primeru je bilo treba izračunati dobiček za celotno skupino, ki je temeljil na celotni prodaji zadevnega izdelka, ki je bil pozneje uporabljen za določitev normalnih vrednosti.
With regard to the manufacturing costs, and in particular energy costs, it was found during the investigation that electricity prices paid by both companies reasonably reflected the actual production costs of the electricity purchased.
Glede na proizvodne stroške in zlasti stroške energije je bilo v preiskavi ugotovljeno, da so cene električne energije, ki sta jih plačali obe družbi, realno odražale dejanske stroške proizvodnje nabavljene električne energije.
This was evidenced in this case by the fact that the electricity prices were in line with international market prices, when compared to countries like Norway and Canada, which also rely on hydroelectricity.
To je bilo v tem primeru razvidno iz dejstva, da so bile cene električne energije v primerjavi z državami, kot sta Norveška in Kanada, ki sta prav tako odvisni od hidroelektrične energije, v skladu z mednarodnimi tržnimi cenami.
However, the same could not be said with regard to gas prices.
To pa ne velja za cene plina.
Indeed it was found that the gas prices paid by both companies did not reasonably reflect the costs of gas.
Ugotovljeno je namreč bilo, da cene plina, ki sta jih plačali obe družbi, niso realno odražale stroškov plina.
It was established on the basis of data found in the Russian gas provider OAO Gazprom's published annual report for 2004, that the domestic price of gas paid by the two Russian producers was much lower than the average export prices from Russia to both Western and Eastern parts of Europe.
Na podlagi podatkov, dobljenih iz letnega poročila 2004 ruskega dobavitelja plina OAO Gazprom, je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bila domača cena plina, ki sta jo plačevala oba ruska proizvajalca, veliko nižja od povprečnih ruskih izvoznih cen v zahodno in vzhodno Evropo.
The same report states: ‘Gazprom Group is required to supply natural gas to Russian consumers at prices regulated by the Federal Tariff Service.
V istem sporočilu je bilo navedeno: „Gazprom Group mora dobavljati zemeljski plin ruskim potrošnikom po cenah, ki jih določa Zvezni urad za tarife.“ Te cene so sedaj nižje od mednarodnih cen za zemeljski plin.
As of now these prices are lower than the international prices for natural gas.’ and further: ‘OAO Gazprom together with the Russian Federation carry out a lot of work to optimize the regulated gas wholesale prices’. Moreover, the price of gas paid by the two Russian producers was significantly lower than the gas price paid by the Romanian and Community producers.
V sporočilu je navedeno tudi: „OAO Gazprom in Ruska federacija si prizadevata za optimalno urejene veleprodajne cene plina.“ Poleg tega je bila cena plina, ki sta jo plačevala ruska proizvajalca, znatno nižja od cene plina, ki so jo plačevali romunski proizvajalci in Skupnost.
In view of the above, it was considered that the gas prices paid by the two Russian SPT producers in the investigation period could not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and distribution of gas.
Glede na zgoraj navedeno se je štelo, da cene plina, ki sta jih ruska proizvajalca BC plačevala v obdobju preiskave, niso mogle realno odražati stroškov, povezanih s proizvodnjo in distribucijo plina.
Therefore, as provided for in Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the gas costs of the two Russian exporting producers were adjusted to reflect market prices for gas during the IP, based on the price of gas for export to Western Europe, net of transport costs and excise duty.
Kot določa člen 2(5) osnovne uredbe, so bili stroški za plin dveh ruskih proizvajalcev izvoznikov prilagojeni tako, da so v OP odražali tržne cene za plin, osnova pa je bila cena plina za izvoz v zahodno Evropo, neto stroški prevoza in trošarina.
Both producers argued that the costs of gas were properly reflected in their accounting records and that an adjustment in accordance with Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation was not warranted.
Oba proizvajalca sta trdila, da so bili stroški za plin ustrezno prikazani v računovodski evidenci in da prilagoditev v skladu s členom 2(5) osnovne uredbe ni bila utemeljena.
In this regard, it is not disputed that the companies had correctly accounted for the prices paid to their gas provider.
V zvez s tem ni sporno, da sta družbi pravilno obračunali cene, plačane dobavitelju plina.
However, the adjustment is justified by the fact that the price of the gas purchased does not reasonably reflect the cost of production and distribution of gas.
Vendar pa se prilagoditev upraviči z dejstvom, da cena nabavljenega plina ne odraža realno proizvodnih stroškov in distribucije plina.
The two producers further claimed that it had not been proven that prices charged by Gazprom to industrial users are below cost-recovery levels.
Proizvajalca sta tudi trdila, da ni bilo dokazano, da so cene, ki jih je industrijskim uporabnikom zaračunal Gazprom pod stopnjo pokritja stroškov.
However, several publicly available sources confirm the approach of the Commission, among them the policy brief ‘The Economic Survey of the Russian Federation, 2004’, published by OECD in July 2004.
Vendar je več javno dostopnih virov potrdilo pristop Komisije, med njimi tudi poročilo, ki ga je OECD objavil julija 2004 „The Economic Survey of the Russian Federation, 2004“.
All export sales to the Community were made directly to independent customers and therefore the export price was established as set out in recital (46).
Celoten izvoz je bil izveden neposredno neodvisnim strankam v Skupnosti, zato je bila izvozna cena določena, kot je navedeno v uvodni izjavi (46).
Adjustments were made, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation, in respect of transport, handling, loading, and ancillary costs, packing and commissions.
Prilagoditve so bile narejene v skladu s členom 2(10) osnovne uredbe, pri tem pa so bili upoštevani stroški prevoza, manipulativni stroški, stroški natovarjanja in tozadevni stroški, stroški pakiranja in provizije.